A Middle Woodland and Houselot: Evidence of Sedentism from the Patton Site

(33AT990), the Hocking River Valley, Southeastern .

A thesis presented to

the faculty of

the College of Arts and Sciences of Ohio University

In partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree

Master of Science

Sarah A. Weaver

November 2009

© 2009 Sarah A. Weaver. All Rights Reserved. 2

This thesis titled

A Middle Woodland House and Houselot: Evidence of Sedentism from the Patton Site

(33AT990), the Hocking River Valley, Southeastern Ohio.

by

SARAH A. WEAVER

has been approved for

the Program of Environmental Studies

and the College of Arts and Sciences by

Elliot M. Abrams

Professor of Anthropology

Benjamin M. Ogles

Dean, College of Arts and Sciences 3

ABSTRACT

WEAVER, SARAH A., M.S., November 2009, Environmental Studies

A Middle Woodland House and Houselot: Evidence of Sedentism from the Patton Site

(33AT990), the Hocking River Valley, Southeastern Ohio (84 pp.)

Director of Thesis: Elliot M. Abrams

The Patton site (33AT990), located within the Hocking Valley of southeastern

Ohio, yielded evidence of a sedentary Middle Woodland community. During the

summers of 2006 and 2008, excavations uncovered three episodes of construction,

burning, and rebuilding of a houselot, which included a daub structure with an internal

and small internal posts used for storage shelves or benches, a food preparation

and activity area, a storage area, and a refuse disposal area. Overlapping and

continuously used features indicated a reuse of the same distinct spatial layout throughout

all three rebuilding episodes. Two large deep storage pits, a large refuse pit, and durable rectilinear structures were evidence of year-round long-term site occupation. Sedentism was further supported by the assemblage, consisting of a large collection of and a chipped stone assemblage that contained a majority of unifacial/utilized flakes and heavily reworked bifacial tools.

Approved: ______

Elliot M. Abrams

Professor of Anthropology 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to extend my thanks and gratitude to everyone who made researching, writing, and finishing this thesis possible. To my parents, Debra and James

Weaver, and my brother, Aaron Weaver, thank you for your continued support, patience, and encouragement while I worked through my masters program and thesis writing. To my thesis committee and advisors, Elliot Abrams, AnnCorinne Freter, and Dorothy Sack,

I am extremely grateful and appreciative of all the knowledge, guidance, and assistance you have shared with me over the years. To Paul Patton, best friend and co-conspirator, thank you for always inspiring and pushing me to excel, and for being my second set of eyes. To my friends, Josh McConaughy and Kati McGinnis, I appreciate all of your support and for providing distractions when I got a little too intense and/or crazy.

Deepest thanks to Mr. and Mrs. Patton for allowing the Ohio University

Archaeological Field School to dig up their front lawn for two summers. And I am greatly appreciative of the Ohio University students for all of their hard work during the

2006 and 2008 summer excavations. Also, I am extremely grateful to the Hudnell Fund and the Ohio Archaeological Council for providing the funds used to acquire radiocarbon dates and chemical analyses of soil from the Patton site. 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

Abstract ...... 3

Acknowledgments...... 4

List of Tables ...... 7

List of Figures ...... 8

Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 10

Chapter 2: Environmental Setting and Land use ...... 12

Chapter 3: Methods and Excavations ...... 16

A. Surface Survey and Analysis ...... 16

B. Magnetic Gradient Survey ...... 18

C. Test Pits and Excavations ...... 19

Chapter 4: Chronology ...... 26

Chapter 5: Features ...... 28

A. Post Features (n = 46): ...... 30

B. Thermal Features (n = 3): ...... 34

1. Early Woodland Hearth ...... 34

2. Middle Woodland ...... 36

C. Pit Features (n =4): ...... 38

D. Ground Stone Formation (n = 2): ...... 41

Chapter 6: Artifact Analysis ...... 43

A. Lithic Assemblage ...... 43 6

1. Fire-Cracked Rock (FCR) ...... 44

2. Chipped Stone Assemblage ...... 44

3. Ground Stone Artifacts ...... 53

4. Miscellaneous Lithics ...... 56

B. Ceramics ...... 57

C. Daub ...... 60

D. Imported Goods/Exotic Artifacts ...... 63

Chapter 7: Soils Analysis ...... 65

Chapter 8: Discussion ...... 71

Chapter 9: Conclusion...... 75

References ...... 78

Appendix 1: Soil Analysis Data ...... 83

7

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1: Surface Survey Lithic Assemblage...... 16

Table 2: Radiocarbon Dates...... 26

Table 3: Post Features ...... 31

Table 4: Thermal Features ...... 34

Table 5: Pit Features ...... 39

Table 6: Ground Stone Formation Features ...... 41

Table 7: Chipped Stone Collection ...... 45

8

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1: The Hocking River Valley ...... 13

Figure 2: The Patton Site and the Surrounding Landscape...... 15

Figure 3: Patton Site Surface Collection Projectile Points...... 18

Figure 4: Magnetic Gradient Survey ...... 19

Figure 5: Map of All Excavated Units ...... 21

Figure 6: Map of High 1 Excavated Units ...... 22

Figure 7: Map of All Test Units ...... 23

Figure 8: Anomaly 3 South wall profile ...... 24

Figure 9: The First Episode of Construction...... 28

Figure 10: The Second Episode of Construction ...... 29

Figure 11: The Third Episode of Construction ...... 29

Figure 12: Overlapping Posts from the First and Second Episodes of Construction ...... 32

Figure 13: Overlapping Posts from the Third and Second Episods of Construction...... 33

Figure 14: 1: Early Woodland Hearth ...... 35

Figure 15: Feature 4: Middle Woodland External Hearth ...... 37

Figure 16: Feature 32: Middle Woodland Internal House Hearth profile ...... 38

Figure 17: Feature 60: Middle Woodland Refuse Pit ...... 40

Figure 18: Feature 57 and 21: Ground Stone Formation Features ...... 42

Figure 19: Map of Outcrops within Hocking River Drainage...... 48

Figure 20: Patton Site Projectile Points...... 49 9

Figure 21: Sandstone Pendant ...... 55

Figure 22: Patton Site Sherds ...... 58

Figure 23: Patton Site Daub Samples ...... 61

Figure 24: Line of Daub ...... 62

Figure 25: Distribution Map of Phosphorus Levels along Transects ...... 67

Figure 26: Distribution Map of Phosphorus Levels on High Terrace 1 ...... 68

10

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Studies of Ohio Middle Woodland (A.D. 1 – 500) populations, heuristically termed “Hopewell,” have largely focused on earthen centers, ceremonialism and exotic trade networks (Abrams 2009; Buikstra & Charles 1999; Carr 2008; Dancey 1991;

Griffin 1993). Due to this central interest, our understanding of the settlement patterns, spatial organization, and domestic economy of these populations remains limited. The most commonly applied settlement model for this period of is based on

Prufer’s (1997, 1965:137) Ohio Hopewell Settlement model, which argues that “semi- permanent shifting agricultural farmsteads or hamlets” were scattered across the landscape around, but not within, earthwork complexes. Dancey and Pacheco’s (1997:3)

Dispersed Sedentary Community model, a refinement of Prufer’s model, defined hamlets as single- or multiple-households that settled long-term, “cultivat[ing] indigenous domesticated plants, collect[ing] a wide variety of edible plants and nuts, and hunt[ing] extensively.” Degree and duration of occupation at Middle Woodland habitation sites is a point of contention among Ohio Valley Archaeologists (Abrams 2009; Byers 2004;

Cowan 2006; Dancey 1991; Dancey & Pacheco 1997; Lepper & Yerkes 1997; Murphy

1989; Pacheco 1997; Pacheco & Dancey 2007; Prufer 1965, 1967, 1997; Yerkes 2006).

Poor site preservation, modern disturbance, and difficulty in locating these domestic sites have further complicated this debate. At the core of this debate is the question of whether

Middle Woodland populations were mobile or sedentary communities. In other words, were these populations occupying sites for a season, year-round, for multiple years at a time, or somewhere in between? 11

The Patton site, located within the Hocking Valley in southeastern Ohio, provides evidence for sedentism during the Middle . Excavation uncovered a rectilinear and daub house surrounded by domestic activity areas, evidence of burning and rebuilding, preserved refuse and storage pits, and an artifact assemblage indicative of a continuous long-term, or sedentary, site occupation (Cowan 2006; Dancey

1991; Kozarek 1997; Lepper & Yerkes 2006; Logan & Hill 2000; Yerkes 2006). The house and associated features formed a distinct spatial layout that was re-used throughout all three episodes of construction, marked by overlapping and continuously used features.

This thesis describes the Patton site data in detail, concluding that a significant degree of sedentism was established by the Middle Woodland period.

12

CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND LAND USE

The Patton site is located along Snow Fork Creek, a tributary of nearby Monday

Creek, within the southern unglaciated portion of the Hocking Valley drainage system of southeastern Ohio (Figure 1). The landscape and raw resources available at this site made it an optimal location for year-round and continuous occupation, termed sedentism.

A southern high stream terrace, High Terrace 1, and a northern high stream terrace, High

Terrace 2, were divided by an old river bed, approximately 70 m wide, and a seasonal creek (Figure 2). A wetland, around 100 m northeast of High Terrace 1, feeds a seasonal creek and provided an on-site resource for ceramics and

(Patton et al. 2009). Wetlands were a valuable resource within any river valley as a reliable source of flora and fauna; therefore, sites with wetlands were often chosen for long-term habitation (Milner 2004).

Another highly valued location for habitation and a limited resource within the

Hocking Valley, only about 5% of the landscape, were stream terraces (Abrams & Freter

2005). Occupation of a high terrace allowed populations access to fresh water resources, such as drinking water and aquatic flora and fauna resources, with a lower risk of flooding. The Patton site stream terraces were surrounded by fertile floodplains and slopes advantageous for gardening or agriculture due to flood waters that saturated and replenished the soil with nutrients. To the west a low stream terrace – a small rise of land in the floodplain – exists between Snow Fork Creek and High Terrace 1, which floods seasonally. Surrounding the stream terraces and floodplains are the Appalachian foothills, which afforded a variety of resources, such as timber, white-tailed deer, several 13 nut species, and small game animals (Abrams & Freter 2005). The landscape/landforms and available resources present at the Patton site provided an ideal location for long-term continuous occupation.

Figure 1: The Hocking River Valley. The Patton site is in Nelsonville, Ohio and located near the confluence of Monday Creek and Snow Fork Creek (Modified from Abrams & Freter 2005).

