Modeling Woodland Land Use in the Lower Little Miami River Valley, Hamilton County, Ohio
A thesis submitted to the
Division of Graduate Studies and Advanced Research
of the University of Cincinnati
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts
in the Department of Anthropology
of the McMicken College of Arts and Sciences
2016
by
Jocelyn M. Connolly
B.A. Anthropology, The Ohio State University, 2013
Committee: Kenneth Barnett Tankersley (Chair)
Vernon L. Scarborough
i
Abstract
This thesis examines Woodland (ca. 1,000 B.C.E. to 1,000 C.E.) land use patterns in the lower
Little Miami River valley of Ohio. Theoretically, two models can be applied to the distribution of archaeological sites that date to the Woodland cultural period in this region: an ideological based model on ceremonial and mortuary behavior and an evolutionary model based on the socio-economic optimizing and risk-reducing behaviors of human behavioral ecology.
Archaeological data, including artifact typology and composition, distance from food resources, raw material resources, and water at the time of occupation, elevation, geographic location, geological landform, relative and chronometric age, soil type and underlying stratigraphic composition, site size and type, and slope, were collected from the Ohio State Historic
Preservation Office (Ohio Archaeological Inventory). These data were supplemented by collector interviews, bucket auguring and soil probes, natural stream and ditch profiles, shovel testing, and systematic and opportunistic surface surveys. These data were digitized and encoded into ArcGIS 10.3.1 and used to evaluate models using multivariate regression analysis. While the availability of clay and upland resources were found to be significant, neither ideological nor human behavioral ecological models explained the distribution of archaeological sites in the lower Little Miami River valley dating to the Woodland cultural period. This situation is likely due to archaeological visibility and an inadequate understanding of Algonquian culture.
ii
iii
Acknowledgments
Many thanks to the Charles Phelps Taft Graduate Summer Fellowship and the Anthropology
Department of the University of Cincinnati for funding my work. Thanks are of course due to my advisor, Kenneth Barnett Tankersley, for his patience through my learning curves as a student and fieldworker.
Gracious assistance to my background work was provided by Brent Eberhard of the Ohio
State Historic Preservation Office, Chris Carr of the UC Geography department, Karen Leone at
Gray & Pape, Jeannine Kreinbrink at K&V, Vicki Newell at Great Parks of Cincinnati, Bob
Genheimer at the Cincinnati Museum Center, Jarrod Burks at Ohio Valley Archaeology, Aaron
Comstock & Rob Cook at the Ohio State University, and Bruce Aument at the Ohio Department of Transportation. Thanks are due to the Kinney, Hueber, Gratsch, and Kirwan families for graciously allowing me access to their properties, and sometimes, their homes. Thanks also to
Matt Talley, Ellen Biscotti, Laura Collins, Mack Cline, Matt Hamann, John White, Todd
Baumer, and Joe Schaffer for helping me in the field. This project was made possible with permits provided by the villages of Mariemont, Newton, and the Great Parks of Hamilton
County. Thanks are also due to Kevin Pape, Mike Striker, and all of my coworkers at Gray &
Pape, for supporting and motivating me to the finish line.
None of this would have been possible without the endlessly loving support of my parents, my sister Madeleine, my wonderful boyfriend Ron, Hyacinth, Isabel, Elvis, and Cody.
iv
Table of Contents
Abstract…………………………….…………………………….…………………………….….ii
Acknowledgments…………………………….……………………………………………..…...iv
List of Figures………………………………………………………………………………….....ix
List of Tables…………………………….……………………...……….…………………….....xi
Chapter 1: Introduction…………………………….……………………………………………...1
Chapter 2: Natural Environmental and Cultural Setting of the Lower Little Miami River
Valley…………………………….………………………………………………………………..5
Geological Setting…………………………………………………………………………5
Geological Resources……………………………………………………………………...6
Water Resources…………………………………………………………………..9
Rock and Mineral Resources……………………………………………………...9
Biological Setting………………………………………………………………………...12
Food Resources……………………………………………………………..……………13
Woodland Cultural History………………………………………………………………13
Discussion………………………………………………………………………………..14
Chapter 3: Theory…………………………….…………………………….……………………16
Processual Archaeological Theory………………………………………………………16
Julian Steward……………………………………………………………………17
Lewis Binford……………………………………………………………………18
Patty Jo Watson…………………………………………………………………..19
Post-Processual Archaeological Theory…………………………………………………20
Ian Hodder…………………………….…………………………………………21
v
Miller & Tilley…………………………………………………………………...21
Colin Renfrew……………………………………………………………………23
Woodland Archaeological Theory…………………………………………….…………24
Joseph Caldwell…………………………………………………….……………24
Christopher Carr…………………………………………………………….……25
A. Martin Byers………………………………………………………….………26
Human Behavioral Ecology……………………………………………………………...27
Winterhalder & Smith……………………………………………………………27
Robert Netting……………………………………………………………………28
Emilio Moran…………………………………………………………………….29
Hypotheses and Models………………………………………………………………….30
Hypotheses…………………………………………………………………….…30
Models……………………………………………………………………………31
Discussion………………………………………………………………………………..33
Chapter 4: Methods and Data…………………………….……………………..……………….34
Archival Data Collection………………………………………………………………...34
Charles Louis Metz Archaeological Survey……………………………..………35
S. Frederick Starr Archaeological Survey……………………………………….35
The Ohio Archaeological Inventory……………………………………………..37
Field Methods: Collector Interviews……………………………………….……………42
Field Methods: Surface Survey and Stream Cutbank Evaluation…………………..……42
Field Methods: Bucket Auguring and Oakfield Soil Probe…………………………...…44
Field Methods: Test Pit Excavation…………………………………………...…………45
vi
Laboratory Methods: Artifact and Site Analysis……………………………...…………56
Summary…………………………………………………………………………………57
Chapter 5: Analysis…………………………….…………………………..….…………………60
Model 1……………………………………………………………………………..……60
Model 2…………………………………………………………………………………..62
Model 2a…………………………………………………………………………62
Model 2b…………………………………………………………………………64
Discussion………………………………………………………………………..………65
Chapter 6: Discussion and Conclusions…………………………….………………………...….68
Bibliography…………………………….…………………………….…………………………70
Appendices……………………………………………………………………………………….86
Appendix A: Nut Bearing Trees in the lower Little Miami River valley……….…….…86
Appendix B: Cultigens in the lower Little Miami River valley……….…………………87
Appendix C: Wild Useful Plants in the lower Little Miami River valley……….………88
Appendix D: Large Mammals in the lower Little Miami River valley……….…………91
Appendix E: Small Mammals in the lower Little Miami River valley……….………….92
Appendix F: Gastropods in the lower Little Miami River valley……….………………94
Appendix G: Birds in the lower Little Miami River valley……….…………………..…95
Appendix H: Fish in the lower Little Miami River valley…………………………….....97
Appendix I: Reptiles in the lower Little Miami River valley……….…………………...99
Appendix J: Amphibians in the lower Little Miami River valley……….….………….100
Appendix K: Bivalves in the lower Little Miami River valley……….……..………….101
vii
Appendix L: Archaeological sites in the lower Little Miami River valley documented by
Dr. Charles Louis Metz……….………………………….…………………..…………105
Appendix M: Archaeological Sites in the lower Little Miami River valley documented by
S. Frederick Starr. ……….………………………….………..…..….…………………112
Appendix N: Woodland archaeological sites in the lower Little Miami River valley documented in the Ohio Archaeological Inventory. ……….……………………..……114
Appendix O: Woodland cultural period archaeological sites in the lower Little Miami
River valley documented by artifact collectors. ……….………………………………116
Appendix P: Systematic soil probe data. ……….…………………………...…………117
Appendix Q: Artifacts documented from Fieldwork in lower Little Miami River Valley
Woodland Archaeological Sites. ……….………………………….………..….………118
Appendix R: Ohio Archaeological Inventory Forms Generated by this Thesis………..129
viii
List of Figures
Figure 1. The location of the lower Little Miami River Valley……………………………...……2
Figure 2. Elevation Zones in the lower Little Miami River Valley……………………………….7
Figure 3. The Soils of the lower Little Miami River Valley……………………………….……...8
Figure 4. Location of Ordovician Shale and Limestone Bedrock…………………..…………...10
Figure 5. Location of Glacial Till and Outwash Deposits………………………………..……...11
Figure 6. The location of Woodland archaeological sites documented by Dr. Charles Louis Metz
(1871-1926) in the lower Little Miami River valley………….………………………………...36
Figure 7. The location of Woodland archaeological sites documented by S. Frederick Starr
(1960) in the lower Little Miami River valley. …………………………….………..…………..38
Figure 8. The location of Woodland archaeological sites documented by the Ohio Archaeological
Inventory in the lower Little Miami River valley (1966-2015). ……………………………..….40
Figure 9. The location of Woodland archaeological sites documented by Charles Louis Metz not
present in the Ohio Archaeological Inventory before this survey. ………………………..…….41
Figure 10. The location of Woodland archaeological sites documented by local artifact collectors in the lower Little Miami River valley. ……………………………………….……………..….43
Figure 11. The location of Woodland archaeological sites surveyed between May 4 2015 and
November 4 2015 in the lower Little Miami River valley. ………………………………..…….46
Figure 12. Plan map of Group C 16 Mound (33Ha229) bucket auger and surface survey
locations. …………………………….……………………………….……………….....………47
Figure 13. Plan map of Fluke Village (33Ha121) bucket auger locations. ……….……..………48
Figure 14. Plan Map of Walnut site…………………………….……………………...…..…….49
Figure 15. Profile of Mariemont Gardens Burial…………………………….……………..……50
ix
Figure 16. The locations of the bucket auger and soil probe surveys in the lower Little Miami
River valley. …………………………….…………………………….……………..……..……51
Figure 17. The location of the test pit excavation of the Gratsch Earthwork site in the lower
Little Miami River valley. …………………………….…………………………………...…….52
Figure 18. Plan map of the Gratsch Earthwork site test pit excavation. ……….…………..……53
Figure 19. Cross-section of the Gratsch Earthwork site earthwork test pit. ……………….....…54
Figure 20. Diagramatic stratigraphic profile of the test pit excavation at the Gratsch Earthwork site. …………………………….…………………………….……………………….....……….55
Figure 21. The location of Woodland archaeological site types in the lower Little Miami River valley. …………………………….…………………………….…………………...…..……….58
Figure 22. The location of Woodland archaeological sites by cultural period in the lower Little
Miami River valley. …………………………….……………………………….………………59
Figure 23: Regression Equation Line for Model 1……………………….…………...…………61
Figure 24: Regression Equation Line for Model 2a. ……………………….……………………63
Figure 25: Regression Equation Line for Model 2b………………….…….……………………65
x
List of Tables
Table 1. Location of Woodland cultural period archaeological sites examined using a bucket auger and soil probe survey……………….…………….…………….…...………….…………44
Table 2. Woodland cultural period archaeological site types in the lower Little Miami River valley. …………….…………….…………….…………….…………..………….…………….56
xi
Chapter 1: Introduction
The Little Miami River, known to the Shawnee as Cakimiyamithiipi, is a tributary of the Ohio
River. It is now named after the Miami, an Algonquian speaking people who inhabited the valley at the time of European contact. The lower section of the river, which is the focus of this thesis, extends from its confluence with the Ohio River to the east and west Forks of the Little Miami rivers located 14 km. to the northeast in Milford, Ohio. Today it is designated as a National Wild and Scenic River because it possesses remarkable scenic, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, and cultural values. It was the to be first river in the state of Ohio to be nominated with this designation (Hedeen 2006).
The lower Little Miami River valley contains a plethora of food resources including about 90 species of fish, turtles, frogs, water snakes, birds, mammals, and invertebrates including almost 40 species of mussels. This natural bounty occurs because of numerous permanent springs such as the Newtown Fish Hatchery spring, which flows at a rate of upwards of 650 gallons per minute. Ecologically, this area is designated as an exceptional warm-water habitat
(Hedeen 2006).
Geologically, the lower Little Miami River is an under-fit stream, flowing in an ancestral valley of the Ohio River (Potter 2007). The lower Little Miami River valley is 2.25 km wide with organically rich, broad terraces and floodplain. Upper Ordovician limestone and shale as well as Illinoisan glacial till form the basin walls, which are further filled with a thick deposit
(about 20 m.) of late Pleistocene glacial outwash and lacustrine clays. They provided indigenous inhabitants with a significant source of clay and raw lithic materials for the production of pottery, flaked-stone tools, and weaponry (Tankersley 2007, 2016, Tankersley and Haines 2010,
Tankersley and Meinhart 1982).
1
Figure 1. The location of the lower Little Miami River Valley.
2
Archaeologically, the lower Little Miami River valley has been inhabited since the late
Pleistocene (Tankersley 2016). Approximately 200 archaeological sites have been documented in this area including four sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places and two
National Register Archaeological Districts. The most visible archaeological sites in this area are the elaborate earthworks and burial mounds, which were built during the Woodland cultural period (ca. 1000 B.C.E. to 1000 C.E.). These sites contain a remarkable number of elaborate symbolic artifacts including those manufactured from exotic raw materials and known source areas located more than 2,000 km from the lower Little Miami River valley. Turner (33Ha26) is the largest and most complex of the Woodland archaeological sites in this region.
The way in which cultures economically, ideologically, and socially vary across the landscape is of more than a little anthropological interest. Indeed, the question of how people living in the lower Little Miami River valley during the Woodland cultural period exploited and modified their environment has never been addressed. This thesis will examine the relationships between material Woodland culture and the natural environment, and their modifications to landscape in terms of processual and post-processual archaeological theory.
Thus, this work represents an initial empirical approach to explaining human land-use and natural resource exploitation in the lower Little Miami River valley during the Woodland cultural period. A suite of archival, laboratory, and field methods were used to to enumerate and verify Woodland site locations in relation to natural environmental resources and landforms.
Field methods included bucket auguring, interviewing local collectors, surface survey, and a review of historical records compiled over the past 150 years.
Archival and field data were used to test models of Woodland land use based on human evolutionary ecology and post-processual ideological theory using multivariate statistical
3 regressions. While none of these models were able to explain the known distribution of
Woodland sites in the lower Little Miami River valley, they did emphasize the significance of clay and upland resources. These findings further our understanding of a Woodland economic regime based on silvaculture and ceramic production. They also demonstrate that further work is needed to elucidate meaningful variables based on Algonquian culture to better understand land use during the Woodland cultural period in this region.
4
Chapter 2: Natural Environmental and Cultural Setting
of the Lower Little Miami River Valley
The Little Miami River, a tributary of the Ohio River, is 180 km long and drains more than 4,500
km2. The lower Little Miami River is a stretch of the river, which extends from the confluence of
the east and west forks to its confluence with the Ohio River in Hamilton County, Ohio (Figure
1). It is currently listed as the first State Scenic River, a National Wild River, and a National
Scenic River; and it is the home to two National Register Archaeological Districts and two
nature preserves. It provides habitat for a plethora of species of birds, fish, invertebrates, and
large and small mammals (Hamilton County Soil Guide, Hedeen 2006).
Ethnohistorically, Algonquian speaking people, including the Miami who are the river’s
namesake and the Shawnee who called the river Cakimiyamithiipi occupied the lower Little
Miami River (Howard 1981, Tankersley 2016). After European colonization of the area, the river
was used as the eastern boundary of the Symmes Purchase, also known as the Miami Purchase
Military District (Tankersley 2016).
Geological Setting
The lower Little Miami River valley is geologically diverse including both bedrock and glacial landforms and deposits, which supports a wide variety of food, raw material, and water resources. It is underlain by Upper Ordovician age bedrock, which consists of fossiliferous limestone and shale deposited by a large epi-continental sea ca. 443-495 million years ago
(Potter 2007). The bedrock forms the uplands and slopes of the valley, which range in elevation from 200 to 271 m amsl (Figure 2). Small creeks and streams dissect the bedrock throughout the lower Little Miami Valley.
5
The lower Little Miami River valley is an under-fit stream, created by a pre-existing
glacial valley, which partially filled with glacial drift from the Illinoisan glaciation
approximately 150,000 years ago (Hamilton County Soil Guide 1982:2, 118, Potter 2007:62).
These processes created a broad, flat-bottomed valley flanked on either side by hills rising
upwards of 150 meters above the level of the valley (Hamilton County Soil Guide 1982:2).
During the late Pleistocene (ca. 25,000 to 10,000 years ago), deposits of sand and gravel outwash
were laid down by glacial meltwater in the valley (Hamilton County Soil Guide 1982:117,
Hedeen 2006:24). Today, the Pleistocene outwash forms two dominant terraces T2 (157 m amsl)
and T1 (146 m amsl) (Figure 2). They are covered by 17 soils respectively (Hamilton County
Soil Guide 1982).
Since the onset of the Holocene epoch ca. 10,000 years ago, the lower Little Miami River
valley experienced both alluvial aggradation and degradation, which waxed and waned with
climatic change (Potter 2007). In this region, the Anthropocene began approximately 5,000 years
ago and is marked by period of intensive interaction between humans and the environment
(Tankersley et al. 2015). In the lower Little Miami River Valley, this period has been
characterized by massive erosion and deposition associated with silvaculture or arboriculture and
water management, which created a deep T0 floodplain (139.8-146 m amsl), which is covered by
four different rich, loamy soils (Hamilton County Soil Guide 1982) (Figure 3).
Geological Resources
Geological resources are the material by-products of the changes that have occurred in the past to the earth’s surface. They are integral to human survival (Moran 2007). Important geological
6
Figure 2. Elevation Zones in the lower Little Miami River Valley.
7
Figure 3. The Soils of the lower Little Miami River Valley
8 resources for daily survival include water and the raw materials needed for the manufacture of
goods or services that sustained human survival (Tankersley and Isaac 1990).
Water Resources
Water is abundant in the lower Little Miami River valley with about 19 km of flow moving
through the area before converging with the Ohio River. Average water discharge is
approximately 49,000 l/s with a seasonal rise of more than 2 million l/s supporting a vast
wetland. There are also about 39 km of first order waterways, and about 22 km of secondary and
tertiary streams. Springs are abundant at the contacts of Ordovician shale and limestone bedrock
and within Pleistocene contacts of sand and clay and again within gravel and clay facies (Potter
2007).
Rock and Mineral Resources
Both Ordovician age bedrock and Pleistocene outwash deposits in the lower Little Miami River
contain lithic raw materials (Figures 4 and 5). These deposits are exposed by erosion and
weathering in cut banks of streams and the Little Miami River (Potter 2007:56). Fossiliferous
Ordovician limestone is composed of calcium carbonate (CaCO3) making it an ideal temper for
the production of earthenware (Tankersley and Meinhart 1982, Tankersley and Haynes 2010).
Glacial outwash boulders, cobbles, and gravel include knappable nodular and tabular
forms of chert, which originate from Silurian and Devonian age bedrock source areas (e.g.,
Cedarville-Guelph, Laurel, Delaware) north of the study area (Tankersley 1989). Secondary
cherts from Pennsylvanian age bedrock source areas (e.g., Vanport (also known as Flint Ridge),
9
Figure 4. Location of Ordovician Shale and Limestone Bedrock
10
Figure 5. Location of Glacial Till and Outwash Deposits
11
Upper Mercer, Kanawha) west of the study area occur at the Little Miami-Ohio rivers confluence
(Sparks 2012, 2013). These deposits also contain a variety of igneous (e.g., granite and basalt)
and metamorphic rocks (e.g., gneiss, schist, quartzite) from the Canadian Shield, which are
ideally suited for earthenware temper and the production of battered and ground-stone tools.
Carvable bituminous coal, mistakenly named “cannel coal” by archaeologists, also occurs at the
confluence area (Tankersley 2007, 2016).
In addition to rock resources, the Ordovician age bedrock and Pleistocene deposits
contain an abundance of mineral resources. Ordovician age shale, Illinoisan till, and
Wisconsinan lacustrine deposits contain a variety of high-quality clay minerals such as chlorite
and illite, which are ideally suited for the production of earthenware (Tankersley 2016,
Tankersley and Haines 2010, Tankersley and Meinhart 1982). Additionally, malleable heavy
minerals such as copper, gold, and silver occur in the outwash deposits of the Little Miami River
valley (Tankersley 2007, 2016).
Biological Setting
Ecologically, the lower Little Miami River valley supports extremely dynamic and diverse environments, which contain a wide variety of terrestrial and aquatic plant and animal species communities that change with changing climatic conditions. This area includes xeric uplands and slopes covered in a closed canopy deciduous forest, well-drained glacial terraces with a mix of mesic and xeric woodlands and open grasslands, and floodplains covered in mesic woodlands
(Hedeen 2006).
12
Food Resources
Large terrestrial vertebrates such as black bear, elk, and white-tailed deer were abundant in the lower Little Miami River valley throughout the Holocene as well as smaller animals such as beavers, cotton-tailed rabbits, ground, hogs, muskrats, opossums, and raccoons. Seasonally, this area contains an abundance of migratory water fowl such as ducks and geese. The streams and oxbows contain a rich diversity of fish including large catfish, drums, sturgeons, suckers, and numerous smaller species such as bluegill, sauger, and small-mouth bass. Snails are ubiquitous on land and in the water, and the river abounds in freshwater mussels. The uplands contain abundant mast-bearing trees including black walnut, a variety of hickory, and white oak. Until recently, the forest canopy also included the nutrient-rich American chestnut. In addition to masts, there is an abundance of edible terrestrial and aquatic wild plant foods, which are seasonally available (see Appendices a-l).
Woodland Cultural History
During the late Holocene (ca. 1000 B.C.E. to 1000 C.E.), the ancestors of Algonquian speaking people inhabited the lower Little Miami River valley (Griffin 1967, Tankersley 2016).
Archaeologically, this time is known as the Woodland cultural period. It is technologically defined as a period of remarkable innovation in ceramic production, flaked-stone tool manufacture, plant domestication (i.e., the starchy eastern agricultural complex), and weaponry.
It was also a period of economic expansion, settlement growth, and an increase in social-cultural complexity.
The Woodland cultural period is divided into three sub-periods early (ca. 1000 to 1
B.C.E), middle (ca. 1 B.C.E. to 500 C.E.), and late (ca. 500 C.E. to 1000 C.E.) (Lepper 2005).
13
The hallmarks of the Early Woodland cultural sub-period include elaborate burial practices, large burial mounds, horticulture, the development of pottery, and more permanent settlements (Railey
1996). The term Adena is sometimes used to describe an archaeologically defined culture associated with distinctive Early Woodland symbols (Webb and Baby 1973, Webb and Snow
1945).
The Middle Woodland cultural sub-period is defined by an increase in the occurrence of burial mounds, exotic material culture, and the proliferation of geometric and zoomorphic earthworks. The term Hopewell cultural tradition is used to define a common set of Middle
Woodland mortuary practices and symbols. These changes are thought to be associated with changes in the economy, religion, and social complexity. Technologically, the Middle Woodland is defined by refinements in ceramic production, cold-hammer metal working, and flaked-stone tool manufacture (Greber 2005, Griffin 1967).
The Late Woodland cultural sub-period is defined by a cultural downturn. There is a
dramatic reduction in the number and size of burial mounds, earthworks, and exotic material
culture. Technologically, the bow and arrow and maize agriculture are introduced into the area
and ceramic production is further refined (Comstock et al. 2015). While there is an increase in
the number of Late Woodland habitations, they are smaller than Middle Woodland settlements
(Riggs 1998).
Discussion
Throughout the late Holocene, the lower Little Miami River valley contained vast food, raw material, and water resources that were crucial to sustain human livelihood. During this time, human adaptation to this diverse economic setting included cultural changes in the economy,
14 food production, settlement, social stratification, and technology. Both processual and post- processual anthropological theories can be used to explain how these cultural changes affected the way in which people distributed themselves on the late Holocene landscape of the lower
Little Miami River valley.
15
Chapter 3: Theory
Epistemologically, the goals of archaeology in the lower Little Miami River valley have changed over the centuries—reconstructing culture histories, human livelihoods, cultural processes, and ultimately cultural meaning. Reconstructing culture history requires the archaeological records to be considered in terms of time, space, and form. To accomplish this goal, archaeological attention is given to stratigraphic chronology, comparing trends in artifact styles (i.e., seriation), defining artifact types, and the development of a taxonomic system.
Reconstructing human livelihood and cultural processes requires a careful consideration of ethno-historical data, ethnographic analogy, and ethnoarchaeology. Reconstructing cultural processes, also known as processual archaeology, requires direct positive evidence, that is, determination of the age, context, and function of archaeological sites, features, and artifacts. It also requires a consideration of how people positioned themselves on the landscape.
Determining cultural meaning, known as post-processual archeology, is the most difficult goal to accomplish. Archaeological interpretations must be free of bias from the investigator’s own cultural interpretations. Without direct input from the cultures, which created the archaeological record, this goal is problematic and perhaps impossible to achieve.
Processual Archaeological Theory
Processual archaeology is synonymous with scientific archaeology. It is the study of cultural and natural process, that is, the formation of the present archaeological record and the ways a culture functions. Processual archaeology examines how cultures change by identifying and analyzing variables that cause change. It stresses a methodology of logical hypothetico-deductive reasoning to determine diachronic evolutionary processes.
16
Processual Archaeology views that culture can be understood as a series of enmeshed processes contributing towards the functioning whole. It allows the explication of individual and multilinear cultural processes within a polity, which includes economy and technology. Large- scale cultural change can be explained as a function of variation in one or multiple political processes. Post-processual critics of processual theory view the scientific, detached view of past people as dehumanizing and possibly irrelevant for understanding diverse past populations
(Watson 2002:70). In Ohio Valley archaeology, Julian Steward, Louis Binford, and Patty Jo
Watson stand out as exemplary processual theoreticians.
Julian Steward
Julian Steward’s (1936) article “The Economic and Social Basis of Primitive Bands” and later monograph, Theory of Culture Change: The Methodology of Multilinear Evolution (Steward
1955), defined three types of American Indian “bands” (i.e., patrilineal, matrilineal, and composite) within a particular ecological circumstance. Thus, Julian Steward (1949, 1955) was among the first anthropologists to pursue explanations of human behavior in terms of ecological adaptation.
Steward (1955) helped define essential concepts of archaeological cultural ecology as it related to culture cores and multilinear cultural evolution. He set up a dichotomy between the core of a society, which includes the sectors of a culture such as politics and religion that interact directly with the techno-economic base, and the periphery of culture, which is composed of cultural aspects resulting from diffusion or simply independent creations. Steward’s (1955:37-
38) techno-economic base includes the technologies used in human livelihood subsistence that are developed in response to the demands of a given ecosystem.
17
Steward’s notion of multilinear evolution suggested that “evolution can branch off in numerous directions as cultures adapt to varied circumstances” (1955). Steward’s (1942:341,
1949:24-25, 1951:353) goal was to go beyond mere description to make broader statements about human behavior. Steward (1967:14) also wanted archaeologist to engage with the diverse ways that cultures adapt to all processes including modernization.
From Steward’s (1949:1-3) perspective, the goal of archaeology is to explain similarities between past cultures using empirical data obtained from scientifically verifiable methods. In other words, it is important to recognize cultural processes that arose independently in far-flung areas, perhaps reflecting universal aspects of the human condition, such as plant domestication and social hierarchies (Steward 1949:1). Through rigorous empirical hypothesis testing, Steward
(1949:2, 1955:3) believed that we could better understand clearly defined regularities within cultures.
Lewis Binford
Like Steward, Lewis Binford’s (1968, 1972) processual theoretical perspective was that the goals of archaeology should go beyond mere description and cultural chronology to tackle the questions of how and why human behavior changes over time. He advanced the view that archaeology should strive to be more scientifically verifiable and explanatory in nature (Binford
1981:25-30, 2001:4, Binford and Binford 1968:5-27).
Binford (1978) utilized and developed middle-range theory as a means of forming analogies regarding archaeologically recovered material in relation to human behavior to meaningfully interpret these remains. This ethnoarchaeological method entailed immersive field experiences with indigenous groups deemed relevant for understanding foraging, settlement
18 patterns, or craft production, among others. As an example, Binford (1978:494-495) examined
Nunamiut livelihood and land-use patterns to explain archaeological site locations in terms of systemic demographic patterns and seasonality.
Binford (1978) placed an emphasis on site formation processes in an attempt to link actualistic human behavior to existing archaeological remains. Site formation processes refer to natural and cultural acts, which alter a locus of human activity. Understanding the context of archaeological remains in this way is ever important in the lower Little Miami river valley, which has a long history of geological and hydrological change, alongside human-driven development. A major tenet of Binford’s New Archaeology was that objective interpretations of the archaeological record are possible, if one uses analogy to “read” the archaeological record while understanding the site formation processes relevant to that location (Binford 1983, Binford and Binford 1968). In other words, archaeologists can and should make nomothetic, generalizing statements about past groups of people (Binford and Binford 1968, Binford 1983).
Patty Jo Watson
Patty Jo Watson’s (1979, 1995a, Watson and Watson 1969:3, Watson et al. 1984) theoretical approach to archaeology embraces logical positivism, that is, a focus on statements logically or empirically verifiable and considered cognitively meaningful. In this approach, hypotheses describe possible explanations for observed phenomena, which can be tested empirically
(Watson et al. 1984). Readily observable material correlations, which exist in the past and present, such as the distance of an archaeological site to water, are therefore a logically sound basis for forming testable deductive hypotheses about the archaeological record (Watson et al.
1984).
19
Following Popper (1957), Watson rejected archaeological historicism, that is, assigning significance to a specific geographical area, historical period, or culture. In this regard, her theoretical approach also embraced Popper's falsification, corroboration, and verisimilitude— conjectures and refutations. Watson (1995a:35) applied this theoretically by addressing the complex interplay between subsistence, technology, economy, and environment. Her theoretical applications are exemplarily grounded in an environmental perspective, viewing culture as both an immaterial and material evolutionary construct (Watson and Watson 1969:3, Watson
1995b:683-684).
Post-Processual Archaeological Theory
Post-processual archaeology, also known as interpretative archaeology, emphasizes the subjectivity of interpretations of the past. It places an emphasis on recurring patterns in material culture. Archaeological remains are viewed as text capable of conveying symbols and belief systems of their makers and users (Watson and Fotiadis 1990:614). Post-processual archaeology is interested in understanding how past cultures interacted with symbols (Renfrew 1982, 1988,
2003). It provides a cognitive approach, which seeks an emic perspective of the archaeological record as it was experienced by the culture that produced it (Renfrew 2007:107, Renfrew &
Zubrow 1994, Tilley 1997, Watson and Fotiadis 1990).
An emic perspective can be used to explain “the development of human thought processes and the long-term changes in human behavior implicit in the development of societies and of civilizations” (Renfrew 2007:107-108). Post-processual archaeologists believe that they have a better chance of capturing past lived experiences. Thus, they emphasize the role of ideology in prehistory as well as the present ethical obligations and reflexivity of archaeology
20 through the intracultural meaning of symbols (Watson and Fotiadis 1990:614-615). The theories of Ian Hodder, David Miller and Christopher Tilley, and Colin Renfrew are archetypal of post- processual archaeology.
Ian Hodder
Ian Hodder created the term “post-processual archaeology” (Hodder 1985:22-23). Hodder
(1986:171, 1992:2-6) emphasizes that reflexivity in archaeology is needed to create diverse viewpoints and some measure of self-criticism in order to be productive. Hodder (2012) suggests that cultural materialism is not confined to how humans make things, but how things in turn affect their users, what social forces allow things to exist, and what “lives” those things lead. He believes that reconstructions of the past are based on analogy in the sense that archaeologists observe their surroundings in order to understand reality and posit past behavior (Hodder
1982:9).
Hodder (2004:87) argues that it is crucial to seek the point of view of the individuals who created the archaeological record. Long-term and large-scale aspects of past cultures need to include individual experiences and agencies and represent the diversity of past experiences. In a material sense, archaeologists directly observe some remnants of past experiences, from skeletal remains to the breaking of a pot.
Daniel Miller and Christopher Tilley
Miller and Tilley’s (1984:9-13) theoretical framework rests on the Marxist paradigm that the economic base of a culture determines its socio-cultural superstructure and that social being determines an individual’s consciousness. They view power relationships and material inequality
21 as essential forces that worked in the lives of people who lived in the past. Specifically, in their book, Ideology, Power, and Prehistory (Miller and Tilley 1984) they argue that society should be analyzed in terms of the different and often conflicting interests of groups within society. At the heart of these conflicting interests is the material and ideological base of the economy.
To Miller and Tilley (1984:8), ideology does not refer to the dominant cultural interest and its legitimation, but rather the subtle and complex interplay of images and strategies related to conflicting interests. They believe that ideology has the potential to provide a means of social control through its daily reproduction by way of social practice, which maintains and reproduces conflicts of interest (Bourdieu 1977, Miller and Tilley 1984:14).
Miller and Tilley place (1984:1) a particular emphasis on the importance of individual agency in understanding the human past. This view sits in opposition to the view of history as the outcome of passive automaton-like people receiving external forces. Miller and Tilley (1984) view archaeology as historically contingent upon the worldview of archaeologists in the present as well as the preservative and palimpsest-like forces acting upon the archaeological record because of the intensive and extensive nature of human occupation. Most importantly, they view the contents of archaeological sites as representing the makers’ cultural and environmental reality, which is inherently difficult to appreciate as contemporary archaeologists (Miller and
Tilley 1984:2). This perspective emphasizes the importance of integrating humanistic material culture studies with the traditional social science view of archaeology.
Miller and Tilley (1984:147) argue that social change is predicated on diverse social factors that are “inextricably linked with the form and nature of social totalities postulated for the segment of the past under consideration.” This position underlines the problematic nature of attempts at isolating aspects of past cultures such as agriculture, language, or spirituality. They
22 believe that understanding the variability in a culture’s ideology is a necessary first step for archaeological research.
More recently, Tilley’s (1994, 2002, 2004) work has focused on materiality and landscape phenomenology. He defined materiality as the ongoing dialectical relationship between people and things, that is, an inescapable part of landscape interaction. Tilley (1994:2) posits that phenomenology is essential to understanding site location choice, alongside
“practical” factors. Particularly important within phenomenology are the “symbolics” of landscape perception and the role of social memory when choosing site location (Tilley 1994:2).
The daily process of living causes symbolic meaning to develop, cumulatively and gradually.
Tilley (1994:2) defines meaning as occurring within “sets of meanings and connotations,” which are expressed in the archaeological record.
Colin Renfrew
Colin Renfrew challenged archaeologists to question the relationship between archaeological methods and interpretation. Given that the ability to symbol is the foundation of culture and symbols are derived from a culture’s ideology, he called on archaeologists to focus their efforts on the role ideology played on how people of the past organized themselves on the landscape. In this regard, human prehistory is viewed in terms of innovative and shared understandings, particularly through the use of symbols (Renfrew 1988, 1994, 2003, 2008).
Renfrew (2008:103) argues that the shared ideas, concepts, and conventions that developed in regionally distinct groups guided and conditioned their innovations in landscape use. These cumulative differences helped to shape the worldview of different cultures, which are manifested in distinctive material interactions with the world through the use of symbols in
23 material culture (Renfrew 2008:108). Because symbols are shared and meaningful, their change correlates with changes in social and cultural complexity (Renfrew 2008:110).
Woodland Archaeological Theories
Over the past 50 years, three archaeologists stand out as having made profound theoretical contributions to the archaeology of the Woodland cultural period—Joseph Caldwell, Christopher
Carr, and A. Martin Byers.
Joseph Caldwell
Influenced by the work of Steward, Joseph Caldwell called upon Woodland archaeologists to recognize cultural processes that arose independently in far-flung areas. He believed that similar material forms over large geographic areas indicate direct interaction between cultures (Caldwell
1949:71, 1964:135). Caldwell believed that the largest regional, and perhaps interregional, prehistoric exchange system occurred during the Middle Woodland cultural period in
Midwestern North America. Caldwell (1964) called this ancient exchange system the “Hopewell
Interaction Sphere.” He suggested that sometime between 2,300 and 1,600 years ago, American
Indians living in the Ohio, Mississippi, and Missouri river valleys were engaged in a complex network of exchange of ideology and material culture. Although Caldwell’s theory predated modern post-processual archaeology, his emphasis on recurring symbolic patterns in material culture, which are assumed to be connected with shared ideas fits well within the paradigm.
Caldwell (1964:135) showed that distinctive local populations from the Gulf of Mexico to the Great Lakes, from the Atlantic Ocean to the Great Plains were economically and ideologically connected, which is archaeologically reflected in the widespread occurrence of
24 distinctive funerary objects. He posited that ideology and exotic material culture created vitality in long-distance trade, inter-tribal relationships, and caused a constant flow of people and innovative ideas (Caldwell 1964:143).
Christopher Carr
Christopher Carr’s theoretical perspective of Woodland archaeology in the Ohio River valley embraces the full range of post-processual theories. He is influenced by Ian Hodder’s (1982)
Symbols in Action, Miller and Tilley’s (1984) Ideology, Power, and Prehistory, Colin Renfrew’s
(1986) Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-Political Change Colin Renfrew and Ezra B.W.
Zubrow’s (1994) The Ancient Mind: Elements of Cognitive Archaeology.
Carr’s (1995:106) focus is on Middle Woodland mortuary artifacts and assemblages in an attempt to deconstruct Hopewell religion. He draws on the symbolism of ethnohistorically documented American Indian tribes. His theories are derived from statistical analyses of grave goods in order to identify individuals and their symbolic communities (Case and Carr 2006).
Carr believes that Woodland monumental earthwork centers were socially and ideologically charged space used by different clans to bury the dead and perform world renewal rituals (Case and Carr 2006). Like contemporary American Indian tribal structure, he argues that clans represent families with apical non-human animal ancestors, (e.g., bear, wolf, panther, snake, etc.). Carr (2006:625-626) suggests that this cultural pattern would result in different microregions within earthworks and burial mounds occupied by different symbolic communities
(i.e., clans).
25
A. Martin Byers
Like Carr, A. Martin Byers’ (2004) post-processual theoretical framework focuses on the symbols and iconography of the Woodland cultural period. He uses earthwork forms and interpretations of subsistence, settlement, and mortuary patterns to create an “emic” view of
Woodland culture (2004:8). Byers interprets symbols to define Woodland material culture, ritual, and cosmology. Following in the footsteps of Miller and Tilley (1984), he suggests that social relations shaped by the distribution of power are evident in the archaeological record in the form of material culture. Byers’ (2010:278-279) characterizes Hopewell and Adena land tenure as being essentially egalitarian, in contrast to the territorialism associated with more complex polities advocated by Clay (1992:80, 1998:14, 16), Buikstra & Charles (1983:120-121), and
Seeman (1992). Assuming egalitarian land use, Byers (2004:533) argues that there was a gradual centralization of power in shamans (i.e. spiritual leaders) from the Early to Middle Woodland cultural periods.
Byers (2004:129) argues that the occurrence of Woodland archaeological sites in diverse ecotones is a crucial variable in understanding local environmental adaptation. Using contemporary American Indian ethnographic analogies, Byers (2004) argues that the religious and economic lives of Woodland cultures were intertwined with nature and the sacredness of the earth. Thus, he calls for a “deontic ecological” approach to understanding Woodland livelihood
(Byers 2004:9). He defines the term deontic as the ethical duties and obligations of social life.
Like contemporary American Indians, he believes Woodland culture viewed the earth as sacred, which is archaeologically reflected in the symbolism of grave goods, mounds, and earthworks
(2004:8-9). As with contemporary American Indian cultural practices, Byers (2004:9, 2010:278-
26
279) suggests that Woodland cultures had an ethical and social obligation to minimize personal environmental impact through renewal rituals (Byers 2004:9).
Human Behavioral Ecology
Human behavioral ecology (HBE), also known as human evolutionary ecology, uses evolutionary theory and optimization models to examine human behavior and cultural diversity.
It is epistemologically rooted in the fields of evolutionary biology, microeconomics, geography, and mathematics. Most of the recent Woodland archaeological research has been conducted under a post-processual theoretical framework, and HBE has been under-utilized in the evaluation of Woodland land use patterns.
HBE assumes that environments are constantly and sometimes profoundly changing; environments are actively used and managed by humans. Landscapes reflect both environmental and cultural histories, which change significantly over time (Winterhalder 1980). These environmental changes can signal evolutionarily significant events (Gould 2007). HBE is empirically testable with explanatory power and is ideally suited to evaluating models of prehistoric land use.
Bruce Winterhalder and Eric A. Smith
Bruce Winterhalder and Eric Smith applied the biological concept of optimal foraging theory to predict how humans procure food and raw materials. Crucial variables include the time and energy spent obtaining food and raw material. From the evolutionary perspective of fitness and economics, they argue that humans select strategies and choices that maximize the net rate of energy capture (Smith and Winterhalder 1985). In this regard, Winterhalder and Smith suggest
27 that optimal foraging models can accurately predict human behavior. The value of optimal foraging models rests not in their law-like statements about reality, but as structured forms of inquiry (Winterhalder 1987).
Optimal foraging strategy assumes that basic human needs are predictable and constant, including reproduction, sustenance, and shelter (Winterhalder and Leslie 2001). The implications for archaeology include the ineffectiveness of using economic data from single component sites to extrapolate the livelihood of dispersed prehistoric peoples, as it is unlikely for a single site to capture the full range of variation in past behavior (Winterhalder et al. 1987:320).
Recently, risk was recognized as a crucial variable in optimal foraging strategies.
Unpredictability and variation create risk in food and raw material procurement strategies.
Diverse adaptations help to avoid catastrophic shortfalls or lessen the impact of shortfalls in unpredictable circumstances. Furthermore, risk-reducing strategies can be mathematically modeled for the diverse array of food and raw materials (Winterhalder et al. 1999).
Robert McCorkle Netting
Robert Netting created a new subdiscipline in anthropology, cultural ecology (1977, 1990, 1993).
It focused on the relationship between a culture, the environment, and human livelihood. Cultural ecology is a useful tool to examine the systematic ways a culture solves problems associated with sustained human livelihood. He is best known for demonstrating that the chance of failure increases with the increasing size of agricultural bases (Netting 1993).
Netting (1982:22, 1993) demonstrated that household-based farming is a more successful adaptive strategy than one controlled by a social hierarchy. Important variables in understanding and explaining long-term sustainable food production include population pressure, intensive
28 agriculture, labor organization, land tenure, and inequality (Netting 1982:23). In analyzing these variables across cultures, he found the overall strongest positive relationship between population density and agricultural intensity, due to the universal needs of food-producers and their families
(Netting 1982).
Cultural Ecology’s materialist perspective lends itself well to the study of prehistoric peoples because it constitutes a productive use for both subsistence and spatial data. People employ their ecological knowledge to ensure their families are provided for through land management and horticulture (cf., Smith 1992:289-292).
Emilio Frederico Moran
Emilio Moran (2008:93) uses cultural geography to understand how cultures adapt to wide-scale ecological change and anthropogenic environmental change. He uses the evolutionary concept of complex adaptive systems, which is nonlinear in nature, to show that the complexity of a group of systems emerges from local interactions of the parts of the system. Thus, seemingly complex behavior such as long-term planning and organizing labor is explainable through interacting processes playing out in individuals’ lives (Moran 2009:6, 2010:113).
Moran (2008:4) suggests that the interactions in which cultures engage with their environment will be to some extent environmentally determined and sanctioned. He argues that humans respond to their environment with behavioral, cultural, and physiologically adaptive strategies. In this regard, an ecosystem approach can be used to diachronically examine the diversity of human livelihoods and their adaptation to periods of rapid and profound climatic change (Moran 2008:9).
29
Hypotheses and Models
While processual and post-processual theoretical approaches are diametrically opposed, they can be used in tandem to develop hypotheses that address different aspects of land use in the lower
Little Miami River valley during the Woodland cultural period and led to holistic understandings of past lifeways. In a processual approach, habitation sites, tillable surfaces, water, plant and animal food resources, and raw material resources are measurable. Similarly, in a post- processual approach, the location, abundance, and size of ceremonial centers (i.e., earthworks), mortuary sites (i.e., burial mounds, cemeteries, and gravesites), and symbolic and exotic cultural material can be qualitatively and semi-quantitatively evaluated.
Hypotheses
1. If land use in the lower Little Miami River valley during the Woodland cultural period
was the result of optimizing inclusive ecological fitness, then we should expect to find
archaeological sites located:
a. above the level of flood waters;
b. on level surfaces;
c. on well-drained soils (i.e., underlying sand and/or gravel);
d. in close proximity to water;
e. in close proximity to terrestrial food resources;
f. in close proximity to aquatic food resources; and,
g. and in close proximity to raw material resources (e.g., clay, chert, temper).
30
2. If land use in the lower Little Miami River valley during the Woodland cultural period
reflects participation in an interaction sphere and system of ideas, which formed the basis
of economic or socio-political structure, then we should expect to find mortuary sites:
a. scaled in size relative to the proximity of a ceremonial center (i.e., the size of
burial mounds decrease with an increasing distance from a ceremonial center);
and,
b. with the greatest quantity of symbolic and exotic material culture at a ceremonial
center (i.e., the quantity of symbolic and exotic artifacts decrease with an
increasing distance from a ceremonial center).
Models
Hypotheses posited about land use in the lower Little Miami River valley during the Woodland cultural period from processual and post-processual archaeological theories can be mathematically modeled. Multivariate regression is a technique, which estimates a single regression model with more than one predictor variable. It is the most commonly used model for predicting the value of one dependent variable from the values of multiple independent variables.
This approach is appropriate when working with complex phenomena, which can have multiple causative variables (VanPool and Leonard 2011:178).
Model 1. Woodland site location would be the dependent variable and the occurrence of
occupation and tillable surfaces, water, plant and animal food resources, and raw material
resources would be the independent variables. The resulting equation would be:
Y (Woodland site) = a + b1X1 (elevation amsl) + b2X2 (percent slope) + b3X3
(presence or absence of subsurface sand and/or gravel) + b1X4 (distance to water)
31
+ b1X5 (distance to terrestrial food resources) + b1X6 (distance to aquatic food
resources) + b1X7 (distance to clay) + b1X8 (distance to chert) + b1X9 (distance to
temper).
The second hypothesis can be mathematically represented by bivariate regression, a technique, which estimates a single regression model with one predictor variable. It is the most commonly used model for predicting the value of one dependent variable from the value of a single independent variable.
Model 2a. The size of a mortuary site would be the dependent variable and the distance
from a ceremonial center would be the independent variable. The resulting equation
would be:
Y (mortuary site size) = a + b1X1 (distance from a ceremonial center)
Model 2b. The quantity of symbolic and exotic artifacts in a mortuary site would be the dependent variable and the distance from a ceremonial center would be the independent variable.
The resulting equation would be:
Y (quantity of symbolic and exotic artifacts in a mortuary site) = a + b1X1
(distance from a ceremonial center)
The second hypothesis also can be mathematically represented by a distance-decay model and illustrated using a fall-off curve. The central premise in this model is that the size of a mortuary site and the quantity of exchanged symbolic or exotic material artifacts will decrease when plotted against an effective distance from a ceremonial center.
