1 of 12

Slide Notes

DownloadGo Live

Proctorville, ohio: fort ancient fishing

Published on Nov 21, 2015

No Description

PRESENTATION OUTLINE

Proctorville, Ohio: fort ancient fishing

Marissa M. Schlabach

fort ancient

  • 50-100 structures
  • Maize agriculture 
  • supplemental hunting and fishing
  • ground mussel for ceramic temper
  • mussel shells were used for farming hoes
good size community

common agriculture found in all fort ancient sites.

diet= Three Sisters: maize, squash, beans.

what fishing technique was most PREVALENT in ancient proctorville, ohio?

A4197 will show evidence for fishing with hooks. 
inspired by the possible hook I found in my assemblage box #8.

Knowing that Proctorville is on the river, I immediately wanted to know more about life on the river.

Often water provides life source. How important was the river as source of life?

Did they have tools and means to fish?

Are tools/means translatable to archaeological finds?

fishing techniques

  • hooks
  • weirs
  • nets with sinkers
  • nets without sinkers
  • spears
5 possible techniques that are worth mentioning.

Some can be found as artifacts. Some cannot be found as artifacts.

Hooks

  • worked bones
  • possible evidence in A4197
Early tool making. Only would make hooks if fishing was very prevalent in culture. Take a lot of time and precision.

Only one possible hook found in A4197 734.

weirs

  • trap made from bone or wood
  • wholly or partially across river
  • no evidence in A4197
Traditional trap.

Found in many Fort Ancient sites.

No evidence in A4197

Picture displays most non-biased illustration. Many different forms of weirs.

Nets with sinkers

  • knochs 
  • stone, rocks, bone
  • no evidence
Most likely used large rocks in nets.

Catch largest amount and not have to fish often. Supplemental fishing means it wasn't main subsistence form and so they would not have made professions out of making fishing tools.

Allows for more energy spent on agriculture.

nets with out sinkers

  • least likely 
  • least efficient
  • no evidence
Have to cast net over and over again.

Requires work.

spears

  • known for triangular point
  • quick and supplemental
  • evidence
Possible due to need of triangular point.

Fort Ancient known for the triangular point.

Many points in A4197
-712
-717
-722.01
-722.02
-740.03

remains

  • mussel shells, turtle shells, fish bones
  • could be natural decay 
Many bags of broken mussel shells

Few other shells

Fish bones are weird!

Lots of turtle shells.

Natural decay at river bottom. Scenery changes over time. Erosion changes rate of decay and forms during decay.

conclusion

  • most likely the mussel shells and other remains are from natural decay
  • fishing was supplemental
  • subsistence came from other foraging and agricultural techniques
  • evidence of fish hooks and triangular points for spears
  • Hooks and Spears used by Fort Ancient people
Although the sight is located on the Ohio River, it is doubtful to say which technique of fishing was most prevalent in Proctorville, Ohio.

Few artifacts can be identified as clear evidence for any kind of fishing.

Leads us to believe that other techniques of fishing were being used for which we do not have evidence.

Fishing was supplemental due to lack of tools found for mass amount of fishing.

scales and shell
-731
-740.02

turtle
-734.004
-737 bag 2 of 2

Untitled Slide

  • Peregrine, P. N. (n.d.). Fort ancient. In Encyclopedia of prehistory (Vol. 6, pp. 174-177).
  • http://westernreservepublicmedia.org/onestate/lp1gansw.htm
  • Reitz, E. J. (n.d.). The schomaker site: A middle period of fort ancient town. In S. J. Scudder (Author), Case studies in environmental archaeology (pp. 287-293).