Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 3 – uploaded by Kevin C. Nolan

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Table 3. Proportional Representation of Various Geological Variables. Our sample (coincidentally) cuts a southeast to northwest cross-section across Hamilton County (see Figure 4), sampling most of the watersheds in the county (Figure 7). Fall Creek and Cicero Creek are more heavily sampled (though Cicero is the largest in the county). Cicero Creek has the highest average (per SA) prehistoric artifact density at 4.41 artifacts per acre; however, this is heavily influenced by SA10 (17.04/acre) (Table 2). On a per acre average, Cicero Creek watershed weighs in with a 2.51 artifact/acre density. The Stoney Creek/White River watershed is represented by SA8 and exhibits a density of 7.31 prehistoric artifacts/acre, 2.41 historic artifacts/acre, and 9.72 artifacts/acre. The Fall Creek drainage weighs in with the lowest densities with 1.6 artifacts/acre (Table 2). However, watershed explains very little of the variability in artifact density.

Table 3 Proportional Representation of Various Geological Variables. Our sample (coincidentally) cuts a southeast to northwest cross-section across Hamilton County (see Figure 4), sampling most of the watersheds in the county (Figure 7). Fall Creek and Cicero Creek are more heavily sampled (though Cicero is the largest in the county). Cicero Creek has the highest average (per SA) prehistoric artifact density at 4.41 artifacts per acre; however, this is heavily influenced by SA10 (17.04/acre) (Table 2). On a per acre average, Cicero Creek watershed weighs in with a 2.51 artifact/acre density. The Stoney Creek/White River watershed is represented by SA8 and exhibits a density of 7.31 prehistoric artifacts/acre, 2.41 historic artifacts/acre, and 9.72 artifacts/acre. The Fall Creek drainage weighs in with the lowest densities with 1.6 artifacts/acre (Table 2). However, watershed explains very little of the variability in artifact density.

Related Figures (15)

