1. sports
2. skating
3. figure skating

4N
19 E
8
19
by
Andrew A. White, Dorothea McCullough, and Robert G. McCullough
nk m
en
t
with contributions by
ba
Em
f
Leslie
L.
Bush,
Donald
R.
Cochran,
Devin Fishel, Rexford C. Garniewicz,
d
po
os e Mark Moore, and Andrew
T o M. Schneider
l
p
F il
O /A
rim
nt
e
e
n
er
km
up
od
O /A
an
n
M
Em
2N
19 E
8
19
s S
s
on
AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVALUATION OF LATE PREHISTORIC VILLAGE
AND SUBSISTENCE PATTERNS IN NORTH-CENTRAL
AND NORTHEASTERN INDIANA
b
Bu
r ie
d
Bw
5
6
A
tum m
a
6
D .7
0
10
2
1
ri
Bu
D
nit ns
U
o
o f c a ti e d
ll
s
o
W a le L im po
o pe r
h
t
os S u
ed
B
e
uri
d
4
O /A
Bw
O /A
B
om
ott
of
E
va
xc a
4N
19 E
8
19
C
(
bd
C
We
st
T o tom
t
Bo
b (A)
cm
7 . 5 c mbd
4
48
p=
To m =
tto
o
B
ll
D -3A )
H
P d(
Wa
d
. 5c
4 5 c mb
p = 73. 0
o
T
=
om
ott
r th
d
pe
ex
a p ma p
a te n t
im k me
x
pr o a n
A p e m b fa c e
of s ur
of
on
ine
l
r
n te
ce ce
e
l
ib
fe n
s s a de/
o
P ck
s to
No
B
A) A)
(
D -5 . 0c m c mbd
P Hp = 5 1 = 7 1 . 0
ll
Wa
D -4 )
P Hmbd ( A( A )
2N
19 E
8
19
)
(A)
bd bd ( A
m
c cm
5
.
P Hp = 46 = 62. 5
T o tom
t
Bo
D -2
4N
19 E
0
20
Robert G. McCullough,
A)
A)
-6 c mbd (c mbd (
D
0 6. 5
Principal
P H p = 5Investigator
=6
So
u th
Wa
D -1 )
P H bd ( A )
ll
D
nit ns
U
o
of
a ti
w L oc
e
i
V
o le
n
P l a o s th
P
tion
c m bd (
47
p = 5cm
T o 64.
=
m
tto
A
T o tom
t
Bo
Reports of Investigations 216
June 2002
IPFW Archaeological Survey
0
1 0at Fort Wayne
Indiana University-Purdue University
rs
e te
m
2101 East Coliseum
Blvd.
i
t
cen
Fort
Wayne,
Indiana
46805-1499
2N
Bo
19 E
0
20
0
20
0
Foreword to Electronic Web Version
November 2002
This report is a low resolution electronic version of Indiana University- Purdue University at Fort Wayne Archaeological Survey (IPFW-AS) Reports of Investigations 216, originally published in June of 2002. The electronic
version of this report was produced by the IPFW-AS.
Archaeological site location information not intended for public disclosure has been removed from this
version of the report. In most other respects, the electronic version of the report is identical to the paper version.
The pagination of some of the appendices may differ slightly from the original.
This report can be viewed using Adobe Acrobat Reader or printed.
Andrew A. White
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF STATE AND FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
This project has been funded in part by 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.
This program has received federal financial assistance for the identification, protection, and/or rehabilitation of
historic properties and cultural resources in the State of Indiana. 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.
This report has been financed in part with federal funds from the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park
Service. 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.
i
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
In any project such as this, the list of people, institutions, and agencies who have provided support is large. Each
contribution was crucial to the final product.
Al Patterson and the Hamilton County Parks and Recreation Department were helpful in every respect in
arranging the Strawtown investigations, as was the Allen County park system at Fox Island. Private landowners Al
and Virginia Scranage, Irene Schlink and Karen Brenneke, and Maureen del Mar Hughes graciously allowed access
to sites and survey areas.
The field crew and lab staff of the Archaeological Survey at Indiana University-Purdue University, Fort
Wayne (IPFW-AS)—Lesli Bair, Jason Barnhart, Albert Brine, Kim Crawford, Devin Fishel, Tammy Reece, Kristalle
Wadsworth, Nikki Waters, and Robin Wilson—and the 2001 field school students—Tory Boroff, Brandon
Bradshaw, Aaron Bubb, Melanie Haneline, Julie Keller, Laura LeFever, Joel Ruprecht, Luann Watson, Angela
Wheeler, Randal Wooldridge—were essential to the project.
A special debt is owed to the volunteers who gave generously of their free time to the investigations at Fox
Island and Strawtown: Anthony Adderley, Craig Arnold, Ben Beeghly, Holly Bir, Valley Blevens, Dave Boggs,
Karstin Carmany, Tom Ciscowski, Blake Cochran, Donald Cochran, Cameron Cox, Bill Dielkes, John Fishel, Chris
Glidden, Julie Harman, Larry Harman, Candy Hrpcha, Angie Krieger, David Latka, Andy Martin, Sharon Martin, Pat
McClary, Beth McCord, Steve Moore, Jan Northam, Staffan Petersen, Teresa Putty, Linda Shields, Bill Wepler,
Drew Wilson, and Timothy Wright.
The contributions of colleagues in this project also earned our deep gratitude: Don Cochran, for his
analysis of the lithic material from Strawtown; Don Cochran and Beth McCord, for the topo map of Strawtown; A.
M. Schneider, for his analysis of chert types at the Scranage enclosure; Leslie Bush, for the floral analyses; Rex
Garniewicz, for the faunal analyses; Mark Moore, for showing Dr. McCullough the Scranage enclosure and sharing
his notes on the Late Prehistoric in northeastern Indiana. The commitment of the other members of the
Anthropology Department at IPFW to research is also deeply appreciated.
Finally, without funding support from the Indiana Academy of Science and the Department of Interior
Historic Preservation Fund (Grant #18-01-16414-15), administered by the Indiana Department of Natural Resources,
Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology, this project could not been undertaken. The IPFW Department
of Sociology and Anthropology also provided matching funds.
ii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgment of State and Federal Assistance...............................................................................................................i
Acknowledgments....................................................................................................................................................................ii
List of Figures...........................................................................................................................................................................iv
List of Tables............................................................................................................................................................................vii
Chapters
Chapter 1.
Chapter 2.
Chapter 3.
Chapter 4.
Chapter 5.
Chapter 6.
Introduction...............................................................................................................................................1
Survey and Surface Collections........................................................................................................21
Excavations at the Scranage Enclosure (12 Dk 363)..........................................................................49
Excavations at the Strawtown Enclosure (12 H 883)..........................................................................74
Excavations at 12 Al 122.........................................................................................................................108
Discussion, Conclusions, and Summary of Recommendations.............................................................117
References Cited.............................................................................................................................................................................129
Appendices
Appendix A. Illustrations of Selected Artifacts from Maumee River Survey Areas..............................................151
Appendix B. The Late Woodland Habitation of Cedar Creek and the Adams and
Kramer Circular Enclosures, by Mark Moore...............................................................................154
Appendix C. Illustrations of Selected Artifacts from Controlled Surface Collections at 12 H 3........................167
Appendix D. Illustration of Selected Artifacts from Scranage Enclosure............................................................169
Appendix E. Macrobotanical Remains from Scranage Enclosure Flotation Samples, by
Leslie L. Bush.........................................................................................................................................170
Appendix F. Faunal Remains from Scranage Enclosure, by Rexford C. Garniewicz.................................................175
Appendix G. Illustrations of Selected Ceramic Artifacts from Strawtown Enclosure..............................................176
Appendix H. Macrobotanical Remains from Strawtown Enclosure Flotation Samples, by
Leslie L. Bush.............................................................................................................................................199
Appendix I. A Preliminary Analysis of Faunal Materials, Worked Bone, and Human Remains
from the Strawtown Enclosure, by Rexford C. Garniewicz...............................................................206
Appendix J. Analysis of Lithics from Strawtown Enclosure, by Donald R. Cochran................................................211
Appendix K. Illustrations of Selected Artifacts from 12 Al 122....................................................................................226
iii
List of Figures
Figure 1.1.
Figure 1.2.
Figure 1.3.
Figure 1.4.
Figure 2.1.
Figure 2.2.
Figure 2.3.
Figure 2.4.
Figure 2.5.
Figure 2.6.
Figure 2.7.
Figure 2.8.
Figure 2.9.
Figure 2.10.
Figure 2.11.
Figure 2.12.
Figure 2.13.
Figure 2.14.
Figure 2.15.
Figure 2.16.
Figure 2.17.
Figure 2.18.
Figure 3.1.
Figure 3.2.
Figure 3.3.
Figure 3.4.
Figure 3.5.
Figure 3.6.
Figure 3.7.
Figure 3.8.
Figure 3.9.
Figure 3.10.
Figure 3.11.
Figure 3.12.
Figure 3.13.
Figure 3.14.
Figure 3.15.
Figure 3.16.
Figure 3.17.
Figure 3.18.
Figure 3.19.
Physiographic map of Indiana showing locations of Hamilton, Allen, and DeKalb counties..................4
Locations of sites that have yielded either Anderson phase-like or cord
impressed decoration commonly associated with the Oliver phase............................................................11
Distribution of Albee components that have yielded diagnostic pottery....................................................13
Oneota-like sites in central Indiana..............................................................................................................18
Location of Survey Areas 1 and 2 (Maples, Ind. 7.5’ USGS quadrangle)..............................................22
Location of Survey Area 3 (Woodburn North, Ind. 7.5’ USGS quadrangle)...........................................23
Locations of previously recorded sites in the immediate vicinity of Areas 1 and 2
(Maples, Ind. 7.5’ USGS quadrangle)............................................................................................................26
Locations of previously recorded sites in the immediate vicinity of Area 3
(Woodburn North, Ind. 7.5’ USGS quadrangle)...........................................................................................27
Locations of newly recorded sites in Areas 1 and 2 (Maples, Ind. 7.5’ USGS quadrangle)...................29
Locations of sites encountered in Area 3 (Woodburn North, Ind. 7.5’ USGS quadrangle)..................30
Location of site 12 Al 12 (Cedarville, Ind. 7.5’ USGS quadrangle)...........................................................36
Location of controlled surface collection area, 12 H 3....................................................................................38
Controlled surface collection grid, 12 H 3......................................................................................................39
Counts of lithic artifacts, 12 H 3....................................................................................................................40
Counts of ceramic artifacts, 12 H 3...................................................................................................................41
Counts of burned/broken rock, 12 H 3...........................................................................................................42
Grams of bone, 12 H 3.......................................................................................................................................43
Contour map of lithic artifact density, 12 H 3..........................................................................................44
Contour map of ceramic artifact density, 12 H 3..........................................................................................45
Contour map of broken/burned rock density, 12 H 3....................................................................................46
Contour map of bone density, 12 H 3.................................................................................................................47
Grid used for 20m x 20m collections, 12 H 3....................................................................................................48
Location of Scranage enclosure (Waterloo, Ind. 7.5’ USGS quadrangle)...................................................50
Map of Scranage enclosure showing approximate apex of embankment, approximate
centerline of ditch, location of ramp/entrance and possible ramp/entrance structures, and
locations of modern ATV and farm machinery roads/trails......................................................................51
Horizontal grid and coordinate system used at Scranage enclosure during the 2001 field
season; locations and coordinates of permanent datums..............................................................................53
Locations of shovel probes excavated on the interior and exterior of Scranage enclosure...................54
Locations of excavation units at Scranage enclosure......................................................................................55
Locations of positive shovel probes at Scranage enclosure........................................................................57
Locations of postive shovel probes (ceramics) at Scranage enclosure.....................................................58
Locations of positive shovel probes (chipped stone) at Scranage enclosure...............................................59
Locations of positive shovel probes (fire-cracked rock) at Scranage enclosure.........................................60
Artifact density estimates along shovel probe transect across interior of Scranage enclosure............61
Plan view of Trench 1, Scranage enclosure.......................................................................................................62
West wall profile of Trench 1, Units G, F, E, and D, Scranage enclosure.........................................................63
West wall profile of Trench 1, Units C, B, A, and I, Scranage enclosure.........................................................64
Plan and profile views of Unit D showing superimposed locations of Postholes D-1
through D-6, Scranage enclosure.................................................................................................................66
Plan and profile views of postholes in Unit D, Scranage enclosure................................................................67
Plan view of Feature 1 at 9cmbd in Units A and B, Scranage enclosure..........................................................67
Plan view of Feature 4, Feature 3/Posthole H-2, and Postholes H-1, H-3, and H-4 at
the base of level 2, Unit H, Scranage enclosure.....................................................................................68
Profile of Feature 3/Posthole H-2, Unit H, Scranage enclosure.........................................................................69
Hypothetical stages in the construction and deterioration of the ditch and
embankment at the Scranage enclosure.......................................................................................................71
iv
Figure 4.1.
Figure 4.2.
Figure 4.3.
Figure 4.4.
Figure 4.5.
Figure 4.6.
Figure 4.7.
Figure 4.8.
Figure 4.9.
Figure 4.10.
Figure 4.11.
Figure 4.12.
Figure 4.13.
Figure 4.14.
Figure 4.15.
Figure 4.16.
Figure 4.17
Figure 4.18.
Figure 4.19.
Figure 4.20.
Figure 5.1.
Figure 5.2.
Figure 5.3.
Figure 5.4.
Figure 5.5.
Figure A.1.
Figure A.2.
Figure A.3.
Figure B.1.
Figure B.2.
Figure B.3.
Figure B.4.
Figure B.5.
Figure B.6.
Figure B.7.
Figure C.1.
Figure C.2.
Figure D.1.
Figure G.1.
Figure G.2.
Figure G.3.
Figure G.4.
Figure G.5.
Figure G.6.
Figure G.7.
Figure G.8.
Figure G.9.
Figure G.10.
Location of Strawtown enclosure (Omega, Ind. 7.5’ USGS quadrangle)..........................................75
Eggan’s 1930 map of Strawtown................................................................................................................79
Strawtown enclosure in 1930s aerial photograph....................................................................................81
Aerial photographs of Strawtown enclosure from 1941, 1956, 1962, and 1972......................................82
Horizontal grid and coordinate system used at Strawtown enclosure during the
2001 field season; locations and coordinates of permanent datums.........................................................84
Locations of SVS units excavated at Strawtown enclosure.........................................................................85
Locations of excavation units at Strawtown enclosure..............................................................................86
Three-dimensional view of Strawtown enclosure from the southwest............................................................88
Three-dimensional view of Strawtown enclosure from the northeast.........................................................89
Three-dimensional view of Strawtown enclosure from the northwest..........................................................89
Mean volumetric densities of chipped stone, FCR, ceramics, and faunal materials in
exterior, ditch, embankment, and interior SVS units................................................................................91
Surface/near-surface densities of cultural material in and around Strawtown enclosure
as suggested by SVS units.........................................................................................................................93
Profile of Trench 1, Strawtown enclosure......................................................................................................94
Posthole H-1, Strawtown enclosure.................................................................................................................95
View of natural rock-filled “midden” zone in Unit A, Strawtown enclosure (facing east)......................97
View of Unit A at 54cmbd, Strawtown enclosure (facing east)................................................................97
Plan view of Unit A/Feature 1 at 88cmbd (north half) and 58cmbd (south half),
Strawtown enclosure.........................................................................................................................................99
Profile of east wall of Unit A at termination of excavations in 2001, Strawtown enclosure....................100
View of Unit O at 80cmbd, Strawtown enclosure (facing east)......................................................................101
Hypothetical sequence of construction and evolution of ditch and embankment
at Strawtown enclosure..................................................................................................................................104
Location of site 12 Al 122 (Fort Wayne West, Ind. 7.5’ USGS quadrangle)...........................................109
Horizontal grid and coordinate system used at 12 Al 122 during the 2001 field season;
locations of shovel probes.........................................................................................................................111
Locations of positive and negative shovel probes at 12 Al 122......................................................................112
Locations of excavation units at 12 Al 122....................................................................................................113
Profiles of Units A and C, 12 Al 122...........................................................................................................114
Artifacts from 12 Al 1178, 12 Al 1182, and 12 Al 2039................................................................................151
Aritfacts from 12 Al 2046 and 12 Al 2047....................................................................................................152
Artifacts from 12 Al 205...............................................................................................................................153
Points, Oddou Site.......................................................................................................................................160
Points............................................................................................................................................................161
Sherds................................................................................................................................................162
Sherds................................................................................................................................................163
Sherds................................................................................................................................................164
Color illustrations of some sherds from Figure B.3.................................................................................165
Color illustrations of some sherds from Figure B.4.................................................................................166
Sherds from controlled surface collections at 12 H 3....................................................................................167
Sherds from controlled surface collections at 12 H 3...................................................................................168
Selected artifacts from excavations at Scranage Enclosure..........................................................................169
Large Fort Ancient style sherds from Feature 1, Strawtown enclosure.................................................176
Large Fort Ancient style sherd from Feature 1, Strawtown enclosure.......................................................176
Great Lakes impressed sherds from Unit A, Features 1 and 2, Strawtown enclosure................................177
Fort Ancient style sherds from Unit A, Features 1 and 2, Strawtown enclosure.......................................178
Fort Ancient style sherds from Unit A, Features 1 and 2, Strawtown enclosure...............................179
Fort Ancient style sherds from Unit A, Level 4, Strawtown enclosure................................................180
Sherds from Unit A, Level 5.........................................................................................................................181
Sherds from Unit A, Level 5, Strawtown enclosure...............................................................................182
Selected sherds from Unit C, Strawtown enclosure..............................................................................183
Selected sherds from Unit D, Strawtown Enclosure..........................................................................184
v
Figure G.11.
Figure G.12.
Figure G.13.
Figure G.14
Figure G.15.
Figure G.16.
Figure G.17.
Figure G.18.
Figure G.19.
Figure G.20.
Figure G.21.
Figure G.22.
Figure G.23.
Sherds from Units F, G, H, and I, Strawtown enclosure....................................................................185
Fort Ancient style sherds from Unit N, Level 2, Strawtown enclosure..............................................186
Selected sherds from Unit N, Level 3, Strawtown enclosure........................................................187
Fort Ancient style rim sherd from Unit O, Feature 3, Strawtown enclosure.....................................188
Fort Ancient style sherds from Unit O, Levels 1 and 5, Strawtown enclosure.....................................189
Fort Ancient style and Great Lakes impressed sherds from Unit O, Level 2, Strawtown enclosure.....190
Fort Ancient style sherds from Unit O, Level 3, Strawtown enclosure......................................................191
Great Lakes impressed style sherds from SVS units, Strawtown enclosure.................................192
Fort Ancient style sherds from SVS units, Strawtown enclosure......................................193
Fort Ancient style and unidentified sherds from SVS units, Strawtown nnclosure.............................194
Sherds from groundhog hole on interior of Strawtown enclosure..........................................................195
Taylor Village sherds from various proveniences, Strawtown enclosure...................................................196
Fragmentary Taylor Village vessel from embankment fill/midden in Unit A,
Strawtown enclosure..........................................................................................................................................197
Figure G.24. View of interior and exterior of Taylor Village rim sherd with loop handle
from Unit A, Level 5, Strawtown enclosure....................................................................................................198
Figure H.1. Depth of sample versus number of uncharred taxa, Strawtown Enclosure...........................................201
Figure I.1. Worked bone and bone tools from Strawtown enclosure........................................................................209
Figure I.2. Worked bone and bone tools from Strawtown enclosure.......................................................................210
Figure J.1. Diagnostic lithic artifacts other than triangular projectile points..............................................................221
Figure J.2. Triangular points from 12 H 883..........................................................................................................223
Figure K.1. Sherds from 12 Al 122.......................................................................................................................................226
Figure K.2. Diagnostic historic artifacts from 12 Al 122...............................................................................................227
Figure K.3. Nails from 12 Al 122.......................................................................................................................................227
vi
List of Tables
Table 1.1
Table 2.1.
Table 4.1.
Table 4.2.
Table 4.3.
Table 6.1.
Table E.1.
Table E.2.
Table E.3.
Table E.4.
Table E.5.
Table F.1.
Table H.1.
Table H.2.
Table H.3.
Table H.4.
Table I.1.
Table I.2.
Table I.3.
Table J.1.
Table J.2.
Table J.3.
Table J.4.
Table J.5.
Table J.6.
Table J.7.
Table J.8.
Table J.9.
Table J.10.
Table J.11.
Radiocarbon Dates for Oliver Components as of 2000.................................................................................9
Summary of Sites Documented in Areas 1, 2 and 3...............................................................................25
SVS Units Excavated at Strawtown Enclosure..............................................................................................90
Mean Artifact Densities in Strawtown Enclosure SVS Units by Location................................................90
Rock Content of Stratigraphic Flotation Samples in Trench 1, Strawtown Enclosure.....................96
Summary of Recommendations........................................................................................................................128
Charred Plant Remains by Count, 12 Dk 363 Flotation Samples...................................................................171
Charred Plant Remains by Weight, 12 Dk 363 Flotation Samples.................................................................172
Uncharred Plant Remains, 12 Dk 363 Flotation Samples.............................................................................173
Charred Macrobotanical Remains from 1/4” Screen, 12 Dk 363..............................................................173
Wood Charcoal Identified from Scranage Samples.................................................................................174
Analyzed Faunal Remains from Scranage Enclosure...............................................................................175
Floodplain Forest Composition (from Lee 1945)...................................................................................199
Charred Plant Remains by Count, 12 H 883 Flotation Samples...............................................................202
Charred Plant Remains by Weight, 12 H 883 Flotation Samples.........................................................203
Uncharred Plant Remains, 12 H 883 Flotation Samples............................................................................204
NISP and MNI of Species Represented at Strawtown..............................................................................207
Human Remains from Strawtown enclosure......................................................................................208
Worked Bone/Bone Tools from Strawtown Enclosure...............................................................................209
Distribution of Artifact Classes in 5m x 5m Units, 12 H 3...............................................................................212
Distribution of Artifact Classes in 20m x 20m Units, 12 H 3........................................................................213
Distribution of Artifact Classes in SVS Units, 12 H 883........................................................................213
Distribution of Artifact Classes in Unit A, 12 H 883...............................................................................214
Distribution of Artifact Classes in Unit H, 12 H 883...............................................................................214
Distribution of Artifact Classes in Unit N, 12 H 883...............................................................................215
Total Aritfacts by Collection Unit, 12 H 3 and 12 H 883.............................................................................215
Raw Material Comparisons............................................................................................................................218
Triangular Point Raw Materials................................................................................................222
Comparisons of Triangular Points and Raw Materials, Various Sites...........................................222
Distribution of Triangular Points in Units Sampled.............................................................................224
vii
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
suggesting that the Oliver occupation of central and
south-central Indiana was simply the result of the
movement of people from Anderson phase Fort Ancient
areas in southeastern Ohio oversimplifies what made
the Oliver phase in Indiana unique. Even though many
aspects of middle Fort Ancient settlement, mortuary
behavior, and material culture are found on Oliver
sites, pottery styles and vessel forms not typically
associated with middle Fort Ancient are prevalent on
the earlier sites, and these styles persist and converge
on the later sites (Redmond 1994; Redmond and
McCullough 1996).
The evidence for a middle Fort Ancient longdistance migration stands in contrast to the evidence for
a similar Western Basin Tradition, Springwells
population movement across northeastern Indiana into
central Indiana (for a debate of the issue, see the
forthcoming volume edited by Redmond and Jones
n.d.). The long-distance migration hypothesized as the
result of a Wolf phase military dispersal (e.g. Bechtel
and Stothers 1993; Stothers 1995; Stothers and Bechtel
1994; Stothers et al. 1994) relies on isolated pottery
attributes (often only a portion of the motif ) and on
limited or selected ceramic samples, without
acknowledging the full range of variability, especially
in vessel morphology, found on the sites examined.
Further, elements of the Springwells mortuary pattern,
such as burial in ossuaries, secondary burials,
postmortem skeletal alterations, or clay funerary masks
(Stothers and Bechtel 1994; Stothers et al. 1994), are
absent from central Indiana. Yet generalized Great
Lakes impressed pottery styles are prevalent in Oliver
pottery assemblages, as are vessels with moderately to
strongly everted rim profiles, which are neither an
Anderson nor Springwells-related attribute. This
combination of styles and attributes has been identified
from numerous sites with good contextual association,
across central Indiana.
While these cord- and tool-impressed styles are
more closely related to Springwells than to any other
contemporary pottery tradition, their presence across
central and northeastern Indiana still awaits explanation.
Although a long-distance migration of Springwells
people is not indicated by the data recovered from the
archaeological record thus far, neither is an in situ
development. In central Indiana, the Great Lakes
impressed styles do not appear to have Albee phase
antecedents, and the earlier phases of the Western
This report details grant-funded research conducted by
the Indiana University-Purdue University at Fort
Wayne Archaeological Survey (IPFW-AS) during the
2001 field season. The primary objective of this
research was to collect contextual and settlement
structure information pertaining to the population
dynamics of the Late Prehistoric horticultural societies
that inhabited north-central and northeastern Indiana.
The archaeological group that inhabited the Maumee
River basin and the upper White River during this time
is most closely related to the Western Basin Tradition
(Cochran 1980; McCullough 1998; Mohow 1987;
Moore 1987; Stothers and Pratt 1981; Stothers and
Schneider 1998), but that group co-occurs with Fisher/
Huber (Cochran et al. 1993; McCullough 1991, 1998;
Faulkner 1972; Griffin 1943), and Oliver (McCullough
1991, 1992; McCullough and Wright 1997a, 1997b;
Redmond and McCullough 2000) cultural
manifestations. The nature of the relationships among
these groups is not yet clear. Although there is
abundant archaeological evidence documenting violent
conflict across the Midwest during the Late Prehistoric
period, it is unclear if high levels of social risk are
widespread during this period or are better explained as
isolated responses to local conditions. Evidence of
warfare among Late Prehistoric groups in central and
south-central Indiana is inconclusive; instead, based on
current information, central Indiana may have
witnessed a dynamic social landscape with open, or
relatively fluid, societal boundaries (McCullough
2000). If this is the case, Late Prehistoric violence
across the Midwest must be explained as isolated
responses to local conditions.
The current research is an attempt to establish a
basis for what constitutes the Late Prehistoric
occupation of northeastern Indiana and then to address
the relationships among the Western Basin, or
Springwells, population, the Fisher/Huber peoples, and
the Oliver groups and the cultural processes
influencing the cultural landscape. Undoubtedly
migration was an important influence in shaping the
population dynamics of Late Prehistoric Indiana, but it
is important to have adequate spatial patterning and
temporal control before making assumptions concerning
the migration process. For example, a recent study of
the Oliver phase by the principal investigator has laid
the groundwork for a more detailed study of the
dynamics involved (McCullough 2000). A model
1
INTRODUCTION
Basin Tradition (i.e. Riviere au Vase and Younge) that
are contemporary with the Albee occupation are
virtually absent from central Indiana. However, style
and morphological observations on limited samples of
ceramics do suggest that a sparsely distributed Late
Prehistoric group related to the Western Basin
Tradition (as defined for the Lower Maumee) may have
occupied northeastern Indiana where suitable, welldrained alluvial soils are often in limited supply. In
terms of pottery, these materials may exhibit essentially
a clinal variation in style and vessel morphology from
the lower Maumee to central Indiana.
In order to test the validity of the above
assumptions, documentation of site distribution and the
recovery of contextual information for groups
associated with the Great Lakes impressed style of
pottery, especially that exhibiting an everted rim
profile, is necessary. Dissimilar in morphology to both
Fort Ancient and Western Basin Tradition vessels,
these vessels constitute a significant portion of the
Oliver assemblage, yet the processes that produced that
unique combination are not well understood.
Investigations such as this one in the upper White River
valley and along the upper and middle Maumee River
valleys can aid in delineating the relationships among
the Late Prehistoric populations along the major river
drainages of central, north-central, and northeastern
Indiana.
In terms of specific site locations, sites whose
structures indicate the presence of enclosures, such as
Strawtown and its vicinity, carry a high potential for
clarifying Late Prehistoric population dynamics and
the related question about the presence of violent
conflict. Based on the results of recently completed
research, all of the stockaded villages associated with
the Oliver phase are located in the southern portion of
the Oliver range and date to the later part of the
temporal sequence, as part of a southward shift of
Oliver sites in general (McCullough 2000). How the
known enclosure sites in central and northeastern
Indiana are related to currently known Late Prehistoric
populations is the focus of the current research.
Fieldwork was centered around excavations at the
Scranage enclosure (12 Dk 363) in DeKalb County and
the Strawtown enclosure (12 H 883) in Hamilton
County. Additional work included controlled surface
collections in the bottoms below the Strawtown
enclosure (12 H 3), excavations at 12 Al 122 in Fox
Island State Park in Allen County, survey of
approximately 62.7ha along the Maumee River in
Allen County, and a surface collection at the Adams
enclosure (12 Al 12) in Allen County.
An equally important goal of the project was to
increase public awareness of archaeology in Indiana.
2
Volunteer labor and public outreach were important
facets of much of the work conducted during the 2001
field season. Excavations open to the public at both
Strawtown and Fox Island were conducted in
conjunction with Indiana Archaeology Week. The
particular personnel involved and the dates of distinct
portions of the fieldwork are discussed in the chapters
detailing individual investigations. In addition, the
Principal Investigator, Dr. Robert McCullough, gave
presentations on the investigations at the 2001 Midwest
Archaeology Conference in Beloit, Wisconsin, and at
the Indiana Academy of Science conference, 2001, as
well as to several avocational groups in the Fort Wayne
area.
Fieldwork was conducted between May and
September of 2001. Grant monies for field supplies,
radiocarbon dates, analyses, and other expenses were
provided by the Historic Preservation Fund (Grant #1801-16414-15) administered by the Indiana Department
of Natural Resources, Division of Historic Preservation
and Archaeology and a grant from the Indiana
Academy of Science. Dr. Robert G. McCullough
served as Principal Investigator during all phases of
fieldwork. Participants in the work included personnel
and students from IPFW and IPFW-AS, Ball State
University, Indiana University, the Indiana Department
of Natural Resources, Division of Reclamation, the
U.S. Forest Service, the Indiana State Museum,, the
Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology, and the
Department of Anthropology, Indiana University.
This report is divided into six chapters. Chapter 1
describes the project background, research objectives,
and general environmental and cultural setting of the
research. Chapter 2 describes the surface survey
activities that were undertaken, including the survey of
approximately 62.7ha along the Maumee River,
controlled surface collections undertaken at site 12 H 3,
and a surface collection undertaken at the Adams
Enclosure (12 Al 12). Chapters 3 and 4 describe
excavations at the Scranage Enclosure (12 Dk 363) and
the Strawtown Enclosure (12 H 883), respectively.
Chapter 5 describes excavations at site 12 Al 122
within Fox Island State Park. A brief discussion of the
research is presented in Chapter 6, along with
conclusions and a summary of recommendations
pertaining to site significance. The numbers and kinds
of artifacts collected during the various investigations
reported here are briefly summarized within the
chapters describing the investigations. Illustrations of
artifacts of particular interest are provided in the
appendices, as are analyses of botanical and faunal
materials completed to date. References for the
literature cited in the appendices are included in the
main bibliography.
INTRODUCTION
While the fieldwork described here was multifaceted, excavations at the Scranage and Strawtown
enclosures were the focus of the 2001 field season. The
excavations reported here were the first undertaken at
these two sites and were focused on gathering basic
information about site structure and the chronology of
site use. Further excavations at these two sites are
ongoing at the time of this writing or are anticipated
during the 2002 field season. Given the basic goals of
the 2001 excavations and the additional data and
materials that will be gathered during the 2002
excavations, the analyses presented here are primarily
descriptive.
Combining the data and materials
collected during both the 2001 and 2002 efforts will
allow a more interpretive analysis to be performed.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project area for this study is a portion of
northeastern and central Indiana that encompasses
three major river drainages: the upper Maumee River
drainage, including the St. Joseph River and its
tributaries such as Cedar Creek; the far upper reach of
the Wabash drainage; and the West Fork of the White
River where it broadens onto a wide floodplain north of
Indianapolis in Hamilton County (Figure 1.1). The
Scranage enclosure (12 Dk 363) is at the northernmost
extent of the project area, in central DeKalb County,
near the St. Joseph River, while Fox Island (12 Al 122)
is located near the Little Wabash in Allen County
southwest of Fort Wayne. The Strawtown enclosure (12
H 3, 12 H 883) in Hamilton County is on a floodplain
terrace and upland till 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 the most recent mapping of Indiana’s natural
features, Homoya (1997:158) divides the state into
twelve natural regions, with twenty sections, or
subregions. The Maumee River valley proper, beyond
the confluence of the St. Joseph and St. Marys rivers
3
and eastward into Ohio, is characterized as the Black
Swamp Natural Region, “once a part of the great Black
Swamp that covered much of northwestern Ohio and
extended westward into Indiana as a broad triangle
with its apex at Fort Wayne” (Dunbar 1997:201). The
most changed since Euroamerican settlement of all
Indiana’s natural regions, the Black Swamp developed
on the flat “lacustrine sediments” of post-glaciation
Lake Maumee, “the much larger predecessor of modern
Lake Erie” (Dunbar 1997:202).
The soils left behind by glacial Lake Maumee were clays and
silt loams with poor internal drainage, and flat terrain greatly
retarded surface runoff. A dense swamp forest dominated by
American elm, black ash, and red and silver maples formed
on the old lake bed (Dunbar 1997:202).
Now extremely productive farmland as a result of
clearing and drainage programs, prehistorically the
Maumee valley was a rich but daunting environment,
with
large areas of standing water in spring, perhaps shrinking to
small ponds by late summer; trees several feet in diameter
reaching high into a dense canopy, which excluded almost all
sunlight; trees falling to earth when the wet soil would no
longer support their weight, creating a jumble of fallen logs
and dead wood; the air thick with mosquitos during much of
the summer (Dunbar 1997:202).
Nominally, the remainder of 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).
The northeastern portion of the project area is mapped
as lying within the Bluffton Till Plain Section of the
Central Till Plain Natural Region, while the Strawtown
site is in the Tipton Till Plain Section. Although the
Scranage enclosure is near the northern boundary of
Homoya’s mapping of the Bluffton Till Plain section,
the terrain around it is more characteristic of the
Northern Lakes Natural Region, an area that “contains
the most diverse expression of the results of glaciation
that exists in Indiana” (Casebere 1997:203). Often the
boundary in northeastern Indiana between the two
regions is arbitrary, as Schneider (1966:46) noted, and
other authors have placed DeKalb County, as well as
northern Allen County, into the Northern Lakes region
(Malott 1922:105; Moore 1987:7; Schneider 1966), a
complex landscape that includes “forests, prairies, oak
savannas, and myriad wetlands—lakes, streams,
marshes, swamps, bogs, and fens” (Casebere
1997:203).
INTRODUCTION
4
Figure 1.1. Physiographic map of Indiana showing locations of Hamilton, Allen, and DeKalb counties (base
map from Schneider 1966).
INTRODUCTION
Local relief of 100 to 150 feet or more is not unusual. Glacial
features include knob-and-kettle topography where tillfilled knobs and kame complexes of gravel and sand are
interspersed with kettles . . . which are the basins for the
prevalent lakes and wetlands. . . . Meltwater channels, valley
trains, outwash plains, lacustrine plains, and other
associated features . . . complete the package of glacial
expression (Casebere 1997:203-204).
South of Fort Wayne, Fox Island State Park lies
within the Bluffton Till Plain Section, which is
characterized by “a series of moraines” that “give the
landscape a mostly level to slightly rolling appearance”
and by “clayey soils” that “have resulted in the
predominance of poorly drained flatwoods and forested
swamps” (Hedge 1997:196).
The Strawtown site is in the larger Tipton Till
Plain Section, 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
soils are primarily “neutral silt and silty clay loams of
the Crosby-Brookston association” (Homoya et al.
1985:255). The area has been impacted most by poststatehood population increases, modern farming
techniques, and development related to the growth of
Indianapolis.
Flora
Such a diversity of glacial effects on topography is
matched by ecotonal diversity. Mostly forested prior to
Euroamerican settlement, the Northern Lakes region
contained “dry and dry-mesic uplands” forests
dominated by oaks and hickories; mesic forests with
“American beech, sugar and black maples, and
tuliptree as the most common species”; floodplain
forests “typical of similar forests throughout Indiana”;
swamp communities that included maples, ashes, and
American elm, along with “relict yellow birch”; bogs
containing “numerous shrubs and vines in the heath
family, including leatherleaf, bog rosemary, large and
small cranberry, and highbush blueberry”; fens,
marshes, and intermixed prairies and savannas
(Casebere 1997:203-204). Although the presettlement
vegetation of the Central Till Plain Region was
dominated by beech-maple-oak forest, which typically
5
occurs on Wisconsinan and Illinoian 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 closed-canopy 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 presettlement 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).
Fauna
The drainageways and primary forests of central and
northeastern Indiana contained as abundant a range of
animal species as of flora, most of which were common
throughout the eastern United States (Gammon and
Gerking 1966; Minton 1966; Mumford 1966:474).
INTRODUCTION
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). Justice
(1977:27) suggests that in northeastern Indiana,
presettlement fish populations were especially high
from the Maumee and up the St. Mary’s and the St.
Joseph. Land animals of importance to Late Prehistoric
subsistence, such as 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). Along with elk, black bear, and
the passenger pigeon, 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. Bison did not enter Indiana until the
protohistoric period (Tankersley 1986, 1992:105), at
the beginning of the Little Ice Age (ca. AD1650), and
so were not available to the prehistoric population of
central and northeastern 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
frost-free growing season, increasing the risk of flood
6
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 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; Griffin 1961). Farther to the
east, Norse settlers colonized Greenland (Fagan
1991:15-19; Griffin 1961; Grove 1988:2-4). After AD
INTRODUCTION
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 AD1300 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 central Illinois,” since most of
the food species “lie well within their distribution range
limits.” (For similar assessments, see also King 1981;
Milner et al. 1991b: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
7
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.
CULTURAL BACKGROUND
Although the climate of the lower Midwest during the
Late Prehistoric may not have presented increased
environmental risk, there is evidence that the social
landscape may have been increasingly unpredictable by
AD 1400 (McCullough 2000). In Indiana, the Late
Prehistoric period is characterized by considerable
diversity in settlement size, form, and location and in
ceramic style. The Oliver phase occupation of central
and south-central Indiana (Dorwin 1971; Griffin 1943;
McCullough 2000) was the most pervasive, but Upper
Mississippian Huber and Fisher-like sites associated
with groups from northern Illinois (Cochran et al.
1993; McCullough 1998) and Western Basin Tradition
influences from the western edge of Lake Erie
(McCullough 1991, 1992) also were present. 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. As a result of recent investigations,
however, it is possible to characterize the project area as
a borderland region where groups with Fort Ancient,
Oneota, and Western Basin cultural affiliations
interacted over a wide spatial and temporal span.
Oliver Phase
While a complete history of Oliver phase research (see
INTRODUCTION
McCullough 2000:87-103) is beyond the scope of this
report, it is important to note that initially the Oliver
phase was a ceramic construct. 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 CordMarked,” because of its resemblance to Griffin’s (1943)
“Anderson Cordmarked and Incised” (Dorwin
1971:258).
Research on the Fort Ancient Tradition following
Griffin’s initial systematization has proliferated until
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
Horizon Fort Ancient” (AD 1400/1450–1650/1750)
(Drooker 1997:69) as a chronological sequence is
generally accepted. It is now known that the Oliver
phase demonstrates the closest similarities to the
middle Fort Ancient groups centered on the Great and
Little Miami River valleys. Not only do the acceptable
calibrated radiocarbon dates for the Oliver phase (Table
1.1) coincide with those of the Anderson phase in
southwestern Ohio (e.g. Drooker 1997:77; Essenpreis
1982; Heilman et al. 1988), a wide range of cultural
attributes, from material culture such as pottery to
village layout and settlement patterns (Redmond 1991;
1993a; 1993b; Redmond and McCullough 1995), is
most like that of the Anderson phase. Fort Ancient
cultural materials characteristic of the Oliver phase 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 Oliver phase
territory; and there has been no evidence of an in situ
development into the Oliver phase, as has been
8
suggested for the Late Woodland to Fort Ancient
transition in southwestern Ohio. It is very probable that
the presence of Anderson phase material culture and
settlement characteristics resulted from a migration
stream (Anthony 1990) originating in the upper Miami
valleys, coming into central Indiana during the middle
Fort Ancient period, and undertaking a subsequent
back migration during the Madisonville Horizon, when
Fort Ancient populations began to aggregate along the
central Ohio Valley and a greater cultural
homogenization occurred (Drooker 1997; Drooker and
Cowan 2001; Henderson 1992).
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. These
people were farmers with a heavy reliance on maize (for
wider discussions on subsistence, see Bush 1997, 2001;
Garniewicz 1997; and Schmidt 1998) utilizing the
more easily worked sandy-loamy alluvial soils within
or immediately adjacent to larger floodplains. Swidden
cultivation techniques were very likely 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). A recent seriation analysis by the
Principal Investigator (McCullough 2000) 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).
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 points
exhibit straight to convex bases. There is an apparent
INTRODUCTION
9
Table 1.1. Radiocarbon Dates for Oliver Components as of 2000.
Sit e N a me
Lykins
(12- B- 184)
Martinsville Plaza
(12- Mg- 152
McCullough's
Run (12- B- 1036)
McCullough's
Run (12- B- 1036)
Melvin
(12- B- 401)
Ca libr a t e d D a t e ,
A.D ., wit h 1-Sigma
R a ng e
1295 (1325, 1336,
1394) 1421
Ca libr a t e d D a t e ,
A.D ., 2-Sigma
R a ng e
R e fe r e nce
1275- 1448
McCullough 1991:66
7 60 K 6 5
1227 (1280) 1294
1168- 1386
McCullough 1991:66
Beta- 94795
570K 70*
1307 (1403) 1431
1290- 1449
Cochran et al. 1997
Beta- 94796
570K 50*
1315 (1403) 1421
1300- 1439
Cochran et al. 1997
UGa- 4325
995K 90
981 (1024) 1164
884- 1246
McCullough 1991:66;
Wolfal and McClure
1982
740K 50*
1261 (1284) 1295
1221- 1380
O 'Brien et al. 1996
890K 100
1025 (1168) 1265
978- 1295
Dorwin 1971:382
770K 60*
1225 (1278) 1290
1168- 1374
740K 70*
1240 (1284) 1300
1173- 1396
660K 50*
1290 (1302) 1393
1278- 1406
400K 60*
1441 (1473) 1627
1419- 1648
800K 60
1209 (1259) 1283
1070- 1296
Plunkett et al. 1995
840K 80
1070 (1215) 1279
1021- 1296
Plunkett et al. 1995
980K 80
994 (1027) 1186
895- 1257
Plunkett et al. 1995
700K 60
1278 (1290) 1386
1219- 1406
Plunkett et al. 1995
Sa mple N o.
Da te
B.P.
UGa- 3149
6 05 K 85
UGa- 4707
N oblesville
Beta- 98531
(12- H- 807)
O liver Farm
M- 2010
(12- Ma- 1)
Sugar Creek
Beta- 88932
(12- Jo- 289)
Sugar Creek
Beta- 98651
(12- Jo- 289)
Sugar Creek
Beta- 88933
(12- Jo- 289)
Sugar Creek
Beta- 88931
(12- Jo- 289)
Moffitt
Beta- 83332
(12- H- 6/46)
Moffitt
Beta- 83333
(12- H- 6/46)
Moffitt
Beta- 83334
(12- H- 6/46)
Moffitt
Beta- 83337
(12- H- 6/46)
*Corrected for isotope refraction.
McCullough and
Wright 1997a
McCullough and
Wright 1997b
McCullough and
Wright 1997b
McCullough and
Wright 1997b
For calibration method, see Stuiver and Reimer 1993.
lack of the coarsely serrated “Fort Ancient” point (Bell
1960:40; Justice 1987:227-228), or Railey’s (1992)
“Type 3” variety, which is assigned to the middle Fort
Ancient period (ca. AD 1200-1400). Relatively small,
expanded-base drills manufactured from reworked
triangular points or triangular preforms dominate the
lithic drill varieties, but a few bipointed examples have
been recovered. Thicker, triangular-shaped “humpbacked” knives (Jeske 1992a; Munson and Munson
1970) 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 reworked flakes,
such as gravers, end and side scrapers (in limited
quantities), and various cutting edges have also been
recovered, as have snub-nosed scrapers, which are rare.
Some of the flakes resemble bladelets but lack many of
the diagnostic features of Hopewellian lamellar blade
technology (Greber et al. 1981), including the prepared
blade cores that are necessary for their production. 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. Although rarely
encountered in Oliver assemblages, bone ornaments,
including ear-spools, canine pendants, small disk
beads, and a single beaver incisor that appears to be an
inlay fragment, are known.
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
Table 1.1. Radiocarbon Dates for Oliver Components as of 2000 (continued).
Sample N o.
D ate
B.P.
Calibrate d D ate ,
A.D ., with 1-Sigma
R ange
Calibrate d
D ate , A.D ., 2Sigma R ange
R e fe re nce
Beta- 121966
520± 60*
1333 (1419) 1440
1304- 1484
Putty et al. n.d.
Beta- 121967
Beta- 121968
740± 60*
760± 70*
1259 (1282) 1295
1217 (1279) 1293
1208- 1390
1157- 1390
Beta- 104402
850± 70*
1064 (1218) 1276
1025- 1291
Beta- 104403
710±50*
1279 (1290) 1303
1236- 1393
Putty et al. n.d.
Putty et al. n.d.
Redmond and
McCullough n.d.
Redmond and
McCullough n.d.
IU- 121
8 9 0 ± 13 0
1017 (1168) 1280
8 9 0 - 13 8 5
Dorwin 1971:383
IU- 122
M- 2422
840±130
740±110
1032 (1222) 1290
1217 (1284) 1385
972- 1400
1036- 1421
Beta- 85618
730± 50*
1271 (1286) 1298
1225- 1386
Bundy- Voyles
Beta- 85619
650± 70*
1288 (1305, 1367,
1373) 1400
1260- 1427
Bundy- Voyles
Beta- 83724
540± 60*
1327 (1410) 1436
1302- 1455
Bundy- Voyles
Beta- 85617
510±70*
1400 (1426) 1446
1305- 1611
Bundy- Voyles
Beta- 84952
480± 60*
1410 (1436) 1454
1327- 1616
Dorwin 1971:383
Dorwin 1971:383
McCullough and Wright
1997a: Appendix 4
McCullough and Wright
1997a: Appendix 4
McCullough and Wright
1997a: Appendix 4
McCullough and Wright
1997a: Appendix 4
McCullough and Wright
1997a: Appendix 4
Beta- 47539
680± 60
1283 (1298) 1391
1247- 1406
Redmond 1994b:28
Beta- 47542
670± 50
1275- 1403
Redmond 1994b:28
Clampitt
Beta- 47541
610±60
1285- 1434
Redmond 1994b:28
Clampitt
Beta- 47538
620± 50
1287- 1422
Redmond 1994b:28
Clampitt
Cox's Woods
12- O r- 1
Beta- 47540
520± 50
1314- 1455
Beta- 62263
650±110*
1288 (1300) 1391
1300 (1322, 1340,
1393) 1408
1300 (1315, 1347,
1390) 1403
1402 (1421) 1439
1279 (1305, 1367,
1373) 1410
Cox's Woods
Beta- 62262
570± 70*
1307 (1403) 1431
1290- 1449
Cox's Woods
Beta- 98652
500± 50*
1407 (1431) 1444
1326- 1474
Jose
12- Ma- 47
Beta- 104400
670± 50*
1288 (1300) 1391
1275- 1403
Jose
Beta- 104401
7 10 ± 5 0 *
1279 (1290) 1303
1 2 3 6 - 13 9 3
Redmond 1994b:28
Redmond and
McCullough 1993:102- 3
Redmond and
McCullough 1993:102- 3
McCullough and Wright
19 9 7 b
Redmond and
McCullough n.d.
Redmond and
McCullough n.d.
Site N ame
Bakers Trails
12- H- 37
Bakers Trails
Bakers Trails
Bosson
12- Ma- 4
Bosson
Bowen
12- Ma- 61
Bowen
Bowen
Bundy- Voyles
12- Mg- 1
Clampitt
12- Lr- 329
Clampitt
1191- 1449
*Corrected for isotope refraction. For calibration method, see Stuiver and Reimer 1993.
INTRODUCTION
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. (One scapula hoe,
however, 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 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.
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,
nonexotic artifacts of the types mentioned above. For
instance, at the Bowen site 39 relatively intact and 20
partial burials were identified; grave accompaniments
were found with only four individuals and consisted of
a mano, two shells, two bone awls, and two small celts
(Dorwin 1971:297-99).
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. 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).
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). Such jars are
subglobular in shape with rounded bottoms and broad
excurvated necks. Rims often exhibit a rim fold that
may be impressed with short, wide, alternating oblique
lines. However, 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
create 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 (with the one
exception of Heaton Farm), but a few shell-tempered
examples (less than 2 percent) are recovered from most
site assemblages. Some vessels have two V-shaped
strap handles that occasionally have two small
castellations above each handle (for numerous Fort
10
Ancient examples, see Dorwin 1971; McCullough
1991, 1992).
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. Decoration is exclusively
placed on the top of the lip and rim portions of the
vessels. The rims often exhibit a thickened, or collared,
profile. Decoration does not occur below the collar, on
the neck, or on the interior of the vessel. Decorative
motifs mostly consist of horizontal, vertical, or oblique
lines or a combination of these. Many vessels have
some form of castellation and, if decorated, the design
is integrated with the peak of the rim—horizontal lines
bend upward with the lip. For more abrupt
castellations, oblique, vertical, or chevron lines, often
interrupting a horizontal line motif, correspond with
the upward projection. Vessel shape ranges from
globular to subglobular, often with pronounced
shoulders and rounded bottoms. This pottery is grit
tempered with cordmarked and occasionally fabricroughened surface treatments. Most vessels exhibit
straight rims with rim/neck angles ranging from
moderate to sharply everted; however, some vessels
have a cambered or recurved rim profile that exhibits an
applied vertical node associated with chevron designs.
The upward projection of the chevron decoration
occurs over the vertical node, which will occasionally
form an abrupt castellation above the lip. These applied
nodes represent the only appendages; handles are
absent from this pottery tradition.
At the current time, the boundaries of the Oliver
phase, as defined by the presence of ceramics, become
blurred in the upper and lower West Fork valley. Where
the West Fork turns eastward toward its headwaters
near the vicinity of 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 (see Figure
1.2) only yielded a very limited number of cordimpressed varieties that were similar to those found on
Oliver sites down-river. 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
INTRODUCTION
11
Figure 1.2. Locations of sites that have yielded either Anderson phase-like or cord impressed decoration commonly associated with the Oliver phase.
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
sedentary life. 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 soils, however, only account for approximately 2
percent of the soils present in the upper West Fork
region and demonstrate 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. 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
INTRODUCTION
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 smaller drainages in Orange
County. The Heaton Farm site (12 Gr 122), located in
Greene County, Indiana (Bush et al. 1999; McCullough
and Wright 1997b; Strezewski et al. 1999; Tomak
1970:167-68, 175-178 and 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.
With this current understanding of the Oliver
phase’s temporal range, its material and settlement
diversity, and, generally, its territorial extent, it is now
possible to distinguish it from other Late Prehistoric
populations in the region. 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.
Other Late Prehistoric Populations in Indiana
Albee Phase
The Albee phase is now known to be distributed across
central Indiana prior to the Oliver occupation of the
study area (Figure 1.3). Based on current information,
an acceptable chronological placement ranges between
AD 800 and 1250, or perhaps as late as 1300.
Originally, Winters (1967:60-69) identified the “Albee
Complex” from mortuary contexts in Sullivan
(MacLean 1927, 1931), Greene (Black 1933), and
Vermillion counties in Indiana and from surface
collections from Clark County, Illinois. Based on this
early work, Albee was believed to be concentrated in
west-central Indiana. Later, Albee was recognized as
belonging to a wider Late Woodland burial complex
(Halsey 1976) that in Indiana appeared to form a
bivariate distribution. Based on radiocarbon dates of
only a few years ago, it appeared that Oliver settlements
were present along the West Fork of the White River in
central Indiana, while Albee occupations were split
between west-central (Anslinger 1990; Black 1933;
Logan 1927; Mangold et al. 1994; Pace 1987; Tomak
1970) and east-central (e.g. Birkett and Cochran 1984;
Black 1935; Cochran et al. 1988; Swartz 1982)
Indiana. However, recent investigations (e.g.
McCullough and Wright 1997a, 1997b; Redmond
1994b; Redmond and McCullough 1996) strongly
suggest that the Oliver occupation of central Indiana
12
postdated the Albee, and an examination of the pottery
collections within the study area revealed that the
bivariate distribution was a product of archaeological
visibility. Albee components, as represented by
decorated diagnostic pottery, were found to be
distributed across central Indiana (Figure 1.3). Both
because of amateur activity and the early archaeological
research interest in mortuary sites, as well as their high
archaeological visibility, almost all of the studies cited
above focused on Albee mortuary facilities and
associated habitation areas. Albee habitation sites
without an associated mortuary area are rare, and most
investigations until recently were conducted on large
multicomponent sites with Albee materials recovered
from questionable contexts (Anslinger 1990:41-44).
The Morell-Sheets site (12 My 87) along Sugar
Creek in upper west-central Indiana represents the only
extensive excavation of a single-component Albee
habitation site without associated mortuary activities,
where both plowzone and buried deposits extend
through most of the Albee temporal sequence (McCord
and Cochran 1994; Moore 1989). This site yielded the
only floral and faunal subsistence data collected for
Albee components thus far in Indiana. The
ethnobotanical analysis (McCord and Cochran
1994:90-103) indicated that maize amounted to only 17
percent of the identifiable plant remains in the
botanical assemblage, with little barley dominating (66
percent); both were recovered from almost every
feature. Two possible squash rind fragments and a
limited amount of both knotweed and maygrass account
for the possible cultigens. A scarcity of nut shell, with
the exception of the early hazelnut, and a majority of
wild plant remains that mature in late spring to summer
indicate seasonal usage of the site. The faunal remains
(McCord and Cochran 1994:104-13) show a similar
restricted range of resource utilization that also
suggests a seasonal occupation within a residentially
mobile settlement/subsistence system. (For a synthesis
of the Albee occupation in Indiana, see Redmond and
McCullough 2000)
The most diagnostic artifact for Albee is the “Albee
Cordmarked Jar” (Winters 1967:68), which is a grittempered 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 of cylindrical punctations or
vertical incisions on the exterior of the vessel (Winters
1967:88). Recent investigations (Anslinger 1990:4751; Cochran et al. 1988), especially at the MorellSheets site (McCord and Cochran 1994:62-65), which
offers the only large quantity of Albee pottery outside of
INTRODUCTION
13
Figure 1.3. Distribution of Albee components that have yielded diagnostic pottery.
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;
INTRODUCTION
decoration on three or four fields accounted for another
15 percent, and the remainder (39 percent) were
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 analogue
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 eastcoast trade relationships (Seeman 1981), the closest
cultural affiliations for the Albee population appear to
lie to the northwest.
Besides the cordmarked pottery, the Jack’s Reef
projectile points have typically been associated with
Albee (Justice 1987:215-16; Winters 1967:69), mostly
because of their recovery from the Albee Mound
(MacLean 1931:173, plate 47) and the discovery of a
cache of Raccoon Notched points from the Lattas Creek
site. A single uncalibrated date of AD 950 was obtained
from the Albee component at this site (Anslinger
1990:40). However, subsequent excavations at the
Morell-Sheets (McCord and Cochran 1994), Akers
Mound (Anslinger 1990), Commissary (Hartman
1968; Swartz 1982:18-19, 73), Secrest-Reasoner
(Black 1933) and Hesher (Cochran et al. 1988) sites
have not supported a Jack’s Reef or the related Raccoon
Notched points association. Instead Levanna or
Hamilton Incurvate/Madison triangular points (Justice
1987:224-30) are mostly recovered in association with
Albee contexts. Seeman (1992:42) has suggested a date
range for a “Jack’s Reef Horizon” that includes
triangular points of AD 700 to 900, making it possible
that the Jack’s Reef association is related only to the
earlier temporal range of the Albee occupation of
central Indiana. (For a more detailed discussion of
Albee material culture, see Anslinger 1990; Cochran et
al. 1988; Halsey 1976; Kellar 1983; McCord and
Cochran 1994; and Winters 1967.)
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
14
have been 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 1981:103109) 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, lowmound construction, Albee settlements are characterized
by scattered, ephemeral habitation areas. Unlike the
Oliver phase, 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.
In assessing the relationship of the Albee
occupation in Indiana to the Oliver phase, there is little
evidence to show that the Oliver phase developed out of
the Albee material culture. Instead, decorative
placement, the technique by which the decoration was
applied, and design motifs associated with Albee
pottery indicate that Albee does not exhibit a
homologous relationship with the Oliver pottery
assemblages. In other words, based on pottery
attributes, it does not appear that Albee populations
represent an in situ development that evolved into the
Oliver phase. For example, horizontal cordmarking on
the interior neck is absent on Oliver pottery, as is any
decoration applied to the vessel interiors. Also, short,
vertical trailed lines placed below the collar (or any
decoration below a collar), deep impressions on the
peak of a collared wedge, and crosshatched, incised
designs on the interior or exterior of the vessel neck are
lacking from Oliver pottery assemblages. Rather, the
closest stylistic affiliation with Oliver is the Great
INTRODUCTION
Lakes cord-impressed pottery to the northeast and an
unmistakable Anderson phase, Fort Ancient connection.
Even though cordmarked, collared vessels do occur in
Oliver pottery assemblages (especially in the earlier
portion of the sequence), this appears to be a product of
their widespread distribution across the upper
midcontinent during the centuries before and after AD
1000. Interestingly, the latest dates for Albee in central
Indiana come from the later contexts of the MorellSheets site, which produced five radiocarbon dates with
calibrated intercepts in the thirteenth century (McCord
and Cochran 1994; see also Redmond and McCullough
2000). By the time Albee dates can be considered
contemporaneous with the early Oliver phase sites such
as Strawtown in central Indiana, the Albee sites are
located outside the Oliver territory, to the northwest.
Albee settlement patterns and subsistence data also
diverge significantly from those of the Oliver phase
people. Although maize was cultivated by the Albee
peoples, it was not a major constituent of their diet.
They probably maintained a system of residential
mobility and utilized a wide array of wild resources
supplemented with variety of cultigens. Certainly they
were not dependent on maize for the bulk of their
subsistence as was the case for the later Oliver
subsistence economy, where “maize overwhelmingly
dominates the remains of cultivated plants” (Bush
1994:112). In Cleland’s (1976) general terminology,
the Albee population apparently developed a more
“diffuse” economic strategy that involved the
exploitation of a diversified resource base, instead of a
“focal” procurement strategy, such as the Oliver maizebased economy, that depended “on a narrow range of
highly productive but relatively inelastic and localized
resources” (Anthony 1990:901). For peoples dependent
on a subsistence economy based on maize cultivation,
with its demand for highly productive soils, the White
River drainage represented a vast area available for a
land-expansive pioneering swidden system at a
minimal cost.
Near the end of the Albee occupation the region
was only sparsely occupied and its agricultural
potential only minimally exploited. Given the fact that
long-distance migration is much more likely to occur
among peoples exploiting a focal subsistence economy
and the sudden appearance and prevalence of middle
Fort Ancient, Anderson phase material culture,
settlement, village structure, and mortuary activity,
combined with the availability of highly productive
specialized resource areas, it is far more likely that the
Oliver occupation was an in-migration rather than an
in situ development from Albee to Oliver.
15
Western Basin Tradition Influences
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, 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 12001300). It is the latest, the Springwells phase, that is of
concern here because of its contemporaneity with the
Oliver phase, 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. 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 is
cited in southwestern Ontario, northeast Georgian Bay,
the Straits of Mackinac, northeast Lake Superior, and
northeastern Indiana. In central Indiana the presence of
Springwells-like ceramics is hypothesized to be the
result of refugee populations moving westward to
escape the onslaught. (Stothers 1995; Stothers et al.
1994; Stothers and Bechtel 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 toolimpressed 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 have
also 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 4cm2 with impressed
decoration have been recovered, while no Fort Ancient
examples were found.
All the pottery from the Moffitt Farm site was
surface collected by Jack Householder during two visits
in 1939 and 1942 (Indiana State Museum site files,
Indianapolis) when small clusters of pit features were
exposed by plowing. This opportunistic collection was
nonsystematic, and interpretations drawn from the data
INTRODUCTION
should be pursued with caution. The paucity of
materials and the lack of developed midden deposits
typical of many Late Prehistoric settlements, which
were also recognized and collected by Householder
from northern Marion and Hamilton counties, probably
indicate that no more than a few households occupied
this site and only for a relatively short period of time.
The decorated vessels recovered exhibited linear,
oblique, and alternating rows of oblique impression
executed with a cordwrapped or smooth (tool)
implement impressed into weakly collared vessel rims.
Some rims exhibited various types of castellations,
often with a slightly cambered (also referred to as
channeled) rim profile. Two examples protruded
outward from the rim beneath the castellation, forming
a rim profile that was slightly cambered. Sites with
small scatters of pottery similar to that found on Moffitt
Farm have also been located along this stretch of the
White River (e.g., Conner Prairie, 12 H 4). The design
and technique of manufacture from Moffitt Farm were
also found on nearby sites 12 Ma 47 and 12 Ma 4, as
were linear and castellated designs. However,
numerous examples of Anderson-like middle Fort
Ancient vessel morphology and decoration also have
been recovered in context with the Great Lakes
impressed ware from these other sites.
While the Moffitt Farm materials have not been
directly associated with a radiocarbon sample, the
Prairie View Golf Course site (12 H 46, Plunkett et al.
1995), at least two feature clusters located on the same
landform as the Moffitt Farm site, produced three
calibrated dates in the thirteenth century and one
calibrated to AD 1030, which probably represents a
sampling outlier that should be interpreted with
caution. The pottery from this site also lacks the Fort
Ancient aspect typical of most Oliver phase
assemblages, and the limited number of diagnostic
sherds (ten rim or neck sherds representing about four
vessels) recovered are similar to the Moffitt Farm
materials. Thus, even though spatial proximity does
not always indicate temporal correlation, the
thirteenth-century dates are probably consistent with
the Moffitt Farm ceramic component (Plunkett et al.
1995:figures 20, 23).
While the motifs and the method of decorative
execution on 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
16
(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 comprises the majority of
the Great Lakes impressed-type pottery included in the
Oliver phase of central Indiana. The Great Lakes
impressed types associated with Oliver assemblages do
not have decoration at the base of the rim or on the neck,
nor do they have vertical lines underneath upwardly
curving horizontal lines on the castellated vessels.
Neither Springwells decorative stamping nor netimpressed pottery has been recognized thus far in any
Oliver assemblage.
Besides variation in the use of additional
decorative fields and motifs, the most notable and
significant difference between the Late Woodland
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). The Great Lakes impressed-style
vessels, such as those recovered from the Moffitt Farm
site and other sites in central Indiana, 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, 1987:199-208; Mohow
1987:149-155) exhibited some differences from
Springwells pottery reported from the lower Maumee
valley and similarities to materials found in central
Indiana. Perhaps this indicates a transitional zone, or a
clinal variation in material culture, across northeastern
Indiana and northwestern Ohio, instead of a mass
migration of Springwells people who were replaced by
Sandusky Tradition peoples (e.g., Bechtel and Stothers
1993; Stothers 1995; Stothers et al. 1994; Stothers and
Bechtel 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, perhaps joining distant
relatives as a result of the Wolf phase dispersal. But
these vessels occur in such relatively low frequency that
they cannot be evidence of a mass migration.
More important than differences in attributes and
vessel morphology that argue against a mass migration
are aspects of the Springwells peoples’ belief system
that are absent in central Indiana. Ossuaries, which are
the only Springwells mortuary treatment (Stothers and
INTRODUCTION
Bechtel 1994:23, Stothers et al. 1994:161), have not
been identified in central Indiana. Nor is there evidence
in central Indiana of Late Prehistoric postmortem
skeletal alterations, such as shaved or drilled long
bones, misaligned skeletal elements, drilled or cut
crania, defleshing prior to burial, 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). During both the Younge and Springwells
phases, secondary burial was the most frequent method
of interment (Stothers et al. 1994:173); thus far
secondary burials have not been reliably associated
with Oliver sites in central Indiana. The lack of
evidence for cranial plaque removal, or for the plaques
themselves, is especially significant because these traits
appear elsewhere with displaced Springwells
populations (Stothers and Bechtel 1994:38-39). Thus,
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 refuge population movements is
tenuous. The significant differences in vessel
morphology make such an explanation even less likely.
Perhaps what the archaeological record is
reflecting along the West Fork in central Indiana
during the thirteenth century is the beginning and
subsequent evolution of an archaeological culture, the
Oliver phase, as evidenced by the consistent cooccurrence and subsequent blending of two pottery
traditions, each with distinctive morphology, motifs,
and methods of decorative execution. Although there
are a limited number of sites north of the Indianapolis
area that exhibit either small samples of Great Lakes
impressed or Fort Ancient styles (as discussed above),
the majority of sites along the middle West Fork valley
exhibit the Oliver phase combination of styles.
Hundreds of sites with Oliver phase components have
now been documented across central and south-central
Indiana with these two ceramic traditions in direct
association from numerous excavated contexts and
surface collections. The sites in southern Indiana,
which consistently exhibit this combination and tend to
date during the latter portion of the Oliver sequence,
show this mixture on the same vessels (Cochran et al.
1997; Redmond and McCullough 1996).
Upper Mississippian in Central Indiana
Although the Oliver phase dominated the central West
Fork, evidence of other groups, some similar to those
from northern Illinois, has been recognized in central
17
Indiana (Figure 1.4). An anomalous Upper Mississippian
site complex (12 Jo 5, 4, 6, and 8) has recently been
identified approximately fifteen miles south of
downtown Indianapolis, near the town of Smith Valley
(McCullough and Wright 1997a). This cluster of sites
differs from Oliver phase occupations in terms of
material culture, location, feature morphology, site
structure, and, to some degree, botanical remains.
Typically, Oliver phase villages are located adjacent to
large floodplains along the major drainageways, often
at the confluence of substantial creeks. They are
roughly circular in configuration, or they may be in a
linear distribution along the riverbanks. Unlike Oliver
phase villages, the Crouch site 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 to these deposits, but the
paucity of material culture and midden development
suggests nonintensive occupations, despite the size and
number of features present. The fourteenth-century
dates from the Crouch site place it temporally closer to
the Oliver phase sites investigated in southern Indiana
than to those in the Indianapolis area (Table 1.1).
Feature classes also differed from those commonly
associated with Oliver phase sites, which usually have
permanent structures, fire hearths, and cylindrical and
basin-shaped pits, as well as occasional stockade walls.
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 2.0m below the
base of the plowzone, indicating a much deeper original
INTRODUCTION
18
Figure 1.4. Oneota-like sites in central Indiana. Circles are Smith Valley components. Triangles are Taylor
Village components
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 the 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, 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. Wild rice
(Bush 1997), which has never been documented from
INTRODUCTION
Oliver contexts, was recovered from feature context at
12 Jo 5.
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 nonOliver cultural affiliation, although interaction with
Oliver phase populations is suggested by a limited
number of both Fort Ancient-style and cord-impressed
rim sherds. The few Oliver phase vessel fragments
recovered were from features that also contained shelltempered pottery, which made up the vast majority of
the sherds recovered from the Crouch site. The shelltempered 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 the author previously (McCullough and
Wright 1996; 1997a). This type of pottery also
represents a minor component (two rim sherds in the
Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology 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). The author is
referring to this manifestation as the Smith Valley
complex until additional sites and cultural attributes
can be identified and compared.
A scapula hoe (Garniewicz 1997) from a large
mammal, either elk or deer, was recovered from feature
context on 12 Jo 5. Bone, shell, or stone hoes are not
typically part of Oliver phase assemblages, although a
single scapula hoe was recovered from the Bowen site
(not mentioned in Dorwin 1971). 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 shelltempered rim sherd similar to the Smith Valley
19
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. These are the only two examples of
this pottery that have been located within the study area
outside the small cluster of sites in northwestern
Johnson County (Figure 1.4). 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
Fisher-related population.
A later Oneota population also is found along the
West Fork valley in northern Hamilton County, about
fifteen miles north of Indianapolis (Figure 1.4). Where
the White River valley begins to open to larger
expanses of floodplain in its flow southward, two
important sites, the Strawtown circular earthwork (12
H 883, Griffin 1943:265; Lilly 1937:106-109; ) and
Taylor Village (12 H 25, Cochran et al. 1993; GBL site
files), are situated across the river from each other.
Limited test excavations within Strawtown enclosure
were a part of the current investigations. 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 circle-and-dot
motifs are also present within the chevrons. Small loop
or punched handles are associated with these vessel
forms (see Griffin 1943:CXXXVII, top row, figures 7,
31, 32, and CXXXVI). This pottery is characteristic of
a Huber cultural affiliation and probably dates
sometime between AD 1400 and 1550 (Faulkner
1972:129; McCullough 1992:56). The current
investigation indicates that the earlier range is
associated with the Taylor Village sherds. Taylor
Village sherds were also recovered from the midden
deposits within the Strawtown enclosure. 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
INTRODUCTION
vicinity of the Crouch site (12 Jo 5) near Smith Valley.
Based on the Taylor Village date, one would have to
concur with the conclusion by Cochran et al. (1993)
that, despite conventional wisdom, central Indiana was
not completely abandoned by the early fifteenth
century.
The limited amount of Late Prehistoric pottery
recovered near the Strawtown enclosure prior to the
current investigation exhibited the same similarities to
Springwells pottery as do the Great Lakes impressed
20
sherds found with several other Oliver assemblages,
while only one Anderson phase Fort Ancient sherd with
a decorated handle and a guilloche design was present
in the collection available for study (Lilly 1937:106;
Griffin 1943:CLVII, figures 1-8). The current
investigation found that the majority of ceramics
recovered from the enclosure were associated with
middle Fort Ancient, Anderson phase materials, dating
to the early to mid-thirteenth century.
CHAPTER 2
Survey and Surface Collections
Surface survey and collections included Phase Ia survey
in three areas along the Maumee River in Allen County,
Indiana, surface collections at the Adams Enclosure
(12 Al 12) in Allen County, Indiana, and controlled
surface collections in the bottoms below the Strawtown
Enclosure (12 H 3) in Hamilton County, Indiana.
convenience, the surveyed areas will be referred to as
Areas 1, 2, and 3 (Figures 2.1 and 2.2). Area 3 is
approximately 12.7km (straight line distance)
downstream of Areas 1 and 2.
PHASE Ia SURVEY
Area 1 occupies approximately 41.3 acres (16.7ha) on
an inside bend on the north side of the Maumee River
(Figure 2.1). Specifically, Area 1 occupies portions of
the
The
northern boundary of Area 1 was formed by the terrace
scarp, which was in grass. The southern and eastern
boundaries were formed by the treeline/riverbank. The
western boundary was formed by a field/property line.
Most or all of Area 1 was previously surveyed by
Mohow and Diaz (Mohow 1987:276).
Overall, Area 1 was flat/gently undulating, with a
low ridge present near the riverbank (marked by the
735' AMSL topo line in Figure 2.1). The area was
identified as floodplain by Mohow (1987:105). The
majority of the area is at approximately 730-735'
AMSL. Soils in Area 1 belong to the Genessee and eel
series (Kirschner and Zachary 1969).
Visibility and land use in Area 1 was variable. The
eastern portion of Area 1 was planted in young corn
(approximately 30cm tall) at the time of survey, and
had been tilled and rainwashed. Visibility in this
portion of Area 1 was estimated at nearly 100 percent.
The western portion of Area 1 was planted in young
soybeans (approximately 10cm tall) and had also been
tilled and rainwashed at the time of survey. Visibility in
this portion of Area 1 was estimated at 80 percent.
Area 1 was initially walked at 10m intervals.
Areas where cultural materials were identified were
inspected at a 2m interval in order to further define site
limits. Areas inspected at a 2m interval extended to a
minimum of 15m past the identified site boundaries.
GPS readings were taken to aid in accurately plotting
site locations. In some cases, artifacts were pieceplotted using tapes and compass. With the exception of
fire-cracked rock, all prehistoric artifacts were
collected.
Approximately 9.6ha of Area 1 was subjected to
intensive survey at a 2m interval. This area included a
portion of site 12 Al 2047, all of site 12 Al 2048, and the
area between and around portions of these sites.
Area 1
Phase Ia survey included three discrete areas along the
Maumee River in Allen County, Indiana, totaling
approximately 155 acres (62.7ha).
Survey was
conducted during June of 2001. Devin Fishel served as
crew chief under the supervision of Dr. Robert G.
McCulloughr. Albert Brine, Kristalle Wadsworth, and
Tammy Reece served as field crew. The surveyed areas
are owned by
who
graciously allowed IPFW-AS access to the properties.
The primary goal of these survey efforts was to
locate, document, and assess the potential of
archaeological sites within the survey areas. Survey
areas were chosen based on survey conditions,
landowner permission, and the potential to locate Late
Prehistoric sites. Survey was not conducted in
anticipation of any earth-moving projects or other
planned, large-scale disturbance, and none of the sites
appeared to be in imminent danger at the time of this
writing.
Many bottoms areas along this portion of the
Maumee River were previously subject to professional
survey during the 1980s (Mohow 1987, 1989; Mohow
and Diaz 1985). Based on soils and topography,
Mohow (1987, 1989:13) defined three physiographic/
environmental zones along this stretch of the Maumee:
floodplain, terrace, and lakeplain. Floodplain areas
were relatively flat areas near the stream channel, most
of which were in Genesee and Shoals soils. Terrace
areas were relatively flat to gently rolling areas above
the floodplain. Terrace soils included Nappanee silt
loam, Haskins loam, and Whitaker silt loam.
Lakeplain areas were relatively flat areas above the
floodplain that featured lacustrine soils such as
Nappanee silty clay loam and Hoytville silty clay.
Survey Areas and Methods
Surveyed areas included areas identified as floodplain
and terrace zone by Mohow (1987:105, 1989:14). For
21
SURVEY AND SURFACE COLLECTIONS
Area 2
Area 2 occupies approximately 14.7 acres (5.9ha) on
the terrace/plain on the north side of the Maumee River
(Figure 2.1). Specifically, Area 2 occupies portions of
the
The southern
boundary of Area 2 was formed by Parent Road. The
eastern boundary was a treeline. The majority of Area 2
was previously surveyed by Mohow and Diaz (Mohow
1987:276). The remaining boundaries were delineated
by field lines.
Area 2 was flat/gently undulating. The area was
identified as terrace by Mohow (1987:105). The
majority of the area is at approximately 745-750'
AMSL. Soils in Area 2 belong to the Hoytville and
Haskins series (Kirschner and Zachary 1969).
Area 2 was planted in young soybeans
(approximately 5-10cm tall), and had been tilled and
rainwashed at the time of survey. Visibility was
estimated at 80 percent. Area 2 was walked at 10m
intervals.
Area 3
Area 3 occupies approximately 98.8 acres (40ha) on an
inside bend on the south side of the Maumee River
(Figure 2.2). Specifically, Area 3 occupies portions of
the
A small
portion is in the S ½ of the NE ¼ of Section 4, Township
31N, Range 15E. The southern boundary of Area 3 was
formed by a field line/farm road. The remaining
boundaries were formed by the riverbank and
associated treeline. A small portion of the western
boundary was formed by a farm road. The structures
indicated along the western edge of the southern
portion of Area 3 on the USGS map did not appear to be
present. All of Area 3 was previously surveyed by
Mohow (Mohow 1987:278).
The majority of Area 3 was flat/gently undulating
and was identified as floodplain by Mohow (1989:14).
The majority of the area is at approximately 715-720'
AMSL. Soils in Area 2 belong to the Genessee and Eel
series (Kirschner and Zachary 1969).
Area 3 was planted in young corn (approximately
75cm tall), and had also been tilled and rainwashed at
the time of survey. Visibility was somewhat hampered
by the size of the corn plants and the presence of crop
residues (stubble, etc.). Visibility was estimated at 75
percent.
Area 3 was initially walked at 10m intervals.
Areas where cultural materials were identified were
24
walked at a 2m interval in order to further define site
limits. Areas walked at a 2m interval extended to a
minimum of 15m past the identified site boundaries.
GPS readings were taken to aid in accurately plotting
site locations. In some cases, artifacts were pieceplotted using tapes and compass. With the exception of
fire-cracked rock, all prehistoric artifacts were
collected.
Results
Survey in Areas 1, 2, and 3 resulted in the definition
and documentation of 15 previously unrecorded sites
(12 Al 2039 through 2053) and the relocation and reexamination of three previously recorded sites (12 Al
1178, 1180, and 1182). These results are summarized
in Table 2.1. A total of 320 prehistoric artifacts was
collected, including prehistoric ceramics (n=51),
chipped stone debitage (n=225), chipped stone tools
(n=16), groundstone tools (n=3), and burned/broken
rock (n=25). This section provides descriptions of the
sites that were documented and the artifacts that were
collected during survey. Discussion of the survey
results is presented below. Illustrations of noteworthy
artifacts are provided in Appendix A.
Previously Recorded Sites
Ten sites were previously recorded within the survey
areas (Figures 2.3 and 2.4). Many of these sites were
small and/or of low artifact density, and were not
relocated. Three previously recorded sites were
relocated and examined. All of these sites were in Area
3.
12 Al 1178. Site 12 Al 1178 is located across a
series of rises (approximately 720-725' AMSL) in the
southern portion of Area 3. The site is situated at the
narrowest portion of a long meander loop. The surface
artifact scatter extends across the “neck” of the loop.
Site 12 Al 1178 was originally reported by Mohow
(1987). Additional information is present in the Ball
State University site files (BSUSF). Previous survey of
the site resulted in the collection of a Lamoka hafted
biface, a small variety of broken chipped stone tools and
debris, a core, a gun flint, four pieces of bone, and a
single sherd. A moderately dense scatter of firecracked rock was observed. The field was cultivated
when the site was originally surveyed, and survey
conditions were reported as “fair” (BSUSF).
During the present effort, the site was relocated
during 10m interval surface survey. Surface visibility
was estimated at approximately 70%. The scatter
measured approximately 120m (east-west) by 100m
SURVEY AND SURFACE COLLECTIONS
25
Table 2.1. Summary of Sites Documented in Areas 1, 2, and 3.
Sit e
N umbe r
Accn.
N o.
Ar e a
Ele va t ion
(AM SL)
12 Al 1178
620
3
720- 730'
12 Al 1180
621
3
7 15 - 7 2 0 '
12 Al 1182
622
3
720- 730'
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Al 2039
Al 2040
Al 2041
Al 2042
Al 2043
Al 2044
Al 2045
Al 2046
Al 2047
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
720- 725'
720- 725'
720- 725'
720- 725'
720- 725'
720- 725'
720- 725'
720- 725'
735'
12 Al 2048
632
1
730- 735'
12
12
12
12
12
633
634
635
636
637
1
1
1
1
1
735- 740'
730- 735'
730- 735'
735- 740'
735- 740'
Al 2049
Al 2050
Al 2051
Al 2052
Al 2053
D ia gnos t ics
Late Archaic/
Early Woodland;
Late Woodland
Late Woodland
Early Woodland;
Late Woodland
Late Prehistoric
Late Woodland
Late Woodland
Late Woodland
Late Woodland
Late Archaic (?)
Late Woodland/
Late Prehistoric
Early Archaic (?)
(north-south). Survey and collection was conducted at
a 2m interval within the site boundaries. Survey
resulted in the collection of a gorget, 27 grit tempered
sherds, and eight pieces of chert debitage.
The gorget was made from slate or some similar
metamorphic rock (Figure A.1). It is approximately
126mm in length, 50mm at its widest point, and 11mm
thick with a biplano cross-section. All surfaces have
been ground. The edges are rounded and smooth. It
appears to have been originally rectangular with an
expanded center. One end the of the “bar” was broken,
and the fracture plane was smoothed. Two holes were
drilled, both from a single side. These holes are
approximately 6.6mm in diameter at the entry point
and 4.8mm in diameter at the exit. Artifacts similar to
this one date to the Late Archaic/Early Woodland
period (Lilly 1937).
The ceramic assemblage from 12 Al 1178 includes
a collared rim sherd with horizontal cord-wrapped
dowel impressions (Figure A.1). The thickness,
morphology, surface treatment, and decoration of this
sherd suggest a Western Basin Springwells Tradition
affinity. The body (n=25) and neck (n=1) sherds
recovered from the site are cordmarked or fabric
roughened.
Diagnostic artifacts recovered during both surveys
N o. of
Ce r.
N o. of
D e b.
N o. of
Lit hic
Tools
N o. of
G r nds t one
N o. of
FC R
27
8
0
1
0
1
6
0
0
0
12
30
3
0
0
2
1
0
4
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
24
61
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
9
2
13
1
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
5
2
67
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
7
indicate use of the site during both the Late Archaic and
Late Woodland periods. The moderate scatter of firecracked rock observed by Mohow (BSUSF) may be
attributable to the Late Archaic component. Plowzone
at the site was described as a dark grayish-brown sandy
silt loam containing small quantities of rounded gravel.
Given the relatively large quantities of fire-cracked
rock observed during the original survey and the
ceramic assemblage recovered during the present
survey, it is possible that buried/plow-truncated
cultural deposits are present on 12 Al 1178.
12 Al 1180. Site 12 Al 1180 is located in a flat/
gently sloping portion of the floodplain (approximately
720' AMSL) in the southern portion of Area 3. The site
was originally reported by Mohow (1987; BSUSF) as a
light scatter of artifacts (three chert debitage, one sherd,
and a light scatter of fire-cracked rock) measuring
approximately 100m (N-S) by 37m (E-W). The field
was cultivated when the site was originally surveyed,
and survey conditions were reported as “fair” (BSUSF).
During the present effort, the site appeared to be
composed of several small, semi-discrete artifact
scatters.
Surface visibility was estimated at
approximately 75%. Following initial discovery of four
small artifact scatters during survey at a 10m interval,
SURVEY AND SURFACE COLLECTIONS
intensive survey at a 2m interval failed to locate
additional cultural material. The most southern of the
four scatters was within the previously recorded
boundaries of site 12 Al 1180. The edges of all four
scatters were no more than 20m apart, and the locations
of the scatters did not coincide with any topographic
features that would suggest division into separate sites
was warranted. Therefore, all artifacts encountered in
these scatters were included in site 12 Al 1180, and the
boundaries of the site were extended to 80m in an eastwest direction and 30m in a north-south direction.
Survey resulted in the collection of one grittempered, cordmarked sherd and six pieces of chert
debitage. The thickness, temper, and surface treatment
of the sherd suggest a Late Woodland origin. The
sherds recovered during both surveys indicate use of
this portion of the floodplain during the Middle/Late
Woodland period. In all, the artifact scatter at 12 Al
1180 is very diffuse. The light density of the scatter
suggests that the site was not the location of sustained
habitation activities that would be expected to produce
cultural features and large quantities of refuse. Given
the location of the site on the floodplain, however, it is
also possible that prehistoric deposits have been buried
by sediments deposited during periods of inundation.
12 Al 1182. Site 12 Al 1182 is located on and
around a low, wide, floodplain ridge (approximately
720-725' AMSL) in the western portion of Area 3. The
site was originally reported by Mohow (1987; BSUSF)
as a lithic scatter measuring approximately 260m
(north-south) by 175m (east-west). Previous survey of
the site resulted in the collection of debitage (n=31), a
biface, and two cores. A light scatter of fire-cracked
rock was observed. Several of the flakes were
reportedly retouched/edge-modified. The field was
cultivated when the site was originally surveyed, and
survey conditions were reported as “fair” (BSUSF).
During the present effort, the site was relocated
during 10m interval surface survey. Surface visibility
was estimated at approximately 75%. Survey and
collection at 2m intervals within the site boundaries
revealed a relatively dense scatter of lithics, ceramics,
and fire-cracked rock measuring approximately 185m
(north-south) by 140m (east-west). The artifact scatter
was located in the same general location as recorded
during initial survey of the site, but the boundaries were
slightly different. Both surveys identified a surface
scatter extending north-south along the southern
portion of the floodplain ridge (as shown on the
topographic map). The present survey identified a
scatter extending toward the interior of the floodplain
from the southern portion of the ridge, while the earlier
survey identified a scatter extending toward the interior
28
of the floodplain from the central portion of the ridge.
Overall, a scatter extending approximately 250m along
the floodplain ridge is suggested by these survey results.
The scatter appears to extend approximately 150m
inland from the floodplain ridge.
Survey resulted in the collection of a triangular
hafted biface fragment (Figure A.1), a possible
retouched flake, an unrefined biface fragment, 30
pieces of chert debitage, and 12 grit-tempered sherds.
The ceramic assemblage from 12 Al 1182 includes both
thick-walled and thin-walled sherds. Several of the
thinner sherds have fabric-roughened exteriors
suggestive of a Late Woodland affinity. The thick
sherds are cord-marked on the interior and exterior and
suggest an Early Woodland (Marion Thick) origin.
Diagnostic artifacts recovered from 12 Al 1182
indicate use of the site during the Early Woodland and
Late Woodland/Late Prehistoric periods.
The
relatively large quantities of fire-cracked rock observed
during the present survey and the presence of ceramics
suggest that buried/plow-truncated cultural deposits
may be present on 12 Al 1182.
Given the relatively high densities of cultural
materials present on the surface of 12 Al 1182, the
absence of surface materials on the northern portion of
the floodplain ridge is notable. It is possible that
cultural materials are completely buried within the
downstream (northern) portions of the ridge. A
downvalley gradient in cultural deposits would be
expected within a floodplain ridge segment that was
formed by longitudinal accretion (Gray 1984), where
new sediments were deposited at the downstream end of
the ridge. The presence of possibly Early Woodland
ceramics on the surface of 12 Al 1182 suggests a
minimal age for the termination of development in that
part of the ridge. It is possible that Woodland and/or
Archaic cultural deposits are present below surface in
the northern portions of this ridge, and that Archaic
cultural deposits are present below surface in the
southern portions of the ridge. Floodplain sediments
can manifest abrupt vertical and horizontal textural
changes related to their formation, however, and the
ridged and prograding nature of floodplain deposits can
be very complex (Gray 1984). The available surface
survey data are not of sufficient quality or quantity to
address these complex formational issues.
Previously Unrecorded Sites
Fifteen previously unrecorded sites were documented
within the survey areas (Figures 2.5 and 2.6). Many of
these sites were very small and/or of very low artifact
density. Isolated finds were given site numbers during
the present survey. Finds of less than three artifacts
SURVEY AND SURFACE COLLECTIONS
were not given site numbers during the survey reported
by Mohow (1987:104).
12 Al 2039. Site 12 Al 2039 is located in a flat/
gently sloping portion of the floodplain (approximately
720' AMSL) in the northern portion of Area 3. Surface
visibility in this area was estimated at approximately
75%. Following initial discovery of two artifacts (16m
apart), intensive survey at a 2m interval failed to locate
additional cultural material.
Survey resulted in the collection of two grittempered sherds. One of the sherds was a cordmarked
sherd with a collared and scalloped rim (Figure A.1).
This sherd is identified as a Younge or Springwells
variant of the Western Basin Tradition. Surface
treatment of the other sherd could not be determined.
The rim sherd is Late Prehistoric in age.
Buoyant cultural debris of recent origin (plastic,
styrofoam, etc.) was found throughout the area,
suggesting recent inundation. Plowzone was composed
of a dark grayish-brown sandy silt loam containing
small quantities of rounded gravel. The presence of
rounded gravels suggests high-energy alluvial deposition
and/or derivation from glacial till deposits. Artifacts at
the site may be related to an ephemeral habitation or
may be in secondary context. These possibilities are
discussed below.
12 Al 2040. Site 12 Al 2040 is located in a flat/
gently sloping portion of the floodplain (approximately
720' AMSL) in the northern portion of Area 3. Surface
visibility in this area was estimated at approximately
75%. Following discovery of a single sherd, intensive
survey at a 2m interval failed to locate additional
cultural material.
The sherd is thin-walled and grit-tempered.
Surface treatment could not be determined.
The
thickness and temper of the sherd suggest a Late
Woodland origin
Buoyant cultural debris of recent origin (plastic,
styrofoam, etc.) was found throughout the area,
suggesting recent inundation. Plowzone was composed
of a dark grayish-brown sandy silt loam containing
small quantities of rounded gravel. The presence of
rounded gravels suggests high-energy alluvial deposition
and/or derivation from glacial till deposits. Artifacts at
the site may be related to an ephemeral habitation or
may be in secondary context. These possibilities are
discussed below.
12 Al 2041. Site 12 Al 2041 is located in a flat/
gently sloping portion of the floodplain (approximately
720' AMSL) in the northern portion of Area 3. Surface
visibility in this area was estimated at approximately
31
75%. Following discovery of a single piece of debitage,
intensive survey at a 2m interval failed to locate
additional cultural material.
Buoyant cultural debris of recent origin (plastic,
styrofoam, etc.) was found throughout the area,
suggesting recent inundation. Plowzone was composed
of a dark grayish-brown sandy silt loam containing
small quantities of rounded gravel. The presence of
rounded gravels suggests high-energy alluvial deposition
and/or derivation from glacial till deposits. Artifacts at
the site may be related to an ephemeral habitation or
may be in secondary context. These possibilities are
discussed below.
12 Al 2042. Site 12 Al 2042 is located on a low,
ridge-like rise of the floodplain (approximately 720'
AMSL) in the central/northern portion of Area 3.
Surface visibility in this area was estimated at
approximately 75%. Following discovery of the scatter
during survey at a 10m interval, intensive survey at a
2m interval revealed a diffuse scatter of cultural
material. Overall, the scatter extended approximately
60m (north-south) by 150m (east-west).
Survey resulted in the collection of a one piece of
debitage, four body sherds, and four pieces of firecracked rock. The sherds are thin-walled and grit
tempered. Surface treatment could not be determined.
The thickness and temper of the sherds suggest a Late
Woodland origin
In all, the artifact scatter at 12 Al 2042 is very
diffuse. The light density of the scatter suggests that the
site was not the location of the kind of sustained
habitation activities that produce cultural features and
large quantities of refuse. Given the location of the site
on the floodplain, however, it is also possible that
prehistoric deposits have been buried by sediments
deposited during periods of inundation. The presence
of ceramics and fire-cracked rock suggests some range
of domestic activities took place at the site.
12 Al 2043. Site 12 Al 2043 is located on a low rise
on the floodplain (approximately 720' AMSL) in the
central portion of Area 3. Surface visibility in this area
was estimated at approximately 75%. Following
discovery of two artifacts (1m apart), intensive survey
at a 2m interval failed to locate additional cultural
material.
Survey resulted in the collection of one sherd and a
piece of chert debitage. The sherd is thin-walled and
grit-tempered.
Surface treatment could not be
determined. The thickness and temper of the sherd
suggests a Late Woodland origin.
The artifact scatter at 12 Al 2043 is very diffuse.
The light density of the scatter suggests that the site was
SURVEY AND SURFACE COLLECTIONS
not the location of the kind of sustained habitation
activities that produce cultural features and large
quantities of refuse. Given the location of the site on the
floodplain, however, it is also possible that prehistoric
deposits have been buried by sediments deposited
during periods of inundation. The presence of ceramics
suggests some range of domestic activities took place at
the site.
12 Al 2044. Site 12 Al 2044 is located in a flat/
gently sloping portion of the floodplain (approximately
720' AMSL) in the northern/central portion of Area 3.
Surface visibility in this area was estimated at
approximately 75%. Following initial discovery of a
single piece of debitage, intensive survey at a 2m
interval failed to locate additional cultural material.
Buoyant cultural debris of recent origin (plastic,
styrofoam, etc.) was found throughout the area,
suggesting recent inundation. Plowzone was composed
of a dark grayish-brown sandy silt loam containing
small quantities of rounded gravel. The presence of
rounded gravels suggests high-energy alluvial deposition
and/or derivation from glacial till deposits. Artifacts at
the site may be related to an ephemeral habitation or
may be in secondary context. These possibilities are
discussed below.
12 Al 2045. Site 12 Al 2045 is located in a flat/
gently sloping portion of the floodplain (approximately
720' AMSL) in the western/central portion of Area 3.
Surface visibility in this area was estimated at
approximately 75%. Following initial discovery of a
single piece of debitage, intensive survey at a 2m
interval failed to locate additional cultural material.
Buoyant cultural debris of recent origin (plastic,
styrofoam, etc.) was found throughout the area,
suggesting recent inundation. Plowzone was composed
of a dark grayish-brown sandy silt loam containing
small quantities of rounded gravel. The presence of
rounded gravels suggests high-energy alluvial deposition
and/or derivation from glacial till deposits. Artifacts at
the site may be related to an ephemeral habitation or
may be in secondary context. These possibilities are
discussed below.
12 Al 2046. Site 12 Al 2046 is located on a low,
ridge-like rise of the floodplain (approximately 720'
AMSL) in the central portion of Area 3. Surface
visibility in this area was estimated at approximately
75%. Following initial discovery of the scatter during
survey at a 10m interval, intensive survey at a 2m
interval revealed a concentration of fire-cracked rock in
the northern portion of a larger, more diffuse scatter of
cultural material. Overall, the scatter extended
32
approximately 150m (north-south) by 140m (eastwest). The lithic concentration measured approximately
50m (north-south) by 75m (east-west).
Survey resulted in the collection of 24 pieces of
chert debitage, one groundstone artifact, one body
sherd, and a musket ball. The sherd is thin-walled and
grit-tempered.
Surface treatment could not be
determined. The thickness and temper of the sherd
suggests a Late Woodland origin.
The musket ball is approximately 13mm in
diameter (½”) and is encircled by a flattened/faceted
band (Figure A.2). One “pole” of the ball is also flat.
The groundstone artifact is a ground/shaped bar of
metamorphic rock (Figure A.2). Both ends are broken.
It is plano-convex in cross-section, and has been
ground over its entire surface. No hafting element is
apparent.
The size of the scatter and the presence of the lithic
concentration suggests that the site may have been used
for a range of activities. Given the location of the site on
the floodplain, it is also possible that deposits have been
buried by sediments deposited during periods of
inundation. The presence of ceramics and fire-cracked
rock suggests some range of domestic activities took
place at the site.
12 Al 2047. Site 12 Al 2047 is located on a low,
ridge-like rise of the floodplain (approximately 735'
AMSL) in the southeastern portion of Area 1. Surface
visibility in this area was estimated at approximately
90%. The site occupies the eastern portion of the ridge,
which is cut by a shallow swale. Following initial
discovery of the scatter during survey at a 10m interval,
intensive survey at a 2m interval revealed that the
scatter on the western portion of the ridge contained
ceramics, while the scatter on the eastern portion did
not. Thus the eastern and western scatters were
assigned to two different site numbers. The eastern
portion of the scatter was assigned to site number 12 Al
2047, while the western portion was assigned to site
number 12 Al 2048. The distance between the two sites
is approximately 35m. The scatter at 12 Al 2047
extended approximately 100m (northwest-southeast)
by 200m (southwest-northeast).
Site 12 Al 2047 was a dense lithic scatter. Survey
resulted in the collection of a 61 pieces of debitage, one
expanding stem hafted biface fragment, one unifacial
tool, and nine pieces of fire-cracked rock. The hafted
biface fragment is a base/stem fragment of a small,
expanding stem point (Figure A.2). The point was
made from an unidentified dull/semilustrous, grey to
black, mottled chert. Random flake scars are present on
both faces of the stem. A facet of unflaked, waterworn
cortex is present on a portion of the basal edge. The
SURVEY AND SURFACE COLLECTIONS
presence of this unflaked surface, together with the
overall shape and flaking quality, suggests a possible
Late Archaic origin.
The size and density of the scatter, as well as the
presence of both unifacial and bifacial tools, suggests
that the site may have been used for a range of domestic
activities. The presence of fire-cracked rock is
consistent with this suggestion. Given the location of
the site on the floodplain, it is also possible that deposits
have been buried by sediments deposited during periods
of inundation. This possibility is discussed further
below.
12 Al 2048. Site 12 Al 2048 is located on a low,
ridge-like rise of the floodplain (approximately 735'
AMSL) in the southern portion of Area 1. Surface
visibility in this area was estimated at approximately
80%. The site occupies the western portion of the ridge,
which is cut by a shallow swale. Following initial
discovery of the scatter during survey at a 10m interval,
intensive survey at a 2m interval revealed that the
scatter on the western portion of the ridge contained
ceramics, while the scatter on the eastern portion did
not. Thus the eastern and western scatters were
assigned to two different site numbers. The eastern
portion of the scatter was assigned to site number 12 Al
2047, while the western portion was assigned to site
number 12 Al 2048. The distance between the two sites
is approximately 35m. The scatter at 12 Al 2048
extended approximately 70m (north-south) by 80m
(east-west).
Survey resulted in the collection of a 13 pieces of
debitage, one unrefined biface fragment, two grittempered body sherds, and five pieces of fire-cracked
rock. One of the two sherds had a fabric roughened
exterior, while the surface treatment of the second
could not be determined. The thickness and temper of
the sherd suggests a Late Woodland origin.
The size and density of the scatter, as well as the
presence of ceramics, suggests that the site may have
been used for a range of domestic activities. The
presence of fire-cracked rock is consistent with this
suggestion. Given the location of the site on the
floodplain, it is also possible that deposits have been
buried by sediments deposited during periods of
inundation. This possibility is discussed further below.
12 Al 2049. Site 12 Al 2049 is located on a low rise
on the floodplain (approximately 735-740' AMSL) in
the western portion of Area 1. Surface visibility in this
area was estimated at approximately 80%. Following
initial discovery of a single piece of debitage, intensive
survey at a 2m interval failed to locate additional
cultural material.
33
12 Al 2050. Site 12 Al 2050 is located on a flat/
gently sloping portion of the floodplain (approximately
735-740' AMSL) in the central portion of Area 1.
Surface visibility in this area was estimated at
approximately 80%. Following initial discovery of
three pieces of debitage (within a 1m diameter area),
intensive survey at a 2m interval failed to locate
additional cultural material.
12 Al 2051. Site 12 Al 2051 is located on a flat/
gently sloping portion of the floodplain (approximately
730' AMSL) in the central portion of Area 1. Surface
visibility in this area was estimated at approximately
80%. Following initial discovery of five pieces of
debitage (within a 6m diameter area), intensive survey
at a 2m interval failed to locate additional cultural
material.
12 Al 2052. Site 12 Al 2052 is located on a flat/
gently sloping portion of the floodplain (approximately
735-740' AMSL) in the central portion of Area 1.
Surface visibility in this area was estimated at
approximately 80%. Following initial discovery of
two pieces of debitage (10m apart), intensive survey at
a 2m interval failed to locate additional cultural
material.
12 Al 2053.
Site 12 Al 2053 is located at the
northern edge of the floodplain (approximately 735740' AMSL) in the northeastern portion of Area 1.
Surface visibility was estimated at approximately 80%.
Following initial discovery of the scatter during survey
at a 10m interval, intensive survey at a 2m interval
revealed a linear scatter of artifacts with local
concentrations of lithics and a concentration of firecracked rock at the eastern edge of the site. As
surveyed, the site occupies a linear area along the base
of the terrace scarp measuring approximately 75m
(southeast-northwest) by 275m (southwest-northeast).
The northern boundary of the site was not determined,
as it apparently continued beyond the cultivated portion
of the field into the grass-covered slope of the terrace
edge.
Survey resulted in the collection of 68 pieces of
chert debitage, five unrefined chert biface fragments,
one slate preform fragment, one uniface fragment,
three partial or complete hafted bifaces, seven pieces of
fire-cracked rock, and a possible gun flint fragment
(Figure A.3).
One of the hafted bifaces from 12 Al 2053 is nearly
complete, while the others are small fragments. The
nearly complete specimen (IPFW-AS accession
number 637/1) was made from an unidentified, light
gray/gray, dull, mottled chert. The tip and both
SURVEY AND SURFACE COLLECTIONS
shoulders are missing and the blade has been heavily
resharpened. The blade is trianguloid with straight
sides. The blade edges are sharp with a lightly serrated
feel. The blade is vaguely diamond-shaped in crosssection and exhibits a subtle bevel. The distribution of
mass in the blade is uneven. Flakes were removed from
both sides of both faces of the blade during
resharpening. The base is straight to slightly concave
and has been heavily ground. One of the lateral stem
margins is also ground. Many characteristics of this
hafted biface are suggestive of the Hardin Barbed
cluster (Justice 1987). The geographical range of the
Hardin Barbed cluster as shown by Justice (1987:53),
however, does not extend into northeastern Indiana.
Given this, as well as the incomplete and heavily
reworked nature of the point, this type assignment is
tentative. The heavily ground base and beveled blade
are suggestive of an Early Archaic origin, however.
The remaining two biface fragments are too
fragmentary to attempt identification (Figure A.3).
One is a notch/haft juncture fragment, while the other is
a serrated blade/shoulder fragment. One of the
unrefined bifaces (IPFW-AS accession number 637/6)
may be a triangular projectile point preform.
Two previously recorded sites, 12 Al 903 and 924,
are located on the terrace above the slope. Site 12 Al
2053 may be an accumulation of artifacts deposited in
conjunction with occupations of the terrace sites,
secondary deposits of artifacts washed/plowed down
from the terrace sites, the remains of a site or sites
located at the base of the slope, or some combination of
these possibilities.
Discussion
In general terms, the range of sites, debris, and
diagnostic artifacts documented during the present
investigation is consistent with that reported by Mohow
(1987, 1989). Artifacts attributable to the Early
Archaic, Late Archaic, and Late Woodland/Late
Prehistoric periods dominate the diagnostic assemblage.
This is consistent with Mohow’s (1989:72) observation
that sites dating to these three periods are most common
along this stretch of the Maumee River.
Mohow (1989) drew several distinctions between
the results of survey in the eastern and western survey
areas he considered. Generally, the western survey area
(Mohow 1987) included Paleoindian through Late
Woodland components, tended to have sites with
higher artifact densities, and tended to have sites that
appeared generally more substantial. By contrast, in
the eastern study area “there was little evidence of longterm site occupation before Late Woodland times”
(Mohow 1989:119). In the eastern study area, Mohow
34
(1989:72) observed that Archaic components were
most common on the terrace, while Middle and Late
Woodland components were most common in
floodplain.
Consideration of the survey data from Areas 1, 2,
and 3 may offer some clarification of the patterns
observed by Mohow (1987; 1989). It is notable that
areas identified as “floodplain” by Mohow (1987;
1989) are quite variable in terms of absolute (AMSL)
elevations. In the vicinity of Areas 1 and 2, the
floodplain zone generally had an upper elevation limit
of 740-745' AMSL, and most floodplain surfaces were
at or above 730' AMSL (see Mohow 1987:105). In the
vicinity of Area 3, however, the floodplain zone
generally had an upper elevation limit of 725-730'
AMSL (see Mohow 1989:14), and most floodplain
surfaces were at or above 715-720' AMSL. While a
downstream drop in floodplain elevation would be
expected, a drop of 15-20' seems rather substantial for a
river of this size flowing across a relatively level
lacustrine plain. The plain surrounding both sections
of river is at approximately 745-750' AMSL.
The lower elevation of the floodplain in Mohow’s
(1989) eastern study may account for some of the
observed variability in site locations and densities. It is
possible that the higher floodplains in the western
survey areas have been stable surfaces for much longer
than those in the eastern survey areas. The presence of
Paleoindian and Early Archaic artifacts in floodplain
surface contexts in the western survey areas suggests
these surfaces (above 730' AMSL) may have been
largely stable by the time humans arrived in the area.
The lack of any Paleoindian artifacts in the
floodplain portions of the eastern survey areas (Mohow
1989:116) suggests a number of possibilities. It is
possible that there was a real difference in use between
the eastern and western survey areas, and that
Paleoindian peoples did not exploit these areas equally
or in similar fashions. It is also possible, however, that
geomorphological processes may have affected the
presence/visibility of early artifacts in the eastern
floodplain areas.
The lower elevations of the
floodplains in the eastern survey areas suggest that
these areas may have experienced more recent
development. There is evidence of recent flooding at
elevations below 720' AMSL in Area 3 (buoyant refuse
such as styrofoam and plastic are present on the surface
of the field), and the distribution of diagnostic
prehistoric artifacts in this area suggests Archaic and
earlier components may be buried. No Archaic
diagnostics were recovered from surfaces at
approximately 720' AMSL in Area 3, and the only nonLate Woodland diagnostics were several possible Early
Woodland sherds recovered from a floodplain ridge (12
SURVEY AND SURFACE COLLECTIONS
Al 1182).
Nor were pre-Woodland diagnostics
reported in the sites documented by Mohow (BSUSF).
Late Archaic materials are present at site 12 Al 1178,
however, which occupies the neck of the meander loop
at approximately 720-725' AMSL.
It is possible that the meandering nature of the
Maumee River in the eastern survey areas is related to
both the relative distributions of components on the
surface and the low elevations of the floodplains. Two
basic scenarios are possible: 1) “sheet” deposition of
sediments has buried earlier components; 2) channel
migration has created new surfaces on the interior of
the loop while destroying older surfaces to the north of
the loop. Some combination of these scenarios is, of
course, possible.
In general terms, Bettis and Hajic (1995:97)
suggest that a
period of entrenchment and/or increased lateral channel
migration occurred between about 4,000 and 2,500 B.P. in
small valleys throughout the region. . . . This episode of
channel adjustment corresponds with entrenchment of
proximal and medial alluvial fan surfaces. During this
period, older Holocene alluvium, and archaeological
deposits contained within it, were eroded from the late
Holocene flood plain area.
The presence of possible Early Woodland ceramics on
the surface of 12 Al 1182 suggests that that portion of
the floodplain ridge on the western side of Area 3 was
stable at approximately 3000-2000 BP. The presence of
Late Archaic artifacts at 12 Al 1178 suggests that
portion of the bottoms was stable prior to 3000 BP. The
meander loop that surrounds Area 3 is presumably at its
most pronounced northward extension. If the river
channel was located farther south during the Archaic
(i.e. if there used to be a floodplain on the north side of
the loop), then any floodplain sites dating to the
Archaic on the north side of the river have been
destroyed during the migration of the channel. Lateral
channel migration could also be responsible for the
deposition of the small, rounded gravels that are
present in the plowzone of Area 3.
With a few exceptions, there does not appear to be
gross surface evidence of a northward migration of the
stream channel during the Holocene. With the possible
exception of the rise upon which 12 Al 2042 is situated,
there is no series of relict levee or ridge deposits that is
suggestive of a northward migration visible on the
USGS maps. It is not possible to resolve these issues
with the data presented here. The data collected and
reported by Mohow (1987; 1989; BSUSF) may be used
to further explore some of these possibilities. Given
this large body of survey data, a GIS approach may be
helpful. Such an exploration, while clearly needed
(Cochran 1987:215), is beyond the scope of this report.
35
ADAMS ENCLOSURE (12 Al 12)
The Adams enclosure (12 Al 12) was a circular, earthen
embankment in Allen County, Indiana (Figure 2.7).
Moore (1987) compiled historic accounts of the
enclosure, and summarized the results of previous
surface collections.
Moore’s (1987) report is
reproduced here as Appendix B.
The Adams enclosure is situated on an outside
bend of the St. Joseph River in northeastern Ft. Wayne.
Based on the information presented by Robertson
(1888:45-46), the site has been under cultivation since
approximately 1860. Black (1936:5) reported that the
early landowners recalled the earthen embankment was
6 feet tall prior to being extensively plowed. The same
informant recalled the enclosure was approximately
100 feet (31m) in diameter (Black 1936:5). The
outlines of the embankment are no longer visible on the
surface. As recorded in IPFW-AS records, site 12 Al 12
measures approximately 330m (E-W) by 100m (N-S),
occupying roughly 3.4ha (Figure 2.7).
The Adams enclosure was visited by IPFW-AS on
May 17, 2001, as part of the IPFW-AS field school. Dr.
Robert G. McCullough served as Principal Investigator.
Field school students were Tory Boroff, Brandon
Bradshaw, Aaron Bubb, Melanie Haneline, Julie
Keller, Laura LeFever, Joel Ruprecht, Luann Watson,
Angela Wheeler, and Randal Wooldridge. Survey at
the Adams Enclosure was focused on two main goals:
1) determining the location of the enclosure within the
larger 12 Al 12 site area; and 2) collecting a sample of
artifacts.
Survey Methods and Conditions
The field in which the Adams Enclosure is located
occupies an area
The field is
bordered to the north by a treeline/field road and to the
southeast by St. Joe Road. Overall, the area is flat/
gently undulating, with several low ridges/knolls. The
majority of the area is at approximately 780-790'
AMSL. Soils in the 12 Al 12 site area belong to the
Chelsea, Whitaker, Westland, and Plainfield series
(Kirschner and Zachary 1969).
Surface visibility was estimated at approximately
30-40 percent. The field had not been turned over in
2001, and the ground surface was obscured by corn
stubble and other harvest litter.
The northern 40-50m of the field were walked eastwest at a 2m interval to locate and define the limits of
artifact scatters in the vicinity of the plotted location of
the enclosure. Prehistoric cultural materials (ceramics,
SURVEY AND SURFACE COLLECTIONS
36
Figure 2.7. Location of site 12 Al 12 (Cedarville, Ind. 7.5’ USGS quadrangle).
chipped stone, and fire-cracked rock) were marked with
pin flags. The locations and dimensions of artifact
scatters were mapped by pacing.
Results
Survey at the Adams Enclosure resulted in the location
of several artifact scatters of varying size, artifact
content, and density. A total of 105 artifacts was
collected.
Distribution of Artifacts
Several artifact scatters of varying density were located
in the surveyed area. The densest scatter of artifacts
was located on a sandy knoll in the western portion of
the field, approximately 85m from the northeastern
corner of the field and 35m south of the treeline. The
scatter measured approximately 30-35m (north-south)
by 20-25m (east-west) and contained chert debitage,
ceramics, and broken rock. The size of this scatter is
consistent with the size of the enclosure suggested by
the account reported by Black (1936:5). Materials in
this concentration were collected separately from those
in the outlying scatters.
Materials Collected
A total of 105 artifacts was collected, including chipped
stone debitage (n=18), burned/broken rock (n=69),
prehistoric ceramics (n=17), and a single piece of
historic ceramics.
The prehistoric ceramic assemblage includes
seven body sherds and 10 indeterminate sherds. All of
the sherds are grit-tempered. Surface treatment was
identified on three of the sherds. All three are
SURVEY AND SURFACE COLLECTIONS
cordmarked. No decorated sherds or rim sherds were
among the materials collected.
STRAWTOWN (12 H 3)
Controlled surface collections were performed on a
bottoms area adjacent to the White River below the
Strawtown enclosure (12 H 883). Cultural materials/
scatters in this area have been designated 12 H 3 by the
DHPA.
Collections were performed during May 10 and 11
of 2001in conjunction with the Indiana UniversityBloomington (IUB) field school. IPFW-AS personnel
were Robert McCullough, Nikki Waters, and Kim
Crawford. Michael R. Strezewski was director of the
IUB field school. IU field school students and
personnel were Laura Pate, Josh Wells, Staffan
Peterson, Stephen Ball, Rori Arce, Jim Cooper, Tia
Earman, Katherine Gray, Amy Haluska, Ruth
Heronemus, Tamara Hull, Stephanie Kazmierzak, Josh
Kocher, Sarah Lima, Reuben Man, Matt Novak, Bobbie
Saye, Daniel Seib, Brandy Snyder, Paul Stumpner, and
Paul Tamburro.
The primary goal of this effort was to collect
information about the distribution of artifacts in the
reported location of a village site and mound. A similar
controlled collection strategy was successfully employed
to identify and define the outlines of the circular village
at the Clampitt site (12 Lr 329) in Lawrence County,
Indiana (Redmond 1994).
Methods and Collection Area
An approximately 9600m2 area (120m N-S by 80m EW) was gridded into 5m x 5m squares (Figures 2.8 and
2.9). The southeast corner of the collection area was
designated 500N / 500E. Grid north was aligned with
the treeline along the eastern edge of the field. Grid
north was approximately 20.5° west (counterclockwise)
of magnetic north. Grid corners for the 5m grid were
marked with pin flags. The corners of 20m x 20m grid
blocks were marked with wooden stakes. The
coordinates of the southwest corner of each square serve
as its identification. Because of the large amounts of
natural rock present on the surface, a timed collection
methodology was used for the 5m x 5m collection.
Fifteen minutes were spent collecting in each 5m x 5m
square. A total of 235 of these 25m2 squares was
collected.
The area was planted in young corn at the time of
collection. While surface visibility was excellent, the
field had not been well rain-washed. The dark A
horizon sediments coupled with the lack of rain-
37
washing made it difficult to see prehistoric ceramics.
Following the 5m x 5m collection, a heavy rain
improved the visibility of artifacts considerably. A
complete “re-collection” of the grid would have been
both impractical and of questionable value. In order to
take advantage of the opportunity afforded by the
improvement in survey conditions, however, the
original 5m collection grid and an expanded area
around it was inspected and artifacts were collected.
Collections were made within 20m x 20m squares.
While these collections were not as precise as those on
the 5m grid, they did result in the collection of
additional diagnostic artifacts at a moderate level of
control.
Results
Artifacts collected
includes lithics (n=3110),
prehistoric ceramics (n=571), burned/broken rock
(n=1113) and bone (58.2g). Raw counts of these
artifact classes from the 5m x 5m collection are shown
in Figures 2.10 through 2.13.
Artifact Density
Contour maps of these four artifact classes are shown in
Figures 2.14 through 2.17. These maps were created
using Surfer (version 6.04). In all three artifact classes
where count is used (lithics, ceramics, and burned/
broken rock), a semi-contiguous, linear area of
increased density extends northwest-southeast across
the northern portion of the collection area. This area is
most apparent in the ceramic data (Figure 2.15).
Materials Recovered
The ceramic assemblage collected from 12 H 3 includes
decorated and undecorated neck (n=29) and rim (n=32)
sherds. Great Lakes Impressed varieties are present, as
is a single Taylor Village sherd. The assemblage does
not contain any definite Middle Fort Ancient style
sherds, however. This absence is striking in light of the
dominance of such ceramics in collections from the
Strawtown enclosure (12 H 883) itself (see Chapter 4).
Selected sherds from 12 H 3 are illustrated in Appendix
C.
The lithic assemblage from 12 H 3 includes a
variety of debitage, chipped stone, and groundstone
tool forms. The lithic assemblage is being temporarily
curated by Ball State University and is being analyzed
by Donald Cochran. Analysis completed to date is
presented in Appendix J.
SURVEY AND SURFACE COLLECTIONS
Figure 2.9. Controlled surface collection grid, 12 H 3.
39
SURVEY AND SURFACE COLLECTIONS
Figure 2.10. Counts of lithic artifacts, 12 H 3.
40
SURVEY AND SURFACE COLLECTIONS
Figure 2.11. Counts of ceramic artifacts, 12 H 3.
41
SURVEY AND SURFACE COLLECTIONS
Figure 2.12. Counts of burned/broken rock, 12 H 3.
42
SURVEY AND SURFACE COLLECTIONS
Figure 2.13. Grams of bone, 12 H 3.
43
SURVEY AND SURFACE COLLECTIONS
Figure 2.14. Contour map of lithic artifact density, 12 H 3 (contour interval = 2 artifacts).
44
SURVEY AND SURFACE COLLECTIONS
Figure 2.15. Contour map of ceramic artifact density, 12 H 3 (contour interval = 2 artifacts).
45
SURVEY AND SURFACE COLLECTIONS
Figure 2.16. Contour map of broken/burned rock density, 12 H 3 (contour interval = 2 artifacts).
46
SURVEY AND SURFACE COLLECTIONS
Figure 2.17. Contour map of bone density, 12 H 3 (contour interval = 2 grams).
47
SURVEY AND SURFACE COLLECTIONS
Figure 2.18. Grid used for 20m x 20m collections, 12 H 3.
48
CHAPTER 3
Excavations at the Scranage Enclosure (12 Dk 363)
vehicles (ATVs) and farm machinery cross the
embankment and ditch in several locations, and have
caused substantial damage at their crossing points. It is
possible that one of the two modern trail/road crossings
on the northeastern side of the enclosure was the
location of the other original opening. One of the
modern openings is directly above a steep slope and
seems an unlikely place for an aboriginal opening in the
enclosure.
The site area is forested, and the site itself has
apparently never been plowed. The areas exposed by
the ATV/machinery trails were the only portions of the
site surface that were not obscured by vegetation.
Jensen (1982) identifies the soils in the general area of
the site as Morely silt loam. Sediment information
collected during excavations suggests that soils in the
immediate site area are not Morely silt loam, but may be
another related type. Generally, site soils are sandy and
contain high densities of gravel. Jensen (1982:20)
states that small areas of Blount, Rawson, and Strawn
soils are included in this mapping unit. The texture and
color characteristics of noncultural sediments at
Scranage enclosure are most consistent with those of
Rawson soils, which are better drained and sandier than
Morley soils (Jensen 1982:58).
The Scranage enclosure was first shown to Dr.
McCullough by Mark Moore in the late 1980s. IPFWAS personnel visited the site in March of 2001, and
field school excavations were conducted in May and
June of 2001 under DHPA permit number 200136.
Grant monies were provided by the Historic
Preservation Fund (Grant #18-01-16414-15)
administered by the Indiana Department of Natural
Resources, Division of Historic Preservation and
Archaeology. Dr. Robert G. McCullough served as
Principal Investigator. Nikki Waters, Lesli Bair, Kim
Crawford, Albert Brine, and Devin Fishel served as
Field Assistants. Field school students were Tory
Boroff, Brandon Bradshaw, Aaron Bubb, Melanie
Haneline, Julie Keller, Laura LeFever, Joel Ruprecht,
Luann Watson, Angela Wheeler, and Randal
Wooldridge. Timothy Wright of the Department of
Natural Resources, Division of Reclamation also
assisted with excavations.
Work at the Scranage enclosure was focused on
two main goals: 1) identifying and investigating the
extent of surface/near-surface artifact scatters associated
with the enclosure; and 2) investigating the sequence,
The Scranage enclosure (12 Dk 363) is a circular,
earthen embankment and ditch in DeKalb County,
Indiana (Figure 3.1). The site is situated on a gently
sloping upland above a small glacial kettle depression,
and is bordered to the northwest and southeast by
intermittent drainages that form the headwaters of
Cedar Creek. The site is named for the present
landowners.
Descriptions of the Scranage enclosure appeared
in several early accounts of notable sites in northeastern
Indiana. Robertson (1875:381) described the enclosure
as
a circular earth-work about 600 feet in circumference, with
two entrances opposite each other. The earth-work is from 2
to 2½ feet high, with a ditch outside. Very large trees, which
grew on the embankment, have fallen and gone to decay, and
a black oak standing just inside the wall measured 12½ feet
in circumference at a height of 6 feet from the ground. The
“fort” is situated in the woods, on a high piece of ground,
which is nearly surrounded by ravines cut by the action of
two streams now nearly dry (Robertson 1875:381).
Similar accounts, perhaps derived from the 1875
Smithsonian description above, were published in 1880
and 1905:
In Smithfield Township, on the farm of Mr. Ruffner, is a
circular earthwork having a circumference of about two
hundred yards. The embankment is in places two and a half
feet high, and is surrounded by a ditch. To the northeast and
southwest are entrances, and large trees stand on bank and
ditch (Anonymous 1880:5).
a circular ridge of earth on the moraine in the northeastern
and highest part of Smithfield Township, DeKalb County,
Indiana. The ridge is rather indefinite in part, with
indications of possibly two original openings, while in other
places it is yet near three feet in height. Its diameter is about
200 feet (Slocum 1905:61).
These early accounts were accurate with regard to
the size of the enclosure, which is slightly oblong and
measures approximately 52-63m across. It encloses
approximately 2,600m2. A ramp/entrance structure
was located on the southwest side of the enclosure
(Figure 3.2). This is presumably one of the two
openings mentioned by Robertson (1875) and Slocum
(1905). A possible ramp/entrance structure was
identified on the eastern side of the enclosure. This
identification is tentative. Based on the early accounts,
it does not seem likely that this was the location of the
other opening. Modern trails/roads made by all-terrain
49
SCRANAGE ENCLOSURE
51
Figure 3.2. Map of Scranage enclosure showing approximate apex of embankment, approximate centerline of
ditch, location of ramp/entrance and possible ramp/entrance structures, and locations of modern ATV and farm
machinery roads/trails.
SCRANAGE ENCLOSURE
methods, and chronology of construction of the
enclosure as well as its use by prehistoric groups.
Investigations were conducted in accordance with the
Secretary of The Interior’s Standards and Guidelines
for Identification, Evaluation, and Archaeological
Documentation, Guidebook for Indiana Historic Sites
and Structures Inventory–Archaeological Sites, and
the Grants Manual of the Division of Historic
Preservation and Archaeology.
EXCAVATION METHODS AND UNITS
Work at Scranage during the 2001 field season
included shovel probe and hand unit excavations. Most
hand unit excavation was concentrated in a series of
adjacent units that were aligned to form a trench.
Provenience Control and Mapping
Horizontal and vertical control during mapping and
excavation efforts was maintained using an electronic
total station and data collector/computer. A wooden
stake at the northeastern corner of Unit A was
designated as 200N / 200E. The long axis of Trench 1
was used to determine grid north. Grid north was
approximately 47° counterclockwise (west) of magnetic
north (Figure 3.3). As points (unit corners, datums,
shovel probes, etc.) were shot, they were both
electronically entered into the data collector and
recorded by hand as northing and easting coordinates.
Nails pounded into trees were used as temporary
elevational datums. Datum A, located in a maple tree
east of Unit D, had an elevation of 100.76m.
Supplementary datums (Datums B, C, and E) were
established from Datum A using string and line levels.
Three permanent datums (rebar in concrete) were
set, one to the north of the enclosure, one to the south of
the enclosure, and one within the enclosure.
Shovel Probes
The interior of the enclosure and the flat/gently sloping
areas on the exterior of the enclosure were investigated
by shovel probing. Probes were excavated to gather
information about the kinds, densities, and areal extent
of artifacts that were present in and around the
enclosure. The locations of positive shovel probes were
mapped using the total station. The locations of shovel
probes are shown in Figure 3.4.
Shovel probe excavation entailed the removal and
screening (¼” mesh) of approximately 0.03m3 of
sediment. A single transect of shovel probes was
excavated at a 5m interval across the interior of the
enclosure in March of 2001 under DHPA permit
52
number 200103. This transect was aligned to magnetic
north, and the probes were numbered 1 through 11.
Shovel probes outside the enclosure were
excavated by the IPFW-AS field school in May and
June of 2001. Probes were excavated on an informal
10m grid that was aligned to magnetic north. The
width, depth, and sediment characteristics of each
probe were recorded. Shovel probes were excavated at
a 5m interval within a small cluster of positive probes to
the south of the enclosure and in some areas to the east
of the enclosure.
Excavation Units
Placement of excavation units was guided both by
primary research objectives and the results of shovel
probing. The locations of excavation units are shown in
Figure 3.5. The excavation units in Trench 1 were
placed to provide a cross-section of the embankment
and ditch structures. Unit H was placed to investigate
an area of the interior of the enclosure that produced a
relatively high density of ceramic debris during shovel
probing.
Sediment was passed through ¼” mesh in the field.
Samples of sediment were saved for flotation and
processed in the lab.
Diagnostic or otherwise
noteworthy artifacts were piece-plotted (when possible)
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.
Treatment of subsoil anomalies (features and
potential features) varied depending on the size and
characteristics of the anomaly. Standard feature
excavation procedures (cross-sectioning, profiling, and
collection of sediment samples for flotation) were
employed to investigate anomalies that seemed likely to
be of cultural origin. Potential postholes were crosssectioned.
Trench 1
A total of eight 2m x 2m units (Units A, B, C, D, E, F,
G, and I) were placed to form a trench across and
approximately perpendicular to the embankment and
ditch in the southern portion of the enclosure (Figure
3.5). Options for placing a trench of this size were
limited by the mature trees in and around the enclosure.
Grid north was aligned with the long axis of this trench.
In general, the units in Trench 1 were excavated in
arbitrary 10cm levels using trowels and shovels. These
levels were segregated by sediment zones that were
visible in plan view as excavations progressed. Depths
SCRANAGE ENCLOSURE
53
Figure 3.3. Horizontal grid and coordinate system used at Scranage enclosure during the 2001 field season;
locations and coordinates of permanent datums.
SCRANAGE ENCLOSURE
Figure 3.4. Locations of shovel probes excavated on the interior and exterior of Scranage enclosure.
54
SCRANAGE ENCLOSURE
Figure 3.5. Locations of excavation units at Scranage enclosure.
55
SCRANAGE ENCLOSURE
were taken using strings and line levels attached to the
temporary elevation datums (Datums A, B, C, and E).
Strata and deposits along one wall of Trench 1
were profiled using standard techniques and
descriptive terminology.
Unit H
Unit H was placed over Shovel Probe 10, which
produced a relatively high density of ceramics. The
sides of the unit were aligned with magnetic north.
Unit H was excavated in arbitrary 10cm levels using
trowels and shovels. These levels were segregated by
sediment zones that were visible in plan view as
excavations progressed.
Vertical control was
maintained using Datum D (99.15m).
Unit H was initiated as a 2m x 2m unit. It was
expanded to a 3m (N-S) x 2m (E-W) unit to investigate
a linear stain and posthole (Features 3 and 4) that were
encountered during the excavation of level 2. Most of
the A horizon was removed by level 1. Level 2 included
residual A horizon that was removed as a natural level
to clearly expose subsoil anomalies in plan view.
RESULTS
Excavations at Scranage Enclosure resulted in the
collection of several different kinds of information.
Shovel probes and informal visual examination were
used to investigate the distribution of artifacts in and
around the enclosure. Hand excavated units in Trench
1 were used to obtain information about the form,
construction, and chronology of the enclosure. Several
potential features and postholes were encountered
during excavations in Trench 1. Features 1 and 2,
discussed below, do not appear to be cultural features.
Postholes D-1, D-2, D-3, D-4, D-5, and D-6 were
associated with the earthen embankment, and are
discussed in that context. A portion of a possible
trench/posthole structure (Features 3 and 4, Postholes
H-1, H-2, H-3, and H-4) was exposed in Unit H.
Diagnostic and semi-diagnostic artifacts recovered
from shovel probe and unit excavations indicate a Late
Woodland/Late Prehistoric age. Two radiocarbon
assays from charred material recovered from the
embankment fill are consistent with a Late Prehistoric
age, suggesting that the enclosure was probably
constructed during the eleventh or twelfth centuries
AD.
Distribution of Artifacts Inside and Outside the
Enclosure
The distribution of artifacts in and around the enclosure
56
was investigated by shovel probing and casual visual
inspection where conditions permitted. The areas
exposed by the ATV/machinery trails were the only
portions of the site surface that were not obscured by
vegetation. These areas were traversed repeatedly
during the course of the excavations. No artifacts were
visible in these trails, suggesting a low overall artifact
density and/or the presence of noncultural sediments
overlying the prehistoric surface.
Sixty-four of the 162 shovel probes that were
excavated contained cultural material greater than ¼”
in size (Figure 3.6). Positive probes were present in and
around the enclosure on all relatively flat surfaces.
Cultural material included lithic debitage, fire-cracked
rock, and ceramics (Figures 3.7 through 3.9).
Generally, positive probes do not seem to be
clustered in any particular area. It is notable that 80
percent (8 of 10) of the probes excavated inside the
enclosure were positive, compared to approximately 37
percent of the probes excavated outside the enclosure.
The probes inside the enclosure produced 31 artifacts
(mean of 3.1 artifacts/probe), while the probes outside
the enclosure produced 132 artifacts (mean of 0.9
artifacts/probe). Probes outside the enclosure varied in
size (ranging from approximately 0.010m3 to
0.043m3), with a mean volume of approximately
0.026m3. A total of approximately 3.83m3 was
excavated in probes outside the enclosure, suggesting a
mean artifact density of approximately 34 artifacts/m3
(132 artifacts/3.83m3 of sediment). Volumes were not
recorded for the shovel probes inside the enclosure.
Assuming a probe volume of 0.026m3 for the interior
probes, shovel probes inside the enclosure suggest an
overall artifact density of 119 artifacts/m3 (31 artifacts/
0.26m3 of sediment), approximately three times higher
than outside the enclosure.
Most of the artifacts from probes inside the
enclosure come from just two probes (numbers 1 and
10). Each of these probes contained eight artifacts, and
each was located near the embankment. Probes in the
central portion of the enclosure suggest a lower artifact
density. Figure 3.10 shows changes in estimated
artifact density along the interior probe transect. The
point density is calculated by dividing the estimated
volume of the probe (assumed to be 0.026m3) by the
number of artifacts in the probe. The smoothed density
is a moving average that includes the values from the
two adjacent probes (e.g. the smoothed density at probe
6 is calculated by adding the densities at probes 5, 6,
and 7 and dividing by three). Both measures suggest
that artifact density is highest near the ends of the
transect, adjacent to the interior of the embankment.
Among the probed areas outside the enclosure,
artifact density is probably highest to the east. It is
SCRANAGE ENCLOSURE
Figure 3.6. Locations of positive shovel probes at Scranage enclosure.
57
SCRANAGE ENCLOSURE
Figure 3.7. Locations of positive shovel probes (ceramics) at Scranage enclosure.
58
SCRANAGE ENCLOSURE
Figure 3.8. Locations of positive shovel probes (chipped stone) at Scranage enclosure.
59
SCRANAGE ENCLOSURE
Figure 3.9. Locations of positive shovel probes (fire-cracked rock) at Scranage enclosure.
60
SCRANAGE ENCLOSURE
61
Figure 3.10. Artifact density estimates along shovel probe transect across interior of Scranage enclosure.
perhaps notable that no ceramics were recovered from
this portion of the scatter. The small number of probes
containing ceramics (n=9), however, makes it difficult
to attach any significance to this observation.
Embankment and Ditch
The enclosure at Scranage is comprised of a circular
earthen embankment surrounded by a ditch.
Excavations in Trench 1 exposed a 16m long profile
from the interior of the enclosure, through the
embankment and ditch, to the exterior of the enclosure
(Figures 3.11 through 3.13).
In profile, the embankment (zone 2) is visible as a
low mound of brown, compact sandy loam that is
intermixed with discontinuous areas of dark brown
sediment. This fill contained prehistoric ceramics,
chipped stone, and natural gravels. Ephemeral lenses
of charcoal-rich sediment were encountered during
excavation. These lenses were thin and difficult to
define because of their diffuse boundaries. The
presence of these charcoal lenses and the discontinuous,
irregular blotches of darker sediment visible in profile
are consistent with construction of the embankment
using sediments derived from both the A and C
horizons. It was not possible to discern the presence of
individual “loads” or deposits of sediment within the
embankment fill.
The top of the embankment was approximately
50cm above the original ground surface (zone 3), which
is identifiable as a buried zone of very dark grayish
brown sandy loam.
This zone is somewhat
discontinuous/disturbed beneath the central portion of
the embankment.
The buried O/A is fairly level
beneath the central portion of the embankment, but
appears to slope downward beneath the “outside”
portion of the embankment. The buried A horizon
terminates in the central portion of the Unit E profile.
The dark sediment at the intersection of the base of the
ditch and the embankment fill was composed of clayey,
slightly gleyed sediments, and did not appear to be a
continuation of the buried O/A (Figure 3.12).
On the surface, the ditch around this portion of the
enclosure is visible as a depressed area filled with loose,
black sediment. When cut in profile, the central portion
of the ditch contained up to approximately 50cm of
loose, black, sandy loam (zone 1A) that contained both
historic refuse (such as cow bone) and prehistoric
SCRANAGE ENCLOSURE
Figure 3.11. Plan view of Trench 1, Scranage enclosure.
62
SCRANAGE ENCLOSURE
Figure 3.12. West wall profile of Trench 1, Units G, F, E, and D, Scranage enclosure.
63
SCRANAGE ENCLOSURE
Figure 3.13. West wall profile of Trench 1, Units C, B, A, and I, Scranage enclosure.
64
SCRANAGE ENCLOSURE
materials. This filled area had moderately sloping sides
and a flat to gently rounded bottom, measuring
approximately 50cm across at its base. Historic
materials were present in the basal levels of this filled
zone.
Six postholes were identified in Unit D within the
embankment fill (Figure 3.14). The postholes were
difficult to discern in plan view and were first defined in
level 2, approximately 45-51cm below Datum A
(approximately 30cm below the modern ground
surface). In plan view, these postholes were circular/
oval stains of dark brown to dark yellowish brown
(10YR 3/3 to 3/4), gravelly sediment varying in
diameter from 9 to 15cm (Figure 3.15). In profile, the
postholes were conical with straight to steeply sloping
sides. With the exception of Posthole D-3, the
postholes terminated at approximately 62-71cm below
datum. Posthole D-3 was shallow, and disappeared
during scraping. With the exception of Posthole D-3
(and possible D-2), the bases of the posthole penetrated
into the buried 0/A horizon.
Given the difficulty in identifying the postholes in
plan view, it is likely that the elevations at which they
were defined (within the embankment fill) do not
reflect the actual tops of the postholes. In other words,
the postholes probably did originate higher within the
embankment fill, but were probably simply too similar
in color and texture to the surrounding matrix to be
discerned at the top of the embankment fill.
Postholes D-1 through D-4 appear to have been
aligned in a linear, offset pattern across the top of the
embankment, with posts spaced approximately 50cm
apart (Figure 3.14).
This alignment suggests a
stockade or fence was present on the crest of the
embankment. Postholes D-1 and D-3 would have been
on the exterior of the stockade, while Postholes D-2 and
D-4 would have been on the interior of the stockade.
Assuming that postholes D-5 and D-6 were also
associated with a stockade, they may have contained
posts that functioned as auxiliary supports. Both of
these postholes were asymmetrical, with one straight
side and one moderately/steeply sloping side. In both
postholes, the sloping side was facing the exterior of the
embankment, suggesting posts that were angled to
support the stockade or fence from the interior.
Alternatively, the interior posts may have originally
been set straight but shifted by natural agency (wind,
slumping, etc.) after the enclosure was abandoned.
Two radiocarbon dates were obtained from
materials in Unit D. A piece of charred chestnut in
Posthole D-6 produced a date (Beta-165050) of 860+/40 BP (2 sigma calibrated range of AD 1040-1260). A
piece of unassociated charcoal from within the
embankment fill (Unit D, level 3, FS 430) produced a
65
date (Beta-158414) of 890+/-40 BP (2 sigma calibrated
range of AD 1030-1240).
Features
Feature numbers were assigned to four subsoil
anomalies. Features 1 and 2 were encountered in
Trench 1. Features 3 and 4 were encountered in Unit H.
Feature 1
Feature 1 was a large, discontinuous, circular anomaly
that was encountered at the base of the A horizon in
Units A and B. The anomaly was first discerned at the
base of level 1 in Unit A and during excavation of level
2 in Unit B.
Units A and B were excavated together from 9095cmbd (Datum C) to expose the anomaly in plan view
across both units (Figure 3.16). At this depth, Feature
1 appeared as an area of dark sediment extending
southwest-northeast across Unit B and arcing across
the southern portion of Unit A. Several small, discrete
areas of dark sediment within the larger stain appeared
to be possible postholes.
The stain was cross-sectioned in several places
(Figure 1). A profile of Feature 1 was also exposed in
the western wall of Trench 1 (see Figure 3.13). In
general, profiles of Feature 1 suggested that the
anomaly was composed of irregular, intermixed zones
of sediment varying in size, color, and texture. While
the size and shape of the anomaly in plan view was
suggestive of a prehistoric structure, intensive
investigation strongly indicated that the anomaly was
the result of a tree fall and/or other large scale natural
disturbance. The many sediment zones discerned in the
wall of Trench 1 suggest episodes of disturbance and/or
infilling that are more consistent with a natural origin
than a cultural one.
Feature 2
Feature 2 was located in the southwestern portion of
Unit G, and was visible in the profile of the west wall of
Trench 1 (Figure 3.17). The anomaly was identified as
an area of dark sediment with a decrease in gravel
content relative to the surrounding subsoil. The fill of
Feature 2 and the surrounding matrix were trowelscraped and screened. Feature 2 was interpreted as a
noncultural anomaly (possibly a root mold), and
excavations were terminated.
Feature 3/Posthole H-2
Feature 3/Posthole H-2 was located in the central
SCRANAGE ENCLOSURE
66
Figure 3.14. Plan and profile views of Unit D showing superimposed locations of Postholes D-1 through D-6,
Scranage enclosure.
SCRANAGE ENCLOSURE
Figure 3.15. Plan and profiles views of postholes in Unit D, Scranage enclosure.
Figure 3.16. Plan view of Feature 1 at 95cmbd in Units A and B, Scranage enclosure.
67
SCRANAGE ENCLOSURE
68
Figure 3.17. Plan view of Feature 4, Feature 3/Posthole H-2, and Postholes H-1, H-3, and H-4 at base of level 2,
Unit H, Scranage enclosure.
SCRANAGE ENCLOSURE
portion of Unit H (Figure 3.17). It was a circular, black
(10YR 2/1) stain that was visible within Feature 4,
measuring approximately 25cm in diameter. Firecracked rock and a sherd were present at the surface of
the feature at the base of level 2. The stain was bisected
along a north-south line to expose a profile (Figure
3.18). In profile, the stain had sloping sides and a
rounded/conical base, and extended approximately
10cm below the base of Feature 4. It was interpreted as
a posthole.
Feature 4
Feature 4 was a linear stain that extended across the
central portion of Unit H (Figure 3.17). The stain
varied from 15cm to 40cm in width and was composed
of very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) sandy loam.
Feature 3/Posthole H-2 penetrated through the base of
the stain.
Feature 4 was interpreted as a possible wall trench
with associated postholes. Because Feature 4 was
encountered near the end of the 2001 work at Scranage
Enclosure, no further excavations were undertaken.
Work on Feature 4 will continue in the 2002 field
season.
Material Remains
Material remains recovered from Scranage Enclosure
include ceramics, lithic debris and tools, botanical
remains, faunal remains, and historic artifacts.
Prehistoric ceramic (n=435) and chipped stone (n=585)
69
artifacts were the most common classes recovered.
Broken/fire-cracked rock (n=135) was recovered in
light quantities. A small assortment of historic artifacts
was also recovered. Historic artifacts include charred
pieces of rubber/plastic, fragments of flat glass, coal
cinders, a cut nail, and a shell casing. Historic dumping
activities are probably responsible for the presence of
these artifacts on the site.
The prehistoric artifact assemblage is largely nondiagnostic or semi-diagnostic. The small number of
diagnostic artifacts recovered are consistent with the
Late Prehistoric age of the enclosure indicated by the
radiocarbon determinations. Diagnostic and otherwise
notable artifacts are shown in Appendix D. The
following sections briefly describe the prehistoric
artifacts recovered from Scranage Enclosure. The
analyzed botanical and faunal materials are described
in Appendices E and F, respectively.
Ceramics
The ceramic assemblage from Scranage Enclosure
included rim sherds (n=7), neck sherds (n=7), body
sherds (n=229), and unclassified fragments (n=192).
Rim sherds are fragments from the top of the vessel that
retain enough surface area to distinguish the lip
portion. Larger sherds that retain the rim and either the
neck or body portion are also classified as rim sherds. A
neck sherd is a vessel fragment that is missing the rim
portion but includes enough curvature to identify its
origin from a constricted-orifice vessel. Body sherds
are fragments without a rim or neck portion.
Figure 3.18. Profile of Feature 3/Posthole H-2, Unit H, Scranage enclosure.
SCRANAGE ENCLOSURE
Unclassified fragments are too small and fragmentary
to be accurately distinguished.
The Scranage sherds were exclusively grittempered. Surface treatments included cordmarking,
brushing, fabric roughing, and smoothing (plain). The
method of surface treatment was identified on 134 of
the sherds. Slightly over half (n=74) of the sherds with
an identified surface treatment were cordmarked.
Plain/smooth sherds were also fairly common (n=49).
Fabric roughened sherds (n=10) were present in low
numbers, and the assemblage contained a single
brushed sherd. No decorated sherds have been
identified.
Many (if not all) of the rim sherds may have come
from a single vessel. The sherds are extremely
fragmentary, however, and a positive affiliation cannot
be demonstrated.
Beyond their classification as generalized Late
Woodland/Late Prehistoric ceramics, no further
cultural assignment could be made.
Lithics
The chipped stone lithic assemblage from the Scranage
Enclosure includes debitage (n=582) and tools (n=3).
All three tools were fragments of triangular projectile
points (Figure D.1).
Raw materials in the lithic assemblage were
identified by Andrew M. Schneider of Midwest
Environmental Consultants, Inc. The assemblage was
dominated by light gray/white, mottled cherts
identified as Laurel (approximately 69 percent). Most
of the rest of the assemblage (approximately 24 percent)
was composed of glacial cherts. Other raw materials
(quartzite, Flint Ridge chert, Harrodsburg chert,
Kenneth chert, granitic rock, and other unidentified
cherts) are present in low quantities (<2 percent of the
assemblage). Identified sources of Laurel chert are in
southeastern Indiana (Cantin 1994). In terms of color,
texture, luster, and inclusions, there is substantial
overlap between some varieties of Laurel chert and
Liston Creek chert, which outcrops in Miami, Wabash,
and Huntington counties (Cantin 1994). Source areas
of Liston Creek chert are located much closer to
Scranage than source areas of Laurel chert, suggesting
a heavy use of Liston Creek chert (rather than Laurel)
would not be surprising.
Debitage is the fragments of stone detached from a
parent mass (a biface, nodule, core, etc.) as a by-product
of core reduction and/or tool manufacture or
maintenance. For purposes of cataloging and basic
description, debitage was classified as either flakes or
debris/shatter. Flakes possess a bulb of percussion and
a single interior surface. Debris/ shatter has no
70
discernible interior single interior surface.
Approximately 73 percent of the debitage assemblage
was classified as debris/shatter.
DISCUSSION
Initial work at the Scranage enclosure was focused on
two main goals: 1) identifying and investigating the
extent of surface/near-surface artifact scatters associated
with the enclosure; and 2) investigating the sequence,
methods, and chronology of construction of the
enclosure as well as its use by prehistoric group(s).
Data pertaining to both of these goals were collected
during the 2001 field season. These data allow the
Scranage Enclosure to be compared with other relevant
sites, and can be used to develop testable hypotheses
about the construction, use, and abandonment of the
enclosure. Some of these hypotheses may be tested as
work continues during the 2002 field season.
Based on the results presented here, the Scranage
enclosure appears to be well-preserved relative to other
Late Woodland/Late Prehistoric enclosures and
stockaded villages in Indiana (e.g. McCullough and
Wright 1997; Redmond 1994; Redmond and
McCullough 1993; 1996). The site has apparently
never been plowed, and the course of the embankment
and ditch are plainly visible around most of their
circumference. Modern damage is apparently limited
to the ATV/machinery trails which cross the
embankment in several locations, historic dumping of
light refuse (such as glass, brick, and cinders), the
recent construction and use of a surface hearth, a recent
dog burial, and light logging and tree-cutting. The
density and kinds of historic refuse visible on the
surface in some portions of the enclosure suggest that a
historic structure may have been present at one time.
No such structure is recalled by the present landowners,
and no documentary evidence of such a structure has
been located.
In general, artifact density in surface and nearsurface contexts at Scranage Enclosure is low.
Compared to other circular enclosures in Indiana, the
dearth of artifacts visible on the surface is striking,
especially inside the enclosure. Based on informal
shovel probe data, artifact density inside the enclosure
appears to be several times greater than that outside the
enclosure (including all the probed areas). The
relatively high artifact densities suggested by probes
near the interior side of the embankment, coupled with
the relatively low artifact densities suggested by probes
in the central portion of the enclosure, may reflect the
presence of a diffuse midden/refuse deposit adjacent
and concentric to the embankment. This deposit may
be heaviest within 10m of the apex of the embankment.
SCRANAGE ENCLOSURE
71
Figure 3.19. Hypothetical stages in the construction and deterioration of the ditch and embankment at the
Scranage enclosure.
SCRANAGE ENCLOSURE
Given the overall light densities of artifacts in the
enclosure and the nature of probe data, however, this is
speculative. Variation in artifact densities within the
enclosure should be further investigated using
regularly spaced units of a controlled volume.
Several details about the construction of the
enclosure are notable. As revealed by Trench 1, the
embankment was constructed by piling sandy, gravelly
sediment on the then-extant ground surface. The
embankment fill is similar in color, texture, and gravel
content to the culturally sterile C horizon sediments,
and was presumably obtained through excavation of the
trench that encircles the embankment. In other words,
construction of the embankment and excavation of the
trench were probably contemporary events. The
positions of the strata visible in the Unit E portion of
the Trench 1 profile are particularly interesting, as the
buried O/A horizon (zone 3) appears to slope beneath
the embankment fill, and the fill in the ditch appears to
overlay the embankment fill. These superpositions do
not simply reflect the construction sequence of the ditch
and embankment, but also reflect changes that occurred
subsequent to the construction of the enclosure.
Based on the positions of the buried O/A horizon
beneath the embankment and the intact O/A horizon in
Unit G (which does not appear to have been altered by
construction of the enclosure), the ground surface prior
to construction of this portion of the enclosure probably
sloped gently from grid south to grid north, as shown in
Figure 3.19-A. The cross-section of the embankment
fill exposed in the west wall of Trench 1 occupies
approximately 1.0m2. The flat/gently sloping interface
between the ditch fill and the C horizon in Unit E (see
Figure 3.12) appears to be the original base of the ditch
(i.e. the C horizon below zones 14 and 15 is
undisturbed). The inflection in the contour of the
buried O/A horizon between Units E and D may
represent the northern terminus of the original ditch
excavation. This seems especially likely given that the
buried O/A is sloping opposite of the natural ground
slope (sloping downward going uphill). The southern
terminus of the original ditch is more difficult to
determine. The hypothesized outlines of the original
ditch excavation are shown in Figure 3.19-B. In cross
section, this excavation is approximately 0.85m2.
Given that the embankment is concentric to the ditch
(i.e. the ditch has a larger circumference), a smaller
ditch cross-section would be expected for the same
volume of sediment (assuming comparable sediment
densities).
The inflection in the buried O/A horizon that
marks the original northern terminus of the ditch may
also mark the original southern terminus of the
embankment deposit. Assuming that the embankment
72
was mounded with sloping sides, the stockade posts
were set to protrude through the highest portion of the
embankment, and the original area occupied by the
cross-section of the embankment fill would have been
the same as the current area (i.e. approximately 1.0m2),
the embankment may have originally appeared as in
Figure 3.19-B. In this reconstruction, the embankment
rises approximately 90cm above the original ground
surface and is slightly asymmetrical in cross-section,
with a greater amount of sediment on the interior of the
stockade. This is consistent with the Trench 1 profile,
which suggests the apex of the embankment and more
of the embankment fill were on the interior of the
stockade. The bases of the postholes only slightly
penetrate into the buried O/A horizon, suggesting the
posts may have been set as the sediment was piled
around them. The height of the stockade posts is
unknown. The suggested embankment height of 90cm
and the angles of the possible support posts (assuming
they would have been attached to the stockade) suggest
a height perhaps greater than 1m above the top of the
embankment.
Weather and other natural processes would have
begun to act on the ditch and embankment as soon as it
was built. Pyddoke (1961:48) illustrates how ditches
naturally erode and fill due to frost, freeze-thaw, and
water action. As sediment is eroded from the upper
edges of the ditch it is deposited in the base of the ditch,
resulting in a progressively wider and shallower
depression. If the dimensions of the original ditch
excavation shown in Figure 3.19-B are accurate, initial
erosion would be expected to occur more rapidly on the
steeper south side of the ditch (Figure 3.19-C). The
profile suggests this may have been the case. The
gleyed sediments in the lowest portion of the ditch
(zone 14) suggest that this portion of the ditch was
periodically inundated. The formation of an O/A
horizon on the northern slope of the ditch floor suggest
that this portion of the ditch was open long enough to
accumulate humic materials and/or to allow pedogenesis
to begin. While no buried O/A horizon was identified
on the south slope of the ditch, the thin zone dark
sediment (zone 15) that lines the slope may be some
remnant of an early collapse of the upper ditch edge.
The embankment would likely have begun to
deteriorate soon after maintenance ceased. The net
effect of this deterioration would have been the
transport of sediment from the higher elevations of the
embankment to the lower elevations (Figure 3.19-D).
This transport could have been effected by water
erosion (i.e. surface wash) and/or mass movement
processes such as creep. Soil creep results “from the
expansion and contraction processes . . . with the
gravity force ensuring that the dominant movement is
SCRANAGE ENCLOSURE
down-slope” (Small and Clark 1982:40). No fluvial
bands, lag gravels, or other indicators of surface
washing were noted in the embankment fill profile.
Such features may have been difficult to observe in the
sandy, gravelly matrix of the embankment, however,
and the profiles were not examined with these specific
features in mind. Transport began while the ditch was
still open, as the embankment fill overlies the northern
slope of the ditch.
Finally, the majority of the ditch was filled in by a
dark, loose, sandy loam (Figure 3.19-E). This sediment
contains historic artifacts, and thus presumably dates to
the historic period. This last stage in the sedimentation
of the ditch was probably relatively rapid, as the fill
73
appears to be homogeneous and shows no evidence of
discrete episodes of filling. Development of the modern
O/A horizon on the embankment was presumably
ongoing even as the embankment deteriorated.
Pedogenesis may have been interrupted or hampered by
erosion and/or sediment creep.
In terms of construction, the enclosure differs in
several respects from those documented at sites such as
Clampitt (Redmond 1994), Cox’s Woods (Redmond
and McCullough 1993; 1996), and Strawtown
enclosure (Chapter 4 of this report). Some of these
differences may be attributable to differences in
preservation, while others clearly are not. Comparisons
will be discussed in Chapter 6.
CHAPTER 4
Excavations at the Strawtown Enclosure (12 H 883)
The Strawtown enclosure (12 H 883) is a circular,
earthen embankment and ditch construction in
Hamilton County, Indiana (Figure 4.1). The enclosure
is situated on an upland prominence (about 30 feet
above high water) across the White River from the
Taylor Village (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 on the opposite side of the river. Site number 12
H 883 was assigned to the enclosure and immediately
adjacent areas on the upland. Site number 12 H 3 was
assigned to cultural materials and sites on the
floodplain immediately to the north of the enclosure.
Excavations by IPFW-AS were conducted in June
and July of 2001 under DHPA permit number 200136.
Removal of fragmentary human remains encountered
during excavations was conducted under DHPA
accidental discovery number AD200148. Dr. Robert G.
McCullough served as Principal Investigator.
Participants during excavation included personnel
from IPFW-AS, Ball State University, the U.S. Forest
Service, the Indiana Department of Natural Resources,
Division of Reclamation, the Glenn A. Black
Laboratory of Archaeology, and the Department of
Anthropology, Indiana University. Volunteers played
an important role during the excavation. Participants
during excavations included Anthony Adderley, Lesli
Bair, Ben Beeghly, Valley Blevens, Dave Boggs,
Brandon Bradshaw, Albert Brine, Aaron Bubb, Karstin
Carmany, Tom Ciscowski, Blake Cochran, Donald
Cochran, Cameron Cox, Kim Crawford, Bill Dielkes,
Devin Fishel, John Fishel, Chris Glidden, Candy
Hrpcha, Angie Krieger, David Latka, Laura LeFever,
Andy Martin, Sharon Martin, Pat McClary, Beth
McCord, Steve Moore, Jan Northam, Staffan Petersen,
Teresa Putty, Tammy Reece, Joel Ruprecht, Linda
Shields, Kristalle Wadsworth, Nikki Waters, Bill
Wepler, Angela Wheeler, Randall Woolridge, and
Timothy Wright. Grant monies for field supplies,
radiocarbon dates, analyses, and other expenses were
provided by the Historic Preservation Fund (Grant #1801-16414-15) administered by the Indiana Department
of Natural Resources, Division of Historic Preservation
and Archaeology.
Work at the Strawtown enclosure was focused on
two main goals: 1) investigating the sequence,
methods, and chronology of construction of the
enclosure; and 2) determining the sequence and
dynamics of Late Prehistoric occupations of the
enclosure.
Investigations were conducted in
accordance with the Secretary of The Interior’s
Standards and Guidelines for Identification, Evaluation,
and Archaeological Documentation, Guidebook for
Indiana Historic Sites and Structures Inventory–
Archaeological Sites, and the Grants Manual of the
Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology.
SITE HISTORY
The Strawtown enclosure has been recognized as a
significant prehistoric earthwork since the late
nineteenth century. The site was first recorded by
Government Land Office surveyors as Indian
“mounds” in Section 3 of T19N, R5E, “adjacent to a
large prairie” (Hixon 1988:17), 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 county [sic] 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 “MoundBuilders” 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, Rage 5 east, near the center of the section
(Helm 1880:28).
He furnished a more complete account of Cox’s visit “in
the fall of 1875,” quoting from Cox:
I was taken by Gen. Moss and Mr. Locke to Strawtown,
seven miles from Noblesville, to see some prehistoric
earthworks. They are now in a cultivated field owned by J. R.
Parker. The corn and weeds were so thick it was impossible
74
STRAWTOWN ENCLOSURE
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 arrowheads, 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
76
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 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, town 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
STRAWTOWN ENCLOSURE
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 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
77
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. . . . T h e
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.
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
STRAWTOWN ENCLOSURE
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).
Eggan’s map, amending Helm’s, is shown as Figure
4.2. In an undated and unsigned “Review of the
Hamilton County 1930 Survey” (GBL 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 (see Figure
4.3) 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.
78
By midcentury, 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 1968 a 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 a trench were noted in the bottom land or
flood plane a short distance north of the high terrace where
the large circle is located in barn yard.
12Hv 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 grit-tempered pottery
sherd 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.
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
management surveys (Beard 1983; Brinker 1984;
Burkett 1987; Cree 1991; Stephenson 1984) of the
upper West Fork of the White River in Hamilton
County and upriver and an overview by Hixon (1988) of
the Strawtown vicinity were conducted. 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,
STRAWTOWN ENCLOSURE
Figure 4.2. Eggan’s 1930 map of Strawtown (from Hixon 1988).
79
STRAWTOWN ENCLOSURE
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 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 is present in the
collection available for study (Griffin 1943:clvii,
figures 1-8; Lilly 1937:106). Prior to the current
investigation, no diagnostic artifacts were documented
in contextual deposits at Strawtown.
The outline of the main enclosure is clearly visible
in an aerial photograph taken in the 1930s (Figure 4.3).
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
increasingly dense vegetation (Figure 4.4). The
smaller circle that was barely visible in 1875 was
estimated to be 15m in diameter and approximately 50
m yards south of the larger Strawtown earthwork. 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 (see Figure 4.3). The possible
outlines of the smaller enclosure shown in Figure 4.3 do
not match the 1880s and 1930 accounts in terms of the
size and relative location of the smaller enclosure,
however.
The Taylor property was purchased by the
Hamilton County Parks and Recreation Department
from the Dan Taylor estate in 2000. A survey was
recently conducted in a portion of the valley
immediately north of the Strawtown enclosure (James
Mohow, personal communication 2001), but a
systematic inventory and evaluation of the archaeological
resources contained within the whole of the Taylor
property has not been completed. Much of the historic
debris deposited while Dan Taylor owned the land has
now been removed, and removal of the remaining
debris is ongoing. Presently, the area within and
immediately adjacent to the enclosure is vegetated with
tall grass, weeds, and scrubby trees. The portion of the
site to the west of the enclosure is in mowed grass. A
80
wooded spur extends west from the open area to the
west of the enclosure.
EXCAVATION METHODS AND UNITS
Work at the Strawtown Enclosure during the 2001 field
season included hand excavation of 50cm x 50cm
standard volumetric sample (SVS) units (n=26), hand
excavation of a trench crossing the ditch and
embankment, and opening of 2m x 2m units on the
interior side of the embankment (n=3). A total of
26.5m2 was opened during the 2001 field season.
Artifacts were also collected opportunistically from the
exposed sediments associated with several extant
groundhog holes within the enclosure.
Provenience Control and Mapping
Horizontal and vertical control during mapping and
excavation efforts was maintained using an electronic
total station and data collector/computer operated by
personnel from the Archaeological Resources
Management Services, Ball State University. A
temporary datum (200N / 200E, elevation = 100.00m)
was placed in the central portion of the enclosure, and
baselines extending from this datum were established
using the total station (Figure 4.5). A north-south
baseline was established along the 200E line, and an
east-west baseline was established along the 200N line.
Wooden stakes were placed as practical along these
lines. Stakes were also placed along some portions of
the 220N, 240N, and 165E lines. Grid north was
slightly offset from magnetic north. UTM coordinates
at 200N / 200E were determined to be N 4442109.045m
/ E 589318.900m by Angie Krieger of the U.S. Forest
Service using a handheld GPS unit (Trimble
GeoExplorer 3).
Temporary elevation datums were established for
unit excavations. These datums were given alphabetic
designations (A through F). Elevations of these datums
were determined using the total station.
Three permanent datums (rebar in concrete) were
set, one to the north of the enclosure (268.018N /
156.631E, elevation=98.844m), one to the west of the
enclosure (221.407N / 123.08E, elevation=99.596m),
and one within the enclosure (204.706N / 170.202E,
elevation 99.831m).
Topographic maps of the enclosure were generated
from the data collected by Ball State personnel.
Standard Volumetric Sample (SVS) Units
Relative and absolute surface/near-surface artifact
densities within and around the enclosure were
STRAWTOWN ENCLOSURE
investigated using 50cm x 50cm SVS units. SVS unit
excavation entailed the removal and screening (¼”
mesh) of approximately 0.06-0.10m3 of sediment.
Sediments were excavated in natural levels when
possible. One wall of each unit was profiled, and
observations were made on sediment color, texture,
compactness, and the densities of natural and cultural
inclusions. These units were generally excavated to no
more than 40cm below surface. Some units were
excavated slightly deeper.
SVS units were aligned in north-south and eastwest transects along the staked grid lines. A total of 26
SVS units was excavated.
Individual units are
identified by the coordinates of the southwest corner.
Units were generally spaced at a 20m interval and were
often offset slightly from the staked grid lines in order
to avoid trees and concentrations of historic debris.
Additional units were excavated as conditions
warranted and time allowed. The locations of the SVS
units are shown in Figure 4.6.
Excavation Units
Placement of excavation units was guided both by
primary research objectives and by the results of the
SVS excavations. The locations of excavation units are
shown in Figure 4.7. Units A, N, and O were placed to
investigate areas on the interior of the embankment that
produced relatively high densities of cultural debris
during the excavation of the SVS units. Units B, C, D,
E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, and M were placed to expose a
cross-section of the embankment and ditch structures.
Units E, J, K, and L were not excavated.
Hand units were generally aligned with grid north
and excavated in arbitrary 10cm levels using trowels
and shovels. Levels were segregated by sediment zones
that were visible in plan view as excavations progressed
and/or 1m x 1m quadrants (in the case of 2m x 2m
units). Most sediment was passed through ¼” mesh in
the field. Sediment that was not passed through ¼”
mesh was saved for flotation. Diagnostic or otherwise
noteworthy artifacts were piece-plotted (when possible)
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.
Treatment of subsoil anomalies (features and
potential features) varied depending on the size and
characteristics of the anomaly. Standard feature
excavation procedures (cross-sectioning, profiling, and
collection of sediment samples for flotation) were
employed to investigate anomalies that seemed likely to
83
be of cultural origin. Potential postholes were crosssectioned.
Unit A
Unit A was a 2m x 2m unit placed over SVS 220N /
210E in the eastern portion of the enclosure. Subplowzone sediments in this SVS unit were dark and
rich in cultural materials (debitage, ceramics, burnt
clay, fire-cracked rock, bone, and shell) to a depth of
46+cm below surface. Vertical control was maintained
using Datum A (100.149m).
The first four levels in Unit A were excavated in
quadrants. Excavations in the southern half were
halted within level 5, as a concentration of bone was
encountered and a dark stain became apparent in the
floor of the unit. This stain was designated Feature 1.
Excavations continued in the northern half of the unit
in an effort to cross-section Feature 1. At the base of
level 7 (78cmbd), a concentration of rock in the
southwestern portion of the northwestern quadrant of
Unit A was recognized. This concentration was later
designated Feature 2. Excavations continued to
110cmbd (approximately 95cm below surface) but
failed to reach the base of the feature prior to the end of
the fieldwork.
Exposed portions of the bone
concentration were removed from the southern half of
the feature, but no further excavations were
undertaken.
Unit N
Unit N was a 2m x 2m unit placed over SVS 241N /
165E in the northwestern portion of the enclosure. The
sides of the unit were aligned with grid north. Vertical
control was maintained using Datum D (99.764m).
Four levels were excavated by quadrant in Unit N.
Excavations were halted within level 4, as a dark stain
became apparent in the subsoil. This stain was
designated Feature 4. No further excavations were
undertaken in Unit N.
Unit O
Unit O was a 2m x 2m unit placed over SVS 199.5N /
136E. The sides of the unit were aligned with grid
north. Vertical control was maintained using Datum E
(100.363m).
Five levels were excavated by quadrant in Unit O.
Excavations were halted at 80cmbd (approximately
50cm below surface), at the base of level 5. A dark stain
in the southeastern corner of Unit O was designated
Feature 3. No further excavations were undertaken.
STRAWTOWN ENCLOSURE
84
Figure 4.5. Horizontal grid and coordinate system used at Strawtown enclosure during the 2001 field season;
locations and coordinates of permanent datums.
STRAWTOWN ENCLOSURE
Figure 4.6. Locations of SVS units excavated at Strawtown enclosure.
85
STRAWTOWN ENCLOSURE
Figure 4.7. Locations of excavation units at Strawtown enclosure.
86
STRAWTOWN ENCLOSURE
Trench 1
A total of eight 1m x 1m units (Units B, C, D, F, G, H,
I, and M) were excavated in Trench 1, approximately
perpendicular to the embankment and ditch in the
western portion of the enclosure. Options for placing a
trench of this size were limited somewhat by the trees
and historic debris in, around, and on the enclosure.
The short axis of this trench was aligned with grid
north (i.e. the long axis of the trench was aligned along
grid east-west, using the points staked along the 220N
line).
In general, the units in Trench 1 were excavated in
arbitrary 10cm levels using trowels and shovels. These
levels were segregated by sediment zones that were
visible in plan view as excavations progressed. Depths
were taken using strings and line levels attached to the
temporary elevation datums (Datums B, C, and F).
Strata and deposits along one wall of Trench 1
were profiled using standard techniques and
descriptive terminology. Flotation samples were
collected within the stratigraphic zones defined during
profiling.
CULTURAL DEPOSITS AT STRAWTOWN
ENCLOSURE
Fieldwork conducted during the 2001 field season was
focused on collecting basic information about the kinds
and cultural affiliations of deposits present at the
Strawtown Enclosure. Excavations resulted in the
collection of several different kinds of information.
SVS units were used to investigate the distribution of
artifacts in and around the enclosure. Hand excavated
units in Trench 1 were used to obtain information about
the form, construction, and degree of preservation of
the ditch and embankment. One posthole (Posthole H1) was encountered during excavations in Trench 1.
Near-surface “midden” deposits were identified during
excavations in Units A, N, and O. Excavations in Unit
A resulted in the identification of two pit features
(Features 1 and 2) extending below the midden. Submidden features were also identified in Unit N (Feature
4) and Unit O (Feature 3). Only a portion of one of these
features (Feature 1) was excavated during the 2001
field season because of time constraints.
Diagnostic artifacts recovered during excavations
indicate that the dominant occupation of the enclosure
took place during the Late Prehistoric period. Based
simply on the abundance of ceramic debris, the
dominant Late Prehistoric occupation appears to be a
Fort Ancient-related portion of the Oliver phase. At
least three Late Prehistoric ceramic traditions (Western
Basin Tradition, Anderson phase Fort Ancient, and
87
Huber-Fisher) are represented among the materials
collected thus far, however. Several radiocarbon dates
were obtained from stylistically distinct artifacts found
within contextual deposits. This section focuses on
describing the physical properties of the deposits and
artifacts encountered during the 2001 field season.
Topography and Physical Form of the Enclosure
The Strawtown enclosure is roughly circular,
measuring approximately 85-90m in diameter (top of
embankment to top of embankment). The majority of
the arc of the enclosure is visible in aerial photographs
taken during the 1930s and 1940s (see Figures 4.3 and
4.4). The northern arc of the enclosure appears as a
double ring in the 1930s aerial photograph shown by
Lilly (1937). The outer ring is darker and presumably
marks the lowest portion of the ditch. This dark, outer
ring is present on the 1941 photograph (Figure 4.4). A
southern segment of the arc is not visible in either of
these photographs, however. The enclosure becomes
increasingly difficult to see in later photographs , as the
surface of the site is obscured by vegetation and historic
debris.
The early accounts were accurate with regard to the
overall size of the enclosure, which measures
approximately 95m across. It encloses approximately
7,100m2. The 1880 (Helm 1880) and 1884 (Brown
1884) suggest that the ditch was 1.8-3m deep and the
embankment approximately 1m high in the 1880s.
Brown (1884:29) noted that cultivation had reduced the
height of the embankment and the depth of the ditch
substantially. Nearly 50 years later, Eggan (1930)
described the enclosure as “almost leveled, due to
cultivation.”
Presently, the outlines of the enclosure and ditch
are discernible on the ground in the majority of the site.
The slope from the top of the embankment to the ditch
is easiest to discern in the northern side of the
enclosure. Natural slopes and prominences may have
been incorporated into the construction on that side of
the enclosure. The embankment and ditch structures
are presently most difficult to see in the southwestern
portion of enclosure.
Total relief from the highest parts of the
embankment to the lowest portions of the ditch (on the
surface) is approximately 1.1m (see Figure 4.5). The
apex of the embankment appears as a discontinuous,
circular ridge. Similarly, the ditch appears as a
discontinuous, circular depression.
These
discontinuities may be related to the natural slope of the
land, interpolations of the software used to process the
survey data, the actual form of the ditch and
embankment, or some combination of these factors.
STRAWTOWN ENCLOSURE
Figures 4.8 through 4.10 show three-dimensional
views of the enclosure from the southwest, northwest,
and northeast. The vertical scale in these drawings is
exaggerated in order to show the ditch and
embankment structures more clearly.
Distribution of Artifacts and Deposits
The distribution of artifacts and cultural deposits in and
immediately adjacent to the enclosure was investigated
using SVS units. The locations, volumes, and artifact
densities of individual units are listed in Table 4.1.
Mean artifact densities by location (exterior to
enclosure, ditch, embankment, and interior of
enclosure) are shown in Table 4.2. While distinct
plowzone and sub-plowzone strata were discerned in
most of the SVS units, and most of the units were
excavated in levels, subtle changes in sediment color
and texture were difficult to recognize during
excavation. Comparison of the excavated level depths
with profile drawings suggests that most excavated
levels contained sediments from multiple strata. For
this reason, and because most units were terminated
prior to excavating deeply into the B horizon, all
artifacts and all sediment excavated from each SVS
88
unit were used to calculate the density figures shown in
Tables 4.1 and 4.2 and Figure 4.11.
Cultural deposits of varying depth, form, and
artifact density were identified in the SVS units. Both
discrete and nondiscrete cultural deposits appeared to
be present. Given the small size of these units,
however, confident determination of the size and
character of deposits exposed within these units was
difficult. Deposits exposed in the SVS units do suggest
that the distributions of artifact densities and deposits
in and around the enclosure are not uniform.
Exterior Units
Dense cultural deposits were not present in the five SVS
units excavated exterior to the ditch. Plowzone in the
exterior units was typically 20-30cm in thickness. The
distinctness of the plowzone varied, as did the boundary
between plowzone and sub-plowzone sediments. This
boundary tended to be more diffuse in units with deeper
A horizons, suggesting that the base of the A horizon in
such units may not have been plowed. Diffuse, intact
cultural deposits may be present in the lower, unplowed
portion of the A horizon even where more easily
identifiable discrete and/or nondiscrete cultural
Figure 4.8. Three-dimensional view of Strawtown enclosure from the southwest.
STRAWTOWN ENCLOSURE
Figure 4.9. Three-dimensional view of Strawtown enclosure from the northeast.
Figure 4.10. Three-dimensional view of Strawtown enclosure from the northwest.
89
STRAWTOWN ENCLOSURE
90
Table 4.1. SVS Units Excavated at Strawtown Enclosure (densities of chipped stone, FCR, and ceramics are
number/cubic meter; density of fauna is grams/cubic meter).
Volume
(m3)
N or t hing
Ea s t ing
Loca t ion
141.0
145.5
160.0
161.0
178.5
181.0
199.5
199.5
199.5
199.5
199.5
199.5
200.0
201.0
211.0
219.5
220.0
220.0
220.0
220.0
220.5
221.0
231.0
241.0
253.5
259.0
16 4 . 5
19 9 . 5
19 9 . 5
164.5
199.5
164.5
125.5
136.0
146.0
181.0
201.0
221.0
234.0
164.5
200.0
228.0
116.0
178.5
199.0
210.0
141.0
164.5
200.0
164.5
200.0
164.5
Exterior to ditch
Exterior to ditch
In ditch
O n embankment
Interior side of embankment
Interior of enclosure
Ditch/exterior slope of ditch
Interior side of embankment
Interior of enclosure
Interior of enclosure
Interior of enclosure
Exterior side of embankment
Exterior to ditch
Interior of enclosure
Interior of enclosure
Exterior to ditch
Exterior to ditch
Interior of enclosure
Interior of enclosure
Interior side of embankment
Interior side of embankment
Interior of enclosure
Interior side of embankment
Interior side of embankment
Ditch/exterior slope of ditch (?)
Ditch/exterior slope of ditch (?)
deposits (i.e. features and midden) are absent.
Mean densities of chipped stone, fire-cracked,
faunal materials, and ceramics were relatively low
(Table 4.2). Ceramic and faunal materials were absent
from several of the units.
Ditch Units
Four SVS units were located near or within the ditch.
0.056
0.075
0 . 10 8
0.0 61
0.098
0.075
0.095
0.058
0.090
0.080
0.088
0 . 10 0
0.088
0.063
0.080
0.100
0.093
0 . 10 3
0.063
0.090
0 . 10 5
0.075
0 . 10 0
0.063
0.085
0.063
Chippe d
S t o ne
D e ns it y
17.8
26.7
65.1
1371.4
625.6
626.7
94.7
434.8
977.8
287.5
800.0
420.0
19 4 . 3
256.0
400.0
30.0
3 13 . 5
341.5
13 2 8 . 0
2500.0
533.3
746.7
1560.0
2656.0
94.1
112.0
FC R
D e ns it y
Ce r a mic
D e ns it y
Fa una l
D e ns it y
160.0
0.0
9.3
32.7
30.8
40.0
0.0
34.8
22.2
50.0
0.0
0.0
22.9
64.0
50.0
30.0
627.0
175.6
336.0
444.4
66.7
14 6 . 7
90.0
16 0 . 0
94.1
64.0
17 . 8
0.0
0.0
1208.2
4 10 . 3
26.7
0.0
469.6
355.6
12.5
19 4 . 3
10.0
0.0
0.0
16 2 . 5
10.0
10.8
39.0
48.0
1944.4
400.0
200.0
1550.0
1424.0
0.0
96.0
26.7
10 . 7
0.0
834.3
270.8
17 . 3
3.2
650.4
101.1
0.0
148.6
170.0
0.0
0.0
6.3
0.0
5.4
0.0
46.4
2112.2
135.2
0.0
1084.0
222.4
0.0
0.0
No plowzone was recognized in the unit placed in the
central portion of the ditch (160.0N / 199.5E).
Sediments in this unit were described as a very dark
grey (10YR 3/1) silt loam with a high density of gravel
and cobbles.
Historic materials were present
throughout the unit, which was excavated to 40cm
below surface. The sediments exposed in this unit are
consistent with those exposed in the 1m x 1m units
excavated within the ditch in Trench 1 (see below).
Table 4.2. Mean Artifact Densities in Strawtown Enclosure SVS Units by Location (densities of chipped stone,
FCR, and ceramics are number/cubic meter; density of fauna is grams/cubic meter; total artifact density includes
chipped stone, ceramics, and FCR).
Loca t ion
n
Exterior to enclosure
Ditch
Embankment
Interior of enclosure
5
4
8
9
Chippe d St one
D e ns it y
116.4
91.5
12 6 2 . 6
640.5
FC R
D e ns it y
16 8 . 0
4 1. 9
107.4
98.3
Ce r a mic
D e ns it y
7.7
24.0
927.1
115.4
Fa una l
D e ns it y
8.5
0.8
684.9
35.5
Tot a l Ar t ifa ct
D e ns it y
292.1
15 7 . 3
2297.1
854.1
STRAWTOWN ENCLOSURE
91
Figure 4.11. Mean volumetric densities of chipped stone, FCR, ceramics, and faunal materials in exterior, ditch,
embankment, and interior SVS units. Chipped stone, FCR, and ceramic densities are number/cubic meter.
Faunal density is grams/cubic meter.
Unit 199.5N / 125.5E was placed on the exterior
slope of the ditch. The thickness of the A horizon in
this unit (approximately 33cm) was consistent with the
presence of an accumulating A horizon, as was seen in
the units placed on the ditch slope in Trench 1 (see
below).
Mean densities of chipped stone, fire-cracked,
and faunal materials were lowest in the four ditch units
(Table 4.2). Only one unit contained ceramics.
Embankment Units
Eight SVS units were located on the top or slopes of the
embankment. Most of these units were located on the
interior slope of the embankment. When recognizable,
plowzone in these units ranged in depth from 8cm to
approximately 30cm. A distinct plowzone was not
identified in several of the units. The units with the
shallowest plowzones appeared to be located near the
apex of the embankment.
In general, near-surface deposits in these units
were composed of dark, compact sediments that were
rich in cultural materials (ceramics, chipped stone,
bone, etc.) as well as natural gravels. The density of
chipped stone in these units was approximately ten
times greater than in units on the exterior of the
enclosure and approximately twice that of units on the
interior of the enclosure. Ceramic and faunal densities
in the embankment units were roughly 80-120 times
greater than those of the units outside the enclosure and
approximately 8-20 times greater than those units on
the interior of the enclosure. Combined artifact
densities were quite high, ranging up to approximately
4900 artifacts/m3 (not including faunal remains) in unit
220N / 210E.
Interior Units
The remaining nine SVS units were located interior to
the embankment. Plowzone in these units was typically
20-25cm. The distinctness of the plowzone varied, as
did the boundary between plowzone and sub-plowzone
sediments. This boundary tended to be more diffuse in
units with deeper A horizons, suggesting that the base
STRAWTOWN ENCLOSURE
of the A horizon in such units may not have been
plowed. Diffuse, intact cultural deposits may be present
in the lower, unplowed portion of the A horizon even
where more easily identifiable discrete and/or
nondiscrete cultural deposits (i.e. features and midden)
are absent.
Dark areas identified as possible features or lenses
of midden were discerned in the bases of several of the
interior SVS units (units 199.5N / 181.0E and 220.0N
and 199.0E). These units were not opened further, and
the apparent anomalies were not assigned feature
numbers or further investigated during the current
season.
Generally, mean densities of chipped stone, firecracked, faunal materials, and ceramics were less than
half those encountered in the embankment units (Table
4.2). Densities of fire-cracked rock were similar to
those encountered in the embankment units, while the
densities of ceramic and faunal materials were much
lower.
Taken together, the SVS unit data suggest that the areas
of highest artifact density are associated with the
embankment and the interior of the enclosure. Artifact
densities in SVS units associated with the embankment
are much higher than those encountered elsewhere.
Typically, these high artifact density areas are
associated with the presence of a dark, compact deposit
of sediment that contains a high density of natural
gravels. SVS units associated with the embankment
produced relatively high densities of ceramic, faunal,
and chipped stone debris. Figure 4.12 depicts the
general pattern of artifact densities in and around the
enclosure suggested by the SVS units.
There is substantial variation in artifact densities
within the interior and embankment units, however,
suggesting that deposits/artifacts are not uniformly
distributed in these portions of the enclosure. Such
variation may be caused by a variety of depositional and
post-depositional processes and is not unexpected.
Data collected during the 2001 field season are not of
sufficient quantity to investigate the possible sources of
this variation, however.
Cultural and Architectural Features
The enclosure at Strawtown is comprised of circular
earthen embankment and ditch structures.
These
structures are the only architectural features that are
discernible on the surface. Excavations in Trench 1
exposed a discontinuous profile of the deposits in these
structures extending from the approximate apex of the
embankment to the approximate center of the ditch.
Excavations in Units A, N, and O exposed deposits
92
apparently related to the embankment as well as
apparently discrete cultural features extending into
subsoil. None of these features could be completely
excavated.
Trench Profile
The stratigraphy exposed in the south wall of Trench 1
is shown in Figure 4.13. In profile, the embankment
fill (zones 2 and 2A) is visible as a compact, gravelly
deposit of silty/sandy loam varying in color from dark
yellowish brown to very dark grayish brown. The
sediments in Unit B and the eastern portion of Unit C
(zone 2) were notably darker and contained more gravel
than those in Unit D and the western portion of Unit C
(zone 2A). This fill contained ceramics, chipped stone,
cracked rock, and other prehistoric cultural material.
The deposit is approximately 30cm thick at its thickest
point (in Unit B) and nearly “pinches out” in Unit F.
This zone was extensively disturbed by rodent burrows
in Units C and D. The intermixture of sediment colors
and textures in this zone, as well as the variability in
gravel content, are consistent with construction of the
embankment using sediments derived from the original
A, B, and C horizons. It was not possible to discern the
presence of individual “loads” or deposits of sediment
within the embankment fill.
A buried O/Ah horizon (zones 3 and 3A) is
discernable beneath the embankment fill in the eastern
portion of the trench (Units B, C, D, and F). This zone
is approximately 20cm thick and is composed of a
brown to dark grayish brown silt loam which is
relatively free of gravel. This zone has been extensively
disturbed in Units C and D (especially in zone 3B).
Much of this disturbance is attributable to rodent
burrowing. Some of the disturbance may have taken
place during prehistoric use of the site and/or
construction of the enclosure. The buried O/A is fairly
level beneath the central portion of the embankment.
Identification of zone 3 as a buried O/A horizon is
supported by a perceived concentration of prehistoric
artifacts near the top of the zone, as well as by the dearth
of gravel in zones 3 and 4 and the increase in clay
content with depth through zones 3 and 4. A thin
deposit of charcoal- and ash-rich sediment was present
at the interface of the embankment fill and the buried O/
A in Units C and D (zone 12 on the profile). Assuming
the identification of zones 3 and 3A as a buried O/A
horizon is correct, this charcoal/ash deposit was likely
present on the original surface of the ground when the
enclosure was built. Several charcoal samples were
collected from this deposit, but were not assayed.
The buried O/A horizon terminates in the central
portion of the Unit F profile. The buried O/A is
STRAWTOWN ENCLOSURE
93
Figure 4.12. Surface/near-surface densities of cultural material in and around Strawtown enclosure as suggested
by SVS units.
STRAWTOWN ENCLOSURE
Figure 4.13. Profile of Trench 1, Strawtown enclosure.
94
STRAWTOWN ENCLOSURE
underlain by a clayey B horizon (zone 4). Sediments in
this zone were described as silt loam/loam and had a
higher clay content than those in the buried O/A.
Gravel was relatively uncommon in this zone. The
boundary between the buried O/A and the B horizons
was wavy and diffuse, as would be expected in a natural
soil sequence.
The C horizon (zone 11) is composed of a dark
yellowish brown, gravelly, clay loam (the glacial till
that is the parent material of the upper sediments). This
zone was encountered in the lowest excavated portions
of Unit D and the lower portions of Units H and I.
On the surface, the ditch around this portion of the
enclosure is visible as a slightly depressed area. When
cut in profile, the central portion of the ditch extended
to approximately 110cm below surface and contained
several discrete/semi-discrete zones of dark gray to very
dark grayish brown fill (zones 2, 7, 8, 8A, 9, and 10).
The size and quantity of the gravel in these zones was
variable. Of particular note is the darkness of zone 8A.
This dark zone extended across the west wall of Unit I
and became more diffuse on the upward sloping
boundary between zones 8 and 7. The darkness of this
zone, its location at the base of a dipping stratum, and
its position between two distinct zones suggests it may
be a buried O/A horizon (i.e. a surface that was stable
for long enough to allow pedogenesis to begin). This
zone also forms a boundary between the grayish
sediments above and the reddish sediments below.
Figure 4.14. Posthole H-1, Strawtown enclosure.
95
A piece of untouched charcoal (FS 393) from the
base of the ditch fill in Level 13 of Unit I returned a
radiocarbon date (Beta-158416) of 880+/-40 BP
(calibrated 2 sigma range of AD 1050-1100 and AD
1140-1270). Ceramics from the lower levels of Unit I
represent the Middle Fort Ancient variant of the Oliver
phase.
A single posthole was identified in Unit H (Figure
4.14). Posthole H-1 was defined at approximately
66cm below Datum C (approximately 40cm below the
modern ground surface). In plan view, this posthole
was a roughly square-shaped ring of charcoal flecks
measuring approximately 11-12cm across.
The
sediment in the center of the ring was slightly darker
than the surrounding matrix (the B horizon). In profile,
the posthole had straight to steeply sloping sides and a
gently rounded bottom. A charcoal sample (FS 308)
was collected from the posthole but has not been
processed.
The modern O/Ap horizon is approximately 1225cm thick and is composed of a very dark grayish
brown sandy loam.
Flotation samples taken from the south wall of the
trench units are illustrative of differences in the
amounts of natural gravel in the principal strata
exposed in the profile (Table 4.3). Natural rock
densities are relatively light in the buried O/A and B
strata (zones 3, 4, and 5), ranging from14-92 kg/m3,
with a mean of approximately 37 kg/m3. Rock density
STRAWTOWN ENCLOSURE
is lightest in the B horizon samples. By contrast,
samples from zone 2 (the embankment fill) contain
approximately 230 kg/m3 of rock. The density of rock
in the zone 2A sample is much less. Densities of rock
in the ditch fill zones are relatively high, ranging from
164-943 kg/m3.
A partial human mandible was recovered from
Unit B at 65cm below datum. A premolar was
recovered from Unit I at 100-110cm below datum.
These remains are described in Appendix I.
Unit A
Excavations in Unit A revealed what appear to be
discrete cultural features extending into subsoil from
the base of a compact, gravel-filled “midden” zone.
The “midden” zone in Unit A was composed of
approximately 40cm of very dark grayish brown (10YR
3/2), compact, gravelly, silt loam (Figure 4.15). This
zone contained high densities of ceramic, chipped
stone, and faunal materials. The amount of natural
rock in this zone is striking. Given the location of Unit
A (on top of the embankment), the “midden” zone in
the upper portions of Unit A is almost certainly the
remains of the embankment fill. The color, texture,
compactness, artifact content, and natural gravel
content of this zone is consistent with that seen in the
Trench 1 profile (zone 2).
One piece of a small, fragmentary Taylor Village
vessel recovered from level 5 of Unit A (near the base of
the “midden” zone) returned a radiocarbon date of
690+/-50 BP (Beta-164512, calibrated 2 sigma range of
96
AD 1260-1400).
A deposit of bone measuring approximately 120cm
(southwest-northeast) by 60cm (southeast-northwest)
was encountered at approximately 54cm below datum,
and the floor of the entire unit was leveled off, mapped,
and photographed at this depth (Figure 4.16). This
bone deposit appeared to be located at the interface of
the “midden” zone and the sub-“midden” sediments.
The southeastern quadrant was left at 54cmbd, while
the remaining three quadrants were excavated to the
base of level 5 (58cmbd). At this depth, two distinct
sediment zones were visible in plan view. Sediments in
the northern part of the unit were composed of a
mottled, silty clay loam that varied in color from very
dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) to dark yellowish
brown (10YR 4/6), while sediments in the southern
portion of the unit were a very dark grey (10YR 3/1),
gravelly, silty clay loam. The dark stain visible at the
base of level 5 in Unit A was designated Feature 1.
The remainder of the excavations in Unit A
focused on cross-sectioning this feature. Excavations
in the north half of Unit A continued in an effort to
expose the feature in profile. At the base of level 7
(78cmbd), a concentration of rock in the southwestern
portion of the northwestern quadrant of Unit A was
recognized. This concentration was later designated
Feature 2. Large Fort Ancient-style vessel fragments
were encountered within the fill of Feature 1 between
approximately 80cm and 109cm below datum (see
Figure G.1). A large vessel fragment encountered in
the fill was radiocarbon dated to 770+/-40 BP (Beta158417) (see below). The plan view of Features 1 and 2
Table 4.3. Rock Content of Stratigraphic Flotation Samples in Trench 1, Strawtown Enclosure (stratigraphic
zones correspond to those shown in Figure 4.13).
F
St r a t .
Zone
1
FS
FS
N o.
464
Sa mple
Vol. (lit e r s )
9
D
B
F
B
F
D
D
B
F
F
I
I
I
I
2A
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
7
8A
9
10
478
474
465
476
466
475
473
477
467
468
472
470
469
471
7.5
10.5
8.5
7.5
7
4.5
7.5
7
8
7.5
9
9
10
9.5
Unit
>1" (g)
1" -1/4" (g)
422
331
61
107
Tot a l k g of
R ock /cubic me t e r
102
34
893
594
230
65
13
83
23
53
70
295
1126
2211
5731
118
991
994
277
360
26
3
31
49
77
681
1632
2 9 10
1808
28
18 4
158
75
45
5
0
17
9
9
170
17 8
920
1
61
347
202
111
78
23
19
37
34
34
326
300
1859
1422
32
230
229
92
78
15
14
15
18
25
164
360
790
943
1/4" -1/8" (g) <1/8" (g)
STRAWTOWN ENCLOSURE
97
Figure 4.15. View of natural rock-filled “midden” zone in Unit A, Strawtown enclosure (facing east).
Figure 4.16. View of Unit A at 54cmbd, Strawtown enclosure (facing east). Deposit of bone is visible to the
north of the root.
STRAWTOWN ENCLOSURE
at 88cmbd is shown in Figure 4.17. Excavations
continued to 110cmbd (approximately 95cm below
surface) but failed to reach the base of the feature prior
to the end of the fieldwork. The east wall profile of Unit
A at the cessation of excavations is shown in Figure
4.18.
The natural sediment zones beneath the
embankment fill suggest that a buried O/Ah horizon
may also be present in this portion of the site (as in
Trench 1). The natural sediment immediately beneath
the embankment fill in Unit A was described as a
mottled, silty clay loam that varied in color from very
dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) to dark yellowish
brown (10YR 4/6). This grayish/brown zone was
approximately 12-20cm in thickness, and followed the
contour of the base of the embankment fill. The natural
sediment beneath this zone was described as dark
yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) clay loam. The boundary
between these two zones was diffuse/gradual. These
color, texture, and boundary relationships are
consistent with a natural A/B sequence. The thinness
of the apparent buried O/Ah seems suspect, however.
Given the size of Feature 1 (it extended into both the
profiled walls of the unit), it is possible that the
appearance of the profiled portions of this zone was
affected by the feature. It is also possible that this
buried O/Ah was somehow truncated or altered
prehistorically.
Unit N
Excavations in Unit N revealed what appeared to be a
discrete cultural feature extending into the subsoil in
the southwester to west-central portion of the unit
(Feature 4). As in Unit A, the upper 30cm of sediment
was a compact, gravel-rich, very dark grayish brown
(10YR 3/2) silt loam. A Taylor Village sherd was
collected from near the base of this deposit. The
anomaly was not investigated further.
Unit O
Excavations in Unit O revealed what appeared to be a
cultural feature extending into the subsoil in the
southeastern portion of the unit (Figure 4.19). This
stain was designated Feature 3. As in Units A and N,
the upper 30cm of sediment was a compact, gravel-rich,
very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) to brown (10YR 4/
3) silt loam. The density of natural rock (275kg/m3) in
a flotation sample (FS 480) from this deposit was
similar to that from samples of the embankment fill in
Trench 1.
Feature 3 appeared to be filled with sediments
similar to those in the overlying “midden.” Charcoal
98
and bone were noted in the area of Feature 3, however.
The anomaly was not investigated further.
Material Remains
Material remains recovered from Strawtown enclosure
include ceramics, lithic debris and tools, botanical
remains, faunal remains, and historic artifacts.
Prehistoric ceramic and chipped stone artifacts were
the most common classes recovered. Faunal and
botanical remains were also recovered in some
quantity.
Notable ceramic artifacts are illustrated
in
Appendix G. The analyzed botanical and faunal
materials are described in Appendices H and I,
respectively.
Human remains are discussed in
Appendix I.
Ceramics
The ceramic assemblage from Strawtown enclosure
includes rim sherds (n=268), neck sherds (n=441),
body sherds (n=2787), unclassified fragments (n=2498),
and a single handle. Rim sherds are fragments from the
top of the vessel that retain enough surface area to
distinguish the lip portion. Larger sherds that retain
the rim and either the neck of body portion are also
classified as rim sherds. A neck sherd is a vessel
fragment that is missing the rim portion but includes
enough curvature to identify its origin from a
constricted -orifice vessel. Body sherds are fragments
without a rim or neck portion. Unclassified fragments
are too small and fragmentary to be accurately
distinguished.
A variety of surface treatments, decorations, and
tempers are present in the Strawtown ceramic
assemblage. Grit-tempered sherds (n=5692) dominate
the assemblage. Shell-tempered sherds (n=294) are
also present. Temper was shell and grit, some other
material, or unidentifiable in the remaining nine
sherds.
Surface treatments include cordmarking, brushing,
fabric roughing, and smoothing (plain). The method of
surface treatment was identified on 3207 of the sherds.
Over 60 percent (n=2041) of the sherds with an
identified surface treatment were cordmarked. Plain/
smooth sherds were also fairly common (n=1063).
Fabric roughened sherds (n=86) were present in low
numbers, and the assemblage contained 17 brushed
sherds.
Decoration was present and identified on less than
10 percent of the sherds. Decoration includes a variety
of impressed forms (cord, dowel, tool, and knot),
incised forms (broad lines, thin lines, and guilloche),
STRAWTOWN ENCLOSURE
99
Figure 4.17. Plan view of Unit A/Feature 1 at 88cmbd (north half) and 58cmbd (south half), Strawtown enclosure.
STRAWTOWN ENCLOSURE
100
Figure 4.18. Profile of east wall of Unit A at termination of excavations in 2001, Strawtown enclosure.
and punctate.
At least three Late Prehistoric ceramic traditions
(Western Basin Tradition, Anderson phase Fort
Ancient, and Huber-Fisher) are represented among the
ceramic materials collected thus far. Taylor Village
sherds (shell tempered vessels with loop handles and
decoration typically on the shoulder and interior of the
rim) are in the minority, comprising approximately 25 percent of the total assemblage.
Lithics
The lithic assemblage from the Strawtown enclosure
includes a variety of debitage, tools, and cores. The
lithic assemblage is temporarily curated by Ball State
University and is being analyzed by Donald Cochran.
Analysis completed to date is presented in Appendix J.
SEQUENCE AND EVOLUTION OF DEPOSITS
AT STRAWTOWN ENCLOSURE
Initial work at the Strawtown enclosure was focused on
two main goals: 1) investigating the sequence,
methods, and chronology of construction of the
enclosure; and 2) determining the sequence and
dynamics of Late Prehistoric occupations of the
enclosure. While the work that was done during the
2001 field season has produced a good deal of new
information about the Strawtown enclosure, it is
important to view these results in light of the size and
complexity of the site. Debris attributable to multiple
cultural groups is present in a variety of deposits whose
contexts, associations, and histories are not yet fully
understood. The data collected thus far can be used to
develop testable hypotheses about the construction, use,
STRAWTOWN ENCLOSURE
101
Figure 4.19. View of Unit O at 80cmbd, Strawtown enclosure (facing east). Dark stain in southeast corner is
Feature 3.
and abandonment of the enclosure. Some of these
hypotheses will be tested as work continues during the
2002 field season.
Although the information that we wish to obtain
from the Strawtown enclosure is, ultimately, cultural, it
is necessary to first view the data in the context of
archaeological and behavioral theory, taking into
consideration various natural and cultural processes
that may have affected the deposits. Much of the work
conducted during 2001 was associated with the
embankment and ditch structures that are the dominant
architectural features of the site. Understanding the
chronology and processes involved in the construction
and deterioration of these structures is important to
understanding the other cultural deposits at Strawtown
enclosure, as well as the cultural dynamics that
influenced the creation and use of the enclosure. When
considering these structures and the artifacts within
them, it is important to make the distinction between
form and process. As defined by Young (1972:17),
form is “what is there, the morphology at a given
moment in time,” whereas process is “what is
happening, the agents active in causing form to
change.”
Information from both archaeological and natural
sciences is applicable to the deposits at Strawtown.
Relationships between the natural and cultural
processes that can influence the pre-depositional,
depositional, and post-depositional settings of sites,
artifacts, assemblages, and deposits have been
discussed at length in the last several decades by
archaeologists (e.g. Schiffer 1972; 1995). Perhaps the
over-riding theme of these discussions is the great
complexity of the relationships between various
depositional and post-depositional factors. Natural
processes of sediment movement and soil development
have been discussed at length by soil scientists,
geomorphologists, and geologists. Even with this
depth of information to draw on, however, relating
form to process is difficult. Young (1972:19) points out
that while observing present forms is relatively simple,
observing past forms is impossible. Analyzing both
present and past processes is difficult, and reconstructing
the evolution of form through the lens of process can be
extremely difficult. In short, the array of processes that
may be active during and subsequent to the creation of
archaeological sites is complex, interrelated, and
largely obfuscatory.
STRAWTOWN ENCLOSURE
An understanding of the roles natural and cultural
processes may have played at Strawtown enclosure is
essential to understanding the deposits there. Much of
the information that will be required to reach such an
understanding has not yet been collected. Limited
discussions are possible with the present information,
however.
Ditch and Embankment
Generally, the ditch and embankment deposits at
Strawtown are stratigraphically more complex than
those documented thus far at the Scranage enclosure
(see Chapter 3). This difference in complexity is
probably attributable to several factors, including
differences in the degree and kinds of disturbance of the
structures, the relative sizes of the structures, and the
overall character of the deposits. The excavated
portions of the embankment had been extensively
disturbed by rodent burrowing, and the entire structure
was under cultivation for many years. Neither of these
processes were operant at Scranage. Excavations in the
trench also were complicated by several factors: 1)
superimposed/adjacent strata were, in many areas, of
similar color and could only be differentiated on the
basis of texture, compactness, and gravel content; 2)
boundaries between many of the strata/zones were
gradual/diffuse; and 3) many of the strata sloped and
dipped to varying degrees. The gradual boundaries
between some of the strata with similar color
characteristics were difficult to recognize in plan view
during level excavations. As a result, many of the
excavated levels crosscut several strata, complicating
assignment of diagnostic artifacts to particular strata.
Several details about the construction and
deterioration of the enclosure are notable. In some
respects, the enclosure at Strawtown appears to have
deteriorated in a fashion similar to the enclosure at
Scranage. As at Scranage, the superpositions of the
various strata do not simply reflect the construction
sequence of the ditch and embankment, but also reflect
changes that occurred subsequent to the construction of
the enclosure. In other words, the present form was
produced by various processes acting, through time, on
the original form.
Construction
The embankment was constructed by piling sediment
on the then-extant ground surface. These sediments
were presumably obtained by excavating the ditch. The
variation in sediment texture, color, and gravel content
within the embankment fill is consistent with the depth
of the ditch, which suggests removal of sediments from
102
well into the C horizon. Based on the presence of
artifacts at the top of the buried O/A horizon beneath
the embankment, the O/A horizon sediments in the
vicinity of the embankment were cultural (i.e. they
contained surface/near-surface deposits of cultural
materials) prior to the construction of the embankment.
The presence of refuse (such as the charcoal/ash
deposit) at the top of the buried O/A horizon beneath
the embankment suggests that a substantial occupation
may have existed at Strawtown prior to construction of
the enclosure. It is possible that the posthole (Posthole
H-1) encountered in Unit H may have been associated
with a structure completely unrelated to the
embankment and ditch, as the posthole penetrated well
into the B horizon. It is also possible that the posthole
was associated with a stockade that may have existed
prior or subsequent to construction of the embankment,
or may even have been contemporary with the
embankment.
Based on the positions of the buried O/A horizon
beneath the embankment, the ground surface prior to
construction of this portion of the enclosure was
probably fairly level, as shown in Figure 4.20-A. The
base of the original ditch excavation appears to be at the
base of zone 10 in the profile. The lowest portion of the
present surface contour is directly above the lowest
exposed portion of the ditch, suggesting the lowest
portion of the ditch is probably in Unit I or slightly to
the west. The exposed profile of the ditch suggests a
flat/gently rounded bottom. The angle of the side of this
lowest portion suggests the original angle of the eastern
wall of the ditch. The hypothesized outlines of the
original ditch excavation are shown in Figure 4.20-B.
A depth of approximately 1.5m below the original
ground surface is suggested by the location of the buried
O/A horizon.
The original height of the embankment is, of
course, unknown. The darker color of the embankment
sediments in Unit B and the eastern portion of Unit C
suggests that a stockade or other construction
(presumably across the top of the embankment) may
have acted as a barrier to refuse disposal. This shift in
color occurs at the approximate present apex of the
embankment. If this location does mark the former
center of the embankment, then the apex of the
embankment and the base of the ditch would have been
approximately 6.5m apart. More data are needed to
evaluate this estimate.
Deterioration
The embankment and ditch would likely have begun to
deteriorate soon after construction. Several episodes of
filling are apparent in the profiled portion of the ditch.
STRAWTOWN ENCLOSURE
The lowest deposits of ditch fill (those at the very
bottom of the original ditch) were probably introduced
not long after the ditch was excavated. Weather and
other natural processes would have begun to act on the
ditch and embankment as soon as it was built. Pyddoke
(1961:48) illustrates how ditches naturally erode and
fill due to frost, freeze-thaw, and water action. As
sediment is eroded from the upper edges of the ditch it
is deposited in the base of the ditch, resulting in a
progressively wider and shallower depression. Sediment
deposited during the early stages of ditch erosion would
have most likely originated on the upper edge/lip of the
ditch, probably from the A horizon. A piece of
untouched charcoal (FS 393) from the fill in the base of
the ditch returned a radiocarbon date (Beta-158416) of
880+/-40 BP (calibrated 2 sigma range of AD 10501100 and AD 1140-1270). While this charcoal does not
directly date the ditch, it probably originated from the A
horizon that was extant at the time fill was first
deposited in the base of the ditch. Assuming that this
charcoal was introduced into the ditch during filling
and not by some later bioturbation, the date suggests a
maximum age for the lowest fill deposit in the ditch: we
can be 95 percent certain that the ditch was not filled
prior to AD 1050. Given the strange “split” 2 sigma
range of this date when it is placed on the calibration
curve, a maximum age closer to 1100 is probably
reasonable. This age is consistent with the stylistic
dimensions of the ceramics in the fill.
Assuming that the lowest fill in the ditch was
naturally deposited fairly soon after excavation of the
ditch, the radiocarbon date from the ditch fill probably
accurately reflects the age of the ditch. In other words,
given the natural deterioration that is expected
immediately following the construction of an earthen
structure, it seems unlikely that the lowest fill in the
ditch dates was deposited very long after the ditch itself
was excavated. If there were multiple episodes of ditch
excavation, filling, and “cleaning out” (or reexcavation), however, this may not be the case. No
evidence of such depositional complexity was observed
in the profile of Trench 1. There was no evidence of a
stable ground surface at the base of the ditch (i.e. there
was no buried A horizon), and there were no gleyed
sediments suggesting periodic inundation.
Filling of the ditch appears to have varied in tempo
and continuity. The lower zones of fill (zones 8, 8A, 9,
and 10) have a reddish cast, while the upper zones
(zones 1, 2, and 7) have a grayish cast. Zone 8A
appears to be a buried O/A horizon, suggesting that the
top of this zone was a stable surface for long enough to
allow a soil to develop. Historic artifacts are absent
from zones 8, 8A, 9, and 10, suggesting that these fill
episodes occurred prior to historic use of the site.
103
Historic artifacts are present in zones 1, 2, and 7,
suggesting that this fill was deposited during the
historic period. The more reddish color of the fill in
zones 8, 8A, 9, and 10 is consistent with partial
derivation from the B and C horizons (see Figure 4.20C, D, and E). The fill deposited above zones 8 and 8A
would have been derived almost entirely from the A
horizon and the embankment fill.
Fort Ancient sherds are present in the lower zones
of the ditch fill (zones 8, 8A, 9, and 10). The presence
of these sherds indicates that they were present on the
surrounding ground surfaces as the ditch was being
filled. Notably, Taylor Village sherds are absent from
the fill in zones 8, 8A, 9, and 10. While the small
number of Taylor Village sherds in the site assemblage
makes it difficult to place too much weight on this, the
absence of these sherds from the lower levels of the
ditch fill is consistent with the radiocarbon date
suggesting construction of the ditch and embankment
prior to AD 1270.
The pace of the deterioration of the embankment
would have depended on several factors, including the
original shape of the embankment and the presence/
absence of vegetation on the embankment. The net
effect of this deterioration would have been the
transport of sediment and other materials from the
higher elevations of the embankment to the lower
elevations (Figure 4.20-D). This transport could have
been effected by water erosion (i.e. surface wash) and/
or mass movement processes such as creep. Soil creep
results “from the expansion and contraction processes .
. . with the gravity force ensuring that the dominant
movement is down-slope” (Small and Clark 1982:40).
No fluvial bands, lag gravels, or other indicators of
surface washing were noted in the embankment fill
profile. Such features may have been difficult to
observe in the sandy, gravelly matrix of the
embankment, however, and the profiles were not
examined with these specific features in mind.
Cultural material is plentiful in the interior
portions of the embankment. Cultural materials may
have been introduced into the embankment fill in a
number of ways. The original fill used to construct the
embankment, being derived in part from O/A horizon
sediments, probably contained cultural material that
was incidentally included in the embankment fill. The
darker color of the embankment sediments in Unit B
and the eastern portion of Unit C suggests that a
stockade or other construction (presumably across the
top of the embankment) may have acted as a barrier to
refuse disposal. Cultural materials discarded on the
embankment after its construction may also have been
incorporated into the embankment fill. Materials
discarded on the inside slope of the embankment, for
STRAWTOWN ENCLOSURE
104
Figure 4.20. Hypothetical sequence of construction and deterioration of ditch and embankment at Strawtown
enclosure.
STRAWTOWN ENCLOSURE
105
Figure 4.20. Hypothetical sequence of construction and evolution of ditch and embankment at Strawtown Enclosure (continued).
example, may have been transported (by surface
washing or erosion) to the base/edge of the
embankment and subsequently become buried as
deterioration and deposition of sediments at the base of
the embankment continued. Thus the embankment fill
may contain artifacts that predate, postdate, and are
contemporary with the construction of the enclosure.
The buried A horizon at zone 8A in the ditch fill
suggests a period when deterioration/filling of the ditch
was stopped or very slow. Given the lack of historic
artifacts from this zone and those beneath, this stable
period began prehistorically. Given the presence of
historic artifacts immediately above zone 8A, it seems
likely that this zone 8A may reflect the extant ground
contour during the early historic period, immediately
prior to the clearing of the site for agricultural use.
Comparison to Data from Unit A
The relationship between the cultural deposits
documented thus far in Unit A is interesting in light of
the results of the trench excavation. Information from
discrete cultural features extending into the subsoil in
Unit A can be used to evaluate the ditch construction
and deterioration sequence discussed above.
As noted above, the rock-filled “midden”
encountered in the upper portions of Unit A is almost
certainly the remains of the embankment fill. The bone
deposit that was documented within level 5 was situated
at the interface of the embankment fill and the
sediments beneath. The location of this deposit
suggests that it may have been a surficial deposit
similar to that seen between the buried O/Ah horizon
and the embankment fill in the Trench 1 profile (Figure
4.13, zone 12). Alternatively, the bone deposit may be
the top of the contents of Feature 1. The profile exposed
thus far suggests that the upper 35cm of Feature 1 may
contain a rounded, basin-shaped deposit of bone.
Determination of the relationship between the bone
deposit and Feature 1 will require excavation of the
remainder of the feature. In either case, it is notable
that the bone deposit may extend into Feature 1 but not
into the embankment fill above. This suggests that the
Feature 1 pit was not cut through the embankment fill,
but rather was covered by the embankment fill after the
upper portions of the pit were filled with bone.
If this line of reasoning is correct, Feature 1 must
have been created prior to the deposition of the
embankment fill in the Unit A area. This is not to say
that Feature 1 necessarily predates the construction of
the embankment. Given the deterioration that the
embankment has probably undergone since its
construction, it is possible that the foundations of the
embankment as originally constructed did not cover
Feature 1. Unit A does appear to be near the apex of the
embankment, however, suggesting that Feature 1 may
indeed predate the construction of the embankment.
The radiocarbon date of 770+/-40 BP (calibrated 2
sigma range of AD 1200-1290) obtained from the
vessel within Feature 1 is consistent with the style of the
vessel, and suggests a thirteenth century age for the
feature. This is consistent with the lack of Taylor
Village (Huber/Fisher-like) sherds in the feature fill.
While these sherds were present in the embankment fill
above the feature, they have thus far been absent below
level 5 (i.e. below the base of the embankment fill). One
piece of a small, fragmentary Taylor Village vessel
recovered from level 5 of Unit A (near the base of the
embankment fill) returned a radiocarbon date (Beta164512) of 690+/-50 BP (calibrated 2 sigma range of
AD 1260-1400).
Interestingly, a portion of the same small Taylor
STRAWTOWN ENCLOSURE
Village vessel was also recovered in level 1 of SVS unit
220N / 210E.
Level 1 of this unit extended
approximately halfway through the embankment fill,
suggesting that the embankment fill may possess little
(if any) vertical stratigraphic integrity. Such a lack of
vertical integrity would be expected in a stratigraphic
unit that has apparently been greatly affected by
sediment transport and mass movement processes and
would be consistent with the horizontal “spread” of the
embankment discussed above. The presence of
conjoining artifacts within such a displaced deposit
suggests that artifacts originally discarded together
(assuming the broken vessel was discarded as a single
piece) may have been moved to varying degrees by the
same processes that were responsible for the
transformation of the embankment since its construction.
The identification of conjoining artifacts from within
the embankment may be a useful way of studying the
history of the embankment’s transformation.
Conclusions
In summary, available evidence suggests that the
enclosure was most likely constructed between AD
1200-1300, perhaps as early as AD 1100. This date
range is consistent with the stylistic dimensions of the
Oliver/Fort Ancient ceramics that dominate the
assemblage collected from the site thus far, suggesting
construction of the enclosure by Oliver/Fort Ancient
peoples is most likely.
In its original form, the enclosure may have
consisted of a circular embankment of earth (topped by
a wooden stockade?) surrounded by a ditch
approximately 1.5m deep or deeper. The early accounts
suggest the ditch may have been very wide. These
observations were based on the surface configuration of
the ditch, however. The progressive inward slumping
of the ditch during its deterioration results in a
depression that is wider and shallower than the original
excavation. The original height of the embankment
and possible stockade are unknown. Based on the
amount of earth that was removed from the ditch, it
seems likely that the embankment was originally over a
meter tall. The 1884 account (Brown 1884) specified
that the embankment was 3' subsequent to significant
deflation by cultivation.
A substantial Oliver/Fort Ancient habitation site
may have been present at Strawtown prior to
construction of the enclosure. This is suggested by the
presence of artifacts and features in and on the buried
the A horizon. Likewise, the presence of the human
mandible in the embankment fill suggests that
excavation of the ditch disturbed a burial that had been
interred prior to the time the enclosure was
106
construction. This burial may date to the Oliver/Fort
Ancient use of the site, or may have been interred
earlier.
The Taylor Village presence at the Strawtown
enclosure appears to have been later in time, perhaps
during the period AD 1300-1400. While there is some
overlap in the 2 sigma ranges of the Oliver/Fort
Ancient sherd from Feature 1 and the Taylor Village
sherd from the embankment fill, the contexts of the two
artifacts suggest that a chronological separation is more
likely. McCord and Cochran (2002) reported a date
(Beta-156650) of 560+/-BP (2 sigma calibrated range
of AD 1320-1350, 1390-1440) from a Taylor Village
sherd from the Taylor Village site (12 H 25) itself. It is
possible that the Taylor Village use of Strawtown was
contemporary with the occupation of Taylor Village
itself.
Based only on the relative amounts of ceramic
debris, the Taylor Village occupation appears to have
been of more limited duration and/or intensity.
Assuming that refuse disposal patterns were similar,
the lack of any Taylor Village sherds in the upper zones
of the ditch fill in Trench 1 suggests that a stockade or
some similar structure was still acting as a barrier to
refuse disposal during the Taylor Village occupation of
the site (the small total number of Taylor Village sherds
must be kept in mind, however).
As the embankment decreased in height (perhaps
both during and subsequent to prehistoric occupation),
it increased in size horizontally as sediments and
materials from the top and sides of the embankment
moved downward and outward. This horizontal
“spreading” of the embankment fill would have
covered pit features, surface deposits, and the extant O/
A horizon that was previously adjacent to the
embankment. Pits and depressions that were left open
near the edges of the embankment may have been
partially or completely filled with materials from the
embankment The presence of Taylor Village sherds at
the base of the embankment fill/midden deposits in
Units A and N suggests that the embankment was
actively deteriorating during and/or after the Taylor
Village occupation. It is unknown whether the period
of ditch stability marked by zone 8A in Trench 1 is
contemporary with a period of embankment stability.
Judging by the amount of fill that appears to have been
deposited in the ditch during the historic/modern
period, it seems likely that the embankment was
substantially higher prior to clearing and plowing.
More information is needed to assess the various
processes acting on the embankment and the materials
within it. Extensive excavations in and around Unit A
planned for the 2002 field season will attempt to
address these various chronological, depositional, and
STRAWTOWN ENCLOSURE
formational issues.
In short, available evidence suggests the enclosure
was built by Oliver/Fort Ancient peoples within the
period AD 1100-1300, and later occupied by Taylor
Village peoples within the period AD 1300-1400. The
enclosure appears to have been at least partially intact
during the Taylor Village occupation. Given the
apparent complexities of the site, of course, this
107
description in itself is far too simple to be satisfying. It
does appear to be consistent with the information
collected from the Strawtown enclosure thus far,
however, and provides a working sketch of the site that
can be tested and elaborated. Work planned for the
immediate future will collect data that can be used to
test these hypotheses and address a range of other
relevant issues.
CHAPTER 5
Excavations at 12 Al 122
Site 12 Al 122 is a lithic and ceramic scatter in Fox
Island State Park near the Fort Wayne Divide in Allen
County, Indiana (Figure 5.1). The site, like many other
sites in the park, is situated within a complex of aeolian
dunes (Sunderman n.d.). The dunes are surrounded by
wet prairie and marshlands. Ditched drainages around
the dunes flow across the Fort Wayne Divide and drain
into both the Maumee River system (ultimately to the
Great Lakes) and the Wabash River system (ultimately
to the Gulf of Mexico).
Site 12 Al 122 was first reported by Cochran
(1980:31):
Site 12-Al-122 was the only site discovered exclusively
through shovel testing during the 1978 survey. . . . The low
artifact density of 1:2000 evidently results from the limited
coverage afforded by shovel testing. The 10,000 square-foot
site was unusual in that along with prehistoric pottery and
lithics, historic square nails and plate glass fragments were
recovered mixed with charred wood and ash.
Cochran reported a total of five artifacts from shovel
probes on 12 Al 122: four pieces of chert debitage and
a single sherd. Cochran (1980:105) identified the
sherd as a plain rim with a late Middle Woodland/
Goodall Focus affinity.
Test excavations on 12 Al 122 were undertaken by
Ball State University in 1982. These excavations have
not been fully reported. The summary provided by
James (1982) describes the excavation of four 1m x 1m
units. Early Woodland (Marion Thick) ceramics were
recovered (James 1982).
The site area is presently vegetated with grasses,
brush, and forest. With the exception of a trail that
crosses the site, ground visibility was effectively zero.
Soils at 12 Al 122 are identified as belonging to the
Oshtemo series, described as “deep, somewhat
excessively drained, nearly level to moderately
sloping” soils (Kirschner and Zachary 1969:21). The
dunes upon which site 12 Al 122 is situated are aeolian
(Sunderman n.d.), and all lithic materials larger than
sand are assumed to have been culturally transported.
IPFW-AS’s work at 12 Al 122 was conducted from
September 13 to 23, 2001. Although work at 12 Al 122
was focused on identifying the existence and location of
any Late Prehistoric component, the primary purpose of
the excavations was to serve as a public demonstration/
outreach in conjunction with Indiana Archaeology
Awareness Week 2001. Grant monies were provided by
the Historic Preservation Fund (Grant #18-01-1641415) administered by the Indiana Department of Natural
Resources, Division of Historic Preservation and
Archaeology (DHPA). Excavations were conducted
under DHPA permit number 200136. Dr. Robert G.
McCullough served as Principal Investigator. Students,
volunteers, and staff from IPFW-AS participated in the
excavations. Participants included Craig Arnold,
Holly Bir, Albert Brine, Kimberly Crawford, Melanie
Haneline, Julie Harman, Larry Harman, Laura
LeFever, Tammy Reece, Kristalle Wadsworth, Lou
Ann Watson, Robin Wilson, and Randall Woolridge.
Investigations were conducted in accordance with the
Secretary of The Interior’s Standards and Guidelines
for Identification, Evaluation, and Archaeological
Documentation, Guidebook for Indiana Historic Sites
and Structures Inventory–Archaeological Sites, and
the Grants Manual of the Division of Historic
Preservation and Archaeology.
EXCAVATION METHODS AND UNITS
Work at 12 Al 122 included shovel probe and hand unit
excavations. Shovel probe excavations were used to
define the site and identify areas of highest near-surface
artifact concentration. Hand unit excavations were
used to collect controlled samples of artifacts and to
search for intact cultural deposits.
Provenience Control and Mapping
A temporary site-wide grid was established to
coordinate placement of shovel probes and test units
(Figure 5.2). The site datum (300N / 300E) was a stake
in the central portion of the artifact site. Temporary
elevation datums were established for unit excavations.
A permanent datum (rebar in concrete) was set at 300N
/ 300E.
Shovel Probes
The area in and around the recorded location of site 12
Al 122 was shovel probed. Shovel probe excavation
entailed the removal and screening (¼” mesh) of
approximately 0.03m3 of sediment. The shovel probe
grid was organized in east-west transects (Transects 6
though -4) containing varying numbers of probes.
Individual probes were labeled using the transect (T)
108
12 Al 122
and probe (P) numbers.
Shovel probes were initially excavated at a 10m
interval. This interval was reduced as warranted in an
attempt to define the site and identify areas of highest
near-surface artifact density. The locations of all
shovel probes are shown in Figure 5.2. Locations of
shovel probes with prehistoric artifacts (ceramics,
lithics, and broken rock) and possibly prehistoric
artifacts (mussel shell, bone, etc.) are shown in Figure
5.3.
Excavation Units
Placement of excavation units was guided by the results
of shovel probing. The locations of excavation units are
shown in Figure 5.4.
Most sediment was passed through ¼” mesh in the
field. The remaining sediment was saved for flotation.
Diagnostic or otherwise particularly noteworthy
artifacts were piece-plotted (when possible) 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. Completed units were profiled (Figure
5.5).
Unit A
Unit A was a 2m x 2m unit placed over Shovel Probe
T5/P1.5, which produced a relatively high density of
prehistoric cultural materials. The southwest corner of
the unit was placed at 276.5N / 304E. A total of four
levels were excavated, to a depth of approximately
65cm below surface.
A profile of the north wall of Unit A is shown in
Figure 5.4. Plowzone was a layer of very dark grayish
brown (10YR 3/2) sand approximately 20-25cm thick.
Sediments beneath this layer included sands of varying
compactness and color. The irregular boundaries and
looseness of some of these sediments suggested that
they were the remnants of abandoned burrows. A large,
active burrow was present in the unit and extended into
the profile. This burrow appeared to be the den of a fox
or large rodent that was excavated under a burned tree
stump. Several thin (5-10cm), horizontal lenses of
charcoal-rich sediment were present in the profile.
These were associated with the burned tree stump.
Artifacts recovered from Unit A include chipped
stone debitage and tools (n=263), prehistoric ceramics
(n=36), burned/broken rock (n=197), and historic
artifacts (n=854). Chipped stone artifacts included
flakes, debris, and a biface fragment. Prehistoric
ceramics included two rim sherds. Historic artifacts
110
included fragments of ferrous metal, nails, flat and
container glass, ceramics, brick, and other items.
Unbroken rock, bone, shell, and charcoal were also
present.
The greatest number of artifacts was recovered
from level 1 of the unit. The majority of level 1 appears
to have been in plowzone. Historic artifacts were found
in all levels, however, suggesting that the near-surface
strata in this portion of 12 Al 122 possess little (if any)
vertical integrity. This lack of integrity is due, at least
in part, to extensive rodent burrowing in this area. The
disturbance may be localized.
Unit B
Unit B was a 2m x 2m unit placed in the central portion
of the scatter . The southwest corner of the unit was
placed at 285N / 300E. A dark, subsoil anomaly was
encountered in the northeastern portion of the unit at
the base of level 1. This anomaly was an amorphous
stain containing historic debris. It appeared to some
form of historic-aged disturbance. Excavations were
halted at the completion of level 1.
Artifacts recovered from level 1 of Unit B include
chipped stone debitage (n=327), prehistoric ceramics
(n=52), burned/broken rock (n=44), and historic
artifacts (n=429). Chipped stone artifacts were limited
to flakes and debris. Prehistoric ceramics were limited
to body sherds and sherds of indeterminate origin.
Historic artifacts included fragments of ferrous metal,
nails, flat and container glass, ceramics, brick, and
other items. Unbroken rock, bone, shell, and charcoal
were also present.
Given the disturbance in Unit A, the large numbers
of prehistoric artifacts in level 1 of Unit B suggests a
greater degree of vertical integrity may be present (i.e.
artifacts originally in A horizon contexts may not have
been mixed into the subsoil through natural processes).
Disturbances were present in the unit, however.
Unit C
Unit C was a 2m x 2m unit placed northeast of Units A
and B . The southwest corner of the unit was placed at
300N / 310E. Three levels were excavated, to a depth
of approximately 55cm below surface.
A profile of the east wall of Unit C is shown in
Figure 5.4. Plowzone was a layer of black (10YR 2/1)
sand approximately 10-15cm thick. Sediments beneath
this layer were more compact. Boundaries between
zones visible in profile were diffuse.
Artifacts recovered from Unit C include chipped
stone debitage and tools (n=133), prehistoric ceramics
(n=5), burned/broken rock (n=242), and historic
12 Al 122
111
Figure 5.2. Horizontal grid and coordinate system used at 12 Al 122 during the 2001 field season; locations of
shovel probes.
12 Al 122
Figure 5.3. Locations of positive and negative shovel probes at 12 Al 122.
112
12 Al 122
Figure 5.4. Locations of excavation units at 12 Al 122.
113
12 Al 122
Figure 5.5. Profiles of Units A and C, 12 Al 122.
114
12 Al 122
artifacts (n=578). Chipped stone artifacts included
flakes, debris, a biface fragment, and a drill tip.
Prehistoric ceramics included one rim sherd. Historic
artifacts included fragments of ferrous metal, nails, flat
and container glass, ceramics, brick, and other items.
Unbroken rock, bone, shell, and charcoal were also
present.
MATERIALS RECOVERED
Material remains recovered from 12 Al 122 include
prehistoric ceramics, lithic debris and tools, and a wide
range of historic artifacts. Historic artifacts (n=>2140)
were the most common class recovered. Historic
artifacts include nails, fragments of flat glass,
container glass, coal cinders, brick, refined and
unrefined ceramics, a roofing shingle, and various
pieces of unidentified metal. Prehistoric ceramic
(n=113) and chipped stone (n=803) artifacts were
recovered in lesser amounts. Broken/burned/unburned
rock (n=1276) was recovered in some quantity.
Approximately 169 pieces (320.9g) of faunal material
were collected, as well as shell and samples of charred
botanical materials. Selected artifacts from 12 Al 122
are illustrated in Appendix K.
Prehistoric Ceramics
The ceramic assemblage from 12 Al 122 included rim
sherds (n=6), neck sherds (n=1), body sherds (n=31),
and unclassified fragments (n=75). Rim sherds are
fragments from the top of the vessel that retain enough
surface area to distinguish the lip portion. Larger
sherds that retain the rim and either the neck or body
portion are also classified as rim sherds. A neck sherd
is a vessel fragment that is missing the rim portion but
includes enough curvature to identify its origin from a
constricted-orifice vessel. Body sherds are fragments
without a rim or neck portion. Unclassified fragments
are too small and fragmentary to be accurately
distinguished.
The 12 Al 122 sherds were exclusively grittempered. Surface treatments included cordmarking,
fabric roughing, and smoothing (plain). The method of
surface treatment was identified on 20 of the sherds.
Over half (n=13) of the sherds with an identified
surface treatment were cordmarked. Plain/smooth
sherds were also fairly common (n=6). A single fabric
roughened sherd was identified. Two of the sherds
have linear tool impressed decorations, indicating a
general Western Basin Tradition influence.
Beyond their classification as generalized Late
Woodland/Late Prehistoric ceramics, no further
cultural assignment could be made for most of the
115
sherds. Selected sherds from 12 Al 122 are illustrated
in Appendix K.
Lithics
The chipped stone lithic assemblage from 12 Al 122
includes debitage (n=795) and tools (n=8). Debitage is
the fragments of stone detached from a parent mass (a
biface, nodule, core, etc.) as a by-product of core
reduction and/or tool manufacture or maintenance. For
purposes of cataloging and basic description, debitage
was classified as either flakes or debris/shatter. Flakes
possess a bulb of percussion and a single interior
surface. Debris/shatter has no discernible interior
single interior surface. Approximately 48 percent of
the debitage assemblage was classified as debris/
shatter.
Tools include two biface fragments, a drill tip, four
flake tools, and the distal portion of a refined biface. No
diagnostic chert tools were recovered.
DISCUSSION
Excavations at 12 Al 122 resulted in the collection of
over 4600 prehistoric and historic artifacts and the
collection of basic information on the size, density, and
integrity of surface and near-surface deposits.
Attempts to find the edges of the site were
unsuccessful, as shovel probes from the entire area were
positive. Because the overriding purpose of IPFWAS’s work at 12 Al 122 was public demonstration,
attempts to find the edges of the site via shovel probing
were abandoned in favor of unit excavations when it
became apparent that the site was larger than originally
indicated by Cochran (1980). The eastern boundary of
the site was extends minimally to the edge of the forest
(at the section line). Shovel probing was halted to the
north, south, and west by dense vegetation (brush and
briars) and strongly sloping areas.
Diagnostic artifacts previously recovered from the
site indicate that Middle Woodland (Cochran 1982)
and Early Woodland (James 1982) components are
present. Diagnostic and semi-diagnostic artifacts
recovered from shovel probe and unit excavations
during the present effort suggest a Late Prehistoric,
Springwells phase (Western Basin Tradition) component
is also present.
Unit excavations revealed prehistoric and historic
artifacts in near-surface contexts to a depth of
approximately 65cm below surface. In some cases,
such as in Unit A, artifacts appear to have been moved
to these depths through natural agency (i.e. rodent
tunneling). Given the lack of evidence of extensive
rodent burrowing in Units B and C, it appears that large
12 Al 122
scale natural disturbances may be localized. Some
portions of the site do not appear to have been affected
by extensive rodent burrowing. Intact, sub-plowzone
deposits are possible in these undisturbed areas. The
sandy matrix of the site is very fine and very soft,
however, suggesting that extensive vertical movement
of artifacts may be possible without substantial
disturbances such as roots and rodent burrowing.
The quantity of historic material, especially the
amount of nails, brick, charred wood, and flat glass,
along with a porcelain door knob, suggests that there
might have been a historic structure at 12 Al 122. A
review of the available historic maps for Allen County,
however, found no documentary evidence for a
structure at the site. The land first passed into
Euroamerican ownership in 1853 when George Ottle
purchased the south half of the southeast quarter of
section 26 from the government in 1853 (Harter 1981).
By 1880, the parcel is shown as belonging to John
Robertson, but no structures are indicated (Helm
1880:145). After that, plat maps of Aboit Township
(Anonymous 1898:63; Anonymous 1907:27) show the
eighty acres as part of the larger holdings of T. E.
Ellison, whose residence was farther west on Yohne
Road in section 35. Similarly, the 1938 aerial map
(NSCS files, Allen County) of that section shows a
sizeable agricultural operation on both sides of Yohne
Road where Ellison’s residence appeared in earlier
maps, but no structures are apparent near 12 Al 122. In
a 1951 aerial map (NSCS files, Allen County) of the
area, there is an obvious farm road running roughly
northwest from Yohne across the site, following the
eastern edge of a plowed field. A widening of the farm
road at or very near 12 Al 122 may indicate a small shed
or, more probably, a dumping area.
While the historic material recovered from 12 Al
116
122 includes a quantity of architectural debris, the
assemblage is also consistent with a historic dump site.
Most of the historic debris dates from the late 19th
century into the first third of 20th century. No
documentary evidence of a structure dating to this
period was located. Debris from an earlier structure
that was demolished or burned may have been hauled
there, or the debris could have been burned after
dumping, indicated by the quantity of charcoal and a
few melted glass fragments. The ceramic and glass
assemblage is more consistent with a dump site than a
domestic site, since there is not a full range of domestic
wares. By and large, the ceramics are utilitarian
stoneware and undecorated whiteware and ironstone,
common in the early twentieth century; only four
porcelain sherds were recovered, and only one of those
was decorated. Like decoration, vessel forms are
limited, consisting mostly of jugs, crocks, plates, and
bowls. The glassware is similarly utilitarian, consisting
mostly of canning jars and a few bottles, with only one
tumbler identified and one decorative rim fragment that
may be from a lamp chimney. No serving pieces or
decorative items were found. Personal items comprised
three glass buttons. Rather than evidence of a
habitation site, especially one associated with a
successful agricultural enterprise, the historic cultural
material from the site is a limited range of artifacts
predating documented historic use of the site. The
presence of these artifacts is probably the result of a
clearing/dumping episode from the farmstead farther
west. A limited-use structure such as a summer kitchen
or spring house may have been demolished and dumped
on the site. Other historic artifacts may have been
intermittently deposited on the site as refuse at various
times.
CHAPTER 6
Discussion, Conclusions, and Summary of Recommendations
The primary objective of this research was to collect clarify elements of site stratigraphy, chronology, and
contextual and settlement structure information depositional history that will allow the artifacts and
pertaining to the population dynamics of the Late deposits at the site to be considered in an appropriate
Prehistoric horticultural societies that inhabited north- analytical framework.
The data reported here hold substantial promise for
central and northeastern Indiana. The nature of the
addressing
a range of prominent issues. They also
relationships among these groups is not yet clear.
present
a
number
of serious challenges, however.
Although there is abundant archaeological evidence
These
challenges
are particularly acute in the
documenting violent conflict across the Midwest
Strawtown
area.
Relationships
between sites, artifacts,
during the Late Prehistoric period, evidence of warfare
deposits,
peoples,
and
cultures
are by no means wellamong Late Prehistoric groups in central and southunderstood.
Our
understanding
of even basic elements
central Indiana is inconclusive (see McCullough 2000).
of
site
structure
is
still
rather
thin,
and nearly all the
McCullough (2000) presents a discussion of the
observations
about
site
structure
and
history presented
archaeological evidence for warfare, migration, and
here
are
debatable.
The
lack
of
certainty about
ethnogenesis during the Late Prehistoric period in
Strawtown
is
attributable
to
several
factors,
including
central Indiana, specifically as related to settlement
the
lack
of
access
to
the
site
during
the
last
several
variability among Oliver phase groups. The distinctive
decades,
the
demonstrated
complexity
of
the
cultural
mixture of Great Lakes and Ohio Valley ceramic
attributes in Oliver assemblages suggests that analysis history of the enclosure and the surrounding area, and
of these issues in Indiana requires consideration of data the complexity of the archaeological deposits at the
from a wide geographical area. The research described enclosure itself.
This discussion will focus on the excavation data
here attempted to gather such data from north-central
from
Scranage and Strawtown.
Although the
and northeastern Indiana. Both survey and excavation
information
that
we
wish
to
obtain
from
both sites is,
were used to collect these data. Excavations at the
ultimately,
cultural,
it
is
necessary
to
first
view
the data
Strawtown enclosure (12 H 883) and Scranage
in
the
context
of
archaeological
and
behavioral
theory,
enclosure (12 Dk 363) sites were the focus of these
taking
into
consideration
various
natural
and
cultural
efforts.
Extensive consideration of these data is immediately processes that may have affected the deposits. The data
hampered, however, by the nature of the deposits gathered thus far are then be placed in a theoretical
encountered at Strawtown and Scranage. Much of the framework, specifically with regard to issues of warfare
work conducted during 2001 was associated with the and migration during the Late Prehistoric period in
embankment and ditch structures that are the dominant central and northern Indiana. Recommendations
architectural features of the sites. Understanding the pertaining to all sites investigated during the course of
chronology and processes involved in the construction the project are summarized following these discussions.
and deterioration of these structures is important to
EARTHEN ARCHITECTURE AT SCRANAGE
understanding the other cultural deposits at both
AND STRAWTOWN
enclosures, as well as the cultural dynamics that
influenced the creation and use of the enclosure. Debris
that is potentially attributable to multiple cultural Earthen structures in the Eastern Woodlands were
groups is present in a variety of deposits at Strawtown, among the earliest objects of professional and amateur
for example, while the density of cultural material at archaeological interest in North America. Earthen and
Scranage enclosure seems disproportionately light earthen/stone structures have also received considerable
relative to the amount of effort that must have gone into attention in European and Near Eastern archaeology.
its construction. The contexts, associations, and Generally, research on such structures has focused on
histories of materials and deposits at these sites are not intact deposits within or below the structures, and has
yet fully understood. Further work will be required not paid particular attention to the natural and/or
before artifacts and deposits can be placed into cultural processes which may have affected the postmeaningful analytical units. Focused study of deposits construction form of the structures themselves.
While such details may not be particularly relevant
at these sites during the 2002 field season will help
117
DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
to studies of sub-floor tombs or pits, they are important
at earthen enclosure sites such as Scranage and
Strawtown. Unlike burial mounds or ceremonial
enclosures dating to the Middle Woodland period, Late
Prehistoric enclosures were used for habitation or other
domestic activities. Embankment and/or stockade
structures at such sites would have greatly influenced
the use of space inside the enclosures. Evidence
gathered to date indicates that the post-construction
forms of these enclosures are different from the original
forms as they were aboriginally constructed. Changes
in form have been progressive and complex, and have
substantially influenced the present appearance of the
embankment and ditch structures at these enclosures.
The post-construction changes undergone by these
structures has produced a complicated set of
depositional units both within and immediately
adjacent to these structures. Clarification of these units
will be an important goal of the 2002 fieldwork planned
at both of these sites.
Form and Process
When considering earthen structures, it is important to
make the distinction between form and process. As
defined by Young (1972:17), form is “what is there, the
morphology at a given moment in time,” whereas
process is “what is happening, the agents active in
causing form to change.” Relationships between the
natural and cultural processes that can influence the
pre-depositional, depositional, and post-depositional
settings of sites, artifacts, assemblages, and deposits
have been discussed at length in the last several decades
by archaeologists (e.g. Davidson and Shackley 1976;
Pyddoke 1961; Schiffer 1972, 1995; Shackley 1975).
Perhaps the overriding theme of these discussions is the
great complexity of the relationships between various
depositional and post-depositional factors.
Natural processes of sediment movement and soil
development have been discussed by soil scientists,
geomorphologists, and geologists. Even with this
depth of information to draw on, however, relating
form to process is difficult. Young (1972:19) points out
that while observing present forms is relatively simple,
observing past forms is impossible. Analyzing both
present and past processes is difficult, and reconstructing
the evolution of form through the lens of process can be
extremely difficult. In short, the array of processes that
may be active during and subsequent to the creation of
archaeological sites is complex, interrelated, and
largely obfuscatory.
An understanding of the roles that natural and
cultural processes may have played at earthen
enclosures such as Strawtown and Scranage is
118
essential to understanding the deposits there, however.
While the deflation of the embankments and the
erosion/filling of the ditches may appear at first to be
rather destructive transformations (i.e., they entail an
alteration in the original forms of the enclosures),
careful study of the forms and processes of these kinds
of structures may yield information about site use and
occupation that otherwise would be very difficult to
obtain. In other words, by studying both the form of the
structures and the processes that have transformed
them, it may be possible to elucidate details of the
histories of these structures that can aid in interpreting
associated deposits and artifacts, and, consequently,
produce insight into the cultural dynamics that were
operating during the life of the structures. While
conditions that influence the mechanics of
transformation at earthen structures (such as
vegetation, soil development, slope, exposure, etc.)
may vary widely even within different portions of the
same structure, the kinds of transformations that take
place are relatively simple. Gravity causes water,
sediment, and other materials to flow downhill, and the
net effect of most natural processes will be a reduction
in the height of an embankment and a reduction in the
depth of a ditch with a concurrent widening. Whether
these transformations take place gradually, rapidly, at a
constant pace, or in distinct episodes, the net effects
will be similar. The progressive, unidirectional nature
of these transformations may result in the creation of
variety of deposits with different, complex histories.
Interpretations of artifacts and deposits associated with
earthen structures such as those at Strawtown and
Scranage must be made in light of these complexities.
Strawtown and Scranage Enclosures
Work during the 2001 field season produced a good
deal of raw information about the Strawtown and
Scranage enclosures.
Inevitably, this work has
produced a few answers and a plethora of questions. As
would be expected, there are some commonalities
between the deposits at the two sites. The form of the
enclosures is similar on the surface: a round-topped
embankment surrounded by a shallow ditch depression.
Trench profiles from both sites are consistent with a
concurrent widening/filling of the ditch and deflation/
spreading of the embankment. These similarities
suggest that similar natural processes affected both
enclosures subsequent to their construction and/or
abandonment.
There are differences in the profiles, however.
Most of these differences are attributable to differences
in the size and modern/historic use of the enclosures.
The embankment at Scranage appears to have retained
DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
proportionally more of its height than the embankment
at Strawtown, presumably due to the lack of cultivation
at Scranage. Both the trench profile and various
historic sources suggest that cultivation at Strawtown
contributed greatly to the deflation of the embankment
and the filling of the ditch. The large distance between
the apex of the embankment and the ditch, however,
appears to have delayed the deposition of embankment
fill into the ditch until the historic period. The ditch
and embankment are located in closer proximity at
Scranage. The presence of a developing buried O/A
horizon between the original edge of the embankment
and the lowest portion of the ditch suggests that both
structures may have remained somewhat stable for
some time.
Postholes marking the location of a stockade line
were present at Scranage, but were not located at
Strawtown. There was extensive rodent disturbance in
the excavated portion of the Strawtown embankment
where postholes would be expected, however. The
posts at Scranage were apparently set into the O/A
horizon (without a trench?) and the embankment fill
placed around them for support.
Cultural materials are present in the fill of both
embankments.
This material may have been
incorporated into the embankment fill in a number of
ways. Some of the material may have been surface/
near-surface refuse that was incidentally included
during construction. Other material may have been
refuse that was intentionally deposited on the top or
sides of the embankment during use of the enclosure.
Cultural materials in portions of the embankments that
have been significantly altered (such as materials in
close proximity to intact postholes or other intact
features) would very likely have been incidentally
included during construction of the embankment, and
therefore would predate or be contemporary with
construction of the embankment. Distinguishing
between incidental inclusions (which may predate or be
contemporary with) the construction of the embankment
and materials deposited as refuse (which postdate the
construction of the embankment) within the
embankment fill may be exceptionally difficult.
Future Research
Deposits at Strawtown and Scranage offer both analogs
and contrasts. While the overall structures are similar
(circular earthern embankment surrounded by a
circular ditch), the deposits within them are quite
different. In terms of the study of form and process in
prehistoric earthen architecture, analysis of these two
sites is complementary. Given the obvious differences
in the degree of use (and function?) of these sites,
119
however, it will be important to consider each site on its
own terms. In simplest terms, it appears as though a
similar set of processes has acted on a broadly similar
pair of earthen structures containing qualitatively and
quantitatively different archaeological remains.
A solid understanding of the processes and
mechanics that have influenced the post-construction
changes in the embankments and ditches will be
required to appropriately interpret stratigraphy,
deposits, and associated artifacts at these sites. Such an
understanding will require the collection of detailed
information about the sediments and inclusions (both
natural and cultural) that make up the embankment and
ditch deposits. Particle size analysis may be a useful
tool for investigating the source materials and
depositional histories of these structural sediments
(e.g., Catt and Weir 1976; Davidson 1973, 1976).
Analysis of the natural gravel content of these
sediments may be of similar use in source
determination.
The mixture and vertical locations of artifacts
(Late Archaic hafted bifaces as well as Late Woodland/
Late Prehistoric hafted bifaces and Late Prehistoric
ceramics of at least two chronologically separable
styles) in the embankment fill/“midden” at Strawtown
is consistent with the ultimately secondary source of the
deposit as well as the lateral and vertical movements of
artifacts that would be expected during the deflation/
“spreading” of the embankment. The complex history
of this deposit presents serious challenges to analysis
and interpretation. Excavation of this deposit in
standard 10cm levels in 1m x 1m or 2m x 2m units is
likely to produce only large collections of artifacts and
natural rocks which can contribute relatively little of
analytical significance to the study of the evolution of
the embankment. Likewise, given the apparent lateral
and vertical mixing of the deposit, it does not appear
that there is a horizontally consistent, identifiable
microstratigraphy that could be elucidated by
excavation of these deposits in very small (5cm or less)
levels in standard size units.
The information gathered thus far suggests that
patterns of post-construction artifact deposition should
be present in the embankment fill at Strawtown,
however. A different approach to excavation will be
required to find these patterns, if they exist. Studies of
conjoining artifacts could be used to identify artifacts
that were deposited at the same time in or on the
embankment. Such a study would require either the
excavation of small units (50cm by 50cm, for example)
in small levels (to obtain finer scale vertical and
horizontal control), or, preferably, piece-plotting of
ceramic artifact debris in a series of larger units aligned
across the embankment and ditch. Such a study should
DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
be pursued in conjunction with a detailed study of
sediments, natural rock, and slope erosion processes,
which may yield complementary information about the
movements of sediments and materials within the
deposit and provide precise estimates of the original
form of the embankment (e.g. Davidson 1975; Kirby
1969; Musgrave 1947; Zingg 1940).
Study of several other issues at Strawtown may be
worth pursuing in the near future. Faunal preservation
at Strawtown is excellent, both within the embankment
fill and in features below it. It is unclear why there is
such good bone preservation within the embankment.
Bone discarded on the surface of the embankment but
later incorporated into the embankment fill would have
been subject to a variety of taphonomic processes
(alteration by rodents and carnivores, sun bleaching
and weathering, etc.). It may be useful in the future to
explore differences in the occurrence of such variables
among bone from different deposits at the site.
Features related to domestic activities (house
structures, refuse pits, hearths, etc.) that were located
adjacent to the embankment may be affected by changes
in the form of the embankment. Relationships between
intact features and ditch/embankment features may
offer information about the chronology of site use. This
is may be especially true at Strawtown, where multiple
occupations are present and intact features have been
identified.
SOCIAL DYNAMICS IN LATE PREHISTORIC
NORTH-CENTRAL AND NORTHEASTERN
INDIANA
In any study of the population dynamics of the Late
Prehistoric in the Eastern Woodlands, the issue of
warfare or violent conflict must be addressed. Along
with widespread population dispersals, territorial
abandonment, and settlement-subsistence shifts (for a
recent overview, see Brose et al. 2001) after the demise
of the Mississippian in northern latitudes, there is
abundant evidence that violent conflict was occurring
across the Midwest during the Late Prehistoric period.
For example, in Wisconsin, Iowa, and northern
Illinois, warfare within Oneota contexts is evidenced by
the widespread appearance of fortifications, ditches,
shifts to defensible locations, and malnutrition (Benn
1995:125; Gibbon 1995:191; Hollinger 1995:162-163;
Overstreet 1995:44; Sasso 1993). At the proto-Arikara
site Crow Creek in South Dakota, 486 individuals were
found buried together in a fortification ditch; the vast
majority showed evidence of mutilation and scalping
(Gregg et al. 1981; Willey and Emerson 1993;
Zimmerman 1997). In the Oneota-related Bold
120
Counselor phase of west-central Illinois, “risk is more
clearly associated with the social than the natural
landscape” (Milner et al. 1991b:258), and the results of
increased social risk are well documented. At the
thirteenth-century Norris Farm #36 site (Milner et al.
1991a; Santure et al. 1990), 42 percent of the adults
buried in the cemetery show indications of violent
death. Of those 50 adults, 42 were either decapitated or
scalped, and the cemetery appears to have been
abandoned after a major mortality episode (Santure
1990:154-158). Nearby, the late-fourteenth to earlyfifteenth-century Crable site also revealed such
evidence of violent death as scalping and malnutrition
(Emerson 1999:37-38;
McDonald 1950:17-18;
Neumann 1940; Santure 1990:156; Michael Strezewski,
personal communication 1999) as do some individuals
at Dickson Mounds (Milner 1992:147; Morse
1978:Plates 5 and 6).
Evidence of Violent Conflict within the Project
Area
Although limited, evidence of warfare-related trauma
has also been recovered from the upper Great Lakes
(Milner 1991b). Along the western edge of Lake Erie, a
forced dispersal of the Western Basin tradition
(Stothers and Pratt 1981) populations by the Wolf
phase of the Sandusky tradition reportedly occurred
about the middle of the thirteenth century (Stothers and
Bechtel 1994; Stothers 1995; Stothers et al. 1994:
Stothers and Schneider 1998). Also, along the eastern
periphery of the Fort Ancient area, Graybill (1981,
1984) identified trends that indicate conditions of
increased social risk, such as areal restriction, the
appearance of palisades, a trend toward larger sites, and
a shift of settlements southward toward the Ohio River.
Drooker and Cowan (2001) note the areal restriction,
southward shift, population aggregation, and cultural
homogenization as defining characteristics of the Fort
Ancient Madisonville Horizon and also cite “warrelated traumas” among “1–2 percent of burials at most
sites of all periods but considerably more at some
western sites: 6 percent at the Early–Middle Fort
Ancient Anderson site and up to 7 percent (including
all fractures) at the primarily Late Fort Ancient
Madisonville site” (Drooker and Cowan 2001:98). The
Monongahela tradition farther up the Ohio River also
demonstrates a similar shift to defensible locations and
the appearance of palisades (Hart 1992).
It is unclear if the high levels of social risk are
pandemic during the Late Prehistoric period or are
better explained as a series of isolated responses to local
conditions. Archaeological evidence suggesting that
open warfare occurred in Indiana is generally
DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
unavailable or inconclusive, but as Emerson (1999:37)
remarked, “the identification of violence among
prehistoric social formations is difficult and depends
heavily on the interpretations of secondary evidence”
(Emerson 1999:37). Nor can the level of violence
documented in a particular area (for example, northcentral Illinois) simply be generalized to other Late
Prehistoric populations (Milner et al. 1991b:258).
Marcus (1994:vi) outlines eight lines of evidence
that may indicate warfare in the archaeological record:
(1) the identification of buffer zones, or no-man’s
lands, (2) the presence of fortifications, (3) evidence of
violent trauma in skeletal remains, (4) the identification
of weaponry, (5) sudden shifts in settlement patterns,
(6) sites that have been burned or destroyed, (7) a
cultural sequence that shows sudden change, and (8)
warfare-related iconography (cf. Emerson 1999:37).
Based on these criteria, evidence of warfare among the
Late Prehistoric settlements in the study area is
inconclusive, if not decidedly lacking.
It is, however, the second of Marcus’s criteria that
is of immediate interest to the current study. Three Late
Prehistoric Oliver phase sites have been documented
that were enclosed by stockade walls. All three were
located in the south-central, unglaciated portion of
Indiana, one in Lawrence County and two in Orange
County. Based on a recent seriation analysis conducted
by the Principal Investigator (McCullough 2000), as
well as on radiocarbon dating, two sites, Clampitt (12
Lr 329) and Cox’s Woods (12 Or 1), are known to date
later in the Oliver period, suggesting that fortifications
became necessary in the latter portion of the Oliver
sequence as occupation shifted southward from central
Indiana. Such a pattern is similar to the developments
documented during the Fort Ancient Madisonville
Horizon, and both Clampitt and Cox’s Woods revealed
habitation areas within the palisaded enclosure:
considerable habitation debris had accumulated along
the interior of the enclosures, and evidence of structures
was found within the enclosure. As with other Fort
Ancient enclosures, there was a relatively clear “plaza”
area at the center of the enclosure.
Until the current investigation, it was unclear how
the Strawtown enclosure in Hamilton County, near the
northern edge of the Oliver distribution, was related to
the Late Prehistoric occupation of central Indiana. This
circular enclosure reportedly was associated with the
Oliver phase (Dorwin 1971), although the attribution
was based on the recovery of one Anderson phase Fort
Ancient-style rim sherd and less than a dozen sherds
with cord-impressed decoration (Lilly 1937:107;
Griffin 1943:Plate CLVII, figures 1 to 8) of uncertain
provenience. As a result of the current investigation, it
is possible to associate an Oliver phase component at
121
the Strawtown enclosure, one dating to the late twelfth
and thirteenth centuries, based upon radiocarbon
assays. The location of the Strawtown enclosure
undoubtedly supported an Oliver village occupation
with a similar configuration to other circular Oliver and
Fort Ancient sites. Based on the distribution of Late
Prehistoric artifacts there appears to be a central plaza
surrounded by a “middle ring” of habitation debris
within the embankment area, interior to the ditch. It is
unknown, however, at this point in the investigations, if
the enclosure supported a palisade.
Of even more interest is the multicomponent
nature of the occupation at this site. All of the Fort
Ancient-like ceramics are limited to the enclosure site
and are found in association with Great Lakes
impressed ware, while the bottoms below the enclosure,
based on the surface survey, is characterized by
Western Basin-type ceramics only, which probably also
date to the twelfth or thirteenth century. Across the
river, the Taylor Village site may be somewhat later
than the occupations at 12 H 3 and 12 H 883, but some
Taylor Village pottery is present at both sites. Limited
information suggests a late thirteenth- to fifteenthcentury range for the Taylor Village material.
Rather than maintaining buffer zones, another of
Marcus’s criteria for concluding that warfare was
occurring in an area, the various populations at
Strawtown occur together. It is not yet clear whether
they all overlap temporally, but certainly all are at the
periphery of their respective known spatial ranges. This
co-occurrence of culturally disparate groups is also
known elsewhere during the Oliver phase. For
example, the Fisher-related Smith Valley complex
located south of Indianapolis appears to be
contemporary with the middle to later segment of the
Oliver sequence that dates to the mid-fourteenth
century. The Smith Valley complex was not located
along any major tributary, the preferred location of
Oliver settlements, but utilized the edges of low-lying
marshes with a hoe technology (which is not typical of
Oliver farming technology). Such a settlement location
is similar to Fisher sites in northwestern Indiana and
northern Illinois. Apparently, the Smith Valley site
cluster south of Indianapolis was not in competition for
prime agricultural lands with the Oliver groups,
because these were not areas they selected for
occupation, although it is unknown to what extent these
groups competed for other critical resources. The
distribution of pottery suggests that at least some form
of interaction between the two groups took place. Even
though the excavations at Smith Valley were designed
to detect the presence of fortifications, none were
identified. Thus, while a geographical and ecological
spacing between the groups is evident, a definite buffer
DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
zone cannot be identified.
On the other hand, the two enclosure sites
investigated in the northeastern portion of the project
area appear to be single-component sites. At the Adams
enclosure, the surface survey recovered enough
material to confirm Moore’s (1987, this report
Appendix B) location of a Late Prehistoric site. The
current investigation also has confirmed the Late
Prehistoric date of the Scranage enclosure: three
triangular points were recovered, and radiocarbon
assays returned a 2 sigma calibrated date range of AD
1030-1260. As at the Adams site, the ceramics at
Scranage are more Springwells-like, but no diagnostic
sherds were recovered during the current investigation.
The first season of excavation also revealed the
presence of palisades atop the embankment.
In addition to the Adams and Scranage enclosures
there are other earthworks in northeastern Indiana
thought to be Late Prehistoric: the Kramer mound
(described in Appendix B), with an exterior ditch, and
triangular points and grit-tempered pottery reported; a
small, circular earthwork once nearly five feet tall
(Rerick 1882) in LaGrange County; another earthwork
in Whitley County (Goodspeed and Blanchard 1882);
and an earthen enclosure in Steuben County, which
yielded grit-tempered pottery and evidence of postholes
before it was bulldozed in the early1970s (Donald R.
Cochran, personal communication 2001).
Palisaded sites similar to the Scranage enclosure in
southeastern Michigan have been interpreted as
defensive structures (Krakker 1983; Fitting 1975), as
have the northeastern Indiana enclosures (e.g.,
Cochran 1980). As Neusius et al. remark,
The defensive function of the earthworks has become an
integral part of a model that posits population growth,
dependence on horticulture, a greater degree of sedentism,
and increased competition for land as aspects of cultural
dynamics during late prehistory. When interpreted as
features associated with the defense of settlements, the
earthworks imply intergroup conflict not unlike that which
occurred after European contact. (Neusius et al. 1998:204).
Based on a reanalysis of the Ripley site (Sullivan 1996),
Neusius et al. (1998:204) suggest that “a ceremonial
interpretation of the enclosures, particularly one
associated with mortuary ritual, is consistent with [a]
general understanding of tribal societies.” At Scranage,
albeit based on the preliminary investigation, there is a
dearth of evidence for an intensive domestic
occupation: there is little debris, limited evidence of
domestic structures, and only three tools (all triangular
points), while the botanical analysis suggests that corn
was brought to, rather being processed on, the site, as
would be expected at a long-term domestic settlement.
Yet there is not yet evidence that Scranage functioned
122
as a mortuary site.
In northern lower Michigan, Late Prehistoric
enclosures with a lack of evidence for long-term or
intensive domestic occupation also have been
interpreted as locations of “trading posts” that
“promoted social solidarity among participating
peoples” (Milner and O’Shea 1998:200) There, such
enclosures were placed in marginal locations at
possible territorial boundaries, often “built at the
headwaters of primary stream systems” (Milner and
O’Shea 1998:199), and exotic materials, such as
nonlocal chert, have been recovered. Of the
northeastern Indiana enclosure sites, only two are
located at the headwaters of different major
drainageways: Scranage is on the headwaters of Cedar
Creek, which flows to the St. Joseph River and,
ultimately Lake Erie; the Whitley County enclosure
was on waterways flowing to the Wabash River. The
Steuben County enclosure was placed at the headwaters
of Fish Creek, which also empties into the St. Joseph
River. The pottery of these enclosures, however, is all
nondiagnostic, and at Scranage, the chert, based upon
an analysis by A. M. Schneider, is overwhelmingly of
local origin. Although these interpretations may not be
mutually exclusive, it is simply too early in the research
at these Indiana enclosure sites to assign them a
function.
Even if the presence of enclosures suggests a model
of intergroup conflict, or at least increased social risk
within the project area, there are few indications that
any other of Marcus’s criteria for adducing the presence
of warfare among populations is present. For example,
another sign of warfare is evidence of violence in
human remains. Currently, the only known mortuary
practice definitely associated with Oliver is in-village
inhumation, but presence of trauma in the human
remains has not been identified at this time. Besides an
isolated burial (Bundy-Voyles, 12 Mg 1) and a very few
partial burials (Clampitt, 12 Lr 329), the Bowen site (12
Ma 61) contains the only skeletal assemblage recovered
from an Oliver context. None of the previous studies
(Bush 1993; Dorwin 1971; Ruby n.d.; Schmidt 1998 )
of the Bowen human remains revealed violent trauma
as a cause of death for the individuals recovered. Even
though such evidence was not the focus of any of the
above-mentioned analyses, it can be assumed, based on
the number of studies, that the cause of death for the
individuals buried at the Bowen site was not from
violence, or it would have been noticed. Dorwin
(1971:291) reports that for the in situ burials (n=39),
young adult males are unrepresented—no male deaths
occurred between the ages of fourteen and twenty-three.
It is unclear, however, how an individual’s age, which
was presented in two year increments ranging from 1 to
DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
65+ years old, and sex were determined in Dorwin’s
(1971:290-299) study, or how sample size affected this
disproportional sex/age ratio. Schmidt’s (1998:126)
study (n=21) was able to identify males within the
“young” and “middle adult” age range, and he did not
note any obvious trauma. It is unknown, however, how
representative Bowen interments are of a typical Oliver
village, or what the full range of mortuary activities
may be. It is similarly unclear at this stage of
investigations what mortuary practices correspond to
the sites surveyed during this study.
Other correlates suggested by Marcus (1994:vi) are
the presence of weapons, warfare iconography, and
destroyed or burned sites. Specific weaponry has not
been identified from Oliver components, but it is very
likely that items used in hunting could be used for
warfare or that they do not survive in archaeological
contexts. Similarly, warfare iconography has not been
identified, but an appropriate medium for such
symbolism is not likely to have survived. No Oliver site
so far has shown evidence of destruction or serious
damage by fire. Thus, of the eight indicators, five have
not been identified on Oliver sites, and evidence for the
other three is inconclusive.
Sudden shifts in settlement and sudden breaks in
the cultural sequence, however, also can be an
indication of warfare. While the seriation analysis
(McCullough 2000) did demonstrate both a continuous
sequence and a southward shift in the territory
originally occupied by Oliver groups, it is unclear why
or how suddenly this change occurred. The settlements,
even the ones with fortifications, remain on the valley
floor. Based on investigations to date ( McCullough and
Wright 1996, 1997b; Meadows and Bair 2000:87;
Redmond 1991a; Redmond and McCullough 1993),
settlements do not move to defensible hilltop locations,
as at Fort Ancient locations (Drooker and Cowan
2001), even though in many cases prominent upland
areas are immediately adjacent to village locations. Nor
does site size increase, as would be expected in times of
warfare; the archaeological record does not indicate
larger aggregations of people. Finally, as demonstrated
through the continuous variation in the pottery
assemblage, there is not a break in the Oliver sequence.
Thus, the case for warfare as a motive for settlement
dynamics in the study area is weak at best.
Although warfare is not necessarily indicated,
there is a relatively sudden emergence of Oliver
populations during the early to mid-thirteenth century
and a rather abrupt ending of the phase in the early
fifteenth century. A similar situation has been noted for
the Langford tradition of northern Illinois, which
demonstrates a sudden appearance, a swift expansion
across the region, and an abrupt “collapse” by about AD
123
1300. Emerson (1999:26) remarks that “these are
characteristics that appear to argue for it being a
response to external pressures rather than an in situ
evolutionary and/or environmental adaptation.” It may
be that the Langford tradition developed in situ in the
direction it did because of external forces, but in central
Indiana, an important observation is that there is little
evidence of a substantial population prior to the Oliver
settlement of the region. Nor is there evidence of
cultural continuity in terms of material culture,
settlement patterns, or mortuary behavior between the
earlier Albee and the later Oliver groups. But other
processes besides warfare or the threat of warfare can
account for the emergence of the Oliver phase in central
Indiana.
Evidence for Migration
The Principal Investigator has argued elsewhere
(McCullough 2000) that the relatively abrupt
appearance of Oliver phase villages in the areas of
central Indiana within the widest expanse of welldrained alluvial soils (Marion and Hamilton counties)
can best be explained by migration, although it is
important to have adequate spatial patterning and
temporal control before making assumptions concerning
migration processes. It also is important to remember
that it is not cultures that migrate, but “often a narrowly
defined, goal-oriented subgroup that migrates”
(Anthony 1990:908), which may or may not carry the
full range of cultural features.
Certainly, a land-expansive colonization strategy
for such groups as the Oliver phase peoples, who
practiced swidden horticulture, is an optimal
alternative when relatively uncontested areas are
available, given the boom and bust nature of swidden
systems. While most migrations involve short-distance
movements within a localized area, the beginning and
end of the Oliver occupation is best explained by longdistance migrations. The earlier Albee occupation does
not appear to be antecedent to the development of
Oliver, and no evidence of Madisonville or Oliver
occupations after about AD 1425 have been identified
in central Indiana thus far.
At the beginning of the Late Prehistoric period
people associated with the Albee phase (ca. AD 800 to
1200) inhabited the project area as evidenced mostly by
their mortuary sites and ephemeral, scattered
occupations across central and southern Indiana. As
discussed previously, maize appears to have been only
supplemental in the Albee subsistence economy, and
what would be considered the highest quality resources
(well-drained alluvial soils) were only minimally
utilized by a small, fairly mobile population. Based on
DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
current information, formal village life was not a
component of Albee settlement. In contrast, Oliver
populations concentrated along the highest quality
riverine areas for maize cultivation and used only
smaller transitory camps in the upland areas. Central
Indiana was essentially ripe for exploitation by groups
with nutrient-demanding maize-based subsistence
economies, who exhibited a “preadaption” (Rouse
1985:12) to the conditions found in that area and who
were already familiar with the cyclical migrations that
a swidden agriculture entails.
Unlike short-distance migration, long-distance
migration that crosses cultural or ecological boundaries
often leaves identifiable traces in the archaeological
record. Long-distance migration is highly dependent
on the establishment and subsequent maintenance of
information transmission in order to locate potential
areas for expansion and to evaluate the related
transportation costs. Material culture often moves
along this information transmission route and usually
represents the most identifiable archaeological
evidence. Long-distance migration patterns can be
examined and are often composites of the following
attributes: leapfrogging, migration streams, return
migration, and migration frequency (Anthony
1990:902).
While it is often difficult to determine the precise
causes of a migration, for long-distance migrations, the
push factors in the source regions “are primarily
economic”: the “existence of great differences in
economic opportunities between two regions should be
a predictable antecedent to long-distance migration
from the least productive to the most productive region”
(Anthony 1990:900). It is this asymmetry of economic
conditions and the tendency for people to select
responses or procurement strategies from a preexisting
set of options (Keegan and Butler 1987:122) that offer
a strong incentive for expansion. Such an economic
expansion essentially involves a distribution of demand
over a larger geographic area and can satisfy an
increased demand without increasing costs (Keegan
and Butler 1987:112-114), which, at least in the short
run, allows for population increases without a falling
standard of living (Keegan and Butler 1987:122).
Further, swidden systems in temperate forests promote
a linear, or expansive, pattern of cultivation, if
appropriate land is available, because of the long fallow
periods required for regeneration (Harris 1972:254).
Evidence that the Oliver phase people’s agricultural
system made them likely candidates for migration also
follows from a slightly different approach. The Oliver
phase has already been characterized as having a
maize-based subsistence economy, or in Cleland’s
(1976) terminology, a “focal” procurement strategy,
124
one that focuses on a restricted variety of localized,
relatively inelastic, but highly productive resources. As
Anthony remarks:
The threshold at which long-distance migration occurred
might have been reached much more rapidly among societies
with focal economies, since they were likely to deplete
critical resources within a given area more rapidly than
societies practicing diffuse or broad-spectrum subsistence
strategies. . . . Given the proper mix of home negatives,
designation positives, and low transportation costs, focally
adapted farmers might be considered more likely to migrate
long distances than broad-spectrum hunter-gatherers
[Anthony 1990:901].
Thus not only was there a prime agricultural region
lightly inhabited, but the Oliver phase focal economy
made them likely candidates for migration, especially
since their swidden agricultural practices had already
familiarized these groups with frequent periodic
moves.
Another feature of “societies practicing focal
subsistence strategies” is that they are “more likely to
develop long-distance networks in order to acquire
information about the location of scattered resource
patches of the type they habitually exploited” (Anthony
1990:902; cf. Brown 1985:206; Rouse 1985:12). In that
case, the migration pattern will often have a
leapfrogging appearance (as opposed to a wave of
advance). “The archaeological pattern produced by
leapfrogging should resemble ‘islands’ of settlement in
desirable or attractive locations, separated by
significant expanses of unsettled, less desirable
territory” (Anthony 1990:903).
The presence of a complex of sites in the West Fork
with close similarities—in terms of material cultural,
village structure, procurement strategies, and mortuary
practices—to Anderson phase Fort Ancient in the
upper Great and Little Miami rivers is a prime example
of leapfrogging. Even though Fort Ancient proper
appears to have arisen from local Late Woodland
groups (e.g. Church 1987; Riggs 1998), as opposed to
the developments in the study area, the later Oliver
occupation mirrors the broader developments of the
central Ohio Valley. Prior to the beginning of the
Madisonville Horizon (ca. AD 1400-1450), Fort
Ancient comprised a wide variety of regional
complexes (Essenpreis 1988:9). With the advent of the
Madisonville Horizon, pottery (and other aspects of
material culture) demonstrates widespread similarities
across the central Ohio Valley, instead of the
diversification that marked the early and late periods.
This similar design template could indicate increased
interaction through regular visitation, trade, and
intermarriage (Drooker 1997:327). The homogenization
during Madisonville is accompanied by the
DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
abandonment of the earlier outlying regions and a
constriction of the Fort Ancient territory closer to the
Ohio River (Drooker 1997:68; Graybill 1981, 1984).
Oliver fits into this depiction as one of the diverse,
outlying populations of Fort Ancient who migrated,
leapfrog-style, into an available ecological niche and
who brought with them a portion, not the entire range,
of the pre-Madisonville Fort Ancient cultural
repertoire.
The presence of isolated Huber (Taylor Village)
and Fisher-related (Smith Valley complex) sites is
another prime example of a leapfrogging type of longdistance migration and the level of information
necessary for such a move. The Fisher-related group
that settled in the vicinity of Smith Valley in
northwestern Johnson County, Indiana, would have
needed detailed advance information that provided the
location of a small, patchy, highly specialized ecotone.
Typically, Fisher-related groups from northwestern
Indiana and northeastern Illinois settled on sandy areas
adjacent to prairie wetlands. It is noteworthy that the
people who settled in the vicinity of Smith Valley,
which is approximately three miles from any major
waterway, were able to find this small patchy resource,
similar to what they were accustomed to exploiting,
over one hundred miles away in an area surrounded by
a closed canopy forest.
Another attribute of long-distance migrations is
that they often move toward specific destinations in
well-defined streams or routes, which usually have a
restricted origination point. Information from scouts or
people who migrated earlier is critical when evaluating
the costs of a long-distance move. “The pool of
potential migrants is kin-defined, often narrowly,
because the informational links that convey data
concerning optimal routes and destinations tend to
follow kinship connections” (Anthony 1990:903). A
migration stream with a restricted point of origin has
archaeological implications, in that migrants would
transport a limited range of regionally circumscribed
artifact types or styles from the point of origin to a
specific destination. The material repertoire would not
be representative of the full range of variability found in
the cultural tradition of the source area, leading to a sort
of “founder effect” and “resulting in rapid stylistic
change from what was in any case a narrowly defined
pool of variability” (Anthony 1990:903; cf. Rouse
1985:10). Thus, migrations often entail migration
streams with a limited origination point, rather than a
steady wave of advance that is often envisioned when
examining expansive economic systems. For example,
the point commonly acknowledged to be diagnostic of
the middle Fort Ancient period in many areas, the
classic “Fort Ancient Point” (Justice 1987:227-28) also
125
referred to as “Type 3, coarsely serrated” in Railey’s
(1992) temporal projectile sequence, is conspicuous in
its absence in most Oliver stone tool assemblages, as are
shell hoes, which are prevalent on many Fort Ancient
sites (Drooker 1997:71).
Finally, most long-distance migrations are
followed by subsequent back, or counter-stream,
migrations so that people and information flow in two
directions (Anthony 1990:903). “Return migration is a
well-known aspect of many migration streams, and
should have archaeological consequences” (Anthony
1990:898). Research focusing on the archaeological
correlates of counterstream migration between Fort
Ancient and the Oliver territory could be a productive
area for future research. Small numbers of rim sherds
with late Oliver attributes have been recovered from
Madisonville (Drooker 1998:1055 and 1207) and near
the confluence of the Great Miami and the Ohio rivers
at Petersburg in Kentucky (Henderson 1993:Figure
16c) and 12 Oh 18 in Ohio County, Indiana (Cochran,
personal communication 1999).
In short, it is reasonable to assume that the Oliver
phase is a result of long-distance migration, but a model
suggesting that the Late Prehistoric occupation of the
study area was simply the result of the movement of
people from areas in Ohio inhabited by the Anderson
phase Fort Ancient to central Indiana, oversimplifies
what makes Oliver unique. Even though many aspects
of middle Fort Ancient settlement, mortuary behavior,
and material culture are found on Oliver sites, pottery
styles and vessel forms not typically associated with
middle Fort Ancient are prevalent on the earlier sites,
and these styles persist and converge on the later sites
(Redmond and McCullough 1996; Redmond 1994b).
The evidence for a middle Fort Ancient longdistance migration stands in contrast to the suggestion
of a similar Western Basin tradition, Springwells
population movement (discussed previously) to central
Indiana. The long-distance migration hypothesized as
the result of the Wolf phase military dispersal (e.g.
Bechtel and Stothers 1993; Stothers 1995; Stothers et
al. 1994; Stothers and Bechtel 1994) relies on isolated
attributes (often only a portion of the motif on pottery
vessels) and on limited or selected samples from sites
without accounting for the full range of variability,
especially vessel morphology. Further, elements of the
Springwells mortuary pattern, such as burial in
ossuaries, secondary burials, postmortem skeletal
alterations (e.g. cranial plaque removal, shaved or
drilled long bones) or clay funerary masks (Stothers
and Bechtel 1994: Stothers et al. 1994), are absent from
central Indiana. The fact remains, however, that Great
Lakes impressed pottery styles are prevalent in Oliver
pottery assemblages, as are moderately to strongly
DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
everted rim profiles, which are neither an Anderson nor
Springwells-related attribute. This combination has
been identified from numerous sites with good
contextual association, across the study area, with a
convergence of these styles occurring later in the
sequence. While these cord- and tool-impressed styles
are more closely related to Springwells than any other
contemporary pottery tradition, their presence across
central and northeastern Indiana still awaits explanation,
but a long-distance migration of Springwells is not
indicated by the data recovered from the archaeological
record thus far.
Conclusions
Issues of warfare and migration are related to questions
about the nature of contact among societies in frontier
or boundary areas. Generally, a frontier is defined as
the front edge of a particular group—an actual “front
tier”—with the focus on the interaction between the
frontier and the original homeland, while border
studies focus on the interaction at the edges (Green and
Perlman 1985:4). Too often a “frontier zone” is thought
to be “in itself, an indication of warfare and violence,”
a place where there are “situations that tempt groups to
obtain by violence what may be more difficult to obtain
by exchange” (Emerson 1999:38). But other researchers
(for a review of approaches to “peripheries, frontiers,
and boundaries,” see Rice 1998) find a variety of
responses within borderland areas. Martinez (1994:69), for example, describes a range of social interaction,
from “alienated” to “integrated.” Such variation not
only calls into question the notion of frontiers as “areas
of unremitting violence” (Emerson 1999:38), it
challenges our conception of “culture” as a bounded
entity. The nature of membership within a particular
group is often fluid, while the manner in which we
classify and study culture is often “artificial and can
lead to closed conceptions of culture” (Green and
Perlman 1985:4).
At the Strawtown site, we may be seeing the
emergence of the Oliver phase, that “cultural
assemblage” described by Griffin (1943:266) as “an
original grouping.” At Strawtown, a “front tier” of a
Fort Ancient migration stream is interacting with
people whose ceramics are distinguished by Great
Lakes impressed styles. As one of the earliest, if not the
earliest, Oliver site, the Strawtown ceramics are
dominated by Fort Ancient sherds, but both Fort
Ancient and Great Lakes impressed wares are found in
association in feature context. Yet at the site in the
bottoms below the enclosure, only Great Lakes
impressed ware is found. This pottery diversity at
Strawtown returns us to the question of whether
126
warfare was endemic across the Midwest during the
Late Prehistoric. Emerson says of frontiers, such as the
one the Fort Ancient peoples entered in central Indiana,
that “the presence of a frontier zone” is an “indication
of warfare and violence” and frontiers “are more likely
to be areas of unremitting violence” (Emerson
1999:38). An alternative model, however, is equally
likely. Where land is plentiful, such as along the wide,
sparsely (post-Albee) populated, floodplains of the
West Fork of the White River, wealth is in people
(Green 1980b:227; Green and Perlman 1985; Nyerges
1992;). Where labor instead of land is the limiting
factor in production, a social environment encouraging
fluid, inclusive societal boundaries can result. The
integration of styles that makes Oliver unique may
reflect the recruitment of labor, rather than a social
landscape of bounded, defensive entities, and the Oliver
phase may represent an economic organization that
encourages integration and inclusiveness.
Another goal of this project was the location and
recovery of contextual information related to the groups
associated with the Great Lakes impressed type of
pottery with everted rim profiles. Dissimilar to both
Fort Ancient and Western Basin tradition vessels, these
vessels constitute a significant portion of that unique
combination known as Oliver. The Great Lakes
impressed styles do not appear to have Albee
antecedents, and the earlier phases of the Western
Basin tradition (i.e. Riviere au Vase and Younge) that
are contemporary with the Albee occupation are
virtually absent from the study area. Nor does the
currently known archaeological record support a longdistance migration for the Western Basin tradition or
an in situ development in central Indiana. However,
style and morphological observations on limited
samples of ceramics do suggest that a sparsely
distributed Late Prehistoric group(s) related to the
Western Basin tradition may have occupied northeastern
Indiana and northwestern Ohio where suitable, welldrained alluvial soils are often in limited supply. At
present their settlements appear as dispersed
farmsteads along the creeks and drainageways of the
major rivers of the area, such as the Maumee, upper
Wabash, and upper White rivers. The current
investigations in the northeastern portion of the study
area, such as the excavations at Fox Island and the
survey along the Maumee River, were attempts to locate
village sites. It was hoped that the Scranage enclosure
was a village site, similar to those known for the Oliver
phase in central Indiana, but the evidence for its
identification as a long-term domestic occupation is
scanty. Thus, while both groups of peoples who seem to
have contributed to the emergence of the Oliver
phase—the Springwells-like people of northeastern
DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
127
Indiana and middle Fort Ancient people—had a
tradition of palisaded enclosures within their cultural
repertoire, the functions of those enclosures may have
differed greatly.
Further controlled surface collections should be
undertaken to define the boundaries of 12 H 3 and gather
information about the relationship between 12 H 3, 12 H
883, and other sites in the Strawtown area.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Strawtown Enclosure (12 H 883)
This section presents recommendations for the
management of the cultural resources that were the
subject of these investigations. These recommendations
are summarized in Table 6.1.
Strawtown enclosure (12 H 883) is clearly eligible for
inclusion on the NRHP. The limited test excavations
conducted to date have produced evidence of multiple
Late Archaic, Middle Woodland, and Late Prehistoric
occupations, complex deposits including earthen
structural remains and discrete pit features, and human
remains. Bone preservation is excellent, and a diverse
assortment of preserved botanical remains is present.
It is recommended that the Strawtown enclosure be
nominated to the NRHP, and that future developments
avoid the site area. Future research should focus on
clarifying the complex deposits at the site as a precursor
to detailed artifactual analyses.
A long term
management plan including both research and
preservation components should be formulated.
Sites Encountered During Survey and/or Surface
Collection
A total of 20 sites was encountered during survey and/
or surface collection activities. No further investigations
are recommended for nine of these sites: 12 Al 2039,
2040, 2041, 2044, 2045, 2049, 2050, 2051, and 2052.
Based on surface survey to date, these sites appear to
have little or no potential to be eligible for either the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or the
Indiana Register of Historic Sites and Structures
(IRHSS). Most of these sites consist of isolated pieces
of lithic or ceramic debris, and show no surface
evidence that would suggest the presence of or potential
for subsurface deposits. It should be noted, however,
that many of these sites are located in active floodplain
areas. The potential for buried deposits is always of
concern in such areas, even in locations that exhibit
little or no surface archaeological evidence.
Further investigation is recommended for 11 of the
sites encountered during survey and/or surface
collection activities: 12 Al 12, 1178, 1180, 1182, 2042,
2043, 2046, 2047, 2048, and 2053 in Allen County and
12 H 3 in Hamilton County. Work conducted to date
suggests that these sites may be eligible for inclusion on
the NRHP and/or the IRHSS.
The Allen County sites include sites with relatively
large amounts of prehistoric cultural debris located in
bottoms settings along the Maumee River and the
Adams Enclosure (12 Al 12). Although the earthen
embankment and ditch are no longer discernible on the
surface at 12 Al 12, it is likely that intact portions of
these structures have been preserved below the
plowzone.
The density of Late Prehistoric debris at site 12 H
3 suggests that a large village and/or mound site may be
present.
Although no indications of earthen
architecture are discernible on the surface of 12 H 3, it
is likely that intact deposits remain below plowzone.
Scranage Enclosure (12 Dk 363)
Scranage enclosure (12 Dk 363) is clearly eligible for
inclusion on the NRHP. The limited test excavations
conducted to date suggest that the site may be a single
component site that was used relatively lightly and/or
for non-habitation purposes. Complex deposits are
present in the well-preserved earthen embankment and
ditch structures.
It is recommended that the Scranage enclosure be
nominated to the NRHP, and that future developments
avoid the site area. Future research should focus on
addressing questions of site structure, use, and function.
12 Al 122
Site 12 Al 122 is potentially eligible for inclusion on the
NRHP. While the limited test excavations conducted to
date have failed to locate intact cultural deposits, the
boundaries of the site have not yet been defined. There
is evidence of occupations during both the Early
Woodland and Late Prehistoric periods, and the
presence of ceramic debris and burned/cracked rock
suggests that intact features may be present.
Further investigations will be required to define the
site and reasonably assess the nature and integrity of the
deposits that are present.
DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
128
Table 6.1. Summary of Recommendations.
Sit e N umbe r
Sit e
N a me
M e t hod of
I nve s t iga t ion
12 Al 12
Adams
Enclosure
Surface collection
12 Al 122
-
Shovel probing, test
units
12 Al 1178
-
Surface collection
12 Al 1180
-
Surface collection
12 Al 1182
-
Surface collection
12 Al 2039
12 Al 2040
12 Al 2041
-
Surface collection
Surface collection
Surface collection
12 Al 2042
-
Surface collection
12 Al 2043
-
Surface collection
12 Al 2044
12 Al 2045
-
Surface collection
Surface collection
12 Al 2046
-
Surface collection
12 Al 2047
-
Surface collection
12 Al 2048
-
Surface collection
12
12
12
12
Al 2049
Al 2050
Al 2051
Al 2052
-
Surface
Surface
Surface
Surface
12 Al 2053
-
Surface collection
12 Dk 363
Scranage
Enclosure
Excavations
N RHP Eligible
12 H 3
-
Controlled surface
collection
Potentially eligible; further controlled surface collections
needed to define site; subsurface investigations needed to
assess nature and integrity of cultural deposits; potential for
buried deposits exists
12 H 883
Strawtown
Enclosure
Excavations
N RHP Eligible
collection
collection
collection
collection
N R H P/I R H SS Eligibilit y a nd R e comme nda t ion
Potentially eligible; earthen enclosure no longer visible on
surface; subsurface investigations needed to assess nature
and integrity of remaining deposits
Potentially eligible; further investigations needed to define
site boundaries and assess nature and integrity of deposits
Potentially eligible; subsurface investigations needed to
assess nature and integrity of deposits
Potentially eligible; subsurface investigations needed to
assess nature and integrity of cultural deposits; potential for
buried deposits exists
Potentially eligible; subsurface investigations needed to
assess nature and integrity of cultural deposits; potential for
buried deposits exists
N ot eligible; no further work recommended
N ot eligible; no further work recommended
N ot eligible; no further work recommended
Potentially eligible; subsurface investigations needed to
assess nature and integrity of cultural deposits; potential for
buried deposits exists
Potentially eligible; subsurface investigations needed to
assess nature and integrity of cultural deposits; potential for
buried deposits exists
N ot eligible; no further work recommended
N ot eligible; no further work recommended
Potentially eligible; subsurface investigations needed to
assess nature and integrity of cultural deposits; potential for
buried deposits exists
Potentially eligible; subsurface investigations needed to
assess nature and integrity of cultural deposits; potential for
buried deposits exists
Potentially eligible; subsurface investigations needed to
assess nature and integrity of cultural deposits; potential for
buried deposits exists
N ot eligible; no further work recommended
N ot eligible; no further work recommended
N ot eligible; no further work recommended
N ot eligible; no further work recommended
Potentially eligible; subsurface investigations needed to
assess nature and integrity of cultural deposits; potential for
buried deposits (colluvial and/or alluvial) exists
REFERENCES CITED
Anonymous
1880
Atlas of DeKalb Co., Indiana. J. H. Beers and Co., Chicago, Illinois.
1898
Standard Atlas of Allen County, Indiana. George A. Ogle and Co., Chicago, Illinois.
1907
Plat Book of Allen County, Indiana, 1907. Allen County Map Co., Fort Wayne, Indiana.
1920
History of Northeast Indiana, LaGrange, Steuben, Noble, and DeKalb Counties, vol. 1. Lewis
Publishing Co., Chicago, Illinois.
Ahler, S., and R.B. McMillan
1976
Material Culture at Rodgers Shelter: A Reflection of Past Human Activities. In Prehistoric Man
and His Environments, edited by W. Raymond Wood and R. Bruce McMillan, pp. 163-200.
Academic Press, New York
Angst, M.
1994
Archaeological Field Reconnaissance, Cardinal Golf Club, Hamilton County, Indiana.
Manuscript on file, Archaeological Resources Management Service, Ball State University,
Muncie.
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.
Anthony, D. W.
1990
Migration in Archaeology: The Baby and the Bath Water. American Antiquity 92:895-914.
Arzigian, C. M.
1989
The Pammel Creek Site Floral Remains. In Human Adaptation in the Upper Mississippi Valley:
A Study of the Pammel Creek Oneota Site (47 Lc 61), La Crosse, Wisconsin. The Wisconsin
Archaeologist 70:111-156.
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 Vol. 6. Center for
American Archaeology, Kampsville, Illinois.
Austin, R.J.
1986
The Experimental Reproduction and Archaeological Occurrence of Biface Notching Flakes.
Lithic Technology 15(3):96-100.
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.
129
130
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.
Benn, D. W.
1995
Bernabo, J. C.
1981
Woodland People and the Roots of the Oneota. In Oneota Archaeology: Past, Present, and
Future, edited by W. Green. Office of the State Archaeologist, University of Iowa, Iowa City.
Quantitative Estimates of Temperature Changes over the Last 2700 Years in Michigan Based on
Pollen Data. Quaternary Research 15:143-159.
Bettis, E. A., III, and E. R. Hajic
1995
Landscape Development and the Location of Evidence of Archaic Cultures in the Upper
Midwest. In Archaeological Geology of the Archaic Period in North America, edited by E. A.
Bettis III, pp. 87-113. Geological Society of America, Special Paper 297.
Beynon, D. E.
1983
Final Report: St. Joseph River Basin Archaeological Survey, 1983-1984. Department of
Anthropology, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana.
Binford, L., and G.I. Quimby
1972
Indian Sites and Chipped Stone Materials in the Northern Lake Michigan Area (Reprint of the
1963 report) in An Archaeological Perspective, edited by Lewis R. Binford. Academic Press,
New York.
Birkett, F., and D. R. Cochran
1984
The Commissary Site Revisited. Report of Investigations 14. Archaeological Resources
Management Service, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana.
Black, G. A.
1933
The Archaeology of Greene County. Indiana History Bulletin 10(5):181-346.
1935
Excavation of a Blackford County Site. Indiana History Bulletin 12(5):148-152.
1936
Archaeological Survey of Allen County, Indiana. Fort Wayne Archaeological Society, Fort
Wayne, Indiana.
Blatchley, W.S.
1905
Roads and Road Materials of Indiana. Indiana Department of Geology and Natural Resources
Thirtieth Annual Report. W.S. Burford, Indianapolis.
Bleur, N. K., and M. C. Moore
1978
Environmental Geology of Allen County, Indiana. Department of Natural Resources Geological
Survey Special Report 13. Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Indianapolis.
Braun, E. L.
1950
Deciduous Forests of Eastern North America. Hafner Publishing, New York.
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.
131
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.
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.
1993
Human Dentition from the Bowen Site: 12 Ma 61. In Current Research in Indiana Archaeology
and Prehistory: 1991 & 1992, edited by B. G. Redmond, pp. 68-72. Research Reports 14. Glenn
A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology, Indiana University, Bloomington.
1994
Results of Botanical Analysis: Botanical Remains (Preliminary Data). Appendix G in The
Archaeology of the Clampitt Site (12 Lr 329), an Oliver Phase Village in Lawrence County,
Indiana, by B. G. Redmond. Research Reports 16. Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology,
Indiana University, Bloomington.
1996
Preliminary Findings Relevant to the Botanical Remains at 12 Or 1. In 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, edited by B. G. Redmond and R. G. McCullough. Research
Reports 17. Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology, Indiana University, Bloomington.
1997
Botanical Remains from Three Late Prehistoric Sites in Central Indiana. Appendix 2 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.
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.
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.
Church, F.
1987
Callahan, E.
1979
Cantin, M.
1994
An Inquiry into the Transition from Late Woodland to Late Prehistoric Cultures in the Central
Scioto Valley, Ohio, circa A.D. 500 to 1250. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of
Anthropology, Ohio State University, Columbus.
The Basics of Biface Knapping in the Eastern Fluted Point
Tradition: A Manual for
Flintknappers and Lithic Analysts. Archaeology of Eastern North America 7(l):1-180.
Provenience, Description, and Archaeological Use of Selected Cherts of Indiana. Indiana State
University Anthropology Laboratory, Terre Haute.
Casebere, L. A.
1997
Half Land, Half Water: The Northern Lakes Natural Region. In The Natural Heritage of Indiana,
edited by M. T. Jackson, pp. 203-208. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.
132
Catt, J.A., and A.H. Weir
1976
The Study of Archaeologically Important Sediments by Petrographic Techniques. In
Geoarchaeology, edited by D.A. Davidson and M.L. Shackley, pp. 65-91. Westview Press,
Boulder, Colorado.
Cleland, C. E.
1966
1976
Cochran, D. R.
1980
The Prehistoric Animal Ecology and Ethnozoology and the Upper Great Lakes Region.
Anthropological Report 29. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
The Focal-Diffuse Model: An Evolutionary Perspective on the Prehistoric Cultural Adaptations
of the Eastern United States. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 1(1):59-76.
An Archaeological Assessment of Fox Island County Park. Unpublished Master’s thesis.
Department of Anthropology, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana.
1985
Ceramics from 12-We-240 and Ceramic Sites in the Upper Wabash Drainage. Copies available
from Archaeological Resources Management Services, 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.
1991
Chipped Stone Classification, Appendix D. In Indenpendence: A Multicomponent Site in the
Middle Wabash Drainage, by Beth Cree and Donald R. Cochran. Reports of Investigation 29,
Archaeological Resources Management Service, Ball State University, Muncie.
1994
Prehistoric Settlement in the Tipton Till Plain. In Historic and Prehistoric Contexts in the Tipton
Till Plain, edited by D. W. Cree. Reports of Investigations 36. Archaeological Resources
Management Service, 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.
Cochran, D. R., B. K. McCord, R. Richards, and K. P. Waldon
1997
McCullough’s Run: A Bifurcated Tradition Cemetery in Indiana. Reports of Investigations 44.
Archaeological Resources Management Services, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana.
133
Conover, D.
1988
Cook, S. F.
1964
Cox, E. T.
1879
Crabtree, D.E.
1972
Cree, D. W.
1991
1994
A Reconnaissance Level Survey of the Valley Corridor of the Upper Fork of the White River in
Madison County, Indiana. Manuscript on file at Archaeological Resources Management Service,
Ball State University, Muncie.
The Nature of Charcoal Excavated at Archaeological Sites. American Antiquity 29(4):514-517.
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 Introduction to Flint-working. Occasional Papers 28. Idaho State Museum, Pocatello
An Archaeological Database Enhancement Project: A Survey of Hamilton and Marion Counties,
Indiana. Reports of Investigations 31. Archaeological Resources Management Service, Ball State
University, Muncie, Indiana.
Archaeological Site Densities from the Tipton Till Plain and the Surrounding Physiographic
Regions. In Historic and Prehistoric Contexts in the Tipton Till Plain, edited by D. W. Cree.
Reports of Investigations 36. Archaeological Resources Management Service, Ball State
University, Muncie, Indiana.
Cummings and Schrock
1928
The Geology of the Silurian Rocks of Northern Indiana. Publication 75. Indiana Department of
Conservation, Indianapolis.
Davis, L. W.
1993
Davis, M. B.
1983
Weed Seeds of the Great Plains: A Handbook for Identification. University Press of Kansas,
Lawrence.
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.
Davidson, D.A.
1973
Particle Size and Phosphate Analysis: Evidence for the Evolution of a Tell. Archaeometry
15:143-152.
1976
Processes of Tell Formation and Erosion. In Geoarchaeology, edited by D.A. Davidson and M.L.
Shackley, pp. 256-266. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.
Davidson, D.A., and M.L. Shackley (editors)
1976
Geoarchaeology. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.
Deam, C. C.
1940
Flora of Indiana. Indiana Department of Conservation, Indianapolis.
DeRegnaucourt, T., and J. Georgiady
1998
Prehistoric Chert Types of the Midwest. Occasional Monograph Series of the Upper Miami
Valley Archaeological Research Museum No. 7. Arcanum, Ohio.
134
Dorwin, J. T
1971
Drooker, P. B.
1997
The Bowen Site: An Archaeological Study of Cultural Process in the Late Prehistory of Central
Indiana. Indiana Historical Society Prehistory Research Series IV. Indianapolis.
The View from Madisonville: Protohistoric Western Fort Ancient Interaction Patterns. Memoirs
No. 31. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Drooker, P. B., and C. W. Cowan
2001
Transformation of the Fort Ancient Cultures of the Central Ohio Valley. In Societies in Eclipse:
Archaeology of the Eastern Woodlands Indians, A.D. 1400-1700, edited by D. S. Brose, C. W.
Cowan, and R. C. Mainfort Jr., pp. 83-106. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Dryer, C. R.
1962
Dunbar, R.
1997
Report upon the Geology of Allen County. Old Fort News 25(3-4).
The Bed of a Glacial Lake: The Black Swamp Natural Region. In The Natural Heritage of
Indiana, edited by M. T. Jackson, pp. 201-202. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.
Eggan, Frederick R.
1930
Report of work done on Archaeological Survey, August 11-25, 1930. Hamilton County, Indiana.
Ms. on file, Indiana Historical Society, Indianapolis.
Elett, A. C. J.
1979
Emerson, T. E.
1999
Dutch Ridge Remembered—1900. Cedar Creek Wildlife Project, Huntertown, Indiana.
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.
Fagan, B. M.
1991
2000
Ancient North America: The Archaeology of a Continent. Thames and Hudson, London, England.
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 Vol. V(1). Indiana Historical
Society, Indianapolis.
Finney, F.A., and J.B. Stoltman
1991
The Fred Edwards Site: A Case of Stirling Phase Culture Contact in Southwestern Wisconsin.
In New Perspectives on Cahokia: Views from the Periphery, edited by James B. Stoltman.
Monographs in World Archaeology No. 2. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin.
Fitting, J. E.
1965
Late Woodland Cultures of Southeastern Michigan. Anthropology Papers 24. Museum of
Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
135
1967
The Camp of the Careful Indian. Papers of the Michigan Academy of Science, Arts and Letters
52:237242.
1975
The Archaeology of Michigan. 2nd ed. Cranbrook Institute of Science, Bloomfield Hills,
Michigan.
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.
Flenniken, J.J.
1981
Replicative Systems Analysis: A Model Applied to the Vein Quartz Artifacts from the Hoko River
Site. Reports of Investigation 59. Laboratory of Anthropology, Washington State University.
Fritz, G.
1996
Discussion. In Archaeobotany in the Northeast, edited by J. Hart. New York Natural History
Conference IV. Albany.
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.
Gibbon, G.
1986
1995
The Mississippian Tradition: Oneota Culture. In, Introduction to Wisconsin Archaeology:
Background for Culture Resource Planning. Edited by William Green, James B. Stoltman &
Alice Kehoe. Special issue of The Wisconsin Archaeologist 62(3-4).
Oneota at the Periphery: Trade, Political Power, and Ethnicity in Northern Minnesota and on the
Northeastern Plains in the Late Prehistoric Period. In Oneota Archaeology: Past, Present, and
Future, edited by W. Green, pp. 175-199. Office of the State Archaeologist, University of Iowa,
Iowa City.
Goodspeed, W. A., and C. Blanchard (editors)
1882
Counties of Whitley and Noble, Indiana: Historical and Biographical. F. A. Battey and Co.,
Chicago, Illinois.
Gray, H. H.
1984
Graybill, J. R.
1981
1984
Archaeological Sedimentology of Overbank Silt Deposits on the Floodplain of the Ohio River
near Louisville, Kentucky. Journal of Archaeological Science 11(5):421-432.
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.
The Eastern Periphery of Fort Ancient. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 54(1-2):41-50.
136
Greber, N., R. S. Davis, and A. S. DuFresne
1981
The Micro Component of the Ohio Hopewell Lithic Technology: Bladelets. In The Research
Potential of Anthropological Museum Collections, edited by A. E. Cantwell, J. B. Griffin, and
N. A. Rothschild, pp. 489-528. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 376. New York.
Green, W.
1993
Examining Protohistoric Depopulation in the Upper Midwest. The Wisconsin Archaeologist
74:290-323.
Green, S. W., and S. M. Perlman (editors)
1985
The Archaeology of Frontiers and Boundaries. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida.
Gregg, J. B., L. J. Zimmerman, J. P. Steele, H. Ferwerda, and P. S. Gregg
1981
Ante-mortem Osteopathology at Crow Creek. Plains Anthropologist 26(4, pt.1):287-300.
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, vol. 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
Eastern North American Archaeology: A Summary. Science 156:175-191.
Grove, J. M.
1988
Guernsey, E.Y.
1932
The Little Ice Age. Methuen, New York.
Indiana: The Influence of the Indian upon its History… (map). Indiana Department of
Conservation, Indianapolis.
Gunn, J., and R. E. W. Adams
1981
Climatic Change, Culture, and Civilization in North America. World Archaeology13(1):87-100.
Hall, R. L.
1987
Halsey, J. R.
1976
Type Description of Starved Rock Collared. The Wisconsin Archaeologist 68:67-70.
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.
137
Harris, D. R.
1972
Hart, J. P.
1992
Harter, S.
1981
Hartman, J. M.
1968
Hayden, B.
1980
Hedge, R. L.
1997
Swidden Systems and Settlement. In Man and Settlement and Urbanism, edited by P. J. Ucko,
R. Tringham, and G. W. Dimbleby, pp. 245-262. Duckworth Press, London, England.
A Critique of the Adaptive-Type Concept in Eastern Woodlands Prehistory. Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois.
Original Land Entries of Allen County, Indiana. Stuart Harter, Churubusco, Indiana.
The Commissary Component: A Fort Ancient Site. In Archaeological Reports No. 3, edited by
B. K. Swartz, Jr., pp. 1-21. Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana.
Confusion in the Bipolar World: Bashed pebbles and Splintered Pieces. Lithic Technology 9(l):27.
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., 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.
Helm, T. B. (editor)
1888
History of Allen County, Indiana. Kingman Brothers, Chicago, Illinois.
Helmen, V. R.
1950
The Cultural Affiliations and Relationships of the Oliver Farm Site, Marion County, Indiana.
Unpublished Masters 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.
1993
Prehistoric Research at Petersburg, Boone County, Kentucky. Archaeological Report 289.
Program for Cultural Resource Assessment, University of Kentucky, Lexington.
Henderson, A. G. (editor)
1992
Fort Ancient Cultural Dynamics in the Middle Ohio Valley. Monographs in World Archaeology
8. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin.
Hixon, J. L.
1988
An Archaeological Assessment of the Strawtown Site and the Immediate Vicinity. Unpublished
Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana.
138
Hoadley, R. B.
1990
Identifying Wood: Accurate Results with Simple Tools. Taunton Press, Newtown, Connecticut.
Hollinger, R. E.
1995
Residence Patterns and Oneota Cultural Dynamics. In Oneota Archaeology: Past, Present, and
Future, edited by W. Green, pp. 141-174. Office of the State Archaeologist, University of Iowa,
Iowa City.
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.
James, M. L.
1982
Jensen, E. L.
1982
Jeske, R. J.
1992a
Fox Island Nature Preserve Test Pit No. 4 Report. Manuscript on file at Archaeological Survey,
Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne.
Soil Survey of DeKalb County, Indiana. United States Department of Agriculture, in cooperation
with Purdue University Agricultural Experiment Station and Indiana Department of Natural
Resources Soil and Water Conservation Committee. Washington, D.C.
Energetic Efficiency and Lithic Technology: An Upper Mississippian Example. American
Antiquity 57:467-481.
1992b
The St. Joseph River Valley: A Systematic Archaeological Survey in Allen and DeKalb Counties,
Indiana. Report of Investigations 2. Northeast Indiana Archaeological Survey, Indiana
University-Purdue University, Fort Wayne, Indiana.
1996
The Saint Marys River Valley: A Systematic Archaeological Survey in Allen and Adams Counties,
Indiana. Report of Investigations 5. Northeast Indiana Archaeological Survey, Indiana
University-Purdue University, Fort Wayne, Indiana.
Justice, N. D.
1977
1987
The Paleoindian Occupation of Northeastern Indiana. Ms. on file, Glenn A. Black Laboratory of
Archaeology, Indiana University, Bloomington.
Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Midcontinental and Eastern United States. Indiana
University Press, Bloomington.
Keegan, W. F., and B. M. Butler
1987
The Microeconomic Logic of Horticultural Intensification in the Eastern Woodlands. In
Emergent Horticultural Economies of the Eastern Woodlands, edited by W. F. Keegan, pp. 109128. Occasional Paper 7. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University,
Carbondale.
Kellar, J. H.
1983
An Introduction to the Prehistory of Indiana. Indiana Historical Society, Indianapolis.
Kendeigh, C. S.
1974
Ecology with Special Reference to Animals and Man. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey.
139
King, F. B.
1990
1993
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
Kirby, M.J.
1969
Late Quaternary Vegetational History of Illinois. Ecological Monographs 51(1):43-62.
Erosion by Water on Hillslopes. In Water, Earth and Man, edited by R.J. Chorley, pp. 229-238.
London.
Kirschner, F. R., and A. L. Zachary
1969
Soil Survey of Allen County, Indiana. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service, in cooperation with the Purdue Agricultural Experiment Station. Washington, D.C.
Knox, J. C.
1993
Kobayashi, H.
1975
Koerner, R. M.
1977
Large Increases in Flood Magnitude in Response to Modest Changes in Climate. Nature 361:430432.
The Experimental Study of Bipolar Flakes. In Lithic Technology, edited by E. Swanson, pp. 115128. Mouton, The Hague.
Devon Island Ice Cap: Core Stratigraphy and Paleoclimate. Science 196:1043-1048.
Koldehoff, Brad
1999
Attica Chert and Clovis Land Use in Illinois: The Anderson and Perkins Sites. Illinois
Archaeology 11(1 & 2).
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.
LaMarche, V. C., Jr.
1974
Paleoclimatic Inferences from Long Tree-Ring Records. Science 183:1043-1048.
Lee, M. B.
1945
An Ecological Study of the Floodplain Forest along the White River System of Indiana. Butler
University Botanical Studies 7:155-175.
Lilly, E.
1937
Prehistoric Antiquities of Indiana. Indiana Historical Society, Indianapolis.
140
Lindsey, A. A., W. B. Crankshaw, and S. Qadir
1965
Soil Relations and the Distribution Map of the Vegetation of Presettlement Indiana. Botanical
Gazette 26(3):155-163.
Logan, W. M.
1927
Archaeological Investigations in Greene County, Indiana. Proceedings of the 43rd Annual
Meeting of the Indiana Academy of Science.
Lopinot, N. H., and D. E. Brussell
1982
Assessing Uncarbonized Seeds from Open-Air Sites in Mesic Environments: An Example from
Southern Illinois. Journal of Archaeological Science 9:95-108.
Lumbus, B. and D.R. Cochran
1984
An Archaeological Field Reconnaissance of the Correctional Industrial Complex, Madison
County, Indiana. Archaeological Resources Management Service, Ball State University.
MacLean, J. A.
1927
1931
Malott, C. A.
1922
Excavation of Albee Mound in 1926. Indiana History Bulletin 4(3). Indiana Historical Bureau,
Indianapolis.
Excavation of Albee Mound in 1926-1927. Indiana History Bulletin 8(4). Indiana Historical
Bureau, Indianapolis.
The Physiography of Indiana. In Handbook of Indiana Geology, edited by W. N. Logan, E. R.
Cumings, C. A. Malott, S. S. Visher, W. M. Tucker, and J. R. Reeves, pp. 67-124. Indiana
Department of Conservation, Indianapolis.
Mangold, W. L., S. P. Nawrocki, and J. Scherbauer
1994
The Shaffer Site (12-Gr-109): Additional Information on an Albee Phase Site in the White River
Valley. In Current Research in Indiana Archaeology and Prehistory: 1993, edited by B. G.
Redmond, pp. 28-32. Research Reports 15. Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology, Indiana
University, Bloomington.
Marcus, J.
1994
Introduction. In Tribal and Chiefly Warfare in South America, edited by E. M. Redmond, pp. vvii. Studies in Latin American Ethnohistory and Archaeology, vol. 5. Memoirs 28. Museum of
Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Martin, A. C., and W. D. Barkley
1961
Seed Identification Manual. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Martínez, O. J.
1994
McCord, B.
1998
Border People: Life and Society in the U.S.-Mexico Borderlands. University of Arizona Press,
Tucson.
Three Unique Sites in Central Indiana. Reports of Investigation. Archaeological Resources
Management Service, Ball State University, Muncie.
McCord, B., and D. R. Cochran
1994
Morrell-Sheets: An Albee Phase Habitation. Reports of Investigation 38. Archaeological
Management Service, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana.
141
1996
Woodland Sites in East Central Indiana: A Survey and Evaluation. Reports of Investigations 43.
Archaeological Resources Management Service, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana.
2002
“Taylor Village.” <http://www.bsu.edu/csh/anthro/ARMS/current.htm#Taylor> (June 2002).
McCullough, R. G.
1991
A Reanalysis of Ceramics from the Bowen Site: Implications for Defining the Oliver Phase of
Central Indiana. Unpublished Masters 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, 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.
1998
Cultural Interaction along the West Fork of the White River during the Late Prehistoric Period.
Paper presented at the 43rd Midwest Archaeological Conference, Muncie, Indiana.
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.
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.
McDonald, S. E.
1950
The Crable Site, Fulton County, Illinois. Journal of the Illinois State Archaeological Society
7(4):16-18.
Meadows, W. C., and C. E. Bair
2000
An Archaeological Survey of High Probability Water Course Development Areas in the East Fork
White River Watershed in South Central Indiana. Report of Investigations 00-07. Glenn A. Black
Laboratory of Archaeology, Indiana University, Bloomington.
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, C. M., and J. M. O’Shea
1998
The Socioeconomic Role of Late Woodland Enclosures in Northern Lower Michigan. In Ancient
Earthen Enclosures of the Eastern Woodlands, edited by R. C. Mainfort Jr. and L. P. Sullivan,
pp. 181-201. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
142
Milner, G. R.
1992
Morbidity, Mortality, and the Adaptive Success of an Oneota Population from West-Central
Illinois. In Late Prehistoric Agriculture: Observations from the Midwest, edited by W. I. Woods,
pp. 136-166. Studies in Illinois Archaeology 8. Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, Springfield.
Milner, G. R., E. Anderson, and V. G. Smith
1991a Warfare in Late Prehistoric West-Central Illinois. American Antiquity 56:581-603.
Milner, G. R., V. G. Smith, and E. Anderson
1991b Conflict Mortality, and Community Health in an Illlinois 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.
Moerman, D. E.
1998
Native American Ethnobotany. Timber Press, Portland, Oregon.
Mohow, J. A.
1987
1989
The Archaeological Resources of the Maumee River Valley, Allen County, Indiana. Reports of
Investigations 22. Archaeological Resources Management Service, Ball State University,
Muncie, Indiana.
Paleo-Indian and Early Archaic Settlement Patterns of the Maumee River Valley in Northeastern
Indiana. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana.
Mohow, J. A., and D. M. Diaz
1985
A Preliminary Archaeological Survey of the Maumee River in Allen County, Indiana. Ms. on file,
Archaeological Resources Management Service, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana.
Moore, K.
1982
Moore, M. W.
1987
1989
Morse, D.
1978
Indiana Prairies. Acres Quarterly 11(2).
The Archaeological Resources of North-Central Allen County, Indiana. Ms. on file, Glenn A.
Black Laboratory of Archaeology, Indiana University, Bloomington.
Archaeological Intensive Assessment of Montgomery County Bridges 88 and 90, Montgomery
County, Indiana. Archaeological Resources Management Service, Ball State University, Muncie.
Ancient Disease in the Midwest. 2nd ed. Reports of Investigations 15. Illinois State Museum,
Springfield.
Movius, H.L., Jr., N.C. David, H.M. Bricker, and B. Clay
1968
The Analysis of Certain Major Classes of Upper Paleolithic Tools. Bulletin No. 26. American
School of Prehistoric Research,
Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge,
Massachusetts.
Mumford, R. E.
1966
Mammals. In Natural Feature of Indiana, edited by A. A. Lindsey, pp. 474-488. Indiana
Academy of Science, Indianapolis.
143
1969
Distribution of the Mammals of Indiana. Monograph 1. Indiana Acadamy of Science,
Indianapolis.
Munson, P. J., and C. A. Munson
1970
Unfinished Triangular Projectile Points or "Humpbacked" Knives? Pennsylvania Archaeologist
42(3):31-36.
Musgrave, G.W.
1947
Quantitative Evaluation of Factors in Water Erosion: A First Approximation. Journal of Soil and
Water Conservation 2:133-138.
Nero, R.W.
1957
A "Graver" Site in Wisconsin. American Antiquity 22(3):300-304.
Neumann, G. K.
1940
Evidence for the Antiquity of Scalping from Central Illinois. American Antiquity 5:287- 289.
Neusius, S. W., L. P. Sullivan, P. D. Neusius, and C. M. Milner
1998
Fortified Village or Mortuary Site? Exploring the Use of the Ripley Site. In Ancient Earthen
Enclosures of the Eastern Woodlands, edited by R. C. Mainfort Jr. and L. P. Sullivan, pp. 202230. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
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.
Newtown, L. H.
1888
Cedar Creek Township. In History of Allen County, Indiana, edited by T. B. Helm, pp. 146-148.
Kingman Brothers, Chicago, Illinois.
Oakley, K.
1957
O’Brien, P. K.
1997a
1997b
Man the Toolmaker. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
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.
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
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.
144
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.
Overstreet, D. F.
1995
The Eastern Wisconsin Oneota Regional Continuity. In Oneota Archaeology: Past, Present, and
Future, edited by W. Green, pp. 33-64. Office of the State Archaeologist, University of Iowa,
Iowa City.
Pace, R. E.
1987
Pearsall, D. M.
1989
Penman, J. T.
1988
Excavation of the Lattas Creek Site (12-Gr-29) in Greene County. In Current Research in
Indiana Archaeology and Prehistory: 1986, edited by C. S. Peebles, pp. 12-13. Research Reports
7. Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology, Indiana University, Bloomington.
Paleoethnobotany: A Handbook of Procedures. Academic Press, New York.
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.
Plunkett, J. I., M. F. Trudeau, and M. A. Hilton-Plunkett
1995
Phase II Archaeological Subsurface Investigations: Sites 12-H-15, 46, 694, 695, and 699, in
Hamilton County, Indiana. Report 95IN0057. Landmark Archaeological and Environmental
Services, Indianapolis.
Porter, J.
1961
Pyddoke, E.
1961
Railey, J. A.
1992
Hixton Silicified Sandstone: A Unique Lithic Material Used by Prehistoric Cultures. Wisconsin
Archaeologist 21:309-311.
Stratification for the Archaeologist. Phoenix House, London.
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.
145
1994
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.
Redmond, B. G., and J. R. Jones III (editors)
n.d.
Facing the Final Millennium: Studies in the Late Prehistory of Indiana, A. D. 700-1700. 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.
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.
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. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
Rerick, J. H.
1882
Rice, P. M.
1998
History of LaGrange County. In Counties of LaGrange and Noble, Indiana, Historical and
Biographical, pp. 28-31. Battey and Co., Chicago, Chicago.
Contexts of Contact and Change: Peripheries, Frontiers, and Borders. In Studies in Culture
Contact: Interaction, Culture Change, and Archaeology, edited by J. G. Cusick, pp. 44-66.
Occasional Paper No. 25. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University,
Carbondale.
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.
Riggs, R. E.
1998
Ceramics, Chronology, and Cultural Change in the Lower Miami River Valley, Southwestern
Ohio, Circa 100 B.C. to Circa 1650. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of
Anthropology, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
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.
146
Rouse, I. B.
1985
Ruby, B. J.
n.d.
Sasso, R. F.
1993
Santure, S. K.
1990
Migration in Prehistory: Inferring Population Movement from Cultural Remains.
University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.
Yale
Fluoride Dating of Human Bone from the Bowen Site (12-Ma-61), Marion County, Indiana. Ms.
on file, Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology, Indiana University, Bloomington.
La Crosse Region Oneota Adaptations: Changing Late Prehistoric Subsistence and Settlement
Patterns in the Upper Mississippi Valley. The Wisconsin Archaeologist 74:324-369.
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.
Santure, S. K., A. D. Harn, D. Esarey (editors)
1990
Archaeological Investigations at the Morton Village and Norris Farms 36 Cemetery. Reports of
Investigations 45. Illinois State Museum, Springfield.
Scarry, C. M.
1991
1992
Schiffer, M. B.
1972
1995
Archaeobotanical Remains (Foster Site). In Archaeological Investigations at the Proposed Scott
Paper Plant in Daviess County, Kentucky, edited by T. Sussenbach, pp. 79-111. Program for
Cultural Resource Assessment, University of Kentucky, Lexington.
Plant Remains from the Bratfish Site (12D74). Kentucky Anthropological Research Facility. Ms.
in the possession of L. L. Bush.
Archaeological Context and Systemic Context. American Antiquity 37:156-165.
Behavioral Archaeology. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
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. 40-56. Indiana
Academy of Sciences, Indianapolis.
Seeman, M. F.
1981
1992
Shackley, M.L.
1975
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.
The Bow and Arrow, the Intrusive Mound Complex, and a Late Woodland Jack's Reef Horizon
in the Mid-Ohio Valley. In Cultural Variability in Context: Woodland Settlements of the MidOhio Valley, edited by M. F. Seeman, pp. 41-51. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology Special
Paper 7. Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.
Archaeological Sediments. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
147
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.
1905
History of the Maumee River Basin from Its Earliest Accounts to Its Organization into Counties.
Bowen and Slocum, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Small, R. J., and M. J. Clark
1982
Slopes and Weathering. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.
Stephenson, P. R., 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 Investigations 12. Archaeological Resources Management Service,
Ball State University, Muncie, 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.
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.
1985
The Prairie Peninsula Co-Tradition: An Hypothesis for Hopewellian to Upper Mississippian
Continuity. Archaeology of Eastern North America 13:153-175.
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 22:135-196.
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.
148
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.
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.
Swartz, B. K., Jr.
1982
The Commissary Site: An Early Late Woodland Cemetery in East Central Indiana. Contributions
to Anthropological History 3. Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana.
Tankersley, K. B.
1986
Bison Exploitation by Late Fort Ancient Peoples in the Central Ohio River Valley. North
American Archaeologist 7:289-303.
1992
Titmus, G.L.
1985
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.
Some Aspects if Stone Tool Notching. In Stone Tool Analysis, edited by M.G. Plew, J.C. Woods,
and M.G. Pavesic. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Tixier, J.
1974
Tomak, C.
1970
1983
Glossary for the Description of Stone Tools, with Special Reference to the Epipalaeolithic of the
Maghreb. Translated by M. H. Newcomer. Special Publication 1. Newsletter of Lithic
Technology, Pullman, Washington.
Aboriginal Occupation in the Vicinity of Greene County, Indiana. Unpublished Masters thesis,
Department of Anthropology, Indiana University, Bloomington.
A Proposed Prehistoric Cultural Sequence for a Section of the Valley of the West Fork of the
White River in Southwestern Indiana. Tennessee Anthropologist 8(1):67-94.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
1971
Common Weeds of the United States. Dover, New York.
Waldorf, D. C.
1984
The Art of Flintknapping, Third Edition, Mound Builder Books, Branson, MO.
Watson, W.
1956
Flint Implements. The Trustees of the British Museum, London.
Wayne, W. J.
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.
149
Wepler, W.R.
1982
Final Report on the 1980-81 Mississinewa Reservoir Survey. Reports of Investigation 5.
Archaeological Resources Management Service, Ball State University, Muncie.
Wepler, W.R., and D.R. Cochran
1983
An Archaeological Assessment of Huntington Reservoir: Identification, Prediction, Impact.
Reports of Investigation 10. Archaeological Resources Management Service, Ball State
University, Muncie.
Willey, P., and T. E. Emerson
1993
The Osteology and Archaeology of the Crow Creek Massacre. In Prehistory and Human Ecology
of the Western Prairies and Northern Plains, edited by J. Tiffany, pp. 227-269. Memoir 27.
Plains Anthropological Society, Lincoln, Nebraska.
White, A. M., L. Binford, and M. Papworth
1963
Miscellaneous Studies in Typology and Classification. Anthropological Papers 19. Museum of
Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Winters, H. D.
1967
An Archaeological Survey of the Wabash Valley in Illinois. Reports of Investigations 10. Illinois
State Museum, Springfield.
Wright, H. E., Jr.
1983
Introduction. In The Holocene, edited by H. E. Wright, Jr., pp. xii-xvii. Late-Quaternary
Environments of the United States, vol. 2. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
Zimmerman, L. J.
1997
The Crow Creek Massacre, Archaeology, and Prehistoric Plains Warfare in Contemporary
Perspective. In Material Harm: Archaeological Studies of War and Violence, edited by J.
Carman, pp. 75-94. Cruithne Press, Glasgow, Scotland.
Zingg, A.W.
1940
Degree and Length of Land Slope as it Affects Soil Loss in Runoff. Agricultural Engineering
21:59-64.
150
APPENDIX A
Illustrations of Selected Artifacts from Maumee River Survey Areas
Figure A.1. Artifacts from 12 Al 1178, 12 Al 1182, and 12 Al 2039.
151
MAUMEE RIVER SURVEY ARTIFACTS
Figure A.2. Artifacts from 12 Al 2046 and 12 Al 2047.
152
MAUMEE RIVER SURVEY ARTIFACTS
Figure A.3. Artifacts from 12 Al 2053.
153
APPENDIX B
The Late Woodland Habitation of Cedar Creek and the Adams and Kramer
Circular Enclosures
by Mark Moore
(Reproduced with permission of the author. Supplementary illustrations added.)
The Cedar Creek valley, located in the north-central
The uplands of Cedar Creek are, for the most part,
portion of Allen County is one of the most striking characterized by silty loams. The uplands along the old
physiographical features in northeastern Indiana Eel River Sluiceway, however, are made up of sandier,
(Bleur and Moore 1978:63). Cedar Creek takes its better drained soils (Kirschner and Zachary 1969, maps
source in northern DeKalb County, flows approximately 3, 4, 13, 14, and 23).
sixteen miles southwest to the Allen County-DeKalb
Northern Allen County is a transition between two
County line, and then turns perpendicular (southeast) physiographical zones, the Tipton Till Plain to the
for about six miles until its junction with the St. Joseph south and the Moraine and Lake area to the north. The
River at Cedarville, eight miles northeast of Fort transition line runs northeast up the northern edge of
Wayne (Indiana Department of Conservation 1959, the Wabash Moraine, southeast along Lower Cedar
map).
Creek, southwest along Lower Cedar Creek, southwest
Cedar Creek formed as a result of complex along the St. Joseph River, and east along the Maumee
drainage changes during the most recent glacial River (Mumford 1969:12, Fig. 2). The Moraine and
advance. Upper Cedar Creek was originally a Lake area is characterized by glacial land-forms,
continuation of the Eel River Sluiceway, an ice- outwash plains, lakes, and bogs. The St. Joseph River is
marginal stream which carried meltwaters from the one of the principal rivers of this region. The flora of the
melting Erie Lobe ice front while the Wabash Moraine Moraine and Lake area consists of oak-hickory forests,
was being deposited. Eventually, as the ice receded, a prairies, and remnant prairies (oak openings). The
small drainage outlet formed to carry water across the Moraine and Lake area is not sharply separated from
Wabash Moraine. This small outlet would eventually the Tipton Till Plain (Dean 1940:15-16).
become Lower Cedar Creek.
The Tipton Till Plain is characterized by a flat
After the glacier receded and the St. Joseph River landscape of till. The northern portion is the upper
formed between the Wabash and Fort Wayne Moraines, Wabash drainage. The dominant vegetation of this
Lower Cedar Creek drained two directions. A drainage region is beech-maple forest (Lindsey, Crankshaw and
divide prevented its westward and eastward flowing Qadir 1965).
waters from mingling. The Eel River, now deprived of
The vegetation of Allen County is divided into
large amounts of water once supplied by the ice mass, three major associations—the oak-hickory forests,
became to weak to move its massive bedload. Silt and wetlands, and the beech-maple forests. The oakgravel that was discharged westward from Lower Cedar hickory forests dominate the northwestern quarter of
Creek eventually caused a shallow spot to develop just the county, the wetlands occupied the Maumee River
down from where it meets the Eel River. Spring Basin, and the beech-maple forests surrounded these
floodwaters rose high enough to spill over the divide two areas. Petty and Jackson (1966:280) note that
and Upper Cedar Creek merged with Lower Cedar “where slopes are pronounced, beech-maple
Creek and flowed into the St. Joseph River (Bleur and communities are best developed on north-facing and
Moore 1978:63).
east-facing slopes, while oak-hickory forests are
Cedar Creek is now characterized by a gorge from usually found occupying south-facing and west-facing
fifty to one thousand feet and eight hundred to one slopes.”
thousand feet wide (Dryer 1962). The walls of the gorge
“Where two habitats meet, a zone of transition or
fall quite steeply to the floodplain below and are marked ecotone may occur (Kendeish 1974:29). Faulkner
by large gullies. The floodplain from Tonkel Road to (1972:28) notes that “The unique feature of an ecotone
Cedarville has high, well-drained terraces and is that very often there are a greater number of species
occasional swampy abandoned creek channels. in this zone and the density of many of these species is
However, from Tonkel Road to the county line, the greater than it is for neighboring communities.” Cedar
floodplain is characterized by flat, wet lowlands which Creek is the transition zone of both the oak-hickory are unsuitable for long-term habitation (Kathryn beech-maple associations and the Tipton Till Plain–
Moore 1982, personal communication).
Moraine and Lake regions.
154
LATE WOODLAND HABITATION OF CEDAR CREEK
Cedar Creek has remained fairly undisturbed since
the time the area was first settled. The steep walls of the
gorge make access with farm equipment difficult; thus
little of the forested bottomland has been cleared for
cultivation. This is particularly true of the area between
Tonkel Road and the county line.
The most abundant trees in the canopy are the
oaks, maples, hickories, and beeches. Walnut trees are
still numerous, although thinned considerably for
lumber. The cottonwoods and sycamores reach great
size along the banks of the creek. Sassafras and
pawpaws are still very abundant on the low floodplain
(Kathryn Moore, personal communication 1982).
Charles Dryer writes “some of the bluffs of Cedar Creek
are still covered with white and red cedar, Cupressus
thyroides and Juniperus virginiana” (Dryer 1962).
Moore (1982) has documented three separate
small remnant prairies on the uncultivatable slopes of
the gorge. They appear in open areas where springs
come to the surface. The plants found in these small
prairies include Indian paintbrush, prairie dock, prairie
phlox, grass-of-pernassus, golden gromwell, lady
slipper orchids, big blue stem grass, blue-eyed grass,
black-eyed susan, nodding wild onion, drooping
coneflower, puccon, stone crop, and starry solomon’s
seal.
The fish population of Cedar Creek has decreased
drastically since DeKalb County residents dredged
much of Cedar Creek in the early 1900s. Elett
(1979:14) states “in 1900 I could take a can of worms
and hook and a line and catch fish as fast as I could pull
them out; various members of the sunfish family, small
mouth bass, and an occasional pike, crayfish, frogs and
turtles in abundance.” Carp have since become the
dominant fish.
Cleland (1966:245-46) lists these fauna as
preferring a deciduous forest:
bear, raccoon, bobcat, woodchuck, striped skunk, gray
squirrel, southern flying squirrel, gray fox, gray wolf, longeared owls, broad-winged hawk, scarlet tanager, summer
tanager, hermit thrush, white-breasted nuthatch, redbreasted nuthatch, whip-poor-will, Chuck-will’s widow,
pileated woodpecker, great horned owl, ruffed grouse,
turkey, red headed woodpecker, and downy woodpecker.
The following fauna prefer a forest edge habitat:
deer, elk, bear, raccoon, bobcat, woodchuck, chipmunk,
striped skunk, opossum, least easel, fox squirrel, coyote,
gray wolf, harvest mice, gray fox, eastern spotted skunk,
cardinal, blue jay, sparrows, yellow-billed cuckoo,
bobwhite, common night hawk, yellow shafted flicker,
common crow, loggerhead shrike, redwinged blackbird,
screech owl, barn owl, red-tailed hawk, turkey, red headed
woodpecker, robin, common grackle, eastern box turtle.
Concerning the early history of the Cedarville
155
area, Newton (1888:46-47) writes: “Prior to the white
man, the territory of this township had been penetrated
by French missionaries, who came to administer to the
spiritual needs of its savage possessors.” He bases this
statement on the reported discovery by John Pring of
signs of a blacksmith shop, a sword stuck in a tree, and
a fourteen foot long cross with the date “1772"
engraved upon it. William Muller was said to have
discovered a cannon ball as well as a beech tree with
French words, the date 1772, and a cross engraved upon
it.
During the War of 1812, the Potawatomi chief
Metea had one of his villages at the junction of Cedar
Creek and the St. Joseph River. Metea was at the zenith
of his power at the time and played an active role at the
siege of Fort Wayne in September of 1812. Metea lived
until 1827, when he was poisoned by unhappy Indians
for his adherence to the treaty made at Mississinewa
(Helm 1888:22-23).
Many Late Woodland sites lie on terraces which
have not yet been cultivated. Although virtually every
sandy terrace along Cedar Creek probably has evidence
of Late Woodland habitation, only those which have
been positively identified will be described. The site
descriptions will start north and move south, ending
with two important sites along the St. Joseph River.
The Ripley site is an approximately 1000 foot long
terrace on the south side of Cedar Creek about 200 feet
east of Tonkel Road. The site, although apparently
cultivated at one time, is covered with small trees. The
artifact assemblage, composed of artifacts found
washing out of the bank, consists of four pieces of chert
debris (a piece of material termed Huntington chert,
[Cochran 1980:40]; two pieces of milky white
Huntington Type A chert, and one piece of unknown
source), a side-notched point of Huntington Type A
chert, and ten potsherds. Eight are body and two are rim
sherds. Judging from the area encompassed by the
terrace, this site is probably quite extensive.
The Oddou site is a 800 foot long cultivated terrace
on the north side of Cedar Creek about 2000 feet
downstream from the Ripley site. The ends of the
terrace terminate undisturbed in the woods. Seven
points have been collected. Of these, five are triangular
(four of Huntington Type D chert and one of
unidentified chert), one is a side-notched point with
indented base (Huntington Type D chert), and one is a
tip fragment (unidentified chert). Ninety-four pottery
sherds, 3 rim sherds, and 91 body sherds, were
collected. Sixty-two percent of the 161 flakes collected
to date are of milky white Huntington Type A chert,
27% are of Huntington Type D chert, 6% are of
unidentified cherts, 3% are of Coshocton chert, 1% are
of glacial till cherts, and 0.6% are of Harrison County
LATE WOODLAND HABITATION OF CEDAR CREEK
chert. Five percent of the flakes are decortication flakes,
95% are interior flakes, and seven flakes have been
utilized. Five spheroidal cores (two of Huntington Type
A chert, two of glacial till cherts, and one of Huntington
Type D chert), three block cores (one of Huntington
Type A chert, one of Huntington Type D chert, and one
of a glacial till quartz cobble), and seven block flakes
(two of Coshocton chert, two of Huntington D chert,
and three of unidentified chert) were also collected.
Miscellaneous items recovered include 38 fragments of
slate, two fragments of bone, three fragments of shell,
hammer stones, and a nutting stone.
The Weikart North site is a 200 foot long
undisturbed terrace located on the north side of Cedar
Creek, approximately 1000 feet downstream from the
Oddou site. The site, although once used for grazing, is
covered with large sycamore trees. The edge of the
terrace facing the creek drops very steeply about ten
feet. Four sherds have been collected.
The next positively identified Late Woodland site
is the Pfister site, located about two miles downstream
from the Weikart North site and one mile upstream
from the junction of Cedar Creek and the St. Joseph
River. The site is a high, gravel and sand knoll about
200 feet long, 100 feet wide, and 20 feet high. The knoll
is located approximately 800 feet from the creek;
however, a low marshy area representing an abandoned
channel of Cedar Creek is located directly at the base of
the eastern side of the knoll. Five pieces of pottery, all
body sherds, were collected. Out of a total of nine
flakes, all are of Huntington Type D chert. One flake is
a decortication flake and the other eight are interior
flakes. One spheroidal core made of Huntington Type D
chert and two block flakes of unidentified chert were
collected. Other artifacts include a fragment of a large
biface of unidentified chert, a grooved needle
sharpening stone, a fragment of a bifacially worked
slate knife, a smoothed rectangular piece of slate, a
bone, a shell fragment, and two pieces of slate debitage.
At least six exposed features, in the form of dark
circular shapes two feet in diameter, were noted.
The Slentz site, 12-Al-10 (AS-IU), is a
multicomponent site with evidence of a Late Woodland
occupation. The site is located on the north second
terrace of the St. Joseph River, north of the mouth of
Cedar Creek (Black 1936:4). Although no definite
historic Indian debris has been found, this site is the
probable location of Metea’s village. The positively
identified Late Woodland artifacts collected to date
include two triangular points (both of unidentified
chert) and two body sherds. The amount of lithic
debitage at the site is large; however, since there are
Paleoindian and Archaic and Late Woodland
components, no attempt will be made to analyze chert
156
types. Black (1936:5) reports the finding of two
cordmarked, grit-tempered sherds from this site.
The Stapleton site, 12-Al-9 (AS-IU), is located on
the west side of Cedar Creek, opposite the Slentz site.
Black (1936:5) situates the site “on the west second
terrace of Cedar Creek and the north second terrace of
the St. Joseph River.” Although this author has not
found Late Woodland evidence at this site, Black
reports the recovery of grit- and sand-tempered pottery
as well as a triangular point. This site has Paleoindian
and Archaic components as well.
Two major Late Woodland sites with circular
enclosures are located along the St. Joseph River. The
most northerly of these is the Adams mound and
associated site, 12-Al-12 (AS-IU), located on the south
side of the St. Joseph about one and one-half miles
south of the mouth of Cedar Creek. The second of these
sites is the Kramer mound, Al-15 (AS-IU), located on
the north side of the St. Joseph about four miles south of
the mouth of Cedar Creek.
The Adams mound and site has been reported
twice in local literature. Robertson (1888:45-46) states:
Descending the St. Joseph on the east, to the farm of Peter
Notestine, one of the oldest settlers, we find a circular ‘fort’
or earthwork, situated in the bend of the river. It has been
plowed for nearly 30 years and has lost much of its outlines.
Many relics have been found here, and, when newly plowed,
numerous fragments of pottery, flints, and stone implements
are yet found in and around the site. A large rude pipe of
pottery was found some years since. The bowl and stem are
moulded in one piece and the end of the stem has been
flattened by the fingers when plastic, to form a mouth-piece.
Black (1936:5) states:
The field was in cultivation and planted to wheat which
permitted the collection of 98 plain and decorated grit
tempered sherds, a fragment of a decorated slate pipe, and
lithic samples. Mr. Liechty advised that he had found a clay
pipe, which he did not adequately describe, and projectile
points in the past years. An elderly informant, John
Notestine, advised me that he had cultivated this site when
the earth circle was about four feet in height and that his
grandfather, Peter Notestine, a pioneer in the country,
remembered when the circle embankment was six feet high.
Mr. Notestine stated that the circle was originally about 100
feet in diameter and that quantities of material had been
taken from the site in years past.
Black (1936:6) also notes that an extended burial was
discovered in 1926 in a gravel pit south of the Adams
mound and site. Also found with the burial was a
cordmarked vessel and a Unio shell spoon.
Recent visits to the Adams site has revealed the
location of two adjacent Late Woodland sites. The first
area is located on a large, Plainfield knoll 400 feet long
and 250 feet wide which rises nearly 20 feet above the
St. Joseph River (Kirschner and Zachary 1969:Map
LATE WOODLAND HABITATION OF CEDAR CREEK
23). A small cemetery covers the top of the knoll; thus
only a portion of the site is cultivated. The other site is
located on a small stretch of sand located at the base of
a small rise, less than 100 feet from the larger site. Due
to the small size of this second site as well as the short
distance which separates it from the large knoll, these
two sites will be treated as one. A total of 158 sherds has
been recovered to date from the Adams site. Six of these
are rim sherds and the remaining 152 are body sherds.
Of 119 flakes recovered, 89% are interior flakes and
11% are decortication flakes. Material breakdown is as
follows: 76% Huntington Type D chert, 8% unknown
cherts, 7% glacial till cherts, 5% Coshocton chert, 3%
Mercer County chert, and 2% Harrison County chert.
Huntington Type A chert was conspicuously absent.
Seven points were recovered. Of these, three are
triangular point fragments (one of Coshocton chert, one
of Huntington Type D chert, and one of an unidentified
purple chert); one is a stemmed Adena-like point (made
of a very high quality olive drab colored chert which
appears to be quite different than Harrison County
chert); and three are fragments (one of Huntington
chert and two of unidentified cherts). Other artifacts
include one piece of worked banded slate, one partially
drilled sandstone object (possibly a bead), one piece of
chipped sandstone, one large hammer or grinding
stone, and three shell fragments.
The Kramer mound, like the Adams mound, has
been reported twice in local literature. Robertson
(1888:45-46) states:
Still further down the river, on the west side, opposite
Antraps Mill, is a semi-circular fort with its ends on the river
bank. It is about 600 feet in arc. The earthwork is yet nearly
two feet high, with a well-defined ditch on the outside. Very
large trees which have grown on the embankment, have
fallen and gone to decay. We found in the earth which had
been upturned by a fallen tree fragments from the neck of a
vessel of pottery with square indentations on the surface, and
a flint, flat on one side and regularly chipped to a convex
surface on the other, of the variety known as scrapers or
‘turtle-back flints.’
Black (1936:7) states:
Parts of the circle are still in a good state of preservation and
though now in semi-circular form it probably originally was
a complete circle, but, due to river erosion, is now open on the
south side for a width of 340 feet. Two ends of the semi-circle
are in woods while the bulk of the embankment has been
destroyed by cultivation. Mr. Kramer, the owner, reported
that very little material had been found at the site, but the
survey collected 48 grit-tempered sherds, a triangular point,
and lithic samples within the area encompassed by the
embankment.
The Kramer Mound still exists in a good state of
preservation. Judging by Black’s description, the
mound has changed little since he visited it: however,
157
the area which was encompassed by a plowed field then
has now grown over with thick brush.
The western arc of the mound is undergoing severe
erosion where it ends on the riverbank, allowing the
recovery of a rim sherd, 15 body sherds, a shell, and a
tooth. The tooth is a molar of a porcupine, which
haven’t populated this area for over a century (Tim
McNitt, personal communication 1982). The shell, the
tooth and several sherds were found eroding out of the
actual dirt of the embankment. No chert debitage was
found.
The pottery from the Late Woodland sites just
described is basically quite similar. All of the sherds are
tempered with crushed granite. Surface treatment is
predominately cordmarking; however, cord-roughening
is present in some cases and one plain sherd has been
found. Decoration consists of cord-wrapped stick
impressions on at least four rim sherds and trailed lines
on two body sherds. Color ranges from red to black with
most sherds falling somewhere in the brown range. The
majority of the sherds are rather small, the average size
being about the diameter of a nickel.
Of the twelve rim sherds recovered, three have a
thickened shoulder. The Oddou site sherd tapers from a
maximum thickness of 12mm at the shoulder to 5mm at
the flattened lip. Cordmarking occurs up to the lip of
the sherd. Two sherds with thickened shoulders were
recovered from the Adams site. The first of these tapers
from 9mm at the shoulder to 3mm at the lip. The lip of
the vessel was folded over and vertically cordmarked
flush with the surface, resulting in a collar 3 to 4mm
wide. Below the shoulder, the cordmarking was heavily
smoothed horizontally. Grit can be seen on the interior
surface. The other shouldered sherd from the Adams
site tapers from 13mm at the shoulder to 5mm at the lip.
This sherd has a collar made much in the same manner
as the other shouldered sherd from this site. The collar
was not flattened totally flush with the rest of the rim as
it is about 1mm higher than the uncollared portion.
Cord-wrapped stick impressions are present, occurring
as diagonal lines 2mm wide, 26mm long, and spaced
4mm apart. The lines run from the shoulder up to the
collar. The collar was probably added after the lines
were made, as the lines appear to run under the collar.
Cordmarking appears to have been added over both the
collar and diagonal lines.
Four unshouldered collared sherds have been
recovered—two from the Ripley site, one from the
Adams site, and one from the Kramer mound. The first
sherd from the Ripley site exhibits a rather massive
collar, about 16mm wide and 6mm thick. Cordmarking
is present up to the lip.. The other sherd exhibits a small
collar which has been flattened at about a forty-five
degree angle sloping toward the outside of the vessel.
LATE WOODLAND HABITATION OF CEDAR CREEK
The collar is about 7mm wide and 2mm thick. The rim
is somewhat everted in outline. A decoration of four
faint lines about 5mm long and 1mm wide is present on
the outside of the sherd. The entire sherd has been
heavily smoothed. The rim from the Adams site has a
collar 7mm wide and 6mm thick. The outside surface of
the collar is diagonally cordmarked, and the inside edge
of the lip has been decorated with diagonal cordwrapped stick impressions 6mm long and 2mm wide.
The surface below the collar has been heavily smoothed
horizontally. A possible punctate is present at the
bottom broken portion of the rim sherd. The rim broke
through the punctate; however, it appears to be a coneshaped hole about 2mm in diameter and located about
20mm from the lip. The clay on the inner surface of the
sherd appears to have been pushed up slightly, as if the
hole was punched from the outside in. The collated
sherd from the Kramer mound was unavailable for
study; however, the sherd is quite large with only a
small portion of the lip remaining. The collar is rather
massive, and the only decoration is cordmarking up to
the rim.
One plain rim was recovered from the Adams site.
The rim is a uniform 5mm thick and is slightly everted
in outline.
Four straight rims have been recovered—two from
the Oddou site and two from the Adams site. The first
Oddou rim sherd tapers from 9 to 5mm thickness at its
flattened lip. The sherd is cordmarked to the lip and has
grit visible on the outside surface. The other rim sherd
from the Oddou site tapers from 8mm to 2mm.
Cordmarking continues to the lip. The first rim sherd
from the Adams site tapers from 11 to 7mm. The sherd
is decorated with three continuous cord-wrapped stick
horizontal lines. The top two lines are spaced from 2 to
3mm apart, and the third is spaced 4mm from the
middle line. Each line is about 3mm wide and
impressed about 2mm into the surface. The lip has been
flattened by continuous diagonal cord-wrapped stick
impression. The grit of this sherd is unusually large,
ranging from 2 to 5mm in diameter. The other rim
sherd from the Adams site is a uniform 6mm thick.
Cordmarking runs to t he rim. The lip is flattened and
impressed with cord-wrapped sticks spaced evenly
6mm apart and 5mm deep, resulting in a crenelated
appearance.
Body sherds vary little from site to site. On the
average, they are about 6mm thick and have about
1mm-size grit temper. All intact sherds show some
cordmarking with varying degrees of smoothing; some
have little while others have their cordmarking
virtually eliminated. The Oddou site has the greater
number of thick sherds, with at least five over 10mm
thick. These sherds appear similar to the thinner sherds
158
in other respects.
One body sherd from the Pfister site deserves a
short description. The unique feature of this sherd is its
unusual thickness of 18mm. The color of the
cordmarked side is brown, while the color of the
smooth, incurved side is black. The grit averages about
1mm in diameter.
One unusually large sherd was recovered from the
Adams site. This piece is 82mm long, 61mm wide, and
tapers from its thickest point of 10mm to 6mm toward
one edge. The cordmarking is heavily smoothed. The
curvature seems to suggest that it was a part of a pot
medium to large in size.
Though only two body sherds were recovered from
the Slentz site, they represent the only pottery recovered
with trailed line designs. The largest is partially
exfoliated, but three diagonal lines are visible. Two of
the lines run diagonally left to right and are space 5mm
apart; the third line runs diagonally right to left and is
10mm from the paired lines at the closest point. The
remaining sherd has a single line running across it from
corner to corner. This line and the cordmarking have
been heavily smoothed. Both sherds have grit less than
1mm in diameter, and both are 5mm thick.
The placement of the Cedar Creek–St. Joseph
River pottery appears to be within the Younge
Tradition of the Late Woodland (Cochran 1980:106).
Fitting (1975:155) describes the Riviere wares of this
period:
These globular to elongated vessels exhibited a number of
modes of surface treatment, including cordmarking,
roughening, fabric impressing, simple stamping, and
smoothing. Smoothed shoulders with triangular designs
were common as were collared rims with a tendency for the
exterior rim design to be repeated on the interior of the rim of
the vessel.
Cochran (1980:89), upon examining sherds
recovered by Black comments that these sherds are
similar in paste, temper, color, and decorative
techniques to Younge Tradition sherds collected at Fox
Island County Park. Rim sherds from Fox Island site
12-Al-123 (IAS-BSU) “appear to be quite similar to
those from Black’s Stapleton site.”
The Kramer and Adams mounds appear to be a
southern extension of a Michigan type (Cochran
1980:105). Zurel has found an indirect association
between Younge Tradition ceramics and circular
earthworks of this type (Swartz 1981:21). Excavation
of the Whorley earthwork in Michigan resulted in the
recovery of 5 rim sherds, 103 body sherds, 4 triangular
points, and minimal chippage. Three of the five rims
were collared with cord-wrapped stick impressions and
incising. The earthwork was dated to A.D. 1080 +/- 100
years. The earthwork was apparently topped with a log
LATE WOODLAND HABITATION OF CEDAR CREEK
palisade which protected the residents of the village it
enclosed (Fitting 1975:161-162).
Disagreement exists over what soils were being
selected by the Late Woodland peoples for cultivation.
Faulkner suggests utilization of the uplands for
cultivation in northwestern Indiana, while Stothers
suggests utilization of sandy interior regions for
cultivation (Cochran 1980:96). The Cedar Creek–St.
Joseph River area seems to substantiate Stothers’s
assertions as all the Late Woodland sites discovered to
date are on sandy soils adjacent to rivers and as yet no
sites have been discovered on the silty loam uplands.
159
Cochran (1980:108) suggests a settlement pattern
similar to that at work in northwestern Indiana for the
Fox Island sites. Fox Island would represent springsummer camps and the Kramer and Adams mounds
would represent the permanent village locations. If this
is the case, the sites along Cedar Creek probably
represent seasonal encampments as well.
Cedar Creek offers a unique challenge in
reconstructing environmental utilization of not only
the Late Woodland peoples, but of the Archaic peoples
as well.
LATE WOODLAND HABITATION OF CEDAR CREEK
Figure B.1. Points, Oddou Site.
160
LATE WOODLAND HABITATION OF CEDAR CREEK
Figure B.2. Points: a. Ripley Site; b. Slentz Site, 12-Al-10 (AS-IU); c. Slentz Site, 12-Al-10 (AS-IU); d.
Adams Site, 12-Al-12 (AS-IU); e. Kramer Site, 12-Al-15 (AS-IU).
161
LATE WOODLAND HABITATION OF CEDAR CREEK
162
Figure B.3. Sherds: a. Rimsherd, Oddou Site; b. Rimsherd, Adams Site, 12-Al-12 (AS-IU); c. Rimsherd,
Adams Site, 12-Al-12 (AS-IU); d. Sherd, Ripley Site; e. Rimsherd, Ripley Site; e. Rimsherd, Adams Site, 12Al-12 (AS-IU); g. Sherd, Kramer Site, 12-Al-15 (AS-IU).
LATE WOODLAND HABITATION OF CEDAR CREEK
Figure B.4. Sherds: a. Rimsherd, Adams Site, 12-Al-12 (AS-IU); b. Sherd, Oddou Site; c. Sherd, Oddou
Site; d. Sherd, Adams Site, 12-Al-12 (AS-IU); e. Rimsherd, Adams Site, 12-Al-12 (AS-IU).
163
LATE WOODLAND HABITATION OF CEDAR CREEK
164
Figure B.5. Sherds: a. Sherd, Pfister Site; b. Sherd, Slentz Site, 12-Al-10 (AS-IU); c. Sherd, Slentz SIte, 12Al-10 (AS-IU).
LATE WOODLAND HABITATION OF CEDAR CREEK
165
Figure B.6. Color illustrations of some sherds from Figure B.3. Alphabetic designations correspond to those
in Figure B.3.
LATE WOODLAND HABITATION OF CEDAR CREEK
166
Figure B.7. Color illustrations of some sherds from Figure B.4. Alphabetic designations correspond to those
in Figure B.4.
APPENDIX C
Illustrations of Ceramics from Controlled Surface Collections at 12 H 3
Figure C.1. Sherds from controlled surface collections at 12 H 3.
167
12 H 3 CERAMICS
Figure C.2. Sherds from controlled surface collections at 12 H 3.
168
APPENDIX D
Illustration of Selected Artifacts from Scranage Enclosure
Figure D.1. Selected artifacts from excavations at Scranage Enclosure (12 Dk 363). Hafted bifaces in the top
row are fragments of triangular projectile points.
169
APPENDIX E
Macrobotanical Remains from Scranage Enclosure Flotation Samples
by Leslie L. Bush
The Scranage site (12 Dk 363) is located in
northwestern DeKalb County, Indiana, northeast of
Waterloo and south of the town of Ashley. The
Scranage enclosure is still visible today as an earthen
embankment surrounded by an exterior ditch. A
radiocarbon date from deep in the embankment (Beta158414) is consistent with the earthwork construction
style and the cultural remains revealed to date, and it
places activity at the site in the 11th or 12th centuries
AD (Robert G. McCullough, personal communication
2001).
Scranage falls within the Northern Lakes Natural
Region as defined by Homoya and colleagues (Homoya,
et al. 1985). The region is characterized by numerous
freshwater lakes and complex glacial topography.
Oaks and hickories dominate the canopy of dry upland
forests of the region while mesic forests are dominated
by beech, maples, and tuliptree (Homoya et al.
1985:252). Floodplain forests, swamps, bogs, marshes,
and wet flats also occur in this region (Homoya et al.
1985:253). According to topographic maps and aerial
photographs, the immediate area of the site is wooded,
but most of the land in the area is under cultivation.
The site lies near the source of what is today the
Dibbling Ditch, which feeds into Cedar Creek
northwest of Waterloo.
Crews from Indiana University-Purdue University
Fort Wayne (IPFW) conducted investigations at
Scranage in the summer of 2001. All flotation samples
come from a 16m x 2m trench that was excavated
perpendicular to the embankment on its south side.
Methods
fragments. Other materials in the > 2mm size fraction
were weighed, recorded, and labeled but not counted.
All materials in the > 2mm size fraction other than
charred plants are referred to as “contamination” in
Table E.2 and on laboratory forms. At Scranage, these
materials usually consisted of roots, rootlets, and root
bark fragments. Materials that fell through the 2mm
mesh, referred to as “residue,” were examined carefully
under a stereoscopic microscope at 7-30x magnification
for charred botanical remains other than nutshell of the
hickory-walnut family, fungus, and wood charcoal.
Following C. M. Scarry (Scarry 1991, 1992) and the
recommendation of Gayle Fritz (Fritz 1996), nutshell
of the beech-oak family was searched for in the residue
down to the 1.4mm size fraction, since it tends to break
up in the soil far more easily than nutshell of the more
durable hickory-walnut family. All plant material
removed from the residue was counted, weighed, and
labeled. The presence of uncharred taxa in the residue
was also recorded on laboratory forms, but these
materials were not usually removed from residue.
Seeds, fruits, and woody tissue are not always
sufficient, by themselves, to allow identification to the
species level of the plant from which they came.
Botanical materials from Scranage were identified to
the lowest possible taxonomic level by comparison to
materials in the author’s comparative collection and
through the use of standard reference works (e.g., Davis
1993; Martin and Barkley 1961; USDA 1971). Some
uncharred taxa were identified to species through
positive identification or elimination of other possible
members of the genus. Most commonly botanical
materials, whether charred and uncharred, were
identified to the level of genus.
Flotation samples were processed in 2001 at IPFW in a
flotation tank with window-screen sized bottom mesh.
The Sample
Window screen typically has openings of between
1.0mm and 1.6mm.
In all, seventeen flotation samples were recovered and
Light fractions were sent to the author early in processed from the 2001 excavations at the Scranage
2002. Each sample was weighed on an electronic site. Of these, seven samples totaling 52 liters of fill
balance with a sensitivity of 0.01g before being size- have been analyzed. Two samples of charred botanical
sorted through a stack of geologic mesh with openings material not recovered from flotation were also
of 2mm, 1.4mm, and 0.71mm. Materials in the > 2mm analyzed, and these are presented in Table E.5.
size fraction were completely sorted, and all charred Samples were chosen for analysis to represent each of
botanical remains were counted, weighed, recorded, the four excavation units within the 16m x 2m trench
and labeled. For samples where more than fifty wood from which soil was flotation-processed. Two samples
charcoal or fungus fragments were present, counts were taken from postmolds were also analyzed, and an
estimated from the weight of a random sample of fifty additional sample was analyzed from Unit A, which
170
SCRANAGE MACROBOTANICAL REMAINS
contained by far the most charred botanical remains.
Results
Macrobotanical remains recovered by flotation from
the Scranage site are reported in Tables E.1-E.4. Table
E.1 shows charred macrobotanical remains by count;
Table E.2 provides the same information by weight.
Table E.3 indicates uncharred plant taxa on a presence/
absence basis, and Table E.4 shows results of wood
charcoal identification undertaken for three samples.
Uncharred Plant Remains
On open-air sites in the Eastern Woodlands, uncharred
plant material can be assumed to be of modern origin
unless compelling evidence suggests otherwise
(Lopinot and Brussell 1982). To date, the Scranage site
has offered no such evidence, and only charred plant
remains are believed to be ancient. The uncharred taxa
at Scranage, shown in Table E.3, are commonly found
on field and forest margins in Indiana. Some of these
are of Eurasian origin (e.g., carpetweed). There is little
overlap between charred and uncharred taxa, a finding
which supports the contention that only charred plant
remains at Scranage are ancient. The two taxa that
occur in both charred and uncharred form (bramble and
171
bark) do present methodological problems, however,
because they both also occur in semi-charred form.
This suggests a continuum of blackening that may be
due to humification rather than carbonization (Cook
1964). This report follows Pearsall (Pearsall 1989) and
standard archaeobotanical practice in distinguishing
charred (and therefore ancient) remains from
uncharred remains on the basis of full blackening, but
the presence of uncharred and semi-charred bramble
and bark at Scranage must cast some degree of doubt on
the charred status of the three blackened bramble seeds
and the twelve blackened bark fragments recovered
from the site. As their absolute numbers suggest,
bramble and bark make only minor contributions to the
overall macrobotanical assemblage at the site. A third
taxon, Fungus Type 2, was recovered in both semiblackened and blackened form. As discussed below, the
fungus is likely associated with a post-depositional
disturbance event at the site.
Charred Plant Remains
The most common plant remain recovered at Scranage,
by count (n=2219) and by weight (g=31.64), is wood
charcoal. Wood charcoal was identified from three
contexts: two postmolds from Unit D and fill from
Feature 1 in Unit A (Table E.5). The two postmolds
Table E.1. Charred Plant Remains by Count, 12 Dk 363 Flotation Samples.
Unit
A
F e a . 1,
Zone 4
95- 125
610
9.5
A
Fe a . fill,
S 1/2
9 5 - 10 2
599
10
B
Tr e e
fa ll
95- 97
602
10
D
Le ve l
3
50- 65
593
10
D
PH D -5,
Le ve l 2-4
5 1- 7 1
591
1. 5
D
PH D -6,
Le ve l 2-4
50- 60
589
1
E
Ar e a C,
L e ve l 3
57- 67
597
10
TO TAL
781
379
67
9
51
110
449
2
1
1487
14
26
382
1
1
2219
12
16
1854
Cor n (Zea ma ys)
K ernels
Cupule
30
1
18
48
1
N ut s he ll
Hickory (Ca r ya spp.)
Acorn? (cf. Quercus sp.)
31
12
3
34
12
2
1
Cont e xt
Depth (cmbd)
Cat. N o.
Liters processed
Wood cha r coa l
Bark
Fungus 1
Fungus 2
O t he r wild pla nt s
Bramble (Rubus sp.)
Bedstraw (G a lium sp.)
Unidentified
Unidentifiable
9
335
1
6
4
1
52
1
3
1
6
2
6
17
SCRANAGE MACROBOTANICAL REMAINS
172
Table E.2. Charred Plant Remains by Weight (g), 12 Dk 363 Flotation Samples.
Unit
A
F e a . 1,
Zone 4
95- 125
610
9.5
74.94
6.09
48.85
A
Fe a . fill,
S 1/2
9 5 - 10 2
599
10
25.02
4.42
15.09
B
Tr e e
fa ll
95- 97
602
10
10.29
2.47
5.89
D
Le ve l
3
50- 65
593
10
28.04
3.92
15.15
D
PH D -5,
Le ve l 2-4
51- 71
591
1. 5
2.37
0.27
1. 6 3
D
PH D -6,
Le ve l 2-4
50- 60
589
1
2.68
0.22
1.55
E
Ar e a C,
Le ve l 3
57- 67
597
10
23.92
3.47
15 . 0 8
TO TAL
11.25
4.78
0.37
0.02
0.46
0.91
4.85
0.01
0.01
7.73
0.04
0 . 12
9.02
<0.01
<0 . 0 1
31.64
0.03
0.05
9.24
Cor n (Zea ma ys)
K ernels
Cupule
0 . 46
0.01
0.31
0.77
0.01
N ut s he ll
Hickory (Ca r ya spp.)
Acorn? (cf. Quercus sp.)
0.45
0.02
0.06
0.51
0.02
<0.01
<0 . 0 1
Cont e xt
Depth (cmbd)
Cat. N o.
Liters processed
Sample Weight
Contamination Wt.
Residue Wt.
Wood cha r coa l
Bark
Fungus 1
Fungus 2
O t he r wild pla nt s
Bramble (Rubus sp.)
Bedstraw (G a lium sp.)
Unidentified
Unidentifiable
0.07
1. 3 7
<0.01
contained only wood from chestnut (Castanea dentata)
and a Group III-3 hardwood (Hoadley 1990). In
northern Indiana, maple is the most common member
of this large group of diffuse-porous hardwoods, but it
also includes dogwood, cherry, tuliptree, and hophornbeam, among others.
Postmold D-6 was
dominated by chestnut and Postmold D-5 by a Group
III-3 hardwood. The presence of a second wood type in
each post may be due to post replacement or to the use
of chinks or shims to help support the original post.
The limited diversity of wood taxa in the postmolds
contrasts strongly with the wood charcoal identified
from Feature 1, where the same small number of wood
fragments examined (ten) resulted in identification of
at least four taxa. These are ash, hickory, elm, and
sycamore. Like chestnut and maple, these trees would
have been readily available in the general area of the
Scranage site.
After wood charcoal, the next most common
botanical remain recovered at Scranage was a fungus
previously unknown to the author. Katie Parker, of
Great Lakes Ecosystems, graciously examined a
sample of the material and identified it as a fungus that
typically decomposes some types of trees in the
0.02
0.03
<0.01
52
16 7 . 2 6
20.86
103.24
0.01
<0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.11
northern United States. The taxonomic designation of
this fungus is currently unknown, however, and it is
referred to here as Fungus Type 2 (n=1854, g=9.24).
The largest pieces of this fungus were ovoid to globose,
with a granular surface texture. In many specimens,
internal chambers that may have contained spores are
visible. As noted above, this fungus appear in charred
and semi-charred form at the site, so their blackening in
some cases may be due to humification rather than
carbonization by cultural processes. They may be
associated with the tree fall in Unit B, but they appear in
Units A and E as well.
A second type of fungus, Fungus Type 1, was
recovered in smaller quantities (n=16, g=0.05). This
fungus was always completely blackened and is
commonly found on archaeological sites in Indiana and
elsewhere (Arzigian 1989; Bush 1996). It is believed to
be associated with wood from forest floors and was
presumably charred in ancient times when the wood
was burned for fuel.
Except for one bur in Unit E, materials other than
wood, bark, and fungus were recovered only from Unit
A. Corn (n=49, g=0.78) was the most common of these
materials. The kernel-to-cupule ratio of 48:1 suggests
SCRANAGE MACROBOTANICAL REMAINS
173
Table E.3. Uncharred Plant Remains (presence/absence), 12 Dk 363 Flotation Samples.
Unit
Cont e xt
Depth (cmbd)
Cat. no.
Liters processed
Bramble (Rubus spp.)
Goosefoot (Chenopodium
spp.)
Nutlet (Lit hosper mum?)
Carpetweed (Mollugo
ver t icilla t a )
Fruit skins
Pokeweed (P hyt ola cca
a mer ica na )
Sedge family (Cyper a cea e)
Copperleaf (Aca lypha sp.)
Elderberry (Sa mbuccus
sp.)
Grape/virginia creeper
(Vit a cea e)
Nightshade (Sola num sp.)
Pigweed (Ama r a nt hus sp.)
Hackberry (Celt is sp.)
Plum/cherry (P r unus sp.)
Unidentified (black, shiny,
smooth)
Wood sorrel (Oxa lis sp.)
No. of t a xa
A
A
B
D
D
F e a . 1,
Zone 4
9 5 - 12 5
610
9.5
Fe a . fill,
S 1/2
95- 102
599
10
Tr e e
fa ll
95- 97
602
10
Le ve l
3
50- 65
593
10
PH D -5,
Le ve l 2-4
51- 71
591
1.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
D
X
-
X
7
X
X
6
X
X
6
X
X
3
X
3
X
3
X
X
X
N o . of
O ccur r e nce s
PH D -6, Ar e a C,
Le ve l 2-4 Le ve l 3
50- 60
57- 67
589
597
1
10
X
X
E
X
X
X
3
2
X
X
2
X
X
X
X
2
X
2
2
1
1
X
X
X
X
1
X
5
10
10
1
10
10
6
5
1
8
-
Table E.4. Charred Macrobotanical Remains from 1/4” Screen (raw counts, weights in grams), 12 Dk 363.
Unit
Cont e xt
Depth (cmbd)
Cat. no.
Fungus 2 fragments
Bark
Unidentifiable
B
Le ve l 2, FS 393
70- 80
2 13
A
F S 383
60- 80
130
Tot a l Count
-
Tot a l We ight (g)
-
73(13.90)
2 (0.36)
1 (0.38)
14(1.84)
87
2
1
15.74
0.36
0.38
that corn consumption took place in the vicinity of the
earthworks but that corn processing did not. Nutshell
(n=47, g=0.53) consists of hickory and a rather roughtextured material that is otherwise consistent with
acorn shell. Both hickory and acorn would have been
available in the more xeric areas (i.e., the higher
ground) in the general region of the site. Two bramble
seeds, a bur, and some unidentified or unidentifiable
materials complete the macrobotanical assemblage at
Scranage.
Conclusion
At Scranage, the contexts from which botanical
samples were taken appear to represent at best
secondary and often tertiary deposition. Under these
conditions, only the toughest and most common
botanical remains may be expected to survive in
carbonized form. The small number and diversity of
plant remains recovered from Scranage to date may
therefore indicate a depauperate assemblage-or it may
SCRANAGE MACROBOTANICAL REMAINS
174
Table E.5. Wood Charcoal Identified from Scranage Samples (raw counts).
Unit
Cont e xt
Depth (cmbd)
Cat. no.
Group III- 3 hardwood
Chestnut (Ca st a nea dent a t a )
Ash (F r a xinus sp.)
Hickory (Ca r ya sp.)
Elm/hackberry family (Ulmaceae)
Black ash (F r a xinus nigr a )
Sycamore (P la t a nus occident a lis)
Red? elm (U lmus cf. r ubr a )
Unidentified hardwood
D
PH D -5, Le ve l 2-4
5 1- 7 1
591
D
PH D -6, Le ve l 2-4
50- 60
589
9
1
4
6
alternatively reflect a cultural situation in which few
charred plant remains were generated.
Further
investigations at the site may illuminate the situation.
The kernel:cupule ratio at Scranage is particularly
interesting because cupules are often tougher than the
kernels of soft, flour corns. The large number of kernels
A
Fe a . 1, Zone 4
9 5 - 12 5
6 10
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
at Scranage is therefore likely to reflect original
deposition rather than post-depositional processes. It
appears, then, that corn consumption took place in the
vicinity of the Scranage earthworks, but that corn
processing happened elsewhere.
APPENDIX F
Faunal Remains from Scranage Enclosure
by Rexford C. Garniewicz
Faunal remains from Scranage Enclosure analyzed to
date are summarized in Table F.1. Most of the material
present probably comes from an articulated left
forelimb of a cow (Bos taurus). This material is clearly
historic, as evidenced by butchering saw marks on the
proximal metacarpal. Two specimens of rabbit
(Sylvilagus floridanus) appear recent and may have
been deposited by the burrowing activities of this
species. Two metapodial fragments from white-tailed
deer (Odocoileus virginianus) are probably prehistoric,
based on the appearance of the bone, and the fact that
this is one of the densest (and most likely to be
preserved) elements. Metapodials are frequently used
as tools (beamers, awls), increasing their likelihood of
preservation. Due to the eroded surface of these
fragments it was not possible to determine if this
specimen was utilized. The appearance of the raccoon
(Procyon lotor) canine tooth clearly indicates a recent,
rather than archaeological origin. Finally, two fossil
brachiopod fragments were included in the sample.
While these fragments have the outward appearance of
tooth enamel, microscopic analysis indicates that they
are from a fossil brachiopod where the original skeletal
material has been replaced by silica.
Table F.1. Analyzed Faunal Remains from Scranage Enclosure.
Cont e xt
N I SP
(fr a gme nt s )
We ight
(g)
615/285
Unit E, level 5
1(1)
161.1
615/427
Unit E, level 5
1(11)
11.0
615/427
Unit E, level 5
1(2)
22.4
615/427
Unit E, level 5
1(1)
12.1
615/428
Unit E, level 5
1(3)
12 . 6
615/428
Unit E, level 5
1(10)
13.9
1(1)
8.1
1(1)
0.3
Large mammal, long bone shaft fragment
1(1)
11.0
Bos taurus, L. medial phalange, complete, fused
Sylvilagus floridanus, L. mandible, horizontal ramus
with P2 and P4, rodent gnawed
Sylvilagus floridanus, R. mandible, ascending ramus,
with M3
O docoileus virginianus, metapodial shaft fragments
(these are the only specimens which are probably
prehistoric)
Acce s s ion/
Ca t a log N o.
D e s cr ipt ion
Bos taurus, L. metacarpal, shaft, with sawn proximal
end and unfused distal epiphyses, carnivore gnawed
Bos taurus, L. metacarpal, R. epicondyle, unfused,
refits with speciment 615/285
Bos taurus, L. proximal phalange, unfused proximal
epiphysis
Bos taurus, L. medial phalange, complete, fused
Bos taurus, L. metacarpal, L. epicondyle, unfused,
refits with specimen 615/285
Bos taurus, L. proximal phalange, complete, partially
fused
Bos taurus, L. distal phalange, complete, fused,
weathered
615/234
Unit E, level 4,
zone A
Unit E, level 4,
zone A
Unit E, level 5
615/214
Unit B, level 2
1(1)
0.6
615/214
Unit B, level 2
1(1)
0.1
615/258
Unit C, level 2
2(2)
2.4
1(1)
0.6
Procyon lotor, upper R. canine, young adult
1(2)
0.1
Fossil brachiopod fragments
615/414
615/414
615/547
615/385
Unit B, N 1/2,
118- 133cmbd
Unit D, level 5
175
APPENDIX G
Illustrations of Selected Ceramic Artifacts from Strawtown Enclosure
Figure G.1. Large Fort Ancient style sherds from Feature 1, Strawtown enclosure.
Figure G.2. Large Fort Ancient style sherd from Feature 1, Strawtown enclosure. Radiocarbon dated (Beta158417) to 770+/-40 BP (2 sigma calibrated age AD1200-1290).
176
ILLUSTRATIONS OF STRAWTOWN CERAMICS
Figure G.3. Great Lakes impressed sherds from Unit A, Features 1 and 2, Strawtown enclosure.
177
ILLUSTRATIONS OF STRAWTOWN CERAMICS
Figure G.4. Fort Ancient style sherds from Unit A, Features 1 and 2, Strawtown enclosure.
178
ILLUSTRATIONS OF STRAWTOWN CERAMICS
Figure G.5. Fort Ancient style sherds from Unit A, Features 1 and 2, Strawtown enclosure.
179
ILLUSTRATIONS OF STRAWTOWN CERAMICS
Figure G.6. Fort Ancient style sherds from Unit A, Level 4, Strawtown enclosure.
180
ILLUSTRATIONS OF STRAWTOWN CERAMICS
181
Figure G.7. Sherds from Unit A, Level 5. Sherds in upper and bottoms rows are Fort Ancient style rim sherds.
Third sherd from the left in the bottom row is unidentified. Sherds in middle row are Taylor Village rim sherds.
Figure G.24 shows closer views of interior and exterior of the Taylor Village sherd at the far right.
ILLUSTRATIONS OF STRAWTOWN CERAMICS
182
Figure G.8. Sherds from Unit A, Level 5, Strawtown enclosure. All sherds are Fort Ancient style except for the
center sherd. Center sherd is Great Lakes impressed.
ILLUSTRATIONS OF STRAWTOWN CERAMICS
Figure G.9. Selected sherds from Unit C, Strawtown enclosure.
183
ILLUSTRATIONS OF STRAWTOWN CERAMICS
Figure G.10. Selected sherds from Unit D, Strawtown enclosure.
184
ILLUSTRATIONS OF STRAWTOWN CERAMICS
185
Figure G.11. Sherds from Units F, G, H, and I, Strawtown enclosure. All are Fort Ancient style or possible Fort
Ancient style.
ILLUSTRATIONS OF STRAWTOWN CERAMICS
Figure G.12. Fort Ancient style sherds from Unit N, Level 2, Strawtown enclosure.
186
ILLUSTRATIONS OF STRAWTOWN CERAMICS
Figure G.13. Selected sherds from Unit N, Level 3, Strawtown enclosure.
187
ILLUSTRATIONS OF STRAWTOWN CERAMICS
Figure G.14. Fort Ancient style rim sherd from Unit O, Feature 3, Strawtown enclosure.
188
ILLUSTRATIONS OF STRAWTOWN CERAMICS
Figure G.15. Fort Ancient style sherds from Unit O, Levels 1 and 5, Strawtown enclosure.
189
ILLUSTRATIONS OF STRAWTOWN CERAMICS
190
Figure G.16. Fort Ancient style and Great Lakes impressed sherds from Unit O, Level 2, Strawtown enclosure.
Small sherds in lower left corner are Great Lakes impressed style.
ILLUSTRATIONS OF STRAWTOWN CERAMICS
Figure G.17. Fort Ancient style sherds from Unit O, Level 3, Strawtown enclosure.
191
ILLUSTRATIONS OF STRAWTOWN CERAMICS
Figure G.18. Great Lakes impressed style sherds from SVS units, Strawtown enclosure.
192
ILLUSTRATIONS OF STRAWTOWN CERAMICS
Figure G.19. Fort Ancient style sherds from SVS units, Strawtown enclosure.
193
ILLUSTRATIONS OF STRAWTOWN CERAMICS
194
Figure G.20. Fort Ancient style and unidentified sherds from SVS units, Strawtown enclosure. Sherd in middle
of bottom row is unidentified.
ILLUSTRATIONS OF STRAWTOWN CERAMICS
195
Figure G.21. Sherds from groundhog hole on interior of Strawtown enclosure. Sherd in upper right corner is a
Great Lakes impressed style cambered rim with vertical node. Sherd in middle of upper row is unidentified. The
remaining sherds are Fort Ancient style.
ILLUSTRATIONS OF STRAWTOWN CERAMICS
Figure G.22. Taylor Village sherds from various proveniences, Strawtown enclosure.
196
ILLUSTRATIONS OF STRAWTOWN CERAMICS
197
Figure G.23. Fragmentary Taylor Village vessel from embankment fill/midden in Unit A, Strawtown enclosure.
Radiocarbon dated (Beta-164512) to 690+/-50 BP (2 sigma calibrated age AD 1260-1400). Vessel on left is from
level 1 of SVS unit; fragment on right is from level 5 of Unit A.
ILLUSTRATIONS OF STRAWTOWN CERAMICS
198
Figure G.24. View of interior and exterior of Taylor Village rim sherd with loop handle from Unit A, Level 5,
Strawtown enclosure.
APPENDIX H
Macrobotanical Remains from Strawtown Enclosure Flotation Samples
by Leslie L. Bush
Prior to the investigations described in this report, the
Strawtown site (12 H 883) had been often mentioned
but seldom studied by Indiana archaeologists.
McCullough’s (2000) summary description of the site
is worth quoting in full:
Across the river from Taylor Village [a site whose
ceramics suggest a Huber cultural affiliation], the extant
Strawtown earthwork, 12-H-3 (Lilly 1937:107-9)*, measured
about 280 feet in diameter and 2 feet high and is surrounded
by an exterior ditch that, at one time, was reportedly six feet
deep. These works are located about 400 feet from the West
Fork of the White River where a high (about 30 feet above
high water) upland prominence extends into the river
bottoms. At the time of European settlement, the upland
overlooked a large prairie on the opposite side of the river. A
smaller circle that was barely visible in 1875 was estimated
to be 50 feet in diameter and 500 yards south of the larger
Strawtown earthwork. 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.
Only the large circular earthwork is still visible.
The cultural affiliation of the Strawtown earthwork
has yet to be determined, but the exterior ditch indicates a
Late Prehistoric attribution . . . . Until a systematic survey
and excavations are conducted, the relationship of the
Strawtown enclosure/palisades to other Late Prehistoric
peoples remains problematic [McCullough 2000:93-94].
Strawtown is located near the town of the same
name in northeastern Hamilton County, Indiana, where
the West Fork White River opens to larger expanses of
floodplain (McCullough 2000:92). This location falls
within the Tipton Till Plain section of the Central Till
Plain natural region as defined by Homoya and
colleagues (Homoya, et al. 1985). Climax forest in this
flat region is generally beech-maple forest, but
topography and succession also produce significant
diversity within the region. Tuliptree, blackgum,
hickory, oak, ash, elm, walnut, basswood, and
sycamore, among others, are also commonly found in
beech-maple forests in Indiana (Braun 1950). In
addition, historical sources noted in the quotation
above indicate that prairie resources may have been
available in the immediate site vicinity. Floodplain
forests would also have been present near Strawtown.
These forests contain a wider diversity of species than
do most upland forests, and the species necessarily have
a high tolerance for floods and attendant disturbances.
The composition of floodplain forests along the White
River system in Indiana tends to be quite uniform (Lee
1945); typical species are shown in Table H.1.
A 12m x 1m meter trench was excavated
perpendicular to the earthwork on its west side. Units
measuring 2m x 2m were also excavated on the north,
east, and west sides of the enclosure. Flotation samples
are available from four 1m x 1m units within the long
trench and the eastern and western 2m x 2m units
(Units A and O).
Methods
Flotation samples were processed in 2001 at IPFW in a
flotation tank with window-screen sized bottom mesh.
Window screen typically has openings of between
Table H.1. Floodplain Forest Composition (from Lee 1945).
Ca nopy
Sma ll t r e e s
Shr ubs
Vine s
A. sa ccha r inum
Redbud Cercis
ca na densis
Dogwood Cor nus flor ida
Poison ivy Rhus
r a dica ns
Grape Vit is spp.
Hackberry Celt is occident a lis
Hawthorn Cr a t a egus spp.
Elderberry Sa mbucus
ca na densis
Pawpaw Asimina t r iloba
Wahoo Euonymus
a t ropur pureus
Swamp- privet F orest ier a
a cumina t a
Boxelder Acer negundo
Silver maple
White ash F r a xinus a mer ica na
Sycamore P la t a nus
occident a lis
Cottonwood P opulus delt oides
Swamp willow Sa lix nigr a
American elm U lmus
a mer ica na
Rock elm U . t homa sii
199
STRAWTOWN MACROBOTANICAL REMAINS
1.0mm and 1.6mm.
Light fractions were sent to the author early in
2002. Each sample was weighed on an electronic
balance with a sensitivity of 0.01g before being sizesorted through a stack of geologic mesh with openings
of 2mm, 1.4mm, and 0.71mm. Materials in the > 2mm
size fraction were completely sorted, and all charred
botanical remains were counted, weighed, recorded,
and labeled. For samples where more than 50 wood
charcoal fragments were present, counts were
estimated from the weight of a random sample of 50
fragments. Other materials in the > 2mm size fraction,
including gastropods and bone, were weighed,
recorded, and labeled but not counted. All materials in
the > 2mm size fraction other than charred plants or
faunal remains are referred to as “contamination” in
Table H.4 and on laboratory forms. At Strawtown,
these materials usually consisted of roots, rootlets, and
bark fragments. Materials that fell through the 2mm
mesh, referred to as “residue,” were examined carefully
under a stereoscopic microscope at 7-30x magnification
for charred botanical remains other than nutshell of the
hickory-walnut family, fungus, and wood charcoal.
Following C. M. Scarry (Scarry 1991, 1992) and the
recommendation of Gayle Fritz (Fritz 1996), nutshell
of the beech-oak family was searched for in the residue
down to the 1.4mm size fraction, since it tends to break
up in the soil far more easily than nutshell of the more
durable hickory-walnut family. All plant material
removed from the residue was counted, weighed, and
labeled. The presence of uncharred taxa in the residue
was also recorded on laboratory forms, but these
materials were not usually removed from residue.
Seeds, fruits, and woody tissue are not always
sufficient, by themselves, to allow identification of the
plant from which they came to the species level.
Botanical materials from Strawtown were identified to
the lowest possible taxonomic level by comparison to
materials in the author’s comparative collection and
through the use of standard reference works (e.g., Davis
1993; Martin and Barkley 1961; USDA 1971). Some
taxa were identified to species through positive
identification or elimination of other possible members
of the genus. Most commonly, botanical materials,
whether charred and uncharred, were identified to the
level of genus.
The Sample
Flotation samples were chosen for analysis to represent
each unit from which samples were available. The zone
designations in the tables correspond to those in Figure
4.12. The exact location of some flotation samples was
mapped onto profile drawings of the long trench, and
200
priority in analysis was given to these samples. Several
samples were analyzed from Unit A, where a greater
abundance and diversity of charred botanical remains
were found. In all, 14 samples totaling more than 113.5
liters of fill were analyzed from Strawtown.
Results
Macrobotanical remains recovered by flotation from
Strawtown are reported in Tables H.2-H.4. Table H.2
shows charred macrobotanical remains by count; Table
H.3 provides the same information by weight. Table
H.4 indicates uncharred plant taxa on a presence/
absence basis.
Uncharred Plant Remains
On open-air sites in the Eastern Woodlands, uncharred
plant material can be assumed to be of modern origin
unless compelling evidence suggests otherwise
(Lopinot and Brussell 1982). To date, the Strawtown
site has offered no such evidence, and only charred
plant remains are believed to be ancient. The
uncharred taxa at Strawtown, shown in Table 1.4, are
commonly found on field and forest margins in
Indiana. Some of these are of Eurasian origin (e.g.,
carpetweed, velvetleaf and curly dock), but six of the
uncharred taxa are also found among the charred plant
remains on the site. These are: pigweed, goosefoot,
bedstraw, grass family, purslane, and bramble. Even
these remains are almost certainly not ancient however,
but rather represent the continuity of conditions
favorable to the growth of these plants in the Strawtown
vicinity over the past 900 years. As indicated in Figure
H.1, the primary determinant of taxa abundance for
uncharred species at Strawtown is the depth of the
sample. The coefficient of correlation between depth
and number of uncharred taxa is -0.65. Uncharred
plant remains at Strawtown almost certainly represent
modern seed rain and other remains of modern plants.
Charred Plant Remains
The most common plant remain recovered at
Strawtown, by count (n=8069) and by weight
(g=121.13), was wood charcoal. Flotation contexts
include only midden or feature fill of secondary or
tertiary deposition and not postmolds, so most of the
wood charcoal reported here likely represents the
remains of firewood.
Wood charcoal was not
systematically identified for this project. It was noted
during sorting, however, that many wood charcoal
fragments appear to exhibit very narrow growth rings,
suggesting that wood used at Strawtown was taken
STRAWTOWN MACROBOTANICAL REMAINS
201
Figure H.1 Depth of sample versus number of uncharred taxa, Strawtown enclosure; r=-0.65.
from dense forests rather than areas nearer forest
margins or cleared fields that would have received more
sunlight. Systematic study of the wood charcoal from
various contexts at Strawtown would help clarify the
wood selection strategies of those who used the site.
After wood charcoal, the next most common plant
remain at Strawtown was corn. A total of 143 kernels,
cupules, and germs weighing 1.21g were recovered.
Corn was the most important cultivated plant in much
of the Eastern Woodlands by AD 1000, so it is not
surprising to see it in such quantities at Strawtown.
Few whole kernels and no cob fragments were
recovered, so it is not possible at this time to determine
what variety or varieties or corn were being grown.
Another suite of crops, commonly called Eastern
Agricultural Complex (EAC) plants, was commonly
grown in parts of the Eastern Woodlands prior to the
rise of corn agriculture, and some of these taxa are
present at Strawtown. These are: little barley (n=2),
goosefoot (n=1), maygrass (n=1), and probably
sunflower (n=1). The sunflower specimen is a small
fragment of a large kernel, making identification
somewhat tentative. An additional two specimens that
could represent either goosefoot or pigweed were also
recovered from Unit O midden. These Eastern
Agricultural Complex specimens are not a large
presence at Strawtown either by count or by weight, but
they do provide preliminary indications that plants
other than corn may have been cultivated by the
builders of the Strawtown earthworks.
Albee phase people are known to have occupied
much of central Indiana during the period AD 8001300 (Redmond and McCullough 2000). Corn,
squash, little barley, and maygrass constitute the crop
remains recovered to date from Albee sites. The Oliver
people who later occupied central Indiana (AD 12001450) certainly grew corn, beans, and squash, but the
evidence for Oliver cultivation of EAC plants is
difficult to interpret. Goosefoot, maygrass, little barley
and sumpweed have all been recovered, but usually in
very small quantities and never more than three taxa at
a single site (Bush 2001).
The Strawtown
macrobotanical assemblage therefore contains more
EAC plants than any Albee or Oliver sites known to
date. Because morphological correlates of domestication
for maygrass and little barley have not been identified,
and identification of domesticated goosefoot usually
requires examination under a scanning electron
microscope, arguments for the cultivated status of EAC
plants often rely on taxon abundance and association
with known crops. The very small numbers of
specimens of EAC plants recovered from Strawtown
make the cultivated status of these specimens
uncertain. Recovery of macrobotanical remains from
additional contexts at Strawtown will be necessary to
determine the nature and extent of agricultural activity.
Unit
*Charred status uncertain
?Tentative identification
Unidentified
Unidentifiable
O t he r wild pla nt s
Bramble (Rubus spp.)
Strawberry (F r a ga r ia sp.)
Sumac (Rhus sp.)
Bedstraw (G a lium sp.)
Smartweed (flat P olygonum
sp.)
Purslane (P or t ula ca
oler a cea )
Grass family (P oa cea e)
Grape/virginia creeper
(Vit a cea e)
N ut s he ll
Hickory (Ca r ya spp.)
Walnut (J ugla ns nigra)
Hickory/walnut family
(J ugla nda cea e)
Hazelnut (Cor ylus sp.)
Unidentified
EAC s pe cie s
Little barley (Hordeum
pusillum)
Goosefoot (Chenopodium
spp.)
Maygrass? (cf. Phalaris
caroliniana)
Cheno/am
(Chenopodium/Ama r a nt hus)
Sunflower? (cf. Helia nt hus
a nnuus)
1
1
1
4
20
4
1137
14
Wood Cha r oa l
Bark
Fungus
Cor n (Zea ma ys)
K ernel
Cupule
425- 429
unknown
Liters processed
A
A
A
16
3
1
5
227
70
7.5
478
D
12
4.5
475
S& W
wa lls , zone 3
F
2
8
467
S wa ll,
zone 4
I
1
2
1
142
10
469
W wa ll,
zone 9
I
2
1
186
9.5
471
W wa ll,
zone 10
O
2
1
3
1
81
9.5
480
E wa ll,
" M idde n"
101
42
8071
169
6
113.5
-
TO TAL
2
1
2
3
4
1
4
1
6
2
26
1
4
2
8
21
1
5
1
4
3
6
1
3
2
2
7
26
6
1
2
57
1
2
1
3
1
18
1
1
24
3
1
2
1
1
1
17
7
477
D
S wa ll,
zone 2A
1
1
1
63
7.5
476
B
S wa ll,
zone 4
1
3
1
1
30
10 . 5
474
B
S wa ll,
zone 3
B
S wa ll,
zone 2
1*
15
8
1789
2
12
87- 109
451
Fe a . 1
1
4
24
13
12 6 3
30
2
12
87- 109
450
Fe a . 1
2
1
13
6
915
9
1
7
5 4- 58
444
Bone
Pile
2
23
1
2207
44
8.5
453
A
Bone Pile ,
SE 1/4
A
Bone Pile ,
SE 1/4
Depth (cmbd)
Cat. N o.
Cont e xt
STRAWTOWN MACROBOTANICAL REMAINS
202
Table H.2. Charred Plant Remains by Count, 12 H 883 Flotation Samples.
*Charred status uncertain
?Tentative identification
Unidentified
Unidentifiable
Ot he r pla nt s >=0.01 g
Bramble (Rubus spp.)
Grape/virginia creeper
(Vit a cea e)
Smartweed (flat P olygonum
sp.)
Nut s he ll
Hickory (Ca r ya spp.)
Walnut (J ugla ns nigr a )
Hickory/walnut family
(J ugla nda cea e)
Hazelnut (Cor ylus sp.)
Unidentified
Cor n (Zea ma ys)
Kernel
Cupule
Wood Cha r oa l
Bark
Fungus
Depth (cmbd)
Cat. No.
Sample weight
Contamination weight
Residue weight
Fauna weight
Liters processed
Cont e xt
Unit
0.01
0.03
0 .20
0.03
17.73
0.26
425- 429
35 .69
1.74
15.73
0.38
unknown
<0.01
<0 . 0 1
<0.01
0. 01
0.16
0.01
21.89
0.33
453
44.48
1.99
18.78
1.03
8.5
A
Bone Pile ,
SE 1/4
A
Bone Pile ,
SE 1/4
A
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.21
0.02
13.36
0.04
<0.01
5 4- 58
444
26.97
4.19
9.12
0.02
7
B o ne
Pile
Fe a . 1
A
0.06
0.01
<0.01
0.02
0.04
0.24
0.07
34.22
0.17
0.01
0.02
0.07
0.02
0.13
0.05
25.85
0.02
87- 109 87- 109
450
451
57.38
50.86
2.01
1.77
17.95
21.24
1.56
12
12
Fe a . 1
A
B
B
0.01
<0 . 0 1
0.02
0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.42
7.5
10.5
0.41
476
2.58
0.25
1.91
S wa ll,
zone 3
474
6.17
1.24
4.46
S wa ll,
zone 2
B
<0 . 0 1
0.01
0.11
7
477
2.31
0.28
1.91
S wa ll,
zone 4
D
0.02
0.01
0.29
0.02
0.01
0.04
1.69
0.51
478
13.67
1.14
9.29
0.57
7.5
S wa ll,
zone 2A
D
0.06
4.5
475
3.25
0.75
2.41
S&W
wa lls , zone 3
F
0.04
8
467
4.98
1.97
2.89
S wa ll,
zone 4
I
<0.01
0.01
<0 . 0 1
2.20
469
16 . 0 5
0.4 8
13 . 2 8
<0.01
10
W wa ll,
zone 9
I
0.02
<0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
2 . 19
471
10 . 7 8
0.50
6.42
1.52
9.5
W wa ll,
zone 10
O
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
0.96
480
7.66
1. 8 5
4.75
0.02
9.5
E wa ll,
" M idde n"
0.03
0 . 17
0.02
0.03
0.01
<0.01
0.09
0.34
0.02
0.97
0.24
121.13
1. 3 3
0.03
282.83
20.16
130.14
5.10
113.5
-
TOTAL
STRAWTOWN MACROBOTANICAL REMAINS
203
Table H.3. Charred Plant Remains by Weight (g), 12 H 883 Flotation Samples.
Pigweed (Ama r a nt hus sp.)
Pink family
(Ca r yophylla cea e)
Goosefoot (Chenopodium
spp.)
Sedge family (Cyper a cea e)
Jimsonweed (Da t ur a
st r a monium)
Bean/pea family (F a ba cea e)
Fruit skins
Bedstraw (Ga lium sp.)
Mint family (La mia cea e)
Carpetweed (Mollugo
ver t icilla t a )
Wood sorrel (Oxa lis sp.)
Pokeweed (P hyt ola cca
a mer ica na )
Grass family (P oa cea e)
Purslane (P or t ula ca
oler a cea )
Bramble (Rubus spp.)
Black- eyed Susan
(Rudbeckia hir t a )
Curly dock (Rumex cr ispus)
Nightshade (Sola num sp.)
Unidentified (3 types)
Velvetleaf (Abut ilon
t heophr a st i)
Vervain (Ver bena sp.)
Depth (cmbd)
Cat. No.
Liters processed
Cont e xt
Unit
X
X
X
X
X
X
453
8.5
Bone Pile ,
SE 1/4
Bone Pile ,
SE 1/4
425- 429
unknown
A
A
Fe a . 1
A
Fe a . 1
A
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
54- 58 87- 109 87- 109
444
450
451
7
12
12
B o ne
Pile
A
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
476
7.5
S wa ll,
zone 3
S wa ll,
zone 2
474
10 . 5
B
B
X
X
X
X
477
7
S wa ll,
zone 4
B
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
478
7.5
S wa ll,
zone 2A
D
X
X
X
X
X
X
475
4.5
S&W
wa lls , zone 3
D
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
467
8
S wa ll,
zone 4
F
X
X
X
X
469
10
W wa ll,
zone 9
I
X
X
X
X
X
471
9.5
W wa ll,
zone 10
I
1
X
2
2
2
6
4
8
4
3
4
2
1
1
4
3
8
2
3
7
10
5
-
-
N o. of
occur r e nce s
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
480
9.5
E wa ll,
" M idde n"
O
STRAWTOWN MACROBOTANICAL REMAINS
204
Table H.4. Uncharred Plant Remains (presence/absence), 12 H 883 Flotation Samples.
STRAWTOWN MACROBOTANICAL REMAINS
Nutshell at Strawtown (n=49, g=0.46) is
dominated by thick-shelled hickory. Other nut types
were walnut and hazelnut, represented by only three
shell fragments each. Although hickories do not
dominate the forest canopy in the Central Till Plain of
Indiana, as noted above, they do occur there. Hazelnut,
technically a shrub rather than a tree, requires the
sunnier locations available in meadows and on stream
margins and forest edges. Non-nut wild plants at
Strawtown include taxa common on disturbed areas
(purslane, grasses) as well as those from forest margins
or openings (sumac, bedstraw, strawberry, bramble)
and floodplain forests (grape/virginia creeper). The
bedstraw seed may represent a medicinal use of this
plant or deliberate disposal of a nuisance bur. The wild
grass seed may indicate either food use of the seed or use
of grass stems in craft items. All other plant taxa
recovered from Strawtown have obvious food uses,
although medicinal uses have been recorded historically
205
for most of these plants as well (Moerman 1998).
Conclusion
Macrobotanical remains from Strawtown provide a
first glimpse into the plant uses of a little-known Late
Prehistoric group in central Indiana. Like most of their
contemporaries, the people who built Strawtown
cultivated corn and used a common suite of wild plants
available in the area. Even in only fourteen flotation
samples, more taxa of the Eastern Agricultural
Complex have been recovered from Strawtown than
from any known Albee or Oliver site. Further research
is necessary to clarify the status of these potential
cultigens, to identify other plants that may have been
grown (e.g., squash and tobacco), and to determine
what variables of cultural tradition and ecological
situation led to the particular set of crop plants chosen
by people associated with the Strawtown site.
APPENDIX I
A Preliminary Analysis of Faunal Materials, Worked Bone, and Human Remains
from the Strawtown Enclosure
by Rexford C. Garniewicz
Due to limits of time and funding, only a portion of the
faunal materials from the 2001 excavations at
Strawtown could be analyzed. The analysis of a sample
comprised of approximately 25 percent of the total
recovered fauna indicated a diverse and distinctive
composition of species which should be the focus of
further research. The material from Strawtown is
distinct from the majority of Middle Mississippian and
Oliver phase sites analyzed by the author. A strong
representation of species such as bear and elk gives the
assemblage much more similarity to materials from
Fort Ancient sites in Ohio. Comparatively low
representation of birds and fish, despite excellent
preservation, is also distinctive. The high representation
of certain species such as porcupine is unique for a Late
Prehistoric site in Indiana. The combination of superb
faunal preservation and unusual representation of
species strongly supports the need for additional indepth research on the faunal materials from Strawtown.
The material analyzed was recovered by hand
excavation and by screening the remaining soil through
1/4" hardware cloth. Material was washed and
cataloged prior to being submitted for analysis. Each
specimen was identified to the most specific taxonomic
category possible, and data were collected on the
element, portion of element, side, age and ageing
criteria, degree of burning, type of gnawing, and
presence of cutmarks.
All data were recorded
numerically using the University of Michigan’s
Vertebrate Faunal Analysis Coding System.
Most of the analyzed materials were from various
levels and quadrants of Unit A, the location of a
substantial concentration of faunal materials. This
material is first considered as a single sample to extract
information on the total number of identified
specimens (NISP) and the minimum number of
individuals (MNI) of each species. After this, a more
in-depth study of several species is presented along
with notes on seasonality, followed by a discussion of
variations in faunal representation by level.
deer (Odocoileus virginianus) dominates the sample,
with a 199 specimens for an MNI of 8. Other important
food items include elk (Cervus elephus), bear (Ursus
americanus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), porcupine
(Erethizon dorsatum), grey squirrel (Sciurus
carolinensis), and several other small mammals. There
is a moderate representation of turtle and tortoise.
There were relatively small quantities of bird remains,
including turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), grouse
(Bonasa umbellus), and passenger pigeon (Ectopistes
migratorius). Fish were poorly represented, with most
specimens coming from the suckers (Catostomidae)
with a few catfish, including one probable channel cat
(Ictalurus sp.) and a bullhead (A. natalis).
There were a number of ageable elements from
white-tailed deer, although only a fraction of the
material has been examined, there were 11 ageable
mandibles or isolated teeth. Of the ageable mandibles,
there was one aged to 14 months, one to 18 months,
three to 2.5 years and one to 3.5 years. Of the isolated
teeth, there was one deciduous PM4 aged 3 months, one
M1 aged 7.5-8.5 years, one M1 aged 1.5 years, one M2
aged 3.5 years, and one PM2 aged 3.5 years. Given the
small sample size these results are comparable to all
prehistoric mortality profiles from eastern North
America and probably represent random hunting.
Most of the cutmarks identified on the white-tailed deer
material are standard disarticulation cutmarks, located
on distal limb segments. Other cutmarks of particular
note are those surrounding an antler pedicle, which
may result from either skinning, or separation of the
antler from the skull, and a cutmark on the sternum
which is probably a defleshing cutmark. Cutmarks
around the caudal aspect of a fourth cervical vertebra
indicate that either deer were disarticulated on-site, or
that all portions, including the cranium were brought
back to the site. This is further supported by the
abundant cranial material at the site – in fact if
anything, deer are overrepresented by dental/cranial
materials, though this is most likely the result of a small
sample size.
Overview of Species Represented
The strong representation of large species such as
elk and bear really distinguishes this assemblage from
The sample was comprised of a total of 1864 specimens, a large number of contemporary sites in Indiana. Due to
from 40 taxa. Some of the taxonomic designations are taphonomic forces, large species are often
overlapping; however, at least 23 different genera or overrepresented at sites with poor preservation. The
species are represented (see Table I.1). White-tailed fact that preservation at Strawtown is superb, makes the
206
STRAWTOWN FAUNAL REMAINS
207
Table I.1. NISP and MNI of Species Represented at Strawtown
Spe cie s N a me
Common N a me
N I SP
M NI
G r a ms
Vertebrata
Pelecypoda
Gastropoda
O steichthyes (Medium)
Catostomidae
Ictaluridae
Rana sp.
Testudinata
Chelydra serpentina
Sternotherus sp.
Chrysemys sensu lato
Terrapene sp.
Trachemys scripta
Trionyx sp.
Aves (Small/medium)
Aves (Medium)
Aves (Medium/large)
Aves (Large)
Bonasa umbellus
Meleagris gallapavo
Ectopistes migratorius
Passeriformes
Mammalia (Small)
Mammalia (Small/medium)
Mammalia (Medium)
Mammalia (Large)
Tamias striatus
Sciurus carolinensis
Castor canadensis
Peromyscus sp.
O ndatra zibethicus
Erethizon dorsatum
Ursus americanus
Procyon lotor
cf. Urocyon cinereoargenteus
Canis sp.
Canis familiaris
Cervidae
Cervus elephus
O docoileus virginianus
Vertebrates
Bivalve
Snail
Medium bony fish
Suckers
Catfish
Frogs
Turtles
Snapping turtle
Musk turtles
Painted turtles/cooters/sliders
Box turtles
Slider
Softshell turtle
Small/medium birds
Medium birds
Medium/large birds
Large birds
Grouse
Turkey
Passenger pigeon
Perching birds
Small mammals
Small/medium mammals
Medium mammals
Large mammals
Eastern chipmunk
Eastern gray squirrel
Beaver
Mice
Muskrat
Porcupine
Black bear
Raccoon
Gray fox
Dogs
Domestic dog
Deer and relatives
Elk or Wapiti
White- tailed deer
2
79
49
16
5
3
5
35
8
2
11
10
1
3
1
6
30
18
1
14
2
1
1
10
11
1208
1
9
9
2
1
20
32
24
1
1
1
9
23
199
na
40
49
na
1
2
1
na
1
1
1
1
1
1
na
na
na
na
1
1
1
na
na
na
na
na
1
2
2
1
1
3
1
3
1
na
1
na
1
8
0.1
144.8
32.5
1.6
0.6
0.7
0.5
10
5.6
0.5
2.9
20.2
0.7
1.4
0.1
0.7
8.6
6.8
0.1
12.7
0.2
0.1
0.1
3.6
5.7
786.1
0.1
1.7
14.2
0.1
0.1
12.9
445.7
16.1
0.5
0.4
0.3
9.6
176.1
1108.44
proportion of elk and bear even more distinctive.
Depressed ring fractures on the bear cranium from level
5 provide clear indication that the skull was smashed
open to allow access to the fat and nutrient-rich brain.
The relatively high proportion of porcupine, which
has only a limited historical distribution in southern
Indiana, is surprising. Of the 20 specimens identified,
most are teeth, permitting an MNI of 3 individuals.
This species is easily procured, but cannot withstand
heavy predation for very long. Like bear it is an
excellent source of fat. Although the current sample
did not include a large enough series of raccoon, their
distribution by sex and age can provide an indication of
hunting intensity which often reflects crop-guarding.
Thus far one specimen each of male and female canines
have been identified and only one ageable mandible (2
years) has been recorded. Further analysis of this
material should easily produce a large enough sample
to say more about raccoon and a number of other minor
species. The presence of only grey squirrels, and a fairly
STRAWTOWN FAUNAL REMAINS
small variant of this species as well, indicates that the
immediate area was probably in fairly dense forest
cover. Fox squirrels tend to predominate in open
woodland environments.
Seasonality of site occupation, or more specifically
deer hunting at the site, is indicated by deer ages. Since
deer are normally born around June 1, the recorded ages
of 3, 14, 18 months represent kill dates in September,
August and December respectively. This is typical at
most sites for fall scheduling of deer hunting. A single
large bird long bone shaft fragment, attributed to wild
turkey, exhibited deposition of medullary bone. Some
female birds deposit mineral stores on the inside of
their long bones to prepare for egg-laying. This
specimen is therefore the result of turkey hunting in
either April or May, also coinciding with modern
turkey hunting seasons. Ethnohistorically, bear were
most frequently hunted during their hibernation, as
they provided an important supply of high-calorie fat in
the winter and it was substantially less dangerous to
hunt them when they were suddenly awakened from
hibernation and not in full control of their senses.
Together with the presence of migratory bird species
such as passenger pigeon, and the paucity of fish,
normal late spring and summer fare, these data suggest
site occupation ranging from August to May. Further
research would certainly aid substantially in supporting
this preliminary conjecture on season of occupation.
Distributional Information
Thus far the bulk of the material analyzed has been
from level 5 of Unit A. Despite this concentration a
fairly good sequence of material from level 4 (3848cmbd) to level 8 (78-88cmbd) demonstrates some
similarities and differences in distribution of species.
Although poorly represented, fish species seem to be
evenly distributed throughout these levels. This may
result from opportunistic capture of fish throughout
208
several seasons, or it may indicate that fish skeletal
elements and scales are more likely to be vertically
mixed throughout a deposit than the larger vertebrate
specimens. The bear remains have a distinctive
distribution, being most prominent by number and
weight in the upper two levels (4 and 5) analyzed. Level
4 has 17 specimens weighing 179 grams, and level 5
has 14 specimens weighing 265 grams. Aside from
these levels, there is only a single specimen, a middle
phalange weighing 2 grams, attributable to bear.
Likewise, small birds are concentrated at the lowest
levels of the sequence, with the grouse, passenger
pigeon and passeriforms (Oriole sp.) limited to level
eight. Further analysis needs to be completed before
these patterns are fully analyzed; however there does
seem to be a significant difference in the distribution of
fauna by level.
Human Remains
Six pieces of possible or definite human bone have been
identified thus far (Table I.2). Four of these are
mandible/dental fragments. These may be from the
same individual.
Worked Bone/Bone Tools
Worked bone and bone tools that have been identified
thus far as shown in Figures I.1 and I.2 and described in
Table I.3.
Conclusions
Despite a limited sample size, the analysis of faunal
materials from Strawtown was able to shed light on the
general subsistence pattern at the site, which seems to
be focused on large terrestrial mammals, primarily
deer, bear and elk. New distributional data on species
which are extinct (passenger pigeon) or extirpated from
Table I.2. Human Remains from Strawtown enclosure.
Acce s s ion
N umbe r
Pr ove nie nce
Ele me nt
01.71.6.3
Unit B, 65cmbd
Mandible
fragment
01.71.2.3
01.71.4.3
01.71.12.7
Unit O , 40- 50cmbd
Unit A, 28- 38cmbd
Unit I, 100- 110cmbd
Unit A, 38- 48cmbd,
SE 1/4
Unit A, Feature 1, 5888cmbd
First incisor
Second incisor
First premolar
Possible cranial
fragment
Possible cranial
fragment
0 1. 7 1. 3 . 4
01.71.52.0
D e cr ipt ion
Right portion complete distal to the canine; 80%
probability that it is female based on robusticity and
gonial angle; the 2nd molar was lost ante- mortem and
the remainder of the teeth were lost post- mortem
Side indeterminate; heavily worn
Side indeterminate; heavily worn
Right side; moderately worn
Burned
Burned
STRAWTOWN FAUNAL REMAINS
209
Table I.3. Worked Bone/Bone Tools from Strawtown Enclosure.
Acce s s ion
N umbe r
01.71.8.4
Pr ove nie nce
Unit D, 67- 76cmbd
0 1. 7 1. 4 . 3
Unit A, 28- 38cmbd
01.71.52.1
Unit A, Feature 1, 5458cmbd
01.71.52.10
Unit A, 98- 109cmbd
01.71.22.3
Unit O , 50- 60cmbd
01.71.22.3
Unit O , 50- 60cmbd
01.71.15.3
Unit N , 27- 37cmbd
01.71.23.4
Unit O , 60- 70cmbd
01.71.00.01
(FS 425429)
01.71.3.4
Surface/ground hog
burrow
Unit A, Feature 1, SE
1/4 (bone pile)
Unit A, Level 4, SE 1/4
01.71.3.4
Unit A, Level 4, SE 1/4
01.71.4.5
01.71.2.5
01.71.2.5
01.71.4.6
01.71.4.8
Unit A, Level 5, N E 1/4
Unit A, Level 5, SW 1/4
Unit A, Level 5, SW 1/4
Unit A, Level 6, N E 1/4
Unit A, Level 8, N E 1/4
01.71.48
Unit A, Level 8, N E 1/4
Ele me nt
Distal deer
metarsal
Large mammal
bone
Large mammal
long bone shaft
Large mammal
long bone
Unknown
Deer metatarsal
(?)
Deer metatarsal
Proximal deer
metatarsal
D e cr ipt ion
Figur e
Beamer
I.1.- 1
Broad, sharpened fragment (tip only)
I.1- 2
Fishook; broken during manufacture
I.1- 3
Awl (tip fragment)
I.1- 4
Splinter awl
I.1- 5
Beamer (midsection fragment)
I.1- 6
Beamer (midsection fragment)
I.1- 7
Beamer
I.1- 8
Beamer
I.1- 9
Awl (tip); burned
I.1- 10
Worked fragment (scored and snapped)
Worked fragment (polished surface, one
end abraded); pressure flaker?
Bowl fragment
Beamer (?)
Chisel
Chisel
Awl fragment
I.2- 4
I.2- 8
I.2- 5
I.2- 6
I.2- 7
I.2- 1
Awl fragment (?)
I.2- 2
Deer metatarsal
Turkey tarsometatarsus
Bird long bone
Medium mammal
ulna
Turtle shell
Deer metapodial
Beaver incisor
Beaver incisor
Deer ulna (?)
Turkey tarsometatarsus
Figure I.1. Worked bone and bone tools from Strawtown enclosure.
I.2- 3
STRAWTOWN FAUNAL REMAINS
210
Figure I.2. Worked bone and bone tools from Strawtown enclosure.
Indiana (porcupine) were discovered. The limited
sample provided excellent data on season of site
occupation, including age-at-death data for key species
such as deer. There also appear to be distinct patterns
in the distribution of species by depth. It is hoped that
further analysis will be able to examine whether this
represents seasonal variation in diet or in discard
patterns. The superior preservation of faunal remains
at this site provides an exceptional opportunity to
investigate the prehistoric utilization of various species
as well as to investigate prehistoric animal ecology.
Until further analysis can be undertaken, the raw
data from this preliminary analysis probably provides
the best indication of late prehistoric subsistence in
this particular area.
APPENDIX J
Analysis of Lithics from 12-H-3 and the Strawtown Enclosure
by Donald R. Cochran
Lithic artifacts from sites 12 H 3 and the Strawtown (Tables J.1 through J.6). For this report, I provide
enclosure (12 H 883) were collected during the 2001 definitions and general comments about each of the
IPFW project. The collection from 12 H 3 was acquired artifact classes identified in the analyzed sample,
from 20m x 20m and 5m x 5m controlled surface provide an analysis of the correlations between
collections.
The artifacts from the Strawtown triangular points and raw material sources, and discuss
enclosure were collected from 50cm x 50cm standard diagnostic artifacts in relation to provenience.
volume samples (SVS) and excavation units that were Questions raised by the analysis are also listed for
either 2m x 2m in size or 1m wide trenches of various further exploration. In the following document,
lengths. The lithic artifacts from both sites represented methods are first described, then the sampling criteria
the first controlled collections made there although are defined, followed by the classification of artifacts.
surface collections had previously been made (James After the classifications are presented, raw materials
Mohow, personal communication 2001). Previous are discussed, followed by a presentation of diagnostic
reports, at least concerning the Strawtown enclosure, artifacts.
A summary and conclusions section
indicated the presence of an Oliver phase component concludes the report. Research questions for future
(Griffin 1946). Analysis of the lithic artifacts from the investigations are incorporated into the summary and
two sites was important to determine activities there conclusions.
and define components not represented in the ceramics.
The author volunteered to classify and analyze the
Methods
lithic artifacts from 12 H 3 and the Strawtown enclosure
for several reasons. First, lithic analyses from the sites Lithic artifacts were received at ARMS after other
were needed to compare with the unique lithic artifact categories (ceramics, bone, etc.) were removed.
assemblage from the nearby Taylor Village site At the request of the author, lithic materials were
(Cochran et al. 1993). In addition, few complete lithic received unsorted. The collection initially filled 12
analyses have been completed for Oliver phase sites in boxes totaling 12 cubic feet. The first step in the
the Upper White River drainage although Dorwin’s processing was to remove the unmodified rocks and to
(1971) report provides some basis for comparison. segregate the fire-cracked rock (FCR) from the other
Dorwin’s (1971) report, however, does not contain artifacts. Unmodified rocks were discarded. FCR was
information on chipped stone raw materials, an counted and weighed and then discarded. This reduced
important data set for contemporary studies. Also, the the volume of the lithic assemblage by more than twoartifacts from the 2001 IPFW Strawtown project offered thirds.
During this sorting process, the remaining
an excellent opportunity to document and analyze Late lithic artifacts were counted to gain some idea of the
Prehistoric lithic technologies within a regional numbers of artifacts involved. Total lithic artifacts
context. In particular, it was important to document from each of the four collection units are shown in
the types and ranges of artifacts in the assemblages Table J.7. These numbers may change slightly during
from the two sites, identify chipped stone raw materials the final sorting as some nonartifacts may still remain
used in artifact production, and acquire data for an in the collections.
ongoing investigation of triangular point technology.
Following this initial sorting, the lithic artifacts
This report does not, however, contain a complete were classified using a system in use by ARMS for
analysis of the artifacts from the two sites.
The several years (Cochran 1985, 1991). The classification
collections from the two sites contain a combined total system allows for a consistent separation of artifacts
of over 9,000 lithic artifacts, and unanticipated that can be compared between sites and projects. The
demands on my time prevented completing the analysis system also allows for further subdivision and analysis
of all the artifacts. As of this writing, all of the artifacts within classes depending upon the nature of the
are counted and fire-cracked rocks are counted and research questions being addressed. As the artifacts
weighed. At least a 10% random sample of the various were separated into classes, the chipped stone artifacts
controlled surface collections from 12 H 3 and the were further divided into chert raw material categories.
standard volume samples (SVS) and excavation units Chert sources were identified through comparison with
from the Strawtown enclosure are completely sorted ARMS reference collections of cherts from across the
211
500/470
500/475
510/475
510/490
515/455
520/450
525/475
530/455
540/455
540/460
555/465
564/475
575/450
575/465
580/445
585/460
590/475
595/470
605/490
610/470
610/490
615/455
615/490
Total
Unit
Ends cr a pe r,
unifa cia l
Ends cr a pe r,
bifa cia l
1
1
Point
1
Point
fr a g.
1
1
Pe r f-- BiGr ound- Ha mme r O CS
s t one
s t one
or a t or pola r
1
Anvil
29
2
18
7
8
5
5
2
4
Tot a l
2
2
4
16
207
4
13
186
1
10
1
4
2
8
1
5
13
6
15
18
20
5
12
4
15
16
20
1
2
6
10
Gr a ve r
2
Fla k e ,
Bla de
block
1
5
10
2
1
Fla k e ,
modifie d
2
1
27
1
16
7
6
3
5
3
Fla k e ,
unmodifie d
2
7
1
1
Bifa ce
fr a g.
1
1
2
2
1
2
Cor e Bifa ce
STRAWTOWN LITHIC ANALYSIS
Table J.1. Distribution of Artifact Classes in 5m x 5m Units, 12 H 3.
212
STRAWTOWN LITHIC ANALYSIS
213
Table J.2. Distribution of Artifact Classes in 20m x 20m Units, 12 H 3.
Core
Biface
Biface frag.
Flake, UM
Flake, M
Flake, block
Blade
Graver
Endscraper
Point
Point frag.
Perforator
Bipolar
O CS
Ground stone
Hammerstone
Anvil
Total
560/420
2
1
600/480
2
2
620/460
3
Tot a l
7
3
32
42
5
68
14 2
5
1
1
1
1
2
36
52
2
73
161
Table J.3. Distribution of Artifact Classes in SVS Units, 12 H 883.
Core
Biface
Biface frag.
Flake, UM
Flake, M
Flake, block
Blade
Graver
Endscraper
Point
Point frag.
Perforator
Bipolar
O CS
Ground stone
Hammerstone
Anvil
Total
199.5N / 125.5E
220N / 199E
241N / 164.5E
3
Tot a ls
3
7
1
1
73
154
3
234
4
1
1
1
2
1
1
3
2
1
75
164
248
9
Midwest, documentation of chert raw materials (e.g.,
Cantin 1994; DeRegnaucourt and Georgiady 1998),
and a thorough familiarity with raw material sources in
the vicinity of the sites. All classifications and
identifications were either made directly by the author
or were checked by the author for accuracy.
The combined lithic assemblage from the two sites
amounted to more than 9,000 artifacts. The size of the
collection presented an interesting challenge and one
that was not met successfully. Although all the artifacts
were reviewed at least once, the sorting is not finished.
The following description of the lithic assemblage,
therefore, represents a preliminary report and not a full
accounting of all artifacts.
Although a full
classification and analysis will provide more
confidence, it is expected that the range and content of
artifact classes are represented, although frequencies
may change with a larger sample. The presentation of
data is organized so that the classification system is
presented first with relevant discussions of each artifact
class. The classification section is followed by a
discussion of raw materials found in the assemblages.
After the raw materials section, diagnostic artifacts are
defined and their distributions evaluated. The analysis
STRAWTOWN LITHIC ANALYSIS
214
Table J.4. Distribution of Artifact Classes in Unit A, 12 H 883.
Core
Biface
Biface frag.
Flake, UM
Flake, M
Flake, block
Blade
Graver
Endscraper
Point
Point frag.
Perforator
Bipolar
O CS
Groundstone
Hammerstone
Anvil
Total
1
0
0
0
51
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
54
2
0
1
2
297
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
305
3
5
1
0
319
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
0
4
1
0
0
0
334
4
2
2
1
458
0
8
0
0
0
8
3
1
2
0
0
0
0
485
Le ve l
5
14
3
1
489
4
0
0
0
0
10
0
1
2
2
0
1
0
527
6
2
0
1
41
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
46
7
1
0
0
67
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
68
8
0
1
1
56
1
3
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
63
9
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
10
10
2
0
2
49
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
53
Tot a l
26
8
8
1830
7
11
0
0
1
24
8
3
8
3
0
1
0
1938
Table J.5. Distribution of Artifact Classes in Unit H, 12 H 883.
Core
Biface
Biface frag.
Flake, UM
Flake, M
Flake, block
Blade
Graver
Endscraper
Point
Point frag.
Perforator
Bipolar
O CS
Groundstone
Hammerstone
Anvil
Total
1
2
3
Le ve l
4
5
6
7
8
2
1
5
10
13
7
5
8
Tot a l
8
50
9
1
1
2
8
3
7
2
10
concludes with a summary of the data presented in the
report and a listing of questions that require additional
research.
Sampling
The analysis contained in this report is a sample of the
artifacts recovered during the 2001 IPFW project at 12
H 883 and the Strawtown enclosure. Sampling was
14
7
5
8
62
employed because a complete inventory of the artifact
classes was not finished. Samples were chosen by using
random number tables to select at least a 10% sample of
the units employed during the field project. In site 12 H
3, two types of controlled surface collection units were
used: 20m x 20m squares and 5m x 5m squares. Of
these units, 30 were 20m x 20m units and 234 were 5m
x 5m in size. In both cases, the inventory of units
provided with the artifacts had unique numbers
STRAWTOWN LITHIC ANALYSIS
215
Table J.6. Distribution of Artifact Classes in Unit N, 12 H 883.
L e ve l
Core
Biface
Biface frag.
Flake, UM
Flake, M
Flake, block
Blade
Graver
Endscraper
Point
Point frag.
Perforator
Bipolar
O CS
Groundstone
Hammerstone
Anvil
Total
1
6
2
12
221
6
1
661
2
3
6
1
1
656
7
4
1
1
6
2
4
6
2
4
687
685
238
Table J.7. Total Artifacts by Collection Unit, 12 H 3
and 12 H 883.
5m x 5m Units
20m x 20m Units
SVS Units
Unit A
Unit B
Unit C
Unit D
Unit F
Unit G
Unit H
Unit I
Unit M
Unit N
Unit O
Totals
2,313
925
1,165
1,938
2 05
150
110
56
35
65
196
67
1,669
7 76
9,670
assigned to each collection square. Random number
tables were used to choose 3 units from the 20m x 20m
units and 23 units were chosen from the 5m x 5m units.
At the Strawtown enclosure, 26 SVS units were
excavated and 3 units were chosen for analysis, again
based on the unique numbers assigned to each unit.
Excavation units were assigned letter designations AO (excepting units E, J, K, and L) resulting in 11 units
in the total sample. From these 11 units, 3 units (A, H
and N) were randomly selected for analysis resulting in
a 27% sample. The units were chosen in the same
manner as the other units. Over 4,000 artifacts were
4
58
1
Tot a l
24
1
2
1596
15
1
14
10
6
59
1669
included in the sample, 368 from 12 H 3 and 3,920 from
the Strawtown enclosure. Given that the current total
count of artifacts from both sites equals 9,670, the
artifacts used in this analysis represent a 44% sample of
the total from both sites.
In retrospect, the sample chosen for the excavation
units does not exactly compare equivalents. A stratified
sample would probably have been preferable based on
unit configuration, location within the enclosure, and
artifact recovery. It seems more appropriate to stratify
the units by their location. For example the units
excavated in the midden would make up one stratum,
while the unit across the ditch would represent another
stratum. Also, at least a portion of one level in Unit A
was not screened during excavation (presumably level
9), and artifact recovery could not be expected to be
equivalent to other levels where complete screening
was completed. However, these differences will be
solved when the complete inventory and analysis of the
lithic artifacts from the two sites is finished.
The only deviation from this sampling was in the
sample of triangular points from 12 H 3. In the sample
reported here, information on triangular points present
in 139 of 232 units had been recorded. Therefore, a
larger sample of triangular points is reported from this
site than was contained in the 10% sample of the
collection units that were completely classified.
Classification
In this section, artifact classes are first defined and then
STRAWTOWN LITHIC ANALYSIS
216
discussed in terms of the artifacts recovered from 12 H
3 and the Strawtown enclosure. Illustrations of some
diagnostic artifacts are contained in this section when
only a few of these artifacts are present. Points are
illustrated in the following section.
Munson 1970) and many of the triangular bifaces in
this assemblage would fit the description,
the
triangular bifaces from 12 H 3 and the Strawtown
enclosure were not analyzed for edge wear to verify
their function as knives.
Cores
Flakes
A core is a nucleus of stone exhibiting one or more
negative flake scars (Crabtree 1972:54). Objects
categorized as cores may range from a simple nucleus
with only one negative flake scar to specialized forms
with multiple flake removals. Striking platforms may
be prepared or unprepared. Cores can be subdivided
into more specific types (cf. Montet-White 1963:6-7;
Callahan 1979:41, 53; Wepler and Cochran 1982:3840).
Cores were poorly represented in the samples from
the two sites. Most cores were small pebbles of Fall
Creek chert showing a few unpatterned flake scars.
This was the expected type of core based on other Late
Woodland/Late Prehistoric lithic assemblages in
central Indiana (McCord and Cochran 1994; McCord
1998). The cores, however, were surprising in terms of
other raw materials that were present, particularly
Attica chert and Hixton quartzite. Further discussion
of the raw materials present in the assemblages follows
this classification section.
A flake is “any piece of stone removed from a larger
mass by the application of force -- either intentional,
accidentally, or by nature” (Crabtree 1972:64).
Unmodified flakes show no modification or wear on the
edges. These flakes show no detectable utilization.
Modified flakes are unspecialized flake tools
distinguished by regular edge wear that is most often
recognized as a continuous row of small flakes removed
along one flake edge. Flake margins can be modified
during cultivation of a site, by lake shore erosion,
spontaneous retouch during lithic reduction, and a
variety of other natural and mechanical processes. It is
not normally possible to distinguish between
prehistoric utilization and edge damage resulting from
other causes without microscopic examination of all
flake margins. For this classification, all flakes with
regular edge modification were sorted into this class.
Objects in this class are usually not morphologically
distinct, and the class encompasses a wide range of
diversity in size, shape, and construction of the
modified edge or edges, including forms commonly
referred to as sidescrapers.
Flakes made up the bulk of the lithic assemblages
from both sites. In the analyzed sample, few modified
flakes were identified. Low percentages of modified
flakes were also identified at the Late Woodland Albee
phase Morrell-Sheets site (McCord and Cochran
1994).
Bifaces and Biface Fragments
An artifact with negative flake scars covering both
surfaces either partially or wholly is herein termed a
biface (Crabtree 1972:38; Tixier 1974: 4). As used
here, a biface has no modification for hafting and
bifaces are viewed as stages in the manufacture of
points. In order to avoid confusion, the terms “blank,”
“blade,” and “preform” are not normally applied to
bifaces. Blank and preform are general terms that can
be applied to a number of manufacturing sequences
(e.g., gorget blank or preform, celt blank or preform,
etc.). Use of the term blade is restricted to a specific
type of flake with parallel sides and a length that is two
times greater than width or to a particular portion of a
point: the blade element. In the latter case, the term is
only used when discussing points. Callahan (1979)
separates bifaces into stages or levels of reduction
beginning with the selection of the raw material (Stage
1) and continuing through successive levels of
refinement (Stages 2, 3, 4, etc.).
Bifaces were predominantly small and generally
triangular and were apparently failed attempts at
manufacturing triangular points. Although the term
“hump-backed knife” is in the literature (Munson and
Blades
A blade is a specialized flake that has more-or-less
parallel sides and is at least twice as long as it is wide.
Thickness varies little along the length of the blade.
Blades also have straight, parallel, or converging
ridges on the dorsal surface (Movius et al. 1968:4;
Crabtree 1972:42).
Two fragments of lamellar blades were identified
during the initial sorting of artifacts although neither is
from the sample. One blade fragment was in the surface
collection from 12 H 3 and the other from the surface
inside the Strawtown enclosure. Both blades are made
from heat-treated Flint Ridge chert, as are the majority
of other blades known from the White River above
Strawtown (McCord and Cochran 1996:166). These
blade fragments are of Middle Woodland age and
STRAWTOWN LITHIC ANALYSIS
217
represent Hopewell components at the sites.
Few perforators were in the sample analyzed. Most
are small and T-shaped, apparently made on triangular
Graver
points or at least with the same morphology and
A flake, blade, or other artifact that exhibits one or technology. This type of perforator is common on Late
more small sharp points (graver spurs) intentionally Woodland/Late Prehistoric sites throughout the
retouched from one or more margins of the artifact is Midwest.
classified as a graver (Crabtree 1972:68; Nero
1957:300). The retouching that isolates the graver spur Bipolar Artifacts
may be unifacial or bifacial.
Gravers have not yet been identified in the This category includes those artifacts that are the result
of bipolar flaking. Bipolar flaking involves resting a
assemblages.
stone nucleus on an anvil and striking the nucleus with
a hammerstone or billet (Flenniken 1982:32). The
Endscraper
artifacts that result from bipolar flaking include bipolar
Endscrapers are a morphologically distinct unifacial cores (Hayden 1980:3-4), bipolar flakes (Kobayashi
tool form resulting from the concentration of retouch on 1975), and pieces esquillees (Hayden 1980:2-3).
one end of a flake or blade (Crabtree 1972:60; Movius Bipolar cores exhibit opposing striking platforms of
several types (Binford and Quimby 1964) and
et al. 1968:9).
Few endscrapers were found.
By far the prominent negative flake scars. Bipolar flakes consist
predominant form of endscraper throughout prehistory of the pieces of material detached from bipolar cores
was the unifacial type. Around AD 1400, bifacial during bipolar flaking. Pieces esquillees are similar to
endscrapers appeared as a common form on Late bipolar cores except that they exhibit opposing ridge
Prehistoric sites throughout the Midwest, particularly striking platforms and lack prominent negative flake
on Fort Ancient and Oneota sites. Further discussion of scars; pieces esquillees tend to be rectangular, while
bifacial endscrapers is included in the diagnostic bipolar cores may exhibit any number of forms. There
is considerable confusion in the archaeological
artifact section.
literature in the use of the terms bipolar core and pieces
esquillees. Some investigators use them interchangeably
Points
while others designate all bipolar nucleii as pieces
For the level of
A point is “any bifacially flaked, bilaterally esquillees (Hayden 1980).
symmetrical, chipped stone artifact exhibiting a point identification aimed for in this analysis, all bipolar
of juncture on one (distal) end and some facility artifacts are lumped together. Once the relevant
(notching, constriction, lateral grinding) for hafting on technological, morphological, and functional attributes
the opposite (proximal) end. Thus, a point is a of bipolar artifacts are delineated, it will be possible to
morphologically defined class of chipped stone tools, treat these artifacts in more detail.
Bipolar artifacts were identified only in Units A
and the term . . does not convey any particular
functional interpretation” (Ahler and McMillan and N, but the units contained a total of 14 bipolar
artifacts. Of the Oliver phase sites consulted for this
1976:165).
A combined total of 79 points are included in this analysis, only one, Cox’s Woods, reported bipolar
analysis. The sample size from site 12 H 3 is 43, while artifacts in the lithic assemblage (Redmond and
36 points are currently recorded from the Strawtown McCullough 1996). Bipolar artifacts are present in
enclosure. All but two of the points are triangles. other Late Woodland/Late Prehistoric assemblages
from central Indiana including 12 H 6, Taylor Village,
Points are discussed further below.
and 12 Ma 30 (ARMS catalog records). The seeming
lack of these artifacts in other late assemblages raises
Perforator
interesting questions for investigation.
“Bifacially chipped stone artifacts or artifact fragments
with extremely narrow, parallel-sided blades and steep- Other Chipped Stone
angled lateral edges are classified as perforators (Ahler
and McMillan 1976:179). Perforators are equivalent to Objects in this category includes flakes and pieces of
artifacts frequently referred to as drills. Perforator is stone that have been chipped, pecked, or ground,
herewith preferred due to the more generalized although the reduction processes are incomplete and
suggestion of function as a piercing tool. Some artifacts the final forms of the artifacts involved are unknown.
A few pieces of other chipped stone were present in
in this class may represent exhausted cutting tools.
STRAWTOWN LITHIC ANALYSIS
the sample, indicating the initial stages in ground stone
tool production.
Ground Stone
Artifacts in this class have surfaces that have been
ground smooth, and they may be polished. Ground
stone artifact types include celts, axes, gorgets, etc.
The only ground stone artifact found in the sample
was a sandstone shaft abrader in Unit A. This artifact
is discussed further below.
Hammerstones
Items in this class are characterized by battering and/or
flattening on at least one surface as a result of being
used as a pounding or hammering tool.
No hammerstones were found in the sample.
Anvil
Any stone with evidence of pitting on one or more faces
(usually flat) is classified as an anvil (Tixier 1974:3).
One anvil was found on the surface of 12 H 3.
Given the number of bipolar artifacts found in Units A
and N, one would expect more anvils in the
assemblages from the sites.
Summary
The classification of lithic artifacts from 12 H 3 and the
Strawtown enclosure shows that a range of chipped and
ground stone tools was being manufactured at the sites.
All stages of lithic production were being carried out
from acquiring chert from the local gravels through the
discard of exhausted tools. The most surprising aspect
of the classification was the very low frequencies of
edge modified flakes. Whether the low numbers of
these artifacts in the sample is a result of sampling error
will be revealed when the complete inventory is
obtained.
In the next section of the report, raw materials
associated with the chipped stone artifacts will be
examined. This section is introduced with a description
and discussion of the chert types found in the sample.
218
Raw Materials
Over 90% of the chipped stone artifacts in the
assemblages from 12 H 3 and the Strawtown enclosure
were manufactured from the locally available Fall
Creek chert. The remaining 10% of the artifacts were
made from other Indiana chert types including Attica,
Wyandotte, Plummer, and Allens Creek. However, the
most surprising raw material contained in the artifacts
was Hixton quartzite from southwestern Wisconsin. In
fact, this material was present in a slightly higher
frequency than Attica chert (Table J.8). In the
following section, each of these raw materials is
discussed.
Fall Creek Chert
As shown in Table J.7, the predominant chipped stone
raw material in the 12 H 3 and Strawtown enclosure
samples was Fall Creek chert. This chert accounted for
the vast majority of all artifact categories and clearly
showed that people at the site were manufacturing,
refurbishing, and retooling with the locally available
raw materials.
Chipped stone raw materials are common in the
vicinity of 12 H 3 and the Strawtown enclosure.
Gravels in Hamilton County are reported to contain 1%
chert (Blatchley 1905:512-533). During the project, the
author investigated exposed gravelly tills in the
agricultural field east of the Strawtown enclosure and
collected samples of chert. Also, the unmodified rocks
in the controlled surface collection samples from 12 H
3 contained many pieces of chert. The cherts collected
from the till sources were heavily dominated by Fall
Creek chert (Lumbus and Cochran 1984; Cantin 1994).
Since Fall Creek chert was initially defined in 1984, I
have continued to investigate this material to determine
a bedrock source and to obtain a better understanding of
it. The chert ranges from an exceptionally high quality
material that is similar to Flint Ridge and Burlington in
color and appearance, to coarser, lower quality
material. The color range is very wide with white, blue,
and shades of brown predominating, but black, red (not
heat treated), orange, yellow, and purple colors are also
present. The only color not currently identified in Fall
Table J.8. Raw Material Comparisons.
Sit e
12 H 3
12 H 8 8 3
Total
Percent
Fa ll
Cr e e k
383
3,603
3,986
91
Alle ns
Cr e e k
0
6
6
<1
At t ica
Qua r t zit e
Wya ndot t e
Ka olin
Unk nown
Tot a l
15
118
133
3
34
139
173
4
2
10
12
<1
12
10
22
1
7
31
38
1
453
3,917
4,370
100
STRAWTOWN LITHIC ANALYSIS
219
Creek chert is green. The cortex on Fall Creek chert is
distinctive and has a pitted surface that under
magnification appears similar to sandstone, i.e., small
pits cover the cortical surface like on the surface of
ceramics made with a very sandy paste. The roughness
of the cortex also shows that Fall Creek chert has not
been transported a great distance from its source.
We have speculated on the source of Fall Creek
chert since it was initially identified. It has similarities
to small nodules of chert recovered from the Laurel
limestone, and it contains many crinoid fossil
fragments like both Laurel and Liston Creek cherts. An
exposure of Liston Creek chert is reported just upstream
from the Strawtown locality on the Madison-Hamilton
County line (Cummings and Schrock 1928) although
Conover (1988) reports that she interviewed well
drillers in the vicinity of the exposure and they do not
report encountering any chert. Another Liston Creek
surface exposure in Hamilton County has been reported
by Cree (1991). To confuse matters further, a source of
Jeffersonville chert downstream from Strawtown was
reported by Angst (1994), and Cummings and Schrock
(1928) have associated a chert-rich conglomerate of
small pebbles with the Pendleton sandstone at the type
locality at Pendleton. Perhaps the most surprising
discovery during the sorting of the unmodified rocks
from the 12 H 3 assemblage was the presence of two
pieces of unmodified orthoquartzite containing
fragments of Fall Creek chert in the matrix. While
chert is not normally associated with sandstone
deposits, I have found at least one reference for the
association, although I have not been able to relocate
the source.
As of this writing, it must suffice to say that Fall
Creek chert is an abundant source that is currently only
known from secondary sources. The chert ranges from
very high quality to coarse, and it is similar to several
other well known Midwestern chert types. Surface
collections housed in the ARMS laboratory collected
from the Fall Creek source area in central Indiana
contain Early Archaic through Late Prehistoric
artifacts made from this material.
The wider
distribution of artifacts from Fall Creek chert is
currently unknown, and it is expected that the material
is misidentified as Flint Ridge chert outside the source
area.
Late Archaic populations in south-central Indiana
seemed to favor this material, although Paleoindian
through Late Prehistoric artifacts made from Allens
Creek chert have been recovered (Cantin 1994).
The presence of Allens Creek chert in the
assemblages under investigation was somewhat
surprising. This raw material is uncommon north of
Indianapolis and is most frequently associated with
Late Archaic artifacts when present. Fossiliferous
chert is associated with triangular points on Oliver
phase sites south of Indianapolis (McCullough and
Wright 1996) and closer to the source of this material
suggesting that the Allens Creek chert in 12 H 3 and the
Strawtown enclosure artifacts may help connect Oliver
phase occupations upstream from the source area.
Allens Creek Chert
Hixton quartzite is an orthoquartzite that occurs in
southwestern Wisconsin. It is one of the predominant
raw materials for chipped stone tools in Wisconsin and,
like Attica chert, was moved over large areas by
Paleoindians. Hixton quartzite occurs in a variety of
colors, but shades of white and light yellow
predominate. It can change colors during heat
Allens Creek chert is a fossiliferous material that is
present across a wide area of southern Indiana. The
chert is white to grey in color, and the matrix is
dominated by crinoid fragments. The chert heat treats
to red and is considered a medium quality raw material.
Attica Chert
Attica chert is a well-known Indiana chert that outcrops
in Tippecanoe County on the Wabash River, although
another bedrock source is present on the BooneCrawford County line near Thorntown. The chert
primarily occurs in residual form in river gravels south
of the source area. The chert is primarily green and
white banded, although it also occurs in nearly white,
brown, bluish, and light purple colors. Sponge spicules
are the most common fossils in Attica chert. Attica
chert can acquire a reddish tinge after heat treatment,
but color change is not always present. The chert was
used from Paleoindian through Late Prehistoric
periods, especially near the source area. Paleoindians
seemed to have a particular attraction for the material
and several Paleoindian sites dominated by Attica chert
have been recorded in Illinois (Cantin 1994; Koldehoff
1999).
In central Indiana along the upper reaches of the
West Fork of White River, Attica Chert is not common.
It is primarily found associated with Paleoindian, Early
Archaic Thebes tradition artifacts, and with some Late
Archaic points. Except for the Taylor Village site,
triangular points of Attica chert are uncommon. At
Taylor village, across the river from the two sites under
investigation, almost half of the triangular points were
made from Attica chert (Cochran et al. 1993).
Hixton Quartzite
STRAWTOWN LITHIC ANALYSIS
220
treatment, where the chert matrix is altered (Porter
1961; DeRegnaucourt and Georgiady 1998).
In the upper White River drainage, Hixton
quartzite is uncommon. A Kirk Corner Notched point
from Hixton quartzite was recorded at the Mississinewa
Reservoir (Wepler 1982), and a few Paleoindian and
Early Archaic points from this material have been
noted in private collections. Quartzite triangular points
were recorded by Conover at the Hobbs Knobbs site in
Madison County upstream from the Strawtown locality
(Conover 1988). Hobbs Knobbs has an Oliver phase
component, and it was previously assumed that the
quartzite triangular point was associated with that
component. Given the western focus of the Taylor
Village site previously mentioned, Hixton quartzite
was expected there. However, a reexamination of the
Taylor Village collection revealed a couple of flakes of
metaquartzite typical of the local glacial till but no
artifacts of Hixton quartzite.
The Hixton quartzite present at both 12 H 3 and the
Strawtown enclosure was associated with cores, flakes,
bifaces, and bipolar artifacts as well as with triangular
points. The cores were surprising in that they represent
direct transport of blocks of Hixton quartzite from the
source area. The lithic artifacts from this material
indicated that artifacts were being manufactured,
refurbished, and discarded at the sites.
Kaolin Chert
Wyandotte Chert
In addition to the cherts described above, a small
percentage of artifacts were made from materials
unrecognized by the author. These may represent
exotic cherts for which we have no reference samples,
or they may simply represent unique cherts from the
glacial till.
Wyandotte chert is the premier chipped stone raw
material known from Indiana. The source area is in
Harrison and Crawford Counties in southern Indiana,
and this material was moved widely across the
Midwestern United States. Artifacts representing the
entire range of prehistory were made from Wyandotte
chert, and it has been found cached as quarry blanks
and finished tools (Cantin 1994).
In central Indiana, Paleoindian, Early Archaic,
Late Archaic and Early/Middle Woodland artifacts are
commonly made from Wyandotte chert. It is not often
associated with Late Woodland or Late Prehistoric
triangular points, although a large triangular knife of
Wyandotte chert was recovered from the Albee
cemetery known as the Commissary site in east-central
Indiana (Swartz 1982). Although no diagnostic
artifacts manufactured from Wyandotte chert were
found at either 12 H 3 or the Strawtown enclosure, its
presence in these assemblages was not altogether
unexpected. Both sites also contain artifacts from
earlier components, and the Wyandotte flakes may be
associated with them.
Kaolin chert is a lustrous, waxy material with a color
range from white to yellow to red. Heat treatment
intensifies the color and sheen of the surface. Color
banding occurs, especially near nodular surfaces.
Cortex is light yellow, pitted, and porous. The source
area for Kaolin chert is southern Illinois (DeRegnaucourt
and Georgiady 1998:176-177; www.geocities.com/
CapeCanaveral/Runway/4162/Kaolin.html).
Kaolin chert has not previously been identified in
assemblages from the upper White River. It was only
identified in the two site assemblages because of its
distinctive coloration and waxy surface. During the
sorting, I noted a distinctive chert with which I was
unfamiliar. I sorted it out from the other cherts and
upon further investigation found that it matched the
descriptions and pictures of Kaolin chert in both
DeRegnaucourt and Georgiady (1998) and the website
cited above. Three triangular points at 12 H 3 were
made from Kaolin chert, but it was present only as
flakes at the Strawtown enclosure. Triangular points
made from Kaolin chert have been reported at Oliver
phase sites south of Indianapolis (McCullough and
Wright 1996).
Unknown Chert
Summary
In the sample of artifacts classified for this report, it can
clearly be stated that the occupants of the two sites were
utilizing the local chert resources for the vast majority
of the artifacts that were discarded there. For the Late
Woodland and Late Prehistoric components, the use of
Attica chert and Hixton quartzite strongly indicate
movement into central Indiana from the west. It is
interesting to note that Guernsey’s (1932) map shows a
major Indian trail connecting the upper White River
valley with the Attica chert source area on the Wabash
River. The same trail connects the middle Wabash with
the Chicago area. The presence of this trail certainly
suggests a route by which the Hixton quartzite artifacts
and the Attica chert artifacts could have entered central
Indiana. Unlike the Attica chert and Hixton quartzite,
no connection with the Kaolin source area is currently
STRAWTOWN LITHIC ANALYSIS
known. However, like the Allens Creek chert, Kaolin
chert may suggest movement up the White River, since
it was also identified in triangular points south of
Indianapolis (McCullough and Wright 1996).
In the next section of the report, raw material
associations will be further explored in relation to
diagnostic artifacts. Diagnostic artifacts will first be
identified and then their raw material associations
discussed.
221
1987:130) made from Fall Creek chert (Figure J.1-A)
was recovered from Level 3 of Unit H. A triangular
point also was found in the same level. Riverton points
are dated to 1600-1000 BC (Justice 1987:130).
Late Archaic Barbed. A Buck Creek Barbed point
(Justice 1987:183-184) (Figure J.1-B) made from Fall
Creek chert was found in Level 4 of Unit A. Points of
this type date between 1500 and 600 BC (Justice
1987:183).
Diagnostic Artifacts
Late Prehistoric
The range of diagnostic artifacts identified in the
samples from 12 H 3 and the Strawtown enclosure was
limited. Diagnostic chipped stone artifacts included
two Late Archaic points, a Late Prehistoric bifacial end
scraper, and 77 triangular points. One diagnostic
ground stone artifact, a Late Prehistoric shaft abrader,
was also present. Each of these diagnostic artifacts are
described and discussed below.
Late Archaic
Two points diagnostic of Late Archaic components
were present in the samples from 12 H 3 and the
Strawtown enclosure. Both points were found in
excavation units in the Strawtown enclosure sample.
Riverton Point.
A Riverton point (Justice
Bifacial Endscraper. One bifacial endscraper
made from Fall Creek chert was identified in the
sample (Figure J.1-C). This artifact was recovered
from Level 2 of Unit A. In size, shape, and technology
it matched the bifacial endscrapers from the Taylor
Village site (Cochran et al. 1993). Bifacial endscrapers
are recognized as diagnostic of several Late Prehistoric
cultural groups including Fort Ancient and Oneota
(Railey 1992; Finney and Stoltman 1991; Brown and
O’Brien 1990). Bifacial endscrapers date after AD
1400 (Railey 1992).
Shaft Abrader. A fragment of a sandstone shaft
abrader (Figure J.1-D) was recovered from Level 4 in
Unit A. The abrader is made from coarse sandstone and
has a shallow groove lengthwise in the middle of the
Figure J.1. Diagnostic lithic artifacts other than triangular projectile points: (A) Riverton point; (B) Buck Creek
Barbed point; (C) bifacial endscraper; (D) shaft abrader fragment; (E) shaft abrader from Taylor Village site.
STRAWTOWN LITHIC ANALYSIS
bar-shaped piece of sandstone. The shaft abrader is of
a type common on Oneota sites (Gibbon 1986) and
matches the shaft abrader from the Taylor Village site
(Cochran et al. 1993).
Triangular Points. As noted earlier, 77 triangular
points are in the analyzed samples from 12 H 3 and the
Strawtown enclosure (Figure J.2). While all of these
points would fit within the Madison type (Justice
1987:224-227), the type description is too broad to be of
utility in separating between Late Woodland/Late
Prehistoric components. There are clearly differences
in morphology and technology within triangular points
(e.g., Railey 1992), but these differences have not yet
been clearly enumerated to allow meaningful
discrimination.
For this analysis, triangular points were examined
for raw material associations and distribution within
the samples analyzed. Raw materials associated with
triangular points are examined first.
Table J.9 compares the raw materials associated
with triangular points between the two sites.
Wyandotte triangular points were not recorded and
Kaolin and unknown cherts were only recorded in the
12 H 3 samples. In addition, Attica chert and Hixton
quartzite were more numerous in the 12 H 3 samples.
Allens Creek chert was almost evenly represented
between the two sites.
The Strawtown enclosure
222
samples contained much higher percentages of
triangular points made from Fall Creek chert. Overall,
the samples show a remarkable similarity in chert
associations in the triangular points.
In order to put some perspective on the associations
between triangular points and the raw materials present
at 12 H 3 and the Strawtown enclosure, comparisons
were made with five other sites with Oliver phase
components, one Albee phase site, and Taylor Village,
which contains Albee, Oliver, and Oneota components.
The sites used in the comparison were: 12 H 6 and 12
Ma 30 (ARMS catalog records); 12 Mg 1, 12 Jo 289,
and 12 Jo 5 (McCullough and Wright 1996); 12 My 87
(McCord and Cochran 1994); and 12 H 25 (Cochran et
al. 1993). The results of this comparison are shown in
Table J.10.
This table shows some interesting results. First,
fossiliferous cherts are fairly consistently associated
with triangular points in both Oliver phase sites and the
one Albee phase site (12 My 87) but are absent from the
Taylor Village site which has a strong Oneota
component. Attica chert is absent from Oliver phase
sites south of Indianapolis but is present in sites with all
three components north of Indianapolis. Attica chert
accounts for almost a third of the triangular points from
the Taylor Village site and nearly half of the triangular
points from the Albee phase site. Attica may figure so
highly in the latter site because it is closer to the Attica
Table J.9. Triangular Point Raw Materials, 12 H 3 and 12 H 883.
R a w M a t e r ia l
Fall Creek
Allens Creek
Attica
Q uartzite
Wyandotte
K aolin
Unknown
Total
12 H 3*
27 (63%)
1 (2%)
5 (12%)
5 (12%)
0 (0%)
3 (7%)
2 (5%)
43
12 H 883**
31 (91%)
1 (3%)
1 (3%)
1 (3%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
34
Tot a l
58 (75%)
2 (3%)
6 (8%)
6 (8%)
0 (0%)
3 (4%)
2 (3%)
77
*Sample from 139 of 232 Units (60%)
**Combined total from SVS (3 points) and Units
Table J.10. Comparisons of Triangular Points and Raw Materials, Various Sites.
Sit e
12 H 3 / 8 8 3
12 Mg 1
12 Jo 289
12 Jo 5
12 H 6
12 Ma 30
12 My 87
12 H 25
Totals
Fos s ilife r ous
2
4
2
1
0
1
8
0
18
At t ica
6
0
0
0
3
1
19
21
50
Q ua r t zit e
6
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
7
K a olin
3
1?
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
Wya ndot t e
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
Loca l
58
28
1
9
23
26
18
47
210
O t he r
2
29
3
8
8
3
0
2
55
Tot a l
77
62
7
18
34
32
45
70
345
STRAWTOWN LITHIC ANALYSIS
223
Figure J.2. Triangular points from 12 H 883. Points in top row are from Unit A, Level 4; points in middle row
are from Unit A, Level 5; point at bottom is from Unit N, Level 1.
STRAWTOWN LITHIC ANALYSIS
source area. Quartzite is only present in any numbers at
the Strawtown sites, as is Kaolin. Wyandotte chert is
barely present in the sites included in this comparison,
clearly indicating that it was not an important part of
the lithic system for these sites. Local cherts are
heavily relied upon in all samples. This table clearly
points out some of the unique features in chert raw
material usage in 12 H 3 and the Strawtown enclosure.
The distributions of triangular points within the
units in the sample from the Strawtown enclosure are
shown in Table J.11. This table shows that triangular
points in the three units were consistently absent from
the lower levels of each unit and more frequent in the
upper levels of the units. Most triangular points were
found in levels 4 and 5 in Unit A, level 3 in Unit H and
level 2 of Unit N. It is of interest to note that the Late
Archaic points were found in levels 3 and 4 of Unit H
and A respectively, while the Late Prehistoric bifacial
endscraper and shaft abrader were found in levels 2 and
4 respectively in Unit A. In the case of the Late Archaic
artifacts in Unit A, younger artifacts were found below
the Late Archaic point in Level 4, indicating recycling
of the point or disturbance. The Late Prehistoric
artifacts above Level 4 of Unit A seem to be in
appropriate stratigraphic context. It is also interesting
to note that the only triangular points made from
materials other than Fall Creek chert were found in
level 3 of Unit H (1 Allens Creek) and Level 5 of Unit
A (1 Attica and 1 Hixton quartzite). Although we are
currently unclear about the association of the Attica
chert and Hixton quartzite with specific components,
given the western connection for these raw materials, it
is assumed that they relate to the Oneota component of
the Taylor Village site. This association needs further
investigation.
Summary and Conclusions
In this lithic analysis, a 10% sample of the surface
collected and excavated units at sites 12 H 3 and the
224
Strawtown enclosure (12 H 883) was examined to
determine the range of artifacts present in the sample,
to determine raw material associations, and to
investigate the ages and distribution of diagnostic
artifacts. Although the sample represented only 10% of
the units, almost 50% of the artifacts were examined.
Thus, it is anticipated that the sample provides
representative data for an evaluation of activities at the
two sites.
In general, the lithic artifacts showed frequencies
in classes that were not unanticipated. The most
glaring deficiency was in the low frequencies of
modified flakes. Edge-modified flakes, although not
formal tool types, represent expedient tools used for a
variety of cutting and scraping purposes. One wonders
how these tasks were carried out at the sites. It is
possible that sampling error is present for the low
numbers of edge-modified flakes and that a larger
sample will reveal concentrations in specific parts of
the sites. In other words, it is possible that these
activities were carried out in specific localities not
included in the sample investigated rather than being
widely distributed across the site. However, this
hypothesis is counterintuitive, given the expedient
nature of these types of tools.
In addition to low numbers of edge-modified
flakes, most other formal tools were represented in low
frequencies. Endscrapers, perforators, hammerstones
and anvils were poorly represented in the collection.
The sample investigated in this analysis suggests that
few activities involving stone tools were being carried
out at the sites although clearly arrow points were being
manufactured and replaced.
In the comparison
between triangular points from other regional sites
(Table J.10), the sample from the two sites under
investigation here was the largest recorded. Whether
the frequency of triangular points at these two sites is
unusual remains to be clarified by a careful analysis of
volume explored and numbers of points recovered.
Raw materials at the sites were clearly unusual in
Table J.11. Distribution of Triangular Points in Units Sampled, 12 H 883.
Le ve l
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
Unit A
1
2
1
7
6
1
0
0
0
0
18
Unit H
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
Unit N
2
5
3
0
10
Tot a l
3
7
5
7
6
1
29
STRAWTOWN LITHIC ANALYSIS
comparison with other regional sites. The frequencies
of Attica chert and quartzite triangular points were
unusual. The presence of Hixton quartzite in cores,
flakes, and tools is unique within the upper White River
drainage as currently known. In addition, the Kaolin
chert points are also out of the ordinary, both for the
lower and Upper White River Valley. Further
investigations incorporating a lavger sample of
triangular points may allow us to define when quartzite
was moving into the Strawtown area and by whom. It
was initially thought that the quartzite would relate to
the Oneota occupation at Taylor Village. However, a
reexamination of that collection revealed only two
quartzite artifacts. Both were metaquartzites typical of
the glacial till rather than the orthoquartzite
represented in the artifacts from the Strawtown sites.
A review of diagnostic artifacts shows that both
sites contained more than one component. Interestingly,
Late Archaic points were found associated with and
above more recent triangular points. This occurrence
suggests some aboriginal mixing of deposits in Units A
and H. The lower levels of all three of the excavation
units were devoid of diagnostic points, although the
meaning of this observation is currently unclear.
Clearly the diagnostic lithic artifacts supported the
predominance of Late Woodland/Late Prehistoric
components at the sites.
During the analysis, a number of questions for
additional research was raised. These questions are
listed below.
To which component does the Hixton
225
quartzite relate?
Given the variation in triangular point
morphology and technology observed in the
sample, can individual components be
separated based on these variations?
Are bipolar artifacts a component of Oliver
phase lithic technology?
Are bifacial endscrapers diagnostic of only
Oneota components, or do Oliver phase
components dating after AD 1400 also
incorporate these tool forms?
To which component does the Kaolin chert
relate?
How can we account for the presence of Kaolin
chert in either the Oliver or the Oneota
components?
Data relevant to these questions will primarily be
obtained through controlled excavations.
As
excavation continues at the Strawtown enclosure, data
relevant to these questions and others is expected to be
obtained. However, a regional analysis of representative
samples of artifacts from Late Woodland and Late
Prehistoric sites ultimately will be required before a
thorough understanding of these occupations can be
obtained.
APPENDIX K
Illustrations of Artifacts from 12 Al 122
Figure K.1. Sherds from 12 Al 122.
226
ARTIFACTS FROM 12 Al 122
Figure K.2. Diagnostic historic artifacts from 12 Al 122 (ceramic and glass).
Figure K.3. Nails from 12 Al 122.
227