USING FAUNAL ANALYSIS TO EXPLAIN SOCIAL STRATIFICATION AT AN UPPER MISSISSIPPIAN SITE IN LAPORTE COUNTY, INDIANA A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE MASTER OF ARTS BY CAITLIN EILEEN NICHOLS DR. S. HOMES HOGUE – ADVISOR BALL STATE UNIVERSITY MUNCIE, INDIANA DECEMBER 2016 1 Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................................ 6 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................... 8 A SUMMARY OF SITE 12LE377.............................................................................................. 12 LITERATURE REVIEW............................................................................................................. 21 METHODS .................................................................................................................................. 41 RESULTS..................................................................................................................................... 49 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................ 69 REFERENCES CITED................................................................................................................. 74 APPENDIX I................................................................................................................................ 79 APPENDIX II............................................................................................................................... 84 APPENDIX III............................................................................................................................ 126 2 List of Figures Figure 1- LaPorte County, Indiana............................................................................................... 13 Figure 2- 12LE377 and 12LE378 on the 7.5’ Springfield, Indiana, USGS Quadrangle map................... 13 Figure 3- Site 12LE377 and trench locations............................................................................................ 17 Figure 4- Map of the Mississippian World................................................................................... 22 Figure 5- Map for the locations of the Fifield and Griesmer sites............................................................ 33 Figure 6- Bison scapula, previously identified as a scapula hoe, posterior view, Feature 13...... 53 Figure 7- Possible split rib awls, Feature 6................................................................................... 54 Figure 8- Antler tine, Feature 19................................................................................................... 55 Figure 9- Black bear distal metacarpal volar view, Feature 10.................................................... 56 Figure 10- Bobcat right calcaneus dorsal view, Feature 2........................................................................ 57 Figure 11- Bobcat distal right humerus ventral view, Feature 25............................................................. 58 Figure 12- Log Difference Scale for 12LE377.......................................................................................... 61 Figure 13- NISP for each of the comparative sites and 12LE377............................................................. 65 Figure 14- NISP percentage for each of the comparative sites and 12LE377.......................................... 65 Figure 15- MNI for each of the comparative sites and 12LE377.............................................................. 67 Figure 16- MNI percentage for each of the comparative sites and 12LE377........................................... 67 Figure 17- Aw values for site 12LE377 and comparative sites..................................................... 68 3 List of Tables Table 1- Cultural feature summaries for features 1-16 in 12LE377.......................................................... 15 Table 2- Cultural feature summaries for features 17-33 in 12LE377........................................... 16 Table 3- MNI, NISP, and Weight data for remains identified by species in site 12LE377....................... 50 Table 4- A summary of remains identified by class in site 12LE377........................................................ 59 Table 5- Sample sizes of deer bones in features used in the log difference scales.................................... 62 Table 6- Features from 12LE377 with faunal remains and decorated Oneota pottery (DP) sherds.......... 62 Table 7- Faunal Data from Feature 2............................................................................................ 79 Table 8- Faunal Data from Feature 3............................................................................................ 79 Table 9- Faunal Data from Feature 4............................................................................................ 79 Table 10- Faunal Data from Feature 6.......................................................................................... 80 Table 11- Faunal Data from Feature 8.......................................................................................... 80 Table 12- Faunal Data from Feature 9.......................................................................................... 80 Table 13- Faunal Data from Feature 10........................................................................................ 80 Table 14- Faunal Data from Feature 13........................................................................................ 81 Table 15- Faunal Data from Feature 18........................................................................................ 81 Table 16- Faunal Data from Feature 19........................................................................................ 81 4 Table 17- Faunal Data from Feature 22........................................................................................ 82 Table 18- Faunal Data from Feature 23........................................................................................ 82 Table 19- Faunal Data from Feature 24........................................................................................ 82 Table 20- Faunal Data from Feature 25........................................................................................ 82 Table 21- Faunal Data from Feature 32a...................................................................................... 83 Table 22- Faunal Data from Bag 221........................................................................................... 83 5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS None of this research would have happened without the love and support from my friends and family. My mother, Eileen, was instrumental in providing encouragement and constantly reminding me to “turn for home.” Jessica, my Murray friend, was responsible for reminding me that it could be done and to keep going. Brent, Zach, Eric, and Barry were unconsciously supportive by keeping the “state of my head” always positive and strong willed. I would not have been able to complete this project without any of you. I have been extremely fortunate to have an incredibly helpful committee: Homes Hogue, Kevin Nolan, and Mark Hill. Aside from agreeing to read and review my thesis, they have helped by providing access to Ball State’s Applied Anthropology Laboratory after hours so I could complete my analysis while holding down a full time job. They also lent me incredibly helpful reading material which became useful references. Mitch Zoll, the Principle Investigator for the Phase II investigation of site 12LE377, also played a part in helping my research. He personally hand delivered the Site Assessment to me which included the ceramic and initial faunal analyses; I constantly referred back to it at multiple points of the project, so I am incredibly grateful he let me have a copy to keep. Special thanks to the archaeologists from my undergrad who have kept in touch and reminded me every step of the way that they’re proud of me. Dr. Anthony Ortmann, Dr. Lara Homsey-Messer, and Dr. Lori Roe in particular helped me get here and I can’t thank them enough. 6 In loving memory of Dr. Kit Wesler, without whose mentorship none of this would have been possible. Graduate school was your idea first. I hope I’ve made you proud. 7 INTRODUCTION The Mississippian period is characterized by the first complex societies in prehistoric North America (Emerson 1999; Kelly 2001; Pauketat 2004; Welch 1991). Middle Mississippian component sites, such as Cahokia near present day St. Louis, or Moundville in Alabama, have a well-defined hierarchy consisting of elite and commoner groups (Kelly 2001; Pauketat 2004). Other sites, such as the Yarborough site in Mississippi, are less stratified farmsteads, consisting of single families or kinship groups (Jackson and Scott 1995; Pauketat 2004). Upper Mississippian sites in the Upper Midwest demonstrate a similar range between fortified villages (Jackson and Emerson 2014) and small seasonal summer camps where particular resources were exploited (Faulkner 1972). A site recently investigated in Laporte County, Indiana with an Upper Mississippian cultural component is site 12LE377. It was originally found during a Phase I survey (Bubb 2011). The site was within the proposed location for an expansion of the city of LaPorte’s East Water Treatment facility. This initial survey