...

Document 2070648

by user

on
Category: Documents
12

views

Report

Comments

Transcript

Document 2070648
INDIANA UNIVERSITY-PURDUE UNIVERSITY FORT WAYNE
Archaeology in a Public Venue at the
Strawtown Enclosure (12-H-883): 2008
by
Colin D. Graham and Robert G. McCullough, Ph.D.
with contributions by
Craig R. Arnold, M.A., Scott Hipskind, and Dorothea McCullough, Ph.D.
N203
E203
N203
E205
N203
E204
Unit 168
Unit 169
8-117
Fea 67
C
D
A
8-116
B
N202
E202
N202
E203
N202
E205
8-114
8-1
Unit 138
Unit 133
Matrix
B
8-22
7-98
8-115
8-21
Unit 137
N200
E202
7-97
Matrix
B
N199
E202
Fea. 59
8-26
Unit 135
8-11
7-64
7-67
Fea. 51
8-25
N197
E202
8-36
Unit 157
Unit 139
D
8-35
N196
E199
Unit 127
N196
E200
Unit 128
N196
E201
N196
E202
Unit 155
Feature 56
Remnant
8-42
Unit 145
8-43
8-68
Unit 144
8-34
Feature 57
Remnant
8-30
8-33
8-63
8-49
8-62
8-108
8-51
8-50
8-60 8-61
Fea. 65
Fea. 47
N194
E199
8-105
Feature 58
Remnant
Fea. 64
N194
E200
Unit 153
N194
E201
Unit 154
N194
E202
D
Fea. 62
M
Unit 126
8-59
8-58
J
8-57
8-56
8-109
8-55
8-54
Unit 165
N194
E203
Unit 164
8-52
8-122
8-121
8-119
8-120
8-124
8-123
L N194
E205
N193
E204
J
Fea. 63
Unit 150
Unit 95
Unit 96
40
35
7-40
34
N198
E209
C1
8-28
Bs
C
Unit 100
9
10
E
11
N200
E212
13
7-38
14
32
15
Unit 97
7-31
27 29
28 7-56
69
Fea.
68 44
N198
E211
16
17
N199
E212
18
19
20
N198
E212
N197
E209
Unit 162
Fea. 68
N198
E210
12
H
Fea 54
Remnant
Unit 151
25
7-29
6
7-42
7-39
7-41
Unit 163
8-100
8-106
7-59 7-60
7-61
7-58
Unit 99
Fea. 66
Bs
E
A
Fea. 61
N196
E209
8-103
F
8-87
Unit 159
N195
E206
Bs
Biotu
rbatio
G
8-102
N195
E207
Unit 160
mot
tle
n
10Y
R5
/6
Unit 161
N195
E208
I
N195
E209
Robert G. McCullough,
Principal Investigator
K
8-118
Unit 166
N193
E203
Unit 143
8-92
8-81
8-80
8-107 8-798-86
8-78
37
H
I
7-26
7-25
Unit 94
7-57
7-27
Matrix
A
8-89
8-88
N195
E205
38
39
8-93
Unit 158
8-64
8-48
Matrix
B
Unit 125
8-65
8-47
7-23 7-24
Fea. 37 Complex
Fea. 40
Fea. 36
8-29
8-66
tooth
8-46
Matrix
A
8-67
36
8-14
8-108
Unit 146
nt
w
7-21
Unit 142
8-15
Bu
J
de
rro
7-22
41
8-95
8-74
8-70
Ro
67
7-20
8-97
N
8-69
8-44
8-45
Unit 140
Unit 156
8-31
N195
E199
O
8-112 8-113
7-19
8-98
8-72
Unit 93
42
7-51
8-71 8-73
8-41
Unit 113
7-53
Unit 141
Unit 129
43
Fea. 35
Fea.
42 7-3
53
8-09
D
8-39
8-38
8-37 8-40D
Matrix
B
1 Meter
7-2
7-105
7-89
Unit 134
Unit 147
w
rro
Bu
7-10
7-65
7-104
65
Fea. 39
Pestle
7-76
Unit 92
Unit 91
N201
E212
Unit 103
3
7-107
7-36
66
K
Unit 102
Unit 90
Fea. 33 Complex
7-48
Unit 98
Unit 108
B
7-80
7-62
Unit 114
C
64
L
Unit 117
Fea.
45
7-79
N202
E212
N202
E211
Unit 107
F
A
7-54
7-8
Unit 130
8-10
8-8
Fea. 52
N198
E202
54
8-6
8-5
7-88
N
7-94
44
56
Unit 118
N202
E210
Unit 106
Unit 89
7-18
45
7-12
7-11
55
7-101
D
57
7-11
A
7-103
52
Fea. 38
46
Fea.
41
Unit 131 7-95
7-99
8-4
Unit 148
7-100
7-96
7-82
Unit 101
Unit 115
Unit 119
7-71
7-74
7-83
8-23
7-81
Unit 136
Unit 149
7-73
7-85
7-84
8-110
7-72 60
62
N202
E209
Unit 105
7-77
7-46
7-44
50 49
49
7-17
7-16
7-47
48
7-15
7-14
61
N202
E208
Unit 104
51
7-90
Unit 132
7-86
8-111
Fea.
53
8-16
N202
E207
Unit 116
7-92
8-20
Not Excavated
N202
E206
Unit 120
Unit 167
N193
E205
Reports of Investigations 902
July 2009
IPFW Archaeological Survey
Indiana University-Purdue University at Fort Wayne
2101 East Coliseum Blvd.
Fort Wayne, Indiana 46805-1499
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF STATE AND FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
This project has received federal financial assistance, in the form of a U.S. Department of the
Interior, National Park Service Historic Preservation Fund grant administered by the Indiana
Department of Natural Resources, Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology. Those federal
funds have been used for the identification, protection, and/or rehabilitation of historic properties
and cultural resources in the State of Indiana. However, the contents and opinions contained in this
publication do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department of the Interior,
nor does the mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation by the U.S. Department of the Interior. Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the U.S. Department of the Interior
prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, or disability in its federally
assisted programs. If you believe that you have been discriminated against in any program, activity
or facility as described above, or if you desire further information, please write to: Office of Equal
Opportunity, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20240.
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgment of State and Federal Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
Chapter 1: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Chapter 2: Project Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Environmental Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Previous Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Cultural Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Chapter 3: Excavations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Block/Unit Excavations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Main Block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Feature Excavations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Chapter 4: Cultural Materials from the Strawtown Enclosure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
Laboratory Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
Prehistoric Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
Historic Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
Chapter 5: Discussion and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
References Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
Appendix A: Modified Bone and Antler, by Craig Arnold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
Appendix B: Summary of Postholes from 12-H-883, 2007 and 2008 Excavations . . . . . . . . . 248
Appendix C: 12-H-883 Field Specimen Log, 2008 Excavations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
Appendix D: 12-H-883 Flotation Log, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
Appendix E: New Discoveries and Questions: Report of Geophysical and Archaeological
Investigations on Site 12-Hu-1052, by Scott Hipskind . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
Appendix F: 12-H-883 Investigations 2005, by Colin Graham . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323
Appendix G: Feature 46 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329
Appendix H: Human Remains, by Craig Arnold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330
ii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1. Indiana physiographic map with the location of the Strawtown enclosure . . . . . . . . 5
Figure 2.2. Topographic map of the Strawtown enclosure with associated archaeological
excavations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Figure 2.3. Locations of reported Albee phase archaeological sites in Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Figure 2.4. Map of reported Western Basin tradition archaeological sites located in central
Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Figure 2.5. Map of reported Oneota-like archaeological sites located in central Indiana . . . . . 33
Figure 2.6. Map of reported Oliver phase archaeological sites located in central Indiana . . . . . 37
Figure 3.1. Location of the Strawtown enclosure on the 7.5’ USGS Omega, Indiana,
quadrangle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Figure 3.2. Contour map of the Strawtown enclosure indicating previous and 2008
excavations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Figure 3.3. Unit numbers assigned during the 2008 Archaeology Month excavation block . . . 47
Figure 3.4. Profile drawing of the east wall of Unit 170, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Figure 3.5. Profile drawing of the north wall of Unit 170, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Figure 3.6. Profile drawing of the north, west, and east wall of the Main Block north
expansion, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Figure 3.7. Profile drawing of the east wall of the Main Block south extension, 2008 . . . . . . . 54
Figure 3.8. Profile drawing of the north and east wall of the Main Block south
extension, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Figure 3.9. Profile drawing of the south wall of the Main Block south extension, 2008 . . . . . . 56
Figure 3.10. Profile drawing of the south wall of the Main Block south extension, 2008 . . . . . 57
Figure 3.11. Profile drawing of the east, south, and west wall of the Main Block south
extension, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Figure 3.12. Soil descriptions for the north, south, east, west wall profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Figure 3.13. Soil descriptions for the north, south, east, west wall profiles, continued . . . . . . . 60
Figure 3.14. Photograph of the Main Block excavation at the base of Level 3, 2006,
view north . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Figure 3.15. Photograph of the base of Level 3, showing west edge of house basin, Main Block
expansion, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Figure 3.16. Plan map of soil zones at the base of Level 3, Main Block south and west
expansions, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Figure 3.17. Soil zone descriptions for the base of Level 3, Main Block expansions, 2007 . . . . 64
Figure 3.18. Plan map of soil zones for the base of Level 4, Main Block west
expansion, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Figure 3.19. Soil zone descriptions for the base of Level 4, Main Block west
expansion, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Figure 3.20. Units excavated within the Main Block during 2006 and 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Figure 3.21. Units excavated within the Main Block during 2006 through 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Figure 3.22. Plan map of soil zones at the base of Level 3, Main Block south
expansion, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Figure 3.23. Soil zone descriptions for the base of Level 3, Main Block south
iii
expansion, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Figure 3.24. Soil zone descriptions for the base of Level 3, Main Block south expansion,
2008, continued . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Figure 3.25. Photograph of the base of Level 3, showing west edge of house basin,
Main Block south expansion, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Figure 3.26. Plan map of soil zones at the base of Level 4, Main Block south
expansion, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Figure 3.27. Soil zone descriptions for the base of Level 4, Main Block south
expansion, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Figure 3.28. Soil zone descriptions for the base of Level 4, Main Block south
expansion, 2008, continued . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Figure 3.29. Photograph of the base of Level 4, showing features, anomalies, and postholes
below the house basin, Main Block south expansion, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Figure 3.30. Composite map of features, zones, and other anomalies at Level 3 in the Main
Block, 2006, 2007, and 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Figure 3.31. Composite map of features, confirmed postholes, and other anomalies at Level 4
in the Main Block, 2006, 2007, and 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Figure 3.32. Photograph of Feature 47 and Feature 64 at the base of Level 4 (80 cmbd)
in Liz’s Block, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Figure 3.33. Profile drawing of south wall of Feature 47 and Feature 64, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Figure 3.34. Photograph of the south profiles of Feature 47 and Feature 64 in Liz’s Block
excavation, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Figure 3.35. Plan map of Feature 51 at the base of Level 4, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Figure 3.36. Photograph of Feature 51 at the base of Level 4, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Figure 3.37. Profile drawing of the south wall of Feature 51, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Figure 3.38. Photograph of Feature 51 profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Figure 3.39. Photograph of Features 54 and 55, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Figure 3.40. Plan map of Feature 54 at the base of Level 3, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Figure 3.41. Profile drawing of Feature 54, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Figure 3.42. Photograph of Features 54 and 55 profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
Figure 3.43. Profile and plan drawings of Feature 55, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Figure 3.44. Photograph of Feature 55 profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Figure 3.45. Plan map of Feature 56 at the base of Level 3, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Figure 3.46. Photograph of Feature 56 at the base of Level 3, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Figure 3.47. Profile drawing of Feature 56, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Figure 3.48. Photograph of Feature 56 in profile, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
Figure 3.49. Photograph of posthole 8-35 at the base of Feature 56, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
Figure 3.50. Plan map of Feature 57, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Figure 3.51. Photograph of Feature 57 at the base of Level 3, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Figure 3.52. Profile drawing of Feature 57, showing pedestaled elk antler tine, 2008 . . . . . . . 114
Figure 3.53. Photograph of Feature 57 profile, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
Figure 3.54. Photograph of an elk antler tine at the base of Feature 57, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
Figure 3.55. Photograph of Feature 58 at the base of Level 3, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Figure 3.56. Plan map of Feature 58 at the base of Level 3, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
iv
Figure 3.57. Photograph of Feature 58 in profile, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
Figure 3.58. Profile drawing of Feature 58, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
Figure 3.59. Photograph of Feature 59 at the base of Level 4, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Figure 3.60. Plan map of Feature 59 at the base of Level 4, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
Figure 3.61. Photograph of Feature 59 in profile, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
Figure 3.62. Profile drawing of Feature 59, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
Figure 3.63. Plan map of Feature 60 at the base of Level 4A (75 cmbd), 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Figure 3.64. Photograph of Feature 60 during excavation of Unit 150 at the base
of Level 4A, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
Figure 3.65. Plan map of Feature 61 at the base of Level 4, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Figure 3.66. Photograph of Feature 61 at the base of Level 4, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Figure 3.67. Photograph of Feature 61 during excavation, showing large amount
of faunal remains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Figure 3.68. Photograph of Feature 61 at the base of excavation, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
Figure 3.69. Photograph of Feature 62 at the base of Level 4, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
Figure 3.70. Plan map of Feature 62 at the base of Level 4, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
Figure 3.71. Photograph of Feature 62 in profile, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
Figure 3.72. Profile drawing of Feature 62, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
Figure 3.73. Photograph of Feature 63 at the base of Level 4, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
Figure 3.74. Plan map of Feature 63 at the base of Level 4, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
Figure 3.75. Photograph of Feature 63 in profile, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
Figure 3.76. Profile drawing of Feature 63, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
Figure 3.77. Plan map of Feature 65 below Feature 47 at 86 cmbd, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
Figure 3.78. Photograph of Feature 65 at 86 cmbd, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
Figure 3.79. Profile drawing of Feature 65, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
Figure 3.80. Photograph of Features 66 and 68 at the base of Level 4, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
Figure 3.81. Plan map of Features 66 and 68 at the base of Level 4, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
Figure 3.82. Photograph of Features 66 and 68 profiles, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
Figure 3.83. Profile drawing of Features 66 and 68, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
Figure 3.84. Photograph of Feature 67 at the base of Level 4, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
Figure 3.85. Plan map of Feature 67 at the base of Level 4, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
Figure 3.86. Composite map of postholes at the base of Level 4, 2006-2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
Figure 3.87. Profile drawing of Feature 35 showing superimposed postholes in the
Main Block, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
Figure 3.88. Photograph of postholes in Units 144 and 165 in the Main Block,
south extension, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
Figure 3.89. Profile drawing of postholes in Units 145, 144, and 165, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
Figure 3.90. Profile drawing of postholes in Units 158 and 146, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
Figure 3.91. Profile drawing of postholes in Units 135-138, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
Figure 4.1. Non-triangular hafted projectile points recovered from the 2008 excavations,
12-H-883 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
Figure 4.2. Complete or mostly complete triangular points recovered from the 2008
excavations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
Figure 4.3. Partial triangular points recovered from the 2008 excavations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
v
Figure 4.4. Poorly manufactured triangular points recovered from the 2008 excavations . . . . 164
Figure 4.5. Examples of quartzite triangular points recovered from the 2008 excavations . . . 164
Figure 4.6. Hafted knives and socketed bifacial end scrapers recovered from the 2008
excavations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
Figure 4.7. Expanding stem drills and drill fragments recovered from the 2008 excavations . 166
Figure 4.8. Quartzite triangular projectile point distal fragments recovered from the 2008
excavations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
Figure 4.9. Examples of chert triangular projectile point distal fragments recovered from
the 2008 excavations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
Figure 4.10. Large medial knife or projectile point fragments recovered from the 2008
excavations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
Figure 4.11. Trianguloid unrefined bifaces recovered from the 2008 excavations . . . . . . . . . . 170
Figure 4.12. Large unrefined bifaces recovered from the 2008 excavations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
Figure 4.13. Formal unifaces and examples of nonformal unifaces recovered from the 2008
excavations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
Figure 4.14. Blades and blade-like flakes recovered from the 2008 excavations . . . . . . . . . . . 173
Figure 4.15. Examples of cores recovered from the 2008 excavations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
Figure 4.16. Hammer stones recovered from the 2008 excavations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
Figure 4.17. Pitted stone and abrader recovered from the 2008 excavations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
Figure 4.18. Fort Ancient-style rim sherds from 12-H-883 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
Figure 4.19. Fort Ancient-style neck sherds from 12-H-883 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
Figure 4.20. Fort Ancient-style neck sherds from 12-H-883 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
Figure 4.21. Fort Ancient-style neck sherds from 12-H-883 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
Figure 4.22. Fort Ancient-style handle fragments, top row . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
Figure 4.23. Great Lakes impressed-style sherds from 12-H-883 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
Figure 4.24. Great Lakes impressed-style rim sherds from 12-H-883 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
Figure 4.25. Great Lakes impressed-style sherds from 12-H-883 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
Figure 4.26. Great Lakes impressed-style sherds from 12-H-883 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
Figure 4.27. Oliver neck sherds with plain surface treatment from 12-H-883 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
Figure 4.28. Oliver neck sherds with cordmarked surface treatment from 12-H-883 . . . . . . . . 186
Figure 4.29. Rim sherds with a plain surface treatment from 12-H-883 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
Figure 4.30. Rim sherds with cordmarked surface treatment from 12-H-883 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
Figure 4.31. Rim sherds with fabric-roughened surface treatment from 12-H-883 . . . . . . . . . 188
Figure 4.32. Bowl and miniature vessel rim sherds from 12-H-883 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
Figure 4.33. Close-up view of miniature vessel, showing oblique incised lines
and circular punctates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
Figure 4.34. Rim sherds showing combination of Fort Ancient and Great Lakes styles . . . . . 191
Figure 4.35. Taylor Village plain and cordmarked body sherds, with trailed lines . . . . . . . . . 193
Figure 4.36. Taylor Village rim sherds from 12-H-883, exterior view . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
Figure 4.37. Taylor Village rim sherds from 12-H-883, interior view . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
Figure 4.38. Selected historic artifacts recovered from the 2008 excavations, 12-H-883 . . . . . 198
Figure 5.1. Hands-on experience in identifying artifacts, Archaeology Month 2008, at the
Strawtown enclosure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
Figure 5.2. Archaeology Month 2008 visitors at the Strawtown enclosure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
vi
Figure 5.3. Photograph showing western boundary of structure basin at base of Level 3
in 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
Figure 5.4. Plan map of the Main Block at the base of Level 4 showing possible structure
outlines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
Figure 5.5. Photograph of the Main Block, south extension showing possible opening or
entryway into the structure, highlighted in white. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
Figure 5.6. Photographs of burnt soil showing fibrous impressions and flattened sides. . . . . . 208
Figure 5.7. Plan map of the Main Block at the base of Level 4, showing superpositioning,
2006-2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
Figure 5.8. Plan map of the Main Block showing feature distribution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
Figure A.1. Hierarchical classification scheme employed in cataloging bone tools . . . . . . . . . 243
Figure A.2. Photograph of formal tools and formal tool fragments
recovered during 2008 excavations at the Strawtown enclosure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
Figure A.3. Photograph of nonformal, indeterminate bone tool fragments, and antler
recovered during 2008 excavations at the Strawtown enclosure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
Figure E.1: REU participants, left to right, Scott Hipskind, James Stewart, and
Gabrielle Paschall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289
Figure E.2: 2004-2005 aerial photograph from Google Earth with 12-H-1052 and the
Strawtown enclosure (12-H-883) site boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289
Figure E.3: Previous shovel testing and excavations on site 12-H-1052 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290
Figure E.4: Geophysical grid and grid numbers for site 12-H-1052, 2005 grids in red and
2006 grids in blue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290
Figure E.5: All acceptable magnetometry data collected during the REU program . . . . . . . . . 291
Figure E.6: All resistivity data collected during the REU program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292
Figure E.7: Magnetic anomalies ground-truthed by the 2005 and 2006 excavations . . . . . . . . 293
Figure E.8: Resistivity anomalies ground-truthed by the 2005 and 2006 excavations . . . . . . . 294
Figure E.9: Trench 1 and Feature 3 plan map, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295
Figure E.10: Trench 2 and Feature 4 plan map, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296
Figure E.11: Trench 3 and Feature 5 plan map, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297
Figure E.12: Trench 1 and Feature 8 plan map, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298
Figure E.13: Trench 4 and Feature 3, 6, and 7 plan map, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
Figure E.14: Trench 3 and Feature 5 west profile drawing, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300
Figure E.15: Trench 3 east profile drawing, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301
Figure E.16: Trench 1 south profile drawing, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302
Figure E.17: Trench 2 west profile drawing, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302
Figure E.18: Trench 3 west profile drawing, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303
Figure E.19a: Trench 4, Feature 3 northwest profile drawing, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304
Figure E.19b: Trench 4, Feature 3 soil descriptions, 2006, continued . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305
Figure E.20a: Resistivity data profiles of Feature 3 created by Stewart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306
Figure E.20b: Resistivity data profiles of Feature 3 created by Stewart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307
Figure E.21a: Trench 2, Feature 4 west profile drawing, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308
Figure E.21b: Trench 2, Feature 4 soil descriptions, 2005, continued . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309
Figure E.22: Radiocarbon beta-graph of analyzed piece of nut shell from Feature 4 . . . . . . . . 310
Figure E.23: Trench 4, Feature 6 northwest profile drawing, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310
vii
Figure E.24: Late Woodland/ Mississippian Triangular Cluster hafted bifaces recovered
during 2005 excavations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311
Figure E.25: Other bifaces and biface fragments recovered from the 2005 excavations . . . . . 311
Figure E.26: Crude bifacial sandstone chopping tool recovered from the 2005 flotation
sample of Zone 6 of Feature 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312
Figure E.27: The single uniface recovered by the 2005 excavations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312
Figure E.28: The two cores recovered from the 2005 excavations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313
Figure E.29: Late Woodland/ Mississippian Triangular Cluster bifaces and Late Archaic
Merom Cluster hafted biface recovered during 2006 excavations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313
Figure E.30: Other bifaces and biface fragments recovered from the 2006 excavations . . . . . 314
Figure E.31: Crude bifacial chert chopping tool recovered from the 2006 excavations . . . . . . 314
Figure E.32: The two unifaces recovered by the 2006 excavations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315
Figure E.33: The single core recovered from the 2006 excavations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315
Figure E.34: Decorated and plain rims recovered from the 2005 excavations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 316
Figure E.35: Large vessel section recovered from 2005 flotation sample, Zone 6 in profile
of Feature 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 316
Figure E.36: The single pipe fragment discovered by the 2005 excavations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317
Figure E.37: Decorated and plain rims recovered from the 2006 excavations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317
Figure E.38: Large vessel section recovered from 2006 excavations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318
Figure E.39: Large vessel section recovered from 2006 excavations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318
Figure E.40: Large vessel section recovered from 2006 excavations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319
Figure E.41: The single indeterminate bone tool recovered from the 2005 excavations . . . . . 319
Figure E.42: Fragment of wolf mandible recovered from the 2006 excavations . . . . . . . . . . . 320
Figure E.43: Modified faunal tools recovered from the 2006 excavations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320
Figure E.44: Historic artifacts recovered from the 2005 excavations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321
Figure E.45: Historic artifacts recovered from the 2006 excavations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321
Figure E.46: Location of REU trenches, 2005 in red and 2006 in blue, as well as prior
excavations on 12-H-1052 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322
Figure F.1. Illustration of resistivity data and survey location across the enclosure . . . . . . . . . 323
Figure F.2. Illustration of resistivity data indicating oval anomaly and unit placement . . . . . . 324
Figure F.3. Photograph of east profile wall and trench placed in Units 82 and 84, 2005 . . . . . 325
Figure F.4. East profile map of soil zones in Units 82 and 84, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326
Figure G.1. Profile map and description of Feature 46 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1. Datum Designations and Elevations Used in the Strawtown Enclosure during
the 2008 Field Season . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Table 3.2. Permanent Datum Locations and Descriptions Established during the
2008 Field Season . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Table 3.3. Summary of Materials Recovered from the Main Block, 2006, 2007, and 2008 . . . . 81
Table 4.1. Totals of Stone Tools and Raw Material Used in Manufacture, 2008 Excavations . 159
Table 4.2. Totals of All Triangular Point Types Identified in the Hafted and
Unrefined Bifaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
Table 4.3. All Sherds Recovered Compared by Surface Treatment and Temper . . . . . . . . . . . 177
Table 4.4. Non-Taylor Village Body Sherds Compared by Surface Treatment and Temper . . 184
Table 4.5. Non-Taylor Village Neck Sherds Compared by Surface Treatment and Temper . . 185
Table 4.6. Non-Taylor Village Rim Sherds Compared by Surface Treatment and Temper . . . 185
Table 4.7. Non-Taylor Village Decoration by Vessel Portion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
Table 4.8. Taylor Village Surface Treatment by Vessel Portion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
Table 4.9. Taylor Village Decoration by Vessel Portion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
Table 4.10: Historic Artifacts Recovered from 2008 Excavations at the Strawtown Enclosure,
12-H-883 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
Table 5.1. Chipped Stone Refit Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
Table 5.2. Sherd Refit Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
Table E.1: Totals of Stone Tools and Raw Material Used in Manufacture, 2005 Excavations
at 12-H-1052 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279
Table E.2: Totals of Stone Tools and Raw Material Used in Manufacture, 2006 Excavations
at 12-H-1052 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
Table E.3: Distribution of Surface Treatments on Ceramics from the 2005 Excavations . . . . . 283
Table E.4: Distribution of Ceramic Decoration on Rim Sherds from the 2005 Excavations . . 283
Table E.5: Distribution of Surface Treatments on Ceramics from the 2006 Excavations . . . . . 284
Table E.6: Distribution of Ceramic Decoration on Rim Sherds from the 2006 Excavations . . 285
Table F.1. Summary of Materials Recovered from Small Block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327
Table H.1. Human Skeletal Elements Recovered during the 2008 Excavations . . . . . . . . . . . . 330
ix
CHAPTER 1:
INTRODUCTION
This report details grant-funded research conducted by the Indiana University-Purdue
University Fort Wayne Archaeological Survey (IPFW-AS) at the Strawtown enclosure (12H-883) during Indiana Archaeology Month in September and October 2008. All
investigations were conducted in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards
and Guidelines for Identification, Evaluation, and Archaeological Documentation, the
Guidebook for Indiana Historic Sites and Structures InventoryArchaeological Sites, and
the Grants Manual of the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Historic
Preservation and Archaeology (DHPA), under permit number 2008051. Grant monies for the
fieldwork, report, and other expenses were provided by the Historic Preservation Fund (grant
number 21719-12) administered by the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, DHPA.
The Hamilton County Parks and Recreation Department (HCPRD) provided monetary
support for additional interpreters, as well as housing and logistical support during the
Archaeology Month programming.
The primary objective of this research was to increase public awareness of archaeology in
Indiana through on-site interactive visitation of excavations in progress. An equally
important goal of the project was to investigate a domestic structure identified late in the
2006 field season that can provide data relating to family and community organization. The
information gathered will serve to clarify patterns of cultural interaction, based on
household-level patterning, found among the Late Prehistoric frontier horticultural societies
who inhabited central Indiana.
Fieldwork during Archaeology Month 2008 was centered on excavations at the Strawtown
enclosure (12-H-883), located in the developing Strawtown Koteewi Park in Hamilton
County, Indiana. Forty-five square meters of excavation were opened in two separate areas: a
main block consisting of 44 square meters and a small 1x1 m unit on the embankment.
Robert McCullough served as Principal Investigator, and IPFW-AS field crew included Craig
Arnold, Christy Brocken, Reed Dilley, Colin Graham, Nick Hess, Scott Hipskind, Shelby
Putt, Sharon Smith, Adrienne Taylor, and Erik Vosteen.
The goal of the current research was to collect household-level information to address
questions of cultural processes in frontier sedentary societies. Fort Ancient, Western Basin,
and Oneota-like ceramics have been recovered in investigations of 12-H-883 prior to the
current study (Arnold et al. 2007; McCullough 2005, 2008; McCullough et al. 2004; White,
R. McCullough, and D. McCullough 2003), and distinguishing the occupation sequences
evident within the enclosure is a complex undertaking due to the intensive occupation of a
confined area, which resulted in numerous superpositioning episodes. Household-level data
are vital in interpreting the population dynamics of the central Indiana region.
While excavation activities were focused on collection of primary data, the broader
research agenda was integrated with a proactive public program to increase awareness of
archaeology and archaeological methods and goals during Indiana Archaeology Month 2008.
Excavations open to the public at the Strawtown enclosure were designed to encourage
public participation and education, and volunteer labor and public outreach were important
components.
During the three weeks of excavations conducted between September 23 and October 14,
2008, at least 3,090 individuals visited the Strawtown enclosure site; 47 percent (1,453) of
1
these visitors attended through scheduled school and educational group tours in a structured
program co-staffed by Hamilton County Parks and Recreation Department (HCPRD) and
IPFW-AS personnel. Activities included hands-on participation in screening and identifying
artifacts, as well as demonstrations of actual archaeological methods, nature walks, and talks
on the park’s long history of human occupation. School groups participating during the 2008
programming include Allisonville Elementary, 5th graders (Hamilton County); Amy
Beverland Elementary, 5th graders (Marion County); Bailey Homeschoolers (Hamilton
County; Clay Middle School, 7th graders (Hamilton County); Forest Hill Elementary, 4th
graders (Hamilton County); Hamilton Heights Primary School, 4th graders (Hamilton
County); Hazel Dell Elementary, 4th graders (Hamilton County); Hinkle Creek Elementary,
4th graders (Hamilton County); Noble Crossing Elementary, 4th graders (Hamilton County);
North Elementary, 4th graders (Hamilton County); Park Tudor, 8th graders (Marion County);
Pilgrims in Progress Homeschoolers, 3rd grade through high school (Hamilton County);
Roots and Wings Homeschoolers (Hamilton County); Skiles Test Elementary, 5th graders
(Marion County); Smoky Row Elementary, 4th graders (Hamilton County); Stoney Creek
Elementary, 4th graders (Hamilton County); and Tipton Elementary, 4th graders (Tipton
County). A variety of factors—including high gasoline prices, school budget cuts, and the
last year of fall ISTEP testing—combined in 2008 to lower the number of organized school
and homeschool tours, although it was notable the number of school classes who had been
limited to one field trip in the school year and chose the Koteewi Park event. An easing of
gasoline prices and the shift to spring ISTEP testing suggest that 2008 school attendance
figures were only a temporary drop.
Other groups touring the site were tour guides from the Eiteljorg Museum of American
Indians and Western Art (Marion County); Indiana Historians (Madison and Hamilton
counties); Collection Identification Program; Indiana Master Naturalists (Johnson, Hamilton,
Hancock, and Marion counties); University High School History Club (Hamilton County);
and several Girl and Boy Scout groups from throughout central Indiana. New programming
events in 2008 drew a wider range of age groups (which also contributed to the decrease in
percentage of school tours): an Eiteljorg Museum Archaeology Day event for its
membership; “Nature Dan’s” Medicinal Booth event; all-day atlatl throwing demonstrations;
and a breakfast for all Strawtown Koteewi Park volunteers.
Individual volunteers, many of whom have returned year after year, included Holland
Anderson, Tom Bleisch, Valley Blevins, Jennifer and Tim Chisler, Brian Cunningham, Steve
Dickover, Marilyn Doll, Terry and Dixie Ihnat, David Johnson, Jenny King, Bill Lybarger,
Pat McClary, Nancy McVey, Amy Moore, Jeff and Luke Pieper, Jeff Roberts, Bill
Scheibelhut, Linda Shields, Mike Taylor, Paul V., Paula Varriano, Suzie Wallach, and Bill
and Deanna Wilson. We are especially grateful to professional archaeologists Perry Harrell,
Leon Hostetler, and Claire Ewing, who each worked the full three weeks as volunteers. An
additional debt of gratitude is extended to the Hamilton County Jail work-release detail that
completed backfill removal from the previous year’s excavations prior to the beginning of
the 2008 archaeological excavations. Betty Van Winkle and Lou Ann Winterrowd
volunteered in the IPFW-AS laboratory throughout the year, helping process the materials.
In addition to the public programming during Archaeology Month 2008, an active
schedule of presentations based on the results of the fieldwork was maintained: Robert G.
McCullough, Principal Investigator, gave an invited paper on an overview of the population
dynamics among the three Late Prehistoric group occupying Strawtown Koteewi Park at the
2
annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology in Atlanta, April 23, 2008; and
public presentations by McCullough included a talk entitled “Strawtown: A Farming
Frontier in Central Indiana,” for the Master Naturalist Program, at the park on September 20,
2008, and one on Midwestern enclosures for ARCH, Fort Wayne, at the Allen County
Library, May 5, 2009. In addition, the Strawtown research was highlighted by Dr.
McCullough in the April 15, 2009, segment of “Discover IPFW” on the Fort Wayne PBS
channel, WFWA.
The Hamilton County Parks and Recreation Department administered the public tour
program at Strawtown and generously supplied personnel for tour guides and some site
interpreters, as well as accommodations for students and staff during Archaeology Month.
All materials related to the investigations will be curated at the Strawtown Koteewi Park,
Hamilton County, Indiana, under accession number 08.1.
This report is divided into chapters: Chapter 2 describes the general environmental and
cultural setting of the research; Chapter 3 describes excavations at the Strawtown enclosure
(12-H-883) with details of stratigraphy and cultural features encountered; Chapter 4 presents
a description of the cultural materials recovered, with a focus on chipped stone tools and
ceramics; and Chapter 5 is a discussion of the 2008 field season research findings.
Appendices include an analysis of modified bone and antler recovered during excavation
(Appendix A), a summary of postholes from 12-H-883 (Appendix B), the Field Specimen
(FS) Log (Appendix C), the Flotation Log (Appendix D), a profile drawing of Feature 46
(Appendix G), and a brief description of human remains encountered during the excavations
at 12-H-883 (Appendix H). Two appendices describing Research Experience for
Undergraduates (REU) research projects complete the publication of research conducted at
the enclosure: Appendix E is by Scott Hipskind on his work at 12-H-1052; and Appendix F is
by Colin Graham on the geophysical results of his project. References for the literature cited
in the appendices are included in the main bibliography.
3
CHAPTER 2:
PROJECT SETTING
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project area for this study is in central Indiana along the west fork of the White River
where it broadens onto a wide floodplain north of Indianapolis in Hamilton County (Figure
2.1). The Hamilton County Parks and Recreation Department (HCPRD) Koteewi Park
property occupies the bottoms and an upland remnant in a near-oxbow bend of the White
River. Like most of the midcontinent, the physiography of the project area is dominated by
the results of Pleistocene glaciation (Melhorn 1997:18-20; Wayne 1966:32-36). The northern
and central areas of Indiana were shaped by mid-Wisconsinan ice advances that deposited
glacial till where glacial ice stagnated, forming large areas of very little relief. Along the
borders of the major glacial meltwater channels, such as the White River, wind and erosion
formed elevated terraces and sand dunes. Later, sediment formed as alluvial deposits along
drainageways, as bog sediments in wetlands, and as colluvial deposits on slopes (Wayne
1963).
Natural Regions of the Study Area
In a recent mapping of Indiana’s natural features, Homoya (1997:158) divides the state into
twelve natural regions, with twenty sections, or subregions. The project area lies within the
Central Till Plain Natural Region, the largest natural region in Indiana and one that occupies
the central third of the state (Homoya et al. 1985). The Central Till Plain “was thickly
covered and reshaped” by the Wisconsinan glaciation, resulting in a “level to gently
undulating, somewhat monotonous landscape that was formerly heavily forested” (Hedge
1997:195). Within the Central Till Plain, the Strawtown site is in the larger Tipton Till Plain
Section (see Figure 2.1), which encompasses all of Hamilton, Madison, Delaware, Henry,
Hancock, Marion, Hendricks, and Rush counties and extends south across most of Shelby
and Johnson counties and the northern and northeastern portions of Morgan County. The
Tipton Till Plain Section is characterized by loamy Wisconsinan till and nearly level to
moderately rolling ground moraine. Occasional terminal moraines, knolls, and kames are
present, with esker remnants and meltwater drainageways entrenched in the till. The
entrenched channels often contain present-day streams or swamps or have been filled with
sediment, leaving shallow depressions (Strum 1979; Wayne 1966). The area has been
impacted most by post-statehood population increases, modern farming techniques, and
development related to the growth of Indianapolis.
Soils
Soils in the Strawtown area belong to the Ockley-Westland-Fox (outwash terrace) and
Shoals-Genesee (floodplain) associations (Hosteter 1978). Major terrace soils in the project
area include Nineveh loam (NnA) and Ockley silt loam (OcA and OcB). Both of these are
well-drained, gravelly soils (Hosteter 1978). Major floodplain soils in the project area include
Genesee silt loam (Ge), Shoals silt loam (Sh), and Ross Loam (R0). Genesee and
4
Figure 2.1. Indiana physiographic map with the location of the Strawtown enclosure, 12-H-883 (base map from
Schneider 1966).
5
Ross soils are well drained, while Shoals is somewhat poorly drained. Shoals silt loam occurs
in narrow, elongated areas along streams (Hosteter 1978).
Flora
Such a diversity of glacial effects on topography is matched by ecotonal diversity. Although
the pre-settlement vegetation of the Central Till Plain Region was dominated by beechmaple-oak forest, which typically occurs on Wisconsinan and Illinoisan till (Homoya et al.
1985:255), the northern flatwoods community also included
red maple (Acer rubrum), pin oak (Quercus palustris), burr oak (Q. Bicolor), Shumard’s oak (Q.
Shumardi), American elm (Ulmus americana), and green ash (Fraximus pennsylvanica). In slightly
better drained sites beech (Fagus grandifolia), sugar maple (Acer saccharum), black maple (Acer
nigrum), white oak (Quercus alba), red oak (Q. Rubra), shagbark hickory (Carya ovata), tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tulipfera), red elm (Ulmus rubra), basswood (Tilia americana), and white ash (Fraxinus
americana) are characteristic (Homoya et al. 1985:255).
Black cherry, sassafras, and walnut were also common (Petty and Jackson 1966:283-285).
Smaller trees, such as redbud, dogwood, and blue beech, flourished in the understory, as did
such shrub species as spice bush, greenbriar, elderberry, pawpaw, wahoo, leatherwood, and
maple-leaf viburnum. Small patches of prairie-type soils indicate a break in the closedcanopy beech-maple forest and provided a wider variety of species than is typically
associated with a primary forest. Also, poorly drained glacial bogs are scattered on the
landscape within the Tipton Till Plain Section, providing additional variation among species
present.
Even within the same natural region, floodplain plant communities can differ from more
upland areas, increasing the available floral resources. A study of twenty tracts from both
forks of the White River has shown that a total of seventy-one species of woody plants make
up the floodplain forest, although only ten species represent 86.2 percent of the total. Silver
maple was the most important, followed by sycamore, and then American elm, cottonwood,
hackberry, cork elm, box-elder, black willow, white ash, and red elm. “Important understory
trees in order of decreasing importance were hawthorn, redbud, wild plum, hornberry, and
flowering dogwood” (Petty and Jackson 1966:276). In pre-settlement forests, beech and tulip
poplar also would have been important floodplain species, but since the Euroamerican
settlement of Indiana, these trees no longer flourish there. Shrubs include elderberry, wahoo,
spicebush, swamp privet, pawpaw, and wafer-ash, with vines including grape, poison ivy,
trumpet creeper, greenbriar, and Virginia creeper (Petty and Jackson 1966:276-277).
Prairie tracts were also recorded at Strawtown during the early settlement period (Brown
1821). Tall-grass prairies, more common along the Wabash River, supported “hundreds of
plant species. . . . It was not unusual to find twenty different species growing in one square
meter of ground” (Post 1997:190).
Fauna
The drainageways and primary forests of central Indiana contained as abundant a range of
animal species as of flora, most of which were common throughout the eastern United States
6
(Gammon and Gerking 1966; Minton 1966; Mumford 1966:474). Riverine environments
supported a variety of fish and mussels; along their banks and in the floodplain forests were
reptiles and amphibians, waterfowl, and mammals adapted to aquatic environments, such as
muskrat and beaver (Sieber et al. 1989:19). Land animals of importance to Late Prehistoric
subsistence, such as white-tailed deer, raccoon, and turkey, were widely distributed and
mobile, moving through upland and lowland regions in response to seasonal or climatic
changes. Other species known to have been common in the project area in pre-statehood
Indiana included elk, black bear, eastern cottontail, Virginia opossum, grey and fox squirrels,
and passenger pigeon (Richards and Whitaker 1997:152). Species that once were found in the
study area, such as porcupine, river otter, mountain lion, lynx, Carolina parakeet, spotted
skunk, timber and red wolves, and wolverine (Richards and Whitaker 1997:154), have been
extirpated in the last few centuries, along with elk, black bear, and the passenger pigeon.
Bison did not enter Indiana until the protohistoric period (Tankersley 1986, 1992:105), at the
beginning of the Little Ice Age (ca. AD 1650), and so were not available to the prehistoric
populations of central Indiana.
While Late Prehistoric peoples relied heavily on farming, they also utilized a range of
wild flora and supplemented their diets with a variety of faunal resources available to them,
such as deer, elk, bear, raccoon, turkey, and other fowl, fish, and mussels.
Climate
The climate of Indiana (Newman 1997:85-89) is considered to be temperate-continental,
meaning that the state lies within the temperate zone and that there is a “pronounced
difference in average seasonal temperature between summer and winter” (Newman 1997:85).
Indiana’s climate is also humid due to prevalent southerly winds that bring moisture up from
the Gulf of Mexico.
Although Indiana’s average annual precipitation is around 40 inches, there are regional
and seasonal differences: in the southern part of the state, the wettest season is late winter,
and the driest month is October; for the northern and central regions the wettest season is late
spring, and February is the driest month. In the southern region less than half the annual
precipitation falls during the growing season, leaving it more prone to drought, while in the
northern and central sections 54 percent of the annual precipitation occurs during the frostfree growing season, increasing the risk of flood damage to crops.
Average annual temperature varies as well. In the last one hundred years—for which
there is reliable recorded information—the northern and northeastern areas of the study area
have had an average annual temperature of 50 to 51 degrees Fahrenheit, while the
southernmost areas average 55 to 56 (Newman 1997:86). For horticulturalists such as the
Late Prehistoric peoples in this study, the average annual frost-free growing season is an
important consideration. In central Indiana, the average frost-free season is 160 to 170 days.
Most of the study area can count on 170 to 180 days, but these are average growing seasons,
and “killing frosts have been recorded in every month of the year” (Newman 1997:89)
throughout the state.
These climatological figures for the project area indicate that there are environmental
risks—from drought and floods to premature frosts—associated with a sedentary,
horticultural economic base. Such extremes do not seem to have increased or decreased
significantly in the last one hundred years or so, although there have been “detectable shifts”
(Newman 1997:93) in mean annual temperatures on a global or hemispheric scale. For
7
example, in Indiana, the 1880s were the coolest decade on record, followed by a warming
trend “of nearly 3 degrees F in annual mean temperatures between the 1890s and the 1930s,
followed by a cooling trend of about 2 degrees F from the 1940s through the 1970s”
(Newman 1997:93). After the cool 1970s, there was an increase again in the 1980s to an
average temperature equivalent to that in the 1930s.
While climate is constantly changing, whether there were fluctuations in climate so
significant that the level of environmental risk in the project area increased during the Late
Prehistoric period (AD 1200–1425/1450) is a crucial question. Griffin (1960a, 1961) was
among the first to suggest there was a climate shift during the Late Prehistoric and to
speculate about its impact on culture. Since then, numerous researchers have confirmed his
pioneering suggestion. The period AD 900 to 1250 or 1300, known as the Neo-Atlantic
Climatic Episode (Hart 1992:122; Newman 1997:96), was a period of thermal maximum in
the last millennium. Based on pollen analysis, as well as Griffin’s (1960b) analysis of the
distribution of the prairie vole, temperatures are estimated to have been as much as 7.2
degrees F warmer in July in latitudes above 45 degrees north in North America (Newman
1997:96). During this time, Mississippian populations expanded into areas that are now
marginal for maize cultivation (Griffin 1960b, 1961). Farther to the east, Norse settlers
colonized Greenland (Fagan 1991:15-19; Griffin 1961; Grove 1988:2-4). After AD 1300,
temperatures began to drop, resulting in a period that may have been drier as well (Gunn and
Adams 1981), though some (Baerreis et al. 1976; Davis 1983; Knox 1993) argue that
conditions were moister.
By AD 1450 or so, the Neo-Boreal Climatic Episode (Penman 1988; for nomenclature,
see Bryson and Padauk 1981) was underway. Temperatures continued to decline until
reaching a maximum 3.6 or 5.4 degrees F below normal in the century between 1650 and
1750, a period often called the Little Ice Age (Fagan 2000; Newman 1997:96). Greenland
was abandoned by AD 1480 (Grove 1988:259-260). In northern Europe, Denmark
experienced agricultural decline and the abandonment of farms in northern Jutland; in
Norway, the limits of cultivation dropped 150 m in elevation between AD 1300 and 1600
(Grove 1988:414).
In the North American midcontinent, climatic deterioration is more difficult to detect, and
most of the evidence is from the upper Great Lakes where ecotones (Wright 1983) sensitive
to temperature variation and varved lake sediments (Grove 1988:389-391) containing pollen
for analysis are found. Research in the upper Midwest does support the occurrence of a
cooling trend after AD 1200 (Bernabo 1981; Green 1993; Knox 1993; Koerner 1977;
LaMarche 1974), with a growing season temperature lower on average by 1 degree C (1.8
degree F) by AD 1700. Knox (1993) estimates that in the upper Mississippi Valley during the
transition from the medieval warm interval to the Little Ice Age, the mean annual
precipitation increased 10 to 20 percent. In Minnesota, Green (1993) estimated the frost-free
season declined by as much as 34 days, based on palynological data.
This evidence for cooling temperatures and their impact upon ecological systems,
however, is from areas much farther north than the study area. No studies are available for
Indiana, but in the central Illinois River valley, an area comparable to central Indiana, Asch
and Asch (1986:430) conclude that “even climatic shifts as pronounced and lengthy as the
Little Ice Age” could not be distinguished in the vegetation pattern. Similarly, King (1990:4),
in the report of investigations at Morton Village and Norris Farms 36 (both also in the Illinois
River valley), remarked that “climatic changes that occurred during the last 3,000 years . . .
probably had little effect on the overall availability of potential plant and animal resources in
8
central Illinois,” since most of the food species “lie well within their distribution range
limits.” (For similar assessments, see also King and Graham 1981; Milner et al. 1991:258;
Sieber et al. 1989). Because the growing season in the lower Midwest is more than sufficient
for maize varieties grown prehistorically (King 1993:236-238), the restriction of agricultural
regions that might have occurred with each 1.8 degree F drop in temperature—estimated to
result in a decrease of the growing season by approximately ten days—would only take place
in marginal, more northerly regions.
In sum, although the climate in the study area has varied not only in the last century but
most likely in earlier centuries as well, the level of environmental risk in the study area can
be considered relatively stable (King and Graham 1981) during the Late Prehistoric period.
Even the most pronounced climate shifts of the early Neo-Boreal amounted to only a few
degrees from normal and occurred over a long span of time. Like the climatic fluctuations
recorded in the last century, the below-normal temperatures varied by fewer degrees than the
difference in mean average temperatures between central and southern Indiana. While
cooling temperatures probably did affect marginal areas of maize production after AD 1250
or 1300, the flora and fauna exploited for subsistence in the lower Midwest were comfortably
within their distribution range, rather than marginal to it, and probably experienced minimal
adverse effects.
PREVIOUS RESEARCH
Given such a diverse array of natural resources, it is not surprising that the park property
contains an abundance of archaeological sites. Among the best known is the Strawtown
enclosure (12-H-883), which has been recognized as a significant prehistoric earthwork since
the late nineteenth century and is currently listed in the National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP). The site was first recorded by Government Land Office surveyors as Indian
“mounds” in Section 3 of T19N, R5E, “adjacent to a large prairie” (Brown 1821), before the
county was created in 1823. The next official mention was by E. T. Cox (1879:128-129), the
state geologist, who reported in the 1879 Indiana Geological Survey report that:
The principal works in Tipton [sic] county are close to Strawtown and in a cultivated field. The largest
is a circle, with an open gateway on one side. It has been so badly obliterated by the plow that I was
unable to make a complete survey of it, especially as the field was covered with a heavy crop of corn at
the time of my visit. Enough was left to show that it was several hundred feet in diameter, and had a
ditch or fosse on the outside—being singular in this respect, as all other works in the State of which I
have any knowledge have the ditch on the inside of the wall. Judge Overman, of Tipton, has made a
large collection of Mound-builders’ relics, principally from his own and the surrounding counties [Cox
1879:128-129].
In 1880 Helm’s history of Hamilton County included a lengthy exposition on the race of
“Mound-Builders” and their works, noting that
In this county . . . there are but one or two noteworthy examples. The principal of these are found on
the south side of White River, a half-mile west of Strawtown, in White River Township, situate on the
farm of S. B. Castor, in the southeast part of the northwest quarter of Section 3, Township 19 north,
Range 5 east, near the center of the section [Helm 1880:28].
9
Helm furnished a more complete account of Cox’s visit “in the fall of 1875,” quoting from
Cox:
I was taken by Gen. Moss and Mr. Locke to Strawtown, seven miles from Noblesville, to see some
prehistoric earthworks. They are now in a cultivated field owned by J. R. Parker. The corn and weeds
were so thick it was impossible to make an accurate or even satisfactory examination of the works. The
main work is a circle; about three hundred feet in diameter, thrown up in the center, but apparently
level, and surrounded by a ditch that Mr. Parker says was about six feet deep when he first saw it. Fifty
yards to the south of the large circle there is a small circle, about fifty feet in diameter, and now almost
obliterated. The site of these works is on the second bottom of the White River, about a quarter of a
mile from the bank, and thirty feet above the overflow. Between the earth inclosures and the river there
is a mound which commands an extensive view up and down White River. The large inclosure is one
of the very few in the Mississippi Valley that have the ditch on the outside, and it is therefore worthy
of more careful study [Helm 1880:28].
After quoting Cox’s observations, Helm continued with additional information and included
a map he had prepared (Helm 1880:29), which is the first known of the site, showing the
location of the enclosure in relation to the river:
This principal inclosure is situated about seven hundred feet west of the river and about one thousand
feet northwest of the center of Section 3, on an elevated point of land extending in a northwesterly
direction into the bend of White River, surrounding the major part of the northwest quarter of the same
section. This elevated point overlooks a strip of low bottom land, varying in width from four hundred
feet on the east to two thousand feet on the north, and about three thousand feet on the west, widening
to the southwest and south, White River now occupying the outer boundary, high bluff land bordering
the opposite side. The low bottom land just described is composed of a light sand of loam or alluvium,
indicating that when those works were erected the White River covered the entire area, with the
fortification little more than one hundred feet from its margin. An accurate measurement of the works
shows a diameter of two hundred and eighty feet from the middle of the embankment on one side to
that on the opposite side. From this point the outer slope to the middle of the ditch surrounding is about
twenty feet, the ditch having been about thirty feet wide and nine feet deep, the earth and gravel
excavated therefrom forming the embankment. The material excavated appears to have been in large
proportion composed of coarse gravel with a fair admixture of sand and loam. Inside the inclosure, the
middle area was originally, no doubt, of equal elevation with the surface outside, since the
embankment is still visible from the inside, and apparently two or two and a half feet high. The
purpose of this construction, it can scarcely be doubted, was for defense, the ditch on the outside being
designed to resist assault. Within the inclosure numerous specimens of ancient pottery have been
found; flint arrow-heads, also, of various designs and degrees of skill in workmanship, are discovered,
indicating with reasonable certainty the character of the works.
Almost directly to the westward, near the western extremity of the elevated peninsula before
described, and about six hundred feet from the earthworks, is situated a sepulchral mound and general
burial-place for the occupants of the fort. Its location commands a fine prospect to the northward,
westward and southward, and was well adapted to the purposes of a look-out station, in case of
expected invasion by enemies approaching along the river. On the site of this mound, skull and other
human bones have been exhumed, or otherwise uncovered in the process of cultivating the grounds.
Quite recently, many fine and comparatively well-preserved fragments of vessels, such as are supposed
to have been used for sepulchral purposes, have been found here. It is highly probable, also, that a
careful examination of these works, would bring to light many valuable mementoes of the ancient
inhabitants of this locality, who were interested in the fabrication of these archaeological monuments
[Helm 1880:128].
Later in his county history, Helm (1880:132) also described the town of Strawtown,
characterizing it as “originally a Delaware town of some consequence, from the fact that it
was located on one of the principal routes from the White River towns to the ancient capital
10
of the Miami nation at Ke-ki-ong-a,” as well as “occupying a position on the leading route of
travel from the older settlements in Wayne County and vicinity across the State to the Indian
towns on the Wabash and Lower Tippecanoe.”
Not long after Helm’s history, there was another account of the Strawtown site in the
annual report of the Indiana Department of Geology and Natural History for 1884:
The only point of interest to the antiquarian in Hamilton County is Strawtown and its vicinity. It is
situated in section 3, township 19, N, range 5 E., and is in the concave of the great bend of White
River. At, and above, this point that stream formed the line between the hunting ground of the
Delaware Indians south of it, and the Miamis north. West of the great bend of White River the
boundary was an undefined line extending west to the vicinity of Thorntown, thence running south to
the territories of the Piankashaws, Wyandottes and Shawnees. Strawtown was for years the principal
northern village of the Delawares, and home of their war chief. It is said to have been the most
populous of the Delaware towns, in the first decade of the present century; this is confirmed by the
large district of bottom land cultivated by the squaws when the whites first visited this locality, as well
as by the extensive burying ground, on which the river is now encroaching, and exposing the bones of
the red men at every freshet. The state of hostility which existed between the Delawares and the
Miamis previous to the battle of Tippecanoe in 1811, elsewhere alluded to, growing out of the assumed
right of Delawares to sell certain districts of their lands to the whites without the consent of the
confederated tribes, rendered Strawtown an insecure abode on account of the frequent incursion of the
more warlike Miamis, who were their immediate neighbors. On this account Governor Harrison
garrisoned Strawtown in the fall and winter of 1811 by a squadron of mounted riflemen, and in the
spring of 1812 assisted in removing the old men, the women and children to their old home in
Delaware county, Ohio, he having enlisted the warriors as scouts and guides in his campaign on the
Maumee.
But Strawtown has an antiquity evidently higher than the days of the Delaware Indians. The
mound builders have left their foot-prints in this vicinity by the numerous relics of the Stone age that
have been picked up by the present inhabitants. A little west of the present village there is a burial
mound about six feet high; it has been plowed over for a number of years, so that not only its height
has been reduced, but its base rendered so indistinct that its diameter can not be accurately measured; it
is, however, between seventy and eighty feet. It was opened by Judge Overman, of Tipton, and four
skeletons were found lying on the original surface of the ground, with their heads together and their
feet directed to the cardinal points of the compass.
At a distance of 150 yards southeast of this mound is a circular embankment, now about three feet
high, and twelve feet on the base. It has a ditch on the outside, which evidently furnished a portion of
the earth for the embankment. The diameter of the circle, measured from the bottom of the ditch on
each side, is 315 feet. There is a doubt as to what period this work should be referred. A tradition
among the “old settlers” claims that the remains of palisades that once formed a stockade were
standing on the embankment when the early immigrants settled here. This tradition is strengthened by
the fact that in 1810 a stockade was built by the Delaware Indians somewhere near this spot, as a
protection against their Miami neighbors north of White River. Moreover, it was not the custom of the
mound builders to make a ditch on the outside of their embankments. On the other hand, the regularity
of the work, and the perfect form of the circle, is hardly compatible with the idea that this is the work
of modern savages. It is possible that the circle dates back to the period of the mound builders, and that
the Delawares took advantage of it to build their stockade on, and made the ditch to strengthen, their
palisades. The ditch has been filled, and the embankment reduced much by cultivation [Brown
1884:28-29].
After this flurry of attention by nineteenth-century investigators, the site dropped from
scholarly notice for nearly 50 years. In the 1920s, local newspapers reported the discovery of
skeletal remains in the vicinity of the enclosure, one with the headline “Unearthed Four
Skeletons on the Roy Castor Farm:”
11
While plowing on the Roy Castor farm near Strawtown late Monday afternoon, Russell Unger, son of
Charles Unger, tenant of the place, unearthed a complete skeleton with the exception of the lower leg
from the knee down and the hip bone of another skeleton. They were found about two feet under the
surface of the ground.
The teeth in the skull of the complete skeleton were almost perfect and the enamel was as bright
and white as it had just been cleaned. The other bones were in a good state of preservation. It is the
theory of those who examined them that they were the bones of a one-legged man.
In view of the fact that the skeletons were dug up on a slight knoll gives rise to the belief that they
might have been those of mound builders who, it is known, were numerous around Strawtown before
the days of the Indians. Positions of the skeletons indicated that the bodies had been buried with their
heads in the direction of a circle which was a characteristic of that race of people. As a rule there were
five or six people buried in positions of this kind and then another burying ground was located.
All of the bones were taken to the Unger home and some of them were given to the children of the
Strawtown school for exhibition purposes.
Tuesday afternoon a party of Noblesville men concluded they would resume search for more
skeletons and they drove up to the Castor farm and spent several hours in digging next the place where
Unger found the first skeleton. They unearthed two more. . . . Like the two which were found Monday
by young Unger the heads were in the direction of a circle and all of the bones were in a good state of
preservation. One of the skeletons which was discovered Tuesday was left in the ground and the other
one was brought to this city by the Noblesville searching party.
There was evidence that the mound in which they were found might have been ten or twelve feet
high at one time but had been worn down gradually by cultivation from generation to generation until
the bones, which were unearthed Tuesday, were only about eighteen inches below the surface of the
ground.
The party which did the digging Tuesday afternoon also found evidence which convinces them
that the bones were those of mound builders. Several small pieces of pottery were found near the
bones. Some of this pottery showed signs of special workmanship and some of it looked as if it might
have been intended for some kind of cooking utensils [Noblesville Daily Ledger, April 23, 1923, p. 1].
Only in 1930 did the site again attract professional scrutiny. Local newspapers reported
the visit of Professor Frederick Eggan of the University of Chicago who was to survey
Hamilton County’s prehistoric sites. Eggan’s report acknowledged that “a study of these
earth-works and an analysis of the related culture is an important problem in Indiana
Archaeology,” adding that “there have been practically no excavations of a scientific order,
or any other order, in Hamilton County. Most of the material that has been uncovered has
been lost and no record remains” (Eggan 1930). Eggan’s report, however, was brief and
served mainly to advance his own theory that the enclosure was ceremonial rather than
defensive:
White River Township
Mounds and Enclosures: A large earth enclosure, associated with a burial mound and village site, is
located near Strawtown on the White River, south side. At present the enclosure is almost leveled, due
to cultivation. . . . The accompanying map shows the group as surveyed in 1880 by T. B. Helm. I have
made several additions and corrections in pencil. The smaller circle mentioned by Professor Cox is at
present entirely obliterated. In my opinion both the enclosures had ceremonial significance that that
[sic] being used as a means of defense. Their small size, their lack of proyection [sic] and the absence
of an adequate water supply all make them unsuitable for withstanding attack. In addition their village
site is located about 600 feet to the west, rather than being in the enclosure.
The mound 500 feet to the north of the large enclosure, at present in the midst of a cornfield, is
undoubtedly a burial mound. It is situated on the first terrace and is 90 feet in diameter and at present
about 4 feet high. Skeletal material and pottery are reported as being found during excavation and
cultivation. A survey of the mound disclosed several human vertebrae on the surface. The so-called
“Sepulchral mound” to the west is probably a gravel ridge used as a burial place.
12
Village Site: On this elevated peninsula, representing the second terrace of the river, is the site of an
extensive and long occupied village. At present a gravel pit is located at the end of this peninsula, and
the exposed strata yield village site material and intrusive burial pits into the glacial gravels.
Excavation of these pits revealed portions of the skeleton of two child’s burials, animal bones,
mostly of deer, an implement made from the canine tooth, several potsherds, and a large amount of
charcoal. The surrounding surface earth likewise contained charcoal to a depth of 6 to 8 inches. The
fields to the east revealed potsherds, broken implements, and many flint chips.
The known material from this site is in the possession of Mr. O. A. Stage of Strawtown, Mr. P. A.
Bray of Noblesville and the State Museum.
The trail from Strawtown to the Wabash River near Lafayette ran nearby. In the other direction the
trail ran to Newcastle, Connersville and beyond to Ohio.(See map).
The location of the above sites is on the old R. B. Castor farm, now owned by Mr. C. L. Pierson,
in the S E 1/4 of the N W 1/4 of S. 3, T.19 N, R.5 E, near the center of the section [Eggan 1930:1-3].
In an undated and unsigned “Review of the Hamilton County 1930 Survey” (Glenn A. Black
Laboratory of Archaeology site files), the diameter of the enclosure is given as 293 feet,
while “the ditch is 40 feet wide and at another point 50 feet wide” with “no entranceways
crossing the ditch and leading to the interior” (pp. 1-2); the burial mound was described as
“excavated by amateurs a number of times”; and the “village site” was described as
extending
along a gravel ridge northwest from the circle and south of the mound. The surface is covered with the
usual village site debris. At the west end of this ridge gravel is being removed and, of course, is
constantly exposing a cross section of the village site surface. On a trip to this site during the summer
of 1930, the writer noticed several pits dug into the gravel and upon examination found them to contain
charcoal, ashes and a few bones. Repeated trips have always revealed new and interesting material.
On January 4th., the writer . . . made a trip to the gravel pit and found that a new pit had been exposed
by the caving in of the gravel wall. This particular pit was 5 feet 5 inches wide and 6 feet 8 inches
deep. The bottom of the pit was rounded and was filled to height of 9 inches with pure wood ashes,
bones, several portions of the jawbone of the deer and shells. The next layer was composed of earth,
charcoal and a few bones to a depth of 12 inches. Above this was an 8 inch layer of charcoal and
bones. The remainder of the pit was filled with earth with a scattering of charcoal. Several sherds and a
large fragment of a bowl rim were found in the bottom layers of the pit. The pottery is sand tempered
and is decorated similar to the usual methods used by members of the Algonkian family. Many similar
pits were found by the late Prof. Mills of the Ohio Archeological and Historical Society in exploring
the Baum and Gartner Village Sites and also by Prof. Putnam in his work at Madisonville [p. 3].
The brief “Review” may be by Eli Lilly, who published an aerial view of the Strawtown
enclosure and a photograph of sherds from the site (Lilly 1937), noting their similarity to Fort
Ancient styles. Griffin (1943:265) concurred, adding the Strawtown site as an important
central Indiana site showing a Fort Ancient influence, as well as evidence of a “Fisher Focus”
(Griffin 1943:266). Jack C. Householder surveyed and collected both the Strawtown site and
the Taylor village site from the 1930s through the 1960s. By mid-century, the two sites
(Strawtown and Taylor Village), the materials recovered from them, and memories of a
historic Indian occupation near Strawtown were becoming conflated. In a 1968 letter to Lilly
concerning his activities on behalf of the Indiana Historical Society, Householder wrote:
[12 Hv 3 STRAWTOWN SITE
This site is located on a high terrace on the left bank of White River. Aerial photographs were taken
May 18, 1967 of the general area of the Strawtown site on the left bank. A defined area of a circle and
13
a trench were noted in the bottom land or flood plane [sic] a short distance north of the high terrace
where the large circle is located in barn yard.
12 Hv 25 TAYLOR SITE
This site is located on the right bank of White River across the river and a little northeast of the large
circle. There is some reference mentioned in Hamilton County History that an Iroquoian site was
located on the north side of White River at Strawtown. Robert McClintock informed the writer about
the pottery and artifacts found in this area. We have a combination of shell-tempered, and grittempered pottery sherd [sic] with cord-marking with some plain this would indicate that we have two
occupations on the north side of the River [letter from Jack C. Householder to Eli Lilly, March 18,
1968, GBL site files].
Under the ownership of Dan Taylor, access to the Strawtown enclosure and related sites
was denied to both amateurs and professional archaeologists for several decades. During
those decades, Taylor constructed a grass airstrip in the bottomland and stored a large
collection of antique machinery throughout his property. The area within and immediately
adjacent to the enclosure was used as a dump for vehicles and other large historic debris
(automobiles, boats, farm equipment, aircraft, concrete rubble, scrap metal, etc.). This debris
was reportedly placed to protect the site from unauthorized excavation and vandalism. Only
one limited contract survey (Stillwell 1996) was conducted on the property, in advance of the
realignment of Strawtown Avenue; that survey recommended one of the sixteen identified
sites (12-H-792) for further testing, though the site was probably destroyed by roadway
improvement (McCord and Cochran 2003:63).
Despite the lack of access to the site, efforts to understand the relationship between
Taylor Village and the Strawtown enclosure and their place in Indiana prehistory continued.
Large-scale systematic database enhancement surveys (e.g., Brinker 1984; Cree 1991;
Stephenson et al. 1984) of the upper west fork of the White River in Hamilton County and an
overview by Hixon (1988) of the Strawtown vicinity were conducted. Recently, a survey
(Carmany 2002) of HCPRD property along the White River east of Strawtown identified 14
sites in 124 acres; based on diagnostic lithic and ceramic artifacts, Carmany (2002:36)
concluded that “the area was heavily utilized during the Late Archaic and Late Woodland/
Mississippian eras of the region.”
Some past literature has linked the limited amount of pottery in curated collections to the
earthwork (Lilly 1937:106; Griffin 1943:265) and related it to the Oliver phase (Dorwin
1971); in other cases, the materials recovered from the Taylor Village site have been
confused with the earthwork at Strawtown (McCullough 1991:130, 1992:55). Closer
examination of the Indiana State Museum collections (Cochran et al. 1993) demonstrated that
the Huber materials came from the Taylor Village site. A reexamination by the Principal
Investigator of the materials curated at the Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology also
confirmed that the Huber occupation was located on the opposite, or north, side of the river.
The limited amount of Late Prehistoric pottery recovered from the vicinity of the Strawtown
enclosure in the earlier collections exhibits the same similarities to Springwells pottery as do
the Great Lakes impressed sherds found with several other Oliver assemblages. Only one
Anderson phase Fort Ancient sherd with a decorated handle and a guilloche design was
present in the collection available for study (Griffin 1943:clvii, figures 1-8; Lilly 1937:106).
The outline of the main enclosure is clearly visible in an aerial photograph taken in the
1930s (Lilly 1937). The main enclosure becomes progressively more difficult to discern in
later aerial photographs, as the area was taken out of cultivation and was covered with
14
increasingly denser vegetation. The smaller circle that was barely visible in 1875 was
estimated to be 15 m in diameter and approximately 50 m south of the larger Strawtown
earthwork. Although at least two mounds were also reported in the vicinity of the earthwork,
one about 500 or 600 feet north on the valley terrace and the other on the extreme west end
of the upland landform upon which the large enclosure rests, none of these structures is
clearly visible in the aerials. The outlines of the second, smaller enclosure may be visible to
the southwest of the main enclosure in the 1930s photograph, but the possible outlines of the
smaller enclosure do not match the 1880s and 1930 accounts in terms of the size and relative
location of the smaller enclosure.
The Taylor property was purchased by the HCPRD from the Dan Taylor estate in 2000.
Since then, the park area has been professionally surveyed, discrete sites have been
identified, and some tested and/or excavated (Arnold et al. 2007; Cantin et al. 2003; McCord
2006; McCord and Cochran 2003; McCullough 2005, 2008; McCullough et al. 2004; White
et al. 2002; White, R. McCullough, and D. McCullough 2003; and White, D. McCullough
and R. McCullough 2003). As important, the HCPRD has developed a master plan (Schmidt
and Associates 2002) that will preserve and promote the project area’s archaeological
resources.
The area of park property north of Strawtown Road was archaeologically investigated in
2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 by Indiana University-Purdue University Fort
Wayne Archaeological Survey (IPFW-AS), directed by Dr. Robert G. McCullough. These
investigations have included both site-specific excavations and large-area surveys.
In 2001, the surface of the Strawtown enclosure (12-H-883) was mapped, and test
excavations confirmed the presence of features within the enclosure, an exterior ditch at least
five feet deeper than its current dimensions, and the presence of ceramic debris related to at
least three distinct cultural traditions—Fort Ancient, Western Basin, and Oneota—dating to
the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries (Figure 2.2). Bone preservation, as well as
preservation of the archaeological deposits in general, was excellent. Deposits associated
with the construction and deterioration of the ditch and embankment structures were
stratigraphically complex (White and McCullough 2002; White et al. 2002). Coupled with
the complexity of these deposits, the intensive occupations suggested by the amounts and
kinds of cultural debris presented numerous challenges to analysis, and it was clear that
further investigations were warranted to clarify the nature of the remains within the
enclosure.
During 2002, excavations were focused on opening larger, contiguous areas of 12-H-883
(see Figure 2.2) to expose and excavate features and search for evidence of a stockade wall
(White, R. McCullough, and D. McCullough 2003). Excavations over and interior to the
embankment revealed a profusion of well-preserved cultural features, including a series of
postholes suggestive of a stockade, several large, deep storage/refuse pits (some extending as
much as seven feet below the surface), and smaller pits. Slump deposits associated with the
embankment had protected many of the features from agricultural disturbance, and in many
cases it was possible to document where the features had been cut through the prehistoric A
horizon. The large storage/refuse pits were diverse and stratigraphically complex: one
contained a large deposit of carbonized maize at its base, while another contained an
articulated dog burial and large deer skull fragments. A smaller block unit placed closer to
the interior of the enclosure revealed much shallower deposits representing food processing
pits. Despite these discoveries, no house or domestic structure was identified. Investigations
15
conducted during 2003 (see Figure 2.2) revealed additional food processing and storage pits
and two burials (McCullough et al. 2004).
During 2004, excavations were located between Blocks 1 and 2 previously opened during
the 2002 and 2003 seasons (McCullough 2005). Efforts were focused in this area to connect
the two block areas into one contiguous excavation block area while attempting to locate a
domestic structure (see Figure 2.2). Several large storage pit features and postholes were
identified, although no discernible evidence of a domestic structure was encountered. Site 12H-1052, located south and west of the enclosure, had approximately 149 square meters
excavated during the field season, including hand units and machine trenching. These efforts
were an attempt to locate the second enclosure mentioned by Helm (1880:28). Two small
features were recorded but no evidence of a second enclosure was encountered.
Fieldwork during Archaeology Month 2006 also was centered on excavations at the
Strawtown enclosure (12-H-883) to identify a domestic structure, which had been detected in
the resistivity and ground-penetrating radar data collected during the REU season. Near the
end of the eight-week REU season, two four-unit blocks were opened for ground-truthing.
Several large features and burned, reddish-orange soil were identified in one of the blocks,
which was positioned over the southwest portion of the rectilinear anomaly. That block was
the focus for the 2006 Indiana Archaeology Month excavations; it was re-opened, and the
first domestic structure within the enclosure was identified during the final days of the
excavation. Additional work in 2007 during REU and Indiana Archaeology Month
investigations exposed more of the structure, in addition to a 4-unit block at the center of the
enclosure. The structure’s location suggested that, to date, the Oliver phase habitation of the
Strawtown enclosure seems to be most similar to the contemporaneous Anderson phase of
Middle Fort Ancient (AD 1200-1400) in terms of radiocarbon dates, ceramic assemblages,
and features. Further work, however, in the units opened to expose the structure and in the
center of the enclosure, has also confirmed a significant Taylor Village component within the
enclosure, primarily superpositioned on the Oliver features.
Site 12-H-3, in the bottoms below the enclosure, was subject to surface survey in 2001
and 2002. A controlled collection at 5-m and 20-m grids over a portion of the site in 2001
identified areas of high artifact density possibly related to feature/midden areas (White et al.
2002). Survey in 2002 focused on delimiting the site boundaries and collecting basic
information about the kinds and densities of artifacts present on the surface (White, R.
McCullough, and D. McCullough 2003). Unlike the enclosure site, the material remains of
three distinct cultural traditions were not present. Very few Fort Ancient-related sherds and
Taylor Village sherds have been recovered from 12-H-3, suggesting the site represents an
occupation that is qualitatively or chronologically distinct from the occupations of the
enclosure.
During May to June 2003 (McCullough et al. 2004), a limited geophysical survey of the
Castor Farm site (12-H-3) was conducted, and excavations to ground-truth the results
confirmed the presence of an intense occupation evident through numerous postholes,
hearths, pit features, burials and a potential house basin. Four 50x50 cm shovel volume
survey units were opened, one of which revealed the presence of large posts indicating a
stockade wall of substantial construction. During 2004, extensive geophysical survey, using
16
Figure 2.2. Topographic map of the Strawtown enclosure with associated archaeological excavations.
17
multiple instruments, identified two large central structures, as well as numerous anomalies
interpreted as features. One hundred and twenty-six square meters were opened in the central
portion of the site over and around the easternmost structure. One quarter of the structure was
excavated, and the presence and location of an outer stockade wall was confirmed
(McCullough 2005). During 2005, subsequent excavations re-opened the partially excavated
structure while removing the northeast quarter section. These investigations at 12-H-3 have
resulted in the definition of the Castor phase, a newly recognized and distinctive adaptation
of Western Basin-derived peoples to the social and environmental conditions of central
Indiana, as well as the listing in 2009 of the Castor Farm site on the NRHP.
Large-area investigations north of Strawtown Avenue included a reconnaissance-level
survey in 2002 of approximately 140.9 acres that resulted in the documentation of 42
previously unrecorded sites (12-H-1021 through 1059 and 12-H-1061 through 1063), ranging
from the Early Archaic through the early historic periods (White, R. McCullough, and D.
McCullough 2003). Further archaeological investigations north of Strawtown Avenue were
conducted in 2003 (White, D. McCullough, and R. McCullough 2003): a Phase Ia survey of
5.3 acres identified one previously unrecorded site (12-H-1087); subsurface testing
established the boundaries of 12-H-1052, 1053, and 1059; and Phase II testing of sites 12-H1053 through 1059 in advance of park development resulted in recommendations for
avoidance or mitigation of portions of 12-H-1057 (a Taylor Village-affiliated occupation), of
12-H-1058 (prehistoric and possibly historic occupations), and of 12-H-1059 (deposits
relating to the historic occupation of the Taylor property).
On the park property south of Strawtown Avenue, archaeological investigations have
been conducted by Ball State University under the direction of Donald Cochran and by
Indiana State University personnel with Mark Cantin and Dr. C. Russell Stafford as Principal
Investigators. Phase Ia reconnaissance in 2001 of approximately 450 acres by Ball State
University resulted in the identification of 89 previously unrecorded sites (12-H-935 through
965; 12-H-979 through 1020; and 12-H-1067 through 1082), ranging from the Late
Paleoindian through the early historic periods (McCord and Cochran 2003). Like the
Carmany (2002) survey farther upriver, the survey found that utilization of the area was
heaviest during the Archaic and Late Woodland/Late Prehistoric periods, but the survey
identified a Late Paleoindian presence and a “regionally unique presence of Middle
Woodland peoples” (McCord and Cochran 2003:iii). In late 2002, Indiana State University
personnel conducted geoarchaeological investigations on a 153.7-acre tract that will be
impacted by park development (Cantin et al. 2003). During these investigations, two pit
features related to site 12-H-993 were excavated. Deposits returned an AD 1300+
radiocarbon date, and the ceramic assemblage was most like 12-H-3, with a predominance of
cordmarked vessels and very few Fort Ancient-like, or guilloche, designs (Cantin et al.
2003:53-54). In 2006, a Phase Ic investigation was conducted south of Strawtown Avenue
prior to the proposed construction of a lake on park property (McCord 2006). This
investigation identified ten additional sites, 12-H-1175 through 1184, in the floodplain and
recovered Castor phase pottery (McCord 2006:11, 13).
In sum, recent professional archaeological investigations have identified 142 previously
unrecorded sites on the park property, both north and south of Strawtown Avenue, in addition
to the enclosure (12-H-883) and the occupation at 12-H-3. Although the majority of these
new sites are indeterminate prehistoric, identified through surface scatters, sites with
diagnostic artifacts indicate that the park property has been utilized “from at least 8,000 B.C.
through the Historic period” (McCord and Cochran 2003:iii). The following section details
18
the cultural periods of Indiana as they relate to central Indiana; specific knowledge about
many aspects of the prehistory of central Indiana is quite thin, and the park property, with its
abundance of sites, will be a valuable resource for better understanding this region’s
prehistory.
CULTURAL BACKGROUND
The cultural history of central Indiana is long and complex, extending at least 12,000 years
into the past and including a rich mosaic of prehistoric and historic societies, cultures, and
lifeways. The record of these manifestations is equally complex. The following is a brief
introduction to the periods commonly used to describe cultures and cultural changes in the
Midwest in general and in central Indiana in particular. Further information is available from
numerous sources. The Paleoindian Period of eastern North America has been addressed in
Tankersley and Isaac (1990). The Archaic Period has been addressed by Anslinger (1996),
Collins (1979), Jefferies (1988), and Smith and Mocas (1995) for the Louisville/Falls of the
Ohio area and by Vickery (1976) for southwestern Ohio. General sources for the Woodland
Period include Pacheco (1996), Brose and Greber (1979), Seeman (1979), Fischer (1974),
and Caldwell and Hall (1964). Efforts to define the Late Prehistoric period occupations of
central Indiana include McCullough (2000, 2003), McCullough and Wright (1997a, 1997b),
Redmond and McCullough (1993, 1995, 1997), Redmond (1994a, 1994b, 2003), White et
al. (2002), and White, R. McCullough, and D. McCullough (2003). Drooker (1997, 2000)
provides detailed descriptive syntheses of Fort Ancient, the Late Prehistoric cultural complex
recognized in southeastern Indiana, southwestern Ohio, and northern Kentucky. Henderson’s
(1992) volume is also a contribution to Late Prehistoric studies of the Middle Ohio Valley,
although it focuses on the Fort Ancient Tradition in Kentucky.
Paleoindian Period
Although there is some dispute about exactly when the first humans arrived in North
America, it is generally accepted that human populations were established on this continent
by 12,000 BP, after crossing the Bering Straits from Asia to settle in North America during
the waning of the Pleistocene. Paleoindian populations are hypothesized to have been
grouped into small, mobile bands of perhaps 20 to 50 individuals who subsisted mainly by
hunting. The population of North America by Paleoindian peoples was probably relatively
rapid (Surovell 2000).
Current evidence suggests that Paleoindian lifeways were centered around hunting the
abundant megafauna that were present in the grassland environments of the terminal
Pleistocene. The Paleoindian tool kit was mostly used for hunting and butchering large
mammals, including now-extinct Pleistocene species such as mastodon, mammoth, giant
bison, native horse, dire wolf, and giant ground sloth. The tool kit included well-formed
projectile points, scrapers, blades, burins, drills, and bifaces of high quality cherts such as
Wyandotte chert from Harrison County, Indiana. The defining artifact of the early
Paleoindian period is the fluted hafted biface. In central Indiana, specific point types include
Clovis and Cumberland forms (Justice 1987). These points are lanceolate in form and exhibit
concave bases, ground basal edges, and distinctive, narrow thinning flakes or “flutes”
removed from one or both faces.
19
Most Paleoindian sites documented in Indiana consist of apparently isolated hafted biface
finds. In southern Indiana, most recorded Paleoindian sites are on terraces in major river
valleys, especially along the Ohio River and its major tributaries (Dorwin 1966). Paleoindian
sites have also been located near water sources like springs and sinkholes (Sieber et al.
1989). Recent work in Indiana has also focused on the “chert belt” region of southern
Indiana, with particular attention paid to Wyandotte chert resources in Harrison County
(Smith 1984, 1989; Tankersley 1987, 1989). A Late Paleoindian point was recovered on the
outwash terrace south of Strawtown Avenue (McCord and Cochran 2003).
Archaic Period
By the early Holocene, a climatic warming/drying trend began to cause the grass lands and
coniferous forests to be replaced by mixed, deciduous forests, affecting both plant and animal
species used by prehistoric populations. In response, people began exploiting a wider range
of subsistence resources. These changes in subsistence and settlement strategies, first
occurring approximately 10,000 years ago, mark the beginning of the Archaic period.
The Archaic is defined here as a temporal period extending from 10,000 to 3000 BP
(about 8000 to 1000 BC). Broadly, the Archaic encompasses a period of increasing
population density, decreasing mobility, and the appearance of social structures that reach
their most pronounced expression in the later Woodland and Mississippian periods. The
Archaic is usually partitioned into Early, Middle, and Late subdivisions. These subdivisions
correspond to much generalized trends within the Archaic period and are used here to
broadly classify and discuss contemporary societies (i.e., these subdivisions pertain to
temporal periods rather than cultural stages). Many researchers assign Archaic
archaeological manifestations to one of three sub-periods based on a variety of technological,
social, subsistence, and settlement criteria in addition to temporal criteria. The temporal
limits used for the sub-periods here correspond to those suggested by Jefferies (1988) for
Kentucky.
Early Archaic
As defined here, the Early Archaic extends from 10,000 to 8000 BP, and encompasses a
period of broad technological, social, and subsistence change following the last Pleistocene
glaciation. Early Archaic hafted biface types, like some Paleoindian hafted biface types,
occur over large areas of eastern North America, suggesting large territories and significant
seasonal mobility. Early Archaic societies are usually hypothesized to have been organized
into small, highly mobile bands and to have developed from late Paleoindian expressions
(Funk 1978:19). Most sites dating to the Early Archaic period in Indiana are small lithic
scatters. As noted by Munson (1986:280), Early Archaic sites are distributed across the
landscape, yet seem to be concentrated nowhere.
Although the basic lithic tool assemblage was little changed from that of the Paleoindian
period, Early Archaic hafted bifaces were notched and exhibit a wider variety of blade forms
(many re-sharpened) and hafting elements. Common Early Archaic hafted bifaces include
those belonging to the Thebes, Kirk Corner-notched, Kirk Stemmed, Rice Lobed, and
LeCroy clusters (Justice 1987). Many distinct varieties have been recognized within these
clusters (Justice 1987). Although the functional, spatial, and temporal relationships between
many of these types and varieties are poorly understood, a general sequence of notched
20
hafted biface forms has been suggested through excavation of stratified sites in Kentucky
(Collins 1979; Jefferies 1988), West Virginia (Broyles 1971), and Tennessee (Chapman
1977:51). Several Thebes varieties appear to be generally earlier than Kirk varieties (Justice
1987). Corner-notched Kirk forms are followed by bifurcate forms such as MacCorkle and
LeCroy.
Several studies conducted in southwestern Indiana have contributed to our understanding
of the Early Archaic. Employing a raw material analysis, Cantin (1994) proposed that Thebes
groups had larger “home ranges” than Kirk groups. Cantin (1994:12) speculated that Thebes
ranges may have been one drainage order greater than Kirk ranges. Stafford (1994) used an
analysis of the locations of Early, Middle, and Late Archaic hafted bifaces to suggest that the
Early Archaic mobility strategy was “dominated by a pattern involving fine-grained patch-topatch movement through multiple basins by procuring resources on an encounter basis as
associated with foragers” (1994:232). Models of Early Archaic settlement in other regions
have also been focused on determining the degree of inter-drainage movement and band size
and composition (e.g., Anderson and Hanson 1988; Daniel 2001).
Faunal remains from buried, Early Archaic cultural deposits in the Cloudsplitter
rockshelter in Kentucky suggest a diet incorporating a variety of fauna, including deer, elk,
beaver, bird, and turtle (Cowan 1982:73-74). Munson (1986) notes, that although a wide
range of subsistence resources was exploited during the Early Archaic, there is little evidence
of specialization. This is consistent with Stafford’s (1994) suggestions.
Middle Archaic
The Middle Archaic extends from 8000 to 5000 BP. Following Jefferies (1988:94), this range
is chosen to correspond to the dates of the Hypsithermal Interval.
The Middle Archaic is often conceptualized as a time of increasing regionalization
coincident with increasing sedentism. Larger, denser sites of the Middle Archaic period are
often interpreted as “base camps” that were occupied for longer periods of time and used to
exploit a broad base of food resources (e.g., Munson 1986). Of note are the large shell
midden sites located along major rivers of the southeastern and midwestern United States,
including southern Indiana (Janzen 1977; Kellar 1983; Sieber et al. 1989).
In the Ohio Valley, many researchers postulate a basic settlement pattern of scheduled
group fission/fusion and population migration between large base camps and smaller,
intermittent camps, where seasonal or extremely localized resources would have been
exploited (e.g., Janzen 1977; Stafford 1994; Winters 1969). Alternative explanations
(Boisvert 1986) suggest that the observed Middle and Late Archaic site pattern may have
been created by small, mobile groups frequently re-occupying sites in the larger river valleys.
The Middle Archaic saw an increase in the variety of food resources utilized. Gourds
may have been first harvested and/or cultivated during this period (Fritz 1999). The
appearance of sites with large quantities of fire-cracked rock and nutshell suggest that stone
boiling technology was first used during this period (Munson 1986). With regard to material
culture, the inventory of the Middle Archaic includes ground and pecked stone tools (atlatl
weights, mortars, pestles, grooved axes, nutting stones, and grinding slabs) as well as chipped
stone tools. In central Indiana, hafted biface types of Middle Archaic age include Raddatz,
Godar, Matanzas and a variety of similar side-notched points (Justice 1987).
21
Late Archaic
The Late Archaic period, as defined here, extends from 5000 to 3000 BP. Continuity in some
aspects of settlement, subsistence, and technology between the Middle and Late Archaic
periods has resulted in some disagreement regarding the placement of the Middle
Archaic/Late Archaic boundary. Some researchers have tended to lump the two periods
together, while others have assigned affiliation to sites and material assemblages based upon
non-chronological criteria.
During the Late Archaic period, settlement patterns changed to include a broader range of
environmental settings. Perhaps due to population pressures, settlement was not as restricted
to the major river valleys as it was during the Middle Archaic period. Upland camp sites and
rock overhangs were used (Sieber et al. 1989), and sites with denser remains occur in smaller
river valleys and other “second tier” resource zones (Munson 1986).
The domestication of native plants, such as squash, gourd, sunflower, goosefoot,
maygrass, and knotweed began or continued during this period (Yarnell 1988), and the
exploitation of wild plant food resources intensified. Ground stone tools continued to be used
during the Late Archaic, and the number and variety of these increased. Bone, antler, and
wood tool technologies also became more varied and complex. Hafted bifaces in use during
this period include several stemmed varieties (e.g., Table Rock, Karnak, McWhinney,
Ledbetter, and Saratoga), as well as smaller, shallowly side-notched/expanding stemmed
varieties such as Merom, Lamoka, and Matanzas (Justice 1987). The Late Archaic period
also saw the first development of pottery in eastern North America
As a result of exchange networks that had developed by this time, exotic goods such as
marine shell from the Gulf and Atlantic coasts, Wyandotte chert from south-central Indiana,
native copper from the Upper Great Lakes region, mica from the Middle Atlantic states, and
obsidian from Wyoming are sometimes recovered from Late Archaic sites (Justice and Smith
1988; Winters 1968). These exotic goods were also a part of more elaborate mortuary
ceremonialism. By the end of the Late Archaic period, well-developed exchange mechanisms
made high quality cherts such as Wyandotte, Attica, Burlington, Lieber, Muldraugh, and
Upper Mercer available to people a great distance away from their geologic sources.
Woodland Period
A diverse range of cultural expression is included under the term “Woodland.” Very general
defining trends or adaptations of the Woodland Period include a hunter-gatherer subsistence
pattern augmented by an increase in horticulture (eventually including the production of true
cultigens), the increased manufacture and use of pottery for food preparation and storage, the
production and use of a larger stone tool kit, and the rise of elaborate burial practices,
including the construction of earthen burial mounds. The Woodland is subdivided into Early,
Middle, and Late periods.
Early Woodland
The Early Woodland period extends from 3000 to 2200 BP. Although introduced during the
later years of the Archaic period, ceramic production became widespread during the Early
Woodland period. During this time, vessels were thick walled and coarse tempered. In
Indiana, Marion Thick pottery is diagnostic of the Early Woodland period. Ceramic vessels
22
became more important for food storage and processing as the subsistence base shifted
toward cultivation of native plant foods.
Stemmed hafted bifaces, such as Robbins, Dickson, and Adena varieties, are
characteristic of Early Woodland chipped stone lithic assemblages (Justice 1987). At some
Early Woodland sites, especially of the Adena culture in central Ohio, burial mounds and
earthworks were erected. These were often extensive.
Middle Woodland
The Middle Woodland period extends from 2200 to 1500 BP. The Hopewell variant of the
Middle Woodland, centered on the Scioto River valley of Ohio, extended into southern
Indiana. In some areas, Middle Woodland populations lived in large, permanent villages
(such as the Mann site in Posey County, Indiana), typically within broad, fertile river valleys.
This sedentism perhaps depended on a subsistence strategy that combined horticulture of
native cultigens and the seasonal exploitation of local wild plant and riverine resources. In
other areas, settlement occurred in a variety of environmental zones and on a much smaller
scale, in temporary/seasonal camps, hamlets, and small villages (Ottesen 1985).
The Middle Woodland is best known for the construction and use of elaborate mounds
and earthworks in conjunction with a mortuary program that included the burial of large
quantities of artifacts. Such artifacts included nonutilitarian items such as beads, earspools,
breastplates, gorgets, and pendants, and raw materials such as mica, quartz crystal, copper,
galena, obsidian, marine shell, and animal jaws and teeth (Seeman 1979).
Projectile point types of the Middle Woodland period include Snyders and Lowe varieties
(Justice 1987), with Lowe varieties being diagnostic of the later Middle Woodland. Thin
lamellar blades, blade cores, and ovate cache blades are also diagnostic of this period.
Utilitarian pottery forms from this period are similar to those of the Early Woodland. Typical
utilitarian forms are bulbous, wide-mouthed jars, frequently with cordmarked and/or dowelimpressed exteriors. Elaborately incised or stamped designs are common on Hopewell
mortuary jars.
Late Woodland
The Late Woodland extends from 1500 to 1000 BP. During the Late Woodland, most
settlements continued to occupy river and stream bottoms. Settlement sizes and types varied
widely, as in the Middle Woodland, although a trend toward larger, more densely populated
village settlements has been suggested for the early part of the period.
In general, Late Woodland artifact assemblages differ from Middle Woodland
assemblages mainly in that “exotic” items associated with the rise of Hopewell (such as
copper and marine shell) are less common. It was also during this period that the first true
bow and arrow projectile points were introduced. These include small, triangular points such
as Madison, Fort Ancient, Levanna, and Hamilton (Justice 1987), as well as thin pentagonal
forms such as Jack’s Reef (Justice 1987). Ceramics played an important role in food storage,
processing, and cooking. Minor changes in pottery vessel shapes and thicknesses during this
period may be attributable to changes in food preparation techniques (Pollack and Henderson
1992:283). Populations continued to employ mixed subsistence strategies based on hunting,
collection of wild plant foods, and horticulture. Botanical data from terminal Late Woodland
23
habitation sites strongly suggest that dependence on local and tropical plants, particularly
maize, for subsistence significantly increased toward the end of this period (Wymer 1990).
During the Late Woodland, settlement patterns became more sedentary, possibly in
relation to the intensification of maize horticulture. By the end of the Late Woodland period,
nucleated village settlements within the middle to lower Ohio Valley had become quite large
and increasingly sedentary (Ottesen 1985). In contrast, terminal Late Woodland sites in the
middle and upper Ohio Valley show a transition to a more dispersed, family/hamlet-centered
settlement pattern (Pollack and Henderson 1992:283).
Albee Phase. In central Indiana, the Albee phase is the most prevalent Late Woodland
manifestation. Based on current information, an acceptable chronological placement ranges
between AD 800 and 1250, or perhaps as late as 1300. The most diagnostic artifact for Albee
is the “Albee Cordmarked Jar” (Winters 1967:68), which is a grit-tempered vessel having a
slightly elongated to globular shape, a constricted neck, and a collared, slightly to moderately
everted rim. “Decoration is rare and is limited to short, vertical or diagonal impressions of a
plain or cordwrapped stick on the interior of the lip. A few examples are known cylindrical
punctations or vertical incisions on the exterior of the vessel” (Winters 1967:88). Recent
investigations (Anslinger 1990:47-51; Cochran et al. 1988), especially at the Morell-Sheets
site (McCord and Cochran 1994:62-65), which offers the only large quantity of Albee pottery
outside of mortuary contexts (funerary pots are often smaller representations of utilitarian
vessels), have indicated that the Albee ceramic assemblage exhibits a wider variety of
decoration, morphology, and temper type than originally described by Winters (1967:68, 88).
Decoration represents the most significant difference. McCord and Cochran (1994) found
that cordmarking (93 percent) made up the vast majority of surface treatments; the remainder
(7 percent) was fabric impression. Eighty-three percent of the cordmarked vessels had the
surface treatment extending to the lip. Interestingly, horizontal cordmarking was visible on
the interior portion of the neck on 47 percent of the vessels. Of the 199 rim sherds examined,
both uncollared and collared, 85 percent exhibited some form of decoration. The most
favored field for decoration was the interior rim, followed by the exterior neck and then the
collar, the lip, and the interior neck, in descending order of use. Almost half the decorated
rims had at least two of three fields embellished; decoration on three or four fields accounted
for another 15 percent, and the remainder (39 percent) was decorated on only one field. In
terms of vessel morphology, vessel shape was slightly elongate to globular with rounded
bottoms. Ninety-three percent exhibited wedge-shaped collars and a variety of lip shapes
with flat (58 percent) being the most common. Similar observations were made at the Akers
Mound (Anslinger 1990) and the Hesher Cemetery (Cochran et al. 1988).
The Albee vessels show a close similarity to pottery styles to the north and northwest.
The cordmarked collared rim vessel, which is the most notable trait in the pottery
assemblage, is common across the lower Great Lakes at this time. However, the closest
analog to the Morell-Sheets pottery assemblage appears to be the roughly contemporary
Aztalan collared ceramics (Baerreis and Freeman 1958) from southern Wisconsin and the
Starved Rock collared pottery (Hall 1987) from northern Illinois (McCord and Cochran
1994:59-66). Thus, even though a few items from mortuary contexts indicate a continuation
of the Middle Woodland east-coast trade relationships (Seeman 1981), the closest cultural
affiliations for the Albee population appear to lie to the northwest.
The most prominent aspect of the Albee settlement is related to its archaeological
visibility. It is doubtful that the Albee component in central Indiana would have been
24
recognized until modern day investigations if it were not for their mortuary sites. These
cemeteries were mostly located on natural knolls overlooking river valleys or wetlands and
were often in close proximity to habitation sites. The larger mounds originally thought to
have been constructed by Albee peoples, such as the Albee Mound and Baker-Lowe, are
actually natural formations rather than artificially constructed mortuary facilities (Halsey
1976:562; Kellar 1983:50; Tomak 1970:161). However, the construction of low burial
mounds with shallow, centrally located submound pits, associated with Albee materials, was
reported at the Akers site (Anslinger 1990) and has been suggested for the Catlin (Winters
1967:60-69; Seeman 1981:103-109) and Collet (Householder 1957, cited in Anslinger
1990:39) mound groups, but this association is considered questionable (Anslinger 1990).
With the exception of repeated interment of the dead in specific mortuary areas and,
possibly, low-mound construction, Albee settlements are characterized by scattered,
ephemeral habitation areas. Large villages are absent, and plazas, fortifications, domestic
structures, and evidence of significant storage capacity have yet to be identified with Albee
contexts. The Morell-Sheets site in Montgomery County (McCord and Cochran 1994), which
represents the most extensively excavated Albee site to date, revealed evidence of repeated
Late Woodland use for up to two or three hundred years yet still exhibited a narrow range of
tools, a lack of storage facilities and structures, and floral and faunal remains that indicated
only seasonal usage. The distribution of Albee habitation sites indicates that both major
drainages and the secondary waterways were exploited. The distribution of Albee ceramics is
shown in Figure 2.3.
Late Prehistoric Period
The Late Prehistoric period extends from 1000 to 400 BP. In very general terms, the last 600
years prior to European expansion into Indiana can be described as a period during which
prehistoric peoples: 1) completed a shift to a largely sedentary, agricultural way of life; 2)
followed a nucleated pattern of settlement that centered around villages or towns; and 3)
established some level of ranked socio-economic organization. There is evidence that the
social landscape may have been increasingly unpredictable by AD 1400. The period is not
only marked by the rise of maize agriculture, but by considerable cultural complexity, as well
as by widespread population movement and dispersal and evidence of violent conflict (e.g.,
Emerson 1999; Santure 1990). In Indiana, the Late Prehistoric period is characterized by
considerable diversity in settlement size, form, location and ceramic style. Earlier attempts to
understand this variability were hampered by a limited amount of (and possibly incorrect)
radiocarbon dates, previously unidentified cultural complexes, and a paucity of Late
Prehistoric research, which had a profound influence on the interpretation of this time period.
The relationships among these various populations have long been poorly understood, and it
is only recently, especially with a number of carbon dating results, that temporal and spatial
correlates can be considered. As a result of recent investigations, it is possible to characterize
central Indiana as a borderland region where groups with Fort Ancient, Western Basin, and
25
Figure 2.3. Locations of reported Albee Phase archaeological sites in Indiana.
26
Oneota cultural affiliations interacted over a wide spatial and temporal span. Most recently,
pottery from all three of these groups—Anderson phase Fort Ancient, Western Basin
Tradition, and Oneota-like Taylor Village—was recovered from midden contexts within the
Strawtown enclosure (Arnold et al. 2007; McCullough 2005, 2008; White et al. 2002; White
et al. 2003). These three distinct Late Prehistoric archaeological populations all followed a
sedentary lifestyle with a reliance on tropical cultigens. Both the Western Basin Tradition
centered in the lower Maumee River valley (Cochran 1980; McCullough 2003; Mohow
1987; Moore 1987; Stothers and Pratt 1981; Stothers and Schneider 2003) and the Anderson
phase Fort Ancient from southeastern Indiana and southwestern Ohio (e.g., Essenpreis 1982;
Heilman et al. 1990; Henderson 1992; McCullough 2000) practiced swidden or slash-andburn cultivation within the mostly forested regions of Indiana. Villages shifted as resources
and soil fertility were depleted within the proximity of the village (McCullough 1997). The
Oneota populations commonly associated with northern Illinois and southern Wisconsin
(Griffin 1943; McCullough 1991, 2003; Overstreet 1997) exhibit a sporadic distribution in
central Indiana but appear to be situated within prairie pockets adjacent to wetland resources
within the extensive deciduous forest that once covered most of central Indiana (Cochran et
al. 1993; McCullough and Wright 1997a; McCullough 1992). The Oneota population also
followed a sedentary settlement system, often cultivating wetland edges and exploiting
prairie and woodland resources. The Taylor Village site, an Oneota occupation, is located
outside the Strawtown Park across the White River from the Strawtown enclosure, but there
is increasing evidence of a Taylor Village-like occupation at the enclosure as well.
The following discussion provides a brief overview of each of these groups, along with
current understandings of their geographic and temporal locations.
Fort Ancient Tradition
One component of the Late Prehistoric population of central Indiana has long been identified
as “Fort Ancient” (Griffin 1943), although definitions of what constitutes “Fort Ancient”
have shifted over time. As Graybill (1981:22) has noted, “Fort Ancient is a product of
accretion”; first applied as a term designating the Late Prehistoric “village sites in
southwestern Ohio,” the concept expanded to include an ever-widening array of regions until
it encompassed all “village-dwelling agriculturalists” in the middle Ohio River Valley and
even beyond. While the name Fort Ancient was originally coined by Mills (Griffin
1943:210), Griffin (1943) synthesized a diverse set of studies and observations to formulate
the “Fort Ancient Aspect,” which included four spatially distinct “foci”—Baum, Feurt,
Anderson, and Madisonville—and two geographical areas with closely related archaeological
complexes, one along the eastern periphery centering on the Kanawha River in West Virginia
(later included with Fort Ancient as Clover) and the other known as the Oliver phase along
the west fork of the White River in central Indiana (Drooker 1997:65; Griffin 1943:Map 1).
Research on Fort Ancient following Griffin’s initial systematization proliferated, with
diverse regional developmental sequences proposed (for an overview, see Drooker 1997:6670), although most researchers now agree that the character of Fort Ancient substantially
changed across the region about AD 1400 to 1450, forming a more coherent cultural entity
most widely known as the Madisonville Horizon (Drooker 1997:68-69; Essenpreis 1988:9;
Sharp 1990:469-471; for different names but similar characteristics, see Cowan 1987 and
Henderson 1992). Today’s common usage of “Early Fort Ancient” (AD 1000/1050–
1200/1250), “Middle Fort Ancient” (AD 1200/1250–1400/1450), and “Late or Madisonville
27
Horizon Fort Ancient” (AD 1400/1450–1650/1750) (Drooker 1997:69) as a chronological
sequence is generally accepted by professionals.
It is the southwestern Ohio region, Middle Fort Ancient groups centered on the Great and
Little Miami river valleys that are of relevance to the current study. Not only do the dates of
the Middle Fort Ancient, Anderson phase in southwestern Ohio (e.g., Drooker 1997:77;
Essenpreis 1982; Heilman et al. 1988) coincide with similar settlements in central Indiana,
cultural attributes from material culture such as pottery and lithics to village layout and
settlement patterns (Redmond 1991, 1993a, 1993b; Redmond and McCullough 1995) found
in central and south-central Indiana are most like that of the Anderson phase.
Middle Fort Ancient ceramics typically include subglobular jars with rounded bottoms
and broad excurvated necks. Rims often exhibit a rim fold that may be impressed with short,
wide, alternating oblique lines, although the primary field of decoration is on the neck and
shoulder of the vessel. The decoration is executed in trailed lines (or broad-line incision) that
creates curvilinear or rectilinear designs and occasionally line-filled triangles and alternating
long oblique lines. Sometimes circular punctations are added to the trailed-line design on the
neck. The vessel bodies are cordmarked, with the neck and rim fields mostly smoothed over.
Grit temper predominates, but a few shell-tempered examples are recovered from most site
assemblages. Some vessels have two V-shaped strap handles that occasionally have two
small castellations above each handle (Drooker 1997:79; McCullough 1991, 1992).
Middle Fort Ancient settlements are usually “nucleated villages, directly adjacent to
arable land”; within villages, “a domestic area” of houses, storage pits, and middens
surrounds a central plaza, and “most known palisades . . . occur near the periphery of
occupied Fort Ancient territory” (Drooker 1997:85). Domestic structures were generally
small and varied from rectangular wall trench to circular and rectangular semi-subterranean
through rectangular pole construction with a central hearth (Drooker 1997:86). By the
Middle Fort Ancient period burials were within the village, either near the central plaza or
“within the domestic zone, in or among house structures,” and few contained grave goods
(Drooker 1997:89).
Fort Ancient cultural materials in central Indiana are associated only with the middle
period: burial mounds related to Fort Ancient probably predate AD 1300 in southwestern
Ohio (Drooker 1997:70) but are not known in central Indiana; no Late Fort Ancient
Madisonville sites have been identified in central Indiana; and there is no evidence of an in
situ development, as has been suggested for the Late Woodland to Fort Ancient transition in
southwestern Ohio (Drooker 1997:66). Rather, the evidence is for a relatively abrupt
intrusion of a Middle Fort Ancient population into central Indiana, carrying some elements
but not the full range of Fort Ancient cultural practices. Excavations at the Strawtown
enclosure have found that the majority of ceramics and lithics was Middle Fort Ancient,
Anderson phase materials; the settlement structure of the enclosure also is most like that of
Middle Fort Ancient villages (Arnold et al. 2007; McCullough 2005, 2008; White et al. 2002;
White et al. 2003).
Western Basin Tradition
Although a complete description of the Western Basin Tradition is beyond the scope of this
study, it is treated in depth elsewhere (Bechtel and Stothers 1993; Stothers 1995; Stothers
and Abel 1989; Stothers and Bechtel 1994; Stothers and Graves 1983; Stothers and Pratt
1981; Stothers and Schneider 2003; Stothers et al. 1994). As it is currently understood, the
28
Western Basin Tradition (formerly the Younge Tradition [Fitting 1965]) comprised four
sequential phases: Gibralter (AD 500-700), Riviere au Vase (AD 700-1000), Younge (AD
1000-1200), and Springwells (AD 1200-1300). It is the latter two phases that are of concern
here because of the general similarities of Springwells ceramics to the Great Lakes impressed
decorative styles found in central Indiana and a few sherds that may indicate some form of
direct interaction (Figure 2.4). It has been suggested that the Springwells populations were
militarily dispersed and replaced by the Wolf phase of the Sandusky Tradition by AD 1300.
As evidence for such a dispersal, the presence of Springwells pottery in southwestern
Ontario, northeast Georgian Bay, the Straits of Mackinac, northeast Lake Superior, and
northeastern and central Indiana has been cited (Stothers 1995; Stothers and Bechtel 1994;
Stothers et al. 1994).
Certainly, the Fort Ancient-style pottery does become less prevalent in the ceramic
assemblages upriver from Hamilton County, and it apparently feathers out along the upper
west fork valley. Along this northern edge, the Great Lakes cord- or tool-impressed pottery
has been surface collected from a few sites that lack Fort Ancient-style vessels, but,
conversely, a few sites with Fort Ancient-style vessels but without a Great Lakes impressed
component also have been identified. The distribution, however, is most likely a product of
sample size; almost all of those sites are represented by very small samples from surface
collections (often consisting of only one or two decorated sherds). (The Moffitt Farm site,
12-H-6, offers an exception to the small sample size. Here 65 rim and/or neck sherds larger
than 4 cm2 with impressed decoration have been recovered, but no Fort Ancient examples
were found.) In the Strawtown vicinity, Fort Ancient-type ceramics are mostly limited to
features within the enclosure, while Great Lakes cord-impressed ware is found on sites
throughout the park property, including the enclosure (Cantin et al. 2003; McCord 2006;
McCord and Cochran 2003; White et al. 2002).
While the motifs and the method of decorative execution on impressed pottery vessels
from central Indiana resemble the Springwells phase of the Western Basin Tradition more
than any of the other contemporary ceramic traditions surrounding central Indiana during the
Late Prehistoric period, significant differences are evident. Stothers (1995:29, and elsewhere)
has suggested that the Great Lakes impressed pottery found in central Indiana is
characteristic of the Macomb Linear Corded and Macomb Interrupted-Linear types (Fitting
1965:157, plates XIII to XVI; Fitting et al. 1968:128-129, 157), which are considered a
primary indication of Springwells populations. However, neither of those pottery types
composes the majority of the Great Lakes impressed-type pottery found in Indiana: they do
not have decoration at the base of the rim or on the neck, none has vertical lines underneath
upwardly curving horizontal lines on the castellated vessels, nor have Springwells decorative
stamping or net-impressed pottery been recognized.
Besides variation in the use of additional decorative fields and motifs, the most notable
and significant difference between the vessels from central Indiana and those associated with
the western edge of Lake Erie is vessel morphology. The Springwells vessels shown in
publications or made available for examination usually have broad, excurvated necks and
elongated to extremely elongated bodies (e.g., Stothers 1995:Plates 4 to 10; Stothers et al.
1994:Figure 12), while the Great Lakes impressed-style vessels found in central Indiana
29
Figure 2.4. Map of reported Western Basin Tradition archaeological sites located in central Indiana.
30
usually have strongly everted rim/shoulder angles and subglobular shapes. Interestingly,
pottery recovered from the Baden site in the mid-Maumee region in Ohio (McCullough
1991:128-129, 1992:54) and other sites in northeastern Indiana (Cochran 1985, 1987:199208; Mohow 1987:149-155; see also Schneider and Cameron 2004) exhibited both
differences from Springwells pottery reported from the lower Maumee valley and similarities
to materials found in central Indiana. Probably this indicates a transitional zone, or a clinal
variation in material culture, across northeastern Indiana and northwestern Ohio, instead of a
forced migration or dispersal of Springwells people who were replaced by Sandusky
Tradition peoples (e.g., Bechtel and Stothers 1993; Stothers 1995; Stothers and Bechtel 1994;
Stothers et al. 1994). It is worth noting, however, that a few vessels do exhibit somewhat
elongated body shapes and broad excurvated necks, similar to those illustrated from the
western basin of Lake Erie. The presence of those vessels indicates some degree of
interaction during this period, such as trade or the movement of a small number of people,
but these vessels occur in such relatively low frequency that they cannot be evidence of a
mass migration.
Arguments against a mass dispersal that are more compelling than stylistic differences in
vessel morphology and decorative attributes are the aspects of the Springwells peoples’ belief
system that are absent in central Indiana. No separate mortuary districts have been identified,
although burials in village contexts, as at 12-H-3, are not unknown in the Western Basin
Tradition. Although bundle burials are present (Strezewski 2005) at 12-H-3, there is little
evidence in central Indiana of postmortem skeletal alterations, such as shaved or drilled long
bones, drilled or cut crania, cranial plaques or evidence of their removal, or clay funerary
masks, many of which have a long tradition with Western Basin populations (Stothers and
Bechtel 1994; see Stothers et al. 1994:168 for examples of postmortem modification). The
lack of evidence for cranial plaque removal, or for the plaques themselves, is especially
significant, because these traits appear elsewhere among displaced Springwells populations
(Stothers and Bechtel 1994:38-39). Without evidence of the continuation of Western Basin
Tradition religious institutions, domestic architecture, and other items of material culture, the
probability that the occurrence of selected elements of decorative motifs is the product of
refugee population movements after 1300 is tenuous. The significant differences in vessel
morphology make such an explanation even less likely.
Yet the identification of the groups who are associated with this ceramic tradition in
central and northeastern Indiana has remained an important archaeological question. Earthen
embanked enclosures are known throughout the Great Lakes during the Late Prehistoric (e.g.,
Mainfort and Sullivan 1998; Sullivan 1996; Krakker 1983) and have been reported in
northeastern Indiana in association with general Great Lakes impressed ceramics in Allen
(Moore 1987; Robertson 1888), DeKalb (Anonymous 1880:5; Robertson 1875; Slocum
1905; White et al. 2002), Whitley (Goodspeed and Blanchard 1882), LaGrange (Rerick
1882), and Steuben (Donald R. Cochran, personal communication 2001) counties.
Interpretations of these structures range from defensive fortifications through ritual sites to
trade entrepôts (e.g., Mainfort and Sullivan 1998). Radiocarbon assays from excavations at
the Scranage enclosure in DeKalb County in 2001 and 2002 placed its construction date in
the eleventh or twelfth century (White et al. 2002:56; White, R. McCullough, and D.
McCullough 2003), but little habitation debris and no diagnostic sherds were recovered, other
than a few generalized cord-impressed ceramics. Identification of settlement, subsistence,
31
and mortuary patterning of the peoples associated with the northeastern Indiana enclosures
remains elusive, as does their function.
On the other hand, the recent professional investigations of the Strawtown area have
demonstrated that the Western Basin-derived group settled on the White River in Hamilton
County is distinctive enough that it merits its own designation, the Castor phase. In addition
to the differences in ceramic and mortuary traditions discussed above, settlement pattern and
structure and temporal period distinguish the Castor phase in central Indiana from its
Maumee drainage origins. Instead of dispersed farms and hamlets, the Great Lakesassociated settlement pattern found in Hamilton and Marion counties is characterized by
large village areas with outlying farmsteads in close proximity. The Castor Farm site (12-H3) has a material scatter of about ten acres, with an extensive domestic occupation of some
duration. The boundaries of site 12-H-993, south of Strawtown Avenue in the park, are even
larger, but the scatter of material may comprise several occupations. Not only are the Castor
phase settlements in central Indiana large and complex, but they contain structures and
communal works not commonly associated with the Western Basin Tradition. Unlike
northeastern Indiana, large nucleated palisaded villages were present in central Indiana.
Apparently there was a need for a stockade wall(s), and the Castor phase people put
considerable resources into its construction. At the present time it is unknown how many of
these palisades are present in the Strawtown bottom. While circular enclosures of the type
identified in the Great Lakes region are absent from central Indiana, the massive, paired basin
structures at 12-H-3 have no known precedents in the Western Basin Tradition. The Castor
phase in central Indiana is also distinguished by a delimited time span: eleven Castor phase
radiocarbon dates have been returned from the Strawtown bottom, ranging generally from
AD 1020 to 1400, calibrated at 2 sigma. These dates are somewhat consistent with the
Younge phase (AD 1000-1200) and the Springwells phase (AD 1200-1300) of the Western
Basin Tradition (Schneider 2000; Stothers et al. 1994) but do not coincide. Rather, the earlier
dates, primarily from 12-H-3, show a sizable population in residence along the White River
well before both the suggested Wolf phase dispersal in the Lake Erie region and the
occupation by Fort Ancient people at the Strawtown enclosure. The later dates, primarily
from 12-H-993, indicate a population that persisted in the area, coexisting with the Fort
Ancient group but maintaining some degree of spatial separation.
Oneota-like Groups
Evidence of other groups, some similar to those from southern Wisconsin and northern
Illinois, also has been recognized in central Indiana (Figure 2.5). An anomalous Upper
Mississippian site complex (12-Jo-5, 4, 6, and 8) has been identified approximately fifteen
miles south of downtown Indianapolis, near the town of Smith Valley (McCullough and
Wright 1997a). This cluster of sites is distinct in terms of location, feature morphology, site
structure, material culture, and, to some degree, botanical remains. The Crouch site (12-Jo-5)
is not only approximately three miles from a major drainage, but it lies on a sand dune
formation adjacent to a former grassy wetland. Sedentary settlements located on sandy soils
adjacent to similar, poorly drained wetland areas and prairie remnants are not uncommon
locations for Huber-Fisher populations from northern Illinois (Brown and O’Brien 1990) and
northwestern Indiana (Faulkner 1972). Ten calibrated radiocarbon dates from the Crouch and
Center Grove School sites (located 150 meters from each other) indicate a solid fourteenth32
Figure
2.5.
Map
of
reported
Oneota-like
archaeological
33
sites
located
in
central
Indiana.
century association, with occupation dates possibly ranging between the late thirteenth and
early fifteenth centuries. Several superpositioned features indicate some degree of time depth
to these deposits, but the paucity of material culture and midden development suggests nonintensive occupations, despite the size and number of features present.
Feature classes are also distinctive. At the Crouch site, no stockade walls or permanent
structures were identified, but there were broad, shallow, ovoid features measuring up to
three m long, with darkened soil delineating decomposed feature liners. These may represent
the bottom portions of hut-like structures or, perhaps, covered storage facilities, although
neither interpretation can be demonstrated with certainty. Storage pits were also much larger
than those typically found at Oliver sites, and they exhibited decomposed basal liners in
many instances. Even medium-sized storage pits, which were common, measured between 1
m and 2 m across and penetrated about 1.5 m below the base of the plowzone (McCullough
and Wright 1997a). Some of the deep storage features penetrated more than 2m below the
base of the plowzone, indicating a much deeper original depth, since a century of plowing
had severely eroded and deflated the ground surface.
The village was laid out on the highest sandy elevation around a central storage facility
consisting of all deep and almost all the medium-sized storage pits identified at the site
complex. All the other feature types were also represented on the sandy elevation. The site
had an expanded, or sprawling, structure with several smaller habitation areas (northern
portion of 12-Jo-5 and 12-Jo-4, 6, and 8) situated on minor ridges surrounding the
concentration of large storage features at a maximum distance of 250 m (Helmkamp 1992;
McCullough and Wright 1997a; O’Brien 1997a, 1997b; O’Brien and Pirkl 1996; O’Brien et
al. 1996, 1997). The smaller site areas consisted of clusters of basin-shaped pits, fire hearths,
a medium-sized storage pit, and a higher density of cultural material (even though the overall
density was still low) per volume of feature fill than was recovered from the central storage
facility. Midden areas were either completely lacking or were very limited and ephemeral in
extent.
In terms of material culture, this site complex exhibited a surprisingly low number of
artifacts, given the size and number of features encountered (over 80 from 12-Jo-5). The
ceramics recovered indicated a non-Oliver cultural affiliation, although interaction with other
populations was suggested by a limited number of both Fort Ancient-style and cordimpressed rim sherds. These were from features that also contained shell-tempered pottery,
which made up the vast majority of the sherds recovered from the Crouch site. The shelltempered rim sherds were sharply everted, making a short thick neck. Most vessels either
lacked cordmarking or exhibited smoothed-over cordmarking on the body of the vessel, but
the most distinctive trait was heavy cordmarking on the rim, or, rather, the underneath side of
the rim, given the sharp eversion. Often where the neck everted outward, clay had been
added to the interior of the vessel to form a sharp crease. These vessels lacked decoration,
except for one example that carried deep scalloping formed by impressing a large,
cordwrapped dowel along the lip. Such pottery appears most similar to Fisher materials from
northern Illinois, such as those at the Hoxie site (Brown and O’Brien 1990; for similar
examples, see Griffin 1943:CXXXVIII, figures 24-26, 31-36) rather than to Vincennes phase
material, as suggested by one of the authors previously (McCullough and Wright 1996;
1997a). This type of pottery also represented a minor component (two rim sherds in the GBL
collections) on site 12-T-6 near Lafayette, Indiana. However, the ceramics associated with
the sites in Johnson County were different enough from the Hoxie Farm and related Fisher
34
materials to warrant a different name (James Brown, personal communication 1998). A
scapula hoe (Garniewicz 1997) from a large mammal, either elk or deer, was recovered from
feature context on 12-Jo-5, suggesting that corn agriculture involved fields used year after
year, necessitating hoes for weeds that grew up. Wild rice (Bush 1997), which had not been
documented in central Indiana, was recovered from feature context at 12-Jo-5. Until
additional sites and cultural attributes can be identified and compared, this manifestation is
referred to as the Smith Valley complex.
A later Oneota population also was found across the river from the Strawtown enclosure
(Cochran et al. 1993; GBL site files) at the Taylor Village site (12-H-25). The majority of the
pottery from the Taylor Village was shell tempered, with the rims mostly set at sharp angles
to the shoulders. Many of the rims’ interiors had short, trailed lines that run perpendicular to
the lip and were executed with a wide smooth implement; some of the lips display small
scalloped impressions. The shoulders were mostly decorated with parallel trailed lines
running vertically to the rim or with chevrons bordered by diagonal lines or punctations.
Small circle-and-dot motifs were also present within the chevrons. Small loop or punched
handles were associated with these vessel forms (see Griffin 1943:CXXXVII, figures 7, 31,
32, and CXXXVI; see also Overstreet 1997:Figure 10). This pottery is characteristic of an
Oneota cultural affiliation, and recent radiocarbon dates (McCullough et al. 2004) suggest an
age between AD 1350 and 1450 (Faulkner 1972:129; McCullough 1992:56; White et al.
2002). A large number of bifacial endscrapers (Cochran et al. 1993) also indicates a possible
post-AD 1400 date; these are rare in other Late Prehistoric assemblages from central Indiana,
although one example was reported from the Bowen site (Dorwin 1971), and one was
collected in the vicinity of the Crouch site (12-Jo-5) near Smith Valley. Taylor Village sherds
and other Oneota-like materials also have been recovered from the Strawtown enclosure
(Arnold et al. 2007; McCullough 2008; White et al. 2002), generally superimposed on earlier
features, suggesting an occupation or reuse of that site by the Taylor Village population
across the river.
Oliver Phase
Like Fort Ancient, “Oliver” is an elastic concept with a long history. An extensive summary
of Oliver phase research can be found elsewhere (see McCullough 2000:87-103), but it is
important to note that initially the Oliver phase was a ceramic construct, based on the cooccurrence in central Indiana of Fort Ancient and Great Lakes impressed ware on the same
sites. When Griffin (1943) developed the first systematic classification of the “Fort Ancient
Aspect,” he used the terms Haueisen and Oliver to represent ceramic materials in central
Indiana exhibiting Fort Ancient-like characteristics (Griffin 1943:266, plates CLI–CVLVI).
In later publications, Griffin again used the term Oliver on distribution maps (1946:76; 1967)
and chronology charts, dating it between AD 1600 and 1700 (1946) or after AD 1450 (1952)
but did not present a discussion of the phase. In 1950, Helmen (1950) conducted an analysis
of the Oliver Farm site, in which he used the categories “Oliver cordmarked and incised” and
“Oliver cordmarked” to describe vessels decorated with what appeared to be a “mixture of
Great Lakes Late Woodland and Fort Ancient Tradition stylistic attributes” (Redmond and
McCullough 2000). Later Dorwin (1971) reported on Householder’s salvage excavations at
the Bowen site, which is considered the Oliver type site, and classified the ceramics
decorated by cord-wrapped impression as “Bowen Cord-Marked” and the Fort Ancient-like
35
pottery as “Oliver Cord-Marked,” because of its resemblance to Griffin’s (1943) “Anderson
Cordmarked and Incised” (Dorwin 1971:258).
Currently, the Oliver phase can best be described as a sedentary, village-dwelling society
that settled along the drainages of the east and west forks of the White River between about
AD 1200 and 1450. The distribution of sites with Oliver ceramics is shown in Figure 2.6.
A seriation analysis by the Principal Investigator (McCullough et al. 2004) established
that Oliver phase sites in central Indiana are earlier than those in south-central Indiana,
especially those along the east fork of the White River, where nucleated, palisaded villages
have been excavated at the Clampitt site in Lawrence County (Redmond 1993a, 1993b) and
Cox’s Woods in Orange County (Redmond and McCullough 1996). Oliver peoples were
farmers with a heavy reliance on maize (for wider discussions on subsistence, see Bush 1997,
2004; Garniewicz 1997; and Schmidt 1998) utilizing the more easily worked sandy-loamy
alluvial soils within or immediately adjacent to larger floodplains. Swidden cultivation
techniques very likely were employed with garden plots slash-and-burned from forested
floodplain areas. Undoubtedly, such a land expansive economic system influenced the
structure and location of the Oliver communities. Diminishing soil fertility and/or fuel
supplies within the vicinity of a settlement would necessitate a shifting of village locations on
a relatively regular basis. The settlements reflect a great deal of diversity, ranging from
nucleated circular villages, some surrounded by closely spaced wooden post stockade walls
and ditches, to small dispersed farmsteads distributed across the low terraces and higher
floodplain elevations and even linear settlements along natural levees (McCullough and
Wright 1997a, 1997b; Redmond 1991; Redmond and McCullough 1993, 1996). Excavated
domestic structures are rare but exhibit similar diversity: excavations at Cox’s Woods
(Redmond and McCullough 1996) revealed a sub-rectangular structure, probably of bent
poles, while at Pottersville (12-Ow-431) on the lower west fork in Owen County a circular
structure with posts set in a wall trench was identified (Strezewski 2002:19).
Identifying the boundaries of this cultural complex is difficult, however, because of the
fluid nature of this population as reflected in the material culture. The lithic assemblage is
similar to those associated with other Late Prehistoric assemblages from the Midwest. The
main formal tool type is classified as the Madison triangular point, which is small, thin, and
unnotched (Justice 1987:224-227), and almost all the projectile points exhibit straight to
convex bases. Thicker, triangular-shaped “humpbacked” knives (Jeske 1992; Munson and
Munson 1972) common to Late Prehistoric contexts in the Great Lakes and riverine Midwest
are also found with most Oliver component lithic assemblages. A variety of expedient tools
manufactured from flakes has also been recovered, as have snub-nosed scrapers, which are
rare. A restricted range of ground stone tools, which are found infrequently on Oliver sites,
consists of sandstone abraders of irregular shape, pitted stones, limited numbers of small
celts, and stones that show evidence of grinding.
In areas where bone preservation permits, an extensive bone and antler tool technology
has been identified. Tool forms include bone beamers made from split deer metapodials, and
a variety of awls, pins, needles, fish hooks, antler flakers, and antler socketed projectile
points have been recovered. Other items, such as four small shell disks and a few fragments
of sheet copper, were also recovered from the Bowen site (Dorwin 1971:239). Noticeably
absent is a hoe technology, as is found among other Late Prehistoric groups outside the study
area, who utilized hoes made from shell, stone, or bone. However, one scapula hoe was
36
Figure 2.6. Map of reported Oliver phase archaeological sites located in central Indiana.
37
recovered from the Bowen site but not noted in the report (Dorwin 1971). A variety of
pottery tubular and elbow pipes, bowls, and stems has also been recovered from Oliver phase
sites, but pottery disks have been recovered only from the Cox’s Woods site (12-Or-1) and
Heaton Farm (12-Gr-122) in Greene County (Ball 2002).
At the present time the only identified mortuary activities are within habitation areas. No
mounds, distinct cemetery areas, or ossuaries have been associated with the Oliver
population. Material items infrequently placed with the burials include utilitarian, non-exotic
artifacts. For instance, at the Bowen site 39 relatively intact and 20 partial burials were
identified, but grave accompaniments were found with only four individuals and consisted of
a mano, two shells, two bone awls, and two small celts (Dorwin 1971:297-299).
Ceramic assemblages, however, are the most diagnostic indication of an Oliver phase site
and are distinguished by the consistent co-occurrence of two distinguishable pottery styles:
one pottery tradition is undoubtedly associated specifically with the Anderson phase of the
Middle Fort Ancient tradition from southwestern Ohio (Drooker 1997; Essenpreis 1982;
Griffin 1943); the other distinct pottery tradition associated with Oliver ceramic assemblages
is similar to Late Prehistoric pottery styles along the lower Great Lakes, where the primary
method of decorative execution is impression, using smooth objects, a variety of cordage, or
cordwrapped implements. This co-occurrence has been documented from numerous surface
collections and excavated contexts across central Indiana. The pottery traditions differ in
vessel rim and neck morphology, method and placement of decorative execution, and design
motif. Later, site assemblages in the Oliver phase sequence witness a merging of these
pottery traditions on individual vessels (Redmond and McCullough 1996).
Along with the distinctive co-occurrence of two pottery traditions, a recent study by Bush
(2004) established that Oliver phase sites also have a distinctive macrobotanical pattern.
Based upon botanical analysis, Oliver phase sites can be reliably distinguished from other
Late Prehistoric occupations by the “greater abundance and diversity of wild plants, the
presence of corn and beans, and the relative unimportance of EAC [eastern agricultural
complex] plants” (Bush 2001:267). Although there can be variation from site to site in the
kinds of resources exploited, Oliver phase sites in aggregate do exhibit a recognizable
archaeological signature.
At the current time, the boundaries of the Oliver phase become blurred in the upper and
lower west fork valley. Upriver from Strawtown, the Anderson phase Fort Ancient styles
become increasingly less frequent as do both the number and size of Late Prehistoric
occupations. In general, the Late Prehistoric occupation of the upper west fork is marked by
small ephemeral settlements. Two sites in Delaware County yielded a very limited number of
cord-impressed varieties that were similar to those found on Oliver sites downriver.
Environmental factors are possibly responsible for influencing the northern limit of the Late
Prehistoric occupation of the river valley. As with other drainages in northeastern Indiana,
the upper west fork of the White River exhibits a narrower valley than the middle and lower
portions of the river, with restricted expanses of the workable floodplain soils typically
selected by Oliver phase groups. Also, the upper portion of the river is subjected to frequent
floods that rise and fall fairly quickly, scouring the valley and restricting the development of
extensive wetland or slough resources that are important to Late Prehistoric subsistence
economies and the maintenance of sedentism. In the upper White River, research by Ball
State University personnel demonstrated that there is a strong correlation between Late
Woodland (or Late Prehistoric) pottery sites and the well-drained Ross soils that are found
38
along the major drainageways (Cochran 1996; McCord and Cochran 1996:163-168). These
soils, however, only account for approximately 2 percent of the soils present in the upper
west fork region, demonstrating the scarcity of suitable Late Prehistoric habitation areas.
In the lower west fork, the Oliver phase distribution continues until about Bloomfield,
Indiana, and overlaps slightly with the northern distribution of the Vincennes phase
Mississippian groups. A survey of Oliver phase occupations south of Indianapolis along the
west fork (McCullough and Wright 1997b) found a more dispersed type of village settlement
pattern; here Oliver sites consist of clusters of smaller farmsteads spread across the
floodplains and nearby terraces, instead of the denser occupations and circular villages that
are present in the Indianapolis area, along the east fork of the White River and in the smaller
drainages in Orange County. The Heaton Farm site (12-Gr-122), located in Greene County,
Indiana (Ball 2002; Bush et al. 1999; McCullough and Wright 1997b; Strezewski et al. 1999;
Tomak 1970:167-68, 175-178), represents an exception to the apparent dispersed village
model. This site has both Mississippian Vincennes-like and Oliver phase pottery associated
with substantial structures and storage features, and, based on current information, it marks
the southern terminus of the Oliver phase distribution along the west fork of the White River.
Summary of Late Prehistoric Population Dynamics in Central Indiana
Based on research conducted over the past decade or so by a number of individuals and
institutions, our understanding of the temporal and spatial placement of Late Prehistoric
populations in Indiana has enlarged considerably. By about AD 1050 or 1100, near the end of
the Albee occupation, central Indiana was only sparsely or seasonally occupied and its
agricultural potential only minimally exploited. Yet the White River drainage represented a
vast, highly desirable area to peoples dependent on a subsistence economy based on maize
cultivation, such as the Fort Ancient, Great Lakes, and Oneota peoples. Rather than an in situ
development from the indigenous Albee occupation, the peopling of central Indiana during
the Late Prehistoric period is most likely the result of in-migration of at least three, already
established cultural groups moving from the peripheries of their respective territories into a
cultural borderland. Such an area, too far from core settlements to determine cultural choices,
can present new social and environmental conditions that require cultural change or
innovation. What seems to be happening in central Indiana is the transformation on several
levels of agricultural societies during the Late Prehistoric period. First, a Great Lakes-related
population had settled in substantial, and previously unrecognized, numbers along the White
River floodplain. By the twelfth century, their settlement was sufficiently distinct from their
Lake Erie-Maumee River origins in terms of ceramics, mortuary practices, and settlement
pattern and structure that it merits the designation Castor phase. Second, Castor phase and
Fort Ancient peoples were interacting in central Indiana by the early 1200s. Although contact
within such a borderland zone can be hostile or violent, a range of responses, from
“alienated” to “integrated” (Martínez 1994:6-9) is possible, based on such variables as
population numbers, economic organization, power asymmetries, and the congruence of
cultural traits. In the absence of definitive archaeological evidence (Marcus 1994) for violent
conflict among groups in central Indiana, some level of intermingling or inclusive interaction
is likely. At the Strawtown enclosure, we are probably seeing the emergence of the Oliver
phase, where a Fort Ancient migration stream is interacting with a previously established
Castor phase population in the bottoms surrounding the enclosure. As one of the earliest, if
39
not the earliest Oliver site, the Strawtown enclosure ceramics are dominated by Fort Ancient
sherds, but both Fort Ancient and Castor phase wares are found in association in feature
context. At the same time, ceramics in sites outside the enclosure are dominated by the Great
Lakes-associated ware (White et al. 2002; Cantin et al. 2003; McCord 2006; McCullough et
al. 2004), suggesting that a sizable Castor phase element persists. What mechanisms brought
about this integration are unclear, but a small migrating Fort Ancient population, shared
cultural traits that included a reliance on maize and traditions of enclosure building, and
economic organizations that emphasized wealth in people rather than in land may have led to
a social environment encouraging fluid, inclusive societal boundaries. The integration of
styles that makes Oliver unique may represent a social and economic organization that drew
upon diverse traditions to effectively exploit the rich floodplains of the White River
drainageway. So successful was this Oliver integration that Oliver occupations are found
throughout central Indiana and south-central Indiana along both forks of the White River,
dating up to the early 1400s. Hundreds of sites with Oliver phase components have now been
documented across central and south-central Indiana with the two ceramic traditions in direct
association from numerous excavated contexts and surface collections. During the latter
portion of the Oliver sequence, this mixture appears on the same vessels at sites in southern
Indiana (McCullough 2000; Redmond and McCullough 1996), as it did at the early enclosure
occupation (McCullough et al. 2004).
By the 1300s, Oneota groups from the northwest also were established in central Indiana.
In the area near Smith Valley in Johnson County, rather than definitive evidence of conflict,
there is limited evidence of some interaction. Bone, shell, or stone hoes are not typically part
of Oliver phase assemblages, but a single scapula hoe was recovered from the Bowen site
(not mentioned in Dorwin 1971), and a single, sharply everted shell-tempered vessel section
with cordmarking on the underneath side of the rim, like those recovered from the Crouch
site, was also found at the Bowen site (Dorwin 1971:278; McCullough 1991:112, 1992:50).
These items at the Bowen site, along with the presence of a few pieces of Oliver pottery from
12-Jo-5, suggest interaction between the groups. A single shell-tempered rim sherd similar to
the Smith Valley materials also was observed in a surface collection of Oliver pottery in
Owen County along the lower west fork (12-Ow-154) and lends further evidence of some
type of interaction. The paucity of Oliver sherds associated with the Smith Valley material
(and vice versa), along with the deviation from the Oliver settlement-subsistence system,
suggests that, while contact between the groups definitely occurred, the Smith Valley groups
maintained their separation. The mechanisms that brought together and blurred the
boundaries between populations associated with the Fort Ancient and Great Lakes impressed
ceramic traditions—creating the Oliver phase in the thirteenth century—evidently did not
significantly influence this Oneota-related population.
Later, in the fourteenth century, another Oneota group was occupying the Taylor Village
site, across the White River from the Strawtown enclosure. Superimposed features at the
enclosure indicate a Taylor Village occupation of that site by the 1400s. Again, there is no
direct evidence of warfare or violent conflict, but the nature of the interaction between these
groups late in the Oliver sequence is unclear. Drooker (1997) has noted trade connections
between Oneota and Fort Ancient groups during the Madisonville Horizon, and the
Strawtown area may have been an important, early node in that contact.
40
Protohistoric/Historic Period (AD 1600-1750)
The exact relation of prehistoric aboriginal groups to those Native Americans resident in
central Indiana at the time of European and Euroamerican contact is unclear, due to the
disruptions of the mid-1600s Iroquois wars and the lack of a sustained European presence in
Indiana before the establishment of Ouiatenon in 1717 (Barnhart and Riker 1971:71-72;
Tanner 1987; White 1991). In the 1700s, Indiana was a “refuge area” for tribal groups
displaced by wars and by the increasing pace of European settlements to the east (Barnhart
and Riker 1971:65). By the late 1700s, the Miami Indians, who claimed central Indiana, had
allowed Delaware Indians driven westward by white encroachment to settle along the upper
west fork of the White River. The presence of a Delaware village in the vicinity of
Strawtown, well placed on trails north to the Wabash country and to the Miami stronghold of
Kekionga (now Fort Wayne), as well as west to Illinois (Warner 2000), is mentioned in
several early histories (Cox 1879; Haines 1915; Helm 1880). One trail followed the south
bank of the river in the Strawtown vicinity, linking it to a “very old prehistoric Indian trail
that was a strategic overland route from the Ohio River (at Cincinnati) to Lake Michigan”
(Warner 2000:168). In addition, the “Great North-South Trail” used by Miami, Shawnee,
Potawatomi, and other tribes crossed the White River at Strawtown en route from the Falls of
the Ohio to the confluence of the Mississinewa with the Wabash River, near the Seven
Pillars, which were sacred to the Miami nations (Warner 2000:149). An early east-west trail
crossing the state from Ohio to Illinois also passed near Strawtown before it veered
northward into Potawatomi lands (Warner 2000:169, 193-210; see also Guernsey 1968).
Early in his career Tecumseh brought his band of Shawnees to stay among the Delaware
on the White River (Edmunds 1984:74; Sugden 1997:99-100), and Miami tradition has it that
Tecumseh and his brother Tenskwatawa, the Shawnee Prophet, conceived their plan for a
pan-Indian resistance to white settlement while visiting at Strawtown (Nick Clark, personal
communication 2002). A glass trade bead and European gun flints that were recovered from
surface survey are evidence of the continuing use of this strategic site on the White River at
the intersection of trails (White, R. McCullough, and D. McCullough 2003:71).
Native American rights to the area encompassing Strawtown were extinguished with the
“New Purchase” of 1818, but even before White River Township in northeastern Hamilton
County was established in 1823, white settlement had begun, taking advantage of the extant
network of trails and proximity to the river (Helm 1880:130). John Shintaffer had settled just
east of the Indian village at Strawtown to trade with the Indians by 1818, and in 1819 Zenas
Beckwith had begun clearing land in the town now called Strawtown. By the early 1820s, the
small white settlement of Strawtown was thriving, with stores and at least two taverns. The
first toll gate in Hamilton County was just north of Strawtown, along the original Indian trail
from Delaware settlements near modern-day Anderson to William Conners’s trading post
below Noblesville (Haines 1915:190). One historian noted that “as early as the year 1821,
there were those at Strawtown who raised crops with a special view to trafficking with
emigrants en route for other points” (Helm 1880:132). The selection of Noblesville as the
county seat slowed the growth of Strawtown, but its location at the intersection of a major
north-south road (now State Road 37) and an east-west state road ensured its survival as a
market town in an agriculture-based economy throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth
century. The abundance of historic material near the residence on the Taylor property (12-H41
1059) reflects this middle-class, agriculturally based life style (White, D. McCullough, and
R. McCullough 2003:73-82).
42
CHAPTER 3:
EXCAVATIONS
The Strawtown enclosure (12-H-883) is a circular, earthen embankment and ditch construction in
Hamilton County, Indiana (Figure 3.1). The enclosure is situated on an upland prominence
(about 30 feet above high water) across the White River from the Taylor Village site (Cochran et
al. 1993; GBL site files), about fifteen miles north of Indianapolis. At the time of European
settlement, the upland overlooked a large prairie along the river bottoms. The Strawtown
enclosure has been recognized as a significant prehistoric earthwork since the late nineteenth
century (see Chapter 2).
Work at the Strawtown enclosure during the 2008 season focused on three main goals: 1) to
clarify Late Prehistoric population dynamics of central Indiana by identifying domestic
structures that provide information relating to family and community organization; 2) to create
an educational experience that conveys the importance of Indiana’s cultural resources to the
public; and 3) to assist in developing the archaeological resources of the park so that it becomes
a regional educational tourism destination. Investigations were conducted in accordance with the
Secretary of The Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Identification, Evaluation, and
Archaeological Documentation, the Guidebook for Indiana Historic Sites and Structures
Inventory-Archaeological Sites, and the Grants Manual of the DHPA.
Excavations at the Strawtown enclosure in 2008 were conducted by the IPFW-AS during the
DHPA-sponsored Indiana Archaeology Month. Excavations concentrated on the general
expansion south of the 2006 Main Block near the eastern portion the enclosure. The 2008
Archaeology Month public excavation was conducted Tuesdays through Saturdays from
September 23 to October 14. Dr. Robert McCullough served as Principal Investigator for this
public event, and Craig Arnold served as field supervisor and crew chief. Additional
archaeological staff included Christy Brocken, Reed Dilley, Claire Ewing, Colin Graham, Perry
Harrell, Nick Hess, Scott Hipskind, Leon Hostetler, Shelby Putt, Sharon Smith, Adrienne Taylor,
and Erik Vosteen.
The following chapter is in three sections: the first deals with the general methodology used
and the rationale for block placement; the second consists of block descriptions and the unit
components within; and the final section presents descriptions of the features encountered. The
feature section includes summaries of the artifacts recovered from secure feature contexts;
however, a detailed presentation of the cultural materials recovered is in Chapter 4.
METHODS
The 2008 archaeological investigations conducted within the Strawtown enclosure were located
in the eastern portion of the enclosure (Figure 3.2). All excavation units consisted of 1x1 m units
arranged off the Main Block (south extension) and one unit off existing Block 1 (see Figure 3.2)
over a portion of the embankment. Since the 2002 season, all unit excavations within the
enclosure have consisted only of 1x1 m units, and the designations have been numbered
sequentially. Similarly, features were assigned numbers consecutive to those within the
enclosure during previous seasons.
43
Figure 3.1. Location of the Strawtown enclosure on the 7.5’ USGS Omega, Indiana, quadrangle.
44
Figure 3.2. Contour map of the Strawtown enclosure indicating previous and 2008 excavations.
45
In all, 45 units, or square meters of surface area, were excavated during the 2008
Archaeology Month investigations (Figure 3.3). One excavation unit (Unit 170) was northeast of
Block 1 (“Large Block,” excavated in 2002) over a portion of the embankment (see Figure 3.2).
The Main Block that was begun in 2006 and expanded in 2007 (south and west extensions) was
partially reopened and expanded to the south and west during Archaeology Month 2008.
Eventually the units extended to include the 2x2 meter block initially excavated in 2007, referred
to as Liz’s Block (see Figure 3.2).
The Central Block was also reopened during Archaeology Month 2008 (see Figure 3.2). The
block was excavated by hand to landscape cloth placed at the end of Archaeology Month in
2007. No additional units were excavated in 2008.
Horizontal and vertical controls were maintained during mapping and excavation efforts
using an electronic total station. The grid used was the one established in 2001 and thus far has
been the only one employed for investigations north of Strawtown Avenue. The grid was reestablished by re-sectioning from the two permanent (concrete and rebar) datums within and
north of the enclosure. The total station was used to locate excavation block corners and to
determine the elevations of the block data. The Archaeology Month investigations required the
use of different elevation datums to accommodate the expanding excavation locations.
During Archaeology Month 2008 two datums were set. One, designated 08-A, was used for
the south extension of the Main Block and had an elevation of 100.035 m (height of laser beam).
The rotary laser was placed on a leveled platform constructed from an embedded cinder block.
The second datum set during Archaeology Month, 08-B, was placed in close proximity to Unit
170 and consisted of a wooden stake driven vertically into the ground with an attached string line
and bubble level. This datum had an elevation of 100.24 m in reference to the 12-H-883 site grid.
Table 3.1 provides summary information for the two datums used within the Strawtown
enclosure during the 2008 field season. All elevations during excavation were taken as “below
datum” using electronic laser sensors and stadia rods or folding rules.
Table 3.1. Datum Designations and Elevations Used in the Strawtown Enclosure during the 2008 Field Season
08-A
Blocks/Units Using
Data
Main Block
08-B
Unit 170
Datum Designation
Type
Height of Block
Datum Elevation
Rotary Laser
Stake, String, Line
Level
99.896
100.035
N/A
100.241
Units were excavated in arbitrary 10-cm levels using trowels and shovels. For the
Archaeology Month excavation, Level 1 extended from ground surface level to 50 cmbd; Level 2
was from 50 to 60 cmbd; Level 3 was from 60 to 70 cmbd; and Level 4 was from 70 to 80 cmbd.
Level 5 extended from 80 to 90 cmbd in Units 130-133 and 135-138.
All sediment removed was passed through 1/4” hardware mesh. Diagnostic or otherwise
noteworthy artifacts were piece-plotted (when appropriate) and separately bagged and labeled.
An excavation level form was filled out during the excavation of each level. This form includes
data about sediment texture, color, disturbance, and inclusions as well as other observations.
Excavation floors of the blocks were troweled clean, photographed, and mapped as a block for
each separate level.
46
Figure 3.3. Units excavated during the 2008 Archaeology Month.
47
Treatment of subsoil anomalies (features, postholes, and potential features/postholes) varied
depending on the size and characteristics of the anomaly and the time available for excavation.
Most of the anomalies mapped during the 2007 excavations were exposed and excavated, while
several new anomalies encountered in 2008 were mapped in plan and left in place for future
investigations. Standard feature excavation procedures (cross sectioning, profiling, and collection
of sediment samples for flotation) were employed to investigate anomalies as time permitted.
Portions of the bases and profile walls of the Main Block extensions, Unit 170, and Liz’s Block
were lined with landscape cloth at the end of the 2008 season to allow easy identification of the
base of excavation, excavation extent, and the unexcavated anomalies.
At the end of the 2008 Archaeology Month program, IPFW-AS personnel established four
new permanent datums. Two of the datums were positioned within the enclosure using concrete
and rebar, while the remaining two were placed outside the enclosure on concrete slabs marked
with an “X” at the Taylor Center of Natural History. The first of two datums placed within the
enclosure was established over an existing REU unit near the south-central portion of the
enclosure. The second was established over a previously excavated trench (2006) in the central
portion of the enclosure. The third datum was positioned under the west awning of the Taylor
Center of Natural History on a corner concrete slab. The fourth datum was placed near the north
side of the building on the chiller concrete pad. Table 3.2 provides summary information for the
newly established permanent datums.
Table 3.2. Permanent Datum Locations and Descriptions Established during the 2008 Field Season
Datum Designation
South Datum
Central Datum-07 Trench
North Datum-TC
South Datum-TC
Description
Colin’s REU Block
Central Excavation Trench
North Chiller Concrete Slab; Taylor Center
Concrete Slab; Taylor Center West Awning
Northing
179.993
200.946
159.400
142.231
Easting
160.073
193.478
250.583
245.141
BLOCK/UNIT EXCAVATIONS
Unit 170
Unit 170 was positioned over a portion of the embankment on the east side of the Strawtown
enclosure to test whether or not any Taylor Village components were located beneath the
embankment. In 2002, Block 1 was placed over the embankment to investigate the construction
of the enclosure (see Figure 3.2). An assemblage of Oliver phase ceramics was most prevalent
throughout the levels excavated over the embankment, although shell-tempered ceramics were
observed as well (White et al. 2002:98-107).
Unit 170 was placed off the northeastern side of Block 1 over a portion of the embankment.
The southwest corner grid coordinate was North 222, East 212; the northwest corner was North
223, East 212; the northeast corner was North 223, East 213; and the southeast corner was North
222, East 213 (see Figure 3.2). A previously excavated area south and west of Unit 170 was
removed to expose the profile wall and provide a working area for excavation. Unit 170 was
excavated in stratigraphic layers (based off the stratigraphy observed in profile) to gain a better
understanding of artifact densities and distribution. A total of five stratigraphic levels (referred to
as zones) was removed to the base of excavation, or approximately 65 cmbd. Zone 1 (plowzone)
was removed to a maximum depth of 42 cmbd. Zones 2 and 3 (embankment) were combined
48
because definition between the two stratigraphic layers was unclear. Zones 2 and 3 measured
approximately 32 to 52 cm in depth. Zone 4 (buried A horizon) measured approximately 46 to 60
cmbd, and Zone 5 (buried A horizon) measured approximately 54 to 67 cmbd. All soils removed
were screened through ¼” hardware cloth.
Profile drawings were completed for the north and east walls of Unit 170. Five stratigraphic
zones were identified in the north profile wall and four zones in the west profile wall (Figures 3.4
and 3.5). Zone 1 represented the plowzone, consisting of a very dark grayish-brown (10YR3/2)
silt loam with a weak structure and moderately stiff compactness, common fine rootlets, and
common small gravel. The boundary with Zone 2 was clear.
Zone 2 represented the embankment fill, consisting of a yellowish-brown (10YR5/4) silty
clay loam with a weak granular structure and stiff compactness. The zone had a compact,
cemented feel and appearance; colors were intermixed and diffuse rather than mottled. It
contained abundant gravel and no rootlets. The boundary with Zone 2a was diffuse and clear
with Zone 3. Zone 2a, also embankment fill, consisted of a yellowish-brown (10YR5/4) silt loam
with few mottles of dark yellowish-brown (10YR3/4). The zone’s soils had a weak granular
structure and stiff compactness. There were common fine rootlets and less gravel than Zone 2.
The boundary with Zone 3 was clear.
Zone 3 also represented the embankment fill and consisted of a mixture of yellowish-brown
(10YR5/4-5/6) silty clay with a weak structure and very stiff compactness. The zone contained
inclusions of few stones, few small, fine rootlets, and a light amount of bioturbation. The
boundary with Zone 4 was clear.
Zone 4 represented a buried A-horizon and consisted of a dark yellowish-brown (10YR3/4)
silt loam with a weak to apedal structure and moderately stiff compactness, few fine rootlets,
moderate to heavy amount of rodent disturbance, and some charcoal flecking.
No further work was conducted in Unit 170 during the 2008 field season prior to backfilling.
See Table 3.3 for a summary of artifacts recovered and Chapter 5 for further discussion.
49
Figure 3.4. Profile drawing of the east wall of Unit 170, 2008.
50
Figure 3.5. Profile drawing of the north wall of Unit 170, 2008.
51
MAIN BLOCK
Stratigraphy
Four major stratigraphic zones, excluding features and the various cultural zones identified in
plan, were identified in the 2008 Main Block (Figures 3.6–3.13). These zones were designated
Zones 1 through 3, 9, and 13a-b and represent the basic stratigraphic profile for this portion of
the site. Zone 1 was a stratum of accretional organic soil buildup (O/A). The Principal
Investigator believes this area developed because of the closed depression formed by the
embankment wall, which focused deposition of eroded soils and accumulated organic matter
inside the enclosure. The identification of this zone as a post-plowing layer is suggested by the
presence of a high density of historic material related to the use of the site as a junk yard and a
low density of prehistoric materials. The zone revealed a very dark brown (10YR2/2) silt loam
with moderate loose compactness and weak structure. Roots and insect burrows were common to
numerous (most roots were <2 cm). Most stones were waterworn gravels less than 1 cm in
diameter with occasional larger (up to 6 cm diameter) stones present. Mottles were absent. As
indicated in previous investigations, Zone 1 was discontinuously distributed across the site.
During the 2003 excavation, the base of this zone was identified in places by thin horizontal
layers of paint chips (McCullough et al. 2004). The boundary between Zones 1 and 2 was clear
in some places and more difficult to discern in others. Zone 1 soils were present in all units and
were approximately 10-15 cm in thickness. A majority of the Level 1 soils from the main block
of the Archaeology Month 2008 excavations were from Zone 1.
Zone 2 represents a plowzone (Ap horizon) composed of very dark grayish-brown (10YR3/2)
silt loam with very dark brown mottles (10YR2/2). Zone 2 was moderately compact. Small/fine
roots up to 3 cm were common, as were insect burrows. Stones up to 5 cm were common to
abundant. The boundary with Zone 3 was abrupt and differentiated by color, an increase in clay
content, and a distinct difference in gravel quantities. Charcoal flecking was present throughout
the zone, as were cultural artifacts. The artifacts were almost exclusively prehistoric and had a
higher density over intact cultural deposits.
Zones 3 and 9 were a natural B-horizon soil with intrusive features. This zone revealed a
dark yellowish-brown (10YR3/4) silt loam/clay loam with very dark grayish-brown (10YR3/2)
mottles. Roots and stones were present but not common. Some scattered charcoal flecking
through leaching was present.
Zone 13a-b exhibited a brown to yellowish-brown (10YR5/3-5/4) silt loam/clay loam with
dark brown (10YR3/3) silt loam and sand mottles. The zone’s soils had moderate to strong
structure and stiff compactness. Zone 13 was culturally sterile with the exception of intrusive
features and continued beyond the base of excavations in 2008.
52
Figure 3.6. Profile drawing of the north, west, and east walls of Units 168 and 169, Main Block expansion, 2008.
53
Figure 3.7. Profile drawing of the east wall of the Main Block south extension, 2008.
54
Figure 3.8. Profile drawing of the north and east wall of the Main Block south extension, 2008.
55
Figure 3.9. Profile drawing of the southwestern wall of the Main Block south extension, 2008.
56
Figure 3.10. Profile drawing of the southeastern wall of the Main Block south extension, 2008.
57
Figure 3.11. Profile drawing of the east, south, and west wall of the Main Block south extension, 2008.
58
Figure 3.12. Soil descriptions for the north, south, east, west wall profiles.
59
Figure 3.13. Soil descriptions for the north, south, east, west wall profiles, continued.
60
Excavations
The 2008 Archaeology Month excavations in the Main Block built upon the 2006 and 2007 REU
and Archaeology Month investigations. A full account of the 2006 and 2007 investigations is
provided in Arnold et al. (2007) and McCullough (2008), but a brief summary of the work done
in those previous excavations is necessary to contextualize the 2008 investigations.
The Main Block excavation was established during Archaeology Month 2006 to encompass
Units 89, 90, 91, and 92, which had been excavated during the 2006 REU program (Figure 3.14,
see Figure 3.2). These four units had been positioned to ground truth the southwestern edge of a
rectangular anomaly evident in the resistivity data and thought to be a structure. At that time, a
complex of culturally related soils was encountered, including a large pit (Feature 33) and an illdefined feature complex (designated Feature 32).
Figure 3.14. Photograph of the Main Block excavation at the base of Level 3, 2006, view north.
The Main Block was expanded during Archaeology Month 2006 to include a total of 24 units
(see Figure 3.14). The entire block was excavated to the base of Level 4. In order to better define
and recover the significant Taylor Village component within Feature 33, Units 89, 90, 92, 105,
and 106 were excavated to the base of Level 5. Because fragile pottery and faunal material that
would have been destroyed by backfilling were encountered at this level, Unit 89 was taken
down into Level 6 to recover this material, and a small area of fragile bone was removed in Unit
90.
The primary objective of the 2006 investigations was identification of a domestic structure
within the Strawtown enclosure. The presence of two prepared clay hearths, oxidized surfaces,
and large postholes strongly suggested the presence of a structure within portions of the Main
Block. However, it was not until the last day of the investigations that the excavators were able
to discern a shallow basin structure present in the southwestern portion of the Main Block. The
basin was identified in the west wall beginning about North 201.25 and continued to the south
along the west wall, appearing to end along the south wall at the line between Units 93 and 94.
61
Because the basin was only visible in the block profile it was not given a feature number until
the 2007 investigations.
During the 2007 Archaeology Month field season, excavations continued to pursue the
research objectives defined in 2006. Because several features (33, 35, 36, 37 Complex, and 42)
and numerous postholes were only partially investigated in 2006, the 2007 field season focused
on further investigations of the features, anomalies, feature complexes, and postholes
documented but left in place in the 2006 Main Block, especially the structure observed in the
west and south profile walls. In order to determine the structure’s size and shape the Main Block
was reopened and expanded to the west and south to allow the exposure of the basin structure in
plan view (Figure 3.15). The original block of 24 1x1 meter units was reopened, except for a 1x2
meter area (Units 103 and 108) located in the extreme northeast corner of the block where
Feature 39 had been investigated. The west expansion extended a maximum of 3 m west of the
2006 Main Block where an additional 10 m2 was excavated. The south expansion extended south
a maximum of 3 m beginning at the East 208 line, where an additional 13 m² was excavated.
With the expansion of the Main Block to the south and west, 23 additional units were excavated
in this area (Figures 3.16-3.20), however the southern boundary of the structure was not defined.
Figure 3.15. Photograph of the base of Level 3, showing west edge of house basin, Main Block expansion,
2007.
62
Figure 3.16. Plan map of soil zones at the base of Level 3, Main Block south and west expansions, 2007.
63
Figure 3.17. Soil zone descriptions for the base of Level 3, Main Block expansions, 2007.
64
Figure 3.18. Plan map of soil zones for the base of Level 4, Main Block west expansion, 2007.
65
Figure 3.19. Soil zone descriptions for the base of Level 4, Main Block west expansion, 2007.
66
Figure 3.20. Units excavated within the Main Block during 2006 and 2007.
67
Excavations during the 2008 Archaeology Month field season continued to pursue the research
objectives defined in 2006. Because several features (51-53) and numerous postholes were only
partially investigated in 2007, the 2008 field season focused on further investigations of the
features, anomalies, and postholes documented but left in place in 2007, especially to define the
boundaries of the basin structure (Feature 49) observed in plan and south profile walls of the
2007 Main Block. A portion of the 2008 excavation extended west to include Liz’s REU Block
in order to define a large feature (Feature 47), which was interpreted as a possible basin structure
in that area (discussed in more detail in the feature discussion section of this chapter).
In order to determine the structure’s size and shape the 2007 Main Block (west and south
extensions) was reopened and expanded to the south (Figure 3.21) to allow the exposure of the
basin structure in plan view. The original block of 23 1x1 meter units was reopened, in addition
to Liz’s Block (Units 125-128) located 2 m west from the most southwestern unit of the south
extension. The south expansion involved an additional 15 m2 and extended a maximum of 2 m
south, 4 m west, and 1 m east of the 2007 Main Block. Two additional 1x1 meter units were
placed north of the west extension (Units 168 and 169) to verify whether a line of postholes
continued in that direction (see Figure 3.21). With the expansion of the Main Block, a total of 17
additional units was excavated in this area.
While excavations of Feature 49, the house basin, were in progress during the 2008 field
season an additional twelve features (54-68) were identified. In addition, the remaining forty-two
uninvestigated posts plotted during the 2007 season in the west extension were cross-sectioned to
determine acceptance or rejection, and another 127 possible posts were identified in the south
extension in deeper levels.
After the backfill was removed from the previously excavated Main Block and Liz’s Block
units by hand excavation, a heavy trowel scrape was implemented to remove backfill detritus and
to define features and posts documented the previous year. It became apparent that Zone C
located in Unit 131 of the west extension was a feature and designated Feature 59 (see Figure
3.18). Units 130-133 and Units 135-138 were then excavated to 90 cmbd (base of Level 5) to
make certain that all postholes and features were examined (see Figure 3.21). The remainder of
the southern extension begun in 2007 (Units 129, 134, 139-147, 150, and 151) was left at Level 3
(70 cmbd) until further expansion to the south.
The 2008 southern expansion (Units 153-167) was excavated following standard procedures
for the Strawtown enclosure. At the base of Level 3 (70 cmbd), plan maps with feature
descriptions were drawn and photographs were taken (Figures 3.22-3.25). Level 4 (70-80 cmbd)
was removed from the south expansion block, and plan maps with soil descriptions were drawn
and photographs were taken to document soil zones, anomalies, features, and possible postholes
(Figures 3.26–3.29). Figures 3.30 and 3.31 are composite plan maps of features, postholes, and
other anomalies observed in the Main Block and west and south expansions at Level 3 (70 cmbd)
and Level 4 (80 cmbd).
At the base of Level 3 (70 cmbd) in the south expansion, the basin structure, Feature 49, was
delineated by a distinct contrast between its organic fill and the lighter colored soils surrounding
the feature (see Figure 3.25). In Unit 133, the edge of the basin extended from the junction of
Units 120 and 133 near North 201.50. Feature 49 followed a shallow arc, extending southwest
through the corner of Unit 138 and into Unit 137 before turning south and southeast through
Units 136, 135, and 134. At the junction of Units 134 and 139, the basin extends almost directly
east into Units 129 and 145 and slightly arcs toward the southeast near the southeast corner of
Unit 145. It then extends back to the west, arcing into Units 141 and 140 before continuing south
68
into Units 164 and 166. The “U-shape” in Units 139 and 145 consisted of a much lighter colored
soil and did not contain nearly as many cultural materials as the basin fill. The Principal
Investigator believes this may represent a possible opening or entry way into the structure and
coincides with a lack of postholes in the area (discussed in more detail in the posthole discussion
section of this chapter). The basin’s footprint was still evident at the base of Level 4, closely
associated with numerous additional postholes. At 80 cmbd, it was evident that the western
portion of Unit 166 was clearly matrix soil, while the eastern portion and all Unit 167 soils were
much darker and contained cultural materials. The contrast between these units likely represents
the structure basin or a possible feature.
The extent of the basin structure to the south is still not well defined, especially when
observed in the south profile wall (Units 166, 167) where there are several zones that may be the
edge of the structure (see Figures 3.10-3.11). Future investigations to the south and east within
the south expansion will likely clarify architectural limits of the structure or structures (see
Chapter 5 for further discussion).
69
Figure 3.21. Units excavated within the Main Block during 2006 through 2008.
70
Figure 3.22. Plan map of soil zones at the base of Level 3, Main Block south expansion, 2008.
71
Figure 3.23. Soil zone descriptions for the base of Level 3, Main Block south expansion, 2008.
72
Figure 3.24. Soil zone descriptions for the base of Level 3, Main Block south expansion, 2008, continued.
73
Figure 3.25. Photograph of the base of Level 3, showing west edge of house basin, Main Block
south expansion, 2008.
74
Figure 3.26. Plan map of soil zones at the base of Level 4, Main Block south expansion, 2008.
75
Figure 3.27. Soil zone descriptions for the base of Level 4, Main Block south expansion, 2008.
76
Figure 3.28. Soil zone descriptions for the base of Level 4, Main Block south expansion, 2008, continued.
77
Figure 3.29. Photograph of the base of Level 4, showing features, anomalies, and postholes below the house basin,
Main Block south expansion, 2008.
78
Figure 3.30. Composite map of features, zones, and other anomalies at Level 3 in the Main Block, 2006, 2007, and
2008.
79
Figure 3.31. Composite map of features, confirmed postholes, and other anomalies at Level 4 in the Main Block,
2006, 2007, and 2008.
80
Table 3.3. Summary of Materials Recovered from the Main Block, 2006, 2007 (italics), and 2008 (bold)
Prehistoric
Historic
Provenience
Ceramics
Chipped
Stone
FCR
Fauna
(g)
Unit 89
Level 1
66
200
11
11.4g
Level 2
68
118
6
25.0g
Level 3
173
139
10
324.0g
1.2g
Level 5
95
106
16
562.2g
0.8g
Level 6
250
284
25
3005.4g
16.8g
Level 1
98
215
15
13.4
Level 2
63
87
6
19.1
Level 3
105
129
9
150.6g
3.9g
Level 5
62
83
10
689.6g
4.8g
Level 6
53
63
1
537.6g
Level 1
70
195
16
12.4g
Level 2
93
123
17
40.0g
0.1g
Level 3
103
130
17
201.1 g
4.0 g
Level 5
5
16
3
8.8 g
2.6 g
Level 6
22
25
0
41.3 g
0.4 g
Level 1
130
266
23
79.2 g
Level 2
51
83
Level 3
4
13
Level 5
3
6
Level 6
3
8
Level 6+
1
Level 1
Unit 90
Unit 91
Unit 92
Unit 93
Unit 94
Flora
(g)
Ceramics
1
Glass
Metal
Other
16
1
4
3
3
1
21.0 g
0.1 g
18.4 g
0.8 g
10.3 g
2.3 g
0
1.9 g
0.3 g
5
0
0.2 g
1.5 g
89
136
20
151.6 g
2.4 g
Level 2
58
119
11
12.3 g
Level 3
87
269
31
108.0 g
3.8 g
Level 4
73
89
20
419.9 g
37.2
Level 5
8
6
0
0.7 g
0.3 g
Level 5+
10
3
1
37.0 g
7.0 g
Level 1
11
26
1
0.5 g
0
1
Level 2
79
206
8
21.9 g
0
1
Level 3
98
280
32
76.5 g
0.8 g
Level 4
27
40
7
20.2 g
2.0 g
4
81
2
1
1
Prehistoric
Historic
Ceramics
Chipped
Stone
FCR
Fauna
(g)
Flora
(g)
Level 5
6
4
3
0
0
Level 1
8
47
1
11.6 g
Level 2
40
153
17
Level 3
65
116
Level 4
31
Level 5
Provenience
Unit 95
Unit 96
Unit 97
Unit 98
Unit 99
Unit 100
Glass
Metal
0
2
1
10.9 g
0
1
22
23.9 g
0.9 g
48
10
50.0 g
5.0 g
11
9
0
6.0 g
0
Level 5+
7
1
0
8.3 g
1.5 g
Level 1
26
37
31.4 g
0
3
Level 2
104
218
22
26.7 g
0
1
Level 3
89
123
8
39.5 g
1.7 g
Level 4
43
54
9
52.0 g
7.8 g
Level 5
1
2
0
0
0
Level 5+
5
5
2
14.1 g
1.0 g
Level 1
13
49
4
2.2 g
0
Level 2
109
218
21
24.4 g
Level 3
238
161
32
93.1 g
7.0 g
Level 4
36
32
7
15.8 g
2.4 g
Level 5
2
6
0.9 g
55.8g
Level 5+
5
49
1
2.2 g
20.3g
Level 1
3
28
2
3.0 g
0
Level1-3
12
15
1
3.9 g
0.3 g
Level 2
58
174
10
21.2 g
0
Level 3
98
163
19
111.3 g
1.4 g
Level 4
93
102
5
309.0 g
5.9 g
Level 5
3
18
3
16.3 g
0.7 g
Level 1
21
35
3
20.4 g
0
5
Level 2
72
250
28
29.8 g
0
2
Level 3
134
175
21
82.6 g
8.7 g
Level 4
104
85
13
78.0 g
20.6 g
Level 5
24
24
1
25.6 g
4.2 g
Level 5+
7
11
2
10.3 g
1.3 g
Level 1
11
28
1
4.6 g
0
82
Ceramics
1
Other
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
Prehistoric
Historic
Ceramics
Chipped
Stone
FCR
Fauna
(g)
Flora
(g)
Level 2
140
207
14
26.8 g
0.1 g
Level 3
125
147
19
95.4 g
4.7 g
Level 4
71
81
5
59.9 g
10.4g
Level 5
2
4
1
9.9 g
0.3 g
Level 5+
2
7
0
4.2 g
0
Level 1
9
30
2
1.7 g
0
Level 2
60
156
22
26.4 g
0
Level 3
124
153
27
101.1 g
0.3 g
Level 4
280
214
31
349.0 g
21.6g
Level 5
27
23
1
22.3 g
5.3 g
Level 6
4
5
0
0
0.8 g
Level 6+
3
1
0
3.7 g
0.4 g
Level 1
4
12
0
1.0 g
0
Level 2
58
157
17
12.9 g
0
Level 3
120
172
17
56.5 g
2.5 g
Level 4
61
61
13
44.5 g
5.6 g
Level 5
10
31
2
6.7 g
0.5 g
Level 5+
19
23
6
44.1 g
2.7 g
Level 6+
3
5
0
1.6 g
0.4 g
Level 1
2
8
5
3.9 g
0
Level 2
115
257
29
27.0 g
0.1 g
Level 3
145
176
19
173.2 g
8.7 g
Level 4
46
64
4
52.5 g
39.0g
Level 5
0
1
0
0
0
Level 5+
9
11
0
6.3 g
15.4g
Level 1
11
25
0
3.4 g
0
Level 2
49
186
22
9.2 g
0
Level 3
70
151
26
51.5 g
0.6 g
Level 4
107
89
24
144.6 g
2.0 g
Level 5
2
18
2
9.0 g
0
Level 5+
6
11
0
4.4 g
6.0 g
Level 1
2
12
1
0.3 g
0
Provenience
Unit 101
Unit 102
Unit 103
Unit 104
Unit 105
83
Ceramics
Glass
Metal
1
2
Other
1
1
2
9
1
1
2
Prehistoric
Historic
Ceramics
Chipped
Stone
FCR
Fauna
(g)
Flora
(g)
Level 2
65
196
17
12.8 g
0
Level 3
115
215
30
62.9 g
0.1 g
Level 4
99
94
18
183.9 g
0.6 g
Level 5
85
95
15
371.6 g
1.6 g
Level 6
65
50
4
101.2 g
0.8 g
Level 6+
0
4
0
0.9 g
1.6 g
Level 1
5
15
2
0.2 g
0
Level 2
94
183
27
8.5 g
0
Level 3
98
133
16
36.0 g
0.3 g
Level 4
38
58
9
47.1 g
2.1 g
Level 5
45
31
2
200.7 g
8.2 g
Level 6
8
15
1
5.6 g
0.2 g
Level 6+
1
6
0
2.2 g
0
Level 1
2
15
3
0.9 g
0
Level 2
68
151
9
9.9 g
0
Level 3
127
180
10
58.9
0.6 g
Level 4
16
37
11
29.8 g
1.1 g
Level 5
2
2
1
0
0
Level 1
13
22
4
0.6 g
Level 2
140
216
34
17.8 g
Level 3
137
162
20
63.8 g
2.5 g
Level 4
80
113
20
112.0 g
23.2g
Level 1
7
23
Level 2
118
287
20
23.6 g
0.2 g
Level 3
89
115
5
100.0 g
4.1 g
Level 4
157
114
25
430.5 g
24.8g
Level 5
1
1
0
0.2 g
0
Level 5+
2
2
0
2.2 g
0
Level 1
11
23
4
4.3 g
0
Level 2
118
264
27
29.3 g
0.1 g
Level 3
98
143
13
65.8 g
1.5 g
Level 4
121
89
19
71.4 g
6.4 g
Provenience
Unit 106
Unit 107
Unit 108
Unit 113
Unit 114
Glass
Metal
Other
1
1
3
3
1
1
1
0.4 g
84
Ceramics
1
1
1
1
5
17
9
Prehistoric
Historic
Ceramics
Chipped
Stone
FCR
Fauna
(g)
Flora
(g)
Level 5
1
3
1
0.9 g
0
Level 1
12
20
2
3.3 g
0
26
Level 2
83
238
20
25.2 g
0.1 g
1
Level 3
122
194
16
100.0 g
2.1 g
Level 4
139
100
12
214.0 g
8.9 g
Level 5
0
1
0
0.1 g
0.1 g
Level 1
8
30
7
3.5 g
0.1 g
Level 2
56
125
24
12.1 g
0
1
Level 3
74
220
9
51.4 g
1.4 g
1
Level 4
105
126
15
263.4 g
9.3 g
Level 5
0
10
2
4.8 g
0.3 g
Level 5+
11
4
0
26.1 g
16.4 g
Level 1
2
5
0
1.5 g
0
Level 2
67
256
15
12.1 g
0.3 g
Level 3
347
452
42
169.9
15.5g
Level 4
210
160
32
253.7 g
4.3 g
Level 5
2
1
0
0
0.1 g
Level 5+
4
8
1
38.2 g
1.3 g
Level 1
17
14
0
3.0 g
0.1 g
Level 2
66
178
10
13.9
0
Level 3
157
231
18
64.0 g
1.4 g
Level 4
0
0
0
0
0.5 g
Level 5
3
3
0
0.6 g
0.2 g
Level 5+
3
8
0
0.6 g
0
Level 1
3
12
0
0.1 g
0
Level 2
49
138
9
13.1 g
0
Level 3
111
194
21
81.0 g
0.8 g
165
157
19
142.4 g
2.9 g
Level 5
6
9
2
4.2 g
1.0 g
Level 5+
10
6
0
11.9 g
2.6 g
Level 1
4
9
0.8 g
1.9 g
0
Provenience
Unit 115
Unit 116
Unit 117
Unit 118
Unit 119
Level 4
Unit 120
85
Ceramics
Glass
Metal
Other
1
1
1
4
1
1
2
Prehist
1
2
Prehistoric
Historic
Ceramics
Chipped
Stone
FCR
Fauna
(g)
Flora
(g)
Level 2
22
73
8
5.2 g
0
3
Level 3
66
244
16
39.1 g
0
1
Level 4
45
63
3
20.3 g
1.1 g
Level 5
0
1
0
0
0
Level 1
3
38
7
0.7 g
0.1 g
Level 2
4
9
3
3.0 g
0
Level 1
1
35
5
0
0.1 g
Level 2
6
20
10
24.2 g
0
Level 1
1
24
9
1.3 g
0
Level 2
11
17
14
3.6 g
0
Level 1
3
23
5
0
0
Level 2
0
10
9
0
0
Level 1
6
21
2
0
0
Level 2
58
99
6
1.0 g
0
Level 3
72
148
11
27.9 g
0
Level 4
20
34
4
5.4 g
0.5 g
Level
5&6
0
0
0
0
0
Level 1
13
44
3
2.2 g
0
Level 2
104
207
14
21.1 g
0.1 g
Level 3
127
197
16
58.5 g
0.6 g
Level 4
57
132
6
50.8 g
1.2 g
Level 1
6
14
0
0
0
Level 2
47
106
10
3.7 g
0
Level 3
73
111
6
66.3 g
0.1 g
Level 4
3
8
1
0.5 g
0
Level 1
9
20
2
5.3 g
0
Level 2
51
180
21
2.7
0
Level 3
80
163
17
35.2 g
0
Level 4
8
36
0
3.4 g
0
Level 1
5
9
3
0.2 g
0
Level 2
92
209
8
12.8 g
0
Provenience
Unit 121
Unit 122
Unit 123
Unit 124
Unit 125
Unit 126
Unit 127
Unit 128
Unit 129
86
Ceramics
Glass
1
1
Metal
Other
276.2 g
498.8g
3
1
2
126.5 g
0.4 g
0.4 g
1
76.6 g
4
7
1
1
0.1 g
1
2
3
1
5
4
1
23
1
1
5
0.1 g
Prehistoric
Historic
Ceramics
Chipped
Stone
FCR
Fauna
(g)
Flora
(g)
Level 3
272
323
26
72.8 g
12.0 g
*
Level 4
20
9
1
1.8
0
Unit 130
Level 1
18
12
3
4.5 g
Level 2
139
190
18
Level 3
400
304
Level 3+
205
Level 4+
Provenience
Ceramics
Glass
Metal
Other
0
1
0.2 g
26.2 g
0
9.7 g
1.3 g
20
110.4 g
3.8 g
1
144
6
121.0 g
10.9 g
24
11
6
31.8 g
0.3 g
*
Level 5+
Unit 131
Level 1
9
9
1
0.9 g
0
Level 2
92
215
16
9.0 g
0.1 g
Level 3
223
220
23
98.5 g
1.1 g
Level 4
181
137
18
201.7 g
23.4 g
Level 5+
9
10
2
16.6 g
17.0 g
Level 1
6
11
1
3.9 g
0
2
Level 2
179
173
15
4.1 g
0
1
Level 3
171
180
15
75.9 g
1.6 g
Level 4
77
110
5
185.5 g
27.2 g
Level 5
28
24
4
36.3 g
3.9 g
Level 1
6
7
0
10.6 g
0
Level 2
55
128
10
3.3 g
0.1 g
Level 3
55
138
17
7.9 g
0.7 g
Level 4
15
28
7
7.8 g
0.5 g
Level 5
4
4
6
1.2 g
0.2 g
Level 1
0
3
0
0.1 g
0
Level 2
58
126
4
4.9 g
0
Level 3
229
296
20
92.4 g
12.4 g
Level 4
66
71
4
83.0 g
12.9 g
Level 1
0
4
0
0.2 g
0
Level 2
52
119
13
5.0 g
0
1
Level 3
275
251
12
60.2 g
2.7 g
1
Level 4
165
195
10
93.2 g
8.0 g
Level 5+
64
53
1
196.2 g
6.7 g
Unit 132
Unit 133
Unit 134
Unit 135
87
1
1
1
2
2
2
Prehistoric
Historic
Provenience
Ceramics
Chipped
Stone
FCR
Fauna
(g)
Flora
(g)
Unit 136
Level 1
4
6
0
0
Level 2
73
162
8
Level 3
227
272
Level 4
110
Level 5+
Metal
Other
0
1
1
6.9 g
0
4
15
72.0 g
5.1 g
125
11
62.6 g
7.6 g
34
31
4
114.6 g
0.6 g
Level 1
4
5
1
0.6 g
0
Level 2
95
228
7
10.4 g
0.1 g
Level 3
141
197
7
78.1 g
8.2 g
Level 4
92
113
4
125.8 g
6.5 g
Level 5+
30
119
3
38.3 g
3.3 g
Level 1
2
6
0
3.3 g
0
Level 2
66
186
15
2.5 g
0
Level 3
55
114
11
235.8 g
0.9 g
Level 4
23
31
3
8.8 g
0
Level 5+
26
15
0
5.0 g
7.8 g
Level 1
7
9
1
0.5 g
0
Level 2
81
145
6
1.2 g
0.1 g
Level 3
116
237
15
49.4 g
4.7 g
Level 4+
19
39
7
25.7 g
2.4 g
Level 1
6
7
0
1.1 g
0
Level 2
157
274
20
15.7 g
0
Level 3
161
262
13
69.7 g
7.2 g
Level 4
68
84
16
78.1 g
12.9 g
Level 1
26
11
1
1.1 g
0
Level 2
101
39
10
13.4 g
0.1 g
Level 3
379
488
19
104.1 g
4.7 g
Level 4+
201
129
9
82.5 g
17.7 g
Level 1
7
23
0
2.3 g
0
Level 2
188
175
17
25.8 g
0
Level 3
245
175
14
122.5 g
11.2 g
*
Level 4+
60
33
4
143.7 g
10.9 g
Unit 143
Level 1
18
13
0
4.4 g
0
Unit 137
Unit 138
Unit 139
Unit 140
Unit 141
Unit 142
88
Ceramics
Glass
26.8 g
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
1
Prehistoric
Historic
Ceramics
Chipped
Stone
FCR
Fauna
(g)
Flora
(g)
Level 2
123
156
12
22.6 g
0
Level 3a
73
78
4
18.4 g
0.4 g
Level 3b
65
75
8
40.5 g
1.2 g
Level 4
201
188
14
443.3 g
10.1 g
Level 5+
14
26
7
50.6 g
28.9 g
Level 1
9
14
1
3.1 g
0
Level 2
81
167
6
10.1 g
0
Level 3a
132
140
3
37.1 g
2.1 g
Level 3b
230
163
5
54.9 g
4.3 g
Level 3+
40
29
1
14.8 g
0.9 g
Level 4+
155
123
7
66.8 g
14.2 g
Level 1
11
35
2
16.0 g
0.1 g
Level 2
125
203
15
11.4 g
0.1 g
Level 3
157
254
8
33.4 g
4.2 g
Level 4
6
14
2
7.4 g
1.1 g
Level 1
23
21
1
1.6 g
0.1 g
Level 2
171
218
23
24.5 g
0.1 g
Level 3
212
218
11
56.7 g
3.9 g
Level 4
234
113
9
71.8 g
10.7 g
Level 1
0
0
0
0
0
Level 2
41
86
6
1.0 g
0
Level 3
20
105
3
2.2 g
0
Level 4
1
15
2
0
0
Level 1
4
3
0
0
0
Level 2
52
156
13
4.6 g
0
Level 3
57
167
11
10.1 g
0.7 g
Level 4
2
13
1
0
0
Level 1
1
14
0
0.8 g
0
Level 2
31
154
7
3.4 g
0
Level 3
44
125
15
6.2 g
0.9 g
Level 4
8
32
6
0.3 g
0.4 g
Level 1
21
21
1
5.7 g
0
Provenience
Unit 144
Unit 145
Unit 146
Unit 147
Unit 148
Unit 149
Unit 150
89
Ceramics
Glass
Metal
Other
4.6 g
1.3 g
2
0.5 g
2
2
1
1
1
149.6 g
0.7 g
Prehistoric
Historic
Ceramics
Chipped
Stone
FCR
Fauna
(g)
Flora
(g)
Level 2
134
167
18
24.3 g
Level 3
228
191
22
Level 4a
127
47
Level 4b
21
Level 1
Provenience
Unit 151
Unit 152
Unit 153
Unit 154
Unit 155
Unit 156
*
Unit 157
Ceramics
Glass
Metal
Other
0
2
2.1 g
91.8 g
3.6 g
1
11
46.2 g
6.9 g
7
1
6.2
1.8
17
20
0
1.1 g
0
1
Level 2
101
161
11
16.3 g
0
2
Level 3a
116
139
7
26.8 g
0.2 g
Level 3b
46
61
8
29.8 g
1.1 g
Level 4
64
49
4
48.9 g
17.8 g
Level 5+
46
26
10
33.0 g
34.8 g
Level 1
0
0
0
0
0
35
Level 2
0
21
2
44.8 g
0
3
Level 3
2
2
1
0
0
Level 3+
1
3
2
0
0
Level 1
26
28
2
0.8 g
0
Level 2
91
195
21
8.8 g
0
Level 3
60
117
6
14.6 g
0.1 g
Level 4
3
14
1
0
0
Level 1
21
45
0
0
0
Level 2
82
174
12
4.5 g
0
Level 3
17
45
3
0.7 g
0.2 g
Level 4
0
5
1
0
0.1 g
Level 1
14
26
3
0.9 g
0
1
4
Level 2
58
113
1
1.7 g
0
1
1
Level 3
135
317
20
9.7 g
0.6 g
Level 4
24
65
2
11.1 g
0.3 g
Level 1
13
8
0
0
0
Level 2
78
150
10
1.5 g
0
Level 4
20
36
10
0.1 g
1.7 g
Level 1
1
1
0
0.3 g
0
1
Level 2
41
117
7
1.1
0
1
2
1
1
7
2
1
1
1
2
Level 3
90
1
1
1
Prehistoric
Historic
Ceramics
Chipped
Stone
FCR
Fauna
(g)
Flora
(g)
Level 3
50
147
10
4.1
1.3
Level 4
0
20
3
0
0
Level 1
25
24
5
5.1 g
Level 2
206
266
20
Level 3
513
257
Level 4
294
Level 1
Provenience
Unit 158
Unit 159
Unit 160
Unit 161
Unit 162
Unit 163
Unit 164
Unit 165
Metal
Other
0
7
1
15.5 g
0
1
11
93.4 g
12.2 g
152
16
115.5 g
26.0 g
25
10
10
2.3 g
0.1 g
9
Level 2
222
292
22
28.8 g
0.1 g
4
Level 3
240
175
18
84
8.5
Level 4
30
138
8
114.1 g
30.7 g
Level 1
21
15
1
3.3 g
0
Level 2
147
167
11
20.7 g
1.8 g
Level 3
178
194
14
32.6 g
5.7 g
Level 4
115
161
17
79.6 g
13.5 g
Level 1
19
6
2
2.4 g
0
Level 2
124
200
13
102.9
0
Level 3
120
175
14
75.2 g
2.5 g
Level 4
73
130
6
141.3 g
1.6 g
Level 1
13
10
3
0.1 g
0
Level 2
204
210
8
31.6 g
0
Level 3
127
136
17
91.6
1.4
Level 4
57
73
7
171.3 g
2.3 g
Level 1
16
13
1
0.3 g
0
Level 2
78
177
14
12.2
0
Level 3
80
129
10
67.5 g
0.6 g
Level 4
21
29
4
72.2 g
0.5 g
Level 1
15
33
1
1.4 g
1.8 g
Level 2
163
278
25
15.8 g
0.1 g
Level 3
215
293
21
34.7 g
2.4 g
Level 4+
161
296
17
250.4 g
7.2 g
Level 1
16
20
1
0.8 g
0
Level 2
85
207
7
13.0 g
0
91
Ceramics
Glass
1
3
1
1
1
5
1
4
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
4
1
0.7 g
1
1
Prehistoric
Historic
Ceramics
Chipped
Stone
FCR
Fauna
(g)
Flora
(g)
Level 3
380
291
26
85.5 g
4.9 g
Level 4
353
209
30
210.6 g
39.9 g
Level 1
16
22
2
3.3 g
0.1 g
Level 2
185
266
32
43.4 g
0.7 g
Level 3
192
140
18
151.9 g
5.6 g
Level 4
129
68
11
81.3 g
29.5 g
Level 1
9
20
4
1.8 g
0
Level 2
261
223
29
39.8 g
0.1 g
Level 3
283
181
23
138.6 g
5.1 g
Level 4
403
256
56
321.4 g
38.5 g
Level 1
6
12
1
0.3 g
Level 2
48
71
4
Level 3
77
173
Level 4
20
Level 5+
Provenience
Unit 166
Unit 167
Unit 168
Unit 169
Metal
Other
3
1
1
1
0
6
5
1.0 g
0
1
2
6
2.4 g
0.6 g
42
5
4.4 g
0.8 g
8
15
1
0.6 g
0.6 g
Level 1
15
13
1
2.6 g
0
Level 2
16
52
8
1.9 g
0
Level 3
105
251
14
15.2 g
0.2 g
Level 4+
55
156
13
55.4 g
2.4 g
*
Level 5+
Unit 170
Strat 1
2
12
0
3.1 g
0
Strats
2&3
18
28
4
7.2 g
0.1 g
Strat 4
15
3
7
19.3 g
0
Strat 5
17
4
0
0.2 g
0.1 g
* Mixed or partially mixed proveniences, 2008
Units 129
& 130
Levels 4
& 5+
Units 125
& 169
Level 5+
Units 142
& 156
Levels 3
&4
199
147
3
115.8 g
19.3 g
15
11
0
0.6 g
0.2 g
58
43
4
23.0 g
9.2 g
92
Ceramics
Glass
3
1
2
4
4
FEATURE EXCAVATIONS
Feature 47
Feature 47 was first located during the 2007 REU as a soil anomaly that appeared to be shaped
like a house basin. The four-square-meter block was initially opened to ground truth geophysical
data collected within the enclosure. The 2x2 meter block (often referred to as Liz’s Block)
composed of Units 125-128 was reopened and hand excavated again during the 2007
Archaeology Month. Four arbitrary levels were excavated within the block to a depth of 80
cmbd. While the feature was better defined at this depth it was not excavated due to time
constraints and research goals. Feature 47 was mapped in plan at the base of Level 4 (80 cmbd),
covered with landscape cloth, and backfilled at the completion of Archaeology Month
(McCullough 2008).
The 2x2 meter block was reopened by hand excavation as part of the south extension of the
Main Block (see Figure 3.2) during Archaeology Month in 2008. The base of Level 4 (80 cmbd)
was heavily re-scraped, and the soil zones defined during Archaeology Month 2007 were
identified. Feature 47 was better defined at the approximate depth of 81 cmbd, where it expanded
slightly to the east, or nearly all of Units 125 and 126 (Figure 3.32). Feature 47 consisted of a
dark, amorphous stain that measured at least 2 m east-west and continued into the block’s west
profile wall; it extended north approximately 120 cm from the south profile wall and continued
south an unknown distance.
Figure 3.32. Photograph of Feature 47 and Feature 64 at the base of Level 4 (80 cmbd) in Liz’s Block, 2008.
93
In plan, Feature 47 was composed of a dark brown (10YR3/3) silt loam with mottles of dark
yellowish-brown (10YR4/4-4/6). The soil had a weak structure and loose compactness. It
contained scattered charcoal and burned soil flecking, some rock up to 5 cm, light fire-cracked
rock, and ceramics. Feature 47 had a diffuse boundary with Zone M (Feature 64) and a clear to
diffuse boundary with the background matrix soil. Feature 64 was clearly superimposed into
Feature 47 (see Figure 3.26).
The feature was bisected on an east-west axis. The north half was taken out and screened
through ¼” hardware cloth. The south profile was photographed and drawn along with Feature
64 (Figures 3.33-3.34). During excavation of the north half of Feature 47, a somewhat circular to
ovate dark stain with a concentration of cultural material was identified near the northern margin.
This anomaly was designated Feature 64 and was observed at approximately 86 cmbd.
Figure 3.33. Profile drawing of south wall of Feature 47 and Feature 64, 2008.
94
Figure 3.34. Photograph of the south profiles of Feature 47 and Feature 64 in Liz’s Block excavation, 2008.
In profile, Feature 47 was a shallow, somewhat flat-bottomed basin composed of dark brown
(10YR3/3) silt loam with light, scattered charcoal and burned soil flecking, small pebbles, light
ceramics, and bone fragments. The soil had a weak structure and loose compactness. The
boundary with the B-horizon subsoil was clear. A 10-L flotation sample was removed from the
southern portion of Feature 47 near the 194 North line, while the remaining portion was screened
through ¼” hardware cloth.
