Archaeological Investigations at Site 12-T-59 and Two Other Locations in Prophetstown State Park, Tippecanoe County, Indiana

Archaeological Investigations at Site 12-T-59 and Two Other Locations in Prophetstown State Park, Tippecanoe County, Indiana
INDIANA UNIV ERSITY-PURDUE UNIV ERSITY FORT W AYNE
ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS AT SITE 12-T-59
AND TWO OTHER LOCATIONS IN PROPHETSTOWN
STATE PARK, TIPPECANOE COUNTY, INDIANA
by
Michael Strezewski, James R. Jones III, and Dorothea McCullough
American Battlefield Protection Program (GA #2255-04-004)
Michael Strezewski and Robert G. McCullough,
Principal Investigators
Reports of Investigations 513
February, 2006
IPFW Archaeological Survey
Indiana University-Purdue University at Fort Wayne
2101 East Coliseum Blvd.
Fort Wayne, Indiana 46805-1499
Forward to the Digital Version
June 2006
This is a digital version of the Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne Archaeological
Survey (IPFW-AS) Report of Investigations 513, originally published in June 2006. 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 low-resolution digital version of ROI 513 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.
Archaeological site location information that is not intended for public disclosure has been
removed from this report.
This material is based upon work assisted by a grant from the Department of the Interior,
National Park Service. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed
in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the
Department of the Interior.
i
Management Summary
At the request of the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, the Indiana University-Purdue
University Fort Wayne Archaeological Survey (IPFW-AS) has completed archaeological survey
and testing within three areas of Prophetstown State Park, in Tippecanoe County, Indiana. In
2004, the Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR), Division of Engineering was
awarded an American Battlefield Protection Program (ABPP) grant from the National Park
Service (NPS grant number GA-2255-04-004) to evaluate a number of areas within the park that
were possibly associated with the Battle of Tippecanoe, which took place in November 1811.
The IPFW-AS was contracted through the IDNR to complete the fieldwork related to the grant.
The over-riding goal of the IPFW-AS investigations was to identify, document, and evaluate
three locations with possible connections to Prophetstown in order to develop a preservation
plan.
Prophetstown, which was a center of Native American resistance to further land concessions
to the United States, was established in 1808 by Tenskwatawa, known as the Shawnee Prophet,
and his brother Tecumseh. It was destroyed by Gen. William Henry Harrison on November 8,
1811, the day after the Battle of Tippecanoe. Despite a number of reconnaissance level surveys
at or near the reported location of Prophetstown, the town site has never been located
archaeologically.
The first of the three survey areas encompasses archaeological site 12-T-59, which has been
identified as the town of Kethtippecanunk, a Native American and French trader’s village burned
in 1791 but occupied sporadically afterward by various Native American groups. Some
historians believe that this site is also the location of Prophetstown. The second survey area, the
Lower Yost property, is thought by some to be the possible site of General Harrison’s river
crossing, although others locate Harrison’s crossing two counties downriver, where Harrison
constructed a blockhouse, near the mouth of the Vermillion River. The third area, the Yost
Woodland, lies directly to the northwest of the Lower Yost Property. The Yost Woodland is a
previously unsurveyed wooded area on the edge of the bluffs that is adjacent to two battle-period
archaeological sites.
Survey and excavations were conducted from June 1 to July 5, 2005 and on November 14
and December 2, 2005, and consisted of shovel probing, augering, geophysical survey, and test
excavation. Specific goals and methods of the investigations varied by survey area. Phase Ia
fieldwork at the Yost Woodland consisted of systematic shovel probing. The IPFW-AS
investigations resulted in the identification of two previously undocumented archaeological sites
(12-T-1083 and 12-T-1119), and the extension of the boundaries for one previously documented
site (12-T-925). Materials identified at 12-T-925 were all non-diagnostic prehistoric artifacts,
and consisted of seven chert flakes and five pieces of fire-cracked rock. Small quantities of
prehistoric, non-diagnostic artifacts were also recovered from sites 12-T-1083 and 12-T-1119.
Although one piece of barbed wire was found at site 12-T-1119, this artifact most likely dates to
no earlier than the mid-19th century. While site 12-T-925 is thought to be potentially eligible for
the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), it is the opinion of the IPFW-AS that sites 12T-1083 and 12-T-1119 are not eligible for the NRHP.
The Lower Yost property was tested via a series of screened, tractor-mounted auger probes
placed at 40m intervals across the property. Fieldwork was conducted in conjunction with
ii
Indiana Department of Natural Resources personnel. The results of the investigations were
negative, and no cultural materials were noted.
Most of the efforts during the current project were directed toward the investigation of site
12-T-59. Fieldwork focused on large-scale geophysical survey (magnetometry and resistivity) to
aid in the detection of subsurface archaeological remains possibly related to Prophetstown or the
earlier town of Kethtippecanunk. The results of the geophysical survey were tested using a series
of small “ground-truthing” excavations placed across the site. Ten excavation units totaling
20.75m2 were excavated.
A total of five features was identified during the excavations, four of which were found to be
archaeological in nature. Three out of the four were related to a substantial prehistoric
component at the site. Prehistoric materials likely date to the Middle Woodland, Albee phase,
and a poorly understood Mississippian-related component. A minor Archaic period component
was also identified. The fourth archaeological feature at 12-T-59 was thought to be the remains
of a historic-era structure. Large quantities of late-18th-century artifacts were associated with the
possible structure, which may have been associated with one of the French traders known to be
present at Kethtippecanunk. Due to the time constraints and the limited objectives of the project,
the structure was partially uncovered, documented, and reburied. It is believed that the feature
may represent a poteaux-en-terre structure, the most popular type of ethnic French construction
in the midcontinent. Little material was recovered that may be associated with the 19th-century
occupation of Prophetstown. Repeated flooding of 12-T-59 has resulted in erosion along the
southern edge of the site. A number of recommendations were made (e.g., construction of check
dams, planting of turf grass) to prevent further damage to the site. Upon acceptance of the final
report, all cultural materials and supporting documentation from the Prophetstown State Park
investigations will be curated at the Indiana State Museum under accesssion numbers
71.19.784.1 through 71.19.784.4.
iii
Table of Contents
Management Summary ................................................................................................................. ii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ v
List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. vii
Chapter 1: Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1
Chapter 2: Project Setting .............................................................................................................. 6
Chapter 3: Survey and Augering .................................................................................................. 42
Chapter 4: Geophysical Survey at Site 12-T-59 ........................................................................... 50
Chapter 5: Subsurface Investigations: 12-T-59 ............................................................................ 75
Chapter 6: Cultural Materials from 12-T-59 .............................................................................. 105
Chapter 7: Discussion ................................................................................................................ 127
Chapter 8: Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 144
References Cited ........................................................................................................................ 149
Appendix A: Catalog of Materials from 12-T-59 ...................................................................... 173
Appendix B: Field Specimen Log for 2005 Investigations at Prophetstown State Park ........... 189
Appendix C: Results of Ground-Penetrating Radar Survey of Two Mounds, Site 12-T-59. .... 194
iv
List of Figures
Figure 1.1.
Figure 1.2.
Figure 2.1.
Figure 2.2.
Figure 2.3.
Figure 3.1.
Figure 3.2.
Figure 3.3.
Figure 3.4.
Figure 4.1.
Figure 4.2.
Figure 4.3.
Figure 4.4.
Figure 4.5.
Figure 4.6.
Figure 4.7.
Figure 4.8.
Figure 4.9.
Figure 4.10.
Figure 4.11.
Figure 4.12.
Figure 4.13.
Figure 4.14.
Figure 4.15.
Figure 4.16.
Figure 4.17.
Figure 5.1.
Figure 5.2.
Figure 5.3.
Figure 5.4.
Figure 5.5.
Figure 5.6.
Figure 5.7.
Figure 5.8.
Figure 5.9.
Location of Prophetstown State Park as shown on the 2004 Indiana
highway map .......................................................................................................... 2
Location of the three project areas within Prophetstown State Park ..................... 3
The Arrowsmith map of 1802 .............................................................................. 29
The Carey map of 1805 ........................................................................................ 30
The Brock map of 1813 ....................................................................................... 31
Location shovel probes within the Yost Woodland. ............................................ 43
Location of sites 12-T-925, 12-T-1083, and 12-T-1119. Portion of site
12-T-925 outside of Yost Woodland was defined by Jones (1998) ..................... 44
Location of auger holes at the Lower Yost Property ............................................ 47
Field conditions at the Lower Yost Property, December 2, 2005 ........................ 48
Field conditions at 12-T-59 in June 2005, after mowing ..................................... 51
Site grid superimposed on aerial photo of 12-T-59. Note treeline at E5080 ....... 52
Site grid superimposed over topographic map of immediate area ....................... 53
Extent of magnetometry done at 1.0m transect interval ...................................... 57
Extent of magnetometry done at 0.5m transect interval ...................................... 58
Extent of resistivity data ...................................................................................... 59
Example of monopolar positive anomalies within one grid at 12-T-59 .............. 60
Example of dipolar simple anomalies within one grid at 12-T-59 ...................... 61
Example of large, dipolar complex anomaly at 12-T-59 ..................................... 62
Large dipolar complex anomalies due to recent trash deposition and
construction, 12-T-59. Pink line defines the area of the site surveyed by
magnetometry at a 1.0m interval .......................................................................... 63
Dipolar complex anomalies, possibly archaeological, 12-T-59. Pink line
defines the area of the site surveyed by magnetometry at a 1.0m interval ........... 64
Dipolar simple anomalies, possibly archaeological, 12-T-59. Pink line
defines the area of the site surveyed by magnetometry at a 1.0m interval ........... 65
Monopolar anomalies, possibly archaeological, 12-T-59 .................................... 66
Multiple monopolar positive anomalies, possibly archaeological, 12-T-59 ........ 67
Linear anomalies noted in the 0.5m transect data, 12-T-59. Red outline
indicates the extent of the 0.5m survey. ............................................................... 68
Location of monopolar anomalies superimposed on topographic map,
12-T-59 ................................................................................................................ 71
Areas of potential future research interest, 12-T-59 ............................................ 73
Location of excavation units B through K, summer 2005 ................................... 76
Datum locations, 12-T-59 .................................................................................... 77
Unit B, east profile wall ....................................................................................... 80
Unit C, west profile wall ...................................................................................... 81
Photograph of Unit C, west profile ...................................................................... 81
Unit D, base of level 1 ......................................................................................... 82
Unit D, north profile wall ..................................................................................... 84
Unit E, base of level 4 planview map .................................................................. 85
Unit E, north profile wall ..................................................................................... 86
v
Figure 5.10.
Figure 5.11.
Figure 5.12.
Figure 5.13.
Figure 5.14.
Figure 5.15.
Figure 5.16.
Figure 5.17.
Figure 5.18.
Figure 5.19.
Figure 5.20.
Figure 5.21.
Figure 5.22.
Figure 6.1.
Figure 6.2.
Figure 6.3.
Figure 6.4.
Figure 6.5.
Figure 6.6.
Figure 6.7.
Figure 6.8.
Figure 6.9.
Figure 6.10.
Figure 6.11.
Figure 6.12.
Figure 7.1.
Figure 7.2.
Figure 7.3.
Figure 7.4.
Figure 7.5.
Figure 8.1.
Figure C.1.
Figure C.2.
Figure C.3.
Figure C.4.
Figure C.5.
Figure C.6.
Figure C.7.
Figure C.8.
Figure C.9.
Unit F, base of level 2 .......................................................................................... 87
Unit H, base of level 2 planview map .................................................................. 89
Unit H, base of level 3 planview map .................................................................. 90
Units G, I, and J, level 2 planview map ............................................................... 92
Unit K, south profile map .................................................................................... 93
Unit L, Feature 3 planview map ........................................................................... 95
Feature 1 profile map ........................................................................................... 96
Unit H, Feature 2 profile ...................................................................................... 97
Unit H, west profile wall, showing Feature 2 ...................................................... 98
Photograph of Feature 3, possible wall trench ................................................... 100
Unit E, base of level 3, showing Feature 4 ........................................................ 101
Location of screened shovel probes ................................................................... 102
Location of metal detector probes ...................................................................... 103
Non-Late Prehistoric hafted bifaces, 12-T-59 .................................................... 106
Late Prehistoric hafted bifaces, 12-T-59 ............................................................ 107
Formal flake tools, 12-T-59 ............................................................................... 110
Ground stone tools, 12-T-59 .............................................................................. 113
Rim sherds recovered from 12-T-59 .................................................................. 115
Eighteenth-century ceramics from structure excavation .................................... 119
White clay pipe bowl fragments (left) and stem fragments (remainder) ........... 120
Case bottle fragment (left) and hand-tooled bottle rim (right) ........................... 121
Metal and crystal fob seal recovered near the structure. .................................... 122
Impression made from fob seal, with coat-of-arms from the Premier
Grand Lodge of England .................................................................................... 123
Brass artifacts from 12-T-59 excavations .......................................................... 124
Other historic artifacts from 12-T-59 ................................................................. 125
Distribution of Archaic and Middle Woodland lithics ...................................... 131
Distribution of Late Prehistoric lithics ............................................................... 132
Distribution of Albee phase sherds and non-diagnostic grit-tempered
sherds ................................................................................................................. 133
Distribution of shell- and grog-tempered sherds ................................................ 133
Poteaux-en-terre structure with gallery and hipped roof. Drawn by
General Georges-Victor Collot in the mid 1790s .............................................. 136
Aerial photograph of site 12-T-59, showing location of active erosion ............ 145
Gorby’s (1886:73) illustration of the mound group ........................................... 195
Approximate location of the five mound within the limits of 12-T-59 ............. 196
Photograph of mounds 1 through 4, view to the west. Note partially
mowed mound 1 in foreground .......................................................................... 197
Survey grid used during investigation of mound 1 and 2, 12-T-59 ................... 198
Mound 1 GPR data,; 7 to 9 nanoseconds time slice .......................................... 199
Mound 1 GPR data,; 30 to 32 nanoseconds time slice ...................................... 199
Mound 2 GPR data,; 3.7 to 5.7 nanoseconds time slice .................................... 200
Mound 2 GPR data,; 14.7 to 16.7 nanoseconds time slice ................................ 200
Mound 2 GPR data,; 31.2 to 33.2 nanoseconds time slice ................................ 201
vi
List of Tables
Table 2.1.
Table 2.2.
Table 2.3.
Table 5.1.
Table 5.2.
Table 5.3.
Table 6.1.
Table 6.2.
Table 6.3.
Table 7.1.
Table 7.2.
Most Common Cultural Components at Tippecanoe County
Archaeological Sites ............................................................................................ 34
Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites within a 1.0 Mile Radius of
the Yost Woodland and Lower Yost Property ..................................................... 35
Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites within a 1.0 Mile Radius of
Site 12-T-59 ......................................................................................................... 36
Summary of Excavated Units at 12-T-59... ......................................................... 78
Number of Artifacts by Provenience, 12-T-59 .................................................... 79
Location and Contents of Metal Detector Probes .............................................. 104
Debitage Analysis, Chert Type by Provenience Unit ......................................... 112
Historic Materials from 12-T-59 ........................................................................ 117
Historic Material by Function, 12-T-59 ............................................................. 118
Ranking of Functional Categories from the IPFW-AS Investigations at
12-T-59 .............................................................................................................. 135
Functional Analysis of Materials from Kethtippecanunk, the Wea
Village, and Fort Ouiatenon, Expressed as Percentage of the Total
Assemblage ........................................................................................................ 135
vii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
At the request of the Indiana Department of
Natural Resources, the Indiana University-Purdue
University Fort Wayne Archaeological Survey
(IPFW-AS) has completed archaeological survey
and testing within three areas of Prophetstown
State Park, in Tippecanoe County, Indiana (Figure
1.1). In 2004, the Indiana Department of Natural
Resources (IDNR), Division of Engineering was
awarded an American Battlefield Protection
Program (ABPP) grant from the National Park
Service (NPS grant number GA-2255-04-004)
to evaluate a number of areas within the park that
were possibly associated with the Battle of
Tippecanoe, which took place in November
1811. The IPFW-AS was contracted through the
IDNR to complete the fieldwork related to the
grant. The project manager at IDNR was
Christopher Baas.
The overall purpose of the ABPP program is
to identify and evaluate sites related to the
Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. Its goals
are: “1) to protect battlefields and sites associated
with armed conflicts that influenced the course of
our history, 2) to encourage and assist all
Americans in planning for the preservation,
management, and interpretation of these sites, and
3) to raise awareness of the importance of
preserving battlefields and related sites for future
generations.” The ABPP’s mission is the
development of land use, cultural resource, and
site management plans, and public education
(American Battlefield Protection Program [ABPP]
2005).
Prophetstown, which was established in 1808
by Tenskwatawa, known as the Shawnee
Prophet, and his brother Tecumseh, was
destroyed by Gen. William Henry Harrison on
November 8, 1811, the day after the Battle of
1
Tippecanoe. After the Treaty of Fort Wayne in
1809, Prophetstown became a center of
resistance to further land concessions to the United
States. Despite a chronic inability to feed the
numbers of settlers and visitors, Prophetstown
attracted young warriors from Ohio and Indiana,
dismayed by their accommodationist chiefs, as
well as increasing numbers of Indians from the
western Great Lakes, in the present states of
Illinois, Wisconsin, and Michigan. The Battle of
Tippecanoe, which broke the back of Indian
resistance to American hegemony in the Old
Northwest, was a significant event in the days
leading up to the War of 1812 (Sugden 1997). The
archaeological site of Prophetstown is currently
listed on the ABPP database as an “associated
property.” Associated properties are historic sites
or places that are connected in some way to either
the Revolutionary War or the War of 1812. The list
includes properties that deal with commerce,
social history and government, agriculture and, in
the case of Prophetstown, sites that are related to
a military action. The Prophetstown site is currently
ranked A on the associated properties list (ABPP
2005). Despite a number of reconnaissance level
surveys at or near the reported location of
Prophetstown (Helmkamp and Kanne 1999,
2000; Jones 1984, 1989b, 1998; Martin 2002;
Trubowitz 1992) the town site has never been
located archaeologically.
The over-riding goal of the IPFW-AS
investigations was to identify, document, and
evaluate three locations with possible connections
to Prophetstown in order to develop a
preservation plan (Figure 1.2). Since all three
areas are currently on state property, none is in any
immediate danger of negative impact from direct
human actions. However, all project areas are
endangered by flooding and/or erosion.
The first survey area encompasses
Introduction
Figure 1.1. Location of Prophetstown State Park as shown on the 2004 Indiana highway map.
2
Introduction
3
Figure 1.2. Location of the three project areas within Prophetstown State Park (U.S.G.S. 7.5’ East Lafayette and
Brookston quadrangles).
Introduction
archaeological site 12-T-59, which has been
identified as the town of Kethtippecanunk, a
Native American and French trader’s village
burned in 1791 but occupied sporadically
afterward by various Native American groups.
Some historians believe that this site is also the
location of Prophetstown, while others place
Prophetstown somewhat downriver from the
mouth of the Tippecanoe (McCollough 1973:7,
27; Osborn 1943:13; Tanner 1987:98-99).
The second survey area, the Lower Yost
property, is thought by some to be the possible site
of General Harrison’s river crossing, although
others locate Harrison’s crossing two counties
downriver, where Harrison constructed a
blockhouse, near the mouth of the Vermillion River
(Barnhart and Riker 1971:389; Edmunds
1983:108; Naylor 1906). The site may be a
peripheral Prophetstown location, and
archaeological sites in the vicinity show evidence of
early-19th-century occupation (DHPA site files,
Indianapolis). The site is endangered by flooding
and has been impacted by the introduction of urban
fill (Ziegler and Wolf 1998), probably sometime in
the 1980s, although the source, extent, and
purpose of the fill is not recorded. The goal of the
investigations was to evaluate disturbances caused
by flooding and the introduction of urban fill, and to
identify any sites and their boundaries in order to
prepare a preservation plan.
The final area surveyed as part of the current
project is the Yost Woodland, which lies directly
to the northwest of the Lower Yost Property. The
Yost Woodland is a previously unsurveyed
wooded area on the edge of the bluffs. It is also
adjacent to two battle-period archaeological sites
(DHPA site files, Indianapolis). The goal of the
investigations was to evaluate disturbances caused
by erosion and to identify any sites and their
boundaries in order to prepare a preservation plan.
Summary of Investigations
Survey and excavations were conducted from
June 1 to July 5, 2005 and on November 14 and
4
December 2, 2005, and consisted of shovel
probing, augering, geophysical survey, and test
excavation. Specific goals and methods of the
investigations varied by site, and are detailed in
subsequent chapters. Dr. Michael Strezewski of
the IPFW-AS supervised all fieldwork, and was
present on site during all investigations. Fieldwork
was conducted under IDNR-DHPA permit
number 200525.
Phase Ia fieldwork at the Yost Woodland
consisted of systematic shovel probing. The
IPFW-AS investigations resulted in the
identification of two previously undocumented
archaeological sites (12-T-1083 and 12-T1119), and the extension of the boundaries for one
previously documented site (12-T-925) that had
been recorded during an earlier survey of an
adjacent parcel of land (Jones 1996). All three
sites are found on the Wabash River bluff edge.
Materials identified at 12-T-925 were all nondiagnostic prehistoric artifacts, and consisted of
seven chert flakes and five pieces of fire-cracked
rock. Small quantities of prehistoric, nondiagnostic artifacts were also recovered from sites
12-T-1083 and 12-T-1119. Although one piece
of barbed wire was found at site 12-T-1119, this
artifact most likely dates to no earlier than the mid19th century.
The Lower Yost property was tested using a
tractor-mounted power auger. Fieldwork was
conducted in conjunction with IDNR personnel.
The results of the investigations were negative and
no cultural materials were noted.
Most of the efforts during the current project
were directed toward the investigation of site 12T-59, the town of Kethtippecanunk and possible
location of Prophetstown-related occupations.
Our fieldwork at the site focused on large-scale
geophyiscal survey to aid in the detection of
subsurface archaeological remains possibly
related to Prophetstown or the earlier town of
Kethtippecanunk. The results of the geophysical
survey were tested using a series of small “groundtruthing” excavations placed across the site. Ten
excavation units totaling 20.75m2 were excavated.
Introduction
A total of five features was identified during the
excavations, four of which were found to be
archaeological in nature. Three out of the four were
related to a substantial prehistoric component at
the site. Prehistoric materials likely date to the
Middle Woodland, Albee phase, and a poorly
understood Mississippian-related component. A
minor Archaic period component was also
identified. The fourth archaeological feature at 12T-59 was determined to be the remains of a
historic-era structure. Large quantities of late18th-century artifacts were associated with the
structure, which is thought to be associated with
one of the French traders known to be present at
Kethtippecanunk. Due to the time constraints and
the limited objectives of the project, the structure
was partially uncovered, documented, and
reburied. It is believed that the structure was of
poteaux-en-terre construction, the most popular
type of ethnic French construction in the
midcontinent. Materials encountered during the
structure excavations include hand-wrought nails,
bottle glass, 18th- century ceramics, and gun and
furniture parts. Little material was recovered that
may be associated with the 19th-century
occupation of Prophetstown, though admittedly,
there is little means to distinguish late-18th from
early-19th century artifacts, as the assemblages
would be quite similar.
Cultural materials discovered during the
investigations in Prophetstown State Park were
handled in accordance with relevant historic
preservation legislation and regulations. Upon
acceptance of the final report, all cultural materials
and supporting documentation from the
Prophetstown State Park investigations will be
curated at the Indiana State Museum under
5
accesssion numbers 71.19.784.1 through
71.19.784.4.
Report Contents
The following report describes the timing, nature,
and results of IPFW-AS investigations in
Prophetstown State Park. Chapter 2 describes the
natural and cultural setting of the project,
summarizing available environmental data
(physiography, geology, hydrology, climate, flora,
and fauna) and presenting a general outline of the
culture history of the region, and a summary of
documented cultural resources within a 1.0 mile
radius of the project area. A summary of the
historical significance of the area and previous
investigations is also included in chapter 2. Chapter
3 is a discussion of the Phase Ia investigations of the
Yost Woodland and Lower Yost Property,
including a description of the two previously
unreported sites and materials that were
encountered. Recommendations for these two
sites are also included in this chapter. Chapter 4 is
focused on the magnetometry and resistivity
surveys conducted at site 12-T-59, while chapter
5 is a discussion of the ground truthing excavations
that were conducted following the survey. The
prehistoric and historic period artifacts recovered
from these investigations are reviewed in chapter 6
of the report. Chapter 7 is devoted to a discussion
and interpretation of site 12-T-59, incorporating
data from the geophysical survey and excavations.
Finally, in chapter 8, conclusions are presented, as
are the IPFW-AS recommendations for future
work and for the future preservation of site 12-T59.
CHAPTER 2
PROJECT SETTING
Project Setting
limestone of the Devonian and Mississippian ages
(Howe 1997:8). In this area of Indiana, the
The current project area has been divided into bedrock is covered by relatively young and
three subareas for ease of description. The first of undissected glacial drift (Gutschick 1966:5). In
the subareas, site 12-T-59, lies on the eastern edge terms of Pleistocene and Tertiary geology, the
of Prophetstown State Park, near the confluence bottomlands and terraces in the project area lie
of the Wabash and Tippecanoe rivers. The site is within the Lacustrine facies of the Atherton
situated on the first and second terraces of the formation. These soils were formed after 14,000
Wabash River, at the base of the Wabash River years ago, as the glaciers began to recede during
bluffs, which rise approximately 12m (40 ft) above the terminal Pleistocene and early Holocene.
the terrace at this point. The Wabash River lies Upland zones within the project area are within the
approximately 680m (2,230 ft) to the south, while Cartersburg Till member of the Trafalgar
the Tippecanoe River is immediately to the east of formation, which comprises a bed of glacial till that
the site.
was formed during the Tazewell stade of the
The second subarea, the Yost Woodland, is Wisconsin glaciation, between about 17,000 and
on the western side of Prophetstown State Park, to 20,000 years ago (Wayne 1966).
the west of State Road 225. The Yost Woodland
is a narrow strip of secondary forest that is
Flora and Fauna
bordered on the north by a former agricultural field
(now a restored prairie) and on the south by the By 10,000 BC, the climate of Indiana was cooler
Wabash River bluffs. The third subarea, the Lower and moister than it is today, although a long-term
Yost Property, lies immediately below the Yost warming trend had begun with the northern retreat
Woodland. It encompasses a roughly triangular- of the glaciers. During the next 2000 years,
shaped bottomland area directly adjacent to the constantly changing vegetational sequences
Wabash River. The Lower Yost Property is characterized the state: some areas were covered
currently an agricultural field.
by open patches of grasslands, while others were
covered with dense forests. Pleistocene megafauna
Geology
would still have been ubiquitous throughout
Indiana, although as they followed the migration of
The project area lies within the Tipton Till Plain the glaciers northward, they would eventually
physiographic province. It is characterized by leave the state altogether (Tankersley 1996:21).
nearly flat to gently rolling glacial plains. The plains These immediate postglacial climatic and
are nearly featureless, but are crossed by a number environmental changes were among the most
of end moraines, particularly in the west-central profound and rapid that occurred during the entire
part of the state. Other glacial landforms, such as period of human exploitation of the region.
eskers, esker troughs, and meltwater drainageways However, by approximately 6,000 BC, the
can also be found. Most are oriented in a general postglacial plant communities had become fairly
northeast-southwest drainage pattern (Schneider well established, and although local compositions
1966:49-50).
would have varied somewhat in the intervening
Bedrock in the vicinity consists of shale and periods, the general and widespread floral
6
Project setting
communities were approaching their modern
distributions.
Following the demise of the Late Pleistocene
fauna at approximately 10,000 BP, a diverse
assortment of modern animal species was present
in the region (Mumford 1969; Mumford and
Whitaker 1982). Animals important to prehistoric
peoples would have included white-tailed deer,
turkey, waterfowl, fish, shellfish, a variety of small
mammals, and perhaps bison in the Late
Prehistoric period.
Prior to extensive land alteration in the last 175
years, Tippecanoe County was primarily beechmaple forest, with extensive wetland areas (Petty
and Jackson 1966:280). The area that is now
Prophetstown State Park lies near the borders of
three natural regions (Homoya 1997:158). The
project area itself is within the Entrenched Valley
Section of the Central Till Plain Natural Region.
This section is characterized by erosional features
that were caused by the drainage of glacial
meltwaters. In places, deep canyons have been
carved into the land surface, exposing the bedrock
and creating 50 to 100 foot cliffs in some areas.
Plant communities found in these cool, moist
ravines are more typical of northern ecosystems,
and include such species as eastern hemlock, white
pine, and Canada yew (Hedge 1997:196-197).
To the northwest of the Wabash River bottoms
lies the Grand Prairie Section of the Grand Prairie
Natural Region. Plant communities were dominated
by grasslands, sometimes growing five to six feet
high. Timber stands were limited to small, isolated
groves. The most prominent grass species were the
big bluestem, little bluestem, Indian, switch, and
side-oats gramma. Though bison were found on
these prairies, they had disappeared from Indiana
by the early 1800s (Post 1997).
Immediately to the southwest of the project
area lies the Tipton Till Plain Section of the Central
Till Plain Natural Region. This area consists of level
to gently undulating landscape that was heavily
forested prior to extensive Euroamerican settlement.
Flatwoods, a type of forest occurring in level and
often poorly-drained soils, was the most common
7
forest type. Species present in poorly-drained
areas include a variety of oaks, red maple, green
ash, American elm, and sycamore. Less common,
well-drained areas are characterized by mesic
communities of American beech, sugar maple,
tuliptree, white oak, white ash, and shagbark
hickory (Hedge 1997). The Tipton Till Plain
Section is characterized by loamy Wisconsinan till
and nearly level to moderately rolling ground
moraine. Occasional terminal moraines, knolls,
and kames are present, with esker remnants and
meltwater drainageways entrenched in the till. The
entrenched channels often contain present-day
streams or swamps or have been filled with
sediment, leaving shallow depressions (Strum
1979; Wayne 1966).
Soils
The weathering of parent rock formations has
resulted in soils of varying fertility, composition,
and depth. Soil differences throughout the region
are primarily the result of localized differences in
parent material and topography. The following
discussion details the specific soils within the
project area and provides a preliminary
assessment of their potential to contain surface,
near surface, and/or deeply buried archaeological
deposits.
The three project areas lie within both upland
and bottomland/terrace settings and therefore
contain a number of soil types. Soil types and
associations are described by Ziegler and Wolf
(1998) and the following discussion is based upon
these observations. General soil associations
within Prophetstown State Park include Elston
soils in the uplands and Battleground-Alison-Lash
soils in the bottomlands and low terraces. Elston
soils are described as well-drained soils found on
nearly level to gently sloping terraces and outwash
plains. These soils formed in loamy outwash and in
the underlying gravelly outwash deposits.
Battlegound-Alison-Lash soils consist of nearly
level, well-drained soils that formed in alluvial
deposits on floodplains.
Project setting
In order to facilitate description of specific
soils, they will be described by survey subarea.
The easternmost of the three encompasses
archaeological site 12-T-59. Soils on the site are
primarily Wea silt loam, occasionally flooded
(WtA). These are very deep, nearly level, welldrained soils that formed in silty outwash and are
found on floodplains. Though well drained, Wea
silt loam soils are subject to flooding from late fall
through spring. The typical soil profile consists of
very dark gray silt loam about 10 inches thick. This
is underlain by a very dark gray, friable A horizon
silt loam approximately 15 inches thick. The
subsoil, which is about 39 inches thick, consists of
loam with varying degrees of clay and sand.
Gravelly sand is found beneath a depth of 70 inches
or more. Most areas of this soil are used for
agriculture, though flooding is a major hazard.
Areas at the base of the bluff and on the slopes
adjacent to site 12-T-59 are mapped as Coloma
sand, 6 to 15 percent slopes (CrC) and AlvinSpinks complex, 2 to 6 percent slopes, eroded
(AtB2). Coloma sand is a very deep, somewhat
excessively drained soil found on outwash plains
and terraces. In the case of site 12-T-59, these
soils are located in a band paralleling the base of the
Wabash River bluff. Typically, soils of this type
consist of a surface layer of dark brown sand about
8 inches thick. This is underlain by 80 inches or
more of very friable sand. Organic matter content
is low, droughtiness is high, and for these reasons,
most areas within this soil type are idle land. AlvinSpinks soils are found on side slopes and the
summits of ridgetops. Soils consist of about 10
inches of dark brown fine sandy loam underlain by
sandy loam to a depth of 80 inches or more.
One small area at 12-T-59 is mapped as
Sawabash silty clay loam, frequently flooded (Sf).
These soils are found in the low, spring-fed,
ponded areas at the base of the bluff, near the
western edge of the site. Sawabash soils are very
poorly drained soils found on floodplains.
The other two subareas within the project area
consist of the Yost Woodland and the Lower Yost
Property. Both are located on the west of State
8
Road 225 and north of the Wabash River. Soils in
the Yost Woodland are mapped as Billett fine
sandy loam, gravelly substratum, 0 to 2 percent
slopes (BIA). This is a nearly level, well-drained
soil found on terraces and outwash plains. Various
sandy loam soils are found to a depth of
approximately 65 inches. These are underlain by
gravelly coarse sand. Most areas are used for
agricultural crops. One small linear area near the
edge of the bluff is mapped as Coloma sand, 6 to
15 percent slopes (CrC). This soil type is
described above, in association with site 12-T-59.
The final subarea within the project area is the
Lower Yost Property, adjacent to the Wabash
River. This entire area is mapped as recently
disturbed on the U.S.G.S. Lafayette East 7.5'
topographic map. The map, as originally produced
in 1961, did not show any disturbance in the area.
The disturbance was only added following a 1986
photorevision of the Lafayette East map. Inquiries
into the nature of this disturbance, however, have
been fruitless. Nonetheless, soils within the Lower
Yost Property area were primarily mapped as
Battleground silt loam, frequently flooded (Bb).
This is a nearly level, very deep soil found on
floodplains. The soil consists of a 10 inch surface
layer of silt loam, underlain by about 9 inches of
silty clay loam. Below this lies a silty clay loam
subsoil that extends to 80 inches or more. Most
areas are used for cultivated crops, though
flooding is a major concern. A few small areas of
the Lower Yost Property, particularly near the
edge of the Wabash River, are mapped as Lash silt
loam, frequently flooded (Lm). It is a nearly level,
very deep well drained soil that is found on
floodplains. Lash soils have less clay and more
sand than adjacent Battleground soils, but are
otherwise similar.
Present Environment
At the time of the fieldwork, field conditions were
variable. Until relatively recently, site 12-T-59 was
an agricultural field. In the last few years, however,
the western two-thirds of the site has been planted
Project setting
in various prairie grasses by Prophetstown State
Park personnel as part of prairie restoration within
the park. The grass was about waist-high at the
time of the initial site survey. The eastern one-third
of the site was an overgrown agricultural field that
had not been planted for at least 8 to 10 years.
Vegetation was primarily grass, with numerous
small honey locust trees present. In order to
facilitate survey and excavation at 12-T-59, the
grass was mown by park personnel and the smaller
locust trees were mown over as well.
At the time of the survey, the Yost Woodland
was in secondary forest, with large clusters of
raspberry bushes. Surface visibility was nil. The
Lower Yost Property is currently an agricultural
field. Soybeans had been planted the previous
season, though these had been harvested by the
time fieldwork was conducted. Due to the use of
no-till agriculture and the presence of low weeds,
agricultural stubble, and snow, surface visibility in
the Lower Yost Property was nearly non-existent.
9
(1996), Collins (1979) and Jefferies (1988).
General sources for the Woodland period include
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, 2000),
and Redmond (1994a, 1994b).
Paleoindian Period
Although there is some dispute about exactly when
the first humans arrived in North America, it is
generally accepted that human populations were
established on this continent by 12,000 BP, after
crossing the Bering Straits from Asia to settle in
North America during the waning of the
Pleistocene.
Paleoindian populations are hypothesized to
have been grouped into small, mobile bands of
perhaps 20 to 50 individuals who subsisted mainly
by hunting. The population of North America by
Paeloindian peoples was probably relatively rapid
PREHISTORIC CULTURAL SETTING
(Surovell 2000).
Current evidence suggests that early
The cultural history of Indiana is long and complex,
Paleoindian
lifeways were centered around
extending at least 12,000 years into the past and
including a rich mosaic of prehistoric and historic hunting the abundant megafauna that were present
societies, cultures, and lifeways. The record of in the grassland environments of the Terminal
these manifestations is equally complex. Specific Pleistocene. The Paleoindian tool kit was mostly
knowledge about many aspects of the prehistory used for hunting and butchering large mammals,
of Indiana is quite thin. A brief, general summary including now-extinct Pleistocene species such as
of the culture history of Indiana will be presented in mastodon, mammoth, giant bison, native horse,
the following discussion, with special attention paid dire wolf, and giant ground sloth. The tool kit
to the historic period Native American occupations included well-formed projectile points, scrapers,
at the confluence of the Wabash and Tippecanoe blades, burins, drills, and bifaces of high quality
cherts such as Wyandotte chert from Harrison
rivers.
The following is a brief introduction to the County, Indiana (Sieber et al. 1989). The defining
periods commonly used to describe cultures and artifact of the Paleoindian period is the fluted hafted
cultural changes in the Midwest in general and in biface. In Indiana, specific point types include
Indiana in particular. Further information is Clovis and Cumberland forms (Justice 1987).
available from numerous sources. The Paleoindian These points are lanceolate in form and exhibit
period of eastern North America has been concave bases, ground basal edges, and
addressed in Tankersley and Isaac (1990). The distinctive, narrow thinning flakes or “flutes”
Archaic period has been addressed by Anslinger removed from one or both faces.
Project setting
Most Paleoindian sites documented in Indiana
consist of apparently isolated hafted biface finds
(Glenn Black Laboratry of Archaeology Site Files,
Bloomington, Indiana [GBLSSF]). Recent work
in Indiana has focused on the “chert belt” region of
southern Indiana, with particular attention paid to
Wyandotte chert resources in Harrison County
(Smith 1984, 1989; Tankersley 1987, 1989).
Paleoindian sites have also been located near
water sources like springs and sinkholes (Sieber et
al. 1989).
10
Early Archaic
As defined here, the Early Archaic extends from
10,000 to 8000 BP and encompasses a period of
broad technological, social, and subsistence
change in the early Holocene. Early Archaic hafted
biface types, like some Paleoindian hafted biface
types, occur over large areas of eastern North
America, suggesting large territories, significant
seasonal mobility, and fluid, open social networks.
Early Archaic societies are usually hypothesized to
have been organized into small, highly mobile
Archaic Period
bands and to have developed from late
Paleoindian expressions (Funk 1978:19). Most
By the early Holocene, a climatic warming/drying sites dating to the Early Archaic period in Indiana
trend began to cause the grasslands and coniferous are small lithic scatters. As noted by Munson
forests to be replaced by mixed, deciduous (1986:280), Early Archaic sites are distributed
forests, affecting both plant and animal species across the landscape, yet seem to be concentrated
used by prehistoric populations. Prehistoric nowhere.
groups began exploiting a wider range of
Although the basic lithic tool assemblage was
subsistence resources. These changes in little changed from that of the Paleoindian period,
subsistence and settlement strategies, first Early Archaic hafted bifaces were notched and
occurring approximately 10,000 years ago, mark exhibit a wider variety of blade forms (many rethe beginning of the Archaic period.
sharpened) and hafting elements. Common Early
The Archaic is defined here as a temporal Archaic hafted bifaces include those belonging to
period extending from 10,000 to 3000 BP (about the Thebes, Kirk Corner Notched, Kirk
8000 to 1000 BC). Broadly, the Archaic Stemmed, Rice Lobed, and LeCroy clusters
encompasses a period of increasing population (Justice 1987). Many distinct varieties have been
density, decreasing mobility, and the appearance recognized within these clusters (Justice 1987).
of social structures that reach their most Although the functional, spatial, and temporal
pronounced expression in the later Woodland and relationships between many of these types and
Mississippian periods. The Archaic is usually varieties are poorly understood, a general
partitioned into Early, Middle, and Late sequence of notched hafted biface forms has been
subdivisions. These subdivisions correspond to suggested through excavation of stratified sites in
very generalized trends within the Archaic period Kentucky (Collins 1979; Jefferies 1988), West
and are used here to broadly classify and discuss Virginia (Broyles 1971), and Tennessee (Chapman
contemporary societies (i.e. these subdivisions 1977:51). Several Thebes varieties appear to be
pertain to temporal periods rather than cultural generally earlier than Kirk varieties (Justice 1987).
stages). Many researchers assign Archaic Corner-notched Kirk forms are followed by
archaeological manifestations to one of these three bifurcate forms such as MacCorkle and LeCroy
sub-periods based on a variety of technological, points. Within the Kirk Corner Notched Cluster,
social, subsistence, and settlement criteria in several varieties are recognized (Justice 1987). A
addition to temporal criteria.
temporal distinction between earlier “small
Project setting
variety” Kirk Corner Notched points (or Palmer
points) and larger, later Kirks has been made by
several researchers (e.g. Broyles 1971; Chapman
1977; Coe 1964; Justice 1987).
Several recent studies conducted in
southwestern Indiana have contributed to our
understanding of the Early Archaic. Employing a
raw material analysis, Cantin (1994b) proposed
that Thebes groups had larger “home ranges” than
Kirk groups. Cantin (1994b:12) speculated that
Thebes ranges may have been one drainage order
greater than Kirk ranges. Stafford (1994) used an
analysis of the locations of Early, Middle, and Late
Archaic hafted bifaces to suggest that the Early
Archaic mobility strategy was “dominated by a
pattern involving fine-grained patch-to-patch
movement through multiple basins by procuring
resources on an encounter basis as associated with
foragers”(1994:232). Models of Early Archaic
settlement in other regions have also been focused
on determining the degree of inter-drainage
movement and band size and composition (e.g.,
Anderson and Hanson 1988; Daniel 2001).
Faunal remains from buried, Early Archaic
cultural deposits in the Cloudsplitter rockshelter in
Kentucky suggest a diet incorporating a variety of
fauna, including deer, elk, beaver, bird, and turtle
(Cowan et al. 1982:73-74). Munson (1986)
notes that, although a wide range of subsistence
resources was exploited during the Early Archaic,
there is little evidence of specialization. This is
consistent with Stafford’s (1994) suggestions.
Middle Archaic
The Middle Archaic extends from 8000 to 5000
BP. Following Jefferies (1988:94), this range is
chosen to correspond to the dates of the
Hypsithermal interval.
The Middle Archaic is often conceptualized as
a time of increasing regionalization coincident with
increasing sedentism and/or the spatial extent of
ranges. Larger, denser sites of the Middle Archaic
period are often interpreted as “base camps” that
were occupied for longer periods of time and used
11
to exploit a broad base of food resources (e.g.,
Munson 1986). Of note are the large shell midden
sites located along major rivers of the southeastern
and midwestern United States, including southern
Indiana (Janzen 1977; Kellar 1983; Sieber et al.
1989). Many of these sites were probably
established during the Middle Archaic period.
In the Ohio Valley, many researchers
postulate a basic settlement pattern of scheduled
group fission/fusion and population movements
between large base camps and smaller,
intermittent camps, where seasonal or extremely
localized resources would have been exploited
(e.g., Janzen 1977; Stafford 1994; Winters 1969).
Alternative explanations (Boisvert 1986) suggest
that the observed Middle and Late Archaic site
pattern may have been created by small, mobile
groups frequently re-occupying sites in the larger
river valleys.
The Middle Archaic saw an increase in the
variety of food resources utilized. Gourds may
have been first harvested and/or cultivated during
this period (Fritz 1999). The appearance of sites
with large quantities of fire-cracked rock and
nutshell suggest that stone boiling technology was
first used during this period (Munson 1986). With
regard to material culture, the inventory of the
Middle Archaic includes ground and pecked stone
tools (atlatl weights, mortars, pestles, grooved
axes, nutting stones, and grinding slabs) as well as
chipped stone tools. In southern Indiana, hafted
biface types of Middle Archaic age include
Raddatz, Godar, Matanzas and a variety of similar
side-notched points (Justice 1987).
Late Archaic
The Late Archaic period, as defined here, extends
from 5000 to 3000 BP. Continuity in some
aspects of settlement, subsistence, and technology
between the Middle and Late Archaic periods has
resulted in some disagreement regarding the
placement of the Middle Archaic/Late Archaic
boundary. Some researchers have tended to lump
the two periods together, while others have
Project setting
assigned affiliation to sites and material assemblages
based upon non-chronological criteria.
During the Late Archaic period, settlement
patterns changed to include a broader range of
environmental settings. Perhaps due to population
and/or structural dynamics, settlement was not as
restricted to the major river valleys as it was during
the Middle Archaic period. Upland campsites and
rock overhangs were used (Sieber et al. 1989),
and sites with denser remains occur in smaller river
valleys and other “second tier” resource zones
(Munson 1986).
The domestication of native plants, such as
squash, gourd, and perhaps sunflower, began or
continued during this period (Yarnell 1988), and
the exploitation of natural food resources
intensified. Ground stone tools continued to be
used during the Late Archaic, and the number and
variety of these increased. Bone, antler, and wood
tool technologies also became more varied and
complex. Hafted bifaces in use during this period
include several stemmed varieties (e.g. Table
Rock, Karnak, McWhinney, Ledbetter, and
Saratoga), as well as smaller, shallowly sidenotched/expanding stemmed varieties such as
Merom, Matanzas, and Lamoka-like points
(Justice 1987). The Late Archaic period also saw
the first development of pottery in eastern North
America.
As a result of exchange networks which had
developed by this time, exotic goods such as
marine shell from the Gulf and Atlantic coasts,
Wyandotte chert from south-central Indiana,
native copper from the Upper Great Lakes region,
mica from the Middle Atlantic states, and obsidian
from Wyoming are sometimes recovered from
Late Archaic sites (Winters 1968). These exotic
goods were also a part of more elaborate mortuary
ceremonialism. By the end of the Late Archaic
period, well-developed exchange mechanisms
made high quality cherts such as Wyandotte,
Attica, Burlington, Lieber, Muldraugh, and Upper
Mercer available to people a great distance away
from their geologic sources.
The Late Archaic period has been the focus of
12
some research in Indiana. Of primary interest have
been the geographic and topographic distribution
of sites, the exploitation of chert resources, and
evidence of mortuary ceremonialism.
Woodland Period
A diverse range of cultural expression is included
under the term “Woodland.” Very general defining
trends or adaptations of the Woodland period
include a hunter-gatherer subsistence pattern
augmented by an increase in horticulture
(eventually including the production of true
cultigens), the increased manufacture and use of
pottery for food preparation and storage, the
production and use of a larger and technologically
more diverse stone tool kit, and the rise of
elaborate burial practices, including the construction
of earthen burial mounds. The Woodland is
subdivided into Early, Middle, and Late periods.
Early Woodland
The Early Woodland extends from 3000 to 2200
BP. Although introduced during the later years of
the Archaic period, ceramic production became
widespread during the Early Woodland period.
During this time, vessels were thick walled and
coarse tempered. In Indiana, Marion Thick
pottery is diagnostic of the Early Woodland
period. Ceramic vessels became more important
for food storage and processing as the subsistence
base shifted toward cultivation of native plant
foods.
Stemmed hafted bifaces, such as Robbins,
Dickson, and Adena varieties, are characteristic of
Early Woodland chipped stone lithic assemblages
(Justice 1987). At some Early Woodland sites,
especially of the Adena culture in central Ohio,
burial mounds and earthworks were erected.
These were often extensive.
Middle Woodland
The Middle Woodland extends from 2200 to
Project setting
1500 BP. The Hopewell variant of the Middle
Woodland, centered on the Scioto River Valley of
Ohio, extended into southern Indiana. In some
areas, Middle Woodland populations lived in
large, permanent villages (such as the Mann site in
Posey County, Indiana), typically within broad,
fertile river valleys. This sedentism perhaps
depended on a subsistence strategy that combined
horticulture of native cultigens and the seasonal
exploitation of local wild plant and riverine
resources. In other areas, settlement occurred in a
variety of environmental zones and on a much
smaller scale, in temporary/seasonal camps,
hamlets, and small villages (Ottesen 1985).
The Middle Woodland is best known for the
construction and use of elaborate mounds and
earthworks in conjunction with a mortuary
program that included the burial of large quantities
of artifacts. Such artifacts included nonutilitarian
items such as beads, earspools, breastplates,
gorgets, and pendants, and raw materials such as
mica, quartz crystal, copper, galena, obsidian,
marine shell, and animal jaws and teeth (Seeman
1979).
Projectile point types of the Middle Woodland
period include Snyders and Lowe varieties
(Justice 1987), with Lowe varieties being
diagnostic of the later Middle Woodland. Thin
lamellar blades, blade cores, and ovate cache
blades are also diagnostic of this period. Utilitarian
pottery forms from this period are similar to those
of the Early Woodland. Typical utilitarian forms
are bulbous, wide-mouthed jars, frequently with
cordmarked and/or dowel-impressed exteriors.
Elaborately incised or stamped designs are
common on Hopewell mortuary jars.
Late Woodland
The Late Woodland extends from 1500 to 1000
BP. During the Late Woodland, most settlements
continued to occupy river and stream bottoms.
Settlement sizes and types varied widely, as in the
Middle Woodland, although a trend toward larger,
more densely populated village settlements has
13
been suggested for the early part of the period.
In general, Late Woodland artifact assemblages
differ from Middle Woodland assemblages mainly
in that “exotic” items associated with the rise of
Hopewell (such as copper and marine shell) are
less common. It was also during this period that the
first true bow and arrow projectile points were
introduced. These include small, triangular points
such as Madison, Fort Ancient, Levanna, and
Hamilton (Justice 1987), as well as thin pentagonal
forms such as Jack’s Reef (Justice 1987).
Ceramics played an important role in food storage,
processing, and cooking. Minor changes in pottery
vessel shapes and thicknesses during this period
may be attributable to changes in food preparation
techniques (Pollack and Henderson 1992:283).
Populations continued to employ mixed subsistence
strategies based on hunting, collection of wild plant
foods, and horticulture. Botanical data from
terminal Late Woodland habitation sites strongly
suggest that dependence on local and tropical
plants, particularly maize, for subsistence
significantly increased toward the end of this
period (Wymer 1990). During the Late
Woodland, settlement patterns became more
sedentary, possibly in relation to the intensification
of maize horticulture. Subsistence data reflect
continued hunting and gathering and also
horticulture using both native and tropical cultigens
(i.e., corn).
Albee Phase. The Albee phase is the most
prevalent Late Woodland manifestation in central
Indiana, including the area encompassing
Prophetstown State Park (Redmond and
McCullough 2000:658). Based on current
information, an acceptable chronological placement
ranges between AD 800 and 1250, or perhaps as
late as 1300. The most diagnostic artifact for
Albee is the “Albee Cordmarked Jar” (Winters
1967:68), which is a grit-tempered vessel having a
slightly elongated to globular shape, a constricted
neck, and a collared, slightly to moderately everted
rim. “Decoration is rare and is limited to short,
vertical or diagonal impressions of a plain or
Project setting
cordwrapped stick on the interior of the lip. A few
examples are known of cylindrical punctations or
vertical incisions on the exterior of the vessel”
(Winters 1967:88). More recent investigations
(Anslinger 1990:47-51; Cochran et al. 1988),
especially at the Morell-Sheets site (McCord and
Cochran 1994:62-65), which offers the only large
quantity of Albee pottery outside of mortuary
contexts (funerary pots are often smaller
representations of utilitarian vessels), have
indicated that the Albee ceramic assemblage
exhibits a wider variety of decoration, morphology,
and temper type than originally described by
Winters (1967:68, 88). McCord and Cochran
(1994) found that cordmarking (93 percent) made
up the vast majority of surface treatments; the
remainder (7 percent) was fabric impression.
Eighty-three percent of the cordmarked vessels
had the surface treatment extending to the lip.
Interestingly, horizontal cordmarking was visible
on the interior portion of the neck on 47 percent of
the vessels. Of the 199 rim sherds examined, both
uncollared and collared, 85 percent exhibited
some form of decoration. The most favored field
for decoration was the interior rim, followed by the
exterior neck and then the collar, the lip, and the
interior neck, in descending order of use. Almost
half the decorated rims had at least two of three
fields embellished; decoration on three or four
fields accounted for another 15 percent, and the
remainder (39 percent) was decorated on only one
field. In terms of vessel morphology, vessel shape
was slightly elongate to globular with rounded
bottoms. Ninety-three percent exhibited wedgeshaped collars and a variety of lip shapes with flat
(58 percent) being the most common. Similar
observations were made at the Akers Mound
(Anslinger 1990) and the Hesher Cemetery
(Cochran et al. 1988).
The Albee vessels show a close similarity to
pottery styles to the north and northwest. The
cordmarked collared rim vessel, which is the most
notable trait in the pottery assemblage, is common
across the lower Great Lakes at this time.
However, the closest analog to the Morell-Sheets
14
pottery assemblage appears to be the roughly
contemporary Aztalan collared ceramics (Baerreis
and Freeman 1958) from southern Wisconsin and
the Starved Rock collared pottery (Hall 1987)
from northern Illinois (McCord and Cochran
1994:59-66). Thus, even though a few items from
mortuary contexts indicate a continuation of the
Middle Woodland east-coast trade relationships
(Seeman 1981), the closest cultural affiliations for
the Albee population appear to lie to the
northwest.
The most prominent aspect of the Albee
settlement is related to its archaeological
invisibility. It is doubtful that the Albee culture in
central Indiana would have been recognized until
recently if it were not for their mortuary sites. These
cemeteries were mostly located on natural knolls
overlooking river valleys or wetlands and were
often in close proximity to habitation sites. The
larger mounds originally thought to have been
constructed by Albee peoples, such as the Albee
Mound and Baker-Lowe, are actually natural
formations rather than artificially constructed
mortuary facilities (Halsey 1976:562; Kellar
1983:50; Tomak 1970:161). However, the
construction of low burial mounds with shallow,
centrally located submound pits, associated with
Albee materials, was reported at the Akers site
(Anslinger 1990) and has been suggested for the
Catlin (Winters 1967:60-69; Seeman 1981:103109) and Collet (Householder 1957, cited in
Anslinger 1990:39) mound groups, but this
association is considered questionable (Anslinger
1990).
With the exception of repeated interment of
the dead in specific mortuary areas and, possibly,
low-mound construction, Albee settlements are
characterized by scattered, ephemeral habitation
areas. Large villages are absent, and plazas,
fortifications, domestic structures, and evidence of
significant storage capacity have yet to be
identified. The Morell-Sheets site in Montgomery
County (McCord and Cochran 1994), which
represents the most extensively excavated Albee
site to date, reveals evidence of repeated Late
Project setting
Woodland use for up to two or three hundred
years yet still exhibits a narrow range of tools, a
lack of storage facilities and structures, and floral
and faunal remains that indicate only seasonal
usage. Limited floral data, however, indicate that
Albee peoples utilized maize. The distribution of
Albee habitation sites indicates that both major
drainages and the secondary waterways were
exploited.
Late Prehistoric Period
The Late Prehistoric period extends from 1000 to
400 BP. Though numerous Late Prehistoric sites
containing triangular projectile points and/or shell
tempered pottery have been recorded in the
Tippecanoe County area, a lack of excavated
contexts severely limits our present knowledge of
the chronological position and affiliation of these
cultures. None the less, in very general terms, the
last 600 years prior to European intrusion into
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. There is evidence that the social
landscape may have been increasingly unpredictable
by AD 1400. The period is not only marked by the
rise of maize agriculture, but by considerable
cultural complexity, as well as by widespread
population movement and dispersal and evidence
of violent conflict (e.g., Emerson 1999; Santure
1990; Strezewski 2006).
In Indiana, the Late Prehistoric period is
characterized by considerable diversity in
settlement size, form, location and ceramic style.
Earlier attempts to understand this variability were
hampered by a limited amount of (and possibly
incorrect) radiocarbon dates, previously
unidentified cultural complexes, and a paucity of
Late Prehistoric research, which had a profound
influence on the interpretation of this time period.
The relationships among these various populations
15
have long been poorly understood, and it is only
recently, especially with a number of carbon dating
results, that temporal and spatial correlates can be
considered. As a result of recent investigations, it
is possible to characterize central Indiana as a
borderland region where groups with Fort
Ancient, Western Basin, and Oneota cultural
affiliations interacted over a wide spatial and
temporal span.
Most recently, pottery from all three of these
groups—Anderson phase Fort Ancient, Western
Basin Tradition, and Oneota-like Taylor Village—
was recovered from midden contexts within the
Strawtown enclosure, in Hamilton County,
Indiana (White et al. 2002). These three distinct
Late Prehistoric archaeological populations all
followed a sedentary lifestyle with a reliance on
tropical cultigens. Both the Western Basin
Tradition centered in the Lower Maumee River
valley (Cochran 1980; McCullough 2003;
Mohow 1987; Moore 1987; Stothers and Pratt
1981; Stothers and Schneider 1998) and the
Anderson phase Fort Ancient from southeastern
Indiana and southwestern Ohio (e.g., Essenpreis
1982; Heilman et al. 1990; Henderson 1992;
McCullough 2000) practiced swidden or slashand-burn cultivation within the mostly forested
regions of Indiana. Villages shifted as resources
and soil fertility were depleted within the proximity
of the village (McCullough 1997). The Oneota
populations commonly associated with northern
Illinois, northwest Indiana, and southern Wisconsin
(Griffin 1943; McCullough 1991, 2003; Overstreet
1997) exhibit a sporadic distribution in central
Indiana but appear to be situated within prairie
pockets adjacent to wetland resources within the
extensive deciduous forest that once covered most
of central Indiana (Cochran et al. 1993;
McCullough and Wright 1997; McCullough
1992). The Oneota population also followed a
sedentary settlement system, often cultivating
wetland edges and exploiting prairie and
woodland resources.
The following discussion provides a brief
overview of each of the Late Prehistoric groups in
Project setting
central Indiana, along with current understandings
of their geographic and temporal locations.
Western Basin Tradition
The Western Basin Tradition is a Late Prehistoric
manifestation found primarily on the western end of
Lake Erie. Although a complete description of the
Western Basin Tradition is beyond the scope of
this study, it is treated in depth elsewhere (Bechtel
and Stothers 1993; Stothers 1995; Stothers and
Abel 1989; Stothers and Bechtel 1994; Stothers
and Graves 1983, 1985; Stothers and Pratt 1981;
Stothers and Schneider 1998; Stothers et al.
1994). As it is currently understood, the Western
Basin Tradition (formerly the Younge Tradition
[Fitting 1965]) is comprised of four sequential
phases: Gibralter (AD 500-700), Riviere au Vase
(AD 700-1000), Younge (AD 1000-1200), and
Springwells (AD 1200-1300). It is the latest, the
Springwells phase, that is of concern here because
of the general similarities of Springwells ceramics
to the Great Lakes impressed decorative styles
found in central Indiana and a few sherds that may
indicate some form of direct interaction. It has been
suggested that the Springwells populations were
militarily dispersed and replaced by the Wolf
phase of the Sandusky Tradition by AD 1300. As
evidence for such a dispersal, the presence of
Springwells pottery in southwestern Ontario,
northeast Georgian Bay, the Straits of Mackinac,
northeast Lake Superior, and northeastern and
central Indiana is cited (Stothers 1995; Stothers
and Bechtel 1994; Stothers et al. 1994).
While the motifs and the method of decorative
execution on impressed pottery vessels from
central Indiana resemble the Springwells phase of
the Western Basin Tradition more than any of the
other contemporary ceramic traditions surrounding
central Indiana during the Late Prehistoric period,
significant differences in decorative motifs are
evident. The most notable and significant
difference between the Late Woodland vessels
from central Indiana and those associated with the
western edge of Lake Erie is vessel morphology.
16
The Springwells vessels shown in publications or
made available for examination usually have
broad, excurvated necks and elongated to
extremely elongated bodies (e.g., Stothers
1995:Plates 4 to 10; Stothers et al. 1994:Figure
12). The Great Lakes impressed-style vessels
from sites in central Indiana usually have strongly
everted rim/shoulder angles and subglobular
shapes. Interestingly, pottery recovered from the
Baden site in the mid-Maumee region in Ohio
(McCullough 1991:128-129, 1992:54) and other
sites in northeastern Indiana (Cochran 1985,
1987:199-208; Mohow 1987:149-155) exhibited
both differences from Springwells pottery
reported from the lower Maumee valley and
similarities to materials found in central Indiana.
Perhaps this indicates a transitional zone, or a clinal
variation in material culture, across northeastern
Indiana and northwestern Ohio, instead of a forced
migration or dispersal of Springwells people who
were replaced by Sandusky Tradition peoples
(e.g., Bechtel and Stothers 1993; Stothers 1995;
Stothers and Bechtel 1994; Stothers et al. 1994).
It is worth noting, however, that a few vessels do
exhibit somewhat elongated body shapes and
broad excurvated necks, similar to those illustrated
from the western basin of Lake Erie. The presence
of those vessels indicates some degree of
interaction during this period, such as trade or the
movement of a small number of people, but these
vessels occur in such relatively low frequency that
they cannot be evidence of a mass migration.
More important than differences in attributes
and vessel morphology that argue against a mass
dispersal are aspects of the Springwells peoples’
mortuary practices/belief system that are absent in
central Indiana. Ossuaries, which are the only
Springwells mortuary treatment (Stothers and
Bechtel 1994:23; Stothers et al. 1994:161), have
not been identified in central Indiana. Nor is there
evidence in central Indiana of Late Prehistoric
postmortem skeletal alterations, which have a long
tradition in Western Basin populations (Stothers
and Bechtel 1994; Stothers et al. 1994:168).
Without evidence of the continuation of Western
Project setting
Basin Tradition religious institutions, domestic
architecture, and other items of material culture,
the probability that the occurrence of selected
elements of decorative motifs is the product of
refugee population movements is tenuous. The
significant differences in vessel morphology make
such an explanation even less likely.
17
that grew up. Wild rice (Bush 1997), which had
not been documented in central Indiana, was
recovered from feature context at 12-Jo-5.
Feature classes are also distinctive. At the
Crouch site, no stockade walls or permanent
structures were identified, but there were broad,
shallow, ovoid features measuring up to three
meters long, with darkened soil delineating
Oneota-like Groups
decomposed feature liners. These may represent
the bottom portions of hut-like structures or,
Evidence of other groups, some similar to those perhaps, covered storage facilities, although
from southern Wisconsin or northern Illinois, also neither interpretation can be demonstrated with
has been recognized in central Indiana. An certainty. Storage pits were large with decomposed
anomalous Upper Mississippian site complex (12- basal liners in many instances (McCullough and
Jo-5, 4, 6, and 8) has been identified Wright 1997). The village was laid out on the
approximately fifteen miles south of downtown highest sandy elevation around a central storage
Indianapolis, near the town of Smith Valley facility consisting of all the deep and almost all the
(McCullough and Wright 1997). This cluster of medium-sized storage pits identified at the site
sites is distinct in terms of location, feature complex. Shell-tempered pottery made up the vast
morphology, site structure, material culture, and, majority of the sherds recovered from the Crouch
to some degree, botanical remains. The Crouch site. The shell-tempered rim sherds are sharply
site (12-Jo-5) is not only approximately three miles everted, making a short thick neck Most vessels
from a major drainage, but it lies on a sand dune either lack cordmarking or exhibit smoothedformation adjacent to a former grassy wetland. over-cordmarking on the body of the vessel, but
Sedentary settlements located on sandy soils the most distinctive trait is heavy cordmarking on
adjacent to similar, poorly drained wetland areas the rim, or, rather, the underneath side of the rim,
and prairie remnants are not uncommon locations given the sharp eversion. Often where the neck
for Huber-Fisher populations from northern everts outward, clay has been added to the interior
Illinois (Brown and O’Brien 1990) and of the vessel to form a sharp crease. These vessels
northwestern Indiana (Faulkner 1972). Ten lack decoration, except for one example that
calibrated radiocarbon dates from the Crouch and carried deep scalloping formed by impressing a
Center Grove School sites (located 150 meters large, cordwrapped dowel along the lip. Such
from each other) indicate a solid fourteenth- pottery appears most similar to Fisher materials
century association, with occupation dates from northern Illinois, such as those at the Hoxie
possibly ranging between the late thirteenth and site (Brown and O’Brien 1990; for similar
early fifteenth centuries. Several superpositioned examples, see Griffin 1943:CXXXVIII, figures
features indicate some degree of time depth to 24-26, 31-36 ) rather than to Vincennes phase
these deposits, but the paucity of material culture material. This type of pottery also represents a
and midden development suggests nonintensive minor component (two rim sherds in the Glenn A.
occupations, despite the size and number of Black Laboratory of Archaeology collections) on
features present. A scapula hoe (Garniewicz site 12-T-6 (the Wea village) near Lafayette,
1997) from a large mammal, either elk or deer, was Indiana. However, the ceramics associated with
recovered from feature context on 12-Jo-5, the sites in Johnson County are different enough
suggesting that corn agriculture involved fields from the Hoxie Farm and related Fisher materials
used year after year, necessitating hoes for weeds to warrant a different name (James Brown,
Project setting
personal communication 1998).
A more “traditional” Oneota occupation is
found at the Taylor Village site (12-H-25) in
Hamilton County, Indiana (Cochran et al. 1993;
GBL site files). The majority of the pottery from
the Taylor Village is shell tempered, with the rims
mostly set at sharp angles to the shoulders. Many
of the rims’ interiors have short, trailed lines that run
perpendicular to the lip and are executed with a
wide smooth implement; some of the lips display
small scalloped impressions. The shoulders are
mostly decorated with parallel trailed lines running
vertically to the rim or with chevrons bordered by
diagonal lines or punctations. Small circle-and-dot
motifs are also present within the chevrons. Small
loop or punched handles are associated with these
vessel forms (see Griffin 1943:CXXXVII, figures
7, 31, 32, and CXXXVI; see also Overstreet
1997:Figure 10). This pottery is characteristic of
an Oneota cultural affiliation, and recent
radiocarbon dates (this volume) suggest an age
between AD 1350 and 1450 (Faulkner 1972:129;
McCullough 1992:56; White et al. 2002). A large
number of bifacial endscrapers (Cochran et al.
1993) also indicates a possible post-AD 1400
date; these are rare in other Late Prehistoric
assemblages from central Indiana. Though shelltempered wares have been recovered from a
number of sites in Tippecanoe County (see
below), a lack of excavated contexts precludes a
definitive statement on their cultural affiliation. It is
possible that these sites may represent an Oneotalike occupation, but further research is needed.
Oliver Phase
Currently, the Oliver phase can best be described
as a sedentary, village-dwelling society that settled
along the drainages of the east and west forks of the
White River between about AD 1200 and 1450.
An extensive summary of Oliver phase research
can be found elsewhere (see McCullough
2000:87-103), but the concept of Oliver is briefly
reviewed here.
Oliver peoples were farmers with a heavy
18
reliance on maize (Bush 1997, 2001) utilizing the
more easily worked sandy-loamy alluvial soils
within or immediately adjacent to larger
floodplains. Swidden cultivation techniques very
likely were employed with garden plots slash-andburned from forested floodplain. Diminishing soil
fertility and/or fuel supplies within the vicinity of a
settlement would necessitate a shifting of village
locations on a relatively regular basis. Settlements
reflect a great deal of diversity, ranging from
nucleated circular villages, some surrounded by
closely spaced wooden post stockade walls and
ditches, to small dispersed farmsteads distributed
across the low terraces and higher floodplain
elevations and even linear settlements along natural
levees (McCullough and Wright 1997; Redmond
1991; Redmond and McCullough 1993, 1996).
Excavated domestic structures are rare but exhibit
similar diversity: excavations at Cox’s Woods
(Redmond and McCullough 1996) revealed a
subrectangular structure, probably of bent poles.
Portions of a similar structure were probably
present at the Sugar Creek site (McCullough and
Wright 1997:99-101). At the Pottersville site (12Ow-431) on the lower West Fork in Owen
County, a large circular structure with posts set in
a wall trench was identified (Strezewski 2002:19).
The Oliver lithic assemblage is similar to those
associated with other Late Prehistoric assemblages
from the Midwest. In areas where bone
preservation permits, an extensive bone and antler
tool technology has been identified. Tool forms
include bone beamers made from split deer
metapodials, and a variety of awls, pins, needles,
fish hooks, antler flakers, and antler socketed
projectile points have been recovered. Noticeably
absent is a hoe technology, as is found among other
Late Prehistoric groups outside the study area,
who utilized hoes made from shell, stone, or bone.
At the present time the only identified mortuary
activities are within habitation areas. No mounds,
distinct cemetery areas, or ossuaries have been
associated with the Oliver population. Material
items infrequently placed with the burials include
utilitarian, nonexotic artifacts.
Project setting
Ceramic assemblages, however, are the most
diagnostic indication of an Oliver phase site and are
distinguished by the consistent co-occurrence of
two distinguishable pottery styles: one pottery
tradition is undoubtedly associated specifically
with the Anderson phase of the Middle Fort
Ancient tradition from southwestern Ohio
(Drooker 1997; Essenpreis 1982; Griffin 1943);
the other distinct pottery tradition associated with
Oliver ceramic assemblages is similar to Late
Prehistoric pottery styles along the lower Great
Lakes, where the primary method of decorative
execution is impression, using smooth objects, a
variety of cordage, or cordwrapped implements.
This co-occurrence has been documented from
numerous surface collections and excavated
contexts across central Indiana. The pottery
traditions differ in vessel rim and neck morphology,
method and placement of decorative execution,
and design motif. Later, site assemblages in the
Oliver phase sequence witness a merging of these
pottery traditions on individual vessels (Redmond
and McCullough 1996).
In the lower West Fork, the Oliver phase
distribution continues until about Bloomfield,
Indiana, and overlaps slightly with the northern
distribution of the Vincennes phase Mississippian
groups. The Heaton Farm site (12-Gr-122),
located in Greene County, Indiana (Ball 2002;
Bush et al. 1999; McCullough and Wright 1997;
Strezewski et al. 1999; Tomak 1970:167-68,
175-178, 1983:76-77), has both Mississippian
Vincennes-like and Oliver phase pottery associated
with substantial structures and storage features,
and, based on current information, it marks the
southern terminus of the Oliver phase distribution
along the West Fork of the White River.
HISTORY OF THE PROPHETSTOWN AREA1
BY JAMES R. JONES III, PH.D
the vicinity of Lafayette and Battle Ground,
Tippecanoe County, Indiana was the scene of a
unique concentration of settlements in the 18th and
19th centuries, including Native American, French,
British, and American groups. Wea Indians were
definitely settled in the Lafayette region by 1715
(State Historical Society of Wisconsin 1902:326),
and their presence, coupled with the area’s
bountiful natural resources and strategic travel and
political location resulted in the construction of a
French trading post, Fort Ouiatenon, by 1717
(Barnhart and Riker 1971:71-72; Craig
1893:327-330; Krauskopf 1955:139-142; State
Historical Society of Wisconsin 1902:345). By
the late 1730s and early 1740s, Kickapoos and
Mascoutens were living in the Ouiatenon area as
well (Krauskopf 1955:185, 191).
Miami groups of Indians are noted living at the
village of Kethtippecanunk near the Tippecanoe
River as early as the 1730s and 1740s. Later
sources indicate Potawatomis living in this same
area in the 1770s. Kethtippecanunk became an
Indian and French “town,” and in 1791 was
described as a one of the most important Native
American settlements in the territory (American
State Papers, Indian Affairs 1832-1834:I:131132).
Following the French and Indian War, the
British wrested control of the Great Lakes area
from the French. For a short period, from 1760 to
1763, a British garrison was stationed at Fort
Ouiatenon. After the American Revolution, in June
1791, Kentucky militiamen led by Brigadier
General Scott campaigned against the Indians on
the Upper Wabash, destroying the main Wea
village and a Kickapoo village near Fort
Ouiatenon. Scott also detached 360 men under the
command of Colonel James Wilkinson, to destroy
the village of Kethtippecanunk (American State
Papers, Indian Affairs 1832-1834:I:131-132). In
Portions of this section are taken from Jones (1984,
1987, 1989a) and may be quoted at length. References to
these are not cited per se in the text, but all other
citations used are.
1
Introduction
The stretch of the north-central Wabash River in
19
Project setting
August 1791, Wilkinson returned to
Kethtippecanunk, burning the crops that had
matured since the town’s destruction (American
State Papers, Indian Affairs 1832-1834:I:135).
Later, from 1808 to 1811, the vicinity of the
Tippecanoe River was the location of
Prophetstown, which was the spiritual and military
center of Ohio Valley Native American
revitalization and resistance to American frontier
encroachment into Indian territory (e.g., Barnhart
and Riker 1971; Edmunds 1983, 1984).
Responding to Indian depredations resulting from
incessant American settlement and desire for land,
William Henry Harrison campaigned against the
Native Americans at Prophetstown. The wellknown Battle of Tippecanoe ensued on
November 7, 1811 (Barnhart and Riker
1971:384-392).
Prophetstown was the center of the Shawnee
Prophet’s and his brother Tecumseh’s Native
American revitalization movement in the region
north of the Ohio River (see Barnhart and Riker
1971). A number of members of different Native
American tribes settled in the area variously
described as 1-3 miles downstream from the
mouth of the Tippecanoe River. The town was
described by Harrison as “partially fortified”
(Esarey 1922:1:417) and later as “a handsome
little Indian village of between one and two
hundred huts or cabins, and a large store house”
(Esarey 1922:1:705). Later recollections
describe the village as consisting of wigwams laid
out with regularity in rows (Turpie 1903). After the
Battle of Tippecanoe, Native Americans continued
to live in the area into the early 19th century.
Aboriginal Occupations Near the Mouth
of the Tippecanoe River: 1733 to Early
1800s
In 1691, a group of Miami Indians was present
somewhere along the Wabash River (Illinois State
Historical Library 23:392-393). By the turn of the
18th century, the environs of the Wabash River
20
were considered Miami hunting ground by the
French (Krauskopf 1953:24), and the Miami
village of “Atihipe-Catouy” was probably located
somewhere in the Wabash River vicinity (Margry
1876-1886:4:597, 661-662; Berthrong 1974:130;
Wheeler-Voegelin et al. n.d.:10). The Wea–a
branch of the Miami–were living on the Wabash in
1708 (Michigan Pioneer and Historical Society
1904:441), and by 1715 were definitely located at
the archaeological site known today as the Wea
Village (12-T-6), southwest of West Lafayette,
Indiana (State Historical Society of Wisconsin
1902:326). By 1717, the French post of Fort
Ouiatenon (12-T-9) was located on the Wabash,
opposite the Wea Village (Krauskopf 1955:159).
The fort and the Wea Village are located ca. 25
kilometers (15.5 miles) below the intersection of
the Wabash and Tippecanoe rivers.
It was not, however, until 1733 that an
aboriginal occupation was noted near the mouth of
the Tippecanoe. A letter from Beauharnois,
Intendent of New France from September 1702 to
1705 (State Historical Society of Wisconsin
1903:301), contains messages from Boishebert
(Commandant of Detroit, beginning 1730, and
later of Acadia, 1754-1763 [State Historical
Society of Wisconsin 1903:134]), who wrote
“that a canoe has arrived from the Onyatanous
[Wea]; that the people have reported that the
village of Kiepigono has been entirely destroyed
by the smallpox, and that only seven men have
recovered” (Michigan Pioneer and Historical
Society 1905:108-109). In the margin of the same
letter was written that “Kiepigono is five leagues
this side of the great village of Onyatanous on the
Ouabache [Wabash]. It is not marked on the
maps” (Michigan Pioneer and Historical Society
1905:108-109). This the first reference to a village
near the mouth of the Tippecanoe.
It was nine years later that Beauharnois again
acknowledged this village, mentioning on June 25,
1742, that “twenty Miami of the village of
Kitepikono and three Potawatomi of the River St.
Joseph who were returning from war on the
Project setting
Cherokee had found two Frenchmen who were
escaping from the last nation” (Krauskopf
1955:191-2). The Miami referred to above may
have been Wea (Rowland and Sanders
1932:3:775), indicating their possible utilization
and/or settlement near the mouth of the
Tippecanoe at this time. These Indians went to
Ouiatenon and made the captured Frenchmen
“dance at the door of the cabin where they had
stopped” (Krauskopf 1955:192). The Miami
Indians were the ones who had bound and “put
slave collars around” the Frenchmen’s necks, and
the Sieur de Vincennes, commandant at the French
settlement at Vincennes, went to Ouiatenon to ask
why they were treating “their brothers” in such a
manner (Krauskopf 1955:192). The Frenchmen
were set free shortly thereafter.
The above is an indication that Miami were
occupying the village at the mouth of the
Tippecanoe. Just which of the historically-known
bands of the Miami was living there is unknown.
We also learn from the source that the inhabitants
of the village were involved in the Frenchinstigated raids on the southeastern tribes in the
1740s; that these Miami were also at times
unfriendly to the French; that the Miami took
captives and mistreated them; and that the Sieur de
Vincennes, who had a long history of successful
dealings with various Miami groups and was
respected among the Wabash Indians, had a good
deal of influence among them. There were
apparently at least two different villages on the
Tippecanoe River at this time: one near the mouth
of the river, closer to Ouiatenon, and one near its
headwaters, closer to present-day Fort Wayne,
Indiana (Tanner 1987:40-41). During the period
of 1740-1760, documents and sources mention a
Miami “tribe” or band living on the Tippecanoe
River at the village of “Tepicourt” or “Tippecanoe”
(Illinois State Historical Library 27, facing p. 569,
29:119-123, 172-173, 190-193; State Historical
Society of Wisconsin 1903:485, 1904:175).
These sources likely refer to a village near the
source of the Tippecanoe River (Berthrong
1974:140-141). One source, for example, states
21
that Tippecanoe was “fifteen to twenty leagues”
from the Fort Wayne area (Illinois State Historical
Library 29:123). In addition, the Vaudreuil Map
of 1760 (Indiana History Bulletin 1934:1:116)
depicts the village of Tepicano on the south side of
the Wabash River, near its headwaters. In all
likelihood, there was a lot of movement along the
Tippecanoe, and interaction of the various Miami
groups from Ouiatenon to the Miami villages near
present-day Fort Wayne. The band of Miami
living on the Tippecanoe may have been divided
into two groups, one each at the mouth and the
source of the river. Or, one group may have been
moving up and down its territory along the
Tippecanoe, living in different areas as seasons,
politics, or trade required.
Definite accounts of aboriginal settlements
near the mouth of the Tippecanoe are not
mentioned again in the literature for 36 years, until
1778. This was during the American Revolution,
when Henry Hamilton, the English LieutenantGovernor of Detroit (1775-1779), was
campaigning north and west of the Ohio River to
retain British control in the area (Barnhart 1951:78; Sheehan 1983:4). Hamilton was known as the
“Hair-Buyer General” because he encouraged
Indian raids on American frontier settlements, and
had the reputation as “buyer of white scalps” to
solidify British-Indian alliances (Sheehan 1983:4).
As Hamilton proceeded down the Wabash, in
November 1778, he “Met the Savages of Eel
River (riviere a l’anguille) and the Poutewattamies
of the river Thipicano” (Barnhart 1951:124;
emphasis in original). The latter group gave the
Ottawas accompanying Hamilton “several shrouds
and blanketts to cover the bones of an Ottawa,
sometime ago killed by them” (Barnhart
1951:124). Hamilton also encountered several
Wea Indians between the mouth of the Eel River
and the mouth of the Tippecanoe River (Barnhart
1951:129, 131). Thus, by 1778, Potawatomi had
entered the traditional Miami territory along the
Wabash, and the Wea were active upstream from
Ouiatenon to at least as far as the Eel River villages.
Unfortunately, Hamilton neglected to mention
Project setting
actual Potawatomi or Wea village locations in the
area around the mouth of the Tippecanoe.
The next possible reference to a settlement on
the Tippecanoe is in 1782, when DePeyster and
Baby obtained a count of Indians “depending” on
Detroit (Indiana State Library [ISL], Stevens
Papers). Tabulations of males, females, and
children for six “Miamis or Twightwees” are
included on the document, and there is a list of 60
men, 40 women, and 80 children for the Miami
residing at “Elk Heart & Tipicono” (ISL, Stevens
Papers). Since a Miami and Potawatomi village
called Elkhart was recorded in 1781 on the Elkhart
River (Tanner 1987:80), not too far from the
headwaters of the Tippecanoe River, the figures
may refer to occupations in this area, and not to the
mouth of the Tippecanoe. Or, they may refer to
combined figures for the Elkhart village and the
occupations near the source and mouth of the
Tippecanoe River.
In spring 1786, a Mr. Park at Vincennes noted
the discontent of the Indians in the vicinity. He
recorded an incident occurring “two days before
Easter sunday,” when “a Party of Piankashaws
attacked a Batteau from the falls [modern
Louisville],” and in retaliation “thirty Americans”
went out and attacked some Indians near Post
Vincennes (Michigan Pioneer and Historical
Society 1895:30). These Indians killed some of
the Americans, and caused a panic at the town
(Michigan Pioneer and Historical Society
1895:30).
When no Indians came to help settle the
matter, word was sent up the Wabash for the
“principal chiefs to come and talk.” Park went
along the Wabash with one Dubois and Maria
Louise to carry a message upriver (Michigan
Pioneer and Historical Society 1895:30). This
message was
well received all along to the Ouias
where they seemed so discontented
that we did not wait for an answer,
nor did they give any Indians to
conduct us as the others did. I had
22
to slip away with I. Constant after
being menaced with the tomahawk
by one of the vagabonds, to
Tipiconeaux [Kethtippecanunk]
the most of the traders are leaving
being impossible to stay from them
being constantly pillaged [Michigan
Pioneer and Historical Society
1895:30].
Henry Hay’s journal from the winter of 17891790 contains the next specific references to
occupations near the mouth of the Tippecanoe
(Quaife 1921:293-361). The journal contains
perhaps the best documentation of day-to-day
events occurring at the settlement or site now
known as Kethtippecanunk.
On January 2, l790, word arrived at the Miami
town near Fort Wayne:
that Mr. Antoine Lasell (who is
traveling at a place called le Petit
Piconne [Kethtippecanunk] Six
Leagues from the Ouias) is made
Prisoner by the Ouias Indian–
supposed for having wrote a letter
some time ago to Fort Vincennes
apprehending them of a Party of
Indians that intended to strike
there–that this Party was in
consequence of it taken Prisoner
by the Americans at a Post
[Vincennes]–that Lasell had also
mentioned that one of the Party
was Son to the Indian who burnt an
American Prisoner at the Ouias
last Summer–The Indians having
understood that the Americans
meant to Burn this Indian, is the
reason they have fallen upon
Lassel and mean to burn him–his
men are also prisoners–they will of
course plunder him &c.–I’m sorry
for it and so is every one at this
place–tho’ he certainly has brought
[it] upon himself–[Quaife 1921:322323].
Project setting
Le Gris, chief of the band that probably once
lived near the headwaters of the Tippecanoe River
(Illinois State Historical Library 29:172-173),
now located near Miamitown, advised that there
were certain ways to act when going into “the
Interior Parts of the Indian Country” (Quaife
1921:323). If Le Gris had known Lassell (Lassel,
Lasell) was going to that part of the country, he
“should have sent one of my Chiefs with him or
given him a belt, as a guard and which would have
prevented anything of this happening” (Quaife
1921:323). Le Gris dispatched three warriors–
one of whom was the famous Miami Little Turtle–
with a belt to go to take care of the matter (Quaife
1921:323). A French trader, Mr. Dufresne, “who
is concerned in that part of the Country,” gave Le
Gris some tobacco, vermilion, and provisions for
his help (Quaife 1921:323).
Three days later another trader, “Tramblai
from the Ouias,” said that he had seen Lassell “at
the Little Piconno [Kethtippecanunk] the 29th
December” and that everything was fine (Quaife
1921:326). Lassell wrote “that he never Traded
better nor easier, that the Indians are perfectly
quiet in that vicinity of the Country” (Quaife
1921:326). Henry Hay and Le Gris thought this
report was a lie. On January 12, Tramblai went
back to “Little Piconno” (Quaife 1921:326-328).
Hay’s journal tells us more about the Lassell
affair, as well as some of the traders, Indians, and
chiefs at Kethtippecanunk:
Mr. Lassell could not bring any
Strings with him for little Piconno
because the Chief was not at
home, but he stopped at La Riviere
a Lanjerielle [Eel River] from
which place he has brought a string
accompanied with a paper
mentioning the meaning of it--from
the Soldiar & the Porcupine to the
Grie. But he has brought with him
the following certificate, signed by
all the french Traders, and Indians
then present at the little Piconno,
viz–We citizens of the little
23
Piconno certify that the bearer
Antoine Lassell is a good loyalist
and is always for supporting his
King [Quaife 1921:330-331;
emphasis in original].
This certificate was signed by the following citizens
of Kethtippecanunk: Diaume Payette, Jean
Cannehous, Lamoureux, Etienne Pantonne, Henri
Rainbeare, Jacque Dumay, Toop Maisonville,
Lamoureus fils, Piere Clairmont, Jean Coustan,
Little Egg (“Ouia Indian”), and The Sirropp (“Peria
Indian”) (Quaife 1921:330-331). The latter
Indians were called “The Two considerable
Indians of the little Piconno” (Quaife 1921:331).
The source also tells us that Little Face was “Chief
of the village of little Piconno” (Quaife 1921:331).
Other possible citizens or traders mentioned in
Hay’s journal are men named Tramblai, Fouche,
Piere Chevallier, and Mr. Cicott (Quaife
1921:328, 332, 343, 348). The consensus was
that some Indians who held a grudge against
Lassell had spread rumors about his aiding the
Americans. Like Lassell, another inhabitant of the
town had troubles with Indians: Mr. Clairmont had
been robbed by some Potawatomis when he fell
asleep with his door open (Quaife 1921:348). It
seems that living in the woods with few
Euroamericans and many Indians around could be
dangerous in the area.
In March, 1790, concerning the location of
Kethtippecanunk, Major General Hamtramck
wrote: “From the Weeha to the River and town
Teopicanoes north side six leagues, excellent
[navigation]. From the Teopicanoes to La Vache
qui prise two leagues” (Thornbrough 1957:225226).
The governor of the newly-formed Northwest
Territory (1787), Arthur St. Clair, had been
concerned about Indian affairs in the area,
especially Indian raids into Kentucky and raids by
white Kentucky settlers into the Indian territory
north of the Ohio River (Barnhart and Riker
1971:272, 281-282). In 1789, St. Clair had
asked President George Washington for
Project setting
instructions regarding the increasing hostilities
between the Wabash River Indians and the
Kentuckians (Smith 1882:2:123-124). The
President responded that Congress had
empowered him “to call forth the militia of the
States for the protection of the frontiers from the
incursions of the hostile Indians” and that St. Clair
should determine “whether the Wabash and Illinois
Indians are most inclined for war or peace” (Smith
1882:2:125). Washington empowered St. Clair to
call out the militia from Virginia and Pennsylvania,
if the Indians would not agree to peace, although he
wanted to avoid a war with the Indians if possible
(Smith 1882:2:125-126). St. Clair subsequently
sent a letter to Major Hamtramck, commandant at
Vincennes (Barnhart and Riker 1971), enclosing a
speech that he wanted forwarded to the Wabash
Indians and the Miamis at Fort Wayne (Smith
1882:2:130). Hamtramck dispatched Antoine
Gamelin to deliver the message to the tribes
(Barnhart and Riker 1971:282).
Additional evidence for the occupation of the
area at the mouth of the Tippecanoe by both
traders of French descent and Indians is found in
Gamelin’s 1790 journal. Gamelin was to tell the
aboriginal inhabitants along the Wabash that they
would be campaigned against if they did not accept
peace with the Americans. He set out from Fort
Knox at Vincennes and eventually reached a
Kickapoo village somewhere below Ouiatenon
(Smith 1882:2:151-152, 155). The Kickapoo
listened to his speeches and said
that they could not presently give
me an answer, having some
warriors absent, and without
consulting the Ouiatanons, being
owners of their lands. They
desired me to stop at Quitepiconnae
[Kethtippecanunk], that they would
have the chief and warriors of
Ouiatanons, and those of their
nation assembled there, and would
receive a proper answer; they said
that they expected by me a draught
of milk [liquor] from the great chief
24
and the commanding officer of the
Post, to put the old people in good
humor; also, some powder and ball
for the young men for hunting, and
to get some good broth for their
women and children; that I should
know a bearer of speeches should
never be with empty hands. They
promised me to keep their young
men from stealing and to send
speeches to their nations in the
prairies to do the same [Smith
1882:2:125-126].
The Wea and Kickapoo gathered at
Kethtippecanunk on April 14, and Gamelin was
told that the Indians would decide “nothing without
the consent of our brethren, the Miamis” (Smith
1882:2:156). Gamelin continued up the river, and
was told when he arrived at Miamitown (near
present-day Fort Wayne) that he could be given no
answer without consulting the Great Lakes nations
and Detroit. The Indians’ equivocations
convinced St. Clair that there was no possibility of
peace with the Wabash Indians, so he started
formulating plans for campaigns against them
(Smith 1882:2:158-160).
In May and June, 1791, General Scott, a
brigadier general in the Kentucky militia,
campaigned against the Indians on the upper
Wabash (Barnhart and Riker 1971:290-291).
Scott and his men attacked the Ouiatenon village
downstream from Kethtippecanunk on June 1,
1791, and the next day, he detached Lieutenant
Colonel Wilkinson and 360 men “to destroy the
important town of Kethtippecanunk...eighteen
miles from my camp” (American State Papers
1832-1834:1:131). Scott spoke of the campaign
and Kethtippecanunk as follows (American State
Papers 1832-1834:1:131):
Colonel Wilkinson marched with
this detachment at half after five in
the evening, and returned to my
camp the next day at one o’clock
having marched thirty-six miles in
Project setting
twelve hours, and destroyed the
most important settlement in that
quarter
of
the
federal
territory...Many of the inhabitants
of this village were French, and
lived in a state of civilization; by the
books, letters, and other documents,
found there, it is evident that place
was in close contact with, and
dependent on, Detroit; a large
quantity of corn, a variety of
household goods, peltry, and other
articles, were burned with this
village, which consisted of about
seventy homes, many of them well
finished [American State Papers
1832-1834:1:131].
On June 3, 1791, Wilkinson sent a letter describing
the action at Kethtippecanunk:
The detachment under my
command, destined to attack the
village Kethtipicanunk, was put in
motion at half after five o’clock
last evening. Knowing that as
enemy, whose chief dependence is
in his dexterity as a marksman, and
alertness in covering himself
behind trees, stumps, and other
impediments to fair fight, I
determined to push my march until
I approached the vicinity of the
villages, where I knew the country
to be champaigned. I gained my
point without a halt, 20 minutes
before 11 o’clock; lay upon my
arms until 4 o’clock, and half an
hour after, assaulted the town at all
quarters. The enemy was vigilant;
gave way upon my approach, and,
in canoes, crossed Eel creek,
which washed the northeast part
of the town; that creek was not
fordable;
my corps dashed
forward with the impetuosity
becoming volunteers, and were
saluted by the enemy with a brisk
25
fire from the opposite side of the
creek. Dauntless, they rushed on
to the water’s edge, uncovered to
the moccason, and finding it
impassible, returned a volley,
which so galled and disconcerted
their antagonists, that they threw
away their fire without effect. In
five minutes, the savages were
driven from the covering, and fled
with precipitation. I have three
men slightly wounded. At half past
five the town was in flames, and at
six o’clock I commenced my
retreat [American State Papers
1832-1834:1:132].
Apparently the Indians at Kethtippecanunk were
warned of the impending attack, for it was
reported by an investigator that
A young boy however found
means to escape to Tipicanneau
[Kethtippecanunk] six leagues
higher up the River [from
Ouiatenon], but no other person
coming to confirm his report, they
made no preparation for their
Defence or flight till the Enemy
was close upon them when all fled
but three old men who finding they
were deserted by the others,
crossed the River and made one
discharge upon them, when each
wounded his man, and the River
being high the Americans did not
think it proper to pursue them.
They have destroyed and
Burnt all Mr Jacques Godfroys
goods to the amount it is supposed
of five Hundred Pounds New
York currency [Michigan Pioneer
and Historical Society 1895:273].
Although not stated, it seems that the destruction of
the French traders’ cabins was a clear goal of the
raid on Kethtippecanunk, rather than a by-product
Project setting
of the action against the Native American
inhabitants. The aggression against the traders was
likely due to the fact it was widely believed that they
were encouraging Indian violence at the behest of
the British government in Detroit (Quaife
1921:301).
At Ouiatenon, on June 4, General Scott wrote
a message for the Wabash Indians, saying that if
they did not accept peace, they would be fought
against in future times (Michigan Pioneer and
Historical Society 1895:245). He stressed that
They have destroyed your old
Town of Ouias & the neighboring
villages & have taken away many
men prisoners. Resting here two
days to give you time to collect
your strength they proceeded to
your town of Kitipicancan
[Kethtippecanunk]. but you again
fled before them and that old Town
has been destroyed [Michigan
Pioneer and Historical Society
1895:245].
Two months later, the now General Wilkinson
conducted a second expedition against the Indians
of the upper Wabash. On August 10, Wilkinson
arrived at Kethtippecanunk, described thusly:
I reached Tippecanoe at twelve
o’clock, which had been occupied
by the enemy, who had watched
my motions and abandoned the
place that morning. After the
destruction of this town, in June
last, the enemy had returned and
cultivated their corn and pulses,
which I found in high perfection,
and in much greater quantity than
at L’anguille. To refresh my
horses and give time to cut down
the corn, I determined to halt until
the next morning [Smith
1882:2:237].
Another account is provided by George Imlay
26
(1916:11), a captain during the American
Revolution, citing “a letter written by a member of
the expeditions in 1791” (i.e., both Scott and
Wilkinson’s campaigns). The letter gives a
description of Kethtippecanunk, events occurring
there in 1791, and the surrounding territory,
beginning with Wilkinson’s first campaign:
Immediately after the engagement
[Scott at the Wea village], a
council of war was called, when it
was determined, that Wilkinson
should cross the Wabash under
cover of the night, with a
detachment of four hundred men,
and endeavour to surprise the town
of Kathtippacamunck, which was
situated upon the north side of that
river, at the mouth of Rippacanoe
creek, and about twenty miles
above the Lower Weau towns.
This expedition was conducted
with so much caution and celerity,
that Wilkinson arrived at the
margin of the pararie [sic], within a
mile, and to the west of the town,
about an hour before the break of
day; whilst a detachment was
taking a circuit through the pararie,
to co-operate with the main body
on a given signal, day appeared,
and the volunteers rushed into the
town with an impetousity not to be
resisted.
The detachment in
advance reached the Rippacanoe
Creek the very moment the last of
the Indians were crossing, when a
very brisk fire took place between
the detachment and the Indians on
the opposite side, in which several
of their warriors were killed, and
two of our men wounded.
This town, which contained
about 120 houses, 80 of which
were shingle roofed, was
immediately burnt and levelled
with the ground; the best houses
belonged to French traders, whose
Project setting
gardens and improvements round
the town were truly delightful, and
every thing considered, not a little
wonderful; there was a tavern,
with cellars, bar, public and private
rooms; and the whole marked a
considerable share of order with
no small degree of civilization
[Imlay 1916:12].
On Wilkinson’s second campaign against the
town, the party destroyed “about 200 acres of
corn at Kathtippacanunck, Kickapoo, and the
lower Weauctenau [Ouiatenon] towns” (Imlay
1916:14). The letter also described the striking
country around Kethtippecanunk:
The situation of the late town of
Kathtippecanunck was well
chosen for beauty and
convenience; it stood in the bosom
of a delightful surrounding country
on a very rich bottom, extending
east and west, on the Wabash
River about two miles; the bottom
about half a mile wide, bounded on
the east by Tippacanoe, and
westward by a beautiful rising
ground, skirted and clothed with
thin woods--from the upper bank
you command a view of the
Wabash River, which is terminated
by a towering growth of wood to
the south, and Tippacanoe Creek
to the East–the country in the rear
from the upper bank spreads into a
level pararie of firm, strong land, of
an excellent quality, interspersed
with copses, naked groves of
trees, and high mounds of earth of
a regular and conical form, all of
which conspire to relieve the eye,
and cheer the scene with a most
agreeable variety. The top of this
bank, which is level with the plane
of the pararie, and about two
hundred feet perpendicular from
the bottom in which the town
27
stood, forms an angle about 60
[degrees], and about midway there
issues from its side two living
fountains, which have hitherto
constantly supplied the town with
water.
The country between
Kathtippacanunck and the Little
Kickapoo town is beautiful beyond
description. The numerous breaks,
and intermixture of woodlands and
plains, give the whole an air of the
most perfect taste; for nature here,
in a propitious hour and in a
benignant mood, seems to have
designed to prove, in beautifying,
how far she excels our utmost
efforts, and the most laboured
improvements of art [Imlay
1916:15].
The next indication of a settlement near the
mouth of the Tippecanoe is found in John Wade’s
1795 journal (Smith 1954). Wade was an officer
under General Anthony Wayne’s expedition to
secure posts along the Wabash River (Smith
1954:287-288). He arrived at the “Thipecanoes”
on May 24 of that year and found Potawatomi
living there (Smith 1954:287). He observed the
Potawatomi to be different from the other Wabash
Indians he had encountered during his journey:
Prior to my arrival at this place
[Tippecanoe]–I was received with
such civility and attention–as
served to convince me of the
difference between the Wabash
and Potawatomies Indians–for
the latter I found to be much under
the influence of the British,
insolent–haughty–and
domineering–holding forth the
power and consequence of the
British,
declaring
their
determination to exact from every
Boat which ascended such
proportion of presents as they
deemed proper and boasting of the
Project setting
quantity they received from Great
Britain [Smith 1954:287].
Wade found that one of the Potawatomi here–an
ex-prisoner of the Americans–was in possession
of one of his men’s rifles. He had to give the Indian
a bottle of whiskey in order to retrieve the weapon,
and after the party left the village, another group of
Potawatomis joined him and asked for whiskey.
He had the choice of either refusing and being
insulted, or giving them whiskey and leaving
amicably, and he chose the latter. In his notes,
Wade also cited the names of the “Powatomies
Chiefs at the Thipecanos” (Smith 1954:288-89).
Also in June 1795, Thomas Bodley, another of
Wayne’s officers (Smith 1954), visited the mouth
of the Tippecanoe River (Ohio Valley Great Lakes
Ethnohistory Archive, Glenn A. Black Laboratory
of Archaeology, Indiana University, Bloomington
[OVGLEA] Wayne Papers, vol. 41). In the
following, he describes the area:
From the Ouiattanon to Tippicannoe
river is 18 miles the Wabash is
about 175 yds wide, about 5 feet
deep, & gentle Current.
Tippicannoe comes in on the N.W.
side is about 60 yds wide & runs at
the mouth nearly S.E. about 1/2
mile up the river was an old Village
in a Prarie, about 200 acres is now
under Cultivation by the
Potawatomy & Weyaw Indians,
the land is rich handsomely Situate
& well watered by standing
Springs–this is the most delightful
place for a farm I ever beheld–
[OVGLEA, Wayne Papers, vol.
41].
The Imlay map of 1795 (1797) shows
Kethtippecanunk in relation to the Wea village,
although the former is placed on the wrong side of
the river.
In the early 1800s, Indian groups continued to
live in the area around the old village. For example,
28
in 1801, a list of traders licensed by Governor
Harrison states: “December 4th. One [license] to
Baptiste Bino to trade with the Potawatomie nation
at their town of Tippicanou.” In 1802, an I.O.U.
from “Jacque[s] Larivier[e]” to Mr. Hyacinth
Lasselle was sent “From Piccano (Piccaunau)”
(ISL, Lasselle Papers, doc. 619). A year later, in
June, a letter from Fort Wayne noted that
“Ja[c]ques Roland hired out to Sieur Lasselle (La
Selle) as a clerk to go to Tipecanoe (Tepicono) or
to Chipaille & trade there for A. Lasselle” (ISL,
Lasselle Papers, doc. 715).
The above references to occupations at
“Tipicanoe” may not have referred to the exact
location of the town burned in 1791. A number of
later sources place the celebrated Prophetstown
near the mouth of the Tippecanoe (e.g., Esarey
1922:1:608-609, 612-613, 619, 621, 701, 720;
Robertson and Riker 1942:1:77, 274-275).
Bodley’s notes suggest that the Wea and the
Potawatomi only lived in the area of the “old
village” (OVGLEA, Wayne Papers, vol. 41).
Three later maps show the location of
Kethtippecanunk after the “old town” had been
destroyed. They include the Arrowsmith map of
1802 (OVGLEA, map 103) (Figure 2.1), the
Carey map of 1805 (OVGLEA, map 105) (Figure
2.2), and the Brock map of 1813 (Temple
1975:Plate 72) (Figure 2.3). These are relatively
accurate in terms of the locations of the Wea village
and Kethtippecanunk. Unfortunately, there are no
known maps of the town’s location prior to its
destruction in 1791.
History of Prophetstown, 1808-1811
Prophetstown was the 1808-1811 center of the
Shawnee Prophet’s attempt at resistance to
American settlement in the region north of the Ohio
River (Barnhart and Riker 1971; Benton 1933;
Edmunds 1983; Gorby 1886; Pirtle 1900;
Robertson and Riker 1942). At the invitation of
the Potawatomis, the Prophet, brother of
Tecumseh, brought his followers from Ohio in
1808 to settle near the confluence of the
Project setting
29
Figure 2.1. The Arrowsmith map of 1802 (OVGLEA, Map 103).
Tippecanoe and Wabash Rivers (Edmunds
1983:68). William Henry Harrison, governor of
the Indiana Territory, was concerned about the
Prophet, his increased Native American following,
and mounting Indian unrest, hostility, and
resistance to settlement in the territory–partly due
to the Prophet’s influence. Harrison, of course,
was concerned with settlement of the territory.
In response to these concerns, Harrison
commanded a campaign to protect and secure
recent land cessions to the Indiana Territory and to
break up Tecumseh and the Prophet’s confederacy
(Barnhart and Riker 1971:384-386). On
September 26, 1811, Harrison and his men left
Vincennes, continuing northward during October,
stopping 65 miles north of Vincennes to build Fort
Harrison, and continuing their march along the
west side of the Wabash until they came to the
Prophetstown on November 6 (Barnhart and
Riker 1971:387-390). Harrison met with leaders
from the town and camped for the night northwest
of Prophetstown on an eminence along Burnett’s
Creek (Barnhart and Riker 1971:390). Before
daybreak the next morning, on November 7,
1811, the Indians attacked Harrison’s sleeping
army and the Battle of Tippecanoe ensued
(Barnhart and Riker 1971:390-392). Harrison’s
troops eventually drove the Indians away, and the
next day he ordered the burning of Prophetstown
(Barnhart and Riker 1971:392; Esarey 1922:1:633;
Naylor 1906:168; Robertson and Riker
1942:1:274, 1942:2:832). In October, 1812, the
Project setting
30
Figure 2.2. The Carey map of 1805 (OVGLEA, Map 105).
town was reportedly rebuilt by the Indians and the
cornfields replanted (Barnhart and Riker 1971:404;
Esarey 1922:1:617).
Location of Prophetstown
Reported locations of Prophetstown vary in the
historical record. Nearly all of these sources,
however, indicate that the settlement was situated
in the vicinity of the confluence of the Wabash and
Tippecanoe rivers, between Burnett’s Creek and
the Tippecanoe River.
Some sources simply place the site of
Prophetstown on the Wabash River near the
Tippecanoe (Esarey 1922(1):290-291; Naylor
1906; Robertson and Riker 1942:2:826). For
example, in 1833, John Tipton, a veteran of the
Battle of Tippecanoe, located the Prophet’s village
“near Tippecanoe upon the Wabash” (Robertson
and Riker 1942:2:826). Many secondary sources
often only generally locate the site of Prophetstown.
Others are more precise in their recorded
locations of Prophetstown. William Henry
Harrison, in accounts and letters from 1811,
variously locates the village, noting that it “was
about two miles” east of Burnett’s Creek, which
continued on “North of the village” (Esarey
1922:1:608-609, 612), “a distance of one mile
and a half” from the creek (Esarey 1922:1:619),
and no greater than three-fourths of a mile
Project setting
31
Figure 2.3. The Brock map of 1813 (Temple 1975:Plate 72).
southeast of the battlefield encampment (Esarey
1922:1:613, 621). Years after the battle, veterans
of Harrison’s expedition cited locations of
Prophetstown. In 1816, Adam Walker noted that
the battlefield was “about three-quarters of a mile
northwest of the town” (Esarey 1922:1:701).
Peter Funk, another veteran of the campaign,
states that the battleground was “a mile distant”
from the town (Esarey 1922:1:720).
Another veteran of the battle was John Tipton,
who not only kept a journal during the campaign,
but later visited the battleground and environs
several times (Tipton 1906:170-184; Robertson
and Riker 1942:1:62-83, 1942:2:27-31, 825833). Among other things, Tipton was a volunteer
militiaman under Harrison (see Barnhart and Riker
1971:388), and later, an Indian agent and
commissioner for the survey of the Illinois-Indiana
border (Robertson and Riker 1942:1:3). With his
familiarity of surveying, one would expect Tipton
to be a more reliable source for the location of
Prophetstown.
In his 1811 journal, he described “Prophets
town” as scattered a mile along the second bank of
the Wabash River, “about two hundred yards from
the river,” and states that the battlefield was “one
mile further up” (Robertson and Riker 1942:1:77).
In 1821, while revisiting the area, Tipton was more
precise. He located and described “Prophits
town” and the battleground as follows:
the place where the town stood is
on the NW side of wabash the
River Run from N to S 2 mile below
Project setting
the mouth of the Tippecanoe River
on a second Bank or high ground
Between the emminance on which
the Town stood an the River is a
bottom of 50 yds Bredth the site
high & Beautifull extending Back
half mile near one mile NW of this
is the Battleground in a small grove
of Timber surround by a narrow
prairie through which on the N runs
a small creek called Little
Tippicannoe [Robertson and Riker
1942:1:274-275].
In this same source, Tipton relates that a log cabin
“Built up by a halfbreed called Burnet” was built on
the site of Prophetstown (Robertson and Riker
1942:1:274).
Four final sources citing a location of
Prophetstown must be mentioned. First, the 1820
journal of Henry P. Benton, a deputy surveyor of
Indiana lands, notes that the town was ca. 1 1/2
miles below the Tippecanoe-Wabash confluence,
and ca. 3/4 of a mile from the battleground (Benton
1933:390). A second source, the U.S. Public
Lands Survey of this area in 1822 by Henry Bryan,
and in 1828 by Thomas Brown, recorded the
word “Prophetstown” in Burnett’s Reserve,
parcel number 3, which is ca. 1.5-2.5 miles below
the Tippecanoe. The word “Prophetstown” is
placed about 600 feet north of the Wabash River.
Third, George Winter, visiting the site of
Prophetstown in 1840, stated that the site was on
the land of J. Shaw, above the declivities of the
Wabash River (Tippecanoe County Historical
Association, Lafayette, Indiana [TCHA],Winter
Papers). This could have been the land of John
Shaw, who obtained parcel number 4 of Burnett’s
Reserve in 1830 (Tippecanoe County Courthouse,
Lafayette, Indiana Deed Record Book C:44).
This would place Prophetstown directly south of
the known location of the Tippecanoe battlefield,
and along the “bluffs” of the Wabash. Finally, S.S.
Gorby (1886), in describing the geology of
Tippecanoe County, relates that Prophetstown
was “near the mouth of Burnett’s Creek,” between
32
a swamp and the Wabash River (Gorby 1886:6162). Gorby’s location of the town is general and
too inaccurate to be of much use to the
archaeologist.
Descriptions of Prophetstown itself are found
in sources from members of Harrison’s campaign,
and other, later sources, including oral reminisces.
Harrison himself stated that the town was “partially
fortified” with astonishing labor and care (Esarey
1922:1:417). Before Harrison’s campaign, a spy
living in Prophetstown informed him that there
were about 1000 “souls” in the village, and
“perhaps 350 or 400 men” (Esarey 1922:1:417).
In a June 14, 1810 letter to the Secretary of War,
Harrison estimated 3000 Indian men within a 30
mile radius of Prophetstown (Esarey 1922:1:425).
Tipton wrote that the town was “neat built about
two hundred yards from the river. This is the main
town but it is Scattering a mile long all the way a fine
cornfield” (Robertson and Riker 1942:1:77). The
day after the Battle of Tippecanoe, Isaac Naylor
(1906:167) noted “the discovery of many Indian
graves recently made near their town.” Adam
Waller related that the town was protected
“behind a breast work of logs which encircled the
town from the bank of the Wabash” (Esarey
1922:1:700). A further member of the expedition,
William Brigham, was more detailed in his
description:
Prophet’s town...was a handsome
little Indian village of between one
and two hundred huts or cabins,
and a large store house, containing
about 3,000 bushels of corn and
beans [Esarey 1922:1:705].
Two recollections of the town, years later, are
interesting. David Turpie (1903), in Sketches of
My Own Times, writes:
The guide that accompanied
me...said that he had in his youth
been informed by an old Indian
trader, a French half-breed, who
had visited the Prophet’s town
Project setting
during the time of peace, shortly
before the outbreak of hostilities in
1811, that the place was laid out
with considerable regularity. The
dwellings were built in rows, with
lanes or streets between them;
there were wigwams (or huts) built
of poles and bark, furnished inside
with robes and skins, the spoil of
the chase. There was a large
wigwam called the house of the
Stranger, where a traveller might
find meals and lodging after the
Indian fashion. This Hotel Grand
of the city stood at the foot of the
hill near the river, and was guarded
by sentinels at night for the safety,
as the Indian said of the guest, but
perhaps also as a wary precaution
of the host. part of the town stood
in the prairie above the valley, and
in this quarter, not far from each
other, were two public buildings–
the Council House and the
Medecine Lodge–Long, low
structure of some size, somewhat
like a log cabin, but of slighter
structure [Turpie 1903].
Another source, in Stories and Legends of the
Wabash Country (Mitchell 1947) recalls
Prophetstown:
When I was about 19 years old
several Pottawatomiee Indians
came to Battle Ground riding
ponies–one of the party was an old
man who claimed to have lived at
the mouth of the Tippecanoe river
before Prophet’s Town was
established. He said Prophet’s
Town had ‘much good wigwam,’ a
race track for pony races and foot
races, and an athletic field where
Indian games were played. The
race track and athletic field were
located west of where the bayou,
or Harrison Creek, flows into the
33
Wabash River.
He said that he was not old
enough to be in the battle of
Tippecanoe but he heard the guns
first and saw the flash of the
shooting. Two Frenchmen had a
trading post near the Prophet’s
cabin where they traded beads,
paints, powder, bullets, and articles
of personal adornment for furs.
He remembered seeing three
white men and one white woman
being held as prisoners at the
Prophet’s cabin but never knew
what where they came from nor
what became of them [Mitchell
1947:21].
A last description of the site of Prophetstown,
years after it was destroyed, is given by Winter
(TCHA, Winter Papers), who tells us that the town
“originally stood upon a clearance of about forty
five acres,” and that archaeological features were
visible at the site, including the charred wood,
ashes, and “remains of a blacksmith’s shop,” and
the hearth stones and the “circle upon which the
wigwam of Tecumseh existed” (TCHA, Winter
Papers). Whatever the accuracy of the exact
identification of the features as supplied by Winter,
it appears that remains were visible at the site of
Prophetstown.
In summary, sources by veterans of the Battle
of Tippecanoe place Prophetstown on the north
bank of the Wabash, about three-quarters to one
mile southeast of the battlefield. Others place the
town about one to three miles below the mouth of
the Tippecanoe River.
Some accounts
characterize Prophetstown as a large, neat town,
containing wigwams or cabins, streets, and
possibly an athletic field and trading post. There
may have been a large storehouse. Before the
battle, fortifications were placed around the
settlement. Large numbers of Indians from many
tribes lived and/or interacted there for three years.
Some historical sources refer to a Kickapoo
village adjacent to the southwest or downstream
Project setting
side of Prophetstown. This is the Kickapoo village
mentioned by Captain Samuel G. Hopkins, a
member of a campaign against Indians in the
territory in 1812. Hopkins wrote that a large
Kickapoo village of 160 cabins or huts adjoined
Prophetstown on the downstream side (Esarey
1922:2:232). In his letters, William Henry
Harrison remarks several times about occupations
in and around Prophetstown prior to the Battle of
Tippecanoe (e.g., Esarey 1922:1:417, 426, 439,
449, 456-459, 518, 616-618, 656-657). The
map by Royce (1971) for Indiana clearly shows
this Kickapoo village.
Archaeological Investigations in the
Prophetstown Area
It is well recognized in Indiana history that the Fort
Ouiatenon (Lafayette) area was one of the three
major early historic settlements in what became the
state, along with Fort Wayne and Vincennes.
Thus, one would expect significant prehistoric and
historic occupations in the Fort Ouiatanon area. In
fact, there is a very high number of early and later
historic sites recorded in Tippecanoe County. It is
also significant that Tippecanoe County has the
most early contact sites (Native American and
Euroamerican) recorded in any Indiana county.
When one studies and tabulates types of sites in the
county, important sites include Fort Ouiatenon,
Native American sites from early history, and high
proportions of Archaic and LateWoodlandMississippian sites.
Currently, there are 1,119 known or recorded
archaeological sites in Tippecanoe County (Table
2.1). By far, the most commonly found type of
archaeological sites recorded in the county consist
of stone flintknapping debris and are categorized
as Unknown Prehistoric. Many sites contain
artifacts made of Attica chert, a stone flintknapping
raw material found in nearby Warren County.
Kenneth chert, quarried from nearby Cass
County, was also used.
34
Table 2.1. Most Common Cultural Components at
Tippecanoe County Archaeological Sites.*
Time Pe riod
N umbe r
Unidentified Prehistoric
371
Paleoindian
4
Early Archaic
39
Middle Archaic
16
Late Archaic
51
Terminal Late Archaic
6
Late Archaic/ Early Woodland
1
Early Woodland
9
Middle Woodland
23
Terminal Middle Woodland
4
Late Woodland
40
Late Woodland / Mississippian
42
Mississippian
14
Contact, including possible Protohistoric
37
Historic
98
* According to the DHPA computer database
Prior to the current archaeological investigations
by the IPFW-AS, neither the Yost Woodland nor
the Lower Yost property had been the focus of
professional archaeological field reconnaissance
and no previously identified archaeological sites
were located within these two portions of the
project area. A records check conducted by
Robert G. McCullough, Dorothea McCullough,
and Teresa Putty at the IDNR-DHPA in
Indianapolis indicated that at least 57 prehistoric
and historic period archaeological sites have been
recorded within one mile of the Yost Woodland
and Lower Yost Property (Table 2.2). An
additional 20 archaeological sites have been
recorded within one mile of 12-T-59
(Kethtippecanunk) (Table 2.3).
Until fairly recently, there have been few
archaeological
investigations in the Prophetstown
Previously Recorded Sites in the Project Area
Project setting
35
Table 2.2. Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites within a 1.0 Mile Radius of the Yost Woodland and Lower
Yost Property.
Project setting
36
Table 2.3. Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites within a 1.0 Mile Radius of Site 12-T-59.
area. Dr. Robert C. Mulvey, a soil scientist,
collected artifacts and information from important
prehistoric and historic archaeological sites in the
region. His collections spanned approximately
three decades (1940s to 1970s). Mulvey’s
extensive collections from Tippecanoe County
caught the attention of archaeologist Glenn A.
Black in the 1950s. Black encouraged Mulvey to
publish an archaeological survey of Tippecanoe
County, but this work was not carried out. Mulvey
unsystematically surveyed and collected some
sites in the vicinity of Battle Ground, Indiana,
including the prehistoric sites subsumed at the time
under the site number 12-T-244, as well as 12-T59 (Kethtippecanunk). Many of Mulvey’s
collections and records are housed at the Glenn A.
Black Laboratory of Archaeology, Bloomington,
Indiana.
As recorded in the IDNR-DHPA files, site
12-T-59 encompasses the multicomponent
Kethtippecanunk town site, on the floodplain, as
well as five prehistoric mounds that are found on
the bluff edge, above the habitation area (see
Figure 1.2 and Appendix C). The mounds within
12-T-59 have been recognized for a long time
(e.g., Dehart 1909; Gorby 1886). One 19thcentury observer described them thus:
On the farm of Major VanNata,
two miles east of Battle Ground,
and just at the edge of Pretty
Prairie, is an interesting series of
mounds. They are located near the
mouth of the Tippecanoe River,
and just west of the bluffs of that
Project setting
37
in the 1970s (Dobbs 1975). Although the site has
been collected since at least the 1960s, its
relatively recent discovery has limited the extent to
which it has been disturbed by amateur collectors
and curiosity-seekers (Jones 1988:404). Despite
its importance in understanding Native American
A total of eleven mounds, arranged in a rough T- and French interaction in pre-statehood Indiana,
shape was present in the late 19th century. Four of basic information on Kethtippecanunk, such as site
the mounds were previously located in what is now size, artifact density, and the location of artifact
an agricultural field stretching to the north of the concentrations has not yet been determined. Over
bluff edge. All four are likely destroyed. A fifth the past 30 years, various estimates have been
mound (the largest one) is located within a golf given for the size of the site, ranging from 10-15
course to the north of 12-T-59. Nineteenth- acres (Dobbs 1975), to “at least 20 acres” (Jones
century digging in this mound revealed “a large 1984), to 30 acres (Trubowitz 1992). According
number of stone and copper implements...including to the Indiana state site files, the historic French and
pipes, axes, arrow-heads, copper bracelets, Native American occupation of 12-T-59
copper beads, rings, and, among other rare encompasses about 15 acres. Unfortunately, none
specimens, a copper vessel resembling a pitcher” of these estimates is based on comprehensive,
(Gorby 1886:74).
systematic survey but are, rather, impressions
Gorby (1886:74) indicated that the remaining based on field projects of limited duration and
six mounds within this group were located adjacent scope.
and parallel to the bluff edge. It is these that are
In the mid-1970s, Clark Dobbs and
subsumed within site 12-T-59. Only five of the six avocational archaeologist Rick Learn, initiated a
mounds are currently extant. It appears that the survey of portions of Kethtippecanunk (12-T-59).
sixth, easternmost mound has been destroyed, In 1974, Learn constructed a coordinate system
possibly during the construction of a house that for parts of the site and collected those areas
overlooks the Tippecanoe River.
(Jones 1987). In 1975, Dobbs gridded off
In the mid-1970s, John Gansfuss of Purdue portions of the site and began a systematic
University conducted a geophysical survey of the collection (Dobbs 1975). A map of Dobbs’
five low mounds on the bluffs above the collection grid is available, but there is no known
Kethtippecanunk village site as part of an NSF- location for a permanent datum for tie-in to the
funded project (Gansfuss 1977). Students from grid. Material from their investigations is curated
Purdue University, Princeton University, and the with the Tippecanoe County Historical Association,
Catholic University participated in the investigations. Lafayette, Indiana.
Magnetometry, resistivity, and seismic refraction
In 1984, Jones (1984) conducted an
analyses were conducted on the mounds, and one archaeological survey of historic-era aboriginal
of the mounds, “mound D,” was excavated. The sites in Tippecanoe County. This survey recorded
excavations were supervised by an unnamed a total of 184 archaeological sites in the
professional archaeologist. Unfortunately, Prophetstown area. Although permission was
Gansfuss’ report (1977) focused almost entirely denied to survey the location containing
on the geophysical investigations, and no Kethtippecanunk (12-T-59), Jones recorded a
discussion of the excavations was included. The number of collections from, and information
cultural affiliation of the mounds remains uncertain. recorded about, the site. Collections included
The portion of site 12-T-59 below the bluffs wrought nails, cufflinks, padlocks, a copper/brass
was identified as the location of Kethtippecanunk kettle, polychrome porcelain, silver trade crosses,
stream. They overlook the valleys
of the Wabash and Tippecanoe
rivers, and command a view of the
country for miles in every direction
[Gorby 1886:73].
Project setting
transfer-printed pearlware, creamware, saltglazed stoneware, a jaw harp, and human skeletal
material. Information indicated a site area of at
least 20 acres, and features on the site could be
seen from a distance above (Jones 1984:51-52).
Jones presents much of the Kethtippecanunk
collections information in Jones (1987, 1989a,
1992).
Six archaeological sites were recorded in the
area of Kethtippecanunk. One site, 12-T-461, on
the opposite side of the Wabash River from
Kethtippecanunk, yielded one gunflint. A
collection from a reported nearby site,12-T-502,
contained a gunflint (British chert), an embossed
brass button, a lead ball, an olive wine bottle
“kick,” and two historic ceramic sherds. West of
this site, a lead ball was reported at site 12-T-506.
Opposite site 12-T-461, on the north side of the
Wabash, a lead ball (site 12-T-504) was found
embedded in the river bank. Another reported site
(12-T-503), about a mile north of Kethtippecanunk,
contained a French brass button, two olive green
glass bottle bases, a gray salt-glazed stoneware
sherd, and a probable Ironstone sherd (Jones
1984:52-53).
In areas west of the Prophetstown area, two
possible early historic sites were investigated.
These included the previously investigated12-T238, where an engraved bone handle was found.
A collection from another site, 12-T-415,
contained a lead ball, a white clay pipe stem, a
gunflint (British Brandon chert), a green glass
bottle “kick,” and a brass wedding ring (Jones
1984:55-56).
In 1987, Jones and Trubowitz conducted an
archaeological reconnaissance of Kethtippecanunk
(Jones 1987, 1989a). That summer, a systematic
surface reconnaissance, a proton magnetometer
survey, and data for site and contour maps were
recorded (1987:7). Survey conditions at the time
consisted of mixed weeds and oats in one area of
the site, and high corn on a more southerly portion.
Some dark, burned areas associated with daub
were noted but difficult to plot because of high
crops and/or weeds. These were primarily located
38
in the southeastern portion of the site, where very
high magnetometer readings were recorded. A
total of 226 diagnostic artifacts were point-plotted
and collected from 12-T-59, 73 of which likely
dated to the 18th-century historic occupation of the
site. Preliminary analysis of this material indicated
a predominance of aboriginal ceramics and lithics,
with the highest frequencies of historic artifacts
being, respectively: glass, ceramics, nails, and
gunflints. A comparison of these to past surface
collections from the site and to our expectations for
artifact types and/or activity groups was revealing.
Limited magnetometer survey was also conducted
(Trubowitz 1992:246). Dark areas of soil, which
were thought to be possible burned structures,
were noted on the southern edge of the site, though
none was investigated. Eighteenth-century artifacts
were reportedly scattered over an area of 30
acres, though no map of the site extent is currently
available.
Analysis of the 1987 and earlier collections
from 12-T-59 pointed to some intriguing general
trends. For one, a more European type of
settlement was expected, with more artifacts from
structural/architectural and kitchen/food preparation
activity groups, than, say, at a predominantly
aboriginal village, where one might expect higher
frequencies of artifacts from activity groups like
clothing/decorative and subsistence-related
procurement items.
And, in fact, at
Kethtippecanunk architectural items such as nails,
hinges and pintles, and door latches and locks
comprised the highest frequencies of artifacts. The
second largest group was artifacts of the kitchensubsistence types, like ceramics, glass bottle
fragments, kettles, and knives. Artifacts related to
miscellaneous activities and storage (e.g., various
hardware, barrel hoops, harness buckles, etc.)
were also represented in relatively high
frequencies, as were arms-related items like lead
balls and gun parts.
In terms of specific artifact types, by far the
most common artifact was nails, nearly all hand
wrought. Glass, which is usually the most prevalent
artifact on 18th-century sites in the Lafayette area,
Project setting
was the second most common. This artifact may
be frequently encountered because it breaks up so
easily into small pieces. Glass at Kethtippecanunk
consisted of olive-green, blue-green, and clear
sherds. European ceramics were highly
conspicuous at Kethtippecanunk, unlike the Wea
village downstream. Native Americans in the area
were apparently not selecting fine tableware.
Other well-represented artifacts at
Kethtippecanunk included, in order: copper/brass
scraps from broken, discarded, or cut up kettles;
a large amount of corroded, unidentifiable iron;
iron hinge and pintle elements; white clay smoking
pipes, rare at aboriginal sites in the region; flintlock
gun parts; ash and slag remains, probably from
smithing activities; lead musket balls; copper kettle
pieces like lugs, bails, and in one case, a whole
brass kettle; and cast iron kettle fragments. Many
of the artifacts have been burned, including
examples of ceramics, nails (often wellpreserved), and glass.
The 1987 archaeological investigations
suggested that substantial structures were present
at the site, along with trade and household goods,
much as represented in historical documents
(American State Papers, Indian Affairs 18321834:I:131-132). Amounts of European goods,
like ceramics and such expensive personal goods
as silver cufflinks, a silver cross, and a large brass
shoe buckle, and large, possibly intact features
perhaps arranged in a linear fashion, seem to
confirm the fact that Kethtippecanunk, for its day,
was “marked with no small degree of civilization”
(Imlay 1916:12).
Other archaeological sites were recorded
during the Kethtippecanunk reconnaissance,
including 12-T-530 and 12-T-533, the latter
yielding a Late Woodland Jacks Reef Corner
Notched projectile point.
Jones (1989a, 1992) conducted further
archaeological investigations and analyses based
upon archaeological investigations in the region,
including information from Kethtippecanunk (12T-59), and the downstream sites of Fort
Ouiatanon (12-T-9), the Wea Village, (12-T-6),
39
and the Kickapoo-Mascouten village area.
Artifact frequencies and ratios from these sites
indicated relative degrees of acculturation and
ethnic “signatures.” One interesting project
consisted of studies of different collections by
different individuals at the same site (Jones
1989b). Collector biases, by artifact types, raw
materials, and functions were definable, but Jones
(1989b:10) suggested that the overall grouped
collections appeared to yield a relatively wellrounded view of artifacts from sites such as
Kethtippecanunk.
A study of acculturation through comparison
of the Wea Village, the Kickapoo-Mascouten
village area, and Kethtippecanunk suggested
gradations of acculturation from most acculturated
(Kethtippecanunk) to less or “middle” acculturation
at the Kickapoo-Mascouten site, to least
acculturation at the Wea Village. For example,
more copper/brass trade good artifacts were
found at the Wea Village, while more iron artifacts
were present at Kethtippecanunk (Jones
1989b:110). In his dissertation, Jones (1989a)
tested six hypotheses relating to acculturation and
adaptation of historic Native American,
Euroamerican, and mixed Native American and
Euroamerican occupations in Tippecanoe County.
Analyses of artifact frequencies, raw materials of
artifacts, and functional/activity groups of artifacts
revealed Kethtippecanunk as the most acculturated
settlement, based on higher percentages of food
consumption artifacts (such as tableware), tools,
and structural/architectural artifacts (Jones
1989a:388-396). Lower frequencies of armsrelated artifacts were found at Kethtippecanunk
(Jones 1989a:392).
The Wea Village, by comparison had larger
proportions of adornment items, native American
made goods, and copper/brass items, and lower
frequencies of European ceramics, glass, iron
artifacts, and white clay smoking pipes (Jones
1989a:425-426). Kethtippecanunk had higher
amounts of European ceramics, glass, door latch
hardware, iron artifacts, nails, and door hardware.
Lower frequencies of beads, gunflints, lead
Project setting
artifacts (including lead balls), and stone smoking
pipes were found at Kethtippecanunk (Jones
1989a:427).
In 1996, an archaeological reconnaissance
and educational project (Jones 1998) was
conducted in an approximately 210-acre area in
the Prophetstown State Park to the north of the
Yost Woodland and Lower Yost Property. The
project was funded under a grant to the Pokagon
Band Potawatomis, through a Historic Preservation
Grant from the National Park Service. The goals
of the project were to involve Native Americans in
the study of their past, train them in archaeological
methods and techniques, and to identify the
archaeological sites in the project area for park
preservation and management (Jones 1998:1).
Fieldwork for the project was guided by research
questions related to acculturation, ethnicity,
revitalization, and artifact patterns. A major
general question was whether evidence of the
Prophetstown occupation was present in this
portion of the park. Surface reconnaissance,
shovel probing, gradiometry, resistivity, and metal
detection techniques were used. A permanent
datum was created so that the entire park could be
tied into one grid system. Twenty-seven
archaeological sites were recorded, ranging in date
from Early Archaic to a mid-20th century
farmstead.
Archaeological sites with artifacts possibly
dating from the Prophetstown or earlier historic era
included 12-T-902 (one gunflint) and 12-T-505
(one copper/brass triangle). Other notable sites
included: 12-T-925, a prehistoric and historic site,
which yielded a wide variety of stone tools, Middle
to Late Archaic points, a Late Archaic-Early
Woodland Saratoga point, and a large amount of
historic artifacts (Jones 1998:39-40) that may be
related to the early historic Stringtown or
Strawtown occupation in the vicinity (DeHart
1909:176). Site 12-T-924, yielded stone
prehistoric artifacts (including a blade fragment
and triangular point) and pearlware and
whiteware, again possibly indicating a Stringtown
association (Jones 1998:37-38); and 12-T-923, a
40
large prehistoric site of indeterminate cultural
affiliation (Jones 1998:36). Sites 12-T-923
through 925 all may have in the past been one site,
that has been separated through drainage and
agricultural activities (Jones 1998:35).
One archaeological site from this project, 12T-909, was investigated by a number of
techniques, including metal detection, gradiometry,
resistivity, and shovel probing (Jones 1998:5152). These investigations recovered prehistoric
artifacts of indeterminate cultural affiliation, historic
fence-related metal artifacts, and a small number of
copper/brass artifacts that could be of the
Prophetstown era or later historic times. Features
and anomalous areas were recorded within site
12-T-909, but the boundaries of the site were not
determined (Jones 1998:52-56). In terms of
archaeologically determining sites related to
Prophetstown, or a specific Prophetstown
location, the results of this investigation were
inconclusive (Jones 1998:61).
In 1999-2000, Purdue University conducted
archaeological reconnaissance investigations in
290.66 acres in Prophetstown State Park areas
east and west of State Road 225, and south of
Battle Ground, Indiana (Helmkamp and Kanne
2000). The reconnaissance documented eleven
archaeological sites ranging from prehistoric to
historic in cultural affiliation (Helmkamp and
Kanne 2000:13). One site, in particular (12-T947), had been discovered during archaeological
reconnaissance by DHPA staff, and was a
farmstead occupied from the mid-19th century until
recent times (Helmkamp and Kanne 2000:15).
Further archaeological work at 12-T-947 was
recommended and conducted at this site by
Purdue University (Helmkamp and Kanne
2001a). Archaeological test excavations and
trenches were conducted at the farmstead house
first occupied in 1850 (Helmkamp and Kanne
2001a:14). A plan view map of the site was
completed, and a number of features were
investigated, including trash pits, a pet grave, house
foundation, cistern, and a privies (Helmkamp and
Kanne 2001a:15-54). Excavation units recovered
Project setting
botanical and faunal remains, bottles, glass sherds,
pearlware, whiteware, porcelain, stoneware,
redware, door hardware, nails, and personal items
(Helmkamp and Kanne 2001a:22-26). Based
upon the above results, further test excavations
(trenches, units, and block units) were conducted
at 12-T-947 (Helmkamp and Kanne 2001b).
In 2002, Andrew Martin conducted an
archaeological reconnaissance of a 2.68 mile
proposed bike trail route within Prophetstown
State Park, in the vicinity of Kethtippecanunk
(Martin 2002:1). The reconnaissance surveyed
portions of two previously known archaeological
sites (12-T-59 and 12-T-530) and recorded four
new archaeological sites (Martin 2002:51).
Thirteen historic artifacts were recovered from 12-
41
T-59, including an olive green glass sherd, a
wrought iron implement fragment, an iron or steel
hinge, a molded glass bottle fragment. Numerous
prehistoric artifacts were also recovered, including
a Snyders point, a triangular cluster point fragment,
cores, flakes, bifaces, and fire cracked rock
(Martin 2002:33-36, 44-48, 51-57). Site 12-T530, roughly west of Kethtippecanunk, yielded a
Middle Archaic side-notched point, a core,
bifaces, and fire cracked rocks (Martin 2002:4445, 48-49, 57). Site 12-T-1005 contained a Kirk
projectile point and flake debris (Martin 2002:44,
49-50). Site 12-T-1006 was a small lithic scatter,
and sites 12-T-1007 and 12-T-1008 were
isolated finds of a single flake each (Martin
2002:50).
CHAPTER 3
SURVEY AND AUGERING
The following chapter describes the methods and
results of Phase Ia survey in two areas west of
State Road 225, the Yost Woodland and the
Lower Yost Property. Both properties lie within
parcel number 4 of Burnett’s Reserve, Township
24N, Range 4W. NRHP and site preservation
recommendations for each of the two areas are
discussed at the end of the chapter.
Methods
Shovel probes were excavated across the survey
area at 10m intervals following a roughly east/west
axis aligned with the access road and Wabash
River bluff edge (Figure 3.1). Probes were hand
troweled but not screened. When cultural
materials were encountered, radial probes were
excavated 5m in each direction from the positive
probe in order to further delineate site boundaries.
SHOVEL PROBE SURVEY AT YOST WOODLAND Radial probes were excavated at a 5m interval until
two subsequent probes were negative for cultural
Investigations at the Yost Woodland consisted of remains. Probes were excavated to an average
systematic shovel probing. This area and the area depth of approximately 30cm or to an obvious
immediately surrounding it is thought to be within or change in sediment texture and/or color,
near the early-19th-century Euroamerican whichever came first. The exposed soil profiles
settlement of Stringtown, a village and trading post were visually examined for cultural materials and/
that was reportedly situated along the Wabash or evidence of buried cultural horizons. The
River bluffs (DeHart 1909:176). Previous locations of positive probes were noted on a
investigations by Jones (1998) identified artifacts sketch map, and cultural materials were bagged
consistent with this occupation, adjacent to the separately by probe number. All cultural material
current survey area. The goal of the investigations was collected. Basic data on sediment textures and
was to evaluate disturbances caused by erosion colors were collected from a sample of probes
and to identify any sites and their boundaries in across the survey area.
Artifacts collected during the project were
order to prepare a preservation plan. The survey
area included approximately 5.2 acres (2.1 ha) at washed in water and dried at room temperature.
the edge of the Wabash River bluffs, approximately Artifacts were identified by Robert McCullough,
525m southwest of State Route 225. The survey Andrew A. White, and Dorothea McCullough.
area lies within Burnett’s Reserve, parcel number Upon completion of the project, all project
4, Township 24N, Range 4W. The boundaries of documentation and collected materials will be
the probed area were determined by an access curated by the Indiana State Museum under
road on the north and west, an abandoned gravel accession number 71.19.784.2, 71.19.784.3,
quarry to the east, and the Wabash River bluff edge and 71.19.784.4 .
to the south. The survey area was in secondary
Results
forest and brambles at the time of survey. Survey
was conducted on June 6, 2005. Dr. Don Gaff
served as field supervisor for this portion of the A total of 195 shovel probes was excavated within
fieldwork, with Colin Graham and Adam Lauer as the Yost Woodland. In general, two soil horizons
were identified. Surface soils consisted of a very
field assistants.
42
Survey and augering
Figure 3.1. Location of shovel probes within the Yost Woodland.
43
Survey and augering
44
Figure 3.2. Location of sites 12-T-925, 12-T-1083, and 12-T-1119. Portion of site 12-T-925 outside of Yost Woodland
was defined by Jones (1998).
dark grayish brown silt loam (10YR3/2) that
extended to a depth of about 15cm below surface.
Underneath this lay dark yellowish brown silt loam
(10YR4/4), which was traced to a depth of at least
42cm below surface. As a result of the survey, the
boundaries of a previously recorded site (12-T925) were extended, and two new sites (12-T1083 and 12-T-1119) were identified (Figure
3.2).
12-T-925
Site 12-T-925 was originally identified on the bluff
edge during Jones’ (1998) phase Ia survey of the
agricultural field to the north and west of the Yost
Woodland. Jones’ investigations of the site
included a controlled surface collection at 5m
intervals. After it became apparent that many
artifacts were visible on the surface, the site was
gridded off into 10m squares and each of the
squares was 100 percent collected. Fifty grids
were collected (Jones 1998:38). A total of 704
artifacts was recovered at that time. Materials
included 469 prehistoric artifacts. Diagnostic
artifacts included two Godar projectile points, one
Saratoga Stemmed, and one Brewerton fragment,
which date the prehistoric occupation to the
Middle/Late Archaic. Historic artifacts were also
found in large numbers (n=231). Material
recovered (e.g., blue-sponged whiteware) date
this occupation to the mid-19th century
(Mansberger 1988). Jones suggests (1998:40)
that the site may be related to the Stringtown or
early historic occupation of the immediate area.
Due to the possibility of intact cultural deposits, it
was recommended that the site be avoided by all
construction and ground disturbance. Since the
time of Jones’ (1998) survey, the field has now
been planted in prairie grasses as part of a prairie
restoration related to the development of
Survey and augering
Prophetstown State Park.
The current investigations in the Yost
Woodland indicate that site 12-T-925 likely
extends approximately 40m northeast of the
access road along the Wabash River bluff edge. A
total of seven non-diagnostic prehistoric artifacts
was recovered from four positive shovel probes
within the Yost Woodland, including chipped
stone (n=2) and fire-cracked rock (n=5). No
historic artifacts were recovered from12-T-925
during the current survey.
45
of one previously documented archaeological site
(12-T-925) were extended approximately 40m to
the southeast.
12-T-925
Site 12-T-1083 was identified by two positive
shovel probes within the central portion of the
survey area. The site measures approximately 30m
north-south by 50m east-west. A total of seven
prehistoric artifacts was collected. Materials
consisted of seven small pieces of non-diagnostic
chert debitage.
Jones’ (1998) recommendations for site 12-T925 were as follows: “Site 12-T-925 may be
potentially eligible for the State and National
registers. Therefore, it must be avoided by all
construction and ground disturbing activities, or
subjected to further archaeological investigations,
including test excavations, to determine its
eligibility for the registers.” The IPFW-AS survey
has extended the boundaries of the site but the
limited nature of the subsurface investigations has
not provided additional information regarding the
archaeological cultures represented nor the
eligibility of the site for the NRHP. As such, it is the
IPFW-AS opinion that Jones’ recommendation
should remain unchanged.
12-T-1119
12-T-1083 and 12-T-1119
Site 12-T-1119 was identified by four positive
shovel probes within the southeast corner of the
survey area. The site measures approximately
40m north-south and 30m east-west. Six nondiagnostic prehistoric artifacts were recovered.
These include two pieces of chert debitage and
four small fire-cracked rocks. A single historic
artifact, a piece of rusted barbed wire, was also
recovered. This artifact is likely related to more
recent agricultural activities, rather than the 18th
and early-19th-century occupations in the
immediate area. Barbed wire was generally
available only after the Civil War and remains in use
today.
Two previously unidentified sites were recorded
within the Yost Woodland. Site 12-T-1083 was
identified within the central portion of the Yost
Woodland, while 12-T-1119 was located in the
southeast corner of the survey area. Both sites
consist of low-density, small scatters of less than
10 artifacts each (fire-cracked rock and lithics).
Based on the minimal number of artifacts
recovered and the inability to culturally identify the
remains within these two sites, it is the opinion of
the IPFW-AS that sites 12-T-1083 and 12-T1119 are not eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places (NRHP) nor the Indiana Register
of Historic Sites and Structures (IRHSS).
Summary and NRHP Recommendations
All cultural materials and supporting documentation
from the Yost Woodland investigations will be
curated at the Indiana State Museum under
accesssion numbers 71.19.784.2 (site 12-T925), 71.19.784.3 (site 12-T-1083), and
71.19.784.4 (site 12-T-1119).
12-T-1083
The IPFW-AS Phase Ia survey of the Yost
Woodland within Prophetstown State Park,
resulted in the identification of two previously
undocumented archaeological sites. The boundaries
Survey and augering
AUGERING ON THE LOWER YOST PROPERTY
The survey area includes approximately 42 acres
(17 ha) of bottomland adjacent to the Wabash
River. Like the Yost Woodland, this survey area
lies within Burnett’s Reserve, parcel number 4,
Township 24N, Range 4W. The Lower Yost
Property is thought by some to be the possible site
of General Harrison’s river crossing, although
others locate Harrison’s crossing two counties
downriver, where Harrison constructed a
blockhouse, near the mouth of the Vermillion River
(Barnhart and Riker 1971:389; Edmunds
1983:108; Naylor 1906). The site may be a
peripheral Prophetstown location, since adjacent
archaeological sites show evidence of early 19th
century occupation (see Tables 2.2 and 2.3). The
site is endangered by flooding and has been
impacted by the introduction of fill (U.S.G.S. 7.5'
Lafayette quadrangle), probably sometime in the
1980s. The source, extent, and purpose of the fill
are not known. The goals of the investigations
were to evaluate disturbances caused by flooding
and the introduction of fill and to identify any sites
and their boundaries in order to prepare a
preservation plan.
Methods
A series of auger probes was excavated across the
Lower Yost Property in order to test for the
presence of archaeological deposits. Auger survey
at the Lower Yost Property was conducted on
November 14 and December 2, 2005. Probes
were spaced 40m apart and were oriented roughly
northeast-southwest, extending from one end of
the property to the other (Figure 3.3). Six of the
probes were placed at right angles to the main axis
in order to provide more complete coverage of the
survey area. A total of 30 probes was excavated.
Each probe was excavated using a Bobcat
equipped with a 12-inch bit. Equipment and
operator were supplied by Prophetstown State
Park. Each of the probes was excavated to the
base of the bit, approximately 80cm below
46
surface. All soil from the probes was placed
through 1/4" screen and all recovered materials
were bagged by probe (Figure 3.4). The walls of
all probes were scraped to identify the possible
presence of cultural horizons and/or natural strata.
Stratigraphy, maximum depth, and soil types and
colors were noted in each of the probes. Profiles
were drawn for a representative sample of the
probes.
Excavations were conducted under the joint
supervision of Dr. Michael Strezewski of the
IPFW-AS and personnel of the Indiana
Department of Natural Resources, Division of
Historic Preservation and Archaeology (IDNRDHPA). IDNR-DHPA personnel present on one
or both days of the project included Dr. James R.
Jones III, Dr. Christopher Andres, Christopher
Koeppel, Amy Johnson, and Cathy Draeger.
Christopher Baas and volunteers from the IDNR
Division of Engineering were also present on both
days of the fieldwork.
Results
Auger profiles were similar across the survey area.
In general, the Ap surface stratum consisted of
very dark grayish brown silt (10YR3/2) that
extended to a depth of 20 to 25cmbs. Though a
slightly higher clay content was noted in some
subplowzone contexts, color and texture between
the plowzone and subplow soils was nearly
identical. Plowzone soils were found to be slightly
more friable. In a few cases, a slightly lighter soil
color or textural difference could be discerned in
subplowzone soils, but the differences were quite
subtle. Homogenous dark brown silt extended to
the base of the auger holes (i.e., to a depth of at
least 80cm below surface). Notably, when
scraping the sides of the auger holes, it was found
that the soils were not extremely compacted, as
would be expected with silts that had been
deposited over a long period of time.
Light charcoal flecking was observed in a
number of the augers (i.e., the first seven auger
holes on the eastern side of the survey area), but no
Survey and augering
47
Figure 3.3. Location of auger holes at the Lower Yost Property.
other artifacts, historic or prehistoric, were found
in any of the augers. Charcoal was observed at the
base of the plowzone in one of the auger holes,
suggesting that it was deposited relatively recently.
The origin of the charcoal could not be determined
for the remaining six auger holes. In the absence of
any artifacts, this charcoal flecking could be due to
any number of causes, including past forest fires or
burning of fields.
Summary and NRHP Recommendations
No archaeological remains were identified during
augering at the Lower Yost Property. Though the
U.S.G.S. 7.5' topographic map of the area
(Lafayette quadrangle) identifies the area as having
been recently disturbed, augering offered no
conclusive proof that this took place. However,
the non-compacted nature of the soils in the area
suggest that the soils in the Lower Yost Property
may have been deposited relatively recently, as
indicated on the U.S.G.S. topographic map. The
Battleground soils mapped for this area typically
have a Bw1 horizon which extends from 19 to 34
inches below the surface. The Bw1 horizon is
described as friable silty clay loam that is pale
brown (10YR6/3) in color with moderate fine
subangular blocky structure (Ziegler 1998:137).
Our observations of the soils in the Lower Yost
Property did not match well with those described
in the published soil survey (Ziegler 1998). Our
work indicated no appreciable change in soil color
or texture from the surface through the base of the
auger probes with little or no soil structure. This
would suggest that the soils (from a depth of about
0 to 80cm below surface, at least) are, in fact, the
result of fill deposited in the field. In the absence of
any artifacts, the origin of the fill remains unknown,
however. In sum, our findings indicate that no
archaeological deposits are present within the first
Survey and augering
48
Figure 3.4. Field conditions at the Lower Yost Property, December 2, 2005.
80cm of soil in the Lower Yost Property and it is
unlikely that agriculture or near-surface park
improvements will impact cultural remains.
The Lower Yost Property
The entirety of the Lower Yost Property is
currently used for agricultural purposes, with
beans planted in summer, 2005. Augering across
YOST WOODLAND AND LOWER YOST
the 42 acre property did not produce any evidence
PROPERTY: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SITE
for archaeological remains. Though visibility was
PRESERVATION
somewhat limited by the presence of snow and/or
weeds, no artifacts were found on the surface
Sites within the Yost Woodland
during an earlier walkover in July 2005, when
visibility was approximately 80 percent. Though
Archaeological sites within the Yost Woodland the U.S.G.S. 7.5' topographic map of the Lower
(12-T-925, 12-T-1083, 12-T-1119) are currently Yost Property indicates that fill was deposited on
in secondary woods. Observations made during the site at some point in time, the current
shovel probing indicate that soils in the area appear investigations were not able to conclusively
to be stable and no active erosion was observed. support this claim, though the non-compacted
No additional site preservation precautions are nature of the soil and the observations of the soil
therefore recommended for this portion of the profile suggest that it may have been deposited
survey area.
within the last twenty years. If fill had been
Survey and augering
introduced to the site, it appears to be devoid of
historic or prehistoric remains. It must also have
consisted of relatively homogenous soils, as large
mottles from mixed soils would have likely
otherwise been visible. Though the site may flood
49
during various times of the year, there was no
indication of significant scouring or erosion. No
additional precautions are therefore recommended
for this portion of the survey area.
CHAPTER 4
GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY AT SITE 12-T-59
were downloaded to a laptop and were processed
by Michael Strezewski using Geoplot, version
3.00p.
INTRODUCTION
Contemporary 18 th-century reports of
Kethtippecanunk are few, and give minimal insight
into the types of features we might expect in the
course of our remote sensing survey. Those
descriptions we have, however, indicate the
presence of from 70 to 120 structures in the town,
many of which were likely of fairly substantial,
European-style construction with shingled roofs
(American State Papers, Indian Affairs 18321834:1:131; Imlay 1916:12). The most substantial
houses reportedly belonged to the French traders.
Structures related to the Native American
occupants of Kethtippecanunk were not described
by contemporary observers. It is probable,
though, that the Wea houses were of lighter
construction than those of the French traders.
These may have been wigwam-style structures
common in the Great Lakes area (Callender
1978:682). However, the use of log structures
became more common among Miami peoples in
the latter portion of the 18th century, and it is
possible that some of the more well-built Native
American dwellings at Kethtippecanunk were of
this type.
The goals of the remote sensing efforts in
summer 2005 were to find evidence of possible
Kethtippecanunk/Prophetstown structures and
other related features and to identify the limits of the
site. Methods used to accomplish this task
included magnetometer survey, using both 1.0m
and 0.5m transect intervals. This was supplemented
by resistivity survey. Magnetometer data were
collected between June 2 and June 26, 2005.
Michael Strezewski, R. Brian Somers, and Scott
Hipskind of the IPFW-AS shared data collection
duties. Resistivity data were collected between
June 7 and June 10, 2005. Personnel collecting the
data were Don Gaff and Adam Lauer. All data
Field Conditions
Prior to its purchase by the state of Indiana in the
late 1990s, the portion of site 12-T-59 that lies on
the Wabash River terrace (i.e., the non-blufftop
portion of the site) had been used for agricultural
purposes for at least 175 years or more (Figure
4.1). As a result, it is likely that all areas of the site
had been repeatedly plowed, which disturbed the
archaeological deposits to a depth of at least 20 to
25cm. As the site lies immediately adjacent to the
Tippecanoe River and is reportedly often flooded
in the spring, a certain amount of erosion has taken
place as well, as evidenced by a swale that cuts
across the floodplain immediately south of 12-T59. The degree and location of the erosion has not
yet been fully documented.
Immediately prior to the magnetometer and
resistivity surveys in summer 2005, the majority of
the survey area was in waist-high grass, with little
to no surface visibility except for a few scoured
areas on the southern edge of the site, in which
visibility varied from 0 to 50 percent. Visibility was
also somewhat greater along the northern edge of
the site, as the loose sandy soils in this area were
less heavily vegetated. Small bare, sandy spots
were occasionally noted. A north-south running
treeline bisected the survey area at about the
E5080 line (Figure 4.2). To the east of the E5080
line, the field was in overgrown weeds and young
trees, all less than 10 years old. Most of the trees
were honey locusts as well. To the west of the
E5080 line, the field had been planted in various
prairie grasses as part of the Prophetstown State
Park prairie restoration. In order to prepare the
area for geophysical survey, Prophetstown State
50
Geophysical survey at site 12-T-59
51
Figure 4.1. Field conditions at 12-T-59 in June 2005, after mowing (facing southeast).
Park personnel mowed the grass on June 1, 2005.
All of the young honey locusts in the eastern portion
of the survey area were mowed over, providing for
mostly unimpeded survey conditions. Obstacles
that could not be removed included the numerous
larger trees comprising the old treeline between the
two fields. Most of the larger trees were honey
locusts. These trees ran along the E5080 line from
approximately N4860 to N4960. A large pile of
brush was also encountered, centered on the
coordinates N4990, E5075, and a relatively
recently dumped pile of iron fragments and blue
sheet plastic was centered on N5014, E5085.
Other recent historic land modifications were not
apparent. However, we were told by park
personnel that the former landowner probably
bulldozed an area at the base of the bluff access
road in order to make it easier to move farm
equipment and vehicles up and down the bluffs
(Figure 4.3). The extent of the damage from
bulldozing is not known.
Two conditions in particular rendered the vast
majority of the site unsuitable for ground
penetrating radar (GPR). In places (especially
near the base of the bluff) the surface had been
turned but not disced when the site was planted in
prairie grasses. This left a very uneven surface with
numerous plow furrows. Since GPR requires that
the antenna be in close contact with the ground to
obtain good readings, the uneven ground would
have made the resultant data less than useful.
Second, the vast majority of the site is planted in
prairie grasses, which grow in clumps, unlike a turf
grass, which creates a flat, evenly covered surface.
Again, this type of vegetation (even after mowing)
would have made for interrupted antenna contact
Geophysical survey at site 12-T-59
52
Figure 4.2. Site grid superimposed on aerial photo of 12-T-59. Note treeline at E5080.
with the ground, which would have produced
unsatisfactory results.
GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY
The numerous remote sensing methods commonly
available to the archaeologist (e.g., magnetometry,
resistivity, conductivity, ground-penetrating radar)
are designed to see beneath the soil, providing
information about subsurface features in a costefficient, timely, and non-destructive manner.
Because of its relative speediness, remote sensing
can often be applied to the entire site, or at least a
large portion of the site. This is opposed to
archaeological excavation, in which, due to time
and monetary constraints, only a small percentage
of the site can usually be investigated. Due to the
wide areal coverage possible with remote sensing,
broad-scale information about site layout can often
be obtained (e.g., the arrangement of structures
within a village), something that traditional
archaeological survey and excavation projects can
rarely provide.
Investigations at 12-T-59 were designed to
take advantage of the properties of remote sensing
in order provide information on the layout and
extent of the site. Geophysical survey at 12-T-59
was conducted using two different instruments,
described below.
Magnetometry
A gradiometer (two magnetometer heads
combined into a single instrument) is used to detect
fluctuations in the earth’s natural magnetic field
caused by the presence of cultural materials such
as fired clay or heated rock. Magnetometry data
Geophysical survey at site 12-T-59
53
Figure 4.3. Site grid superimposed over topographic map of immediate area.
of varying resolution are commonly used to discern
broad elements of site structure as well as the size,
shape, contents, and function of individual features
(e.g., Marshall 1999; Martin et al. 1991; von Frese
1984; von Frese and Noble 1984). The IPFWAS survey was conducted using a Geoscan
Fluxgate FM-256 gradiometer. The Geoscan
Fluxgate FM-256 is an upgraded version of the
Fluxgate FM-36. The FM-36 has been a standard
gradiometer for archaeological use in the United
States since its creation (e.g., Kamei et al. 2002;
Marshall 1999; Schurr 1999; Smekalova and
Bevan 1994). Data can be collected at a variety of
rates and intervals, and 256,000 readings
(sufficient for 80 20m x 20m survey grids at 8
samples/m) can be stored without downloading.
Magnetometers such as the FM-256 are very
sensitive to the presence of ferrous metals (e.g.,
iron) that create very strong, distinctive magnetic
signatures. However, magnetometers are different
from a standard metal detector in that they are
extremely sensitive to subtle magnetic changes in
soils (on the order of fractions of nanoteslas).
Aside from ferric metals, magnetometers react to
two types of magnetization on archaeological sites.
The first is thermoremanent magnetization. When
soils and/or rocks are heated to the ferromagnetic
Curie temperature (ca. 500 to 700° C), the
magnetic particles are realigned to the local
magnetic field, producing a permanent remanent
magnetization. When the soil, rock, or object is
cooled, the magnetic particles recrystallize and are
oriented toward magnetic north (Burks 2004:8).
This produces a subsurface magnetic anomaly in
an otherwise “neutral” magnetic environment.
The second type of detectable magnetization is
termed magnetic susceptibility. Soils with high
magnetic susceptibility are those that react when
exposed to a magnetic field, such as earth’s own
magnetic field. The presence of bacteria that
produce small magnetic particles are one of the
major factors affecting a soil’s magnetic
susceptibility. Certain soils, such as topsoil, are
often of a greater magnetic susceptability than
subsoils. If, for example, a hole is dug in the ground
and filled with soils of differing magnetic
Geophysical survey at site 12-T-59
susceptibility than the surrounding subsoil, this
should be detectable by a magnetometer (Burks
2004:8).
Resistivity
The second instrument used in the survey at 12-T59 was a Geoscan RM-15 resistivity meter. The
Geoscan RM-15 has become the standard for
archaeological work in the United States
(Neubauer et al. 2002; Walker 2000). The RM15 includes an integral data logger capable of
storing 15,000 readings. A multiplexer was used
with the RM-15, which allows the user to take
multiple readings each time the probes are inserted
into the ground.
A resistivity meter measures how well
sediment conducts an electrical current between
two points on the surface. A known electrical
current is introduced into the soil and the resistivity
meter measures the ease (or difficulty) with which
the current is carried through the soil at a given point
(Somers 2002:10). The current is introduced into
the soil with a metal probe and the voltage is
measured with a second, mobile probe. Survey is
conducted by placing the probe in the ground at
measured data collection points and obtaining
resistivity readings (measured in Ohm-meters) for
known spots at the site. These readings are
converted into a resistivity planview map of the site,
which aids in data interpretation.
Soil resistivity and the effectiveness of
resistivity survey are affected by numerous
environmental factors, including soil moisture,
soluble ion concentration, ionic mobility in the soil,
and the physical soil type. Areas of varying
moisture content, such as filled-in ditches or
culturally compacted areas like house floors, can
be detected using a resistivity meter. This is due to
the fact that soils that have a higher water content
will have a lower resistivity than those with less
water. Fine, clayey soils, will have a lower
resistivity than coarse soils such as sand or gravel
(Somers 2002:10). When soils are disturbed by
human activities (e.g., digging ditches, storage pits,
54
or cellars), they are often less compact and have a
higher organic content than the surrounding
undisturbed soils. This results in lower electrical
resistance. Human activities can also result in
higher electrical resistance. The construction of
stone walls lowers resistivity as does repeated
trampling and compaction of soils, such as would
be found on a road or house floor.
It must be remembered, however, that the efficacy
of all remote sensing methods is influenced by a
number of variables, including instrument
capabilities, survey grid/spacing, environmental
factors, and data collecting and processing
procedures. Remote sensing data cannot generate
a one-to-one planview map of a site. The data do,
however, provide information on anomalies
beneath the soil that may be cultural in origin. This
information can be used to guide further
archaeological investigations. Only by “groundtruthing” the geophysical data through limited
excavation, is it possible to generate reliable
information on the nature of these anomalies. Soil
anomalies are only “anomalies” until they can be
tested using more traditional subsurface
archaeological methods such as coring, shovel
probing, and excavation.
Survey Expectations
Given the properties and limitations of
magnetometer and resistivity surveys, we can
make some predictions about what types of
materials and activities may be detectable at 12-T59. The following is not an exhaustive list but
provides some idea of the sorts of materials that
might be expected at a site of this time period, given
what we know about the inhabitants, the types of
structures they lived in, and the circumstances of
the site’s destruction.
1) The towns of Kethtippecanunk and
Prophetstown were both burned. These events
likely resulted in an alteration to magnetic
properties of the soils – an alteration that should be
detectable with the magnetometer. Structural fires
Geophysical survey at site 12-T-59
commonly reach temperatures above the
ferromagnetic Curie temperature, and those that
burn hot and burn to the ground may be especially
visible (Burks 2004:2, 8). Any clay chinking that
may have been fired when the structures were
destroyed should also be detectable. Although it is
likely that much of the burned material from
structures would have been incorporated into the
plowzone, these soils should still be dectectable
despite the lack of intact subplowzone deposits
(Burks 2004:2). At Kethtippecanunk, it is
probable that the structures of the French traders
were more substantial than those of the Wea
occupants. Native structures would presumably
be less visible, both archaeologically and via
remote sensing.
2) At later historic-period Native American
and European sites, such as Kethtippecanunk/
Prophetstown, we can expect the presence of
ferric metal in the form of nails, hinges, hooks, axes,
and other tools. Materials such as these have been
reported in studies of the existing unprovenienced
Kethtippecanunk collections (Jones 1988). Ferric
materials should be highly detectable with the
magnetometer and may give information on the
location of structures or other activity areas.
3) One historic description of Kethtippecanunk
mentions the presence of “a tavern, with cellars,
bar, public, and private rooms” (Imlay 1916:12).
Any large-scale excavation of soils, such as would
have taken place with the construction of one or
more cellars, should be detectable via resistivity, as
the soils would likely be looser and have a higher
organic content. If concentrations of fired
ceramics, burned material, or iron are present in
the filled-in cellar, these should be detectible via
magnetometry.
4) Any in situ burning or the presence of
burned materials related to the occupation of the
site should be visible via magnetometry. This
includes such features as concentrations of firecracked rock, hearths, or concentrations of
pottery. Since there is also a substantial prehistoric
component at 12-T-59, many features produced
in prehistory would likely fall under this category.
55
5) Though there is no mention of wells in the
limited first-hand descriptions of the site, such
features were common. Wells, which were
commonly lined with stone, are potentially visible
using either magnetometry or resistivity.
METHODS
The magnetometry survey at 12-T-59 was
designed to provide maximum areal coverage in
the short amount of time budgeted. For this reason
a relatively wide survey margin was chosen for
initial site reconnaissance (1.0m transects / 4
readings per meter). Using this methodology, as
many as eighteen 20 by 20m grids could be
surveyed in a single day. With magnetometry,
however, there is a trade-off between the density
of the sample and transect intervals and the
resolution of the resultant data. When one chooses
a large transect interval and readings per meter,
such as we did at 12-T-59, the data obtained are
not as fine-grained as they would have been with a
more intensive survey. On the other hand, the
survey proceeds much faster when using this
methodology and the overall amount of area
covered is much greater. Since features from
historic period sites such as Kethtippecanunk/
Prophetstown would likely produce anomalies of
a much greater magnitude than those from
prehistoric sites, we expected that our relatively
large sample and transect intervals would not be a
great impediment to finding and interpreting
archaeological anomalies of interest.
The entire survey area was staked out into 20
by 20m grids. Each grid was assigned a number.
The grid numbering system was used to keep track
of which portions of the site had been surveyed and
to provide an easy means of organizing the many
files that result from a geophysical survey of this
size.
Typically, our magnetometry survey crew
consisted of three individuals. One person
operated the instrument while the other two set up
the grids and moved the rope used to mark the
Geophysical survey at site 12-T-59
individual transects. The individual collecting the
data was alternated every four grids. This allowed
for nearly continuous data collection throughout
the day, as the burden of data collection was not
put upon a single individual but was instead spread
among three persons. This strategy proved to be
especially important during extremely hot days
when continuous data collection by one person
would have been impossible.
As part of the initial site reconnaissance, a total
of 133 20 by 20m grids was completed, using
1.0m transects with 4 readings per meter (Figure
4.4). The magnetometry surveys were conducted
using zig-zag transects, which is faster than parallel
transects. As we had no prior knowledge of the
location of artifact concentrations, burned areas,
or the locations of previously collected areas, our
survey was conducted over most areas of the field.
Areas that were not surveyed included those with
a substantial slope, where the likelihood of finding
intact deposits was low. A few small areas within
particular grids also had to be skipped due to
obstructions (e.g., trees, brush) that prevented
data collection. A total of 5.32 hectares (13.15
acres) was surveyed during this initial magnetometry
reconnaissance.
Following the initial sweep of the site, the data
were gathered together, processed, and examined
for the presence of promising anomalies. After
analysis of the data, the most promising areas of the
site were subjected to higher resolution
magnetometry. Forty 20 by 20m grids were
surveyed at a higher resolution (0.5m transects
with 8 samples per meter) (Figure 4.5). It was
hoped that the “suspicious” anomalies identified in
the initial survey could be better seen with the more
intensive magnetometry survey, thereby providing
additional information on the location of possible
test excavation units. A total of 1.6 hectares (3.95
acres) was surveyed at the closer interval.
Finally, parts of the site were also surveyed
with resistivity. It was hoped that the resistivity data
would complement the information obtained from
magnetometry, thereby making the decisions
about appropriate test excavation areas more
56
accurate. Data were collected at 0.5m transects
with 1 sample per meter. Twenty-one 20 by 20m
resistivity grids were surveyed using a twin-parallel
array (Figure 4.6). This comprises a total of 0.84
hectares (2.08 acres).
Data Processing and Analysis
All data were processed in Geoplot, version
3.00p. The processing steps for the magnetometry
data were (generally) as follows: The data were
first subjected to a Zero Mean Traverse function,
which removes major instrument and operatorinduced data defects. The data were then
interpolated (expanded) twice in the Y direction to
achieve equal data density in both the X and Y
axes. Interpolation of the data makes it much easier
to visually detect anomalies. A Search and
Replace function was then applied to the data. All
data above 10 nanoteslas (nT) and below -10nT
were removed in order to provide greater visual
contrast to the more subtle anomalies that may
exist. The Search and Replace function serves to
remove spikes in the data caused by the presence
of iron objects. Next, a Periodic Filter was applied
to the data, which removes regular defects in the
data, such as those caused by operator error
during data collection. Finally, a Low Pass Filter
was run, which smooths the data and can enhance
larger, but weak features (Geoscan Research
2003:6-2).
Following data processing of the 1.0 and 0.5m
transect data, the resulting magnetic anomalies
were classified into four different categories, in
order to aid in their interpretation. The following
categories are based upon Burks’ (2004:12-13)
classification scheme used at Pickawillany, a mid18th-century English fort and trading post in Miami
County, Ohio.
Monopolar positive
Monopolar positive anomalies are those that
exhibit a localized, positive peak intensity (Figure
4.7). These anomalies are typically caused by local
Figure 4.4. Extent of magnetometry done at 1.0m transect interval.
Geophysical survey at site 12-T-59
57
Figure 4.5. Extent of magnetometry done at 0.5m transect interval.
Geophysical survey at site 12-T-59
58
Figure 4.6. Extent of resistivity data.
Geophysical survey at site 12-T-59
59
Geophysical survey at site 12-T-59
60
Figure 4.7. Example of monopolar positive anomalies within one grid at 12-T-59 (anomalies are displayed as black
circles).
areas of soil with increased magnetic susceptibility
(e.g., pits that were excavated and filled with soil of
greater magnetic susceptibility). Anomalies such
as these could be prehistoric or historic in origin.
Monopolar anomalies can also be caused by a
dipolar object (e.g, a ferric metal object) that is
buried in the ground with the positive pole closer to
the surface than the negative pole. In such cases,
the magnetometer can only “see” the positive pole
of the object, thus making it look as though it is a
monopolar anomaly. Monopolar positive anomalies
range in intensity between 1 and 200nT. Most
prehistoric anomalies, however, are no greater
than 10nT, though some unusually strong features
can produce readings up to about 35nT..
to one another (Figure 4.8). The peaks can be
similar or dissimilar in intensity, and can range up to
hundreds of nanoteslas in intensity. Dipolar simple
anomalies are most commonly caused by ferric
metal objects and magnetic rocks and the two
peaks reflect the positive and negative poles of the
magnetic object. Lightning strikes can also cause
large dipolar simple anomalies in the soil as can
very magnetic prehistoric features, such as
intensely burned hearths or earth ovens filled with
fire-cracked rock. The presence of very large or
multiple dipolar simple anomalies in a given survey
grid can be an impediment to interpretation, as they
can obscure other, less intense anomalies that may
be of archaeological significance.
Dipolar Simple
Dipolar Complex
These distinctive anomalies are identified as single
positive and negative peaks immediately adjacent
Dipolar complex anomalies consist of numerous
positive and negative peaks that are clustered
Geophysical survey at site 12-T-59
61
Figure 4.8. Example of dipolar simple anomalies within one grid at 12-T-59 (indicated by arrows).
together (Figure 4.9). The peaks can be of varying
intensities. These most commonly occur when
numerous, smaller dipolar objects are dumped in
one spot (e.g., a pit, cellar, or well), but can be
associated with burned, disturbed areas or animal
burrows as well. The magnetic signature of a
dipolar complex anomaly can be weak or very
strong.
Multi-Monopolar Positive
These are clusters of monopolar anomalies. They
are usually weak in intensity (i.e., less than 10nT).
They can be caused by prehistoric structures or
historic period fencelines, but are not commonly
found in data collected at greater than 0.5m
transect intervals.
Resistivity data were also processed using
Geoplot. Processing functions for the resistivity
data were as follows: The data were first put
through the Despike function which removes
random errors in the data. The data were then
interpolated (expanded) once in the X axis to
obtain equal data density in the X and Y axes.
Finally, the data were subjected to a High Pass
Filter, which is designed to remove the
background geology-related portions of the data
and bring out any archaeological features that
might be present (Geoscan Research 2003:6-2).
RESULTS
Magnetometry
All anomalies were outlined and classified
according to the above typology. The resulting
maps provide a picture of the complete survey area
for the combined 1.0m and 0.5m transect
magnetometry surveys (the pronounced east-west
striping seen in the resulting figures is a result of
Geophysical survey at site 12-T-59
62
Figure 4.9. Example of large, dipolar complex anomaly at 12-T-59 (in southwest corner of grid).
repeated plowing of the field and is not a defect in
the data). A total of 644 anomalies was identified.
These included 251 monopolar positive, 370
dipolar simple, 17 dipolar complex, and 6 multimonopolar positive anomalies. The locations of all
identified anomalies are shown in Figures 4.10
through 4.15.
Dipolar Complex Anomalies
Interpretation of the anomalies begins with
removal of those items that are definitely not
archaeological. Unfortunately, this cannot always
be accomplished via magnetometry data alone, but
in some cases, we can make a good argument that
a particular anomaly is non-archaeological in
origin. Clusters of probable non-archaeological
dipolar complex anomalies are shown in Figure
4.10. These large areas consist of numerous
dipolar anomalies clustered together and likely
represent modern trash dumping, construction,
and accumulation of historic debris adjacent to the
Tippecanoe River.
Anomalies along the northern border of the
survey area (centered at N5010, E5060) lie to the
east of the point where the dirt access road
descends the bluff. This is at or near an area that
was reportedly bulldozed by the previous
landowner. Recent historic debris (e.g., pieces of
PVC pipe and black sheet plastic) were noted on
the surface in this general area. The magnetometry
data suggest that a fair amount of ferric metal debris
is also located in this area. If there are intact
archaeological deposits that survived the reported
bulldozing at the base of the bluff, they are not
detectable via the magnetometer, due to the large
amount of historic metal “clutter” that obscures the
grids in this area. These materials may be the result
of garbage dumping at the base of the bluff.
Farther to the southeast, a large concentration
of simple dipoles was identified in the area around
N4940, E5180, directly adjacent to the
Figure 4.10. Large dipolar complex anomalies due to recent trash deposition and construction, 12-T-59. Pink line
defines the area of the site surveyed by magnetometry at a 1.0m interval.
Geophysical survey at site 12-T-59
63
Figure 4.11. Dipolar complex anomalies, possibly archaeological, 12-T-59. Pink line defines the area of the site
surveyed by magnetometry at a 1.0m interval.
Geophysical survey at site 12-T-59
64
Figure 4.12. Dipolar simple anomalies, possibly archaeological, 12-T-59. Pink line defines the area of the site
surveyed by magnetometry at a 1.0m interval.
Geophysical survey at site 12-T-59
65
Figure 4.13. Monopolar positive anomalies, possibly archaeological, 12-T-59.
Geophysical survey at site 12-T-59
66
Figure 4.14. Multiple monopolar positive anomalies, possibly archaeological, 12-T-59.
Geophysical survey at site 12-T-59
67
Figure 4.15. Linear anomalies noted in the 0.5m transect data, 12-T-59. Red outline indicates the extent of the 0.5m
survey.
Geophysical survey at site 12-T-59
68
Geophysical survey at site 12-T-59
Tippecanoe River. Though no subsurface testing
was undertaken in this area, this concentration of
simple dipoles is thought to be the result of debris
(i.e., floating garbage containing ferric metal) that
accumulated during repeated river flooding
episodes.
In the extreme southeast portion of the survey
area (centered on N4880, E5100), two very large
concentrations of dipolar anomalies were
identified. Especially intriguing was the northernmost
of the two, a rectangular-shaped area measuring
approximately 30 by 26m that was comprised of
numerous small simple dipoles. This was thought to
be a possible structure, but it appeared to be much
too large to be associated with the
Kethtippecanunk/Prophetstown occupation.
Limited metal detecting and shovel probing was
conducted in this area to determine the nature of
these anomalies (see chapter 5, this report).
Materials recovered (e.g., wire nails, aluminum
beer can, cinder) indicate that these two large
anomalies are likely of recent origin. The northern
of the two may have been a barn or enclosure,
while the other appears to have been a garbage
dump. An examination of aerial photos from 1939,
1957, 1963, 1971, and 1976 shows no evidence
of construction in the immediate area, however.
The recovery of archaeological materials in this
area (e.g., chert debitage, grit-tempered sherd,
and an English gunflint) indicates that prehistoric
and historic-period archaeological materials can
be found in this portion of the site as well.
Unfortunately, the large amount of ferrous metal
that was recently dumped in this area renders
magnetometry useless for the detection of subtle
archaeological remains.
A linear anomaly located at about N4870,
E5030 has not been positively identified as to its
source. The anomaly, however, lies at the edge of
the higher ground, proceeding south to the lower
portion of the site. For this reason, it is thought that
the anomaly could be a trench dug to drain lower
parts of the site.
Other complex dipolar anomalies were
identified that are thought to be more likely
69
archaeological in origin (see Figure 4.11). The
difference between the two lies in the fact that the
“archaeological” complex dipolar anomalies
consist of loose clusters of lower intensity dipoles,
such as might be expected from an 18th-century
structure that has been subjected to 150-plus
years of plowing. One particularly clear complex
dipolar anomaly was identified at about N4860,
E4880. Testing of this anomaly (see chapter 5)
revealed a probable collapsed chimney and a
portion of a wall likely related to a Euroamerican
structure. Testing of a second complex dipolar
anomaly just west of the E5080 line (Unit B)
revealed only small amounts of 18th-century
historic material and no indication of a structure. As
with any remote sensing data, the remaining
complex dipolar anomalies require some type of
subsurface reconnaissance to confirm their
archaeological nature, especially given large
amount of recent metal that has been deposited on
the site.
Dipolar Simple Anomalies
A total of 371 dipolar simple anomalies was
identified (see Figure 4.12). Unfortunately, due to
the amount of recent historic activity in certain
areas of the site, it is difficult to make definitive
statements about which of these anomalies
represent archaeological activities versus those
that are related to more recent dumping and/or
construction. Subsurface reconnaissance in the
form of shovel probing, metal detecting, and
excavation, however, indicates that most of the
recent historic activity occurred to the east of the
E5080 line. It is likely then, that many, if not most,
of the dipolar simple anomalies west of E5080 are
archaeological in nature. One exception to this
statement is a number of large simple dipolar
anomalies that lie along the western portion of the
N5000 line. Most or all of these are likely metal
fence posts that were put in place when the field
was used for agricultural purposes. Most of the
posts were removed by park staff when the
property was acquired by Prophetstown State
Geophysical survey at site 12-T-59
Park. Some of the posts, however, were rusty and
broke off in the ground. During survey, all
remaining metal fence posts were removed from
the site, when possible.
In general, the frequency of dipolar simple
anomalies is greater east of the E5080 line. Again,
this is likely due to historic dumping. West of the
E5080 line, the dipolar simple anomalies do not
seem to be concentrated within any particular area,
nor do they follow any particular topographical
feature, but are fairly evenly spread across the site.
It was hoped that the magnetometry survey would
aid in identifying concentrations of metal and/or
historic features that may be related to structures or
activity areas, but the data are somewhat unclear in
this regard. This may have to do with the relatively
large transect interval that was used (1.0m over
most of the site). With a widely-spaced transect
interval, such as was used here, it is likely that most
smaller pieces of metal were not seen by the
magnetometer. If most of the metal from a
particular structure or activity area were found in
small pieces, our magnetometer survey would
likely not have been able to pick it up. It is possible
that survey done at a tighter transect interval (e.g.,
0.25m) might be able to shed some light on this, but
the time required to do such a survey would be
impractical, given the size of the site.
Monopolar Positive Anomalies
Two hundred fifty monopolar positive anomalies
were identified (see Figure 4.13). Nearly all are
less than 10nT in magnitude, roughly circular, and
between 1.0 and 2.0m in diameter. These
anomalies could be either prehistoric or historic in
nature and most are probably the result of localized
areas with increased magnetic susceptibility. In
many cases, these may be pits that were filled in
with soils differing in magnetic susceptibility from
the surrounding matrix. Some may be deeply
buried pieces of iron in which only the positive pole
of the piece is “visible” to the magnetometer. This
may be the case with the few monopolar positive
anomalies that are higher than 15-20nT in
70
magnitude.
Overall, the distribution of the monopolar
anomalies is much patchier than that of the dipolar
simple anomalies, and appears to correspond, at
least to some degree, with higher elevations of the
site (Figure 4.16). Monopolar positive anomalies
appear to be most frequent along the low eastwest ridge that runs through the main portion of the
survey area (from about N4960, E5060 to
N4850, E4780). A second concentration is
located at about N4990, E4850, atop a high,
sandy knoll, overlooking a spring-fed pond to the
north. Both historic and prehistoric materials were
found in the immediate area, but without additional
subsurface reconnaissance, the nature of these
anomalies is unknown. A third concentration of
anomalies is located around coordinates N4930,
E4870.
An interesting concentration of anomalies was
found at about N4940, E5010. This consists of
about 8-10 monopolar anomalies arranged in an
arc-shaped pattern. Excavation units placed over
two of the anomalies (Units D and H) indicated that
both resulting features were prehistoric in nature.
Furthermore, very few historic artifacts were
found in either unit, suggesting that the majority of
the cultural activity in the immediate area is
prehistoric. Diagnostic artifacts mostly date to the
Albee and Mississippian-related Late Prehistoric
components at the site. No definite correspondence
could be demonstrated between a particular
monopolar anomaly and the historic period
occupation of Kethtippecanunk/Prophetstown
though this possibility has not yet been ruled out.
Initial impressions of the map of monopolar
positive anomalies might seem to indicate that they
are less dense to the east of the E5080 line. This
map may be somewhat deceptive, however, as the
large amount of ferric metal debris in this area likely
obscured many of the subtle monopolar anomalies
that may be present in this portion of the site.
Limited shovel testing east of the E5080 line (see
chapter 5) indicates that archaeological materials
are found in the eastern portion of the site, a fact
which suggests that intact subsurface deposits may
Figure 4.16. Location of monopolar anomalies superimposed on topograpic map, 12-T-59.
Geophysical survey at site 12-T-59
71
Geophysical survey at site 12-T-59
be present.
Multiple Monopolar Anomalies
Only six multiple monopolar anomalies were
identified (see Figure 4.14). These were usually
large in size (>3m diameter) and consist of a
number of monopolar positive peaks closely
clustered together. They may represent either
prehistoric or historic features. None was tested,
however, and so their cultural attribution(s) are
uncertain.
Linear Anomalies
It was hoped at the beginning of the survey that we
would be able to detect definite structural outlines
at Kethtippecanunk, especially if those structures
had burned. However, as it turns out, long, narrow
anomalies, such as structural walls were not clearly
detected by the magnetometer at this interval.
Therefore, interpretation of possible structural
walls has been confined only to those areas that
were covered by the 0.5m magnetometry survey.
It was felt that any linear anomalies noted here
would be more likely “real.”
A number of linear-shaped anomalies were
noted during the interpretation of the 0.5m transect
data. These are outlined in Figure 4.15. Because
one could conceivably draw an almost infinite
number of possible walls on the magnetometry
data, the lines drawn here are only those that
appeared clearest in the planview maps. It is
possible that some may represent structural walls,
but this hypothesis requires further testing.
A number of units (Units B, E, F, H) were put
in to test these linear anomalies in the hope that they
were structural walls of some sort. Unfortunately,
no walls were located in any of the units. In fact, the
only wall that was identified during excavation
(Unit L), did not appear to be a wall in the
magnetometry data, but was instead the edge of a
complex dipolar anomaly. In sum, although some
of the linear anomalies identified in the data may be
walls, we have not yet been able to use the
72
magnetometry data as an adequate predictive tool
in locating such walls.
The easternmost of these linear anomalies
appeared to be a large (approximately 36 by 30m)
rectangular outline of unknown origin. It was felt
that the size of this anomaly was too large to be an
18th-century structure. One of the walls also seems
to be made up of multiple small dipolar anomalies,
suggesting that these might be nails, pieces of
barbed wire, or small pieces of iron. Two metal
detector probes just outside of this area revealed
modern pieces of wire and four shovel test probes
inside the “enclosure” contained only prehistoric
material. In sum, though only limited testing was
attempted within this large rectangular area, most
signs indicate that it is recent in origin.
Resistivity
The resistivity data were not very informative, and
for this reason, only two blocks in the eastern half
of the site were surveyed. After processing, it
appeared that the resistivity survey was showing
only geomorphologicial information, rather than
data on the archaeological occupation of the site
(see Figure 4.6). In the northern edge of both
blocks, a broad east-west zone of higher resistivity
was identified. These changes in resistivity
correspond with the location of sandier soils, such
as those that are found nearer the base of the bluff.
Despite processing the data a number of times, no
definite cultural features could be discerned.
D ISCUSSION
As a guide for future research at the site, Figure
4.17 indicates those areas with the highest
potential for locating 18th-century remains. The
outlined area incorporates all portions of the site
west of the E5080 line that exhibit greater
concentrations of monopolar positive, simple
dipolar, and complex dipolar anomalies. In
particular, the complex dipolar anomalies west of
the E5080 line may have the highest potential for
Figure 4.17. Areas of potential future research interest, 12-T-59.
Geophysical survey at site 12-T-59
73
Geophysical survey at site 12-T-59
encountering 18th-century artifacts, features, and/
or structures. At least one of these is known to
represent the remains of an 18th-century structure,
based on excavation data (near coordinates
N4860, E4880). Again, given the large,
multicomponent prehistoric occupation of the site,
not all of the many monopolar positive anomalies
are likely related to the 18th-century occupation of
Kethtippecanunk and/or Prophetstown. Of those
tested, all were shown to be prehistoric in nature.
However, this does not rule out the possibility that
some are related to the Kethtippecanunk/
Prophetstown occupation of the area.
Though there may be 18th-century artifacts
74
and/or structures to the east of the E5080 line,
Figure 4.17 does not include this portion of the site
simply because the amount of historic debris in the
area has made the detection of archaeological
anomalies via magnetometry difficult, if not
impossible. Limited shovel probing and metal
detection in the eastern portion of the site revealed
a single English gunflint, suggesting that remains
related to the occupation of Kethtippecanunk/
Prophetstown may be present in this area.
However, additional testing (e.g., systematic
screened shovel probes) is particularly needed in
this part of the site to adequately answer this
question.
CHAPTER 5
SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATIONS: 12-T-59
INTRODUCTION
the wooded area at the base of the bluffs. A third,
more permanent datum is located along the northsouth treeline that separates the two main portions
of the site. This datum consists of a piece of rebar
pounded nearly flush with the ground and topped
by a plastic surveyor’s cap. The datum is located
at N4968.41, E5080.07. The elevation of the
permanent datum was arbitrarily established as
97.04m (Figure 5.2). A total station was used to
establish grid points for use in the remote sensing
survey as well as to locate excavation unit corners.
Iron spikes were used as unit datums for the
individual excavation units. Elevations at the top of
the spike were determined using the total station,
and a string and line level were used to measure
depths below the particular unit datum. Grid north
was oriented to run perpendicular to the base of the
bluffs that run along the north edge of the site. Grid
north measures approximately 34 degrees west of
magnetic north.
Work during summer 2005 was focused on
ground truthing different types of anomalies in
various areas of the site. Units were generally 1.0
by 2.0m or 1.0 by 3.0m in size. All units were given
alphabetic designations. Table 5.1 summarizes the
location and size information for each unit. Though
eleven unit designations were assigned, only ten of
these were actually excavated.
All plowzone and subplowzone contexts were
put through 1/4 inch screen. Beneath plowzone,
unit excavations were conducted using both
natural and arbitrary levels, depending on the goals
and circumstances of the excavation. Flotation
samples were collected from feature contexts,
where appropriate. Diagnostic or other noteworthy
artifacts were piece-plotted, separately bagged,
and labeled. Excavation level forms were filled out
during the excavation of each level. This form
includes information about sediment texture, color,
disturbance, and inclusions, as well as other
Excavations took place between July 5 and 18,
2005 and were supervised by Dr. Michael
Strezewski of the IPFW Archaeological Survey.
The regular excavation crew consisted of Dr.
Donald Gaff and Dr. Christopher Andres, Joshua
Wells, Brian Somers, Heath Fire, and Michael
Hughes of the IPFW Archaeological Survey.
Additional volunteer work was offered by Dr.
James R. Jones III and Christopher Koeppel of the
Indiana Department of Natural Resources,
Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology
and students from the National Science
Foundation Research Experience for
Undergraduates students who were participating
in the IPFW-AS program at Strawtown, Indiana.
Christopher Baas of the Indiana Department of
Natural Resources, Division of Engineering was
periodically present throughout the excavation as
well.
UNIT EXCAVATIONS
Excavations at 12-T-59 were designed to “ground
truth” the results of the remote sensing survey
conducted in June and July 2005 (see Chapter 4).
Ten excavation units totaling 20.75m2 were
excavated (Figure 5.1). Horizontal and vertical
control was maintained using an electronic total
station. The station was placed on grid by
resectioning using two semi-permanent datums
consisting of an aluminum nail pounded into the
ground. These datums were situated at the
northern edge of the site, and are located at grid
coordinates N4997.04, E4966.97 and N5015.20,
E5030.41. The first of the two is located beneath
a silver maple tree (approximately 45cm ENE of
the trunk), while the second is at the very edge of
75
Figure 5.1. Location of excavation units B through K, summer 2005.
Subsurface investigations: 12-T-59
76
Subsurface investigations: 12-T-59
77
Figure 5.2. Datum locations, 12-T-59.
observations.
Treatment of subsoil anomalies (features,
postholes, and potential features/postholes) varied
depending on the size, characteristics, and depth of
the anomaly in question. Standard excavation
procedures (cross-sectioning, profiling, drawing,
photographing, and collection of flotation samples)
were employed to investigate anomalies that
seemed likely to be of cultural origin. Potential
postholes were cross-sectioned.
The following chapter is broken down into
three sections. The first section, unit descriptions,
provides information on unit location, the
circumstances of its excavation, the materials
located within that particular unit, and any features
that were identified. Detailed descriptions of each
feature are provided in the second section. The
final section of the chapter focuses on the results of
the limited shovel probing and metal detecting
conducted at 12-T-59.
Unit Descriptions
The following are descriptions of the size, location,
general stratigraphy, and excavation procedures
followed for each ground-truthing unit excavated
at 12-T-59. General descriptions of prehistoric
and historic period artifact density and type are
outlined within this section. More specific
descriptions of the artifact assemblage can be
found in Chapter 6. Features found within each unit
are also briefly described. More detailed
information on each feature can be found in the
following section. Materials recovered from each
unit are summarized in Table 5.2.
Unit A
This unit was laid out with the total station but was
not excavated. It was to have been a north-south
oriented unit 1.0 by 2.0m in size, with the
Subsurface investigations: 12-T-59
78
Table 5.1. Summary of Excavated Units at 12-T-59.
Unit
D ime ns ions
Orie ntation
SW Corne r
Total Are a (m2)
B
1.0 by 3.0m
N- S
N4884, E5067
3.0
C
D
1.0 by 2.0m
1.0 by 3.0m
N- S
E- W
N4861, E4881
N4944, E5006
2.0
3.0
E
1.0 by 3.0m
E- W
N4870, E5046
3.0
F
G
1.0 by 2.0m
1.0 by 1.0m
N- S
-
N4862, E4892
N4864, E4893
2.0
1.0
H
1.0 by 2.0m
N- S
2.0
I
(irregular)
-
J
K
L
1.0 by 1.0m
1.0 by 1.0m
1.0 by 2.0m
E- W
N4942, E5011
NW corner @
N4865.5, E4894.5
N4864.5, E4894.5
N5001, E4960
N4861, E4882
southwest corner at N4938, E4939. The location
of the unit was designed to bisect a wide linear
anomaly. After similar anomalies were found to be
non-cultural, plans to open this unit were
abandoned.
0.75
1.0
1.0
2.0
additional two levels, down to a depth of 57cmbd,
at which point nearly sterile silty gravel was
reached and excavation was terminated. Small
amounts of prehistoric material were found
through levels 4 and 5 (e.g., 19 pieces of debitage
and 2 fire-cracked rock in level 5), but the
Unit B
frequency of such materials had dropped off
significantly relative to levels 1 through 3. Though
Unit B was a north-south oriented 1.0 by 3.0m a fair amount of prehistoric cultural material was
unit. Its southwest corner was located at N4884, recovered from this unit (see Table 5.2), no
E5067. The entire unit was excavated down to the features were identified.
base of level 3 (approximately 36cmbs). Though
The Unit B profile (Figure 5.3) is
prehistoric materials were present within the first representative of the soil profile in many areas of
three levels (e.g., 2 prehistoric grit tempered the site. The top soil stratum consisted of a dark,
sherds, 206 pieces of debitage, and 5 non- thick, homogenous silt loam that likely formed in
diagnostic chert tools), historic period materials of prairie. The base of the plowzone was nearly or
interest were few. The only eighteenth century completely indistinguishable in profile. In planview,
historic materials recovered from the first three the base of the plowzone was distinguished by a
levels were a white clay pipestem, three wrought slight change in texture rather than color. Beneath
iron nails, and a piece of window glass. Due to the this homogenous dark brown silt was gravel or a
virtual absence of historic period materials in this gravel/silt mix.
unit, it was decided (following consultation with
Dr. James R. Jones III, Indiana State Unit C
Archaeologist) that only the southern 1.0m of Unit
B would be taken down any farther. Excavations This 1.0 by 2.0m unit was oriented with its long axis
in the southern 1.0m were continued for an running north-south. The southwest corner of the
Subsurface investigations: 12-T-59
79
Table 5.2. Number of Artifacts by Provenience, 12-T-59.
His toric
Prove nie nce
Pre his toric
Ce ramic Glas s M e tal
M ine ral Chinking
/ Stone (g)
Ce ramic
FCR Grounds tone Lithic
Fauna Flora
(g)
(g)
Rock
Metal Detecting -
1
27
3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Shovel Probe
-
3
8
2
-
6
4
-
58
0.8
0.2
-
Surface
1
4
2
1
-
3
1
1
11
-
-
-
Unit B
2
2
3
-
-
2
50
-
249
14.6
-
-
Unit C
2
18
27
1
254.1
-
122
-
74
5.7
0.4
-
Unit D
-
1
-
-
-
19
43
1
458
-
0.2
2
Unit E
1
7
-
-
-
10
58
1
434
7.4
4.5
3
Unit F
-
3
5
8
-
-
36
1
56
1.9
-
1
Unit G
1
2
6
6
-
-
10
-
27
0.5
-
2
Units G, I, and J -
1
-
8
-
-
-
-
6
0.1
1.5
-
Unit H
-
-
1
-
-
22
34
-
304
0.2
0.3
3
Unit I
1
2
7
-
-
-
13
-
19
0.2
0.7
-
Unit J
1
-
6
5
-
-
14
-
25
1.1
-
-
Unit K
-
-
-
-
-
70
65
-
716
2.2
1.6
-
Unit L
4
22
40
-
699.0
-
79
-
77
7.3
1.3
1
Total
13
66
132
34
953.1
132
529
4
2514
42.0
10.7
12
unit was at N4861, E4881. This unit was placed in
order to test a large complex dipolar anomaly
identified in the magnetometry survey data.
Stratigraphy in Unit C differed greatly from that of
Unit B. Unlike Unit B in which deep, dark prairie
soils were encountered, the dark soils in Unit C
extended only to the base of the plowzone, circa
20 to 25cm below surface (Figures 5.4 and 5.5).
The absence of the thick, dark prairie soil in this
portion of the site is likely due to its proximity to a
low area that lies just to the south of 12-T-59.
According to Prophetstown State Park personnel
and other informants familiar with the immediate
area, this low area is frequently flooded. Scouring
due to this flooding is evident, as B horizon gravels
are present on the surface immediately to the south
of Unit C. Numerous prehistoric and historic
artifacts lie on the surface in this area, suggesting
that flood scouring is eroding out archaeological
features on the southern edge of the site.
Eighteenth-century materials recovered from
levels 1 and 2 of Unit C (Table 5.2) were abundant,
consisting of window glass, bottle fragments, hand
wrought nails and tacks, brass tacks, and over
250g of fired chinking fragments. Also found in this
unit was over 20kg of rock, consisting of fist-sized
river cobbles, many of which had been exposed to
fire. These rocks were all found within the first two
levels, that is, within the plowzone and were
therefore not in primary context. The rocks in Unit
C are interpreted as possibly related to a fireplace
and/or chimney from the structure identified in Unit
L (see below). French colonial structures at Ste.
Genevieve, Missouri were often built with stone
fireplaces (Ekberg 1985:301), which could be
constructed both in the center of the structure and
Subsurface investigations: 12-T-59
80
Figure 5.3. Unit B, east profile wall.
along the wall perimeter. It is possible that the
numerous chinking fragments identified in levels 1
and 2 were also related to this fireplace and
chimney. It is likely that the complex dipolar
anomaly that was detected via magnetometry was
a result of the large quantity of cobbles present in
the unit. Prehistoric materials were also present in
the first two levels of Unit C and consisted of 73
pieces of debitage and 1 nonformal uniface.
At the base of level 2, numerous plowscars
were encountered but no cultural features could be
discerned. Soils were a homogenous dark
yellowish brown sand, with pockets of gravel
identified. It was decided to take the unit down one
additional level to check for additional cultural
remains. Level 3 of Unit C was completely sterile,
confirming the fact that the sand and gravel
contained no cultural materials. The unit was
terminated at this point.
Unit D
Unit D was a 1.0 by 3.0m unit in the central portion
of the site. It was oriented with its long axis eastwest. The southwest corner of the unit lay at
N4944, E5006. This unit was chosen to test a
circular monopolar positive anomaly and possible
structure wall.
At the base of level 1 (the base of the
plowzone) an anomaly of unknown origin was
exposed (Figure 5.6). It consisted of an oval stain
that was only slightly darker than the surrounding
silt. Few artifacts were noted in this stain other than
a piece of ocher, two grit-tempered sherds and
one piece of debitage. As cultural material was
found in this level throughout the unit, little
interpretive value is placed in the presence of these
materials within the stain. Its relationship to the site
is uncertain and it may be the result of bioturbation.
This is likely not the feature that was detected by
the magnetometer, as it appeared to be only an
ephemeral stain containing virtually no cultural
material.
Artifacts remained plentiful throughout levels 1
through 3. Items recovered were almost
exclusively prehistoric and included over 400
Subsurface investigations: 12-T-59
Figure 5.4. Unit C, west profile wall.
Figure 5.5. Photograph of Unit C, west profile (note shallow plowzone).
81
Subsurface investigations: 12-T-59
82
Figure 5.6. Unit D, base of level 1.
pieces of debitage, chert cores, fire-cracked rock,
and non-diagnostic bifaces and unifaces. Diagnostic
materials consisted of a Steuben Expanded
Stemmed point and a triangular projectile point,
which are diagnostic of the Middle Woodland and
the Late Prehistoric, respectively (Justice 1987).
The triangular point was found in level 1
(plowzone), while the Steuben point was
recovered from subplowzone contexts (level 2).
Two probable blade fragments were also
recovered, both of which were found in level 2.
Prehistoric ceramics were also recovered in small
numbers and consisted of a number of grit
tempered body sherds, most of which were very
small in size. Those sherds that could be identified
as to surface treatment (n=5) were plain. These
sherds may be related to the Middle Woodland
component at the site, though the absence of
diagnostic rimsherds makes this attribution
tentative.
At the base of level 3 (about 60cmbs), a
concentration of fire-cracked rock (FCR) was
encountered in the north wall of the unit (Feature
4). Apart from the fire-cracked rock, the feature
contained no other cultural materials. Sterile sand
was noted immediately below the FCR
concentration. The unit was terminated at the base
of level 4 (80cmbd) due to the virtual absence of
cultural materials.
Feature 4 may be the circular monopolar
positive feature that was detected in the
magnetometry survey. The linear magnetic
anomaly that was interpreted as a possible
structure wall was not noted during excavation,
Subsurface investigations: 12-T-59
however, and it is possible that this was not a “real”
anomaly. The virtual absence of historic period
materials in Unit D (one recently deposited glass
container fragment was found in the plowzone)
suggests that this area was not one of intense
historic period occupation.
In profile (Figure 5.7), the uppermost soil
stratum in Unit D consisted of dark, deep sandy silt
prairie soils that were also noted in other areas of
the site (e.g., Units B and K). Again, the base of
plowzone was very difficult to distinguish because
of the absence of any significant soil change at the
base of plow. These soils gave way to lighter
colored sandy silts and silty sands from a depth of
approximately 35-40cmbs to the base of the
excavation (80cmbs).
Unit E
Unit E was a 1.0 by 3.0m unit placed in the
southeastern portion of the site, southwest of Unit
B. It was oriented east-west, with its southwest
corner at N4870, E5046. The unit was placed in
this spot to test a large circular-shaped linear
anomaly noted during the magnetometry survey.
The anomaly was thought to be a possible
structure.
Despite the absence of features in levels 1
through 3, prehistoric materials were relatively
abundant and were found in similar quantities in all
first three levels. Materials consisted of over 300
pieces of debitage, a mano, fire-cracked rock, and
three non-diagnostic stone tools. Small amounts of
faunal material were recovered, as well as a single
grit tempered, cordmarked body sherd. The only
historic period materials noted in this unit were all
recently deposited and not part of the occupation
of Prophetstown/Kethtippecanunk. These include
a portion of a clay pigeon and a number of clear
glass container fragments. Historic artifacts were
found only in levels 1 and 2 (i.e., plowzone).
Following the excavation of level 3, the
decision was made to continue excavating only the
easternmost 1.0m2 of the unit in 10cm levels, in
83
order to more quickly understand the stratigraphy
of the site without spending too much time on a unit
without much to offer in terms of materials related
to the historic period occupation.
At the base of level 4 (40cmbs), a feature was
noted in the northeast corner of the unit (Feature 5)
(Figure 5.8). The feature consisted of a circular
stain defined by a light charcoal scatter and slightly
lighter soil than the surrounding dark brown silt
loam. Materials in Feature 5 consisted of two small
grit-tempered sherds, a few pieces of debitage and
FCR, and a small amount of unidentifiable faunal
remains. The frequency of cultural remains
continued to diminish as the excavation proceeded
through levels 4 through 6. Materials consisted of
a few grit tempered sherds, lithic debitage, and a
few fire-cracked rocks. Due to the virtual absence
of artifacts in level 6, the excavation was
terminated at this point (60cmbs).
After the base of the cultural materials was
defined by the excavation of the easternmost 1m2
of Unit E, the westernmost 2m2 of the unit was
removed as a single level (levels 4 through 6). This
portion was removed by shovel scraping in order
to identify any possible features that may have been
present. Artifacts were found in similar frequencies
as that encountered in the easternmost 1m2 of the
unit. No features were encountered in the
westernmost 2m2 of the unit though an Early
Archaic Le Croy projectile point was identified in
non-feature context.
In profile (Figure 5.9), Unit E was similar to
Unit B, immediately to the west. Dark sandy silt
loam soils predominated from the surface to a
depth of 23 to 34cmbs. A change from plowzone
to subplowzone contexts was noted at
approximately 17 to 19cmbs. This was not so
much a change in color but a change in texture
toward slightly more compacted soils. The
subplowzone soils were also slightly more mottled
with some visible evidence of bioturbation in the
form of mottling. A slightly lighter artifact-bearing
stratum of silt lay between about 30 to 40cmbs.
This was followed by a non-artifact-bearing
Subsurface investigations: 12-T-59
Figure 5.7. Unit D, north profile wall.
84
Subsurface investigations: 12-T-59
85
Figure 5.8. Unit E, base of level 4 planview map.
stratum of silt and gravel which began at about
50cmbs and extended to the base of the
excavation.
Unit F
Unit F was opened up in the southwestern portion
of the site, to the east of Unit C. The unit was a 1.0
by 2.0m, north-south oriented unit with its
southwest corner at N4862, E4892. The unit was
opened for two reasons. First, we had
encountered ample eighteenth-century materials in
nearby Unit C and hoped to obtain a larger sample
from the same immediate area. Second, the
magnetometry survey indicated a possible linear
anomaly in this area and Unit F was designed to
cross over this faint anomaly.
The soil profile in Unit F was similar to that
encountered in Unit C, immediately to the west. A
thin, circa 20cm thick plowzone consisting of
sandy silt loam was immediately followed by a
culturally sterile sandy silt with some gravel
content. Again, the absence of the thick prairie
soils in this area is likely due to the unit’s proximity
to a low area to the south that is frequently flooded.
The immediate area around Unit F has likely been
repeatedly scoured as a result. Though no features
were located in the unit, two postholes were
identified (Figure 5.10). Both extended to about
8cm below the base of level 2.
Eighteenth-century historic materials in Unit F
were confined primarily to the plowzone (levels 1
and 2) and consisted of a few fragments of bottle
glass, wrought iron nails and tacks, and a few
Subsurface investigations: 12-T-59
86
Figure 5.9. Unit E, north profile wall.
fragments of chinking and cinders. One notable
artifact found in Unit F was a portion of a brass
trigger guard. Like Unit F, materials that could be
confidently attributed to the prehistoric occupation
of 12-T-59 were found consistently through levels
1 and 2 (i.e., through the plowzone). These
consisted of 51 pieces of debitage and a core. No
prehistoric ceramics were located in the unit. Also
found was nearly 3.5kg of fire-cracked rock, but
this material could not be confidently attributed to
either the historic or prehistoric components.
Artifact densities dropped off to nearly nil in level
3, that is, beneath the plowzone, and excavation
was terminated at this point.
Subsurface investigations: 12-T-59
87
Figure 5.10. Unit F, base of level 2.
Unit G
Unit G was opened in order to follow out the two
postholes identified in Unit F, which lay
immediately to the southwest. Unit G was a 1.0 by
1.0m unit with the southwest corner of the unit at
N4864, E4893. As the nature of the stratigraphy
had been determined from the Unit F excavations,
the entire plowzone in Unit G was taken out as a
single level. A second 5cm level was excavated to
be entirely sure that no cultural remains were
present. Artifacts were nearly absent in this second
Subsurface investigations: 12-T-59
level and a noticeable change in the soil occurred
below the level of the plowzone. Soils became
much sandier and compact.
A fair number of eighteenth-century artifacts
were identified in this unit, though materials were
confined to the plowzone only. Materials consisted
of small amounts of glass and ceramics, handwrought tacks and nails, and cinders. Two notable
artifacts were a plain copper or brass ring and a
small rectangular block of lead. The purpose of the
lead block is unknown. Prehistoric materials found
in Unit G included 30 pieces of lithic debitage.
Other artifacts not attributable to either component
were a small amount of faunal material, a piece of
ocher, and 10 pieces of fire-cracked rock.
A single anomaly containing slightly darker silt
loam soil was identified in the northeast corner of
the unit at the base of level 2. The anomaly was
given a feature number (Feature 1) and two
additional units (Units I and J) were excavated to
follow it out. After it was completely exposed in
planview and bisected it became clear that Feature
1 was a rodent burrow and not cultural in origin.
Unit G stratigraphy was identical to that
identified in Unit F (see above) and consisted of a
20cm silt loam plowzone followed by more
compact dark brown sandy silt that was devoid of
cultural materials.
Unit H
This unit was a 1.0 by 2.0m unit in the central
portion of the site, just east of Unit D. It was
oriented north-south with the southwest corner of
the unit at N4942, E5011. Unit H was excavated
in order to investigate a large, circular monopolar
positive anomaly that was noted during the
magnetometry survey.
Prehistoric materials were abundant in the first
two levels of this unit, extending to approximately
50cmbs. Materials excavated in non-feature
context within levels 1 and 2 included 172 pieces
of debitage, chert cores, fire-cracked rock, and
grit tempered sherds. These sherds included three
rims. Two of the three fit within the description of
88
Albee ceramics (Redmond and McCullough
2000) while the temporal designation of the third
could not be determined. Other non-feature
diagnostics include four Late Prehistoric triangular
projectile points, and a heavily resharpened
Middle Archaic Raddatz Side Notched point. A
single historic artifact was identified in this unit, a
heavily rusted piece of wire or a bent nail. This
artifact cannot be confidently attributed to the
occupation of Kethtippecanunk.
At the base of level 2 (50cmbs), a cultural
anomaly was identified (Figure 5.11) and was
designated Feature 2. Although running into the
west wall of the unit, the feature appeared to be
oval in planview, consisting of a darker inner core
area, surrounded by a more diffuse zone, possibly
due to bioturbation. Excavation of the feature
indicated that it was a prehistoric pit with an
irregular U-shaped profile. Materials recovered
from the pit included small amounts of both shell
and grit tempered ceramics, lithic debitage, a core,
and an unrefined biface. The absence of highly
diagnostic materials makes the temporal designation
of the feature difficult, though the presence of shell
tempered ceramics suggests that it may date to a
Mississippian-related Late Prehistoric component.
Though Feature 2 is likely the reason for the
circular magnetic anomaly detected during the
magnetometer survey, its strong signal is difficult to
explain. The feature did not contain large amounts
of ceramics, fire-cracked rock, or burned soil that
would leave a large magnetic signature but was
nonetheless visible using remote sensing. Its signal
may therefore have been due to the presence of soil
with a greater magnetic susceptibility within the pit
proper.
Excavation continued through an additional
two levels (50 to 70cmbs) in order to determine if
artifact densities dropped off below the silt loam
stratum. Artifact counts were quite low in level 3
and dropped off to practically nil in level 4 of the
unit (n=2 pieces of debitage). The unit was
terminated at this point. A total of 6 postholes was
positively identified in levels 3 and 4 of Unit H
(Figures 5.11 and 5.12). They form a roughly
Subsurface investigations: 12-T-59
Figure 5.11. Unit H, base of level 2 planview map.
89
Subsurface investigations: 12-T-59
Figure 5.12. Unit H, base of level 3 planview map.
90
Subsurface investigations: 12-T-59
linear pattern, running from the southwest to the
northeast.
In profile, Unit H was similar to Unit D, to the
west. The top 36cm of soil consisted of very dark
brown silt loam. The base of the plowzone was
impossible to demarcate in profile. From about 36
to approximately 60cmbs, a transitional zone was
identified that contained a mixture of soils from
above and below. Feature 2 was identified at the
top of this transitional zone and could not be traced
any higher in profile, likely due to the dark color of
the prairie soils. The deepest soil stratum ran from
approximately 60cmbs to the base of the
excavation at 114cmbs. This consisted of
yellowish brown silty sand. Gravel was not
encountered at the base of this unit as was found in
units farther to the south.
Units I and J
Units I and J were two small units that were opened
up to the northeast of Unit G in order to follow out
a soil anomaly detected in Unit G. Unit I was a
0.75m2 irregularly-shaped unit adjoining Unit G
(Figure 5.13). Its northwest corner lay at
N4865.5, E4893.5. Unit J was a 1.0 by 1.0m unit
immediately to the west of I. Its southwest corner
was at N4864.5, E4894.5. Since both units were
excavated in the same manner and were
immediately adjacent to one another, they will be
described together.
Like units C, G, and L nearby, Units I and J
contained ample amounts of eighteenth century
historic period materials. These included two
fragments of historic ceramics, two glass container
fragments, wrought iron nails and iron fragments,
and cinders. Prehistoric materials were also found
in these two units. Materials included about 40
pieces of debitage, and two cores. No diagnostic
prehistoric artifacts were found. About 700g of
fire-cracked rock were recovered from these two
units, though this artifact category cannot be
confidently attributed to either the historic or
prehistoric components.
After Units I and J were brought to the base of
91
level 2, a complete planview of Feature 1 was
exposed. Unfortunately, the feature appeared to
be a rodent burrow in planview and after bisection,
this suspicion was confirmed. The soil profile for
Units I and J was the same as that encountered in
Unit G (see above).
Unit K
Unit K was a 1.0 by 1.0m unit that was placed on
the northern periphery of the site, on the sandy
ridges that lie near the base of the bluffs. In previous
years, historic period artifacts had been noted on
the surface in this area while it had been under
cultivation (James R. Jones III, personal
communication 2005) and a single unit was
undertaken to investigate this possibility. The
southwest corner of Unit K was at N5001, E4960.
The unit was excavated in 10cm levels for a total of
nine levels.
No historic period materials were recovered
from Unit K. However, prehistoric materials were
found in consistently fair quantities in levels 1
through 8. At least 100 chipped stone artifacts, for
example, were encountered in each of the first four
levels of the unit. This dropped off slightly in levels
5 through 8. From 44 to 78 chipped stone artifacts
were encountered in each of these levels. At level
9, the artifact density dropped off (14 chipped
stone artifacts), and the unit was terminated at this
point. A similar pattern was encountered with the
density of prehistoric ceramics and fire-cracked
rock. Prehistoric ceramics encountered in Unit K
were primarily grit-tempered (n=64), though
shell-tempered ceramics were also encountered
(n=6). All of the ceramics in the unit were body
sherds. The only diagnostic artifact located in the
unit was a Late Prehistoric spike drill of the type
commonly found in Oliver and Fort Ancient
contexts to the south and southeast (McCullough
et al. 2004:137; Railey 1992:145).
In profile (Figure 5.14), Unit K was somewhat
different than the other units at 12-T-59. Sandy
soils predominate near the base of the bluff, and
Unit K reflects the soils noted in this area. The
Subsurface investigations: 12-T-59
92
Figure 5.13. Units G, I, and J, level 2 planview map.
uppermost stratum of Unit K consisted of a dark
grayish brown sandy loam that extended to about
35 to 40cmbs. It was in this stratum that the
greatest density of materials was encountered.
Beneath this lay a transitional zone of darker brown
sandy loam mottled with yellow sand. This zone
extended to about 65cmbs. It likely represents a
zone of bioturbation that lay beneath the cultural
zone. Artifacts were found in moderate quantities
within this zone. The third soil stratum identified in
Unit K was a zone of nearly pure yellow sand, with
evidence of numerous root disturbances. This
continued through the base of the excavation.
Artifact quantities remained moderate in the
uppermost portion of this stratum, declining
sharply toward the base of the excavation. This
Subsurface investigations: 12-T-59
Figure 5.14. Unit K, south profile map.
93
Subsurface investigations: 12-T-59
stratum likely represents relatively undisturbed
sands.
Unit L
Unit L was a 1.0 by 2.0m unit running east-west.
Its southwest corner was at N4861, E4882, near
the southwest portion of the site. Unit L directly
abutted the eastern wall of Unit C, previously
excavated. This unit was opened up to further
investigate the complex dipolar anomaly that was
partially explored in Unit C. Since no intact
subsurface remains of the anomaly were found in
the Unit C excavations, it was hoped that an
additional unit would find a portion of the anomaly
that had remained undisturbed by the plow.
At the base of the plowzone (i.e., the base of
level 1) a linear feature was defined (Figure 5.15).
The feature (Feature 3) ran east-west and
numerous eighteenth century artifacts were
associated with it at the base of plow, including a
large quantity of chinking, a nail, and a piece of
melted bottle glass. It is believed to be the wall of
a structure, possibly a portion of a poteaux-enterre structure typical of French colonial
settlements in the Midcontinent (Ekberg 1985).
Unfortunately, Feature 3 was identified at the end
of the field season and since there was no time to
responsibly explore it and expand our excavation,
it was decided that Feature 3 would be fully
documented and backfilled for future investigators.
Eighteenth-century historic materials recovered
in the plowzone of Unit L included two white clay
pipestems, two ceramic fragments, melted
container and window glass, brass tacks, hand
wrought nails and tacks, a hand wrought iron
spike, and about 700g of chinking fragments.
Additional historic artifacts of note were a portion
of a drawer pull and a piece of brass identified as
a part of a padlock.
Like all areas investigated at 12-T-59, Unit L
revealed ample evidence for prehistoric occupation
as well. Of the single level excavated in this unit, 74
pieces of debitage were recovered, as well as two
bifaces, and a chert core. Fire-cracked rock was
94
also recovered in large quantities (nearly 5kg). This
rock may be related to the probable chimney fall
identified in adjacent Unit C. All of the FCR was
found in the plowzone and therefore in secondary
contexts. A“manuport” was also found on top of
the wall trench feature, at the base of the plowzone.
This consisted of a large, flat rock weighing nearly
3kg. Like Unit C, the magnetic anomaly detected
in Unit L is likely due to the presence of ample
quantities of fire-cracked rock and fired chinking.
In profile, Unit L was identical to Unit C, described
above.
Feature Descriptions
Feature 1
Feature 1 was identified in Units G, I , and J (see
Figure 5.13). In plan, Feature 1 was linear, running
east-west, and fairly distinct from the surrounding
dark brown (10YR3/3) subsoil matrix as a dark
yellowish brown (10YR3/4) stain with charcoal
flecks. In planview, Feature 1 was approximately
1.8m east-west and varied from 15 to 45cm in
width.
Feature 1 was cross sectioned, with the south
half removed and screened through 1/4" mesh.
The north wall of the feature was profiled (Figure
5.16). In profile, Feature 1 was irregular in shape,
extending to varying depths at different locations.
From its morphology and contents, it appears that
Feature 1 is a rodent burrow. The presence of
charcoal flecking and cultural materials can be
attributed to the collapse or silting in of the burrow
and the accidental inclusion of materials that were
originally found in the plowzone. Overall, Feature
1 was nearly devoid of cultural materials. A small
amount of lithic debitage (n=6), historic slag (n=8),
and brown glass (n=1) were the only contents.
Feature 2
Feature 2 was identified in the west wall of Unit H
at the base of level 3, at the point at which the dark
brown prairie soils gave way to lighter colored silts
Subsurface investigations: 12-T-59
Figure 5.15. Unit L, Feature 3 planview map.
95
Subsurface investigations: 12-T-59
Figure 5.16. Feature 1 profile map.
(see Figure 5.11). In plan, Feature 2 was a partially
exposed circular-to-oval very dark brown
(10YR2/2) stain fairly distinct from the surrounding
brown (10YR4/3) matrix. The exposed half of
Feature 2 measured 105cm north-south and a
minimum of 40cm east-west.
Feature 2 was bisected with the southeast
quarter removed and screened through 1/4" mesh.
The north wall of the feature was profiled (Figure
5.17). Feature 2 was again profiled within the Unit
H west wall. In profile, Feature 2 was a deep,
bowl-shaped stain with four distinct zones. Zone 1,
the main portion of the feature, consisted of very
96
dark brown (10YR2/2)
silt. Zone 1 was underlain
by Zone 4, a very dark
brown (10YR2/2) sandy
silt. Zone 4 was of similar
color to Zone 1, but had a
greater sand content. It
may represent an early
dumping episode.
Zone 2 consists of
two small pockets of
yellowish brown silty
sand (10YR5/6) with
mottles of very dark
brown (10YR2/2), both
near the base of Zone 1.
Both pockets were much
lighter in color than the
feature proper and may
be the result of
bioturbation. Zone 3 is a
small pocket of
bioturbation consisting of
very dark grayish brown
(10YR3/2) silty sand.
A flotation sample
was taken from the
northeast quarter of
Feature 2, and the
remainder of the eastern
half of the feature passed
through 1/4" mesh. The western half of the feature
was left in the western wall of Unit H. The western
profile of the feature (Figure 5.18) shows no sign
of any infilling episodes, but it does illustrate the fact
that the outline of the feature only became apparent
at the point at which the dark silt loam prairie soils
began to transition into lighter colored silty sands.
It was only at this point that the feature could be
distinguished from the dark prairie soils that lay
above it. For this reason, the point of origin for
Feature 2 could not be distinguished in profile. It is
possible that earlier levels in Unit H unknowingly
cut through the feature, but that the feature outline
Subsurface investigations: 12-T-59
Figure 5.17. Unit H, Feature 2 profile.
97
Subsurface investigations: 12-T-59
Figure 5.18. Unit H, west profile wall, showing Feature 2.
98
Subsurface investigations: 12-T-59
could not be distinguished due to an absence of
contrast between the feature fill and the
surrounding dark soils.
From its morphology it appears that Feature 2
was a storage or processing pit that extended to
approximately 115cm below surface. Though its
original function is unclear, the pit appears to have
been ultimately used for refuse. All cultural material
recovered was prehistoric in nature and consisted
of lithic debitage (n=97), ceramics (n=2), firecracked rock (n=6), and small amounts of burned
bone. A single chert core and an unrefined biface
were also identified. Though no highly diagnostic
artifacts were recovered from Feature 2, both
shell- and grit-tempered ceramics were identified,
suggesting that it may date to the Mississippianrelated Late Prehistoric component at the site. The
presence of two Albee rims and four triangular
projectile points in non-feature contexts within
Unit H indicates that the Albee and Late
Prehistoric components at 12-T-59 are probable
candidates for Feature 2.
99
mapped and photographed, but was not
excavated (Figure 5.19). However, a variety of
artifacts was recovered from the plowzone and the
surface of the feature, including burned chinking,
glass, tacks, nails, furniture parts, firearm parts,
and charcoal. Nearly 5kg of fire-cracked rock
was recovered from the plowzone overlying
Feature 3, and may be a continuation of the
possible chimney collapse that was identified in
Unit C, immediately to the west of Unit L.
The amount of material, especially chinking,
suggests this was a wall trench and adjacent
chimney/hearth, possibly associated with a
traditional French poteaux-en-terre structure.
Poteaux-en-terre dwellings, which were the most
popular type of ethnic French house in the
Midcontinent, were constructed by digging a
rectangular-shaped trench, into which dressed
logs were placed vertically. The gaps between the
logs were commonly filled with bouzillage, a
chinking made of clay and straw. Whitewash was
applied to the exterior to seal the walls. The
structure would have been roofed with either
Feature 3
thatch or shingles. More substantial houses would
have been surrounded by a gallery (Ekberg
Feature 3 was identified in the floor of Unit L at the 1985:286-287; Walthall and Benchley 1987:27).
base of level 1 (see Figure 5.15). In plan, Feature Poteaux-en-terre houses often had interior
3 covered nearly half of the unit floor, consisting of chimneys, sometimes constructed of stone
three zones with concentrations of historic material (Ekberg 1985:301). It is thought that Feature 3
present in plan. Zone A, the largest zone, was most likely represents the trench dug for the
defined as a dark brown (10YR3/3) sandy silt insertion of posts.
loam with dark yellowish brown (10YR3/6)
mottles and light charcoal >1cm. Zone B extended Feature 4
into the north wall of Unit L and was defined by
dark brown (10YR3/3) sandy silt loam with light Feature 4 was identified in the north wall of Unit D
charcoal >1cm. Zone B also contained numerous at the base of level 3 (see Figure 5.7). In plan
fired chinking fragments of strong brown color (Figure 5.20), Feature 4 was a partially-exposed
(7.5YR4/6), this being the major difference circular concentration of fire-cracked rock
between Zones A and B. Zone C was a smaller surrounded by brown (10YR4/3) silty sand. No
pocket of very dark grayish brown (10YR3/2) variation was noted in soil color or texture within
sandy silt loam with dark yellowish brown the fire-cracked rock concentration.
(10YR3/6) mottles. Zone C was more
Feature 4 was mapped and the rocks
homogenous with less mottling than Zone A.
removed. Sterile sand was found immediately
Due to time constraints and the limited goals of below the FCR concentration. Unit D, level 4 was
the project, Feature 3 was exposed in plan, excavated with no additional cultural material
Subsurface investigations: 12-T-59
100
Unit E at the base of level 4,
approximately 40cmbs (see
Figure 5.8). In plan,
Feature 5 soils were very
dark brown (10YR2/2) silt,
with moderate amounts of
charcoal both >1cm and
<1cm in size. The
surrounding matrix was
very dark brown to very
dark grayish brown
(10YR2.5/2) silt loam.
Feature 5 was excavated
separately within level 5 of
Unit E and screened through
1/4" mesh. Feature 5
appears in the north wall
profile of Unit E as a pocket
of charcoal surrounded by a
homogenous brown silt
loam (see Figure 5.9). The
feature outline could not be
further traced outside of the
charcoal limits. It may have
originated higher up in the
profile, but the dark prairie
soils would have obscured
the pit outline in the absence
of charcoal.
A minimal number of
artifacts were recovered
including grit-tempered
sherds (n=2), fire-cracked
Figure 5.19. Photograph of Feature 3, possible wall trench.
rock (n=3), and lithic
recovered in the immediate area of the feature. No debitage (n=6). From its morphology and
soil staining was noted at the base of level 4. contents, it appears that Feature 5 was a
Feature 4 appears in the Unit D north profile as a prehistoric firepit associated with either the Middle
concentration of fire-cracked rock at the juncture Woodland or Albee components at the site.
of two soil strata (see Figure 5.7). The absence of
diagnostic cultural material in Feature 4 makes it
difficult to associate it with a particular component.
SHOVEL PROBING AND METAL DETECTING
Feature 5
Feature 5 was identified in the northeast corner of
A limited amount of shovel probing and metal
detector probing was undertaken during the
course of investigations at 12-T-59. Probes and
Subsurface investigations: 12-T-59
101
Figure 5.20. Unit E, base of level 3, showing Feature 4.
metal detecting were undertaken to answer
specific questions about portions of the site in
advance of excavation.
A total of seven shovel test probes was
excavated with the intent of identifying the cultural
context of particular geophysical anomalies
(Figure 5.21).
Each shovel probe was
approximately 30cm in diameter and extended to
approximately 30cm below the surface. Soil from
each of the shovel probes was screened through 1/
4" mesh, and all cultural materials were bagged
separately.
Shovel Probing Results
Two locations were chosen for shovel test probes.
Four probes were excavated in a square pattern on
the east-central portion of the site, within one 20 by
20m square. These probes were excavated in
order to investigate a large linear anomaly that was
thought to be the result of a fence from an enclosed
area. There was interest in knowing if an
eighteenth-century fence or enclosure of some sort
might have been the cause of the anomaly.
Materials recovered from the four probes were
Subsurface investigations: 12-T-59
102
Figure 5.21. Location of screened shovel probes.
entirely prehistoric, however, and included chert
debitage (n=48), fire-cracked rock (n=4), and
grit-tempered sherds (n=5). One of these sherds
was an Albee rim/neck sherd. A blade-like flake
was also recovered, but the blade-like shape of the
flake is thought to be unintentional.
The remaining three probes were located
close together in the southeast portion of the
project area. All three were placed in this area to
test a large ferrous anomaly which was thought to
be a probable structure and associated dump. Test
probes confirmed that the anomalies in question
were likely the remains of a recent historic barn and
garbage dump immediately south of it. Materials
recovered include chert debitage (n=9), faunal
remains (0.8g), a cinder (n=1), ferrous metal
(n=11) (including a wire nail), an English gunflint
(n=1), and a grit tempered sherd (n=1). With the
exception of the gunflint, sherd, and debitage, all
the artifacts from these three probes are likely the
result of recent trash dumping.
Metal Detecting Results
A total of 22 metal detector probes (Figure 5.22)
was excavated in five general locations within the
project area to investigate particular ferrous metalrich areas that were detected with the
magnetometer (Table 5.3). Ferrous metal could be
the result of either the Kethtippecanunk/
Prophetstown occupation or more recent
activities, and magnetometry is not able to
distinguish between the two. Limited metal
detecting was used as an additional means of
testing ferrous metal prior to excavation in order to
avoid digging areas of recent trash deposition. All
soils in the metal detector probes were trowel
sorted and subjected to a close-range detector to
remove ferrous metal debris but were not
otherwise screened.
Group A
Four probes were excavated in the northwest
portion of the project area, near coordinates
N5000, E4840. This spot was identified by Dale
and Sue Gibson, who have lived for many years on
the blufftop just above the site, and have a
collection of eighteenth century artifacts that were
reportedly found on the surface in this general area.
Materials recovered during metal detecting
included three hand wrought iron nails and a
copper/brass fragment, confirming the presence of
materials likely related to the occupation of
Kethtippecanunk/Prophetstown.
Subsurface investigations: 12-T-59
103
Figure 5.22. Location of metal detector probes.
house-like anomaly that was detected via
magnetometry. Materials recovered include an
Seven probes were excavated in the southwest unidentified piece of ferrous metal, a portion of a
portion of the project area within the vicinity of possible hand wrought nail, and a hand wrought
N4860, E4900. These probes were conducted in nail. Two units (Units D and H) were placed in this
order to examine the general area surrounding the immediate area, both over monopolar positive
probable structure/collapsed chimney that was anomalies. Though ample prehistoric materials
identified in Units C and L. One of the probes, were found in both units, historic period artifacts
located at N4863, E4882 recovered an English were few, indicating that the two positive metal
Masonic fob seal with a coat-of-arms dating from detector probes in this area may represent isolated
1717 to 1813 (see Chapter 6). This artifact was pieces of eighteenth-century debris.
located at the northeast corner of Unit C, prior to
its excavation. Artifacts found about 20m west of Group D
Units C and L included a cinder, two hand wrought
nails, a portion of possible barrel strap, and an Seven probes were placed in the southeast portion
unidentified flat piece of iron. Two other probes to of the project area, around point N4880, E 5080.
the southeast of Units C and L located a wrought The two eastern probes were undertaken to test
iron nail and a large hook. These seven probes two large complex dipolar anomalies that
confirmed the presence of Kethtippecanunk/ appeared to be a structure or enclosure and an
Prophetstown related materials within a 20m associated garbage dumping area. Though the
radius of the probable structure located in Units C strong metallic signature of both anomalies
and L.
suggested that they were likely recent in origin,
three metal detector probes were conducted help
Group C
answer this question. The northern of the two, near
the “wall” of the structure, uncovered a recent wire
Two other metal detector probes were placed nail, while the southern probe revealed an
within the north-central portion of the project area aluminum beer can and a piece of wire.
The five western probes in Group D were
around N4960, E5000. These probes were
placed in order to test the area near a rectangular undertaken to investigate a rectangular magnetic
Group B
Subsurface investigations: 12-T-59
104
Table 5.3. Location and Contents of Metal Detector Probes.
Group
Coordinate s
Conte nts
A
N 4999.2, E4840.2
1 hand wrought nail
N 4998.8, E4840.4
1 hand wrought nail
N 4998.0, E4840.7
N 4997.8, E4840.3
1 copper/brass (kettle?) fragment
1 hand wrought nail
N 4863.0, E4882.0
Masonic seal, 1 cinder
N 4867.6, E4898.2
1 unidentified iron frag.
N 4867.1, E4899.1
2 unidentified iron frag.
N 4856.9, E4898.9
1 hand wrought nail
N 4842.1, E4898.1
N 4866.9, E4900.1
N 4866.6, E4900.7
N 4975.0, E4992.0
N 4949.5, E5005.3
N 4862.0, E5041.0
N 4878.0, E5096.0
N 4887.7, E5059.6
N 4887.7, E5059.0
N 4881.4, E5060.5
N 4883.7, E5061.0
N 4916.0, E5096.0
N 4967.3, E5134.5
N 4967.2, E5131.5
1 hand wrought hook
1 hand wrought nail, 1 cinder
1 hand wrought nail, 1 chinking frag.
1 unidentified iron frag.
1 hand wrought nail
1 wire nail
1 beer can, 1 iron wire frag.
1 beer can
1 unidentified iron frag.
1 hand wrought nail
1 0.55 cal musket ball
1 wire nail
1 iron wire frag.
1 iron wire frag
B
C
D
E
anomaly that was thought to be a possible
structure. Ferrous anomalies were also noted in
this area and it was uncertain if these were related
to a recent structure and trash dump immediately to
the east or to the occupation of Kethtippecanunk/
Prophetstown. The southernmost probe of this
group revealed a modern wire nail. However, the
other four probes indicated materials of interest
were present in the area. One probe contained a
recent beer can, but other materials included an
unfired .55 caliber lead ball, a hand wrought iron
nail, and a piece of flat iron that may be a portion
of a strike-a-light. Units B and E were placed in this
general area to test for the presence of historic
structures and/or fences. However, neither unit
contained much in the way of eighteenth-century
historic features or materials.
Group E
Finally, two probes were placed in the northeast
portion of the project area around coordinates
N4965, E5130. Like the four shovel probes
placed immediately to the south, these two metal
detector probes were conducted to test a large
rectangular anomaly that was thought to be a
possible fenced-in area. The metal detector
probes were designed to test if the anomaly was of
recent or archaeological origin. Both probes
revealed pieces of metal wire, suggesting that the
rectangular anomaly was likely a relatively recent
fenceline, possibly an enclosed area for keeping in
animals.
CHAPTER 6
CULTURAL MATERIALS FROM 12-T-59
LABORATORY METHODS
Artifacts collected during investigations at 12-T59 were washed in water and dried at room
temperature. Accession and catalog numbers
were applied and artifacts were bagged. Artifact
identification was conducted by Michael Strezewski
and Dorothea McCullough. Upon completion of
this project, all project-related documentation and
materials from 12-T-59 will be curated at the
Indiana State Museum in Indianapolis, Indiana
under accession number 71.19.784.1. A total of
413 catalog numbers was assigned.
MATERIALS FROM SITE 12-T-59
Surface collection, shovel testing, and excavations
at 12-T-59 resulted in the collection of 3,427
historic and prehistoric artifacts, including 2,514
pieces of chipped stone, 132 prehistoric ceramics,
4 nonchipped stone tools, 529 pieces of firecracked rock, 249 historic artifacts, and 42.0g of
faunal remains. The purpose of this section is to
describe the general characteristics of the more
noteworthy of these artifacts. Discussion of the
prehistoric artifacts will emphasize chipped stone
tools and ceramics.
Chipped Stone
The chipped stone assemblage was divided into
two primary categories, debitage and tools. All
materials that were the result of flintknapping, but
did not show macroscopic signs of having been
further modified or used were considered
“debitage.” Although not quantified, the presence
of the full range of debitage types indicates that all
stages of toolmaking had taken place on site, from
raw material to finished tool. All of the debitage
from 12-T-59 was counted, weighed, and
catalogued (n=2,451, g=1,638.3). A subsample
of the debitage was examined as part of the chert
type analyis (described below).
The other primary sorting category, “tools,”
includes all of the lithic material that shows
evidence for edge modification, edge use,
unifacial, or bifacial flaking. A total of 63
prehistoric chipped stone tools (659.3g) was
collected during 2005 investigations at 12-T-59.
Tools were separated into five categories: hafted
bifaces, unhafted bifaces, non-formal flake tools,
formal flake tools, and cores, all of which are
discussed below. Definitions of the various tool
types are modified from Metcalf and Associates
(1992) and O’Brien and Pirkl (1997). The 2005
investigations at 12-T-59 yielded a total of 18
hafted bifaces, 13 unhafted bifaces, 6 non-formal
flake tools, 6 formal flake tools, and 20 cores.
Hafted Bifaces
This analytical category includes all bifaces that
possess a hafting element and show signs of having
been finished tools. This includes projectile points,
projectile point tips, knives, drill bases and
fragments of drills, hafted scrapers, and
humpbacked knives. Technically, unnotched
triangular bifaces such as those typically found in
Late Prehistoric contexts lack clear evidence for
hafting. Such evidence might be basal grinding or
signs of having been resharpened while hafted.
Based upon ethnohistoric and archaeological
information, however, the assumption has been
made here these triangular bifaces were projectile
points and had therefore been hafted. Maximum
length, width, and thickness measurements are
provided for those hafted bifaces from which
accurate measurements could be obtained. Photos
of representative hafted bifaces can be found in
105
Cultural materials from12-T-59
Figures 6.1 and 6.2.
St. Albans Side Notched. A St. Albans point
(cat #19) was recovered from the surface at
N4863, E4886, near the excavation of the
possible poteaux-en-terre structure. The point is
made from an unidentified dull tan colored chert
and appears to be heavily resharpened. It is 38mm
in length, 20mm wide, and a maximum of 6mm
thick. St. Albans points are diagnostic of the Early
Archaic period and date from 6900 to 6500 B.C.
(Justice 1987:90). Its base is unground and the
blade edges are serrated. The specimen recovered
from 12-T-59 conforms most closely to Justice’s
St. Albans type B.
Le Croy Bifurcated Stem. A single Le Croy
Bifurcated Stem point (cat #195) was found in
Figure 6.1. Non-Late Prehistoric hafted bifaces, 12-T-59.
106
levels 4-6 of Unit E. It was manufactured from an
unidentified fossiliferous chert. Le Croy points are
diagnostic of the Early Archaic and date from
approximately 6500 to 5800 B.C. (Justice
1987:91). The point from 12-T-59 is a maximum
of 26mm in length, 22mm wide, and 4mm thick.
Though Le Croy points are typically serrated
(Justice 1987:91), this example is not. It appears
to have been heavily resharpened and the base is
unground.
Raddatz Side Notched. A Raddatz point (cat
#277) was recovered from Unit H, level 2
(between 40 - 55cm below datum). The point is
manufactured from an unknown medium gray
chert with a waxy luster. It was heavily
resharpened, giving it a “twist” when observed
from the tip, and is heavily ground on the base.
Cultural materials from12-T-59
Raddatz points are diagnostic of the Middle
Archaic and date from approximately 6000 to
3000 B.C. (Justice 1987:68). The point measures
36mm long, 23mm wide, and 9mm thick.
Brewerton Eared-Notched. A Brewerton
Eared-Notched point (cat #80) was recovered
from Unit B, level 2 (between 18 - 26cm below
datum). The point is made from an unidentified
blue-brown fossiliferous chert. The hafting element
of the point is heavily ground. The point is 43mm
long, 26mm wide, and 8mm in maximum thickness.
It most closely resembles what Justice calls the
“Brewerton Eared-Triangle,” which he considers
a variant of the Eared-Notched type. Brewerton
Eared-Notched points are diagnostic of the Late
Archaic in the northeastern United States, and date
from approximately 3000 to 1700 B.C. (Justice
1987:123).
Figure 6.2. Late Prehistoric hafted bifaces, 12-T-59..
107
Steuben Expanded Stemmed.
Three
Steuben Expanded Stemmed points were
collected from surface at N4874, E4825 (cat #2),
N4879, E4862 (cat #10), and N4860, E4960
(cat #23). A fourth was recovered from Unit D,
level 2 (cat #157). Steuben Expanded Stemmed
points are diagnostic of the terminal Middle
Woodland and early Late Woodland, and date to
between A.D. 100 and 800 (Justice 1987:211).
The first (cat #2) is manufactured from an
unidentified cream colored chert. The tip of the
point and one ear are slightly broken, but the point
measures 38mm long, 26mm wide, and 7mm
thick. The second Steuben point (cat #10) was of
an unknown white fossiliferous chert. The tip and
one ear of the point are broken off. The base and
one remaining notch are ground, a trait sometimes
found in Steuben points (Justice 1987:208). In its
current state, the point measures 44mm long,
Cultural materials from12-T-59
25mm wide, and 10mm thick. The third Steuben
point (cat #23) was made of an unidentified,
partially heat-altered, cream colored chert. The tip
of the point is broken off. It is 41mm long, 23mm
wide, and 9mm thick. The only Steuben point that
could be identified as to chert type was the fourth
example (cat #157), which was manufactured
from Attica chert. Attica is a blue-green tabular
chert that outcrops to the west and southeast of
12-T-59, in Warren, Fountain, and Boone
counties (Cantin 1994:8-9). The tip of the point is
broken off and the hafting element is heavily
ground. This final example measures 41mm long,
22mm wide, and 9mm thick.
108
but the basal portion of the point is 13mm wide and
3mm thick. Catalog number 265, with its wide,
incurvate base, closely conforms to Railey’s Type
2, mentioned above. Again, the distal half of the
point is missing, but the base measures 21mm
wide. It is a maximum of 4mm thick.
The final triangle recovered from 12-T-59 (cat
#144) is made from an unidentified light gray to
white chert. It fits into Railey’s Type 5, but is not a
classic example of this type, being a little wider at
the base than most. Though it superficially
resembles a Type 5, its wide base suggests that it
may be from the earlier portion of the Late
Prehistoric sequence. The point is 28mm long,
18mm wide, and 6mm thick.
Triangular Projectile Points.
Four
The triangular points are most likely associated
triangular projectile points were recovered from with either the Albee or Mississippian-related Late
Unit H, level 1 (cat #262, #263, #264, and #265) Prehistoric components identified at 12-T-59
and a fifth from Unit D, level 1 (cat #144). All five (Redmond and McCullough 2000). Although
were manufactured from unidentified cherts, likely Berkson (1992) argues for a possible retention of
obtained as river cobbles from the nearby chipped stone arrowpoint technology at the early
Tippecanoe or Wabash rivers. Catalog #262 is a 19th-century Grand Village of the Kickapoo in
narrow-tipped point made from light gray to white Illinois, no connection between chipped stone
chert. Following Railey’s (1992) system for arrowpoints and the 18th-century Wea occupants
classifying triangular projectile points, catalog can currently be established for site 12-T-59. In
number 262 conforms to his Type 2, which is Units H and K, triangular projectile points and Late
thought to date from approximately A.D. 1000 to Prehistoric drills (see below) co-occurred in non1200/1300. This type is also known in the feature context with both shell and grit tempered
literature as Hamilton Incurvate (Justice 1987:224). pottery. Unfortunately, a strong association
It is 27mm long, 16mm wide, and 5mm thick. between the triangular projectile points and a
Catalog number 263 is a crudely manufactured specific type of ceramics is absent. From the
point made from a light brown chert. It was morphological characteristics of the triangular
knapped from a flake and is consequently slightly projectile points, it appears that the majority are
curved and is only bifacially flaked on one side. those most common during the earlier portion of
Being crudely flaked, this point does not fit neatly the Late Prehistoric sequence, circa A.D. 900 to
into one of Railey’s (1992) morphological and 1250/1300, though the absence of radiocarbon
temporal categories. It is 28mm long, 22mm wide, dates makes this determination tentative at best.
These temporal questions will be further discussed
and 6mm thick.
Catalog numbers 264 and 265 are both basal in Chapter 7.
fragments manufactured from a dark gray and a
Unidentified Type. One unidentified point
light gray chert, respectively. The small, isosceles
triangle shape of catalog number 264 suggests that (cat #22) was collected from the surface at
it may be classified within Railey’s Type 5, which N4852, E4855. The point is a straight to concave
are most often found in post-A.D. 1400 contexts. sided, biconvex basal fragment. The point is
The distal half of catalog number 264 is broken off, manufactured from an unidientified light brown to
Cultural materials from12-T-59
light gray chert. The barbs and ears on each side of
the point are broken off, making its identification
difficult. The remaining portions are somewhat
similar to Justice’s description of Hardin Barbed,
which is diagnostic of the Early Archaic, between
about 8000 and 5500 B.C. However, the flaking
is cruder than that described for this point type, it
was not resharpened using beveling, and the
hafting element is not ground.
Drills. Two drills were recovered from
excavations, one from Unit B, level 2 (cat #81) and
one from Unit K, level 1 (cat #312). Both appear
to be Late Prehistoric types. Catalog number 81
is a flared-base drill manufactured from an
unidentified light brown chert. Morphologically, it
is similar to Late Prehistoric drills manufactured by
reworking a triangular point (e.g., McCullough et
al. 2004:137; Railey 1992:145). It is 31mm long,
11mm wide, and 4mm thick. Catalog #312 is a
convex sided “spike” drill made from an
unidentified light to medium gray chert. So-called
“spike” drills are also associated with Late
Prehistoric Oliver in Indiana and Fort Ancient in
Ohio and Kentucky (McCullough et al. 2004:137;
Railey 1992:145). The example from 12-T-59 is
39mm long, 10mm wide, and 4mm thick.
Projectile Point Tips. Two projectile point
tips were recovered from excavation. One tip was
recovered from Unit B, level 2 (cat #89), while the
other tip was from Unit H, level 1 (cat #272).
Catalog number 89 is very thin and narrow,
suggesting that it may be the tip of a Late
Prehistoric triangular projectile point or possibly a
drill. It is manufactured from an unidentified
reddish-gray chert. Catalog number 272 is fairly
narrow and is also suggestive of a triangluar
projectile point. It is made from an unidentified
medium brownish gray chert.
Unhafted bifaces
This category consists of all tools that have been
bifacially thinned, have evidence for at least an
109
initial attempt to shape the piece, but lack evidence
for a hafting element. The scope of these pieces
runs from early stage attempts at bifacial reduction
(“unrefined bifaces”) to late stage preforms, which
are finished tools that lack only a hafting element
(“refined bifaces”). Some of the more crudely
flaked specimens could reasonably be classified as
cores. The presence of both crude and nearly
complete unhafted bifaces at 12-T-59 indicates
that the full range of toolmaking activities took
place on the site. The assemblage includes 13
bifaces that are incomplete and/or unfinished.
Three of these were classified as refined bifaces.
Two of the three were manufactured from Attica
chert while the third was unidentifiable. One of the
three (cat #179) may be a portion of a triangular
projectile point, but this attribution is not
unequivocal. Ten of the unhafted bifaces were in
cruder stages of manufacture and were therefore
considered unrefined bifaces. Of the ten, one may
be of Liston Creek chert and two are of Attica
chert. The remaining seven are of unidentified
cherts of various colors, lusters, and textures. One
of the seven is heat treated.
Non-Formal Flake Tools
Flake tools are defined as flakes or portions of
flakes that showed evidence of use either
macroscopically or under a low-magnification
hand lens. Such evidence includes macroscopically
visible polish or edge wear, microchipping of the
tool edge related to use, or intentional edge
retouch. Flake tools may have been bifacially
retouched, but none have been bifacially thinned.
These tools do not have any attributes that would
suggest that they belong to any formal tool type.
Rather, the flake tools from 12-T-59 are
manufactured from small to medium-sized flakes
that had a serviceable edge and were used for a
variety of tasks. It is likely that such “expedient”
tools were used for a short period of time and then
discarded. A total of six tools was classified as
non-formal flake tools. Five of the six were
manufactured from unidentifiable chert types while
Cultural materials from12-T-59
the sixth was of a large flake of Attica chert.
110
County, in southern Indiana. It does not appear to
have been used. Intentionally manufactured blades
Formal Flake Tools
such as this one are diagnostic of the Middle
Woodland and early Late Woodland period in
Formal flake tools are those unifacial tools which Indiana and were commonly manufactured from
show evidence of being flaked or manufactured Wyandotte chert (Pace and Apfelstadt 1980:30).
into a specific tool “type.” They may or may not The thumbnail scraper was made of a creamy
show evidence of wear. This category includes white, partially heat-treated chert. Flakes were
such tools as blades, blade-like flakes, and hafted taken off one edge to form a steep-sided scraper.
and non-hafted unifacial scrapers. Six complete or The tool does not show any macroscopic signs of
partial artifacts classified as formal flake tools were wear nor evidence for a hafting element. It was
recovered.
found on the surface at N4862, E5041.
One of the unifaces was classified as a blade
A third formal flake tool was a spokeshave
(cat #9) and one as a thumbnail scraper (cat #12). recovered from plowzone contexts in Unit D (cat
Both are shown in Figure 6.3. The blade, which #150). It was manufactured from an unknown tan/
was found at N4990, E4935, is manufactured of brown chert. A half-circle groove is present in one
Wyandotte chert which outcrops in Harrison of the edges. The groove is secondarily flaked,
Figure 6.3. Formal flake tools, 12-T-59.
Cultural materials from12-T-59
indicating that it is of intentional manufacture.
Three other tools were classified as blade-like
flakes. Two of the three (cat #164 and 165) were
found in Unit D. Both may be portions of formal
blades, as both have flake scars on the dorsal side
running parallel to the long axis of the flake, which
suggests the repeated use of a prepared blade
core. Catalog number 164 was made from Attica
chert while the other blade-like flake from Feature
2 was of an unidentified, fine grained, white and tan
chert. The third blade-like flake from 12-T-59 (cat
#71) was recovered from a shovel probe at
N4955, E5135 and has more randomly placed
flake scars on the dorsal side. The blade-like shape
of the artifact may therefore be unintentional. It is
made of an unidentified dark gray translucent
chert.
Cores
Twenty artifacts were classified as cores (nuclei of
chert or other raw material bearing at least two
flake scars). All of the cores were of chert. Core
morphology was variable. All of the cores found
are considered to be casual cores. The typical
casual core used a waterworn cobble as raw
material, and flakes were detached
multidirectionally. In many cases, flakes were
apparently detached where the natural contours of
the cobble offered a convenient platform. Some
casual cores have only a few flake scars, while
others were more extensively worked. More
extensively worked casual cores often have one or
more developed striking platform areas. Both
bifacial and unifacial striking platform areas
occurred. Several of the casual “cores” are rather
small, irregularly shaped blocks of chert with
multiple small flake scars. Some of these still retain
cortex. Such items may not be “cores” in the
traditional sense (i.e., masses of chert from which
flakes were detached for use as flake tools), but
may be more accurately described as “tested
blocks.” Larger, cortical blocks, cobbles, and
slabs of chert with only two or three negative flake
scars may also not be “cores” in the traditional
111
sense. There is a typological difficulty in
consistently differentiating “tested blocks” from
“casual cores,” however. Likewise, several of the
casual cores could reasonably be classified as
unrefined bifaces or early-stage biface fragments.
Of the twenty cores, eighteen were of
unidentified cherts of various colors, textures, and
qualities. Of these, three were definitely
manufactured of pebble cherts, and three were
heat treated. Most of these cores were likely
manufactured of secondarily deposited cherts
found in the adjacent Tippecanoe and/or Wabash
rivers and could have originated from any number
of original parent sources. A single core was
possibly of Liston Creek chert, and one other was
of Attica chert. One of the cores (cat #259) is
battered on one side and was likely also used as a
chert hammerstone.
Chipped Stone Debitage
The chipped stone assemblage includes 2,451
pieces of debitage. With the exception of four
pieces of quartzite, all of the debitage is chert. The
assemblage includes flakes representing both early
and late stages of manufacturing, indicating that all
stages of tool production occurred at the site.
A sample of chert debitage was selected for
chert type analysis. This included all debitage that
was recovered from feature contexts (n=17) and
a sample of no more than 100 pieces of randomly
selected non-feature debitage from each of the
excavation units (n=769). The subsample chosen
for analysis represents 31.4 percent of the total
debitage recovered from the site. Unfortunately,
since the site has multiple prehistoric occupations,
the vast majority of chert from the site cannot be
assigned to a specific component. For this reason,
it is quite difficult to make definitive statements
about patterns of chert use at 12-T-59 throughout
prehistory. None the less, an analysis of the cherts
at the site should provide some information on the
sources of raw material that were chosen for tool
manufacture.
Tippecanoe County lies in a relatively “chert
Cultural materials from12-T-59
poor” section of Indiana when compared, for
example, to the southern half of the state. No
primary chert outcrops have been identified in
Tippecanoe County. Therefore, the prehistoric
residents of the area would have had to rely on
“exotic” cherts from adjacent areas and river
pebble cherts that had washed downstream from
parent sources located elsewhere. The nearest
primary chert source (Attica chert) outcrops along
the Wabash River in Fountain and Warren
counties, downstream from the project area. In its
primary context, Attica is a tabular chert, though
secondary sources occur along the Wabash River
south of the primary outcrops. It has a distinctive
blue-green color, with blue-gray streaks, bands,
and mottles. Though samples often shatter into
chunks when struck with a hammerstone, pieces of
Attica chert without stress fractures can be
knapped, though step and hinge fractures are
common (Cantin 1994:8-9). Though Attica chert
was used throughout prehistory, at a distance from
its source area, Attica use was largely confined to
the Paleoindian and Early Archaic periods
(DeRegnaucourt and Georgiady 1998:97).
Though not in the immediate vicinity of the
project area, another primary chert source in
north-central Indiana is Kenneth chert. It is a
fossiliferous bedded chert occurring in Cass,
Howard, and Carroll counties, to the northeast of
Tippecanoe County. Kenneth has a white
background matrix, interspersed with gray blobs
and patches of various sizes. It is of medium quality
(Cantin 1994:22). Kenneth was used mostly
112
during the Late Archaic period and to some degree
during the Early Woodland. Occasional Early
Archaic and Middle Woodland period points are
made of Kenneth chert, but these are in the
minority (DeRegnaucourt and Georgiady
1998:123).
A final primary chert source in northern
Indiana is Liston Creek. Liston Creek chert is a
nodular and bedded gray chert that outcrops along
the Mississinewa and upper Wabash rivers in
Miami, Wabash, and Huntington counties. Color,
luster and texture vary considerably according to
the sample. Better quality, fine-grained Liston
Creek knaps well, but coarser samples tend to
break into irregular, unusable pieces (Cantin
1994:25). In proximity to its source area, Liston
Creek chert was used throughout prehistory
(DeRegnaucourt and Georgiady 1998:131).
Because the primary source area is upstream from
the project area, Liston Creek chert may have
been available in the central Wabash as
secondarily deposited cobbles washed in from the
northeast.
Analysis of the chert profile from the site
(Table 6.1) indicates that the vast majority of the
identifiable cherts are Liston Creek. The frequency
of Liston Creek in the excavation unit samples
varies from 21 to 46 percent of the total sample and
is nearly always the most common identifiable
chert type. Liston Creek chert from 12-T-59
could have been obtained either from its primary
source area to the northeast, or as river pebbles
that washed into the central Wabash from
Table 6.1. Debitage Analysis, Chert Type by Provenience Unit.
Unit B Unit C Unit D
Unit E
Unit F
Unit G
Unit H
Unit I
Unit J
Unit K
Unit L Fe ature 1 Fe ature 2 Fe ature 5
Liston Creek
44%
17%
44%
46%
33%
30%
34%
21%
39%
24%
38%
83%
60%
50%
Attica
7%
18%
0%
4%
7%
11%
7%
11%
4%
7%
9%
0%
20%
17%
Kenneth
4%
3%
2%
3%
2%
0%
3%
0%
0%
1%
3%
0%
0%
0%
Wyandotte
0%
3%
0%
0%
4%
7%
0%
0%
0%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Unknown
45%
60%
54%
47%
54%
52%
56%
68%
57%
67%
50%
17%
20%
33%
n=100
n=72
n=100
n=100
n=54
n=27
n=100
n=19
n=23
n=100
n=74
n=6
n=5
n=6
Cultural materials from12-T-59
upstream. Other regional cherts, such as Attica
and Kenneth, were found in very small quantities,
typically comprising less than five percent of the
total sample. In one excavation unit (Unit C),
Attica chert comprised 18 percent of the total
sample, but this frequency is anomalous.
Wyandotte chert from Harrison County in
southern Indiana was also found at the site, albeit
in very small quantities. Overall, the majority of
cherts were classified as unidentifiable. These
comprised cherts of various colors, lusters, and
qualities. It is likely that most of the unidentifiable
cherts were those that were obtained as river
pebbles from the nearby Wabash or Tippecanoe
rivers. Unfortunately, the chert sample from
feature contexts is very small (n=17), a fact which
precludes much discussion. In sum, it is likely that
most of the cherts used by the prehistoric
inhabitants of site 12-T-59 were those obtained
from the adjacent Wabash and/or Tippecanoe
Figure 6.4. Ground stone tools, 12-T-59.
113
Rivers. It is possible that some of the Liston Creek
chert identified at the site was also obtained via
such means, though Liston Creek could have also
been directly obtained or traded from those with
access to the parent source farther up the Wabash
River.
Ground Stone Tools
Ground stone tools are those implements that were
primarily manufactured by various processes that
do not include flaking—primarily pecking,
grinding, and/or polishing. Though some ground
stone tools may have been flaked at some point in
the manufacturing process, this was usually not a
major element of their manufacture. The ground
stone tool assemblage from 12-T-59 includes two
manos, a pitted stone, and a hammerstone (Figure
6.4). All are informally manufactured tools, that is,
minimally altered from their natural shape, with all
Cultural materials from12-T-59
alterations due to use.
Non-chipped stone tools were divided into
analytical categories, based mostly upon their
presumed use or uses. Other criteria considered
when developing analytical categories were
whether a tool was actively or passively used and
whether it was used in an abrasive or percussive
manner (Leroi-Gourand 1971). Active tools are
those that move while being used, such as a
hammerstone or pestle. Active ground stone tools
are most often held in the hand. Passive tools, on
the other hand, are those that remain stationary
while being used. They may be held in the hand,
placed on the user’s lap, or laid on the ground.
Percussive tools are those that are typically used in
an up-and-down hammer-like manner, and are
used to smash or pound. Alternatively, abrasive
tools are those that are rubbed against another
object to produce the desired result. Tools used
for grinding, such as the classic mano and metate
are the quintessential abrasive ground stone tools.
114
otherwise unaltered.
Hammerstone
A hammerstone (cat #152) was recovered from
Feature 2 in Unit D. This spherical hammerstone
has been battered at points all around the stone,
indicating intensive use. It is made from a medium
gray chert. One small area of remaining cortex
indicates that it was originally a river pebble. Chert
hammerstones such as this one are thought to have
been used during the pecking and shaping of other
ground-stone tools, such as celts.
Prehistoric Ceramics
The ceramic assemblage includes rim sherds
(n=5), body sherds (n=20), and “non-diagnostic”
sherds (n=107). Rim sherds are defined as
fragments from the top of the vessel that retain
enough surface area to distinguish the orientation of
the lip and neck portions of the vessel. Larger
Mano
sherds that retain the rim and either the neck or
body portion also are also classified as rim sherds.
Manos are defined as active (i.e., hand-held) A neck sherd is a vessel fragment missing the rim
abrasive tools that were used in combination with portion but including enough curvature to verify
a passive grinding surface such as a metate. One that it was originally part of a constricted-orifice
mano (cat #1) was collected from the surface at vessel. Body sherds are ceramic fragments
N4861.5,E 4935.5 and second (cat #198) was without a rim or neck portion. Sherds that were
recovered from Unit E, level 3 (23-33cm below too small and fragmentary to be accurately
datum). Catalog number 1 is a large, rectanguloid, assessed for the presence of surface treatment and
granitic pebble that is flattened and smoothed on decoration (i.e., less than 1/2" in diameter) were
both faces. One end of the tool is broken off, considered “non-diagnostic,” though these sherds
possibly intentionally. Signs of pecking are present often could be assessed for temper.
on the edges of the stone. Catalog number 198 is
a smaller, puck-shaped granitic stone with Grit-tempered sherds
flattened faces on both sides.
Of the rim and body sherds (n=25), 92 percent
Pitted Stone
(n=23) were grit tempered. Grit-tempered body
sherds were predominantly plain in surface
One pitted stone (cat #239) was recovered from treatment (n=11), while the remaining sherds
Unit F, level 3. It was manufactured from a fist- (n=7) were cordmarked. None of the body sherds
sized granitic river pebble. The stone has been was decorated. All five of the rimsherds were grit
heavily battered on one end, suggesting that it had tempered (Figure 6.5). The first (cat #66) has a
been used in an active percussive manner, but is wedge-shaped collar typical of Albee ceramics
Cultural materials from12-T-59
115
Figure 6.5. Rimsherds recovered from 12-T-59.
and is cordmarked on the rim and body. The lip is
squared off. Oblique, narrow notching is present
on the interior of the lip. It was recovered from a
shovel probe located at N4955, E5125. A second
probable Albee rim was found in non-feature
contexts within Unit K (cat #324). It also has an
Albee-like wedge-shaped collar and is grit
tempered. The collar appears to have a plain
surface treatment.
Three rims (cat #267, 268, and 269) were
found in non-feature contexts within Unit H. The
first of the three has a slightly wedge-shaped rim
and is tempered with black grit. The rim edge is
squared off and the sherd has a plain surface
treatment. The second rim from Unit H is very
small, wedge-shaped, and is tempered with grit.
The collar portion of the rim is plain with a narrow
lip. The final vessel rim from Unit H is grit
tempered, with an eroded but evidently wedgeshaped rim. The surface treatment could not be
determined. The lip of the vessel is narrow and is
not squared off. With the exception of catalog
number 267, all of the rim sherds found at 12-T-59
fit within the description of Albee wares (Redmond
and McCullough 2000). Due to the absence of
diagnostic attributes, catalog number 267 cannot
be assigned to a specific phase or period within the
Woodland period.
Grog-tempered sherds
Two grog-tempered body sherds were recovered
from 12-T-59, both from surface contexts in the
northwest portion of the investigated area. The first
(cat #14) was plain and was found at N4992,
E4855, while the other (cat #15) was cordmarked
and was found at N4994, E4806. Both grog
sherds were tempered with large chunks of grog
and were thick in profile. The thickness of the
sherds, coupled with the presence of grog,
suggests a possible Early Woodland date, though
the absence of Early Woodland lithic diagnostics at
Cultural materials from12-T-59
116
the site makes this suggestion tentative.
destruction of Kethtippecanunk.
Non-diagnostic sherds
Ceramics (n=13)
The “non-diagnostic” sherds (n=107), all of which
were very small in size, were classified as either
“shell” (n=7, 6.5%) or “not shell” (n=100,
93.5%). By definition, none of the non-diagnostic
sherds could be classified as to surface treatment
or decoration. Though few in number, all of the
shell-tempered sherds recovered at 12-T-59
were very small, friable fragments with the shell
leached out. The extreme fragility of the shelltempered wares at the site indicates that they may
be severely underrepresented in the assemblage,
due to their deletion from the archaeological
record. Shell-tempered sherds were found in Units
H and K. Of the 100 non-shell-tempered, nondiagnostic sherds, many were found in Unit K, with
smaller numbers identified in Units D, E, and H.
The vast majority of non-shell, non-diagnostic
sherds was grit tempered.
Ceramics as a category forms the smallest class of
materials recovered from 12-T-59, totaling only
13 fragments, with as few as nine vessels
represented (Figure 6.6). The majority of
ceramics is datable to the late eighteenth or early
nineteenth century, with only the clay pigeon
fragments postdating 1880 (Whitten 2005:3).
Historic Artifacts from 12-T-59
Historic materials, like prehistoric materials, were
classified by material of construction (Table 6.2)
using a four-line classification similar to that used
by the National Park Service (2000), with the final
line an object name. Diagnostic artifacts are
discussed by category, or material of construction.
Only preliminary functional classes (Table 6.3)
were assigned to the historic materials at this phase
in the investigation, since most of the material is too
fragmentary for consistent analysis. Catalog
information was entered in an Access 2000
database.
In all categories, there is a time gap, or hiatus,
with material datable to the late eighteenth or early
nineteenth century and to the late nineteenth
century or after, with little representing the middle
decades of the nineteenth century. In addition,
much of the early material is fire damaged or shows
evidence of burning, further strengthening the
association of the early materials with the historic
Creamware (n=3). Three undecorated creamware
sherds were recovered from unit contexts at 12-T59, one each from Units G, J, and L. Without
decoration, it not possible to date these sherds
more precisely than the known range of
creamware production, generally given as the
1760s through the 1820s (Lofstrom et al. 1982:4).
It reached its greatest popularity by the end of the
eighteenth century, when creamware “monopolized
the English and American markets” (Majewski
and O’Brien 1987:117) but was displaced in the
early 1800s by the more fashionable pearlwares
and later, by whitewares.
Faience (n=1). One small faience body sherd was
recovered from Unit L. Like the creamware from
12-T-59, it is extremely small with no identifiable
decoration. The glaze is blue-green with a streak
of brown over a buff paste; the glaze is lost on the
obverse. This may be a fragment of “Marseilles
Monochrome,” a variety identified in North
American late eighteenth-century contexts and
described as having “an “exterior covered entirely
in robin’s egg blue [or] aqua green” (Waselkov
and Walthall 2002:72). Alternatively, such a small
sherd may be a fragment of a polychrome
decoration. In either case, faience is not rare in
North American French colonial sites, but its
frequency diminishes after the French and Indian
War when France relinquished control of the midcontinent (Walthall 1991). After 1800, faience is
extremely rare in archaeological sites, since faience
production in England and the continent had
Cultural materials from12-T-59
117
Table 6.2. Historic Materials from12-T-59.
Cate gory
Type
Obje ct N ame
Ce ramic
creamware
body sherd
Glas s
N
3
earthenware
clay pigeon frag
black paste
earthenware, refined
body sherd
brown glaze ext/int
1
faience
body sherd
blue- green glaze, brn painted
1
2
porcelain
base sherd
polychrome hand painted
1
white clay
pipe bowl sherd
rouletted; incised partial
1
white clay
pipestem sherd
2 5/64" id; 2 4/64" id
4
Container
body fragment
unid color, iridized
4
body fragment
clear
17
body fragment
aqua
1
base (?) frag
olive
1
Bottle
Flat
M e tal
Attribute s
body frag
olive, iridized
5
body frag
lt green, iridized (case bottle?)
2
body frag
grn, iridized (case bottle?)
3
2
rim frag
unid color, iridized
fragment
unid color, iridized
3
fragment
lt green, iridized
10
fragment
clear
2
fragment
lt green
6
Unidentified
melted
9
Aluminum
beer can
2
Brass
drawer bull bail
2
gun trigger guard
incised/engraved
padlock part?
ring
Copper/Brass
1
tack
domed head
9
flat fragment
gun part?
1
flat fragment
folded
flat fragment
Ferrous
Lead
1
2
1
9
bolt, hex head
1
flat fragment
6
hood, wrought
1
nail, wire
5
nail, wrought
50
spike, wrought
1
strap hinge
1
tack, wrought
12
unidentified
13
wire
13
.55 cal; sprue intact
1
unidentified
rectangular block
1
signet fob
Masonic coat- of- arms
1
Daub
chinking frag
clay w/ fine river sand
967.8g
Flint
gunflint
English
1
M e tal/M ine ral
Brass/crystal
M ine ral
Cinder/slag
musket ball
26
Cultural materials from12-T-59
118
Table 6.3. Historic Material by Function, 12-T-59.
Function
Obje ct N ame
Architectural
N
Pe rce nt
N
Pe rce nt
Comme nts (Including (Including (Excluding (Excluding
M ode rn) M ode rn) M ode rn) M ode rn)
79+
49.4%
69+
53.5%
iridized flat glass
clear to lt green flat glass
14
n=5 modern
wrought ferrous nails
wire ferrous nails
modern
ferrous strap hinge
ferrous hex head bolt
7
50
5
1
modern
spike, wrought
1
1
burned chinking (976.8g)
-
Food storage and service
28
creamware body sherds
3
refined earthenware body sherd
1
faience body sherd
1
porcelain base sherd
1
clear glass container fragments
modern
1
iridized glass container fragments
4
26
wrought, domed brass tacks
9
brass drawer pull bail, screw
2
brass padlock parts ?
2
ferrous wrought hook
1
wrought ferrous tacks
12
Alcohol use
15
olive glass bottle fragments
6
lt green glass bottle fragments
2
green glass bottle fragments
3
iridized rim fragments
2
aluminum beer can
modern
Firearms
modern
brass trigger guard
1
1
gunflint
1
white clay pipestem sherds
4
white clay pipe bowl sherd
1
5
Adornment
16.3%
26
20.2%
9.4%
13
10.1%
3.1%
3
2.3%
3.1%
5
3.9%
1.3%
2
1.6%
2
.55 caliber lead ball
Tobacco use
8.5%
2
5
clay pigeon fragments
11
17
aqua glass container fragment
Furnishings
17.5%
2
brass finger ring
1
brass / crystal signet fob
1
Cultural materials from12-T-59
119
Figure 6.6. Eighteenth-century ceramics from structure excavation (L to R: hand-painted porcelain, creamware,
faience).
plummeted with the introduction of light-bodied
refined earthenwares, such as creamwares and
pearlware (Majewski and O’Brien 1987).
Porcelain (n=1). One base sherd of porcelain
with remnants of overglaze polychrome decoration
was recovered from 12-T-59, in Unit C. Most
likely Chinese export ware, such overglaze
decoration was “most common in the second half
of the eighteenth century” (Noel Hume 1969:259;
see also Shulsky 2002).
Earthenware (n=3). Two sherds from clay
pigeons were recovered in unit contexts, one from
Unit B and the other from Unit E. Although the clay
pigeon was patented in 1880, both these fragments
appear to be of twentieth-century origin and reflect
a recreational use of the area. A third earthenware
sherd is an unidentified type, with a severely
spalled dark brown glaze on both the exterior and
interior over a light body.
White-Clay Pipes (n=5). Five pipe fragments
representing at least three vessels form the largest
class of recovered ceramics at 12-T-59 (Figure
6.7). The single bowl fragment has a partial incised
or impressed decoration most similar to a “TD”
pipe illustrated by Bradley (2000:Figure 19a) from
Fort George, Ontario, and dated ca. 1810
(Bradley 2000:113). Of the four stem fragments,
two have interior diameters of 4/64,” with both offcenter; the other two have stem holes of 5/64,”
with one centered and the other off-center. While
the sample number is far too small to reliably date
by bore diameter, the diameters are consistent with
those of the second half of the eighteenth century
(Nöel Hume 1969:298).
Glass (n=66)
Like the ceramics, the glass recovered from 12-T59 is extremely fragmentary (Figure 6.8). The
majority is also heavily fire damaged, with
iridization so heavy in some instances that original
color cannot be reliably identified. Other
fragments are heat distorted or melted to an extent
that they are not identifiable. While buried glass
can react with minerals in the ground to produce an
iridescent surface, the heavy iridescence in the 12T-59 glass is more consistent with that resulting
from fire damage. In support of this, one olive, or
black glass, fragment without iridescence was
Cultural materials from12-T-59
120
Figure 6.7. White clay pipe bowl fragment (left) and stem fragments (remainder).
recovered from the top of feature 3 (the wall
trench), and therefore may not have been exposed
to fire, while the remainder of black glass fragments
were from unit contexts and heavily iridized.
Container Glass (n=22). Among the container
glass are four relatively thin fragments so iridized
that their color is not identifiable. The remainder of
the container glass consists of one aqua fragment
and seventeen clear fragments typical of latenineteenth through twentieth-century mass
production, though they are so fragmentary that no
diagnostic mold marks are apparent.
Bottle Glass (n=14). Based on color and
thickness or form, fourteen fragments were
identified as bottle glass. All but one fragment are
heavily iridized, and the two bottle rim or finish
fragments are too iridized to identify the color. At
least three vessels are represented, based on color:
a green case bottle, a lighter green case bottle, and
an olive to black liquor bottle. Such bottles are
common in the eighteenth century, although the
“so-called black wine bottles seem to have been
free-blown at least as late as 1820” (Nöel Hume
1969:71, 62-69). The flanged, hand-tooled rim
fragments may be from one of these bottles or may
represent an additional one or two bottles; their
form places them in the “last quarter of the
eighteenth century” or later (Nöel Hume 1969:71).
Other Glass (n=30). Of the 21 flat glass
fragments, 13 are iridized, suggesting they date to
the destruction by fire of the site. The 9 heataltered glass fragments range in alteration from a
mild distortion that makes distinguishing between
container and flat glass unreliable through
significant distortion to one fragment that is a
shapeless lump with cinder inclusions.
Metal (n= 133)
Like the ceramics and glass, the identifiable
temporally diagnostic artifacts in the metal
assemblage from 12-T-59 fall into a lateeighteenth- to very early-nineteenth-century time
span or into the late-nineteenth century through the
twentieth century.
Cultural materials from12-T-59
121
Figure 6.8. Case bottle fragment (left) and hand-tooled bottle rim (right).
Aluminum (n=2). Both aluminum beer cans
postdate the 1960s (Maxwell 2000) and could
have been deposited on site as litter or carried
there by the frequent high waters of the river.
Brass (n= 26). Among the most notable of the
metal artifacts recovered at 12-T-59 is a signet
fob, or watch seal, which is whole but distorted,
probably by plowing (Figure 6.9). It is sand cast
brass, set with a seal carved in clear quartz. Watch
seals, according to White (2005:133), were
“trinkets on watch fobs” that “essentially replaced
signet rings in the eighteenth century and were
employed to stamp documents.” Both the form of
the seal, which was most fashionable in the late
eighteenth century, and the use of crystal, which
“was particularly popular in the eighteenth century”
(White 2005:100), suggest a date consistent with
the destruction of Kethtippecanunk. The seal is
most probably of English origin, however, since the
carved crest has been identified as a Masonic
crest, that of the “original or premier Grand Lodge
of England” and used from 1717 to 1813 (Harris
1929:227) (Figure 6.10). In late 1813, it was
replaced by a new crest reflecting the merger of the
“Grand Lodge of England” and the competing
“Grand Lodge of the Ancients” (Harris
1929:227). While Freemasonry was well
established in colonial North America prior to the
Revolutionary War, most American lodges in the
eighteenth century were of the “Ancients” order,
with coats of arms quite distinct from that of the
“moderns” Grand Lodge. (The author thanks
Brandon Bradshaw, student in the IPFW
Department of Anthropology, for his painstaking
work with the seal, taking impressions and
identifying the crest.)
Also dating to the eighteenth century is a brass
bail handle with a bulbous center and a single
matching, screw-ended mounting post (Noel
Hume 1969:229) (Figure 6.11). This bail handle
is quite similar to one from Fort Ouiatenon
illustrated in Tordoff (1983:294).
Nine domed, hand-wrought brass tacks date
Cultural materials from12-T-59
122
items that are found in fairly large numbers in 18thcentury archaeological assemblages (Noble
1983:176). Jones reports an additional three rings
from the Kethtippecanunk collections, but does
not mention their type (Jones 1988). Plain rings
similar to those found at 12-T-59 have been
recovered at Fort Ouiatenon (Noble 1983:179;
Tordoff 1983:373-374) and Fort Michilimackinac
(Stone 1974:127).
Ten brass or copper artifacts were too
fragmentary to identify. One of these was partially
cut through from two directions and snapped off.
Ferrous (n=103). The most numerous ferrous
artifacts recovered from 12-T-59 were nails,
tacks, and a large spike (n=68). Of these, only five
were machine-made wire nails that most likely
postdate 1880 (Wells 2000). The remainder are
hand-wrought and of types that predate 1820
(Nöel Hume 1969:253; Wells 2000:332).
The hand-wrought hook is not dateable with
any certainty but is consistent with the age of the
Figure 6.9. Metal and crystal fob seal recovered near other hand-wrought hardware.
the structure.
Though the strap hinge half is too corroded to
discern its construction, it was found on the surface
to the eighteenth century and are identified as near the 18th-century structure identified in Units C
upholstery tacks (Nöel Hume 1969:228), but such and L and is likely is related to it.
A hex-headed bolt and wire fragments cannot
tacks were also used as decoration on trunks and
small chests. Native Americans frequently be placed temporally, but these most likely relate
decorated gunstocks with domed brass tacks as to the no-longer extant barn and the site’s later
agricultural use. Nineteen ferrous artifacts were
well (Wagner et al. 2001).
Less firmly dateable but suggestive of this early too fragmentary to identify.
period are an incised trigger guard fragment
(Hamilton 1968, 1976), a simple, thin brass ring Lead (n=2). One unused, .55 mm lead ball with a
(Nöel Hume 1969:265), and two fragments that sprue remnant was recovered (Figure 6.12). This
are most likely padlock parts (Priess 2000:80; size made up 64 to 70 percent of the musket balls
Stone 1974:Figures 129a and 130; Tordoff recovered at Fort Ouiatenon (Tordoff 1983:322)
1983). The gun from which the trigger guard has and is consistent with those used for both French
not yet been identified. Comparisons with and British trade guns (Hamilton 1976).
A small rectangular block of lead was
illustrations of French and British trade guns
(Hamilton 1968, 1976, 1980) and military unidentified, but it is intriguing that its weight
shoulder arms (Moller 1993) have not yet (15.5g) is very close to four gros (one half of one
produced a close match. The bow portion of the once (15.3g), in the traditional French system of
trigger guard was cut, possibly for reworking or weights). One once was equal to 1/16 of the
repair. Rings were common trade and personal French livre. The weight of the block is also equal
Cultural materials from12-T-59
123
Figure 6.10. Impression made from fob seal, with coat-of-arms from the Premier Grand Lodge of England (Image of
the Grand Lodge coat-of arms from Harris 1929:Figure 3).
to one half of a Troy ounce, a traditional English
system of measurement.
Mineral/Stone
Flint (n=1). One gunflint of dark gray flint, or
chert, was recovered (see Figure 6.12). Gunflints
of French origin are “distinguished by a honeyyellow or blond flint” (Kenmotsu 2000:344), while
English gunflints are an opaque gray, as is this one,
to a fine, translucent near-black. Recent research
suggests that this Brandon flint “was not
extensively mined . . . until the Napoleonic Wars of
the 1790s,” indicating “a date of later than A.D.
1790” on North American sites (Kenmotsu
2000:343).
Other. The quantity of cinder is further evidence
of the destruction of the site by fire, as is the baked
clay or daub. The amount of clay daubing is
evidence that the burned structure was of French
poteaux-en-terre construction (Ekberg 1985).
Fine river sand with some tiny shell fragments
indicate that the mud used for chinking was
gathered from near the river.
Functional Analysis
A preliminary functional analysis of only the
identifiable historic material recovered from 12-T59 is shown in Table 6.3. With obviously modern
materials removed from the analysis, architectural
artifacts (n=79; 53.5%) form the largest category,
Cultural materials from12-T-59
124
Figure 6.11. Brass artifacts from 12-T-59 excavations (Top row, L to R: bail handle, matching mounting post, ring;
Bottom row, L to R: trigger guard, padlock part, unidentified fragment.
followed by furnishings (n=26; 20.2%), alcohol
use (n=13; 10.1%), food storage and service
(n=11; 8.5%), tobacco use (n=5; 3.9%), firearms
(n=3; 2.3%), and adornment (n=2; 1.6%).
Architectural. The preponderance of architectural
materials, even without including the later
materials, indicates the presence of a structure of
some substance. Hand-wrought nails were at a
premium in this era at such a remove from British
and American settlements, as was window glass.
The quantity of burned clay daub or chinking is
strong evidence of a French poteaux-en-terre
structure and substantiates the remarks of George
Imlay, who described Kethtippecanunk as
“marked [by] a considerable share of order, and
no small degree of civilization” (Imlay 1916:12).
From the distribution of the following categories,
however, the structure may not have been a
domestic one.
Food Storage and Service. Removal of the
modern container glass from this category drops it
below both the furnishings and alcohol use
categories. Of note is the lack of any utilitarian
ceramics or coarse earthenwares suitable for food
preparation or processing, which would be
Cultural materials from12-T-59
125
Figure 6.12. Other historic artifacts from 12-T-59 (L to R: .55 cal musket ball, lead block, English gunflint).
expected in a domestic structure. Such coarse
earthenwares can comprise one-third to one-half
or more of a domestic ceramic assemblage (e.g.,
Walthall 1991). The six ceramic sherds may
represent but four vessels, one creamware, one
faience, one unidentified refined earthenware
vessel, and a probable porcelain cup. These
would have been suitable for food service, but of
a high order. Walthall (1991:192) notes that
faience usage in Illinois French contexts is “one of
careful curation, social display, and infrequent
use.” Similarly, Shulsky (2002:103) remarks that
“porcelain has proved a useful indicator of high
socio-economic status in many 18th-century
contexts” in French North America.
No eating utensils were identified, and only
four small glass container fragments may be from
the eighteenth-century occupation.
boxes and chests: domed brass tacks could have
decorated storage or document boxes; the pull
may be a document box handle; and brass locks
are as likely on storage chests as on furniture.
Alcohol Use. Alcohol use is represented by the
fragments of possibly as many as five liquor or wine
bottles. Interestingly, these bottle fragments
outnumber the early ceramic fragments at the site.
Firearms. Three artifacts—the trigger guard
fragment, the lead ball, and a British gunflint—can
be positively identifed as firearm related.
Tobacco Use. The five white-clay pipe fragments
may represent as few as three pipes.
Adornment. Although notable, the adornment
category comprises only two artifacts, a fob seal
Furnishings. Among the household furnishings and a brass finger ring, nor are there any clothingitems are decorative tacks, a brass drawer pull, related artifacts, such as buttons or sewing
two brass padlock pieces, a wrought hook, and equipment.
wrought ferrous tacks. The ferrous tacks are
included in the furnishings category, since Brain In summary, although the materials recovered from
(1979:156) identified similar tacks from an 12-T-59 indicate a late eighteenth-century
eighteenth-century context as “parts of wooden structure, the material assemblage is not
chests.” In fact, all the artifacts in the furnishings necessarily consistent with a domestic structure.
category except the hook could be from storage There are few if any habitation-related artifacts,
Cultural materials from12-T-59
such as food processing or cooking vessels and
eating utensils. Nor are there personal items other
than white clay pipes, a fob seal, and a small brass
ring. Domestic sites usually yield clothing items
such as buttons or buckles and a range of small
personal items such as sewing equipment and toys.
Instead, the limited range of materials suggests a
less multifunctional structure than a house.
Perhaps the assemblage is the remains of a storage
area or one of the cellars noted in Imlay (1916)
where high-value ceramics and storage boxes or
trunks could have been hidden.
126
Fauna and Flora
A total of 42.0g of unidentified faunal material was
recovered from the surface and from excavation,
including unburned bone (33.1g), burned bone
(5.9g) and mussel shell (3.0g). Overall preservation
of bone at 12-T-59 appears to be fair to poor, as
only small, non-identifiable pieces of bone were
recovered from the excavations. A total of 10.7g
of floral material was also recovered from all
excavated contexts. The flora have not been
formally analyzed.
CHAPTER 7
DISCUSSION
The French and Native American Presence
at 12-T-59
surface collections, which provide little information
on the possible location of French versus Native
occupation areas.
Although we can readily identify a Euroamerican
The relative invisibility of the Wea inhabitants
presence at the site, few artifacts are directly is likely due, to some degree, to the large overlap
attributable to the historic period Native American in Native and Euroamerican material culture by the
occupants. Items such as trade beads and copper close of the eighteenth century (Quimby 1966:8).
or silver ornaments were not recovered during the Like Kethtippecanunk, roughly contemporaneous
current investigations, though admittedly, surface Native American sites in the Great Lakes area
visibility was inadequate and our subsurface (e.g., Wagner 2001) also exhibit high frequencies
investigations were rather limited in scope and of items of non-native manufacture, and appear
duration. Of the four archaeological features superficially similar to Euroamerican habitation
identified in the current investigations, only one was sites of the same period, at least in terms of the
likely to be related to the historic period artifactual assemblage. Distinctively aboriginal
occupation of Kethtippecanunk (Feature 3). This artifacts industries (e.g., chipped stone and
may be part of a French structure. No features ceramics) had virtually disappeared by the end of
were identified that could be definitely attributed to the 18th century (Wagner 2001:169).
the occupation of Prophetstown.
However, Native American assemblages do
It is likely that future investigations will result in differ from contemporaneous Euroamerican
the identification of items of native manufacture occupations in some respects. First, it has been
and/or use, as Jones’ (1988:406-409) study of noted that relatively high frequencies of items of
unprovenienced surface collections from 12-T-59 adornment are usually present at Native American
identified items related to the Wea occupants. sites. Many of these artifacts were reworked from
However, his findings suggest that the overall other copper, brass, and silver items (Mason
frequency of such artifacts is low. This may suggest 1986; Wagner 2001:Table 7.19) and were made
that the Wea inhabitants of the site may have been into artifacts for which there was no Euroamerican
fewer or, more likely, less visible archaeologically analog (e.g., tinkling cones) (Wagner 2001:169).
than the Euroamericans who lived there. Artifacts Another characteristic that tends to distinguish
of Native manufacture or use that have been historic period Native American sites from
collected from 12-T-59 include tinkling cones contemporary Euroamerican occupations is the
(n=5), metal arrow points (n=2), stone smoking overall low frequency of Euroamerican ceramics
pipes (n=1), beads (n=9), hawk bells (n=2), and (Wagner 2001:166), due to the fact that Native
copper, brass, or silver ornaments (n=3) (Jones Americans often continued to use traditional
1988:406-409). An iron pipe tomahawk was also wooden bowls and utensils when eating, rather
recovered from the site surface by Carol Sue than plates, forks, and spoons.
In keeping with these patterns, Jones’
Gibson, who lives on the bluff edge, just above the
site. The tomahawk was found at approximately comparison of the assemblages at the Wea Village
N5020, E5060. Unfortunately, with the exception (12-T-6), Fort Ouiatenon (12-T-9) and
of the pipe tomahawk, nearly all artifacts from Kethtippecanunk (12-T-59) (1988:429), indicated
earlier investigations are from unprovenienced that the highest percentage of items related to
127
Discussion
Native American inhabitants was found at the Wea
Village, a large site inhabited almost exclusively by
Native Americans. Not unexpectedly, lowest
frequencies of native items were found at Fort
Ouiateneon, a military and trading post with few, if
any, native inhabitants. Kethtippecanunk, as a
mixed occupation of Wea and French traders, fell
somewhere in between.
As of yet, we have no indication as to the
pattern of Euroamerican versus native settlement at
the site. Were the Wea spread out over a large
area? Were the French and native inhabitants living
next to one another or were they separated into
different “quarters?” These questions must be
reserved until more intensive, systematic subsurface
survey has been conducted.
DISTRIBUTION OF ARTIFACTS
Due to the limited nature of the subsurface
investigations, a comprehensive picture of the
historic and prehistoric artifact distributions at 12T-59 is not yet possible. Still, the excavations that
were undertaken did provide some information on
the presence and absence of prehistoric and
historic artifacts in certain areas of the site.
18th-Century Historic Component,
Kethtippecanunk
The largest amount of effort during the 2005
investigations at 12-T-59 was directed toward
completing a large scale geophysical survey of the
site. Though the survey provided some clues as to
the location of the 18th-century occupation of the
site, due to the limited subsurface investigations,
direct evidence for artifact concentrations related
to the various components was more limited. The
following portion of the chapter provides detailed
provenience information about specific types of
historic artifacts.
As would be expected, the vast majority of
th
18 -century materials was recovered from the
surface and excavated contexts in and around the
128
structure (near N4860, E4890), but historic
materials were also found in other areas of the site.
In conjunction with the geophysical data, this
information should provide preliminary clues as to
the locations of significant archaeological deposits.
The distribution of prehistoric materials will be
dealt with in the next section.
White Clay Pipes
Four of the five clay pipe fragments were found
during the structure excavations or in the general
area. One other was found to the east, in Unit B,
which was located immediately to the west of the
north-south treeline. An additional eleven pipe
stems were collected from the surface around
coordinates N5000, E4840 by Sue Gibson.
Though archaeologists commonly associate
white clay pipes with Euroamerican, rather than
native occupations, records of trade goods
indicate that they were distributed to native
peoples in large quantities. For example 80 gross
were distributed as presents in Detroit in both
1782 and 1783 (MPHC 10:382, 632). In
addition, white clay pipes were found in fairly large
quantities at the early 19th-century Windrose site,
a Potawatomi homestead in northeastern Illinois
(Wagner 2001:112). These sources suggest that
Native peoples likely also used white clay pipes,
perhaps for everyday recreational smoking. For
this reason, white clay pipes might be used as a
marker for either the French or Wea residents at
the site.
Glass
Eighteenth-century container glass was found
exclusively in the vicinity of the identified structure.
Flat window glass, which likely indicates the
presence of substantial construction, was found
almost exclusively in the vicinity of the structure as
well. One small piece of 18th-century window
glass was found in Unit B, suggesting the possibility
of another structure in this area as well.
Discussion
129
Hand Wrought Nails and Tacks
18th-Century Ceramics
Not surprisingly, nails are often found in
association with structures (Tordoff 1983:300),
which makes them an important source of
information on site layout, even in the absence of
subsurface investigations. Of those areas
investigated at 12-T-59, the vast majority of nails
was found in association with the structure in the
southwest portion of the site. In addition, about 50
hand wrought nails are in the Gibson collection,
which originated from the area around N5000,
E4840. Metal detection in this area by the IPFWAS identified an additional three hand wrought
nails. A few other nails were found during metal
detecting and excavation in the vicinity of Unit B.
Finally, two hand wrought nails were found during
metal detection in the vicinity of Units D and H, in
the north-central portion of the site.
Nails and tacks in a variety of sizes were
recovered. Smaller nails would have been used for
flooring, shingles, and furniture, while large nails
were used in the structure’s walls (Gums and Witty
2000:147). Our initial investigations suggest that
nails seem to be distributed across a wide area of
the site, and may provide important information on
the location of additional structures.
Only six ceramic sherds were recovered, all of
which were found in the plowzone. Each was small
in size, a fact which may be attributed to their
exposure to repeated plowing and to the elements.
Ceramic types included creamware, porcelain,
French faience, and earthenware. All of these were
found during the partial excavation of the structure.
Brass/Copper
With the exception of one small copper fragment
found during metal detecting around N5000,
E4840, all of the brass and copper items were
found in association with the structure. This
includes such items as tacks, lock fragments, rings,
and gun parts.
Lead Artifacts
Only two lead artifacts were found during the 2005
investigations. These include a .55 caliber unfired
musket ball, found to the west of unit B and a small,
rectangular lead block of unknown function that
was recovered from the structure excavations.
In sum, geophysical survey and excavation
indicate that definite concentrations of historic
materials can be found in a few areas around the
site. Most obvious is the area surrounding
coordinates N4860, E4890. It was here that the
structure/chimney was located. Because surface
visibility in this area was adequate in summer 2005,
18th-century historic artifacts were identified on
the surface as well.
A second, largely
unexplored concentration is also known from the
area around N5000, E4840. It was here that
numerous historic artifacts were collected by Sue
Gibson when she used this portion of the field as a
garden, prior to its purchase by the state. In 2005,
limited metal detecting was conducted in the area
where the collections were reportedly made. Our
investigations indicated the presence of hand
wrought nails and brass scrap. Other dipolar
anomalies that were detected by the magnetometry
survey suggest that additional 18th-century
materials are likely present in the general area. The
recovery of hand-wrought nails suggests that a
structure may have been located here.
Unfortunately, due to time constraints, no other
investigations were conducted in this area.
Limited metal detecting and the presence of
numerous dipolar anomalies suggested that 18thcentury materials might be identified in the area
near coordinates N4880, E5060. Two units were
placed in this area, both of which uncovered only
small numbers of artifacts related to the occupation
of Kethtippecanunk. No subsurface indications of
18th-century habitation were identified in this area.
It appears that although historic materials are
Discussion
130
shunning of Euroamerican beliefs, material culture,
and subsistence economy (Sugden 1997:118).
For this reason, it is likely that fewer Euroamerican
th
goods would be present at Prophetstown than
19 -Century Historic Component Prophetstown
would be expected for a Native American site of
this time period. The use of native technologies,
Despite numerous archaeological reconnaissance with its greater use perishable materials, would
level surveys in the area (e.g., Helmkamp and certainly make the Prophetstown less visible
Kanne 1999, 2000; Jones 1988, 1998; Martin archaeologically.
2002), the location of Prophetstown continues to
In addition, given a span of only about 20 years
remain elusive. Nearly all areas that were between the occupations at Kethtippecanunk and
described in the historic documents as the location Prophetstown, there are few artifacts that may be
of Prophetstown have been subjected to used to definitively distinguish between the two
archaeological survey and, to date, very little sites. Many of the artifacts that archaeologists use
material dating to the early-19th-century has been to date historic sites (e.g., ceramics) would have
identified. Throughout this report, the assumption been the same in both the late 18th and early 19th
has been made that most, if not all of the historic centuries. Both creamware and pearlware, for
artifacts found at 12-T-59 are related to the example, were the common household ceramics
occupation of Kethtippecanunk, rather than during this period. Given this fact, it is indeed
Prophetstown. The reason for this assumption is possible that some of the historic period materials
that historic documents are much clearer on the recovered in 2005 were part of a Prophetstownlocation of Kethtippecanunk. Contemporary related occupation. Only a single historic period
accounts place the town immediately to the west of artifact from our investigations (the English
the Tippecanoe River, near some springs at the gunflint), however, likely could be assigned to a
base of the bluff and it is here that late 18th-century post-Kethtippecanunk occupation. The Brandon
materials have been located. The close gunflint quarries were utilized beginning about
correspondence between eyewitness accounts 1790 (Kenmotsu 1990:96) and gunflints
and the location of archaeological materials is manufactured from this material would like not
convincing evidence that most of the materials are have been seen in great quantities prior to the last
related to Kethtippecanunk. Accounts describing decade of the 18th-century. It is believed that only
the location of Prophetstown are less clear and a highly diagnostic artifact (e.g., a military button or
sometimes contradictory. Nearly all of the coin) may be used to distinguish the late 18thhistorical sources indicate that Prophetstown was century Kethtippecanunk assemblage from that of
situated somewhere between Burnett’s Creek and any Prophetstown-related habitation in the
the Tippecanoe River. Unfortunately, this is a immediate area. Additional investigations may
distance of approximately 4.5 miles (Jones shed some light on this problem but for now, we
1984:27). In addition, since Prophetstown was have no definitive proof that Prophetstown-related
only occupied for a period of three years (1808- materials are located in this area of the park.
1811), it is possible that the number of artifacts
deposited during this short time was low enough
Prehistoric Components
that the site has escaped archaeological detection.
A second reason why Prophetstown may be Due to the overwhelming interest in the historic
archaeologically invisible may have to do with the period component at 12-T-59, the prehistoric
beliefs of the inhabitants. Tenskwatawa’s remains at the site have been given little attention
revitalization movement called for, in part, the (e.g., Dobbs 1975; Jones 1988; Trubowitz 1992).
present in the vicinity, they are not found in large
densities or quantities.
Discussion
There were, however, relatively large quantities of
prehistoric materials recovered during the current
investigations, indicating multiple prehistoric
components. Prehistoric materials were found in
all excavated units and shovel test probes.
Prehistoric artifacts were also noted during noncontrolled surface collection in those areas of the
site with adequate surface visibility (primarily the
southern and northern edges of the site). Again,
however, due to the limited subsurface testing
employed in this project, the nature and extent of
the prehistoric components is not yet fully
understood. However, we do have preliminary
information on the distribution of the various
prehistoric components at the site.
Archaic Components
Archaic diagnostics representing a number of
Early through Late Archaic traditions were found
in various areas across the site (Figure 7.1). These
likely represent periodic use of the immediate
vicinity over thousands of years and should not be
thought of as a single component. Three of the four
131
Archaic projectile points were found in unit
excavations, while the fourth was found on the
surface. Overall, however, the nature and extent of
the Archaic occupations is not well understood.
Middle Woodland Component
Middle Woodland diagnostics consist of four
Steuben Expanded Stemmed points and a single
prepared blade (Figure 7.1). Three of the four
Steuben points were found on the surface, as was
the blade. The remaining Steuben point was found
in Unit D. Most of the Middle Woodland
diagnostics were found on the southwestern
quadrant of the site. It is interesting to note that the
distribution of Middle Woodland materials does
not coincide with the distribution of ceramics (see
below), suggesting that many or most of the nondiagnostic sherds are not Middle Woodland in
origin.
Late Prehistoric Lithics
Unnotched triangular projectile points, which are
Figure 7.1. Distribution of Archaic and Middle Woodland lithics.
Discussion
132
Figure 7.2. Distribution of Late Prehistoric lithics.
diagnostic of the Late Prehistoric, were also found
at the site. Their association with a specific type of
prehistoric ceramics was not established. It is
possible that the triangular points could be
associated either with the grit tempered Albee or
the shell tempered wares found at the site
(Redmond and McCullough 2000). All five
triangular points were found in a single area of the
site, within units D and H. Two Late Prehistoric
drills were also identified. These were found in
units B and K. Two other broken projectile point
tips were most likely portions of Late Prehistoric
triangles. These were found in Units B and H.
Overall, the distribution of Late Prehistoric
diagnostic lithics is restricted to the central portion
of the site (Figure 7.2). Despite the relatively large
amount of excavation in the vicinity of the structure,
no diagnostic Late Prehistoric materials were
recovered in this area.
Prehistoric Ceramics
Prehistoric ceramics were identified in a number of
areas around the site. Sherds, for the most part
were non-diagnostic, however, making it difficult
to assign them to a specific prehistoric component
beyond a general “Woodland” association.
Non-Diagnostic Grit-Tempered Sherds.
Due to a lack of diagnostic attributes, these sherds
can only be assigned a generic Woodland status.
Small numbers of grit-tempered sherds were
found in units B, D, E, H, and K (Figure 7.3).
Additional sherds were found in shovel probes and
on the surface. For the most part, non-diagnostic
grit-tempered ceramics are confined to the central
portion of the site. Their distribution overlaps with
that of the Late Prehistoric lithics.
Albee Sherds. Four grit-tempered Late
Woodland Albee rims were found in the course of
the investigations (Figure 7.3). Two were found in
Unit H. Single rimsherds were found in Unit K and
in a shovel probe in the northeast portion of the site.
The distribution of Albee sherds coincides to a
large degree with that of the non-diagnostic grittempered sherds and Late Prehistoric lithics,
which suggests that much of the material in the
central portion of the site may be Albee phase.
Discussion
133
Figure 7.3. Distribution of Albee phase sherds and non-diagnostic grit-tempered sherds.
Shell-Tempered Ceramics. Small amounts of
non-diagnostic, shell-tempered sherds were found
in Units H and K, in association with nondiagnostic grit-tempered sherds, Albee ceramics,
and triangular projectile points (Figure 7.4). Shell-
tempered ceramics are diagnostic of the Late
Prehistoric and may be contemporary or later than
the documented Albee component at the site.
Unfortunately, nearly nothing is known about the
post-Albee Late Prehistoric occupations of the
Figure 7.4. Distribution of shell- and grog-tempered sherds.
Discussion
central Wabash valley, and in the absence of
additional excavations and/or radiocarbon dates,
little else can be said regarding this component.
Grog-Tempered Ceramics. Two thick,
grog-tempered sherds were found on the surface
at the northwestern edge of the site (N4992,
E4806 and N4992, E4855) (Figure 7.4). It is
possible, given their thickness and the presence of
grog tempering, that these two sherds are
associated with an Early Woodland component at
the site. The absence of any Early Woodland lithics
argues against this, however. As far as can be
ascertained at this point, grog-tempered sherds
are found only in the northwest corner of the site,
on the sandy ridge overlooking the spring-fed
pond to the north. Their distribution is distinct from
that of all other diagnostic prehistoric materials,
which suggests that they are not associated with
some of the other identified components (e.g.,
Albee, Middle Woodland).
In sum, although subsurface testing has not been
conducted in many areas of the site, initial
impressions of prehistoric artifact distributions can
still be made. First, it appears that Middle
Woodland diagnostic materials are distributed
over a fairly wide area, but are primarily found in
the southwestern portions of the site. Based on
these data, it is possible that the numerous
monopolar positive pits found in the extreme
southwestern portion of the survey area may be
related to the Middle Woodland occupation of the
area. Further subsurface testing is needed to
confirm or reject this suspicion.
Late Prehistoric artifacts (i.e., triangular
projectile points, Albee sherds, and shelltempered sherds) appear to be confined to a more
restricted area, located in the central portion of 12T-59. It has not yet been possible to separate out
the two Late Prehistoric components at the site
(the Albee and shell tempered components) as
they occur in similar areas of the site. Additional
subsurface investigation would be required to
further understand the relationships and horizontal
134
distribution of these two components. As noted in
chapter 2, shell-tempered ceramics and triangular
projectile points were also noted at site 12-T-531,
which is located approximately 200m south of 12T-59. The spatial and chronological relationship
between the Late Prehistoric components at 12T-59 and 12-T-531 is not known.
There are numerous monopolar positive
anomalies in the central portion of the site. Many of
these may be related to the Late Prehistoric
occupation of the site. Of the four archaeological
features excavated at 12-T-59, only two
(Features 2 and 5) contained diagnostic materials.
The first, Feature 2, was located in Unit H and
contained both grit- and shell-tempered ceramics
and is likely related to the Late Prehistoric
occupation. The second, Feature 5, contained a
few grit-tempered sherds and may be a result of
either the Middle Woodland or Albee components
at the site.
BEHAVIORAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE
ASSEMBLAGE
A functional analysis of the Kethtippecanunk
materials from the current investigations was
reviewed in chapter 6 (Table 6.4). Briefly, this
analysis indicated that about a half (53.5%) of the
18th-century artifacts recovered during the IPFWAS investigations were related to architectural use
(e.g., window glass, nails, hinge, burned chinking).
The next most common category was furnishings,
which comprised 20.2 percent of the materials.
This was followed by alcohol, with 10.1 percent.
Food storage/service, tobacco use, firearms, and
adornment-related artifacts comprised less than
ten percent each. Overall, the predominance of
architectural remains at Kethtippecanunk is not
surprising, based upon the type of settlement
described in contemporary accounts (Jones
1988:357). It was argued that the variety, type,
and frequency of materials recovered from the
structure, however, suggest an assemblage that
may not be purely domestic in nature.
Discussion
Table 7.1. Ranking of Functional Categories from the
IPFW-AS Investigations at 12-T-59 (18th-Century
Artifacts Only).
Ranking
Pe rce nt
1) Architectural (n=69)
53.5%
2) Furnishings (n=26)
20.2%
3) Alcohol (n=13)
10.1%
4) Food storage / service (n=11)
8.5%
5) Tobacco use (n=5)
3.9%
6) Firearms (n=3)
2.3%
7) Adornment (n=2)
1.6%
Though our system of functional categories is
slightly different, the rankings obtained in the
current investigations compare favorably with
those noted by Jones (1988:Tables 13 through 21)
in his analysis of the surface-collected materials
from Kethtippecanunk. Like the findings from the
current investigations, Jones’ functional analysis of
the Kethtippecanunk materials (Tables 7.1 and
7.2) also indicated that architectural remains
dominate at the site (37.0%) (Jones 1988:Table
14). Similarly, arms-related items and items of
adornment are relatively infrequent in both
Kethtippecanunk assemblages. This suggests that
the materials recovered from the 2005 excavations
are representative of the site as a whole.
The patterns of artifact types found at
135
Kethtippecanunk are in sharp contrast to the
materials found at Fort Ouiatenon and the Wea
village (Jones 1988). At both sites, arms-related
items such as gunflints, gun parts, and lead balls
ranked first, representing a total of 26.57 percent
and 21.33 percent of the assemblage at the Wea
village and Fort Ouiatenon, respectively (Jones
1988:Table 17). Architectural items rank second
at both of these sites. This suggests a fundamental
difference in the nature of the assemblages of the
three sites. The high frequency of arms-related
items is not surprising at Fort Ouiatenon, since it
held a military garrison for approximately 40 years.
One other notable pattern is the relatively high
frequency of items of adornment at the Wea village
(6.1%). This is compared to the relative rarity of
such items at Fort Ouiatenon (0.96%) and
Kethtippecanunk (2.34% in Jones’ study [Jones
1988:Table 19]). Our investigations confirm the
overall lower percentage of items of adornment at
Kethtippecanunk (1.6%). The lower frequency of
items of adornment at Kethtippecanunk and Fort
Ouiatenon may be a reflection of the presence of
Euroamericans at both sites, as many of these items
were those typically worn by Native Americans
(e.g, tinklers, silver arm bands).
One notable difference between Jones’
Kethtippecanunk materials and those recovered in
the current investigations is the relatively low
percentage of artifacts related to food preparation,
Table 7.2. Functional Analysis of Materials from Kethtippecanunk, the Wea Village, and Fort Ouiatenon,
Expressed as Percentage of the Total Assemblage (Adapted from Jones [1988:Tables 13 - 21]).
Ranking
Ke thtippe canunk (12-T-59)
We a village (12-T-6)
Fort Ouiate non (12-T-9)
1
Structural / architectural (37.0%)
Arms- related (26.6%)
Arms- related (21.3%)
2
Food consumption (25.6%)
Structural / architectural (10.9%)
Structural / architectural (17.1%)
3
Arms- related (4.1%)
Food consumption (6.2%)
Food consumption (12.0%)
4
Recreational (2.4%)
Adornment (6.1%)
Recreational (5.6%)
5
Adornment (2.3%)
Recreational (2.2%)
Adornment (1.0%)
6
Food preparation (1.9%)
Food preparation (2.2%)
Food preparation (0.5%)
7
Tools (1.5%)
European clothing (1.2%)
European clothing (0.4%)
8
European clothing (0.8%)
Tools (0.7%)
Tools (0.3%)
Discussion
consumption, and storage. Jones (1988:Tables 15
and 16) found that items related to food
preparation and consumption comprised a total of
27.5 percent of the assemblage, while our
excavations indicate a value much lower (8.5%).
This may be a factor of the lower sample size in our
analysis, but may also be due to the fact that most
of our artifacts originated from a single structure. If
that structure (or the portion excavated) was
devoted to activities other than food preparation,
we would expect the frequency of this category to
be correspondingly low. Perhaps a sample of
artifacts from a wider variety of proveniences at the
site would indicate a greater percentage of foodrelated artifacts.
NATURE OF THE FRENCH STRUCTURE
Due to the limited time and goals of the 2005
investigations, a small portion of the
Kethtippecanunk structure was exposed in
planview, but not excavated. Despite the limited
nature of the 2005 investigations in the area of the
structure, we do have some evidence that this
136
house was of fairly substantial construction. This is
indicated by the presence of window glass,
numerous hand wrought nails, and a large strap
hinge, possibly for securing a door or shutter. In
addition, the presence of a large number of fired
cobbles in the plowzone indicates the probable
presence of a stone chimney or fireplace.
Construction Technique
It is possible that the linear feature identified during
the 2005 investigations is a portion of a traditional
French poteaux-en-terre (post in ground)
structure. Poteaux-en-terre dwellings, which
were the most popular type of ethnic French house
in the Midcontinent, have been excavated from a
number of sites in the Midwest and Great Lakes
area (e.g., Birk 1991; Gums 1988, 1993; Gums
and Witty 2000; Heldman 1991; Mazrim 2003;
Walthall and Benchley 1987; Trimble et al. 1991),
including Fort Ouiatenon (Tordoff 1983:168169). As far as is currently understood, the feature
found at 12-T-59 corresponds closely to the
archaeological signature of poteaux-en-terre
structures found elsewhere. Poteaux-en-terre
Figure 7.5. Poteaux-en-terre structure with gallery and hipped roof. Drawn by General Georges-Victor Collot in
the mid 1790s (from Ekberg 1985:291).
Discussion
houses were constructed by digging a rectangularshaped trench, into which dressed logs were
placed vertically. The trench was then backfilled
and a wooden framework was constructed
between the vertical logs. Gaps between the logs
were then filled with bouzillage, a chinking made
of clay and straw. Whitewash was applied to the
exterior of the house to seal the walls (Figure 7.5).
Archaeological investigations indicate that the
house dimensions of poteaux-en-terre structures
varied considerably, with an average of about 6.7
by 10.8m (Gums 1988:87).
Poteaux-en-terre structures would have
required no nails or hardware, except those
needed for the doors and shutters, if present
(Walthall and Benchley 1987:27). More substantial
houses would have been surrounded by a
overhanging gallery on one or more sides, which
served both as a shaded place to relax and
protection against the elements (Ekberg 1985:286287; Walthall and Benchley 1987:27). The hipped
roof was made of wooden trusses that were
pegged together. The portion of the roof over the
house proper was steeply pitched, to expedite
runoff, while the roof over the gallery would have
been less steeply angled. Structures were roofed
with thatch made of long prairie grass or
bardeaux, which were split wooden shingles
(Ekberg 1985:290; Walthall and Benchley
1987:27).
The vast majority of poteaux-en-terre
structures at colonial Ste. Genevieve in Missouri
were either single-story, one- or two-room
houses, which sometimes served the dual purpose
of residences and places of business (Ekberg
1985:292). They often had interior chimneys,
constructed of stone or wood and clay (Ekberg
1985:301; Gums and Witty 2000:126). A
“fireplace footing” constructed of glacial boulders
was excavated at Fort Ouiatenon (Kellar 1970),
indicating that such methods of construction were
used in the Wabash valley as well. Houses had
casement windows which opened to the side. The
windows in less affluent households were covered
with oiled skin or cloth, while those built by more
137
wealthy families used plate glass. Better structures
had shutters as well (Ekberg 1985:294).
The information we have about the structure at
12-T-59, though limited, suggests that it was of
relatively substantial construction. The presence of
window glass at the house in fairly large quantities
suggests an individual of some means, since
equipping a frontier house with glass windows
would have been beyond most individuals. The
probable stone chimney or fireplace located in Unit
C also suggests that the structure was fairly wellbuilt, as the owners did not opt for the more
economical wood and clay hearths that are also
known from French structures of this period.
Activities and Occupants
Ample 18th-century materials were located within
the vicinity of the structure, including hand wrought
iron nails, gun parts, white clay pipe fragments,
copper/brass scraps, French faience, bottle glass,
and a trade ring. Many of the artifacts were burned,
likely a result of the Kentucky militia’s attack on the
town.
Numerous brass tacks and a drawer pull
suggest that the occupant of the structure may have
had furniture. As a means of comparison,
household furniture in mid-18th-century colonial
Ste. Genevieve was crude and sparse, typically
consisting of beds, a looking glass, an armoire, one
or two tables, and some roughly constructed
chairs. Upholstered furniture would have been rare
as would have been chests with pull drawers
(Ekberg 1985:297). The drawer pull recovered at
Kethtippecanunk may indicate that the furnishings
in the structure were better than average, though it
also could have been used for a document box.
Brass tacks could have been used for upholstered
furniture, though it is also possible that they were
used for decorating a wooden trunk or box. A third
possibility is that the tacks were destined for use as
trade items. Since upholstered furniture would
have been rare on the frontier (Ekberg 1985:297),
the latter two possibilities seem more likely.
Other information on the activities/occupants
Discussion
of the structure can be found in two pieces of brass
that were recovered. Both pieces, a fragment of a
trigger guard and a flat piece of cast brass, were
cut, possibly for reworking or repair. The presence
of reworked gun parts in the structure may indicate
that such work was being done in the house or
immediate vicinity. It appears that, due to the
scarcity of replacement parts, gun parts were
extensively repaired and reworked on many
frontier colonial sites (Hamilton 1980). The
presence of reworked gun parts at 12-T-59
suggests that these activities continued through the
end of the colonial period.
Overall, considering the relatively small
number of artifacts found and the limited horizontal
extent of the excavations, the variety of materials
found in the structure was large. This suggests that
the structure may have held many more items than
would have been found in a typical household. A
functional analysis of the assemblage (chapter 6)
indicates an unexpectedly low frequency of
domestic-related items (e.g., utilitarian ceramics,
coarse earthenwares) that would argue against a
purely domestic function for the structure. It is
possible that the structure was used solely for
storing trade items and conducting business. One
other option was that it was used as both a
domestic dwelling and place of business, as was
common in French colonial households in Ste.
Genevieve (Ekberg 1985:292). Due to the small
number of artifacts recovered and the limited
nature of the investigations in summer 2005, not
much can be said beyond this. Further
archaeological investigations are needed to
confirm or refute these suspicions.
The most telling artifact recovered from the
vicinity of the structure is the fob seal with the
Masonic coat-of-arms. As described in chapter 6,
the seal was manufactured from an oval piece of
clear crystal that had been impressed into a die and
is held by a brass mounting with a small loop for
suspension. In the latter half of the 18th-century,
fob seals such as this one replaced signet rings as
a means to stamp documents (White 2005:100,
133). They were worn on the pants, suspended by
138
a cord or ribbon. The trumpet shape of the
Kethtippecanunk seal is typical of those dating to
the late 18th- and early 19th-centuries (White
2005:133). The close association of the unique
artifact with the structure suggests that it may
provide some information on the owner or
occupant of the house.
Brandon Bradshaw of the IPFW Department
of Anthropology has positively identified the coatof-arms as Masonic, specifically that of the
Premier Grand Lodge of England. This particular
coat-of-arms was in use from 1717, when the
lodge was organized, until 1813 (Harris 1929), a
period which fits with the late-18th-century
occupation and destruction of Kethtippecanunk.
The coat-of-arms of the Grand Lodge of England
(see Figure 6.10) consists of a shield containing
three towers, each with triple turrets. In the middle
of the shield is a chevron in the shape of a Mason’s
square, superimposed by a compass. A bird was
used as a crest (i.e., above the shield). Though the
species is unknown, it is thought by some to be
representative of a phoenix. The supporters on
either side of the shield are thought to be beavers,
though they may also be otters or panthers (Harris
1929:226-227, Figure 3). The coat-of-arms from
the Kethtippecanunk seal matches all of the
described attributes.
The first Masonic Grand Lodge, the Premier
Grand Lodge of England, was formed in 1717.
Grand Lodges are the governing bodies of
Freemasonry and have control over the creation,
governance, and rituals used by subordinate local
lodges under their jurisdiction. The Grand Lodge
of England was originally a London-based
organization, but it soon spread through the rest of
England and abroad (Hamill 1986:41, 51).
In the latter half of the eighteenth century, the
Masons in England and the Americas split into two
factions, the so-called “Moderns,” represented by
the Premier Grand Lodge and the “Ancients”
represented by the Grand Lodge of the Ancients.
Like the Premier Grand Lodge, the Ancients were
originally based in London, but soon spread
throughout England and abroad. The majority of
Discussion
individuals from the early Ancients were Irish
Masons who had been refused entry into London
lodges based on their class or because their rituals
did not conform with those set up by the Grand
Lodge (Hamill 1986:50). At stake were squabbles
over rituals and procedures, but more than that, the
differences between the two factions were socioeconomic and political (Bullock 1996:51).
Despite a veneer of egalitarianism, membership
in the Modern faction was generally not open to the
middle classes. Members were primarily men of
rank. The Ancients, on the other hand, had more
members without social power or distinction and
the institution as a whole was more democratic.
The Grand Master of the Ancients, for example,
had no independent authority and all decisions had
to be ratified by the Grand Lodge (Hamill
1986:51).
English Freemasonry was first introduced into
North America in 1730, with the appointment of a
Provincial Grand Master for New York, New
Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Between 1730 and the
Revolutionary War, both the Premier and Ancient
grand lodges appointed numerous Grand Masters
in what is now the United States (Hamill 1986:88).
The first lodges in Canada were organized in 1738
(Harris 1929:229). Both the Premier and Ancient
Grand Lodges were active in Canada as well
(Hamill 1986:95).
The Ancients, however, were much more
successful at attracting followers abroad than their
rivals. By 1792, the Ancients were predominant in
most areas of the United States, due to fact that
membership was opened to non-elites. At the
same time, the Ancient faction succeeded in
identifying itself with genteel culture, an image that
had significant appeal (Bullock 1996:86). To some
degree, the success of the Ancients in North
America was also attributable to the establishment
of “traveling” Ancient lodges among military units
in the colonies, a move which brought Masonry to
officers as well as lower-ranking individuals
(Bullock 1996:90; Hamill 1986:51). The first
traveling lodge in the British military was
established in 1755, and their numbers soon
139
multiplied. Military lodges were found in every
branch of the British army (Gould 1899:41, 119).
During the Revolutionary War, the Ancient
lodges in the colonies were identified mostly with
the rebellion against England, while a larger
proportion of the Moderns were Loyalists. This
hastened the demise of Modern masonry in North
America. By the end of the Revolutionary War,
only a single Modern lodge was present in Boston,
while all of the Modern lodges in Philadelphia had
disappeared. By 1800, nearly all of the lodges in
the United States were of the Ancient faction
(Bullock 1996:90). Finally, in 1813, after 63 years
of squabbles, the two factions resolved their
differences and established the United Grand
Lodge of England, an institution which survives to
this day (Hamill 1986:41).
The identification of the Kethtippecanunk seal
with the Modern Masonic faction carries with it
some implications about the possible owner and/or
resident of the structure. First, the presence of this
artifact suggests that this individual was English,
rather than French. Named individuals at
Kethtippecanunk are few, however, and all are of
French background. One of the traders mentioned
at the site, Chevallier, is noted as being an agent for
a “Mr. Robertson” (Quaife 1921:348), but there is
no indication that Mr. Robertson was resident
there. It is not unlikely, given the connections
between British Detroit and the Wabash valley that
existed at the time, that English traders or their
representatives may have been present at
Kethtippecanunk during the attack. The
identification of this individual with the Modern
faction of the Masons suggests, however, that he
was not a member of a military lodge, as the
traveling military lodges were predominantly
associated with the Ancient faction (Gould
1899:35).
Membership by this individual in the Modern
faction of the Masons also suggests that its owner
may have been a person of some social rank and/
or means, given the more elite status of the
members (Bullock 1996). This attribution is not
unreasonable, given that the structure at
Discussion
Kethtippecanunk appears to have been of fairly
substantial construction. One sherd of handpainted porcelain and one piece of French faience
were found in the structure excavations (see
chapter 6). The presence of both of these ceramic
types serves as an additional indicator of aboveaverage means (Gilman 1982:49; Shulsky
2002:103; Walthall 1991:192). Additional
investigations within the structure should provide
much needed information on the socio-economic
status of the occupant(s).
PRESENCE OF NATIVE AMERICAN DWELLINGS AT
THE SITE
At this point in time, we do not yet have information
on the presence of Wea structures at
Kethtippecanunk, and the available 18th-century
descriptions of the town do not provide
information on the types of native structures that
were present. Like most tribes of the Great Lakes
area, the early contact period Miami lived in oval
lodges constructed of pole frames covered in rush
mats. By the late 18th-century, however, the
traditional “wigwams” had been replaced to some
degree by log structures (Callender 1978:682). It
is possible then, that many of the Wea dwellings at
the site were of relatively substantial Europeanstyle log construction, possibly interspersed with
more traditional structures (Jones 1988:362). The
degree to which log structures had been adopted
is uncertain. One source indicates that Wea
families were living in 10-person cabins by 1778,
though the nature of these dwellings is not specified
(Barnhardt 1951:132).
Sources on neighboring groups, however,
indicate that log houses had not supplanted
traditional dwellings until well into the 19th-century.
In northern Indiana and northeastern Illinois, for
example, early-19th-century Potawatomi summer
village dwellings were of two types. The first were
large rectangular structures with straight sides,
central halls, multiple hearths, and sleeping
benches around the perimeter. These were
140
occupied by extended families. The second
structure type was a dome-shaped, bark-covered
dwelling (Wagner 2001:11). These were
described as wigwam-like and were “constructed
of bark or reed, with an opening in the south, and
a hole in the top, to let out the smoke” (Matson
1872:29-30). Traditional Potawatomi dwellings
continued to be constructed through the 1830s
(Wagner 2001:11).
The archaeological signature of any possible
Native American structures, however, is uncertain.
Log structures would most likely have been
constructed directly upon the surface, possibly
without any substantial subsurface disturbance.
Given this fact, when the structure burned, only
near-surface soils would have been affected. After
repeated plowing, any intact portion of the
structure would have been incorporated into the
plowzone. Wigwam-style structures, being of
even lighter construction, may also be difficult to
detect archaeologically.
The organization of the native settlement is
another factor to consider. Houses in Miami
villages were most often scattered irregularly along
a river bank and were not neatly organized or
clustered as we would expect for a European-style
settlement. A large council house, used for public
ceremonies, would also have likely been present
(Callender 1978:682). Because the Wea
inhabitants were likely spread out over a sizable
area, it may be difficult to detect the “edge” of the
village. One Miami village on the Eel River, for
example, extended for three miles (Dillon
1859:268). It is also possible that, given the
presence of French traders, that the village was of
a more compact, European-style layout.
KOCOA ANALYSIS OF THE KETHTIPPECANUNK
BATTLE
During the short battle at the town of
Kethtippecanunk, aspects of the terrain were the
basis for military decisions on both sides. Terrain
dictates the movement, formation, and positions of
Discussion
141
forces, and correct use of the terrain is a crucial
factor in the outcome of a battle. Battlefield terrain
has two aspects for consideration. The first is the
weather, climate, and season. The second is the
topography. Topography includes such factors as
relief and drainage, natural and cultivated
vegetation, and the presence of manmade features.
All of these must be evaluated for both offensive
and defensive purposes (Naval Education and
Training Professional Development and Technology
Center [NETPDTC] 1993:5-1).
The key points to remembering and evaluating
the military aspects of terrain have been
summarized by the U.S. military using the acronym
KOCOA (U.S. Marine Corps 1993:3-16), which
stands for:
may have been of importance to the battle (e.g.,
stands of woods, locations of structures). It is
likely, however, that the basic topography has
changed little over the past 200 plus years, and this
can provide the basis for our analysis.
Surviving reports of the battle were written by
three individuals, Brigadier General Charles Scott
of the Kentucky Militia, Lieutenant James
Wilkinson, his second in command, and an
anonymous soldier who was present at the battle.
General Scott’s description of the battle was
second hand, as he remained at the Wea village,
some 25km downriver, following its destruction
the previous day. The following is an excerpt of
Scott’s report to Congress, dated June 28, 1791,
some three weeks after the attack:
K - Key terrain. - Any feature or area in which the
seizure or control of it offers a marked tactical
advantage (e.g., bridges, fording sites, high
ground, road junctions)
The next morning [June 2, 1791] I
determined to detach my Lieutenant
Colonel-commandant, with five
hundred men, to destroy the
important
town
of
Kethtippecanunk...but
on
examination, I discovered my men
and horses to be crippled, and worn
down by a long laborious march,
and the active exertions of the
preceding day; that three hundred
and sixty men only, could be found
in a capacity to undertake the
enterprise, and they prepared to
march on foot. Colonel Wilkinson
marched with this detachment at
half after five in the evening, and
returned to my camp the next day
at one o’clock, having marched
thirty-six miles in twelve hours, and
destroyed the most important
settlement in that quarter of the
federal territory. [American State
Papers, Indian Affairs 18321834:I:131].
O - Observation and fields of fire. - The influence
of terrain on reconnaissance, surveillance, target
acquisition, and direct fire capabilities
C - Concealment and cover. - Concealment is
protection from enemy observation, while cover is
protection from the effects of weapon fire
O - Obstacles (natural and manmade). - Natural
and synthetic terrain features that stop, impede or
divert military movement
A - Avenues of approach and mobility corridors.
- Routes by which a force may reach key terrain or
an objective
The key to KOCOA analysis is the
identification of those features that were critical to
the outcome of the battle (Lawhon 2002).
Unfortunately, the available contemporary
descriptions of the village and the battle do not
provide much detail on the landscape features that
James Wilkinson, who was the commander of the
expedition, wrote a short description of the battle
immediately upon his return to Ouiatenon. His
Discussion
description provides more detail on the strategic
decisions and circumstances of the fight:
The detachment under my
command destined to attack the
village Kethtipecanunk, was put in
motion at half after five o’clock
last evening. Knowing that an
enemy, whose chief dependence is
in his dexterity as a marksman, and
alertness in covering himself
behind trees, stumps, and other
impediments to fair fight, would not
hazard an action in the light, I
determined to push my march until
I approached the vicinity of the
villages, where I knew the country
to be champaigned1. I gained my
point without a halt, 20 minutes
before 11 o’clock; lay upon my
arms until 4 o’clock, and half an
hour after, assaulted the town at all
quarters. The enemy was vigilant;
gave way on my approach, and, in
canoes, crossed Eel creek2, which
washed the northeast part of the
town; that creek was not fordable;
my corps dashed forward with the
impetuosity becoming volunteers,
and were saluted by the enemy
with a brisk fire from the opposite
side of the creek. Dauntless, they
rushed on to the water’s edge,
uncovered to the moccason, and
finding it impassable, returned a
volley, which so galled and
disconcerted their antagonists, that
they threw away their fire without
effect. In five minutes, the savages
were driven from the covering, and
fled with precipitation. I have three
men slightly wounded. At half past
five the town was in flames, and at
six o’clock I commenced my
retreat. [American State Papers,
1
2
i.e., an extensive tract of open land.
the Tippecanoe River.
142
Indian Affairs 1832-1834:I:132].
The final account is a portion of a letter written by
an anonymous member of the expedition. The
letter was published in 1793, not long after the
battle, as part of George Imlay’s account of the
natural and topographical features of the “Western
Territory” (Imlay 1916). The following is a portion
of the letter, which agrees in most respects with the
account given by Wilkinson:
This expedition was conducted
with so much caution and celerity,
that Wilkinson arrived at the
margin of the pararie, within a mile,
and to the west of the town, about
an hour before the break of day;
whilst a detachment was taking a
circuit through the pararie to cooperate with the main body on a
given signal; day appeared, and the
volunteers rushed into the town
with an impetuosity not to be
resisted. The detachment in
advance reached the Rippacanoe
[sic] Creek the very moment the
last of the Indians were crossing,
when a very brisk fire took place
between the detachment and the
Indians on the opposite site, in
which several of their warriors
were killed, and two of our men,
wounded. [Imlay 1916:12].
A topographic map of the immediate area provides
information on the key aspects of the terrain to be
considered. The salient features within the
immediate area include: 1) the broad, expansive
floodplain that extends from the site to the
southwest (It is assumed that portions of this
floodplain were farm fields used by the native
residents of the site); 2) the river bluffs on the
northwest border of the town; and 3) the
Tippecanoe River, which served as the eastern
border of the site and a natural barrier to
movement.
Discussion
Wilkinson likely approached from the west
and southwest, under cover of darkness, stopping
about a mile from the edge of the town. It is not
known if he approached from the bottomlands or
uplands. A detachment of men was then
dispatched to take a “circuit through the pararie”
so that the town could be attacked from all sides at
once. At the break of day, the men rushed into the
town and chased out the residents, who fled to the
east, crossing the river using canoes that were
likely situated near the edge of the river. The
militiamen attempted to ford the river but found it
too deep. The defenders then set up a firing line on
the opposite side of the river but were dispersed by
returning fire from the attackers.
Although the descriptions of the town and the
attack are not detailed, some important aspects of
the military action can still be analyzed. First, it is
assumed that Wilkinson had no maps and no prior
knowledge of site or area. He mentions in his
report that he knew the country adjacent to the
town to be a broad plain, which implies that he had
some prior knowledge of the terrain, possibly from
guides or captured prisoners at Ouiatenon. Guides
are known to have been present at the attack on the
Wea village the previous day (American State
Papers, Indian Affairs 1832-1834:I:131) and
these guides may have accompanied Wilkinson at
the assault on Kethtippecanunk. Since the broad,
flat nature of the surrounding bottomland prairie
and farm fields likely provided little opportunity for
concealment and cover, the choice of a dawn
attack was a prudent one. One key terrain feature
was the bluff top, as the higher elevation and close
proximity to the village would have provided
143
superior observation and field of fire to the
attackers (if the area was not in heavy brush or
woods). The available reports, however, do not
mention the use of the bluffs by the attackers.
The field of fire is the area into which one’s
weapons can be fired effectively. Though we have
no knowledge of stands of trees or other aspects
of cover and concealment at Kethtippecanunk, we
can assume that, in general, the prairie and farm
fields surrounding the town provided a clear field of
fire to the attackers, though the presence of
structures within the town itself would have
provided cover to the residents. Apparently, being
caught in a surprise attack, they did not choose to
take advantage of the available cover afforded by
the structures and facilities within the town, as they
reportedly quickly fled across the river. As the
attack occurred at dawn, light would have been a
minor impediment to clear observation and
movement, one, however, that would have
decreased at the attack progressed.
The main obstacle to movement was the river.
This did not prove to be a significant complication
to Wilkinson’s objectives until after the residents
fled. The Wea and French traders had a means by
which to cross the river and escape, while the
Kentucky militiamen did not. Though one of the
main objectives of the Wabash expedition was to
capture prisoners (American State Papers, Indian
Affairs 1832-1834:I:130), there is no mention of
prisoners in the accounts. This is likely due to the
ready availability of watercraft to the residents of
Kethtippecanunk, and their subsequent escape
and dispersal.
CHAPTER 8
CONCLUSIONS
STATEMENT OF NRHP ELIGIBILITY
Since the site is now part of Prophetstown State
Park, it is therefore protected against significant
human disturbance. Site 12-T-59, however, is
frequently flooded, and there is evidence that
repeated flooding has negatively impacted the site,
particularly along its southern edge.
It is the opinion of the IPFW-AS that the
density of prehistoric and historic-period artifacts,
along with the demonstrated presence of
undisturbed archaeological deposits and features,
suggest that the remaining portion of the site has
high potential for further intact cultural deposits and
will likely contribute additional information to
understanding the prehistory of the region. Site 12T-59 is clearly eligible for the National Register for
Historic Places under criterion D, based upon the
density of materials and the demonstrated
presence of intact prehistoric and historic cultural
deposits. Site 12-T-59 may also be eligible under
criterion A, as it was associated with events that
have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of our history, namely, the Euroamerican
settlement of the Old Northwest and the
accompanying subjugation/displacement of Native
Americans in the Great Lakes area.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SITE PRESERVATION
The entirety of site 12-T-59 has, until recently,
been impacted by the effects of agricultural
production and has been so for the last 175 years
or so. The accompanying disturbance due to
farming and erosion has likely contributed to the
site’s destruction in the past. However, the site is
currently in overgrown agricultural field or is in the
process of being restored to a prairie ecosystem.
