226 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [Bull. 191 



commanding positions, obviously served defensive purposes. . . . While these 

 people settled primarily in the area drained by the lower and middle Monongahela 

 River, some settlements are known from the Ohio Valley proper and outlying 

 villages occur in the Shenango and upper Allegheny valleys. Some of the Whittle- 

 sey focus sites are characterized by minor amounts of Monongahela pottery. 

 "Monongahela Cordmarked [pottery]" is also found on sites in the Shenandoah 

 and Potomac valleys, most often as trade material but perhaps as components 

 in several instances. [Mayer-Oakes, 1955, pp. 12, 222.] 



This statement possibly might apply to the Luray Focus also, which 

 unfortunately is still relatively unknown (Manson, MacCord, and 

 Griffin, 1944, pp. 400-401; Mayer-Oakes, 1955, pp. 158-162; Schmitt, 

 1952, pp. 62-64). 



As is the case with the Fort Ancient culture, numerous clues indicate 

 Monongahela contacts with neighboring groups. Iroquois trade pot- 

 tery frequently has been found in Monongahela sites; conversely, 

 Monongahela pottery is known from Whittlesey sites, and from 

 historic sites on the lower Susquehanna and Potomac which have 

 been dated at c. 1600. European trade goods also have been found 

 in Monongahela components which, curiously enough, are concen- 

 trated in the middle Monongahela drainage near the headwaters 

 of the Potomac. Historic trade goods are never abundant, however, 

 partly because the Monongahela people do not seem to have prac- 

 ticed the custom of burying grave goods with their dead, and partly 

 because the Monongahela culture and peoples disappeared before 

 European penetration became intensive. The territory of the Monon- 

 gahela Aspect seems to have remained essentially unoccupied untU 

 about 1700, at which time Indian groups from the east began a 

 movement into it. A number of students have identified the Iroquois 

 as the cause of the Monongahela disappearance (Mayer-Oakes, 

 1955, pp. 9-12, 228; Schmitt, 1952, pp. 67-69). 



Somewhat more data is available concerning the fate of the Shenk's 

 Ferry Aspect. Characterized by "widely scattered tiny hamlets," 

 and by distinctive pottery types, the two foci of the Shenk's Ferry 

 Aspect occupied the eastern side of the Susquehanna drainage be- 

 tween Harrisburg and the Pennsylvania-Maryland State line, the 

 middle course of the Susquehanna between Harrisburg and Wilkes- 

 Barre, and the west branch of the Susquehanna to Kenova, and were 

 overrun some time between 1560 and 1590 by the Tioga Focus from 

 the Upper Susquehanna. This process seems to have involved, 

 among other things, an absorption of Shenk's Ferry peoples into 

 the Tioga culture. The reasons for this conclusion have been pre- 

 sented by Witthoft: 



We have several reasons for believing that the Shenk's Ferry people survived 

 into the Historic period. The best evidence comes from the Shultz Site of Wash- 

 ingtonboro, the earliest Susquehannock [Tioga] site on the lower Susquehanna, 



