...

Document 2070649

by user

on
Category: Documents
1

views

Report

Comments

Transcript

Document 2070649
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
Chapter 1: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Chapter 2: Project Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Environmental Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Previous Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Cultural Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Chapter 3: Excavations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Block Excavations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Feature Excavations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Chapter 4: Cultural Materials from the Strawtown Enclosure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
Laboratory Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
Prehistoric Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
Historic Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
Chapter 5: Discussion and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
References Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
Appendix A: Modified Bone and Antler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
Appendix B: Summary of Postholes from 12-H-883, 2006 and 2007 Excavations . . . . . . . . . 228
Appendix C: 12-H-883 Field Specimen Log, 2007 Excavations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
Appendix D: 12-H-883 Flotation Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
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 . . . . . 36
Figure 3.1. Location of the Strawtown enclosure on the 7.5’ U.S.G.S. Omega, Indiana,
quadrangle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Figure 3.2. Contour map of the Strawtown enclosure indicating previous and 2007
excavations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Figure 3.3. Unit numbers assigned during the 2007 REU and Archaeology Month excavation
blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Figure 3.4. Resistivity data collected during the 2007 REU, with the location of excavation
blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Figure 3.5. Resistivity data with indicated anomalies investigated by 2007 REU students Sarah
Striker (a) and Elizabeth Leiserson (b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Figure 3.6. Photograph of Central Block at the base of Level 2 showing Feature 46 . . . . . . . . 51
Figure 3.7. Photograph of the south wall of Central Block at the end of the REU . . . . . . . . . . 52
Figure 3.8. Profile map of the south wall of Central Block at the end of the REU . . . . . . . . . . 53
Figure 3.9. Profile map of the south and east walls of Liz’s Block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Figure 3.10. Soil zone descriptions for the profile maps in Liz’s Block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Figure 3.11. Profile drawing of the north wall of the Main Block and west expansion, 2007 . . 58
Figure 3.12. Profile drawing of the south wall of the Main Block and west expansion, 2007 . . 59
Figure 3.13. Profile drawing of the east wall of the Main Block, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Figure 3.14. Soil descriptions for the north, south, and east wall profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Figure 3.15. Photograph of the Main Block excavation at the base of Level 3, 2006,
view north . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Figure 3.16. Plan map of soil zones at the base of Level 3 (70 cmbd) in the Main Block
excavation, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Figure 3.17. Soil zone descriptions for the base of Level 3 plan map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Figure 3.18. Plan map of soil zones at the base of Level 4 (80 cmbd) in the Main Block
excavation, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Figure 3.19. Soil zone descriptions for the base of Level 4 plan map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Figure 3.20. Units excavated within the Main Block during 2006 and 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Figure 3.21. Plan map at the base of Level 5 within the Main Block, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Figure 3.22. Soil zone descriptions for the base of Level 5, Main Block, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Figure 3.23. Photograph at the base of Level 5, Main Block, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Figure 3.24. Plan map of soil zones at the base of Level 3, Main Block south and west
expansions, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Figure 3.25. Soil zone descriptions for the base of Level 3, Main Block expansions, 2007 . . . . 74
iii
Figure 3.26. Photograph of the base of Level 3, showing west edge of house basin,
Main Block expansion, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Figure 3.27. Plan map of soil zones for the base of Level 4, Main Block west
expansion, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Figure 3.28. Soil zone descriptions for the base of Level 4, Main Block west
expansion, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Figure 3.29. Photograph of the base of Level 4, Main Block west expansion, 2007 . . . . . . . . . 78
Figure 3.30. Composite map of features, confirmed postholes, and other anomalies in the
Main Block, 2006 and 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Figure 3.31. Photograph of Feature 33 at the base of Level 4 (80 cmbd) in the Main Block
excavation, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Figure 3.32. Plan map of Feature 33 at the base of Level 4 (80 cmbd) in the Main Block
excavation, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Figure 3.33. Photograph of Feature 33 at 95 cmbd, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Figure 3.34. Plan map of Feature 33 at 95 cmbd, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Figure 3.35. Profile map of Feature 33, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Figure 3.36. Photograph of Feature 33 south profile, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Figure 3.37. Photograph of Feature 35 at the base of Level 4 (80 cmbd) in the Main Block
excavation, 2006, view southeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Figure 3.38. Plan and profile maps of Feature 35 in the Main Block excavation, 2006 . . . . . . . 96
Figure 3.39. Photograph of southeast profiles of Feature 35 and Postholes 42 and 43
in the Main Block excavation, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Figure 3.40. Plan map of Feature 35, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Figure 3.41. Profile drawing of north wall of Feature 35, showing intrusive posts, 2007 . . . . . 99
Figure 3.42. Plan map of Features 36 and 37 in the Main Block excavation, 2006 . . . . . . . . . 100
Figure 3.43. Photograph of Feature 36 at the base of Level 4 (80cmbd) in the Main Block
excavation, 2006, view west . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Figure 3.44. Photograph of Feature 36 profile, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Figure 3.45. Plan and profile maps of Feature 36, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Figure 3.46. Photograph of Feature 37 complex at the base of Level 4 (80 cmbd) in the Main
Block excavation, 2006, view south . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Figure 3.47. Plan map of Feature 40 at 90 cmbd, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Figure 3.48. Photograph of Feature 40 at 90 cmbd, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Figure 3.49. Profile drawing of Feature 40, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Figure 3.50. Photograph of Feature 42 at the base of Level 4 (80 cmbd) in the Main Block
excavation, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Figure 3.51. Profile drawing of Feature 42, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Figure 3.52. Plan map of soil zones, Feature 46, at the base of Level 2, Central Block . . . . . . 110
Figure 3.53. Photograph of excavated portion of Feature 46 at end of REU program, 2007 . . 111
Figure 3.54. Plan map of excavated portion of Feature 46 at end of REU program, 2007 . . . . 112
Figure 3.55. Profile map of Feature 46 at the end of the REU program, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Figure 3.56. Photograph of Feature 46 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Figure 3.57. Plan map of Unit 152 and Feature 46, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
Figure 3.58. Photograph of column removed from Unit 152 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
iv
Figure 3.59. Photograph of the base of Level 3 (70 cmbd), Liz’s Block, at end of
REU program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
Figure 3.60. Plan map of Feature 47 at the base of Level 4, Liz’s Block, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
Figure 3.61. Photograph of Feature 47 at the base of Level 4, Liz’s Block, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . 120
Figure 3.62. Profile drawing of Feature 48 in south wall of the Main Block
excavation, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Figure 3.63. Profile drawing of west wall of the Main Block showing Feature 49, 2006 . . . . . 122
Figure 3.64. Profile drawing of Features 40 and 50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
Figure 3.65. Photograph of Feature 50 profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Figure 3.66. Plan map of Feature 51 at the base of Level 4, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
Figure 3.67. Photograph of Feature 51 at the base of Level 4, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Figure 3.68. Plan map of Feature 52 at the base of Level 4, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Figure 3.69. Photograph of Feature 52 at the base of Level 4, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Figure 3.70. Plan map of Feature 53 and corner of structure, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
Figure 3.71. Photograph of Feature 53 at the base of Level 4, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
Figure 3.72. Plan map of Main Block at base of Level 4 (80 cmbd) with posthole designations,
2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
Figure 3.73. Combined plan map of Level 4 with all postholes, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
Figure 3.74. Profile map of postholes 60 to 62 in possible house basin wall trench, 2006 . . . . 135
Figure 3.75. Profile map of postholes 7-14 to 7-16 and 7-47 and 7-48 forming north wall of
Feature 49, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
Figure 3.76. Photograph of cross-sectioned postholes 7-14 to 7-16 and 7-47 and
7-48, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
Figure 4.1. Non-triangular hafted projectile points recovered from the 2007 excavations,
12-H-883. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
Figure 4.2. Complete or mostly complete triangular points recovered from the 2007 excavations,
12-H-883 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
Figure 4.3. Partial triangular points recovered from the 2007 excavations, 12-H-883 . . . . . . 144
Figure 4.4. Poorly manufactured triangular points recovered from the 2007 excavations,
12-H-883 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
Figure 4.5. Examples of quartzite triangular points recovered from the 2007 excavations,
12-H-883 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
Figure 4.6. Hafted knives, socket or hafted knife, socketed bifacial end scraper, and formal
unifaces recovered from the 2007 excavations, 12-H-883 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
Figure 4.7. Drills recovered from the 2007 excavations, 12-H-883 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
Figure 4.8. Humpback knives recovered from the 2007 excavations, 12-H-883 . . . . . . . . . . . 149
Figure 4.9. Unrefined bifaces recovered from the 2007 excavations, 12-H-883 . . . . . . . . . . . 150
Figure 4.10. Examples of nonformal unifaces recovered from the 2007 excavations,
12-H-883 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
Figure 4.11. Examples of chert cores recovered from the 2007 excavations, 12-H-883 . . . . . . 152
Figure 4.12. Examples of quartzite cores recovered from the 2007 excavations, 12-H-883 . . . 153
Figure 4.13. Nonchipped stone tools recovered from the 2007 excavations, 12-H-883 . . . . . . 154
Figure 4.14. Fort Ancient-style rim sherds from 12-H-883 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
Figure 4.15. Fort Ancient-style neck sherds from 12-H-883 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
v
Figure 4.16. Fort Ancient-style neck sherds from 12-H-883 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
Figure 4.17. Great Lakes impressed-style sherds from 12-H-883 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
Figure 4.18. Oliver neck sherds with plain surface treatment from 12-H-883 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
Figure 4.19. Rim sherds with a plain surface treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
Figure 4.20. Rim sherds with cordmarked surface treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
Figure 4.21. Taylor Village cordmarked body sherds, some with trailed lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
Figure 4.22. Taylor Village neck sherds from 12-H-883 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
Figure 4.23. Taylor Village rim sherds from 12-H-883 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
Figure 4.24. Rim sherd from large Taylor Village vessel from the upper portion of Feature 33,
12-H-883 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
Figure 4.25. Rim sherd from large Taylor Village vessel from the upper portion of Feature 33,
12-H-883 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
Figure 4.26. Rim sherd from large Taylor Village vessel from the upper portion of Feature 33,
12-H-883 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
Figure 4.27. Shoulder and body segment from the area of greatest vessel circumference . . . . 170
Figure 4.28. Selected body sherds from the upper portion of Feature 33, 12-H-883 . . . . . . . . 171
Figure 4.29. View of raptor-claw vessel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
Figure 4.30. View of raptor-claw vessel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
Figure 4.31. View of raptor-claw vessel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
Figure 4.32. View of raptor-claw vessel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
Figure 4.33. Base of raptor-claw vessel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
Figure 4.34. Mussel shell from raptor-claw vessel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
Figure 4.35. Selected historic artifacts recovered from the 2007 excavations, 12-H-883 . . . . . 178
Figure 4.36. Ferrous hand crank and fence stretcher recovered from the 2007 excavations,
12-H-883 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
Figure 5.1. Hands-on experience in identifying artifacts, Archaeology Month 2007, at the
Strawtown enclosure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
Figure 5.2. Archaeology Month 2007 visitors at the Strawtown enclosure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
Figure 5.3. Photograph showing western boundary of structure basin at base of Level 3 . . . . 184
Figure 5.4. Plan map of Main Block at the base of Level 4 showing possible structure
outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
Figure A.1. Hierarchical classification scheme employed in cataloging bone tools . . . . . . . . . 220
Figure A.2. Photograph of beamer, awls, needles, and indeterminate portions
of probable awls recovered during 2007 excavations at the Strawtown enclosure . . . . 221
Figure A.3. Photograph of bone bead, inlay, indeterminate pin/awl, modified teeth, and shell
talon recovered during 2007 excavations at the Strawtown enclosure . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
Figure A.4. Photograph of antler tools and debris recovered during 2007 excavations at the
Strawtown enclosure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
Figure A.5. Photograph of indeterminate bone fragments and debris recovered during 2007
excavations at the Strawtown enclosure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1. Datum Designations and Elevations Used in the Strawtown Enclosure during the
2007 Field Season . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Table 3.2. Summary of Materials Recovered from the Main Block (2006 and 2007
investigations) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Table 4.1. Totals of Stone Tools and Raw Material Used in Manufacture,
2007 Excavations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
Table 4.2. Totals of All Triangular Point Types Identified in the Hafted and
Unrefined Bifaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
Table 4.3. Non-Taylor Village Body Sherds Compared by Surface Treatment and Temper . . 159
Table 4.4. Non-Taylor Village Neck Sherds Compared by Surface Treatment and Temper . . 159
Table 4.5. Non-Taylor Village Rim Sherds Compared by Surface Treatment and Temper . . . 160
Table 4.6. Non-Taylor Village Decoration by Vessel Portion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
Table 4.7. Taylor Village Surface Treatment by Vessel Portion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
Table 4.8. Taylor Village Decoration by Vessel Portion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
Table 4.X: Historic Artifacts Recovered from 2007 Excavations at the Strawtown Enclosure,
12-H-883 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
Table 5.1. Chipped Stone Refit Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
Table 5.2. Sherd Refit Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
Table E.1. Human Skeletal Elements Recovered during the 2007 Excavations . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
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.
vii
CHAPTER 1:
INTRODUCTION
This report details grant-funded research conducted by the Indiana University-Purdue
University at Fort Wayne Archaeological Survey (IPFW-AS) during the 2007 field season.
Two units opened during the National Science Foundation-sponsored Research Experiences
for Undergraduates (REU) program administered by the IPFW-AS in July were investigated
more fully during Indiana Archaeology Month in September and October 2007. All
investigations at the Strawtown enclosure during 2007 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
numbers 2007042 and 2007065. Grant monies for the fieldwork, report, and other expenses
were provided by the Historic Preservation Fund (grant number 22618-10) administered by
the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, DHPA. The Legacy Fund of the Central
Indiana Community Foundation provided support for interpreters and informational
brochures during Archaeology Month programming. This report includes both the REU
preliminary work and the full Archaeology Month excavations. 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 2007 was centered on excavations at the Strawtown
enclosure (12-H-883), located in the developing Strawtown Koteewi Park in Hamilton
County, Indiana. Fifty-seven and a half square meters of excavation were opened in three
separate areas: a main block consisting of 49 square meters, a small block of 4 square meters,
and a third small block of 4.5 square meters, which was located in the more central portion of
the enclosure that is thought to be a plaza area. Robert McCullough served as Principal
Investigator, and IPFW-AS field crew included Craig Arnold, Christy Brocken, Claire
Ewing, Colin Graham, Perry Harrell, Scott Hipskind, Leon Hostettler, Patrick McClary, Erik
Vosteen, Joshua Wells, and Mariah Yager. Laboratory processing was conducted under the
supervision of Craig Arnold and Scott Hipskind by Rodney Burke, Colin Graham, Glen
Thompson, Mariah Yager, Loren Zeman, and volunteers Betty Van Winkle and Lou Ann
Winterrowd.
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 (White, R. McCullough, and D. McCullough 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, which resulted in numerous
superpositioning episodes. Household-level data are vital in interpreting the population
dynamics of the central Indiana region.
1
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 2007.
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 in September and October 2007, at least 3,620
individuals visited the Strawtown enclosure site; 57 percent (2,055) of 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 2007 programming
include Clay Middle School, 7th graders (Hamilton County); Skiles Test Elementary, 5th
graders (Marion County); Amy Beverland Elementary, 5th graders (Marion County); Stoney
Creek Elementary, 4th graders (Hamilton County); Lapel Elementary, 4th graders (Madison
County); Park Tudor, 8th graders (Marion County); Hazel Dell Elementary, 4th graders
(Hamilton County); Noblesville Christian School, 4th graders (Hamilton County); Hamilton
Heights Primary School, 4th graders (Hamilton County); Learned Homeschoolers (various
counties including Brown, Monroe, Owen, Johnson, Hendricks, Delaware, Hancock,
Madison, Marion, and Shelby); Mohawk Trails Elementary, 4th graders (Hamilton County);
Sheridan Middle School, 6th graders (Hamilton County); Cumberland Road Elementary, 4th
graders (Hamilton County); Noble Crossing Elementary, 4th graders (Hamilton County);
Noblesville Intermediate School, 5th graders (Hamilton County); Cicero SDA Elementary
School, 1st and 2nd graders (Hamilton County); Forest Hill Elementary, 4th graders (Hamilton
County); Montessori of Westfield (Hamilton County); Geist Montessori Academy, 4th
graders (Hamilton County); Simpson Homeschoolers (Hamilton County); Arnold
Homeschoolers (Hamilton County); Kokomo Area Homeschoolers (Howard, Cass, Tipton
counties); Shodrock Homeschoolers (Hamilton County); Roots and Wings Homeschoolers
(Hamilton County); Price Homeschoolers (Madison County); Kroeker Homeschoolers
(Hamilton County); Massey Homeschoolers (various counties); Indiana State University
Anthropology students (Vigo County); and IVY Tech Art History 101 college students.
(Numerous other school groups remained on waiting lists, due to the three-week schedule.)
Other groups touring the site were the Sheridan Rotary Club (Hamilton County) and several
Girl and Boy Scout groups from throughout central Indiana. Of note in 2007 was the annual
convention of the National Parks and Recreation Association, National County Park
Professional Group, in downtown Indianapolis, and many of those park professionals were
able to tour the site and take away ideas for programming in their own systems. Also new
was an evening picnic and tour for all HCPRD employees and their families (Hamilton,
Tipton, and Marion counties), who were unable to attend programming during the day.
Individual volunteers, many of whom have returned year after year, included Wyatt
Baldwin, Cindy Ballard, Richard Ballard, Theresa Berghoff, Valley Blevins, Jennifer Chisler,
Joe Dorman, Barbara Harcourt, Dakota Hurley, Terry Ihnat, Jo Ingraham, Ann Jamison, Nick
Lents, Bill Lybarger, Jeff Roberts, Victoria Rogers, Bill Scheibelhut, Linda Shields, Mike
Taylor, Lee Templeton, Laurie Thayer, and Betty Van Winkle.
2
In addition to the public programming during Archaeology Month 2007, an active
schedule of presentations based on the results of the fieldwork was maintained: Robert G.
McCullough, Principal Investigator, gave two invited presentations based on the
investigations at Strawtown at the 2007 Midwest Archaeological Conference, University of
Notre Dame, in October 2007, as well as co-organized a poster symposium at the same
conference that featured REU student research. Other presentations by McCullough included
a talk during the Indiana Archaeological Council workshop at the Taylor Natural History
Center, Strawtown (April 2008) and one for the Anthropology Club luncheon lecture series at
IPFW (April 2008).
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 the REU and
Archaeology Month. All materials related to the investigations will be curated at the
Strawtown Koteewi Park, Hamilton County, Indiana, under accession number 07.05.
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 2007 field season research findings, with
proposals and excavation strategies for the upcoming 2008 field season. 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), and a brief description of human remains
encountered during the excavations at 12-H-883 (Appendix E). 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 150m 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 in the process of being nominated to the National
Register. 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].
Helm furnished a more complete account of Cox’s visit “in the fall of 1875,” quoting from
Cox:
9
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
of the Miami nation at Ke-ki-ong-a,” as well as “occupying a position on the leading route of
10
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:”
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
11
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 15m in diameter and approximately 50m 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; 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
conducted during 2003 (see Figure 2.2) revealed additional food processing and storage pits
and two burials (McCullough et al. 2004).
15
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. 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 (A.D. 1200-1400) in terms of radiocarbon dates, ceramic assemblages,
and 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 are 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
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 50 x 50 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.
Large-area investigations north of Strawtown Avenue include 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),
12-H-1058 (prehistoric and possibly historic occupations), and 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). Recent efforts to define the Late Prehistoric period
occupations of central Indiana include McCullough (2000, 2003), McCullough and Wright
(1997a, b), 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 et al. 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).
Late Archaic
21
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, reveals evidence of repeated
Late Woodland use for up to two or three hundred years yet still exhibits a narrow range of
tools, a lack of storage facilities and structures, and floral and faunal remains that indicate
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; 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 1998) 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; 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, 1985; Stothers and
Pratt 1981; Stothers and Schneider 1998; Stothers et al. 1994). As it is currently understood,
28
the Western Basin Tradition (formerly the Younge Tradition [Fitting 1965]) is comprised of
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, while 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; 301 REF), but little habitation debris
and no diagnostic sherds were recovered, other than a few generalized cord-impressed
ceramics. Identification of settlement, subsistence, and mortuary patterning of the peoples
associated with the northeastern Indiana enclosures remains elusive, as does their function.
31
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 are 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 fourteenthcentury association, with occupation dates possibly ranging between the late thirteenth and
early fifteenth centuries. Several superpositioned features indicate some degree of time depth
32
Figure 2.5. Map of reported Oneota-like archaeological sites located in central Indiana.
33
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 meters 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 1m and 2m across and penetrated about 1.5m 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 250m (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 is suggested by a limited number of both Fort Ancient-style and cord-impressed
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 shell-tempered rim
sherds are sharply everted, making a short thick neck. Most vessels either lack cordmarking
or exhibit smoothed-over cordmarking on the body of the vessel, but the most distinctive trait
is heavy cordmarking on the rim, or, rather, the underneath side of the rim, given the sharp
eversion. Often where the neck everts outward, clay has been added to the interior of the
vessel to form a sharp crease. These vessels lack 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
represents 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 are
different enough from the Hoxie Farm and related Fisher 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,
34
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 is 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 is shell tempered, with the rims mostly set at sharp angles to
the shoulders. Many of the rims’ interiors have short, trailed lines that run perpendicular to
the lip and are executed with a wide smooth implement; some of the lips display small
scalloped impressions. The shoulders are mostly decorated with parallel trailed lines running
vertically to the rim or with chevrons bordered by diagonal lines or punctations. Small circleand-dot motifs are also present within the chevrons. Small loop or punched handles are
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 is 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 also have been
recovered from the midden deposits within the Strawtown enclosure (White et al. 2002),
suggesting that the site remained in use over an extended period.
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
pottery as “Oliver Cord-Marked,” because of its resemblance to Griffin’s (1943) “Anderson
Cordmarked and Incised” (Dorwin 1971:258).
35
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 recent 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 2002a: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 “hump-backed” 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 have 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
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
36
Figure 2.6. Map of reported Oliver phase archaeological sites located in central Indiana.
37
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
along the major drainageways (Cochran 1996; McCord and Cochran 1996:163-168). These
38
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, 1983:76-77), 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 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 is 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 or co-exists within the
population. 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 2007 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 2007 were conducted by the IPFW-AS during
the National Science Foundation-sponsored Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU)
program and during the DHPA-sponsored Indiana Archaeology Month. The REU excavation
consisted of eight 1x1 meter units arranged in two 2x2 meter blocks. These eight units were
excavated during the last week of July and the first week of August. Dr. Michael Strezewski
and Dr. Robert G. McCullough served as Principal Investigators. The 2007 Archaeology
Month public excavation was conducted during the last week of September and the first two
weeks of October. 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, Claire Ewing, Colin Graham, Perry Harrell, Scott Hipskind,
Leon Hostetler, Patrick McClary, Erik Vosteen, and Joshua Wells.
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 each; 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 2007 archaeological investigations conducted within the Strawtown enclosure were
located in the central and eastern portions of the enclosure (Figure 3.2). All excavation units
consisted of 1x1 meter units arranged in variously sized blocks. Since the 2002 season, all
unit excavations within the enclosure have consisted only of 1x1 meter units, and the
designations have been numbered sequentially.
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 2007 excavations.
45
Similarly, features were assigned numbers consecutive to those within the enclosure during
previous seasons.
In all, 57.5 square meters of surface area were excavated in three excavation blocks
during the 2007 investigations (Figure 3.3). The units excavated during the REU program
consisted of eight 1-m square units arranged in two 2x2 meter blocks (Units 121 through
128). The first 2x2 meter block excavated during the REU program (Units 121, 122, 123,
and 124) will be referred to as the Central Block. The second 2x2 meter block excavated
during the REU program (Units 125, 126, 127, and 128) will be referred to as Liz’s Block.
The Main Block that was begun in 2006 was reopened and expanded to the south and west
during Archaeology Month 2007.
Figure 3.3. Unit numbers assigned during the 2007 REU and Archaeology Month excavation blocks.
46
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
re-established by re-sectioning from the three permanent (concrete and rebar) datums within
and near the enclosure. The total station was used to locate excavation block corners and to
determine the elevations of the block data. The REU and Archaeology Month investigations
required the use of different elevation datums, because after the REU a tractor inadvertently
destroyed the flagged datum block. During the REU the Central Block and Liz’s Block
shared a common elevation datum designated 07-A with a height of 100.12 m in reference to
the 12-H-883 site grid. The rotary laser was placed on a leveled platform constructed from an
embedded cinder block. All elevations during excavation were taken as “below datum” using
electronic laser sensors and stadia rods or folding rules.
During Archaeology Month two datums were set. One, designated 07-E, was shared by
the Main Block and Liz’s 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, 07-F, was placed in close
proximity to the Central Block 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 100.01
m in reference to the 12-H-883 site grid for all of Archaeology Month. Table 3.1 provides
summary information for all three datums used within the Strawtown enclosure during the
2007 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 2007 Field Season
Datum Designation
07-A
07-E
07-F
Blocks Using Data
REU Central and
Liz’s Blocks
Main Block and
Liz’s Block
Central Block
Type
Height of Block
Datum Elevation
Rotary Laser
99.881
100.12
Rotary Laser
100.035
100.27
Stake, String,
Line Level
N/A
100.01
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 was 80 to 90 cmbd in selected units, and Level 6 extended from 90 to 95
cmbd in Units 89-92 and 105-106.
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.
