a pets T ip : gs a hi i eras abet i em a ty ; Ha { ae a | a * < se!) 2 2 nt Son 2 ee} == - = 41 Aibemanrie: Net impressed’ 3555 set ae See ee ees 43 Albemarle’ Simpleystamped=s 9s - 2 ae a a= ar eee 43 PIDEOIATIC NSCTAPCOS 2 = 2 cs Ee ee Prete eB A hee 44 OMIeKADOMNRY SETIES none aS ke ee eS te Sey 44 Chickahominy Fabric Impressed__--...-.------+-.------- 44 Chickahominy, Cord, Markedee_ 1. 5)3 0024 Socetocteat® 46 Potts Net Impressed and Roughened___--....--...---+--- 46 Roanoke Simple Stamped.) =. *.us oe coe ee 47 RUSHERS Milbe eo eae oes 2 Se ee ee a ee Ee 47 IRG@tis SCRA DCUS 2-22 ome tte Oe a OPS hye ee 48 Potts Gord- Wrapped (DOWwel. <2 8 cen pe A eke we ose 48 Vo4 Ed SEAGIG RS 2g Co ia a ae laa, aE reli natn pier, mye, WO On Tae Sem 49 Clarksville Net and Fabric Roughened_--_-__-------------- 50 Clarksville, Pabrice Impressed 2.32 cn a ey 3 endo 51 Clarksville: Cord «Marked .. 2. 2 #3. 208 So tect eh oe 52 ROP REREMIGt ane eater ey er he er es Oe ee 52 ClarksvilenCombede. 0 nae ec eee Se oo eerie 53 Clarksville Corn-Cob Roughened_-_._._------------------ 53 Mares ye Orecke Seriese eae ek eee ee en ce ee te, nee ere 54 EAR CE VRC REO RNENAII) o.oo ne hag oe ee ee i 55 peimen Isiangd-Cord. Warked.-.-- 2-0 28... oe oes 56 We wieruiv Cr SCrled seen are een a any eee ine ee nt oe eee 56 New River Knot Roughened and Net Impressed _-_-_-_------ 57 Newoktiver Cord Warkede o-oo eee ee a8 ee oe 58 New niver Fabric’ impressed) 2: oe ee 58 INC WHIVIVer PIG eee. 2 oe eee ee eee ee ek eee 59 A Related Shell-tempered Type: Keyser Cord Marked_---- 60 BRIS MO CONE SERIES a6 oot Se occa See ee ee ee et St 60 Pottery Hill Net Impressed and Roughened__.______------ 61 Prince George Babrie Impressed. 2-2. 2 Sees Fee eee 62 Prnes Georpesword Marken: - © 5 2o ee 63 or WCE GeO ee bet LON el ey oe at, na eh ae ek 63 PRM MeGree SICEADOM: ooo 2c% bose tee ecole es 64 Prinee: George Simple Stamped: ...2...........2.+s-=---- 64 IV BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [Bull. 160 The ceramic study—Continued Pottery series and type descriptions—Continued PAGE Radtord: Series 422). 25 2: oes See ee ee cet es ee 64 Radford Knot Roughened and Net Impressed____-_------- 64 Radford: Gord: Marked. 22" 2. ee oe ae ee 67 A Related Limestone-tempered Type: Page Cord Marked_- 67 iRadiord Habricubmpressed sae ss ee ee ee ee 68 RadfordsPlaing..2) sae eee Ss 2 ee ee ee 68 Stony Creek ‘Series2) 30 Ole oe ss ae ee eee 69 Stony~Creek-Cord=Marked'*- ==". 22 ee eee 69 Stony: Creek-Habric: Inipressed 32 22 =e ee eee 71 Stony Creek Net Impressed and Roughened_------------- 72 Stony~Creek- Simple Stamped se2s-=25 2 aes oe ee eee 73 Nottowaysincised sao 22st toe eee ee 73 Stony-Creek*Plaine2< 22 Sas ee0 esse eee eee 74 Rivanna Scraped= > = Sas. eee eae ee 74 Miscellancoustpottery aby es see ee 75 Cornett: Complicated Stamped*22*22 "22" 225 -—--- eeeas 73 South-Central Unclassified Series --___-_----------------- 75 Clay-Sherd-tempered* Plain? 322s == 2-2 eee 75 Seriation*studies and céramic-arcas®— 5 = ee ee 76 Methodology ==~ 22% 2325322 ee ts See ee ee ee 76 Potts sitevexcavationss 2 ee ee 80 Coastal Virginia;CeramicrArea!: == 225 Pie hee See 89 Southeastern VirginiayCeramie Areay 22 202 ee ee 94 Central and North-Central Virginia Ceramic Area_----_-------- 99 Allegheny ‘GeramicAreas:-30---- Se ce - tee oe ee ee 103 TheSouthern*Divisionse= fesse on = eee eee 103 tthe) NortherneDivision=== 252522 es == === == ee one 107 South-Central) Virginia:Ceramic Areas**2s"2"2 22 ee ee 108 Comparative analysis of surrounding areas and Virginia__-------------- 113 The position of Virginia*in eastern archeology—-=-—====------~=—--=—==—— 141 Appendix 1. Tables of pottery classifications with percentage occurrences of each: pottery type'arranged’ by ‘sites2: 2224-22 - a= ee ee 146 Appendix 2. An Analysis of Projectile Points and Large Blades, by C. G. Holland= 22-22-2222 s2cc2esestts 45 fe fee ee 165 lsiterature cited: 4.42: 5225252 6242 oee0 oe ee 192 oor © he 10. 14. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. aig 18. 19. 20. 21. ILLUSTRATIONS PLATES (All plates follow p. 196) . a, Whitehall Rock Shelter; b, Carr’s Brook site in bottom land. . a, Marlow Lakes site under cultivation; 0, Lipscomb site. . a, Pottery Hill site; b, Stony Creek 4 site. . Albemarle Series: @—o, Albemarle Fabric Impressed. . Albemarle Series: a-n, Albemarle Cord Marked; g, a basal sherd. . Albemarle Series: a—n, Albemarle Cord Marked; g, Albemarle Net Im- pressed ; h—k, Albemarle Scraped ; 1, Albemarle Plain. . Chickahominy Series: a—i, Chickahominy Fabric Impressed; f, i, an incised variety on fabric-impressed surface. . Chickahominy Series: a—e, Chickahominy Cord Marked; f-i, Potts Net In- pressed and Roughened. . Chickahominy Series: a—e, Roanoke Simple Stamped; f-i, Potts Cord- Wrapped Dowel; j, Sussex Plain ; k-1, Potts Scraped. Clarksville Series: a-i, Clarksville Net and Fabrice Roughened; jf, m, Clarksville Fabric Impressed; k, 1, Clarksville Cord Marked; n—p, Scraped interiors of Clarksville Series sherds. Clarksville Series: Rims only of Clarksville Fabric Impressed and Clarks- ville Net and Fabric Roughened. Marcey Creek Series: a—k, Marcey Creek Plain; e, h, Lugs of Marcey Creek Plain; f-k, Fabric or net impressions on the flat bases of Marcey Creek Plain; 1, m, Selden Island Cord Marked. New River Series: a-e, New River Cord Marked; f-h, New River Plain; i-k, New River Knot Roughened and Net Impressed. Prince George Series: a—d, Prince George Fabric Impressed; e-h, Prince George Cord Marked. Prince George Series: a—h, Pottery Hill Net Impressed and Roughened; a and ¢, exteriors with 6 and d the interiors of same sherds, showing finger pressing. Radford Series: a—j, Radford Knot Roughened and Net Impressed; k-1, Radford Fabrice Impressed. Radford Series: a—b, Page Cord Marked; c-g, Radford Cord Marked; h, Radford Plain; i, incisions on Radford Knot Roughened and Net Im- pressed. Stony Creek Series: a—r, Stony Creek Fabric Impressed. Stony Creek Series: a—j, Stony Creek Cord Marked; e-f, basal sherds. Stony Creek Series: a—c, Stony Creek Net Impressed and Roughened; d-e, Stony Creek Plain; f-k, Stony Creek Simple Stamped; /-p, Nottoway Incised. Miscellaneous pottery types: a—f, Clay-sherd tempered sherds from Potts site; f, basal sherd; g-i, check-stamped sherds from Potts site; j-m, mis- cellaneous incised sherds from Potts site. v 22. 23. 24, 25. 26. 20. 28. 29. 30. BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [Bull. 160 South-Central Ceramic Area unclassified sherds: a—d, fabric impressed ; e-j, cord marked; k, simple stamped with a thong-wrapped paddle; J, punctate design; m—n, incised design. Sherds from Cornett site, Va.: a—c, Cornett Complicated Stamped; d, fabric impressed; e-f, incised; g, h, punctate; i, interior scraped; j—l, Net and Knot Roughened ; m, n, applique strips along the neck. Projectile points: a, Type A, Small Triangular; 0, Type B, Medium Trian- gular. Projectile points: a, Type C, Triangular; 6b, Type D, Crude Triangular. Projectile points: a, Type H, Pentagonal; 6b, Type F’, Lanceolate. Projectile points: a, Type G, Notched Base; 0, Type H, Stubby Barbed. Projectile points: a, Type I, Notched Stemmed; 0, Type J, Ovoid Base. Projectile points: a, Type K, Contracting Stem; 6, Type L, Parallel-sided Stemmed. Jrojectile points: a, Type M, Side-notched; 0, Type O, Eared or Corner Notched. TEXT FIGURES PAGE 1. Map of archeological sites of the study__-----.------------------- 7 2. Ground plan of excavations at Potts site to show relationship of the blocks and cross-section profile of the site-_-_---.---------------- 27 3. Albemarle Pottery Series: Typical rim profiles and vessel shapes- - -- - 39 4, Chickahominy Pottery Series: Typical rim profiles and vessel shapes_ 45 5. Clarksville Pottery Series: Typical rim profiles and vessel shapes- _- -- 49 6. Marcey Creek Pottery Series: Typical rim profiles and vessel shapes_ 54 7. New River Pottery Series: Typical rim profiles and vessel shapes- --- 56 8. Prince George Pottery Series: Typical rim profiles and vessel shapes_ 60 9. Radford Pottery Series: Typical rim profiles and vessel shapes------ 65 10. Stony Creek Pottery Series: Typical rim profiles and vessel shapes_-__ 70 11. Pottery type seriated sequences of the stratigraphic excavations of the Potts site: 2. 2-3. 2 feseeit. bee fee OE Se es ea eee 82 12. Temper study of the pottery from the Potts site excavations__-_-- 84 13. Surface treatment study of the pottery from the Potts site excavations - 85 14. Ceramic areas of Virginia with the sites located by symbol only_---- 90 15. Seriated pottery type sequence of the sites of the Coastal Virginia Céramic ‘Areal saeee Pa seyentirie ls Se hoe Aas See eee 91 16. Graphic plot of pottery types from excavations at Briarfield site___- 93 17. Seriated pottery type sequence of the sites of the Southeastern Vir- ginia Ceramic Area._-_..22-.2s2-..=5--46saetee_ 2 95 18. Seriated pottery type sequence of the sites of the Central and North- Central:Virgina-Ceramic Areazct. Nee wopog sejbuy uolsesS yUADH 4ahaw jo} ph iPthed, OA ee Feaeia ae] Taal ber ae) S ue J Pa te —podsly j1omedoy, cs OPEL LE! s440g 2. < ~ >. y uunyong ae: & feme, 5} #0415 apse G3u3HOnhOw & “Siwavs OdevHOS “Dent GINIHONOwW @ Cisc3uem 02 oF oulne Gddvul8 eis Bivie OdnuvN-ONOD GISSIudmI-L 3m “Diusva 30020 J5wOFD BOVOIS 3ow020 O1SS3udmi-iae Bowo39 “3aN2 u33u0 mivoe O3NeYA-OHNOD OBSSIwdMI-L aN "OiwGwa ont -av2 Gaioe Jucwvow muasene AWIMOHVEOIHD $1108 AMIFOMWHOIND 22Niwe «DONS «BONS BomiNe JH AwaLiog 2nied AwO.s Anois W222 AnoLe MB2UD ANOLS 23u2 ANOUS M33u2 ANOLE a : 4 . 1 : ' H . 1 ‘ . i t 4 2 , \ ' ‘ = 2 == ! ) ’ a = any 8 2 = = . va-a8 ‘ ' = ad = I . Ld = ' . ® ' be ia = ‘ we ' ’ osst =n ‘= os s = = PSRs A ‘is ‘2 = 2 tim i} A ‘ C iy A Ha ‘ i oH I: rat Ca 7 ' ’ man = fey ca = = meee Cd s ‘ma’ im! : si-es Fy ' ; A , re is 1 p TE rt H " = é ; ‘oe = | om \ are ® it me? H 2 <=> <= =! a oma | ’ , Hi ! ‘ elt i ui H te hoe 5 ‘ = 4 =: = ee bend ” 1H \ ns | ii ‘e te ‘= 3 aim ‘ z= ‘ ‘oun at fom ‘mh a ‘a; som 4 , @ tot com 3 c pz-t2 ig ot Ss ‘ ‘ nc a ray ; H nH i hog H " A " tt Ps sessasvesssasosesesssss] to! AO ' HH e > i ' [ped Hot HOF ’ i He ,ooy hf 1 HE Hi i om; ! u ae ‘ a ‘ tom} ‘cD! Psssasssovsssvass] HH ' HY oo om ‘ot ' ‘e, H ‘om! Mw oi-0 et ' hel H F ' r) Bie 2 ' nt ' ' ‘ 4 SH $e ‘ ‘— "7 a ‘om ’ oH _ Sa! te! ‘at js: Py see te H i ; leat . . Soeat on rr Hie nm in ‘ : Ties A m | Hel j : H “ 4 uv ' . tu —— co : ico! to! io fot BH Het tot =) Q yess 15} 5 } oa -ae He H H ' ii oy eet cam st 6 t= hh [st th fese=3) HI ;o% ? oy 1! 1} io p <= ‘o} q 1t-8) Hi ' ' : : ' t ‘ ny ot ms we H 1 ' . ay i — — oJ iol o i= ‘oF be) oS Fi ‘o! > | i-9 i i = = ; perf nq re i ti i iat es Ha * = onmerss Hol Ny — i 1-H ie: HE = Haat tf Ht a 2-01 A ' : i t ‘ : H rm ; : i! uw —— faa ; a : oa} {01 ao Hel an ' r) 18 ey — 5 i Gi-s) . ' ' ' ' oe « ray ‘ * i Hi iH io! Nay i —— It} " Hel ‘o! to 2 —— 7 iH dor : fit i ' f 5 : He to ; 4 m Ta ca i y 18) , OOD | ‘o} ‘qm; ; como; ' 'D am co ‘a, ! ie , om! ‘aD, nat i 6-68 ; Hit ' ot H : : ny 4 ; i tt { ria HH y = = | ‘i aor | mane | ’ = = = = = a: ‘a! nt zi-or i ' ; a ‘ i ‘ : ba m rt : j aii : = nz) =) ia iim! & = = mes = ‘om! os = a ou 1 1 1 1 tay, ‘ q ' ' ts rah 1 ciaticd ane 4 B 1 HOM —2> =] Ure) —' ny =) ar 10! 1 ' 9 SS ‘0; a at 6-2 os 7 : tt t : " sis 1 rm HH H a it hat — =I Hu —— is a to} tf Mi = = S ae ' wt var H oo H i. H * A a bau ; aun } ‘0; ‘on doom a oo orp it @ o a tt u-01 ‘t Hes mn re j tat ; H if vt HH : [orev ‘om } om cap / ap } ’ mw om ‘ to s yh v u 4 meee aa “ ‘ ; t , oy : = : Rvans] A CERAMIC STUDY OF VIRGINIA ARCHEOLOGY 83 type varies from 35.9 to 38.1 to 43.0 percent. The decline in this type would suggest the shift in popularity from the round, gravel-tem- pered wares of the Prince George Series to other series and types, especially Potts Net Impressed and Roughened. Ordinarily pottery does not shift from one type in a series to a similar type in a different series (i. e., here the pottery shifts from the round, gravel-tempered Prince George Series to the shell-tempered Chickahominy Series, but the change of surface treatment does not fluctuate immediately). The significance of this trend would suggest the need for some explana- tion besides mere slow, internal cultural change from one style of pottery to another. At first this factor was considered difficult to interpret. Questions arose: What caused this sudden shift in the three lower levels of Block H-I to a higher percentage of the Chicka- hominy Series instead of the high percentage of the Prince George Series found in the lowest levels of Block J-K-L-M? How could two strata cut so close to each other show such different ceramic trends? The questions are possibly answered by a study of some of the minority types—the sudden introduction of clay-sherd-tempered pot- tery, a type foreign to Potts site and Virginia asa whole. Insufficient sherds were obtained to describe the sherds as a series and unfortu- nately these sherds do not appear to be identical to some of the estab- lished clay-sherd-tempered pottery types of the Southeast. How- ever, there is no doubt the material is evidence of trade or an intrusive influence. At the same time clay-sherd-tempered pottery appeared in the site, the use of shell-tempered wares increased considerably. In all levels of Block J-K-—L-M shell-tempered pottery occurred only in limited amounts. The same is true for the lower levels of Block D-E. However, in the three lower levels of Block H-I, containing 1.3, 4.5, and 1.2 percent clay-sherd-tempered pottery, and the two lowest levels of Block N, containing 7.9 percent and 1.5 percent clay- sherd-tempered pottery, the presence of the shell-tempered type, Potts Net Impressed and Roughened, increased considerably. In these re- spective levels Potts Net Impressed and Roughened is 30.3, 50.0, and 31.9 percent in Block J-K—L-M and 10.5 and 36.6 percent in Block N. Eleven clay-sherd-tempered sherds appear in the 22- to 24-inch level of Block D-E. Since this level, in spite of the combination of mate- rials, produced only 45 sherds, the percentage calculation is an inaccu- rate account of the pottery trends. Although the increase of Potts Net Impressed and Roughened is not as prominent in this level and Block D-E as in the other two blocks, it nevertheless shows the same correlations suggested in Blocks H-I and N. In other words, the fact that clay-sherd-tempered sherds are only in these few levels, and then only as trade materials intrusive into the local ceramic tradi- tions of the region, helps explain an outside influence bringing in asso- ciated ideas, which suddenly cause a shift from one pottery series to 84 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [Bull. 160 (0-12 IN PNUD Le RRS 13-15 Basra at se Rs mee | eye sea ee ates et tao BS Bee) BLOCK Ww 16-18 19-20 BLOCK 0-E - = = °o ° ~ es BLOCK J-K-L-M ' 1 1 O10 20% SHELL ROUNDED GRAVEL MEDIUM -FINE CLAY-SHERD SAND FicurE 12.—Temper study of the pottery from the Potts site excavations. another. The increased importance of this impact from the outside is shown in the sequence for the entire site (fig. 11). Except for the aforementioned sudden shift in pottery types and series, nothing unusual is noted in any particular level of Block N. Block D-E shows such a low percentage of the Prince George Series and an increase in both the Stony Creek and the Chickahominy Series, there is little doubt that this part of the site was occupied more in- tensely at a later time than the area covered by Block J-K-L-M. The most unusual feature of Block D-E is the appearance in several levels of Bold-Check-Stamped pottery on a crushed quartz temper, tan paste (pl. 21, g-z). There is little doubt that this material is also in- trusive trade materials from the South, probably North Carolina, as will be discussed in detail in the comparative sections. No similar sur- 1 1 1 1 1 ' j ' tir 3s NET IMPRESSED CORD-MARKEO PLAIN FABRIC- SCRAPED SIMPLE- CHECK © © 20% & ROUGHENED IMPRESSED STAMPED STAMPED Figure 13.—Surface treatment study of the pottery from the Potts site excavations. face treatment is found in other levels of this site or at other sites in Virginia. The decoration is not on any of the local pottery series. ' The only other unusual feature of the Potts excavations is the ap- pearance of one sherd of steatite-tempered plain pottery in the 21-inch level of Block H. The sherd can be typed as Marcey Creek Plain. The occasional sporadic appearance of steatite-tempered wares throughout various sites in Virginia, regardless of the pottery typical to the site or the time position in the seriated sequence, presents interesting prob- lems. At the close of the report this situation might become more meaningful. From the standpoint of the Potts site, the sherd is not a local ware and steatite is not found locally. It is suggested that the sherd might be from a vessel traded at the same time the clay-sherd- tempered pottery is intrusive since both are common to the combined 19 to 21-inch level of Block H-I. Before the blocks were seriated the pottery types from each level and block were broken down into temper studies (fig. 12; tables 5-6) and surface finishes (fig. 13; tables 5-6) just to see if this information 86 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [Bull. 160 would add anything to the interpretation of culture change in the area. The surface treatments of all sherds by levels and blocks are difficult to evaluate properly. It is the opinion of the author that it is method- ologically unsound for the purposes of seriating sites in an area like Virginia (a peripheral area with many crossroads of influence) to lump all surface treatments together regardless of associated temper or types of ware. Nevertheless, the data was extracted and the per- centages presented for future reference. Within each block group (i. e., D-E, H-I, J-K-L-M, N) the trend of surface treatments ran from a high percentage of net-impressed and roughened surfaces in the lower levels to a decline in popularity in the upper levels. At the same time fabric-impressed surfaces increase from around 5 percent in the lower levels to as much as 35 percent in the upper levels. The other surface techniques do not show a constant trend but instead come in slowly, blossom, and then fade out so irregu- larly without much trend that it is almost impossible to see any signifi- cance in this type of analysis of surface treatments. This approach mainly shows that in this part of Virginia, regardless of the ware characteristics of temper, firing, and paste, the surface treatments taken as a whole tend to show decrease in popularity from net- impressed and net-roughened surfaces to an increase in fabric-im- pressed surfaces, of the plain-plaited or twined variety, frora the bot- tom level to the uppermost levels of the site. The other surface finishes of cord-marked, plain, scraped, and simple stamped show no distinct and clear-cut trends. This approach demonstrates that in the stratigraphic excavation of Potts site, the increase in popularity of fabric-impressed wares through time is just the opposite trend found in some other parts of the East, where fabric-impressed is early and cord-marked is late. The temper study by blocks showed more than the surface treat- ments. ‘Temper had been one of the basic factors in establishing the series and therefore if it was a fundamental, sensitive, areal, and tem- poral ceramic feature, it should show definite trends. However, it cannot be overemphasized that the true and complete picture is not improved by these separations from pottery types, even though at times it might help to see a possible trend. For each block, even though from a percentage standpoint slightly different, the trend of each type of temper is generally the same. Clay-sherd temper comes in only in the lower levels of various blocks; shell temper increases in popularity from the bottom to top layers; the large, round, gravel temper declines in popularity throughout time as it gives way to shell temper and medium-fine sand temper. The sand-tempered pottery (Stony Creek Series) does not show any decided and diagnostic trend within blocks; it holds a steady percentage in each level within each block. However, Evans] A CERAMIC STUDY OF VIRGINIA ARCHEOLOGY 87 between blocks there is considerable difference, which is mainly corre- lated with either the abundance or quasi absence of the large, round gravel of the Prince George Series. For example, in Block J-K—L-M the highest percentage of medium-fine sand temper is 20 percent while the round gravel, except in two levels, is around 50 percent ; however, in Block D-E the highest percentage of medium-fine sand temper is 40 percent while the highest amount of large round gravel temper is 18 percent. After carefully examining the trends within the blocks, the pottery type percentages in the individual levels for each block were inter- digitated to get the complete sequence of how each level from each block fit together. Following the trend established in the blocks of a decline in Pottery Hill Net Impressed and Roughened as Potts Net Impressed and Roughened increased, then declined in favor of Chicka- hominy Fabric Impressed and Sussex Plain, the various levels were seriated accordingly. Although some of the levels, such as Block N Level 19 to 20 inches, Block D-E Level 22 to 24 inches, Block J-K-L-M Level 7 to 9 inches, and a few others, had such small samples and the percentage is probably slightly askew, they were included in the com- plete seriation chart so as not to eliminate any particular level from any block. The unevenness of the bar graphs is sometimes explained by the skewed percentages of a small sample. To illustrate: the un- usually large percentage of sherd-clay-tempered plain ware in Level 22 to 24 Block D-E is misleading; the small sample of Level 10 to 12 Block N probably accounts for the absence of any Chickahominy Fabric Impressed and too much Sussex Plain. These discrepancies can easily be spotted, and for reference the number of sherds per level used for the percentage calculations are shown in tables 2 to 4. Reference to the seriation chart will immediately indicate that throughout time certain pottery types at Potts sites are diagnostic from the point of view of showing cultural change; others are mean- ingless for they merely fluctuate haphazardly or appear in such low percentages throughout the entire time sequence they have little sig- nificance for this site. The latter point is to be stressed to those un- familiar with the finer points of the seriation technique and its derived interpretations. In this sequence several pottery types and series prove culturally diagnostic and important time markers; others do not. In future work some distance away from this site, or even in some of the later seriation charts in this study, some of the types with insignificant and meaningless trends in the Potts site become the diagnostic ones of another sequence. In the Potts sequence our most diagnostic trends are the fading out from a strong start in the lowest levels of the Prince George types (from 42 percent at the peak in the lower levels to as low as 1 percent 88 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [Bull. 160 in the upper levels), especially Pottery Hill Net Impressed and Rough- ened, while Stony Creek Net Impressed and Stony Creek Cord Marked show gradual increase with minor fluctuations (from 8 percent to never more than 20 percent). Yet, Stony Creek Fabric Impressed is so in- significant that it hardly presents large enough percentages to indicate any meaningful trend. Later we shall see that in the seriation of sites from southeast Virginia, around the drainages of the Nottoway, Me- herrin, and Blackwater Rivers, the Stony Creek Series predominates, and the Prince George and Chickahominy Series are minority wares. The present sequence of the strata cuts from Potts site might be questioned and perhaps others can derive a better seriation; however, after many tries, arrangements, and rearrangements, this one seems to be the most feasible in the light of the individual trends viewed within each block. The sequence shows the same clear-cut sudden increase in popularity of Potts Net Impressed and Roughened with the intru- sion of clay-sherd tempered pottery in the lower third of the sequence. Immediately, Pottery Hill Net Impressed and Roughened shows rapid decline, never to come back in strength, while Potts Net Impressed and Roughened enjoys a sudden and increased popularity, to gradually fade out and give way to an increase in frequency of Chickahominy Fabric Impressed and Sussex Plain. When looking at the final sequence, the relative position of one level and one block to another is made clearer, for it is obvious that the blocks are bound to cross-cut the occupational zones of the site. The overall picture of the interdigitated levels of Potts site suggests that the flat and level part of the site farthest from the river’s edge and covered in part by blocks J-K-—L-M, H-I, and N, was occupied first. The entire lower third of the sequence consists of levels from this part of the site, with the majority of them under the 16-inch level and only one rising as high as the 13-inch level. Since all the levels of Block D-E come in the upper half of the seriation, it would suggest that this part of the site was occupied later as the camp gradually shifted through the passage of time. There is little doubt that, if the excava- tion technique of Blocks B and C had permitted their use in the per- centage analysis, these blocks would correlate closely with the trends of Block D-E. Proof of this conclusion is the fact that for the total sherd count from Block B, 66 percent were of the Chickahominy Se- ries, 29.3 percent of the Stony Creek Series, and only 4.7 percent of Prince George Series. For Block C there is a similar distribution, with 55.8 percent of the Chickahominy Series, 34.5 percent Stony Creek Series, and only 9.5 percent of the Prince George Series. At first glance one might argue that the sudden appearance of a limited amount of an intrusive ware, such as the clay-sherd-tempered pottery, at the same time there is a rapid change from the gravel tem- pered Pottery Hill Net Impressed and Roughened to shell-tempered Evans] A CERAMIC STUDY OF VIRGINIA ARCHEOLOGY 89 Potts Net Impressed and Roughened suggests the abandonment of the site and the reoccupation by another people at a later time. This idea cannot be supported for several reasons: (1) there is no sterile soil superimposed on any of the refuse; (2) except for a limited num- ber of clay-sherd-tempered potsherds there is no mass introduction of new and totally distinct ceramic types. There is too much evidence from analyzing the trends within each block of the types, surface treatment, and temper to suggest anything more than an external in- fluence coming in and amalgamating itself into the local cultural tradi- tions, thus speeding up certain ceramic changes. Given this trend shown by excavation, superimposed strata, and the analysis of the ceramics from the respective levels, the basis for seriation of sites from the area into a sequence is the next step. COASTAL VIRGINIA CERAMIC AREA (Fig. 14) Instead of seriating the nearby sites directly into the complete Potts site sequence, it was better to extract four representative time levels with the major trends. This method made it possible to view the Potts site as a unit and at the same time to extract the important ceramic changes for comparative purposes. Scanning the Potts site sequence chart (fig. 11), one can easily see that Levels D-E 4-6 inches, D-E 13-15 inches, H-I 16-18 inches, and J-K-L-M 19-21 inches are representative of the major pottery trends from the upper to the lowest part of the sequence. Using these graph strips as a frame- work the sites with similar pottery types were seriated together. Even though there was a similarity of pottery types from the area of the Blackwater, Nottoway, and Meherrin Rivers in southeast Vir- grinia and the south Virginia coast, decided differences in pottery type popularity and associated types from sites in the two areas prevented their combination into a single seriation. At first, only the sites from the south coastal area were seriated with the representative levels from Potts site. This included collections from Brockwell 2, Pottery Hill, Old Shipyard, Hoffmeyer, and Portobago sites. These sites seriated together well into the Potts site sequence because of the large per- centage of pottery types of the Prince George or of the Chickahominy Series and a moderate percentage of types of the Stony Creek Series. Following the trend established by the stratigraphic cuts, a decline of Pottery Hill Net Impressed and Roughened as Chickahominy Fab- ric Impressed and Sussex Plain increased, the sites seriated into a fair sequence (fig. 15). The high percentage of Stony Creek Cord Marked (30 percent) at the Pottery Hill site normally would not seriate it into this group but rather with the sites from the Southeast; how- 805522—55——_7 {Bull. 160 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY 90 ‘SOUBU 9}IS oJ (T sy) deur azIs 0} Azo NOISIAIO H1LYON *‘A[do [oquids Aq pe}Bo0[ soqIs 04} UIA BIUIZITA JO svoie dMVIIO— FL wn HOISIAIG RINGS VINISYIA SV3Y4UY OINVYR9O Ele) 91 A CERAMIC STUDY OF VIRGINIA ARCHEOLOGY Evans] ‘BaIY JTUIBIOD BIUISITA [BISVOD Bq} JO SYS oy} Jo souenbos vdA} A19}}0d poezeyIeg—eT WANT cjuneis “J emis 2xOMVOU nuvi Q3ueYN- 0809 X2BENS ANION 1H = s = 2 s se ' ’ -= = Cal = ia 7 a as os = iit atoeel 7 OaWaKONOw @ OsSGawsWi-L aN Siioe Q2S8audN! -O1meus ANnOF = TKOIHD osdnvas -Tisnis 3208030 Bomite 1 Hive 304039 BONIS Oayevn 304030 BONIS GANIHONOW @ O25 3NdMI~L9a ‘VIIM AwaLios O3SSaudHhi -21NGvs O34vHOS 398030 43342 ZONIUe = =ANOAS s ' ’ ‘ ’ 8 QldHvis aanis 23ND AMOAS NIV M332¥D AnOLE O2uHVR-CHOD B3N9 ANOAS O2N3HONOW @ O7SS3udN)~13m "35ND ANOAS O3983udnI -O1Mayes [anne] MS2UD ANOLE WR-OIN-P BAd0e BIBI ieH G.L408 3 Vamnooue JUN AUBLAOE OeVAcING O10 onveoivod w3Aamazon sM-6)'3-0 8.4496 sO '9-0 84108 myaoon 92 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [Bull. 160 ever, the abundance of Pottery Hill Net Impressed and Prince George Cord Marked force it into this coastal sequence. Again the sequence illustrates the need for about twice as many sites so the pottery curves would smooth themselves. Two sites, Briarfield and Kecoughtan, should seriate into the upper part of the sequence but do not fit well. The trend established in the Potts site and from the other sites (a decrease in the gravel and sand- tempered pottery as shell-tempered pottery types increase) would place sites with a high percentage of shell-tempered ware in the upper part of the sequences. However, the bar graphs of the pottery types of the two sites will not fit nicely into the sequence; too much Roanoke Simple Stamped at Kecoughtan and Potts Net Impressed and Rough- ened at Briarfield confuse the picture. Other methods, the separation of the types into temper and surface treatments, were sought to explain the situation. The sites arrange themselves in almost the same order as that established by types if the temper trend is a decrease of the round, gravel-tempered Prince George Series while shell-tempered pottery of the Chickahominy Series increases. With this trend the Kecoughtan and Briarfield sites fit at the top of the sequence with 98 percent shell-tempered pottery at Kecoughtan and 96 percent at Briarfield, lumping the pits and considering the site as a whole. In fact, since all the sand-tem- pered sherds of the Stony Creek Series at the Briarfield site came from only one pit, Pit W-2, intermixed with the shell-tempered material, and none of the other excavations produced anything but shell-tem- pered wares, for practical purposes one could conclude that the typical ware of thesite was 100 percent shell-tempered ware. In an attempt to determine a time difference between pits at the Briarfield site, which would give some indication of the changes occur- ring within the shell-tempering tradition, the sherds from each pit were classified separately, calculated into percentages, graphed. They were seriated according to the same trend established in the Potts se- quence—a decline in net-impressed, shell-tempered wares as all the other types of plain and fabric impressed increased, while cord mark- ing increased slightly, blossomed out to a peak, and then began to decrease. This attempt is, of course, based on the assumption that the various refuse pits would show a time difference because they represent the discarding of trash over a period of time and would probably not all be used at the same time. Admittedly, however, they would span a relatively short period. With such differences in Pit W-7 as 52.5 percent Potts Net and Knot Impressed and 31.0 percent Chickahominy Cord Marked, and Pit W-1 with 22.2 percent Potts Net and Knot Impressed and 58.8 percent Chickahominy Cord Marked, accidental selection hardly seems an appropriate solu- tion to these differences in pottery. Therefore, to lump all the sherds Evans] A CERAMIC STUDY OF VIRGINIA ARCHEOLOGY 93 from these pits would appear as a methodological error; they must be considered separately in hope that some trend will be significant for the site. Seriating the pottery types of each pit the sequence (fig. 16) suggests a change from an emphasis on net-impressed-and-rough- ened surfaces to cord-marked surfaces with only a trace of twined or plain plaited fabric impression. These sites with almost pure shell- tempered wares fit into the uppermost part of the sequences, out of the tradition of gravel-tempered ware, later than sand-tempered pot- tery and into that part of the time sequence where shell-tempering had become the dominant pottery type along coastal Virginia. pit 2 1 Li <-. | nex i a = ‘ rir 6 ass s a Pit i i] ae = 5 SURFACE ! CT ) eR LH) 8 PIT 6 ee Renee aaa Ld) PIT 7 CATT Eom er as piT S COS are psd Pit 4 ' Dts a oat ae oe | = oan 1 . ' ‘ ’ ' . ' . CHICK ANOMINY POTTS CHICK AHOMINY SUSSEX Ports STONY CREEK STONY CREEK STONY CREEK O10 2 20% FABRIC~ NET-IMPRESSED CORO-MARKED PLAIN SCRAPED FABRIC~ NET-IMPRESSED cORD- IMPRESSED & ROUGHENED IMPRESSED & ROUGHENED MARKED Fiaure 16.—Graphic plot of pottery types from excavations at Briarfield site. The sherds from Kecoughtan site are another example of a site almost totally in the shell-tempering tradition. Once again, this site cannot be seriated directly into the coastal sequence except to indicate it belongs near the top. An insufficient number of sites with only shell-tempered sherds are available for the study to give all the in- ternal changes that are taking place in the aboriginal cultural develop- ment along coastal Virginia. The Kecoughtan site contains 47.0 per- cent Sussex Plain and 35.2 percent Roanoke Simple Stamped pottery types not in abundance at other sites. Although along the coastal area the Potts site sequence demonstrates the increase of shell- tempered pottery through time, the trend of the ceramic changes oc- curring within this cultural time period are not demonstrated in those few sites with a high percentage of shell-tempered pottery. Since a sufficient number of such sites are unavailable to demonstrate this gradual shift of surface treatments within the shell-tempered tradi- tion, the true relationship of these two sites is unknown. As previously stated, although a study of surface treatments alone is insufficient, they were extracted from all the pottery types in these coastal] sites and plotted into a sequence which continued to carry out trends of the Potts site excavations. Thus, using the surface treat- ment studies from three or four Potts site levels as a guide, the rest of the sites and the separate pits from Briarfield were arranged into a sequence. Throughout time net-impressed-and-roughened surfaces decline in popularity as plain and fabric-impressed surfaces increase, while cord marking starts slowly, mounts in popularity, but tends to decline as fabric impression increases. With the exception of the 94 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [Bull. 160 high percentage (10 percent) of simple-stamped surfaces of Block J-K-L-M Level 10-12 inches, this surface finish is quite insignificant. However, 36 percent simple stamping at the Kecoughtan site is so high it cannot be fitted into the sequence or explained. Although only a limited number of the sites had collections large enough for inclusion in the percentage analysis and seriation study, nevertheless the small collections were valuable in increasing the dis- tribution study of the ceramic complex and further substantiating the trends established by the seriation. The following sites are repre- sentative of a ceramic complex with a limited amount of Prince George and Stony Creek Series and a large percentage of Chicka- hominy Series: Briarfield, Cape Henry, Ferry Landing, Hoffmeyer, Kecoughtan, Nomini, Old Shipyard, Pissaseck, Portobago, Potts, and Wicomico. Geographically, these 11 sites offer an interesting distri- bution and rather strongly prove the delineation of a Coastal Ceramic area for Virginia, never penetrating very far inland from the shore line (figs. 1, 14). With the exception of one site, Accotink, which presents a peculiar mixture of sherds of the Chickahominy Series and the Clarksville Series, the sites present a ceramic consistency. In the same area there is a later ceramic complex, the Potomac Creek Series, but the proof of unrelatedness of these two ceramic traditions will be handled in the comparative section. The sequence of ceramic trends for this ceramic area, designated as Coastal Virginia, is: Pottery types of the Prince George Series are the oldest wares in the area with a preponderance of Pottery Hill Net Impressed and Roughened. As this type declines in popularity, it is replaced by the fine-medium, sand-tempered Stony Creek Series in a moderate amount, while the shell-tempered pottery types of the Chickahominy Series become the predominant pottery with special emphasis on Chickahominy Fabric Impressed and Sussex Plain. Briefly, the trend is from gravel and sand-tempered pottery with net impressions to shell-tempered pottery with plain, cord-marked, fabric- impressed, and simple-stamped surface treatments. SOUTHEASTERN VIRGINIA CERAMIC AREA (Fig. 14) It might seem peculiar to separate the sites from southeastern Vir- ginia which center around the drainages of the Nottoway, Meherrin, and Blackwater Rivers from those previously discussed as Coastal. As soon as the ceramic features are described the reasons will be clear. An attempt was made to seriate the southeastern sites with those from the coast because both regions have the same pottery types; however, the difference in percentage occurrences of some of the individual pottery types and the series as a whole was sufficient to require an explanation of the cause. The sites from this area, seriated within themselves, make a good trend (fig. 17). The sequence demonstrates 95 A CERAMIC STUDY OF VIRGINIA ARCHEOLOGY Evans] ‘BaIY OTUIBIIO BIUISITA U1d}JSveqNog 94} JO Saj}IS oy} Jo souenbas edd} A410}}0d poyetIeg—yLT TAAL Olevuse wie Siiod x25sn5 ~gead Qaseaudni GINZHONOY @ -D1uev4s «609 d¥HOS C3¥UYN-QUOO O2ESIUAAI-LaN ANIMOH =: 394039 AMIROHW EDIND Siloe “VNDIHD «=—-BONIU O2dnvIs “Danis 394035 BONIdd NIWId 30v039 BOM -ON0D O3NaHONOW B 2oNiud WM AWB1108 O38S2¥dRI -1uGvd BZOUO29 OaSSaUdNi-13N 208039 BONES ® O3dnVIS “Bd MIS 43389 ANOIS O3sion AWAOLLON , nivie wa3uo ANOAS O3NBYR-Ou09 w3au> ANOLS O3N3HONOW B Gassaudnt O3S63NdmMi-13" -2eevs 493M ANOLE wa3u2 ANOLS 8 = ‘ = Lol ose em heal =e Ld = i] tinal (oT SL OLE %0Z_Ol_ © VAnwindsia 2 QvOM NVIGM! O70 4 492u2 ANOLE jociwe SAR TWH 4 Cvou NvIOM G10 AWOLOVs TI9MEdOK mouev> ® w97N2 AwoLe © W229 ANOLE @ mateo anoles 06 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [Bull. 160 the possibility that the sites in southeastern Virginia are approxi- mately contemporary with the coastal groups. Yet, each area has a slightly different pottery emphasis. Before delving into the cultural factors and the theoretical implica- tions of the situation, a clearer ceramic picture of these sites is needed. After a careful study of the various ceramic types at some of the sites from this area, two ceramic features were immediately recognized: (1) Compared to the Coastal Ceramic Area there was only a limited amount of the shell-tempered Chickahominy Series; (2) the Stony Creek Series of fine-medium, sand-tempered wares was predominant; some sites had a higher percentage of Stony Creek Cord Marked and others a larger amount of Stony Creek Fabric Impressed. The gen- eral absence of shell-tempered pottery types of the Chickahominy Series would suggest immediately that, according to the trends of the sequence, these sites would fit underneath any of the coastal sites. This was tried but it was discovered that, to put any, or all, of these southeastern Virginia sites underneath this sequence, the trends of the sand-tempered Stony Creek Series and the round, gravel-tempered Prince George Series were completely disorganized. In other words, the high percentage of Prince George types in the lower levels of the Potts site fading out at the same time that Stony Creek wares began to appear slowly was a picture of ceramic trends shown by excavation. To seriate the sites with the Stony Creek Series decreasing and the Prince George Series increasing would not be in accord with the evi- dence in the ground. The absence or presence of shell-tempered pottery might be explainable, but to reverse completely the sequence of development of gravel-tempered and sand-tempered pottery was not possible. Under these aforementioned assumptions the sites were seriated with a decrease in Prince George Series, which, in this case, was Prince George Cord Marked, and an increase in the Stony Creek Series (fig. 17). AsStony Creek Fabric Impressed increased slowly, Stony Creek Cord Marked declined in popularity. Stony Creek Simple Stamped tends to increase throughout time, but the curve is slightly irregular and difficult to interpret. Shell-tempered sherds were not totally ab- sent from the sites but their appearance was so sporadic and insignifi- cant that no trend is visible. Not only does the ceramic trend of Potts site confirm the order of seriation of these sites in southeastern Vir- ginia, but Holland’s projectile point study (see appendix 2) co- incides amazingly with the order of the sites based on ceramic types. Now, the important point to explain is how the presence of the same series of pottery types in two nearby areas can show such different ceramic trends and be seriated independently of each other. Actually, a study of the percentages of certain pottery types suggests that the Evans] A CERAMIC STUDY OF VIRGINIA ARCHEOLOGY 97 lowest level of the Potts site with such a high percentage of Prince George Series sherds is earlier than any of the sites in this study from either the Coastal area or from the Nottoway, Blackwater, and Meherrin Rivers. Upon a culture with a gravel and sand-tempered ceramic tradition, certain changes occur. Perhaps to call them re- gional specializations with different external influences would be more appropriate. For example, our stratigraphic information suggests rather strongly that an external influence brought into the Potts site clay-sherd tempered pottery and a preference for shell-tempered pot- tery. After such an influence the Potts site and the nearby area de- veloped along lines distinct from those which would have occurred normally provided no external influence had shifted the emphasis to shell-tempered pottery. The sites of southeastern Virginia, away from the coast and all draining into the Nottoway, Blackwater, and Meherrin Rivers, did not get these strong external influences; their ceramics reflect internal change within the Stony Creek and Prince George Series. In other words, it is felt that the ceramic sequences suggest the two areas as approximately contemporaneous with slightly different local influences. The later sections on comparative ceramic data from outside the Virginia area will help to clarify these views. Following the same procedure used in all the other regions the pot- tery types from the Southeastern sites were broken down into temper and surface treatment studies to see if any additional interpretative data could be squeezed from the pottery. Recognizing the limitations of these breakdowns, nevertheless a few interesting observations are noted. The temper study more than the surface treatment study once again offers an interesting proof of the contemporaneity of the two areas. As was noted in the Coastal Ceramic Area, the trend was a decrease in large, round, gravel temper as shell temper increased with the finer medium, sand temper running irregularly throughout the sequence. Although the decline of round gravel is the same, instead of shell temper coming in and eventually replacing all the sand or gravel tempered materials, it has an irregular trend while the sand temper increases. The order of one or two sites is changed slightly in a comparison of the temper, surface treatment, and type sequences but the conformity is close. However, one of the most interesting points is the position of the Pottery Hill site. For various reasons this site was thought to be one of those transitional sites which tied in the Coastal Ceramic Area with its shell-tempered influences and a large percentage of round, gravel temper to the Meherrin, Nottoway, and Blackwater Rivers area with a high percentage of fine, sand-tempered wares. Pottery Hill will not seriate well into the temper sequence of the Coastal Area for it has too limited an amount of shell temper and too much sand temper. The presence of 15 percent Pottery Hill Net 98 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [Bull. 160 Impressed and Roughened in the pottery type study shows why this site has to be included in the Coastal Ceramic Area and not in the sequence of the Southeastern Ceramic Area. However, the occurrence of 46 percent sand temper, 52 percent round gravel, and a trace of shell temper place the site at the bottom of the temper sequence for the Southeastern Ceramic Area. Actually, if about 20 more sites were located in the region where the 2 cultural zones are felt to overlap, it would probably be possible to find sites with sufficient variations in their pottery types to bridge the present gap, prohibiting the inter- digitation of the 2 areas. Pottery Hillis such asite. Its central posi- tion in the pottery type sequence for the Coastal Area could be con- sidered as approximately contemporaneous to the bottom of the pottery type sequence for the Southeastern area, but each region has its local developments and variations. One sherd of steatite-tempered Marcey Creek Plain is found at Pot- tery Hill site. The cultural significance and meaning are not clear. The surface treatments divorced of their association with temper and types is under most circumstances not too reliable an indicator be- cause they crosscut pottery types which are established because of the recognition of certain cultural determinants. In fact, the results are so insignificant they are not worthy of tabulating or plotting in this report. The only point of interest derived from this type of analysis is the low percentage (0-11 percent) of net-impressed or knot-rough- ened surfaces in sites of the Southeastern Ceramic Area compared to the Coastal Area, which has only a few sites as low as 10 percent, the majority from 380 to 50 percent, and some as high as 70 percent net- impressed and roughened surfaces. The other surface treatments of the two areas generally run in similar percentages, with the exception of simple stamped. Limited and very sparse in the Coastal Ceramic Area, in the Meherrin, Nottoway, and Blackwater area, simple- stamped surfaces range from 3 percent to as high as 32 and 35 percent at Stony Creek 3 and 4, respectively. Of all the ceramic areas this one needs more sites along the upper reaches of the Nottoway and Meherrin Rivers to determine the bound- aries between this ceramic complex and that of central Virginia. Un- fortunately, the only clue lies in some of the small collections, especially Terrapin Neck in Amelia County and the Richmond sites which only roughly define the northeastern limits of the distribution of the ceramic series typical to the area. The following sites define the Southeastern Virginia Ceramic Area and complex: Brockwell 1 and 2, Capron, Disputanta, Eppes Island, Haley’s Bridge, Hopewell Airport, Hope- well Factory, Old Indian Road 1 and 2, Pottery Hill, Richmond sites, Stony Creek 1, 2,3, and 4, and Terrapin Neck (fig. 14). The diagnostic pottery traditions in this area are easily distinguishable from others in Evans] A CERAMIC STUDY OF VIRGINIA ARCHEOLOGY 99 Virginia. The almost total absence of the shell-tempered Chicka- hominy Series as compared to the Coastal Ceramic Area is quite dis- tinctive. The outstanding changes of pottery types through time are the shift from a small amount of Stony Creek Fabric Impressed to an increasing percentage of the same type while Stony Creek Cord Marked declines rapidly. It is pertinent to note that with the excep- tion of a very limited amount of the round, gravel-tempered Prince George Series, the most popular pottery types of the area are in the sand-tempered Stony Creek Series. The increase in popularity of simple-stamped surface treatments within the Stony Creek Series is not repeated in other areas. This ceramic picture suggests the occupation of southeastern Vir- ginia by one cultural group, rather free from external influences, but undergoing internal cultural changes, all of which were reflected by shifts in popularity of certain pottery types. CENTRAL AND NORTH-CENTRAL VIRGINIA CERAMIC AREA (Fig. 14) Moving into what might be called central and north-central Vir- ginia, numerous sites with fairly large sherd collections are incorpo- rated in the study. Unfortunately, all these sites were shallow, and no depth existed. Thus, even though a few sites were excavated, the ceramic interpretation must depend on seriation methods. Certain supporting factors from projectile-point studies and overlapping occurrences of one pottery series in two areas offer clues to support the seriation. As indicated in the pottery section, all efforts to separate the fine, sand-tempered sherds from this area and similar sherds from south- eastern Virginia failed. The classificatory efforts failed because the fine-medium, sand-tempered sherds were all the identical pottery series. This point is made at the beginning of the discussion to fore- stall the question that different companion wares with the sand-tem- pered materials would suggest a slightly different group of sand- tempered pottery types for each area. Shape, texture, temper, surface treatment, rim profile, color, and firing make all the sand-tempered wares from this area representatives of the Stony Creek Series. The companion ware at all these sites, but in varying degrees of popularity, is the crushed quartz, reddish to tan, sandy-textured pottery of the Albemarle Series. Without knowing at the moment which was to be the top or the bottom of the ultimate seriation, one of the pottery types was chosen which showed great variation in popularity from site to site. Either Stony Creek Plain or Albemarle Fabric Impressed would fit into 100 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [Bull. 160 these categories. By pure chance the graph strips were arranged first according to a decline in Stony Creek Plain without any considera- tion of the trend of the other types. Afterward certain refinements and minor adjustments, immediately noticeable trends of decline, and/or increase of certain pottery types were clearly visible (fig. 18). In other words, seriated basically on a decline of Stony Creek wares, especially Stony Creek Plain and Stony Creek Cord Marked, the sites arranged themselves in such an order that Albemarle wares were in low percentage at the bottom of the sequence and gradually in- creased while the Stony Creek Series declined in popularity. Specifi- cally, Albemarle Fabric Impressed increased ; Albemarle Cord Marked increased slowly, blossomed out to a peak and then slowly began to fade. Although in a weaker percentage the same trend appeared to be true of Albemarle Plain and Albemarle Simple Stamped. Other interesting trends appeared in the sequence. There was practically no shell-tempered ware. The trace of shell-tempered pottery in Hen- shaw Shelter is without any doubt an intrusive item—trade or perhaps the result of a later, temporary use of the site as a campsite. Check- ing the graphs or the tabular data will demonstrate clearly that shell- tempered pottery is not a companion pottery with either the Stony Creek or Albemarle Pottery Series in central and north-central Vir- ginia. Shell tempering is associated in the western tip of Virginia with one cultural group (New River Series) and in the Coastal Ceramic Area with another (Chickahominy Series) ; these influences do not penetrate except in sporadic instances either by trade, diffusion, or migration to central Virginia. Perhaps the most difficult point to explain in this entire seriation chart is the role of the steatite-tempered pottery type, Marcey Creek Plain. There is absolutely no question that the steatite wares from Scottsville, Warren, Hardware, and Whippoorwill sites are good rep- resentatives of Marcey Creek Plain. Similarities in Marcey Creek Plain and Seldon Island Cord Marked with the Stony Creek Series is hard to explain. Aside from the soft, soapy texture caused by the steatite temper, and the difference in temper particles, the two wares have a sandy paste and a decided similarity in color and firing range from a light tan to a rusty, orange-red, and the cord impressions are fine to medium lines. A further point of interest is the high per- centage of Stony Creek Plain associated with the steatite-tempered sherds at several sites; 35 percent Stony Creek Plain at Scottsville, 38 percent at Warren, and 30 percent at Hardware. At these three sites there is some suggestion that the steatite-tempered ware of the Marcey Creek Series and the sand-tempered pottery of the Stony Creek Series are related and associated. Not only is this impression derived from our sites, but Manson’s excavations at Marcey Creek site (Manson, 101 A CERAMIC STUDY OF VIRGINIA ARCHEOLOGY Evans] ‘BOTY OfWIVION BIUISIIA [BIJUID-Y}ION pus [vI}JUaD 9Y} JO So}IS 04} JO souenbes od4} A10}j0d payB]log—sT AAnoL{ waaRIL s2iwz8 | 2HOLS3AIT uivid O2dvuOs w2A(™ Aan Os 4ISSVIINN 432ND ATION WN VAIS ' : pa ' = s ie: ' ’ ‘ ’ » ' s i O3dNVIS ~JIdHIS waauo ANOLS ‘ NIVid ‘4339 ANOLS ' GIXUVA- GHOD 433u2 ANOLS ' Q3n3HONON @ “HdWi- 13N 433u9 ANOLS G3ass3udnt Otugvs M3aBuD ANOLS ‘ O3dVHOS JlwvANIaI ’ Q3dWvLS -27dniIS J wyANaeT ' NIVid J wvN3eWw O3xuvM-CuOS 2 7uvN3I01" Q3SS3udwI 43N awvNaSe TW 5s ' O3SS3udNI oluev4a Bluvnwaaiw %Oc_0z O10 Liss Same camo} 3771AS11008 N3UUVAM SuvMGuyH wa0uvo uv3e Hiuvo Ags3100 AVHENSH WNIONIM VIWHALIHA nvN3109 TUMOddIHm wa3e2 OW3Ne $3xv7 Motu nooue Suu 102 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [Bull. 160 1948, pp. 223-226) offer the same associations. He found intermixed in the same levels Marcey Creek Plain and a grit-tempered pottery, designated as Marcey Creek Cord Marked. Reexamination of some of those latter sherds deposited at the United States National Museum suggests that, instead of a crushed-rock temper, as Manson states, the majority are tempered with river sand and are absolutely indistin- guishable from Stony Creek Cord Marked. Under these associational circumstances the two pottery series can be visualized as belonging to the same cultural group and should not be considered as two totally separate occupations. The arrowpoint and stone tool complex from these sites adds further proof to this point of occupancy by a single group. In certain parts of the East, steatite-tempered wares are among the earliest ceramics known (Manson, 1948, pp. 223-226; Wit- thoft, 1950 p. 11; Cross, 1941 p. 66); hence the seriation of these sites at the bottom of the sequence is borne out. Although the extensive correlation of the projectile-point studies with the ceramic trends will be handled later, it is pertinent to men- tion here that with the exception of one site, Bremo Creek, the posi- tion of sites in each seriation is basically the same. The malposition of the central Virginia site, Bremo Creek, appears to be due to the smallness of the projectile-point sample rather than to a deficiency in the ceramic sample. Therefore, supported by comparative ceramic studies and projectile points, the order of seriation of sites in central and north-central Virginia seems to be valid. A closer examination of the sequence presents certain character- istic ceramic trends for this area. As the fine-medium, sand-tempered pottery of the Stony Creek Series becomes less popular, these types are replaced by the crushed quartz-tempered pottery of the Albemarle Series. Specifically, the main trends are a decline from 38 to 3 per- cent Stony Creek Plain while Albemarle Fabric Impressed increases from around 1 percent to 50 percent. Reference to the sequence chart (fig. 18) demonstrates the fluctuations of the other types and the rel- ative positions of each site. As with the other areas, the pottery types were also subdivided into a temper and a surface treatment study. The temper plot was exactly the same as the type sequence—a shift in popularity from the Stony Creek to the Albemarle Series. In the surface treatment study the order of some of the sites is in general similar to the temper and pottery type sequence, but other sites are greatly displaced without a clear reason for the malposition. In other words, nothing new or helpful, which was not already shown in the complete sequence of pottery types, was added by this approach. The aforementioned ceramic series with their respective pottery types are distributed over a geographical area defined by the location Evans] A CERAMIC STUDY OF VIRGINIA ARCHEOLOGY 103 of the following sites: Bear Garden, Bremo Creek, Buchanan, Carrs Brook, Catoctin, Coleman, Elk Island, Garth, Gordon, Hardware, Henshaw Shelter, Johnson Mill, Lipscomb, Little Falls, Luray Falls, Luray, Louisa, Marlow Lakes, Monasukapanough, Oglesby, Scottsville, Skinker’s Ford, Tice, Tye River Forks, Tye River 3, Warren, Whip- poorwill Hollow, Whitehall Shelter, Wingina. Several other sites, Buffalo Gap, Ivanhoe, and Linville, in the Shenandoah drainage show an interesting mixture of pottery types suggesting the sites are along the boundary lines of the Central and North-Central and the Alle- gheny Ceramic Areas (fig. 14). These sites show limited influence, or separate occupation, by ceramic traditions which apparently moved out of, or into, the western tip of Virginia and adjoining West Vir- ginia, up or down the valleys of the Allegheny Mountains. Consider- ing the location of all these sites, the Central and North-Central Ceramic Area extends from the northern boundary of the State down the Shenandoah Valley (in places the Blue Ridge acts as the barrier) to approximately the area of the headwaters of the Roanoke and Staunton Rivers, joining the boundaries of the other ceramic areas on the south and east. In summary, the Central and North-Central Ceramic Area is typi- fied by a decline in the popularity of fine-medium, sand-tempered wares of the Stony Creek Series, especially such types as Stony Creek Plain, as crushed quartz-tempered wares of the Albemarle Series be- come paramount. The general absence of any shell-tempered pottery is a most important diagnostic trait. ALLEGHENY CERAMIC AREA (Fig. 14) The areal distribution of sites with pottery types representing the Radford and/or the New River Pottery Series has permitted the use of the term “Allegheny” to define this large ceramic area, for there is no question that the western side of this mountain range has some degree of ceramic homogeneity of limestone and shell-tempered pottery which are totally distinct from the rest of Virginia. However, a closer examination of this distribution suggests the subdivision of the region into local cultural complexes—a southern and a northern division. THE SOUTHERN DIVISION A careful examination of the sherds from the sites in western Vir- ginia and those Solecki found from the Bluestone Reservation in West Virginia along the New River immediately indicated they all repre- sented the same pottery types. Normally, the published data of Solecki (1949) would be used in the comparative section, but since 104 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [Bull. 160 the sherds were available for rechecking at the United States National Museum, and could be placed into the types established in this study, they are included in this section. Although Solecki classified his pottery first on temper, then on surface treatment, and gave the tab- ulated results for both analyses, he also published a chart showing ii. what combinations the surface treatments were associated with the temper for each site. Taking this information and quickly checking the sherds, it was soon evident that, except for a slight difference in terminology (he called many of the sherds “fabric roughened” which were typed by the author as “net impressed and knot roughened”), his limestone pottery types were representatives of the Radford Series, and his shell-tempered sherds were the New River Series. In fact, the New River Series could actually be established with absolute cer- tainty only because of the large number of shell-tempered sherds with associated diagnostic traits found by Solecki. The same procedure was possible with those western Virginia sites published recently by Caldwell (Caldwell, 1951). Since some sherds from a few of the same sites were on deposit at the United States National Museum and could be checked, all four sites described in this article could be used in this seriation study. Once again, by this examination and a slight reclassifying of some of the material he called “fabric roughened with a knotted material,” comparable pot- tery types were obtained. This procedure permitted the comparison of the percentage occurrences of various pottery types from a larger number of sites for this geographical area than would otherwise have been available. Again the shuffling of the sites into a sequence was begun first by inspection because there were no excavated sites in the area to be used as criteria. The sites were arranged with a larger percentage of lime- stone-tempered sherds, the Radford Series, declining as shell-tempered pottery, the New River Series, increased. Again this was, at first, an arbitrary arrangement. Nevertheless, the seriation produced some noticeable trends. Radford Net and Roughened Impressed declined as the shell-tempered counterpart, New River Net Impressed and Roughened increased, reached a maximum, then began to fade out and give way to another shell-tempered type of the same series, New River Plain. Accompanying these distinctive trends, both Radford Cord Marked and Radford Plain carried on without much fluctuation as companion wares to Radford Net and Knot Impressed. However, New River Cord Marked came in slowly, blossomed out, and then faded cut as New River Plain continued to increase rapidly. The trends of this Southern Division of the Allegheny Ceramic Area are some of the most clear-cut in Virginia (fig. 19), and with such distinctive pottery types and series, there is little difficulty in defining this Southern 105 A CERAMIC STUDY OF VIRGINIA ARCHEOLOGY Evans] S2uvm Q3¥3dN31-AV19 ‘OSIN ' S3UVA O3N3dN31-ONVS “OSIN ‘ ‘gory ofuBeieg AusySeTTY 94} JO Se7I8 Q3ss3udni ~iuevs UZAIN MIN ' 2 Q3SS3udNI-13N B Q3N3HONOU-LONH USAIN MIN ' NIVId UZAIN Man ‘ CABAUNS OG61 AG O3901UENN dvd) GanxuVN-QN0d BaAIW MAN ’ GassaudN “OIMGVd Quosovy 1 NIVId auosove ’ QaNyVW-QHuOd aquosovu ' eq} Jo souenbes odf} A£19}}0d poyelieg—6T FAAS] Q3SS3NdWI-LIN @ Q3NSHONOY-LONN Quosavy ' Srey SET ea) TE De et soos Fl sy eee OS SOT ne Se CATES Bars 5 Sf sis] %O02 Ol O [Saute GUVHOYO BvD WOLL08 SI1ONC NNAMS Agnus xos 11939 UZONVS 3xAGUON QOOMAI™ W320uVO N12 Ol $8 we OF AS 9b 6S 9” zz 0S Oe eS 9% ez 9S 9b 8 805522—55 106 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [Bull. 160 Division as centered around the New River drainage of the western tip of Virginia, the adjoining sections of West Virginia and even possibly the nearby areas of Tennessee and Kentucky, with occasional traces of influence northeastward up some of the large valleys of the Allegheny Mountains. Before justifying the order of this sequence, it is pertinent to com- pare the situation more closely with the sequence of sites and pottery trends established in Solecki’s analysis of the temper and the surface treatments separately (Solecki, 1949, p. 401). Since this breakdown was the one primarily used by Solecki in establishing his sequence, our pottery types from the area were also separated into a temper and a surface treatment study. Without changing the order of Solecki’s sites, 1. e., 44-Gs-10 at the bottom and 46-Su-22 at the top, his sites were seriated into our temper sequence. Since independent of each other they had been seriated on the trend of limestone decreasing as shell increased, the two interdigitated well, placing Ingles Bottom and Gwyn sites at the bottom of the sequence with 98.8 percent and 93.5 percent limestone temper, respectively. The top of the sequence in- cludes all of Solecki’s West Virginia sites. Solecki (1949, p. 401) also seriated his sites on surface treatments, getting a different sequence from that based on temper, except for two sites appearing in exactly the same relative positions. Guided by the same trend, his sites and those of this survey were interdigitated. Plain surfaced sherd increased slowly in popularity and then blossomed out, still to be on the increase at the top of the sequence. Net-impressed and roughened (also called knotted fabric roughened by Solecki) de- clined from a maximum of 98 to 1 percent, while cord-marked surfaces came in slowly, assumed their maximum of 42 to 55 percent in the middle of the sequence and then faded out again. Although Solecki (1949, p. 402) combined his data from the surface studies and the temper analysis on one chart, he made no further attempt to rearrange the order of his sites. From his study in West Virginia, he concluded that the plain-surfaced, shell-tempered types are more recent in time than net-impressed and knot-roughened Jime- stone-tempered pottery. The same conclusions are derived from the results of this study and apply to the western part of Virginia and the adjoining part of West Virginia, all of which is lumped together into a cultural area designated in this study as the South Division of the Allegheny Ceramic Area. Unfortunately for this area we do not have the advantage of large projectile-point collections to substantiate the sequence, but the incor- poration of Solecki’s point data in Holland’s discussion (see appendix 2) produces most encouraging supporting evidence. Triangular points furnish close to 46 percent of the projectile-point types in the area, Evans] A CERAMIC STUDY OF VIRGINIA ARCHEOLOGY 107 while at Site 46—-Su-3 this type represents 38 percent of the material. Such evidence would place the sites in the upper part of the time se- quence. This point will be developed in greater detail in the conclud- ing section of the report. The South Division of the Allegheny Ceramic Area is represented in this survey by sites containing pottery principally of the New River and/or Radford Pottery Series as found in the collections made by Solecki along the New River in West Virginia, and from the follow- ing sites in Virginia: Ben, Brickey, Clover Creek, Eggledon Spring, Fox, Gala, Gwyn, Indian Draft, Ingles Bottom, Keywood, one of the collections of the New River Mound area, Saltville, Sander, and St. Clair Bottom. The sites of Buffalo Gap, Ivanhoe, and Linville have pottery collections showing a mixture of types of the Radford and New River Pottery Series with pottery types of the ceramic series typical of the Central and North-Central Ceramic Area, but the loca- tion of these sites along the margins of the two ceramic areas helps to explain this admixture. Examination of the site map (fig. 1) and the Ceramic Area map (fig. 14) would place the Cornett site in the South Division of the Allegheny Ceramic Area. However, of all the collections from the 96 sites this site is the only one which does not conform to any of the Virginia pottery types or series (pl. 23). Although many of the shapes and surface treatments conform closely to the Clarksville Series, the temper and paste differences suggest a totally different cultural group. Some of the general surface treatments conform to the Radford Series, but the rim shapes and temper rule out any relationships. The de- tailed ceramic analysis of this site is in appendix 1, table 1, but it should be mentioned here that it is not a typical representative of either the North or South Divisions of the Allegheny Ceramic Area. Cornett site shows closer affiliations to the South Central Ceramic Area but still has sufficient differences, such as the presence of good curvilinear complicated stamping, to dissociate it. As best defined, the Cornett site appears to have direct affiliations with some of the North Carolina ceramic complexes, a point to be developed in detail in the comparative section. THE NORTHERN DIVISION Although the entire western side of the Alleghenies in Virginia shows ceramic affiliations, there are enough local variations in the pottery from a few sites in the northern part of Virginia to establish the North Division of the Allegheny Ceramic Area. These local variations are best shown in the shell-tempered type, Keyser Cord Marked, and the limestone-tempered type, Page Cord Marked, orig- inally described by Griffin (Manson, MacCord, and Griffin, 1944) 108 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [Bull. 160 from the Keyser Farm site. As already mentioned in the pottery type descriptions the author would like to view these types as variants within the New River and Radford Pottery Series, whose differences are almost wholly limited to certain rim decorations and appliques. This local variation is best expressed by the materials from the Keyser Farm site and the Berryville site with the Marlow Lakes and Buracker sites showing a slight mixture of materials with pottery types from the North-Central and Central Ceramic Area. Since certain of the sherds at the Linville and the Buracker sites are excellent examples of the various pottery types of the Radford and New River Series, with- out any of the pottery characteristics typical of Keyser Cord Marked or Page Cord Marked, there is some hesitation to establish this area as a totally separate ceramic area. Instead, the northern and southern parts of the Allegheny Ceramic Area are established as subdivisions of a closely related ceramic region with local variations which are probably significant as separate cultural complexes of a more wide- sweeping cultural pattern. To summarize, the Allegheny Ceramic Area is typified by two dis- tinct pottery series, the limestone-tempered Radford Series and the shell-tempered New River Series, with the major trend through time of a decline in net-impressed and knot-roughened surfaces on lime- stone-tempered ware (Radford Net Impressed and Roughened) as these types are replaced by shell-tempered wares with cord marking (New River Cord Marked) and plain (New River Plain) surfaces. The paste features, shape, and associated surface treatments in the various types representing this series are so outstanding and diagnos- tic that there is little effort in defining the Allegheny Ceramic Area from the other ceramic areas of Virginia. Since there appears to be slight local variations in pottery of the northern (i. e. Page Cord Marked and Keyser Cord Marked of the Keyser Farm site) and that of the southern parts of the Allegheny Ceramic Area, these regions have been designated as subdivisions within the total area. SOUTH-CENTRAL VIRGINIA CERAMIC AREA (Fig. 14) The region of southern Virginia drained principally by the Roanoke, Staunton, and Dan Rivers presents a certain uniformity of pottery types, but with enough irregularities to make it the most difficult ceramic area to define. The survey and excavation work of the River Basin Surveys in the Buggs Island Dam area should eventually solve many of the problems, but until Carl Miller presents these findings in greater detail than his preliminary report (Miller, 1949), tentative conclusions independent of his work will have to be drawn on the lim- ited scope of this survey. The pottery analysis of the excavations at Evans] A CERAMIC STUDY OF VIRGINIA ARCHEOLOGY 109 Fields Island and Clarksville will be discussed first, to be followed by an analysis of the surface collections from other sites in the area. Although Fields Island had sufficient depth of refuse (45 cm.) to per- mit stratigraphic analysis, the changes in pottery types are unfor- tunately so slight they offer little or no diagnostic trends. The only outstanding shift is an increase in Clarksville Net and Fabric Rough- ened in the top levels while Clarksville Cord Marked declines slightly. However, it is felt that the sample is too small to consider this an absolutely proved pottery trend. In our excavations the sterile sand beneath the refuse did not produce any sherds; the stratigraphy found by Coe in previous years (Griffin, 1945) was not duplicated by our diggings. Undoubtedly, our excavations were in a different area from Coe’s. All sherds from the site were excellent examples of the Clarks- ville Series. The two separate strata cuts in different parts of the Clarksville site show some general conformity (figs. 20, 21), but the differences 0-6 IK. s CEES es aes gs 6-12 = qe r] CED = 12-18 J ES e T = 18-24 = Png ta rons Jenene ws | Psa Foun] ] 24-30 Li} SSE eee GEES aa 30-36 gs RES ee [aera i 4) CLARKSVILLE CLARKSVILLE CLARKSVILLE CLARKSVILLE CLARKSVILLE (Gao 20% FABRIC- NET & FABRIC CORD-MARKED PLAIN COMBED IMPRESSED ROUGHENED FiaurE 20.—Graphic plot of the pottery types from Strata Cut 1, Clarksville site. 0-6 IN. as Ee Seas CEREEAT 6-12 ‘ ize a1 snp hue- Knees) Ly s Seen Fe ws 12-18 o£ REED a qa re 18-24 ] Banas AY CES | 24-30 SEC ATE = Stee Gaz : CLARKSVILLE CLARKSVILLE CLARKSVILLE CLARKSVILLE CLARKSVILLE [a] FABRIC- NET & FABRIC CORD-MARKED PLAIN COMBED % IMPRESSED ROUGHENED FIGURE 21.—Graphic plot of the pottery types from Strata Cut 2, Clarksville site. in percentage occurrences of Clarksville Net and Fabric Roughened are difficult to explain. At Cut 1 going from the lowest level to top, the percentages run 74.2, 65.0, 70.8, 68.3, and 57.9 percent; in Cut 2 from bottom to top they are, respectively, 42.8, 53.6, 42.2, 47.7, and 45.7 percent. These trends suggest a slight time difference in the parts of the site tested by our Cuts 1 and 2. Strata Cut 2 with the larger per- centage of Clarksville Cord Marked scattered throughout all levels, a slightly higher amount of Clarksville Combed (up to 20 percent in one level), and a lower percentage of Clarksville Net and Fabric Roughened must be somewhat different in time from Strata Cut 1 where Clarksville Cord Marked is practically nonexistent, and Clarks- 110 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [Bull. 160 ville Net and Fabric Roughened reach a popularity of 65.0 to 74.2 percent. Therefore, even though the particular levels of each cut do not interdigitate well, there is some suggestion that Cut 2 could be placed underneath Cut 1 to continue the major trends shown separately within each cut. Following these same trends the levels of Fields 8-14 IN. a aa aes SaaS 14-16 g Rear are Ls) Denia iJ . ' ‘ ‘ ' pets} CLARKSVILLE CLARKSVILLE CLARKSVILLE CLARKSVILLE CLARKSVILLE en FABRIC- NET 8 FABRIC CORD-MARKED PLAIN COMBED IMPRESSED ROUGHENED Fiaure 22.—Graphie plot of the pottery types from Strata Cut 1, Fields Island site. Island (fig. 22) would correspond more closely with those of Strata Cut 2 at Clarksville because of the higher percentage of Clarksville Cord Marked. Although Coe’s excavations in the Clarksville area suggest three distinct levels of occupation, each with pottery of different surface treatments (Griffin, 1945), our excavations indicated an intermixture of various pottery types in each level. Since all these pottery types were of the same ceramic series, there is no doubt that they were pro- duced by the same cultural group. An analysis of the pottery types of the Clarksville surface collections (table 1) supports the same view- point. With the exception of a few sherds showing similarities to Coe’s Dan River Focus material and some unclassified specimens, the percentage occurrence of the various types conforms to that in the strata cuts. With only 9.1 percent Clarksville Cord Marked, and 8.9 percent Clarksville Plain, the majority (68 percent of the sherds) are Clarksville Net and Fabric Roughened. In other words, ceram- ically speaking, the Clarksville site is the result of one major occupa- tion by a group fairly stabilized in its pottery traditions, emphasizing net and fabric-roughened surfaces, and finger pinchings along the necks, rims, or lips. Other sites that conform closely to the Clarks- ville site are Elm Hill, one of the collections from the New River Mound area, Martinsville, Lynch, and Tisdale sites. In this group the only site outside the geographical center of the South Coastal Ceramic Area is the New River Mound, which is in the geographical region of the Allegheny Ceramic Area. Several other sites present a mixture of pottery types and series sug- gestive of two occupations on the same site, or possibly the replace- ment of one group by another, or the amalgamation of several groups. Leatherwood, West Clarksville, Occaneechi Island 1 and 2, Philpott Bridge, and Bone Bottom sites offer the evidence for such conclusions. None of these sites have a ceramic sample that would assure classifica- tion of all the sherds as 100 percent typical of the Clarksville Series. Evans] A CERAMIC STUDY OF VIRGINIA ARCHEOLOGY Lig To be specific, at Bone Bottom site there are a few sherds of the Rad- ford Series (the peripheral location of this site to the various ceramic areas might be an explanation), some examples of an unclassified reddish-orange ware with coarse sand temper and a high percentage of mica in the paste and usually a cord-marked surface; however, the majority of the sherds fall into what appear to be varieties of the various pottery types of the Clarksville Series. Instead of the typical Clarksville temper of coarse river sand with a grayish to gray-tan surface color, the paste is a compact, fine-grained, sand-tempered, light red to rusty red; but the surface treatments of net and fabric rough- ening with finger pinching along the rim and collar and a few combed interiors are typical only of the Clarksville Series. The same peculiar pottery mixture, with the exception of the Radford Series, occurs at Leatherwood, Philpott Bridge, and Occaneechi Island 1 and 2. West Clarksville is generally in the same category, but it has a larger per- centage of the unclassified sherds with a coarse temper, reddish paste, cord-marked (76.5 percent) or fabric-impressed (5.9 percent) surface, and an abundance of mica in the paste; however, 2.9 percent of the sherds in the limited sample from the site are good Clarksville Net and Fabric Roughened. The only other site with a large percentage of Unclassified Series sherds is Occaneechi 1, but here only 28.4 percent of the total sherds are of this series with the remainder representing the Clarksville Pottery Series. In all the other discussions of each ceramic area, the sites were seriated according to some sequence of decline and increase of certain pottery types; however, two reasons prohibit it in this case: (1) a lack of sites with large sherd collections, and (2) a greater number of sites. Instead of being plotted these data are given in table 1 in appendix 1 for those interested in the details of the pottery-type classi- fications. However, certain observations are worth mentioning. There is a slight difference in the amount of Clarksville Net and Fabric Roughened at such sites as Fields Island (82.9 percent), Tisdale (41.0 percent), Elm Hill (56.2 percent), and Clarksville (68.0 percent), but the companion wares do not show a significant trend that would explain this difference chronologically. For example, at Fields Island this low percentage is accounted for by 41.4 percent Clarksville Combed, at Tisdale by 19.1 percent Clarksville Plain and 25.7 percent Clarksville Combed, at Elm Hill by 22.4 percent Clarksville Cord Marked. There is no consistency of associated pottery types. The breakdown of the types into surface finish and temper either confuses the issue or adds nothing new to the present analysis. The only sig- nificant observation from this approach is one also gained by a study of the pottery types—the predominant surface treatment in the Clarks- ville Series and in the South-Central Ceramic Area is net and fabric 112 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [Bull. 160 roughened; all other treatments are of minor importance. Although not shown in this type of analysis, the high percentage of internal combing is also more prominent in this pottery series than in any other within Virginia. What cultural interpretation derives from this occurrence of two distinct pottery series in the South-Central Ceramic Area? Although only a limited number of sites from this area were covered in this survey, and the publication of Miller’s survey data on 51 villages and campsites (Miller, 1949) and on his two seasons of River Basin Sur- veys excavations in the Clarksville area will undoubtedly offer more conclusive details and present data to fill the gaps in our knowledge of South-Central Virginia, certain tentative conclusions are suggested. The Unclassified Pottery Series shows closer affiliations to the Stony Creek Pottery Series of the Southeastern and Central and North- Central Ceramic Areas of Virginia than to any other pottery from Virginia. This association suggests a generic relationship to the early ceramic horizons of Virginia which were widespread over a large part of Virginia before local specializations began to develop. Under these circumstances, as well as the fact there is no evidence to show the direct outgrowth of the Unclassified from the Clarksville Series, the Unclassified Pottery Series appears to be earlier than the Clarksville Series. The group representing the Clarksville Series is not a direct descendant of the peoples who were responsible for the Unclassified Pottery Series. Since the same levels at some sites produce sherds of both series and the change from one series to another is rather rapid, an amalgamation of two culture groups seems indicated rather than abandonment by the makers of the Unclassified Pottery Series and the reoccupation of the same sites by the producers of the Clarksville Series. If it can be assumed that another group came in and inter- mixed with, or perhaps conquered, the existing one, instead of devel- oping indigenously, from where might the intruders have come? Perhaps more light will be shed on the subject after the compara- tive data for regions outside Virginia are discussed, but here it is per- tinent to mention that the only other Virginia pottery series showing a high popularity of knot and net-roughened surfaces, folded-over rims, and recurved jar necks is the Radford Pottery Series of the Allegheny Ceramic Area. Although there are many ceramic differ- ences between the Radford and Clarksville Series, in the light of the above-mentioned relationships, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the South-Central Ceramic Area may have been invaded by a group either coming from or strongly influenced by the southwestern part of Virginia. In summary, the South-Central Ceramic Area, as defined in this report, covers a region drained by the Roanoke, Staunton, and Dan Evans] A CERAMIC STUDY OF VIRGINIA ARCHEOLOGY 1s Rivers and their tributaries. The principal ceramic features are shown in two pottery complexes representing slight differences in time: an Unclassified Series with a high mica content, sandy, reddish paste, with fine cord-marked and medium to fine fabric-impressed surfaces, and the Clarksville Series with medium to coarse sand temper, gray-tan paste and surfaces, distinctive recurved neck shapes, finger pinchings along the rim or neck, and the majority of the sur- faces roughened with a crumpled net or fabric. Evidence suggests that the Clarksville Series is the result of an intruding group who amalgamated with the indigenous group responsible for the Unclassi- fied Pottery Series. ) COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF SURROUNDING AREAS AND VIRGINIA Since there is no easy way to summarize the archeological materials of the East which might show possible relationships to the various ceramic complexes and areas in Virginia, the simplest method is to start in the Northeast, working southward into the Southeast and finally ending with a discussion of previous work in Virginia. The final subdivision of this section is a brief evaluation of Holland’s projectile point sequence (appendix 2) in relation to the ceramic sequences. Originally the draft of this comparative section included a long discussion of the various ceramic trends of New York and the adjoin- ing areas of Connecticut and other New England States (Ritchie, 1944; 1951; Rouse, 1947; Smith, 1950; et al.). Critical reading of the manuscript by specialists in this northeastern area demonstrated that since the discussion proved that none of the ceramic materials from these areas, regardless of foci or aspects (the one possible ex- ception might lie in some recently reported steatite-tempered sherds from central New York), were directly related or even closely com- parable to any of theVirginia pottery series, there seemed little value in paraphrasing what is best read in the original monographs. In- stead, only the briefest comments are given with reference to those few possible examples that show some remote relationship or similar trend to the pottery series of Virginia. The only pottery series from Virginia which showed possible affili- ations, even though remote in most respects, is that from the Potomac area of Virginia at such sites as Potawomeke and Moyaone. The ce- ramic affiliation, most clearly seen in certain common design motifs and incisions, is not one of direct relationship or diffusion but rather of two areas receiving an influence from a common center. Some eastern archeologists now believe that decorative influences spread out of a common center or region of cultural development in the Middle Dela- 114 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [Bull. 160 ware River Valley to the north along the east coast where the pottery of the East River Aspect of coastal New York and Connecticut repre- sents the farthest northern spread and to the south along the east coast with the pottery of the Townsend Site of Delaware and the Pota- womeke site of Virginia representing the farthest known southward spread from this center. The detailed discussion of both the Town- send site and Potawomeke site appear in a later part of this section, when the comparative data from Maryland and Virginia sites are presented. If one is to pick out separate aspects of Smith’s coastal New York sequence, such as the East River Aspect (Smith, 1950, pp. 116-126), and analyze the trends of the pottery types, surface finishes, and temper within that aspect alone, certain similarities occur with those of Virginia. However, methodologically this is unsound, for it is isolating in time a short time period in New York and explaining the trends within that aspect without reference to the position of this aspect in the total New York cultural picture or what outside in- fluences might have been affecting that particular aspect. For ex- ample, it was first thought that the trend from grit tempered to shell tempered, and from cord marked to plain in the East River Aspect (Smith, 1950, fig. 2) clearly demonstrated that throughout time this trend was comparable to the same one shown in coastal Virginia. However, when it is realized that the Windsor Aspect precedes the East River Aspect and shows a similar trend in shell tempering, one gets a bimodal curve for the total picture of coastal New York which is not comparable to the pottery trend in Virginia. In other words, a loca] situation explains the shift in pottery in New York (East River Aspect is an intrusion into the area from the Middle Delaware River Valley) and therefore its trend cannot be applied to an area as far away as Virginia when there are no linking factors in the interlying areas. From a detailed study of the Northeastern sequences, it is the opinion of the author that local trends of this area cannot be applied to similar trends in the Virginia area when there are no direct link- ages in other ceramic traits. Smith’s earliest stage, the North Beach Focus of the Windsor Aspect, is marked by the occurrence of “pottery of a variety identical with the oldest known pottery found in central New York and called Vinette 1” (Smith, 1950, p. 108). In Ritchie and MacNeish’s latest definition of pre-Iroquoian pottery of New York State, the diagnostic feature of Vinette 1 is a complete interior and exterior cord marking (Ritchie and MacNeish, 1949, p. 100). Here and also in his earlier works Ritchie (1944 and 1946) gives both stratigraphic and seriation evidence for the early occurrence of Vinette 1 type of pottery. Therefore, this unique feature, which gradually gives way to cord- Byans] A CERAMIC STUDY OF VIRGINIA ARCHEOLOGY 115 marked and rocker-stamped varieties, has some temporal significance in New York and possibly other regions. Ritchie and MacNeish say : The closest affinities of Vinette 1 are with the Fayette Thick type in Kentucky and elsewhere, and with the Red Ocher Type 6 in Illinois, both of which are on the Adena time level, as indicated by stratigraphy in Illinois and seriation of burial traits in Kentucky. The cultural assignment of Vinette 1 pottery is sustained by the total evidence of the other traits and by the fact that the Middle- sex culture, with only this double-corded pottery type, has a majority of traits in common with Adena. ... In the majority of the regions where the type is found (except the Susquehanna River Valley and Virginia, where steatite- tempered sherds may be earlier), it occurs in the lowest ceramic horizons. [Ritchie and MacNeish, 1949, pp. 100, 119.] With these cultural assignments, and a lack of a pottery type in Virginia identical to Vinette 1 material, the sporadic occurrences of similar techniques need careful examination. Of all the sherds examined in this survey not a single one could be considered identical in paste or interior cord marking to Vinette 1. The Virginia sherds are impressed only on the lip and rim interior and not on any interior body sherds with either fabric, net, cord-wrapped paddle, or cord-wrapped dowel. In fact, the technique in Virginia sug- gests that the lip was held with either a piece of fabric or net while the vessel was modeled, leaving the imprint on the inner rim surfaces. The interior impressions are not carefully and neatly applied, but suggest an unintentional or accidental application. The limitation of the impressions to only the inner rim area distinguishes these examples from any direct affiliation with Vinette 1 technique. To further dem- onstrate the point, examples of interior decoration on Virginia sherds are as follows: A few examples of net impression and roughening on the interior lip of Prince George Net Impressed and Roughened from Pottery Hill site; a fabric-impressed (usually coarse warp, medium close weft) interior lip on a few Prince George Fabric Impressed and Stony Creek Fabric Impressed from Potts site, and 14 examples on Albemarle Fabric Impressed from Virginia, Garth, Warren, Hen- shaw Shelter, Whippoorwill Hollow, and Coleman sites; and cord- wrapped dowel impressions on the inner lip of Stony Creek Cord Marked, Stony Creek Fabric Impressed, Stony Creek Net Impressed and Roughened, and Albemarle Fabric Impressed from various sites. Therefore, considering all factors, it does not appear that the tech- nique of interior cord or fabric impression or the paste characteristics of any of the pottery types of Virginia are sufficiently close to Vinette 1 types in New York to suggest any close affiliation of the two. The earliest ceramic types in Virginia are neither Vinette 1 nor a related ware. Ritchie reports that several years ago he found one steatite-tempered sherd from a small site near Geneseo, Livingston County, N. Y., which 116 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [Bull, 160 he attributes to the Point Peninsula 1 Focus of the Early Woodland II Period.® The specimen was a rim sherd about 2 inches long, un- decorated, apparently from a straight-sided vessel and with a rounded lip. Since the specimen apparently represents either the Marcey Creek Pottery Series of Virginia or some of the various steatite-tem- pered wares of New Jersey and Pennsylvania which are related to the Marcey Creek Series, and no further sherds have been found in New York State in spite of the extensive excavations in that area, the author would tend to agree with Ritchie that the sherd represents trade into the New York area. The full meaning of the appearance of steatite- tempered wares will come later in this section after all the finds from other areas in the Northeast have been discussed. New Jersey sites offer a little more encouragement in finding sim- ilarities with the pottery series of Virginia. From the descriptive data and photographs in Cross’ Archaeology of New Jersey (1941), some of the types from East Point, Indian Head, Salisbury, Goose Island, Wheeler, Riggins, and Koens-Crispin sites are worthy of com- ment. Although the temper was lumped in discussion because the author felt that “only incidentally can certain kinds of nonplastic in- clusions be associated with certain types of ware” (op. cit., p. 180), the listing of tempering materials and the types of surface treatment often suggests that such a statement is not wholly true. For example, the discussion of the pottery types from Salisbury, Goose Island, and Koens-Crispin indicates the use of steatite as well as mica, feldspar, quartz, shale, and sand (op. cit., pp. 60, 66, 89). Since, at these same sites, flat-based, crudely made vessels with a mat impression on the base and usually plain surfaces also occur, it is possible to assume that these vessels were probably always tempered with steatite. To fur- ther illustrate, “one steatite-tempered, plain rough sherd [from Goose Island] has a knob applied to the outer surface” (op. cit., p. 66). These flat-based, crudely made, lug-handled vessels resemble in all detail those of the Marcey Creek Series found at various sites through- out Virginia.?? Not only do the steatite-tempered sherds from New Jersey resemble the Virginia material in shape and paste characteris- tics, but in both areas they have a similar position as early ceramic styles. At the Ware site in the northern part of Salem County, N. J., plain rough, flat-based pottery heavily tempered with steatite (Koens- Crispin Plain) came from the lowest level (below 12 inches) in the ®° Information from William A. Ritchie in letter dated January 7, 1952. The author agrees with Griffin's observations (1945, pp. 220-246) that the pottery type known as Fayette Thick in the Adena Aspect has certain features, such as lugs, flat bases, and various types of interior and exterior surface treatment that show a decided relationship to early Woodland materials. Although this does not necessarily imply a direct relationship with the steatite-tempered wares of the Marcey Creek Series of the Middle- Atlantic area and Fayette Thick, the close similarity in shape, a comparable time position, and the replacement of these thick, coarse forms by other varieties offers interesting possibilities of cultural affiliations when these wares are better known and defined. Evans] A CERAMIC STUDY OF VIRGINIA ARCHEOLOGY 117 excavations, while above this level there were cord-marked types, and in the uppermost levels a majority of Riggins Plain and Fabric Im- pressed (McCann, 1948, p. 18; 1950, pp. 315-321). Since the steatite-tempered pottery of Virginia seriates in the lower part of the sequences and in New Jersey is found to be in the earliest pottery levels, there is little doubt that a single group is responsible for this early pottery type in an area extending from New Jersey to Virginia. Data on early horizons in Pennsylvania tend to prove the point. In various articles Witthoft indicates that in the transitional stage between the Early Woodland Period and the Late Archaic and in the Early Woodland Period, the appearance of steatite-tempered pot- tery, copying the shape of steatite bowls with flat base, oval or rec- tangular shape, lug handles at each end, and usually with a fabric im- pression on the base, was common in Pennsylvania (Witthoft, 1949, pp. 10, 11, 18; 1950, p.11). In fact, he demonstrates that the wares are similar to those in Virginia and in Washington, D. C. (the Marcey Creek Plain Series) by calling the material from Pennsylvania ““Wash- ington Steatite-tempered” (Witthoft, 1950, p. 11). This term has been loosely applied and should now be replaced by the published de- scriptions of Marcey Creek Series (Manson, 1948, and pp. 54-56 of this report) to refer to the early steatite-tempered pottery from Pennsyl- vania, New Jersey, Virginia, Maryland, and Washington, D. C. Other pottery types in New Jersey further confirm the affiliation with Virginia. The sherds illustrated on Cross’ plate 22 a, 1-3, from Salisbury site suggest Stony Creek Cord Marked, and the coarseness of the temper and general surface texture and features of the sherds in plate 32 a, 1-10, from Koens-Crispin site, and plate 22 a, 5, from Salisbury site (Cross, 1941) suggest varieties of the Prince George Series. If these identifications based on illustrations and description are correct, then the aforementioned New Jersey sites would conform easily to the earliest part of the ceramic sequences in Virginia as shown in the stratigraphic excavations of Potts site and the seriation of sites in the Central and North-Central, Southeastern, and Coastal Virginia Ceramic Areas. The Riggins site (Cross, 1941, pp. 50-52) offers another interesting bit of comparative data. Here, “Quartz tempering was used in 91 per- cent of the sherds with sand comprising the temper of most of the re- mainder” (op. cit., p. 52). Although this type of temper would sug- gest the Albemarle Series, the photographs and descriptions of the specimens (Cross, 1941, p. 52; 1947, p. 4) do not show any close affili- ation because of a distinct rim and lip difference and a high percentage of “cord-wound stick” decoration. However, it is highly possible that the two wares are closely related and this site is a later manifestation of the same cultural group in the upper part of the sequence in. the 118 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [Bull. 160 Central and North-Central Ceramic Area of Virginia. An evaluation of the historic period in southern New Jersey at the Krol site in Salem County suggests the lateness of Riggins pottery. The historic period was very short in southern New Jersey, most of the Indians having emigrated westward by the first half of the eighteenth century. ... One of the contact sites excavated yielded a fair sample of material. This was the Krol site in Salem County. The pottery here was predominately of the Riggins type. Trade pipes of the early type were found in the humus and Riggins pottery also predominated more heavily in the humus than in the lower levels. Appar- ently the trade pipes were associated with pottery of the Riggins type, a fact which would indicate that this type of pottery survived into the historic period. [McCann, 1948, p. 8.] As one moves closer to the Virginia area, greater similarities with the Virginia pottery series would be expected, but even some of the well-defined pottery types from Pennsylvania show more differences than similarities. The ceramic features of the Montague and Hanna Foci of the Monongahela Woodland Culture (Butler, 1939, p. 71) are not specifically identifiable with any of the Virginia pottery series— shapes and rim profiles vary considerably. However, certain sherds from the Montague Focus have interesting features suggesting rela- tionships with the northern variants of the New River and Radford Series of the Northern Division of the Allegheny Ceramic Area, as characterized by the pottery types from the Keyser Farm site. The ap- plied knobs on the rim sherds from the Montague site illustrated on plate 7 (ibid., p. 28) are quite similar to those found on Keyser Cord Marked (Manson, MacCord, and Griffin, 1944, pl. 11). The folded- over rims from the same site (Butler, 1939, pl. 8, p. 31) are quite com- parable to the rim profiles of the Radford Series and as occasional oc- currences in the New River Series. (See pls. 13, 16, 17, and figs. 7, 9.) A further similarity within the New River Series is the fact that the shell-tempered sherds from the Montague site were more frequently plain-surfaced (Butler, 1939, pl. 21). It would appear then that the Monongahela Woodland culture of southwestern Pennsylvania has extremely close ceramic relationships to the Northern Division of the Allegheny Ceramic Area and less direct, although evident, affiliations with the Southern Division of the Allegheny Area. Butler classifies the whole complex of the cultural] traits from the Montague site as Woodland; however, she indicates there is— a wave of influence at the Montague site, outstandingly evident in the pottery, that is foreign to the woodland pattern. . . . Notched points and grooved knobs on the rim sherds and rectilinear wide-line incised decoration of the Montague type seem definitely associated with the Fort Ancient culture; applied bands, plain and notched, like rudimentary collars at a vessel rim, tie into Fort Ancient, the Western Iroquois and the Piedmont area of Virginia. . . . We can say, then, that the people of the Montague site were strongly influenced by a Fort Ancient- Iroquoian group, and may have helped to transmit the resemblances noted between Fort Ancient material and that found in Virginia. [Butler, 1939, p. 48.] Hvans] A CERAMIC STUDY OF VIRGINIA ARCHEOLOGY 119 Although Butler qualifies her statements by indicating that it is hard to assign tentative dates to such a site, she concludes the section on the Montague site by— The best we can say is that the occupation of the Montague site probably occurred at some time during the last five hundred years before the arrival of white settlers on the North Atlantic Coast. [ibid., p. 49.] Although the Monongahela culture of the Woodland pattern of southwestern Pennsylvania shows some close relationships to the Northern Division of the Allegheny Ceramic Area of Virginia, other of the major cultural groups of Pennsylvania show little or no resem- blances to the Virginia Pottery Series, but instead have closer affilia- tions to the Owasco and Iroquoian cultures of the North. No true Iroquois or related Iroquois pottery was found in the sherds handled in the present survey. This would not preclude their presence in Vir- ginia, but since the sites of the survey reported herein cover a major part of the State, with a wide variety of pottery types represented by tens of thousands of sherds, the author does not think that Iroquois pottery is in Virginia in any quantity. Another pottery complex defined for Pennsylvania is the material from around Philadelphia from such sites as the Lenape Rock Shelters near Broomall, which have been classified as— . a collection of artifacts tied in archeologically to the Red Valley focus of the Coastal aspect of the northeastern phase of the Woodland pattern and his- torically to the Lenni Lenape or Delaware Indians. . . . The Broomall shelters can also at present be considered typical of the late Coastal Algonkian culture of this area. [Butler, 1947, pp. 252-253. ] Since it is not within the scope of this report to argue the accuracy of ethnological identifications of archeological horizons, but rather to compare the ceramic complexes of other areas with those defined for Virginia, it is merely pertinent to note here that without actual examination of the sherds from the site, but based solely upon the meager published data, this material appears to the author to be more closely related to the Northeastern area than to Virginia or the South- east. The closest similarity comes with the ceramic complex defined as Potomac Creek, the result of a late influx along the Virginia coast and not directly related to the more basic and abundant pottery series of the Virginia area. However, if the Broomall shelters represent two brief occupations, widely separated in time, as is thought by many Eastern archeologists, the latter occupation would apply to the same cultural influence which also affected the Potomac Creek complex in Virginia and the other one to one of the earlier pottery complexes of the area. Much of Maryland archeological information is still in manuscript form or published as preliminary notes or abstracts. Since most of 120 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY (Bull. 160 the Maryland sherds were available for reexamination at the United States National Museum, without making an exhaustive study, a sufli- cient number were checked to see how closely they fit into the Virginia Pottery Series. Disregarding, for the moment, any specific pottery- type names, which recently might have been applied to Maryland pottery samples, a comparison of the published data on the Hughes site, in Montgomery County, Md. (Stearns, 1940, figs. 1, 2; pl. 2, figs. 1, 2) refers to the shell-tempered New River Pottery Series of the Allegheny Ceramic Area rather than the shell-tempered Chicka- hominy Series of the Coastal Virginia Ceramic Area. Specifically, most of the shell-tempered sherds appear to conform to Keyser Cord Marked as defined by Griffin (Manson, MacCord, and Griffin, 1944) from the Keyser Farm site in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia. By its geographical location the Hughes site could fall conveniently into either the Allegheny or the Central and North-Central Ceramic Areas of Virginia. Most of the sherds suggest the major occupation is by a group representing the ceramic traditions of western Virginia ; however, the proximity of the boundaries of these two ceramic areas could easily explain an overlap of occupation and therefore account for the presence of a sherd which Stearns states was the only one of its kind found at the Hughes site (his pl. 3, fig. 1-c). The sherd is tempered with crushed quartz and is a typical representative of the Albemarle Series. A further study of materials from sites along tidewater Maryland (Stearns, 1943) offers interesting comparative data to suggest that the Coastal Ceramic Area of Virginia could easily be extended north- ward in the same curve to embrace the Chesapeake Bay. For those interested in the detailed ceramic comparisons of Stearns’ tidewater Maryland sites and the pottery in the Virginia study, the following plate references in Stearns’ report of 19438, verified by inspection of specimens in the United States National Museum when available, are correlated with this study. Sherds from Maryland sites which are good examples of the shell-tempered Chickahominy Series and its var- ious subtypes are as follows: (1) Potts Net Impressed and Rough- eued—Booby Bar site, plate II, 9-17, 19-20, 23-25; Rocky Point site, plate V, 10-12, 16, 18-20, 22-23; Fort Smallwood site, plate VIII, 3- 17,21 (compare with the Virginia sherds illustrated herein, pl. 8, f-2). (2) Chickahominy Fabric Impressed with the subvariety of decorative incisions—Booby Bar site, plate II, 6; Little Round Bay Creek site, plate X, a, plate XI, 1-4, 6-8, 11-13, plate XII, 10; Conowingo site, plate XIII, 8-9; West Bank of Forked Creek site, plate XV, sherds on left; Cocktown Creek site, plate XVIII, 1-3, 5, 8 (compare with the Virginia sherds illustrated herein in pl. 7, a7). (8) Chickahom- iny Cord Marked—Little Round Bay Creek site, plate XI, 16; Patux- Evans] A CERAMIC STUDY OF VIRGINIA ARCHEOLOGY 121 ent River sites, plate XVIII, 7 (compare with the Virginia sherds illustrated herein, pl. 8,a-e). (4) Potts Cord-wrapped Dowel—West Bank of Forked Creek site, figure 47, plate XVI, 6; Patuxent River sites, plate XVIII, 6 (compare with the Virginia sherds from the Potts site illustrated herein, pl. 9, f-2). The examples of sherds of the Albemarle Series from the tidewater Maryland sites are: (1) Albe- marle Cord Marked—Booby Bar site, plate II, 1-4, 7-8; West Bank of Forked Creek site, plate XVI, 1, 2, 4, 7; Patuxent River sites, plate XVIII, 13 (compare with the Virginia sherds illustrated herein, pl. 5, a-n). (2) Albemarle Net Impressed—Little Round Bay Creek site, plate XI, 14-15; West Bank of Forked Creek site, plate XVI, 5 (com- pare with the Virginia sherds illustrated herein, pl. 6, 7). Without any question these Maryland examples of the Albemarle Series are excellent as to color, texture, size, and nature of the crushed- quartz temper particles, thickness, surface treatments, and rim profiles, and could be lost in any of the sites of the Central and North-Central Virginia Ceramic Area. The sherds tempered with crushed shell are characteristic of the Chickahominy Series of the Coastal Virginia Ceramic Area, even to such peculiar characteristics as the incised V designs or cord-wrapped stick impressions upon a fabric-impressed surface, features typical of many of the upper level sherds of the Potts site. The main difference is the brown to rusty-red color of the Maryland sherds. Although a sufficient number of the Chickahominy Series sherds range from tan to dark-brown hues to make this part of the color range of the sherds, the light-tan variety is more com- mon. in the Coastal Virginia Ceramic Area. Such a minor character- istic is not sufficient to rule out direct affiliation with this pottery series when surface finish, rim profiles, temper, shape, and paste features are identical. A point of interest is the association, in the same sites, of a limited number of crushed-quartz Albemarle Series sherds with a high per- centage of shell-tempered Chickahominy Series sherds in the various sites discussed by Stearns. This association did not occur with any degree of consistency in Virginia. Occasionally a few shell-tempered sherds came from one or two of the sites which had sherds predom- inantly of the Albemarle Series, and occasionally a few of the Stony Creek sherds in the Potts site of Coastal Virginia had sporadic oc- currences of angular quartz particles in the paste, but these associa- tions were limited. Unfortunately, the exact percentage occurrence of this mixture is not available in Stearns’ report and the highly se- lected and limited samples in the United States National Museum from the same sites offer no reliable clues, but often his comments are sufficiently detailed to suggest only a minor occurrence of Albemarle Series sherds at most tidewater Maryland sites. For example, at 305522—55_—9 122 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [Bull. 160 Booby Bar site some 300 sherds were available, all representing one type (his shell-tempered) except 12 which were tempered with crushed quartz and were a dark reddish brown (Stearns, 1948, corrected copy, pp. 8-4). At Little Round Bay Creek site, of the approximately 500 sherds recovered all sherds are shell-tempered except 6 which are crushed quartz (op. cit., pp. 10-11). This sporadic occurrence of the crushed-quartz type continues throughout Stearns’ discussions, ex- cept for two sites. Of the some 2,000 sherds from Conowingo site, most are tempered with crushed stone with only a few of crushed shell (op. cit., pp. 18-14). At the west bank of Forked Creek site on the Magothy River, Stearns indicates that most of the sherds from the site proper were shell-tempered, but “just north of excavation A [fig. 45 in Stearns’ report] some two hundred sherds,“ representing 10 or 12 vessels, had been washed out of a shell deposit. ... These sherds, however, are impressed with cords and contain beach sand [corrected in ink by Stearns to read “crushed quartz”] as tempering material.” An examination of the few type samples from this site revealed that without any doubt the crushed-quartz varieties are excel- lect examples, in all features, of the Albemarle Series, especially Albe- marle Cord Marked, and the shell-tempered varieties easily conform to the Chickahominy Series. However, the excavation notes indicate that the large quantity of Albemarle Series sherds are from another part of the site, suggesting the possibility of another zone of occupa- tion. Unfortunately, the data are too scanty to substantiate fully this interpretation of two occupations, but, in the light of the position of the two ceramic traditions throughout time in Virginia, the prob- ability seems good. One of the excavated Maryland sites, the Shepard site, produces a complex of pottery which would place it in the extended area of the Central and North-Central Ceramic Area because of its high percent- age of pottery of the Albemarle Pottery Series. The site report is not published, but the results of the excavations and pottery analysis of 953 potsherds were examined in manuscript form (Schmitt and Slattery, MS.). The pottery is classified into 885 (94 percent) Shepard Cord Marked (a crushed-quartz or crushed-igneous-rock temper with a red- dish-brown surface color comparable, except for a greater elaboration or rims, to Albemarle Cord Marked), 8 Page Cord Marked, 16 Keyser Cord Marked, 1 Popes Creek Net Marked, and 43 Unclassified. From the standpoint of the site’s location, it is within a half mile of the Hughes site. As already indicated (p. 120), the Hughes site by its ceramic types appears to be representative of the Allegheny Ceramic Area. Since these two areas have a common boundary in this general 114 red-ink corrected entry below this paragraph reads, ‘Altogether about 6-700 sherds of this type were found” (op. cit., p. 21). Bvans] A CERAMIC STUDY OF VIRGINIA ARCHEOLOGY 123 region it is not peculiar, then, to find that the Shepard site represents the upper part of the seriated sequence for the Central and North- Central Ceramic Area at a point of time when the Albemarle Pottery Series is the most popular pottery. Schmitt and Slattery conclude that the Shepard site is pre-European and fits into what could be called a Montgomery Focus including other Piedmont sites, with the Hughes and Keyser Farm sites fitting into a later focus which can be designated as the Luray (Schmitt and Slattery, MS.). Although not wishing to give the sites absolute dates any more than is attempted in this study, Schmitt and Slattery nevertheless suggest that the occupancy of, the Shepard site falls into the latter half of the 15th and first half of the 16th centuries, with the Keyser Farm site partially overlapping the Shepard site but extending until 1575, and the Hughes site coexistent with the later occupation of the Keyser Farm site and probably approaching 1600 (Schmitt and Slattery, MS.). Without making an exhaustive study of Maryland ceramics similar to the one just concluded for Virginia, there is sufficient evidence to suggest that the Coastal Virginia Ceramic Area extends northward and includes tidewater Maryland, while the Central and North-Central Virginia Ceramic Area also extends northward, with its boundary adjacent to the Coastal Area. The scope of this paper does not permit the exact definition of these ceramic areas in Maryland, but the com- parative ceramic data, without any doubt, demonstrates their further areal distribution northward outside the limits of Virginia. The open lines of these zones on the Virginia Ceramic Area map (fig. 14) have been carried beyond the State boundary to suggest that they had a northward extension. The fact that these areas are adjacent to each other, both in northern Virginia and in Maryland, might easily explain the minor occurrence of Albemarle Series sherds in an area predomi- nantly of the shell-tempered Chickahominy Series. Another important Maryland site is Popes Creek, excavated and described by Holmes (1903). Fortunately, most of the actual sherds upon which Holmes based his statements were available in the United States National Museum collections. Although they were not studied in great detail, a limited examination gave the author a feel for the material in relationship to the pottery types of Virginia, unobtainable from the description alone. With the exception of the rusty-brown color and a smaller amount of rounded pebbles temper, other features of the ware correspond closely to the Prince George Series of Virginia. The extreme difference in color between most of the sherds from Mary- land and many of those from Virginia, which appear identical in cer- tain other ceramic features, would suggest the cause as a local differ- ence in clays. The point could stand intensive study. The crudity, the irregularity, and the grossness of the body walls, and the net-im- 124 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [Bull. 160 pressed exteriors of Popes Creek pottery all compare favorably with Pottery Hill Net Impressed and Roughened, a ware most common in the Coastal Virginia Ceramic Area. The interior combing or scrap- ing is on the majority of the Popes Creek sherds, but occurs in only about 10 percent of Pottery Hill Net Impressed and Roughened ; how- ever, the techniques in both types are identical. Temper is character- istically large to medium, rounded pebbles intermixed with coarse sand in the Virginia pottery type, whereas in Popes Creek ware Holmes describes the paste as “highly silicious, and is tempered very generally with quartz sand, some grains or bits of which are very coarse” (op. cit., p. 153). Examination of the Popes Creek specimens in the United States National Museum verifies the coarseness of the temper, but also reveals the occurrence of some larger, rounded pebbles, iden- tical with the temper characteristics of the Prince George Series in Virginia. Therefore, except for these minor qualifications just dis- cussed, Popes Creek pottery of Maryland shows close similarities to the Prince George pottery types of the Coastal Virginia Ceramic Area. If this relationship is granted, then this Maryland pottery type is comparable in time to the early ceramic horizons in Virginia as demonstrated by the stratigraphy at Potts site and the site seriations for coastal Virginia. Since modern State boundaries have little regard for geographical features or aboriginal cultural divisions, Delaware archeology would be expected to fit into the ceramic features of coastal Virginia and tidewater Maryland. The shell-tempered pottery types outlined for the Townsend site, Lewes, Del., published in abstract form (Blaker, 1950, p. 11), appear to be comparable to the wares found by Stearns in the tidewater sites of Maryland and in part to the Chickahominy Pot- tery Series of the Coastal Virginia Ceramic Area. If they do show this comparability, some might criticize the use of a different set of pottery names, but the Townsend Series contains far more decorated sherds than were typical of the Virginia material. Color variations in surface treatments, especially net impressed, and slight shape dif- ferences of a few of these forms suggested the possibility that there might be local variations worthy of distinction; therefore, lacking complete, published, and fully illustrated descriptions of the Town- send Series, it seemed better to the author to establish separate pot- tery series for Virginia. If, in the future, more extensive work re- veals the absolute identity of the Townsend Series of Delaware and the Chickahominy Series of Coastal Virginia Ceramic Area, then they can be considered synonymous and be combined at that time. Such things as the absence of net impressed and roughened sherds of the shell-tempered series at the Townsend site and yet the high amount of this type of surface finish on shell-tempered pottery at the Evans] A CERAMIC STUDY OF VIRGINIA ARCHEOLOGY 125 lower part of the sequence for Coastal Virginia, demonstrated further the advisability of this decision. However, it is suggested that the following pottery types of the shell-tempered Townsend Series are related to the shell-tempered Chickahominy Series: Rappahannock Fabric Impressed to Chickahominy Fabric Impressed, and Rappa- hannock Incised to the incised variation of Chickahominy Fabric Impressed, which was not broken down into a separate incised type because of lack of sufficient sherds or basically distinct features from the parent type. No relationship, on shape, rim profile, or combina- tion of surface and decorative treatments, was found between the types defined as Townsend Incised Band (Townsend Incised), Town- send Corded Horizontal, and Townsend Herringbone (‘Townsend In- cised and Corded), and any of the pottery types of either the Chicka- hominy Series or any other pottery series in Virginia. This dichot- omy would suggest that Rappahannock Incised and Rappahannock Fabric Impressed are related more basically to each other and to the Chickahominy Series of coastal Virginia than they are related to Townsend Incised Band, Townsend Corded Horizontal, or Townsend Herringbone. If this be the case, then the major cultural relationship of the Townsend site to Virginia archeology would be along one major ceramic tradition (the Rappahannock types of Maryland and the Vir- ginia Chickahominy Series) ; the latter three types of the Townsend Series must be due to influences from the north, probably out of the Middle Delaware Valley center of development best known from the Abbott Farm site, and independent of the cultural sequence of coastal Virginia. However, certain other minor relationships to the ceramics of Virginia are revealed in the limited quantities of nonshell-tem- pered pottery of the site. Associated with the quantity of shell-tempered sherds from the Townsend site there is only a limited percentage of sherds of other varieties. These include what Blaker describes as “a small heteroge- neous lot of grit-tempered sherds pertaining to various types, un- designated at present, with the exception of four sherds of Vinette I” (Blaker, 1950, p. 11). Reexamination of these materials in the United States National Museum collections indicates that, although the four above-mentioned sherds are cord-marked on both surfaces, crude, and irregular in body thickness, they are not examples of Vinette I because they are tempered with clay-sherd materials. In texture, crudity of workmanship, color characteristics, firing and temper, they are identi- cal to the miscellaneous clay-sherd tempered sherds from the Potts site. Only the surface treatments vary—the Potts sherds were plain, the Townsend site ones cord marked. The rest of the miscellaneous sherds fall roughly into three Virginia Pottery Series—the Albemarle, the Stony Creek, and the Prince George Series, with Albemarle Fabric 126 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [Bull. 160 Impressed, Stony Creek Cord Marked, and Prince George Net Im- pressed and Roughened the most common types represented. Unfor- tunately, the full significance of these wares at the site is not clear; perhaps the complete Townsend site report will help interpret their meaning. In this study it is pertinent merely to note that wares typical of the Coastal and Central and North-Central Virginia Ce- ramic Areas are found in Delaware, further suggesting the north- ward penetration of these areas. At the time of the preparation of this report, the collections ob- tained by the late Alice L. L. Ferguson in her excavations of the Moyaone Village site on the south bank of the Potomac just below Piscataway Creek, Md., are under careful restudy and analysis by Mr. Robert L. Stephenson, University of Michigan. Obviously, with this type of ceramic study in progress any remarks referring to the site are highly tentative at this time. However, the author had the privilege of perusing Mrs. Ferguson’s original manuscript, notes, photographs, as well as a hasty examination of the sherd collections from the site. From such a superficial examination of the artifacts, it is the author’s opinion that several of the ceramic series outlined for Virginia are present in the Moyaone Village site; they are repre- sented by examples of Marcey Creek Series, the Prince George Series, the Stony Creek Series, and a few suggestive of the Chickahominy Series. In addition, the Moyaone site contains a large complex of sherd materials typical of the Potomac Creek materials found at Patawomeke site in Virginia. Since both these sites have historical accounts mentioning their occupation after the time of European colonization, it is fair to observe that at least the Potomac Creek Series is late pottery in this area, probably coming from the north and defi- nitely without local indigenous development, and having a very lim- ited distribution at a few sites along the Potomac River. It must be reemphasized at this point that in the 96 collections in the present study only one had a trace of Potomac Creek Series as known at the Patawomeke site and the latest occupation at the Moyaone site. The publication of the Moyaone material will add much to clarifying this late pottery complex along Coastal Virginia Ceramic Area, intro- duced into the area on top of the local cultural traditions expressed by the Prince George, Stony Creek, and Chickahominy Pottery Series of the Coastal Virginia Ceramic Area. The viewpoint expressed by Karl Schmitt, “the grouping of Moyaone and Patawomeke into the Potomac Creek Focus, which is a southern expression of the same cultural influences which produced the Owasco Aspect to the North” (Griffin, 1946, p. 93) still appears to the author to be a satisfactory explanation of the late cultural influences affecting the northern part of Coastal Virginia, regardless of what center or point of origin in Bvans] A CERAMIC STUDY OF VIRGINIA ARCHEOLOGY 127 New Jersey the northeastern archeologists might be proposing at the present time. Currently, most of these archeologists see the so-called Potomac Creek Focus as further evidence of continued diffusion of the Abbott Farm type of materials out of the Middle Delaware Valley. Since the published West Virginia archeological data have already been incorporated in the body of the report by utilizing Solecki’s material in the seriation of the sites in the Allegheny Ceramic Area, little additional information can be offered here. The Piedmont Vir- ginia Ware (Holmes, 1903, pp. 149-150) from northwestern North Carolina and southwestern Virginia, without any doubt, conforms ex- actly to our New River and Radford Series, and Holmes’ comments on the distribution up and down the Alleghenies are borne out by the more extensive collections of this survey. Holmes predicted the further extent of this ware when he said, “It occurs plentifully on New River, and will no doubt be found to extend down the westward-flowing streams, thus connecting with the little-known groups of northeastern Tennessee, eastern Kentucky, and western West Virginia” (ibid.). Solecki carries the distribution of his wares into similar regions: From all accounts, the center of distribution of the type pottery called “Pied- mont Virginia” ware by Holmes (1903, p. 149) seems to have its center some- where in west central Virginia about the region where the origins of the sev- eral drainage systems flow down to the Ohio Valley, the Shenandoah Valley, the Tennessee Valley, and the eastern border of the Appalachian Piedmont, with long fingers of distribution down these valleys. [Solecki, 1949, p. 418.] For the Bluestone and West Fork Reservation, Solecki summarizes the ceramic typology by stating— The granular-tempered wares, in the minority, are similar to Holmes’ Piedmont Virginia pottery, representing a Woodland manifestation. The shell-tempered pottery most nearly resembles that of the Fort Ancient Aspect. Griffin (1943, pp. 206-209) writes that the Fort Ancient Aspect, a cultural designation for the remains of a seemingly late prehistoric and possibly related aboriginal groups ceritering in the middle Ohio Valley, occupied to an uncertain extent the kanawha Valley in West Virginia. We are able to demonstrate here on the basis of ceramic and nonceramic typology that aborigines with at least a Fort Ancient Aspect culture had found their way up this part of the New River Valley. The date of this entrance may be comparable to that of the Keyser farmsite, or about 1600. [Solecki, 1949, pp. 419420.] Fundamentally, the seriated sequence of the Southern Division of the Allegheny Ceramic Area further substantiates Solecki’s con- clusions which were based upon a much smaller sample and a more limited geographical area than are embraced in the present survey. The author fully agrees with the interpretations as already set forth by Solecki, even though the exact date of influence is without proof. A check of the actual specimens of Holmes’ Piedmont Virginia Ware and an examination of the literature on Fort Ancient cultural material (Griffin, 1943) corroborates his statements. However, not only does 128 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [Bull. 160 there appear to be a movement of Fort Ancient-like cultural traits from the west into Virginia via the New and Kanawha Rivers, but certain net-impressed, fabric-impressed and finger-pinched rims of shell and/or limestone-tempered sherds found atypically in various components of Fort Ancient sites are suggestive of influences in the opposite direction. To be specific, the net-impressed sherds on lime- stone-tempered pottery from the Proctorville Component (Griffin, 1948, pl. 35, fig. 12), the fabric-impressed and the grooved-paddled and check-stamped sherds from the Madisonville Component (ibid., pl. 76, figs. 1-7; pl. 77, figs. 1-10), and some of the less common types of cord-marked sherds with finger-pinched or finger-punctate rims, check stamping, and rim nubbins from the Fox Farm Component (ibid., pl. 118, figs. 1-12; pl. 116, figs. 1-12), all represent materials atypical of the Fort Ancient Aspect in either Kentucky or Ohio. Although uncommon to Fort Ancient sites these various ceramic fea- tures just mentioned are quite typical of certain ceramic areas of Vir- ginia, especially the Northern and Southern Divisions of the Alle- gheny Ceramic Area. Check stamping is not common in Virginia, but wherever present appears to be an introduction from either South Carolina or eastern Tennessee. The aforementioned ceramic similarities did not extend beyond the North and South Divisions of the Allegheny Ceramic Area and spill over into eastern or southeastern Virginia. It would appear that without any doubt the Allegheny Mountains served as a cultural bor- der between groups to the east and west. The failure to spread would not only be affected by the mountains themselves, but, probably more important, the mountains provided a natural border, either side of which aboriginal groups were well established. The problem arises: “What is the interpretation of the cultural influences west of the Alleghenies on Virginia?” Instead of a one-way route of everything funneling into Virginia from farther west via the Kanawha and New Rivers, it appears that at about the same time period there was inter- areal contact, causing a strong inpouring of Fort Ancient traits into the Southern Division of the Allegheny Ceramic Area of Virginia at the same time some of the more typical traits of eastern Tennessee were also fed into the southern part of Virginia. While this was going on, typical traits of this part of Virginia were also filtering back into some of the Fort Ancient sites. In addition, there was further Fort Ancient influence in another direction upon the Monongahela Wood- land, involving certain parts of eastern Ohio and southwestern Pennsylvania, part of West Virginia, and the Northern Division of the Allegheny Ceramic Area of Virginia. In other words, the three regions of (1) the New and Kanawha Rivers of the southern Alle- ghenies in West Virginia and Virginia, (2) Fort Ancient of Ohio and Evans] A CERAMIC STUDY OF VIRGINIA ARCHEOLOGY 129 parts of Kentucky, and (3) the Monongahela of southwestern Penn- sylvania and the Northern Division of the Allegheny Ceramic Area of Virginia could easily form a triangle of closely related cultural com- plexes, each with a slightly different local development, but sharing in interareal contact at more or less the same time horizon. There is no question that the extensive survey program of the Carnegie Museum of Pittsburgh in the Upper Ohio Valley will add considerable data to an area now so poorly known and yet so vitally important, if our inter- pretations of interareal influence are to withstand investigation. Another important problem of our study is the origin of certain distinctive pottery traits typified by the Radford Series and less fre- quently by the New River Series which cannot be wholly attributed as a part of the interareal exchange of cultural traits between the Fort Ancient and Allegheny areas. The distinctive knot- and net-rough- ened surfaces of the Radford Series begin fully developed with the Southern Division of the Allegheny Ceramic Area. The problem is further complicated by the appearance of the same type of knot- and net-roughened surface on sherds found in Montana, especially the Ethridge site, Toole County (Wedel, 1951 a), and in Canada. In spite of the surface similarities they are unlike the Virginia wares in all other characteristics. In a recent communication to Dr. Wedel, Dr. MacNeish sent three sherds with the same surface treatment as those from Montana and the Allegheny Ceramic Area of Virginia. The accompanying letter stated, “Sherds similar to these appear to have a wide distribution across northern Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta.” 7? At this stage of our knowledge of archeology of cer- tain parts of North America, the full cultural meaning of this similar surface treatment cannot be fully evaluated. ‘The difference in paste characteristics, rim profile, and vessel shape would suggest that it is impossible to attribute the appearance of this pottery in such widely separated areas to a single case of direct diffusion or migration of one cultural group; the case of independent invention would also be difli- cult to prove. Since the surface treatment is not common to all the ceramic areas of Virginia but is concentrated in the Allegheny Ceramic Area, and this area shows closer affiliations to the Ohio area than to the rest of Virginia, perhaps some northern route of entry of these traits will ultimately be traced as work continues in Canada. At the moment the question of the cultural meaning of this similarity of surface treatment remains completely unanswered. Although certain individual items—shell temper, strap handles, round bases, knobs, protrusions and appliques on the rim—of the var- ious sherds and vessels from the New River Series of Virginia and West Virginia (see Solecki, 1949, pl. 6, Nos. 5, 8, 13, 14, 15, 16; Wedel, “Letter dated November 5, 1951. 130 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [Bull. 160 1951 b, figs. 1A, 1C, 24.) show a considerable relationship to materials from the Gordon Town site and Fewkes group in middle Tennessee (Myer, 1928), the overall cultural complexes of the two areas are not sufficiently close to suggest direct cultural affiliations. However, a brief study of the cultural complexes of eastern Tennessee reveals some interesting similarities to Virginia ceramic changes through time. The archeological background of eastern Tennessee, as summarized by Lewis and Kneberg (1946), offers a little comparative data that might explain certain of the ceramic influences in the Virginia area. With- out reviewing all the problems of Tennessee archeology, it is pertinent to note that upon the Hamilton Component of a limestone-tempered pottery tradition there was a displacement by another group—‘a Middle Mississippi people whose culture we have designated as the Hiwassee Island Focus. .. . Pottery was exclusively shell-tempered with a predominance of plain surfaces. Cord-marked surfaces oc- curred, and the textile-marked salt pan was typical” (Lewis and Kneberg, 1946, p.9). Except for a basic temper similarity, a few generalized shapes, and an occasional folded-over rim, the Virginia Radford Series is so unlike the limestone-tempered sherds of the Hamilton Focus sherds of Ten- nessee, they appear to have only a basic genetic resemblance at best. Lewis and Kneberg (1946, pp. 83-85) indicate that the majority of the Hamilton Focus pottery is cord marked, with plain surfaces next in importance and with only a little fabric or net impressed or rough- ened. It will be remembered that these latter surface finishes are the primary ones in the Radford Series. However, the three sherds illus- trated in their plate 45, Nos. 6, 7, and 8, designated as Hamilton Cord Marked, are suggestive of some of the material classified as “knot roughened” in the Radford Series (see pl. 16, a-j), although the rounded lips and slightly recurved or vertical rims with deep bodies and round bases are not the most common form of the Radford Series. One of the predecessors of the Hamilton Focus, the Candy Creek Focus, also typified by limestone-tempered wares, has a higher inci- dence of folded-over rims and fine, clear, cord impressions, making it more similar to the Radford Series in rim shape and specifically to Radford Cord Marked in surface treatment than most of the examples of the Hamilton Focus. Material earlier than the Hamilton Focus was found in the cave sites and occasionally scattered on surface sites of the Norris Basin, Tenn. Griffin described some of these mate- rials (Griffin, 19388, pp. 255-266) as grit-tempered, mostly limestone which had been crushed, with a check-stamped, fabric-impressed, or cord-wrapped paddle impression. Certain of these sherds (especially the fabric impressed and fabric roughened) as well as some from the rock shelters of eastern Tennessee (Funkhauser and Webb, 1928) Evans] A CERAMIC STUDY OF VIRGINIA ARCHEOLOGY 131 show characteristically strong Woodland influences. Therefore, al- lowing for different local variations, there appears to be enough simi- larity between the limestone-tempered pottery of the Hamilton and pre-Hamilton (Candy Creek, etc.) Foci in Tennessee and the Radford Series in Virginia and West Virginia to argue for a basic and under- lying cultural relationship. If it were not a factor of cultural heritage, why would the people who manufactured the Radford Series pottery insist on using crushed limestone as tempering materials when other substances were readily available in the area? Thus, it appears as if the eastern Tennessee and Kentucky areas have some positive relation- ship to at least the Southern Division of the Allegheny Ceramic Area of Virginia, offering an additional area to the New and Kanawha Rivers as a source of cultural influence on western Virginia. The later components of most eastern Tennessee sites have certain characteristics—modeled effigy jars, painted surfaces, and elaborate complicated stamping—which rule out any direct relationships with any of the pottery complexes of the various ceramic areas of Virginia, even though certain basic features of shape, rims, and shell temper- ing are similar to the New River Series. Since specialists in eastern archeology recognize that the complicated stamped pottery of 'Tennes- sea derived at least the idea if not the actual sherds from the South, it is logical to expect that similar types of pottery from South and North Carolina must have the same southern origin because of the complete absence of such a style of surface finish north of Virginia. In fact, in Virginia only five complicated stamped sherds were found in the entire survey and these were limited to the Cornett site in the south- western tip of Virginia. When compared with those of Virginia, the North Carolina ma- terials present many interesting ceramic similarities and differences. Although the area has been worked more extensively than Virginia, only a limited amount of the data has been published, and then usually in summary form rather than as complete site reports. The Peachtree Mound and village site in the western extreme of North Carolina pre- sents a ceramic complex which is on the whole totally unrelated to the various ceramic series of Virginia. In other words, these particular pottery types are far more similar to wares of North Carolina, Ten- nessee, and the Southeast than they are to those of Virginia. Perhaps the reason is contained in the concluding statements in the report: “the Peachtree site is a component in which both Woodland and Mis- Sissippi traits occur simultaneously, blended or fused to make a culturally homogeneous site. It has a temporal range from 1880, or thereabouts, back to pre-white contact, and was probably occupied by Cherokee during this entire period .. .” (Setzler and Jennings, 1941, p. 57). However, the authors on previous pages have qualified 132 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY (Bull. 160 this classification by saying, “though this site is Cherokee, no gener- alizations as to the whole of Cherokee culture can be made. . .” (ibid., p. 55). With the exception of the coil appliques around the collar, incised or punctate, found on some of the sherds of the Rad- ford and New River Series, only those sherds from the Cornett site in Virginia seem to show any close affiliation with the complex. As will be remembered, the general pottery features of these sherds did not conform specifically to any of the pottery types in Virginia, but gen- erally the surface treatment and shapes showed some indirect relation- ship with both the South Central and the Allegheny Ceramic Area. The curvilinear complicated stamped sherds from Cornett site (pl. 23, a—c) conform in surface treatment to various sherds and vessels of Ware A of the Peachtree site; however, it is pertinent to note that this style of surface treatment is not merely limited to this part of Nerth Carolina but has such a general southeastern distribution that the importance of such a similarity is not to connect the site directly with Peachtree Mound but rather to indicate that the Cornett site was the result of cultural migration or influences from the South rather than from the northeastern or north-central areas of Virginia. From an examination of Dr. Michael’s collection from the Cornett site, in- cluding a large number of stone discoidals, polished stone axes, pipes, shell beads, gorgets, and potsherds worked into disks, it is immediately obvious that a wider and more elaborate material culture complex is present than in other parts of Virginia, again suggesting more cul- tural] influences from the Southeast instead of pure Woodland devel- opment. From a study of the sherds from Cornett site (pl. 23), espe- cially the decorated ones with punctations, applique coils, complicated and simple stamping, and incision, along with the fabric-roughened and corncob-roughened surfaces, scraping, finger pinchings, thickened and folded-over rims, there is greater similarity between these sherds and certain North Carolina Foci*® defined by Coe than with the Peachtree material. Griffin and Coe characterize the Linwood Focus of North Carolina by saying, Museum Negatives 8018 and 8019, identified as the Linwood Focus, represent the (pottery of the) Saponi group after they had moved from the Clarksville Area. They moved down within a hundred miles or so of the Catawba, and apparently there was a considerable amount of contact and acculturation with the Catawba. The thickened-rim area, which is present in the Clarksville Focus has continued, but use of annular punctates at the base of the thickened- rim strip are quite distinct from the Clarksville Focus material. There is some continuation of the corncob-impressed and scraped impressions, but there is a considerable increase in the proportions of complicated stamping.* 3 Personal communication and photograpbs from Joffre Coe via Dr. James B. Griffin based on material and information now on deposit in the University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology files, July 12, 1951. Evans] A CERAMIC STUDY OF VIRGINIA ARCHEOLOGY 133 It is highly possible then that the Cornett site could fit into this Lin- wood Focus and actually be a late development of the Clarksville Series. However, a hasty examination of a limited number of Cornett site sherd photographs by Coe did not guarantee the author’s identi- fication as Linwood Focus material, which was established from the descriptive data and photographs furnished by Griffin and Coe and a comparison with the actual sherds from Cornett site. Neverthe- less, the sherds are more closely related to North Carolina materials than to any of the Virginia pottery series, in spite of a few limited similarities to the Clarksville Series. To further carry out the argument that the Cornett site of Virginia is more closely related in its ceramic complex to North Carolina than to any of the other ceramic complexes in Virginia, many of the North Carolina sherds in the United States National Museum from the drainages of the Yadkin River, in Swain, Yancey, and Davidson Counties resemble very closely the type of pottery from Cornett site. The limited collections examined showing such affiliations are: U.S. N. M. No. 134709, Ocanaluftee River, Swain County; U.S. N. M. No. 182985, Nunuyo Mound, Swain County; U. S. N. M. No. 87660, Yadkin River Ford, Davidson County. The majority of these sherds show the same fine, compact paste interspersed with minute mica particles, curvilinear stamping, and slightly everted rims so typical of the Cornett site sherds. The full significance of the Linwood Focus and its relationship to southwestern Virginia and other foci from North Carolina will be apparent only after the North Carolina ma- terials have been more adequately studied and published. Some of the most important items of comparative interest between the various ceramic complexes of Virginia and those of North Caro- lina are the absence of check stamping in Virginia, except an obvious trade vessel in the Potts site, the rare appearance of curvilinear stamp- ing (5 out of 24,047 sherds examined), and the limited amount of simple stamping in Virginia compared with other types of surface treatment and decoration. On the basis of these factors there appears to be no manifestation in Virginia of the Pee Dee or Hillsboro Foci of North Carolina.4* The style of check stamping of Hillsboro Focus is similar to that found on the sherds from the Potts site (pl. 21, g-), but the direct, irregular, rounded lip without notches is so unrelated to the Hillsboro rim shapes, which are typically folded over, that the trade influence at Potts site in Virginia probably did not come from as late a horizon as the Hillsboro in North Carolina. Studies of other miscellaneous sherd collections from North Caro- lina add considerable information on the relationship of certain pot- tery types and series in Virginia to those of North Carolina. /-aealas- pedureysg efdunyg ‘oan “Ig iil tae aii os ae ae Ud “09H Id “y paietiod || Reaihsz (eas pss | OR acta | (cael nae | le es | gem (nae 2 (ce tal Nem ct a peyIVA, P1OH “OdH) “Ad ‘era | Sal Sa! Vue aces! Eas (ROE > bite Sel {ah St (acme cb IE ica (ime de 71 ieee onl ime aa | (enamel) hacia Samed ysnoy pus ‘idmy 4°N IH 30d PSR S| RRS eS Sete = (G2ts | Wes (sess ias=F|=sso seen (seen msscrlseas| S25 saas (seer eae Idw] o.IQey “0aH “1g :seyleg 931004) edUTIg tlt yal Pechenegs Pee shag a | creat | ge St (et Sale Uttar (atc lachlan ee Neal aad wa ete oe Peat et biol [te ed al ena beget! popTssspuy sooo [onan |eeee|aa---|----]-----|-----]-----|----]-----]----]----l6g 9'T (1% ene =|pnn alae |Sece|eaan=|eaa=|ae --|==--|----|----|z- I meentennq--> UI8[d JOAY MONT ----|----- “-“poyIv Plog Joshoy aeee|---- peyIVP P1OD AVATY MON SEES eS a ee ee ee pas ---|----|----]- ioral bataiatatel tail bebe) beatae biel boot Donel Poor Poor Poi or Poe both oot Poe eo oe oe eee oe -dwy 19N pus “q3snoy JOU “ATW AON ~----"--Idmy “QB “ATW AON 1S9]199 JOATY MONT neo=|panetnaesa~baeee= popissepun ----|----"paxieyy P10D “st Ueplog e[coraioses|mnsnssoss=* Tera IC) AGOIBIL Se10G HOD Ad1eypy [Bull. 160 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY 148 sareiSes| gees glee a eles ele alee eee ee ae le ee eee) Sas 665 |SSr S| aucieneniren|eanarines [pots ana lerenisaolatemn ete’ Gra = | sees soe ese em U Ue aedOS Teno, ad aces) (i i ca oar a ee aoa SE a a a a are ae me Ob AIH UO CLINEDSE Soeee| o> |aoas| anol maasitsaleno=s is sclecss le scicesaa naa anno| saFeeean| seo |paa| nes qaeaiGaa Greater or itr ire lee 1 POASEIN Dao Orne ob aocmON 99) tulse>Aleralegaalearpegn ec seer le mal alee eee ene aarti eee ey clear deep Wee ler tele 1a Eo | eee oe 2 ee ae iduy JON PUB YsNOY JOUM “AY MONT SF a a a Ee ef ae aa eC YR Oy ERG hase a A IN 1SO}IOG JOATY AON Se eo oT ee al eel Uae cr ma (tn at al aed Vane | altel (oneal (cana ier aeee (page aml Wigan tual aien ieee nn i poyissepouy REas|as5[Reeea|ass|oeaalera|s=srAiess|se= pa <)sea-| ear soreness eee Tee ==| Pee igre <= He o= = DO RaU I Plu) solos SNS FRY I OB Cy ee Fle acca faa | moa ae UU isa cal ame le ca (Vo oan ral Ur aed | in| Fd sa Uv ID Asolepy 1se}1eg Yo01;) Ave py al cae | aa | (all (ed RE EOS | PAN aca pegissepou() i sade (0) Gaal scum mel Kr cages estat es ea Sees | Cami 1c ls * Sa peusysnoyY qoO-W10H “AIKIDO id Lc] ae ml [bal sien | deel acme (2 Sees emer Lc psequtoy “AIB[D SUUTSMIES Eee ort Te lon | Ptes aire ce ape ok ote ees UlBid “AIM 17} tl (fl fecal fem 9 ani sien lees (eamienl (eee |e nan ema al 0S 8A), 5 8470) SSOM0Z8 | ee aieealier sallronliege sie ie oe ol meee yqanoy ee Daan eile ee eee ee eee Boe eee | eee |e eee ; ----|---|----|---|-----|-----|-----]---]-----=---"+---ydty a es ll etal {SOLIOG O][TASHIB[O smeeefas-|-s=--|---|---=|---|=---| == @eminiQeliasea|aer|eas|sa|naa-= | £ T ----|---|-----|---]----]---]-----]---|----|---le- : 6 Sf eat ig | ame ol ae: Ga2ie PMS en len || etn See oe as rt I FF a a Ba BT a ame VNU G § | OOKONINU WNC ON COLO) ect COs bi pena fees peer | en | te ee een ae eenee naa teee a aoa a |e aoa ee | aera Pen Sere Sem oa Rea Raa Pes IR oes ees Saeait- (| at ee la cob ate mi mee pede10s $}30g Shiga oA Pace | | aoa ESS| Qaeda (asa Fea] id fa ea pL GE 1 Gah oe Ir Scam b waaal (Foe ---pedmrjg e[dultg sxouvoy Flas hdfc | [Gain al [cl | Vie Vm | ape WU Vic ell lel hum 20) socal | ig rea (sail i SP ci| |S 9) fal (nel Lng (Eel (2 el) lb pete lc ss MUL eee me. uye[d Xessng pee oa | ra |e eee (eran (ae gl a] een a tee | (e Eh aec|ls pemcailpoeel |!) eae Skike pexleW PI0O “GD Gs) al al ite [is | eal pe aes | pela sc foal a Lo J i ae ips | seal | Cea” fel a a el SE ee Tene ae a ei pee est :setieg AUTUIOYBYIITO Te Wee acilic alia oblate cate alleee| Seelbenes o|Maceds gt Cap arcs So ty pie ee eee poygissspouy) ee ete ate ato ase ecle ele aal' ge Oars (aed? Sai ER bee eee pedeios “qry leh A Rha ance (cecal beet Sitel l a e Ca ga SSe adwy 4@N ‘iV & yt tl | ame Na iol ital sco Syn aI PO Bl al tapi a pea Idwy] o1qe a “ATV ISo]Jeg eIVUIeg, y qumog 939190107 | sodA} pus saiios £10330 yoorg | ota uss BIS ues PUBIST | ue | PUPS] UH | PUPISI | yop FACTO | “S¥IVIO | “doy | “2080 | ‘oxogseg | 8220 qOULIOD |URUIE{OD S = By be = a n 5 a. <>) s | 2 S| Es ‘bb 0 a y oy 2 ia) ponuyyU0pN—saz18 DUOMO YIMON PUD DIMA LOf adh} YODA J 0 890WA14NIIO abnyusosad pun sishjoun adfy fisaqq0qd—'T F1dV 149 A CERAMIC STUDY OF VIRGINIA ARCHEOLOGY Bvans] emeee bees (eer 8 Aleem |beaits onhe ta] eetew(lG-| > staf =— ieeea|bee ieee na Sena) 5 (ce | i pal peat) ee ee lee Dae ae gt a Pe oes ||) Ot earmark OOT/6Z | OOT/FOT) ~~ "|FE |" |S | OOT/6E9)""""|T8 |---"|29 |} OOT Por Ser alS6Ll= OOTIZ6 eer alZOT| (COD6lsscelOShleecn|see|) COT|SPOaD| OOLIS6T | ssacnccuce aan eanaemnicen ~~ $[840.1, pas 3 aos ECE O Sealed ents bal ee Ebel s aclmeniee ec OE IL IE ee Were (ho eranlens Pecl= a= vale Be ewe OIE CIE OIGLe lc | eke | fe ne | ec ae DOR TEEN [OUT Read nl oedema al] Erma e| mega al| bailey pal meal eee alle alk tee bof eal] ae | SOD seers eee| ene ae dat me oll eel fin ee |imcoal fe owas ll steal Peed pe | sed ee OO Ts DOO AMOUR GRU TOG Ghar Nr, IIS FT || FY NF FI FE rt FT| SE tal tyr |p | Ke MM faa ae fo PopIssypuy [BIjZUWD qynog SE a [re a a fata Pao Oe ep FS a Fa FF a A fae all fil a ctl st Un ttt eh be (tl Pea ta st i Fete FS SS | pasedure, ployqg-ABID socnn nna |on nnn |ann [anna |= -fonna|-n-|onnn—|an-|—nan|—--|owan|---[-en=-|---|aenalg |-----|---|----|- S| [B= SS FS | SIO SC FB SSC EOS fo SS | =e >| eo orc pedursyg ‘dul0D 33eu109g ;410930d snosus[[oosyy Seen es eae se fed le (ee el ree | el ae ee eed | Om eee at ce ee ene et eee Oy af a Sl ape eet etal | Sonatas cae | aaa | pwn | pa Vs Ba | (iets Maa | eae | Sep | ea | me ef Seem ot oe aes es ated eae | ee xaee Be cds ol ob lines lie cache en een eae ee 2a la lanacee eae amene BALOZJON TS Eee este a Ps) ata mad br ind Vie Nast ea fa) |S Tata [Tae eet fl i Uta Undated Reta Heat cna [in| ic Veh Ioetcht fd | ne at Kaden | iota | steal | =o ed fata bee gel | worse snenn=<==="N9dBlog BUUBATY GSS [eats asa ee lea ene fel fe sl efi c(i fm cat Ae f= fer | pct es “ll fg Vc || ce a | pes peduinig edu “19 98 Gh-l cepa 700" | Oil sa] oe pe ada was Leela Fo Bb 480-1 |ghk. lpalcssssps6c: epee Ud “IO 38 Sa acd abe tase eee aes bs OE [77777|777 [777 |9@_|o-77]-- Je ge feo frzm-[r72fe8 fg ferzcfoccfotcoc frp pecs) le6. lent [oce le [277-7277 peqzey P10 “19 “3g Bi >-lecmelaag Si Soal eka bs nal helms g| Mist eadeieod| Ewe al Dope adem cadrealibers ysnoy pus “dw 3@N “IO 48 BL |rmaiaey ebb Lm |em a Poo lgeea|og=[—4a | goes ODUNIRLE HDEEd lB ealnsewcasaneacsy adm] OIGBF “10 “48 7s0]19g YOO Au0}g Sas en mney | eae | area lieeanal| Bail taba ids rc Fo lasilpeenal ee il ere analtes [eas la glo aeaed ee eactallgea|ieteco| as [ eds | aealee salle eule oie aalige ual bios all oan Sone a Si: areera DOU LOSRIOUT SER Aioad paceideck|Poas|coebassa|c pe|raase| ciao = [osc abate espe iege ce (aoe O91 3e55|speleetoless as vale -a[csr-ss besa | sioae pealps eae ase ~- paxIBW DIOS “Pwy PAGING otseplone| co aleoatesselegs| sete “127-| S97] ses ae me ee, pce sel pene (a babe bad sea ie eh lcci etl betes bn petri ieee ee CT gon ie eee ag ls fae Cac Pe es arid el ye bee eal a ae ol aa bei be Lt got eet lon bs eto fy ere (pee nro 8 (| 1se]Jeg P1OJpBy 9 ire all awl See ees: weerr=="pepIssspou yy BPE 3a bs (eae ee iin | ices jv al | lbs al NSS Gece (i eal | SPOR SSSR esse esi Sa wales Gales cecal ete hal mae ee ih ca lines we Ee lee or lee chee cance aN iE ol OG wal tee Sci e IdM] DIGBY *O8f) “Id 1Se]19g O8100H souTIT sonan|-n-|-nen-]=--]--=-]---]=---]6 [Bull. 160 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY 150 SI (2 G seal Bees|sgesyases sr sf cocas alm bas Gas ba lack eg ca pa ang (cea 7a eas co oe | ee eee es (ae ba aad pce aa Ry ae se ee Weld JOA MeN CwdZSSSIGeT les col se ope ee pS Toe een Aa aires | pe eae 6) (a Se Be ae C1) ee | ea aan pee ol ees ol ees IS seal eos (sg ga ea es ot eee gl es tees ey org poyIVy P1OH JOATY MONT PulGp ig) Sees] 5735S =S Sse p RES ESA pre PSs ee sao eae a OTC S eS ES SIS Scape saa ec So SSC eS Soilae sesiteeeci|e tealcars| [paces cnilbdiebe pee ney Sa qpgeeadeaes Gumtabier idwy JON pue ‘qsnoy Jouy “AY MON Fach ease teas | =aan| RS pileae pe @poae tre) cles Ri realeeenierepalreoottect tale t -alidee eal peal paecd|( tat al eaet cl chee efaea las eallue ehallpeohi Secu talieenl|taatees tea meneed Id] ‘qv “AY MONT Seige | ER | cae BS pall oem | SS | eS Eee | = abe! | Spel coe od eee ine aso pwede s |hage ald ob = [gees |= baal ee esi| @ => Ea] eel aE aes|eeeta|paeepelfeuni cacti ee oe eeeamnaw RUG CRADLE) =e | peel lemcee eee | Nem |S Sal eT ge Nil emer oa ese ow Shade = Gall oosseg| aes alFoe~ Glideeee|ts sa =eee8l7 Hales oe ale Ts + meses] lbs eel [ag ak alnord slp lpaesl | a )ebeces samemenes Seeman pey{ssspouy eee ae ete | aan eens | Saar eae Eanes CS etaia| Sgackinl| sang |b¥-c4 W|) Semel loocod ea deal ees PR a [Se ee | aw pelle Se Eo ESE wpe oll coma ac as aleoets | koe alel [Cpe daees Boa YsnoyY qo0O-Ul0H “xIvIO ee ia ae a ee heed oe ear | eas ese | pice speed ceed ogni ho (Fae oice all Seep ee Se soil Se eal Bae T oll DSS T Sow ln il\ owe gellar ball swe baie g maa eee pexIBP PION “HIBlO caches | Gopal anal | RSE |e ds| SE eee | ea ReaT RST | SI eee ee FP peep ae es | Pee | seee Fl ec paalPaprlagees See akan |e SOilt yma Palree= aie poe qsnoy d1Qeg Pus JIN ‘HARIO a Sel eer || oma | eel ages aes] eee | ad Ae TS Pea Leal ae TE eee cl cabal Daley lacoste cllmeniltacieal aa TAI CaP Pea eek scale eet IdWI] DAG’ “HILO seas ery ies eed | ede | ree gee (re a | an ees SSS | aa ae| lame well es Falla soll ebeceal SPs lle | Poanes end alll cap eed aed as case cane cae eeae peygissepuy cicscceal | eee lait | cane na | ic | at] ga | monioaet | eg epee] wh bead be ad |Ceed a feed Ce alles Geen | fou tl eee =F |e cpalleaatel| cisai| sree si|sewallceed ea |aaanioe oe sl eae | pede ae “Jomod peddeiM-p109 s}40g anh | eas eee |< ober aaean Meee ||saced|pecds| oamedlpe cis a lapaelEnue | Is | aecati| stolleaapsi|Stca'|etoeo]|pmak leat al hemnal ao eca ule © dla deuce bas Sake balmnmtOr pedeiog s40q IYI RS oN SS [ie lea seca Vi acs | eee | |e al | We ee Ee (ae a] ce cae ess kl lc es ee | Ie IE ae Gl ee I pedmejg ojdurg syouv0y TSERa RESTS s|t- bal eencloesaleost[epaeeege cee Culeeik Sep a(re aed De OGG | sees peya|s a= Hole oe OeOL EE Po > 15 2- i[pe ge a|h =) ale |e ies g ean. RAGEree ETO Cu KOSSD “Se Pulsgae™ Maral peea|eeenler ob] eenpei|sge'|> spoiler [spe -ilros aes yap - > 16 ~ =|8 greas|f=Pa|eseelileetal= ==) 0 [> pa] bese] o> |[--= bee |peed |e bol eo |e eee es eeian & MIODONUG HED IOG) VAC) Sera | ere emi evaa cena menelle war gal le Mee|| a ater Spee eros cilhes |e te lee DEG al GT Neaess| esol tee cals cables cee Poel eesti loc onl |code okey | imrogall amed Senge oo a DO Me DUBh OO UNIO NEST 70 cy: Ae ers cltecee| Rare Ce erotic el che oll iced asap ae eae cab Gillan al leecde 5 a cceRTe e e? Idwyj o1Qeq “YO eS Si mal A Seem | a ek ap |e Le petal isojlog AUTHIOYeAOIYO SET Ta alate ae oa ea Gee. Lge Res RSS e 3 3s see ao ae SOUTER TOUT cance saae|=ssacisres|Renss (sens Soaes|aesn|Ra= stores sees ewacnaess psdeiog “ary Misr eles. = (sr ae Were) CFT) |S tier i inc |Geaes case tere ROCOUY I Seldulignay: He eel i 2 | fede a ic VA ae | io POFIBW PIOO “AV Rea aS 1 Wap ee eo Pe | es | Sea lee aes ea Se posseid my 49N “GV a aces a alae al Fas Gee BE: Spc.” Ieee gc te cote re es Idwy oqed “av qunog 938} 00010 gq qyunog ese} ude g qunog 938] U0010g yuno0p yun0H 030} 00010g qunog 9se}Us0I0g 93BJU9010g 9sBqUud010g sed A} pus seyses £109}0g gunog 0seq]U0010q qun0D 93e]U9010g A10j08T | WOE | socom | royoyg | orem | o3pag 8, A0[8H q Pp a oO THA poom 20q moog | Wed qyep SIep -UBAT, | SO[sUT | UBTpUT -edoy | -odoy -joH |Meysuexy] -pisey penutyu0DN—sa718 DUNOWWY YIAON PUD DIMBA LOL adh, yova {0 820Ua11NI00 BbD{UaDIAd PUD sishijoUn adfy fi4ajj0qd—T FIaviT isopIag JOATY MON Se]og Yep Aooey_ 1S9TIOG O[[TASHIBIO iso]lag epIeUIEgTy 151 A CERAMIC STUDY OF VIRGINIA ARCHEOLOGY Evans] Pon eeeeillar Nt clit ecoom aondlhs ae OTs mene] Ocoee | emteara| 9) of Gomes. elie Seacsesa| | Sse he © aac | Saal rips ke parmeenimaeipena S|! 3410 0} pepold 00, OOT|BOT |" jZT | FT O0T £20 ere 0G) OOL/ES | ~~" |9E Oot or OOT|€6F OOT|PET OOT/FIT OOT|8h OOT| L&% OON Sel ases Fe ying se Sos S16I Oil; Seer Srey | Sanat | GR | are | leas. Cena) ist} | Ra = me | [PSR | Fa | Ea | ais | |f ct 3 al Se aed lee mS tk 4 Se |e 8 | a Sete) See POU peepee Be ne a ace ee ee ee na a a a gata ard Maen | caad Peyissepouyg [eIyUeD YINog SY i Cr CT) CT CE bat) aad at aa Ua a ba a a a aa Teal iE Scie| iema Peseta] Wieser | RP |G Pal Thais laakamamnaee CO MCN ECHL ALT (a) onsen pane lnaa |e Se= [saan ans) Rese [ea aah anlasealsennn| pews ena |Resn|rseenpsase sees) -pasiemnen|aciteirese<|poso lcm cisnssienees|aeae| ose iconclssrsser=ss> pedmeyg ‘du109 3,0u10D 7410}}0d snosur][eosT jy Stata’ | BAP | eis | tae Bil jSadecied || igs || Mena | Teche! | Lael | Cael eae faa (| ese / Seen * i Sere | Colas | ks aes |) fA 2) ene k2) ies o| ag salle eon ae T coil bane pasa I Paige se c| emcee || cae | | RSG | ce | ‘amr |DaRa!| Scie | Sela | eda O'LT |6 "Sess | Sas | Seemed || etl | sees 1.4 (Pale 5 ie S| Vas Tal lal Seas a Sei tw Haig ROG | mse | be I unaaaeal| | “ema latency Pn ee eI UG, Me eal aang Sater Catt (tac Cotten Cate tted (tata Utada! Catal bated batatactad (eda! bated baat I SPascaRres|eress|paaciennss|ereslerieanitaaaiecsnsiGeana|pescs| Case pSeca| sans a= onese Pose ape bl save on ok ed a POMC a aca ety | aaa ce pedureys efduys “19 “38 LCs eve lc me le: aieteee ieee Si 08 ee Re le, Ga ee “"Uls[d “AD “498 SPaANStGE Lb. Sie |Gare te co te ae TG. ad 5 a | apes loa eee ak PET. “pesIvW P10M “AD “49 OTAIZE > alter (ger han eM it ic bt sae | Vee (Le el bee es ee qanoy pus “idwy] 19N ‘ID 49 “LG PCG har|¥ ck ele |Pak tcc |r olan | One, or i ati | inne Neier i idm] d1q8 qt “ID 49 :SelJeg YI0IQ AU wr ee-|----|----|----]---- t le> le Sena |sean|Sroos|Sanrl meri smeo cores pmarinsessecociesses|Peaa|="ses/eeesien isn (peas aaa ol Gaan wanes Aron ee onan rere aenere Kaa enn ssuuil) 11S goss! ede | Sagat || ans | bain {cpa | bcc) Gd 37d Fs Tl dea Fal 7 ab | Fee | ges eet | iis al ieee ctl bias “sel J ca SOR eee he ole Si || eee nee Sey ee ed “Uye[d “PBy Leet. he aa te OZ. Spon (for te ec ie eG Me eal at ome el ae | ee | BY p43) tel Toma (i a | Saat GLP CPE nc. ee “"" "5" payIBAy P10H "PBy TEP aee eae Ce ee bee, Gee le ae ee Ie ee ee en Sisal eae ae ae Seco OBS ares a 8°88 |OOT |~~"1dmy JON pues “YsnoY 4ouy “pRy SSS ‘ei apel pall ‘sade eal 5 sie PS all |= Ga (a ama ara aa Dad a ea at fal) | Ueland (C0) Co ALE 1soJ1og PIO;PB A aia a Fy a Fr | NI I 6 Sa a ted Et ad Et ad Ti eae ba a chad a ee ad bt a |) Fl | eel be ni | Sea aS SS poygissspug aa aaa Ca baal ata aaa fe al a a a a a a a ae ak ae 6° if A "ciie \ iadecinca| ie) aca | Saal (6 Sac || ae anenrenecnonAiG zak RAB 08H) “Id bl ColeallU ateiail| al tated alata tea Tales Si Sl Tena] laces lca sacl (eh | mn] ik SAR | ae | ane 77" pedureyg aduryg “08D “Id {fast Set ata! jailed alec ik Bah ine ‘gl lap Sa] |d ees la eal | ees Ea a Og tae nee Vera a Ue d *09f) “Id Pe {Sag od ii ba el Sa) |S 3k 2] |! Seg (cd | art tg ping | in (sets | im || Cinna “8 O45 40 (0 jal} Oh 2 f os |e ected | ict i (eee “el (ik Sel (nal ek “ile a aleing| | aia eee | lace Us ~---I--=-|----§noy pus “IdWy ION [ITH 30d orien pean ace Pane lesen esas Peter 2s tiscer|esseltesee|seec|serclitesa|senen|menclresen|nitsn|arebs|=lgepin [Gerster en sal sn animoaas| Saasiennnaiaas=inecoeesereen sa aquiy OPquy ~ OOF) da S9J10G eZ100f) GOUTIG [Bull. 160 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY 152 pegissepou -----|----|----|----|----|----|----.-|----|----|.--- ne-~s|n-+|asaz|anstlsse-|S-2=|s259[cc*s|ssa|-de5|nqee|poceienn=|nnas|ponselnne| daese|nmnn| sence == den ceee— ams SaeITT GOATS PMU NT -----|----|----|----|----]----]------|----]----]----|-----]----|----|----]----]----]----|----|----|----|----]--+-|----)----]-----|----]-----|----|-------------- ---""paxIB] plop Jeshoy aa ess sabs (ine med cdf lcse Uses lel [esc cs ea nal Rl Vues fcse alecesa| (ccs wlan |(E-meal(aee | IEE em mF pexIV, P10D “ATTY MON IdwW] JON pus ysnoY Jouy “ATY MeN Fe a a | ca ca ee a a Idwy dIqv,y "ATHY MON 1S91J0g JOATY AONT potas) (ee beech ie fon tal il ee a ie a pegissepuy Sa95|heds|cans| soo |Racae|-nas|naccel-sae|Hanasseensssa ss pexIvpY P10H “sy Uepleg Sect i a (a a a a CC URI “IQ Avdvyy {selleg Yoorg Adley Saat ae OYE ee ele le ee ee ee Be ee ee Pegisscpou yy PAigs|he8= [a se -Aeals-s idm] qe yg *FIB[O S019 I[[ASHIB [O Br ie ate | el PSTAQ* delpieslpengassssesessassse2stasReee poeyissepouy) eebaiesds|-on sficeaz| | Ramet i Zeical| (eae cl eae aa ORE jeaoq peddei,-p109 830g as sis |i 5} (Gea Sol | aS Rea eee egi dtr Bee ee pedelog 830g as ib | cao 1 | Seed S| aS | aa | OOS OS Py ae poduis}g ejdurtg exouvoy > al SRa F | See 5 Eee laa Bl eas Of20.|Siod|aonte =o eee ae uye[__ xessng Sos Tai|| Sak | ae || aes | ahaa WV eae Uitge pli!) Gin | Rae ieee ecg, <2 poeyIvW P10M “GO Seas Pers Pare ees|isasme ena | Cy Un oil ai | Vil ee qsnoy pus “idmy JON £340q “Or Gghe [Hanae sass esas sees idwy dJ1q8q “GO ‘seag AUTULONBsyOIGD hick vi Gainen | Gi eid Sania amE ea: * = poyissepuy Bahdd Al wind | Readies omeramiaineEamas : = pedviog “qty pedureys ojdung “qry = ae Gi hae |e ot Rs Usd “qv Sie Cie ie |i ae eG. Peay P10H “AV Sprtacl | Seate| Pee egress a) toes Idwy 19N ‘Iv APRESS SERS Pies Fa St Re AS Saat Se idwy oF1qByq “QTV ae |) Se ee OC CF? OO e\e|ziei sie] F g 8 $ 8 el lel" l2l|"|é 8 3 3 3 punoy, | .qsnou re TOyaION,| JoAyy | -edeyns STO MON | -BUOW sifi/e|Sisis|sislal\eis 8 i 8 8 8 8 e e Balecel ea fe lem (bee § ~~] i] eM les ee ale lie | tie OTTA SoyxeT STIR -SUTVIBY| MOLL PY youd | Aviny | wsjnoyT aw rg ao) sa] yc) g 9 g g $ $ 8 8 5 5 =) =] e| |8| |&8 g et hae ls 3 Tarp |UAUIT | -sSuyuaz | TPO {S0110g o[IBUIEgLV sed44 pue sates £19130g penuyjUOH—s89728 DUNO) YILON pun nib, 40f adfiz yova {0 8adUatANIIG Bb6N.UAGLaE PUD Sisfiloun adhy fi49430gd—'T AISV.L 153 A CERAMIC STUDY OF VIRGINIA ARCHEOLOGY Evans] we ——————————————————— — OOD ES en | Fe i 62 OOT |FFT | ~~ |8& (OT: SO) 0 |r| | esi) OS ete | O Fane | een Gye mens | Sam | eee BD OOTI FDS |h O01 OCS) eae emer seater een S[8j0.L SENSI FI II Nd ia Fd Pend Nag Aes tate a) fa] aes nd |r | (ibaa (|| | Vas (aad £ eee Soe5 | Pses penser reo rms eon | pee oe am non eee oe NOLAN Ho OOk) OOUGI Oct: Seong aed| Se a PAS (i de (aa bn ass pet pers tse lame fine me pues pec] gel (ame j ey cme | snare tee tl Pa ee a eee Na a ec aca ee ee |e a a Thee ol | al ec | Ee | (ee | | a a | | Snd0,7 POOMUTT BUT[OIBD “No Sl em ase al pesca | sea ad a ne [ee | a [alas |e cece ole aa[rce all Paha cllrenall ae ee elie ilieeeet LES Sore Se sso ali ae gee pogissepouy [e1}UeD qyNog mes | ee bd Dm | De mt me a Fe Unica ems] | ml cn | ge | (| aes | ne] | en poisduiey, preyg-AB[O ea ts | Bem lr a | a a academe | aca | cae | ee | a | oie || pedursjg poysotjdmo0g 4490I0D 7£10930d snoeus[[eos{jy rte] (tae a | |ec ies [Rae | | eeseek| | SSRs] SCRE) IE (aioe Irae Fey eee a ecb SEAS | a ec et fst bean | eae ea te bee eel en eta Poa | easier ee SDN eo a Af om fc | mc | cra mae me la mh a | eric | atl | igre | tana | (se | el | postouy ABM0}JONT a infra | mr em mcm | mo Gece nse om mwa 9 wm mm | ie ec | Sl cera nd | inmate | aon | Ea | (a | Cem pedeiog BUUBATY 4 \( al eee See eS pedmsjg edulis “ID 49 Saas | laehale | (dared Oo rele sal ctecse tines <3 [kel ceal| Oma Geen |i alc osaclce + silee majfoe= ale Ser area [bic 2 [Eo aol ancc | Baca eee eG em || Sp eei| Be mea apes oo ater mien NmUL EEA cliocea (0) Doo SS i : Cr OE | \eets ao" Seer poxIBW P10N “IO 48 | YF SY FY IO FI I Ie aa Fa et Fn FY IS | | et a ee, qsnoy pue ‘Idwy 39N “1D 4S Rama sales ies adieam lie | OV Ge |B ie | eae |e ea aee 0 ean gre [Roo geese allele - alo ema | ery hee | (ues) ees etal) ae | woreweseencsccco=-<- Id] Of1qB A “ID 39 1s0lJ0g Ye0IQ Au0}g ESI | IIS | IY FI IN II FI IY Fl Fat Feel eRe FES PY SE) Fe ia Fatal bar eet GQ. leesalarcslseeasl cosa lepeee ese [Deaths Baan oe PES EEE DOD IESELOca, Sisiek | inte | (ple! Solas sie pestle | nasi | cabs | aa | capa een | | eee | eas a | al Sen | eee |e | | ee | Leonel | eee Eee | es | era awe ee ener ener erreur “per Ee | SRE] | |S a I I PII I) LEY st beet nda beat faba facet aha fai fal [robe oo Weds Sibgea | Ba Le momen poxIBy P1OD osbg ee ee | mm cf lemma | |r |e | em th Ua | ca aif DR aOR oa | GA ak ER |e | peyxIBAY PIOO “PBy IT I I oar al 1 Tt og| corse ispecies [arco ew eles ae ale al peers eee owes Pemallrc: aleeac| pe onlaeen||reee Che letes a pros less| Sea eee ee Idwy] JON pus ysnoy Jou “psy See Ree Se ee | | Fy i IT I BY I IL PSL Ea i ay Fai be tatty |r| FSI hd isa ee Nl |e a a IdM] OAQe gy "Pez 1s0]10g PIOJPBY Seer | fees I | a a Fe a TN aL I al Oa a) bee ea eh | an | En EL MES LINE EG Saal poegissspouy a a a | a a ees |i I TT pI PIII FI II a SO at Id | et Pet had BIg IRE Tete at Cera ----pedvBlog ‘08 “Id SEY | CY | Ct I I FT yy a a aa | ba (ta bal ec te s/n al be Sea (Ee || Seen Me pedureyg e[duitg “00H “1d Seen Reema soaheseelis Teor are cele me o|----|-----]----]----|----|----|--- 2] -- 99] --- |---| enn [nnn nnn [nnn nnn nn [nnn nnn nnn nnn natn nn at nnn nnn nner merncnno--"""" UBT “0a “Id a om a ce me ra | mm | nn aaa | lcm a a in| = | nina taf te nc) | (coe | |S | Te | Vee =|2ees[ poo os=--<--—SS pOmue Duo O Oep) tad mwa meebo neel emaee meme em ona meee sume ene = ao ee eerie sacailcn sale ce alae nal em evall|e coean| eaeie se |(beeoeel| cael] ag nel ee een egal eae qsznoy pus ‘1duly 39N [ITH 30d tf in | crn] mre te | mc | mm cm a [era [ cin | caf eminem | am |e Le ae en IdW] WAQey "08H “Id {se}1eg S100) Sou 305522—55——_11 [Bull. 160 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY 154 J mamulles i oe ae ees a es 1 eee eel eer eee a pegissspouy SSSI S Ss SSTSE TSS TSS ESS HES SH] TSS SHS SSF SS ELL S seal e sere s apse Tete ee | bes oneal ea eee aan UB[d JOA MON Pex P10H soshoy ~----|----]-----]-- 9°OL |Z pus ‘ysnoy 4Ouy “AY MON Sa ni beh | rcpt | (Seabas||Bemense"|j aio |eail basheloa| as St (alist jl ce ae Sap |OPrs | tpn ea! GOR NAR (NIG Aa (SS nen Veen (| (ea amin a tea Ha “10°@ |8 [777 "qsno0y qop-WI0D ‘yHIeID eecig ate gcse | aeenal asad aed Pa eal | ead al adc a| Soe aes |e aiisee Poe a[aaralt 3 Bu Seeing | ONGC OG ce ean ene Teco) SPE || Speeatt en {lucia pen lial eat bs Etec [as ssl lt Sa A (ca 8 | Cs] (cp (gue) [cascade aas ) nmea | A fe OTS ee | eres poYxIBA] P1OH “HISD Se poate | mea] brocenea | a oil imcmereeg beer |e ae f me pieen inn eg etme te TS SEARS SERS SSS SLOSS £ Relea ease | occa ieee bie | Sala | O18: | Tea eaten oe ee oe eee TL OLLO YT) oqey Pus 4ON “HIRO aia | S| mee | [er |e ea femal aecteas| eye | aye me enn| pen | eee] an eee alee we (| Pea TE | Ss SRS ERIS SS RS See ESSE S Oe Qin ail aa tess =O OPQ GT CT TUL HAGE f-Saed (eeliel | e ebeant |G NR fa] lp ti eros lage | eee mse ee 2 poegissepuy 7 spel eal (eae | Beet Spass [pa | Sha om [tee | (aaa eet ol sgl eee | fea Ramee cee | [ncaa eal “eMog peddeiM-ps0yH 80g =Sced| e524) |525-| See) S522) /B24) | Sas S44 SS StS AS Ge ese asia s | eae SSSR S SE aa Sees sas saa] S5 Ss TIS gia] Ses aa| eal tessa =a eecacicc oles: cesar a= oe Ded uing S17 0F7 Seis sel Sse =| Se Se) ee ee Se eel ea io Epes] cal ican Veal bal ieee lea ecm | seal cotmnia (na walling |e mea | al gel al sels Gell ee DOCLUZE1 GO| GunTS oN OeO st: 8 Crete | OS \enes| Dena |ienea| Rese Sar Ted 19 Seal Fa cal Saba | ue dh t= Ore aoe Maia [peace] Intern hgecarsaeaneana monies vase = ule[q xossng “eT (Vis fea kOe | es ham (ag | emaio BeGh=a| Sid ine ni sks Bl Bno PPR STS RSs Rasa ares Rast =a asss PeAIBW P10M "GO NAAN Seales GE Girt] OG) || era | eres | arp | at ie ie |e a 2 4 Gr eel Ria | Naame fat “qsnoy pus ‘Idmy yon s330g TALE ERS EO tS Jit col Rl (al outa | te (i oe Coad | ae | apes | Comme | Ser |e ni ee | mec ce | ceca aduly 97198,7 “GO iselleg AuTmMOGByoIqO las cE | Ee aptly eae ea [el fecal ab pe lee Feber neil fae fee [ively eas hoes PEE EEE ESS PEA POO “qIV me te |e ei aa ona fcc feel ee] et et ia ei (ates bec fase cag Pola OLs[oSpoa| bees eas smamteecat adwiy 4@N “Iv Cool Seren ene ipaae lect e ater ae gare emg (oa[eseg iar an ay hes apo ate ale rele a ines ae O25) 260 cnc 5 ocmnl en sne meemee admy o11q8t “Ty isejJeg o[IVMISgTy sod44 pue sopios £10940q 638} 10010 q | qunog prog | oma ora tH | o3eq | ,xo0ses BR z poy | 1 peoy ezoqupAs| -syj00g | PPUPS | guy | Fig | 180d | asoyog| -owog | "-sia | FOS | “GS |-pur pio | ‘pur pio Aqs2[90} -sy *000 PONUI}HODN—saj}18 DUOMO YIAON PUD DIWIb1A LOf adfiy Yov~a { 0 8290Ua4L.1NI90 BbDIUIIIAd puD sishlnoUD adfiy fi1az440qd—T AISV 155 A CERAMIC STUDY OF VIRGINIA ARCHEOLOGY Evans] "y Due ‘g °Z sofqez Uy poze[ngey syno Byways ‘pH “7 ‘O ‘g ‘Y SHOOT ‘suOyeABOXO SNOoUBTLOOSTHY 1 bed al tes Peulresceicr les alert lee Wea lost ineoen all P25 ea well csi en a | nae eal elle peaale Pease a OLY lnaeetlOF, Wsaacal OGL nea mllie lleasc > ++ Alessio OF papasaloalr, Peas a cI OOT|IST| OOT/99 |-~""|0G |-~""jOST | OOT oro Z| O01 ge OOT/ZLG |-~~“|621 |" ~~ |1z QOT/OFE | OOT/O6T | OOT\ZS9 | OOT|STZ} OOT|OOT |-~--~-~-"~-----7-----syeqo, ae | aba ice eal eel ek cel kl. co alae Nc cl ok ale ena Pea Ga Ee Boe Cs eee a ee RISE al oes ore eae a co a es a ee cal oie eae alee “777 "S9H0g YOO ovu10j0g aE eee | Em | ee et amc We We rid Me Sees | SUe SoN een | Dal Siena pete les licen | el Gok TG Ge | Oe | ee eames | eer |e pc TEST ONT Ml Se] | | aa | ae] ied Dae | (aa Up bie a |Si| Fe a HR da ae dU Nee (ee ae OS Go| ae Eos Saale “snd0jq POOMUTT BUI[OIBO "N aka a ce | Pd de Rea al| allie Nils el cae | EE ee Bic oaths |cara| cas CE | fi |e | ae | ee | ee | fem | O02) ol ee DOR ISSO CONT aod oO manOs 5 =| Pe S| Pabst are al Frome bea ig ol Ps 3 ae pees barat aoe "18 es HE os | | hata | eas] = ecal ie coef cota cloaca ca | eee | cca eel allel | ees DO DOT DION G=neT Op a ee a Ue can | eal | Shel ce Se Lic coe ls a hee an eS) a ieee eal Wceralen ole lc eee lta Sues | ee calmed ole cdl eal sa alieae dies: alm PEC UNG SE MLO Ga TORO R :4£10330d snoauv[sosTy a Ee OFS Be. |ea ae ee aE cali tebe coe mee, ESP VILE, Oca scdceuall Cds | ae aches Mime oe 4 ican aca all Se Seo ol Pacl ee Sall eased GSE eee DO SSH IDUA! P| (Fs || se ae fae a (ee ee ee a Re POM ers Me celica eacliee iat sale alSiel ie. |TED, a(S. 2 [Gee 4G dle sce ale on] yeas a | ieee neta soe s PONTO EAR MOTION aad = =p Fea) brace bh Una nec fara) | ae (neal bc Laem (1 a] la (Pa a a (ORNS Fe ec Vm self ta (eg | as af be | (imi esta | Peed [ae eee gag | bo | SE ova Cafe) ian ceny boy Saal = SS | Bae || pee] pee ai [me | Lee age] (| (1) yA Ha FR Uy al | ee |e seal (> as | | (Plea Ie | ee Wee WP OG he ae ee 2 ee || “777 peduieys edits “19 “4g een EST 9°S9E |F9 ES aes 109) Fenn | Re |iaen|pan|Zeoe San |OuShe|9S. i Geka |e 5| Ont kul OOL| wpe natal canal asian ame mek G Tet anlG@ueel ts OES SOT) Slice Coan mee Cen anal ime CLT |FG |E°LF |06 |8°8E 91% 19 °TT |€8 |7- 7-7 -> “"""""poqivAl P10 “1D “48 ENS ATES TE IEE = (eas le Sa mers GZ (ee | ieee | Sr | ca oe {ese || Patton | | ag | i Saw ee “qsnoy pus ‘idmy WN ‘ID 49 “119 ST JBL |0'OL 161 [8ST |88 |F°6 |2Z9 |~~~~-|-7~7|----" Adu oyiqey “1M Au04g iseplag Yoolp Anoyg i aa ik so mesma sal apa ae eer | (ae | ses SS Se S| | [roa wore -"="="""DEnIssBjou() fe koma (ae al |S ON LE See we |S TS le 2 has | aol a | lest (> Teer ase. Usd “Pey Sea | ae | |= se | el aia (ine bea fg Ve fir (peu | ees Dba sics (riczg| Nese a me’ a] m7 ates it | bm PL cane agen eee leccalie c al nace eeaID lena ne 2 DOMaM IA DIC GORGE Tes | ese ea es el SS ae | aol ea lS eer RSS| 8 an tose ok pexlVW POH “psy pata) (at aca aa | a) Ce Ses|Pas=nies== pemes less | = ad | aa | ai er ser tae eae idwy JON pus ysnoy JOuy “pEy Fg | ata fee al me en oc be See | aa Le ete ce | aS oe a eee IdM] d1qeq “py ‘SoPIOG P1OJPBy iy | {gpm | a “TSS oe eo PORTERS PUK: “=--"""""="ngadelog *0an) “Id SSR | Ws fae A | | Jee || |RSS (im wt (ecm [ a |” ome el 411 eee fmm [gel levee lls at fa eon! sea fame | er aint fans [mstrnt W oz) Gy | ape <4) Guael 1) Chey totctetes| Ketan aed Fg bo poduieys g[dulfg oan “Ig See eae af el] aes |B || ace | seal] a Oe a| Spa Mek |\Gcom (Si OscogOLit |emrnlery| (real emec Cee OK [eee eiOL Sek w IOLoblesccalnc alte ca eae | he 5 ae es “"UypB[d “00H “Id = onc PNT ee SERB a CUE aC Sale Oe | SOie DSPEMILSE COL IPy elna alse tl cecalases LOT [ST JO'IL {TZ [69 jeg Jo~- TooToo pore Plop ‘00H “Ig Seek lea goes | eee eee elle en VPC Me (Gerba lCon bee Ooeeineeclg || ceed eon | Oepn (Gin pees paar acees (sacs leemee| pool eneG benno | meena ae ae eerie pus ‘idwy 40N IH "30d ete lee sale ee Bees beer cl coal. hath ae] core ABV ga | Wn an Reelin | ines |e nemee | rene |e torGs en |S a Ren Qin lesan es ons pees | oom TOUT OTIC Gr Oe) is tey) ‘so}Jog ef1004) ooullg [Bull. 160 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY 156 see (ial: Seu (SS (cy Slee ip Searle Salles “ali i ie Seip Salim fm (ha Fn ae | JS ites 9 || Se gale sce Ecco Eccles [bc - [2 le en mes DOpeyor A Seer ros es eee ee Be | oe, || eds |e (a i Gah a Say a ence woes yer res yerre senses loo)" ""pexisyl PloD “sy uepreg fmice| aca [tse (eee |e oa) eee Pe le lee | eel mes Oh ON 2oalmnclaal ee ely cae | BIE LCE EN ELLEN Gite ean Meee mca |) ovat | iioat | Baal) Sls ca PROS Lae a PAcare ry. | Wh NR Ni Se fk See a a UST hi | 8 | 2 eS) Se | i, ‘S9}19g Fool Avoleypy SF a a a a a a aaa at UU mr a el fs a oa aan Ae |b Wel ae | Sl Patsy Gal FS ai | ewe [de PCC Poplssepuy *poue ESR || beer | satis = ce | eae | ee | acne | adel Roan | a uM OAT en OC) OO pa aeT G) J Vim al Wee amie I |e eel ene | sae Fae 9 (eRe | NE [ha Sn 5 9 POGMIOD FATED BP lea | eel ca dl eee [Ec are leech eel aren | ie (eee | eal ee 3] Tel d “AIO OO) IAT | est lc aelaca fve sale clepic le es calc ar lieea lawl an PEATE PION “HrvlD “ysnoy -----|---|---|---|-----|----]-----|---|---- oA | NC | ae ci | | eee Gn | ed | ONS Fcl| 1007 al | psc fa ne | i een | pm | gaan | | ful | ed | LOTS) Te @ Nee ATSTT Gp SIH Pt SHY a ara ea fe art etal Fae cl Pl aN ee tt a Fe | Sd S| eel a pee Iduny 9f1qBq “HIVIO I ces LN sc et le | bg iy i fc al |b || fe *SOJIIVG O[[TASHIBIO) I) a baal XZ easement koe er Pe iy ae meee r cues | eiecicl| vaca rca = | ce | cee | ca | eg ar ieee eS OBL TSS a] OU 7): IS FI FY I a ak a Da ad saad il ie a fal Ul cil a elaine | ea ci face | te ete lim ol ae CO To mj nsalos YG iays tlic I A FN FF IH ed Bat || hms ale al aS oleae at | Gael (itso Fol ise att PBN (ON Psa |G sr! Vacs 0} [TBI] 2 eel peal fac aa | | a | feel te a ka a pedeiog 330g a a ce a a a ar fe (ae ame pa] oe we | mf aR UU all ab | VD ik Sea ea | | | fe | | ads DOME SOLG un S fox OUUO Sy: Baa | a | EV | ny tats | | | | an | |S | | Se | | ce | lalate: 19) E SOb ie ce CkeT | OC ae | Can Pisce | baal | Caan sai aie Uye] dq xossng -----|---|---]---]-----|----|-----]---]----|----|-----|----]-----|---|----|--]----]--]-----|---]--]--]----|---|-----|---|-----|---]-----|-----|-----|---|----]---]---------- PeylV! P1OD “yO *qsnoy -----|---|---]---]-----]----|-----|---]----]----]-----]----]-----]---]----|--]----]--|-----]---]--|--|----l---}g-00 fp [-----]---|-----|-----]-----|---]----} o> pue ‘idmy 40N s3}0g -----|---|---|---|-----|----]-----|---|----]----]-----]----|-----]---]----]--|----]--]-----]---[--[--|----[---}gep |e fe----]--- roe 06. lhe safcca:e alps loeacen possoldmy oF1qB,F “YO :so]Jeg AUyuIOYeyxITTC) AS els iain ee ee a ae calf ss So 2s [oF fl fafa fia bs Pa [sa ii ee elf fs © fe peal eee poyyssvjouy Ver WS ealice Ontea loops BRT | gloae|ome|- ge o/eem Pek allo |e cel wets] hart alc ae (Spe leas [8 2a eee | rae | fl | ope || Sree = bedeidg “qIv (seal ti es (356 UG slip Che? Salpeoeal maa Tl |o 12 Tel cane| u(r | Soll onze | eee ae iad a cd ome | Cae | sont ee dae || Bae wil 0 S| way || eel pedureys efduts ‘qv ec LE eee |e as Was WAAL IE Wa eae WEIS ke STS IS ere a I alle lia Tilia saad ceca ell in | lie eel | eres | eae | ie [dc beccil Es slp AP Se Usd “AV L9T [28 |7-7|7~- alls? Maco Ol eae sale ealle ae Gefoe Gh bepe| poligess oh sass [ae ie | eae er (sae (al fe retell Pee gals il ee | 2 DoXIBW P19 “ATV Fae an | aes | ES RE ees | ee ciel esc alaaeeled elbeco ite 3) Sat fiz ses eal | a | ll Eas ED | | ufc a tical | cme 9 | ek reac | cl cca ical es ttl ae [a | Eo | ROUT ONT Oy, 8 °F |9B1|--~|--- 9°62 |29 |2"9¢ [93 |----|---- 18 ae, SU ar le Lihecndal clip oa) ck | ee flee] Roa, Ne — alae] phe hoes | cee ta dur] ogg “qIv s0]10g oLIeMEq Ty zlolziol a ielz igizie| zie] 2 (2]7 zie zlseseisl isi eile ie] Fleiss Ln} fe} ° Q ° (rv) BEIBIE] 2B) 2 B/E /8/ 8/8) 8 Ble Ei) € [BIBI B/E & E) 2 1B| 2/2) 8 |B) EIB J & o& be © iv) i] i] J © ie © [=] a i=] og go 9 3 gg 0g og ag gQ og 3 3 3 8 @ ® ® 3 @ ® S ie & © ce 2 Y sodA} pus sopios £19930g eat 10 0ON 7110330 eurs | oop | 2HOUS | MOT om | -0189 wor €_ {SHOT ) rep 2 $ H92I19 |g x01 | Z HaVIQ | THO @ aie la eq | oH | -sxieIO 2 goayy |qoary | ¢ oor} urder |" - Jue A TIO i TA -ctrean mec | OEOM ere ORE roa |) Ne tape 8 4g | Aug | AUIS | styeg PanujWOO—s9718 DUOLDO YIAON pun nuibi14 4Of adfiy yova J 0 890UaL4NII0 BbD.UadAAd PUD sishiipUD oadhy fi19jj0gd—'T FIAViL 157 A CERAMIC STUDY OF VIRGINIA ARCHEOLOGY Hvans] meet SOO en | COU frien | eer | emer itete | | sre | meee (feet | can | OG | ee | eae | slat | ca (nee |i [fee | Pee | meee | een CC) | eee | eee | | em AT TSR UTONON DOD OLA O01; OOT/809|}"~~|#Z | OOT/60Z | OOT|FL | ~ |89 OOT/98T | OOT|FEF|-~~"JET]"-~~J9T! OOT\ZEz|~~|8T)----|9% | OOT\OSS] OOTISS | OOT/6Z9‘T} OOTIOL |-~~"|9 J>~~7777 TTT S[BJOy, Srey |r| om lhe bes eae | ea | Si sell cocci teams ce ee A elec an ec |r a ea th rc se esc ea (ae dll a ell ea | en ee SOIC ORT @ LOR DLOTOS: tie [| (-eies| ( S eaee || are i 2 8 5s en | eS | ancl | a) ae | | (ua| ena} em ea | Ls oe) So | act | Ge Gee a Pls eae ee | meee OOD ISSElOLLA, amperes een | ate [eet pein | | eee | meee | || ce lama cs al emilee cleo: al calves acl’ lalate |b oo oe blame bucle collec mami Borla cecal Ganl|(e: £2 sana | SROOMPOOMUTPBUTTOIS GENT OhLen| Sain | Cn eelen|o | |mun i i (petal I | Decals et Sisal ip ol lel aoe se, Ee Cane Nigel aling ail ilo eae | orci lise |ta mall ena (oan eel aan eal ee calle Ga pogyssepoug +----|---|---|=--|=----|=---]-----|---]----|----]----- Sisena| eal|adat| | ham su | es | mene moins an | | ed S10 9): ee Gal Oe OC eee | Sica | Cie | eee | aac a ee ONT OLO MA Ak OtTO Noi ee eta ee Ge Ae cacao Bea | aa RMT Se HA ee eee Be a fine ah aa ads cabs ee |e Ils ec dal Ca Re OOO SLB UUCAT TT : SS | nal | oak | ome | et | ame | ace | he ten orm | JEEZE| Seg | Gia Se Sag | Seiten | Siem | S| eae | a | ate podureis eduntg “19 4g 2751 290) incon | Qh |e ma | ta | a a ee ee LAST Sye| On Oe ta 8. 8s 6Ocmn|OkcGn Ol. |main| nnn Ule[d AD “49 Tg 29) | eam | Coe mee a | | mei ata | | aennn Do | Sos en Gh | Gone | Sous om | Omen | ap Fam cof | | Pee EID 0 48 “qonoy [SCOR Fae mea) fae | eal P va (atagea| fy lana |p! Meo Se ot hse laa tin | icine fF seeps lima. pu bes man | Pe | fee (Pee pue ‘idwWy 39N ‘Ig 4g Widal eel ee Go| eet eee all | eel om Geen SOIL ONO ras Gon OLS COS an OO) 2mm ma | nel | een ae idw] 911q8J “ID "Ig irs (Sacer Uli | ata (epee (ee [eee cla me arey eS |Peclleeer| som ee Ue *Pey SSE ie ye LAE S| SE SiS Fi a URE | Ua | Re PR || ey SV km fe 8) dt OVS aa PexIV P1OH osvq ao lew ae | a cae eee nd eaea| a] (aman sl cS ate al ftir ae fee eal eer | pe SSSI Seco PoyxIVY POH “pey SPENT ah PEN Sl || oe el | | | I (eee [cea | ee ere 7 “Idw] JON eare | |ea ea | a |e |e || S| eal ee eS eRe Fs bee ie |i walla =| adel | ns I al IE ll cana |All eee | Pal ee LO Ce OO amEOG S7; sir (ales fm esa ac Fame mee] Korie sm eimai Pct Variant Ec sacs] Cal Vtech edit Fates Ea ee) | Ue) a a I a a Ste Soe Idul] dJ1iqey *pery Sapa Spal ‘so}log P1OJpey ane|scs g |rroor}enn-|----- |---| ----]---- | -- 2] ---- | -----]---]----]--]---- Be ee a OS FS OS poylssepouy we el nae ie Fn fee faim Va gee aaa fee | a La ai He af (eel [foi Poe Ber] mee pedeiog ‘oan “Iq ee Ss eel ES ae Se ae, Fe SP ee Dm ea Cee ed Lo aie Uae 2 JO al 2d O16) tec (BiG) Doll ceamiine “| Ppedurers epdums 00H “Ig Heil boc||ees4 bear |e ---|--|--|----|---Ig- le [ger ean (ae | 3 Ga al email al aie <= eae UPI “09H “Id T ----|---|--- ae a] | ae Ss fa Na Pace a I a I Dae el (ead Wi eat Utd Gam We ite =) CG Gael YC 3 SSP en bom eae oem ies POYVW P1OH O94) “Ig PS Pe ee | eee | See 1 Peeper | Pee “ysnoy eoeoales 5 (BSED) SS OS aa | [ey RS | | a EY eee cl iene “""}77-"|-""| pus ‘idly 30N [ITH ‘30g -|----|-----]-- L lnccalucals sen OU onoeipeooR ia ; {So]Jog Od10e-) CONTIG SESS Hest yet del Fla ee fal ee Seal lpe vt Sr | lfc | eames [all uel Pw jie pets | Pic fil In afd fr eos lee Sal Ie || aee| l| ar oeeet peyissejoug ae er eee eee ee pec Pema [Ee omy eoce|feocor | peo) ase el ecna| aloo 20 oc] So) a ore aoc aoc o|aoo ose yioec| acer) eec en eer omy oooo ac | COS aes a Ule[d JOATY MON ceafcaslesclee leet clea acl Sel ~o7]>7>-]>"=1"==="-=NeyIVyAy POD Jos£0yy Soren ee Weee|lsociascoc| pans SI SCT CSE fore iad Fac fc | eo ba fo Fy | Fr FSS | ee ao ie “|"~" poxIBy, P10D JOAY MON *IdUI] ON pus Seece| Ee -|---|---]-----|----|-----]---|----|--.- Toootio=)---")---| gsnoy JOU “IOAN AMON ere ees es | eee eee we |aenna|m nen n anne n nnn nnn ln n nnn n nn) ~~ 2 | nn| == [anna [ann |mewnn|~ noo |a= anna |—on|annne|-na|a--n0|--e|anane)esnnn|o-e-e|--=|a0<5|--=|an—a= IdUl] DIB “AY MONT isoLlog JOATY MONT {Bull. 160 OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY BUREAU 158 18 OOT | 28 OOT | IFT OOT | 891 OOT | OST OOT | 221 OOT | 06 10 IE ae (a ees 2 ia Gs a OG, TTESTEIOD CIS | FI FI 9° I e'1 Zz Pesan aaa tr Ag TI Te T 2% T TTTT TTT oor)" == peduieig 400qO Plog :peyissepuy See-n->|---= BE Fe SESES | CCS SC CR a CS SE CNG Taal at [ait Gee | hein een eG DOLOOUID.T-DIOU SARTO ----=---|---- Bra | sical aa corned ce eg eeseg apes ae ee eles eee ees eee chee so a ag | ae eae ere Cars| cee spa eGt stage ke ooo STU TaN OO @)EAOOIBTA 1S8}Jeg YooO Aodiepy ----2--|---- ---|-------]-------]-------]-------]---- a a I I a a te) bled et | Se) bee a esl a Goa ph Ciiaie tect oR ee ec Ls poytssepouy Se) Pood ry ed tt td ed eh Pe ee oo oe rit IT Benes Teepe lassen alobhe: ce Le Ree ee De AOR OOk)) oat -------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------]-------|-------|---- et | a a aa er SS Gila) Rare eo Ss ees pedureys e[duitg ‘oan “Ig Saas aoe ol Aa I 9° I 9° I eateen |e 9°¢ L eit 1! RL easy (mia | hme ee! We) GTI Ze. LS Ooh ad) Bea eae 67 P Lg 8 Ze g PL II L¥ 9 wre I ee oO Eos. e/a a ole Pte ge eso, DONTE PICO Ope ae SeEEI=oll Le g aye T c'P p '¢ 8 LY 9 O01 |6 5% i seen (eel (iti cn ge ae ee ysnoy pus ‘idwy JON “MTH 30d SIS | SIS | IS lz g e'L Zz je I Zee ¥ rate z 9°9 g BS o5h |e ae ci no AAO ONG B ROOD aT iSoJog es10e4) COUTIg one nee - | - -2-- |---| -- == |---| on [oo |---| = | - 2 = |---| - 2 - |---| ---- FES See I eas SEE (ee SERA || IS SERRE See Ae ee eg NOY) -------|---- San | asm | amt | eect | cts | Doel ee oI cas eas eee al a a | ces Se ae a | I en cn oe OS OUP AE OTT ONT -------|-------|-------|------- 9° I Be 22 alesse | 770 I pa oa | pega reed abet eee gra reer same ao pee nal oes or ee aan eee OU RING EGLUGATIT Boere ob a ae oT I sr S75 aS Sea || ae a ee Eo Sg Saal 5 Saw ES oe S| eel =ailini Sans 1 | Sewn ee hat Cae eee POCOIS ROC IA RIORAG Stars € PEL 4) I 64 LZ G% ¥ gal 4 €°9 8 ak € oF Cie il Soret salbien Coke eee en 5 ee Uyeld “ID 498 eet oat |B)! 9°8 Z 9°01 | ST 6°02 | €& ELT | 92 $6 rae 0°12 | 61 (Gam 9 Sas | 8 ean (Gane (CRIN ce eNSAT PexIBWY PLOD “ID 48 Saas BS) | a (Onl | ame o> | espera ation 8% ¥ 6 EI | 2 €'l | 02 LY 9 BL Z 8°8 2 Meee aes cae |e ai Ly Beer | ysnoy pue “idwy 40N “ID 4g eae eg | el 9 49g 8 eT 4 L3 7 4% € vv 17 a Be onlay | Se oer eet es icine idul] W1qegt “19 49 isePlog YeolQ A034 -------|------- PZ z 9° I 6'I g e'1 ( i he ei Foe Tal T ws soe MBE SSR AEBS > cin Sa se PeyTssefouy) sass fSSoS2o| Ser SSIES S959 SSS | II FOI SS FSCS (SOO SSE | SCC Seo a Oe joMog peddei-p10p 8330g ------- I SESE One| pcern=ay (yo I 9° I SESS POSSE IC I 9¢ |9 ACE I fits tye Peed | Pi Rake Soe eee OO OEE at ZI I FT | ie oie | era 9° pat i8 2 pono Pee ETE SES cl EE ae Oa SR as a, a lee |e ae A pedureyg ofduntg sxouvoy ape t L'0@ | 21 Ze | £'eI | 1% O81 | 2z L'81 | & 89 | 9 88 | F Sf is MS K geen ect a vece eres er iN IT (| tapraSS g 19 |¢ 79 «+416 88 | FI O'S | SI SIL | St O'Or | 6 2% I TS. ely eet ek POI INPAO OE Cooma |ES GT I ev 9 91 | 02 *6 FI €°1% | 2a 8°LT | 9T (Gol A ER GE SO lta ae Seg Gia reek | Seeded ysnoy pus ‘idwy aN 83304 o------ ¢ 182 | €% 2-02 | 62 Sel | Iz FL ev ¢9 |8 9.9 |9¢ 99 |¢ eee | Saas |S A A OGRA :sollog AuymoYyRyoyO 038 ose 038 ose ose 938 ose 038 938 -yua0 |Junog | -JUed |JUNOD | -3U90 |yUNOD | -3U00 |yUNDD | -3Ued |JUNOD | -yuUed |JUNOD | -3Ue0 |JUNOH | -4ue0 |4UNOD |} -jued |Jun0D “10g -10q -10q -18g “19g -loq -1dq “10g 19g I a sodA} pur soyios A100 1e-& r-<-9 L-8-6 OL-IT-ér te) Gi a Ga 8 9T-LI-8T 61-06-16 CC-ES-4G S3—8G A-C HOOT _ Jo spoaoy Youy-g 48 sod44 £10940 Jo 9aueLM990 2918 8130d ‘a—-q 901g JO 81900] Sno1wMa Wodf sadfhy fi19140g—Z AIAV 159 A CERAMIC STUDY OF VIRGINIA ARCHEOLOGY Bvans] OOT | && OOT | 62 OOT | 9F OOT | 6F OOT | 6ST OOT | SE OOT | 86I OOF 92: awn lees t]he teeta ae Gian rect gate ae s[e}0.L, Spee] DAR faa (Pie eae | aoe ees ee Sl |?es se Ee hes Seal eas hl aS Gal £ oF 6 eT | leas | Srey a || SERRE | SO ERIE CTO po1sdur9,J,-pisyg-ABIO st a fers Bem |e | ae | iti sae fe an lel Pi pee Sal ea ala weed eae acall AGhs IT Sy ila |e Sl Salle Gua ae as eel eede) Sooreny. ‘soyJeg Yoolg Avoeyy 2------|-------|-------|------- ZZ I l? zZ 9° if ¥° ii eka Se |isae ae (amend | PUG er aes el ee er ee Sedo) SRE NE SE SEES SSE ESS 2% I eee ora oes oir Zz ae Eric I Sc cal ake al cass tdi lige Sancl Ra EE one eS DOOR LOR ROOR) Let Seats | eter abael ieee cee gl eons | ae aie go al cong as a smells os cht. Vics ae ee Cgc I ig sa il aca cara se ae | es cl | check | ae ae podureys e[duitg "Oat “Ig T’9 Ce Sire le t'P 4 It 4 9% ¥ iP T ¢° T 9°% CO iia |e an ee eS 7 ae teee UIP “09 “Ig “Stile? Site d=. O'sT | 9 19 € *'6 ST 8°¢ ial OT z 9°% z Tato [Rea ell tava teres DOXIBIA DIOR coe mad: 08 I €or | & O's. |9 cor |¢ 8°8 las SFI | se 9°L ST GEST s|GTies a Sere acl oo ea eck ea qsnoy pus ‘idmy 49N [tH 30d 16 € for | 8 L°8 b 0% T o€ g GT £ 0% ¥ €1 Ta deni a Goa eee eee ~Idwy oIqey “09H “Ig 1SoqJeg 98108) 90UTIG tls o'é T Eas aml ye) Ba | SR >| |e | | Oa cae es) 7 I OT G “Tiare || pete at lacs deeel| Sei Cl] NOR sc Bo cen eee OOD TSNE EEL ee hl oe aE oe Tal ae ce tALé IT pie peo as eck i ey el ee | ee ae Sl ors tee IC Bae al aa eae LSE ac See pasfouy ABM0740 NT aa ole cae oll a a I a ef 6'T € Sa z Brie; = al weal|) Gece c1b Seat lM SE] Hb ESOS TES ee Se Cee areas DOCG) GLOTEITA TAT) tee 52 ||, BES ee Ee es eo ee a ee 9° I [i eae EIS T (Soi T Dee b nllkecl ee be PeGmInuIR Od nIOnas ree || ee eA eee TRA a xe ig I? 4 Fog Cae we he ae tay nL ¥ So Pee ae ee me oe eC 4 Veonace Gk ede ne rie cen ee ULL ea GO BEES fae i ee 6°9 z aes Fir | pee pa (ol 4 0°g 8 8% L i 3 L 6°E € Sed Fill ok "Gol. ohana OAIBIAL DIOD 1G) 45 Seer Smt [eins foo S| es has | em ee ac a Lay 4 €°9 or 86 &% LL ST CUB To Shes alia eae (Gone | era nese ysnoy puev “iduy JN “ID “4S ey Be i | Sar Hea ge T Sarr ee ea Sleek ae Se cjae as 8° | GS Viiaaee | (Tie pes Sak Le Cosh. S50 pee pall eae se earns “--~-adwy o1qeg “IO 49 :seTleg YIM Auoyg 0’€ T 69 4 + z T’8 4 £9 6 oT € 0% Jee BS ta |e ees seal (ere cece ae Pegissepouy) eet a ore | Se ee eal ec Cee aes | ST Gl ke [ts ce Vitas fee. Vibe el bala al eee | Hig © male tow Gaace oe lOO GL DANO e TMOG NTIOM 19 z it 3 Le Clee bales ga oot the | 5 alhsr L 8°¢ 6 oT € 9°% Ce ee si ce Lp gilse ao "Tatas. ke ge podeios $340q Oe T 69 4 BOT ees be eee Paine eo 6'T £ 8° 4 Ce T ta! Lg Sige ss eles “hl tee ~“pedureys gdunrg exouBoy I‘oT g €0Or | & ts) Gm ty 20 |g Z£O0t | 21 Z'OL | #3 9'ET | 1@ z'6 | vteed (55 ae fa ple Seer eee pee used xXessng T GI ¥ fits T ‘9 € I? 4 £°9 OT ig (al g'T € om & 1 ia | ee a id 77 7oo" 5" payIBI POO “HOO Laas II GLI | 9 L°8 ¥ T'9 £ fel | IZ 6 TE | SZ 0'0S | 66 PHOS) WEG) HN came ¥ a oer pue ‘iduly 49N 83400 16 £ GZE ng L°8 ¥ LE | OT Z‘8I | 64 T’s ral ey € 6°E oS ie ein |e Cle co eee idwy dNqegy “HIT iserieg AuyuIOyByoIgO 928 928 a3eB a38 938 20328 038 938 938 -yU9d |JUNODH | -3U90 |JUNOD | -3ued |4UNOH | -JUs0 |JUNOH | -Jued )JUNOD | -3U90 |JUNOD | -yua0 |yuNO| | -3ue0 |yuNO0D | -3ua0 |yuN0D -10g -19g -10g “18g “10g -10g -10g -10g -10q ae ome SL eel psa oes | Sa SS Re Pe Se aL aaa | Ce eae Tse Bay | sodA} pus soqies A10940g 1-2-€ 9-9 1-8-6 OI-II-21 SIFI41 9T-LT-8T 61-02-12 GC-EC-¥E SZ-02 I-H HOT g JO s[eael qouy-g 48 sed £4 A10940d Jo 9du011N000 au18 $1300 ‘I-H 4901g {0 81920] snoriwa Wout sadf, fi42q40g— FIAVL [Bull. 160 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY 160 *£19}}0d OU 10 9]}}I[T PeUTV}UOD SyIdep asaq} 9AOq" SlaAVT Se eee pan 9T OOT| Te OOT| 62T O0T| &9 OOT) 8& | | 6 O0T| SF OOT) Z8T O01) S&& OOT| 8IF O01] 10F (OWI § | tet Sate ar ae emma AF SS a Ir ed ra wes OST alga Wong Sears coos | pms a sas ca 9 “Soe Rael | esd ae | er lea eee reed steer foe DOmMd IO play g- ARID bie i mei fens ne il eee ne me eae pe cee eg em fi [ee ime meee ee eg eet oe eee ee le nla ale eel ke eee a Uje[d YO Avy ‘S8LJOG YaID Add1epy apes | 2 a be ee tee oF ee | eear| ocak vine lecee|o- Cei eer es (Se T ot | F L° £ ae € L° lis ti eeieypetomaer aioe. a al EY odo) Sos Grilles a aes 2 ee Tei T es | [Seen | sae liege a ees eS eel Tole ee MORE ILS alg erane|h so et lGeAleGhecieG an alba P|. i= os: een pe DOO BANS Ooh) sic See ee aN al Uae | mace a (noc icc Unesco [ence Ua! (i a One at iar (oP T sess ea cerl etek earn ee eDOGULEIN O[A ugh oon) aac: mere [| aa (eee ete cs | eae OS I POlow IEE | Po teem SEP ioe Ser FG BaP WAAL Gla ge ON tae elt r6e fee o\ li eteen tena t Goose UAL WO) er = piping [Sean Coty WG 1 the 1 33 OTaell cars| ene ieee mee Caen ORD WN ES KORG) «| iher | GcOmalp SGmmle Oey cikcoe ned FC Citen yp CeelwS0e sen ais te lmDOMe NRDIOO ROE) itch a ee enon plan (oO gaan LO) 6st | or | go |2 |---| tT 168 | F 196 | St | 89% | 68 | BSE | OST | Ter | sZt | c'8e | go |--~~-Gsnoy pus “idwy ON IIH “30d ici fi|| Sa aes Ne Cis le aes al lal Eee Stee iS | ee OR Ne We OE ite |b ce = Aco Bree co ead. iSafleg ed100H) sdUyIg gees ime | uangen |e (eon eee |e ae ale ae Secs PSE Bae reac acl ke 8% |g 9° 4 L° € Ge Go PEP Phil an eee DOR ESE OU, I TF II II FB See fe fa Pa a ai a a | | eed Ua a ee |e ae | co | 0 cree en ce 2 a rar pasiouy ABM0IJON I a ra ac ee ea a aa Ne am a) at Da a aa Ra | be a ee | ee It IT =SSre | or ss sciae 15 Sh aE DAC Glo GRE LELe A LST a ea | aaa ea | a ie | ei a a ees niece lees a alee EL eae ee ak OWE nad et ale ed poedurejg sfdurtg “19 49 an eal Pao tae eek |G: Ouall a leencie (eon | nem mee | Onome kan ombe ea Cue Sees MMOL eee GT Gree ot ones on moment come ORGl eel etn a ae Ke | Ren Gia ee OsGee | NO a Omiee| at a eclOL Ey nce imemnINOnOM Gm litenic: aie Sey Ole | LS a Sh eoro ee Gre TD iiss ne pene DOLE NED IOS) RAO ES ris a feilccstalencndge | 6 PO 1G 2e ee e|- (tel 68) | F) Weee- ek | Supa Ses 8 10 gies WERIé 68! | 2:8, | Ck | Usnow pur ACuAeNe Os ae Coa | eared menltavase [8 Otel ae a ONG |e olsen lon |e Garealion 16m I Sule ino i € ZEAE A ds 6G |b Jr aday oqed “19 “4 :Selleg YoeIQ AWO4g Bhi ae| | eS, EN 6. ASS 4 TeCral Coal ean sacl ein erae ema CaP CAMIG Se BICRE [sOsGe a | Ole a| heey (OTe i 2irlc: 22 ullibae ae ceume lism crm rs tng coeeeeMDODSsclOu i) aa | a al ae ae ean (er a eee So ae gee | ee oop |e aa ae a linge an ee Nien re teats te sated [eMoq pedde1M p10D $3400 Bepaee || mak WO oe dbre ait al eer eS Ore. lelee| viel eae Pre les (Pee |e ml Se alee, ee PL ee eo ene in eel ese Der OMe erie ee els lie lee | late Pee eee ttye- (Were, ts eto" ae ag ee smear Rain 2S = Denes Oe On Sea OurOey Tae a PEA ECCH VL eM NGrGTe Reema c Gil O (One ltSeulscea|O. NnSuen |CSe o-omeliec. | Tone) Wei mine: NOK = |PSrn | 2eS) I cle ||fecnesstenen ns cop comme Ulu KOSS seen SF VOM Cm |RorsanleclanwenrialGoiGyae leo: tern len O20 | Gn Goro nis £29) 60. | 69 O6G Ly NOb ers | 8) |e es eee OsAB PIO Oe OO Suites Ab A Oe ED BCP eo CO Ne Wee rsa ate Siem Ce 8T 19 £6 | 68 | c2 | 60 | FFL | 02 |~7~~~~~"Usnoy pue ‘IdW] I9N $130g Fee eenn Te MARES We AGS) APE RE DE WSS I eines WIRY Ee WAS eS Ue AN) re ORY MG SS 1 UG 4 = To [occ adony oyiqe a “4ordO ‘sellog AUTULOYeYAIITO oS | eee ee sale oO lees tS aieGl| Ger Cae 16 |) Ge) Gul ae aes ieee le | le Lad int 3 3 “ = 4 Le | = nd | SoeuGeet pelea BOR |e PE See | Be eB | el Bl ee es fbb s | E B + B + B 5 os 6 et | Bo ie B ot B ot 5 os 5B + o et =I Ge & ey S ey ey iS E s E ey 2 A o 3 8 S S 8 e a a 8 ° o sod4y pure sores £10910g 1-8-6 1 OI-IT-@I | SI-PI-ST | 9I-LI-8T 61-06 r-G-91 1-8-6 OI-IT-21 €I-FI-ST 9I-LI-81 61-02-12 C6-£C-¥G N ¥00[g Jo s[eae] yout-¢g 48 sodA} A10740d Jo sou01IM000 W-I-4-£ H00lg JO spoaoy youy-¢ 48 sedAy £10340d Jo vou01INI90 aque 81300 ‘N puw -T-Y-L 84901g £0 81909] snotwwa mous sadhy fi1aj10qd—F Fav. 161 A CERAMIC STUDY OF VIRGINIA ARCHEOLOGY Bvans] *£19330d OU IO 9[}}1] Pouye}UOd Sy}dep sseq} VAOQ" S[IAVT 0OT | 9% | OOT| 6F | OOT| 69T} OOT| Sez} OOT| SBT} OOT! 92 |----|---- 0OT] SF | OOT| Z8T] OOT| Ze&} OOT| STF} OOT] TOF] O01) BE|~-~-~-~------ 7-7 - Sp1OYs [840.1 QED Se eeeTe | MO | KGao ee OL ROnGi mle Qn MOS 6 9. pilfrc: ea-oer [toe | eon | are 7 Wa PRE 4 OS? Were Bee rel) Oke tae |e ( ay (aR Mesa pogissepouy) aaa Nag | | a a ee eee ee ge ee nae oa ea colonels oa aeoomtee collage ole eels oa Bol ae ai | a | RET || C, SR a pedureys-yo00yQ Om 3) Se ees at BEG ee Gu eared | aL | Onceaa| | Be | Onan al ese soe la cas on eel | eee 9° Die |O SMG T OL TeeL a kOuGe Veh onlin tr. en ae enaaae pedeiog BOT 9) sess | See Oe NSP ON te Wize ONG White Gia el Megs lea a ee me) ts tae ico ase |Ley |peee | Oe Obi ltaaaeelgeailiiers fleas peduie4s-ofd ag PAL Se Pasta Gr i oskePo nel \nceelcuOla| Sen |eSrokeIPCly mesa nan Pd | me | eS | Pap || ated AS | IE CN PATHE IP EEN CItStG [GY | [Es ress = Uyed BAS sOLM Capbaloe | OOee Keen lhOuPE KCSal TOMS c6 2k. 4) OM leeenlaees OLOZN Gis MORE NOZL epee Ee eSon| Lek leeZe | OnPE | ROGe INGE |\'cen |e mmmn nun meine poxIVUl-p10p, L1% | OL | $02 | OT | 8% | Sb | 2°99 | EET] T°S9 | 6ZT] 9 °F9 | BF |-7-7|-7-- £22 | OL | FFI | 22 | Zee | OIE] E°%S | SIZ] 0°09 | OFZ] T‘19 | $8 | ~“PoueqsnoI pus posses ty ION Ae | Be | SAE | AES | S| SPA AON THO, sty IIS fear reo (tea I Oe tala | tae a RY Mes Ode Pers | Aa PEE Pe ~-~posso1d uy O}1qB ‘qslug sovjing oor | 9% | oor 6 | oot| egt| oor| sez} oot! ser} o0t| 92 |----| 6 00T| OOT| Z8T] OOT| Zee] OOT| SIF] OOT| TOF} OOT] BT] ~------- Spi0ys [BIOL ies | O16 23 Vee |c eace ls ae See Tete ela cO' Tel Bteslee-slecccl sce: laaeaie «IS 7 (eae eae Sac ahnee. | SESE | eee Ok Es | 22: loop oe eee eae ONE 1'2o | %%| 219 | 0& | $09 | 96 | #89 | LET] 2°02 | OFT! T°09 | SE |----| @ | 2°9F | 12 | 2°29 | BOT] Z'9E | OZT] O'FE | SHI] TFS | 46 | H'2e | SE Tes ep |2 | eer] 9 | 2st | 2 | 99 | 6e | 9'2r | 92 | 9:22 | 12 |---| Z | Ses | OL | FST | 6 | O'ST | Zo | BST | 89 | 912 | 98 | Ess | ce | pues oug-mant poy 9°€h | 02 | $'92 | I | 8°92 | Tb | 8°8%.| 99 | OIL | & | S1e |] OL |---| f | T'Te | FL | 89% | OF | SRF | O91] TSS | BIZ] b'FE | BIZ) €°09 | 69 erqqed es a gif) zieizis| zie) zie) zieigie) 2 ye) ge] ele) ee) 2 let ele ° BiB) € |] 8/8) € 18/2 1/8) e }Elei/21 8 |B] 2 18) 2 18) 2 |B) 2 18] 6 18 g g g g = g 3 z g fe e iS e o a S a 3 3 3 S @ @ o cs ° ysfug"eovyns pus rode, 6-8-L1 | ZI-II-OT | SI-PI-ST | 8I-LI-9I | 12-OZ-81 | #2-€2-22 | 9-9-F1 6-8-L ZI-II-OL | GI-FI-SI | 8I-ZI-9I | 12-02-61 | ¥2-€2-22 I-H 400[q Jo s[aao] Yout-¢ 48 Ystuy eons pus 19dU109 Jo eae veer Sps9qs [840], Sapa | rors) Paid be Soe aoe ee pegissepuy 5242S 2a pedeiog poedurejs-od mys SPS =| Cit ea 9 oe i 2 oo ps een eee Uyeld pst | 2 poxieul-p10p LeGGM|\ Ce | saee eee pousqsnol pus posseidumy 49N BOD Ola Se ec r va ce ae possoid unt 0114 8,7 :ystuyg ooBjng QOL) SER7 ae eer aes SpJ9ys [e930], Orde |S eae Pyaar ayer psoys-A81D TZPalGO Tse isas caw ke oe eee Teas 154 Zales!) Sal brag gene Bataan © eae Spay Pues oug-cINT psy cL Go OG s Aabes 75 ig oe aiqqed punoy ‘zed me], es Lox J a |e 7 e ystuy eo8jins pus Jed ula, 02-61 oot |2g{ ootl tr! oorl sot | oot] ost | oot] zzt| oot] 06 | oot! g¢ |----|---- oot] t¢ | 001] 6zt | oot| ¢9 ce a ee Se a a ee Tete tlie aes slee og |e jos ls |te lz a a ee a IO wa | eal | ay wml PCS ea: aS ae ae were ae Git ors |e ss | <1 oro Woniteee |e lca oo lz Cet | ee a eee vitae ea aaa aa ee f= ae lf tl a9 1% e-ez |e6t| se | zo | oor loz | 90z| te | sez} se | ott | or | scze | at |--7-|-7-- 0°62 | 6 : e742 | oz | zz |ze |ezel ze |o9e|s¢ | toc} ee | zze| oc] eer} 9 --7-|-777 gz} |eut| ie |ez | 9 eer |tr|/a2z |i |oe| er | 1'sz| 2 | 2-08] 6e | 9-se | ze | azz | or |----|---- zor} @ | oF | 98 | 8-89 | ze e-ce | 6c | osc | or |ssticz | zor| or |e} st | a~er| im} 220} 3 |----\---- e712 |o|9e |e] 2 oor! ze | oorl Ir | ootl scx |} oot| ost | oor] zet | oot| 06| oot] oF |---| or | oot| te | oot] e2t | oot] g9 SS Sa nr re ee ee Pe ec pee es ees ee ee eee ae 9-0 | er | 299 | ze | 2-09] 08 | z3r | ez | eso | 2 | e-or| ee | ee] ot |---| 6 | 0-8 | 92 | 602 | Ze | 2:89 | & 9-oe | oz | o-ez | oe | eee] 29 | 996 | s¢ | 9-ez| oe | zze] se] eee |otl----|¢ joe |e |zsr} se | tit|2 s6 is lee let lee |st |zetl ze | rerlec |oat| sis | |--12 |¥9 | 2 | per] se | rer | at Oo lalmltealwicol ws fades i)al wal ol balw]elrscial s | al sia g =) g iS) g ° g 2 g 2 g S) g Osis les g =) g S g =) Se Ge eee er ier Toe ee ee se ot By ieee 10 yo] al B le Scola le ert) Bal cee | fs] p [J & i] © o 3 3 3 a 8 3 3 3 8 a & 9-9-F1 6-8-2 | zi-tt-or | gt-rr-er | gt-zt-9r | 12-02-61 | #2-¢2-2e | 6-8-L1 | 21-11-01 | si-FI-eT | 8T-2T-91 S[PA9] YOUT-€ UT T-C Ard S[OA0] YOUT-E UT N HOT on18 81300 ‘A-d puw N 8y901g fo sishizoun ys aovfuns pud sadwayt— 9 AIavL 163 A CERAMIC STUDY OF VIRGINIA ARCHEOLOGY Hvans] OOT | FZF‘T OOT | &2 COG OC a nee ees 9% OOT | éIt OOT | 62 OOT | 60% OOT | 26% COT SIS aes |e aan Geol Gk oe §[830.L cle Gee caret ora | cn sale |e er eee Ge cal koe li ee a |e Se I a 0'T (ee | ee Seal et es oe SO OS eee arr PopTssepouy, g° Smee ete (kaise eae. a fcr bea ts S| em al cee oe 6° 1S is ae eee a eal ee ae ee peyrsseou pe io, Of Gate 25 eiataalan| le agra bee ve oa ease gi canta! (ec a pues Wien lame ae a a Ue ei be eae car | ae eee le Cn PeyIBW! P10D “IO 48 pT SO es aie | aac (iaatole 2 Se 1 (eo (RAE Rabe RECT €, ETT (Seal (9 Calin sak al cee ~ a fats tesa Ting (| ae ieee qsnoy pus dW] 38N IO “38 9% eels ss \eamsens |S agit adilea’s Salees eel; al IT coda cee Gib SIND Woes TPS” Ses rceieae saalitee oar erg teow nae idm] Gey “19 “48 *sefJog YoaID Auoyg Siz Vite ele eee 0's G tee |oaet ote T ri 4 lots € 6° 7 9° € he S| oo eeeee. Wea ee Bee, PegIssepou yy, | Fai § &Z IF AP ale Ol ee | Neer la bel (is 8° Tie “Slice peas lier es Lys IT 9°T 8 8% Os. Mal eae Wes hotel eek ee podviog 8330g ae oa S61 L@ 4 OCT RG 4 2 =| cent 4 OFer Sik ZS. | OL 6 ZI | € Lt | &l FSET WhOGie inns ee Be ees a oe oe Uye[q Xossng 8 CF 919 0°€9 | 9F Oc0Gt | Sk. v lkrs sa 14 28 6 L°LT | FI 0’S¢ LAG €°89 | 98% (Ags haa fel te ae || eke ae a a SR poyIVW P1OM “AITO Ts €lP Z'0E | 2% ONO9 GROSS PRs cae 61 O°oL | $8 ¥'€9 | O¢ 6 IL | 6F Zo | 601 O8bs S88. asia et ysnoy pus idm] 4ON °S330d oT Ol) Une ae ae ee | et Glee ee 8° | ogee | cece | Ae SRE oT 9 9°T 8 ¢°0 i etkievecs \co om bag idmy o71q8,7 “X9TO wseqleg =AuTUTOGBAITO ose 038 938 e238 038 938 938 038 038 -4ue0 |4uN0Q | -3Ue0 |guN0G | -yu99 |yUNOH | -yUed |yUNOD | -7U90 |4UNOD | -3U0d /JuMNOH | -3Ued |yUMOH | -3Ued |JUNOH | -Jued |yUN0H -19g -19g -10g -19g -10g -109d 10g 19g -19g sod43 pus soyies 4104407 8 Hd 9Nd Hd td € Ud od 1d soBJINS OFS OU O4IS PlepABjAg 48 sedA4 poyBoIpuy Jo 9oU01IMD00 a ans pjayfaviig 7D suoypanoxa snorsva wodf sadhy fisayoq—' ), AIAV I, 164 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [Bull. 160 Taste 8.—Pottery types by levels (in inches) from Clarksville, cut 1 and cut 2, and Fields Island, cut 1 CLARKSVILLE CUT 1 0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 Oo Oo [<>] Pottery series and types 3 3 3 E) ele] ell ° o ° 5 } E ie) Ay 1e) AY ie) Ay Clarksville Series: Clark.) Fabrice impr) --- eee 24) 40 49} 2] 49 Clark. Net and Fabric Rough----_| 26 | 57.9 | 28 | 68.3 | 29 | 70.8 Clark) Cord Marked se see | ee |e We] 2642) Wey 204 Glark. Plain=. 2258p. 34-2 ae! 14 | 31.1 7p Palau Saledaes @larks Combeda2-2=22-2--5-—— 2) 4:6 )\ 3 723i) 49) “9:8 Unelassified 2.222: $2422 ole Ti ecse| eee coeee 1| 2.4 South Central Unclassified Series__.-__|----|------|----]------ 1 bes Pine ee: § Notalsiaoutesh sSustestese toes 45 |100 41 |100 41 {100 CLARKSVILLE CUT 2 0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 24-30 o o <3) Oo i-*) Pottery series and types 3 2 3 2 2 ~ gq rs) =| ~ =| ~ =| ~ a BH} 8/8] 8 18/8 1/8] 8 | 81 8 iS 5 ° 3 ° 3 ° 5 ° 3 1e) Ay oO Ay oO Ay 1@) Ay iS) Ay Clarksville Series: Clark. MabricImprise: - 2 ot soos a ence oe Pll eee! | ecdl LED Qe SSS) a eel ee Clark. Net and Fabric Rough_--------------. 27 | 45.7 | 39 | 47.7 | 24 | 42.2) 30 | 53.6] 6] 42.8 Clark.Cord Marked =} -2s25- 2 ose ee |e | OF AON 25) Be5|) RST bs4 aid Wee Clark. ‘Plain’... 322.22 See ee 14 | 23.7 | 25 | 30.5 | 17 | 29.7 | 17 | 30.5 | sire Clark. Combed. <2. 22.222 = =--- eee 1220845) atGaedeon| eotalmlees |) me LP) G2 eases ‘Unelassified 4.. 3.5.55 Se Sees ee 4" (6885 |) 26) 253) |e Sal ao. a) | welled eee eee South: Centrall Unclassified'Seriessasa aaa |e | eee ee eee 20). dab)! i'l 554) | Seen eee Rotalss te Sos Se ee a eee en 59 {100 82 |100 57 |100 56 |100 14 | 100 FIELDS ISLAND CUT 1 8-14 14-18 Pottery series and types Count | Percentage Clarksville Series: Clark: Habric Impr:. 5202-22 eee eee 1 Mey) Clark; Net‘and Fabric Rough!)--2)- 26 45.6 @lark: Cord! Marked oe eee 10 17.6 Olark? Plains] > eee ee ee eee 6 10.6 Glark.:Combed2 2s on. = oe ee ee ee eee 13 22.8 Unelassified-.5-:.2.235.2 22S ete ee 5 1 1.7 South: Central Unclassified Series-- = == 2.22.22 2S eS Ee See a a ee ee eee Totals o.u 5 -<3e-56 asta c se ee eee 57 100 APPENDIX 2 AN ANALYSIS OF PROJECTILE POINTS AND LARGE BLADES By C. G Hoiianp INTRODUCTION While Dr. Evans was undertaking his ceramic study he invited me to make a corollary study of the chipped-stone artifacts to determine whether pottery and points bear any relation to one another from a cultural standpoint through time. In this analysis there were 3,055 chipped-stone artifacts, representing 2,922 projectile points and 133 large blades. Only 41 sites are represented in comparison with the 96 sites in Dr. Evans’ ceramic study. Unfortunately, from some sites only a single classifiable projectile point was found, whereas a fair pottery sample was available. At such sites chips were often bounti- ful and in many instances were collected to determine whether some correlations could be made between the rock preference, location of sites, pottery affiliations, and the known projectile points from the area. These chip counts were too sporadic and uneven to be used in the final analysis of this particular study. Dr. Evans gave me guidance in typology and, as well, discussed at some length the methodological problems and the cultural implica- tions involved. In the Eastern and Midwestern archeological litera- ture there are almost as many classificatory systems as monographs consulted. The main consistency appeared in the basal features, which fell into broad, general categories. The points in this survey were therefore classified into groups with distinctive features so that one category could be recognized from the next. It should be re- membered that stratigraphic evidence of change through time in Vir- ginia is meager; therefore, with reliance being placed on thin deposits and surface collections, a classification into types would be the only method which would permit an objective handling of the material. To describe the points from each site as unique individual specimens or in general descriptive terms and then attempt a comparison is bur- densome, inadequate, and insensitive to any easy analysis of cultural forces and change. By classifying each point into a specific group with clearly defined features, the occurrence of certain types at specific sites can be visualized easily by means of a percentage basis. The final types were the result of much rehandling, refining, and, occa- sionally, reclassification. 165 166 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [Bull. 160 The types have been given a letter and a descriptive name for ease in tabular and graphic plotting. The names have been culled from the most accepted terminologies in the literature. Type A through Type O are the projectile points. Type N is a catchall for unclassifi- able projectile point fragments. The larger forms, sometimes called blades or spear points, and often related in shape but of larger size in all proportions than the projectile point types are lettered from Type P through Type V, with the adjective “large” always preceding the descriptive name. In these larger categories the unclassified frag- ments are placed in Type V. The type descriptions and reference to their illustrations follow. DESCRIPTION OF TYPES TYPE A—SMALL TRIANGULAR (Pl. 24, a) Overall length: Range, 10-20 mm.; majority, 15-16 mm. Basal width: Range, 10-16 mm. ; majority, 12-13 mm. Blade: Isosceles or equilateral; several specimens show serrated edges; no in- curvate sides; a few specimens show a mild excurvate trend; the angles tend to be acute rather than rounded. Stem: None. Base: Predominantly straight; an occasional specimen has an incurvate base of shallow proportions. Diagnostic features: This type constitutes the smallest points examined in this survey; their diminutive size and form distinguished them from the other tri- angular forms. Technique of manufacture: Generally well made by careful, even chipping. As a rule symmetrical although occasionally one side of the blade is longer than the other. Type of rock: Most commonly, crystal or clear quartz; white quartz next in fre- quency, followed by chert and quartzite. Comment: At the Cornett site in southwestern Virginia the use of chert predomi- nates. This variation may be explainable by local natural resources. The length of the points at this site was greater than at other sites, when com- pared with the width of the base. In the Clarksville area, specimens examined, but not available for statistical typing, were predominantly white quartz with a poor quality of flaking. TYPE B—MEDIUM TRIANGULAR (Pl. 24, b) Overall length: Range, 15-23 mm.; majority, 20-21 mm. Basal width: Range, 15-20 mm. ; majority, 17-18 mm. Blade: Both isosceles and equilateral forms predominate; shallow incurvate and excurvate sides appear; serration is absent; thin blade (less than 5 mm.). Stem: None. Base: Shallow incurvate bases appear, but straight bases predominate. Diagnostic features: Thin, well-made, medium-size triangular forms. Technique of manufacture: Flaking, good to excellent. Holland] A CERAMIC STUDY OF VIRGINIA ARCHEOLOGY 167 Type of rock: Predominantly white quartz, with a minority of specimens of clear quartz and chert. Comment: Chert points predominate at the Cornett site. Points from Stony Creek and Graves sites show a trend toward straight bases and the use of quartzite. TYPE C—TRIANGULAR (Pl. 25, a) Overall length: Range, 25-40 mm. ; majority, 30-35 mm. Basal width: Range, 20-35 mm. ; majority, 25-30 mm. Blade: Generally isosceles and thin (up to 5 mm.) ; sides straight and not ser- rated ; angles acute. Stem: None. Base: Of the three triangular types, A, B, and C, the basal treatment of this type shows more of an incurvate trend than the other two. Diagnostic features: Relatively large, thin triangular forms with straight sides and usually incurvate bases. Technique of manufacture: Well made with good to excellent flaking. Type of rock: A wider variety of stone than in Types A and B. White quartz pre- dominates, but chert and quartzite are prominent, with an occasional use of rhyolite. Comment: Specimens from Stony Creek and Graves sites show a trend toward straight bases and the use of quartzite. TYPE D—CRUDE TRIANGULAR (Pl. 25, b) Overall length: Range, 25-70 mm. Basal width: Range, 20-45 mm. Blade: This is a motiey group of artifacts having a general triangular shape. They are consistently thick (up to 15 mm.), and the edges are irregularly flaked. Some are small, corresponding to Type A; others are larger than Type C and always thicker. Stem: None. Base: Crudely chipped and may be excurvate, incurvate, or straight. Diagnostic features: Trianguloid shape, thick, and crudely chipped. Technique of manufacture: Poor flaking. Type Of rock: Generally white quartz, but quartzite and chert frequent. Comment: This group of artifacts is thought to be abortive attempts to make tri- angular projectile points of Types A, B, or C. TYPE E—PENTAGONAL (Pl. 26, a) Overall length: Range: 25-40 mm. Basal width: Range 20-35 mm. Blade: From the base toward the point, the sides parallel one another one-third to two-thirds the length of the blade; then the sides form obtuse angles and join at the apex. This produces an artifact with two right angles at the base, two obtuse angles at the sides, and an acute angle at the apex. Some blades are thin (less than 5 mm.), but others may be up to 10 mm. thick. Stem: None. Base: Shallow, incurvate and straight forms occur. 168 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [Bull. 160 Diagnostic features: Four sides and a base united by angular or rounded con- tours in the general form of an irregular pentagon. Technique of manufacture: An occasional point is exceptionally well made; the flaking of majority is rated good. Type of rock: White quartz, clear quartz, chert, and quartzite. Comment: This type is usually thin and small on the Rivanna River sites, but on the Stony Creek sites it is longer and tends toward Type F. TYPE F—LANCEOLATE (Pl. 26, 6) Overall length: Range, 27-80 mm. ; majority, 45 mm. Basal width: Range, 17-25 mm. ; majority, 20 mm. Blade: Beginning at the base, the two sides parallel one-third to two-thirds the length of the blade and then converge gracefully toward the apex. There is no definite angulation along the blade at the point where the two sides con- verge. Serration is absent. Usually 5-10 mm. thick. Stem: None. Base: Right angles are formed where base and sides meet. These may be rounded and not sharp. The bases are generally straight though some specimens show mild incurvate bases. Diagnostic features: As described under Blade. Technique of manufacture: Ordinarily well made. Some specimens do not show a regard for symmetry. Type of rock: White quartz is the stone of choice, but specimens of chert and quartzite are found. Comment: Type F from the Gordon site have diverging sides for one-half the length of the blade and then bend gracefully toward the point. These points have incurvate bases and are generally 10 mm. thick. TYPE G—NOTCHED BASE (Pl. 27, a) Overall length: Range, 25-40 mm. ; majority, 30 mm. Basal width: Range, 20-25 mm. ; majority, 20 mm. Blade: Usually separated from the base by small lateral projections or shoulders. The blade is trianguloid and frequently serrated. The blade and base may be of equal size but more often the blade is longer and, because of the lateral projections, is wider than the base. Thin blade (less than 5 mm.). Stem: None. (The modified basal section could be considered a stem, but here is considered the base.) Base: The central portion is indented by a narrow notch, 2/4-mm. deep. The lateral angles are rounded and conflwent with the curve of the central notch. The edges of the base may parallel one another for 4 to 7 mm. below the lateral projections or shoulders of the blade. Diagnostic features: Short trianguloid blade, often serrated, a well-demarked base with a central notch, the blade and base separated by short lateral pro- jections or shoulders. Technique of manufacture: Flaking on the blade often irregular ; the basal por- tion more carefully chipped. Type of rock: Predominantly white quartz. Comment: This type of point is also called “bifurcated base” point. The larger forms of this type were found at the Yowell and Stony Creek No. 2 sites. Holland] A CERAMIC STUDY OF VIRGINIA ARCHEOLOGY 169 TYPE H—STUBBY BARBED (el 27, 0) Overall length: Range, 20-40 mm. ; majority, 35 mm. Shoulder width: Range, 15-30 mm. ; majority, 25 mm. Blade: Trianguloid. It has distinctly pointed shoulders which give the speci- mens a “barbed” effect. The blade is approximately as wide as it is long. Since these measurements are relatively small the point has a “stubby” appearance. No serration. Blades of medium thickness (4-7 mm.). Stem: Centered on the blade and expands into rounded or pointed tangs. Short (average 10 mm.). Base: Between the tangs the base is generally straight. Some specimens excurvate. Diagnostic features: Blade of small size, almost as wide as it is long; pointed shoulders; a short stem which ends in rounded or pointed tangs. Technique of manufacture: Flaking, generally excellent. Some specimens are asymmetrical at the shoulders and tangs with one side “barbed,” the other rounded. Type of rock: White quartz most commonly, but chert and quartzite represented. Comment: This type was held as a “tight” type with very little variation allowed. TYPE I—NOTCHED STEMMED (Pl. 28, a) Overall lengih: Range, 20-60 mm. ; majority, 40-50 mm. Shoulder width: Range, 20-30 mm. ; majority, 20-25 mm. Blade: Long and relatively narrow, with a diamond or oval cross section, and medium thick (4-7 mm.). Shoulders generally rounded although some speci- mens angular, always wider than the base. Sides generally straight, but may be gracefully ovate. Stem: Produced by narrowing the blade on either side with shallow elongated notches. Stem and blade are not sharply demarcated at the shoulders. This area, and the base, are frequently “smoothed.” Base: Narrower than the shoulders, tangs rounded, basal edge straight. Basal edge on some specimens mildly incurvate. ‘Smoothing’ frequent. Diagnostic features: Long isosceles blade, rounded shoulders, shallow elongated notches, and a base narrower than the shoulders. Technique of manufacture: Specimens generally well made and symmetrical. Type of rock: Majority white quartz; quartzite frequently ; a few of chert. Comment: In the smaller specimens the differentiation between Types H and I becomes difficult because of the shortening of the elongated notch and increased angulation of the shoulders. TYPE J—OVOID BASE (Pl. 28, b) Overall length: Range, 30-55 mm.; majority, 45 mm. Mazrimum width: Range, 13-80 mm.; majority, 20 mm. ! Blade: Long isosceles form; cross section of the blade is diamond or a long cval and may be 10 mm. thick, usually of medium thickness (5-7 mm.). No shoulders present. Stem: None. $05522—55——_12 170 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY (Bull. 160 Base: Oval or elliptical. There is no distinct separation between blade and base. Typically the base is one-fourth to one-half the overall length of the specimens. “Smoothing” not present. Diagnostic features: Long, isosceles triangular blade, no shoulders, and an ovoid or elliptical base. Technique of manufacture: Well made and rarely asymmetrical. Flaking good to excellent. Type of rock: Almost entirely of white quartz. Comment: The specimens studied from the James River sites were thinner, narrower, and shorter than those from other sites. TYPE K—CONTRACTING STEM (Pl. 29, a) Overall length: Range, 30-60 mm.; majority, 40-45 mm. Mazimum width: Range, 14-30 mm.; majority, 25 mm. Blade: Long isosceles triangle. Cross section, diamond or long oval. Sides straight with no serration. Shoulders rudimentary or definite. If definite, generally small. Stem: Triangular in shape, with the base of the triangle at the base of the blade. The apex of the stem may be rounder. No “smoothing.” The stem is one- fourth to one-half the entire length of the artifact. Base: See stem. Diagnostic features: Long trianguloid blade, rudimentary or small shoulders, a base or stem which is wide below the shoulders but contracts to a rounded or pointed angle. Technique of manufacture: Flaking, fair to excellent. Asymmetry of shoulders frequent. Type of rock: Generally white quartz; a large number of quartzite and chert; few of greenstone. Comments: No peculiar features. TYPE L-—PARALLEL-SIDED STEMMED (Pl. 29, b) Overall length: Range, 35-65 mm.; majority, 40-50 mm. Shoulder width: Range, 15-35 mm.; majority, 20-25 mm. Blade: Trianguloid and longer than the width at the shoulders. Edges of some specimens excurvate. Shoulders generally angular but may be rounded, rarely forming a barb. The blade may be 10 mm. thick between the shoulders. Stem: Characteristically 10-15 mm. long and symmetrically placed between the shoulders. Angle between stem and blade usually right angular, but may be eonsiderably rounded. Sides of the stem parallel one another and end at the base without the formation of tangs. Width of the stem may be slightly less than the shoulders or may be only one-half the width of the base of the blade. Edges of stem and base sometimes “smoothed.” Base: Lateral edges do not show tangs, generally rounded. Base generally straight, but may be incurvate or oblique. Diagnostic features: Long, trianguloid blade, definite shoulders, parallel-sided stem. Technique of manufacture: Flaking fair to good. Asymmetrical forms appear. Type of rock: White quartz, quartzite and flint, the stones of choice listed in their order of frequency. Comment: No peculiar features. Holland] A CERAMIC STUDY OF VIRGINIA ARCHEOLOGY 171 TYPE M—SIDE-NOTCHED (Pl. 30, a) Overall length: Range, 32-50 mm. Shoulder width: Range, 16-33 mm. Blade: Trianguloid with either straight or excurvate sides. The shoulders are formed by two notches which interrupt the extension of the sides of the blade to the base. The shoulders are not barbed and the blade edges are not ser- rated. The blade is 6-S mm. thick. Stem: Formed by two notches on either edge of the blade; these are usually shallow in depth and width (5 mm.), and have rounded contours. The stem between these notches is an unmodified section of the blade. Base: As wide if not wider than the shoulders. Below the notches the base may be 5 mm. wide. Between the lateral edges the base is usually straight but may be excurvate or incurvate to a mild degree. A noticeable treatment of the base and notches is ‘“‘smoothing.” This feature occurs frequently. Diagnostic features: Trianguloid blade, shallow notches which leave the base as wide and usually wider than the shoulders. Technique of manufacture: Plaking is generally good. The formation of the notches is frequently asymmetrical in size and contour. Comment: No peculiar features. TYPE N—UNCLASSIFIED This type represents fragments whose original shape could not be reconstructed. Among the specimens are point and center sections of blades and obliquely fractured stems and bases. Relatively few forms were found on the various sites which could not be classified accord- ing to the types set forth. These were relegated to this group. TYPE O—EARED OR CORNER NOTCHED (Pl. 30, 6) Overall length: Range, 30-40 mm. Shoulder width: Range, 20-30 mm. Biade: Isosceles triangular with angular shoulder of 2 to 3 mm. in width. Stem; Lacks 4 to 6 mm. of being as wide as the blade at the shoulders; 3 to 5mm.long. Parallel sided or with small tangs. Base: Straight or slightly incurvate. Diagnostic features: Isosceles blade, short shoulders and stem, and an incurvate or straight base. Type of rock: Generally chert. Comment: The sample of this type is so small no average size can be shown. The range in form is probably greater than indicated. TYPE P—LARGE CONTRACTING STEM (Fig. 23) Overall length: Range, 60-80 mm. ; majority, 70-75 mm. Shoulder width: Range, 35-50 mm. ; majority, 40 mm. Blade: General excurvate, not serrated, 7-10 mm. thick. One shoulder is usually angular, the other rounded. These shoulders are usually 10 mm. wide, regard- less of shape. 72 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [Bull. 160 Stem: Centrally placed at the base of the blade, contracting to a rounded angle. Occasionally this rounded angle is replaced by a short straight or oblique sec- tion. Thestem is 5 to 15 mm. long. Base: See Stem. Diagnostic features: Ovate, relatively thick blade, wide asymmetrical shoulders, and a stem which contracts to a rounded angle. Technique of manufacture: Good flaking. Type of rock: All specimens of quartzite, except one of chert. Comment: Larger size mainly distinguishes this group from Type K. TYPE Q—LARGE PARALLEL-SIDED STEMMED (Fig. 23) Overall length: Range, 60-140 mm. ; majority, 70-SO mm. Shoulder width: Range, 28-45 mm.; majority, 35-40 mm. Blade: Trianguloid, with nonserrated, straight sides. Shoulders, 4-15 mm. wide, generally asymmetrical, joining the stem with rounded contours. Usually 12-14 mm. thick. Stem: Sides are parallel ranging from 7-20 mm. in length and from 18-25 mm. in width. Base: This area is irregular, either straight, oblique, or incurvate. Diagnostic features: Large trianguloid blade, asymmetrical shoulders and par- allel-sided stem. Technique of manufacture Flaking, fair to good. There are many asymmetrical features of the blade, shoulders, and base. Type Of rock: Predominantly quartzite, followed in frequency by greenstone, then chert. No white quartz. Comment: Except larger proportions, similar to Type L. TYPE R—LARGE SIDE-NOTCHED (Fig. 23) Overall length: Range, 60-70 mm. Shoulder width: Range, 25-40 mm. Blade: Straight or gracefully excurvate sides which may be serrated. The shoulders are symmetrical, being rounded and angular on the same specimen. Stem: Produced by either shallow, elongated notches or angular, oblique notches. When the notches are angular and oblique they produce an expanding stem. Base: The tangs are rounded and between them the base is mildly incurvate. Diagnostic features: Long isosceles trianguloid blade with irregularly shaped notches producing asymmetrical shoulders, rounded tangs, and a mildly in- curvate base. Technique of manufacture: Flaking is poor to fair. Type of rock: Quartzite, chert, white quartz, listed in order of preference. Comment: Except larger proportions, similar to Type M. TYPE S—LARGE POINTED BASE (Fig. 23) Overall length: Range, 70-100 mm. ; majority, 90 mm. Mazimum width: Range, 35-42 mm. ; majority, 40 mm. Blade: Excurvate with the maximum width near the center of the blade. Sides are irregularly flaked. Holland] A CERAMIC STUDY OF VIRGINIA ARCHEOLOGY 173 Stem: Tapers to the base forming rudimentary shoulders. This is an irregular feature. It may be found on one side and not on the other. One specimen had rudimentary shoulders on both sides. The stem is usually 20-35 mm. long. Base: Straight, mildly incurvate or excurvate ; 12-16 mm. wide. Diagnostic features: Ovate blade, contracting stem to a definite base. Rudi- mentary shoulders are usually present on one side only. Technique of manufacture: Flaking poor to fair. Type of rock: Usually quartzite, sometimes greenstone. Comment: None. TYPE T—LARGE TRIANGULAR (Fig. 23) Overall length: Range, 60-85 mm. Basal width: Range, 20-45 mm. Blade: Always long isosceles trianguloid. An occasional excurvate form is found. The sides are frequently irregular because of uneven chipping. Stem: None. Base: Straight ; rounded basal angles. Diagnostic features: Long isosceles triangular form with straight base and rounded basal angles. Technique of manufacture: Flaking fair to good. Type of rock: Quartzite predominates. Comment: Larger size distinguishes the group from Type C. TYPE U-——-LARGE ROUNDED BASE (Fig. 23) Overall length: Range, 63-110 mm. Maximum width: Range, 26-55 mm. Blade: Excurvate sides. Edges are irregular due to careless flaking. No shoulders. Often up to 16 mm. thick. Siem: None. Base: Rounded or oval. Diagnostic features: Ovate blade, no shoulders, oval base. Type of rock: Quartzite and greenstone. Comment: Similar to Type J except for larger proportions. TYPE V—UNCLASSIFIED LARGE BLADES This group constitutes fragments of large blades whose original form could not be reconstructed. 174 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [Bull. 160 ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION All the basic classifications by site, type, and rock material are shown in table 9 (pp. 182-191). This table shows the various types vertically, and the sites horizontally and alphabetically. The rock material is listed under each site and the totals and percentages are given at the bottom of the table. The type totals and percentages are given in each site column. In instances where the samples are small, the percentages are not calculated and are not used in the seriation. The percentage occurrence of each type was plotted horizontally on strips of millimeter graph paper for each site with an adequate sample of chipped artifacts. These were then seriated without any knowledge of Dr. Evans’ ceramic seriation. Later the results of the two seriations were compared and their significance is discussed in detail in Dr. Evans’ report (pp. 140-141). The only basis on which to begin the seriation was the selection of the graph strips of six sites without pottery samples. It was felt these sites might represent a nonceramic group or groups, an assumption which would prove significant or valueless during the seriation. Im- mediately it was noticed these sites had large percentages of parallel- stemmed types, few triangular varieties, and no small triangular points. Therefore, taking Parallel-sided Stemmed Type L and Notched-Stemmed Type I, the two types with the largest percentages, the bar graphs were arbitrarily arranged into a sequence for the six sites. The rest of the sites were then seriated according to the trends established by these types. Type L gradually increased in popularity while Notch-Stemmed Type I was the most popular. As the seriation continued, Type I began to diminish in popularity as Type L increased and blossomed out momentarily. It was noted at this point that there was a need for the representation of a greater number of sites to smooth out the abrupt changes in the bar graphs. However, in spite of this deficiency, a significant change was noted midway in the sequence. As Types L and I diminished, certain of the triangular forms began to appear in steadily increasing percentages. The seriation was con- tinued on Types L and I, for, if the other types were to show any trend, they should fall into line as Types L and I held their trend. As Type L diminished into percentages of 1 to 5 percent, Triangular Type C reached a peak of 30 to 56 percent. af a wn a = -=SQ oo [Qe->go 0 Se i fj ene * , ; - rane mi x “eo ~ Paes . ma G s sr ti oa —_ ors Oc. 8 D a es : etices c HOWD Rate 70R pomesanse- f hepmaa-03s 407 RRA IE wr ae Cal Sguuste esha sims + y-—Ae sone 9 = Comer a Se ae 4 j Pi TORRUORMA FUR Sonne held agra bagsaing wasjorGx£f axcvorl 4 od . _ ay er ae a! fo -Q2eteooo-- BB MT A TAL ORT DAD RY erences ; ~ _ & ; 7 w D t L = % allt ge ' -. ed 3 s = e iB SES aii ged ye CLARKSVILLE —A—= CORNETT = BEAR GARDEN o WHITEHALL SHELTER oO BREMO CREEK WHIPPORWILL WINGINA o HENSHAW SHELTER ' GARTH OGLESBY Oo HARDWARE WARREN GRAVES STONY CREEK 2 0 STONY CREEK 3 ! STONY CREEK 4 fa HOPEWELL AIRPORT 0 STONY CREEK | YOWELL vt wooo CAMPBELL YOWELL HOMESTEAD GORDON MEHRING BRIARFIELD SMALL TRIANGULAR "= ——<— cme) 2 =a ————s | ————s| | =a SSS Oo ——— — fo) ich— = | Oo a | i= oe oa SS a a a eel a SS 0 oO co 0 oOo 0 0 a o 0 oO oa Q ' Oo MEDIUM TRIANGULAR TRIANGULAR CRUDE TRIANGULAR PENTAGONAL LANCEOLATE NOTCHEO-BASE PRO LECT hie [=| | Qa 0 je j=) [Sy oO o oO o 0 oO oO i) Oo =| besa} jem 0 0 [=] oO [==] 0 ‘ oO 1 oa 0 oO ia) Oo | casa oa 0 i] 0 a 0 t) 0 je] oO =I jis ! je=| 0 [== | | =| I j= o 0 = (eee p=} it] oO = Sa Oo i pees 4 0 o a inca oOo CK oO 0 a coy jan a | =] Oo oa eI rs) oa [| Sa) ——— SS g =) Oo ————) SS o o o al 3) | oma] oa —— SS |= | oO j— I oa oO (| oO fs) SS oa = (3) SS Si! o SS —] SS [ns STUBBY-BARBEB NOTCHED- OVOID BASE CONTRACTING- PARALLEL-SIDED SIDE-NOTCHED EARED UNCLASSIFIED STEMMED STEMMED STEMMED POINT TY. Pres 10-20-3545 EI cM SCALE FOR FREQUENCY SCALE FOR SIZE Ficure 23.—Projectile point and large blade seriated sequence. The typical form of each type is drawn to scale at the point of highest frequency. CONTRACTING- STEMMED PARALLEL-SIDED STEMMED SIDE-NOTCHED LARGE POINTED BASE BLADE 1 oO : 0 p | 1 | TRIANGULAR Se ee BASE OO > 305522 O - 55 (Face p. i74) eo ~ we FF YB Ho = Pro eee oT trey oe ay he et a ve i eet ie sti Ee x ee re Satan, -. dt "arm ‘a> ” Holland] A CERAMIC STUDY OF VIRGINIA ARCHEOLOGY 175 Another trend in the triangular forms began to appear with the increase in percentage of Triangular Type C. Small Triangular Type A and Medium Triangular Type B began to increase in popu- larity. This proved to be an interesting phase of the typological study, for at one point these two types were lumped together. Their trend as two types shows the advantage of their separation, for at the top of the seriation chart they are the most popular projectile-point types. Crude Triangular Type D can be practically ignored, for the mere nature of the type would make a trend in it improbable. After the first seriation on Types L and I, refinement of the curves was made by careful study of the internal changes within each type. The final projectile-point and large-blade seriation is presented in figure 23. Certain significant changes will be observed as plotted in this chart. Large Parallel-sided Stemmed Type Q is the only large blade type to show any trend. This type shows a maximum occur- ence of 10 percent at the Stony Creek sites, which suggests a regional specialization. It is interesting to note that large blade Type Q and projectile point Type L, both Parallel-sided Stemmed varieties, dif- fering mainly in size, are the most popular types at the same sites. The irregular trends and sporadic occurrences of Pentagonal Type KE, Lanceolate Type F, Notched Base Type G, Stubby Barbed Type H, and Eared Type O may not be due to their mistyping but rather suggest that for the area studied these forms are not important enough to show cultural changes. When more sites are studied and adjoining areas undergo similar surveys, these forms may assume meaning. The present study was carried further by considering the percent- ages of each type of rock out of which the artifacts were made. These were graphed and compared. Chert, which will also include an occa- sional variety of chalcedony in this study, quartzite, clear quartz, and white quartz are the categories used. Greenstone, rhyolite, and felsite were too infrequent to warrant separate classification and hence ap- pear under the heading Miscellaneous. The result of this study is that the real meaning of the rock prefer- ence is primarily a regional attribute and secondarily a cultural trait. To illustrate, white quartz is bountiful in the area of the nonceramic sites and the largest percentage of the artifacts are made of this ma- terial on these sites. However, quartzite is native to the same area. The selection of white quartz can be interpreted as a cultural prefer- ence. On the other hand, the area represented by Stony Creek sites 1, 2, 3, and 4, Old Indian Road, Haley’s Bridge, and Capron has a highly limited amount of float quartz. Most of the natural boulders and pebbles are tan to gray, fine-grained quartzite. The artifacts from these sites are overwhelmingly made of quartzite. This selec- 176 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [Bull. 160 tion leads to an interpretation of a regional preference due to limited local natural resources. Cultural factors may not be neglected even here, for other evidence tends to demonstrate the Stony Creek area as a distinct cultural group from those people occupying central Vir- ginia, where the preference for white and clear quartz occurs. At the Cornett site 85 percent of the artifacts are made of chert, with only a trace of white quartz. The availability of chert in this moun- tainous region is suggested as the reason for this rock preference. Even here the cultural factor cannot be completely disregarded, for Dr. Evans says his ceramic material argues for a distinct cultural group or groups, different from other parts of the State. The problem may be argued in another fashion. Select Triangular Types A and B from the top of the seriation chart, presumedly the latest style of projectile-point types in Virginia, and compare these with the type of rock of which they are made. At the Cornett site 85.4 percent of the points are chert and 42 percent of the artifacts chipped of this chert are types A and B. Clarksville has an 87.5 per- cent preference for white quartz with 75 percent of these quartz arti- facts Types A and B.17 Whitehall Shelter shows the following pref- erences of rock in Types A and B: 15.4 percent chert, 26.9 percent white quartz, and 46.2 percent clear quartz. For the whole site the distribution is 25.6 percent chert, 40.7 percent white quartz, and 19.8 percent clear quartz. At Bear Garden site all types A and B points are white quartz except two. In the total material range 89 percent is white quartz, 5.5 percent clear quartz, and there is no chert. These data would tend to signify that the introduction of small and medium triangular points into three widely separated areas in Virginia did not carry with it the introduction of the use of the same rock material in the manufacture of these artifacts. The probabilities are that local rock resources continued to be utilized. This preference was most likely due to availability, and less likely has a cultural basis. The archeological literature of Virginia relating to projectile points and blades is not extensive. The earliest postulated projectile point forms, the eastern variant of the Folsom (McCary, 1949; 1951 a, p. 9), were not encountered in this survey. The fluted pentagonal forms which have been hypothecated as associated with the eastern variant of the Folsom point (Bushnell, 1935, p. 35) were also not encountered. Pentagonal Type E points were not fluted, were usually asymmetrical, and were made of rock other than chert, the material from which these other points were most frequently made. A ceramic and a nonceramic horizon have been indicated for central Virginia in two previous articles (Holland, 1949, p. 10; 1950, p. 12). 17 Larger collections of points from this site, not available for this study, were seen at Clarksville. They fell mainly into Triangular Types A and B with most of them made of white and clear quartz. Holland] A CERAMIC STUDY OF VIRGINIA ARCHEOLOGY 177 All the sites mentioned in these articles were restudied with the ex- ception of the Meadow Creek site. There is an association of atlatl weights with the nonceramic sites and a lack of such association with the ceramic-bearing sites. This may be of importance in view of the fact that nonceramic sites may date before the introduction of bows and arrows and existed when the standard propellant was the throw- ing stick (atlatl) and atlatl weights were used for counterbalances. More extensive work on the nonceramic sites in Virginia and the East- ern United States should ultimately throw more light on this subject. The lanceolate forms of the Gordon site are different from Lance- olate Type F found on all the other sites in this survey. They are typical of early ceramic and nonceramic sites reported from southern Virginia and northern North Carolina in the vicinity of Danville, Va. (Holland, 1948, pl. 1, Nos. 1-6, 13-18). The points represent a special type, for they are thicker, longer, and made of silicified schist. Due to this observation the lanceolate forms from the Gordon site were placed in the Unclassified Type N group. At Marcey Creek on the northern boundary of Virginia, 40 percent of the chipped stone artifacts were “stemmed projectile points” (Man- son, 1948, p. 225). Manson lists the site as an “early manifestation” in the Potomac Valley, and the projectile points are said to be “simi- lar to those found at Pope’s Creek shell heap, the prehistoric Piney Branch quarries in Rock Creek Park, Washington, D. C., and at nu- merous nonpottery campsites in the lower Potomac Valley. They are also comparable to those found on the Selden Island site.” A review of Manson’s illustrations (pl. 23, p. 227) indicates that our Parallel- sided Stemmed Type L, Large Parallel-sided Stemmed Type Q, Lanceolate Type F, Contracting Stem Type K, and Stemmed Notched Type I points are present in both upper and lower levels of his exca- vation. It will be noted that these types are the forms with the highest percentage occurrences in the lower part of the sequence chart (fig. 23). The Keyser Farm site (Manson, MacCord, and Griffin, 1944, p. 413) has been assigned a date of occupancy between A. D. 1550 and 1650. Of 110 projectile points, 104 are triangular and only 6 are stemmed. Reviewing their illustrations (pl. 7), it was found that the triangular points belong to Small Triangular Type A, Medium Triangular Type B, and Triangular Type C. This distribution of triangular forms and the low percentage (5.4 percent) of the stemmed forms places the Keyser Farm site in the upper section of the seriation sequence, a point of conformity well borne out by the late dates of oceupation assigned to the site. Bullen (1950, p. 3) has discussed the aboriginal chronology of Vir- ginia from the archeological literature of the State and from analogies with sites outside the State. He points out that the various mounds 178 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [Bull. 160 excavated by Fowke in 1894 were not all of the same time period. He assigns the Brumback Mound to a late period because of the associa- tion of buffalo bones, clay pipes, and triangular projectile points. He states, “That their [triangular projectile points] use continued into historic times is indicated by their presence as the major projectile- point type at the Indian towns of Occaneechi and Keyanne in the Roanoke Valley and Potawomeke on the Potomac where they were as- sociated with items of Colonial trade” (ibid.). In a later article Bullen reviews many Eastern United States sites with reference to what he defines as a small triangular arrowpoint, which is “8 cm. or less in length. Predominately, they have excurvate sides, concave bases, and, usually, rounded or incurving basal corners. In general, they are equilateral in overall shape, and, where quartz is readily available, frequently made of this material” (Bullen, 1951, p. 64). He is of the opinion that these triangular points may have had their origin with the Dorset Eskimo and that they diffused from north to south in the Eastern United States, a point neither particularly sub- stantiated nor disproved by the limited scope of this study. Ralph Solecki, in reporting his material from the Bluestone Reser- vation of West Virginia, did not classify his points into types with numerical counts and percentages, because he found only 82 chipped specimens for all his sites. The data for his entire complex of sites can be compared with the Cornett site. Regarding the rock material, Solecki comments, “The stone material, as learned from the flakes and chips used, appears to consist in the main of flint or chert, with only about 12 percent white quartz represented” (Solecki, 1949, p. 391). His illustrated types of artifacts fall easily into the types used in this study. He makes a significant point, “triangular points furnish close to 49 percent of the projectile point types. The majority of these were found on Site 46 Su 20, which bears a significant number of Fort Ancient Aspect traits. Site 46 Su 3, represented in local collections, shows a percentage of about 38 percent in triangular points” (ibid., p. 392). Two important conclusions may be drawn from this brief account. First, there is a regional preference for chert in the New River area of West Virginia, as well as in the western tip of Virginia. Second, the high percentage of triangular points, especially on Sites 46 Su 20 and 46 Su 3, fit into the upper third, but not at the top, of the point seriation of the present study. Solecki indicates a similar conclusion in his summary, “Both the West Fork Reservation and the Bluestone Reservation area were devoid of actual Indian villages at the time of the first settlement by the whites” (ibid., pp. 421-422). The Peachtree Mound and Village Site in Cherokee County, N. C., are of comparative interest. This site had European contact materials and an abundance of gunflints scattered throughout the various levels. Holland] A CERAMIC STUDY OF VIRGINIA ARCHEOLOGY 179 “The triangular, concave base projectile point is the predominate type. . . . the minority of the points are of the stemmed type... . The two types, stemmed and triangular, occur throughout the site from surface to basic clay .. . it is felt that both styles are typical of the Peachtree component” (Setzler and Jennings, 1941, p. 385). It is unfortunate the “100’s of projectile points” (ibid., p. 68) were not broken down into a more careful tabulation of types and materials to see if there were any actual percentage changes throughout the time represented from the lowest to the uppermost levels. Setzler indicates that the point types illustrated in plate 22 of the Peachtree report not only show the range of shapes but in part were selected to represent quantitative occurrence.4? This means that the top and middle rows, with the exception of three points, are triangular, and the bottom row is stemmed. The greater popularity of the tri- angular types (roughly 60 percent) and the less frequent occurrence (roughly 30 percent) of stemmed points suggest that the point types fit into the upper third of the seriation chart in this study. “The Peachtree site is a component in which both Woodland and Mississippi traits occur simultaneously, blended or fused to make a culturally homogeneous site. It has a temporal range from 1830, or thereabouts, back to pre-white contact, and probably was occupied by the Cherokee during this entire period” (Setzler and Jennings, 1941, p. 57). These data would tend to corroborate the trend from stemmed to triangular points in the Eastern United States. The two Broomall Shelters in Pennsylvania (Butler, 1947, p. 252) are considered protohistoric (site D 1) and early contact (site D 2).”° The percentage of triangular points rises from 7 percent in D 1, to 40 percent in D 2. The “square tanged” which would be comparable to Parallel-sided Stemmed Type L decreases from 31 percent in D 1 to 3 percent in D 2 (pl. 16, points “q” and “r’’; table 3, p. 249). This same trend of an increase in triangular points and decrease in stemmed varieties is shown in the Virginia seriation; although there is a slight question as to whether the Broomall Shelters would be in the proto- historic and contact period if seriated into the sites of the Virginia sequence. In a general summary of Pennsylvania archeology, Witthoft’s state- ments without any doubt would tend to corroborate the seriated se- quence of Virginia. He says— Everywhere in the United States east of the Rockies, with the possible exception of the Rhode Island area and probably of the Florida peninsula, almost every historie culture is characterized by small triangular arrowpoints and an absence 18 Personal communication with Dr. Evans, August 27, 1951. 329 At present, most Eastern archeologists do not agree with Butler’s interpretation of a single occupation, but see the site as being occupied briefly by two separate groups widely separated in time. If this is the case it would naturally cause a reevaluation of the pro- jectile-point trend. The comments here are based on Butler’s published data. 180 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [Bull. 160 of other types. .. . The significance of triangular arrowpoints in the late period is not known, but it is quite certain that no other type was made in most areas within a late period of several centuries. It is also quite probable that the bow was the only hunting tool of this period, and the spear and spear-thrower were no longer in use. [Witthoft, 1949, pp. 7-8.] In the Archaic Horizon in western Tennessee the “straight stemmed” type of points is the most abundant of the varieties listed (Lewis and Kneberg, 1947, p. 18). This type is described as “small to large in size” and appears to be similar to Parallel-sided Stemmed Type L and Large Parallel-sided Stemmed Type Q in this study. The in- frequent triangular varieties of the Archaic Horizon in the Tennessee region are not similar to any of the types reported here; they are longer in relation to width and generally excurvate. The Hamilton Incurvate Triangular projectile point and the Dallas Excurvate Triangular projectile point as reported in Hiwassee Island (Lewis and Kneberg, 1946, pp. 110, 113) do not fit the type descrip- tions of the triangular types in this study, except the short varieties of Hamilton Incurvate Triangular (ibid., pl. 65, A and B). The stemmed varieties of the Hamilton and Dallas components were not broken down into subgroups and, as a result, cannot be compared with the types in this study. Therefore, even though the general trend from stemmed to triangular varieties repeats itself, the gross differ- ences in the projectile point complex would suggest the absence of direct cultural contact between the groups of Hiwassee Island and Virginia. In New Jersey there appears to be a definite concentration of the small triangular “arrow points” in the zones of excavations near the surface. They also appear in association with stemmed varieties at all depths of the excavations (Cross, 1941, p. 189). This same general trend is reflected in the horizontal seriation reported here. In Ritchie’s study entitled “The Pre-Iroquoian Occupations of New York State” (Ritchie, 1944), the seriation charts and temporal distri- bution of type percentages (pl. 165, A) is particularly applicable to this horizontal seriation study. His chipped stone artifacts described as stemmed- and side-notched with various adjectival labels, such as “narrow,” “broad,” appear in highest concentrations in the Archaic Horizon. They also appear in much smaller percentages throughout the other two time periods, the Intermediate and the Prehistoric. The triangular varieties are also met in all three horizons, but they appear as a trace in the Lamoka and Frontenac Foci of the Archaic” and be- come the predominant type in the Prehistoric Period. It is of interest te note that his category of “stemmed bifurcated” points, similar to 2 The unusually high percentage of triangular points in the Brewerton Focus of the Laurentian Aspects of the Archaic is explainable as an intrusive culture from the north into the local situation. Holland] A CERAMIC STUDY OF VIRGINIA ARCHEOLOGY 181 Notched-Base Type G, are associated with the Archaic Horizon and have a similar distribution, both as to small percentage occurrence and to time, in the Virginia study. In the excavations at the Potter Pond site in Rhode Island (Fowler and Luther, 1950, p. 95) the trend, as diagrammed, shows that Side- Notched Type M, Parallel-sided Stemmed Type L, and Lanceolate Type F points are confined to the lowest of three zones in the excava- tion. Notched Stemmed Type I is present in the lowest zone but blos- soms out in the middle zone and is only slightly represented in the uppermost zone. Small triangular points have their greatest develop- ment in the middle zone but appear in all three. Large triangular points appear only in the middle and uppermost zones of the excava- tions. For northeastern Massachusetts the same general trend as re- ported for the Potter Pond site holds true, as reported by Bullen at 11 sites (Bullen, 1949, pp. 76-77). Their “small triangular” would appear to be represented by Small Triangular Type A and Medium Triangular Type B; the “large triangular,” by Triangular Type C points. This general trend in the types of triangular points is reversed in the horizontal seriation in Virginia. It would be specula- tive to try to account for this reversal of trends between New England and Virginia without more data. This brief summary of the comparative literature tends to corrobo- rate in general the seriation sequence established in this study. There are, as may be expected, certain discrepancies, such as the reversal of the position in time of the large and small triangular varieties in New England when compared with similar projectile point groups in Virginia. It is particularly pertinent to discover that the general literature of the Eastern United States establishes the bottom of the seriation chart (fig. 23) as the earliest in time, and the genera] litera- ture of the immediate area surrounding Virginia establishes the top of the seriation chart as the most recent in time. It may well be, if the dates given to the Keyser Farm site are correct that the two sites at the top of the seriation chart, Clarksville and Cornett, may likewise be given a similar dating, although the assignment of absolute dates to sites in the sequence is by no means within the scope of the present available data on Virginia archeology. [Bull. 160 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY 182 je se IS Ol ele ae eel eae ee ee Os O5 91 OFS | iiamen| ements | eae | ae | re BGO| She 1G, One mmren aes 9 | 9) Sate saiy| ORGS | ae eal eee TTT Ts se="""""—"TBTI9JBUl YIO1 JO 0384090010 tw jt It OOTY OS SF GS, Cams| CG keg Gea ee al tne ene Soe aes Seen See oo [840.L ia] be} Q ©|a a] ye) a|\ s/o; a rg belt KS eb pest | Gente} sa] Ee Sale O|a g S EB a = a) g = = Sal See} ee 8 cto (series: |e aio) oe Pp etsy a e|s 3 ie |pncons |e come eee g 3 Si [reo iinicon | oem Oa 3S S|ioa!|]e2 SER be} a Silolse|=|s2]1°e ® i Ese) | tesa eet | eet res m a tepel| ta ise lh a Faall|_-s sets ft abel) 3 = ha ten bata ees Ol Ie = ala] = 2lo|8 Es Q2ie/s > 2ale/f oa S|sg |e & Sils|¢ & S| s|¢ g S| | ¢ fo) S. oO . ce") oO 2 squlog dey ojeyng ppyseng yoolg oureig uepiey Ivog —48 [B]10]8UL pus od 44 poyeorpuT JO szuTOd Jo 90m01M0909 —— ree 8 $9218 DIMGMA 4Of sishiDUD apDiqg 2640] pun yumod a114,00(04g—'& AIAVL 183 A CERAMIC STUDY OF VIRGINIA ARCHEOLOGY Holland] iat “24D IBOIO “24D OFM 04]2318N% 930409010 g 9o8JING O[[IASHIVIO eseyUe010g pr | OSI | CO | OC el | ‘Sl | eee | od {chi | (cpm | ee pe | iced 16 |77 7 OL)6 OT Orie | i | eran 0 | ene Si | ees |e OO ial eee | sree me | oa 09 z 74D IBID 9svju0010g 24D IB9[D 0}IzqIENy 938}00010g “zyb OvTTM 991Z41eENo 8}UIOg YOolg 8,11vO woideg Tleqdurep —48 [B]1038U pus 9d A} pozBospuUy JO syujod jo soueLMI00 [Bull. 160 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY 184 eee eS a ae ae Te ES2z | OMGIGFOLG SE [er a|c aimee |e SRS HlmmeR oes eeaeer a reeleeeteee |e NS ea a|P OL IP AS Ey aac ~[ep10jBUI HOI jo o304U0010g ootisg |g |9t |s@ 9 |~ |---7 ie ilee stage io sileaealhaew vga es OMalessalerac Che laaeal i dhe Wests iPad eevee 1 teal aoa Ream de ha Nicer ia [210.L (IE Cf Gee hata ean | ee v7 eS SE SBE SS arf ate fe fem Iie rem fr fee pe [ce ee ea coe ey a Lae ag (ey || SARTO A 9d4q, Soe Ba) oer Race] Raed eee bees Baeise| ae bens) am eer eer ema eee oS ice ae eer oe tr a lea al lene [Eka aeal fecal (bn (an Dm os |led cullel ames oO eddéy, Senos See] see |b oe bene] oc a| eed sss5 4 [Bes Ree peso SS] RS FSH I I I [ale eel eal (alec allne calla anllmaalliccu|[btn tn. LL eddy, Bo esse Pose Eee] S355 eos BS Se SSS SS (ia | oar ane t Ve ami | ol USS ul (in| eg | S| (in ne et g eddy, Bp | oer |r | ee freer eet | ene |e |e em | ec ele ce gin lena RL | el DP l| | NN | | | y eddy, ee (ees |e eee eee (eee ee | eee oe | eee eee pee (eae aoe elec eer > mee oa ea a eae aa ees lee acne lcmnl mre ral eine saloer | naule ma til) ua|meua| Seno rma © odAL, Secical|eee| es ses|fe so -[l5s6-|53--| pase 2 aS55 8 53546585 eae S85 SSS eS ae oC Fes I |S IS FR a |e cl aa || rule caal eco s| San el [Luma (Camel bt aeneke d edAL SD | ees | oes |e feces | cere [eee |e | ete rm ee cm [mmm tm ca | cn Um | Ul mall | | Soe | | el | | © eddy, Sate. Vere ss i Sui free) FF Dre | ee 7 Jas 5 Pip: | eo Zoaligeeales | Seay (r= ea Seo te | ee fe Tec | sage eee cae 2a aE | le ee N 0dAq, Sel Sassi Tied | Semi easeseal oe oS ell Sal See ae Deal Coawa|e ealiae ienee|seset==-fas- = te ies HE (Hoes eared] eel ecctctal [rpe| eel (ise eee Uses (ited (nietak: Dated W odd, (SF (aa | Cle bases eee Teme | sepsasar| Seana eee EES SSE SSeal lee aad es sen | Bee] Pease bse ae |2ee2 Tr Sal Zell eee easel eee Otol epsom | | eeeg| pe | P| ee | eee [Pee eee Ty ed4Ay, Sato |0 | ae sil aes Tigers | cima | Seem | eames all call eRe Sa Ce IE scales ese [E-22|5e= =| one - (2 - SE IO ee fe Oe SSa iE eRe Ss 25 pos | Sees DSee Pearl Peelers |naeseees yy odd Shalben [le | rae ae Tone | Geese esa Seema eae al aeaelereal= Slesan {oo lolmeeline S[de==| fea [Se— PES Gales |om | eee |eous (fn besa Deo aE S| | ees Re | pee alan | Soe leer ate eg f£ ed4Ay, 6719) Coat | eal (eal ees Tete | carsales Ree 3 call os cal eSaa Feeoles eal: como eoaieee eles oo |te— [sen lars Tessa 2 noel | eal | ee Tec |seaesl| es =| eee w|i | eee [ier eto | eee | ne ee J odAY, Sa | aie ean | Reel Bees Gees ESE | eal eee ceed leece e oeeer eden fee [lec fiee eee (yA rol eee fetes Al eee Ch 7 & ml (ean kro Feo La | [ma ea ae (osama OE BESS | REE RSE] SSC A ES I a FS ad i fies fees) fea ener 9° I eee (pre | ete | le cy If ed Fa fat feats Fa De a ee cea 0) edAy, Ziel a eeu | aa laste Seow | aes Geas|seoonl sca PSeBlesesloseali-seulssosleeers Ce Ne een Pe aoe FA) cel ead fa | aa ome | Neaes Fm a dg | eae ea | casei, a eddy, af Taal was | Teme Safin | bs al Sek a | Se SE |e eae ean ee | mien Pee te lees SS QSoss lh SE sale as | eee eae 1 a st ad | (acaba [cae q eddy, CaO 2 Ta Cees Pen Lean | bea eae leas eos o2 a | Sera Searls eealeecel salsa s|se=a[Geo [nee s| geealitees he Teaes| SEAN =a sem | oa ee Caes| ees Teal aaa 1 etal (ea lta boa q ed4y, SESE ul Ea Cee | One EkWcl | mamsart Deeew'\Gcbeon' ee g| Baas |RRTT| eeu |eeea lee cal eeeea| FPA) e eAllee so [a fees eee Tato Tpael cl Cll Geka jae tee oa Vaca (0) S| eet ag ee jaan (cet foal (ech ante O ed4y, Oca | Cie | ence |e 2A dl easel eben | eeeedl snails Rene Glee alee sess Guu ligeasligece et eat hee 0°88 |99 |7-77]7777 BP: tlscaehO me lr asee Ciel Gena leone he- PSE Reese q@ ed4y, Satis iia linger aS SIGNS | SGes i Bap ogee = eal essa lense ne leazaleces lessee ceslaecalee== emai s (es [eeRe OTOLE Wl aS oe |e lBLe | gees Mee joes ann Tapes [enn [sera ay By rg Qa &\|al| vv a] v{48 al wiA Q alw]aA fe) () eplzlels/e/e/ el Ele Slee Fle BlSlelel 2) 2 lg FFE e| 2] PZ Fle eel 2 SIEIS(SISlE| Sie (El S (Bll S181 28 (EF Rl el e/a] se lEre | slsla] a) ge lee lel ei ales z aS Bee e\ale| |e capes eae mes 2|2|8 s 2\2|s oR a a es a oa See |e a Sj N ]) @ og Be St 1p og etal jac <>) fo] @ @ @ syajog yey PURIST SPOlT WH Ue 4990100) Z IND MTMASHIBIO — 48 [e110] BUI pus ed A} po}eoIpuy Jo syutod Jo eoue1INI0O SO ea re ee se a ee SS Se ponulju0p—sazis Dwi6.A 40f syshjoun apv1q 96.10] pun quod 971400/01qd— 6 F1av.L 185 A CERAMIC STUDY OF VIRGINIA ARCHEOLOGY Holland] Be mes Cie || pom onae | 222i Site: ie w---|----|-2e-)eooe|eeee]-oe-|----=- OO SOR ei arsiShE 6b. ee pe 1 a ae a ea ie Seal OOL eT Bm — ee feo lz soitcen) (eigen (se eanien re ae ees | [toes nears | (eee) | aera ¢° Le = wl eee LS aah FS a ae eee | Ie a i as | (ae | ees ie el | ae oF 1 aR Rae + ego 1! gs ~1 he aa | Se | es | ee ES Pe Gee ae ees |e 2) ae 1 ONG Sli > oe A es a f= Fe Tere eee Pemtee cal teal?) OL 8 oe eal fel cecluee loose) (Ose es Ge) ae a ae 0G stg Soll eas aes Ba | ees me Els pe ee ae Gn on ew |eers|= oe | eee Lhe Aes ae] fale lame! lees eos aes cane 6° Came |C lea |Gpe mitten Are Gian | kee |g Greate ee eee ae aE € Ir (|6l |? Ts eke 0:4 Saat (in ain] LT gt preg | lain lee ee inate Sue || Seal | Se ha 8°8 Osaies Ocean iste (0/4 SHE aa at bail iow cele (58 alee oes le Clee Sel feet Sins Gabe |Glee|Pan tele: CEPLEegeule aceite coe elt Sell er te aloe ail iaen 216 SEAT | el i Big ith bela eR ae el Wp G52 (lg sk | a] ale i a (18 er a lig | oa VRS, Pcs fea ed A lS as a GOAT met ina eel rope er Dee aealls Fal ae alee Z 61 SiGcae Oses ieee tien | OPealonl (Tote Sts lle ceslt seals cats aie ela ea 1&8 ass os) | 2 Ps Ea | el ipl a aaa jl Fn hE | Rl | aD Ww | fe) (OV |j Taxol} pete Q Q) wv el2lFlelElEle| 2 lZlFlelZlel2| 3 3 |/£/3/8 s/8/8/ 8 |£/s £ s/5181] 8 le 2iea S iz 2 fo} = B gE S| s|s g S|] és Eg o . Oo : Ay OIBAPICAT esplig s,Ae[ey SOAvIO esejueoI0g re Sr aleeOuleaenl ORBR Gab leecc boo aae oa [Gl10} BUI YOOI Jo asByUIdI0g LAEE|O: 9 line" PO, \COk | getty te aan amis io, oA is ol [810.L pS ce ee ee fae \somaciss: lines esl cos IE Be eT RS A Ca a ee A odiy ne "a(S ell gata aa’ |S ea Se AY Gn SS oe ae” ear On easy MC ee oe cee alla ol gees bbe ae a Eo eee ZL edz Beale Mallee Soh ee A Pa Re ee OE OS § adAL Spee ecl rael cat call GoRe ICE? ee a tee ee y odd, mee Te ST Re Rk ke bee Se we Fea Ene © oA Pee el | Bae val | Be a Se Se Selle Gs GE Dak ae as ae d eddy, Fesicsng | oscanse| | Bic: VACA VA (SP WRG Gia eid SN Ok BESS Oo edAy, Vie eat i EAU Ha ee es SER Sete eae N odAy ee eee | a a el ee) ie ee ee a W edA J, Ge ip secwe oe we ise A oS UNG TT ody, 7a ae eal Soma le Fey We *- 1 ee Ge PR TE Poe eee = Mw eddy, ois al (cae Caneel ls Pay han S| eT ERS ER ERS RES OS ee f¢ eddy, Geos |learat Teele ee ae Re aes ae eee J odAy, Saas] (Fes = SS5Siio eae |S ll GSES BEES GRE Rew hae kee oS H odd, Fae os Ts Ss ee aa a its * IE Sites See Hee TES Seas SSS H eddy, Fone | Peel Fe | bee le a RTS WARES GS SY GEES ibe wf eddéy, cael (aa ae aE ee DR ES a Ses GS eta > q eddy, or ll Reet aa eal fe as (As all li Saas BEES ERT RS Sees FS ee g addy, pee aaa | cae |] lege | Tl RE ARE | ME REE Dob Sean e 9 addy, rallies t Paaaltdi ‘als aoe Bae Gee GS a eee gq odAy, Sao ae | ai | eal re eel eee Ware tote agen baemati as ae y addy, al te O|a PISlelel¢ a (i (tpl Ve lle N Bi8|é ; squ10d umop10yH —4e [BI10}eUl pus od A} payeorpul Jo syuI0d jo 9du01INDIO 305522—_55 18 [Bull. 160 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY 186 9yIzJIeNy 938}U00I0g *2Z4D IBID | “24D OVI M | poomioyyveTy 9}IZqIeENy | nN or] Ae (NAD 1910 OO ue} } ) = a B “24D IvIjO “24D OM 991Z,1eN% 938] U9010g —J8 [BIJejeur pues odAy pa}voIput Jo S}UIod Jo sauLINDD0 ‘24D IvaO “29D o}1UM ayIzqIeNy JAOUIOH SS SS SS ee eee aS EE a ee ee eee —__—_|—__—/}__| 9seyuooleg "24D Ive[O “24D OFM 941zq1eNny Iajjeqg MeysuO_ 6 02/8 “ST|“[Sl10}6ur Yoo1 jo oeseyue010g S}UIOT penuyuop—sapys piuibir4 40f sish)pun app7q abv] pun yui0d 971490(01qd— 6 ATAV I, 187 A CERAMIC STUDY OF VIRGINIA ARCHEOLOGY Holland] | . soli lnc let bal prclectalt-, [=== €°9 [9°18 O9/L PIL BETIS TL [4 °99]8 BL|6 "9 [77pm foornfocn efor noo nooo [BEA BUT OOI Jo o3vjUedIEg (11) a Se fis |e € Or {I OOT |82t |8 {Zt |8£ |6r |9 QOT |TZT |€% |G |PIt jee jor |----~- a ad eR DAW CS mes BIOL Ta. “A ae | ae ca |e | Spe | 8° IT fasta |iooaoeal | mel nee |e if Sapaliewa (IC 5 tele s* |) eel Pere ame eo TIL clo Lc, Be BA Cc bee OAT, Bers) Pilea) | daesel (ag Pas se te |25 Dy [Sees ae has 5 les ae | Deal ela Fpl ol ns foe “ae fecal faa otal el | eal ei area Tae Tein ely son | eae |r aes [eal (ag lesa | a SE sie | Sue Uy (maga PN (GO| ES | Nae see (se esl eee Vcr acad SUD Teron Sipe aoe LL LTT, r= ser Gs va sae = ee il feegeal ge S| tgp cea gee lars Pieces iba th ee Bie See Ee eS ele ETE Dae a EL Eo ee “Lickel dee |e le Beal Mae | apa sia | n> Sas ea ew La es sel ees lee eel be Gl EE eS ee ee pie Select eee Eee Bib Die sel |P Beer le Oh ew 19. Die ee PGE a lee le salar aelecos| emilee ap CUpd as hes ce Barska ec oY ee) ae ee we |Z Re Sole lee lhe eelivee [eset a9 | em Ve a | Gk lS = alfentanil (ae 9 ee Ot awa is ope ae Fess (Soe ee ee Gee Sas ect lt eal oa Dean Dee lb eb eel here (|e ew ar eset lie Fibs y lice: ala ela Sale Sel REC cela le ld ae ae a ee er Olean pos a? |S ea aa alee Vedber|aio ipest ie ealG-eslive Ge thee Oe IG a ira k eri piece la ale eee Wee ee | ok eke 3a ck ee [cad ti =| doce Le ah a a aa Tee eiedieae (or ale es |e Dee ema SiGe ABET Pr egee bei ele alge te ime alge nga elem iea S Penk cee dee el one Bo W ed&y, 1 Fee Sy Kes ea ie ai fat Gidea aH. Neem Besse iL. slbrole (Gn (8. -Uilt= ae Ey o9 lee aise eo ige = Ne oleic tae Me talpar capo Sa ee ee EE A Condado 0 BEL ALE TSR FS ee) ae a3 ae aa aa fee | | eid fs | cal oe inl cal ae | cra ase bei vats aes x odAL, le a yl NR 8 al pay) 2) VS a | deli alle Se Spel yiGas19) WyileanG yb y (Tele w - een |an~ a |§caal os alMipea lnc dal pGs: Rasa de ccs Pec Le ee £ ody, Pia ai ane ee a Na ae CeO RSsELr pes ueewile |nike | eon OPCW Sita OGt IL Mise ae" le nelaa gla Wee alc acl cE ent Goris cae | nT One| Ps “al coe tal ne 9 al ban Bete Ps Meealecaliee (Leelee Clb aii ene IS aie tie ela [as tige ac (eo IBC SIE ACNE a et ck oe ee 6 ae Eo a a 7 a) BRS de WY Le |e ER ag 1 a ira (ae | Atel eel War (yl Tae aoa ive al a Melee pay nian Sev Powe), Sree eesle elk |2-% nao] ee ca Sa ip ee ee ie i ea Ae a fe (a J (AG? ca (Pa Wp | ade! Piao sss hae pol aes iia sani tee Sana ea memetWlert Ace s|- wali ee alle ate allie clam a elt aap ales So limamsclit (cya ei lzjond >: pron Jo osvjUed10g OOLFIS|IT |L j€& [691 | ~~") OOT/8I9/2Ze |FL |60T |Shh |Ee OOT|BOT/ES |S |9T {49 || Le ilie vale erie Timers lige’ lau leas hd Ree care Ge coi i ammaall Epes 1810.L Notonr ion onee or) oD N re = or) ie 2) et 1 ' 1 ‘ 09 00 © 009 & |8 TEE RS NES THE 9 FE See es eel aes Ala |e alle 3 ae oa P lS eee leas ler cece al ac allie ee ORLA TS Pen RSl8 re uD 2 alk fe gad ea |e an) AS Ce De eB De allen Plea ee alee len ae Palla, olla clarks eee a od4y, tM OM mA wD — =) ' ' i N LZ T 9 v 9 8" ¢ eas ae aera es ease | Sa RS e RC a eo we We odio. ilo a cal [Sees |e [= cl op a een ee In orl calms culo at Wat te oleae sla alice oall ae ball tne ore a ROCLAG TS . 8 - 8 8 I Z £ 12 oO 5 ml ' ' 1 ' ' ' ' al ' ' ' 1 ‘ ' ' 1 Lae} . SS EIP(EE/ 2) 2 ZF IE 2/2/12] 2 ElEIPIE IE) eZ Eel 212) 21 eZ F el zie) 8 Beer (cementing ee ato fama Veet etal ere ered SB alee | soa | Gai Wise (ee Wi cege Nae 1B, US VERE See age | Ek 9 Se Wee] ceualle Bs) |iretea|rha! | eat ee KT olds oe |e 2)ea]& es ea2lio!]s& = 2a! & ee 2 |.e | & & Sig |e i S| 8 |e i S| 5 |e i S |g |e i S/|s|e B § mg § 19 : a9 F | 7a § sition €§ Yo01Q AU0YS Z Hoy Auojg T Yoorg Auoyg IST Tyo08ue900 Z ‘PU ‘PUI PIO — 48 [BI19}8U1 pus 9dA4 poqyBoIpUI Jo syutod Jo 9duNIINI0O ponulqu0pH—saps nIMbi14 LOL SishjvUD apn1g 26.107) pun yur0d 971,900(04g— 6 ATAV IL, 189 A CERAMIC STUDY OF VIRGINIA ARCHEOLOGY Holland] age Maa far cL PS Pa ------ wa e-| --- =| ---- |---| --- - | ---- | - - - - Ce a et a anes De a oa. SO ee eed eS 041z}.1END o3vju0010g e3equa10g SHIOT IOAY oA, Peanite < bew | Ballance &lkap un |itesed Mei Mick ie sl aes golewesalieeoana Flan cali. T€ |O'L |L 12/8 "F2) Greer icoaen | Cie tt Crate || | Gree || ena Cae | i ata | Geers | Seal eee OOT $6 |€ |T ae | Cee | TP Paes eee Fear ames lis ears | le Sel fuer) Ps || ee | a GOR Sees || Oe alle gas Chul lea ae plex alice Se || Siapat e Se|| s ame (e a |Wa | el eee ( e rae TG, [Gon leads Te TS ee Beall eal ae Far] OE tl eee || ieee | Boag eee |e | ewe laa eee Cee) A || Sies ||e Cyd | Pee | fa celta ore Sid her allio oe eee Tape a>, Seed liacew Neely w | Coen | Peele t| aed lea a een Cio | St | eee fact | ome || Ee | peal POE Al oraa las 2h ilk eat natal aad (oad | ea | ieee GN ean free |i ad | Teme | COP aN eae te a | eae | ear: Hate | tM. || Rate || = aoe eke a | aces | ee || eats (lea GNP NP! Soll Gyo aCe ead Cua| = eal Be Bie. ahecd Lap || See || Saka || Be, ee cee | amg) Sen] > ae es | CO: BOl alee ee eal eae Th less a | |eael | Sea [Exp || sale | Se | ee | ae | || gee || ee || aie |e | (ere mene ems ||| ate Pan ieee *z4b 1eIaO *Z4D OFM 0}]zq1eNy 930}U0010g “24d IvaTO *24D O31 M 9y1zqIENy 9584jU0010g “24D OFM | 941zq1eN% | ool, F YooIQ Auo0}g S[BPSIL —4e [B]10]BUI puB od 44 poyeorput Jo syutod jo eoue1mM9009 syuyog (Bull. 160 OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY BUREAU 190 So aa e ae ©°6 |g 6112 0F19 °F |9"Gz\------|--7 "128 [Serle aPlZ “e116 “IZ|-~----|----|0°6 |8°% [9 BOIL "9T/6°9 |---| oo Te y0ey BU Yoo Jo osezWe0I0g oor log |g zt lcse |p |zz | oorlez 19 or te lor |ot | OO lsHT et 1b |6 |# |OL |----~ el oes ee Coe MEST a| ose 2 ee ee Re a [R101 caebiae (Bea | scae "cael cae Permit alse ecalieee Ne a-| ac | Rc cen elie Mae leapeme | Cie Gu plc well es all ietal ea| | ee renee enon Teint = Sener AN OMA, BSE oie ao vee fe aaa ga gine (oaueal (ease (cae ec aaa sage a aa al feec e F a |ace eeea a ee al Pesci eis GERAD ERIS Ros RTS aea Ee OL COUNIA | eal | ae | il [ana | Sema Tae (Se nana | ema | maa Uigiiaianc| | rental Vignal | esa Jie T goa lesen | tarer lit PS bore eee ee ee eo a eee | Bete ae ee ae nn eae eae cates Dis edAy, PE a eal ato | (|| etal | hak aba | es ee a |e Se Peek ellie les rclesee ik asl Sel Soleo a IIE le EE Ee eee Le ino ae OT, Seiriee Ses} ec sce emo Ro S25 Fee ote FSF =| fai tal tr rT Fa a ad oe eee nol aed teal er calle ates sina |aaie aaa oa oe Gad aes aa cae eee TRO TT Seo Oo Se aoe al taal ESO eel elle FES SEI FE aa) as 5 a ype aml etd Peed My eet ae Sa |b wf pe alee all Ga: i | RRR REE SERA DEERE WR SER ETE OLCOUNT Bee al ecole a al el ip ela SANS SR a Fe SS Re ei fc il Fae ae nel galt cecal ocala lk sal a ad EE EERE CS GS eh Cee, ee | a a a ee ele eye [es er ahr sae alr ome enter eel. eel ecalll oe |) cell gala are | ag eae se eee ace oe RQ) OUNG SPER TES ES eee te TES epae LS) wel aT pin Mon |Site) ea FF nt as F F| ae FSSoeel [os el fc sell SEE SMA BEE CDR COU MP GuCmen Goes less ipa a (2) ral Fa eel ha ae ape eae | (eal a Ne) Roe Zootoo lee oe ee pdeal “panes GARE he aT Ease RS W eddy, FACE.” illite eee i eee aaa Fae Fa AC 5a | Fs oe we ohe \eaesine Wore Wee Wie = ie Se eS ayaa alae pao secs gaan poe acer grat Mant TRS rT edAy, orm eallese sl eeliTeealge (Nee ik ss le esc llme leo lace Ta Gee Se cle aal| Om (Grell Po lee |e alee Pe er ie oo aE ee eee M edAy, a mERIED oleae ic Geomenlge Wcteslec sale, lee cla cal One TalIeai es |eeaclele- [eaeel@: cele eee Tep lise olareslDe “(GE Talicac|Enre te bes a cee ees Ocoee ee ClaeTy Perea paella eal Com SESS MPa Weal. lees le caleies Basle oa Gheulmecele ces Gs ipseelee le Epon ie sal Ma eee sane Sates Cae ee eS JT ody, Feo uo gall Fetal race fleece 5 tle ta etapa | al || (gel (a Valen Cowal bale Zr alpxesle= sales clpseclegen Ea eee ee ome are H eddy, EEE EI BIR A FY EY I al | Hd | al aah Facial fcc | | | aaa sda |e aa | al | Saal |e || | a Tien can aa neset 4) eddy, Quem Ca r= alas 3 i oil alli) =| (== ees cha feta ate | ieee eat eee 1G alt a feed eal eae (Tae | eae aba tates aml ea Sac | a ell | ed SAR OO cick woes aH odAT, (Vm elk): ail eal tee ye el Seellie «VO e ce ea SS Fl le el fs ere ae ee eres Fo ee Fee ea Fea oo rl lea cul [e aieal | cal Bae EER OED See ESE SS gq odAy, Semel ea eerie cere Ips e its io. Ie ee eOleial-|o -|Tor\Doel-|pocslies cl ealETosI ec IE Men eee ke ee ae qd edéy, rai hee lke tke Age estan loaay (eee fe oe Me a oie ie Wea ize kee es eral se ae Ise (Peles Taal lit ball leat eR CGT CESSES RS 9 edAL, aire [tae Ihe I ope elie MAS9 Wee Min | Reeaks ye aalliee kylie lh dae elses & Ales ee le sole CTE AE CIES AID cE IRS LIP ee ie a cee q od, eran Mee ere |e eres ja |e eee nn een ee teme esate este leno ole oe rlen es |ro-- (pa alee mentees |ponslne alee aM Proietti gaa eee eas V edAL, a| fe) z /alele/aiele| z /elelelzielel z lzlgigigieig| 7 /gZlelg glelg SEP IR SIRS) es Eels isi ela) & (EP lalsl ala) g EP Ris )ala ES ale|s& = a2lo|® = 2lol|s = ala/& & S| S/o & Se i S| sg] ¢ i S|5|¢ @ x @ *, (o>) ° oO sjyulog “US 1eqouad A AOTLOH TtAsooddiyM CRAGIN g JAY eAL, —48 [B]10}8UI puv 9d44 poyeoIpUI Jo syuiod Jo soue1INI00O poenunu0g—sajzis Dib, 4OL sishyoun apDn1qg 26.10] pun yui0d 97144090/01g— 6 B18V I, 191 A CERAMIC STUDY OF VIRGINIA ARCHEOLOGY Holland] | ats | Ga G°IT|"~~"|9 “2h| L9E16 F |--~---|7-"}8 “118% [988 pare ap et en alec On| One |,-selo-orle-1 cats a ES a ee Se ee Oe OGY Lee ET OOT |19 |Z |--~7|6% jz |e OOT |€ZT |0Z j¢ pe Tr |9 OOT |€IT |Z |€ |68 CA NG NS yan eee Ta SE ia Sa ae ed 1830.1, OF |e Ween [apd hs el | | Jeane |e Ne 6° Te ae eee | eae MG a ee) ee ee ee ee ee a A od&L, Sagi 7 | malemea leas eerie Ti ealcet balla We Beets et clea 6" fe it | ae Se es || Se: ie ea eee ey Tg ee ee ee RCO NT, O20. We ele a |i teal Se Le (| alee Dp oe | ee ees RED (Ghee =n | ape Light eels te Sh ee eo ee iL edAq, a ela aeeale cl aeo|e. a ¢° | Pam Sauer amen sean (OM | = (Sr bea ae | 7S le eae aa eA ~ aE Ge wart es SERGE a COUNTY, Cc 10, mse aero ee 5S Ske: ealh le ale Te Se eels ee ae cle les u(t Nee aly A Seg To a oe Te a Sie wy odd, a aa ee | A gees] as Ula SEO) en Os | cle OTe ieee Gls a eae a Se ce ae a a ee ae UP aN ee ee ae Se © ed4L SUS am atl (Se (See lk 2 ees |ceerioe [tS ee eee le j O71 Sl Faas |e | ae P| jn ee | Cl hor eae ES ear ame ae? bean Bs se. d od4AL, a | A Ba IS re a Feedba ened mr) eff Sea | ca | ta mal a Pg eee SER GE Te EL EE OES Se a De CUTE Gime. |S: 25h oh Sa eae es Gee mee See oes Gm emai ORG eee lr aa TS Ree | 2 te Spec GO Se ae gic gs ee ant Oe gas N od4y, Cl 1 ae a | a aia bowl Ree | OF NE lesen | Ge Ik. galope lg cles aly ec em c(t Se SSR eee eee ee me el W ed, Patten see cas (eel Cee (Gee a en REGAN CEO, «|e Si ||D ieee | Sak 1G? eon |eee d (ae -| "Saal = a eae sei eee oe ae ae te eo ones 8345 Go Se TT odAL, GrGe, 10" (Ie sa leon “Wee Ieee ee ye NG Ss Ss ra |= Salk SH st he || aa i | aa I el nates ce gene ae ak ee: BE RE Wap Sb cae ar sao mM ody, Orr |G lee ce os Que: Wenge terete le cee S| Sail OVO Gl wa meal ina UC Sa CSE See ee ae nj ae ee Ln ae ae SE Oo ee ee f eddy, Ge /0L Ge ye sate 0 | eter te | Ge 10 Bite 1S |e ge Sh se alaoo Se gers cae cee SS Se ae ke ee ee J odAL Gi 18 (Fe ae" iz Peel ironies? ele |e cle | site: 6° || age 1S | vile ae a Oe ee eb a ee ee H od4y, el eee ol sl eal bat hae ORCA P Oe me el coealie ib eal ee lec Slee cI GSES IL ol Beeglgs eee ke ee MRICS oo Oo ee Ee Sa See COAT eer |: fs eS eal ela a GR es See eam See |) mellem eeG a) OE MIT al Sl... eea| sea eres saat aa ae pon > eet ee Re ee Ee OO Sees li lee cle | Se ee a a ee lee atl Om cla: talc ese ee ee ae ae eo oe Ee OAL, Soe eee |” > a hae ae (Sai (ae e CVC) BRIE ce |p ere wale SEOs [ME NS eee Bh SE ollie lo sane soe hoa ena Saas aan anes Se Oe Be cay eee NCL ANT; Cie (faire iS Cen ee Foz eee bo a | ae [ae es Ge ea 0 SPS ANG oy ae ee a ca ee as oe a ee ae Se eee ee oO ed4T, | ales al lmao ole le iG ae CeO) Re Fal Tee Qe al Sele alg = sae ae aa ee Wek ee Gc REE oe ad ee ee ee TO IEA FS eet ral aa eal | akc el ie a cm fa ae | Ua Goes te le saline (Ie Gl) ote e [Soo ee co ae ee ae a a Sk a ce ee cua yi Q eee) Shs Q Q| si] s8 eo) ©/;a S/S/FIS S22) F S/R Sl El2/ 2] 2 |Z FE zle 2 BE Be) ace eel Be | le | aa SSB Oe i 2 te ee z RFigie hae (ele) |e B's | 8 ro @ 2 syalodg peojsomloy [[eMo x ToMox eUIsUTM oS tes See Sees! ee: eae ee > oe ee? ee ee ee t —je [8l10}8m pus edAy poyvorpul Jo syurod Jo soue1INd00 192 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [Bull. 160 LITERATURE CITED BLAKER, MARGARET C. 1950. Pottery types from the Townsend site, Lewes, Delaware. Bastern States Archeol. Fed., Bull. No. 9. BRITTINGHAM, J. V., and BRITTINGHAM, A. W. 1947. The first trading post at Kicotan (Kecoughtan), Hampton, Virginia. Hampton, Va. BuLten, Ripiey P. 1949. Excavations in northeastern Massachusetts. Phillips Acad., An- dover. Robert 8S. Peabody Found. Archeol. Pap., vol. 1, No. 3. 1950. Chronology and Virginian prehistory. Archeol. Soc. Virginia, Quart. Bull., vol. 4, No. 8. 1951. Certain small triangular Arrow Points. Massachusetts Archeol. Soc. Bull., vol. 12, No. 4. BUSHNELL, Davin I., Jr. 1930. The Five Monacan towns in Virginia, 1607. Smithsonian Misc. Coll., vol. 82, No. 12. 1933. Evidence of Indian occupancy in Albemarle County, Virginia. Smith- sonian Mise. Coll., vol. 89, No. 7. 1935. The Manahoac tribes in Virginia, 1608. Smithsonian Misc. Coll., vol. 94, No. 8. 1937. Indian sites below the Falls of the Rappahannock, Virginia. Smith- sonian Misc. Coll., vol. 96, No. 4. BuTLER, Mary. 1939. Three archeological sites in Somerset County, Pennsylvania. Penn- sylvania Hist. Comm. Bull. No. 753. Harrisburg, Pa. 1946. Pottery types in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Archeol. vol. 16, No. 6., pp. 117-122. 1947. Two Lenape rock shelters near Philadelphia. Amer. Antig., vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 246-254. CALDWELL, JOSEPH R. 1951. Archeological investigations in Western Virginia. Archeol. Soc. Virginia, Quart. Bull., vol. 5, No. 3. CARTER, L. C. 1948. “Bone Bottom.” Archeol. Soc. Virginia, Quart. Bull., vol. 3, No. 2. Cross, DoroTHy. 1941. Archeology of New Jersey. Vol.1. Trenton. 1947. The Main Pottery Types in New Jersey. Eastern States Archeol. Fed. Bull. No. 6. Forp, JAMES A. 1951. Greenhouse: A Troyville-Coles Creek Period Site in Avoyelles Parish, Louisiana. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. Anthrop. Pap., vol. 44, pt. 1. New York. Forp, JAMES A., and WILLEY, GORDON R. 1949. Surface survey of the Viri Valley, Peru. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. Anthrop. Pap., vol. 48, pt. 1. New York. FowxKE, GERARD. 1894. Archeological investigations in James and Potomac Valleys. Bur. Amer. Ethnol. Bull. 23. Fow Ler, WILLIAM §S., and LUTHER, HERBERT A. 1950. The Potter Pound site. Massachusetts Archeol. Soc. Bull. vol. 11, No. 4. Holland] A CERAMIC STUDY OF VIRGINIA ARCHEOLOGY 193 FUNKHOUSER, W. D., and WEspB, W. S. 1928. Ancient life in Kentucky. Kentucky Geo. Surv. Frankfort, Ky. GRIFFIN, JAMES B. 1938. The Ceramic remains from Norris Basin, Tennessee. Jn An Arche- ological Survey of the Norris Basin in Eastern Tennessee, by William S. Webb. Bur. Amer. Ethnol. Bull. 118. 1948. The Fort Ancient Aspect. Ann Arbor, Mich. 1945. The Ceramic affiliations of the Ohio Valley Adena culture. Jn The Adena People, by William S. Webb and Charles BE. Snow. Univ. Kentucky Rep. Anthrop. and Archeol. Lexington. 1946. Cultural change and continuity in Hastern United States archaeology. In Man in Northeastern North America. Phillips Acad., Andover. Robert S. Peabody Found. for Archeol. Pap., vol. 3, pp. 37-95. GRIFFIN, JAMES B., and SEARS, WILLIAM H. 1950. Prehistoric pottery of the Eastern United States. Ann Arbor, Mich. Haac, WILLIAM G. 1951. Chronology of Southeastern cultures. Southeastern Archeol. Conf., Newsletter, vol. 3, No. 1, October. Hargis, WILLIAM N. 1954. Pottery Hill site, Prince George County, Virginia. Archeol. Soc. Virginia, Quart. Bull., vol. 8, No. 4. HoLuanp, C. G. 1948. A preliminary survey of Indian sites and material on the Dan River and certain tributaries near Danville, Virginia. Archeol. Soc. Vir- ginia, Quart. Bull., vol. 2, No. 3. 1949. Contributions to the archeology of Albemarle County, Virginia, Num- ber Four—Preliminary definition of two foci. Archeol. Soc. Vir- ginia, Quart. Bull., vol. 4, No. 2. 1950. Four James River sites in its middle course. Archeol. Soc. Virginia, Quart. Bull., vol. 4, No. 4. HOo.Luanp, C. G., and Graves, Mrs. ELvIn. 1951. The Henshaw rockshelter, Madison County, Virginia. Archeol. Soc. Virginia, Quart. Bull., vol. 6, No. 1. HoitMgEs, W. H. 1903. Aboriginal pottery of the Eastern United States. 20th Ann. Rep., Bur. Amer. Ethnol., 1898-99. Lewis, THOMAS M. N., and KNEBERG, MADELINE. 1946. Hiwassee Island, an archeological account of four Tennessee Indian peoples. Knoxville, Tenn. 1947. The archaic horizon in western Tennessee. Univ. Tennessee Record, Extension Ser., vol. 23, No. 4. MacCorp, Howarp A, 194748 (MS.). Archeological survey in Virginia during 1947-48 for the Division of History and Archaeology, Virginia Conservation Com- sion, Commonwealth of Virginia. Unpublished notes and corre- spondence on file with Virginia Archeological Society. MANSON, CARL. 1948. Marcey Creek site: An early manifestation in the Potomac Valley. Amer. Antiq., vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 223-227. MANSON, CagL; MAcCorp, Howarkp A.; and GRIFFIN, JAMES B. 1944. The Culture of the Keyser Farm site. Mich. Acad. Sci., Arts and Let- ters Pap., vol. 29, 1943. 194 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [Bull. 160 MoCaANnn, CATHERINE J. 1948. A tentative pottery sequence in southern New Jersey. Eastern States Archeol. Fed. Bull. No. 7. 1950. The Ware site, Salem County, New Jersey. Amer. Antiq., vol. 15, No. 4, pt. 1, pp. 815-321. McCary, BEN C. 1949. A survey and study of Folsom-like points found in Virginia. Archeol. Soe. Virginia., Quart. Bull., vol. 2, No. 1. 1951 a. A workshop site of Early Man in Dinwiddie County, Virginia. Amer. Antiq., vol. 17, No. 1, pt. 1. 1951 b. The Johnson Mill rockshelter, Albemarle County, Virginia. Archeol. Soe. Virginia, Quart. Bull., vol. 6, No. 1. 1953. The Potts site, Chickahominy River, New Kent County, Virginia. Archeol. Soe. Virginia, Quart. Bull., vol. 8, No. 4. MILLER, CARL F. 1949. Appraisal of the archeological resources, Buggs Island Reservoir in Mecklenberg, Halifax, Charlotte Counties, Virginia; Vance and Granville Counties, North Carolina. Archeol. Soc. Virginia, Quart. Bull., vol. 4, No. 1. 1950. An analysis and interpretation of the ceramic remains from a num- ber of sites in Horry County, South Carolina. Amer. Antigq., vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 254-258. MINER, HORACE. 1936. The importance of textiles in the archeology of the Hastern United States. Amer. Antigq., vol. 1, No. 3. Myer, WILLIAM EDWARD. 1928. Two prehistoric villages in middle Tennessee. 41st Ann. Rep., Bur. Amer. Ethnol., 1919-24, pp. 485-614. PHILLIPS, PHILIP; Forp, JAMEs A.; and GRIFFIN, JAMES B. 1951. Archeological survey in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley, 1940-47. Harvard University, Pap. Peabody Mus. Amer. Archeol. and Ethnol., vol. 25. RITCHIE, WILLIAM A. 1944. The pre-Iroquoian occupations of New York State. Rochester Museum Mem. No. 1. Rochester. 1946. A stratified prehistoric site at Brewerton, New York. Rochester Mus. Arts and Science, No. 8, Res. Ree. Rochester. 1951. A current synthesis of New York prehistory. Amer. Antiq., vol. 17, No. 2. RircHiz, WILLIAM A., and MacNEtIsH, RicHarp S. 1949. The pre-Iroquoian pottery of New York State. Amer, Antiq., vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 97-124. Rouse, IRVING. 1947. Ceramic traditions and sequences in Connecticut. Archeol. Soc. Con- necticut, Bull. No, 21. Scumitt, Karr, and Siatrery, RricHarp G. MS. The Shepard site, Montgomery County, Maryland. Filed in Dept. of Anthrop., U. S. Nat. Mus. SETzLER, FRANK M., and JENNINGS, JESSE D., 1941. Peachtree Mound and Village site, Cherokee County, North Carolina. Bur. Amer, Ethnol., Bull. 131. Holland] A CERAMIC STUDY OF VIRGINIA ARCHEOLOGY 195 SLATTERY, RICHARD G. 1946. A prehistoric Indian site on Selden Island, Montgomery County, Maryland. Journ. Washington Acad. Sci., vol. 36, No. 8, pp. 262-266. SmiTH, CARLYLE SHREEVE. 1950. The Archeology of coastal New York. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., Anthrop. Pap., vol. 43, pt. 2. SoLeckKr, RAupH S. 1949. An archeological survey of two river basins in West Virginia. West Virginia Hist., vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 319-432, July. STEARNS, RICHARD Hi, 1940. The Hughes site: An aboriginal village site on the Potomac River in Montgomery County, Maryland. Nat. Hist. Soc. Maryland, Proc. No. 6. 1948. Some Indian village sites of Tidewater Maryland. Nat. Hist. Soe. Maryland, Proc. No. 9. WEBB, WILLIAM S., and FUNKHOUSER, W. D. 1931. The Tolu site in Crittenden County, Kentucky. Univ. Kentucky Rep. Archeol. and Anthrop., vol. 1, No. 5. WEDEL, WALDO R. 1951. a. Notes on aboriginal pottery from Montana. Journ. Washington Acad. Sci., vol. 41, No. 5, pp. 180-138. 1951 b. Archeological reconnaissance near Saltville, Virginia, in 1940. Archeol. Soe. Virginia, Quart. Bull., vol. 5, No. 4. WHeat, Mary. 1948. Contributions to the archeology of Albemarle County, Virginia, Num- ber One—Warren Site. Archeol. Soc. Virginia, Quart. Bull., vol. 2, No. 4. WILLEY, GORDON R. 1949. Archeology of the Florida Gulf coast. Smithsonian Mise. Coll., vol. 113 (whole volume). WITTHOFT, JOHN. 1948. Ceramic sequences in eastern Pennsylvania. Eastern States Archeol. Fed. Bull. No. 7. 1949. An outline of Pennsylvania Indian History. Pennsylvania Hist., Quart. Journ. Pennsylvania Hist. Assoc., vol. 16, No. 3. 1950. Pottery types of Lower Susquehanna Valley. Wastern States Archeol. Fed. Bull. No. 9. O if soa do ae ip Thar el . Vr i Say aie saith ett, Z = Viste’ a H aw ove ind tole aa pon ‘ eye vel 1 Shi ay ee, Vin B) of metrantlde «on Tiha ‘ - H ‘ } wT , { uct aviv. , ten ad * ? ah - = ‘ , ~~ Cotes m 7 - ‘ ‘ 7 - i igi? ogi ane , OF aheolT oft DOMISY 8» GE ions 1; a riven; | ¢ ryt. he : Ba, oat ta oriife win “ciotera gasthal pic ricacaet - eating th 4 i ae */ r ' _ —— ier * - & mS APh. AD Haag, ian 00 Ags 43) ofl Ret} ohty ip ‘ i } » ae i . pf . SORTA ROTA Te eh operedtoonesh sgn ‘to ENTE : > —— Pe Pi aay a hte: +4 le ° ' tS ro ' i - ae ‘ ; ri , ’ ‘ 4 : - = { i “3 : : 2 ; : i} i] 4 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY BULLETIN 160 PLATE 1 2 ie Nod ah ELI i * : sid a, Whitehall Rock Shelter with two persons standing in it. b, Carr’s Brook site in the bottom land near center of picture. BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY BULLETIN 160 PLATE 2 a, Marlow Lakes site under cultivation. %, Lipscomb site. BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY BULLETIN 160 PLATE 3 a, Pottery Hill site. 6, Stony Creek 4 site. BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY BULLETIN 160 PLATE 4 Albemarle Series: a-o, Albemarle Fabric Impressed. Note hunks of crushed quartz temper in j and &. Smooth interiors, except occasionally fabric impressed as shown in 0. BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY BULLETIN 160 PLATE 5 Albemarle Series: a—n, Albemarle Cord Marked; g, a basal sherd. Incision on top of cord marking, shown in J, is rare. BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY BULLETIN 160 PLATE 6 Albemarle Series: a-f, Albemarle Simple Stamped; g, Albemarle Net Impressed; h-k, Albemarle Scraped; 7, Albemarle Plain. Note large hunks of crushed quartz temper in b, e, and 7. BULLETIN 160 PLATE 7 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY 1, Chickahominy Fabric Impressed; f, 7, an incised variety on Chickahominy Series: a— fabric-impressed surface. BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY BULLETIN 160 PLATE 8 Chickahominy Series: a—e, Chickahominy Cord Marked; f-1, Potts Net Impressed and Roughened. BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY BULLETIN 160 PLATE 9 Chickahominy Series: ae, Roanoke Simple Stamped; fi, Potts Cord-Wrapped Dowel; j, Sussex Plain; k, /, Potts Scraped. BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY BULLETIN 160 PLATE 10 n Clarksville Series: a-i, Clarksville Net and Fabric Roughened; 7, m, Clarksville Fabric Impressed; &, J, Clarksville Cord Marked; n-p, Scraped interiors of Clarksville Series sherds. BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY BULLETIN 160 PLATE 11 Clarksville Series: Rims only of Clarksville Fabric Impressed and Clarksville Net and Fabric Roughened. BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY BULLETIN 160 PLATE 12 Marcey Creek Series: a—k, Marcey Creek Plain; eh, lugs of Marcey Creek Plain; f-k, fabric or net impressions on the flat bases of Marcey Creek Plain; /, m, Selden Island Cord Marked. BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY BULLETIN 160 PLATE 13 New River Series: a-e, New River Cord Marked; f-h, New River Plain; i-k, New River Knot Roughened and Net Impressed. BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY BULLETIN 160 PLATE 14 Prince George Series: a-d, Prince George Fabric Impressed; e—h, Prince George Cord Marked. Note large round pebble temper in d and h. BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY BULLETIN 60 PLATE 15 Prince George Series: a-h, Pottery Hill Net Impressed and Roughened; a and ¢, exteriors with b and d the interiors of the same sherds, showing tinger pressing. Note large temper particles in b, e, and g. BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY BULLETIN 160 PLATE 16 Radford Series: aj, Radford Knot Roughened and Net Impressed; , /, Radford Fabric Impressed. BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY BULLETIN 160 PLATE 17 i Radford Series: a—b, Page Cord Marked; c—g, Radford Cord Marked; h, Radford Plain; i, Incisions on Radford Knot Roughened and Net Impressed. BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY BULLETIN 160 PLATE 18 Stony Creek Series: a-r, Stony Creek Fabric Impressed; 9, interior of sherd 0; r, interior of g; m and m show cord-wrapped dowel impressions on inner lip of this type. BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY BULLETIN 160 PLATE 19 Stony Creek Series: aj, Stony Creek Cord Marked; e-f, basal sherds. BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY BULLETIN 160 PLATE 20 Stony Creek Series: a-c, Stony Creek Net Impressed and Roughened; d-e, Stony Creek Plain; f-k, Stony Creek Simple Stamped; /-p, Nottoway Incised. BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY BULLETIN 160 PLATE 21 Miscellaneous pottery types: af, Clay-sherd tempered sherds from Potts site; f, basal sherd; g-i, check-stamped sherds from Potts site; j-m, miscellaneous incised sherds from Potts site. BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY BULLETIN 160 PLATE 22 South-Central Ceramic Area unclassified sherds: a-d, fabric impressed; e-j, cord marked; k, simple stamped with a thong-wrapped paddle; /, punctate design; m, n, incised design. BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY BULLETIN 160 PLATE 23 Sherds from Cornett site, Va.: a-c, Cornett Complicated Stamped; d, fabric impressed; e, fysincised; g, h, punctate; i, interior scraped; j-/, Net and Knot Roughened; m n, applique strips along the neck. BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY BULLETIN 160 PLATE 24 = } ‘ Projectile points: a, Type A, Small Triangular; b, Type B, Medium Triangular. BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY BULLETIN 160 PLATE Projectile points: a, Type C, Triangular; b, Type D, Crude Triangular. 25 BULLETIN 160 PLATE 26+ BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY Projectile points: a4, Type E, Pentagonal; b, Type F, Lanceolate. BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY BULLETIN 160 PLATE 27 Projectile points: a, Type G, Notched Base; b, Type H, Stubby Barbed. BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY BULLETIN 160 PLATE 28 Projectile points: a, Type I, Notched Stemmed; 4, Type J, Ovoid Base. BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY BULLETIN 160 PLATE 29 Projectile points: a, Type K, Contracting Stem; b, Type L, Parallel-sided Stemmed. BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY BULLETIN 160 PLATE 30 Projectile points: a4, Type M, Side-notched; b, Type O, Eared or Corner-notched. ei : = ne ng ' , ay 4 ; ie : 7 , Sm Ea t4 ~~ i) SMITI IAN INSTITUTION LIB IES “OITA MN 3 9088 01421 9091