The term “Woodland,” as employed in the American archaeological field, has come to be used by local students to serve a variety of dissimilar cultural purposes, and to lack clear definition to general students and instructors. To the regional specialist “Woodland” may be interpreted in terms of his own local manifestations; to the ceramic analyst, in terms of a variety of pottery; and to the ethno-historian, in terms of tribes or migratory bands. There is little wonder that the uninitiated general student, in utter bewilderment, has demanded a definition for “Woodland,” or has refused to recognize it as a useful, valid term.