Pap. No^'slY" CORALVILLE RESERVOIR — CALDWELL 127 



sherd suggesting a vessel with a "raised corner" orifice, illustrated 

 by McKern (1928, pi. LIV, 9), parallels the single example from 

 Woodpecker Cave. 



Rowe indicates that there is great variation in the decoration of 

 the Wisconsin EtRgy Mound pottery. Like the Coralville specimens, 

 decorative motifs are substantially limited to rim and shoulder, with 

 single cord imprinting utilized as the commonest technique. Motifs 

 are basically geometric in both potteries. Punctating and indenting 

 of surfaces other than lip or upper rim is not frequent in the Wood- 

 pecker Cave series, and piercing of rims is dubious (a single pierced 

 specimen occurs, the piercing seemingly for repair). Sherds with 

 embossed nodes, such as occur in the EfRgy Mound pottery, have not 

 been included within group A. The rimsherd, 13JH202-264, cate- 

 gorized in the miscellaneous grouping (IIIA), is of this embossed 

 type. The fact that this rimsherd was not sorted into group A merely 

 reinforces the assumption of divergency within the Lake Michigan 

 Ware and suggests the possibility of further regional categorizing. 

 This sherd also closely resembles group B, identified as Havana 

 Decorated Ware (below). ^Vliile the evidence is far from conclusive, 

 it stresses a potential Hopewell relationship for the Woodpecker Cave 

 materials. Bennett notes that "Some of the sherds in Wisconsin 

 closely resemble Hopewellian techniques and motifs" (Bennett, 1945, 

 p. 83). The concurrent presence of "Plain Ware" further emphasizes 

 a tie to the east. It should be noted, however, that Rowe (1956, p. 80) 

 does not feel that Hope well-Effigy Mound relationships in Wisconsin 

 exist on more than a generalized trait basis. 



Clear-cut "incising" does not exist in the Woodpecker Cave collec- 

 tion, but the two Trailed Sherds (IV) do have parallels in the Wiscon- 

 sin materials. In total, the Effigy Mound Culture pottery of Wis- 

 consin seems to emphasize more complex decorative motifs and to be 

 more varied than does the much smaller Iowa sample. The latter 

 stresses annular cord impressions and annular series of punctates on 

 the rim rather than the more elaborate treatments found in Wisconsin. 



Bennett (1945) notes that Lake Michigan pottery in Iowa "seems 

 to be identical to Jo Daviess (111.) types." Although closely allied, 

 the current sample is not completely consistent with the published 

 data. Specifically, the decorative motifs appear to be somewhat less 

 complex than the Jo Daviess materials. Emphasis is upon simple 

 geometric cord-impressed motifs, occurring as horizontal bands on 

 the rim or as pendant stamps on lip or shoulder. 



There are also points of resemblance in common with the ceramics 

 from mound No. 43 of the Suy-Magill group in northeastern Iowa 

 (Beaubien, 1953 a, pp. 59-60). This is particularly evident in the 

 band of cord-impressed decoration encircling the rim and in the 