The Patton site has been minimally disturbed by modern construction and land

use. Three modern structures are present – a house and two barns –although only the

house directly impacts the site. Extensive surveys and excavations were conducted

directly north of the modern house on High Terrace 1 and yielded the highest

concentration of artifacts and features. These units contained a dense fill from the 14 construction of the modern house that yielded prehistoric artifacts. This indicated that the construction of the modern house disturbed part of the original archaeological site, specifically the Middle Woodland component. On the other hand, the construction fill that was added adjacent to the house and spread towards the northern slope of the terrace actually helped preserve and insulate much of the site. The area surrounding the two barns, located along the eastern property line and edge of the wetland, was test-pitted and yielded minimal archaeological evidence. According to Mr. and Mrs. Patton, the current land owners, the site and surrounding lands were never plowed, and prior to their ownership were used as pasture land for cattle. Furthermore, excavation and soil stratigraphy supported the claim that the site was never plowed, a unique depositional situation in southeastern Ohio.

15

Figure 2: The Patton site (black box) and the surrounding landscape include stream terraces, a wetland to the North, floodplain and Snow Fork Creek to the South, and encircled by foothills (upper map). The lower map displays a close up of the Patton site (black box of upper map) and a contour line that defines the high stream terraces (Adapted image from www.athenscountygis.com). 16

CHAPTER 3: METHODS AND EXCAVATIONS

A. Surface Survey and Analysis Prior to excavation at the Patton site, Tracy Formica and Paul Patton (2006) analyzed the surface collection provided by the property owners and their family. These artifacts were used to identify preliminary temporal periods for the site and potential areas of high artifact densities. Of the 674 artifacts that comprised the surface collection,

80.4% (542) were recovered from High Terrace 1 and 8.6% (71) from High Terrace 2.

The remaining surface collection came from locations across the site. The artifact assemblage was predominately lithic (99.3%) comprised of chipped stone (57%), fire cracked rock (FCR 42%), and ground stone artifacts (less than 1%). Historic artifacts comprised the remaining assemblage.

Table 1: Patton site lithic assemblage collected from the surface survey. The table is adapted from Tracy Formica & Paul Patton's 2006 surface collection report.

17

The dominant raw chipped stone material from the surface collection was Upper

Mercer, (92%); a few of the larger samples, primary and secondary flakes, contained cortex. This suggested a close association between the Patton site and an

Upper Mercer quarry, where cores were prepared before transportation to the site. A variety of chipped stone tools were collected from the site, including scrapers, celts, a multifunctional unifacial tool, and several projectile points. The quantity and variety of chipped types and the presence of FCR and ground stone artifacts suggested a prehistoric domestic occupation at the site (Formica & Patton 2006).

Fourteen of the 27 bifacial tools analyzed from the surface collection were identified as diagnostic projectile points or preforms (Formica & Patton 2006; Justice

1995; Railey 1992). The diagnostic artifacts were associated with the Archaic,

Woodland, and Late Prehistoric periods. For example, the surface collection contained

Kirk Corner Notched points diagnostic of the Early Archaic, Raddatz Large Side Notched

Cluster of the Middle Archaic, and Brewerton Corner Notched, Lamoka, and Late

Archaic Stemmed Cluster associated with the Late Archaic. Adena Cache performs were associated with the Early Woodland, Lowe Cluster points with the Middle and early-Late Woodland periods, and Raccoon Notched of the Jack’s Reef Cluster points with the Late Woodland (Justice 1995). Type 5 Fine Triangulars found within the central Valley are indicative of the mid- to late- Late Prehistoric Period, A.D.

1200 – 1600, specifically post-A.D.1400, but those found at another southern Hocking

Valley habitation site, Allen 2 site, were associated with an A.D. 700-1400 occupation

(Railey 1992; Formica & Patton 2006) (Figure 3). 18

Figure 3: Patton site projectile points from surface collection of the Patton I area: (A, B) Kirk Corner Notched, (C) Raddatz (Large Side Notched Cluster), (D) Lamoka, (E, F) Late Archaic Stemmed Cluster, (G, H) Brewerton Corner Notched, (I, J) Adena Cache Blade, (K) Lowe Cluster, (L) Raccoon Notched (Jack’s Reef Cluster), and (M) Railey Type 5/Madison Fine Triangular. Scale is in 2 cm bar increments (Formica & Patton 2006; Photograph by Paul Patton).

B. Magnetic Gradient Survey During the summer of 2006, before excavations began, Jarrod Burks of Ohio

Valley Archaeological Consultants, Inc. conducted a magnetic gradient survey of the

Patton site. Two areas were the focus of the survey. One, located along the eastern

boundary of the property and east of the house, consisted of two 20 x 20 m adjacent

blocks. The second area, located on the northwestern slope of High Terrace 1, consisted

of three 20 x 20 m blocks. The survey yielded the identification of five anomalies or

subsurface areas with a high magnetic signature, which indicated possible prehistoric or 19 historic subsurface cultural features (Figure 4). Burks (2006) determined through the use of an Oakfield soil probe that two of the five anomalies, Anomalies 2 and 5, contained cultural materials. Based on an analysis of magnetic data, size, shape, and soil probe core, Burks (2006) suggested that Anomaly 2 was a thermal feature used for cooking and

Anomaly 5 was possibly an earthen oven.

Figure 4: Magnetic Gradient Survey. The circles indicate magnetic anomalies and filled circles are magnetic anomalies that potentially contained cultural material (Burks 2006). Analyses, interpretations, and map designed by Jarrod Burks.

C. Test Pits and Excavations During the summers of 2006 and 2008, the Patton site was excavated by Ohio

University’s Archaeological Field School under the supervision of Elliot Abrams, Ohio

University’s Department of Sociology and Anthropology, and assisted by his graduate 20 students, Warren Brooks, Tracy Formica, Paul Patton in 2006 and Sarah Weaver in

2008. I also participated in the 2006 Ohio University Archaeological Field School excavation as a field technician. During the 2008 field season, I co-supervised field technicians, identified features and artifacts, photographed the site, etc. In addition to my daily supervisory duties, it was my responsibility to supervise, record, and collect soil samples from across the Patton site for the soil analysis section of my thesis.

The surface collection and magnetic gradient survey provided possible locations of cultural materials and features (Figure 3); both indicated High Stream Terrace 1 as the most probable site center. The rest of the site was systematically tested by the 2006 and

2008 Ohio University Archaeological Field Schools to determine the site’s periphery and other high concentrations of artifacts or activity areas (Figures 5 & 6). All the units were excavated by shovel-shaving, trowel, and ¼ inch screen. Cultural floors, features, in situ artifacts, and profiles were recorded, photographed, and mapped. To understand the site’s degree of preservation, formation processes, and depositional history I collected soil samples from each stratigraphic level across the entire site.

21

Figure 5: All of the units excavated at the Patton site. During the summers of 2006 and 2008, test units were placed, by the OU Archaeological Field Schools, on all three stream terraces, a northern transect between High Terrace 1 & 2, a western transect between High Terrace 1 and Low Terrace, and along the western slope of High Terrace 1. The Early Woodland and Middle Woodland components of this site, on High Terrace 1, was extensively excavated.

Based on the surface survey and the location of Anomaly 5, High Stream Terrace

1 was the primary focus of the 2006 field season. Test units, 1 x 1 m, were placed across the terrace parallel to the northern side of the modern house; these units were eventually expanded to 2 x 2 m units due to high artifact and feature concentration (Figures 5 & 6). 22

Anomaly 5 was identified as a thermal feature, Feature 1, and this area was expanded by placing adjacent 1 x 1 m units (Figure 6).

HOUSE

Figure 6: Excavated units on High Terrace 1 that contained a high concentration of Woodland period artifacts and features.

During the following field season, the summer of 2008, these units were re-dug in

2 x 2 m units to their original depths. New 2 x 2 m units were added adjacent to those,

thus connecting and expanding the area of excavation on High Terrace 1 (Figure 6). As

more features and artifacts were found, the excavated area was widened. The area near

the modern house was expanded using 2 x 1 m units. When defining feature boundaries

1 x 1 m and 2 x 2 m units were excavated and a 2 m x 50 cm unit was dug from the

southeastern edge of the excavated area to observe soil stratigraphy and define the extent

of the site’s center (Figure 6). The highest concentration of artifacts and features located 23 at the Patton site were excavated from High Terrace 1 in an area of around 6 m (grid-

North to grid-South) by 16 m (grid-East to grid-West) (Figure 6).

Figure 7: Test units were placed along High Terrace 2 (thick black line box), a northern transect from High Terrace 1 to High Terrace 2 (light-gray shaded box), Low Terrace (dash-lined box), the western slope (dark-gray shaded box), and behind the modern house on High Terrace 1 (medium- gray shaded box). To determine the extent of the Patton site and to identify any other feature/artifact

concentrations, test units were placed across the landscape. Ten 1 m x 50 cm units were

dug along the western slope of High Terrace 1 (Figure 7 – dark-gray box), 15 – 50 cm x

50 cm test units were placed on High Terrace 1, behind the modern house (Figure 7 –

medium-gray box), 12 – 50 cm x 50 cm units on High Terrace 2 (Figure 7 – thick black 24 line box), and eight – 1 x 1 m units on the Low Terrace (Figure 7 – dashed-line box).

None of these test units yielded a significant amount of prehistoric artifacts/features and therefore the units were not expanded and no new units were added.

The anomalies from the magnetic gradient survey were also tested. Anomaly 1, near the gravel driveway and property fence line, contained no cultural materials and therefore was not investigated further. Anomaly 2, on the northern slope of High Terrace

1, was identified as a historic brick-making feature or kiln. On the western slope of High

Terrace 1, Anomalies 3 and 4 were excavated in 1 m x 50 cm units. They contained cultural materials, including a small amount of FCR and chipped stone debitage, a layer of burnt earth and daub, and a thick level below that showed evidence of repeated episodes of burning (Figure 8).

Figure 8: Anomaly 3 South wall profile. Overlapping and numerous charcoal lenses provided evidence of repeated burning and possibly slash and burn gardening on western slope of High Terrace 1.

25

Two transects of 1 m x 50 cm units were excavated in order to test the extent of the site through the presence of cultural materials and/or the use of soil analyses. The northern transect (Figure 7 – light-gray box), which started at the northern edge of High

Terrace 1 and terminated on the southern edge of High Terrace 2, consisted of eight units at 10 meter intervals. The second transect included Anomaly 3, on the western slope of

High Terrace 1, and consisted of four units placed at changes in landscape, such as the base of the slope, on the Low Terrace, and along Snow Fork Creek. Each of these units was excavated by the field crews down to clay or the water table, screened for cultural materials. Subsequently, I photographed, drew, and collected soil samples from a profile wall of each of these units and ones located at the site core on High Terrace 1. These soils samples were sent to CLC labs for pH, Potassium (K), Phosphorus (P), Calcium

(Ca), and Magnesium (Mg) analyses. The results would be used to indicate the state of site preservation, site activity areas, and/or extent of landscape usage by prehistoric occupying peoples.