Figure 1. Hamilton County within the state of Indiana. Glacial limit shapefiles by Gray and Letsinger (2010). Sawmill-Lawson-Genesee (Figure 3). 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 (Hosteter 1978).
Figure 1. Hamilton County within the state of Indiana. Glacial limit shapefiles by Gray and Letsinger (2010). Sawmill-Lawson-Genesee (Figure 3). 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 (Hosteter 1978).
Figure 3. Soil associations within Hamilton County. Note: Hosteter (1978) only shows four associations an these bear a general similarity to the current State Soil Geographic (STATSGO) data (Soil Survey Staff 201: map units; however, each specific description would be different.
Figure 3. Soil associations within Hamilton County. Note: Hosteter (1978) only shows four associations an these bear a general similarity to the current State Soil Geographic (STATSGO) data (Soil Survey Staff 201: map units; however, each specific description would be different.
Figure 4. Soil drainage classes for Soil Map Units (SMUs) within Hamilton County. Note: Miscellaneous includes water, orthents, and pits; source: Soil Survey Geographic Database (SSURGO) (Soil Survey Staff 2011).
Figure 4. Soil drainage classes for Soil Map Units (SMUs) within Hamilton County. Note: Miscellaneous includes water, orthents, and pits; source: Soil Survey Geographic Database (SSURGO) (Soil Survey Staff 2011).
Hamilton County is dominated by the White River, which splits the county on a ortheast-southwest diagonal. Within the White River Hydrological Basin, there are seven USGS Vatersheds (HUC10; USDA-NRCS et al. 2010) (Figure 7). The watershed boundaries might be xpected to influence site distribution and interaction patterns. Water-borne travel easily rovides access to exotic regions. Particularly, the White River and the Wabash watershed rovide direct connection to the Lower Ohio Valley and extreme southeastern Indiana and vestern Illinois.
Hamilton County is dominated by the White River, which splits the county on a ortheast-southwest diagonal. Within the White River Hydrological Basin, there are seven USGS Vatersheds (HUC10; USDA-NRCS et al. 2010) (Figure 7). The watershed boundaries might be xpected to influence site distribution and interaction patterns. Water-borne travel easily rovides access to exotic regions. Particularly, the White River and the Wabash watershed rovide direct connection to the Lower Ohio Valley and extreme southeastern Indiana and vestern Illinois.
Table 1. Distribution of Components among Cultural Periods for Previously Identified Sites in Hamilton County, from SHAARD. (2012)
Table 1. Distribution of Components among Cultural Periods for Previously Identified Sites in Hamilton County, from SHAARD. (2012)
Figure 6. Locations of previously identified sites in Hamilton County, Indiana. Digital elevation model from 2012 Indiana Map data.
Figure 6. Locations of previously identified sites in Hamilton County, Indiana. Digital elevation model from 2012 Indiana Map data.
Table 2. Summary of Distribution and Density of Sites and Artifacts for all Survey Areas. A total of 230 new archaeological sites were discovered during this project over nine survey areas encompassing 564.76 acres (228.55 ha). On average one site every 2.46 acres (0.996 ha) was discovered, and one artifact every 0.35 acres (0.14 ha). Prehistoric artifacts were substantially more dense (1 every 0.49 acres) and frequent (N = 1154) than historic artifact (1 every 1.2 acres, N = 471; Table 2). Artifacts ranging from the Early Archaic through Late Woodland, and 19" Century through modern period were discovered. Most sites are small lithic scatters/historic scatters or isolates and not considered eligible for the NRHP. Thirteen sites are considered to possess significant information potential for important regional research.
Table 2. Summary of Distribution and Density of Sites and Artifacts for all Survey Areas. A total of 230 new archaeological sites were discovered during this project over nine survey areas encompassing 564.76 acres (228.55 ha). On average one site every 2.46 acres (0.996 ha) was discovered, and one artifact every 0.35 acres (0.14 ha). Prehistoric artifacts were substantially more dense (1 every 0.49 acres) and frequent (N = 1154) than historic artifact (1 every 1.2 acres, N = 471; Table 2). Artifacts ranging from the Early Archaic through Late Woodland, and 19" Century through modern period were discovered. Most sites are small lithic scatters/historic scatters or isolates and not considered eligible for the NRHP. Thirteen sites are considered to possess significant information potential for important regional research.
Figure 10 shows that the vast majority of the county is within 500 m of some form of stream. Survey Areas 6 and 3 occupy the furthest distances from any form of stream and have two of the lower densities. Figure 4 illustrates that the vast majority of the county is poorly drained, and Figure 3 shows the majority of the county and sampled area constituted of uplands. Site and artifact densities do not appear to be patterned completely by these variables, though SA8 is immediately adjacent to water on lowland soil associations.
Figure 10 shows that the vast majority of the county is within 500 m of some form of stream. Survey Areas 6 and 3 occupy the furthest distances from any form of stream and have two of the lower densities. Figure 4 illustrates that the vast majority of the county is poorly drained, and Figure 3 shows the majority of the county and sampled area constituted of uplands. Site and artifact densities do not appear to be patterned completely by these variables, though SA8 is immediately adjacent to water on lowland soil associations.
Figure 10. Survey areas over 500 m buffers of distance from streams (Buffers created by author). Note: Greater than 2000 m is displayed as the same as the background.
Figure 10. Survey areas over 500 m buffers of distance from streams (Buffers created by author). Note: Greater than 2000 m is displayed as the same as the background.
Table 4. Temporal Distribution of Newly Discovered Occupations.
Table 4. Temporal Distribution of Newly Discovered Occupations.
Related topics:
ArchaeologyPrehistoric ArchaeologySoil ScienceHistorical ArchaeologyArchaeological GISPhosphate AnalysisDistributional ArchaeologyArchaeological surveyArchaeological field surveySoil phosphorus
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved