Page:American Anthropologist NS vol. 22.djvu/163

 SHETRONE] CULTURE PROBLEM IN OHIO ARCHAEOLOGY 151

made when, in 1903, Professor William C. Mills suggested and used the names "Fort Ancient culture" and "Hopewell culture" as designating the two aboriginal groups represented by these sites respectively, which were the more nearly typical examined up to that time. 1

Moorehead, in 1909, in "A Study of Primitive Culture in Ohio," 2 recognizes the Fort Ancient and the Hopewell cultures, and sug- gests a third "the Glacial Kame culture." Referring to the prehistoric sites of northern Ohio, he declares they are not Hopewell and hesitates to pronounce them Fort Ancient.

In a tentative outline of American culture areas, 3 Professor W. H. Holmes, in 1914, includes the northern portion of Ohio in his Upper Mississippi and Lakes region, and the southern part of the state in the Middle and Lower Mississippi Valley region. He points out that these areas, as outlined, are by no means complete culture units, but comprise many tribes, and that there exist a dozen or more somewhat localized centers of development.

Dr. Clark Wissler, in his plan of archaeological areas, 4 (1917) designates northern Ohio as pertaining to the Iroquoian area, and apportions the southern sections of the state to his Mississippi- Ohio area. He refers to the dominant Hopewell and Fort Ancient groups, and to Moorehead's suggested Gravel Kame culture. He characterizes the Fort Ancient as more extended and less special- ized than the Hopewell, and finds the distinctive traits of the last- named more like those at the center of the Mississippi-Ohio area, in Tennessee. Dr. Wissler's classification, it should be noted, is not one of culture groups, but a broad continental outline of archaeologi- cal areas; and a similar specification applies to Professor Holmes' scheme. They are cited, however, as having an important bearing upon the local plan of detailed culture classification and as offering a good working perspective for the same.

The above references practically exhaust the literature relating to culture classification in the Ohio area. In addition to the several

��1 Mills (3) : p. 95-

2 Moorehead (3): pps. 137-150.

3 Holmes (2) : pp. 424-429.

4 Wissler: Map of Archaeological Areas; fig. 76.

�� �