The Patton site was extensively and systematically surveyed, test-pitted, and excavated. One-hundred and twenty-four units were excavated: 58 – 1 x 1 meter, 29 – 1 x .50 meter, 16 - 50 x 50 centimeter, 13 – 2 x 2 meter, 6 – 1 x 2 meter, and 1 – 2 x .50 meter. A total of 58.15 cubic meters of soil was excavated across the entire site; the majority of that soil, 88% (n = 51.18 cubic meters), was excavated from High Terrace 1.

Soil samples collected from stratigraphic profiles, cultural floors, and features are currently undergoing analysis in the Department of Anthropology’s Paleoethnobotanical

Laboratory at the Ohio State University. 26

CHAPTER 4: CHRONOLOGY

Three temporal components of occupation at the Patton site were determined through radiometric and relative dating techniques: Early Woodland (1500 B.C –A.D. 1),

Middle Woodland (A.D. 1 – 500), and Late Prehistoric (A.D. 700 – 1450)/Protohistoric

(A.D. 1450-1600) periods (Abrams et al. 2005). Elliot Abrams and I were aided in the identification of different cultural levels in the field due to intact soil stratigraphy. In the lab, I identified diagnostic artifacts and used their associated dates along with the intact site stratigraphy to develop a relative chronology for the Patton site. Charcoal samples were collected from features at the site and analyzed by Beta Analytic Lab for radiocarbon dates. The relative dates and radiocarbon dates agreed and defined three distinct temporal periods of occupation (Table 2).

Table 2: Radiocarbon dates produced from four different features located on the main high stream terrace at the Patton site.

The Early Woodland component of the Patton site was confirmed by a charcoal sample obtained from Feature 1 dated to approximately to 1130 B.C (Beta Analytic Lab number 218736). Thick-type ceramics, associated with the Hocking Valley’s Early

Woodland period, were excavated from Feature 1 and the surrounding cultural floor 27

(Patton et al. 2009). Furthermore, projectile points collected from the surface survey and the site excavation were diagnostic of the Early Woodland period.

The Middle Woodland component of the Patton site yielded the highest concentration of artifacts and features. Two hearths, Feature 4 and 32, produced radiocarbon dates from this temporal period. Plain-type pottery sherds, associated predominately with the Middle Woodland and Late Woodland periods in the Hocking

Valley, were found Feature 4, Feature 60, and on the cultural floor of a Middle Woodland house (Patton et al. 2009). All of the projectile points collected during the excavations of the Patton site were associated with this time period.

A Late Prehistoric/Protohistoric component included one post, Feature 39, which intruded into the Middle Woodland component. A radiocarbon date of A.D. 1460 (Beta

Analytic Lab number 252232) was obtained from a charred piece of wood collected from

Feature 39. Excavation of a thermal feature from an adjacent unit at the same cultural level as Feature 39 yielded heavy disturbance and intrusion by subsequent occupation.

Two historic features excavated at the Patton site were a kiln (Historic Feature 12) located on the northern slope of High Terrace 1 and a house (Historic Feature 1) on the

Low Terrace. Artifacts recovered included metal objects, historic pottery and bricks, and animal bones. A focus on prehistoric occupation and habitation at the Patton site and shortage of time prevented a full excavation of the historic structure. 28

CHAPTER 5: FEATURES

A total of fifty-four features were excavated from the prehistoric components of the Patton site. These features were categorized into four different types: post, pit, thermal feature, and ground stone formation. Three temporal components were present at the site, but the majority of features, 91% (n = 49), were associated with the Middle

Woodland period house structures. The house (Structure 1) and its associated features, termed the Middle Woodland houselot. The same spatial layout was used throughout three episodes of construction and yielded three overlapping structures (Structure 1A, 1B, and 1C). The spatial layout of the houselot was divided into functional activity areas/zones: food preparation and cooking, external food storage, refuse disposal, and architecture/house (Dancey 1991; see Figures 9-11 below).

Figure 9: The Early Woodland Hearth, Feature 1, & associated posts, Features 3 & 11, occupy the northwestern slope edge on High Terrace 1 (thick black line). The first episode of construction and occupation of the Middle Woodland Houselot that contains two hearths, Features 4 & 32, a refuse pit, Feature 60, and various post features (dash-line). 29

Figure 10: The second episode of construction and occupation of the Middle Woodland Houselot (dash-line) was located on the High Terrace 1. The associated features were two hearths (Feature 4 & 32), a storage pit (Feature 40), refuse pit (Feature 60), and various post features.

Figure 11: The third episode of construction and occupation of the Middle Woodland Houselot (dash-line). The two hearths (Features 4 & 32), and storage pit (Feature 40) occurred at all three levels. The post features present at this level clearly outline a rectilinear house structure (Structure 1 - black box outline and gray fill) with internal construction running parallel to the northern and western walls of the house. Two more pit features and two ground stone formation features associated with the houselot were also added.

30

A. Post Features (n = 46): Of the four different feature types, posts represented the majority during all three temporal periods: two Early Woodland posts, 42 Middle Woodland posts, and one Late

Prehistoric post (Table 3). Two posts assigned to the Early Woodland period, Features 3 and 11, were located around 1.5 m on either side (grid-East and grid-West) of the Early

Woodland hearth, Feature 1, and functioned as either support for a spit or drying rack

(Figure 9). The Late Prehistoric post, Feature 39, intruded into the western end of the

Middle Woodland locus (Figure 11). The posts associated with the Middle Woodland component were used to reconstruct house architecture and surrounding activity areas for this houselot. Several of these posts overlapped with little or no soil separation, indicating three episodes of rebuilding and a re-use of a specific spatial layout of the site

(Figure 9-11). 31

Table 3: Patton site post features.

32

The first episode of construction, or the lowest level of the Middle Woodland houselot, yielded the fewest post features (n = 10) due to subsequent destruction and rebuilding (Figure 9). Half of the posts were associated with Structure 1C and the others with the food preparation and cooking activity area. One post, Feature 47, was located directly under Feature 46 in the food preparation area (Figure 12).

Figure 12: Overlapping posts from the first and second episodes of construction located in the food preparation area.

Eighteen posts were recorded from the second episode of construction (Figure

10). Eleven of which were directly associated with Structure 1B. Although a clear

outline of this structure was not evident, several of the associated posts were directly

under posts from the above Structure 1A, which was clearly outlined. For example,

Feature 34 of Structure 1B was located below Feature 31 of Structure 1A, both being 33 large corner posts. Medium-sized internal posts, Features 29 and 30, (Figure 13) and small-size internal posts, Features 23 and 24, overlapped each other as well. The remaining seven small posts from the second episode of construction are interpreted as support posts for drying racks, spits, or windbreaks in the food preparation and cooking activity area.

Figure 13: An example of posts overlapping from the third episode of construction, Structure 1C, and the second episode of construction, Structure 1B. Feature 29 and 30 were posts located internally and parallel to the wall at the back of the house.

The third episode of construction and occupation contained the most post features

(n=15) and provided the most intact outline of a house, Structure 1A (Figure 11). The

largest and deepest posts (n = 5) were located at corners or along walls as support posts

for the house structure, and medium sized posts (n = 6) ran parallel to the north and back

wall, which most likely formed internal storage areas or benches (Figure 11). Smaller

posts (n = 4) were located throughout the site, internal and external of the house structure. 34

B. Thermal Features (n = 3): Three thermal features were analyzed from the Patton site. One was a large oval

Early Woodland hearth and two were smaller circular Middle Woodland hearths (Table

4). These features were intact and undisturbed when excavated and represented two temporal periods in which prehistoric communities occupied the Patton site. The Middle

Woodland hearths also provided evidence of three continuous episodes of occupation during this period at the site (Figures 9-11). These three hearth features and adjacent surfaces provided an abundance of cultural material, including diagnostic artifacts, such as projectile points and ceramics, and a large quantity of the lithic assemblage.

Table 4: Patton site thermal features.

1. Early Woodland Hearth

The Early Woodland hearth (Feature 1), first identified by the magnetic gradient

survey, was located on the northwest slope edge of the main high terrace and measured

around 2.4 m x 1.8 m x 40 cm (Table 4; Figures 4 & 9). This feature was constructed of

two platforms of fire-cracked rocks (FCR) with large chunks of charred wood, in some

case whole branches, between the two platforms (Figure 14). The top platform of FCR 35 was constructed with open areas, no rocks, most likely providing access to open flames for cooking.

Figure 14: Feature One. Plain View of southern half (upper left & upper right) and profiles of southwestern portion (lower left & lower right). Photograph by Paul Patton.

A hearth with a similar two-platform construction was observed at the County

Home site (33AT40), also in the Hocking Valley, located near the confluence of the

Hocking River and Sunday Creek. County Home’s Feature 47, also an Early Woodland thermal feature (cal. intercept B.C. 1338), contained a shelf on one side constructed of two FCR platforms with lenses of charred tree branches in between (Figure 14). The function of this design was to evenly distribute heat across the entire surface of the hearth

(Heyman et al. 2005:76). 36

Charcoal samples from Feature 1 yielded a radiometric date of 1130 B.C. (Beta

Analytic Lab number 218736; Table 2 & 4). This feature and the surrounding units contained significant cultural material; specifically, five Thick-type pottery sherds diagnostic of the Early Woodland period were collected. Feature 1 was only three to four centimeters below ground surface and had the Patton site ever been plowed it would have been completely destroyed. No other features from this temporal period were located during the two seasons of excavation at the Patton site, most likely due to later occupations of the site disturbing and/or cannibalizing existing features and cultural materials.

2. Middle Woodland Hearths

Two Middle Woodland hearths, Feature 4 and Feature 32, were located on High

Terrace 1 of the Patton site (Table 4). Both of these intact and undisturbed hearths indicated three continuous episodes of site construction and occupation during the Middle

Woodland (Figure 9-11). Diagnostic pottery and projectile points corroborated the two radiometric dates obtained from charcoal samples taken from each hearth, placing their construction during the Middle Woodland. These hearths consisted of three overlapping

FCR platforms with charcoal and ashy soil below them. The absence of culturally sterile soil between these levels and the re-use of the exact same spatial layout during construction indicated continuous use of the site.

Feature 4, located approximately 2 m outside the front entrance of Structure 1, was an integral part of the houselot food preparation area. It was a circular hearth 37 measuring 71 cm x 62 cm and 48 cm deep (Figure 15). Feature 4 yielded burnt nutshell, bone fragments, hematite, chipped stone debitage, a Robbins and point fragment, and ten Middle Woodland pottery sherds.

Figure 15: Two photographs of the excavation and bisecting of feature 4, a hearth, located in the food preparation area of the Middle Woodland houselot (Photograph by Paul Patton).

The second Middle Woodland hearth, Feature 32, was circular and located within

Structure 1 during all three episodes of construction. It measured a maximum of 60 cm x

60 cm at the bottom platform level, 40 cm x 40 cm at the top and middle platform levels,

and was 44 cm deep (Figure 16). Burnt nutshell, chipped stone debitage, ground stones,

and hematite artifacts were recovered from this feature. This hearth was the structure’s

central heating and indoor cooking feature. 38

Figure 16: Feature 32 profile. F.32C is represented by level I, which contains baked earth, charcoal, and FCR, and level II, ashy soil. F. 32B is represented by level III and F. 32A by level IV.

C. Pit Features (n =4): Within the Patton site’s houselot on High Terrace 1, four pit features were defined

by a curvilinear soil distinction in plan view, conical or tapered shaped in profile, and the

presence of prehistoric cultural materials (Table 5) (Abrams et al. 2005:131). Pit

Features 40 and 54 functioned as storage pits based on the size and depth of these

features and the small amount of artifacts present at the time of excavation (Figure 10 &

11). The largest pit feature, Feature 60, was identified as a refuse pit containing a large

number of artifacts, many of which were discovered in pockets indicative of discrete discard events (Figure 9, 10, & 17). Feature 49, although identified as a pit feature based 39 on the above criteria, could not be categorized as a specific functional type due to its shallow depth and the presence of few artifacts (Figure 11).

Table 5: Patton site pit features.

The refuse pit, Feature 60, was a significant contribution to the Patton site due to

the high density of artifacts, the implications of sedentism attributed to this type of refuse

disposal, and its utilization during two of the three episodes of construction (Figure 9, 10,

& 17). Feature 60 contained 37% (n =1192) and 37% (1637 grams) of all chipped stone

debitage collected from the site, two projectile points and one preform (20%), two (13%)

expedient tools, and 39% (n=11) and 51% (39.9 grams) of the total ceramic samples. The

levels above and surrounding Feature 60 provided 10% (n=321) and 7% (322.4 grams) of

total chipped stone debitage, one (7%) projectile point, and three (19%) informal tools.

Therefore, Feature 60 and the surrounding area contained 47% (n=1532) and 44%

(2201.3 grams) of all chipped stone debitage, formal and informal tools, and ceramic

artifacts collected at the entire site. Despite the considerable amount of data collected

from Feature 60, more was available but only approximately one third of the feature was 40 screened and artifacts recorded. The feature was discovered a day and a half before the conclusion of the 2008 field season; consequently, due to time constraints and the amount of micro-debitage present, only a fraction of the soil was sorted. The remainder of

Feature 60, however, was bagged as soil samples and sent to the Department of

Anthropology’s Paleoethnobotanical Laboratory at Ohio State University for future flotation and analysis.

Figure 17: Feature 60. Fully excavated feature (left) and a pocket of ceramics present, black box, in a profile wall (right).

The two storage pits, Features 40 and 54, represented a separate activity zone

located along the northwestern side of the structure within the Middle Woodland

houselot. Feature 40, the larger of the two, was utilized during the second and third

episodes of construction and occupation, and Feature 54 during the third episode (Figure

10 & 11). Both of these pits were emptied before the site was abandoned and in-filled

with ash, burnt earth, and burnt daub during the final episode of burning. The function of

storage pits as a means to collect and preserve resources for periods or seasons of low 41 food productivity or shortages is indicative of extended and continuous occupation at the

Patton site (Gremillion 2004).

D. Ground Stone Formation (n = 2): Features 21 and 57, ground stone formations, were used during the last, or third, episode of occupation (Table 6; Figure 11). These features were constructed of stacked ground stone artifacts that created a platform above the ground surface (Figure 18). No charred material or evidence of burning was present within the features, so they did not serve a cooking function. Whether the ground stone artifacts were stored as stacked piles or utilized as a platform was unclear. The ground stones showed evidence of pitting, grinding, battering, and shaping, and functioned as tools for food processing and tool manufacture. Feature 57 was located in the food preparation and cooking activity areas of the Middle Woodland houselot. The second and largest ground stone formation,

Feature 21, was located behind the house near the storage pits and probably represented another food processing area.

Table 6: Patton site ground stone formation features.

42

Figure 18: Ground stone Formation Features. Feature 57 (left) located in the food preparation activity zone of houselot, near the external hearth, Feature 4, and Feature 21 (right) located at the back of the house structure.

43

CHAPTER 6: ARTIFACT ANALYSIS

Excavations of the Patton site during the summers of 2006 and 2008 yielded an array of archaeological artifacts. These artifacts provide evidence for the site’s temporal occupation, sedentism, resource material acquisition and manufacture, and spatial layout.

All artifacts collected were identified, weighed, and recorded in the lab. A total of 3,349 artifacts with a ratio of 65.44 artifacts per cubic meter of soil were collected from the

Patton site. There was a large lithic assemblage (98%) that included chipped stone artifacts, ground stone artifacts, and fire-cracked rock (FCR). A small collection of Early

Woodland and Middle Woodland ceramic artifacts were identified and recorded. Some burnt nutshell was recovered from the three hearths and given to the Department of

Anthropology’s Paleoethnobotanical Lab at Ohio State University for identification. A few burnt bone fragments were also included.

A. Lithic Assemblage The most abundant artifact type was the lithic assemblage, specifically chipped stone artifacts, which included diagnostic projectile points, utilized flakes, and other bi- products of tool manufacture. Fire-cracked rock was predominately recovered in situ from the three thermal features on High Terrace 1. Projectile points provided a relative chronology that supported the Patton site’s radiometric dates and ceramic seriation.

Ground stone artifacts were also recorded from across the site, on cultural floors, and the two ground stone formations.

44

1. Fire-Cracked Rock (FCR)

The majority of fire-cracked rock was collected from the large oval-shaped Early

Woodland hearth, Feature 1, constructed of two FCR platforms, and the two Middle

Woodland hearths, Feature 4 and 32, which contained three platforms, each corresponding with rebuilding of Structure 1 and the houselot. Smaller pieces of FCR were used as chinking for posts, such as in Features 6 and 20. The remaining FCR was relatively evenly dispersed across the site, most likely due to the site’s rebuilding episodes and ultimate abandonment. Beyond the two above-mentioned functions, the

FCR assemblage was not utilized for any analysis or interpretation of the Patton site or its prehistoric populations. Around one-fourth of the FCR assemblage was counted and weighed. These data were then extrapolated to represent the entire assemblage; therefore, approximately 16,424 pieces of FCR, weighing 141.5 kg, were collected from the Patton site.

2. Chipped Stone Assemblage

A total of 3228 chipped stone artifacts, weighing 4.95 kg, were collected, which yielded a ratio of about 55.5 chipped stone artifacts present per cubic meter of soil. Each artifact was weighed and identified for raw material and type of artifact. The entire chipped stone assemblage was categorized into chert type: Brush Creek, Upper Mercer,

Vanport, Zaleski, and indeterminate/other. The chipped stone debitage (excluding tools) was classified using the following sequence: raw nodule, core, decortification flake, primary flake, secondary flake, bifacial thinning flake, 45 tertiary/retouch flake, shatter or indeterminate/other (Table 7). A large piece of chert with its cortex showing signs of mechanical or chemical weathering was defined as a raw nodule. The core classification included prepared, informal, exhausted, unidirectional, and multidirectional cores. Decortification flakes contained 50% or more cortex on the dorsal side of the flake and primary flakes contained less than 50%. Secondary flakes contained no cortex. Bifacial thinning flakes were identified by their curved longitudinal cross section and were the byproduct of trimming or thinning tools. Tertiary and retouch flakes were combined, and represented the smaller flakes used to shape tools, specifically the edges. Shatter was blocky chunks of chert (Andrefsky 2005). The chipped stone tools were categorized as bifacial projectile points and preforms, unifacial and bifacial and spokeshaves, and utilized flakes (Table 8 & 9).

Table 7: Patton site chipped stone collection.

Chipped Stone Chert Types and Debitage

The dominant chert indentified at the Patton site was Upper Mercer at 88%

(n=2861). It was the closest outcrop of chert, located along Kitchen Run, a tributary of 46

Monday Creek, approximately 12 to 13 km northwest of the Monday Creek and Snow

Fork Creek confluence where the Patton site is located (Figure 19). The majority of chipped stone tools, eight (53%) formal and 16 (94%) informal, were also manufactured from Upper Mercer (Tables 7 & 8). Aside from one primary flake (Vanport) and two secondary flakes (Zaleski and indeterminate), all of the initial lithic reduction sequence debitage was Upper Mercer chert. The majority, 87% (n=76), of the thinning flakes, indicative of tool manufacture, were also of this chert. The ratio of chipped stone debitage to formal tools was 211.87:1 and the ratio of secondary flakes to formal tools was 35:1. Therefore, these data indicate that Upper Mercer tools were manufactured on site. The rest of the tools, if not made on-site, were possibly imported from Taber Well

(33HO611), located at the confluence of Little Monday Creek and Monday Creek, near

Kitchen Run. This may be the closest Upper Mercer outcrop to the Patton site. Taber

Well, a Middle Woodland habitation, specialized in chipped stone tool production and trade, as evidence by its high density (885.1 artifacts/square meter) of lithic debitage and a high ratio (525:1) of debitage to bifacial tool (Peoples et al. 2008).

The second most abundant chert type collected was Brush Creek, representing 7%

(n=219) of the total chipped stone assemblage. The significance of the Brush Creek debitage is the presence of secondary and bifacial thinning flakes, which indicate the possible importing of prepared cores to the site for tool manufacture (Table 7). Only three Brush Creek tools, two projectile points and one utilized flake, were excavated from the site. The closest Brush Creek outcrop lies along Margret Creek, approximately 16 km southwest of the Patton site at its confluence with the Hocking River (Figure 19). 47

Vanport and Zaleski represented the smallest amount of chert types from the Patton site, most likely due to each outcrop’s distance matched against the abundance of Upper Mercer chert. Vanport chert comprised 4% (n=121) of the chipped stone assemblage. The majority were tertiary flakes and shatter, 91% (n=104), and two projectile points (Table 7 & 8). The closest Vanport chert outcrops along northern

Monday Creek, around 11 km northwest of the site. Only six pieces (<1%) of Zaleski chert were found at the site: one secondary flake, three shatter, and two projectile points

(Tables 7 & 8). The low quantity of Zaleski chert was a function of distance, with the nearest outcrop distance being 27 to 32 km southwest of the site (Figure 19). The remaining 21 chipped stone artifacts (<1%) were categorized as indeterminate or other

(Table 7). All of the chert used at the Patton site was located within the Hocking Valley; however, Upper Mercer was predominate due to its close proximity and availability, which is a marker of a sedentary community (Cowan 2006). 48

Figure 19: Hocking River Drainage with closest approximate locations of chert outcroppings to the Patton site. Based on maps and data gathered from Formica et al. 2009, Murphy 1989, Pecora & Burks 2005, and Peoples et al. 2008.

Formal Tools

Fifteen formal tools (<1% of total chipped stone assemblage), weighing 163.3 g

(1.3%), were excavated in situ from the Patton site (Table 8; Figure 20): 10 projectile points, two preforms, and three unidentified projectile points. The raw material, weight, thickness, maximum length, and various maximum widths were recorded from each formal chipped stone tool, and then cataloged using Justice’s (1987) point type classifications and associated dates (Table 8). Three of the tools were not identified due to heavy reworking or severe breakage of the projectile points. Evidence of reworking was apparent throughout the formal tool collection. Of the 15 formal tools, two were 49 heavily re-worked points and eight were partially broken. These heavily used and re- worked bifacial tools in addition to a high ratio of informal tools and an absence of

“Hopewell bladelets” were suggestive of long-term continuous occupation of this site

(Cowan 2006; Lepper & Yerkes 1997).

Figure 20: Patton Site Projectile Points: A.) Baker’s Creek – Lowe Cluster (Vanport), B.) Robbins – Early Woodland Stemmed Cluster (Upper Mercer), C.) Robbins – Early Woodland Stemmed Cluster (Upper Mercer), D.) Robbins – Early Woodland Stemmed Cluster (Vanport), E.) Synder Cluster (Brush Creek). See Table 8.

Of the Patton site’s projectile points, a Robbins – Early Woodland Stemmed

Cluster point and another point of either the same classification or Adena type, both

linked with late-Early Woodland to Middle Woodland periods, were found in Feature 4,

the external hearth present throughout all three episode of Middle Woodland houselot

construction and occupation. Three points were recovered from Feature 60, a refuse pit

located at the bottom two levels of the Middle Woodland houselot: a preform, Snyder 50

Cluster point, late-Early Woodland to Middle Woodland periods, and one unidentified point. Of the remaining three point types found, the Baker’s Creek – Lowe Cluster and

Chesser Notched – Lowe Cluster points were chronologically Middle Woodland period points, and the Snyder Cluster Corner Notched was late-Early Woodland to Middle

Woodland period. Therefore, the dates associated with all 10 typed projectile points from the Patton site were attributed to a period ranging from the transitional late-Early

Woodland to the end of the Middle Woodland period (Table 8).

51

Table 8: Patton Site Formal Tools

52

Informal Tools

The informal tools were analyzed for raw material, weighed, and classified as

utilized flakes, bifacial tools, or unifacial tools. Seventeen informal tools weighed 387 g;

16 were Upper Mercer and one was Brush Creek (Table 9). There were 10 unifacial

scrapers, two unifacial scraper/spokeshaves, two spokeshaves, one utilized

flake/spokeshave, one utilized flake, and one bifacial scraper. Of these tools, two unifacial scrapers were recovered from Feature 60, the Middle Woodland houselot refuse pit. The utilization of a greater number of unifacial, expedient, and multipurpose tools at the Patton site relative to bifacial tools is another marker of sedentism during the Middle

Woodland period (Cowan 2006).

Table 9: Patton Site Informal Tools

53

3. Ground Stone Artifacts

Ground stone artifacts were defined as any stone purposefully ground, pecked, or battered and were classified as an abrader, battered stone, , pestle, pitted stone, smoothing stone, miscellaneous, and unidentified (Table 10). Abraders were defined as tabular or irregular-shaped rocks with one or more facet and/or used to grind and shape bone, wood, or stone tools. Battered stones were identified as stones with rough surfaces that were repeatedly struck, such as hammer stones. Grinding slabs were large rocks with flat or slightly concaved and gritty surfaces that were used to process botanicals and or shape bone, wood, or other ground stone tools.

Pestles were finely ground stones with a convex facet used for grinding or crushing botanical and pigments. Pitted stones showed evidence of one or more circular-shaped depressions and heavily batter and pecked surfaces. Smoothing stones were usually small and finely ground rocks, most commonly associated with the burnishing and smoothing of pottery (Turnbow 1992). The miscellaneous category included specialized ground stone artifacts and unidentified artifacts that were fragmented or exhibited unusual wear patterns and shapes.

54

Table 10: Patton Site Ground Stone Assemblage

In total, 93 ground stone artifacts weighing 17.68 kg were collected and analyzed from the Patton site (Table 10). The ground stones artifacts were minimally cleaned during analysis to protect any present organic material for future phytolith and starch residue analyses. One of the grinding slabs from the food processing/cooking activity area (Unit 514) had a depression containing a red discoloration/substance from processing hematite or red ochre . Several of the artifacts were multi-purposed; four of the pitted stone artifacts exhibited qualities of a or evidence of notching and grooves. Also, the pestle contained six large depressions or pits, one on each facet. Three ground stone artifacts were unique to the assemblage: an engraved stone (pendant), a spherical ball, and a whittling stone. The sandstone pendant, measuring 86.13mm x 43.56mm x 12.51mm, was shaped through grinding and abrading, 55 and engraved with an oval and lines. Located on the cultural floor of Structure 1A, in the last constructed Middle Woodland houselot, the pendant was broken on the back and showed evidence of fire (pink coloration and burning), most likely from site abandonment and burning. A spherical sandstone ball, measuring 33.08 mm x 38.18mm x 39.43mm, was collected from Feature 32, the internal hearth, and its function unknown.

One of the ground stone artifacts contained numerous small and very deep pits, which looked to be the result of whittling; therefore, the artifact was classified as a whittling stone. The rest of the assemblage, around 50%, was classified as unidentified due to the informal and opportunistic use of most ground stone artifacts for a multitude of different functions and the fragmentation of several artifacts.

Figure 21: Sandstone pendant.

The ground stone assemblage at the Patton site contained tools that were large and

small, fragmented and whole, and expedient and modified for a multitude of different 56 functions. Evidence of long-term continuous occupation at the Patton site is supported by the presence of the large ground stone assemblage and the presence of large, heavy, and modified ground stone tools. In contrast, the ground stone assemblages of mobile communities are characterized by small and fragmented tools due to the significant cost of modification, maintenance, and transportations of ground stone tools (Gremillion

2004).

4. Miscellaneous Lithics

Nine unworked hematite nodules weighing 47.3 g were recovered from all three levels of the Patton site’s Middle Woodland houselot. Hematite was commonly used as a raw material for tool manufacture, such as a hematite from the Walker site

(33AT960), and as a red pigment (Abrams & DeAloia 2005; Murphy 1989; Rice 1987).

When crushed or ground hematite, high in iron, was mixed with clay it created reddish to orange-tinted ceramics or slips that functioned to reduce the permeability of ceramic vessels (Fagan 2005; Murphy 1989; Rice 1987). Hematite was widely available throughout the eastern Hocking Valley; an outcrop of hematite is located east of the town of Athens. It was also one of the few export goods that originated from this Valley.

When exposed to fire, hematite brightens in color and the ore reduces to powdery ochre (Murphy 1989). Thirty-six pieces of ochre (245.6 g) were collected from the site.

All of the ochre was found on or surrounding High Terrace 1. The Middle Woodland houselot held the majority - 67% (n =24) and 93% (229.4 grams), between the houselot and Early Woodland components - 1 piece (4.2 g), the northern slope – 1 (6.8 g), and the 57 western slope - 10 (5.2 grams). Three different colors were collected: 21 – yellow ochre,

14 – red ochre, and 1 – orange ochre. Ochre was often used in Adena and Hopewell burials; red and sometimes yellow ochre powder was sprinkled across some burials or ochre paint was brushed across the corpse or bones (Fagan 2005). At Riffle Run Mound, an Early Woodland ridgetop mound in the Hocking Valley, an Upper Mercer Robbins point covered in yellow ochre and a Ridge Robbins point covered in red ochre were recovered from Burial 4 (Murphy 1989). Ochre and hematite, locally available resources at the Patton site, had both functional and ceremonial uses.

B. Ceramics Twenty-eight pottery sherds were collected from the Patton site (Table 11).

These sherds (and most pottery recovered within the Hocking Valley) were heavily fragmented and degraded; therefore, a sherd refers to any piece of pottery, regardless of size. Each pottery sample was analyzed and characteristics recorded: weight, dimensions, thickness, exterior and interior color, surface decoration, and temper. Using these data, the samples were classified into two pottery types: Thick and Plain (Figure 21;

Table 11). 58

Figure 22: Patton Site Pottery Sherds: A.) Thick rim sherd, B.) Thick lug-handle, C.) Thick body sherd, D.) Plain rim sherd, and E.-G.) Plain body sherds. See Table 11.

Thick type pottery, associated with the Early Woodland period, was defined as

“…cruder and coarser in texture, beyond 10 mm in thickness, grit tempered, and lacking any surface decoration except the occasional -impression that suggests a mold was used in production” (Patton et al. 2009:59). Five Thick ceramic sherds weighing 16 grams were excavated from units in and surrounding Feature 1, an Early Woodland hearth with a radiometric date of 1130 B.C. They were classified as one rim-sherd, one lug-handle, and three basal-sherds. All of these sherds were dark gray to black in color 59 due to the use of high organic content or waterlogged clay (Rice 1987) (Figure 21; Table

11).

Plain type pottery, manufactured from the Early Woodland to the Late Prehistoric periods, is finer quality, around 5 – 10 mm thick, with no exterior decoration, sometimes interior slips, and various tempers (Patton et al. 2009). An inventory of Plain pottery sherds yielded one rim-sherd and one basal-sherd (based on an above average thickness of 11.58); the remaining 22 were body-sherds (Table 11). All of these sherds were grog- tempered, “which limits shrinkage, reduces drying time, and eliminates cracking” (Rice

1987:75). The use of slips on vessels served to reduce permeability; two sherds showed evidence of interior slips, a pink to pinkish-orange coloration. Nine sherds were pink to pinkish-orange on the exterior, interior, and in cross section indicative of an iron additive, such as hematite, to the clay and possibly the presence of slips as well (Rice 1987). In total, 23 Plain sherds (62.1 g) were collected from the Middle Woodland houselot: 10 sherds (20.3 g) from Feature 4, the external hearth dated to A.D. 120, 11 sherds (39.9 g) from Feature 60, the refuse pit where they were dumped in a pocket, and one sherd (1 g) from unit 20, possible chinking from the several posts that were uncovered in that area.

