accelerator-dating the weiser site, kent county, ontario: new ...

STOTHERS et al. ACCELERATOR-DATING THE WEISER SITE 1ACCELERATOR-DATING THE WEISER SITE,KENT COUNTY, ONTARIO:NEW PERSPECTIVES ON THE WOLF TO FORTMEIGS PHASE TRANSITION IN THE WESTERNLAKE ERIE REGIONDavid M. Stothers, Timothy J. Abel and James R. GravesThe Weiser Site (AdHo-1) and the Wolf to FortMeigs phase transition in the western Lake Erieregion were formerly estimated to date to circaA.D. 1400, based on ceramic seriations andradiocarbon assays derived from research innorthwestern Ohio. A new suite of radiocarbonassays, including two AMS assays obtained fromthe Weiser site itself has allowed a refinement ofthis estimate. Based on a consideration of thesenew assays along with expanded understandingsof ceramic seriation, the Wolf to Fort Meigs phasetransition is now believed to date to the middle ofthe fifteenth century. The implications of thisrevised chronology are discussed.INTRODUCTIONThe purposes of this paper are to reportseveral new C 14 assays pertaining to the Wolf toFort Meigs phase transition, particularly tworecent accelerator C 14 assays obtained from theWeiser Site (AdHo-1), and to discuss theimplications of these new assays in light ofnewer understandings regarding ceramicseriation and the late prehistoric culturalchronology of southwestern Ontario, southeasternMichigan and northwestern Ohio. Inshort, these new data allow the temporalrefinement of the Wolf to Fort Meigs phasetransition, and inferences regarding the dynamicsof late prehistoric culture change in thewestern Lake Erie region between circa A.D.1400-1500.THE FORT MEIGS PHASE OFTHE SANDUSKY TRADITIONThe Sandusky Tradition developed in northcentral and northwestern Ohio (see Figure 1)(Stothers et al. 1994). Cultural continuity from aMiddle Woodland base has been documentedfor an ensuing Late Woodland aspect, characterizedby the Eiden (A.D. 1000-1250), Wolf(A.D. 1250-1450), Fort Meigs (A.D. 1450-1550)and Indian Hills (A.D. 1550-1643) phases. Thiscultural sequence is distinct from the neighbouringand somewhat temporally overlappingWestern Basin Tradition, which appears to haveemerged from the Lake St. Clair region duringthe Middle Woodland time period. At differenttimes, both of these cultural traditions occupiedsouthwestern Ontario, southeast Michigan, andnorthwestern Ohio. This temporal and geographicoverlap has resulted in much debateover the taxonomy and ethnicity of LateWoodland populations in this region (cf.Murphy and Ferris 1990; Stothers et al. 1994).In this paper we adhere to the Late Woodlandtaxonomy and interpretation we haveespoused for some time. The Western BasinTradition is believed to have been absorbed byOntario Iroquoians and other groups by circaA.D. 1300. The Sandusky Tradition, on the otherhand, is believed to have culminated in severalnamed groups of the historic Assistaeronon, aCentral Algonquian-speaking conglomerationtraditionally believed to have inhabited thesouthern Great Lakes (Stothers et at 1994,

2 ONTARIO ARCHAEOLOGY No. 67, 1999DATE TIME PERIOD SANDUSKYTRADITIONAD. 1650 Protohistoic Indian Hills PhaseA.D. 1550Fort Meigs PhaseWESTERN BASINTRADITIONDispersal IntoA.D. 1450 Wolf Phase Southwestern Ontario.Northern Indiana, &Northern MichiganAD. 1350AD. 1300Springwells PhaseAD. 1250 Late WoodlandAD. 1200 Elden Phase Younge PhaseAD. 1000A.D. 750AD. 500AD.B.C.Green Creek Phase Riviera Cu Vase PhaseGibraltar PhaseDIscontinuityMiddle Woodland Each Phase UndefinedEarly WoodlandMiddle WoodlandLeimbach Phase Providence Phase600 B.C. Transitional Kendera Phase Williams Phase1000 B.C. Late Archaic Firelands Phase Riverside Phase2500 B.C. Early Archaic7600 B.C. Paleolndian TransientPopulations10000 B.C.Figure 1. Cultural Sequence for Western Basin of LakeErie.Stothers 1994a; Stothers and Koralewski 1996).The Sandusky Tradition terminates at the end ofthe protohistoric Indian Hills phase with thedispersal of Central Algonquian populationsfrom northern Ohio and southeastern Michigan,following hostilities with the Neutral and othergroups in the early seventeenth century(Stothers and Graves 1983:121).A decade ago, the Wolf to Fort Meigs phasetransition was believed to be bracketed betweenA.D. 1350-1400. This estimate was basedparticularly on radiocarbon assays receivedfrom the Weiser and Fort Meigs sites (seeStothers et al. 1984). A model of gradual transitionwas assumed, from general Late WoodlandWolf phase culture characterized by grit-temperedParker Festooned pottery, to Fort Meigsphase culture characterized by hallmarks suchas shell tempering, applique strips, and straphandles (Stothers and Graves 1983, 1985). Thisdevelopment was seen as the extension of anUpper Mississippian horizon into the southernGreat Lakes, firmly dated to the middle fourteenththrough early fifteenth centuries A.D.(see Rutter 1984; Stothers and Graves 1985).Since then, however, new radiocarbon assayshave been obtained from numerous Wolf phasesites, making it the most heavily dated phase inthe Sandusky Tradition sequence (Stothers et al.1994). These new assays (Table 1) suggest thatWolf phase components, characterized by adominance of grit-tempered Parker Festoonedpottery (Abel 1995; Lee 1958), continue well intothe fifteenth century This temporal placementmade them as late as or later than the earliestFort Meigs phase components, understood atthat time to date between A.D. 1400-1550.Given our relative lack of knowledge concerningthe Fort Meigs phase, we decided that the Wolfphase should be extended to A.D. 1450. TheIndian Hills phase, characterized by a dominanceof Indian Hills Stamped pottery (Graves 1984;Tucker 1981), is firmly dated by radiocarbonassays and historical documentation betweenA.D. 1550-1643. This leaves the Fort Meigsphase pinched between A.D. 1450-1550. Notingthat the developments of the Fort Meigs phaseappear to have been in vogue for such a shortduration of time, when compared to otherdevelopments in the sequence, we believed thata new look at the Fort Meigs phase seemedwarranted.To test the validity of a relatively short FortMeigs phase development, we submitted severalnew Fort Meigs phase carbon samples foranalysis, to see if these samples would confirmthose run a decade ago. The first samples to beselected were from the Fort Meigs phase typesite. Located on a bluff overlooking the MaumeeRiver in Maumee, Ohio (Figure 2), the Fort Meigssite has been the location of several seasons ofexcavation that produced an abundantly richcultural assemblage. From accounts of the sitepenned during the construction of the historicalgarrison at Fort Meigs, and from more recentarchaeological excavations, it is clear that theFort Meigs site represented a fortified villagecomponent greater than two hectares, and possiblyapproaching three hectares in size (Rutter1984). Radiocarbon assays submitted in 1974suggested that the site dated between A.D. 1350-1450 (Stothers 1975a:44), a placement believedto be supported by an assemblage diagnostic ofthe Midwestern Upper Mississippian culturalhorizon (Rutter 1984).The new assays obtained from the Fort Meigssite are 340 ± 80 B.P. (I-16,458), and 525 ± 70B.P. (GX-16871). These calibrate, using

STOTHERS et at ACCELERATOR-DATING THE WEISER SITE... 3Figure 2. Sandusky Tradition Sites Mentioned in Text: Weiser (1), Libby-Miller (2) Liahn 1(3), Wolfe Creek (4),Whittlesey Earthwork (5), Baker 1 (6), Pearson (7), Miller's Ridge and Hereford Hill (8), Blue Banks (9), Bear Fort (10),Petersen (11), Fort Meigs and Orleans Park (12), MacNichol (13), Dodge (14), LaSalle (15), Moccasin Bluff (16).CALIB 3.03c for Macintosh (Stuiver and Reimer1995), to A.D. 1430 (1520, 1590, 1620) 1950 andA.D. 1300 (1420) 1480, respectively, using a twosigma deviation. GX-16871 appears to corroborateprevious estimates of the Fort Meigs sitetemporal position, between A.D. 1350-1450. I-16,458, however, suggests a later placement forthe site. This latter assay, on the other hand,more favourably agrees with ceramic seriationestimates that place shell tempering and otherFort Meigs phase hallmarks in the fifteenth toearly sixteenth centuries (Abel 1995), rather thanin the fourteenth century (cf. Stothers et at 1984).This alternative placement also makes moresense in light of sixteenth and seventeenthcentury assays derived from other Fort Meigsphase components such as Whittlesey Earthwork(Davis et al. 1976), Liahn I (Kenyon 1988), WolfeCreek (Foster 1982, 1990; Fox 1978) andMacNichol (Stothers 1975b; Stothers and Pratt1981).We believed that the most telling assays wouldbe those derived from a transitional Wolf to FortMeigs phase site. This component should bracketthe inception of those diagnostic hallmarks suchas shell-tempering, notched applique strippottery, and strap handles. To date, the only welldocumented site of this type is the Weiser site,located in southwestern Ontario (Stothers et al.1984). Two carbonized samples scraped from theinteriors of two Weiser site rimsherds weresubmitted for radiocarbon assay in 1993 and1994.THE WEISER SITE (AdHo-1)The Weiser site (AdHo-1) is located in extremesouthwestern Ontario, in the Lake St. Clair Deltaarea (Figure 2). Based on early reports and morerecent research (see Kroon 1972, 1974; Reid1978), the Weiser site seems to represent

STOTHERS et at ACCELERATOR-DATING THE WEISER SITE... 5a single village component that was once fortifiedwith at least a circular earthen embankment, andperhaps a concentric inner palisade (Reid 1978:5;Stothers et in. 1984:62-63). Daub from the sitesuggests wattle and daub structures existed inthe interior of the village, although none weredelineated during excavations (Reid 1978).In 1982, all of the diagnostic Weiser sitematerials from both the University of Windsorand the National Museum of Man (now theCanadian Museum of Civilization) (e.g., Figures3-4) were analyzed by University of Toledoresearchers, with the aid of accompanying fieldnotes (Stothers et at 1984). The cultural assemblagesderived from the site include faunal, floral,lithic, and ceramic materials. The faunalassemblage consists of fish and mammalianremains in almost equal proportions, as well asminor percentages of reptilian and avian remains(Foster 1978; Kroon 1972; Reid 1978). The lithicassemblage consists of typical reductiondebitage, most of which is derived from Bayportlithic sources from Saginaw Bay in Michigan. Thediagnostic chipped stone assemblage consists of"Madison-like" triangular bifaces, bifacial "snubnose"end-scrapers, gravers, spokeshaves, anddrills (Reid 1978:8). Notched limestone cobbles,undoubtedly fashioned for use as netsinkers,were also found in abundance (Kroon 1972).Several ceramic pipe fragments, including RingBowl, Elongated Ring Bowl, Barrel Bowl, andTrumpet Bowl types (Figure 4a-c) were analyzedby University of Toledo researchers (Stothers etin. 1984:64-65).The site has yielded a ceramic assemblage of185 vessels, of which 91 percent (n=168) are grittempered,and nine percent (n=17) are shelltempered.The majority of the diagnostic sherdshave stylistic attributes typical of the Wolf to FortMeigs phase transition such as push-pull,trailing, and notched horizontal applique strips.Fifty-six percent of the rims are typed as FortMeigs Notched Applique (Rutter 1984), while 24percent are of the Parker Festooned ceramic type(Abel 1995; Lee 1958). All of the ParkerFestooned vessels are grit-tempered, while theFort Meigs Notched Applique type wasrepresented by both grit and shell-temperedvariants. As suggested by ceramic seriation(Figure 5), the Weiser site represents an earlyFort Meigs phase occupation (Stothers et in.1994; Stothers et in. 1984:75).Weiser Site Radiometric AssaysThe first assay was obtained on 1.9 gm ofcarbonized food residue removed from theinterior rim of a vessel typed as Fort MeigsNotched Applique var. Trailed (Abel 1995:354-357; Rutter 1984). The rim is grit tempered witha rounded lip (6 mm thick) and has simplerounded castellations (Figure 3b). The carbonencrustation was removed by scraping the interiorof the rim with a clean dental pick. Thesample was sent to the NSF-funded University ofArizona Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Facility toobtain an AMS C 14 assay. The resultant assay of415 ± 55 BP (AA-7458) was adjusted for a C'2113fractionation value of -23.7 000 The assaycalibrates to A.D. 1420 (1460) 1640 (two sigma)using CALIB 3.03c (Stuiver and Reimer 1995).The second assay was obtained on .9 gm ofcarbonized and encrusted food residue re-movedfrom the rim interior of a vessel typed as IndianHills Stamped var. Trailed (Abel 1995:354-357;Tucker 1981). The vessel is grit tempered with arounded lip (5.5 mm thick) and has simplerounded castellations (Figure 4f). Once again, thecarbon encrustation was obtained by scrapingthe interior of the rim segment with a dentalpick. This sample was sent to the LawrenceLivermore National Lab, in care of Beta AnalyticInc. to obtain an AMS C 14 assay The resultantassay of 430 ± 80 B.P. (Beta 52339; CAMS 2683)calibrates to A.D. 1400 (1450) 1650 (two sigma)using CALEB 3.03C (Stuiver and Reimer 1995).ImplicationsThe new Weiser site radiocarbon assays, inconjunction with revised ceramic seriation estimates(see Abel 1995; Stothers et in. 1994), suggestthat the site was occupied during the middleof the fifteenth century A.D., not the middle of thefourteenth century as previously believed. Thisplacement supports suggestions by Fox (1980:11)and Murphy and Ferris (1990:224) that theWeiser site is roughly contemporaneous with theOntario Iroquoian Lawson site near London.Parker Festooned now appears to be the hallmarkceramic type of the Sandusky Traditionfrom at least A.D. 1250 until well into the fifteenthcentury A.D. (Stothers et in. 1994). As such, theWolf phase temporal bracket has been adjustedto reflect this understanding. This placement

6 ONTARIO ARCHAEOLOGY No. 67, 1999Figure 3. Selected Ceramic Vessels from the Weiser Site. Grit-tempered Fort Meigs Notched Applique Rim (a);Grit tempered Fort Meigs Notched Applique variety Trailed Rim from Vessel Radiocarbon Dated to 425±55 B.P.(AA-7458) (b); Grit tempered Fort Meigs Notched Applique variety Push-Pull Rim (c); Grit tempered Fort MeigsNotched Applique Rim with tapered and bilaterally notched strap handle (d); Grit tempered Fort Meigs NotchedApplique Rim with plain tapered strap handle (e); Reconstructed grit tempered Fort Meigs Notched Appliquevariety Trailed Vessel (f). All vessels are from the National Museum of Canada Collection.

STOTHERS et al. ACCELERATOR-DATING THE WEISER SITE... 7Figure 4. Selected Pipes from the Weiser Site and Indian Hills Series Ceramic Vessels. Plain Trumpet Bowl Pipewith Burnished Red Ochre Wash or Slip (a); Iroquois Ring Bowl Pipe Fragment (b); Short Barrelled Pipe Bowlwith Annular Punctates (c); Shell tempered Indian Hills Stamped variety Trailed Vessel from the Petersen Site(d); Shell tempered Indian Hills Stamped variety Trailed Rim from the Indian Hills Site (e); Grit temperedIndian Hills Stamped variety Trailed Rim from the Weiser Site, Radiocarbon Dated to 430±80 B.P. (Beta-52339/CAMS-2683) (f).

10 ONTARIO ARCHAEOLOGY No. 67, 1999Figure 7. Selected Fort Meigs and Mixter Series Vessels. Shell tempered Fort Meigs Notched AppliqueVessel with cord-roughened, fabric impressed body from the Hereford Hill Site (a); Grit tempered MixterStamped Vessel with plain smooth body from the Cemetery Ridge Site (b), Grit tempered Mixter StampedVessel with plain smooth body from the Weilnau Site (c); Shell tempered Fort Meigs Notched AppliqueVessel with cord-roughened, fabric impressed body and fluted neck from the Pearson Site (d).

STOTHERS et al. ACCELERATOR-DATING THE WEISER SITE... 11Figure 8. Grit tempered Parker Festooned variety Push-Pull Vessels from the Petersen Site (a-c).

12 ONTARIO ARCHAEOLOGY No. 67, 1999ceramic types Mixter Dentate and Mixter ToolImpressed (see below) (Shane 1967). Festoons onthe rim executed in stamping, push-pull ortrailing define the ceramic type Parker Festooned(Abel 1995; Lee 1958).The third and final ceramic ware of theSandusky Tradition has been called Fort MeigsWare (Abel 1995; Figure 7a, d). Unlike MixterWare, Fort Meigs Ware is characterized by thin,fabric impressed, and globular-shaped jars with arounded or sub-conical vessel base. The vesselwalls constrict sharply at a well-defined shoulderto a shallow neck, creating a characteristicallywide-mouthed vessel. The rims are short andexcurvate, usually with modified, or at the veryleast splayed lips. The lips are rounded and laterflat, facing outward, and predominantlysmoothed during the Fort Meigs phase. Duringthe subsequent Indian Hills phase, the vessel lipis usually embellished with dentate stamps. Therim diameter is almost equal to the diameter ofthe vessel at the shoulder. There are two motifsthat predominate among Fort Meigs Ware vessels.Notched horizontal applique strips definethe ceramic type Fort Meigs Notched Applique(Rutter 1984). Vertical or oblique linear or dentatestamps define the ceramic type Indian HillsStamped (Graves 1984; Tucker 1981).In summary, then, four core motifs make upthe Late Woodland ceramic sequence of theSandusky Tradition. These are, in chronologicalorder, (1) checkering, (2) festoons, (3) notchedhorizontal applique strips, and (4) vertical linearor dentate stamps. Because these attributes arechronologically ordered, they can be ranked,with each motif being defined as mutually exclusive.Thus, the presence of attribute (4) cancelsout all others should they appear on the samerim, and constitutes the defining attribute whenassigning the rim to a specific ceramic type. Thisallows any rim to be assigned unambiguously toone and only one ceramic type within theSandusky Tradition. Lower-ranked motifs maybeused to define sub-types of the major type categories(Abel 1995:355)In this seriation, a few ceramic types aresuperfluous or otherwise problematic. Theceramic types Mixter Dentate and Mixter Tool-Impressed (Abel 1995; Shane 1967; Figure 7b, c)are ambiguous under this taxonomic method,differing only in execution and not in motif. Nosignificant differences exist in either thegeographic distribution or temporal durationof these two types. As such, the use of two typesis superfluous under this method, and one typeyields the same resulting seriation. It has beensuggested that this type be named MixterStamped (Abel 1995:472). The two former typetaxa would constitute varieties (i.e., var. Dentateand var. Tool-Impressed).A newly defined ceramic type has been calledMixter Festooned (Abel 1995:343-344). It typicallydisplays a single chevron or festoon nestedbetween zones of stamping above and below Thezone above the chevron or festoon is typicallyMixter-like, displaying a horizontal motif of verticalstamping. The zone beneath is similar, but thestamping is oblique. It is neither characteristic ofthe previous Mixter types, nor are the festoonsdistinct enough to warrant placement in theParker Festooned type. It is clearly a transitionalmotif, and is placed as such in the seriation.A second new type, named Hudson Horizontal(Abel 1995:360-362; Stothers and Abel 1989:120), is characterized by horizontal motifs executedin push-pull or trailing on a smoothed rim.The type displays striking similarity to theWhittlesey Tradition Reeve Horizontal type(Murphy 1971), and it has been suggested thatHudson Horizontal is in reality a WhittleseyTradition type (Koralewski 2000; Stothers andKoralewski 1996). There may be clear continuityfrom the Mixter Stamped ceramic type, however.The Hudson Horizontal motif may be achieved bysimply connecting the stamps typical of MixterStamped by interrupted linear or trailing. Thistransition from stamping to trailing also takesplace between earlier and later varieties of ParkerFestooned (Abel 1995; see below). Hence, there isgood reason to suspect that a similar stylistictransformation could have occurred in MixterStamped, making Hudson Horizontal part of aMixter Series continuum. Hudson Horizontal isnonetheless a minority type, never reaching anydominance in the Sandusky ceramic tradition.Parker Festooned plainly develops out of theMixter Festooned ceramic type (Abel 1995:472-474; Stothers et al. 1994:145). At present, threevarieties of the Parker Festooned ceramic type arerecognized: var. Stamped, var. Push-Pull (Figure8), and var. Trailed. These type varieties aredefined on the basis of the technique used toexecute the festoon motif. The Stamped variety ofParker Festooned appears to be the earliest of thethree, emerging circa A.D. 1200 based on

