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 ABPPs 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 traders 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 Harrisons river crossing, although others locate Harrisons 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 Staffords (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 Jacks 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 groupsAnderson 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 OBrien 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 OBrien 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 Coxs 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 areas 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 towns 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 Prophets and his brother Tecumsehs 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 Weaa branch of the Miamiwere 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 Frenchmens 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 languille) 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 Hays 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 therethat 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 SummerThe Indians having understood that the Americans meant to Burn this Indian, is the reason they have fallen upon Lassel and mean to burn himhis men are also prisonersthey will of course plunder him &c.Im sorry for it and so is every one at this placetho 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). Hays 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, vizWe 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 Hays 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 Gamelins 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 oclock 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 oclock 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 oclock; lay upon my arms until 4 oclock, 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 waters 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 oclock 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 oclock, 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 Languille. 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 Wilkinsons campaigns). The letter gives a description of Kethtippecanunk, events occurring there in 1791, and the surrounding territory, beginning with Wilkinsons 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 Wilkinsons 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 Eastthe 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 Wades 1795 journal (Smith 1954). Wade was an officer under General Anthony Waynes 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 attentionas served to convince me of the difference between the Wabash and Potawatomies Indiansfor the latter I found to be much under the influence of the British, insolenthaughtyand domineeringholding 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 herean ex-prisoner of the Americanswas in possession of one of his mens 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 Waynes 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 Springsthis 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). Bodleys 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 towns location prior to its destruction in 1791. History of Prophetstown, 1808-1811 Prophetstown was the 1808-1811 center of the Shawnee Prophets 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 territorypartly due to the Prophets 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 Prophets 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 Burnetts Creek (Barnhart and Riker 1971:390). Before daybreak the next morning, on November 7, 1811, the Indians attacked Harrisons sleeping army and the Battle of Tippecanoe ensued (Barnhart and Riker 1971:390-392). Harrisons 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 Burnetts 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 Prophets 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 Burnetts 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 Harrisons 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 Burnetts 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 Burnetts 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 Burnetts Creek, between 32 a swamp and the Wabash River (Gorby 1886:6162). Gorbys 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 Harrisons 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 Harrisons 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: Prophets 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 Prophets 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 LodgeLong, 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 poniesone of the party was an old man who claimed to have lived at the mouth of the Tippecanoe river before Prophets Town was established. He said Prophets 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 Prophets 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 Prophets 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 blacksmiths 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). Mulveys 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 Mulveys 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 Burnetts 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 Burnetts 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 Burnetts Reserve, parcel number 4, Township 24N, Range 4W. The Lower Yost Property is thought by some to be the possible site of General Harrisons river crossing, although others locate Harrisons 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 earths 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 earths own magnetic field. The presence of bacteria that produce small magnetic particles are one of the major factors affecting a soils 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 sites 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 surveyors 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 units 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. Amanuport 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 OBrien 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 Justices 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 Raileys 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 Raileys 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 Raileys (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 Raileys (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 Raileys 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 Justices 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 flakingprimarily 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 users 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 OBrien 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 robins 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 OBrien 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 sites 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 artifactsthe trigger guard fragment, the lead ball, and a British gunflintcan 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 structures 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 Burnetts 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. Tenskwatawas 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 militias 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 Masons 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 Scotts 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 Scotts 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 oclock, 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 oclock 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 oclock; lay upon my arms until 4 oclock, 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 waters 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 oclock 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 Imlays 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 ones 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 Wilkinsons 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 sites 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.  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 Surveys 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 Gorbys (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. Gorbys (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. Gorbys (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.
* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project