All of the pottery was produced from a local on-site clay resource: the wetland.

Using Energy Dispersive X-ray (EDX), which identifies specific chemical elements, three Thick sherds, two Plain sherds, and a core-sample from the wetland all had almost identical results (Patton et al. 2009:60-61). 60

Table 11: Patton Site Ceramic Artifacts

C. Daub Daub, “grass-impressed earth used to the walls of grass-covered and pole supported (wattle and daub) structures,” (Logan & Hill 2000:241) was found burnt and in various contexts across the excavated units of High Terrace 1. A 7 x 12 meter area within the Middle Woodland houselot contained a concentration of burnt daub fragments

(1342.5 g), some containing pole impressions. A crumbled burnt daub mixed with burnt earth that formed a purplish-brown/dark gray-brown/reddish-gray (Munsell Colors: 7.5R 61

4/3, 7.5R 5/4, 5R 4/3, 10YR 4/2, & 7.5R 4/1) layer of soil was seen in wall profiles and plan view (Table 12; Figure 22 & 23). Cultural floors surrounding Structure 1 that contained only daub flecking were pinkish in color (Munsell Colors: 7.5R 4/8, 7.5R 6/8,

& 7.5R 6/6) as a result of burning. Clay acquired from the local wetland was used to manufacture the pottery found at the Patton site (Patton et al. 2009); therefore, the clay used to create the wattle and daub structures was most likely from the same source.

Figure 23: Patton Site Daub Samples: A.) Block of cultural floor with daub and burnt earth, B.-D.) Pole-impressed burnt daub fragments from house structures.

When the wooden frame of the structure burned and the daub collapsed, the

northern wall of the last structure (Structure 1A) was preserved in a straight line. The northern wall of the structure was further defined larger post features along the same line

(Figure 23). The structures below (Structures 1B and 1C), were outlined by post features

that were located directly below Structure 1A’s post features. The presence of daub- 62 mixed earth and daub fragments, an internal hearth (Feature 32) that overlapped at all three levels, and utilization of the same spatial layout for activity areas during all three episodes of construction and occupation at the Patton site indicates continuity of occupation of Structure 1 during the Middle Woodland period.

Figure 24: A plan view picture of a line of daub (to the right & bottom of thick black line), which outlined the northern side of the house structure (left). The second picture (right) shows the same area of daub (between thick black lines) in profile view along with an interior post. 63

Table 12: Patton Site Daub Samples

D. Imported Goods/Exotic Artifacts During the Middle Woodland period, a trade network developed across the United

States called the “Hopewell Interaction Sphere” that led to the importation of exotic goods into Ohio ca. 50 B.C. Some examples of these goods, whether as raw materials or as finished goods, included from the upper Great Lakes region, from the

Yellowstone Park area of the Rocky Mountains, and quartz crystal from the 64 southern , and turquoise from the Southwest United States

(Blazier et al. 2005; Fagan 2005). In the Hocking Valley, imported artifacts were most commonly found in burial located within the Wolfe’s Plain Mound Group (ca 50

BC – A.D. 250), a ceremonial or socio-economic aggregate center contemporaneous with larger Ohio Hopewell complex (Blazier et al. 2005). For example, the Coon Mound (also recorded as Andrew’s Mound 8, Beard Mound, & Baird Mound), excavated by Andrews and subsequently Greenman, contained mica fragments and the remains of two copper bracelets (Murphy 1989). Also, two obsidian artifacts were collected from the Middle

Woodland component of a habitation site, the County Home site (33AT40), located in the

Hocking Valley (Crowell et al. 2005).

The only imported artifact collected from the Patton site was mica. The small sample, found within Feature 60, a densely packed refuse pit, was heavily fragmented and degraded. Sheets of mica were commonly cut into “geometric and representational forms” and were “common constituents of Hopewellian burial complexes” (Fagan

2005:437; Murphy 1989:206). 65

CHAPTER 7: SOILS ANALYSIS

Chemical analyses, such as pH and phosphorus, can indicate levels of site preservation or activity within an area (Cavanagh et al. 1988; Dincauze 2000;

French 2003; Garrison 2003). Soil pH, a measure of hydrogen concentration within the soil, directly influences the preservation of buried archaeological remains. Ranging from zero to 14, the pH scale indicates whether the soil is acidic, neutral, or alkaline. Alkaline soils preserve shell, bone, and carbonized remains, while acidic soils degrade them and preserve plant remains and pollen grains (Dincauze 2000; French 2003; Garrison 2003).

Increased levels of phosphate in soils are caused by a high organic matter content (dead plants and/or animals) and human/animal excrement (Garrison 2003); therefore,

“…phosphate analysis has been used as a primary means of prospection in areas where surface remains are sparse or difficult to observe” to “…recognize areas of human activity…” (Cavanagh et al. 1988:67).

During the 2008 summer field season, soil samples were collected from all excavated units at the Patton site for chemical analysis. To determine the extent of site utilization and impact of prehistoric populations, units were excavated along two transects, one running grid-North and another grid-West from the site core, High Terrace

1, and east of the site core on High Terrace 1 (Figure 5, 7, & 25). Of these units, four from each transect were chosen due to their placement along the landscape. The grid-

North transect began at the top of High Terrace 1, down the slope into the floodplain, across a seasonal creek, and up a slope to the top of High Terrace 2. The grid-West transects traversed the top of High Terrace 1, down slope to the floodplain, across the 66

Low Terrace to the bank of Snow Fork Creek. Five units from the site core were also chosen for soil analysis due to the high degree of human activity indicated by archaeological evidence (Figures 6 & 9-11); therefore, the results of the chemical analysis could be interpreted based on known activity areas (food preparation and cooking, storage, and structures). Soil samples were gathered from each stratigraphic level of a unit profile wall to determine buried cultural levels or areas of human activity below the surface. In total, 63 soil samples from 14 units were sent to CLC Labs in

Columbus, Ohio, and analyzed for pH, Potassium (K), Phosphorus (P), Calcium (Ca), and

Magnesium (Mg) levels.

The results of the CLC Lab analyses were presented in pounds per acre of nutrient, later converted to metric, and percentage of base saturation. The Potassium, Calcium, and Magnesium results indicated little variation in the amount of these nutrients across the site or at stratigraphic depth and therefore could not provide insight into site activity or occupation. According to the CLC Lab analysis, all of the soil samples contained low levels of phosphorus and a surplus of hydrogen (acidic soil) (Appendix 1). Despite the overall “low levels” of phosphorus across the site, peaks of higher numbers within this range were observed at various locations and stratigraphic depths. For instance, the highest phosphorus numbers were located at the modern cultural surface (5.44 – 8.62 kilograms per acre of nutrient) and comparable levels in areas and stratigraphic depths of known prehistoric human activity. The higher amounts of phosphorus below the modern surface were on High Terrace 1 within the Middle Woodland houselot (Figure 26). 67

Figure 25: Distribution Map of Phosphorus levels along the Grid-North transect, originating from High Terrace 1 and terminating at High Terrace 2, and the Grid-South transect, which runs from High Terrace 1 to Snow Fork Creek (units sampled are outlined in thick black lines). The level of phosphorus in units away from High Terrace 1 are lower, except for the test unit on High Terrace 2 (Unit 516), which has levels comparable to those of High Terrace 1. 68

The food preparation and cooking activity area, Unit 514 and Unit 27/30, contained consistently higher amounts throughout their stratigraphic levels below the modern surface (Figure 6 & 9-11 & 26). Unit 514 results were 8.62, 5.44, and 5.90 kilograms per acre of phosphorus (top to bottom below modern surface) and Unit 27/30 had 2.72, 6.35, 4.54, 5.44 kilograms per acre of phosphorus. Samples taken from Unit

510, which held storage pits and a section of the northern wall of Structure 1, provided phosphorus results of 4.54 and 5.00 kilograms per acre. Unit 507, containing the internal hearth (Feature 32) and a section of the southern wall of Structure 1, had levels of 7.26,

3.63, and 2.72 (Figure 6 & 9-11 & 26).

Figure 26: Distribution Map of Phosphorus Levels on High Terrace 1 at the Patton site. High levels of phosphorus correlated to areas of increased human activity in the Middle Woodland houselot, specifically where the house, hearths, storage pits, and a food processing area were located. 69

Unit 523 was located grid-West of the Middle Woodland houselot on High Terrace

1 and yielded comparably higher levels of phosphorus (4.54, 4.08, 4.54, and 3.18 kg per acre) which correlated with stratigraphic levels of burnt daub, baked earth, and charcoal beneath the modern surface. Anomaly 3, a unit located at the top of the western slope of

High Terrace 1 and within the grid-West transect, had lower relative amounts of phosphorus except in stratigraphic level 3 that corresponded to a cultural level of burnt daub, baked earth, and fire-cracked rock (Figure 8 & 25). The remaining units in the western transect (Low Terrace, floodplain, and the Snow Fork Creek bank) contained some the lowest levels of phosphorus across the Patton site (Figure 25). Along the grid-

North units the levels of phosphorus were generally low except in a few instances. Unit

516, located at the slope top of High Terrace 2, contained levels of phosphorus at 4.99,

4.08, and 3.18 kg per acre. Two other units within the floodplain of this transect had high amounts of phosphorus (6.80 and 14.52 kg per acre, respectively) present in the bottom levels (water table), which is most likely due to leeching from the surface in heavily water saturated soils (Figure 25).

The results of the CLC Lab chemical analysis indicated that the Patton site soil samples contained a surplus of hydrogen or acidic soils (Appendix 1). The acidity of the soils across the site was at least partially the result of high moisture content due to the presence of a large floodplain and the close proximity of Snow Fork Creek, a seasonal creek, and a wetland. The pH scale ranges from zero to 14, but the normal range is four to 10 with extremes on either end of the scale. The lower the number the more acidic, the higher the more alkaline, and 7 is neutral. Across landscape and at the various levels 70 below the surface, the Patton site soil was predominately within a range of 4.5 – 5.1 or very strong acidity (Singer & Munns 2006).

All of the units from High Terrace 1, including Anomaly 3 and Unit 501 that were located at the top of the grid-North and grid-West slopes and transects, contained very strong acidic soils (4.5 – 5.1). The stratigraphic level below the modern surface in Unit

27/30 was extremely acidic (4) and the stratigraphic levels of Unit 63/22 ranged from strongly acidic (5.1 – 5.6) to very strongly acidic (4.5 – 5.1; Ibid). Unit 516, at the top of the High Terrace 2 slope and along the grid-North transect, contained very strong acidic soil at all levels. The remaining units located in the floodplain and along the bank of

Snow Fork Creek contained soil that increased acidity as the depth of the unit increased to the water table.

The results of the chemical analysis indicate that phosphorus levels were at increased amounts in areas and depths of human activity, which was confirmed through the presence of archaeological features and artifacts. The Middle Woodland houselot and outlying units with distinct cultural levels provided the highest levels of phosphorus, whereas slopes and floodplains that were utilized less intensively provided the lowest levels. The overall high degree of acidity in the soil across the site and at all stratigraphic levels indicates low level preservation and/or degradation of shell, bone, and carbonized remains, but provides good conditions for the preservation of plant remains and pollen grains. Therefore, the poor preservation and limited amounts of mica, ceramic, and bone artifacts recovered at the Patton site during the two field seasons was at least partially the result of highly acidic soil. 71

CHAPTER 8: DISCUSSION

The type of architecture found at the Patton site was representative of a sedentary community, similar to Late Woodland/Late Prehistoric village communities in the Ohio

Valley. For instance, a house structure comparable to the Patton house was excavated at the Late Prehistoric Allen 2 site in the Hocking Valley of southeastern Ohio. The Allen 2 house (Structure 1) was rectilinear, constructed of wattle and daub, measured 5 x 3 m, and overlapped posts from a previous structure (Formica et al. 2009). The Patton structures were defined by posts, an internal hearth, and the presence of daub; the clearest outline of the Middle Woodland house architecture was Structure 1A, which measure approximately 6 m x 3 m with an interior area of 18 square meters and housed around 5 people, based on the formula of 3.4 square meters of living space per individual

(Carskadden & Morton 2000:173). Large support posts along with wattle and daub formed the outer walls, and two rows of smaller posts constructed interior benches or storage shelves/racks.

A transition from curvilinear house architecture to rectilinear is usually indicative of a move from temporary seasonal occupation to a more sedentary one, as it facilitated house expansion and internal division (Abrams et al. 2005; Gilman 1987). Evidence of curvilinear and rectilinear structures with curved corners, varying greatly in size, 30 to

100 square meter interiors, was found approximately 20 to over 300 m from the assumed location of the earthen walls at the Stubbs Earthwork site (33WA1), in the Miami Valley of southwestern Ohio. Cowan (2006:44) defined these wooden structures as “houselike” and not “places of everyday domestic abode” based on an absence of accumulated “lithic 72 artifact and tool-production debris, pottery, fire-cracked rock, charcoal, burnt soil, food remains, and other consequences of prolonged human habitation” in subsurface features.

The curvilinear structures were dated to the Early Woodland and contemporary with

Middle Woodland rectilinear structures with curved corners. The majority of structures excavated was rectilinear with curved corners and constructed using wall and trenches

(Cowan 2006).

Two rectilinear structures were excavated at Brown’s Bottom #1 site (33RO21), a

“dispersed sedentary Ohio Hopewell household engaging in low level food production” located in the Scioto Valley of central Ohio approximately 1.2 km northwest of the

Liberty (Pacheco et al. 2006:4). The structures were defined by rock-filled posts that were about six meters apart. One structure was fully excavated and measured

13.7 m x 13.7 m with an internal living space of 187.6 square meters. Similar to the

Patton site, Brown’s Bottom contained durable structures (one with a set of small internal posts), a storage pit, and possible that provided evidence of sedentism during the

Middle Woodland period (Pacheco et al. 2006).

“Wattle and daub architecture involves the construction of walls (and, sometimes, of roofs) with frames of variously lashed and/or interwoven wooden members (wattle), upon which puddle, clayey soil (daub) is applied as a thick plaster” (Shaffer 1993:59).

The presence of a wattle and daub structure, involving a more time-consuming and laborious construction process, and the presence of an interior hearth, providing insulation and warmth in the colder seasons, are indicative of long-term site occupation. 73

Evidence of daub was present throughout all three episodes of houselot construction indicating continuity in house form. The most intact fragments and structural outlines, however, were located in the top level, or third episode of construction. One reason for this was the re-use of the same spatial layout when the were reconstructed; wattle and daub house were burned down every five to ten years due to rotting wood frame, damaged walls, or pest infestation (Smith 2006; Milner

1998). A second reason was the daub from the destroyed structure could have been reused in the building of subsequent structures in order to cut some of the labor involved

(Shaffer 1993).

Another marker of sedentism was the disposal of waste in a specific location as it related to care and maintenance of a site or space that was continuously occupied for a period of time. In contrast, short-term habitation of a site would most likely leave refuse at the location were the activities occurred (Kozarek 1997; Schiffer 1972). Sedentary communities “show considerable evidence of organizational effort in site structure” and contain “refuse disposal areas with relatively sharp parameters, and deep, dense spatially segregated from central activity areas” (Kozarek 1997: 136). The Patton site

Feature 60, a large deep oval-shaped pit feature distinctly outlined by its dark soil and located on the north side of the house structures independent of the other activity areas, was used during the first two episodes of construction and occupation.

Storage pits are cited as evidence of sedentism (Lepper & Yerkes 1997; Yerkes

2006; Gremillion 2004; Wagner 1996), and the presence of multiple deep storage pits within the Middle Woodland houselot was evidence of prolonged occupation of the 74

Patton site. Underground storage provided an ability to preserve and protect food resources from temperature, light, humidity, and animals (Wagner 1996). Thereby, resources were available during periods of low food productivity or shortages

(Gremillion 2004). Storage pits could be opened, resealed, and reused for at least two years (Wagner 1996). The Patton site storage pits were located at the back of the house, near a ground stone formation and other individual ground stones. This area probably functioned as a food processing location. Further, above ground storage was indicated by the presence of small internal posts located along the northern and western walls of

Structure 1 that supported benches and/or storage shelves/racks (Wagner 1996).

The large collection of ground stone artifacts (n = 93) consisting of large grinding slabs, a pestle, pitted stones, etc.) and large/deep storage pits suggest year-round subsistence strategies (Gremillion 2004; Wagner1996). The chipped stone tools collected from the site were primarily produced from local chert outcrops, showed evidence of heavy use and re-working, and consisted mostly of unifacial/utilized flake informal tools, all of which is indicative of long-term continuous occupation (Cowan 2006; Lepper &

Yerkes 1997). The culmination of all these archaeological features and artifacts at one

Middle Woodland site provides strong evidence of a sedentary community. 75

CHAPTER 9: CONCLUSION

Evidence of long-term continuous occupation or sedentism during the Middle

Woodland period at the Patton site is supported by several different data sets gathered during the 2006 and 2008 excavations. The interpretation and analysis of the Patton site was significantly aided by the presence of intact stratigraphy and an undisturbed Middle

Woodland component due to minimal modern construction, the previous use of the land as a pasture for cattle, and that the property was never plowed. The environmental setting and the landscape and resources available provided an ideal location for sedentary communities. During the Archaic through the Late Prehistoric periods, people preferred and highly valued areas with high stream terraces, and wetland and riverine resources

(Milner 2004; Abrams & Freter 2005). Stream terraces reduced flood risks while providing access to riverine and floodplain resources and the wetland provided reliable food resources (Abrams & Freter 2005; Milner 2004).

Excavation of High Terrace 1 yielded evidence of a sedentary Middle Woodland community. A Middle Woodland houselot was uncovered with a distinct spatial layout that continued through three episodes of burning and rebuilding as evidenced by overlapping and continuously used features. The designation of activity areas and the reuse of the same spatial layout throughout three episodes of construction with little to no space between indicate continuous habitation of this site (Dancey 1991). The houselot was defined by and included a rectilinear wattle and daub house with an internal hearth, an external hearth, deep storage pits, and a large refuse pit. The wattle and daub structure 76 would have lasted around five to 10 years and it was rebuilt three times, which yielded a site occupation of at least 15 to 30 years (Milner 1998; Smith 2006).

Year-round and long-term site occupation was indicated by the construction of more durable and permanent structures with internal hearths and the use of multiple deep storage pits and a large refuse pit (Abrams et al. 2005; Gremillion 2004; Kozarek 1997;

Lepper & Yerkes 2006; Schiffer 1972; Wagner 1996; Yerkes 2006). Further evidence of a sedentary community was evidenced by a large collection of ground stone tools that varied in size and degree of modification, the use of locally outcropping chert for chipped stone tool manufacture, a greater number of unifacial/expedient then bifacial tools, and bifacial tools that were heavily used and reworked (Cowan 2006; Gremillion 2004;

Lepper & Yerkes 2006; Wagner 1996).

The subsistence strategy at the Patton site during the Middle Woodland period included foraging and food production. Anomaly 3, Anomaly 4, and Unit 10 yielded multiple levels of burning and cultural artifacts suggestive of slash and burn gardening on the southwestern slope of High Terrace 1. Preliminary analysis of botanical remains by

Paul E. Patton suggests prehistoric occupants of the site were practicing low-level food production of maygrass and chenopodium. The former is not native to the Hocking

Valley and its presence indicates at least small-scale cultivation. Chenopodium seeds recovered by Patton through floatation require further measurements of their testa in order to confirm whether they were domesticated (personal communication with Paul E.

Patton 2009). The presence of multiple large storage pits and a ground stone assemblage, containing large individual tools with extensive modifications, were evidence of food 77 processing and seasonal and/or risk-management storage (Gremillion 2004; Wagner

1996).

On-going research and analysis of the Patton site soil samples from features and cultural floors by the Department of Anthropology’s Paleoethnobotancial Laboratory at

The Ohio State University will further define subsistence and settlement strategies of the people who occupied Middle Woodland hamlets in the Hocking Valley. Furthermore, phytolith and starch residue analyses of the Patton site’s pottery sherds, ground stone artifacts, and feature soil samples will be conducted by the Paleoethnobotanical

Laboratory at The Ohio State University. The results of these analyses could determine how ground stone and ceramic artifacts were utilized and identify what food resources were being processed and prepared. 78

REFERENCES

Abrams, Elliot M. 2009. Hopewell Archaeology: A View from the Northern Woodlands. Journal of Archaeological Research 17:169-204.

Abrams, E.M., Bergman, C., and D.A. Miller. 2005. The Allen Site: A Late Prehistoric Community in the Hocking River Valley. In The Emergence of the Moundbuilders: The Archaeology of Tribal Societies in Southeastern Ohio, edited by E.M. Abrams and A. Freter, pp. 126-150. Athens: Ohio University Press.

Abrams, E.M., and S. DeAloia. 2005. An Archaic/Woodland Hunting-Collection Site in the Hocking Valley. In The Emergence of the Moundbuilders: The Archaeology of Tribal Societies in Southeastern Ohio, edited by E.M. Abrams and A. Freter, pp. 59-66. Athens: Ohio University Press.

Abrams, E.M., and A. Freter. 2005. The Archaeological Research History and Environmental Setting of the Hocking Valley. In The Emergence of the Moundbuilders: The Archaeology of Tribal Societies in Southeastern Ohio, edited by E.M. Abrams and A. Freter, pp. 1-24. Athens: Ohio University Press.

Andrefsky Jr., W. 2005. Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis. Second Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Athens County GIS. David and Marlene Patton Land Parcel. Electronic Document, http://www.athenscountygis.com, accessed November 5, 2008.

Blazier, J., Freter, A., and E.M. Abrams. 2005. Woodland Ceremonialism in the Hocking Valley. In The Emergence of the Moundbuilders: The Archaeology of Tribal Societies in Southeastern Ohio, edited by E.M. Abrams and A. Freter, pp. 98-114. Athens: Ohio University Press.

Buikstra, J.E., and D.K. Charles. 1999. Centering the Ancestors: Cemeteries, Mounds, and Sacred Landscapes of the North American Midcontinent. In Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary Perspectives, edited by W. Ashmore and B. Knapp, pp. 201-228. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

Burks, J. 2006. Magnetic Gradient Survey of the Patton Site, Athens County, Ohio: A Quick Report. Ohio Valley Archaeology, Inc.

Byers, A.M. 2004. The Ohio Hopewell Episode: Paradigm Lost and Paradigm Gained. Akron: The University of Akron Press.

Carr, C. 2008. Coming to Know Ohio Hopewell Peoples Better: Topics for Future Research, Masters’ Theses, and Doctoral Dissertations. In The Scioto Hopewell 79

and Their Neighbors, edited by D.T. Case and C. Carr, pp.603-690. New York: Springer.

Carskadden J., and J. Morton. 2000. in the Central Valley of Eastern Ohio: A View from Philo II Site. In Cultures Before Contact: The Late and Surrounding Regions, edited by R.A. Genheimer, pp. 158- 193. Columbus: The Ohio Archaeological Council.

Cavanagh, W.G., Hirst, S., and C.D. Litton. 1988. Soil Phosphate, Site Boundaries, and Change Point Analysis. Journal of Field Archaeology 15:67-83.

Cowan, F.L. 2006. A Mobile Hopewell? Questioning Assumptions of Ohio Hopewell Sedentism. In Recreating Hopewell, edited by D.K. Charles and J.E. Buikstra, pp. 26-49. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.

Crowell, D., Abrams, E.M., Freter, A., and J. Lein. 2005. Woodland Communities in the Hocking Valley. In The Emergence of the Moundbuilders: The Archaeology of Tribal Societies in Southeastern Ohio, edited by E.M. Abrams and A. Freter, pp. 82-97. Athens: Ohio University Press.

Dancey, W.S. 1991. A Middle Woodland Settlement in Central Ohio: A Preliminary Report on the Murphy Site (33LI212). Pennsylvania Archaeologist 61:37-72 .

Dancey, W.S., and P.J. Pacheco . 1997. A Community Model of Ohio Hopewell Settlement. In Ohio Hopewell Community Organization, edited by W.S. Dancey and P.J. Pacheco, pp. 3-40. Kent: The Kent State University Press.

Dincauze, D.F. 2000. Environmental Archaeology: principles and practice. Cambridge: University Press.

Fagan, B.M. 2005. Ancient North America. London: Thames & Hudson Ltd.

Formica, T.H., Abrams, E.M., Freter, A., and D. Sack. 2009. The Domestic Economy at Locus 2 of the Allen site (33AT653): A Late Woodland-Late Prehistoric Household in Southeastern Ohio. West Virginia Archaeologist. Forthcoming.

Formica, T.H., and P.E. Patton. 2006. An Analysis of the Patton Site (33AT990) Surface Collection. Prepared for Elliot Abrams, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Ohio University.

French, C. 2003. Geoarchaeology in Action: Studies in soil micromorphology and landscape evolution. London: Routledge.

Garrison, E.G. 2003. Techniques in Archaeological Geology. Berlin: Springer. 80

Gilman, P.A. 1987. Architecture as Artifact: Pit Structures and in the American Southwest. American Antiquity 52(3):538-564.

Gremillion, K.J. 2004. Seed Processing and the Origins of Food Production in Eastern North America. American Antiquity 69(2): 215-233.

Griffin, J.B. 1996. The Hopewell Housing Shortage in Ohio, A.D. 1-350. In View From the Core: A Synthesis of Ohio Hopewell Archaeology, edited by P.J. Pacheco, pp. 4-15. Ohio Archaeological Council, Columbus, Ohio.

Griffin, J.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 W.S. Dancey and P.J. Pacheco, pp. 405-423. Kent: Kent State University Press.

Heyman, M., Abrams, E.M., and A. Freter. 2005. Late Archaic Community Aggregation and Feasting in the Hocking Valley. In The Emergence of the Moundbuilders: The Archaeology of Tribal Societies in Southeastern Ohio, edited by E.M. Abrams and A. Freter, pp. 67-81. Athens: Ohio University Press.

Justice, N.D. 1995. and Points of the Midcontinental and Eastern United States: A Modern Survey and Reference. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Kooyman, B.P. 2000. Understanding Stone Tools and Archaeological Sites. Calgary: University of Calgary Press.

Kozarek , S. E. 1997. Determining Sedentism in the Archaeological Record. In Ohio Hopewell Community Organization, edited by W.S. Dancey & P.J. Pacheco, pp. 131-152. Kent: The Kent State University Press.

Lepper, B. T., and R.W. Yerkes. 1997. Hopewellian Occupations at the Northern Periphery of the : The Newark Expressway Sites Revisited. In Ohio Hopewell Community Organization, edited by W.S. Dancey & P.J. Pacheco, pp. 175-205. Kent: The Kent State University Press.

Logan, B., and M.E. Hill, Jr. 2000. Spatial Analysis of Small Scale Debris from a Late Prehistoric Site in the Lower Missouri Valley, Kansas. Journal of Field Archaeology 27:241-256.

Milner, G.R. 1998. The Chiefdom: The Archaeology of a Mississippian Society. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.

81

Milner, G.R. 2004. The Moundbuilders: Ancient Peoples of Eastern North America. London: Thames & Hudson Ltd.

Murphy, J. L. 1989. An Archaeological History of the Hocking Valley. Athens: Ohio University Press.

Pacheco, P.J. 1997. Ohio Middle Woodland Intracommunity Settlement Variability: A Case Study from the Licking Valley. In Ohio Hopewell Community Organization, edited by W.S. Dancey & P.J. Pacheco, pp.41-84. Kent: The Kent State University Press.

Pacheco P.J., Burks. J., and D. A. Wymer. 2006. Investigating Ohio Hopewell Settlement Patterns in Central Ohio. www.ohioarchaeology.org

Pacheco, P.J., and W.S. Dancey. 2006. Integrating Mortuary and Settlement Data on Ohio Hopewell Society. In Recreating Hopewell, edited by D.K. Charles and J.E. Buikstra, pp. 3-25. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.

Patton, P.E., Abrams, E.M., and A. Freter. 2009. Geochemical Analysis of Archaeological Ceramics in the Hocking Valley, Ohio. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 79(1):54-74.

Pecora, A.M., and J. Burks. A Terminal Late Archaic Period Upland Occupation in Fairfield County, Ohio. In Emergence of the Moundbuilders: The Archaeology of Tribal Societies in Southeastern Ohio, edited by E.M. Abrams and A. Freter, pp. 39-58. Athens: Ohio University Press.

Peoples, N., Abrams, E.M., Freter, A., Jokisch, B., and P.E. Patton. The Taber Well Site (33HO611): A Middle Woodland Habitation and Surplus Lithic Production Site in the Hocking Valley, Southeastern Ohio. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 33(1):107-127.

Prufer, O.H. 1965. The McGraw Site: A Study in Hopewellian Dynamics. Cleveland Museum of Natural History, Scientific Publications 4:1. Cleveland, Ohio.

Prufer, O.H. 1967. The Scioto Valley Archaeological Survey. In Studies in Ohio Archaeology, edited by O. Prufer and D. Mackenzie, pp. 267-328. Kent: Kent State University Press.

Prufer, O.H. 1975. Studies in Ohio Archaeology, edited by O.H. Prufer and D. Mackenzie. Kent: Kent State University.

82

Prufer, O.H. 1997. How to Construct a Model: A Personal Memoir. In Ohio Hopewell Community Organization, edited by W.S. Dancey and P.J. Pacheco, pp.105-128. Kent: The Kent State University Press.

Railey, J.A.1992. Chipped Stone Artifacts. In Fort Ancient Cultural Dynamics in the Middle Ohio Valley, edited by A.G. Henderson, pp. 137-169. Monographs in World Archaeology, No. 8. Madison: Prehistory Press

Rice, P.M. 1987. Pottery Analysis. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Schaffer, G.D. 1993. An Archaeomagnetic Study of a Wattle and Daub Building Collapse. Journal of Field Archaeology 20:59-75

Schiffer, M.B. 1972. Archaeological Context and Systemic Context. American Antiquity 32(2):156-165

Singer, M.J., and D.N. Munns. 2006. Soils: An Introduction. Columbus: Person Prentice Hall.

Smith, B.D. 2006. Household, Community, and Subsistence in Hopewell Research. In Recreating Hopewell, edited by D.K. Charles and J.E. Buikstra, pp. 491-509.

Turnbow, C.A. 1992. Ground, Pecked, and Battered Stone Artifacts. In Fort Ancient Cultural Dynamics in the Middle Ohio Valley, edited by A.G. Henderson, pp. 171-179. Monographs in World Archaeology, No. 8. Madison: Prehistory Press.

Wagner, G.E. 1996. Feast or Famine? Seasonal Diet at Fort Ancient Community. In Case Studies in Environmental Archaeology, edited by E.J. Reitz, L.A. Newsom, & S.J. Scudder. New York: Plenum Press.

Yerkes, R.W. 2006. Middle Woodland Settlements and Social Organization in the Central Ohio Valley. In Recreating Hopewell, edited by D.K. Charles and J.E. Buikstra, pp. 50-61. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. 83

APPENDIX 1: SOIL ANALYSIS DATA

84

APPENDIX 1: SOIL ANALYSIS DATA (CONTINUED)