HomeMy WebLinkAboutArchaeological Reconnaissance Survey
0'\
O'
'J
.0'
O'
.,0- C " . .
ler..
.0....
'/.
>.;. -
. A'PhaseIaArcb~eologicIlIRecollnaissanceSuryey for a x.
.:Pr,opos'ed 65.4;3-ha '.Grave.l~itE:*tensjon in/~Jay~rrQ~~sh!p, . \
' '.' . '. ...... ........ ,,' ..... /", ;..... . (/ \
. .' HamIlton ,County, Indla~a,./' .'. ~ '~~\
. I, "", .rDl1'e"",fC=1J)rw' 'r:-\'
I-';~ 1fllL(;;~IC:;d~glJJ\-:--"
" ' . By. ' , f\2i APR~~/OO2 pi.
I ' ,-,\ '(y"
'-~' . ~
V/' ,/.,
, ~ . '",)' --,.' /,::''',/
Ja~es c. Lit~D M.A., and Richar(l~.!!~ '
.. ,
\ ",',
....
c ,
;-'-): .,
:.U' ':.
..
., O~
r-,O' ',,'
. . /.
,-
, . . ~ ","
'U',
,y '- ,"
'\
( \-
. U1
, ' .
f I'.
"~
! . '. -~.
. '~J'
I ~.
:....0.'. .
.'
, -~, ;"
0_,
,U,'.
ASCGROUP,INC.
, Archaeologlcal'Serv,ices Con'sult~nts ..;..
, . Architecturcll.Surveylng. and Commtlnitylnterpretatiol1
Ecological ahdWetland ..Services
462()lndran'OlaAyen~~" .
'Colurobu~',\,Ohio 4,3214,
. ...
"1:'
'u .
i .'~. -
J,
. r-"
U.
i " -
I
',\
J'
0'
i 1
0'
I ,
0'
.I. ,
0:
i ~
0'
I
0'
I
~
0-:
0:
l ,
o~
~
0:
0:
o~
o
L .
Q
0:
0-
l "
U.
200 I-IND-I 09 Gravel Pit Ext.
A Phase la Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for a Proposed 65.43-ha Gravel Pit
Extension in Clay Township, Hamilton County, Indiana
By
James C. Litrm M.A., and Richard Rahe
Submitted By:
James C. Litfin, M.A.
Principal Investigator
539 Turtle Creek South Drive, Suite 36
Indianapolis, Indiana 46227
(317) 788-3182
Submitted To:
Max Williams
Martin Marietta Aggregates
1980 East 116tb Street, Suite 200
Carmel, Indiana 46032
(317) 573-4460
Lead Agency: Indiana Department of Natural Resources
June 27, 2001
0'
J: ;.
0'
i ~
0'
j ,
01
i i.
0'
I,
0'
I,
o~
o~
o~
I .
Q:
Q
0:
0:
D
l .
Q
o
l k
o
0'
l ,
0'
0.1 ABSTRACT
In April 2000, ASC Group was contracted by Martin Marietta Aggregates to conduct a
Phase Ia literature review for a proposed 70.8 ha extension of a gravel pit in Clay Township,
which is situated in Hamilton County, Indiana (Jackson 2000). In April 2001, ASC Group, Inc.,
was contracted by Martin Marietta Aggregates to conduct a Phase Ia reconnaissance survey for a
portion (65.43-ha) of this same area The project area is located in Sections 4 and 9, Township
17 North, Range 4 East, Clay Township, Hamilton County, Indiana.
An examination of the cultural resources management report files indicates that two
professional surveys have been conducted in the proposed project area, and seven archaeological
sites (12 H 12, 12 H 90, 12 H 217, 12 H 218, 12 H 219, 12 H 751, and 12 H 826) and one
architectural site (55034) have been documented in the proposed project area. Two of the sites
(12 H 2i 7 and 12 H 826) have been pwfessionally examined. Site 12 H 217 was reco~nded
to have the potential to be eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places;=and
that 12 H 826 was determined not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The
architectural site was recommended not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
Two small prehistoric lithic scatters were discovered during this survey (12 H 868 and 12
H 869), as was one scatter of historic brick (12 H 867). Diagnostic artifacts recovered included a
Late Archaic Brewerton Side Notched projectile point from 12 H 826 and a Mississippian
triangular arrow point from 12 H 869. Site 12 H 217 may be potentially eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places, and further archaeological work is recommended. Of the remaining
sites, none are considered eligible or potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places, and no further archaeological work is recommended.
1
Or
. l
Or
;[ l
0'
;( ~
Or
, ,
0'
i
Q:
n,
~
o~
0:
i .
0:
Q
O~
O~
~~
q
Q
U
U~
0'
0.2 TABLE OF CONTENTS
0.1 ABSTRACT..................... .................... .............. .................................................. ................ i
0.2 TABLE OF CONTENTS...................................................................... ................... ........... ii
0.3 LIST OF FIGURES ......................... ...... ..... ................ .................... ............................. ...... iv
0.4 LIST OF TABLES ............................................ .............................. .......... ............... .......... iv
0.5 LIST OF PLATES .................................. .............. ...... ........................................................ V
1. 0 INTRODUCTION........ ...................................................................................................... 1
2.0 RESEARCH DESIGN .................................................. .............. ........................................ 1
2.1 Introduction.. ......... ................... .... .......................... ........................... ........ ...... ................ 1
2.2 Theoretical Approach...................................................................................................... 2
2.3 Research Questions... ................. ..................................................................... ................ 3
2.3.1 Prehistoric Research Questions. ...................... ........................................................ 3
2.3.2 Historic Archaeological Research Questions.......................................................... 3
3.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION.................................................................................... 4
3.1 Environmental Setting ..... ....................................................................................... ........ 4
3 .1.1 Physiography.......................................................... ....................... .......... ................ 4
3.1.2 Soils........ ............ ..................................................................................................... 4
3.1.3 Hydrology....................................................... ..................... ................... ................ 5
3.1.4 Flora........ ............. ................................................ ..................................... .............. 5
3 .1.5 Fauna.............................................................................. ......................................... 5
3.1.6 Climate..................... .................................................................................. ............. 6
3.1.7 Bedrock Geology ..... ........................................ ...... ......................................... ........ 6
3.2 Cultural Setting........................ ....................................................................................... 6
3.2.1 Paleo indian Period (12,500 B.P. to 10,000 B.P.).................................................... 6
3.2.2 Archaic Period (10,000 B.P. to 3,000 B.P.)............................................................. 7
3.2.3 Woodland Period (3,000 B.P. to 1,000 B.P.) ......................................................... 11
3.2.4 Mississippian Period (1,000 B.P. to 400 B.P.) ...................................................... 11
3.2.5 Historic Period ......... ..................... ........................................................................ 13
3.3 Literature Review................... ............... ... .......... .......... .......... ............. ........ .... ........ ...... 14
4.0 METHODS....................................................................................................................... 15
4.1 Archaeological Field Methods ...... ................ ........... .................... .................... ............. 15
4.2 Artifact Analysis ................ .......................... ......... ....................... .................... ....... ...... 16
4.2.1 Prehistoric Material...... .................................... .......... ......................... ............ ...... 16
4.2.2 Lithic Artifact Analysis.......................................... ..................... ............. ............. 16
4.2.3 Material Type ................................................ ....................... ...... .............. ....... ...... 19
4.2.4 Historic Material... ..................................................................... ......... ............ ...... 21
4.3 Survey Conditions............................................. ...... ...................................................... 22
4.4 Description of Survey Areas.. .................. .............................. ........ .................. ............. 22
11
D-
O.
;i l.
Q'
. L
0'
il'i.
O.
I"
0:
~
0:
O~
0:
~
O~
O~
O~
o
l,
o
l;
0,
0:
0:
5.0 CURATION ......... ........ ........ ................................................................. ..... ....................... 29
6.0 ELIGIBILITY ASSESSMENTS ............ ......................... ................................................. 29
6.1 Introduction... .......... ............... .............. .................. ............................ ........... ................ 29
6.2 Lithic Scatters.. ................ ..... .................................... ..... .......................... ..................... 30
6.3 Historic Scatters.. ..... ...... ......... .................. .............. ............... ....... ............. ................... 30
6.4 Farmsteads. ........... ......... .......................................... ......................... ...................... ...... 31
6.5 House Sites............ ............................ ................................................ ................... .... ..... 31
7.0 RESEARCH QUESTION AND HYPOTHESIS EVALUATION................................... 32
7.1 Prehistoric Question and Hypothesis Evaluation.......................................................... 32
7.2 Historic Question and Hypothesis Evaluation .............:............................................._.... 32
--
8.0 SUMMARY ANI) CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................~:...... 33
9.0 REFERENCES ........................ ............... ........ ....... ................. ................. ................... ...... 34
10. 0 FIGURES ...................... .......... ........... ..... ....... ............. ...................................... ................ 41
11. 0 TABLES ... ..... ..... ...... ................... .............. ..... ...................... ......... ................................... 55
12.0 PLATES .......... .................... .......................... ........ .......... ................. ........... ........... ........... 63
111
0-
1 l
q1
0'
J ~
Or
i 1
0'
j
0:
Q
0:
0:
o~
~
0:
0:
0:
U
Q
Q
o
o
0.3 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Map of Indiana showing the proposed project area vicinity. ................................... 42
Figure 2. A portion of the photorevised 1988 Fishers, Indiana, quadrangle (USGS 7.5'
topographic map) showing the original proposed project area, the current project
area, and survey areas. ............................................................................................. 43
Figure 3. A portion of the photorevised 1988 Fishers, Indiana, quadrangle (USGS 7.5'
topographic map) showing original and current proposed project area and the
previously documented archaeological and architectural sites. ............................... 44
Figure 4. A portion of the photorevised 1988 Fishers, Indiana, quadrangle (USGS 7.5'
topographic map) showing the proposed project area and areas that have been
previously surveyed. ..... ........... ........................... ............................. ........ ................ 45
Figure 5. A portion of the photorevised 1988 Fishers, Indiana, quadrangle (USGS 7.5'
topographic map) showing new sites and relocated sites documented during the
current survey........................................................................................................... 46
Figure 6. Site 12 H 218 in Area A........................................................................................... 47
Figure 7. Site 12 H 867 in Area B. .......................................................................................... 48
Figure 8. Site 12 H 12 in Area C. ............................................................................................ 49
Figure 9. Site 12 H 826 in Area C. ..........................................................................................50
Figure 10. Site 12 H 868 in Area D...........................................................................................51
Figure 11. Site 12 H 869 in Area D........................................................................................... 52
Figure 12. Site 12 H 217 in Area H showing shovel test locations........................................... 53
Figure 13. Site 55034 in Areas I and J showing shovel test locations. ..................................... 54
0.4 LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.
Previously Recorded Sites. .................................. .......... ................................ .......... 56
Table 2.
Results of the Survey. ...... ......................................................... ............................... 57
Table 3.
Prehistoric Artifact Analysis. ............................ ............ ......... ............. ... ............ ...... 58
Table 4.
Historic Artifact Analysis. ............................................ ......... ......................... ......... 61
IV.
0'
i ;.
Q'
. ,
Or
~ i.
0'
ii ~
Or
i
0'
,
it. h
~
Q~
Q:
Q:
Q
0:
0:
0'
L I
o
l .
Q
O~
0:
0'
0.5 LIST OF PLATES
Plate 1. Area A, looking west. .................. ........ .............. .......... ................ ............................ 64
Plate 2. Site 12 H 218 in Area A, looking west. ................................................................... 64
Plate 3. Area B, looking west........................................... .......... ........................................... 65
Plate 4. Site 12 H 867 in Area B, looking west. ................................................................... 65
Plate 5. Area C, looking east. .............................................................. ......................... ......... 66
Plate 6. Site 12 H 12 in Area C, looking south. .................................................................... 66
Plate 7. Site 12 H 826 in Area C, looking east. .................................................................... 67
Plate 8. Photograph of diagnostic projectile points, left to right Brewerton Side Notched (12
H 826) and Daniels Triangular (12 H 869). ............................................................. 67
Plate 9. Scraper-Plane from 12 H 826. ................................................................................. 68
Plate 10. Area D, looking east. .................................................... .............................. ............. 68
Plate 11. Site 12 H 868 in Area D, looking west. ................................................................... 69
Plate 12. Site 12 H 869 in Area D, looking north. ..................................................................69
Plate 13. Area E, looking west. .......................................................... ............................... ...... 70
Plate 14. Area F, looking west. ............................................................................................... 70
Plate 15. Area G, looking east. ............................................................................................... 71
Plate 16. Site 12 H 217 in Area H, looking north. .................................................................. 71
Plate 17. Wagon Parts at 12 H 217, looking east. ................................................................... 72
Plate 18. Foundation Remnants at12 H 217, looking south.................................................... 72
Plate 19. Site 55034, with outbuildings, looking east............................................................. 73
Plate 20. Barn in Area I, Site 55034, looking south. .............................................................. 73
Plate 21. Second barn in Area I, Site 55034, looking east...................................................... 74
Plate 22. House in Area J, Site 55034, looking west. ............................................................. 74
v
D
i ,
0"
j
o~
I
Or
l ~
Or
J,
0:
Q
o~
0;
0:
~
o~
o~
o~
0:
l1;
Q
0:
0:
0,
Plate 23. Barn in Area J, Site 55034, looking south. .............................................................. 75
VI
o
01
Of
~ 1
01
01
or
or
01
~-1
Wi
OJ
, T
Of
OJ
01
or
01
01
0:
0;
0:
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In April 2000, ASC Group, Inc., was contracted by Martin Marietta Aggregates to
conduct a Phase Ia literature review for a proposed 70.8 ha extension of a gravel pit in Clay
Township, which is situated in Hamilton County, Indiana (Jackson 2000) [Figure 1]. In April
2001, ASC Group, Inc., was contracted by Martin Marietta Aggregates to conduct a Phase Ia
reconnaissance survey for a portion (65.43-ha) of this same area (Figure 2). Martin Marietta
Aggregates will not be utilizing a portion of the original study area and is aware that an
additional Phase Ia reconnaissance survey would be needed in these areas prior to their use. The
project area is located in Sections 4 and 9, Township 17 North, Range 4 East, Clay Township,
Hamilton County, Indiana (Figure 2).
The purpose of this investigation was to determine whether cultural resources exist within
the project area, and, if possible, to state whether any identified resources are eligible for
nomination to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). To accomplish this, a research
strategy, developed from the literature review and field conditions, was employed for the
reconnaissance survey. James C. Litfin, M.A., served as the principal investigator for this
project. The field reconnaissance was directed by James C. Litfin, M.A., while the field crew
consisted of Richard Rahe, Steve Timbrook, and Brian Somers. Shaune M. Skinner, M.A.,
served as project manager. Christopher Jackson, M.S., conducted the literature review on May
16, 2000.
This report outlines the methods and results of the Jiterature review and reconnaissance
survey. The field records, artifacts, and documentation will be curated at the Indiana State
Museum, pending donation by Martin Marietta Aggregates.
2.0 RESEARCH DESIGN
2.1 INTRODUCTION
As scientists and resource managers, our approach to the project incorporates several
goals. The primary goal of this research is to identify archaeological resources in the permit
area. Our secondary goal is to determine the eligibility of those sites documented during this
investigation concerning each site's eligibility for nomination to the NRHP. Sites will be
evaluated based on the availability of data from each site. The data may then be used to achieve
1
our third goal, which is to address a series of general research questions. Our research strategy is
designed to provide a framework for integrating the over-all managerial goals of cultural
resource management with theoretical issues germane to the prehistory and history of the region.
2.2 THEORETICAL APPROACH
The aim of this project is to apply principles of scientific inquiry to the recovery,
analysis, and interpretation of data that may be collected from this investigation. This means
using scientific inference--inductive and deductive--to arrive at an interpretation of material
remains documented at the sites in question. Inductive lines of reasoning will lead us from
observations about specific data to infer more general relationships. An analysis of ceramic
attributes for a given sample of pottery sherds, for example, may lead to an inference concerning
ceramic types present at a site. Deductively, we may generate a series of hypotheses and use
data recovered from a site to evaluate these hypotheses. Data recovery would then be designed
in such a way to facilitate the collection of data bearing on this assumption.
Because the scope of this investigation is limited, a narrow range of research questions
may be potentially addressed. These questions are grounded in a series of general and middle-
range theories concerning cultural behavior and how the material remains of that behavior are
transformed through cultural and natural processes into the archaeological record.
Archaeologically, we are concerned with the material remains of past human cultures and
how those remains may be utilized to test our models of cultural behavior. Those models may be
developed from any number of theoretical perspectives--e.g., economic, political, ecological,
structuralist, or socio-religious--but all are dependent upon the general theory that cultural
behavior is patterned, and that we can identify and interpret those patterns among the physical
remains of human cultures. Guiding our interpretations are other generally accepted ideas, such
as that cultural behavior is adaptive and systemic. This allows us logically to infer cultural
responses to changes in the cultural and/or physical environment and to logically move from one
part of the cultural system to another, based on the theory that all parts of a culture, such as
social organization and technology, are integrated to function as a whole.
Thus, our goals are to document and interpret the traces of past human cultural behavior
that may exist in the current project area. This will enable us to determine site eligibility for
inclusion on the NRHP.
2
.0
:0
'0
:0
'0
:0
:0
:0
]
:0
~O
]
1]
,0
:0
iO
,0
:0
,0
o
01
01
01
01
or
or
01
01
01
, 1
01
OJ
01
0:
o
o
o
o
0:
2.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
2.3.1 Prehistoric Research Questions
Based on the information gathered during the literature review, the following research
questions and hypothesis were formulated utilizing the region's prehistory and previous work
conducted in Hamilton County.
Cree (1991) provided data that has increased our understanding of prehistoric site density.
Cree's (1991) investigation examined 199.3 ha and documented 141 sites. The site density
consisted of 0.71 sites for every hectare surveyed. From this information the following research
question and hypotheses can be generated.
Research Question 1: What is the density of prehistoric sites in the project area?
Ho: If the data from Cree (1991) are representative, then 46 prehistoric archaeological
sites should be documented during this survey.
Hj: If the data from Cree (1991) are not representative, then either more than 46 sites,
or less than 46 sites will be documented during this investigation.
The second research question deals with the type of site(s) that might be expected in the
project area. Data from the region indicates that base camps and villages are located in the
vicinity of a permanent drainage. From this information, the following research question and
hypotheses can be generated.
Research Question 2: What type of prehistoric sites are situated in the project area?
I\ot"
Ho: If the data from the region areNepresentative, then no base camps or villages
should be situated in the project area.
Hj: If the data from the region are representative, then a base camp or village should
be situated in the project area.
2.3.2 Historic Archaeological Research Questions
The preliminary review of the county history and the early cartographic sources by
DHPA, as well as archaeological site location maps and architectural site location maps, indicate
that there are two previously recorded historic archaeological sites (12 H 90 and 12 H 217)
[Bennett and Hartman 1996] and one architectural site (55034) [Historic Landmarks Foundation
of Indiana 1992] located within the project area. One of these sites, 12 H 217, was previously
determined to be eligible for inclusion on the NRHP. The site is first indicated on an early map
3
of Hamilton County (Cottingham 1896) and is still depicted on the 1967 Fishers quadrangle
(USGS 7.51 topographic map). Data collected from the county histories and early cartographic
sources, as well as the archaeological evidence, may provide information concerning how the
I
project area was utilized in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Questions include:
1. Are there other as yet unrecorded historic properties in the project area?
2. Are there any additional structures not previously identified associated with 12 H
217?
3. Will evidence of the settlement and early development of the area be documented
within the project area?
3.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION
3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
3.1.1 Physiography
The project area is within the Central Till Plain Natural Region (Homoya 1997), which is
largely a level to gently undulating, somewhat monotonous landscape that was formerly heavily
forested (Hedge 1997). The region is subdivided into three sections, with the proposed project
area located in the Tipton Till Plain section. Studies of the glacial geology of Indiana indicate
that the proposed project area was impacted by the Kansan, Illinoian, and Wisconsinan glaciers,
with glacial till left by the Wisconsinan glacier (Melhorn 1997). No end moraines have been
documented in the proposed extension, or in Hamilton County. Along the West Fork of the
White River, which is located east of the proposed project area (Figure 2), is a documented
glacial outwash area (Melhorn 1997).
3.1.2 Soils
The proposed project area is located in the Ockley-Westland-Fox and the Shoals-Genesee
soil associations (Hosteter 1978: General Soil Map). The Ockley-Westland-Fox soil association
is characterized by "[ s ]teep and moderately deep over sand and gravel, nearly level to strongly
sloping, well drained and very poorly drained, medium textured and moderately fme textured
soils that formed in outwash on terraces" (Hosteter 1978:4). The Shoals-Gene see soil
association is noted for its "[ d]eep, nearly level, somewhat poorly drained and well drained,
medium textured soils that formed in alluvium on flood plains" (Hosteter 1978:4).
4
o
'0
'0
o
'0
10
:0
:0
]
~O
:0
]
]
:0
:0
:0
:U
'0
L1
o
01
01
01
j
01
01
01
01
01
or
01
OJ
-~
U1
or
o
or
0;
Ul
n'
~,
Specific soils situated in the proposed project area include Fox loam with 0 to 2 percent
slope (FnA), eroded Fox loam with 2 to 6 percent slope (FnB2), severely eroded Fox clay loam
with 8 to 18 percent slope (FxC3), Genesee silt loam (Ge), Ockley silt loam with 0 to 2 percent
slope (OcA), eroded Ockley silt loam with 2 to 6 percent slope (OcB2), Sleeth loam (St), and
Westland silty clay loam (We) (Hosteter 1978:Sheet 57). Except for the Genesee silt loam, the
agricultural potential for the soils is fair to good. The agricultural potential for the Genesee silt
loam is poor.
3.1.3 Hydrology
The major drainage in Hamilton County is the West Fork of the White River. The river,
which is located just east of the proposed project area, runs in a north-south direction and bisects
the county. The major drainage in the proposed project area is Blue Woods Creek, which is an
intermittent tributary of the river. The creek flows in a west to easterly direction and traverses
the southeastern section of the proposed project area (Figure 2).
3.1.4 Flora
When the first prehistoric peoples entered this area of Indiana (ca. 10,000 B.P.), they
encountered an oak-hickory floral community (Delcourt and Delcourt 1980). By 5,000 B.P. the
oak-hickory forests had been replaced by a beech-maple forest community (Lindsey 1997). This
type of floral community was still thriving wh~n the Euro-Americans began to explore and settle
central Indiana. Trees commonly found in central Indiana and the Central Till Plain Natural
Region at this time included beech, maple, oak, ash, and elm. Also present in the area at this
time were flatwoods, which are forests situated on fairly level and poorly drained soils. In the
Tipton Till Plain section, which is occupied by the project area, the flatwoods forest community
consisted of green ash, American elm, red maple, bur oak, pin oak, Shumard's oak, swamp oak,
and sycamores. The better drained soils of the Tipton Till Plain section supported white ash,
American beech, shagbark hickory, sugar maple, white oak, and tulip tree (Hedge 1997).
3.1.5 Fauna
Faunal resources that were abundant and utilized by the prehistoric population, as well as
the first Euro-American settlers, include beaver, black bear, bison, deer, elk, muskrat, opossum,
eastern cottontail rabbit, raccoon, gray and fox squirrels, and woodchuck. Aquatic species
utilized include bass, bowfin, buffalofish, blue catfish, bullhead catfish, channel catfish,
freshwater drum, gar, and sucker. Eastern box turtle, snapping turtle, and softshell turtle were
5
also utilized. Birds that would have been utilized as a food source include geese (primarily the
Canada goose), ducks, passenger pigeon, and wild turkey (Richards and Whitaker 1997).
3.1.6 Climate
The climate of Hamilton County is hot and humid in the summer and cold in the winter.
The average temperature in the summer is 22.20C, while the average temperature in the winter is
-1.70C (Hosteter 1978). The annual precipitation in Hamilton County is approximately 94.5 cm
(Hosteter 1978).
3.1. 7 Bedrock Geology
The bedrock of the proposed extension, which is Silurian in age, consists of the Wabash
Formation (Gray et al. 1987). The Wabash Formation consists of dolomite, argillaceous
dolomite, and limestone. No outcrops of chert have been documented in Hamilton County,
although outcrops of Attica chert have been documented to the northwest, in nearby Boone
County (Cantin ca. 1980), and outcrops of Fall Creek chert have been documented to the west in
Madison County (Cameron Quimbach, personal communication March 25, 2000).
3.2 CULTURAL SETTING
3.2.1 Paleoindian Period (12,500 B.P. to 10,000 B.P.) .
The Paleo indian period (12,000 to 10,000 B.P.) represents the time of initial human
occupation of the area following the retreat of the Wisconsinan glacier. Most of the sites
documented for this period are associated with eroded outwash terraces along the major river
valleys. This suggests that the early inhabitants were highly mobile and focused on the plants
and herd animals of the valley (Dorwin 1966). Investigations in the Northeast and Midwest have
indicated that while these groups hunted megafauna (i.e., mammoth), they maintained a balanced
hunting economy based on the exploitation of migratory game and supplemented by foraged
food (Fitting 1965; Ritchie and Funk 1973).
With the retreat of glaciers and subsequent warming of the climate, floral and faunal
changes occurred. By 8,000 B.P., these changes resulted in an ecosystem that was quite similar
to the one encountered by the European explorers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.
With the changing environment, a new cultural tradition developed: the Archaic. The Archaic,
which existed from ca. 10,000 B.P. to 3,000 B.P. has been divided into Early, Middle, and Late
subdivisions.
6
,0
'0
'0
:0
:0
'0
:0
~O
]
:0
:0
:0
]
:0
:0
10
.0
:0
'0
o
Ot
- 1
01
0-1
or
nl
(.jj
01
01
01
01
01
[]
01
or
or
01
01
01
0:
3.2.2 Archaic Period (10,000 B.P. to 3,000 B.P.)
The Early Archaic period witnessed the establishment of the deciduous hardwood forest
communities present at the time of the early Euro-American settlement and exploration of the
area. However, these forest communities were still immature with different proportions of
particular plant species (Ford 1977). Consequently, the proportions of animal species dependent
on the forest resources may have also been different. Adding a temperate climate to this
environmental setting, it would appear localized fluctuations in available resources would have
prohibited human groups from establishing permanent territories (Ford 1977). Archaeological
evidence tends to support this model of limited natural resources promoting the continuation of
small, mobile, human hunting bands. The primary distinction between Early Archaic groups and
Paleoindian groups is the initial development of technologies to hunt smaller game and process
plant foods. Plant processing and fishing tools rarely appeared, indicating such resources
provided a minor dietary component. Artifact assemblages and site locations indicate hunting
was the primary subsistence practice, with some sites suggesting periodic seasonal reuse.
Although seasonal scheduling appears to be developing, the limited natural resources would
require frequent changes in groups' territories to offset localized fluctuations. This is evidenced
by the wide distribution of diagnostic projectile point styles during this period (Dragoo 1976).
Recent research and investigations about the Early Archaic period in Indiana support the
model of small, mobile, hunting bands. Stafford's (1994) study of the Archaic in southwestern
Indiana indicates that the Early Archaic populace utilized a forager strategy. That is to say that
supplies and foodstuffs were procured as they were encountered (Stafford 1994). This model is
based on the number of Early Archaic projectile points made from a foreign chert (65 percent),
where the chert source is >30 Ian from the location of the projectile point. Investigations at the
McCullough Run's site (12 B 1036) [Cochran et al. 1995] and Cree's (1991) survey of Hamilton
and Marion counties concur with this model.
Cree's (1991) survey of Hamilton County documented 141 sites and collected 1,076
artifacts. Four of these artifacts are diagnostic of the Early Archaic period. The artifacts were
made from the following lithic materials: Holland chert, Liston Creek chert, glacial chert, and
Wyandotte chert. Holland and Wyandotte cherts are located> 30 km from Hamilton County.
Stafford's (1994) study also indicated, when compared with the other Archaic periods,
that Early Archaic sites were predominant in the upper reaches of drainage basins. Generally,
7
Early Archaic sites were also situated at a greater distance from a major river (ave. 3 kIn) than
the other Archaic periods. Mitchell's (1982) survey of adjacent Boone County indicated that all
but two of the Early Archaic sites (or sites with an Early Archaic component) [n = 28] were
situated in upland settings. Cree's (1991) survey indicated that two Early Archaic artifacts were
collected in an upland setting, while the other two artifacts were collected from terraces.
However, it cannot be determined from Cree's (1991) report whether the terraces are situated
near a major or a minor tributary. The results of Mitchell's (1982) survey support Stafford's
hypothesis.
The Middle Archaic period is represented by a material culture that developed to include
a wider variety of projectile points and tool types as well as the addition of the atlatl and the
initial appearance of pecked, ground, and polished stone tools. This expanded tool.kit reflects a
more diverse subsistence and settlement pattern resulting from the adaptation to a forest/riverine
biome association. Although the Middle Archaic (8,000 B.P. to 5,000 B.P.) represents a
continuum in the development of an expedient technology for exploiting deciduous hardwood
forests, it is viewed as a stage in which human groups began to control environmental factors.
During this period, deciduous hardwood forests were becoming mature, with proportions
of plant and animal species similar to those found by the early Euro-American settlers (Ford
1977). Consequently, the food base was expanding with a variety of nut-bearing trees providing
a new protein resource as well as small seed-bearing weeds and grasses (Dragoo 1976). Also, as
sea levels rose the flow of rivers and streams slowed; thereby, resulting in an increase of
potentially exploitable aquatic resources. Seasonal scheduling was necessary for human groups
to efficiently exploit their territories (Ford 1977). This required groups to understand the
behavioral characteristics of a variety of plant and animal species and their distributions in a
localized region. Consequently, group mobility was being reduced but still occurred on a
seasonal basis. Territory sizes would be decreasing as efficient exploitation increased. Likewise,
movement of group territories would be less frequent and over shorter distances, since
knowledge of local terrain was important. As long as available territory was present, movement
of group territories was possible. However, the beginning of population increase, probably
related to the decrease in-group mobility, becomes evident during this period (Ford 1977).
Consequently, the possibility of moving a group's territory would become increasingly limited,
promoting intergroup relationships to offset localized fluctuations in available resources.
8
, 10.-
I
,
'0
'0
,0
:0
:0
'0
:0
]
:0
~O
to
]
;0
/0
;0
;0
,0
:0
o
OI
or
01
01
01
[jl
1
01
01
01
- 1
Wf
OJ
Ul
n'
~l
or
01
or
rl
~j
0:
Although the processes by which human. groups became attuned and eventually controUed their
local environments began during the Middle Archaic, they reached fruition in the Late Archaic.
The diagnostic artifacts of the Middle Archaic are still not well understood. Problems
persist with a lack of dated contexts, temporal overlapping of point types, persistence of a wide
variety of side-notched forms through a very long time period, and insufficient archaeological
recognition or regional point style variations. Side-notched forms such as the Brewerton and
Matanzas clusters originate within the Middle Archaic time range, but in the southwestern and
central region of Indiana, these point types appear to be associated with Late Archaic
occupations (Justice 1987). Because of the overlap of diagnostic artifacts between the Middle
and Late Archaic periods, it is impossible to know whether the Middle Archaic period consists of
decreased cultural activities in this region, or whether it is due to a lack of recognition on the part
of the archaeological community.
This quandary about the Middle Archaic period can be seen through Mitchell's (1982)
survey of Boone County and Cree's (1991) survey. Mitchell indicates that no Middle Archaic
sites were documented during the survey, though a total of 216 sites were documented, with the
temporal! cultural affiliation ascertained for 90 of the sites. Cree (1991) indicates that only two
Middle Archaic artifacts (one of them consisting of a Matanzas projectile point) out of 1,076
artifacts were collected during the Hamilton County survey. While the paucity of Middle
Archaic sites could be due to decreased activity in the area, it is believed that the absence of
Middle Archaic sites is more likely due to the overlap of diagnostic artifacts between the Middle
and Late Archaic periods. Consequently, the only way that the archaeological community will
be able to enhance its understanding of the Middle Archaic in central Indiana is through
excavation and establishing radiocarbon dates from Middle Archaic sites in the area. From the
radiocarbon dates, the archaeological community will have a better understanding of the types of
tools and artifacts, as well as settlement patterns for the Middle Archaic period in central
Indiana.
Stafford's (1994) research indicates that during the late Middle Archaic period the forager
strategy of procurement was evolving into more of a collectinglIogistical strategy. With this
procurement strategy, the resources within an area could be easier to exploit and utilize; thus the
constant movement associated with the Early Archaic period began to decrease during the late
Middle Archaic period. This decrease became more readily apparent during the Late Archaic
9
period. This collecting strategy can be seen by examining the lithic material from which
projectile points were constructed, and the location of sites. Cantin's (1988) study of hafted
bifaces collected from the 21 data centers indicate that the hafted bifaces were predominantly
made from nonforeign cherts. The location of Middle Archaic sites, as noted by Stafford (1994),
indicates a greater emphasis of areas located close to drainage basin outlets, and an increasing
frequency of projectile points located near major rivers. Cree's (1991) survey documented
Middle Archaic artifacts on terraces.
The efficiency of the settlement/subsistence systems and economic tecooologies of the
Late Archaic period reflects the long time span during which many innovations evolved. This
efficiency made obtaining a living a less arduous task. More time was free for developing
aesthetic pursuits. Exotic materials from nonlocal sources were exchanged among people of this
time through extensive trade networks (Winters 1968). Copper, marine shells, and cherts were
traded great distances and must have had substantial economic value to the consumers. Artifacts
such as pipes and ornaments for decoration indicate increasing concern with activities other than
subsistence. Human interment increases dramatically during this time and burial treatments
suggest conceptions of religion. Inclusions of food, tools, and ornamental objects of bone, shell,
and copper with burials also reflect possible social status structures.
Late Archaic peoples inhabited nearly all physiographic areas in their diverse economic
exploits. Sites reflect a full range of types from long-range settlements to short-term special
function camps. Populations appear to have gathered and dispersed according to season in
seminomadic patterns, exploiting available resources and moving between ecosystems. Short
term sites associated with hunting-and-gathering and small sites for chert processing are very
common.
Stafford's (1994) research on the Archaic in southwestern Indiana indicates that the Late
Archaic and late Middle Archaic periods are comparable. Both periods utilize a
collection/logistical strategy that concentrates on utilizing the resources within an area centered
on a base camp. Also, sites of these time periods are usually located in close proximity (> 1.5
km) to a major river (Stafford 1994).
While the Central Ohio Valley Archaic has a great deal of similarity with other Late
Archaic phases in the Midwest (Le., French Lick, Indian Knoll, and Helton) it does have some
differences. The main difference between the Central Ohio Valley Archaic and the other phases
10
,0
o
'0
;0
:0
~O
:0
~O
]
:0
:0
~D
]
:0
<0
;0
jO
o
,0
o
01
01
01
Dr
01
OJ
or
Ul
01
- 1
01
OJ
Ul
01
or
01
0:
Oi
0:
concerns the projectile point types. On Central Ohio Valley Archaic sites, McWhinney Heavy
Stemmed projectile points are the predominant projectile point and hafted scraper types (Vickery
1999). The McWhinney Heavy Stemmed projectile point types are absent from French Lick
phase, Helton phase, and Indian Knoll sites.
Cree's (1991) survey collected four Late Archaic diagnostic artifacts; all were obtained
from terraces.
Terminal Archaic sites in central Indiana are associated with the Riverton culture.
Mitchell's (1982) survey documented several Riverton projectile points collected from upland
settings. Cree's (1991) survey collected two projectile points from Hamilton County, both from
a terrace. Riverton projectile points have been collected in the valley of the West Fork of the
White River in Marion and Hamilton counties. Although these projectile points have been found
in central Indiana, no large Riverton sites have been documented in this part of the state
(Anslinger 1986).
3.2.3 Woodland Period (3,000 B.P. to 1,000 B.P.)
Around 3,000 B.P., the use of ceramics becomes evident and is the demarcation between
the Archaic period and the Woodland period. The Woodland peri<;>d flourished from 3,000 to 350
B.P., when the Europeans began to explore the interior of North America. This period is not only
known for the use of pottery, but also for the growth and development of horticulture, and the
use of elaborate mortuary customs (i.e., burial mounds). During this period, especially from
2,500 to 1,500 B.P., mortuary ceremonialism reached its height. While mounds have been
documented in central Indiana (i.e., Mounds State Park in Anderson), it appears that central
Indiana was not heavily utilized by either the Early Woodland or Middle Woodland peoples.
Work conducted by Cree (1991) and Mitchell (1982) concurs with this theory. Their work
indicated that artifacts diagnostic of these time periods were rare. Mitchell (1982) noted that
only six Early Woodland sites and six Middle Woodland sites were documented in the Boone
County survey. This is contrasted with 16 Late Woodland sites documented during the same
survey (Mitchell 1982). Cree (1991) indicated that four Early Woodland artifacts and one
Middle Woodland artifacts were collected, compared with seven Late Woodland artifacts.
3.2.4 Mississippian Period (1,000 B.P. to 400 B.P.)
The Late Woodland period in central Indiana extended until European contact, although
the end of the period was influenced by the Mississippian culture. The Mississippian culture is
11
characterized by planned community construction. Rectangular houses are arranged around a
central plaza, along with large, flat-topped, truncated pyramidal mounds that were used both for
burials and as a foundation for ceremonial structures. The best example is located in southern
Indiana: the Angel Mound site (12 Vg 1). The culture was agriculturally based on three crops:
beans, maize, and squash. Fishing and hunting supplemented the diet. Lithic artifacts associated
with the Mississippian culture include triangular projectile points, humpback knives, celts, slab
metates, and hoes.
Another influence on the Late Woodland period is the Fort Ancient culture; the Oliver
phase is the predominant representative of this culture in central Indiana. Investigations by Jack
Householder (1940) along the West Fork of the White River in Marion County documented
several Fort Ancient/Oliver Phase villages and sites.
Investigations by the Glenn A. Black Laboratory along the East Fork of the White River
in Lawrence, Martin, and Orange counties have located and documented Oliver phase sites
(Redmond 1991). It was observed that these sites consisted of small habitation sites, seasonally
occupied extractive camps, or nucleated villages (Redmond 1994). The survey also noted that
Oliver phase village sites "were intentionally located on alluvial floodplain ridges and elevated
terraces consisting of well-drained sandy loam soils. These settlements were situated within one
kilometer of tributary streams and served as central places for most domestic and food
production activities" (Redmond 1994:1-2). McCullough's (1997) study of the Oliver phase
indicates that they practiced a "pioneering mode of swidden cultivation..." (McCullough
1997:84). This was determined "by noting the technology employed (no hoes), the frequency of
shifting settlements, and the lack of weedy species. in feature contexts" (McCullough 1997:84).
Excavations at the Clampitt site (12 Lr 329) and the Cox's Woods site (12 Or 1) have
provided a great deal of information concerning the culture of the Oliver phase. Both sites
consist of large nucleated villages that were surrounded by a stockade. Semirectangular house
patterns were observed only at the Cox's Woods site (Redmond and McCullough 1995);
however, Redmond (1994:18) noted that postmold clusters were found "in relatively 'featureless'
areas..." He continued that a large section of the Clampitt site needed to be exposed in order to
better determine the presence of any structures at the site. The diet of the inhabitants at both
sites centered around the cultivation of maize; beans and native cultigens were also grown.
Hunting and fishing, as well as the collection of nuts and berries, helped supplement the diet.
12
:0
o
:0
'0
:0
:0
10
)0
1J
:0
~O
~D
]
:0
iO
:0
lO
,0
:0
o
01
0-1
I
01
rp
~1
01
01
OJ
01
01
01
OJ
01
01
01
01
01
0:
0:
3.2.5 Historic Period
By 1810, the Delaware nation had halted its western migration from Pennsylvania and
Ohio and settled in central Indiana. In 1810, eight Delaware villages and one Munsee village
were documented along the West Fork of the White River (Tanner 1987). On June 21, 1813,
American troops and militia raided these villages (Tanner 1987). With the signing of the Treaty
of St. Mary in 1818, the Delaware nation ceded its territory to the United States Government,
and agreed to be relocated to Missouri. By 1820 Euro-Americans began to settle in central
Indiana without any possibility of attack or harassment from the native population.
The first Euro-American settler in Hamilton County was William Conner, who
constructed a cabin/trading post in 1802. Conner and his brother, who founded the city of
Connersville, developed a lucrative trade with the local Delaware peoples. The site of this
trading post is located at Conner Prairie State Park, which is located near the town of Fishers.
The first documented Euro-American to settle in Clay Township was Francis McShane, a
farmer from Harrison County, Kentucky (Haines 1915). In 1824, McShane purchased two tracts
of land in the county. After purchasing the tracts, he went back to Kentucky for his family,
which he brought north. In December 1825, McShane left his family in Marion County and
continued on to the tracts of land, where he proceeded to construct a log cabin. After the cabin
was completed, he and his family moved into it (Campbell 1962; Haines 1915).
Shortly after the McShane cabin was occupied, more and more people began to settle in
the township. By 1833, Clay Township was created. In 1854 Clay Township was enlarged when
a portion of Delaware Township was annexed by Clay Township. This portion of Delaware
Township consisted of the area located between Clay Township and the West Fork of the White
River (Campbe111962).
The rapid settlement of the township is reflected in the patent records for Sections 4, 9,
and 10, Township 17 North, Range 4 East; the proposed project area is located in these three
sections. Examination of these patent records indicates that the sections were patented between
1823 and 1837, with a vast majority of the patents occurring between 1823 and 1826 (Bureau of
Land Management 2000). It appears that large sections of these townships, and probably the
proposed project area, were occupied by the time Clay Township was created.
These early settlers were primarily farmers; consequently, a rural/agricultural society and
economy developed. Until World War II, a rural/agricultural society still existed in these
13
sections and the proposed project area. However, after the war, Indianapolis and the surrounding
communities began to expand, and this expansion is still continuing today, with the construction
of office complexes, shopping plazas, apartment and housing complexes, etc.
3.3 LITERATURE REVIEW
On March 16, 2000, Christopher Jackson, M.S., conducted the literature review for the
proposed project area (Jackson 2000). This consisted of examining cultural resource
management (CRM) reports, archeological site forms, and archaeological and architectural site
location maps at DHPA. At the state library, county histories and historic cartographic sources
were inspected. It should be noted that this was not a Section 106 project; therefore, the goals of
the literature review were to determine whether any section of the proposed project area has been
professionally surveyed, and to ascertain if any archaeological sites have been documented in the
proposed project area. If sites have been documented, it would be necessary to determine if the
sites had been evaluated in relation to the NRHP by a professional archaeologist.
Review of the archaeological site location maps indicates that eight sites had been
documented in the original project area (Jackson 2000).1 One of these sites, 12 H 39, is not
within the current project area boundaries and will not be discussed. Examination of the seven
sites within the current project area indicates that one is a historic site (12 H 90), one consists of
the remnants of a cabin/house (12 H 217), one is an isolated find (12 H 219), and four of the sites
are lithic scatters (12 H 12, 12 H 218, 12 H 751, and 12 H 826) [Figure 3; Table 1]. Of the
prehistoric sites, the temporal affiliation for four of them was unknown; however, an Early
Archaic affiliation was designated for 12 H 218.
Examination of the site forms indicates that two of the sites (12 H 217 and 12 H 826)
have been professionally surveyed and evaluated for each site's potential for inclusion on the
NRHP. It was recommended that 12 H 826 was not eligible for the NRHP (Bennett 1996), while
12 H 217 was believed potentially eligible for inclusion on the NHRP (Bennett and Hartman
1996). The NRHP potential for the remaining six sites, according to the site forms, has not been
previously evaluated.
Review of the architectural site location maps indicates that one architectural site (55034)
has been documented within the proposed project area (Figure 3) [Historic Landmarks
Foundation of Indiana 1992]. The architectural site form reveals that the site is a farmstead
constructed ca. 1870. The farmstead is not eligible for inclusion on the NRHP.
14
o
'0
"0
:0
:0
:0
10
:0
1]
:0
~O
[J
1]
lO
:0
;0
;0
:0
:0
o
01
or
01
01
01
[j-l
1
[j- 1
j
01
01
[J- 1
i
OJ
Ul
or
01
0;
O~
0:
0.
The CRM report files indicate that two surveys have been conducted within the proposed
project area (Figure 4). The first survey was for the proposed Hazel Dell Road improvements
from 96th Street to 146th Street (Bennett and Hartman 1996). The Bennett and Hartman (1996)
investigation relocated 12 H 217 and determined that the site was potentially eligible for
"
inclusion on the NRHP. The investigation was unable to relocate 12 H 90, and there may,
therefore, be some question as to the actual location of the site.
The second survey was conducted as an addendum to the Hazel Road improvements
project (Bennett 1996). Bennett (1996) examined another possible alignment and documented
12 H 826, which was determined not to be eligible for the NRHP.
4.0 METHODS
4.1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELD METHODS
Methods utilized by ASC Group during this investigation ,included shovel testing and
surface collection/survey. The following is a brief description of each method.
Shovel testing: This method was utilized in areas in which ground surface visibility was
less than 30 percent. This method consists of excavating 30 cm2 shovel test pits at 10-m
intervals. The units were excavated until subsoil was encountered, or to a depth of 50
em, whichever came first. The fill from these shovel test pits was then carefully sorted
by hand and/or trowel. All artifacts encountered in these shovel test pits were collected
and provenienced to the shovel test pit and in relation to the A horizon. A record was
kept for all shovel test pits excavated. This record includes soil profile, soil texture, soil
color (Munsell), presence/absence of cultural materials. Once cultural materials were
recovered from a site, the shovel test pit intervals were decreased to 5-m across the site.
Site boundaries were determined by either landform, or two negative sequential shovel
test pits. The second negative shovel test pit was considered the site boundary.
Surface collection/survey: In areas in which the ground surface had at least 30 percent
visibility, surface collection/survey was utilized. This method consists of visually
examining the ground surface at a maximum of 10-m intervals. Once cultural materials
have been discovered, no greater than 5-m intervals were utilized in the site area and its
vicinity. All prehistoric artifacts, except FeR (which was counted), were collected by
their transect. All historic artifacts, except a large quantity of building debris (i.e.,
bricks), were collected. The building debris was rougWy counted, with diagnostic pieces
(i.e., those with maker's marks) collected.
Field notes and map notations were employed to record area designations, field
conditions, located sites, and methods of investigation. Similar notes were taken for each site
15
16
,0
:0
'0
:0
:0
~o
~o
:0
1]
~o
~o
~o
~o
:0
:0
:0
:0
;0
,Q
and included observations, methods of investigation, site size, and slope gradient and direction.
Notes were retained for all shovel test pits, and included information on Munsell soil color, soil
texture, presence/absence of cultural materials, and stratigraphy. All artifacts located in the field
were bagged, with the date and provenience marked on the bag.
4.2 ARTIFACT ANALYSIS
This section describes the system employed to analyze and interpret the artifacts
recovered during field reconnaissance. James C. Litfin, M.A., conducted the prehistoric artifact
analysis and Beth Hillen, ASC Group, conducted the historic artifact analysis for this project.
4.2.1 Prehistoric Material
Prehistoric cultural remains were initially sorted by material. Within each material
group, artifacts were further sorted by the specific attributes of the different elements of the
material groups (e.g., chert type, temper, etc.). The fmallevel of analysis of prehistoric artifacts
separates them into generally recognized descriptive categories. These descriptive categories are
specific to each material group, but generally indicate use, manufacture technique, or aesthetic
qualities. Where seriation schemes exist, descriptive categories are utilized that allow the
application of the seriation. Through this, inferences are made regarding the cultural/temporal
affiliation of the artifacts singularly and as an assemblage from a specific site. The material
groups and descriptive categories that were utilized to analyze the prehistoric material recovered
during the survey are described below.
4.2.2 Lithic Artifact Analysis
Lithic artifacts, the group of artifacts recovered most often from aboriginal sites, are
classified by morphological characteristics into descriptive classes (Skinner and Norris 1981).
As noted by Greber et al. (1982:72): "The objective of the classification is to provide a system
for organizing artifacts which is relatively independent of the observer, which is repeatable, and
most importantly, which uses only information directly observable from the artifacts
themselves... Once these descriptive classes have been established, a number of types of analysis
can be conducted. One type of analysis is a comparative study to obtain possible temporal or
cultural associations for recovered artifacts..."
The following lithic categories were recovered during the investigation:
Flakelflake fragment: A piece of chert removed from a larger mass through the
application of directed force that exhibits the following characteristics: (1) a bulb of
percussion resulting from the application of directed force; (2) a striking platform to
o
01
which the directed force was applied; (3) a body, distal to the striking platform and bulb
of percussion, resulting from the conchoidal fracturing produced by the directed force;
and (4) taper resulting from the conchoidal fracturing produced by the directed force.
Whole flakes are flakes that exhibit all four characteristics. Flake fragments are flakes
that lack one or more of these characteristics. The flakes recovered during the
reconnaissance were assigned to the following sub-categories:
01
01
01
primary flake: these flakes were removed in an attempt to reduce a mass of the
nucleiform and subsequently create a workable preform or a usable core. These
flakes may display scars of previously detached flakes over the entire dorsal face.
Typically, these flakes are triangular in cross section. Included in this group are
flakes which have cortex to some degree on the dorsal side.
01
01
0-1
j
secondary flakes: these flakes were removed to further shape the preform into a
workable piece. Similarly, they retain flake scars over the entire dorsal face but
may be distinguished from primary flakes in that they are somewhat thinner in
cross section and frequently lack the pronounced bulb of percussion seen on
primary flakes;
01
01
tertiary flakes: these flakes are tiny chips removed during the final stages of tool
manufacture. As their descriptive name implies, this stage in flake removal was
employed to strengthen and sharpen the edges of a tool;
OI
fragment: a blocky or angular chunk of flint which shows no indication of reworking or
being used as a core. In addition, pieces of shatter that can not be assigned as unmodified
flakes are included in this category;
[]
Biface/biface fragment: A lithic artifact, with two faces, which has intentionally been
reduced in mass through the removal of flakes from both faces in a manner consistent
with producing an intentionally thinned edge or form. This term is restricted to complete
artifacts that cannot otherwise be classified as a more specific type of formal tool. Biface
fragments are artifacts . that would otherwise be classified as bifaces but whose
morphology is consistent with breakage or damage resulting in an incomplete or
fragmentary appearance. This breakage may occur during or after manufacture and may
result from cultural or noncultural factors.
[]
01
01
01
0:
0,
0:
Core/core fragment: A nucleus from which flakes have been detached in a regular,
consistent, and relatively uniform manner and whose morphology is consistent with
producing flakes of suitable size, morphology, and type usable for flake tools. The term is
restricted to artifacts that do not appear to be undergoing reduction into formal tools.
Core fragments are artifacts that would otherwise be classified as cores, however, the
morphology is consistent with breakage or damage resulting in an incomplete or
fragmentary appearance. This breakage may occur during or after manufacture of flake
tools and may result from cultural or noncultural factors.
17
Projectile pointlprojectile point fragment: A biface that has modifications to its proximal
end in order to make it suitable for hafting and a pointed tip at its distal end. Small,
relatively thin, trianguloid bifaces that appear suitable for attachment to an arrow shaft,
but do not contain a hafting element, are also subsumed under this definition based upon
their apparent function. This term is restricted to complete artifacts that may not
otherwise be classified as a more specific type of formal tool; this restriction does not
exclude assignment of specific diagnostic cultural/temporal type names or affiliations
(e.g., Thebes E-Notched points, Brewerton points, or Early Woodland projectile points).
Projectile point fragments are artifacts that would otherwise be classified as projectile
points; however, the morphology is consistent with breakage or damage that results in an
incomplete or fragmentary appearance. This breakage may occur during or after
manufacture and may result from cultural or noncultural factors.
Scraper: A formal, lithic tool that has been shaped to create a morphology suitable for
removing one substance or layer from another by rubbing (e.g., fat from hide or bark
from wood) or for thinning a substance through a planing action. Scrapers exhibit
intentional trimming (unifacial, bifacial, flat, steep, regular, or alternate) of least one edge
of the artifact in conjunction with intentional shaping of at least portions of the remainder
of the artifact to facilitate use. The term should be considered a general one; other, more
specific terms may be applied to categorize artifacts used as scrapers. This may involve
specifying the location of the working edge as it relates to the general morphology (e.g.,
side scrapers, end scrapers), the type of intentional trimming (e.g., a uniface, bifacial
scraper), the general morphology itself (e.g., flake scraper, thumbnail scraper, hafted
scraper) or apparent use based on the general morphology and type of trimming (e.g.,
scraper-plane, heavy duty scraper, spokeshave). These terms may even be combined to
provide specific descriptions (e.g., unifacial flake scraper). This term is restricted to
artifacts that do not appear to have undergone further reduction into another class of
formal tools. The distinction between scrapers and modified debitage (i.e., flakes, shatter,
and cores) is based on the intentional, formal shaping of the areas other than the working
edge undergone by scrapers; modified debitage does not exhibit any such alteration to
facilitate use. Hence, modified debitage represents a more expedient class of tools. The
subclasses of scraper identified during the course of the lithic analysis were as follows:
Flake scraper: A subclass of scraper whose general morphology has been shaped
by modifications to a flake/flake fragment in order to render it more suitable for
use; these modifications include a bifacially or unifacially worked edge distal to a
proximal, less thinned portion of the flake suitable for gripping. The term is
restricted to artifacts that do not appear to have undergone further reduction into
another class of formal tools.
Scraper-Plane: A subclass of scraper whose general morphology has been
shaped by the removal of several contiguous large flakes from a cobble in order to
render it more suitable for use; these modifications include a unifacially worked
edge along a distal or lateral margin. If retouched it is either abrupt or semi-
abrupt. Edge angles are quite steep averaging between 60 and 90 degrees (Eckard
2001; Dr. Kent Vickery, personal communication 1991). These are the largest
18
:0
'0
:0
;0
~O
~D
, 10
~O
]
~O
~O
~O
]
~O
:0
;0
:0
,0
:0
o
01
01
01
01
or
01
01
01
01
or
[]
01
or
01
01
01
0;
0:
subclass of scrapers. The term is restricted to artifacts that do not appear to have
undergone further reduction into another class of formal tools.
4.2.3 Material Type
Identification of material type is restricted to an inspection and classification through
comparison of the visual properties of each piece. The following morphological variables are
evaluated: color, fossiliferous and mineral inclusions, and luster. Source distinctions are
restricted to major types that were found to dominate the assemblages. For the convenience of
the reader, the text defining morphological characteristics and known regional distributions is
included in this section. While the terms flint and chert are somewhat nebulous and scientifically
unsatisfactory, neither having a distinct or exact definition, they are in common use. Flint is very
fine grained to glass-like; often, partially translucent; usually, fairly pure with few inclusions;
and flakes easily with clean breaks. Chert is grainier, with the poorer quality materials
approaching the consistency of limestone. They are always opaque, and harder to work to a
sharp clean edge. The identification of material types is based on gross morphological attributes.
The imprecise distinction between flint and chert is as scientifically accurate as this identification
and sufficiently informative to justify its use.
Glacial Cobble: This chert type is usually found along major drainages and geological
features of glacial derivation, mainly till and outwashes. This chert was primarily
utilized when high quality or medium quality cherts were unavailable, although glacial
and gravel cherts have been utilized when high quality cherts were available (Cantin ca.
1980). This may reflect a technological advantage for the prehistoric populations as it
was easier to collect glacial and gravel cherts from a streambed than to quarry the chert
from the bedrock (Cantin ca. 1980). The Late/Terminal Archaic Riverton culture is noted
for use of glacial and gravel cherts.
Holland: Outcrops of this bedded chert have been documented in Dubois and Spencer
counties (Cantin ca. 1980). Holland chert is located in the Holland Limestone member of
the Staunton formation, Raccoon Creek group, Pennsylvanian system (Shaver et al.
1986). The chert color is varied, but is primarily blue-gray. The chert is a fine-medium
to fme in texture, while it is highly lustrous with a waxy-sheen. Due to the wide color
range, macroscopically Holland chert could be mistaken for Zaleski, Upper Mercer,
Wyandotte, and Ohio Flint Ridge (Vanport) cherts. A study conducted by Tankersley
(1987) noted that Holland chert was greatly desired by Paleoindians of the Central Ohio
valley in Kentucky and Indiana. He noted that only Wyandotte chert was used more
often by the Paleoindians. A study concerning the use frequency of Holland chert in
southwestern Indiana was able to determine that the chert was extensively utilized by the
Early Archaic, Middle Woodland, and Late WoodlandlMississippian populace (Cantin
and Anslinger 1985; Cantin 1988). The study indicated that the MiddlelLate Archaic and
19
20
'0
:0
'0
iD
:w
;w
;Q
:Q
]
;Q
~Q
~O
jQ
:Q
:0
:0
:0
~Q
'0
, j
Early Woodland peoples did utilize the chert, but not to the same extent as the previously
noted peoples.
Attica: This chert was first documented in an outcrop near the town of Attica, Fountain
County, Indiana (Stockdale 1931), and additional outcrops have been observed in other
parts of Fountain County and neighboring Warren County (Cantin ca. 1980). Secondary
deposits of Attica chert have been documented in stream deposits along the Wabash
River, and outcrops have been reported as far south as southern Vigo County (Cantin ca.
1980). The chert, which is also known as Wabash Green and Independence (Christianson
et al. 1976; Tomak 1981), is Mississippian in age, and is situated in the Floyds Knob
member, the Edwards member, and the upper member of the Crawford formation
(Christianson et al. 1976). The chert is normally a blue-green in color with blue-gray
streakslbands/mottles (Cantin ca. 1980). The texture is typically medium coarse to
medium, while the luster is usually dull to very slightly glossy. Cantin (ca. 1980) notes
that the chert was utilized throughout prehistory.
WYandotte: This chert, which is also referred to as Harrison County chert, is found in both
nodular and bedded forms. The sources for this chert are in Harrison and Crawford
counties, Indiana, plus Meade, Breckenridge, and Hardin counties, Kentucky (Tankersley
1989). The chert outcrops in the Fredonia member of the St. Genevieve Limestone
formation, Blue River group, Valmeyeran series, Mississippian system (Bassett and
Powell 1984). This is a very high quality chert, usually glossy, a medium to dark blue-
gray in color with concentric or parallel banding (Tankersley 1989).
Muldraugh: This chert is located in the Muldraugh formation of the Sanders group,
Mississippian system (Shaver et al. 1986). Documented outcrops of this chert are limited
in their geographic distribution, with outcrops mainly located in cuts along the Ohio
River in Harrison County. The formation undergoes a facies change to the northwest
where it is equivalent to the AlIens Creek chert of Momoe, Washington, and Floyd
Counties. The formation also bears Attica chert in the Warren-Fountain County area.
Cantin (ca. 1980) notes that all three cherts (Muldraugh, AlIens Creek, and Attica)
located in the formation are visually distinct. Muldraugh chert is usually a pastel-brown
or a shade of gray. Although uniform colors do not occur, the chert is usually variegated
with lighter shades of gray or light brown. Irregular chalky white patches and vugs have
also been documented. Typical Muldraugh chert usually has a dull, chalky appearing
luster. The texture ranges from medium coarse to medium. Cantin (ca. 1980) also notes
that while this is the most common description of Muldraugh chert, three other varieties
have also been documented: AlIens Creek variety, Attica variety, and Holland variety.
Liston Creek: This chert is from the Liston Creek Limestone member, Wabash f~rmation,
Salina group, Cayugan series, Silurian system (Tankersley 1989). The chert outcrops
primarily along the lower reaches of the Mississinewa and Salamonie Rivers where they
intersect the Wabash River in Huntington, Wabash, and Miami counties, Indiana. Color
varies from yellows to tans, and is often mottled. Heat treatment is common with
archaeological samples, which adds a pinkish, orangish, or reddish hue to the cl;1ert. The
o
or
01
01
or
01
ill
\.Jj
01
01
01
01
OJ
01
01
O"!.
Ii
O~
0:
U-.
i
U-'
.
,
texture is earthy and grainy in appearance and somewhat porous and fossiliferous
(DeRegnaucourt and Georgiady 1998).
Harrodsburg: This chert is from the Harrodsburg Limestone formation of the Sanders
group, Valmeyeran series, Mississippian system. Harrodsburg chert outcrops in Monroe,
Lawrence, Jackson, and Brown counties, Indiana. The chert occurs as bedded lenses, and
can be found as tabular chunks in stream gravels. Color ranges from nearly white
through the spectrum of brown to bluish gray, and even nearly black. The fossiliferous,
oolitic nature of the chert makes it porous. It has a chalky to earthy luster, which
becomes slightly waxy with heat treatment (DeRegnaucourt and Georgiady 1998).
Tillite, Huronian: Sedimentary rock that consists of consolidated masses of unweathered
blocks (large, angular, detached rock bodies) and glacial till (unsorted and unstratified
rock material deposited by glacial ice) in a rock flour (matrix or paste of unweathered
rock). The matrix, which comprises a large percentage of the rock, usually is dark gray to
greenish black in color and consists of angular quartz and feldspar grains and rock
fragments in a very fine grained paste. Tillites are directly connected with glaciation (Dr.
Kent Vickery, personal communication 1991).
While heat-altered. chert is not a material type, 16 artifacts appear to have been heat
altered. This was determined due to the appearance changes brought about through heating (i.e.,
color, luster, etc.), or showing signs of being heated or burned (e.g., pot lids; blackening; a white,
chalky patina; crazing).
4.2.4 Historic Material
The analysis of historic artifacts is organized to first provide a temporal affiliation of sites
and then the site function. In general, cartographic information and temporally diagnostic
artifacts are utilized to determine the general date range for sites.
In order to better determine site function, an Artifact Pattern Analysis of cultural remains
(based on Ball's [1984] studies of the Ohio Valley) will be utilized in conjunction with field
observations, and map research is used to determine potential site functions.
Historic artifacts were sorted using a functional scheme that Ball (1984) adapted from
South (1977). Within this hierarchical scheme artifacts are placed into groups which reflect their
general function. The following functional artifact groups were used:
Activity Group: Composed of artifacts associated with activities not related to the other
functional groups. Constituents include toys, gaming devices, tools, fishing apparatuses,
musical instruments, and stable (horse care) items. This group also serves as a
miscellaneous group, and includes those artifacts not belonging to the other groups. This
would include scrap metal, bolts, wire, etc.
21
Architectural Group: Consists of artifacts directly related to the built, social
environment. Its constituents are window glass, nails, bricks, roofmg materials, and
metal hardware.
Kitchen Group: Composed of those artifacts associated with food storage, preparation,
and consumption. Its constituents are ceramics, bottle glass, canning jars, food remains,
kitchen utensils, pots and pans, and tableware.
Research by South (1977) and Ball (1984) indicated that the relative percentage of each
functional group represented fell into patterns which reflected either the site type (South 1977) or
dominant activities represented at the site (Ball 1984). This analytical method is referred to as an
Artifact Pattern Analysis. Ball's (1984) study was originally concerned with nineteenth century
sites within the Ohio Valley, however, the percentages may also be used for other sites with
similar temporal and technological affiliations. In order to utilize an Artifact Pattern Analysis of
sites, it is important to obtain an adequate sample of artifacts (n> 100) for each site. Therefore,
this analytical method was not applied to historic archaeological sites having less than 100
artifacts. Because fewer than 100 historic artifacts were recovered from anyone site during this
survey (n = 21), this analytical method can not be applied here.
4.3 SURVEY CONDITIONS
A field survey was conducted from May 8-11, May 14-18 under the direction of
Principal Investigator James C. Litfin, M.A. The field crew consisted of Richard Rahe, Steve
Timbrook, and Brian Somers. Shaune M. Skinner, M.A., RPA, was the project manager. The
temperature during field sessions ranged from approximately 210 C to 240 C with sunny to partly
cloudy skies. The total area surveyed was 65.43-ha.
4.4 DESCRIPTION OF SURVEY AREAS
The entire 6S.43-ha area was surveyed, either by surface collection! surveyor shovel
testing. In order to better provenience site locations and methods of survey, the study area was
divided into 10 survey areas, which were designated Area A through Area J. A discussion of the
survey areas follows. This discussion will include survey methods, topography, vegetation, and
sites documented.
Area A
Area A is located in the northeastern section of the project area, directly north of and
adjacent to 106th Street (Figure 2; Plate 1). Two sites had been previously recorded in this area,
12 H 90 and 12 H 218. Site 12 H 90 was a historic site which east of Area A. Site 12 H 218 was
22
,0
'0
'0
:0
~o
10
1.
10
~O
]
10
:0
~O
jO
:0
~O
1,
:0
~O
10
, "
;0
o
01
or
01
01
01
01
D1
OJ
01
01
01
01
01
o
o
O~
OJ
u:
a small lithic scatter with an Early Archaic affiliation in the southwest-central portion of Area A
(Plate 2).
The topography of Area A is almost flat. The ground cover consisted of a mix of grass
and weeds that were growing on the plowed surface with visibility varying from 40 to 1'00
percent. The area was surface surveyed at no more than 10-m intervals with 5-m intervals being
utilized over areas where previously recorded sites were located and when artifacts were
encountered (Table 2). As with the previous survey (Bennett and Hartman 1996), the
investigation was unable to locate any portion of 12 H 90 within the project area boundaries. It
is the author's belief, as well as Bennett and Hartman's (1996), that the site location is probably
incorrectly recorded and that it is more to the east than originally thought.
Site 12 H 218 was relocated, as evidenced by two lithic artifacts (Figure 5; Table 3). One
of these is a heat-damaged unidentifiable projectile point fragment and the other is a heat-treated
indeterminate flake. Both lithic artifacts are manufactured from Holland chert. This site
measures 40 m north-south by 30 m east-west (Figure 6).
Area B
Area B is located in the north-central and northwestern portion of the project area on the
north side of 106th Street (Figure 2; Plate 3). One isolated find, 12 H 219, was previously
inventoried in Area B and was not relocated. One new site, 12 H 867, was recorded during this
survey (Figure 3). Site 12 H 867 is a scatter of historic brick (Figure 6; Plate 4).
The topography of Area B is almost flat with a slightly more undulating surface to the
west. The ground cover consisted of a mix of grass and weeds that were growing on the plowed
surface with visibility varying from 40 to 100 percent. The area was surface surveyed at no more
than 10-m intervals with 5-m intervals being utilized over areas where previously recorded sites
were located and when artifacts were encountered (Table 2). As noted above, additional
materials were recovered from the vicinity of 12 H 219. Site 12 H 867 is located on a small rise
in the western portion of Area B (Plate 4). The site, which measures 70 m north-south by 60 m
east-west (Figure 7), consisted entirely of a historic brick scatter (n = 43); however, only four
pieces were recovered from the site (Table 4). The bricks are a soft-mud, sand struck, machine-
made type with no distinguishing maker's mark. Machines for making brick have been around
since the late 1700s, with numerous machines in use by the 1800s to include semi-automated
brick plants. No structures were recorded for this location on any of the maps examined during
23
24
o
: ,
:Q
'Q
o
.
:Q
~u
:0
:Q
~
:Q
~Q
~u
~Q
:Q
:Q
'0
,1. __
:Q
'0
, .
o
,
the literature review or any previous archaeological survey. As a consequence, no estimated date
can be given for this site.
Area C
Area C is located in the southeastern portion of the project area with River Avenue
making up the western boundary and Blue Creek serving as the northern boundary (Figure 2;
Plate 5). Two sites, 12 H 12 and 12 H 826, have been previously recorded for this area (Figure
3). These sites were recorded as lithic scatters with no temporal association.
The topography of Area C is undulating with slopes and swales. The ground cover
consisted of a mix of grass and weeds that were growing on the plowed surface with visibility
varying from 70 to 100 percent. The area was surface surveyed at no more than 10-m intervals
with 5-m intervals being utilized over areas where previously recorded sites were located and
when artifacts were encountered. Site 12 H 12 was relocated as evidenced by several (n::: 5)
pieces of lithic debitage, although no diagnostic artifacts were recovered (Figure 8; Plate 5).
Raw materials represented included glacial chert, Muldraugh, and Holland with all but the piece
of Holland being heat treated. No use wear was seen on any of the lithic debitage (Table 3).
This site is located in the southwestern portion of Area C and measures 50 m north-south by 50
m east-west (Figure 8).
Site 12 H 826 produced the most lithic debitage of any site examined and documented
during this survey (Figure 9; Plate 7). Several pieces of lithic debitage (n ::: 11) and one biface
were recovered as well as one Late Archaic Brewerton Side Notched (Ritchie 1961) projectile
point fragment (plate 8), one Late Archaic style scraper-plane (Eckard 2001; Dr. Kent Vickery,
personal communication 1991) manufactured from Huronian Tillite (plate 9), and one
unidentifiable proximal projectile point fragment that, based on the author's prior experience
with changes in projectile point manufacturing techniques through time, could also be affiliated
with the Late Archaic (Table 3). Raw materials represented include Wyandotte (n ::: 1),
Muldraugh (n ::: 3), Attica (n ::: 1), Liston Creek (n ::: 1), Holland (n::: 1), Harrodsburg (n ::: 1),
glacial chert (n::: 5), and Huronian Tillite (n::: 1). Five pieces of debitage showed signs of heat
treatment and two are heat damaged. Secondary flakes were the most common debitage type (n
::: 4). Use wear was observed on one of the primary flakes. Temporally the Brewerton Side
Notched projectile point is diagnostic for the Late Archaic Laurentian tradition Brewerton phase
in the northeastern United States and dates between 2980 B.C. and 1723 B.C. (Justice 1987).
o
01
01
01
j
01
01
01
0]
[]
01
01
OJ
[]
01
[J
o
01
Ol
o
The type has been recovered from archaeological context in Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky,
and Illinois (Justice 1987). Scraper-Planes manufactured from Huronian Tillite tend to be
characteristic of the Central Ohio Valley Late Archaic (Dr. Kent Vickery, personal
communication 1991). However, as Eckard (2001) points out "...scraper-planes were used
throughout prehistory but during the Archaic become much more difficult to identify due to the
poorer grade lithics used as compared to Paleo-Indian times."
The scatter of artifacts is associated with a small rise in the east-central portion of Area C
but does continue down slope towards a swale and Blue Creek. The site measures 150 m north-
south by 75 m east-west. Bennett (1996) did not recommend this site as eligible for inclusion in
the NRHP. Due to the soil erosion from farming across this site and the lack of any fire-cracked
rock, or other indicators of intact features, the author agrees with Bennett's (1996)
recommendation.
Area D
Area D is located in the southwestern portion of the project area with River Avenue as
the eastern boundary and Blue Creek as the southern boundary (Figure 2; Plate 10). No sites
were previously recorded for this area but two new sites, 12 H 868 and 12 H 869, were
discovered. Both sites are small prehistoric lithic scatters.
The topography of Area D is undulating with slopes and swales. The ground cover
consisted of a mix of grass and weeds that were growing on the plowed surface with visibility
varying from 70 to 100 percent. The area was surface surveyed at no more than 10-m intervals
with 5-m intervals being utilized over areas where previously recorded sites were located and
when artifacts were encountered (Table 2). Site 12 H 868 is a prehistoric lithic scatter located on
a slight rise in the southwestern comer of Area D (Figure 10; Plate 11). The site measures 70-m
north-south by 30-m east-west. Two pieces of lithic debitage and one endscraper were recovered
(Table 3). All artifacts were manufactured from glacial chert and the endscraper showed signs of
heat damage. No diagnostic artifacts were recovered from this site. Site 12 H 869 is a lithic
scatter (n = 5) located in the flat northeastern portion of area D (Figure 11; Plate 12). The site
measures 100 m north-south by 50 m east-west. Three pieces of lithic debitage, one projectile
point fragment, and one core were recovered (Table 3). The only raw material utilized for the
debitage and core was glacial chert. One piece of debitage was heat treated and one had been
heat damaged but no use wear was observed. One diagnostic Mississippian triangular
25
26
o
o
:0
10
TO
'0
:0
:0
~o
:0
~o
iO
~-O
~O
;0
10
10
.0
:0
arrowpoint manufactured from Attica chert was recovered from this site (Plate 8). Although
some individuals would consider this arrowpoint to be a Madison (Scully 1951), the author
believes that the Madison type description is too broad. This reduces our ability to make
temporal distinctions utilizing arrow point technological variation as a marker. The Daniels
Triangular (KEWA 1981; Litfin et al. 1993) type description, excurvate blade edges and a
concave base, actually matches the type that was recovered from this site. Based on a
chronological seriation study of triangular arrow points in the Central Ohio Valley, the Daniels
Triangular type is associated with late features at the Madisonville site and has an estimated date
range of between A.D. 1281 and A.D. 1440 (Litfin et. al. 1993).
Area E
Area E is located directly north of and adjacent to Area D (Figure 2; Plate 13). No sites
were previously recorded for this area.
The topography of Area E is fairly flat. The ground cover consisted of a mix of grass and
weeds that were growing on the plowed surface with visibility varying from 70 to 100 percent.
The area was surface surveyed at no more than 10-m intervals (Table 2). No sites were located
within this area.
Area F
Area F is located directly north of and adjacent to Area E with 106th Street as the northern
boundary (Figure 2; Plate 14). No sites were previously recorded for this area.
The topography of Area F is fairly flat. The ground cover consisted of a mix of grass and
weeds that were growing on the plowed surface with visibility varying from 70 to 100 percent.
The area was surface surveyed at no more than 10-m intervals (Table 2). No sites were located
within this area.
Area G
Area G is located in the east-central portion of the project area with 106th Street asthe
northern boundary, River Avenue making up the western boundary, and Blue Creek as the
southern boundary (Figure 2; Plate 15). One site, 12 H 751, was previously recorded in this area
(Figure 3). Site 12 H 751 was recorded as a lithic scatter with no temporal association.
The topography of Area G is undulating with slopes and swales. The ground cover
consisted of a mix of grass and weeds that were growing on the plowed surface with visibility
varying from 40 to 100 percent. The area was surface surveyed at no more than 10-m intervals
o
01
01
01
01
01
OJ
01
01
01
01
Ol
01
or
o
01
U1
Ui
O~
with 5-m intervals being utilized over areas where previously recorded sites were located and
when artifacts were encountered (Table 2). Site 12 H 751 could not be relocated during this
survey. It is believed that the site is on a piece of property that is located along the south side of
106th street that partially divides Area G. This property was not owned by Martin Marietta
Aggregates, was not considered as part of the gravel pit extension project, and was not part of the
field survey. No other sites were found during investigation of this area.
Area H
Area H is between Area A and Area F, with 106th Street making up the southern
boundary and Area B serving as western boundary (Figure 2; Plate 16). One site, 12 H 217 was
previously recorded as a historic site (Bennett and Hartman 1996).
The topography of Area H is flat. The ground cover consisted of grass, weeds, small to
medium size trees, and shrubs resulting in zero surface visibility. The area was shovel tested at
10-m intervals with 5-m intervals radials excavated around the periphery of the site, and a total
of 47 shovel tests were excavated (Figure 12). The site measures 50-m north-south by 120-m
east-west. The A horizon (brown [lOYR 4/3] silty clay loam) was on average 21 to 30 cm in
depth. The B horizon was a yellowish brown (lOYR 5/4) silty clay loam. All artifacts were
recovered from the A horizon (Table 4). Artifacts recovered included whiteware (n = 1),
stoneware (n = 3), ironstone (n = 4), metal fragments (n = 7), nails (n = 2), container glass (n =
2), and window glass (n = 1). Artifacts observed but not recovered included charcoal, brick
fragments, and concrete block fragments. Shovel tests containing artifacts, which were not
collected, are depicted as positive on all mapping (Figure 12). A portion of the chassis to an old
wagon directly west of shovel test D3 (Plate 17). In the west-central portion of the area are the
remnants of old concrete block foundation and some wooden fence posts (Plate 18). Shovel tests
El, E2, and F3, contained the remnants of a gravel driveway at 10 cm that was composed of a 5
cm thick lens of gravel (lOYR 4/3 brown sandy loam with heavy gravel). Shovel test H3
encountered a piece of sheet metal measuring 50 cm by 60 cm just below the ground surface. A
total of 20 historic artifacts were recovered representing Architecture (n = 3), Kitchen (n = 10)
and Activities (n = 7) functional groups (Table 4). Analysis of the artifacts recovered indicates a
date range of ca. 1790 to present represented by the sample. Bennett and Hartman (1996)
recommended that this site was potentially eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The author
27
agrees with the prevIOUS recommendation and the site should either be avoided or have
additional work performed to determine its eligibility.
Area I
Area I is centrally located in the project area with River Avenue as the western boundary
and Area G surrounding it on all other sides (Figure 2; Plate 19). There were no previously
recorded sites in Area I; however, several outbuildings associated with architectural site 55034
(Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana 1992) are located within this area (Table 1).
The topography of Area I is fairly flat with a slight slope toward the east. The ground
cover consists of grass, weeds, and small to medium size trees and shrubs. There was no surface
visibility. The area was shovel tested at 10-m intervals, and a total of 25 test pits were excavated
(Table 2). The brown (10YR 4/2) sandy silt loam A horizon averaged 20 em to 28 em with the
yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) sandy silt loam B horizon evident in all but the disturbed test units.
Several outbuildings are associated with this area. There are two bams (Plates 20 and 21) and
three other small coop-like collapsed structures (plate 19). All of the structures are built on
concrete footers with flat wood plank siding and metal corrugated roofing. The remainder of the
area is littered with recent historic debris (washing machines, refrigerators, etc.) and a dump
truck. Several of the shovel tests were disturbed and no artifacts were recovered.
Area J
Area J is west of River Avenue, bounded by Area E, Area D, and Area F (Figure 2; Plate
22). One site, 55034, was previously recorded for this area. Site 55034 is listed as a ca. 1870
.
historic farmstead by the Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana (1992).
The topography is composed of a flat upper area that quickly slopes off to the south
towards a small drainage. The ground cover consists of grass, weeds, and small to medium size
trees and shrubs. Surface visibility was zero. The area was shovel tested at 10-m intervals, and a
total of 47 shovel test pits were excavated (Figure 13; Table 2). The brown (lOYR 4/2) sandy
silt A horizon averaged 20 em to 28 em in depth with the yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) sandy silt
loam B horizon encountered in all undisturbed units. The architectural site form indicates that
this is a farmstead constructed ca. 1870 and it was not considered eligible for inclusion on the
NRHP. The farmstead includes a house, bam (plate 23), and some recent small structures
located directly behind the house (Plate 22). The area west of the house contains recent historic
debris including an old school bus. No artifacts were recovered.
28
o
,0
'0
'0
:0
:0
:0
10
~O
:0
~O
IO
;0
:0
:0
:0
;0
;0
'Q
01
Oi
u1
01
01
wI
01
01
01
01
01
OJ
01
UI
01
D1
01
u;
U~
5.0 CURATION
All field records, photographs, and artifacts will be curated at the Indiana State Museum,
Indianapolis. Indiana Historic Sites and Structures Inventory for Archaeological Sites forms have
been completed and filed with the Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology.
6.0 ELIGIBILITY ASSESSMENTS
6.1 INTRODUCTION
The NRHP Criteria for Evaluation are used to interpret the significance of archaeological
sites identified through reconnaissance and assessment survey. These criteria are presented here
to facilitate review and assessment discussion.
The NRHP Criteria for Evaluation were developed to determine whether sites qualify for
inclusion in the NRHP. These criteria are standards designed to evaluate the. significance of
sites. The quality of significance is present in sites that possess integrity and
A) are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of history;
B) are associated with the lives of significant individuals in the past;
C)
embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction,
or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that
represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose. components may lack
individual distinction;
D)
have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or
history (Little et al. 2000).
To be eligible for the NRHP, a site must meet one or more of the criteria for evaluation
and must possess integrity. A site that has retained certain aspects that it possessed in the past
has the capacity to convey associations with historic patterns or persons, architectural or
engineering design, and technology or information about a culture or people (Little et al. 2000).
The NRHP eligibility of the sites identified during the survey will be considered below.
The sites are organized by site type.
29
30
Q
Q
~Q
'n
,~
:w
:U
jQ
:Q
U
:Q
~U
JO
~U
~U
~Q
]0
:Q
iQ
'0
,
6.2 LITHIC SeA TTERS
Five lithic scatters (12 H 12, 12 H 218, 12 H 826, 12 H 868, and 12 H 869) were
identified during the survey. While no site was subjected to subsurface examinations, the
numbers of artifacts collected at the sites are small, and none of the sites is considered likely to
produce intact cultural features. These sites are not associated with events that have made a
significant contribution to the broad patterns of history or with the lives of significant individuals
in the past. As no features or architectural remains are present or are likely to be present, these
sites cannot embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction.
Although it is possible that additional investigations may result in the collection of additional
artifacts, it is unlikely that any of the sites will yield information important in prehistory or
history. Sites 12 H 12, 12 H 218, 12 H 826, 12 H 868 and 12 H 869 are not considered to be
eligible or potentially eligible for the NRHP, and no further work is recommended.
6.3 HISTORIC SCATTERS
One historic scatter, 12 H 867, was documented. The site has been classified as a historic
scatter because there is no evidence of structural remnants either within the site boundaries or
nearby. Site 12 H 867 contained several pieces of historic brick, none of which could be dated.
The site has not been interpreted due to the lack of additional cultural debris; however, the site
could represent casual or accidental dumping of debris. A secondary literature search examining
all available Hamilton County maps from 1866 to present found no evidence of a structure of any
kind in this area. A small water well field exists directly west of the site and it is possible that
the bricks, which have no mortar associated with them, are the remnants of an old water well.
There is no direct evidence that site 12 H 867 is associated with events that have made a
significant contribution to the broad patterns of history or with the lives of significant individuals
in the past. As no features are present the site cannot embody the distinctive characteristics of a
type, period, or method of construction. Although it is possible that additional investigations
may result in the collection of additional artifacts, the site does not have the potential to yield
information important to our understanding of the history of the region. Site 12 H 867 is not
considered to be eligible or potentially eligible for the NRHP, and no further work is
recommended.
o
or
01
01
or
01
Ol
01
01
01
01
OJ
01
01
or
01
01
0:
0:
6.4 FARMSTEADS
One farmstead, 55034, was identified during the survey. The site contains standing
structures and does include a standing house. Shovel testing was conducted at this site in an
effort to locate evidence of additional structures or prehistoric archaeological remains, however,
no such evidence was encountered. The farmstead is intact, consisting of a residence and
associated outbuildings. Although the house is currently occupied, most of the outbuildings have
either collapsed or are in danger of imminent collapse.
The farmstead is a previously identified Architectural Site (55034), described as a typical
nineteenth-century farmstead constructed ca. 1870 (Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana
1992). It was determined that the site is not eligible for inclusion on the NRHP. The site has
little potential for containing significant archaeological information that is not provided by the
schematics and photographs provided in this report.
There is no evidence that the farmstead identified during the survey is associated with
events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history or with the lives
of significant individuals in the past. If the structures at the site embody the distinctive
characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, then their architectural potential
should be addressed by a qualified architectural historian. There are no known archaeological
features that meet this criterion. While it is possible that additional investigations may result in
the collection of artifacts, site has no potential to yield information important to our
understanding of the history of the region that is distinct from other farmsteads in the region.
The site is not considered to be eligible or potentially eligible for the NRHP as an archaeological
site, and no further archaeological work is recommended.
6.5 HOUSE SITES
One house site, 12 H 217, was identified during the survey. A total of 46 shovel tests
were excavated. Artifacts recovered included whiteware, stoneware, ironstone, metal fragments,
nails, container glass, and window glass. Artifacts observed but not recovered included charcoal,
brick fragments, concrete block fragments, and a portion of the chassis to an old wagon. In the
west-central portion of the area are the remnants of old concrete block foundation and some
wooden fence posts. Shovel testing encountered the remnants of a gravel driveway ata depth of
10 cm that was composed of a 5 cm thick lense of gravel, and a piece of sheet metal measuring
50 cm by 60 cm just below the ground surface. A total of 20 historic artifacts were recovered,
31
representing Architecture (n = 3), Kitchen (n = 10) and Activities (n = 7) functional groups.
Analysis of the artifacts recovered indicate a date range of ca 1790 to present in the sample.
Bennett and Hartman (1996) recommended that this site was potentially eligible for inclusion in
the NRHP.
There is some evidence that the house site identified during the survey is associated with
events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history or with the lives
of significant individuals in the past. If the structure at this site embodies the distinctive
characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, than their architectural potential
should be addressed. There are archaeological features that may meet this criterion. It is
possible that additional investigations may result in the collection of artifacts that have the
potential yield information important to our understanding of the history of the region that is
distinct from other farmsteads in the region. Site 12 H 217 is considered to be eligible or
potentially eligible for the NRHP as archaeological sites, and avoidance or Phase II evaluation is
recommended for this site.
7.0 RESEARCH QUESTION AND HYPOTHESIS EVALUATION
This section will evaluate the research questions and hypotheses formulated in Section
2.3 of this report.
7.1 PREHISTORIC QUESTION AND HYPOTHESIS EVALUATION
In reply to Research Question 1, three sites were documented during this investigation;
therefore, Ho has been disproved. Because of the limited information gathered from the sites
Research Question 2 cannot be properly evaluated. However, 12 H 826 does hold slight
potential as an ephemerally occupied Late Archaic encampment of some as yet undetermined
type.
7.2 HISTORIC QUESTION AND HYPOTHESIS EVALUATION
In reply to Research Question 1, one previously unrecorded historic site, 12 H 867, was
documented during this survey. In reply to Research Question 2, no additional structures were
located in association with 12 H 217, although if 12 H 867 is a well, it may be associated. In
reply to Research Question 3, site 55034 corresponds well with the historical development of
Clay Township as described in the cultural background.
32
:0
'0
:0
:0
:0
:0
10
;0
;0
:0
~O
~O
]
lw
;0
'0
. t
]0
. .
.U
,Q
0'
ii J.
0'
I
Qr
j j..
01
t 1
0'
j,
0'
j,
Q;
~
0:
0:
Q
0:
0:
Dr
i .
o
Q
O~
O~
0:
i _
8.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
In April 2000, ASC Group, Inc., was contracted by Martin Marietta Aggregates to
conduct a Phase Ia literature review for a proposed 70.8 ha extension of a gravel pit in Clay
Township, which is situated in Hamilton County, Indiana (Jackson 2000). In April 2001, ASC
Group, Inc., was contracted by Martin Marietta Aggregates to conduct a Phase Ia reconnaissance
survey for a portion (65.43-ha) of this same area. The project area is located in Sections 4 and 9,
Township 17 North, Range 4 East, Clay Township, Hamilton County, Indiana.
An examination of the cultural resource management report files indicates that two
professional surveys have been conducted in the proposed project area, and seven archaeological
sites(12 H 12, , 12 H 90, 12 H 217, 12 H 218, 12 H 219, 12 H 751, and 12 H 826) and one
architectural site (55034) have been documented in the current project area. Of the remaining
archaeological sites, two have been professionally examined (12 H 217 and 12 H 826). Site 12
H 217 was recommended as potentially eligible for inclusion on the NRHP, and 12 H 826 was
determined not eligible for the NRHP. The architectural site was recommended as not be
. eligible for the NRHP. Two additional small prehistoric lithic scatters (12 H 868 and 12 H 869)
and one historic scatter (12 H 867) were discovered during this survey. Diagnostic artifacts
recovered included a Late Archaic Brewerton Side Notched projectile point fragment from 12 H
826 and a Mississippian Daniels Triangular arrow point from 12 H 869. Site 12 H 217 may be
potentially eligible for the NRHP, and further archaeological work is recommended. Of the
remaining sites, none are considered eligible or potentially eligible for the NRHP, and no further
archaeological work is recommended.
33
Q'
. ~
0'
,
0'
,
0:
j
Q'
j,
0'
i
.. :.,
Q~
Y~
Y:
Q~
Q;
Q:
Q:
Q:
o~
0:
0:
0,
0:
9.0 REFERENCES
Anslinger, C. M.
1986 The Riverton Culture: Lithic Systems and Settlement Parameters. Unpublished
Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman.
Ball, D. B.
1984 Historic Artifact Patterning in the Ohio Valley. Proceedings of the Symposium on
Ohio Valley Urban and Historic Archaeology 2:24-36. Archaeological Survey, University
of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky.
Bassett, J. L., and R. Powell
1984 Stratigraphic Distribution of Cherts in Limestones of the Blue River Group in Southern
Indiana. In Prehistoric Chert Exploitation: Studies from the Midcontinent, edited by B. M.
Butler and E. E. May. Occasional Paper No.2. Center for Archaeological Investigations,
Southern lllinois University, Carbondale.
Bennett, S. N.
1996 Archaeological Field Reconnaissance: Addendum to Hazel Dell Road Improvements,
96th to 146th Street, Carmel, Hamilton County, Indiana. Landmark Archaeological and
Environmental Services, Lebanon, Indiana. Submitted to American Consulting Engineers,
Indianapolis, Indiana. Copies on file at the Division of Historic Preservation and
Archaeology, Indianapolis.
Bennett, S. N., and A. Hartman
1996 Archaeological Field Reconnaissance: Hazel Dell Road Improvements, 96th to 146th
Street, Carmel, Hamilton County, Indiana. Landmark Archaeological and Environmental
Services, Lebanon, Indiana. Submitted to American Consulting Engineers, Indianapolis,
Indiana. Copies on file at the Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology,
Indianapolis.
Bureau of Land Management
2000 The Official Land Patent Records Site. <http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/>. 04
September 2000.
Burkett, F. N., and R. Hicks
1986 Site Distributions and Physiographic Zones along the Big Blue River Glacial
Sluiceway. Paper presented at the Fall Meeting of the Indiana Academy of Science,
Indianapolis.
Campbell, F. S.
1962 The Story of Hamilton County, Indiana. F. S. Campbell.
Cantin, M. E.
ca. 1980 Provenience, Description and Archaeological Use of Selected Indiana Cherts.
Occasional Paper 1. Department of Anthropology, Indiana State University, Terre Haute.
34
0'
J ,
0'
~ l.
0'
j ~
Q'
, ,
0:
o~
o~
0"
l ,
0:
0:
Q
0'
I, i;
0:
o~
o
0,
o
o
o.
1988 Diachronic Model of Projectile Point Chert Usage in Southwestern Indiana. In Journal
of the Steward Anthropological Society, edited by K. McGowan and P. Kreisa, pp. 37-71.
Research Trends in Midwest Archaeology, vol. 18, No.1 and 2. University of Illinois,
Champaign-Urbana.
Cantin, M., and C. M. Anslinger
1985 Jeffersonville Chert: A Problem in Provenience. Paper presented at the Indiana
Academy of Science, Bloomington.
1985 Variations in Temporal Usage of Holland Chert in Selected Areas of Southwestern
Indiana. Paper presented at the Indiana Historical Society Meetings, Indianapolis.
Christiansen, A. L., M. E. Hancock, atId W. L. Weedman
1976 Preliminary Notes on theUeology and Prehistoric Utilization of Attica Chert. ~s. on
file, Indiana State University Anthropology Laboratory, Terre Haute.
Ciskowski, T. M
1992 Archaeological Testing of Site 12H63, Hamilton County, Indiana. Indianapolis
Amateur Archaeological Association, Indianapolis. Submitted to and copies on file at the
Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology, Indianapolis.
Cochran, D. R., M. Angst, and.J. A. Mohow
1995 McCullough's Run Site (12-B-I036): Four Bifurcate Tradition Cremations from South
Central Indiana. Paper presented at the 1995 Annual Meeting of the Midwestern
Archaeological Conference.
Cottingham, W. F.
1896 Map of Hamilton County, Indiana. W. F. Cottingham. On file at the Indiana State
Library. Indianapolis.
Cree, D. W.
1991 An Archaeological Database Enhancement Project: A Survey of Hamilton and Marion
Counties, Indiana. Reports of Investigation 31. Archaeological Resources Management
Service, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana. Copies on file at the Division of Historic
Preservation and Archaeology, Indianapolis.
Delcourt, P. A., and H. R. Delcourt
1980 Vegetation Maps for Eastern North America: 40,000 B.P. to the Present. In
Geobotany II, edited by R. C. Romans, pp. 123-165. Plenum Press, New York.
DeRegnaucourt, T., and J. Georgiady
1998 Prehistoric Chert Types of the Midwest. Occasional Monographs Series of the Upper
Miami Valley Archaeological Research Museum No.7. Western Ohio Podiatric Medical
Center, Greenville, Ohio.
35
0'
J ,
[Jr
j
0'
j ,
Dr
j ,
Q~
Q~
~
~
0:
Q~
~
0:
n,
1'.
O~
0:
O~
O~
Q'
Q'
Dorwin, 1. T.
1966 Fluted Points and Late-Pleistocene Geochronology in Indiana. Prehistory Research
Series 4(3). C. H. Faulkner and Major C. R. McCollough, editors. Indiana Historical
Society, Indianapolis.
Dragoo, D. W.
1976 Some Aspects of Eastern North American Prehistory: A Review 1975. American
Antiquity 4:3-27.
Eckard, C.
2001 Scraper-Planes of the Coastal Plain of Virginia.
http://www.geocities.com/nansemondasvlplaner/scraper.html
Fitting, J. E.
1965 Observations on Paleo-Indian Adaptive and Settlement Patterns. Michigan
Archaeologist 11: 103-109.
Ford, R. I.
1977 Evolutionary Ecology and the Evolution of Human Ecosystems: A Case Study from
the Midwestern United States of America. In Explanation of Prehistoric Change, edited by
J. N. Hill, pp. 153-184. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Gillio, D., F. Levine, and D. Scott
1980 Some Common Artifacts Found at Historical Sites. Cultural Resources Report No. 31.
USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region
Gooden, G. A.
1992 An illustrated Encyclopedia of British Pottery and Porcelain. Magna Books,
Leicester, England.
Gray, H. H., C. H. Ault, and S. Keller
1987 Bedrock Geological Map of Indiana. Miscellaneous Map 48. Indiana Department of
Natural Resources, Indianapolis.
Greber, N., R. Norris, S. W. Baker, S. Troy, J. Kime, and D. R. Bier, Jr.
1982 The Phase I and II Archaeological Survey of a Proposed Power Plant Site near
Omega, Pike County, Ohio. Ohio Historical Society, Columbus. Submitted to Chas T.
Main, Boston, Massachusetts. Copies on file at the Ohio Historic Preservation Office,
Columbus.
Haines, J. F.
1915 History of Hamilton County, Indiana. B. F. Bowen, Indianapolis.
36
D-
o ,
0'
il i
0,
i ~
Qr
t ~
0=
I,
0'
i ,
[[
~
G:
O~
~
0:
0:
Q~
0:
O~
0:
0-
Q'
l ~
Hedge, R. L.
1997 Forested Swell and Swale: The Central Till Plain Natural Region. In The Natural
Heritage of Indiana, edited by M. T. Jackson, pp. 195-199. Indiana University Press,
Bloomington.
Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana
1992 Hamilton County Interim Report. Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana,
Indianapolis
Homoya, M. A.
1997 The Natural Regions: An Introduction. In The Natural Heritage of Indiana, edited by
M. T. Jackson, pp. 159-160. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.
Hosteter, W. D.
1978 Soil Survey of Hamilton County, Indiana. USDA Soil Conservation Service in
cooperation with the Purdue University Agricultural Experiment Station. U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Householder, J. C.
1940 Surface Pottery from Marion County, Indiana. Paper presented at the Fall Meeting of
the Indiana Academy of Science, Muncie.
Jackson, C.
2000 A Phase Ia Archaeological Literature Review for a Proposed 70.8-ha Gravel Pit
Extension in Clay Township, Hamilton County, Indiana. ASC Group, Indianapolis.
Submitted to Martin Marietta Aggregates, Carmel, Indiana. Copies on file at Indiana
Department of Natural Resources, Department of Historic Preservation and Archaeology.
Justice, N. D.
1987 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Midcontinental and Eastern United States.
Indiana University Press, Bloomington.
1993 Cultural-Historic Perspectives of the McKinley Site. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the Indiana Historical Society, Indianapolis.
KEWA
1981 Daniels Triangular Points. Ontario Archaeological Society, Newsletter of the London
Chapter 81:1.
Lindsey, A. A.
1997 Walking in the Wilderness. In The Natural Heritage of Indiana, edited by M. T.
Jackson, pp. 113-123. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.
37
D'
0'
1 1.
0'
i ~
D'
( ..
0:
I,
o~
Q~
[f
o~
0:
[l
0:
0:
o~
0:
o~
Q:
Q'
0'
Litfin, J. C., P. C. Jackson, K. D. Vickery
1993 A Chronological Seriation Approach to Fort Ancient Triangular Arrowpoints in the
Central Ohio Valley. Paper presented at the 58th Annual Meeting of the Society for
American Archaeology, St. Louis, Missouri.
Little, B. J., E. M. Seibert, J. Townsend, J. H. Sprinkle, Jr., and J. Knoer!
2000 Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Archeological Properties. National
Register, History and Education, National Park Service, U. S. Department of the Interior,
Washington, D. C.
McCullough, R G.
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(1):54-114.
Magid, B. H.
1984 Ceramic Code Book. Ms. on file, ASC Group, Columbus, Ohio.
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.
Mitchell, D. R
1982 A Preliminary Archaeological Survey of Boone County, Indiana. Paper presented at
the Fall Meeting of the Indiana Academy of Science, South Bend.
Nelson, L. H.
1968 Nail Chronology as an Aid to Dating Old Buildings. Historical News 24(11).
American Association for State and Local History, Nashville, Tennessee.
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
Investigations 91-15. Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology, Indiana University,
Bloomington.
1994 The Archaeology of the Clampitt Site (12 Lr 329), an Oliver Phase Village in
Lawrence County, Indiana. In Current Research in Indiana Archaeology and Prehistory:
1994, edited by B. G. Redmond, pp. 1-130. Research Reports No. 15. Glenn A. Black
Laboratory of Archaeology, Indiana University, Bloomington.
Redmond, B. G., and R G. McCullough
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, Hoosier
38
0'
~ l
0:
0'
j ~
0'
j,
0'
I,
0:
Q
o~
o~
0:
~
0:
Ol
o~
o
o~
n'
~~
~:
0,
National Forest, Orange County, Indiana. Report of Investigations 95-9. Glenn A. Black
Laboratory of Archaeology, Indiana University, Bloomington.
Richards, R. 1., and J. O. Whitaker
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.
Ritchie, W. A., and R. E. Funk
1973 Aboriginal Settlement Patterns in the Northeast. Memoir 20. New York State
Musewn and Science Service, New York State University, Albany.
Scully, E. G.
1951 Some Central Mississippi Valley Projectile Point Types. Musewn of Anthropology,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Shaver, R. H., C. H. Ault, A. M. Burger, D. D. Carr, J. B. Droste, D. 1. Eggert, H. H. Gray, D.
Harper, N. R. Hasenmuller, W. A. Hasenmuller, A. S. Horowitz, H. C. Hutchison, B. D. Keith,
S. J. Keller, J. B. Patton, C. B. Rexroad, and C. E. Wier
1986 Compendium of Paleozoic Rock-Unit Stratigraphy in Indiana - A Revision. Geological
Survey Bulletin 59. Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Bloomington.
Skinner, S. M., and R. Norris
1981 Archaeological Assessment of Six Sites in the Central Hocking Valley for the Proposed
Relocation of Route 33 through Athens and Hocking Counties, Ohio. Ohio Historical
Society, Colwnbus. Submitted to the Ohio Department of Transportation, Columbus.
Copies on file at the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus.
Snyder, J. B.
1992 Flow Blue: A Collector's Guide to Pattern, History, and Values. Schiffer, West
Chester, Pennsylvania.
South, S.
1977 Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.
1978 Pattern Recognition in Historical Archaeology. American Antiquity 43 :223-230.
Stafford, C. R.
1994 Structural Changes in Archaic Landscape Use in the Dissected Uplands of
Southwestern Indiana. American Antiquity 59:219-237.
Stockdale, P. B.
1931 The Borden (Knobstone) Rocks of Southern Indiana. Publication No. 98. Indiana
Department of Conservation, Indianapolis.
39
D~
0'
~ ~
0'
I ,
0:
I ,
0'
I ~
0:
~
~
0:
O~
~
0:
O~
0:
0:
O~
0:
O~
0'
Tankersley, K. B.
1987 Patterns in Lithic Resource Procurement and Exploitation among Early Paleo-Indians
of Indiana. Reports of Investigations 87-60. Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology,
Bloomington, Indiana. Submitted to and copies available from the Indiana Department of
Natural Resources, Indianapolis.
1989 Late Pleistocene Lithic Exploitation and Human Settlement in the Midwestern United
States. In Paleoindian Lithic Resource Use, edited by C. Ellis and J. Lothrop, pp. 259-292.
Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.
Tanner, H. H.
1987 Atlas of the Great Lakes Indian History. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Tomak, C. H.
1981 Cherts and Their Utilization in an Area of Southwestern Indiana. Paper presented at the
Indiana Historical Society Meeting, Indianapolis.
United States Geological Survey
1967 7.5' series Fishers Quadrangle, Indiana. (photorevised 1988).
Vickery, K. D.
1999 Archaic Manifestations in Southwestern Ohio and Vicinity. Ms. on file, ASC Group,
Indianapolis, Indiana.
Winters, H. D.
1968 Value Systems and Trade Cycles of the Late Archaic of the Midwest. In New
Perspectives in Archaeology, edited by S. R. Binford and L. R. Binford, pp. 175-221.
AIdine, Chicago.
40
0,
o
,
q'
0'
Or
0:
~
~
o~
Ol 10.0 FIGURES
In.
~i
0:
O~
~r
o
O~
O~
0:0
o
41
, D'
Or
,
0'
i ~
q'
~:
~'
, Q~
I
I
Ol
: Q:
Q:
~
0:
0:
0:
0:
0:
o~
0'
0:
Figure 1. Map of Indiana showing the proposed project area vicinity.
42
0'
J J.
0'
, ,
0;
I ,
0'
1 L
0:
i ,
0'
i ,
Q~
0:
0:
o.
l ~
Q
Q:
Q:
Q~
o
L i;
q~
0:
p~
p~
0'
, ,
01
t i
0'
. L
D'
j ,
Qr
ii i.
0:
~
o~
0:
0:
~
0:
Q~
0:
o
Q
u~
U:
~.~
Figure 2. A portion of the photorevised 1988 Fishers, Indiana, quadrangle (USGS 7.5'
topographic map) showing the original proposed project area, the current project
area, and survey areas.
43
0'
0'
I l
D'
. ,
D~
Ii ..
0'
0:
O~
Q
0:
0:
Q
O~
O~
o
o
o
o
o
u
III
Original project area
boundary
New proposed project
area boundary
Survey areas
Areas not surveyed,
to be avoided
o
I L
0'
j
0'
.I. j.
O.
1
[J
1.
~'
:t ~
Q
01
l .
0:
Q:
Q
0'
l 1
O~
o
l Jj
o
l1;
o
o
O.
o
Figure 3. A portion of the photorevised 1988 Fishers, Indiana, quadrangle (USGS 7.5'
topographic map) showing original and current proposed project area and the
previously documented archaeological and architectural sites.
44
0'
0'
Of
,{ 1
0'
~ i
0'
, "
0:
Q~
0:
0'
I. ,
0:
Q
o~
o.
. ,
o~
o
l i
0.
U.
o~
o~
~<, ..
Original project area
boundary
, ..... Ne,:" proposed
project area boundary
- Previously identified
archaeological sites
. - - Prev,iously identified
architectural sites
. Base: USGS Fishers
Indiana, 7.5' series quadr~ngle
! . ..f.....fj..
0'
I ,
0'
j ,
D~
I ,
0'
I ,
o~
j ,
0:
O~
O~
0:
0:
~
0:
0:
o
o
l .
U
o
O.
U
Figure 4. A portion of the photorevised 1988 Fishers, Indiana, quadrangle (USGS 7.5'
topographic map) showing the proposed project area and areas that have been
previously surveyed.
45
o
l. ~
0'
0'
. ,
0'
j
Or
i ,
Q:
Q
0:
i ,
0'
i ,
~:
Q
0'
l ~
0'
l ,
0'
i ,
0'
I b
Q:
Q,
Q:
o
i
,. .. ~.,
bOriginal project area
oundary
.. ... New proposed project
area boundary
- Archaeological sites
. - - Architectural sites
. Base: USGS Fishers
ii Indiana. 7.5' series quadrangle
A. (:';Y:~" .i>
ii( 1 -
;V;,.
,\t.
0,,"-
0'
p~
0'
j ,
o~
l ~
0:
l ~
0:
Q
o~
l ;.
0:
0:
Q
0;
15
0:
o~
o
c .Ii
0'
1 ,
o
P:
o
Figure 5. A portion of the photorevised 1988 Fishers, Indiana, quadrangle (USGS 7.5'
topographic map) showing new sites and relocated sites documented during the
current survey.
46
o
0'
j ,
0'
J ,
0'
I,
0:
j ,
0'
.. L
Q~
0:
Q:
o.
1 ;.
Q
o~
0:
0'
I j,
o
Q
o~
0:
o~
0,
Qf
u:
Qr
~:
U~
O~
Q~
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
U
o
o
o
Q
Q
Figure 6. Site 12 H 218 in Area A.
47
0'
Or
0'
J ,
- - - Site boundary
- Artifact
2 Artifact number
0'
, ,
0:
0:
o~
0:
0:
, ,.
,.,
'" ,
'" ,
'" ,
'" ,
'" ,
,/ ,
,/ ,
,/ ,
,/ \
/'" -3 \
/ \
/ \
/ \
I \
I \
\ \
\ 12H218 \
\ \
\ I
\ I
\ _2 I
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ ,/
, ,/
, ,/
, ,/
, ,/
, ,/
, '"
, '"
, //
'...../
0:
~
0:
O~
O~
0:
0'
l;
110 meters to 106th street
j
0-
l ,~
o , 5
meters
10
0:
O~
Area A
130 meters to
Hazeldell Parkway
N
t
..
~,J,
,
0'
0'
i
[J
[J
,
0'
,
[J
.J
[J
.
o
r[J
J,
[J
.....
[J
.
~
~
J
. ~ - ~ - - - -- - -- - - - - - -- - - - . - - - - - - '-. -
- - ", '" '...-,.. - '"
- -----------
Figure 7. Site 12 H 867 in Area B.
48
0'
0'
J ,
0'
J L
- - - Site boundary
. Artifact
2 Artifact number
Contour
o~
0'
I,
Q:
~
0:
o~
0:
~
0:
o~
o~
0:
o~
0,
0,
o~
35 meters
to edge of field
Area B
-------
- ~-~
__M_.._
,,""-,....
"''''''~
-''''''-''
"''''''-..
''-......
"
'''",-
".
N
j
"
"\
\
\
\
.".-..."""""....''"''
<to """"
<tIk ""
o.sf, "
0.0'
& ~
"-
,
,
,
,
,
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
//----..................
// '............
,/ ......
/ ......,
/ ,
/ ,
I ,
I \
( \
I I
I I
\ I
\ I
\ I
\ I
\ I
\ I
\ I
\ I
\ I
\ I
\ I
\. 12 H 867 /
, ,/
, /
.............. ,..-'
------
130 meters to
106th Street
j
,
\
\
,
,
i
I
i
I
i
\
\
10 20
meters
u'
Q:
[J
u:
Q:
cr
Q
Q
U
Q
U
[J
[J
Q
o
o
o
o
o
Figure 8. Site 12 H 12 in Area C.
49
0'
,
0'
i I.
0'
j ~
- - - Site boundary
. Catalogued artifact
x Discarded artifact
2 Artifact number
Contour
0:
0:
I.
0:
y~
O~
0:
0:
~
0:
O~
O~
Q)
::>
c
Q)
~
~
>
a::
I>
~,
o
O~
O~
O~
~~-----------~--------
./
././
./
/
/
I
J
I
,
I
,
J
I
J
J
\
\
\
\
......
......
............
--
.~~......_~..................,
-'-"-"-'''''''''~''''''''''''''''
,..............,"-...................
",
"
"
x25
--......
'\
\
\
\
\
\
\
I
I
I
\
\
\
\
\
\
,
,
I
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/"
././
./
././
/
/
/
..................... ,,/
------_/
Area C
_22
_21
-23
_24
x26
x27
12 H 12
x29
-28
edge of current gravel pit
N
I
10
meters
0'
, ~
0'
0'
0'
o
,
o
o
.
o
j;
o
o
.
Q
q
Q
q
~
~
o
.
o
o
Figure 9. Site 12 H 826 in Area C.
50
q,
q'
0'
~ ~
0'
. ,
D~
j
0:
O~
~:
0:
0:
~
0:
0:
0:
w:
0:
0,
o
O~
N
I
--- Site boundary
e Catalogued artifact
x Discarded artifact
2 Artifact number
--- Contour
,-----~
__---I
_"".r'
/"
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
."".. _ /......;;.:::_._.._.m_...~_
"/'" .............
"/ --
r _
, ' ,
I // "....
, / ....-
'/ --
,/ ....
r x 15 \
/. e11 e14 \
~I \
/ I \
/ I '
/ I I
/ I e10 e 13 I
/ I I
/ I I
/ I I
/ I e12
/ I e8 J
II I e9 I
I I
/ I e7 I
/ I e6 e5 / ,./../'/
I I 12 H 826 / /,/
I' I /~
1/'
.,:...// : x 16 x 17 e4 /' f//' //
: I ,/// //'/
, // ~~../~... I .~...................
I .//.' , ,//
I / e 1/~/ [.//,./
I e 18 // / . /J
\\ .;/ / / //,/
\ : . / i// ,
\ / ,
\ / i ,
\\ j / ! /
! ,
\ f, I
\ i, I
'\ I e 20 j I
}, I I
. , /
, , i I
'\ I i /
~, I
, , I
, 1/
'_Y
I
i
..._~-
'" "'-"'-~,."""""'-"""'"
-,...,
.............,.
Area C
/
./
/
/
/
/
/
///
/
/
---..---....-...
__,.e..'"
...---". -
.~,.,...
200 meters to
River Avenue
.
10 20
meters
o
We
Of
O~
Q:
O~
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
U
Q
o
o
o
o
o
Figure 10. Site 12 H 868 in Area D.
51
D'
;: i;
0'
j l
0'
t ~
,
'\ N
\1
'''''
""
"-
'\,
,
,
,
,
,
,
\
\
\
\
\
\
\\
\
\\
\
\
\
\
- - - Site boundary
. Artifact
2 Artifact number
.,-,.",,,--, Contour
0'
i .
\
\
\
/'
/ \
I \
I \
/ \
I \
I \
I \
I \
I \
I \
I \
I . 35 \
I \
I \
I \
I \
I \
I \
I \
I \
I \
I \
I \
I \
I \
I \
I \
I \
I 12 H 868 \
I \
I \
I \
I \
I \
I \
I . 36 \
, \
, \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ ,
\ .37 I
, I
, I
" I
, I
" I
, /
'- '"
-------....../"
Cl
I'
0'
"
~
O~
0:
0:
~
0:
O~
0:
0'
l >
,
\
.-
'0.
Qj
>
e!
C)
'E
~
....
::::J
o
Area D
360 meters to
River Avenue
.
100 meters to
Blue Woods Creek
j
q~
0:
0"
O.
10
meters
10
U
U:
U:
DI
Dr
o
"
W
Q
Q
~
Q
Q
Q
W
U
Q
[J
o
Figure 11. Site 12 H 869 in Area D.
52
o
j ,
0'
J ..
0:
0:
o~
U:
u:
o
0:
n.
~~
Q
0:
0:
o
U
u
0,
W:
W
N
- - - Site boundary I
- Artifact
2 Artifact number
)
50 meters to
small vinyard drainage
..",..-..----.....
.... .....,
/ "
/ "
/ "
/ "
I ,
( "
I ,
r -32 I
I _31 I
I I
I I
, (
, /
, I
I -30 I
I I
I 12 H 869 I
I
I I
I I
I I
\ -33 I
I
I I CD
I I :::I
, <::
I CD
\ I ~
\ I ~
\ I >
\ I 0:
\ I
\ -34 I
\ I
\ I
, /
, /
, /
.....-.....
Area D
~ 10 20
, ,
meters
0'
W'
q:
q:
0:
0:
Q
o
o~
~~
Q
~:
o
o
o
L .
Q
Y
U
q
Figure 12. Site 12 H 217 in Area H showing shovel test locations.
53
CJ'
r:=J
=
III
~
r:=:J,
c=':
t:=:'
CJ
Q
t=J.
~
q
J=;)
r:=:J.
t=J
t=J
c;J
r:=J;
-==:1
o
-
o
Negative shovel test pit
Positive shovel test pit
Negative radial shovel test pit
Positive radial shovel test pit
Disturbed shovel test pit
Site boundary
Area boundary
Gas line indicator
surface collected; no artifacts recovered
.
x
Area A
...
--------------------------------~~
L-- -- ............
--_._-_._._._._._~~._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._~~-_._._-_._._.-
/' ,I
",,"" ........ I
",,"" 0 0 0 0 ....
/6// 0 -- ~. .- -- -. " ~- '. '. .. 0 . 0 0 ":"'" 0 I
/ -.. .... -... -.. ..... -... " " ' .
"" ' " I
// .... '\ ''lo \
/ D' \ .
/ structural " wagon chassis \ I
/ remnants ' , " \
P · 0 . H 3 . G 3 ' " 0 F 3" ',0 D. D 3 0 0 0 ~ i
Tr. K " " I .
I " " I I
I " '" / .
I ' ,. / I
I .. " ''\ /
\ ' , /
\ 0 0 . 0 0'" E 2 .... 0 0 0 III 0
\ 12 H 217 " estimated', /
\ ' driveway , I
\ Area H : location : I
\ "I
\ ',I
\ 0 x X 0 .: E1- : 0 0 ri
\ Tr. J Tr. I Tr. H Tr. G Tr. F 'T ' Tr. D Tr. C Tr. B
\... : r. E , ;
\ I: /
, :: I
,_ I
___________________________--___~: I /
~__ 1- ___ ~/
x
Tr.A
...
1 06th Street
Area F
~l
c=J
N
!
I
~
meters
10
0'
. ~
Dr
, ,
0'
~ i,
D:
, ,
O~
0:
Ui
Or
0:
0:
Q
o
l.
D
L .a-
D
L..Jl
o
.
D
.
o
. ...
o
o
Figure 13. Site 55034 in Areas I and J showing shovel test locations.
54
o Negative shovel test pit
x Disturbed shovel test pit
Site boundary
Area boundary
Drainage
Contours
Area F
/.-
__---.------~. oT~A
----------- ---- ----/-.7.----:;//-~:1---------1
/' ,/,// 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tr. B
- -- - - -- - r -~ -- -- - ~
/ /-- -- __g[~v~_d[lyeY!ay_ -i
/' //0 0 0 x~ 0 oTr.C
/ /// :0..".-'- -:'>,' 0 ~ Area J I
,I 0 " .:. x_ " 1:;1 _ 0 X 0 0 Tr. D
! / r~~t~l~~~(r~D 55034 I,
it D I barn ,. .->", D., 0 0 o Tr'lE ;
1\ __ __ ____
I' lOx x x x x x Tr. F
1 -- -- -- -- gravel ai'iveway -- -1'
, 1 '
I 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tr. b
'I " _-------------J
'- -- I
i 0 ~---;;-- 0 //;.:=:~.::::::::::.~~~ 0 Tr. H
.._.._.._.._.._..~=-==-:-.~=.-.~.~..-:-" ~.":":-:...:.~..
Area E
Area D
N
t
Area G
surface collected
Muller Property
not tested
r
.. - '"'- ------ -- ---- ----.. -.. --=-- ..=.-::=r--.-.:::.:----=::.~,--- -- ------ - ----.. - ..~-_.. --- ---1
----- ,
---------------------', .
Tr. A 0 0 0 X 0 X X 0 x Do',,, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 !
EJ 55034 Area I " I
barn D~i~~ 0 0 x I barn I c:=J 0 D ~) 0 o__------------I.---.-----.i
., ./ ,...... \
_~------------------_.--------------.~~----/ i
.",.------
-_/
----------------------------~
210 meters to
Blue Woods Creek
!
, I
Area G
surface collected
Q)
:J
!:
Q)
~
~
Q)
>
0::
0'
i
Dr
I
o
j
0'
d "
Dr
i,
0:
O~
Dr
I'
0:
0: 11.0 TABLES
~
O~
Q~
11'
,.~
o
n.'
~~
o
t. jj
~..
o
55
: CJ "CJ '"LJ
~CJ :CJ ~
~
~ ~ ...:=:J
..t.=J ~ -t:=J
, ",j... l-' '" 1'- ...
~CJ
~CJ
.cCJ
~_CJ
Table 1. Previously Recorded Sites.
Site No. Original Description Methods Results
12 H 90 Historic Site 5 m Survey Site did not extend into project area boundaries.
12 H 218 Lithic Scatter 5 m Survey Two other pieces lithic debitage recovered/plotted.
12 H 219 Isolated Find 5m Survey No artifacts recovered.
12 H 12 Lithic Scatter 5m Survey Found site, few pieces of lithic debitage
12 H 826 Lithic Scatter 5m Survey Found site, I-Brewerton Side Notched broken, I-Scraper-Plane
12 H 751 Lithic Scatter 5m Survey No artifacts recovered.
12 H 217 Historic Site 10m Shovel test pit Several positive test pits, defmed site boundaries.
56
.CJ
..L:J
c-CJ ,:-t=:J ~C:J ~EJ ::0 :-0 ~t=J :-L;J ~ ~ ~Q ~ rt==;J ~CJ ~ ^ CJ -CJ .CJ .CJ
Table 2. Results of the Survey.
Area Field Site No. Correct Site No. Original Description. How Tested Results
A 12 H 90 12 H 90 Historic Site 5m Survey Site did not extend into project area boundaries.
A 12 H 218 12 H 218 Lithic Scatter 5m Survey Two other pieces lithic debitage
recovered/plotted.
B 12 H 219 12 H 219 Isolated Find 5m Survey No artifacts recovered.
B FS4 12 H 867 New site 5m Survey Unrecorded scatter of historic brick.
C 12 H 12 12 H 12 Lithic Scatter 5m Survey Found site, few pieces of lithic debitage
C FS 1 12 H 826 Lithic Scatter 5m Survey Found site, IBrewerton Side Notched broken,
1 Scraper-Plane
D FS2 12 H 869 New site 5m Survey Unrecorded lithic scatter, IDaniels Triangular
arrow point.
D FS 5 12 H 868 New site 5m Survey Unrecorded lithic scatter
E NA NA NA 10m Survey No sites found
F NA NA NA 10m Survey No sites found
G 12 H 751 12 H 751 Lithic Scatter 5m Survey No artifacts recovered.
H FS 3 12H217 Historic Site 10m STP Several positive test pits, defined site boundaries.
I 55034 55034 Historic Site 10m STP No positive test pits.
J 55034 55034 Historic Site 10m STP No positive test pits.
57
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Table 3. Prehistoric Artifact Analysis.
Bag Site Area STPlUnit Class Raw Material Weight Length Width Thickness Heat Altered Cortex Use Count Type and Age
No. (2) (mm) (mm) (mm) Wear
2 12 H 218 A Surface Projectile Pt. Holland Chert 2.1 22.88 16.86 5.29 Heat Damaged Yes Yes I Indetenninate
Fragment
3 12 H 218 A Surface Flake, Holland Chert 0.7 13.26 18.62 2.6 Heat Treated 1 Indetenninate
Indeterminate
12 H 218 Total 2
Projectile Pt. Brewerton
4 12 H 826 C Surface Glacial Chert 3.7 18.28 25.94 7.85 Heat Damaged Yes 1 Side Notched,
Fragment Late Archaic
5 12 H 826 C Surface Flake, Secondary Glacial Chert 0.6 16.46 11.12 3.95 Heat Treated 1 Indetenninate
6 12 H 826 C Surface Flake, Glacial Chert 1.5 13.17 24.49 6.06 Heat Treated 1 Indetenninate
Indeterminate
7 12 H 826 C Surface Flake, Primary Wyandotte 8.7 30.87 34.9 8.63 No Yes Yes 1 Distal end
Chert scraper usa~e
8 12 H 826 C Surface Flake, Tertiary Muldraugh 0.2 11.91 10.77 2.84 Heat Treated I Indetenninate
9 12 H 826 C Surface Flake, Fragment Glacial Chert 2.6 19.78 21.15 7.59 1 Indetenninate
10 12 H 826 C Surface Flake, Secondary Attica 0.4 18.66 10.07 2.59 1 Indetenninate
11 12 H 826 C Surface Scraper-Plane Huronian 295.8 87.6 109.6 36.98 Yes 1 Late Archaic
Tillite Style
12 12 H 826 C Surface Flake, Secondary Liston Creek 2.7 24.35 20.08 7.64 1 Indetenninate
13 12 H 826 C Surface Flake, Secondary Holland Chert 1.8 26.07 20 5.12 Heat Treated 1 Indetenninate
14 12 H 826 C Surface Fragment Glacial Chert 4.4 18.45 29.4 9.92 1 Indetenninate
15 12 H 826 C Surface Discarded
16 12 H 826 C Surface Discarded
17 12 H 826 C Surface Discarded I I
58
~ CJ ~CJ .0
~"CJ ~O :t:=:.J .-cJ ,.c:] r:t=;J ..t:=J -L:J -L:J rL;J -a::::::::J -t=J ~.t=:J .t=:J
~ ,." .. ~ , " ''''I.~
.CJ ..CJ
Table 3. Prehistoric Artifact Analysis.
Bag Site Area STPlUnit Class Raw Material Weight Length Width Thickness Heat Altered Cortex Use Count Type and Age
No. (2) (mm) (mm) (mm) Wear
18 12 H 826 C Surface Flake, Muldraugh 0.7 19.07 13.54 2.54 Heat Treated 1 Indeterminate
Indeterminate
19 12 H 826 C Surface Biface Fragment Mu1draugh 1.3 23.86 10.51 5.59 Heat Damaged 1 Indeterminate
20 12 H 826 C Surface Projectile Pt. Harrodsburg 1.8 11.43 20.04 8.26 No 1 Probably Late
Fra~ent Chert Archaic
12 H 826 Total 14
21 12 H 12 C Surface Flake, Secondary Muldraugh 2.4 15.41 27.76 6.48 Heat Treated 1 Indeterminate
22 12 H 12 C Surface Flake, Muldraugh 0.2 11.76 7.77 1.62 Heat Treated I Indeterminate
Indeterminate
23 12 H 12 C Surface Flake, Secondary Glacial Chert 2.8 29.42 15.11 7.84 Heat Treated Yes 1 Indeterminate
24 12 H 12 C Surface Flake, Tertiary Muldraugh 0.1 9.52 6.93 1.55 Heat Treated 1 Indeterminate
25 12 H 12 C Surface Discarded
26 12 H 12 C Surface Discarded
27 12 H 12 C Surface Discarded
28 12 H 12 C Surface Flake, Primary Holland Chert 6.7 26.26 28.18 10.35 No Yes 1 Indeterminate
29 12 H 12 C Surface Discarded
12 H 12 Total 5
Daniels
30 12 H 869 D Surface Projectile Pt. Attica 1.6 28.19 13.39 4.18 No Yes 1 Triangular Pt.,
Mississippian
31 12 H 869 D Surface Flake, Secondary Glacial Chert 0.8 9.42 15.4 4.9 Heat Treated 1 Indeterminate
32 12 H 869 D Surface Flake, Glacial Chert 2.4 17.51 24.39 5.69 Heat Damaged 1 Indeterminate
Indeterminate
59
, CJ CJ ::CJ .CJ ~CJ :t:=) -t=] ...c:J r1=.J ...t=J :-t=;J --t::=J rLJ -t=J -CJ -CJ -CJ -CJ .t=:J
Table 3. Prehistoric Artifact Analysis.
I~ Site Area STPlUnit Class Raw Material Weight Length Width Thickness Heat Altered Cortex Use Count Type and Age
(2) (mm) (mm) (mm) Wear
33 12 H 869 D Surface Core Glacial Chert 53.1 67.73 42.68 18.24 Yes 1 Indeterminate
34 12 H 869 D Surface Flake, Glacial Chert 2.6 24.5 16.36 8.26 Yes 1 Indeterminate
Indeterminate
12 H 869 Total 5
35 12 H 868 D Surface End Scraper Glacial Chert 15.2 41.04 27.38 13.78 Heat Damaged Yes 1 Scoped End
Scraper
36 12 H 868 D Surface Flake, Secondary Glacial Chert 0.5 9.81 13.2 3.68 1 Indeterminate
37 12 H 868 D Surface Flake, Glacial Chert 3.7 20.76 25.09 7.86 1 Indeterminate
Indeterminate
12 H 868 Total 3
Grand Total 29
60
:-CJ :CJ ..CJ :CJ :CJ ~q ::t=:J :t==.J ~ ~ --t:=J ~ ~ -CJ -CJ ""CJ -t=J ..LJ .C]
Table 4. Historic Artifact Analysis.
Bag Site Area Transect STP Functional Class Description Count Date Range Comments
No. Group
I 12 H 867 B Architecture Ceramic Brick 4
12 H 867 Total 4
38 12H217 H D 04 Kitchen Ceramic rron~one,undecorated 1 ca. 1840-present
(Mal!id 1984)
ca. 1790-1890s
39 12H217 H D 03 Architecture Metal Nail, cut 1 (Nelson 1968; Gillio
et a1. 1980)
39 12 H 217 H D 03 South Kitchen Ceramic Whiteware, flow blue 1 1835-early 1900s
transfer print (Snvder 1992)
40 12 H 217 H E 01 Activities Metal Pipe fitting, male coupling, 1
ferrous
Ironstone, partial maker's 1851-present
41 12H217 H E 02 Kitchen Ceramic mark "J. & G. ME..." (J. & 1 3 refitto 1
G. Meakin) (Godden 1992)
41 12H217 H E 02 Kitchen Ceramic Ironstone, undecorated 1 ca. 1840-present
(Ma~id 1984)
42 12 H 217 H H 02 Activities Metal Wire, ferrous 6
ca. 1790-1890s
42 12 H 217 H H 02 Architecture Metal Brad, cut 1 (Nelson 1968; Gillio
et a1. 1980)
43 12 H 217 H F 04 Kitchen Glass Container, colorless 1
43 12H217 H F 04 Kitchen Glass Container, amber 1
44 12 H 217 H F 01 Kitchen Ceramic rron~one,undecorated 1 ca. 1840-present
(Mal!id 1984)
Stoneware, gray paste,
44 12 H 217 H F 01 Kitchen Ceramic brown glaze interior, salt 1
~laze exterior
Stoneware rim, buff paste,
45 12H217 H G 03 Kitchen Ceramic Albany slip interior, salt 1
glaze exterior
61
~ :-CJ ::t=J :CJ :CJ :CJ ~ .~ ~ ~ :-t==.J :-t=:J rt:==.J ~ ~ -CJ -CJ ..t=J ~r:=J
Table 4. Historic Artifact Analysis.
Bag Site Area Transect STP Functional Class Description Count
No. Group Date Range Comments
46 12 H 217 H G 04 Architecture Glass Window, tinted 1
Stoneware, gray paste,
47 12 H 217 H J 03 Kitchen Ceramic colorless glaze interior and 1
exterior
12 H 217 Total 20
Grand Total 24
62
I
J
)l
l '
\}
l '
q', 12.0 l'LA'fV.S
~
U
l \;
Q
l .
0,
W
- ;
U.
Q
.
D
63
,.--,
---
o
o
o
D
Q
D
~
o
~
~
~
o
o
o
o
~
D
D
o
Plate 1. Area A, looking west.
Plate 2. Site 12 H 218 in Area A, looking west.
64
D
D
o
D
a
a
o
o
D
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
Plate 3. Area B, looking west.
Plate 4. Site 12 H 867 in Area B, looking west.
65
o
D
o
o
D
a
a
o
D
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
1<.0.
~ !fi,;j
01",
'1.l
;l! ~
-~ ~
.'J f.f
~
.;~
~
~
~
:,1'.
"#
...
", "#!J!
;;;: ~
IG
~
:..0 ~
~
!it "". r:ri',,-:~ ;it
'?~ i-li-~ .....;:3 ;~
'(; i ~ .~ Ii'li
~~~~~" :/~ ~
'"
'"
~
,
II
Plate 5. Area C, looking east.
Plate 6. Site 12 H 12 in Area C, looking south.
66
Q
D
o
a
Q
Q
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
a
o
o
D
Plate 8.
Plate 7. Site 12 H 826 in Area C, looking east.
o 1 2 3 4 5
~
o 1 2
eM
IN
Photograph of diagnostic projectile points, left to right Brewerton Side Notched (12
H 826) and Daniels Triangular (12 H 869).
67
o
o
o
o
o
D
a
a
D
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
a
o
o
o 1 2 3 4
..,.
o 1
5
eM
IIN
2
Plate 9. Scraper-Plane from 12 H 826.
fj!
I
.~ 1i'-;~
~...
'~ ..
~~ ill ~.~ {Ie "'~. ~_
.;-cs
~ ~~
~ ~;p; -
~D
11
J;.
!
Plate 10. Area D, looking east.
68
D
D
o
o
o
o
o
Q
D
o
D
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
D
r-~-
.
- - ----,
1
,
Plate 11. Site 12 H 868 in Area D, looking west.
I
",',
Plate 12. Site 12 H 869 in Area D, looking north.
69
I
J
o
D
D
D
o
D
o
D
D
,0
o
u
o
D
D
o
o
o
o
'It>
~
Plate 13. Area E, looking west.
-I
Plate 14. Area F, looking west.
70
o
o
o
D
D
o
D
o
D
o
o
D
D
D
D
D
D
~
D
r.....'.
'.: l!li
t
Plate 15. Area G, looking east.
Plate 16. Site 12 H 217 in Area H, looking north.
71
o
o
o
D
o
D
o
o
o
o
D
o
~
D
o
o
o
o
o
Plate 17. Wagon Parts at 12 H 217, looking east.
Plate 18. Foundation Remnants at 12 H 217, looking south.
72
o
o
~
a
o
D
o
D
D
o
D
D
o
D
o
o
o
D
o
Plate 19. Site 55034, with outbuildings, looking east.
Plate 20. Barn in Area I, Site 55034, looking south.
73
o
D
o
o
o
D
D
o
Q
D
o
o
o
o
a
o
D
o
o
Plate 21. Second barn in Area I, Site 55034, looking east.
r~'.~
Plate 22. House in Area J, Site 55034, looking west.
74
a
o
~
D
o
o
o
o
D
o
D
o
~
a
o
o
o
o
10
Plate 23. Barn in Area J, Site 55034, looking south.
75