32
Discussion
Over the past 50 years, a number of archaeologists have embraced processual and post- processual theories to construct what they refer to as “models” of Woodland land use in the Ohio
River valley (c.f., Abrams 2009, Coughlin and Seeman 1997, Griffin 1997, Pacheco 1993, 1996,
Prufer 1961, 1964, 1965, Prufer and McKenzie 1966, Ruhl and Seeman 1998, Seeman 1979,
Seeman and Dancey 2000, Yerkes 2002). However, none of these previous studies provide viable testable models. Instead, they offer simple and sometimes fanciful descriptions of what they believe Woodland land use may have looked like. Perhaps the most extreme cases are Olaf
Prufer’s (1997) “How to Construct a Model” and William Dancey and Paul Pacheco’s (1997) “A
Community Model of Ohio Hopewell,” neither of which gives an empirical means to evaluate or operationalize their models. In these cases, the term “model” is used more as a contemporary buzzword or scientific jargon than an archaeological construct, which is empirically testable.
This study provides testable hypotheses and mathematical models, which can be evaluated with empirical data for human land use in the lower Little Miami River valley during the Woodland cultural period. These models can be assessed with a suite of archaeological, geographic, and geological field and laboratory methods.
33
Chapter 4: Methods and Data Collection
A suite of field and laboratory methods were used to evaluate the ideological and human
evolutionary ecological models of land use in the lower Little Miami River valley of Ohio during
the Woodland cultural period. Field methods included the collection of spatial and temporal data
from archival sources, collector interviews, and selective surface surveys (i.e., bucket auguring,
soil probes, shovel testing, and systematic and opportunistic surface survey, and stream bank
profiles). Laboratory methods included determining the typology and composition of artifacts,
the distance of the site from food resources, raw material resources, and water at the time of
occupation, elevation, geographic location, geological landform, relative and chronometric age,
soil type and underlying stratigraphic composition, site size and type, and slope.
Archival Data Collection
While archaeological investigations have been conducted in the Ohio River valley for more than two centuries, most of the early work was conducted by artifact collectors, treasure-hunters, and antiquarians searching for evidence of the “mound builders” and a fanciful ancient “white-race”
(e.g., Barton 1797; Atwater 1820; Priest 1833; Squier and Davis 1848). Charles Louis Metz and
S. Frederick Starr conducted the first professional and systematic archaeological surveys of this area, in the 1870s/1880s and 1950s respectively. Following the passage of the National Historic
Preservation Act in 1966 and the creation of the State Historic Preservation Office’s Ohio
Archaeological Inventory, an official inventory of archaeological sites was established, which continues today.
34
Charles Louis Metz Archaeological Survey (1871-1926)
Dr. Charles Louis Metz conducted the first systematic archaeological survey of the Little Miami
River valley. Between 1871 and 1926, he worked under the auspices of the Madisonville Literary
and Scientific Society, the Cincinnati Society of Natural History, Harvard University and the
Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, and the World Columbian Exposition (Cox et
al.1880, Langdon et al 1881, Metz 1878, Metz 1881, Metz 1911, Metz and Putnam 1886, Putnam
and Metz 1886). As Tankersley (2016) noted, Metz left behind a large body of archaeological
site data (e.g., artifacts, field notes, letters, publications, and site maps) that are today curated in
museums in Cincinnati, Ohio and around the world, including Harvard University’s Peabody
Museum, the Field Museum in Chicago, the Smithsonian Institute in Washington D.C., the
British Museum in London, and the National Museum in Berlin, Germany.
Metz’s archaeological survey documented 101 archaeological sites. Of these sites, 85 are
thought to date to the Woodland cultural period and are located in the lower Little Miami River
valley. They include 65 burial mounds, seven cemeteries, one borrow pit, nine earthworks, and
two habitations (Figure 6, Appendix m). Perhaps the best known of these archaeological sites are
Hahn Field, Madisonville (originally named the Ferris Cemetery site), Sand Ridge, Turpin, and
the Turner Earthworks (Metz 1878, 1881).
S. Frederick Starr Archaeological Survey (1956-1958)
As Tankersley (2016) has noted, following World War II, there was rapid economic growth and development in the Little Miami River valley as well a population explosion known as the “baby boom.” This situation hastened the destruction of archaeological sites at an alarming rate.
35
Figure 6. The location of Woodland archaeological sites documented by Dr. Charles Louis Metz
(1871-1926) in the lower Little Miami River valley.
36
Elizabeth R. Kellogg, Librarian for the Cincinnati Museum Association and art historian for the
Art Academy of Cincinnati and the Cincinnati Art Museum, felt that the situation was desperate
(Tankersley 2016). Kellogg wanted someone to continue the archaeological survey that Metz had initiated (Tankersley 2016). To this end, she funded Gustav Carlson, head of UC’s Department of Sociology and Anthropology, to conduct an archaeological survey of Hamilton County
(Tankersley 2016). Carlson used Kellogg’s money to hire his son Eric and his best friend, 16- year-old S. Frederick (Fred) Starr (Tankersley 2016). Carlson instructed them to use the field notes and maps from Metz’s archaeological survey as a baseline for their work (Tankersley
2016). During the summers of 1956, 1957, and 1958, Eric Carlson and S. Frederick Starr field checked all of the archaeological sites documented by Metz (Tankersley 2016). Additionally, they interviewed artifact collectors who knew him, as well as his surviving associates
(Tankersley 2016).
S. Frederick Starr conducted surface surveys and collector interviews, the results of which were published in The Archaeology of Hamilton County, Ohio, a special 1960 issue of the
Journal of the Cincinnati Museum of Natural History (Tankersley 2016). Starr (1960) documented two burial mounds and 11 habitation sites, beyond most of the sites described by
Metz (Figure 7, Appendix n).
The Ohio Archaeological Inventory (1885-present)
In 1885, Ohio Governor George Hoadly incorporated the Ohio State Archaeological and
Historical Society (OAHS) “to promote knowledge of archaeology and history in Ohio”
(Tankersley 2016). It was a revitalized organization started by former Civil War Brigadier
General Roeliff Brinkerhoff in 1875 (Tankersley 2016).
37
Figure 7. The location of Woodland archaeological sites documented by S. Frederick Starr
(1960) in the lower Little Miami River valley.
38
In addition to holding meetings to discuss the archaeology and history of Ohio, the OAHS published numerous volumes of its Ohio Archaeological and Historical Quarterly, which documented archaeological sites, artifacts, and features from the state from 1887-1934. These sites formed the foundation of the Ohio Archaeological Inventory (OAI).
In 1966, passage of the National Historic Preservation Act resulted in the creation of the
Ohio State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the office of State Historic Preservation
Officer to coordinate a statewide inventory of archaeological sites (i.e., OAI) and nominate those sites deemed to be eligible to the National Register of Historic Places. Today, the OAI is curated by the SHPO in Columbus. This database contains the elevation above mean sea level (meters), the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM), geological landform, size, and soil type of each site, among other supplementary information. In addition, there is a downloadable online ArcGIS shape-file of centroid site locations, which facilitates more detailed spatial analysis.
In addition to most, but not all of the archaeological sites that were previously documented by Metz and Starr, the OAI includes two burial mounds, one cemetery, and ten habitation sites. These locations are presented in Figure 8 and Appendix o. For unknown reasons, a few archaeological sites identified by Charles Metz seem to have never been entered into the record by Starr or subsequent surveyors. These sites include one cemetery and three mounds, and are mapped in Figure 9.
Of the OAI sites, four sites are listed on the National Register of Historic Places (Turpin
(33Ha28), Perin Village (33Ha129), Odd Fellows Cemetery Mounds (33Ha106), Madisonville
(33Ha14)), and two are within National Register of Historic Places Archaeological Districts
(Clough Creek and Sand Ridge, and Hahn Field).
39
Figure 8. The location of Woodland archaeological sites documented by the Ohio Archaeological
Inventory in the lower Little Miami River valley (1966-2015).
40
Figure 9. The location of Woodland archaeological sites documented by Charles Louis Metz not present in the Ohio Archaeological Inventory before this survey.
41
Field Methods: Collector Interviews
In addition to a survey of Ohio state professional archaeological archives for the lower Little
Miami River valley, I conducted interviews with four artifact collectors, three of whom were also
archaeological site owners. These interviews included photo-documentation of their artifact
collections and field checking and recording their find-spots (Figure 10, Appendix p).
Field Methods: Surface Survey and Stream Cutbank Evaluation
Both systematic and opportunistic surface archaeological surveys were conducted for 24
previously documented Woodland sites in the lower Little Miami River valley as well as 7.08 ha
of previously unexplored locations. Locations for survey included archaeological sites, which the
OAI form indicated were not destroyed, and sites on which the property owners permitted
surveying. Systematic surveys were conducted where ground visibility exceeded 25% (Dunnell
and Dancey 1983, Schiffer et al. 1978). Survey transects were conducted at one meter intervals.
Opportunistic surveys of all exposed ground, including eroded stream cutbanks, were conducted
where ground visibility was less than 25%.
The location of all artifacts and archaeological features were drawn on a plan map, when
applicable. Artifacts were collected for laboratory analyses when present, and photographs were
taken of visible mound or earthwork remains. A GPS center point was recorded with a Trimble
GeoXH 6000 when identifiable archaeological remains were present (Figure 11. Appendix p,
Table 1).
42
Figure 10. The location of Woodland archaeological sites documented by local artifact collectors in the lower Little Miami River valley.
43
Table 1. Location of Woodland cultural period archaeological sites examined using a bucket auger and soil probe survey.
Location Site Name Site Number (Latitude and Longitude)
Fluke Village 33Ha121 N 39.12926514551613, E -84.40229256608666
Group C #16 Mound 33Ha229 N 39.12041621671974, E -84.36729644966972
One burial site was located by a local collector in a cutback in Mariemont Gardens park.
This was visited and mapped; although the bones had been removed, and it cannot be definitively established as a Woodland site. Also within Mariemont Gardens park, a previously unknown surface lithic scatter was identified, the Walnut site. The Walnut site’s only diagnostic artifact was a broken Adena-stemmed biface. Additionally, surface survey identified two historical sites, one located within Mariemont Gardens Park and the other on land leased by the Greater
Cincinnati Water Works.
Field Methods: Bucket Auguring and Oakfield Soil Probe
A hand-operated steel soil bucket auger, also known as a barrel, orchard, post-hole or core auger, and an Oakfield Soil Probe were used to obtain subsurface sediment and artifact samples from potential paleosols and inceptosols. One and two meter extensions were used to bore to a depth of 1.25 m. The auger and soil probe was cleaned after each core to prevent sample contamination. The type of coring device and the diameter of the auger tip used (2 to 9 cm) depended on soil type and depth (e.g., 9 cm for sand, 2 cm for clays and loams). The Oakfield
44
soil probe and bucket auger were used until refusal from coarse unconsolidated sediments or
bedrock.
Bucket auger and soil probe sampling was conducted at a 1 meter interval. The auger was
drilled into the ground by turning the handle clockwise. Soil samples and artifacts were pushed
into and held in the sample auger then subsequently brought to the surface and examined. The
auger or soil probe was then placed back into the hole and the process was repeated until the
auger tip met a surface it could not penetrate, or until culturally sterile soil horizons were evident
(Figures 12-16, Appendix q).
Field Methods: Test Pit Excavation
A single test pit excavation was conducted at the Gratsch Earthwork site, a previously
undocumented berm near the Turner site complex. The test pit was excavated to expose potential
subsurface features and structures (i.e., subtle changes in soil texture and color), which might
provide information about the construction of the earthwork and to obtain samples for
chronometric dating (i.e., radiocarbon and optically stimulated luminescence). The location of
the test pit was selected to maximize stratigraphic information and to minimize destruction of the
earthwork (Figures 17-19). The current site use is agricultural. A 0.75 by 0.75 m square test pit
was excavated in natural levels. All of the extracted sediment was screened through 6.35 mm
mesh. Munsell soil color and texture were recorded as well as the location of artifacts. Plan and
profile maps of the test pits were drawn to horizontal and vertical metric scale with a north at the
top. All exposed stratigraphic layers were drawn and labeled on the basis of texture and Munsell
soil color. Photographs were taken of the test pit location, surroundings, and exposed
stratigraphy.
45
Figure 11. The location of Woodland archaeological sites surveyed between May 4 2015 and
November 4 2015 in the lower Little Miami River valley.
46
Figure 12. Plan map of Group C 16 Mound (33Ha229) bucket auger and surface survey locations.
The excavation encountered three soil horizons and 22 artifacts, 20 of which were located in the plowzone (19 flaked-stone debitage and one grit-tempered pot sherd). Two flaked-stone debitage artifacts were recovered from the second horizon stratum and interpreted as an embankment fill.
This fill consisted of admixture of undifferentiated clay and gravel. The stratigraphic profile, illustrated in Figure 20, indicates a single building episode directly upon the sterile C horizon.
47
Figure 13. Plan map of Fluke Village (33Ha121) bucket auger locations.
48
Figure 14. Plan Map of Walnut site
49
Figure 15. Profile of Mariemont Gardens Burial (equal vertical and horizontal scale).
50
Figure 16. The locations of the bucket auger and soil probe surveys in the lower Little Miami
River valley.
51
Figure 17. The location of the test pit excavation of the Gratsch Earthwork site in the lower
Little Miami River valley.
52
Figure 18. Plan map of the Gratsch Earthwork site test pit excavation.
53
Figure 19. Cross-section of the Gratsch Earthwork site earthwork test pit.
54
Figure 20. Diagramatic stratigraphic profile of the test pit excavation at the Gratsch Earthwork site.
55
Laboratory Methods: Artifact and Site Analysis
Laboratory methods included typological and temporal sorting of the artifacts (i.e., flaked-stone,
ground-stone, ceramic, etc.) recovered from the field and archaeological sites identified in the
archival and surface surveys (i.e., habitation, burial mound, earthwork, etc.). Raw material
source area analysis of the flaked-stone and ground-stone artifacts was accomplished by
identifying distinctive non-silica mineral inclusions and microfossils using a Zeiss binocular
microscope (25-500 x) and comparing them with known primary and secondary availability.
Pottery was defined on the basis of the paste, temper, and surface treatment (Appendix r).
Laboratory analyses identified 179 flaked stone artifacts, 27 pot sherd, 15 non-human bone
fragments, 25 bivalve shell fragments, one Calcite speleothem, two pieces of red ochre, and eight
ground-stone.artifacts. In sum, 132 archaeological features (keeping in mind that some sites
contain multiple site elements such as mounds) were analyzed (Table 2).
Table 2. Woodland cultural period archaeological site types in the lower Little Miami River
valley.
Site Type Total
Burial Mound 83
Earthwork 13
Cemetery 6
Habitation 28
Stone Circle 1
Rockshelter 1
Total: 132
56
Summary
Archival, field, and laboratory methods were used to identify Woodland cultural period archaeological sites, features, and artifacts in the lower Little Miami River valley. Archival data collection included a review of the archaeological surveys of Dr. Charles Louis Metz, S.
Frederick Starr, and the Ohio Archaeological Inventory, which resulted in an inventory and reevaluation of 96 Woodland cultural period sites. Artifact collector interviews and archaeological surface survey, bucket auguring, soil probes, stream profile and test pit excavation identified an additional five sites. Laboratory analyses identified 179 flaked stone artifacts, 27 pot sherd, 15 non-human bone fragments, 25 bivalve shell fragments, one Calcite speleothem, two pieces of red ochre, and eight ground-stone artifacts. Of these artifacts, 25 are temporally distinctive (two Early Woodland, 22 Middle Woodland, one Late Woodland). These data lend themselves to multivariate regression analysis, in order to evaluate hypotheses about
Woodland land use in the lower Little Miami River valley (i.e., meaningful patterns in site location, type, temporality, and environmental variables).
57
Figure 21. The location of Woodland archaeological site types in the lower Little Miami River valley.
58
Figure 22. The location of Woodland archaeological sites by cultural period in the lower Little
Miami River valley.
59
Chapter 5: Analysis and Discussion
This chapter presents multivariate and bivariate statistical analysis of two diametrically opposed models of Woodland cultural period land-use in the lower Little Miami River valley as well as a discussion of their archaeological significance.
Model 1
Model 1 is based on the assumption that humans optimize their food, water, and raw material resource procurement strategies. Given the livelihood of people living in the lower Little Miami
River valley, who were ceramic producing horticulturalists with supplemental food from silvaculture and foraging, we would expect to find the variables site slope, elevation, and distance to clay, water, and uplands significant. These variables were defined and illustrated using ArcMap version 10.3.1 for a sample of 100 Woodland archaeological sites in the lower
Little Miami River valley.
With geographically elucidated variables, a multivariate regression analysis was calculated. This statistical process estimated the relationships among variables in the optimal foraging based model. It focused on the relationship between the geographic location of
Woodland archaeological sites (dependent variable) and the site slope, elevation, and distance to clay, water, and uplands (independent variables). In other words, this analysis ascertains the causal effect of one variable upon another.
Model 1: Y (site location) = 729922.3 - 2.48a (distance to clay resources) - 10.96b
(meters above mean sea level) - 55.83c (slope) - 0.83d (distance to aquatic resources) +
2.51e (distance to upland resources), r2 = 0.154980437.
60
Variable Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value
Intercept 729922.3 2419.431 301.6918 3.6E-142
Distance to Clay Resources -2.48455 0.943438 -2.63351 0.009881
Meters Above Mean Sea Level -10.9561 13.47168 -0.81327 0.41812
Slope -55.8328 30.35628 -1.83925 0.069035
Distance to Aquatic Resources -0.82523 0.857362 -0.96252 0.338259
Distance to Upland Resources 2.513819 1.218686 2.062728 0.041897
Figure 23: Regression Equation Line for Model 1
734000.00
732000.00
730000.00
728000.00
726000.00
724000.00
722000.00
720000.00 0.00 200.00 400.00 600.00 800.00 1000.00 1200.00 1400.00 1600.00 1800.00
Distance to Clay Resources Meters Above Sea Level Slope Distance to Aquatic Resources Distance to Upland Resources Regression
61
The r2 value suggests that the independent variables account for 15% of the variation in
Woodland site locations in the lower Little Miami River valley. The regression equation, however, demonstrates that Woodland site distance to clay raw material resources (P = 0.01) and the distance to upland resources (P = 0.04) are statistically significant.
Model 2
Model 2 is based on the assumption that people living during the Woodland cultural period were interacting in a common ideological belief system, which included ceremonial centers and associated mortuary practices. If people living in the lower Little Miami River valley during the
Woodland cultural period were participating in a shared belief system, then we should expect to find a linear relationship between ceremonial centers and mortuary sites (i.e., burial mounds) and exotic and symbolic material culture. Ceremonial, mortuary sites, and exotic and symbolic material culture variables in the lower Little Miami River valley were defined and illustrated using ArcMap version 10.3.1 for a sample of 45 Woodland archaeological sites in the lower
Little Miami River valley.
Model 2a
Turner is the largest and most elaborate ceremonial site complex (i.e., earthworks, burial mounds, village site) in the lower Little Miami River valley. Using the location of the Turner site as an ideological and geographic focal point, a bivariate regression analysis was calculated. This statistic estimated the relationship between the distance of mortuary sites from the Turner site complex (dependent variable) and the size of burial mounds (independent variable).
62
Model 2a: Y (distance from the Turner Earthworks) = 0.033694653 - 2.2E-06a (site area),
r2 = 0.013589303.
Variable Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value
Intercept 0.033695 0.017183 1.96094 0.056383
Site Area -2.2E-06 2.85E-06 -0.76967 0.445704
Figure 24: Regression Equation Line for Model 2a.
0.3
0.25 ) 2 0.2
0.15 Y Predicted Y
0.1 Site Area (% totalofm
0.05
0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 Distance from Turner Earthworks (m)
While the size of burial mounds decrease in size with increasing distance from a ceremonial center (i.e., the Turner site) as predicted, the r2 value suggests that the independent
63 variable accounts for only 1% of the variation in Woodland site locations in the lower Little
Miami River valley. The regression equation further demonstrates that the size of mortuary sites relative to a ceremonial center is not statistically significant (P = 0.5).
Model 2b
Using the location of the Turner site as an ideological and geographic focal point, a bivariate regression analysis was again calculated. This time, the statistic estimated the relationship between the distance of mortuary sites from the Turner site complex (dependent variable) and the abundance of exotic or symbolic material culture (independent variable) using a subsample of twelve Woodland sites in the lower Little Miami River valley.
Model 2b: Y (percent exotic materials in artifact assemblages) = 6344.772 - 14023.8a
(distance from Turner Earthworks), r2 = 0.140440966.
Standard Variable Coefficients t Stat P-value Error
Intercept 6344.772 1262.088 5.027201 0.000516
Percent Exotic Materials -14023.8 10971.28 -1.27823 0.230039
Although exotic and symbolic material culture decrease in quantity with increasing distance from a ceremonial center (i.e., the Turner site) as predicted, the r2 value suggests that the independent variable accounts only 14% of the variation in Woodland site locations in the lower
Little Miami River valley. The regression equation also demonstrates that the quantity of exotic and symbolic material culture relative to a ceremonial center in not statistically significant (P =
0.2).
64
Figure 25: Regression Equation Line for Model 2b
10000 Sand Ridge Earthwork and Stone Circle 9000 Linwood Works 8000Wachtel Mound Langdon Mounds 7000
6000 Turnpike Works 5000 Group C #16 Mound Firehouse 4000Newtown Mound I 3000 Spearhead Mound
2000 Edwards Mounds 1000
Site Distance from the Turner Earthworks (m) Earthworks Turner from the SiteDistance Gratsch 0 Marriott Mound I 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 Percentage of Exotic Materials within total Artifact Assemblage
Discussion
None of the Models account for a meaningful percentage of variation in the location of
Woodland age archaeological sites in the lower Little Miami River valley. However, statistically significant variables were identified in Model 1, the distance to clay resources and upland resources. In other words, Woodland people were optimizing their exploitation of clay raw materials and upland food resources.
The Woodland cultural period is defined by the emergence of ceramic technology (Railey
1996:81). While the tempers change through time (e.g., crushed igneous and metamorphic rock, limestone, and mussel shell), the clay source areas remained the same. Upper Ordovician shale and glacial clays were used as paste in the production of pottery through time (Tankersley and
65
Haines 2010; Tankersley and Meinhart 1982). As previously noted, Turner is the largest
Woodland site complex in the lower Little Miami River valley. As Tankersley (2007) demonstrated, high-quality clay was available at the site and was the single most important raw material resource. Clay was used in the production of both utilitarian and ideological material culture. It was used in the production of both stylized and realistic figurines as well as ceramic vessels, which were crucial to survival. In addition to cooking, ceramic vessels were used as storage containers, which held starchy and oily seeds, masts, and maize. It prevented them from being consumed by insects and rodents, especially during the starvation months of winter
(Tankersley 2016). In this regard, ceramic vessels have tremendous storage efficiency advantages over alternate technologies such as intestine, skin, and textile containers.
Similarly, Woodland peoples refined over time their exploitation of upland masts, especially various species of hickory and black walnut. Archaeological, archaeobotanical, and ethnographic sources suggest that upland silvaculture was a significant food procurement strategy during the Woodland cultural period (Taylay et al. 1984; Munson 1984). Selective culling of trees produces small open areas where economically advantageous disturbance-loving species would have been encouraged.
Additionally, in the lower Little Miami River valley, the uplands are capped by late
Pleistocene age wind blown silt known as loess (Tankersley 2008). In terms of horticulture, loess produces the most productive soils in the world. Furthermore, they do not require the sod-busting technologies of more advanced cultures. Loess is easily cultivated with tools manufactured from antler, bone, shell, and stone. However, the high porosity of loess also makes it a drought prone soil. During the Woodland cultural period, water management technologies were developed in the uplands as evidenced at Miami Fort in the Great Miami River valley (Tankersley and
66
Ballantine 2010) at Fort Ancient (Connolly 2005, Lepper and Connolly 2004) in the Little Miami
River valley. Although it is not in an upland setting, water management features have been identified at the Turner site complex (Tankersley 2007, 2016). Therefore, it is not outside the realm of possibility to suggest that these Woodland people managed water for gardening uses throughout the uplands of the lower Little Miami River valley.
Archaeological sites in the lower Little Miami River valley, which date to the Woodland cultural period contain material culture that is similar and sometimes identical in form, method of manufacture, raw material, and symbolic motifs to artifacts from contemporary and penecontemporary sites spread over a large geographic area. While this fact suggests that their makers and users shared common cultural traits, it does not necessarily indicate a common ideology.
The size of burial mounds and the quantity of artifacts manufactured from exotic raw materials or with symbolic motifs decrease with increasing distance from a ceremonial center.
However, this finding was not statistically significant in terms of explaining the variation of archaeological sites that date to the Woodland cultural period. These findings suggest that there were more localized ideological practices. In this regard, it would be analogous to modern
Algonquian speaking people (e.g., Delaware, Miami, Ojibwe, Shawnee) practicing a similar, but not identical ideology (Tankersley 2016).
67
Chapter 6: Discussion and Conclusions
Archaeologically, the way in which people use landscapes can be explained in terms of ideology and human evolutionary ecology. During the Woodland cultural period (ca.1,000 BCE to 1,000
CE), the lower Little Miami River valley contained a natural abundance of food, raw material, and water resources. Direct evidence of their procurement and exploitation occurs in the spatial and temporal distribution of Woodland habitation and mortuary sites.
The spatial analysis of 100 Woodland archaeological sites in the lower Little Miami
River valley demonstrates that they typically occur on relatively well-drained flat surfaces on elevations above annual flooding and in close proximity to lithic raw materials (i.e., glacial gravels) and water. Statistically, the most significant variables associated with Woodland land use in this region are clay raw material sources (i.e., Upper Ordovician shale and late Pleistocene lacustrine clays and till) and uplands. In terms of the Woodland economy, ceramic production and silvicultural masts were crucial to survival. Masts could be stored through the starvation months of winter in insect- and rodent-proof pottery.
While clay raw materials and upland resources were economically significant, they were not the only factors contributing to Woodland land use in the lower Little Miami River valley.
Indeed, the physical parameters of human evolutionary ecology and variables associated with optimal foraging behavior are not enough to explain Woodland land use in this region. There clearly appears to be an ideological aspect behind the spatial distribution of Woodland archaeological sites. The size of mortuary sites (i.e., burial mounds) and the quantity of artifacts manufactured from exotic raw materials and those depicting symbolic motifs decrease with increase distance from a ceremonial center (i.e., the Turner site). Their spatial distribution, however, is not statistically significant.
68
This research indicates that salient variables explaining Woodland land use remain elusive. It is likely that despite the large sample size, it is biased because of archaeological visibility due to the destruction of site and deeply buried site. While attempts to create ideological models of land use are laudable, they are inevitably ethnocentrically biased because archaeologists from cultures structurally and socially different from that of the indigenous people living in the lower Little Miami during the Woodland cultural period create them. Despite these biases, the relative explanatory successes of variables distance to clay and upland resources are noteworthy.
This thesis is one of the first research projects in the middle Ohio River valley to rigorously and empirically test models about land use during the Woodland cultural period.
Nevertheless, unanswered questions remain and provide direction for future research in this region. For example, what was the temporal succession of earthwork and burial mound construction? Were there climatic, environmental, ideological, or socio-political factors linked to changes in earthwork and burial mound construction? What is the extent of cultural continuity from the Woodland cultural period to present-day Algonquian speaking peoples? The body of data presented in this thesis provides an important stepping-stone for future archaeologists seeking to address one or more of these questions.
69
Bibliography
Abrams, Elliot
2009 Hopewell Archaeology: A View from the Northern Woodlands. Journal of
Archaeological Research 17:169-204.
Atwater, Caleb
1820 Description of Antiquities Discovered in the State of Ohio and Other Western States.
AMS Press for Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University,
Cambridge.
Barton, Benjamin Smith, M.D.
1797 New Views of the Origin of the Tribes and Nations of America. Printed, for the author,
by John Bioren, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Binford, Lewis Robert
1972 An Archaeological Perspective. Seminar Press, New York.
1978 Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. Academic Press, New York.
1981 Bones, Ancient Men and Modern Myths. Academic Press, New York.
1983 In Pursuit of the Past: Decoding the Archaeological Record. Thames and Hudson, New
York.
Binford, Lewis Robert and Sally Binford
1968 New Perspectives in Archaeology. Aldine Publishing Company, Chicago, Illinois.
70
Bourdieu, Pierre
1977 Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Byers, Martin A.
2004 The Ohio Hopewell: Episode Paradigm Lost and Paradigm Gained. University of
Akron Press, Akron.
2010 The “Heartland” Woodland Settlement System: Cultural Traditions and Resolving Key
Puzzles. In Hopewell Settlement Patterns, Subsistence, and Symbolic Landscapes, edited
by A. Martin Byers and Dee Anne Wymer, pp. 276-296. University Press of Florida,
Tallahassee, Florida.
2011 Sacred Games, Death, and Renewal in the Ancient Eastern Woodlands: the Ohio
Hopewell System of Cult Sodality Heterarchies. AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland.
Caldwell, Joseph Ralston
1964 Interaction Spheres in Prehistory. In Hopewellian Studies, edited by Joseph R.
Caldwell and Robert Hall, pp. 133-143. Scientific Papers, No. 12, Illinois State Museum,
Springfield, Illinois.
Case, D. Troy and Christopher Carr
2006 The Scioto Hopewell and Their Neighbors: Bioarchaeological Documentation and
Cultural Understanding. Springerlink Interdisciplinary Contributions to Archaeology.
71
Carr, Christopher
1995 Mortuary Practices: Their Social, Philosophical-Religious, Circumstantial, and
Physical Determinants. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2(2):105-200.
Clay, Berle R.
1992 Chiefs, Big Men, or What? Economy, Settlement Patterns and Their Bearing on Adena
Political Models. In Cultural Variability in Context: Woodland Settlements of the Mid-Ohio
Valley, edited by Mark Seeman. Special Paper No. 7. Midcontinental Journal of
Archeology. Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.
1998 The Essential Features of Adena Ritual and their Implications. Southeastern
Archaeology 17(1):1-21.
Comstock, Aaron R., Robert Cook, and Jarrod Burks
2015 Early Village Life in Southwest Ohio: Recent Excavations at the Turpin Site. Presented
at the 59th Annual Meeting of the Midwest Archaeological Conference, Milwaukee,
Wisconsin.
Coughlin, Sean and Mark Seeman
1997 Hopewellian Settlements at the Liberty Earthworks, Ross County, Ohio. In Ohio
Hopewell Community Organization, edited by William S. Dancey and Paul J. Pacheco, pp.
231-250. Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.
72
Cox Sr., Joseph, Charles F. Low, Charles L. Metz, Frank W. Langdon.
1880 Archaeological Explorations by the Literary and Scientific Society of Madisonville,
Ohio, Parts 1-3. James Barclay, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Dunnell, Robert C and William S. Dancey
1983 The Siteless Survey: A Regional Scale Data Collection Strategy. Advances in
Archaeological Method and Theory 6:267-287.
Dancey, William S. and Paul J. Pacheco
1997 A Community Model of Ohio Hopewell Settlement. In Ohio Hopewell Community
Organization, edited by William S. Dancey and Paul J. Pacheco, pp. 3-40. Kent State
University Press, Kent, Ohio.
Gould, Stephen Jay
2007 Punctuated Equilibrium. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Griffin, James B.
1997 Interpretations of Ohio Hopewell 1845-1984 and the Recent Emphasis on the Study of
Dispersed Hamlets. In Ohio Hopewell Community Organization, edited by William S.
Dancey and Paul J. Pacheco, pp. 405-426. Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.
73
Hedeen, Stanley
2006 The Natural History of the Cincinnati Region. Cincinnati Museum Center Press,
Cincinnati, Ohio.
Hodder, Ian
1982 Symbols in Action: Ethnoarchaeological Studies of Material Culture. New Studies in
Archaeology, edited by Richard I. Ford, Glynn Isaac, Colin Renfrew, and David Thomas.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
1985 Postprocessualist Archaeology. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory,
Volume 8, edited by Michael Schiffer, pp. 1-26. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida.
1986 Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
1992 Theory and Practice in Archaeology. Material Cultures: Interdisciplinary Studies in the
Material Construction of Social Worlds, edited by Daniel Miller, Michael Rowlands,
Christopher Tilley, and Annette Weiner. Routledge, London and New York.
2004 Archaeology Beyond Dialogue. Foundations of Archaeological Inquiry, edited by
James M. Skibo. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, Utah.
2012 Entangled: An Archaeology of the Relationships between Humans and Things. Wiley-
Blackwell, West Sussex.
Howard, James H.
1981 Shawnee! The Ceremonialism of a Native Indian Tribe and Its Cultural Background.
Ohio University Press, Athens, Ohio.
74
Langdon, F.W., Charles Louis Metz, Charles F. Low
1881 Archaeological Explorations by the Literary and Scientific Society of Madisonville,
Ohio, Part 4. James Barclay, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Lepper, Bradley
2005 Ohio Archaeology. Orange Frazer Press, Wilmington, Ohio.
Lepper, Bradley and Robert Connolly, editors
2004 The Fort Ancient Earthworks: Prehistoric Lifeways of the Hopewell Culture in
Southwestern Ohio. Ohio Historical Society, Columbus, Ohio.
Metz, Charles Lewis
1878 The Prehistoric Monuments of the Little Miami Valley. Journal of the Cincinnati
Society of Natural History 1:119-128.
1881 The Prehistoric Monuments of Anderson Township, Hamilton County, Ohio. Journal
of the Cincinnati Society of Natural History 4:293-305.
1911 A Brief Description of the Turner Group of Prehistoric Earthworks in Anderson
Township, Hamilton County, Ohio. Cincinnati Museum, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Metz, C. L. and Frederick Ward Putnam
1880s-90s Various Correspondence. In Charles Louis Metz and the American Indian: Their
Impact of the History of American Archaeology, edited by Kenneth B Tankersley and R.
Newman. University of Oklahoma Press, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
75
1886 Explorations in Ohio. Conducted for the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology
and Ethnology, in Connection with Harvard University. John Wilson and Son University
Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Miller, Daniel and Christopher Tilley, editors.
1984 Ideology, Power and Prehistory. New Directions in Archaeology. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Moran, Emilio F.
2007 Human Adaptability: An Introduction to Ecological Anthropology. Westview Press,
Boulder, Colorado.
2008 Human adaptability: an introduction to ecological anthropology. Westview Press,
Boulder, Colorado.
2010 Environmental Social Science: Human - Environment interactions and Sustainability.
Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken, New Jersey.
Netting, Robert
1977 Cultural Ecology. Cummings, Menlo Park, California.
1982 Territory, Property, and Tenure. In Behavioral and Social Science Research: A
National Resource, pp. 446-502. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
1990 Population, Permanent Agriculture, and Politics: Unpacking the Evolutionary
Portmanteau. In The Evolution of Political Systems, edited by S. Upham, pp. 21-61.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
76
1993 Smallholders, Householders; Farm Families and the Ecology of Intensive, Sustainable
Agriculture. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.
Pacheco, Paul J.
1993 Ohio Hopewell Settlement Patterns: An Application of the Vacant Center Model to
Middle Woodland Period Intracommunity Settlement. Dissertation on file at the Ohio
State University, Columbus, Ohio.
Pacheco, Paul J.
1996 “Ohio Hopewell Regional Settlement Patterns.” In A View from the Core: a Synthesis
of Ohio Hopewell Archaeology, edited by Paul J. Pacheco, pp. 16-35. The Ohio
Archaeological Council, Columbus, Ohio.
Popper, Karl Raimund
1957 The Poverty of Historicism. Beacon Press: Boston, Massachusetts.
Potter, Paul Edwin
2007 Exploring The Geology Of The Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky Region. 2nd ed.
Kentucky Geological Survey, Lexington, Kentucky.
Priest, Josiah
1833 American Antiquities and Discoveries in the West. 2nd ed. Hoffman & White, Albany,
New York.
77
Prufer, Olaf
1961 The Hopewell Complex of Ohio. Dissertation on file at the Peabody Museum, Harvard
University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
1964 The Hopewell Complex of Ohio. In Hopewellian Studies, edited by Joseph R. Caldwell
and Robert L. Hall, pp. 35-83. Scientific Papers, vol. 12. Illinois State Museum,
Springfield, Illinois.
1997 How to Construct a Model: a Personal Memoir. In Ohio Hopewell Community
Organization, edited by William S. Dancey and Paul J. Pacheco, pp. 105-128. Kent State
University Press, Kent, Ohio.
Prufer, Olaf H and Douglas Hugh McKenzie.
1967 Studies in Ohio archaeology. Press of Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.
Putnam, F. W. and Charles Louis Metz
1886 Twentieth Annual Report of the Trustees of the Peabody Museum of American
Archaeology and Ethnology, Volume 3. Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
Massachusetts.
Railey, James
1996 Woodland Cultivators. In Kentucky Archaeology, edited by R. Barry Lewis, pp. 79-
126. University Press of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky.
78
Renfrew, Colin
1982 Towards an Archaeology of Mind. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
1987 Archaeology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins. Pimlico, London.
2003 Figuring It Out: The Parallel Visions of Artists and Archaeologists. Thames and
Hudson, London.
2008 Prehistory: The Making of the Human Mind. Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London.
Renfrew, Colin and Ezra Zubrow
1994 The Ancient Mind: Elements of Cognitive Archaeology. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Riggs, Rodney E.
1998 Ceramics, Chronology and Cultural Change in the Lower Little Miami River Valley,
Southwestern Ohio, circa 100 B.C. to circa A.D. 1650. Dissertation on file at the
University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin.
Ruhl, Katharine C., and Mark F. Seeman.
1998 The Temporal and Social Implications of Ohio Hopewell Copper Ear Spool Design.
American Antiquity 63(4):651-662.
Schiffer, Michael B., Alan P. Sullivan, Timothy C. Klinger
1978 The Design of Archaeological Surveys. World Archaeology 10(1):1-28.
79
Seeman, Mark F.
1979 The Hopewell Interaction Sphere: the Evidence for Inter-regional Trade and
Structural Complexity. Dissertation on file at Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana.
1992 Cultural Variability in Context: Woodland Settlements of the Mid-Ohio Valley.
Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology Special Paper No. 7. Kent State University Press,
Kent, Ohio.
Seeman, Mark and William Dancey.
2000 The Late Woodland Period in Southern Ohio: Basic Issues and Prospects. In Late
Woodland Societies: Tradition and Transformation Across the Midcontinent, edited by
T.E. Emerson, D.L. McElrath, and A.C. Fortier. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln,
Nebraska.
Smith, Bruce D.,
1992 Hopewellian Farmers of Eastern North America. In Rivers of Change: Essays of Early
Agriculture in Eastern North America, edited by Bruce D. Smith, pp. 201-248.
Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C..
Smith, Eric Alden and Bruce Winterhalder
1985 On the Logic and Application of Optimal Foraging Theory: A Brief Reply to Martin.
American Anthropologist 87(3):645-648.
80
Squier, Ephraim G. and Edwin H. Davis, M.D.
1848 Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley. Smithsonian Contributions to
Knowledge, New York City and Cincinnati, Ohio.
Starr, Frederick S.
1960 The Archaeology of Hamilton County. Cincinnati Museum Press, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Steward, Julian Haynes
1936 The Economic and Social Basis of Primitive Bands. In Essays in Anthropology
Presented to Alfred L. Kroeber, edited by Robert H. Lowie, pp. 331-350. University of
California Press, Berkeley.
1942 The Direct Historical Approach to Archaeology. American Antiquity 7:337-343.
1949 Cultural Causality and Law: A Trial Formulation of the Development of Early
Civilizations. American Anthropologist 51:1-27.
1951 Levels of Sociocultural Integration: An Operational Concept. Southwestern Journal of
Anthropology 7:374-390.
1955 Theory of Culture Change: The Methodology of Multilinear Evolution. University of
Illinois Press, Urbana, Illinois.
1967 Perspectives on Modernization: Introduction to the Studies. In Contemporary Change
in Traditional Societies Volume 1, edited by Julian H. Steward, pp. 1-55. University of
Illinois Press, Urbana, Illinois.
81
Sparks, Janine M.
2013 Procurement and Movement of Lithic Raw Materials in Shawnee Lookout Park, Ohio.
North American Archaeologist 34(2):111-136.
Tankersley, Kenneth Barnett
n.d. Manuscript on file, Department of Anthropology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati,
Ohio.
1989 Late Pleistocene lithic exploitation and human settlement in the midwestern United
States. Dissertation on file at Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana.
2007 Archaeological Geology of the Turner Site Complex, Hamilton County, Ohio. North
American Archaeologist 28(4):271-294.
Tankersley, Kenneth B. and Barry Isaac
1990 Early Paleoindian Economies of Eastern North America. JAI Press, Greenwich,
Connecticut.
Tankersley, Kenneth B. and Angela L. Haines
2010 Was Newtown a Fort Ancient Progenitor? North American Archaeologist 31(2):201-
220.
82
Tankersley, Kenneth B. and Randy Brand Newman
2016 Dr. Charles Louis Metz and the American Indian Archaeology of the Little Miami
River Valley. Little Miami Publishing, Milford, Ohio.
Tankersley, Kenneth B. and John Meinhart
1982 Physical and Structural Properties of Ceramic Materials Utilized by a Fort Ancient
Group. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 7:225-243.
Tilley, Christopher
1997 A Phenomenology of Landscape: Places, Paths and Monuments. Berg, Oxford.
2002 Material Culture Reader. Berg, Oxford.
Tilley, Christopher with the assistance of Wayne Bennett
2004 The Materiality of Stone: Explorations in Landscape Phenomenology. Berg, Oxford.
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with Ohio
Department of Natural Resources Division of Lands and Soil, and Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center
1982 Soil Survey of Hamilton County Ohio. National Cooperative Soil Survey.
Vanpool, Todd L. and Robert D. Leonard
2011 Quantitative Analysis in Archaeology. Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken, New Jersey.
83
Watson, Patty Jo
1979 Archaeological Ethnology in Western Iran. University of Arizona Press, Tucson,
Arizona.
1990 The Razor's Edge: Symbolic-structuralist Archaeology and the Expansion of
Archaeological Inference, with Comments by Michael Fotiadis. American Anthropologist
92:613-629.
1995a Explaining the Transition to Agriculture. In Last Hunters-First Farmers, edited by D.
Price and A. Gebauer, pp. 21-37. School of American Research, Santa Fe, New Mexico.
1995b Archaeology, Anthropology, and the Culture Concept. American Anthropologist
97:683-694.
2002 Behavioral and Other Human Ecologies: Critique, Response and Progress Through
Criticism. Journal of Ecological Anthropology 6:4-23.
Watson, Patty Jo, LeBlanc, Steven A, Redman, Charles L.
1984 Archeological Explanation: The Scientific Method in Archeology. Columbia University
Press, New York City.
Watson, Patty Joe and Richard Watson
1969 Man and Nature: An Anthropological Essay in Human Ecology. Harcourt, Brace &
World, New York City.
84
Winterhalder, Bruce
1987 The Analysis of Hunter-gatherer Diet: Stalking an Optimal Foraging Model. In Food
and Evolution: Toward a Theory of Human Food Habits, edited by Marvin Harris and E.
B. Ross, pp. 311-339. Temple University Press, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Winterhalder, Bruce, William Baillargeon, Francesca Cappelletto, I. Randolph Daniel, Jr., and
Chris Prescott
1987 The Population Ecology of Hunter-Gatherers and Their Prey. Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology 7:289-328.
Winterhalder, Bruce, Flora Lu, and Bram Tucker.
1999 Risk-Sensitive Adaptive Tactics: Models and Evidence from Subsistence Studies in
Biology and Anthropology. Journal of Archaeological Research 7(4):301-348.
Yerkes, Richard
2002 “Hopewell Tribes: A Study of Middle Woodland Social Organization in the Ohio
Valley.” In The Archaeology of Tribal Societies, edited by William Parkinson, pp. 227-
245. International Monographs in Prehistory, Archaeological Series 15, Ann Arbor,
Michigan.
85
Appendix A
Nut bearing trees in the lower Little Miami River valley (Tankersley et al. 2015; Tankersley et al. 2016; Tankersley n.d.)
Scientific Name Common Name Habitat
Aesculus glabra Ohio Buckeye Moist forests
Carya sp. Hickory Forests
Castanea dentate American Chestnut Forests
Moist to dry forest openings Corylus Americana Hazelnut and edges
Fagus grandifolia Beech Upland forests and slopes
Gymnocladus dioicus Kentucky Coffeetree Moist forests
Moist to dry forests, Juglans cinerea Butternut underlain by Limestone
Juglans nigra Black Walnut Upland forests and slopes
Quercus alba White Oak Well-drained forests
Quercus rubra Red Oak Upland forests and slopes
86
Appendix B
Cultigens in the lower Little Miami River valley (Tankersley et al. 2015; Tankersley 2016;
Tankersley n.d.)
Scientific Name Common Name Habitat
Chenopodium berlandieri Goosefoot Sunny mud flats
Cucurbita pepo Squash Sunny well-drained areas
Helianthus annuus Sunflower Sunny dry areas
Hordeum pusillum Little Barley Sunny dry areas
Iva ciliate Marsh Elder Moist sunny disturbed areas
Moist sunny well-drained Lagenaria siceraria Bottle Gourd areas
Nicotiana sp. Tobacco Sunny disturbed areas
Phalaris caroliniana Maygrass Moist sunny disturbed areas
Phaseolus vulgaris Common Bean Well-drained areas
Polygonaceae Buckwheat Sunny dry areas
Polygonum erectum Knotweed Moist sunny disturbed areas
Polygonum sp. Smartweed Moist sunny disturbed areas
Zea mays Corn Sunny dry areas
87
Appendix C
Edible wild plants in the lower Little Miami River valley (Tankersley et al. 2015; Tankersley et al. 2016; Tankersley n.d.)
Scientific Name Common Name Habitat
Acalypha sp. Copperleaf Sunny disturbed areas
Acer sp. Maple Moist forests
Well-drained forest openings Asimina triloba Pawpaw and edges
Moist sunny well-drained Allium cernuum Wild Onion areas
Amaranthus sp. Pigweed Sunny disturbed areas
Ambrosia sp. Ragweed Sunny disturbed areas
Moist forest edges and Apios Americana Groundnut understory
Arundinaria sp. Cane Moist sunny areas
Betula sp. Birch Moist forests
Moist to dry forests, Celtis occidentalis Hackberry underlain by Limestone
Crataegus sp. Hawthorne Moist forests
Cyperaceae Sedge Moist sunny areas
Diosprys viginiana Persimmon Moist to dry forests
Fraxinus americana White Ash Well-drained forest slopes
Galium sp. Bedstraw Sunny disturbed areas
88
Gleditsia tricanthos Honey Locust Moist forests
Juncaceae Rush Moist sunny areas
Juniperus virginiana Red Cedar Dry forests
Sunny wet and dry disturbed Mollugo verticellata Indian Chickweed areas
Moist disturbed forest Morus sp Mulberry openings and edges
Understory and sunny Oxalis stricta Wood Sorrel disturbed areas
Panicum sp. Panic Grass Sunny dry areas
Papaver dubium Poppy Sunny disturbed areas
Parthenocissus quinquefolia Virginia Creeper Forest understory
Platanus occidentalis American Sycamore Moist forests
Phytolacca americana Pokeweed Sunny disturbed areas
Populus sp. Poplar Moist forests
Portulaca oleracea Purslane Sunny dry areas
Potamogeton sp. Pondweed Underwater
Prunus americana American Plum Moist forests
Prunus pensylvanica Pin Cherry Moist forests
Prunus serotina Black Cherry Moist forest slopes
Moist forest openings and Prunus virginiana Choke Cherry edges
Rhus glaba Smooth Sumac Moist disturbed forest
89
Robinia pseudoacacia Black Locust Well-drained forests
Rubus allegheniensis Blackberry Forest edges and understory
Rubus sp. Raspberry Forest edges and understory
Sambucus sp. Elderberry Sunny wet and dry areas
Solanum nigrum Black Nightshade Sunny disturbed areas
Strophostyles sp. Wild Bean Sunny disturbed areas
Ulmus rubra Slippery Elm Moist forest slopes
Moist forest edges and Vaccinium corymbosum Highbush Blueberry understory
Verbena sp. Vervain Sunny dry areas
Dry forest edges and Viburnum sp. Shrub understory
Moist forest edges and Viola sp. Violet understory
Vitis sp. Grape Moist sunny areas
90
Appendix D
Large mammals in the lower Little Miami River valley (Tankersley et al. 2015, Tankersley n.d.)
Taxa Common Name Habitat
Canis lupis Wolf Woodlands and grasslands
Cervus canadensis Elk Patchy woodlands
Felis concolor Cougar Woodlands and grasslands
Lynx rufus Bobcat Woodlands
Forest edges and shrubby Odocoileus virginianus White-tailed Deer grasslands
Ursus americanus Black Bear Forest edges and openings
91
Appendix E
Small Mammals in the lower Little Miami River valley (Tankersley et al. 2015, Tankersley n.d.)
Taxa Common Name Habitat
Moist forest edges and Blarina brevicauda Short-tailed Shrew understory
Woodlands along creeks and Castor canadensis Beaver streams
Cryptotis parva Least Shrew Moist grasslands
Woodlands along creeks and Didelphis virginiana Opossum streams
Erethizon dorsatum Porcupine Woodlands
Glaucomys volans Southern Flying Squirrel Mature woodlands
Woodlands along creeks and Lontra canadensis River Otter streams
Marmota monax Woodchuck Patchy woodlands
Martes americana Pine Martin Mature woodlands
Mephitis mephitis Striped Skunk Patchy woodlands
Microtus ochrogaster Prairie Vole Grasslands
Microtus pennsylvanicus Meadow Vole Grasslands near rivers
Microtus sp. Vole Grasslands
Mustela frenata Long-tailed Weasel Patchy woodlands
Woodlands along creeks and Mustela vison Mink streams
92
Neotoma floridana Eastern Woodrat Woodlands
Deep, slow-moving water Ondatra zibethicus Muskrat near vegetation
Oryzomys palustris Rice Rat Moist grasslands
Peromyscus leucopus White-footed Mouse Forest edges and openings
Woodlands along creeks and Procyon lotor Raccoon streams
Scalopus aquaticus Eastern Mole Moist grasslands
Sciurus carolinensis Gray Squirrel Mature woodlands
Sciurus niger Fox Squirrel Woodlands
Sylvilagus aquaticus Swamp Rabbit Moist grasslands
Forest edges and shrubby Sylvilagus floridanus Eastern Cotton-tail grasslands
Tamias striatus Eastern Chipmunk Woodlands
Urocyon cinereoargenteus Gray Fox Patchy woodlands
Zapus hudsonius Meadow Jumping Mouse Grasslands
93
Appendix F
Gastropods in the lower Little Miami River valley (Tankersley n.d.)
Taxa Common Name Habitat
Allogona profunda Broad-banded Forest Snail Woodlands
Anguispira alternata Forest Snail Patchy woodlands
Anguispira kochi Banded Globe Snail Woodlands
Goniobasis sp. Aquatic Snail Large rivers
Haplotrema concavum Gray Footed Lancetooth Woodlands
Small to medium rocky clear Lithasia obovata Shawnee Rocksnail streams
Mesodon clausus Yellow Goblet Snail Woodlands
Mesomphix sp. Cumberland Liptooth Snail Woodlands
Stenotrema hirsutum Hairy Slitmouth Woodlands
Triodopsis albolabris Whitelip Snail Woodlands
Triodopsis denotata Velvet Wedge Snail Woodlands
94
Appendix G
Birds in the lower Little Miami River valley (Tankersley n.d.)
Taxa Common Name Habitat
Accipiter cooperii Cooper’s Hawk Patchy woodlands
Woodlands along creeks and Aix sponsa Wood Duck streams
Slow-moving water near Anas carolinensis Green-winged Teal vegetation
Slow-moving water near Anas discors Blue-winged Teal vegetation
Slow-moving water near Anas platyrhynchos Mallard vegetation
Slow-moving water near Anser caerulescens Snow Goose vegetation
Woodlands along creeks and Ardea herodias Great Blue Heron streams
Asio flammeus Short-eared Owl Grasslands
Slow-moving water near Branta canadensis Canada Goose vegetation
Bubo virginianus Great Horned Owl Forest edges and openings
Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed Hawk Patchy woodlands
Buteo sp. Hawks Patchy woodlands
Cardinalis cardinalis Cardinal Forest edges and openings
95
Colinus virginianus Bobwhite Forest edges and openings
Corvus brachyrhynchos Crow Forest edges and openings
Corvus corax Raven Patchy woodlands
Cygnus buccinator Trumpeter Swan Large, slow-moving water
Dryocopus pileatus Pileated Woodpecker Mature woodlands
Ectopistes migratorius Passenger Pigeon Patchy woodlands
Falco sparverius Sparrow Hawk Patchy woodlands
Woodlands near ponds or Gavia immer Common Loon lakes
Grus canadensis Sandhill Crane Grasslands
Mature woodlands near large Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle rivers or wetlands
Lophodytes cucullatus Hooded Merganser Ponds and rivers
Meleagris gallopavo Turkey Patchy woodlands
Numenius americanus Long-billed Curlew Grasslands
Otus asio Screech Owl Patchy woodlands
Podilymbus podiceps Pied-billed Grebe Ponds
Strix varia Barred Owl Mature patchy woodlands
Slow-moving water near Tringa sp. Sandpiper vegetation
Turdua migratorius Robin Patchy woodlands
96
Appendix H
Fish in the lower Little Miami River valley (Tankersley n.d.)
Taxa Common Name Habitat
Aplodinotus grunniens Freshwater Drum Pools within large rivers
Campostoma anomalum Stoneroller Minnow Gravelly riffles
Catostomidae Sucker Large fast-flowing rivers
Slow-moving water near Centrarchidae Bass Sunfish vegetation
Small to medium rocky clear Cyprinidae Minnow streams
Slow-moving water near Esox sp. Pike Pickerel vegetation
Hybopsis biguttata Horny-head Chub Fast, rocky pools of rivers
Ictalurus furcatus Blue Catfish Fast, deep, sandy rivers
Small to large, fast to slow Ictalurus punctatus Channel Catfish bodies of water
Clear, moderate to fast-
Ictiobus bubalus Buffalo Fish moving streams near
vegetation
Lepisosteus platostomus Short-nose Gar Pools within large rivers
Micropterus dolomieu Small-mouth Bass Fast, rocky streams and lakes
Moxostoma carinatum River Redhorse Large fast-flowing rivers
Moxostoma erythrurum. Golden Redhorse Calm, silty streams and rivers
97
Perca flavescens Yellow Perch Pools within large rivers
Pylodictis olivaris Flathead Catfish Pools within large rivers
Sander canadensis Sauger Pools within large rivers
Sander vitreus Walleye Turbid, shallow rivers
Turbid pools within large Scaphirhynchus platorynchus Shovel-nose Sturgeon rivers
98
Appendix I
Reptiles in the lower Little Miami River valley (Tankersley n.d.)
Taxa Common Name Habitat
Slow-moving water near Chelydra serpentina Snapping Turtle vegetation
Slow-moving water near Chrysemys sp. Slider Turtle vegetation
Colubridae sp. Hognose Snake Grasslands
Crotalus horridus Timber Rattlesnake Woodlands
Large Rivers with fallen Graptemys sp. Map Turtle timbers
Slow-moving water near Kinosternidae sp. Mud Musk Turtle vegetation
Slow-moving water near Pseudemys scripta Pond Turtle vegetation
Sternotherus odoratus Stinkpot Turtle Shallow bodies of water
Sternotherus sp. Aquatic Turtle Shallow bodies of water
Terrapene carolina Eastern Box Turtle Moist grasslands
Slow-moving water near Trionyx sp. Softshell Turtle vegetation
Slow-moving water near Trionyx spinifera Spiny Softshell Turtle vegetation
99
Appendix J
Amphibians in the lower Little Miami River valley (Tankersley n.d.)
Taxa Common Name Habitat
Woodlands along creeks and Ambystoma maculatum Spotted Salamander streams
Woodlands along creeks and Ambystoma sp. Salamander streams
Slow-moving water near Anaxyrus americanus American Toad vegetation
Cryptobranchus sp. Hellbender Under rocks in streams
Slow-moving water near Rana catesbeiana Bull Frog vegetation
Slow-moving water near Rana sp. Frog vegetation
100
Appendix K
Bivalves in the lower Little Miami River valley (Tankersley n.d.)
Taxa Common Name Habitat
Alasmidonta sp. Wedge Mussel Muddy to sandy streambed
Rivers with mud, sand, or Amblema plicata Three-ridge Mussel gravel
Soft-bottomed ponds and Anodonta sp. Floater Mussel rivers
Cyclonaias tuberculata Purple Warty-back Mussel Large fast-flowing rivers
Medium to large gravelly Cyprogenia stegaria Eastern Fan-shell Mussel rivers
Ellipsaria lineolata Butterfly Mussel Large swift gravelly rivers
Muddy, sandy, and rocky Elliptio crassidens Elephant’s Ear Mussel swift rivers and streams
Small to large gravelly Elliptio dilatata Spike Mussel streams
Epioblasma flexuosa Northern Leaf Shell Mussel Rivers
Epioblasma sampsonii Sampson’s Pearly Mussel Rivers
Epioblasma torulosa Rough Riffle Shell Mussel Gravelly riffles
Fusconaia ebena Ebony Shell Mussel Large fast-flowing rivers
Fusconaia subrotunda Long Solid Mussel Gravelly rivers
Lampsilis abrupta Pink Mucket Gravelly rivers
101
Muddy, sandy, and rocky Lampsilis ovata Ridged Pocketbook Mussel swift rivers and streams
Small to large, rocky to
Lampsilis teres Yellow Sand-shell Mussel muddy, fast to slow bodies of
water
Small to large, rocky to
Lampsilis cardium Smooth Pocketbook Mussel muddy, fast to slow bodies of
water
Lasmigona complanta Heel-splitter Mussel Slow streams and rivers
Medium to large rivers near Lasmigona costata Fluted-shell Mussel riffles
Medium to large rivers near Leptoxis carinata Crested Mudalia Mussel riffles
Medium to large rivers near Ligumia recta Black Sandshell Mussel riffles
Small to large, rocky to
Megalonaias gigantean Washboard Mussel muddy, fast to slow bodies of
water
Three-horn Warty-back Medium to large rivers near Obliquaria reflexa Mussel riffles
Obovaria olivaria Egg-shell Mussel Large fast-flowing rivers
Shallow sand and gravel Obovaria retusa Ring Pink Mussel areas in large rivers
102
Shallow sand and gravel Obovaria subrotunda Round Hickory Nut Mussel areas in large rivers
Medium to large rivers near Plethobasus cicatricosus White Warty-back Mussel riffles
Medium to large rivers near Plethobasus cyphyus Sheep-nose Mussel riffles
Gravelly riffles in small Pleurobema clava Northern Clubshell Mussel streams
Pleurobema cordatum Ohio River Pigtoe Mussel Large rivers
Pleurobema plenum Rough Pigtoe Mussel Large rivers
Shallow sand and gravel Pleurobema rubrum Pyramid Pigtoe Mussel areas in large rivers
Small to large, rocky to
Pleurobema sintoxia Round Pigtoe Mussel muddy, fast to slow bodies of
water
Rocky to muddy slow bodies Potamilus alatus Pink Heel-splitter Mussel of water
Small to medium, rocky Ptychobranchus fasciolaris Kidney-shell Mussel and/or sandy rivers
Quadrula cylindrica Rabbit’s Foot Mussel Rivers
Medium to large, rocky and Quadrula metanevra Monkey Face Mussel sandy rivers and streams
103
Muddy, sandy, and/or rocky Quadrula pustulosa Pimple-back Mussel rivers and streams
Muddy, sandy, and/or rocky Quadrula quadrula Maple Leaf Mussel large rivers
Muddy, sandy, silty, and/or Tritogonia verrucosa Buckhorn Mussel rocky medium to large rivers
104
Appendix L
Archaeological sites in the lower Little Miami River valley documented by Dr. Charles Louis
Metz (Cox et al 1880, Hooten and Willoughby 1920; Langdon et al 1881, Metz 1878, Metz
1881, Metz 1911, Metz and Putnam 1886, Putnam and Metz 1886, Willoughby and Hooten
1922).
Location Site Number1 Site Name Site Type (Latitude & Longitude)
Stites Grove Earthwork N 39.139791950172665, 33Ha25 Works, Group A and Burial E -84.37154901854042 1 and 2 Mound Group
Mount Vernon N 39.13934679962862, 33Ha234 Mounds, Group Burial Mound E -84.3733818650424 A 3
Habitation 33Ha14, Ferris Cemetery, N 39.137939163647566, and Burial 33Ha237 Group A 4 E -84.38650112898105 Mounds
Dogwood N39.14051857446925, 33Ha235 Mound, Group Burial Mound E -84.37700562666934 A 6
Earthwork Turnpike Works, N 39.13831812830085, 33Ha27 and Burial Group A 7 E -84.36453550324427 Mound
105
Earthwork Ferris Works, N 39.140323082891996, 33Ha8 and Burial Group A 8 E -84.3871472047509 Mound
Gravel Ridge Burial Mound Mound and N 39.12974128349449, 33Ha239 and Borrow Borrow Pit, E -84.40506136077104 pit Group B 1 and 2
Earthwork Linwood Works, N 39.120191425132866, 33Ha13 and Burial Group B 3, 4, * E -84.41356710698416 Mound group
Ault Park
Terraces, Group N 39.13410621990814, 33Ha161 Earthwork B Terraced E -84.40566592284769
Hillside
Ault Park
Caretaker’s N 39.13348407315514, 33Ha258 Burial Mound Mound, Group E -84.40645224063259
B 5
Principio N 39.129958385195444, 33Ha260 Mound, Group Burial Mound E -84.4160436263007 B 6
106
Langdon Burial Mound N 39.138786971145244, 33Ha30 Mounds, Group group E -84.40710207240451 B 7
Group B 8 N 39.1442232272358, None Burial Mound Mound E -84.41293984627612
Ault Park N 39.130466627364086, 33Ha259 Pavilion Mound, Burial Mound E -84.40972086393244 Group B *
Cherry Mound, Burial N 39.12367282119062, 33Ha276 Group C 1 Mound E -84.33617808564841
Robert Alan Burial N 39.123720369856365, 33Ha277 Mound, Group Mound E -84.33825818224862 C 2
Bus Mound, Burial N 39.123831504961665, 33Ha278 Group C 3 Mound E -84.33917928239255
Scearce Mound, Burial N 39.12374115803318, 33Ha279 Group C 4 Mound E -84.34311514390596
Shield’s Burial N 39.120904516674806, 33Ha280 Mound, Group Mound E -84.34435519926505 C 5
Tylden Mound, Burial N 39.12141609389316, 33Ha281 Group C 6 Mound E -84.34782881656777
107
Spearhead Burial N 39.12034469677777, 33Ha24 Mound, Group Mound E -84.34035143589126 C 7
Downie Mound, Burial N 39.12127359229244, 33Ha282 Group C 8 Mound E -84.34157714052019
Oddfellows
Cemetery Burial N 39.12519535248586, 33Ha106 Mounds, Group Mound group E -84.35555209477842
C 9 and 14
Newtown Burial N 39.127776099707674, 33Ha21 Mound I, Group Mound E -84.3581158763465 C 10
Hedrick Mound, N 39.11261207605013, 33Ha119 Burial Mound Group C 11 E -84.36401369223294
Turpin, Group C Habitation N 39.11254696309319, 33Ha28 12, Group E 1 and Burial E -84.39395608419854 and 2 Mounds
Group C 15 N 39.13210787844194, 33Ha286 Burial Mound Mound E -84.36639817150834
Group C 16 N 39.12041621671974, 33Ha229 Burial Mound Mound E -84.36729644966972
108
Hahn Field and
Cemetery, Habitation N 39.127173996470525, 33Ha10 Group C 18 and and Cemetery E -84.37132438612572
19
Samuel Edwards N 39.13148822473605, 33Ha297 Cemetery, Cemetery E -84.3312565402901 Group C 20
Aicholtz Mound N 39.13109108854466, 33Ha298 Burial Mound I, Group C 21 E -84.32965212588398
Aicholtz Mound N 39.13020949711667, 33Ha299 Burial Mound II, Group C 22 E -84.33049513951671
Earthwork Group C 23 N 39.12954480656722, 33Ha130 and Burial Circle E -84.32508376751584 Mound
Dry Run Stone N 39.1178643036244, 33Ha5 Mound, Group Burial Mound E -84.32645100997105 C 24
Methodist N 39.12420924137811, 33Ha284 Church Mound, Burial Mound E -84.36093256163208 Group C * I
Irish Mound, N 39.12241463354411, 33Ha283 Burial Mound Group C * II E -84.35172374048899
109
Newtown
Cemetery, N 39.11772616955492, 33Ha20 Cemetery Group C E -84.3678592377581
Cemetery
Group D Burial Mound N 39.153962208751516, 33Ha290 Mounds Group E -84.3252002704344
Group D N 39.144690761424, None Observatory Burial Mound E -84.34010227079145 Mound
Turner Earthwork
Earthworks, Complex with N 39.14386080893584, 33Ha26 Group D 1-5, 9, Burial E -84.3129723240968
10 Mounds
Camden’s Earthwork N 39.15429801545404, 33Ha288 Works, Group D with Burial E -84.31005264331536 6 and 7 Mounds
Turner Parallel N 39.13773037326605, 33Ha263 walls, Group D Earthwork E -84.31826087723488 11
Clough
Cemetery, N 39.110372702294946, None Cemetery Group E E -84.38859039813397
Cemetery
110
Group E 3 Burial N 39.11003435492642, None Mound Mound E -84.39037737433704
Sand Ridge Earthwork N 39.09832148775626, 33Ha302 Earthworks, and Cemetery E -84.40324419997337 Group E 4
Sand Ridge N 39.09904805806617, 33Ha303 Stone Circle, Stone Circle E -84.40269723383038 Group E 5
Valentine N 39.09760283402266, 33Ha304 Mound, Group E Burial Mound E -84.38240139354264 6
Wachtel Mound, N 39.09528565085907, 33Ha29 Burial Mound Group E 7 E -84.38753949270044
Ebersole Mound Mound and N 39.0703184774938, 33Ha6 and Cemetery, Cemetery E -84.4262998774007 Group F 1 and 2
Three Mile N 39.05879356373637, 33Ha90 Stone Mound, Burial Mound E -84.4152208108108 Group F 3
1. OAI Site Numbers.
111
Appendix M
Archaeological Sites in the lower Little Miami River valley documented by Starr (1960).
Location Site Number1 Site Name Site Type (Latitude & Longitude)
N 39.10432278909205, 33Ha15 Pioneer Village Habitation E -84.42929506184183
N 39.12926514551613, 33Ha35 Fluke Village Habitation E -84.40229256608666
N 39.133547305542585, 33Ha38 Perin Village Habitation E -84.35596828580425
N 39.138965404104574, 33Ha428 Perin Village Habitation E -84.32927349836434
N 39.14717304369884, 33Ha45 Bingaman Village Habitation E -84.31166617132459
N 39.1405323192499, 33Ha46 Mt Carmel Village Habitation E -84.30928126050047
N 39.084008944623136, 33Ha49 Heitzman Mound Burial Mound E -84.41595327931606
N 39.14270468493387, 33Ha55 Denneman Village Habitation E -84.32105684979756
N 39.14801579902303, 33Ha77 Sprees Habitation E -84.30564083846744
112
N 39.14669641993742, 33Ha79 Old River Campsite Habitation E -84.32736137248007
N 39.14065819316613, 33Ha147 Stites Village Habitation E -84.37001282900509
N 39.139370175542744, (None assigned) Broadwell Mound Burial Mound E -84.30967258675321
N 39.09873021481009, 33Ha34 Stotts Village Habitation E -84.34463285928607
1. OAI Site Number.
113
Appendix N
Woodland archaeological sites in the lower Little Miami River valley documented in the Ohio
Archaeological Inventory (1966-2015).
Location Site Number Site Name Site Type (Latitude & Longitude)
N 39.09318475169873, 33Ha363 Stansbery Park Mound Mound E -84.39027612691574
N 39.11037788289524, 33Ha375 Alms Park site Habitation E -84.42606830504602
N 39.09002055524606, 33Ha383 Corporation Line Mound Mound E -84.41119043130253
N 39.11483413957807, 33Ha390 Robert Fischer Habitation E -84.3894771975
N 39.131513983596285, 33Ha394 Valley View Habitation E -84.34974652711027
N 39.128732213640944, 33Ha395 Calvin Habitation E -84.33286432004883
N 39.12378528078762, 33Ha419 Firehouse Cemetery and Habitation E -84.36130694134812
N 39.08697173859236, 33Ha422 Wayside Habitation E -84.41061990773991
114
N 39.12497707874584, 33Ha585 Hafner Habitation E -84.3697868148957
N 39.12406020517417, 33Ha586 Driving Range Habitation E -84.37147489799632
N 39.129221451264804, 33Ha588 Martin Field Habitation E -84.36106925882312
N 39.11850691683736, 33Ha697 Null Habitation E -84.3825180557826
N 39.107747956759994, 33Ha761 Skytop Residential Habitation E -84.39690818809353
115
Appendix O
Woodland cultural period archaeological sites in the lower Little Miami River valley documented by artifact collector informants.
Site Collector Temporally Distinctive Site Name Site Type Number Name Artifact(s)
Microblade fragment and Jack 33Ha862 Gratsch Earthworks Microblade core fragment of Ohio Gratsch Flint Ridge Flint
Shademoore Burial Bill 33Ha864 None Mound Mound Menke
Group C 16 Burial Marjory Snyder’s Biface, Adena Stemmed 33Ha229 Mound Mound Kinney Biface, Slate Gorget, Loaf Stone
Andy 33Ha19 Sand Ridge Earthworks Adena Stemmed Biface Hueber
116
Appendix P
Systematic bucket auger data.
Site Test Soil Depth Munsell Soil Cultural Site Name Number Number (cm) color Type Material
Sandy Fluke Village 33Ha121 1 0-32 10YR2/2 None silt
“ “ “ 32-51 10YR5/6 Clay None
Sandy “ ; 2 0-23 10YR2/2 None silt
“ “ - 23-39 10YR5/6 Clay None
Sandy “ “ 3 0-25 10YR2/2 None silt
Brick, glass, “ “ “ 25-47 10YR5/6 Clay coal slag
Sandy “ “ 4 0-30 10YR2/2 None silt
“ “ “ 30-38 10YR5/6 Clay None
Group C #16 Sandy 33Ha229 1 0-28 10YR6/6 None Mound silt
Sandy “ “ 2 0-5 10YR6/6 None silt
Clayey Flaked stone “ “ “ 5-114 10YR3/6 silt debitage
117
Appendix Q
Artifacts documented from fieldwork in lower Little Miami River Valley Woodland Archaeological Sites.
Site Number Site Name Artifact type Raw Material Quantity Context Note
Gratsch Hopewell smoothed cordmarked 33Ha862 Pottery Unidentified 1 Plowzone Earthwork grit tempered body sherd
Gratsch 33Ha862 Flaked-stone Schist 1 Surface Scraper fragment Earthwork
Gratsch Preform fragment, likely broken 33Ha862 Ground-stone Cyanite schist 1 Surface Earthwork during manufacture
Gratsch Excavation 33Ha862 Flaked-stone Glacial pebble chert 1 Core Earthwork lLevel 2
Gratsch Excavation level 33Ha862 Flaked-stone Glacial pebble chert 1 Flake Earthwork 2
Gratsch Excavation level 33Ha862 Flaked-stone Unknown 3 Debitage Earthwork 2
118
Gratsch 33Ha862 Flaked-stone Wyandotte chert 1 Surface Exhausted blade core Earthwork
Gratsch Ohio Flint Ridge 33Ha862 Flaked-stone 1 Surface Debitage Earthwork chert
Gratsch Ohio Flint Ridge 33Ha862 Flaked-stone 1 Surface Debitage Earthwork chert
Gratsch 33Ha862 Flaked-stone Unknown 1 Plowzone Blade tip Earthwork
Gratsch 33Ha862 Flaked-stone Unknown 1 Plowzone Hopewell biface fragment Earthwork
Gratsch 33Ha862 Flaked-stone Unknown 4 Plowzone Debitage Earthwork
Gratsch 33Ha862 Flaked-stone Volcanic tuff 1 Plowzone Debitage Earthwork
Gratsch 33Ha862 Flaked-stone Laurel chert 1 Plowzone Thermally altered chert debitage Earthwork
119
Gratsch 33Ha862 Flaked-stone Wyandotte chert 1 Plowzone Flake Earthwork
Gratsch Excavation level 33Ha862 Raw Material Red ochre 1 Red ochre Earthwork 2
Gratsch Excavation level 33Ha862 Raw Material Red ochre 1 Red ochre Earthwork 2
Sand
Ridge
33Ha19 Earthwork Flaked-stone Unknown 3 Surface Debitage
and Stone
Circle
Sand
Ridge
33Ha19 Earthwork Flaked-stone Unknown 8 Surface Debitage
and Stone
Circle
120
Sand
Ridge Newtown smoothed cordmarked 33Ha19 Earthwork Pottery Unknown 1 Surface grit tempered body sherd and Stone
Circle
Newtown 33Ha20 Flaked-stone Unknown 9 Surface Debitage Cemetery
Turnpike 33Ha27 Shell Freshwater mussel 1 Surface Shell fragment Works
Turnpike Calcined unidentifiable 33Ha27 Bone Unknown 1 Surface Works fragment
Turnpike Hopewell smooth grit tempered 33Ha27 Pottery Unknown 1 Surface Works body sherd
Turnpike Fort Ancient smooth shell 33Ha27 Pottery Unknown 3 Surface Works tempered body sherd
121
Turnpike Ohio Flint Ridge 33Ha27 Flaked-stone 3 Surface Debitage Works chert
Turnpike 33Ha27 Flaked-stone Laurel chert 1 Surface Debitage Works
Turnpike Hickston Silicified 33Ha27 Flaked-stone 1 Surface Flake Works sandstone (WI)
Turnpike Cedarville-Guelph 33Ha27 Flaked-stone 1 Surface Debitage Works chert
Turnpike 33Ha27 Flaked-stone Wyandotte chert 1 Surface Thermally altered core fragment Works
Turnpike 33Ha27 Flaked-stone Wyandotte chert 1 Surface Flake fragment Works
Turnpike 33Ha27 Flaked-stone Glacial pebble chert 3 Surface Debitage Works
Turnpike 33Ha27 Flaked-stone Paoli chert 4 Surface Thermally altered chert debitage Works
122
Turnpike Glacial Pebble 33Ha27 Flaked-stone 1 Surface Blade core fragment Works chert
Hopewell smoothed cordmarked Pioneer 33Ha101 Pottery Unknown 2 Surface grit/limestone tempered base Village sherd
Hopewell reed impressed Pioneer 33Ha101 Pottery Unknown 1 Surface grit/limestone tempered body Village sherd
Pioneer Smooth grit tempered body 33Ha101 Pottery Unknown 6 Surface Village sherd
Pioneer Smooth sand tempered body 33Ha101 Pottery Unknown 1 Surface Village sherd
Pioneer Smoothed cordmarked grit 33Ha101 Pottery Unknown 1 Surface Village tempered body sherd
Pioneer Newtown smooth limestone 33Ha101 Pottery Unknown 1 Surface Village tempered body sherd
123
Pioneer Smooth grit-tempered body 33Ha101 Pottery Unknown 2 Surface Village sherd
Pioneer Smoothed cordmarked grit- 33Ha101 Pottery Unknown 1 Surface Village tempered body sherd
Pioneer Hopewell smoothed cordmarked 33Ha101 Pottery Unknown 2 Surface Village grit-tempered body sherd
Pioneer 33Ha101 Ground-stone Sandstone 1 Surface Grinding stone Village
Pioneer 33Ha101 Ground-stone Unknown 3 Surface Fire-cracked rock Village
Pioneer 33Ha101 Battered-stone Unknown 1 Surface Hammerstone Village
Pioneer 33Ha101 Ground-stone Meta-quartzite 1 Surface Preform fragment Village
Pioneer 33Ha101 Flaked-stone Meta-quartzite 2 Surface Debitage Village
124
Pioneer 33Ha101 Flaked-stone Wyandotte chert 1 Surface Debitage Village
Pioneer 33Ha101 Flaked-stone Laurel chert 3 Surface Debitage Village
Pioneer Ohio Flint Ridge 33Ha101 Flaked-stone 2 Surface Heat altered chert debitage Village chert
Pioneer 33Ha101 Flaked-stone Unknown 12 Surface Debitage Village
Pioneer Ohio Flint Ridge 33Ha101 Flaked-stone 7 Surface Debitage Village chert
Pioneer Ohio Flint Ridge 33Ha101 Flaked-stone 2 Surface Core fragment Village chert
Pioneer 33Ha101 Flaked-stone Glacial pebble chert 2 Surface Flake Village
Pioneer 33Ha101 Flaked-stone Glacial pebble chert 5 Surface Debitage Village
125
Pioneer 33Ha101 Flaked-stone Paoli chert 2 Surface Core fragment Village
Pioneer 33Ha101 Flaked-stone Unknown 1 Surface Blade fragment Village
Pioneer Ohio Flint Ridge 33Ha101 Flaked-stone 1 Surface Side scraper Village chert
Pioneer 33Ha101 Flaked-stone Paoli chert 1 Surface Thermally altered chert debitage Village
Pioneer 33Ha101 Flaked-stone Paoli chert 2 Surface Debitage Village
Pioneer 33Ha101 Flaked-stone Calcite Speleothem 1 Surface Debitage Village
Fluke Ohio Flint Ridge 33Ha121 Flaked-stone 1 Surface Bifacial thinning flake Village chert
Fluke 33Ha121 Flaked-stone Glacial pebble chert 1 Surface Retouched flake Village
126
Group C
33Ha229 #16 Flaked-stone Unknown 22 Surface Debitage
Mound
Group C
33Ha229 #16 Flaked-stone Glacial pebble chert 52 Surface Debitage
Mound
Group C
33Ha229 #16 Bone Bone 1 Surface Large or small mammal
Mound
Group C
33Ha229 #16 Flaked-stone Glacial pebble chert 3 Bucket auger #2 Debitage
Mound
Stanbery Adena thick, smooth grit 33Ha363 Park Pottery Unknown 2 Surface tempered body sherd mound
127
Sticksel 33Ha389 Flaked-stone Unknown 2 Surface Microblade core fragment site
128
Appendix R: Ohio Archaeological Inventory Forms Generated by this Thesis
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148