Cultural materials recovered from Feature 47 included 70 pieces of chipped stone chert
debitage, 1 bifacial projectile point, 5 pieces of fire-cracked rock, 16 non-shell-tempered ceramic
sherds including one rim sherd, 18.8 g of faunal remains, and 1.7 g of charred flora. Feature 47 is
likely an amorphous, shallow structure basin.
Feature 49
Feature 49 was a shallow, flat-bottomed house basin that was observed during the 2006 and 2007
field seasons (see Figures 3.14-3.15). At the close of the 2007 investigations the feature was
identified south and west of the 2006 Main Block. Feature 49 measured approximately 5.5 m
north-south by 4.5 m east-west and was defined at the base of Level 3 (70 cmbd). Feature 49 was
defined as a possible ovate or sub-rectangular house basin, evident by the contrast between the
very dark grayish-brown (10YR3/2) interior basin fill and the surrounding lighter, yellowishbrown (10YR5/4) exterior soils. The basin was incompletely defined in the southern expansion
because of several intrusive features and overlaying A-horizon soils. All units containing Feature
49 were excavated to the base of Level 4 (80 cmbd), excluding those within the southern
expansion (Units 129, 134, 139, 140-147, 150, and 151).
In 2008, the focus of excavation was to continue expanding south and west of the Main
Block to completely expose Feature 49. The units south of the Main Block at the base of Level 3
(70 cmbd), were reopened by hand excavation and re-scraped. Excavation to the base of Level 3
was required in surrounding units to the south to discern the general house basin fill and any
underlying features. Feature 49 was located in Units 129, 134, 141-146, 150, 151, 158, 159, and
162-167 south and west of the Main Block. A plan map drawing and photograph was taken at the
base of Level 3 (see Figure 3.22). In plan, Feature 49 was located east of the East 203 grid line
and measured approximately 8.75 m north-south by approximately 8.50 m east-west in greatest
95
dimension; however, the basin remains incompletely defined in the southern and eastern portions
of the 2008 excavation block.
Level 4 (70-80 cmbd) was excavated in all units located north of the North 193 grid line.
Feature 49 included Zones A, E, N, and P, which were excavated separately from surrounding
zones. At the base of Level 4 (80 cmbd), most of the house basin fill had been removed,
revealing an underlying soil containing numerous postholes and features (see Figure 3.26). A
number of these were excavated, while time constraints prevented further investigations of
several postholes to the west and of possible features near the southeast corner. The block was
then covered with landscape cloth and completely backfilled. Refer to Chapter 5 for further
discussion.
Artifacts recovered from Feature 49 included a ceramic assemblage of 2,243 sherds
including 78 rims, 113 necks, 705 body sherds, and 1,328 nondiagnostic sherds, 82 shelltempered sherds, and 14 pieces of waste clay. The chipped stone assemblage from Feature 49
totaled 1,745, including 1,580 chert and 120 quartzite debitage pieces and 64 chipped stone tools.
184 pieces of fire-cracked rock were recovered. Faunal materials totaled 1,604.8 g and included
3 tools (1 possible turtle shell scrapper, a complete deer beamer, and 1 indeterminate). Charred
floral remains totaled 202.9 g.
Feature 51
Feature 51 was first identified as a dark circular stain during the 2007 Archaeology Month and
was located in Units 130 and 131 at the base of Level 4 (80 cmbd). The units were reopened and
re-scraped during the 2008 season. The feature appeared as a circular to ovate dark stain of very
dark grayish-brown (10YR3/2) and dark brown (10YR3/3) silt loam with a weak structure and
loose compactness. It contained light charcoal flecking with some up to 1 cm and scattered
cultural material. Feature 51 was located in the north portion of Unit 130 and was completely
excavated (Figure 3.35).
In plan, Feature 51 was a well defined circle of darker colored soil. Feature 51 had a distinct
boundary with the surrounding matrix soils of dark yellowish-brown (10YR4/4) silt loam and
several postholes (Figure 3.36). Postholes 7-63, 7-67, and 8-11 intruded into the feature and were
cross-sectioned during excavation. Feature 51 measured approximately 52 cm north-south by 51
cm east-west. The feature was bisected along an east to west axis. The north half was removed,
and the south profile was photographed and drawn (Figures 3.37-3.38). The northern half was
screened through ¼” hardware cloth, and the southern half was removed entirely as a flotation
sample. No stratification was identified in the south profile. Feature 51 exhibited a shallow
rounded-basin shape and appeared to be a single-use discard pit.
96
Figure 3.35. Plan map of Feature 51 at the base of Level 4, 2008.
97
Figure 3.36. Photograph of Feature 51 at the base of Level 4, 2008.
98
Figure 3.37. Profile drawing of the south wall of Feature 51, 2008.
99
Figure 3.38. Photograph of Feature 51 profile.
Posthole 8-11 was removed during excavation of Unit 131 and slightly intruded into the
northern portion of the feature. Posthole 7-67 was examined during excavation of Feature 51
and was located near the western margin. The postholes appear to postdate the feature and may
be remains of interior supports/posts for a large structure. Posthole 7-63, also excavated during
excavation of Feature 51, was likely a rodent disturbance.
Artifacts recorded from the flotation sample of Feature 51 included 6 pieces of chipped stone
chert debitage, 5 pieces of fire-cracked rock, 18 non-shell-tempered ceramic sherds, 2 shelltempered ceramic sherds, and 22 g of faunal remains. Due to laboratory error, the northern half
of Feature 51 was combined with two other proveniences from Level 4 (70-80 cmbd). However,
it is presumed that the quantities and specific materials from the northern half are similar to those
recovered from the southern half of the feature (see Appendix C, FS 67, 68, and 70).
100
Feature 54
Feature 54 was located in Units 143 and 163 and was defined at the base of Level 3 (70 cmbd)
during Archaeology Month in 2008. In plan, the feature consisted of an ovate dark stain with
scattered cultural material, slightly intruding into the southern margin of Feature 55 and eastern
portion of Feature 63 (Figures 3.39 and 3.40). The feature measured approximately 80 cm in
length and had a maximum width of approximately 65 cm. Feature 54 was defined by a mixture
of very dark grayish-brown (10YR3/2) and dark grayish-brown (10YR4/2) silt loam with
common to abundant rock and gravel, charcoal flecking, and burned soil flecks. Artifacts
included fire-cracked rock, ceramics, bone fragments, chipped stone chert debitage, and light
shell. Feature 54 had a clear to diffuse boundary with Zone E (see Figure 3.22) and a clear to
abrupt boundary with Feature 55. All boundaries were determined by soil color, texture, and
gravel/rock distribution.
Figure 3.39. Photograph of Features 54 and 55, 2008.
101
Figure 3.40. Plan map of Feature 54 at the base of Level 3, 2008.
102
Feature 54 was bisected on a southwest-northeast axis with Feature 55 to examine the
profiles (Figure 3.41). The western portion was removed and screened through ¼” hardware
cloth. The east profile was photographed and drawn, and the feature was found to have no
stratification. In profile, Feature 54 was a homogeneous, shallow basin pit consistent with a
small refuse pit (Figure 3.42). A flotation sample was removed and the remaining portion of
Feature 54 was screened.
Figure 3.41. Profile drawing of Feature 54, 2008.
103
Figure 3.42. Photograph of Features 54 and 55 profiles.
Cultural materials recovered from Feature 54 included 125 pieces of chipped stone chert
debitage and 5 pieces of quartzite debitage, 2 cores, 4 bifacial chert tools, 10 pieces of firecracked rock, 88 non-shell-tempered ceramic sherds, 37 shell-tempered ceramic sherds including
two rim sherds, 5 pieces of burned soil, such as waste clay and daub, 2 pieces of ochre, 284.8 g
of faunal remains, and 4.5 g of charred flora.
This small, shallow basin pit was likely used as a single-episode trash pit and represents a
later Taylor Village component superimposed on an earlier Oliver phase hearth (Feature 63) and
burnt area (Feature 55).
Feature 55
Feature 55 was identified at the base of Level 3 (71 cmbd) in Units 143 and 163 during
Archaeology Month 2008. In plan view, Feature 55 consisted of a circular area of burned soil
with a concentration of light cultural material (Figure 3.43, see Figure 3.39). Feature 54 intruded
into the southern margin of the feature, while the north boundary may have been partially
removed during excavations in 2006 and 2007. Apparently, Zones G and L were identified in the
area (Arnold et al. 2007) directly north of Feature 55 (Unit 93 and 94) at the base of Level 3 (70
cmbd). Both zones were diffuse, and Zone G, which appears to correspond most with Feature 55,
was relatively small in size. These soil zones were not given a feature designation in earlier
104
investigations nor were they observed at the base of Level 4 (80 cmbd), but burned soil and other
cultural material was noted. In addition, this general area north of Feature 55 was also observed
in the south profile wall in 2007 and designated Zone 5b (McCullough 2008).
Figure 3.43. Profile and plan drawings of Feature 55, 2008.
Feature 55 in 2008 was defined by a mixture of red (2.5YR4/8) burned soil and brown
(10YR4/3) silt loam with yellowish-brown (10YR5/6) mottles and small pebbles. Cultural
material included light charcoal flecking, chipped stone chert debitage, ceramics, bone
fragments, and shell. The feature measured approximately 34 cm at greatest dimension. In plan,
Feature 55 had a clear boundary with Zone E (see Figure 3.22) and a clear to abrupt boundary
with Feature 54. Boundaries were determined by soil color and burned soil.
Feature 55 was bisected on a roughly southwest-northeast axis in conjunction with Feature
54, but it could also be observed in the north wall of Units 143 and 163 (Figure 3.44, see Figures
3.40 and 3.42). The east profile was drawn and photographed. The entire feature was removed as
a flotation sample. Feature 55 was not well defined in profile view and did not show any
evidence of stratification. In profile view, the area where Feature 54 intruded into Feature 55 had
a somewhat diffuse boundary. The feature’s function is unknown and appears more as a burned
soil lens or the result of an ephemeral area of in situ burning.
Cultural materials recovered from Feature 55 included 6 pieces of chipped stone chert
debitage, 3 pieces of non-shell-tempered ceramic sherds, and 22 g of faunal remains.
105
Figure 3.44. Photograph of Feature 55 profile.
Feature 56
Feature 56 was located in Units 139 and 157, and was first defined near the middle of Level 4
(74 cmbd) during Archaeology Month in 2008. In plan, the feature consisted of a dark circular to
ovate stain that was less compact and retained more moisture than surrounding matrix soils
(Figures 3.45 and 3.46). The feature measured approximately 44 cm north-south by
approximately 55 cm east-west. Feature 56 was defined by a mixture of dark brown (10YR3/3)
and very dark grayish-brown (10YR3/2) silt loam with few dark yellowish-brown (10YR4/6)
mottles <1.5 cm in size. It also contained few small pebbles. The feature’s soil displayed a weak
structure and loose compactness. Cultural material included moderate charcoal flecking with
some >1 cm, very light burned soil, and light ceramics. The boundary with surrounding matrix
soil was clear, based on soil color.
Feature 56 was bisected on a north to south axis, and the western half was removed and
screened. The east profile was photographed and drawn. No stratification was observed in the
profile and feature fill consisted of a dark brown (10YR3/3) silt loam with a clear to diffuse
boundary with sterile B-horizon subsoil (Figures 3.47 and 3.48). Worm and insect
106
Figure 3.45. Plan map of Feature 56 at the base of Level 3, 2008.
107
Figure 3.46. Photograph of Feature 56 at the base of Level 3, 2008.
108
Figure 3.47. Profile drawing of Feature 56, 2008
109
Figure 3.48. Photograph of Feature 56 in profile, 2008.
bioturbation was observed near the boundary and throughout the feature. Feature 56 had a weak
structure and loose compactness, and contained a mixture of cultural material throughout. When
the eastern half was removed and screened, a small posthole (8-35) was observed at the base of
excavation (Figure 3.49). The posthole was not observed in plan or profile during investigation
and therefore appears to predate the feature. Posthole 8-35 is located within a line of postholes
directly to the north and somewhat farther to the south and may be remains of an exterior
support/post for a large structure.
Artifacts recovered from Feature 56 included 42 pieces of chipped stone chert debitage, 1
bifacial chert tool, 8 pieces of fire-cracked rock, 13 non-shell-tempered ceramic sherds including
one rim sherd, 8 shell-tempered ceramic sherds, 20.3 g of faunal remains, and 0.7 g of charred
flora.
This small, shallow basin pit was likely used as a trash pit associated with a later Taylor
Village component superimposed on an earlier line of postholes.
110
Figure 3.49. Photograph of posthole 8-35 at the base of Feature 56, 2008.
Feature 57
Feature 57 was located in Units 154 and 156 at the base of Level 3 (70 cmbd) during the 2008
Archaeology Month program. The feature was defined by darker soil and the presence of cultural
material. Feature 57 was circular to ovate and measured approximately 50 cm north-south by a
maximum width of 52 cm east-west (Figures 3.50 and 3.51). It had a clear but somewhat faint
boundary with surrounding matrix soils and contained charcoal flecking with a few >1 cm,
chipped stone chert debitage, bone fragments, and scattered gravel. The soil was a dark brown
(10YR3/3) silt loam with 2 to 5 percent mottles of dark yellowish-brown (10YR4/6) and very
dark grayish-brown (10YR3/2). The soil structure was weak and loosely compact in contrast to a
more stiffly compacted and moderately structured sterile matrix.
111
Figure 3.50. Plan map of Feature 57, 2008.
112
Figure 3.51. Photograph of Feature 57 at the base of Level 3, 2008.
The feature was bisected on an east-west axis. The soil from the northern half was removed
and screened through ¼” hardware cloth. The south feature profile was photographed and drawn,
and the remainder was screened. During excavation of the northern half of Feature 57, a portion
of a large elk antler was identified near the base of the feature (approximately 85-89 cmbd).
Because the antler was not fully exposed, it was pedestaled until the southern half could be
removed. In profile, feature fill was bowl shaped and composed of a fairly homogeneous mixture
of very dark grayish-brown (10YR3/2) and dark brown (10YR3/3) silt loam with very light
charcoal flecking and small gravel (Figures 3.52 and 3.53). The soil had a weak structure and
loose compactness. Artifacts included small pottery sherds and chipped stone chert debitage.
Some worm and insect disturbance was observed throughout the feature with few fine rootlets
surrounding the antler. The boundary with the sterile B-horizon subsoil, followed by glacial till
with clay and abundant rock/gravel, was clear and distinct.
113
Figure 3.52. Profile drawing of Feature 57, showing pedestaled elk antler tine, 2008.
114
Figure 3.53. Photograph of Feature 57 profile, 2008.
Artifacts recovered during removal of Feature 57 included 60 pieces of chipped stone chert
debitage and 8 pieces of quartzite debitage, 2 bifacial chert tools, 1 chert core, 4 pieces of firecracked rock, 25 non-shell-tempered ceramic sherds including three rims, 148.8 g of faunal
remains including a large elk antler tine (Figure 3.54), and 2.1 g of charred flora.
This shallow basin Oliver phase pit contained a light scatter of cultural material mostly
located near the top of the feature. Pottery sherds were grit tempered and relatively small in size.
The large elk antler was placed near the base and center of the feature. Feature 57 was located
exterior to the house basin (Feature 49) and is likely a cache pit filled with refuse debris. Its
placement and characteristics within the enclosure were similar to features identified in earlier
investigations (e.g., McCullough 2005).
115
Figure 3.54. Photograph of an elk antler tine at the base of Feature 57, 2008.
116
Feature 58
Feature 58 was defined at the base of Level 3 (70 cmbd) in Unit 154 during the 2008 field
season. The feature measured approximately 43 cm north-south by approximately 39 cm eastwest and was defined by a darker soil color, loose compactness, and abundance of charcoal. In
plan, Feature 58 appeared as an ovate dark stain comprised of two zones (Figures 3.55 and 3.56).
An inner portion of the feature (Zone A) consisted of a dark brown (10YR3/3) silt loam with an
apedal structure and loose compactness. It contained common charcoal flecking with rare pieces
up to 1 cm. The outer portion (Zone A1) consisted of a dark brown (10YR3/3) silt loam with
mottles of dark yellowish-brown (10YR4/4). Soil from Zone A1 had a weak structure and loose
compactness, and contained much less charcoal. The boundary with surrounding matrix soil was
diffuse, based on soil color and presence of charcoal.
Figure 3.55. Photograph of Feature 58 at the base of Level 3, 2008.
117
Figure. 3.56. Plan map of Feature 58 at the base of Level 3, 2008.
118
Feature 58 was bisected along a north-south axis. The western portion was removed, and the
east profile was photographed and drawn (Figures 3.57 and 3.58). The west half of the feature
was screened through ¼” hardware cloth, and the east half was removed as a flotation sample.
The profile identified no stratification and appeared as a very shallow, rounded basin. Feature fill
was composed of a dark brown (10YR3/3) silt loam. It had a weak to apedal structure and loose
compactness, and contained common charcoal flecking. A rodent burrow was located near the
top, center portion of Feature 58 and continued toward the bottom into subsoil.
A small quantity of cultural material was recovered from Feature 58. Contents consisted of 3
pieces of chipped stone chert debitage and 1 non-shell-tempered sherd. Feature 58 is somewhat
ambiguous and its function is unknown, but it may have been used in a single event and refilled,
as evident by the single, shallow zone within the feature.
Figure 3.57. Photograph of Feature 58 in profile, 2008.
119
Figure 3.58. Profile drawing of Feature 58, 2008.
120
Feature 59
Feature 59 was first identified as a dark circular stain during the 2007 Archaeology Month and
was located in Unit 131 at the base of Level 4 (80 cmbd). At that time it was not given a feature
designation and was described as Zone C located near the center of the West Extension Block
(see Level 4 plan map, McCullough 2008). Due to time constraints and research objectives, the
area was not investigated but covered with landscape cloth and backfilled.
The units were reopened and re-scraped during the 2008 Archaeology Month. At 80 cmbd,
the zone was redefined as a circular to ovate dark stain of very dark grayish-brown (10YR3/2)
silt loam and designated Feature 59 (Figure 3.59). It measured approximately 38 cm north-south
by approximately 30 cm east-west. The soil had a weak structure and loose compactness. It
contained abundant charcoal flecking with some up to 1 cm and scattered cultural material. The
boundary with matrix soil was clear, based on soil color and texture. A posthole (7-94) partially
intruded near the southeast margin of the feature. Feature 59 was located in the northwest portion
of Unit 130 and was completely excavated (Figure 3.60).
Figure 3.59. Photograph of Feature 59 at the base of Level 4, 2008.
121
Figure 3.60. Plan map of Feature 59 at the base of Level 4, 2008.
122
Feature 59 was bisected along a north-south axis. The eastern portion of Feature 59 was
removed and the west profile was photographed and drawn (Figures 3.61 and 3.62). The eastern
portion was screened through ¼” hardware cloth, and the western portion was entirely removed
as a flotation sample. The profile showed no stratification and appeared to have a shallow,
rounded basin. Feature 59 appeared to be used in a single event, and the amount of associated
charcoal suggests a small smudge pit.
Posthole 7-94 was removed prior to excavation of Feature 59. It appeared to slightly intrude
into the southeast portion of the feature, postdating it, and may be the remains of an interior
support/post for a large structure (Feature 49, see Figure 3.31).
Artifacts recovered from Feature 51 included 7 pieces of chipped stone chert debitage, 6
non-shell-tempered ceramic sherds including one rim, 2.2 g of waste clay, 14.2 g of faunal
remains, and 11.8 g of charred flora.
Figure 3.61. Photograph of Feature 59 in profile, 2008.
123
Figure 3.62. Profile drawing of Feature 59, 2008.
Feature 60
Feature 60 was first identified at the base of Level 4A (75 cmbd) in Units 150, 151, 159, and 160
during the 2008 Archaeology Month. In plan view, Feature 60 consisted of an amorphous area of
burned soil that was very compact and hardened (Figure 3.63). It had an abrupt boundary with
surrounding matrix soils and posthole 8-28, which was located approximately in the center of the
124
Figure 3.63. Plan map of Feature 60 at the base of Level 4A (75 cmbd), 2008.
125
feature (Figure 3.64). Feature 60 was located mainly within the limits of Unit 150 and measured
approximately 75 cm north-south by 45 cm east-west. The soil was a heavily oxidized reddishbrown (5YR3/4) with few mottles of very dark grayish-brown (10YR3/2). It contained light ash.
Although Feature 60 was visible at 75 cmbd, an arbitrary 5-cm level (Level 4B) was
removed to further define its boundaries. At 80 cmbd Feature 60 was nonexistent. All soil was
screened through ¼” hardware cloth. Posthole 8-28 was cross-sectioned and appeared to be a
large superimposed post. The feature’s function is unknown but appears to be an ephemeral area
of in situ burning.
Artifacts recovered from Feature 60 included 5 pieces of chipped stone chert debitage, 1
piece of fire-cracked rock, 12 non-shell-tempered ceramic sherds, and 0.7 g of faunal remains.
Figure 3.64. Photograph of Feature 60 during excavation of Unit 150 at the base of Level 4A, 2008. (Note posthole
8-28 in the center, marked with a blue pin flag.)
Feature 61
Feature 61 was located in Units 161 and 162 and was defined at the base of Level 4
(approximately 79 cmbd) during Archaeology Month in 2008 (Figure 3.65). In plan, the feature
consisted of a dark circular stain that was less compact, darker colored, and retained more
moisture than surrounding matrix soil. It also contained an abundance of bone/bone fragments,
moderate to high densities of ceramics, light chipped stone chert debitage, moderate mussel
126
Figure 3.65. Plan map of Feature 61 at the base of Level 4, 2008.
127
shell, light fire-cracked rock, and charcoal (Figure 3.66). The feature measured approximately 44
cm north-south by approximately 47 cm east-west. Feature 61 was defined by a very dark
grayish-brown (10YR3/2) silt loam with few mottles of brown (10YR4/3). It also contained
common small pebbles, few large rocks, and very light burned soil flecks. The feature’s soil
displayed a weak to apedal structure and loose compactness. The boundary with surrounding
matrix soil was abrupt and sharp, based on soil color and distribution of cultural material.
Figure 3.66. Photograph of Feature 61 at the base of Level 4, 2008.
128
Feature 61 was bisected on a north to south axis. During excavation of the eastern portion,
many large faunal bones and ceramics extended into the bisect line (Figure 3.67). While the
feature was excavated in plan and entirely removed as a flotation sample, larger, more delicate
artifacts were removed by hand and collected separately from the flotation sample. No
stratification was observed during removal. Feature 61 had an approximate depth of 8 cm. The
base of Feature 61 was defined by a somewhat sharp transition into heavily burned soil located in
the northwestern and southern portion, which may be part of a remnant hearth that was too deep
to be observed in the Level 4 plan (Figure 3.68).
Figure 3.67. Photograph of Feature 61 during excavation, showing large amount of faunal remains.
129
Figure 3.68. Photograph of Feature 61 at the base of excavation, 2008.
Artifacts recovered from Feature 61 included 51 pieces of chipped stone chert debitage and 3
pieces of quartzite debitage, 1 chert bifacial tool, 7 pieces of fire-cracked rock, 39 shell-tempered
ceramic sherds including one rim sherd, 13 non-shell-tempered ceramic sherds, 2.4 g of waste
clay, 336 g of faunal remains, and 0.1 g of charred flora.
This small, shallow basin pit was likely used as a small trash pit associated with a later
Taylor Village component superimposed on an earlier remnant hearth.
130
Feature 62
Feature 62 was located in Unit 164 and was defined at the base of Level 4 (80 cmbd) during
Archaeology Month in 2008. In plan, the feature consisted of a dark circular to ovate stain that
was less compact and darker colored than surrounding matrix soil (Figures 3.69 and 3.70). The
feature measured approximately 55 cm north-south by approximately 59 cm east-west. Feature
62 was defined by a very dark grayish-brown (10YR3/2) silt loam with few mottles of dark
yellowish-brown (10YR4/6) mottles, <1.5 cm in size. It also contained few small pebbles and
rock. The feature’s soil displayed a weak structure and loose compactness. Cultural material
included light charcoal flecking, fire-cracked rock, chipped stone chert debitage, bone, and
ceramics. The boundary with surrounding matrix soil was clear and sharp, based on soil color
and presence of cultural material.
Figure 3.69. Photograph of Feature 62 at the base of Level 4, 2008.
131
Figure 3.70. Plan map of Feature 62 at the base of Level 4, 2008.
132
Feature 62 was bisected on a north to south axis, and the western half was removed and
screened through ¼” hardware cloth. The east profile was photographed and drawn (Figure 3.713.72). No stratification was observed in the profile, and feature fill consisted of a very dark
grayish-brown (10YR3/2) silt loam with a clear to diffuse boundary with sterile B-horizon
subsoil. Worm and insect bioturbation was observed near the boundary and throughout the
feature. It had a weak structure and loose compactness and contained a mixture of cultural
material throughout. The eastern half was removed as a flotation sample, and a small posthole
(8-105) was observed at the base of excavation (approximately 87 cmbd). The posthole was not
observed in plan or profile during investigation and therefore appears to predate the feature.
Posthole 8-105 was located within a line of postholes directly to the north and may be the
remains of an exterior support/post for a large structure (see Figure 3.31, Level 4 plan map).
Artifacts recovered from Feature 62 included 61 pieces of chipped stone chert debitage and 2
quartzite debitage, 3 chert bifacial tools, 4 pieces of fire-cracked rock, 19 non-shell-tempered
ceramic sherds including one rim sherd, 12 shell-tempered ceramic sherds including two rim
sherds, 138.2 g of faunal remains, and 0.2 g of charred flora.
This small, very shallow basin pit was likely used as a single-episode refuse pit associated
with a later Taylor Village component superimposed on an earlier line of postholes.
Figure 3.71. Photograph of Feature 62 in profile, 2008.
133
Figure 3.72. Profile drawing of Feature 62, 2008.
Feature 63
Feature 63 was located in Unit 143 with portions extending into Units 142, 150, and 151. The
feature was defined at the base of Level 4 (80 cmbd) during the 2008 field season. In plan,
134
Feature 63 consisted of a somewhat rectanguloid stain with two zones and measured
approximately 94 cm north-south by approximately 92 cm east-west in a roughly rectangular
shape (Figures 3.73 and 3.74). The outer zone was comprised of a mixture of strong brown
(7.5YR4/6) and pale brown (10YR6/3) silty clay loam that contained ash and burned soil. The
inner zone (general feature fill) consisted of a dark brown (10YR3/3) silt loam with light
charcoal flecking up to 2 cm in size; moderately sized burned soil flecks and ash; and light firecracked rock, chipped stone chert debitage, bone fragments, large pieces of daub, and shell. It
also contained moderate amounts of pebbles. The boundary with the matrix soil was abrupt to
clear and slightly wavy, based on soil color and texture. A very small portion of the eastern
margin was disturbed by Feature 54.
Figure 3.73. Photograph of Feature 63 at the base of Level 4, 2008.
135
Figure 3.74. Plan map of Feature 63 at the base of Level 4, 2008.
136
The feature was bisected along a north to south axis and the eastern portion was removed
and passed through ¼” hardware cloth. The west profile was photographed and mapped. In
profile, Feature 63 was a somewhat shallow, basin-shaped pit with four different soil zones
(Figures 3.75 and 3.76). Zone 1 was composed of a dark brown (10YR3/3) silt loam with
inclusions of bone fragments, chipped stone chert debitage, shell, charcoal, ceramics, firecracked rock, and waterworn pebbles. It had a sharp boundary with Zone 2, which consisted of a
strong brown (7.5YR4/6) burned, silty clay loam. Zone 3 was an intermediate zone composed of
a mixture of dark yellowish-brown (10YR4/4) and brown (10YR4/3) silt loam with a moderately
high density of waterworn pebbles and inclusions of light charcoal, bone fragments, and
ceramics. It had a clear boundary with Zone 4, which was composed of a pale brown (10YR6/3)
ash lens.
Zone 4 was completely removed as a flotation sample, as were portions of Zones 1 and 3,
while all remaining soils were passed through ¼” screen.
A quantity of cultural material was recovered from Feature 63: 30 pieces of chipped stone
chert debitage and 5 pieces of quartzite debitage, 1 chert blade, 1 chert unifacial tool, 1 quartzite
bifacial tool, 2 chert cores, 15 pieces of fire-cracked rock, 104 non-shell-tempered ceramic
sherds including five rim sherds, 1 piece of burned soil, 0.5 g of waste clay, 238.1 g of daub, 99
g of faunal remains, and 40.2 g of charred flora. As evidenced by the amount of burned soil, ash,
and charcoal, Feature 63 was likely a fire hearth and later re-used as a refuse pit with numerous
infilling episodes.
Figure 3.75. Photograph of Feature 63 in profile, 2008.
137
Figure 3.76. Profile drawing of Feature 63, 2008.
138
Feature 64
Feature 64 was located in Units 125 and 126, and was defined at the base of Level 4
(approximately 81 cmbd) during Archaeology Month in 2008. In plan, the feature was
superpositioned on Feature 47 (see Figure 3.32) and consisted of a dark circular stain that was
slightly darker colored with more rock and pebbles than soil surrounding Feature 47. It also
contained a concentration of light bone/bone fragments, ceramics, chipped stone chert debitage,
fire-cracked rock, burned soil, and charcoal. The feature measured approximately 48 cm northsouth by approximately 50 cm east-west and was defined by a dark brown (10YR3/3) silt loam
with few mottles of dark yellowish-brown (10YR4/4-4/6). The feature’s soil displayed a weak
structure and loose compactness. The boundary with surrounding Feature 47 was diffuse, based
on distribution of cultural material and rock.
Feature 64 was bisected on an east to west axis in conjunction with Feature 47. The northern
portion was removed and passed through ¼” hardware cloth. The south profile was
photographed and mapped. In profile, Feature 64 was a small, shallow basin-shaped pit (see
Figures 3.33 and 3.34) and was composed of a dark brown (10YR3/3) silt loam with mottles of
dark yellowish-brown (10YR4/4-4/6). It contained common charcoal flecking <1 cm; scattered
light burned soil flecks; and inclusions of bone fragments, chipped stone chert debitage,
ceramics, fire-cracked rock, and small pebbles. It had a diffuse boundary with Feature 47 and a
clear boundary with the B-horizon subsoil, which consisted of a yellowish-brown (10YR5/6)
silty clay loam. The southern portion of Feature 64 was removed as a flotation sample.
Artifacts recovered from Feature 64 included 29 pieces of chipped stone chert debitage and
5 pieces of quartzite debitage, 1 chert bifacial tool, 1 piece of fire-cracked rock, 11 non-shelltempered ceramic sherds, 5 shell-tempered ceramic sherds, 35.6 g of faunal remains, and 1.2 g of
charred flora.
This small, shallow basin pit was likely used as a small trash pit associated with a later
Taylor Village component superimposed on an earlier shallow structure basin. Additional Taylor
Village pottery was recovered from the unit excavations over this feature in previous years.
Feature 65
Feature 65 was located in Units 126 and 128 and was defined near the base of Feature 47
(approximately 86 cmbd) during Archaeology Month in 2008. In plan, the feature did not appear
to be fully disturbed by Feature 47 (Figures 3.77-3.78). Feature 65 consisted of a dark circular to
ovate stain that was slightly darker colored with more rock, pebbles, and cultural material than
Feature 47 to the south and matrix soil to the north. It contained a concentration of light
bone/bone fragments, ceramics, chipped stone chert debitage, fire-cracked rock, burned soil, and
charcoal. The feature measured approximately 58 cm north-south by approximately 74 cm eastwest. Feature 65 was defined by a dark brown (10YR3/3) silt loam with few mottles of dark
yellowish-brown (10YR4/4-4/6). The feature’s soil displayed a weak structure and loose
compactness. The boundary with surrounding Feature 47 was clear to diffuse, based on
distribution of cultural material and rock, and clear with matrix soil to the north.
139
Figure 3.77. Plan map of Feature 65 below Feature 47 at 86 cmbd, 2008.
140
Figure 3.78. Photograph of Feature 65 at 86 cmbd, 2008.
Feature 65 was bisected on an east to west axis, and the northern portion was removed and
passed through ¼” hardware cloth. The south profile was photographed and mapped (Figure
3.79). In profile, Feature 65 was a somewhat small, shallow basin-shaped pit composed of a dark
brown (10YR3/3) silt loam with mottles of dark yellowish-brown (10YR4/4-4/6). It contained
common charcoal flecking <1 cm, scattered light burned soil flecks, ceramics, and fire-cracked
rock. It had a diffuse boundary with Feature 47 and a clear boundary with the B-horizon subsoil,
which consisted of a yellowish-brown (10YR5/6) silty clay loam.
141
Figure 3.79. Profile drawing of Feature 65, 2008.
142
Artifacts recovered from Feature 65 included 36 pieces of chipped stone chert debitage, 4
pieces of fire-cracked rock, 23 non-shell-tempered ceramic sherds, 1 g of waste clay, 8.8 g of
faunal remains, and 4 g of charred flora.
This somewhat small, shallow basin pit appears to be underneath Feature 47 and was slightly
disturbed by Feature 64 to the south. Feature 65 was likely used as a subfloor cache pit or
storage/refuse pit under a shallow structure basin.
Feature 66
Feature 66 was defined at the base of Level 4 (80 cmbd) in Unit 151 during the 2008 field
season. The feature was first described as Zone C at 80 cmbd and was mixed with Zone C1 to the
west (see Figure 3.26). The feature measured approximately 35 cm north-south by approximately
37 cm east-west and was defined by an abundance of large rocks, sand, and charcoal (Figures
3.80 and 3.81). In plan, Feature 66 appeared as an amorphous to ovate dark stain comprised of a
dark yellowish-brown (10YR4/3) silt loam with a weak structure and loose compactness. It
contained common to abundant charcoal flecking with rare pieces up to 3 cm; light ash; abundant
small pebbles; fine rootlets; and common large rock up to 10 cm. The boundary with surrounding
matrix soils was sharp; it had a diffuse boundary with Zone C1 based on soil color, texture, and
presence of charcoal.
Figure 3.80. Photograph of Features 66 and 68 at the base of Level 4, 2008.
143
Figure 3.81. Plan map of Features 66 and 68 at the base of Level 4, 2008.
144
Feature 66 was bisected along an east-west axis. The north half was removed and combined
with Zone C1 as a flotation sample to a depth of 96 cmbd. The remainder was screened through
¼” hardware cloth, and the south profile was photographed and drawn (Figures 3.82 and 3.83).
In profile, Feature 66 was superimposed on the eastern margin of Zone C1, which was then
designated Feature 68. No stratification was observed, and Feature 66 appeared as a shallow,
rounded basin. Feature fill was composed of a very dark grayish-brown (10YR3/2) silt loam. The
feature’s soil displayed an apedal structure and loose compactness. It contained abundant
charcoal flecking with some pieces up to 6 cm; abundant small gravel; common large rock;
abundant small rootlets; and light ash and light burned soil along the southern and western wall
edges. The boundary with subsoil matrix was sharp, and clear with Feature 68. The remaining
portion of the feature was removed as a flotation sample.
Figure 3.82. Photograph of Features 66 and 68 profiles, 2008.
145
Figure 3.83. Profile drawing of Features 66 and 68, 2008.
146
A small quantity of cultural material was recovered from Feature 66. Contents consisted of 6
pieces of chipped stone chert debitage, 3 pieces of fire-cracked rock, 4 non-shell-tempered
ceramic sherds, and 4.2 g of faunal remains. Feature 66 was somewhat ambiguous in plan view
and may have been used in a single event and refilled, as evident by the single, shallow zone
identified within the feature when profiled. The amount of charcoal associated with the feature,
however, suggests cooking activities or smudge pit.
Feature 67
Feature 67 was located in Unit 169, and was defined at the base of Level 4 (80 cmbd) during
excavation in the 2008 field season. The full extent of Feature 67 could not be ascertained, since
much of the anomaly extended north and east into an unexcavated part of the enclosure site. The
feature appears to be circular to ovate, extending approximately 78 cm from the east profile wall
and approximately 70 cm from the north profile wall (Figures 3.84 and 3.85). Feature 67 was
defined by a very dark grayish-brown (10YR3/2) to dark brown (10YR3/3) silt loam with a
moderate structure and moderately stiff compactness. It contained light charcoal and shell
flecking, common rock, ceramics, and bone fragments. The boundary with surrounding zones
was abrupt.
Due to time constraints and research objectives, Feature 67 was not fully exposed during
Archaeology Month in 2008. The exposed portion of the feature was photographed, drawn in
plan view, and covered with landscape cloth prior to backfilling.
147
Figure 3.84. Photograph of Feature 67 at the base of Level 4, 2008.
148
Figure 3.85. Plan map of Feature 67 at the base of Level 4, 2008.
149
Feature 68
Feature 68 was defined at the base of Level 4 (80 cmbd) in Unit 151 during the 2008 field
season. The feature was first described as Zone C1 at 80 cmbd and was mixed with Feature 66 to
the east (see Figure 3.26). The feature’s dimension could not be fully ascertained, since it was
disturbed by Feature 66, however, it likely measured approximately 35 cm north-south by
approximately 60 cm east-west and was defined by an abundance of large rocks, sand, and rare
charcoal (see Figures 3.80 and 3.81). In plan, Feature 68 was a somewhat amorphous to ovateshaped anomaly comprised of a dark yellowish-brown (10YR4/3) silt loam with a weak structure
and loose compactness. It contained rare charcoal flecking; light ash; abundant small pebbles;
fine rootlets; and common large rock up to 10 cm. The boundary with surrounding matrix soil
was sharp but diffuse with Feature 66, based on soil color, texture, and presence of charcoal.
Feature 68 was bisected along an east-west axis in conjunction with Feature 66. The northern
half was removed and combined with Feature 66 as a flotation sample to a depth of 96 cmbd.
The remainder was screened through ¼” hardware cloth, and the south profile was photographed
and drawn (see Figures 3.82 and 3.83). In profile, Feature 68 was disturbed by Feature 66 to the
east. No stratification was observed, and Feature 68 appeared as a somewhat deep, rounded
basin. Feature fill was composed of a dark brown (10YR3/3) silt loam with mottles of dark
yellowish-brown (10YR4/4). It had a weak structure and loose compactness, and contained rare
charcoal flecking but had some pieces up to 1 cm, common small pebbles, and a few large rocks.
The boundary with subsoil matrix was sharp, and clear with Feature 66. The remaining portion
of the feature was removed as a flotation sample.
A small quantity of cultural material was recovered from Feature 68. Contents consisted of 8
pieces of chipped stone chert debitage and 1 piece of quartzite debitage, 1 granitic hammerstone,
3 pieces of fire-cracked rock, 24 non-shell-tempered ceramic sherds, and 9.9 g of faunal remains.
Feature 68 was somewhat ambiguous in plan view and obstructed by Feature 66. It may have
been used in a single event and quickly refilled, as evident by the single zone identified within
the feature when profiled. The feature’s function is unknown, but the amount of artifacts
associated with the feature suggests a storage/refuse pit that may have not been fully used.
Postholes
During the 2006, 2007, and 2008 investigations 301 possible postholes were recorded
(Figure 3.86; also see Appendix B). Thus far 241 have been investigated by cross sectioning; 172
have been confirmed as prehistoric posts, while 55 turned out to be the product of some type of
non-human bioturbation. Three possible posts identified during the 2006 investigation were
reclassified as features once these anomalies were cross-sectioned. Posts 6-21 and 6-22 were a
part of Feature 44 and possible post 6-63 was re-designated Feature 45, however the Principal
Investigator believes its initial function may have been a large posthole. In addition, two possible
postholes (6-49 and 6-50) were classified as “not accepted” in 2006. These numbers were reassigned to two larger posts that were present slightly to the north and east.
150
Figure 3.86. Composite map of postholes at the base of Level 4, 2006-2008.
151
Some of the posts identified in the Main Block south and west extensions were not visible or
cross-sectioned at the end of the 2007 season. The investigators were aware at the beginning of
the 2008 investigation that the base of the south extension needed to be taken down farther to
allow better visibility. After removing the backfill from the 2007 west and south Extensions, the
floor was given a heavy trowel scrape, and additional postmolds were identified. Also, the west
extension excavated in 2007 was taken down at least one additional level (Level 5) to ensure that
all the posts were identified (Note: in notes and maps the posts identified during 2008 have a
prefix of 8, in text the 2007 posts have a prefix of 7).
At least six linear arrangements of posts and a possible seventh were identified during the
three years of excavation. The easternmost line (oriented north-south) extended from posthole 620 in Unit 97 near the southeast corner to posthole 6-03 in Unit 102 and may be associated with
a line of postholes to the north (see Figure 3.86). Beginning with posthole 7-80 in Unit 105, a
substantial line of posts has been confirmed within about 1 m of the north wall of the 2006 Main
Block, running east-west for three m in Units 119, 120, 116, and 104 (see Figure 3.86). This line
of posts appears to continue another meter west into Unit 132, but it is unclear where it ends. A
possible line beginning with posthole 6-03 to Feature 45 (a possible large posthole) to posthole
7-80 in Unit 105 may form a corner of a large structure and connect the two lines of postholes.
Although there is a break between posthole 7-80 and posthole 6-03, the general area contained
several large features, which may have disturbed previously placed postholes in that area. This
extensive line of postholes may represent an exterior wall of a large structure. Another possible
line of posts that parallels the easternmost line (also oriented north-south) starts with posthole 668 in Unit 96 and extends to posthole 7-29 in Unit 102. It is unknown at this point if these two
lines are related.
A line of posts oriented east-west was identified during the 2007 investigation between
posthole 7-61 in Unit 92 and posthole 7-19 in Unit 113 (see Figure 3.86). These posts were
somewhat small and probably reflected stakes rather actual posts. With the exception of
postholes 6-36 and 6-37, many of these posts were identified at the base of Level 5. Five of the
postholes (7-20 through 7-24) were intrusive into Feature 35, indicating they postdate the
creation of this prepared hearth feature (Figure 3.87). After the 2008 investigations, it appears
this line may continue into Units 117, 129, and 141, forming a slight arc that extends 3 m south
into Units 145, 144, and 165 (Figure 3.88, see Figure 3.86). Although this line was originally
thought to reflect an interior screen or divider, it may represent an exterior wall of a second or
superimposed structure (possible rebuilding episode). Another possible line of closely spaced
posts also oriented north-south that parallels the postholes confirmed just over a meter to the
west starts with posthole 8-14 in Unit 142 and extends south on the E206 line to posthole 8-86
in Unit 158, just shy of the south wall of the 2008 south extension (Figure 3.89). It is unknown
whether these postholes continue south or if these two lines are related, but they may represent
an interior screen or divider.
152
Figure 3.87. Profile drawing of Feature 35 showing superimposed postholes in the Main Block, 2007.
A north-south line of posts that was first observed in the western extension in 2007
continued north and south during 2008 investigations (see Figure 3.86). The line of posts was
first observed in Units 135 through 138 (Figure 3.90), extended north into Units 168 and 169,
and south into Units 134, 139, 140, 164, and 166. Although many of the postholes south of the
western extension have not been cross-sectioned, the line of posts extends for nearly 10 m. It is
unknown whether the postholes continue to the north (Units 168-169) or the south (Units 166167). A considerable break between postholes 8-50 and 8-122 near the eastern margin of Unit
164 is located in the near southernmost portion of this linear line of posts and may represent an
opening or entryway. A second line of posts runs parallel just a few centimeters to the west. This
line begins at posthole 8-115 in Unit 138 and extends south into Units 137, 136, 135 and 134,
ending at posthole 8-36. A large break is also observed in Unit 139, extending just over 1 m
within Unit 139 where it ends at two large possible postholes (8-34 and 8-33). This may suggest
yet another opening or entryway. Although many of the anomalies have yet to be confirmed as
actual posts, their location under the western edge of the structure basin and their appearance
strongly suggest that most of these are structural posts. Also the post arrangement in Unit 132
153
appears to curve to connect with the north line identified in the Main Block; this linear line of
postholes appears to continue north and may represent further evidence of structural arrangement
in the area.
Finally, an irregular line may be present within Units 130, 131, and 119 of the 2006 Main
Block and 2007 western extension (between the E204 and E206 lines). While not as clearly
aligned as the six arrangements discussed above, this possible line forms a bend interior to the
north and west exterior post arrangements. These interior lines could be supports for interior
benches located along the north and west wall of the structure. Further investigation in the future
will hopefully clarify both the internal and external arrangement of this structure or possible
structures.
Figure 3.88. Photograph of postholes in Units 144 and 165 in the Main Block, south extension, 2008.
154
Figure 3.89. Profile drawing of postholes in Units 145, 144, and 165, 2008.
155
Figure 3.90. Profile drawing of postholes in Units 158 and 146, 2008.
156
Figure 3.91. Profile drawing of postholes in Units 135-138, 2008.
157
CHAPTER 4:
CULTURAL MATERIALS FROM THE STRAWTOWN ENCLOSURE (12-H-883)
The materials discussed in this chapter comprise the 2008 Archaeology Month investigations,
which resulted in an assemblage of at least 20,965 prehistoric and historic artifacts, including
10,084 pieces of chipped stone debitage, 340 chipped stone tools, 8 nonchipped stone tools,
33 cores, 9,380 prehistoric ceramics, 16 pieces of modified bone and antler (see Appendix
A), 920 pieces of fire-cracked rock, 18 pieces of ochre, 48 pieces of burned soil such as daub
and waste clay, 118+ historic artifacts, and an uncounted number of faunal (5,025.4 g) and
floral (546.3 g) remains. Given the quantity of artifacts recovered from the excavations,
analyses are primarily descriptive and focused on chipped stone tools, ceramics, and the
small assemblage of historic materials.
LABORATORY METHODS
Artifacts collected during the project were washed in water and dried at room temperature.
Several flotation samples were processed while in the field, with subsequent identification
and cataloging of artifacts (>1/4”) and the light and heavy fractions in the IPFW-AS
laboratory.
Artifacts and samples were cataloged by IPFW students and staff in the IPFW-AS
laboratory. Artifacts were identified and cataloged according to a hierarchical key. Artifact
identifications were checked by Dr. Robert McCullough (ceramics), Scott Hipskind (lithics),
Craig Arnold (modified bone/antler), and Dr. Dorothea McCullough (historic artifacts). The
artifact catalog was organized in a hierarchical system. Accession and catalog numbers were
applied, and the catalog was entered into a Microsoft Access database.
Upon completion of the project, all project documentation and collected materials will be
curated at the Taylor Center of Natural History by the Hamilton County Parks and Recreation
Department. Cultural materials and samples were cataloged under their accession number
08.1.
PREHISTORIC MATERIALS
Lithics
A total of 10,457 pieces of prehistoric chipped stone was collected during the 2008
excavations at 12-H-883, including 10,084 pieces of chipped stone debitage, 340 chipped
stone tools, and 33 artifacts classified as cores (Table 4.1). The tool assemblage includes
both bifacial (n=295) and unifacial (n=36) implements. Bifacial tools range from highly
refined hafted bifaces (projectile points) to crude fragments that are effectively
indistinguishable from cores. Unifacial tools display a wide range of retouch on the margins.
Refined hafted bifaces (n=158) were the most common single tool “type.”
The nonchipped stone “tool” assemblage (n=8) included one pitted stone, one sandstone
abrader, and six hammerstones.
158
Table 4.1: Totals of Stone Tools and Raw Material Used in Manufacture, 2008 Excavations
Artifact frequency
Chert
Quartzite
Slate
Granitic
Sandstone
Unid.
Quartz
Total
Unrefined Bifaces
57
2
0
0
0
0
0
59
Refined Bifaces
68
10
0
0
0
0
0
78
Hafted Bifaces
144
14
0
0
0
0
0
158
Unifaces
33
3
0
0
0
0
0
36
Blades
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
Blade-like Flake
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
9,233
850
1
0
0
0
0
10,084
Cores
32
1
0
0
0
0
0
33
Nonchipped Stone
Tools
0
0
0
3
1
3
1
8
9,576
880
1
3
1
3
1
10,465
Debitage
Total
Hafted Bifaces (n=158)
This classification includes projectile points, drills, knives, and socketed tools retaining
complete or partial hafting elements. The hafted biface assemblage included 127 Late
Prehistoric triangular points and 15 refined bifaces with hafting elements from other temporal
periods. Two hafted or socketed bifacial end scrapers, 6 knives, and 8 drills are also included
in the refined hafted biface classification.
Thebes Cluster. One hafted biface (Figure 4.1, 08.1/419) is a large section of a Lost Lake
projectile point. It is mostly complete, missing the blade tip as well as a portion of the stem
which is broken just below the blade/haft juncture. The blade is wide, slightly beveled,
possesses excurvate edges, and has a triangular shape with a biconvex to flattened cross
section. The point has long barbs which extend downward farther than where the stem was
fractured. These barbs were made by deep notches which ended in semicircular hertzian
cones at the blade/haft juncture. This projectile point was made from Laurel chert.
Kirk Corner Notched Cluster. One hafted biface (Figure 4.1, 08.1/1101) was classified as
Kirk Corner Notched projectile point. It is medium sized and is mostly complete, missing
only one of its barbs. The stem is thin with an excurvate, flaring base, and basal grinding is
absent on all stem surfaces. The blade is triangular in shape, wider than the base, and lightly
beveled. Also, the blade has one excurvate edge with broken barb, one straight edge with a
medium-sized barb which extends down and out, and a biconvex cross section. This
projectile point was made from heat-treated unidentified chert.
159
LeCroy Cluster. One hafted biface (Figure 4.1, 08.1/343) is a basal fragment of a small to
medium-sized Lake Erie Bifurcated Base projectile point. The stem is moderately thick with
lateral margins that expand toward the base. The base is concave with basal grinding present
which continues up the lateral margins. In cross section the point is biconvex, and the
shoulders are flat to slightly sloping downward. The blade form appears to be triangular with
excurvate sides. This point may be manufactured from heat-treated unknown chert or it may
have been heat damaged and fragmented.
Saratoga Cluster. One hafted biface (Figure 4.1, 08.1/1203) was classified as a basal
fragment of a Saratoga Expanding Stem projectile point. It is a thick biface missing a portion
of the lateral margin of the blade and base. The projectile has a flat base with lateral margins
that expand toward the base and possess no grinding. There is also no basal grinding, and
cortex is still present on the entire basal surface. The stem was thinned by removal of flakes
from the base and has a biconvex cross section. The blade shape is triangular with an
excurvate blade edge; the only remaining shoulder is short and expands upward. It was
manufactured from either heat-treated quartzite or rose-colored quartzite.
Merom Cluster. One hafted biface (Figure 4.1, 08.1/582) is a small, mostly complete biface
which is most similar to a Merom Expanding Stemmed projectile point. The stem is
moderately thick with lateral margins that expand toward the base and produce a slightly
flared base. The base is slightly concave with grinding present which continues on the lateral
margins. The projectile has a biconvex cross section, and the shoulders are flat to slightly
sloping upward. The blade is beveled and triangular with excurvate edges. This point was
manufactured from unknown chert.
Terminal Archaic Barbed Cluster Unidentified. One hafted biface (Figure 4.1, 08.1/1811)
was classified as an unidentified Terminal Archaic Barbed Cluster projectile point. The point
is medium sized and most similar to the Buck Creek Barbed point. It is mostly complete,
missing only one base corner, a small portion of the blade tip, and a tip of a barb. It is thin
and has a biconvex to flattened cross section. The stem has a flat base with incurvate lateral
margins that expand toward the base making it slightly flared, and basal grinding is present
on all sides of the stem. The shoulders of the point expand downward and end just before the
midpoint of the stem, producing barbs. The blade shape of the point is triangular with
excurvate, unbeveled edges. This projectile point was manufactured from heat-treated,
unidentified chert.
Copena Cluster. One hafted biface (Figure 4.1, 08.1/1633) was classified as a Copena
projectile point. It is a large basal fragment which is broken just above the shoulder/haft
juncture. The point is thin and biconvex in cross section. The stem has a slightly incurvate
base with straight, parallel lateral margins that expand toward the base, as well as very light
basal grinding on all sides of the stem. The blade shape of the point is unknown, but it has
excurvate edges which become straight and parallel at the blade/haft juncture, giving the
point small upward and slightly expanding shoulders. This projectile point was manufactured
from what appears to be Attica chert.
160
Figure 4.1. Non-triangular hafted projectile points recovered from the 2008 excavations, 12-H-883.
Nodena Cluster. Two hafted bifaces (Figure 4.1, 08.1/1245 and 1680) were classified as
Nodena Elliptical projectile points. The first point (08.1/1245) is short and incomplete,
missing the tip and a portion of the base. It has a triangular blade shape with excurvate
edges, a thin biconvex cross section, and a rounded base which is widest between the
midpoint and base of the point. This projectile point was manufactured from unidentified
chert. The second point (08.1/1680) is short, thick, and complete. It is triangular in shape,
with its widest point between the base and the midpoint of the biface, and it has a biconvex
cross section. It has excurvate blade edges, a rounded base, and is thick because of remnant
cortex and multiple step fractures from removal attempts. The point was manufactured from
unidentified chert.
Late Woodland/Mississippian Triangular Cluster. In total, 127 triangular points and point
fragments with partially or wholly intact hafting elements (i.e., basal edges) were collected.
Although most of the refined biface fragments without intact basal edges (n=79), are
probably fragments of triangular projectile points, the descriptions presented here are limited
to point fragments with an identifiable basal edge.
As was the case in the earlier assemblages (e.g., McCullough 2005, McCullough et al.
161
2004; White et al. 2003), much of the range of variation of Late Prehistoric triangular point
forms discussed by Justice (1987:224) and Railey (1992) is present in the 2008 assemblage.
The triangular points were classified according to Railey’s (1992) Types 1 through 7 and
“Crude,” as well as the Type 4b discussed by earlier classifications of triangular projectile
points from excavations at Strawtown (Hipskind 2005). Of the triangular points recovered,
the Type 4a (n=30) was the most common, followed by the Type 5 (n=24) and Type 4b
(n=20). The Type 7 (n=5), Type 2 (n=2), Type 6 (n=2), Type 1 (n=1) and Crude (n=9) types
were least common, and no Type 3 triangular point was recovered. Another 34 triangular
points were either unidentifiable or a combination of two of the types discussed above. Table
4.2 displays the totals of types recovered, and complete and mostly complete triangular
points are shown in Figure 4.2. A good portion of the partial triangular points recovered can
be seen in Figure 4.3. Also, several poorly manufactured triangular points were recovered
and can be seen in Figure 4.4. These points possessed regular outlines for triangular
projectile points but were poorly manufactured. These may have only one face or edge
flaked, be thin triangular shaped flakes with only pressure flaked perimeters, or be thick with
well-flaked perimeters. Out of the 127 triangular projectile points, 75 were made from
unidentified chert, 33 were made from either Liston Creek or a white glacially deposited
chert, and 12 were made from quartzite. In addition to these, 2 (08.1/28 and 08.1/641) were
made of Attica chert, 2 (08.1/863 and 08.1/1542) were made of Kenneth chert, and 2 (08.1/47
and 08.1/1778) were made of Wyandotte chert. These triangular projectile points can be seen
in Figures 4.2 and 4.3 along with other complete or partial triangular points. Those
manufactured from quartzite can be seen in Figure 4.5.
Table 4.2: Totals of All Triangular Point Types Identified in the Hafted and Unrefined Bifaces
Type
1
2
3
4a
4b
5
6
7
Crude
Combination
Total
n
1
2
0
30
20
24
2
5
9
34
127
End Scrapers. Two bifaces (Figure 4.6, 08.1/1189 and 08.1/2334) from the 2008 lithic
assemblage were classified as hafted or socketed end scrapers. The first (08.1/1189) is a
crude socketed bifacial end scraper. The tool is plano-convex in profile, and the socketed
portion is very thick and short with lateral margins that expand from the middle of the tool to
the distal end. It also has abundant step fractures on the socketed end, which were made
during the preparation of the socketed portion of the tool. The scraping end (distal) is
moderately wide and squared with tall steep scraping edges on one face, and use-wear is
present. It was made of unidentified chert. The second (08.1/2334) is also a socketed bifacial
end scraper but is very well manufactured. The tool is plano-convex in profile and triangular
in shape. The socketed portion is thin and well flaked. The scraping end (distal) is wide and
convex with short steep scraping edges on one face, and use-wear is present. It was made of
unidentified chert. Both of these tools were classified as formal end scraping tools, which
are often found in Oneota contexts. Specimen 08.1/2334 was recovered from Feature 54 in
relationship with shell-tempered pottery during the 2008 excavations.
162
Figure 4.2. Complete or mostly complete triangular points recovered from the 2008 excavations.
Figure 4.3. Partial triangular points recovered from the 2008 excavations.
163
Figure 4.4. Poorly manufactured triangular points recovered from the 2008 excavations.
Figure 4.5. Examples of quartzite triangular points recovered from the 2008 excavations.
164
Figure 4.6. Hafted knives and socketed bifacial end scrapers (left column), recovered from the 2008
excavations.
Knives. Six bifaces (see Figure 4.6) from the 2008 lithic assemblage were classified as
hafted, or socketed, knives. The first knife (08.1/642) is triangular in shape, medium sized,
biconvex in cross section, and somewhat thick with no basal grinding. It is wide and long
and resembles an oversized triangular point with cortex on one blade edge. The other blade
edge is chert with use-wear and resharpening from the middle of the blade to the distal end.
This knife is made of heat-treated unidentified chert. The second knife (08.1/696) is short and
wide with a biconvex cross section, and is triangular in shape, with no basal grinding. Both
blade edges possess use-wear and resharpening from the middle of the blade edge to the
distal end. Like the first, it also resembles a large triangular point. This knife was
manufactured from quartzite. The next knife (08.1/862) is a thick, medium-sized hafted
humpback knife. It has a plano-convex cross section and is triangular in shape. The base is
excurvate, thin, well flaked, and squared with no basal grinding. The blade edges expand
until midpoint of the blade, and use-wear and resharpening are present on both edges, with
one blade edge having unifacial use-wear. It was made from unidentified chert. The fourth
knife (08.1/1137) is a thin and wide, base fragment. It is triangular in shape with a biconvex
cross section and could be a large triangular point, although it seems too wide to be
considered a triangular point. It has flat blade edges and an excurvate base with no grinding
present. It was made from unidentified striated chert. The next knife (08.1/1776) is a thick,
medium-sized base fragment. It is trianguloid in shape with a biconvex cross section. The
base is excurvate and light grinding is present up to near the midpoint of the excurvate blade
edges. Only very light use-wear is present on the remaining blade edges. It was made from
heat-treated unidentified chert. The last knife (08.1/1848) is another thick, medium-sized
165
hafted humpback knife. It is triangular in shape and plano-convex in cross section. The base
is excurvate, thin, and well flaked with no basal grinding present. Its blade edges are
incurvate and use-wear is present on only one edge, from where the edge starts to narrow to
the distal end. It was made from heat-treated unidentified chert.
Drills. Eight drills and drill fragments with intact hafting elements were recovered (Figure
4.7). All of them are expanding base drills, but three of these expanding stem drills, 08.1/557,
08.1/1468, and 08.1/2647, were not reworked triangular points. Of these three drills, the first
and third have bases that are flat with more squared and narrow lateral margins, as well as
bits that are more parallel than those of a typical reworked triangular point drill. The second
is too thick and has remnant cortex still remaining on both faces. Other drills (08.1/975,
08.1/1412, 08.1/1595, and 08.1/3002), however, are good examples of reworked triangular
point drills in different stages of use. One drill (08.1/1412) is an early stage reworked
triangular point, with the blade edges narrowing from the midpoint of the projectile to form
the bit of the drill. Another drill (081/1595) has a longer refined bit that widens down to the
original haft juncture of the triangular point where it quickly widens out to the original hafted
blade edge of the triangle. Its base is unmodified from its original triangular point base. It is
wide, flaring and excurvate with lateral margins which slant inwards. The last drill (08.1/896)
is broken just below the haft juncture so it could be either a reworked triangular point or the
other expanding stem drill type discussed earlier. But it is different from all the other drills
because the bit is very thin as well as beveled. Four of the hafted drills recovered were
Figure 4.7. Expanding stem drills and drill fragments recovered from the 2008 excavations.
166
manufactured from unidentified chert; three (08.1/896, 08.1/1412, and 08.1/2647), were
manufactured from Liston Creek chert or some glacially deposited white chert, and one
(08.1/975) was made of quartzite. Also, the only distal drill fragment (08.1/975) recovered
was made from quartzite and can be seen in Figure 4.7.
Unidentified Hafted Bifaces. Six bifaces (see Figure 4.1), 08.1/272, 08.1/532, 08.1/571,
08.1/596, 08.1/1497, and 08.1/1533, were classified as unidentified stemmed or notched,
hafted projectile points. The first biface (08.1/272) is a small stem fragment with parallel
lateral margins. It has an excurvate base and was broken just below the shoulder/haft
juncture. It is lightly ground on all sides and was made from heat-treated unidentified chert.
Biface 08.1/532 is a small mostly complete point, which is missing most of its stem. The
blade shape is triangular, and the blade edges are excurvate as well as lightly serrated. It has
small short barbs, a plano-convex cross section, and was made of unknown chert. The third
biface (08.1/571) is a small stem fragment with straight lateral margins which expand toward
the base. It has an excurvate base and was broken at or just below the shoulder/haft juncture.
It is ground on all sides and was made from heat-treated unidentified chert. The fourth biface
(08.1/596) is a larger stem fragment with incurvate lateral margins which expand toward the
base. It has a flat, flaring base and was broken at or just below the shoulder/haft juncture. It
has grinding on its lateral margins, but no grinding is present on the base. It was
manufactured from unidentified chert. The next biface (08.1/1497) is a small and thin mostly
complete point which is broken just below the shoulder/haft juncture. The blade shape is
wide and trianguloid. The blade edges are excurvate as well as lightly serrated. It has small
short barbs, a biconvex cross section, and was made of unknown chert. This point resembles
a few different point types. The last biface (08.1/1533) is a small stem fragment with straight
lateral margins which expand slightly toward the base. It has an incurvate base and was
broken below the shoulder/haft juncture. It is ground on all sides and it is made from heattreated unidentified chert.
Singly these unidentified fragments are easily overlooked but as a group, they provide
new information. Three of these (08.1/272, 08.1/571, and 08.1/1533) are very similar to each
other and to another stem fragment (07.05/2366) from the 2007 excavations. Also, another
stem fragment (08.1/596) looks like another stem fragment (07.05/2176) recovered from the
2007 excavation. These stems may represent an earlier occupation campsite where stems of
broken points were removed, discarded, and replaced with new projectile points. These stems
also look very similar to the stem of the Terminal Archaic Barbed Cluster projectile point
(see Figure 4.1, 08.1/1811) discussed earlier. Also, one biface (08.1/532) closely resembles a
Scallorn Cluster projectile point because of its small size, its barbs formed by corner
notching, and its short expanding stem. Another Scallorn Cluster point was identified in the
lithic assemblage from 2006 excavations at the Strawtown enclosure.
Refined Biface Fragments and Other Bifaces (n=137)
The assemblage also included 78 refined biface fragments and 59 unrefined bifaces, which
are complete or unfinished tools. Many of the refined biface fragments are broken triangular
points (n=61), with 39 manufactured from unidentified chert, 12 made of Liston Creek or
some other glacially deposited white chert, 9 manufactured from quartzite, and one
167
(08.1/2224) manufactured from Flint Ridge or Vamport chert (Figures 4.8 and 4.9). One of
the refined biface fragments (08.1/675) was a drill fragment made of quartzite (see Figure
4.7). Three medial knife or projectile point fragments (08.1/589, 08.1/1496,1537, and
08.1/1946) were included in the total amount of refined biface fragments and are shown in
Figure 4.10. One of these (08.1/1496,1537) was made of heat-treated unidentified chert and
possibly a large knife or medial spear point fragment. The other two are short, thin, and wide
and manufactured from unidentified chert. One unhafted knife and four humpback knives
were included in the total number of unrefined bifaces and can be seen Figures 4.11 and 4.12.
Two of these (08.1/262 and 08.1/1499) appear to be made out of Liston Creek or some other
white glacially deposited chert, one (08.1/1205) was made of Attica chert, and the last two
(08.1/1283 and 08.1/1894) were manufactured from unidentified chert.
Figure 4.8. Quartzite triangular projectile point distal fragments recovered from the 2008 excavations.
168
Figure 4.9. Examples of chert triangular projectile point distal fragments recovered from the 2008 excavations.
Figure 4.10. Large medial knife or projectile point fragments recovered from the 2008 excavations.
The other unrefined bifaces (see Figures 4.11 and 4.12) range from completely flaked,
bifacial artifacts with a trianguloid, symmetrical shape to crudely flaked items with one or
more interrupted bifacial edges. The crudely flaked specimens could also reasonably be
classified as cores. Most of the unrefined bifaces (n=34) were made from unknown chert,
some (n=14) were made from Liston Creek or some other glacially deposited white chert. Of
169
the remaining unrefined bifaces, two (08.1/540 and 08.1/621) appear to be made of
Burlington chert, two (08.1/352 and 08.1/865) were manufactured from Kenneth chert, two
(08.1/481 and 08.1/2040) were made of quartzite, and another two (08.1/1290 and 08.1/2785)
were manufactured from Upper Mercer chert.
Figure 4.11. Trianguloid unrefined bifaces recovered from the 2008 excavations.
170
Figure 4.12. Large unrefined bifaces recovered from the 2008 excavations.
.
Unifaces (n=36)
Of the complete or partial artifacts classified as unifaces, 32 were identified as nonformal
implements and four (08.1/933, 08.1/1536, 08.1/1725, and 1842) as formal unifaces. These
formal unifaces and examples of nonformal unifaces are shown in Figure 4.13. Edges were
highly variable and were often the only retouched portion of the tool. Edge angle ranged
from very slight to very steep. Sizes varied from large to small. Convex, concave, straight,
and ragged “denticulate” edges are present. Of the nonformal unifacial tools collected, 33
were made of unknown chert, 5 were made from Liston Creek chert or some other glacially
deposited white chert, three were made of quartzite, one was manufactured from Attica chert,
and the last was made from Kenneth. Three of the formal unifaces are tips to trianguloid
shaped scrapers, and 08.1/1536 is an ovate scraper with remnant cortex present on its ends.
This uniface, as well as 08.1/933, also has some bifacial flaking on one edge. All of the
formal unifaces were made from unidentified chert.
171
Figure 4.13. Formal unifaces (left column) and examples of nonformal unifaces recovered from the 2008
excavations.
Blades (n=9)
Nine artifacts were classified as blades (Figure 4.14). These blades include three blade-like
flakes (08.1/1025, 08.1/1531, and 08.1/2486). These blades varied in thickness, size, shape,
and amount of use-wear present. All of the blades were complete with the exception of two
(08.1/397 and 08.1/873), which appear to be the proximal ends of two lamellar blades that
have been snapped in half. On both of these snapped lamellar blades the bulb of percussion
and the striking platforms are still present and both edges possess use-wear. The rest of these
blades seem to be crude blades manufactured from long to short and narrow. All of these
blades only have use-wear present on one edge, with the exception being one blade-like flake
(08.1/1531) which has use-wear on three edges with a bulb of percussion and striking
platform on the last edge.
172
Figure 4.14. Blades and blade-like flakes recovered from the 2008 excavations.
Cores (n=33)
Thirty-three artifacts were classified as cores (nuclei of chert or other raw material bearing at
least two flake scars). The abundance of naturally occurring glacial cherts in the on-site soils
complicates discrimination of aboriginal cores from non-core chert cobbles. The presence of
flake scars with sharp margins and a clearly definable point of origin were weighed heavily.
Some items classified as cores had both weathered fracture surfaces and surfaces that
appeared to have been more recently produced, however. It seems likely that aboriginal use
of the relatively abundant, locally occurring chert resources was rather casual, and an effort
was made not to be overly conservative when identifying cores. Based on the amount of this
“local chert” debitage collected from some of the site, removal of flakes from locally
available chert cobbles was probably an important part of localized lithic economies.
Artifacts classified as cores under the definition used here are variable (Figure 4.15). The
typical casual core used a waterworn cobble as raw material, and flakes were detached multidirectionally. In many cases, flakes were apparently detached where the natural contours of
the cobble offered a convenient platform. Some casual cores have only a few flake scars,
while others were more extensively worked. More extensively worked casual cores often
have one or more developed striking platform areas. Both bifacial and unifacial striking
platform areas occurred. Several of the casual “cores” are rather small, irregularly shaped
blocks of chert with multiple small flake scars. Some of these still retain cortex. Such items
may not be “cores” in the traditional sense (i.e., masses of chert from which flakes were
detached for use as flake tools). Larger, cortical blocks, cobbles, and slabs of chert with only
two or three negative flake scars may also not be “cores” in the traditional sense. There is a
typological difficulty in consistently differentiating “tested blocks” from “casual cores,”
however. Likewise, several of the casual cores could reasonably be classified as unrefined
173
bifaces or early-stage biface fragments.
Chert cores were most common consisting of 24 cores of unidentified chert, 6 cores of
Liston Creek chert or some other white glacially deposited chert, one core (08.1/2374) of
Allen’s Creek/Harrodsburg chert, and one core (08.1/614) of Upper Mercer. The remaining
core (08.1/1046) was of quartzite.
Figure 4.15. Examples of cores recovered from the 2008 excavations.
Chipped Stone Debitage (n=10,084)
The chipped stone debitage assemblage consisted of 9,233 pieces of chert, 850 pieces of
quartzite, and 1 pieces of slate. As with the cores, the overwhelming majority of the chert
debitage was of locally available, glacial chert.
Nonchipped Stone (n=8)
The nonchipped stone “tool” assemblage included six hammer stones, one pitted stone, and
one sandstone abrader.
Hammer Stones. Six stone tools (Figure 4.16, 08.1/12, 08.1/1018, 08.1/2096, 08.1/3191,
08.1/3271 and 08.1/3384) classified as hammer stones were recovered from the 2008
excavations. They all varied in size, shape, completeness, and the amount of use-wear. Five
were made from granitic cobbles, and one (08.1/25) was produced from a quartz cobble. Two
of these (08.1/1018 and 08.1/3191) are incomplete, with the first being heavily fire cracked
and the second missing one fragment likely from fire cracked. These two hammer stones
along with 08.1/2096 have only one concentrated area of battering on either a flat surface or
174
rounded projection, and are irregular in shape with only 08.1/3191 has a somewhat spherical
shape. Two other hammer stones (08.1/12 and 08.1/3384) were complete, irregular, and
rounded with two areas possessing concentrated battering. The first of these has battering
located on its projecting rounded ends and the second has light battering on both of its flat
surfaces, as well as another possible area of battering on one projecting edge. The last
hammer stone (08.1/3271) was also complete, irregular, and rounded but differed from the
rest by the amount of heavy battering present on its surface. Almost the entire surface is
covered with heavy battering with the only original stone surface remaining located in its
indentations. Three areas of this hammer stone are battered so much that small angled
protrusions were made from their continual use.
Figure 4.16. Hammer stones recovered from the 2008 excavations.
Pitted Stone. A single artifact (Figure 4.17, 08.1/504) was classified as a pitted stone
fragment in the 2008 artifact assemblage. It is thin and almost perfectly round with one
flattened side and one rounded side. One shallow pit is located in the center of the flattened
side with possible light battering on the rounded side, and no battering was present on the
edges of the stone.
Abrader. A single artifact (Figure 4.17, 08.1/1578) was identified as a fragment of an
abrader. It is manufactured from coarse sandstone and has a shallow (4 mm), wide (12 mm),
semicircular groove on one face which runs from one end to the other. The other side is flat
with no grooves, and the remaining edges are broken.
175
Figure 4.17. Pitted stone and abrader recovered from the 2008 excavations.
Ceramics
The ceramic assemblage recovered from the Strawtown enclosure included rim sherds
(n=258), neck sherds (n=428), body sherds (n=2,222), unclassified sherds (n=6,476), and six
handle fragments.
Rim sherds are defined as fragments from the top of the vessel that retain enough surface
area to distinguish the orientation of the lip and neck portions of the vessel. Larger sherds
that retain the rim and either the neck or body portion also are classified as rim sherds. A
neck sherd is a vessel fragment missing the rim portion but including enough curvature to
verify that it originally formed a constricted-orifice vessel. Body sherds are fragments
without a rim or neck portion. Unclassified sherds are those too small and fragmentary (<½”)
to be accurately distinguished.
A variety of temper, surface treatment, and decoration is present in the enclosure ceramic
176
assemblage. Virtually all Strawtown ceramics exhibit at least some sand. It can be observed
in a variety of sizes, which is probably part of the original paste. The subsurface (at various
depths) exhibits a sandy clay loam which could have been the raw material. The sand was
only noted if it represented a significant amount of the pottery temper. Among sherds larger
than ½” (n=2,914), approximately 69 percent (n=2,010) were grit tempered, with 21 percent
(n=611) a combination of sand and grit tempered, and under 5 percent (n=137) sand
tempered (Table 4.3). Low numbers of grit- and shell-tempered sherds (n=3), sherds lacking
temper (n=4), and a small number of sand and shell-tempered sherds were recovered (n=7).
Shell-tempered sherds (n=142) accounted for approximately 4.9 percent of the >½”
assemblage. Sherds less than ½” (n=6,476) were classified as either “shell” (n=298, 4.6
percent) or “not shell” (n=6,178, 95.4 percent). One shell-tempered loop handle from a
Taylor Village vessel was recovered detached from the jar. Also, two small detached nodes
of unknown affiliation were recovered (one shell-tempered and one sand and shell-tempered)
in this year’s collection. An unusual small bowl rim with a small flattened node attachment
with small incised lines on top was also recovered. This specimen is associated with the
Taylor Village assemblage.
Table 4.3. All Sherds Recovered Compared by Surface Treatment and Temper
Tertiary
<1/2"
Brushed
Cordmarked
Fabricroughened
Plain
Unidentified
Total
Grit
--
0
1045
136
463
366
2010
No temper
--
1
0
0
2
1
4
Nonshell
6178
--
--
--
--
--
6178
Sand
--
10
39
0
45
43
137
Sand + grit
--
4
322
30
129
126
611
Sand + shell
--
0
3
0
4
0
7
Shell
298
0
68
0
32
42
440
Shell + grit
--
0
1
0
1
1
3
Total
6476
15
1478
166
676
579
9390
Middle Fort Ancient ceramic assemblages in Ohio are known to have small percentages
of shell-tempered pottery (Drooker 1997:79, 83), but the shell-tempered pottery recovered
from the Strawtown enclosure thus far appears to be overwhelmingly associated with the
Taylor Village component of the site. Two neck sherds with shell tempering and trailed lines
and a body fragment appear to be associated with the Fort Ancient assemblage (and possibly
three other fragments under ½”). These are the first indication of possible shell-tempered
Fort Ancient sherds, after all of our previous work at the Strawtown enclosure. No ceramics
definitely resembling Mississippian types were recovered from the enclosure this year, but
two body sherd specimens somewhat resemble Mississippian pottery. For the discussion of
surface treatments and decoration, the assemblage needs to be divided into the Oliver
component and the Taylor Village component.
177
Oliver Ceramics
Briefly, Oliver ceramic assemblages consist of a unique combination of Middle Fort Ancient,
Anderson phase (Essenpreiss 1982; Griffin 1943) pottery and a ceramic tradition in which
vessels typically are decorated by impressing with either cordage or a small smooth-edged
tool. This pottery is associated with the Castor phase of central Indiana (McCullough 2005,
2007) and is most closely affiliated with the Western Basin Tradition (Stothers and Pratt
1981) styles of the Lake Erie basin. The Fort Ancient vessels recovered from Oliver phase
contexts are overwhelmingly sand and grit or grit-tempered. Jars usually have wide necks
that are most often smoothed. The majority also exhibits a rim fold or rim strip along the
exterior of the lip. This rim fold commonly exhibits oblique bands of impressions usually
executed with a smooth dowel, but also with what appear to be fingers and cord-wrapped
dowels in later specimens. However, the main decorative field is on the neck and overlapping
the upper shoulder area. The decorative technique is achieved through trailed, broad-line (or
less commonly, thin-line) incising. The decorative motif is most often a curvilinear guilloche
design, but rectilinear guilloche, oblique lines, and line-filled triangles are also found.
Occasionally, circular punctates are added to these design motifs. Most jar rim profiles
exhibit a broad neck, excurvate in shape. A few vessels exhibit two strap handles, which can
be decorated and sometimes exhibit two small castellations only above each edge of the
handle. Thick-walled, simple bowls greater in depth than width are also present at
Strawtown, as well as at other Oliver sites. Miniature vessels are also found on Oliver sites.
These are usually pinch construction, commonly exhibiting either fine sand or no temper.
Rarely, a miniature vessel will exhibit a curvilinear guilloche decoration, but usually they are
not decorated or not formally decorated. A minimum of 143 sherds recovered from the 2008
investigation displayed definite Fort Ancient related styles or motifs. Examples of Middle
Fort Ancient vessels are shown in Figures 4.18, 4.19, 4.20, 4.21 and 4.22 (top row).
178
Figure 4.18. Fort Ancient-style rim sherds from 12-H-883.
Figure 4.19. Fort Ancient-style neck sherds from 12-H-883.
179
Figure 4.20. Fort Ancient-style neck sherds from 12-H-883.
Figure 4.21. Fort Ancient-style neck sherds from 12-H-883. (Note: two sherds in lower right are shelltempered.)
180
Figure 4.22. Fort Ancient-style handle fragments, top row. Bottom row, shell-tempered; bottom right, broken
loop handle; bottom two in center, circular nodes; bottom left, flattened node on small bowl fragment.
The Great Lakes impressed style is a general term to distinguish a wide range of grittempered pottery with tool, cordage, or cord-wrapped dowel types of decoration. These are
the designs typically associated with the Castor phase of central Indiana (McCullough 2005,
2007). A minimum of 59 sherds recovered from the 2008 investigation exhibited decoration
associated with the Great Lakes impressed styles. Both design motifs and decorative
techniques encompass a great deal of diversity. Surface treatments on undecorated vessels
can be either cordmarked or smoothed, with cordmarking being the most common. Rim
profiles can be straight or cambered. Lug appendages, which are almost always vertically
aligned, are present exclusively on the cambered rim vessels, but no handles appear on the
Great Lakes impressed vessels. Some Great Lakes impressed vessels exhibit a variety of
castellations and segmented-rim forms. Decorative placement is found exclusively on the rim
and lip and not on the neck of the vessel. The Great Lakes impressed vessels typically have
tall rims (when compared to the Fort Ancient forms), and the rim often displays a wedgeshaped collar or a wide, flat strip of clay added to the exterior surface on which the
decoration is placed. Examples of Great Lakes impressed styles from the enclosure are
shown in Figures 4.23 through 4.26.
181
Figure 4.23. Great Lakes impressed-style sherds from 12-H-883 (tool impressed).
182
Figure 4.24. Great Lakes impressed-style rim sherds from 12-H-883 (cord impressed on cambered rim profile;
middle row, vertical nodes).
Figure 4.25. Great Lakes impressed-style sherds from 12-H-883 (tool impressed).
183
Figure 4.26. Great Lakes impressed-style sherds from 12-H-883 (top row, punctation; bottom two, scalloped
lips).
At the Strawtown enclosure, surface treatments for the Oliver component (grit-, sand- and
grog-tempered) include brushing, cordmarking, fabric roughening, and smoothing, or plain
(Tables 4.4 through 4.6 show surface treatment by temper). The method of surface treatment
could be observed on 1,652 body sherds. A cordmarked surface treatment was present on
80.4 percent (n=1,329) of the body sherds with an identifiable surface treatment.
Plain/smooth surface treatment sherds (9.5 percent, n=157) and sherds with fabric
roughening (9.5 percent, n=156) were also present. Sherds with brushed surface treatments
(0.6 percent, n=10) accounted for a minor portion of the observable surfaces.
Table 4.4. Non-Taylor Village Body Sherds Compared by Surface Treatment and Temper
Cordmarked
Fabricroughened
Plain
Brushed
Unidentified
Total
Grit
990
128
108
0
310
1536
Sand + grit
301
28
29
3
103
464
Sand
37
0
20
7
26
90
No temper
0
0
0
0
1
1
184
Shell + grit
1
0
0
0
0
1
Total
1329
156
157
10
440
2092
Table 4.5. Non-Taylor Village Neck Sherds Compared by Surface Treatment and Temper
Cordmarked
Fabricroughened
Plain
Brushed
Unidentified
Total
Grit
38
4
233
0
33
308
Sand + grit
17
1
66
1
18
103
Sand
1
0
6
0
3
10
Shell
0
0
1
0
0
1
Shell + grit
0
0
1
0
0
1
Total
56
5
307
1
54
423
Table 4.6. Non-Taylor Village Rim Sherds Compared by Surface Treatment and Temper
Cordmarked
Fabricroughened
Plain
Brushed
Unidentified
Total
Grit
17
4
121
0
23
165
Sand + grit
4
1
33
0
5
43
Sand
1
0
18
3
14
36
No temper
0
0
2
1
0
3
Total
22
5
174
4
42
247
Oliver neck sherds (Figures 4.27 and 4.28), on the other hand, are dominated by
smooth/plain surface treatments. Of 369 Oliver neck sherds whose method of surface
treatment could be observed, 83.2 percent (n=307) were smooth/plain, with 15.2 percent
(n=56) cordmarked and 1.4 percent (n=5) fabric roughened. In 2008, only one neck sherd
with a brushed surface treatment was recovered.
Surface treatment could be observed on 205 Oliver phase rim sherds (Figures 4.29, 4.30,
and 4.31). Plain/smooth surfaces accounted for 84.9 percent (n=174), and cordmarking was
represented by 10.7 percent (n=22). Fabric-roughened surface treatment accounted for 2.4
percent (n=5), with the remaining 2 percent (n=4) exhibiting a brushed surface treatment.
185
Figure 4.27. Oliver neck sherds with plain surface treatment from 12-H-883.
Figure 4.28. Oliver neck sherds with cordmarked surface treatment from 12-H-883.
186
Figure 4.29. Rim sherds with a plain surface treatment from 12-H-883.
Figure 4.30. Rim sherds with cordmarked surface treatment from 12-H-883.
187
Figure 4.31. Rim sherds with fabric-roughened surface treatment from 12-H-883.
Fort Ancient-style vessels are typically decorated on the neck portion of the vessel, with
the decoration on the body (if present at all) consisting of a slight continuation of the neck
design; grit- and/or sand-tempered, decorated sherds from the enclosure are consistent with
this generalization (Table 4.7). Of the 421 neck sherds recovered, decoration was present on
111 specimens, accounting for 26.4 percent of the total necks recovered. The Fort Ancientrelated decorations (of decorated vessels) observed were guilloche (18.0 percent, n=20) and
incised-line (80.2 percent, n=89). One neck sherd listed as having a combination of
decoration exhibited both narrow and broad trailed lines, while another exhibited tool
impression.
Table 4.7. Non-Taylor Village Decoration by Vessel Portion
Type of decoration
Body
Neck
Rim
Incised broad line
9
86
6
Incised guilloche
0
20
2
Incised thin line
1
3
2
188
Punctation
0
0
4
Dowel impressed
0
0
12
Tool impressed
0
1
9
Cord impressed
0
0
45
Combination
0
1
9
Total decorated
10
111
89
Not decorated/unidentified
2081
310
157
Total
2091
421
246
Of the 246 grit/sand-tempered rim sherds (see Table 4.7), decoration was present on 89,
composing about 36.2 percent. Decoration included a variety of impressed forms: cord (50.6
percent, n=45); dowel (13.5 percent, n=12); and tool (10.1 percent, n=9). Rims exhibiting
decorative trailed lines, either thin or broad (11.2 percent, n=10), are commonly associated
with a neck decoration that sometimes extended onto the rim area and typically represented a
Fort Ancient-type sherd, as do dowel-impressed rims. Four rim sherds exhibited a variety of
styles executed with punctation (4.5 percent). Rim decoration was recorded as “combination”
when two types of decoration were present on the rim or when different decorations were on
the rim and the neck (10.1 percent, n=9). Five of the rim sherds in the combination category
represented Fort Ancient-style vessels. These rim sherds exhibited smooth impressions on the
rim with trailed lines on the neck. One sherd had a combination of cord impression and
circular punctates representing the Great Lake impressed style. Two sherds from the same
miniature vessel (Figures 4.32 and 4.33) exhibited oblique thin line incising and circular
punctates. One vessel, labeled as a combination (see Table 4.7) represented a hybrid between
the Fort Ancient and Great Lakes impressed styles (Figure 4.34; catalog numbers 08.1/522,
1010, 950, 1292, and 1325). This example exhibited the Great Lakes technique of cordimpressed decoration placed on the upper neck, rim, and lip of the vessel. The short rim
portion is typical of a Fort Ancient vessel, while the irregular rim fold is not. The broad,
excurvating neck with trailed lines is classic Middle Fort Ancient. Two other rim sherds (see
Figure 4.34) were found to exhibit a mixture of Great Lakes and Fort Ancient styles (but did
not have a combined decorative treatment): rim sherd 08.1/2736 revealed a typical Fort
Ancient rim fold, but had a cambered rim profile and knot impression typical of the Great
Lakes style; and rim sherd 08.2786 had a flattened rim strip and cordwrapped dowel
impression associated with the Great Lakes assemblage, but exhibited a motif placed on the
rim associated with the Fort Ancient-style. This combination of styles has been identified in
Oliver contexts at other fourteenth-century and early-fifteenth-century sites (Redmond and
McCullough 1996; McCullough 2000).
189
Figure 4.32. Bowl (upper row) and miniature vessel rim sherds from 12-H-883.
190
Figure 4.33. Close-up view of miniature vessel showing oblique incised lines and circular punctates.
Figure 4.34. Rim sherds showing combination of Fort Ancient and Great Lakes styles.
191
Taylor Village Ceramics
Almost all of the shell-tempered pottery recovered from the Strawtown enclosure is locally
referred to as Taylor Village ceramics after the Taylor Village site located across the river
from the Strawtown site (Cochran et al. 1993; McCullough 1991, 2003). The Taylor Village
occupation appears to represent the easternmost expression of the Oneota tradition and is an
anomalous cultural expression in central Indiana. Based on recent excavations at the Hoxie
Farm site in northeastern Illinois, the Taylor Village ceramics are most closely associated
with the Late Fisher materials dating to the late-thirteenth and early-fourteenth centuries
(Emerson 2006). Prior to the excavations at the Strawtown enclosure (White et al. 2002), the
Taylor Village occupation was believed to have been confined to the floodplain across the
river; however, a Taylor Village occupation is clearly superimposed on the Oliver occupation
within the enclosure. This Oneota pottery is exclusively shell tempered. The shell was finely
ground, resulting in thin-walled vessels (ca. 4-5 mm at the shoulder) that erode easily and are
more difficult to reconstruct than grit-tempered sherds. Only one detached Taylor Village
loop handle was recovered during the 2008 investigations. Sometimes these loop handles do
not have an opening, suggesting they are vestigial appendages. Specific observations are
presented below.
For the Taylor Village component at the enclosure, surface treatments are mostly
cordmarking and plain; occasionally a few sherds may exhibit other surface treatments
(Table 4.8). (Note: The 2008 cataloging was conservative when identifying sherds as Taylor
Village, because of the identification of a small number of shell-tempered Fort Ancient
sherds.) During the 2008 investigations, only sherds with fine cordmarking and plain surfaces
were observed. On shell-tempered body sherds, the method of surface treatment could be
observed on 93 specimens: plain/smooth represents less than a third of the observations with
26 (28 percent); a cordmarked surface treatment was present on 67 sherds, but cordmarking
on Taylor Village sherds is typically very fine and often difficult to observe (Figure 4.35).
Thirty-six body sherds have an unidentifiable surface treatment.
Table 4.8. Taylor Village Surface Treatment by Vessel Portion
Body
Neck
Exterior Rim
Total
Plain
26
2
4
32
Cordmarked
67
0
4
71
Unidentified
36
3
3
42
Total
129
5
11
145
The method of surface treatment could be identified on only two Taylor Village neck
sherds (see Table 4.8). Both exhibited a plain surface treatment. However, since the neck
portion of these thin-walled, sharply everted vessels is small, this class is underrepresented.
Eleven Taylor Village rim sherds were recovered from the Strawtown enclosure
excavations. Surface treatment could be observed on eight of the specimens: half exhibited a
smooth/plain surface, and half were cordmarked (see Table 4.8).
192
Figure 4.35. Taylor Village plain and cordmarked body sherds, with trailed lines.
Decoration on the shell-tempered Taylor Village sherds (Table 4.9) was typically placed
on the exterior surface of the shoulder, the interior of the rim (Figures 4.36 and 4.37), or the
top of the lip. Generally, the exterior portion of the rim was not decorated, unless the rim was
from a miniature vessel or small bowl. Decoration was observed on 21 specimens of the 129
shell-tempered body sherds recovered during the 2008 investigation. Of the body sherds
exhibiting decoration (see Figure 4.35), 95.2 percent (n=20) was identified as having the
incised broad-line (trailed) technique. One body sherd (see Figure 4.35, 08.1/2452) revealed
a circle and dot motif executed with trailed lines and a single circular punctuation.
193
Table 4.9. Taylor Village Decoration by Vessel Portion
Type of Decoration
Body
Neck
Exterior rim
Interior rim
Incised broad line
20
0
0
6
Incised thin line
0
0
0
1
Circle and dot
1
0
0
0
Not decorated
108
4
11
4
Unidentified
0
1
0
0
Total
129
5
11
11
Figure 4.36. Taylor Village rim sherds from 12-H-883, exterior view.
194
Figure 4.37. Taylor Village rim sherds from 12-H-883, interior view.
Decoration identified on the necks of Taylor Village sherd relate to the attached shoulder
portions of the specimens. Based on the classification system used for this analysis, a sherd is
placed in the neck category if any of the body retains (or can be refitted to) a portion of the
neck. Since the necks are sharply everted and very narrow, any decoration recorded as
present on the neck is usually located on the shoulder or is one that inadvertently continued
up onto the neck. Only one small neck sherd showed decoration of an indeterminate nature,
and four exhibited no decoration.
Taylor Village rim sherd decoration essentially consists of smooth, broad (4 to 5 mm)
lines (both dowel impressed and trailed). The rim sherd decorative field is almost always on
the interior of the rim. Occasionally the lip is impressed (three rim sherds from the 2008
assemblage), with or without decoration on the interior. Of the eleven rim sherds recovered
during the 2008 investigations, seven (63.6 percent) revealed some type of decoration. Six
exhibited an incised broad-line (trailed) decorative technique on the interior of the rim only.
One rim is a thin-walled bowl fragment with a small flattened lug attached to the exterior lip
(see Figure 4.22, 08.1/1630). This bowl fragment, coded as having interior decoration,
195
actually exhibits thin trailed lines on the vessel lip and the top of the flattened lug. As
mentioned previously, two small rounded nodes were recovered (see Figure 4.22, 08.1/2155
and 1800) that contained fine shell temper consistent with the Taylor Village assemblage;
however, cultural affiliation has not been established with certainty.
Of note, soot removed from the exterior surface of the small Taylor Village jar recovered
from Feature 47 (McCullough 2008:171-174) was submitted for radiocarbon dating during
2008. The sample returned a date of 590 +/- 40 (calibrated to 1 sigma, AD 1300 to 1370 and
1380 to 1400 and to 2 sigma, AD 1290 to 1420).
The permanent collections at the Strawtown Koteewi Park Taylor Center now include the
largest known sample of Taylor Village ceramics. The motifs associated with these vessels
are still hard to determine, because of the fragility and fragmentation of the Taylor Village
assemblage, but motifs that consist of straight vertical lines radiating down from the neck are
identifiable. Another common motif consists of oblique lines on the shoulder with downward
pointing chevrons between the oblique lines. Occasionally, a circle is executed with trailed
lines above the chevron (McCullough 1992), and some of the oblique broad lines appear to
be bordered by short, perpendicular lines. One example in 2006 appeared to have a curving
line instead of the straight broad line. Although curvilinear lines are common with early
Fisher pottery to the northwest, the later Fisher pottery designs exhibit mostly straight lines
(Emerson 2006), which are what is found from the Strawtown vicinity. Designs similar to
these, also placed on the shoulder, are found on contemporaneous Oneota vessels in
southwestern Wisconsin (Green 1995; Overstreet 1997).
HISTORIC MATERIALS
The historic material recovered from excavated contexts at 12-H-883 is a relatively small
(n=118+) assemblage of nineteenth- through twentieth-century artifacts consistent with the
known Euroamerican agricultural usage of the area during that time period and its later use as
an extensive junkyard for farm and industrial machinery. The assemblage is summarized in
Table 4.10.
Table 4.10: Historic Artifacts Recovered from 2008 Excavations at the Strawtown Enclosure, 12-H-883
Material
Category
Object
Attributes
Remarks
N
ceramic
earthenware
brick fragment
1
redware
body sherd
int brn slip
1
stoneware
body sherd
salt ext, albany
1
int
porcelain
body sherd
fixture fragment
1
glass
container
base/ body fragment brown; ABM
2
body fragment
clear
4
rim fragment
clear
1
flat
fragment
clear
2
fragment
clear; safety
1
metal
brass
cartridge case
.22 cal
headstamp illegible
2
ferrous
barbed wire
3
bolt, hex
2
196
Material
mineral/stone
synthetic
Category
lead
cinder/slag
coal
cement/mortar
paint flake
plastic
rubber
rubber
rubber
Object
Attributes
chain
cotter pin
D-ring
nail, cut
nail, horseshoe
nail, wire
nut, hex
spring
strap (?) fragment
washer
wire
flat fragment
unidentified fragment
bullet
unidentified fragment
O-ring
tire fragment
unidentified
Remarks
logging or tow
sprung
1 w/head missing
1 clinched
1 w/bolt shaft
pieces refit
1 distorted
various colors
N
1
1
1
2
1
6
9
1
4
1
5
19
13
5
6.2 g
3
2
2
12
1
1
4
Ceramics (n=4)
Ceramics form a very small proportion of the historic assemblage recovered from the site in
2007, nor are any temporally significant beyond a broad time span. A brick fragment (n=1) is
simply evidence of the known historic usage of the area, while the porcelain sherd (n=1) is
the thick vitreous type used in bathroom and electrical fixtures since the late nineteenth
century (e.g., Blair 2002). The remaining two sherds, one redware and one stoneware,
represent utilitarian vessels common on rural domestic sites in the nineteenth century. The
small (0.4 g) redware sherd is probably from a ca. 1840s vessel (Figure 4.38, 08.1/1339),
while the salt-glazed exterior and Albany-slipped interior of the stoneware jug or jar (Figure
4.38, 08.1/2271), place it in the third quarter or so of the century (Mansberger 1997;
McGregor 1988).
Glass (n=10)
More glass artifacts than ceramics were recovered, a fact in itself indicating late-nineteenthto twentieth-century dating of the majority of the assemblage, since the automatic bottle
machine developed in the late 1800s made glass containers inexpensive and widely available.
One small brown base body fragment is stippled (Figure 4.38, 08.1/637), clearly indicating
automatic bottle machine manufacture (Jones and Sullivan 1989). No other diagnostic glass
fragments, such as bases or finishes were recovered, and the colors of the container glass also
197
Figure 4.38. Selected historic artifacts recovered from the 2008 excavations, 12-H-883.
198
reflect a twentieth-century assemblage, with only clear (n=5) and brown (n=2) container
fragments present. The flat glass fragments include 2 that are either windshield or window
glass and 1 safety glass piece that is certainly automotive glass, from the large number of
vehicles once stored on site.
Metal (n=76+)
As can be seen from Table 4.10, the majority of historic material is metal, reflecting the
known use of the site during the second half of the twentieth century as an open-air
machinery storage area. Five lead bullets, one distorted by impact (Figure 4.38, 08.1/1179),
and two brass .22-caliber shell casings with illegible headstamps indicate hunting or targetshooting activities at the site. Two machine-cut nails, probably dating before 1890 but of a
type used into the twentieth century (Wells 2000), are probably related to the domestic
structure nearby, as are the wire nails (n=6). Other late-nineteenth- to twentieth-century
agricultural artifacts are consistent with the known agricultural usage of the site: barbed-wire
fragments (n=3); a horseshoe nail (Figure 4.38, 08.1/1646); and a length of heavy logging or
towing chain (Figure 4.38, 08.1/926).
The remainder of the metal artifacts reflects the storage of machinery of a variety of ages
and types: miscellaneous hardware, including nuts, bolts, and washers (n=12); cotter pin
(n=1; Figure 4.38, 08.1/635); D-ring (n=1); spring (n=1); wire fragments (n=5) and metal
strapping fragments that refit (n=4; Figure 4.38, 08.1/2272). Unidentified metal artifacts
include flat ferrous fragments (n=19) and other unidentified ferrous fragments (n=13).
Mineral/stone (8.4 g)
Only cinders (6.2 g) and coal (n=3) were recovered in this category.
Synthetics (n=19+)
All of the synthetics materials recovered from 12-H-883 during 2007 can be dated to the
twentieth century, and most are related to the dumping activities and the variety of machinery
once at the site: paint chips (n=2); tire fragment (n=1); a rubber O-ring or gasket (n=1);
plastic fragments (n=12); cement or mortar fragments (n=2); and 4 unidentified fragmentary
rubber items.
Discussion
While not the focus of investigations at 12-H-883, historic material was recovered in
moderate amounts. Mostly fragmentary and nondiagnostic, the historic artifacts confirm the
known historic usages in the area. 12-H-883 was within the boundaries of a nineteenththrough twentieth-century farmstead that included at least two domestic structures over time
and attendant outbuildings, accounting for the limited domestic, agricultural, and hunting
artifacts. The site’s usage as a machinery dump beginning in the mid-twentieth century is
responsible for the majority—by count and weight—of the historic artifacts.
199
CHAPTER 5:
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
DISCUSSION
Although the excavation activities detailed in this report were focused on collection of
primary data, the broader research agenda was integrated with a proactive public program
to increase awareness of archaeology and archaeological methods and goals during
Indiana Archaeology Month 2008, the eighth year of such programming at the park
during September. Excavations open to the public at the Strawtown enclosure were
designed to encourage public participation and education, and volunteer labor and public
outreach were important components. Excavations by professional archaeologists were
conducted Tuesdays through Saturdays; during the three weeks of excavations in
September and October 2008, at least 3,090 individuals visited the Strawtown enclosure
site. Over 47 percent (1,453) of these visitors attended through scheduled school and
educational group tours in a structured program co-staffed by HCPRD and IPFW-AS
personnel. Activities included hands-on participation in screening and identifying
artifacts, as well as demonstrations of archaeological methods, nature walks, and talks on
the park’s long history of human occupation (Figures 5.1 and 5.2).
Figure 5.1. Hands-on experience in identifying artifacts, Archaeology Month 2008, at the Strawtown
enclosure.
200
Figure 5.2. Archaeology Month 2008 visitors at the Strawtown enclosure.
Over the years of the Archaeology Month programming, we have found that focusing on
school-age children is the best way to instill concepts of archaeological stewardship
throughout the community. Many of the children introduced to the park’s resources
through school tours return on a Saturday with their entire families, often including
grandparents. Teachers and chaperones with school groups see first-hand the enthusiasm
for learning about local history that the immediacy of hands-on activities can impart.
Many of the schools visiting the excavations have attended since the public programming
at Strawtown Koteewi Park began, institutionalizing the park and its resources within
their curricula. Of especial importance are the number of home-schooled children and
their families attending each year, a population that is often underserved with
opportunities for science learning.
A large part of what makes the public excavations at Strawtown compelling to visitors
is that they are integrated into an ongoing research program at the park that provides both
continuity and yearly progress. Fieldwork during Archaeology Month 2008 was centered
on excavation of a structure at the Strawtown enclosure (12-H-883). The structure, which
can provide information relating to family and community organization, was identified in
2006 but more fully investigated in 2007 and 2008. The information gathered will serve
to clarify patterns of cultural interaction, based on household-level patterning, found
among the Late Prehistoric frontier horticultural societies who inhabited central Indiana.
Fort Ancient, Western Basin, and Oneota-like ceramics have been recovered in
investigations of 12-H-883 prior to the current study (White et al. 2002, 2003;
McCullough et al. 2004), and distinguishing the occupation sequences evident within the
enclosure is a complex undertaking due to the intensive occupation of a confined area,
201
which resulted in numerous superpositioning episodes. Household-level data are vital in
interpreting the population dynamics of the central Indiana region.
In addition, a second question was addressed during the 2008 investigation to reevaluate the A-horizon soil context underlying the embankment in the north wall of the
2002 excavation. After the discovery of the central Taylor Village burial reflecting a
potential Oneota ceremonial use for the enclosure, the question arose whether other later
modifications could have been made to the site after the Oliver occupation. This question
was addressed by re-excavating a portion of the 2002 block in order to expose the profile
where the embankment overlays a portion of intact A-horizon soil and then excavate the
intact profile by stratigraphic levels to determine if Taylor Village pottery was below the
embankment fill.
2008 Investigations
Community Structure
The 2008 Archaeology Month excavations continued to yield additional information
about the occupations at the enclosure. The structure basin identified within the Main
Block during the final days of the fall 2006 excavation was the focus of most of the
excavations during the 2008 field season. The Main Block excavation was expanded to
the west, north, and south, exposing the western edge of the structure and many more
postholes. The southern and northern parts of the structure have yet to be identified and
this task is the goal of future investigations at Strawtown.
To date, the Oliver phase habitation of the Strawtown enclosure seems to be most
similar to the contemporaneous Anderson phase of Middle Fort Ancient (A.D. 12001400) in terms of radiocarbon dates, ceramic assemblages, features, and site structure.
Middle Fort Ancient villages were larger, more nucleated sites than Early Fort Ancient
villages. With structures arranged around a central plaza, they were circular, planned, and
more permanent, having multiple zones of activity within them (Drooker 1997). Many
also have thick midden deposits and large storage/refuse pits.
Henderson and Pollack (2004) conducted a comparative village structure analysis of
three Middle Fort Ancient circular villages—the SunWatch site, the Florence site
complex, and the Slone site—concluding that even though all three are organized
similarly, each has a unique community structure. Within a circular pattern, each site
varied in the placement of activity zones, which included refuse disposal, residential,
mortuary, and storage/food preparation areas. Although these sites are broadly
comparable, the differences suggest that Middle Fort Ancient people organized their
villages according to their own local needs and preferences (Henderson and Pollack
2004).
The SunWatch site consisted of three concentric rings of features surrounding a
central plaza. Starting from the inner “zone” outward, the village consisted of mortuary,
storage/refuse, and residential areas, all surrounded by a palisade. The house structures
were square to rectangular in shape within a 9-m-wide residential zone. Structures were 2
to 10 m away from the palisade (Henderson and Pollack 2004), except for a newly
reported wall trench structure situated along the edge of the plaza (Cook 2008).
The Florence site complex has not been extensively excavated, so more limited
information about community structure is available. Although there was no evidence of a
palisade wall, the Florence site did have an empty, central plaza surrounded by mortuary,
202
residential, and then refuse disposal zones. The residential zone measured 12 m in width
and contained rectangular house structures; refuse disposal pits were located behind the
residential zone (Henderson and Pollack 2004).
The Slone site also had an empty, central plaza surrounded by multiple activity zones.
Starting from the plaza outward, these zones consisted of a storage and food preparation
area, a residential area, a mortuary/refuse area, and an outer palisade wall. The
residential zone was 12 to 15 m in diameter, consisting of rectangular house structures
with rounded corners. The mortuary area was mixed in with refuse pits, which were
located behind the residential zone; a palisade encircled the village.
Broadly, the Strawtown enclosure follows this Middle Fort Ancient pattern: a circular
village with a central plaza surrounded by concentric activity zones. 50 x 50 cm SVS
units placed in two lines across the Strawtown enclosure demonstrated substantially
reduced artifact densities within the center of the enclosure (White et al. 2002), indicating
a central plaza. At the edge of the plaza, however, is an activity zone, evidenced by the
quantity of lithic debris recovered from Trench 1 in fall 2006 (Arnold et al. 2007).
Shallower processing-type pits and non-prepared hearths are also found in the activity
zone (McCullough et al. 2004; McCullough 2005). This activity zone is followed by an
intermittent residential zone as evidenced by a structure with prepared hearths and burned
areas identified in the 2006, 2007, and 2008 Main Block. At Strawtown, a zone of storage
pits and middens surround the residential area, unlike SunWatch but similar to the
Florence site. The Strawtown enclosure, like the Slone and SunWatch sites, also had an
outer palisade. The Strawtown enclosure, however, is unique because it had a ditch
outside the palisade wall with an interior embankment. Thus, preliminary evidence
demonstrates that the Strawtown enclosure may have been organized in a manner similar
to Middle Fort Ancient villages, but its community structure also shows a degree of
contrast as well.
Other Oliver sites in Indiana have also shown similarities in community structure to
Strawtown. Two previously excavated examples are the Clampitt and Cox’s Woods sites,
both defined by a circular outline with a palisade or stockade wall. Evidence of a ditch
and earthen embankment is found only at the Cox’s Woods site, while the heavily
cultivated Clampitt site only exhibits the external ditch. Both sites date within the time
period A.D. 1200-1450, which is when the Strawtown enclosure was occupied.
Cox’s Woods was a fortified Oliver phase village that dates to A.D. 1300-1450, with
an earthen embankment and stockade. It is circular to ovoid in plan and is also
surrounded by a ditch enclosure. No features were found within the central plaza, similar
to Fort Ancient circular villages. There were indications that a habitation area was
situated between the embankment/stockade and the central plaza, suggested by the
presence of many pit features (Redmond 1994a; Redmond and McCullough 1995 and
1996).
The Clampitt site was also a circular Oliver phase settlement and dates to around A.D.
1280-1400 (Redmond 1994b). As at Strawtown, a stockade and exterior ditch were also
present at the Clampitt site. Pottery and stone tool assemblages are contemporary with
Middle Fort Ancient sites as well. There was a broad ring of pit clusters and postmolds
located just within the stockade, as well as a central plaza containing little to no features
or artifact debris.
Although these sites have many similarities to the Strawtown enclosure, 12-H-883 has
not yet been completely explored. At present, the settlement pattern of Strawtown and
other circular enclosures in central and southern Indiana are congruent with Middle Fort
203
Ancient village structure, but they also seem unique. For example, Middle Fort Ancient
circular villages appear to lack an exterior ditch and interior embankment. The unique
mixture of Western Basin/Castor phase and Fort Ancient material cultural characteristic
of the Oliver phase could also be reflected in their village community structure. The
enclosures identified with the Oliver phase may be a merger of the Fort Ancient circular
village pattern and the Late Prehistoric earthen enclosure template found in northern
Indiana, northern Ohio, and Michigan.
Structures
An ongoing goal of the Strawtown enclosure project was to collect contextual
information related to a domestic structure. Structures provide valuable information
relating to family, community organization, and ethnic affiliation. Such information can
serve to clarify patterns of cultural interaction, based on household-level patterning,
found among the Late Prehistoric societies who inhabited central Indiana. The structure
identified during the final days of the 2006 investigation was investigated further in 2007
and 2008. In 2007, expansion to the west and deeper excavation within the 2006 Main
Block revealed a wall-post pattern set in and around a shallow structure basin (Figure
5.3), although the structure still needed to be exposed to the south. The 2008 excavations
extended between E199 and E209, south of the N195 line (Figure 5.4). However, because
several units opened during 2007 were only excavated to the base of Level 3, these units
were excavated more deeply before the structure could be identified clearly.
Figure 5.3. Photograph showing western boundary of structure basin (Feature 49) at base of Level 3 in
2007. (Note basin profile along west and south wall in 2006 Main Block.)
204
Figure 5.4. Plan map of the Main Block at the base of Level 4 showing possible structure outlines.
Even though the entire structure cannot yet be discerned, some general observations
can be offered. There is a clear north line, with the possible reseting or replacement of
some posts, about one m south of the north wall of the Main Block (see Figure 5.4). A
possible eastern edge of the structure is visible in Units 97, 100, and 103. Interior to this
line (west) is a second line of posts that may represent an interior bench and/or support
posts. A similar configuration is observable along the western portion of the structure,
205
except the lines are spaced somewhat farther apart. A line of confirmed and possible
posts was observed between Units 134 through 140 (see Figure 5.4). The corner of the
structure appears to curve inward in Unit 132 with posts 7-83 and 7-74. The interior line
is tightly spaced, but is not as regular and runs north-south the entire Main Block at the
E204 line; it appears to curve inward toward the north and south walls. A second interior
line somewhat mirrors the upper northwest corner of the structure with posthole 7-67 in
Unit 130 to posthole 7-12 or 57 in Unit 119, possibly representing an interior bench
and/or support posts (see Figure 5.4). A similar convergence of interior and exterior posts
can be observed in the eastern lines and what appears to be an interior screening wall or a
superimposed structure possibly extending from postholes 8-52 or 8-123 in Units 165 and
167 to postholes 7-60 or 7-61 in Unit 92. A second line oriented north-south just a meter
to the east extends from posthole 8-86 in Unit 158 to posthole 8-14 in Units 141 and 142
and may represent an interior screen or divider. Interestingly, there are two gaps spaced
approximately 1 m wide suggesting a possible opening or entryway into the structure.
One (labeled A) is located in Unit 164 as part of the interior line of posts (see Figure 5.4).
The second (labeled B) is located in Unit 139 and may be associated with the exterior line
of posts (Figure 5.5; see Figure 5.4). These breaks in the line of posts may represent
openings for two different structures or a rebuilding episode of a single, large structure.
Since the beginning of the investigations of the Strawtown enclosure, one of the
questions posed has been: How were the walls of the structures constructed? The IPFWAS has long suspected that the structures walls were made of wattle and daub, or clay
impressed into either woven branches or mats of smaller plant fibers. The suggestion of
daub-constructed structures was indicated by the recovery of numerous small pieces of
burnt soil over the years of excavation within the enclosure. However, other processes
besides house construction can leave burnt soil on an archaeological site such as prepared
hearth fragments or incidental burning.
During the 2008 investigation, several pieces of burned soil that clearly indicate use
for structure material were recovered (Figure 5.6). The daub had apparently fallen into
the fill of a hearth feature (Feature 63), which helped preserve the larger pieces intact.
Several show fibrous impressions in the burnt soil with the opposite sides flattened. One
appears to have a light-colored wash on the flattened side.
Several superpositions related to the basin structure also are evident in the Main Block
(Figure 5.7). Two prepared hearths (Features 35 and 42) had postholes cutting through
them, indicating that the features either predate the construction of the structure or
predate a later modification to the structure, or that the posts are related to a later
structure superimposed on this one. Feature 36 was an intensively burned area but was
not a prepared hearth. It has been interpreted as a hearth (see McCullough 2008), but it is
possible this burning could have been an unintentional fire on the floor of the basin
structure. No postholes were identified protruding into this feature, but two large
“support” posts (7-40 and 7-41) containing cultural material, including non-shelltempered pottery, were found underneath the burned soil. This stratigraphy suggests that
Feature 36 formed while the structure was in use or there was a fire that left traces in the
eastern portion of the basin. Feature 33, which was a large Oliver phase storage pit with a
Taylor Village component (or shallow basin) covering the top, appears to be
superimposed over the northeast corner of the structure (see McCullough 2008). As the
upper portion of this feature was excavated in plan, a few posts became visible under the
edge of the original Feature 33 Complex. Feature 51 had two superimposed postholes
intruding through it. Postholes 7-67 and 8-11 appear to postdate the feature and may be
206
Figure 5.5. Photograph of the Main Block, south extension showing possible opening or entryway into the
structure, highlighted in white.
207
Figure 5.6. Photographs of burnt soil showing fibrous impressions and flattened sides.
remains of an interior bench and/or support posts. Two other features (Features 56 and
62) containing Taylor Village components were superimposed over two postholes (8-35
and 8-105) associated with the exterior line of posts in the western portion of the Main
Block. Other superpositions west of the E202 line are shown to be related to large feature
(Feature 47), possibly representing another house basin. It is unknown at this time
whether this is a house structure because only a small portion of this area has been
investigated, but it does not appear to be associated with the large structure observed in
the Main Block (see Figure 5.7).
The complexity of untangling this intensive use and re-use of the spaces within the
enclosure can be seen in Figure 5.7 and the refit tables (Tables 5.1 and 5.2), which
indicate relations among many features and levels.
208
Figure 5.7. Plan map of the Main Block at the base of Level 4, showing superpositioning, 2006-2008.
209
Table 5.1. Chipped Stone Refit Table
Catalog number
Provenience
08.1/500
08.1/513
Unit 154, Level 1
Unit 154, Level 2
08.1/1496
08.1/1537
Unit 164, Level 2
Unit 164, Level 3
08.1/1858
08.1/2471
Unit 166, Level 2
Unit 164, Feature 62, West ½
Table 5.2. Sherd Refit Table
Catalog number
Provenience
08.1/1325
08.1 /1325
08.1/1325
Unit 159, Level 3
Unit 162, Level 2
Unit 162, Level 3
08.1/952
08.1/954
08.1/1082
Unit 159, Level 3
Unit 159, Level 3
Unit 160, Level 3
08.1/552
08.1/1010
Unit 154, Level 2
Unit 159, Level 4, Zones M and I
08.1/948
08.1/3248
Unit 159, Level 3
Unit 146, Level 4, Zone H
08.1/215
08.1/853
Unit 143, Level 4, Zone E
Unit 158, Level 4, Zone A
08.1/1878
08.1/1908
Unit 166, Level 3
Unit 166, Level 4, Zone A, A1
08.1/195
08.1/3221
Unit 142, Level 4, Zone E
Unit 142, Level 4, Zone E
08.1/1085
08.1/1115
Unit 160, Level 3
Unit 160, Level 4, Zone I
08.1/1828
08.1/1881
Unit 166, Level 2
Unit 166, Level 3
08.1/1739
08.1/1830
Unit 165, Level 4, Zone A, Feature 49
Unit 166, Level 2
08.1/1690
08.1/1741
Unit 165, Level 3
Unit 165, Level 4, Zone A, Feature 49
210
08.1/2343
06.98/3693, Various
Unit 143, Feature 54, East 1/2
Unit 89, Level 6, Feature 33
08.1/2348
06.98/3647, Various
Unit 143, Feature 54, East 1/2
Unit 89, Level 5, Feature 33
08.1/2448
06.98/3693, Various
Unit 161 & 162, Feature 61
Unit 89, Level 6, Feature 33
*Note: Italicized refits represent Taylor Village shell-tempered ceramics.
Embankment Construction
Unit 170 was positioned over a portion of the embankment on the east side of the
Strawtown enclosure to test whether any Taylor Village components were located
beneath the embankment. In 2002, Block 1 was placed over the embankment to
investigate the construction of the enclosure (see Figure 3.2). An assemblage of Oliver
phase ceramics was most prevalent throughout the levels excavated over the
embankment, although a few shell-tempered ceramics were observed as well (White et al.
2002:98-107). Because levels in 2002 were excavated in arbitrary levels the separation
between shell-tempered sherds and non-shell-tempered sherds was somewhat vague. In
2008 the excavation of Unit 170 removed stratigraphic levels in profile to better obtain
the distribution and depth of ceramics.
In total, five stratigraphic zones were observed through the embankment, and four
proveniences were excavated to a maximum depth of 62 cmbd. Zone 1 (plowzone) was
approximately 25 to 45 cmbd and contained 2 (2 g) non-shell-tempered sherds. Zones 2
and 3 (embankment fill) were a combined 32 to 52 cmbd and contained 3 (2.8 g) shelltempered sherds and 21 (29.5 g) non-shell-tempered sherds. Zone 4 (underlying the
embankment) was 45 to 60 cmbd and contained 15 (36.1 g) non-shell-tempered sherds.
Finally, Zone 5 (underlying the embankment) was 55 to 62 cmbd and contained 17 (17.7
g) non-shell-tempered sherds. Out of a total of 58 ceramics, weighing a combined 88.1 g,
only 3 shell-tempered sherds weighing 2.8 g were recovered from Unit 170. These 3 body
sherds (all <1/2” in size) revealed a less-refined shell temper than was consistent with
Taylor Village pottery. The fragmentary sherds recovered appear to be more similar to
shell-tempered Fort Ancient or Mississippian ware. All of the shell-tempered sherds,
along with a Fort Ancient neck sherd, were located within Zones 2 and 3, which
represented the embankment fill. In total, 32 sand/grit-tempered sherds were recovered
within the original soils underlying the embankment, representing a non-Taylor Village
occupation prior to its construction. The only diagnostic pottery from the subembankment contexts was a small Great Lakes-impressed rim sherd included with Zone
(strat) 5. These statistics coincide with earlier findings and suggest the absence of Taylor
Village ceramics underlying the embankment, providing further evidence that the
construction of the ditch and embankment predates the Taylor Village occupation of the
enclosure. Additional sub-embankment samples will need to be collected in future
excavations to further test this observation.
211
Occupation History
While the initial Late Prehistoric occupation of the Strawtown enclosure was by Oliver
phase peoples, or Middle Fort Ancient-like groups interacting in central Indiana with
Castor phase peoples (McCullough 2005), the Oliver phase occupation was succeeded by
Oneota-like peoples, as evidenced by features with Taylor Village ceramics
superpositioned over Oliver phase remains. The recovery of shell-tempered Taylor
Village pottery has consistently been from the upper levels of the deposits at the
Strawtown enclosure. This stratigraphic relationship was first observed during the earliest
excavations at Strawtown (White et al. 2002, 2003) where Features 1 and 2 (Oliver
phase) were overlain with Taylor Village ceramics mixed in a densely packed pile of
bone. A similar situation was identified in Feature 7. Once excavation got below the
mixed shell-tempered and grit-tempered pottery zone (with a high density of bone), only
sand/grit-tempered Oliver phase pottery was recovered. Other smaller cache pits
containing Taylor Village pottery and bone were identified, such as Feature 5, which was
clearly superimposed on top of Oliver phase deposits (White et al. 2003).
In 2007, Feature 33 again clearly demonstrated this stratigraphic relationship
(McCullough 2008). The upper portion of Feature 33 was full of bone, including a large
portion of a bear skull. The pottery recovered consisted of mostly Taylor Village pottery,
and the greater part of a large Taylor Village vessel was also recovered. As would be
expected on any densely occupied nucleated site, sand/grit-tempered ceramics were also
recovered from the upper strata due to mixing from continued construction and soil
moving. Most of the Taylor Village component of Feature 33 was recovered in plan by
unit/level. However, between 95 cmbd and the termination of excavation at 131 cmbd in
Feature 33 only two small shell-tempered pot sherds, together weighing less than 1 g,
were recovered. The Oliver phase sherds recovered from the same level consisted of 306
sherds, weighing 925 g. Thus, by weight, the shell-tempered sherds composed only about
0.1 percent of the ceramics recovered from the original Oliver storage pit.
During the 2008 investigations, five features (Features 54, 56, 61, 62, and 64) were
identified containing Taylor Village ceramics mixed in with a variety of faunal remains.
Most of the features were first observed in the upper portion of Level 3 (60 to 70 cmbd).
Feature 61 was superimposed over an area near the southeastern portion of the Main
Block southern extension that contained several zones and possible features, however,
these soil anomalies have not been fully investigated, but their appearance and location
are consistent with other Oliver phase features within the Main Block. Features 54 and 64
were superimposed over Oliver phase features, while Features 56 and 62 were located
near the exterior line of posts. Both of these features were superimposed over postholes.
Figure 5.8 illustrates the distribution of both Oliver phase and Taylor Village features
within the Main Block.
The deposits associated with the basin structure (Feature 49), also exhibited the upper
Taylor Village, lower Oliver relationship, although not as clearly as with the
superpositioning over the deep storage pits. Even though shell-tempered pottery was
present in the lower portion of the basin fill, the Taylor Village ceramics were eroded and
relatively low in quantity compared to those in the overlying deposits.
To confirm this relationship, a quantitative analysis of the pottery distribution was
conducted. The west wall of the 2006 Main Block excavation indicated that the Feature
49 house basin was mostly contained within level 4, although the base of the Level 3
excavation also confirmed most of the limits of the subplowzone basin. The Principal
212
Investigator believes that the majority of Level 3 was contained within an old plowzone
that mixed the upper deposits of the basin. However, it is important to note that the
arbitrary base of Level 3 (70 cmbd) does not accurately represent the base of the older
plowzone across the entire block.
A quantitative analysis comparing ceramics from Level 4 in 2008 from the units
associated with Feature 49 in the south extension (Units 129, 134, 140-146, 150, 151,
Figure 5.8. Plan map of the Main Block showing feature distribution.
213
158, 159, and 162-167) showed that 4,671.6 g (n=2,107) of sand/grit-tempered and 99.3 g
(n=80) of shell-tempered sherds were recovered from Level 4. The shell-tempered sherds
represented about 2.1 percent of the pottery in Level 4 by weight and only about 3.8
percent by count. The presence of shell-tempered sherds in Level 4 from Feature 49 is
probably partly the result of observed bioturbation, which can work smaller pieces down
through the soil, and the inexactness that is inherent in using arbitrary levels when the
base of the plowzone undulates. Most of the shell-tempered pottery from Level 4 was
recovered from the southern portion of the block excavation. The cultural deposits are
deeper in this portion of the block. In the Main Block and west extension, the house basin
is mostly absent by the base of Level 4. In some portions of the southern extension,
midden soils are still evident at the base of Level 4, and Oliver phase features and
postholes are not yet discernible. For example, during the excavation of Feature 61 (a
Taylor Village pit) a hearth underlying the midden soil was identified at the base of the
feature.
An analysis of the material recovered from postholes excavated in 2006 through 2008
demonstrated that the majority were not associated with the Taylor Village component.
An exception is posthole 11, which was identified during 2006 in the east unit wall of the
Main Block. Posthole 11 is located at N202, E212 in Units 100 and 103. This anomaly is
clearly associated with the Taylor Village use of the enclosure. Thirty-five shell-tempered
Taylor Village sherds, including one loop handle, were recovered from posthole 11,
along with seven sand/grit-tempered sherds. Posthole 11 was not re-excavated after the
2006 investigations and has not been exposed fully in plan view. However, based on the
amount of Taylor Village material, it is possible that posthole 11 represents a typical
small Taylor Village pit with only one small edge exposed in the block excavation.
Regardless, posthole 11 does not appear to fit within the post patterns associated with the
large structure.
Excluding the pottery from posthole 11, 445 sherds were recovered from postholes
during the three seasons of investigations. Only four of these sherds were shell tempered
(0.9 percent). During the 2006 excavations, two shell-tempered sherds were recovered
from posthole 46. One was a cordmarked neck sherd, and the other was a small sherd
measuring <1/2.” Cultural affiliation was not determined for either sherd. Posthole 46
was observed at a higher elevation than most postholes in the Main Block, and
superimposed on Feature 38.
During the 2008 investigation, a shell-tempered sherd was recovered from both
postholes 7-81 and 8-28. Posthole 7-81 is located within Unit 137 and aligns with the
small posts running along the westernmost side of the structure. This sherd was eroded,
and cultural affiliation could not be determined. Posthole 8-28 intrudes into the center of
a burned zone (Feature 60). A Fort Ancient incised broadline shell-tempered neck sherd
was recovered from this posthole.
The stratigraphic relationship on the enclosure strongly suggests that the Oneota
occupation on the enclosure postdates the Oliver occupation. The pattern of Oneota
discard appears to be one of infilling the depressions left on the site after its abandonment
by Oliver peoples, since the majority of the Taylor Village ceramics and faunal material
has been recovered from above large Oliver storage pits. The deep storage pits (some
over 2.5 m deep) and house basins (i.e., Feature 49) would either have not been filled
completely or could have settled as organic materials decomposed. The presence of
depressions on the site after the Oliver abandonment suggests a relatively rapid reuse,
although the radiocarbon dates from Oliver contexts in the enclosure and those associated
214
with Taylor Village are not refined enough to identify separate occupations, further
suggesting that the succession was relatively quick.
The successional occupation of an Oliver village fits with the overall distribution of
Taylor Village materials in central Indiana. Taylor Village pottery was recovered with
Castor materials in feature context at site 12-H-1057, a small habitation site east of the
enclosure. Further, these materials have been found together in a few contexts on the
Castor Farm site, most recently in a semisubterranean domestic structure discovered
during the summer 2007 REU program. The Castor phase (see chapter 2) both predates
and is contemporary with the presence of the Oliver phase in Indiana, but the later Castor
phase peoples maintained at least some type of interaction with the Oneota presence in
central Indiana. What is not evident thus far is any interaction between Oliver groups in
central and southern Indiana and the Taylor Village people. The Principal Investigator
examined all the available pottery assemblages in a 27-county area (albeit 10 years ago,
see McCullough 2000) and was unable to identify this relationship. Thus, it is not
unreasonable to assume that the presence of both Taylor Village and Oliver materials at
the Strawtown enclosure reflects successive occupations rather than social integration.
The most impressive evidence of this Oneota occupation on top of the Fort Ancient
settlement was found at the center of the enclosure in the plaza in 2007 (McCullough
2008). One of the REU student projects located a geophysical anomaly in this area, and
placement of the Central Block confirmed that the geophysical anomaly was a feature.
The investigators originally thought the feature (Feature 46) was a large post pit and ramp
for a central pole similar to the center pole or other marker poles discovered at the
contemporary SunWatch Fort Ancient site in Dayton, Ohio.
During Archaeology Month 2007, excavation was resumed in this area, but instead of
the remains of a Fort Ancient center pole, the anomaly proved to be the deep burial shaft
of a high-status Oneota individual who was buried with at least one pot decorated with
bird talons and a copper plate behind the head. The burial was not excavated, and it is
unknown what else is associated with the burial. This is, however, the first clear evidence
of a Taylor Village burial anywhere, and this one is placed in the geographic center of the
enclosure.
This placement of an important individual points to a possible ceremonial use of the
enclosure after the Oliver abandonment. A further indication of a ceremonial function is
the presence of large amounts of faunal material found in association with Taylor Village
pottery. The faunal material (even though not fully analyzed) represents higher-quality
cuts of meat, such as deer, elk, and bear. In fact, bear remains have been recovered from
all (or almost all) of the Taylor Village contexts; bear bone and Taylor Village ceramics
occur in an about one-to-one relationship. Even a broken bear maxilla was recovered
from the fill of the central Oneota burial (Feature 46). It is documented that people will
bury their dead in areas previously occupied by others as a means to legitimize their
claim to the new territory (Douglas and Buikstra 1983; Kuznar 2003). At present, it
appears as if the Oneota people at Strawtown were burying their dead and feasting on the
village of their enemies.
Future Investigations
Future investigations at the Strawtown enclosure will be to continue to expose and
investigate the architectural pattern of the structure basin (Feature 49) present in the Main
Block. This research goal will be accomplished by first re-excavating a portion of the
215
south extension of the Main Block and relocating the possible posts and features
designated during the 2008 fieldwork. The features will be excavated and the actual
postholes will be confirmed by cross sectioning. The post patterns and features will then
be documented and excavated following standard procedures. The entire south extension
will than be excavated to the base of Level 5 to further identify additional cultural
deposits. A second goal will be to expand south and east of the south extension to fully
expose Feature 49 in plan and define its boundaries.
RECOMMENDATIONS
In March of 2008, the Strawtown enclosure (12-H-883) was listed on the National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and the Indiana Register of Historic Sites and
Structures (IRHSS). The site was eligible because of the high quality of intact cultural
deposits and its role in the origin of the Late Prehistoric Oliver phase of central and
south-central Indiana, as well as its location as an important frontier setting for studying
population dynamics among multiethnic groups in boundary areas.
It is the recommendation of the IPFW-AS that this site be protected from any further
deterioration from preventable environmental causes. The site is currently being damaged
by the continued presence of trees, especially in the western third, and ground hog
activity has been a problem. Removal of the trees would destroy the cover now afforded
to the ground hog population and would halt the damage by tree roots and understory
growth.
216
REFERENCES CITED
Anderson, David G., and Glen T. Hanson
1988 Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeastern United States: A Case Study from
the Savannah River. American Antiquity 53(2):262-286.
Anonymous
1880
Atlas of DeKalb Co., Indiana. J. H. Beers and Co., Chicago, Illinois.
Anslinger, C. Michael
1990 The Akers Site: A Late Woodland Albee Phase Burial Mound in Warren
County, West Central Indiana. Technical Report 10. Anthropology Laboratory,
Indiana State University, Terre Haute.
1996
The Archaic Period in the Falls of the Ohio Region of Kentucky. Cultural
Resource Analysts, Inc. http://www.crai-ky.com/reports/falls.htm (8/21/2001).
Arnold, Craig A., Colin Graham, Scott Hipskind, Dorothea McCullough, Robert G.
McCullough, and Mariah Yager
2007 Archaeology in a Public Venue at the Strawtown Enclosure (12-H-883): 2006.
Reports of Investigations 701. IPFW Archaeological Survey, Indiana
University-Purdue University, Fort Wayne.
Asch, Nancy B., and David L. Asch
1986 Woodland Period Archeobotany of the Napoleon Hollow Site. In Woodland
Period Occupations of the Napoleon Hollow Site in the Lower Illinois Valley,
edited by Michael D. Wiant and Charles R. McGimsey, pp. 427-512.
Kampsville Archaeological Center Research Series 6. Center for American
Archaeology, Kampsville, Illinois.
Baerreis, David Albert, and Joan E. Freeman
1958 Late Woodland Pottery in Wisconsin as Seen from Aztalan. The Wisconsin
Archaeologist 39(1):35-61.
Baerreis, David Albert, Reid A. Bryson, and John E. Kutzbach
1976 Climate and Culture in the Western Great Lakes Region. Midcontinental
Journal of Archaeology 1(1):39-57.
Ball, Stephen (editor)
2002 Investigations at the Heaton Farm Site (12 Gr 122): A Late Prehistoric Village
on the Edge of the Wabash Lowlands. Research Reports 19. Glenn A. Black
Laboratory of Archaeology, Indiana University, Bloomington.
217
Barnhart, John D., and Dorothy L. Riker
1971 Indiana to 1816: The Colonial Period. Indiana Historical Bureau and Indiana
Historical Society, Indianapolis.
Bechtel, Susan K., and David M. Stothers
1993 New Perspectives on the Settlement-Subsistence System of the Late Woodland
Western Basin Tradition, ca. 500-1300 A.D. North American Archaeologist
14(2):95-122.
Bernabo, J. Christopher
1981 Quantitative Estimates of Temperature Changes over the Last 2700 Years in
Michigan Based on Pollen Data. Quaternary Research 15:143-159.
Blair, Munroe
2002 Bathroom Ceramics. Shire Publications, Oxford, England.
Boisvert, Richard A.
1986 Late Archaic Settlement Models in the Middle Ohio Valley: A Perspective from
Big Bone Lick, Kentucky. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
University of Kentucky, Lexington. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.
Brinker, Ruth
1984 An Archaeological Survey of Late Archaic Sites in Central Indiana. Glenn A.
Black Laboratory of Archaeology, Indiana University, Bloomington.
Brose, David S., and N’omi Greber (editors)
1979 Hopewell Archaeology: The Chillicothe Conference. Kent State University
Press, Kent, Ohio.
Brown, James A., and Patrick J. O’Brien
1990 At the Edge of Prehistory: Huber Phase Archaeology in the Chicago Area.
Center for American Archaeology Press, Kampsville, Illinois.
Brown, Ryland T.
1884 Geological and Topographical Survey of Hamilton and Madison Counties,
Indiana. In Indiana Department of Geology and Natural History Fourteenth
Annual Report. Indianapolis.
Brown, T.
1821
Survey Map and Notes of Township 19 North, Range 5 East. U.S. Surveyor
General Record of Field Notes, U.S. Public Lands. Microfilm on file. IPFWAS, Indiana University-Purdue University, Fort Wayne.
218
Broyles, Bettye J.
1971 Second Preliminary Report: The St. Albans Site, Kanawha County, West
Virginia, 1964-1968. Report of Archaeological Investigations 3. West Virginia
Geological and Economic Survey, Morgantown.
Bryson, R. A., and C. Padauk
1981 On the Climates of History. In Climate and History: Studies in Interdisciplinary
History, edited by Robert I. Rotberg and Theodore K. Rabb, pp. 3-17. Princeton
University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
Bush, Leslie L.
1997 Botanical Remains from Three Late Prehistoric Sites in Central Indiana.
Appendix 2 in An Archaeological Investigation of Late Prehistoric SubsistenceSettlement Diversity in Central Indiana, by Robert G. McCullough and
Timothy M. Wright. Research Reports 18. Glenn A. Black Laboratory of
Archaeology, Indiana University, Bloomington.
2001
Boundary Conditions: Botanical Remains of the Oliver Phase, Central Indiana,
A.D. 1250-1450. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
Indiana University, Bloomington.
2004
Boundary Conditions: Macrobotanical Remains and the Oliver Phase of
Central Indiana, A.D. 1200–1450. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Bush, Leslie, Rex C. Garniewicz, and Laura Pate
1999 Subsistence Strategies at the Heaton Farm Site, 12-Gr-122. Poster presented at
the 64th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Chicago,
Illinois.
Caldwell, Joseph R., and Robert L. Hall (editors)
1964 Hopewellian Studies. Scientific Papers 12. Illinois State Museum, Springfield.
Cantin, Mark
1994 Comparative Analysis of Thebes and Kirk Lithic Traditions and Implications
for Home Range Sizes. In Current Research in Indiana Archaeology and
Prehistory: 1994, edited by Brian G. Redmond, pp. 10-12. Research Reports
15. Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology, Indiana University,
Bloomington.
Cantin, Mark, John A. Schwegman, David N. Holycross, and C. Russell Stafford
2003 Geoarchaeological Investigations of the Taylor Property near Strawtown,
Hamilton County, Indiana. Technical Report 34. Indiana State University
Anthropology Laboratory, Terre Haute.
219
Carmany, Kristin
2002 Phase Ia Archaeological Reconnaissance: Proposed Hamilton County Park
near Perkinsville in Hamilton County, Indiana. Report of Investigations
02IN0016-Plr01. Landmark Archaeological and Environmental Services,
Sheridan, Indiana.
Chapman, J.
1977
Archaic Period Research in the Lower Little Tennessee River Valley. Report of
Investigations 18. University of Tennessee Department of Anthropology in
conjunction with the Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville.
Charles, Douglas K., and Jane E. Buikstra
1983 Archaic Mortuary Sites in the Central Mississippi Drainage: Distribution,
Structure, and Behavioral Implications. In Archaic Hunters and Gatherers in
the American Midwest, pp. 117-145. Academic Press, New York.
Cochran, Donald R.
1980 An Archaeological Assessment of Fox Island County Park. Unpublished
Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Ball State University, Muncie,
Indiana.
1985
Artifact Class Definitions. Appendix 1 in An Archaeological Survey on the
Wabash Moraine: A Study of Prehistoric Site and Artifact Density in the Upper
Wabash Drainage, by Donald R. Cochran and J. Buehrig. Reports of
Investigation 15. Archaeological Resources Management Service, Ball State
University, Muncie.
1987
Testing of Four Sites on the Maumee River in Indiana. Appendix C in The
Archeological Resources of the Maumee River Valley, Allen County, Indiana,
by James A. Mohow, pp. 198-217. Reports of Investigations 22. Archaeological
Resources Management Services, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana.
1996
A Point Type Database for the Upper White and Adjacent Drainage Basins in
Central Indiana. Paper presented at the 112th Annual Meeting of the Indiana
Academy of Science, Greencastle.
Cochran, Donald R., Beth A. Kolbe, and Ron L. Richards
1993 Taylor Village: Analysis of a Surface Collection. Paper presented at the 109th
Annual Meeting of the Indiana Academy of Science, West Lafayette.
Cochran, Donald R., Lisa Maust, Eric Filkins, Mitch Zoll, Sharon Staley, and Ron Richards
1988 The Hesher Site: A Late Albee Cemetery in East Central Indiana. Reports of
Investigations 24. Archaeological Resources Management Service, Ball State
University, Muncie, Indiana.
220
Collins, Michael B. (editor)
1979 Excavations at Four Archaic Sites in the Lower Ohio Valley, Jefferson County,
Kentucky, 2 vols. Occasional Papers in Anthropology 1. University of
Kentucky, Lexington.
Cook, Robert A.
2008 SunWatch: Fort Ancient Development in the Mississippian World. University of
Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Cowan, C. Wesley
1982 The Cloudsplitter Rockshelter, Menifee County, Kentucky: A Preliminary
Report. Southeastern Archaeological Conference Bulletin 24: 60-76.
1987
Cox, E. T.
1879
Cree, D.
1991
First Farmers of the Middle Ohio Valley: Fort Ancient Societies, A.D.
1000–1670. Cincinnati Museum of Natural History, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Antiquities. Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Annual Reports of the Geological Survey
of Indiana, Made during the Years 1876–77–78, pp. 121-153. Indianapolis
Journal Co., Indianapolis.
An Archaeological Database Enhancement Project: A Survey of Hamilton and
Marion Counties, Indiana. Reports of Investigation 31. Archaeological
Resources Management Service, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana.
Daniel, I. Randolph, Jr.
2001 Stone Raw Material Availability and Early Archaic Settlement in the
Southeastern United States. American Antiquity 66(2):237-265.
Davis, Margaret Bryan
1983 Holocene Vegetational History of the Eastern United States. In The Holocene,
edited by H. E. Wright Jr., pp. 166-181. Late-Quaternary Environments of the
United States, vol. 2. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
Dorwin, John T
1966 Fluted Points and Late-Pleistocene Geochronology in Indiana. Prehistory
Research Series 4(3). Indiana Historical Society, Indianapolis.
1971
The Bowen Site: An Archaeological Study of Cultural Process in the Late
Prehistory of Central Indiana. Prehistory Research Series 4(4). Indiana
Historical Society, Indianapolis.
221
Drooker, Penelope B.
1997 The View from Madisonville: Protohistoric Western Fort Ancient Interaction
Patterns. Memoirs 31. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor.
2000
Madisonville Focus Revisited: Reexcavating Southwestern Ohio Fort Ancient
from Museum Collections. In Cultures Before Contact: The Late Prehistory of
Ohio and Surrounding Regions, edited by Robert A. Genheimer, pp. 228-270.
The Ohio Archaeological Council, Columbus, Ohio.
Edmunds, R. David
1984 Tecumseh and the Quest for Indian Leadership. HarperCollins, New York.
Eggan, Frederick R.
1930 Report of work done on Archaeological Survey, August 11-25, 1930, Hamilton
County, Indiana. Ms. on file, Indiana Historical Society, Indianapolis.
Emerson, Kjersti
2006 Preliminary Observations on Continuity and Variation in Fisher Phase Ceramics.
Paper presented at the annual Midwest Archaeological Conference, Urbana,
Illinois, October 12-15.
Emerson, Thomas E.
1999 The Langford Tradition and the Process of Tribalization on the Middle
Mississippian Borders. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 24:3-56.
Essenpreis, Patricia S.
1982 The Anderson Village Site: Redefining the Anderson Phase of the Fort Ancient
Tradition of the Middle Ohio Valley. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Department of Anthropology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
1988
An Introduction to the Fort Ancient Cultural Complexes of the Middle Ohio
Valley. In A History of 17 Years of Excavation and Reconstruction: A Chronicle
of 12th Century Human Values and the Built Environment, edited by James M.
Heilman, Malinda C. Lileas, and Christopher A. Turnbow, pp. 1-22. Dayton
Museum of Natural History, Dayton, Ohio.
Fagan, Brian M.
1991 Ancient North America: The Archaeology of a Continent. Thames and Hudson,
London, England.
2000
The Little Ice Age: How Climate Made History, 1300-1850. Basic Books, New
York.
222
Faulkner, Charles H.
1972 The Late Prehistoric Occupation of Northwestern Indiana: A Study of the Upper
Mississippi Cultures of the Kankakee Valley. Prehistory Research Series 5(1).
Indiana Historical Society, Indianapolis.
Fischer, Fred William
1974 Early and Middle Woodland Settlement, Subsistence and Population in the
Central Ohio Valley. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
Washington University, St. Louis.
Fitting, James E.
1965 Late Woodland Cultures of Southeastern Michigan. Anthropology Papers 24.
Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Fitting, James E., John R. Halsey, and H. Martin Wobst
1968 Contributions to Michigan Archaeology. Anthropology Papers 32. Museum of
Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Fritz, Gayle J.
1999 Gender and the Early Cultivation of Gourds in Eastern North America.
American Antiquity 64(3):417-429.
Funk, Robert E.
1978 Post-Pleistocene Adaptations. In Handbook of North American Indians:
Northeast, vol. 15, edited by Bruce G. Trigger, pp. 16-27. Smithsonian
Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Gammon, James R., and Shelby D. Gerking
1966 Fishes. In Natural Features of Indiana, edited by Alton A. Lindsey, pp. 401425. Indiana Academy of Science, Indianapolis.
Garniewicz, Rexford C.
1997 Faunal Remains from 12 Mg 1, 12 Jo 289, and 12 Jo 5. Appendix 3 in An
Archaeological Investigation of Late Prehistoric Subsistence-Settlement
Diversity in Central Indiana, by Robert G. McCullough and Timothy M.
Wright. Research Reports 18. Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology,
Indiana University, Bloomington.
Goodspeed, W. A., and C. Blanchard (editors)
1882 Counties of Whitley and Noble, Indiana: Historical and Biographical. F. A.
Battey and Co., Chicago, Illinois.
Google Earth
2006 www.googleearth.com. Accessed March, 2008.
223
Graybill, Jeffrey Robert
1981 The Eastern Periphery of Fort Ancient (A.D. 1050-1650): A Diachronic
Approach to Settlement Variability. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Department of Anthropology, University of Washington, Seattle.
Green, William
1993 Examining Protohistoric Depopulation in the Upper Midwest. The Wisconsin
Archaeologist 74:290-323.
Green, William (editor)
1995 Oneota Archaeology: Past, Present, Future. Report 20. Office of the State
Archaeologist, University of Iowa, Iowa City.
Griffin, James B.
1943 The Fort Ancient Aspect. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
1946
Cultural Change and Continuity in Eastern United States Archaeology. In Man
in Northeastern North America, edited by Frederick Johnson, pp. 37-95. Papers
of the Robert S. Peabody Foundation for Archaeology 3. Andover,
Massachusetts.
1952
Cultural Periods in the Eastern United States Archaeology. In Archaeology of
the Eastern United States, edited by James B. Griffin, pp. 352-364. University
of Chicago Press, Chicago.
1960a Climatic Change: A Contributory Cause of the Growth and Decline of Northern
Hopewellian Culture. The Wisconsin Archaeologist 41:21-33.
1960b A Hypothesis for the Prehistory of the Winnebago. In Culture in History:
Essays in Honor of Paul Radin, edited by Stanley Diamond, pp. 809-865.
Columbia University Press, New York.
1961
Some Correlations of Climate and Cultural Change in Eastern North American
Prehistory. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 95:710-717.
1967
Eastern North American Archaeology: A Summary. Science 156:175-191.
Grove, Jean M.
1988 The Little Ice Age. Methuen, New York.
Guernsey, E. Y.
1968 The Indians’ Map. Publication 122. Indiana Department of Natural Resources,
Indianapolis.
224
Gunn, J., and R. E. W. Adams
1981 Climatic Change, Culture, and Civilization in North America. World
Archaeology 13(1):87-100.
Haines, John F.
1915 History of Hamilton County, Indiana: Her People, Industries, and Institutions.
2 vols. Bowen and Co., Indianapolis.
Hall, Robert L.
1987 Type Description of Starved Rock Collared. The Wisconsin Archaeologist
68:67-70.
Halsey, John R.
1976 The Bussinger Site: A Multi Component Site in the Saginaw Valley of Michigan.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of
North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Hart, John Paxton
1992 A Critique of the Adaptive-Type Concept in Eastern Woodlands Prehistory.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Northwestern
University, Evanston, Illinois.
Hedge, Roger L.
1997 Forested Swell and Swale: The Central Till Plain Natural Region. In The
Natural Heritage of Indiana, edited by Marion T. Jackson, pp. 195-199. Indiana
University Press, Bloomington.
Heilman, James M., D. C. Anderson, and Christopher A. Turnbow
1990 Exploring Fort Ancient Culture: Dayton’s Prehistoric Indian Village. Museum
Anthropology 14(1):17-20.
Heilman, James M., Malinda C. Lileas, and Christpher A. Turnbow (editors)
1988 A History of 17 Years of Excavation and Reconstruction: A Chronicle of 12th
Century Human Values and the Built Environment. Dayton Museum of Natural
History, Dayton, Ohio.
Helm, Thomas B.
1880 History of Hamilton County, Indiana, with Illustrations and Biographical
Sketches of Some of Its Prominent Men and Pioneers. Kingman Brothers,
Chicago, Illinois.
225
Helmen, Vernon R.
1950 The Cultural Affiliations and Relationships of the Oliver Farm Site, Marion
County, Indiana. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology,
Indiana University, Bloomington.
Helmkamp, C. R.
1992 Archaeological Test Excavations at Foxberry Trace, Johnson County, Indiana
(Site 12-Jo-4). Reports of Investigations 92:17. Cultural Resource Management
Program, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana.
Henderson, A. Gwynn (editor)
1992 Fort Ancient Cultural Dynamics in the Middle Ohio Valley. Monographs in
World Archaeology 8. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin.
Henderson, A. Gwynn, and David Pollack
2004 Middle Fort Ancient Circular Village Organization. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Montreal, Canada.
Hipskind, Scott
2005 A Triangular Projectile Point Typological Study of Late Prehistoric Sites in
Central Indiana. In Late Prehistoric Archaeology of a Frontier, edited by
Robert G. McCullough, pp. 248-258. Reports of Investigations 502. IPFW
Archaeological Survey, Fort Wayne, Indiana.
2006
Preliminary Geophysical Testing and Its Implications for Site 12-H-1052, an
Upland Late Prehistoric site in central Indiana. Manuscript on file at the Indiana
University-Purdue University, Fort Wayne Archaeological Survey, Fort Wayne,
Indiana.
Hixon, James Lee
1988 An Archaeological Assessment of the Strawtown Site and the Immediate
Vicinity. Unpublished Master’s thesis. Department of Anthropology, Ball State
University, Muncie, Indiana.
Homoya, Michael A.
1997 The Natural Regions: An Introduction. In The Natural Heritage of Indiana,
edited by Marion T. Jackson, pp. 158-160. Indiana University Press,
Bloomington.
Homoya, Michael A., D. Brian Abrell, James R. Aldrich, and Thomas W. Post
1985 The Natural Regions of Indiana. Indiana Academy of Science Proceedings
94:245-268.
226
Hosteter, Willliam D.
1978 Soil Survey of Hamilton County, Indiana. United States Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.
Janzen, David E.
1977 An Examination of Late Archaic Development in the Falls of the Ohio River
Area. In For the Director: Essays in Honor of James B. Griffin, edited by
Charles E. Cleland, pp. 123-143. Anthropological Papers 61. Museum of
Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Jefferies, Richard W.
1988 Archaic Period Research in Kentucky: Past Accomplishments and Future
Directions. In Paleoindian and Archaic Research in Kentucky, edited by
Charles D. Hockensmith, David Pollack, and Thomas N. Sanders, pp. 85-126.
Kentucky Heritage Council, Lexington.
Jeske, Robert J.
1992 Energetic Efficiency and Lithic Technology: An Upper Mississippian Example.
American Antiquity 57:467-481.
Jones, Olive, and Catherine Sullivan
1989 The Parks Canada Glass Glossary for the Description of Containers,
Tableware, Flat Glass, and Closures. Revised edition. Canadian Parks Service,
Ottawa.
Justice, Noel D.
1987 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Midcontinental and Eastern United
States. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.
Justice, Noel D., and Edward E. Smith
1988 An Archaeological Reconnaissance of Quarry and Workshop Sites in the
Vicinity of Harrison County, Indiana. Reports of Investigations 88-11. Glenn
A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology, Indiana University, Bloomington.
Kellar, James H.
1983 An Introduction to the Prehistory of Indiana. Indiana Historical Society,
Indianapolis.
King, Frances B.
1990 Geographic Setting, Past and Present Physiography, Potential Subsistence
Resources. In Archaeological Investigations at the Morton Village and Norris
Farms 36 Cemetery, edited by Sharron K. Santure, Alan D. Harn, and Duane
Esarey, pp. 3-5. Reports of Investigations 45. Illinois State Museum,
Springfield.
227
1993
Climate, Culture, and Oneota Subsistence in Central Illinois. In Foraging and
Farming in the Eastern Woodlands, edited by C. Margaret Scarry, pp. 232-254.
University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
King, Frances B., and Russell W. Graham
1981 Effects of Ecological and Paleoecological Patterns on Subsistence and
Paleoenvironmental Reconstructions. American Antiquity 46:128-142.
King, J. E.
1981
Late Quaternary Vegetational History of Illinois. Ecological Monographs
51(1):43-62.
Knox, James C.
1993 Large Increases in Flood Magnitude in Response to Modest Changes in
Climate. Nature 361:430-432.
Koerner, R. M.
1977 Devon Island Ice Cap: Core Stratigraphy and Paleoclimate. Science 196:10431048.
Krakker, James Joseph
1983 Changing Socio-Cultural Systems during the Late Prehistoric Period in
Southeast Michigan. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of
Anthropology, University of Michigan.
Kuznar, Lawrence
2003 Sacred Sites and Profane Conflicts: The Use of Burial Facilities and Other
Sacred Locations as Territorial Markers—Ethnographic Evidence. In Theory,
Method, and Technique in Modern Archaeology, edited by Robert Jeske and
Douglas Charles, pp. 269-286. Greenwood, Westport, Connecticut.
LaMarche, V. C., Jr.
1974 Paleoclimatic Inferences from Long Tree-Ring Records. Science 183:10431048.
Lewis, Thomas M. N., and Madeline Kneberg Lewis
1961 Eva: An Archaic Site. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.
Lilly, Eli
1937
Prehistoric Antiquities of Indiana. Indiana Historical Society, Indianapolis.
Mainfort, Robert C., and Lynn Sullivan (editors)
1998 Ancient Earthen Enclosures of the Eastern Woodlands. University Press of
Florida, Gainesville.
228
Mansberger, Floyd
1997 Early Industrialized Pottery Production in Illinois: Archaeological
Investigations at White and Company’s Gooselake Stoneware Manufactory and
Tile Works, Rural Grundy County, Illinois. Reports of Investigations 53.
Illinois State Museum, Springfield.
Marcus, Joyce
1994 Introduction. In Tribal and Chiefly Warfare in South America, edited by Elsa
M. Redmond, pp. v-vii. Studies in Latin American Ethnohistory and
Archaeology, vol. 5. Memoirs 28. Museum of Anthropology, University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Martínez, Oscar J.
1994 Border People: Life and Society in the U.S.-Mexico Borderlands. University of
Arizona Press, Tucson.
McCord, Beth
2006 Archaeological Subsurface Reconnaissance: Koteewi Park Lake, Hamilton
County, Indiana. Reports of Investigation 70. Archaeological Resources
Management Service, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana.
McCord, Beth K., and Donald R. Cochran
1994 Morrell-Sheets: An Albee Phase Habitation. Reports of Investigation 38.
Archaeological Resources Management Service, Ball State University, Muncie,
Indiana.
1996
Woodland Sites in East Central Indiana: A Survey and Evaluation. Reports of
Investigations 43. Archaeological Resources Management Service, Ball State
University, Muncie, Indiana.
2003
An Archaeological Survey of the Taylor Property at the Strawtown Prairie,
Hamilton County, Indiana. Reports of Investigation 64. Archaeological
Resources Management Service, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana.
McCullough, Robert G.
1991 A Reanalysis of Ceramics from the Bowen Site: Implications for Defining the
Oliver Phase of Central Indiana. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of
Anthropology, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana.
1992
An Overview of the Oliver Phase: A Late Prehistoric Manifestation from
Central Indiana. In Native American Cultures in Indiana: Proceedings of the
First Minnetrista Council for Great Lakes Native American Studies, edited by
Ron Hicks, pp. 43-56. Minnetrista Cultural Center and Ball State University,
Muncie, Indiana.
229
1997
Swidden Cultivators of Central Indiana: The Oliver Phase in a Context of
Swidden Agriculture and the Implications of Regional Climate Change. Indiana
Archaeology 1:54-114.
2000
The Oliver Phase of Central Indiana: A Study of Settlement Variability as a
Response to Social Risk. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of
Anthropology, University of Southern Illinois, Carbondale.
2003
Cultural Interaction along the West Fork of White River during the Late
Prehistoric Period. In Facing the Final Millennium: Studies in the Late
Prehistory of Indiana, A.D. 700 to 1700, pp. 141-171. Indiana Department of
Natural Resources, Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology,
Indianapolis.
2007
Castor Phase Peoples of Central Indiana. Paper presented at the symposium,
Filling the Black Hole: Current Research in Indiana Archaeology, at the annual
Midwest Archaeological Conference, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame,
Indiana, October 6, 2007.
McCullough, Robert G. (editor)
2005 Late Prehistoric Archaeology of a Frontier. Reports of Investigations 502.
IPFW Archaeological Survey, Fort Wayne, Indiana.
2008
Archaeology in a Public Venue at the Strawtown Enclosure (12-H-883):2007.
Reports of Investigations 803. IPFW Archaeological Survey, Fort Wayne,
Indiana.
McCullough, Robert G., and Timothy M.. Wright
1996 An Archaeological Investigation of Late Prehistoric Subsistence-Settlement
Diversity in Central Indiana. Reports of Investigations 96-14. Glenn A. Black
Laboratory of Archaeology, Indiana University, Bloomington.
1997a An Archaeological Investigation of Late Prehistoric Subsistence-Settlement
Diversity in Central Indiana. Research Reports 18. Glenn A. Black Laboratory
of Archaeology, Indiana University, Bloomington.
1997b Population Dynamics of the Late Prehistoric: A Case Study from the Lower
West Fork of the White River. Reports of Investigations 97-18. Glenn A. Black
Laboratory of Archaeology, Indiana University, Bloomington.
McCullough, Robert G., Andrew A. White, Michael R. Strezewski, and Dorothea McCullough
2004 Frontier Interaction during the Late Prehistoric Period: A Case Study from
Central Indiana. Reports of Investigations 401. IPFW Archaeological Survey,
Fort Wayne, Indiana.
230
McGregor, John R.
1988 Analysis of Stoneware Pottery of West Central Indiana. Ohio Historical Valley
Archaeology 6:97-100.
Melhorn, Wilton N.
1997 Indiana on Ice: The Late Tertiary and Ice Age History of Indiana Landscapes.
In The Natural Heritage of Indiana, edited by Marion T. Jackson, pp. 15-27.
Indiana University Press, Bloomington.
Milner, George R., Virginia G. Smith, and Eve Anderson
1991 Conflict, Mortality, and Community Health in an Illinois Oneota Population. In
Between Bands and States, edited by Susan A. Gregg, pp. 245-264. Occasional
Paper 9. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University,
Carbondale.
Minton, Sherman A., Jr.
1966 Amphibians and Reptiles. In Natural Features of Indiana, edited by Alton A.
Lindsey, pp. 426-451. Indiana Academy of Science, Indianapolis.
Mohow, James A.
1987 The Archaeological Resources of the Maumee River Valley, Allen County,
Indiana. Reports of Investigations 22. Archaeological Resources Management
Service, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana.
Moore, Mark W.
1987 The Archaeological Resources of North-Central Allen County, Indiana. Ms. on
file, Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology, Indiana University,
Bloomington.
Mumford, Russell E.
1966 Mammals. In Natural Feature of Indiana, edited by Alton A. Lindsey, pp. 474488. Indiana Academy of Science, Indianapolis.
Munson, Patrick J.
1986 What Happened in the Archaic in the Midwestern United States? Reviews in
Anthropology 13(4):276-282.
Munson, Patrick J., and Cheryl A. Munson
1972 Unfinished Triangular Projectile Points or “Humpbacked” Knives?
Pennsylvania Archaeologist 42(3):31-36.
Newman, James E.
1997 Our Changing Climate. In The Natural Heritage of Indiana, edited by Marion
T. Jackson, pp. 85-99. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.
231
O’Brien, Patrick K.
1997a Report of Archaeological Monitoring on Lots 98, 99, 101, 102, and 151-156 of
the Foxberry Trace Development, Site 12 Jo 5 (the Crouch Site), Johnson
County, Indiana. Report of Investigations 97-34. Glenn A. Black Laboratory of
Archaeology, Indiana University, Bloomington.
1997b Archaeological Recovery of Features 110 and 111 on Site 12 Jo 5 in Lot 153,
Section 3 of the Foxberry Trace Development, Johnson County, Indiana. Report
of Investigations 97-46. Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology, Indiana
University, Bloomington.
O’Brien, Patrick K., and Mary E. Pirkl
1996 Phase II Subsurface Archaeological Investigations at Site 12 Jo 8, Johnson
County, Indiana. Report of Investigations 96-35. Glenn A. Black Laboratory of
Archaeology, Indiana University, Bloomington.
O’Brien, Patrick K., Mary E. Pirkl, and Leslie L. Bush
1996 Phase II Subsurface Archaeological Investigations at Site 12-H-807, Hamilton
County, Indiana. Report of Investigations 96-41. Glenn A. Black Laboratory of
Archaeology, Indiana University, Bloomington.
1997
Olsen, S. L.
1980
Report of Archaeological Investigations at 12 Jo 5 (the Crouch Site), Johnson
County, Indiana. Report of Investigations 97-16. Glenn A. Black Laboratory of
Archaeology, Indiana University, Bloomington.
Bone Artifacts from Kinishba Ruin: Their Manufacture and Use. Kiva 46(12):39-67.
Ottesen, Anne I.
1985 Woodland Settlement Patterns in Northwestern Kentucky. In Woodland Period
Research in Kentucky, edited by David Pollack, Tom Sanders, and Charles
Hockensmith, pp. 166-186. Kentucky Heritage Council, Frankfort.
Overstreet, David F.
1997 Oneota Prehistory and History. The Wisconsin Archeologist 78(1-2):250-296.
Pacheco, Paul J.
1996 Ohio Hopewell Regional Settlement Patterns. In A View from the Core: A
Synthesis of Ohio Hopewell Archaeology, edited by Paul J. Pacheco, pp. 16-35.
Ohio Archaeological Council, Columbus.
232
Paschall, Gabrielle
2006 Assessing the Predictability of Large Pit Features Using Geophysical
Techniques. Manuscript on file at the Indiana University-Purdue University,
Fort Wayne Archaeological Survey, Fort Wayne, Indiana.
Penman, John T.
1988 Neo-Boreal Climatic Influences on the Late Prehistoric Agricultural Groups in
the Upper Mississippi Valley. Geoarchaeology 3(2):139-145.
Petty, R. O., and M. T. Jackson
1966 Plant Communities. In Natural Features of Indiana, edited by Alton A.
Lindsey, pp. 264-296. Indiana Academy of Science, Indianapolis.
Pollack, David, and A. Gwynn Henderson
1992 Toward a Model of Fort Ancient Society. In Fort Ancient Cultural Dynamics
in the Middle Ohio Valley, edited by A. Gwynn Henderson, pp. 281-294.
Monographs in World Archaeology 8. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin.
Post, Thomas W.
1997 Where Tallgrasses Waved: The Grand Prairie Natural Region. In The Natural
Heritage of Indiana, edited by Marion T. Jackson, pp. 189-193. Indiana
University Press, Bloomington.
Railey, James A.
1992 Chipped Stone Artifacts. In Fort Ancient Cultural Dynamics in the Middle Ohio
Valley, edited by A. Gwynn Henderson, pp. 137-169. Monographs in World
Archaeology 8. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin.
Redmond, Brian G.
1991 An Archaeological Investigation of Late Woodland Period Settlement in the
East Fork White River Valley: Martin, Lawrence and Jackson Counties,
Indiana. Report of Investigation 91-15. Glenn A. Black Laboratory of
Archaeology, Indiana University, Bloomington.
1993a The 1991 Excavation at Clampitt Site (12-Lr-329), an Oliver Phase Village Site
in Lawrence County, Indiana. In Current Research in Indiana Archaeology and
Prehistory: 1991 & 1992, edited by Brian G. Redmond, pp. 39-42. Research
Reports 14. Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology, Indiana University,
Bloomington.
1993b The 1992 Excavation of the Clampitt Site 12-Lr-329. In Current Research in
Indiana Archaeology and Prehistory: 1991 & 1992, edited by Brian G.
Redmond, pp. 89-90. Research Reports 14. Glenn A. Black Laboratory of
Archaeology, Indiana University, Bloomington.
233
1994a The Summer 1993 Excavation of the Cox’s Woods Site (12 Or 1), a Late
Prehistoric, Oliver Phase Village in the Pioneer Mothers Memorial Forest
Recreation Area, Hoosier National Forest. Reports of Investigations 94-17.
Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology, Indiana University, Bloomington.
1994b The Archaeology of the Clampitt Site (12-Lr-329), an Oliver Phase Village in
Lawrence County, Indiana. Research Reports 16. Glenn A. Black Laboratory of
Archaeology, Indiana University, Bloomington.
2003
The Oliver Phase Occupation of the East Fork White River Valley in South
Central Indiana. In Facing the Final Millennium: Studies in the Late Prehistory
of Indiana, A.D. 700 to 1700, pp. 202-254. Indiana Department of Natural
Resources, Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology, Indianapolis.
Redmond, Brian G., and Robert G. McCullough
1993 Survey and Test Excavation of Late Prehistoric, Oliver Phase Components in
Martin, Lawrence, and Orange Counties, Indiana. Reports of Investigations
93-13. Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology, Indiana University,
Bloomington.
1995
The Summer 1993-94 Excavations of the Cox's Woods Site (12-Or-1), a Late
Prehistoric Oliver Phase Village in the Pioneer Mothers Memorial Forest,
Orange County, Indiana. Reports of Investigation 95-9. Glenn A. Black
Laboratory of Archaeology, Indiana University, Bloomington.
1996
Excavations at the Cox’s Woods Site (12-Or-1): A Late Prehistoric Oliver
Phase Village in the Pioneer Mothers Memorial Forest, Orange County,
Indiana. Research Reports 17. Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology,
Indiana University, Bloomington.
1997
The Late Woodland to Late Prehistoric Occupations of Central Indiana. Paper
presented at the Urbana Late Woodland Conference, March 1997, University of
Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
2000
The Late Woodland to Late Prehistoric Occupations of Central Indiana. In Late
Woodland Societies: Tradition and Transformation across the Midcontinent,
edited by Thomas E. Emerson, Dale L. McElrath, and Andrew C. Fortier, pp.
643-683. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
Rerick, J. H.
1882 History of LaGrange County. In Counties of LaGrange and Noble, Indiana,
Historical and Biographical, pp. 28-31. Battey and Co., Chicago, Chicago.
234
Richards, Ronald L., and John O. Whitaker Jr.
1997 Indiana’s Vertebrate Fauna: Origins and Change. In The Natural Heritage of
Indiana, edited by Marion T. Jackson, pp. 144-156. Indiana University Press,
Bloomington.
Robertson, R. S.
1875 Antiquities of Allen and DeKalb Counties, Indiana. In “Ethnology,” Annual
Report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, Showing the
Operations, Expenditures, and Conditions of the Institution for the Year 1874,
pp. 380-384. Washington, D.C.
1888
Prehistoric Remains. In History of Allen County, Indiana, edited by Thomas B.
Helm, pp. 45-46. Kingman Brothers, Chicago, Illinois.
Santure, Sharron K.
1990 Social Conflict. In Archaeological Investigations at the Morton Village and
Norris Farms 36 Cemetery, edited by Sharron K. Santure, Alan D. Harn, and
Duane Esarey, pp. 154-159. Reports of Investigations 45. Illinois State
Museum, Springfield.
Schmidt and Associates
2002 Hamilton County Parks and Recreation Taylor Property Master Plan. Project
2001-022. Schmidt and Associates, Indianapolis.
Schmidt, Christopher W.
1998 Dietary Reconstruction in Prehistoric Humans from Indiana: An Analysis of
Dental Macrowear, Dental Pathology, and Dental Microwear. Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Purdue University, West
Lafayette, Indiana.
Schneider, Allan F.
1966 Physiography. In Natural Features of Indiana, edited by Alton A. Lindsey, pp.
40-56. Indiana Academy of Sciences, Indianapolis.
Schneider, Andrew M.
2000 Archaeological Reflections of the Western Basin Tradition in the Maumee River
Valley of Western Lake Erie, with Special Emphasis on Ceramic Analysis.
Unpublished Master’s thesis, University of Toledo.
Schneider, Andrew M., and Erica L. Cameron
2004 Phase III Archaeological Data Recovery of the Singer Site (33DE266), DEFCR134-1.5 (PID 15741), Delaware Township, Defiance County, Ohio. Mannik
& Smith Group, Inc., Maumee, Ohio.
235
Seeman, Mark F.
1979 The Hopewell Interaction Sphere: The Evidence for Interregional Trade and
Structural Complexity. Prehistory Research Series 5(2). Indiana Historical
Society, Indianapolis.
1981
A Late Woodland Steatite Pipe from the Catlin Site, Vermillion County,
Indiana: The Implications for East-West Trade. Archaeology of Eastern North
America 9:103-109.
Sharp, William E.
1990 Fort Ancient Period. In The Archaeology of Kentucky: Past Accomplishments
and Future Directions, edited by David A. Pollack, pp. 467-557. Kentucky
Heritage Council, Frankfort.
Sieber, Ellen, Cheryl A. Munson, and Edward E. Smith
1989 Archaeological Resource Management Overview for the Hoosier National
Forest, Indiana. Reports of Investigations 89-9. Glenn A. Black Laboratory of
Archaeology, Indiana University, Bloomington.
Slocum, Charles Elihu
1905 History of the Maumee River Basin from Its Earliest Accounts to Its
Organization into Counties. Bowen and Slocum, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Smith, Edward E.
1984 Paleo-Indian and Early Archaic Settlement Patterns in Southcentral Indiana.
Manuscript on file, Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology, Indiana
University, Bloomington.
1989
Paleoindian Settlement and Lithic Procurement Patterns in the Karstic Region
of Southcentral Indiana. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of
Anthropology, Indiana University, Bloomington.
Smith, Edward E., and Stephen T. Mocas
1995 Archaeological Investigations at Paddy’s West Substation, Floyd County,
Indiana. Reports of Investigations 95-4. Glenn A. Black Laboratory of
Archaeology, Indiana University, Bloomington.
Stafford, C. Russell
1994 Structural Changes in Archaic Landscape Use in the Dissected Uplands of
Southwestern Indiana. American Antiquity 59(2):219-237.
236
Stephenson, P. Ranel, Donald R. Cochran, Lorna Gentry Laymon, and Diana R. Conover
1984 The Archaeological Resources of the Upper White River Drainage with
Emphasis on the Woodland Period. Reports of Investigation 12.
Archaeological Resource Service, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana.
Stewart, James
2006 Resistivity in Profile: Defining Features with Vertical Resistivity Data.
Manuscript on file at the Indiana University-Purdue University, Fort Wayne
Archaeological Survey, Fort Wayne, Indiana.
Stillwell, Larry N.
1996 An Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of the Proposed Realignment of
234th Street, Hamilton County, Indiana. Cultural Resource Management Report
96FR4. Archaeological Consultants of Ossian, Ossian, Indiana.
Stothers, David M.
1995 The “Michigan Owasco” and the Iroquois Co-Tradition: Late Woodland
Conflict, Conquest, and Cultural Realignment in the Western Lower Great
Lakes. Northeast Anthropology 49:5-41.
Stothers, David M., and Timothy J. Abel
1989 The Position of the “Pearson Complex” in the Late Prehistory of Northern
Ohio. Archaeology of Eastern North America 17:109-141.
Stothers, David M., and Susan K. Bechtel
1994 The Land Between the Lakes: New Perspectives on the Late Woodland (ca.
A.D. 500-A.D. 1300) Time Period in the Region of the St. Clair-Detroit River
System. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Ohio Archaeological
Council, Cincinnati.
Stothers, David M., and James R. Graves
1983 Cultural Continuity and Change: The Western Basin, Ontario Iroquois, and
Sandusky Traditions: A 1982 Perspective. Archaeology of Eastern North
America 11:109-142.
Stothers, David M., and G. Michael Pratt
1981 New Perspectives on the Late Woodland Cultures of the Lake Erie Region.
Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 6(1):91-121.
237
Stothers, David M., and Andrew M. Schneider
2003 Implications of the Wolf Phase Dispersal of Terminal Western Basin Tradition
Populations into Northern Indiana during Late Prehistory. In Facing the Final
Millennium: Studies in the Late Prehistory of Indiana, A.D. 700 to 1700, pp.
172-200. Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Historic
Preservation and Archaeology, Indianapolis.
Stothers, David M., James R. Graves, Susan K. Bechtel, and Timothy J. Abel
1994 Current Perspectives on the Late Prehistory of the Western Lake Erie Region
and a Reply to Murphy and Ferris. Archaeology of Eastern North America
22:135-196.
Strezewski, Michael
2002 Investigations at the Pottersville Site (12Ow431): A Small Oliver Phase
Habitation Site in Owen County, Indiana. Research Reports 20. Glenn A.
Black Laboratory of Archaeology, Indiana University, Bloomington.
2005
Mortuary Practices at the Castor Farm Site (12-H-3) within a Regional
Perspective. Paper presented at the Central States Anthropology Society,
Oxford, Ohio, March 11, 2005.
Strezewski, Michael, Staffan Peterson, and Steven J. Ball
1999 Late Prehistoric Architecture at the Heaton Farm Site, 12-Gr-122. Poster
presented at the 64th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology,
Chicago.
Strum, R. H.
1979 Soil Survey of Johnson County, Indiana. United States Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, in Cooperation with the Purdue
Agricultural Experiment Station. Washington, D.C.
Sugden, John
1997 Tecumseh: A Life. Holt, New York.
Sullivan, Lynn P. (editor)
1996 Reanalyzing the Ripley Site: Earthworks and Late Prehistory on the Lake Erie
Plain. New York State Museum Bulletin 489. University of the State of New
York, Albany.
Surovell, Todd A.
2000 Early Paleoindian Women, Children, Mobility, and Fertility. American
Antiquity 65(3):493-508.
238
Tankersley, Kenneth B.
1986 Bison Exploitation by Late Fort Ancient Peoples in the Central Ohio River
Valley. North American Archaeologist 7:289-303.
1987
Patterns in Lithic Resource Procurement and Exploitation among Early
Paleoindians of Indiana. Reports of Investigations 87-60. Glenn A. Black
Laboratory of Archaeology, Indiana University, Bloomington.
1989
Late Pleistocene Lithic Exploitation and Human Settlement in the Midwestern
United States. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
Indiana University, Bloomington.
1992
Bison and Subsistence Change: The Protohistoric Ohio Valley and Illinois
Valley Connection. In Long-Term Subsistence Change in Prehistoric North
America, edited by Dale R. Croes, Rebecca A. Hawkins, and Barry L. Isaac, pp.
103-130. Research in Economic Anthropology, Supplement 6. JAI Press,
Greenwich, Connecticut.
Tankersley, Kenneth B., and Barry L. Isaac (editors)
1990 Early Paleoindian Economies of Eastern North America. Research in
Economic Anthropology Supplement 5. JAI Press, Greenwich, Connecticut.
Tanner, Helen H. (editor)
1987 Atlas of Great Lakes Indian History. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Tomak, Curtis J.
1970 Aboriginal Occupation in the Vicinity of Greene County, Indiana. Unpublished
Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Indiana University,
Bloomington.
Vickery, Kent D.
1976 An Approach to Inferring Archaeological Site Variability. Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Indiana University, Bloomington.
Warner, Leon E.
2000 The Tipton Lands: Paleo-Indians to Settlers. Warner, Tipton, Indiana.
Wayne, William J.
1963 Pleistocene Formations in Indiana. Bulletin 25. Indiana Geological Survey,
Bloomington.
1966
Ice and Land. In Natural Features in Indiana, edited by Alton A. Lindsey, pp.
21-39. Indiana Academy of Science, Indianapolis.
239
Wells, Tom
2000
Nail Chronology: The Use of Technologically Derived Features. In Approaches
to Material Culture: Research for Historical Archaeologists, 2nd edition,
compiled by David R. Brauner, pp. 318-339. Society for Historical
Archaeology, California, Pennsylvania.
White, Andrew A.
2005 Modified Bone and Antler from Rockhouse Hollow Shelter. In Rockhouse
Hollow Shelter: Prehistoric Occupations in the Hill Country of Southern
Indiana, edited by N. Justice. Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology,
Indiana University, Bloomington.
White, Andrew A., and Robert G. McCullough
2002 Construction, Use, and Deterioration of Two Late Prehistoric Earthen
Enclosures in Indiana. Paper presented at the 48th Annual Meeting, Midwest
Archaeological Conference, October 3-6. Columbus, Ohio.
White, Andrew A., Dorothea McCullough, and Robert G. McCullough
2002 An Archaeological Evaluation of Late Prehistoric Village and Subsistence
Patterns in North-Central and Northeastern Indiana. Reports of Investigations
216. IPFW Archaeological Survey, Indiana University-Purdue University, Fort
Wayne.
2003
Archaeological Investigation of Areas of Proposed Development within the
Taylor Property, Hamilton County, Indiana. Reports of Investigations 311 and
312. IPFW Archaeological Survey, Indiana University-Purdue University, Fort
Wayne.
White, Andrew A., Robert G. McCullough, and Dorothea McCullough
2003 Archaeological Investigations at Two Late Prehistoric Earthen Enclosures in
Indiana. Reports of Investigations 301. IPFW Archaeological Survey, Indiana
University-Purdue University, Fort Wayne.
White, Richard D.
1991 The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires, and Republics in the Great Lakes
Region, 1650-1815. Cambridge University Press, New York.
Winters, Howard D.
1967 An Archaeological Survey of the Wabash Valley in Illinois. Reports of
Investigations 10. Illinois State Museum, Springfield.
1968
Value Systems and Trade Cycles in the Late Archaic of the Midwest. In New
Perspectives in Archaeology, edited by S. R. Binford and L. R. Binford, pp.
175-221. Aldine, Chicago.
240
1969
The Riverton Culture. Reports of Investigations 13. Illinois State Museum and
the Illinois Archaeological Society, Springfield.
Wright, H. E., Jr.
1983 Introduction. In The Holocene, edited by H. E. Wright Jr., pp. xii-xvii. LateQuaternary Environments of the United States, vol. 2. University of Minnesota
Press, Minneapolis.
Wymer, D. A.
1990 Archaeobotany. In Childers and Woods: Two Late Woodland Sites in the
Upper Ohio Valley, Mason County, West Virginia, by M. J. Shott, R. D.
Mandel, G. Oetelaar, N. O’Malley, M. L. Powell, and D. A. Wymer, pp. 487616. Archaeological Reports 200. Program for Cultural Resource Assessment,
University of Kentucky, Lexington.
Yarnell, Richard A. (editor)
1988 The Importance of Native Crops during the Late Archaic and Woodland. Paper
presented at the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, New Orleans,
Louisiana.
241
APPENDIX A: MODIFIED BONE AND ANTLER
by Craig Arnold
The modified bone and antler assemblage from the 2008 excavations at the Strawtown
enclosure (12-H-883) includes a variety of finished or exhausted tools and manufacturing
debris. Preservation of the faunal specimens is excellent, allowing for a descriptive
analysis of the assemblage. In total, sixteen culturally modified bone specimens were
analyzed and are reported in this section.
METHODS
The analyzed faunal specimens were recovered by one of three techniques. First,
artifacts located in situ during excavation were piece plotted and assigned a unique field
specimen number. Second, the greatest quantity of materials was recovered by screening
hand-excavated soil through ¼” hardware cloth. Finally, faunal materials larger than ¼”
were also removed from processed flotation samples. All specimens were washed and
cataloged prior to analysis. The recovered bone or antler specimens were examined to
remove any human remains and bone tools from the faunal material. Bone tools were
then examined for wear, classification, and identification of probable function.
This analysis recognizes a distinction between tools and debris in worked bone and
antler assemblages. A tool is defined here as a piece of bone, shell, or antler that has been
modified through intentional utilization or modification in preparation for, or anticipation
of, use. This category also includes items of ornamental use and those that are
functionally ambiguous. Debris is worked bone, antler, or shell that has been modified
during tool manufacture but does not show signs of being specifically prepared for use, or
of having been used as a tool.
Bone and antler assemblages may contain a continuum of tool forms ranging from
mainly unmodified expedient tools to highly refined, extensively worked formal tools.
For the purposes of this analysis, tools were classified as formal or nonformal by
manufacture. Formal tools exhibit no fractured edges that have not been extensively
modified during manufacture, use, or maintenance. Nonformal tools have one or more
fractured edges that have not been extensively modified during manufacture or use. This
classificatory scheme is illustrated in Figure A.1 (following White 2005).
RESULTS
The 2008 assemblage from the Strawtown enclosure (12-H-883) consists of sixteen
specimens of worked bone: ten are classified as formal tools; four tool fragments are
classified as indeterminate in function: one turtle plastron fragment is classified as a
nonformal tool; and one bone specimen is classified as manufacturing debris.
Tools
Olsen (1980) describes standard classification groupings for bone tools. Many of these
forms extend beyond the boundaries of North America and originated in the Upper
Paleolithic, along with most other bone manufacturing techniques. The bone and antler
242
specimens recovered from the Strawtown enclosure site in 2008 consist of awl fragments,
a beamer and beamer fragments, a possible clothing toggle, a possible needle fragment, a
worked mammal canine, and bone manufacturing debris. The terms proximal and distal
are used in reference to the functioning of the tool rather than the bone the tool was
manufactured from, unless otherwise noted.
Figure A.1. Hierarchical classification scheme employed in cataloging bone tools.
Formal Tools
Beamers. Of uncertain use, but normally attributed as hide-working tools, beamers are
usually manufactured out of whitetail deer metatarsals. Beamers may be hollowed out on
either the anterior or posterior surfaces; however, there is generally a high level of
consistency within a site as to the locations of the working surface. At the Strawtown
enclosure, at least two typical beamer specimens (Figure A.2, 08.1/2099 and 08.1/59) and
fragments of two others (Figure A.2, 08.1/1270 and 08.1/3313) were recovered during the
2008 excavations.
One specimen (08.1/2099) is complete and is manufactured from a whitetail deer
metatarsal. The posterior has been hollowed out, forming the working surface of the
beamer. It measures approximately 260 mm in length, 35 mm in width, and 32 mm in
thickness. The margins constituting the working surfaces exhibit a high degree of polish,
and striations run the length of the working surfaces’ long axes. One working edge
demonstrates a spalled outer surface that exhibits a high degree of polish, indicative of
continued use after initial breakage.
243
A second specimen (08.1/59) is a medial section of a whitetail deer metatarsal that is
missing the proximal and distal portions. The posterior has been hollowed out to form the
working surface of the beamer. The specimen measures approximately 84 mm in length,
19 mm in width, and 16 mm in thickness. The specimen was refitted in the lab from at
two fragments. The interior working surfaces exhibit moderate polish and numerous
striations parallel with the shaft’s long axis.
Two additional beamer fragments were also recovered during the 2008 field season.
One specimen (08.1/1270) is lightly burned and is dark brown in color. This specimen is
a working surface medial fragment exhibiting an approximately 50° beveled interior edge
with a high degree of polish. It measures approximately 13 mm in length, 9 mm in width,
and 5 mm in thickness and is likely manufactured from a whitetail metatarsal. The other
specimen (08.1/3313) is also a working surface medial fragment that appears to have
been located closer to proximal or distal ends and exhibits an approximate 15° beveled
angle toward the medial portion of the long axis. It measures 28 mm in length, 11 mm in
width, and 6 mm in thickness. The working surface exhibits a high degree of polish and
several striations running parallel to the long axis.
Figure A.2. Photograph of formal tools and formal tool fragments recovered during 2008 excavations at
the Strawtown enclosure.
Awls. Awls are traditionally defined as pointed tools primarily used in leather-working
and basketry (Olsen 1980; Winters 1969). Awls are a variable tool type, can take many
forms, and be made from many different bones. Because of these identification problems
most awls are separated into two groups, blunt awls and fine-pointed awls. A fine-pointed
awl is defined as an awl with a point less than 1 mm in diameter, measured 1 mm from
the tip (Olsen 1980). Experimental and ethnographic studies have shown fine-pointed
244
awls to be leather-piercing and/or basketry tools, while the function of blunt-tipped awls
is unknown (Olsen 1979). The 12-H-883 assemblage has a three fragments of formal
awls (Figure A.2, 08.1/1239, 08.1/3024, and 08.1/1667).
All three specimens consist of medial portions of broken awls: two appear to be
formal awls, and a third fragment cannot be assigned due to fracturing and fire damage.
One specimen (08.1/1239) is the medial portion of a formal awl. The extreme distal tip is
missing, as is the proximal end. The fragment measure 30 mm in length, 7 mm in width,
and 2 mm in thickness and is manufactured from an unidentified mammal bone. The
lateral margins have been shaped and rounded and display moderate polish on the edges
with a higher degree of polish on all surfaces extending approximately 7 mm from the
missing distal tip.
The second specimen (08.1/3024) is also a medial portion of a broken formal awl.
The distal tip and proximal ends are missing. It measures 24 mm in length, 6 mm in
width, and 2 mm in thickness. The surfaces demonstrate a moderate amount of polish,
and several use-wear striations travel parallel to the long axis of the awl.
The third specimen (08.1/1667) consists of a medial fragment that also has one of the
lateral margins broken and missing. This fragment is burned and measures approximately
15 mm in length, 8 mm in width, and 4 mm in thickness, although the bone may have
experienced shrinkage during exposure in the fire. Polish on the raised margins differs
from that on the recessed areas. The long axis has numerous striations on the margins
and edges, and the upper broken edge has been rounded and polished through use.
Personal Adornment. Three specimens (Figure A.2, 08.1/403, 08.1/483, and 083.1/2709)
are classified as items of personal adornment including decorative items and possible
clothing accoutrements.
One worked tooth (08.1/403), a mammal canine, was recovered from the 2008
Strawtown enclosure excavations. It measures approximately 23 mm in length, 5 mm in
width, and 3 mm in thickness. The basal root has been ground flat creating a bevel of
approximately 50° from the ninety-degree long axis. The root is exposed and the ground
edges exhibit chatter-like scraping marks indicative of shaping by an edged tool. The
purpose of the modification is unknown.
Two specimens (08.1/483 and 08.1/2709) are classified as pins or toggles, used in
fastening or holding together clothing, hair, or some other material. One specimen
(08.1/483) is manufactured from the distal portion of a deer antler tine and has been
severely burned and is missing the distal tip. It was refit from several fragments and is
classified as a toggle due to the basal portion exhibiting considerable rounding and
polish. It measures 33 mm in length, and has a diameter of approximately 9 mm. An
alternate function could possibly include that of antler tine flaker, although most flakers
recovered from the Strawtown enclosure are rectangular in shape.
A second specimen (08.1/2709) is a broken raccoon baculum that exhibits moderate
polish over the entire surface with a high sheen at the distal tip. This item may have been
intentionally fractured due to the rounded, smoothed, and polished edges of the break. It
measures approximately 62 mm in length, 8 mm in width, and 5 mm in thickness. This
specimen may have been used as a hair or clothing pin.
245
Nonformal Tools
One specimen (Figure A.3, 08.1/135) is classified as a nonformal tool manufactured from
a turtle plastron fragment. It measures approximately 57 mm in length, 35 mm in width,
and 6 mm in thickness. It exhibits one highly polished area on the interior portion of the
plastron and a second linear area of polish on the ventral edge of the bone consistent with
repetitive scraping motions. No other modification was noted on the margins of the
plastron.
Figure A.3. Photograph of nonformal, indeterminate bone tool fragments, and antler debris recovered
during 2008 excavations at the Strawtown enclosure.
Indeterminate
Four bone specimens (Figure A.3, 08.1/220, 08.1/814, 08.1/1139, and 08.1/2836)
exhibiting polish, striae, cut marks, or a combination of factors are classified as tools of
indeterminate use or unknown stage of manufacture.
One specimen (08.1/220) is a medial section of a tool manufactured from an
unidentified mammal long bone. It measures approximately 40 mm in length, 4 mm in
width, and 3 mm in thickness. The entire surface area and margins exhibit light polish
and several ephemeral striae. The specimen may be the medial section of a needle.
A second specimen (08.1/814) is a burned shaft fragment of an unidentified mammal
bone that has numerous striae running parallel to the long axis of the shaft on the interior
margin. It measures approximately 20 mm in length, 6 mm in width, and 5 mm in
246
thickness. The other surfaces consist of fractured, exposed interior Haversian bone
surfaces.
A third indeterminate specimen (08.1/1139) is an unidentified mammal long bone
medial shaft fragment exhibiting a high polish over the entire outer surface. It measures
approximately 18 mm in length and 5 mm in width and has a 4 mm thickness. The
proximal and distal breaks exhibit rough edges indicative of fracture after drying.
A fourth specimen (08.1/2836) is a burned fragment of an unidentified mammal long
bone containing numerous striae on the concave surface. The striae run parallel to the
long axis of the shaft and appear to be the result of use. It measures approximately 27
mm in length, 11 mm in width, and 8 mm in wall thickness. The other surfaces consist of
fractured, exposed interior Haversian bone surfaces.
Debris
One antler groove and snap debris specimen (Figure A.3, 08.1/1240) was recovered
during the 2008 excavations at the Strawtown enclosure.
The antler specimen (08.1/1240) is the distal portion of a deer tine approximately 45
mm in length and 9 to 11 mm in diameter. The tine has been grooved and snapped
although no evidence remains of this event as the base has been heavily ground.
However, one side above the base exhibits a step fracture often associated with the
groove and snap method.
247
APPENDIX B:
SUMMARY OF POSTHOLES FROM 12-H-883, 2007 AND 2008 EXCAVATIONS
2007 Postholes
XDept Depth
Max Min Charcoal
Excavated Profil Flot
Total Accepted
PH # Northing Easting
Munsell Sectioned
h of below
dim dim
?
?
e?
?
Depth
?
?
Def Def
7-001 198.27
205.26 11 10
Yes
10YR
Yes
Yes
No No 80
No
3/3
7-002 198.64
205.38 15 12
Yes
10YR
Yes
Yes
Yes No 79
25
104
Yes
3/3
7-003 198.46
205.90 16 13
Yes
10YR
Yes
Yes
Yes No 79
18
97
Yes
3/3
7-004 198.99
205.26 12 10
No
10YR
Yes
80
No
3/3
7-005 198.98
205.47 10 10
Yes
10YR
Yes
Yes
No No 79
No
3/3
7-006 199.00
205.70
8
8
No
10YR
Yes
Yes
No No 79
No
3/3
7-007 199.00
205.80
8
8
No
10YR
Yes
Yes
No No 80
No
3/3
7-008 199.29
205.28 15 14
Yes
10YR
Yes
Yes
81
13
94
Yes
3/3
7-009 199.22
205.65
No
7-010 199.20
205.90 15 13
Yes
10YR
Yes
Yes
Yes No 80
25
105
Yes
3/3
7-011 199.99
205.16 17 15
Yes
10YR
Yes
No
82
22
110
Yes
3/3
7-012 200.12
205.26 11 10
Yes
10YR
Yes
Yes
No No 81
19
100
Yes
3/3
7-013 200.43
205.23 10 10
Yes
10YR
Yes
81
No
3/3
7-014 201.18
205.95 12 11
Yes
10YR
Yes
Yes
Yes Yes 82
44
128
Yes
3/3
7-015 201.20
206.02 29 28
No
10YR
Yes
Yes
Yes No 82
18
100
Yes
3/3
7-016 201.28
206.66 22 19
Yes
10YR
Yes
Yes
Yes Yes 82
46
128
Yes
3/3
7-017 201.30
207.06 15 13
Yes
10YR
Yes
Yes
No No 85
11
96
Yes
3/3
7-018 200.25
207.21 12 6
Yes
10YR
Yes
Yes
Yes No 82
6
88
Yes
2/2
7-019 198.50
206.42 10 10
Yes
10YR
Yes
Yes
Yes No 80
30
110
Yes
3/4
7-020 198.53
206.73 10 9
Yes
10YR
Yes
Yes
Yes No 80
22
102
Yes
3/4
7-021 198.68
207.00 10 8
Yes
10YR
Yes
Yes
Yes No 79
24
103
Yes
4/3
248
PH # Northing Easting
7-022
198.78
207.22
7-023
198.80
207.42
7-024
198.83
207.68
7-025
199.02
208.78
7-026
199.07
209.05
7-027
199.18
209.20
7-028
198.26
210.05
7-029
200.04
210.54
7-030
198.20
210.42
7-031
198.81
210.61
7-032
201.39
210.07
7-033
201.34
210.29
7-034
201.67
210.96
7-035
201.26
210.94
7-036
200.11
208.00
7-037
199.12
210.86
7-038
199.32
210.56
7-039
199.25
210.41
7-040
198.25
209.31
7-041
198.90
209.12
7-042
199.60
210.60
7-043
201.16
207.90
XDept Depth
Max Min Charcoal
Excavated Profil Flot
Total Accepted
Munsell Sectioned
h of below
dim dim
?
?
e?
?
Depth
?
?
Def Def
9
8
Yes
10YR
Yes
Yes
Yes No 79
26
105
Yes
4/3
10 8
No
10YR
Yes
Yes
Yes No 79
22
101
Yes
4/3
9
9
No
10YR
Yes
Yes
Yes No 80
20
100
Yes
4/3
10 9
Yes
10YR
Yes
Yes
No No 90
14
104
Yes
3/2 & 3/4
10 10
Yes
10YR
Yes
Yes
No No 80
31
111
Yes
4/3
9
8
Yes
10YR
Yes
Yes
No No 80
25
105
Yes
4/3
12 12
No
10YR
Yes
No
No No 80
No
3/3
17 12
Yes
10YR
Yes
Yes
No No 80
40
120
Yes
4/3
20 18
No
10YR
Yes
No
No No 80
4
84
No
3/3
12 12
Yes
10YR
Yes
No
Yes No 80
9
89
Yes
3/3
28 23
Yes
10YR
Yes
Yes
No No 80
No
3/2
17 16
Yes
10YR
Yes
Yes
No No 80
No
3/2
10 8
Yes
10YR
Yes
Yes
No No 80
No
4/2
10 10
Yes
10YR
Yes
Yes
No No 80
No
4/2
16 16
Yes
10YR
Yes
Yes
No No 97
40
137
Yes
3/3
8
8
Yes
10YR
Yes
No
3/2
20 20
Yes
10YR
Yes
Yes
Yes No 85
43
128
Yes
3/1
10 10
Yes
10YR
Yes
Yes
Yes No 84
14
98
Yes
3/2
25 23
No
10YR
Yes
Yes No 90
14
104
Yes
3/4
19 18
Yes
10YR
Yes
Yes
No Yes 80
20
100
Yes
3/3 & 3/4
with ash
and
burned
soil
18 17
Yes
10YR
Yes
No
Yes No 90
37
127
Yes
3/3
27 24
Yes
10YR
Yes
No
No No 81
No
249
PH # Northing Easting
XDept Depth
Max Min Charcoal
Excavated Profil Flot
Total Accepted
Munsell Sectioned
h of below
dim dim
?
?
e?
?
Depth
?
?
Def Def
3/3
12 10
Yes
10YR
Yes
Yes
No No 82
10
92
Yes
3/3
7-044
201.32
207.41
7-045
7-046
0.00
201.39
0.00
207.55
10
10
No
7-047
201.22
206.48
15
14
Yes
7-048
200.94
207.91
12
10
Yes
7-049
7-050
0.00
200.56
0.00
210.73
18
18
Yes
7-051
198.00
205.82
20
20
Yes
7-052
198.72
205.72
6
6
No
7-053
198.27
205.72
11
11
Yes
7-054
199.60
205.64
8
8
Yes
7-055
7-056
0.00
198.42
0.00
210.69
11
11
Yes
7-057
199.50
209.16
16
16
Yes
7-058
199.21
209.36
14
11
Yes
7-059
199.19
209.63
9
8
Yes
7-060
199.20
209.84
8
8
Yes
7-061
199.08
209.96
6
6
Yes
7-062
200.00
209.73
19
11
Yes
7-063
7-064
7-065
7-066
7-067
7-068
7-069
7-070
7-071
198.56
198.72
198.48
198.36
198.75
198.17
198.32
198.60
200.55
204.50
204.19
203.95
204.70
204.39
204.84
204.93
204.88
204.93
15
16
20
14
19
5
11
12
10
12
11
18
10
18
4
8
9
10
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
10YR3/3
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
80
13
93
10YR3/2
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
79
15
94
Yes
10YR3/3
Yes
Yes
No
No
78
10YR
3/2
10YR
3/3
10YR
3/3
Yes
Yes
No
No
90
8
98
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
82
11
93
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
90
13
103
Yes
10YR
4/3
10YR
3/3
10YR
3/3
10YR
3/3
10YR
3/3
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
10YR
3/4
10YR
3/3 & 3/4
10YR
3/4
10YR
3/4
10YR
3/4
10YR
3/4
10YR
3/3
Yes
Yes
Yes
90
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
80
18
98
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
78
13
91
No
80
18
98
Yes
No
83
16
99
Yes
Yes
No
121
6
127
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
93
19
112
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
93
17
110
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
93
20
113
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
91
9
100
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
93
14
107
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
91
14
105
Yes
Yes
250
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
PH # Northing Easting
7-072
7-073
7-074
7-075
7-076
200.81
200.74
200.60
200.88
200.00
204.86
204.59
204.35
204.30
210.28
7-077
201.52
208.30
7-078
201.41
208.21
7-079
201.48
208.15
7-080
201.45
208.48
7-081
7-082
7-083
7-084
7-085
7-086
7-087
7-088
7-089
7-090
7-091
7-092
7-093
7-094
7-095
7-096
7-097
7-098
7-099
7-100
7-101
7-102
7-103
7-104
7-105
7-106
200.12
200.08
200.18
200.31
200.54
200.80
200.86
198.62
198.24
201.14
201.09
201.29
201.47
199.53
199.90
200.00
200.80
0.00
200.72
200.44
199.17
200.43
199.31
198.46
198.27
201.36
203.28
203.75
204.12
203.80
203.67
203.65
203.95
203.21
203.33
204.72
204.37
204.50
204.59
204.34
200.63
204.93
203.21
0.00
203.72
204.67
204.40
203.68
203.61
203.65
203.74
206.23
7-107
200.52
210.40
XDept Depth
Max Min Charcoal
Excavated Profil Flot
Total Accepted
Munsell Sectioned
h of below
dim dim
?
?
e?
?
Depth
?
?
Def Def
18 16
Yes
10YR3/3
Yes
Yes
No No 80
25
105
Yes
14 13
Yes
10YR3/2
Yes
Yes
No Yes 80
37
117
Yes
16 15
Yes
10YR3/4
Yes
Yes
No No 79
13
92
Yes
11 9
Yes
10YR3/3
Yes
Yes
No No
No
8
8
Yes
10YR
Yes
Yes
Yes No 110
12
122
Yes
3/3
9
9
Yes
10YR
Yes
Yes
Yes No 96
13
109
Yes
3/3
9
9
Yes
10YR
Yes
No
No No 96
No
3/3
13 11
Yes
10YR
Yes
Yes
Yes No 96
18
114
Yes
3/3
15
Yes
10YR
Yes
Yes
Yes No 106
11
117
Yes
3/3
11 9
Yes
10YR3/2
Yes
Yes
Yes No 80
12
92
Yes
23 22
Yes
10YR3/2
Yes
79
24
103
Yes
20 17
Yes
10YR3/3
Yes
Yes
No No 80
5
85
Yes
23 20
Yes
10YR3/3
Yes
79
22
101
Yes
18 16
Yes
10YR3/3
Yes
79
22
101
Yes
14 12
Yes
10YR3/3
Yes
79
17
96
Yes
14 11
Yes
10YR3/3
Yes
Yes
Yes No 80
No
11 11
Yes
10YR3/3
Yes
Yes
Yes No 80
11
91
Yes
12 12
Yes
10YR3/2
Yes
Yes
Yes No 80
19
99
Yes
36 27
Yes
10YR2/2
Yes
Yes
No Yes 80.5 17.5
98
Yes
5
5
No
10 9
No
10YR3/4
Yes
Yes
No No 80
84
90
Yes
10 10
No
12 10
Yes
10YR3/1
Yes
Yes
Yes No 79
5
84
Yes
14 14
Yes
10YR3/1
Yes
Yes
Yes No 79
14
93
Yes
14 14
Yes
10YR3/1
Yes
Yes
Yes No 79
12
91
Yes
12 12
Yes
10YR3/3
Yes
Yes
Yes No 79
14
93
Yes
16
20
23
17
15
16
19
8
14
14
13
17
13
12
17
8
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
10
10
Yes
10YR3/2
10YR3/3
10YR3/1
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
79
78
79
23
7
4
102
85
83
10YR3/2
10YR3/2
10YR3/2
10YR
3/3
10YR
3/3
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
79
80
79
83
42
44
32
111
124
111
Yes
Yes
No
No
90
11
101
251
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
PH #
Northing
8-001
201.97
8-002
200.58
8-003
200.51
8-004
199.46
8-005
199.08
8-006
198.97
8-007
198.8
8-008
198.74
8-009
198.05
8-010
198.77
8-011
199
8-012
199.19
8-013
199.16
8-014
195.58
8-015
195.31
8-016
200.94
8-017 see PH 8-070
8-018 see PH 8-068
8-019
195.79
8-020
201.14
8-021
201.31
8-022
201.69
8-023
200.14
8-024
194.42
8-025
198.62
8-026
199.52
8-027
195.58
8-028
196.35
8-029
196.51
8-030
195.25
8-031
195.61
8-032
195.96
8-033
195.26
8-034
195.76
8-035
196.78
8-036
197.06
8-037
197.45
8-038
197.80
8-039
197.76
8-040
197.51
2008 Postholes
XDepth Depth
Max Min Charcoal
Excavated Profile Flot
Total Accepted
Easting
Munsell Sectioned
of below
dim dim
?
?
?
?
Depth
?
?
Def Def
203.67 18 12
Yes 10YR3/3
Yes
Yes
Yes No 78
16
94
Yes
204.49
10
9
Yes
10YR3/3
Yes
Yes
No
No
79
204.67
203.24
203.18
203.70
203.77
203.71
203.68
203.98
204.41
204.58
204.66
206.03
205.98
204.51
0.00
0.00
205.42
203.72
203.64
203.81
203.68
204.23
203.68
203.70
203.47
206.83
206.00
201.48
201.74
201.63
203.45
203.44
203.28
203.30
203.34
203.21
203.65
203.60
14
13
15
19
9
14
15
13
16
7
6
14
10
8
13
12
14
17
9
13
13
12
14
6
5
13
9
7
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
10YR3/3
10YR3/4
10YR3/3
10YR3/2
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
79
79
80
80
14
13
41
93
93
121
Yes
No
80
24
104
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
80
80
12
9
92
89
10YR3/3
10YR3/3
10YR3/2
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
80
80
84
18
11
14
98
91
98
20
21
12
20
13
19
18
18
25
32
14
33
7
7
19
16
11
18
?
17
14
12
22
30
14
29
7
7
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
10YR4/3
10YR3/3
10YR3/2
10YR3/3
10YR3/3
10YR4/2
10YR3/2
10YR3/2
10YR4/4
10YR3/2
10YR3/2
10YR3/3
10YR3/3
10YR3/3
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
79
79
79
79
73
80
80
72
80
80
78
78
78
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
20
20
14
42
3
17
26
99
99
93
121
76
97
106
9
14
19
21
89
94
97
99
10YR3/2
10YR3/3
10YR3/1
252
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
PH #
8-041
8-042
8-043
8-044
8-045
8-046
8-047
8-048
8-049
8-050
8-051
8-052
8-053
8-054
8-056
8-057
8-058
8-059
8-060
8-061
8-062
8-063
8-064
8-065
8-066
8-067
8-068
8-069
8-070
8-071
8-072
8-073
8-074
8-075
8-076
8-077
8-078
8-079
8-080
8-081
8-082
8-083
Northing
Easting
197.27
197.05
196.83
196.61
196.21
196.05
195.88
195.66
195.39
195.15
195.15
194.15
194.26
194.39
194.56
194.69
194.85
194.99
195.00
195.10
195.28
195.40
195.58
195.85
196.08
196.31
196.30
196.67
196.84
197.80
197.94
197.71
196.96
196.91
196.06
195.06
195.02
195.28
195.30
195.35
195.45
195.04
203.70
203.76
203.75
203.79
203.84
203.84
203.84
203.84
203.90
203.94
203.75
204.64
204.85
204.65
204.64
204.65
204.70
204.70
204.45
204.70
204.65
204.70
204.70
204.73
204.78
204.90
204.35
204.71
204.78
205.00
205.39
205.24
205.19
205.30
205.10
205.14
205.41
205.55
205.40
205.27
205.55
205.90
XDepth Depth
Max Min Charcoal
Excavated Profile Flot
Total Accepted
Munsell Sectioned
of below
dim dim
?
?
?
?
Depth
?
?
Def Def
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
22 19
Yes 10YR3/2
Yes
No
Yes No 80
18
98
Yes
9
8
Yes 10YR3/3
Yes
80
No
8
7
Yes 10YR3/3
Yes
No
Yes No 80
10
90
Yes
18 15
Yes 10YR3/3
Yes
No
Yes No 80
25
105
Yes
6
5
Yes 10YR3/3
Yes
No
Yes No 80
13
93
Yes
16 11
Yes 10YR3/2
Yes
No
Yes No 79
18
97
Yes
11 9
Yes 10YR3/3
Yes
No
Yes No 79
12
91
Yes
7
7
Yes 10YR3/3
Yes
Yes
No No 80
12
92
Yes
14 13
Yes 10YR3/3
Yes
Yes
Yes Yes 79
31
110
Yes
21 14
Yes 10YR3/2
Yes
No
Yes No 80
16
96
Yes
7
7
Yes 10YR3/3
Yes
No
Yes No 80
8
88
Yes
21 19
Yes 10YR3/3
Yes
No
Yes No 80
24
104
Yes
7
5
Yes 10YR3/2
Yes
No
Yes No 80
12
92
Yes
16 14
Yes 10YR3/3
Yes
No
Yes No 80
27
107
Yes
5
5
Yes 10YR3/2
Yes
Yes
No No 80
6
86
Yes
13 11
Yes 10YR3/2
Yes
Yes
No No 80
12
92
Yes
14 13
Yes 10YR3/2
Yes
Yes
No No 80
9
89
Yes
10 9
Yes 10YR3/2
Yes
Yes
No No 80
6
86
Yes
10 10
Yes 10YR3/2
Yes
Yes
No No 80
30
110
Yes
11 10
Yes 10YR3/3
Yes
Yes
No No 80
6
86
Yes
16 16
Yes 10YR3/2
Yes
Yes
No No 80
23
103
Yes
15 15
Yes 10YR3/2
Yes
Yes
No No 80
8
88
Yes
8
7
Yes 10YR3/2
Yes
No
No No 80
No
13 13
Yes 10YR3/2
Yes
No
No No 80
No
8
8
No 10YR3/2
Yes
79
No
22 15
Yes 10YR3/2
Yes
Yes
No No 79.5
22
101.5
Yes
12 8
No 10YR3/2
Yes
Yes
No No 79
10
89
Yes
16 14
Yes 10YR3/2
Yes
Yes
No No 79
24
103
Yes
10 9
Yes 10YR3/2
Yes
Yes
No No 79.5
8
87.5
Yes
10 9
Yes 10YR3/2
Yes
No
8
5
Yes 10YR3/2
Yes
Yes
No No
No
253
PH #
8-084
8-085
8-086
8-087
8-088
8-089
8-090
8-091
8-092
8-093
8-094
8-095
8-096
8-097
8-098
8-099
8-100
8-101
8-102
8-103
8-104
8-105
8-106
8-107
8-108
8-109
8-110
8-111
8-112
8-113
8-114
8-115
8-116
8-117
8-118
8-119
8-120
8-121
8-122
8-123
8-124
Northing
Easting
195.16
195.20
195.27
195.39
195.51
195.78
195.90
195.95
195.98
196.16
196.71
197.36
197.53
197.51
197.96
197.90
197.01
169.15
195.05
195.84
196.83
194.58
196.82
195.14
197.05
194.74
200.32
200.81
197.25
197.28
202.20
201.28
203.36
203.75
193.14
193.71
193.82
193.85
194.00
193.83
193.36
205.94
206.06
205.92
205.94
205.94
205.94
205.78
205.89
205.97
205.97
205.90
205.91
205.89
205.69
205.85
206.13
206.41
206.87
205.63
207.52
207.85
203.25
205.96
205.27
205.95
204.32
203.24
203.23
204.64
204.87
204.02
203.32
204.10
203.03
204.00
203.99
204.20
204.08
203.90
204.63
203.93
XMax Min Charcoal
Excavated Profile
Munsell Sectioned
dim dim
?
?
?
?
8
8
Yes 10YR3/2
Yes
7
7
Yes 10YR3/2
Yes
9
9
Yes 10YR3/2
Yes
No
Yes
9
8
Yes 10YR3/2
Yes
No
Yes
10 10
Yes 10YR3/2
Yes
No
Yes
11 10
Yes 10YR3/2
Yes
No
Yes
7
7
NO 10YR3/2
Yes
No
No
8
8
Yes 10YR3/2
Yes
No
No
7
7
Yes 10YR3/2
Yes
Yes
Yes
7
7
Yes 10YR3/2
Yes
Yes
No
8
8
10 9
Yes 10YR3/3
Yes
Yes
No
9
8
Yes 10YR3/2
Yes
8
7
Yes 10YR3/3
Yes
Yes
No
7
7
8
8
Yes 10YR3/2
Yes
Yes
No
9
9
Yes 10YR3/2
Yes
Yes
No
7
7
8
7
Yes 10YR3/2
Yes
Yes
No
19 18
Yes 10YR3/2
10 10
12 10
Yes 10YR3/2
7
7
Yes 10YR3/3
Yes
Yes
No
7
7
Yes 10YR3/2
Yes
Yes
No
6
6
Yes 10YR3/3
Yes
Yes
No
15 14
Yes 10YR3/2
Yes
Yes
No
16 15
Yes 10YR3/3
Yes
Yes
Yes
12 10
Yes 10YR3/3
Yes
Yes
Yes
24 19
Yes 10YR3/2
Yes
Yes
Yes
18 16
Yes 10YR3/3
Yes
Yes
Yes
14 12
Yes 10YR3/3
Yes
Yes
Yes
14 13
Yes 10YR3/3
Yes
Yes
Yes
19 16
Yes 10YR3/3
Yes
Yes
Yes
18 16
Yes 10YR3/3
Yes
Yes
Yes
19 17
15 15
8
7
7
7
17 15
12 10
15 13
254
Depth Depth
Total Accepted
of below
Depth
?
Def Def
No
No
No 80
12
92
Yes
No 80
7
87
Yes
No 80
15
95
Yes
No 80
11
91
Yes
No
No
No
No
No 80
7
87
Yes
No 80
8
88
Yes
No
No 80
6
86
Yes
No
No 80
7
87
Yes
No
No 80
19
99
Yes
No 80
7
87
Yes
No
No 80
6
86
Yes
80
No
87
No 82
10
92
Yes
No 80
6
86
Yes
No 80
6
86
Yes
No 82
4
86
Yes
No 80
20
100
Yes
No 85
20
105
Yes
Yes 80
11
91
Yes
No 81
20
101
Yes
No 80
21
101
Yes
No 82
20
102
Yes
No 80
19
99
Yes
No 80
16
96
Yes
79.5
79.5
80
79.5
80
79.5
79.5
Flot
?
APPENDIX C:
12-H-883 FIELD SPECIMEN LOG, 2008 EXCAVATIONS
2
1
1
1
1
3+
1
4+
40-50
~80
2008-010
2008-011
2008-012
2008-013
2008-014
2008-015
2008-016
1/4" screen
153
1/4" screen
157
1/4" screen
156
1/4" screen
160
1/4" screen
154
1/4" screen 129 134 139
141-143 147
147 150 151
1/4" screen
158
1/4" screen 130-133
135-138 148
149
1/4" screen
154
1/4" screen
155
1/4" screen
159
1/4" screen
155
1/4" screen
163
1/4" screen
161
1/4" screen 125-128
Depth
(cmbd)
50-60
45-50
40-50
43-50
37-50
~70
2
1
1
2
1
1
4
50-60
43-50
39-50
50-60
43-50
42-50
~80
2008-017
2008-018
2008-019
2008-020
2008-021
2008-022
2008-023
2008-024
2008-025
2008-026
2008-027
2008-028
2008-029
2008-030
2008-031
2008-032
2008-033
2008-034
2008-035
2008-036
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
42-50
50-60
50-60
50-60
50-60
50-60
50-60
50-60
50-60
60-70
60-70
60-70
60-70
60-70
60-70
60-70
60-70
60-70
60-70
60-70
FS No
2008-002
2008-003
2008-004
2008-005
2008-006
2008-007
2008-008
2008-009
Recovery
Unit
Feature
Posthole Level Portion Zone
162
160
158
159
156
163
157
161
162
158
162
157
153
159
161
154
163
160
155
156
255
Remarks
sod level
sod
sod layer
floor scrapings base
of level 3, south
expansion
sod layer
floor scrapings base
of level 4, west
extension
2 bags
sod
sod
sod O/A
sod O/A
Liz's units, trowel
scrape clean up
sod O/A
2 bags, 1 with chain
2 bags
2 bags
FS No
Recovery
Unit
2008-037
2008-038
2008-039
2008-040
2008-041
2008-042
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
2008-043
2008-044
2008-045
2008-046
2008-047
2008-048
2008-049
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
Flot
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
trowel
collected
Flot
Flot
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
Flot
133
133
131
131 132
131
129 134
139-147,
150 151
153-163
131
131
133
133
130 131
131
131
2008-050
2008-051
2008-052
2008-053
2008-054
2008-055
2008-056
2008-057
2008-058
131
141
141
141
134
134
134
134
134
Feature
Posthole Level Portion Zone
7-96
7-95
7-94
7-101
7-90
7-90
8-11
5
5
5
5
5
3+
A
B
A
all
all
59
59
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
all
all
north 1/2
south 1/2
all
east 1/2
east 1/2
59
5
west 1/2
Remarks
N201 E204
N201 E204
N199 E204
N200 E204.93
N199.90 E200.63
floor scrapings base
level 3, south
extension
79-84
79-83
80.5-98
80.5-98
80-89
80-88
80-88
N199.53 E204.34
N199.17 E204.40
N201.14 E204.72
N201.14 E204.72
N199.0 E204.41
general fill
C-14 sample
flot sample
flot, SE corner
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
N
N
A
B
P
A
Q
P
8073-80
73-80
73-80
70-80
70-80
70-80
70-80
70-80
5
5
4
4
A
B
E
E
80-90
80-90
70-80
70-80
2008-059 1/4" screen
2008-060 1/4" screen
2008-061 1/4" screen
2008-062
Flot
132
132
143
143
2008-063 1/4" screen
132
7-71
5
2008-064 1/4" screen
2008-065 1/4" screen
132
130
7-100
5
5
2008-066 1/4" screen
132
7-83
2008-067 1/4" screen
2008-068 1/4" screen
2008-069
Flot
129
129
129
B
B
78-79
A
5
4
4
4
256
Depth
(cmbd)
80-90
80-90
80-90
79-91
79-93
~70
78-85
80-90
80-85
SE
corner
A
P
A, P
70-80
70-80
73-80
SE corner 25 x 25 cm
flot
no artifacts
SW corner 25 x 25
cm (SE corner Fea
59)
soil stain with
artifacts in it
marginal post
N198 E204; general
fill
marginal post-packed
charcoal near top of
level 5
SE corner 25 x 25 cm
FS No
Recovery
Unit
Feature
2008-070
2008-071
2008-072
2008-073
2008-074
2008-075
2008-076
2008-077
1/4" screen
Flot
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
130
142
142
142
142
130
132
143
51
2008-078 1/4" screen
2008-079 1/4" screen
2008-080
Flot
143
143
130
55
54
51
2008-081
Flot
2008-082
2008-083
2008-084
2008-085
2008-086
2008-087
2008-088
2008-089
2008-090
Posthole Level Portion Zone
5
4
4
4
4
5
5
4
north 1/2
SE 1/4
4
4
5
west 1/2
west 1/2
south 1/2
147
4
SW
corner
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
Flot
Flot
Flot
147
132
132
157
146
146
146
132
157
4
5
5
4
4
4
4
5
4
2008-091 1/4" screen
2008-092 1/4" screen
2008-093 1/4" screen
138
132
138
2008-094
2008-095
2008-096
2008-097
2008-098
2008-099
2008-100
2008-101
2008-102
2008-103
2008-104
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
Flot
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
Flot
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
130 135
139 157
139
143
130 135
143
139
139
139
145
145
2008-105 1/4" screen
2008-106 1/4" screen
2008-107
Flot
158
135
143 163
7-67
7-74
7-72
7-73
7-73
8-16
7-98 8-20
8-22
8-10
56
56
54
7-65
54
5
5
5
5
4
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
4
55
257
N
O
E
all
E1
B
south 1/2
SE 1/4
north 1/2
SE
corner
B
A
N
A
B
B
all
Depth
Remarks
(cmbd)
80-98 north 1/2 feature fill
73-80
25 x 25 cm
73-80
N195 E206
73-80
73-80
80-94 PH fill inside Fea 51
79-92
74-80 burnt area Unit 143,
north side
73-80
73-80
80-98
S 1/2 taken as flot
sample
70-80
SW corner 25 x 25
cm
70-80
matrix
80-105
80-117
70-80
70-80
N196 E205
71-80
70-80
SE 25 x 25 cm
80-122
deep post
73-80
SE 25 x 25 cm
80-90
84-98
multiple posts, see
PH form
all
west 1/2
east 1/2
east 1/2
all
east 1/2
B
Q
B
B
PR
A
A
A
all
80-92
74-83
74-83
70-83
80-93
70-83
72-80
72-80
72-80
73-80
73-80
SE corner 25 x 25 cm
N196 E204
N196 E204
70-80
80-90
71-80
N195 E205
N198 E203
entire Fea fill as flot,
East 1/2 Fea 54
FS No
Recovery
2008-108 1/4" screen
Unit
Posthole Level Portion Zone
Depth
(cmbd)
143
4
E
74-80
5
4
5
4
4
A
B
A
B
E
80-90
70-80
80-90
70-80
70-80
70-89
70-89
80-124
2008-109
2008-110
2008-111
2008-112
2008-113
2008-114
2008-115
2008-116
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
136
156
137
155
163
156
156 154
135
2008-117
2008-118
2008-119
2008-120
2008-121
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
Flot
1/4" screen
135
135
144
144
136
2008-122
2008-123
2008-124
2008-125
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
136
165
155
137
2008-126
2008-127
2008-128
2008-129
2008-130
2008-131
P.P.
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
137
162
162
162
162
150
2008-132 1/4" screen
2008-133
2008-134
2008-135
2008-136
2008-137
2008-138
2008-139
2008-140
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
Feature
57
57
104 8-07
8-08 8-25
8-06
7-105
7-102 7103 8-26
7-99
north 1/2
south 1/2
5+ east 1/2
5+
5+
4
4
5+
A
A
east 1/2
80-121
80-111
73-80
80-111
S
80-102
50
70-80
4
4
4
4
4A
C
E
G
IJ
K K1
87
70-80
70-80
70-80
70-80
70-75
150
4A
153
153
140
140
164
165
164
150
4
4
4
4
1
2
2
4B
AE
N
S
B
A
B
7-82 7-84
7-85 7-86
8-23
7-84
258
5+
1
4
5
east 1/2
east 1/2
A
matri
x
70-75
70-80
70-80
72-80
72-80
50
50-60
50-60
75-80
Remarks
including fill in
Unit163
prob fea fill from
burnt ash
area/unnumb feature
N199 E203
N195 E202
N200 E203
N195 E201
N197 E208
postholes and
associated trench
posthole and trench
posthole and trench
N195 E204
posts and associated
trench
N199 E203
N194 E204
N195 E201
multiple posts and
depths
N200.30 E203.67
N196 E208
N196 E208
N196 E208
N196 E208
zones K and K1
combined
zones E and N
combined
N194 E201
N194 E201
N195 E205
N195 E205
N194 E203
N194 E203 (2 bags)
unit excavated in 2 5cm levels: 4A, 4B
FS No
Recovery
Unit
2008-141
2008-142
2008-143
2008-144
2008-145
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
P.P.
164
159
165
159
154 156
Feature
Posthole Level Portion Zone
3
4
3
4
A
MI
57
2008-146 1/4" screen
2008-147 1/4" screen
165
170
4
2008-148 1/4" screen
2008-149 1/4" screen
161
161
2008-150
2008-151
2008-152
2008-153
2008-154
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
P.P.
Depth
(cmbd)
60-70
70--80
60-70
70-80
85-89
A
I
70-80
25-42
4
4
E
IJ
70-80
70-80
151
151
151
151
164
4
4
4
4
3+
E
H
G
I
A
70-80
70-80
70-80
70-80
70
2008-155 1/4" screen
2008-156 1/4" screen
2008-157
Flot
2008-158
P.P.
169
160
151
160
1
4
4
4
I
H
I
42-50
70-80
70-80
75
2008-159 1/4" screen
170
2008-160
P.P.
151
2008-161
P.P.
165
2008-162
2008-163
2008-164
2008-165
2008-166
2008-167
2008-168
2008-169
1/4" screen
166
1/4" screen 150 151 159
1/4" screen
150
1/4" screen
167
1/4" screen
164
1/4" screen
164
1/4" screen
168
P.P.
168
2008-170 1/4" screen
60
8-j28
all
32-52
4
strat
2 and
3
I
4
A
76
1
4B
4B
1
4
4
1
4
170
39-50
75-80
75-80
all
4
259
2 bags
N195.15 E202.60
(elk antler)
Unit 170 enclosure
by zone, not level
includes rodent
burrow fill
N194.18 E203.91
base of level 3
N195.25 E207.04
Early Archaic corner
notched pt
Unit 170 by zone not
levels
N196.15 E207.66
Archaic, possible
EVA
N194.37 E204.78
dec. rim
N193 E203
all
A
B
all
A
strat
4
2008-171 1/4" screen 125-129 134
139-147 150
75
Remarks
70-80
70-80
40-50
77
45-60
80
2 bags
N202 E203
N194.53 E203.40
knife base
unit 170 by strat (4)
not levels
floor scrape, south
extension
FS No
2008-172
2008-173
2008-174
2008-175
2008-176
2008-177
2008-178
2008-179
2008-180
2008-181
2008-182
2008-183
2008-184
2008-185
2008-186
2008-187
2008-188
2008-189
2008-190
2008-191
2008-192
2008-193
2008-194
2008-195
2008-196
2008-197
2008-198
2008-199
2008-200
2008-201
2008-202
2008-203
2008-204
2008-205
2008-206
2008-207
2008-208
2008-209
2008-210
Recovery
Unit
151 153-165
1/4" screen
154
Flot
154
1/4" screen
154
1/4" screen
170
1/4" screen 142 143 150
151
1/4" screen
167
1/4" screen
164
1/4" screen 125 126 127
128
Flot
164
1/4" screen
169
Flot
143
1/4" screen
125 126
trowel
143
collected
1/4" screen
166
1/4" screen
150
1/4" screen
143
Flot
143
1/4" screen
142
1/4" screen
168
1/4" screen
168
Flot
135
Flot
135
1/4" screen
167
Flot
135
Flot
135
1/4" screen
146
1/4" screen
166
1/4" screen
169
1/4" screen
135
1/4" screen
135
Flot
136
Flot
136
Flot
136
1/4" screen
158
1/4" screen
126 128
Flot
126 128
1/4" screen
126 128
1/4" screen
141
1/4" screen 125 126 127
Feature
Posthole Level Portion Zone
58
58
west 1/2
east 1/2
4
63
5
B
strat 5
east 1/2
2
62
47/64
west 1/2
62
east 1/2
2
63
64
63
5
5+
west 1/2 I/III
north 1/2
west 1/2 I/III
2
8-28
63
63
5+
8-14
all
west 1/2 I/III
west 1/2 IV
all
2
3
7-105
8-06
3
7-104
8-08 8-25
8-93
3
3
7-89
7-88
7-103
7-99
8-26
8-80
65
65
65
all
8-72
47
260
west 1/2
west 1/2
all
west 1/2
west 1/2
east 1/2
all
all
all
all
west 1/2
west 1/2
west 1/2
all
north 1/2
south 1/2
south 1/2
all
north 1/2
Depth
(cmbd)
Remarks
68-77
68-77
70-80
55-62 enclosure fill, strat 4
80-99.5
50-60
80-88
81
2 bags
2 bags
floor scrape for photo
80-88
50-59
80-93
81-91
80-93
C-14 sample
50-60
80-89
80-93
93-99.5
80-98
50-60
60-70
80-111
80-121
60-70
808080-88
60-70
60-70
80-97
80-90
80-124
80-102
80-107
79-103
86-107
86-98
86-106
80-86
81-92
remnant after flot
ash layer
3 bags
FS No
Recovery
2008-211 1/4" screen
2008-212
Flot
2008-213
trowel
collected
2008-214 1/4" screen
2008-215 1/4" screen
2008-216 1/4" screen
2008-217 1/4" screen
2008-218
2008-219
2008-220
2008-221
2008-222
2008-223
2008-224
2008-225
2008-226
2008-227
2008-228
2008-229
2008-230
2008-231
2008-232
2008-233
2008-234
2008-235
2008-236
2008-237
2008-238
2008-239
2008-240
Unit
128
141
161 162
161 162
168 169
166
125 126
129 141
141 146
166
125 126
125 126
158
167
137
137
168
169
137
137
137
169
168
167
151
151
168
2008-241 1/4" screen
168 169
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
Flot
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
137
137
129
155
155
137
129
Posthole Level Portion Zone
8-73
61
61
136
136
136
158
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
Flot
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
Flot
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
Flot
Flot
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
Flot
Flot
Flot
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
P.P.
Flot
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
2008-242
2008-243
2008-244
2008-245
2008-246
2008-247
2008-248
Feature
5
5
7-97
8-04
8-05
8-78
all
all
all
5+
5+
5+
all
all
all
north 1/2
3
4
all
B
south 1/2
all
all
64
8-71
8-74
4
47
47
8-89
7-82
8-23
7-84
7-85
7-86
?
66 68
66 68
B
A
B
A
A1
A1
A
C C1
C C1
A B1
4
7-81
8-110
5+
5+
all
all
5+
5+
NW
SE
all
all
NO
8-30
8-30
8-111
8-112
261
Remarks
80-103
79-87
79-87
A A1
south 1/2
south 1/2
east 1/2
4
all
5+ west 1/2
5+ west 1/2
4
4
5+ west 1/2
5+ west 1/2
5+ west 1/2
4
4
4
5+
north
5+ north 1/2
4
Depth
(cmbd)
80808079.5101.5
70
70-80
8180-110
80-88
70-80
81-83
81-94
80-91
70-80
zone A, 2 bags
808070-80
N202 E203
70-80
N202 E204
80808070-80
N202 E204
70-80
N202 E203
80
?
80-96 C=Fea 66 C1=Fea 68
96-129 C=Fea 66 C1=Fea 68
70-80
N202 E203, floor
scrape
80
N202-203 E203-205
floor scrape
80-92
80-100
80-81
scrape of zone
78-97
78-97
80-105
80-91
FS No
Recovery
Unit
2008-249
2008-250
2008-251
2008-252
2008-253
2008-254
2008-255
2008-256
2008-257
2008-258
2008-259
2008-260
2008-261
2008-262
2008-263
2008-264
2008-265
2008-266
2008-267
Flot
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
Flot
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
Flot
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
144
138
129
138
138
131
151
144
129 141
129 145
168
169
138
169
125
151
169
126
154
Feature
Posthole Level Portion Zone
8-61
8-21
8-113
8-20
7-98
8-22
66
east 1/2
5+
5+
8-61
5+
5+
8-01
8-114
8-115
8-116
5-6
5+
68
8-117
5-6
5-6
2008-268 1/4" screen
168
2008-269 1/4" screen 161 162 163
5
all
west 1/2
west 1/2
west 1/2
south 1/2
west 1/2
all
all
north 1/2
north 1/2
all
all
south 1/2
south 1/2
all
south 1/2
south 1/2
O
N
B
Depth
(cmbd)
79-110
7981-101
79797980-103
79-110
81-93
81-95
78-94
80-101
82-102
80-99
80-100
80-129
80-96
80-100
80-93
2008-273 1/4" screen
80
125 127
2008-274 1/4" screen 158 159 160
161
2008-275 1/4" screen
168 169
262
south 50 x 100 cm
2 buckets
south 50 x 100 cm
south 50 x 100 cm
No artifacts
80-90
2008-270 1/4" screen 165 166 167
2008-271 1/4" screen 125 126 153
154
2008-272
P.P.
161
Remarks
east profile wall
scrapings
wall profile
scrapings--east, west,
south walls
wall profile
scrapings--south wall
N195.43 E208.18
Antler tine, rim sherd
wall profile
scrapings--west walls
N195 E205-209
South wall profile
scrape
N202 E203-205 Wall
profile scraping
APPENDIX D:
12-H-883 FLOTATION LOG, 2008
FS#
46
50
51
58
62
69
71
80
81
88
89
90
97
102
107
120
157
173
180
182
188
192
193
195
196
202
203
204
207
212
220
224
228
229
232
233
234
238
Unit
Feature
PH
Lvl
Portion
Zone
133
7-90
5
S1/2
B
131
59
5
W1/2
141
4 SE CORNER
N
134
4 SE CORNER
P
143
4 SW CORNER
E
129
4 SE CORNER
A,P
142
4 SE CORNER
130
51
5
S1/2
147
SW
B
146
4 SE CORNER
A
132
7-73
5
N1/2
157
4 SE CORNER
B
143
54
4
E1/2
139
4 SE CORNER
B
143&163 55
4
ALL
144
4
A
151
4
ALL
H
154
58
E1/2
164
62
E1/2
143
63
W1/2
143
63
W1/2
135
7-105
W1/2
135
8-06
W1/2
135
7-104
W1/2
135
8-08,8-25
W1/2
136
7-103
W1/2
136
7-99
W1/2
136
8-26
W1/2
126&128 65
S1/2
161&162 61
5
ALL
125&126 64
S1/2
125&126 47
S1/2
137
7-82
5+
W1/2
137
8-23
5+
W1/2
137
7-84
5+
W1/2
137
7-85
5+
W1/2
137
7-86
5+
W1/2
151
66&68
5+
N
C&C1
263
Depth cmbd
80.5-98
80-?
73-80
70-80
70-80
73-80
73-80
80-98
70-80
70-80
80-122
73-80
70-83
72-80
71-80
70-80
70-80
68-77
80-88
80-93
93-99.5
80-111
80-121
80-?
80-?
80-124
80-102
80-107
86-98
79-87
81-?
81-83
80-?
80-?
80-?
80-?
80-?
80-96
Amt
Flot
3
4
8
7
8
5
8
24
7
8
6
10
6
5
4
7
14
5
11
18
6
4
4
4
7
9
4
3
9
11
8
10
3
5
4
5
3
20
Amt Soil
Sample
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
2
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
FS#
Unit
246
249
255
264
155
144
151
151
Feature
PH
Lvl
Portion
5+
5+
SE
E1/2
S1/2
S1/2
8-30
8-61
66
68
264
Zone
Depth cmbd
78-97
79-110
80-103
80-129
Amt
Flot
9
4
16
37
Amt Soil
Sample
0
0
1
1
APPENDIX E:
NEW DISCOVERIES AND QUESTIONS: REPORT OF GEOPHYSICAL AND
ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS ON SITE 12-H-1052
by Scott Hipskind
INTRODUCTION
During the National Science Foundation and Indiana University-Purdue University Fort
Wayne three-year Research Experiences for Undergraduates program, three separate
projects were undertaken on site 12-H-1052. Scott Hipskind, James Stewart, and
Gabrielle Paschall, seen in Figure E.1, were the undergraduates who developed projects
in order to study the site. In 2005 (permit number 200547), Scott Hipskind performed
preliminary and exploratory geophysical surveys using magnetometry and resistivity in
the southeast corner and highest elevated portion of the site near the Strawtown enclosure
(12-H-883). This survey was designed to: find any intact cultural contexts using
geophysical instruments, use archaeological excavation to ground-truth suspected cultural
anomalies found in the geophysical survey; and to attempt to find a cultural affiliation for
the site. In 2006 (Permit 2006060), two additional REU students, Gabrielle Paschall and
James Stewart, designed research projects to study site 12-H-1052 further. Paschall
designed a project to test the 2005 hypotheses for finding large storage pits and natural
subsoil anomalies. The project included additional magnetometry and resistivity surveys
to the north and west of the areas investigated in 2005 to retrieve more geophysical data
to study and possibly locate storage pit features and natural soil anomalies. The research
project designed by Stewart used resistivity in profile to study one of the large storage
pits discovered by the 2005 examination of the site. All these projects helped further the
understanding of the site and produced new insights and questions pertaining to the use of
the site and its relation to the sites around it.
BACKGROUND
Site 12-H-1052 is situated on the elevated prominence directly west of the Strawtown
enclosure (12-H-883). This flat, triangular high ground is surrounded by extensive
bottomlands on the north, west, and south. Site 12-H-1052 is shown in relation to the
Strawtown enclosure in the Google Earth (2006) aerial photograph in Figure E.2. Site 12H-1052 was first reported in 1880 by Thomas B. Helm as a cemetery, lookout post, or
burial mound for whomever occupied the defensive enclosure. His interpretations were
based on human remains and potsherds of mortuary vessels that were found on the
western edge of the terrace during cultivation (Helm 1880:128). Frederick Eggan
surveyed site 12-H-1052 in 1930 and suggested that it was a village occupied over a long
period of time, based on human remains and “village site material” discovered during
gravel mining (Eggan 1930:1-3).
In 2002 and 2003 the Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne
Archaeological Survey (IPFW-AS) excavated screened shovel probes to locate the
perimeter of 12-H-1052. The probes found that, after the enclosure, 12-H-1052 had the
265
second densest scatter of prehistoric artifacts of all the sites located on the elevated
terrace. All of the probes conducted west of the enclosure were positive, containing at
least some prehistoric cultural materials. These materials consisted of chipped stone
debitage, nondiagnostic pot sherds, and fire-cracked rock (McCullough et al. 2004:91).
In 2003 both hand and machine excavations were performed in the southeast portion of
12-H-1052. These excavations attempted to locate another much smaller enclosure
reported by E. T. Cox in Helm’s history of Hamilton County (Helm 1880:28). Later,
Indiana Geological Survey personnel surveyed a section of the site with groundpenetrating radar, but no information related to the smaller enclosure was gathered.
These excavations uncovered two shallow features, but no cultural designation could be
produced from the artifacts recovered from the excavations (McCullough et al. 2004:91106). The extent of previous excavations on site 12-H-1052 can be seen in Figure E.3.
SURVEY AND EXCAVATION METHODS
Work at site 12-H-1052 during the 2005 REU program field season focused on gathering
and interpreting geophysical data to locate anomalies for ground-truthing. Using an
electronic total station set on the Strawtown enclosure site grid by the concrete and rebar
datums of the enclosure, a grid of eight and a half 20 x 20 meter squares was placed over
the southeast portion of the site (see Figure E.4 in red). This grid was then surveyed with
a Geoscan FM256 Fluxgate Gradiometer and a Geoscan RM15 Resistance Meter with an
MPX Multiplexer. Ground-truthing consisted of machine and hand excavations of four
different anomalies located to the northwest of the 2003 excavations of 12-H-1052.
Three different trenches were excavated during the 2005 season. An approximate total of
25 square meters was opened during the 2005 excavations and exposed two large pit
features.
Work at the site during the 2006 REU program field season consisted of two separate
projects. The first project was developed by Gabrielle Paschall, and was designed to
expand on the previous geophysical survey as well as test the hypothesis formulated from
the results of the 2005 season relating to the geophysical signatures of large storage pits
and natural subsoil anomalies on the site. This hypothesis suggests that even though large
storage pits and natural pockets of gravel in the clay subsoil have similar geophysical
signatures, there are subtle differences between them which can be used to tell them
apart. These differences include higher resistance and low magnetic properties for the
gravel pockets and higher magnetic and lower resistance properties for the storage pits. A
grid of seven additional 20 x 20 meter grid squares, set on the Strawtown enclosure site
grid using the concrete and rebar datums of the enclosure, was surveyed to the northwest
of the 2005 geophysical survey grid (see Figure E.4 in blue). This grid was surveyed in
the same manner as the 2005 survey, using a Geoscan FM256 Fluxgate Gradiometer and
a Geoscan RM15 Resistance Meter with an MPX Multiplexer. Ground-truthing for
Paschall's project consisted of three machine and hand excavation trenches over three
different anomalies located to the north of the 2005 excavations of 12-H-1052. The
second project was developed by James Stewart and was designed to study the usefulness
of resistivity on profile walls. For Stewart's research project, a fourth trench was
excavated to uncover Feature 3, a large storage pit discovered by the 2005 REU program,
266
and the southeast half removed. An approximate total of 68 square meters were opened
during the 2006 excavations.
Geophysical Survey
The gradiometer data from 2005 and 2006, shown in Figure E.5, for site 12-H-1052 were
collected in 50 cm intervals with readings every 12.5 cm. Most of the usable data came
from the western portion of the surveyed area, because ferrous metal interference caused
problems in collecting clean magnetometer data over the rest of the site. The source of
metal interference came from a historic barn and the use of this site as a junkyard. Also,
because the survey was done improperly, the magnetic data recovered from Grids 171
and 172 were unusable. Even after extensive processing, which can also produce fake
anomalies, the data were still not acceptable. Anomalies that were seen in the data were
categorized by the presence or absence of a dipole, which is caused by metal, and by the
strength of their magnetic force. Anomalies that had magnetic readings of over 10 nT or a
strong dipole were ignored. These anomalies were excluded as potential features because
they in all likelihood represented metal interference.
The resistivity data, shown in Figure E.6, was collected on 50-cm transects and at 50
cm intervals. Because known features of the nearby Strawtown enclosure were
represented by high resistance anomalies at the time of survey, high resistance anomalies
discovered in the data for 12-H-1052 were considered as possible cultural disturbances in
the subsoil. Many high resistance anomalies were present in the data, and those which
had corresponding anomalies without dipoles and magnetic readings under 10 nT in the
gradiometer data were chosen for ground-truthing.
Using the magnetic and resistance characteristics discussed above successfully led to
the location of two large storage pit features, a third small feature, and a natural compact
clay and rock zone in the 2005 REU program. The two large storage pit features were
characterized by high resistance and moderate magnetic signatures, whereas the natural
compact clay and rock zone had a high resistance and low magnetic signature. The small
feature was not seen in either the magnetometry or resistivity data. As part of Paschall's
2006 research project to test the 2005 hypotheses on locating geophysical anomalies
which represent large pit features and compact clay and rock zones, these same
characteristics were utilized to find both anomalies that represented storage pit features as
well as natural compact clay and rock zones in the 2006 geophysical survey.
Stewart's research project on using resistivity in profile required a large storage pit to
test with the RM 15 resistance meter in addition to the manufacturing of a new frame.
Feature 3, located in 2005, was chosen as the test feature, it was uncovered, and the east
half was removed. After this was complete, Stewart designed a resistivity frame which
allowed for any probe spacing that was desired. He then surveyed the west profile of
Feature 3 with probe spacings of 130 cm, 100 cm, 75 cm, 50 cm, 25 cm, and 15 cm with
sample intervals of 10 cm. The results of Stewart's project are discussed later.
267
2005 Excavation Trenches
Three backhoe trench units were dug to strip off the plowzone. The trenches targeted four
different anomalies that were seen in both the gradiometer data (Figure E.7) and
resistivity data (Figure E.8). Trench 1 was excavated over Anomaly 1, which had a
resistivity reading of 53.47 Ohm-m and a high gradiometer reading of +9.04 nT. Trench 2
was excavated over Anomaly 2, which had a resistivity reading of 51.59 Ohm-m and a
high gradiometer reading of +7.99 nT. Trench 3 was excavated over Anomaly 3 and 4.
Anomaly 3 had a high resistivity reading of 64.48 Ohm-m and a gradiometer reading of
+2.41 nT. Anomaly 4 had a high resistivity reading of 65.80 Ohm-m and a gradiometer
reading of +2.48 nT. Shovels and trowels were used after the plowzone was stripped to
better define the edges of the anomalies targeted by the trenches. Once the anomalies
were uncovered, each trench was mapped using an electronic total station.
Each trench was given a datum with a known vertical and horizontal position that was
shot in using an electronic total station. Datums 1052-A for Trench 1, 1052-B for Trench
2, and 1052-C for Trench 3 consisted of a wooden stake and string line. Datum 1052-A
had an elevation of 99.92 m and was 40 cm above the ground surface. Datum 1052-B had
an elevation of 99.70 m and was 37 cm above the ground surface, and datum 1052-C had
an elevation of 99.31 m and was 44 cm above the ground surface. All of the datums were
placed in reference to the Strawtown enclosure site grid. All elevations were taken as
below datum using string line levels and tape measures or folding rules.
Trench 1 was placed in grid 174 with the southwest corner at N174.5, E76.5. It was
approximately 2 x 3 meters, oriented north to south. The trench excavation was halted at
about 60 cmbd when the anomaly could be defined. A total of three designated zones
were visible at the base of the trench excavation (Figure E.9). Zone A represented the
natural subsoil and was a dark yellowish brown (10YR4/6) clayey silt loam with 20-30
percent mottles of dark yellowish brown (10YR3/4). It had a strong structure and
compactness, contained less gravel than the other two zones, light charcoal flecking, and
some lithic debitage. Zone A had a diffuse to clear boundary with Zone B and a diffuse
boundary with Zone C. Zone B was designated as Feature 3 and was a large very dark
grayish brown (10YR3/2) clayey silt loam, circular stain about 1.92 m in diameter that
contained high amounts of cultural material and more gravel than the other two zones. It
had a moderate structure and compactness and had a diffuse boundary with Zone C. The
stain was designated Feature 3 of 12-H-1052 after the two that were discovered during
the 2003 excavations. Zone C was dark brown (10YR3/3) clayey silt loam, midden zone
with 5-10 percent mottles of dark yellowish brown (10YR4/6 and 10YR3/4). It had a
moderate structure and compactness and contained more gravel than Zone A and less
rock than Zone B. It also contained pottery, shell, bone, fire-cracked rock, lithic debitage,
and charcoal. After Feature 3 was mapped in plan, it was not excavated further. Trench 1
successfully located Anomaly 1, which turned out to be a culturally made feature. Trench
1 was later backfilled after profiles were drawn.
Trench 2 was placed in grid 173 and 174 with the southwest corner at N184, E70.5.
Running north to south, it was approximately 2 x 3 meters. Trench excavation was
terminated at about 63 cmbd when Anomaly 2 was clearly defined. Three different zones
were identified at the base of excavations as well as a circular rodent disturbance (Figure
E.10). Zone A was a large very dark gray (10YR3/2) silt loam, circular anomaly about
268
1.9 meters in diameter with few to common irregular mottles (< 1 cm) of dark yellowish
brown (10YR4/6). It had a moderate structure and compactness with common gravel less
than 6 cm, light charcoal flecking less than 2 cm, and abundant cultural material. Zone A
had a diffuse to clear boundary with Zone C. The stain was designated Feature 4 of 12-H1052. Zone B was the very dark gray (10YR3/1) silt loam center of Feature 4. It had a
moderate structure and compactness and contained common gravel less than 5 cm, light
charcoal flecking, and various cultural materials. Zone B had a diffuse boundary with
Zone A. Zone C, the natural subsoil, was dark yellowish brown (10YR4/6) clayey silt
loam with 20-40 percent mottles of very dark grayish brown (10YR3/2). It had a strong
structure and compactness with light small gravel less than 2 cm. Zone A and B were
designated as Feature 4 and Zone D, located on the southeast side of Feature 4, was
described as feature-like sediment and was later identified as a rodent disturbance during
the excavation of east half. Trench 2 was successful in locating Anomaly 2, which turned
out to be a cultural feature. Trench 2 was later backfilled after profiles were drawn.
Trench 3 was located in grid 169 and extended outside the area of collected
geophysical data to the north with the southwest corner at N219, E83. It was 2 x 6 meters
with an extra square meter extending off the northeast end. Trench excavation was
stopped at about 65 cmbd when the anomalies targeted by the trench were visible.
Excavation was extended to 85 cmbd in the northeast portion to get a better look at the
subsoil. Four different zones were identified at the base of excavation of Trench 3
(Figure E.11). Zone A, the natural subsoil, was a dark yellowish brown (10YR4/6) clay
loam. It had a strong structure and compactness, contained abundant gravel less than 5
cm, and had a diffuse boundary with Zone B. Zone B, also natural subsoil, was a dark
yellowish brown (10YR4/6) clay loam. It had a strong structure and compactness and
contained light gravel less than 4.5 cm. Zone B had a diffuse boundary with Zone C.
Zone C was a dark brown (10YR3/3) clay loam. It had a moderate structure and
compactness and contained light gravel less than 3 cm and very light charcoal flecking.
Zone C had a diffuse boundary with Zone D. Zone 3 was later designated as Feature 5
because of the change in soil color and presence of charcoal flecking. Zone 4 was the
inner zone of Feature 5 and was dark brown (10YR3/3) clayey silt loam. It had a
moderate structure and compactness, contained no gravel, small charcoal flecks, and faint
brown (10YR4/3) blotches. Feature 5 was not excavated further. While Trench 3 was
successful in locating Anomalies 3 and 4, they turned out to be Zone A, a naturally
occurring gravel matrix in the subsoil. The ability to identify similar anomalies, those
with high resistance values and low gradiometer values, however, will be of great
assistance in differentiating potential features from anomalies caused be naturally
occurring changes inside the soil in future investigations. Trench three was then
backfilled after profiles were drawn.
2006 Excavation Trenches
Three backhoe trench units were dug to strip off the plowzone. The trenches targeted four
different anomalies that were seen in both the gradiometer data (see Figure E.7) and
resistivity data (see Figure E.8). Trench 1 was excavated over Anomaly 6 and 11.
Anomaly 6 had a resistivity reading of 62.60 Ohm-m and a high gradiometer reading of
+6.50 nT and Anomaly 11 had a resistivity reading of 61.10 Ohm-m and a high
269
gradiometer reading of +4.95 nT. Trench 2 was excavated over Anomaly 10, which had a
resistivity reading of 60.25 Ohm-m and a high gradiometer reading of +2.84 nT Trench 3
was excavated over Anomaly 12, which had a high resistivity reading of 60.30 Ohm-m
and a gradiometer reading of +3.18 nT. Trench 4 was excavated over Feature 3 for
Stewart's project. Shovels and trowels were used after the plowzone was stripped to
better define the edges of the anomalies targeted by the trenches. Once the anomalies
were uncovered, each trench was mapped using an electronic total station.
Each trench was given a datum with a known vertical and horizontal position that was
shot in using an electronic total station. Datums 1052-B for Trench 1, 1052-G for Trench
2, 1052-H for Trench 3, and 1052-D for Trench 4 consisted of a wooden stake and string
line. Datum 1052-B had an elevation of 99.06 m and was 38 cm above the ground
surface, and datum 1052-G had an elevation of 99.13 m and was 37 cm above the ground
surface. Datum 1052-H had an elevation of 98.88 m and was 40 cm above the ground
surface, and datum 1052-D had an elevation of 99.59 m and was 10 cm above the ground
surface. All of the datums were placed in reference to the Strawtown enclosure site grid.
All elevations were taken as below datum using string line levels and tape measures or
folding rules.
Trench 1 was placed in grid 177 with the southwest corner at N239.5, E73.5. It was
approximately 3 x 6.5 m, oriented east to west. The trench excavation was halted at about
55 cmbd when the anomaly could be defined. Four designated zones were visible at the
base of the trench excavation (Figure E.12). Zone A was a dark brown (10YR3/3) silt
loam, amorphous stain about 1.35 m north to south by 1 meter east to west. It had a
moderate structure and compactness and contained moderate gravel less than 5 cm and
charcoal flecking less than 2 cm. Zone A had a clear to sharp boundary with Zone B and
was designated as Feature 8 of 12-H-1052. Zone B, the natural subsoil, was a yellowish
brown (10YR5/4) silty clay loam. It had a moderate to strong structure and compactness
and contained light gravel less than 5 cm, and had a clear boundary with Zone D. Zone C,
the natural subsoil at the base of the smaller trench dug at the base of Trench 1 to chase
Anomaly 11, was a dark yellowish brown (10YR4/4) clay loam. It had a strong structure
and compactness and contained moderate gravel less than 5 cm. Zone D was a line of five
postholes which were composed of a dark yellowish brown (10YR3/4) silt loam. After
Feature 8 and the five postholes were mapped in plan, they were not excavated further.
Trench 1 successfully located Anomaly 6, which turned out to be a culturally made
feature, but could not distinguish the cause of Anomaly 11 in the sub-plowzone matrix.
Trench 1 was later backfilled after profiles were drawn.
Trench 2 was placed in grid 177 with the southwest corner at N225, E76. Running
north to south, it was approximately 2 x 4.5 m. Trench excavation was terminated at 112
cmbd when no apparent cause for Anomaly 10 could be defined and no plan map was
made. Only one zone was present at the base of excavations which consisted of a dark
yellowish brown (10YR3/4) clay with abundant gravel. Trench 2 was then backfilled
after profiles were drawn.
Trench 3 was located in grid 176 with the southwest corner at N234, E68. Running
north to south, it was approximately 2 x 5 m. Trench excavation was halted at about 98
cmbd when no apparent cause for Anomaly 12 could be defined and no plan map was
made. Only one zone was present at the base of excavations which consisted of a dark
270
yellowish brown (10YR3/4) clay with abundant gravel. Trench 3 was later backfilled
after profiles were drawn.
Trench 4 was located in grid 169 and reopened Trench 1 from the 2005 REU
program. After the original trench was opened, it was then widened from 2 x 6 m to 4.5 x
6.5 m north to south. Trench excavation ended at about 25 cmbd, and five zones were
observed, including two additional features in the parts of the trench that had been
widened (Figure E.13). To the east of Feature 3, a smaller trench was excavated to about
65 cmbd to facilitate the excavation of the east half of the feature. Zone A was Feature 3,
and was a large stain about 2 x 1.75 m composed of a very dark grayish brown
(10YR3/2) silt loam. It had a loose to moderate structure and moderate compactness and
contained moderate gravel less than 6 cm and charcoal flecks less than 1 cm. Zone A had
a diffuse boundary with Zone C and a sharp boundary with Zone D. Zone B was Feature
6, and was a small circular stain about 41 cm in diameter composed of a dark brown
(10YR3/3) silt loam. It had a weak structure and a moderate compactness and contained
some light burned soil and more charcoal than Feature 3 and 7. Zone B had a sharp
boundary with Zone D. Zone C was Feature 7, and was a circular stain about 2 meters in
diameter composed of a dark brown (10YR3/3) silt loam. It had a loose to moderate
structure and moderate compactness and contained common gravel less than 5 cm, and
more charcoal flecking less than 1 cm than Feature 3. Zone C had a sharp boundary with
Zone D. Feature 7 was observed in the 2005 REU program, but was designated as a
midden zone because it was not completely exposed to the northwest. Zone D was the
natural subsoil at 25 cmbd, was composed of a dark yellowish brown (10YR4/6) clay
loam with 5-10 percent mottles of dark grayish brown (10YR4/2), and contained light
small gravel. Zone E was the natural subsoil at 65 cmbd, was composed of a dark
yellowish brown (10YR3/6) sandy clay with twenty percent mottles of both dark brown
(10YR3/3) and dark yellowish brown (10YR4/6), and contained abundant gravel less
than 8 cm. Zone E represents the end of the deep trench cut to aide the profiling of
Feature 3. The deep trench tapered up to about 25 cmbd in Zone 6 and no shovel scraping
or trowel scraping was done to clean up the area, no soil descriptions were done for this
zone. Before a profile of Feature 3 could be exposed for Stewart's project, Feature 6
needed to be completely removed. Once this was done the southeast half of Feature 3 was
removed. Trench 4 was later backfilled after profiles were drawn.
Stratigraphy
The stratigraphy uncovered by the 2005 and 2006 excavations was somewhat complex
and similar to that found in the Strawtown enclosure (McCullough et al. 2004:114-117).
As seen in the trench and feature profile drawings (Figures E.14 to E.19, and E.21), there
were five to seven stratigraphic zones with diffuse to distinct boundaries that were easily
distinguishable by soil texture, sand and gravel content, as well as by soil color. The soil
stratigraphy began with a brown (10YR4/3) or dark brown (10YR3/3) silt loam or clayey
silt loam organic plowzone (Ap horizon). The plowzone had a weak to moderate structure
and compactness, extended approximately 15-35 cmbs, and contained less gravel than the
B-horizon. Under the plowzone, both clay and gravel content increased. The B horizon,
was composed of a dark yellowish brown (10YR4/6, 10YR4/4, and 10YR3/4) silty clay
loam or clayey silt loam. It contained light to common gravel and had a strong structure
271
and compactness. The B horizon was observed in the profile of Feature 3 (Zone 8) and
Feature 4 (Zone 11). The remaining three to six stratigraphic zones, identified in the
excavation of Features 3 and 4, contained varying amounts of sand and gravel and are
discussed more below.
CULTURAL FEATURES
During the 2005 and 2006 investigations, feature numbers were given to six separate
anomalies. These cultural features were recognized at the base of plowzone, and Features
3, 4, 7, and possibly 8 were interpreted as large storage basins and refuse pits, whereas
Features 5 and 6 were smaller features with unidentified uses. Feature 3 was identified 60
cm below datum 1052-A in Trench 1. Feature 4 was uncovered 63 cm below datum
1052-B in Trench 2. Feature 5 was recognized 65 cm below datum 1052-C in Trench 3.
Feature 3
Initially uncovered by the 2005 excavations, Feature 3 was exposed 60 cmbd 1052-A and
was a circular/ovoid stain approximately 192 cm x 175 cm with a regular boundary. The
anomaly was a very dark grayish brown silt loam. During the shovel scraping of the
anomaly, many artifacts were encountered, and shovel scraping was abandoned for
trowel scraping. All soil was screened through 1/4” screen and numerous artifacts were
recovered, including 72 pieces of chipped stone debitage (2 of which were quartzite), 4
stone tools, 7.4 g of unburned bone, 5.2 g of mussel shell, 0.5 g of charcoal, 35 pieces of
fire-cracked rock, 17 not shell tempered sherds (including 1 rim and 2 necks), 18 nonshell-tempered nondiagnostic (<1/2”) sherds, 2.4 g of burned soil, and 3 pieces of historic
debris.
Feature 3 was interpreted as a large storage basin or trash pit similar to those in the
Strawtown enclosure. The rim sherd exhibited decoration consistent with a Castor phase
affiliation (McCullough 2005). Feature 3 was not excavated further until the 2006 REU
program and Trench 1 was backfilled.
Trench 1, after being reopened and widened in the 2006 REU program to uncover
Feature 3, was renamed Trench 4. The feature was bisected from northeast to southwest,
and the southeast half was excavated as one provenience until the base of the feature was
reached. All soil was screened with ¼” screen. The feature extended from 25 to 159
cmbd 1052-D and 149 cm below ground surface.
Fourteen different zones were defined in the profile and consisted of different
refilling episodes caused by wall collapses and repeated trash dumping. Feature fill made
up zones 1 through 7, and zones 8 through 14 made up the natural subsoil. Zone 1 was a
very dark grayish brown (10YR3/2) silt loam with 20 percent mottles of brown
(10YR4/3) and loose to moderate structure and moderate compactness. It contained
charcoal flecking, bone, pottery sherds, and moderate rock 4-6 cm in size and gravel less
than 1 cm. Zone 1 had a sharp boundary with Zone 2 and clear boundary with Zone 8.
Zone 2 was a brown (10YR4/3) silty clay loam with 10-15 percent mottles of very dark
grayish brown (10YR3/2) and a loose to moderate structure and moderate to strong
compactness. It contained charcoal flecking, bone, pottery sherds, and moderate rock 4-6
272
cm in size and more gravel less than 1 cm than Zones 1, 3, and 4. Zone 2 had a clear
boundary with Zone 3 and sharp boundary with Zones 4, 6, 9, and 10. Zone 3 was a dark
yellowish brown (10YR4/4) clay loam with 5-10 percent mottles of brown (10YR4/3)
and a moderate structure and strong compactness. It contained no artifacts, but charcoal
flecking, and light gravel less than 1 cm in size were present. Zone 4 was a dark
yellowish brown (10YR3/6) sandy/clayey silt loam with 10 percent mottles of brown
(10YR4/3), 15 percent mottles of dark grayish brown (10YR4/2), and a strong structure
and compactness. It contained no artifacts, but light rock 4-6 cm in size and abundant
gravel less than 1 cm, as well as light charcoal flecking were present. Zone 4 had a sharp
boundary with Zone 5, and a clear boundary with Zones 6 and 9. Zone 5 was a dark
grayish brown (10YR4/2) sandy/silt clay loam with 10-15 percent mottles of dark
yellowish brown (10YR3/6) and a strong structure and compactness. It contained no
artifacts or charcoal flecking, but light rock 2-3 cm in size and less gravel less than 1 cm
than Zone 4 was present. Zone 5 had a sharp boundary with Zones 12, 13, 14, a clear
boundary with Zone 6, and a diffuse boundary with Zone 10. Zone 6 was a dark gray
(10YR4/1) silty clay loam with a moderate structure and strong compactness. It contained
bone, pottery, and charcoal flecking with light rocks 3-8 cm and light small gravel less
than 1 cm also were present. Zone 6 had a sharp boundary with Zone 10, 13, and 14 as
well as a clear boundary with Zone 7. Zone 7 was a dark yellowish brown (10YR3/4)
silty clay loam with a strong compactness and structure. It contained no artifacts, but light
charcoal flecking, rock 2-5 cm, and very light gravel less than 1 cm were present. Zone 7
had a sharp boundary with Zones 13 and 14.
Zone 8 represents the B horizon of the natural subsoil and was a dark yellowish
brown (10YR4/6) clay loam with 5-10 percent mottles of dark grayish brown (10YR4/2)
and a strong structure and compactness. It contained light rock 4-6 cm and gravel less
than 1 cm. Zone 8 had a sharp boundary with Zone 9. Zone 9 was a dark yellowish
brown (10YR3/6) sandy clay with 20 percent mottles of dark yellowish brown (10YR4/6)
as well as 20 percent mottles of dark brown (10YR3/3) with a strong structure and
compactness. It contained abundant rock 4-8 cm and gravel less than 1 cm. Zone 9 had a
sharp boundary with Zone 10. Zone 10 was a dark brown (10YR3/3) sandy clay with 1015 percent mottles of dark yellowish brown (10YR3/6) and a very strong structure and
compactness. It contained abundant rocks 5-8 cm and gravel less than 1 cm. Zone 10 had
a sharp boundary with Zones 11, 12, and 13. Zone 11 was a dark yellowish brown
(10YR4/6) clayey sand with a moderate structure and compactness. It contained abundant
rock 3-6 cm and gravel less than 1 cm. Zone 11 had a clear boundary with Zone 12. Zone
12 was a yellowish brown (10YR5/6) sand with a weak structure and compactness. It
contained less rock 3-5 cm but more gravel less than 1 cm than Zone 11. Zone 12 had a
clear boundary with Zone 13. Zone 13 was a yellowish brown (10YR5/4) sand with a
very weak structure and compactness. It contained no rock or gravel, and had a clear
boundary with Zone 14. Zone 14 was a yellowish brown (10YR5/4) sand with a very
weak structure and compactness. Rock content was similar to Zone 12 but contained less
rock 3-5 cm and gravel less than 1 cm. Four float samples were removed from the
remaining west half. The first sample came from Zones 1, the second came from Zone 2,
the third came from Zone 6, and the last came from Zone 7. A profile drawing of Feature
3 can be seen in Figures E.19a and E.19b.
273
Artifacts recovered from the 2006 excavation of Feature 3 (excluding the floatation
samples) include: 75 not shell tempered and 4 shell-tempered nondiagnostic (<1/2”)
sherds, 134 pieces of fire-cracked rock (including 21 pieces of fire-cracked chert), 159
sherds (including 1 shell-tempered body sherd, 15 rims, 24 necks, and 1 base), 11.1 g of
mussel shell, 21.1 g of burned fauna, 542.7 g of unburned fauna, 379 pieces of chipped
stone debitage (including 7 pieces of quartzite), 127.4 g of flora, 81.5 g of burned soil, 1
core, 10 stone tools, and 3 bone tool.
Each float from the west half of Feature 4 was measured in liters and a 1 liter soil
sample was removed from each sample and all had varying amounts of artifacts. Out of
the 8 liter sample from Zone 1, 16.9 g of materials were collected in the light fraction;
and artifacts recovered include 0.6 g of unburned fauna, 1 bone tool, 1 shell-tempered
and 2 non-shell-tempered nondiagnostic (<1/2”) sherds, 3 non-shell-tempered sherds
(including 1 rim sherd), 4 pieces of fire-cracked rock (including one piece of fire-cracked
chert), 2 pieces of chipped stone debitage, and 1 stone tool A total of 18.2 g of materials
were collected in the light fraction from the 12-liter sample of Zone 2, and artifacts
recovered include 25.1 g of unburned fauna, 1.8 g of burned fauna, 10 non-shelltempered nondiagnostic (<1/2") sherds, 8 non-shell-tempered sherds (including 1 rim
sherd), 3 fire-cracked rocks, 7 pieces of chipped stone debitage, and 0.6 g of burned soil.
The 4-liter sample of Zone 6 contained 0.6 g of materials collected in the light fraction
and artifacts recovered include 2 pieces of fire-cracked rock, 0.1 g of unburned fauna, 4
non-shell-tempered nondiagnostic (<1/2”) sherds, and 2 pieces of chipped stone debitage.
The 11-liter sample of Zone 7 produced 9.1 g of materials collected in the light fraction
and artifacts recovered include 2 non-shell-tempered sherds, 2 non-shell-tempered
nondiagnostic (<1/2”) sherds, 9 pieces of chipped stone debitage, 41 g of unburned fauna,
and 5 pieces of fire-cracked rock.
Feature 3 was interpreted as a storage basin and trash pit and was very similar to the
large deep features identified within the Strawtown enclosure as well as to Feature 4
discussed below. All the pottery found within the feature (except the solitary body sherd
and few nondiagnostic (<1/2”) shell-tempered sherds) was Castor phase style, indicating
a distant relationship with the Western Basin Tradition peoples. No further excavation
was done on Feature 3, and Trench 4 was later backfilled.
Stewart's resistivity in profile project was completed before the flotation samples
were taken and had a successful and productive outcome. First, differences in feature fill
and sediment were recognized in the resistance data, which allowed the feature to be
identified in graduated shade plots of Feature 3. Also, the resistance data overlaid on the
feature profile (Figures E.20a and E.20b) shows that resistivity done in profile can
accurately represent both cultural and natural stratigraphic differences in the soil.
However, there were some problems. At the termination of this project, ground-truthing
this survey was not possible. Also better images showing more subtle changes in soil
variation could be seen if smaller degrees of variation in data were more important with
the RM-15 resistivity meter, which is designed for large horizontal surveys where large
degrees of variation are more important. Use of vertical resistivity profiling allowed more
data to be recovered from an already open excavation and, when combined with data
from an area that has already been surveyed horizontally, could produce a threedimensional view (Stewart 2006).
274
Feature 4
Feature 4 was exposed during the 2005 REU program about 63 cmbd 1052-B and was a
circular stain about 189 cm in diameter with a clear boundary. The stain was a very dark
gray silt loam and had a darker ovoid center that measured approximately 87 cm x 74 cm.
Because of the size of Feature 4, only the eastern half of the feature could be excavated
by the end of the 2005 REU program. Feature 4 was bisected north to south, and the east
half was excavated in six levels. All soil was passed through ¼” screen. Levels were
arbitrarily set at 10 cm, but because of the clay content and time restraints they were later
changed to 25 cm levels. Level 1 was from 60-70 cmbd, Level 2 was from 70-95 cmbd,
Level 3 was from 95-120 cmbd, Level 4 was from 120-145 cmbd, Level 5 was 145-170
cmbd, and the bottom of Feature 4 was found 16 cm into Level 6. The final depth of
Feature 4 was 186 cm below datum 1052-B and 149 cm below ground surface.
Fourteen different zones were defined in the profile and consisted of different
refilling episodes caused by wall collapses and repeated trash dumping. Feature fill made
up zones 1 through 10, and zones 11 through 14 made up the natural subsoil. Zone 1 was
a very dark grayish brown (10YR3/2) silt loam with mottles of faint blotches of dark
yellowish brown (10YR4/4) and a weak structure and compactness. It contained light
charcoal flecking, common rock 2-3 cm and gravel less than 1 cm. Zone 1 had a clear
boundary of with Zone 2. Zone 2 was a very dark grayish brown (10YR3/2) silt loam
with mottles of light blotches of dark yellowish brown (10YR4/4) and a weak structure
and compactness. It contained few flecks of charcoal < 2 cm in size, common rock 2-6
cm and gravel less than 1 cm, and large pieces of bone. Zone 2 had a sharp to clear
boundary with Zone 3. Zone 3 was a dark brown (10YR3/3) clayey silt loam with a loose
structure and compactness. It contained charcoal < 1 cm in size, and less rock 2-8 cm and
gravel less than 1 cm than the rock and gravel present in Zones 1 and 2. Zone 3 had a
sharp to clear boundary with Zone 4. Zone 4 was a brown (10YR4/3) clayey silt loam
with mottles of yellowish red (5YR 4/6) with a loose to moderate compactness. It seemed
to have a higher clay content then Zone 3 as well as common rock 2-3 cm and gravel less
than 1 cm, and common flecks of charcoal less than 1 cm. Zone 4 had a sharp boundary
with Zone 5. Zone 5 was a brown (10YR4/3) silty clay loam with a loose compactness. It
contained rare rock 2-7 cm and gravel less than 1 cm, and few charcoal flecks less than 2
cm. Zone 5 had a clear boundary with Zone 6.
Zone 6 was predominantly a grayish brown (10YR5/2) intermixed with brown
(7.5YR 4/4) silt like ashy soil with black blotches. It had a weak structure and
compactness and contained common rocks 2-6 cm and gravel less than 1 cm, and had a
sharp boundary with Zone 14. Zone 7 was a dark brown (10YR3/3) silty clay loam with
mottled streaks of dark yellowish brown (10YR4/6). It had a moderate structure and
compactness and contained linear burned areas that were 7 cm thick and 10 cm long. The
linear burned areas contained two separate soil colors consisting of a brown (7.5 YR 4/4)
top and dark grayish brown (10YR4/2) bottom and appeared to be in situ. Zone 7 also
contained rare charcoal flecks less than 1 cm, rare rock 2-4 cm and gravel less than 1 cm.
Zone 7 had a sharp boundary with Zones 4 and 13. Zone 8 was a dark brown (10YR3/3)
silty clay loam with a loose to moderate structure and compactness. It contained common
gravel less than 1 cm, common charcoal flecks less than 1 cm, mussel shell, and
ceramics. Zone 8 had a sharp boundary with Zone 14. Zone 9 was similar to Zone 7 and
275
was composed of a dark brown (10YR3/3) silty clay loam with 40 percent mottles of dark
yellowish brown (10YR4/6) streaks. It was moderately compact and contained rare
charcoal flecks less than 1 cm, and rare rock 2-4 cm and gravel less than 1 cm. Zone 9
had sharp boundaries with Zones 4, 10, and 13. Zone 10 was a brown (10YR4/3) silty
clay loam with a moderate structure and compactness. It contained common charcoal
flecks less than 1 cm, few rocks 2-3 and gravel less than 1 cm, and had sharp boundaries
with Zones 6 and 14.
Zone 11 was a dark yellowish brown (10YR3/4) clay loam with strong structure and
compactness. It contained few rocks 2-3 cm and gravel less than 1 cm. Zone 11
represents the B horizon of the natural subsoil and had a sharp boundary with Zone 12.
Zone 12 was a dark yellowish brown (10YR3/4) sandy clay loam with a strong structure
and compactness. It contained common/abundant rock 2-4 cm and gravel less than 1 cm.
Zone 12 had a sharp boundary with Zone 13. Zone 13 was a dark brown (10YR3/3) clay
loam with a loose to moderate structure and compactness. It contained abundant rock 2-6
cm and gravel less than 1 cm. Zone 13 had a sharp boundary with Zone 14. Zone 14 was
a dark yellowish brown (10YR4/6) sand and gravel with a very loose structure and
compactness. It contained high amounts of sand with common rock 5 to 10 cm and gravel
less than 1 cm. Five flotation samples were then removed from the west half. The first
sample came from Zones 1 and 2, the second came from Zone 3, the third came from
Zone 4, the fourth came from Zone 5, and the last came from Zone 6. A profile drawing
of Feature 4 can be seen in Figures E.21a and E.21b.
Artifacts recovered from Feature 4 thus far (excluding the flotation samples) include:
321 non-shell-tempered and 6 shell-tempered nondiagnostic (<1/2”) sherds, 209 pieces of
fire-cracked rock (including 40 pieces of fire-cracked chert), 283 non-shell-tempered
sherds (including 11 rims and 26 necks), 39.2 g of shell, 429 g of burned fauna, 487.7 g
of unburned fauna, 535 pieces of chipped stone debitage (including 13 pieces of quartzite
and 4 pieces of slate), 555.1 g of flora, 1.2 g of burned soil, 1 piece of waste clay, 1 pipe
fragment, 6 stone tools, 1 bone tool, and 1 piece of historic metal.
Each float from the west half of Feature 4 was measured in liters and a 1-liter soil
sample was removed from each sample and all had varying amounts of artifacts. Out of
the 14-liter sample from Zones 1 and 2, 19 g of materials were collected in the light
fraction; artifacts recovered included 59.7 g of unburned fauna, 5.9 g of burned fauna, 0.1
g of fish scales, 13 non-shell-tempered nondiagnostic (<1/2”) sherds, 30 pieces of firecracked rock, 82 pieces of chipped stone debitage (including 2 pieces of quartzite), and
0.1 g of red ocher. A total of 7.3 g of materials was collected in the light fraction from the
10-liter sample of Zone 3, and artifacts recovered included 1.7 g of unburned fauna, 1.6 g
of burned fauna, 0.1 g of fish scales, 1 core, 2 fire-cracked rocks, and 26 pieces of
chipped stone debitage. The 11-liter sample of Zone 4 contained 17.9 g of materials
collected in the light fraction, and artifacts recovered included 11 pieces of fire-cracked
rock, 0.1 g of fish scales, 3.3 g of unburned fauna, 1.2 g of burned fauna, 15 non-shelltempered nondiagnostic (<1/2”) sherds, 4 non-shell-tempered sherds (including 1 neck
sherd), and 35 pieces of chipped stone debitage (including 2 pieces of quartzite). The 8liter sample of Zone 5 produced 69.9 g of materials collected in the light fraction, and
artifacts found included 12 non-shell-tempered sherds (including 2 neck sherds and 1 rim
sherd), 25 non-shell-tempered nondiagnostic (<1/2”) sherds, 55 pieces of chipped stone
debitage (including one piece of quartzite), 22.9 g of unburned fauna, 13.8 g of burned
276
fauna, 0.8 g of shell, 0.1 g of fish scales, 7 pieces of fire-cracked rock, and 1 stone tool.
The 12-liter sample of Zone 6 contained 31.5 g of materials collected in the light fraction,
and artifacts recovered include 118 pieces of fire-cracked rock, 259.9 g of burned fauna,
10 g of unburned fauna, 16.8 g of shell, 111 non-shell-tempered nondiagnostic (<1/2”)
sherds, 36 non-shell-tempered sherds (including 3 rim and 2 neck sherds), 3 chipped
stone tools, 83 pieces of chipped stone debitage (including 6 pieces of quartzite), 0.1 g of
fish scales, 1 piece of daub, 56.1 g of burned soil, 1 heavily charred manuport, and a large
section of a ceramic vessel.
Feature 4 was interpreted as a storage basin and trash pit and was very similar to the
large deep features identified within the Strawtown enclosure. All the pottery found
within the feature (except the few nondiagnostic, <1/2” shell-tempered sherds) was in the
Castor phase style, indicating a distant relationship with the Western Basin Tradition
peoples. A charred nut shell from Level 5 was sent out for botanical and radiometric
analysis. The nut shell was identified as Carya laciniosa, which is shellbark hickory or
big leaf shagbark hickory (Leslie Bush, personal communication) and Beta Analytic
(Beta 210232) returned a 2-sigma calibrated radiocarbon date of AD 1300-1420 (Figure
E.22). No further excavation was done on Feature 4, and Trench 2 was later backfilled.
Feature 5
Feature 5 was exposed during the 2005 REU program about 65 cmbd 1052-C. It
consisted of a small half-circle stain that protruded 51 cm into Trench 3 from the west
wall, and had a diameter of 123 cm along the wall. It contained a dark brown (10YR3/3)
moderately compact silt loam with a slightly darker center that extended 31 cm from the
wall and had a diameter of 76 cm along the wall. Light charcoal flecking was present, but
no artifacts were found on the surface of Feature 5 and it was not excavated any further.
Trench 3 was then backfilled afterwards.
Feature 6
Feature 6 was discovered during the excavation of Trench 4 during the 2006 REU
program. It was located just over a meter to the south of Feature 3 and was composed of
a small, circular stain with a diameter of about 41 cm. It was composed of a dark brown
(10YR3/3) silt loam with a weak structure and moderate compactness and contained
more charcoal than Features 3 and 7 and no gravel. Feature 6 was completed excavated to
allow the excavation of the southeast half of Feature 3, so it was bisected from the
northeast to the southwest, and the southeast half was removed to expose the feature's
profile. It extended from 23 cmbd to 27 cmbd 1052-D, and only two zones, consisting of
Feature 6 and the natural subsoil, were present in the profile. Zone 1 was Feature 6, and it
was again composed of a dark brown (10YR3/3) silt loam with a weak structure and
moderate compactness and contained mostly charcoal, light burned soil, and no gravel.
Feature 6 had a sharp boundary with Zone 2. Zone 2 consisted of a dark yellowish brown
(10YR4/6) clay loam with 25 percent mottles of dark brown (10YR3/3) and had a strong
structure and compactness. It contained only light rock 2-4 cm in diameter and gravel less
than 1 cm. A profile drawing of Feature 6 can be seen in Figure E.23.
277
After the southeast portion was removed and the size of the feature was known, it was
decided to take the whole feature as one flotation sample because the feature was so
small. The 12.5-liter flotation of Feature 6 contained 11.7 g of materials collected in the
light fraction, and artifacts recovered included 1 piece of fire-cracked rock (chert) and 8.8
g of burned soil.
The interpretation of Feature 6 is unclear. Based on the amount of charcoal and
presence of light burned soil, it is probable that it represents a smudge pit or small fire
hearth and is likely related to the other nearby features.
Feature 7
Feature 7 was exposed during excavation of Trench 4 during the 2006 REU program. It
was a circular stain about 2 meters in diameter and was located about 25 cm to the
northwest of Feature 3 about 28 cmbd 1052-D. It was composed of a dark brown
(10YR3/3) silt loam with a moderate structure and compactness and common gravel less
than 5 cm and charcoal flecking less than 1 cm. Many artifacts were encountered during
the initial shovel scraping of the feature at the point of definition, so the soil from the
scraping was screened. All soil was screened through 1/4” screen, and numerous artifacts
were recovered, including 19 pieces of chipped stone debitage, 4 stone tools, 1.6 g of
unburned bone, 0.9 g of burned bone, 0.1 g of fish scale, 0.1 g of mussel shell, 4 pieces of
fire-cracked rock (including one piece of fire-cracked chert), 7 non-shell-tempered sherds
(including 1 neck), 3 non-shell-tempered nondiagnostic (<1/2”) sherds, and 1 piece of
historic debris.
Feature 7 was interpreted as a large storage basin or trash pit similar to Features 3 and
4 as well as to those in the Strawtown enclosure. No diagnostic sherds exhibiting
decoration consistent with a Castor phase affiliation (McCullough 2005) were recovered
from the feature, but its close proximity to Features 3 and 4 make it likely that Castor
phase peoples likely produced the feature. Feature 7 was not excavated further and was
backfilled.
CULTURAL MATERIALS FROM EXCAVATIONS
The 2005 excavations at site 12-H-1052 resulted in the collection of 2,304 artifacts,
including 904 pieces of chipped stone, 864 sherds, 1 ceramic pipe fragment, 1 piece of
modified bone/antler, 422 pieces of fire-cracked rock, 1 heavily charred manuport, 0.1 g
of red ocher, and 4 historic artifacts. Also recovered from excavations were 1,366.8 g of
fauna, and 555.6 g of flora. The 2006 excavations at site 12-H-1052 resulted in the
collection of 888 artifacts, including 444 pieces of chipped stone, 285 sherds, 4 pieces of
modified fauna, 153 pieces of fire-cracked rock, 31 pieces of burned soil, and 2 historic
artifacts. In addition to these artifacts, 661.3 g of fauna, and 127.4 g of flora, were also
recovered. A description of the general characteristics of the notable artifacts, primarily
ceramic debris, chipped stone tools, and some historic artifacts are contained in this
section.
278
Lithics 2005
A total of 904 pieces of prehistoric chipped stone was recovered from the 2005
excavations of site 12-H-1052. This included 888 pieces of chipped stone debitage, 14
chipped stone tools, and 2 cores. The chipped stone tools consisted of bifacial (n=13) and
unifacial (n=1) implements. The bifacial tools consist of both fragmented and crude
unrefined tools, as well as highly refined hafted triangular points (Table E.1).
Table E.1: Totals of Stone Tools and Raw Material Used in Manufacture, 2005 Excavations at 12-H-1052
Artifact
frequency
Chert
Quartzite
Slate
Total
Unrefined Bifaces
6
0
0
6
Refined Bifaces
2
0
0
2
Hafted Bifaces
5
0
0
5
Unifaces
1
0
0
1
Debitage
858
26
4
888
Cores
2
0
0
2
Total
874
26
4
904
Hafted Bifaces (n=5)
Five hafted bifaces (Figure E.24) are contained in the biface tool assemblage collected
during the 2005 excavations. These points have either partial or complete hafting
elements.
Late Woodland/Mississippian Triangular Cluster. All of the hafted bifaces were Late
Woodland/Late Prehistoric triangular points. These points varied in shape and size, and
resembled points discussed in Railey’s (1992) typology for triangular points. Railey
(1992) used length, width, blade morphology as well as basal edge morphology to
separate nine different types. These types included 1 through 7, crude, and a humpback
knife. When Railey’s typology was applied to the hafted triangular points recovered in
2005 from 12-H-1052 one Type 2 point (05.62/35), one Type 4 point (05.62/36), two
Type 5 points (05.62/149 and 233), and one indeterminate point (05.62/125) were
classified.
Other Bifaces and Biface Fragments (n=8)
This category is made up of eight refined or unrefined bifacial tools (Figures E.25 and
E.26) which are unfinished or fragmented. Included in this category are unrefined
bifaces, fragmented refined bifaces, and humpback knives. Humpback knives are
included in this section because it is uncertain if these are intentionally produced or if
they are failed attempts at triangular point production (Jeske 1992; Munson and Munson
279
1972). All the other bifaces and biface fragments vary from artifacts with completely
flaked bifacial edges with a symmetrical shape to crudely flaked blocks of chert with one
or more interrupted bifacial edges. These crudely flaked bifaces can be considered
preforms or unrefined bifacial tools in the early stages of production, while the broken,
refined chipped stone tools represent fragmented finished tools.
Of the eight bifaces included in this category, two (05.62/33 and 216) were refined
fragmented bifaces, three (05.62/150, 180, and 236) were fragmented unrefined bifaces,
and two (05.62/34 and 176) were unrefined humpback knives (see Figure E.25). The
remaining biface (05.62/243) can be seen in Figure E.26 and is interpreted as a crudely
chipped, sandstone chopping tool.
Unifaces (n=1)
There was only one uniface (Figure E.27, 05.62/109) discovered in the lithic assemblage
classified as a nonformal tool. It was made of chert, seems to be fragmented, and had a
steep edge angle with a concave edge.
Cores (n=2)
Two artifacts from the lithics recovered were classified as cores (Figure E.28). Both of
these artifacts were chert, but one core (05.62/198) was a small irregular block of chert
with small flake scars, while the other core (05.62/66) was a waterworn cobble with
remnants of cortex that closely resembles an unrefined biface.
Chipped Stone Debitage (n=888)
The lithic assemblage contained 888 pieces of debitage. This included 858 pieces of
chert, 26 pieces of quartzite, and 4 pieces of slate.
Lithics 2006
A total of 444 pieces of prehistoric chipped stone was recovered from the 2006
excavations of site 12-H-1052. This included 427 pieces of chipped stone debitage, 16
chipped stone tools, and 1 core. The chipped stone tools consisted of bifacial (n=14) and
unifacial (n=2) implements. The bifacial tools consist of both fragmented and crude
unrefined tools, as well as highly refined hafted projectile points (Table E.2).
Table E.2: Totals of Stone Tools and Raw Material Used in Manufacture, 2006 Excavations at 12-H-1052
Artifact
frequency
Chert
Quartzite
Slate
Total
Unrefined Bifaces
5
0
0
5
Refined Bifaces
4
0
0
4
Hafted Bifaces
4
1
0
5
Unifaces
2
0
0
2
280
Artifact
frequency
Chert
Quartzite
Slate
Total
420
7
0
427
Cores
1
0
0
1
Total
436
8
0
444
Debitage
Hafted Bifaces (n=5)
Five hafted bifaces (Figure E.29) are contained in the biface tool assemblage collected
during the 2006 excavations. These points have either partial or complete hafting
elements.
Late Woodland/Mississippian Triangular Cluster. Four of the hafted bifaces were Late
Woodland/ Late Prehistoric Triangular cluster points. Again, the triangular points varied
in shape and size, and resembled points discussed in Railey’s (1992) typology for
triangular points. When Railey’s typology was applied to the hafted triangular points
recovered in 2006 from 12-H-1052, one indeterminate point (06.99/105), one Type 5
points (06.99/77), and two crude points (06.99/04 and 06.99/78) were classified. The
indeterminate projectile had characteristics of both Type 4 and 5 triangular points. The
crude projectiles were triangular in shape but had thick cross sections. One of these crude
points (06.99/04) was made of quartzite, and the other (06.99/78) had a beveled distal
end.
Merom Cluster. One hafted biface (06.99/09) was a Merom Expanding Stem projectile
point which was 21 mm long, 9 mm wide at the base, and 4 mm thick. It has a biconvex
to flattened cross-section with the flattened portion retaining coloration of the original
flake or chert cortex the projectile was made from. Also, the flattened face has only small
refining pressure flakes removed from the edges. It has a triangular blade shape with flat
to slightly convex blade edges, a somewhat flaring convex basal hafting element, no
basal grinding, and unbarbed shoulders. It is made of unknown heat-treated material.
Other Bifaces and Biface Fragments (n=9)
This category is made up of nine refined or unrefined bifacial tools (Figures E.30 and
E.31) which are unfinished or fragmented. Included in this category are unrefined
bifaces, fragmented refined bifaces, and humpback knives. Humpback knives are
included in this section because it is uncertain if these are intentionally produced or if
they are failed attempts at triangular point production (Jeske 1992; Munson and Munson
1972). All the other bifaces and biface fragments vary from artifacts with completely
flaked bifacial edges with a symmetrical shape to crudely flaked blocks of chert with one
or more interrupted bifacial edges. These crudely flaked bifaces can be considered as
preforms or unrefined bifacial tools in the early stages of production, while the broken,
refined chipped stone tools represent fragmented finished tools.
281
Of the nine bifaces included in this category, four (06.99/10, 76, 79, and 84) were
refined fragmented bifaces, and four (06.99/11, 12, 80 and 81) were fragmented or
complete unrefined bifaces (see Figure E.30). The remaining biface (06.99/85) can be
seen in Figure E.31 and is interpreted as a crudely chipped, poor quality chert chopping
tool.
Unifaces (n=2)
There were only two unifacial tools (Figure E.32, 06.99/82 and 83) included in the lithic
assemblage, and both were classified as nonformal. Both were made of chert and seem to
be expedient tools, and one (06.99/83) resembles a core but has one unifacial edge.
Cores (n=1)
One artifact from the lithics assemblage was classified as a core (Figure E.33). This core
(06.99/87) was a waterworn chert cobble with remnants of cortex and appears to be a
tested cobble with flakes removed to examine the fractal properties of the stone.
Chipped Stone Debitage (n=427)
The lithic assemblage contained 427 pieces of debitage. This included 420 pieces of chert
and 7 pieces of quartzite.
Ceramics
Ceramics recovered from the 2005 and 2006 were classified into rims, necks, bodies,
bases, and nondiagnostic. Rim sherds are pieces from the top of a vessel that are large
enough to discern the orientation of the neck and lip section of a vessel. Neck sherds are
vessel sections that have enough curvature to tell that it was initially part of a constrictedorifice vessel, but have no rim portions connected to them. Fragmented sherds that have
no neck or rim sections are body or base sherds, and fragmented sherds that were too
small (<1/2”) are nondiagnostic.
2005 Ceramic Assemblage
The ceramic assemblage recovered from the 2005 excavations of 12-H-1052 contained
rim sherds (n=18), neck sherds (n=33), body sherds (n=304), nondiagnostic sherds
(n=509), and a pipe fragment (n=1).
All of the ceramics that were recovered were grit tempered, except for one limestonetempered body sherd (which was the only artifact with a brushed surface treatment) and
six nondiagnostic shell-tempered sherds. Surface treatments included brushing, fabric
roughening, cordmarking, or plain. Of all the body sherds, only on 177 of them could the
method of surface treatment be established. Out of the 177 body sherds with identifiable
surface treatment, 75.7 percent (n=134) were cordmarked, 14.7 percent (n=26) were
fabric roughened, 9.0 percent (n=16) were plain, and 0.6 percent (n=1) were brushed. Of
all the rim sherds, a total of 12 had a surface treatment that could be identified: 58.3
282
percent (n=7) were plain, 33.3 percent (n=4) were cordmarked, and 8.3 percent (n=1)
were fabric roughened. The total number of neck sherds with a surface treatment that
could be identified was 20; 65.0 percent (n=13) were plain, and 35.0 percent (n=7) were
cordmarked. Examples of rim sherds recovered can be seen in Figure E.34, and Table E.3
displays the frequencies of surface treatments mentioned. Also, a large section of a vessel
(05.62/247) with a cordmarked body, but a plain rim (included with the plain rims
described above), was reconstructed and can be seen in Figure E.35. The vessel seems to
be repaired with a clay paste or slip which can be seen on the left side of the
reconstructed portion.
Table E.3: Distribution of Surface Treatments on Ceramics from the 2005 Excavations
Surface Treatment
Body
Neck
Rim
Total
Plain
16
13
7
36
Brushed
1
1
Cordmarked
134
7
4
145
Fabric Roughened
26
1
27
Other/Unidentified
127
13
6
146
Total
304
33
18
355
Castor phase and Western Basin-style ceramic vessels usually have decoration on the
rim and neck, while the body of the vessel usually only receives a surface treatment.
However, none of the neck sherds recovered displayed any decoration. On the other hand,
66.6 percent (n=12) of the rim sherds were decorated. The decoration on these rims
incorporated an assortment of impressed varieties (see Figures E.34 and E.35) including
Castor Roughened (05.62/78), Castor Punctate (05.62/77), Castor Dentate (05.62/168),
the Horizontal Cord Impressed variant of the Castor Linear style (05.62/21, 37, 75, and
167), Castor Oblique (05.62/52), Josey Plain (05.62/53) and Castor Plain/Smoothed types
(05.62/239, 240, and 247). Table E.4 displays the frequencies of rim decorations
recovered from the 2005 excavations.
Table E.4: Distribution of Ceramic Decoration on Rim Sherds from the 2005 Excavations
Type of Decoration
Number Identified
Unidentified
6
Castor Roughend
1
Castor Punctate
1
Castor Dentate
1
Horizontal Cord Impressed
4
Castor Oblique
1
Josey Plain
1
Castor Plain/Smoothed
3
There was a single ceramic pipe fragment (05.62/100), which seems to be a part of
the stem, included in the ceramic assemblage. It was grit tempered and had a plain
surface treatment and no decoration. The fragment is shown in Figure E.36.
283
2006 Ceramic Assemblage
The ceramic assemblage recovered from the 2006 excavations of 12-H-1052 contained
274 sherds including rim sherds (n=11), neck sherds (n=21), body sherds (n=139),
nondiagnostic sherds (n=101), and 1 base sherd. Of the diagnostic ceramics that were
recovered, 165 were grit tempered, 16 were sand and grit tempered, 1 was sand tempered,
and 1 was shell tempered. Nondiagnostic sherds were classified as either shell or not shell
tempered and out of the total 101 nondiagnostic sherds, 5 were shell tempered.
Surface treatments included fabric roughening, cordmarking, or plain. Of all the body
sherds, only on 88 of them could the method of surface treatment be established. Out of
the 88 body sherds with identifiable surface treatment, 59.1 percent (n=52) were
cordmarked, 37.5 percent (n=33) were fabric roughened, and 3.4 percent (n=3) were
plain. Of all the rim sherds, a total of 9 (Figures E.37 to E.40) had a surface treatment that
could be identified: 88.9 percent (n=8) were plain and 11.1 percent (n=1) were fabric
roughened. The total number of neck sherds with a surface treatment that could be
identified was 16; and 37.5 percent (n=6) were cordmarked, 37.5 percent (n=6) were
fabric roughened, and 25 percent (n=4) were plain. Table E.5 displays the frequencies of
surface treatments mentioned.
Table E.5: Distribution of Surface Treatments on Ceramics from the 2006 Excavations
Surface Treatment
Body
Neck
Rim
Total
Plain
3
4
8
15
Cordmarked
52
6
0
58
Fabric Roughened
33
6
1
40
Other/Unidentified
51
5
2
58
Total
139
21
11
171
Three large sections of three separate vessels (included in the discussion above) were
refitted together from the 2006 excavations. One vessel (06.99/92 and 118) had a plain
(smoothed-over-cordmarked) rim and cordmarked body, another vessel (06.99/33, 55,
and 93) had a plain (smoothed-over-fabric roughened) rim with a fabric roughened body,
and the remaining vessel (06.99/41, 46, 59, 62, 90, and 110) had a plain rim with multiple
cord impressions and a cordmarked body. These reconstructed vessels can be seen in
Figures E.38 through E.40.
Castor phase and Western Basin-style ceramic vessels usually have decoration on the
rim and neck, while the body of the vessel usually only receives a surface treatment.
However, none of the neck sherds recovered displayed any decoration. On the other hand,
27 percent (n=3) of the 11 rim sherds recovered were decorated. The decoration on these
rims consisted of only Horizontal Cord Impressed variants of the Castor Linear style in a
few different Great Lakes Impressed designs. Vessels with the Castor Linear style
decoration included (06.99/37 and 06.99/40 + 43). The first rim (06.99/37) was fabric
roughened with an extruded, castellated, and cambered collar with three rows of
horizontal cord impressions as well as a cord impressed lip. The other rim (06.99/40 +
43) was slightly collared and combined two rows of horizontal cord impressions above a
row of slanting cord-impressed obliques along with a cord-impressed lip. The last
decorated rim (06.99/41, 46, 59, 62, 90, + 110) recovered was first considered a variant
of the Castor Linear style, but the amount and organization of the decoration prompted
284
the decision to refer to the rim as an aberrant/unclassified cord impressed style. The
decoration was confined to the tall sharply cambered rim and had a slight castellation.
On the tall cambered portion were multiple cord impressions with a cord impressed lip.
The cord impressions on the rim consisted of a tall line-filled triangle where groups of 6
cord impressed lines slant away from each other and form a triangle below and above
where the slanting lines come together at the top and bottom of the cambered portion.
The triangles were then filled with 8 horizontal cord impressions. Also, several of neck
sherds (06.99/35, 50 + 51, and 52) seem to be part of this same vessel but from another
portion. This filled-triangle decoration is not very common in the Strawtown area but has
been seen at the Bowen site (Dorwin 1971; McCullough 1991). Vessels from the Bowen
site have filled triangle decorations and sharply cambered rims, but these characteristics
were not observed together on the same vessel. Rim sherds with unidentified decoration
included (06.99/42 and 44) and could not be determined because of their small size. The
remaining rim sherds were classified as Uncambered Castor Plain/ Smoothed or
Cambered Castor Plain/ Smoothed vessels. Most of these rims (06.99/36, 06.99/38,
06.99/39, 06.99/92+118, and 06.99/93) were classified as Uncambered Castor Plain/
Smoothed, with only one rim (06.99/91) being classified as Cambered Castor Plain/
Smoothed. Again, the decorated and plain/smoothed rims mentioned above are shown in
Figures E.37 through E.40. Table E.6 displays the frequencies of rim decorations
recovered from the 2005 excavations.
Table E.6: Distribution of Ceramic Decoration on Rim Sherds from the 2006 Excavations
Type of Decoration
Number Identified
Unidentified
2
Horizontal Cord Impressed
2
Castor Plain/Smoothed
6
Aberrant/ Unclassified
1
Fauna and Flora
2005
A total of 1,366.8 g of fauna and 555.6 g of flora were obtained from the 2005
excavations. This consisted of 0.5 g of fish scales, 62 g of mussel shell, 592.7 g of
unburned bone, and 711.6 g of burned bone. The flora consisted of charcoal and other
charred materials that were recovered through screening, flotation, and piece plots. No
detailed faunal analysis was performed but deer, possibly elk, rodent, turkey, turtle, fish,
and frog bones were observed. Also, little of the deer bone was of a young age, with only
a few bones having unfused epiphysial ends. Only 1 indeterminate bone tool (05.62/160)
was recovered, out of the total amount of fauna recovered. It is a possible beamer
fragment and can be seen in Figure E.41.
2006
A total of 727.3 g of fauna and 127.4 g of flora were obtained from the 2006 excavations.
This consisted of 0.1 g of fish scales, 11.2 g of mussel shell, 693.2 g of unburned bone,
and 23.8 g of burned bone. The flora consisted of charcoal and other charred materials
285
that were recovered through screening, flotation, and piece plots. No detailed faunal
analysis was performed but deer, rodent, and bird bones were observed as well as a
section of a wolf mandible (Figure E.42). Also, a good portion of the deer bone was of a
young age, with little wear on teeth and some bone with unfused epiphysial ends.
Four bone tools were recovered from the faunal assemblage. They consisted of two
beamers, a splinter awl, and an indeterminate bone tool and can be seen in Figure E.43.
Both beamers had been broken in half and were made from a deer metapodial (06.99/89)
and metacarpal (06.99/88), and only the distal end of the deer metapodial and the
proximal end of the deer metacarpal recovered. The beamer made from the metapodial
was 112 mm long by 21 mm wide (measured at middle near tool fracture) and 20 mm
thick (measured proximal of were bone fragment was removed to produce the tool) and
had use-wear polish on the entire edge that remained after the section of bone was
removed to make the tool. The beamer made from the metacarpal was 109 mm long by
18 mm wide (measured at middle near tool fracture) and 28 mm thick (measured distally
where bone fragment was removed to produce the tool) and had use-wear polish on the
entire edge that remained after the section of bone was removed to make the tool. The
splinter awl (06.99/113) was made from an unknown long bone and measured 66 mm
long by 11 mm wide by 6 mm thick. The indeterminate tool (06.99/74) is possibly
another fragmented beamer but it is too damaged to identify with certainty. It was 68
mm long by 15 mm wide and 11 mm thick and is another distal end of a deer metapodial,
but with only slight use-wear.
Fire-Cracked Rock
2005
A total of 422 (7163.2 g) pieces of fire-cracked rock was recovered from the 2005
excavations. This total was composed of 79 (606.4 g) chert fire-cracked fragments and
343 (6556.8 g) non-chert fire-cracked fragments.
2006
A total of 153 (5022.1g) pieces of fire-cracked rock was recovered from the 2006
excavations. This total was composed of 24 (44 g) chert fire-cracked fragments and 129
(4978.1 g) non-chert fire-cracked fragments.
Historic
2005
Very few historic materials were recovered from the 2005 excavations, primarily because
most of the historic artifacts are restricted to the surface of the ground, which was
stripped off during machine excavation. The historic artifacts that were recovered
comprised two brick fragments (05.62/42) and two small pieces of ferrous metal
(05.62/31 and 102). Examples of these artifacts can be seen in Figure E.44.
286
2006
Again, very few historic materials were recovered from the 2006 excavations for the
same reason as the 2005 excavations. The historic artifacts that were found comprised
one redware fragment (06.99/21) and one piece of glass (06.99/01); these can be seen in
Figure E.45.
DISCUSSION
The goals of the work conducted at site 12-H-1052, to test the application of geophysical
survey at the site and to determinate cultural affiliation of the site, were successfully
reached. Geophysical survey techniques produced a digital picture of the subsoil. Then,
using the digitized map, anomalies were located, categorized, and interpreted. Next, the
anomalies which had the highest probability of being actual cultural features were
pinpointed and targeted for ground-truthing excavation. All of the 2005 trenches revealed
anomalies identified in the survey, which provided very important information regarding
the signatures associated with cultural features versus non-cultural anomalies. This
information was then successfully tested with the 2006 excavations. These excavations
indicated that the subsoil of the site is not uniform. Gravel veins run through the subsoil
and can be seen in geophysical data as anomalies with low magnetic signatures and high
resistance signatures. These natural anomalies can be taken into account in future
excavations. Figure E.46 displays the extent of excavations on site 12-H-1052 and the
locations of features.
The potsherds diagnostic of the Castor phase that were recovered during excavations
made it possible to give the site a cultural affiliation. Castor phase pottery is not
uncommon in the area around 12-H-1052, but the fourteenth-century date from Feature 4
is later than the radiocarbon dates from the Castor Farm site (12-H-3) and some of the
earlier dates from 12-H-993. However, the fourteenth-century date is consistent with the
later radiocarbon dates from 12-H-883 and has produced new questions about how the
Castor phase peoples were coexisting with the Fort Ancient/Oliver phase peoples and
even the Taylor Village/Oneota peoples.
The excavation of Features 3 and 4 produced a great deal of new cultural information
as well as new questions about the site and its relationship to other nearby sites. If the
large storage basins and trash pits on site 12-H-1052 are similar to those found in the
Strawtown enclosure (12-H-883), where are the domestic structures to go with them.
Also, the similarities with the storage/trash pits of the Strawtown enclosure include only
their form and use but lack Fort Ancient/Oliver ceramics. This is interesting because the
fourteenth-century carbon date overlaps with the later radiocarbon dates from the
Strawtown enclosure.
The overlapping dates pose the questions: Were these culture groups interacting and
how? Was it a peaceful or turbulent mix of cultures? Were Fort Ancient/Oliver peoples
living and working together with Western Basin/Castor peoples with the Fort Ancient/
Oliver peoples living primarily in the enclosure? Did the Fort Ancient/Oliver people
come in and take over as elites in the region, ruling over the Western Basin/Castor
peoples from the Strawtown enclosure? Did the Fort Ancient/Oliver people come in and
287
construct the enclosure as a base to take over the Western Basin/ Castor controlled flood
plain and uplands?
The small amount of shell-tempered sherds produces more questions. The sherds suggest
some interaction between the Western Basin/Castor and Taylor Village/Oneota peoples.
However, what was the extent of this relationship? Did the Taylor Village/Oneota peoples
move into the region with the help of the Western Basin/Castor peoples and take control of
the region from the Fort Ancient/Oliver peoples? Was one group of ruling elites just replaced
by another? At this point in the excavations on the site these sociological questions are really
unanswerable, but it is the interpretation of the author that this was a period, like many
others, when cultures come together but a peaceful cultural exchange did not take place.
More information about site 12-H-1052 can be ascertained from comparing the profiles
of the two large pit features and the artifacts recovered from them. The profile of Feature 4
has five or six trash-filling episodes with little fill caused by natural erosion, and the profile
of Feature 3 has only two or three trash-filling episodes with much more naturally eroded
soil. When compared, Feature 3 and Feature 4 are very similar in size and depth, but they are
very different in extent of use and artifacts recovered. With the exception of cores, stone and
bone tools, and large vessel sections; Feature 4 contained almost twice the amount of every
other type of artifact than Feature 3. This means that Feature 4 was more heavily used for
trash disposal over a longer period.
Comparing the fauna recovered also provides some degree of seasonality for the two
features. Feature 3 contained mostly large mammal bone, whereas Feature 4 contained large
mammal bone in addition to fish, frog, and turtle bone. Both features contained mussel shell,
but a total of 56.8 g of mussel shell was recovered from Feature 4 while only 11.1 g was
recovered from Feature 3. Also charred hickory shells were recovered from Feature 4. This
suggests that Feature 4 was used as a trash pit in the late summer/fall period when
amphibians, mussel shell, and hickory nuts were attainable. Feature 3, on the other hand,
was in use in the colder time of the year when amphibians could not be found, mussel shell
was tougher to get, and large mammals were the only source of food. The broken bone
beamers recovered from Feature 3 may also support this cold seasonality for the use of the
pit, because the cold season is when you need to clean hides for warmth. If this is a correct
interpretation, it means that 12-H-1052 was occupied year round.
The question of where the domestic structures were located may already be answered by
the geophysical data and the 2006 excavations. In the geophysical data from the site, a large
anomaly can be seen approximately 20 m to the north of Feature 3 in Grid 173. This anomaly
is very evident in the resistance data and had a resistance signature similar to the resistance
signatures of Feature 3 and 4, but its corresponding magnetic anomaly is cluttered by metal.
A metal detector was used to clear off a good portion of the metal that covered it, but
unfortunately, the grid that the anomaly is in was never resurveyed after the metal was
cleared. Another structure may have been located by Trench 1 of the 2006 excavations,
where a line of five postholes was found. Further excavations, however, are needed to
examine both of these areas.
The information gained from the 2005 and 2006 REU program investigations of site 12H-1052 has aided the interpretation not only of the Late Prehistoric settlement structure of
the Castor phase, but also how the prehistoric culture groups of the Midwest may have
interacted with each other. Also the REU program provided important information for
guiding future geophysical surveys of the upper terrace soils.
288
FIGURES
Figure E.1: REU participants, left to right, Scott Hipskind, James Stewart, and Gabrielle Paschall.
Figure E.2: 2004-2005 aerial photograph from Google Earth with 12-H-1052 and the Strawtown enclosure
(12-H-883) site boundaries.
289
Figure E.3: Previous shovel testing (2003-2004) and excavations (2003) on site 12-H-1052.
Figure E.4: Geophysical grid and grid numbers for site 12-H-1052, 2005 grids in red and 2006 grids in
blue.
290
Figure E.5: All acceptable magnetometry data collected during the REU program.
291
Figure E.6: All resistivity data collected during the REU program.
292
Figure E.7: Magnetic anomalies ground-truthed by the 2005 and 2006 excavations.
293
Figure E.8: Resistivity anomalies ground-truthed by the 2005 and 2006 excavations.
294
Figure E.9: Trench 1 and Feature 3 plan map, 2005.
295
Figure E.10: Trench 2 and Feature 4 plan map, 2005.
296
Figure E.11: Trench 3 and Feature 5 plan map, 2005.
297
Figure E.12: Trench 1 and Feature 8 plan map, 2006.
298
Figure E.13: Trench 4 and Features 3, 6, and 7 plan map, 2006.
299
Figure E.14: Trench 3 and Feature 5 west profile drawing, 2005.
300
Figure E.15: Trench 3 east profile drawing, 2005.
301
Figure E.16: Trench 1 south profile drawing, 2006.
Figure E.17: Trench 2 west profile drawing, 2006.
302
Figure E.18: Trench 3 west profile drawing, 2006.
303
Figure E.19a: Trench 4, Feature 3 northwest profile drawing, 2006.
304
Figure E.19b: Trench 4, Feature 3 soil descriptions, 2006, continued.
305
Figure E.20a: Resistivity data profiles of Feature 3 created by Stewart.
306
Figure E.20b: Resistivity data profiles of Feature 3 created by Stewart.
307
Figure E.21a: Trench 2, Feature 4 west profile drawing, 2005.
308
Figure E.21b: Trench 2, Feature 4 soil descriptions, 2005, continued.
309
Figure E.22: Radiocarbon beta-graph of analyzed piece of nut shell from Feature 4.
Figure E.23: Trench 4, Feature 6 northwest profile drawing, 2006.
310
Figure E.24: Late Woodland/Mississippian Triangular Cluster hafted bifaces recovered during 2005
excavations.
Figure E.25: Other bifaces and biface fragments recovered from the 2005 excavations.
311
Figure E.26: Crude bifacial sandstone chopping tool recovered from the 2005 flotation sample of Zone 6
of Feature 4.
Figure E.27: The single uniface recovered by the 2005 excavations.
312
Figure E.28: The two cores recovered from the 2005 excavations.
Figure E.29: Late Woodland/Mississippian Triangular Cluster bifaces and Late Archaic Merom Cluster
hafted biface recovered during 2006 excavations.
313
Figure E.30: Other bifaces and biface fragments recovered from the 2006 excavations.
Figure E.31: Crude bifacial chert chopping tool recovered from the 2006 excavations.
314
Figure E.32: The two unifaces recovered by the 2006 excavations.
Figure E.33: The single core recovered from the 2006 excavations.
315
Figure E.34: Decorated and plain rims recovered from the 2005 excavations.
Figure E.35: Large vessel section recovered from 2005 flotation sample, Zone 6 in profile of Feature 4.
316
Figure E.36: The single pipe fragment recovered in the 2005 excavations.
Figure E.37: Decorated and plain rims recovered from the 2006 excavations.
317
Figure E.38: Large vessel section recovered from 2006 excavations.
Figure E.39: Large vessel section recovered from 2006 excavations.
318
Figure E.40: Large vessel section recovered from 2006 excavations.
Figure E.41: The single indeterminate bone tool recovered from the 2005 excavations.
319
Figure E.42: Fragment of wolf mandible recovered from the 2006 excavations.
Figure E.43: Modified faunal tools recovered from the 2006 excavations.
320
Figure E.44: Historic artifacts recovered from the 2005 excavations.
Figure E.45: Historic artifacts recovered from the 2006 excavations.
321
Figure E.46: Location of REU trenches, 2005 in red and 2006 in blue, as well as prior excavations on 12H-1052.
322
APPENDIX F:
12-H-883 EXCAVATIONS 2005
UNITS 81-84 DESCRIPTIONS
by Colin Graham
During the 2005 REU season, a 10×115 m grid across the central portion of the enclosure
was surveyed using resistivity (Figure F.1). Four contiguous 1x1 m units (Units 81-84)
forming a 2x2 m block were placed in the southern portion of the Strawtown enclosure.
Based on resistivity data, the units were placed to ground-truth interpretations of data
collected using geophysical equipment.
Figure F.1. Illustration of resistivity data and survey location across the enclosure.
323
A GeoScan RM 15 Resistance Meter with MPX15 multiplexer in a parallel twin array
setup was used to collect the grid of resistivity data. The resistance survey was conducted
using a 50-cm sample interval and 50-cm transect interval. The units were positioned
over a portion of a large ovate anomaly, which suggested the outline of a structure
(Figure F.2). The research objective was to generate information about community
structure and the distribution of prehistoric features within the enclosure.
Figure F.2. Illustration of resistivity data indicating oval anomaly
and unit placement.
324
The resistivity survey was impacted by scrub, trees, and groundhog burrows within
the enclosure. The missing values (see Figure 2) indicate these obstructions, and the dark
areas (areas of high resistance) surrounding the trees reflect moisture retained by the root
systems. The survey also detected a clear portrayal of the ditch (north and south), as well
as numerous cultural anomalies in the zone between the outer ditch, embankment, and
plaza (see Figure 1).
The 2x2 m block was placed over the southwest corner of a somewhat ovate anomaly
containing a concentration of multiple high and low resistance readings that was
interpreted as a possible domestic structure. The southwest corner of the 2x2 m block was
N179.00, E159.00 (34 cmbd); the northwest corner was N181.00, E159.00; the northeast
corner was N181.00, E161.00; and the southeast corner was N179.00, E161.00. The
elevation datum was labeled A (100.22 m), which was located several cm west, between
Units 81 and 83.
Excavations were conducted in 1x1 m units. Units 81 through 84 were hand
excavated in arbitrary 10-cm levels down to Level 4, or approximately 75 cmbd. All soils
were screened through ¼” hardware cloth. At the base of Level 4, two soil zones were
identified. The soils consisted of a sterile, silty clay loam and a sandy gravel, which was
located in the northeast portion of the block. No cultural materials or culturally modified
soils were observed. A small trench (50 cm east-west by 2 m north-south) was placed
along the east wall to a maximum depth of 88 cmbd to better expose the profile wall of
Units 82 and 84 and further investigate the possible geological anomaly (Figure F.3).
Figure F.3. Photograph of east profile wall and trench placed in Units 82 and 84, 2005.
A profile drawing was completed for the east wall of the 2x2 m block, and four
stratigraphic zones were identified (Figure F.4). In profile, Zone 1 was part of the
325
plowzone soil matrix with recent historic deposits, consisting of a dark grayish-brown
(10YR4/2) silt loam. Zone 1 appeared to be a shallow remnant of modern accumulation
filled with recent historic debris. Zone 2 was also part of the plowzone; it was a dark
brown (10YR3/3) silty loam and had a sharp boundary with mottles leeching from Zone
1. Zone 3 was the subsurface B horizon, defined by a silty clay loam of dark yellowishbrown (10YR3/4). The boundary was clear, transitioning 5 cm with Zone 2, and
contained an increase of small rocks near the base. Zone 4 was a dark yellowish-brown
(10YR3/4) clay loam containing abundant gravel and rock. The sediment had more clay
and gravel mixture, producing a clear boundary with Zone 3. This zone is likely what was
detected in the resistivity data and does not appear to be anthropogenic.
Figure F.4. East profile map of soil zones in Units 82 and 84, 2005.
Zone 5 was a small feature (see Figures 3 and 4) that was situated between Zones 2
and 3 in the southeastern portion of the profile wall (Unit 84). The feature was a small,
shallow basin-shaped pit that contained abundant charcoal, very black (10YR2/1) silty
326
clay loam, and no artifacts. Definition of this feature was not clear in plan during
excavation, but it had a fairly clear definition and boundary with several root/rodent
bioturbation observed in profile view. The feature is likely a small processing or smudge
pit as evidenced by the amount of charcoal. The presence of these types of pits at this
location within the enclosure is consistent with feature distribution identified in the large
block excavations on the east side (excavated in 2002-2008, see Arnold et al. 2007;
McCullough 2005, 2008; McCullough et al. 2004; White et al. 2003).
At the base of Level 4, it was evident that soils were no longer culturally modified.
The entire unit floor at the base of Level 4 appeared to be composed of matrix soil with
an increase in rock, gravel, and clay. The anomaly detected by the geophysical instrument
represents a natural area where clay loam with abundant gravel rises closer to the surface.
Since further excavation in this area did not meet our research goals and the anomaly was
identified as a natural phenomenon, the units were documented, landscaping cloth was
placed over the floor of the units for future identification, and the four units were
backfilled by a backhoe. Table F.1 summarizes by unit the cultural material recovered
from the small block.
Table F.1. Summary of Materials Recovered from Small Block
Prehistoric
Historic
Provenience
Ceramics
Lithics
FCR
Fauna
Unit 81
Level 1
3
6
4
0.2 g
Level 2
5
140
6
0.7 g
Level 3
16
112
4
Level 4
4
1
Level 1
3
Unit 82
Unit 83
Unit 84
Flora
19
172
15
Level 3
5
36
2
Level 4
1
3
Level 1
4
6
Level 2
2
135
0.6 g
2
13
7
1
2
3
2
3
0.3 g
4
16
2
13
17
0.5 g
Level 4
1
1
8
116
11
0.8 g
14
54
8
16.2
g
Level 3
1
1.9 g
327
Other
0.7 g
0.1 g
45
Level 4
Metal
0.1 g
Level 3
Level 1
and 2
Glass
0.3 g
0.5 g
Level 2
Ceramics
4
In sum, excavations at 12-H-883 in 2005 resulted in an assemblage of at least 1,052
prehistoric and historic artifacts, including 731 chipped stone debitage, 49 chipped stone
tools, 4 cores, 77 prehistoric ceramics, 2 pieces of modified bone, 56 pieces of firecracked rock, 3 pieces of burned soil such as daub and waste clay, 85+ historic artifacts,
and an uncounted number of fauna (6.8 g) and floral (19.7 g) remains.
328
APPENDIX G:
FEATURE 46
In 2007, four units near the center of the enclosure were excavated iin the REU program
to the base of Level 2 (70 cmbd), and during Archaeology Month Feature 46 was
identified as a burial (McCullough 2008). During Archaeology Month 2008, Feature 46
was briefly re-exposed by hand excavation. At that time, the IPFW-AS staff updated and
confirmed descriptions from the previous year. The profile drawing with descriptions is
illustrated in Figure G.1.
The Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne
Archaeological Survey has removed this image from the public
version of this electronic document because it contains sensitive site
location information. If you need access to this information for
professional research purposes, please contact either the IPFW-AS,
or the Indiana Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology.
Figure G.1. Profile map and description of Feature 46.
329
APPENDIX H:
HUMAN REMAINS
by Craig Arnold
The investigations at the Strawtown enclosure (12-H-883) in 2008 recovered a single
fragmentary human tooth (08.1/815) while screening hand-excavated soil through ¼”
hardware cloth (Table H.1). It is an upper premolar from an undetermined position in the
maxilla from an individual estimated to be in his or her late twenties to early thirties. The
The Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne
specimen was recovered from Unit 158, Level 3 (60-70 cmbd) during general excavation.
Survey
removed
from thehuman
publicremains. It
The specimen Archaeological
was not associated
withhas
a burial
or this
any image
other related
version
of
this
electronic
document
because
it
contains
sensitive
site
was classified as an isolated find and probably represents discard after tooth loss.
If you
need accessIPFW,
to this assisted
information
Dr. Richardlocation
Sutter,information.
Department of
Anthropology,
withfor
identification
professional
research
purposes,
please
contact
either
the
IPFW-AS,
of the tooth, and IPFW-AS personnel examined the entire recovered faunal assemblage
the Indiana
Divisionwith
of Historic
Preservation and Archaeology.
for any human or
remains
commingled
animal bone.
Table H.1. Human Skeletal Elements Recovered during the 2008 Excavations
Catalog #
08.1/815
Provenience
Unit 158, Level 3, 60-70cmbd
Recovery
¼” screen
330
Element
tooth
Identification
upper premolar
N (g)
1 0.3
Fly UP