a half-dozen important sites; and whereas formerly speculation busied itself in attempting to attribute the sites to one or another of the known historic tribes or nations, the evidence now is clear that, along with others yet to be explored, they represent the habitation sites of an important, populous and widespread group of our prehistoric population. Perhaps the most gratifying result of the examination of the sites covered by this report is the establishment of the fact that they may be regarded as outposts (or prototypes, as the case may be) of the great settlement at Madisonville. This conclusion is based upon the finding that not only are they attributable to the general culture group of which Madisonville may be accepted as the type, but that in the matter of localized or modified traits, as exhibited in burial customs and artifacts, they are altogether similar. It is a logical supposition that whatever may be learned through archaeological research regarding migration and chronology of this great group, must be mainly through the media of these variations or subtraits of a common culture complex; for should succeeding sites show no deviation from nor addition to the evidence already adduced, progress would be slow indeed. Without presuming to draw conclusions as to relative time of occupancy or migratory movements, it may be of interest, at this time, to indicate the points of similarity of the sites covered in this report and the Madisonville site, on the one hand; and the apparent close relationship between certain others of the general group, on the other. The characteristic indicia of the Fort Ancient culture group are, of course, well known. They alone of the several distinct groups of the territory have left well-marked village sites. These sites, often quite extensive, usually contain both burial mounds and cemeteries, as well as quantities of debris and refuse, disposed either in abandoned storage pits or in midden deposits; pottery-ware, stone, bone and shell implements and ornaments of distinctive types. It is in the presence or absence of any one or more of these indicia, or in variation shown in burial custom, type of artifact or common trait, that there may be found similarities or differences bearing upon the inhabitants of the several sites. The examined sites and the order in which they appear to be closely related, are: Madisonville and Campbell Island (including the Hine) sites; the Feurt site and the Fox farm (Kentucky) site; the Baum site and the Gartner site. The Madisonville' and Campbell Island Sites. Naturally in a site so important and extensive as that at Madisonville, a comparatively long period of occupation would be expected. This surmise was fully verified in its exploration by the finding of changes in burial customs as between the earlier and the later portions of the site. Furthermore, it was shown that occupation had extended to a date sufficiently recent to permit its inhabitants to come into contact with European traders. The earlier part of the cemetery is characterized by flexed burials, frequently accompanied by pottery vessels; the later portions, mainly by extended burials, with very little pottery-ware; and the village, as a whole, by a striking development and use of the storage-refuse pits and, in the minor artifacts, by the manufacture and use of a peculiar mattock-like imple Vol. XXXII - 30. ment made from antlers of the elk. Negatively, there was an almost total absence of the discoidal stone, so common in certain sites of the group. In the Campbell Island (and Hine) site, burial was made almost exclusively in the extended position, corresponding to the later burials of the Madisonville site; but they were quite freely supplied with pottery-vessels, in which respect they resembled the older portions of the larger site. In the matter of minor objects, the smaller sites produced the antler mattock, and practically every form of the larger, while the discoidal stone similarly was lacking. The storage pits were very abundant and in every way similar, both as to construction and use, to those of the Madisonville site. The Feurt and Fox Farm Sites. Rather striking similarities are to be noted for these sites, particularly in the matter of traits peculiar to them alone, in so far as observed. Burials were almost exclusively of the flexed type, and the placing of pottery vessels with the dead was practically absent. Construction and use of the storage-refuse pit was entirely negligible, disposal of accumulated refuse being effected by carrying in of earth and covering it where it lay. Discoidal stones were surprisingly abundant, and a particularly high development of the triangular serrated projectile point of flint had been attained. The Baum* and Gartner Sites. At these two sites, the storage-refuse pit was everywhere in evidence. Burials were mainly extended, and the percentage accompanied by pottery vessels very small. Use of the discoidal stone was restricted, but the long scraper or beamer was particularly highly developed. Geographical location doubtless had much to do with the apparent similarity of these three pairs of sites. Campbell Island is but 20 miles removed from Madisonville, while less than 30 miles to the northeast from the latter is Fort Ancient, forming the third angle of the triangle embracing these several Miami river sites. While the Fox site, located 14 miles southwest of Maysville, Kentucky, is upwards of 50 miles from the Feurt site (on the Scioto, just above its juncture with the Ohio) this distance is considerably less than that from the Fox site to Madisonville. The Gartner site, on the Scioto river, north of Chillicothe, is less than 20 miles removed from the Baum site, in the Paint creek valley of Ross county. There remain a number of unexplored sites of this culture in the state, while many others, presumably of the same group, are to be found along the river in adjacent territory. The examination of these sites outside of Ohio is greatly to be desired, in order that the evidence which they contain may be added to that already available regarding the migrations and chronology of the great Fort Ancient group of our prehistoric population. BIBLIOGRAPHY I - Hooton and Willoughby. Indian Village Site and Cemetery, near Madisonville, Ohio. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archeology and Ethnology; Harvard Univ. Vol. VIII No. I. 2- Mills, William C. The Feurt Mounds and Village Site. Certain Mounds and Village Sites in Ohio. Vol. III- Pt. 2. 3-Smith, Harlan I. The Prehistoric Ethnology of a Kentucky Site. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History. Vol. VI - Pt. 2. 4- Mills, William C. The Baum Village Site. Certain Mounds and Village Sites in Ohio. Vol. I Pt. 3. 5 Mills, William C. The Gartner Mound and Village Site. Certain Mounds and Village Sites in Ohio. Vol, I-Pt. 2. |