LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6’01 c-JCIRCIDateDuepss-p. 15

 

UPPER MISSISSIPPIAN VILLAGE STRUCTURE AND
FORMATION: SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF SUNWATCH,
A FORT ANCIENT SITE IN SOUTHWEST OHIO
By

Robert Allan Cook

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Anthropology

2004

~‘o

 

 

ABSTRACT
UPPER MISSISSIPPIAN VILLAGE STRUCTURE AND
FORMATION: SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF SUNWATCH,
A FORT ANCIENT SITE IN SOUTHWEST OHIO
By

Robert Allan Cook

This investigation focuses on the SunWatch site, a Fort Ancient village occupied
during the height of the Mississippian period (ca. AD. 1200 to 1400). Assessment of the
growth and structure of social units is the main focus of the study, particularly the
development of corporate groups and integrative institutions as a consequence of regional
interaction. Village social structure is investigated using Middle Mississippian and
ethnographic models of corporate group and leadership composition. Village formation
is examined utilizing expectations derived from the development of localized corporate
groups and the spatial context of diagnostic feature and artifact attributes. Regional
interaction is examined within a peer polity framework, comparing key elements of Fort
Ancient and Middle Mississippian architectural grammars and the petrographic sourcing
of pottery.

Fort Ancient villages often contain artifacts and house forms more common among
neighboring Middle Mississippian societies, and many of these increase in frequency
over time. Earlier models of Fort Ancient development emphasized these facts,
suggesting that these groups developed as a result of Middle Mississippian population
migrations. More recent models have downplayed these data, suggesting that Fort
Ancient societies developed as a result of local influences—interactions with Middle

Mississippians were insignificant. However, this dissertation is the first study to

systematically investigate the problem.

 

Cepyright by
ROBERT ALLAN COOK
2004

 

 

to Andrea,

who made this possible

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Funding that made this research possible was provided by the Ohio Archaeological
Council (OAC) Essenpreis Grant, the Dayton Society of Natural History (DSNH), and
the Michigan State University (MSU) Department of Anthropology, College of Social
Science, and Graduate School. The OAC grant provided funds for petrographic analysis
of pottery sherds, completed by Lane Fargher (University of Wisconsin-Madison). The
DSNH provided funds used for completion of the GIS map, four radiocarbon dates, and
much of the data processing. The MSU Department of Anthropology provided a
Research Assistantship, greatly assisting me during my year of analysis and writing.
Some travel funds were provided by the MSU Department of Anthropology, College of
Social Science, and the Graduate School. Additional funding was provided in the form of
two Graduate Office Fellowships. My parents, Joseph and Betty Cook, provided lodging,
food, and encouragement during numerous research trips. I am very grateful to all who
made this research financially possible.

My dissertation committee—consisting of Lynne Goldstein, Bill Lovis, Susan
Krouse, Lawrence Robbins, and Jon Burley—was invaluable in helping me to formulate
and complete this project. First, my comprehensive examinations directly influenced my
thinking and the resulting structure this research has taken. Each of my committee
members are to be commended for making the experience productive and enjoyable.
Lynne Goldstein served an invaluable role as my advisor. Foremost, she fostered the
development of a broader fiamework and was particularly helpful with the mortuary
analysis. She has always provided intellectual support and criticism at just the right

times, and has always ensured financial assistance whenever possible. Her careful

attention to details and help in focusing this research cannot be equaled. Bill Lovis has
also been a constant source of intellectual guidance through the years and has helped
foster the growth of this project in many ways. In particular, he provided careful
attention to both theoretical and methodological components. Susan Krouse helped with
all aspects pertaining to Eastern Woodland ethnography and has always been enthusiastic
about my research. Larry Robbins helped refine the resulting project and has always
been there with a positive word in the darkest of hours. Jon Burley provided invaluable
organizational advice and statistical assistance, working closely with me on all stages of
the principal components analysis. I could not have designed this research without the
considerable influence of each committee member. Thank you for all of your help.

Key members of the Dayton Society of Natural History (DSNH) staff were
instrumental in the completion of this project. Lynn Sirnonelli (DSNH Curator of
Anthropology) helped in so many ways it is difficult to fully acknowledge her
contributions. There are two main areas of assistance. Lynn Offered complete support of
this project involving the integration of all available data from SunWatch to seek
alternate hypotheses regarding the site. Additionally, she consistently offered financial
support to complete in a timely manner several critical stages of the investigation.
Furthermore, she was a constant source of encouragement and helped with a multitude of
small and large tasks such as locating artifacts and helping to locate and procure clay
samples from SunWatch. Bill Kennedy (DSNH Assistant Curator of Anthropology) was
a tremendous help with GIS-related questions and Fort Ancient site distribution and
evolution in general. He kindly Shared data on regional and environmental patterning

regarding Fort Ancient sites, which he compiled for his MA. thesis. Both Lynn and Bill

vi

 

 

?‘.——

 

 

provided endless access to data and field records from SunWatch and were generous in
their extensive and long-term loans of reference materials and artifacts. Furthermore,
their constant coordination of volunteer efforts was invaluable in completing the project.
In particular, I want to thank Amanda Herrington and Jesse Harrison for conducting a
multitude of menial tasks and Will Irwin for making me consider the possibility that
House l/71 was remodeled. Andy Sawyer (DSNH/SunWatch Site Anthopologist/
Manager) assisted with mapping a stockade line, provided access to artifacts currently
being exhibited, and allowed the author to access restricted parts of the property to obtain
clay samples used in the petrographic analysis. I thank Mark Meister (DSNH Executive
Director) who allowed access to museum collections under his direction and kindly
encouraged this project.

Many others generously shared data and assisted with this project in several ways.
Ted Sunderhaus has been a constant source of information on Fort Ancient over the years
and has been more than generous with pottery data from many sites including SunWatch.
Jim Robertson kindly shared all raw data used in his lithic analysis. John Nass provided
his raw data on feature types and volumes. Orrin Shane provided seasonal data for
features. Cheryl Munson kindly shared unpublished information regarding the
Southwind site (with assistance from Jocelyn Turner). Dan Goatley loaned references
and discussed Upper Mississippian developments on more than one occasion. Sissi
Foster provided office space early on. Randall Fotiu of the MSU Computer Laboratory
offered general statistical advice. Andy F arry helped by reading several early drafis of

the dissertation proposal and was of invaluable assistance during preparation for

vii

 

 

 

comprehensive examinations, during which much of the theoretical orientation used

initially developed.

James Heilman III (retired DSNH Curator of Anthropology) deserves special mention
for overseeing the primary excavation of the site on which this research is based.
Without J. and the considerable financial support of Mrs. Virginia Kettering, SunWatch
would not exist. J. also initially recognized much of the social and ritual patterning at
SunWatch, in particular astronomical alignments and the unique nature of the west side.
Perhaps most importantly, J. made a pottery analysis conducted by Ted Sunderhaus and
myself possible. For in many ways, it was out of this study that the present project grew.
Furthermore, he has consistently supported my research throughout the years, despite
some differences we may have had in matters of interpretation. In particular, he
encouraged my exploration of the Mississippian dimensions of SunWatch. His passion
for the site is indeed infectious. J. has always said that Fort Ancient can be explained as
the “country cousins” of Middle Mississippians. I am not sure he realizes just how true
this may be.

Most important in this whole endeavor has been the unfailing support of Andrea
Cook, my wife and closest friend. Without her patience, encouragement, and sacrifices
made over the last six years, this project and preceding doctoral program could not
possibly have been completed. I dedicate this dissertation to her in partial repayment of

this considerable debt.

viii

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................... xii
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................... xiii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 1
Research Objective ....................................................................................................... I
Research Context .......................................................................................................... 3
Methodological and Theoretical Issues ........................................................................ 5
Case Study .................................................................................................................... 8
Organization of Volume ............................................................................................. l 1
CHAPTER II: THEORETICAL ORIENTATION .................................................... 13
Narrowing the Perspective .......................................................................................... 14
Evolution of Village Social Structures ................................................................. 15
Integrating Scales through Practice ...................................................................... 18
Broadening the Perspective ......................................................................................... 21
Open Social Systems ............................................................................................. 21
Regional Interaction .............................................................................................. 23
Summary ..................................................................................................................... 25
CHAPTER III: MISSISSIPPIAN OVERVIEW ......................................................... 28
Differentiating Mississippian Societies ...................................................................... 28
Late Woodland Roots ................................................................................................. 33
Emergent Mississippians ...................................................................................... 34

Fort Ancient’s Predecessors .................................................................................. 36

Upper Mississippian Origins ................................................................................. 37
Mississippian Social Complexity ................................................................................ 40
Middle Mississippian Decentralization ................................................................. 40

Fort Ancient Peripheralization .............................................................................. 42
Mississippian Site Structures ...................................................................................... 49
Site Plans ............................................................................................................... 49
Houses and Households ........................................................................................ 53
Mortuary Patterning .............................................................................................. 55
Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 56
CHAPTER IV: SUNWATCH SITE BACKGROUND .............................................. 60
Excavation History ...................................................................................................... 60
Avocational ........................................................................................................... 61
Dayton Museum of Natural History (DMNH) ...................................................... 63
Merging Excavation Blocks: A Cautionary Note ................................................. 66
Analytical History ....................................................................................................... 67
Astronomical Alignments ..................................................................................... 67

ix

Social Structure and Ritual Activities ................................................................... 68

Environment, Diet, and Seasonality ...................................................................... 75
Key Problem Areas ..................................................................................................... 77
Basic Problems ...................................................................................................... 78
New Questions ...................................................................................................... 78
CHAPTER V: METHODOLOGY ............................................................................... 81
Village Structure ......................................................................................................... 81
Identifying and Comparing Residential Units ...................................................... 81
Examining Village Mortuary Variability and Corporate Groups ......................... 82
Village Formation ....................................................................................................... 85
Architectural Rebuilding ....................................................................................... 86
Development of Corporate Groups ....................................................................... 89
Development of an Elite Area ............................................................................... 92
Data Sets ..................................................................................................................... 95
Burials ................................................................................................................... 97

Pit Feature Form ................................................................................................... 97
Pottery ................................................................................................................... 99
Lithics ................................................................................................................. 107
Bone, Shell, and Teeth ........................................................................................ 111
Summary ................................................................................................................... 1 12
CHAPTER VI: VILLAGE STRUCTURE ................................................................ 114
Residential Spaces .................................................................................................... 114
Centering Leadership and Ritual ........................................................................ 114
Four Areas ........................................................................................................... 1 17
Mortuary Spaces ....................................................................................................... 139
Proximity to the Center Pole ............................................................................... 140
Burial Groups ...................................................................................................... 143
Burial Clusters .................................................................................................... 152
Discussion ................................................................................................................. 162
CHAPTER VII: VILLAGE FORMATION .............................................................. 166
Architectural Chronology ......................................................................................... 166
Stockades ............................................................................................................ 166
Radiocarbon Assays ............................................................................................ 168

In Situ House Rebuilding .................................................................................... 170
Feature Form and Artifact Attributes .................................................................. 183
Residential Developments ........................................................................................ 186
Temporal Affiliations of Household Activity Areas .......................................... 186
Growth of Corporate Groups .............................................................................. 198
Development of Village Ritual and Leadership ........................................................ 207
Petrographic Results ........................................................................................... 207
Revisiting Green Corn Ritualism ........................................................................ 211

A Brief History of SunWatch ................................................................................... 218

CHAPTER VIII: REGIONAL AND THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS ............ 221

A Model of Fort Ancient Village Social Structure and Formation ........................... 221

An Elite Residence and Village Growth ............................................................. 221
Corporate Groups and Households ..................................................................... 223

What Kind of Mississippian Periphery was Fort Ancient? ....................................... 226
Mobility and Population Aggregation ................................................................ 227

A Comparable Mississippian Peer ...................................................................... 230

The Persistence of Time ...................................................................................... 234
Further Work ............................................................................................................. 235
SunWatch and Other Villages ............................................................................. 235

The Fort Ancient Region and Beyond ................................................................ 238
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................... 243
Appendix A. Pit Feature Data .................................................................................. 243
Appendix B. Mortuary Data .................................................................................... 27 8
Appendix C. Radiocarbon Assays ........................................................................... 286
Appendix D. Principal Components Analysis Results ............................................ 288
Appendix E. Petrographic Analysis Data ................................................................ 305
REFERENCES CITED ................................................................................................ 308

xi

LIST OF TABLES

Table l. Non-Fort Ancient projectile point types .......................................................... 109
Table 2. Feature and artifact volume and density data for four feature areas ................ 119
Table 3. Chi-square tests of temper types, appendage types, and vessel forms ............ 129
Table 4. Chi-square tests of neck and rim designs ......................................................... 132

Table 5. Chi-square tests of chipped stone tools and triangular projectile point bases . 133
Table 6. Chi-square tests Of ground stone tools, bone tools, and adornment ................ 136
Table 7. Sex, age, leg position, and grave cover comparisons between burial rings ..... 142

Table 8. Chi-square tests comparing age, leg position, and limestone slabs between

 

 

burial rings - -- - .................................... - ...... 144
Table 9. Sex and age composition of each burial group ................................................ 148
Table 10. Leg position and grave coverings of each burial group ................................. 150

Table 11. Comparison of sex, age, and associated artifacts for four burial clusters ...... 157

Table 12. House structure data and population estimates .............................................. 181
Table 13. Summary results of the principal components analysis ................................. 184
Table 14. Pit feature volume descriptive statistics and associated artifact densities ..... 190
Table 15. Diagnostic markers by activity area ............................................................... 197

xii

 

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. SunWatch site map ......... ...................................................

 

Figure 2. locations of major Mississippian sites in the study area and generalized
depiction Of changes in settlement locations over time .............................................

Figure 3. Upper Mississippian site concentrations in relation to the distribution of
the prairie peninsula and outliers .................................... -- -- .

 

Figure 4. Ecoregions encompassing the study area ..................................................

Figure 5. Established chronologies for culture historical units located within the
study area ..... - - -- -

Figure 6. Distribution of Fort Ancient sites associated with mounds .......................
Figure 7. Distribution of Fort Ancient sites containing wall trench houses .............
Figure 8. Distribution of Early, Middle, Late, and Protohistoric Fort Ancient sites
Figure 9. Distribution of features at the Capitol View and Horshoe-Johnson sites..
Figure 10. SunWatch site map ..................................................................................
Figure 11. Aerial photograph of the SunWatch site and the surrounding landscape

Figure 12. Proposed astronomical alignments ................. -- - ..................

 

 

Figure 13. Initial pottery and chipped stone refits ............ . ................
Figure 14. Proposed dual division based on additional pottery refits .......................
Figure 15. Locations of local clay sources sampled for petrographic analysis ........
Figure 16. Leg positions and disposition types used for mortuary analysis .............
Figure 17. Feature form typology used in the study .................................................
Figure 18. Pottery illustrations showing key design fields and vessel forms ...........
Figure 19. Pottery neck design groups and internal variability ................................

Figure 20. Pottery rim design groups and internal variability

......... 9

....... 10

....... 3O

....... 32

-. _ ______ 43

....... 45

....... 46

....... 47

....... 52

....... 62

....... 64

....... 69

....... 71

....... 74

....... 96

....... 98

..... 100

..... 102

..... 103

105

 

xiii

 

 

Figure 21. Pottery lip and interior design groups and internal variability ..................... 106
Figure 22. Seriation of key Fort Ancient point attributes at selected sites .................... 108
Figure 23. Circular buffers around the center pole ........................................................ 1 15
Figure 24. Four feature areas ......................................................................................... 118
Figure 25. Bar graph comparing storage ratios in four feature areas ............................. 120
Figure 26. Correspondence analysis of feature form by four feature areas,

including a chi-square test of this relationship ............................................................... 122
Figure 27. Location of features excavated in 1971 ........................................................ 124
Figure 28. Feature distributions superimposed over aerial photographs of the Vance
family farm in 1938 and 1949 ......................................................................................... 125
Figure 29. Bar graph of artifact densities by area with and without debitage and a

list of debitage type and size by area .............................................................................. 126
Figure 30. Three-part division of burial distribution based on concentric patterning

fi'om the center pole ........................................................................................................ 141
Figure 31. Map showing locations of burial groups ...................................................... 145
Figure 32. Selected arc-row burial groups ..................................................................... 147
Figure 33. Presence/absence of artifact types by burial group ...................................... 151
Figure 34. Spatial distribution of wolf and dog remains in burials and pit features ...... 153
Figure 35. Angle of spine orientation for flexed burials ................................................ 154
Figure 36. Alignment of burials in relation to small plaza post ..................................... 155
Figure 37. Spatial distribution of four burial clusters .................................................... 159
Figure 38. Histogram of artifact diversity for individual burials ................................... 160
Figure 39. Specific mortuary relationships between the southern and western site

areas ................................................................................................................................ 161
Figure 40. Site-wide posthole patterning ....................................................................... 167
Figure 41. Plots of radiocarbon assays displaying median ages and two sigma ranges. 169

xiv

Figure 42. Spatial distribution of median radiocarbon assays ....................................... 171

Figure 43. Median assays of dated features compared with feature volume,

 

 

including statistical tests ................................................................................................. 172
Figure 44. Spatial distribution of large features (>1000 liters) ...................................... 173
Figure 45. Detailed house patterns ................................................................................. 174
Figure 46. Photographs of the house structure excavated by avocational

archaeologists, showing complete excavation and wall trench detail ............................. 177
Figure 47. Field drawings of the wall trench house in plan and profile views .............. 178
Figure 48. Conjectural layout of first and second houses excavated by avocational
archaeologists . ........ -- . 180
Figure 49. Daub distribution in features and posthole density for each house .............. 182

Figure 50. Distributions of key feature forms in relation to rebuilt and radiocarbon-
dated structures .............................. 187

Figure 51. Map showing feature clusters based on feature proximity and short-
distance pottery refits (<25’) .................................................... 189

 

Figure 52. Correspondence analysis biplot comparing feature form and household
activity area and raw data . 191

 

Figure 53. Correspondence analysis biplots comparing diagnostic artifact attributes
and household areas ............. - - 192

 

Figure 54. Maps comparing the architectural sequence with activity area diagnostics. 195

Figure 55. Map of corporate growth, comparing architectural and activity area

 

 

sequences with burial group locations and pottery refits (25’-125’) .............................. 199
Figure 56. Presence and absence of artifacts in key burial groups ................................ 201
Figure 57. Distribution of selected “new” artifact attributes ......................................... 203
Figure 58. Distribution of shell tempered pottery in relation to the architectural

sequence .......................... - .............. 208
Figure 59. Ternary plot displaying results of petrographic analysis .............................. 209

XV

Figure 60. Map of burnt corn and ritually-filled features in relation to large pottery
refits, solar alignments, and the architectural sequence .................................................. 212

Figure 61. Histograms of debitage, bone/shell tools, and pottery distributions for
features located in the elite area ...................................................................................... 214

Figure 62. Location of elite features attributable to a particular season in relation to

solar alignments .............................................................................................................. 216
Figure 63. The basic model of residential composition and corporate grth .............. 225
Figure 64. Southwind site map ...................................................................................... 231
Figure 65. Artistic reconstructions of the Southwind and SunWatch sites .................... 233

Figure 66. Major Early and Middle Fort Ancient site locations in southwest Ohio
and adjacent areas ........................................................................................................... 239

Figure 67. Bar graph comparing grit and shell pottery temper types at sites located
in the upper, middle, and lower portions of the Miami drainages .................................. 240

xvi

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

There is a great need for a drastic revision of our thinking about Fort Ancient.
(Griffin 1967)

. . .what we see in the Fort Ancient cultural complexes is the blending of elements

derived from Mississippianized neighbors with traditions long held by Middle Ohio
Valley inhabitants. (Essenpreis 1988:19)

It has long been known that Upper Mississippian societies, including Fort Ancient,
contained various blends of Late Woodland and Middle Mississippian characteristics
(Griffin 1943; Gibbon 1982; Hall 1986). It has also become clear that Middle
Mississippian hallmarks such as shell tempered pottery increased over time in Upper
Mississippian groups (Drooker 1997; Henderson 1992a). However, the processes by
which Middle Mississippian characteristics spread to these peripheral groups and the
social contexts within which they occurred are poorly understood (Gibbon 1982).
Despite earlier suggestions that Middle Mississippian groups contributed heavily to the
development of Fort Ancient societies (Essenpreis 1978; Griffin 1943; Prufer and Shane
1970), more recent studies have downplayed this issue (Pollack and Henderson 1992,

2000a; Henderson 1998). However, no study has specifically investigated the problem.

Research Objective
This problem is addressed in the current study by examining the types of Middle
Mississippian patterning exhibited by the spatial structure of a Fort Ancient village. The

main goal of this investigation is to identify Fort Ancient village formation and the

relationship between this process and interactions with Middle Mississippian groups.
The focus is on explaining similarities in the spatial organization of Fort Ancient and
Middle Mississippian villages.

Specific attention is placed on identifying the communal and residential structure of
Fort Ancient villages. At the communal level, the focus is on identifying elite areas using
“grammatical” rules defined from the spatial patterning of Middle Mississippian
communities (Lewis et al. 1998). The carefirl identification of elite areas is critical as it is
within these spaces that leadership and ritual functions were situated. It has long been
known that village leaders were key participants in Mississippian systems of inter-
regional interaction. The rise and fall of Mississippian elites has been repeatedly defined
as a system of status validation best characterized in terms of peer polity interaction (e.g.,
Brown et a1. 1990; Renfrew 1986), often marked in terms of site structure (Benchley
1970; Hall 1991). Ritual functions of elite areas are also important for assessing
interaction as these events undoubtedly accompanied exchange and mobility. Therefore,
these spaces provide a dynamic context for considering the influence Middle
Mississippian interactions had on Fort Ancient evolution.

The residential focus of the study is on the development of corporate groups and
constituent households. This emphasis provides a fiamework in which to assess whether
Fort Ancient villages were comprised of segrnentary social groups as are common in
autonomous villages (Chang 1958). Furthermore, defining kin-based social groups
provides specific contexts within which to situate Middle Mississippian materials and
features - if migrations did occur they can be situated in particular locales within the

community. IfMiddle Mississippian groups can be identified then the influence they had

 

 

in Fort Ancient communities can be assessed. Of particular concern is the relationship
between residential units and elite areas, particularly leadership and ritual functions.
Establishing which if either of these particular social institutions can be directly related to
Middle Mississippian involvement would considerably enrich current explanations
regarding the structure of Fort Ancient villages.

This study utilizes a broad theoretical framework for considering the possible types of
interactions that occurred between Middle Mississippian and Fort Ancient groups,
illustrated by a case study. Findings are used to conclude that Fort Ancient was a
Mississippian expression best characterized as an Upper Mississippian social system. In
pursuing this objective, this study contributes to our understanding of Mississippian

evolution and more general processes of social interaction and change.

Research Context

Our understanding of the Fort Ancient region has improved dramatically in the last
twenty years, due largely to carefully designed research projects aimed at establishing
major changes over time. The best example of this work sampled key sites located
throughout northern Kentucky (Pollack and Henderson 1992, 2000a). Fort Ancient
developments in this region have been placed in a well-supported general theoretical
fiamework, arguing that Fort Ancient villages developed from scattered family groups at
about AD. 1200. Largely from this work, it is clear that Fort Ancient villages developed
as several kin-based social groups aggregated under a variety of situational types of

leadership (Henderson 1998; Pollack and Henderson 1992, 2000a).

 

 

 

Several studies have recognized a Middle Mississippian contribution to Fort Ancient
evolution. Earlier investigators directly attributed Fort Ancient origins to Middle
Mississippians via small-scale population migrations (e.g., Griffin 1943; Prufer and
Shane 1970). Subsequent research discussed the development of Fort Ancient as
stemming fi'om local groups interacting with Middle Mississippian, downplaying

migration-based explanations (Essenpreis 1978; Robertson 1980). Robertson’s (1980)

study, in particular, drew attention to the emergence of social institutions as a response to

interaction with Middle Mississippian groups, a process that created the need for social
solidarity. Essenpreis (1978) argued that distinctions in Fort Ancient assemblages and

settlement systems reflect different levels of interaction local groups had with Middle

Mississippian populations. Groups located closer to Middle Mississippians became more

“Mississippianized.” Nass and Yerkes (1995) specifically compared Fort Ancient and
Middle Mississippian site structure, suggesting that they were similar but do not
specifically address relationships between these groups. One study used a core-periphery
approach for understanding the problem, concluding that Fort Ancient was a Middle
Mississippian periphery, occupants of which served as middlemen in exchanges between
Middle Mississippian and Iroqouis populations (Dincauze and Hasenstab 1989; but see
Griffin 1993).

More recent syntheses have downplayed Middle Mississippian involvement in the
formation of Fort Ancient societies, focusing instead on continuity with Late Woodland
predecessors (e.g., Pollack and Henderson 1992, 2000a; Riggs 1998). While Late
Woodland continuities with Fort Ancient are supported in terms of pottery styles and the

lack of social ranking and settlement hierarchies in Fort Ancient societies, the larger

perspective of how Late Woodland societies changed into Fort Ancient ones within the
Mississippian world has been lost. In this perspective, Middle Mississippian
characteristics of Fort Ancient assemblages have been largely depicted as inconsequential
to the development of Fort Ancient. Contact between Fort Ancient and Middle
Mississippian groups was sporadic and relatively unimportant (Pollack and Henderson
1992, 2000a).

The approach followed in the present study extends the findings of Nass and Yerkes
(1995) to specifically consider how the similarities in social structure arose between
Middle Mississippian and Fort Ancient societies. The concern here is not with Middle
Mississippian characteristics that are absent from Fort Ancient societies (i.e., ranked
settlements or burials). Rather, the attempt is to develop an explanation to account for
the striking similarities in village structure that arose between Fort Ancient and Middle
Mississippian groups. I also utilize Pollack and Henderson’s (1992; 2000a) model of
Fort Ancient evolution but seek to broaden the argument to include a Middle

Mississippian dimension.

Methodological and Theoretical Issues
This study addresses long-standing methodological and theoretical problems
associated with using typological constructs when examining social change. Particular
problems are associated with culture historical fiameworks and evolutionary stages.
While these constructs are useful for categorization and investigation of larger scale

problems, they are inappropriate tools for investigating social change.

Culture historical fiameworks assume that cultures are geographically bounded and
homogenous entities, although the physical, material, and geographic diversity
comprising human societies is well-known (e.g., Hodder 1982). Culture historical
frameworks are most useful for the investigation of larger spatial scales involving
questions relating to differences in environmental adaptations, which may well
characterize distinctions between Mississippian populations, but they are particularly
poor for examining exchange of materials and ideas between groups. This is particularly
true in border areas, which have been recognized as particularly active arenas of social
change (Rice 1998).

Previous Fort Ancient research has recognized inherent problems with culture-
historical approaches to discerning social changes in Fort Ancient populations
(Essenpreis 1978; Graybill 1981, 1984), but the focus has not been explicitly concerned
with developing ways to model inter-regional interaction. To understand the
development of Fort Ancient we need to look beyond the geographic boundaries that are
useful for different ends. This study attempts to accomplish this goal by focusing on the
social and temporal contexts of Middle Mississippian attributes in Fort Ancient villages
over the course of their formation. Following Chang (1 95 8), the focus is explicitly on
delimiting small social groups and not beginning with larger constructs like “cultures.”
Determining the specific ways in which Middle Mississippian societies influenced the
development of these groups is an important first step in firrthering our understanding of
Fort Ancient evolution.

The problem evolutionary typologies present when using them to examine processes

of social change have also been recognized for some time (Yoffee 1993). On a general

level, “chiefdoms” and “tribes” characterize Middle Mississippian and Upper
Mississippian societies, respectively. However, these categories are not particularly
useful when it comes to examining boundary situations, which are often made up of
various forms of transitional societies. This problem is made more apparent by recent
research that is advancing a relatively decentralized view of Middle Mississippian social
complexity (Milner 1998; Muller 1997). This should not be taken to imply that
“chiefdom” is an inappropriate category for defining the social structure of Middle
Mississippian groups, simply that a less-complex view changes the nature of peripheral
interaction as smaller sites in a given Middle Mississippian system are more autonomous
in this framework (Muller 1997). S

This theoretical framework places rural Middle Mississippian societies on a more
equal footing with Upper Mississippian groups; it is to those sites that we must look for
peers with whom Fort Ancient groups interacted. Examining the development of Fort
Ancient holds the more general potential of furthering our understanding of
developments along other boundaries between “chiefdoms” and “tribes” and the variation
between these points along the continuum of social complexity (Yoffee 1993).
Following recent Fort Ancient research, I attempt to break down social types into key
institutional forms of complexity (Henderson 1998). However, I extend this effort to

specifically consider the involvement of Middle Mississippian groups.

Case Study

The problem of discerning Fort Ancient village structure and grth in relation to
exposure to Middle Mississippian populations is investigated using the SunWatch site, a
village occupied during the height of Middle Mississippian developments in the Midwest
(A.D. 1200-1400) (Heilman et al. 1988). This village exhibits the clearest expression of
characteristics found in many middle Fort Ancient sites and may be the first site in the
area to contain the classic Middle Fort Ancient circular form (Drooker 1997) (Figure 1).

SunWatch is ideally positioned for investigating this issue in that it is located along a
border between Fort Ancient and Late Woodland groups in a locale far removed from the
main avenues of river-based interaction where sites are complicated by multiple
occupations and generally non-extensive and/or poor excavation histories (Figure 2).
Perhaps this region contains groups more retentive of a Late Woodland social system
(Essenpreis 1978). It clearly has all the characteristics of Fort Ancient societies, often
being used as one of the primary examples of social structure at the village level
(Henderson and Pollack 2001).

The site contains clear spatial patterning indicative of an occupation by an integrated
social group (Heilman et a1. 1988). There are several discrete clusters of structures and
pit features in a well-defined village plan organized around a red cedar center pole, which
was used in part to chart solar alignments (Heilman and Hoefer 1981). Previous research
has also presented a strong ease for localized households and possibly clans (Evans-
Eargle 1998; Heilman 1988b), a chief’s residence (Nass 1987; Nass and Yerkes 1995), a

male-oriented sodality (Harold 1985; Robertson 1980), a system of dual social

 

40 4080

120 Feet

 

Excavation Limits (Museum)
Excavation Limits (Avocdional)

[:3 Burials

I: Rims-Communal Structures

 

- Pita. Basins, and Hearth:

- PostHoIee

- Harem: Foams

 

Figure l. SunWatch site map.

 

 

   
   
 
 

0 Fort Ancient

I Middle Mississippian

«la»-

 
   
  
 
  
  
   

AP‘ . -

MAJOR SITES

@ Early (ca. 1000-1400 A.D.) FORT ANCIENT
@ Late (at 1400-1650 A.D.)
N

I ANGEL PHASE

CABORN-
WELBORN

 

 

GENERAL CHRONOLOGY

Figure 2. Locations of major Mississippian sites in the study area (top) and generalized
depiction of changes in settlement locations over time (bottom). (Sources: Drooker 1997:
Figure 4-2; Henderson 1992a: Figure 1-1; Pollack 1998: Figure 1.1; Stout and Lewis
1998: Figure 7.1.)

organization (Cook and Sunderhaus 1999), and Green Corn ceremonialism (Heilman et
a1. 1988). Each of these is consistent with findings at lower-level Mississippian sites and
many Eastern Woodland native groups descended from Mississippian societies (Hudson
1976)

Based on a visual inspection of structure and stockade relationships, it is apparent that
the village was rebuilt and remodeled at least once. This observation was supported by a
preliminary examination that found later radiocarbon dates to co-vary with shell-
tempered pottery and other later Fort Ancient traits in these locales (Cook and Merz
2000).

Taken together, these characteristics set the stage for an examination of growth and
change within one Fort Ancient village during the height of Misssissippian interactions,
enabling a diachronic examination of site-level group dynamics, including individual
household and corporate group developments and the establishment of larger integrative

mechanisms, which comprised the Fort Ancient system.

Organization of Volume
The volume begins with a description of the theoretical framework developed for the
study, followed by an overview of major developments associated with the Late
Woodland, Middle Mississippian, and Fort Ancient time periods. Emphasis is placed on
the co-development of Mississippian societies and similarities in site structures (e.g.,
households, mortuary patterning). This review sets the stage for an examination of the

structure and formation of the SunWatch site. After reviewing the excavation and

11

research history of the site, the methodology is presented. Results of the analysis of site
structure and formation are then presented. The study concludes with regional and

theoretical implications, including suggestions for future research at site and regional

scales.

12

CHAPTER II: THEORETICAL ORIENTATION

. . .one must look at archeological sites as local social groups instead of as cultures or
phases. Cultures are fluctuant, but social groups are clear-cut. Therefore, I suggest
that it should be the archaeologist’s first duty to delimit local social groups such as
households, communities, and aggregates, rather than to identify archeological
regions and areas by time-spacing material traits, since cultural traits are meaningless
unless described in their social context. (Chang 1958:324)

To investigate the development of Fort Ancient social structure, a theoretical
framework was developed to accommodate narrower and broader scales than have ,
traditionally been examined. Foremost, the focus was on spatial contexts from which
reliable behavioral correlates could be drawn, not defining the research universe to
culture-historical constructs poorly suited for social analyses (Dunnell 1971). This study
does not assume that Fort Ancient is any one definable group, but represents a starting
point for examining variation present within Fort Ancient societies. Investigations have
primarily attempted to define Fort Ancient as something separate from Middle
Mississippian by emphasizing what it lacks (e.g., hierarchy in burials or settlement
system) without first examining inherent variation that may prove most useful for
understanding its genesis.

This approach reorients explanations of Fort Ancient origins and social structure
away from spatial-temporal frameworks designed for other purposes, a common problem
in North American archaeology (Essenpreis 1978; Hart and Brumbaugh 2003). The
theoretical framework focuses on development of village social structure within a broad

geographic and temporal framework, emphasizing border areas as particularly dynamic

13

places of social change. This study also utilizes recent theoretical advances in inter-

regional interaction.

Narrowing the Perspective

The smaller scale focuses on the dynamics between households and larger social
groups. The village was selected as the unit of analysis as it is the largest social arena
known to exist for Fort Ancient. Fortunately, the social structures of autonomous
farming villages are reasonably well known from earlier ethnographic studies.

A literature review of autonomous villages with particular attention on deriving
models for archaeological interpretation revealed three forms: unplanned villages,
planned villages, and segmented villages (Chang 1958). Unplanned villages lack formal
structure. Planned villages are usually small groups of a few independent houses
arranged according to a preconceived plan. They are often circular in form with a central
plaza, which sometimes contain a men’s house or chiefly residence. Planned villages
contain one lineage. Segmented villages contain lineages arranged in localized groups
forming clusters of households within the community. Usually there is only one
segment. If the community contains more than one segment, one is of greater
importance. Within lineage segments, households may or may not be arranged to a
preconceived plan. Segments sometimes contain their own plaza, men’s house, or other
special buildings. Ninety-four percent of the ethnographic cases of segmented villages
included in the sample contained two or more lineages, each being localized in one

segment of the community (Chang 1958:306-307).

l4

Lineages are the most common component within village structures. As noted above,
lineages are either singular or multiple and are usually localized as segments within
villages. In smaller-scale societies, households are the central production unit but are not
self-sufficient in that they frequently cooperate with other households, and some tasks are

Imdertaken collectively in lineages or village groups (Sahlins 1968:75).

Evolution of Village Sociafl Structures

 

Social evolution has been examined from one of two perspectives: typological and
processual (Upham 1990). The typological approach assumes that all human groups
move through the same basic social stages, each being composed of key social and
economic attributes (e.g., Johnson and Earle 2000; Service 1962). Each form represents
increased intensification of a resource base (usually agricultural) and a corresponding
increase in social complexity and hierarchy. Bands or family/hamlet groups are typified
by hunting/gathering economies. Tribes or local groups most often practice agriculture
or are located in areas of natural abundance and are typically comprised of aggregated
band-like groups. Chiefdoms or regional polities represent the first hierarchical
arrangement, expressed in both settlement systems and social statuses. Of these groups,
tribes are the most variable rendering their identification particularly problematic (Upham
1990). Processual approaches focus on institutions and covarying sets of behavior
emphasizing that changes may occur at different rates in different subsystems.

The processual approach is better able to identify the range of variation present in a
given society rather than forcing it into a type (Upham 1990; Yoffee 1993). This

approach is more conducive to examining specific forces of change. However, societal

15

types serve a useful purpose in much the same way that categories such as “fish,”
“amphibian,” “reptile,” and “mammal” aid paleontological investigations of biological
evolution (Spencer 1997). Archaeologists would find it difficult to study social change if
all societies were simply lumped into one group. Types are useful for ethnological
purposes and societies throughout the world at points of relative stasis do appear quite
similar, and it is the periods of transition that are most unique (e.g., Marcus and Flannery
1996; Spencer 1997). The usefulness of each approach has led many contemporary
researchers to integrate both type and process perspectives.

Johnson and Earle’s (2000) typological evolutionary scheme—based on changes in
residential unit size and socioeconOmic organization—has been applied to several cases
Of emerging social complexity including Fort Ancient (Pollack and Henderson 1992,
2000a). The model posits that scattered lineages of related households (25-35 people)
aggregated into local groups (100-200 people) during the Middle Fort Ancient period
(A.D. 1200-1400) (Pollack and Henderson 1992, 2000a). Based on Johnson and Earle’s
(2000) model, a number of factors could have precipitated this development, including
food storage or defense. Communities often form a politically and ritually integrated
group although many religious and ceremonial functions in multi-lineage communities
continue to center around separate residential units. Several households often share
activity areas, and segmentation of social groups is continuous (Johnson and Earle 2000).
The group usually has a headman, but it typically fragments on a seasonal basis into its
constituent kin groupings. Also, internal disputes can often lead to fragmentation,
particularly in the context of growing communities. Relationships between communities

are often important for security as warfare is common and such relationships are

16

contracted on an individual family basis. Ceremonialism is important for publicly
defining groups and these interrelationships. Resources are initially held by each kin
group, although the group may become more centralized under a charismatic leader as
population increases (Johnson and Earle 2000:33).

Lineages and households contained within them are the key building blocks of human
societies, and they are particularly important in middle-range social groups (Sahlins
1968). As a result, they have factored heavily into theories of social evolution. Larger
villages contain complex social arrangements whereby lineages are increasingly
controlled by an individual authority. Autonomous villages are fundamentally a
collection of independent lineages. Differentiating lineages is important in villages
containing several independent groups. Land ownership becomes marked when more
than one lineage is present and may become more important as social stress increases
within expanding villages.

It has long been recognized that societies and communities become more complex as
smaller social groups develop into larger ones. Larger groups of people require
institutionalized systems of control, as mobility is not as regular an option (R. Kelly
1989); these structures change as scalar thresholds are reached (Johnson 1982). A critical
change happens when it becomes necessary to integrate formerly separate social units.
New integrative institutions ofien form in villages by promotion from the original
autonomous units and one lineage usually becomes dominant (F lannery 1972; Johnson
and Earle 2000:35). Whether this asymmetry evolves into social rank or stratification,
however, is another question. Only in some cases were conditions present to foster such

a development.

17

Practice theory has been invoked to explain the process associated with differential
ranking between lineages and the importance of this in the evolution of human societies.
According to Marcus and Flannery (1996), population growth was an unintended
consequence of sedentism and agriculture. Groups could not fission as they had in the
past as leaving a village meant losing housing, storage facilities, and land, each of which
involved considerable labor investments. Integrative mechanisms were developed to
overcome the social problems associated with aggregation. Larger social groups such as
clans and moieties were created through the recognition of descent fiom common
mythical ancestors. In many societies, highly respected men drawn fiorn each major
descent group in the village were initiated into fiatemal sodalities from which less
respected men were excluded. Female rituals focused on residential areas where
immediate ancestors were invoked, while male ritual activities were performed in 3
Men’s House, a ritual structure built by the initiates. This social structure crosscut kin
groups, thus serving to integrate the village. Unintended consequences of this system
were that egalitarian relations became asymmetrical which ultimately led to social

hierarchy (Knight 1990; Marcus and F lannery 1996).

Integggting Scales throug1_r Practice

Thus far, theoretical expectations regarding social divisions in villages have been
outlined. However, as the problem is a dynamic one involving the examination of change
in one community, relationships between corporate households and integrative groups
need to be explored. Practice theory is a useful approach for this purpose as it focuses on

the interdigitation of larger and smaller scale contexts, facilitating the analysis of change

18

as a result of individuals interfacing with social structures (Bourdieu 1977; Giddens
1984). To understand larger processes associated with social change smaller contexts
need to be examined, as the relationship between the two is dialectic (Giddens 1984).

Previous work on smaller social scales has often focused on reconstructing residence
patterns and identifying individuals in material culture (Hill and Gunn 1977). While
potentially enlightening, this approach was never developed beyond simplistic notions of
residence (Allen and Richardson 1971; Stanislawski 1978). More recently the focus has
been placed on the remains of household activities. In achieving this end, practice theory
has often been employed and the goal has shifted to diachronic rather than synchronic
questions:

Rather than seeing the theoretical shift in the field as a move from structures and

systems to persons and practices, it might thus be seen as a shift from static,

synchronic analyses to diachronic, processual ones. Viewing the shift in this way, the

practice approach comprises only one wing of the move to diachrony, emphasizing

microdevelopmental processes. . . (Ortner 1984: 1 58)
The small-scale emphasis of practice theory focuses on frequently occurring activities,
those tasks that are undertaken without planning, often daily events or the

. . .little routines people enact, again and again, in working, sleeping, and relaxing, as

well as little scenarios of etiquette they play out again and again in social

interaction. . . [all cultural practices] are predicated upon, and embody within

themselves, the fundamental notions of temporal, spatial, and social ordering that

underlie and organize the system as a whole. (Ortner 1984:154)

Recent archaeological applications of practice theory emphasize social differences
between remains of daily, repetitive tasks such as trash and food preparation and larger
scales such as site structures. This approach is particularly useful for contact situations

(Lightfoot et a1. 1998). Larger public contexts such as those exhibited by the overall

structure of a site tend to be consistent and controlled by the more dominant group if

19

more than one group is present. Smaller contexts such as households exhibit more
variation indicative of histories of these smaller social groups (Lightfoot et a1. 1998).

Political power is associated with control of resources and/or control Of
organizational aspects of society. According to Giddens (1984), power is generated
through two structures of domination: ones involving allocative resources and those using
authoritative resOurces. Allocative resources include materials and means of production,
whereas authoritative resources involve organizational aspects of human beings and time
(Giddens 1984:258). Many evolutionary models emphasize allocative resources when
authoritative resources are just as crucial as they are essential to the successful
development of material resources: “. . .allocative resources cannot be developed without
the transmutation of authoritative resources” (Giddens 19842260). The combination of
both is needed.

This fi'amework has been used to examine the emergence of elites in Mississippian
society (B. Smith 1992). The role of solar observatories in Middle Mississippian
societies had long been explained as emerging for managerial purposes to facilitate better
scheduling of crop planting during times of economic stress (e.g., Peebles and Kus 1977).
However, woodhenges also serve as storage containers for the solar calendar, acting as
esoteric knowledge of the elite (B. Smith 1992). Additionally, they were impressive
visual reminders of the elite role in maintaining this important means of communication
with the solar sphere: “They confu'rned in monumental fashion the direct link between
the sun and the chiefly elite” (B. Smith 1992:28). In doing so, this knowledge

legitinrized elite power.

20

Broadening the Perspective
Changes in local social structures can only be fully understood in relation to larger
processes. The ways in which regions have been delineated and interpreted has changed
considerably over the last several decades. Specifically, archaeologists have recognized
the need to develop frameworks specifically for addressing variation present in a given
material assemblage rather than considering cultures as mass, unitary phenomena

(Hodder 1978; 1982).

Open Soci2_Il Systems

Culture historical frameworks are useful for ordering information on a general level,
for initial investigations in a given region. However, using them as more than
classificatory units (e.g., temporal ordering), for example to investigate questions of
social change, has hindered the development of important behavioral questions in
archaeology (Dunnell 1971; Hart and Brumbach 2003). Culture historic units are
abstractions of artifact assemblages; they are not cultural realities (Taylor 1948).
Furthermore, they assume a normative view of culture (Essenpreis 1978:145). As a
result, they are not useful for addressing variation within societies (Hart and Brumbach
2003:749). These groupings foster interpretations of change that are step-like and
progressive and are not conducive to the examination of social boundaries, arguably the

most active arenas of change (Lightfoot and Martinez 1995; Stein 2002).

21

Early approaches attempting to identify culture process focused on delineating
internal workings of social systems and have since moved toward inclusion of external
influences. More recent approaches to the investigation of social systems can be
characterized as “kinetic” in that they examine how they came to be what they are while
earlier studies viewed process in functional terms or “thermodynamically” (Crumley
1979). Peripheries are now seen as active locales of change instead of passive
peripheries (Lightfoot and Martinez 1995; Rice 1998; Schortman and Urban 1987), and
culture change is being increasingly modeled as actively situated along frontiers and
borders (Rice 1998).

All societies are complex in ways that may differ (Nelson 1995). Defining societies
as either “hierarchical” or “egalitarian” is too simplistic to capture variation within
particular subsystems. This shift has led to the development of an approach known as
regional heterarchy. Regional heterarchies are Open systems in which the component
elements have “the potential of being unranked (relative to other elements)” (Crumley
1979) or the potential of being “ranked in a number of ways, depending on systemic
requirements” (Crumley 1994). We need to move beyond the dichotomous view of
social complexity—an approach that often leads to the proliferation of categorical
distinctions—to determine how particular subsystems are hierarchical (F einman and
Neitzel 1984). It encourages archaeologists to examine the hypothetical continuum
between such types by focusing on the different dimensions of social and political
organization that are possible (Rautrnan 1998:330). Within this more open fiamework
social boundaries are seen as particularly active areas in their own right, not simply as

passive recipients of core developments (Lightfoot and Martinez 1995; Stein 2002).

22

The heterarchy concept has been applied to Fort Ancient developments to account for
internal social processes (Henderson 1998). In a thorough analysis of Middle Fort
Ancient society in central Kentucky, Henderson (1998) recognized that different
subsystems were situationally ranked, but the system never developed into a permanent

hierarchy.

Regional Interaction

In contrast to core/periphery frameworks that have been applied to non-state societies
with questionable conclusions (Lightfoot and Martinez 1995), peer interaction models are
more appropriate for investigating the development of less complex societies (Brown et
a1. 1990; Renfrew 1986). Studies utilizing this framework have examined societies
ranging from state to tribal levels of social organization and have included both Middle
Mississippian (Brown et al. 1990) and Upper Mississippian (Drooker 1997) groups. In
general, the approach has only been used internally; however, it is also useful for
addressing inter-regional interaction (Renfrew 1986).

The basic tenet common to peer interaction models is that one cannot look to the
development of a given polity in isolation; separate polities develop simultaneously
(Renfrew 1986). A polity is defined as “the highest order sociopolitical unit in the region
in question” (Renfrew 1986:2). In most farming societies including Fort Ancient this unit
is the autonomous village.

Several expectations can be derived regarding the outcome of peer polity interactions

and sociopolitical change. Fundamentally, the expectation is that groups change together,

23

and that innovations cannot be attributed to a single locus. Competition including
warfare and emulation are common, as is increased social complexity of the less complex
partner (Renfrew 1986). Social interaction between neighboring polities should result in
similarities at highly visible levels (Renfrew 1986; Wobst 1977). The causal role of peer
polity interaction can be ascertained if there is evidence of contact prior to the changes in
question as well as some idea why interaction can be seen to have had a role in
facilitating the observed change (Renfrew 1986:7).

Peer polity interaction specifically focuses on the development of social structures
such as political institutions, systems of specialized ritual and non-verbal communication,
and the development of ethnic groups and language (Renfrew 1986:1). Peer polities
should share many structural homologies, including similarities in site layout which is
indicative of similarities in social organization (Renfrew 1986:4-5). New institutional
features form to increase production, and societies become more complex.

In a region with peer politics which are not highly organized internally, but which

show strong interactions both symbolically and materially, we predict transformations

in these polities associated with the intensification of production and the further

development of hierarchical structures for the exercise of power. (Renfrew 1986:8)
This focus fits well with other frndings regarding the formation or institutionalization of
social groups, in relation to outside pressures, particularly for the institutionalization of
the sexes:

. . .until the community has representative contact with other sociO-cultural systems, it

may not achieve the stability required for the institutionalization of the sex groups.

. . .When this marginal position is interpreted and then communicated to the villagers,
male solidarity results: the men draw together for security... (Young 1965:104)

24

The development of male-oriented sodalities in Fort Ancient society has been seen as a
response to this very process (Robertson 1980).

Studies of inter-societal interaction have started to address the role of material
culture. In contrast tO earlier studies that focused exclusively on pottery variation, more
recent studies have questioned the sensitivity of pottery, along with other utilitarian
items, which are not likely to be the most sensitive markers of ethnicity (although they
may be important for other reasons). Highly visible and non-utilitarian items are better
candidates for serving this function (Gibbon 1982, 1995; Jones 1997; Wobst 1977).

Schortman and Urban (1987) build on these ideas by noting the importance of key
artifacts that signal ethnicity in interaction (diacritics) stressing that these items
specifically pave the way for inter-regional interaction. (These items often vary from
group to group.) In other words, diacritics often precede prolonged contact. These
interactions may be between only a few people in higher-level positions in their
respective societies. Despite what may be only a few people interacting the
consequences may be significant. Few interactions can lead to larger social changes and
these need not be acculturative in the strict sense but are often in the direction of

increased complexity of the less complex group.

Summary
The theoretical model outlined in this chapter stresses the need to examine social
groups at a small scale before defining larger social units. To draw meaningful correlates

regarding the composition of social groups, smaller social contexts (e.g., households,

25

 

lineages) should be examined before defining larger units (e.g., aspects, phases). This
approach contrasts with those focused on defining broad areas in a culture history
perspective, which continue to hamper investigations of social composition and change as
they assume regions to be comprised of homogenous entities.

The evolution of autonomous villages, comprised of independent households, was
chosen as the focus as this is one of the most common forms of social groups in emerging
agricultural societies and is the predominant Fort Ancient site type. Therefore, defining
the formation and social structure of this site form is a critical step in developing models
of Fort Ancient evolution. Specific attention is placed on discerning whether particular
social units were associated with village leadership and to what extent males can be
associated with this institution. This is important for further understanding the type of
social complexity expressed by Fort Ancient populations.

1 have chosen to broaden the perspective to include a regional context that can
account for the variation present within many Fort Ancient assemblages, focusing on
neighboring Middle Mississippian groups. Peer polity interaction models have proven
useful for examining inter—regional interaction, particularly among non-state societies.
This model emphasizes the co-development of neighboring societies and identifies
specific forms of similarity that should be expressed among peers. This approach has
proven useful for assessing intra-regional Fort Ancient interaction (Drooker 1997), but
has not been applied to inter-regional interaction between Fort Ancient and Middle
Mississippian populations. By doing so, this study places migration-based explanations

of Fort Ancient development into a dynamic framework, outlining the types of

26

interactions and movements that occurred during the formation of Fort Ancient villages.

27

CHAPTER III: MISSISSIPPIAN OVERVIEW

This chapter positions the SunWatch site and the Fort Ancient concept into a broad
regional and temporal framework. Fort Ancient sites are considered to be Upper
Mississippian expressions, similar in kind to Oneota groups. Emphasis is placed on
shared characteristics rooted in Late Woodland developments, and peer interactions
responsible for Mississippian transformations between AD. 1000 and 1400.
Evolutionary arguments are presented for Upper and Middle Mississippian societies
focusing on developments along their peripheries. The goal is to outline distinctions and
similarities and to assess environmental and social reasons for differences between
Middle and Upper Mississippian societies. Particular attention is focused on variation in
Mississippian social complexity as expressed in site structures, household organization,

and mortuary patterning.

Differentiating Mississippian Societies
Middle and Upper Mississippian distinctions can be traced back to Holmes’ (1886)
geographical differentiation of late prehistoric pottery into Upper, Middle, and Lower
Mississippian types. Middle and Upper Mississippian were in common usage by 1930
and would later contribute to the development of the Midwestern Taxonomic System to
“bring order out of the chaos of archaeological units of varying size and complexity, for
many of which the term ‘culture’ was used” (Griffrn 1985; McKern 1939; Phillips et al.

1951). This system resulted in the formation of four archaeological constructs based on

28

nested sets of shared attributes: component (single site), focus (closely related sites),
aspect (series of foci), and phase (many aspects).

Middle and Upper Mississippian societies are generally located in distinct
environmental zones. Middle Mississippian mound centers are typically located along
major rivers with the more complex groups being situated in broad aggraded valleys with
developed backwater areas containing abundant wetland resources as well as soil most
suitable for intensive agriculture (B. Smith 1978, 1985; Ward 1965). While exceptions to
this pattern exist (Clay 1976; Goldstein 1991; Goldstein and Richards 1991; Muller and
Stephens 1991), this preference can still be considered a general trend for Middle
Mississippian systems. In contrast, Upper Mississippian groups were located on smaller
rivers and notably in areas within the prairie peninsula, including the fragmented eastern
portion dotting parts of Indiana and Ohio (Figure 3).

The environmental distinction between Middle and Upper Mississippian groups
factors directly into explanations of distinctions in social complexity. For example, it has
been argued that Upper Mississippian groups were socio-politically less complex than
Middle Mississippians because their environment was less productive for intensive maize
cultivation (Griffm 1985). However, it has also been suggested that if agricultural
potential were the only significant factor, Upper Mississippian environments could have
supported much larger populations (Brown 1982). It can be concluded that maize
agriculture constituted less of Upper Mississippian diets at least partially by choice.
Upper Mississippian groups possessed a unique subsistence adaptation, one well-suited to
their environment that took advantage of natural resources as much as agricultural

products (Brown 1982). In this and several other respects, they remained more

29

 

 

- Upper Mississippian Site Clusters

Prairie Peninsula

 

 

 

Figure 3. Upper Mississippian site concentrations in relation to the distribution of the
prairie peninsula and outliers. (Sources: Hollinger and Benn 1998: Figure 1; Stuckey
1981: Figure 9 [after Transeau 1935].)

30

closely tied to Late Woodland predecessors than did Middle Mississippian groups.

This environmental distinction is clear between the lower and middle portions of the
Ohio valley, areas occupied by Angel Phase Middle Mississippian and Fort Ancient
groups, respectively. Angel Phase sites are restricted to the mature floodplain of the Ohio
River in southwestern Indiana (Green and Munson 1978), while Fort Ancient groups are
located in a wide variety of environmental settings including plains and plateau
ecoregions (Figure 4). The two groups are separated by a northern extension of the
Interior Plateau in south-central Indiana, which is accompanied by the Falls of the
Ohio—two significant geographic barriers that undoubtedly hindered travel overland and
along the river (Pollack and Henderson 2000a). (Emerson [1999] notes a similar barrier
between Apple River and Oneota)

The Fort Ancient concept can be traced back to the late nineteenth century when it
was used to define the remains of an “extensive village-dwelling culture” inhabiting
southwestern Ohio (Moorehead 1892; Putnam 1886). Working at South Fort Village,
Mills (1906:135-136) coined the term “Fort Ancient Culture” which he defined as a pre-
Columbian way of life represented by established homes, developed agriculture, stored
food, and intertribal trade. The Fort Ancient archaeological construct was later expanded
to include sites found in south central Ohio (Mills 1904), northern Kentucky (H. Smith
1910), southeast Ohio (Griffin 1943), and adjacent parts of West Virginia and eastern
Kentucky (Dunnell 1961; Mayer-Cakes 1955). There was no criterion that was exclusive

to Fort Ancient sites and the limits of Fort Ancient were set by the locations of

31

 

 
 
 
   

. ' ‘ Western

‘ Allegheny
Plateau

 

 

 

  

a

T," . ’. ‘3 V .
'y: . 0 Interior
‘ Plateau

     
  

Interior
Rivers

ECOREGIONS

Figure 4. Ecoregions encompassing the study area (Source: www.epagov.)

32

-

”Appalachians
CUMBERLAND . "' I -' .' :1... ‘

 

     
 

other culture areas rather than anything intrinsic to Fort Ancient:
. . .having engulfed all of the middle Ohio Valley, Fort Ancient began to encroach on
village site complexes for which other terms already had precedence. . . .If past
students had known what is known today, it is doubtful that they would have taken all
of the diversity subsumed by Fort Ancient and attempted to apply a single label to it.
. . .Fort Ancient is not a cohesive cultural entity but the sum of three, possibly four
local traditions. . .no such cohesive entity exists. (Graybill 1984:40-41)
In contrast to the Oneota (Brown 1982), Fort Ancient has not been defined on the basis of
a specific environmental adaptation but is more a summation of variable assemblages in
disparate environments sandwiched between previously defined phenomena. However,
the distribution appears to fit rather well with the Oneota pattern of adaptation to the

prairie peninsula, adhering to the classification of Fort Ancient as an Upper Mississippian

expression (see Figure 3).

Late Woodland Roots

As questions about culture change have become a more common element of
Mississippian investigations, developments during the earlier Late Woodland time period
have assumed greater significance (J. Kelly 1990b; McElrath et al. 2000). Three
consecutive transformations that occurred during the Late Woodland time period factored
into the development of Mississippian societies (McElrath et al. 2000). First, between
A.D. 300-400 there was a demographic Shift away from areas of natural abundance, and
populations became more evenly dispersed across the landscape. This process is
associated with the development of a more sedentary lifestyle associated with an
increased reliance upon Eastern Agricultural Complex agricultural crops. Second, by
AD. 600 the bow-and-arrow was introduced and became the dominant form of projectile

throughout the Eastern Woodlands. This technological change has been associated with

33

increased hunting, inter-group competition, and increased mobility (Seeman 1992).
Third, between A.D. 800-900 maize agriculture began to constitute a significant portion
Of the diet (J. Kelly 1990b).

These transformations led to marked changes in the relations between peoples.
Prevailing arguments focus on increased cooperation and warfare, the latter of which is
evident in the osteological record as well as in more consolidated, structured, and
protected settlements (Milner 1999; Milner and Schroeder 1999). Before Late Woodland
times, mobility was a common response in times of economic or social stress (Muller and
Stephens 1991). Hence, warfare and defense do not regularly occur until family groups
became more permanently grouped within villages during the Late Woodland period

(Church and Nass 2002:37; Milner and Schroeder 1999:104).

Emergent Mississippians

Unsurpassed data regarding Late Woodland peoples that developed into Middle
Mississippian societies comes from the Emergent Mississippian period in the American
Bottom. Regional summaries of dietary assemblages in this region have found that a
steady increase in population levels throughout the Late Woodland period (AD. 300-
750) was accompanied by higher levels Of starchy seed agricultural products (J. Kelly
1990b: 143). Changes in ceramic technology may be related to improved processing of
starchy seeds (Braun 1983), leading to the production of better food consistencies more
suitable for weaning infants. This decreased birthing interval increased fertility, resulting

in population growth (Buikstra et a1. 1986).

34

Settlements attributable to the Late Woodland and Emergent Mississippian periods
consist of circular villages and smaller clusters of structures. Villages with clusters of
three to four houses surround plazas with communal features. _The spatial pattern of these
settlements suggests the presence of a few localized lineages, with centralized features
possibly reflecting a village’s ceremonial role within a larger system of settlements (J.
Kelly 1990bzl44-145). These villages were egalitarian but contained the seeds for the
development of hierarchical relations characteristic of Middle Mississippian settlement
systems (Knight 1990; J. Kelly 1990b). Asymmetry between constituent social groups
could have led to social ranking where control of resources and production were at stake
(Knight 1990).

A model of the development of Mississippian settlement patterns suggests that site
forms represent a progression of three types based on the relationship between cultural
systems and their environments (Clay 1976:139-140, based on a model by Emery and
Trist 1965). Middle Mississippian site form was a function of environmental variation
and the perceived shift in the importance of immediate subsistence concerns relative to
the regional coordination of activities.

According to Clay (1976:139-140), the first type of site (tactical) results when a
group emphasizes environmental variables. Generally, they do not cooperate with other
sites and they are scattered in areas of maximum economic productivity. Settlements
represent considerable change through time, as they adapt to their local environment.
lntra-site patterning reflects egalitarian relations as there are few status distinctions,
artifact assemblages are relatively homogenous, and few trade items are present. The

second type of site (strategic) depicts greater regional interaction as they are more

35

centrally located. They contain evidence of greater planning and labor in the form of
mounds, plazas, and earthworks. There is less temporal change as site size remains stable
and structures are rebuilt, often in the same locations. Greater regional cooperation
appears as surrounding sites of various Sizes, complexity, and firnctions form. The third
type of site (operations) is often associated with environments containing clustered
resources with social groups reaching carrying capacities. Competition Often increases in

these communities, including the appearance of fortifications.

Fort Ancient’s Predecessors

In the Middle Ohio Valley, the Late Woodland period begins about AD. 500 and
persists until the beginning of the Fort Ancient period at AD. 1000. Distinctions are
most apparent between the earlier and later portions of this time period and geographic
distinctions are evident between the western and eastern portions of the region (Pollack
and Henderson 2000b; Seeman and Dancey 2000).

The early Late Woodland is characterized by larger villages, consisting of circular
middens with and without plazas, some of which are enclosed by ditches or stockades
presumably for defensive purposes (Pollack and Henderson 2000b; Seeman and Dancey
2000). Arrangements lacking plazas suggest the lack of leadership above the household
level (Dancey 1992). The establishment of villages represents increased nucleation in
contrast with the dispersed Middle Woodland settlement system of hamlets surrounding
ritual precincts of mounds and earthworks (Dancey 1998). Early Late Woodland

mortuary activity often became linked with a particular community. Late Woodland

36

villages are generally associated with stone-mound mortuaries containing rock cysts, slab
vaults, and pavements.

AD. 650 marks a turning point throughout the region. Small sites begin to appear
with distinct assemblages consisting of Jack’s Reef projectile points and thicker, rock-
tempered ceramics. This has been termed the Jack’s Reef Horizon and may represent the
introduction Of bow-and-arrow technology into the region (Seeman 1992). However, this
shift does not occur at many Late Woodland village sites in southwest Ohio (e.g., Sand
Ridge and Turpin). These sites demonstrate continuous village occupation from Late
Woodland through Fort Ancient times (Riggs 1986, 1998). At these stratified locales,
Late Woodland ceramics and projectile points physically interrnix with Fort Ancient

materials (Seeman and Dancey 2000:592).

Upper Missi_ssiDpian Origins

Three scenarios—migration, interaction, independent development—have been
Offered as explanations of Upper Mississippian origins. While explanations vary between
Oneota and Fort Ancient interpretations, there is a remarkable similarity between them.
The key question is how much of Upper Mississippian can be associated with Middle
Mississippians and how much is related to local Late Woodland populations? Answers to
this question have changed considerably over the years, as a result of increased data and
shifting theoretical viewpoints, and it could well be that multiple answers are in fact
correct (Gibbon 1982). All but the most recent interpretations are couched within culture
area/culture historical fi'ameworks, inappropriate for examining social change. No

explanation has closely examined peripheral developments.

37

Early studies relied on migration and/or acculturation scenarios to account for the
origin of Upper Mississippian peoples. This approach is typified by the work of Griffin.
The Fort Ancient Aspect appears to have been strongly influenced by Middle
Mississippi, both by actual migration of peoples bearing a “Mississippi” culture into
the southwestern part of the Fort Ancient territory and by diffusion of traits... Fort
Ancient could hardly have appeared as a cultural entity until after the Middle
Mississippi peoples had formed a strong group. . .The Oneota Aspect and the Fisher
Focus also were stongly influenced by Middle Mississippi, so that, to some extent, the
Oneota and Fort Ancient aspects can be linked together on the basis of their marginal
relationship to what is thought of as “pure” Middle Mississippi. (Griffin 1943:257-
258)
Griffin (1960) elaborated on the Oneota portion of his argument suggesting that Middle
Mississippian peoples moved north from Cahokia, Oneota was an adaptation to a
northern deciduous forest habitat and/or a response to climatic deterioration beginning
around AD. 1300. Prufer and Shane (1970) identified the Baum Phase in central Ohio as
the point of origin for Mississippian migrants who developed into Fort Ancient peoples.
Subsequent radiocarbon dates have revealed that the timing of these migrations was
earlier as the first Upper Mississippian sites are coeval with the earliest Middle
Mississippian sites (Gibbon 1982). Some researchers have argued that the decline of
Cahokia is related to the formation of Upper Mississippian as emigrants settled in distant
lands (Pauketat and Emerson 1997; Stoltrnan 1991 ).
Distinctions within earlier Fort Ancient and Oneota time periods have been attributed
to distinctions in both environmental variation and Middle Mississippians “influences,” a
term which has not been clearly defined. The earliest manifestations of Oneota and Fort

Ancient societies were more variable than subsequent developments, which has been

explained as differential adaptations by a homogenous group to diverse

38

environments (Cleland 1966) or differential acceptance of diffusing traits by relatively
isolated peoples (Gibbon 1972).

The most recent explanation of the development of Fort Ancient society suggests that
these groups developed almost exclusively fiom Late Woodland peoples (Henderson
1998; Pollack and Henderson 1992, 2000a). This explanation has explicitly examined
Fort Ancient developments from an internal perspective, seeing little need to invoke a
Middle Mississippian component.

In contrast, Oneota origins have been recently described as a result of a
“tribalization,” a process that emphasizes Middle Mississippian involvement in the
formation of tribal borders (Emerson 1999). This model is distinct from earlier
interaction and migration models for three reasons. First, it situates “influence”
specifically on simpler (non-Cahokia) chiefdoms nearer to Oneota developments.
Second, it relies primarily on social reasons for Oneota developments. Third, it provides
a specific example of chiefdom/tribe expectations based on ethnographic support.
Expectations derived from chiefdom/tribe relationships include: (1) population
aggregation into larger groups, (2) increased leadership centralization, (3) increased
evidence of warfare, and (4) the presence of a buffer zone and territorial boundedness
(Emerson 1999:12). These expectations are supported with archaeological evidence
concluding that Oneota originated in direct relation to more complex Middle
Mississippians: “complexly organized, warlike societies ‘create’ neighbors who must, for
the sake of survival, emulate them and socially, politically, and even spatially coalesce to

defend themselves” (Emerson 1999:40). The main conclusion is that resulting changes

39

were a way of creating an ethnic identity distinct from Middle Mississippian chiefdoms.

This ethnic construct disappeared after the chiefdoms collapsed (Emerson 1999).

Mississippian Social Complexity
Examinations of change in Upper Mississippian societies cannot be isolated from
Middle Mississippian developments. The following survey of Mississippian
development reveals how marked changes in Upper Mississippian societies co-occur with
Middle Mississippian evolution. First, conceptions of Middle Mississippian social
complexity are explored. Second, temporal and spatial linkages between Middle and
Upper Mississippian groups are examined, focusing on relationships between Fort

Ancient and neighboring Middle Mississippian groups (Angel Phase).

Middle Mississippifl Decentralization

Interpretations of Middle Mississippian complexity have ranged from those positing
the occurrence of state level societies (e.g., Fowler 1974; Hall 1991), to those proposing
they were far less centralized and complex (e.g., Milner 1998; Muller 1997). The system
appears to have developed in relation to status validation as goods are usually associated
with emblems of rank and the appearance of exotics is reciprocal rather than one of
economic and political centralization characteristic of complex chiefdoms or states
(Brown et al. 1990). This shift in focus to peer relations centers social interactions that
seem to have established Middle Mississippian systems.

Middle Mississippian chiefdoms ranged in size and complexity, often being

characterized as complex and simple based on the numbers of vertical differentiations in

40

respective settlement hierarchies. Complex chiefdoms contain two or more tiers of
political administration while simple chiefdoms contain only one (Anderson 1994). Blitz
(1999) presents a horizontal alternative to this model suggesting that paired mound sites
may represent two simple chiefdoms that fused together. It appears that as these sites
grew they fissioned into “mother—daughter” chiefdoms. This model presents an
alternative commensurate with available data without utilizing more complex political
models, and systems of dual organization are commonly reported at Middle Mississippian
sites (Blitz 1999; Hudson 1976; Zeder and Alder 1996).

The types of models formulated to address interactions between Middle and Upper
Mississippian societies have been directly influenced by differing conceptions of Middle
Mississippian social complexity. Those who favor greater complexity for Middle
Mississippian groups often view material patterning in the archaeological record within a
core/periphery perspective, arguing that Upper Mississippian peripheries were under the
control of paramount chiefdoms or states like Cahokia (e.g., Dincauze and Hasenstab
1989; Peregrine 1992).

In contrast, those who conceive of smaller, less complex Middle Mississippian
centers maintain that peripheries—including both Middle and Upper Mississippian
societies—were politically autonomous (e.g., Milner 1998; Muller 1997). The recent
conclusion that Middle Mississippians are less complex changes the ways in which
peripheral developments can be modeled. Specifically, peer interactions between
autonomous polities place rural Middle Mississippian villages and Upper Mississippian

societies on an equal footing.

41

Fort Ancient Peripheralization

This study recognizes Upper Mississippian groups as complex egalitarian societies
(Henderson 1998), but suggests that this complexity can be more precisely defined in
relation to peer polity developments with rural communities surrounding smaller
chiefdoms. If large Middle Mississippian chiefdoms such as Cahokia were not as
complex as previously thought (Milner 1998), it holds that smaller chiefdoms were even
less complex. Interestingly, smaller chiefdoms are often located in areas nearest to Upper
Mississippian developments (e.g., Emerson 1999).

Fort Ancient developments are temporally related to the development and collapse of
the neighboring Angel chiefdom (A.D. 1000-1400 [see Figure 2]). Angel and Fort
Ancient settlements are relatively rare between AD. 1000 and 1200. In central
Kentucky, the Early Fort Ancient period (A.D. 1000-1200) is typified by small, scattered
hamlets of five or six structures lacking a distinct plan G’ollack and Henderson 1992,
2000a; Sharp and Tumbow 1987:150). Features often consist of small basins and pottery
is generally undecorated and similar to Late Woodland vessels. Late Woodland
architectural characteristics are found at Early Fort Ancient sites including similarities in
house form and the use of ditches to enclose sites (Allman 1959).

The Angel chiefdom reached its peak of development between AD. 1200 and 1450
(Hilgeman 1992). During this time, most of the major earthworks at the Angel site were
constructed, and the settlement hierarchy was also developed (Figure 5). This is precisely the
time period in which Fort Ancient villages became commonplace and sites were located

throughout the entire region (Pollack and Henderson 1992; 20003; also see Figure 2).

42

Time
Scale
(AD) Chronological

Sequalce Western Ohio
(north) (south)

Late Fort Ancient

Early Fort Ancient

 

Figure 5. Established chronologies for culture historical units located within the study
area. (Sources: Drooker 1997: Figure 4-3; Hilgeman 1992; Milner 1998: Figure 1.7).

43

This development is accompanied by increased pottery decoration, the intensification of
mound use (Figure 6), shell being used more as pottery temper, and the regular
occurrence of wall-trench houses at sites in the western part of the region (Figure 7).
Middle Mississippian diagnostics are also present at several sites in the western area
including painted and Rarney-like pottery sherds, pottery with “Cahokia” shoulders, Mill
Creek hoes, and a human effigy pipe resembling one from the Kincaid site (Drooker
1997:90;.Oehler 1973). .

According to a recent assessment of the temporal affiliation of Fort Ancient villages
(Kennedy 2000), those sites attributable to the Middle Fort Ancient period tend to be
clustered in the western and southern portions of the region, relatively close to Middle
Mississippian populations. In contrast, Early Fort Ancient sites are found in greatest
concentration in central Ohio and the tri-state area including portions of Ohio, Kentucky,
and Indiana (Figure 8).

Distinct changes in Fort Ancient settlement and interaction occur after the decline of the
Angel chiefdom and the relocation of Middle Mississippian peoples of the lower Ohio Valley
into the Caborn-Welborn phase (see Figure 2). Late Fort Ancient (A.D. 1400-1650)
settlements are larger, fewer in number, and tend to be concentrated near the Ohio River.
Perhaps this shift was precipitated by environmental degradation (Kennedy 2000). However,
social reasons for this settlement shift cannot be discounted as the restructuring of Angel
groups into Caborn-Welbom settlements would have altered networks of social interaction
(Pollack 1998). Some artifact styles became more homogenous across the Fort Ancient

region (e.g., pottery), reflecting increased internal interaction and the establishment of

ii

\\\—‘ ’\ '
2 %

 

 

m
x

M .
.en

20 0 20 40 Miles
E

 

Fort Ancient Sites
0 mounds absent
‘ mounds present

 

 

 

Figure 6. Distribution of Fort Ancient sites associated with mounds. (Source: Drooker
1997; base map courtesy of Bill Kennedy.)

45

 

 

 

Fort Ancient Sites
0 wall trenches absent
A well trenches present

 

 

 

Figure 7. Distribution of Fort Ancient sites containing wall trench houses. (Source:
Drooker 1997; base map courtesy of Bill Kennedy.)

46

 

 

 

30 0 30 60 Miles ®

 

 

Fort Ancient Chronology
Early (A.D. 10001200)
Middle (A.D. 1200-1400)
Late (A.D. 14001550)
Protohistoric (A. D. 1550-1700)

DEIIO

 

 

 

Figure 8. Distribution of Early, Middle, Late, and Protohistoric Fort Ancient sites.
(Source: Kennedy 2000.)

47

broader exchange networks (Drooker 1997; Henderson and Pollack 1992, 2000a). It may not
be a coincidence that Middle Mississippian and Fort Ancient settlement patterns underwent
drastic changes at similar times.

The general village form does not change during the Late Fort Ancient period. Late
Fort Ancient villages are generally larger and palisades occur more regularly. Houses
become larger and longer, similar to Huron structures (Cowan 1988). Storage pits are
more fi'equently located in structure interiors, perhaps indicative of subsistence pressure
due to overcrowding (Carskadden and Morton 2000; Hart 1993; Wesson 1999), and/or
increased social differentiation (Hendon 2000). Burials are clearly structured in rows in
some villages (e.g., Hardin [Hanson 1966]).

Settlement hierarchies and seasonal uses of special-purpose sites may have developed
during the Late Fort Ancient period, after AD. 1400 (Essenpreis 1978), although the
evidence is equivocal. Seasonally-used sites may also become common after this time
(Purtill 1999; Tumbow and Jobe 1984; Tumbow et al. 1983). However, others have
suggested that Middle Fort Ancient villages were also abandoned seasonally but winter
camps have not been located (Shane and Wagner 1993). Essenpreis (1978) proposed that
the Late Fort Ancient Madisonville system contained a settlement hierarchy as a result of
direct affiliations with Middle Mississippian groups (but see Pickard 1993). The problem
with both of these aspects of the Fort Ancient settlement system is the lack of large-scale
systematic survey data on which to base interpretations. Therefore, at this point nothing

conclusive can be said with respect to either of these important possibilities.

48

Mississippian Site Structures

Mississippian villages exhibit a range of site plans, household configurations, and
mortuary practices. A brief review of these key elements of Middle and Upper
Mississippian village structure provides a comparative basis against which the SunWatch

site can be judged, to assess specific similarities in the organization of space.

Site Plans

Mississippian site plans include four basic types: mound centers, villages, hamlets,
and farmsteads. Middle Mississippian settlement patterns were usually hierarchical
arrangements including each type. Upper Mississippian communities generally lack
settlement hierarchies and include various combinations of villages, hamlets, and
seasonal or special-purpose sites.

Middle Mississippian mound centers contain an architectural grammar consisting of
three elements—mounds, plazas, and stockades—arranged in a variety of configurations
(Lewis et al. 1998). The clearest use of the flat-topped pyramidal structures was to
support public buildings and leader residences. The largest mound at a site was likely the
residence of a chief, while smaller mounds supported houses of lineage heads (Muller
1997). In the case of multiple mound centers, the distribution of mounds seems to be a

grander version of the residential household square (Muller 1997:185). Circular or

49

square plazas are defined by these mounds and often contain a central post or large
structure. Red cedar center posts were often used for displaying the town emblem, scalps
of enemies, torturing captives, or playing games (M. Smith 2000188).

The layout of Middle and Upper Mississippian villages is similar. Each contains a
central plaza surrounded by residential areas. Communal features, most common of
which are center poles, are frequently located in the plaza. Mounds are often located at
the interface between plaza and residential areas. Large chiefly and/or ritual structures
are also common in elite areas located along plaza edges closer to village centers than
non-elite residential areas. The largest mounds in Middle Mississippian communities
represent the ruling lineage and are positioned in the village center, or in the western or
northern sides of the plaza in closer proximity to the village center than lower ranked
social groups (Chapman 1976; Lewis et al. 1998). Large structures often predate
construction of these mounds. Mounds were often constructed in locales where
chiefdoms developed or where a village was promoted up the settlement hierarchy (Clay
1976)

Several characteristics can be associated with elite areas. Storage volumes are Often
larger relative to house size (Nass and Yerkes 1995; Wilk and Netting 1984), or there
may be different storage practices in this area such as interior or controlled storage
(Wesson 1999). The remains of ritual activities often accompany these areas, most
notable of which are items relating to the Green Corn ceremony (Hudson 1976). Burial

distinctions are Often associated with elite areas (Milner 1998).

50

 

 

The clearest understanding of Fort Ancient villages can be derived from those
occupied for relatively short durations. There are three such sites, Capitol View
(Henderson 1992b), Horshoe-Johnson (Hawkins 1998), and SunWatch. Capitol View
and Horshoe-Johnson represent shorter occupations than SunWatch and, therefore, are
better suited for examining earlier stages of village formation. Capitol View is located in
northern Kentucky and was occupied during the later portion of the Middle Fort Ancient
period (ca. AD. 1400). Horshoe-Johnson is located in southwestern Ohio and was
occupied toward the beginning Of the Middle Fort Ancient Period (ca. A.D. 1100/1200).
Unfortunately, as plowing greatly impacted this site, it is not known whether the pattern
is complete; the village may have been much larger (Hawkins 1998).

Capitol View and Horshoe-Johnson exhibit similar forms in that they each contain
two arcs of houses arranged around an open plaza (Figure 9). The main difference
between these villages is that Horshoe-Johnson is considerably smaller than Capitol
View. Each arc has four structures and at Capitol View households are clustered in
groups of two. Henderson (1992b2239) mentions that the spatial arrangement of the
houses suggests that gaps had been left between the six structure areas which would have
been filled in had the community continued to grow by the arrival of new households.
Carskadden and Morton (2000) broaden the explanation to include internal growth that

could also have contributed to village expansion. The most obvious gap at Capitol View

51

 

e Horshoe-Johnson
(ca. AD. 1100)

 

 

 

0° . Capitol View
° ° (ca. AD. 1400)
- house 0 trashpit/disposal area
\ large trash pit 0 surface fired area fiOm T
X burial N

Figure 9. Distribution of features at the Capitol View and Horshoe-Johnson sites (after
Henderson 1992b: Figure 5 and Hawkins 1998: Figure 6.2, respectively. Note that non-
house features are not shown for Horshoe-Johnson).

52

is in the western part of the site where ceremonial and political institutions are located at
SunWatch (Heilman et al. 1988). Capitol View may have been socially complete but just

not large enough to develop integrative institutions.

Houses and Households

European explorers occasionally visited communities of Middle Mississippian
descendants and recorded observations on households as well as their corresponding
social forms and uses. Among the Creek and neighboring cultures, households often
incorporated several buildings, each with a special purpose (Bartram 1789; Swanton
1946). Households utilizing multiple structures were either of higher rank and/or were
further along in the cycle of family development (Hudson 1976). The most elaborate
type included four structures, one for a kitchen and winter lodge, one for a summer lodge
and reception hall for visitors, one for a granary and storehouse, and one for storing trade
goods (Bartram 1789:55-56). Several investigators have noted that Middle Mississippian
houses are often clustered into groups of four around a family plaza (Collins 1997;
Mehrer 1995; Mehrer and Colllins 1995; Muller 1997; Rogers 1995).

The Creek also built lighter structures for summer uses and heavier ones for winter
functions (Adair 1775). Among the Cherokee, it has been noted that structures were
often grouped into pairs—one rectangular and one round. Open-walled rectangular
structures were used during the summer months while round houses were more efficient

for heating during the winter (Bartram 1789). Round and square structure

53

pairs have been recorded in several Mississippian regions (Polhemus 1990; M. Smith
2000; Sullivan 1995).

Larger Mississippian structures have most often been attributed to communal or
chiefly functions. A relationship between larger structures and a small degree of
centralized food storage has led several researchers to conclude that chiefly residences
were often present within Middle and Upper Mississippian villages (N ass and Yerkes
1995, Wesson 1999; M. Smith 2000). Larger structures have also been interpreted as the
remains of Big Houses or council lodges (Hawkins 1998; Heilman et al. 1988; Sullivan
1995).

Single-post houses were the norm for Fort Ancient populations while wall trenches
were preferred by Middle Mississippian societies. Fort Ancient houses changed in form
and size, evolving from small, round or square houses to larger, square and rectangular
structures (Pollack and Henderson 1992). The shift fiom round to square houses may be
related to the shift fi'om foraging to farming (Whiting and Ayres 1968). The only late
Fort Ancient sites to contain round/oval structures are winter sites where hunting and
gathering activities occurred (Tumbow and Jobe 1984), a finding consistent with
ethnographic observations (Whiting and Ayres 1968). The shift to longer and larger
houses (post-AD. 1400) may be related to changes in family structure. Cowan (1988)
has argued that this represents a shift from patrilineal, nuclear to matrilineal, extended
families and attributes the development to contact with Iroquois groups who were
expanding their territory and regularly visiting the Ohio Valley at this time. Oneota

houses also evolved from small, square and round houses to larger,

54

longer ones, with similar interpretations offered for the shift from nuclear to extended
social groups (Hollinger 1995).

Households have been proposed for Fort Ancient sites based on pottery refit
patterning and the clustering Of ceramic attributes (Heilman 1975, 1988b; Mills 1904).
Nass and Yerkes (1995) argue that household craft production was similarly organized
for households within a Middle Mississippian hamlet and a Fort Ancient village. The
only notable distinction was that the leader’s house was larger and contained increased
storage potential, which may indicate that a food surplus was used for hosting non-local

individuals and neighboring groups at feasts (Nass and Yerkes 1995).

MOM Patterning

Two key principles have been discovered by which the Mississippian mortuary
domain was structured. The first pertains to social complexity, which varied between
ranked and egalitarian systems. Middle Mississippian cemeteries contain evidence for
both systems (Goldstein 1980; Milner 1984), while Upper Mississippian burials only
reflect an egalitarian structure (Griffin 1992). Middle Mississippian evidence for ranking
is restricted to mound centers (Milner 1984), where a particular segment of the
population is interred in mounds accompanied by exotic artifacts and treatment regardless
of sex or age (Peebles and Kus 1977). In contrast, rural Mississippian communities have
produced mortuary assemblages more consistent with egalitarian societies, although they
are still part Of a hierarchical settlement system (Goldstein 1980). The second principle

is that Middle Mississippian burials at both village and mound center sites are spatially

55

structured in row patterns. The spatial arrangement of Middle Mississippian burials in
rows represents the material expression of corporate groups who controlled critical or
restricted resources (Goldstein 1980).

Several Fort Ancient sites exhibit clear linear patterning in the distribution of burials
and it appears that the general trend is for the mortuary program to become more
structured over time, including a higher incidence of multiple burials. Late Fort burials
contain more grave goods in general and pottery in particular. There is evidence that
some degree of social differentiation existed within Middle Fort Ancient communities,
and this tendency became more pronounced in Late Fort Ancient social groups. Mounds
are no longer present and burials become more structured in rows or inside houses.
Children and young adults are more frequently buried with status items. Engraved
weeping eye and rattlesnake gorgets reflect interaction to the south. Limited evidence
exists in parts of the Fort Ancient area for a mortuary program involving defleshing,
manipulation, and curation of selected bones before burial, the use Of corn and bean
Offerings, and the ritual killing of pottery vessels (Henderson and Pollack 2001 :178). A
few Late Fort Ancient sites contain ossuary-like deposits with as many as 14 individuals

represented in one feature (Carskadden and Morton 2000; Henderson and Pollack 2001).

Conclusion
This chapter has presented a broad overview of the formation and differentiation of
Mississippian societies located in the study area. Emphasis was placed on defining the

general similarities between settlements associated with Upper and Middle Mississippian

56

societies in the region. While Fort Ancient is a poorly defined entity, many sites clearly
exhibit characteristics attributable to both Late Woodland and Middle Mississippian
groups.

Models explaining Fort Ancient evolution have shifted fi'om migration-based
explanations to those downplaying significant interactions between Middle Mississippian
and Fort Ancient groups. Earlier models argued that Middle Mississippian migrants were
solely responsible for initiating the development of Upper Mississippian groups, while
more recent explanations have relied exclusively on Late Woodland contributions to the
development of Fort Ancient societies. There have been surprisingly few attempts to
bridge the gap between these extremes.

The reliance on Late Woodland contributions stems partly from the lack of clear
burial ranking and settlement hierarchies, two classic Middle Mississippian traits. The
problem with this conclusion is that it focuses on the most complex types of Middle
Mississippian sites for comparisons when we have known for some time that rural
Middle Mississippian settlements exhibit an egalitarian structure similar to that expressed
by Fort Ancient. Current models of Middle Mississippian social complexity present a
relatively decentralized view, far from earlier models stressing a state-level society. By
extension, this renders rural Middle Mississippian sites as more autonomous entities than
previously thought. The less complex Middle Mississippian model has not been
integrated into studies of peripheral developments.

Late Woodland sites located in southwest Ohio are commingled with Fort Ancient
villages. Early Fort Ancient sites are concentrated in central and southwest Ohio and

contain artifacts (e.g., pottery) and features (e.g., ditches) that are Often similar in style to

57

Late Woodland examples. As Fort Ancient villages develop, several similarities with
Middle Mississippian settlements become evident. This includes the use of a similar
architectural grammar, including the placement of mounds, plazas, and centralized
features. During the Middle Fort Ancient period (A.D. 1200-1400), villages were
commonplace, although earlier villages are known in various portions of central and
southwest Ohio. During this time, site locations are most common along the boundary
closest to Angel phase Middle Mississippian groups. This pattern changes during the
Late Fort Ancient period, after Middle Mississippian groups restructure downstream.
Late Fort Ancient sites appear to exhibit Mississippian-like mortuary patterns including
the clear use of burial rows and the regular interment of pottery vessels.

Middle Mississippian residential units often consist of multiple households,
representing either functional differentiation for one family or different stages in the
grth cycle of domestic units. Insight into Fort Ancient household composition can be
derived from less intensively occupied Fort Ancient villages, particularly the Capitol
View site. The one clear example contains two segments, specifically lacking the
western ceremonial precinct commonly found at Middle Mississippian and Fort Ancient
sites. The basic pattern of residence appears to be two closely spaced households.

Several expectations can be derived from the preceding Mississippian overview, from
which to operationalize the theoretical framework into a methodology suited to testing
the extent to which Fort Ancient villages meet the criteria to be included as a

Mississippian site type. This includes multiple scales of analysis, ranging from

58

households and mortuary domains to overall site structure.

59

CHAPTER IV: SUNWATCH SITE BACKGROUND

The SunWatch Site (33My57) is located on the west bank of the Great Miami River
three miles south of Dayton, Ohio. SunWatch was originally named the Incinerator site,
as it was located beneath the plowed surface of a farm field adjacent to an incinerator,
both of which were owned by the City of Dayton. Previously, the Vance family owned
and farmed the land, and several historic structures and features associated with their use
of the property were standing or located during excavation (Lileas 1988a). The site
opened to the public in 1988 as “SunWatch” for two reasons. First, the incinerator is no
longer standing. Second, “Incinerator” is not as effective for public attraction, and
“SunWatch” better fits the archaeological significance of the site as astronomical
alignments factored heavily into its recognition as a National Historic Landmark
(Heilman et al. 1990). Due to excellent preservation and a relatively short-term

occupation, the site contains invaluable information on Fort Ancient society.

Excavation History
The site was discovered by landowners and collectors who noticed abundant
quantities of prehistoric artifacts washing out of the plowed agricultural surface of the
Vance family farm (Lileas 1988b). It is not known how long the area was collected
before systematic recording of data was initiated but, presumably, it had been subjected
to this activity for some time. The land was plowed for much of the twentieth century
and several historic and natural features have been located at the site. Fortunately,

collecting activities were mainly limited to surface contexts.

60

Avocational

The site was initially recognized by Kenneth McNeal, an avid collector at the site
from 1930 to 1970 (Lileas 1988b). McNeal subsequently told avocational archaeologist
John Allman about the Vance farm and Allman proceeded to excavate a small portion of
the northeastern part of the site between 1964 and 1966 (Allman 1968). This area
produced numerous Fort Ancient pit and burial features. Allman was later joined and
succeeded by another avocational archaeologist, Charles Smith, who was assisted in his
excavations by family members and groups of Boy Scouts (C. Smith n.d.). Smith
uncovered the first house to be associated with the Fort Ancient Anderson Phase as well
as numerous burials and pit features. Smith proceeded with excavations until 1969
(Allman 1968; C. Smith n.d.). This team excavated a sizeable portion of the northeastern
quadrant of the village using a 10’ x 10’ coordinate system oriented along West River

Road (Figure 10).

AS far as can be discerned based on field notes and collections, excavation strategy
consisted of removing the plowzone, locating features, and hand-sifting feature fill for
diagnostics and larger artifacts. Inventories were made of individual pit and burial
features although these consist only of tools and diagnostics. Unfortunately, artifacts
were not consistently labeled according to provenience and the inventories are only

useful on the most general level.

61

 

 

 

 

Excavation Limits (Mmeum) - Flu, Basin. and Hearths
Excavation Limits (Avocdional) - Poet Holes
Buride - Hewitt: Feetuee

R‘ltud-Commuml Structures

DU

 

 

 

Figure 10. SunWatch site map.

62

Dayton Museum of Natural History (DMNH)

The DMNH excavated the site each summer from 1971 until 1988. The initial goal of
their excavations was to salvage as much of the site as possible before it was destroyed
by the City of Dayton. Not realizing that an important archaeological Site was present,
the city was planning to expand a nearby sewage treatment plant, which would have
directly impacted the site (Figure 11). As a result, fi'orn 1971 to 1975 DMNH
excavations proceeded rapidly as the city was actively planning the expansion project. In
1975, the site became legally protected by being placed on the National Register of
Historic Places and, as a result, the City of Dayton abandoned plans for expanding the

sewage plant in the vicinity of the site (Lileas 1988b).

In 1969, a week after starting the job, Charles Smith brought the site to the attention
of J. Heilman (Db/NH Curator of Anthropology, 1969-2000). At the time, the site’s
preservation was not an issue, and the museum logged it as a potential research interest.
However, in 1970 it became known that the City of Dayton was inadvertently planning to
destroy the site in the process of upgrading and expanding a nearby sewage treatment
facility. Additional sewage treatment ponds, of which several are located immediately to
the west of the site, were going to be constructed over the village. Heilman realized that
these additional ponds would greatly impact if not destroy the site. Because the site
contained numerous intact features, human burials, a structure, and had great potential for
further Significance, the DMNH began extensive salvage excavations in 1971. The City
of Dayton permitted this initial salvage work while continuing to make plans for the

sewage treatment expansion.

63

r .

Sewage
Treatment“ 6

‘03
.2
o:
E
9
E

 

500 0 500 1000 Feet

 

 

Figure 11. Aerial photograph of the SunWatch site and the surrounding landscape.
(Source: Montgomery County Auditors Office [1999].)

64

From 1971 until 1988, Heilman directed the excavations with a crew of one staff
member, along with many volunteers and summer class students. The excavation method
was relatively straightforward. A grid pattern of 10’ x 10’ squares was established to be
consistent with avocational excavations. The grid pattern was oriented toward magnetic
north instead of following the orientation of West River Road. Throughout the salvage
period, features were excavated as one provenience and '/4” mesh was used regularly for
screening feature fill after 1971. Throughout excavations, the plowzone was hand-sorted
with the exception of one ten foot transect that was stripped with a bulldozer. After 1975,
excavation strategy shifted to include excavation of all features in 3” levels and the
flotation of ‘/4 of most features (Heilman et al. 1988). All artifacts were curated with the
exception of fire-cracked rock, which was noted but not counted or weighed and was
discarded in the field.

Excavations began in the northeastern part of the site, adjacent to avocational
excavations (see Figure 10). Subsequently, several trenches were placed across the site
which revealed stockade lines, structures, trash pits, storage pits, and burials in the
locations of surface artifact concentrations (Lileas 1988b). By the end of 1971, over 60
excavation square units had been excavated which included three house structures, sixty
storage/trash pits, and seven burials. In 1972 and 1973, the basic village pattern was
revealed consisting of a central plaza and pole complex, surrounded by circular zones of
burials, storage/trash pits, houses, and stockades. Excavations proceeded in salvage
format until 1975 when the site was granted federal protection (Heilman et al. 1988).
After this time, emphasis Shifted toward the western portion of the site. By the early

1980’s excavation had slowed considerably due largely to the shift toward reconstruction

65

and analysis efforts. Formal excavations stopped in 1988, the year the site and
interpretive center opened to the public. The goal was to preserve unexcavated parts of
the site until better methods were developed or research on the extant collection produced
specific questions to be addressed with further excavation.

Features excavated by avocational archaeologists reveal a pattern of pits and burials
commingled with a large house pattern. Structures excavated by the DMNH were
positioned in circular pattern around the pit features and are enclosed by a stockade,
which contrasts with the location of the avocational structure. Additionally, the
avocational structure was a wall trench house (Allman 1968, C. Smith n.d.). As will be
presented in Chapter VI, both Allman and Smith are clear in their independently recorded
notes that the trenches are prehistoric in origin and actually represent the first of two
structures represented by the posthole pattern. Wall-trench houses have been found at
several Fort Ancient Sites in southwest Ohio (Drooker 1997), as well as elsewhere in the

Fort Ancient area (Henderson 1992a).

Merging Excavation Blocks: A gutionarLNote

It was difficult to precisely merge the two excavation blocks. A large part of the
problem was related to the fact that avocational field notes indicated that their grid was
oriented “north.” It was assumed that this meant magnetic north and not an arbitrary
measure in relation to the road. Fortunately, two of the three datums that were

established and mapped by avocational archaeologists were still intact from which to

66

orient the grid. Also, museum excavations relocated one burial and the western portion
of the avocational excavation block. Each of these sources of information was used to
merge the two excavations together. However, the result only tentative; a more precise
location of the extent of avocational excavations should be established in the future.
Hence, spatial interpretations particularly in the areas of the site where these excavation

blocks meet should be taken with a small degree of caution.

Analytical History
Intensive excavations at SunWatch have provided an unmatched database for
exploring many aspects of Fort Ancient village life. There have been numerous analyses
conducted over the past three decades; those most pertinent to the current investigation

are reviewed here.

Astronomicgl Alignments

The center pole complex has been interpreted as an astronomical calendar, aligning
with solar and stellar phenomena and particular houses, pit features, burials, hearths, and
posts within the village (Goss 1988; Heilman and Hoefer 1981). The discovery of
uncarbonized Eastern Red Cedar in the center posthole (Wagner 1979) is consistent with
other well-documented Eastern Woodland calendrical systems (e.g., the Cahokia
“Woodhenge” [Wittry 1969]).

According to Heilman and Hoefer (1981) and Goss (1988), the center pole and the
four poles that form a parallelogram around it, align with the rising sun and the hearth of

Structure 1/71 at two times each year, near the beginning of spring (April 29) and in late

67

summer (August 14). These dates coincide with the planting and harvesting schedule for
this locale. The center pole and four aligned postholes located to the northwest form
another alignment with the rising sun and the hearth of Structure 2/87 on the winter
solstice (December 22). Three overlapping pits containing an abundance of artifacts are
positioned on the solar alignment that occurs at each equinox (Heilman and Hoefer 1981;
Goss 1988). The winter solstice and equinox are commonly marked in other early
calendrical systems in various regions of the world, lending cross-cultural support to
these hypotheses (Aveni 1989, 2003) (Figure 12).

The center pole may also have aided in the observation of stellar phenomena. In a
brief examination of stellar alignments, the achronal rise of the Pleiades (October 17) and
Vega (April 22) were singled out as they aligned with the center pole and cedar pests
located to the south of Structure 1/71 (Goss 1988). A final alignment was hypothesized
on the basis of an anomalous mortuary signature—one individual was killed with four
projectiles, buried with a limestone pipe, underneath a cedar bark covering (a similar
finding was made at the Collins site [Douglas 1975]). This burial aligns with the center
pole, a cluster of posts, and two features containing an abundance of lithic tools and
finely crafted projectile points. Presumably, this is a stellar alignment as it is oriented on
a north-south axis. Based on the burial and ethnographic data, it may have resulted from

a ritual involving arrow sacrifice to promote plant fertility (Robertson 1980:14-15).

Social Structure a_n_d RitLal Activities

SunWatch research has largely focused on examining social and ritual behavior.

Social inferences have been drawn from pottery and lithic refit patterning and their

68

       

Equinox —— —.‘r—h ‘

   

Planting! ’ ’
Harvesting

 

 

Summer . /
Solstice

Figure 12. Proposed astronomical alignments (adapted from Heilman and Hoefer 1981).

69

distributions, concentrations of burnt com, the sizes of structures and Storage pits, and the

composition of the mortuary domain.

Heilman (1975, 1988) conducted a cross-feature refit analysis of pottery rim sherds
and was the first to recognize that the site contained discrete spatial patterning, perhaps
related to the localization of households. Results suggested that there were three to four
spatial units; refits occurred within each area but not between them (Figure 13). Minor
differences in temper types and design motifs were also noted between these areas.
Heilman (1988b) further suggested that these units represent matrilocal groupings (Deetz
1965; Hill 1968; Longacre 1970), based on the assumption that females made the
majority of the pottery which has been documented among many historic tribes in the

Eastern Woodlands (Harrington 1913:223).

Lithic refits produced a pattern distinct from pottery (see. Figure 13). The pattern is
more focused on linkages between a single house (Structure 2/78) and the remainder of
the village. Robertson (1980, 1984) utilized spatial divisions based on pottery refits to
compare fi'equencies of lithic tools and debitage. A large percentage of lithic debitage
was recovered from the vicinity of Structure 2/78, while the majority of finished tools
were located elsewhere. Based on the assumption that males manufactured lithic tools,
Robertson (1980, 1984) suggested that this activity was spatially discrete and Structure
II/78 was a Men’s House. Robertson (1980) suggests that the intensive manufacture Of
hunting implements in the west area resulted from male hunting expeditions to procure
meat to use in the Green Corn ceremony. A literature review added further support to

this hypothesis (Harold 1985).

70

     
     
 

Pottery
Refits

 

Chipped Stone
Refits

 

Figure 13. Initial pottery (top) and chipped stone (bottom) refits (adapted from
Robertson 1984: Figures 2 and 4).

71

The distribution of burnt corn and large storage pits helped clarify the ritual nature of
the west side of the site. Burnt corn was recovered in significantly more storage/trash pit
features in this area (69%) when compared with the south (27%) and north (8%) parts of
the site (Heilman and Hoefer 1981). Based on this concentration of corn in conjunction
with the large structure (House 1/71 ), located on the planting/harvesting solar alignment,
Heilman and Hoefer (1981) suggested that the structure was a Big House. This type of
communal structure was often used in the Green Corn ceremony and is present in many
villages located throughout the Eastern Woodlands (Hudson 1976). A later study reached
a different conclusion regarding the function of this large structure. Nass (1989) utilized
the same spatial units identified by pottery refits but concluded that this locale more
likely housed a village leader. Therwest area contained a Significantly larger storage
potential than other portions of the site and contained some evidence for craft
specialization, both of which are suggestive of a chiefly residence in broader
Mississippian terms (Nass and Yerkes 1995). It is important to note that these two
interpretations for this structure—Bi g House and chief’s lodge—are not mutually

exclusive.

Evans-Eargle (1998) analyzed the mortuary pattern to assess basic characteristics of
the site’s social structure. In this study, she demonstrated that the site contains clear
evidence for an egalitarian social organization, whereby differential treatments can
generally be associated with age and gender. Burial areas contain clusters of males,
females, and children suggestive of kin groupings (Evans-Eargle 1998; Knight 1990).

Evans-Eargle (1998:97) further suggests that these groupings represent internally ranked

72

clans, as one individual per group appears higher in rank than others. A total of three
individuals are unique in status markers, with one being a good candidate for a village
leader/shaman. Interestingly, the male ritual area (see above) contains only adult males
and children. According to Evans-Eargle (1998:98), this system is most consistent with
Johnson and Earle’s (2000) acephalous local group type of tribal organization due to the
observation that the site lacks evidence of extensive storage and redistribution of surplus.
However, this conclusion regarding storage contradicts Nass’ (1989) findings, which
would be more indicative of a Big Man type of social structure. Evans-Eargle’s (1998)
conclusion is consistent with the evolutionary model for middle Fort Ancient

development hypothesized by Pollack and Henderson (1992, 2000a).

The most recent spatial analysis involved the re-investigation of the pottery
assemblage. The main goal of this study was to further examine Heilrnan’s (1975,
1988b) spatial hypothesis based on a more representative sample of pottery. This was
important as all studies summarized above have rested upon that foundation. Pottery
refits were nearly doubled in quantity including several refits that connected previously
bounded areas (Figure 14). Based largely on this pattern it was hypothesized that the
village contained evidence of a dual division which organized as many as five residential
units (Cook and Sunderhaus 1999; Sunderhaus and Cook n.d.). A subsequent
investigation of the spatial patterning of selected mortuary characteristics revealed a dual
pattern similar to the pottery refit pattern (Cook n.d.). Irnportantly, each of these findings
(localized households, clans, sodality, Big House, chief’s house) fits with a dual division
structure which was a general organizing principle for many Mississippian communities

(Hudson 1976).

73

South Moiety North Moiety

 

Figure 14. Proposed dual division based on additional pottery refits. (Source:
Sunderhaus and Cook n.d.)

74

Environment. Die; and Seaflgamy

Fauna] and floral analyses conducted by Shane (1988) and Wagner (1988) have
helped reconstruct local vegetation and climatic conditions, dietary variation, and
seasonality of SunWatch inhabitants. The environment was warmer during the site’s
occupation as indicated by the presence of rice rats in the faunal assemblage (Shane
1988). The site was located within or near a pocket prairie (an outlier of the prairie
peninsula [see Figure 3]), in close proximity to a variety of forested environs. Many
prairie patches were noted along the Miami Valley during the original land surveys
(Cooper 1800; Stuckey 1981). Supporting evidence includes both faunal and floral
remains of species that prefer semi-open forest or prairie habitats (Shane 1988; Wagner
1988). In addition, several daub remains and mud-dauber wasp nests contain impressions
of prairie grasses suggesting its use in construction.

Fauna] and floral remains reveal a subsistence pattern based on both wild and
domesticated foods. Villagers gathered a variety of nuts (hickory, butternut, black
walnut, hazelnut, and a small amount of acorn), fi'uits (sumac, nightshade, blackberry,
grape, hackberry, hawthorn, groundcherry, plum, pawpaw, and cherry), and a variety of
greens and small-seeded annuals (purslane, chenopod, panicgrass, knotweed, wild bean,
little barley, vervain, and bedstraw). Of this variety of plants, the most abundant and
ubiquitous are sumac, purslane, nightshade, panicgrass, and chenopod—79% of all
identified small seeds at the site consist of these types (Wagner 1988:91). Domesticated
plants include com, beans, squash/pepo, sunflowers, and tobacco. The ubiquity of corn,

beans and squash suggests that they were very common within the village (Wagner

75

1988:106). Carbon isotope ratios also indicate a high percentage of corn in the diet

(Conard 1988; Schurr and Schoeninger 1995).

Faunal remains reveal use of both non-domesticated and domesticated species. Deer
(76%) and elk (10%) constitute the majority of the fauna] assemblage. Fish, bear,
raccoon, squirrel, and birds are also common. Shane (1988) suggests that turkeys and
dogs were domesticated. The five dogs present in the assemblage are each fully
articulated (Alhnan 1968; Shane 1988), which suggests that they were intentionally

buried perhaps in conjunction with ritual occasions.

It has been hypothesized that SunWatch inhabitants were seasonally mobile,
following a settlement pattern similar to Miami and Potawatomi groups (Fitting and
Cleland 1969). The general pattern was for villages to be occupied most intensively
during the agricultural season; winter months were spent in family groups at hunting
camps. Expectations derived fiom this model were applied to SunWatch by determining
the season of deposition for features containing juvenile deer mandibles (n=39) (Shane
and Wagner 1993). Six features were used during the spring, 17 were used during the
summer, and 16 were used during the winter. Significantly more deer were deposited
during the spring and summer months. Winter pits contained only select cuts of meat.
Using this evidence, it has been argued that village members temporarily residing in
winter camps provisioned the remnant population (Shane 1988:203-205; Shane and
Wagner 1993). A specific problem with this model is the lack of hunting camps in the

area, and during the middle Fort Ancient period in general (Henderson and Pollack

76

2001). Strong cases for hunting camps have only been documented for late Fort Ancient

sites located in Kentucky (post-AD. 1400) (Tumbow and Jobe 1984).

Seasonal activities were investigated by examining floral contents and tool
assemblages associated with seasonally-identified features (Ramsey-Styer 1995; Wagner
1996). Floral remains indicate that winter pits contained more evidence for burning and
spring pits contain the most fiuit (Wagner 1996:263). Tool use indicative of hunting and
hide working occurred in pits of all seasons, but few complete tools were present in
winter pits. Antler point production also occurred in all seasons. Shell hoes were located
in spring and summer pits, while all fishing hooks and preforms were recovered fi'om

winter and spring pits (Ramsey—Styer 1995:112).

Key Problem Areas
This chapter has presented a brief summary of the substantial excavation and
analytical history of the SunWatch site and has distilled key findings that have been
developed and refined by several researchers over a considerable period of time. This
village continues to be the type site regarding Fort Ancient social structure. However,
there are potential problems with what we think we know about the site and several new
areas of research that could considerably expand our understanding of this important

prehistoric village.

77

Basic Problems

There are several basic problems that could weaken current interpretions of analytical
findings. First, there are several published maps of museum excavations, none of which
are complete. Second, analyses have not integrated avocational findings with those of the
museum, with the exception of a biological distance and stress study (Giesen 1992).
While avocational collections and notes lack much provenience data, they are critical for
interpreting this village. As these notes were not donated to the museum until 1992,
many previous investigations did not have access to them. In particular, detailed
mortuary data are included in feature descriptions and profiles were completed for all
excavated features from which feature type and volume could be derived. Third, most
previous investigations of artifact or feature sets were completed before excavations
ceased. Hence, most data sets are incomplete. Key data sets need to be completed at a

basic level before more fully examining behavioral questions.

New Questions

Two areas of investigation would add to and refine existing interpretations regarding
the social structure of SunWatch: an examination of site formation and identification of
specific contexts containing Mississippian features, artifacts, and spatial patterns. These
areas of inquiry led to the development of a theoretical perspective that could explain the
forms of inter-regional interaction that could have produced the observed pattern (see

Chapter II).

78

An examination of site formation needs to include a consideration of both natural and
cultural processes (Schiffer 1983). First, variation in collection strategies has not been
assessed although salvage work did not employ the use of screens in 1971. Also, the
potential impact of historical activities has not been considered. Aside from recovery and
preservation issues, all previous investigations have assumed the site did not contain
spatially discernible time depth. A recent study has specifically investigated this issue,

demonstrating that the site contains pontential in this respect (Cook and Merz 2000).

What effect might site formation have on interpreting social patterns? One clear
possibility is that the evidence for a system of dual organization might be a function of
time. Perhaps settlement shifted from one part of the site to another or additional social
segments joined the village during its occupation. It is also possible that seasonal
mobility is better explained as a result of different occupations rather than part of a single
seasonal round. These issues cannot be addressed until establishing a temporal
framework with which to negate these explanations. These are not mutually exclusive
explanations, but we need to account for these factors before concluding that a system of

dual organization was present.

Examinations of social structure have focused on the presence of communal spaces,
ritual structures, a chiefly residence, clans, and dual divisions. And the presence of clans
and moieties have only been based on suggestive evidence; they have not been directly
compared with ethnographic accounts from the general region which describe the
physical locations of these social units within circular villages. While household contents
have been generally assessed (e.g., Nass 1989), specific models of residential

composition have not been investigated. Specific attention to social groups comprising

79

residential units is important for understanding the building blocks of the entire society.
Identification of the formation history and smaller elements of social structure would
facilitate the construction of more robust models of social structure. For example,
examining the internal development of corporate groups and village-wide social
structures could be used to address the intersection of regional and local dynamics at a

time when Fort Ancient villages were initially forming.

80

CHAPTER V: METHODOLOGY

This chapter describes specific approaches and data sets used in this study of Fort
Ancient village structure and growth. Assessing the structure and growth of localized
residential and corporate groups is the main focus at the residential level. The
development of a leadership and ritual precinct to meet needs of a growing community is
the main focus at the community level. As behavior is a multivariate phenomenon,
representative data sets from all key features and artifact classes were considered in this
investigation, seeking concordance between them for the most robust conclusions (Carr

1985)

Village Structure
The spatial segmentation of the village into social spaces was investigated through the
application of Mississippian rules of site design and ethnographic and theoretical

expectations regarding patterning in residential and mortuary features.

Identi 'n and Com 'n Residential Units

Dividing the site into meaningful residential units began with the identification of an
elite area. The literature review of Mississippian site structure resulted in the consistent
finding that elite residences are positioned in closer proximity to village centers than
other residential units (see Chapter III). Recall that these areas often contain

architecturally distinct structures (larger, special building materials) along with storage

81

distinctions (larger storage areas, restricted structures). Parts of the site that could be
demarcated on the basis of proximity to the center pole formed elite areas.

To assess whether one part of the village was closer to the village center, the center
pole was buffered in five-foot circular increments using ArcView 618 3.2. Initial
divisions were made on the basis of pit features, as they comprise the most common form
at the site. Locations of architectural features and burials were then examined to
determine if similar rules could be applied to these domains. The western part of the site
should be closer to the center pole as the most consistent conclusion regarding SunWatch
has been the ritual uniqueness of this area (Evans-Eargle 1998; Harold 1985; Heilman
and Hoefer 1981; Heilman et al. 1988; Nass and Yerkes 1995; Robertson 1984; Wagner
1979). However, aside from distinctions recognized for structures in the area, and
general observations made about feature contents in the surrounding area, this part of the
site has not been systematically divided (see Chapter IV).

Utilizing a model for identifying localized households (F lannery 1976), distinct
breaks in the distribution of features were observed, which were used to further divide
residential zones. Descriptive statistics for areas divided on the basis of these rules were
calculated for all associated feature and artifact attributes. Chi-square tests were run on

selected artifact frequencies to determine significant groupings of attributes.

Examining Village Mom Variability and Corporate Groups

 

The mortuary investigation involved two inter-related components. First, village-

wide patterning was examined utilizing proximity methods used for disceming whether

82

parts of the village were closer to the center pole. The mortuary assemblage was divided
into the same concentric rings identified in the residential portion of the study. Sex, age,
leg position, and associated artifacts for burials within these rings were compared using
descriptive statistics and chi-square tests to determine significant distinctions.

The second component of the mortuary investigation involved applying specific rules
for the identification of social groups. The ubiquitous nature of lineages and the fact that
they often form smaller parts of villages makes them an attractive candidate for
archaeological investigations of social structure (see Chapter II). However, as lineages
imply a particular system of descent and are notoriously difficult to reconstruct even in
ethnographic settings, it is not the most useful starting point for archaeological
investigations (Allen and Richardson 1971). The term “corporate group” is preferred in
this investigation as it is a more neutral in its social implications while maintaining a rule
of lineal inheritance.

Corporate groups were identified using mortuary remains, building on a series of
hypotheses derived from ethnographic data (Saxe 1970), which were confirmed and
modified using rural Middle Mississippian populations (Goldstein 1976, 1980). The
portion most germane to the present study pertains to the spatial structure of cemetery
plots.

To the degree that corporate group rights to use and/or control crucial but restricted

resources are attained and/or legitimized by means of lineal descent from the dead

(i.e., lineal ties to ancestors), such groups will maintain formal disposal areas for the

exclusive disposal of their dead, and conversely. (Saxe 1970:119)

In applying this model to two rural Middle Mississippian cemeteries, Goldstein

(1980: 124) determined that the placement of burials in visually distinguishable rows was

83

a key component to their structure. The formal definition of a row followed Goldstein
(1980:103):

A row is the set of all burials falling between a pair of parallel lines 1% body lengths

apart, subject to the conditions: (I) that the set includes at least five complete burials,

(2) that at least five burials have parallel axes of orientation, and (3) that the rules of

inclusion for burials, specified below, are satisfied.

The specified rules of inclusion focus on proximity and orientation. Proximity identifies
that the burials must be closer to each other than to any other burials, the exception being
for a burial in a row but not near others in that row in which case it should be included so
long as it is has the same orientation as the others and is not located near any other row.
Orientation specifies that body axes only need to be parallel (i.e., head to toe is
acceptable), the only exception being if a perpendicular body is closer to a given row than
to any other burials and if it also falls within one body length of the others (Goldstein
1980:103-104). The central finding of the study was that in Mississippian societies the
control of resources was marked in part through burials patterned in rows.

The Goldstein/Saxe model provides a useful fi'amework for examining whether
corporate groups are present within a given cemetery pattern in general and for
Mississippian societies in particular. Given the focus in this investigation on the
relationship between Middle and Upper Mississippian societies with an emphasis on
social structure, I began by examining row patterning (as defined above). However,
operationalizing the method for identifying corporate groups in circular villages involved
the development of additional rules that could more fully account for the observed
patterning. Thus, arc-shaped groups in relation to the five-foot buffers fiom the center
pole (see above) were given priority, within which the presence of row patterning was

investigated.

84

Applying these rules resulted in the identification of a series of arc and row patterns
forming spatially-distinct groups. Groups were identified on the basis of the proximity of
individual graves to one another - burials must be closer to each other than to other
burials. The only exception was made for burial patterning clearly anomalous from
surrounding areas. These groups were then assessed in terms of whether they contained
arcs and rows, rows only, or arcs only. If the excavation extent for the group was
adequate but there were no apparent rows or arcs, the group was defined as a cluster. If a
group lacked rows and arcs but was not sufiiciently excavated, they were defined as
indeterminate forms. Burial groups were compared using descriptive statistics.

Cluster analysis was used to independently examine these rule-based groups and to
identify additional patterns crosscutting burial group affiliations. A hierarchical cluster
technique known as Ward’s method was used with a specified result of four clusters.
Scores were measured using squared euclidean distance. Mortuary characteristics were
included if they were present in more than two burials, excluding sex and age

determinations. SPSS 11.0 was used to complete this statistical procedure.

Village Formation
Village growth was examined in three consecutive ways. First, the overall
architectural sequence was established and visually compared with temporally distinct
feature forms. Key feature forms were then statistically linked with artifact attributes to
assess the types of changes that occurred at the village level. Results were joined with
the architectural sequence and the cluster analysis of burials to define changes in each

realm at the village level. Second, and within the framework of architectural growth,

85

residential developments were examined. After examining temporal affiliations of
household activity areas, the development of corporate groups was investigated. Third,
the formation of village leadership and ritual was assessed within the context of village

growth.

Architectural Rebuilding

Four lines of evidence were used to assess architectural construction episodes:
stratified deposits, stockade/house relationships, radiocarbon assays, and house
rebuilding. The first three of these data sources do not require specific explanations,
except to indicate that four additional radiocarbon assays were obtained fi‘om structures
to assess the timing of the inner and outer ring of houses as well as the ritual structure.
Outer houses (1/87, 2/87) and the ritual house (2/78) were tested for this purpose. A
carbon sample from House 1/72 was also submitted for radiocarbon testing as it was the
only house that could not be reliably associated with neighboring pit features. All new
and extant radiocarbon ages were calibrated using INTCAL98.14c (Stuiver et al. 1998).

