Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 11 – uploaded by Kevin C. Nolan

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Figure 7. Kriging of SA1 soils phosphate in the plowzone. PAUWAVULIL SUlt LeaUiisys. With this in mind, the plowzone pattern located in the northern portion of SAI and within the original boundaries of the Meyer’s site is likely a discrete occupation separated in time and space from the earlier (subsoil) event. The shallow, plowzone activity may be a Late Prehistoric village, as the phosphate distribution suggests a faint ring-shaped pattern that is typical of Late Prehistoric villages (see Brady-Rawlins 2007; Cook 2008; Graybill 1981; Henderson 1998; Nolan 2010; Pollack and Henderson 1992; among others). The subsoil activity encompasses the area in which the only diagnostic projectile point with a known provenience from the landowner collection was found. As of now, the soils analysis coupled with the artifact analysis suggest the possibility that this area may have been a large Early Woodland period habitation. The noticeable enrichment in soil phosphate content, large amounts of fire-cracked rock and debitage, as well as the flaked stone tools recovered, support this interpretation. Thus, two distinct phosphate signatures at different depths may reveal that SA1 has two chronologically separate habitation components.

Figure 7 Kriging of SA1 soils phosphate in the plowzone. PAUWAVULIL SUlt LeaUiisys. With this in mind, the plowzone pattern located in the northern portion of SAI and within the original boundaries of the Meyer’s site is likely a discrete occupation separated in time and space from the earlier (subsoil) event. The shallow, plowzone activity may be a Late Prehistoric village, as the phosphate distribution suggests a faint ring-shaped pattern that is typical of Late Prehistoric villages (see Brady-Rawlins 2007; Cook 2008; Graybill 1981; Henderson 1998; Nolan 2010; Pollack and Henderson 1992; among others). The subsoil activity encompasses the area in which the only diagnostic projectile point with a known provenience from the landowner collection was found. As of now, the soils analysis coupled with the artifact analysis suggest the possibility that this area may have been a large Early Woodland period habitation. The noticeable enrichment in soil phosphate content, large amounts of fire-cracked rock and debitage, as well as the flaked stone tools recovered, support this interpretation. Thus, two distinct phosphate signatures at different depths may reveal that SA1 has two chronologically separate habitation components.

Related Figures (37)

Indiana Department of Natural Resources Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology (DHPA)
Indiana Department of Natural Resources Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology (DHPA)
Mission Statement: The Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology promotes the conservation of Indiana’s cultural resources through public education efforts, financial incentives including several grant and tax credit programs, and the administration of state and federally mandated legislation.
Mission Statement: The Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology promotes the conservation of Indiana’s cultural resources through public education efforts, financial incentives including several grant and tax credit programs, and the administration of state and federally mandated legislation.
The archaeology poster shown above was created using HPF grant assistance. You can read about this public archaeology project at Spring Mill State Park in the article beginning on page 125 of Volume 7, Number 1 of Indiana Archaeology. Another creative example of sharing archaeological information with the public, using products created using HPF funds, includes a book about the archaeology of Mounds State Park in Anderson, Indiana. This publication may be found online at (http://cms.bsu.edu/academics/centersandinstitutes/applied-anthropology- laboratories/publications/6 landersonmoundsarch).
The archaeology poster shown above was created using HPF grant assistance. You can read about this public archaeology project at Spring Mill State Park in the article beginning on page 125 of Volume 7, Number 1 of Indiana Archaeology. Another creative example of sharing archaeological information with the public, using products created using HPF funds, includes a book about the archaeology of Mounds State Park in Anderson, Indiana. This publication may be found online at (http://cms.bsu.edu/academics/centersandinstitutes/applied-anthropology- laboratories/publications/6 landersonmoundsarch).
Indiana Archaeology 12(1) 2017
Indiana Archaeology 12(1) 2017
Dearborn County is located in the southeastern portion of the state, situated next to Ohio and Kentucky (Figure 1). As shown below, it is located between Wisconsin and Pre-Wisconsin age glaciations. Dearborn County is part of the Butlerville Till Member of the Jessup Formation, deposited during the Illinoisan Age of glaciation. Dearborn County also contains very small portions of lacustrine facies from the Atherton Formation as well as a very small portion of the Martinsville Formation, represented by an accumulation of non-glacial sediment that began with the melting of glacial ice in the region (Wayne 1966:37).