STOTHERS et al ACCELERATOR-DATING THE WEISER SITE... 13Figure 9. Selected Fort Meigs and Parker Festooned Ceramic Vessels. Grit tempered Fort Meigs NotchedApplique variety Trailed Rim from the Weiser Site (a); Shell tempered Fort Meigs Notched AppliqueVessel with Fluted Neck from the Weiser Site (b); Grit tempered Parker Festooned variety Trailed Rimfrom the Petersen Site (c); Grit tempered Parker Festooned variety Trailed Rim from the Pearson Site (d);Grit tempered Parker Festooned variety Trailed Rim from the Bluebanks/Hudson Site (e).

14 ONTARIO ARCHAEOLOGY No. 67, 1999seriation estimates and the current radiocarbonchronology The Stamped variety is quicklysuperceded by variety Push-Pull (Figure 8),which appears to be bracketed between circaA.D. 1250 and 1450 based upon seriation estimatesand radiocarbon assays. The Trailed variety(Figure 9c-e) appears to evolve out of thePush-Pull variety around A.D. 1400, and continuesthrough the decline of the Parker Festoonedceramic type through the fifteenth centuryParker Festooned appears occasionally in somesixteenth century assemblages, but virtuallyfaded from existence by A.D. 1500 (Abel 1995).By circa A.D. 1400, there appears to be aradical shift in Sandusky Tradition motif preference,from festoons to notched applique strips.This new motif is curious, since it appears tohave no apparent developmental precursorsduring the Wolf phase. It was once believed thatapplique strip festoons, an attribute occasionallyseen on Wolf phase Parker Festoonedceramic vessels (see Lee 1958), and which alsoappears at the Weiser site (see Stothers et al.1984), formed the stylistic base from whichnotched horizontal applique strips evolved. Theanalysis of an increasing sample of Wolf phaseceramic assemblages, however, has suggestedthat the applique festoon attribute is present onless than 10 percent of the vessels. It appearspredominantly during the middle Wolf phase(the fourteenth century), on a minority of vesselsthat would otherwise be typed as MixterTool-Impressed or Mixter Dentate, as well as onsome Parker Festooned vessels (Abel 1995). It ishence not the likely base from which notchedhorizontal applique strips evolved. Notchedhorizontal applique strips appear to be a foreignattribute, introduced into the SanduskyTradition along with a host of other culturalattributes, among them shell-tempering.The Inception of Shell TemperingThrough a larger sample of both ceramicassemblages and radiocarbon assays, we arebeginning to get a clearer picture of the inceptionof shell-tempering and other attributes intothe Sandusky ceramic tradition. Figures 5 and 6provide frequencies from ceramic assemblagesof several Sandusky Tradition components. Thefrequencies are of selected ceramic seriesincluding the Mixter Series (Mixter Tool-Impressed/Dentate, Mixter Festooned), FortMeigs Series (Fort Meigs Notched Applique, FortMeigs Modified Lip, Fort Meigs ExteriorImpressed Lip), and Indian Hills Series (IndianHills Stamped, Indian Hills Punctate). ParkerFestooned currently belongs to no larger series.The percentages are of typed vessels relative tothe total typed vessel assemblage for eachcomponent. Minority types (e.g. HudsonHorizontal, Petersen Plain, and Fort Meigs Plain)as well as untyped vessels (vessels which haveample attributes to be typed, but do not conformto currently-defined types), are not includedin this report since they are not pertinent tothe discussion at hand. As such, not all of the frequenciesmay total 100%. The percentage ofshell-tempering is derived from the total numberof typable vessels for each component.The Petersen site is located along the PortageRiver in northwestern Ohio (Figure 2). Two lateWoodland village components are present at thissite representing the Wolf and Indian Hillsphases, respectively The ceramic assemblage ofthe Wolf phase component consists of some 382vessels, predominantly of the Parker Festoonedceramic type (77 percent). The remainder of theassemblage is composed of Mixter series andminority ceramic types. Radiocarbon datessuggest that the Wolf phase component wasoccupied during the middle of the fourteenthcentury (Abel 1995). The ceramic assemblage ofthe Wolf phase component produced no shelltemperedceramics.The Pearson South site is located on GreenCreek in northwestern Ohio (Figure 2). Theceramic assemblage of this village site consistsof 57 vessels, predominantly of the ceramic typeParker Festooned (84 percent; Figure 9d). Minorfrequencies of the ceramic types HudsonHorizontal, Mixter Festooned, and Indian HillsStamped are also present. It is now interpretedthat there are no shell tempered ceramics associatedwith Pearson South. Those reportedearlier to be present in Wolf phase features arebelieved to have been derived from an overlyingFort Meigs phase midden (cf Stothers and Pratt1981:97-98). A similar interpretation is nowaccepted for the occasional occurrence of shelltemperedsherds in Wolf phase contexts at theMacNichol, Dodge, and LaSalle sites (Figure 2)(Stothers and Pratt 1981:97-98). Pearson Southis believed to date to the late fourteenth centurybased on ceramic seriation estimates. The onlyradiocarbon assay from the