House structures contained several lines of evidence usefirl for making chronological
distinctions. The most obvious criteria is posthole pattern duplication in houses and the
center pole. In a study of a rural Mississippian village that contained both house
structures and a center pole, Oetelaar (I 993) found a direct relationship between these
architectural features; the center pole feature had six lobes suggesting it was replaced six

times and most of the structures were rebuilt six times based on discrete patterns of wall

86

trenches. Each of these rebuilding efi’orts occurred in the same locations. A similar
pattern of plaza post and house rebuilding was documented at an Angel Phase village
(Munson 1994).

Rebuilding assessments for SunWatch included similar criteria. However, as the
house structures are single-post construction, it was not as easy to discern the frequency
of discrete construction episodes. Two lines of evidence were used to examine this
relationship: posthole densities and daub concentrations. In an examination of Iroquois
houses—also of single-post construction—posthole density was the best indicator of
structure duration (Warrick 1988). In the present study, simpler structures were
considered to be those with fewer postholes per square foot of structure area, and the
smallest ratios were used to calculate duration of occupation in structures with denser
posthole patterns (Warrick 1988). Ethnographically-documented structures similar to
those at SunWatch (i.e., earth and wood) have a use-life of about 20 years (Cameron
1991). To estimate village occupation, this figure was increased according to the number
of reconstruction episodes represented by houses with higher ratios of postholes per
structure area.

House perimeters and areas were established by connecting the midpoints of each
wall posthole. These measurements were derived for two reasons. First, it was reasoned
that larger houses could be indicative of a later construction date, as Fort Ancient house
size increases over time (Pollack and Henderson 1992). Second, house areas were used
to estimate population size using estimates derived from a study generalizing southern
Algonquin proxemics (30.8 to 55 ft2 per house occupant) (Brose et al. 1979). This was

chosen over other population estimates as population density in structures is culture-

87

dependent and southern Algonquin groups are most closely affiliated geographically with
the inhabitants of Fort Ancient sites. This measure was used to examine household
population and changes in overall village size over time.

The last village-wide architectural pattern examined was the distribution of
temporally-distinct feature forms (see below). Major feature forms were compared with
the sequence of architectural construction, the expectation being that rebuilt houses
should be concentrated near concentrations of earlier feature forms, and the reverse
should also be true.

Once these spatial distributions were visually assessed, the relationship between
feature form and artifact attributes was examined to produce a village-wide determination
regarding temporal covariation between features and artifacts, results of which were
compared to the chronology established independently for houses and stockades.
Principal components analysis, a multivariate statistical technique useful for examining
relationships between variables, was utilized for this purpose. This technique identifies
major trends in a data set; if a set of variables possesses some underlying common factor
their values are correlated with one another. The common factor can be seen in some
sense as the average of the group of variables; the more closely related they are the
stronger the common factor will be and the more meaningful it is on its own as a
substitute for the original variables. A transformation of the data is effected in which a
large percentage of the variation in many of the variables is compressed into a smaller
number of variables, such that the new variables are uncorrelated with one another

(Doran and Hodson 1975; Sherman 1988).

88

As the purpose of using this technique was simply to assess which artifacts were
correlated with feature form, the full potential of principal components analysis was not
utilized. A total of 16 different tests were conducted, each one comparing feature forms
with suites of artifact attributes, grouped by class and type (e.g., pottery temper). It is
important to note that this end could also have been accomplished using correlation tests
alone, but would have been far less efficient. In essence, the study utilized principal
components as an exploratory technique. Only components with eigenvalues greater than
one were considered to be meaningful. The logic behind this is 1.0 represents the
variance of a single variable in the correlation matrix, and if a component has a lower
eigenvalue it actually accounts for less variation than any one of the original variables
(Johnston 1978146). Scores 30.4 and 30.4 were used as the cutoff for accepting a
correlation between a given artifact attribute and feature form. All data were
standardized with a mean of 0 and a variance of 1. SPSS 11.0 was used to complete this

statistical procedure.

Development of Corporate Groups

The dynamic component of the project at the residential level focused on the growth
of corporate groups in relation to localized household activity areas and architecture. The
examination of temporal change within social structures located at a single site is a
critical though often neglected aspect of mortuary investigations, largely due to
methodological difficulties (O’Shea 1984). In this study, household activity areas
provide a critical link between burial groups and house structures with which to test a

general ethnographic model of residential development.

89

Household identification involved three steps for segregating sets of structures and pit
features from one another, based on expectations for localized households which should
produce observable breaks in their combined distributions (F lannery 1976). First, pit
features were visually examined in terms of their proximity to each other. Features in
closer proximity than to other features were considered to be distinct activity areas.
Second, inter-feature pottery refits in the shortest distance class (<25’) were used to
refine these groupings. (Larger refits were examined to assess household growth and
village-wide integration [see below].) Third, these activity areas were considered to be
household-specific if they were located closer to particular house structures. Each
resulting household activity area formed the basis of the smallest spatial comparisons in
this study.

Frequencies of diagnostic feature and artifact attributes were statistically compared
with household activity areas to identify a sequence of use. Correspondence analysis, a
multivariate statistical technique similar to principal components analysis, was used for
this purpose. This approach shares the same basic principles as principal components
analysis. It is distinguished largely on the basis of the number of relationships that can be
simultaneously examined. Using principal components analysis, component scores can
be plotted to see which cases are similar, and relationships between variables, and
between variables and components can also be plotted. However, in correspondence
analysis, the relationship between cases, between variables, and those between variables
and cases can all be analyzed together and represented in the same scattergrarn, greatly
facilitating interpretation. The result of this test visually reveals which items are most

associated with a given spatial unit in relation to all other items in the matrix (Sherman

90

1988:284). In this study, data matrices consisted of fiequencies of diagnostic attributes in
each household activity area. Diagnostics included feature form, and key pottery and
projectile point form attributes. XLSTAT 7.0 was used for correspondence analyses.

An ethnographic model of residential development was used to identify diachronic
trends associated with family growth (Goodenough 1956; Goody 1972). While this
model has been applied most notably in archaeology to explain the establishment and
growth of Mayan households (Haviland 1988; Tourtellot 1988), it is appropriate for
examining localized corporate group development more generally (Goody I972).
Specific‘expectations of this model are that certain structures were occupied first
(founders) and formed the nucleus ~of localized extended family developments consisting
of structures linked to the parent.

Three data sets were used to interpret the development of corporate groups identified
in the mortuary pattern: architectural rebuilding, early and late household activity areas,
and pottery refits. Later household activity areas should be associated with houses
lacking evidence for remodeling. In contrast, earlier pit-artifact groups were expected to
be located near houses that were rebuilt. Medium refits (25-100’) were examined to
assess how residential units of differing ages were related to each other. The expectation
was that older areas would be linked with more recently established neighbors, which _
would support the general ethnographic model of localized family development. Portions
of a corporate group containing more burials should be located near activity areas and

houses established earlier in the village occupation.

91

Development of an Elite Area

It has been repeatedly shown that there is a linkage between local population size and
the types of socio-political institutions needed to administer that group. When a local
group exceeds a certain population threshold, leadership institutions develop at a level
above the local household (see Chapter II). The basic question asked in this study was
whether an elite area developed later in the village occupation, concurrent with the

growth of other residential zones.

Ritual Remains

With a firm understanding of the basic social units comprising the site and their
formation over time relative to the elite area, focus was placed on examining the ritual
integration of those units. Specific emphasis was placed on further developing material
correlates of the Green Corn ceremony, which has been previously suggested for the site
(Heilman et al. 1988; see Chapter IV).

The Green Corn ceremony, also known as the busk, was one of the most widespread
renewal rituals among Eastern Woodland tribes and likely existed among many
Mississippian populations as well (Hudson 1976). In addition to being a harvest
celebration, the Green Corn ceremony marks the beginning of a new year. Emphasis is
placed on disposing old materials and cleaning household spaces. Specific material
expectations can be derived fiom an early account of this ceremony.

When a town celebrates the busk, having previously provided themselves with

new cloaths, new pots, pans, and other household utensils and firrniture, they collect
all their worn-out cloaths and other despicable things, sweep and cleanse their houses,

92

squares, and the whole town, of their filth, which with all the remaining grain and

other old provisions, they cast together into one common heap, and consume it with

fire. Afier having taken medicine, and fasted for three days, all the fire in the town is
extinguished. During this fast they abstain from the gratification of every appetite

and passion whatever. A general amnesty is proclaimed. . .

On the fourth morning, the high priest, by rubbing wood together, produces new
fire in the public square, fi'om whence every habitation in the town is supplied with

the new and pure flame. (Bartram 1789:399)

This description identifies communal disposal and bunting of household garbage and
notes the importance of a hearth feature during these types of ceremonies. Additionally,
large quantities of corn are prepared in the hearth used for the production of the new fire
(Witthoft 1949:57).

Two specific material correlates can be derived from these accounts: the distribution
of burnt artifacts and ecofacts (particularly corn) and the location of densely filled
features and extramural hearths in the ritual area. Burnt corn should be concentrated near
a distinct hearth in a ritual precinct and among households who most frequently
participated in the ceremony. In addition, pottery refits were examined with the specific
assumption that the majority of households should be connected to the ritual area. If a
consistent pattern of pottery refits connects a ritual precinct with most houses in the
village this would provide considerable additional support for the communal trash
criterion. The rationale for this is that in the process of cleaning private residences, not
all of the broken pottery would be collected; hence, the longest pottery refits (>125’)
should be most reflective of such types of village-wide behavior.

In addition to these specific correlates, it is useful to consider house locations and
construction materials, along with positioning of solar alignments and seasonally-filled

features (see Chapter IV). House patterning is important for considering the nature of a

square ground, the public space used during these ceremonies (Hudson 1976; Witthofi

93

1949). Square grounds either consist of a single structure divided into four areas used by
differing social segments within a village or four different structures of different
functions and construction materials (Hudson 1976). Red cedar is particularly associated
with ritual activities. Solar alignments are usefirl for denoting the time of the year
associated with these spaces and have been used previously for this purpose (Heilman et
al. 1988). Locations of seasonal features were considered as it was reasoned that this
could provide an independent test for alignments (i.e., if alignments marked seasonal

behavior, this should also be marked in the locations of seasonally-filled features).

Assessing Mobility and Exchange

Sourcing raw materials used in artifact production has long proven to be useful for
addressing archaeological questions regarding exchange and mobility patterns. Ceramic
composition was focused on in this study as a small percentage of the pottery was
tempered with shell, long considered to be one of the defining characteristics of
Mississippian society. A necessary baseline component is to assess whether or not the
raw materials used to make shell-tempered pottery were the same as those used to
manufacture grit-tempered pottery, which represents the majority of the assemblage.
Results of this test are critical for building models of interaction between villages,
including elite behavior and population movement.

Various methods have been used to determine the composition of ceramics. A
geological technique referred to as petrography is used for determining the physical
composition of clays (sand, silt) while neutron activation analysis is the most common

technique for determining the chemical composition of clays (Rands and Bishop 1980).

94

Until recently, it was thought that these methods complemented one another; however, a
recent empirical test has shown that petrographic analyses are better suited for identifying
non-local clays in site-level assemblages (Stoltrnan and Mainfort 2002zl). Hence, this
method was chosen for use in the present investigation.

Shell and grit-tempered body sherds were selected from each residential zone, the
earliest and latest dated contexts at the site, from one set of overlapping features, and
from three ritually-filled features. Samples were also taken from a sherd containing a
unique mixture of local and non-local attributes. This artifact contained Mississippian
style negative painting over a Fort Ancient rectilinear guilloche design and was tempered
with both grit and shell. A saltpan fragment, a diagnostically late Fort Ancient vessel
form, was also included in the sample. A total of 17 body sherds were included in the
sample (11 grit tempered, 5 shell tempered, and one grit/shell tempered). Two local clay
sources were examined for control purposes (Figure 15). It was reasoned that these
locales would provide a general range of depositional contexts useful for understanding
the variation of the local clay deposit as one was located on a cut bank of the Miami
River (2,630’ from the center pole) and the other was on the first terrace of the river (900’

from the center pole). Lane Fargher conducted all petrographic analyses (Fargher 2004).

Data Sets
This section describes all data sets used in the analysis. These multiple data sets were
compiled in Excel 2000 and exported as .dbf files that were linked to ArcView GIS 3.2

feature tables. Once all data sets were joined with the GIS, files were exported in .dbf

95

as
.2
a:
E .
_ a
E

 

 

 

Figure 15. Locations of local clay sources (labeled A and B) sampled for petrographic
analysis. (Aerial photograph courtesy of Montgomery County Auditors Office [1999].)

format for use in various statistical tests using SPSS 1 1.0 and XLSTAT 7.0 (see above).

1.3%

Temporal analysis of the mortuary population was linked with findings made in the
principal components analysis of pit features. Associations made between specific
artifact and feature attributes were used to aid in the interpretation of burial placement.

General temporal indicators for burials were based on body position and row
composition. Body positions were categorized as fully flexed, semi flexed, extended,
secondary, or disarticulated (Figure 16). Body positions are more typically flexed among
Late Woodland populations than for Fort Ancient groups (Drooker 1997). Burial rows
containing more adult burials were considered to be older than adjacent rows containing
fewer interrnents.

Mortuary data included sex, age, leg position, grave covering, and associated
artifacts. Data for burials excavated during museum excavations were'derived from
Evans-Eargle (1998; see also Giesen 1992), and avocational mortuary data were based on

Allman (1968) and C. Smith (n.d.).

Pit Fegure Form

Feature form was used to assess internal site chronology. Pit features changed from
bell shaped to straight sided and volumes generally increased over time in the Fort

Ancient area (Henderson l992a). The following pit forms were recognized at this site:

97

 

   

Semi Flexed Fully Flexed

 

a;

Disarticulated Secondary

 

Figure 16. Leg positions and disposition types used for mortuary analysis. (Note that the
extended burial is in a grave containing multiple burials, one firlly flexed and one
secondary.)

98

bell shaped, deep flat bottom, shallow flat bottom, and basins (Figure 17). These
categories were determined in a previous study (Nass 1987). The present study utilized
those data along with subsequently excavated features categorized into the same types.
Standard procedures were followed for estimating volumes, which were obtained for all
formal features from which a reliable profile was obtained. Volumes were utilized to

normalize artifact densities and to serve as a measure of storage potential.

Lottery

Pottery characteristics are sensitive to change over time in the Fort Ancient region,
particularly temper types and vessel forms. Shell-tempered pottery appears to have been
gradually adopted by Fort Ancient societies and by AD. 1400 it became the exclusive
tempering agent (Henderson l992a). Six other temper types were included in the study:
grit, grit/shell, sand, mica, quartz, and grog.

Vessel and appendage forms also change through time. Vessel forms include jars,
bowls, and pans. Appendages include lugs, straps, and a variety of effigies. Pre-A.D.
1400 assemblages are almost exclusively jars, while later sites have the full range of
vessel types. This diversification in morphology occurs as Madisonville ceramics
develop, which are shell tempered with strap handles and few decorative motifs
(Tumbow and Henderson 1992).

Design characteristics also change over time. Surface treatments include cordmarking,
smoothed cordmarking, and plain. Undecorated cordmarked rims and necks are more

characteristic of the Late Woodland period. While particular neck designs cannot be

99

\J

Basin

 

 

Bell Shaped

. I A, "l

 

 

 

Shallow Flat Bottorned
Deep Flat Bottomed
0 l 2 3 fi

Figure 17. Featme form typology used in the study (as defined by Nass 1987).

100

associated with particular time periods, a general rule is that Middle Fort Ancient (A.D.
1200-1400) is marked by the most intensive decoration; pottery associated with earlier
time periods is generally cordmarked while later Fort Ancient vessels are most often
plain.

Four design fields were included in this study: neck, rim, lip, and interior portions of
vessels (Figure 18). Neck decorations were grouped into five themes: guilloche, line
filled triangles, scrolls, crosshatching, single slash, and herringbone motifs. Considerable
variation was present within each of the guilloche, line filled triangle, and scroll
groupings (Figure 19). Designs were generally simpler and less variable on vessel rims,
lips, and interiors, most likely due to the smaller spaces of these design fields. Rim
designs were grouped into a variety of line filled triangle and scroll subtypes. Other
types include: single slash, multi-slash, crosshatching, punctuates, punch and drag, oval
cordmarked, oval incised, lunar impressed, and castlillated (Figure 20). Lip designs are
dominated by simple motifs such as oval incised and cordmarked, and single slash
patterns; however, scrolls and line filled triangle designs occur in low frequencies.
Interior designs are limited to single repetitive motifs (Figure 21).

Pottery data were derived from all rim and neck sherds from features excavated by
the museum and are based on an earlier study (Sunderhaus and Cook n.d.). Sunderhaus
and the author developed categories for that analysis, with assistance fi'om J. Heilman.

Sunderhaus recorded all data used in the present study.

101

interior nm

3053;

VIN-4 -

     

 

.. ._-:.-.“

pan

bowl

design fields and vessel forms. ’ ed

ons showing key
illustration by Sue Nelson, courtesy of the Dayton Society of Natural History.)

Figure 18. Pottery ill

102

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

  
 

 

 

 

m

Hm m

M a an
£1 E _

we: .vnuv WWW m" \A

mme ...v. (VAAme a“ \

u. n ....waw 2 W.

mm .y.

.u a

m \l .

. «..v. aim. m “A /.

.mm-n -@% n. WWW

a "a“? ... WKVV.

. A A

m ..av... mw.aww_mv

.n m1... as \:s mwm

mx N_0V...wu%/.. m LW 7 Lk'

 

 

 

WIS/Ill VIA\\\V€/Ill

lama

 

103

mm WAWM

LFTUVpeD)

E4!
WAY/A

\.

A

w.

Figure 19. Pottery neck design groups and internal variability. (Drawings by Thomas

Grooms and Robert Cook.)

 

RectiIinearSeroll
W M
mm

Cm'vilinear Scroll

 

 

Figure 19. Continued.

Crosshatching

W .
W
E7

 

 

 

Single Slash
VII/A
[m
\\\\\\

I =

//////

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

104

vmukxmflwn “~31

Single Slash
MM”!
m
HIDE]

Crosshalclling

Multi—Slash
53E
[IL—LU

Punctates

lV/AWZ

[ESE
[ZED
EEK]

LPTUS'peF)

W/AWE

fiNflflNflW

NMMM
”NM“

'///A\\\‘

lfTGMxA)

Oval Incised

ERRED
INNS“

000

 

 

PunchandDrag
[MI] [Ml]
LMU AWE

IOQVIIIQH

 

 

 

-7/.\VA

WW5)

VAV/IAV

Castillated

59"...

Lunar Impressed

\\ \\

-mem2QlkmflymmdmnmgmmxamfimMmflvmhMMW;ahmfimpbmimmm
GmmmndednflCmmJ

NB

Single Slash Oval lncised Single Slash

[EDIE [MIXED
mm:
m mum
W
[[113]]

 

 

Scroll
m Slash and Scroll
E3 mm“ m
m (Type F) W

VIA\VIA\‘
m m“

l\\\\V////A
VIA\VIA\‘ Castillated

WW“ W

Figure 21. Pottery lip (lefi two columns) and interior design (right column) groups and
internal variability. (Drawings by Thomas Grooms and Robert Cook.)

106

Li_thi£§

Throughout the Fort Ancient region, significant temporal variation has been proposed
for changes in the shape of triangular point Sides and bases (Railey 1992, Litfin et al.
1993). Early Fort Ancient assemblages (A.D. 1000-1200) are typified by incurvate sides
and convex bases, Middle Fort Ancient assemblages (A.D. 1200-1400/1500) ofien depict
straight sides and flat bases, while Late Fort Ancient (post—AD. 1400) assemblages are
dominated by excurvate sides and concave bases (Figure 22).

A wide variety of projectile point types diagnostic of earlier time periods were also
present in the assemblage. The locations of these artifacts were examined to help assess
site formation, and Late Woodland projectile points were particularly relevant in this
respect. It was also reasoned that the locations of earlier projectile points would help
focus future work on potentially buried deposits or possibly reflect curation behavior by
Fort Ancient occupants. Non-Fort Ancient projectile points were grouped into the
following time periods: Paleoindian (10,000-8,000 B.C.), Early Archaic (8,000-6,000
B.C.), Middle Archaic (6,000-4,000 B.C.), Late Archaic (4,000-l,000 B.C.), Early
Woodland (1,000-100 B.C.), Middle Woodland (100 B.C.-A.D. 400), Late Woodland
(A.D. 400-1000). All points were grouped into established categories (Justice 1987)

(Table l).

107

..\e@

.3:—

$3

33".:
HAHErZOm—A—«a‘z

.Amcé 232m ”32 bxoSQ 88m 3:393 85 cocoa—om
a 3:533 H53 632?. tom >8. mo :ozatom .NN oSmE

 

 

 

 

.5. $8 :2. N 2.? .2:on
$5 $2 § n 25 5::
$2 .3 e 25. 22.5:
was 53:
c .....5 cans Ezus 5.2m ..a .9 5...:
SE... won:— 255... men: 925.—

m.z=<= =z<m

can—.62: .fi.<

cam—A5: .G.<

«Oaafléulgv — .a— 4

108

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Time Period Projectile Point “In Reference
Paleoindian Clovis Sellards 1952
LeCroy Bifurcate Base Kneberg 1956
Kanawha Stemmed Broyles 1966
Ewly Archaic Kirk Corner Notched Coe 1964
St. Albans Side Notched Broyles 1966
Thebes Winters 1963
Middle Archaic Raddatz Side Notched Wittry 1959
Brewerton Eared Notched Ritchie 196]
Brewerton Eared Triangle Ritchie I961
Brewerton Side Notched Ritchie 196]
Brewerton/Matanms Ritchie 1961; Munson and Ham 1966
Late Archaic Lake Erie Bifimcate Prufer and Sofsky 1965
Lamoka Ritchie 1961
McWhinney Geistweit 1970; Vickery 1972
Merom Expanding Stem Trimble Perino 1968; Winters 1969
Side Notched Winters 1969
Vosburg Corner Notched Ritchie 1961
Late Archaic/ Harrison Turkey Tail Perino 1971
Early Woodland Meadowood Ritchie 1961
(transitional)
Early Woofland Kramer Munson 1966
Midzfle Woodland Lowed Flared Base Winters 1963
Hopewell Bladelet Pi—Sunyer 1965
Late Woodand Chesser Notched Prufer 1975
Jack’s Reef Comer Notched Ritchie 1961
Raccoon Notched Mayer-Cakes 1955

 

Table 1. Non-Fort Ancient projectile point types.

109

 

Chipped stone tools include a variety of implements, many of which were multi-
purpose in function. Knives were grouped into two types: Fort Ancient and large
triangular. The distinguishing characteristic of Fort Ancient knives is the presence of a
weak shoulder approximately 15-25 mm above the base. Drills were grouped into
triangular, bipointed, and comer notched forms, the latter of which are possibly reworked
projectile points. Scrapers were divided into two forms: endscrapers and sidescrapers.
Endscrapers were manufactured by removing small flakes from the distal margin of a
large flake whereas sidescrapers were made by working a lateral flake margin. Preforms
were grouped into triangular point preforms and other preforms. “Humpbacks” were not
distinguished from triangular point preforms, although others have made this distinction
(Munson and Munson 1972; Robertson 1980). Spokeshaves contain a broad concavity
and are often referred to as “shafi straighteners” as their form suggests use for scraping
and smoothing spear or arrow shafts or similarly shaped implements. Burins are pointed
piercing tools most similar in function to drills, awls, or gravers. Retouched flakes are
casual tools that contain sporadically-located flake scars limited to small areas of
consecutive retouch that are too ambiguous for assignment to a specific tool type.

Chipped stone debitage or the non-modified debris that results from the manufacture
of chipped stone tools consisted of cores, shatter, and flakes. Cores include any block of
raw material from which flakes were removed during the manufacture of stone tools.
Wedges are tools that were either the intentional end product of the bipolar technique
(Tixier 1963) or are created by battering, where the artifact is pounded into hard dense

materials such as bone, antler or wood. They are rectangular in shape and exhibit bifacial

llO

flaking and battering on two or more edges. Shatter denotes angular pieces of chert
lacking attributes of controlled flaking (e.g., striking platform, bulb of percussion).
Shatter is often the result of flaws in the raw material and can occur at any point in the
reduction sequence, though most are from core interiors and, hence, smaller in size.
Flakes are usually the smallest form of debitage, consisting of waste material from the
reduction of larger flakes or cores into distinct tool forms.

A variety of artifacts were fashioned by grinding or utilizing granite, limestone, and
slate. These include tools, adomments, gaming pieces, and items of ritual significance.
Tools consist of hammer stones, pitted stones, abraders, celts, choppers, manos, and
metates. Adomment and gaming pieces include circular discs, chunky stones, gorgets,
and banner stones. Gorgets and banner stones were adornments. Ground stone pipes
were elbow-shaped or effigy-shaped and were manufactured from limestone or slate.

Chipped stone data from features excavated between 1971 and 1977 were analyzed
previously (Robertson 1980). Original data were shared with the author who analyzed
the remainder of the chipped stone assemblage using a compatible scheme. All ground

stone was categorized for this study by the author.

Bone, Shell,a_1nd Teeth

A wide variety of artifacts were manufactured from animal bone, antler, shell, and
teeth. These were grouped into two functional categories, tools and adornment. No clear

temporal associations have been suggested for these artifacts based on regional studies.

111

Tools were made from bone, antler, and shell. Bone tools include a variety of awls
primarily made fiom deer bone (ulnas, scapula, leg, rib), although several elk (scapula
and ulna) and turkey (legs) bones were also used. Pins, fishing hooks, beamers, knives,
combs, turtle shell bowls and spoons, and needles comprise the remainder of the bone
tool assemblage. Antler tools include flakers, projectile points, awls, and scrapers.
Mussel shell was also used as raw materials for the manufacture of tools, including hoes
and spoons.

Beads and pendants were manufactured from a variety of fauna. Pendants were
usually made by drilling a single hole in elk, bear, fish, and wolf teeth. Single drill holes
were also present on fragments of bone or shell suggesting their use as pendants.
Pendants were generally carved from local shells into triangular, circular, or amorphous
forms. Beads were primarily fashioned from shell although bone beads were also
present. Shell and bone discs were also present, which were used as car adornment.

Lynn Simonelli and the author developed all bone, shell, and tooth artifact categories.

Data were collected by Lynn Simonelli with the assistance of Bill Kennedy.

Summary
This chapter has presented procedures used to assess the structure and grth of a
Fort Ancient village. Particular attention was focused on utilizing multiple lines of
evidence for assessing the growth of localized corporate groups and the development of
an elite area. Methods for identifying these spaces focused on Middle Mississippian

models. Elite areas should be closer to the village center and corporate groups should be

112

recognizable as spatially-distinct entities. The dynamic component of the project
assesses the growth of these social forms by linking the pattern of architectural growth

with diachronic indicators from activity areas and mortuary remains.

113

CHAPTER VI: VILLAGE STRUCTURE

Site structures are the end result of dynamic social processes. As a result, they
include both synchronic and diachronic dimensions. This chapter identifies village
structure - in terms of residential and mortuary spaces — at the end of the site’s

occupation and assesses major distinctions between site areas.

Residential Spaces
As outlined in the methodology, residential spaces were divided on the basis of
proximity to the center pole and distinct gaps between features. An elite residence was
identified as a result of applying the proximity rule and other residential areas were

divided on the basis of distinct feature gaps (see Chapter V).

Centering Leadership and Ritual

The center pole was buffered in five-foot increments enclosing the entire village area.
The resulting map was inspected to assess whether any features were closer to the center.
The 125’ buffer clearly serves as a significant dividing line for pit features located in the
western part of the site (Figure 23), as 95% of pit features located in the western portion
of the village were within 125’ of the center pole while only 5% of pits in the southern
and northern portions of the site were within this boundary.

Inspection of other buffers resulted in a series of 30’ increments that most simply
explains the structure of the village. Proximity rules for the elite and other residential

areas are as follows:

114

 

Figure 23. Circular buffers around the center pole (see text for explanation).

115

elite area: burials:

pit features:

houses:

other residential areas: burials:

pit features:

houses:

<125’ from the center pole
95’—125’ from the center pole
>125’ from the center pole

<125’ from the center pole
125’—155’ from the center pole
>155’ from the center pole

These rules account for the majority of the feature patterning, particularly for pit and

house features. Burials are more variable, although most are located within 125’ of the

center pole for all site areas. Many burials in the elite area are located within 95’ of the

center pole, simply matching the closer proximity of all other features in this area (the

elite area is 30’ closer to the center than other residential zones). Elite burials also

demarcate the borders of the group of elite pit features located in closer proximity to the

center pole. The combination of proximity and demarcation by distinct burial groups

provides an effective means for segregating the elite area from the remainder of the

village.

There are two notable exceptions to these rules of proximity. First, a pair of houses

and two groups of pit features in the northwest part of the village are bisected by the 125’

and 155’ buffers. Second, a house and several burials in the northeast part of the village

are similar to the elite area in terms of proximity to the center pole. In fact, the house is

located squarely in the main burial zone, making it the closest structure to the center pole.

The nature of these exceptions and particularly the connection between the closest house

and the elite area is explored throughout the study, beginning with further segregation of

residential units within the northern part of the site.

116

Four Areas

The northern residential zone was divided into two areas on the basis of a distinct gap
between pit features in the vicinity of a large structure (Figure 24). A similar gap is
located between Areas 1 and 2, but this matched the proximity rule (both gap and
proximity rules segregate Areas 2 and 3 from adjacent residential units). Irnportantly, the
only clear breaks in feature distributions occur between Areas 1 and 2 and Areas 3 and 4.
No break is discernible between Areas 2 and 3, which is consistent with the similarity in
proximity to the center pole for these two areas. Pit features and contents for these areas

are compared below (raw data are listed in Appendix A).

Pit and House Features

There are many distinctions between these four areas (Table 2). Area 4 contains the
most pits (n=106), Areas 1 (n=90) and 2 (n=80) contain comparable numbers of pit
features, and Area 3 contains the lowest frequency of this feature type (n=64). Features
are considerably larger in average volume for Areas 2 and 3. On average, the features in
Areas 2 and 3 are 100 liters larger than features located in Areas 1 and 4. House
structures are more consistently distributed for each area: Area 1 (n=4), Area 2 (n=3),
Area 3 (n=4), Area 4 (n=4). However, house areas vary considerably. Average house
size is considerably larger in Area 2 (mean=452 ftz) and Area 3 (meand28 fiz) than in
Area 1 (mean=335 fiz) and Area 4 (mean=303 flz). Population estimates are similar for
Areas 1, 2, and 4; Area 3 produced a higher range. Larger house size fits well with larger
average feature volumes in each area (Figure 25). Area 2 has considerably more features

per house structure and larger features relative to house area than Areas 1 and 3. Area 4

117

 

Figure 24. Four feature areas.

118

 

I Pit Feature Volume

  
  
 

 

 

  
 

  
 

sum cu.ft. mean Itr.
29,924.91 1,056.67 433.69 16-1261
80 35,066.71 1,238.23 473.88 22-1956 375
64 27,209.70 960.79 503.88 23—1860 376
106 36,031.85 1,272.31 383.32 14812 361

     

 

 

 

 

Peter
N .

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
    
     

 

2,430_f -
3.609;;
1.882319 ;

 

 

 

 

 

Ground Stone

 

 

  

11,454
14,787
7,660
8.025 6.31

 

 

 

 

House Area and Population
Areé N sum (sg.ft.) mean (59ft) range (59ft) finest.
1 4 1 ,340 335 265-419 25-44
2 3 1 ,356 452 369-580 2341
3 4 1,713 428 391-465 31—56
4 4 1,217 303 268-364 22-3

 

 

 

 

 

Table 2. Feature and artifact volume and density data for four feature areas.

119

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Are“ Am2 Area3 No.4

 

[lPlVotunelHouaeAne DPIFWMFMWI

 

 

 

 

Figure 25. Bar graph comparing storage ratios in four feature areas.

120

contains the most pit features per house. However, this is likely a distorted picture as
many more features have been excavated in this part of the site relative to houses.
Therefore, it should be excluded from comparison on this basis

More than half of the deep flat bottomed, shallow flat bottomed, and basin shaped pit
features occur in the northern two areas. This pattern intensifies through the avocational
excavation block where 70% of the features are deep flat bottom. The proportions of
feature types are similar for Areas 1 and 2. Area 2 contains the highest. proportion of hell
shaped pits. Area 4 is distinct as it contains a lower occurrence of bell shaped pits. The
difi'erence is that this area contains more straight sided pits and more basins than any
other area. Deep flat bottom pits are also common in Area 3 and there is a general trend
for straight sided pits to increase in frequency toward the northern and eastern parts of the
site. A chi-square test reveals that the relationship between feature form and site area is
significant (p=0.021) and correspondence analysis shows shallow flat bottom pits and
basins related to Area 4, bell shaped pits with Areas 1, 2, and 3, and deep flat bottom pits
with Areas 3 and 4 (Figure 26).

The higher proportion of deep flat bottom, shallow flat bottom, and basin shaped pits
in the northern parts of the site can be explained in at least four ways: feature reuse,
functional differentiation, differences associated with distinct groups of people, or

temporal change over time in one population.

121

Symmetric Plot (axes F1 and F2: 98.57 16)

- 0.2 — ~ ‘— —
i It 01*. OArea1 V
l g . T '1
i h

'2

a o e ~— ~ -

E BELL .Areaa

O
“5.01 OAreaZ
l

 

SHALLOW

e. FLAT
eorrou
..- _E , - .. ..N934.-_
DEEP
Eit- FLAT
BOTTOM {£5
BASIN

 

 

 

 

 

 

-0.2 — - ~— —— - ~ —~—~ -~ —~ w ,_ -
-0 3 -0.2 -0 1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
- axle F1 (90.20 %) ->
Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Total

dfb 11 (14) 13 (14) 11 (10) 20 (17) 55
sfb 13 (13) 8 (13) 8 (9) 22 (16) 51
bell 47 (40) 47 (40) 32 (30) 34 (50) 160
basin 5 (9) 8 (9) 5 (7) 18 (1 1) 36
Total 76 76 56 94 302
Chi-square (observed value) 19.527
Chi-square (critical value) 16.919
DF 9
p-value 0.021
Alpha 0.05

 

Figure 26. Correspondence analysis of feature form by four feature areas, including a

chi-square test of this relationship (expected values in parentheses).

122

 

 

‘3 m ‘n—x

Artifacts

Each area contains similar proportions of artifact classes. However, artifact density is
markedly higher in Areas 1 and 2 (see Table 2). In particular, there is a higher
concentration of chipped stone debitage in these areas. Pottery is concentrated in Area 2,
while bone, shell, and ground stone artifacts occur in relatively even proportions
throughout the site.

The low occurrence of debitage in Areas 3 and 4 is difficult to explain, necessitating a
consideration of factors that could have contributed to this pattern, beginning with
sampling error before invoking behavioral explanations. As mentioned in Chapter IV,
feature contents were not regularly screened in 1971 and the western portion of the site
may have been less impacted by plowing as the Vance family house was located here.
This is an obvious problem as most features in Area 4 were excavated in 1971 (Figure
27), and many features located in the western and southern parts of the site are situated
within areas that appear to have been lawns during private use of the property as a family
farm (Figure 28). As a result, these areas would have been less impacted by plowing than
the northern part of the site, possibly resulting in higher artifact densities.

To assess the impact hand-sifting may have had on artifact density, debitage was
examined more closely. First, all debitage was excluded from artifact totals revealing a
more even distribution between site areas. Second, flake size was compared for each area
resulting in the finding that larger debitage (>4 cm) was more evenly represented than
smaller debitage in each area (<4 cm). Shatter was also under-represented in Area 4.
(Figure 29). Based on this finding, it seems likely that small debitage is under-

represented in Area 4 due in part to sampling differences.

123

 

Figure 27. Location of features excavated in 1971.

124

2.2a 2: E 28an 5a: 505:8 Ea 58:
35:8 05 E bee :32 m (Ho 858E 08 So Z .33: 850 805:3. .9550 5.580952 ”8589 .ava
can wma E 88m .283 853 05 mo 39838:.” Econ “26 womonfitomnm $833526 238m .mm 059m

meme wmmw

 

125

 

 

 

 

 

Secondary Flakes I Deeortication Flakes I Other
Area >4 cm 2-4 cm <2 cm >4 cm 24 cm <2 cm cores wed es shatter
1 20 1149 4362 32 551 545 221 46 1013
2 28 1162 6020 36 552 608 247 44 1 184
3 10 692 2518 13 334 321 147 29 853
4 24 789 2876 22 369 301 199 40 645

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Artlfact DenaltyIFoaturo Volume .

 

Figure 29. Bar graph of artifact densities by area with and without debitage (bottom) and
a list of debitage type and size by area (top).

126

Nothing can be done about small artifacts that may not have been recovered except to
bear this in mind when interpreting differences between areas, particularly concerning the
density of debitage between Area 4 and the rest of the site. Due to the unclear effect this
variation in excavation had on the assemblage, interpretation of the lower density of
artifacts in this area should be taken with some caution.

Pottery Morphology. Pottery temper types considerably vary between site areas,
although grit temper dominates the entire assemblage (89%) and each area (87-91%).
The distribution of minority temper types is more revealing of intra-site distinctions.
Shell tempering is concentrated in Area 2 (52%), quartzite tempered sherds are most
common in Area 2 (30%) and Area 3 (38%). Grit/shell temper is concentrated in Area 1
(34%) and Area 2 (25%). Grit/grog temper is restricted to Area 3, limestone temper is
restricted to Area 3 (71%) and Area 4 (29%), and limestone/grit only occurs in Area 1
(20%), Area 2 (40%), and Area 3 (40%). Mica temper is concentrated in Area 2 (30%)
and Area 3 (29%). Sand temper is present in similar proportions (26-28%) with the
exception of Area 2 (18%).

Vessel form is dominated by coiled jars (99%), which occur in similar proportions in
each area. Minority vessel forms are concentrated in Area 1 and Area 4. Pinch pot jars
occur most frequently in Area 1 (43%), while pinch pot bowls are concentrated in Area 1
(45%) and Area 4 (45%). Coiled bowls are present most fiequently in Area 2 (42%) and
Area 4 (3 8%). The coiled pan is also located in Area 4. Appendage types are dominated
by lugs (63%) and straps (25%).

Chi-square tests comparing the distribution of mica, shell, and grit/shell temper in

each area is significant (p<0.0001). A chi-square test comparing the distribution of pinch

127

pots to bowls in each area is also significant (p=0.027). However, the distribution of
appendage forms is not significant (Table 3).

Pottery Design. The majority (84%) of pottery vessel necks are decorated, and
designs on rims are also common (39%). Lip (8%) and interior (2%) portions of the
vessel are rarely decorated. There are no appreciable differences in the distribution of
curvilinear guilloche designs, although rectilinear guilloche motifs are more common in
Area 2 (34%) than other areas and guilloche motifs taken as a whole occur most often in
Area 2 (36%). Unusual line-filled triangle motifs are more common in Area 2, including
Types B (43%), C (52%), and D (100%). Line-filled triangle Types A and F are
concentrated evenly in areas 1 and 2 (Type A=33% [Area 1], 32% [Area 2]; Type F=35%
[Area 1], 32% [Area 2]). Line-filled triangle Type E is concentrated in Areas 2 (44%)
and 3 (44%). Crosshatched designs are also concentrated in Area 2 (52%). Single slash
motifs are clustered in Areas 1 (35%) and 2 (35%). Herringbone designs are only present
in Areas 1 (40%) and 2 (60%). Negative painting is present on vessel necks in Areas 2
(67%) and 4 (33%). Areas 3 and 4 contain the majority of scroll patterns on vessel necks,
including curvilinear scroll (Area 3=33%, Area 4=67%), and indeterminate scroll
patterns (Area 3=67%, Area 4=33%). Rectilinear scroll motifs are concentrated in Area 4
(40%). Curvilinear/rectilinear scroll designs are restricted to Areas 2 (60%) and 4 (40%).

Rims containing line-filled triangle Types E and F are concentrated in Area 2 (Type E
[100%], Type A [64%]), while Line-filled triangle Type F are most common in Area 3

(33%). Multi-slash motifs are concentrated in Area 2 (36%) as were single slash

128

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

129

Temper Type Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Total
mice 98 (118) 133 (136) 132 (109) 87 (87) 450
shell 17 (31) 60 (35) 22 (28) 17 (23) 116
_gg'tlshell 144 (110) 105 (127) 84(101) 87 (81) 420
Total 259 298 238 191 986
Chi—square (observed value) 52.309

Chi-square (critical value) 12.592

DF 6

p-vdue < 0.0001

flpha 0.05

Appendage Type Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Total
lug 145 (140) 197 (201) 132 (128) 134 (139) 608
strap 52 (57) 85 (81) 48 (52) 61 (56) 246
Total 197 282 180 195 854
Chi-square (observed value) 1.78?

Chi-square (critical value) 7.815

DF 3

p-value 0.618

Alpha 0.05

Vessel Form Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Total
pinchpots 23(17) 11 (15) 5(5) 14 (16) 53
bowls 3 (9) 11 (7) 2 (2; 10 (8) 26
Total 26 22 7 24 79
Chi-square (observed value) 9.182

Chi-square (critical value) 7.815

DF 3

p—value 0.027

Alpha 0.05

Table 3. Chi-square tests of temper types, appendage types, and vessel forms (expected
values in parentheses).

designs (36%). Oval cordmarked designs are evenly spread throughout the site, while
oval incised are concentrated on Area 1 (29%) and Area 2 (32%). The majority of
rectilinear scroll motifs are located in Area 4 (34%), while curvilinear scroll patterns are
restricted to Area 2 (33%) and Area 4 (67%). Other scroll patterns are concentrated in
Area 1 (50%) and Area 2 (50%). Crosshatched and lunar impressed designs are restricted
to Area 3. Punctates and punch-and-drag motifs are concentrated in Area 1 (punctuates
[32%], punch-and-drag [24%]), Area 2 (punctuates [37%], punch-and-drag [30%]), and
Area 3 (punctates [25%], punch-and-drag [27%]). Area 1 contains the majority of the
castillated rims (67%).

Curvilinear scroll patterns on vessel lips are restricted to Area 1 (3 3%) and Area 2
(67%). Line filled triangle Type F is concentrated in Area 1 (40%) and Area 2 (47%).
Punctate designs are restricted to Area 2 (50%) and Area 3 (50%). Punch-and-drag
motifs are restricted to Area 3 (67%) and Area 4 (33%). Single slash motifs are more
common in Area 2 (32%) and Area 3 (28%). Oval incised lip designs are concentrated in
Area 1 (37%), while oval cordmarked motifs are concentrated in Area 2 (34%). Areas 2
and 4 contain the only occurrences of linear scroll and castillated designs.

Designs located on the interior portion of vessel rims are most variable in Area 1 and
Area 3. Oval cordmarked motifs are restricted to these areas (Area 1[40%], Area
3[60%]). The slash-and-scroll motif is restricted to Area 3. Punctate designs are located
in Area 1 (50%), Area 3 (25%), and Area 4 (25%). Single slash designs are concentrated

in Area 3 (34%).

130

A chi-square test comparing the distribution of guilloche, line-filled triangle, and
plain necks in each area is significant (p=0.001), although the large sample size
undoubtedly contributed to this figure. Despite the grouping of unique rim designs, a chi-
square test comparing the distribution of line-filled triangle and scroll designs in each
area is not significant (p=0.089) (Table 4).

Projectile Points. Convex-based triangular projectile points are concentrated in Area
1 (30%) and Area 2 (43%), straight-based triangular points are concentrated in Area 2
(44%), and concave-based triangular points are concentrated in Area 4 (36%). A chi-
square test comparing the distribution of convex, straight, and concave bases in each area
is significant (p=0.022) (Table 5).

Non-Fort Ancient points and unidentifiable fragments are unevenly distributed
throughout the site. The paleoindian point is located in Area 3. Early Archaic points are
concentrated in Area 1 (33%) and Area 4 (33%). Middle Archaic points are located in
Area 2 (50%) and Area 4 (50%). Late Archaic points are also concentrated in Area 1
(42%) and Area 4 (31%). Transitional Late Archaic/Early Woodland points are located
in Area 1 (50%), Area 3 (25%), and Area 4 (25%). The Middle Woodland point is
located in Area 3. Late Woodland points are also concentrated in Area 1 (30%) and Area
4 (40%). Projectile point tips are concentrated in Area 1 (33%) and Area 2 (37%).
Unidentifiable projectile fiagrnents (non-tip) are also concentrated in Area 1 (33%) and
Area 2 (37%) (see Table 5).

Chipped Stone Tools. Triangular drills occur in higher proportions in Area 1 (22%),
Area 2 (29%), and Area 4 (33%). Bipointed drills are located in Area 1 (33%) and Area

4 (67%). Area 4 has the only occurrence of comer-notched drills (n=2). Indeterminate

131

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Neck Design Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Total
guilloche 1089 (1071) 1552 (1559) 845 (873) 814 (797) 4300
lit 510 (469) 662 (684) 382 (382) 331 (350) 1885
plain 249 (308) 478 (449) 279 (251) 231 (229) 1237
Total 1848 2692 1506 1376 7422
Crhi-square (observed value) 23.116
Chi-square (critical value) 12.592
DF 6
p-value 0.001
Abha 0.05
'R'i'm' 'oeggn Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 m
In 18 (19) 27 (29) 26 (18) 14 (20) 85
scroll 98 (97) 152 (150) 85 (93) 108 (102) 443
Tomi 116 179 111 122 528
Chi-square (observed value) 6.505
Chi-square (critical value) 7.815
DF 3
p-value 0.089
Alpha 0.05

 

132

Table 4. Chi-square tests of neck and rim designs (expected values in parentheses).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chipped Stone Tools Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 m
drills 22 (26) 25 (26) 15 (15) 23 (19) 85
scrapers 22 (20) 20 (20) 10 (11) 13 (14) 65
knives 26 (26) 26 (26) 19 (15) 14 (19) 85
Mum preforms/humpbacks 42 (40) 41 (40) 20 (23) 31 (29) 134
Total 112 112 64 81 369
ION-square (observed value) 5.100
Chi-square (critical value) 16.919
DF 9
p—value 0.826
Alpha 0.05
Triangular Point Bases Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 m
concave 7 (8) 7 (14) 7(4) 12 (7) 33
straight 37 (41 ) 72 (67) 24 (21) 29 (33) 162
convex 33 (28) 47 (45) 8 (14) 22 (23) 110
Total 77 126 39 63 305
Chi-square (observed value) 147—6?
Chi-square (critical value) 12.592
DF 6
p-value 0.022
Alpha 0.05

 

Table 5. Chi-square tests of chipped stone tools and triangular projectile point bases
(expected values in parentheses).

133

drill forms are concentrated in Area 1 (34%), Area 2 (34%), and Area 3 (24%).
Endscrapers are concentrated in Area 1 (44%) and Area 2 (25%). Sidescrapers are also
disproportionately located in Area 1 (31%) and Area 2 (31%). Indeterminate scraper
fragments are concentrated in Area 2 (46%) and Area 4 (3 8%). Fort Ancient knives are
concentrated in Area 1 (45%) and Area 3 (36%). Large triangular knives are
concentrated in Area 1 (33%), Area 3 (24%), and Area 4 (29%). Leaf shaped knives are
slightly more common in Area 4 (33%) and lanceolate knives are more common in Area
4 (40%). Flake knives are concentrated in Area 1 (31%) and Area 2 (47%). Gravers and
burins are concentrated in Area 1 (34%) and Area 2 (32%). Triangular preforrns/
humpbacks are also concentrated in Area 1 (31%) and Area 2 (31%). Other preforms are
concentrated in Area 1 (31%) and Area 2 (3 8%). Retouched flakes are concentrated in
Area 1 (27%), Area 2 (29%), and Area 4 (30%). Miscellaneous broken bifaces are also
concentrated in Area 1 (33%), Area 2 (29%), and Area 4 (31%). Blades are concentrated
in Area 2 (47%). Spokeshaves are concentrated in Area 4 (40%). A chi-square test
comparing the distribution of drills, scrapers, knives, and triangular preforms/humpbacks
in each area is not significant (see Table 5).

Chipped Stone Debitage. Cores are concentrated in Area 1 (27%), Area 2 (30%), and
Area 4 (24%). Wedges are also concentrated in Area 1 (29%), Area 2 (28%), and Area 4
(25%). Shatter is concentrated in Area 1 (27%), Area 2 (32%), and Area 3 (23%). Both
decortication and secondary flakes are concentrated in Area 1 and Area 2, primarily
smaller (<4 cm) cases (see above discussion).

Ground Stone. Hammer stones are concentrated in Area 1 (25%), Area 2 (29%), and

Area 4 (28%), while pitted stones are more common in Area 1 (32%), Area 2 (26%), and

134

Area 3 (26%). Manos are concentrated in Area 1 (24%), Area 2 (28%), and Area 4
(29%), while metates are clearly focused on Area 3 (54%). Chunky stones are located in
Area 1 (50%) and Area 2 (50%), while chunky stone preforms are restricted to Area 2
(33%) and Area 3 (67%). Limestone discs are also restricted to Area 1 (75%) and Area 2
(25%), while the limestone disc preform is located in Area 3. A chopper is located in
each area. Celts are concentrated in Area 2 (42%), and the celt preform is also located in
Area 1. Slate discs are concentrated in Area 1 (33%) and Area 2 (50%). The slate
preform is in Area 3. Banner stones are most common in Area 2 (50%), while banner
stone preforms are concentrated in Area 4 (63%). Circular stones are concentrated in
Area 1 (67%). Abraders are concentrated in Area 3 (30%) and Area 4 (39%).
Unidentifiable fragments are concentrated in Area 4 (67%). A chi-square test comparing
the distribution of pitted stones, manos, celts, and abraders is not significant (p=0.065)
(Table 6).

Bone and Shell Tools. Awls are present in relatively equal percentages throughout
the site, with the exception of scapula awls, which are concentrated in Area 1 (47%).
Pins occur in relatively even proportions (ZS-31%) in each area except Area 3 (17%).
Needles are concentrated in Area 1 (36%) and Area 4 (36%). Fishing hooks are
concentrated in Area 1 (36%) and Area 2 (29%) and fishing hook preforms are most
common in Area 1 (26%), Area 2 (35%), and Area 4 (29%). Beamers are slightly more
common in Area 2 (28%) and Area 3 (31%). The two beamer/awl tools are located in

Areas 1 and 3, and the two scapula knives are located in Areas 3 and 4. Flakers are

135

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crowd Stone Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Total
pitted stone 52 (45) 43 (45) 43 (39) 27 (36) 165
mane 18 (20) 21 (21) 14 (18) 22 (16) 75
celt 5 (7) 11(7) 5 (6) 5(6) 26
abrader 3 (6) 4 (6) 7 (6) 9 (5) 23
Total 78 79 69 63 289
Chi-square (observed value) 16.081

Chi-square (critical value) 16.919

DF 9

p-value 0.065

Alpha 0.05

Bone Tools Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 m
fishing hook 35 (30) 28 (28) 16 (16) 17 (22) 96
pins 94 (108) 109 (103) 61 (60) 88 (81) 352
awls 134 (131) 111 (125) 85 (72) 97 (98) 427
flakingtool 18(20) 29 (19) 6(11) 12(15) 65
cutlsnap antler 80 (72L 67 (69) 31 (40) 56 (54) 2a
Total 361 344 199 270 1174
Err-square (observed value) 20.087

Chi-square (critical value) 21.026

DF 12

p-value 0.065

Me 0.05

Adomment Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 m
teeth 20(17) 17(15) 3(6) 9(12) 49
shell 14(16) 16(14) 7(5) 10(11) 47
bone 27 (28) 22 (26) 11 (10) 24 (20) 84
Total 61 55 21 43 180
Chi-square (observed value) 5.3%

Chi-square (critical value) 12.592

DF 6

p-value 0.497

Apha 0.05

 

136

Table 6. Chi-square tests of ground stone tools, bone tools, and adornment (expected
values in parentheses).

concentrated in Area 1 (28%) and Area 2 (45%). The antler scraper is located in Area 4,
while the antler awl is in Area 3. Large hoes are present in even proportions in each area
(22-28%), while small hoes are concentrated in Areas 2 (50%) and 3 (3 3%). A turtle
shell spoon is present in Area 1 and Area 4, while turtle shell bowls are concentrated in
Area 2 (73%). Antler points occur in similar proportions in each area (22—27%), although
antler point preforms are restricted to Area 3 (29%) and Area 4 (71%). Cut/snap debris is
similarly distributed in Areas 1 (34%), 2 (29%), and 4 (24%), but is less common in Area
3 (13%). A chi-square test comparing the distribution of awls, pins, fishing hooks,
flaking tools, and cut/snap debris in each area is not significant (p=0.065) (see Table 6).
Bone and Shell Adomment. Bear tooth and claw pendants are restricted to Area 1 and
Area 2, and elk tooth pendants are only located in Area 2 and Area 4. Wolf/dog tooth
and mandible pendants are heavily concentrated in Area 4. Dog burials are also
concentrated in this area (n=4), although one dog burial is located in Area 2. Shell
pendants are concentrated in Area 1 (29%) and Area 2 (32%). The olivella shell is in
Area 2. Bone beads are concentrated in Area 1 (31%), Area 2 (27%), and Area 4 (31%);
bone bead preforms are restricted to Area 2 and Area 3. A bone disc is present in Area 4,
a bone pendant and a turtle shell gorget are located in Area 1, and an owl effigy is in Area
3. Barrel beads and disc beads are restricted to Area 1 and Area 2. Drilled deer
phalanges were relatively even in their distribution (25-3 3%), with the exception of Area
3 (17%). Shell discs were concentrated in Area 4 (44%). A chi-square test comparing
the distribution of adornment grouped into teeth, shell, and bone material classes in each

area is not significant (see Table 6).

137

Summary

Area 1 contains most of the circular stones, bone pendants, oval incised pottery lip
designs, and pinch pot jars. Area 2 represents the elite residence based on significantly
closer proximity of features in this part of the site. This area contains most of the shell-
tempered pottery, blades, celts, turtle shell bowls, and a suite of pottery designs
(rectilinear guilloche [neck], line-filled triangles B, C, and D [neck], crosshatching
[neck], line-filled triangles E and F [rim], multi-slash and single slash [rim]). Area 3
contains a lower proportion of most artifact attributes simply because it was smaller in
terms of volume and density. However, Area 3 also contains several unique artifact
attributes, including all grit/grog-tempered pottery, most of the metates, and crosshatched
and lunar impressed pottery rim designs. Additionally, the paleoindian point, limestone
disc preform, slate preform, antler awl, and owl effigy are located in this area. Area 4
contains a house located in the closest proximity to the center pole, and the majority of
wolf and dog remains, leaf-shaped and lanceolate knives, Spokeshaves, and shell discs.
Additionally, comer-notched drills, and the saltpan, antler scraper, and bone disc are
located in this area.

Each of the four residential units were linked to each other in terms of specific artifact
and feature attributes. Areas 1 and 2 contain dense concentrations of artifacts, including
the majority of the grit/shell-tempered pottery, four pottery neck designs (line-filled
triangle Type A and F, single slash, herringbone), and scroll lip motifs on pottery vessels.
Convex-based triangular points, fishing hooks, flakers, shell pendants, chunky stones,
slate discs, chipped stone preforms, debitage, point tips and other fiagrnents, scrapers,

flake knives, burins, and bear tooth and claw pendants are also concentrated in these two

138

residential units. Areas 1 and 3 contain the majority of interior pottery designs, Fort
Ancient knives, and beamer/awl tools. Areas 1 and 4 contain the majority of the pinch
pot bowls, Early and Late Archaic and Late Woodland projectile points, bipolar drills,
turtle shell spoons, and bone needles. Areas 2 and 3 contain larger houses and pit
features, are located closer to the center pole than other areas, and are not distinguishable
from one another in terms of distinct breaks in their respective feature distributions.
These two areas also contain the majority of quartz and mica temper types, line-filled
triangle Type E neck designs, punctate and single slash lip designs, beamers, small hoes,
and bone bead preforms. Areas 2 and 4 contain the majority of the coiled bowls,
castillated lips, curvilinear/rectilinear scroll necks and curvilinear scroll rims, and all
negative painted pottery, elk tooth pendants, and the Middle Archaic point. Areas 3 and
4 contain most of the curvilinear scroll neck designs, antler point preforms, deep flat

bottom features, limestone-tempered pottery, and abraders.

Mortuary Spaces
The ubiquity of pit features proved useful for demarcating the concentric structure of
the village in general and the closer proximity of the western part of the site in particular.
How does the mortuary pattern fit with this spatial fiamework? Are there characteristics
in addition to concentric patterning to help explain the spatial structure of the mortuary
population? In addressing these questions, the spatial pattern was assessed in terms of
the proximity of burials to plaza poles and by comparing the internal structure of

spatially-distinct burial groups. Cluster analysis was used to independently examine

139

spatial clustering (see Chapter V for methodological details - raw burial data are

presented in Appendix B).

Proximig to the Center Pole

Three concentric rings of burials were defined on the basis of proximity to the center
pole and their spatial relationship with pit features. The simplest division segregates
burials into three rings: (1) burials located within the plaza; (2) burials located in the area
containing pit features; and (3) burials located in the house and stockade area (Figure 30).
In residential zones, these rings generally correspond with 30’ increments (<125’ = plaza
ring, 125-155’ = pit feature ring, and >155’ = house and stockade ring). As discussed
above, features located in the western area are closer to the center pole. This did not
appear to affect the placement of Ring 3 burials in that they remain situated between 155’
and 185’ from the center post. However, burials in Ring 1 and 2 are located 30’ closer to
the center, but the relationship with the features appears to be very similar.

Five key distinctions exist between these three rings in terms of age, leg position,
grave coverings, secondary disposal, and associated artifacts. Ring 1 contains a larger
proportion of adult burials, with a higher relative occurrence of extended leg positions,
and are more often covered with limestone slabs (Table 7). Secondary burials are
exclusively located in Ring 1. Moreover, they are located only in the first or second

position from the plaza (see below, Burial Groups). Due to small sample size, empty

140

 

 

Burial Ring

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 30. Three-part division of burial distribution based on concentric patterning from
the center pole.

141

SEX

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Burial Rigg lndet. (‘56) Female (36) Male (36) N

1 43.0 25.0 32.0 100

2 79.4 7.9 12.7 63

3 72.7 18.2 9.1 22

AGE
Burial Ring <10 ('16) 10-20 (36) 20—30 (96) 30—40 (96) 40-50 (96) 50-60 (96) N
1 38.0 11.0 8.0 32.0 11.0 1.0 100
2 77.8 3.2 — 9.5 9.5 - 63
3 72.7 - 9.1 9.1 9.1 - 22
LEG POSITION
Burial RinL Fully Flexed (96) Semi Flexed (96) Extended (‘56) Second. (96) Indet. (96) N
1 14.0 25.0 48.0 6.0 7.0 100
2 22.2 15.9 44.4 - 17.4 63
3 22.7 31.8 27.3 - 18.1 22
GRAVE COVERING

Burial RigL Limestong‘ltr) Bark/Posts (96) No Cover (‘16) N

1 76.0 1.0 23.0 100

2 42.9 - 57.2 63

3 45.5 9.1 45.5 22

 

Table 7. Sex, age, leg position, and grave cover comparisons between burial rings.

142

graves do not reveal as strong a pattern, but two are located in Ring 1 and one is
positioned in Ring 2. The two empty graves located in Ring 1 are in the adult section are
also in the first or second position from the center pole. Chi-square tests reveal
significant relationships between burial rings and age (p<0.0001) and grave covering
(p<0.0001). Leg position does not significantly vary between burial rings (Table 8).
Artifacts are present to a similar degree in Rings 1 (26%) and 2 (29%), but are less
common in Ring 3 burials (14%). The occurrence of specific artifacts was ofien
restricted to one or two rings. Ring 1 contains all occurrences of ochre, deer phalanges,
tubular shell beads, turtle shells, chunky stones, pottery, burnt stones, shell spoons, and
slate pendants. Ring 2 contains all whelk shells, beamers, fish teeth, deer seismoids,
antler flakers, bobcat teeth, shell pendants, and awls. Rings 1 and 2 contain all
occurrences of lithic projectile points, burnt corn, wolf/dog teeth, barrel shell beads, disc
shell beads, shell discs, and pipes. Wolf mandibles and other teeth were only found in

Rings 1 and 3.

Burial Groups

A total of 15 burial groups were identified (Figure 31; see Chapter V). The spatial
restriction of burial groups was relatively clear-cut with the exception of Burial Groups 9
and 10. While the pattern is generally without gaps between Burial Groups 8, 9, and 10,
these were segregated into three groups on the basis of the anomalous patterning
associated with Burial Group 9, which exhibits a pattern distinct from adjacent groups.

Group 8 is more similar to other groups. It is difficult to know whether Group 10

143

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Burial Ring Child Adult Total
1 43 (59) 57 (41) 100
2 50 (37) 13 (26) 63
3 16 (13) 6 (9) 22
Total 109 76 185
Chi-square (observed value) 23.084
Chi-square (critical value) 5.991
DF 2
p-value < 0.0001
Alpha 0.05
Burial Ring Fully Flexed Semi Flexed Extended Total
1 14 (18) 25 (23) 48 (46) 87
2 14 (11) 10 (14) 28 (27) 52
3 5(4) 7 (5) 6(9) 18
Total 33 42 82 157
Chi-square (observed value) 5.87-8-
Chi-square (critical value) 9.488
DF 4
p-value 0.208
Alpha 0.05
limestone slabs Total
Burial Ring present absent Total
1 76 (61) 24 (39) 100
2 27 (39) 36 (24) 63
3 10 (13) 12(9) 22
Total 113 72 185
Chi-square (observed value) 20.424
Chi-square (critical value) 5.991
DF 2
p-value < 0.0001
Alpha 0.05

 

Table 8. Chi-square tests comparing age, leg position, and limestone slabs between
burial rings (expected values in parentheses).

144

 

Q ritual—communal structures

r a N
, house structures
. . w ~ E
household actrvrty areas
s

Key:

burials

Figure 31. Map showing locations of burial groups.

145

represents a similarly complete pattern as it is situated on the border between museum
and avocational excavation blocks.
Based on the presence of various combinations of arcs and rows, and the more

amorphous pattern associated with clusters, the following typology was derived:

 

 

_B_u_rial Group Type Burial Group Number
arcs—rows 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12
arcs 5, 7

rows 13, 14

clusters 9

indeterminate 1, 15

The most common burial group type is the arc-row pattern. Six of these burial groups (2,
3, 4, 6, 8, 11) are similar. (Burial Groups 10 and 12 were not included as they are not
comparable with the other groups in this category in terms of excavation extent.) For
comparative purposes, these burial groups were oriented in the direction that would be
seen from adjacent residential structures and work areas (Figure 32).

The superimposed arcs and perpendicular lines reveal a pattern of conjoined arc-row
segments focused on one or two burials located nearest the plaza. Ritual-communal
structures are often (67%) located in direct association or in close proximity to these
burial groups. The only exceptions are Burial Groups 6 and 8 which may be associated
with the more centralized ritual-communal structures located to the west and north of the
center pole, respectively (see Figure 31). Moreover, when there are two or more
segments they are usually associated with specific residential feature groups (see Chapter
VII). Groups 2, 3, 4, 8, and 11 are notable in this respect (see Figure 31). A single row
pattern (as defined in Chapter V) was present in only four arc-row groups (2, 4, 6, 11).

Comparison of attributes of the 15 burial groups revealed several distinctions (Table

9). Burial Groups 1, 6, 12, and 15 contain only adult males and children, and Burial

146

 

-/9
r
I ‘ C
Burial Group 8
.l. r
’11.». 7 4,:21' . . :\’ h .
_.; _ 2;,2 ‘ ~ I .
6 “Law“
I
Burial Group 6 Burial Group 4
'l‘
x.
’

x04"

 

‘:
/ .
I. \

Burial Group 3

Burial Group 2

Figure 32. Selected arc-row burial groups.

147

SEX

 

 

 

 

 

_Burial Group Indet (95) Female (94.) Male (96) N

1 83.3 - . 16.7 6

2 62.5 18.8 18.8 18

3 88.8 25.0 6.3 16

4 30.8 30.8 38.5 13

5 100.0 - - 5

6 55.6 - 44.4 18

7 71.4 14.3 14.3 14

8 64.3 21.4 14.3 14

9 70.0 10.0 20.0 10

10 85.7 14.3 - 7

11 31.5 34.3 34.3 35

12 20.0 - 80.0 5

13 100.0 - - 3

14 100.0 - - 4

15 75.0 - 25.0 4

AGE

Burial Group <10 (91.) 10-20 (as) 2030 (at) 30-40 (91.) 4050011.) N
1 83.3 - - - 16.7 8
2 62.5 6.3 18.8 6.3 - 16
3 68.8 - 6.3 12.6 12.6 16
4 30.8 7.7 - 46.2 15.4 13
5 100.0 - - - 5
6 55.6 - 5.6 22.2 16.7 18
7 71.4 - - 14.2 14.2 14
8 57.1 7 1 7.1 7.1 21.4 14
9 50.0 20 0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10
10 71.4 14.3 - - 14.3 7
11 25.7 14.3 2.9 48.6 2.9 35
12 20.0 - - 80.0 - 5
13 100.0 - - - - 3
14 100.0 - - - - 4
15 75.0 - 25.0 - - 4

 

Table 9. Sex and age composition of each burial group.

148

Group 10 includes only adult females and children. Burial Groups 5, 13, and 14 only
contain children. Leg position is consistent with the exception of Burial Group 4, which
contained the lowest percentage of extended burials (23%) and, consequently, the highest
proportion of flexed burials (69%). Burial Groups 6 and 11 contain a higher proportion
of limestone slabs (Table 10).

Artifacts are most common in Burial Groups 1 (50%), 2 (31%), 4 (39%), 6 (40%), 8
(43%), 9 (46%), 10 (43%), 12 (60%), 13 (33%), and 15 (50%). The occurrence of
artifacts is less common in Burial Groups 3 (13%), 7 (14%), and 11 (3%); no artifacts are
present in Burial Groups 5 and 14. The occurrence of individual artifact types varied
considerably between burial groups. To assess this variation, each artifact type was
scored as present or absent by burial group (Figure 33). The occurrence of certain
artifacts was limited to particular groups or sets of neighboring groups. For discussion

purposes, burial groups were segregated into the following partitions:

Partition Burial Groups
northeast 7, 8, 9, 10,11,12, 15
west 4, 5, 6, 14

south 1, 2, 3, 13

Northeastern burial groups were the only ones to contain beamer/awls, slate pendants,
shell spoons, burnt stones, pottery, chunkey stones, turtle shells, wolf mandibles, and deer
phalanges. Fish teeth were restricted to one western group. Deer seismoids, antler
flakers, and bobcat teeth were only present in southern groups. Artifact types restricted

to the northeast and west groups include lithic projectile points, burnt corn, wolf/dog
teeth, shell pendants, and antler projectile points. Artifacts occurring only in the south
and west groups include awls, hammer stones, and whelk shells. Items recovered only

from northeast and south groups include barrel shell beads, tubular shell beads, pipes, and

149

LEG POSITION

 

 

Burial Group Fully Flexed (96) Semi-Flexed (96) Extended (96) Secondary (96) lndet. (96)

 

 

 

N
1 - 50.0 50.0 6
2 6.3 18.8 56.3 12.5 6.3 16
3 18.8 6.3 37.5 - 37.5 16
4 46.2 23.1 23.1 7.7 - 13
5 - 40.0 60.0 - - 5
6 27.8 22.2 44.4 - 5.6 18
7 7.1 7.1 57.1 7.1 21.4 14
8 7.1 28.6 35.7 - 28.5 14
9 10.0 20.0 60.0 - 10.0 10
10 28.6 28.6 42.9 - - 7
11 17.1 20.0 51.4 5.7 5.7 35
12 20.0 40.0 40.0 - - 5
13 - 33.3 33.3 - 33.3 3
14 - 75.0 - - 25.0 4
15 75.0 - 25.0 - - 4
GRAVE COVERING

Burial Group limestone (%) bark (96) absent (96) N

1 50.0 - 50.0 6

2 50.0 - 50.0 16

3 25.0 - 75.0 16

4 69.2 - 30.8 13

5 40.0 - 60.0 5

6 83.3 - 16.7 18

7 64.3 - 35.7 14

8 42.9 7.1 50.0 14

9 60.0 - 40.0 10

10 71.4 - 28.6 7

11 82.9 - 17.1 35

12 100.0 - - 5

13 33.3 - - 3

14 - - 100.0 4

15 100.0 - - 4

 

Table 10. Leg position and grave coverings of each burial group.

150

Burial Group

123456789101112131415

deer phalange
wolf mandible
turtle shell
chunky stone
POHGFY

burnt stone
shell spoon
slate pendant
beamer/awl

 

West
fishteeth Illljillllllli

South

 

 

deer seismoid
antler flaker
bobcat tooth

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lithic point
burnt corn
wolf/dog teeth
shell pendant
antler point

 

South and West

 

 

turkey awl ]
hammer stone
whelk

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

barrel shell bead
other teeth
tubular shell bead
pipe

 

Site-Wide

bone pin
marginella
disc shell bead

 

 

shell disc
ochre l

 

 

 

 

 

artifactdiversity 9 5 6 5 0 14 2 1112 5 6 4 1 0 4

Figure 33. Presence/absence of artifact types by burial group.

151

other teeth. Marginella shells, shell discs, disc shell beads, bone pins, and ochre were
located in groups throughout the village. Artifact diversity was considerably higher in
four burial groups (1 [n=9], 6 [n=14], 8 [n=11], 9 [n=12]). Interestingly, three of these
groups (6, 8, 9) are the same ones linked to centrally positioned ritual-communal
facilities (see Figure 31).

Three additional findings firrther distinguish the northeastern part of the site. First,
the concentration of wolf and dog teeth and mandibles already noted for this area is
consistent with the locations of dog burials (Figure 34). Second, the orientation of flexed
burials is generally away from the center pole for burials located in Burial Groups 6, 8, 9,
and 10 (Figure 35). These two patterns are remarkably similar.

The final distinction for the northeastern area pertains to several burials that appear to
be aligned with the plaza post located near the wall-trench house. While much remains
unexcavated in this part of the site, and that which has been excavated is somewhat
compromised by merging two different excavations (see Chapter IV), two alignments are
noteworthy (Figure 36). This may be the beginning of a pattern similar to that expressed
by the majority of the burials around the center pole, or may be wolf-related ritual
behavior at a sub-village level. It is possible that this marks the emergence of another
plaza signifying village segmentation. Secondary plazas have been documented at other

Fort Ancient sites (e.g., Madisonville [Drooker 1997]).

Burial Clusters

F ifieen attributes met the criteria developed for the cluster analysis. These are listed

below (for rules of inclusion see Chapter V):

152

 

 

X = dog burid w ,
O = wolf and dog teethlmmdbles E

 

 

 

Figure 34. Spatial distribution of wolf and dog remains in burials and pit features.

153

o .‘—

1'1 -i 4.11.1.5.
/' t pole
.- ' T
a” - 'T‘

‘ mar
90'9 ‘—

Figure 35. Angle of spine orientation for flexed burials (note that avocational bruials are
not included due to a lack of comparable data).

154

 

Key:

n burials

pit features

N
if 5 houses ‘
1....-.3 w . E

Figure 36. Alignment of burials in relation to small plaza post (buffers are in 10’
increments).

155

flexed legs wolf mandibles

limestone slabs other teeth

marginella shells bone pins

barrel beads pipes

disc beads hammerstones

shell discs lithic projectile points
burnt corn antler tip projectile points
ochre

The four cluster solution revealed key distinctions in the occurrence of these attributes.
Sex and age composition of each group also varied in significant ways (Table 11).

Leg Position and Covering. Cluster 1 consists exclusively of flexed burials, whereas
the other three clusters mostly contain extended burials. No burials in Cluster 3 contain
grave coverings, while the majority of Cluster 4 burials are covered with limestone slabs.
Burials in Clusters l and 2 are covered with limestone slabs in similar proportions.

Artifacts. Cluster 2 contains the highest proportion of each artifact type, the only
exception being barrel beads, which are exclusive to Cluster 4. Shell discs are exclusive
to Cluster 2, where they are present in nearly half of the graves. Marginella shells are
also notably more common in this cluster.

Sex and Age. Clusters 1 and 4 contain similar proportions of children and adults
(both male and female). Cluster 1 is characterized by having the eldest set of burials,
which are most often between the ages of 30 and 60. Clusters 2 and 3 are similar to each
other in that they consist predominantly (Cluster 2) or exclusively (Cluster 3) of adult
males and children. However, upon closer inspection it is clear that Cluster 3 contains
mostly children, whereas Cluster 2 is more similar to the other clusters in this respect.
The majority of adult burials in Cluster 2 are in the 30-40 year range, while age
distribution is more even in Cluster 3. Cluster 4 has a higher percentage of younger

adults than Cluster 1.

156

 

Burial Cluster

 

 

Variable 1 (%) 2 (%) 3 (%) 4 (%)
legs flexed 100.0 18.5 - 5.5
limestone cover 62.7 66.7 - 96.4
marginella shells 7.5 77.8 - 1.8
barrel beads - - - 18.2
shell discs - 40.7 - -
wolf mandibles - 7.4 - 1.8
bone pins 1.5 14.8 - -
pipes 1.5 7.4 - -
hammer stones 4.5 7.4 - -
lithic proj. pts. 6.0 7.4 - -
burnt com 3.0 7.4 - -
disc beads - 18.5 - 12.7
antler proj. pts. 3.0 3.7 2.8 1.8
ochre - 3.7 - 3.6
other teeth 1_.5_ fl _; _1_._8_

N 67 27 36 55

 

 

Burial Cluster

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sex 1 (%) 2 (%) 3 (%) 4 (%)
lndet. 43.3 59.3 91.7 56.4
Female 26.9 7.4 - 25.5
Male 222 w L 1%

N 67 27 36 55

Burial Cluster

Age 1 (%) 2 (%) 3 (%) 4 (%)
<10 41.8 55.6 88.9 49.1
10-20 3.0 3.7 2.8 16.4
20-30 4.5 7.4 5.6 5.5
30-40 28.4 25.9 2.8 23.6
40-50 20.9 7.4 - 5.5
5050 .1-_5. __' _.: _:

N 67 27 36 55

 

Table 11. Comparison of sex, age, and associated artifacts for four burial clusters.

157

Spatial Distribution. The spatial pattern of the four clusters fits well with observed
distinctions between concentric burial rings (Figure 37). Clusters l and 4 are most often
positioned within Ring 1, which is expected as these groups contain higher proportions of
adult burials. Similarly, Cluster 3 is mostly distributed throughout Ring 2 which is where
we would expect a group dominated by child burials to be located. Cluster 2 is
concentrated in four parts of the village. Burial groups located in these areas contain
more artifact types and a higher proportion of male interrnents. Cluster 2 burials are not
located in burial positions closest to the center pole; these spaces are restricted to
members of Clusters l and 4.

Cluster 2 is unique. It mainly consists of males between 30 and 40 years of age and
children, possesses a unique artifact type (shell discs) found with both adult and child
members, and members are clearly concentrated in the four cardinal directions. Given
that artifact diversity is highest among the members of this cluster, a final examination
was conducted to better isolate specific individuals of importance as those containing the
most diverse artifact types (see Chapter V). A histogram identifies four individuals as
containing the most diverse artifact sets (Figure 38). Two burials with the most diverse
artifacts were positioned within burial groups containing only adult males and children
(Burial Groups 1 and 6). Moreover, the graves containing these two individuals were
positioned perpendicular to the plaza in clear contrast with the prevailing circular pattern
of the mortuary program (see Figure 37).

Interestingly, the location of hammer stones in burials closely matches the
concentration of tool making debris from pit feature contexts (Figure 39). The two

individuals with the most diverse artifacts—indicative of more achieved statuses—were

158

,~. ...r

4'.
.5 r- . ,
‘.
' L
l}
.o‘ .1 .
| I . . . E .0
.. ‘-.I ‘
r. a
r . 9 . .
I “\S'
\ i '
OTI' \‘
' . \ \,\
. '2 . e .
. Q
0
O o
I
O
9‘“
8
CI 0 Q .
g . a
o . . . O.
6.3-:2 "* - E
Q — ... a ‘
O
l’ f .. .sf
«'5
O
l O
O
’ 0
d ‘ ._ .
y
' Jr
.1
-\
Q
Q
o
J: o
e
V)
I
at-
" a
.4“, .
._' .

D i.f,. $.31 f! I
- ”Li .5: .1.

Cluster 3

Figure 37. Spatial distribution of four burial clusters.

93;" ~-

 

 

(A)
O

 

N
01

 

N
O

 

 

 

Artifact Diversity
8 a

 

UI

 

 

 

O

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Burial Frequency

 

 

 

Artifact Diversity & Ag; 14:: Position Covering

5 indet. 7 extended limestone slabs
6 male 32 extended limestone slabs
7 male 41 extended limestone slabs
8 male 35 extended limestone slabs

Figure 38. Histogram of artifact diversity for individual burials.

160

 

l: l‘. [Kl TOT]
3 AW 9
<\/x \/// g o .
[\/
7‘“) (J:
5?
fl“
‘Q
C}
.3)
(D 7'“) .3. . 'l:
saga

O burials with hammerstones
0 features with debitage (n>300)

{:1 C7 ‘——~J

\ ) /©©
{x /

[\W \.

t__\/ (j)

Cl
Cl
NUDE

. burials with whelk shells

C
3)

USCG

burials with hammerstones
fe

O
O atures with flakers (n>1)

DD 5:7

(@000

O burials with most diverse
artifact sets

Figure 39. Specific mortuary relationships between the southern and western site areas.

161

located perpendicular to the burial row pattern and were positioned in the west and south
parts of the site. The individual with the most marked treatments (most diverse artifacts

and most instances of exotics including a whelk shell) was located in the elite area. The

only other occurrence of a whelk shell was with a multiple burial, which included a child
and an infant in Area 1 near House 1/73. In addition to mortuary indicators, a biological
study of genetic disease also concluded a strong genetic similarity between south and

west parts of the site (Knick 1977).

Discussion

Four residential units and 15 corporate groups were defined by applying rules derived
from a Middle Mississippian mortuary study. Comparisons made between these spatial
units produced several significant results. This concluding section discusses differences
and relationships within and between residential areas and corporate groups, stressing
linkages between these units.

Area 2 is significantly closer to the center pole and this part of the site is bordered by
the most distinct burial groups and solstice alignments (see Chapter IV), and contains a
unique house structure made from red cedar. Area 2 also contains more features and a
higher proportion of artifacts than other site areas, particularly pottery, debitage, and
chipped stone tools. Not only are average feature sizes larger here and in Area 3, but
Area 2 contains markedly more storage per structure area. Area 2 contains significantly
more shell-tempered pottery, guilloche and plain neck designs, and straight-based

triangular points.

162

Areas 1 and 2 contain more fishing hooks, flakers, grit/shell-tempered pottery, line-
filled triangle neck designs, and convex-based triangular projectile points. Debitage
density was also markedly larger in these two areas. As suggested by an earlier
investigation, this area also contains dense concentrations of lithic artifacts (Robertson
1980). However, the present study concludes that Area 1 also contains a high debitage
density. Area 1 contains significantly more pinch pots than other areas.

Areas 2 and 4 contain significantly more coiled pottery bowls and scroll neck designs.
Area 4 contains significantly more concave-based triangular points and less pitted stones.
Area 3 contains more metates and Areas 3 and 4 contain more abraders. Area 3 contains
a low occurrence of awls, pins, and cut/snap debris. Areas 2 and 3 contain more mica
and quartzite-tempered pottery. Storage volumes are also much larger in these areas.
Wolf remains and related adornment and comer-notched drills are generally restricted to
Area 4. The only pan vessel in the assemblage is located in this area and rectilinear scroll
motifs on pottery necks and rims are also concentrated here.

The analysis of mortuary spaces produced results consistent with the proxemics
expressed in the distribution of pit and house features. The overarching principle was
related to the role of the center pole in spatially segregating adult from non-adult burial
areas, elite from non-elite residential areas, and in arranging cemeteries used by corporate
groups. The examination of both burial rings and groups were instrumental in revealing
the spatial composition of these principles of social structure.

Corporate group behavior was most often expressed as arc-row groups containing two
or three conjoined segments. These segments converged on one or two burials located

closest to the center pole and linked with individual ritual-communal facilities. The

163

position of these facilities in relation to burials was distinct in the southern part of the site
where they were integrated directly into the portion of the group nearest the plaza. In
contrast, the northern ritual-communal facilities were located closer to the center pole
than to their respective burial group.

Most burial groups contained similar proportions of sexes and ages, although four
groups consisted only of males and children, three contained only children, and one was
restricted to females and children. The burial group positioned between the elite
residence and southern area contained more flexed burials. Two burial groups, located in
Areas 2 and 4 had a higher incidence of limestone slab coverings and were further
marked as sharing numerous artifact types — including all wolf and dog teeth and
mandibles — and similar orientations of the flexed burials. Many unique artifacts were
present in northern groups, while the southern groups lacked artifacts distinct from those
found elsewhere at the site. Northern burial groups were further distinguishable as two
groups of burials were oriented toward the smaller plaza post instead of the center pole.

The concentric structure of the mortuary program, the uniqueness of the northern
burial groups, and the relationship between burials in the elite area and northern groups
were independently supported by a cluster analysis. Additionally, this statistical
technique identified a group of burials not detectable in terms of proximity to the center
pole or to one another as bounded social groups. This group is dominated by 30 to 40
year old males and children and includes all occurrences of shell discs, most wolf
remains, and the most diverse sets of artifacts. The most diverse artifact interments were
positioned in cardinal directions within the village. Artifact diversity, whelk shells, and

associations with lithic debitage and hammer stones suggest that the village leader is

164

more closely related to southern kin groups and is specifically linked to crafi production.
This distinction fits well with the close connection between Areas 1 and 2 in terms of
feature and artifact distributions.

The three methods utilized to examine the spatial structure of this Fort Ancient
cemetery were each useful and work well together. Burial groups define corporate group
structures, the basic social units in the village. Corporate groups were clearly positioned
in relation to the center pole and burials were organized accordingly. The spatial
organization of mortuary behavior in this fashion fits well with the circular structure of
the village. Row patterning similar to that identified by Goldstein (1980) was also
present but the SunWatch pattern is distinct, largely due to the circular structure of the

settlement.

165

CHAPTER VII: VILLAGE FORMATION

This chapter examines the formation of social groups identified in the previous
chapter, focusing on segmented residential units linked with corporate groups and the
emergence of village-wide institutions. The first step toward this goal is to examine
evidence for architectural rebuilding efforts, results of which are combined with temporal
indicators derived fi'om feature and artifact relationships within the context of household

activity areas.

Architectural Chronology
Several parts of the village produced evidence for architectural growth. This is
particularly clear in the northern part of the site which contains many more postholes than
the southern area (Figure 40). Relationships between stockades and structures
(stratigraphic and overlapping), the spatial distribution of radiocarbon assays, and

evidence for house rebuilding were used to investigate architectural formation.

Stockades

Spatial relationships between stockade segments and house structures suggest that the
village grew outward over time. This growth pattern appears to be restricted to the north
and west parts of the site. A stockade segment bisects House U72 and several stockade
segments are obscured in areas of subsequent construction (e.g., near Houses 1/87, 2/87,
2/72, and 3/72), leaving stockade “spurs” near House 1/72 and House 2/74. During

excavation of the southern spur, the following was noted:

166

entrance?

,.w-——-..
_ n‘ “"“ ....

       

house?

5. - center pole

  

I} "Is -.
: _ ~..;:l MOM .
135“"??? 3:7 '4‘: 7
r... . . . . ' ,
. . ’2;- "1"".2' ”£17193: N
.‘\.__. .. - . ~

. a

Figure 40. Site-wide posthole patterning.

167

These are part of an older stockade apparently—they were strati graphically lower
than the stockade wall to the north of them. I do not think they were
contemporaneous although I may be wrong on this. (Heilman, 1974 field notes for
Unit 8180W130)
No stratigraphic information was observed for the stockade spur located in the northwest
part of the site. However, it can be inferred that this segment continued through the area
subsequently occupied by House 2/87 as a line of postholes internally bisects that
structure on the short axis. Two posthole groups that appear to be platforms are located

near different stockade segments in the northwestern portion of the site (see Figure 40).

This pattern of architectural duplication further supports village growth.

fidiocarbon Assays

Prior to this investigation, a total of 13 carbon samples had been radiocarbon dated,
and four additional carbon samples were submitted for radiocarbon dating as part of the
present study (Figure 41; see Appendix C). Samples were selected from key house
structures, three being located in the western portion of the village (House 1/87, 2/87, and
2/78). Based on their location in the outer ring of the village, it was expected that House
1/87 and House 2/87 would produce later dates. It was also expected that House 2/78
would produce a later date if the ritual precinct developed after the village grew to
integrate multiple kin groups. The final sample was selected from House 2/71, a large
structure located in the northern part of the site commingled with numerous pit features.
On this basis, it was suspected that this structure could date earlier in the village

sequence.

168

 

 

Median Radiocarbon Assay

 

wmmmmmmmmm

1111111111

.D.< 2co>

Ek: .u
SN .1
owner. SeiEu
Ekom .u
no? .I
as: .u

ad Search
wt; .n.
5R .1
gr .1
FR .1
who: .u
0.0a coacoo
«EN .1
E .u
g: .u

gr .u

 

 

 

Two Sigm Radiocarbon Range

E: m
. as .1
ago; 5895
, Eon .h.
B: .1
m5 .u

..a 529:-

 

pt; .u.

SR .1

 

 

n5 .1
EN .1
wt!— m
38 .850
ASN.1
n3” .u
at: .u

«tar .u.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 41. Plots of radiocarbon assays displaying median ages and two sigma ranges (see

Appendix C for all radiocarbon data).

169

The temporal distribution of median radiocarbon assays suggests two episodes of
occupation (see Figure 41). The spatial distribution of radiocarbon assays reveals that
most of the later dates occur in the northern and western portion of the site, adding
further support for a later use of these areas (Figure 42).

Carbon samples fi'om features (n=8) were assessed in relation to feature size. Results
indicate that feature volume increases through time. The feature that produced a
thirteenth century date is markedly larger than earlier features; however, all later features
are also larger than those dating to the twelth century. A chi-square test comparing
volumes for dated features is significant (p=0.028); however, the Yates’ correction and
Fisher’s exact tests - more appropriate for small sample sizes — are not significant (Figure
43). As expected, large features (volumes >lOOO liters) are distributed in site areas
containing two rows of houses, a pattern which clearly extends into the avocational
excavation block (Figure 44). All dated features are bell shaped, indicating that this form

was used throughout the occupation.

In Situ House Rebuilding

Close inspection of individual house patterns clearly indicates rebuilding efforts in
several instances (Figure 45). Particularly clear examples include House 1/72, House
1/73, House 1/74, and House 1/75. The house excavated by avocational archaeologists

was also rebuilt (see below).

170

1181

1192., .
.,- .
. 1240 152° 1375
1237' .
1189 a
1382 192?
1406
C
1188
O
1339
1349 a
' 1115
O
1176
O
. 1134
1209

 

Figure 42. Spatial distribution of median radiocarbon assays.

171

 

Median Assay Fea. Vol. (liters)

 

 

 

AD. 1115 786.52
AD. 1134 745.19
AD. 1176 565.97
AD. 1189 721.38
AD. 1240 1860.02
AD. 1339 1477.63
AD. 1375 788.22
AD. 1520 1010.09
2000

 

_5
0|
0
0

Feature Volume (Man)
a. 8
8 8

 

AD. 1154 AD. 1240 AD, 1357 AD. 1520
Average Assay

 

 

 

 

Fea. Vol. <1000 Fea. Vol. >1000| Total

 

 

 

 

 

< AD. 1200 (median) 4 (2.5) 0 (1.5) 4
> AB. 1200 (median) 1 (2.5) 3 (1.5 4
Total 5 3 8
Value DF p—vaflg
Chi-square 4.800 1 0.028
Chi-square with Yates' correction 2.133 1 0.144
Fisher's exact test (one-tailed) 0.071

 

Figure 43. Median assays of dated features compared with feature volume, including
statistical tests (expected values in parentheses).

172

Figure 44. Spatial distribution of large features (>1000 liters). (Note their concentration
in relation to the second ring of houses.)

173

 

:.wa“:: .....2 .0 7“..: a” :
.. ‘0... 0. 0’: . .. .... C O. . . . . $ 0. ‘ ‘0 .0
'3: ' : :-".:‘ .030 .'° it '3.
:5 .0 O 0'. 2. 3'0 ‘ " .:' :o‘ 3
:1..ooo.o.:: . :. ': .... -.
:g :1 . O z t: E . g . :O ... 0 ‘ 1
g r... o 0. E Q. '0 O: ‘ a ”... o 1 a
' a o Caz. 1.00.... i. .p.o'o ... .0 O o ‘ ° . '00. . o 0 :
avocational 1/ 7 1 2/71
.‘3. ”..l a ,Z: is . '. ' : .
... ... . . 1‘ o s
3: . 2 :0 E o. . .. a: L o : o ‘5
o ' z : o . 0.. .0 ‘
. O . ... O . :3. o. .. Q
o : o...’°°. ......O ... "
3/71 1/72 2/72
0.... .000... o. ' “...... . . .' . a .. .. . ....z. : O
: 3 .:. .. .0 .‘ 9 ‘ . ...... O. .0... O ‘
° . ° 0 z 0 " .’ . : '° ' :0 0.
E .QL. :2: £23,.“2.. i... %é‘o’o‘ .3": . }
5° .' 1"".- z" .' . . 2' :33." : :3- ‘
o . . ... 1'. .. ..... 0‘ 0.: .0 0.: a" 0' .' 0:3 I
.. . ... ... 0;. 000' ‘0'. ’.‘.3'l°'o'o 00.0 0.:

3/72 1/73 1/74

Figure 45. Detailed house patterns.

174

. . . O. . .00. O
o. O. o. . . . ... . y 0:
O o. . 0 t‘. 0‘ .... . .. .0 . O
: 3.5 o . . z .00. ;: . . ’ . O.
z .0 ‘ ~ ‘ . .1 .. . .0 . 2 .. o
. .0 . . : O. o . a . I 0'. . .
O O .0 . O O
: ' ’3 .: .3 ..fl' .0 t . 0.0. '0 k
0 . O . .. .. .. -0 .
' . .- ~ - '-:.;-...,,. -' “m - we:

2/74 1/75 1/77

.1 5 ~ ‘..:/‘Qj
°° " i. : “Tm”: :8, '. °:
3 .‘o: 0.; ...o 3.. 3 ' :. .. :..O.. a E

o‘ .. “g ‘ .‘.f .3 o“.!o. :20... " ’. :
-. ..... ‘- «ifi. '5' :'~ ‘~ “’3'”
' '°"’° "'.. --:"-°-'-..' "-° - . 'm‘oioc'uai'a
2/77 178 2/78
. a 0
........ . I; I
1.. ’3' .
0 ° . Q« : o. .
.- ...t . ..

Figure 45. Continued.

175

A Stratified Wall Trench House

The presence of a wall trench structure at SunWatch has been suspect on the basis of
the excavation strategy employed by avocational archaeologists. However, avocational
field notes clarify the existence of wall trenches in this structure.

About 68 inches from the South wall, a row of holes was found 13 inches below the

floor of the house. These were found only because we found a long, narrow pit

parallel with the South wall, about one foot wide, and about twenty feet long. (C.

Smith n.d.:2)

This summary is independently confirmed in a letter written by John Allman, the other
avocational archaeologist to work on this structure, to James B. Griffin (February 10,
1969) in which he states:
. . .there are two rows of post holes, but there are smaller holes in the trench shown
inside the above holes that are continuous all the way across. Also, there is dark earth
indicating a trench on the inside of the post holes on the north side, which makes us
think that two different houses were built on this site. You will also notice a similar
trench on the near end of the east side, and the smaller holes beyond it, which tend to
bear this out.
The fact that this structure included wall trenches seems incontrovertible, based on these
independent observations, along with detailed photographs (Figure 46).

This structure consists of two houses separated by alluvial deposits (Figure 47). The
first structure was located after uncovering a series of postholes below two burials. The
structure was excavated by tracing the outline of postholes (the strategy thought to lead to
the existence of wall trenches), afier which fill was removed with a backhoe.
Subsequently, several interior postholes and hearth features were located. Afier
documenting these features, excavation continued 6-8 inches below the floor where a

flexed burial with a slate pendant was located beneath a mass of burned structural

timbers. More postholes and several wall trenches were also located on this level.

176

 

Figure 46. Photographs of the house structure excavated by avocational archaeologists,
showing complete excavation (top) and wall trench detail (bottom).

177

C. J. sum: ”WOWICAL SUIVIY
'IATUII sxmu POM

 

sum 42L-l
nous: noixu
r.
. IIIDDII .
.. Pm mu e ‘ ° 9'
.. a if
5 flood nu ]' '-

 

4'!»
burial 5. pic law/01.2

I
Ht“ hon-o lav-1 '3
[pic 1"

post molds

[All-Y

 

. ls— noon rum: non nun—fl

 

l. FITS FOUND AT 801‘“ LEVELS -loe abov-
2.340135 FOUND AT FIRST L

1.11% IXTH POST mLDS POUND A'l' 52C0:D LIVIL
4. nu PXT OI RING. POUND A'!’ (IRS? LIV

5. FOIIID ABOVE FIRST LEV

6. 50“. PROFILE SHOES SM!" “.000 STAGES

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 47. Field drawings of the wall trench house in plan and profile views (from
Chuck Smith’s field notes, courtesy of the Dayton Society of Natural History).

As field notes are unclear on several issues, the following sequence can only be
tentatively forwarded (Figure 48). The first house was located approximately two and
one-half feet below the ground surface and consisted of a structure that utilized both
single-post and wall-trench construction. This structure clearly burned, perhaps trapping
an individual inside or perhaps the individual died in the house prompting the structure to
be burned, among other possibilities. The fact that this burial was in the same position as
other burials in the subsequently formed row makes it more likely that this body was
intentionally placed in this position before the structure burned. After a period of time
represented by 6-10 inches of alluvium, a larger house was built using only single-post
construction methods. After this structure was abandoned, the area became preferred for
burial placement, several of which were placed in clear arc and row patterns. Some time
elapsed as many burials are located approximately twelve inches above the last structure,
although no distinctions could be discerned in the mortuary pattern in relation to burial

depth.

Sequencing Single-Post House Structures
Variation in posthole density relative to structure size was used to further ascertain
temporal differences (see Chapter V). Two houses were not included in this analysis: (1)
the wall trench house as it was clearly rebuilt based on stratigraphic evidence; and (2)
House 1/78 as its eastern wall could not be reliably defined (Table 12).
Houses were grouped into three rebuilding classes based on natural breaks in the

distribution of posthole to area ratios (Figure 49): ( 1) low = 0.16—0.21 postholes per ftz,

179

 

O

o 000
o O

O O

O

o

O

o

o

0 o
O 00
0 oo
0

O

00.
00000'00000 O
O

FirstHouse
000
00
00000 O
00000000
O
O o 000
O O O 0000
O O
O
o 00
(2.) o
O O
o O 0
o O O O O o
o
O O O
0 000 O
O O O
o O o
O O
O O
O
0 000000 000000 0 O
O O
09 OQOO 00000 O

0

Second House

5 0 5 10 Feet
E

Figure 48. Conjectural layout of first and second houses excavated by avocational

archaeologists (based on Chuck Smith’s field notes, courtesy of the Dayton Society of
Natural History).

180

 

 

 

Number Wall PH mm PH Total PH Area (sqm Pen-Imam (it) Pop. 53mm
1171 62 55 117 560 93.7 11 - 19
2171 62 31 93 566 96.9 11 - 19
3171 65 34 99 391 77.9 7 - 13
1172 47 35 62 465 67.5 9 - 15
2172 46 12 56 364 71.1 7 - 12
3172 42 44 66 313 66.6 6 - 10
1173 58 54 112 300 66.5 6 - 10
1174 56 93 149 419 76.1 6 - 14
2174 33 43 76 356 71.6 7 - 12
1175 54 36 92 265 61.9 5 - 9
1177 63 21 64 414 79.0 6 - 13
2177 65 26 93 266 64.0 5 - 9
1176 42 51 96 272 63.6 5- 9
2176 51 102 153 407 76.4 7 - 13
1167 43 35 66 369 73.4 7 - 12
2167 45 27 72 443 60.5 6 - 14
avocational 113 71 192 666 101.2 13 - 22

Total: 126 - 224

Table 12. House structure data and population estimates.

181

2’72 3l72

 

 

 

 

o ... 0.: . ..
P, U .
2’74 "74
Posthole Frequency/House Area N
:1 0.16 - 0.21
f" 1" 0.21 - 0.28
- 0.26 - 0.36
0 pits containing daub

 

 

 

Figure 49. Daub distribution in features and posthole density for each house. (Note that
higher densities are more likely to have been rebuilt.)

182

(2) medium = 0.21—0.28 postholes per fiz, and (3) high = 0.28—0.38 postholes per fiz.
The majority (60%) of houses in the high rebuilding class are located in Area 1. Not
surprisingly, these are the same three house patterns (1/73, 1/74, 1/75) that contained
clear evidence for architectural modification. In contrast, houses in the low rebuilding
class are predominantly located in other portions of the site.

The distribution of daub corresponds well to the locations of rebuilt structures. House
1/71 is the only structure situated near a heavy daub concentration lacking a higher
proportion of postholes relative to area. The possibility that this house was rebuilt was
explored by placing a smaller house over it, providing a close fit. Of course, this exercise
is merely suggestive of rebuilding, although expansion of similarly positioned large
houses have been documented in Middle Mississippian villages (e.g., Munson 1994).

Based on rebuilding ratios, it is estimated that the village was occupied for
approximately 40 years, as similarly-constructed houses last an average of 20 years
(Cameron 1991) and houses indicating repair at SunWatch contain twice as many
postholes per area than those lacking such evidence. Furthermore, the shape of the center
posthole indicates it was replaced at least once, most likely coinciding with residential

growth.

Feature Form and Artifact Attributes

Principal components analysis proved effective for linking many artifact and feature
attributes (Table 13; see Appendix D). The majority of artifact types are associated with

bell shaped pits. This includes the following chipped stone types: convex, straight, and

183

 

.... m» .3... p... ...... .... 3...... ’ .1...

 

 

    

45‘

 

Chipped
Stone

convex base tn‘. pts.
straight base tri. pts.
concave base tri. pts.
sidescrapers

flake knives
retouched flakes
triangular preforms
other preforms
debitage

L. Woodlandlpts.

Ni. Archaic p13.
Ft. Ancient knives
side-notched tri. pts.

 

Ground
Stone

hammer stones
pitted stones
manos

cells

circular stones
abraders
metates

banner stones
metates

 

Bone

Shell

awls (scapula)

awl (leg)

awis (splinter bone)
fishing hooks

pins

beamers

hoes

shell pendants
flakers

wolf mandibles
shell discs

awts (ulna)
flakers

 

Pottery

 

 

mice temper
grit/shell temper
grit temper
shell temper

jar (coiled)

lug

strap

other appendages

plain (neck)

herringbone (neck)

single slash (neck)
curvilinear guilloche (neck)
rectilinear guilloche (neck)
cuerrect. guilloche (neck)
line filled tri. Type A (neck)
line filled tri. Type D (neck)
line filled tri. Type E (neck)
line filled tri. Type F (neck)
line filled tri. Type F (rim)
multi slash (rim)

punctates (rim)

punch and drag (rim)

plain (rim)

oval cordmarked (lip)
single slash (lip)

plain (lip)

single slash (interior)

plain (interior)

bowl (pinch pot)
negative painted pottery
all scroll designs (neck)
crosshatched (neck)
oval cordmarked (rim)
oval incised (lip)

 

 

shell temper
jar (pinch not)
bowl (coiled)
other scroll (lip)

 

Table 13. Summary results of the princi

detailed results).

pal components analysis (see Appendix D for

184

 

concave-based triangular projectile points, triangular preforms, other preforms, debitage,
sidescrapers, flake knives, and retouched flakes. Ground stone tools are also most
commonly associated with bell shaped pits, including hammer stones, pitted stones,
manos, celts, circular stones, and abraders. Associations between bell shaped pits and
bone and shell tools and adornment include awls (splinter, leg, scapula), fishing hooks,
pins, beamers, shell hoes, and shell pendants. A variety of pottery attributes are
associated with bell shaped pits including all appendage forms, three pottery temper types
(grit, grit/shell, mica), and coiled jars. The majority of pottery designs are also associated
with bell shaped pits, including ten neck designs (plain, herringbone, single slash,
guilloche [curvilinear, rectilinear, curvilinear/rectilinear], line-filled triangles [Types A,
D, E, F]), five rim designs (plain, multi-slash, punctates, punch and drag, line filled
triangle Type F), three lip designs (plain, single slash, oval cordmarked), and two interior
designs (plain, single slash).

Deep flat bottom pits are related to a variety of artifact types including Late
Woodland points, banner stones, shell discs, wolf mandibles, and pinch pot bowls.
Specific pottery design types occur more often in these features as well, including
negative painted, crosshatched, and all scroll neck designs. Oval cordmarked rim designs
and oval incised lip motifs are also associated with deep flat bottom pits.

Shallow flat bottom features are related to the fewest artifact variables. These include
Middle Archaic points, Fort Ancient knives, side-notched triangular points, ulna awls,

pinch pot jars, coiled bowls, and scroll lip designs.

185

Three artifact types are associated with two feature forms. F lakers and shell tempered
pottery are common to both bell shaped and shallow flat bottom pits. Metates are
associated with bell shaped and deep flat bottom pits.

A visual examination of the distribution of feature forms reveals a general association
between deep flat bottom pits, shallow flat bottom pits, and basins and houses that (1)
lacked evidence for rebuilding, and/or (2) produced later radiocarbon dates (Figure 50).
Deep flat bottom pits are particularly concentrated near the wall trench house, and new
houses in Areas 1 and 2. The majority (70%) of features excavated by avocational
archaeologists are also deep flat bottom pits (not shown in Figure 50), firrther supporting

the association between the wall trench structure and this feature form.

Residential Developments
This section investigates temporal evidence from features associated with household
activity areas. These data sets are then used, along with architectural evidence and burial

characteristics, to assess the grth of corporate residential units.

Temmral Affiliations of Hogsehold ActivitLAreg
Following rules outlined in Chapter V, a total of 20 household activity areas were
identified: Area 1 (n=5), Area 2 (n=4), Area 3 (n=5), Area 4 (n=6) (Figure 51). Average
feature volumes are larger in nine activity areas, based on a natural break in their
distribution at 450 liters (1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 2.2, 2.4, 3.1, 3.3, 3.4, 4.1) (Table 14).
Correspondence analysis comparing feature forms, triangular point bases, pottery

designs, appendages, and temper types in each activity area (Figure 52; Figure 53)

186

2:8» coma 2:52 382 ~88 9a 836: hoe—Hoe .moedonbm
enameéonaoomefi 98 2:58 3 cone—2 5 £88 236$ >8— mo mucusnwama .8 95me

93 50:3 .6: 26:65 O m

IDN.:1*V

... z

. ..8:

. . . ..8: .....G O
.. .....‘.O.© RS

.IO‘

new?

 

 

 

 

 

age 52.8 no: noon 0
coo.o~o —--—
89. 85.85 E
3.0.2... B
--—~Hmwh—-‘_ eoexoiaozsatosaewtsozzaa
O O O ‘.

mvmr

.0
:0

.. Is...
I

no 0
LAHHVV AHUV nmmp

not

nor?

187

26.3 0

law. ...?

«on?

 

62.6.68 .8 use...

 

 

 

 

 

66 .8626 :8 e
on? 80 I
SNF 3.0 30
.no. o..o MHHHW
' D . :2 35:55.83“. 12.86
on... . or. h.
o u ”a $6....
... 2.9
O O
.. . O
I. o
e ‘
...... o
...."
O
V. . .
.0 . 8:
....
«8. v .
...

we...) .9.... $09 hmmr

IO

how?

188

.hmmvv 3&2 bosom BEBE—6&3... 93
babies“ 6:586 co e83 98326 phenom we??? %2 gm oSmE

 

 

pmuvv 652 5:8 I

macaw 33:8 20:33... .

$558 :6 o

8582?. 8:0: I

 

 

r‘ran

QM
....
.vc Nd.
\ av .
ow ’.

m

m 3 .wmv‘m

...r.v..

  

.. a...”
.....W l
... ‘O
«a
. E

....Keo I
...-.1”!

189

.8222. Seats 38683 98 35.83 032E826 2:23 238m :m .3 036—.

 

«1.9....

7% .56. .256 66.23

 

 

_omeN one-an Shaun Nudv 00.08; m of
on. Fun 30.9 «Venn 3. E nvdnofi 0 rev
moNou ”no.5 sedan 56mm tdswd 2. v.1

 

 

 

 

eE=_o> 233“. «E

 

 

 

190

 

 

 

Syn-mettle Plot (ax-s F1 and F2: 86.19 96)

0.8 . _

 

 

4.6 .
SHALLOW
0-6 FLAT 4. "5
BOTTOM . ‘2
T 0'4 . 11 _ BASIN
A o 35 . 43
a! 02 _ O
a . 15 o 2.1 o 32
d 0
g, 1 r r . . . . . . .
N BELL 4.4 §
In. SHAP £1134 ‘ 23 DEEP
. -O.2 . 13 - 3:4 -L 3.}2 FLAT
3 O 22 . 33 BOTTOM
I -0.4 _ '
o 4.1
-0.6 o 1.4 _
—o.6 J

-O.8 -O.6 -O.4 —O.2 O 0.2 0.4 0.8 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
- IXIS F1 (58.99 96) —>

 

 

 

Figure 52. Correspondence analysis biplot comparing feature form and household
activity area (bottom) and raw data (top).

191

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Symmetric Plot (axes F1 and F2: 100.00 15)
0.4 —
O 2.3
’ 3 5 Q STRAP
0 2 ’ 01 1.2
’1 4.2
a; O 4.6 2.4
v. 0 . 2 1 4.5 ' 3.3
a r f .1 r f i
or 1.1 2.2
t ’ t 4.1 e 1.4 .
" 4-3 LUG o 4.4
1'5 0 3.2 0 3.4 e 3.. OTHER
-0.2 7 1 3
O 1.5
04 -
-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
— axle F1 (66.15 96) _>
Symmetric Plot (axes F1 and F2: 90.02 16)
1.2
sr-eu.
1} 0 7 .ammfll 35
S? 09
~ 2.1 . 45
'5
g 15 46
z 0.2 O 2.4 .3 1 . mm 0
" 2.3 0 . .2 ' '
? m 1.1 4-2 . 1.4
_03 Q 22
a.
3.4 4.1
e 32
-O.8
-0.8 ~0.3 0.2 0.7 1.2
— axis F1 (01.83 1‘) —>

 

 

 

Figure 53. Correspondence analysis biplots comparing diagnostic artifact attributes (gray
diamonds) and household areas (black circles).

192

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Symmetric Plot (axes F1 and F2: 80.57 16)
0.3
RECT.
’ 35 GUILL.
0.2 . 4.1
’1 o 42 o 22
3? 0'1 O ‘3 O 3.4
4.4
{g ‘ 1 ‘ . 2.4 9 PLAIN
a o ' 4% 4 r r r 1
u . 1.1 2.1
u. CURV. . o 416
.2 GUILL.’ 15 0 23
0 -°-1 .311 - .¢ LINE-FILLED
l I 1.2
13 TRIANGLES . 32 .
_02 e 3.3
I 4.5
-0.3 1 ,,
-0.3 02 -0.1 0 0.1 02 03 0.4 05
— axis F1 (51.29 16) ..>
Symmetric Plot (axes F1 and F2: 100.00 16)
1
o 45
0 5 Q OONCAVE 34
q . 3.2 . ' . 3.1 33
A 0 .
3: O 4.1 45
'9 e 35 smrr
g 0 Q 23 e 2.4
V r T r 1
or ”‘14 2'2
IL
. 130 0 1.1
.. . I
5 2.1
' convex . 4"
-05 g «
1s
-1 . -
-1 -05 0 0.5 1
- axis F1 (70.41 16) ->

 

Figure 53. Continued.

193

 

 

produced clear associations. Shallow flat bottom features are concentrated in five
activity areas (1 .1, 3.5, 4.2, 4.5, 4.6) and bell shaped pits correspond with six activity
areas (1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 2.2, 2.4, 3.4). Deep flat bottom pits and basins correspond with three
activity areas (3 .2, 4.3, 4.4). Both deep flat bottom and bell shaped pits correspond with
six activity areas (1.2, 2.1, 2.3, 3.1, 3.3, 4.1). Convex-based triangular projectile points
correspond with four activity areas (1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5), straight bases with seven activity
areas (1.1, 2.3, 2.4, 3.1, 3.3, 3.4, 4.6), and concave bases with two activity areas (3.2,
4.5). Both convex and straight bases correspond with one activity area (2.2), and concave
and convex bases correspond with two activity areas (3.5, 4.1). Shell and quartzite
temper types correspond with two activity areas (2.1, 3.5), grit/shell temper corresponds
with seven activity areas (1 .2, 1.3, 1.4, 3.3, 4.3, 4.5, 4.6), and mica temper corresponds
with seven activity areas (1.1, 2.2, 2.3, 3.2, 3.4, 4.1, 4.4). Strap appendages correspond
with four activity areas (1 .2, 2.3, 3.5 , 4.2). Plain necks correspond with three activity
areas (2.1, 2.4, 3.4).

Associations between activity areas and diagnostic artifact attributes were plotted
with architectural evidence for village growth, generally producing compatible results
(Figure 54). Activity areas positioned near more recently constructed houses often
contain larger average feature volumes, deep flat bottom features, straight and concave
triangular point bases, and strap appendages. Plain necks and shell temper are more
localized near new houses in the western part of the site.

For analytical purposes, activity areas corresponding with three late attributes were
considered to represent a later use in the occupational sequence (Table 15). This includes

one activity area in Area 1 (1.2), three activity areas in Area 2 (2.1, 2.3, 2.4), and three

194

 

shallow flat
dun flat. boll
“'9 "'1. basin

8

3:: "ID

4 a 4 ‘
1 1
/
/
1:74
Feature Form

  
 

4.1 4.2 . .

 

arty
lute

 

 

 

 

E
3
=0
%2
ea

-

any
late

“on“ sum“ T'mw Typo

[:3
-

 

 

 

 

 

0

.:§
5.2::
O

z 2

2 g“
U

3 I: §

 

4.1

 

F mg: a 2Q OE
”20%.“
'- d § E 'g

'-

Houeo Sequence
“W
1.1.

[:3
-

 

 

 

E

195

Figure 54. Maps comparing the architectural sequence with activity area diagnostics.

 

 

38:8 oz: .828 I

o>locoo

\
ESE? us. .628 %§

...... U

comm .E 0.935

 

 

.5 <5 2:
WDD®OmO§
a; 3:

 

325:8 i 2%;

98o: Ema O

886 0

«tr '5 as:

ODD O...

196

 

23 82.3 E: noon

 

6.2.. ovvxv $569— new.

 

.ma woman 98:8 8 £983

 

$505 30:8 5%

 

moaaucoaqa agn

 

 

boson coconEoEozm

 

38 3.2.8

1.1

*1.2

 

 

1.3
1.4
1.5

* 2.1

 

 

 

 

2.2
" 2.3

 

* 2.4

 

 

* 3.1

 

3.2
* 3.3

 

 

* 3.4

 

3.5
4.1

 

 

4.2
4.3

 

 

 

4.4

4.5
4.6

 

 

 

 

Table 15. Diagnostic markers by activity area (asterisks indicate areas with three or more

markers).

197

activity areas in Area 3 (3.1, 3.3, 3.4). Activity areas in Area 4 failed to produce more
than one association per area. However, deep flat bottom pits were associated with three
activity areas (4.1, 4.3, 4.4). Based on the fact that this feature form was consistently
associated with later structures, these areas were also considered to be later additions.
Activity Areas 4.5 and 4.6 were also considered to be used later than Activity Area 4.2
based on their association with straight and concave projectile points and their location

further away from the plaza, overlapping with House 2/7 7.

Growth of Corporate Groups

Three data sets were compared for each area to assess the development of localized
corporate groups: architectural growth, activity area temporality, and mortuary
patterning. The focus on multiple lines of evidence limits the sample to Burial Groups 2
through 11, as other groups lack one or more of these data sets due to their location near

excavation limits (Figure 55).

Elite Groups
Five burial groups (4, 5, 6, 13, 14) are associated with the elite portion of the site.
Burial Group 4 is the only group to contain predominantly flexed burials and is
positioned near a leader compound. The concentration of deep flat bottom pits in
Activity Area 2.3 and the relatively late radiocarbon date for House 1/87 support a later
addition of these spaces, whereas House l/7 l and Activity Area 2.2 were likely used
throughout the village occupation. Burial Groups 13 and 14, located on either side of

House 1/87, are aligned with the later area. While Burial Group 13 is located in Area 1,

198

 

 

House Sequence Activity Area Sequence
m early l:] early w E
- E

 

 

 

Figure 55. Map of corporate growth, comparing architectural and activity area sequences
with burial group locations and pottery refits (25’-125’). (A = Area; BG = Burial Group.)

it is aligned with Burial Group 4; this connection is further supported by pottery refits
(see Figure 55). The three tightly grouped burials in Burial Group 14 are located outside
of the inner stockade, further affiliating these individuals with this house and the later
stage of village use. The orientation of this house is similar to the wall trench structure,
both of which are positioned roughly at 45° angles to the plaza, whereas other houses
generally parallel the plaza. Similar placement of special-purpose structures has been
noted for Middle Mississippian sites, in close association with central structures
interpreted as residences of village leaders (M. Smith 2000).

All indications suggest that Burial Group 6 developed late in the occupational
sequence of the village, during a time of village expansion, the arrival of non-local
groups, and the development of a ritual area focused on House 2/78. Burial Group 6
contains evidence for a village leader and consists exclusively of males and children,
most of which are extended (see Chapter VI). This burial group is surrounded by later
activity areas, and is positioned between a ritual structure and an area of restricted
storage. Both mortuary and residential attributes link this area with the group
concentrated near the wall trench house. This finding adheres well to theoretical
expectations of male ritualism forming along with village growth (Marcus and Flannery
1996; see Chapter II), expanding an earlier hypothesis regarding the development of a
male-focused institution in the village (Robertson 1980).

The high incidence of flexed burials in Burial Group 4 suggests that this group is
more related to local groups. In contrast, Burial Group 6 developed later in time and in a
closer relationship with new groups. Grave goods are more common in both groups in

positions located farther away from the center pole (Figure 56). This suggests that

200

.8:on 395 hi 3 38.“? we 85QO new 858.5 em 0.5me

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

«955 .28
1- null-..
. _ .
_ w _ w
., - .. M- w- a
0 Z
.. 0 E33
ole o a... $032.6
h Emmoa
' no 9032.5
-
Q a opé 8:80 .325
o I
I u 0
ID I O
0 0D - O
p .' o I.
D
o 0
\
0
n .. .
F
12... b6
.... ...w a... J
0 PM»! 18 ”Ml I

 

 

 

o 3-2 new 3
Q . 3:80 _mtzm
O O o 000
I ’ .._._
€00. .
0 o o
e. . ,. .
15.111. 1.3.
Q ~
o
O OwooiJ
o
o

 

 

201

these burials post-date those located in closer proximity to the center pole. Perhaps
valuable objects were removed to burial contexts as the village became more complex,

reducing inflation costs (Soffer 1985).

Non-Elite Groups

Closely Integrated Local Groups. Area 1 contains two burial groups linked to
residential activity areas and house structures. Burial Group 2 links two activity areas
associated with Houses 1/74 and 2/74. Based on all lines of evidence, House 1/74 was
constructed before House 2/74. House 2/74 was not rebuilt, deep flat bottom pits are
concentrated near this structure, and there are fewer adult burials in the portion of the
burial group associated with this area. Average population size per house increased from
10 to 11. The activity area associated with the new house contains larger features, shell
discs, scroll designs on vessel necks, abraders, and a metate. At least two of these
attributes can be associated with a later use, based on their association with deep flat
bottom pits. This relationship was indicated in the principal components analysis, but is
perhaps best illustrated in continuous distributions of these attributes (Figure 57).
Clearly, this house formed as the northern and western parts of the village grew. Burial
Group 3 also links two activity areas with individual houses (1/73, l/75), but lacks any
indication for one preceding the other. At an average of eight individuals per house,
population estimates are slightly lower than for Burial Group 2.

Interestingly, pottery refits crosscut these divisions showing a strong connection
between House 2/74 and House 1/75. Based on one refit, House 1/74 appears to be more

closely linked with an adjacent residential unit, much of which remains to be excavated.

202

.n‘A A ‘31,
”a . 4_ .' 5 ad
' .FE; l‘.< .
EMA o ' . O
. 1 O
E ‘W A ,_.:’ . .
M2,} .,
O
O
O
.
9‘1:
‘0. .- o
.
a '1
11 .1”
{x {h
‘ 3
- . O
f"-‘_!_.
a? 0
Fun ---—
4- , L ll :1 fl
‘7 “we ‘—- — a
1“? 1'9":
11.? 2-5
1‘“ an “5“
.5 l
1 A '. t.»
r '1 ‘ J L .
“A: “'1
l5! ... A _.,S‘
P‘ I" ..
11wa 1" J .
“EV
rm .
1
1m a.
.
4"“.
{an
5' T1
tn,“
”‘34.! .
‘i’ .

0 Shell Discs

, 4
.15 _ 5.“. i
1 it. A h 1 Ga .
.2. I» ‘I l
,r' ;
.5 C
4 t v .
1’: . a: A V .
1 ' .~ '
.‘v‘ i O
C
0
g.- '1-
I ‘-
ta 5 .
0
r11,
‘ I
1‘» - "
At. ‘4']
i“ J
at)...
.5
1 ,1 .
”‘V

n

at rfl
' . ,z “-3 .5. P3!

‘* 4'5 .' II a

C Metates

L:

.a

,1

I'll .

1’

-.5‘9. 4. H}
‘ ' - - ' o
.5 A .I r.
V" ‘.. ’
“‘1‘ “R," ~
[in 1'? n 3" ° °
"TU ‘1 l"
"W
C
9'“.
‘. '.
L“; o
C
l” 1‘
Q.;u
3'34}
4* J
.4»,
(9: f‘ .
‘

C Total Scroll (n>1) - neck

Figure 57. Distribution of selected “new” artifact attributes.

203

This pattern could have arisen as a consequence of members of the newer House 2/ 74
being more closely linked with House 1/75 than was the case for House 1/73.
House 1/75 is set apart from other houses in Area 1. This house and associated activity
area are spatially segregated from Houses 1/73, 2/74, and 1/74, which form a
distinct cluster in the southern portion of the site. This house lacks an association with a
particular burial group, although pottery refits clearly link this household with other
activity areas in Area 1 and Area 2. Hence, House 1/75 is not only unusual in terms of its
isolated position, but this house is also strongly linked into both of its neighboring
structure clusters. Furthermore, this household is the only one at the site to be positioned
near the intersection of both stockades, and appears to be the location of a village
entrance (see Figure 40). Because all temporal indicators suggest an early appearance of
this household (intensive house remodeling, relatively small feature volumes, and
correspondence with bell shaped pits, convex-based triangular points, and lug
appendages), this house appear to have been one of the first constructed in Area 1.
Development of a Courtyard Complex. Area 3 was occupied for the least amount of
time, based on the low occurrence of burials and artifacts relative to house area in
comparison with other residential units (see Chapter VI). The concentration of straight-
based projectile point forms, larger features and houses, and shell-tempered pottery
suggests that this area was used most intensively later in the village occupation. The
unique arrangement of houses with an interior courtyard is reminiscent of Middle

Mississippian household patterning (Rogers and Smith 1995).

204

Burial Group 7 links four houses and associated activity areas in Area 3. Houses 1/77
and 3/71 formed the center of a social unit that expanded in two directions, including the
construction of Houses 2/87 and 1/72. This conclusion is based on the centralized
concentration of burials within the group and pottery refits which link adjacent areas to

the center. House and feature size support this growth pattern rather well.

 

Mean
Feature House
Activity Area Volume House A__r§_a
3.1 567 1/72 465
3.2 400 3/71 391
3.3 473 1/77 414
3.4 633 2/87 443

Radiocarbon dates and architectural evidence further support this sequence (see above).
Average population estimates for this corporate group increase from 20 to 22 individuals
per house pair.

The Concentration of New Ideas. Burial Group 8 links tlu'ee activity areas associated
with four houses (1/78, 2/77, 2/72, 3/72). The central activity area (4.2) formed the
nucleus to which adjacent activity areas (4.1, 4.3, 4.5, 4.6) were added. This conclusion
is based on multiple lines of evidence: feature frequency is highest in this area (bell
shaped features in particular), while fewer but larger deep flat bottom pits are located in
adjacent areas. Additionally, there are more burials in the central portion of the burial
group, pottery refits link both new areas to the older one, and straight and concave-based
triangular points correspond with outer activity areas (4.5 and 4.6).

The evidence for rebuilding indicated that House 2/77 was constructed early in the
sequence, and House 1/78 was most likely constructed at a similar time based on its

similarity to House 2/77 and the location of both structures within the inner stockade.

205

Unfortunately, it is not possible at this point to associate particular structures with activity
areas in this portion of the site. Average population estimates increase fi'om seven to nine
individuals per house in the earlier and later houses, respectively.

Details regarding Burial Group 9 enrich interpretations of this area. This cluster of
burials is easily distinguished fi‘om adjacent groups. A suite of characteristics further
segregates these burials from others at the site: the association with the largest
concentration of deep flat bottom pits, the presence of unique burial goods, the close
proximity to the wall trench structure, and the close proximity to the smaller plaza post.
These distinctions raise the possibility that these individuals were part of a distinct group
joining the village later in the site’s occupation. Most importantly, it appears that this
group’s arrival to the village coincided with the expansion of the corporate group initially
represented by the central portion of Burial Group 8.

Additional support for the growth of Burial Group 8 can be seen in terms of the
locations of specific artifact types in activity areas and burials. In this burial group,
graves containing artifacts are limited to burials associated with newer activity areas (see
Figure 56). In particular, a shell disc and pipe — located in several graves in Burial Group
9 — were located in burials near a new activity area (4.1) associated with Burial Group 8.
Late Woodland points were concentrated in earlier feature clusters, and shell discs were
restricted to later activity areas. Abraders and pitted stones were only present in later

activity areas.

206

Development of Village Ritual and Leadership
Closer proximity of pit features to the center pole, higher incidence of storage
potential relative to house size, locations of larger and clearly marked burial groups, and
the presence of a ritual structure clearly demarcate the elite area fi'orn adjacent residential
zones. All indications are that this area developed later in time in relation to the growth
of Area 3 and Area 4. The goal here is to examine the extent to which this process can be
associated with regional interaction and ritual behavior, both of which are often

associated with village growth (see Chapter II).

Petrographic Results

Petrographic analysis was undertaken to determine whether there was a distinction in
clay sources used in the manufacture of shell-tempered pottery as compared with grit-
tempered pottery, to be in a better position to assess regional mobility and exchange
patterning (see Chapter V). Results of the investigation thus far have revealed that shell-
tempered pottery is not only concentrated near newer houses in the village, but is most
directly associated with the elite area (Figure 58). Therefore, shell temper appears to be
related to village growth (which may include mobility) and the establishment of a
leadership and ritual precinct (which is often related to exchange).

There were two significant results of the petrographic analysis. First, there was no
significant statistical difference in terms of the composition of inclusions present in shell
and grit tempered pottery, indicating that the raw materials were gathered from the same
types of contexts. The only exception is the grit/shell-tempered sherd but the sample was

too small to assess significance (Figure 59; see Appendix E). Second, the paste of shell-

207

   

storage
. structure?

 

 

g K Architectural Sequence Shell Temper
W - E

S early 1
S - late .:

 

 

 

 

Figure 58. Distribution of shell tempered pottery in relation to the architectural sequence.

208

 

' Grit Tempered
A Shell Tempered
X Grit/Shell Tempered Q‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ternary Plot of MatriJCSllt:Sand for All Samples

Figure 59. Ternary plot displaying results of petrographic analysis.

209

tempered sherds generally lacked metamorphic inclusions, which were abundant in all
other sherds and both local clay sources. Metamorphic inclusions are most likely related
to glacial origins of deposits (F argher 2004). Alternatively, it is possible that the clay
used to make the shell tempered pottery was meticulously cleaned, although this is less
likely (Lane Fargher, personal communication).

Based on this evidence, Fargher (2004:9) concluded that the grit-tempered and mixed
tempered pottery was produced locally and shell-tempered samples were either imported
or produced with clay from a different source than the clay used to produce the grit-
tempered samples (Fargher 2004:9). Several explanations could account for the
variability in clay source used to manufacture shell-tempered pottery. Three of these
possibilities include:

(1) people moved in;

(2) pottery vessels were traded in; and/or

(3) same inhabitants started to use different sources over time.
Morphological differences have been previously noted for shell-tempered pottery,
suggestions being that these vessels were derived from a differing pottery tradition
(Sunderhaus and Cook, n.d.). This observation provides more support for the first two
explanations. The concentration of shell tempered pottery near the newer structures
supports potters moving into the village. The general concentration of pottery in the elite
area could also be related to exchange, but these are not mutually exclusive explanations.

Non-glaciated clay sources are located a considerable distance from the site, the
closest potential sources being in the portion of the Interior Plateau in northern Kentucky

and possibly portions of southwest Ohio and south central Indiana (see Figure 4). Many

earlier and contemporary Fort Ancient sites are located in southwest Ohio, most notable

210

of which is the State Line site, which contained many more Middle Mississippian
architectural and artifact characteristics than SunWatch (V ickery et al. 2000; see Chapter
VIII). A regional sample of both sherds and sources near these sites is needed before
making any additional conclusions regarding regional processes. Unfortunately, another
analysis of the composition of Fort Ancient pottery in southwest Ohio — including
samples from the State Line site — did not examine the specific mineralogical
composition with which to compare data presented here (Tankersley and Meinhart 1982).
An additional finding of the petrographic analysis is that the grit/shell-tempered,
negative painted/rectilinear guilloche sherd contained metamorphic inclusions. All
results of the petrographic analysis suggest that some pottery came from outside and
production of these types of vessels was continued using local sources (F argher 2004).

Interestingly, this sherd was located directly in front of the ritual structure.

Revisiting Green Corn Ritualism

The central argument regarding the ritual structure of SunWatch has been that a
ceremony similar to the historic Green Corn ceremony was practiced (Heilman et al.
1988; Robertson 1980). The goal here is to further examine this important hypothesis
and to specifically connect this ritual with other parts of the village and the growth of
the elite area.

Specific data sets considered here include artifact densities, feature form and
seasonality, burnt corn, solar alignments, and pottery refits (see Chapter V for

discussion of these criteria). These data sets are similarly distributed (Figure 60). A

211

winter
solstice

summer
solstice

9”,

 

 

House Sequence N "73 2174 1/74
- late s

 

Figure 60. Map of burnt corn (solid) and ritually-filled (open) features in relation to large
pottery refits (>125’), solar alignments, and the architectural sequence.

212

particularly strong similarity is visually apparent for the distributions of burnt corn
and pottery refits (>125’). Specifically, concentrations of burnt corn are located near
structures throughout the site built later in the occupational sequence, and

pottery refits link these areas together. Burnt corn is specifically concentrated near
the winter solstice, summer solstice, and planting/harvesting alignments with few
occurrences near the equinox alignment.

Pottery and bone/shell artifacts are concentrated in two features in the elite area,
l9ww/74 and 5/78, and debitage density is markedly higher in Feature 1/79 (Figure
61; see Figure 60). The distribution of faunal remains could not be quantified, as they
have not been completely inventoried. However, features that produced substantial
amounts of pottery in particular are noted as also containing many animal remains.
For example, field notes fiom Feature l9ww/74 describe an “exceptionally high
quantity of pottery. . .lots of bone — mainly deer and some turtle. . .many whole mussel
shells. Incredible amount of bone” (Louise Robbins, 1974 field notes on file in the
Anthropology Department [DSNH]).

Feature l9ww/74 is the westernmost pit in a group of four overlapping features
oriented along the equinox alignment. Feature 5/76 also consists of four overlapping
features located in front of the ritual structure, and the last feature in this row contains
two dog burials. A distinct feature (12/76) was located inside the area of restricted
storage. This feature is a large bell shaped pit containing a distinct ledge around the
opening, possibly for reinforcement during repeated use. This feature and an adjacent
pit contained the only occurrence of grog-tempered pottery, which are likely of

Middle Mississippian derivation (Sunderhaus and Cook n.d.). This pit was

2l3

 

Debitage by Feature

Frequency

 

 

 

Bone/Shell Artifacts by Feature

Frequency

 

 

 

Pottery by Feature

Frequency

 

 

 

 

Figure 61. Histograms of debitage, bone/shell tools, and pottery distributions for featmes
located in the elite area~

214

located near a substantial extramural hearth and was the only feature with evidence of
both winter and summer uses (Shane, personal communication).

Pottery refits spanning the greatest distance (>125’) are concentrated in the vicinity of
ritual features. Pottery refits are particularly common from every house located in Area 1
to the ritual structure. In particular, a single feature associated with House 2/74 contains

three refits linked to the feature containing the dog burials associated with House 2/78.

 

!
Two refits link distinct concentrations of burnt corn in Area 4 with features located near
this area. All pottery refits are focused on the ritual structure.
Locations of seasonally-filled features were used to investigate the annual timing of
ritual activities independently of solar alignments (Figure 62; see Chapter V for methods E

used by Shane for determining seasonality). The relationship between these data sets is
clear in this part of the site; visual inspection revealed a close association between winter
features and the winter solstice alignment and between spring/summer features and the
summer solstice alignment. House l/71—one of the largest houses at the site—is located
on the planting/harvesting aligmnent and is associated with spring and summer features.
The winter solstice alignment is associated with the area of restricted storage and is
located near features that were more often filled in the winter months. This finding
suggests that, as an alternative to restricted storage, this area could have been used as a
winter structure (Carskadden 1992), as the main ritual precinct appears to have been used
most intensively between the equinox and winter solstice. The area containing a chiefly

residence (Nass 1987) and/or Big House (Heilman et al. 1988) was spatially bound by

215

\/"

fr”, "‘ “- ' .r
'1: - “r
‘ -. . ~. =1 ‘3/11‘ . a.
"\ " r '. '-:..;-~'
\.' 4 . ,' 1-
........ . :- -~ .3 .g.
. 1’

 

plant/ l,’;/

- .1 . . , ,.
————————————————— _ I
/

/
harvest /
/
/ /

t _‘i o ...”..‘ofi" I /
i" I O / /summer

"- l /
,_ / solstice

Feature Seasonality

1:.“

summer

_l I! wirur

 

Figure 62. Location of elite features attributable to a particular season in relation to solar
alignments. (Somee: Orrin Shane, personal communication.)

216

equinox and summer solstice alignments and contained mostly spring and summer
features, indicating more intensive uses during these times of the year.

A renewal ceremony similar to the Green Corn ceremony is supported on the basis of
artifact densities, burnt corn, and pottery refits linked with houses located throughout the
village. Individuals from throughout the village would clean their houses and
communally dispose of the debris during such an occasion. Inevitably, some of the
broken pottery would be left behind and disposed of near their house. The accumulation
of broken artifacts could also have resulted from intensive craft production in this area,
which often accompanies ritual occasions, although this fails to account for the pottery
refit pattern.

A final consideration with respect to this ceremony is the fact that non-local groups
often participate in the event. This process accounts for much of the data, not least of
which is the discrepancy between artifact density and house area in the north. The
growth spurt concentrated in the north may be the result of people living for a short time
with family members in this part of the village.

After all of the people from the various towns had assembled at the site of the

ceremony, their first order of business would have been to arrange places to live for

the duration of the ceremony. In some cases they would have stayed with fellow
clansmen who lived in or near the town where the ceremony was to be held. But if
room were scarce. . .the various clans would have had to erect temporary shelters.

(Hudson 1976:367)

It is a distinct possibility that families and individuals joined the social groups in the
northern part of the site for short periods of time on a regular basis, most likely in

conjunction with ritual events.

217

A Brief History of SunWatch

A close consideration of radiocarbon assays from pit and house features, evidence for
architectural rebuilding of houses and stockades, diagnostic feature and artifact attributes
associated with household activity areas and burial groups, and pottery refits revealed a
consistent pattern of village formation. Four corporate groups and an elite area
developed during two stages of village formation. Difference in household frequency is
supported by burial placement and is most likely attributable to difi'erent stages in the
developmental cycle of social units. Corporate groups developed in a localized fashion,
as the village was integrated by means of an elite residence and a distinct ritual precinct.

Two similar types of kin groups came together to initially form the village, located in
the southern and northern parts of the site. The southern group grew at a steady rate
while the northern group increased dramatically with the addition of another group
concentrated in the vicinity of the wall trench structure (see Chapter VI).

The first stage of construction was concentrated in Area 1 and Area 4, based on the
association with early radiocarbon dates for structures and pit features, and the
concentration of grit and grit/shell tempered pottery, convex-based triangular projectile
points, smaller feature and house sizes, and Late Woodland points in these areas. The
earliest houses built at the site were located in two closely spaced pairs in Area 3 (1/77,
3/71 and 1/78, 2/77) and three evenly spaced structures in Area 1 (1/75, 1/73, and 1/74).
Based on the concentration of straight-based triangular points and the low artifact
densities near Houses 1/77 and 3/71, these were likely built slightly later in time. The
first of two center poles and House 1/7l were also in use at this time. The inner stockade

enclosed these structures.

218

 

The second stage of construction was concentrated in Areas 2, 3, and 4, based on the
association with later radiocarbon dates for structures and pit features, and the
concentration of straight-sided features, shell tempered and plain pottery, straight and
concave-based triangular projectile points, and larger feature and house sizes. This
included the addition of two houses in Area 4 (Houses 2/72 and 3/72) and the addition of
House 1/72 and 2/87 in Area 3. Two houses were built in Area 2 (1/87, 2/78) and House
1/71 may have been expanded at this time. House 2/74 was added to Area 1 as new
groups joined the village and the elite area formed. The outer stockade enclosed all
houses Within the village.

Area 1 contained two closely related corporate groups occupying adjacent pairs of
houses; one pair formed during the village occupation and one was present throughout
the occupation. Area 2 consisted of an elite residence where leadership and ritual
firnctions developed later in the occupational sequence. Based on pottery refits and a
host of shared attributes, House 1/75 was equally related to corporate groups in Area I
and the elite area. Early artifact and feature attributes corresponded with activity areas
associated with this structure, suggesting that this was one of the first houses built in the
village. Areas 3 and 4 each contained one corporate group, each of which was associated
with four houses and activity areas. Area 3 developed in close coordination with the elite
area, based on similarity in feature and house size, the concentration of quartzite and
mica-tempered pottery, and the overlapping ritual sphere focused on the winter solstice

alignment. The lower artifact and burial densities associated with Area 3 suggests that it

219

was occupied for a shorter duration of time or was used less intensively than other site
areas.

The development of the elite area was examined in relation to outsiders, ritual, and
exchange. Ritual and leadership formation in the village appear to have been
coterrninous. This process is best understood within the context of practices associated
with peer polity interaction with Middle Mississippian groups, based on similarity of site
structure to Middle Mississippian villages and its development in conjunction with the
appearance of the wall trench house (see Chapter VIII).

Village leadership was most likely associated with a local kin group located in Area 1
and specific mortuary connections link burials associated with House 1/75 to the village
leader. Development of leadership appears to have coincided with the arrival of
individuals or small social groups. Rituals and exchange accompanied this process as is
common in ethnographic accounts of small-scale movements into villages (Chagnon
1968). Long-distance exchange and/or population movement is supported by
petrographic analysis of shell-tempered pottery, in addition to the presence of a single
wall trench house associated with a suite of tmique artifact and feature attributes.

The concentration of ritual and leadership activities in the area bounded by solar
alignments has been known for some time (see Chapter IV). Data presented here have
expanded our understanding of the significance of the winter solstice. This alignment is
the most redundantly marked at the site including the hearth in House 2/87, the location
of an extramural hearth and an unusual feature containing Middle Mississippian pottery,
and an area of restricted storage, all of which is in close proximity to the ritual house and

burial precinct.

220

CHAPTER VIII: REGIONAL AND THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS

This study has investigated the social structure and formation of the SunWatch site, a
Fort Ancient village occupied during the course of Middle Mississippian developments in
adjacent regions. The theoretical perspective incorporated multiple spatial scales,
focusing on household and corporate group dimensions within a broader framework
including village and regional scales. Regional data and theoretical perspectives were
incorporated that could best account for variation among architectural, mortuary, pit
feature, and artifact attributes. Examining Middle Mississippian dimensions of this site
proved useful for furthering our understanding of the process of inter-regional interaction

and village formation.

A Model of Fort Ancient Village Social Structure and Formation
This study has demonstrated the utility of incorporating general ethnographic and
Mississippian dimensions into models of Fort Ancient village formation and social
structure. The following sections summarize key findings of the investigation in relation
to existing Fort Ancient models, focusing on the structure and development of an elite
residence, the formation of corporate groups, and residential variation and regional

integration of populations.

An Elite Residence and Village Growth
The elite residence at SunWatch adheres to rules associated with Middle

Mississippian site design as this area is significantly closer to the center pole, contains

221

unique architectural patterning, storage distinctions, and is clearly associated with solar
alignments marking ritual activities. Evidence supports the conclusion that this area
served to integrate local and non-local groups, a finding which fits well with existing
models of Fort Ancient evolution (Pollack and Henderson 2000a). However, the explicit
Middle Mississippian ritual connection expands the view to include peer polity
interactions (including population movements) into models of Fort Ancient development.

The emergence of local leadership and Mississippian ritual firnctions in the west side
corresponded with expansion in the residential zones of the village and the elite residence
formed as the village grew in relation to regional processes. Mississippian-related
artifacts and features occurred later in the occupational sequence. These were often
localized around particular structures strongly suggesting their linkage to the emergence
of particular institutions. Petrographic analysis supports a non-local source for some of
the shell tempered pottery, a source located nearer to neighboring Middle Mississippian
groups. These findings raise the distinct possibility of population movement, generally
coinciding with the growth of this district.

Middle Mississippian exchange was ritualized and used in part by a local leader to
establish power. Mississippian material culture, while a small component of this Fort
Ancient village, could not have been in a clearer context regarding the impact
Mississippian exchange had on site structure, including both the center pole and the elite
area. By re-focusing the problem away from the low occurrence of Mississippian
artifacts, the presence of Mississippian ideas has become clearer.

Specific linkages were made between the elite precinct and other residential portions

of the village. The area located to the north of the elite area was not discernible in terms

222

of feature gaps and was positioned closer to the center pole than other areas. Similar to
the elite residence, this area also contained larger houses and features. Additionally,
quartzite and mica-tempered pottery and metates occurred more frequently in this area,
and grit/grog-tempered pottery and limestone and slate disc preforms were exclusive to
this part of the site. The low density of artifacts and concentration of later diagnostics in
Area 3 is indicative of a shorter occupation span; perhaps this residential unit was

established in conjunction with the grth of the elite area.

Comm; Groups and Households

The identification of corporate groups and their development specifically expands our
understanding of Fort Ancient residential behavior by revealing processes by which
smaller villages became larger as a result of both internal growth and the joining of
additional groups to a village. While these processes have been mentioned as
possibilities (Carskadden and Morton 2000; Henderson 1992b), they have not been
directly investigated prior to the current investigation. This also expands our
understanding of corporate developments on a more general level through the specific
examination of growth of corporate groups represented in both mortuary and residential
spaces.

Expectations of corporate groups as bounded sets of mortuary areas were met and
adult burials in particular were spatially structured in arc-row patterns, which are
interpreted as a general Mississippian pattern adapted to a circular village structure.

Adults were buried closer to the village center, a common finding at other Fort Ancient

223

villages (Henderson and Pollack 2001). This study specifically identified this space as
being located in the same proximity to the center pole as the elite residence. In contrast,
children were more often buried in the pit feature zone, suggesting a close connection
between human and plant fertility (storage) as has been suggested for Neolithic
communities (Bradley 1998). The first rule was to define the group spatially, including
both child and adult members. The second rule was to internally partition the population
into “adult” and “non-adult” statuses based on distance to the center of the village.

Cluster analysis supported these concentric divisions but also revealed an additional
finding. One cluster was distributed in four specific locales, closely matching cardinal
directions. These burials were unique in that they contained a greater diversity of artifact
inclusions, and consisted mostly of males and children. Moreover, they contained the
only occurrence of shell discs and the majority of wolf and dog remains. These burials
were densely grouped near the ritual structure in the elite area and near the wall trench
house in the northeastern part of the site in the heaviest concentration of deep flat bottom
pits. Moreover, many flexed burials are oriented in a distinct pattern in this part of the
site and several graves are aligned with the smaller ritual post. This is consistent with the
anomalous nature of the residential component in this portion of the site.

Two to four household activity areas were directly associated with individual
corporate groups (i.e., cemeteries were shared by multiple households) (Figure 63).
Segmentation of corporate groups is supported by concordance between burial row

fiequencies, architectural rebuilding, and temporally-distinct material and feature

224

corporate group

  

elite residence
and ritual area

closely related
corporate groups

 

Use Sequence
:1 used WWII occupation W E
later m

Figure 63. The basic model of residential composition and corporate growth.

 

 

 

225

indicators in household activity areas. When more than two households were associated
with a corporate group, the oldest members were positioned in a central location fi'om
which subsequent households formed. Corporate groups appear to have started with two
closely spaced households, adhering well with findings at villages occupied for shorter
time periods (Henderson 1992b; see Figure 9). Pottery refits linked newer houses to
older ones, which were interpreted as founders of corporate groups. Stronger linkages of
newer houses to the founding households suggests that these families were more
dependent on the parent than established ones, which is often the case in segmented
social systems (Fortes 1953). Differences in the numbers of households comprising a

corporate group appear to be related to stages in the development cycle (Tourtellot 1988).

What Kind of Mississippian Periphery was Fort Ancient?

A broader framework is needed to understand Fort Ancient development, including
both a geographic and temporal component. Developments associated with the formation
of ritual and leadership institutions during the Middle Fort Ancient period occurred
within a context of peer interactions with Mississippians, or groups directly interacting
with them. The fimction of these institutions was to integrate the village to meet the
needs of a larger population. Each of the following six theoretical expectations regarding
the functioning of peer polity systems were supported in this study:

(1) structural homologies at highly visible levels: includes presence of center pole,
elite areas, and corporate groups;

(2) contact prior to change: earlier Fort Ancient sites often contain Mississippian
trade items (Drooker 1997);

(3) prestige goods (diacritics [Schortman and Urban 1987]) with higher status
individuals: whelk shells and shell discs;

226

(4) increased complexity of the less complex group: all indications are that leadership
and ritual was established as a result of interactions with Mississippians;

(5) presence of traveling peers: presence of a wall trench structure that was associated
with distinct feature forms and artifact attributes; and

(6) integrative mechanisms: later date for ritual structure, and clear associations with
Mississippian materials in context of clear pattern of ritually-integrated corporate

groups.

Mobility m Population Aggggation

By identifying key elements of site structure and the particular context of
Mississippian artifacts, this study has shown that the relationship between local and non-
local influences in the formation of Fort Ancient villages was dynamic. In particular, this
includes the movement of Mississippian individuals and/or social groups moved into
local villages, factoring heavily into subsequent developments. These findings contrast
with earlier conclusions that Fort Ancient developed fiom migrating Middle
Mississippian groups in isolation of local populations (Prufer and Shane 1970). Results
of this study are more in line with the conclusion that interactions between Late
Woodland and Middle Mississippian groups were variable, resulting in some groups
developing a more “Mississippian” settlement system than others (Essenpreis 1978) and
the emergence of particular institutions as a response to inter-regional interaction
(Robertson 1980).

The likelihood of migrations factoring directly into the formation of Fort Ancient
villages requires specific considerations of the types of moves that occurred. This

includes considering the movements of both social groups and individuals. There are

227

several ways in which the patterns revealed in this study could have formed in the context
of population movements. The facts to consider closely are the localization of a suite of
material culture closely affiliated with an individual wall trench house, and the
concentration of shell-tempered pottery in the elite area, most if not all of which was
produced a considerable distance fiom the village. The wall trench house and related
items suggests that a family, possibly part of a wolf clan-like group, moved into the
village. Alternatively, this pattern could have arisen in the context of short-term stays
within these social groups: “If the traveler found members of his clan in the town, he
spent the night in one of their households; if not, he spent the night in the town house”
(Hudson 1976:314-315). The concentration of shell-tempered pottery, some of which
appears to have come fi‘om a considerable distance fi'om the site, near new households in
the elite area suggests the movement of individuals into this area, perhaps as part of
marriage alliances, among other alternatives.

Population movements and aggregation have long been discussed in the context of the
firsion of dual social groups (Levi-Straus 1963). This has been widely noted for Middle
Mississippian villages (Blitz 1999), and is consistent with ethnographic accounts in the
Eastern Woodlands in general (Hudson 1976) and among southern Algonquins in
particular (Callendar 1978). The basic characteristics of this form of social system and
particular characteristics associated with southern Algonquin groups are presented
followed by further consideration of the SunWatch case (Cook and Sunderhaus 1999).

Dual systems of social organization are particularly effective for population
aggregation (Lowell 1996), which characterizes the Middle Fort Ancient period in

particular (Pollack and Henderson 2000a). On a general theoretical level, Levi-Strauss

228

 

(1963:161) has noted that“. . .dual organizations. . .[are] the historical result of the fusion
of two populations differing in race, in culture, or simply in power.” And Chagnon
(1968:70-72) has observed among the Yanomamo that moiety divisions facilitated the
fission and firsion process, whereby villages break and form at their weakest points.
Perhaps the dual division structure evolved to function as a ready-made design for the

fusion and fission processes, the need for which may have become more marked as

 

agriculture intensified which has been noted for Middle Mississippian populations (Blitz
1 999).

Southern Algonquin villages often contained localized moieties and clans. Moieties

 

were often associated with the Earth and Sky and often determined the residential
structure of the village, “with Earth clans inhabiting the northeast half of each settlement
and those of the Sky moiety the southwest” (Callendar 1978:615). The Earth moiety
includes clans with animal names associated with the earth (e.g., Bear, Deer, Wolf),
whereas Sky moiety clan names were animals associated with the sky (e.g., Eagle,
Thunder) (Callender 1978:615; Radin 1923). Each moiety often served distinct
functions. For example, the Sky moiety provided the tribal chief while the Earth moiety
served to police the community (Radin 1923:183). Despite the fact that these distinct
halves performed unique roles, they were often linked through reciprocal obligations and
exogamous relations. Economic specialization has also been noted among southern
Algonquin moieties (e.g., Hoffinan 1893) as well as more generally (Ortiz 1969). Some
moieties are directly associated with winter and summer seasons (Ortiz 1969).

Data presented in this study support a moiety-like structure for the occupants of

SunWatch, but expand the case to include a temporal and ritual dimension. A southwest!

229

northeast division of the site is supported by numerous artifact attributes in pit feature and
mortuary contexts, with evidence of a village leader fiom the southern portion of the site.
Hunting/warfare and fishing gear were more common in the south while some food
processing implements were more fiequently located in the north, supporting an
economic differentiation of village halves. The concentration of wolf and dog remains in
adjacent corporate groups in the northeastern part of the site supports the presence of a
clan-like group (the wolf is an “earth” animal in the southern Algonquin model
[Callendar 1978]). Spatial patterning of several artifact forms suggests that reciprocal
relationships existed between village halves, specifically occurring during the growth of

each group.

A Comparable Mississippiagr Peer

Fort Ancient is located on a Middle Mississippian periphery. Some studies have
downplayed this fact while others have stressed it, but this study is the first to
systematically explore the issue. A brief comparison with a neighboring Middle
Misssissippian village reveals striking similarities in overall site structure. This
comparison is intended only to begin focusing attention on the appropriate site types to
discern the nature of these interactions. Studies comparing Fort Ancient villages with
Mississippian mound centers have been misdirected.

The Southwind site, located in southwestern Indiana, is the clearest example of an

Angel Phase village (Munson 1994) (Figure 64). The layout of this site is very

230

SOUTHWIND SITE
12 P0 265

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Key:

#1 Big House-type structure

#2 plaza post

#3 single-post house

Figure 64. Southwind site map (adapted fiom Munson 1994).

231

similar to SunWatch with multiple rows of houses surrounding a plaza with central
features. Plazas are of a similar size at both sites and houses form distinct groups within
each village. Overall house rebuilding was similar at each site with the plaza pole and
houses being rebuilt multiple times.

The relationship between plaza features and the western zone is similar at both sites.
Large houses are located in the western parts of each site. Interestingly, the distance
fiom the plaza poles to these structures is nearly identical (Southwind = 134’ and
SunWatch = 133’). Moreover, there are also two plaza markers at Southwind as was the
case at SunWatch, each being located in similar positions within the respective villages.

A final similarity was observed for a structure located in the northeastern part of each
village. All houses were wall trenches at Southwind with one exception being a large
single-post structure in the northeastern part of the village. This location is very similar
to the position of the wall trench structure at SunWatch.

While site layouts are similar for these villages, there are clear distinctions (Figure
65). The Southwind stockade is square with bastions, no burials were present, and
subterranean storage/trash features were rarely encountered (storage was primarily in
above ground granaries). The absence of burials may be related to distinctions in
mortuary behavior whereby rural cemeteries were often located outside of villages (e.g.,
Goldstein 1980). Also, it is possible that this difference relates to the hierarchical
settlement pattern with burials occurring more frequently in mound centers. Above
ground storage may be due to poor drainage of local soils (Cheryl Munson, personal

communication).

232

"unfailiJh ‘_~ .5 '3 v

 

Southwind

 

SunWatch

Figure 65. Artistic reconstructions of the Southwind and SunWatch sites. (Southwind
illustration by Ellen Sieber and Cheryl Munson; SunWatch rendering by Jeff Door and
Robert Cook. Note that the highlighted portion of SunWatch is conjectural.)

233

 

The purpose of this comparison is to note the similarity of the overall pattern of
village architecture between Fort Ancient and Middle Mississippian peers. The intention
has not been to suggest that these two particular sites interacted but that these types of
sites resulted fiom peer interactions. The conclusion fiom this preliminary comparison is

that if Fort Ancient residential architecture and stockades were replaced with Middle

 

pt.
Mississippian architectural features, these two groups would appear to be very similar. I:
The Persistence of Time E
L:

 

Fort Ancient and Middle Mississippian peer interaction may have deeper roots as
long-distance ritualized interactions are often recurring between regions (Bradley 1998).
Exchanges between earlier groups living in the Fort Ancient and Middle Mississippian
regions can be minimally traced back to Middle Woodland period. The connection
between Ohio and Illinois was well-established since Middle Woodland times which may
help explain why many early Fort Ancient sites are located in a former Middle Woodland
“core” (see Figure 8). However, Middle Fort Ancient sites are often located nearer to the
Middle Mississippian border suggesting the development of more closely spaced peer
relations. The earliest date fiom Blain village comes fiom a feature containing both Fort
Ancient and Middle Woodland materials (Prufer and Shane 1970:232). Blain village and
the Kramer site are both located adjacent to Middle Woodland earthworks and some
Middle Woodland mounds have instrusive Fort Ancient burials (e.g., Seip, Tremper)
(Griffin 1943:213-214). It may not be coincidental that mortuary behavior provides a

linkage between Middle Woodland and Fort Ancient groups.

234

Unfortunately, not as much is known about the Late Woodland period in the region.
However, as was alluded to earlier, villages developed in Ohio during this time. There is
an uninterrupted sequence of Late Woodland villages in southwestern Ohio and many

early villages are located in the central Ohio Hopewell core.

Further Work
To develop a better understanding of the problem of Fort Ancient and Mississippian
interaction and the social structure of Fort Ancient villages, firrther investigation is
required at both site and regional scales. Despite considerable variation in villages based
on previous work, some general principles became clear from this study fiom which to

suggest productive avenues of inquiry.

Sunttchand Other Villages

At SunWatch, additional stratigraphic and areal excavations are needed. Units
excavated by the museum located near the wall-trench house should be excavated to the
depths at which this structure was located to more closely examine the nature and extent
of this distinct area. Stratigraphic excavations should also be undertaken near the
southern stockade segment that exhibited evidence for buried deposits.

Areal excavations at specific locations within the site are needed to assess whether
additional structures are present. Of primary importance is whether additional houses are
located in the pit feature/mortuary area where the wall trench house and an additional
structure were situated. There are many posthole patterns extending into unexcavated

areas in the northern part of the site (see Figure 40). The western and southern portions

235

 

-w~

 

 

of the site may also contain additional structures. It is not possible to firlly assess the
village pattern without examining these areas. Also, the east side of the site should be
tested although most features may have been destroyed during the construction of West
River Road (see Figure l 1). The plaza and areas outside the village should also be
examined.

Findings made at SunWatch could be used to further examine other Fort Ancient
villages. Specific characteristics of interest identified in this study include several key
elements of site structure, including the role of the center pole, the structure of burial
groups, and proximity of houses.

Well-excavated villages occupied for a shorter duration than SunWatch are missing
the ritual precinct and have paired households (see Chapter IV), which matches the
SunWatch pattern rather well as it has been shown that the elite area was established later
in the occupational sequence. Specific attention should be focused on locating additional
center poles as they have not been documented at other Fort Ancient sites. This is
particularly important given that SunWatch exhibited such a clear relationship between
this feature and the ritual/mortuary realm. Burial rows are evident at other Middle (e.g.,
Capitol View [l992b]) and Late Fort Ancient sites (e.g., Hardin [Hanson 1966]), some of
which also contained a row of adult males (e.g., Madisonville [Drooker 1997]).

Wall trench architecture has been documented at many Fort Ancient sites (see Figure
7). While most often there is only one structure of this type per village, areal excavations
have been too limited to deduce a general pattern. Sites lacking a wall trench structure
may contain buried deposits as the SunWatch example was located in an unusual position

in a village of single post structures. If it were not for a burial intruding on this house and

236

 

 

 

 

the avocational archaeologists diligently following this lead, we would have no reason to
suspect this was present.

Controlled comparisons need to be made between villages containing wall trench
architecture. One such example is the Schomaker site, located approximately 35 miles
downriver from SunWatch (Cowan et al. 1990). This site also contained one wall trench
structure surrounded by deep flat bottom features and produced radiocarbon dates similar
to the SunWatch wall trench house. This h0use was also rebuilt; however, both structures
utilized wall trenches in their construction. Similar to SunWatch, this structure was
positioned over pit features; however, it was located on the southern side of the village
and did not contain burials. Interestingly, radiocarbon dates from this village are also
bimodally distributed suggesting similar temporality. (This temporal patterning may be
indicative of Fort Ancient sites in general [Carr and Haas 1996]). Pottery from the
Schomaker site is all shell tempered, but other artifact types suggest strong similarities to
SunWatch (Cowan et al. 1990).

It is quite possible that shell-tempered pottery was introduced to SunWatch via trade
and/or population movements from Schomaker or a nearby village (Sunderhaus and Cook
n.d.). The petrographic analysis reported in this study needs to be expanded to further
examine this issue, for it is a distinct possibility that migrants fiom the State Line site (or
sites in this area) helped form sites like SunWatch and Schomaker. Sites located in this
portion of the Fort Ancient region are earlier, and contain more Middle Mississippian
characteristics, including higher occurrences of shell-tempered pottery (V ickery et al.

2000); intermediate sites contain relatively even percentages of shell and grit-

237

tempered vessels (Figure 66; Figure 67).

Many sites contain a few Middle Mississippian diagnostics and varying degrees of
shell-tempered pottery. The context of Mississippian diagnostics in particular needs to be
investigated, as the pattern was unusually clear at SunWatch. A close consideration of
the contexts of these items and testing them to determine if they were non-local was
invaluable in furthering an understanding of the role interaction played in village growth

and the establishment leadership and ritual institutions.

The Fort Ancient Region and Beyond

The Fort Ancient region has always suffered fiom a lack of surveys and comparative
studies with other Middle Mississippian peripheries. The lack of systematic large-scale
survey data makes it impossible to assess the settlement system although it has been
extensively argued that Fort Ancient both lacked and contained a hierarchical system in
some locales. While there is more support for the former argument, in reality we do not
know enough to determine this with a high degree of confidence. More information
is needed fiom a large region surrounding a Fort Ancient village to learn about non-
village types of sites. A regional survey in the vicinity of SunWatch and southwestern
Ohio would make a lot of sense considering we know so much about the site. Only after
such investigations are undertaken will we be in a position to build regional models from

which to address broader behavioral questions (Rossignol 1992).

238

 

M7

1 r‘ f 5'”
1'

SteeleDam
SUNWATCH
k 3
? Taylor ‘ Kw

l
Antietam. '
. Hine \. f J1, m
rshoe-l'

0’"
f\ \Aysmomakero %‘
l ‘r‘ . . . "“-
l ;§:.l§htelumatdmd%'>/ Jr,“
‘ grams 2 .
Ohio“ ',\ ) ‘ “fix... “Vex: U
‘ Ex" 2 J" t

\ . I '\
O Anasmithl g \ ’
, Cleok-McCabe 3,
e . , j

‘3‘

 

1i Neville Farm
I

./" g 1. twee-K f“

. 4.. K, _
\ ll; '5‘ ‘1

1o 0 1o 20 Miles ®
5::

 

Figure 66. Major Early (open) and Middle (solid) Fort Ancient site locations in
southwest Ohio and adjacent areas. (Source: Kennedy 2000.)

239

 

Upper Middle Lower

Percent

 

:5 c C; .02 01::
52o“ Sgfia Eg-E'fia:
g or E 13:: no
2 '5 E 0 83:,
gg 3 fig 3 Eg::
was g g a "a?

:r
....-

1°

 

 

 

[n Grit 1:1 Grit/Shell I Shelfl

 

 

Figure 67. Bargraphcomparing gritand shell potterytempertypesatsites located inthe
upper, middle, and lower portions of the Miami drainages. (Source: Sunderhaus and

Cook mi)

240

A second problem related to the lack of survey data is that we have no solid basis for
conclusions that large parts of the Fort Ancient region were abandoned after AD. 1400.
Recent studies are beginning to show that this area was used after this time but the
frequency and extent of these occupations is unknown (Harper 2000). If there is a shift in
settlement patterning, environmental models alone do not fully account for available
evidence as this change coincides with the restructuring of Middle Mississippian societies
downriver. The timing of the Middle Fort Ancient period in particular may be related to
the maximum geographic extent of Middle Mississippian groups. It cannot be ruled out
that changes in Fort Ancient settlement are related to these shifts in Middle Mississippian
social systems. Studies elsewhere have effectively shown abandonment to be a
combination of environmental and social factors (Cameron and Tomka 1993; Cordell
1997), and have argued that moieties facilitated aggregation processes that often precede
such regional departures (Lowell 1996).

The boundary between Middle Mississippian and Fort Ancient groups needs to be
closely examined. Clear connections with Middle Mississippian groups, local population
growth, and the disappearance of the Angel phase each need to be considered along with
environmental factors if we want to advance our understanding of the simultaneous shift
in Fort Ancient and Middle Mississippian settlement patterning.

This study has offered an explanation for the emergence of similarities between Fort
Ancient and Middle Mississippian villages. In doing so, the Upper Mississippian
designation of Fort Ancient was revisited with renewed confidence. I believe that further
comparisons would only enrich this model. By starting with variation present within one

village and broadening the view to closely consider the context of artifact attributes

241

changes the way Fort Ancient and Middle Mississippian relations are perceived. As
firrther research is conducted within this fiamework, we will be in a position to begin the

task of applying analytical methods identified by K. C. Chang so many years ago.

242

APPENDICES

243

 

WT
w 1 .

 

APPENDIX A

Pit Feature Data

244

- 1

 

‘Wngfinf-fi- - -. »
«~11», _

 

m

Feature Type: 1 deep flat bottom
2 shallow flat bottom
3 bell shaped
4 basin
5 irregular
10 missing
1 1 incomplete excavation
12 natural

14 combined context
15 posthole-like depression

245

 

 

 

POOOOOOOOOv-OOOOOOOOOOOONOOOOOOOOPOOOv-O
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPOOOOO
OOOOODOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOv-OOOOOOOv-OOOOOO‘-OOOOOOOOv-O
OOOOOOOOOONOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOv-OOOOOOO
OOOOOOOO0°00OOOOOOOOOOOOVOOODOOOPNOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOPOOOOOOPOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOF
OOOOOOOOOONOOOOOOOOPOOOOOOONOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOPOOOOOOOOPOOOOOOOOOOOOOv-OOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPOOOO
OOODOOOOOONO'-OOFOOOPOV-OOOOOOOOOOPOv-OPO
OOOO0000000OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOO0°OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOV’FOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOFOOOOOOv—Ov-OOPOPOOMOOOOOOPv-NNPOOOPPO L1
8:°2'°'2°8893°°§§8°§33°°22388§§828E°32
- v- v-N N
tfi°8"'“°°8'9°°82°°88°°°”2“39339338°3“
OOOOOOOOOOMOv-OOOOOOOFOOOOOOOOOOOOv-v-ODO
amazooo—oze-nooaahosvoonnnr0538gaognoo .i
v-NONOOOOOPOOOOOv-MOOOPOOVOOFONP'OPOMO'v- pI
POOOOOOOOFHOPOO!-Fv-OMOPOFOOOFNNNNNNOOOO
m OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPOOOOOOv-OOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOO'-OOOOOONOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOFOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOFOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOPFOOOOPOOOOOOOOOPOOPNOOOOOFOO
OOOOOOOOONPOMOOFPOOOVOFNOOOV‘OMPOOOOOPO
OOOOOOOOOPMOPOOFNOOOGNOFOPOONMFOPPOOPO
22838323322382882ssasaesaasasesassssss
'-NNF7'OOOOP'NNOONNNOG’MMNNMOFNQMMPMNNNMF
"3.88.583 '8338 '2885 '38338388F8838833 '33
52353§ §§9§ 933$ §E§§§§§§§§i§§§§§ §§
.-
nnnnunnumunwnovnnrgnnnwnnvvwannnnv-noonn
v-v-v-v-v-v-v-v-v-v—v-v-v—r-v-v-v-v-v-v-v-v-v-v-v-v-v-v-v-v-v-v-v-e—v-v-v-v-
v-v-v-v-v—v-v—r-v-c—v-v-q- .— u—v-v-v—v-v-v-v-u—u—v-u-v-v- q—v—v- v-
§a§§E§55555252§s§-s§§§:§§§a§§s§§§§§§:§

 

2%

 

!)

A)

'a

0000002001

are 03926132135 31

11

7"-

14

L

91
51

61
7.1
11

110

1

0000000000

1

1
1

3 912.46 3.60 0

1

1.3

1’76

000000000000000030203606640000000000000000000

3 297.56 2.00 0

2006
21106

1200000000000000000000

1 0

1.3000000000000000000020201

3

13
13
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1,4
1.4
1.4
1.4

15

0010001

00312509901664300000002001
3.100000000000000000000000000005000000000000000000

1

3452.432.60452000000000000

3 600.79
3

1

3I76

4’76

1

16000000000000000000

0203502

1.500000000000000000001

167.43

1

23f72
1173

2/73

20000000000000000000

400000000000

004
1

1

0
2.7002000000000000000000606

000000000000000001

1

22002

0000000
0000000

1
1

012

365402

000000000

01
0000

1
1

3565.972.70000000000000000000207092011

3 6m."

3 252.63

303

1

1000000000000

70200519
0400003

1

1
1
1

3.oooooooooooooooooooo

4173

1000000000

00000000

5
1400000

0000000000000000

1.90000000000000000000
1.600000000000000000002

1

1 2.60 0

5173

0000000000000

1

0503004

343.17

3 414.21

6173

000000000000000000
000000

1
1

2

2

40201

1
1

1
1

7/73

6’73

0000000000

1

1

50220520

00000000000000000
1.6020000000000000000020303203140000000000000

3.15
3 602.77 3.10 2

10

1

1

3 574.16 2.60

3 206.95

3 970 27

00000
000000

1

1

15./73

000000000001

1
1
1

01090000000000000000000

00000000000201604402526
000000000007017
0.000600000000000000003014064

1
1

20000

1

150173

000000000000000000

46
0000

210 211

1

1000

1

15wl73

21772

22/72

0000000100000

1

12

110

1

19000000000000000000000402
0900000000000000000000000000

3 27633

1

1.5
1.5

0000000000000000000
20000000000000000000

1

1

2402

10775

00000000000000000000000

1

66.77 0.70 0 0
3 726.50 3.1!) 0 0

2

1.5

0

1

1000000

0

1

0000000000
1

0000000

1

2503906100000000000000000000
1

1
00000000000000000170660256320000
0 0 4 012 01410 015107

1

000

1.15000000000000000000

1

1000000100000000
1

0000000000

1

3 665% 3.20 2 3
3 732.45 3.20

15
1.5
15

12160
13’60
15I60
2W5

3’7
14f75

247

60000000000000000000

1

000200
30000000000000000421607704660000000000000000000

1

62.95
3 561.44 2.50

1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5

2.1

1

1

000000000000000000

34000000000

000000000000000000002304141

1

3(1).“ 2.00 2

1
1

000000000

33011 1
11370273420000000 002000000

000000000000000000021

1

3.30

3%.26

3 267.37

2nl75

1

1

04017

1

000000000000

1.402000000000000000002

1

0

1

1.95 0

2
2

12’74

1105013270000000000000000000

1 30

016063011

245.36

1
1
1

2.1

1304

0000000000

1
0000000

1600000000

1
1

2.000000000000000000003

305.75220000000000000000000

2.1

14174

000010000
000

1

1

01304506260

000000000000000

1

1

1.55 3

206.47

2.1

1M4
190174

1000000

1 1

0

1
1
1

1320950229500000

000013257436207651320000

2.1

02010000
000000000000

1

1

000

3613.452.603000000000000000007

200000001

1

4.70

1956.11

3

2

2.1

1W4
2004

1

0000

1

1224 612 020103

1140911

2.1

022530000000000000000000

41542 2.30 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
3 277.46 2.00 0 0 0 0 0
0.35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2

1

2
2

2.1

26174

0002000000

1

00060190153302941220001

1

00010001

1

2.1

2617 4
29174

00000000000000000000

52.61

2.1

0000001000000

1

0000000000060272660172300000

1.2000000000000000000000202209130000000

1000001

3 410.53 3.00

2
2
2

21

31!"
1/76

2’76

00000000000

1

156.45

3700.29ssooooooooooooooooooo

4

2.1

000000

1

1

000000000
71030000000000000000000

14 021124 01

4

1

017

000000000000000024066

1

2.1

1

1

00
762.232.600000000000000000

1

1 1241.79 3.40
1

2
2

2.1

3111/76
30176

0020000000

1

000500203034417700000000

1

2.1

lei} '

IA) J:

 

!'i|

 

5°

..o

R
30000

00101
00 000

03000001

1 27116

I!

t;

91
ll
91
91
'1
21

H
01

3640.603.4000000000000000000000000000

2

2.1

2.1

4176

 

Lani].

 

1000000

00001 1

1

11510

4.000000000000000000004050

50176
511176

5c176

0000
000000

1

1225700000000000000

b

00000000000000000215066
0.6000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000

1

1
1

1.60

3 310.50

2

2.1

0001

1
1

1600000000

030000000

11

1

2.60

21

0000000000
00000000000000000000

1900000000

2 142.41
2

2

2.1

16176
5179

00000000000000000000000

00000000000000000
1.300000000000000000000000

1

0.6500

0.90

71 91
176.39

2.1

0000000000

1

0000202

1

1

2
4

2

2.1

6179

40000000000000000000

002

1

76.76
109.25

2.1

7179

6179

100000000000000000000

00004

1

1.7000000000000000000000
000000002024

5

2

2.1

1000010000

1

1

0000000

60000

1164225 61

1

000000
2.30000000000000000000

2.90 2

1

3 534.26 3.00 0 2
3 413.65
3 377.41

2
2
2

1175

0

000001000001
0000000000000000000

1

403

1
1
1

020

00000000000000002060

2.000000000000000000000070

1

2.2

3175

0621
06

1
1

1

2.2

4175

00000000000

1

000000

100000000

267.64
3 1052.95

1

2.2

5175

0000

1

0
0002000000

1

1
00000

000
00000000000

530153700000

1171

000000001

1

3.65252000000

2

6175

1 1

1

1
1

146226

13501617

0000000000000002
000000

1
1

3

1

4.75

2 2
2.2

7175

6175

00000000000000

1

000000000090220424

1

2.6030

3 609.26

3 653.74

0000000

1

00736011321

1

3.5000200000000000000

3.00200000000

2
2

2.2
2.2

2.2

16175
20175

0000

20000020000000000000

1

2172.610276510000100000000
0 00000
0000000200000000001706001347

46.490.6500000000000000000000000000

31477.633.30000000000000000000724742135

1
1

00000000

1

3 763.50

1

0.55000000000000000000

3.15

22.11

3 733.01

2
4

25175
20176

0000000000

1
00000000000000000000

0000003

1

1

1

2

2.2

2.2
2.2

000°
000°
OOOO
000°
000°
000°
PFC-O
OOOO
POGO
v-OOO
04°00
000°
000°
OFOP
v-OOO
000°
000°
000°
GNOP
..
3392
32";
POO.-
zoe
ONO
VON
"a

O

1

00000000000007
2.150000000000000000002

1

2&0000000000000000006011

49.720.60000000000000000000

o
o
o
o
no
V.
N
o n
N. ".
° §
...
no
nvn

2
2
2
2

2
2.2
2.2

1179
2179

Z“

1160912051112000010000001000000
11616600000000

247

0.0000000000000000000000000000

2.600000000000000000002011

3 417.04

2

2.2
2.2

10160

0000000000

00000000000000000000

1

11521

000000000000000011

1

3 466.00 2.00 0

10

1165-66

17175

15175

2.2

00000000000

1

900000000000

019290000020

1

0 6

3 533.41

2

0000000

1

06033017

1

0000000000000000
1.65300000000000000000303076010320000000000000000000

1

1

1.55

341.55
3 232.73
3 203.65
3 330.69

1

2.3
2.3

2.3

16175

2
2

12179
13179

114370000000000002000000

00000000001000000500064

1
1

3643.433.000200000000000000001021233941

1.60
2.60

1000000000000000000

0000000000000001639201225014166

1

4

2.3

14179

000010000

70000000000000000000

1

0

1

2632162000000

15179

4

0
409540000000000000000000

1

1.9000000000000000000030000

0.900000000000000000003

264.26

1

2

2

2.3

1611179

1

2 0

1

136.07

2

2.3
2.3

160179

000000

1

0000
0000000000000

000020000000000000
1

1
11112920000

36.060.5000000000000000000020405406270000000000000000000

25.770.400000000000000000002

00000501
0111660000000000000000000

0 0 0 0 9 624 01113 025160
133 01311

0001

1

00000000000000070320321

1
3.00000000000
10000000000000004

3.10000000000000000000904301223035171

1.9000

100.44
3 426.93 2.30 2 0

4

3 1316.53
4

4

3 665.91

2
2
2
2

2 3
2.3
2.3
2.3

170000000000000000000

115077016760000000000000000000

000002

‘ .

2.3

000000001

2.704720000001

3 550.11

2

2.3

140160

 

 

 

poooooooooooooooooooo—ooo
.oooooooooooooooooooooooo
8oooooooooooooooooooooooo
.oooooooooooooooooooooooo
loooooooo—ooowooooooooooo
. oooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooo—ooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooo
zoooooooooooooooooooooooo
v-FOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOv-OOFOFO
. v-ooooooooooooooooooooooo
{,oooooooooooooooooooooooo
WONOOOOOFPOOOOOOOOOFOOOOO
Doooooooooooooooooooooooo
.,oooooooooooooooov-ooooooo
,oooooooooooooooooooooooo
,v-ooooooooooooooooooooooo
,v-wuooooooooOOrOv-oOFOv-ooo
>3°°°°°°383"‘“ta03'”“32"3
.- .—
haoooooogggwovgggzosogggo
,oooooooooooooooooooooooo
ROOOOOOSaOFNv-MDMNOOOONNG
gooooooggvv—v—v-oomoonohooo
lOOOOOOOPOOOOOv—ONOPOOOOv-O
.aoooooogg‘mnunggmomhooavo
gPPOOOOOOOFFONPONv—POOOOOO
'OOOOOOOOONOMOOMDflv-NOO'F'
oooooooooooooooooooooooo
,ov-oooooov-ooooooooooooooo
toooooooooooooooooooooooo
o-ooooooooooooooooooooooo
Tooooooov-oooooooooooooooo
Woooooooooooooooooooooooo
ToooooOOv-oooooooooooooooo
_g—foooooooooooooooooooooooo
mooooooooooo—oooooooooooo
moooooooooooooooooooooooo
moooooooooooooooooooooooo
r—Z'Eoooooooooooooooooooooooo
mooooooooooooooowoooooooo
"01oooooooooooooooooooooooo
_oooooooooooooooc-ooooooou
oNooooOv-Nooooooooov—ooooo
«nooooOv-ov-ooooov-va-oooov-
Nov-OOOOPOOOOONONOO'OOOOO
388888228233388828289289
flQNPaNNNnnv-OONM'NNflv-VPv-v-
3832:333328223:3332'8a82
§E§3E§§§ES§W§§§§§§ E§§§
.- ...- .—
nonunnnnno-vunowonnnnwv-
unmwnmnwuumunnnnnnnnnnnn
L.
L”.'.".".‘.'.".V'.".".""."".""_"".".
«Nuaummnwuunnnnnnnnn «on
r.—
g o o 00 NW
§o°§°§°ooo§§ «unmunufifigé
L4-s§ E Essa--§sssssss::-=

 

249

00000000

1

0000
0000000000000000000

00000000

1

6600000

6 0 612 011

1

000000000000002
1.6000000000000000000020000003

1

1.95

3 439.00

3
3
3
3

3.1

1162

1

215.74
2 220.49
3 1207.25

1

3,2
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2

10172
24160

0000000000

1

5707161

0000000000000000301207701742
00000000000000006026013270251420

042151

1

1.300200000000000000

3.20 0

3 646.66 2.70 0

000000000000000000

1

1
1

00000100000000000
190000000000000000000

1

10161

1

0
11201226017113000000000000

001

1.60000000000000000000001

102.52

3 339.47

1

3

100161
12161
13161

000000

1

00000000000000005

1

1.70 0

1.60

00000000000000000205006340000000000000000000

1

0

1

491.22

4 353.20

4

1

3.2
3.2

30000000000000000000

22690.350000000000000000000000200020000000000000000000

0001001

1

1.25000000000000000000

3

15161
19161

1177

3.2
3.3

000000000000

113332000001

412

0.000000000000000oooooooooooo

00000000000000052371

0 1

1

2.60

3 359.65

3

00000000000000000000

1

3.3

19d60
19l1160
190160

1241530000000000000000000

40000001

3
1
1

2.60
2.60
2.10 0 2

3 737.71

3
3

3.3
3.3
3.3

0.00000000326601212
000000000

00000000000000

300000000000000000000

11505411

4

1

00001

1

3 610.14

10
14

000000000000000000

20001

1

0

1

0,00 0

000000000000000000700306240000000000000000000

0.00 0

3.3
33

25160

00000000000000040406505470000000000000000000

25n160
250160

1161

06906N0000000000000000000

21

1

00000000
000000000000000006032

00000001

1

1

1.50 0

3.3

140000000000000000000

2

1

416491205 0 0

3

3.3

 

‘0

f

It

JJ.

 

00000000000000000

 

L

00001

1
1

23601060247400000

1

1

3 526.31 2.60

3
3

3.4

16176

000000000000

1001

0

1
1

12679

000000000000000070500157

3662.623.600000000000000000000025294016

1

3 636.16 4.50 0

3.4

19176
22176

000000000100000000

0619000000000000000000

42

1

1

3.3000000000000000000000602

3.4

24176
5177

0000000000000000000

116420000000000000000000

1.660000000000000000003070260431

464.15
3 663.16 3.60 3 2

1

3.4

0000000000000020421102

1

1

3
3

3.4
3.4

34

6n177

000000000000000000

1

1.40000000000000000000000000000

0.7000000000000000000000000000

2 576 51

60177

00000000000000000000

160000000000000000000

1502323000000

00001000001

1

00000000000000000506303627

1.5000000000000000000000000000

1

moooooooooooooooooooo0502soc

3 267.09
1216.00 330

3

3
3
3
3

§§

00000000000000000000

63
150264

4 396.94

3.4

9179

0000000000
000000000

1
1

0000200

1

1900000000000000

1
1

00000000000000000217097021

1

3 ”600 3.40 0

34

10164
1wl64

9176

1

1300

0 0

01303417012641

1

1

sooooosmsazzoooooooo

0000

0000000000000

1

217066012

1

1.55000000000000000000
3605.393.6000000000000000000020204

3 20130

3

3.5

1

900000

0 6

1

3

10111176
100176
11176
12176

14176

05032015200000000000000000000

1

3321.352.0500000000000000000000602606

0.1!)000000000000000000

10

35
3.5
3.5
3.5

00000000000

0000001

1
1 0

17

0

00000000100001

1

3111314031
070
ooooooooooooooooooaooeonoooooooooooo

000000005

1

31163.92390504000000

3

170000000000000000000

103

1

1

1.90000000000000000000

2.95 0

3 291.34

3 76161

00000000

40000000000000000000

1

1

3

15176

0000000000400003

109.300.700000000000000000000

1

000000000

67.20 0.71

3.5 2

17176

00°
00°
00°
00°
GOO
GOO
GOO
00°
00°
00°
00°
GOO
GOO
GOO
GOO
00°
GOO
GOO
GOO
goo
fiv-
00
N'-
00
00
N'-
.—

1.3500000000000000000000000000

43.390.5000000000000000000000

132.36

3 2
3 2
4 2

5
3.5

250

1100000
0000000

1
1

101200
000

1
1

29130000
1102

1
1

0516

1
2.1200000000000000000020605

0000000000000000

1

743.53 2.72 0
3 456.77

1

4.1

24171
25171
26171

1

0
000000000000000000

1

0 0

1

4.1

1

00000000000000003070740127

1

659.” 3.00 0

3567”2.49000000000000000000

1

4.1

60000000000000000000

2206009
0202006

1
1
1

4.1

27171
26171

31171

0000000

000000000000000000

3000000000001

7

553.702.62000000000000000000

1212.663.20302000000000000000

1

3

4
4

4.1

1

0 5

1

0300

4.1

GOO
GOO
00°
00°
0°"-
000
N00
00°
GOO
GOO
000
N00
000
v-OO
000
P00
000
0°C
0°C
§FN
an
no
go
$19
no
2‘
00
:v-
..

100100

0

1000001
267.552.00000000000000000000

1.9500000000000000000020403003

3 673.55 2.60 2 2 2

1
3 431.16

4
4
4

4.1
4.2
4 2

00001

1

0000001

1001
60000

0

0

1

1160

0000

1.900000000000000000002

00001

1

370912275000000000

3 469.25

4.2 4
4.2 4
2 4

7171

0000001

0 1

00000000000000
1

1
6000000000

2

1

6002

00000000000000030604003

1

1

3 715.36 2.56 0 0

4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1

00020000

1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 6 2 4 3 0 9
4.42 0.33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

56.690.650000000000000000

4

4.2
4.2

4.2

10171

11171

1

101009 3.17

3
4

4

13171
15171
17171

16171

000000000000000000

0541

1

00000000000000000000503

3 269.04 2.11

2
2

4.2
4.2
4.2

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

114.4206400000000000000000000

125.17 1

4
4

20000000000000000000

00005

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

tOV'OOC-OOOOO 0v-000000000000000000000000000000000
"0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000v-000P0000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
lPV0P00000000F00000000000000"000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
'00v-00000000000000000000000000000000000000000'-
0P0000000000000000000000000000000000F000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
,0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
t00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000?‘0
,000000000000000000000000000v-000000000000000000
0.,000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
”00000000000000000000000000000000000000000P0000
‘,0000v-00000000000000000000000000000000000?00000
”0000000000000000000000000000000000000000P00000
,0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
,0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 l4
,,000000000000000000000000000000P00000v-000F000v-0
,,000NP:0000N'~0000F0000F005':9NNN000P§§000:88080 1'
‘,00FVFF0000:0 0 9000000000:O'OQNv0NN03000t'N0gP 7::
,C30'-0'-000000000000000000000000000000’N0000000N0 p
,0000N0000000F0P00000000000F000000000£000PNN0Q0
,NOv-0NN0000'00NP0P00000000N0N000'0F0P2000~NF02F
,00000000000F000P00000000000000000000000000F0P0
WOBOONPOOOOQQQG'050000900h20‘flV‘00FP030002'10:0
”00000000000000000000000000.-000000000N000000000
',NF°OF°O°°O°F'-PMNOOOOOOOOOPPOVFOOOO’OROOOOOOOFF
,0N0000000000000000000000000000000000P0000000v-0
,,000000000000000000000000v-000000000000000N00000
L,00000000000000000000000000.-0000000000000000000
.,000000000000000000000000000000000000F000000000
1000000000000000000000000?000000000000000000000
10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
Il?:0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
I7'0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
70000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
70000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0v-00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000N0000000000000000?000000P000000v-0000000000
0000F00000000000000000000P000000000v-v-000000000
0000000000000v-0N0000000000P00000000N000000000
3888883333838888883382388838982838398888338823 .
(0N.-N9000PONNv-0v-N000000v-NMMNNv-0Nv-W'PNNOPON000v-N
389:928822833':2338888883289388886389839'SBSBRR
ififiié’figgagéfi'i 33'""'9§§§§E§§9%§§§§§§=8 365559
v- .-
MMNHO'NNNNWPv-e wfi'fifl'fi'wwflnPflNMPv-v-v-GNVQNQNVNFM
'QV'V'V'V'V'V'V'Q'VQ'V'Q'Q'V“"V'V'V'C'V'V'Q'
L—LNNNNNNNNNNQQQMMQQQQ QO‘VVVQVV'QQV ‘QV'VQU’I’QOOO '
Q'Q'V'Q'VV'V'VVQVV'QVQ'Q'Q'Q'V'VV'Q 'Q' V'V" :
_—
S§§§§§§SSS§§ES§§S§E§§S5§S§S§§§E§§§§E§SS§§§§§§§
_J “N '- Pv-v- n vnnnnv ' 0 0 00" ID v-v-v-v-

 

251

‘3

)3

A)

'1
Ya
I!

I

Z1

\

MT .1

 

 

0000000

40000000000000000000

2301434

0 3
1

12634141215200002231

0000010000002015346
1.0000000000000000000000000000

1

3653m300663

4

4.6
4.6

4.6

7161

36.04
106.46 0.70

5
2
2

20161

000000000000000000

140000000000000000000

1

1

1

1
3.10020000000000000000200

1220000000000000001
144.590.5000000000000000000000

4
4
4

21161

0 1

1

4.6
4.6

000000000000000000

1

5

0004

3 421.57

22161

13.690.400000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

176.090.0000000000000000000000000002

3 7%.52

2
1

32174

0000000000000000000

215470000020

6062024270000000

1

17160
16172
19172
20172

000000000

01
00
30000000000000000000

1

1
1

1

3.30000000000000000000201309

1
1

0000000

1

1
1

3554.933.150000000000000000002

4

1001

00
00000000000000060152650153500000000000

0.430000000000000000000

2.0902
705663.100000000000000000000013032

35.91

0000000
0000000000

1

1

250172

11712001000001

600202

1

2

25w172

000000

1

1 5000000000000

61.920.660000000000000000000

14173

N0
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
P0
g0
0'
00
N0
00
00
8'-
N0
F0
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
P0
00
N0
8.9».
F0
8-
E
*0

10000

0 0

1 0

1

12700000000

0
0

1170914

0 5

1.300000000000000000000

0000001

1

100000000

34573 2.30
139.”

2 340.41

3 1051.24

1

2

1174

70000000000000000000
60000000000000000000

2

1
1

600

1.3400000000000000000000000

1
4.10000000000000000000503202313

1

10174

2

11174

15174

0000

1
1

0
0

1
1

0000000

000000000
00000000000000000000

10001
00000000000000000000

177192

1

0000

1

110120234500

000000000000000000017
0.6300000000000000000000000000

24.550.5400000000000000000000000000

1

2.16

16174
22fl4

00000000000000000000
00000000000000000000

42.650.5500000000000000000000000000120000000000000000000
0.0000000000000000000000000000

2
4
15

4174
9175
101760

252

00000000000000000000000000000

15
15

111760

0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0900000000000000000000000000

0.00000000000000000000

121760

21174

3167

20000000000000000000

1

000000000000000000

1

00000000000000000000

914 011133

1191

1

11

0.0000000000000000000000000000

11

no.2

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0.0000000000000000000000000000

11

10

no.3

00000000000000000000

717 5

330000000000

000001

1

116 01214 039173

000000000000000002

94.100.600000000000000000000

1

3 644.39 3.00

2

22175

011240000000000002000000

1

703
00000020400151334615230000000

1

23175
24175

00001

1

0

1

1

32500000000000

3 692.24

0000000000000

1

600000
062900000000
5024145000000000

1

1.950000000000000000000070021

1 454.”

1

2

6n176
60176

0000000000

1

00000000000000000209021

1

1.70
3426.1026022000000

20617

0000000

0 1

1

6121
1

000000000171

1.6500000000000000000020
179.762.00000000000000000000102901016014

1

2
2
2
2

3179

402170000000000000000000

1

0

105.69

1

000000000000000000

3209240000000000000000000

1

93

3
3

11

17179

11160
no.1

5 1

1

00000000000000002
0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

1

1

1.75

195.36

000000100000000000

1

6
090000616000000000000

493.192.1000000000000000000000404007

1

34171

000000

1

00010001000000001

1

1

3 669.56 2.95

3

36171

...-..mmfi

 

-|..-— - 1.

 

 

t.00000000000000-—00000000
..00000000000000000000000
600000000000000000000000
0’000000000000000000000
‘000F0000P0v-000000000000
00000000000000000000000
00000000P00000000000000
00000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000
‘0F000000000000000000000
.00000000000000000000000
,00000000000000000000000
-.,0F000000000000000000000
1,0*000000000000000000000
.,00000000000000000000000
,00000000000000000000000
,00000000000000000000000
,0v-00000000v-00000000000v’
.,vemenooo:ggoonnonnno~r-oo
.,000N0000000000000P00000
,00000000F0'0000NF000PF:
,0GPBP'00PN2NN00v—N000FQO
,0P000000P0v-P00000000000
,000v-N000v- P0r00000000v-0
.,OVN'ONOOVPMFPONNNOOOOPO
,00000000000000000000000
,,0P00F000000000000000000
.,00000000000000000000000
.,00000000000000000000000
700000000000000000000000
700000000000000000000000
700000000000000000000000
700000000000000000000000
TOF00000000000000000000P
$0000000000000000000000P
$00000000000000000000000
700000000000000000000000
I-_.-:00000000000000000000000
T00000000000000000000000
I----‘00000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000N
0'PPQN000000POP00000000
00"N00v-000N00v-0N00000000
88333988888833838888883
F‘NFOOOOflMnov-NPOOOOOOOF
888388'3388'22833338R88
2mg“ §§§§ ggsasutesg
.-
FHMMNNQ'OMQNGV-MNNNN'N'N
MMMMMMMMVVQVVVQVVQQ'VVV
I""i‘.......................
E
§E§§-=E'””E'Es §§§8§
4 s.-sssn§§§§§z§a E”-.-

 

253

1

00000000

1
50000000000000000000

00000

12113 0301460001

011045
76000500000000000000000000000

1

00000000000000

576.43 190 3 1

1

2

4

23160
6161

000

1

0000000000000

1
1

0

1001

1 31 115

16

113
03426091001914030000

04326
1

1
1

3207430000000000000

3 1063.60

4
4
4

9161

00000

1

1

000

421502307700000000000000000000

0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0.60635400000000000000000022605206460000000000000000000
1

1

0 0

00000000000000

2200000000000000000
1

1.3300

360.00

3 570.00

1172!

30000000000000000000

00000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0.3000000000000000‘000000000

02000000000000000000000

16.14

4
4

0

0 000 0 0
0 000 0 0
0 000 0 0
0 000 0 0
0 000 0 0
0 000 0 0
0 000 0 0
0 0'0 v- 0
0 000 0 0
0 00'- 0 0
0 0"- 0 0
0 00'- '- 0
0 000 0 0
0 OFF v- 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 I) N 0
N 0 V

2. § 3

8 :2 ::

v- '— v-

10
03229
13033

1

0000000022221
0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

3996562.600000000000000020002401922617

1

0000000000000003220261231717600000
0.400000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000

0

0

0

0

0

0

v0

00

Ov-

89

an
'3."'8.v‘5.' "'3.

0' '-
3“::1"""2‘-’ 222'
V'VQ'V‘Q'VVQ

. r-‘l .1.

 

12%

000200000

mm
mm
m
mun
mm
new
m

m

we

m

m

m
mm
spun
mac
mm

.1
3:3

000000000

 

00000000000

1

1

0000000000

1

1

00000000

22173

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

23n173

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

230173
25173

00000000002

0001000001

020000000201

1

0000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

1

000000002

27173
26173
2174

0000000000000000000000000000

00720001

1

0000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000000000

10001

00000

00000000001

000000000000001000000000001

1

3174

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

4174

00000000000000000000

1

000000000001

0
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

1
1

000
00

000000001

00000000

1

0000

5174

10000000002

000000000

0000002204

1

1

6174

7174

6174

00000000000000000

0001

00000000001000000000201

1

000000

000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
00N
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
00'-
00N
000
000
000
000
000
000
00'-
000
000
0000
000
000
00'-
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
00N
000
00'-
000
00

17174
16174
3162

254

0 0

000000000001

1

0
000200000000000000000

1

0000000320000
000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

1

0

1

1

00000000000000000

3165

1

1

100000000

000000000

1M67
2167

000000000000000000000

01
4020

000000026000000001

1
1

000020000
000000000

M67

13173

00000000000

10010001
1

1

1
1

000

000001001
00000000000000000000000000

1

000

000

000200000001

0
000000000000000000

1
00000002000

003030

16173

1

0 0

0000000000000000000020

1

00000000000000000000000000000

00000000

17173

16173

0000001

1

1

000000000000000000000

1

1

2 0

0000000000000000000002000

00000000000000000000000001

1

19173
20173

0000000000000000000

1

000000000000000000000

1

00000

1

00000000000000000000
20000000000000000000000200000000000200000000000

1
000000002000002200200004020

00000000

21173
23176
7162

1
1

000

00000200000000000

0 1

1

000

Nv-0000
000000
000000
0P000v-
000000
000000
000000
0’0000
000000
000000
000000
00°00'-
P00000
000000
000000
0000‘!!-
000000
PO0P00
000P00
(‘00-'00
OFF-000
VGONv-N
0P0N00
NVOQPM
0"0N00
000000
Ov-Ov-v-v-
000000
000F0v-
000000
000?00
N00000
NNv-Ov-O
00Pv-N0
0PO0P0
000000
000000
000000
000000
000000
000P00
P000P0
000000
000000
000000
POP00v-
(0000'0
0N0000
000000
000000
000000

§§§§§§

000000000000000000020000000200000000000000000000002

9173

1003

00200000000040
000000000

1

00210701

00000000000000000001

1

000

11173
12173

0000000000000000000002000001

0001

1

000000000

 

 

 

 

 

10

ooosooooodo

50505230
500000000000000000000500000000000

003

1

1

0 1

1501021
1

0000004

10001

5
00000000000000000

1176

20176
2n176
3176

1
1

00000000000000000000000000

1

0000

00_00000000000000000

0200000200

00000001

1

20
0000000000000000000000000000000

1

04200400003

03
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000

000000000000000000

000001

1

0000200000

00000

00000010001 1

1

4176

1

23172
1173

2173

000000000000000000000

1

000000000000000000

000000

1
1

1
1

000000010030
000 000020

1
1

000

100000001

0

1
1

0000 1
0000000000000000000

00000000

00000000

1

100

0

1

0 0

000000000400000000000

000000200

1

4173

00000000000000200000000000

0000000000000001

1
1

5173

0000000000000000000000
202000000000600000000000

1 1

1
1

00000000000000000

6173

000000000000
000000000000000000000

1

0000000000000

000000000

7173

6173

0000000100000000000
00000400000000000

00000

1

1

1

1

00100001

0000000000000000001

150173
150173
1M3
21172
22172

00000001002
00000200000000000

00000001

301
120
1000000000

000000001

1
000000200000000

0000

1

00000000000000

000000000

2 2 1 1

1

1

1

0

0000000001

1

1

000000003
000000000000000000000000020000000000000000000

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000000000000000000000000

1

000000000000000000

00000

1

24172

10175

1

000300000000002
00000000000000

000001
1

00000

1
1

0
0
00000403000000000000000000000

1
1

1

0000

1
1

0

1

1
1

000000000

1000001
0002400000

000

1317
14175

255

0 3

1

00000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

1

12160
13160
15160
20175

00000000000000000000000000000

1

0

2000000000000000000000

1

0000000000000000000

000

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 0 0 1
1 1
1

2

1

1

6 0

00100000
30000000030

00000000000000000001

00000000000000000

2n175

0

1

1

12174

1

0000000000000000000000

0

1
1

000000000000000000

1

00000000

13174

000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000003

1
1

000000001
000000000000000000

1

00000000000000000

0000000000

14174

1

1

190174

1000001

00000000

1
1

00000
00000

196174

0000000002
00000000000

10010640312040100001

2 0

00000000000000000000000000

000000001

1

002

19wwfl4
20174

00000001

1
1

1 1 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 0
0 0

1
1

0000000000000000000

000000

2 1

1
1

00000100000000000
0000

0003

26174

1000003000100000000000

000

00000000000000000000000000

0001000 02001

1

1

26174

000000000000000000000000

000000000000020400

29174

000000000000

000001

1

1

0000
00000000000000000000000000000

1
00000000000000000000000000

00000000

31174
1176
2176

000000000100000000000

1
1

000000000000000000000

0

1

0000000000

0900020000030000000

00000001

1

1

00000020030
0000000

1
1

0

1
1

00000000000000000

391176

30176

0 0

1

1

100000000 0

00000000

‘HI

 

wru.

 

 

 

00000400000000002

00000000000
0000000000000000000000202000002000000000000000

000000000

1

1

000000000300

0

1

1

00000
0000

4176

1

50176

1
00000000

100000000000000

0200000

0
000000000000000000000000000

1
1

00000000000000000

1

511176

56176

10000000000001

0000000

1

0000000000000000000

000001

0000000000001

0 1
00001

16176

000000000000000000000

1

0

00000001

1

00000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000003

5179
6179

7179

6179

00000000000

1000001000001

10001
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000

000000000001

1

0000

1175

3175

00000000000

100000000000000000001

0000000000000000000

4175

00000000000300000000000

1
0

000000000000000000000000000
1

00002000000000000002000000

5175

000
000

1
1
1

100100100010000000
1

1
1

6175

0

00000000000

1

00000

020000000

1

0

5000000
00000000000000000000000000000

0010000010001

1
1

1

0000

7175

1

00000

6175

006000000000100000000002

1

00000000000000000000000000

16175

000

0000000000000000000

3000000000200200001

2 0

1
1
1

1

00000
0000000000000000000

000000

0 1

00000000001000000001

00000000

20175

1

1
1

25175
20176

000000000021 9000000000300000000002
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

1

0 0

1

00000

25176

1179

1000000000000000000000
000000000

200002000000

0 1

10001

410001

1

000

00000000

100000000000
1

0000000000
000000000000000000000000

1

000000000000000000000

0
FF”
N00
N00
000
000
000
000
F00
000
000
N00
F00
0F0
F00
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
00v-
00N
000
000
000
000

2179
4160
9160

256

0020001

0002400300002
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

3 1

1

00000000000000000

10160

0000000000000000000

2

1

100010001

00000

1165-66

17175

15175

00000000

001

1

00000
000000000300000000000

000000000050001

00000000000000000000

1

000000000000000000

00000000

1

1

16175

0000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000001

1

000

12179

1
1
1

0000000000000000

1

13001

00000000000000000000001

13179 00001

14179
15179

0000000000
00020000000000

1

0000300000000000

200004
0000000000000000000000000000

1

0000000000000000000000

3020201

1

000112001

1

10000
0000000000

0000

00000000000

1

1

160179

160179

00000000000000000000000000000000

1

000000000000000000

0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0FOF
0000
0000
0000
00FF
0000
0000
OFF-'-
00F0
0000
GFNO
F00?-
N004"
F000
0000
0000
0000
9000
0000
F000
000F
N000
NOFfl
FONF
0000
0000
0000
0000
000.-
0000
F000
0000
0000
0000
0000
NO0F
000N
0000
0000
0000

2m
31M)
51m
61m

0000000000000000000

1

000
020000000000000000

0000000000

1

000000000000000000000000000

160

7

00000000000

0000000400002000000

1

0000000000000001

1

0000

6M

0 1

1

00000201

00000000001

140160

 

 

 

10

23000006000

200000300000

000

00

00
1
1
1
1
1
1

1
1
1

0000000

1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1

1
1
1
1
1

00020000000000

00000000000

000
0000

1

1
0000030000000000
00000

1

1

000000000000000000
00000

50500030000000

300000
000000000000000000
0400000000000000000
0000000000000000000
0000000000000000000

1
1
1

0000000000000000000
020000040000000000

ooozoooooo‘ooooo

1
0 0 0
0 4 0

1
1

1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

 

0771:: .

000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000
00000000000
000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000

00030000000000000000

0
1
0
000

1
0

1
1
1
1
1
1

400000000040000000000
00000000000000000000000

1
1
1
1
1

02000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000

000
0000000

2030
0

000000000000000000000000000202000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000
0

00
000925
0000000000000000000000000000000
1
1
00
1
1
01
1
1
1
10

1
1
1
1
1
1

000000
00000200000
000200000
000000
1

1
1000
1
01
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000

1
1

0000

0000000

1

1

0000
030000000000200

00000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

1
1
1
1

002000

0000000000000000000000
0000000

0000
000000

000

000

0

000000

00
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

1

0000000
00000000

1300
101
1
1
1
1
1
1
100000
0000001
1
1
11
0500000000002000000000000000000000
1
1000

1
1

0000000000020020

000000000000030

00000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000
11
1
1
000000000000000000000000000
00000
000

1
1
1

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000
0000000000

0
000000000000000000000000000

100000020320000000
11
0000
000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000
1
000
0000000000000
1

1
1
1

00000000000
00000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000
0000000000000000406

0000

000
00000000000
1

1
1

000000000
20000000000000

1
1
1
000000000000
1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1
1

1

00000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000020000000000

000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000

000000000000000000
0000000000000000
0000000000000000000
000000000000000000000
0000000000000000
0000000000000000

000000000
00000000000
00000000
0000000000

000
000
0000
0000
000
0000
000
00000
000

14w160
5176
60176
60w176
6d76
6cvw76
601176
7176
6176
9176
130176
1301176
2172
3172
4172
5172
6172
7172
6172
9172
110172
11n172
12172
17161
1162
10172
24160
26160
10161
100l61
12161
13161
15161
19161
1177
19d60
19n/60
190160
20160
25160
116

10

 

0000000002

0000000340200000000020000000

0000000000

1

1

00000000000000000000

000000000
0000000000000000000000
00000000000000000

1
1

00000000

16176

003

000000000000000000000000000

1

1

1000

0

19176
22176

1
00000000000

000000000000000000000

1

00000000000000000001

1

1

24176
517 7

1

22002040000030000000

000020

000000
000000000000000000000000000002000000000000000000000

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000300000000

1

0000000000000000000000

000000000000

0

1

1

0000001

1

60177
7177

6177

00000000000

1

000
0000030000000000

1

1

0000005020001

0201

200200000001
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

1

0000

9179

000

0000000000
0000000000

00000000402000000000000000001

1
242

000000000000

0 1

1

000

10164

1
1

1
1

0201000
1000

103020270501

1

1

000

0000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

1

01164 0000200000
00000

9176

1

000000000000

1

1

1091176

100176 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000002

11176

12176

000000000000000001

1

0020300100000006

000020000000021000000233703041

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

1

0000

14176

05000000000700000000000

1

1

0002000

0000000000000000000000000000

000001

1

000000000000

15176

0000000000000000000000

1

17176

2177
3177

1

0000000000

1

000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

1

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000

4171

24171
25171
26171

258

000000000000000000000

0000000001
0200000

0 0

1
1

0000020000000000000

00000000000

1

000
0000000000000000

1

00001

1

000

1

000000030

00000000000000000
00000000000000000

0000

1

00000

000000200200001

0

1
1

00000000000000000000

1

0

1
1
1

00000000000

0000000000000000

27171

26171

000010002

0 1

1000001

000000 1

1

1

1

1
1

00000000000000000000

0000000000
400

00000000000000000000000000

1
1

00000000000

0000011
000 4000000000006

31171

2161

1000

000000

00013040105010001
1

1

1

1

000000000000000000000000

3171

00200000000002

000100001
12000

000100001
00001000

0000000000000000001

00000000000000000

6171

1

0000000000000000
000000200000000000

1

0

1
1
1

1

7171

6171

1

0000000 30300

00000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000

1

000000000000000000

00000

0 0

00000400000001

000000000000000000000

000000000

1

1

9171

1

10171
11171
13171
15171
17171

16171

00000000003

1

1 0

0000

1

0000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000000001

0 1

0

1

00000000020000000000

0 1

1

00000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

1

000020000000000000

1

 

 

 

101

000300000000000

0200000

0000000000000

1

00000000000001

1

19171
20171

000000000000000000000000000002000000000000000000000

00000000000000000

000000000000000000000000000000000

1

210171
210171

22171

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

10000000100001000001

0002020
0000000000000000000000000000

1

00000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000

1

16160
33171

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

000000000000000000000000000000000

000000000000000000000000000

12171
14171
16171
29171

000000000000000

0 1

1

02000000000000000000001

1

30171

000000000000000000000000002000000000200000000000

1
1

0
0

32171

00000000000

1

200000000000

000010001
1

1

00000000000
00000000000000000000

0000000002000000000

1

0 0

35171
36171

00000000000000000000000

000001
0000000200000000000400000000000

00000000000000000000000000000

1

1

44171

000000000100000000001

1

49171

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

370171
376171
370171

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

376171

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

43171
460171
46nl71

259

05000000000100000000003

1
1

00000000000000002

1

0000
00000000000000000

1

1

47171

0000000000000000000

000000000000000000000

1

0

1
1

000000000 0

1

50171

000

1

000000

000000000000000000000000000

1

000000000000000000

53171

00000000000000000000000

00
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

1

54171

000000000000000000000

1

000000000000000001

000000001
000

55171
56171

1

0000000000000000002

000000000000000000000

1

0

1
1

000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

1

0000
000

57171
59171
60171

1

0000000000000001000000000000000
000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000

1

0000000000000000000

6111171
610171

001

1
1

000000000200000000000

0

1

000000000

0000000220000000030200

000000000000000001
000022000

1172

3161

1000100000001000

0 0

1

1

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

1

0000000000

51171
52171
6163

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

1

000200000000000

00000000000000000

1

0

1

00203

000000000000000000000000000000000

1

000000000000000000000000

5171

1

0

1

11177
12177
13177

1000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000

0000000000200000000000

1

100000001
000000001

1
1

1000001000
00000000000

00000001

00000

15177
6161

00000000000000000

0001

1 1

1

 

10

000000000002004

3 0

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000

1

1

000360901

1

0

3301

1

0000000000

1

00002

7161

20161

0000000000000000000000000000

1

21161

2162

1

0000000000000000000

2 0

1
1

0 0

00000000000000200000001

1

0000

100000100000000000

1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1

0000000000000000000

22161

32174

17160
16172

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1
1

100000

0

0

1

0000000000000000020

00001
100000000000

1

0000

00000000000

100010001

0

1

00
000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000000000000000

1

0

19172
20172

1

102000000000

00000000

1

250172

00000000002

0000000004000000000

0001

0000000000000000000000000000000

1

000000000000000

2501172

0000000000000000000

1

14173
26173

00000000001

10000010001

0

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

1

000000000000000002000000000

29173

000000000000000

0001

1

00030000002032020
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000

1

0000000000000

000000000

1174

1

10174

000000000000000000000000

1

11174

15174

000

00000001

1
1

5000000000

2 0

00000000000000000001

001

1

00000

00000000000

000001 10000000

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

1

0 0

1

0000000000000000000

16174
22174

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

24174
9175
1 01760

260

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

111760

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

121760

21174

3167

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000503000000000000000000000

1

00000000000021
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

1

0000

no.2

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

no.3

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

7175

22175

0000000000

1

0000000000050000020000

1

2100010000000
00000000000000000000000

1

000

'0000000000005000000000000000

23175

00000000003

0001

1030000000105020001

00000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

10001

0000

24175
611176

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

60176

020200000000300000002

1000201

1

00
000000002000

0000000

1

3
1
1

000001000001
0000000000000

1 1

1

000

3179
4179

1

000000020000000200
0200000

00000

1

1

0000

00000000000

1

20201

1

0
0000000000000000003000000000

1

0000200000000000

17179

11160
no.1

1000000000000001

1

1

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00002000

1

0000000200
0200000000000000000000

1

000000000000000000020

1
000000000000000000000000000

0000

1

34171

1

1

36171

 

!.I4‘I~1Ili(.v.n.-v -. '

 

10

h.

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

3911171
41171

42171

200000000004

1

0300020000
00000
000000000000000000000200000000000

1
1

1000100000001000000004
000000000000000000000000000

00000

00000000000

000001

1

1

00
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000000000000000

0000100021

1
1

0000

0000

13112
4161

1000

0000000000000000000000000000

1

5161

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000

21670
39017 1
58171

00000000000
0000000

1
1

00000000000000

0 1

1

002

1

00100000

1
1

0

1

000000000000000001

001
0000000000

1

000000

63171

000600000000002

10001

0

00000002
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000000000000000000000000

002000201

1

64171

65171

02000000000000000000000

1

66171

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

6717 1

0000002000000000100000000001
04000000000000000000000

1

0000000000000000

000000000000000000000002000

0 1

1

000

66171

1

27174
12175
4117

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000

1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

10177
14177

16177
21160
22160
23160

6161

1
1

0000000000

0000000000

1
1

0000000000000000000
200000

0 1
1

1

100
000110000
001204000400000

1

0
0 0

00000000000000000000000000000

1
1

00000000
1

1
0

00
0
00000000000200000220

0000001
000000000000001

1

0000000

261

000000000000000000000

1

002000300000000000

00000000102001

0000006000

0000000000002000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000000000000000000000000

0000100000000000001

9161

00000000000

100003000000000001

1

00003200000

0000

0300000000000000000

0000001

1

1

5165

11720

00000000000000000000000

1

1166
1169

2

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000

1

2166
2169

3

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000000000000

31720

00000000000

1
000400000000000

001

00605021

1

000000302000000000

001
110050
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

1

0

1

000000000000000000

3164
3166

41720

0 0

0000402021000000300000001

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

1

0000000000020000000000

6917 1
6166
4166

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000000000000000000

1

000000

1

0
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

10000000001

0000000000

16160

 

 

00000000000010OOOOOOOMFONOOOONOOv-OOOOv-N
oov-soooooooo-—ooooo00w00wcocouoooooov-o'-
oooooooooooooocooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooo0000v-aoooooooo«~Ov-ooo«¢uvocoooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
o-NwoooooouoocrooooonnONNv-Ov-onOv-OOOv-oo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
OONOOOOv-Ov-v-ONOOOOOOOv-ooooooooooooocooo
ooooooooccooooooooooooooooooooooooococ
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
on:aoougotgugogooooagaogovogsgogoooaso
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooocoooooooooooooooooooaoo
coaroooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooowomooooooooooooo-ooocooooooo
ooooooooooooaooooooooooooooooocooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooc
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooco
wnvooconosgrgovooooozgomnwnogaooaoogzv-
oov-ooov-ooovonooooooounoooooouooaooouoo
oooooooooobooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooocooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
ooov-oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oonuoooooonooooooooconOv-ooonvPOv-ooouoo
Ov-vgooFnoogoz:onooooogoozvnuncgooocouvv
c-nvooov-oougooonooooozvoovo00309v—ooosoo
ooouoooaov-ooooooooooooooooo~ov-oooooooo
«nooooono«goaooooooogooonuushgomoooozn
ouc—oooooooooooooooooc-OOv-ouoouoooooooo
«woo:ooonoo;wgor~ooocoggcvn—vazaooooog:N
oooooooooooooooooooocooooooouooooooooo
cv-oooooooonOv-ooooooooooooooooooooooooc
ooooooooooocoooooooooooooooooooooooooo
wonnooouonoooc3wooooo!QONwougwnouooooov
oooooooooooo-—ooowooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooccowooooooooooooooooooooo
oocooooooov-oooooooooooooccoaoooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
coooooooooooooooooocoooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooooooooooov-oooocOv-ooooaoo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooo
cooooooooooooooooooooooooocov-ooo ooooo
ooooooooooo0v—coev-OOOv—oooooooooocarcoo0v-
ocooooooooooooooooooooowoooooooo-ooooo
ooooooooooooooooooocooooooooooooooocoo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooooooooocoooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooocooo
oooooooooooonooou-v-oouooooooo-ono'-o-ooo
wooooooooovonoov—Nooonooo—woOva-v-c-u—we.-
cooooooooooooooooooooooooocoooooocoooo

22173
2311173
230173
25173
27173
26173
2174
3174
4174
5174
6174
7174
6174
17174
16174
3162
3165
1166—67
2167
3M6?
13173
1617
17173
1617
19173
20173
21173
23176
7162
1163
2.163
3163
4163
5163
4165
9173

1 1173
1217

 

262

 

399093860183

RQRRRSSQQEQSBSZSSQQ

v
N
1122

002600030

621

61
6|
[.1
91
9H
'1

6H
21

ll

”83888889

3
0

1
1

03000

1400002000

1

12300000000000

112030000

070000000000001

1176

1204310000030000000
0302600000000000000

0 7

1
000000000000000003000

0000000000000000020

20176

140000000000

000fl00

1

211176

3176

4176

1
1

00020

1

1

92490000027000
112146000

000000007000245121

1

0
0000000000000000060006013

1

0170000

0

000000000

11300000004600200020

1

20000050000000121

0030000000000000060000000000

1

1

0000000000000000000004040

23172
1173

2173

1 1

00000000000000000001

1

00000004000000

0

1

30000000
00270000600005

00000000000000

1
9 6

100020001

0 0

0200000000000000040

1

00002600001

1
1

1

02339

1

3173

1

000020300

000033000000021

000000000000000002000606236
2000000

4173

100000

70000
1000000000

0000000

0000
120000
150000

30000000

1 1
1

00000020003030

000000000000000004000203026000000

00000000001

5173

1

0 0

1

6173

0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0

1
1
1

1

2200000
090505200000020000000

1

000000000000000002000203

0000000000000000030

7173

6173

1

50000

20000000
00013000000033000030

000000000000000004000603030000001

150173

0

16002000000

1

1

0

7101
406320000

1

0000000000000070001006

0000000000000050006
00000000000000000400070533630000000000000

1
1

3

150173

1
1

0

40001000

1

1

15111173

21172

22172

13000000006
1600002000

1

903600000040000000

1

100000000020005
00000000000000000000000

0320000

50000000000

0000000

0030000001

1

24172

1000000000036000000090000000000
05062516

000000000000000000000

10175

6
1

002
1

300000005000003000

0000000000000000050001303031020000040000000260000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000

1

0000

020
1

1

1

100000600000003000

1

0

02000000000000000400010016072340000

1000000001

03000000

13175
14175
12160

263

00000000000

1900000000

13160
15160
20175

0
000

1

160000000

700000

000000000000000700070301111

000000000000000400050001

1

1
00000000000000000700011
0

0
0

1

000

000000

2000006000000031

1

1

0

000009000000030001

1

050711
000000000000000100001305021000000240000000300000000003

211175

1

12174

0000000

1

1000900

30000003000

00040301
1

1
1

00000000000000
00000000000000

1
1

13174

30000000000

0000000
0000060000000260000

1

0001001001
06

3 024 011

000006300263324

1

000

00000000000000000300011

0
0000000000000000010
06000000000

14174

00000

00069200020

26390002000166000040000

1

1

56
0171600000014000

12655 4

0000000000000000015020293201226000007290000000”

00000000000000000200050

1

190174
190174

0

1

1

1

1

2 1

1

1

1901111174
20174

000103054

1

1
160000000002

00120000002000000017000000000

1

26174

0000003000160203700000040000000

00000000001

26174
29174

10000000000

00000000
724200002170000000600

1

00000000000000000000000000000000

0

1

003000

000000060000000000

1

1

115011

1000000001400
00000000020009020

03000000

31174
1176
2176

20020001

1
1

1

00000
00000000000000000700015

1

0

1

5002050

200000040000000

0000000004060190304200

1

1

000013026
000

1
1

00060000000

00000400

1

1
1

00000
0400000

1

3111176

1007

0

1

100110

1

00163435111

0131

1

0000000

30176

'4‘ .

0‘2"“.6 4'" r’

0’. .

 

W ~.d if _'

1EIEIEISI§1516161315151316 8

0
,-
r

m]
..
r

nfv
'- 0-
!- F

“J
p
9-

-
p
1-

OJ
Q.
0-

I§I§l

§I§I§I§I§
0200000000000000070

«”4

50176

 

 

 

1030001

1000

0000

02000000000000000

014052920000005000

00000000040

012392400000004001

1

1

7000000000
00011

000000020000000
000000000

1

020000000000000000000170

000000100
40000000000
40000000002

00021

1

1

00000000000000060

000000000

1
1
1

0
0

5111176

1

0

1
1

1

0000000

1

00050

1

000000000000000
00000000000000000000030007500000010000

16176
5179
6179

0000000000

1

1000

0

30000000000

20000

000001400000003700

1

00000000000000000500000300300000260000000140000

00000000000000000000000000300000000000000

000000000000000

7179
6179

0100

1

300000000000000

0000020001

1

0402020

1

1
1

020000000000000005000130701016

1175

3175

1

000

030000000140000000002

1

0000050000000330000

0110 5 01016

1

00000000030
000000000000002000704
00000000000000

000000000000000001400017

1

0000000

6700001
000604071200000020000

1

1
1

0

4175

10000002

001600
000430000000003

1

1

0

5175

160001

40101220000

1

6175

000
003

1
1

19000020

00020000000

1

02000000000000000600060504900

717 5

6N5

2000026000000057000030

00000000013010150602021

1

0000000

1

110166000005000000047000030002

020000000000000001002012011

16175
20175

10200000
0000000

000600000004500

1

0
00000000000000

1

15

00000024000150504

00000001
02000000000000000

1

4

0 0

1

01001
5076
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

1

0001

1

25175
20176

00002

000001600000002900001

1

300000000000000500011

1

0

25176

05000
0

1
1
50000000000

0000090000000460000400000

00

OO

00

0°

88

00°
00°
00°
00°
00°
00°
000
Be:-
000
00°
00°
00°
00°
v-NO
02'-
«no
000
102'-
v-NO
22'
000
Ov-O
OOO
th
v-OO
GOO
00°
00°
00°
GOO
GOO
GOO
v-OO
GOO
00°
00°
00°
GOO
GOO
Ov-O
00°

1179
2179
4160

264

1

0150601020

0002000120

1

0000000000000000060

9160

0260000007000000022000000001

1

00000010001
02000000000000000000000004

0 1

0

10160

0000000000000020000000000

1

1165-”
17175

15175

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000011

110001

0

1

0903600000017000000027

0

1

000003000000017000000

00000000000000240000

1
323500

000000002000504026
0000000000000000070007070211

1

1

0000000

16175

03000

0000000430000000000

1

12170

0011

1

1
1

000000000000006000302

00000000000000060001403
0520000000000000060002004352200000060000000430000000055

000000000000000000000

1

13179

0

1

61200000070000000350000

1

14179
15179

0000000000000000000000000

6000000400000001400000000

00001

1

1611179

1 0

00020

1

1 0

00040
030001207

1

00000000000000000

160179
2160
3160
51”
6160

1

11012200001240000000540000

00000000000001

0000000000000000030004

1

0

1
1

000002

1

0 0

00000140000000630000

1000000011

0046000000

1

0000

0000000022

1

1

012000150601322
00200000000000000600014050273000006000000031

00000000000000000

00000400000001

1

0

000000060000000000

1
1

000000

1 1

0004001
005

1

7160
6160

0000000100000000000

100000

1

00000000000000000000060

552000007000000024000010001

1

000000000000000004000207

140160

 

a] 131:5]

"3
0004000

lslslalslfl

[$1510

10
N
...

[01:15

[.815

O
‘—
P

[EIE’IEIEIEI
005000150401120
00000000016020540203315630

fl
'-
,-

v- v-
v- v-

I

02000000000000

0300000

1§l§12

b
O
r:

mlglglélfl

 

 

[

1

491
00000001320000

00000140000000

1

1

1 4111160

00042

020

1

00621

0000

1

1

5176

000

1

1
1
1

600000002300

1

090412101

1

0000000000000000050

60176

0000000

1400

520000040000000

1

0000000000000000050003000
0000000000000000040006030270000005000000021

6001176

00010
00000

1
1

0 0 0

0000240000

0000000

60116

00000000000000000100006060460000005001

6011178
0111170
7178

6176

50000000000

20000001

200000000400053403600000070000000

1

0000000000000000030002000

1
7

10000

04000

160000

1
1

00000

1

1

1

0 0

022050101950200020000000061

000000001601

1

000

1

000000000000009000903026

0000070000000230000000000

0000000000000000020004000300000003000000060000

00000000000000000300020203600000000000000

1

1

0

9176

00001

140000000000

1

130176

13111176

2172

000010000001000000010000100000
1

1
1

000000000000000000000

1002

1

1170000000250000

01006030000

0000000000000002000

1

00000000000000

000

6950000330000000053004040001

00016091

000000000000020000220242614
00000000000000400090204600000

0011

1

4112

0000060000000630000500022

1

1

5112

40000000170000000003

1

1

0
0000000000000000

6172

0002002

1

0717000000200000003000

11011

013011

020000000000000001200010016

00000000000000000300020

401

1

7172
6112

000000240002000590000300003

20000000000

00000

1

0
600000003500

0000000001

1

100035

0

1

1

0000
5400000030000000290000000000

1

012 01212
011

00010019
00000200060003600000020000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

011

1

0000000000000000000

110172
1111172

12172
17161

120000000020

0000000220000000000

1
1120000001

1

1

1

000000000

1

0000
00000000000

0

1

000000000000000005000
0

0

265

1

1162

100000

0000000013000000030000

1

0

000000000000000007020600007

00000000000000000600020

0001

1

00000000000000000

10172

0000000140000000003

1

00000
304100000006000000030000000000

50011

1

24160
26160

1051

1
1

1
1

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000001000023 3000019000000033002000000

1

00000000

100161
12161
13161
15161
19161
1177

00000000000

00000000000000000000000000
000000000000000300060003620000020000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000

1

02000000000000

0000101000
00000000000

11

1

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0007063
60000000000

1

12300000005700

000000000001400014011191650300
00
02000000000000000160003601026230000001600000007600

00000000000000000400040

1

00000

100000010000000

1

196160
1911160
190160

20160
25160

0300031
160000300000

1

30000000

1

04001000000

000000000000000700011
000000000000000002000602003

1

0

1

9000000000

0000020000000
00000040000000

0000000000000000020002000030000003000000060000000000

1

70000000000

000000000000000000200021

0 1

0

2511160
250160

000

1

15000000
200000000000000 90000000000

400000040000000

1
1

0

0000000000000000020004030

1

000000000000000002000170

161

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

'9N'OOOHOOPOOOOOOHOBO'OOOOMF*OFOOOOFOPONOVFO
cg Ov-OOv-OOOONOOOPv-DOV-09000000POOOOv-OOOOOOOOOO
z;OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
‘5 OPOOOOOOOMOOOOOv-OOOOOOOOOOOFMOOOOPOv-Ov-OOOO
mOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
”tOnPOPv-OOv-v-OOOPNOONOFOOOONnv-OOO'OOOOOOOOOOO
0'OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOv-OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
[_"FOOOOOOOOOPOOv-OOOhOFOOOOOOOPOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
9'OOOO000000000000OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
9'NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
n:32'2;°P2:'°°°"a:399~°"aaa~aza'*z:8"2*e°~
v-

c,OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
z,OOOOOOOOOOOOOFOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
wOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
0'OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPOOOOOOOOOOOPOOPOOOOOOOOO
asOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
asOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
le‘OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOv-OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
9eOOOOP'OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPONOQv-OOOOOPOOOOOO
nOOOOOOOOOv-0000000000000OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
“100000000000OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
ntOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPOOOOOOOOOOOOO00000000000000
tctooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
mnmv-Ov-OOOV-lnv-OOOOOONOOOOOOOOOOPOOOOPOOOv’Ov-OO
aMNMFOOOOMSNOONONODI'OVO'FOOQOMNNQNPOV-Owflonwr—
‘zOOOOOOOOOMOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OFOOOOOOOOv-Ov-OOOF
931000?v-OOOOv"OOOOOOONWOOOOOFOOOONOOONOOOOOOOO
uOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
aOOOOOOOOFOOOOOOOOOPOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONOOOOOP
‘zOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
ozthv-MEOOv-SPOOOMNNOONOFOOQOMOO:NOMOMON'Pv-v-D
0‘ OOOOOOOOOOOPOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
O‘tOOOOOv-OOOOOFOOOOOv-OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
L1 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
9‘ OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
9110000OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
'5 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOFOV’OOOOOOOOOOOOO
euoOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD
z; OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
15 00°00'-v-000000000000POOOOOOOOOOOOFv-v—OOOOOOO
0‘ OOOOOOOOOPOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
soOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
mOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
toOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
mOOOOOOOOOOOOODODOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
mOOOOOv-OOOOOOPOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOv-Pv-OOVOOOOOO
'0NMOOPOOOONOOFOPOON'Fv-OOONOOOOF)‘ OOPNOFOOOO
$000000 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
3

18178
19178
22178
24178
5177
611117
80177
7 7
6177
0177
9179
10164
1w164
9170
1M6
100178
11176
1217
417
517
17176
2177
3177
1
24171
25171
28171
27171
28171
31171
2181
3171
6171
7171
8171
9171
10171
11171
1317
1517
17171
8171

XE

 

 

flfia368338388888939‘3 39913398331133

saga.

121

61
91
111
91
S1
'1

91
Z1

11
011

006.8388

5

00000

1

00000002700000020

0000211
0000

1
1

1000001001201017114093
000000000000000

03000000

2

19171
20111

0001003162 1400000001500001
000000000

1

1

1000000000000000000

1

00000000000000000000000

210171
210171

22171

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0400000

0010000000

00011
000000050000000000

1
0000000

0000026000

3 1
1

1

0000000003000401

1

1
1

2000000

0002000

1

00000000000000000

16160
33171

0000000000

1

00000000000

1

000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

12171
14171
16171
29111

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

020000000000000007000120404400000

0
000

0200

2000000014000000001

1

00000500000009000000

000002000000011

1

1
1
1

00406130
0603032

1
1

000000000000000000040

00000000000000000700014

1

230000020000000006
0000000000000000040

30171

1

1

0000

32171

1

000000060000200000

000007000000017000000

25
04300000

1

0929

00000000000000020

1

0

35171

1
210500000030

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

1

1
11

1

36171

00000

000003000001

1

1

44171

49171

37017 1
370171
37d71
37617 1

00000000000

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000050402

1
1

6000000000
000130000000002
00000300020002000000000

00000050000000
0000000000000000050004230330000007000000014000000200

0200000000000000060006040220000005000

43171
460171
4611171
47171
50171

267

1

0

1

1

145
000000000000000400010060320000000000000011

00000000000000030006010

1
1

00000000

0000000002

53171

150000000002

10000060000000

4 0

00000000000000000200070203000000000000000

0000000040006031

1

54171

100002

70000

55171
56171

0000000002

100000001
6000000000

000000

00000000000000000300040204200000000000000

1

00000000000000000500070000

1

57171
59171
60171

0000000000

30000000000

0000000000000001

1
1

0

0 1

1

000000000000000000000

00000010000000
00020002000000040000000

1

0000000000000000000002000

00000000000000000

0000000

1

500

1

61n171
610171

00000000000000000000000000
770000002000000021

1

0

1
1

0

0000000000000000030004010

00000000010000000001

1

0

1000
4700002000010

000000

172
3161

1

0 0 0 0 015 010 2 0 0 0
0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 000 00 00 0 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 0 000 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0'0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

1

00000000000000000600016090624

51171
52171
6163
5171

1120000000240030600000

5421000

00000000000000000500090000300000030020000100000

1

012

000000000302011

1

0300000

00000
00000

1
1

11177
12117
13177
15177
6161

0000000110000

0005060040000001

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000

1

00000000000000000

00000000000

0000000

0005000000026000000000

1

000000200000002000

040006060311

1

0000000
00000000000000300014040

1

0000000

1

0 1

1

112

1

0

 

 

1130002000560020

1

81283838183381‘188933‘9 399099859138

SZ
'2

121

61
91
1.1
91
911

('3'
F0-

”8388888331!

00003

1

100

0

1

11222

033 010

1

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000

0000050
00000000000000000

000000001

3 1

0

7161

20161

02300000020000000 60000000000

000401

1

21161

2162

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000

140000000000

200090000200000060000000

1

22161

00000000000
00000000000

0031

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000

32174

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0300000000000000030009016

02000000000000000600070

00000000000000000

17160
16172
19172
20172

100020

1 0000

1000120000

1

250
22400000060000000

0000000020000000000000020000000000

1

1

19000000000

1

1

6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0

20000002000
023000000

501
1

0000300061

000000000

00000000000000
0000000000000000060
00000000000000000

1

000000000000

0000000

250172
25wl72
14173
26173
29113

1174

1
1

000150

1
1

1

2000000
0303400000000000000130000002020

1

0003000

0

011

00000000000000000000000

1

00000000000

12000000000

1

1

0000040000000

1731

1

00000000000000000400040

30000000000
100000000000

000000010000000
00000000000000000000050003400000020000000

1

0000000000000000000002000

10174

11174

0 0

002230000000N001

0 1

116331

114

1000000001200033
0000000000000000050001405

03000000

15174

034

6900000060000000270000001

1

16114
22174

00000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000

24174
9175
1017

268

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000

111760

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

121760

21174

3167

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000
00000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000

no.2

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000

no.3

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

717 5

02001
40000000000

1

13400000009600

32000

117 01531

000000

050000000000000001303015

0000000000000000000

22175

100000020000000

1

23175

1
1

09000000036003030000

10001

1
1

616

000202002

1

0400000000000000040001205

00000000000000000

24175

3000000000

0000020000000

00000

1

611176
60176

000000010000100002

1
11

0002

1

0000000000000000020005

1003

0

1

00000005400

1141630000

0150002309

020000000000000005000906
00000000000000000600021

1

000000000000000

3179

41400000000000000240000200001

0910200000140000000400000000000

1

4179

011

17179

11180
no. 1

00001

1

0

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

1

107300000500000002700

0000000000000000090001306

000000 60000000002

1

000001

1
1

133

1

04000000000000000500060

34171

00000

1

0000050000000100000

4

1

0000000000000000000005040

36171

 

' I“ '1!

1 01%] fl

1§l§l§1§

N
V
0-

F313!!!

3

7000000016000000000

.9.
115000000041

'-
.1
'

J§|§l§1

101310131515

'—
("D
:

515181
3300000

1

1515

In
N
,.

V
N
‘—

2181513131

[212121219
0000000000000000080001703

n
.-
'-

1

PIN
v- v-
r v-

|

O
P
'-

 

 

1 01.112101010010101

1

1

1

3911171
41171

42171

10001

0030
100000300000

000000000000001200012221113440000
00140000

1

2
00000000000000000

0000040000000

000003'0000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000

1050041
1

000

000000000000000002000707054

1

00004

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

90000

1

1

13172
4161

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000

5161

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000

21670

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000

390171
56171

002
00

000000000

1
1

0

1

0000040000000

411

000000000000000400010051

1
1
1

0
0
0

400000000000000500070201460000004000000226000000

63171

1

0003000000011

1

100

2

1

0000000060001103

1

000000

64171

000400000002000000060000000000

1

000000000000000006000606062
0000000000000000030006060

000000000000000000000

65171

0000000241000000000

000011

1
1

66171

000

1
50000000000

0

1

00000150000000260000

00000000000000

1
1

1

2

67171

66171

0003021

00000000000000000400060400400000

1

00000000000000000

10000000
50000000000

00020001100

1

1

27174
12175
4177

00000020000000

00000000000000

1
1

100

0000020

1

000000000000000

0000000000

30000000000

1

00010000
1

1

00000000000000000

00200000000000000

1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

000000000000000000000 0

10177
14177

16177

000
v-OO
00°
GOO
GOO
GOO
GOO
GOO
006
000
the
00°
00°
00°
GOO
GOO
GOO
000
N00
Ov-O
GOO
GOO
GOO
000
P00!

Q'-

1

0400040403
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000001

1

0000000000000004000000002

0000000000000000060007000

1

0000000

21160
22160
23160
6161

269

00000000000

0000005200

0

1

1

0 6 0 0 0
0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1

1

000000000000400015010062220000019

1

0000

9161

562000003000000021

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000

1

03000000000000000500020012

2164

5165

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000

11720

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000

1166
1169

2

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000

2166

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000

2169

3

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000

31720

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

00000000000000000000000000000000000000

03000000000000000000000000000000000000000

1

0
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000

3184
3I88
41720

300000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000

1

69171
6166
4166

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000

16160

 

 

 

 

600000000
1300001424200

02292 0 0 01032214

0000000200
00020000000

206051
11

50
14031

0 4 0 0 0
0 6 0 0 0
17 0 0 0

1
5
150

5 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 0 0 0 0 0 0
16 0 0 0 0 0 0

00000
003000000027

22173

130

000
90000

11

1

2311173

1

02540020000

230173
25173

"27173

2600030056055000300003235600001626220

1
0
0
0

6 0

1

1

0000000000000000000000000

0 0000
00

1

0000000
0000000

00000
00000

000000000
300002626260

000000000000

30000000000

0
0

0
3

0000

26173
2174

1

0
60200

0 0

1

2000

12000

2000000
12000000

0000

1

000000200200000626166

1 1

16

000
00000

1

3174

00000000000000000000000

0000
16000

0

0
100

0000000

4174

0 0 010 2621.0

1149 0 0 0 0 42620.9

0 0

1

1

0270252000000030026

1149 0142 2

11

0000

1
7

1000160
000000

37690065

5174

1040000111

00067

000
4200029071

00055061

1

6174

2 0 0 0 01616160

1

00007

20200000000

0

1

1

0
1

0

0
7 0
0

1

000001
163 004400000026

7174

6174

0 0 01632246

1

000000000
032000001626225

070

1

064600
00000000000000
1

70200

1

1

0000

0

1

160
0000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000

0 0
0 0
0 0

0 0 0 0
13 0 0 0
0 0 0 0

0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0
13 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0

17174
16174
3162

270

0000
0000

0
0000

0
0

0
0
0
0

2533004900500032

00000
00000

3165

000000000

00000000000000

0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1W7

2167

000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000

0

00000
00000

0000

4600040

0

1

3100-07

13173

267 0 0 0 01030201

1
1

00006

6670011

1
1

67
0 52
0

1

0 016 30 22.9

1

0

251

46300200003

143500220130002602100031

16173

000000000000000000000

0
130350255005000030

0 0

00000
22000

1

0
11
11

0000000

00000
0023000000

17173
16173
19173
20173

0 0 012302216

0 0 0 01432237

1

34

21

1
1

1

1000020

0900011121020000
40003070
6000

19025000200

0
0

10000

0

0
20000

2

7

7 0 0 0 0 14 14 14,0
15 0 0 0 0 16 26 20.0
0 3 45 0 0 0 0 14 32 25.3

700000000000

150000000020

2
9

1000
6000000

400

1

90150

0 0

1

21173
23176
7162

0400001

000

1

450400

000

132500300300022

1

1520002500

10000000620000122621.5

3500027062061

1

YQYQQQ'.
4.1000000?
OOOOOOO
OOOOOOO
OOOOOOO
OOOOOOO
000°00'-
N00000:-
v-ONOOON
OOOOOOO
OOOOOOO
OOOOOOO
0000000
000000?
0000000
v-OOOOOO
OOMOOOF
.—

OOOOOOO
OOOOOOO
OOOOOOO
OOOOOOO
000°00'-
u—OPOOOO
OOOOOOO
OOOOOOO
OOOOOOO
DOC-000v-
OOOOOOP
NOOOOOO
OOOOOOO
OOOOOOO
QOOOOOP
0000000
“00000:

§§§§§§§

1630000632215
020 0 0 0 01424195

1
1

900005

0 1

1

36000000242300025263446
12020016000400003

1

0

24200

n
E

p

9002000906000

0

12173

 

 

 

 

l

1129 0 0 0 01436229
224 0 0 0 02026240

l

5161 El

1

1010101010] @101 01a

p
0
’—

”13101 0113101 01

 

 

000090

77000520129011060011
00

1
1

2665006200000046

1176

021

1

1

00
15200000000001700002626260

1

12024021

912000

14000000
14000000

1000
30000

20176

1400030170

3 0

2n176
3176

00N20000026362000334119010500014000072211900001430232

1
004700
00
00000

1
1

243

77 0 0 0 01026215
17 0 0 0 03030300

1
1

0

1
1

0

77 0 612 0 014 0 0 0 0 4
17 017 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 6 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1
1

14600030
12000

00026

1

3
0

4176

1
1

4

6 0
0
3

0 0 0 0 0 0
6 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0 0

23172 11

1173

2173

600000000

400

6000

0
0
1
1
0
70
40

1

0000000

1

4000

0

5
690632004000011

0

1

20003
0041

26

000

1

0 10 10 10,0

206900001634229

1

002700000041

0 0

1
1
20200

3

26

3173

32 0 0 0 01232244

111
0011
00

1
1

000000
00

17000

15

1

120320229

1
7000

1900

12
4

19000000

4173

5173

0 24 30 26.0

1

00
16 0 0 0 01632250

16 0 0 0 02030250
260

0000

1
1

50120101

60
30

10000

0

0000
0000000000
1302702430000000

160

10000

0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0
16 0 0 0 0 0 0

92000

6173

1

160

13000

1

7173

6173

10 0 632223

1

0

0
325420001026167
0335

1

1
1
1
1

14000

0
0

143000330000002303300023056051

11

14 5 0 0 0 336190

1400040000

1

15019

500000014 4000

1000

12

150173

150113

30020000

0 6 3019.3

0 1

1
1

1

0013000
260004000030030

1

19037023

17031

1000017116000

1

160

140200

15w173

21172

22112

0 0 02034256
32 0 0 0 01236246

100015014000 1
16000000 1600

140

70400

0000301

1

00
500000000000

150320301
1000000000000

1

160

100

2
00000

500000000
1000000000

50
100

0

0
15045036320200002
1
1

50000
1

0
0

0
0

5000000
10000000

24172

9000
16030000

16

10000

10175

045 0 0 0 02030253

1

00000002006600001430239
00200004004000001626233

000000000000

5026020320

166
15040037

16066

50000

1

6025000

3 1 0 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 51 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 3 0 0 29 0 2 1 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
19 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 32 0 0 0 0 0 0

5
7
6

3175
14175
12160
13160
15m
20175

271

000000000
002600001426226

0

0

0

00000

0
7021

0

00001

1

000

000

1
1

6430031

5

14

47 0 0 0 01632236

1
1500

00000030

0356404000040

1

170470460

19051

13230000

0 0 63021.6

1

32000
15031
7

4
15

000031

1

19

000000

211175

00003024600001026167

1402000000

150460356201

000

000000

6000000

0031
000
000

11 1

12174

16 0 0 0 01024166

0 0

1

600060160
3000

1

1
1

13174

7 0 0 0 01420170

700000000000

0

7

0
16 041

4

0

1

3 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 6 3 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0
20 0 4 0 0 66 0

N17 6 0 0167 0

14174

0 0 62620.0
0 0 0 63021.4

100000003004001

0 40

25000

190174

10000502961

6500033199094220
11070001000290027721403000011

1

1
1

190174

210293 0 0 3 0 63222.6

0000107

1901111174
20114

1127 0 0 0 01030224

2000060
0000000002200002424240

20
00000000000

1

00000040379000460127012220

1261

2733

4017000 502201561
1500020035031

155
0

16000000
14000000

40000

26174

0 035 0 0 0 01426223

100001

1

0
00000

1

1700

26174

00000000
09400001030219

1

1

0

0

10000

0
1665005903200026457000370940930

000000

1

29174

00000051

190170200000020

0370303022000030

1200033045242

1

31174
1176

2176

1 26 17.9

190000
370000163260

1
1

00001404000150

6020000290

160

0 1

4

11

600031

16 2 3 0 0
13 0 3 0 0
33 3 6 0 0

00000005024500001430167

1

2000242

1

3111176

30176

2 0 0 0 63421.7

15000210000060461

2700054263

600200051

'1' ‘.

1.1 .1,-El"

 

[5|

”1
961
961
Z61
161
001
*1

111
2 0 0 01026195

1

J l

l

991
[.91
W1

1

19131110 1

8
D

1

g

[81 E151

m
K
‘—

I

1!
J:

[EIEEI e]

p

11

1

f

101013510101 01

'—
O
'-

m1§l§1§101§1 01

 

 

1

000070041

1

0000004022000002024230
44

00030243037302

9000
11

1

1000000032

1200
1200
6500
40000
20000

24

4176

0 0 0 63021.9

00600000000

0 0

1

00000401

1

1
0
600000000

1

110200172
00034045142
4000

2000

0
0

14

1202000031

6000000

9
21

50176
51111116
50176

1
1

060
060

4
6

0
0

4

4000000
3000000

6 0 0 0 02426250

000000

1

1

5

16176

5026026000000000002600002226250

1402632230000000

0
4

000

5021

000000

16000000

100021
200
00000

4
0

0 026 0 0 0 01226213

1

14000

100
0
3

1

6179

300000000
600000000

300000000000

3

0
0

3000

0
0

1

3000000
200

1325003700

7179

6179

0

0

1

1

0000

3900027066066000000002

1

2000 605000

000

1
1

0

0

2” 0 0 0 01232231

00027

003200000020031

1175

3175

52 0 0 0 01630246

0020000431

1
1

0 0 0 20 1 52 0 49
16 0 31 0 26
13 0 34 0 29 3

13000

1
1
1

0 0 0 01630233

002000042031

1
1
1

0 0 13 0 0 1 0 0 0 16
0 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 13
17 5 0 0 0 44 0 0

104

4175

5175

34 0 0 0 01232229

67
003300001626226

0000201
1

1

0
002000023

1

000

21

1

2

0 0 01644249

1

000270660651

19000
1644005500000032353000370900667201500006226600201430236

41
152500460000002704900026075069500

00022

1

6175

1

1403303030000000

5 9200020000000130

717
6115

00003027500001026196

1

16175
20175

0 16 30 22.7

4 0 0 0 02426253
52 0 0 0 01232232

1

17000

0663000000040

4300026071

00043001000261
0000000000

‘
1

22

400000000200

00004040

0
162200260000002402600026052046

4

2517 5

0000501

1 1

00000000000000000000000

1604504050000000

1

1

20176

0

0000000000000000000
100 0029000000
16

25176

0 10 30 21.6

1

0 0 01032224

1

0 90000616120
26600001030221

024400
1372
1

1

100004

16550

1
909000000000

0

4

5000
4500023066061

0
1
1

16029000
00520020001904700026073
50000004
19
7

1
1
40000

1

1179
2179
4160

272

1000041

600

14040047010000
4 0022000000

9160

02000020230000062417.4

603002701

22000

1

‘

10160

5 0 0 0 02626260

500000000000

0
00000000000000000000000

046046200000002004600001430242

0250240
100340241000000000033400002026233

5

0
0

3
0

2 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
27 0 0 0 21

14000

3
0
1
1
1

0
0
14

2000000

03000
00000

1165-66

17175

15175

0000000

100
16000000

30027032

1
0

1

12

2 25 0 0 0 02432273

00000021

11 1

00
000240

1

16175

24000
10044000

0000

12000045000000

1

12179

005500001626225

0900001

1
1

0550450
190530460

11

13179

153 0 0 0 01426196

3000041

1

17034000

30036000000

1

14179

0 0 02024 22.5
2 0 0 0 02626260
0 17 0 0 0 02026240

057200001230205

0000300671

004601000020145000230661642001

1

5
20000

15179

200000000000

0
170150

00000202
1400030
51

2

0000000
15000000

1611179

1

1 0 0 0 0 1
1 0 0 0 0 1
1

0

1

2 0

16

000
63600540

3

1

160179
2100
3160
5160
6160

100019272067400
5

0000
12000000

1

020000101900002226240
0000003630000626199

1901601

1

13000
1606300020063060200

7 0

000

1

1

1000
0000
6000000

1
1

120600630

47 0 0 0 01026172
0 0 9 0 0 0 02424240

1704704340000000400

15030000

0

10031
10
1

4

7

909000000001

0
4014014000000000

070002
10000
702300010033031

3

0

7100
6160

14 0 0 0 0 62215.0

02330000626227

1

1

00000030

0011
32200250

1

1

20000000

0000

1

140160

 

'8838 8
O

00002007000001626226

001

1

70065220

1

19
112600067 021501971060200001377215000063225

19050000
16024000

0000

1022005001

1 401160
5176

061

0013020001

432211

11

0 0 0 53221.2

1

02200000102216]
02002900002026230

1

1

16040035320000003

0024000000

1

1

60176

16200000001

7029026000000
1403603600000000000300201624194

42200

14000

1400000060

50000

60111176
60176

1

6022000
14024000

000000

010021
1

4
102

0024000000
0

90300

Gun/78

9 0 0 0 02430273
223200001626210

0

1
1

0000000

3203200000000

1

0
1

250004
1500016
200600650000003506400035

160

60000001

601176 0
16000000

7176

6176

1100 0 0 0 0 52619.7

00000030

1503703023020000

1

1

1100096

37 0 0 0 0 12 32 213
12 0 0 0 0 22 26 24.7
16 0 0 0 0 26 26 26.0

2 1

1

14022000

10040023000000

9176

0000000000

1
13200

070005012011
1400020

0
0

3

1

10000

0
15000000

20000
20000

130176

0000000

1

160

1301176
2172

3 0 0 0 01620160

0

0

1

30302001000001

15040040000000002

3 0000
13024

0000000

0000
620002402000

2324005400300034

1
21

040 0 0 0 01626217

0 0
1

1
0

1

3172
4172
517

00006239200001236257

1
40500009

1

1&06541
199069
13030023402

0 39

51

24006300300030361

1

099 0 0 0 01634242
030 0 0 0 01230197

05400

1
1
1

1

00037
17000

1253003000000023226000270550476

14630060030000250560

2

00002
00005

1
1

16000000120

100

0

6172
7172

6172
9172

0 14 34 24.6

1

0

02906607660030

1

005046600001032232

600000000000

1

1

6 0 0 0 01626216

020000022560000123223.1

60
00200560530

6 0

2000

35

1
1

4
17

3000000

0
4003020000

000026000000

1
120
6

0

1

1

1

110172

13500001032239
00001624192
000000000
700002230247
260000630220
15000001230220

1021

000000003000001616160
00

0000050
1

1
1

10
016000200
00000000000000

7
1302601690000
1905003513002000030

1

303002900
00

17035033
21

2 0 27 0 0 0
16 0 0 0
13 1

1000150
000070

1 0 0 16 0 1

0 0 0 13 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0 0
14 0 0 0 0 0 0

1

1111172

12172
17161

273

0000
4000

13000

0
0
17031

1

0
4

11

1162

0000000

1

06000

3 0

30000

10172

00201

1

000

1

24160

000

010001
196200340000002723300030063059300000

30031

1

15

050063000012$193

1

10161

000000000

000000000000

0
00000000000000000000000

000

0
100220

0000
0000

12000

0
0
9 0
0
0

0
0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
13 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
6 3 0 0 0

100161
12161
13161
15161
19161
1177

0

122 0 0 0 01230240

160004000030

000000000
000000000

02600004249900001226210

00000000000000
0000

0 0

0000
0000

0
0

2003005700000042050000430000002

0000000
0000000

00000
00000

0000000000000000

1

0 0 0 01626227
0 0 0 0 52619.2

0001011

1

3011091
7200039 0111 0101
1000010030032200200002003000001zzazo.7
70160

6000

1

3

6000000
2322007400000036

30000

190160

060000743111

1

3

1911160
190160

20160
25160

10000170
9000000
7000000

160

1 3 0 0
6 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0

11

16 0 0 0 01630230

0000000

1
0020000000

13200

9 0 0 0
7 0 0 0
6 0 0 0

15000

2
0
0

5
2
132

1

9 0 0 0 02626260
10 0 0 0 01414140

0 029 0 00 01020157

0 0

1

20906

1

2010060020000000

14029224200

3012011

0

1
14000000

60000

20000

1

2511160
250160

1161

1
1

0000

1

300
2000

1

12 0 0 0 02032260

0000000

1

9000

0

3

9000000

 

10100 81010101001

101010101010

[010%

D
h
r

[0101

In
N
:-

13332027302000002003200001030230

y!
F

1 0101010101

010
15 0

l

232300400020003634200037261

991

 

 

1

1500

10000

160

62000

16176

0 0 0 01032211

361
1

0

1000041
000000041
1

1

1

0753

1200032246045

19176
22176

46 0 0 0 01226209

17
00000002700001624210

7003000010
200000000000

1

0
2
1

1500000031

300

140000

16

0 0 010 2416.0

1

00000

1
1

400000012 300013216017000
616000
00029176000051

190

4042006220

24176
5177

0 0

1

9027025

0000
1

1

50200

1 010 2621.6

1110 0 0

1

0 101
0

0111

0
0

611177

2 0 0 0 02026230

2

2
0

0000
11

0
0

1

2
0
6

0000000

2 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
7 0 2 0 0
31 14 6 0 0 119 0

60177

717 7

6177

00000000
2300001430220

000 1000000000001
1632000000

12000

1

000000
14000000

1

1

0
000090217700001026206

1

0230

1

1177 013636 2 0

0
0
0

000056111100065

1

9177

5 0 0 0 0 22 24 23.0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00

000000000
00000003002000001630262

1

0
000000000000

50

0

0
160200

0
0

4
0
0

1000

0
0
0
0
0
1
1

3
0
0
15

2000000
0000000
0000000
5000000
000021

0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
6 2 0 0 0
15 3 2 0 0

1

9179

0000

10164

000000000000

19
6000200263230000000020

0000
4000

1111164
9178

1

1

26 0 0 0 0 4 30 20.9

0 32 0 0 0 0 14 26 21.5

0 4 20 0 0 0 0 12 24 16.6
0 6 124 0 0 0 0 12 34 23.6

1

0 1

4

1001176

1

1
1

03203200000000

1202021400040000

10 2100011
6000

10
00067251

000000
10000000

0021
3009000000

0
301011

100176

11176
12176

0011
0000000
002
400000000

7030

10221
1

1

0 0 0 66 5124 6111

1

005202
00
200

20000

00000000
00001230216

11
31

1
1

900
026

0

01000010111
150 19031

2

1

0

0

14176

15176

0020

1

1

12000

1000
2000000

1302

400000000

0 0

1

4

1000
6000

0

17176

0 0 0 0 16 16 16.0
2 0 0 0 0 22 22 22.0
4 0 0 0 0 16 26 21.0

000000011

1

200000000000
400000000000

0
0
0

3 0 11
1 0 0 0 0 2
1 0 0 0 3 0 4

0
0
0

2
1
3

1 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 0 0 0

0
30000

2177
3177
4171

274

249 0 0 0 02036266
025 0 0 0 01226231

1
1

0 0 0 0 6
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0

0

0000200240002504904521

1002601
400
7220024000000

7

1

24111
25m
20171

27171

1
1

1201200013025022200

13000000

37 0 0 0 02030240

1

19037029520

16000

130

0 0 0 01426164

00000030221

60001502102001
1700033050046400000005

0

16000000292

9
15000000202

6060000

93000

2042

050 0 0 0 01626209

1
1
1

1

0
0 0

1

26171

31171

2161

0 16 32 24.7

1

3600

000050

1
1
1
1

600029037032400

1

164

72 0 0 0 0123021.4

000030
000000

0 0

2460002407206011

1250004900000021

7 0 0 0 01226213

7
346 0 0 0 01434241

706000

0

3
6

04000
02000

2

10000
10000
0027000000

0
0

4
4

0 0 0
0 0 0
1

1
1

3171

00 0000200 0100630213

1902600020046039300400003

0

3

6171

1

11

7171

6171

0 0 0 0 63423.3

2 47 0 0 0 02026247

000020021

1161001

121

00061120006
16047043400000002

220029000000

7000013001

11

1

16029000

2

9171

3060600000000000600002626260

17033031

3000

0
16000

10000
16000000

0

0003

1
1

2
11

10171
11171
13171
15171
17171

16171

33 0 0 0 01026222

1

0000000
000000000300000000

0 0

1

0

1

1

152

200

0

1

0

3
251

0
1
0

1 0 0 0 2
10 0 0 0 14
1

0

1

2

1000000
1200 11

0

0

0 0 0 62620.6

1

24

1
1

1000020

22

0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7 0 0 0 0 0 0

1

3100

5

1

2 0 0 0 02424240
10 0 0 0 02626260

20000000000

2 0

00002
2

0
0

2
3

0000

1001000000000000

7000

000

1

 

 

 

I§L§l 51 51%] 51;] El 3!]
0 0 0 0 3 3623.1
0 0 0 0 20 3224.5
0 0 2 0 0 0 01426200

lg

0200009

 

   
   

Tstlsse
v-v-
264400270020004022400045271

3

 

Ialfiflfl

F
O

”SSBRQS

 

271

1

1

0662

19171
20171

0000000020231

200000000

031

0000
13022020200000003022200001230210

19031

12000

1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0

15
12000000220

10000

140

103200

1

2

2 0

0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
9 0 0 0
5 0 0 0

2
0
6
2

1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12 0 0 0 0 0 0

20000
00000

21.171
216171

22171

000000000000000000000

0 0

20000

1

7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0

700000000000
200000000000

0
0

7

2
0000000000000000

20
00

5000000

16160
33171
12171
14171
16171
29171

00010
0000
0000
0000

1300021

1

0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1

0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0

1

0
0
0

000000000000000000000

0

0

000000000

32

0 027 0 0 0 01632244

00002002200001430244

0000

0000000000000000

0 0 6324.4

1

‘1

1

100000051

0342292

1902702430000000

1000
1200

16
14

1

6000

0
0

16

11

9000000

30171
3217

1
1

00011022019002
1700022039036200
120002000000

11

000000

10011

0

6
124300

003900001632256

1

10000220
6000000

160

35171

14 0 0 0 02630265

1

70140
000230260002605404320090000402520200636236

7000

0

0

0
1427002602

3171

1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0

44171

00000000000000000000000

0
0
0

00
00

0 0

0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0

0000

0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

00000

49171

000000000000000000000

000000000000

0
0
0
0

0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0

37.171
376/71
37c17 1
37¢” 1

000000000

000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000

0 0

0

0000000 0 00

0000000

00000

0 63020.0

1

1

17 0 0 0 026262610
0 26 0 0 0 01432273
2 35 0 0 0 02030245

0223

1
1
1

00000000000000000000000

01701700000000200

15027423000000002

16026025

0 0

11

6000
12000

0
0

0
9
130

6 0 0 0 0 0 0
14 0 0 0 0 0 0
12 0 0 2 0 0 0

00

00

000
7340020000000

00000
1
1

43171
464171
4611171
47171
50171

275

0100003
10000
1
1

1

1

12000

140

1

12

1

16035034000

19000

132

00003022500001430220

000030

100100001401000015025020400
1202502300

72300
53000

53171

25 0 0 0 022302617

14 0 0 0 01230193

0011

1

1

13000

0
0

100011

1300

54171

1200020000002

1400000000

70140

7000
130140

7
13

7 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 0 0 0 0 0 0

0
0
0

0
0
0

1

55171

0 6 3219.6

1

20
15 0 0 0 01626220

3 0 0 0 01414140
5 0 0 0 02626260

1

000
5000

1

1
0
0
0
0
0

56171

1

0

00000002

300000000

4

1

14

100150

9
2
2
4

1

5

57171
59171
60171

1

0
0

000203
30002
5000
0000

1

0 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0

200001

20000
30000

000000000

1

0

5
4090
3

12

0003004600035

900000000000900001426225

2
34033000
1620707

0000

61n171
611171
1172

3161

3 0 0 0 02626260

1000000000
00000003300
0400004306200001030223
000000000000000000000

0

0

3
13021

30000

10

0 14 32 24.0

1

1

1

000

0021000000

1

1

1

1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1

124700500

0000
0000

0000

0
0
0

0
0
0

000029

10000000120

0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0

51171
52171
6163
5171

00000000000000000000000

0000

00
2200024654052

000000000000000000000

00005005400001430206

1

00
0220220000000022

6017011

1

1

1002301
63000

173

22 0 0 0 01624206
17 0 0 0 02026240

1

00011

11
11

um
12177
13177
15177
6161

00060000203

000
0000

1200000050

100
00000

0000000000000000000000000

1003202902000

0
12021

0

0000000

0020000000

32 0 0 0 01426236

1 1

001

1
1

001

15024000

1

2
14000025000

002004100001026165

03600020

141

16

0 0

1

 

 

Illlll

IIH

|

l l

375560004401024960002000073413200043416]

l

l

L

311
991»

Till

€91

:21?!
3073005900000

lflflfl

N
I"
:-

 

 

l Mala!

1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
13 0 0 0 0 0 0

7161

000000000000000000000

0 0

0
50130

0

0 0 0 0
6 0 0 0
0 0 0 0

12000

0
0
O
1
0
0

0
5
0
5
0

0
19031

00000

20161

13 0 0 0 01624213

00020000200

11

1000
00000

4

21161

2162

000000000
1900001626213

00000000000000

190
0

0

0

1600010000001

7 0

0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0

1

22161

000000000
000000000

000000000000

0

0
0000000000000000

0

0000
0000

0000000
0000000

32174

17160
16172

200000400511000634220

1002005204721

10000
16000000

1

330031

50300

11

0 026 0 0 0 02236296

0

1

1
1
1
1

1102602600000000

17000

100

19172
20172

0 3000033360

300000000

021

3 0

0
13021

1

2000
6000

0
1
0
0
1

0

000020000001
9 10

19

100

1

10

0 0 0 01026216

021
022300001030204

00000000

0000

1

0

200

1

250172

2

30002002302210000000
5060600000000000
1603220600200004

3000

14000

4000000

160200

M2

6 0 0 0 02426253

5
15

3000000

32000
60500

14173
26173

226 0 2 0 01230215

1

000

0000000
13002000

1

1300

0 0 0 01616160

1

00000000000

1202502500000000

1

0000

13000

1

0000

1

10

29173

002500 001626216

1

00
0000

0

1

1

1174

400001616160
1400003330

400000000000
0000304133000632200

040000040
40100004014012
0090020000396900050013931340

30000001

10000000

1

10174

100

000.0

1
1

0 0

1

100

1

3
393

11174

15174

0

1

25000001030223

1

0002202600024050046200000001

0000000
0000000

1

1023002700

16174
22174

000000000
000000000

000000000000

0 0

0
0

0
0

0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
00032900004501350120

0

0

00000
00000

000000000
000000000

000000000000000000000

000000000000

00000000000000
0

0000
00

0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0

24174
917 5
10176.

276

0000000000000000

0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0

11176.

000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000

0000

0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0

12176.

0

0

0
0

0
0

0
0
0
0
0

0000000
0000000

21174

3167

000000000
000000000

00000000000000

0000000000000000

0000000
0000000

no.2

0000000000000000000000000

0

no.3

000000000000000000000000

000000000000

2544009204

7175

010 32 23.2

4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
59 0 0 0 0 10 26 21.0
10 0 0 0 0 14 30 23.0

1

213400

1

2012000010
400000000000

1

1

22175

0040
1703500024059051

4000

0

23175 0000040000000
1022003220000

24175
611176

1
1

007000072

1

010

1

9000000

100

200060

2
1
1

5
10

0003000000
20005520000035

1
1

00000000001200001226220

302000070

1
1
1

11012011
5300037393067

000

1000000

200

6.176

92 0 0101226210

1
1
1

31

3179

0 0 0 0 6 32 21.5
73 0 0 0 0 6 26 19.2
1 44 0 0 0 0 10 26 19.6

41

0

0500001

15024000170410341

00002254300029

12020026000000

4179

73030205000023

1

1
1

200450

1

30

17179

11I90
no.1

1

1

0000000
00000000000000000000000

1

17044043

14027000

0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 0 0 0 0 0 0
9 0 0 0 0 0 0

002601

00000
102200

1

130

0

0
16022021

0 0 0 0
4 0 0 0
9 0 0 0

0
0
0

0
17

11

00000002002200001630240

19000

1

34171

00002032000001426223

1

0200

11

63000

36171

 

 

 

8858888 8
04300001030250

1.91

zzgepeassgflzss

1600024343036
000402370004626507620050000622623000636232

111
011

 

1000041

1

2

1

000240

1
1
1

39n1712301001600

41111

42171

1

0

27330041

0 0 0 63020.7

1
02900 0 01230243

0

1

1

1600000000

50160

5011000
14000

1000 000

3 0 0 0 0
6 0 3 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
13 2 2 0 0

00003

1 1

60
00000000000000

00000000000000

15029021
00
0

150

14000000

13172
4161

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0

00004003000001232200

0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0

0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0

0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5161

000000000000

000000000000

21870

0

396171
56171

1

0
1204003400330000003400000440256

1

1

600022030027

6000000220

11026000
15
1

6020029000000

63171

030000302260000330210

1
400030000002

160260240

12000

1
0
19021

12000000

1100
0000

14

1

64171

7 0 0 0 02424240

070

1

6000

6000000

65171
66171

0 0 0 02230260

0353003000030041

00020041

0022000000

20025000000

1

123
4

37 0 0 0 0 10 34 25.1
10 0 0 0 0 26 30 26.7
22 0 0 0 0 14 26 22.6

1303703430000000401
501009

10224000

1

6717 1

66171

0 0
0
0

1
1
1

0000000

1

5000

1

2

5020000
11

00
100000

1

1
1

000000

1651

1220

10
1
1

2

11 0 0 0
5 0 0 0
2 0 0 0
2 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
4 0 0 0
7 0 0 0

17 0 0 0

0
0
0
0
0
0

27174 11000000
4000000

12175
4177

6 0 0 0 0 22 22 22.0
3 0 0 0 0 24 24 24.0
4 0 0 0 0 26 26 26.0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0

60600000000

0
0
0
0
0
0

2
2
1
0
0

1000
1000
0000
00000
00000

0

300000000000
400000000

30
40

0 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1

0

1

1

10177
14177
16177
21160
22160
23160
6161

00000000000000

0
0
5

000000000000000000000

900000000000

0 0

90
120190163000000020

0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 0 0 0 0 0 0
9 0 0 0 0 0 0
17 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 12 30 23.6
0 6 24166

5 0 0 4 0 10 16 13.2
16 0 0 1
1

1

10027027000000002002600

0
1
1

0 0

4 0 0 0 0
1
7 2 0 0 0

11

277

000000000000000000000

0
06000

0

0

00000
00530000002605300026061

0
2424002000000032220000340540465

0

0000000

00000

19

0 0 0 01032210

120000030461

1

1

0000523540000123020.4

1 1

1

000000000

00000000000000

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0

0000

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 O 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
O 0 0 0 0

5165

00000000000000 000000000

0000
00
0

0
0
0

1172.

000000000

000000000000

0000

0000

1166
1169

2

000000000000000000000

0

00000000000000000000000

00
00

0

0000
0000

0000

0
0

000000000000000000000

000000000000
000000000000

0

2166
2169

3

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0

0 0

0
0
0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0

0
0 0

0

0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0

00000000000000

31720

00000000000000 000000000

00000000000000
00000000000000

0
0

0
'0

0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3164
3166

000000000
000000000

0 0

0

4172.

000000000000000

0
0
0
0
0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5166-69
69171
6166

00000000000000 000000000

0 0

0

000000000000 000000000

00000000000000

0

0

0
0
0

000000000
000000000

0 0
0

000000000000

0

0

0

16160

 

APPENDIX B

Mommy Data

278

...-0,

 

 

 

Sex:

Leg Position:

Covering:

Artifacts:

279

indeterminate (child)
female
male

fully flexed
semi flexed
disarticulated
extended

secondary
unknown

absent
limestone slabs
hide

log impressions
cedar bark

absent
present

 

 

 

 

”tux-I: '-'

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ODDOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
-m OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPO
mmOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
um OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
m 1OOOODODOC)OOOOCDOC)(2)OOCDOOCDOOCDCDOOOOOOOO<3
”tinm'ooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
mmocODOOOOPv-OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
«locoOv-OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
w“ OOOOOOODOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOODOOOO
w OODov-DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
W OOOOPOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
mm“ ODOOPOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
”mm OODOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
mwoocOWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
”WMOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
m OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
m OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
““leOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
WMOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
m OOOOOOOOOOOOFOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
-m ODOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
up OOOOPOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPOOOOOOOOOOOO
M OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
may COOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
MWOOOOOOOOOOOFOOPOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOv-O
mm OOOOFOOOOPOOOOv-OOOOOOOOPOOOOOOOOOOPO
mqum DOCOOOOOOOOOOOv-OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
«W OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOFOPOOPPDov-000000OOOOPOOOOOOOOOOOO
ooonnnnnnnnnov-noooooonooonoooonnoono
NNN'V'M'N'NV'VQP'VNDDV"P'M'VOVGOONF
383328.388 '888388833388838;8888888§888
OOO;OFO anacoawooogggoo soooog‘g 0:9
m?-PPPan-PMNPNVFNv-v-Pv-nmv-v-v—v-Nv-v-v-v-NNv-PMN
MNNNNNNNNFv-FPNNv-NNNNFPPNNNFFPNNV-v‘NNV-N
v-v-v-NNNMOVNVMNv-nv-v-v-Fv-v-nv-Ns-(Ov-v-V-v‘nflv-v- '-
v-v-v-v-PF'NNNN NNNNNNNNNNNGMMNMMOMMGMMnM

2 mm (01")
fi 9" V630 Q? V'nnnng Pannoooonoofigcn
§§§§s§§§§§§ss§§sssss-§ss§s§§§s§§§--ss

 

280

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2N

OOOOOOOODOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 00060
1‘“ OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOFOOOOO
m OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
um OOOOOOOOOOOPOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
mmmOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
wismqqmioococOOOOOOOOOPOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOv'OOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOPOOPOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPPOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
DOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO"OOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOFOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOFOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOFOOOOFPOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOODOOOOCiOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
MOSWOOOOOOOOOOOOOPOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPOOOOOO
M'mjemqOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
‘puw'mv'OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
'mwoCOCOOODOOOOOOOOOOOODOOOOOOOOOOPOOOO
'Wq'ammwiooooooooDv-oarooooooooooDOOOv-OrOv-v-coco?
mooonnnnnnnononooononmonnonnnnnnnoono
WMFOFWQNPv-FQVPNv-NNVVNVP'NV'VFNNVQ'VPMV
3'8'88888888388338888“88388388888898
h a 33“$8=°8°98°°"°** a°°°zrsaaa°a°r
M'-'flNNflv’flNv-FNv-nflv-Pv-v-PP'Ov-v-Pflv-mnflnv-MPP
MNNv-I—v-v-v-v-v-v-v-NNNv-v-v—v-Nv- v-v-NNNNNPNv-Nv-PPN
lampI-PPMMVVV F'VFM'V’V'M" V'VOFNV'VNNNP (V)
quMVV VVVVVVVVV IDODIDIDIDOO @1000 00000 O

E
EnggSssgmmmmmgmsgvgmmsEwoooogooooomgo
saucesu-ssssssss s-sssssssss:sssss§.s

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OODOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
'M ODOOOOOODOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
WOOOOOOOODGOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
w OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOFO
mu” OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPOOFOOO
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPOOO
WWWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOFFO
w‘h’dmuooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
ammo'-OOOODOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
“”0000OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPOOOOOOOOOOOOPOOO
w~mmwOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
" OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
U” O'-OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
m.“ ODOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
mwoOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPOOO
W OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
mgmmooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPOOO
mmooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
W‘WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPO
mamaOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
mmooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPO
mmlOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
pow'miooDOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
wp'mslooocooooocooooooo<3woooooooococ1v-occo'-
M'MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPOOOOOO
ImmnflooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOFOOOOFO
mmmoooooooo<3woooooooooooooooooooooooooo
mwpooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
pam'msqunllooooOOOGOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOFOOOOOOO
-m'm~uflooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOFOOOOO
mnmooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
'mewooov-OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPPOPOPOOP
We!)(onnonnnnnoonv-v-onooonoonnoonnnomomma
wands-1"?VOP'VQDVMNOVONNPMM'NQMCVN'N'V'v-
mgr?83.888838§3§§3§838886§88§383828.8.88.8.
°3'8°:$°° ° ° a°°::° aa °2r9°as~~s
mPFflFflFNMrv-v-v-PPPFNPv-nnv-PNNPPPPNFNMPPM
muNNNNv-Nv-v-v-v-v-v-PNNNNNFFv-NNFFV'Nv-v-PNv-v-v-v-P
”mp? VNMMMVMMFv-mv-v-Pflv-Ner-v-nvv-F NVNVMMMN
dwaOOONNNN NNNNNMNNNQOOQOOQOOQQO OQOOOQ
2

— u 8 8 .... e v

-NQ¢)NN NNNN '- Ov-th— a: v- 10!- no
5sssss§§§s555523Esssss§§s§§s5Ess§s§§§

 

 

282

 

 

 

 

 

0100101an

 

 

01111301011000
id'hldanmfi
00010190101911"

 

 

 

vwmnf

adam|°

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

museum

0090mm

macaw
000011611st

 

 

 

 

000000000000

 

WW

 

 

 

0011100qu

 

0.75 4 3 0

2.5040
12.3 2 0 0

 

3,

 

2
C
1

 

 

 

000000000
000000000

0000000000000000000

0000000000
0000000000

0
000000000000

000000000000

00000000000

00000000000
0001

1

2

000000000

0

1

1

‘—

0.83400
17.3600

000000000

0

1
1
1
1

1
1
1

000000000000000000
0000000000000000000

00000000

1

15.3 2 3 0

3

10
10
1O

0
0
0

00000000000

0.25 4 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

000000000

0
0

00000000000

0000

025200

000000000

000000

1

1

0.6343

44.3

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0
0
0

O
0

000000
000000000000

1

00000000000

0001

O
0

3
3

0.50 4 3 0
0 50
3.50 4 3 0

2
1
1

2
2
2

104
103

000000000

0

0
0
0

00000000000

0000000000

00000000000

3

135631
36.3600

4

11

000000000

000000000
10

0000000

000000000000000000

000000000

0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 O 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0000000000000000
1

00000000000

1

000000000000000000
000000000000000000
000000000000000000
0000000000000000000
000000000000000000
000000000000000000
0000000000000000000

0

000000000000000000
000000000
000000000
000000000000000000
0000000000000000000
0000000000
000000000
000000000
000000000000000000

0000000000000000000
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0

0000000

000000000000

1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0001
00
0
0
30
0

335.3230

3

11.3 4 3 0
3

335.3430
3
3

1.3530
2.50430

15.3 4 3 0
1.3 4 3 0
403 2 3 0
30.3 5 3 0
3 30.3 2 3 0
16.50 4 3 0
303 4 3 0
4.50 4 3 0
35.3
40.3
3 35.3 2
303
12.3 4 3 0
25.3
30.3 4 3 0

3
1
1
2
3
3
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
3
1
1

11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11

 

 

Burial No.
9180

10180

1161

1162

2161

5161

6161

7177

5177
9177
A4

A5

A6

A7

A6

A9

A12
A13
A14
A15
A16
A17
A16
A19
A20
A21
A22
A23
A24

283

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OOOOOOOOF000000000000OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
w OOOOOOPCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
m OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
um” OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOFOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
m‘xu OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
v-mq OOOOOOOOv-OOOOOPOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
WMOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPO
wOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
u-b‘ OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOFOOOOOO
m OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
up OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPOOOOOOO
m OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
mum OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
W OCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
WWMOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOv-OOOOOOO
WMOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
W’WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOFPOOOOOO
“WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
W‘MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
m OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
‘m' OOOOOOOOOOOOODOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
mp OOOOOOOOOOOOOPFOOOOFOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
m OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
mayOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
MWWOOOOOOOOOv-OFOOOOOOOODOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
mapOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
MlmmnOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOQOOODOOO
-m|N-.OOOOOGOODCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
IM‘MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOODOOOOOOOOOOOO
'mmmgmwlooooowOOOOOOFOFOOOOOOOOOOFOOOOPOOOOO
mwnnnonnonnonoonnnnnonooooonnnnoononmn
WMVVNOVVNNPVV'VFNV VN DNNNDFPF'PQN'FNN
8.8.8. '88838888888888398388 '88888686883
"'8 8885832"888'8°°°9'° ”"'8$°%‘°83°
PPN'NNMNONni—Pmnflv—nv—P'PPV'PPPflflv-Nv-NNP
muPPPv-FPv-v-NNNNN?Fv-v-PMNMNMCOMDMMMMMGMMMM
”QMMQPMNv-VVMMMNNNMVmv-Nv-v-v-v-v-VVva-NVV-vv-v-
am0:::::::::::::2::32592‘1‘12‘2933332999 ' ' ' ' ' "

g N g N
.— p.- v on n “5“?)
§§§§§§5§§§§§§§ss§s§§5§§§§§222§§5§Es§§

 

284

 

01W

 

 

000:3

 

 

 

w 10:6 01mm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0000000000000000000

 

 

 

 

 

i
E

 

E

 

 

00001911312100

 

000000000000

0

 

11609 011911681111 °

 

0

601mm

 

 

0.67 4

4.3

 

 

 

 

 

0000000000000000000

0000000000

1

4 2

000000000

0000000000000000000

0000000000

0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 00 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0

00000000000

13.3430

3 3

330
1.3430

fetal

0000000000000000000

1
2

3 3

000000000
000000000

0000000000

36.3230

3

000000000

0

O

600

 

 

Burial No.
717 2

6171

14.172

14b172
15172

1177

178172

285

APPENDIX C

Radiocarbon Assays

286

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8.. .8 0 03. 0.0. 8.0 08. 03. 80 0.0. 00.. .00 30. «3 v 0

8.. 8.. 00: 30 . . 0.0 0.. 08; 0...... 83.26
0... 8.. .0: 0.0 . a

0... 00.0 30. 00.. ...0 .3. 0... 0.0 000. 00. 0 . 8. 000 083

00.. 8.. 3|... 0.0 . a

3.. .00 0.0. .3. 00.0 3.. 08. 0 . 8. 80 08;

0... 00.0 30. 03. 8.0 .0431. 000 .00 .0. mm. 0 a

0... 8.0 0.0. 0.0. 8.0 ..0. .8. a . 8. 000 08;

.0: 8.0 000. 03. 000 .m. 08. u a

.0: 0.0 000. 00.. 00.0 00.. 8.. 0.0 80. 30. 0 . 0.. 000 08;

00.. 00.0 0.: 000 .00 03 0001 8.0 .0. «10.. ... a

00.. 000 .8. 000. «00 80. 0.0. a . 00. 80 08;

00.. 30 .00. 03. 00.0 0mm. 0.0. .00 0.0. 08. 0 a

00.. 0.0 00.. 00.. 80 00.. .... 0.0 08. 03. 0 . 0.. 0.0 08;

0.0. .00 0.0. 80. .00 ..0. .00... 00.0 000. .0. 0 N

0.0. :0 .0: 30. 80 000. 000. a . 00 000 08;

0.... 0.00 000. 000. .80 80. 00.. 80 00.. .... 80 .8. 80. .00 .00. 9.0. 0 a

8.. 80 00.. 0.0. .00 8.. 3.. 0 . 00 00. 083

000. 8.. 00: 08. . 0

08. 80 8.... 03. .0 000. 80. N . 00 000 083

08. 8.. ~10: .0: 8.0 00.. 00.. u a

08. 8.. .9. 00.. . . 8. 9.0 0830.08.83 08......
~00. 3 0 0W0. 0.0. 80 .00. 0mm. 0 a .

.00. 9.0 .9. 08. 30 0.0. 08. a . 8. 000 08; 809.8). 31:26
010m. 8,. 000. 80. . 0 Sass...

000. 00.0 0.0. 08. .00 000. on... u . 00 000 58 .......~ .8...
1am. .00 31.4 0... 8.0 0... 00.. N 0 00.8..

.00. 8.. 0... 0.0. . . 3 80 08; .

03. 8.. 00... 000. . N

03. 0.0 30. 000. 000 ...... 30. .00 000. .8. 0 . 9 0.0 08;

00.. 000 0... 3.. .00 0:. 0... 0.0 .00. $0. 0 N

00.. 8.. «0.. 00.. . . 9 000 08;

8... .00 .... 0.0. 80 0.0. .8. a N

80. ...0 03. .00. 0.0 03.. 000. u . 00 000 08;

00.0 00.2 020 .3. 0803 026.. .020 .0... 0800. 026.. .080 .0”. 0800. 096.. .080 .00. 0803 02.6.. .020 .... 0080. .83.. 805.. 2.0.0 08.0 00< .0020: 8028.6... 0.00.00

 

 

 

 

287

APPENDIX D

Principal Components Analysis Results

288

. '- -" “K

 

urn. nu "
J- .-

 

Pottery Tamar

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total Variance Explained
Initial "‘ ‘ " ‘ " Sums of Squared Loadings
Comgnent Total % of Variance Cumulative % Ttfl % of Variance Cumulative %
1 2.534 21.119 21.119 2.534 21.119 21.119
2 1.669 13.905 35.023 1.669 13.905 35.023
3 1.289 10.741 45.765 1.289 10.741 45.765
4 1.184 9.865 55.629 1.184 9.865 55.629
5 1.043 8.688 64.318 1.043 8.688 64.318
6 .903 7.524 71.842
7 .867 7.221 79.063
8 .788 6.567 85.630
9 .762 6.346 91.976
10 .422 3.518 95.495
11 .307 2.555 98.050
12 .234 1.9_59 100.000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Component Matti)?

 

bell shaped

deep flat bottom
shallow flat bottom
sand temper

grit temper

mica temper

shell temper
quartzite

grit/shell temper
grit/grog temper
limestone temper
limestone/grit temper

 

      
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
   
 
   

 

.557 .15‘
0425—02
-.201
-.188
0225-02
8.857E-02
. . —2.88E-02

 

-2.15E—03
.13
-.204

3.312E-02
8.765E-02

 

 

O

   

 
 

 

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
3- 5 components extracted.

289

 

 

Potteg Vessel Form

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total Variance Expla'med
Initialgggnvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Component Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1 1 .929 27.552 27.552 1 .929 27.552 27.552
2 1.374 19.622 47.174 1.374 19.622 47.174
3 1.009 14.414 61.588 1.009 14.414 61.588
4 .970 13.859 75.447
5 .816 11.661 87.107
6 .621 8.872 95.980
7 .281 4.020 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Component lab-ii!
Component
1 1 2 3

bell shaped L _882 -.150 -.215

deep flat bottom -.352 i" .7861 77015-02

shallowflatbottom i -.519 3.492 . _ .609]

jar (coiled) E..- ”1.7643 .154 96005-02

jar (pinch pot) .286 .187 E .. . ".472 '1

bowl (pinch pot) -5.67E-02 {“6561 .220

bowl (coiled) .350 4.826E-02 f” 646 i

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a. 3 components extracted.

290

.r 3"
I
l.

 

 

Potteg Apgndages

Total Variance Explained

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Initial "' " ‘ Sums of Squared Loadings
Comanent Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1 2.429 2.429 34.701 34.701
2 1.231 1.231 17.581 52.282
3 1.035 1.035 14.782 67.064
4 .970
5 .574
6 .470
7 2E 4.163
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Component Maui)!

 

 

 

 

bell shaped
deep flat bottom
shallow flat bottom
effigy appendage
lug appendage
other appendage
strap appendange

7 2955—02

    

.174

 

9.726E-02

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

3- 3 components extracted.

291

    
 
    
  
    
       

-.304
-2.48E-02

 

 

 

 

Pottegy Design (neck)

Total Variance Explained

 

 

 

 

 

 

Initial "' ' Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Comanent Total % of Variance Cumulative 96 Total 96 of Variance Cumulative 96
1 4.873 27.071 27.071 4.873 27.071 27.071
2 1.613 8.963 36.034 1.613 8.963 36.034
3 1.497 8.319 44.353 1.497 8.319 44.353
4 1.315 7.305 51.658 1.315 7.305 51.658
5 1.151 6.396 58.053 1.151 6.396 58.053
6 .965 5.361 63.414
7 .896 4.978 68.392
8 .869 4.830 73.222
9 .775 4.306 77.528
10 .731 4.059 81.587
11 .640 3.558 85.145
12 .593 3.293 88.438
13 .510 2.831 91.269
14 .430 2.389 93.658
15 .360 2.001 95.660
16 .287 1.594 97.254
17 .285 1.583 98.837
18 .219 1.163 100.000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

 

 

 
    
  
 
 

         
   
 
   

 

 
 

 

Component Matrix?
L r‘
5
bell shaped
deep flat bottom
shallow flat bottom
plain (neck) _ -6.53E-02
negative painting (neck) 9.815E-02 .290 .210
scroll (neck) .395 .330
crosshatched (neck) .294 f- .378
herringbone (neck) —9.49E-02
single slash (neck) .145
curvilinear guilloche (neck) -3.64E-02
curv. guil./rect. guil. (neck) -.329 -1.17E-02
rectilinear guilloche (neck) 4 453E-02
line-filled tn'.-A (neck) -.149
line-filled tri.-B (neck) 7 453E-02
line-filled tn‘.-C (neck) - 116
line-filled tri.-D (neck) -.118
line-filled tri.-E (neck) -1.28E-02
line—filled tri.-F (neck) . . . ..- _155

 

    

 

 

a. 5 components extracted.

292

Pottegy Design (rim)

Total Variance Explained

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
    
 
 
    

 

 

Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of guared Loadings
Comgnent Total °/o of Variance Cumulative % TE % of Variance Cumulative %
1 3.014 17.732 17.732 3.014 17.732 17.732
2 1.451 8.537 26.270 1.451 8.537 26.270
3 1.301 7.652 33.922 1.301 7.652 33.922
4 1.133 6.664 40.586 1.133 6.664 40.586
5 1.106 6.506 47.092 1.106 6.506 47.092
6 1.044 6.141 53.233 1.044 6.141 53.233
7 1.029 6.050 59.284 1.029 6.050 59.284
8 .992 5.833 65.116
9 .939 5.523 70.639
10 .916 5.391 76.030
11 .885 5.204 81.234
12 .740 4.352 85.586
13 .678 3.989 89.575
14 .591 3.479 93.054
15 .506 2.979 96.033
16 .392 2.306 98.339
17 .212 1.661 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Component Matti)!
l
6 7
bell shaped . -6.37E-02
deep flat bottom -.202 -6.07E-02
shallow flat bottom -.175 .172
castillated (rim) 2,985.02
crosshatched (rim) 4‘ ‘” 9 '

curvilinear scroll (rim)

     
     
     

   
    
 
 
       

36 270502
45415-02

    

 

 

line-filled tri.-A (rim)

line-filled tri.-E (rim)

line-filled tri.-F (rim)

lunar impressed (rim)

multi-slash (rim) .
oval cordmarked (rim) -5.24E-02
oval incised (rim) 1.224E—02
other scroll (rim) 9.871 E-03
punctates (rim) .159
punch-and-drag (rim) -1.08E—02
plain (rim) -.149

 

    

 

293

 

 

Pottegy Design (lip)

 

 

Total Variance Explained
Initial "‘ ' Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings

ComEnent Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total ‘16 of Variance Cumulative 96
1 W 19.044 WT 2.476 19.044 "—19.674—
2 1.554 11.953 30.997 1.554 11.953 30.997
3 1.340 10.305 41.302 1.340 10.305 41.302
4 1.252 9.631 50.933 1.252 9.631 50.933
5 1.049 8.073 59.006 1.049 8.073 59.006
6 .984 7.572 66.577

7 .962 7.397 73.974

8 .843 6.486 80.460

9 .793 6.101 86.561

10 .536 4.125 90.687

11 .481 3.698 94.385

12 .452 3.476 97.861

13 .278 2.139 100.000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

 

    
 
   
     
    
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
  

 

bell shaped
deep flat bottom
shallow flat bottom
castillated (lip)
curvilinear scroll (lip)
line-filled tri.-F (lip)
oval cordmarked (lip)
oval incised (lip)
other scroll (lip)
punctates (lip)
punch-and-drag (lip)
single slash (lip)
plain (lip)
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
3. 5 components extracted.

4.912E-02
7.570E-02
.153
7.057E-02

 

  

    

 

 

.132 2.822E-02 2.057E-02

294

 

Patten Design (interior)

Total Variance Explained

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Initial "' ' Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings

Commnent Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1 1 .974 24.670 24.670 1 .974 24.670 24.670
2 1.227 15.339 40.009 1.227 15.339 40.009
3 1.035 12.934 52.943 1.035 12.934 52.943
4 1.006 12.573 65.516 1.006 12.573 65.516
5 .956 11.944 77.460

6 .934 1 1.676 89.137

7 .592 7.394 96.531

8 .278 3.469 100.000

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Component Matrirt'

 

 

 

 

 

bell shaped
deep flat bottom
shallow flat bottom
oval cordmarked (int.)
other scroll (int)
punctates (int)

single slash (int.)

 

    
 

plain (int)
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
a. 4 components extracted.

295

     
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 

Triangular Proiectile Points

 

 

 

Total Variance Explained
initial " ' " ‘ " Sums of Squared Loadings

23% Total “/5 of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %

1 2.090 17.415 17.415 2.090 17.415 17.415

2 1.349 11.243 28.659 1.349 11.243 28.659

3 1.290 10.749 39.407 1.290 10.749 39.407

4 1.095 9.122 48.530 1.095 9.122 48.530

5 1.047 8.728 57.258 1.047 8.728 57.258

6 1.014 8.447 65.705 1.014 8.447 65.705

7 .969 8.073 73.778

8 .864 7.203 80.980

9 .793 6.607 87.587

10 .730 6.086 93.673

11 .445 3.707 97.380

12 .314 26$ 100.000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

  
 

 

   

Component Maui)!
I Component

2 3 4 5 6 _
bell shaped -.358 -.260 -7.80E-02 -.175 -.190
deepflatbottom -245 “ 3:: : .139 -.224 2.2345-02
shallowflat bottom -457 ".... 7.776E—02 "'
concave/straight .267 .265
concave/excurvate 7.013E-02 .163
concave/incurvate 5 4.20E-02 -.105
straight/straight 3.239502 -.272
straight/excurvate * ...7'5 2.209502
straight/incurvate .. .y “:7 4.723503
convex/straight .326 3165-02 .125
convex/excurvate .31 1 .237
convexfincurvate .323 " - is ‘1'

 

 

 

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
8- 6 components extracted.

 

Note: left hand column lists base/side attributes for triangular points.

296

Triangular Proiectile Points

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total Variance Explained
Initial " ' " ‘ " Sums of Squared Loadings
Commnt Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1 2.053 29.329 29.3 2.053 29.329 29.329
2 1.228 17.537 46.866 1.228 17.537 46.866
3 1.045 14.935 61.801 1.045 14.935 61.801
4 .876 12.508 74.309
5 .832 11.893 86.202
6 .654 9.336 95.537
7 .312 4.463 100.000

 

 

 

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

 

 

 

 

Component Matrht'
Coanent
1 2 3
bell shaped 7 . .784 . -.314 -.314
deep flat bottom -.280 .890 -8.37E-02
shallow flat bottom ,. -.475 -.464 . .611
straight base tri. pt. .629 .118 .173
convex base tri. pt. . .661 .109 .153
concave base tri. pt. ' .481 .108 .263
side-notched tri. pt. .266 .291 ' me

 

 

 

 

 

 

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
3- 3 components extracted.

297

W“ .. .“mmw

 

Earlier Proiectile Points

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Extraction Method: Plincipal Component Analysis.

 

 

Total Variance Explained
initial "' Extraction Sums of Squared Loadiggs
Cornwnt Total % of Variance Cumulative % Tofll % of Variance Cumulative “lo
1 1.611 16.112 16.112 1.611 16.112 16.112
2 1.352 13.518 29.629 1.352 13.518 29.629
3 1.255 12.549 42.178 1.255 12.549 42.178
4 1.123 11.228 53.406 1.123 11.228 53.406
5 1.008 10.081 63.487 1.008 10.081 63.487
6 .969 9.689 73.177
7 .920 9.196 82.373
8 .750 7.502 89.875
9 .678 6.779 96.655
10 .335 3.345 100.000

 

 

 

 

‘ bell shaped

deep flat bottom
shallow flat bottom

Paleoindian
E. Archaic
M. Archaic
L. Archaic

L. Archaic/E. Woodland

M. Woodland
L. Woodland

-5.19E-02
6.881 E-02
-6.15E-02

 

a. 5 components extracted.

298

-1.41E-02

8.733E-03

V .34
-1.58E-02

 

 

-1.85E02

 

 

 

 

Chipgd Stone Tools

 

 

 

Total Variance Explained
Initial "‘ ' Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Commt Total % of Variance Cumulative % Tota 96 of Variance Cumulative %
1 2.358 14.738 14.738 2.358 14.738 14.738
2 1.555 9.721 24.459 1.555 9.721 24.459
3 1.382 8.637 33.096 1.382 8.637 33.096
4 1.206 7.538 40.634 1.206 7.538 40.634
5 1.174 7.335 47.969 1.174 7.335 47.969
6 1.143 7.147 55.115 1.143 7.147 55.115
7 1.023 6.392 61.507 1.023 6.392 61.507
8 .985 6.155 67.663
9 .913 5.703 73.366
10 .855 5.346 78.712
11 .762 4.761 83.473
12 .681 4.259 87.732
13 .606 3.789 91.520
14 .582 3.635 95.155
15 .464 2.902 98.057
16 .311 1.943 10M

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

 

 

    
  
     
 
    

  

 

 

Component Maui)!
l Cnmnnnant
7
- l ; I -.179 -.238
deep flat bottom 6085-02 9.363E-02
shallow flat bottom . m'. l .296
triangular drill -.320 ‘ .268
bipolnted drill —9.06E-02
comer-notched dnll
endscraper
W
Fort Ancient kniie
large triangular knife .
leaf shaped knife .274 . ‘1
lanceolate knife —.247
. 1 90
.352
.358
-. 1 40

 

 

 

 

299

 

Chipgd Stone Debitage

Total Variance Explained

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

initial " Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings

M Total % of Variance Cumulative 96 Total 96 of Variance Cumulative 96

1 4.669 46.688 46.888 4.669 46.688 46.688

2 1.223 12.231 58.919 1.223 12.231 58.919

3 1.096 10.961 69.880 1.096 10.961 69.880

4 .877 8.769 78.649

5 .619 6.187 84.836

6 .505 5.050 89.886

7 .351 3.513 93.399

8 .328 3.279 96.678

9 .244 2.444 99.122

10 I8.777E-02 .878 100.000

 

 

 

Exlraclion Method: Principal Component Analysis.

 

 

bell shaped

deep flat bottom
shallow flat bottom
cores

wedges

shatter

total decortication
total secondary
triangular preforms
other preforms

 

 

3- 3 components extracted.

300

    

. 6.376E-02
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

    
   
   
 
   

  

9.885E-02
.202
6.850E—02
. 146
. 160
2.650E-02
9.766E-02

 
 
   

 

 

 

mm

Total Variance Explained

 

 

 

Initial "' ' Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings

m Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %

2.948 24.566 24.566 2.948 24.566 24.566

2 1.453 12.108 36.674 1.453 12.108 36.674

3 1.284 10.700 47.375 1.284 10.700 47.375

4 1.183 9.862 57.236 1.183 9.862 57.236
5 .985 8.212 65.449
6 .905 7.546 72.995
7 .821 6.844 79.839
8 .647 5.394 85.232
9 .544 4.532 89.764
10 .534 4.453 94.218
11 .403 3.357 97.575
12 291 2.425 10%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Component Matrix?

 

 

    
 
 
 
   

   
     
 
 
 
 
 
  

   

 

 

bell shaped

deep flat bottom

shallow flat bottom

hammer stone

pitted stone 1.507E-02

mano 3.801E-02

metate -3.08E—02

celt -2.87E-02

slate disc ‘ -7.72E-03

banner stone .194

circular stone ‘ .238
‘ abrader - ' .392 .102

 

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
3. 4 components extracted.

301

 

Bone and Shell Tools

 

Total Variance Explained

 

 

 

 

Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of S uared Loadin s
Comgnent Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1 2.627 29.188 29.188 2.627 29.188 29.188
2 1.265 14.058 43.246 1.265 14.058 43.246
3 1.078 11.977 55.223 1.078 11.977 55.223
4 1.036 11.516 66.739 1.036 11.516 66.739
5 .817 9.075 75.814
6 .710 7.885 83.699
7 .621 6.896 90.596
8 .550 6.115 96.710
9 .296 3.210 1M0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    
      

 

 

 

Component Maui)!
3 4
bell shaped -.137
deep flat bottom 7505-02
shallow flat bottom 1 .269
flaker -.358
fish hook .182
pin 3215-02
beamer . .195
shell hoe 7 .. _» 5.862E-02 -.156
bowl (turtle shell) .255 5.3955-02 ,. "

 

 

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
a. 4 components extracted.

302

Awls

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total Variance Expldned
Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings—
Component Total % of Variance Cumulative 96 Total 96 of Variance Cumulative %
1 2.041 25.515 25.515 2.041 25.515 25.515
2 1.300 16.251 41.766 1.300 16.251 41.766
3 1.101 13.762 55.528 1.101 13.762 55.528
4 .975 12.189 67.717
5 .969 12.118 79.835
6 .723 9.042 88.877
7 .578 7.229 96.106
8 .312 3.894 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Component Matrix!I
Component
1 2 3

beli shaped ' j _ 5m 3 _ '1 -.396 -.282

deep flat bottom -.221 [j :_3,_‘:”_‘.'8'593‘i 5575-02

shallow flat bottom [‘ _‘ ‘j‘-.49'ii _‘l -.316 i“ “.597“

awl (ulna) .205 -.224 3. _ .521 a

awl (scapula) {f3 _; ;;_.499 j .353 .312

awl (rib) 1785502 -.156 [3":947‘34“:

awl 099) F' ~“565 '1‘ .324 .156

awl (splinter) .7484 3.274E-02 .207

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a. 3 components extracted.

303

 

'0‘,“ 4

 

Bone and Shell Pendants

 

Total Variance Explained

 

 

 

Initial "' ' Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings

m Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1 1.687 15.337 15.337 1.687 15.337 15.337
2 1.477 13.431 28.767 1.477 13.431 28.767
3 1.168 10.617 39.384 1.168 10.617 39.384
4 1.123 10.206 49.591 1.123 10.206 49.591
5 1.009 9.174 58.764 1.009 9.174 58.764
6 1.006 9.141 67.906 1.006 9.141 67.906
7 .984 8.942 76.848

8 .906 8.236 85.084

9 .778 7.075 92.159

10 .534 4.855 97.015

11 .328 2.985 1M0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

 

 

 

   
 
   

 

  
  

 
   

 

 

Component Matriii'
L r .
1 2 I 3 4 5 6
bell shaped 379 3.1145-02 -. 198 . 1.0235-03
deep flat bottom 35 -.612 -6 735-02 -2.18E-04
shallow flat bottom .392 -1.67E-03
pendant (bear tooth) 33_ 7 632E—02 23515-04
pendant (elk tooth) 9.773502
pendant (claw) 1.307E-02
wolf mandible -8.68E—04
pendant (shell) -8 035-04
barrel bead “ " 2}
shell bead
shell disc .

 

 

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
a. 6 components extracted.

304

 

APPENDIX E

Petrographic Analysis Data
(compiled by Lane Fargher)

305

 

 

 

 

 

a mu
v v
o m
N N
o v
H” o
m H”
o v
mu he
s h
H o
A Mn
N N
m 0H
m n
ma Du
Nani
3“
me
am
«.5.
Wu
ID.

 

 

......_ we”?

 

 

m« o mm x x x x x x x
n ma cod x m
Nu m co" x x x x x x
ma HH mm m x x x x x
v m cod x
oH m 00H x x x x x x x
ca o co” m x x x x x h
v« ma cm x x x x x
ca 5 mm x x x x x x x
o m cm x x x x x x x x
m a co“ x x
m“ m oofi ~ x x x x x x
e an go” e
m N cod x x x x x x
m o co” x
Nu m om x x x x x x
N 5 co” x x x x x
emmsmmwmmawmmem
.. omensommmwsmx
m... macaaewam m
o. u HM a .I “w
66 \l
Bl. U.
m w o
a.
o.
b

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

alllolfll X

 

aseiaoifimdlxxxxxx xxxxx xxxx

 

 

x x mo> mm> goo ON\NH «N
x no; no> =95 6&3 cm
x x no.» mo.» #6 RR 3
x x mg 0: #5 RE 3
x no.» 66> :65 HQ: 3
x x m0> 0: uto «N\Ha m«
x x mo> on can vn\m ea
x x mo> o: are vn\m ma
x x mg mg ..osmbtu mumm 3
x x mg mg #6 ”too 3
x mo> mo> =ozm Nexma m
x x mo> mo> utm Nn\mH o
x mg mg :65 vista" n
x x o: cc 2.6 4.2333 c
x x was was :28 atom m
x x o: o: are at: m
x x o: o: eta mu\fi a
m .m M M m. a. mfl
m e u m. w m. m
W. m w m m a W
a w m o
M u
.o #
a
w
a

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

306

 

é.

 

 

gauaxon

 

airwad

 

llaliS

 

60.19

 

313111)

 

auntie:

 

Dido-11051

 

ailaleo

 

 

atopldal"

 

uleJfi eludioureiau]

 

V

apualmoHl:

 

8Ul|DOJD!N!

 

86% pa-Iailv

 

Mod-551d /zt.lenb

 

ououl-fieid/zuenb

 

splOA/xmew

i

 

siunoo aidmnur-splon-moi

 

SploA-IEIOJ.

 

12301.

 

splO/i

 

whoa-run”!

 

[BAEJD

 

Junoa-lilnlil

 

z pues 99120:)

 

3.1111285

 

 

# uomaS-Ultu.

 

 

O

O

7
6

9 11 178 167 158 111 27

13

0

20

1 1/79

0

S 157 152 147 95 36
9 153 144 137 109

1
7
0

13

2 11/71
3 5C/76

S

10

7
5

10

1
0
0

1

0
7

7 149 142 141 107 27

6 19ww/ 74

307

0 16 158 142 142 117 11

1

0

7 19ww/ 74

8 18/72
9 18/72
10 46/71
11 3E/76
13 5/74
14 5/74
15 11/71
16 11/71
18 7/77
19 7/77
20 12/76
21 12/76

7 158 151 151 107 30

19 160 141 140 123
7 22 181 159 149 112 17

0
0

14

1

2
6
0
0

7
2
0
15

311

12
10

13 148 135 134 72 31

2
0

0 11 127 116 116 71 40

3
4
S

2
14

4 170 166 161 104 21
4 165 161 157 104 27

17 193 176 165 117

1

0

4
17

8

7

6

3

2
4
0
6

2 150 148 147 97 23

8 166 158 155 108 23

1
3

4 11 175 164 159 111 15
2

8

5
6

5

4 159 155 153 79 33

 

J r

..DJA M

"HI—V

’41

 

 

 

. . _
Elliilhel: all... Iii

REFERENCES CITED

308

REFERENCES CITED

Adair, J.
1775 [1930] The History of the American Indians, Particular]; Those Nations
Adjoining to the Mississippi. Promontory Press, New York.

Allen, W. L.; and J. B. Richardson [I]
1971 The Reconstruction of Kinship from Archaeological Data: the Concepts, the
Methods, and the Feasibility. Americgn Antiquity 36:41-53.

Allman, J. C.

1959 An Interesting Bluff-Top Enclosure with Semi-Lunar Wall and Ditch. thg
Archaeologist 9:54-55.

1968 The Incinerator Village Site. Ohio Archfiolw 18:50-56.

1969 Letter to James B. Griffin. On file in the Anthropology Department, Dayton
Society of Natural History, Dayton, Ohio.

n.d. ' Report on file in the Anthropology Department, Dayton Society of Natural
History, Dayton, Ohio. 3

Anderson, D. G.
1994 The Savannah River Chiefdoms. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Avcni, A. F.
1989 Empires of Time: genders, Clocks and Cultures. Basic Books, New York.
2003 Archaeoastronomy in the Ancient Americas. Journal of Amhgcologifl
Research 11:149-192.

 

 

Bartram, W.
1789 [1853] Observations on the Creek and CheroLee IndiLns. Transactions of the
American Ethnological Society 3.

Benchley, E.
1970 Mississippian Calendrics: Some Suggestions. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Anthropological Association, San Diego.

Blitz, J. H. ‘
1999 Mississippian Chiefdoms and the Fission-Fusion Process. American
Antiguity 64:577-592.

Bourdieu, P.
1977 Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Bradley, R.
1998 The Significance of Monuments: On the Shaping of Humg Experience in
Neolithic and Bronze Age Europe. Routledgc, London.

309

 

 

 

Braun, D. P.
1983 Pots as Tools. In Archaeological Hammers and Theories, edited by J. A.
Moore and A. S. Keene, pp. 107-134. Academic Press, New York.

Brose, D. S.
1982 The Archaeological Investigation of a Fort Ancient Community Near Ohio
Brush Creek, Adams County, Ohio. Kirtlandia 34.

Brose, D. S.; D. Bier, Jr.; J. Astramecki; F. Chapman; R. Mensforth; D. Morse; and P.
Storch
1979 The Fort Ancient Occupaflm of the Killen RiggeLAdams County. Ohio.
Report submitted to the U.S. Department of the Interior, H.C.R.S. Interagency
Archaeological Services, Atlanta, Georgia.

Brose, D. S.; and N. M. White
1983 Recent Data on Fort Ancient Occupation in the Ceasar Creek Valley,
Southwestern Ohio. West Virginia Archaeologist 35:3-26.

Brown, J. A.

1982 What Kind of Economy Did the Oneota Have? In Oneota Studies, edited by
G. E. Gibbon, pp. 107-112. University of Minnesota Publications in
Anthropology, No. 1, Minneapolis.

Brown, J. A.; R. A. Kerber; and H. D. Winters
1990 Trade and the Evolution of Exchange Relations at the Beginning of the

Mississippian Period. In The Mississippian Emggence, edited by B. D.
Smith, pp. 251-280. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

Broyles, B. J.
1966 Preliminary Report: The St. Albans Site (46Ka27), Kanawha County, West
Virginia. West Virginia Archaeologist 19:1-43.

Buikstra, J. E.; L. W. Konegsberg; and J. Burlington
1986 Fertility and the Development of Agriculture in the Prehistoric Midwest.

American Antiguit_v_ 51:528-546.

Callendar, C.
1978 Great Lakes-Riverine Sociopolitical Organization. In Handbogc of North
American IndianiNorthegst, edited by B. G. Trigger, pp. 610-621.
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C.

 

Cameron, C. M.
1991 Structure Abandonment in Villages. Archaeological Method and Theory
3:155-191.

310

 

 

Cameron, C. M.; and S. A. Tomka (editors)
1993 Abandonment of Settlements and Regions: Ethnoarcheological and
Archaeological Apprgaches. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

 

Carr, C.
1985 For Concordance in Archaeological Analysis. Waveland Press.

Carr, C.; and H. Haas
1996 Beta-Count and AMS Radiocarbon Dates of Woodland and Fort Ancient
Occupations in Ohio 1350 BC. — AD. 1650. West Virginia Archaeologist
48:19-53.

Carskadden, J.
1992 Possible Summer and Winter Houses at the Fort Ancient Philo I] Site. West

V {giga Archaeologist 26:24-28.

Carskadden, J .; and J. Morton
2000 Fort Ancient in the Central Muskingum Valley of Eastern Ohio: A View from
the Philo H Site. In Cultuargs Before CorLact: The Late Prehistgv of Ohio an_d
Surrounding Regions, edited by R. A. Genheimer, pp. 158-193. Ohio
Archaeological Council, Columbus.

Chagnon, N. A.
1968 hnonaamo: The Fierce People. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. New York,
New York.

Chang, K. C.
1958 Study of the Neolithic Social Grouping: Examples from the New World.
American Anthromlogist 60:298-334.

Chapman, C. H.
1976 Internal Settlement Designs of Two Mississippian Tradition Ceremonial

Centers in Southeastern Missouri. In Culture Change and Coatinuity. edited
by C. E. Cleland, pp. 121-146. Academic Press, New York.

Church, F.; and J. 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, edited by J. P. Hart and C. B. Reith, pp. 11-42. New
York State Museum Bulletin 496. Albany, New York.

Clay, R B.

1976 Tactics, Strategy, and Operations: The Mississippian System Responds to its
Environment. Midwestern Journal of Arclgeolgy 1:137-162.

31]

- fir

 

 

Cleland, C. E.
1966 The Prehistoric Animal Ecology and Ethnozoolggy of the Upper Great Lakes.
Anthropological Papers No. 29, Museum of Anthropology, University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Coe, J. L.
1964 The Formative Cultures of the Carolinajiedmont. Transactions of the
American Philosophical Society 54. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Collins, J. M.
1997 Cahokia Settlement and Social Structures as Viewed from the [CT-II. In
Cahokia: Domination and Ideolong the Mississippian World, edited by T.
R. Pauketat and T. E. Emerson, pp., 124-140. University of Nebraska Press,
Lincoln.

Conard, A. R.
1988 Analysis 1n Dietary Reconstruction. In A Hi_story of 17 Years of Excavation
a_n_____d Reconstruction. A Chronicle of 12'" :Centary Human Values and the Built
Enviro eni, edited by J. M. Heilman, M. C. Lileas, and C. A. Tumbow, pp.
112-1 56. Dayton Museum of Natural History, Dayton, Ohio.

Cook, R. A.
n.d. Mortuary Variation Within a Fort Ancient Village: A Preliminary
Investigation. Unpublished manuscript in possession of the author.

Cook, R. A.; and L. Merz
2000 The Occupational Complexity of a Single-Component Fort Ancient Village:
Using GIS to Examine the Formation of the SunWatch Site. Paper presented
at the joint Midwest Archaeological Conference/Plains Anthropological
Conference, St. Paul, Minnesota.

Cook, R. A.; and T. S. Sunderhaus
1999 Cultural Interaction Within a Fort Ancient Village: Spatial Analysis of the
Incinerator Site Ceramic Assemblage. Paper presented at the Society for
American Archaeology annual meeting, Chicago, Illinois.

Cooper, D. C.
1800 Field notes, general land office survey. Township 1, Range 6, East of the
Meridian, Vol. 3, and Congress Lands between the Miami Rivers, Vol. 3.
Office of the State Auditor, Columbus, Ohio.

Cordell, L. S.

1997 Archaeology of the Soathwest (Second Edition). Smithsonian Institution
Press, Washington, D. C.

312

Cowan, C. W.
1988 From Pithouse to Longhouse, From Community to Chaos: Late Prehistoric
and Proto-historic Developments in the Middle Ohio Valley. Paper presented
at the Midwest Archaeological Conference, Charnpaign-Urbana, Illinois.

Cowan, C. W.; S. Dunavan; J. P. Nass Jr.; and S. Scott
1990 The Schomaker Site, A Middle Period Fort Ancient Town on the Great Miami
River, Hamilton County, Ohio. West Virgiaia Archaeologist 42:11-35.

Crumley, C. L.
1979 Three Locational Models: An Epistemological Assessment of Anthropology
and Archaeology. Advances in Archaeological Methad; and Theory 2: 141-
1 73.
1994 Historical Ecology: A Multidimensional Ecological Orientation. In Historical
Ecology: Cultural Knowledge and Changing Landscams, edited by C. L.
Crumley, pp. 1-17. School of American Research, Sante Fe, New Mexico.

Dancey, W. S.

1992 Village Origins in Central Ohio: The Results and Implications of Recent
Middle and Late Woodland Research. In Cultural Variability in Context:
Woodland Settlements of the Mid-Ohio Valley. edited by M. F. Seeman, pp.
24-29. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology Special Paper No. 7. Kent
State University Press, Kent, Ohio.

1998 The Value of Surface Archaeological Data in Exploring the Dynamics of
Community Evolution in the Middle Ohio Valley. In Sirface Archaeolrgy,
edited by A. P. Sullivan, pp. 3-19. University of New Mexico Press,
Albuquerque.

Deetz, J.
1965 The Dynamics of Stylistic Change in Arikara Ceramics. Illinois Studies in
Anthropology No. 4. Univerity of Illinois Press, Urbana.

Dincauze, D. F.; and R. J. Hasenstab
1989 Explaining the Iroquois: Tribalization on a Prehistoric Periphery. In Centre
and Periphery. edited by T. C. Champion, pp. 67-87. Unwin Hyman, London.

Douglas, J. G.
1975 Collins: A Late Woodfind Ceremom'al Complex in the Woodfordia_n
Northeast. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
University of Illinois, Urbana

Doran, J.; and F. Hodson

1975 Mathematics and Computers in Archaeology. Edinburgh University Press,
Edinburgh.

313

Dunnell, R. C.

1961 A General Survey of Fort Ancient in the Kentucky-West Virginia Area.
Manuscript on file, Department of Anthropology, University of Kentucky,
Lexington.

1971 Systematics in Prehistory. The Free Press, New York.

Drooker, P.
1997 The View from Mflsonville: Protohis_tpric Western Fort Ancient Interaction
Patterns. Museum of Anthropology, Memoirs No. 31, University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Emerson, T. E.
1999 The Langford Tradition and the Process of Tribalization on the Middle
Mississippian Borders. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 24:3-56.

Emery, F. E.; and E. L. Trist
1965 The Causal Texture of Organizational Environments. Human Relations
18:21-32.

Essenpreis, P. S.

1978 Fort Ancient Settlement: Differential Response at a Mississippian-Late
Woodland Interface. In Mississippian Settlement Patterns edited by B. D.
Smith, pp. 143-167. Academic Press, New York.

1988 An Introduction to the Fort Ancient Cultural Complexes of the Middle Ohio
Valley. In A History of 17 Years of Excagtionand Recoastruction: A
Chronicle of 12lh Centray Human Values and the Built Environment edited
by J. M. Heilman, M. C. Lileas, and C. A. Tumbow, pp. 1-22. Dayton
Museum of Natural History, Dayton, Ohio.

 

Evans-Bargle, S. J.
1998 Mortuary Data—as Indicators of Social Organization aty the Incinerator Site
(33MY571. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology,
University of South Carolina, Columbia

F argher, L. F.
2004 Report of Ceramic Petrography on Pottery Samples from 33MY57.
Unpublished report in possession of the author.

Feinman, G. M.; and J. Neitzel
1984 Too Many Types: An Overview of Sedentary Prestate Societies in the
Americas. Advances in Archaeologic_al Method and Theory 7:39—102.

Fitting, J. E.; and C. E. Cleland

1969 Late Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Upper Great Lakes. Ethnohistory
16:289-302.

314

 

mummvavuwm
' ' 1 - __ '5 .

 

F lannery, K.
1972 The Cultural Evolution of Civilizations. Annuala Review of Ecology and
Systematics 3:399-426.
1976 The Early Mesoamerican Village. Academic Press, New York.

 

Fortes, M.
1953 The Structure of Unilineal Descent Groups. American Anthropolog'st 55:17-
41.
Fowler, M. L.

1974 Cahokia: Ancient Capital of the Midwest. Addison-Wesley Module in
Anthropology No. 48.

Geistweit, B. A.
1970 Archaic Maaifestatioaa in Ohio an_d the Ohio Valley. Unpublished M. A.
thesis, Department of Anthropology, Ohio State University, Columbus.

Gibbon, G. E.

1972 Cultural Dynamics and the Development of the Oneota Life-Way in
Wisconsin. American Antiguig 37:166-185.

1982 Oneota Origins Revisited. In Oneota Studies edited by G. E. Gibbon, PD. 85-
89. University of Minnesota Publications in Anthropology, No. 1,
Minneapolis.

1995 Oneota at the Periphery: Trade, Political Power, and Ethnicity in Northern
Minnesota and on the Northeastern Plains in the Late Prehistoric Period. In
Oneota Archaeology: Pas; Preseng, and Future, edited by W. Green, pp. 175-
199. University of Iowa, Office of the State Archaeologist, Report No. 20,
Iowa City.

 

Giddens, A.
1984 The Constiaition of Society: Oraline of the Theory of Structuration.
University of California Press, Berkeley.

Giesen, M. J.
1992 L_ate Prehistoric Populations in the Ohio Area: Biological Aflinitiesand Stress
Indicators. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
Ohio State University, Columbus.

Goldstein, L. G.

1976 Spatial Structure and Social Organization: Regional Manifestations of
Mississippian Socieiy. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of
Anthropology, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois.

1980 Mississippian Mortuary Praatices. Scientific Papers No. 4. Northwestern
University Archeological Progam, Karnpsville, Illinois.

315

1991 The Implications of Aztalan’s Location. In New Pearsapectivejs on Cahokia:
Views from the Periphery. edited by J. B. Stoltrnan, pp. 209-228. Prehistory
Press, Madison, Wisconsin.

Goldstein, L. G.; and J. D. Richards
1991 Ancient Aztalan: The Cultural and Ecological Context of a Late Prehistoric
Site in the Midwest. In Cahokia and the Hinterlands; Middle Mississippian
Culture§ of the Midweat, edited by T. E. Emerson and R. B. Lewis, pp. 193-
206. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

Goodenough, W. H.
1956 Residence Rules. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 12:22-37.

Goody, J.
1972 The Evolution of the Family. In Household and Family in Paat Time. edited
by P. Laslett and R. Wall, pp. 103-124. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.

Goss, A. F.
1988 Astronomical Alignments at the Incinerator Site. In In A Hi_story of 17 Years_
of Excavation and Recothion: A Chronicle of 12:" Centray Hm
Values and the Built Epvironmeat, edited by J. M. Heilman, M. C. Lileas, and
C. A. Tumbow, pp. 314-335. Dayton Museum of Natural History, Dayton,
Ohio.

Graybill, J. R.

1981 The Eastern Periphery of Fort Ancient IA.D. 1050—1650): A Diachronic
Approach to Settlement Variability. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Department of Anthropology, University of Washington, Seattle.

1984 The Eastern Periphery of Fort Ancient. Pennaylvanat Archaeologig 54:40-50.

Green, T. J.; and C. A. Munson
1978 Mississippian Settlement Patterns in Southwestern Indiana. In Mississippian

Settlement Lattepna, edited by B. D. Smith, pp. 293-330. Academic Press,
New York.

Griffin, J. B.

1943 The Fort Ancient Aspect: Ita Cultural and Chronological Position in
Mississippi Valley Amiaeology. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.

1960 A Hypothesis for the Prehistory of the Winnebago. In Cm in Hiatory:
Essays in Honor of Paul Radin edited by S. Diamond, pp. 809-865.
Columbia University Press, New York.

1967 Review. Hanson, L. H., Jr. The Hardin Village Site. American Antiquity
32:410-411.

 

 

316

1978 Late Prehistory of the Ohio Valley. In Handbook of North America_rindians:
Northeast, edited by B. G. Trigger, pp. 547-559. Smithsonian Institution
Press, Washington, DC.

1985 Changing Concepts of the Prehistoric Mississippian Cultures of the Eastern
United States. In Alabama and the Borderlands: From Prehiatory to
Statehood edited by R. R. Badger and L. A. Clayton, pp. 40-63. University of
Alabama Press, Tusaloosa.

1992 Fort Ancient Has No Class: The Absence of an Elite Group in Mississippian
Societies in the Central Ohio Valley. In Lords of the SoumefiSOQLal
Ingguality and the Native Elite_s of Southeastern North Ameriga, edited by A.
W. Barker and T. R. Pauketat, pp. 53-59. Archaeological Papers of the
American Anthropological Association, No. 3.

1993 Cahokia Interaction with Contemporary Southeastern and Eastern Societies.
Midcontinental Jo_ur_pal of Archaeology 18:3-17.

 

Hall, R L.

1986 Upper Mississippi and Middle Mississippi Relationships. Wisconsin
Archeologist 67:365-369.

1991 Cahokia Identity and Interaction Models of Cahokia Mississippian. In
Cahokia and the Hinterlands: Mitidle Mississippian Cultures of the Midwg,
edited by T. E. Emerson and R. B. Lewis, pp. 3-34. University of Illinois
Press, Urbana.

Hanson, L. H., Jr.
1966 The Haadin Vilfitge Site. University of Kentucky Press, Lexington.

Harold, J.
1985 An Analysis of Hoase #II/78. the Incinerator Site (33-MY457), Monigomei'y
Cou_nty, Ohio. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, Kent
State University, Kent, Ohio.

Harper, B.
2000 New Perspectives on South Fort Village, a Late Prehistoric Site within the
Fort Ancient State Memorial, Warren County, Ohio. In Cultures Before
Contact: The Late Prehiatory of Ohio and Surrounding Regions, edited by R.
A. Genheimer, pp. 330-366. Ohio Archaeological Council, Columbus.

 

Harrington, M. R.
1913 A Preliminary Sketch of Lenape Culture. American Anthropologifl 15:208-
235.
Hart, J. P.

1993 Monongahela Subsistence-Settlement Change: The Late Prehistoric Period in
the Lower Upper Ohio River Valley. Journal of World Prehistory 7:71-120.

317

Hart, J. P.; and H. J. Brumbach
2003 The Death of Owasco. American Antiguig 68:737-752.

Haviland, W. A.

1988 Musical Hammocks at Tikal: Problems with Reconstructing Household
Composition. In Household and Commly in the Mesoamerican Past,
edited by R. R. Wilk and W. Ashmore, pp. 121-134. University of New
Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Hawkins, R. A. .
1998 Coming Full Circle: Plowzone Assemblages and the Interpretation of Fort
Ancient Settlement Structure. In Surface Archaeology, edited by A. P.
Sullivan, pp. 91-109. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Heilman, J. M.
1975 Ceramic and Spatial Patterning at Incinerator Site (33My57). Paper presented

at the annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Philadelphia.
1988a Archaeological Methodology at 33My57. In A Hi§tory of 17 Yegaf
Excavation and Recoas_tr_uction: A Chrronicle of 12;h Centaifl Human Values
and the Bailt Environment. edited by J. M. Heilman, M. C. Lileas, and C. A.
Tumbow, pp. 55-62. Dayton Museum of Natural History, Dayton, Ohio.
1988b Ceramics as Indicators of Social Organization. In A Hiatory of 17 Years of
Excavation and Reconatruction: A Chronicle of 12m Centgy Human Values
and the B1_1i1t Environment. edited by J. M. Heilman, M. C. Lileas, and C. A.
Tumbow, pp. 242-260. Dayton Museum of Natural History, Dayton, Ohio.

Heilman, J. M.; and R. Hoefer
1981 Possible Astronomical Alignments in a Fort Ancient Settlement at the
Incinerator Site in Dayton, Ohio. In Archaeoastronomy in the Americas,
edited by W. Ray. Ballena Press.

Heilman, J. M.; M. C. Lileas; and C. A. Turnbow (editors)
1988 A Hi§tory of 17 Yearsy of Excavation and Reconstruction: A Chronicle of 12th
Cenfly Human Values and the Built Environment. Dayton Museum of
Natural History, Dayton, Ohio.

Heilman, J. M.; C. A. Tumbow; and R. S. Grumet
1990 SunWatch National Historic Landmark Nomination. On file in the
Department of Anthropology, Dayton Society of Natural History, Dayton,
Ohio.

Henderson, A. G.
19923 Fort Ancient Cul_tural Dynamics in the Middle Ohio Vafiy (editor).
Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin.
1992b Capitol View: An Early Madisonville Horizon Settlement in Franklin County,
Kentucky. In Current Archaeologiaal Resgch in KenLuc_ky: Volfle Two.

318

edited by D. Pollack and A. G. Henderson, pp. 223-240. Kentucky Heritage
Council, Frankfort.

1998 Middle Fort Ancient Villages and O_rganizational Complexity in Kentum.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of
Kentucky, Lexington.

Henderson, A. G.; and D. Pollack
2001 Fort Ancient. In Encyclopedia of Prehistory, vol. 6, edited by P. N. Peregrine
and M. Ember, pp. 174-194. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New
York.

Hendon, J. A.
2000 Having and Holding: Storage, Memory, Knowledge, and Social Relations.
American Anthropologiat 102:42-53.

Hilgeman, S. L.
1992 Pottery and Chronoltgy of the Angel SiteaA Middle Mississippian Center in
the Lower Ohioflllley. Unpublished Ph.d. dissertation, Department of
Anthropology, Indiana University, Bloomington.

Hill, J. N.
1968 Broken K Pueblo: Patterns of Form and Function. In New Pemtives in
Archeology, edited by S.R. Binford and LR. Binford, pp. 103-142. Aldine
Publishing Company. Chicago, Illinois.

Hill, J. N.; and J. Gunn (editors)
1977 The Individual in Prehistory. Academic Press, New York.

Hodder, I.
1978 The Spatial Organization of Culture. University of Pittsburgh Press,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
1982 Symbols in Action: Ethnoa_rc_l'ateological Studies of Material Culture.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Hoffman, W. J.
1893 The Menomini Indians. 14th Annual Report. Bureau of American Ethnology.

Hollinger, R. E.
1995 Residence Patterns and Oneota Cultural Dynamics. In Oneota Archaeologya
P_ast, Present. and Future. edited by W. Green, pp. 141-174. University of
Iowa, Office of the State Archaeologist, Report No. 20, Iowa City.

Hollinger, R. E.; and D. W. Benn

1998 Oneota Taxonomy: Addressing Considerations of Time, Space, and Form.
Wiscofinsin Archeologiat 79: 1-8.

319

 

Holmes, W. H.
1886 Ancient Pottery of the Mississippi Valley. In Bmau of American Ethnology
4th Annaral Report, 1882-83. pp. 367-436. Government Printing Office,
Washington, DC.

Hudson, C.
1976 The Southeastern Indm. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.

Johnson, A. W.; and T. K. Earle
2000 The Evolution of Human Societies: From F oragir_1gGroy1_1p to Agm’an State
(Second Edition). Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.

Johnson, G.
1982 Organizational Structure and Scalar Stress. In Theopy and Explanation in

Archaeology: The Southampton Conference. edited by C. Renfrew, M. J.
Rowlands, and B. A. Segraves, pp. 389-423. Academic Press, New York.

Johnston, R. R.
1978 Multivariate Statistical Analysis in Geography. Longman, London.

Jones, S.
1997 The Archaeology of Ethnicig: Constructing Identities in the Past and Present.
Routledge, New York.

Justice, N. D.
1987 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Midcontinental and Eastern United
States. Indiana University Press, Bloomington. ‘

Kelly, J. E.
1990a Range Site Community Patterns and the Mississippian Emergence. In _Tm
Mississippian Emergence, edited by B. D. Smith, pp. 67-112. Smithsonian
Institution Press, Washington, D. C. .
1990b The Emergence of Mississippian Culture in the American Bottom. In _1_'h_e_
Migissmpian Emggence. edited by B. D. Smith, pp. 113-152. Smithsonian
Institution Press, Washington, D. C.

Kelly, R. L.
1989 Mobility/Sedentism: Concepts, Archaeological Measures, and Effects.
Annual Review of Anthropology 21:43-66.

Kennedy, W.

2000 Interpreting Fort Ancient Settlement Variabiliiy. Unpublished M.A. thesis,
Kent State University, Kent, Ohio.

320

Kneberg, M.
1956 Some Important Projectile Points found in the Tennessee Area. Tennessee
Archaeologist 12:17-28.

Knick, S. G., III
1977 Paleopathological Evidence of Familial Relationships in a Prehistoric
Population. Paper presented at the American Association of Physical
Anthropologists annual meeting, Seattle, Washington.

Knight, V. J.
1990 Social Organization and the Evolution of Hierarchy in Southeastern
Chiefdoms. Jougal of Anthropological Research 46:1-23.

Levi-Strauss, C.
1963 Structural Anthropology. Basic Books, New York.

Lewis, R. B.; C. Stout; and C. B. Wesson
1998 The Design of Mississippian Towns. In Mississippian Towns and Sacred
_S_paces: SearchingjnflArchitectaral Grammar, edited by R. B. Lewis and
C. Stout, pp. 1-21. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

 

Lightfoot, K.; and A. Martinez
1995 Frontiers and Boundaries in Archaeological Perspective. Annual Review of
Anthromlogy 24:471-492.

Lightfoot, K. G.; A. Martinez; and A. M. Schiff
1998 Daily Practice and Material Culture in Pluralistic Social Settings: An
Archaeological Study of Culture Change and Persistence from Fort Ross,
California. Americgan Antigta'ty 63:199-222.

Lileas, M. C.

1988a Early Development of the Incinerator Site. In A History of 17 Years of
Excavation and Reconstruction: A Chronicle of 12:h Centary Human Values
and the Built Environment, edited by J. M. Heilman, M. C. Lileas, and C. A.
Tumbow, pp. 25-35. Dayton Museum of Natural History, Dayton, Ohio.

1988b History of the Dayton Museum of Natural History’s Involvement with the
Incinerator Site. In A History of 17 Years of Excamtion and Reconatruction:
A Chronicle of 12m Centary Human Vafles and the Built Eavironment, edited
by J. M. Heihnan, M. C. Lileas, and C. A. Tumbow, pp. 36-54. Dayton
Museum of Natural History, Dayton, Ohio.

Litfin, J. C.; P. C. Jackson; and K. D. Vickery
1993 A Chronological Seriation Approach to Fort Ancient Triangular Arrowpoints

in the Central Ohio Valley. Paper presented at the 58th Annual Meeting of the
Society for American Archaeology. St. Louis, Missouri.

321

 

Longacre, W. A.
1970 Archaeology as Anthromlogy: A Case Study. Anthropological Papers no. 17.
University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Lowell, J. C.
1996 Moieties in Prehistory: A Case Study from the Pueblo Southwest. Journal of
Field Archaeology 23:77-90.

Marcus, J .; and K. Flannery
1996 Z_apotec Civilization: How Urban Society Evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca
Valley. Thames and Hudson, New York.

Mayer-Cakes, W. J.
1955 Prehisttm of the Upper Ohiofilley: An Introdarctory Archaeological Study.
Annals of the Carnegie Museum, Vol. 34, Anthropological Series, No. 2.
Carnegie Museum, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

McElrath, D. L.; T. E. Emerson; and A. C. Fortier
2000 Social Evolution or Social Response? A Fresh Look at the “Good Gray
Cultures” After Four Decades of Midwest Research. In Late Woodland
Societias: Tradition aria Tmsformation across the Midcontinent, edited by T.
E. Emerson, D. L. McElrath, and A. C. Fortier, pp. 3-36. University of
Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

McKern, W. C.
1939 The Midwestern Taxonomic Method as an Aid to Archaeological Culture
Study. American Antiguig 4:301-313.

Mehrer, M. W.
1995 Qahokia’s Corantryside: Household Archaeology, Settlement Patterns, and
Social Power. Northern Illinois University Press, DeKalb.

Mehrer, M. W.; and J. M. Collins
1995 Household Archaeology at Cahokia and in its Hinterlands. In Mississippian
Communities and Households, edited by J. D. Rogers and B. D. Smith, pp. 32-
57. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Milner, G. R.
1984 Social and Temporal Irnpliations of Variation among American Bottom
Mississippian Cemeteries. American Antiquith 49:468-488.
1998 The Cahokia Chiefdom: The Archaeology of a Mississippian Socieg.
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C.
1999 Warfare in Prehistoric and Early Historic Eastern North America. Journal of
Archaeological Research 7:105-151.

322

 

Milner, G. R.; and S. Schroeder
1999 Mississippian Sociopolitical Systems. In Great Townwd Regamal Polities
in the American Southwest and Southeaat, edited by J. E. Neitzel, pp. 95-107.
University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Mills, W. C.
1904 Explorations of the Gartner Mound and Village Site. Ohio State
Archaeological and Higtorical Society. Publicationa 13:128-189.

Moorehead, W. K.
1892 Primitive Map in Ohio. G. P. Putnam’s Sons, New York.

Muller, J.
1997 Mississippian Political Economy. Plenum Press, New York.

Muller, J .; and J. E. Stephens
1991' Mississippian Sociocultural Adaptations. In Cahokia and the Hinterlands:
Midale Mississippian Culturea of the Midwes_t, edited by T. E. Emerson and
R. B. Lewis, pp. 297-310. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

Munson, C. A. (editor)
1994 Archaeological Investigationaat the Southwind Site, A Mississippian
Community in Posey County. Indiaaa. Report submitted to Division of
Historic Preservation and Archaeology, Indiana Department of Natural
Resources.

Munson, P. J.
1966 The Sheets Site: A Late Archaic - Early Woodland Occupation in West-
Central Illinois. Michigan Archaeologiat 12:111-120.

Munson, P. J.; and A. D. Harn
1966 Surface Collections fiom Three Sites in the Central Illinois River Valley.
Wisconsin Archeologist 47:150-168.

Munson, P. J.; and C. A. Munson
1972 Unfinished Triangular Projectile Points or ‘Hump-Backed’ Knives?

Pennsylvania Archaeologist 42:31-36.

Nass, J. P., Jr.

1987 Use-Wear Analysis and Houihold Archaeology: A Study of the Activity
Structure of the Incineraaor Site, An Anderson Phase Fort Ancient Communig
in Southwestern Ohio. Unpublished dissertation, Department of
Anthropology, Ohio State University, Columbus.

1989 Household Archaeology and Functional Analysis as Procedures for Studying

Fort Ancient Communities in the Ohio Valley. Pennsylvania Archaeologist
59:1-13.

323

 

Nass, J. P., Jr.; and R. W. Yerkes
1995 Social Differentiation in Mississippian and Fort Ancient Communities. In
Mississippian Communities and Households, edited by J. D. Rogers
Mississippian and B. D. Smith, pp. 58-80. University of Alabama Press,
Tuscaloosa.

Nelson, B. A.
1995 Complexity, Hierarchy, and Scale: A Controlled Comparison between Chaco
Canyon, New Mexico, and La Quemada, Zacatecas. American Antiguiiy
60:597-618.

Oehler, C.
1973 Tgpin Indians: A Revised Report of the Fmdiagaof the Cincinnaii Museum
of Natural History’aArchjaeologiaal ExploraLion of the Turpin Site, Hamilton
County, Ohio 1946 to 1949. Cincinnati Museum of Natural History Popular
Publication Series, No. 1, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Oetelaar, G. A.
1993 Identifying Site Structure in the Archaeological Record: An Illinois
Mississippian Example. American Antiguity 58:662-687.

Ortiz, A.
1969 The Tewa World: Space, Time, Being, and Becoming in L Pueblo Society.
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.

Ortner, S. B.
1984 Theory in Anthropology since the Sixties. Commtive Stadies in Society
and Histogy 26:126-166.

 

 

 

O’Shea, J. M.
1984 Mortuary Van_'ability: An Archaeological Investigation. Academic Press, New
York.

Pauketat, T. R.; and T. E. Emerson
1997 Introduction: Domination and Ideology in the Mississippian World. In
Cahokia: Domigtion and Ideology in the Mississippian World, edited by T.
R. Pauketat and T. E. Emerson, pp. 1-29. University of Nebraska Press,
Lincoln.

Peebles, C. S.; and S. M. Kus
1977 Some Archaeological Correlates of Ranked Societies. American Antiggity
42:421-448.

324

 

Peregrine, P.
1992 Mississippian Evolution: A World-System Perspective. Prehistory Press,
Madison, Wisconsin.

Perino, G.
1968 Guide to the Identification of Certain American Indian Proiectile Points.
Oklahoma Anthropological Society, Special Bulletin No. 3.
1971 Guide to the Identification of Certain American Indian Proiectile Points.
Oklahoma Anthropological Society, Special Bulletin No. 4.

Phillips, P.; J. A.“ Ford; and J. B. Griffin
1951 Archaeological Survey of the Lower Mississippi Valley. Papers of the
Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, No. 60. Cambridge.

Pi-Sunyer, O.
1965 The Flint Industry. In The McGraw Site: A Study in Hopewellian Dynamics
by O. H. Prufer. Scientific Publications of the Cleveland Museum of Natural
History 3.

 

Pickard, W. H.

1993 1990 Excavations at Capitolium Mound (33Wn13), Marietta, Washington
County, Ohio. Paper presented at “A View from the Core: A Conference
Synthesizing Ohio Hopewell Archaeology.” Ohio Archaeological Council,
Chillicothe, Ohio.

Polhemus, R. R.
1990 Dallas Phase Architecture and Sociopolitical Structure. In Lamar
Arcflaeology: Mississippian Chiefdoma in the Deep South. edited by M.
Williams and G. Shapiro, pp. 125-138. University of Alabama Press,
Tuscaloosa.

Pollack, D.

1998 Intraregional and Inter§ocietal RelaLionahimi of the Late Mississippia_n
grbom-Welborn Phaae of the Lower Ohio River Valley. Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Kentucky,
Lexington.

Pollack, D.; and A. G. Henderson

1992 Toward a Model of Fort Ancient Society. In Fort Ancient Caltural Dynamics
in the Middle Ohio \Lalley, edited by A. G. Henderson, pp. 281-294.
Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin.

2000a Insights into Fort Ancient Culture Change: A View from South of the Ohio
River. In Cultures Before Contact: The Late Prehistory of Ohio an_d
Surrounding Remis. edited by R. A. Genheimer, pp. 194-215. Ohio
Archaeological Council, Columbus.

325

 

2000b Late Woodland Cultures in Kentucky. In Late Woodland Societies: Tradition
and Tran_sfonnation across the Midcontinent, edited by T. E. Emerson, D. L.
McElrath, and A. C. Fortier, pp. 613-641. University of Nebraska Press,
Lincoln.

Prufer, O. H.
1975 Chesser Cave: A Late Woodland Phase in Southeastern Ohio. In Studies in
Ohio Archaeolagy (revised editiom, edited by O. H. Prufer and D. H.
McKenzie, pp. 1-62. Western Reserve University Press, Cleveland, Ohio.

Prufer, O. H.; and O. C. Shane
1970 Blain Village and the Fort Ancient Tradition in Ohio. Kent State University
Press, Kent, Ohio.

Prufer, O. H.; and C. Sofsky
1965 The McKibben Site (33Tr57) Trumbull County, Ohio: A Contribution to a
Late Paleo-Indian and Archaic Phase of Ohio. Michigan Archaeoltg'g 11:9-
40.

Purtill, M. P.
1999 Evidence for a Late Fort Ancient Fall/W inter Occupation in Southwestern
Ohio. North American Archaeologiat, 20:105-133.

Putnam, F. W.
1886 Report of the Curator. Peabody Museum, 18th Annuai Report.

Railey, J. A.
1992 Chipped Stone Artifacts. In Fort Ancient Cultural Dynamics in the Middle
Ohio Valley. edited by. A. G. Henderson, pp. 137-169. Prehistory Press,
Madison, Wisconsin.

Radin, P.
1923 The Winnebago Tribe. Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology,
No. 37.

Ramsey-Styer, D.
1995 Seasonal Behavior Me Incinerator Site (33My57). MD. 1250 Fort
Ancient Site in Southwestern Ohio. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of
Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.

Rands, R. L.; and R. L. Bishop
1980 Resource Procurement Zones and Patterns of Ceramic Exchange in the
Palenque Region, Mexico. In Models and Methoda in Regional Exchange,
edited by R. E. Fry, pp. 19-46. Society for American Archaeology Special
Papers No. 1. Washington, DC.

326

 

Rautman, A. E.

1998 Hierarchy and Heterarchy in the American Southwest: A Comment on
McGuire and Saitta. American Antiguity 63:325-333.

Renfrew, C.
1986 Introduction: Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-Political Change. In Lea;
Polity Interaction and SminoliticaLChmge, edited by C. Renfrew and J. F.
Cherry, pp. 1-18. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Rice, P. M.
1998 Contexts of Contact and Change: Peripheries, Frontiers, and Boundaries. In
Interaction. Cultu_r_e Change, and Archaeology, edited by J. G. Cusick, pp. 44-
66. Occasional Paper No. 25, Center for Archaeological Investigations,
Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

Riggs, R. E.
1986 New Stratigraphic Sequences from the Lower Little Miami Valley. Weat
Virginia Archaeologist 38:1-21.
1998 Ceramics. Chronology, and Cultural Change in the Lower Liitle Miami River
Valley. Southwestern Ohio, Circa 100 BC. to Circa AD. 1650. Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin-
Madison.

Riordan, R.

2000 Peas in a Pod?: Diversity at Small Late Prehistoric Components in Southwest
Ohio. In Cultures Before Contact: The Late Prehistory of Ohio 3&4
Surroanding Rem, edited by R. A. Genheimer, pp. 404-424. Ohio
Archaeological Council, Columbus.

Ritchie, W. A.
1961 A Tymlogy and Nomenclaflre for New York Projectile Points. New York
State Museum and Science Service Bulletin No. 384. Albany, New York.

Robertson, J. A.
1980 Chipped Stone aad Socio-culMl Interpretations. Unpublished M.A. thesis.
Department of Anthropology, University of Illinois, Chicago.
1984 Chipped Stone and Functional Interpretations: A Fort Ancient Example.
Midcontinerfil Journal of Archaeology 9:251-267.

Rogers, J. D.
1995 The Archaeological Analysis of Domestic Organization. In Mississippian
Communities and Households. edited by J. D. Rogers and B. D. Smith, pp. 7-
31. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

327

 

Rogers, J. D.; and B. D. Smith (editors)
1995 Mississippian Communities apd Households. University of Alabama Press,
Tuscaloosa

Rossignol, J.
1992 Concepts, Methods, and Theory Building: A Landscape Approach. In Space,
Timeind Archaeological Landscams, edited by J. Rossignol and L.
Wandsnider, pp. 3-16. Plenum Press, New York.

Sahlins, M. D.
1968 Tribesmen. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

Saxe, A. A.
1970 Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Department of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Schifler, M. B.
1983 Toward the Identification of Formation Processes. American Antiguiiy
48:675-706.

 

Schortman, E. M.; and P. A. Urban
1987 Modeling Interregional Interaction in Prehistory. Adyances in Archaeological
Method__ and Theog 11:37-95.

Schurr, M. R.; and M. J. Schoeninger
1995 Associations between Agricultural Intensification and Social Complexity: An
Example from the Prehistoric Ohio Valley. Jouman Anthropologm
Archaeology 14:315-339. '

Seeman, M. (editor)
1992 Cultural Variability in Context: Woodland Settlements of the Mid-Ohio
Valley. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology Special Paper No. 7. Kent
State University Press, Kent, Ohio.

Seeman, M. F .; and W. S. Dancey
2000 The Late Woodland Period in Southern Ohio: Basic Issues and Prospects. In
L_ataWoodland Societiea: TraditicL and Tra_n_sforma¥tion across the
Midcontinent. edited by T. E. Emerson, D. L. McElrath, and A. C. Fortier, pp.
583-61 1. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

Sellards, E. H.
1952 E_arly Man in America. University of Texas Press, Austin.

 

 

Service, E. R.
1962 Primitive Social Organization: An Evcflartionary Perspective. Random House,
New York.

328

Shane, O. C.
1988 An Interim Summary Report of the Vertebrate Fauna] Remains from the
Incinerator Site. In A History of 17 Years of Exaavation and Reconatruction:
A Chronicle of 12th Century Human Values and the Iiailt Environment. pp.
157-213. Dayton Museum of Natural History, Dayton, Ohio.

Shane, O. C.; and G. E. Wagner
1993 Seasonality and Diet at a Fort Ancient Site. Paper presented at the Society for
Ethnobiology annual meeting, Boston.

Sharp, W. E.; and C. A. Tumbow
1987 The Muir Site: An Upland Fort Ancient Community in the Inner Bluegrass
Region of Kentucky. In _Carrent Arcfleological Resamh in Kentucity;
Volume One, edited by D. Pollack, pp. 137-153. Kentucky Heritage Council,
Frankfort.

 

 

Sherman, S.
1988 Quantifying Archaeology. Academic Press, San Diego.

Smith, B. D.

1978 Variation in Mississippian Settlement Patterns. In Mississippian Settlament
Patterns, edited by B. D. Smith, Pp. 479-503. Academic Press, New York.

1985 Mississippian Patterns of Settlement and Subsistence. In Alabama and the
Borderlands: From Prehistory to Statehood, edited by R. R. Badger and L. A.
Clayton, pp. 40-63. University of Alabama Press, Tusaloosa.

1986 A Comparison of the Exploitation of Animal Species by Middle Mississippi
and Fort Ancient Groups. Soutlfistem Archaeological Conference
Newsletter 28:19-22.

1992 Mississippian Elites and Solar Alignments: A Reflection of Managerial
Necessity, or Levers of Social Inequality? In Lords of the Southeast; Social
Inequality and the Native Elites of Soumeastam North Ameri_ca, edited by A.
W. Barker and T. R. Pauketat, pp. 11-30. Archeological Papers of the
American Anthropological Association Number 3. Washington, D. C.

Smith, C.
n.d. Field notes on file, Anthropology Department, Dayton Society of Natural
History, Dayton, Ohio.

Smith, H. I.
1910 The Prehistoric Ethnology of a Kentucky Site. Amerigm Museum of Natural
History. Anthropological Pamrs 6(2).

Smith, M. T.

2000 Coosa: The Rise and Fall of a Southeastem Mississippian Chiefdom.
University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

329

Soffer, O.
1985 The Upper Pafiolithic of the Centrfl Russian Plaia. Academic Press, New

 

York.
Spencer, C. S.
1997 Evolutionary Approaches in Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological
Research 5:209—264.
Stein, G. J.

2002 FromlPassive Periphery to Active Agents: Emerging Perspectives in the
Archaeology of Interregional Interaction. American Anthropologig 104:903-
916.

 

Stanislawski, M. B.
1978 If Pots were Mortal. In Explorations in Ethnoarchaeology, edited by R. A. _
Gould, pp. 201-227. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. 3'

 

Steponaitis, V.
1983 Ceramics. Chronology, and Community Pattern_s: An Archaeological Study at
Moundville. Academic Press, New York.

Stoltrnan, J. B. (editor)
1991 New Perapecthaea on Cahokia: Viewafi'om the Periphery. Prehistory Press,
Madison, Wisconsin.

Stoltrnan, J. B.; and R. C. Mainfort
2002 Minerals and Elements: Using Petrography to Reconsider the Findings of
Neutron Activation in the Compositional Analysis of Ceramics from Pinson
Mounds, Tennessee. Midcontinental Jourfll of Archaeology 27:1-33.

Stout, C.; and R. B. Lewis
1998 Mississippian Towns in Kentucky. In Mississippian Towns and Sacred
Spaces: Searching fogn Architec;ur_al Grammar, edited by R. B. Lewis and
C. Stout, pp. 151-178. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Stuckey, R. L.
1981 Origin and Development of the Concept of the Prairie Peninsula. In E
Prairie Penin_su_la: In the “Shadow” of Transeau, edited by R. L. Stuckey and
K. J. Reese, pp. 4-23. Ohio Biological Survey Biological Notes No. 15,
Columbus.

Stuiver, M.; P. J. Reimer; E. Bard; J. W. Beck; G. S. Burr; K. A. Hughen; B. Krorner; F.
G. McCormac; J. Plicht; and M. Spurk
1998 INTCAL98 Radiocarbon Age Calibration. Radiocarbon 40:1041-1083.

330

Sullivan, L. P.
1995 Mississippian Household and Community Organization in Eastern Tennessee.
In Mississippian Communities aad Houaeholda, edited by J. D. Rogers
Mississippian and B. D. Smith, pp. 99-123. University of Alabama Press,
Tuscaloosa.

Sunderhaus, T. S.; and R. A. Cook
n.d. Prehistoric Pots and People: Fort Ancient Pottery Production and Cultural
Interaction at the Incinerator Site. Unpublished manuscript in possession of
the authors.

Swanton, J. R.
1946 The Indians of the Southeastern United States. Bureau of American
Ethnology Bulletin 137.

Tankersley, K.; and J. Meinhart
1982 Physical and Structural Properties of Ceramic Materials Utilized by a Fort
Ancient Group. Midcontineptal Jour_a_al of Archaeology 7:225-243.

Taylor, W. W.
1948 A Study of Archaeology. American Anthropological Association, Memoir 69.

Tixier, J.
1963 Typologie de l’epipaleolithique du Maghreb. Memoires du Centre de
Recherches Anthropologiqaes Prehisto_a'gues et Ethnomphigues 11. Paris.

Tourtellot, G.
1988 Developmental Cycles of Households and Houses at Seibal. In Household

and Communig in the Mesoamerican Past, edited by R. R. Wilk and W.
Ashmore, pp. 97-120. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Transeau, E. N.
1935 The Prairie Peninsula. Ecology 16:423-437.

Tumbow, C. A.; and A. G. Henderson
1992 Ceramic Analysis. In Fort Ancient Culttgl Dynamics in the Middle Ohio
Valley, edited by A. G. Henderson, pp. 113-135. Prehistory Press, Madison,
Wisconsin.

Tumbow, C. A.; and C. E. Jobe
1984 The Goolman Site: A Late Fort Ancient Winter Encampment in Clark County,
Kentucky. In fie Prehiatoric Research in Kenm, edited by D. Pollack, C.
D. Hockensmith, T. N. Sanders, pp. 25-48. Kentucky Heritage Council,
Frankfort.

331

 

Tumbow, C. A.; C. E. Jobe; N. O’Malley; D. A. Wyrner; M. Seme; and I. Rovner
1983 Archaeological Investigatioris of the Goolman. Devary. and Stone Sites in
Qai'k County. Kentucky. Archaeological Report No. 78. Department of
Anthropology, University of Kentucky, Lexington.

Upham, S.
1990 Decoupling the Process of Political Evolution. In The Evolation of Political
Systems: Sociopolitica in Small-Scale Sedengtaay Societies. edited by S.
Upham pp. 1-17. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Vickery, K. D.
1972 Projectile Point Type Description: McWhinney Heavy Stemmed. Paper
presented at the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Morgantown, West

V’ "a.

Vickery, K. D.; T. S. Sunderhaus; and R. A. Genheirner
2000 Preliminary Report on Excavations at the Fort Ancient State Line Site, 33 Ha
58, in the Central Ohio Valley. In Cultures Before Coma: Thefl
Prehistory of Ohio and Surroundirg Ragions, edited by R. A. Genheimer, pp.
272-328. Ohio Archaeological Council, Columbus.

Wagner, G. E.

1979 Wood in a 1200 AD. Stockaded Village. Paper presented to the Society for
Economic Botany.

1988 Paleoethnobotanical Research at the Incinerator Site. In A Hi§tory of 17
Y_ea:rs of Excavation and Rechstruction: A Chronicle of 12th Centum Human
Blues and the Built Environmeni, edited by J. M. Heilman, M. C. Lileas, and
C. A. Tumbow, pp. 72-111. Dayton Museum of Natural History, Dayton,
Ohio.

1996 Feast or Famine? Seasonal Diet at a Fort Ancient Community. In Qasa
Studies in Environmental Arcflology, edited by E. J. Reitz, L. A. Newsom,
and S. J. Scudder, pp. 255-271. Plenum Press, New York.

Ward, T.
1965 Correlation of Mississippian Sites and Soil Types. Southeastern
Archaeological Conference Bulletin 3:42-48.

Warrick, G. A.
1988 Estimating Ontario Iroquoian Village Duration. &an in the Northeast 36:21-
60.

Wesson, C. B.

1999 Chiefly Power and Food Storage in Southeastern North America. World
Archaeology 31:145-164.

332

 

Whiting, J. W. M.; and B. Ayers
1968 Inferences from the Shape of Dwellings. In Settlement Archaeology, edited
by K. C. Chang, pp. 117-133. National Press Books, Palo Alto, California.

Wilk, R.; and R. Netting
1984 Households: Changing Form and Function. In Householdas: Conargtive aad
Hiatorical Studies of the Domestic Grog). edited by R. Netting, R. Wilk, and
E. Arnold, pp. 1-28. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Winters, H. D.
1963 An Aralraeological Survey of the Wabash Valley in Illinois. Illinois State
Museum, Report of Investigations, No. 10.
1969 The Riverton Cm. Illinois State Museum, Reports of Investigations No.
13. Springfield.

Witthoft, J.
1949 Green Corn Ceremoniaasm in the Eastern Woodlands. University of
Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.

Wittry, W. L.
1959 The Raddatz Rockshelter SKS, Wisconsin. Wiscoasin Archeologiat 40:33-39.
1969 The American Woodhenge. In Cahokia Archaeology, edited by M. L. Fowler,
pp. 4348. Illinois Archaeological Survey, Bulletin No. 7. University of
Illinois, Urbana.

Wobst, H. M.
1977 Stylistic Behavior and Information Exchange. In For the Director: Resear_ch
Essays in Honor of James B. Griffin, edited by C. E. Cleland, pp. 317-342.
Museum of Anthropology, Anthropological Papers No. 61. University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Yoffee, N.
1993 Too Many Chiefs? (or, Safe Texts for the ‘903). In Archaeological Theog,
edited by N. Yoffee and A. Sherratt, pp. 60-78. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.

Young, F. W.
1965 Inflation Ceremonies: A Cross-Cultural Study of Status Dramatization.
Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis, Indiana.

Zeder, M.; and S. Alder
1996 Meat Consumption and Bone Use in a Mississippian Village. In Case Studies
in Epvimnmeatal Archaeology, edited by E. J. Reitz, L. A. Newsom, and S. J.
Scudder, pp. 319-337. Plenum Press, New York.

333