DOCSLIB.ORG

Was Yankeetown an Angel Mounds Progenitor?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Was Yankeetown an Angel Mounds Progenitor? Was Yankeetown an Angel Mounds Progenitor? A thesis submitted to the Division of Graduate Studies and Advanced Research of the University of Cincinnati in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in the Department of Anthropology of the McMicken College of Arts and Sciences 2012 by Phoebe G. Pritchett B. Arts, Indiana University, 2011 Committee: Kenneth B. Tankersley (Chair) Heather Norton Abstract A significant and lingering question in Ohio Valley archaeology is the genetic ancestry and cultural origin of Mississippian peoples. Most archaeologists assume that Mississippian peoples migrated into the Mississippi River valley from an undefined cultural homeland. A plethora of recent archaeological data, however, challenges the cultural homeland hypothesis. An alternative hypothesis suggests that Mississippian culture developed from a pre-existing in situ population in the Ohio River valley, such as Yankeetown. Evidence in support of this hypothesis is the appearance of Mississippian-like artifacts and features that predate developed Mississippian populations. Presently, these diametrically opposed hypotheses remain untested. The development of Mississippian sites seems to happen simultaneously over a large area with a multitude of potential causes. Migration may have played a role in some areas, but not everywhere. Mississippianization of the area may be a result of a combination of human population growth, changes in subsistence strategy, and/or sociopolitical organization. The Yankeetown site, which dates from ca. A.D. 700 to A.D. 1100, has been defined as both a Late Woodland and Emergent Mississippian site depending upon cultural traits and inferred subsistence strategy. It is located in Warren County, Indiana, less than ten miles from the Mississippian Angel Mounds site located in adjacent Vanderburgh County, Indiana. Angel Mounds was occupied between ca. A.D. 1050 and A.D. 1400 and is a classic example of a Mississippian ceremonial center, village and mortuary site with platform mounds and a central plaza. The possible relationship between Yankeetown and Angel Mounds has long been debated. Because of the chronological overlap and geographic proximity of these two sites, it seems likely that goods, services, or people were exchanged. Alternatively, it may be possible that the people of Yankeetown were the founding population of Angel Mounds. ii If the Yankeetown people were the progenitors of Angel Mounds, then we should expect to see a closely related pattern of cultural traits (i.e., artifacts and archaeological features). In order to test the relationship of the cultural traits of Yankeetown and Angel Mounds, I performed hierarchical cluster analysis on 364 distinctive cultural traits from sixteen penecontemporary archaeological assemblages in the Midwestern United States using Euclidean distances and maximum linkages (i.e., complete linkage clustering). The resulting dendrogram, or cluster tree, shows varying degrees of similarity between Yankeetown and other Late Woodland/Emergent Mississippian sites such as Raymond, Dillinger, and the Lewis Phase, as well as Kincaid, a Mississippian site. Angel Mounds is more similar to Aztalan, a Mississippian site in Wisconsin than it is to Yankeetown. Hierarchical cluster analysis is a good indicator of the similarities between material cultures, and provides a clearer picture of the distinctions between different ancient Native American cultures than does genetic analysis. The mtDNA of prehistoric human populations in this study has too small a resolution to correlate with modern North American Indian tribal groups. Artifacts and archaeological features provide the best indicator of cultural affiliation. If studies utilizing expanded regions of the genome exhibit a similar pattern to those observed here, it could have important implications for the Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). iii iv Acknowledgements First, I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Kenneth Tankersley for helping make this research possible. I would also like to thank Dr. Heather Norton for being on my committee and being my second reader. I would also like to thank the Court Family Foundation. I owe all my fellow graduate students a debt of gratitude for their endless support and for making the department a cheerful place to work. I would like to thank my family for supporting my interests and pushing me to succeed, especially my mom, Holly Pritchett, who took time out of her own graduate career to proofread this work, and my dad, Charlie Pritchett, who eagerly supplied copies of my proposals to anyone who asked. Finally, I would like to thank Joseph Migliano for keeping me focused and reminding me that the glass is half-full. v Table of Contents Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................... v Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................... vi List of Tables ............................................................................................................................. ix List of Figures ............................................................................................................................ xi Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 Hypotheses .......................................................................................................................... 2 Chapter 2: Background ............................................................................................................... 4 History of the Yankeetown Type Site ................................................................................. 4 Mississippian Culture.......................................................................................................... 7 Description of Angel Mounds ............................................................................................. 8 Geochronology .................................................................................................................. 11 Interactions between Yankeetown and Angel Mounds .................................................... 15 Chapter 3: Theoretical Framework ........................................................................................... 17 Origin of Ancient Ohio Valley Cultures ........................................................................... 17 The Late Woodland Period ............................................................................................... 18 Emergent Mississippian Hypotheses ................................................................................ 19 Hierarchical Cluster Analysis ............................................................................................ 22 A History of Cluster Analysis in Archaeology ................................................................. 22 Chapter 4: Methods ................................................................................................................... 24 Statistical Methods ............................................................................................................ 24 Chapter 5: Data ......................................................................................................................... 26 vi Late Archaic (Glacial Kame) ............................................................................................ 26 Early Woodland (Adena) .................................................................................................. 27 Middle Woodland (Hopewellian Tradition) ..................................................................... 29 Middle Woodland (Laurel Focus) ..................................................................................... 31 Late Woodland (Dillinger Phase) ..................................................................................... 33 Late Woodland (Lewis Phase) .......................................................................................... 34 Late Woodland (Newtown Phase) .................................................................................... 35 Late Woodland (Raymond Phase) .................................................................................... 36 Late Woodland (Yankeetown Phase) ............................................................................... 37 Late Woodland (Whittlesey) ............................................................................................ 42 Mississippian (Angel Mounds) ........................................................................................ 43 Mississippian (Kincaid) ................................................................................................... 45 Mississippian (Aztalan) ................................................................................................... 46 Fort Ancient .................................................................................................................... 48 Oneota ............................................................................................................................. 50 Prehistoric Neutral .........................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Many-Storied Place
    A Many-storied Place Historic Resource Study Arkansas Post National Memorial, Arkansas Theodore Catton Principal Investigator Midwest Region National Park Service Omaha, Nebraska 2017 A Many-Storied Place Historic Resource Study Arkansas Post National Memorial, Arkansas Theodore Catton Principal Investigator 2017 Recommended: {){ Superintendent, Arkansas Post AihV'j Concurred: Associate Regional Director, Cultural Resources, Midwest Region Date Approved: Date Remove not the ancient landmark which thy fathers have set. Proverbs 22:28 Words spoken by Regional Director Elbert Cox Arkansas Post National Memorial dedication June 23, 1964 Table of Contents List of Figures vii Introduction 1 1 – Geography and the River 4 2 – The Site in Antiquity and Quapaw Ethnogenesis 38 3 – A French and Spanish Outpost in Colonial America 72 4 – Osotouy and the Changing Native World 115 5 – Arkansas Post from the Louisiana Purchase to the Trail of Tears 141 6 – The River Port from Arkansas Statehood to the Civil War 179 7 – The Village and Environs from Reconstruction to Recent Times 209 Conclusion 237 Appendices 241 1 – Cultural Resource Base Map: Eight exhibits from the Memorial Unit CLR (a) Pre-1673 / Pre-Contact Period Contributing Features (b) 1673-1803 / Colonial and Revolutionary Period Contributing Features (c) 1804-1855 / Settlement and Early Statehood Period Contributing Features (d) 1856-1865 / Civil War Period Contributing Features (e) 1866-1928 / Late 19th and Early 20th Century Period Contributing Features (f) 1929-1963 / Early 20th Century Period
    [Show full text]
  • Ohio History Lesson 1
    http://www.touring-ohio.com/ohio-history.html http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/category.php?c=PH http://www.oplin.org/famousohioans/indians/links.html Benchmark • Describe the cultural patterns that are visible in North America today as a result of exploration, colonization & conflict Grade Level Indicator • Describe, the earliest settlements in Ohio including those of prehistoric peoples The students will be able to recognize and describe characteristics of the earliest settlers Assessment Lesson 2 Choose 2 of the 6 prehistoric groups (Paleo-indians, Archaic, Adena, Hopewell, Fort Ancients, Whittlesey). Give two examples of how these groups were similar and two examples of how these groups were different. Provide evidence from the text to support your answer. Bering Strait Stone Age Shawnee Paleo-Indian People Catfish •Pre-Clovis Culture Cave Art •Clovis Culture •Plano Culture Paleo-Indian People • First to come to North America • “Paleo” means “Ancient” • Paleo-Indians • Hunted huge wild animals for food • Gathered seeds, nuts and roots. • Used bone needles to sew animal hides • Used flint to make tools and weapons • Left after the Ice Age-disappeared from Ohio Archaic People Archaic People • Early/Middle Archaic Period • Late Archaic Period • Glacial Kame/Red Ocher Cultures Archaic People • Archaic means very old (2nd Ohio group) • Stone tools to chop down trees • Canoes from dugout trees • Archaic Indians were hunters: deer, wild turkeys, bears, ducks and geese • Antlers to hunt • All parts of the animal were used • Nets to fish
    [Show full text]
  • View / Open Gregory Oregon 0171N 12796.Pdf
    CHUNKEY, CAHOKIA, AND INDIGENOUS CONFLICT RESOLUTION by ANNE GREGORY A THESIS Presented to the Conflict and Dispute Resolution Program and the Graduate School of the University of Oregon in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science June 2020 THESIS APPROVAL PAGE Student: Anne Gregory Title: Chunkey, Cahokia, and Indigenous Conflict Resolution This thesis has been accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Science degree in the Conflict and Dispute Resolution Program by: Kirby Brown Chair Eric Girvan Member and Kate Mondloch Interim Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School Original approval signatures are on file with the University of Oregon Graduate School. Degree awarded June 2020. ii © 2020 Anne Gregory This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs (United States) License. iii THESIS ABSTRACT Anne Gregory Master of Science Conflict and Dispute Resolution June 2020 Title: Chunkey, Cahokia, and Indigenous Conflicts Resolution Chunkey, a traditional Native American sport, was a form of conflict resolution. The popular game was one of several played for millennia throughout Native North America. Indigenous communities played ball games not only for the important culture- making of sport and recreation, but also as an act of peace-building. The densely populated urban center of Cahokia, as well as its agricultural suburbs and distant trade partners, were dedicated to chunkey. Chunkey is associated with the milieu surrounding the Pax Cahokiana (1050 AD-1200 AD), an era of reduced armed conflict during the height of Mississippian civilization (1000-1500 AD). The relational framework utilized in archaeology, combined with dynamics of conflict resolution, provides a basis to explain chunkey’s cultural impact.
    [Show full text]
  • Further Investigations Into the King George
    Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Master's Theses Graduate School 2010 Further investigations into the King George Island Mounds site (16LV22) Harry Gene Brignac Jr Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses Part of the Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Brignac Jr, Harry Gene, "Further investigations into the King George Island Mounds site (16LV22)" (2010). LSU Master's Theses. 2720. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses/2720 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Master's Theses by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FURTHER INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE KING GEORGE ISLAND MOUNDS SITE (16LV22) A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in The Department of Geography and Anthropology By Harry Gene Brignac Jr. B.A. Louisiana State University, 2003 May, 2010 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First and foremost, I would like to give thanks to God for surrounding me with the people in my life who have guided and supported me in this and all of my endeavors. I have to express my greatest appreciation to Dr. Rebecca Saunders for her professional guidance during this entire process, and for her inspiration and constant motivation for me to become the best archaeologist I can be.
    [Show full text]
  • Hard Labor, Donations Transforming White Station High's Tough Courtyard
    Public Records & Notices Monitoring local real estate since 1968 View a complete day’s public records Subscribe Presented by and notices today for our at memphisdailynews.com. free report www.chandlerreports.com Wednesday, May 12, 2021 MemphisDailyNews.com Vol. 136 | No. 57 Rack–50¢/Delivery–39¢ Pristex’s heart for medical community starts with family ties to St. Jude CHRISTIN YATES over the city, especially in the hand sanitizer,” Latasha Harris, services that Medical District in- $32.2 million in medical supplies Courtesy of The Daily Memphian Medical District — Shelby Coun- program manager for the Mem- stitutions procure from Memphis and services with local companies The early days of the pandemic ty’s health care epicenter — were phis Medical District Collabora- area businesses. — a 26% increase from what they saw shortages of health care es- scrambling for medical-related tive’s (MMDC) Buy Local initia- Some of the Medical District’s would normally spend. “Our Buy sentials from personal protective supplies. tive, said. anchor institutions include St. Local work is usually focused on equipment (PPE) to disinfectant “It put us in a position where The Buy Local program was Jude Children’s Research Hospital non-medical spend because there wipes, surgical gowns and many we started looking for suppliers launched in 2014 to increase and Regional One Health. In 2020, other products. Institutions all making germicidal wipes and the amount of local goods and the anchor institutions spent PRISTEX CONTINUED ON P2 per 15-second increment to make the holes wide and deep enough for a newly planted tree to thrive Hard labor, donations transforming in the packed soil.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 1: Introduction
    SEGMENTED AND ASCENDANT CHIEFDOM POLITY AS VIEWED FROM THE DIVERS SITE BY GLEN ALOIS FREIMUTH DISSERTATION Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Anthropology in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2010 Urbana, Illinois Doctoral Committee: Professor Emeritus R. Barry Lewis, Chair Professor Timothy R. Pauketat Adjunct Professor Thomas E. Emerson Associate Professor Mark W. Mehrer, Northern Illinois University ABSTRACT This study contributes to our understanding of the nature of political control exerted by the Mississippian Cahokia polity over small rural villages in the southern American Bottom. Currently two models, which I call the Segmented and Ascendant Chiefdoms, respectively, provide contrasting explanations of the nature and amount of Cahokia control over rural villages. I examine the fit of these models against archaeological data from the Divers and other regional sites. The analyses range over several main topics, including populations, labor requirements, nonlocal artifacts, provisioning, and rituals. I find that the archaeological patterns expressed at the Divers site best fit a Segmented Chiefdom model wherein political control is decentralized and rural villages retain a high degree of political autonomy. Cahokia, as the American Bottom’s main Mississippian town, has the largest population, physical size, elite status items, and monumental construction which I describe as material domination and political dominance. Political dominance requires manipulation of local leaders and their followers for political and social control and this manipulation was expressed through ritual materials and rituals performed at Cahokia and other mound towns. The Cahokia elite created new rituals and associated material expressions through collective action and attempted to gain control of existing commoner ritual performances and symbols but these and political autonomy largely remained with the commoners who occupied small villages like Divers.
    [Show full text]
  • 2004 Midwest Archaeological Conference Program
    Southeastern Archaeological Conference Bulletin 47 2004 Program and Abstracts of the Fiftieth Midwest Archaeological Conference and the Sixty-First Southeastern Archaeological Conference October 20 – 23, 2004 St. Louis Marriott Pavilion Downtown St. Louis, Missouri Edited by Timothy E. Baumann, Lucretia S. Kelly, and John E. Kelly Hosted by Department of Anthropology, Washington University Department of Anthropology, University of Missouri-St. Louis Timothy E. Baumann, Program Chair John E. Kelly and Timothy E. Baumann, Co-Organizers ISSN-0584-410X Floor Plan of the Marriott Hotel First Floor Second Floor ii Preface WELCOME TO ST. LOUIS! This joint conference of the Midwest Archaeological Conference and the Southeastern Archaeological Conference marks the second time that these two prestigious organizations have joined together. The first was ten years ago in Lexington, Kentucky and from all accounts a tremendous success. Having the two groups meet in St. Louis is a first for both groups in the 50 years that the Midwest Conference has been in existence and the 61 years that the Southeastern Archaeological Conference has met since its inaugural meeting in 1938. St. Louis hosted the first Midwestern Conference on Archaeology sponsored by the National Research Council’s Committee on State Archaeological Survey 75 years ago. Parts of the conference were broadcast across the airwaves of KMOX radio, thus reaching a larger audience. Since then St. Louis has been host to two Society for American Archaeology conferences in 1976 and 1993 as well as the Society for Historical Archaeology’s conference in 2004. When we proposed this joint conference three years ago we felt it would serve to again bring people together throughout most of the mid-continent.
    [Show full text]
  • Ancient DNA from Chalcolithic Israel Reveals the Role of Population Mixture in Cultural Transformation
    Corrected: Publisher correction ARTICLE DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-05649-9 OPEN Ancient DNA from Chalcolithic Israel reveals the role of population mixture in cultural transformation Éadaoin Harney1,2,3, Hila May4,5, Dina Shalem6, Nadin Rohland2, Swapan Mallick2,7,8, Iosif Lazaridis2,3, Rachel Sarig5,9, Kristin Stewardson2,8, Susanne Nordenfelt2,8, Nick Patterson7,8, Israel Hershkovitz4,5 & David Reich2,3,7,8 1234567890():,; The material culture of the Late Chalcolithic period in the southern Levant (4500–3900/ 3800 BCE) is qualitatively distinct from previous and subsequent periods. Here, to test the hypothesis that the advent and decline of this culture was influenced by movements of people, we generated genome-wide ancient DNA from 22 individuals from Peqi’in Cave, Israel. These individuals were part of a homogeneous population that can be modeled as deriving ~57% of its ancestry from groups related to those of the local Levant Neolithic, ~17% from groups related to those of the Iran Chalcolithic, and ~26% from groups related to those of the Anatolian Neolithic. The Peqi’in population also appears to have contributed differently to later Bronze Age groups, one of which we show cannot plausibly have descended from the same population as that of Peqi’in Cave. These results provide an example of how population movements propelled cultural changes in the deep past. 1 Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA. 2 Department of Genetics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA. 3 The Max Planck–Harvard Research Center for the Archaeoscience of the Ancient Mediterranean, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA.
    [Show full text]
  • Newark Earthworks Center - Ohio State University and World Heritage - Ohio Executive Committee INDIANS and EARTHWORKS THROUGH the AGES “We Are All Related”
    Welcoming the Tribes Back to Their Ancestral Lands Marti L. Chaatsmith, Comanche/Choctaw Newark Earthworks Center - Ohio State University and World Heritage - Ohio Executive Committee INDIANS AND EARTHWORKS THROUGH THE AGES “We are all related” Mann 2009 “We are all related” Earthen architecture and mound building was evident throughout the eastern third of North America for millennia. Everyone who lived in the woodlands prior to Removal knew about earthworks, if they weren’t building them. The beautiful, enormous, geometric precision of the Hopewell earthworks were the culmination of the combined brilliance of cultures in the Eastern Woodlands across time and distance. Has this traditional indigenous knowledge persisted in the cultural traditions of contemporary American Indian cultures today? Mann 2009 Each dot represents Indigenous architecture and cultural sites, most built before 1491 Miamisburg Mound is the largest conical burial mound in the USA, built on top of a 100’ bluff, it had a circumference of 830’ People of the Adena Culture built it between 2,800 and 1,800 years ago. 6 Miamisburg, Ohio (Montgomery County) Picture: Copyright: Tom Law, Pangea-Productions. http://pangea-productions.net/ Items found in mounds and trade networks active 2,000 years ago. years 2,000 active networks trade and indicate vast travel Courtesy of CERHAS, Ancient Ohio Trail Inside the 50-acre Octagon at Sunrise 8 11/1/2018 Octagon Earthworks, Newark, OH Indigenous people planned, designed and built the Newark Earthworks (ca. 2000 BCE) to cover an area of 4 square miles (survey map created by Whittlesey, Squier, and Davis, 1837-47) Photo Courtesy of Dan Campbell 10 11/1/2018 Two professors recover tribal knowledge 2,000 years ago, Indigenous people developed specialized knowledge to construct the Octagon Earthworks to observe the complete moon cycle: 8 alignments over a period of 18 years and 219 days (18.6 years) “Geometry and Astronomy in Prehistoric Ohio” Ray Hively and Robert Horn, 1982 Archaeoastronomy (Supplement to Vol.
    [Show full text]
  • State Parks and Early Woodland Cultures
    State Parks and Early Woodland Cultures Key Objectives State Parks Featured Students will understand some basic information related to the ■ Mounds State Park www.in.gov/dnr/parklake/2977.htm Adena, Hopewell and early Woodland Indians, and their connec- ■ Falls of the Ohio State Park www.in.gov/dnr/parklake/2984.htm tions to Mounds and Falls of the Ohio state parks. The students will gain insight into the connection between the Adena culture and the Hopewell tradition, and learn how archaeologists have studied artifacts and mounds to understand these cultures. Activity: Standards: Benchmarks: Assessment Tasks: Key Concepts: Mounds Students will research what was import- Artifacts Identify and compare the major early cultures ant to the Adena Indians. The students Tribes Researching SS.4.1.1 that existed in the region that became Indiana will then compile a list of items found in Adena the Past before contact with Europeans. the Adena mounds and compare them to Hopewell items that we use today. Mississippians Identify and describe historic Native American Use computers in a cooperative group groups that lived in Indiana before the time of to create timelines of major events from SS.4.1.2 early European exploration, including ways that the era of the Adena to the rise of the the groups adapted to and interacted with the Hopewell Indians. physical environment. Use computers in a cooperative group Create and interpret timelines that show rela- to create timelines of major events from SS.4.1.15 tionships among people, events and movements the era of the Adena to the rise of the in the history of Indiana.
    [Show full text]
  • Indiana Archaeology
    INDIANA ARCHAEOLOGY Volume 5 Number 2 2010/2011 Indiana Department of Natural Resources Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology (DHPA) ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Indiana Department of Natural Resources Robert E. Carter, Jr., Director and State Historic Preservation Officer Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology (DHPA) James A. Glass, Ph.D., Director and Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer DHPA Archaeology Staff James R. Jones III, Ph.D., State Archaeologist Amy L. Johnson Cathy L. Draeger-Williams Cathy A. Carson Wade T. Tharp Editors James R. Jones III, Ph.D., State Archaeologist Amy L. Johnson, Senior Archaeologist and Archaeology Outreach Coordinator Cathy A. Carson, Records Check Coordinator Publication Layout: Amy L. Johnson Additional acknowledgments: The editors wish to thank the authors of the submitted articles, as well as all of those who participated in, and contributed to, the archaeological projects which are highlighted. Cover design: The images which are featured on the cover are from several of the individual articles included in this journal. Mission Statement: The Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology promotes the conservation of Indiana’s cultural resources through public education efforts, financial incentives including several grant and tax credit programs, and the administration of state and federally mandated legislation. 2 For further information contact: Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology 402 W. Washington Street, Room W274 Indianapolis, Indiana 46204-2739 Phone: 317/232-1646 Email: [email protected] www.IN.gov/dnr/historic 2010/2011 3 Indiana Archaeology Volume 5 Number 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Authors of articles were responsible for ensuring that proper permission for the use of any images in their articles was obtained.
    [Show full text]
  • Indiana Archaeology
    INDIANA ARCHAEOLOGY Volume 6 Number 1 2011 Indiana Department of Natural Resources Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology (DHPA) ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Indiana Department of Natural Resources Robert E. Carter, Jr., Director and State Historic Preservation Officer Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology (DHPA) James A. Glass, Ph.D., Director and Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer DHPA Archaeology Staff James R. Jones III, Ph.D., State Archaeologist Amy L. Johnson, Senior Archaeologist and Archaeology Outreach Coordinator Cathy L. Draeger-Williams, Archaeologist Wade T. Tharp, Archaeologist Rachel A. Sharkey, Records Check Coordinator Editors James R. Jones III, Ph.D. Amy L. Johnson Cathy A. Carson Editorial Assistance: Cathy Draeger-Williams Publication Layout: Amy L. Johnson Additional acknowledgments: The editors wish to thank the authors of the submitted articles, as well as all of those who participated in, and contributed to, the archaeological projects which are highlighted. The U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service is gratefully acknow- ledged for their support of Indiana archaeological research as well as this volume. Cover design: The images which are featured on the cover are from several of the individual articles included in this journal. This publication has been funded in part by a grant from the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service‘s Historic Preservation Fund administered by the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology. In addition, the projects discussed in several of the articles received federal financial assistance from the Historic Preservation Fund Program for the identification, protection, and/or rehabilitation of historic properties and cultural resources in the State of Indiana.
    [Show full text]