Dearborn County is located in the southeastern portion of the state, situated next to Ohio and Kentucky (Figure 1). As shown below, it is located between Wisconsin and Pre-Wisconsin age glaciations. Dearborn County is part of the Butlerville Till Member of the Jessup Formation, deposited during the Illinoisan Age of glaciation. Dearborn County also contains very small portions of lacustrine facies from the Atherton Formation as well as a very small portion of the Martinsville Formation, represented by an accumulation of non-glacial sediment that began with the melting of glacial ice in the region (Wayne 1966:37).
Parrish and McCord (1995:40) report that archaeological research in the county began vith the work of General William H. Harrison in the 1790s who documented hilltop enclosures. Vithin Dearborn County, one such enclosure exists (12D25, the Oberting Fort site [a.k.a. )berting-Glenn site]). This hilltop enclosure is the reference point of many reports generated fter Harrison’s work, including MacPherson’s (1879) report on Indiana geology (Figure 5) and hhaw’s (1915) History of Dearborn County, Indiana. More recently the Oberting-Glenn site was nvestigated by Coon (2008) while studying Hopewell social organization and interaction. \dditionally, an extensive amateur investigation of the site has recently come to light. This effort vas conducted by Richard “Dick” Scammyhorn, and the collection is curated at the Cincinnati Auseum Center. A brief review of the collection is included in the full grant report (Swihart and Nolan 2014). The site is now owned and protected by The Archaeological Conservancy. Figure 5. Samuel Morrison’s 1816 drawing of the Oberting Fort site (MacPherson 1879:125).
Parrish and McCord (1995:40) report that archaeological research in the county began vith the work of General William H. Harrison in the 1790s who documented hilltop enclosures. Vithin Dearborn County, one such enclosure exists (12D25, the Oberting Fort site [a.k.a. )berting-Glenn site]). This hilltop enclosure is the reference point of many reports generated fter Harrison’s work, including MacPherson’s (1879) report on Indiana geology (Figure 5) and hhaw’s (1915) History of Dearborn County, Indiana. More recently the Oberting-Glenn site was nvestigated by Coon (2008) while studying Hopewell social organization and interaction. \dditionally, an extensive amateur investigation of the site has recently come to light. This effort vas conducted by Richard “Dick” Scammyhorn, and the collection is curated at the Cincinnati Auseum Center. A brief review of the collection is included in the full grant report (Swihart and Nolan 2014). The site is now owned and protected by The Archaeological Conservancy. Figure 5. Samuel Morrison’s 1816 drawing of the Oberting Fort site (MacPherson 1879:125).
ee ee EL Le Archaeological sites were defined using the GIS using ArcMap after returning to the laboratory. A 15 meter buffer was used as a guide for defining clusters of mapped collection loci across the SAs. Laboratory analyses followed standardized procedures used for all projects conducted by the Applied Anthropology Laboratories (AAL). This included microscopic examination of archaeological specimens for identifying raw material type and signs of use. Definitions for lithic artifacts came from Andrefsky (2005; see Figure 6).
ee ee EL Le Archaeological sites were defined using the GIS using ArcMap after returning to the laboratory. A 15 meter buffer was used as a guide for defining clusters of mapped collection loci across the SAs. Laboratory analyses followed standardized procedures used for all projects conducted by the Applied Anthropology Laboratories (AAL). This included microscopic examination of archaeological specimens for identifying raw material type and signs of use. Definitions for lithic artifacts came from Andrefsky (2005; see Figure 6).
Table 1. Artifact classification for Survey Area 2. Soil collection surveys utilized a 10 m x 10 m offset isosceles grid system (see Banning 2002:97-100) to collect soil core samples. For each sample location within the collection grid, one sample was taken from the A/Ap horizon with an Oakfield soil probe. Roughly the top 5 cm of each core was discarded, with the next 10 cm of the core taken as a sample for analysis. All soil collection loci were mapped using sub-meter GPS and postprocessed with Pathfinder software by Trimble. These were then uploaded to ArcMap GIS. In floodplains (SA1 and SA5) additional soil samples were taken from approximately 30-40 cm below ground surface in every other transect at every other sample location. This resulted in a 20 m x 20 m offset isosceles collection grid for subsoil samples in alluvial settings. ™~m 41 - 4 ww 6 OU v1 TANTO 41 1 7 8 «©
Table 1. Artifact classification for Survey Area 2. Soil collection surveys utilized a 10 m x 10 m offset isosceles grid system (see Banning 2002:97-100) to collect soil core samples. For each sample location within the collection grid, one sample was taken from the A/Ap horizon with an Oakfield soil probe. Roughly the top 5 cm of each core was discarded, with the next 10 cm of the core taken as a sample for analysis. All soil collection loci were mapped using sub-meter GPS and postprocessed with Pathfinder software by Trimble. These were then uploaded to ArcMap GIS. In floodplains (SA1 and SA5) additional soil samples were taken from approximately 30-40 cm below ground surface in every other transect at every other sample location. This resulted in a 20 m x 20 m offset isosceles collection grid for subsoil samples in alluvial settings. ™~m 41 - 4 ww 6 OU v1 TANTO 41 1 7 8 «©
Figure 8. Kriging of SA1 soil phosphate from subsoil samples.
