Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 16 – uploaded by Kevin C. Nolan

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Figure 18: Survey Area 1 Soil Sample and Artifact Locations.

Figure 18 Survey Area 1 Soil Sample and Artifact Locations.

Related Figures (119)

Figure 1: Hamilton County within the state of Indiana. Glacial limit shapefiles by Gray and Letsinger (2010).
Figure 1: Hamilton County within the state of Indiana. Glacial limit shapefiles by Gray and Letsinger (2010).
Figure 2: Examples of Fall Creek Chert from the AAL Comparative Chert Collection
Figure 2: Examples of Fall Creek Chert from the AAL Comparative Chert Collection
The soils in Hamilton County are of primarily glacial parent material. There are five general soil map units (associations) in Hamilton County (Soil Survey Staff et al. 2013): Crosby- Treaty-Miami, Fox-Ockley-W estland, Miami-Crosby-Treaty, Patton-Del Rey-Crosby, and Sawmill-Lawson-Genesee (Figure 4). Hosteter (1978:3-4) describes the soils as nearly universally deep, and relatively level. Some upland soils are formed in thin layers of loess (e.g., Crosby). The Ockley-Westland-Fox soils occupy glacial outwash terraces. Floodplain soils (Sawmill-Lawson-Genesse) are generally well drained and productive.
The soils in Hamilton County are of primarily glacial parent material. There are five general soil map units (associations) in Hamilton County (Soil Survey Staff et al. 2013): Crosby- Treaty-Miami, Fox-Ockley-W estland, Miami-Crosby-Treaty, Patton-Del Rey-Crosby, and Sawmill-Lawson-Genesee (Figure 4). Hosteter (1978:3-4) describes the soils as nearly universally deep, and relatively level. Some upland soils are formed in thin layers of loess (e.g., Crosby). The Ockley-Westland-Fox soils occupy glacial outwash terraces. Floodplain soils (Sawmill-Lawson-Genesse) are generally well drained and productive.
Figure 4: Soil Associations within Hamilton County. Note: Hosteter (1978) only shows four associations and these bear a general similarity to the current STATSG( (Soil Survey Staff et al. 2013) map units; however, each specific description would be different.
Figure 4: Soil Associations within Hamilton County. Note: Hosteter (1978) only shows four associations and these bear a general similarity to the current STATSG( (Soil Survey Staff et al. 2013) map units; however, each specific description would be different.
Table 1: Soils of Hamilton C ounty
Table 1: Soils of Hamilton C ounty
Figure 6: Soil Map Units (SMUs) Classified by Landform (Soil Survey Staff et al. 2011).
Figure 6: Soil Map Units (SMUs) Classified by Landform (Soil Survey Staff et al. 2011).
Figure 7: USGS Hydrological Subregions (HUC04) (USDA-NRCS, USGS, and EPA 2010). Figure 7: USGS Hydrological Subregions (HUC04) (USDA-NRCS, USGS, and EPA 2010). Figure 8: USGS Hydrological Basins (HUC06) (USDA-NRCS, USGS, and EPA 2010). Figure 9: USGS Hydrological Subbasins (HUC08) (USDA-NRCS, USGS, and EPA 2010).
Figure 7: USGS Hydrological Subregions (HUC04) (USDA-NRCS, USGS, and EPA 2010). Figure 7: USGS Hydrological Subregions (HUC04) (USDA-NRCS, USGS, and EPA 2010). Figure 8: USGS Hydrological Basins (HUC06) (USDA-NRCS, USGS, and EPA 2010). Figure 9: USGS Hydrological Subbasins (HUC08) (USDA-NRCS, USGS, and EPA 2010).
Table 2: Distribution of Components among C ultural Periods for Previously Identified Sites in Hamilton C ounty Table 3 presents a summary of the results and distribution of previous archaeological surveys conducted in Hamilton County. Through examination of all the compliance and grant reports on file at DHPA, our own project files at AAL we identified 277 archaeological surveys or explorations that are in whole or in part within Hamilton County. To efficiently examine and present a summary of this massive body of work, investigations were tabulated by civil
Table 2: Distribution of Components among C ultural Periods for Previously Identified Sites in Hamilton C ounty Table 3 presents a summary of the results and distribution of previous archaeological surveys conducted in Hamilton County. Through examination of all the compliance and grant reports on file at DHPA, our own project files at AAL we identified 277 archaeological surveys or explorations that are in whole or in part within Hamilton County. To efficiently examine and present a summary of this massive body of work, investigations were tabulated by civil
Figure 11: Locations of Previously Identified Sites in Hamilton County, Indiana. Digital Elevation Model from 2012 Indiana Map data. township. oriented ac Each inves Black 193 reports and counting si surveys. T nclusion of survey encompassed parts of multiple town tigation was then categorized as that discovered any sites. No consideration sites, or acreage involved. Investigations include records reviews, compliance s investigations, and reports fro tes per survey, we are making th his limits the effect of the size bi m other gene , nd). This method of counting i efficient and at least grossly informative of records reviews increases the other investigation effects partially cancel each other limiting tl comprehensiveness by this method of sorti For the purposes of this review an investigation constitutes any archaeologically tivity that produced a report whi ch focused within a particular township. If a report or ships, an investigation was logged for each township. positive or negative. Positive investigations are those is given in this summary to quantity of material, i s decreases th Ul nvestigation/positive ratio, while inc heir effect on the result. We also gai ng and counting. A further peculiarity is that by not e larger investigations more comparable to the small as for positive investi gations. urveys, grant ral investigations of archaeological resources (e.g., nvestigations is not perfect; howeve the nature of the archaeological reco r, itis relatively rd for the county. usion of grant investigations per positive. These two n
Figure 11: Locations of Previously Identified Sites in Hamilton County, Indiana. Digital Elevation Model from 2012 Indiana Map data. township. oriented ac Each inves Black 193 reports and counting si surveys. T nclusion of survey encompassed parts of multiple town tigation was then categorized as that discovered any sites. No consideration sites, or acreage involved. Investigations include records reviews, compliance s investigations, and reports fro tes per survey, we are making th his limits the effect of the size bi m other gene , nd). This method of counting i efficient and at least grossly informative of records reviews increases the other investigation effects partially cancel each other limiting tl comprehensiveness by this method of sorti For the purposes of this review an investigation constitutes any archaeologically tivity that produced a report whi ch focused within a particular township. If a report or ships, an investigation was logged for each township. positive or negative. Positive investigations are those is given in this summary to quantity of material, i s decreases th Ul nvestigation/positive ratio, while inc heir effect on the result. We also gai ng and counting. A further peculiarity is that by not e larger investigations more comparable to the small as for positive investi gations. urveys, grant ral investigations of archaeological resources (e.g., nvestigations is not perfect; howeve the nature of the archaeological reco r, itis relatively rd for the county. usion of grant investigations per positive. These two n
Table 3: Summary of Previous Surveys in Hamilton C ounty
Table 3: Summary of Previous Surveys in Hamilton C ounty
Figure 12: Flow Chart of Flaked Stone Implements. Adapted from Andrefsky 2005:76 Figure 4.7.
Figure 12: Flow Chart of Flaked Stone Implements. Adapted from Andrefsky 2005:76 Figure 4.7.
Table 4: Artifacts from SA1
Table 4: Artifacts from SA1
Figure 15: Diagnostic Artifacts from 12-H-1391. arti art 12. FA Ltd) HUI Der OL OO ditildCls WeTe LeCcOVered ITO) SUIVEY ALTed Lt. 1 tle dillldCl LyPOs dila associated number of each recovered in this survey area are listed in facts are listed in the si te SUMMal Two diagnostic prehistoric a1 facts were diagnostic p 62.1.10. The first diagn Radditz of Jeffersonville c rojectile p ostic poin hert, diag One diagnostic historic artifact was stoneware vessel. ries located within A ppe rtifacts were recovered f tis from the Late Wood nostic of the Middle Arc rom Su haic pe recovered from site 12-H Table 4 below. Individual ndix E of Vo rvey Area 1. These two oints from site 12-H-1391, artifact nu and Triangu a Hamilton Incurvate of Holland chert (Justice 1987:224-230). The secon ume 2 of this report. mbers 12.62.1.1 and ar Cluster, specifically d projectile point is a riod (J ustice 1987:67-68). -1393, a body section of a
Figure 15: Diagnostic Artifacts from 12-H-1391. arti art 12. FA Ltd) HUI Der OL OO ditildCls WeTe LeCcOVered ITO) SUIVEY ALTed Lt. 1 tle dillldCl LyPOs dila associated number of each recovered in this survey area are listed in facts are listed in the si te SUMMal Two diagnostic prehistoric a1 facts were diagnostic p 62.1.10. The first diagn Radditz of Jeffersonville c rojectile p ostic poin hert, diag One diagnostic historic artifact was stoneware vessel. ries located within A ppe rtifacts were recovered f tis from the Late Wood nostic of the Middle Arc rom Su haic pe recovered from site 12-H Table 4 below. Individual ndix E of Vo rvey Area 1. These two oints from site 12-H-1391, artifact nu and Triangu a Hamilton Incurvate of Holland chert (Justice 1987:224-230). The secon ume 2 of this report. mbers 12.62.1.1 and ar Cluster, specifically d projectile point is a riod (J ustice 1987:67-68). -1393, a body section of a
Figure 23: A Section of the] USGS 7.5’ Quadrangle showing the location of SA2.
Figure 23: A Section of the] USGS 7.5’ Quadrangle showing the location of SA2.
Table 5: Artifacts Recovered from SA2 con pre Arti Le S usti agn e.g., visib ——=—e—rvr —_———e_ A total of six diagnostic prehistoric artifacts were recovered from Survey Area 2, sisting of five di historic habitation site with multiple co fact 12.62.12.1 ustice 1987:71) 0 m projectile poi so shown in Figu ton Creek chert, di ce 1987:208) an ostic in the Eas Greber et al. 19 exhibited at least four agnostic projectile poi from this site is an Ear f Attica chert, shown in re 26. Artifact 12.62.12. agnostic of the termi nt of Attica chert, diagn Figu ostic 158 i nal Midd d is the last artifact p his prehistoric habitation site are both blade-co tern Woodlands of North Amen an et al. 2007; surface exposed thermal features, several w eon the surface. This indicates rem In site 12-H-1404, a prehistoric camp, a Matanzas projecti 81; Nolan 2005; No ictured in res Figu rica’ s re 26. Th 12.62.12.13 and 12.62. Middle W oodland chronological Pi- Sunyer nant integrity of c period (Justice 1987: projectile po hrough Late W oodland e last diagnostic artifac 2.128; Fi 1965). 12-H-1402 als nts and one possible blade-core. Site 12-H-1402, a mponents, contained four of these diagnosti y Archaic Kirk Corner Notched projectile re 26. Artifact 12.62.12.2 isa Merom of the Late Archai s a Steuben Expanded Stem e Woodland tl tic artifacts. point Expanding 30), int of periods ts from gure 27), period 9) ith FCR and ash deposi sub-plowzone deposits. e point (12.62.14.1) of tS Attica
Table 5: Artifacts Recovered from SA2 con pre Arti Le S usti agn e.g., visib ——=—e—rvr —_———e_ A total of six diagnostic prehistoric artifacts were recovered from Survey Area 2, sisting of five di historic habitation site with multiple co fact 12.62.12.1 ustice 1987:71) 0 m projectile poi so shown in Figu ton Creek chert, di ce 1987:208) an ostic in the Eas Greber et al. 19 exhibited at least four agnostic projectile poi from this site is an Ear f Attica chert, shown in re 26. Artifact 12.62.12. agnostic of the termi nt of Attica chert, diagn Figu ostic 158 i nal Midd d is the last artifact p his prehistoric habitation site are both blade-co tern Woodlands of North Amen an et al. 2007; surface exposed thermal features, several w eon the surface. This indicates rem In site 12-H-1404, a prehistoric camp, a Matanzas projecti 81; Nolan 2005; No ictured in res Figu rica’ s re 26. Th 12.62.12.13 and 12.62. Middle W oodland chronological Pi- Sunyer nant integrity of c period (Justice 1987: projectile po hrough Late W oodland e last diagnostic artifac 2.128; Fi 1965). 12-H-1402 als nts and one possible blade-core. Site 12-H-1402, a mponents, contained four of these diagnosti y Archaic Kirk Corner Notched projectile re 26. Artifact 12.62.12.2 isa Merom of the Late Archai s a Steuben Expanded Stem e Woodland tl tic artifacts. point Expanding 30), int of periods ts from gure 27), period 9) ith FCR and ash deposi sub-plowzone deposits. e point (12.62.14.1) of tS Attica
Figure 26: Diagnostic Projectile Points from Site 12-H-1402. Artifacts from the other historic sites in SA 2 were occupied during the 19" Century approximately coeval with the two sites discussed above. None of the historically indicated structure locations match the distribution of historic sites in SA2. 12-H-1406 is closest to the Crusan residence, but the artifact inventory is not a good fit for the period of occupation. The house indicated on the 2012 aerial and corresponding to 12-H-1406 is not present in 1956.
Figure 26: Diagnostic Projectile Points from Site 12-H-1402. Artifacts from the other historic sites in SA 2 were occupied during the 19" Century approximately coeval with the two sites discussed above. None of the historically indicated structure locations match the distribution of historic sites in SA2. 12-H-1406 is closest to the Crusan residence, but the artifact inventory is not a good fit for the period of occupation. The house indicated on the 2012 aerial and corresponding to 12-H-1406 is not present in 1956.
Figure 27: Possible Blade-core fragment from 12-H-1402.
Figure 27: Possible Blade-core fragment from 12-H-1402.
Figure 28: Diagnostic Projectile Point from 12-H- 1404.
Figure 28: Diagnostic Projectile Point from 12-H- 1404.
Figure 30: SA2 Shown over Map of Original Land Grants in Hamilton County (http://www2.hamiltoncounty.in.gov/library/survey/images/Original Landgrants.pdf Figure 30: SA2 Shown over Map of Original Land Grants in Hamilton County
Figure 30: SA2 Shown over Map of Original Land Grants in Hamilton County (http://www2.hamiltoncounty.in.gov/library/survey/images/Original Landgrants.pdf Figure 30: SA2 Shown over Map of Original Land Grants in Hamilton County
Figure 31: 1866 Map of Hamilton County, Indiana showing SA2.
Figure 31: 1866 Map of Hamilton County, Indiana showing SA2.
Figure 32: Location of SA2 over Portion of 1912 Soils Map.
Figure 32: Location of SA2 over Portion of 1912 Soils Map.
Figure 33: Location of SA2 over portion of 1922 Plat Map (The Enterprise Printing & Publishing Co. 1922).
Figure 33: Location of SA2 over portion of 1922 Plat Map (The Enterprise Printing & Publishing Co. 1922).
Figure 34: SA2 over Portion of the 1953 Noblesville 7.5’ USGS quadrangle.
Figure 34: SA2 over Portion of the 1953 Noblesville 7.5’ USGS quadrangle.
Figure 35: Examples of Glass Artifacts Recovered from SA2.
Figure 35: Examples of Glass Artifacts Recovered from SA2.
Figure 36: Examples of Ceramics from 12-H-1402.
Figure 36: Examples of Ceramics from 12-H-1402.
Figure 37: Examples of Ceramics from 12-H-1406
Figure 37: Examples of Ceramics from 12-H-1406
Figure 38: Inkwell Recovered from 12-H-1406.
Figure 38: Inkwell Recovered from 12-H-1406.
Table 6: Summary of Artifacts Recovered from SA3 The remainder of the temporally indicative historic artifacts from SA 3 date to primarily the 19" Century with pulses around the 1820s and the 1870s. However, many of the materials recovered continued in use up to the present time.
Table 6: Summary of Artifacts Recovered from SA3 The remainder of the temporally indicative historic artifacts from SA 3 date to primarily the 19" Century with pulses around the 1820s and the 1870s. However, many of the materials recovered continued in use up to the present time.
Figure 42: Snyders Point from 12-H-1428.
Figure 42: Snyders Point from 12-H-1428.
Figure 43: Kirk Corer Notched Point from 12-H- 1431.
Figure 43: Kirk Corer Notched Point from 12-H- 1431.
Figure 44: Thebes Cluster Point from 12-H-1432.
Figure 44: Thebes Cluster Point from 12-H-1432.
Figure 48: SA3 over Map Showing Original Land Grants in Hamilton County.
Figure 48: SA3 over Map Showing Original Land Grants in Hamilton County.
Figure 46: Stueben Expanding Stemmed Point from 12-H-1448.
Figure 46: Stueben Expanding Stemmed Point from 12-H-1448.
Figure 47: Example Unhafted Bifaces from SA3.
Figure 47: Example Unhafted Bifaces from SA3.
Figure 50: Portion of the 1912 Soils Map (Hurst et al. 1912) showing SA3. Figure 49: Portion of the 1866 Map of Hamilton County, Indiana.
Figure 50: Portion of the 1912 Soils Map (Hurst et al. 1912) showing SA3. Figure 49: Portion of the 1866 Map of Hamilton County, Indiana.
Figure 51: Portion of the 1922 Plat Map (The Enterprise Printing & Publishing Co. 1922) Showing SA3
Figure 51: Portion of the 1922 Plat Map (The Enterprise Printing & Publishing Co. 1922) Showing SA3
Figure 53: Examples of Milkglass and Orange Glass from SA3.
Figure 53: Examples of Milkglass and Orange Glass from SA3.
Figure 54: Examples of Ceramics Recovered from 12-H-1424 and 12-H-1647.
Figure 54: Examples of Ceramics Recovered from 12-H-1424 and 12-H-1647.
Figure 55: Metal Artifacts from 12-H-1424.
Figure 55: Metal Artifacts from 12-H-1424.
(see Figure 57)
(see Figure 57)
‘There is signiticant and patterned variability in the plowzone soll phosphate or 5A4 (Figure 9¥). There are two highly enriched areas near previously mapped sites; however, neither of these matches the location of sites mapped previously. The display values in the key for mg/kg P is centered on the mean of 17.166 +8.717 mg/kg with breaks every 2 standard deviation. It appears that the nearby habitation sites are approximately one standard deviation above the mear and higher (Figure 60). Interestingly, there is an equally depleted location along the southern edge of SA4 that is bounded approximately by 1 sd below the mean (Figure 60). There is likewise significant variability in subsoil phosphate concentration within SA 4 (Figure 61). Values are substantially less enriched, though the ranges do overlap. There is a much longer right tail to the frequency distribution for the suhsoil values. The subsoil averages
‘There is signiticant and patterned variability in the plowzone soll phosphate or 5A4 (Figure 9¥). There are two highly enriched areas near previously mapped sites; however, neither of these matches the location of sites mapped previously. The display values in the key for mg/kg P is centered on the mean of 17.166 +8.717 mg/kg with breaks every 2 standard deviation. It appears that the nearby habitation sites are approximately one standard deviation above the mear and higher (Figure 60). Interestingly, there is an equally depleted location along the southern edge of SA4 that is bounded approximately by 1 sd below the mean (Figure 60). There is likewise significant variability in subsoil phosphate concentration within SA 4 (Figure 61). Values are substantially less enriched, though the ranges do overlap. There is a much longer right tail to the frequency distribution for the suhsoil values. The subsoil averages
Figure 59: Interpolated (Krige) Soil Phosphate Concentrations from Plowzone Samples of SA4 over portion o 7.5’ USGS Quadrangle. ee Figure 58 for key to sites.
Figure 59: Interpolated (Krige) Soil Phosphate Concentrations from Plowzone Samples of SA4 over portion o 7.5’ USGS Quadrangle. ee Figure 58 for key to sites.
Figure 60: Interpolated (Krige) Soil Phosphate Enrichments and Depletions from Plowzone Samples of SA4 over portion ot 7.5’ USGS Quadrangle. ote: Depleted = 1 sd below mean; Enriched =1 sd above mean.
Figure 60: Interpolated (Krige) Soil Phosphate Enrichments and Depletions from Plowzone Samples of SA4 over portion ot 7.5’ USGS Quadrangle. ote: Depleted = 1 sd below mean; Enriched =1 sd above mean.
Figure 62: Phosphate Enrichment in the Ap Horizon in SA4 over portion of See Figure 60 for key to sites.
Figure 62: Phosphate Enrichment in the Ap Horizon in SA4 over portion of See Figure 60 for key to sites.
Table 8: Summary of Artifacts Recovered from SA5
Table 8: Summary of Artifacts Recovered from SA5
Figure 67: Six Projectile Points from SA5.
Figure 67: Six Projectile Points from SA5.
Figure 68: Lamoka point from site 12-H-1461.
Figure 68: Lamoka point from site 12-H-1461.
Figure 69: Blade-like core from site 12-H-1465 and a possible Fulton Turkey-tail biface fragment from site 12-H- 1464 of Wyandotte chert.
Figure 69: Blade-like core from site 12-H-1465 and a possible Fulton Turkey-tail biface fragment from site 12-H- 1464 of Wyandotte chert.
(Figure 69). Wamer’s 1866 Map of Hamilton County, Indiana illustrates a residence on the easternmost of mLIMROTTEN ETT! (Figu map (Hurst et al. along with another at the 1922 the property was owned (Figu 1922). The 1961 ,IN 7. quadrai maps (Figure 73). e Immediate vicinity of both study area. The 1866 map shows the road deviating diagonally across the property, but re 70). That structure appears on the southeast comer of the property (Figu re 72; The Enterprise Printing & Publ ngle shows both residences noted on tl of these residences was excluded fro 912 soi re 71). ishing Co. he earlier m the 12-H-1464 as indicated by the former owner of tl he property. not near Figure 70: An example of a historic whiteware sherd with partial maker’s mark from SA5.
(Figure 69). Wamer’s 1866 Map of Hamilton County, Indiana illustrates a residence on the easternmost of mLIMROTTEN ETT! (Figu map (Hurst et al. along with another at the 1922 the property was owned (Figu 1922). The 1961 ,IN 7. quadrai maps (Figure 73). e Immediate vicinity of both study area. The 1866 map shows the road deviating diagonally across the property, but re 70). That structure appears on the southeast comer of the property (Figu re 72; The Enterprise Printing & Publ ngle shows both residences noted on tl of these residences was excluded fro 912 soi re 71). ishing Co. he earlier m the 12-H-1464 as indicated by the former owner of tl he property. not near Figure 70: An example of a historic whiteware sherd with partial maker’s mark from SA5.
RE NS A RR NES ee: Ee: i Se Ee 2 al (http://www2.hamiltoncounty.in.gov/library/survey/images/Original_Landgrants.pdf) showing SA5. Figure 71: A historic porcelain container lid molded with a cross from SA5.
RE NS A RR NES ee: Ee: i Se Ee 2 al (http://www2.hamiltoncounty.in.gov/library/survey/images/Original_Landgrants.pdf) showing SA5. Figure 71: A historic porcelain container lid molded with a cross from SA5.
Figure 72: An example of a historic red glass sherd from SA5.
Figure 72: An example of a historic red glass sherd from SA5.
Figure 74: Portion of 1866 Map of Hamilton County, Indiana showing SA5.
Figure 74: Portion of 1866 Map of Hamilton County, Indiana showing SA5.
Figure 75: Portion of 1912 Soils Map (Hurst et al. 1912) showing SA5.
Figure 75: Portion of 1912 Soils Map (Hurst et al. 1912) showing SA5.
Figure 76: Portion of 1922 Plat Map (The Enterprise Printing & Publishing Co. 1922) showing SA5
Figure 76: Portion of 1922 Plat Map (The Enterprise Printing & Publishing Co. 1922) showing SA5
7.5’ USGS Quadrangle Showing SA5.
7.5’ USGS Quadrangle Showing SA5.
Figure 78: Interpolated (Krige) Soil Phosphate Distribution in SA5 over portion of J
Figure 78: Interpolated (Krige) Soil Phosphate Distribution in SA5 over portion of J
Table 9: Summary of Artifacts Recovered from SA6 ££ tvysslssVi sy Lad Vs No temporally diagnostic artifacts were recovered from Survey Area 6. For all artifacts i: this survey area, the cultural affiliation is unknown prehistoric. A number of groundstone tools were recovered in this survey area, one being located in 12-H-1510, one being located in 12-H- 1511, and three being located in 12-H-1514.One flake tool was recovered from 12-H-1510 and one core tool was recovered from 12-H-1513. All other artifacts recovered were flaked stone refijce.
Table 9: Summary of Artifacts Recovered from SA6 ££ tvysslssVi sy Lad Vs No temporally diagnostic artifacts were recovered from Survey Area 6. For all artifacts i: this survey area, the cultural affiliation is unknown prehistoric. A number of groundstone tools were recovered in this survey area, one being located in 12-H-1510, one being located in 12-H- 1511, and three being located in 12-H-1514.One flake tool was recovered from 12-H-1510 and one core tool was recovered from 12-H-1513. All other artifacts recovered were flaked stone refijce.
Table 10: Summary of Artifacts Recovered from SA7
Table 10: Summary of Artifacts Recovered from SA7
Figure 85: Groundstone celt and biface tool fragment from site 12-H-1516.
Figure 85: Groundstone celt and biface tool fragment from site 12-H-1516.
Figure 87: Portion of 1866 Map of Hamilton County, Indiana showing SA7.
Figure 87: Portion of 1866 Map of Hamilton County, Indiana showing SA7.
Figure 88: Portion of 1912 Soils Map (Hurst et al. 1912) showing SA7.
Figure 88: Portion of 1912 Soils Map (Hurst et al. 1912) showing SA7.
Figure 89: Portion of 1922 Plat Map (The Enterprise Printing & Publishing Co. 1922) Showing SA7
Figure 89: Portion of 1922 Plat Map (The Enterprise Printing & Publishing Co. 1922) Showing SA7
Figure 90: Portion of SA7 over the 1953
Figure 90: Portion of SA7 over the 1953
All historic artifacts come from a single cluster, 12-H-1531. Nineteen of the 20 the historic artifacts recovered at this site are temporally diagnostic (Figure 87). Whiteware dates from 1820 to the present, and stoneware also dates from 1820 to the present (Feldhues 1995:6). Blue transfer- printed whiteware was manufactured between 1830 and 1860 (Feldhues 1995:8). Milkglass container glass was manufactured between 1890 and 1960 (IMACS 1992:472). Amber container glass has been manufactured since 1860 to the present (IMACS 2009:472), aqua container glass was manufactured between 1860 and 1910 (IMACS 1992:472), and clear container glass was manufactured between 1875 and the present (IMACS 1992:472). Based on these dates it is most likely that the deposit dates after 1890, but may in part date as early as 1820.
All historic artifacts come from a single cluster, 12-H-1531. Nineteen of the 20 the historic artifacts recovered at this site are temporally diagnostic (Figure 87). Whiteware dates from 1820 to the present, and stoneware also dates from 1820 to the present (Feldhues 1995:6). Blue transfer- printed whiteware was manufactured between 1830 and 1860 (Feldhues 1995:8). Milkglass container glass was manufactured between 1890 and 1960 (IMACS 1992:472). Amber container glass has been manufactured since 1860 to the present (IMACS 2009:472), aqua container glass was manufactured between 1860 and 1910 (IMACS 1992:472), and clear container glass was manufactured between 1875 and the present (IMACS 1992:472). Based on these dates it is most likely that the deposit dates after 1890, but may in part date as early as 1820.
Figure 92: Examples of historic artifacts collected in SA7.
Figure 92: Examples of historic artifacts collected in SA7.
Table 11: Summary of Artifacts Recovered from SA8
Table 11: Summary of Artifacts Recovered from SA8
Figure 94: Blade-core from site 12-H-1578 and a denticulated core tool from site 12-H-1570.
Figure 94: Blade-core from site 12-H-1578 and a denticulated core tool from site 12-H-1570.
Figure 97: SA8 over portion of Original Land Grant Map (http://www2.hamiltoncounty.in.gov/library/survev/images/Original Landa TilowWliv Ali UlldUto This study area is discon up the study area. The land comprising most o and approximately the northwest poti 1866 Map of Hamilton County, While there are several s cating a house site. e study area. within a wooded area ou artifacts indi portion of th appears on tl is not show (Figure 94). A reside nce is second residence was located at ites in he 1912 soi Enterprise P There was no sig tside of s map (Hurst et al. 1912). In 1922 the property was in the estate o (Fi ,IN 7.9 USGS g (Figure 96) illustrated w That map al approximately the general vicini n of tl here the ruined farmhouse now stands, the center of the southe ty of the house shown, none contai so illustrates a cemetery to é his cemetery in the fie SA8 and uncultivated (see Figure 90). The farmho However, the residence in the so gure 95; 1 rinting & Publishing Co. 1922). The 1953 uadrangle shows the now ruined farmhouse and an adjacent ruin, likely a barn tinuous with a farmhouse ruin separating the parcels m parcel (Fi the east d, though it use ruin uthern parcel The
Figure 97: SA8 over portion of Original Land Grant Map (http://www2.hamiltoncounty.in.gov/library/survev/images/Original Landa TilowWliv Ali UlldUto This study area is discon up the study area. The land comprising most o and approximately the northwest poti 1866 Map of Hamilton County, While there are several s cating a house site. e study area. within a wooded area ou artifacts indi portion of th appears on tl is not show (Figure 94). A reside nce is second residence was located at ites in he 1912 soi Enterprise P There was no sig tside of s map (Hurst et al. 1912). In 1922 the property was in the estate o (Fi ,IN 7.9 USGS g (Figure 96) illustrated w That map al approximately the general vicini n of tl here the ruined farmhouse now stands, the center of the southe ty of the house shown, none contai so illustrates a cemetery to é his cemetery in the fie SA8 and uncultivated (see Figure 90). The farmho However, the residence in the so gure 95; 1 rinting & Publishing Co. 1922). The 1953 uadrangle shows the now ruined farmhouse and an adjacent ruin, likely a barn tinuous with a farmhouse ruin separating the parcels m parcel (Fi the east d, though it use ruin uthern parcel The
Figure 98: Portion of 1866 Map of Hamilton County, Indiana showing SA8. Figure 99: Location of SA8 over portion of 1912 Soils Map (Hurst et al. 1912)
Figure 98: Portion of 1866 Map of Hamilton County, Indiana showing SA8. Figure 99: Location of SA8 over portion of 1912 Soils Map (Hurst et al. 1912)
Figure 100: Portion of 1922 Plat Map (The Enterprise Printing & Publishing Co. 1922) showing SA&
Figure 100: Portion of 1922 Plat Map (The Enterprise Printing & Publishing Co. 1922) showing SA&
As with the other survey areas, most of the artifacts recovered date to the 19" Century, with many types continuing to be manufactured and used up until the present. 124 temporally diagnostic historic artifacts were recovered from 12-H-1552. Nine datable varieties of ceramics were found (Figure 99). A marked sherd was also found. Stoneware dates from 1820 to the present (Feldhues 1995:6). Porcelain tablewares date from 1825 to the present (Brown 1982:1). Undecorated whiteware dated from 1820 to the present (Feldhues 1995:6). Decal-decorated porcelain and whiteware date from 1890 to 1960 (Decal Decorated Wares 2012). Hand-painted,
As with the other survey areas, most of the artifacts recovered date to the 19" Century, with many types continuing to be manufactured and used up until the present. 124 temporally diagnostic historic artifacts were recovered from 12-H-1552. Nine datable varieties of ceramics were found (Figure 99). A marked sherd was also found. Stoneware dates from 1820 to the present (Feldhues 1995:6). Porcelain tablewares date from 1825 to the present (Brown 1982:1). Undecorated whiteware dated from 1820 to the present (Feldhues 1995:6). Decal-decorated porcelain and whiteware date from 1890 to 1960 (Decal Decorated Wares 2012). Hand-painted,
Figure 102: Examples of Historic Glass Artifacts from 12-H-1552. VV ULULL IND). Seven types of dateable glass were found (Figure 97 and Figure 98). Bright green container glass was introduced in 1900 and continues to be made (Bottle/Glass Colors 2013). Aqua container glass dates from 1860 to 1910 (IMACS 1992:472). Clear container glass dates from 1875 to the present (IMACS 1992:472). Amber container glass dates from 1860 to the present (IMACS 1992:472). Most amethyst container glass was manufactured between 1890 and 1920 (Bottle/Glass Colors 2013). Milk glass jar lid liners were produced from 1870 to 1960 (Lindsey 2012), while milk glass was used for containers from 1890 to 1960 (IMACS 1992:472). Based on these dates, the site most likely dates after 1900, but the assemblage could date in part as early as 1820.
Figure 102: Examples of Historic Glass Artifacts from 12-H-1552. VV ULULL IND). Seven types of dateable glass were found (Figure 97 and Figure 98). Bright green container glass was introduced in 1900 and continues to be made (Bottle/Glass Colors 2013). Aqua container glass dates from 1860 to 1910 (IMACS 1992:472). Clear container glass dates from 1875 to the present (IMACS 1992:472). Amber container glass dates from 1860 to the present (IMACS 1992:472). Most amethyst container glass was manufactured between 1890 and 1920 (Bottle/Glass Colors 2013). Milk glass jar lid liners were produced from 1870 to 1960 (Lindsey 2012), while milk glass was used for containers from 1890 to 1960 (IMACS 1992:472). Based on these dates, the site most likely dates after 1900, but the assemblage could date in part as early as 1820.
Figure 103: Additional Examples of Historic Glass from 12-H-1552.
Figure 103: Additional Examples of Historic Glass from 12-H-1552.
Figure 104: Example Ceramics from 12-H-1552.
Figure 104: Example Ceramics from 12-H-1552.
Table 12: Summary of Artifacts Recovered from SA9
Table 12: Summary of Artifacts Recovered from SA9
Figure 107: Location of SA9 Sites over portion of the Quadrangles. us to examine his collection. It is possible that significant sites exist, or formerly existed here, but have been hunted to exhaustion.
Figure 107: Location of SA9 Sites over portion of the Quadrangles. us to examine his collection. It is possible that significant sites exist, or formerly existed here, but have been hunted to exhaustion.
Figure 108: SA9 over portion of the Original Land Grant Map (http://www2.hamiltoncounty.in.gov/library/survey/images/Original Landgrants.,
Figure 108: SA9 over portion of the Original Land Grant Map (http://www2.hamiltoncounty.in.gov/library/survey/images/Original Landgrants.,
Figure 109: Portion of the 1866 Map of Hamilton County, Indiana showing SA9.
Figure 109: Portion of the 1866 Map of Hamilton County, Indiana showing SA9.
Figure 111: Portion of 1922 Plat Map (The Enterprise Printing & Publishing Co. 1922) showing SA9. Figure 110: Portion of 1912 Soils Map (Hurst et al. 1912) showing SA9.
Figure 111: Portion of 1922 Plat Map (The Enterprise Printing & Publishing Co. 1922) showing SA9. Figure 110: Portion of 1912 Soils Map (Hurst et al. 1912) showing SA9.
Figure 113: Stirrup Recovered from 12-H-1600.
Figure 113: Stirrup Recovered from 12-H-1600.
Figure 114: Examples of Ceramics Recovered from 12-H-1600.
Figure 114: Examples of Ceramics Recovered from 12-H-1600.
Figure 115: Examples of Glass Artifacts Recovered from 12-H-1600.
Figure 115: Examples of Glass Artifacts Recovered from 12-H-1600.
Figure 116: Diagnostic Projectile Points Discovered in SA 10.
Figure 116: Diagnostic Projectile Points Discovered in SA 10.
Figure 117: Large Chipped Stone Biface from 12-H-1630.
Figure 117: Large Chipped Stone Biface from 12-H-1630.
Table 13: Summary of Artifacts Recovered from SA 10
Table 13: Summary of Artifacts Recovered from SA 10
Figure 119: Location of SA10 Sites over 2012 Aerial Photograph (USDA-FSA Aerial Photography Field Office 2012).
Figure 119: Location of SA10 Sites over 2012 Aerial Photograph (USDA-FSA Aerial Photography Field Office 2012).
Figure 121: Horseshoe Recovered from 12-H-1628.
Figure 121: Horseshoe Recovered from 12-H-1628.
Figure 122: Decal-decorated Sherd from 12-H-1636.
Figure 122: Decal-decorated Sherd from 12-H-1636.
Table 14: Summary of Distribution and Density of Sites and Artifacts for all Survey Areas. There are several interesting distributional patterns that emerge from this large survey project. While we surveyed a very small proportion (~0.22%) of Hamilton County, Table 15 shows that our sampling of soils and environmental zones produced a fairly good representation of the variability present in the county (see also Table 1, Figure 5, and Figure 6). Floodplains, clay loam soils, and moderately well drained soils are underrepresented. As Floodplains are over-represented in the current sample of known sites within the county, this omission is tolerable. Inclusion of floodplain soils would likely increase our overall site density, but not significantly. Given the distribution of our sample across environmental variables, it seems that our density of approximately one site every 2.4 acres is probably fairly representative of the region. However, for a variety of reasons, site density is not the most pertinent variable in a distributional analysis.
Table 14: Summary of Distribution and Density of Sites and Artifacts for all Survey Areas. There are several interesting distributional patterns that emerge from this large survey project. While we surveyed a very small proportion (~0.22%) of Hamilton County, Table 15 shows that our sampling of soils and environmental zones produced a fairly good representation of the variability present in the county (see also Table 1, Figure 5, and Figure 6). Floodplains, clay loam soils, and moderately well drained soils are underrepresented. As Floodplains are over-represented in the current sample of known sites within the county, this omission is tolerable. Inclusion of floodplain soils would likely increase our overall site density, but not significantly. Given the distribution of our sample across environmental variables, it seems that our density of approximately one site every 2.4 acres is probably fairly representative of the region. However, for a variety of reasons, site density is not the most pertinent variable in a distributional analysis.
Table 15: Proportional Representation of Various Geological Variables
Table 15: Proportional Representation of Various Geological Variables
Figure 123: Location of Survey Areas over a Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of Hamilton County.
Figure 123: Location of Survey Areas over a Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of Hamilton County.
Table 16: Temporal Distribution of Newly Discovered Occupations
Table 16: Temporal Distribution of Newly Discovered Occupations
Related topics:
ArchaeologyPrehistoric ArchaeologySoil ScienceHistorical ArchaeologyArchaeological GISPhosphate AnalysisArchaeological surveyArchaeological field surveySoil phosphorus
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved