Certain prevalent archaeological designations have been changed to remove time implications (e.g. “early” and “late” [Woodland] to Initial [beginning] and Final [end of an archaeological series]), or to shorten (e.g. “Tennessee-Cumberland” or “Gordon-Fewkes” to [Cumberland]).
Technical terms have generally been avoided; but where it has seemed necessary to retain them or to use words in a special sense, they are explained in the text or can be found in the glossary. The terms [pattern] and [phase] are those generally employed in the McKern system of classification, for the larger groupings into which it is customary to place the “cultures” as determined from the typology of the [artifacts], their association in the [assemblage] and pertinent data recovered at a site (or local community) with due regard to circumstances of time and location of other sites nearby and over a larger area. The largest unit is the pattern which is made up of a number of phases. Cultural divisions smaller than these units are spoken of here as subcultures.
The approximate relationships of the archaeological units to the broader cultural stages and substages are given in Table I, [page 4]. The succession and coexistence of the archaeological units is indicated in the diagram “The Stream of [Culture]”, [p. 57]. The summary of “Characteristics of the Archaeological-Cultural Units” occurs on pages [70]-76.
This is a story mainly of Illinois when occupied by American Indians but it would not give a reasonably true picture without showing the known extensions of some of the cultures into surrounding areas and the probable intrusions from outside the state.
Of necessity in attempting a summary of the [archaeology] of Illinois and adjacent areas, the writer has had to lean heavily on the field work and reports of the many anthropologists who have contributed so much to the present understanding of the American Indian in the United States. To this invaluable source material and to these able scientists the indebtedness of the writer is acknowledged to be very great indeed. In the compass of a work of this type it is impossible to name them or give them credit for original or similar views, nor is it practicable to include in the bibliography all the publications used.
Acknowledgment of assistance is made especially to Georg K. Neumann, Joseph R. Caldwell and Melvin L. Fowler, Milton D. Thompson, Ruth Kerr, Nora Deuel and Orvetta Robinson for reading and discussing the manuscript from various viewpoints, to Dr. James B. Griffin for helpful information on the dates of sites and of archaeological data, to Irvin Peithmann, Southern Illinois University, for photographs furnished, for information on sites he had discovered and the privilege of visiting them in his company, to George Langford for photographs and data regarding the Fisher site, to Charles Hodge for all photographs reproduced not otherwise credited, and to Jerry Connolly, Bettye Broyles, Barbara Parmalee and Jeanne McCarty for their excellent drawings. Without all this considerable and valuable aid the publication could not have been completed.
TABLE II. RADIOCARBON DATES[1]
| CULTURAL UNIT | C14 DATE | SITE | STATE | COUNTY |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MIDDLE [MISSISSIPPI] | A.D. 1420±200 | Crable Village | Illinois | Fulton |
| MIDDLE MISSISSIPPI | 1326±250 | Nodena Village | Arkansas | Arkansas |
| MIDDLE MISSISSIPPI | 1156±200 | Cahokia | Illinois | Madison |
| [EFFIGY MOUND][2] | 1041±212 | [Effigy] Mounds National Park | Iowa | Allamakee |
| HOPEWELLIAN | 508±60 | Twenhafel (Weber) Md. | Illinois | Jackson |
| HOPEWELLIAN | 432±200 | Rutherford [Mound] | Illinois | Hardin |
| HOPEWELLIAN | 256±200 | Knight Mound | Illinois | Calhoun |
| HOPEWELLIAN | 214±250 | Baehr Mound | Illinois | Brown |
| HOPEWELLIAN[2] | B.C. 48±160 | Hopewellian Group Mound #25 | Ohio | Ross |
| HOPEWELLIAN[3] | 57±108 | Wilson Mound | Illinois | White |
| HOPEWELLIAN | 315±164 | Havana Mound | Illinois | Mason |
| ADENA | 423±150 | Toepfner Mound #I | Ohio | Franklin |
| ADENA | 697±170 | Dover Mound | Kentucky | Mason |
| [ARCHAIC] | 704±80 | Poverty Point | Louisiana (N.E.) | W. Carroll Parish |
| ADENA | 826±410 | Toepfner Mound #II | Ohio | Franklin |
| ARCHAIC | 904±90 | Poverty Point | Louisiana (N.E.) | W. Carroll Parish |
| ARCHAIC | 1624±300 | Kays Landing | Tennessee | Humphrey |
| ARCHAIC[2] | 2170±215 | Indian Knoll | Kentucky | Ohio |
| ARCHAIC[2] | 2360±270 | Annis Mound | Kentucky | Butler |
| ARCHAIC | 2765±300 | [Modoc Rock Shelter] | Illinois | Randolph |
| ARCHAIC | 2812±250 | Perry Site | Alabama (N.W.) | Lauderdale |
| ARCHAIC | 2950±250 | Annis Shell Mound | Kentucky | Butler |
| ARCHAIC | 3325±300 | Modoc Rock Shelter | Illinois | Randolph |
| ARCHAIC | 3352±300 | Indian Knoll | Kentucky | Ohio |
| ARCHAIC | 3646±400 | Oconto Old Copper Site | Wisconsin (E.) | Oconto |
| ARCHAIC[2] | 3657±164 | Modoc Rock Shelter | Illinois | Randolph |
| ARCHAIC | 5194±500 | Eva Site | Tennessee | Benton |
| ARCHAIC | 5556±400 | Oconto Old Copper Site | Wisconsin (E.) | Oconto |
| ARCHAIC | 5945±500 | Graham Cave | Missouri | Montgomery |
| ARCHAIC | 6204±300 | Russell Cave | Alabama | Jackson |
| ARCHAIC[2] | 6219±388 | Modoc Rock Shelter | Illinois | Randolph |
| ARCHAIC | 7310±352 | Graham Cave | Missouri | Montgomery |
| ARCHAIC | 7922±392 | Modoc Rock Shelter | Illinois | Randolph |
| PALEO-INDIAN ([Folsom])[2] | 7934±350 | Lubbock Site | Texas (N.W.) | Lubbock |
| PALEO-INDIAN (Sandia) | 18,000 | Sandia Cave | New Mexico (Center) | Bernalillo |
| PALEO-INDIAN (?) | 22,000 | Tule Spring Site | Nevada (S.E.) | Clark |
| PALEO-INDIAN ([Clovis]?)[4] | 35,000 | Lewisville Site | Texas | Denton |
[1]These dates are selected as giving a significant picture of sequence and contemporaneity of cultures. Dates based on shell specimens are excluded on account of their general unreliability. Adena sites are not included after 400 B.C. These are burial mounds and with their inferred customs may be present in two or more cultural units rather than constitute a feature characteristic of one.