Figure 8. Kriging of SA1 soil phosphate from subsoil samples.
Figure 9. Kriging surface of SA1 low frequency mass specific magnetic susceptibility.
Figure 9. Kriging surface of SA1 low frequency mass specific magnetic susceptibility.
Figure 10. Kriging surface of the frequency dependent magnetic susceptibility distribution in SA1.
Figure 10. Kriging surface of the frequency dependent magnetic susceptibility distribution in SA1.
Figure 11. Composite interpolation of all SA2 artifacts. informed us that when their father owned the parcel with the possible mound, he had tried plow it down and that he also recovered at least one burial from the hill.
Figure 11. Composite interpolation of all SA2 artifacts. informed us that when their father owned the parcel with the possible mound, he had tried plow it down and that he also recovered at least one burial from the hill.
Figure 1. Location of Montgomery County within the State of Indiana (Yellowmap World Atlas 2012). to medium coarse, and luster is generally dull to slightly glossy (Cantin 2008:12). Fossil inclusions are rare with the exception of microscopic sponge spicules, but crystalline vugs have been encountered (Cantin 2008:12). Temporally, Attica chert is found in all cultural periods in Indiana; however, little use is documented for Woodland and Mississippian periods in Indiana (Cantin 2008:13).
Figure 1. Location of Montgomery County within the State of Indiana (Yellowmap World Atlas 2012). to medium coarse, and luster is generally dull to slightly glossy (Cantin 2008:12). Fossil inclusions are rare with the exception of microscopic sponge spicules, but crystalline vugs have been encountered (Cantin 2008:12). Temporally, Attica chert is found in all cultural periods in Indiana; however, little use is documented for Woodland and Mississippian periods in Indiana (Cantin 2008:13).
Figure 2. Example of Attica chert from the Ball State University AAL Chert Collection (photo by Ball State University).
Figure 2. Example of Attica chert from the Ball State University AAL Chert Collection (photo by Ball State University).
Indiana Archaeology 12(1) 2017 The project recovered 610 prehistoric artifacts and 1,174 historic artifacts (Table 1). The majority of prehistoric artifacts consisted of lithic debitage. Edge modification noted on several flakes indicates some debitage could function as expedient tools. The majority of formal lithic tool types were projectile points dating to the Early Archaic, Middle Archaic, Late Archaic, Middle Woodland, and Late Woodland/Late Prehistoric periods (Table 2 and Figures 3-6) (Justice 1987). Other stone tools consisted of a ground stone axe head (Figure 7), endscrapers, sidescrapers, groundstone tools, burins, and core tools. Historic artifacts included various types of ceramics, various colors and types of glass, metal objects, and brick fragments, dating from the late 18" century to present (Figure 8-10).
Indiana Archaeology 12(1) 2017 The project recovered 610 prehistoric artifacts and 1,174 historic artifacts (Table 1). The majority of prehistoric artifacts consisted of lithic debitage. Edge modification noted on several flakes indicates some debitage could function as expedient tools. The majority of formal lithic tool types were projectile points dating to the Early Archaic, Middle Archaic, Late Archaic, Middle Woodland, and Late Woodland/Late Prehistoric periods (Table 2 and Figures 3-6) (Justice 1987). Other stone tools consisted of a ground stone axe head (Figure 7), endscrapers, sidescrapers, groundstone tools, burins, and core tools. Historic artifacts included various types of ceramics, various colors and types of glass, metal objects, and brick fragments, dating from the late 18" century to present (Figure 8-10).
Figure 5. Snyders point recovered from site 12My599 (photo by Sarah Aown, Ball State University).
Figure 5. Snyders point recovered from site 12My599 (photo by Sarah Aown, Ball State University).
Figure 6. Triangular Cluster point recovered from site 12My632 (photo by Sarah Aown, Ball State University).
Figure 6. Triangular Cluster point recovered from site 12My632 (photo by Sarah Aown, Ball State University).
Figure 7. Groundstone axe head from site 12My560 (photo by Sarah Aown, Ball State University).
Figure 7. Groundstone axe head from site 12My560 (photo by Sarah Aown, Ball State University).
Figure 8. Copper heart shaped mold from site 12My519 in Survey Area 7 (photo by Sarah Aown, Ball State University).
Figure 8. Copper heart shaped mold from site 12My519 in Survey Area 7 (photo by Sarah Aown, Ball State University).
Figure 9. Representative historic artifacts from Survey Area 9 (photo by Sarah Aown, Ball State University).
Figure 9. Representative historic artifacts from Survey Area 9 (photo by Sarah Aown, Ball State University).
Figure 10. Representative historic artifacts from Survey Area 9 (photo by Sarah Aown, Ball State University)
Figure 10. Representative historic artifacts from Survey Area 9 (photo by Sarah Aown, Ball State University)
, ne a, The breakdown of the chert tells us that prehistoric people living in Montgomery County were relying primarily on local, easily obtained resources (75.9%) such as Attica and Liston Creek for all uses including formal tools. It also indicates that this heavy reliance on local resources was supplemented occasionally with more exotic lithic materials from farther south such as Holland and Wyandotte. These exotic materials seem to have been procured primarily for formal tool production or even more likely as readymade formal tools as evidenced by the presence of projectile points but relatively low amounts of debitage.
, ne a, The breakdown of the chert tells us that prehistoric people living in Montgomery County were relying primarily on local, easily obtained resources (75.9%) such as Attica and Liston Creek for all uses including formal tools. It also indicates that this heavy reliance on local resources was supplemented occasionally with more exotic lithic materials from farther south such as Holland and Wyandotte. These exotic materials seem to have been procured primarily for formal tool production or even more likely as readymade formal tools as evidenced by the presence of projectile points but relatively low amounts of debitage.
Prehistoric Sites. The frequency of identified prehistoric components encountered in the project area was similar to what had already been identified in Montgomery County. Almost every cultural period was represented, the exceptions being Paleoindian and Early Woodland. Five substantial prehistoric scatters (12My632, 12My642, 12My644, 12My645, 12My649) were discovered as a result of this project and were recommended for further investigation. These recommendations are based predominately on Criterion D of the National Register of Historic Places, information potential. The determination was generally made due to increased artifact density, unique artifact classes, and contextual understandings such as proximity to other prehistoric items or known prehistoric locations. These five sites were located in close proximity to one another and offered a disproportionately large amount of formal tools, as well as lithic debitage, predominantly consistent with a single chert type (Attica).
Prehistoric Sites. The frequency of identified prehistoric components encountered in the project area was similar to what had already been identified in Montgomery County. Almost every cultural period was represented, the exceptions being Paleoindian and Early Woodland. Five substantial prehistoric scatters (12My632, 12My642, 12My644, 12My645, 12My649) were discovered as a result of this project and were recommended for further investigation. These recommendations are based predominately on Criterion D of the National Register of Historic Places, information potential. The determination was generally made due to increased artifact density, unique artifact classes, and contextual understandings such as proximity to other prehistoric items or known prehistoric locations. These five sites were located in close proximity to one another and offered a disproportionately large amount of formal tools, as well as lithic debitage, predominantly consistent with a single chert type (Attica).
In addition, eight previously undocumented projectile point types were added to the knowledge of Montgomery County’s prehistory. These included a serrated point belonging to the Kirk Corner Notched Cluster, a Stilwell point, a Lamoka point, a Karnak Stemmed point (Figure 4), a Turkey Tail Cluster point, a Brewerton Corner Notched Cluster point, a Triangular Cluster point (Figure 6), and a Nodena Cluster point.
In addition, eight previously undocumented projectile point types were added to the knowledge of Montgomery County’s prehistory. These included a serrated point belonging to the Kirk Corner Notched Cluster, a Stilwell point, a Lamoka point, a Karnak Stemmed point (Figure 4), a Turkey Tail Cluster point, a Brewerton Corner Notched Cluster point, a Triangular Cluster point (Figure 6), and a Nodena Cluster point.
Figure 11. Residents of Montgomery County attending the Applied Anthropology Laboratories HPF Grant presentation on April 2, 2014 (photo by Trey Hill, Ball State University). Review attended this presentation and an article was included in the next day’s edition of th orint and online newspaper. Coverage of this presentation and project proceedings in generz were also posted to the AAL’s Facebook page and various other social media sites.
Figure 11. Residents of Montgomery County attending the Applied Anthropology Laboratories HPF Grant presentation on April 2, 2014 (photo by Trey Hill, Ball State University). Review attended this presentation and an article was included in the next day’s edition of th orint and online newspaper. Coverage of this presentation and project proceedings in generz were also posted to the AAL’s Facebook page and various other social media sites.
Related topics:
ArchaeologySoil ScienceDistributional ArchaeologyLate PrehistorySoil phosphorus
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved