INTRODUCTORY NOTE 



By William H. Holmes 



In 1889 the Bureau of Ethnology began systematic arclieologic explo- 

 rations on the Atlantic slope of the United States, the initial work 

 being in the tidewater territory of Maryland and Virginia. While 

 this work was in progress it became apparent that a clear understand- 

 ing of the culture phenomena of this province required an examination 

 of the Piedmont-Api)alachian highland of Virginia, Maryland, and 

 West Virginia. Accordingly, Mr Gerard Fowke, formerly associated 

 with Dr Cyrus Thomas in the exploration of the great mound region 

 of the Mississippi valley, was directed to take up the survey of this sec- 

 tion. Early in May, 1891, I joined Mr Fowke in a study of the lower 

 valley of James river, the purpose being to give him a reasonable 

 degree of familiarity with tidewater archeology before entering the 

 highland. 



The summers of 1891 and 1892 (and until the summer of 1893) were 

 devoted by Mr Fowke nuiinly to James, Shenandoah, and neighboring- 

 valleys, and the accompanying report embodies the principal results of 

 his work. His explorations included all the territory within 5 miles of 

 the James, on each side, from Cape Henry almost to the head of its 

 ultimate tributaries ; both sides of the Potomac from the mouth of the 

 Monocacy to Cumberland; the entire area of every county drained by 

 the Shenandoivh and the South branch of the Potomac; all of Orange 

 county, with portions of the adjoining counties, and several counties 

 along the Appomattox and upper Roanoke. The report on the latter 

 region, as also that of the tidewater country, is reserved for another 

 paper. A brief sketch of particularly interesting features of the investi- 

 gation was published in the American Anthropologist for January, 1893. 



Mr Fowke was instructed to seek means of identifying the tribes 

 formerly occupying tlic region and of demonstrating their relations to 

 the tidewater i)eoples on the one hand and to the inhabitants of Ohio 

 valley on the other. 



The results, though sufficiently definite on a number of points, fail 

 to furnish satisfactory knowledge of the nationality of the former occu- 

 pants, it is clear, however, that the people, even if not of the same 

 stocks as those associated historically with the region, did not differ 