This should do much to keep further erosion to a
minimum. However, the most common means by
which prairie ecosystems are controlled is by
burning. Unfortunately, burning may have a
negative impact on the archaeological remains at
the site. It is possible that burning may introduce
recent carbon into archaeological deposits,
thereby contaminating future radiocarbon assays.
It is therefore recommended that the prairie lying
within the boundaries of site 12-T-59 be
controlled via mowing, rather than burning. In
addition, no deep plowing should be done within
the limits of the site, as this would negatively impact
the intact archaeological deposits that are known
to exist.
Most of site 12-T-59 is located on a
floodplain. The construction of most structures
within the floodplain portions of the site is
prohibited by law. However, some park amenities,
such as utilities and trails are exempt from such
prohibitions. Given the demonstrated presence of
intact subsurface deposits at 12-T-59, however,
all future park amenities and/or related earth
moving activities should be located at least 100m
outside of the known site boundaries both within
the floodplain and along the blufftop, where the
mounds are located. This measure should prevent
most human-induced disturbances to any intact
subsurface archaeological deposits.
Since the floodplain portion of the site is
reportedly often flooded, there is concern
regarding the erosion of archaeological deposits in
certain key areas. The frequency of the flooding
episodes has not yet been established. However,
park employees familiar with the area indicate that
the immediate area has been flooded a number of
times in recent years. In years with particularly bad
flooding episodes, nearly the entire site has been
flooded. During the IPFW-AS investigations in
2005, we noted that debris that was likely brought
in by flooding had accumulated at an elevation of
144
Conclusions
145
Figure 8.1. Aerial photograph of site 12-T-59, showing location of active erosion.
approximately 531ft amsl, which encompasses
nearly all of the lower portion of the site (with the
exception of the high, sandy ridge at the base of the
bluffs and the blufftop mounds).
Archaeological reconnaissance at 12-T-59 in
summer 2005 identified areas along the southern
edge of the site that were being actively scoured by
repeated flooding (Figure 8.1). The southern edge
of the site lies adjacent to an area of lower elevation
through which floodwaters are said to frequently
flow. Flooding appears to be preventing the
growth of prairie grasses along the southern edge
of 12-T-59, as surface visibility was 25 percent or
more in many areas. In addition, subsurface
investigations in 2005 indicated that the silt loam
soils in the southernmost portion of site 12-T-59
are much thinner than in other areas of the site
(compare e.g., the profiles of Units C and H) and
that B horizon gravels lie on the surface. Many
historic and prehistoric artifacts were also found on
the surface along the southern edge of the site, a
fact which strongly suggests that subsurface
features have been destroyed and are in the
process of being destroyed. It is likely that
development up- and downstream has made
flooding events more common and perhaps more
severe in recent years.
The scouring on the southern edge of the site
is likely a result of rapidly flowing floodwaters that
have removed topsoil. One solution to this
problem may be the construction of a series of
north-south oriented earthen check dams in the
low slough area immediately to the south of the site.
Check dams would serve to slow the flow of
floodwater and prevent the removal of additional
topsoil. In order to assure that no archaeological
deposits are disturbed, earth for the construction
of the check dams must be brought in as fill from
elsewhere. It may be useful to plant this portion of
the site in turf grass as well, since the prairie grasses
that are currently planted on the southern edge of
the site grow in clumps, leaving bare spots of
ground in between them. The success or failure of
any erosion control measures should be monitored
Conclusions
146
and evaluated annually by park staff.
One other area of concern is the northern edge
of the site, paralleling the base of the bluffs. Soils in
this area are friable Coloma sands, which are
excessively drained. Due to the droughtiness of
these soils, vegetation is low and patchy, which
makes them susceptible to erosion. In order to
reduce the erosion of archaeological deposits,
excessive traffic, particularly motor vehicle traffic,
should be kept to a minimum.
The five mounds within the limits of site 12-T59 are currently within mowed turf grass. Current
measures taken to preserve the mounds appear to
be adequate and no erosion or other negative
effects were observed in 2005.
Finally, it is inevitable that park managers and
other personnel will change over successive years.
In order to ensure the preservation of site 12-T-59
in perpetuity, it is therefore imperative that a
method be established by which park personnel
successfully share and transfer the recommended
evaluation and preservation plans to future
employees. Part of the long-term plans for the site
should include the establishment of a goal/policy of
partnering with institutions for further investigations,
focusing on the currently eroding areas as a initial
priority.
Ouiatenon (12-T-9) (Trubowitz 1992:257).
Were the French and Native American residents
of Kethtippecanunk living side-by-side or were
the two peoples spatially segregated? How
densely concentrated was the settlement? Does
the village follow a linear layout as would be
expected for a traditional Wea village (Jones
1988:435)?
FUTURE RESEARCH AT 12-T-59
3) What was the degree of acculturation?
Native peoples at Kethtippecanunk, being in
direct contact with French traders, are expected to
have a relatively high degree of acculturation
(Jones 1988:358). However, White (1991:132)
has argued for a general continuity in Native
American lifeways from the early to later historic
periods. Despite the disruptions accompanying the
fur trade and European struggles over the Great
Lakes, subsistence, settlement pattern, housing,
and transportation remained relatively unchanged
for most Native peoples (Berkson 1992).
Additional investigations may shed some light on
the adaptation and cultural continuity of Wea
peoples immediately prior to their dispersal from
the central Wabash and subsequent removal from
Prior to the IPFW-AS investigations in 2005,
Kethtippecanunk had never been thoroughly
investigated. Magnetometry and small test
excavations helped to define the components that
were present and provided some information as to
their location. There are still, however, numerous
questions that remain unresolved.
1) What is the nature of the settlement layout?
Kethtippecanunk is an important site for studies of
acculturation because it represents a mixed
Euroamerican and Native habitation, rather than
an exclusively Native occupation such as the Wea
village (12-T-6) or the French settlement at Fort
2) What was the nature of the French and
Native American interaction and what was the
relationship between the French traders and
the British in Detroit? We have little
archaeological information on the nature of the
relationships between these parties during the
critical period of British control of the Great Lakes
area (ca. 1760 to 1790). The French and Native
Americans on the upper Wabash remained loyal to
the British following the American Revolution
(Cayton 1996:156). Kethtippecanunk, which was
the center of Native American and British/French
trade in the central Wabash valley, represents a
short, but critical moment in time in the history of
the Great Lakes and Ohio River Valley.
Excavation of the probable French structure,
especially if it is a trading house, will give valuable
data on the types of goods present on the frontier
at the close of the colonial era.
Conclusions
present-day Indiana.
4) What type of village architecture was
present? Contemporary accounts suggest that
many of the residences at Kethtippecanunk were
well-made, with numerous “improvements”
throughout the village (American State Papers,
Indian Affairs 1832-1834:I:131; Imlay 1916:12).
These vague descriptions give us little idea,
however, of the method of manufacture, raw
materials used, or the types of structures present.
It is assumed that the French traders would have
built their structures in the traditional poteaux-enterre manner. However, this has yet to be
confirmed. Very few French structures have been
excavated in Indiana and the partial excavation of
the recently discovered structure at
Kethtippecanunk will provide some answers to
these questions. In addition, very little is known
about late-18th-century Native American dwellings.
It is possible that, by the late 1700s, the Wea had
abandoned traditional wigwam-like dwellings for
Euroamerican style log structures. Additional
subsurface investigations may shed some light on
this question.
5) What type of subsistence activities were
being undertaken? Various reports indicate that
the area around Kethtippecanunk was cultivated,
suggesting that domesticated plants (e.g., corn,
beans, and squash) were a large part of the diet.
Although various domesticated animals were
available to the Great Lakes Indians by the end of
the 18th-century, faunal studies indicate that native
peoples retained a dependence on wild animals
such as white-tailed deer and raccoon and did not
seriously participate in animal husbandry (Martin
2001:163; Wagner et al. 2001:11). Martin (1986)
has shown that locally available wild animal
resources remained the predominant source of
meat for the French inhabitants at Ouiatenon as
well and domestic animals were no more than
supplementary to their diet. Kethtippecanunk,
which was upriver from Fort Ouiatenon, was
occupied slightly later. Did subsistence practices
147
change in the years since Fort Ouiatenon was
occupied by the French and British? Is there any
evidence that the French residents were raising
animals?
Suggestions for Future Investigations
Shovel Probe Survey
The magnetometry survey conducted in 2005 was
one means of identifying archaeological remains at
site 12-T-59. Though hundreds of anomalies were
identified during the course of the investigations,
the nature of the anomalies is still not well
understood. Our investigations indicated a
substantial multi component prehistoric presence
on the site, as well as extensive historic dumping.
Both of these factors negatively impacted our
ability to accurately identify and delineate the
extent of the 18th-century component at 12-T-59.
In short, magnetometry, though valuable, cannot
replace subsurface survey as a means of assessing
a complicated, multicomponent site like 12-T-59.
In order to further investigate the location of
artifact concentrations, the entire area subjected to
magnetometry in 2005 should also be subjected to
systematic shovel probing. Shovel probe survey
will be useful in distinguishing the areas of greatest
archaeological interest and will also provide
information on the location and nature of the
prehistoric and historic period remains.
Excavation
Although portions of a suspected poteaux-enterre structure were identified in 2005, time
limitations and the limited goals of the current
project prevented an extensive investigation of this
feature. Though numerous French colonial
structures have been excavated in Illinois (e.g.,
Gums 1988, 1993; Gums and Witty 2000;
Mazrim 2003; Safiran 1991; Walthall and
Benchley 1987), little archaeological information is
available on the French occupation of Indiana.
The area of the site in which the structure is
Conclusions
located is currently experiencing repeated flooding
and erosion. Areas immediately to the south of the
structure have been subjected to extensive
scouring and historic artifacts are scattered across
the surface as a result. Test excavations in 2005
148
indicated that the silt overburden in this area of the
site is much shallower than elsewhere, indicating
active erosion. It is probable that portions of the
structure or related features have already been
destroyed due to active and frequent scouring.
References Cited
American Battlefield Protection Program (ABPP)
2005 Electronic document, http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/abpp/, accessed December 20, 2005.
American State Papers, Indian Affairs
1832- American State Papers, Indian Affairs [1789-1827]. 2 vols. Gales and Seaton,
1834 Washington, D.C.
Anderson, David G., and Glen T. Hanson
1988 Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeastern United States: A Case Study From the
Savannah River. American Antiquity 53:252-286.
Anslinger, C. Michael
1990 The Akers Site: A Late Woodland Albee Phase Burial Mound in Warren County,
West Central, Indiana. Technical Report 10. Anthropology Laboratory, Indiana State
University, Terre Haute.
1996
The Archaic Period in the Falls of the Ohio Region of Kentucky. Cultural Resource
A n a l ys t s , I n c. , L ex i n g t o n , Ke n t uc k y . E l e c t ro n i c d o c u m e n t,
http://www.crai-ky.com/reports/falls.htm, accessed August 21, 2001.
Baerreis, D. A., and J. E. Freeman
1958 Late Woodland Pottery in Wisconsin as Seen from Aztalan. The Wisconsin
Archaeologist 39(1):35-61.
Ball, Stephen (editor)
2002 Investigations at the Heaton Farm Site (12 Gr 122): A Late Prehistoric Village on
the Edge of the Wabash Lowlands. Research Reports 19. Glenn A. Laboratory of
Archaeology, Indiana University, Bloomington.
Barnhart, John D. (editor)
1951 Henry Hamilton and George Rogers Clark in the American Revolution with the
Unpublished Journal of Lieut. Gov. Henry Hamilton. R. E. Banta, Crawfordsville,
Indiana.
Barnhart, John D., and Dorothy L. Riker
1971 Indiana to 1816: The Colonial Period. Indiana Historical Bureau and Indiana
Historical Society, Indianapolis.
Bechtel, Susan K., and David M. Stothers
1993 New Perspectives on the Settlement-Subsistence System of the Late Woodland
Western Basin Tradition, ca. 500-1300 A.D. North American Archaeologist
14(2):95-122.
149
150
Benton, Henry P.
1933 Journal of Henry P. Benton. Indiana Magazine of History 37:387-391.
Berkson, Alice
1992 Cultural Resistance of the Prairie Kickapoo at the Grand Village, McLean County,
Illinois. Illinois Archaeology 4(2):109-205.
Berthrong, Donald J.
1974 Indians of Northern Indiana and Southwestern Michigan. Garland, New York.
Birk, Douglas A.
1991 French Presence in Minnesota: The View from Site Mo20 near Little Falls. In French
Colonial Archaeology, edited by John H. Walthall, pp. 237-266. University of Illinois
Press, Urbana.
Boisvert, R. A.
1986 Late Archaic Settlement Models in the Middle Ohio Valley: A Perspective from Big
Bone Lick, Kentucky. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University
of Kentucky, Lexington. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.
Bradley, Charles S.
2000 Smoking Pipes for the Archaeologist. In Studies in Material Culture Research,
edited by Karlis Karklins, pp. 104-133. Society for Historical Archaeology,
California, Pennsylvania.
Brain, Jeffrey P.
1979 Tunica Treasure. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard
University, Cambridge, and Peabody Museum of Salem, Salem, Massachusetts.
Brose, David S., and N’omi Greber, eds.
1979 Hopewell Archaeology: The Chillicothe Conference. Kent State University Press,
Kent, Ohio.
Brown, James A., and Patricia J. O’Brien, eds.
1990 At the Edge of Prehistory: Huber Phase Archaeology in the Chicago Area. Center
for American Archaeology, Kampsville, Illinois.
Broyles, Betty J.
1971 Second Preliminary Report: The St. Albans Site, Kanawha County, West
Virginia, 1964-1968. Report of Archaeological Investigations 3, West Virginia
Geological and Economic Survey.
151
Bullock, Steven C.
1996 Revolutionary Brotherhood: Freemasonry and the Transformation of the American
Social Order, 1730-1840. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
Burks, Jarrod
2004 Searching for Fort Pickawillany: Large-Area Geophysical Survey at a MidEighteenth Century English Trading Post in Miami County, Ohio. Contract Report
2004-24. Ohio Valley Archaeological Consultants, Columbus, Ohio.
Bush, Leslie L.
1997 Botanical Remains from Three Late Prehistoric Sites in Central Indiana. Appendix
2 in An Archaeological Investigation of Late Prehistoric Subsistence-Settlement
Diversity in Central Indiana, by Robert G. McCullough and Timothy M. Wright.
Research Reports 18. Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology, Indiana
University, Bloomington.
2001
Boundary Conditions: Botanical Remains of the Oliver Phase, Central Indiana, A.D.
1250-1450. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Indiana
University, Bloomington.
Bush, Leslie L., Rexford C. Garniewicz, and Laura Pate
1999 Subsistence Strategies at the Heaton Farm Site, 12-Gr-122. Poster presented at the
64th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Chicago, Illinois.
Caldwell, J. R., and R. L. Hall (editors)
1964 Hopewellian Studies. Scientific Papers 12. Illinois State Museum, Springfield.
Callender, Charles
1978 Miami. In Northeast, edited by Bruce G. Trigger, pp. 681-689. Handbook of North
American Indians, vol. 15, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian
Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Cantin, Mark
1994a Provenience, Description, and Archaeological Use of Selected Chert Types of
Indiana. Manuscript on file, Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne
Archaeological Survey, Fort Wayne.
1994b Comparative Analysis of Thebes and Kirk Lithic Traditions and Implications for
Home Range Sizes. In Current Research in Indiana Archaeology and Prehistory:
1994, edited by Brian G. Redmond, pp. 10-12. Research Reports No. 15. Glenn A.
Black Laboratory of Archaeology, Indiana University, Bloomington.
Cayton, Andrew R. L.
1996 Frontier Indiana. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.
152
Chapman, J.
1977 Archaic Period Research in the Lower Little Tennessee River Valley. Report
of Investigations 18. Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, in
conjunction with the Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville.
Cochran, Donald R.
1980 An Archaeological Assessment of Fox Island County Park. Unpublished Master’s
thesis, Department of Anthropology, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana.
1985
Artifact Class Definitions. Appendix 1 in An Archaeological Survey on the Wabash
Moraine: A Study of Prehistoric Site and Artifact Density in the Upper Wabash
Drainage, by Donald R. Cochran and J. Buehrig. Reports of Investigations 15.
Archaeological Resources Management Service, Ball State University, Muncie,
Indiana.
1987
Testing of Four Sites on the Maumee River in Indiana. Appendix C in The
Archaeological Resources of the Maumee River Valley, Allen County, Indiana, by
James A. Mohow, pp. 198-217. Reports of Investigations 22. Archaeological
Resources Management Service, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana.
Cochran, Donald R., L. Maust, E. Filkins, Mitchell Zoll, S. Staley, and Ron Richards
1988 The Hesher Site: A Late Albee Cemetery in East Central Indiana. Reports of
Investigations 24. Archaeological Resources Management Service, Ball State
University, Muncie, Indiana.
Cochran, Donald R., B. A. Kolbe, and R. L. Richards
1993 Taylor Village: Analysis of a Surface Collection. Paper presented at the 109th Annual
Meeting of the Indiana Academy of Science, West Lafayette.
Coe, J. L.
1964
The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of the American
Philosophical Society 54, Part 5. Philadelphia.
Collins, M. B. (editor)
1979 Excavations at Four Archaic Sites in the Lower Ohio Valley, Jefferson County,
Kentucky. 2 vols. Occasional Papers in Anthropology 1, University of Kentucky,
Lexington.
Cowan, C. W., H. E. Jackson, K. Moore, A. Nickerhoff, and T. L. Smart
1982 The Cloudsplitter Rockshelter, Menifee County, Kentucky: A Preliminary Report.
Southeastern Archaeological Conference Bulletin 24: 60-76.
Craig, Oscar
1893 Ouiatanon a Study in Indiana History. Indiana Historical Society Publications
153
2(8):317-348.
Daniel, I. Randolph, Jr.
2001 Stone Raw Material Availability and Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeastern
United States. American Antiquity 66(2):237-265.
Dehart, Richard P.
1909 Past and Present of Tippecanoe County, Indiana. B.F. Bowen and Company,
Indianapolis, Indiana.
DeRegnaucourt, T., and J. Georgiady
1998 Prehistoric Chert Types of the Midwest. Occasional Monographs Series 7. Upper
Miami Valley Archaeological Research Museum, Western Ohio Podiatric Medical
Center, Greenville.
Dillon, John B.
1859 A History of Indiana, from Its Earliest Exploration by Europeans to the Close of the
Territorial Government, in 1816. Bingham and Doughty, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Dobbs, Clark A.
1975 12-T-59: A Preliminary Report on the Van Natta Site. Manuscript on file, Glenn A.
Black Laboratory of Archaeology, Indiana University, Bloomington and at Battle
Ground Museum, Battle Ground, Indiana.
Drooker, Penelope B.
1997 The View from Madisonville: Protohistoric Western Fort Ancient Interaction
Patterns. Memoirs 31. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor.
Edmunds, R. David
1983 The Shawnee Prophet. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
1984
Tecumseh and the Quest for Indian Leadership. Harper Collins, New York.
Ekberg, Carl J.
1985 Colonial Ste. Genevieve: An Adventure on the Mississippi Frontier. The Patrice
Press, Gerald, Missouri.
Emerson, Thomas E.
1999 The Langford Tradition and the Process of Tribalization on the Middle Mississippian
Borders. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 24:3-56.
154
Esarey, Logan (editor)
1922 Governor’s Messages and Letters.
Indianapolis.
2 vols.
Indiana Historical Commission,
Essenpreis, Patricia Sue
1982 The Anderson Village Site: Redefining the Anderson Phase of the Fort Ancient
Tradition of the Middle Ohio Valley. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department
of Anthropology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Faulkner, Charles H.
1972 The Late Prehistoric Occupation of Northwestern Indiana: A Study of the Upper
Mississippi Cultures of the Kankakee Valley. Prehistory Research Series 5(1).
Indiana Historical Society, Indianapolis.
Fischer, F. W.
1974 Early and Middle Woodland Settlement, Subsistence, and Population in the Central
Ohio Valley. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri.
Fitting, J. E.
1965
Fritz, G. J.
1999
Late Woodland Cultures of Southeastern Michigan. Anthropology Papers 24.
Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Gender and the Early Cultivation of Gourds in Eastern North America. American
Antiquity 64(3):417-429.
Funk, Robert E.
1978 Post-Pleistocene Adaptations. In Handbook of North American Indians: Northeast,
vol 15, edited by Bruce G. Trigger, pp. 16-27. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington, DC.
Gansfuss, John E.
1977 A Geophysical Investigation of Three Archaeological Sites. Manuscript on file,
Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Department of Historic Preservation and
Archaeology, Indianapolis.
Garniewicz, Rexford C.
1997 Faunal Remains from 12 Mg 1, 12 Jo 289, and 12 Jo 5. Appendix 3 in An
Archaeological Investigation of Late Prehistoric Subsistence-Settlement Diversity in
Central Indiana, by Robert G. McCullough and Timothy M. Wright. Research
Reports 18. Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology, Indiana University,
Bloomington.
155
Geoscan Research
2003 Geoplot Version 3.00 for Windows Instruction Manual. Geoscan Research.
Gilman, Carolyn
1982 Where Two Worlds Meet: The Great Lakes Fur Trade. Minnesota Historical Society,
St. Paul.
Gorby, S. S.
1886
Geology of Tippecanoe County. In Fifteenth Annual Report of the Indiana
Department of Geology and Natural History, pp. 61-96. Indianapolis.
Gould, Robert, F.
1899 Military Lodges: The Apron and the Sword, or Freemasonry Under Arms. Gale and
Polden, Aldershot, England.
Griffin, James B.
1943 The Fort Ancient Aspect: Its Cultural and Chronological Position in Mississippi
Valley Archaeology. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
Gums, Bonnie L.
1988 Archaeology at French Colonial Cahokia. Studies in Illinois Archaeology 3. Illinois
Historic Preservation Agency, Springfield.
1993
The Trotier Site: A French Colonial House Site in the Village of Cahokia. Illinois
Archaeology 5(1 and 2):508-516.
Gums, Bonnie L., and Charles O. Witty
2000 A Glimpse of Village Life at Nouvelle Chartres. Illinois Archaeology 12(1 and
2):125-160.
Gutschick, Raymond C.
1966 Bedrock Geology. In Natural Features of Indiana, edited by Alton A. Lindsey, pp.
1-20. Indiana Academy of Science, Indianapolis.
Hall, Robert L.
1987 Type Description of Starved Rock Collared. The Wisconsin Archaeologist 68:67-70.
Halsey, John R.
1976 The Bussinger Site: A Multi Component Site in the Saginaw Valley of Michigan.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of North
Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Hamill, John
1986 The Craft: A History of English Freemasonry. Crucible, Great Britain.
156
Hamilton, T. M.
1968 Early Indian Trade Guns. Contributions of the Museum of the Great Plains 3,
Lawton, Oklahoma.
1976
Firearms on the Frontier: Guns at Fort Michilimackinac 1715-1781. Reports in
Mackinac History and Archaeology 5. Mackinac Island State Park Commission.
Pendell Printing, Midland, Michigan.
1980
Colonial Frontier Guns. The Fur Press, Chadron, Nebraska.
Hanson, Charles E.
1955 The Northwest Gun. Nebraska State Historical Society, Lincoln.
Harris, Reginald V.
1929 The Heraldry of Freemasonry. The Builder: Official Journal of the National Masonic
Research Society 15(8):225-243.
Hedge, Roger L.
1997 Forested Swell and Swale: The Central Till Plain Natural Region. In The Natural
Heritage of Indiana, edited by Marion T. Jackson, pp. 195-199. Indiana University
Press, Bloomington.
Heilman, J. M., D.C. Anderson, and C. A. Turnbow (editors)
1990 Exploring Fort Ancient Culture: Dayton’s Prehistoric Indian Village. Museum
Anthropology 14(1):17-20.
Heldman, Donald P.
1991 The French in Michigan and Beyond: An Archaeological View from Fort
Michilimackinac. In French Colonial Archaeology, edited by John H. Walthall, pp.
201-217. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.
Helmkamp, R. Criss, and Katherine S. Kanne
1999 Archaeological Investigations at Prophetstown State Park: Part 1, Reconnaissance
Survey of Areas A and B, and 2. Cultural Resource Management Programs, Reports
of Investigations 00:17. Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Purdue
University, West Lafayette, Indiana.
2000
Archaeological Investigations at Prophetstown State Park: Part 2, Reconnaissance
Survey of Areas C, D, E, and 1, 3-14. Reports of Investigations 00:17. Cultural
Resources Management Programs, Department of Sociology and Anthropology,
Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana.
2001a Summary Report Phase 2 Test Excavations: Site 12-T-947, Prophetstown State Park,
Tippecanoe County, Indiana. Reports of Investigations 01:33. Cultural Resources
Management Programs, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Purdue
157
University, West Lafayette, Indiana.
2001b Summary Report Extended Phase 2 Test Excavations: Site 12-T-947, Prophetstown
State Park, Tippecanoe County, Indiana. Reports of Investigations 01:40. Cultural
Resources Management Programs, Department of Sociology and Anthropology,
Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana.
Henderson, A. Gwynn (editor)
1992 Fort Ancient Cultural Dynamics in the Middle Ohio Valley. Monographs in World
Archaeology 8. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin.
Homoya, Michael A.
1997 The Natural Regions of Indiana: An Introduction. In The Natural Heritage of
Indiana, edited by Marion T. Jackson, pp. 158-160. Indiana University Press,
Bloomington.
Howe, Robert C.
1997 Of Time, Rocks, and Ancient Life: Bedrock Geology. In The Natural Heritage of
Indiana, edited by Marion T. Jackson, pp. 3-13. Indiana University Press,
Bloomington.
Illinois State Historical Library (IHC)
1903- Collections. Illinois State Historical Library, Springfield.
Indiana History Bulletin
1934 The Vaudreuil Map. Indiana History Bulletin 1:116.
Imlay, George
1797 A Topographical Description of the Western Territory of North America. 3rd ed.
Debrett, London, England.
1916
A Topographical Description of the Western Territory of North America, 1793. In
Indiana as Seen by Early Travelers: A Collection of Reprints from Books of Travel,
Letters, and Diaries Prior to 1830, edited by Harlow Lindley, pp. 9-16. Indiana
Historical Commission, Indianapolis.
Janzen, Donald 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.
158
Jefferies, Richard 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, Frankfort.
Jones, James R., III
1984 Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Century Aboriginal and Euroamerican
Occupations in the Vicinity of Lafayette, Tippecanoe County, Indiana. Report
prepared for the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Historic
Preservation and Archaeology. Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology, Indiana
University, Bloomington.
1987
Kethtippecanunk, a Mixed 18th Century Village near the Mouth of the
Tippecanoe River: Recent Research. Paper presented at the 1987 Indiana Historical
Society Meeting, Indianapolis.
1988
Degrees of Acculturation at Two 18th Century Aboriginal Villages near Lafayette,
Tippecanoe County, Indiana: Ethnohistoric and Archaeological Perspectives.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Anthropology, Indiana University,
Bloomington.
1989a Degrees of Acculturation at Two 18th Century Aboriginal Villages Near Lafayette,
Tippecanoe County, Indiana: Archaeological and Ethnohistoric Perspectives.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Indiana University,
Bloomington.
1989b The Ethnic Identification of Historic Aboriginal Sites. Paper presented at the First
Joint Archaeological Congress, Society of Historical Archaeology, January 7, 1989,
Baltimore, Maryland.
1992
Acculturation and Ethnicity at Historic Aboriginal Settlements in Tippecanoe
County, Indiana: The Artifactual Evidence. The Michigan Archaeologist 38(12):105-120.
1998
Archaeological Survey of a Portion of the Prophetstown State Park, Tippecanoe
County, Indiana. Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Historic
Preservation and Archaeology, Indianapolis.
Justice, Noel D.
1987 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Midcontinental and Eastern United States.
Indiana University Press, Bloomington.
159
Kamei, H., M. A. Atya, T. F. Abdallatif, M. Mori, and P. Hemthavy
2002 Ground-penetrating Radar and Magnetic Survey to the West of Al-Zayyan Temple,
Kharga Oasis, Al-Wadi Al-Jadeed (New Valley), Egypt. Archaeological Prospection
9:93-104.
Kellar, James H.
1970 The Search for Ouiatanon. Indiana History Bulletin 47(11):123-133.
1983
An Introduction to the Prehistory of Indiana.
Indianapolis.
Indiana Historical Society,
Kenmotsu, Nancy
2000 Gunflints: A Study. In Approaches to Material Culture Research for Historical
Archaeologists, comp. by David R. Brauner, pp. 340-372. 2nd ed. Society for
Historical Archaeology, California, Pennsylvania.
Krauskopf, Frances
1953 The French in Indiana, 1700-1760: A Political History. Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, Department of History, Indiana University, Bloomington.
Krauskopf, Frances (editor and translator)
1955 Ouiatanon Documents. Indiana Historical Society Publications 18. Indianapolis.
Lawhon, Katie
2002 Gettysburg the Way the Soldiers Saw It in 1863. CRM 4:36-39.
Leroi-Gourand Leroi-Ghouran, A.
1971 L’homme et la matière. Albin Michel, Paris.
Lofstrom, Ted, Jeffrey P. Tordoff, and Douglas C. George
1982 A Seriation of Historic Earthenwares in the Midwest, 1780-1870. Minnesota
Archaeologist 41(1):3-29.
Majewski, Teresita, and Michael J. O’Brien
1987 The Use and Misuse of Nineteenth-Century English and American Ceramics in
Archaeological Analysis. In Advances in Archaeological Methods and Theory, vol.
11, pp. 97-209. Academic Press, New York.
Mansberger, Floyd
1988 The Archaeology of Historic Galena, Illinois. Illinois Cultural Resources Study 7.
Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, Springfield.
160
Margry, Pierre (editor)
1876- Decouvertes et Establissements des Francais dans L’Ouest et dans le Sud de
1886 L’Amerique Septentrionale, 1614-1754. Memoires et Documents Originaux. 6 vols.
D. Jouant, Paris. Anonymous translation, Ohio Valley-Great Lakes Ethnohistory
Archives, Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology, Indiana University,
Bloomington.
Marshall, A.
1999 Magnetic Prospection at High Resolution: Survey of Large Silo-pits in Iron Age
Enclosures. Archaeological Prospection 6:11-29.
Martin, Andrew
2002 A Phase Ia Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for a Proposed Bike Trail at
Prophetstown State Park in Tippecanoe County, Indiana. Contract Publication Series
02-134. Cultural Resource Analysts, Inc., Lexington, Kentucky.
Martin, Terrance J.
1991 An Archaeological Perspective on Animal Exploitation Patterns at French Colonial
Sites in the Illinois Country. In French Colonial Archaeology, edited by J. H.
Walthall, pp. 189-200. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.
1986
A Faunal Analysis of Fort Ouiatenon, An Eighteenth-Century Trading Post in the
Wabash Valley of Indiana. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of
Anthropology, Michigan State University, Lansing.
Martin, W. A., J. E. Bruseth, and R. J. Huggins
1991 Assessing Feature Function and Spatial Patterning of Artifacts with Geophysical
Remote-Sensing Data. American Antiquity 56(4):701-720.
Mason, Ronald J.
1986 Rock Island: Historical Indian Archaeology in the Northern Lake Michigan Basin.
Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology Special Paper 6. Kent State University Press,
Kent.
Matson, N.
1872
Reminiscences of Bureau County. Republican Book and Job Office, Princeton,
Illinois.
Maxwell, D. B. S.
2000 Beer Cans: A Guide for the Archaeologist. In Approaches to Material Culture
Research for Historical Archaeologists, comp. by David R. Brauner, pp. 290-308.
2nd edition. Society for Historical Archaeology, California, Pennsylvania.
161
Mazrim, Robert
2003 Recent Archaeology at the Old French Village of Peoria. Illinois Antiquity 38(3):6-9.
McCollough, A. (editor)
1973 The Battle of Tippecanoe: Conflict of Cultures. Lafayette, Indiana. [1980]
McCord, Beth Kolbe, and Donald R. Cochran
1994 Morell-Sheets: An Albee Phase Habitation. Reports of Investigations 38.
Archaeological Resources Management Service, Ball State University, Muncie,
Indiana.
McCullough, Robert G.
1991 A Reanalysis of Ceramics from the Bowen Site: Implications for Defining the Oliver
Phase of Indiana. M. A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, Ball State University,
Muncie.
1992
An Overview of the Oliver Phase: A Late Prehistoric Manifestation from Central
Indiana. In Native American Cultures in Indiana: Proceedings of the First
Minnetrista Council for Great Lakes Native American Studies, edited by Ron Hicks,
pp. 43-56. Minnetrista Cultural Center and Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana.
1997
Swidden Cultivators of Central Indiana: The Oliver Phase in a Context of Swidden
Agriculture and the Implications of Regional Climatic Change. Indiana Archaeology
1:54-114.
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.
2003
Cultural Interaction along the West Fork of White River during the Late Prehistoric
Period. In Facing the Final Millennium: Studies in the Late Prehistory of Indiana,
A.D. 700 to 1700, pp. 141-171. Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division
of Historic Preservation and Archaeology, Indianapolis.
McCullough, Robert G., and Timothy M. Wright
1997 An Archaeological Investigation of Late Prehistoric Subsistence-Settlement Diversity
in Central Indiana. Research Reports 18. Glenn A. Black Laboratory of
Archaeology, Indiana University, Bloomington.
McCullough, Robert G., Andrew A. White, Michael R. Strezewski, and Dorothea McCullough
2004 Frontier Interaction during the Late Prehistoric Period: A Case Study from Central
Indiana. Reports of Investigations 401. IPFW Archaeological Survey, Indiana
University-Purdue University, Fort Wayne.
162
Metcalf and Associates
1992 Analysis Manual for Artifacts from the Colorado Interstate Gas Company Uinta
Basin Lateral Project. Prepared by Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, Inc.
Prepared for the Colorado Interstate Gas Company.
Michigan Pioneer and Historical Society
1895 Michigan Pioneer and Historical Society Collections, vol. 24. Robert Smith and Co.,
Lansing.
1904
Michigan Pioneer and Historical Society Collections, vol. 33. Wynkoop Hallenbeck
Crawford, Lansing.
1905
Michigan Pioneer and Historical Society Collections, vol. 34. Wynkoop Hallenbeck
Crawford, Lansing.
Mitchell, William
1947 Stories and Legends of the Wabash Country, No. 2. Tippecanoe County Historical
Association, Lafayette, Indiana.
Mohow, James A.
1987 The Archaeological Resources of the Maumee River Valley, Allen County, Indiana.
Reports of Investigations 22. Archaeological Resources Management Service, Ball
State University, Muncie, Indiana.
Moller, George D.
1993 American Military Shoulder Arms: Volume 1, Colonial and Revolutionary War Arms.
University Press of Colorado, Niwot, Colorado.
Moore, Mark W.
1987 The Archaeological Resources of North-Central Allen County, Indiana. Ms. on file,
Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology, Indiana University, Bloomington.
Mumford, R. E.
1969 Distribution of the Mammals of Indiana. Monograph 1. Indiana Academy of
Science, Indianapolis.
Mumford, R. E., and J. O. Whitaker
1982 Mammals of Indiana. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.
Munson, Patrick J.
1986 What Happened in the Archaic in the Midwestern United States? Reviews in
Anthropology 13(4):276-282.
163
National Park Service
2000 Museum Handbook. Washington, D.C.
Naval Education and Training Professional Development and Technology Center (NETPDTC)
1993 Seabee Combat Handbook, vol. 1. Non Resident Training Course Manual
NAVEDTRA 14234. Naval Education and Training Professional Development and
Technology Center, Pensacola, Florida.
Naylor, Isaac
1906 The Battle of Tippecanoe as Described by Judge Isaac Naylor, a Participant—A
Recently Discovered Account. Indiana Magazine of History 2 (4):163-169.
Neubauer, W., A. Eder-Hinterleitner, S. Seren, and P. Melichar
2002 Georadar in the Roman Civil Town Carnuntum, Austria: An Approach for
Archaeological Interpretation of GPR Data. Archaeological Prospection 9:135-156.
Noble, Vergil E., Jr.
1983 Functional Classification and Intra-site Analysis in Historical Archaeology: A Case
Study from Fort Ouiatenon. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of
Anthropology, Michigan State University, Lansing.
Nöel Hume, Ivor
1969 A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. Reprint ed. University of Pennsylvania
Press, Philadelphia.
O’Brien, Patrick K. and Mary E. Pirkl
1997 Phase II Subsurface Archaeological Investigations at Site 12 Jo 8, Johnson County,
Indiana. Reports of Investigations 96-35. Glenn A. Black Laboratory of
Archaeology, Indiana University, Bloomington.
Osborn, Stellanova
1943 Some Sidelights on the Battle of Tippecanoe, an Address before the Tippecanoe
County Historical Association. Lafayette, Indiana.
Ottesen, A. I.
1985 Woodland Settlement Patterns in Northwestern Kentucky. In Woodland Period
Research in Kentucky, edited by David Pollack, T. Sanders, and C. Hockensmith, pp.
166-186. Kentucky Heritage Council, Frankfort.
Overstreet, D. F.
1997 Oneota Prehistory and History. The Wisconsin Archaeologist 78(1-2):250-296.
164
Pace, Robert E., and Gary A. Apfelstadt
1980 Allison-LaMotte Culture of the Daugherty-Monroe Site, Sullivan County, Indiana.
Report submitted to the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, Southeast
Regional Office.
Petty, R. O., and Marion T. Jackson
1966 Plant Communities. In Natural Features of Indiana, edited by Alton A. Lindsey, pp.
264-296. Indiana Academy of Science, Indianapolis.
Pirtle, Alfred
1900 The Battle of Tippecanoe. Filson Club Publications 15. John P. Morton and Co.,
Louisville, Kentucky.
Pollack, David, and A. Gwynn Henderson
1992 Toward a Model of Fort Ancient Society. In Fort Ancient Cultural Dynamics in the
Middle Ohio Valley, edited by A. Gwynn Henderson, pp. 281-294. Monographs in
World Archaeology 8. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin.
Post, Thomas W.
1997 Where Tallgrasses Waved: The Grand Prairie Natural Region. In The Natural
Heritage of Indiana, edited by Marion T. Jackson, pp. 189-193. Indiana University
Press, Bloomington.
Priess, Peter J.
2000 Historic Door Hardware. In Studies in Material Culture Research, edited by Karlis
Karklins, pp. 46-95. Society for Historical Archaeology, California, Pennsylvania.
Quaife, Milo M.
1921 Fort Wayne in 1790. Indiana Historical Society Publications 7(7):293-361.
Quimby, George I.
1966 Indian Culture and European Trade Goods.
Madison.
University of Wisconsin Press,
Railey, Jimmy A.
1992 Chipped Stone Artifacts. In Fort Ancient Cultural Dynamics in the Middle Ohio
Valley, edited by A. Gwynn Henderson, pp. 137-169. Monographs in World
Archaeology 8. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin.
Redmond. Brian G.
1991 An Archaeological Investigation of Late Woodland Period Settlement in the East
Fork White River Valley: Martin, Lawrence, and Jackson Counties, Indiana. Report
of Investigations 91-15. Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology, Indiana
University, Bloomington.
165
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.
Redmond, Brian G., and Robert 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, Hoosier
National Forest, Orange County, Indiana. Reports of Investigations 95-9. Glenn A.
Black Laboratory of Archaeology, Indiana University, Bloomington.
1996
Excavations at the Cox’s Woods Site (12-Or-1): A Late Prehistoric Oliver Phase
Village in the Pioneer Mothers Memorial Forest, Orange County, Indiana. Research
Reports 17. 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 Thomas E. Emerson, Dale L. McElrath, and Andrew C. Fortier, pp. 643-683.
University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
Robertson, N. A., and Dorothy L. Riker (editors)
1942 The John Tipton Papers. 2 vols. Indiana Historical Bureau, Indianapolis.
Rowland, Dunbar, and A. G. Sanders (editors)
1932 Mississippi Provincial Archives, 1704-1743: 3. French Dominion. Press of the
Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson.
Royce, Charles C.
1971 Indian Land Cessions in the United States. Reprint ed. Arno Press, New York.
Safiran, Edward T.
1991 The Louvier Site at Prairie du Rocher. In French Colonial Archaeology, edited by J.
H. Walthall, pp. 123-132. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.
166
Santure, Sharron K.
1990 Social Conflict. In Archaeological Investigations at the Morton Village and Norris
Farms 36 Cemetery, edited by Sharron K. Santure, Alan D. Harn, and Duane Esarey,
pp. 154-159. Reports of Investigations 45. Illinois State Museum, Springfield.
Schneider, Allan F.
1966 Physiography. In Natural Features of Indiana, edited by Alton A. Lindsey, pp. 4056. Indiana Academy of Science, Indianapolis.
Schneider, Andrew M., and E. L. Cameron
2004 Phase III Archaeological Data Recovery of the Singer Site (33De266), DEF-CR1341.5 (PID 15741), Delaware Township, Defiance County, Ohio. Mannik and Smith
Group, Maumee, Ohio.
Schurr, Mark R.
1999 Geophysical Surveys of Middle Woodland Mounds in Northwestern Indiana. Report
of Investigations 99-1. Department of Anthropology, University of Notre Dame,
Notre Dame, Indiana.
Seeman, Mark
1979 The Hopewell Interaction Sphere: The Evidence for Interregional Trade and
Structural Complexity. Prehistory Research Series 5(2). Indiana Historical Society,
Indianapolis.
1981
A Late Woodland Steatite Pipe from the Catlin Site, Vermillion County, Indiana:
The Implications for East-West Trade. Archaeology of Eastern North America
9:103-109.
Sheehan, Bernard
1983 “The Famous Hair Buyer General”: Henry Hamilton, George Rogers Clark, and the
American Indian. Indiana Magazine of History 79(1):1-28.
Shulsky, Linda R.
2002 Chinese Porcelain at Old Mobile. Historic Archaeology 36(1):97-104.
Sieber, Ellen, Edward E. Smith, and Cheryl Ann Munson
1989 Archaeological Resource Management Overview for the Hoosier National Forest,
Indiana. Reports of Investigations 89-9. Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology,
Bloomington.
Smekalova, T. N., and B. W. Bevan
1994 A Comparison of Magnetic Gradiometers. Paper prepared for Steven L. DeVore,
Division of Partnerships and Outreach, National Park Service.
http://www.ultramag.com/gradcomp.htm (11/22/2002).
167
Smith, Dwight
1954 Notes on the Wabash River in 1795. Indiana Magazine of History 50(3):277-290.
Smith, Edward E.
1984 Paleo-Indian and Early Archaic Settlement Patterns in Southcentral Indiana.
Prepared for the Indiana Department of Natural Resources. Manuscript on file,
Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology, Indiana University, Bloomington.
1989
Paleoindian Settlement and Lithic Procurement Patterns in the Karstic Region of
Southcentral Indiana. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
Indiana University, Bloomington.
Smith, William Henry (editor)
1882 The St. Clair papers: the Life and Public Services of Arthur St. Clair, Soldier of the
Revolutionary War, President of the Continental Congress, and Governor of the
North-Western Territory, with His Correspondence and Other Papers. 2 vols.
Robert Clarke and Co., Cincinnati, Ohio.
Somers, Lewis E.
2002 Resistivity Survey in North American Archaeology. Vale of the White Horse,
Berkeley, California.
Stafford, C. Russell
1994 Structural Changes in Archaic Landscape Use in the Dissected Uplands of
Southwestern Indiana. American Antiquity 59:219-237.
State Historical Society of Wisconsin
1902 Collections of the State Historical Society of Wisconsin, vol. 16. Democratic Printing,
Madison.
1903
Collections of the State Historical Society of Wisconsin, vol. 17. Democratic Printing,
Madison.
1904
Collections of the State Historical Society of Wisconsin, vol. 18. Democratic Printing,
Madison.
Stone, Lyle M.
1974 Fort Michilimackinac, 1715-1781: An Archaeological Perspective on the
Revolutionary Frontier. Michigan State University Museum Publications 2.
Michigan State University Museum, Lansing.
168
Stothers, David M.
1995 The “Michigan Owasco” and the Iroquois Co-Tradition: Late Woodland Conflict,
Conquest, and Cultural Realignment in the Western Lower Great Lakes. Northeast
Anthropology 49:5-41.
Stothers, David M., and Timothy J. Abel
1989 The Position of the “Pearson Complex” in the Late Prehistory of Northern Ohio.
Archaeology of Eastern North America 17:109-141
Stothers, David M., and Susan K. Bechtel
1994 The Land between the Lakes: New Perspectives on the Late Woodland (ca. A.D.
500–A.D. 1300) Time Period in the Region of the St. Clair–Detroit River System.
Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Ohio Archaeological Council,
Cincinnati.
Stothers, David M., and James R. Graves
1983 Cultural Continuity and Change: The Western Basin, Ontario Iroquois, and Sandusky
Traditions: A 1982 Perspective. Archaeology of Eastern North America 11:109-142.
1985
The Prairie Peninsula Co-Tradition: An Hypothesis for Hopwellian to Upper
Mississippian Continuity. Archaeology of Eastern North America 13:153-175.
Stothers, David M., and G. Michael Pratt
1981 New Perspectives on the Late Woodland Cultures of the Lake Erie Region.
Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 6(1):91-121.
Stothers, David M., and Andrew M . Schneider
1998 Implications of the Wolf Phase Dispersal of Terminal Western Basin Tradition
Populations into Northern Indiana during Late Prehistory. Paper presented at the 43 rd
Annual Midwest Archaeological Conference, Muncie, Indiana.
Stothers, David M., James R. Graves, Susan K. Bechtel, and Timothy J. Abel
1994 Current Perspectives on the Late Prehistory of the Western Lake Erie Region and a
Reply to Murphy and Ferris. Archaeology of Eastern North America 22:135-196.
Strezewski, Michael
2002 Investigations at Pottersville: A Small Oliver Phase Habitation Site in Owen County,
Indiana. Research Reports 20. Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology, Indiana
University, Bloomington.
2006
Patterns of Interpersonal Violence at the Fisher Site. Midcontinental Journal of
Archaeology 31(2), in press.
169
Strezewski, Michael, Staffan Peterson, and Stephen J. Ball
1999 Late Prehistoric Architecture at the Heaton Farm Site, 12-Gr-122. Poster presented
at the 64th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Chicago,
Illinois.
Strum, R. H.
1979 Soil Survey of Johnson County, Indiana. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.
Sugden, John
1997 Tecumseh: A Life. Henry Holt and Company, New York.
Surovell, Todd A.
2000 Early Paleoindian Women, Children, Mobility, and Fertility. American Antiquity
65(3):493-508.
Tankersley, Kenneth 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. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Indiana
University, Bloomington.
1996
Ice Age Hunters and Gatherers. In Kentucky Archaeology, edited by R. Barry Lewis,
pp. 21-38. University Press of Kentucky, Lexington.
Tankersley, Kenneth B., and B. L. Isaac (editors)
1990 Early Paleoindian Economies of Eastern North America. Research in Economic
Anthropology Supplement 5. JAI, Greenwich, Connecticut.
Tanner, Helen Hornbeck (editor)
1987 Atlas of Great Lakes Indian History. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Temple, Wayne C.
1975 Indian Villages of the Illinois Country. Publications 2:Part 1, Supplement. Illinois
State Museum, Springfield.
Thornbrough, Gayle (editor)
1957 Outpost on the Wabash, 1787-1791. Indiana Historical Society Publications 19.
Indiana Historical Society, Indianapolis.
170
Tipton, John
1906 John Tipton’s Tippecanoe Journal. Indiana Magazine of History 2(4):170-184.
Tomak, Curtis
1970 Aboriginal Occupation in the Vicinity of Greene County, Indiana. Unpublished
Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Indiana University, Bloomington.
Tordoff, Judith D.
1983 An Archaeological Perspective on the Organization of the Fur Trade in Eighteenth
Century New France. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
Michigan State University, Lansing.
Trimble, Michael K., Teresita Majewski, Michael J. O’Brien, and Anna L. Price
1991 Frontier Colonization of the Saline Creek Valley. In French Colonial Archaeology,
edited by John H. Walthall, pp. 165-188. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.
Trubowitz, Neal L.
1992 Native Americans and French on the Central Wabash. In Calumet and Fleur-de-Lys:
Archaeology of Indian and French Contact in the Midcontinent, edited by John A.
Walthall and Thomas E. Emerson, pp. 241-264. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington, D.C.
Turpie, David
1903 Sketches of My Own Times. Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis.
U.S. Marine Corps
1993 U.S. Marine Corps Training Manual MCW2-12.1, Geographic Intelligence. U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
von Frese, R. R. B.
1984 Archaeomagnetic Anomalies of Midcontinental North American Archaeological
Sites. Historical Archaeology 18:4-19.
von Frese, R. R. B., and V. E. Noble
1984 Magnetometry for Archaeological Exploration of Historical Sites.
Archaeology 18:38-53.
Historical
Wagner, Mark J., Terrance J. Martin, Lee A. Newsom, and Kathryn E. Parker
2001 The Windrose Site: An Early Nineteenth-Century Potawatomi Settlement in the
Kankakee River Valley of Northeastern Illinois. Reports of Investigations 56. Illinois
State Museum, Springfield.
171
Walker, A.R.
2000 Multiplexed Resistivity Survey at the Roman Town of Wroxeter. Archaeological
Prospection 7:119132.
Walthall, John A.
1991 Faience in French Colonial Illinois. Historic Archaeology 25(1):80-105
Walthall, John A., and Elizabeth D. Benchley
1987 The River L’Abbe Mission. Studies in Illinois Archaeology 2. Illinois Historic
Preservation Agency, Springfield.
Waselkov, Gregory A., and John A. Walthall
2002 Faience Styles in French Colonial North America: A Revised Classification. Historic
Archaeology 36(1):62-78.
Wayne, William J.
1966 Ice and Land: A Review of the Tertiary and Pleistocene History of Indiana. In
Natural Features of Indiana, edited by Alton A. Lindsey, pp. 21-39. Indiana
Academy of Science, Indianapolis.
Wells, Tom
2000
Nail Chronology: The Use of Technologically Derived Features. In Approaches to
Material Culture Research for Historical Archaeologists, comp. by David R.
Brauner, pp. 318-339. 2nd edition. Society for Historical Archaeology, California,
Pennsylvania.
Wheeler-Voegelin, Erminie, Emily J. Blasingham, and Dorothy R. Libby
n.d.
An Anthropological Report on the History of the Miamis, Weas, and Eel River
Indians; on the Background of the Treaty of Grouseland of August 21, 1805, and the
Treaty of Fort Wayne of September 30, 1809; on Native Land Use and History of the
Mohican Claim to Lands in Indiana. Ms. on file, Ohio Valley-Great Lakes
Ethnohistory Archives, Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology, Indiana
University, Bloomington.
White, Andrew A., Dorothea McCullough, and Robert 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, Carolyn L.
2005 American Artifacts of Personal Adornment, 1680-1820.
Maryland.
AltaMira, Lanham,
172
White, Richard
1991 The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires, and Republics in the Great Lakes Region,
1650-1815. Cambridge University Press, New York.
Whitten, David
2005 Louisville Glass Factories of the 19th Century—Part 3. Bottles and Extras (Fall):2-6.
Winters, Howard D.
1967 An Archeological Survey of the Wabash Valley in Illinois. Reports of Investigations
10. Illinois State Museum, Springfield.
1968
Value Systems and Trade Cycles in the Late Archaic of the Midwest. In New
Perspectives in Archaeology, edited by S. R. Binford and L. R. Binford, pp. 175-221.
Aldine, Chicago.
1969
The Riverton Culture. Reports of Investigations 13. Illinois State Museum and the
Illinois Archaeological Society, Springfield.
Wymer, Dee Anne
1990 Archaeobotany. In Childers and Woods: Two Late Woodland Sites in the Upper Ohio
Valley, Mason County, West Virginia, by M. J. Shott, R. D. Mandel, G. Oetelaar, N.
O’Malley, M L. Powell, and D. A. Wymer, pp. 487-616. Archaeological Reports 200.
Program for Cultural Resource Assessment, University of Kentucky, Lexington.
Yarnell, Richard A.
1988 The Importance of Native Crops during the Late Archaic and Woodland. Paper
presented at the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana.
Ziegler, Thomas R., and Douglas R. Wolf
1998 Soil Survey of Tippecanoe County, Indiana. United States Department of Agriculture,
Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.
APPENDIX A
Catalog of Materials from 12-T-59
This appendix presents a listing of artifacts recovered during the 2005 excavations at site 12-T-59.
Artifacts are listed by catalog number. All artifacts from the 12-T-59 excavations will be curated at
the Indiana State Museum, Indianapolis, under accession number 71.19.784.1. A total of 413 catalog
numbers was assigned.
The artifact listing is drawn directly from the database used for cataloging and organizing the
collection. The hierarchical fields (“primary,” “secondary,” etc.) are classification categories. Field
“primary” is the primary classification category. For lithics “secondary” is raw material, “tertiary”
is tool/core/debitage, etc. The following abbreviations are used in the artifact listing.
adorn
food
alco
tobb
adorn
furn
blk
grn
frag
lt
irid
unid
id
ctr
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
adornment (functional category)
food storage and service (functional category)
alcohol use (functional category)
tobacco use (functional category)
adornment (functional category)
furnishings (functional category)
black
green
fragment
light (in color)
iridized (glass)
unidentified
interior diameter (white clay pipe stems)
center
173
Appendix A: 12-T-59 Catalog
Cat No FS No Primary
Secondary
001
14
Non Mano
Chipped
Stone
002
15
Chipped Chert
Stone
Tertiary
Gra nitic
Tool
Biface
Refined
003
16
Tool
Biface
Refined
004
005
006
17
18
19
007
008
20
21
009
22
010
23
011
24
012
26
013
27
014
28
015
29
016
30
017
46
018
47
019
48
020
021
49
50
022
51
023
91
024
025
25
31
Chipped
Stone
Historic
Historic
Historic
Chert
Quaternary
Metal
Metal
Ceramic
Quinary
Ferrous
strap hinge
Brass
tack
white clay pipe bowl
sherd
Rock Fire Cracked Non C hert
Chipped Chert
Tool
Biface
Stone
Chipped Chert
Tool
Blade
Stone
Chipped Chert
Tool
Biface
Stone
arch
furn
tobb
Chipped
Stone
Chipped
Stone
Chipped
Stone
Sherd
174
Attributes
Hafted
rouletting
Unrefined
Refined
Chert
Tool
Biface
Unrefined
Chert
Tool
Uniface
Formal
Chert
Tool
Biface
Unrefined
Body
Grog
Plain
Hafted
No
Decoration
Sherd Body
Grog
Cordmarked No
Decoration
Sherd Body
Grit
Cordmarked No
Decoration
Historic Mineral/Ston daub
chinking
arch
burned;
e
frag
Historic Glass
Container body
aqua
fragment
Chipped Chert
Tool
Biface
Refined
Hafted
Stone
Historic Glass
Flat
fragment
arch
lt grn, irid
Historic Glass
Container bottle body
olive, irid
frag
Chipped Chert
Tool
Biface
Refined
Hafted
Stone
Chipped Chert
Tool
Biface
Refined
Hafted
Stone
Historic Metal
Historic Metal
Ferrous
nail, wire
Aluminum beer can
arch
alco
Remarks
Broken
N
g
1
1388.
4
Steuben
Expanded
Stemmed
1
7.2
1
11.6
1
domed head
1
incised partial 1
"T.D."?
1
1
Steuben
Expanded
Stemmed
Thumb nail
scraper
St Albans
Unidentified
Type
Steuben
Expanded
Stem
Pabst Blue
Ribbon
207 .9
0.6
0.3
2.1
32.3
1
1.6
1
11.0
1
28.6
1
3.8
1
16.9
1
7.8
1
9.7
1
3.6
1
4.7
1
0.5
1
2.4
1
2
0.7
2.6
1
10.8
1
6.9
1
1
3.2
43.4
Appendix A: 12-T-59 Catalog
Cat No
026
027
028
FS No Primary
Secondary
31
Historic Metal
32
Historic Metal
33
Historic Metal
029
030
031
032
34
35
36
37
Historic
Historic
Historic
Historic
033
38
Historic Metal
Tertiary Quaternary
Quinary
Ferrous
wire
Ferrous
unidentified
Ferrous
nail,
arch
wrought
Ferrous
nail, wire
arch
Ferrous
wire
Ferrous
wire
Aluminum beer can
alco
frag
Ferrous
unidentified
034
39
Historic Metal
Ferrous
035
40
Historic Metal
Lead
036
45
037
45
Historic Mineral/Ston Cinder/Sl
e
ag
Historic Metal/Glass Brass
signet fob
038
039
040
85
86
86
Historic Metal
Historic Metal
Historic Metal
Ferrous
Ferrous
Ferrous
unidentified
unidentified
unidentified
041
87
Historic Metal
Ferrous
042
88
Historic Metal
Ferrous
043
89
Historic Metal
Ferrous
nail,
wrought
hook,
wrought
nail,
wrought
044
89
045
101
046
101
047
102
048
103
049
104
050
105
051
11
052
11
053
11
Historic Mineral/Ston Cinder/Sl
e
ag
Historic Metal
Ferrous
nail,
wrought
Historic Mineral/Ston daub
chinking
e
frag
Historic Metal
Ferrous
nail,
wrought
Historic Metal
Ferrous
nail,
wrought
Historic Metal
Copper/Br flat fragment
ass
Historic Metal
Ferrous
nail,
wrought
Chipped Chert
Debitage
Stone
Historic Mineral/Ston Flint
gunflint
e
Historic Metal
Ferrous
bolt, hex
head
Metal
Metal
Metal
Metal
175
Attributes
Remarks
nail?
Millers
N
g
3
5.3
1
1.3
1
2.4
1
1
2
1
2.7
1.3
4.9
13.6
Strike-a-light? 1
Lock part?
1
8.2
Unused .55
cal, sprue on
1
14.9
1
12.5
1
6.0
1
1
1
10.0
34.6
21.2
arch
1
14.4
furn
1
74.1
arch
1
0.6
1
2.3
2
3.7
1
0.4
arch
1
3.9
arch
1
4.7
1
1.6
1
1.6
1
3.4
1
2.9
1
9.4
nail,
arch
wrought
musket ball firearm
adorn
Fob Seal
(masonic)
flat, w/2 holes
flat, w/2 holes
wedge shape
in x-section
arch
arch
burned;
arch
firearm
arch
English
10.7
Appendix A: 12-T-59 Catalog
Cat No FS No Primary
Secondary
054
12
Chipped Chert
Stone
055
13
Chipped Chert
Stone
056
13
Sherd Body
Tertiary
Debitage
057
058
059
13
13
13
Unburned
060
061
062
13
13
13
063
41
064
065
42
42
066
42
067
42
068
42
069
070
43
43
071
43
072
073
44
44
074
075
52
52
076
077
078
52
52
52
079
53
080
53
081
53
082
53
083
53
Fauna Non Human
Flora
Historic Glass
Quaternary
Quinary
176
Attributes
Remarks
Debitage
Grit
Cordmarked No
Decoration
Container body
fragment
Historic Metal
Ferrous
wire
Historic Metal
Ferrous
nail, wire
arch
Historic Mineral/Ston Cinder/Sl
e
ag
Chipped Chert
Debitage
Stone
Rock Fire Cracked Non C hert
Chipped Chert
Debitage
Stone
Sherd Rim/Neck
Grit
Cordmarked No
Decoration
Sherd Body
Grit
Plain
No
Decoration
Sherd Body
Grit
Plain
No
Decoration
Rock Fire Cracked Non C hert
Chipped Chert
Debitage
Stone
Chipped Chert
Tool
Blade-like
Stone
flake
Rock Fire Cracked Non C hert
Chipped Chert
Debitage
Stone
Rock Fire Cracked Non C hert
Chipped Chert
Debitage
Stone
Fauna Non Human Unburned
Fauna Non Human Burned
Chipped Chert
Tool
Uniface
Nonformal
Stone
Chipped Chert
Debitage
Stone
Chipped Chert
Tool
Biface
Refined
Stone
Chipped Chert
Tool
Biface
Refined
Stone
Historic Metal
Ferrous
nail,
arch
wrought
Historic Glass
Flat
fragment
arch
clear
N
g
1
<0.1
7
3.3
1
5.1
1
3
0.8
0.2
8.6
4
3
1
5.6
17.4
1.3
9
2.7
2
195 .6
15 10.3
1
4.9
3
4.3
1
0.8
1
78.9
16 15.6
1
1.1
1
8
5.3
3.8
5
218 .0
51 36.7
8
1
1
2.5
0.1
0.4
1
<0.1
Hafted
Brewerton
1
6.1
Hafted
Drill
1
0.7
3
10.8
1
1.2
lt grn
Appendix A: 12-T-59 Catalog
177
Cat No FS No Primary
Secondary
084
53
Historic Ceramic
Tertiary Quaternary
Quinary
Attributes
Remarks
white clay pipestem
tobb
1/16 " id; off
sherd
ctr
Historic Ceramic
earthenwa clay pigeon firearm
blk paste
re
frag
Rock Fire Cracked Non C hert
Chipped Chert
Debitage
Stone
Chipped Chert
Tool
Biface
Unrefined
Stone
Chipped Chert
Tool
Biface
Refined
Hafted
Tip
Stone
Fauna Non Human Unburned
Fauna Non Human Burned
Sherd Body
Grit
Cordmarked No
Decoration
Rock Fire Cracked Non C hert
N
g
1
0.5
085
53
1
086
087
54
54
088
54
089
54
090
091
092
54
54
54
093
59
094
59
095
59
Chipped Chert
Stone
Sherd Body
096
097
098
59
59
59
Fauna Non Human
Fauna Non Human
Historic Glass
099
60
100
60
101
60
102
60
103
104
105
60
66
66
106
55
107
55
108
55
109
110
111
112
113
Debitage
Grit
Cordmarked No
Decoration
Unburned
Burned
Container body
fragment
Rock Fire Cracked Non C hert
Chipped
Stone
Chipped
Stone
Chipped
Stone
Fauna
Rock
Chipped
Stone
Rock
Chert
Debitage
Chert
Tool
Chert
Core
Chert
Debitage
Chert
Tool
55
55
55
Chipped
Stone
Chipped
Stone
Fauna
Fauna
Historic
55
55
Flora
Historic Ceramic
Biface
clear
1.3
4
152 .2
113 48.6
1
1.7
1
0.2
36 10.4
2
0.5
1
2.7
27 1438.
7
41 23.1
1
3.7
3
2
1
0.8
.2
<0.1
12 1379.
7
17 6.2
Unrefined
1
9.4
1
16.2
Non Human Unburned
Fire Cracked Non C hert
Chert
Debitage
1
<0.1
2
102 .0
19 50.5
Fire Cracked Non C hert
102 1907
1.9
50 79.4
Uniface
Non Human Unburned
Non Human Burned
Mineral/Ston daub
chinking
e
frag
white clay pipestem
Nonformal
1
2.4
arch
3
1
-
1.7
2.0
169 .5
1
<0.1
2.5
tobb
burned;
5/64 " id; ctr
Appendix A: 12-T-59 Catalog
Cat No FS No Primary
Secondary
Tertiary
Quaternary
sherd
Copper/Br flat fragment
ass
Brass
tack
Ferrous
nail,
wrought
Ferrous
tack,
wrought
Ferrous
unidentified
Container bottle body
frag
Container body
fragment
Container bottle rim
frag
Container body
fragment
Unidentife melted
d
Flat
fragment
114
55
Historic Metal
115
116
55
55
Historic Metal
Historic Metal
117
55
Historic Metal
118
119
55
55
Historic Metal
Historic Glass
120
55
Historic Glass
121
55
Historic Glass
122
55
Historic Glass
123
55
Historic Glass
124
55
Historic Glass
125
126
55
56
Historic Glass
Flat
fragment
Rock Fire Cracked Non C hert
127
56
128
129
130
131
56
56
56
56
Chipped
Stone
Fauna
Fauna
Flora
Historic
132
56
133
56
134
56
135
136
56
56
137
56
138
139
140
141
56
56
67
67
142
67
Chert
Debitage
Non Human
Non Human
Unburned
Burned
Quinary
178
Attributes
furn
arch
Remarks
arch
arch
g
folded
1
domed head
2
1.2
11 30.1
arch
alco
N
0.7
2
1.4
3
1
1.6
15.3
clear, 2 irid
3
3.3
unid color,
irid
unid color,
irid
2 lt grn,
irid
unid color,
irid
lt grn
1
7.0
2
5.8
3
16.7
1
0.5
lt green
Case bottle
4
2.4
20 1162.
8
23 38.2
Charcoal
2
2
-
0.9
1.1
0.3
84.6
Mineral/Ston daub
chinking
e
frag
Historic Ceramic
porcelain base sherd
arch
burned;
food
1
1.9
Historic Mineral/Ston daub
chinking
e
frag
Historic Glass
Container bottle body
frag
Historic Glass
Flat
fragment
Historic Metal
Ferrous
nail,
wrought
Historic Metal
Ferrous
tack,
wrought
Historic Metal
Ferrous
flat fragment
Historic Metal
Brass
tack, head
Rock Fire Cracked Non C hert
Chipped Chert
Debitage
Stone
Chipped Chert
Core
Stone
arch
polychrom
e painted
burned;
1
2.6
olive, irid
1
4.9
clear
2
2
1.2
15.9
2
1.8
3
1
16
193
1.2
0.5
984 .9
101 .4
1
5.2
arch
arch
arch
furn
domed head
Appendix A: 12-T-59 Catalog
Cat No FS No Primary
Secondary
143
67
Chipped Chert
Stone
144
67
Chipped Chert
Stone
145
67
Sherd Body
Tertiary
Core
146
67
147
67
148
67
149
150
67
67
151
152
97
97
153
97
154
97
155
97
156
97
157
97
158
97
159
97
160
97
161
97
162
97
163
97
164
97
165
97
166
68
167
68
Sherd Body
Sherd Non
Diagnostic
Historic Glass
Flora
Chipped
Stone
Rock
Non
Chipped
Stone
Chipped
Stone
Chipped
Stone
Chipped
Stone
Chipped
Stone
Chipped
Stone
Chipped
Stone
Chipped
Stone
Chipped
Stone
Sherd
Chert
Quaternary
Quinary
Tool
Biface
Refined
Grit
Plain
Grit
Plain
No
Decoration
No
Decoration
179
Attributes
Hafted
Remarks
Triangle
No t Shell
Container body
fragment
food
Tool
Formal
Uniface
clear
spokeshave
N
g
1
8.0
1
2.5
1
19.1
1
3.3
3
4.0
1
0.4
1
0.2
2.6
Fire Cracked Non C hert
Hamm erstone Chert
19 652 .7
1
191 .8
Chert
Core
1
14.7
Chert
Core
1
20.8
Chert
Core
1
107 .8
Chert
Debitage
116 104 .0
Chert
Tool
Biface
Refined
Chert
Tool
Uniface
Chert
Tool
Chert
Body
Sherd Non
Diagnostic
Chipped Quartzite
Stone
Chipped Chert
Stone
Chipped Chert
Stone
Chipped Chert
Stone
Sherd Non
1
7.5
Nonformal
1
1.9
Uniface
Nonformal
1
7
Tool
Uniface
Nonformal
1
1.4
Grit
Plain
No
Decoration
3
14.1
No t Shell
9
8.0
Debitage
1
0.5
1
1.1
1
.8
Debitage
1
<0.1
No t Shell
2
2.9
Tool
Tool
Blade-like
flake
Blade-like
flake
Hafted
Steuben
Expanded
Stem
Appendix A: 12-T-59 Catalog
Cat No FS No Primary
168
99
Secondary
Tertiary Quaternary
Diagnostic
Rock Fire Cracked Non C hert
169
99
Rock Manup ort
170
99
171
99
172
99
173
99
174
99
175
100
176
177
57
57
178
57
179
57
180
181
182
57
57
57
183
57
184
185
58
58
186
187
58
58
188
58
189
58
190
191
192
96
96
96
193
96
194
96
195
96
Chipped
Stone
Chipped
Stone
Chipped
Stone
Chipped
Stone
Chipped
Stone
Chipped
Stone
Rock
Chipped
Stone
Chipped
Stone
Chipped
Stone
Fauna
Fauna
Historic
Quinary
180
Attributes
Remarks
N
g
8
Chert
Debitage
3026.
5
2
1692.
1
121 103 .6
Chert
Core
1
58
Chert
Core
1
15
Chert
Tool
Biface
Unrefined
1
9
Chert
Tool
Biface
Unrefined
1
1.1
Chert
Debitage
9
12.2
Fire Cracked Non C hert
Chert
Debitage
15 765 .2
82 56.5
Chert
Core
1
10.4
Chert
Tool
1
1.3
clear
4
2
0.2
0.9
6.3
blk paste
1
1.1
Shell
Non Human
Glass
Biface
Refined
Mussel
Unburned
Container body
food
fragment
Historic Ceramic
earthenwa clay pigeon firearm
re
frag
Rock Fire Cracked Non C hert
Chipped Chert
Debitage
Stone
Fauna Non Human Unburned
Historic Glass
Container body
food
fragment
Chipped Quartzite
Debitage
Stone
Chipped Chert
Tool
Uniface
Nonformal
Stone
Rock Manup ort
Rock Fire Cracked Non C hert
Chipped Chert
Debitage
Stone
Chipped Chert
Core
Stone
Chipped Chert
Core
Stone
Chipped Chert
Tool
Biface
Refined
11 271 .7
138 69.6
clear
6
5
3.0
2.2
1
3.2
1
2.0
2
629 .8
2
18.8
45 45.7
Hafted
Lecroy
1
8.4
1
10
1
1.6
Appendix A: 12-T-59 Catalog
Cat No FS No Primary
Secondary
Stone
196
96
Sherd Non
Diagnostic
197
61
Rock Fire Cracked
198
61
Non Mano
Chipped
Stone
199
61
Chipped Chert
Stone
200
61
Sherd Body
201
202
203
61
61
62
204
205
62
62
206
62
207
62
208
62
209
210
211
62
63
63
212
63
213
214
215
63
64
64
216
64
217
218
219
64
64
65
220
74
221
74
222
223
74
74
224
225
74
74
Fauna Non Human
Fauna Non Human
Rock Manup ort
Tertiary
Quaternary
Quinary
181
Attributes
N
g
No t Shell
1
Non C hert
Gra nitic
20 838 .6
1
690 .3
Debitage
90 60.4
Grit
Cordmarked No
Decoration
1
Burned
Unburned
0.4
0.2
2.9
2927.
0
6
59.5
35 42.6
arch
2
2.1
1
0.8
2
1.4
2.8
1
2.7
28 31.8
3
2.2
3
6
0.6
24.5
1.2
2
1.5
3
3
0.2
1.1
1.1
29 3042.
1
29 31.3
Debitage
Cinder/Sl
ag
Unburned
daub
chinking
2.1
1
8
1
Rock Fire Cracked Non C hert
Chipped Chert
Debitage
Stone
Sherd Body
Grit
Cordmarked No
Decoration
Sherd Non
No t Shell
Diagnostic
Burned Unidentified
soil
Flora
Rock Fire Cracked Non C hert
Chipped Chert
Debitage
Stone
Sherd Non
No t Shell
Diagnostic
Flora
Rock Fire Cracked Non C hert
Chipped Chert
Debitage
Stone
Sherd Non
No t Shell
Diagnostic
Fauna Non Human Unburned
Flora
Chipped Chert
Debitage
Stone
Rock Fire Cracked Non C hert
Chipped Chert
Stone
Rock Ocher
Historic Mineral/Ston
e
Fauna Non Human
Historic Mineral/Ston
Remarks
burned;
1
3
0.8
15.2
1
2
0.4
4.5
Appendix A: 12-T-59 Catalog
Cat No FS No Primary
226
227
228
74
74
74
Secondary
e
Fauna Shell
Historic Glass
Historic Metal
229
74
Historic Metal
230
231
75
75
232
75
233
234
75
75
235
75
236
75
237
75
238
76
239
76
240
241
76
76
242
243
77
77
244
245
246
77
77
77
247
77
248
249
77
77
250
251
252
253
77
77
77
77
254
255
78
78
Tertiary
Mussel
Flat
Brass
Quaternary
frag
fragment
gun part
Copper/Br flat fragment
ass
Rock Fire Cracked Non C hert
Chipped Chert
Debitage
Stone
Chipped Chert
Core
Stone
Fauna Shell
Mussel
Historic Metal
Ferrous
nail,
wrought
Historic Metal
Ferrous
tack,
wrought
Historic Glass
Unidentife melted
d
Historic Mineral/Ston Cinder/Sl
e
ag
Chipped Chert
Debitage
Stone
Non Pitted stone Gra nitic
Chipped
Stone
Rock Fire Cracked Non C hert
Historic Mineral/Ston daub
chinking
e
frag
Rock Fire Cracked Non C hert
Chipped Chert
Debitage
Stone
Rock Ocher
Fauna Non Human Unburned
Historic Mineral/Ston Cinder/Sl
e
ag
Historic Glass
Container body
fragment
Historic Glass
Flat
fragment
Historic Metal
Ferrous
nail,
wrought
Historic Metal
Ferrous
unidentified
Historic Metal
Lead
unidentified
Historic Metal
Brass
ring
Historic Ceramic
creamwar body sherd
e
Rock Fire Cracked Non C hert
Chipped Chert
Debitage
Quinary
arch
firearm
182
Attributes
lt grn, irid
Remarks
N
1
2
Incised/engrav 1
ed trigger
guard
Gun part?
1
g
<0.1
0.9
14.3
2.2
6
429 .0
22 31.7
1
12.9
arch
1
2
1.4
13.2
arch
1
0.4
1
0.2
2
1.8
4
1.2
1
463 .6
1
1
7.7
1.7
lt grn
arch
burned;
7
91.5
25 11.7
arch
arch
unid color,
irid
lt grn
2.1
0.5
19.3
1
2.4
1
2
0.6
6.6
1
1
1
see 81 C1, 84 1
2G
3
2
Block
adorn
food
2
2
6
1.2
15.5
1.4
0.3
62.4
3.3
Appendix A: 12-T-59 Catalog
Cat No FS No Primary
Secondary
Stone
256
78
Historic Metal
257
258
72
72
259
72
260
72
261
72
262
72
263
72
264
72
265
72
266
72
Rock
Chipped
Stone
Chipped
Stone
Chipped
Stone
Chipped
Stone
Chipped
Stone
Chipped
Stone
Chipped
Stone
Chipped
Stone
Sherd
267
268
269
270
72
72
72
72
Sherd
Sherd
Sherd
Sherd
271
272
72
72
273
274
73
73
275
73
276
73
277
73
278
279
280
106
106
106
281
107
282
283
79
79
284
79
Tertiary
Ferrous
Quaternary
tack,
wrought
Quinary
183
Attributes
Remarks
arch
N
1
g
0.7
Fire Cracked Non C hert
Chert
Debitage
19 691 .1
145 95.1
Chert
Core
1
57.8
Chert
Core
1
21
Chert
Core
1
22.3
Chert
Tool
Biface
Refined
Hafted
Triangle
1
1.4
Chert
Tool
Biface
Refined
Hafted
Triangle
1
2.4
Chert
Tool
Biface
Refined
Hafted
Triangle
1
0.6
Chert
Tool
Biface
Refined
Hafted
Triangle
1
0.9
Body
Grit
Plain
No
Decoration
1
3.8
1
1
1
16
2.5
3.5
2.9
14.1
1
1
1.2
0.2
Rim
Rim
Rim
Non
Diagnostic
Historic Metal
Chipped Chert
Stone
Rock Fire Cracked
Chipped Chert
Stone
Chipped Chert
Stone
Chipped Chert
Stone
Chipped Chert
Stone
Rock Fire Cracked
Rock Manup ort
Chipped Chert
Stone
Chipped Chert
Stone
Rock Fire Cracked
Chipped Chert
Stone
Rock Fire Cracked
Grit
Plain
Grit
Cordmarked
Grit
No t Shell
Ferrous
Tool
unidentified
Biface
Refined
Hafted
Tip
Non C hert
Debitage
7
331 .7
27 30.8
Core
1
30.6
1
5.7
1
6.1
Tool
Biface
Refined
Tool
Biface
Refined
Non C hert
Hafted
Rad datz
Debitage
2
985 .1
2
442 .2
22 16.8
Debitage
2
Non C hert
Debitage
10 161 .6
16 6.5
Chert
2
0.9
19.2
Appendix A: 12-T-59 Catalog
Cat No FS No Primary
Secondary
285
79
Fauna Non Human
286
79
Historic Metal
Tertiary Quaternary
Quinary
Unburned
Ferrous
nail,
arch
wrought
Metal
Ferrous
unidentified
Metal
Ferrous
wire
Glass
Container body
fragment
Fire Cracked Non C hert
Chert
Debitage
287
288
289
79
79
79
Historic
Historic
Historic
290
291
80
80
292
293
294
80
80
80
Rock
Chipped
Stone
Fauna Shell
Flora
Historic Glass
295
80
Historic Metal
296
80
Historic Ceramic
297
298
81
81
299
81
300
81
301
302
81
81
303
81
304
81
305
81
306
81
307
308
82
82
309
310
311
82
69
69
312
69
313
69
314
69
184
Attributes
Remarks
clear
Mussel
Container bottle
alco
base(?) frag
Ferrous
unidentified
earthenwa body sherd
re, refined
Rock Fire Cracked Non C hert
Chipped Chert
Debitage
Stone
Chipped Chert
Core
Stone
Historic Mineral/Ston daub
chinking
e
frag
Fauna Shell
Mussel
Historic Metal
Ferrous
nail,
wrought
Historic Metal
Copper/Br flat fragment
ass
Historic Mineral/Ston Cinder/Sl
e
ag
Historic Ceramic
creamwar body sherd
e?
Chipped Chert
Core
Stone
Rock Fire Cracked Non C hert
Chipped Chert
Debitage
Stone
Historic Metal
Ferrous
unidentified
Rock Fire Cracked Non C hert
Chipped Chert
Debitage
Stone
Chipped Chert
Tool
Biface
Stone
Sherd Non
No t Shell
Diagnostic
Chipped Quartzite
Debitage
food
olive
brn glaze
ext/int
N
g
1
.1
3
8.7
1
2
1
1.1
3.6
0.7
1
3
24.7
2.1
1
1
.1
0.7
17.6
round; slotted 1
screw head?
(like 1, 234)
1
3.9
0.5
10 186 .3
19 17.5
arch
burned;
arch
food
1
4.1
clay-fine river 1
sand
1
3
0.8
2
0.4
4
22.8
1.1
12.3
same as 84 2G 1
0.1
1
2.8
4
4
351 .2
1.5
1
2.8
13 143 .4
118 58.2
Refined
Hafted
Drill
1
1.5
11 6.0
2
2.9
Appendix A: 12-T-59 Catalog
Cat No FS No Primary
Secondary
Tertiary Quaternary
Quinary
Attributes
Stone
315
70
Rock Fire Cracked Non C hert
316
70
Chipped Chert
Debitage
Stone
317
70
Sherd Body
Grit
Plain
No
Decoration
318
70
Sherd Non
No t Shell
Diagnostic
319
71
Rock Fire Cracked Non C hert
320
71
Chipped Chert
Debitage
Stone
321
71
Sherd Non
No t Shell
Diagnostic
322
108
Rock Fire Cracked Non C hert
323
108
Chipped Chert
Debitage
Stone
324
108
Sherd Rim
Grit
325
108
Sherd Non
No t Shell
Diagnostic
326
108
Fauna Non Human Burned
327
108
Sherd Non
Shell
Diagnostic
328
109
Rock Fire Cracked Non C hert
329
109
Chipped Chert
Debitage
Stone
330
109
Sherd Non
No t Shell
Diagnostic
331
109
Fauna Non Human Unburned
332
109
Flora
333
109
Sherd Non
Shell
Diagnostic
334
110
Chipped Chert
Debitage
Stone
335
110
Sherd Non
No t Shell
Diagnostic
336
110
Fauna Non Human Unburned
337
110
Fauna Non Human Burned
338
110
Flora
339
110
Sherd Non
Shell
Diagnostic
340
111
Rock Fire Cracked Non C hert
341
111
Chipped Chert
Debitage
Stone
342
111
Sherd Non
No t Shell
Diagnostic
343
111
Fauna Non Human Burned
344
111
Flora
345
112
Chipped Chert
Debitage
Stone
185
Remarks
N
g
18 205 .7
109 66.0
1
6.8
13 5.9
20 132 .4
111 40.0
12 6.4
10 987 .4
129 59.4
1
8
4.2
3.3
1
2
0.2
0.7
1
45.6
51 15.5
3
1.6
2
2
0.6
0.3
0.1
78 68.6
7
4.6
3
1
2
0.7
0.1
0.3
0.2
2
176 .0
59 18.6
7
3.6
2
0.6
1.0
44 20.1
Appendix A: 12-T-59 Catalog
Cat No FS No Primary
Secondary
346
113
Chipped Chert
Stone
347
113
Rock Fire Cracked
348
113
Sherd Non
Diagnostic
349
84
Rock Fire Cracked
Tertiary
Debitage
350
84
Chert
Debitage
351
84
Chert
Tool
Biface
Unrefined
1
1.5
352
84
Chert
Tool
Biface
Unrefined
1
2.4
353
84
Chert
Core
1
5.7
354
355
356
84
84
84
84
358
84
Historic Metal
359
360
84
84
Historic Metal
Historic Metal
Unburned
Mussel
daub
chinking
frag
Ferrous
nail,
wrought
Ferrous
tack,
wrought
Brass
tack
Ferrous
flat fragment
11 5.2
1
<0.1
342 .5
357
Non Human
Shell
Mineral/Ston
e
Historic Metal
361
84
Historic Metal
362
84
Historic Metal
363
84
Historic Glass
364
365
84
84
Historic Glass
Historic Glass
366
84
Historic Ceramic
367
84
Historic Ceramic
368
93
Rock Manup ort
369
93
Rock Fire Cracked Non C hert
370
93
371
93
372
93
Chipped
Stone
Chipped
Stone
Chipped
Stone
Chipped
Stone
Fauna
Fauna
Historic
Quaternary
Quinary
186
Attributes
Remarks
N
g
14 10.3
Non C hert
No t Shell
1
1
Non C hert
41 3021.
5
40 38.5
Copper/Br flat fragment
ass
Brass
padlock
part?
Container body
fragment
Flat
fragment
Container body
fragment
creamwar body sherd
e?
faience
body sherd
Historic Mineral/Ston daub
chinking
e
frag
Chipped Chert
Debitage
Stone
Fauna Non Human Unburned
arch
burned;
23.4
0.4
arch
7
20.7
arch
1
0.8
furn
domed head
4
1 container
2
lip?
1 w/rivet hole? 3
2.5
1.4
1
5.9
furn
2.1
food
clear
1
0.6
arch
lt grn, irid
unid color,
irid
7
2
4.6
1.5
food
food
bl/grn
glaze; brn
painted line
same as 81 C1 1
<0.1
1
<0.1
1
arch
burned;
2827.
1
38 1876.
3
356 .5
34 23.8
4
1.2
Appendix A: 12-T-59 Catalog
Cat No
373
374
375
FS No Primary
Secondary
93
Fauna Non Human
93
Flora
93
Historic Metal
376
93
Historic Metal
377
93
Historic Metal
378
379
380
381
93
93
93
93
Historic
Historic
Historic
Historic
382
93
Historic Metal
383
93
Historic Metal
384
385
93
93
Historic Metal
Historic Ceramic
386
93
Historic Glass
387
93
Historic Glass
388
93
Historic Glass
389
93
Historic Glass
390
93
Historic Glass
391
83
392
83
393
394
395
92
92
92
396
92
397
92
Chipped Chert
Stone
Historic Mineral/Ston
e
Flora
Fauna Non Human
Chipped Chert
Stone
Historic Mineral/Ston
e
Historic Glass
398
399
94
94
400
94
401
94
Metal
Metal
Metal
Metal
Tertiary
Burned
Quaternary
Ferrous
spike,
wrought
Ferrous
nail,
wrought
Ferrous
tack,
wrought
Ferrous
wire?
Ferrous
flat fragment
Brass
tack
Copper/Br unidentified
ass
Copper/Br flat fragment
ass
Brass
drawer
pull/ba il
Brass
screw, bail
white clay pipestem
sherd
Flat
fragment
Quinary
187
Attributes
arch
N
g
2
0.8
1.3
1
63.2
arch
8
27.3
arch
5
3.4
1
1
1
1
0.6
0.5
0.7
1.2
2
1.7
furn
domed head
fastener?
furn
goes w/384
1
14.5
furn
tobb
goes w/383
1/16 " id; off
ctr
1
1
5.9
1.2
2
0.9
2
1.6
3
7.6
1
2.9
4
6.5
3
1.2
2
3.3
1
3
1.5
<0.1
0.8
6
13.6
1
3.2
arch
Container body
food
fragment
Container bottle body alco
frag
Container bottle rim
frag
Unidentife melted
d
Debitage
unid color,
irid
clear
grn, irid
unid color,
irid
grn, irid
Cinder/Sl
ag
Unburned
Debitage
Cinder/Sl
ag
Unidentife melted
d
Rock Fire Cracked Non C hert
Chipped Chert
Debitage
Stone
Chipped Chert
Tool
Biface
Stone
Sherd Non
Shell
Diagnostic
Remarks
unid color,
inclusions
Case bottle
3
116 .3
10 6.5
Unrefined
1
21.6
1
2.9
Appendix A: 12-T-59 Catalog
Cat No FS No Primary
Secondary
402
94
Flora
403
94
Sherd Non
Diagnostic
404
98
Historic Ceramic
405
95
406
95
407
95
408
409
95
95
410
95
411
412
413
95
95
95
Heavy
Fraction
Light
Fraction
Soil
Sam ple
Rock Fire Cracked
Chipped Chert
Stone
Chipped Chert
Stone
Fauna Non Human
Fauna Non Human
Rock Ocher
Tertiary
Quaternary
Quinary
188
Attributes
Remarks
No t Shell
white clay pipestem
sherd
tobb
5/64 " id; off
ctr
N
g
0.3
1
0.6
1
0.8
106 .7
7.0
1 liter sam ple
Non C hert
Core
3
1
Debitage
85 1.6
Burned
Unburned
.8
25.6
.1
.1
.1
APPENDIX B
Field Specimen Log for 2005 Investigations at Prophetstown State Park
This appendix presents an abbreviated version of the FS log for artifacts and samples recovered
during the 2005 investigations at Prophetstown State Park. FS numbers 1 through 10 were used for
the investigations at the Yost Woodland, while all other FS numbers were part of the survey and
excavations conducted at site 12-T-59 (Kethtippecanunk). Abbreviations used in the FS log include:
STP
CC
FCR
=
=
=
shovel test probe
charcoal
fire cracked rock
189
Appendix B: FS Log
FS #
Recovery
Unit
Feature Level Portion Zone
Depth
(cmbd)
190
Date
Remarks
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
handsort
handsort
handsort
handsort
handsort
handsort
handsort
handsort
handsort
handsort
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
surface
surface
06-Jun-05
06-Jun-05
06-Jun-05
06-Jun-05
06-Jun-05
06-Jun-05
06-Jun-05
06-Jun-05
06-Jun-05
06-Jun-05
07-Jun-05
07-Jun-05
07-Jun-05
08-Jun-05
08-Jun-05
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
08-Jun-05
08-Jun-05
08-Jun-05
07-Jun-05
07-Jun-05
07-Jun-05
01-Jun-05
08-Jun-05
24
25
surface
metal
detector
probe
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
metal
detector
probe
metal
detector
probe
metal
detector
probe
metal
detector
probe
metal
08-Jun-05
17-Jun-05
Trans 9 STP 15
Trans 9 STP 16
Trans 9 STP 3
Trans 4 STP 18
Trans 9.5 STP 3
Trans 5 STP 16
Trans 8 STP 10
Trans 6 STP 2
Trans 9 STP 2
Trans 5 STP 5
ST P 1 N4 879 .3 E509 9.3
STP 2 N4877.4 E5098
ST P 3 N4 875 .6 E509 5.8
N4861.5 E4935.5 (Mano)
N4874 E 4825 Hafted
Biface
N4830 E4975
N4859 E 4885 (Historic)
N4861 E 4879 (Historic)
N4860 E 4858 (Historic)
N4860 E4872
N4873 E4780
N4990 E4935
N4879 E 4862 Hafted
Biface
N4980 E5201
N4862 E 5041 (Historic)
15-Jun-05
17-Jun-05
16-Jun-05
16-Jun-05
17-Jun-05
17-Jun-05
N4862 E5041
N4189 E4997
N4992 E4855
N4994 E4806
N4 995 E4981 .3
N4878 E5096
17-Jun-05
N4975 E4992
17-Jun-05
N4 949 .5 E500 5.3
17-Jun-05
N4916 E5096
18-Jun-05
N4967.25 E5134.5 10cmbs
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Appendix B: FS Log
FS #
Recovery
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
Unit
detector
probe
metal
detector
probe
metal
detector
probe
metal
detector
probe
metal
detector
probe
metal
detector
probe
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
1/4" screen
metal
detector
probe
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
surface
1/4" screen B
1/4" screen B
1/4" screen B
1/4" screen C
1/4" screen C
1/4" screen E (all)
1/4" screen E (all)
1/4" screen B
1/4" screen B
1/4" screen E (all)
1/4" screen E (E
1m2)
1/4" screen E (E
1m2)
1/4" screen E (E
1m2)
Feature Level Portion Zone
5
S 1/2
Remarks
18-Jun-05
N4967.15 E5131.5 10cmbs
18-Jun-05
N4887.7 E50 59.6 (Beer
Can)
18-Jun-05
N4887.7 E50 59 Surface
18-Jun-05
N4881.4 E5060.5 10cmbs
18-Jun-05
N4883.7 E5061 10cmbs
21-Jun-05
21-Jun-05
21-Jun-05
21-Jun-05
21-Jun-05
STP
STP
STP
STP
27-37
37-47
23-33
35-45
A
45-55
08-Jul-05
B
45-50
08-Jul-05
8-18
18-26
18-26
5
Date
22-Jun-05
22-Jun-05
22-Jun-05
22-Jun-05
26-Jun-05
26-Jun-05
06-Jul-05
06-Jul-05
06-Jul-05
06-Jul-05
06-Jul-05
06-Jul-05
06-Jul-05
07-Jul-05
07-Jul-05
07-Jul-05
07-Jul-05
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
3
4
3
4
5
Depth
(cmbd)
191
27-1
27-2
27-3
27-4
N4945
N4955
N4955
N4945
N4863
E5125
E5125
E5135
E5135
E4882
N4 860 E4880 .5
N4 861 .25 E 488 4.2
N4863 E4886
N4861.5 E4889.25
N4860.5 E4878
N4852 E4885
plowzone
plowzone
plowzone
plowzone 2 bags 1 bucket
plowzone
plowzone
plowzone to subplow
below plowzone
gravel deposits
below plowzone
below plowzone with some
CC
non-charcoal area
charcoal concentration
(zone B during excavation,
called Fea 5 for rep ort)
Appendix B: FS Log
FS #
Recovery
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
Unit
1/4" screen E (E
1m2)
1/4" screen B
1/4" screen D
1/4" screen D
6
Depth
(cmbd)
55-65
5
1
2
47-57
0-31
30-35
08-Jul-05
09-Jul-05
09-Jul-05
1/4"
1/4"
1/4"
1/4"
1/4"
1/4"
1/4"
1/4"
1/4"
1/4"
1/4"
1/4"
1/4"
1/4"
1/4"
1/4"
1
2
3
1
2
1
2
3
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
20-30
30-40
40-50
0-40
40-55
0-10
5
09-Jul-05
09-Jul-05
09-Jul-05
09-Jul-05
09-Jul-05
08-Jul-05
07-Jul-05
08-Jul-05
08-Jul-05
08-Jul-05
08-Jul-05
08-Jul-05
09-Jul-05
09-Jul-05
09-Jul-05
09-Jul-05
08-Jul-05
5 & 10
08-Jul-05
N4867.1 E4899.1 below
surface
5
08-Jul-05
N4856.9 E4898.9 below
surface
2
08-Jul-05
N4842.1 E4898.1 below
surface
5
08-Jul-05
N4866.9 E4900.1 below
surface
surface
4-6
09-Jul-05
12-Jul-05
12-Jul-05
12-Jul-05
12-Jul-05
13-Jul-05
2
1
13-Jul-05
13-Jul-05
screen K
screen K
screen K
screen H
screen H
screen F
screen F
screen F
screen G
screen G
screen I
screen I
screen J
screen J
screen G,I,J
screen L
metal
detector
probe 1
metal
detector
probe 2
metal
detector
probe 3
metal
detector
probe 4
metal
detector
probe 5
void
surface
1/4" screen G,I,J
1/4" screen L
1/4" screen H
flotation H
1/4" screen E (W
2m2)
1/4" screen D
piece plot L
Feature Level Portion Zone
192
1
1
1
1
2
2
B
A
0-21
21-25
S 1/2
N 1 /2
0-20
E 1/2
NE 1/4
Date
Remarks
08-Jul-05
gravel deposits
gravel deposits
plowzone
dark stain (deflated
feature?)
lots of prehistoric material
lots of prehistoric material
lots of prehistoric material
plowzone level 1
plowzone level 2
2 bags
3 bags
N 4867.6 E 4898.2 below
surface
void
N4860 E4960
3 bags
Only materials from western
half
N4861.02 E4882.18 Pipe
Appendix B: FS Log
FS #
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
Recovery
1/4" screen D
1/4" screen D
metal
detector
probe 6
metal
detector
probe 7
metal
detector
probe 8
metal
detector
probe 9
metal
detector
probe 10
1/4" screen H
1/4" screen H
1/4" screen K
1/4" screen K
1/4" screen K
1/4" screen K
1/4" screen K
1/4" screen K
Unit
Feature Level Portion Zone
Depth
(cmbd)
3
4
3
4
4
5
6
7
8
9
193
Date
14-Jul-05
14-Jul-05
08-Jul-05
50-60
60-70
70-80
80-90
90-100
100-110
Remarks
stem
3 bags, 2 with FCR
N4 866 .6 E490 0.7
15-Jul-05
N4 999 .2 E484 0.2
15-Jul-05
N4 998 .8 E484 0.4
15-Jul-05
N4 998 .0 E484 0.7
15-Jul-05
N4 997 .8 E484 0.3
12-Jul-05
13-Jul-05
14-Jul-05
14-Jul-05
14-Jul-05
14-Jul-05
14-Jul-05
14-Jul-05
2 bags
APPENDIX C
Results of Ground-Penetrating Radar Survey of Two Mounds, Site 12-T-59
On July 8 and 9, 2005, ground-penetrating radar
survey was conducted on two mounds within site
12-T-59. The survey was conducted as part of the
IPFW Archaeological Survey’s National Science
Foundation Research Experience for
Undergraduates (REU) program. The purpose of
the REU program is to provide undergraduate
students the opportunity to enhance their
professional skills within an ongoing archaeological
research project. Students gain practical experience
in the planning, implementation, and completion of
original research in a real-world setting, as well as
a valuable set of technical skills that is growing in
usage and applicability. Funding for the mound
survey at 12-T-59 was supplied by the REU.
Investigations were supervised by Dr. Robert G.
McCullough and Andrew White of the IPFW
Archaeological Survey. A total of ten students was
present during the data collection. The purpose of
the survey at 12-T-59 was to give students an
opportunity to learn how to use the ground
penetrating radar on an actual archaeological site.
Historical Background
The mounds that lie within the limits of site 12-T59 have been recognized since the 19th century
(Dehart 1909; Gorby 1886). One observer
described them thus:
On the farm of Major VanNata,
two miles east of Battle Ground,
and just at the edge of Pretty
Prairie, is an interesting series of
mounds. They are located near the
mouth of the Tippecanoe River,
and just west of the bluffs of that
stream. They overlook the valleys
of the Wabash and Tippecanoe
194
rivers, and command a view of the
country for miles in every
direction...The four mounds in a
line on the north are about one-half
mile north of the line of six running
east and west. The four mounds on
the north are about 50 or 60 yards
apart. The one on the extreme
north is elliptical 60 X 40 feet, and
three to four feet high. The lone
mound on the west is a very large
mound. It is circular, about 60 feet
in diameter, and at the present time
is about 15 feet high. This mound
was opened some years ago, and a
large number of stone and copper
implements taken out of it,
including pipes, axes, arrowheads, copper bracelets, copper
beads, rings, and, among other rare
specimens, a copper vessel
resembling a pitcher. The most
valuable of the relics, however,
have been scattered around and
lost....Four of the six mounds on
the south are in a straight line, while
the two at the extreme ends are
projected a little north, giving the
series a crescent shape. They are
all circular in form, and, beginning
on the east, the first is 30 feet in
diameter and 4 feet high; the
second 40 feet in diameter and 5
feet high; the third 45 feet in
diameter and 5 feet high; the fourth
50 feet in diameter and 5 feet high;
and the sixth 30 feet in diameter
and 4 feet high. From the center of
Mound No. 1 to the center of No.
2 is 47 yards; No. 2 to No. 3, 39
yards; No. 3 to No. 4, 65 yards; No.
4 to No. 5, 44 yards, and from No.
Appendix C: 12-T-59 Mound Survey
195
River. Dobbs’ (1975) sketch map of the mounds
as they appeared in the 1970s indicates “remnants
of mound” in the approximate location of the
eastern most mound, suggesting that portions of
the mound may still be extant.
The large mound described by Gorby is also
extant and is located within a golf course that lies
to the northwest of the bluff edge. The locations of
the four northernmost mounds are not well known
but according to Gorby’s (1886:73-74)
description, they appear to have been within what
is presently an agricultural field that lies between
Pretty Prairie Road and Indian Mounds Trail.
Gorby’s (1886:73) accompanying illustration of None of the four is currently visible and it is likely
the mound group (Figure C.1) indicates a total of that they have been destroyed, either intentionally
eleven mounds, arranged in a rough T-shape. The or through repeated plowing and erosion.
largest mound is spatially isolated from the
An investigation of the five bluff-edge mounds
remainder.
was undertaken in the 1970s by John Gansfuss of
Five of the six mounds along the bluff edge (i.e., Purdue University, who conducted geophysical
those within site 12-T-59) are still extant (Figure survey at 12-T-59 as part of a study of geophysical
C.2). The easternmost of the bluff edge mounds methods at three sites in central Indiana (Gansfuss
has apparently been destroyed, possibly during the 1977). Magnetometry, resistivity, and seismic
construction of a house that currently lies at the refraction analyses were conducted on and around
edge of the bluff, overlooking the Tippecanoe the five remaining mounds along the edge of the
bluff. The five mounds were lettered A through E,
from west to east (Gansfuss 1977:56, 58 facing).
Investigations focused on mound D. A series of
soil cores was also conducted in a parallel line
adjacent to the mounds, in order to gather data on
the geological character in the immediate area. The
results of the mound survey were somewhat
ambiguous, though given the crude state of the
technology in the 1970s, geophysical surveys
often produced less-than-useful information, due
to the fact that many of the technological,
methodological, and software problems had not
yet been worked out.
After Gansfuss’ geophysical data were
collected, mound D was excavated, with the
excavations supervised by an unnamed
“professional archaeologist.” Unfortunately,
Gansfuss’ report (1977) contains very little
information on the excavations, and focuses
Figure C.1. Gorby’s (1886:73) illustration of the mound almost exclusively on the geophysical data. No
report seems to have been completed by the
group.
5 to No. 6 is 47 yards. This series of
six mounds is directly along the
bluff of the Tippecanoe River, just
at the junction of that stream and
the Wabash. It is probable that a
large mound once occupied a
position on the east to correspond
with the position of the large, lone
mound on the west, but, if so, it was
situated immediately upon the bluff
of the river, and has been entirely
obliterated by the crumbling away
of the bluff [Gorby 1886:73-74].
Appendix C: 12-T-59 Mound Survey
196
Figure C.2. Approximate location of the five mounds within the limits of site 12-T-59.
archaeologist in charge of the excavations. A
mound profile illustrated in Gansfuss’ (1977:Figures
38 and 39) report indicates that mound D
contained about 1.25 m of moundfill, overlying a B
Horizon comprised of granular clay loam.
Evidence of earlier digging was noted during the
excavations. No discussion of the cultural
materials was provided in the report and, for this
reason, the cultural attribution of the mound
remains unknown. It appears from the bits and
pieces of information in Gansfuss’ report, that their
mound D corresponds to our mound 2 (see
below), but this attribution is not unequivocal.
2005 IPFW Investigations
Methods
The five mounds adjacent to the bluff edge were
assigned numbers (1 through 5), running from east
to west. The easternmost four mounds are
currently in mowed grass, while the western
mound is in a wooded area, slightly separated from
the others. All of the mounds lie immediately to the
south of Indian Mound Trail, an asphalt street that
leads through the subdivision to the north (Figure
C.3). A total station was set up to establish a grid
for the mound survey. The grid used for the survey
was parallel to Indian Mound Trail (i.e., parallel to
the axis of the five mounds). This separate mound
grid was later tied into the grid used for the IPFWAS Kethtippecanunk survey and excavations that
were conducted in the bottoms. Topographical
data were also collected for mounds 1 and 2, using
the total station.
The two easternmost mounds (mounds 1 and
2) were selected for GPR survey. An area was
gridded out over each of the mounds, large enough
Appendix C: 12-T-59 Mound Survey
197
Figure C.3. Photograph of mounds 1 through 4, view to the west. Note partially mowed mound 1 in foreground.
so that the GPR survey would encompass the
entire mound. The survey grid over mound 1
measured 35m (northwest-southeast) by 25m
(northeast-southwest) – a total of 875 m2. The grid
over mound 2 was 35m (northwest-southeast) by
20m (northeast-southwest) – a total of 700m2. The
two mound grids abutted one another. The grid
used for the mound survey was parallel to Indian
Mound Trail (Figure C.4). Survey was conducted
using the Geophysical Survey Systems SIR-3000,
equipped with a 400 MHz antenna.
Mound 1 was surveyed on June 8, 2005. At
the time both mounds were covered in grass
approximately 8 inches high. Because the GPR
antenna needed to make close contact with the
ground in order be effective, a riding lawnmower
was brought out by IPFW-AS personnel to cut the
grass to an acceptable length. Unfortunately, the
lawnmower broke down approximately one-third
through the grid, leaving a large rectangle of longer
grass in the center of the mound 1 survey area (see
Figure C.3). The unmowed area included most or
all of mound 1 and only the areas peripheral to the
mound were mowed. Due to the limited time
allotted by the REU to complete the mound survey,
it was decided to proceed with the survey despite
the partially mowed state of the east mound.
Mound 1 was surveyed at a 1.0m transect interval.
Survey was done in a zig-zag pattern.
Mound 2 was surveyed on June 9, 2005.
Again, the grass covering the mound was
unacceptably high. This time, however, the mound
was mowed by the neighbor, Mr. Dale Gibson,
who lives immediately to the west of the mound
group. The mound 2 survey was done at a closer
transect interval (0.5m), using a zig-zag pattern.
After data collection, the data were processed
by Andrew White and Mariah Yager, using GPR
Appendix C: 12-T-59 Mound Survey
198
Figure C.4. Survey grid used during investigation of mounds 1 and 2, 12-T-59.
Slice, a program specifically designed to process
and create three-dimensional images of groundpenetrating radar reflection data.. All data were
processed through a 3 X 3 low-pass filter.
Results
Unfortunately, a problem with the total station data
collector resulted in the loss of the topographic
data and grid points for the mound survey. As a
result, we are unable to tie in the mound grid with
the grid used for the survey and excavation at
Kethtippecanunk (detailed in the main section of
the report). In addition, since the topographical
data were lost, the GPR data could not be
corrected for changes in elevation. Another
unfortunate result is that the locations of the actual
mounds within the survey areas cannot be
accurately determined, though both survey grids
were designed to encompass the entirety of the
mound they were placed over. None the less, the
results of the mound surveys are presented below.
Mound 1. As suspected, the fact that mound 1 was
not completely mowed had a significant negative
impact on the ability of the GPR to collect useful
readings. Most data (Figure C.5) indicate a large
rectangle in the center of the survey area – a direct
result of the inability of the GPR antenna to make
adequate contact with the ground surface in those
areas that had not been mowed. Since the
unmowed area included most of the mound
proper, we can say little about the mound itself.
Survey within areas that had been mowed (i.e.,
around the edges of the mound), however, indicate
a few anomalies that may be cultural in origin. Two
anomalies on the western edge of the survey area
(Figure C.6) appeared in a number of threedimensional data slices. These may be cultural in
origin and appear to be just west of the mound
proper. Their large size (ca. 3-4m in diameter)
suggests that they are not ordinary storage/
garbage pits.
Mound 2. Because this mound had been properly
Appendix C: 12-T-59 Mound Survey
Figure C.5. Mound 1 GPR data; 7 to 9 nanoseconds time slice.
Figure C.6. Mound 1 GPR data; 30 to 32 nanoseconds time slice.
199
Appendix C: 12-T-59 Mound Survey
200
Figure C.7. Mound 2 GPR data; 3.7 to 5.7 nanoseconds time slice.
mowed, the data obtained from mound 2 were
much clearer and showed a number of possible
cultural anomalies. The near-surface data from
mound 2, for example (Figure C.7), indicate a
number of small-sized, circular anomalies in the
area of the mound and immediately surrounding it.
In particular, a number of small anomalies (ca.
1.0m in diameter) were identified in the northern
portion of the survey area. Another data slice at a
slightly deeper depth (Figure C.8), indicates an
inverted L-shaped anomaly in the center of the
survey area, likely on top of the mound. Gansfuss’
(1977) report suggests that most of the
archaeological mound excavations performed
during his work at 12-T-59 were on mound 2 (his
“mound D”). It is possible that this linear anomaly
may be a result of these earlier excavations. In the
absence of an excavation map, it is difficult to see
Figure C.8. Mound 2 GPR data; 14.7 to 16.7 nanoseconds time slice.
Appendix C: 12-T-59 Mound Survey
if our anomaly corresponds with the location and
shape of Gansfuss’ excavation areas. The anomaly
may also be the result of bioturbation, as a number
of groundhog holes were noted during the mound
survey.
A final data map (Figure C.9), reflecting
anomalies even deeper in the soil, indicates a
number of anomalies of potential interest. The
central portion of the grid in particular, indicates a
somewhat circular area (shown as light green).
Again, this may be a result of Gansfuss’
excavations. Another possible interpretation is that
this anomalous area may indicate the mound extent
or a deeply buried submound feature. Other
anomalous areas appear in this data slice, most to
the north of the mound proper. These anomalies
may be cultural in origin.
Conclusion
The IPFW-AS survey of two mounds within site
12-T-59 was designed as a training exercise for
students participating in the REU program.
Although some data collection problems were
encountered, particularly during the survey of
201
mound 1, the results obtained indicated a number
of anomalies of potential interest. In particular, the
area north of mound 2 contained a number of
possibly cultural anomalies. The circular shape of
many of the anomalies suggests that they may be
pits of some type. This possibility argues for a
habitation or ritual-related occupation in the area
immediate surrounding the mounds. Extant reports
on work at site 12-T-59 (e.g., Dobbs 1975;
Gansfuss 1977l; Jones 1989a; Trubowitz 1992)
have focused mostly on the historic 18th century
occupation of the site, with little attention paid to
the prehistoric component. In particular, no
reliable information is available on the possible
occupation/use of the blufftop in the vicinity of the
mounds (Dobbs 1975). It is most likely that the
mounds are related to a Middle Woodland, Albee,
or Late Prehistoric occupation, as these are the
major prehistoric components present in the
floodplain portion of 12-T-59. The deeper data
slices from mound 2 may indicate the mound extent
or possibly a large submound feature. The nature
of this possible feature was not further elucidated
by the GPR survey.
Figure C.9. Mound 2 GPR data; 31.2 to 33.2 nanoseconds time slice.
Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertising