INDIANA UNIVERSITY-PURDUE UNIVERSITY FORT WAYNE An Archaeological Survey of the Thiebaud Property, Switzerland County, Indiana by Michael Strezewski Robert G. McCullough, Principal Investigator Reports of Investigations 305 February 2004 IPFW Archaeological Survey Indiana University-Purdue University at Fort Wayne 2101 East Coliseum Blvd. Fort Wayne, Indiana 46805-1499 Forward to the Digital Version August 2004 This is a digital version of the Indiana University–Purdue University at Fort Wayne Archaeological Survey (IPFW-AS) Report of Investigations 305, originally published in February of 2004. This digital version was produced by the IPFW-AS using Adobe Acrobat 5.0 software and may be viewed or printed using Adobe Acrobat Reader. The digital version of ROI 305 is identical in content to the original paper version of the report. However, due to changes in format, there may be some differences in pagination from the original. This report contains archaeological site location information that is not intended for public disclosure. This report is solely for distribution to professional archaeologists and others who would normally have access to this kind of information. Therefore, the contents of this report should be treated with discretion. Sarah Surface-Evans ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Words of appreciation are due to Martha Bladen, Leon Hostettler, and Chris Baas, whose active interest in the history and prehistory of Switzerland County made this survey possible. Leon is to be commended for his willingness to come out with us on a cold, rainy January morning to show us around the property. His insights also proved most valuable. i Table of Contents Acknowledgments...........................................................................................................................i List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. iii Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1 Physiography and Geology ............................................................................................................ 2 Archaeological Setting ................................................................................................................... 9 Previous Research ........................................................................................................................ 20 Results .......................................................................................................................................... 23 Conclusions .................................................................................................................................. 50 Referenced Cited .......................................................................................................................... 55 ii List of Figures Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3. Figure 4. Figure 5. Figure 6. Figure 7. Figure 8. Figure 9. Figure 10. Figure 11. Figure 12. Figure 13. Figure 14. Figure 15. Figure 16. Figure 17. Figure 18. Figure 19. Figure 20. Figure 21. Figure 22. Figure 23. Figure 24. Figure 25. Figure 26. Figure 27. Figure 28. Figure 29. Figure 30. Figure 31. Figure 32. Figure 33. Figure 34. Figure 35. Boundaries of the Thiebaud property on the U.S.G.S. Vevay South 7.5' quadrangle map ...................................................................................................... 1 Map of identified soil types on the Thiebaud property (modified from Nickell 1987). ..................................................................................................................... 5 Areas of the Thiebaud property available for agricultural production (modified from Nickell 1987) ................................................................................................. 7 1930 aerial photo of the Thiebaud property ........................................................... 8 Location of Late Prehistoric cultural manifestations in the Ohio River valley ... 16 Location of disced areas ...................................................................................... 24 Disced areas immediately west of the press barn (Area A). View to the west .... 25 Planview map of disced Area A, showing location of artifact clusters ............... 26 Demolished structures identified on the Thiebaud property ................................ 28 Planview map of Structure A ............................................................................... 29 Southwest corner of Structure A foundation ....................................................... 30 Planview map of Structure B ............................................................................... 31 Southwest corner of Structure B, view to the northeast ...................................... 32 Structure C, view toward the south ...................................................................... 33 Location of stone walls on the Thiebaud property .............................................. 34 General view of Wall A, view to the east ............................................................ 35 Partially collapsed section of Wall A, showing its location on the edge of the ridgetop ................................................................................................................ 36 Wall B, view to the west ...................................................................................... 37 Eastern terminus of Wall B, showing horizonally lain blocks along the slope ... 38 Wall D, view to the north ..................................................................................... 39 Planview map of Wall D ...................................................................................... 40 Location of trailer sites, creek crossings, and pump house ................................. 41 Location of check dams in the western ravine ..................................................... 42 Example of check dam in the lower portion of the ravine ................................... 43 Check dam in the upper portion of the ravine, near the ridgetop ........................ 44 Planvew map of check dam in the lower portion of the ravine ........................... 45 Planview map of check dam in the lower portion of the ravine .......................... 46 Piles of limestone slabs identified on the Thiebaud property .............................. 47 Limestone pile A, view to the northeast. Note loose slabs in foreground from digging in center of the pile ................................................................................. 48 Location of livestock ponds on the Thiebaud property ....................................... 49 Old county road, creek crossing, and stone cairn at northern edge of property .. 50 1883 atlas of Craig Township showing road running along north edge of property. Present property boundary is shown in pink ........................................................ 51 Approximate extent of terraced area above the house and press barn. ................ 52 Previously unidentified prehistoric sites on the Thiebaud property .................... 53 Artifacts found at site 12 Sw 418 ......................................................................... 54 iii ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE THIEBAUD PROPERTY INTRODUCTION At the request of the Switzerland County Historical Society, the Indiana University - Purdue University Archaeological Survey (IPFW-AS) has completed an archaeological assessment of the Thiebaud property in Craig Township, Switzerland County, Indiana, approximately 2.0 miles west of the town of Vevay (Figure 1). The Thiebaud property fronts the Ohio River and encompasses 165 acres, approximately 90 percent of which lies in heavily dissected uplands. Though the site is significant in terms of the history of Switzerland County, no formal survey has been conducted of the historic and prehistoric archaeological resources present 1 on the property. This report provides an assessment and description of these resources. The Thiebaud farmstead was established by Frederick and Harriet Thiebaud, who immigrated from Switzerland in 1817, following other Swiss immigrants to the newly opened Ohio River area of Indiana (Taylor and McBirney 1996:596). Prior to their arrival, the family had forwarded money to the United States for the purchase of land and had arranged for a cabin to be built on the property. After arrival in Switzerland County, via keelboat, the family set about clearing the land, planting crops, and constructing outbuildings (Hendricks 2001:4). A large hay press barn was constructed in the mid-nineteenth century. The property Figure 1. Boundaries of the Thiebaud property on the U.S.G.S. Vevay South 7.5’ quadrangle map. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE THIEBAUD PROPERTY continued to be used for agricultural purposes through the twentieth century. Due to local interest in its historical significance, the most recent landowner, the Dow Corning Corporation, deeded the property to the Switzerland County Historical Society in August 2002. The Historical Society intends to turn the existing structures into a living history museum, highlighting the agricultural contribution that Switzerland County made to the region. A nowdismantled nineteenth century hay press barn is also to be erected on the property. Hay press barns housed a three-story-high machine designed to compact hay into tight bales for shipping to points downriver, where they could fetch a higher price. At one point in time, over 200 hay press barns dotted the Switzerland County landscape. At the present time, however, only a few of these barns remain in Switzerland County. Survey by IPFW-AS personnel was conducted over the course of three non-sequential days (August 13, 2003, November 19, 2003, and January 17, 2004) and consisted of pedestrian survey throughout the extent of the property. Due to time and budgetary constraints, no systematic subsurface testing was conduced. The one exception to this was a limited pedestrian surface survey that was undertaken in three disced areas around the house and press barn. This report includes descriptions of the location and nature of all identified stone walls, bridges, demolished structures, and a number of other manmade features on the property. Descriptions of currently standing structures are not included in this report. These structures consist of a Greek Revival style house, hay press barn, granary, carriage house/ buggy shop, privy, a small limestone building (possibly a springhouse), and a stone wall surrounding the house. All of these structures are concentrated in one small area of the property, just north of State Road 56. Details of their construction and current condition are covered in Baas’ recent summary of the property (2003) and will therefore not be repeated here. Though only limited subsurface reconnaissance of the property 2 was conducted during the course of the survey, two prehistoric archaeological sites were also identified. PHYSIOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGY The Switzerland County region lies within the Dearborn Upland physiographic region. Topography is that of a deeply dissected upland plateau. Ravines in this region are typically vshaped, steeply sloped, and may lie up to 450 ft below the adjacent uplands. (Schneider 1966:42). The area is underlain by limestone and shale bedrock. Though the topography is quite hilly, cliffs and rockshelters are not commonly found, as these features are most often associated with sandstone rather than limestone bedrock (Campbell 1997:162). The entirety of southeastern Indiana was glaciated during the Illinoisan glacial period (300,000-125,000 years ago), an event which molded the surface geology of the Switzerland County region (Lindsey et al. 1969:54). Switzerland County did, however, escape the impact of the later Wisconsinan glacial period (75,000-10,000 years ago) that created the flat, almost featureless landscape found farther to the north (Campbell 1997:161). Upland areas in Switzerland County are overlain by glacial drift. The term drift comprises all material transported and deposited by glacial action. Most often, this material was deposited when the glacier began to melt. The thickness of the drift varies from about 15 to 20 feet thick in the Switzerland County area to over 50 feet in thickness near the Wisconsinan glacial boundary near Franklin County, Indiana. Due to the deep mantle of glacial drift, the contours of the underlying bedrock have little effect on present-day topographic features. Bedrock outcrops of chert, a material suitable for the prehistoric manufacture of stone tools, are not abundant in the Switzerland County region. This is a result of the deep till deposits that overlie the bedrock. Though chert nodules may be found within deposits of till, the quality and size of the raw ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE THIEBAUD PROPERTY material can vary widely, a fact which may have limited its usefulness. Outcrops of poor-quality fossiliferous chert have been reported from the bluffs directly to the west of State Road 129, just west of Vevay proper. The material is reportedly similar to poor-quality Laurel chert (Leon Hostetler, pers. comm. 2003) and the frequency of its use in prehistory is not known. Quality raw material suitable for the manufacture of stone tools can be found, however, to the north of Switzerland County. Laurel chert, which outcrops in northern Jefferson, western Dearborn, and Ripley counties, is fairly homogenous, making it a very good raw material for knapping stone tools. Laurel chert is also reported as residual deposits just to the north of the project area (Angst 1998:101). It is usually white in color, with great variability in texture and luster. Laurel chert was used extensively throughout prehistory, particularly during the Archaic period (Cantin 1994:23). For example, residents of the Late Archaic Maple Creek site in southwestern Ohio made extensive use of Laurel chert, despite being over 50 miles from its source (Vickery 1974). Though no systematic study of the use of Laurel chert has been conducted for Switzerland County, previous archaeological research in the area suggests that Laurel may have been a primary lithic source for prehistoric stone tool manufacture. For example, in 1999, a Ball State University survey of State Road 129 between Vevay and Pleasant located 44 previously unreported prehistoric archaeological sites. Of these sites, Laurel chert was nearly always the predominant material for stone tool manufacture (Angst 1998). Much of the Laurel chert identified during this survey was heat treated, a process done to improve its workability. Local glacial cherts were also occasionally utilized, though their relative scarcity in archaeological samples suggests that the local raw material may not have been adequate for many prehistoric uses. Jeffersonville chert is found in northern Jefferson County and eastern Jennings County, Indiana. It is a white, fossiliferous chert found in 3 tabular chunks. Heat treatment of this chert turns it slightly pink. The presence of fossils in Jeffersonville chert hampers its usefulness, particularly for those tools that require precision flaking. Not much is known about its use in prehistory, though it was likely utilized, due to its presence in an otherwise chert-poor region of the state (Cantin 1994:21). Angst’s (1998) survey of the area near the project area suggests that Jeffersonville chert appears to have been used only occasionally by the prehistoric inhabitants of Switzerland County. Allen’s Creek chert, like Jeffersonville, is another fossiliferous, bedded chert. It is found primarily in western Clark County and is most often light gray in color. Most Allen’s Creek chert is of only mediocre quality, though heat treating can improve its knappability greatly. Some Allen’s Creek, however, is of higher quality. The degree of its prehistoric use in southeastern Indiana is not well known, though a recent Ball State survey of State Road 129 (Angst 1998) found little or no evidence for the use of Allen’s Creek chert in the areas immediately surrounding the project area. Finally, Angst (1998) also recorded a minor presence of Wyandotte chert near the project area. This high-quality chert outcrops primarily in Harrison County. Because of its excellent knapping characteristics, Wyandotte chert was traded extensively throughout the region during prehistory. Its use was particularly popular during the Late Archaic, and Early and Middle Woodland periods (Cantin 1994:32). Initial studies suggest that chert use patterns may have differed substantially in upland versus bottomland locales. Angst (1998:101) reports that in upland settings, cherts from glacial sources account for only 2.0 percent of the total. In the bottoms, however, glacial cherts made up 30.0 percent of all materials. Laurel chert, which was found in relatively high quantities, made up 91.0 percent of the total at upland sites and only 44.0 percent in bottomland settings. The remaining portions consisted of all other cherts and those of unknown type. The relative abundance of gravel ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE THIEBAUD PROPERTY 4 cherts in the bottoms suggests that most may have routinely used for hay production. All of the upland been collected from gravel bars on the Ohio River soils are underlain by limestone bedrock. (Angst 1998:101). (CaC2) Carmel silty clay loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes, eroded. Soils found on the narrow, Soils on the Thiebaud Property elongated ridgetops and shoulder slopes are In general, soils on the property can be divided up classified as Carmel silty clay loam, 6 to12 percent into two main divisions: upland and bottomland slopes, eroded. These soils formed within Approximately 90 percent of the property lies in windblown loess and residual fragments of upland areas and slopes, with the remaining 10 bedrock and are well suited to pasture and hay percent in bottomland and terraces. Upland areas production. They can also be used for corn, within the project area are mapped as Eden- soybean, grain, and tobacco cultivation if antiSwitzerland soils, which are described as erosion measures such as crop rotation and no-till “moderately deep and deep, gently sloping to very agriculture are undertaken. steep, well drained soils formed in a thin mantle of loess and in the underlying clayey material (EeE2) Eden silty clay loam, 15 to 50 percent weathered from limestone and calcareous shale” slopes, eroded. This soil is found on the edges of (Nickell 1987). Upland soils are generally thin, ridgetops and the upper portions of slopes. The with bedrock found relatively close to the surface soil is fairly well-suited to pasture grasses like (Campbell 1997:162) and have been deeply fescue and orchardgrass. and hay can be grown in leached (Lindsey et al. 1969:54). The limestone spots where the slope is less than 20 percent. The bedrock is of the Dillsboro formation, an presence of these grasses is usually enough to Ordovician fossiliferous limestone 300 feet thick control erosion, though overgrazing can cause excessive surface runoff (Nickell 1987:24). (Nickell 1987:76). Those soils at the base of the bluff and near the Overall, the soil is not well suited to agriculture. river are mapped as Huntington-Wheeling soils. These soils are described by Nickell (1987) as (EdF2) Eden flaggy silt loam, 25 to 50 percent “deep, nearly level to steep, well drained soils slopes, eroded. These soils are found on the formed in silty and loamy alluvium.” These soils are middle portions of upland slopes. The surface layer of Pleistocene and Holocene origin. Wheeling soils consists of about 5 inches of dark brown silt loam, consist of Pleistocene alluvium underlain by terrace mixed with chunks of flagstone. This is underlain by gravel, while Huntington soils comprise organic- a subsoil consisting of firm silt, clay, and slightly rich silty alluvium of more recent origin (Nickell weathered fractured limestone. These soils are generally unsuitable for cultivation, pasture, or hay 1987:77). Specific soils within the project area conform production because of the extreme slope, erosion closely to this division into upland versus hazard, and presence of flagstone in the surface bottomland and terrace areas. The following soil layer. The most appropriate use for these areas is descriptions and characterization of their agricultural woodland. suitability are summarized from Nickell (1987). (Dr) (ravines) Dearborn channery silt loam, frequently flooded. Dearborn soils are located in Upland Soils Upland soils are within the Eden and Carmel long, narrow, and highly dissected areas adjacent series (Figure 2). In general most of the soils within to the rapidly flowing streams that drain the this are not well suited to agriculture, though the uplands. The surface layer is about 5 inches thick ridgetops and less-inclined slopes could have been and consists of a dark brown silt loam with at least ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE THIEBAUD PROPERTY 15 percent “channers,” which are small, thin, flat fragments of limestone. Areas of Dearborn soil, though narrow, are suitable for hay and pasture cultivation. These areas can also be used for corn or tobacco, though frequent flooding may be a problem. 5 category. (PaE2) Pate silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes, eroded. This strongly sloping soil is found on the foot slopes of upland areas. The surface layer consists of a 5-inch layer of dark brown silt loam with some clay content. Coarse fragments of limestone are often found on the surface. Due to the severe slope and accompanying erosion, Pate series soils are generally unsuitable for row crops. Though some areas are used for hay and pasture, these soils are generally not suitable for this purpose. Bottomland Soils Soils found below the uplands can be classified into two general categories: (1) those that are the result of colluvial processes (soils formed by erosion of materials from above) and (2) those that formed as a result of alluvial processes (deposited on land by water action). Pate series soils are an example of the former, while Huntington soils fall into the latter (Hu) Huntington silt loam, occasionally flooded. Figure 2. Map of identified soil types on the Thiebaud property (modified from Nickell 1987). ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE THIEBAUD PROPERTY These soils are found along the Ohio River and its larger tributaries and flooded most often in winter and early spring. Deposits of silt and clay can extend to depths of 80 inches or more. Huntington soils are well-suited to corn, soybeans, hay, and pasture. Suitability for Agricultural Production In general, ridgetops, slight slopes, bases of ravines, and bottomland areas would have been suitable for longer-term agricultural production, provided adequate measures were taken to control erosion (Nickell 1987) (Figure 3). Apart from the narrow bottomland/terrace (ca. 20 acres), however, none of the Thiebaud property is considered prime farmland (Nickell 1987:95). Suitable crops in these areas include corn, soybeans, various grains, and tobacco. Hay and other pasture grasses could also have been grown. Agriculturally suitable areas encompass approximately 45 percent of the 165 acres. This figure, however, is based on a twentieth century estimation of soil suitability. Nineteenth century assessments, in the absence of modern-day soil conservation measures, would have likely been more liberal and it is probable that some areas were used for agricultural production that would not be considered suitable today. Such practices were common prior to the advent of modern soil conservation techniques (e.g., contour and no-till farming) and would have resulted in significant runoff from slopewash. Erosion is a concern in areas with greater than two percent slopes, and given the extreme relief found on the Thiebaud property, this would have been a primary hazard in any attempt at agricultural use. Rapid loss of topsoil from overexploitation would have quickly reduced soil productivity. Aerial photos of the property in 1930 show that much of the ridgetops and large portions of the slopes were denuded (Figure 4). Presently the vast majority of the upland areas are in secondary forest. The relatively young age of the trees on the property indicate that logging had 6 been conducted up through the relatively recent past. Agricultural census data from Justi Thiebaud’s farm indicate that in the period 1850 to 1880, the main crops grown on the property were winter wheat, Indian corn, potatoes, and hay. A market garden was also planted. Livestock seem to have been of relatively minor importance throughout this period, though the census does indicate that varying numbers of cattle, sheep, and pigs were kept on the property. Hay production became an important part of the local economy beginning in the 1840s, and it is clear from the agricultural census that Justi Thiebaud was a full participant in this movement. In 1850 only six tons of hay were produced on the farm. This jumped to 30 tons in 1857, 39 tons in 1860, and 80 tons in 1870. The sudden jump in production suggests that the hay press was built ca. 1855 (Baas 2003). Falling prices for hay in the 1870s and 1880s signaled the end of hay export in Switzerland county and the production of only 10 tons of hay on the Thiebaud farm in 1880 is in keeping with the declining market. There is some question as to whether or not grapes were ever cultivated by the Thiebaud family, as neither grape nor wine production are mentioned in the available agricultural censuses spanning the period 1850 to 1880. In answering this, the first question is whether or not the Thiebaud property was suitable for grape production. The suitability of a particular parcel of land for grape cultivation is dependent upon a number of factors as grapes are notoriously fickle plants to grow successfully. The local climate of a specific location is influenced by the elevation, the slope, and the aspect of the slope (i.e., the direction it is facing). Planting on a slope is an effective means of moderating temperature as cooler, heavier air travels downslope and therefore prevents freezing. Close proximity to temperature moderating bodies of water is also important as rapid drops in temperature in the winter and spring can damage vines and/or fruit. Windbreaks uphill from the ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE THIEBAUD PROPERTY vineyard can also prevent cold air from traveling downslope. In the warmer months, heat accumulation becomes a factor. The accumulation of heat impacts the ability of the plant to ripen fruit and can affect the quality of the resulting grapes. South and west-facing slopes, such as those above the Thiebaud house, are ideal for heat accumulation, as they allow plants to receive direct sunlight during the hottest parts of the day. In sum, the area chosen for grape cultivation should neither be too hot nor too cold. Soils should be well-drained and slightly acidic for most varieties of grapes (Zabadal and Andersen 1997). Soil pH on the slopes facing the river have been characterized as neutral to slightly 7 alkaline and may not have been ideal in this respect (Nickell 1987:66). The microclimate of the individual vine is also quite important. Factors such the degree of sunlight exposure, daily variability in temperature, and how long the vines remain wet with rain or dew can determine the success or failure of an individual plant, and plant spacing and row orientation are crucial factors to consider in this regard (Zabadal and Andersen 1997). Grapevines require about 165 frost-free days in order for fruit to mature and for the plant tissues to become acclimated to the cold. The area around Vevay receives approximately 172 frost-free days in 9 out of 10 years (Nickell 1987:93) and is therefore suited for grape growing in this respect as Figure 3. Areas of the Thiebaud property available for agricultural production (modified from Nickell 1987). ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE THIEBAUD PROPERTY well. Considering the apparent suitability of these river-facing slopes for grape growing, it is possible that the four terraces constructed above the press barn and house (see below) may have been initially intended for grape cultivation. One other possibility is that they were constructed to control erosion above the house and barn, a common practice in the Switzerland County area (Leon Hostetler, pers. comm. 2003). Though there are no extant records to indicate that viticulture was practiced by the Thiebaud family, the great time and effort put into constructing terraces on the steep slopes may indicate their use for a specialized crop like grapes, rather than a hardy cultivar such Figure 4. 1930 aerial photo of the Thiebaud property. 8 as hay or corn, that could have been grown on any number of places on the property. If grapes were grown by the Thiebaud family, it was given up soon after arriving in the United States as there is no record of such activity on the 1850 agricultural census. Natural Fauna and Flora Switzerland County and the Thiebaud property lie within the Switzerland Hills section of the Bluegrass Natural Region (Homoya 1997:158). Prehistorically, this region would have been mostly forested, though examples of glade, cliff, and barren communities were also known. The most ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE THIEBAUD PROPERTY distinctive natural community of the Switzerland County region was the mesophytic forest. This community, though not common in Indiana, is unique in its diversity (Petty and Jackson 1966:281). In the mesophytic forest, as many as a dozen tree species may dominate a given stand. These species include American beech, white ash, blue ash, sugar maple, shagbark hickory, tulip poplar, and white and red oaks (Campbell 1997:162). Tree species such as yellow buckeye and white basswood, that are more common in Appalachian regions, are also occasionally found here. Shrubs such as paw-paw, spicebush, greenbriar, and leatherwood are also common (Petty and Jackson 1966:282). ARCHAEOLOGICAL SETTING The culture history of the Ohio River valley spans from the earliest known inhabitants of the continent, ca. 10,500 B.C. to the present. Though all cultural periods are apparently represented in the area, our knowledge of some of these cultures is still quite limited. In general, given the predominance of uplands and the narrow bottomland on the Thiebaud property, we would expect prehistoric occupation of the immediate area to have been ephemeral and non-intensive. Predictive models of upland settlement suggest that sites most often consist of small, diffuse scatters of debris from stone tool manufacture and/ or resharpening. Archaeological materials are generally limited to the ridgetops and bottomlands. Denser scatters of prehistoric material might be expected around particular features such as chert outcrops or rockshelters (White 2001:227). Features of this type, however, were not identified during the survey. Data from upland region surveys indicate that one should expect about one prehistoric archaeological site per each 7.8 acres surveyed (Parish and McCord 1995). These patterns suggest that upland areas were probably used throughout the millennia in the context of a variety of short-duration tasks, representing periodic, ephemeral occupations of 9 an area (White 2001:227). These activities include hunting larger and small game, and gathering nuts, berries, and a variety of other plant resources that would have been available. Small groups or individuals would have likely established shortterm camps in the uplands to utilize these resources. Archaeological surveys in the immediate area (e.g., Angst 1998) have confirmed this model of upland settlement for the Switzerland County vicinity as well. Regional Prehistory The cultural history of southern Indiana is long and complex, extending at least 12,000 years into the past and including a rich mosaic of prehistoric and historic societies, cultures, and lifeways. The record of these manifestations is equally complex. Specific knowledge about many aspects of the prehistory of southern Indiana is quite limited. The following is a brief introduction to the periods commonly used to describe cultures and cultural changes in the Midwest in general and within Indiana in particular. Further information is available from numerous sources. The Paleoindian Period of eastern North America has been addressed in Tankersley and Isaac (1990). The Archaic Period has been addressed by Anslinger (1996), Collins (1979), Jefferies (1988), and Smith and Mocas (1995) for the Louisville/Falls of the Ohio area and by Vickery (1976) for southwestern Ohio. General sources for the Woodland Period include Pacheco (1996), Brose and Greber (1979), Seeman (1979), Caldwell and Hall (1964), and Fischer (1974). Recent efforts to define the Late Prehistoric period occupations of central Indiana include McCullough (2000), McCullough and Wright (1997), Redmond and McCullough (1993, 1995, 1997), Redmond (1994a, 1994b), White et al. (2002), and White et al. (2003). Griffin (1943, 1978) provides detailed descriptive syntheses of Fort Ancient, the Late Prehistoric cultural complex recognized in southeastern Indiana, southwestern Ohio, and northern Kentucky. Henderson’s (1992) volume ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE THIEBAUD PROPERTY 10 is also a contribution to Late Prehistoric studies of specific tasks of short duration. Given that this type the Middle Ohio Valley, although it focuses on the of site maintains a very low archaeological profile, Fort Ancient Tradition in Kentucky. Paleoindian sites can be very difficult to identify (Faulkner 1972; Jeske 1992; Justice 1987; Smith Paleoindian Period (ca. 10,500-7,000 B.C.) 1989; Tankersley and Isaac. 1990). Most documented Paleoindian sites in Indiana, in fact, Currrent evidence for the peopling of the Americas consist of isolated finds of projectile points (i.e., prior to 10,500 B.C. is limited (Bonnichsen and “spearpoints”) (White 2001:10). Turnmire 1999). Though the timing and The Paleoindian tool kit was mostly used for mechanism of the events is still not resolved, it is hunting and butchering large mammals, including clear that the earliest inhabitants of North America now-extinct Pleistocene species such as mastodon, were immigrants from northeastern Asia who mammoth, giant bison, native horse, dire wolf, and arrived during the waning years of the Ice Age. Due giant ground sloth. The tool kit included wellto the presence of glacial ice masses at the end of formed projectile points, scrapers, blades, burins, the last Ice Age and the resulting inhospitable drills, and bifaces of high quality cherts such as environment, it is likely that migration routes into Wyandotte chert from Harrison County, Indiana. North America followed the Alaskan and The defining artifact of the early Paleoindian period Canadian Pacific coasts, eventually arriving at the is the fluted hafted biface. In central Indiana, unglaciated interior. It is possible that this occurred specific point types include Clovis and Cumberland during one or more migration events. Due to the forms (Justice 1987). These points are lanceolate overall paucity of the earliest remains, however, it in form and exhibit concave bases, ground basal appears that these early settlers were few. edges, and distinctive, narrow thinning flakes or The first archaeological culture for which we “flutes” removed from one or both faces. In southern Indiana, most recorded Paleoindian have an abundance of material remains is known as Paleoindian. These people produced an efficient sites are on terraces in major river valleys, lithic tool kit, which included fluted points. especially along the Ohio River and its major Paleoindian points were first found in association tributaries (Dorwin 1966). Fluted points are with the remains of mammoths and bison, giving frequently recorded in major stream valleys and in rise to the initial notion that Paleoindians were proximity to quality chert resources, but they are primarily or exclusively big-game hunters. only rarely found in extensive swampy lowlands or Subsequent research, however, has revealed that rugged highlands (Seeman and Prufer 1982). Paleoindian peoples hunted and gathered a wide Paleoindian sites have also been located near variety of foods, including deer, small mammals, water sources like springs and sinkholes (Sieber et and nuts (Fagan 2000). Large mammals, such as al. 1989). Recent work in Indiana has also focused mammoth and bison, were most likely a rare or on the “chert belt” region of southern Indiana, with seasonally taken resource. This research also particular attention paid to Wyandotte chert indicated that Paleoindian groups were highly resources in Harrison County (Smith 1984, 1989; mobile, traveling across large territories. Population Tankersley 1987, 1989). In addition, research by size was small, probably consisting of no more than Tankersley and Isaac (1990) found that the highest 25 or 30 related individuals (Fitting 1965:103- frequency of Paleoindian points occurred in 104; Ritchie and Funk 1973:336). The population riparian settings or areas that overlook such of North America by Paeloindian peoples was settings. However, Cochran et al. (1990) found probably relatively rapid (Surovell 2000). As a that fluted point sites in north-central Indiana are result, Paleoindian sites are often interpreted as more widely distributed across the landscape. areas where small groups of people performed They concluded that data from the glaciated ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE THIEBAUD PROPERTY regions of Indiana indicate that landscape use, as well as raw material acquisition, differs significantly from the prevailing models for the midwestern and eastern United States. For example, their research indicated that early Paleoindian sites throughout the region are distributed on a variety of landforms and that the focus was on abundant, rather than high-quality, lithic raw material sources (Cochran et al. 1990:156). By the early Holocene, a climatic warming/ drying trend began to cause the grasslands and coniferous forests to be replaced by mixed, deciduous forests, affecting both plant and animal species used by prehistoric populations. In response, people began exploiting a wider range of subsistence resources. These changes in subsistence and settlement strategies, first occurring approximately 10,000 years ago, mark the beginning of the Archaic period. Early Archaic (ca. 7,000-6,000 B.C.) The Archaic is defined here as a temporal period extending from 10,000 to 3000 BP (about 8000 to 1000 B.C.). Broadly, the Archaic encompasses a period of increasing population density, decreasing mobility, and the appearance of social structures that reach their most pronounced expression in the later Woodland and Mississippian periods. The Archaic is usually partitioned into Early, Middle, and Late subdivisions. These subdivisions correspond to very generalized trends within the Archaic period, and are used here to broadly classify and discuss contemporary societies (i.e., these subdivisions pertain to temporal periods rather than cultural stages). Many researchers assign Archaic archaeological manifestations to one of these three sub-periods based on a variety of technological, social, subsistence, and settlement criteria in addition to temporal criteria. The Early Archaic is separated from the preceding Paleoindian period primarily by the final retreat of the Wisconsinan glaciation and by the conspicuous lack of fluted points. The period encompasses a period of broad technological, 11 social, and subsistence change following the last Pleistocene glaciation. Early Archaic hafted biface types, like some Paleoindian hafted biface types, occur over large areas of eastern North America, suggesting large territories and significant seasonal mobility. Most sites dating to the Early Archaic period in Indiana are small lithic scatters. Large spear points or knives with beveled edges and deep corner notches are found at Early Archaic sites, as are smaller points with bifurcate bases. The addition of sandstone abraders and mortars to the tool kit also suggests that vegetal foods were becoming a more substantial part of the diet. Overall, Early Archaic settlement patterns reflect broad-spectrum hunting and gathering subsistence strategies, and the greater frequency of Early Archaic components may reflect a more significant population (Baltz et al. 2000:9-11). Sites from this time period are fairly common, with the same general geographic distribution seen during the preceding period (Springer 1985; Jeske 1992). As noted by Munson (1986:280), Early Archaic sites are distributed across the landscape, yet seem to be concentrated nowhere. They are, however, small in size, reflecting the highly mobile nature of the occupants and the ephemeral nature of each individual occupation (White 2001:11). Stafford’s (1994:232) analysis of Early Archaic period mobility suggests that small bands of individuals utilized a “pattern involving fine-grained patch-to-patch movement through multiple basins by procuring resources on an encounter basis as associated with foragers.” In other words, it is believed that Early Archaic peoples in southern Indiana and elsewhere searched widely across the landscape in search of faunal, floral, and raw material resources that were found in particular locales (or “patches”). Home territories seem to have covered multiple drainages, suggesting that groups never remained in one place for a long period of time and that population density was such that these groups could freely move across the landscape without much danger of infringing on neighboring group’s territories. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE THIEBAUD PROPERTY Middle Archaic (Ca. 6,000-3,000 B.C.) The Middle Archaic is seen as a time of increasing regionalization as a result of increasing sedentism and decreased home territory size (White 2001:11). During the Middle Archaic, a long-term warming and drying trend, called the Hypsithermal Interval, reached its peak. Previously pinedominated forests were replaced by deciduous forests dominated by oak, hickory, and elm, all species that were more productive for human use. Oak savanna also appeared in some portions of eastern and northern Indiana (Hicks 1992). In addition, all of the major rivers of the region and their associated floodplains were established by this time. Due to the availability of these rich resources, people settled along these waterways into larger, more permanent villages. Foods utilized during the Middle Archaic include deer, small mammals, fish, migratory waterfowl, and a wide variety of nuts. Large shell middens are also known from the southeastern United States, including southern Indiana. These sites, which are the result of long term utilization of river mussels as a food source, are commonly located along major river drainages, including the Ohio River (Janzen 1977; Kellar 1983; Sieber et al. 1989). Settlement patterning seems to have been one of scheduled fission/fusion, based on the availability of resources at a particular time in the yearly cycle. Populations were often on the move, with a pattern of congregation into larger base camps, accompanied by fissioning into smaller groups. These smaller camps would have been established to exploit seasonally available or localized resources (White 2001:12). In terms of the plant foods utilized by Middle Archaic groups, it appears that a pattern of more intensive utilization begins to take hold. Gourds may have been harvested and/or cultivated during this period, initially for use as containers and only later as food. The presence of large quantities of fire-cracked rock and charred nutshell suggests the use of hot stones to boil water for nut processing and extraction of nut oils (Munson 1986). In the 12 absence of ceramics, boiling likely took place in hide-lined pits. Overall, the material remains of Middle Archaic culture reflect an increasingly sophisticated technology adapted to the intensive exploitation of forest and riverine biomes. Middle Archaic projectile points tend to be small with side notches and straight bases. T-shaped drills are common, and there is an increase in ground and polished stone tools, full-grooved axes, pendants, and winged and cylindrical bannerstones used as weights for spearthrowers (also known as atlatls) (Jeske 1992; Baltz et al. 2000:11). Late Archaic (ca. 3,000-1,500 B.C.) The Late Archaic is a period in which a number of trends first evident earlier, such as increased population density and decreased mobility, continue and intensify. This period is well represented in southern Indiana, with numerous village and mortuary sites reported. Typical lithic artifact styles include long spear points with square bases and smaller points with stemmed bases. Ground and polished stone artifacts, such as bannerstones, are also found during the Late Archaic. A widespread trade network, involving both finished products and such raw materials as galena, copper, and marine shell, also was developed. These traded materials, which were often deposited in burials, provide evidence of more elaborate mortuary ceremonialism than seen previously. Resources utilized during the Late Archaic include all those mentioned for the Middle Archaic, with an increasing utilization of seed plants such as goosefoot and sumpweed; plants that we now consider weeds. Initial archaeological evidence for the domestication of a number of native plants begins during the latter portion of the Late Archaic (Smith 1992). Though plants such as squash, goosefoot, sumpweed, and sunflower undoubtedly underwent morphological changes related to human activities, there is little evidence that this process of domestication took place as a result of ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE THIEBAUD PROPERTY 13 rituals (Jeske 1992; Dragoo 1976; Griffin 1978). Early Woodland ceramics are thick with plain to textured surfaces and are tempered with grit (i.e., crushed rock). Vessels have either conical or flat bases, with an overall shape similar to that of the common flower pot. Local variations include such types as Adena, Early Crab Orchard, and Marion/ Fayette Thick. Diagnostic Early Woodland projectile points include large, well-made contracting stem points, such as the Adena type. Although hunting and gathering continued as both a subsistence strategy and a seasonal lifeway, plants that occurred naturally in the environment, such as chenopodium, marsh elder, canary grass, and sunflower, were cultivated for both food and fiber (Yarnell 1964). Other imported cultigens, such as squash, pumpkin, and gourds, also appeared (Dragoo 1976). These cultivated plants became an increasingly important dietary staple of Early Woodland peoples. As this horticultural base improved, settlements became increasingly sedentary, supporting larger populations and more complex societies (Jeske 1992; Baltz et al. 2000:13). At some Early Woodland sites, especially of the early Adena culture in Ohio, large burial mounds and earthworks were constructed, Early Woodland (ca. 1,500 -200 B.C.) representing a substantial increase from the A diverse range of cultural expressions are preceding Late Archaic period. included under the term “Woodland.” Very general defining trends or adaptations of the Middle Woodland (ca. 200 B.C.-A.D. 400) Woodland Period include a hunter-gatherer subsistence pattern augmented by an increase in The Middle Woodland period represents a time of horticulture (eventually including the production of complex sociocultural integration across regional true cultigens), the first manufacture and use of boundaries via networks of trade. The period is pottery for food preparation and storage, the characterized by elaborate geometric earthworks, production and use of a larger stone tool kit, and enclosures, and mounds that are often associated the rise of elaborate burial practices, including the with multiple burials containing a wide array of construction of earthen burial mounds. The exotic ceremonial goods. The Middle Woodland Woodland is subdivided into Early, Middle, and also is noted for the establishment of the Hopewell “interaction sphere”: artifacts and raw materials Late periods. The Early Woodland period often has been such as obsidian and grizzly bear teeth from the distinguished from the Archaic period by the use of Rocky Mountains, copper from northern pottery, a dramatic increase in the reliance on Michigan, mica and quartz from the Appalachians, domesticated plant foods, and an increasing shark teeth, pearls, and marine shells from the Gulf elaboration of ceremonial exchange and mortuary of Mexico, and a wide variety of cherts were deliberate manipulation of these plants by humans. Rather, the process likely began when seeds of desirable plants were scattered about in order to encourage greater yield. Indirect selection for larger seeds by humans then set into motion morphological changes in seed size and other plant structures that ultimately led to archaeologically visible signs of domestication (Smith 1992:288). Intensification in the use of wild plant and animal resources is also evident in the Late Archaic. Settlement patterns changed appreciably from the preceding Middle Archaic period. Late Archaic sites tend to be larger and to contain more tools and debris than sites of any preceding time period. Perhaps due to increased population, groups tended to settle in a broad range of environmental locales, not focusing only upon the major river valleys as before. It is during the Late Archaic that we see larger occupations in so-called “second tier” locales, such as upland areas. Sites are usually located on well-drained soils near water. Occupation debris is often dense, and subsurface contexts exist at many of these sites (Baltz et al. 2000:12; Jeske 1992; White 2001). ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE THIEBAUD PROPERTY exchanged throughout most of the eastern United States. Major centers for these activities were the Scioto River valley in south-central Ohio and the Illinois River valley in west-central Illinois. The Mann site, in Posey County, Indiana, represents a major Middle Woodland habitation and ceremonial site on the Ohio River. This site extends for more than a half mile along a high terrace above the Ohio River and contains at least sixteen burial mounds and earthworks. The largest of these is a nearly rectangular earthen enclosure about 2,000 ft in length. A second, square enclosure, 1000 ft on a side, is found to the north. The largest mound on the site is about 300 ft long and nearly 12 ft high (Kellar 1983:45-46). A variety of imported items from across the continent have been found at the Mann site, indicating extensive trade along the Ohio River and its tributaries. Subsistence activities also changed, with horticulture becoming a major supplement to the hunting-gathering lifestyle. Although domesticated maize was added to the agricultural complex during this period, it does not appear to have been an important part of the diet until much later. Goosefoot, sumpweed, and sunflower, however, were actively cultivated for their starchy and oily seeds. Overall, populations continued to grow, and there is evidence that semipermanent settlements were located around nuclear ceremonial centers. Diagnostics of the period include Snyders points (Justice 1987), prismatic blades, and ungrooved axes or celts. Pottery tended to be better made and was decorated more often than in the Early Woodland period. Smoothed, or plain, cordmarked, and/or stamped-design surfaces are found, and grit tempering continues, along with grit, grog, sand, and/or limestone tempering (Jeske 1992; Baltz et al. 2000:14-15). 14 networks. The Hopewell interaction sphere was no longer active, and there was a general return to the use of local resources for tool manufacture. Relatively isolated regional development become more widespread, and Late Woodland village occupations often consist of a number of house structures around a circular plaza. Burials lack the ritualism associated with earlier cultures, and bodies often were interred in natural knolls or placed as intrusive burials into existing mounds. Grave goods were few. Although maize appears to have been grown throughout the Late Woodland, intensive agriculture and dependance on maize becomes important only after A.D. 1000. As a result, regional subsistence patterns continued to include hunting and gathering. Most settlements are found along river and stream bottoms. Settlement size varied widely, though there appears to be an overall trend toward greater population aggregation through time. Ceramics from the period were generally well-made, undecorated, utilitarian, grittempered, cordmarked vessels. Though not glamorous, these vessels served their purpose well. The bow and arrow was also introduced during this time, and small, triangular, unnotched arrow points become the common projectile point type (Jeske 1992; Baltz et al. 2000:15). Late Prehistoric (ca. A.D. 1000-1550) In very general terms, the last 600 years prior to European intrusion into southern Indiana can be described as a period during which prehistoric peoples: 1) completed a shift to a largely sedentary, agricultural way of life; 2) followed a nucleated pattern of settlement that centered around villages or towns; and 3) established some level of ranked socio-economic organization. Late Woodland (ca. A.D. 400-1000) Several Late Prehistoric cultural manifestations have been recognized in central and southern The Late Woodland period is a time of apparent Indiana (Figure 5). Switzerland County is situated breakdown or abandonment of elaborate at or near the borders of these different groups. mortuary ceremonialism and extensive trade ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE THIEBAUD PROPERTY Oliver The most widely recognized Late Prehistoric tradition in central Indiana is the Oliver Phase (ca. AD 1200-1450) (McCullough 2000; Redmond and McCullough 1997). Known Oliver sites are most commonly found on the floodplains of major drainages and include evidence of permanent residential and defensive structures as well as pit features. Oliver Phase peoples were sedentary or semi-sedentary maize agriculturalists who also exploited a wide range of wild resources (McCullough and Wright 1997; Redmond and McCullough 1993, 1995; Redmond 1994a, 1994b). Perhaps the defining material characteristic of the Oliver phase tradition is pottery that exhibits a coalescence of Late Woodland and Fort Ancient ceramic characteristics (McCullough 2000). Mississippian Mississippian is a term used to describe prehistoric groups that lived in ranked societies with a highly organized subsistence economy and a chiefdom-based political economy. Within Mississippian chiefdom polities, settlement hierarchies were established. Settlements included dispersed farmsteads and hamlets, small villages made up of several hamlets, and dense population concentrations nucleated in and around large villages and towns. Individuals of elite rank are believed to have exerted some level of control over the production and distribution of surplus subsistence goods. Mississippian food economies were centered around maize agriculture, hunting, and fishing. Large earthen mounds were constructed at larger Misssissippian sites, not only for burials as in previous periods, but also to serve as platforms for ceremonial buildings. The Angel Mounds site located east of Evansville, Indiana, is an example of a large Mississippian town with monumental architecture. A number of large platform-shaped mounds were built at the site, upon which were 15 religious structures and the dwellings of town leaders (Black 1967). A second Mississippian presence in Indiana, the Prather Complex, was centered on the Falls of the Ohio region. However, virtually nothing is known about the spatial extent, time depth, or material culture of Prather Complex sites, beyond the fact that they share a general affinity to Mississippian cultures elsewhere. Research over a broad geographic area shows that the Prather Complex represents the northeastern limit of Mississippian culture in the Ohio Valley and is also situated near the southwestern limit of the Fort Ancient culture. Given the near absence of data, the Prather Complex Mississippian is presently an enigma of considerable importance in understanding the cultural dynamics of the Late Prehistoric period. Within the Mississippian tradition as a whole, triangular projectile points (Justice 1987) and pecked and ground stone tools continued to dominate the lithic tool assemblage. Bone, hematite, catlinite, and coal were also commonly worked into a variety of tool forms. The abundance of ceramics at Mississippian sites reflects their importance within an agricultural food economy. A large variety of ceramic vessel forms, both utilitarian and ceremonial, was produced, including salt pans, storage and cooking jars, bottles, beakers, plates, bowls, and a range of human and animal effigy forms. Mississippian ceramics were most often tempered with crushed freshwater mussel shell. An extensive, highly organized exchange network linked Mississippian societies of Indiana with those as far west as Oklahoma and as far southeast as Georgia and Florida. It has long been assumed that elites controlled the trade and distribution of exotic raw materials and finished goods, especially those items that are believed to have served as displays of prestige. However, the recovery of such luxury, or “display,” items from a wide range of site types and contexts suggests that distribution and use of these goods was not exclusively controlled by elites (Muller 1997:46). ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE THIEBAUD PROPERTY Fort Ancient Fort Ancient can be characterized as a Late Prehistoric cultural manifestation found in the central Ohio Valley from extreme southwestern Indiana and adjacent parts of Kentucky to eastern West Virginia. Sites encompass the time period A.D. 1000/1100 to 1650/1750 (Drooker 1997:47-48). Early Fort Ancient settlements in the middle Ohio River valley are similar in size and intensity of occupation to terminal Late Woodland sites in the same region, thus suggesting the continuation of an apparent family/hamlet form of social organization (Pollack and Henderson 1992:284). Throughout the Late Prehistoric 16 period, Fort Ancient settlement became increasingly nucleated into larger, more long-term village settlements with a ranked form of social organization. Villages were often circular and centered around central plazas (Drooker 1997:48). Subsistence was heavily focused on the cultivation of maize, beans, and squash. Smaller seasonal (e.g., winter, hunting, or salt processing) camps were established outside of village settlements for the collection of resources that were not available locally. The Fort Ancient stone tool kit incorporated a variety of chipped, battered, and ground stone tools, many of which were typical of Late Prehistoric lithic inventories throughout the eastern Figure 5. Location of Late Prehistoric cultural manifestations in the Ohio River valley. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE THIEBAUD PROPERTY United States. Different triangular point styles may be temporal indicators at Fort Ancient sites (Railey 1992). It has been suggested that the chipped stone tool inventory expanded during the late Fort Ancient (after A.D. 1400), although there are no empirical data yet to support this claim (Railey 1992). Much regional variation, mainly related to stylistic differences, existed among early Fort Ancient ceramic assemblages. However, during the latter part of the period (after A.D. 1400), ceramics from throughout the Fort Ancient area developed many major similarities. Large, bulbous ceramic jars with wide mouths and rounded bases are the forms represented most frequently at Fort Ancient sites. Typical ceramic surface treatments, when present, include body cordmarking and smoothing; decoration of the neck/rim/lip areas includes incising, stamping, and punctating (Griffin 1943). Most Fort Ancient ceramic types are gritand/or shell-tempered. Fort Ancient social and political organization did not reach the level of complexity of the Mississippian chiefdoms. According to the interpretations of Pollack and Henderson (1992:286), social ranking throughout the Fort Ancient period did not transcend the community level, as opposed to the within- and betweencommunity (regional) hierarchical system proposed for Mississippian chiefdoms. Burial mounds were built during the earlier portion of the Fort Ancient sequence, up to circa A.D. 1300. Thereafter, burials were most often placed within the village itself (Drooker 1997:48). A diverse assortment of grave goods has been associated with late Fort Ancient burials (e.g., ceramic vessels, projectile points, exotic marine shell beads and gorgets). As with Mississippian exotic goods, the distribution of these items indicates that they are not exclusively status-related; rather, they may also have functioned as emblems of within- and betweencommunity alliances (Pollack and Henderson 1992:288). Non-local items in Fort Ancient burials also 17 provide evidence of long-distance communication and exchange networks. Artifact assemblages at late Fort Ancient sites suggest that, by AD 1400, trade relations were established between Fort Ancient groups and Mississippian groups to the south, southeast, and west. Increased interaction with Mississippian polities through intensified trade not only led to the incorporation of new items of material culture into late Fort Ancient life, but also undoubtedly introduced various aspects of Mississippian ideology, religion, and social organization to Fort Ancient culture. The Protohistoric period Prior to the sixteenth century, Indiana was populated by a variety of native groups subsisting on hunting, gathering, and agriculture. During the period from A.D. 1400 to 1700, archaeologists have noted increasing evidence for social instability (Brose et al. 2000). Evidence for widespread population movements, subsistence shifts, and warfare in the form of palisaded or enclosed settlements, as well as increasing skeletal trauma in late prehistoric burials, is present throughout the upper Midwest and has often been attributed to climatic changes or diseases (Emerson 1999; McCullough 2000; Brown and Sasso 2001:224). Indiana lies in the path of many of these late prehistoric and protohistoric population dispersals and holds the potential for archaeological sites that may shed light on the increasing instability. In contrast to the early exploration of the East Coast and the Great Lakes region, Euroamerican eyewitness accounts of the central Ohio valley are virtually nonexistent until the middle of the 18th century. In addition, unlike areas such as the Iroquois of New York, there is no clear prehistoric/historic continuity in Native American occupation within the Ohio Valley, making it extremely difficult to link Late Prehistoric archaeological sites and cultures with identifiable historic period groups or “tribes.” Although the earliest historic records tentatively identify the ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE THIEBAUD PROPERTY Miami, Illinois, and Shawnee groups within the greater Indiana/Ohio area, these early identifications have yet to be confirmed archaeologically. During the mid-1600s, the Iroquois created vast population movements when they warred on tribes as far west as Illinois in an attempt to control the fur trade. Current evidence suggests that the Miami arrived in the area now Indiana from the north during the latter half of the seventeenth century after the Iroquois wars, the Potawatomi entered early in the eighteenth century, and the Delaware in the late 1700s. The Shawnee, Wea, Wyandot, Kickapoo, and Piankeshaw migrated into the region as well. Upon the arrival of Europeans, the Miami, Delaware, and Shawnee were all represented in the region, remaining until shortly after the War of 1812 (Baltz et al. 2000:16-17). The early Historic period history of the central Ohio River valley has been summarized by Drooker (1997:63-64). The earliest Euroamerican account of the central Ohio River valley dates to 1674, when an English trader was captured by Indians. It appears that he was taken to the Kanawha/Ohio River confluence area, near the present Ohio-West Virginia border. French maps from the 17th century provide names of groups living in the central Ohio Valley, as well, though these locations were probably based on second-hand information. The French were the first to explore the interior. Rene-Robert Cavelier de La Salle set out in 1669 to search for a passage the Pacific Ocean as well as a river route to the Gulf of Mexico. De la Salle also sought to solidify relations with the Great Lakes tribes, expand the fur trade, and subvert the growing power of the Iroquois confederacy (Nassaney et al. 2003:109). The details of his travels, however, are shrouded in obscurity and it is uncertain whether or not he reached the Mississippi or Ohio Rivers. Nonetheless, information that filtered in from Native Americans visiting European settlements suggested that a great number of villages were to be found in the Ohio valley. One group described in many documents is the “Chaouanons” (Shawnee). 18 The earliest firsthand accounts and reliable maps of the Ohio River valley were the result of a 1739 expedition by Charles Le Moyne de Longueuil, who traveled from Lake Chatauqua, New York, to the Mississippi River. Another expedition was undertaken by Pierre Joseph Celoron de Blainville who traveled down the Ohio as far as the Great Miami River, near present day Cincinnati. By the early 1700s, dozens of French voyageurs arrived in the Ohio River valley to take up the fur trade with the Native American villages clustered along the Wabash River and its tributaries. In order to maintain open communication between Lake Erie and the Mississippi River, the French constructed numerous forts along the Wabash-Maumee line. These forts were the first permanent European settlements in Indiana (Baltz et al. 2000:17). By the mid-18th century a European trading post was established at the confluence of the Scioto and Ohio Rivers. Among the groups living in the area were Delaware, Shawnee, and Seneca. The Shawnees, at least, had migrated from Pennsylvania, though it is likely their arrival in Ohio represented a return from areas that they had been driven from in previous decades. Little, however, is known about Native occupation within the 250 year period from initial European/Native contact to the first European exploration of the region. Archaeological investigations have identified a complex of Fort Ancient related sites, termed the “Madisonville Horizon” that span this period (ca. A.D. 14501650). Such sites are identified by the presence of distinctive ceramics and often by the presence of European trade goods. Most or all of these goods were likely indirectly acquired by native groups via down-the-line trading, as Europeans had not yet established a formal, permanent presence in the region. Madisonville Horizon sites are found primarily in the Ohio River valley proper, centered on a point slightly upstream from present day Cincinnati (Drooker 1997:70). European trade goods such as glass beads, copper kettles and ornaments, and gunflints are reported from various ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE THIEBAUD PROPERTY sites (Drooker 1997:96-97). The ethnic affiliation of these people is still debated. A general Algonquin or Shawnee affiliation seems probable, though the Illini and Susquehannock have also been suggested (Drooker 1997:104). It is also possible that what archaeologists call Fort Ancient and Madisonville may actually represent multiple ethnic groups. By the mid-eighteenth century, expansionist pressure from the English colonies on the Atlantic coast and the interest of the British in controlling the fur trade led to conflict over the established French presence within the region. These conflicts culminated in the French and Indian War (17541763), which ended in French defeat and the surrender of their claims on the midcontinent to the British in the Treaty of Paris. Although the British were nominally in control, Native American resistance to the British presence continued. In an attempt to mitigate Native American discontent, the British issued a royal decree forbidding white settlement west of the Appalachian Mountains. Enforcement of this proclamation proved impossible, and tensions with indigenous groups continued to escalate. As a result, the English did not truly establish control of the region until after the suppression of Pontiac’s Rebellion in August of 1764. Nevertheless, the English failed to maintain their military conquest, and at the outbreak of the American Revolution, there was no English garrison manned in all of Indiana (Baltz et al. 2000:17). In 1776, however, the English dispatched garrisons to the region with explicit orders to incite Native American attacks on American frontier settlements. The next year became known as the “bloody year,” and, in response, American militia officer George Rogers Clark conducted a series of campaigns against the British forts. Although formal British power within the region was broken by a decisive American victory at Vincennes on February 25, 1779, a minor battle of the American Revolution was fought in the Duneland area on December 5, 1780. Now known as the Battle of the Dunes, this encounter took place when a 19 detachment of sixteen French irregulars were overtaken by a pursuing band of fur traders and Native Americans. The Frenchmen had just finished looting the British outpost at Fort St. Joseph near present-day Niles, Michigan, and were hurrying toward Petite Fort, which was then in American hands. During the battle that followed, four of the French irregulars were killed, two were wounded, and seven were taken prisoner. The battle is believed to have taken place somewhere near the center of Indiana Dunes State Park (Drury 1956:7; Baltz et al. 2000:17-18). Following the Revolution, the Federal Land Ordinance established the method by which nearly all lands in the Northwest Territory were surveyed, and the sale of large tracts of land was begun. The Indiana Territory, with Vincennes as its capitol, was established in 1800. In 1804, a land office was established at Vincennes, and in 1809 the Treaty of Fort Wayne opened up the southern third of Indiana to legal American settlement. The Thiebaud family was part of this rapid expansion of Euroamerican settlement into the Ohio Valley following the Revolutionary War. Following this treaty, members of the Shawnee, Wyandot, Potawatomi, and other tribes gathered at Prophet’s Town on the north bank of the Wabash River. Their resistance to white encroachment was organized by the Shawnee leader, Tecumseh, and aided by a cultural revitalization movement led by his half-brother Tenskwatawa, known as the Prophet. In 1811, Tecumseh traveled throughout the midsouth attempting to enlist southern tribes in a united native opposition to American expansion. While Tecumseh was gone, however, Willliam Henry Harrison seized the opportunity to attack Prophet’s Town on November 7, 1811. Known as the Battle of Tippecanoe, American forces routed the Native Americans and destroyed Prophet’s Town, but Native American resistance continued through the War of 1812. The British defeat at the Battle of Thames in 1813, however, reopened most of the remainder of the Old Northwest to American settlement, and a treaty signed in 1818 by representatives of the Delaware, ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE THIEBAUD PROPERTY Miami, Wea, and Potawatomi surrendered Native American title to approximately 8 million acres of land. Known as the “New Purchase,” this area included most of what is now central Indiana (Green and Munson 1978; Baltz et al. 2000:1819). By the time the Thiebaud family arrived in the United States, the threat of Indian attack in the Switzerland County area would have been minimal. Euroamerican settlements were well established in the Ohio River valley by the early nineteenth century, with emphasis on agricultural production. Throughout the history of the region, the Ohio River necessarily played an important role as a transportation corridor for both agricultural produce and, later, industrial goods. Numerous works have been written about Euroamerican settlement in Indiana and its subsequent economic, social, and political ramifications (cf. Madison 1986; Sieber et al. 1989; Thompson 1932) and numerous other resources are available on the history of Switzerland County (Dufour 1925; Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana 1980; Knox 1942, 1948; Taylor and McBirney 1996:595599; Windmill Publications 1993 ). Switzerland County was first opened up to legal white settlement following the treaty of Greenville in 1795. The first Euroamerican settler in what was to become Switzerland County was Heathcoat Pickett, who, in 1795, built a cabin near the mouth of Plum Creek. Pickett became involved with trafficking goods down the Ohio River to New Orleans. Another early settler, George Ash, was granted land in Indiana opposite the mouth of the Kentucky River. It was at the spot, in 1798, that he built the first brick house in Switzerland County. The Swiss presence in the county began in 1802 when Joseph Dufour and a group of investors were granted 2500 acres on the Indiana side of the Ohio River by an act of the U.S. Congress. Their express purpose was the establishment of vineyards for the production of wine. They purchased an additional 1200 acres 20 and called their settlement New Switzerland. By 1813, each of the families had a house, surrounded by vineyards and pastures. At its height, wine production in Switzerland County reached an annual total of 12,000 gallons. Also in 1813, the town of Vevay was platted, with the first houses built the following year. The town grew quickly and by 1817, a total of eighty four houses, a courthouse, jail, taverns, a printing office, and other businesses had been built. Switzerland County was established in 1814, with Vevay as the county seat. The population grew rapidly, doubling from 900 in 1812 to 1,832 in 1816 (Taylor and McBirney 1996:596-597). Among the early settlers were also Scottish and Dutch immigrants, as well as Americans from New England and New York (Historic Landmarks Foundation 1980:6). Though wine production was the initial impetus for Euroamerican settlement, production gradually declined after the first generation of Swiss passed on, as wine consumption was not popular in the United States. As cultivation of corn and potatoes was less labor intensive and more profitable, these became the staple agricultural products of the region. Swiss immigration to the county ceased as well. In time, the county became a typical midwestern agricultural community (Taylor or McBirney 1996:598). Small-scale manufacturing businesses such as flour mills, sawmills, coopers, and carriage makers were located in the towns or nearby. In the mid to late nineteenth century, hay, onions, potatoes, and wheat were the primary cultivars. Much of the agricultural production during this period was devoted to downriver export via flatboats. (Historic Landmarks Foundation 1980:6). PREVIOUS RESEARCH Though over 400 archaeological sites have been recorded in Switzerland County, compared to some other areas of the state, the prehistory of the region is poorly understood. While a great number of sites are known in the Egypt and Mexico Bottoms to the north of Vevay, prehistoric ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE THIEBAUD PROPERTY utilization of the uplands of southeastern Indiana and elsewhere in the Midwest is not well understood (Angst 1998:101; White et al. 2001:235). This is primarily due to a lack of more spectacular sites in the uplands, compared to those found on the wide floodplains of the Ohio River (e.g., the Angel site, near Evansville). As bottomlands are known to have relatively higher site densities (White 2001:17), upland areas have not been given the attention that they likely deserve. The lack of professional attention to these zones is not, however, due to their not having been utilized in prehistory. It is likely that the uplands played a significant part in the yearly hunting and collecting regimen of various groups throughout prehistory. Heavily dissected uplands, such as those found in the project area, would not have ordinarily been used for large-scale habitation in most time periods, however, due to a lack of wide, flat space and a constant supply of fresh water. Rather, they would have been a valuable source of game, nuts, and other resources, and would have been extensively utilized on a more short-term or seasonal basis (White et al. 2001:235). Previous studies suggest that use of the dissected uplands would have been greatest during the Archaic period (7,000-1500 B.C.) (Munson 1980:758-759; Sieber et al. 1989:126; Stafford 1994; White et al. 2001:235). The apparent high mobility of foraging groups during the Archaic period (early on, especially) would have brought peoples into the uplands in search of small patches of usable resources (e.g., nuts, berries, chert, etc.). When these were used up, people likely moved on. This pattern of upland utilization would result in many archaeological sites, none of which, however, with evidence for substantial, long-term occupation (Stafford 1994). The various geomorphic zones within the dissected uplands would have been utilized differentially. White et al.’s (2001:227)) study of over 400 acres of dissected upland within the Crane Naval Surface Warfare Center in Martin and Greene counties, Indiana, suggests that sites on the ridgetops typically consist of diffuse scatters 21 of chipped stone material, likely the result of shortterm use over a period of centuries or millennia. Denser concentrations of materials might be expected in areas with immobile, renewable resources, such as springs and chert outcrops. Though few or no sites are expected on slopes with a greater than 10 percent gradient, sites may be located at the slope/terrace interface. The most likely zone in which to find signs of more substantial prehistoric occupation is on the terrace/ bottomland. As the terrace and bottoms are quite narrow in the vicinity of the Thiebaud property, the likelihood for abundant prehistoric remains is less than in some other areas of Switzerland County. The Patriot I (12 Sw 89) and Patriot II (12 Sw 99) sites are the most well known prehistoric archaeological sites in Switzerland County. Both sites, which were extensively excavated in 1982 (GAI Consultants 1984), are located in the wide bottomlands to the north of Vevay. Patriot I revealed a Middle to Late Archaic occupation consisting of a large number of features (e.g., storage, processing, and cooking pits) and “hafted biface” forms.1 A thin, Early Archaic midden was located below this. At Patriot II, a substantial Middle to Late Archaic midden was excavated, again producing a wealth of artifacts and features. Hafted bifaces were mostly of the McWhinney Heavy Stemmed variety, which are thought to date from 4000 to 1000 B.C. (Justice 1987:139). Archaeological investigations carried out in advance of the Belterra casino construction revealed an occupation similar to that found at Patriot I (White 2001). The Webster site (12 Sw 351) is located near the edge of the terrace overlooking the river floodplain. Surface materials included a thick scatter of lithics and fire-cracked rock, spread out of a long narrow zone. Most of the hafted bifaces were of the Riverton, Lamoka, and McWhinney Heavy Stemmed varieties, suggesting that the site was utilized primarily during the Late Archaic (Justice 1987), though Woodland period materials were identified as well. Excavations revealed a limited subsurface midden deposit, however, indicating that though ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE THIEBAUD PROPERTY the site was utilized over a long period of time, none of these occupations were of long duration. It is possible that the site represents a short-term temporary camp that was revisited many times (White 2001). Other sites in the area include 12-Sw-36, which was identified in the vicinity of the Markland Dam. The site, which is one of the largest recorded in the bottoms of Switzerland County, is reportedly 13.3 acres in size and covers approximately 0.5 miles of river bend and high floodplain (Baltz 1987). Limited investigations produced a thin scatter of artifacts, including a hammerstone, mano fragment, and two Woodland period ceramic sherds. No well-defined cultural strata were identified, suggesting an ephemeral occupation, one however, of considerable extent (White 2001:17). Other sites of interest in the Switzerland County area include 12-Sw-54. This site, which was on a terrace overlooking the river, was reportedly a mound of Native American construction. The mound was destroyed in the 1960s, however, during land leveling operations. State site files do not report the presence of cultural material and so, its cultural affiliation remains uncertain. Artifacts reported from site 12-Sw-55, which was located nearby, include a triangular arrowpoint and Woodland period ceramics, confirming the prehistoric presence of Woodland peoples in the Switzerland County area. Archaeological survey has been conducted in a number of areas in and around Vevay as well (e.g., Beard 1993; Cantin et al. 2000; Cochran 2001; Stillwell 1999, 2000; Zoll 1992). These surveys confirm Native American use of the area from Early Archaic through Late Prehistoric times. Though most prehistoric sites in the vicinity likely represent ephemeral occupations of the uplands and bottomland/terrace, one site (12-Sw-226) may indicate a more intensive occupation. This site, which is located at the base of the bluffs approximately 0.4 miles east of Indian Creek produced at least 120 pieces of lithic debitage on the surface, as well as large amounts of fire- 22 cracked rock, which may represent the remains of a more intensive occupation. A Late Prehistoric triangular projectile point was identified from the site, suggesting an occupation spanning approximately A.D. 1000 - 1500 (Justice 1987). The absence of ceramics at 12-Sw-226, however, may indicate that the site was never occupied for extended periods of time and may therefore represent a temporary seasonal campsite used over multiple years. One recent study of upland areas in the immediate vicinity of the Thiebaud property has confirmed the models of upland utilization that have been forwarded (Angst 1998). Archaeological survey conducted in association with the repair and rehabilitation of 12 miles of State Road 129 between Vevay and Pleasant, Indiana, resulted in the identification of 44 previously unrecorded prehistoric sites. Of these sites, three were identified as Early Archaic, one Middle Archaic, one Late Archaic, and two were possibly Woodland in age (Angst 1998:101). Items recovered from nearly all of the sites were few, and consisted of isolated artifacts such as flakes. Such patterns confirm models which suggest that upland areas were used mostly for temporary encampments related to hunting and gathering. Only one site identified during the 1998 survey appeared to be represent a more substantial occupation. Located on a relatively level and wide upland ridge, site 12-Sw-313 lies approximately 5.0 miles north-northeast of the Thiebaud property. Though the exact size of the site was not determined during the survey, those portions that were investigated indicate the presence of a site with relatively high concentrations of prehistoric materials such as debitage from stone tool manufacture and fire-cracked fragments of rock. 1 Hafted bifaces, commonly known as “arrowheads,” are chipped chert tools that were likely hafted onto a handle or shaft. The archaeologist prefers the term hafted biface, since the bow and arrow were introduced to eastern North America only after A.D. 700. Most hafted bifaces were likely spear points, dart points, knives, or a combination of these. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE THIEBAUD PROPERTY The vast majority of the chert debitage was identified as Laurel, with a minor presence of Jeffersonville and Wyandotte cherts also noted. A single Brewerton Corner Notched projectile point was also recovered, suggesting that the primary occupation dates to the Late Archaic period, circa 3000 to 1700 B.C. (Justice 1987:115). Corroborating its probable Late Archaic affiliation is an absence of ceramics at the site. RESULTS Fieldwork on August 13, 2003 consisted of pedestrian survey in three areas around the house and press barn (Figure 6). Personnel present were Robert McCullough, Dorothea McCullough, and Michael Strezewski. These three small areas in the floodplain/terrace of the property were disced prior to the arrival of IPFW-AS personnel. Each was in grass and/or weeds prior to the investigations. In each area, a series of 3.0 m wide strips were disced. The strips were spaced approximately 7.0 m apart. The ground had been rained upon prior to IPFW fieldwork, providing excellent visibility (approximately 85 percent) within the disced areas. Area A was located immediately to the west of the press barn (Figure 7). Four parallel strips had been disced in this long, narrow field. Each strip was approximately 3.0 m wide and 115.0 m long. The total width of the disced area was 32.0 m. This area, which is located near the base of the bluff, slopes toward the south at approximately 15 degrees (Figure 8). Area B consisted of two parallel disced strips on the south side of State Road 56. Each strip was approximately 3.0 by 180.0 m in dimensions. Both were relatively close to the road. The eastern edge of the disced area terminated at the eastern edge of the press barn. Topography was relatively flat. Areas immediately adjacent to the terrace edge were not disced and no subsurface reconnaissance was attempted. The third area was located at the base of the bluff immediately to the east of the easternmost swale. It consisted of three parallel disced strips, each 23 measuring approximately 3.0 by 30.0 m. Slope was approximately 15 degrees and faced to the south. Artifacts recovered from Area A were few and consisted mostly of pieces from junked automobiles, suggesting that a number of derelict cars had been parked there at one time. Car parts were found across the majority of the disced area and were relatively light in density. None of the artifacts related to this use were collected. Two other concentrations of historic artifacts were identified in Area A. The first consisted of a light concentration of metal and glass artifacts immediately to the west of the press barn. Metal items recovered consisted of six machine-made square nails, three larger square metal pegs, a large wire nail, and a 6.0 cm diameter metal ring. Two pieces of clear bottle glass, one fragment of plain whiteware, and a small piece of window glass were also identified. The light density of artifacts, coupled with the absence of construction materials (e.g., stone foundation blocks) suggests that this artifact concentration may be related its location in the general vicinity of the press barn rather than the presence of a separate structure. Artifacts are consistent with a late nineteenth and twentieth century occupation. A second, lighter density of historic period artifacts was identified at the western end of the surveyed area. This concentration consisted of three machine-made square nails, one large square nail, two fragments of clear window glass, and a piece of aqua bottle glass. Again, the light density of artifacts does not appear to represent anything more than the periodic, incidental deposition of materials during the course of historic period land use. Though no artifacts of prehistoric manufacture were noted during the IPFW survey, a large, rough biface was found by Switzerland County Historical Society personnel prior to our investigations. The biface was of a tan, bedded chert and although certainly of prehistoric manufacture, it had no diagnostic features that would indicate its age (see below, site 12-Sw-421). Survey in Area B did not locate any ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE THIEBAUD PROPERTY considerable concentrations of artifacts, historic or otherwise. Though a fair amount of material such as bottle glass, cans, and other debris was noted in the northern of the two disced strips, all was of twentieth century manufacture. The location of Area B adjacent to State Road 56 suggests that the presence of recent trash is related to littering. The only artifacts possibly related to the occupation of the farmstead were two small fragments of salt glaze stoneware found on the opposite side of the road from the press barn. Stoneware, a high-fired, non porous ware, was routinely used for utilitarian purposes such as storage. It was common up to about 1875, when it began to be replaced by glass and tin containers (Wepler et al. 2001:68). One of the stoneware sherds found in Area B is mold made and therefore likely dates to the post-Civil War period. The second sherd is hand thrown and Figure 6. Location of disced areas. 24 has an Albany interior slip and is likely of midnineteenth century vintage. The fact that no prehistoric artifacts were found in Area B suggests that the materials found eroding out of the terrace edge (see below) do not extend back a great distance toward the base of the bluffs. Finally, pedestrian survey of Area C produced no artifacts and it does not appear that there were any structures nor appreciable prehistoric or historic activity in this area. Prior to their arrival in the United States in 1817, the Thiebaud family reportedly arranged for the construction of a cabin somewhere on their property (Knox 1948:326). Its exact location has not been determined. The cabin was presumably occupied until the Greek Revival house was constructed, reported between 1840 and 1860 (Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE THIEBAUD PROPERTY 1980:33; Knox 1948:327). No indication of the cabin, its foundation, or artifacts related to an early to mid-nineteenth century occupation were noted during the current survey. It is possible that the “cabin” was actually constructed of limestone rather than wood. If this is the case, then the cabin may have been incorporated into the house. It is possible that the limestone kitchen at the back of the house is the original cabin constructed on the property (Martha Bladen, pers. comm. 2004). Documents indicate that Harriet P. Thiebaud and Frederick L. Thiebaud, the original landowners of the property, were buried “on the riverbank” near the river landing (Hendricks 2001:5). Their graves were reportedly moved following the Great Flood of 1937. Inspection of the terrace edge and bottomlands in this vicinity did not reveal any 25 evidence for human burials or grave markers and the original location of their graves is not known. Additional survey was conducted on the Thiebaud property on November 19, 2003, and January 17, 2004. The field crew was supervised by Michael Strezewski, with assistance from Andrew White, Craig Arnold, and Adam Lauer. This portion of the survey consisted of walking the ridgetops, slopes, and ravines in search of aboveground historic and/or prehistoric features. No systematic shovel probing or other subsurface reconnaissance was conducted during this portion of the survey, a fact which limited the potential for discovering prehistoric archaeological sites in the uplands. Occasional shovel probes were placed at irregular intervals along the ridgetops to check the local soil conditions. A number of manmade Figure 7. Disced areas immediately west of the press barn (Area A). View to the west. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE THIEBAUD PROPERTY 26 features were identified on the property and these The structure has been designated site 12-Swhave been divided into various categories to ease 419. The structure currently lies within secondary forest and brush, with a large grassy area description. immediately to the east. Topography in this area slopes off immediately to the south and west and Demolished Structures remains relatively flat to the north and east. The The remains of three structures were located only remaining above-ground portion of Structure during the survey (Figure 9). Two of these appear A is a section of stacked limestone blocks which to have been permanent structures that were likely comprised the southwestern portion of the constructed in the nineteenth or early twentieth structure’s foundation (Figure 11). As the centuries. A third structure was likely built within structure was built into the edge of the slope, the foundation blocks were needed to provide a flat the last 50 years as temporary hunting shelter. surface for its construction. The remainder of the structure was apparently not built with a limestone Structure A (site 12-Sw-419) block foundation, as thorough inspection of the Structure A (Figure 10) was located on top of a area did not turn up any additional sections of wall wide portion of an upland ridgetop, at a point or limestone debris. Soil within the interior of the where a number of narrow ridge fingers converge. structure is slightly mounded up, perhaps as a result Figure 8. Planview map of disced Area A, showing location of artifact clusters. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE THIEBAUD PROPERTY of the demolition of the structure, and this served as the means of distinguishing the extent of the structure in the absence of limestone blocks. As best as can be determined, the structure was rectangular, measuring approximately 8.0 m by 12.0 m. The foundation wall was constructed of roughly dressed rectangular limestone blocks. No mortar was observed. Individual blocks are variable in size, the largest being approximately 50 cm wide and 20 cm high. The most well-preserved portion of the foundation is found at the southwest corner. At this point, the foundation wall is 1.45 m high. Two small piles of stacked limestone slabs that may have been used as foundation blocks were found within the interior of the structure, though these did not form any discernable pattern. The northernmost edge of a stone fence (Wall A) is approximately 35 m southwest of the structure. A second concentration of limestone blocks was located approximately 8.0 m southeast of the structure. It consists of approximately 25 dressed limestone blocks arranged in a circle 1.4 m in exterior diameter. Inspection of the circle revealed that it is only two blocks high, with earth underneath it. It was most likely used as a fire ring and was constructed of blocks borrowed from the structure immediately to the west. A recent bottlecap was found inside the ring, suggesting that it was constructed long after the adjacent structure had been demolished, possibly by hunters. A grassy path currently runs immediately to the east of the structure and stone circle. It is possible that this path may have been extant at the time the building was in use, though there is no evidence to confirm this suspicion. Overall, the age and function of the structure are unknown. No cultural material, dumps, wells, or cisterns were noted during inspection of the surface, a fact which argues against it use as a residence. The use of limestone blocks for the foundation (rather than cinder blocks, for example) suggests that the structure may be earlier rather than later, though this identification is tentative. It does not seem to 27 appear on a 1930 aerial photo of the property and may therefore have been demolished quite a while ago. The structure seems too small (ca. 96 m2 [1033 ft2]) to have served as a livestock barn but may have been sufficiently large to have been a small dwelling or farm outbuilding. The presence of the rock wall and livestock pond nearby suggests that the latter may be more likely. Structure B (site 12-Sw-420) Remains of a second probable structure (site 12Sw-420) were discovered near the northern border of the property, at the base of the Whiskey Hollow ravine (Figure 12). The remains of the structure were few and consist of a small portion of probable foundation wall, possibly the southwestern corner of the structure. The limestone blocks which made up the wall were arranged at a right angle and measure 1.5 m in an east/west direction. They appear to have been minimally dressed and were dry lain (i.e., without mortar). At the present time, the stacked blocks are approximately 50 cm high (Figure 13). A second area of stacked limestone blocks was noted at the eastern edge of the structure. Blocks were arranged in a square measuring approximately 2.0 m on a side. The arrangement of blocks in a square may indicate that they were not portion of the structure’s foundation. The function of the square is not immediately apparent. Numerous other limestone slabs were located in the vicinity of these two features and may represent portions of the foundation that were scattered. The total east/west width of the limestone block scatter is 7.5 m. The north/south dimensions of the structure could not be determined. One other small section of stacked limestone blocks was noted slightly to the north of the possible structure. This segment made up a low wall, approximately 4.0 m in length and 40 to 50 cm high. It may have been constructed as a retaining wall, as the topography slopes steeply upward immediately to the north of the structure. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE THIEBAUD PROPERTY Artifacts recovered from the immediate area include an iron horseshoe and a small fragment of salt glazed stoneware. The fragment is glazed only on the interior and has no interior slip, suggesting a manufacture date in the first half of the nineteenth century. Both artifacts were found in the creek bed immediately below the structure. Structure B lies outside the limits of available 1930 aerial photos. It is therefore uncertain if the structure was standing at this time. Given the topography of the immediate area, access to Structure B would have been difficult and was likely accomplished via the abandoned road to the west (see below). Further archaeological investigations may shed more light on the functions 28 of Structures A and B. Structure C A third structure was located on a steeply-sloped area a short distance to the southeast of Structure A. The structure was built on a flat area in between two check dams and appears to have been built and used relatively recently. Its method of construction also suggests that it was erected as a temporary shelter, probably for use by hunters. Structure C was constructed of a framework of notched logs (Figure 14) measuring approximately 4.5 by 2.5 meters in planview. Logs are stacked only four high, comprising a wall about 50 cm in Figure 9. Demolished structures identified on the Thiebaud property. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE THIEBAUD PROPERTY height. There is no sign that the framework had been higher in the past. Each log measures approximately 25 cm in diameter and most appear to have been notched on both sides. Bark is present on most of the logs. The upper walls and roof were constructed of an aluminum frame and nylon tarps, collapsed portions of which were noted inside the structure. A doorway constructed of wooden planks was noted near the southeast corner of the structure. It is constructed of wire nails. Other relatively recent debris (less than 50 years old) was found inside the log framework. This includes a small cylindrical Figure 10. Planview map of Structure A. 29 wood stove with a metal smokestack attached. Partially decomposed aluminum lawnchairs and a wooden bedframe were also noted. Numerous deer bones were found scattered around the vicinity of the structure, strongly suggesting that the area had been used as a hunting camp in the past. Stone Walls A total of four limestone wall segments are located on the Thiebaud property (Figure 15). Three of the four walls found on the Thiebaud property are of the “plantation fence” type (Murray-Wooley and Raitz 1992:23) and were constructed in an identical manner. Plantation fences were dry-laid, that is, constructed without the use of mortar. Most were built between the 1770s and the first half of the 1800s, though they did not come into wide use until the early nineteenth century, a fact which suggests that the Thiebaud fences were constructed relatively early in the Euroamerican use of the property. Though the exact purpose of the Thiebaud fences is unclear, plantation fences were typically used for a variety of purposes such as barnyards, stockyards, paddocks, house yards, graveyards, gardens, pastures, or fields (Murray-Wooley and Raitz 1992:23). All of the fences on the Thiebaud property were likely made of locally available limestone. The exact location of the quarrying areas, however, was not identified during the survey. Plantation fences were ordinarily built by a skilled mason with the assistance of one or more helpers. The fence was begun by digging a trench onto which ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE THIEBAUD PROPERTY foundation rocks were placed. Double walls of stone were lain upon the foundation, comprising the two sides of the fence. The width of the fence tapered slightly toward the top. Most of the rocks were only slightly modified from their quarried shape. The creation of the two outside faces left a gap in the center of the fence. This space was filled with chinking, comprising small, irregularlyshaped rocks. Tie rocks were placed within the wall face at periodic intervals. These were large rocks whose longest dimensions ran the entire width of the wall. Their purpose was to add strength by connecting the two sides of the wall together. On some of the oldest fences, the tie rocks were often left protruding out of the fence face, though this technique was not used on the Thiebaud property. Projecting tie rocks may have been used to discourage cattle from rubbing up Figure 11. Southwest corner of Structure A foundation. 30 against the fence. The final step in stone fence construction was the placement of large triangular coping rocks on the top of the fence. These rocks were placed on their edges and were angled slightly, such that each adjacent rock served to support the next. Coping rocks were placed with their tops angled downhill (Murray-Wooley and Raitz 1992:24-35). Fences on the Thiebaud property were in various states of preservation. Though some sections appear essentially intact, many more sections are completely collapsed or nearly so. Preserved portions of the fences stand approximately 1.4 m high. Fences are about 80 cm wide at the bottom, tapering to about 45-50 cm wide at the top course. The vast majority of stones do not appear to have been greatly modified from their natural shape. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE THIEBAUD PROPERTY Wall A The first of these, Wall A, is located immediately to the south of the remains of a demolished structure (Structure A) (Figures 16 and 17). The wall runs roughly north-south for approximately 115 m along the western edge of the ridgetop. The wall rides the very edge of the flattest portion of the ridge. The ridgetop drops off precipitously on the outer (western) side of the wall. Its proximity to a Figure 12. Planview map of Structure B. 31 probable agricultural outbuilding (Structure A) suggests that the wall may have been constructed for holding livestock. The southern 100 m of the wall is completely collapsed or nearly so, and its prior location is evidenced by the presence of numerous scattered limestone blocks. The collapsed wall was traced to the south, up to a point at which limestone blocks were no longer evident on the surface. It is possible that the wall extended farther to the south, but that ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE THIEBAUD PROPERTY the scattered limestone blocks were buried by eroded sediment from the ridgetop. Extensive examination of the surface, coupled with the thin soils on top of the ridge, makes the presence of buried wall materials unlikely. 32 equipment or livestock. The fence is otherwise intact. Those portions of the fence that run downslope are constructed with the courses on a horizontal axis rather than running parallel to the slope itself (Figures 18 and 19). According to Murray-Wooley and Raitz (1992:33), this was Wall B done in order to avoid directing the weight of the fence downhill. It appears to have been an effective Wall B is a short segment of plantation wall only 60 means of construction, as both segments of Wall B m in length. It is located at the southernmost tip of located on steep slopes are also intact. a long bluff finger and runs roughly east-west, perpendicular to the axis of the ridge. The fence Wall C runs along the top of the ridge, which is very narrow at this point, and downslope for some distance on Wall C, the longest wall found on the Thiebaud either side of the ridgetop. The topmost portion of property, was constructed on the edge of one of the fence, at the very top of the ridge, appears to the hillside terraces above the house and press have been intentionally dismantled at some point in barn. This fact indicates that the terraces were the past, perhaps to allow the passage of farm likely constructed in the early to mid-nineteenth Figure 13. Southwest corner of Structure B, view to the northeast. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE THIEBAUD PROPERTY century. The majority of Wall C runs southwestnortheast for approximately 225 m. There is a short hiatus (ca. 20 m) in the wall at the point where a deep ravine crosses its path. The wall continues on the opposite side of the ravine. It then turns towards the southeast at the eastern edge of the property line. This segment runs for another 50 m and terminates approximately 50 m above the current State Road 56 right-of-way. Though the vast majority of the wall is either partially or completely collapsed, remaining portions indicate that it was constructed in the same manner as the other walls on the property and was of approximately the same dimensions. 33 the terrace at the point where the eastern ravine enters the bottomland. The wall consists of a short 12 m segment of stacked limestone blocks extending eastward from the edge of the ravine slope. The wall appears less formally constructed than the others on the property and does not have coping rocks along the top. With the exception of the westernmost edge, the vast majority of the wall is either collapsed or had been dismantled at some point in the past (Figures 20 and 21). The presence of a corner at the western edge of the wall suggests that it may have previously extended to the north, along the edge of the ravine. No evidence was found that Wall D was part of a larger structure, though in the absence of subsurface reconnaissance, this possibility cannot be ruled out. It is certainly Wall D possible that repeated flooding of the Ohio River A fourth wall segment was identified at the edge of over the past 150 years may have obliterated what Figure 14. Structure C, view toward the south. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE THIEBAUD PROPERTY was once a much larger wall, and the original eastwest extent of Wall D remains uncertain. Hendricks (2001:5) mentions the presence of a “Thiebaud Landing” at or near the riverbank. Wall D may be part of this landing. Electrical hook ups, gas lines, and water pipes were noted in two spots just north of Wall D, just south of State Road 56. A small concentration of cinder blocks was also noted. Evidence suggests that these two spots likely represent the location of two dwellings, possibly trailers, that were removed in the recent past. There was no evidence of house foundations or any other sign of a permanent structure. Both structures appear on the 1994 U.S.G.S. topographic map of the area (Figure 22) 34 and are noted as additions to the map since the original survey in 1967. Driveways for these two structures are also visible on a 1996 aerial photo of the property, though it is unclear if the structures were still present at this time. Their relatively recent age is also confirmed by their absence on a 1930 aerial photo. Possible wall Numerous limestone blocks were noted along a 26 m long section of the terrace/floodplain interface, possibly representing the remnants of a collapsed wall or other limestone construction (Figure 15). Though none of the blocks were apparently in situ, Figure 15. Location of stone walls on the Thiebaud property. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE THIEBAUD PROPERTY their presence at the edge of the terrace indicates that they were brought in from elsewhere and are not a natural concentration of rock. It is also possible that these rocks were simply dumped over the terrace edge in an attempt to control erosion. Check Dams A total of 34 so-called “check dams” were identified on the property. All were built along the western ravine and its sub-drainages to the west of the press barn (Figures 23 - 25). Each was constructed by piling horizontally-lain, roughlyshaped limestone slabs along the bottom of the Figure 16. General view of Wall A, view to the east. 35 ravine. The dimensions of the dams vary widely according to the immediate topography. On average they measure about 1.0 meters in height and are anywhere from 5 to 12 meters wide. All appear to have been a single stone in thickness. No mortar was noted on any of the dams. In constrast to the stone walls, the workmanship on the dams is not of great quality, indicating that they could have easily been constructed by the landowners, rather than by a professional mason. Most of the check dams are relatively intact, suggesting that more or all were accounted for during the current survey. Occasionally, small portions of the dam were destroyed by water flow (Figure 26), especially in the lower sections of the ravine. In other cases, the ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE THIEBAUD PROPERTY stream eventually bypassed the dam altogether (Figure 27). The vast majority of the check dams are found on the upper reaches of the slopes, sometimes spaced as little as 5 to 10 meters apart. Along the lower portion of the ravine the check dams are spaced at much wider intervals. Though they obviously served to check the flow of water down the ravine, the ultimate function of the check dams is not entirely clear. It has been suggested that they were constructed for the purpose of growing crops, possibly grapes. This is unlikely, as grapes require well-drained soils and much sunlight. The bottom of the ravine offers neither. Other alternatives are that the check dams were built to pool water for livestock, protect the road that runs parallel to the ravine, or alternatively, to control runoff. Any of these possibilities are considered conceivable, and there is no current 36 reason to rule any of them out. The upslope end of nearly all of the check dams is thoroughly silted in, probably as a result of heavy runoff. As the slopes were farmed and logged often over a long period of time, it is likely that a considerable amount of the silt is a result of the reckless land use practices common in the nineteenth century. Local sources report that check dams have been noted at other properties in the Switzerland county area (Leon Hostetler pers. comm. 2004). The number of check dams present on the Thiebaud property, however, is much greater than present elsewhere. Quarrying the needed material, hauling it to the side of a steep hill, and the construction of these dams represents a remarkable amount of labor on the part of the landowners. Figure 17. Partially collapsed section of Wall A, showing its location on the edge of the ridgetop. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE THIEBAUD PROPERTY Piles of Limestone Slabs Four large piles of limestone were identified on the property (Figure 28). Although they all represent human activities, their purpose or purposes are not immediately apparent. Limestone Pile A This site consists of a roughly circular pile of limestone slabs found at the terminal end of a narrow bluff finger, uphill from the press barn (Figure 29). The immediate area is currently in secondary growth forest. The limestone pile measures approximately 5.7 m east-west by 5.4 m north-south and is roughly 80-100 cm high. Most of the individual blocks were on the order of 30-40 cm in diameter and appear to have been Figure 18. Wall B, view to the west. 37 haphazardly thrown into the pile, rather than carefully stacked. The southern portion of the limestone pile has been disturbed, possibly by persons curious as to its origin. The disturbance consists of a trench-shaped excavation running from the center of the mound out to its southern edge. Blocks had been removed to at least 60 cm below the current surface. Examination of the limestone pile indicated that the limestone blocks did not extend beyond the subsurface. The area in and around the disturbance was carefully examined, but no sign of prehistoric cultural materials was noted. A number of shovel probes were placed in the immediate vicinity of the limestone pile. Soils were shallow and rocky and no cultural material was noted. A second pile of limestone blocks was noted immediately to the north of the first. These blocks ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE THIEBAUD PROPERTY were arranged in linear fashion, forming a low, loose heap without much apparent organization. This pile was approximately 10 m in length and 1.5 m wide. It is possible that these blocks are related to the same activities that resulted in the circular pile to the south. The nature of these activities, however, are not immediately apparent. One possibility is that the circular limestone pile is a prehistoric “stone mound,” though the absence of definitive evidence for prehistoric activity in the immediate area (e.g., pottery, lithics) makes this interpretation tentative at best. Stone mounds in the Ohio River valley are typically low, dome-shaped constructions, consisting of a number of burials placed in a low earthen mound 38 and covered by a mantle of flagstone-shaped limestone slabs. They have been recorded in a number of locales throughout Indiana, including Shelby (Kellar 1960), Franklin (Setzler 1930), and Dearborn counties (Black 1934). Other stone mounds have been excavated in Kentucky (Funkhouser and Webb 1937, Pollack and Henderson 2000:628), Ohio (Kellar 1960:413421), Pennsylvania (Cadzow 1933, Dragoo 1955), and Tennessee (Webb 1938). Like this limestone pile on the Theibaud property, stone mounds are most commonly found in high knobs, ridges, and other upland locales (Kellar 1960:447). Figure 19. Eastern terminus of Wall B, showing horizonally lain blocks along the slope. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE THIEBAUD PROPERTY Of those that have been excavated, many stone mounds contained central features that served as receptacles for in-flesh burials. Cremated remains were also commonly encountered. Artifacts found within these mounds are few and are ordinarily limited to such utilitarian items as stone, bone, and antler tools. Some, however, contained more exotic artifacts such as copper beads and bracelets and ground stone gorgets (Kellar 1960). Kellar (1960:446, 450) attributes the use of stone mounds in the Ohio River valley to the Middle and Late Woodland periods, ca. A.D. 1 to 800 (Pollack and Henderson 2000:625). These limestone piles, as well as others on the Thiebaud property, could also be due to Euroamerican activities. As limestone was used as building material for a number of projects on the Figure 20. Wall D, view to the north. 39 property (e.g., structures, walls, or check dams) the piles could be accumulated waste rock. One other possibility is that they represent field clearing in order to use the ridgetop for agricultural purposes. As Pile A is not in close proximity to any identified structures or walls, the latter possibility is considered most likely. Limestone Pile B This second pile of limestone slabs is similar in dimensions to that designated Pile A. The limestone pile was found along a very narrow section of ridgetop on the western edge of the property. It does not appear to have been dug into. Like Pile A, the function of this limestone pile is uncertain. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE THIEBAUD PROPERTY 40 Limestone Pile C Limestone Pile D Limestone Pile C was an identified on the western edge of the ridgetop above the press barn. Unlike Piles A and B, this pile was found on a slight slope. It was also much smaller (4.0 by 2.5 m in extent) and was elongated in shape. Its placement on the slope suggests that it is probably not related to prehistoric activities and may be a result of field clearing. The final pile of limestone slabs was located on a relatively flat area just behind the press barn, at the base of the access road to the top of the bluff. This pile of slabs does not seem to have been as neatly stacked as some of the others. The pile measured approximately 3.0 by 3.0 m in diameter. Though it is possible that the pile represents the foundation of an old, demolished structure, none of the slabs appear to be in situ. No cultural material was noted in the immediate vicinity that would suggest Figure 21. Planview map of Wall D. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE THIEBAUD PROPERTY 41 that it is anything other than a pile of waste stone. secondary forest dominated by cedars, indicating relatively recent regrowth. The pond is currently Livestock Ponds filled with water and was constructed by piling up nearby soil into an earthen berm. A dished-out Two livestock ponds were identified on the area immediately to the west of the pond appears property (Figure 30). to have been the source of the borrow dirt used for pond construction. It is likely that the pond served as a water source for livestock. Its construction Pond A date is unknown though seems to appear on a This site comprises a man-made oval pond 1930 aerial photo of the property. approximately 12 by 25 m in extent. It is located along the eastern edge of a narrow ridgetop in the Pond B east-central portion of the project area. The ridgetop is approximately 40 m wide at this point. This site is a second livestock pond found at the Vegetation in the immediate area is currently edge of the ridgetop to the west of Structure A. The Figure 22. Location of trailer sites, creek crossings, and pump house. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE THIEBAUD PROPERTY pond is slightly larger than that identified as Pond A (18.0 by 20.0 m). It was constructed in a similar manner to its counterpart to the southeast. This pond may have also been extant in 1930 as it seems to appear on an aerial photo taken at that time. Other Euroamerican Modifications Creek Crossings Two locations were identified that likely represent foundations or abutments for some type of creek crossing, possibly wooden bridges (Figure 22). Both foundations were constructed in a similar manner. The first was located within the creek to Figure 23. Location of check dams in the western ravine. 42 the east of the carriage house/buggy shop. It consists of stacked limestone blocks approximately 2.5 meters across and about 1.5 meters high and may have served as the foundation for an access bridge to the easternmost portions of the property. The blocks are stacked from the base of the creek bed to the top of the bank. Individual blocks are only roughly dressed and are not mortared together. The abutment is found only on the east side of the creek with no corresponding construction on the opposite side. This may be intentional, though it is also possible that a corresponding foundation on the west side had been washed away or collapsed. A similar bridge abutment was noted near the ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE THIEBAUD PROPERTY point at which the old county road runs along the northern edge of the property (Figures 31). Again, the abutment was noted on only one side of the creek (the north side). This abutment was 3.5 m wide. Blocks were stacked from the base of the creek to the edge of the bank, representing a total height of about 75 cm. If this construction is indeed a bridge support, it is likely that it served to provide access to the small structure found farther up the ravine (Structure B). A stone cairn was noted just to the north of the creek crossing. The cairn consists of a squared-off column of stacked limestone blocks, 70 cm high and 70 by 100 cm wide. As the cairn was found on a slope, it is unlikely that it represents a portion of a structure. More likely, the cairn was built as a property marker. A small pile of limestone slabs was noted approximately 7.0 m upslope from the cairn. This 43 pile may or may not be of cultural origin. Old County Road Though technically not within the boundaries of the Thiebaud property, two sections of old county road were also noted during the survey (Figure 31). Both are dirt roads cut into the edge of the steep slopes running just above the base of the Whiskey Hollow ravine. In order to flatten out the roadbed and prevent erosion, stacked limestone blocks were added to the outer edge of the rightof-way. The southern branch crosses a small ravine just west of the point at which the two roads diverge. Numerous scattered limestone blocks were noted in the ravine at the point where the road crosses it, suggesting that some kind of bridge abutments were once in place, but that these had Figure 24. Example of check dam in the lower portion of the ravine. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE THIEBAUD PROPERTY now fallen into disrepair. Neither road appears to have been in use for some time, and the year of construction is unknown. The road does not appear on the current U.S.G.S. 7.5 minute topographic map of the immediate area, though the southern section of the road appears on the 1883 atlas of Craig Township (Figure 32) (Griffing 1883), indicating that it was in use during the late nineteenth century. The atlas also indicates that the southern branch of the road originally ran from the floodplain (intersecting with what is now State Road 56) to the top of the bluffs, eventually connecting up with Ridge Road. It appears to have been the only access road for a number of upland properties located to the north of the Thiebaud land, including those of Rachel Eberts and Joseph W. and A.J. Weed (Griffing 1883). At least three houses were adjacent to the road near the point where it abuts 44 the Thiebaud property. These areas, however, lie outside of the current project boundaries and were not surveyed. Given the presence of the limestone creek crossing near the south branch of the road, it is likely that this county road was used to provide access to Structure B. There does not appear to be any other easy means to reach the structure, as it is located in an isolated ravine, surrounded by steep slopes on three sides. Terraces One large-scale Euroamerican modification to the property was the construction of a series of terraces along the southeast facing slopes above the house and barn (Figure 33). It appears that at least four terraces were constructed, running from just above the structures to about one-third of the Figure 25. Check dam in the upper portion of the ravine, near the ridgetop. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE THIEBAUD PROPERTY way up the bluff. Each terrace is approximately 4.0 m wide. Though the date of terrace manufacture is not known, the fact that one of the stone walls (Wall C) runs along a terrace edge suggests that the wall postdates its construction. Most stone fences of the plantation type were built in the first half of the nineteenth century, and the terraces can be therefore roughly dated based upon this information. The most obvious use for these terraces would have been to prevent erosion from the slopes. Given the amount of logging that must 45 have taken place after Euroamerican arrival in the area, this would have likely been an important concern. I have argued above for the possibility that these terraces may have been used for viticulture (i.e., growing grapes for wine production). This conclusion is based on two points. First, the terraces are located in the most favorable location on the property for grapevine cultivation (Bordelon 2001; Zabadal and Andersen 1997). The slope, its aspect, and the loose, rocky soils all Figure 26. Planvew map of check dam in the lower portion of the ravine. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE THIEBAUD PROPERTY would have offered beneficial conditions for grape production. Secondly, it is obvious that great expense in terms of time and labor went into terracing the hillside. This would likely not have been undertaken in order to grow non-specialized crops like hay, corn, or wheat, as these crops could have been grown elsewhere on the property. As there is no record of grape production in the earliest available agricultural census (1850), we 46 have no means of confirming this suggestion. At any rate, if the terraces had been used for viticulture, it was abandoned relatively quickly. Pump House A pump house of relatively recent origin was noted near the southern edge of the terrace, immediately west of the eastern ravine (Figure 22). It was Figure 27. Planview map of check dam in the lower portion of the ravine. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE THIEBAUD PROPERTY constructed of cinder blocks and is painted white. An old sheet of plywood currently covers the top. The pump house is square in planview, measuring 1.45 by 1.45 meters, and is 75 cm high. It likely served as a housing for a water pump. Water was often pumped from the Ohio River by local residents for use in agriculture and/or livestock operations (L. Hostetler, pers. comm. 2004). The fact that a pump house was constructed on the property in the relatively recent past indicates that limited agricultural/livestock operations were conducted through the twentieth century. 47 Prehistoric Sites Two previously unreported prehistoric archaeological sites were identified during the survey. Both were found along the river terrace. Site 12-Sw-418 This site was identified on January 17, 2004, during survey of the bottomland section of the property. While walking along the eroding terrace/ floodplain interface, survey personnel noticed firecracked rock at the base of the terrace, eroding from an unidentified spot above. At the time of the survey, the terrace/floodplain interface was bare, Figure 28. Piles of limestone slabs identified on the Thiebaud property. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE THIEBAUD PROPERTY muddy ground, providing nearly 100 percent visibility. Closer inspection of the area revealed a light but consistent presence of fire-cracked rock running the entire length of the property, interrupted only by three ravines formed by upland streams draining into the Ohio River (Figure 34). As none of the identified artifacts were found in situ, no determination was made if the materials were eroding out from the present surface of the terrace or from a buried paleosol. Given the light but persistent distribution of material along the entire terrace edge, it is likely that site 12-Sw-418 extends farther to the northeast and southwest, outside of the project boundaries. The vast majority of the fire-cracked rock at 12-Sw-418 consisted of water-worn pebbles. Little or no limestone was noted. At least 150 pieces of fire-cracked rock were present. Only 48 two of these were collected, due to the presence of possible modification (Figure 35). The first is a flat, fire-altered river pebble, possibly quartzite. A small area in the center of one of the faces shows evidence for pecking. The second pebble, also fire-altered, has two pecked areas around its circumference, suggesting use as a hammerstone. Eleven pieces of chert debitage were also recovered, none of which showed evidence of further modification. Materials were not concentrated in any specific area of the site but were lightly scattered along the length of the terrace/bottom interface. Six of these retained some portions of the cortex. All six were of water worn pebbles, likely recovered from the river edge or from a nearby gravel bar. Three of the eleven flakes were heat altered. Chert types on only two of the flakes could be identified with any certainty. Figure 29. Limestone pile A, view to the northeast. Note loose slabs in foreground from digging in center of the pile. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE THIEBAUD PROPERTY Both appear to be Dover chert. All others were not identifiable and may be glacially deposited material of unknown origin. The widely distributed presence of prehistoric materials suggests that the entire terrace edge was likely used by prehistoric peoples. The presence of only light concentrations of materials, however, suggests that these occupations were neither intensive nor of any great duration. Most likely, the terrace edge was repeatedly used as a temporary base camp for individuals. The complete absence of materials in disced Area B, closer to the road, suggests that the site does not extend much beyond the very edge of the terrace or that deposits were buried by slopewash. The Ohio River would have 49 been a major thoroughfare in prehistory, and for this reason ephemeral terrace edge sites, such as 12 Sw 418, seem to be common along the Ohio River (see e.g., White 2001; Zoll 1992). Such sites likely represent millennia of short-term occupations. Site 12-Sw-421 The single item recovered from disced Area A was a roughed out biface made of an unidentified tan, fossiliferous chert. It measures approximately 20 cm in maximum length. The presence of numerous step fractures on both faces suggests that this was an abandoned effort at tool manufacture. This item was recovered from Area A by Switzerland Figure 30. Location of livestock ponds on the Thiebaud property. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE THIEBAUD PROPERTY County Historical Society staff prior to IPFW-AS survey of the area, and its reported location is based on their descriptions. CONCLUSIONS Dufour (1925:75) remarked that “if ever a family could be said to be industrious the Thiebauds as a family could be so called.” The results of this survey confirm this characterization. The numerous improvements to the land (e.g., check dams, walls, structures, and terraces) all represent a considerable amount of time and labor invested in 50 the farm. Our survey has also shown that the Thiebaud family made the most out of land that was, for the most part, on highly dissected slopes and therefore not suitable for long-term production of row crops. The construction of check dams and terraces appears to be two measures taken to compensate for these problems. The presence of at least two structures and two livestock ponds indicate that the upland areas were, at one time, actively utilized for agricultural and/or livestock production. Agricultural census data confirm the productivity of the Thiebaud farm in the mid to late nineteenth century. Unfortunately, Figure 31. Old county road, creek crossing, and stone cairn at northern edge of property. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE THIEBAUD PROPERTY however, this level of production could not be sustained. In the 1880s, the soils of Switzerland County were showing signs of severe depletion and agricultural yields were declining (Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana 1980:6). It is likely that the Thiebaud family and subsequent owners of the property suffered similar declines in productivity. The lack of recent structures on the ridgetops (e.g., ones built with cinder block foundations) suggests that the uplands and ravines may not have played a major part in the agricultural use of the property in the more recent past, as improvements to the land do not seem to continue into the twentieth century. Agricultural census data provide independent 51 confirmation of upland land use for agricultural purposes. Data indicate that in 1880, 120 of the 180 acres owned by Justi Thiebaud were “improved.” Of the improved land, approximately 42 acres were reportedly used for row crops such as winter wheat, corn, and potatoes. Another 6.25 acres were used for fruit trees such as apples and peaches. As the bottomland/terrace comprises only about ten percent of the total property (ca. 18 acres) it is certain that during the late nineteenth century, some portion of the ridgetops were used for row crops. How long this practice remained tenable in light of continued erosion and soil depletion is uncertain. In terms of the prehistoric use of the property, Figure 32. 1883 atlas of Craig Township showing road running along north edge of property. Present property boundary is shown in pink. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE THIEBAUD PROPERTY our survey indicates a significant degree of activity along the extreme edge of the terrace, near the point at which it drops off into the river bottom. This activity does not seem to extend much beyond the edge of the terrace, however, suggesting that prehistoric occupations were limited to intermittent and ephemeral camps along the edge of the Ohio River. Sites such as 12-Sw-418 are likely ubiquitous in Switzerland County and reflect the fact that the Ohio River was a prehistoric “highway” that ferried people and trade goods throughout the region. Through the millennia, individuals stopped off at any number of favorable high spots along the river. At these temporary 52 camps, visitors likely erected temporary shelters, built fires, and sharpened stone tools. Though each visit would likely leave little trace, the accumulation of many camps over millennia left a light, but persistent, scatter of materials across the length of the terrace. Though no systematic subsurface reconnaissance was conducted in the upland areas of the property, models of upland land use suggest that prehistoric peoples likely visited the uplands for specific short-term purposes such as hunting and gathering nuts (Stafford 1994; White 2001). Some processing of these materials may have occurred at the temporary camps along the river’s edge. Figure 33. Approximate extent of terraced area above the house and press barn. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE THIEBAUD PROPERTY Figure 34. Previously unidentified prehistoric sites on the Thiebaud property. 53 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE THIEBAUD PROPERTY Figure 35. Artifacts found at site 12 Sw 418. 54 55 REFERENCES CITED Angst, Michael 1998 SR 129 Rehabilitation, Switzerland County, Indiana, Archaeological Field Reconnaissance. Archaeological Resources Management Service, Ball State University, Report 98FR16. Anslinger, C. M. 1996 The Archaic Period in the Falls of the Ohio Region of Kentucky. Cultural Resource Analysts, Inc. http://www.crai-ky.com/reports/falls.htm (8/21/2001). Baas, C. 2003 Baltz, C. J. 1987 National Register of Historic Places Registration Form for the Thiebaud Property. Submitted to the United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service. An Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Proposed Park Development Near Markland Dam, Switzerland County, Indiana. Report of Investigations 87-29. Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology, Indiana University, Bloomington. Baltz, C. J., L. Sweeten, and T. Fugate 2000 Cultural Resources Investigation of Six Options for the Three Proposed Fiber Optic Regeneration Stations in Porter, LaGrange, and Steuben Counties, Indiana. Ms. on file at the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology, Indianapolis. Beard, T. C. 1993 Archaeological Field Reconnaissance for a Bridge Replacement over Indian Creek on SR 56, Switzerland County, Indiana. Project STP-024-8. Prepared for the Indiana Department of Transportation, Indianapolis. Black, G. A. 1934 Archaeological Survey of Dearborn and Ohio Counties. Indiana History Bulletin 11(7). 1967 Angel Site: An Archaeological, Historical, and Ethnological Study. Indiana Historical Society, Indianapolis. Bonnichsen, R. and K. Turnmire 1999 An Introduction to the Peopling of the Americas. In Ice Age People of North America: Environments, Origins, and Adaptations, edited by R. Bonnichsen and K. Turnmire, pp. 1-26. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis. 56 Bordelon, B.P. 2001 Growing Grapes in Indiana. Commercial Horticulture, Department of Horticulture Purdue University Cooperative Extension Service, West Lafayette, Indiana. Brose, D. S., and N. Greber (editors) 1979 Hopewell Archaeology: The Chillicothe Conference. Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio. Brose, D. S., C. W. Cowan, and R. C. Mainfort Jr. (editors) 2000 Societies in Eclipse: Archaeology of the Eastern Woodlands Indians, A.D. 1400– 1700. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Brown, J. A., and R. F. Sasso 2000 Prelude to History on the Eastern Prairies. In Societies in Eclipse: Archaeology of the Eastern Woodlands Indians, A. D. 1400-1700, edited by D. S. Brose, C. W. Cowan, and R. C. Mainfort Jr., pp. 205-228. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Caldwell, J. R., and R. L. Hall (editors) 1964 Hopewellian Studies. Scientific Papers 12. Illinois State Museum, Springfield. Campbell, R. K. 1997 Limestone Ledges and “Crawfish Flats”: The Bluegrass Natural Region. In The Natural Heritage of Indiana, edited by M. T. Jackson, pp. 161-166. Indiana University Press, Bloomington. Cantin, M. 1994 Provenience, Description, and Archaeological Use of Selected Chert Types of Indiana. Unpublished manuscript on file at Indiana University – Purdue University Fort Wayne Archaeological Survey. Cantin, M., C. R. Stafford, and D. N. Holycross 2000 Geoarchaeological Assessment of 12 Sw 333 and 12 Sw 334, As Related to INDOT Project STP-3378( ), DES. #9502690 and 9611790, Pavement Repair, Rehabilitation, and Slide Correction on SR 129, Switzerland County. Indiana State University Anthropology Laboratory Cultural Resources Management Report #00-06. Cazdow, D.A. 1933 Mr. George Fisher’s Discoveries in Western Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Archaeologist 3(3):3-5. 57 Cochran, B. 2001 Archaeological Field Reconnaissance for Roadway Improvements on SR 129 from SR 56 to SR 250. Archaeological Resources Management Services, Ball State University, Project #98FR016. Cochran, D. R., K. D. Richey, and L. A. Maust 1990 Early Paleoindian Economies in the Glaciated Regions of Indiana. Research in Economic Anthropology, Supplement 5, pp. 143-159. JAI Press. Collins, M. B. (editor) 1979 Excavations at Four Archaic Sites in the Lower Ohio Valley, Jefferson County, Kentucky, vols. 1 and 2. Occasional Papers in Anthropology 1, University of Kentucky, Lexington. Cox, E. T. 1872 Third and Fourth Annual Reports of the Geological Survey of Indiana, Geology of Dearborn, Ohio, and Switzerland Counties by Prof. R. B. Warder, Indianapolis. Dorwin, J. T 1966 Fluted Points and Late-Pleistocene Geochronology in Indiana. Indiana Historical Society Prehistory Research Series 4(3). Indianapolis. Dragoo, D. W. 1955 The Linn Mound, an Upper Ohio Valley Adena Stone Mound. The Pennsylvania Archaeologist 25(1):58-67. 1976 Some Aspects of Eastern North American Prehistory: A Review. American Antiquity 41:3-27. Drooker, P.B. 1997 The View from Madisonville: Protohistoric Western Fort Ancient Interaction Patterns. Memiors of the Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Number 31. Drury, J. 1956 This Is Porter County, Indiana. Inland Photo Co., Chicago, Illinois. Dufour, Perret 1925 The Swiss Settlement of Switzerland County Indiana. Indiana Historical Commission, Indianapolis. Emerson, T. E. 1999 The Langford Tradition and the Process of Tribalization on the Middle Mississippian Borders. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 24:3-56. 58 Fagan, Brian M. 2000 Ancient North America: The Archaeology of a Continent, third ed. Thames and Hudson, London. Faulkner, C. H. 1972 The Late Prehistoric Occupation of Northwestern Indiana: A Study of the Upper Mississippi Cultures of the Kankakee Valley. Indiana Historical Society Prehistory Research Series 5(1). Indianapolis. Fischer, F. W. 1974 Early and Middle Woodland Settlement, Subsistence and Population in the Central Ohio Valley. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Washington University, St. Louis. Fitting, J. E. 1965 Late Woodland Cultures of Southeastern Michigan. Anthropology Papers 24. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Funkhouser, W. D. and W. S. Webb 1937 The Chilton Site in Henry County Kentucky. University of Kentucky Reports in Archaeology and Anthropology 3(5). GAI Consultants, Inc. 1984 Archaeological Investigations at Sites 12 Sw 89 and 12 Sw 99, IPL Patriot Site, Switzerland County, Indiana. Project No. 80-232-7. Prepared for Indianapolis Power and Light Company, Indianapolis. Prepared by GAI Consultants, Inc., Monroeville, Pennsylvania. Green T.J., and C.A.Munson 1978 Mississippian Settlement Patterns in Southwestern Indiana. In Mississippian Settlement Patterns, edited by B. D. Smith. Academic Press, New York. Griffin, J. B. 1943 The Fort Ancient Aspect. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. 1978 Late Prehistory of the Ohio Valley. In Handbook of North American Indians: Northeast, vol. 15, edited by B. G. Trigger, pp. 547-559. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Griffing, B. N. 1883 An Atlas of Switzerland and Ohio Counties, Indiana from Actual Surveys Done Under the Direction of B. N. Griffing. D. J. Lake and Company. Henderson, A. G. (editor) 59 1992 Fort Ancient Cultural Dynamics in the Middle Ohio Valley. Monographs in World Archaeology 8. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin. Hendricks, J. L. 2001 Frederick Louis Thiebaud Family History. Manuscript in possession of the Switzerland County Historical Society, Vevay, Indiana. Hicks, R. 1992 Middle Archaic through Middle Woodland. In Native American Cultures in Indiana, edited by R. Hicks. Minnetrista Cultural Center and Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana. Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana 1980 Switzerland 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. 158-159. Indiana University Press, Bloomington. Janzen, D. E. 1977 An Examination of Late Archaic Development in the Falls of the Ohio River Area. In For the Director: Essays in Honor of James B. Griffin, edited by C. E. Cleland, pp. 123-143. Anthropological Papers 61, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Jefferies, R. W. 1988 Archaic Period Research in Kentucky: Past Accomplishments and Future Directions. In Paleoindian and Archaic Research in Kentucky, edited by C. D. Hockensmith, D. Pollack, and T. N. Sanders, pp. 85-126. Kentucky Heritage Council, Lexington. Jeske, R. J. 1992 Village Green Townhomes: An Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey in Valparaiso, Porter County, Indiana. Reports of Investigations, No. 8. Archaeological Consultants, Fort Wayne. Justice, N. D. 1987 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Midcontinental and Eastern United States. Indiana University Press, Bloomington. 60 Kellar, J. H. 1960 1983 Knox, J. L. 1942 1948 The C.S. Lewis Stone Mound and the Stone Mound Problem. Indiana Historical Society Prehistory Research Series, 3(4). Indiana Historical Society, Indianapolis. An Introduction to the Prehistory of Indiana. Indiana Historical Society, Indianapolis. The Dufour Saga, 1796-1942; The Story of the Eight Dufours who Came from Switzerland and Founded Vevay, Switzerland County, Indiana. Howell-Goodwin, Crawfordsville, Indiana. The Thiebaud Geneology. Indiana Magazine of History 44:326-334. Lindsey, A. A., D. V. Schmelz, and S. A. Nichols 1969 Natural Areas in Indiana and Their Preservation. Indiana Natural Areas Survey, Department of Biological Sciences, Purdue University, Lafayette. Madison, J. H. 1986 The Indiana Way: A State History. Indiana University Press, Bloomington. McCullough, R. G. 2000 The Oliver Phase of Central Indiana: A Study of Settlement Variability as a Response to Social Risk. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Southern Illinois, Carbondale. McCullough, R. G., and T. M. Wright 1997 Population Dynamics of the Late Prehistoric: A Case Study from the Lower West Fork of the White River. Reports of Investigations 97-18. Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology, Indiana University, Bloomington. Muller, J. 1997 Mississippian Political Economy. Plenum Press, New York. Munson, C. A. (editor) 1980 Archaeological Salvage Excavations at Patoka Lake, Indiana. Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology, Indiana University, Research Reports 6. Munson, P. J. 1986 What Happened in the Archaic in the Midwestern United States? Reviews in Anthropology 13(4):276-282. Murray-Wooley, C. and K. Raitz 1992 Rock Fences of the Bluegrass. The University Press of Kentucky, Lexington. 61 Nassaney, M. S., W. M. Cremin, R. Kurtzwell, and J. A. Brandao 2003 The Search for Fort St. Joseph (1691-1781) in Niles, Michigan. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 28(2):107-144. Nickell, A. K. 1987 Soil Survey of Switzerland County, Indiana. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. Pacheco, P. J. 1996 Ohio Hopewell Regional Settlement Patterns. In A View from the Core: A Synthesis of Ohio Hopewell Archaeology, edited by P. J. Pacheco, pp. 16-35. Ohio Archaeological Council, Columbus. Parish, C. K. and McCord, B. K. 1995 An Archaeological Survey of Dearborn County, Indiana. Reports of Investigations No. 41, Archaeological Resources Management Service, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana. Petty, R.O. and M.T. Jackson 1966 Plant Communities. In: Natural Features of Indiana. A.A. Lindsey, Editor. Indiana Academy of Science, Indianapolis, Indiana. Pollack, D., and A. G. Henderson 1992 Toward a Model of Fort Ancient Society. In Fort Ancient Cultural Dynamics in the Middle Ohio Valley, edited by A. G. Henderson, pp. 281-294. Monographs in World Archaeology 8. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin. 2000 Railey, J. A. 1992 Late Woodland Cultures in Kentucky. In Late Woodland Societies: Tradition and Transformation across the Midcontinent, edited by T. Emerson, D. McElrath, and A. Fortier, pp. 613-642. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. Chipped Stone Artifacts. In Fort Ancient Cultural Dynamics in the Middle Ohio Valley, edited by A. G. Henderson, pp. 137-169. Monographs in World Archaeology 8. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin. Redmond, B. G. 1994a The Summer 1993 Excavation of the Cox=s Woods Site (12 Or 1), a Late Prehistoric, Oliver Phase Village in the Pioneer Mothers Memorial Forest Recreation Area, Hoosier National Forest. Reports of Investigations 94-17. Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology, Indiana University, Bloomington. 1994b The Archaeology of the Clampitt Site (12 Lr 329), an Oliver Phase Village in Lawrence County, Indiana. Research Reports 16. Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology, Indiana University, Bloomington. 62 Redmond, B. G., and R. G. McCullough 1993 Survey and Test Excavation of Late Prehistoric, Oliver Phase Components in Martin, Lawrence, and Orange Counties, Indiana. Reports of Investigations 93-13. Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology, Indiana University, Bloomington. 1995 The Summer 1993-94 Excavations of the Cox's Woods Site (12-Or-1), a Late Prehistoric Oliver Phase Village in the Pioneer Mothers Memorial Forest, Orange County, Indiana. Reports of Investigation 95-9. Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology, Indiana University, Bloomington. 2000 The Late Woodland to Late Prehistoric Occupations of Central Indiana. In Late Woodland Societies: Tradition and Transformation across the Midcontinent, edited by T. Emerson, D. McElrath, and A. Fortier, pp. 643-683. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. Ritchie, W. A., and R. E. Funk 1973 Aboriginal Settlement Patterns in the Northeast. New York State Museum and Science Service, Memoir 20. New York State University. Schneider, A.F. 1966 Physiography. In: Natural Features of Indiana. A.A. Lindsey, Editor. Indiana Academy of Science, Indianapolis, Indiana. Seeman, M. F. 1979 The Hopewell Interaction Sphere: The Evidence for Interregional Trade and Structural Complexity. Indiana Historical Society Prehistory Research Series 5(2). Indianapolis. Seeman, M. E., and O. H. Prufer 1982 An Updated Distribution of Ohio Fluted Points. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 17(2):155-169. Setzler, F. M. 1930 The Archaeology of the Whitewater Valley. Indiana History Bulletin 7(12). Sieber, E., E. E. Smith, and C. A. Munson 1989 Archaeological Resource Management Overview for the Hoosier National Forest, Indiana. Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology, Indiana University, Reports of Investigations 89-9. Submitted to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Hoosier National Forest. Smith, B. D. 1992 Prehistoric Plant Husbandry in Eastern North America. In Rivers of Change: 63 Essays on Early Agriculture in Eastern North America, edited by B. D. Smith, pp. 281-300, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Smith, E. E. 1984 1989 Paleo-Indian and Early Archaic Settlement Patterns in Southcentral Indiana. Manuscript on file, Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology, Indiana University, Bloomington. Paleoindian Settlement and Lithic Procurement Patterns in the Karstic Region of Southcentral Indiana. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Indiana University, Bloomington. Smith, E. E., and S. T. Mocas 1995 Archaeological Investigations at Paddy=s West Substation, Floyd County, Indiana. Reports of Investigations 95-4. Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology, Indiana University, Bloomington. Springer, J. W. 1985 Site Distribution, Environmental Adaptation, and Environmental Change along the Northern Edge of the Prairie Peninsula. Wisconsin Archeologist 66:1-46. Stafford, C. R. 1994 Structural Changes in Archaic Landscape Use in the Dissected Uplands of Southwestern Indiana. American Antiquity 59:219-237. Stillwell, L. N. 1999 An Archaeological Field Reconnaissance of a Proposed Development in Vevay, Switzerland County, Indiana. Archaeological Consultants of Ossian, Cultural Resource Management Report 99FR109. 2000 An Archaeological Field Reconnaissance of a Proposed Medical Center in Vevay, Switzerland County, Indiana. Archaeological Consultants of Ossian, Cultural Resource Management Report 00FR83. Surovell, T. A. 2000 Early Paleoindian Women, Children, Mobility, and Fertility. American Antiquity 65(3):493-508. Tankersley, K. B. 1987 Patterns in Lithic Resource Procurement and Exploitation among Early Paleoindians of Indiana. Reports of Investigations 87-60. Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology, Indiana University, Bloomington. 1989 Late Pleistocene Lithic Exploitation and Human Settlement in the Midwestern United States. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Indiana 64 University, Bloomington. Tankersley, K. B., and B. L. Isaac (editors) 1990 Early Paleoindian Economies of Eastern North America. Research in Economic Anthropology Supplement 5. JAI Press, Greenwich, Connecticut. Taylor, R. M., Jr. and C. A. McBirney 1996 Peopling Indiana: The Ethnic Experience. Indiana Historical Society, Indianapolis. Thompson, J. A. 1932 Map Illustrating the Pioneer Periods in Indiana. Indiana History Bulletin 10(2). Vickery, K. 1974 Chert Utilization by a Late Archaic Group in Southwestern Ohio. Paper presented at the Ohio Valley Archaeological Conference, Tullahoma, Tennessee. Webb, W. S. 1938 An Archaeological Survey of the Norris Basin in Eastern Tennessee. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 118. Washington, D.C. Wepler, W. R., R. G. McCullough, D. McCullough, and S. Arthur 2001 The Roberts Site: Initial Investigation of an Antebellum Biracial Community, Orange County, Indiana. Indiana State Museum, Report Number 2. White, A.A. 2001 Archaeological Investigations Associated with the Pinnacle Gaming Development Corporations River Boat Casino and Resort Complex, Switzerland County, Indiana. Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology, Office of Cultural Resource Management, Reports of Investigations 98-31. White, A. A., D. McCullough, and R. G. McCullough 2002 An Archaeological Evaluation of Late Prehistoric Village and Subsistence Patterns in North-Central and Northeastern Indiana. Reports of Investigations 216. IPFW Archaeological Survey, Indiana University-Purdue University, Fort Wayne. White, A. A., R. G. McCullough, and D. McCullough 2003 Archaeological Investigations at Two Late Prehistoric Earthen Enclosures in Indiana. Reports of Investigations 301. IPFW Archaeological Survey, Indiana University-Purdue University, Fort Wayne. White, A. A., M.E. Pirkl, and P.K. O’Brien 2001 Archaeological Resources Survey Plan for Crane Naval Surface Warfare Center, Martin and Greene Counties, Indiana. Glenn A. Black Laboratory of 65 Archaeology, Office of Cultural Resource Management, Reports of Investigations 99-30. Windmill Publications 1993  History of Switzerland County Indiana. Windmill Publications, Mt. Vernon, Indiana. (Reprint of a portion of History of Dearborn, Ohio, and Switzerland Counties, Indiana. Weakley, Harraman, and Co.) Yarnell, R. 1964 Aboriginal Relationships between Culture and Plant Life in the Upper Great Lakes Region. Museum of Anthropology Anthropological Papers 23. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Zabadal, T. J. and J. A. Andersen 1997 Vineyard Establishment I, Preplant Decisions. Michigan State University Extension Bulletin E-2644. MSU Bulletin Office, Lansing, Michigan. Zoll, M. 1992 Archaeological Subsurface Reconnaissance, Riverfront Park Project, Switzerland County, Indiana. Archaeological Resources Management Service, Ball State University.