STOTHERS et al. ACCELERATOR-DATING THE WEISER SITE... 15component, cal A.D. 1400(1440)1630 (UGa-2536, two sigma) (Bowen 1980; Stuiver andReimer 1995), seems to support this placement(cf. Stothers and Abel 1989).Excavations of the late Wolf phase componentof the Blue Banks site (Figure 2) yielded a ceramicassemblage of 73 vessels, of which 58 percentare characteristic of Parker Festooned (Figure9e) and 27 percent are characteristic of FortMeigs Notched Applique. The remainder of theassemblage is composed of minority types, predominantlyHudson Horizontal. A single detachednotched applique strip, two separatedstrap handles, and several bodysherds are theonly shell tempered sherds found in the late Wolfphase layers. Like above, however, it is suspectedthat these sherds are intrusive into thesedeposits from a stratigraphically overlying FortMeigs phase occupation. This later componentof the Blue Banks site may be the source of tworadiocarbon assays of A.D. 1440(1480)1650(Beta 7973) and A.D. 1430 (1520, 1590, 1620)1950 (I-15,911) (see Abel 1995:471), calibratedto two sigma (Stuiver and Reimer 1995). The lateWolf phase component of the Blue Banks site isbelieved, on the basis of ceramic seriation estimates,to date to circa A.D. 1400, which agreeswell with the third and final calibrated radiocarbonassay of A.D. 1320(1430)1610 (I-15,910, twosigma) (Stothers and Abel 1989).The Miller's Ridge site is located a short distanceto the east of the Pearson South component(Figure 2). Excavations there beginning in1979 have revealed sections of a peripheralditch feature, as well as several interior refusepits and house structure segments. The ceramicassemblage of the Miller's Ridge site consists of121 vessels, of which 66 percent are Fort MeigsSeries vessel types. There are only minorfrequencies of Indian Hills Stamped (11 percent),Fort Meigs Plain (nine percent), andParker Festooned (two percent) (Koralewski2000). Approximately seven percent of theassemblage consists of the Whittlesey TraditionTuttle Hill Notched ceramic type (Murphy 1971).Four acceptable radiocarbon assays are nowavailable from this village site: A.D. 1480 (1650)1950 (Beta-84989), A.D. 1520(1660) 1950 (I-18,994), cal A.D. 1400(1430)1470 (I-18, 995),and A.D. 1430(1460)1630 (I-18,996) (previouslyunpublished; Stuiver and Reimer 1995). Webelieve the latter two assays to be most representativeof the true age of the site, estimatedto be in the middle to late fifteenth century Thiswould make it roughly contemporary with theWeiser site. The percentage of shell temperingat the Miller's Ridge site is 59 percent.The ceramic assemblage of the Fort Meigsphase type site contains a majority of FortMeigs Series vessels (42 percent) and only asmall percentage of Parker Festooned vessels(two percent). The remaining percentage in thatassemblage belongs to Fort Meigs Plain andIndian Hills Series (Indian Hills Stamped, IndianHills Punctate) ceramic types. The frequency ofshell-tempered ceramics at the Fort Meigs siteapproaches 100 percent (Rutter 1984). Basedon our current understandings of ceramic seriationdiscussed above, the Fort Meigs site isestimated to date to the early sixteenth century,or the end of the Fort Meigs phase. If our estimatesare correct, the Fort Meigs type site isroughly contemporary with the late prehistoriccomponent of the Liahn I site. The absence ofEuropean artifacts at the Fort Meigs site (seeRutter 1984) seems to support this conclusion.Ceramic Trends in Southwestern OntarioThe sequence of shell-tempering in southwesternOntario is now also beginning to beclarified (cf. Murphy and Ferris 1990:224).Figure 5 illustrates the seriation of ceramicassemblages from four southwest OntarioSandusky Tradition components. The percentagesare of typed vessels relative to the totalnumber of typed vessels in the componentassemblage. Again, the same ceramic seriescategories were used, and the same categoriesomitted for clarity The percentage of shell temperingis relative to the appropriate componentassemblage. Assumptions were made regardingthe assignment of ceramics to specific componentsbased on assigned type. Iroquoian andWestern Basin Tradition types were assumed,based on our own interpretation, to relate to differentcomponents or at least to captive populationsresiding within those components(Stothers et al. 1994).The ceramic assemblage of the Weiser site(Stothers et al 1984:76) contains a 56 percent frequencyof Fort Meigs series ceramic types and a24 percent frequency of the Parker Festoonedtype. This ceramic type composition suggests aninitial Fort Meigs phase component dating to themiddle of the fifteenth century, rather than to the

16 ONTARIO ARCHAEOLOGY No. 67, 1999middle of the fourteenth century as previouslybelieved. The two recently obtained radiocarbonassays support this proposed temporal placement.The Weiser site ceramic assemblage containsa nine percent frequency of shell tempering.The late prehistoric Sandusky Traditionceramic assemblage of the Liahn I site (Kenyon1988) (Figure 2) is composed of eight vessels, allof which may be assigned to Fort Meigs seriesceramic types. All but one of these vessels isgrit-tempered (shell tempering = 12.5 percent).Based on two radiocarbon assays of cal A.D.1420(1470)1650 (DIC-1007b) and cal A.D. 1510(1650)1950 (DIC-1010b) (Fox 1982; Kenyon 1988),the Liahn I site is believed to represent an earlysixteenth century occupation (see also Murphyand Ferris 1990:224). Due to the extremely smallceramic sample, however, these interpretationsare viewed as tenuous at best.The Wolfe Creek Site (Figure 2) has beeninterpreted by Foster (1990) as a Late Iroquoianvillage component. There is a sizable sample,however, of Sandusky Tradition Fort Meigs phaseceramics (36 percent of the overall vessel count)which, along with overlapping longhouse structures,may suggest two components, followedclosely in time. The Sandusky Tradition ceramicassemblage at the Wolfe Creek site consists of20 vessels, of which 45 percent are Fort MeigsNotched Applique, 45 percent are Fort MeigsModified Lip, and the remaining 10 percent areFort Meigs Plain (Figure 5). The percentage ofshell tempering in this vessel count is 24 percent.Radiocarbon determinations from the site clusterin two temporal brackets, one of which nicelycomplements an early sixteenth century estimatefor the age of this Fort Meigs phase ceramicassemblage.The Sandusky Tradition ceramic assemblageof the Libby-Miller site (cf. Murphy and Ferris1990; Stewart 1994), contains 32 percent shelltempering based on surface-derivedassemblages (Figure 5). Of 41 rim and necksherds derived from excavated contexts, 90percent are grit-tempered, and 10 percent areshell-tempered. Eleven vessels of the Fort MeigsNotched Applique ceramic type were identified inthese excavated contexts, while the majority ofthe fragmentary rim and neck sherds displayattributes typical of Fort Meigs ceramic types.European trade goods and ceramic seriationestimates augment a calibrated date of A.D.1410(1460) 1650 (BGS1596; Stewart 1994:56; Stuiver and Reimer1995), suggesting a temporal placement nearthe middle to late sixteenth centuryDiscussionIt appears that the transition from grit to shelltempering began in northwestern Ohio ceramicassemblages circa A.D. 1450 and progresseduntil circa A.D. 1550, at which time the percentageof shell-tempering appears to have been ator near 100 percent. In southwestern Ontario,the inception of shell-tempering as reflected atthe Weiser site appears to have progressed littlein the ensuing century. In the absence of sitesdisplaying predominantly shell-temperedceramic assemblages in southwestern Ontario,a complete transition from grit to shell temperingdoes not seem apparent (see also Murphyand Ferris 1990:224).NEW PERSPECTIVES ON THEWOLF TO FORT MEIGS PHASETRANSITIONThe Wolf to Fort Meigs phase transition ismainly characterized by a marked shift in vesselmanufacturing and decoration preferences (Abel1995). The characteristic of this shift appears tobe the relatively quick adoption of Fort MeigsWare, in the beginning almost exclusivelyassociated with the ceramic type Fort MeigsNotched Applique (Rutter 1984). By about A.D.1500, other motif types such as Fort MeigsExterior Impressed Lip and Indian HillsStamped (Graves 1984; Tucker 1981) emerge onFort Meigs Ware vessels.Neither Fort Meigs Ware, nor the Fort MeigsNotched Applique ceramic type, have any stylisticprecursors in the western Lake Erie region.The notched horizontal applique strip appearswith no other continuous attributes (such as festoonscarried over from Parker Festooned) untilA.D. 1500, when it is often associated withtrailed festoons and/or vertical dentate stamps.There are ceramic continuities that are contemporary,however. The ceramic type Fort MeigsPlain (Rutter 1984) appears to develop from itsgrit-tempered Wolf phase equivalent, PetersenPlain (Abel 1995), retaining the basic MixterWare vessel shape (see Stothers and Abel1989:Figure 9e). Indian Hills Stamped (Graves1984; Tucker 1981) appears to have a stylistic

18 ONTARIO ARCHAEOLOGY No. 67, 1999suggest that these site clusters represent theprehistoric to protohistoric development of theKouattoehronon (Sauk), Skenchioronon (Fox),and Totontaratonhronon (Mascouten) tribalgroups, respectively (see Stothers 1994a). Thelate prehistoric to protohistoric WhittleseyTradition, located in the lower Cuyahoga Valley ofnortheastern Ohio, has been identified as theOntararonon (Kickapoo) (Stothers 1981, 1998a,1994a, 1998b).Ethnohistoric accounts suggest a close affinitybetween the historic Mascouten, Kickapoo, Sauk,Fox, and Potawatomi in opposition to a Neutral-Odawa alliance (summarized in Baerreis et al.1974; Callender 1962, 1978a, 1978b; Goddard1972, 1978). Stothers (1994a, 1994b, 1998a,1998b) has gone further to suggest that thisaffinity represented an alliance among theCentral Algonquian tribes of the southern GreatLakes. The use of the term "Fire Nation" inseveral ethnohistoric documents refers moregenerally to the Central Algonquian tribes as awhole (Campeau 1987). Based on similarities inmaterial culture and language (Stothers andGraves 1985), Stothers sees this usage asreferring to a formal confederacy, or perhapswhat its authors saw as a confederacy, of fivetribes including the Mascouten, Kickapoo, Sauk,Fox and Wea (Ouiatonon) Miami. Based on theabove data, we believe that the formal CentralAlgonquian tribes had their genesis during theFort Meigs phase (A.D. 1450-1550). A CentralAlgonquian "Fire Nation" confederacy, if real,probably appeared during the early sixteenthcentury Noting the apparent west to eastconsolidation of tribes in the Northeast, the formationof the Neutral Confederacy may havepartially been a response to pressures exerted byallied Central Algonquian forces.There have been several attempts to explainthe formation of tribal confederacies in theNortheast (Trigger 1990). We do not believe thatthese changes were influenced directly byresistance to Mississippian domination or economicforces emanating from a Mississippian"core" (cf. Dincauze and Hasenstab 1989;Jamieson 1992). While others have suggestedthat these changes were ultimately caused byenvironmental degradation (Fecteau 1985;Fitzgerald and Jamieson 1985), there is no evidencefor dramatic dietary shifts in northwesternOhio during the late prehistoric timeperiod (Stothers and Abel 2000). Alternatively,we see changing social relations and the strugglefor security as being the primary forcesinfluencing the spread of social change acrossthe Great Lakes during the fifteenth and sixteenthcenturies (Trigger 1990; Williamson andRobertson 1994). Ultimately, these transformationsmay be a response to the decline ofMississippian hegemony in the Midwest, and theinception of a "new world order", or moreprobably, several competing world orders in thesouthern Great Lakes.CONCLUSIONSThe current temporal model for the Wolf to FortMeigs phase transition in the western Lake Erieregion is in need of reassessment and furtherresearch. On the surface, the temporal inconsistenciesin the current model may be resolved by asimple modification of the temporal scale. It issuggested that the Wolf phase time bracketshould be shifted to A.D. 1250-1450, while theFort Meigs phase time bracket should be shiftedto A.D. 1450-1550. The acceptance of this modification,however, raises several questions concerningthe dynamics of the Wolf to Fort Meigsphase transition. The proposed chronology suggestsa long Wolf phase, followed by a very shortand ecliptic Fort Meigs phase. It is suggestedthat this transition may now be viewed as representativeof abrupt and radical social changes ofthe sort that may be produced by the adoptionof exogenous populations, concepts, and culture.The transformations accompanying thisadoption may represent the genesis of the fiveCentral Algonquian tribes in the southern GreatLakes. Their later historically documented affinitywith one another may represent the formationof a formal alliance between these groups inthe early contact period.REFERENCES CITEDAbel, T.J.1995 The Petersen Site and New Perspectiveson the Late Prehistory of North-westernOhio. Unpublished M.L.S. thesis,Liberal Studies Program, TheUniversity of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio.Baerreis, D.A., E. Wheeler-Voegelin, andR. Mycoco-Moore1974 The Identity of the Mascoutens. In

STOTHERS et al. ACCELERATOR-DATING THE WEISER SITE... 19Indians of Northeast Illinois, edited byD.A. Baerreis, E. Wheeler-Voegelin, andR. Mycoco-Moore, pp. 247-324.Garland, New York.Bettarel, R.L., and H.G. Smith1973 The Moccasin Bluff Site and the Wood-landCultures of Southwestern Michigan.Anthropological Papers 49. Museum ofAnthropology, University of Michigan,Ann Arbor.Bowen, J.E.1980 Pearson Village II: A Village of SanduskyRiver Estuary Fishermen. Paperpresented at the Annual Meeting of theEastern States Archaeological Federation,Albany, New York.Callender, C.1962 Social Organization of the CentralAlgonkian Indians. Publications inAnthropology 7. Milwaukee PublicMuseum, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.1978a Fox. In Northeast, edited by B.G. Trigger,pp. 636-647. Handbook of NorthAmerican Indians Vol. 15, WC.Sturtevant, general editor. SmithsonianInstitution, Washington, D. C.1978b Sauk. In Northeast, edited by B.G.Trigger, pp. 648-655. Handbook ofNorth American Indians Vol. 15, WC.Sturtevant, general editor. SmithsonianInstitution, Washington, D. C.Campeau, L.1987 La Mission Des Jesuits Chez Les Hurons1634-1650. Bibliotheca Institut HistorieiS.I., Vol. 46. Editions Bellarmin,Montreal.Davis, R., G.M. Pratt, and D. Wilke1976 A Prehistoric Village on Kelley's Is-land.The Explorer (Publication of the ClevelandMuseum of Natural History) 18(3):11-19.Dincauze, D.F., and R.J. Hasenstab1989 Explaining the Iroquois: Tribalization ona Prehistoric Periphery. In Centre andPeriphery: Comparative Studies inArchaeology, edited by T.C. Champion,pp. 67-87. Unwin and Hyman, London.Engelbrecht, W.E.1985 New York Iroquois Political Development.In Cultures in Contrast, edited by W.N.Fitzhugh, pp. 163-183. SmithsonianInstitution Press, Washington, D.C.Fecteau, R.D.1985 The Introduction and Diffusion of CultivatedPlants in Southern Ontario. UnpublishedM.A. thesis, Department ofGeography, York UniversityFitzgerald, WR.1990 Chronology to Cultural Process: LowerGreat Lakes Archaeology. UnpublishedPh.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,McGill University, Montreal.Fitzgerald, WR., and J.B. Jamieson1985 Ascent of Decline: An AlternativeInterpretation of Late Iroquoian Development.Paper presented at the 18thMeeting of the Canadian ArchaeologicalAssociation, Winnipeg.Foster, G.1978 An Analysis of the Faunal Assemblagefrom the Weiser Site (AdHo-1). Universityof Windsor. Ms. on file, Department ofAnthropology, University of Windsor.1982 The Wolfe Creek Site: A Prehistoric NeutralFrontier Community. Unpublished M.A.thesis, Dept. of Anthropology, TrentUniversity1990 The Wolfe Creek Site AcHm-3: A PrehistoricNeutral Frontier Community inSouthwestern Ontario. Monographs inOntario Archaeology 3. The OntarioArchaeological Society, North York.Fox, W. A.1978 Southwestern Ontario RadiocarbonDates. Kewa 78(6): 1-5.1980 Southwestern Ontario Radiocarbon DatesII. Kewa 80(6):5-7.1982 Southwestern Ontario Radiocarbon DatesIII. Kewa 82(5):3-6.Goddard, I.1972 Historical Philological Evidence RegardingThe Identification of the Mascouten.Ethnohistory 19(2):123- 134.1978 Mascouten. In Northeast, edited by B. G.Trigger, pp. 668-672. Handbook ofNorth American Indians, Vol. 15, WC.Sturtevant, general editor. SmithsonianInstitution, Washington, D. C.Graves, J.R.1984 The Indian Hills Site (33-W04): ArchaeologicalReflections of a ProtohistoricAssistaeronon Town. Unpublished M.A.and Ed. thesis, Department of Education,University of Toledo, Ohio.

20 ONTARIO ARCHAEOLOGY No. 67, 1999Jamieson, S.M.1992 Regional Interaction and Ontario IroquoisEvolution. Canadian Journal ofArchaeology 16:70-88.Jirikowic, C.1990 The Political Implications of a CulturalPractice: A New Perspective on OssuaryBurial in the Potomac Valley NorthAmerican Archaeologist 11(4): 353-374.Kapches, M.1995 Chaos Theory and Social Movements: ATheoretical View of the Formation of theNorthern Iroquoian Longhouse CulturalPattern. In Origins of the People of theLonghouse: Proceedings of the 21stAnnual Symposium of the OntarioArchaeological Society, Inc., edited by A.Beckerman and G. Warrick, pp. 86-96.The Ontario Archaeological Society,NorthYork.Kenyon, I.T.1988 Late Woodland Occupations at the LiahnI Site, Kent Co. Kewa 88(2):2-22.Koralewski, J.M.2000 The Fort Meigs Phase in the Lower GreatLakes: A View from the Miller's Ridge(33 SA 65) Site. M.L.S. thesis inpreparation, Liberal Studies Program,University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio.Kroon, L.1972 Notes on Ceramic Technology from theWeiser Site, Kent County, Ontario.Michigan Archaeologist 18:215-222.1974 The Weiser Site, Kent County, Ontario. InArchaeological Salvage Projects 1973,edited by W Byrne, pp. 74-78.Archaeological Survey of Canada,Mercury Series, Paper 26. NationalMuseum of Man, Ottawa.Lee, T.E.1958 The Parker Earthwork, Corunna, Ontario.Pennsylvania Archaeologist 28(1): 3-30.McAllister, P.W.1980 The Schwerdt Site (20AE127) Ceramics: ABerrien Phase Ceramic Assemblage inAllegan County, Michigan. UnpublishedM.A. thesis, Department ofAnthropology, Western MichiganUniversity, Kalamazoo.McHale-Milner, C.1991 Localization in Small-Scale Societies: LatePrehistoric Social Organization inthe Western Great Lakes. In BetweenBands and States, edited by S. A.Gregg, pp. 35-57. Center for ArchaeologicalInvestigations, OccasionalPaper 9. Southern Illinois University,Carbondale, IL.Murphy, C., and N. Ferris1990 The Late Woodland Western BasinTradition in Southwestern Ontario. InThe Archaeology of Southern Ontario toA.D. 1650, edited by C.J. Ellis and N.Ferris, pp. 189-278. Occasional Publicationsof the London Chapter, OntarioArchaeological Society 5. London,Ontario.Murphy, J.L.1971 Whittlesey Ceramic Types. The OhioArchaeologist 21(1) :299-305. Niemczycki,M.A.P.1984 The Origin and Development of theSeneca and Cayuga Tribes of New YorkState. Rochester Museum and ScienceCenter, Research Records 17. RochesterMuseum and Science Center,Rochester.Noble, W.C.1972 Neutral Settlement Patterns. Paperpresented at the 5th Annual Meeting ofthe Canadian Archaeological Association,St. Johns.Pearce, R.J.1984 Mapping Middleport: A Case Study inSocietal Archaeology. UnpublishedPh.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,McGill University, Montreal.Ramsden, P.G.1990 The Hurons: Archaeology and CultureHistory In The Archaeology of SouthernOntario to A.D. 1650, edited by C.J.Ellis and N. Ferris, pp. 361-384.Occasional Publication of the LondonChapter, Ontario ArchaeologicalSociety 5. London, Ontario.Redmond, B.G.1981 The Orleans Park Site: A SanduskyTradition Hunting Camp in the MaumeeValley Toledo Area AboriginalResearch Bulletin 10:1-26.Reid, P.E.W.1978 Investigations at the Weiser Site (KentCounty, Ontario) in the Summer of1977. Ms. on file, Ministry of Citizenship,Culture and Recreation, Toronto.

STOTHERS et al. ACCELERATOR-DATING THE WEISER SITE... 21Rutter, W.E.1984 The Upper Mississippian Component atthe Fort Meigs Site, Northwest Ohio,with Special Emphasis on the Analysisof the Ceramic Assemblage. UnpublishedMA thesis, Department ofAnthropology, Western MichiganUniversity, Kalamazoo.Shane, O.C., III1967 The Mixter Site: A MulticomponentHunting Station in Erie County, Ohio. InStudies in Ohio Archaeology, edited byO.H. Prufer and D.H. McKenzie, pp.121-186. Kent State University Press,Kent, Ohio.Stewart, B.1994 Libby Street/Baseline Road Bridge: LibbySite (AdHo-20) Mitigation. Ms. on file,Ministry of Citizenship, Culture andRecreation.Stothers, D.M.1975a Radiocarbon Dating the CulturalChronology of the Western Lake ErieBasin (Part II). Toledo Area AboriginalResearch Bulletin 4(2):32-50.1975b Radiocarbon Dating the CultureChronology of Southwestern Ontario.Man in the Northeast 10:29-42.1981 Indian Hills (33-W0-4): A ProtohistoricAssistaeronon Village in the MaumeeRiver Valley of Northwestern Ohio.Ontario Archaeology 36:47-56.1994a Brass, Beads, and Beaver: ArchaeologicalReflections of the Protohistoric'Fire Nation' of the Southwestern LakeErie Drainage Region. In CulturesBefore Contact: Proceedings of aConference on the Late Prehistory of theOhio Region, edited by R. Genheimer.Ohio Archaeological Council,Columbus.1994b The Protohistoric Time Period inthe Southwestern Lake Erie Region:European Derived Trade Material,Population Movement and Cultural Realignment.Paper presented at the 61stAnnual Meeting of the Eastern StatesArchaeological Federation, Albany, NY.1998a The Enigmatic Assistaeronon/'FireNation' Confederacy: New Perspectiveson Identity, Geographic Distribution,and Dispersal. Paper presentedat the Annual Meeting of the Societyfor Pennsylvania Archaeology, NewCumberland, Pennsylvania.1998b Confederacies and Cultures of theCircum-Lake Erie Drainage at the Dawnof History Paper presented at theMidwest Archaeological Conference,Muncie, Indiana.Stothers, D.M., and T.J. Abel1989 The Position of the 'Pearson Complex' inthe Late Prehistory of Northern Ohio.Archaeology of Eastern North America17:109-142.1990 Filling the Gap: Baker I and the GreenCreek Phase in Northcentral Ohio. OhioArchaeologist 40(1) :36-49.2000 The Social Context of AgriculturalIntensification: An Example from theSouthwestern Lake Erie Region. Unpublishedms. in preparation, WesternLake Erie Archaeological ResearchProgram, University of Toledo, Toledo,Ohio.Stothers, D.M., and J.R. Graves1983 Cultural Continuity and Change: TheWestern Basin, Ontario Iroquois, andSandusky Traditions - A 1982 Perspective.Archaeology of Eastern NorthAmerica 11:109-142.1985 The Prairie Peninsula Co-Tradition: AnHypothesis for Hopewellian to UpperMississippian Continuity. Archaeologyof Eastern North American 13: 153-175.Stothers, D.M., J.R. Graves, S.K. Bechtel, andT.J. Abel1994 Current Perspectives on the LatePrehistory of the Western Lake ErieRegion: An Alternative to Murphy andFerris. Archaeology of Eastern NorthAmerica 22: 135-196.Stothers, D.M., J.R. Graves, and S.B. Conway1984 The Weiser Site: A Sandusky TraditionVillage in Transition. Michigan Archaeologist26(4):59-89.Stothers, D.M., and J.M. Koralewski1996 The Miller's Ridge Site (33-Sa-65)Evidence for Huber-Fisher, Sandusky,and Whittlesey Tradition Interaction:New Perspectives on the Origins andIdentity of the Fire Nation ConfederacyPaper presented at the 63rd AnnualMeeting of the Eastern StatesArchaeological Federation, Charles-ton,West Virginia.

22 ONTARIO ARCHAEOLOGY No. 67, 1999Stothers, D.M. and G.M. Pratt1981 New Perspectives on the Late Wood-landCultures of the Western Lake ErieRegion. Midcontinental Journal ofArchaeology 6(1):91-121.Stothers, D.M., G.M. Pratt, and O.C. Shane, III1979 The Western Basin Middle Woodland:Non-Hopewellians in a HopewellianWorld. In Hopewell Archaeology: TheChillicothe Conference, edited by D.S.Brose and N.O. Greber, pp. 47-58. KentState University Press, Kent, Ohio.Stuiver, M. and P.J. Reimer1995 CALIB 3.0.3.c for Apple Macintosh.University of Washington, Seattle. Timmins,PA.1985 The Analysis and Interpretation ofRadiocarbon Dates in Iroquoian Prehistory.Research Report 19. Museumof Indian Archaeology, London, Ontario.Trigger, B. G.1976 The Children ofAataentsic: A History ofthe Huron People to 1660. McGill-Queen's University Press, Montreal.1985 Natives and Newcomers: Canada's"Heroic Age" Reconsidered. McGill-Queen's University Press, Montreal.1990 Maintaining Economic Equality inOpposition to Complexity: An IroquoianCase Study In The Evolution of PoliticalSystems: Sociopolitics in Small-ScaleSedentary Societies, edited by S.Upham, pp. 119-145. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.Tucker, PM.1981A Stylistic Analysis Of A ProtohistoricCeramic Assemblage From Indian Hills(33-W0-4), Rossford, Ohio. UnpublishedM.A. and Ed. thesis, Departmentof Education, University of Toledo.Warrick, G.A.1984 Reconstructing Ontario Iroquoian VillageOrganization. Archaeological Survey ofCanada, Mercury Series Paper 124:1-180. National Museum of Man, OttawaWilliamson, RE, and D.A. Robertson1994 Peer Polities Beyond the Periphery: Earlyand Middle Ontario Iroquoian RegionalInteraction. Ontario Archaeology 58:27-48.David M. StothersDepartment of Sociology and AnthropologyUniversity of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio, USA 43606Timothy J. AbelAnthropology DepartmentState University of NewYork at Albany, Social Science 263, Albany, NewYork USA 1222James R. GravesAnthropology DepartmentUniversity of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA 53706