|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
As I was looking thru this article, and searching for stuff to spiff it up some, I found the website that the majority of the article was pasted over from. So I did some more research, sourced and cited, added sections on archaeology and social hierarchy, etc. I'd love to have a pic of Sunwatch village added, but it's one of the few place I haven't actually been and consequently don't have any of my own pics to add. If anyone has one they want to add that'd be great, just try to add it in so that the whole page still looks kinda pleasing(I've been editing some other pages lately just trying to make them look nicer and more interesting, I'm a professional visual artist and can't help myself, lolz). Any other pointers are also welcome!Heironymous Rowe (talk) 23:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Heironymous Rowe, Sir-- Very nice maps. May I compliment you in your fine art work? Also, may I offer found research for your consideration to the article in the following, please:
"The Fort Ancient tradition follows the Late Woodland period within the Ohio River Valley. Joining trees (DNA ANALYSIS) revealed that the Ohio Hopewell do not group with samples from Fort Ancient populations of the Ohio River Valley, but with samples from Glacial Kame, Adena or Norris Farms, possibly indicating some relationship between the groups. This in part could be due to small sample size and a low number of sites that have been amplified. More work within all of the Ohio River Valley cultures is needed to give a clearer picture to archaeologists, linguists and biological anthropologists alike." MITOCHONDRIAL DNA ANALYSIS OF THE OHIO HOPEWELL OF THE HOPEWELL MOUND GROUP. DISSERTATION, Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree. Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University, By Lisa A. Mills, M.A., B.A The Ohio State University 2003, Dissertation Committee: Approved by Dr. Paul Sciulli, Professor William Dancey; Professor D. Andrew Merrwiwther, Advisor; Professor N’omi Greber, Department of Anthropology
http://www.ohiolink.edu/etd/send-pdf.cgi?osu1054605467 thankyou kindly, Conaughy (talk) 04:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
The Ohio Historical Society shows the Fort Ancient Tradition elements as: Madison Phase, Anderson Phase, Feurt Phase, Baldwin Phase, Brush Creek Phase, Baum Phase, Philo Phase, Clovis Complex, Holcombe Complex, Crowfield Complex, Barnes Complex, Gainey Complex, Enterline/Lux Complex. Some examples of Kentucky Fort Ancient Tradition include: The Florence Site Complex (15HR22) is Middle Fort Ancient (Beta-38929, 630, 50, AD 1320) called the Elkhorn Phase (Jefferies et al. 1990:4) and the Fox Farm site (15MS1) is Middle Fort Ancient (TL date, 575, 40, AD 1375) called the Montour Phase (Henderson & Turnbow 1987:209). The Capital View site (15FR101) is Late Fort Ancient (Beta-42598, 570, 60, AD 1380, AD 1403, 547) of the Early Madisonville horizon (Gwynn Henderson, 1992). The Thompson site (15GP27) is of the Early Fort Ancient people (Beta-11852, 490, 60, AD 1460, AD 1433, 517), however, with later carbon dates as called the Croghan Phase (Henderson & Turnbow 1987:209). The Gue Farm site (46CB4) in West Virginia (DIC-2871, 370, 55, AD 1580, AD 1488, 1609, 1611, 462, 341, 339) Feurt (Maslowski 1984:152). The Roseberry Farm site (46MS53) is another Feurt (UGA-2608, 360, 65, AD 1590, AD 1511, 1600, 1616, 439, 350, 334) people location (Graybill 1979:10). The Blennerhassett Village site (46WD38) is another Feurt people location (DIC-2047, 230, 45, AD 1720, AD 1663, 287) (Graybill n.d.) The Rolfe Lee site (46MS123) is of Clover Complex (UGA-2638, 220, 95, AD 1730, AD 1666, 284) (Maslowski 1988). The Logan site (46LG4) is a multi-strata location with multiple occupations. It is of Fort Ancient, Protohistoric, and historic levels. (DIC-1747, 180, 50, AD 1770, AD 1678, 1772, 1801, 1941, 1954, 272, 178, 149, 9, 0) (Maslowski 1984:152).
An interesting abstract south-eastern Ohio along the West Virginia and Ohio border, the Ohio River, some 100 miles from the Madisonville site and the mid-Scioto Valley can be found in "The Middleport, Ohio Feurt Site": According to a side note paragragh at the end of the abstract, "The Hobson Site: A Fort Ancient component near Middleport, Meigs County, Ohio" by James L. Murphy, a historic Delaware village called "Kishkeminetas Old T." was near Chesire, Ohio. Hanna (1911, V. 2, p, 142) was cited as was Lewis Evan's 1755 map. It is certain not to imply any connection with the Hobson Site (33Ms-2) of the Freut Phase which is 1 1/12 miles below Middleport, Ohio (1100~1200AD) with the westerly migration of the Delaware Groups centuries later. The common use of the horizontal incised motives from the Speidel Site, Ohio County, West Virginia (Mayers-Oakes, 1954, fig. 13, 14) is interesting to note that Griffin (1943, pl. xx, fig. 1) illustrates an "atypical Baum sherd with horizontal incising from the Freut Site, to paraphrase the abstract. The Blain Site has a dominance of horizontal incising, a Baum-like component "currently under the study by Dr, Olaf Prufer,and its presence on shell-tempered ware from Cole Complex sites excavated by R.S. Baby." The authors of the abstract states that it is tempting to suggest that the horizontal incising is a carry-over from the Baum Phase into Freut Phase, "but such as hypothesis would certainly be premature".
"The Hobson Site (33Ms-2): A Fort Ancient Component Near Middleport, Meigs County Ohio" by James L. Murphy, Kirtlandia. Cleveland, Ohio :Cleveland Museum of Natural History. September 27, 1968 number 4, p. 1-14. Copy right Cleveland Museum of Natural History ISSN: 0075-6245
"When Shook and Smith compared the ancient mtDNA to the mtDNA of modern groups, they found that the people of the Hopewell Mound Group, as well as the Mississippian people from the Orendorf site, were most closely related to the Cheyenne/Arapaho and the Sisseton/Wahpeton Sioux. Shook and Smith also point out that "seven of nine Hopewell haplogroup A haplotypes," distinctive variations of the mtDNA, seem to represent lineages "that might now be extinct." In other words, attempts to link particular ancient groups with modern groups will be complicated by the fact that some ancient groups may have no living descendants.", September 2008, Volume 137, pages 14-29. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Beth Allison Schultz Shook and David Glenn Smith.
The mtDNA of the following modern Native American groups was compared the ancient mtDNA: Manitoulin Island Ojibwa, Northern Ontario Ojibwa, Turtle Mountain Chippewa, Minnesota Chippewa, Wisconsin Chippewa, Cheyenne, Cheyenne/Arapaho, Sisseton/Wahpeton Sioux, and Mohawk.
American Philosophical Society,Vol. 3, Captain Heart's Paper January 1791, Ancient Works at Marietta, Ohio. To quote ""that the state of the works and the trees growing on them indicated an origin prior to the discovery of America by Columbus; that they were not due to the present Indians or their predecessors, or some tradition would have remained of their uses; that they were not constructed by a people who procured the necessaries of life by hunting, as a sufficient number to carry on such labors could not have subsisted in that way; and, lastly, that the people who constructed them were not altogether in an uncivilized state, as they must have been under the subordination of law, with a strict and well-governed police, or they could not have been kept together in such numerous bodies, and been made to contribute to the execution of such stupendous works." Haven's Archaeology of the United States, p. 24. Ohio Historical Society
There are too many sites to efficiently list in a foote note for many scholars have written so many abstracts about the Fort Ancients and their phases and Complexes through the centuries of variation across the region. Conaughy (talk) 13:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Fort Anciet is a name from a native american culture that flourished from 1000-1650 ce among a people who predominantly inhabited long —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 01:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)