Sources of Variability in Ceramic Artifacts Recovered from Refuse-Filled Pit Features at the Hahn's Field Site, Hamilton County, Ohio
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Sources of Variability in Ceramic Artifacts Recovered from Refuse-Filled Pit Features at the Hahn’s Field Site, Hamilton County, Ohio A thesis submitted to the Graduate School 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 2015 by Tyler C. Swinney B.A., University of Cincinnati, 2009 Committee: Alan P. Sullivan, III, Ph.D., Chair Susan E. Allen, Ph.D. ABSTRACT This research focuses on pit formation processes and ceramic technology at Hahn’s Field (33HA10), a multicomponent site located in the lower Little Miami River Valley of Hamilton County, Ohio. This site was selected because of the ubiquity of pit features and ceramics, long occupation span, and evidence of discard processes. Although pit features are routinely encountered on Fort Ancient (A.D. 1000-1670) sites in the middle Ohio Valley, their inferential potential has not been adequately realized. This situation is attributable to pit feature variability, unstandardized description, and an under-appreciation as to how formation process research can advance Midwestern archaeology. While traditional studies of pit features have focused on mining ethnographic accounts for functional analogs, greater attention to the variability within pit features and their contents can enable advanced interpretations about discard behavior and the evolution of ceramic technology. To identify patterns of pit feature variability, 25% ceramic subsamples from the Upper and Lower Zones of three refuse-filled contexts—a storage pit (Feature 37), an earth oven (Feature 38), and a basin-shaped depression (Feature 146)—were analyzed. Differences among six variables—sherd type, temper composition, weight, maximum thickness, and interior- and exterior-surface damage of partial ceramic vessels—were examined to identify sources of environmental and anthropogenic variability. To statistically substantiate patterning in the Upper and Lower Zones of the three pit features, chi-square analyses were conducted for temper compositions and interior- and exterior-surface damage. Conventional and AMS radiocarbon assays provide chronological information for the pit features and their filling histories. Patterns of discard behavior intensity in specific temporal and functional contexts were identified. Radiocarbon assays, temper composition frequencies, and traces of interior- and i exterior-surface damage show that Features 37 and 38 were filled quickly by small-scale domestic discard activities during the Late Fort Ancient Period (A.D. 1450-1670). In contrast, Feature 146 was filled gradually by a combination of environmental processes and large-scale communal discard activities during the Late Woodland (A.D. 500-1000) through Middle Fort Ancient Periods (A.D. 1250-1450). Important patterns regarding temper composition, mean sherd weight, and mean maximum thickness were also documented. Although maximum thickness remains relatively constant in all features regardless of temper composition, sherd weight is highly variable and is therefore a strong indicator of exposure to formation processes. Furthermore, surface damage data indicate that only some ceramics were discarded directly into an empty pit, and that sherds with roughened surfaces are more resistant to mechanical attrition than those with plain surfaces. The data analyzed here align with local and regional models of Fort Ancient ceramic technology (e.g., Cowan 1986; Essenpreis 1982; Turnbow and Henderson 1992), while also providing additional information about formation processes with which more geographically and temporally specific models can be developed. Moreover, because ceramics from Hahn’s Field have not been studied comprehensively, the ceramic data collected from Features 37, 38, and 146 can be used to refine Riggs’ (1998) model of ceramic technology in the lower Little Miami River Valley by contributing information about chronology, vessel thickness, and the selection of tempering materials through time. ii iii AKNOWLEDGEMENTS Foremost, I would like to thank my family for their continued support and encouragement throughout all of my graduate studies. Without them none of this research would have been possible. I would also like to thank my advisor and first chair, Dr. Alan Sullivan, III, as well as Dr. Susan Allen for being on my committee and providing an invaluable second perspective. Thanks also to the Court Archaeological Research Fund and the Charles P. Taft Research Center, both of which provided funding for this thesis. I would also like to extend my thanks to Dr. Jarrod Burks of Ohio Valley Archaeology Inc., for providing remote sensing data from Hahn’s Field and Dr. Robert Cook of Ohio State University, for generously providing one AMS date from each of the analyzed pit features. Thank you also to the Cincinnati Museum Center and the Anderson Township Park District for providing me with the opportunity to work at the Hahn’s Field Site and to pursue my interests in the Late Prehistoric archaeology of the middle Ohio Valley. Finally, special thanks go to Robert A. Genheimer and Ted Sunderhaus for the enormous amount of support and guidance that they have bestowed upon me with respect to excavation methodology, laboratory procedures, artifact identification, and ceramic analysis. To anyone I may have missed, I apologize and thank you as well. iv DEDICATION This work is dedicated to the memory of: Gene Allen Swinney, Jr., (1956-2006) and Cornelius “Gramps” Arnold (1930-2014) v TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………………………...i Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………………………iv Dedication………………………………………………………………………………………………....v Table of Contents…vi List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………………………vii List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………………………..ix Chapter 1: Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………1 Chapter 2: Background…………………………………………………………………………...12 Chapter 3: Hahn’s Field and Methodological Considerations…………………………………………….32 Chapter 4: Data Analysis and Results…………………………………………………………………...52 Chapter 5: Interpretation and Conclusions………………………………………………………………82 References Cited…………………………………………………………………………………………97 Appendix A. Ceramic Subsample from Feature 37………………………………………………….116 Appendix B. Ceramic Subsample from Feature 38………………………………………………….130 Appendix C. Ceramic Subsample from Feature 146……………………………………………...134 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1. Location of the Hahn’s Field Site in Hamilton County, Ohio………………………1 Figure 3.1. Location of the Hahn’s Field Site in the lower Little Miami River Valley… 33 Figure 3.2. Magnetic Susceptibility of Hahn’s Field…………………….... 37 Figure 3.3. Gradiometry survey of Hahn’s Field ……………………. 37 Figure 3.4. Processed remote sensing data from Hahn’s Field…………………… 38 Figure 3.5. Upper and Lower Zones of Feature 37……………………………………..47 Figure 3.6. Upper and Lower Zones of Feature 3848 Figure 3.7. Upper and Lower Zones of Unit 35 of Feature 146….. 49 Figure 3.8. Upper and Lower Zones of Unit 27 of Feature 146….. 49 Figure 4.1. Location of Features 37, 38, and 146 at the Hahn’s Field Site…….52 Figure 4.2. Cluster chart showing the frequencies for the 25% ceramic subsamples from Features 37, 38, and 146 by temper composition……………………………………………….....54 Figure 4.3. Distribution of ceramic artifact weights for the 25% ceramic subsample…………...…56 Figure 4.4. Mean sherd weight values for Features 37, 38, and 146…………………….. 56 Figure 4.5. Mean sherd weight values by temper composition……………………………..............57 Figure 4.6. Distribution of maximum thickness for the 25% ceramic subsample…………………...58 vii Figure 4.7. Mean maximum thickness values for Features 37, 38, and 146 . …………….59 Figure 4.8. Mean maximum thickness values by temper composition………………………....60 Figure 4.9. Interior-surface damage categories for the 25% ceramic subsample..............................61 Figure 4.10. Exterior-surface damage categories for the 25% ceramic subsample……………….....62 Figure 4.11. Distribution of ceramic artifact weights for Feature 37…. 65 Figure 4.12. Distribution of maximum thickness for Feature 37…………………………...66 Figure 4.13. Location of 2-sigma calibrated radiocarbon dates from Feature 37………………….68 Figure 4.14. Distribution of ceramic artifact weights for Feature 38……………………….71 Figure 4.15. Distribution of maximum thickness for Feature 38……………………………...72 Figure 4.16. Location of 2-sigma calibrated radiocarbon dates from Feature 38……...74 Figure 4.17. Distribution of ceramic artifact weights for Feature 146…………………...77 Figure 4.18. Distribution of maximum thickness for Feature 146…………78 Figure 4.19. Location of 2-sigma calibrated radiocarbon dates from Unit 35 of Feature 146…………………81 viii LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1. Radiocarbon dates from the Hahn’s Field Site obtained from Cincinnati Museum Center Excavations prior to this research ...…………41 Table 3.2. Dimensions, estimated volumes, and ceramic assemblages of Feature 37, 38, and 146…..42 Table 3.3. Stratified 25% ceramic subsample from Feature 37…....45 Table 3.4. Stratified 25% ceramic subsample from Feature 38……....45 Table 3.5. Stratified 25% ceramic subsample from Unit 27 of Feature 146…..46 Table 3.6. Stratified 25% ceramic subsample from Unit 35 of Feature 146..46 Table 3.7. Radiocarbon dates from Features 37, 38, and 146…………50 Table 4.1. 25% ceramic subsamples from Features 37, 38, and 146 by Upper and Lower Zones…………………………………………………………………………………………..53 Table 4.2. Frequencies for Features 37, 38, and 146 by