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 2006 excavations were exposed and
47
excavated, while new anomalies encountered in 2007 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. The bases and profile walls of the Main Block and extensions, the Central
Block, and Liz’s Block were lined with landscape cloth at the end of the 2007 season to
allow easy identification of the base of excavation, excavation extent, and the unexcavated
anomalies.
BLOCK EXCAVATIONS
Small Blocks
Two small 2x2 meter blocks were opened during the 2007 REU in order to ground truth
student interpretations of geophysical data. Both of these small blocks were re-opened for
the 2007 Archaeology Month public excavations. One small block consisting of four 1x1
meter units (121 through 124), was placed near the central portion of the Strawtown
enclosure (see Figure 3.3). The southwest corner’s grid coordinates are North 205, East
166.5. This block was designated the Central Block (often referred to in notes as Sarah’s
block). A horizontal datum (labeled 07-A), with an elevation of 100.12 m (height of laser
beam), was used for the REU investigation. Datum 07-F, with an elevation of 100.01, was
used during the Archaeology Month excavation.
A second small block of four 1x1 meter units, numbered 125 through 128 (see Figure
3.3), was placed just southwest of the southern and western extensions off the main 2007
block excavations. The southwest corner grid coordinates are North 194, East 199. This
block was designated Liz’s Block. Datum 07-A (100.12 m) was also used during the REU
program, and during the Archaeology Month excavation Datum 07-E with an elevation of
100.27 m was used for horizontal control. The remainder of this section considers each block
from the perspective of research strategies, excavation methods, and results.
Central Block
The four 1x1 meter units (Units 121-124) excavated as a contiguous 2x2 meter block in the
central part of the enclosure were initiated during the 2007 REU to ground truth
interpretations of data collected using geophysical equipment. Sarah Striker, a student at the
University of Michigan, conducted the geophysical survey of the Central Block as a part of
the 2007 REU program. The resistivity survey grids were oriented on the established grid
beginning just east of a small grove of trees and extending toward the central portion of the
enclosure (Figures 3.4 and 3.5a). A GeoScan RM 15 Resistance Meter with MPX15
multiplexer in a parallel twin array setup was used to collect a 30x30 meter grid of resistance
data. Resistance readings were taken every 25 cm, with the probes spaced 50 cm apart. The
small sample interval was employed to facilitate the detection of smaller cultural anomalies
at a depth of 50 cm below surface. The research objective of the data collection was to
examine village settlement patterns within the enclosure. Striker had hypothesized that a
central pole similar to those identified at other Fort Ancient sites, such as Sunwatch in
Dayton, Ohio, may have stood in the middle of the enclosure.
48
Figure 3.4. Resistivity data collected during the 2007 REU, with the location of excavation blocks.
49
Figure 3.5. Resistivity data with indicated anomalies investigated by 2007 REU students Sarah Striker (a) and
Elizabeth Leiserson (b).
The resistivity survey was hindered by trees and other vegetation that still remained
within the enclosure. The missing values in the survey represent tree trunks and ground hog
burrows; the dark areas (areas of high resistivity) surrounding the trees reflect the root
50
systems. These large areas of tree-induced high anomalies limited the ability to detect subtler
cultural anomalies. However, the resistivity survey was able to identify a relatively clear
central plaza and several cultural anomalies, including a large elongated anomaly of high
resistance where the 2x2 meter excavation block was placed.
The 2x2 meter block was placed over this high-resistance anomaly (see Figure 3.5a)
located approximately 1.5 m west of the central datum point. The southwest datum corner of
the 2x2 meter block is North 205.00, East 166.50 (44 cmbd); the northwest corner is North
207.00, East 166.50; the northeast corner is North 207.00, East 168.50; and the southeast
corner is North 205.00, East 168.50.
The 2x2 meter block was excavated in individual 1x1 meter units in arbitrary levels.
Two arbitrary levels were removed during the REU to the base of Level 2 at 70 cmbd. It
should be noted that Level 1 measured nearly 15 cm in thickness; it departed from normal
arbitrary levels that were 10 cm thick, because plowzone soils were contained within Levels
1 and 2. The high resistance anomaly proved to be a rock-filled linear feature (Feature 46)
that extended into the south wall and across most of the block (Figure 3.6). Four zones were
identified at the base of Level 2: three of these were located within Feature 46 and a fourth
was the matrix soil encompassing the feature fill. (For a more complete discussion of Feature
46, see feature description section.)
Figure 3.6. Photograph of Central Block at the base of Level 2 showing Feature 46.
51
Feature 46 was originally believed to be a large post pit, consistent with a center pole in
the plaza area. The feature was cross-sectioned through the longest axis, with the west half
removed and its soils passed through ¼” hardware cloth. The west half was excavated from
the base of Level 2 (70 cmbd) to about 115 cmbd, or about 70 cm below surface. Time
constraints prevented further excavation during the 2007 REU, and unit floors and the
Feature 46 east profile wall were covered with landscape cloth and backfilled. The south
profile wall showing Units 121, 122, and the south portion of Feature 46 at the end of the
REU investigation is shown in Figures 3.7 and 3.8.
Six zones were evident in the Unit 121 and 122 south profile wall These included the
plowzone, Zones 1-2, and Zones B-D. Plowzone (PZ) consisted of a dark brown (10YR3/3)
silt loam with a granular structure, scattered gravel fractions, and numerous rootlets and other
bioturbations. The zone contained a light density of both historic and prehistoric artifacts,
and the boundary of the plowzone was clear.
Zone 1 (matrix) was located on either side of Feature 46 and consisted of a dark
yellowish-brown (10YR4/4) silt loam with small, faint dark grayish-brown (10YR4/2)
mottles (see Figure 3.8). Bioturbations containing some gravel fractions were present, and
the boundary with Zone 2 was diffuse with a gradual transition.
Figure 3.7. Photograph of the south wall of Central Block at the end of the REU.
52
Figure 3.8. Profile map of the south wall of Central Block at the end of the REU.
53
Zone 2 (matrix) consisted of a dark yellowish-brown (10YR3/4) sandy clay loam with
yellowish-brown (10YR5/6) mottles containing coarse sand. Some rounded rock and gravels
were present as well. There was no lower boundary for Zone 2, as it continued into the base
of excavation.
Zones B–D were fill episodes located within Feature 46. Zone B was a brown (10YR4/3)
and dark yellowish-brown (10YR4/4 to 4/6) silt loam containing dark yellowish-brown
(10YR4/4) sandy clay loam mottles. The zone consisted of loose gravel ranging in size from
coarse sand to rounded cobbles approximately 10 cm in diameter. Zone B was characterized
by an unconsolidated, weak structure and a clear boundary with Zone C.
Zone C consisted of a dark yellowish-brown (10YR4/4 to 4/6) sandy clay loam mixed
with silt loam and coarse sand, with scattered mineral flecking and small rounded rocks
throughout.
Zone D was a dark yellowish-brown (10YR4/6) silt loam containing dark yellowishbrown (10YR3/4) clayey silt loam mottles. There was gravel throughout the zone and light
charcoal flecking. The soils in the zone were gleyed, very dry, and compact. No lower
boundary was defined, because the zone continued into the base of excavation.
Liz’s Block
Four contiguous 1x1 meter units (Units 125-128) forming a 2x2 meter block near the 2006
Main Block excavation in the enclosure were excavated during the 2007 REU. These units
were placed to ground truth interpretations of data collected using geophysical equipment.
Elizabeth Leiserson, a student at the University of Chicago, conducted the geophysical
survey of the southeastern and central portions of the enclosure. She collected five 20x20
meter grids using resistivity equipment. The resistivity survey grids were placed within the
54
established grid, beginning east of the embankment and ditch and extending west and then
south again toward the embankment and ditch (see Figures 3.4 and 3.5b). A GeoScan RM 15
Resistance Meter with MPX15 multiplexer in a parallel twin array setup was used to collect
five 20x20 meter grids of resistivity data. The resistance survey was conducted using a 50cm sample interval and a 50-cm transect interval. The research objective of the data
collection was to examine areas within the enclosure that were suspected to be locations of
possible domestic structures or a residential zone. The main block excavated in 2006 was
included in the geophysical survey area to detect the structure (labeled Feature 49 in 2007)
encountered in the final days of that year’s excavation.
As in Striker’s survey, the resistivity survey was impacted by scrub, trees, and ground
hog burrows within the enclosure. The missing values in the survey represent these obstacles,
and the dark areas (areas of high resistivity) surrounding the trees reflect moisture retained by
the root systems. Leiserson’s survey also detected a relatively clear portion of the central
plaza, as well as numerous cultural anomalies in the zone between the plaza and embankment
(see Figure 3.5b).
The 2x2 meter block was placed over the northwest corner of a somewhat rectilinear
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 meter block is
North 194.00, East 199.00 (37 cmbd); the northwest corner is North 196.00, East 199.00; the
northeast corner is North 196.00, East 201.00; and the southeast corner is North 194.00, East
201.00 (see Figure 3.3). The elevation datum was 07-A (100.12 m), which was used during
the REU excavations.
Excavations were again conducted in 1x1 meter units. These units were excavated in
arbitrary levels, and all soils were screened through ¼” hardware cloth. Level 1 was removed
to a depth of 50 cmbd, Level 2 to 60 cmbd, and Level 3 to 70 cmbd. At the base of Level 3,
twelve possible postholes and four soil zones were identified. The possible postholes were
assigned numbers, and the soil zones were labeled alphabetically. At the point of definition,
the possible postholes were marked with flagging tape, the corresponding number was
written on the tag, and pertinent data were entered into the posthole log. None of the twelve
postholes was investigated further during the REU session. The unit was lined with landscape
cloth and backfilled.
During Archaeology Month, the block was re-opened, and Level 4 (70-80 cmbd) was
removed. Each of the possible postholes was cross-sectioned, but none of the twelve possible
postholes was accepted as an actual post. The cross-sectioned anomalies proved to be soil
mottles, root stains, or rodent runs when viewed in profile. At the base of Level 4, however, a
significant feature (Feature 47) was identified in the southern half of the 2x2 meter block.
Four soil zones were identified, including three that were identified as zones within Feature
47. (For a discussion of Feature 47, see the description in the feature section below.)
Profile drawings were completed for the south and east walls of Liz’s Block, and four
stratigraphic zones were identified in each of the profiles (see Figures 3.9 and 3.10). Zone A
represented an accretional A-horizon soil consisting of a dark brown (10YR 3/3) silt loam
with a moderate structure and compactness, heavy root content, and a moderate amount of
other biotic disturbances. The boundary with Zone B was clear.
Zone B was plowzone consisting of a dark brown (10YR3/3) silt loam containing pale
brown (10YR6/3) silt loam and some dark yellowish-brown (10YR3/6 and 4/6) mineral
staining. The zone’s soils were moderately compact and contained moderate to heavy
55
Figure 3.9. Profile map of the south and east walls of Liz’s Block.
Figure 3.10. Soil zone descriptions for the profile maps in Liz’s Block.
56
amounts of rock and gravel less than 3 cm in diameter. There was a minimal number of roots
present and little evidence of other biotic activity. The boundary with Zone C was diffuse.
Zone C was Feature 47, consisting of a very dark brown (10YR2/2) silt loam with
slightly increased clay content and some leeching of mineral stains from the soil zones
above. This zone contained cultural material with varying amounts of gravels. There was
light root content and other biotic evidence and a diffuse boundary with Zone D.
Zone D (matrix) consisted of a dark yellowish-brown (10YR4/4) silt loam containing 1 to
5 percent dark yellowish-brown (10YR4/6) mottles. It had a moderate to strong structure and
compactness. There was light root content with diameters less than 1 cm.
No further work was conducted within Liz’s Block during the 2007 season prior to
backfilling. Liz’s Block may well be a second as yet undefined domestic structure or very
large feature. The feature’s impressive size—it extends at least two meters east to west and at
least one meter north to south—suggests it may well prove to be an architectural feature.
MAIN BLOCK
Stratigraphy
Four major stratigraphic zones, excluding features and the various cultural zones identified in
plan, were identified in the Main Block (Figures 3.11–3.14). These zones were designated
Zones 1 through 4 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 grayish-brown
(10YR3/2) silt loam with moderate 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. Most of the Level 1 soils from the main block of the Archaeology Month
excavations were from Zone 1.
The Principal Investigator believes 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.
57
Figure 3.11. Profile drawing of the north wall of the Main Block and west expansion, 2007.
58
Figure 3.12. Profile drawing of the south wall of the Main Block and west expansion, 2007.
59
Figure 3.13. Profile drawing of the east wall of the Main Block, 2007.
60
Figure 3.14. Soil descriptions for the north, south, and east wall profiles.
61
Zone 3 was a natural B-horizon soil with intrusive cultural 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 4 exhibited a brown to yellowish-brown (10YR5/3-5/4) clay loam with dark brown
(10YR3/3) silt loam and sand mottles. Zone 4 continued beyond the base of excavations in
2007.
Excavations
The 2007 Archaeology Month excavations in the Main Block built upon the 2006 REU and
Archaeology Month investigations. A full account of the 2006 investigations is provided in
Arnold et al. (2007), but a brief summary of the work done in 2006 is necessary to
contextualize the 2007 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 3.15, see Figure 3.3). 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 ill-defined feature complex (designated Feature 32).
Figure 3.15. 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 Figures 3.16 and 3.17). The entire block was excavated to the base of Level 4
(Figures 3.18 and 3.19). 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
62
Figure 3.16. Plan map of soil zones at the base of Level 3 (70 cmbd) in the Main Block excavation, 2006.
63
Figure 3.17. Soil zone descriptions for the base of Level 3 plan map.
64
Figure 3.18. Plan map of soil zones at the base of Level 4 (80 cmbd) in the Main Block excavation, 2006.
65
Figure 3.19. Soil zone descriptions for the base of Level 4 plan map.
66
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.
As in previous years, features generally became discernible as soil stains at the base of
Level 3 (70 cmbd), but the tops of the features were usually defined at the base of Level 4
(80 cmbd). However, the 2006 excavations revealed numerous but indistinct culturally
associated soil anomalies still present in the base of Level 4, as was superpositioning of
cultural deposits. Future excavation was required to resolve these anomalies, but feature
numbers were assigned to control the recovery. Some features were designated “complexes”
(e.g., Features 33 and 32/37), because the exact nature of the various feature intrusions had
yet to be worked out. In total, thirteen new feature numbers were assigned to the anomalies
within the entire Main Block in 2006.
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 only visible in the block profile and was not given
a feature number, but it would have been contained within Level 4 in the southwest corner of
the block. Zones 5a and 5b designate the structure basin (see Figure 3.12), which appears to
stop at or just above the base of Level 4. 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. At its end were posthole 6-40 and Zone
7b, which was a raised area of burned soil. At the end of the 2006 field season, all 24 units of
the Main Block were covered with landscape cloth and mechanically backfilled.
Excavations during the 2007 Archaeology Month field season 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 2006, especially the structure observed in the west and south
profile walls of the 2006 Main Block.
In order to determine the structure’s size and shape the 2006 Main Block was reopened
and expanded to the west and south (Figure 3.20) to allow the exposure of the basin structure
in plan view. 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 (see Figure 3.20). The south expansion
extended south a maximum of 3 m (see Figure 3.20), 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,
a total of 23 additional units was excavated in this area. Table 3.2 summarizes the cultural
material recovered by unit for both 2006 and 2007.
While excavations were in progress during the 2007 field season a feature number (49)
was assigned to the house basin and an additional five features (48, 50-53) were identified.
In addition, the remaining thirty uninvestigated posts plotted during the 2006 season were
cross-sectioned to determine acceptance or rejection, and another 107 possible posts were
identified in the Main Block (after excavating more deeply) and its 2007 expansions.
67
Figure 3.20. Units excavated within the Main Block during 2006 and 2007.
68
After the backfill was removed from the Main Block by hand excavation, a heavy trowel
scrape was implemented to remove backfill detritus and to define features and posts
documented the previous year. Units 89-92 and 105-106 were then excavated to 95 cmbd
(base of Level 6) to better define the Feature 33 Complex prior to cross-sectioning (see
Figure 3.20). It became apparent that the shell-tempered Taylor Village-style ceramics were
limited to the upper portion of Feature 33, while the lower levels contained only grittempered Fort Ancient ceramics.
The remainder of the Main Block excavation area had another arbitrary level removed to
a depth of 90 cmbd (Figures 3.21–3.23). As these units were being excavated, previously
identified postholes and features were investigated and documented. One new feature,
designated Feature 48, was documented in the south profile wall of Unit 97, while a number
of new postholes was discovered and documented. Further discussions of feature
investigations are included in the feature description section of this chapter.
The western and southern expansions were 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 3.24–3.26). Level 4 (70-80
cmbd) was removed from the west expansion block, and plan maps with soil descriptions
were drawn and photographs were taken to document soil zones, anomalies, and possible
postholes (Figures 3.27–3.29). Figure 3.30 is a composite plan map of features, postholes,
and other anomalies observed in the Main Block and west expansion.
At the base of Level 3 (70 cmbd) in the west 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 3.26). 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. The presence of a remnant A horizon and
other cultural disturbances made the edge of Feature 49 impossible to discern beyond this
point. This same footprint was still evident at the base of Level 4, closely associated with
numerous additional postholes and at least one other feature (Feature 51).
Five additional posts (6-47, 6-48, and 7-14 to 7-16) were profiled in Units 116 and 120 of
the Main Block, forming a line of eight posts when added to the three postholes (6-60 to 662) documented in 2006 (see Figure 3.30). These eight posts formed what appears to be a
portion of the north wall of the structure. Future investigation of possible posts documented
in the west expansion will likely clarify architectural limits of the structure.
The extent of the Feature 49 structure to the south is still not well defined, especially
when observed in the south profile wall, where there are two areas that may be the edge of
the structure. The first area, designated Zones 7a and 7b (see Figure 3.12), was located at the
juncture of Units 93 and 94 (North 198, East 206). The second was farther east in Unit 95
where Zones 6 and 7 were separated by a curving transitional line.
69
Figure 3.21. Plan map at the base of Level 5 within the Main Block, 2007.
70
Figure 3.22. Soil zone descriptions for the base of Level 5, Main Block, 2007.
71
Figure 3.23. Photograph at the base of Level 5, Main Block, 2007.
72
Figure 3.24. Plan map of soil zones at the base of Level 3, Main Block south and west expansions, 2007.
73
Figure 3.25. Soil zone descriptions for the base of Level 3, Main Block expansions, 2007.
74
Figure 3.26. Photograph of the base of Level 3, showing west edge of house basin, Main Block
expansion, 2007.
75
Figure 3.27. Plan map of soil zones for the base of Level 4, Main Block west expansion, 2007.
76
Figure 3.28. Soil zone descriptions for the base of Level 4, Main Block west expansion, 2007.
77
Figure 3.29. Photograph of the base of Level 4, Main Block west expansion, 2007.
78
Figure 3.30. Composite map of features, confirmed postholes, and other anomalies in the Main Block, 2006
and 2007.
79
Table 3.2. Summary of Materials Recovered from the Main Block, 2006 and 2007 (italics)
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
80
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
81
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
82
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
83
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
84
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 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
Level 3
272
323
26
72.8 g
12.0 g
Level 1
18
12
3
4.5 g
0
Provenience
Unit 121
Unit 122
Unit 123
Unit 124
Unit 125
Unit 126
Unit 127
Unit 128
Unit 129
Unit 130
85
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
1
0.2 g
Prehistoric
Historic
Ceramics
Chipped
Stone
FCR
Fauna
(g)
Flora
(g)
Level 2
139
190
18
26.2 g
Level 3
400
304
20
Level 3+
205
144
Level 1
9
Level 2
Provenience
Unit 131
Unit 132
Unit 133
Unit 134
Unit 135
Unit 136
Unit 137
Unit 138
Metal
Other
0
9.7 g
1.3 g
110.4 g
3.8 g
1
6
121.0 g
10.9 g
9
1
0.9 g
0
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 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 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 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 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 1
4
6
0
0
0
1
Level 2
73
162
8
6.9 g
0
4
Level 3
227
272
15
72.0 g
5.1 g
Level 4
110
125
11
62.6 g
7.6 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 1
2
6
0
3.3 g
0
Level 2
66
186
15
2.5 g
0
86
Ceramics
Glass
1
1
1
2
2
26.8 g
1
1
1
1
2
1
Prehistoric
Historic
Ceramics
Chipped
Stone
FCR
Fauna
(g)
Flora
(g)
Level 3
55
114
11
235.8 g
0.9 g
Level 4
23
31
3
8.8 g
0
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 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 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 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 1
18
13
0
4.4 g
0
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 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 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 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 1
0
0
0
0
0
Level 2
41
86
6
1.0 g
0
Level 3
20
105
3
2.2 g
0
Provenience
Unit 139
Unit 140
Unit 141
Unit 142
Unit 143
Unit 144
Unit 145
Unit 146
Unit 147
87
Ceramics
Glass
Metal
Other
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
2
4.6 g
1.3 g
2
0.5 g
2
1
Prehistoric
Historic
Provenience
Ceramics
Chipped
Stone
FCR
Fauna
(g)
Flora
(g)
Unit 148
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
0.7 g
Level 2
134
167
18
24.3 g
0
2
Level 3
228
191
22
91.8 g
3.6 g
1
Level 1
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 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
Unit 149
Unit 150
Unit 151
Unit 152
Ceramics
Glass
Metal
1
1
149.6 g
FEATURE EXCAVATIONS
Feature 33
Feature 33 was first observed during excavation of Level 3 (70-80 cmbd) in Units 89, 90, 91,
and 92 during the 2006 REU. At that time the dimensions could only be estimated, as
Feature 33 continued into the north and west profile walls. After initial identification, no
further work was conducted beyond description and mapping. The feature was a very dark
brown (10YR2/2) silt loam containing stones (<1 cm to 10 cm) and a heavy density of
cultural material and charcoal flecking (30 percent). Artifacts included complete faunal
elements, broken bone, grit- and shell-tempered pottery, chipped stone, and FCR. The
ceramics contained in the feature were predominantly Taylor Village, but both Fort Ancient
and Great Lakes impressed varieties of the Oliver phase were present.
Feature 33 was re-exposed by hand excavation during the 2006 Archaeology Month
excavations. Adjacent Units 101, 104, 105, and 106 were excavated in 10-cm arbitrary levels
88
Other
2.1 g
to 80 cmbd where Feature 33 was completely defined (Figures 3.31 and 3.32). Feature 33
was generally circular, measuring approximately 255 cm by 210 cm. It was best described as
a complex, containing at least two subzones, probably due to superpositioning. The inner
subzone of black (10YR2/1) silt loam had a high density of cultural materials and stone and a
slightly darker color than the surrounding zone (see Figure 3.32). The second subzone was a
very dark gray (10YR3/1) ring completely encompassing the inner zone. The exterior
boundary was diffuse and defined by differential drying. In an effort to further define Feature
33, Units 90, 105, and 106 were excavated to 90 cmbd, while Unit 89 was terminated at 95
cmbd. During the 2006 field season the excavation of Feature 33 was not completed due to
time constraints, and its extent remained unknown. Despite the incomplete definition,
numerous artifacts were recovered from Feature 33 in 2006. These included 626 pieces of
chert debitage, 21 pieces of quartzite debitage, 2 chert cores, 25 chert tools, 3 quartzite tools,
81 pieces of FCR, 40.2 g floral (charred) pieces, and faunal remains weighing 5,030.2 g. The
fauna included one bone tool fragment and 135.7 g mussel shell. In addition, there were 259
shell-tempered sherds and 371 non-shell-tempered sherds, including 13 shell-tempered
Taylor Village rim sherds, 1 shell-tempered handle, and 17 Oliver phase rim sherds. A large
portion of a Taylor Village vessel is included in this total.
Figure 3.31. Photograph of Feature 33 at the base of Level 4 (80 cmbd) in the Main Block excavation, 2006.
89
Figure 3.32. Plan map of Feature 33 at the base of Level 4 (80 cmbd) in the Main Block excavation, 2006.
90
During Archaeology Month 2007 Feature 33 was once again exposed by hand excavation
to determine the feature’s extent, shape, and function (see Figure 3.21). Units 90, 91, 92,
105, and 106 were excavated to 95 cmbd to match the excavation level reached in Unit 89 in
2006 (Figure 3.33). Feature 33 was mapped in plan at 95 cmbd (Figure 3.34) and then crosssectioned from east to west. The northern portion was excavated in 10-cm arbitrary levels
with the base of excavation terminating at 131 cmbd.
In profile, six different soil zones were identified (Figures 3.35 and 3.36). Zone 1 was
composed of a dark yellowish-brown (10YR3/4) matrix soil surrounding the feature. Zones
2, 3, and 4 were deposits from infilling and slumping episodes that contained charcoal, ash,
burnt soils, and artifacts. Zone 5 was very dark brown (10YR2/2) organic silt loam feature
fill containing numerous artifacts including ceramics, chipped stone, and faunal materials.
Zones 6 and 7 were also part of Feature 33 but contained lesser amounts of cultural materials
and were lighter in color than Zone 5. Feature 33 extends beyond the 131 cmbd reached
during the 2007 field season. The investigators attempted to determine the depth of Feature
33 by placing an Oakfield probe, but the gravelly feature fill made this impossible. Gravel is
commonly found in varying abundance in the deep stratified storage pits present within the
enclosure.
Artifacts recovered from Feature 33 during the 2007 excavating season include 479
pieces of chipped stone chert debitage and 31 pieces of quartzite debitage, 2 cores (1 chert
and 1 quartzite), 16 bifacial chert tools and 1 bifacial quartzite tool, 28 pieces of FCR, 33
shell-tempered ceramic sherds including 3 rim sherds, 525 non-shell-tempered ceramic
sherds including twelve rim sherds, 1,466.7 g of faunal remains, and 63.2 g of charred flora.
Figure 3.33. Photograph of Feature 33 at 95 cmbd, 2007.
91
Figure 3.34. Plan map of Feature 33 at 95 cmbd, 2007.
92
Figure 3.35. Profile map of Feature 33, 2007. (Note: Feature extends below base of excavation.)
93
Figure 3.36. Photograph of Feature 33 south profile, 2007. (Note: Feature extends below base of excavation.)
Feature 33 was a deep, Oliver phase storage pit, with a later, superimposed Taylor
Village component. The morphology, size, and placement within the enclosure is consistent
with deep, “silo” type storage pits identified in earlier investigations (e.g., White et al. 2003).
Similar stratigraphic relationships between the Oliver phase and Taylor Village components
were observed for Features 1 and 2 and Feature 7, among others. In these cases, Taylor
Village ceramics and high densities of bone were recovered overlaying deep storage pits with
exclusively sand/grit-tempered pottery below the upper levels.
The multicomponent relationship in Feature 33 is demonstrated when examining the
summary of materials recovered (above). The uppermost portion of the feature, which was
excavated in 2006, was packed with faunal material, and 41 percent (n=259) of the pottery
recovered was shell-tempered Taylor Village (mixing would be expected with a later
component). The 2007 investigation, which finished excavating the upper layer, only
produced 6 percent (n=33) Taylor Village pottery and much less faunal material. The lower
portion of the feature produced Oliver phase pottery. Feature 33 and the component
relationships within the enclosure are discussed further in chapter 5.
Feature 35
Feature 35 was first identified as a concentration of burned/oxidized soil that extended
slightly into Unit 91 during the 2006 REU program. During the 2006 Archaeology Month
94
investigations, Feature 35 was re-opened by hand excavation to the base of Level 3 (70
cmbd). The feature appeared as a yellowish-red (5YR4/6) silt loam thermally altered soil,
with a hard-baked appearance. Coloration and texture clearly differentiated Feature 35 from
the surrounding soils.
In plan, Feature 35 was an irregular circle with an undulating boundary (Figures 3.37–
3.39) containing at least six postholes (Postholes 6-42, 6-43, 6-65, 6-66, 6-67, and 6-70).
Dimensions were approximately 190 cm southwest-northeast by 140 cm southeast-northwest.
Feature 35 was bisected from southwest to northeast on a line halving Postholes 42 and 43.
The northwestern portion of the feature was removed, and the southeast profile was
photographed and drawn. A flotation sample was collected from the northwest portion, with
the remaining soils screened through ¼” hardware cloth. Flotation samples also were
collected from Postholes 42 and 43. The southeast portion of Feature 35 was not excavated
in 2006 and was covered in landscape cloth prior to backfilling.
Artifacts recovered from Feature 35 included 6 pieces of chert debitage and one nondiagnostic sand/grit-tempered ceramic sherd. Faunal remains weighed 11.8 g. Burned soil
accounted for 1,802.2 g of material. The flotation sample produced a heavy fraction weighing
2,338.1 g and a light fraction of charred material weighing 5.2 g. A soil sample from the
flotation sample was retained for future analysis.
Postholes 6-42 and 6-43 appeared to penetrate Feature 35 and therefore postdate the
feature. Postholes 6-42 and 6-43 may be the remains of interior structural supports/posts for
an architectural feature located in the vicinity of the Main Block. Feature 35 was determined
to be a prepared clay hearth feature.
Figure 3.37. Photograph of Feature 35 at the base of Level 4 (80 cmbd) in the Main Block excavation,
2006, view southeast.
95
Figure 3.38. Plan and profile maps of Feature 35 in the Main Block excavation, 2006.
96
Figure 3.39. Photograph of southeast profiles of Feature 35 and Postholes 42 and 43 in the Main Block
excavation, 2006.
Feature 35 was exposed once again during the 2007 Archaeology Month excavations, and
the remaining southeastern half was investigated and removed. A hard trowel-scrape across
the surface revealed a row of intrusive posts cutting through the reddish, hardened soils
(Figure 3.40). Five posts (postholes 7-20 through 7-24), each approximately 8-10 cm in
diameter, were aligned in a southwest to northeast direction. These five posts and posthole 719 were cross-sectioned on a southwest-northeast line, with the southeast portion removed,
and a profile of the northwest wall was drawn (Figure 3.41). Postholes 7-20 through 7-24
clearly extended completely through Feature 35 into the designated Zone B and C soils. The
postmolds making up this grouping were dark yellowish-brown (10YR3/4) in color and
clearly visible against the reddish Feature 35 soils.
Once the postholes were documented, the remaining northwest portion of Feature 35 was
removed to the profile line of the 2006 excavations. All soils from Feature 35 were ¼”
screened, but few artifacts were recovered. Those include 5 pieces of chipped stone chert
debitage, 2 nondiagnostic sand/grit-tempered ceramic sherds, 2 pieces of FCR (1 chert and 1
non-chert), and 13.9 g of faunal remains.
Feature 35 appeared to be a prepared hearth constructed of imported clay that was
oxidized through repeated use, resulting in its hard, baked appearance. Later building
episode(s) resulted in the intrusion of a variety of posts, including a linear line of smaller
posts.
97
Figure 3.40. Plan map of Feature 35, 2007.
98
Figure 3.41. Profile drawing of north wall of Feature 35, showing intrusive posts, 2007.
Feature 36
Feature 36 was identified in Units 94 and 95 during Main Block excavations in 2006 (see
Figure 3.18). It was an oblong stain with an irregular boundary defined at the base of Level 4
(80 cmbd) of yellowish-red (5YR4/6) silt loam that had been heavily burned (Figures 3.42
and 3.43). Dimensions were approximately 140 cm east-west by 85 cm north-south, although
the extent of Feature 35 was not fully defined. No further investigations were conducted
during the 2006 fall excavation beyond mapping and description prior to lining with
landscape cloth and backfilling.
In 2007, Feature 36 was re-opened by hand excavation as part of the continuing Main
Block excavation investigations during Archaeology Month. Feature 36 was bisected at the
Unit 94-95 boundary, creating eastern and western portions (Figure 3.44). The eastern half,
located in Unit 95, was excavated by zones, and the west profile was then drawn and
photographed (Figure 3.45). When viewed in profile, Feature 36 proved to be a shallow,
slightly rounded basin that extended approximately 8 cm below depth of definition
99
Figure 3.42. Plan map of Features 36 and 37 in the Main Block excavation, 2006.
100
Figure 3.43. Photograph of Feature 36 at the base of Level 4 (80 cmbd) in the Main Block excavation,
2006, view west.
Figure 3.44. Photograph of Feature 36 profile, 2007. (Note the two large posts beneath.)
101
Figure 3.45. Plan and profile maps of Feature 36, 2007.
102
to 88 cmbd and consisted of a reddish-brown to yellowish-red (5YR4/4-4/6) burned clay. The
feature’s boundary with the surrounding 10YR4/3-4/4 silty clay loam matrix soils was clear
and sharp. At least two areas of rodent disturbance were identified in direct association with
Feature 36. After the west wall profile was drawn and photographed, the west half of Feature
36 was removed and screened through ¼” hardware cloth.
Feature 36 produced a variety of artifacts: 7 sand/grit-tempered ceramic sherds including
1 plain neck sherd and 1 unidentified rim sherd; 5 pieces of chipped stone debitage; 3 pieces
of non-chert FCR; 1 deer antler tine; and 1 g of bone and mussel shell.
After Feature 36 was removed, postholes 7-40 and 7-41 were identified beneath the
feature (see Figure 3.44). These two postholes suggest a structure may have stood at this
location before the construction of the hearth. Although Feature 36 most likely served as a
hearth it was not initially identified as such because of extensive bioturbation within the
feature and the Feature 37 complex located immediately to the north.
Feature 37 Complex (Feature 32)
Feature 37, which was also initially defined in 2006, was designated a complex because it
represented a grouping of associated features or zones with indistinct boundaries. Feature
37’s boundaries and zonal distinctions were poorly defined due to the amount of bioturbation
in the area (Figure 3.46, see Figure 3.42). The portion of Feature 37 originally labeled
Feature 32 during the 2006 REU was an ovoid stain (Area I) of a dark reddish-brown
Figure 3.46. Photograph of Feature 37 complex at the base of Level 4 (80 cmbd) in the Main
Block excavation, 2006, view south.
103
(5YR3/4) silt loam with approximately 20 percent dark yellowish-brown (10YR4/4) mottles;
it contained few stones, except for a few larger ones toward the western edge. Zone J was a
dark brown (10YR3/3) silt loam with mottles similar to Zone I. Zone H consisted of dark
yellowish-brown (10YR4/4) silt loam with very dark grayish-brown (10YR3/2) and dark
reddish-brown (5YR3/4) mottles. Feature dimensions were approximately 175 cm east-west
by 100 cm north-south, with diffuse and indistinct boundaries. The east-west oriented rodent
burrows that cut through Level 3 and into Level 4 created a complex series of zones and
hindered the definition and interpretation of the Feature 37 complex. No further
investigations of the complex were conducted in 2006.
Feature 37 was reopened by hand excavation during the 2007 field season and the zones
identified at the base of Level 4 (80 cmbd) in 2006 were re-established and excavated. Unit
92 was excavated to a depth of 95 cmbd as part of the investigations associated with Feature
33. Excavation by zone indicated that the Feature 37 complex in fact consisted of a mixture
of materials from Features 33, 35, 40, and 50 that had been displaced by bioturbation and
posthole construction. Ultimately, the Feature 37 complex proved to be a mixture of
disturbed deposits rather than a feature with any integrity, and only 1 nondiagnostic ceramic
sherd and 0.1 g of charred flora were recovered.
Feature 40
Feature 40 was defined at the base of Level 4 (80 cmbd) in Units 99 and 102 during the 2006
field season as a north-south oriented, ovate-shaped stain (see Figure 3.18). A rodent burrow
intruded into the northern portion of the feature, and posthole 6-5 was located along its
extreme northwest margin. Feature 40 consisted of moderately compact, very dark grayishbrown (10YR3/2) silt loam. It was differentiated from surrounding soils and features by color
and textural differences. Dimensions were approximately 90 cm north-south by 46 cm eastwest. Feature 40 was exposed in plan but no further excavation was conducted in 2006. The
feature was covered with landscape fabric prior to backfilling. It was thought to be a small
cache or discard pit.
Feature 40 was exposed by hand excavation and completely excavated in 2007. Although
visible at 80 cmbd, another arbitrary 10-cm level was removed to further define its
boundaries. At 90 cmbd Feature 40 measured approximately 50 cm north-south by 35 cm
east-west and was a small irregularly shaped stain (Figures 3.47 and 3.48). At the point of
definition, a small rock cluster, ceramics, and two crossed deer mandibles were visible. A
single intrusive posthole (7-76) was also evident.
Feature 40 was bisected along a northeast to southwest line with the southeastern portion
excavated and screened through ¼” hardware cloth. The northwest profile was drawn, and
the feature was found to consist of two separate zones differentiated by color (Figure 3.49).
The upper zone (Zone A) was a concentration of very dark grayish-brown (10YR3/2) silt
loam containing charcoal flecking larger than 1 cm, some burned soil, and numerous
artifacts. The lower zone (Zone B) consisted of dark brown to dark yellowish-brown
104
Figure 3.47. Plan map of Feature 40 at 90 cmbd, 2007.
105
Figure 3.48. Photograph of Feature 40 at 90 cmbd, 2007.
(10YR3/3-3/4) silt loam that contained a moderate amount of charcoal flecks greater than 1
cm in diameter, burned soil, and artifacts.
After the northwest profile was photographed and mapped, a flotation sample was taken
from the northwest portion and the remainder of the feature was passed through ¼” hardware
cloth. The profile is consistent with a small discard pit (see Figure 3.49).
Artifacts recovered from Feature 40 include: 41 pieces of chipped stone including 40
pieces of debitage and 1 unrefined biface; 39 sand/grit-tempered sherds including 3
cordmarked rims, 3 neck sherds (2 cordmarked and 1 plain), and 1 handle; 1 FCR; 3 faunal
tools including a needle, a shell pendant, and an indeterminate tool fragment. An additional
162.3 g of faunal bone and mussel shell were recovered, together with 9.2 grams of flora.
106
Figure 3.49. Profile drawing of Feature 40, 2007.
107
Feature 42
Feature 42 was observed during the 2006 excavation of Level 4 (70-80 cmbd) in Unit 113 as
an area of heavily oxidized soil: a yellowish-red (5YR4/6) silt loam with dark yellowishbrown (10YR3/2) mottles (Figure 3.50, see Figure 3.18). Complete definition occurred at the
base of Level 4 (80 cmbd). Feature 42 was an irregular ovate shape 120 cm northwestsoutheast by 100 cm northeast-southwest, which was mapped and photographed in plan, then
covered in landscape cloth and backfilled. The feature was interpreted as a prepared hearth
area. Several items of interest were recovered near Feature 42 in 2006, including three whole
bone awls and a complete deer skull located directly above the feature. These artifacts also
were within the structure basin later designated Feature 49.
During the 2007 field season Feature 42 was re-exposed by hand excavation in plan at 80
cmbd. Trowel-scraping revealed several postholes within the feature and around its
perimeter. Feature 42 was bisected on a north-south line approximately 14 cm west of the
Unit 117-118 boundary. The eastern portion of Feature 42 was removed first and screened
through ¼” hardware cloth; the western profile was mapped (Figure 3.51) and photographed.
In profile, Feature 42 had a slightly undulating base, out-sloping edges, and a soil color of
reddish-brown to yellowish-red (5YR4/4-4/6) hard baked clay, which contrasted sharply with
the lighter soils of the matrix. Following documentation, the feature’s west half was removed
and screened through ¼” hardware cloth.
Figure 3.50. Photograph of Feature 42 at the base of Level 4 (80 cmbd) in the Main Block excavation, 2006.
108
Figure 3.51. Profile drawing of Feature 42, 2007.
109
Figure 3.59. Photograph of the base of Level 3 (70 cmbd), Liz’s Block, at end of REU program. (Note top of
Feature 47 in south third.)
The 2x2 meter block was reopened by hand excavation during Archaeology Month. The
base of Level 3 (70 cmbd) was re-scraped, and the soil zones defined during the REU were
identified. Excavation of Level 4 was conducted by unit to a depth of 80 cmbd, and possible
postholes were cross-sectioned for examination in profile. All of these, however, proved to
be root or rodent disturbances.
Feature 47 was better defined at the base of Level 4, where it expanded to the north and
west, or nearly all of Units 125 and 126 (Figure 3.60 and 3.61). Feature 47 measured at least
2 m east-west and continued into the block’s east and west profile walls; it extended north
125 cm from the south profile wall and continued south an unknown distance. Feature 47 was
mapped in plan at the base of Level 4 (80 cmbd), and no further excavation was conducted
during the 2007 field season.
Four soil zones were identified at the base of Level 4. Zone A represented the
background matrix soil, which consisted of a brown (10YR3/3) silt loam with common dark
grayish-brown (10YR4/2) mottles. The matrix soil at the base of Level 4 exhibited a clear
boundary with the zones (A2, B, and C) composing Feature 47. Zone A2 consisted of a dark
grayish-brown (10YR3/4) silt loam with many dark yellowish-brown (10YR3/2) mottles.
Like the matrix, this zone contained a low density of natural stone but had a moderate density
of charcoal flecking. Zone B was a dark yellowish-brown (10YR4/3) silt loam with a few
118
Figure 3.60. Plan map of Feature 47 at the base of Level 4 (80 cmbd), Liz’s Block, 2007.
119
Figure 3.61. Photograph of Feature 47 at the base of Level 4, Liz’s Block, 2007.
dark yellowish-brown (10YR3/4) mottles. A moderate amount of charcoal and a relatively
low density of gravel were present. Pottery and lithic debitage (see Table 3.2) was present in
this zone. Zone C consisted of very dark grayish-brown (10YR3/2) silt loam with dark brown
(10YR3/3) mottles. This zone had the highest density of cultural materials and gravel within
the feature. A moderate to heavy density of charcoal was also observed.
Feature 47 was not excavated to a depth sufficient to confidently determine its function,
but it may well be part of another house basin. Alternatively, it may represent a complex of
superimposed features that cannot currently be separated. Units 125-128 were lined with
landscape cloth and backfilled.
120
Feature 49 was a shallow, flat-bottomed house basin that had been observed in the west and
south profiles of the Main Block excavation near the end of the 2006 field season (Figure
3.63). At the close of the 2006 field season the Main Block was lined with landscape cloth
and backfilled with plans to return the following year to investigate this anomaly. No
feature number was assigned in 2006. In 2007, the Main Block was again opened by hand
excavation and extended to the south and west to expose the feature in plan.
121
Figure 3.63. Profile drawing of west wall of the Main Block showing Feature 49 (Zone 5), 2006.
The units located in these expansions were designated Units 129-151 (see Figure 3.20).
Arbitrary levels were excavated to match levels previously excavated in the Main Block. At
Level 3, three units (143, 144, and 151) were subdivided where a definite separation of strata
between plowzone and house basin fill could be observed. These three units were excavated
in 5-cm levels: Level 3a from 60-65 cmbd and Level 3b from 65-70 cmbd. Each sublevel
was screened separately and given a separate field specimen (FS) number. A flotation sample
was taken from the northwest corner of Unit 143 and Unit 151 in Level 3b.
A plan map was drawn at the base of Level 3 (70 cmbd), and photographs were taken. A
possible ovate, or sub-rectangular, portion of a structure was evident by the contrast between
the very dark grayish-brown (10YR3/2) interior basin fill and the surrounding lighter,
yellowish-brown (10YR5/4) exterior soils in the western extension (see Figures 3.26 and
3.27). The basin was incompletely defined in the southern expansion because of the presence
of several intrusive features and very dark grayish-brown (10YR3/2) overlying A-horizon
soils.
In 2007, only the northwest portion of Feature 49 was defined. It measured at least 5.5 m
north-south by 4.5 m east-west. Excavation to the base of Level 3 (70 cmbd) was required to
discern any features underlying dark organic soils. At this depth there only remained
approximately 10 cm of structure fill above the subsoil in the western extension of the Main
Block.
Level 4 (70-80 cmbd) was excavated in all units located north of the North 198 grid line:
Units 130-133, 135-138, and 148-149. Each of these units had a 25x25 cm by 10 cm deep
flotation sample collected from the southeast corner prior to excavation. 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 at least one additional feature (Feature 51, see below).
Time constraints prevented further investigation of postholes and features located at the base
of Level 4 in the west extension during the 2007 field season. However, all features and
postholes identified within the west extension block, however, were assigned numbers prior
to backfilling (see Figures 3.28 and 3.29).
122
Artifacts recovered from Feature 49 included a ceramic assemblage of 760 sherds
including 25 rims, 42 necks, 660 body and nondiagnostic sherds, 33 shell tempered sherds,
and one ceramic pipe stem. The chipped stone assemblage from Feature 49 totaled 588,
including 518 chert and 43 quartzite debitage pieces, 25 chipped stone tools, and 1 core. One
stone bead was recovered from the Feature 49 screened soils, and 52 pieces of FCR were
recovered. Faunal materials totaled 718.3 g and included 2 tools (1 needle and 1
indeterminate) and 1 human tooth. Charred floral remains totaled 77.0 g.
Feature 50
Feature 50 was located in Units 90, 92, 95, 96, 99, 102, 105, and 106, and was defined at the
base of Level 5 (90 cmbd) during Archaeology Month in 2007 (see Figure 3.21). In plan, the
feature consisted of an amorphous concentration of compact clay and rock with several small
rock clusters. The feature measured approximately 220 cm in length and had a maximum
width of approximately 118 cm. Feature 50 was defined by a mixture of dark brown
(10YR3/3) and brown (10YR4/3) silty clay loam with some sand and occasional mottles of
very dark grayish brown (10YR3/2) less than 1 cm in size. It also contained mottles of dark
yellowish brown (10YR4/4) silt loam with some clay in the northern portion. The feature’s
soils displayed a moderate to strong structure and were very compact. Rock ranging from 1
to 6 cm was common, and there were numerous rock clusters with densely packed rocks up
to 7 cm in size. Some light charcoal flecking, pottery, chipped stone chert debitage, firecracked rock, and bone fragments were present. Feature 50 had a clear to distinct boundary
with Feature 33, a distinct boundary with Feature 40, and a clear boundary with the
surrounding subsoil matrix. All boundaries were determined by soil color and texture.
Feature 50 was bisected on a north-south axis to examine the profiles of Features 40 and
50 (Figures 3.64 and 3.65). The east portion of Feature 50 was removed and screened.
Except for Feature 40 in the center of the profile, no distinct zones were observed in the
profile of Feature 50. Feature fill was composed of a dark yellowish brown (10YR3/4 and
10YR3/6) clay loam. It had a strong structure and compactness and contained heavy
inclusions of waterworn pebbles and small cobbles.
Cultural materials recovered from Feature 50 included 3 pieces of chert debitage, 2
prehistoric sherds, and 5 FCR.
Feature 50’s function is somewhat ambiguous. The feature may represent debris from
embankment construction or residue from removal of the sand and gravel matrix during the
original excavation of the Feature 33 storage pit. However, based on the feature’s orientation
and size, which are similar to Feature 46, it is possible that Feature 50 could be another deep
burial shaft.
123
Figure 3.64. Profile drawing of Features 40 and 50.
124
Figure 3.65. Photograph of Feature 50 profile.
Feature 51
Feature 51 was located in Units 130 and 131 and was defined at the base of Level 4 (80
cmbd). The majority of Feature 51 was located in Unit 130, and a small portion extended 10
cm north into Unit 131 (Figures 3.67 and 3.68). It was a relatively circular stain
approximately 65 cm in diameter. Feature 51 was defined by a mixture of very dark gray
(10YR3/1) silt loam with up to 40 percent dark yellowish brown (10YR4/4) silt loam
mottles. The feature fill had a weak to moderate structure, was loosely compact, and
contained charcoal flecks less than 1 cm in diameter scattered throughout. Rocks ranging in
size from small, rounded pea gravels to 5 cm in diameter were common; mussel shell and
burned soil were also present. Feature 51 had an abrupt boundary, with a transition width of
less than 2 cm.
Feature 51 was mapped in plan at the base of Level 4 but was not investigated further
during the 2007 field season. Like the other documented but unexcavated anomalies, Feature
51 was covered with landscape cloth and backfilled. It will be investigated further during the
2008 field season.
125
Figure 3.66. Plan map of Feature 51 at the base of Level 4, 2007.
126
Figure 3.67. Photograph of Feature 51 at the base of Level 4, 2007.
Feature 52
Feature 52 was located in Unit 148 and was defined at the base of Level 4 (80 cmbd) in the
west expansion. It extended 12 cm from the west profile wall of Unit 148 and measured 64
cm north-south (Figures 3.68 and 3.69). The full extent of Feature 52 could not be
ascertained, since much of the anomaly extended west into an unexcavated part of the
enclosure site. Feature 52 was defined by a dark brown (10YR3/3) silt loam with many small
scattered mottles of very dark grayish-brown (10YR3/2) and dark yellowish-brown
(10YR4/4). It had a weak to moderate structure and moderate compactness and contained
occasional charcoal flecks less than 3 mm in diameter. The boundary with the surrounding
matrix was abrupt with a transition measuring less than 1 cm in width. No artifacts were
exposed in plan at the base of Level 4.
Due to time constraints and research objectives, Feature 52 was not fully exposed during
the 2007 field season. The exposed portion of Feature 52 was drawn in plan view prior to
backfilling.
127
Figure 3.68. Plan map of Feature 52 at the base of Level 4, 2007.
128
Figure 3.69. Photograph of Feature 52 at the base of Level 4, 2007.
Feature 53
Feature 53 was located in Unit 137 and exposed at the base of Level 4 (80 cmbd). It
extended east 30 cm into Unit 137 from the west profile wall and was 45 cm in length at the
widest point along the west wall (Figures 3.70 and 3.71). Feature 53 was defined by a dark
brown (10YR3/3) silt loam with small to large mottles of dark yellowish brown (10YR4/44/6). It had a weak to moderate structure with moderate compactness and contained small
charcoal flecks 1-3 mm in size, burned bone, and small pieces of chert debitage. It had a
clear boundary with a transition over 3 cm in width.
Feature 53 was mapped in plan at the base of Level 4 but its full extent is currently
unknown as the majority of the feature extended beyond the limits of the excavation. Feature
53 was covered with landscape cloth prior to mechanical backfilling at the end of the 2007
field season.
129
Figure 3.70. Plan map of Feature 53 and corner of structure (Feature 49), 2007.
130
Figure 3.71. Photograph of Feature 53 at the base of Level 4, 2007. (Note possible posts aligned north-south.)
Postholes
During the 2006 and 2007 investigations 177 possible postholes were recorded (Figures
3.72 and 3.73, also see Appendix B). Thus far 108 have been investigated by crosssectioning; 79 have been confirmed as prehistoric posts, while 19 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.
In addition, two possible postholes (6-49 and 6-50) were classified as “not accepted” in
2006. These numbers were re-assigned to two larger posts that were present slightly to the
131
Figure 3.72. Plan map of Main Block at base of Level 4 (80 cmbd) with posthole designations, 2006.
132
Figure 3.73. Combined plan map of Level 4 with all postholes, 2007.
133
north and east; apparently the original definition and cross section were misplaced.
Some of the posts identified in the Main Block were not visible at the end of the 2006
season. The investigators were aware at the beginning of the 2007 investigation that the base
of the Main Block needed to be taken down farther to allow better visibility. After removing
the backfill from the Main Block, the floor was given a heavy trowel scrape, and additional
postmolds were identified. Also, the entire Main Block excavated in 2006 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 2007 have a prefix of 7, in text the 2006 posts
have a prefix of 6).
At least five linear arrangements of posts and a possible sixth were identified during the
two years of excavation. The easternmost line (oriented north-south) extended from posthole
6-20 in Unit 97 near the southeast corner to posthole 6-64 in Unit 107 (see Figure 3.72).
Another possible line of posts that parallels the easternmost line (also oriented north-south)
starts with posthole 6-68 in Unit 96 and extends to posthole 7-20 in Unit 102. It is unknown
at this point if these two lines are related.
A substantial line of posts was also 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
3.72). This line of posts appears to continue west of the E205 line and probably extended
farther to the east as well before Feature 33 was cut through this line of posts. The linear
alignment of postholes likely forms the north wall of the structure basin (Feature 49). A
portion of this line was originally investigated in 2006 (Figure 3.74) when three large posts
were cross-sectioned. Additional posts were identified and confirmed in 2007 (Figures 3.75
and 3.76, see Figure 3.73). The five posts mapped in profile during the 2007 investigation
exhibit an alternating sequence, with a deeper post next to a shallower post. An anomalous
linear stain was associated with this posthole line. It is possible that this slightly differently
mottled line is the remnant of an ephemeral wall trench, however, the Principal Investigator
believes it more likely that the slight difference in mottling is due to “organic rain” that can
be deposited, and subsequently incorporated, into the soil below a decomposing structure
wall. Further investigations extending into the Main Block’s west expansion should clarify
Feature 49's overall shape and size.
A possible line of posts was identified (mostly during the 2007 investigation) between
posthole 7-61 in Unit 92 (Feature 37 complex) and posthole 7-19 in Unit 113 (see Figure
3.73). These posts were 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 (see Figure 3.41). The posts appear
slightly staggered, or offset, slightly alternating from north to south. The presence of a row
of stakes within the structure basin may rreflect an interior screen or divider.
A north-south line of possible posts was also present in the western extension in Units
135 through 137. These anomalies have yet to be confirmed as actual posts, but their location
under the western edge of the structure basin and their appearance strongly suggest that most
of these are actual structural posts. Also the post arrangement in Unit 132 appears to curve to
connect with the north line identified in the Main Block.
Finally, an irregular line may be present along the west wall of the 2006 Main Block in
Units 117 through 119 (between the E205 and E206 lines). While not as clearly aligned as
the five linear arrangements discussed above, this possible line parallels the west wall of the
134
structure. These possible parallel lines mirror the double lines found along the eastern wall of
the structure. These interior lines could be supports for interior benches located along the east
and west wall of the structure. Further investigation in 2008 will hopefully clarify the internal
arrangement of this structure.
Figure 3.74. Profile map of postholes 60 to 62 in possible house basin wall trench, 2006.
135
Figure 3.75. Profile map of postholes 7-14 to 7-16 and 7-47 and 7-48 forming portion of the north wall of
Feature 49, 2007.
136
Figure 3.76. Photograph of cross-sectioned postholes 7-14 through 7-16, 7-47, and 7-48, 2007.
137
CHAPTER 4:
CULTURAL MATERIALS FROM THE STRAWTOWN ENCLOSURE (12-H-883)
The materials discussed in this chapter include both the 2007 Archaeology Month
investigation and the eight 1x1 units in two blocks excavated during the REU program.
Excavations at 12-H-883 in 2007 resulted in an assemblage of at least 24,884 prehistoric and
historic artifacts, including 13,156 pieces of chipped stone debitage, 462 chipped stone tools,
10 non-chipped stone tools, 45 cores, 9,952 prehistoric ceramics, 26 pieces of modified bone
and antler (see Appendix A), 976 pieces of fire-cracked rock, 21 pieces of ochre, 107 pieces
of burned soil such as daub and waste clay, 129+ historic artifacts, and an uncounted number
of faunal (5,585.9 g) and floral (337.1 g) remains. Given the quantity of artifacts recovered
from the two excavations, analyses are primarily descriptive and focused on chipped stone
tools and ceramics.
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
07.05.
PREHISTORIC MATERIALS
Lithics
A total of 13,663 pieces of prehistoric chipped stone was collected during the 2007
excavations at 12-H-883, including 13,156 pieces of chipped stone debitage, 462 chipped
stone tools, and 45 artifacts classified as cores (Table 4.1). The tool assemblage includes
both bifacial (n=402) and unifacial (n=60) 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 and biface fragments (n=201) were the most common single tool
“type.”
138
Table 4.1: Totals of Stone Tools and Raw Material Used in Manufacture, 2007 Excavations
Artifact frequency
Chert
Quartzite
Slate
Granitic
Crinoid
Unidentified
Total
Unrefined Bifaces
88
8
0
0
0
0
96
Refined Bifaces
89
16
0
0
0
0
105
Hafted Bifaces
186
15
0
0
0
0
201
Unifaces
53
7
0
0
0
0
60
Debitage
11,893
1,258
5
0
0
0
13,156
Cores
29
16
0
0
0
0
45
Nonchipped Stone
Tools
0
0
1
3
4
2
10
12,338
1,320
6
3
4
2
13,663
Total
The nonchipped stone “tool” assemblage (n=10) included two pitted stones, one pestle,
one gorget fragment, a fragment of a disc pipe, and one bead. Also, four crinoid fossils were
recovered that may have been modified to make beads.
Hafted Bifaces (n=201)
This classification includes projectile points, drills, knives, and socketed tools retaining
complete or partial hafting elements. The hafted biface assemblage included 170 Late
Prehistoric triangular points and 12 refined bifaces with hafting elements from other temporal
periods. A hafted or socketed bifacial end scraper, four knives, and 15 drills are also included
in the refined hafted biface classification.
LeCroy Cluster. One hafted biface (Figure 4.1, 07.05/193) 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, creating the bifurcated
stem and is only slightly ground on the lateral margins. In cross section the point is biconvex
and the only remaining shoulder is flat to slightly sloping upward. Blade form is unknown,
and the specimen increases in thickness from the base until the point of fracture is reached.
The point was fragmented from heat damage and is manufactured from unknown chert.
White Springs Cluster. One hafted biface (Figure 4.1, 07.05/275) was classified as a basal
fragment of a Sykes or White Springs projectile point. It is a thick basal fragment broken
above the shoulder/haft juncture. The stem has a convex base with lateral margins that
expand toward the base and possess little grinding; there is no grinding on the base. The
stem was thinned by removal of flakes from the base and has a biconvex cross section. The
blade shape is unknown, and the blade edges still present are excurvate and straight. It is
manufactured from unidentified, heat-treated chert.
139
Merom Cluster. One hafted biface (Figure 4.1, 07.05/2120) is a small complete projectile
point which possesses Merom-like characteristics. The stem is moderately thick with lateral
margins that expand toward the base and produce a slightly flared base. The base is convex
and slightly ground, and the lateral margins are moderately ground. The projectile has a
plano-convex to biconvex cross section with shoulders that are flat to slightly sloping
upward. The blade shape is triangular with excurvate edges and light serration. The point
was manufactured from unknown chert and was crazed from fire damage, which created
multiple hairline fractures throughout the projectile point.
Terminal Archaic Barbed Cluster Unidentified. Two hafted bifaces (Figure 4.1, 07.05/792
and 07.05/2262) were classified as unidentified Terminal Archaic Barbed Cluster projectile
points. The first biface, 07.05/792, is medium sized and most similar to the Buck Creek
Barbed point. It is a thin basal fragment that was broken above the shoulder/haft juncture and
has a biconvex cross section. The stem has an excurvate base with lateral margins that
expand toward the base and is indented at the shoulder/haft juncture. The point possesses
little to no grinding on the base or lateral margins. The barbs of the point are not particularly
long or wide, but are present, and the blade shape of the point is triangular. The blade edges
are excurvate and not beveled. This projectile point was manufactured from unknown chert.
The second biface, 07.05/2262, is medium sized and is most similar to the Wade point. It is a
thin basal fragment that was broken well above the shoulder/haft juncture and has a biconvex
cross section. The stem has a flat base with lateral margins that expand toward the base. The
point possesses no grinding on the base or lateral margins. One side of the blade is
completely damaged leaving only one side and barb intact. The single barb is moderately
long and wide, with the blade shape triangular. The intact blade edge is incurvate and
beveled from the removal of flakes from only one face of the point. This projectile point was
manufactured from unknown, heat-treated chert.
Late Archaic Unidentified. Two hafted bifaces (Figure 4.1, 07.05/1994 and 07.05/2772)
were classified as basal fragments of unidentified Late Archaic points. The first biface,
07.05/1994, is a thick stem fragment broken below the shoulder/haft juncture and possesses
characteristics similar to the Karnak Stemmed projectile point of the Late Archaic Stemmed
Cluster. The stem fragment has a flat base with lateral margins that expand toward the blade
and possesses little to no grinding on the base or lateral margins. The stem is beveled from
resharpening, which produced a biconvex to trapezoidal cross section, increases in thickness
from the base until the point of fracture is reached, and is manufactured from unidentified,
heat-treated chert. The second biface, 07.05/2772, is a thick basal fragment that possesses
characteristics similar to the McWhinney Heavy Stemmed point of the Late Archaic
Stemmed Cluster. The stem is thick with an excurvate base and lateral margins that expand
toward the base and with only light grinding on one shoulder. The projectile has a biconvex
cross section and is crudely flaked with a medial ridge and cortex remaining on both faces of
the point, as well as at the base. The blade shape of the point is unknown and the shoulders
were flat to sloping upward. Only one of the shoulders of the point extended wider than the
base, with the other shoulder lining up on the same plane as the base. This point was also
manufactured from an unknown, heat-treated chert.
140
Figure 4.1. Non-triangular hafted projectile points recovered from the 2007 excavations, 12-H-883.
Nodena Cluster. One hafted biface (Figure 4.1, 07.05/528) was classified as a complete
Banks variety Nodena projectile point. It is very long and thin, triangular in shape, and its
widest point is between the base and the midpoint of the biface. It has excurvate blade edges,
a flat base, and rounded corners with little to no grinding present. The point is slightly
beveled from resharpening and has a biconvex cross section. The point is manufactured from
unidentified chert.
Late Woodland/Mississippian Triangular Cluster. In total, 170 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=105) 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.
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 2007 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 4b (n=46) was the most common, followed by the Type 4a (n=26). The Type 2
(n=9), Type 6 (n=11), Type 7 (n=1), and Crude (n=4) types were least common, and no Type
1 or Type 3 points were recovered. The final type recovered was Type 5 (n=22). Another 51
triangular points were either unidentifiable or a combination of two of the types discussed
above. It should also be mentioned that the unrefined biface classification contained artifacts
that were also classified as Type 4b (n=2) and Crude (n=7) triangular points, because these
141
two types include crudely flaked, large and thick triangular point preforms, which sometimes
possess some retouch, and humpback knives. Table 4.2 displays the total numbers of the
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, with their least-refined face up. These points possessed well-flaked bases but only one
face that had been completely refined. All but 14 of the triangular points are manufactured
of chert, most of it unidentified, and some were heat treated. Two basal fragments were
recovered made of identifiable chert: one triangular point (Figure 4.4, 07.05/195) was made
from Upper Mercer chert and another (Figure 4.3, 07.05/1145) was from Kenneth chert. The
remaining points are made of quartzite and 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
0
9
0
26
46
22
11
1
11
51
179
142
Figure 4.2. Complete or mostly complete triangular points recovered from the 2007 excavations, 12-H-883.
143
Figure 4.3. Partial triangular points recovered from the 2007 excavations, 12-H-883.
144
Figure 4.4. Poorly manufactured triangular points recovered from the 2007 excavations, 12-H-883.
Figure 4.5. Examples of quartzite triangular points recovered from the 2007 excavations, 12-H-883.
145
End Scraper. One biface (Figure 4.6, 07.05/1099) from the 2007 lithic assemblage was
classified as a hafted or socketed end scraper. It is made of unidentified, heat-treated chert.
The tool is biconvex in profile, and the socketed portion is thick with parallel straight lateral
margins that expand from the middle of the tool to the distal end. The scraping end (distal) is
wide with steep scraping edges on both faces, but with use-wear only present on one. This
tool was classified as a formal end scraping tool, which is often found in Oneota contexts,
and was found in relationship with shell-tempered pottery during the 2007 excavations.
Figure 4.6. Hafted knives, socket or hafted knife, socketed bifacial end scraper, and formal unifaces recovered
from the 2007 excavations, 12-H-883.
146
Knives. Three bifaces (see Figure 4.6) from the 2007 lithic assemblage were classified as
hafted, or socketed, knives. The first knife, 07.05/1612, was hafted and is triangular in shape,
medium sized, biconvex in cross section, and moderately thin, with no basal grinding. It is
wide and long and resembles an oversized triangular point, but use-wear and resharpening
only occurred on one blade edge, from the location of the haft to the distal tip. This knife is
made of unidentified chert. The second knife, 07.05/1720, was also hafted and is a basal
fragment similar to the first knife in that it is wide, medium sized, biconvex, and triangular in
shape, with no basal grinding. This knife, however, is short, and both blade edges possess
use-wear and are resharpened from the haft to the point where the distal tip was broken. Like
the first, it also resembles a large triangular point but with slightly beveled blade edges. This
knife was manufactured out of Harrodsburg or Allen's Creek chert. The last knife,
07.05/2440, was socketed or hafted and is broken at the shoulder/socket or haft juncture. It is
a moderately thick basal fragment of what would have been a very long knife, nothing like
the two knives discussed above. This knife has a long, thin constricting stem that was
socketed or hafted with its maximum thickness located at the shoulder/socket juncture. It has
a plano-convex cross section with cortex still remaining on the flatter face, possesses no
basal grinding, and is manufactured from unknown chert.
Drills. Sixteen drills and drill fragments with intact hafting elements were recovered (Figure
4.7). Ten are expanding base drills that were probably made by reworking triangular
projectile points. One of these expanding stem drills, 07.05/2363, however, was not a
reworked triangular point: the bit portion of this drill was manufactured with great care and
precision just like a regular expanding stem drill, but the base of the drill is completely
unflaked. If this drill had been first used as a triangular point, it would have had refining
flakes taken off the base.
The other six are complete or fragments of spike drills with varying characteristics and
stages of use. Some of the drills were large and wide and others were small and narrow. The
largest spike drill recovered, 07.05/2645, is long and thick with a wide base. It consists of an
unrefined biface that may or may not have been hafted, with the distal end having many
flakes removed to make a narrow bit that ends about 13 mm from the distal tip. It is possible
this drill represents an unfinished drill or a drill in the early stages of use. It could also be a
crude hand-held drill that was only used for a short period and then discarded. Two other
drills, 07.05/1360 and 07.05/1195, however, seem to be drills at the end of their use. Both
drills are complete, but they are much shorter, narrower, and thinner. They also resemble
expanding stem drills because they are resharpened completely to the hafting element. All
but two of the hafted drills recovered are manufactured from unknown chert with two
(07.05/1469 and 07.05/2080) manufactured from quartzite. Also, two distal drill fragments
(07.05/1336 and 07.05/1859) were recovered that were made from quartzite as well.
147
Figure 4.7. Drills (expanding stem: top two rows; spike drills: third row; drill fragments: bottom row)
recovered from the 2007 excavations, 12-H-883.
Unidentified Hafted Bifaces. Three bifaces (see Figure 4.1, 07.05/553, 07.05/2176, and
07.05/2366) were classified as unidentified stemmed or notched hafted projectile points. The
first biface, 07.05/553, is a thin medial fragment that was broken at the shoulder/haft juncture
and possibly heat damaged at the tip. The blade shape is triangular, and the blade edges are
straight as well as moderately serrated; it is biconvex and made of unknown chert. The
second biface, 07.05/2176, is a uniform, thick stem fragment broken below the shoulder/haft
juncture. The fragment has a convex base with lateral margins that expand toward the base.
Basal grinding is present on the lateral margins of the stem but absent on the base. Thickness
148
of the fragment increases from the base until the point of fracture is reached, and it is
manufactured from unidentified chert. The third biface, 07.05/2366, is a moderately thin stem
fragment broken on the shoulder/haft juncture. The fragment has a convex base with lateral
margins that expand slightly toward the base. Basal grinding is present on the lateral margins
of the stem, as well as on the base. Thickness of the fragment increases from the base until
the point of fracture is reached. The biface was manufactured from unidentified, heat-treated
chert.
Refined Biface Fragments and Other Bifaces (n=201)
The assemblage also included 105 refined biface fragments and 96 unrefined bifaces, which
are complete or unfinished tools. Many of the refined biface fragments are broken triangular
points, and out of the refined biface fragments, six were drill fragments (see Figure 4.5).
Some of these fragments were made of quartzite (n=16), including two of the drill fragments,
but most were made of unknown chert. Humpback knives (n=10) are included in the total
number of unrefined bifaces and can be seen in Figure 4.8. Again, most of these knives were
manufactured from chert, and one (07.05/332) was made of quartzite.
Figure 4.8. Humpback knives recovered from the 2007 excavations, 12-H-883.
149
Figure 4.9. Unrefined bifaces recovered from the 2007 excavations, 12-H-883.
The other unrefined bifaces (Figure 4.9) range from completely flaked, bifacial artifacts
with a 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 were made from unknown chert, but one, 07.05/1055+1473, which is a
refit, was manufactured from Upper Mercer chert, and eight others were made from quartzite.
Unifaces (n=60)
Of the complete or partial artifacts classified as unifaces, 58 were identified as nonformal
implements and two (see Figure 4.6, 07.05/115 and 07.05/3219) as formal unifaces.
Examples of nonformal unifaces are shown in Figure 4.10. Edges were highly variable and
were often the only retouched portion of the tool. Edge angle ranged from very slight to very
steep. Convex, concave, straight, and ragged “denticulate” edges are present. Most of the
nonformal unifacial tools collected were made of unknown chert, but six unifaces were made
of quartzite. One of the formal unifaces, 07.05/115, was made of quartzite and was classified
as a thin, possibly hafted or socketed, thumbnail endscraper. The other, 07.05/3219, was
manufactured from unknown chert, was not uniform in shape and was thick, but it was
unifacially flaked around the entire perimeter of the tool.
150
Figure 4.10. Examples of nonformal unifaces recovered from the 2007 excavations, 12-H-883.
Cores (n=45)
Forty-five 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. The typical casual
core used a waterworn cobble as raw material, and flakes were detached multi-directionally.
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
151
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 bifaces or
early-stage biface fragments.
Chert cores (Figure 4.11) were most common, but 16 of the cores recovered were
quartzite (Figure 4.12).
Figure 4.11. Examples of chert cores recovered from the 2007 excavations, 12-H-883.
Chipped Stone Debitage (n=13,156)
The chipped stone debitage assemblage consisted of 11,893 pieces of chert, 1,258 pieces of
quartzite, and 5 pieces of slate. As with the cores, the overwhelming majority of the chert
debitage was of locally available, glacial chert.
152
Figure 4.12. Examples of quartzite cores recovered from the 2007 excavations, 12-H-883.
Nonchipped Stone (n=6)
The nonchipped stone “tool” assemblage included two hammer stones, one pestle, one pipe
fragment, one gorget fragment, one stone bead, and four possible crinoid beads.
Hammer Stones. Two stone tools (Figure 4.13, 07.05/973 and 07.05/1351) classified as
hammer stones were recovered from the 2007 excavations and were very similar to each
other. Both are irregular, round utilized granitic cobbles that have flat faces where most of
the battering is located. Light battering is also present on the sides and on the opposite and
more rounded face. The battering on the sides was not uniform and was mostly present on the
rounded corners of the stones.
Pestle. A single artifact (Figure 4.13, 07.05/370) was classified as a roller pestle fragment in
the 2007 artifact assemblage. It is long, cylinder-like, with an ovoid cross section, and likely
broken in half. The broken end is flat, and the other tapers into a round tip. Heavy pecking
covers the entire surface, except for the flat broken end and another fracture on the side that
is related to the broken end. It is manufactured from granitic stone.
153
Figure 4.13. Nonchipped stone tools recovered from the 2007 excavations, 12-H-883.
Gorget. One gorget fragment (Figure 4.13, 07.05/692) was recovered during the 2007
excavations. The fragment is thin, very symmetrical, and polished, with a rectanguloid shape.
No drill holes are present, but several etched lines are present on one face, which could be
part of a geometric design. Some of these etched lines line up with small notches in the
existing end of the fragment. The gorget fragment has a bi-plano cross section and is
manufactured out of dark green banded slate.
Pipe Fragment. One stone fragment in the artifact assemblage was classified as a small disk
pipe fragment (Figure 4.13, 07.05/693). It is a thin, semicircular fragment that was broken
across the bowl, and several incised lines cover the bowl portion and the flat area
surrounding the bowl. A few incised lines are also present on the bottom of the pipe
fragment, whereas the outer edge of the fragment is highly polished with no incised lines.
The disk pipe fragment was not made of slate, but rather some unknown material. Pipes of
this type are associated with Oneota occupations, and shell-tempered pottery was recovered
in the same provenience as the pipe fragment.
Stone Bead. One stone in the lithic assemblage was classified as a bead (Figure 4.13, 07.05/
3311). It is a small, cylindrical stone with heavy polish on all sides and a hole drilled from
one flat end to the other. The bead is made of an unidentified material similar to that used for
the disk pipe discussed above.
154
Crinoid Bead. Four stones were classified as possible crinoid beads (Figure 4.13, 07.05/384,
07.05/428, 07.05/460, and 07.05/3524). All have holes that go completely through the fossil,
but none has evident human modifications to them. Only one crinoid fossil, 07.05/3524,
seems to have a lightly polished outer edge, while the rest have rough, unmodified outer
edges.
Ceramics
The ceramic assemblage recovered from the Strawtown enclosure included rim sherds
(n=256), neck sherds (n=481), body sherds (n=2,263), unclassified sherds (n=6,944), and one
base sherd, as well as five handles.
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
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=3,006), approximately 72 percent (n=2,167) were grit tempered, with 18 percent
(n=547) a combination of sand and grit tempered, and 6 percent (n=185) sand tempered.
Low numbers of grit- and shell-tempered (n=1), grog-tempered (n=3), sherds lacking temper
(n=1), and a small number of sand- and shell-tempered sherds were recovered (n=2). Shelltempered sherds (n=99) accounted for approximately 3.3 percent of the >½” assemblage.
Sherds less than ½” (n=6,944) were classified as either “shell” (n=398, 5.7 percent) or “not
shell” (n=6,546, 94.3 percent). One shell-tempered loop handle was recovered detached
from a vessel.
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. No ceramics definitely resembling Mississippian types
were recovered from the enclosure this year, but two specimens (07.05/473 and 1073)
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.
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
155
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. These
handles 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 150 sherds recovered from
the 2007 investigation displayed definite Fort Ancient related styles or motifs. Examples of
Middle Fort Ancient vessels are shown in Figures 4.14, 4.15, and 4.16.
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 36 sherds recovered from the 2007 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
wedge-shaped 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 Figure 4.17 [Bob4].
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 4.3 through 4.5 show surface treatment by temper). The method of surface
treatment could be observed on 1,583 body sherds. A cordmarked surface treatment was
present on 81.5 percent (n=1,290) of body sherds with an identifiable surface treatment.
Plain/smooth surface treatment sherds (9.4 percent, n=149) and sherds with fabric
roughening (8.8 percent, n=140) were also present. Sherds with brushed surface treatments
(0.3 percent, n=4) accounted for a minor portion of the observable surfaces.
156
Figure 4.14. Fort Ancient-style rim sherds from 12-H-883.
Figure 4.15. Fort Ancient-style neck sherds from 12-H-883.
157
Figure 4.16. Fort Ancient-style neck sherds from 12-H-883.
158
Figure 4.17. Great Lakes impressed-style sherds from 12-H-883 (0705/206, bottom row right, is an Albee
sherd).
Table 4.3: Non-Taylor Village Body Sherds Compared by Surface Treatment and Temper
Cordmarked
Grit
Sand + grit
Sand
Grog
No temper
Sand + shell
Total
1017
217
55
0
1
0
1290
Fabricroughened
114
25
1
0
0
0
140
Plain
Brushed
Unidentified
Total
109
22
16
0
0
2
149
0
0
4
0
0
0
4
442
126
33
2
0
0
603
1682
390
109
2
1
2
2186
Table 4.4: Non-Taylor Village Neck Sherds Compared by Surface Treatment and Temper
Cordmarked
Grit
Sand + grit
Sand
Total
43
11
1
55
Fabricroughened
6
3
0
9
159
Plain
Brushed
Unidentified
Total
243
78
32
353
0
0
0
0
36
16
6
58
328
108
39
475
Table 4.5: Non-Taylor Village Rim Sherds Compared by Surface Treatment and Temper
Cordmarked
Grit
Sand + grit
Sand
Grit + shell
Grog
Total
24
7
3
0
0
34
Fabricroughened
6
2
0
0
0
8
Plain
Brushed
Unidentified
Total
107
33
24
1
0
165
0
1
1
0
0
2
17
6
7
0
1
61
154
49
35
1
1
240
Oliver neck sherds (Figure 4.18, see Figure 4.15), on the other hand, are dominated by
smooth/plain surface treatments. Of 417 Oliver neck sherds whose method of surface
treatment could be observed, 84.6 percent (n=353) were smooth/plain, with 13.2 percent
(n=55) cordmarked and 2.2 percent (n=9) fabric roughened. In 2007, no neck sherds with a
brushed surface treatment were recovered.
Surface treatment could be observed on 209 Oliver phase rim sherds (Figures 4.19 and
4.20, see Figure 4.14). Plain surfaces accounted for 78.9 percent (n=165), and cordmarking
was represented by 16.3 percent (n=34). Fabric-roughened surface treatment accounted for
3.8 percent (n=8), with the remaining 1 percent (n=2) exhibiting a brushed surface treatment.
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 4.6). Of the 478 neck sherds recovered, decoration was present on
Figure 4.18. Oliver neck sherds with plain surface treatment from 12-H-883.
160
Figure 4.19. Rim sherds with a plain surface treatment from 12-H-883.
Figure 4.20. Rim sherds with cordmarked surface treatment (except fabric-roughened 07.05/1094
and brushed 07.05/694) from 12-H-883.
161
170 specimens, accounting for 35.6 percent of the total necks recovered. The Fort Ancientrelated decorations (of decorated vessels) observed were guilloche (22.9 percent, n=39) and
incised-line (68.8 percent, n=117). The seven necks sherds (4.1 percent, n=7) listed as having
a combination of decoration exhibited both trailed lines and punctation, six of which are
associated with Fort Ancient styles. The remaining decorated neck sherds (3.5 percent, n=6)
exhibited cordage or tool impression, with one specimen exhibiting punctation (0.6 percent).
Table 4.6: Non-Taylor Village Decoration by Vessel Portion
Type of decoration
Incised broad line
Incised guilloche
Incised thin line
Punctation
Dowel impressed
Tool impressed
Cord impressed
Combination
Not decorated
Cross hatched
Unidentified
Total
Body
12
0
2
0
0
1
0
1
2210
0
2
2228
Neck
109
39
8
1
0
3
3
7
315
0
0
478
Rim
1
0
2
4
19
6
23
13
169
1
0
238
Of the 238 grit/sand-tempered rim sherds (see Table 4.6), decoration was present on 69,
composing about 29.0 percent. Decoration included a variety of impressed forms: cord (33.3
percent, n=23); dowel (27.5 percent, n=19); and tool (8.7 percent, n=6). Rims exhibiting
decorative trailed lines, either thin or broad (4.3 percent, n=3), are commonly associated with
a neck decoration that sometimes extended onto the rim area and typically represented a Fort
Ancient-type sherd. Four rim sherds exhibited a variety of styles executed with punctation
(5.8 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 (18.8
percent, n=13). In all cases, the combination category represented a Fort Ancient-style
vessel. These rim sherds exhibited smooth dowel impressions on the rim with trailed lines on
the neck. One rim sherd represented a hybrid between the Fort Ancient and Great Lakes
impressed styles. This example exhibited a Great Lakes technique of cord-impressed
decoration on a typically Fort Ancient rim fold, placed over a broad, excurvating, Fort
Ancient-style neck with trailed lines. 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).
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
162
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.
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 onto 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. These vessels
are more difficult to reconstruct than grit-tempered sherds. Only one detached Taylor Village
loop handle was recovered during the 2007 investigation. Often 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, cordmarking and plain mostly appear
as surface treatments; occasionally a few sherds may exhibit other surface treatments (Table
4.7). (Note: The 2007 cataloging was conservative when identifying sherds as Taylor
Village, and 22 shell-tempered sherds were not included in this count.) During the 2007
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 27
specimens: plain/smooth represents more than half of the observations with 17; a cordmarked
surface treatment was present on 10 sherds, but cordmarking on Taylor Village sherds is
typically very fine and often difficult to observe (Figure 4.21). Thirteen body sherds have an
unidentifiable surface treatment.
Table 4.7: Taylor Village Surface Treatment by Vessel Portion
Type of decoration
Plain
Cordmarked
Unidentified
Total
Base
0
0
0
0
Body
17
10
10
39
Neck
1
1
1
3
Exterior rim
9
3
2
14
The method of surface treatment could be identified on only two Taylor Village neck
sherds (see Table 4.7). One exhibited cordmarking, and one sherd had a plain surface
treatment. However, since the neck portion of these thin-walled, sharply everted vessels is
small, this class is underrepresented.
Fourteen Taylor Village rim sherds were recovered from the Strawtown enclosure
excavations. Surface treatment could be observed on twelve of the specimens. Nine (75
percent) exhibited a smooth/plain surface, and three (25 percent) were cordmarked (see Table
4.7).
Decoration on the shell-tempered Taylor Village sherds (Table 4.8) was typically placed
on the exterior surface of the shoulder, the interior of the rim (Figures 4.22 and 4.23), 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 19 specimens of the 36
shell-tempered body sherds recovered during the 2007 investigation. Of the body sherds
exhibiting decoration 89.5 percent (n=17) were identified as having the incised broad-line
(trailed) technique, and thin-line incised was identified on a single sherd (5.3 percent). One
body sherd (0.8 percent) had an indeterminate decoration.
163
Table 4.8: Taylor Village Decoration by Vessel Portion
Type of decoration
Incised broad line
Incised thin line
Not decorated
Combination
Unidentified
Total
Body
17
1
17
1
1
37
Neck
2
0
1
0
0
3
Exterior rim
1
0
14
0
0
15
Figure 4.21. Taylor Village cordmarked body sherds, some with trailed lines.
164
Interior rim
9
0
6
0
0
15
Figure 4.22. Taylor Village neck sherds from 12-H-883.
165
Figure 4.23. Taylor Village rim sherds from 12-H-883 (note loop handles still attached on sherds in upper
right).
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 one that inadvertently continued up
onto the neck. Two sherds had remnants of a trailed line, and one exhibited no decoration.
Taylor Village rim sherd decoration essentially consists of smooth, broad (4 to 5 mm)
lines. The rim sherd decorative field is on the interior of the rim. Occasionally the lip is
impressed, with or without decoration on the interior. Fifteen rim sherds recovered during the
2007 investigations (66.7 percent, n=10) revealed some type of decoration. All ten exhibited
an incised broad-line (trailed) decorative technique, with nine examples with decoration on
the interior of the rim only. Fourteen rim sherds were not decorated, however, rim sherds
included miniature vessels and bowls, which lowered the percentage of vessels actually
166
decorated. One miniature vessel rim sherd (included in Table 4.8) had Taylor Village-style
interior trailed lines but was tempered with sand.
The upper portion of Feature 33 contained significant numbers of Taylor Village pottery
(most recovered from the 2006 excavations). Many of these sherds (but not all) were from a
single large vessel, and the additional sherds recovered in 2007 allowed a more complete
reconstruction of the large vessel. Figures 4.24 through 4.28 represent portions of this same
vessel. The vessel has an orifice diameter of 32 cm with a circumference at the largest
portion of its subglobular body extending 52 cm in diameter. The vessel was shell tempered
with the finely processed shell typical of Taylor Village technology and exhibited a finely
cordmarked surface treatment. The bodies of Taylor Village vessels are often quite thin,
which accounts for the rarity of recovering large vessel segments. The measurements of this
vessel include the rim, which was around 7.5 mm thick, a distinctly everted neck measuring
0.8 mm, the shoulder exhibited a thickness of 7.5 mm, and the body measured between 3.5
and 4.5 mm in thickness. This vessel also had loop, or lug, handles. Although it is unknown
how many of these appendages were present on the vessel originally, three were identified:
one was a typical open loop handle, one was barely opened, and one was a completely closed
vestigial loop handle. About 40 percent of the rim was recovered, but the portions with
handles do not refit.
The vessel was decorated on the shoulder and rim interior with trailed lines (coded as
broadline incised in the lab). The lines on the rim interior were approximately 11 mm long
(shorter than typical Taylor Village interior rim lines) and extended all of the way to the lip,
creating a slightly scalloped effect to the lip. These lines were about 4 mm wide and were
usually placed 3.5 mm apart. The decoration on the shoulder consisted of trailed lines
forming a straight-line oblique and chevron design. Even though the design is fragmentary,
this vessel exhibits the largest Taylor Village design element currently known to exist. The
design consisted of down-pointing, v-shaped chevrons bordered by oblique lines. The largest
intact portion of the vessel showing all the chevrons consisted of eight lines. The bottom of
the chevron design was bordered by short “tick marks,” which were also trailed and appear to
be made with the same implement as the design. The oblique lines bordering both sides of
the chevron were closer together (but not touching) and angled outward as the line went
toward the body of the vessel, allowing the chevron decoration to get larger as it extended
down the vessel. The design elements were fragmentary, but the largest piece exhibited five
oblique lines. Again, the piece was fragmentary, but the same tick marks bordering the base
of the chevrons are along at least a portion of the oblique lines opposite the chevron design.
This bordering along the oblique lines opposite the chevron has been observed on a specimen
from the Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology (accession number 1657). The width of
the lines for all of these decorative elements on the vessel shoulder ranged between 3.5 to 4.0
mm.
167
Figure 4.24. Rim sherd from large Taylor Village vessel from the upper portion of Feature 33, 12-H-883.
168
Figure 4.25. Rim sherd from large Taylor Village vessel from the upper portion of Feature 33, 12-H-883.
Figure 4.26. Rim sherd from large Taylor Village vessel from the upper portion of Feature 33, 12-H-883.
169
Figure 4.27. Shoulder and body segment from the area of greatest vessel circumference (52 cm in diameter).
170
Figure 4.28. Selected body sherds from the upper portion of Feature 33, 12-H-883.
171
With the conclusion of the 2006 and 2007 investigations, the permanent collections at the
Strawtown Koteewi Park now include the largest known sample of Taylor Village ceramics,
enlarged considerably by the excavation of Feature 33. 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 is 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).
175
HISTORIC MATERIALS
The historic material recovered from excavated contexts at 12-H-883 is a relatively light
(n=129+) assemblage of late-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 4.9 below.
Table 4.9: Historic Artifacts Recovered from 2007 Excavations at the Strawtown Enclosure, 12-H-883
Material
ceramic
Category
earthenware
stoneware
glass
whiteware
container
flat
metal
brass
copper
ferrous
lead
nonferrous
stainless steel
Object
brick fragment
tile fragment
unid frag
body sherd
body sherd
body sherd
body sherd
body fragment
body fragment
body fragment
fragment
fragment
cartridge case
Attributes
Remarks
brown slip
bristol ext, int
salt glaze
salt ext, albany int
clear
cobalt
light aqua
clear
clear; safety
.22 cal
unidentified
rivet
barbed wire
cotter pin
fence stretcher
hand crank
knife blade,
tang
misc. hdwe
nail, horseshoe
nail, cut
nail, wire
ring or chain link fragment
screen
fragment
valve
wire
flat fragment
unidentified fragment
bullet
unidentified fragment
spacer
176
N
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
1
1
11
6
3 with '"Peters HV"
headstamp
rod with small links
rivet has leather below
9
3
2
1
1
1
1
2
nuts, bolts, washers
32
1
2
1
1
3
combustion engine valve
1
7
453.3 g
748 g
1 with impact mushroom
2
1
1
Material
mineral/stone
synthetic
Category
cinder/slag
coal
paint flake
plastic
plastic
plastic
rubber, hard
styrofoam
Object
Attributes
container cap
container
fragment
unidentified
fragment
tire fragment
fragment
Remarks
N
5.4 g
3g
1.3 g
1
printed label
2
9
6
1
Ceramics (n=11)
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. Brick and drainage tile
fragments (n=7) are simply evidence of the known historic usage of the area (e.g., Figure
4.35, 07.05/1517), while the stoneware sherds (n=3) represent utilitarian vessels common on
rural domestic sites from the mid-nineteenth century through at least the first quarter of the
twentieth century. Two sherds are hand-thrown, with salt-glazed exteriors and Albanyslipped interiors, placing them in the third quarter or so of the century (Mansberger 1997;
e.g., Figure 4.35, 07.05/2254); the third is from an 1890s and later Bristol-slipped vessel
(Mansberger 1997; McGregor 1988). Similarly, whiteware (n=1) was introduced in the
nineteenth century, but it remains in production today; without decoration, as is the single
body sherd recovered, whiteware simply becomes a post-1830s indicator (Lofstrom et al.
1982; Majewski and O’Brien 1987).
Glass (n=26)
More glass artifacts than ceramics were recovered, a fact in itself indicating late-nineteenthto twentieth-century dating of the assemblage, since the automatic bottle machine developed
in the late 1800s made glass containers inexpensive and widely available. No diagnostic glass
fragments, such as bases or finishes were recovered, and the colors of the container glass also
reflect a twentieth-century assemblage, with clear container fragments (n=7) outnumbering
other colors: light aqua (n=1; Figure 4.35, 07.05/301) and cobalt (n=1);). The flat glass
fragments include 11 that are either windshield or window glass and 6 safety glass pieces that
are certainly automotive glass, from the large number of vehicles once stored on site.
Metal (n=73+)
As can be seen from Table 4.9, 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. Two lead bullets (Figure 4.35, 07.05/1534 and 1219), one distorted
by impact, and nine brass .22-caliber shell casings dating to the twentieth century (Steinhauer
2007) indicate hunting or target-shooting activities at the site. Two machine-cut nails,
177
probably dating before 1890 but of a type used into the twentieth century (Wells 2000), are
probably related to the domestic structure nearby, as is the knife fragment (Figure 4.35,
07.05/1123), which is similar to inexpensive tableware of the late-nineteenth and earlytwentieth century (Dunning 2000). Other late-nineteenth- to twentieth-century agricultural
Figure 4.35. Selected historic artifacts recovered from the 2007 excavations, 12-H-883.
artifacts are consistent with the known agricultural usage of the site: a barbed-wire fragment
(n=1); fence stretcher (n=1; Figure 4.36, 07.05/258); a horseshoe nail (n=1); a distorted
harness ring or chain link; and two copper rivets with leather fragments still attached that are
similar to ones recovered in 2006 and are probably from harness strapping.
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=32); cotter pin
(n=1); an engine valve (n=1); screen fragments (n=3); a hand crank (n=1; Figure 4.36,
07.05/2443); and fasteners such as a wire nail (n=1) and wire fragments (n=7).. Unidentified
metal artifacts include those whose function is unknown—a brass rod with small links
attached (n=1) and a stainless steel spacer (n=1)—and those too fragmentary to identify, such
as flat ferrous fragments (453.3 g); ferrous fragments (748 g); and a single nonferrous
fragment (n=1).
Mineral/stone (8.4 g)
Only cinders (5.4 g) and coal (3 g) were recovered in this category.
178
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 (1.3 g; see Figure 4.35, 07.05/589); tire fragments (n=6); plastic
container fragments (n=3); and 10 unidentified, fragmentary items.
Figure 4.36. Ferrous hand crank and fence stretcher recovered from the 2007 excavations, 12-H-883.
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.
179
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 2007, the seventh 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 2007, at least 3,620 individuals visited the Strawtown enclosure
site. This is the largest attendance to date, and over 50 percent (2,055) 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 2007, at the Strawtown
enclosure.
180
Figure 5.2. Archaeology Month 2007 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. Each year, the visitation during Archaeology Month,
has increased, through publicity, word of mouth, and more schools incorporating the
Archaeology Month programming into their schedule.
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 2007 was centered
on excavation of a domestic structure at the Strawtown enclosure (12-H-883). The
domestic structure, which can provide information relating to family and community
organization, was identified in 2006 but more fully investigated in 2007. 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.
181
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, which resulted in numerous superpositioning episodes. Household-level
data are vital in interpreting the population dynamics of the central Indiana region.
2007 Investigations
Community Structure
The 2007 Archaeology Month excavations continued to yield additional information
about the occupations at the enclosure. The house 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 2007 field season. The Main Block excavation was expanded to the west and
the south, exposing the western edge of the structure and many more postholes. The
southern part of the structure has yet to be identified and this task is the goal of the 2008
public program at Strawtown (following section).
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
two to ten m away from the palisade (Henderson and Pollack 2004).
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,
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.
182
Broadly, the Strawtown enclosure follows this Middle Fort Ancient pattern: a circular
village with a central plaza surrounded by concentric activity zones. 50x50 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 a
residential zone as evidenced by the domestic structure identified in the 2006 and 2007
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 recently 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. 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
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.
183
Structures
An ongoing and, until last year, an elusive 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. 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 needs to be exposed to the south. The 2007 excavations
extended between E202 and E208, south of the N198 line (Figure 5.4). However, these
units were only excavated to the base of Level 3, and because of the relative depths of Ahorizon soils and various superpositions, these units will need to be excavated more
deeply before the structure can be identified clearly.
Figure 5.3. Photograph showing western boundary of structure basin (Feature 49) at base of Level 3.
(Note basin profile along west and south wall in 2006 Main Block.)
Even though the entire structure cannot yet be discerned, some general observations
can be offered. There is a clear north line, with the possible resetting or replacement of
some posts, about one m south of the north wall of the Main Block. 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
184
Figure 5.4. Plan map of Main Block at the base of Level 4 showing possible structure outline.
185
configuration is observable along the western portion of the structure, except the lines are
spaced somewhat farther apart. A line of possible posts was observed between Units 135
and 137 (see Figure 5.4). The corner of the structure may either curve inward in Unit 119
or form more of a square with posts 7-72 through 7-75. The interior line is not as regular
and runs along the west wall of the 2006 Main Block; it appears to curve inward toward
the north wall. A similar convergence of interior and exterior posts can be observed in the
eastern lines. And what appears to be an interior screening wall, consisting mostly of
stake-sized posts, possibly extends from postholes 7-53 or 7-3 in Unit 117 to postholes 760 or 7-61 in Unit 92. Alternatively, this line of smaller posts could represent a more
ephemeral superimposed structure.
Several superpositions related to the basin structure also are evident in the Main Block
(see Figure 5.4). The two prepared hearths (Features 35 and 42) have 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 chapter 3), 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 7-1) containing cultural material 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. 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. Potential superpositions west of the E202 line are
unknown at this time because the possible posts have not yet been confirmed at a deeper
level.
The complexity of untangling this intensive use and re-use of the spaces within the
enclosure can seen in the refit tables (Tables 5.1 and 5.2), which indicate relations among
many features and levels.
Table 5.1. Chipped Stone Refit Table
Catalog number
Provenience
07.05/1055
07.05/1473
Unit 135, Level 2
Unit 139, Level 3
07.05/1435
07.05/2627
Unit 139, Level 2
Back Dirt, General Collection
07.05/3262
07.05/3281
Unit 132, Level 4, Zone A, Feature 49
Unit 132, Level 4, Zone A1, Feature 49
186
Table 5.2. Sherd Refit Table
Catalog number
Provenience
07.05/678
07.05/702
07.05/1104
Unit 130, Level 2
Unit 130, Level 3
Unit 135, Level 3, Zone 5, East 1/2, 65 cmbd
06.98/247
06.98/272
06.98/348
06.98/352
06.98/470
06.98/3626
06.98/3647
06.98/3689
06.98/3692
06.98/3693
06.98/3725
06.98/3826
Unit 89, Level 3, Zone B
Unit 89, Level 3, Zone C
Unit 90, Level 3, Zone B
Unit 90, Level 3, Zone B
Unit 91, Level 3, Zone A
Unit 89, Level 5, Zone A, Feature 33
Unit 89, Level 5, Zone A, Feature 33
Unit 89, Level 6, Zone A, Feature 33
Unit 89, Level 6, Zone A, Feature 33
Unit 89, Level 6, Zone A, Feature 33
Unit 90, Level 5, Zone A, Feature 33
Unit 105, Level 5, Zone A, Feature 33
06.98/267
06.98/274
06.98/550
06.98/1278
06.98/3637
06.98/3692
06.98/3693
06.98/3695
06.98/3725
07.05/2670
07.05/2786
Unit 89, Level 3, Zone C
Unit 89, Level 3, Zone C
Unit 92, Level 3, Zone A
Unit 89-92, Base of Level 3, Trowel Scrape
Unit 89, Level 5, Zone A, Feature 33
Unit 89, Level 6, Zone A, Feature 33
Unit 89, Level 6, Zone A, Feature 33
Unit 89, Level 6, Zone A, Feature 33
Unit 90, Level 5, Zone A, Feature 33
Unit 90, Level 6, Feature 33
Feature 33, Zone A, North Half, 95-107 cmbd
06.98/250
06.98/267
06.98/269
06.98/413
06.98/1279
06.98/1589
06.98/1972
06.98/3643
06.98/3692
06.98/3759
06.98/3776
07.05/2649
07.05/2668
Unit 89, Level 3, Zone B
Unit 89, Level 3, Zone C
Unit 89, Level 3, Zone C
Unit 91, Level 2
Unit 89-92, Base of Level 3, Trowel Scrape
Unit 101, Level 3
Unit 106, Level 3
Unit 89, Level 5, Zone A, Feature 33
Unit 89, Level 6, Zone A, Feature 33
Unit 101, Feature 33, Piece Plot N200.07, E206.98, 70 cmbd
Unit 101, Level 4, Zone A, Feature 33
Unit 90, Level 6, Feature 33
Unit 90, Level 6, Feature 33
06.98/234
06.98/250
06.98/253
06.98/269
06.98/472
06.98/1583
06.98/3692
06.98/3693
06.98/3698
06.98/3826
Unit 89, Level 3, Zone B
Unit 89, Level 3, Zone B
Unit 89, Level 3, Zone B
Unit 89, Level 3, Zone C
Unit 91, Level 3, Zone A
Unit 101, Level 3
Unit 89, Level 6, Zone A, Feature 33
Unit 89, Level 6, Zone A, Feature 33
Unit 89, Level 6, Zone A, Feature 33
Unit 101, Level 5, Zone A, Feature 33
187
Catalog number
Provenience
06.98/247
06.98/272
06.98/3626
06.98/3693
Unit 89, Level 3, Zone B
Unit 89, Level 3, Zone C
Unit 89, Level 5, Zone A, Feature 33
Unit 89, Level 6, Zone A, Feature 33
06.98/234
06.98/247
06.98/445
Unit 89, Level 3, Zone B
Unit 89, Level 3, Zone B
Unit 91, Level 3, Zone C
06.98/433
06.98/445
06.98/3693
Unit 91, Level 3, Zone C
Unit 91, Level 3, Zone C
Unit 89, Level 6, Zone A, Feature 33
06.98/247
06.98/248
06.98/3693
Unit 89, Level 3, Zone B
Unit 89, Level 3, Zone B
Unit 89, Level 6, Zone A, Feature 33
06.98/3640
06.98/3690
06.98/3693
07.05/389
Unit 89, Level 5, Zone A, Feature 33
Unit 89, Level 6, Zone A, Feature 33
Unit 89, Level 6, Zone A, Feature 33
Unit 91, Level 6, Zone A, Feature 33
06.98/247
06.98/445
Unit 89, Level 3, Zone B
Unit 91, Level 3, Zone C
06.98/3825
06.98/3828
06.98/3831
Unit 101, Level 5, Zone A, Feature 33
Unit 101, Level 5, Zone A, Feature 33
Unit 101, Level 5, Zone A, Feature 33
06.98/247
06.98/272
06.98/431
06.98/1582
Unit 89, Level 3, Zone B
Unit 89, Level 3, Zone C
Unit 91, Level 2
Unit 101, Level 3
06.98/272
06.98/3647
Unit 89, Level 3, Zone C
Unit 89, Level 5, Zone A, Feature 33
06.98/247
06.98/272
06.98/445
Unit 89, Level 3, Zone B
Unit 89, Level 3, Zone C
Unit 91, Level 3, Zone C
06.98/3647
06.98/3787
Unit 89, Level 5, Zone A, Feature 33
Unit 101, Level 4, Zone A, Feature 33
06.98/3727
07.05/2671
Unit 90, Level 5, Zone A, Feature 33
Unit 90, Level 6, Feature 33
06.98/209
06.98/1260
Unit 89, Level 2
Unit 89-92, Base of Level 2 Trowel Scrape
06.98/380
06.98/382
Unit 91, Level 1
Unit 91, Level 1
06.98/433
06.98/445
Unit 91, Level 3, Zone C
Unit 91, Level 3, Zone C
06.98/3693
07.05/2679
Unit 89, Level 6, Zone A, Feature 33
Unit 91, Level 6, Feature 33
188
Catalog number
Provenience
06.98/3693
06.98/3693
Unit 89, Level 6, Zone A, Feature 33
Unit 89, Level 6, Zone A, Feature 33
06.98/267
06.98/445
06.98/3647
Unit 89, Level 3, Zone C
Unit 91, Level 3, Zone C
Unit 89, Level 5, Zone A, Feature 33
06.98/212
06.98/247
Unit 89, Level 2
Unit 89, Level 3, Zone B
06.98/302
06.98/1083
06.98/2433
06.98/2742
06.98/3888
07.05/3063
Unit 90, Level 1
Unit 98, Level 4, Zone B
Unit 113, Level 3
Unit 115, Level 4, Zone B/P
Unit 101, Feature 38, North 1/2 80-106 cmbd
Unit 116, Posthole 7-16, North 1/2 82-128 cmbd
07.05/2947
07.05/2948
07.05/2949
07.05/3437
07.05/3440
07.05/3441
Unit 99+102, Feature 40, East 1/2, 90-110
Unit 99+102, Feature 40, East 1/2, 90-110
Unit 99+102, Feature 40, East 1/2, 90-110
Unit 99+102, Feature 40, Flotation of West 1/2, 90-110
Unit 99+102, Feature 40, Flotation of West 1/2, 90-110
Unit 99+102, Feature 40, Flotation of West 1/2, 90-110
07.05/402
07.05/405
07.05/3125
Unit 95, Level 5
Unit 95, Level 5
Unit 95, Posthole 7-41, North 1/2, 80-100 cmbd
07.05/1017
07.05/1909
Unit 134, Level 3
Unit 144, Level 3A
07.05/1543
07.05/1547
Unit 140, Level 3
Unit 140, Level 3
07.05/1601
07.05/1638
Unit 141, Level 2
Unit 141, Level 2
07.05/1940
07.05/1944
07.05/2026
07.05/2099
Unit 144, Level 3B
Unit 144, Level 3B
Unit 145, Level 3
Unit 146, Level 3
07.05/2657
07.05/2798
07.05/2833
Unit 90, Level 6, Feature 33
Feature 33, Zone A, North 1/2, 95-107 cmbd
Feature 33, Zone B, North 1/2, 95-131 cmbd
07.05/1650
07.05/2374
Unit 141, Level 3
Unit 150, Level 3
07.05/2129
07.05/2373
Unit 146, Level 3
Unit 150, Level 3
07.05/1095
07.05/3545
Unit 135, Level 3
Feature 49, Unit 137, Level 4
06.98/250
06.98/470
Unit 89, Level 3, Zone B
Unit 91, Level 3, Zone A
189
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
one of 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
mostly shell-tempered and some grit-tempered pottery mixed together and the bone
clusters, 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).
During the 2007 investigation, Feature 33 again clearly demonstrated this stratigraphic
relationship. 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 one 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.
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
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 Levels 3 and 4 from the units associated with
Feature 49 in the west extension (Units 130, 131, 132, 135, 136, and 137) showed that
2,378 g (n=1,351) of sand/grit-tempered and 180 g (n=86) of shell-tempered sherds were
recovered from Level 3. Level 4 produced 1,362 g (n=719) sand/grit-tempered sherds and
28 g (n=35) shell-tempered sherds. The shell-tempered sherds represented about 7
percent of the pottery in Level 3 by weight (6 percent by count) and only about 2 percent
by weight (4.6 percent by count) in Level 4. The larger pieces are also contained in Level
190
3. When dividing the weight (in g) by the number of shell-tempered sherds, Level 3 had
sherds averaging about 2.1 g, while the shell-tempered sherds from Level 4 were about
0.8 g per sherd. A similar calculation for the sand/grit-tempered sherds was done to
ensure that depositional context and temper type was not responsible for the eroded
nature of the shell-tempered sherds. The calculation indicated that the non-shell-tempered
sherds did not reveal the same amount of erosion: 1.8 g per sherd from Level 3 and 1.9 g
per sherd from Level 4. Thus, the quantitative data matches qualitative observations from
the fieldwork. This difference in average size suggests to the Principal Investigator that
the sand/grit-tempered sherds in Levels 3 and 4 were deposited within their respective
contexts in similar ways. The shell-tempered sherds in Level 3 were probably deposited
in a similar manner as the non-shell-tempered sherds, however, the eroded nature of these
sherds in Level 4 suggests some type of post-depositional migration. The presence of
these sherds in Level 4 is probably partly the result of 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.
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
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. 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.
191
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.
2008 Investigations
The research objectives of the 2008 public investigations at the Strawtown enclosure will
focus on four questions (presented in the order of importance). The first and primary
objective will be to continue to expose and investigate the architectural pattern of the
structure basin present in the Main Block. This research goal will be accomplished by
first re-excavating the west and south extensions of the Main Block and identifying the
locations of the possible posts and features designated during the 2007 fieldwork. The
features will be excavated and the actual postholes will be confirmed by cross sectioning.
The south extension will be excavated down to the base of Level 4, or until the edges of
the structure basin refines itself against the matrix soil or other superimposed features.
The post patterns and features will then be documented and excavated following standard
procedures. The entire west and south extensions will than be excavated to the base of
Level 5 to ensure that all the cultural deposits have been identified.
The second goal will be to expand south, west, and east over Feature 47 in Liz’s
Block. Feature 47 is another possible structure, and the goal is to expose enough of the
feature in plan view to confirm or reject this assumption. At this time, there are no plans
to excavate another structure basin during the 2008 investigation. The excavation of the
upper levels in the vicinity of Feature 47 will be undertaken as work in the Main Block
slows down (e.g., while mapping the block floor and cross-sectioning posts).
The third question to be addressed during the 2008 investigation (if time permits) will
be to re-evaluate 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 can be 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
192
excavate the intact profile by stratigraphic levels to determine if Taylor Village pottery
underlies the embankment fill.
The fourth goal will be to re-excavate the area around Feature 50 and take the eastern
half down another level in order to better determine the nature of these deposits. At the
end of the 2007 season, the function of this feature was still in doubt.
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 eastern 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.
193
REFERENCES CITED
Anderson, D. G., and G. 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. M.
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, C. A., C. Graham, S. Hipskind, D. McCullough, R. G. McCullough, and M. Yager
2007 Archaeology in a Public Venue at the Strawtown Enclosure (12-H-883): 2006.
ROI 701. IPFW Archaeological Survey, Fort Wayne, Indiana.
Asch, N. B., and D. 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 M. D. Wiant and C. R. McGimsey, pp. 427-512. Kampsville
Archaeological Center Research Series 6. Center for American Archaeology,
Kampsville, Illinois.
Baerreis, D. A., and J. E. Freeman
1958 Late Woodland Pottery in Wisconsin as Seen from Aztalan. The Wisconsin
Archaeologist 39(1):35-61.
Baerreis, D. A., R. A. Bryson, and J. E. Kutzbach
1976 Climate and Culture in the Western Great Lakes Region. Midcontinental Journal
of Archaeology 1(1):39-57.
Ball, S. (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.
Barnhart, J. D., and D. L. Riker
1971 Indiana to 1816: The Colonial Period. Indiana Historical Bureau and Indiana
Historical Society, Indianapolis.
194
Bechtel, S. K., and D. 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. C.
1981 Quantitative Estimates of Temperature Changes over the Last 2700 Years in
Michigan Based on Pollen Data. Quaternary Research 15:143-159.
Boisvert, R. 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, R.
1984
An Archaeological Survey of Late Archaic Sites in Central Indiana. Glenn A.
Black Laboratory of Archaeology, Indiana University, Bloomington.
Brooks, S. T., and J. M. Suchey
1990 Skeletal Age Determination Based on the Os Pubis: A Comparison of the AcsádiNemeskéri and Suchey-Brooks Methods. Human Evolution 5:227-238.
Brose, D. S., and N. Greber (editors)
1979 Hopewell Archaeology: The Chillicothe Conference. Kent State University Press,
Kent, Ohio.
Brown, J. A., and P. J. O’Brien
1990 At the Edge of Prehistory: Huber Phase Archaeology in the Chicago Area. Center
for American Archaeology Press, Kampsville, Illinois.
Brown, R. 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. IPFW-AS,
Indiana University-Purdue University, Fort Wayne.
Broyles, B. 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.
195
Bryson, R. A., and C. Padauk
1981 On the Climates of History. In Climate and History: Studies in Interdisciplinary
History, edited by R. I. Rydberg and T. K. Raab, pp. 3-17. Princeton University
Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
Bush, L. 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 R. G. McCullough and T. 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, L., R. C. Garniewicz, and L. 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, J. R., and R. L. Hall (editors)
1964 Hopewellian Studies. Scientific Papers 12. Illinois State Museum, Springfield.
Cantin, M.
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 B. G. Redmond, pp. 10-12. Research Reports 15.
Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology, Indiana University, Bloomington.
Cantin, M., J. A. Schwegman, D. N. Holycross, and C. R. Stafford
2003 Geoarchaeological Investigations of the Taylor Property near Strawtown,
Hamilton County, Indiana. Technical Report 34. Indiana State University
Anthropology Laboratory, Terre Haute.
Carmany, K.
2002 Phase Ia Archaeological Reconnaissance: Proposed Hamilton County Park near
Perkinsville in Hamilton County, Indiana. Report of Investigations 02IN0016Plr01. Landmark Archaeological and Environmental Services, Sheridan, Indiana.
Chapman, J.
196
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, D. K., and J. 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, D. 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 D. 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
J. 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, D. R., B. A. Kolbe, and R. 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, D. R., L. Maust, E. Filkins, M. Zoll, S. Staley, and R. 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.
Collins, M. 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.
Cowan, C. W.
1987 First Farmers of the Middle Ohio Valley: Fort Ancient Societies, A.D.
1000–1670. Cincinnati Museum of Natural History, Cincinnati, Ohio.
197
Cowan, C. W., H. E. Jackson, K. Moore, A. Nickerhoff, and T. L. Smart
1982 The Cloudsplitter Rockshelter, Menifee County, Kentucky: A Preliminary Report.
Southeastern Archaeological Conference Bulletin 24: 60-76.
Cox, E. T.
1879
Cree, D.
1991
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. R., Jr.
2001 Stone Raw Material Availability and Early Archaic Settlement in the
Southeastern United States. American Antiquity 66(2):237-265.
Davis, M. B.
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, J. T
1966 Fluted Points and Late-Pleistocene Geochronology in Indiana. Indiana Historical
Society Prehistory Research Series 4(3). Indianapolis.
1971
The Bowen Site: An Archaeological Study of Cultural Process in the Late
Prehistory of Central Indiana. Indiana Historical Society Prehistory Research
Series IV. Indianapolis.
Drooker, P. 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.
Dunning, P.
198
2002
Composite Table Cutlery from 1700 to 1930. In Studies in Material Cultural
Research, edited by K. Karklins, pp. 32-45. Society for Historical Archaeology,
California, Pennsylvania.
Edmunds, R. D.
1984 Tecumseh and the Quest for Indian Leadership. HarperCollins, New York.
Eggan, F. R.
1930
Emerson, K.
2006
Report of work done on Archaeological Survey, August 11-25, 1930. Hamilton
County, Indiana. Ms. on file, Indiana Historical Society, Indianapolis.
Preliminary Observations on Continuity and Variation in Fisher Phase Ceramics.
Paper presented at the annual Midwest Archaeological Conference, Urbana,
Illinois, October 12-15.
Emerson, T. E.
1999 The Langford Tradition and the Process of Tribalization on the Middle
Mississippian Borders. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 24:3-56.
Essenpreis, P. 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 J. M. Heilman,
M. C. Lileas, and C. A. Turnbow, pp. 1-22. Dayton Museum of Natural History,
Dayton, Ohio.
Fagan, B. 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.
Faulkner, C. H.
1972 The Late Prehistoric Occupation of Northwestern Indiana: A Study of the Upper
Mississippi Cultures of the Kankakee Valley. Prehistory Research Series V(1).
Indiana Historical Society, Indianapolis.
Fischer, F. W.
199
1974
Fitting, J. E.
1965
Early and Middle Woodland Settlement, Subsistence and Population in the
Central Ohio Valley. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
Washington University, St. Louis.
Late Woodland Cultures of Southeastern Michigan. Anthropology Papers 24.
Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Fitting, J. E., J. R. Halsey, and H. M. Wobst
1968 Contributions to Michigan Archaeology. Anthropology Papers 32. Museum of
Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Fritz, G. J.
1999
Funk, R. E.
1978
Gender and the Early Cultivation of Gourds in Eastern North America. American
Antiquity 64(3):417-429.
Post-Pleistocene Adaptations. In Handbook of North American Indians:
Northeast, vol. 15, edited by B. G. Trigger, pp. 16-27. Smithsonian Institution
Press, Washington, D.C.
Gammon, J. R., and S. D. Gerking
1966 Fishes. In Natural Features of Indiana, edited by A. A. Lindsey, pp. 401-425.
Indiana Academy of Science, Indianapolis.
Garniewicz, R. 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 R. G. McCullough and T. 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.
Graybill, J. R.
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, W.
1993
Examining Protohistoric Depopulation in the Upper Midwest. The Wisconsin
Archaeologist 74:290-323.
200
Green, W. (editor)
1995 Oneota Archaeology: Past, Present, Future. Report 20. Office of the State
Archaeologist, University of Iowa, Iowa City.
Griffin, J. 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 F. 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 J. 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 S. 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
Grove, J. M.
1988
Eastern North American Archaeology: A Summary. Science 156:175-191.
The Little Ice Age. Methuen, New York.
Guernsey, E. Y.
1968 The Indians’ Map. Publication 122. Indiana Department of Natural Resources,
Indianapolis.
Gunn, J., and R. E. W. Adams
1981 Climatic Change, Culture, and Civilization in North America. World Archaeology
13(1):87-100.
Haines, J. F.
1915
History of Hamilton County, Indiana: Her People, Industries, and Institutions. 2
vols. B. F. Bowen and Co., Indianapolis.
Hall, R. L.
201
1987
Type Description of Starved Rock Collared. The Wisconsin Archaeologist 68:6770.
Halsey, J. 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, J. P.
1992
A Critique of the Adaptive-Type Concept in Eastern Woodlands Prehistory.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Northwestern
University, Evanston, Illinois.
Hedge, R. L.
1997 Forested Swell and Swale: The Central Till Plain Natural Region. In The Natural
Heritage of Indiana, edited by M. T. Jackson, pp. 195-199. Indiana University
Press, Bloomington.
Heilman, J. M., D. C. Anderson, and C. A. Turnbow
1990 Exploring Fort Ancient Culture: Dayton’s Prehistoric Indian Village. Museum
Anthropology 14(1):17-20.
Heilman, J. M., M. C. Lileas, and C. 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, T. B.
1880
History of Hamilton County, Indiana, with Illustrations and Biographical
Sketches of Some of Its Prominent Men and Pioneers. Kingman Brothers,
Chicago, Illinois.
Helmen, V. 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. G. (editor)
202
1992
Fort Ancient Cultural Dynamics in the Middle Ohio Valley. Monographs in
World Archaeology 8. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin.
Henderson, A. G., and D. Pollack
2004 Middle Fort Ancient Circular Village Organization. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Montreal, Canada.
Hipskind, S.
2005
Hixon, J. L.
1988
A Triangular Projectile Point Typological Study of Late Prehistoric Sites in
Central Indiana. In Late Prehistoric Archaeology of a Frontier, edited by R. G.
McCullough, pp. 248-258. Reports of Investigations 502. IPFW Archaeological
Survey, Fort Wayne, Indiana.
An Archaeological Assessment of the Strawtown Site and the Immediate Vicinity.
Unpublished Master’s thesis. Department of Anthropology, Ball State University,
Muncie, Indiana.
Homoya, M. A.
1997 The Natural Regions: An Introduction. In The Natural Heritage of Indiana, edited
by M. T. Jackson, pp. 158-160. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.
Homoya, M. A., D. B. Abrell, and J. R. Aldrich
1985 The Natural Regions of Indiana. Indiana Academy of Science Proceedings
94:245-268.
Hosteter, W. D.
1978 Soil Survey of Hamilton County, Indiana. United States Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.
Janzen, D. 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 C. E.
Cleland, pp. 123-143. Anthropological Papers 61, Museum of Anthropology,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Jefferies, R. W.
1988 Archaic Period Research in Kentucky: Past Accomplishments and Future
Directions. In Paleoindian and Archaic Research in Kentucky, edited by C. D.
Hockensmith, D. Pollack, and T. N. Sanders, pp. 85-126. Kentucky Heritage
Council, Lexington.
Jeske, R. J.
1992 Energetic Efficiency and Lithic Technology: An Upper Mississippian Example.
American Antiquity 57:467-481.
203
Justice, N. D.
1987 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Midcontinental and Eastern United
States. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.
Justice, N. D., and E. 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, J. H.
1983
King, F. B.
1990
1993
An Introduction to the Prehistory of Indiana. Indiana Historical Society,
Indianapolis.
Geographic Setting, Past and Present Physiography, Potential Subsistence
Resources. In Archaeological Investigations at the Morton Village and Norris
Farms 36 Cemetery, edited by S. K. Santure, A. D. Harn, and D. Esarey, pp. 3-5.
Reports of Investigations 45. Illinois State Museum, Springfield.
Climate, Culture, and Oneota Subsistence in Central Illinois. In Foraging and
Farming in the Eastern Woodlands, edited by C. M. Scarry, pp. 232-254.
University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
King, F. B., and R. W. Graham
1981 Effects of Ecological and Paleoecological Patterns on Subsistence and
Paleoenvironmental Reconstructions. American Antiquity 46:128-142.
King, J. E.
1981
Knox, J. C.
1993
Late Quaternary Vegetational History of Illinois. Ecological Monographs
51(1):43-62.
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, J. A.
1983 Changing Socio-Cultural Systems during the Late Prehistoric Period in Southeast
Michigan. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
University of Michigan.
204
Krogman, W. M., and M. Y. Işcan
1986 The Human Skeleton in Forensic Medicine. 2nd ed. Charles C. Thomas,
Springfield, Illinois.
Kuznar, L.
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 R. Jeske and D. Charles, pp.
269-286. Greenwood, Westport, Connecticut.
LaMarche, V. C., Jr.
1974 Paleoclimatic Inferences from Long Tree-Ring Records. Science 183:1043-1048.
Lewis, T. M., and M. K. Lewis
1961 Eva: An Archaic Site. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.
Lilly, E.
1937
Prehistoric Antiquities of Indiana. Indiana Historical Society, Indianapolis.
Lofstrom, T., J. P. Tordoff, and D. C. George
1982 A Seriation of Historic Earthenwares in the Midwest, 1780-1870. Minnesota
Archaeologicst 42(1):3-29.
Luscom, S. C.
1967 The Collector’s Encyclopedia of Buttons. Bonanza Books, New York.
Mainfort, R. C., and L. Sullivan (editors)
1998 Ancient Earthen Enclosures of the Eastern Woodlands. University Press of
Florida, Gainesville.
Majewski, T., and M. J. O’Brien
1987 The Use and Misuse of Nineteenth-Century English and American Ceramics in
Archaeological Analysis. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol.
6, pp. 97-209. Academic Press, New York.
Marcus, J.
1994
Introduction. In Tribal and Chiefly Warfare in South America, edited by E. 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, O. J.
1994 Border People: Life and Society in the U.S.-Mexico Borderlands. University of
Arizona Press, Tucson.
205
McCord, B.
2006
Archaeological Subsurface Reconnaissance: Koteewi Park Lake, Hamilton
County, Indiana. Reports of Investigation 70. Archaeological Resources
Management Service, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana.
McCord, B. K., and D. 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, R. 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 R.
Hicks, pp. 43-56. Minnetrista Cultural Center and Ball State University, Muncie,
Indiana.
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.
206
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, R. G. (editor)
2005 Late Prehistoric Archaeology of a Frontier. Reports of Investigations 502. IPFW
Archaeological Survey, Fort Wayne, Indiana.
McCullough, R. G., and T. 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, R. G., A.A. White, M. R. Strezewski, and D. 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.
Melhorn, W. N.
1997 Indiana on Ice: The Late Tertiary and Ice Age History of Indiana Landscapes. In
The Natural Heritage of Indiana, edited by M. T. Jackson, pp. 15-27. Indiana
University Press, Bloomington.
Milner, G. R., V. G. Smith, and E. Anderson
1991 Conflict, Mortality, and Community Health in an Illinois Oneota Population. In
Between Bands and States, edited by S. G. Gregg. Occasional Paper 9. Center for
Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.
Minton, S. A., Jr.
1966 Amphibians and Reptiles. In Natural Features of Indiana, edited by A. A.
Lindsey, pp. 426-451. Indiana Academy of Science, Indianapolis.
Mohow, J. A.
207
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, M. W.
1987 The Archaeological Resources of North-Central Allen County, Indiana. Ms. on
file, Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology, Indiana University,
Bloomington.
Mumford, R. E.
1966 Mammals. In Natural Feature of Indiana, edited by A. A. Lindsey, pp. 474-488.
Indiana Academy of Science, Indianapolis.
Munson, P. J.
1986 What Happened in the Archaic in the Midwestern United States? Reviews in
Anthropology 13(4):276-282.
Munson, P. J., and C. A. Munson
1972 Unfinished Triangular Projectile Points or “Humpbacked” Knives? Pennsylvania
Archaeologist 42(3):31-36.
Newman, J. E.
1997 Our Changing Climate. In The Natural Heritage of Indiana, edited by M. J.
Jackson, pp. 85-99. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.
O’Brien, P. 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, P. K., and M. 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, P. K., M. E. Pirkl, and L. L. Bush
208
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
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.
Olsen, S. L.
1979
1980
A Study of Bone Artifacts from Grasshopper Pueblo, AZ P:14:1. Kiva 44(4):341373.
Bone Artifacts from Kinishba Ruin: Their Manufacture and Use. Kiva 46(12):39-67.
Ottesen, A. I.
1985 Woodland Settlement Patterns in Northwestern Kentucky. In Woodland Period
Research in Kentucky, edited by D. Pollack, T. Sanders, and C. Hockensmith, pp.
166-186. Kentucky Heritage Council, Frankfort.
Overstreet, D. F.
1997 Oneota Prehistory and History. The Wisconsin Archeologist 78(1-2):250-296.
Pacheco, P. J.
1996 Ohio Hopewell Regional Settlement Patterns. In A View from the Core: A
Synthesis of Ohio Hopewell Archaeology, edited by P. J. Pacheco, pp. 16-35.
Ohio Archaeological Council, Columbus.
Penman, J. 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 A. A. Lindsey, pp.
264-296. Indiana Academy of Science, Indianapolis.
Pollack, D., and A. G. Henderson
1992 Toward a Model of Fort Ancient Society. In Fort Ancient Cultural Dynamics in
the Middle Ohio Valley, edited by A. G. Henderson, pp. 281-294. Monographs in
World Archaeology 8. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin.
Post, T. W.
209
1997
Railey, J. A.
1992
Where Tallgrasses Waved: The Grand Prairie Natural Region. In The Natural
Heritage of Indiana, edited by M. T. Jackson, pp. 189-193. Indiana University
Press, Bloomington.
Chipped Stone Artifacts. In Fort Ancient Cultural Dynamics in the Middle Ohio
Valley, edited by A. G. Henderson, pp. 137-169. Monographs in World
Archaeology 8. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin.
Redmond, B. 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 B. 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 B. G. Redmond,
pp. 89-90. Research Reports 14. Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology,
Indiana University, Bloomington.
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, B. G., and R. 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.
210
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 T. Emerson, D. McElrath, and A. 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.
Richards, R. L., and J. O. Whitaker Jr.
1997 Indiana’s Vertebrate Fauna: Origins and Change. In The Natural Heritage of
Indiana, edited by M. 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 T. B. Helm,
pp. 45-46. Kingman Brothers, Chicago, Illinois.
Santure, S. K.
1990 Social Conflict. In Archaeological Investigations at the Morton Village and
Norris Farms 36 Cemetery, edited by S. K. Santure, A. D. Harn, and D. Esarey,
pp. 154-159. Reports of Investigations 45. Illinois State Museum, Springfield.
Schmidt and Associates
211
2002
Hamilton County Parks and Recreation Taylor Property Master Plan. Project
2001-022. Schmidt and Associates, Indianapolis.
Schmidt, C. 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, A. F.
1966 Physiography. In Natural Features of Indiana, edited by A. A. Lindsey, pp. 4056. Indiana Academy of Sciences, Indianapolis.
Schneider, A. 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, A. M., and E. 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.
Seeman, M. F.
1979 The Hopewell Interaction Sphere: The Evidence for Interregional Trade and
Structural Complexity. Indiana Historical Society Prehistory Research Series
5(2). 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, W. E.
1990 Fort Ancient Period. In The Archaeology of Kentucky: Past Accomplishments and
Future Directions, edited by D. A. Pollack, pp. 467-557. Kentucky Heritage
Council, Frankfort.
Sieber, E., C. A. Munson, and E. 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, C. E.
212
1905
Smith, E. E.
1984
1989
History of the Maumee River Basin from Its Earliest Accounts to Its Organization
into Counties. Bowen and Slocum, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Paleo-Indian and Early Archaic Settlement Patterns in Southcentral Indiana.
Manuscript on file, Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology, Indiana
University, Bloomington.
Paleoindian Settlement and Lithic Procurement Patterns in the Karstic Region of
Southcentral Indiana. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of
Anthropology, Indiana University, Bloomington.
Smith, E. E., and S. 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. R.
1994 Structural Changes in Archaic Landscape Use in the Dissected Uplands of
Southwestern Indiana. American Antiquity 59(2):219-237.
Steinhauer, C.
2007 Centerfire Cartridges Headstamp Identification, www.cartridge-corner.com.
Accessed May 2007.
Stephenson, R. P., D. R. Cochran, L. G. Laymon, and D. 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.
Stillwell, L. 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, D. 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, D. M., and T. J. Abel
1989 The Position of the “Pearson Complex” in the Late Prehistory of Northern Ohio.
Archaeology of Eastern North America 17:109-141.
213
Stothers, D. M., and S. 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, D. M., and J. 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, D. M., and G. M. Pratt
1981 New Perspectives on the Late Woodland Cultures of the Lake Erie Region.
Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 6(1):91-121.
Stothers, D. M., and A. M. Schneider
1998 Implications of the Wolf Phase Dispersal of Terminal Western Basin Tradition
Populations into Northern Indiana during Late Prehistory. Paper presented at the
43rd Annual Midwest Archaeological Conference, Muncie, Indiana.
Stothers, D. M., J. R. Graves, S. K. Bechtel, and T. 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 22:135196.
Strezewski, M.
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
paper on 12H3 burials
Strezewski, M., S. Peterson, and S. 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, J.
1997
Tecumseh: A Life. Holt, New York.
214
Sullivan, L. 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, T. A.
2000 Early Paleoindian Women, Children, Mobility, and Fertility. American Antiquity
65(3):493-508.
Tankersley, K. 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 D. R. Croes, R. A. Hawkins, and B. L. Isaac, pp. 103-130. Research in
Economic Anthropology, Supplement 6. JAI Press, Greenwich, Connecticut.
Tankersley, K. B., and B. L. Isaac (editors)
1990 Early Paleoindian Economies of Eastern North America. Research in Economic
Anthropology Supplement 5. JAI Press, Greenwich, Connecticut.
Tanner, H. H. (editor)
1987 Atlas of Great Lakes Indian History. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Tomak, C.
1970
Aboriginal Occupation in the Vicinity of Greene County, Indiana. Unpublished
Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Indiana University, Bloomington.
Vickery, K. D.
1976 An Approach to Inferring Archaeological Site Variability. Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Indiana University, Bloomington.
Warner, L. E.
2000 The Tipton Lands: Paleo-Indians to Settlers. Warner, Tipton, Indiana.
Wayne, W. J.
215
1963
Pleistocene Formations in Indiana. Bulletin 25. Indiana Geological Survey,
Bloomington.
1966
Ice and Land. In Natural Features in Indiana, edited by A. A. Lindsey, pp. 21-39.
Indiana Academy of Science, Indianapolis.
Wells, T.
2000
Nail Chronology: The Use of Technologically Derived Features. In Approaches to
Material Culture: Research for Historical Archaeologists, 2nd edition, compiled
by D. R. Brauner, pp. 318-339. Society for Historical Archaeology, California,
Pennsylvania.
Wepler, W. R., R. McCullough, D. McCullough, and S. Arthur
2001 The Roberts Site: Initial Investigations of an Antebellum Biracial Community,
Orange County, Indiana. Indiana State Museum Report 2. Indianapolis.
White, A. 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, A. A., and R. 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, A. A., D. McCullough, and R. G. McCullough
2002 An Archaeological Evaluation of Late Prehistoric Village and Subsistence
Patterns in Nort-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, A. A., R. G. McCullough, and D. McCullough
2003 Archaeological Investigations at Two Late Prehistoric Earthen Enclosures in
Indiana. Reports of Investigations 301. IPFW Archaeological Survey, Indiana
University-Purdue University at Fort Wayne.
White, R. D.
1991 The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires, and Republics in the Great Lakes Region,
1650-1815. Cambridge University Press, New York.
216
Winters, H. 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. 175221. Aldine, Chicago.
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. 487-616.
Archaeological Reports 200. Program for Cultural Resource Assessment,
University of Kentucky, Lexington.
Yarnell, R. A. (editor)
1988 The Importance of Native Crops during the Late Archaic and Woodland. Paper
presented at the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, New Orleans,
Louisiana.
217
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: MODIFIED BONE AND ANTLER
The modified bone and antler assemblage from the 2007 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. A total of twenty-six culturally modified bone and shell
specimens were analyzed and are reported in this section.
METHODS
The analyzed faunal specimens were recovered by one of three techniques. Artifacts
located in situ during excavation were piece plotted and assigned a unique field specimen
number. The greatest quantity of materials was recovered by screening hand-excavated
soil through ¼” hardware cloth. 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
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 2007 assemblage from the Strawtown enclosure (12-H-883) consists of twenty-three
specimens of worked bone or shell classified as tools (including one human incisor), of
which seven tool fragments are classified as indeterminate in function. Three bone
specimens are 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, shell, and
antler specimens recovered from the Strawtown enclosure site in 2007 consist of awls
219
(formal and nonformal), antler tine projectile points and flakers, needles and a possible
needle fragment, a bone bead, a worked mammal canine and an incised human incisor, a
cruciform-shaped bone inlay fragment, a shell talon-shaped pendant, 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.
Beamer
Of uncertain use, but normally attributed as hide-working tools, beamers are usually
manufactured out of white tail deer metapodials, specifically 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, a single typical beamer specimen (Figure A.2, 07.05/546) was
recovered during the 2007 excavations. The specimen is a medial section of a white tail
deer metatarsal that is missing the proximal and distal portions. The posterior has been
hollowed out to form the working surface of the beamer. It measures 91 mm in length,
24 mm in width, and 16 mm in thickness. The specimen was reconstructed in the lab
from at least seven fragments. The interior working surfaces exhibit moderate polish and
numerous striations parallel with the shaft’s long axis. The bone breakage pattern
indicates the beamer was discarded after snapping near the midpoint.
220
Figure A.2. Photograph of beamer, awls, needles, and indeterminate portions of probable awls recovered
during 2007 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
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 single fragment of a formal
awl (Figure A.2, 07.05/2856), a complete splinter awl with heavy taphonomic damage
(Figure A.2, 07.05/673), and the distal tip of a splinter awl (Figure A.2, 07.05/2450).
The formal awl fragment (07.05/2856) is manufactured from a turkey (Meleagris
gallopavo) tarso-metatarsus. The proximal portion is absent, and the distal end is broken
off, but it was likely less than 1 mm prior to breakage. Heavy polish extends from the
broken distal tip approximately 8 mm, while lighter polish extends an additional 13 mm
up the shaft before termination at a fresh break, where it likely extended further up the
shaft. Numerous striae are visible around the tip diameter and extend parallel with the
shaft margins.
Awl 07.05/673 was manufactured from an unidentified fractured long bone. This awl
was classified as a splinter type (Lewis and Lewis 1961) and measures 78 mm in length,
14 mm in width, and 5 mm in thickness. Tip diameter cannot be measured due to
taphonomic impacts, including breakage and extensive carnivore gnawing. The exterior
surface exhibits a slight polish extending approximately 43 mm from the distal tip. Due
to the degree of carnivore gnawing, use-wear on the lateral margins and interior surface
cannot be determined.
Awl fragment 07.05/2450 is the fragmented distal tip of a splinter awl that
measures 24 mm in length, 8 mm in width, and 2 mm in thickness. The specimen is
221
manufactured from an unidentified splintered long bone fragment and displays a sharp
fine-pointed tip less than 1 mm in diameter. All facets of the exterior surface display a
high degree of polish and numerous striae. The snapped edges are rounded through use
and also display a high degree of polish.
Needles
Three specimens are classified as needles, including two distal portions lacking eyelets
(Figure A.2, 07.05/2922 and 07.05/2950) and a needle missing the distal tip (Figure A.2,
07.05/3299).
Specimen 07.05/2922 is manufactured from an unidentified small mammal long bone.
It is 48 mm in length and 3 to 4 mm in diameter. The entire surface exhibits uneven
polish corresponding to the high and low surface contours. Only the medial and distal
segments remain, and the tip is sharply beveled into a point less than 1mm in diameter,
which remains extremely sharp.
A second specimen (07.05/2950) classified as a needle is 42 mm in length and 2 to 3.5
mm in diameter. The proximal and distal portions are missing due to breakage. The
remainder of the medial shaft is manufactured from an unidentified small mammal long
bone and exhibits polish beginning at the distal break and extending toward the proximal
end approximately 25 mm.
A third specimen (07.05/3299) is a needle, or perforator, with a proximal foramen or
eyelet and medial section, but probably missing the distal point. The needle is
manufactured from an unidentified small mammal humerus and is 31 mm in length, 8
mm in width, and 5 mm in thickness. The shaft appears to have been intentionally
fractured into a sharpened point, leaving the shaft interior exposed. The margins of the
break are rounded, smoothed, and polished from use, and the raised bone contours also
exhibit polish on the margins. It does not appear the foramen located on the proximal
portion was used as a needle eye due to a lack of polish through the eye and on the
adjacent condyle margins. Although the specimen is classified as a needle, this tool was
most likely used as a punch, or perforator.
Bead
One bone bead, manufactured from an unidentified small mammal long bone fragment,
was recovered from the 2007 excavations (Figure A.3, 07.05/3029). The bead is
approximately 15 mm in length by 4 to 5 mm in diameter. The entire surface and margins
exhibit a high polish. Both ends are well rounded and smoothed, apparently from wear.
The degree of wear at the ends precludes any determination of original cut marks or other
manufacturing evidence.
Bone Inlay
A single fragmented piece of bone inlay (Figure A.3, 07.05/2529) was recovered during
the 2007 field season. It is cruciform shaped but lacks what appears to be the distal
portion. It measures approximately 10 mm in length to the break, 11 mm in width, and 1
222
Figure A.3. Photograph of bone bead, inlay, indeterminate pin/awl, modified teeth, and shell talon
recovered during 2007 excavations at the Strawtown enclosure.
mm in thickness. The margins and faces of the item are smoothed and have a high degree
of polish.
Teeth
Two worked teeth (Figure A.3, 07.05/3255 and 07.05/1674), a human incisor and one
mammal canine (possibly fox), were recovered from the 2007 Strawtown enclosure
excavations. The upper left human incisor (07.05/3255) is approximately 20 mm in
length, 9 mm in width, and 7 mm thick. The root has numerous cut marks perpendicular
to the long axis, with the majority occurring on the buccal side. Both lateral sides of the
tooth have deep caries at the contact point with the adjacent incisor and canine.
223
The mammal canine (07.05/1674) measures approximately 27 mm in length, 5 mm in
width, and 7 mm in thickness. The root exhibits one deeply grooved cut mark and at
least three other shallow cut marks, all perpendicular to the long axis of the tooth.
Shell Pendant
A worked piece of shell in the shape of a raptor talon (Figure A.3, 07.05/2937) was
recovered during the 2007 Strawtown enclosure excavations. The specimen is
manufactured from an unidentified species of freshwater mussel and is approximately 18
mm long, 14 mm wide, and 3 mm thick. The margins have been shaped, and the notch
incised. There are symmetrical incised lines beginning on either side of the notch
extending across both faces of the pendant. It appears the pendant may have been drilled
for suspension at one time, but the upper section of the item snapped and was
subsequently reworked.
Worked Antler
Six antler tools were recovered from the 2007 excavations, of which five (Figure A.4,
07.05/1028, 07.05/1067, 07.05/1633, 07.05/2806, 07.05/2912) were complete or
fragments of formal hollowed-out deer tines, or projectile points, in various stages of
manufacture. The sixth specimen (Figure A.4, 07.05/1894) is classified as a nonformal
antler tool of unidentified function.
One projectile point (07.05/1028) is a snapped distal portion of deer antler measuring
approximately 42 mm in length and 10 to 12 mm in diameter at the base. The base
exhibits a worked concavity across the entire surface area with a drilled conical hole
approximately 4 mm in diameter projecting from the concave base to a depth of 4 mm.
No alterations are visible on the exterior shaft surface or point possibly indicating this
item was discarded prior to the final stages of manufacture.
A second specimen (07.05/1067) is a formal drilled deer antler tine, which was refitted
in the lab from two fragments. It measures approximately 30 mm in length and 9 to 10
mm in diameter at the midpoint, because the basal portion is fragmented. A small portion
of the original basal surface remains, and the interior of the specimen retains the
remnants of a drilled conical hole extending approximately 13 mm in length. The exterior
surface has numerous carving or whittling scars running the length of the specimen from
thinning and sharpening the point.
A third specimen (07.05/1633) is an extreme distal tip fragment. It measures
approximately 17 mm in length and 5 to 6 mm in diameter. The exterior surface exhibits
at least two shaving scars extending 7 mm in length
The fourth specimen (07.05/2806) is the distal remnant of an antler tine projectile
point. It measures approximately 22 mm in length by 7 mm in diameter and is fractured
parallel to the long axis. The remaining exterior surface exhibits numerous carving scars
where the specimen was thinned and the point sharpened.
The fifth specimen (07.05/2912) is a projectile point that is fractured parallel with the
long axis. It measures approximately 30 mm in length and an estimated 10 mm in
diameter; it has an average wall thickness of 1.5 mm. The conical-shaped drill hole in the
base is approximately 14 mm in depth and 6 mm in diameter. Close inspection of the
exterior surface indicates remnant carving scars that have been nearly eliminated by
sanding efforts that have produced a high degree of polish along the entire shaft length.
224
The sixth antler fragment (07.05/1894) is classified as a nonformal tool manufactured
from a deer tine and is likely another deer tine projectile point in an early stage of
manufacture. Only the extreme distal portion remains, measuring approximately 20 mm
in length and 5 to 6 mm in diameter. There is at least one carving scar on the exterior
surface. This nonformal specimen is distinguished from formal tool 07.05/1633 based on
shape and appearance. Specimen 07.05/1894 has a blunt tip and curved profile while
07.05/1633 has a sharp tip and straight profile.
Figure A.4. Photograph of antler tools and debris recovered during 2007 excavations at the
Stawtown enclosure.
225
Indeterminate
Six bone specimens exhibiting polish, striae, cut marks, or a combination of factors are
classified as tools of indeterminate use or unknown stage of manufacture.
One specimen (Figure A.2, 07.05/715) is a medial section of a tool manufactured from
an unidentified mammal long bone. It measures approximately 36 mm in length, 5 mm
in width, and 2 mm in thickness. The entire surface area and margins exhibit polish with
rounded and smoothed edges.
A second specimen (Figure A.5, 07.05/1060) is an unidentified mammal long bone
shaft fragment that has numerous striae running parallel to the long axis of the shaft. It
measures approximately 22 mm long, 12 mm wide, and 4 mm in thickness. The exterior
surface exhibits a moderate polish over the entire area.
A third indeterminate specimen (Figure A.5, 07.05/1531) is an unidentified mammal
long bone shaft fragment exhibiting several striae running parallel with the long axis. It
measures approximately 71 mm in length and 17 mm in width and has a 6 mm wall
thickness. There is some slight polish and rounding along the margins associated with the
pointed end of the fragment.
A fourth specimen (Figure A.5, 07.05/1914) is a burned fragment of an unidentified
mammal long bone containing numerous striae on the shaft exterior and an area that is
highly polished from use along one of the margins. The striae run parallel to the long axis
of the shaft and appear to be the result of use. The polished area is approximately 10 mm
in length along the margin and has been notched, or carved, and subsequent use has
created a high sheen in this area. It is approximately 30 mm in length, 11 mm in width,
and 4 mm in wall thickness.
A fifth specimen (Figure A.5, 07.05/3254) is a small unidentified fragment exhibiting
a high degree of polish over the wear surfaces. It measures approximately 12 mm in
length, 12 mm in width, and 3 mm in thickness.
A sixth specimen (Figure A.3, 07.05/884) is a small proximal fragment from an
unidentified mammal bone exhibiting a high degree of polish and four incised notches on
one edge. It measures approximately 23 mm in length, 9 mm in width, and 6 mm in
thickness.
A seventh specimen was photographed (Figure A.5, 07.05/2857) but later determined
not to have been culturally modified.
Debris
Two antler groove and snap debris specimens (Figure A.4, 07.05/2855 and 07.05/3057)
and one bone debris specimen (Figure A.5, 07.05/634) were recovered during the 2007
excavations at the Strawtown enclosure.
One antler specimen (07.05/2855) is the distal portion of a deer tine approximately 69
mm in length and 15 to 16 mm in diameter. One side of the antler exhibits a deep incised
cut 14 mm long, perpendicular to the long axis and numerous shallow incised cuts
parallel to the deep incision. The specimen was then snapped by exerting pressure
laterally away from the cut, resulting in a jagged break pattern perpendicular to the long
axis.
The other antler specimen (Figure A.4, 07.05/3057) is approximately 49 mm in length
by 16 mm in diameter. Both ends are fractured, and the specimen is fractured parallel to
226
the long axis. The exterior surface has a deeply incised groove 11 mm long that truncates
at the medial break.
The final debris specimen (07.05/634) is a medial portion of an unidentified long bone
containing cut marks at both terminal ends. It is fractured parallel with the long axis,
leaving a rectangular-shaped fragment measuring approximately 12 mm in length and 7
mm in width, with a 1 mm wall thickness.
Figure A.5. Photograph of indeterminate bone fragments and debris recovered during 2007 excavations
at the Stawtown enclosure.
227
APPENDIX B:
SUMMARY OF POSTHOLES FROM 12-H-883, 2006 AND 2007 EXCAVATIONS
Dim
1
211.8 17
210.52
210.82 24
210.55 27
210.05 26
PH North East
1
2
3
4
5
201.92
201.19
200.67
200.3
500.42
6 199.98 210.75 12
7 199.58 210.58 13
8 199.17 210.33 10
9 199.89 211.23 10
10 199.87 211.47 20
11 199.98 211.96 28
12 200.19 211.15 24
13 199.57 211.5
14
14 199.3 211.58 15
15 199.09 211.35 16
16 198.88 211.75 14
17 198.71 211.48 20
18 198.55 211.6
12
19 198.38 211.59
9
20 198.26 211.61
8
21 198.1 210.77 30
22 198.28 210.86 17
23 198.08 210.5 8
24 198.09 210.32
7
2006 Postholes
Dim Charcoal
Cross- Excavated
Depth Depth
Total
Munsell
Profile? Flot?
Accepted?
2
?
Sectioned?
?
of Def below Def Depth
14
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
80
7
87
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
80
0
80
No
20
No
Yes
Yes
No
80
17
97
Yes
16
Yes
No
25
Yes
10YR
Yes
Yes
No
No
80
No
3/2
12
Yes
10YR
Yes
Yes
No
No
82
29
111
Yes
3/2
9
Yes
10YR
Yes
No
No
No
83
No
3/2
9
No
10YR
Yes
83
No
3/2
10
Yes
10YR
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
81
33
114
marginal
3/3
19
10YR
Yes
79
33
113
Yes
3/3
Yes
10YR
Yes
80
15
95
Yes
3/2
21
Yes
10YR
Yes
Yes
Yes
80
13
93
Yes
3/3
13
10YR
Yes
80
25
105
Yes
3/3
14
Yes
10YR
Yes
80
29
109
Yes
3/3
15
Yes
10YR
Yes
81
7
88
Yes
3/3 &
3/4
13
Yes
10YR
Yes
80
10
90
Yes
3/3
16
Yes
10YR
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
80
8
88
marginal
3/3
11
Yes
10YR
Yes
80
22
102
Yes
3/3
8
No
10YR
Yes
80
15
95
Yes
3/3
8
Yes
10YR
Yes
80
13
93
marginal
3/3
22
Yes
Fea. 44
14
Yes
Fea. 44
7
No
10YR
Yes
No
No
No
80
3
83
No
3/4
6
No
10YR
Yes
No
No
No
80
3
83
No
3/4
228
Cross- Excavated
Depth Depth
Dim Dim Charcoal
Total
Munsell
Profile? Flot?
Accepted?
1
2
?
Sectioned?
?
of Def below Def Depth
198.41 210.28 19 17
Yes
10YR
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
80
4
84
Yes
3/3
198.47 210.06 16
8
No
10YR
Yes
No
No
No
80
4
84
No
3/3
198.65 210.43 19 16
No
10YR
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
80
10
90
Yes
3/3
198.47 210.59 20 16
Yes
10YR
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
80
38
118
Yes
3/3
198.68 210.63 17 15
No
10YR
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
80
26
106
Yes
3/3
198.75 210.83 20
9
Yes
10YR
Yes
No
No
No
80
3
83
No
3/4
198.8 210.46 13 11
No
10YR
Yes
80
No
3/3
199.05 210.66 42 30
Yes
10YR
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
83
44
127
Yes
3/2
198.05 208.93 7
7
No
10YR
Yes
Yes
No
No
80
7
87
No
3/3
198.11 208.38 7
7
No
10YR
Yes
Yes
Yes
80
12
92
Yes
3/4
198.14 208.1 11 10
No
10YR
Yes
Yes
Yes
80
13
93
Yes
3/4
198.96 208.18 11 10
No
10YR
Yes
Yes
Yes
80
24
104
Yes
3/4
198.94 208.32 14 13
No
10YR
Yes
Yes
Yes
80
24
104
Yes
3/4
198.16 207.84 8
8
No
10YR
Yes
Yes
No
No
80
5
85
No
4/3
198.14 207.27 26 24
Yes
10YR
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
80
45
125
Yes
3/3,ash
present
198 207.91 7
Yes
10YR
Yes
No
Yes
No
73
19
92
Yes
4/3
198.15 206.34 15 14
Yes
10YR
Yes
Yes
Y`
80
15
95
Yes
3/4
198.86 206.76 30 30
Yes
see Fea.
Yes
Yes
Yes
79
20
99
Yes
35
199.67 207.41 37 37
Yes
see Fea.
Yes
Yes
Yes
81
33
114
Yes
35
199.9 206.33 25 24
Yes
10YR
Yes
Yes
Yes
81
34
115
Yes
3/3
200.11 206.26 8
7
Yes
10YR
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
80
3
83
Yes
3/2
200.69 206.89 40 32
Yes
10YR
Yes
80
10
90
Yes
3/3
201.05 206.19 11 10
No
10YR
Yes
81
No
3/3
PH North East
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
229
Cross- Excavated
Depth Depth
Dim Dim Charcoal
Total
Munsell
Profile? Flot?
Accepted?
1
2
?
Sectioned?
?
of Def below Def Depth
201.12 206.31 12 11
Yes
10YR
Yes
Yes
81
40
121
Yes
3/3
201.4 207.86 30 30
Yes
10YR
Yes
Yes
83
16
99
Yes
3/3
201.37 207.63 28 26
Yes
10YR
Yes
Yes
Yes
84
24
108
Yes
3/3
201.58 206.88 12 11
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
marginal
200.8 207.56 10 10
Yes
10YR
Yes
Yes
Yes
80
13
93
Yes
3/3
198.16 205.07 15 14
Yes
10YR
Yes
Yes
Yes
80
25
105
Yes
3/3
199.55 205.13 22 17
Yes
10YR
Yes
Yes
80
14
94
Yes
3/3
199.74 205.12 10 10
No
10YR
Yes
Yes
80
14
94
Yes
3/3
199.89 205.83 11 11
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
80
14
94
Yes
200.32 205.38 23 22
Yes
10YR
Yes
Yes
Yes
80
27
107
Yes
3/3
200.64 205.85 9
9
Yes
Yes
80
No
200.7 205.12 23 19
Yes
10YR
Yes
83
No
3/3
200.86 205.08 14 14
Yes
10YR
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
80
43
123
Yes
3/3
200.94 205.4 21 14
Yes
10YR
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
80
46
126
Yes
4/2
201.04 205.68 22 20
Yes
10YR
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
80
41
121
Yes
4/2
201.51 209.65 20 16
Yes
Fea. 45
201.12 210.96 20 17
Yes
10YR
Yes
Yes
80
26
106
Yes
3/2
199.85 207.14 22 11
Yes
10YR
Yes
Yes
Yes
81
9
90
Yes
3/3
199.7 207.14 9
9
Yes
10YR
Yes
Yes
Yes
90
18
108
Yes
3/3
200.05 207.84 19 18
Yes
10YR
Yes
Yes
Yes
81
8
89
marginal
3/3
198.1 210.7 17 15
Yes
10YR
Yes
Yes
80
31
111
Yes
3/3
198.25 210.72 13 12
Yes
10YR
Yes
Yes
80
20
100
Yes
3/3
199.48 207.54 18 16
Yes
10YR
Yes
Yes
80
1.5
81.5
No
3/3
PH North East
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
230
2007 Postholes
PH North East
7- 198.27 205.26
001
7- 198.64 205.38
002
7- 198.46 205.9
003
7- 198.99 205.26
004
7- 198.98 205.47
005
7- 199 205.7
006
7- 199 205.8
007
7- 199.29 205.28
008
7- 199.22 205.65
009
7- 199.2 205.9
010
7- 199.99 205.16
011
7- 200.12 205.26
012
7- 200.43 205.23
013
7- 201.18 205.95
014
7- 201.2 206.02
015
7- 201.28 206.66
016
7- 201.3 207.06
017
7- 200.25 207.21
018
7- 198.5 206.42
019
7- 198.53 206.73
020
7- 198.68 207
021
7- 198.78 207.22
022
7- 198.8 207.42
Dim Dim
CrossDepth
Charcoal? Munsell
Excavated? Profile? Flot?
1
2
Sectioned?
of Def
11
10
Yes
15
12
Yes
16
13
Yes
12
10
No
10
10
Yes
8
8
No
8
8
No
15
14
Yes
10YR
3/3
10YR
3/3
10YR
3/3
10YR
3/3
10YR
3/3
10YR
3/3
10YR
3/3
10YR
3/3
Depth
below
Def
Total
Depth
Accepted?
Yes
Yes
No
No
80
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
79
25
104
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
79
18
97
Yes
Yes
No
80
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
79
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
79
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
80
No
Yes
Yes
81
13
94
Yes
No
15
13
Yes
17
15
Yes
11
10
Yes
10
10
Yes
12
11
Yes
29
28
No
22
19
Yes
15
13
Yes
12
6
Yes
10
10
Yes
10
9
Yes
10
8
Yes
9
8
Yes
10
8
No
10YR
3/3
10YR
3/3
10YR
3/3
10YR
3/3
10YR
3/3
10YR
3/3
10YR
3/3
10YR
3/3
10YR
2/2
10YR
3/4
10YR
3/4
10YR
4/3
10YR
4/3
10YR
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
80
25
105
Yes
82
22
110
Yes
81
19
100
Yes
81
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
82
44
128
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
82
18
100
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
82
46
128
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
85
11
96
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
82
6
88
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
80
30
110
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
80
22
102
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
79
24
103
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
79
26
105
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
79
22
101
Yes
231
PH North East
Dim Dim
CrossDepth
Charcoal? Munsell
Excavated? Profile? Flot?
1
2
Sectioned?
of Def
023
7- 198.83 207.68 9
024
7- 199.02 208.78 10
025
9
No
9
Yes
10
10
Yes
9
8
Yes
12
12
No
17
12
Yes
20
18
No
12
12
Yes
28
23
Yes
17
16
Yes
10
8
Yes
10
10
Yes
16
16
Yes
8
8
Yes
20
20
Yes
10
10
Yes
25
23
No
19
18
Yes
7- 199.6 210.6 18
042
7- 201.16 207.9 27
043
7- 201.32 207.41 12
17
Yes
24
Yes
10
Yes
7- 199.07 209.05
026
7- 199.18 209.2
027
7- 198.26 210.05
028
7- 200.04 210.54
029
7- 198.2 210.42
030
7- 198.81 210.61
031
7- 201.39 210.07
032
7- 201.34 210.29
033
7- 201.67 210.96
034
7- 201.26 210.94
035
7- 200.11 208
036
7- 199.12 210.86
037
7- 199.32 210.56
038
7- 199.25 210.41
039
7- 198.25 209.31
040
7- 198.9 209.12
041
4/3
10YR
4/3
10YR
3/2 &
3/4
10YR
4/3
10YR
4/3
10YR
3/3
10YR
4/3
10YR
3/3
10YR
3/3
10YR
3/2
10YR
3/2
10YR
4/2
10YR
4/2
10YR
3/3
10YR
3/2
10YR
3/1
10YR
3/2
10YR
3/4
10YR
3/3 &
3/4 with
ash and
burned
soil
10YR
3/3
10YR
3/3
10YR
Depth
below
Def
Total
Depth
Accepted?
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
80
20
100
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
90
14
104
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
80
31
111
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
80
25
105
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
80
Yes
Yes
No
No
80
40
120
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
80
4
84
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
80
9
89
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
80
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
80
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
80
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
80
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
97
No
40
137
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
85
43
128
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
84
14
98
Yes
Yes
-
Yes
No
90
14
104
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
80
20
100
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
90
37
127
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
81
Yes
Yes
No
No
82
232
No
10
92
Yes
PH North East
044
70
0
045
7- 201.39 207.55
046
7- 201.22 206.48
047
7- 200.94 207.91
048
70
0
049
7- 200.56 210.73
050
7- 198 205.82
051
7- 198.72 205.72
052
7- 198.27 205.72
053
7- 199.6 205.64
054
70
0
055
7- 198.42 210.69
056
7- 199.5 209.16
057
7- 199.21 209.36
058
7- 199.19 209.63
059
7- 199.2 209.84
060
7- 199.08 209.96
061
7- 200 209.73
062
70
0
063
70
0
064
70
0
065
70
0
066
Dim Dim
CrossDepth
Charcoal? Munsell
Excavated? Profile? Flot?
1
2
Sectioned?
of Def
Depth
below
Def
Total
Depth
Accepted?
3/3
10
10
No
15
14
Yes
12
10
Yes
18
18
Yes
20
20
Yes
6
6
No
11
11
Yes
8
8
Yes
11
11
Yes
16
16
Yes
14
11
Yes
9
8
Yes
8
8
Yes
6
6
Yes
19
11
Yes
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
no
definition
233
PH North East
70
0
067
70
0
068
70
0
069
70
0
070
70
0
071
70
0
072
70
0
073
70
0
074
70
0
075
7- 200 210.28
076
7- 201.52 208.3
077
7- 201.41 208.21
078
7- 201.48 208.15
079
7- 201.45 208.48
080
70
0
081
70
0
082
70
0
083
70
0
084
70
0
085
70
0
086
70
0
087
70
0
088
70
0
089
Dim Dim
CrossDepth
Charcoal? Munsell
Excavated? Profile? Flot?
1
2
Sectioned?
of Def
Depth
below
Def
Total
Depth
Accepted?
no
definition
no
definition
8
8
Yes
9
9
Yes
9
9
Yes
13
11
Yes
15
Yes
10YR
3/3
10YR
3/3
10YR
3/3
10YR
3/3
10YR
3/3
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
110
12
122
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
96
13
109
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
96
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
96
18
114
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
106
11
117
Yes
234
No
PH North East
Dim Dim
CrossDepth
Charcoal? Munsell
Excavated? Profile? Flot?
1
2
Sectioned?
of Def
70
0
090
70
0
091
70
0
092
70
0
093
70
0
094
70
0
095
70
0
096
70
0
097
70
0
098
70
0
099
70
0
100
70
0
101
70
0
102
70
0
103
70
0
104
70
0
105
7- 201.36 206.23 8
106
7- 200.52 210.4 10
107
8
No
10
Yes
10YR
3/3
10YR
3/3
Yes
No
No
No
83
Yes
Yes
No
No
90
235
Depth
below
Def
Total
Depth
Accepted?
No
11
101
Yes
APPENDIX C:
12-H-883 FIELD SPECIMEN LOG, 2007 EXCAVATIONS
FS No
2007-001
2007-002
2007-003
Recovery
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
piece plot
Unit Feature Posthole Level Portion
121
1
124
1
124
1
2007-004
2007-005
2007-006
2007-007
2007-008
2007-009
2007-010
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
2007-011
2007-012
2007-013
2007-014
2007-015
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
125
126
122
123
127
128
125128
125
124
123
126
127
2007-016
2007-017
2007-018
2007-019
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
121
122
128
125128
2007-020 1/4" screen 125
2007-021 1/4" screen 128
2007-022 1/4" screen
46
2007-023 piece plot
2
2
2
2
3
3
W1/2
46
W1/2
2007-024 1/4" screen 126
3
2007-025 piece plot
2
127
2007-026 1/4" screen 127
2007-027 1/4" screen 125128
2007-028 1/4" screen
3
3
2007-029 1/4" screen
4
S1/2
236
Zone Depth (cmbd) Remarks
44-60
45-60
51
N206.09
E169.9
37-50
37-50
44-60
42.5-60
38-50
38-50
50
trowel scrape
base of lvl 1
50-60
60-70
60-70
50-60
50-60
+ 1 piece of
metal with
flagging tape
60-70
60-70
50-60
60
trowel scrape
base of lvl 2
60-70
60-70
70end of feature
3 foil bags
79
N206.25
E167.45 bear
maxilla
60-70
1 foil bag in
bag 1 of 2
58
N195.69
E199.08
60-70
70
trowel scrape
base of lvl 3
Block 1 south
profile scrape
General scrape
and cleanup of
main block
FS No
2007-030
2007-031
2007-032
2007-033
2007-034
2007-035
Recovery
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
piece plot
Unit Feature Posthole Level Portion
134
1
136
1
138
1
137
1
139
1
109
4
2007-036 1/4" screen 135
2007-037 1/4" screen 90 33
1
6
2007-038 1/4" screen 101
5
2007-039
2007-040
2007-041
2007-042
2007-043
2007-044
2007-045
2007-046
2007-047
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
140
133
132
96
131
96
130
1
1
1
138
2
2007-048
2007-049
2007-050
2007-051
flot
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
90 33
135
137
89 33
6
2
2
6
2007-052 backdirt
29
1
7-31
1
46
W1/2
123
2007-053 1/4" screen 107
2007-054 1/4" screen 90
5
6
2007-055
2007-056
2007-057
2007-058
2007-059
2007-060
2
5
2
5
5
5
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
W1/2
136
97
130
100
96
95 36
237
Zone Depth (cmbd) Remarks
39-50
surface/sod
40-50
surface/sod
42-50
40-50
39-50
~80
N198.01
E206.96
40-50
90-95
mostly in
W1/2 of unit
90, 3 bags
80-83
scrape of base
of lvl 4 until
fea and PH
observed
41-50
44-50
43-50
80-106
add on -2 bags
41-50
80-89
41-50
80-90
50-60
mixed
historics and
prehistorics
90-100
50-60
50-60
92-102
base scrape of
2006 arch.
Month,
varying depths
from matrix
removal
B
80-90
Ay
90-95
Zone Ay is
from lvl 4
main block
plan map 2006
50-60
80-90
2 bags
50-60
80-90
80-90
80-88
FS No
2007-061
2007-062
2007-063
2007-064
2007-065
2007-066
Recovery
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
Unit Feature Posthole
131
99
132
133
95
99
7-38
2007-067 1/4" screen 99
Level Portion Zone
2
5
B
2
2
5
All
32
2007-068 1/4" screen 102
All
5
2007-069 1/4" screen 99+
102
2007-070 1/4" screen 96 44
6
28
Depth (cmbd) Remarks
50-60
2 bags
80-90
50-60
50-60
80-90
85-128
2 bags-later
addition
83-100
2 bags-later
addition
Mixed 80-90
zones B and F
came from
2006 lvl 4
plan map
82-113
E1/2
2007-071 1/4" screen 99
37
5
2007-072 flot
94
2007-073 1/4" screen 94
2007-074 1/4" screen 99
36
36
40
5
5
5
80-118
H
80-90
A
80-86
80-88
80-90
W1/2
W1/2
2007-075
2007-076
2007-077
2007-078
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
99
94
94
94
7-39
36
37
2007-079
2007-080
2007-081
2007-082
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
94
94
94
130
33
34
35
5
5
5
3
2007-083
2007-084
2007-085
2007-086
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
102
104
104
131
3
5/6
5
5+
3
S1/2
S1/2
84-98
80-102
80-102
80-90
All
All
80-87
80-92
80-92
60-70
5
49
238
W1/2
B
All
80-97
80-90
83-103
60-70
mixed
posthole and
feature,
addition bag
later add
zone and
feature
designation
from 2006 lvl
4 map
from hearth
fea fill
Zone and fea
des. From
2006 lvl 4
plan map
no artifacts
no artifacts
no artifacts
unit fill with
fea 36
removed
no artifacts
no artifacts
2
bags;transition
zone at house
basin
FS No Recovery Unit Feature Posthole Level Portion
2007-087 1/4" screen 93
38
5
all
2007-088
2007-089
2007-090
2007-091
2007-092
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
flot
1/4" screen
93
93
104
104
132
40
39
50
50
2007-093
2007-094
2007-095
2007-096
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
104
104
93 35
93
7-44
7-17
2007-097 1/4" screen 104
2007-098 1/4" screen 133
7-46
2007-099
2007-100
2007-101
2007-102
7-24
7-23
7-22
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
93
93
93
135
N1/2
all
E1/2
W1/2
All
5
5
all
all
SE1/2
all
all
3
2007-103 1/4" screen 102 40+33
5
5
5
3
5
2007-104 1/4" screen 102
2007-105 cherry
135
picken
7-29
2007-106
2007-107
2007-108
2007-109
2007-110
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
93
101
98
98 35
136
7-21
2007-111
2007-112
2007-113
2007-114
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
101
98 33
116
116
7-18
2007-115 1/4" screen 137
5
5+
5+
5+
3
all
E1/2
3
5
5
5
5
3
all
5
5
51
N1/2
3
239
Zone Depth (cmbd) Remarks
80-85
no artifacts,
likely rodent
burrow
73-92
no artifacts
80-125
84-111
84-108
60-70
transition zone
2/5 @ house
basin
82-95
85-99
79-90
80-90
with fea 35
removed
90-102
no artifacts
2/3/5 60-70
transition zone
house basin
area
80-100
90-101
79-105
2/5
60-70
transition zone
house basin
area
80-90
feature
complex
80-122
5
65
general fill,
house basin
trans. Between
zones 2&5
79-103
B
83-90
B
80-90
K
80-90
2/3/5 60-70
transition zone
house basin
area
82-90
80-90
B
80-90
80-91
S1/2 taken
during 2006
2/3/5 60-70
transition zone
house basin
area
FS No Recovery Unit Feature Posthole Level Portion Zone Depth (cmbd) Remarks
2007-116 1/4" screen 101 33
5
A
80-90
2007-117 1/4" screen 138
3
2/3/5? 60-70
trans. Zone-pz
to undist. Just
west of house
basin
2007-118 1/4" screen 116
7-16
N1/2
82-128
2007-119 1/4" screen 113
41
all
802007-120 1/4" screen 113
7-19
all
80-110
2007-121 1/4" screen 113
7-20
all
80-102
2007-122 1/4" screen 113
5
80-90
2007-123 1/4" screen 1303
70
base of lvl 3
133,
general scrape
135138
2007-124 1/4" screen 116
7-15,7N1/2
81-129
16,747,48
2007-125 1/4" screen 145
1
39-50
pz
2007-126 1/4" screen 147
1
41-50
pz no artifacts
2007-127 1/4" screen 148
1
40-50
pz
2007-128 1/4" screen 146
1
38-50
pz
2007-129 1/4" screen 139
2
50-60
pz
2007-130 1/4" screen 149
1
42-50
pz
2007-131 1/4" screen 113 35
5
78-90
no artifacts
2007-132 1/4" screen 149
2
50-60
just outside
fea 49
2007-133 1/4" screen 145
2
50-60
pz -2 bags
2007-134 1/4" screen 113 42
5
78-84
2007-135 1/4" screen 148
2
50-60
west of fea 49
2007-136 1/4" screen 146
2
50-60
pz south of fea
49, 2 bags
2007-137 piece plot 135 49
3
71
rim sherd
2007-138 piece plot 130 49
3
72
neck
2007-139 piece plot 136 49
3
71
rim
2007-140 piece plot 137 49
3
71
rim
2007-141 1/4" screen 129
1
38-50
pz
2007-142 1/4" screen 114
5
80-90
2007-143 1/4" screen 141
1
38-50
pz
2007-144 1/4" screen 117
5
80-90
2007-145 1/4" screen 117 42
no artifacts
2007-146 1/4" screen 117
7-51
80-98
2007-147 1/4" screen 147
2
2
50-60
pz
2007-148 1/4" screen 117
7-53
80-98
2007-149 1/4" screen 117
7-1
80-?
possibe rodent
2007-150 1/4" screen 117
7-2
79-104
240
FS No
2007-151
2007-152
2007-153
2007-154
2007-155
2007-156
2007-157
2007-158
2007-159
Recovery
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
flot
flot
1/4" screen
2007-160
2007-161
2007-162
2007-163
2007-164
2007-165
2007-166
2007-167
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
Unit Feature Posthole
117
7-3
117
7-4
117
7-5
117
7-6
117
7-7
117
7-52
116
7-16
120
7-14
116
7-15,747,48
134
115
118
118 42
129
118
7-10
120
149
2007-168
2007-169
2007-170
2007-171
2007-172
2007-173
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
119
119
119
118
125
148
60-62
7-12
7-8
Level Portion
S1/2
S1/2
s1/2
5
2
5
5
Zone Depth (cmbd) Remarks
79-97
80-?
no artifacts
79-?
79?
no artifacts
80?
80-98
no artifacts
82-128
82-128
B
80-90
2
B
2
2
5
3
B
2/3
5
5
B
S1/2
all
all
4
3
2/3
50-60
80-90
80-90
50-60
80-105
80-90
60-70
80-90
80-90
81-106
81-94
70-80
60-70
2007-174 1/4" screen 119
7-11
N1/2
81-111
2007-175 flot
118
2007-176 1/4" screen 126
2007-177 1/4" screen 147
7-11
S1/2
81-104
80-90
60-70
2007-178 1/4" screen 118
2007-179 1/4" screen 134
55
2007-180 1/4" screen 118
2007-181 1/4" screen 118
2007-182 1/4" screen 129
54
7-54
2007-183 1/4" screen 117
2007-184 1/4" screen 141
53
4
3
2/3
all
3
all
all
2
241
no artifacts
pz
transition
zone- plow
and zone 3
transition
from plow to
sub-soil
could be a
stash pit
transition
from plow to
sub-soil
80-94
2-3
3
pz
transition
from plow to
sub-soil
2/5
80-94
83-99
60-70
2
80-105
50-60
transition
from plow to
house basin
pz
FS No Recovery Unit Feature Posthole Level Portion Zone Depth (cmbd) Remarks
2007-185 1/4" screen 141
3
2/5
60-70
transition zone
2-5
2007-186 general
105 33
5
90
gen collection
collection
before trowel
scrape of base
lvl 5
2007-187 1/4" screen 128
4
70-80
2007-188 1/4" screen 127
4
70-80
2007-189 1/4" screen 139
3
60-70
transition zone
2007-190 1/4" screen 145
3
60-70
transition zone
2007-191 1/4" screen Bloc
5
90
general scrape
k1
of main block
at base of lvl 5
2007-192 1/4" screen 1254
80
floor scrape at
128
base of lvl 4
2007-193 1/4" screen 105 33
6
89-95
2007-194 1/4" screen 91 33
6
89-95
2007-195 1/4" screen 91
6
A
88-95
includes
rodent
burrows
2007-196 1/4" screen 105
6
A
89-95
2007-197 1/4" screen 146
3
60-70
2 bags
2007-198 1/4" screen 150
1
40-50
pz
2007-199 1/4" screen 106 33
6
90-95
2007-200 1/4" screen 106
6
A
90-95
zone
designation
from 2007 lvl
5 map
2007-201 1/4" screen 106
6
C
90-95
zone
designation
from 2007 lvl
5 map
2007-202 1/4" screen 150
2
2
50-60
pz
2007-203 1/4" screen 92
6
A+B 90-95
plus postholes
2007-204 1/4" screen 92 33
6
90-95
2007-205 1/4" screen 92
6
C
90-95
2007-206 1/4" screen 150
3
60-70
transition zone
from pz to
house basin
2007-207 1/4" screen 96
7-56
121-127
2007-208 1/4" screen 143
1
42-50
pz, sod
2007-209 1/4" screen 101
7-48
all
90-103
2007-210 1/4" screen 101
6
A
90-95
no artifacts
2007-211 1/4" screen 101 33
6
90-95
2007-212 1/4" screen 143
2
2
50-60
pz
2007-213 1/4" screen 142
2
50-60
2 bags
2007-214 1/4" screen 142
3
60-70
2 bags
242
FS No Recovery Unit Feature Posthole Level Portion
2007-215 1/4" screen 99
7-42
2007-216 1/4" screen 143
3A
all
2007-217 1/4" screen 151
2007-218 1/4" screen 89- 33
92,1
01,1
05106
2007-219 1/4" screen
33
2007-220 1/4" screen 143
2
6
2007-221 1/4" screen 151
2007-222 flot
143
2
3B
2007-223
2007-224
2007-225
2007-226
2007-227
1/4" screen
33
1/4" screen 95
1/4" screen 151
1/4" screen
33
flot
151
2007-228
2007-229
2007-230
2007-231
2007-232
1/4" screen
flot
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
void see
FS228
2007-233 1/4" screen
151
95
144
144
N1/2
Zone Depth (cmbd) Remarks
90-127
60-65
transition
from pz to
subsoil
50-60
95
scrape over
units
A
3B
7-41
50-60
65-70
NW1/4
N1/2
N1/2
B
N1/2
NW1/4
C
3A
3B
3B
7-41
S1/2
1
2
95-107
65-70
2
95-131
80-100
60-65
95-131
65-70
65-70
80-100
41-50
50-60
99+ 40
102
2007-234 trowel sort 102
5+
A
80-106
2007-235 1/4" screen 144
3A
2/3/5
60-65
2007-236 1/4" screen 129139,
141143,
145151
2007-237 flot
33
3
2007-238 flot
2bags
bottom of pz
into house
basin
House basin,
10 ltr sample
3 bags
10 ltr sample
out of nw
corner
sod, pz
pz
90-110
70
33
243
S1/2
5
110-130
S1/2
3+4
105-138
recovered
from area near
rock cluster,S
of PH7-50
Plow to sub
transition
base of level 3
Marked as
zone C on flot
tag
FS No
2007-239
2007-240
2007-241
Recovery
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
flot
2007-242 flot
Unit
132
132
130
Feature Posthole Level Portion Zone
49
4
A
49
4
A1
49
4
A
132 49
4
2007-243 1/4" screen 130 49
2007-244 1/4" screen 144
2007-245
2007-246
2007-247
2007-248
2007-249
2007-250
2007-251
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
flot
2007-252 flot
3B
50
95
137 49
137
137
137
137 49
E1/2
7-40
4
4
4
4
4
99+ 40
102
133 49
4
A
70-80
2007-254 1/4" screen 135 49
4
A
70-80
2007-255 flot
4
A
70-80
2007-253 flot
W1/2
Depth (cmbd) Remarks
70-80
2 bags
70-80
70-80
in targeted
house basin
A
70-80
in targeted
house basin
A
70-80
in targeted
house basin
2/5
65-70
transition
from pz to sub
90-106
90A
70-80
B
70-80
C
70-80
D
70-80
A/A1 70-80
SE corner
25mx25m
90-110
135 49
2007-256 1/4" screen 99+
102
2007-257 1/4" screen 133 49
2007-258 1/4" screen 105
2007-259 1/4" screen 133
2007-260 1/4" screen 135
2007-261 1/4" screen 105
7-76
2007-262
2007-263
2007-264
2007-265
7-78
7-79
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
flot
105
105
131 49
131 49
110-122
4
A
4
4
B
B
7-77
7-80
70-80
96-109
70-80
70-80
106-117
4
4
A
A
96-?
96-114
70-80
70-80
2007-266 1/4" screen 149
2007-267 1/4" screen 149
2007-268 flot
148
4
4
4
B
C*
B
70-80
70-80
70-80
2007-269 flot
4
B
70-80
138
SE corner
25mx25m
in targeted
house basin
SE corner
25mx25m
244
house basin
matrix
matrix
bisected by
fea 33
excavation
2 bags
SE corner
25mx25m
SE corner
25mx25m
SE corner
25mx25m
FS No
2007-270
2007-271
2007-272
Recovery
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
flot
Unit Feature Posthole Level Portion Zone
136 49
4
A
136
4
B
136 49
4
A
2007-273 1/4" screen 138
2007-274 1/4" screen 92
2007-275 1/4" screen 148 52
2007-276
2007-277
2007-278
2007-279
2007-280
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
92
92
152
152
152
2007-281
2007-282
2007-283
2007-284
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
flot
138
92
149
149
2007-285 1/4" screen 149
2007-286 1/4" screen 92
2007-287 1/4" screen 93,1
13,1
17,1
30,1
35,+
148
2007-288 1/4" screen 140
2007-289 1/4" screen 140
4
7-62
4
7-60
7-59
1
2
3
4
7-58
4
4
4
7-57
2
3
2007-290 1/4" screen 130133,
135138,
148,
+14
9
2007-291 1/4" screen 144
2007-292 piece plot
N1/2
N1/2
N1/2
2
2/3
4
50-60
60-70
80
3+
152
2007-293 1/4" screen 89+
101
Depth (cmbd) Remarks
70-80
70-80
70-80
SE corner
25mx25m
B
70-80
91-105
B+fea 70-80
Fea. not seen
52
at lvl 3,
observed
during lvl 4
exca
91-100
93-113
14-25
sod
25-35
35-40
previous
stopping depth
C-1
70-80
93-110
B
70-80
B
70-80
SE corner
25mx25m
C*
70-80
93-112
70-80; 70-90 trowel scrape
of south wall
B+C
70+
117-130
7-36
97-137
245
pz
transition
from pz to
subsoil
base of lvl 4
trowel scrape
of west
extension
floor
scrapings
mortuary
vessel
mixed fea 33
& PH 7-36,
Fea 33
FS No
Recovery Unit Feature Posthole Level Portion
2007-294 flot
152 46
N1/2
2007-295
2007-296
2007-297
2007-298
152 46
142
151
121- 46
124
151
N1/2
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
and grab
2007-299 void see
FS299
2007-300 general
collection
1
1
west
trench
Zone Depth (cmbd)
40-117
-50
43-50
70-90
Remarks
indtruding
soil from
around pot
column fea 46
back dirt etc.
246
APPENDIX D:
12-H-883 FLOTATION LOG
Unit
90
104
143
151
Feature
33
Posthole
FS#
2007-048
2007-091
2007-222
2007-227
2007-237
2007-238
2007-241
2007-242
2007-251
2007-252
2007-253
2007-255
2007-265
2007-268
2007-269
2007-272
2007-284
Level
5
130
132
137
99/102
133
135
131
149
138
136
149
2007-292
152
46
N 1/2
2007-294
152
46
N 1/2
50
49
33
33
49
49
49
40
49
49
49
49
3B
3B
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Portion
W 1/2
NW 1/4
NW 1/4
S 1/2
S 1/2
SE corner
SE corner
W 1/2
SE corner
SE corner
SE corner
SE corner
SE corner
SE corner
SE corner
247
Zone
5
3+4
A
A
A/A1
A
A
A
B
B
A
B
Soil
inside
ceramic
pot
Soil
around
ceramic
pot
Depth
(cmbd)
90-100
84-108
65-70
65-70
110-130
105-138
70-80
70-80
70-80
90-110
70-80
70-80
70-80
70-80
70-80
70-80
70-80
Amount
Floated
(liters)
6
2.5
10
11
6
6.5
9
8.5
7
16.5
7.5
8.5
9
10.5
8.5
6.5
9.5
Amount Soil
Sample
(liters)
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
<1
0
APPENDIX E:
HUMAN REMAINS
The investigations at the Strawtown enclosure (12-H-883) in 2007 encountered a human
interment during the excavation of the unit placed at the center of the enclosure. Feature
46 was a deep shaft burial; Feature 49, probably a secondary burial, was exposed in a
profile wall while excavating Level 5 (see Chapter 3). The discovery of human remains
was reported to the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, DHPA, immediately and
treated according to IC 14-21-1. Neither burial was investigated after initial
identification, and both were covered with soils and left in situ.
Indiana University-Purdue
Fort Wayne
In addition, The
fragmentary
human remains University
were identified
during the laboratory
Archaeological
Survey
removed
this image
the public enclosure.
processing of ¼”-screened
materials
andhas
flotation
samples
from from
the Strawtown
The assemblageversion
included
human teeth
(Table because
E.1). Dr.itRichard
Department
of four
this electronic
document
containsSutter,
sensitive
site
of Anthropology,location
IPFW, information.
assisted with If
identification
of thetoteeth,
and IPFW-AS
you need access
this information
for personnel
examined the faunal
assemblage
for any
human please
remainscontact
commingled
with
animal bone.
professional
research
purposes,
either the
IPFW-AS,
or the Indiana Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology.
Table E.1. Human Skeletal Elements Recovered during the 2007 Excavations
Catalog #
3255
1350
1731
2854
Provenience
Unit 132, Feature 49, Level 4,
Zone A, 70-80cmbd
Unit 138, Level 2, 50-60cmbd
Unit 142, Level 3, 60-70cmbd
Feature 33, N1/2, Zone C,
95-131cmbd
Recovery
¼” Screen
Element
Tooth
¼” Screen
¼” Screen
¼” Screen
Tooth
Tooth
Tooth
248
Identification
upper left incisor, cut
marks on root, large cavity
lower incisor
lower right canine
lower canine root
N (g)
1 0.9
1
1
1
0.3
0.3
0.5
Fly UP