Fort Ancient
View on Wikipedia

| Mound Builders |
|---|
| Culture |
| Polities |
| Archaeology |
| Religion |
The Fort Ancient culture is a Native American archaeological culture that dates back to c. 1000–1750 CE.[1] Members of the culture lived along the Ohio River valley, in an area running from modern-day Ohio and western West Virginia through to northern Kentucky and parts of southeastern Indiana.[2] A contemporary of the neighboring Mississippian culture, Fort Ancient is considered to be a separate "sister culture".[2] Mitochondrial DNA evidence collected from the area suggests that the Fort Ancient culture did not directly descend from the older Hopewell Culture.[3][4]
Material evidence also suggests that the Fort Ancient peoples introduced maize agriculture to Ohio,[2] and other evidence connects this culture to the Great Serpent Mound.[5] In 1999, an archaeological study by Brad Lepper and Tod A. Frolking used radiocarbon testing to show that the Alligator Effigy Mound in Granville also dates to the Fort Ancient era, rather than the assumed Hopewell era.[6][7] Both the Serpent and Alligator Mounds, first understood as burial locations, have been shown to be Fort Ancient ceremonial effigy sites.
Name
[edit]Although the name of the culture originates from the earthworks site at Fort Ancient, Ohio, this site is believed to have been built by the Ohio Hopewellian people and only occupied later by the Fort Ancient culture. The site is on a hill above the Little Miami River, close to Lebanon, Ohio. Despite the name of the site, most archaeologists do not believe that Fort Ancient was used as a fortress by either the Ohio Hopewell culture or the Fort Ancient culture. It is believed to have been a ceremonial location.[8]
Archaeological record
[edit]
Chronology
[edit]| Periods | Phase | Dates |
|---|---|---|
| Early Fort Ancient | Croghan | 1000 to 1200 |
| Middle Fort Ancient | Manion | 1200 to 1400 |
| Late Fort Ancient | Gist | 1400 to 1550 |
| Montour | 1550 to 1750 |
In about 1000 CE, terminal Late Woodland groups in the Middle Ohio Valley adopted maize agriculture. They settled in small, year-round, nuclear family households and settlements of up to 40-50 individuals. These scattered settlements, located along terraces that overlooked rivers and occasionally on flood plains, would be occupied only briefly before the groups would migrate elsewhere.
By 1200 CE, the small villages had grown into settlements of up to 300 people. These settlements were occupied for up to 25 years. The houses were designed as single-family dwellings during the Early and Middle Fort Ancient periods. Later, Fort Ancient buildings became more extensive and could house multiple families. Settlements were rarely more permanent than one or two generations, as inhabitants generally migrated once natural resources surrounding the village had been exhausted. Villages were arranged around an open oval central plaza, surrounded by circular and rectangular domestic structures facing this plaza.
The arrangement of buildings in Fort Ancient settlements is believed to have served as a solar calendar, marking the positions of the solstices and other significant dates.[9] The occupants also built low platform mounds for ceremonial purposes, and many villages added defensive palisades to their boundaries.[1] The plaza served as the focal point of village life, hosting communal activities such as ceremonies, games (such as the hoop and stick game Chunkey),[10] and other significant social events.
The Late Fort Ancient period from 1400 to 1750 CE was the protohistoric era of the Middle Ohio Valley. During this era, the formerly dispersed populations began to coalesce. The Gist-phase villages (1400 to 1550 CE) became more significant than during the preceding period, with populations as high as 500. Archaeologists have speculated that the larger villages and palisades are evidence that after 1450, warfare and inter-group strife increased, leading the people to consolidate their villages for better protection.
Increased contact with Mississippian people also likely occurred in this era, some of them may even have migrated to and been integrated into Fort Ancient villages. The Madisonville horizon of artifacts after 1400 CE include relatively high proportions of bowls, salt pans, triangular strap handles, colanders, negative painted pottery, notched and beaded rims, and some effigies. These items and styles are usually associated with the Mississippian cultures of the Lower Ohio Valley, at sites such as Angel Mounds and Kincaid Mounds. These sites were abandoned during this time.[1]
During the Montour phase (1550 to 1700), villages were occupied year-round, although less densely in the winter than in the summer months. This may indicate that during the winter, family groups and hunting parties may have returned to the regions previously occupied by their ancestors. Such a pattern was observed during historic times, for example, among the Miami and Potawatomi.[1] Through trading activities, the Fort Ancient people gained access to European trade items such as glass, iron, brass, and copper. These materials have all been found as grave goods at sites such as Lower Shawneetown and Hardin Village. Such artifacts appeared and were used in the area before the arrival of European explorers or settlers.[11]
Although the inhabitants of Fort Ancient did not encounter European settlers at this time, they, like other groups in the interior of the continent, may have suffered high fatalities from their diseases, transmitted among Native Americans by trade contacts. The next-known inhabitants of the area, who were encountered by French and English explorers, were the historic Shawnee tribe.[12] Scholars believe that the Fort Ancient society, like the Mississippian cultures to the south and west, may have been severely disrupted by waves of infectious disease epidemics from the first Spanish explorers in the mid-16th century.[13]
After 1525, at the Madisonville site, the type site for the Madisonville phase, dwellings were built on a smaller scale and in fewer numbers. This change indicated the culture was less attached to agriculture and a sedentary life. Scholars generally believe that similarities in material culture, art, mythology, and Shawnee oral history link the historic tribe to the Fort Ancient people.[12] However, there is also evidence that the Algonquian Shawnee culture may have been more of an admixture or intrusion to the site, which may have previously been Siouan occupied.[14]
Evolution of society
[edit]Early phase (approx. 1000–1250 CE)
[edit]During this period, the Fort Ancients were several poor, sedentary societies. They lived in non-palisaded villages and had slight regional variances. The locals farmed primarily corn, beans, and sunflower—the latter being a plant first domesticated as a food source in Ohio. Most homes were what is known as a pit house, created by digging several feet into the ground and covering over the top of the resulting hole with a wooden frame roof covered in bark. Carbon dating has shown that Fort Ancient lands in West Virginia did not begin to be conquered until the middle phase.[15]
Middle phase (approx. 1250–1450 CE)
[edit]
At this time, the cultures became far richer, began to expand, and began to merge into a single, continuous culture. Villages grew larger, became palisaded and pit houses began to be phased out in favor of the style of native dwelling colonial peoples would refer to as a Cabin style.[16] This was a rectangular, peak-roofed home of either an adobe-like or wooden make and covered over by the same style of roof as the pit house.[15]
Elsewhere, the far richer and larger Mississippian culture began shifting its centers away from the Mississippi River[17] and into the American Southeast. Iroquoian expansions to the northeast of the Fort Ancients brought new Algonquian and Iroquoian neighbors into their region.[18] The result of these migrations was Fort Ancients adopting aspects of these cultures. Eastern Fort Ancients began amalgamating a mound burial with Iroquoian techniques of removing the flesh and organs of the dead and urn burials. In western Ohio, there is strong evidence that they took on the Algonquian Green Corn Ceremony, in which part of the immature corn crop was "sacrificed" by burning and its ashes were used to fertilize the fields. Around 1300, however, it appears that mound burials were replaced entirely by the Eastern Siouan tradition of under-the-home burials.[19]
Late phase (approx. 1450–1750 CE)
[edit]The late phase of Fort Ancient culture was its zenith. Only one known Fort Ancient tribe has been verified by name in the historical record—the Mosopelea, presumably of southeast Ohio. There is also a chance that a Siouan people called the Keyauwee, who appear alongside the Tutelo (an Eastern Siouan tribe from West Virginia) in North Carolina around 1700 could also have been of Fort Ancient stock. During the time of the French explorers, a Ho-chunk native named Tonti told them that these people had been known as the Chonque.[20] Mosopelea language is marked as being the only known Siouan tongue to use the "f" sound, which is far more common among the Muskogean languages of the Mississippians.[16]
Despite no historical accounts of contact existing, there has been a remarkable amount of European-made goods excavated from Fort Ancient sites—including brass and steel items, as well as glassware. Fort Ancients even melted down old or broken goods and re-forged them into new items. No single gun part has yet been discovered in conjunction with a Fort Ancient site. The Fort Ancients were heavily affected by European disease, as well as the Beaver Wars period. Carbon dating seems to indicate that disease affected the Fort Ancients in waves. The most recent of all surviving sites date from Northern Kentucky alone—those from 1680 onwards. Although French explorers are known to have arrived during that time, they appear to have left no authentic accounts of contact. However, the French did note that most of both sides of the Ohio River Valley were covered in similarly styled villages in various states of destruction or abandonment.[15][21]
Four foci
[edit]The Fort Ancient culture is divided into four distinct local variations known as foci. These are the Madisonville focus, the Baum focus, the Fort focus, and the Anderson focus. Additionally, Fort Ancient culture can be subdivided into at least 8 phases that span different time periods and regions of southern Ohio and adjacent states. There was an increasing similarity between Fort Ancient phases leading up to 1650 CE, characterized by the presence of native artifacts and European trade goods found at the Madisonville site.[22]
Social hierarchy
[edit]
The rise in socio-political complexity evidenced by the building of substructure mounds and new village layouts may indicate influences from Middle Mississippian cultures down the Ohio River (the north-eastern-most extent of Middle Mississippian was the Prather Complex in the Falls of the Ohio region 95 miles (153 km) away).[23] The differences in ceramics show that Fort Ancient culture was distinct from that of the Middle Mississippian peoples, lacking Mississippian traits such as political centralization and elite social structures.[24]
Although there seem to have been positions of leadership, the Fort Ancient culture appears to have been egalitarian. Grave goods rarely vary between individuals, which shows that social levels were weakly defined. Scholars believe that their societies were organized into groups based on kinship. If social organization was based on kinship, people likely achieved some status by virtue of personal qualities, such as generosity, charisma, and being a good hunter, as well as their deeds. People of higher status were probably leaders of communities and were potentially responsible for organizing trade, settling disputes among other members of the village, and presiding over ceremonies.[10] Evidence indicates that Fort Ancient leadership was more like that of the historic Iroquois, whose egalitarian obligations left leaders to be buried with no more than others of their age.[25]
Ceramics
[edit]Pottery making was primarily the responsibility of women using a technique known as coiling. Potters rolled clay into long, rounded strips, which they used to model the vessel, layering strips on top of each other. The items were then smoothed out internally with a potter anvil (a smooth round stone), and externally with a wooden paddle. Cord-marking and engraving were used to decorate pots in styles according to particular periods and peoples.[26]
At the time, Fort Ancient pottery was known for having thinner walls than preceding Woodland pottery. Common items include large plain cooking jars with strap or loop handles.[2] A hallmark of Fort Ancient pottery is engraved decorations on the rim and neck of the vessels, consisting of a series of interlocking lines, called Guilloché. As this design emerged with the beginning of the Fort Ancient culture in the region, scholars used it as a characteristic to identify the culture.[26]
-
A small pot with guilloché designs
-
A storage pot with an unknown animal as effigy handles
-
A large storage jar with cord-marked decorations and strap handles
Mississippian influences
[edit]During the Early Fort Ancient period, grit (crushed stone) and grog (crushed pottery) were often used as tempering agents, with ground mussel shells occasionally being used. Over time, women increasingly chose mussel shells or a mixture of mussel shells with other agents as the tempering agent. The use of ground shells as a temper is a feature often associated with Mississippian cultures, and its acceptance spread in Fort Ancient culture, moving north and east from the Ohio River and the direction of the closest Mississippian groups in the southwest.
With the change of temper, different vessel forms and decorations became more prevalent; several of them are also strongly associated with Mississippian cultures. Early Fort Ancient vessels were often jug forms with lug handles. By the Middle Fort Ancient period, bowls and plates were being produced more frequently, and artisans added strap handles. Negative painting (a decoration often associated with the Angel phase sites in the Lower Ohio Valley) and Ramey Incised designs (elite motifs associated with the Cahokia polity in Illinois) have been found on some pots. Others show a blending of different styles, for instance, with the engraved guilloché decoration overlaid with negative painting. Archaeological excavations have found examples of non-local pottery from this period as well. The pieces were made from non-local clay sources, and have designs or vessel forms atypical for local wares. A head pot was discovered at the Madisonville site similar to those produced in the Central Mississippi Valley by the peoples of the Middle Mississippian Parkin and Nodena phases. Archaeologists suggest that the change in pottery styles was a result of increased contact with the Mississippian cultures to the south and west of the Fort Ancient peoples.[27][28]
Tools
[edit]
The Fort Ancient peoples made tools from a variety of materials, including stone, bone, horn, shells and antlers. Stone tools have been found more frequently than those of other materials. The culture is known for its distinctive small triangular flint arrowheads and large triangular flint knives. Fort Ancients made hoes for farming from mussel shells. Fort Ancients had also grounded and polished stones into axes to use in felling trees. Most of the flint tools were made from varieties of locally available materials, showing the Fort Ancient peoples either felt no need for it or did not have access to exotic stone varieties through trade routes.[2]
Diet
[edit]The Fort Ancient were primarily a farming and hunting people. Their diet was mainly composed of the New World staples that are known as the three sisters (maize, squash, and beans). This diet was supplemented by hunting and fishing in nearby forests and rivers. Important game species included the black bear, turkey, white tail deer and elk. Archaeologists have found evidence at some sites which suggests that turkeys were kept in pens. The average lifespan during this time period decreased from that of their ancestors. The people were smaller in stature and less able to fend off infectious diseases than previous generations. Archaeological investigations of their cemeteries have shown that almost all of Fort Ancient's people showed pathology of some kind, with a high incidence of dental disease and arthritis.[2]
Sites
[edit]| Site | Image | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Bentley site | A Madisonville horizon (post 1400) archaeological site overlain by an 18th-century Shawnee village located near South Portsmouth in Greenup County, Kentucky.[11] | |
| Buckner site | A Middle Fort Ancient site located in Bourbon County, Kentucky on Strodes Creek. It has two large circular village areas, each surrounding its central plaza and several smaller special use areas to the north and northeast of the site.[11] | |
| Buffalo Indian Village Site | A site with at least two overlapping Mid to Late Fort Ancient villages (1300 to 1600) located near Buffalo, Putnam County, West Virginia along the Kanawha River.[29] | |
| Cleek–McCabe site | A Middle Fort Ancient site located near Walton in Boone County, Kentucky with several components, including two mounds and a village.[11] | |
| Clover site | A Late Fort Ancient Madisonville focus site (the type site for the Clover phase 1550 to 1600) located near Lesage in Cabell County, West Virginia.[30] | |
| Feurt Mounds and Village Site | A site with three burial mounds and an associated village, located in Scioto County, Ohio. It is the type site for the Feurt focus. | |
| Fort Ancient Site | The site is the largest prehistoric hilltop enclosure in the United States with walls spanning three and one-half miles (18,000 ft) in a 100-acre (0.40 km2) complex, built by the Hopewell peoples, who lived in the area from the 1st century BCE to the 6th century CE. Centuries later, during the Fort Ancient period, a village and cemetery were constructed within the embankments. When archaeologists excavated the site in the nineteenth century, they mistakenly believed that the "fort" and the village were built by the same people. It is located in Washington Township, Warren County, Ohio, along the eastern shore of the Little Miami River about seven miles (11 km) southeast of Lebanon on State Route 350.[31] | |
| Fox Farm site | A Manion phase site located near Mays Lick in Mason County, Kentucky. The site consists of a large village complex on a ridge 2.5 kilometres (1.6 mi) south of the Licking River and 10 kilometres (6.2 mi) south of the Ohio River. The site covers 10-to-16-hectare (100,000 to 160,000 m2) and has midden areas up to 80 centimetres (31 in) thick.[11] | |
| Hardin Village site | A Montour phase site located on a terrace of the Ohio River near South Shore in Greenup County, Kentucky. It was occupied from sometime in the early 1500s and abandoned by about 1625. During its occupation, it covered an area of about 4.5-hectare (45,000 m2). Like other Fort Ancient villages, it had a defensive palisade surrounding it, but unlike other sites it does not seem to have had a central oval plaza.[32] | |
| Hobson site | Located 1.5 miles (2.4 km) below Middleport, Ohio on the north bank of the Ohio River. It has minor traces of Archaic, Woodland and Late Prehistoric artifacts. However, the largest component is a village of the Feurt Phase dating to 1100 to 1200 CE.[33] | |
| Leo Petroglyph | A sandstone petroglyph containing 37 images of humans and animals as well as footprints of each, located near the small village of Leo, Ohio in Jackson County, Ohio.[34] | |
| Madisonville site | A Fort Ancient Site located on the banks of the Little Miami River in Mariemont, Ohio. The site includes an effigy mound and the remains of a village. | |
| Ronald Watson Gravel site | A Middle Fort Ancient Anderson focus site located near Petersburg in Boone County, Kentucky, on an inside bend of a meander of the Ohio River.[35][36] | |
| Sand Ridge Site | A Madisonville focus site located along a prominent ridgeline to the west of the old Union Bridge along the road between Cincinnati and Batavia.[37] | |
| Serpent Mound | The Fort Ancient people built the largest effigy mound in the United States according to carbon dating of charcoal found underneath the mound.[38][39] | |
| State Line Site | A Middle Fort Ancient complex of sites west of Elizabethtown, Ohio on both sides of the Indiana/Ohio border,[40] composed of five contributing properties spread out across 8-acre (32,000 m2) of land. Pottery found at the site was found to use shell tempering and had other characteristics such as distinctive styles of painting and the presence of pottery modelled after owls and the human heads, traits which signify contact with Middle Mississippian cultures.[40][41][42][43] | |
| Sunwatch Indian Village | A recreated Fort Ancient village located in Dayton, Ohio. Many archaeological excavations were done here at the park which has revealed much about the Fort Ancient people. | |
| Thompson site | A Croghan phase site located near South Portsmouth, Kentucky in Greenup County, next to the Ohio River across from the mouth of the Scioto River.[11] | |
| Turpin site | An Early Fort Ancient Madisonville focus site located near Newtown in Hamilton County, Ohio. The site includes the remains of a village and multiple burial mounds. |
Contemporaries and neighbors
[edit]To the northeast in present-day Western Pennsylvania, Eastern Ohio and West Virginia were the peoples of the Monongahela culture, who inhabited the Monongahela River Valley from 1050 to 1635.[44] They had a similar lifestyle to the Fort Ancients; as they were also maize agriculturalists and lived in well laid out palisaded villages with central oval plazas, some of which consisted of as many as 50-100 structures. To the northwest of the Fort Ancients were the people of the Oliver phase who lived along the east and west forks of the White River in central and southern Indiana from 1200 and 1450.[45] Their villages were also circular with palisades.[46] Although their sites began in central Indiana, over the years they spread to the southeast toward the Fort Ancients.[45] The Oliver phase people were part of the Western Basin Tradition which also includes the Springwell's phase, the Younge phase, and the Riviere au Vase phases of Northern Ohio and Indiana. The colder weather of the Little Ice Age may have caused inter-group battles over food and other resources, according to some scholars. The crops did not prosper as well during this colder period, causing food shortages for populations that had grown after their introduction. Some studies show that the culture began failing due to poor health conditions.
These groups, along with others such as the Oneota, were once classified as Upper Mississippian cultures under the assumption that they were either Mississippian peoples intruding into these areas, or they were heavily influenced by the Mississippian peoples to their south and east. Today it is thought that these groups were local in situ developments of Late Woodland peoples.[47]
Located 95 kilometres (59 mi) down the Ohio River to the southwest of the westernmost Fort Ancient settlements were the Middle Mississippian culture peoples of the Prather Complex. This stretch of river was an empty buffer zone, possibly for social or political reasons, although it might possibly have been because the narrowing of the alluvial valley between the Falls of the Ohio region near Louisville, Kentucky and the mouth of the Miami River at Cincinnati, Ohio made it less suitable for the intensive maize agriculture practiced by both societies.[48][49]
Possible symbolism
[edit]Many artifacts have been found associated with the Fort Ancients, the most common being four-handled funerary urns, salamanders and snakes.[15] Possible symbolism of the urn may be a connection to common Siouan religious beliefs. At least one artifact containing the Siouan religious symbol known as the medicine wheel (a cross inside of a circle) has been found. This stands, primarily, for the fact that all life sprung from the same place and returns to that source in the end. The four-handled urns may be to evoke that symbol, more so than having any real, practical use.
Two possibilities of the salamander motif can also be explored. One possibility is that, like in Plains Indian culture, salamanders represented boys and turtles represented girls. Mothers would have a special medicine pouch made for one or the other to represent their children and containing the umbilical cord, which they would wear so long as both still lived.[50] The other possibility comes from the Eastern Siouan's, who express a belief that "when a Salamander barks, someone will soon die."[19] As such, the salamander may have been a sort of death omen to the Fort Ancients or had something to do with the door between the living and dead worlds.
The Serpent Burial Mound was made specifically to mirror a constellation known to many Siouan peoples, known as the Snake. It is depicted as swallowing an egg whole, representing the struggle against overwhelming odds for the sake of the people. Furthermore, some Siouan peoples seem to have believed that the stars seen at night were a mirror of the spirit world itself, each one representing an ancestor at peace. Therefore, this mound may have been a special place to bury those with special honors, in order to anchor such people and their descendants to the earth. This symbolic connection to the Snake constellation suggests that this mound may have been especially significant to the Fort Ancients.[50]
References
[edit]- ^ a b c d e Carmean, Kelli (Winter 2009), Points in time: Assessing a Fort Ancient triangular projectile point typology, Southeastern Archaeology, p. 2
- ^ a b c d e f Lepper, Bradley T. (February 2005). Ohio Archaeology:An Illustrated Chronicle of Ohio's Ancient American Indian Cultures. Orange Frazer Press. pp. 198–203. ISBN 978-1-882203-39-0.
- ^ Converse, Robert (2003). The Archaeology of Ohio. The Archaeology Society of Ohio. ISBN 978-0-9744311-0-9.
- ^ Mills, Lisa (2003). Mitochondrial DNA Analysis of the Ohio Hopewell of the Hopewell Mound Group. Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University (Thesis). pp. 123–124.
- ^ Ohio History Connection. "Serpent Mound See the world's most spectacular effigy mound". Ohio History Connection. Retrieved June 20, 2018.
- ^ Lepper, Brad (April 2001). "Ohio's "Alligator"". Timeline. 18. Ohio Historical Society: 2.
- ^ Lepper, Bradley T.; Frolking, Tod A. (2003). "Alligator Mound: Geoarchaeological and Iconographical Interpretations of a Late Prehistoric Effigy Mound in Central Ohio, USA". Cambridge Archaeological Journal. 13 (2): 147–167. doi:10.1017/S0959774303000106. ISSN 0959-7743. S2CID 161534362.
- ^ "The Builders of the Mounds". Spanish Hill. Archived from the original on February 4, 2012. Retrieved 2008-09-12.
- ^ "Ohio Archaeoloy Blog". September 12, 2007. Archived from the original on August 23, 2011. Retrieved 2008-09-11.
- ^ a b "Middle to Late Fort Ancient Society". Archived from the original on 2010-06-21. Retrieved 2011-02-23.
- ^ a b c d e f Sharp, William E. (1996). "Chapter 6:Fort Ancient Farmers". In Lewis, R. Barry (ed.). Kentucky Archaeology. University Press of Kentucky. pp. 162–176. ISBN 978-0-8131-1907-6.
- ^ a b Clark, Jerry E. "Shawnees". The Tennessee Encyclopedia of History and Culture. Retrieved 2011-02-23.
- ^ Peregrine, Peter N.; Ember, Melvin, eds. (2001). "Volume 6 : North America". Encyclopedia of Prehistory. Springer. p. 175. ISBN 978-0-306-46260-3.
- ^ Swanton, John R. (1943). "Siouan Tribes and the Ohio Valley". American Anthropologist. 45: 49–66. doi:10.1525/aa.1943.45.1.02a00050. S2CID 163083465.
- ^ a b c d Ellis, Laura Elizabeth "Investigating the Orchard Site: A Protohistoric Fort AncientSite in West Virginia" 2015
- ^ a b Owen, James & Swanton Dorsey, John R. "A Dictionary of Biloxi & Ofo" 1912
- ^ "Southeastern Prehistory: Mississippian and Late Prehistoric Period". National Park Service. Retrieved 2011-06-16.
- ^ Hale, Horatio "The Iroquois Book of Rites" 1883
- ^ a b Speck, Frank G. "Catawba Texts" 1934
- ^ Collins, Scott Preston "Saponi History"
- ^ Hale, Horatio "Tutelo Tribe & Language" 1883
- ^ Snow, Dean R. (2010). Archaeology of Native North America. Pennsylvania State University, Prentice Hall.
- ^ Munson, Cheryl Ann; McCullough, Robert G., Archaeological investigations at the Prather Site, Clark County, Indiana : 2003 Baseline Archaeological Study (PDF), retrieved 2011-02-23
- ^ "Mississippian and Late Prehistoric Period". Retrieved 2008-09-12.
- ^ Griffin, James B. (1967-04-14). "Eastern North American Archaeology: A Summary". Science. 156 (3772). AAAS: 175–191. Bibcode:1967Sci...156..175G. doi:10.1126/science.156.3772.175. PMID 17741138. S2CID 8989673.
- ^ a b "Fort Ancient Web:Pottery". Archived from the original on 2010-06-21. Retrieved 2011-02-23.
- ^ Cook, Robert Allen (2007). Sunwatch: Fort Ancient Development in the Mississippian World. Tuscaloosa: U of Alabama P. pp. 44–49. ISBN 9780817315900.
- ^ Cook, Robert A.; Fargher, Lane F. (Winter 2008), The Incorporation of Mississippian traditions into Fort Ancient Societies: A Preliminary view of the shift to shell-tempered pottery use in the Middle Ohio Valley, Southeastern Archaeology
- ^ Hoffman, Darla S. (2010). "Buffalo Archeologincal Site". West Virginia Encyclopedia. Retrieved 2011-02-24.
- ^ Maslowski, Robert F. (1991-11-16), Grumet, Robert S. (ed.), National Register of Historic Places Registration: The Clover Site (PDF), National Park Service, retrieved 2010-11-03
- ^ "Fort Ancient Earthworks". Ohio History Central:An Online Encyclopedia of Ohio History. Retrieved 2011-02-24.
- ^ Henderson, A. Gwynn (2008), "Chapter 6:Mississippi Period" (PDF), in David Pollack (ed.), The Archaeology of Kentucky:An update, Kentucky Heritage Council, pp. 830–832, archived from the original (PDF) on 2010-11-17, retrieved 2011-02-25
- ^ Murphy, James L. (1968-09-27). "The Hobson Site: A Fort Ancient Component Near Middleport, Meigs County, Ohio". Kirtlandia (4). Cleveland, Ohio: Cleveland Museum of Natural History: 1–14. hdl:1811/36479. ISSN 0075-6245.
- ^ "Leo Petroglyph". Ohio Historical Society. Archived from the original on 2007-07-05. Retrieved 2011-02-24.
- ^ Huebchen, Karl R. (2006), The Ronald Watson Gravel Site (15Be249): An examination of the Late Woodland/Fort Ancient transition in Boone County, Kentucky (PDF), University of Cincinnati, archived from the original on March 16, 2012
- ^ Applegate, Darlene (2008), "Chapter 5:Woodland period" (PDF), in Pollack, David (ed.), The Archaeology of Kentucky:an update, vol. 1, Kentucky Heritage Council, p. 484, ISBN 978-1-934492-28-4, archived from the original (PDF) on 2010-11-08
- ^ Brady-Rawlins, Kathleen. The O.C. Voss Site: Reassessing What We Know about the Fort Ancient Occupation of the Central Scioto Drainage and Its Tributaries Archived 2012-02-18 at the Wayback Machine. Diss. Ohio State University, 2007. Accessed 2010-06-17.
- ^ Jessica E. Saraceni. "Redating Serpent Mound". Archaeology. 49 (6). Retrieved 2008-09-12.
- ^ "Serpent Mound". Archived from the original on 2010-12-27. Retrieved 2008-09-12.
- ^ a b Gosman, James Howard (2007). "Patterns in Ontogeny of Human Trabecular Bone from Sunwatch Village in the Prehistoric Ohio Valley". Ohio State University. Archived (PDF) from the original on July 20, 2011. Retrieved 2010-04-14.
- ^ Cook, Robert Allen (2007). Sunwatch: Fort Ancient Development in the Mississippian World. Tuscaloosa: U of Alabama P. p. 139. ISBN 9780817315900.
- ^ Owen, Lorrie K. (1999). Dictionary of Ohio Historic Places. Vol. 1. pp. 674–675.
- ^ Brady-Rawlins, Kathleen (2007). "The O.C. Voss Site: Reassessing What We Know about the Fort Ancient Occupation of the Central Scioto Drainage and Its Tributaries". Ohio State University. p. 26. Archived (PDF) from the original on February 18, 2012. Retrieved 2010-04-12.
- ^ "Monongahela culture-AD 1050-1635". Retrieved 2010-01-14.[permanent dead link]
- ^ a b "Geophysical Methods and the Archaeology of Late Prehistoric Central Indiana". Archived from the original on 2010-05-28. Retrieved 2010-02-25.
- ^ Redmond, Brian G. "An Archaeological History of Northeast Ohio Before the Western Reserve: An Archaeological History of Northeast Ohio". Archived from the original on 2010-12-28. Retrieved 2011-02-24.
- ^ Muller, Jon (2009-05-31). Archaeology of the Lower Ohio River Valley. Left Coast Press, Inc. p. 259. ISBN 978-1-59874-451-4.
- ^ Munson, Cheryl Ann; McCullough, Robert G. (2004-10-21). Prather Site (12-CL-4), Clark County, Indiana : The 2003 Baseline Archaeological Survey (PDF). Southeast Archaeological Conference / Midwest Archaeological Conference. St. Louis, Missouri.
- ^ Munson, Cheryl Ann; McCullough, Robert G. (August 2004). Archaeological Investigations at the Prather Site (12-CL-4), Clark County, Indiana : The 2003 Baseline Archaeological Survey (PDF).
- ^ a b Lee, Annette Sharon & Rock, Jim "Dakota/Lakota Star Map Constellation Guidebook: An Introduction to D(L)akota Star Knowledge" 2014
Bibliography
[edit]- Koch, Felix J. (1882–1933): A Visit to Fort Ancient, Ohio Archaeological and Historical Society Publications: Volume 20 [1911], pp. 248–252.
External links
[edit]- Official Fort Ancient Website
- Fort Ancient, Ancient Ohio Trail
- Earthworks Timeline, Ancient Ohio Trail
- Hopewell Ceremonial Earthworks UNESCO World Heritage Nomination
- Ohio History Teachers' page on Fort Ancient
- Fort Ancient Culture
- SunWatch - a restored Fort Ancient village
- Fort Ancient Culture Archived 2010-12-27 at the Wayback Machine, Virtual First Ohioans
- Griffin, James B. (April 1937). "The Chronological Position and Ethnological Relationships of the Fort Ancient Aspect". American Antiquity. 2 (4). Society for American Archaeology: 273–276. doi:10.2307/275464. JSTOR 275464. S2CID 163438897.
- Phillips, Philip (1939). "Chapter 2 : The Upper Mississippi "Phase"" (PDF). Introduction to the Archaeology of the Mississippi Valley (Doctor of Philosophy thesis).
Fort Ancient
View on GrokipediaName and Definition
Etymology and Misnomer
The name "Fort Ancient" originated in the mid-19th century during the pioneering archaeological surveys conducted by Ephraim G. Squier and Edwin H. Davis, who documented the site in their seminal 1848 publication, Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley. They described the extensive hilltop enclosure along the Little Miami River in Warren County, Ohio, as featuring nearly four miles of embankments up to 20 feet high, strategic placement on a terrace defended by ravines, and features like internal ditches and gateways that evoked a fortified military structure built by an ancient, advanced race of mound-builders predating European contact. Squier and Davis explicitly termed it "Fort Ancient" to highlight its apparent defensive character and great antiquity, evidenced by mature forest growth and erosion patterns suggesting centuries of age.[6] This designation proved to be a misnomer on multiple levels, as subsequent research revealed that the earthworks were not constructed by the later Fort Ancient culture but by the preceding Hopewell people around 100 BCE–400 CE. Radiocarbon dating of organic materials from the enclosure's construction layers, combined with artifact analysis showing characteristic Hopewell mica, copper, and obsidian items, confirmed the earlier timeline and ceremonial purpose, including solstice alignments and a possible woodhenge for astronomical observations. The Fort Ancient culture, spanning approximately 1000–1750 CE and characterized by maize agriculture and village life, derived its name from a type-site village located within or near the enclosure's South Fort, but these people occupied and modified the site long after its initial construction without building the primary earthworks.[7] Early 19th-century assumptions, including those by Squier and Davis, linked the enclosure's fort-like appearance to defensive needs of the mound-builders, presuming continuity with later indigenous groups capable of such engineering. These views persisted into the early 20th century until the 1940s–1960s, when excavations at sites like the Madisonville village and radiocarbon assays from charcoal and bone definitively separated the Hopewell builders from the Fort Ancient occupants, reinterpreting the enclosure as a ceremonial complex rather than a military fort.[8]Core Characteristics
The Fort Ancient culture was a late prehistoric horticultural society that developed in the Middle Ohio Valley, encompassing parts of modern-day southern Ohio, northern Kentucky, southeastern Indiana, and western West Virginia, from approximately 1000 to 1750 CE. This culture is defined archaeologically by its reliance on maize-based agriculture as the primary subsistence strategy, the construction of semi-permanent villages, and the widespread use of shell-tempered pottery for cooking and storage. These elements reflect a localized adaptation influenced by broader Mississippian traditions, emphasizing sedentism and resource management in a temperate, river-dominated landscape.[9][10] Key traits of Fort Ancient include a marked increase in population density within aggregated settlements, enabling more intensive land use and social complexity compared to earlier periods. Communities engaged in robust trade networks that connected them to distant regions, importing marine shells from the Gulf of Mexico for beads and gorgets, and copper from the Great Lakes for tools and ornaments, alongside local exchanges of salt and chert. Their adaptation to riverine environments was central, with villages sited on fertile floodplains and terraces of major rivers like the Ohio, Great Miami, and Little Miami, facilitating maize cultivation, fishing, mussel harvesting, and transportation for trade. Shell-tempered pottery, often featuring cordmarked surfaces, guilloche incisions, and forms like tall-necked jars and bowls, supported food processing such as hominy production and storage of surplus crops.[9][10][11] Fort Ancient is distinguished from the preceding Late Woodland cultures (ca. 600–1000 CE), which emphasized mobile hunting-gathering with minimal farming and dispersed small camps, by the rapid transition to maize dominance around 1000 CE that underpinned larger, more permanent villages and diversified economies. This shift, evidenced by carbonized maize remains and stable isotope analyses indicating high maize consumption, represented a fundamental reconfiguration toward agricultural intensification and reduced mobility.[9][10]Chronology and Phases
Early Phase (1000–1250 CE)
The Early Fort Ancient phase, spanning approximately 1000–1250 CE, marked a transitional period in the Middle Ohio River Valley from the preceding Late Woodland era, characterized by a gradual shift toward sedentism and the adoption of maize agriculture as a staple crop. This development occurred in situ among local populations or through small-scale influences from Mississippian groups, with archaeological evidence from sites like Turpin (33HA19) in Ohio showing distinct stratigraphic layers separating Late Woodland (ca. 600–900 CE) occupations from Early Fort Ancient ones beginning around 1050 CE. Small villages emerged along major rivers such as the Ohio, Little Miami, and Great Miami, representing nucleated settlements that supported year-round habitation and early agricultural practices. These communities supplemented maize cultivation with crops from the Eastern Agricultural Complex, including chenopodium and squash, while continuing reliance on hunting (e.g., deer and turkey) and riverine resources like fish and mussels.[9][12] Material culture during this phase reflected a mixed economy and emerging technological adaptations, with plain shell-tempered pottery dominating assemblages, primarily in the form of jars with cordmarked or smooth surfaces, bolstered rims, and occasional curvilinear guilloche motifs suitable for processing hominy and other maize-based foods. At sites like Guard (12D29) in Indiana, over 92% of ceramic vessels were jars, produced at the household level with diameters ranging from 12 to 45 cm, while grit-tempered wares persisted as a holdover from Late Woodland traditions. Projectile points were typically small, triangular, and often notched, crafted from local chert using bipolar reduction techniques, indicating continued emphasis on hunting alongside farming. Subsistence patterns thus balanced early maize dependence—evidenced by carbonized kernels in domestic features—with foraging and fishing, as seen in faunal remains from Guard and Turpin.[9][13] Population growth and increasing sedentism are indicated by village sizes of 1–5 hectares, such as Guard's 2.38-hectare circular layout with 32 structures and a central plaza, or Turpin's 3.25-hectare linear arrangement constrained by local topography, suggesting aggregation into stable communities of dozens to hundreds of individuals. Evidence of structure rebuilding, like at Guard's Structure 16, and repeated occupations at Turpin underscore permanent settlement patterns. Burial practices began showing emerging social differentiation, with interments placed around plazas, within structures, or near reused mounds, sometimes accompanied by artifacts such as Ramey knives; for instance, a young male burial in Guard's Structure 30 included such an item, hinting at status or ritual significance, while up to 30% non-local individuals at Turpin point to migration contributing to demographic expansion.[9]Middle Phase (1250–1450 CE)
The Middle Phase of the Fort Ancient culture (1250–1450 CE) represented a period of peak expansion, with notable increases in population and settlement complexity across the middle Ohio River valley. Building briefly on the agricultural base from the Early Phase, communities experienced a demographic boom that spurred the development of larger, more organized villages, often spanning 2–5 hectares and housing 100–300 residents. Exemplary sites like SunWatch in southwestern Ohio demonstrate this growth through sequential radiocarbon-dated occupations, expanding from scattered structures to over 50 circular or rectangular houses arranged around a central plaza.[14] These settlements were frequently stockaded with wooden palisades, suggesting defensive needs amid population pressures and intergroup interactions.[15] Communal facilities, such as sweat lodges—low, dome-shaped structures used for ritual purification—emerged at key villages, evidencing organized social and ceremonial life. At SunWatch, archaeological features including post molds and hearths confirm the presence of these structures, integrated into the village layout alongside refuse and storage pits.[16] Economically, this phase saw intensified maize processing, with extensive corn cob remains recovered from middens, indicating reliance on cultivated crops to sustain larger groups. Trade networks expanded significantly, facilitating the exchange of locally produced salt from brine springs in northern Kentucky—evidenced by evaporation vessels and processing debris at sites like Pyles Branch—and marine shells sourced from Gulf Coast regions, used for beads and ornaments.[17][18] Material culture shifted with the widespread adoption of cord-marked ceramics, shell-tempered vessels featuring impressed cordage patterns on exteriors, which replaced earlier plain wares and supported food storage and cooking needs. Social differentiation became apparent in burial practices, where flexed or bundle interments in village peripheries included variable grave goods; elite individuals received copper beads, earspools, and shell artifacts, sourced via long-distance exchange, while others had minimal accompaniments. These patterns suggest emerging status hierarchies and possible chiefly leadership, inferred from the concentration of prestige items and centralized village planning.[13][19]Late Phase (1450–1750 CE)
The Late Phase of the Fort Ancient culture, spanning approximately 1450 to 1750 CE, was marked by significant environmental and social pressures that led to adaptive changes and eventual dispersal of communities along the Ohio River valley. Climatic shifts associated with the onset of the Little Ice Age, beginning around 1400 CE, brought cooler temperatures and increased drought frequency, adversely affecting maize-based agriculture that had been central to earlier phases. Tree-ring data from the region indicate spatiotemporal moisture deficits post-1400 CE, which likely reduced crop yields and strained subsistence systems in southeast Indiana and southwest Ohio. Archaeological evidence from village sites shows a corresponding decline in permanent settlements, with many abandoned by the 1600s, reflecting the challenges of maintaining intensive farming under these conditions.[20][21] Concurrent with climatic stress, evidence points to heightened intergroup conflict, as indicated by the presence of palisades and defensive structures at later Fort Ancient sites, such as those in West Virginia and Kentucky. These fortifications, including stockades and embankments, suggest escalating warfare driven by resource competition amid environmental scarcity, with skeletal trauma from raids—such as scalping and projectile wounds—documented at 14th-century sites like Norris Farms in Illinois, a pattern extending into the Late Phase. Indirect European influences began to manifest through trade networks by the 1500s, introducing diseases like smallpox that spread via intermediary Native groups before direct contact, contributing to population declines without leaving clear archaeological traces of epidemics. Protohistoric sites, particularly the Madisonville horizon in Ohio (ca. 1400–1650 CE), yield European-derived goods such as brass coils, iron fragments, glass beads, and kettle parts, evidencing early integration of these items into local economies.[22][23][24] In response to these pressures, Fort Ancient groups adapted by shifting toward greater mobility and diversified subsistence, transitioning from large, year-round villages to smaller, seasonal camps focused on hunting large game like bison, which had migrated into the Ohio Valley via natural corridors. Sites like Big Bone Lick in Kentucky (1400–1650 CE) show increased emphasis on hide processing, as evidenced by bifacial endscrapers, alongside continued but reduced maize cultivation. Village sizes diminished, with house structures enlarging to support extended family units in more dispersed patterns, as seen at Madisonville and Fox Farm sites. By the late 1600s, these adaptations proved insufficient, leading to widespread site abandonments across the core region; archaeological surveys reveal no occupied Fort Ancient villages by the 1700s, with evidence suggesting possible northward migration or assimilation into Algonquian-speaking groups like the Shawnee, though direct links remain tentative.[21][25][24]Geographical Extent
Core Regions
The core regions of the Fort Ancient culture were centered in the Middle Ohio River Valley, encompassing southern Ohio and northern Kentucky. These areas formed the primary heartland, where the majority of settlements were established along the Ohio River and its major tributaries, including the Little Miami and Scioto Rivers.[9][11] This geographical focus spanned approximately 50,000 square kilometers, with the highest concentration of activity in southwest Ohio's Lower Miami Valley and Scioto Valley.[9] The environmental setting of these core regions featured fertile alluvial floodplains, which provided rich, tillable soils essential for intensive maize agriculture that underpinned the culture's subsistence economy.[9] Riverine locations offered reliable access to water, fish, and mussel resources, while facilitating transportation and inter-regional trade networks.[26] Villages were typically situated on broad terraces or floodplains adjacent to these waterways, as exemplified by sites near the confluence of the Little Miami and Ohio Rivers, where natural constraints like bluffs and ridges influenced settlement layouts.[9] Archaeological evidence reveals dense clusters of villages in these core areas, with notable concentrations around modern-day Cincinnati in Hamilton County and Chillicothe in the Scioto Valley, reflecting the culture's adaptation to optimal environmental niches.[9] Over 80 villages and related sites have been documented in southern Ohio alone, indicating a high population density supported by agricultural productivity.[9] Site distribution in these regions shifted across the Early, Middle, and Late phases, with increasing nucleation along river corridors during the Middle phase.[9]Peripheral Areas and Foci
The Fort Ancient culture encompasses four principal regional variants, known as foci, which illustrate localized adaptations across its territory: the Madisonville Focus in the upper Ohio River valley, the Anderson Focus in central Ohio, the Baum Focus in the Scioto Valley, and the Feurt Focus in southern Ohio. These foci emerged as extensions from the core regions in southwestern Ohio, reflecting diverse responses to environmental, social, and cultural influences while maintaining shared traits such as shell-tempered ceramics and maize-based subsistence. Archaeologists define these variants primarily through differences in pottery styles, burial practices, and settlement layouts, as established in early classifications of the culture.[27] The Madisonville Focus exhibits pronounced Mississippian influences, including shell-tempered pottery with bolstered rims and the incorporation of Mississippian-style shell gorgets in burials, suggesting enhanced trade and cultural exchange with southern groups; it extends into northern Kentucky, where sites like Florence feature heavier fortifications such as robust stockades, likely reflecting defensive needs in peripheral settings amid interactions with neighboring Mississippian communities. In contrast, the Anderson Focus features grit- or shell-tempered vessels with distinctive guilloche incised designs and cordmarked surfaces, emphasizing regional stylistic elaboration in central Ohio settlements. The Baum Focus, concentrated in the Scioto Valley, is marked by early-phase ceramics with folded rims, pinched lips, and incised decorations on cordmarked bodies, indicating a transitional development from local Woodland traditions. The Feurt Focus in southern Ohio highlights similar transitional traits with a focus on riverine adaptations.[9][24][28] Beyond these core foci, the Fort Ancient culture's influence reaches into peripheral areas of Indiana, West Virginia, and southern Illinois, where sparser archaeological sites point to trade outposts rather than full-scale villages. In southeast Indiana, sites like Guard demonstrate early village formations with mixed ceramic traditions, facilitating exchange networks linking core Ohio settlements to Mississippian centers. Along West Virginia's Kanawha and Big Sandy rivers, isolated components show similar triangular projectile points and cordmarked pottery, evidencing cultural diffusion through riverine trade routes. In southern Illinois, near the Ohio River, artifacts such as marine shell beads indicate indirect connections to larger Mississippian polities like Cahokia, underscoring the role of these outlying zones in broader regional interactions.[9]Society and Economy
Social Structure
The social structure of Fort Ancient communities was primarily kin-based, organized around clans or lineages that influenced residence patterns and social interactions, with evidence suggesting possible matrilineal descent in some groups.[17] Village layouts, often featuring circular arrangements with central plazas surrounded by clustered houses and burial rings, imply a decentralized governance system led by elders or councils through consensus rather than hereditary chiefs, as inferred from the equitable distribution of resources and lack of monumental elite architecture.[9] Leadership roles likely focused on coordinating agriculture, trade, defense, and dispute resolution, with personal achievements in hunting or diplomacy conferring status rather than formal hierarchy.[17] Archaeological evidence indicates limited social inequality, particularly in burial practices that differentiate higher-status individuals through associations with prestige items. Differential burials, such as those containing large quantities of mica sheets or marine shell artifacts like conch shell beads and gorgets, suggest the existence of elites who controlled access to exotic trade goods from distant regions, including the Gulf Coast and Great Lakes.[29] For instance, at sites like Clark Rockshelter, an adult burial accompanied by abundant mica and shell items reflects ritual mourning and high social standing, while similar patterns at Madisonville and Hardin Village include copper ornaments and Ramey knives in select graves, pointing to status linked to trade networks.[9] These disparities became more pronounced in the Middle and Late Phases (1250–1750 CE), where clustered family cemeteries and secondary bundle burials with goods imply evolving lineage-based prestige, though overall society remained relatively egalitarian without rigid class divisions.[17] Gender roles were divided along complementary lines, with women primarily responsible for agriculture, wild plant gathering, and pottery production, as evidenced by the association of shell-tempered ceramics with household contexts and skeletal analyses showing wear patterns consistent with repetitive manual tasks.[17] Men focused on hunting large game like deer and elk, fishing, long-distance trade, and external affairs such as raiding or diplomacy, supported by artifact distributions like projectile points in male-associated burials and isotopic evidence of varied protein sources in male skeletons.[9] This division likely reinforced kinship ties, with women managing domestic and subsistence economies while men facilitated inter-community exchanges, contributing to the heterarchical nature of Fort Ancient society.[17]Subsistence Patterns
The Fort Ancient people relied primarily on agriculture as the foundation of their subsistence economy, cultivating the "three sisters" crops of maize, beans, and squash in intercropped fields that maximized soil fertility and yield. Maize, in particular, became a dietary staple by around 1000 CE, with isotopic analyses of human remains from sites like Madisonville indicating it contributed approximately 50-60% of caloric intake, reflecting intensive farming practices adapted to the fertile river valleys of the Ohio region.[17][30][31] This agricultural base was supplemented by diverse foraging and protein-gathering activities, including hunting white-tailed deer and wild turkey as primary game animals, fishing for species like catfish in rivers such as the Ohio, and collecting nuts like hickory and walnut. These pursuits followed seasonal patterns, with spring and summer focused on crop tending, fall dedicated to harvesting both cultivated plants and wild nuts, and winter emphasizing hunting to stockpile meat for lean periods. Labor in these activities was divided among community members to ensure efficient resource management throughout the year.[17][30] Resource specialization included salt production at natural licks and springs, such as Big Bone Lick in Kentucky, where communities evaporated brackish water in ceramic vessels over fires to create salt for dietary supplementation and food preservation. This salt was traded regionally across the Ohio Valley, facilitating economic exchanges with neighboring groups and underscoring the Fort Ancient adaptation to local mineral resources.[17][32][33]Settlement and Architecture
Fort Ancient settlements were typically organized as nucleated villages enclosed by stockades, ranging from circular to rectangular in layout and housing 50 to 200 structures arranged around a central plaza that served communal functions such as ceremonies and gatherings.[9][34] These villages were strategically positioned near river floodplains to facilitate agriculture and resource access, reflecting subsistence patterns centered on maize cultivation and foraging.[17] Housing consisted of semi-subterranean or wall-trench structures, typically subrectangular or rectangular with some circular examples, averaging 25 to 35 square meters in floor area, constructed using wattle-and-daub walls supported by wooden posts set in shallow basins or trenches.[9] Archaeological evidence from post molds, hearths, and burned daub fragments indicates thatched roofs and interior features like central fire pits, with some later examples incorporating rectangular forms or multi-room extensions for extended families.[34] In the Middle and Late phases, houses grew larger, with Late phase examples reaching up to 133 square meters (1430 square feet) in floor area, often rebuilt multiple times on the same spot over a village's 10- to 50-year occupation span.[17] Defensive features evolved over time, with palisades of upright wooden posts encircling villages becoming more common in the Middle phase (1250–1450 CE) and incorporating bastions or projections by the Late phase (1450–1750 CE), suggesting responses to regional conflicts evidenced by embedded projectiles and skeletal trauma.[34] These stockades, sometimes paired with ditches, enclosed residential areas but were absent from smaller hamlets or temporary sites. Non-residential settlements included specialized activity areas such as salt production works, where brine from natural springs was evaporated in ceramic pans or heated basins to produce salt for dietary and trade purposes, as seen at sites like Big Bone Lick.[17]Material Culture
Ceramics and Pottery
Fort Ancient ceramics primarily consist of shell-tempered earthenware vessels that evolved significantly across the culture's phases, reflecting adaptations in technology and interaction with neighboring groups. In the early phase (ca. 1000–1250 CE), pottery was predominantly grit- or limestone-tempered, featuring undecorated or cord-marked surfaces on jars equipped with lugs for handling.[35] By the middle phase (ca. 1250–1450 CE), shell temper became dominant, with globular jars incorporating thick strap handles and decorations such as curvilinear or rectilinear guilloche incisions, line-filled triangles, and chevrons on necks and rims.[35][28] The late phase (ca. 1450–1750 CE) saw standardized, largely undecorated shell-tempered forms, including pie-crust rim treatments on jars, colanders, and occasional face pots or bottles.[35] Common vessel forms encompassed restricted-orifice jars for cooking and storage, open bowls for serving, and pans for processing foods, with miniature variants possibly serving ritual purposes.[28][13] Stylistic variations in pottery correspond to regional foci, such as the Anderson focus in southwestern Ohio with its guilloche-decorated wares, the Feurt focus in central Ohio featuring line-filled triangle motifs, and the Madisonville focus in northern Kentucky and southern Ohio emphasizing plain, robust forms.[36] These differences highlight localized production practices while indicating broader cultural homogeneity within the Fort Ancient tradition.[36] Production techniques involved hand-building vessels through coiling, where cylindrical clay ropes were stacked and smoothed, followed by surface treatments like paddle-stamping with cord-wrapped paddles to create textured cord-marked exteriors or smoothing for plain finishes.[13][28] Rims were often thickened via folding, stripping, or bolstering for added durability, and decorations were applied through incising, trailing, punctation, or appliqué before firing in open pits under oxidizing conditions at temperatures below 850°C, resulting in porous, low-fired ceramics.[35][13] Shell temper, derived from crushed freshwater mussel shells, enhanced vessel strength and thermal shock resistance, a trait adopted through Mississippian influences evident in southwestern Ohio sites by the middle phase.[36][28] Ceramics served essential domestic functions, including cooking stews over open fires, storing dry goods like maize in their porous interiors, and serving meals in communal settings, as indicated by vessel residues and contextual associations at village sites.[13][28] Beyond local use, pottery participated in exchange networks, with non-local sherds—such as Mississippi Plain styles comprising up to 10% of assemblages—suggesting trade or migration that distributed vessels or ideas across the middle Ohio Valley and into peripheral areas.[35] These exchanges underscore the cultural significance of ceramics in fostering social ties and economic interactions among Fort Ancient communities.[36]| Phase | Key Types/Series | Temper | Surface/Decoration | Representative Forms |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Early (1000–1250 CE) | Baum, Jessamine | Grit, limestone | Cord-marked, plain; minimal incision | Jars with lugs |
| Middle (1250–1450 CE) | Anderson, Feurt, Fox Farm | Shell, grit-shell | Cord-marked or smoothed; guilloche incisions, lip notching | Globular jars with strap handles, bowls |
| Late (1450–1750 CE) | Madisonville | Shell | Mostly plain; rare pie-crust rims, punctations | Jars, colanders, bottles |