Windsor Mound by Karin Anderson and Michael Lindeen Edited by Karin Anderson August 30, 1990 Archaeological Resources Management
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
windsor Mound by Karin Anderson and Michael Lindeen edited by Karin Anderson August 30, 1990 Archaeological Resources Management Service Ball state University -- Acknowledgements Thanks to Mike Lindeen for providing me access to his data. Thanks to Dr. Glenn of Ball state University for help with the measurements and advice. Thanks to Don Cochran for his patience and guidance. Special thanks to Jeff McCoy without whose technical assistance this would have been handwritten. Thanks to Dallas Evans and Amy Johnson for their expertise. i - Table of contents Introduction - Windsor Mound 1 Historical Background 2 Methodology 3 cranial Descriptions 5 Summary of Cranial Descriptions 16 Conclusion 17 References Cited 19 Appendix A - Blank Data Form 21 Appendix B - Cranial Measurements 27 Cranial Indices 29 Cranial Observations 32 Table 1. Sex and Age 36 Appendix C - Photographs 38 Appendix D - Ceramic Analysis 45 Illustration 46 Appendix E - Faunal Analysis 48 Appendix F - Lithic Analysis 50 ii Windsor Mound (12-R-1) is presently located in a small wooded area, surrounded by agricultural lands. It is one of the largest mounds in east-central Indiana, fifteen feet high and over 100 feet across the base (Cochran field notes on file, ARMS). Approximately one-third of this impressive and important mound remains unexcavated, to date. This report is an attempt to extract information from the Windsor materials on loan to Ball State University's Archaeological Laboratory. To this end, the human skeletal material was inventoried and measurements, observations and photographs were taken. The ceramics were inventoried, identified and illustrated where necessary. The faunal material was identified where that was possible. Last, the lithics were inventoried and identified as to type and raw material. I have also included some of the field observations of Donald Cochran, the Laboratory's director. One of the biggest problems in archaeology today is the difficulty in obtaining funds to complete analyses after excavation. Similarly, many projects go unpublished and thus are not integrated with related regional information. In this manner, much knowledge is "lost" in the archives of our own institutions. It is my hope that this report is one small step toward the complete analysis and integration of all the materials that Ball State University holds. I have included the raw data in the report, unmanipulated, so as to allow for easy comparison and compilation with other regional reports. Although the Windsor crania Series is not large enouh to create a valid statistical 1 sample, it could, perhaps, become an important part of a regional database for prehistoric sites known to be contemporary and related in east-central Indiana. Historical Background A carbon sample taken from the bottom of the mound revealed a date of 70 B.C. +/- 70 (Beta 25224). This, and the artifacts associated with windsor has led Mr. Cochran to assert that windsor is one of several east-central Indiana sites that are part of regional expression of two prehistoric cultures, "Adena" and "Hopewell" (Cochran 1990). The following is Cochran's description of the stratigraphy of the excavated portion of the mound (Cochran 1990): At the bottom of the excavation within the mound at or near the ori~inal ground surface are two distinct la¥ers of ash w1th fragments of cremated human bone. BU1lt on top of the upper ash layer is a rock mound with an open center. In the center of the rock mound was an extended burial with typical Adena artifact types, including plain stone tablets. No ceramics were associated with the burial. A radiocarbon sample collected from the top of the ash layer immediately below the burial produced a date of 70 B.C. +/- 70 (Beta-25224). When the rock mound was disassembled, at least 35 human crania were found ~laced among the rocks (Don Gleason, personal communicat10n 1988:89, Anderson 1990). An intrusive burial was found near the crest of the mound unassociated with the Adena burials. It appears to be of Early - Late Woodland (Intrusive Mound Culture) origin, given the artifact types encountered (Cochran et al. 1988:116-117). Although there is no other evidence of prehistoric activity, there could, of course, be other intrusive burials as yet uncovered. 2 After white settlement, Windsor Mound was disturbed further. The excavators uncovered an early trench, documented in Cochran's field notes. Two horse skulls and other bones, decayed boards and a square nail were recovered in a pit that extended from the top to near the bottom of the mound. pick marks were still visible on the wall of the trench. The most recent known disturbance to the mound has been the collector's excavation. This excavation has so far resulted in several "test" units scattered over the mound and a deep trench on the north slope, just east of the center (Cochran, field notes on file, ARMS). Methodology The only artifacts available for study from Windsor are the remains of approximately 35 Native Americans and those artifacts that were inadvertently packed with the skeletal material. The skulls were in plastic bags, packed with the soil that surrounded them, when they arrived at Ball State University. These had been placed in large boxes, with no packing between the skulls. The skulls were cleaned, reconstructed where possible, assigned ascession numbers, and analyized by Michael Lindeen. The first shipment of 22 skulls was given ascession number 87.17. After the ascession number is an arbitrary number for the individual skull; thus, they are numbered 87.17.1, 87.17.2 and so on. Due to a cataloging error there is no number 87.17.11. Skull number 87.17.22 is from the intrusive burial and although it is not included in the data sheets, not being a valid member of the series, it will be discussed at the end of the cranial 3 descriptions section. The second shipment of skulls was assigned ascession number 88.65.1. Thus, they are numbered 88.65.1.23, 88.65.1.24 and so on. There are 32 "whole" skulls in all, although they are numbered to .34 due to the discrepancies above. There are three partial skulls, numbered from 88.65.1.35, that may represent more than three additional individuals. This shipment was cleaned, reconstructed and analyized by the author. I contacted Mike Lindeen to get his data of the first group of skulls. He sent a text describing individual characteristics of the skulls (a format I have imitated in my analysis of the last nine skulls) and the cranial observations for the first group. The cranial measurements and most of the indices were not available. I completed the measurements and indices for all the skulls. The measurements were taken with standard anthropometric instruments, spreading, sliding and coordinating calipers. The indices were derived from standard anthropometric formulae, using the measurements above. The charts referred to are in Appendix A. The data collected is in Appendix B. Photographs of characteristics common to the series and special instances of trauma and pathology are in Appendix c. The few artifacts that arrived with the skulls, were given the number of the skull with which they were associated. Where this was not known, they were simply labeled "Windsor". Illustrations of the one piece of diagnostic pottery are included in Appendix D, with the ceramic analysis. The analysis was done by Amy Johnson. The faunal analysis is Appendix E and was done by Dallas Evans. The lithic analysis, Appendix F, was completed 4 by the author and checked by Donald Cochran. The following discussion of the skeletal material is largely Mike Lindeen's. The introduction and summary have been edited to reflect the additional data. cranial Descriptions The Windsor series contains remains from 32 seperate individuals. All were lacking the postcranial skeleton (excluding the first two cervical vertebrae). In every instance some degree of cranial reconstruction (usually extensive) was necessary before metrical analysis could be attempted. The basilar region was frequently impossible to reconstruct and therefore data normally taken from this cranial region is scant. Similarly, only one-fourth of the mandibles (or portions thereof) were recovered in association with the skulls. The first two cervical vertebrae (the atlas and the axis) were found in association with the crania in 40 percent of the cases. The majority of the skulls exhibit some degree of vertico occipital ("cradleboard") deformation. The crania are most deformed upon the posterior halves of the parietals and upon the most superior portion of the occipital. The deformation is commonly asymmetrical and often seems to produce a complex lambdoidal suture. Alveolar prognathism may be another byproduct of the deformation process. In a number of cases the deformation might have been exagerated postmortem by earth pressure. For example, #87.17.4 has a cranial index of 110, perhaps the highest index ever recorded. In such instances it is difficult if not impossible to distinguish between premortem and postmortem 5 cranial deformation. Individual 1 appears to be a young adult female. The cranium is in a fair state of preservation, although the mandible is missing. The skull displays pronounced postmortem deformation, resulting from each pressure (Photo 4). This has exaggerated the cranial length and has artificially compressed the cranial breadth. Relative to this population, brow ridges, mastoid processes, and the general muscularity of this cranium are all small. Glenoid fossa depth and glenoid fossa size are both exceptionally diminuitive. Incisors are moderately shovel shaped. No caries were detected upon the teeth of the upper jaw, however teeth wear is pronounced for an individual of this age indicating a diet consisting of a high proportion of grit. Individual 2 has been categorized as a male of middle age.