Geophysical Investigation of an Early Late Woodland Community in the Middle Ohio River Valley: the Water Plant Site

Geophysical Investigation of an Early Late Woodland Community in the Middle Ohio River Valley: The Water Plant Site

Dissertation

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for The Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

Karen L. Royce, M.A. Graduate Program in Anthropology

The Ohio State University 2011

Dissertation Committee:

Dr. William S. Dancey, Advisor

Dr. Kristen J. Gremillion

Dr. Ralph von Frese

Abstract

Geophysical surveys using fluxgate gradiometer and magnetic susceptibility instruments were conducted at the early Late Woodland Water Plant site to investigate

the community patterning within the site. The site was first investigated through

archaeological survey and excavation under the direction of Dr. William S. Dancey

approximately thirty years ago.

The Water Plant site is located in Franklin County, Ohio within the Middle Ohio

River Valley region. The re-examination of this site using different investigative

techniques has yielded additional, illuminating information. As a result of the fluxgate

gradiometer survey, the outer prehistoric ditch at the site was mapped in its entirety and

defines the community area of the site. An inner prehistoric ditch and palisade were also

mapped during the fluxgate gradiometer survey and additionally, sections of post screens

were detected at gaps in the outer prehistoric ditch at the site. The magnetic

susceptibility survey data indicate that the site area within the ditches had a high

frequency of human use. Based on all these data, the site does appear to be definitively

defensive in nature based on the two sets of earthen ditches and wooden palisade features

encompassing roughly an 8-acre area and may be one of the earliest occurrences of a

fortified community in the Middle Ohio River Valley.

The presence of the inner prehistoric ditch and palisade were confirmed through

excavation. Artifacts such as projectile points and ceramics commonly associated with

ii early Late Woodland sites were collected and identified. Charred paleoethnobotanical remains of both wild and domesticated species were also identified and radiocarbon dating of these materials also confirms an early Late Woodland time frame for the occupation of the Water Plant site.

iii

Dedication

Dedicated To Mom, Dad and Rob

Acknowledgments

I could not have undertaken this journey without the support and encouragement of so many people, thank you all so much.

First and foremost, I want to thank my advisor, Dr. William S. Dancey for encouraging me to reinvestigate this very special archaeological site in a new way. The

Department of Anthropology at The Ohio State University made my work possible through the use of geophysical equipment and support through Graduate Research and

Teaching Assistantships and Lectureships. Dr. Kristen Gremillion generously supported me as a Research Assistant on one of her NSF grants for two years; I learned so much under her guidance. The land owners, The City of Columbus, Water Division, specifically, the Parsons Avenue Treatment Plant under the direction of Bill Eitel, were wonderful to work with and I thank them for allowing me access to the site. Frank

Peters who farms the site was great in accommodating his schedule during my data collection. To my Ph.D. Committee members, Dr. William S. Dancey, Dr. Kristen

Gremillion, and Dr. Ralph von Frese, thank you for all your guidance and patience in seeing me through this process.

Thank you to Drs. Albert Peccora and Jarrod Burks and the staff of Ohio Valley

Archaeological Consultants (OVAC) who conducted the feature excavations at the site.

Dr. Jarrod Burks additionally volunteered many hours of his time and expertise in the

v topographic survey, a portion of the gradiometer survey, the anomaly probing, magnetic susceptibility survey and sample analysis and I have relied on his great advice, friendship, and encouragement as well. Dr. Steve Howard conducted the paleoethnobotanical analysis and Ms. Anne Lee conducted the faunal analysis. Dr.

Kristen Gremillion identified the charcoal samples submitted for radiocarbon analysis.

All these analyses were important aspects of the project; thank you all.

There are so many friends, co-workers and peers that I have not mentioned in name, just know that I am forever grateful for your counsel and encouragement throughout this endeavor. When I began my graduate work, I really did not know what direction it would take I just am so fortunate that it has ended up being so much more rewarding than I could image.

My brother, Dr. Richard A. Royce, put up with me through my Masters Degree and this degree; he is the best brother anyone could ever have. I cannot thank him enough for all his advice, encouragement, and support over the years. He was particularly kind in not ever asking me if I was finished yet.

Thank you to my parents, Nina and Dick Royce who always placed a high priority on education and supported my brothers and me in attaining our goals. I wish Dad were here to see me receive my Ph.D. hood from his alma mater, The Ohio State University.

Vita

1978…………………………………………………………………...Dublin High School 1984……………………………………………………...B.S. Geology, Purdue University 2000…………………………………………...M.A. Anthropology, Ohio State University 2000-2002………………….Graduate Research Associate, Department of Anthropology, The Ohio State University 2000-2004……………..…..Graduate Research Associate, Department of Anthropology, The Ohio State University 2005-2007………………………………….……Lecturer, Department of Anthropology, The Ohio State University

Publications

DeMartinis, J.M. and K.L. Royce. 1990 Identification of Direct-Entry Pathways by Which Agricultural Chemicals Enter Ground Water. Proceedings of the 1990 Cluster of Conferences. Water Well Journal Publishing Co. Dublin, Ohio.

Royce, K.L. 1991 Selection of Well Construction Material. Water Well Journal August 1991.

Fields of Study

Major Field: Anthropology

North America Eastern Woodland Prehistory

Early Late Woodland Time Period

Geophysical Investigations

vii

Table of Contents

Abstract………………………………………………………………………………...…ii Dedication..……………………………………………………………………………….iv Acknowledgments………………………………………………………………….…...... v Vita…………….……………………………………………………………………..….vii List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………..xi List of Figures…………………………………………………………………...…...…..xii

Chapter 1. Introduction………………………………………………………………..1

Discovery of the Late Woodland Time Period……………………………………1 Dissertation Research…………………………………………………………...…6

Chapter 2. Characterization and History of the Early Late Woodland in the Middle Ohio River Valley………………………………………………………………..11

Sand Ridge Site (33HA17)……………………………………………………....18 Turpin Farm Site (33HA19)……………………………………………………...21 W.S. Cole Site (33DE11)………………………………………………………...25 Lichliter Village Site (33MY23)…………………………………………………26 Merion Village/Zencor/SciotoTrails School Site (33FR8)………………………28 Leonard Haag Site (12D19)……………………………………………………...30 Childers Site (46MS121)………………………………………………………...32 Pyles Site (15MS28)……………………………………………………………..35 Bentley Site (15GP15)………………………………………………………...…37 Water Plant Site (33FR155)……………………………………………………...38 Hansen Site (15GP14)……………………………………………………………41 Rogers Site Complex (15BE33, 15BE34, 15BE35)……………………………..43 Parkline Site (46PU99)…………………………………………………………..46 Shared Characteristics……………………………………………………………48

Chapter 3. Physical Setting at the Water Plant Site………………………………….54

Physiographic Characteristics……………………………………………………54 Geology…………………………………………………………………………..55 Soils……..……………………………………………………………………….57 Hydrology………………………………………………………………………..57 Climate…...………………………………………………………………………59 Vegetation………………………………………………………………………..60

viii

Fauna………..……………………………………………………………………62

Chapter 4. Past Investigations at the Water Plant Site……………………………....63

Chapter 5. Current Site Work and Methodologies…….………………………….…71

Research Plan…………………………………………………………………….71 Site Characterization……………………………………………………..73 Fluxgate Gradiometer (Magnetic) Survey…….…………………………74 Magnetic Susceptibility (Second Geophysical) Survey……………....…74 Coring, Excavation and Sample Collection……………………………...75 Field Methods……………………………………………………………………76 Site Grid………………………………………………………………….77 GPS Survey………………………………………………………………78 Topographic Survey……………………………………………………...79 Fluxgate Gradiometer Survey…………………………………………....80 Anomaly Probing………………………………………………………...86 Anomaly Excavations……………………………………………………86 Magnetic Susceptibility Survey………………………………………….88 Laboratory Methods……………………………………………………………..91 Site Grid………………………………………………………………….91 GPS Survey………………………………………………………………92 Topographic Survey……………………………………………………...92 Fluxgate Gradiometer Survey……………………………………………93 Anomaly Probing………………………………………………………...95 Excavation of Anomaly Locations……….……………………………...97 Magnetic Susceptibility………………………………………………….99 Flotation and Botanical Remains Collection…………………………...100 Faunal Remains Identification………………………………………….102 Ceramics……………………………………………………………..…102 Lithics…………………………………………………………………..103

Chapter 6. Current Site Work Findings…………………………………………….105

Site Grid………………………………………………………………………...105 GPS Survey……………………………………………………………………..106 Topographic Survey…………………………………………………………….107 Fluxgate Gradiometer Survey…………………………………………………..108 Anomaly Probing……………………………………………………………….112 Anomaly Locations Excavations ………..……………………………………..114 Anomaly 116……………………………………………………………115 Anomaly 81 (pit)……………………………………………………..…117 Anomaly 20……………………………………………………………..119 Anomaly 34……………………………………………………………..121 Anomaly 110……………………………………………………………124 Anomaly 81 (arm/trench)……………………………………………….127

Trench…………………………………………………………………..129 Magnetic Susceptibility Survey………………………………………………...131 Flotation and Botanical Remains Collection…………………………………...133 Faunal Remains Identification………………………………………………….136 Ceramics………..………………………………………………………………139 Lithics……..……………………………………………………………………141

Chapter 7. Dating the Water Plant Site…………………………………………….144

Radiocarbon Dating of Site Samples…………………………………………...144 Ceramics…………………...…………………………………………………...148 Lithics…..………………………………………………………………………149

Chapter 8. Community Patterning………………………………………………….150

Structures……...………………………………………………………………..151 Site Layout……………………………………………………………………...152 Seasonality and Duration……………………………………………………….153 Nucleation…...………………………………………………………………….154 Mounds and Human Burials……………………………………………………156 Ditches and Embankments……………………………………………………..158 Palisades………………………………………………………………………...159 Summary…..……………………………………………………………………163

Chapter 9. Summary and Conclusions…………………………………………..…165

Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………....172

Tables………...…………………………………………………………………………183

Figures…………………………………………………………………………………..211

List of Tables

Table 1. Summary of Early Late Woodland Sites in the Middle Ohio River Valley….184

Table 2. List of Paleoethnobotantical Materials and Their Common Names………….185

Table 3. Radiocarbon Dates for the Water Plant Site………………………………….186

Table 4. Anomaly Probing Data……………………………………………………….187

Table 5. Magnetic Susceptibility Data…………………………………………………192

Table 6. Anomaly Probing Rating Categories…………………………………………195

Table 7. Summary of Paleoethnobotanical Analysis..…………………………………196

Table 8. Summary of Faunal Analysis…………………………………………………202

Table 9. Summary of Ceramic Data………………...…………………………………203

Table 10. Summary of Anomaly Excavation Dimensions……………..……………...204

Table 11. Ground Stone, Projectile Points and Other Rock Artifacts from Anomaly

Excavation Locations………..………………………………………………205

Table 12. Surface-collected Artifacts…...……………………………………………..206

Table 13. Early Late Woodland Radiocarbon Dates for the Water Plant, Scioto

Trails and Childers Sites………………………………………………….....208

Table 14. Radiocarbon Dates for Other Early Woodland Sites..……………………...209

List of Figures

Figure 1. Early Late Woodland Sites and the W.S Cole Site……………………….…212

Figure 2. 1987 Dancey et al. Interpretation of the Water Plant Site,

Augmented…………………………………………………………………...213

Figure 3. Radiocarbon Dates for Early Late Woodland Sites………………...………..214

Figure 4. The Water Plant Site Area…………………………………………………...215

Figure 5. Physiographic Provinces of Ohio…………………………………………....216

Figure 6. Bedrock Geological Map of Ohio……………..…………………………….217

Figure 7. Glacial Map of Ohio…………………………………………………………218

Figure 8. Shaded Glacial Drift-Thickness Map of Ohio…………………………...…..219

Figure 9. USDA Soil Survey Map of the Water Plant Site Area………………………220

Figure 10. 1872 Map of the Water Plant Site Vicinity..……………………………….221

Figure 11. 1950 and 1976 Aerial Photographs of the Water Plant Site…...…………...222

Figure 12. Cross-sections of the Water Plant Site Outer and Inner Ditches…………...223

Figure 13. Gradiometer Data Collection Grid Number Reference Map…………….…224

Figure 14. Gradiometer Data Map for the Water Plant Site……………………...……225

Figure 15. Magnetic Anomaly Probing Locations……………………………………..226

Figure 16. Excavation Locations at the Water Plant Site…………...…………………227

Figure 17. Grid Systems Used at the Water Plant Site, Initial and Current

Investigations…………………………………………………………….....228

xii

Figure 18. Gradiometer Data with the Dancey et al. 1987 Interpretation Overlay…....229

Figure 19. Topographic Map of the Water Plant Site………………………………….230

Figure 20. Anomaly Types……………………………………………………………..231

Figure 21. Mass Magnetic Susceptibility Map………………………………………...232

Figure 22. Frequency Dependent Magnetic Susceptibility Map………………………233

Figure 23. Gradiometer Data with Historic Anomalies Indicated…...………………...234

Figure 24. Gradiometer Data with Prehistoric Anomalies Indicated…..……………...235

Figure 25. Anomaly 116 Excavation Profile…………………………………………..236

Figure 26. Anomaly 81 (pit) Excavation Profile……………………………………....237

Figure 27. Anomaly 20 Excavation Profile……...…………………………………….238

Figure 28. Anomaly 20 Projectile Points………………………………………………239

Figure 29. Anomaly 20 Ceramics……………………………………………………...240

Figure 30. Anomaly 34 Excavation Profile…………………………………………….241

Figure 31. Anomaly 34 Projectile Points………………………………………………242

Figure 32. Anomaly 34 Ceramics……………………………………………………...243

Figure 33. Anomaly 110 Excavation Profile…………………………………………..244

Figure 34. Anomaly 110 Projectile Points……………………………………………..245

Figure 35. Anomaly 110 Ceramics…………………………………………………….246

Figure 36. Anomaly 81 and Palisade…………………………………………………..247

Figure 37. Inner Ditch Profile and Plan View in Trench Excavation.…………………248

Figure 38. Discoids…………………………………………………………………….249

Figure 39. Radiocarbon Dates for the Water Plant Site………………………………..250

Figure 40. Radiocarbon Dates for the Water Plant, Scioto Trails and Childers Sites…251

xiii

Figure 41. Possible Postmold Traces of Houses in the Gradiometer Data……………..252

xiv

Chapter 1: Introduction

The purpose of this dissertation research is to determine the nature of community patterning (intra-site organization) within a village of the early Late Woodland time period using geophysical methods. Early Late Woodland habitation sites in the Middle

Ohio River Valley region are aggregated/nucleated villages and this is a departure from the dispersed/non-nucleated habitation sites observed during the previous and subsequent time periods (Middle Woodland and late Late Woodland, respectively). For this reason, a close examination of a nearly intact early Late Woodland site, such as the Water Plant site (33FR155) in Franklin County, Ohio, aids in our understanding of the spatial patterning utilized by households residing within a nucleated village.

Discovery of the Late Woodland Time Period

The Late Woodland time period in the Middle Ohio River Valley region is dated from approximately A.D. 400 to A.D. 1000 (Griffin 1967). The Late Woodland is then subdivided into two time periods, the early Late Woodland and the late Late Woodland at approximately A.D. 650 (Seeman and Dancey 2000). The sub-time period division is based on a number of characteristics or traits observed in the archaeological record.

These traits include specific tool types and technology, ceramic styles, and settlement patterns. Within the category of settlement patterns there are changes in the location of

sites on the landscape and in the size of the residential communities. Subsistence

strategies change somewhat with respect to the procurement of food (i.e., possible more

use of the bow and arrow in the late Late Woodland time period); however, the types of

animals (large and small mammals, and river resources) and plants (both wild and

domesticated) being utilized within the Late Woodland time period (both early and late)

are similar.

Early in the history of archaeology in Ohio, more attention was given to the

preceding Middle Woodland time period, dating from approximately 200 B.C. to A.D.

400 (Griffin 1967), and the subsequent Late Prehistoric time period which is dated from

approximately A.D. 1000 to A.D. 1700 (Griffin 1978). This emphasis was primarily due

to the interest shown in the presence of large and prominent earthworks and mounds

created by Early and Middle Woodland people (e.g., Adena and Hopewell archaeological

cultures) and mounds and large residential sites created by Late Prehistoric peoples (Fort

Ancient archaeological culture in this region). Although Late Woodland sites had been

excavated as early as 1881 and 1885 (Sand Ridge site in southeastern Ohio [Metz 1881];

and the Turpin Farm site [Putnam 1886]), the full import of their placement within the

chronological sequence of archaeological cultures was not recognized until the 1940s and

1950s. Other factors affecting the relative obscurity of Late Woodland sites include the

facts that many of these locales are multi-component sites and there was an underdeveloped archaeological chronology of the region.

In the archaeological literature for the region beginning in the 1930s and 1940s the Late Woodland archaeological cultures were more or less "lumped" together in the

Middle Ohio Valley and were characterized as following the Woodland Pattern (Griffin

1943, Griffin 1952). This Woodland Pattern was based on the McKern Midwestern

Taxonomic system (McKern 1939) and it was used to categorize archaeological cultures

based on a list of cultural traits. At the level of Pattern within McKern's taxonomic

system, the lists were comprised of underlying characteristics and attributes (his term was

"determinants") and were somewhat generic to groups in a region. McKern defined the

Woodland Pattern as:

The Woodland Pattern, as compared with the Mississippi Pattern, offers such determinants as (tentative list): characteristic flexed inhumation and/or secondary interments; a pottery ware characteristically grit-tempered, granular in structure, with intaglio surface ornamentation effected on the soft unfired paste by means of cords and/or other indenting tools, prevailingly sub-conoidal in shape with simple shape variety; stemmed or notched chipped-stone projectile points and cutting implements; primary chipping superimportant over secondary, to reduce thick flakes to a desired size and shape; grooved axes; semi-sedentary territorial adjustment (McKern 1939:309-310).

One of the biggest problems faced by archaeologists in this era was the development of a basic chronology and culture history of the region. While McKern's taxonomic system (The Midwestern Taxonomic Method) was based on cultural traits and not intended to be used for establishing chronologies or cultural histories, it was used in modified form for building the archaeological sequence of the region. McKern specifically pointed out that there are two additional factors archaeologists need to consider in addition to culture, and they are geographical (spatial) and temporal (ordering through time) (McKern 1939:303). James Griffin wrote in 1943 that in applying

McKern's taxonomic system (as Griffin did for the Fort Ancient Aspect), it must be

applied carefully and thoughtfully and that it in no way implies a culture history for the

group under consideration (Griffin 1943:340).

James Ford and Gordon Willey (1941) summarized the prehistory of the Eastern

United Sates using some terminology of McKern's taxonomic system (however, the terms

had different definitions) and added a time element to present a chronology focusing on

the Mississippi River Valley and its major tributaries, including the Ohio River Valley

region. They also were trying to show spatial (geographical) relationships of

archaeological groups through time.

Because dating methods such as radiocarbon dating were not yet available, the timing of the archaeological record was off considerably and Ford and Willey state that the dates were "frankly guesses" (Ford and Willey 1941:331; e.g., Ohio Hopewell is indicated as being present at approximately A.D. 1200 and we now know they are generally dated to between 200 B.C. and A.D. 400). Ford and Willey include the Late

Woodland groups of the Middle Ohio Valley region in the archaeological sequence within their "Burial Mound II Stage" (Ford and Willey 1941:329, Figure 4). The archaeological cultures discussed in their interpretation of Eastern United States chronology only included the very visible and impressive groups, visible and impressive in respect to groups having large earthworks and mounds, burial ritualism and artifacts manufactured from exotic materials.

In the mid-1940s and 1950s there was more archaeological study and excavation of sites in the Middle Ohio River Valley and more details about the region's chronology became apparent, albeit slowly within the literature. James Griffin wrote in 1946

The question of time-relationships between cultural units in the central Ohio valley did not receive much attention between 1887 when Putnam recognized the priority and distinctiveness of the Hopewell culture, and 1937, when Lilly reconstructed the situation. During this time emphasis was upon the examination of large mounds or village sites, and a distinct advance was made in the recognition and preliminary definition of three major cultural units. While smaller and less spectacular sites were excavated or surveyed, and in some cases reported, the interpretation of cultural units in the area was strongly colored by the character of a few large sites. Most of the papers written on the archaeology of the area emphasized the distinctiveness of each unit. It was believed that there was no contact between theses divisions; they moved in and out of the Ohio area with no regional antecedents or successors (Griffin 1946:55).

Griffin goes on to write about the three major cultures recognized in the area (Adena, Hopewell, Fort Ancient) without mention of other groups of people

(namely, Late Woodland groups). There was still little written about other groups occurring between Hopewell and Fort Ancient, and dating methods other than stratigraphic placement and seriation were still not available. Griffin at the time recognized that there were differences between the groups of people; however, he emphasized similarities such as the use of large mound groups (although they were used in different manners) and he viewed widespread trade continuing from

Hopewellian to Mississippian (Fort Ancient) times (Griffin 1946:75). The problem was viewing these cultures as almost continuous over time and having a compressed timeframe, whereas, we now know that the cultural traits mentioned above were not continuous and there was nearly a time gap of 600 years between them.

In 1952 Griffin described the period following Hopewell and preceding Fort

Ancient as "a period of unknown length during which relatively little cultural

progress was made" (Griffin 1952:186), and goes on to state it was "a period of

decline" (Griffin 1952:186), especially with respect to burial ceremonialism. He

viewed these societies, which he associated with the Newtown Focus (following

McKern's taxonomic system), as having continuity from Hopewell (based on tool similarities); however, there was no connection to the Fort Ancient culture. This is interesting, because both the Turpin Farm and Sand Ridge sites had large Fort

Ancient occupations overlying Late Woodland occupations. Griffin also mentioned a site excavated in Delaware County, Ohio (presumably the W.S. Cole site) as being attributed to the Late Woodland time period people, so more archaeologists were becoming aware of Late Woodland groups in the region.

Between the 1950s to the present, archaeologists, both professional and avocational, have identified and excavated a number of Late Woodland sites, with most of these locations being dated to the early Late Woodland time period. The following chapter (Chapter 2) describes in detail what we know about these sites and the early Late Woodland time period.

Dissertation Research

Although the early Late Woodland time period was actually detected over 130 years ago (based on Metz 1881), the recognition of the archaeological cultures and their significance in Middle Ohio Valley chronology is relatively young (the last 50 to 60 years) compared to the amount of research performed on the preceding (Hopewell) and

6 subsequent (Fort Ancient or Late Prehistoric) time periods. For this reason, there was

(and still is) much to learn from an early Late Woodland site like the Water Plant site.

The Water Plant site (33FR155) is an early Late Woodland time period site located in the Middle Ohio River Valley area. This site was previously studied through an aerial photograph analysis, archaeological survey and surface collection, and excavation of a portion of the site. The previous investigations were performed in the late 1970s and early 1980s because the archaeological site was being destroyed due to construction of a water treatment facility for the City of Columbus, Ohio. As a result of the previous investigations, a prehistoric ditch was found and there were eleven areas of possible household locations identified within the site area circumscribed by the ditch

(Dancey et al. 1987). This dissertation research used the previously collected information and new data collection to examine the intra-site organization of an early Late Woodland time period site.

The questions to be answered in this dissertation research were fivefold:

1. To determine where there was intra-site organization of structures, features

and activity areas within the Water Plant site. In other words, did this site

grow randomly or was there patterning to the arrangement of site

households?

2. Determine the ancient ditch boundaries within the archaeological record.

3. Determine whether the relatively large village (3.2 hectares or 8 acres) was

used contemporaneously.

4. Determine whether the questions above could be answered using

geophysical methods.

5. Determine what can be learned about the site's buried features using

geophysics.

The new data collection conducted during this dissertation research to answer the above questions included a geophysical survey using a fluxgate gradiometer,

identification and excavation of discrete archaeological features, collection and

classification of artifacts from the surface and subsurface, collection and identification of

botanical and faunal remains, and collection and analysis of radiocarbon samples for

dating purposes. Also conducted were a new topographic survey, a geographical

positional system (GPS) survey, and a near-surface magnetic susceptibility survey.

Several findings were made during this research:

• The areal extent of the early Late Woodland village within the outer ditch

that remains buried at the Water Plant site was defined through the 100

percent coverage fluxgate gradiometer survey.

• The configuration of the ditch that circumscribed the site and visible on

aerial photographs was better defined using the fluxgate gradiometer

survey.

• A previously unknown interior site ditch circumscribed by a palisade of

posts was detected using the fluxgate gradiometer survey. In addition,

parts of the outer ditch had sections of palisades or post curtains present.

• Hundreds of anomalies were identified during the fluxgate gradiometer

survey and approximately 135 were probed and tentatively

identified/classified based on the probing results. Of these anomalies,

eight were excavated.

• Radiocarbon dating of charred seeds and wood charcoal collected during

the excavation of eight features (five excavation units consisting of five pit

features, the interior ditch, and the palisade in two locations) confirmed

the last large archaeological use of the entire site was during the early Late

Woodland time period and that there were earlier occupations or site uses

in the Middle and Late Archaic time periods.

• Site use for residential purposes for the time periods dated is supported by

the types of artifacts (i.e., tools and ceramics, and floral and faunal

remains) recovered on the surface and through excavation, and the number

and types of features detected in the fluxgate gradiometer survey (i.e.,

waste pits, post molds, ditches).

Chapter 2 discusses the research on Late Woodland time period sites in the

Middle Ohio River Valley region and focuses on early Late Woodland time period sites that share characteristics with the Water Plant site. Chapter 3 summarizes the environmental setting of the Water Plant site and the immediately surrounding area.

There has been a good deal of research performed at the Water Plant site and the earlier studies are highlighted in Chapter 4.

The research methodologies used and findings made during this dissertation research are detailed in Chapters 5 and 6, respectively. Chapter 7 is a discussion of the chronology of the Water Plant site and other early Late Woodland time period sites in the

Middle Ohio River Valley based on the current findings. Chapter 8 is a discussion of the settlement patterns of the early Late Woodland sites in this region and includes a discussion of the defensive architecture found at the Water Plant site. The summary and conclusions of this dissertation research are provided in Chapter 9.

Chapter 2: Characterization and History of the Early Late Woodland in the Middle Ohio River Valley

This chapter presents information about early Late Woodland sites that have been found in the Middle Ohio River Valley. First there is a discussion of some of the general site characteristics that early Late Woodland sites share as an introduction as to why these sites are so interesting in the context of earlier (Hopewell) and later (late Late Woodland and Late Prehistoric/Fort Ancient) archaeological cultures. Next, information on twelve early Late Woodland sites (Figure 1) is presented in chronological order of when they appeared in the archaeological literature. Summary information for these sites is found in

Table 1. Included in this discussion of sites is an additional site, the W.S. Cole site, which was part of the history of the Late Woodland time period archaeological literature in this region. Finally, a discussion of the twelve early Late Woodland sites is presented highlighting their shared attributes. The Water Plant site is described only in brief in this chapter. A detailed site description, the previous work, and the current work performed there are found in subsequent chapters.

In the Middle Ohio River Valley the Late Woodland time period is situated between two very archaeologically visible time periods – the Middle Woodland time period with the Hopewell archaeological culture and the Late Prehistoric time period with the Fort Ancient archaeological culture. As more research is performed, the Late

Woodland time period is being more appreciated for the cultural dynamics and changes

that took place during this time. Not only did cultural changes occur between the prior

and subsequent time periods (Middle Woodland and Late Prehistoric, respectively), there

were also cultural changes occurring within the Late Woodland time period. In regard to

cultural changes, ritual and burial patterns, trade patterns, chipped stone tool styles and

technologies, ceramic styles and forms, settlement patterns, and subsistence are included.

These aspects of the material archaeological record undoubtedly are indications of probable ideological, social, and political changes as well.

A striking characteristic of early Late Woodland groups when compared to

Middle Woodland/Hopewell and Late Prehistoric/Fort Ancient groups is their lack of large earthworks and apparent ritual associated with burials and burial mounds. Burials in the early Late Woodland time period are sometimes in cemeteries or stone mounds; however, human interments are also present in pits and refuse pits within the village areas. In the early Late Woodland time period there is a paucity of exotic materials and few items are buried with people. When items are found in association with human remains they are typically few in number and appear to be more utilitarian than those found in association with Hopewell burials (cf. Kreinbrink 1992; Shott et al. 1993). In the Late Prehistoric time period, large cemeteries and burial mounds are prevalent in this region. In the case of the Sand Ridge and Turpin Farm sites (discussed later in this chapter), these sites were first investigated due to the Fort Ancient occupations present there and many artifacts were found associated with human remains (Oehler 1973,

Griffin 1943).

Long distance trade patterns are another evident trait of Hopewell and Fort

Ancient peoples. The Middle Woodland and Early Woodland time periods are known for

the presence of many exotic materials. Items were manufactured from materials such as

obsidian from the Yellowstone region, native copper from the Lake Superior region,

marine shell from the Gulf Coast region, and mica from the southern Appalachians

(Griffin 1967). In the Late Prehistoric time period there appears to be materials such as riverine and marine shell, bone, and items manufactured from more locally or regionally available lithic sources (Griffin 1978). In the Late Woodland time period there are more artifacts manufactured from more locally available materials and less from exotic materials (Griffin 1967).

Another example of different traits between time periods is in stone tool forms

and materials. The Middle Woodland, Late Woodland and Late Prehistoric peoples all made and used similar stone tools (projectile points, ground stone, and other tools);

however, there are differences in form, styles and materials throughout these time periods

(among and between the time periods). With respect to chipped stone tool types, one of

the marked changes between the Middle Woodland and early Late Woodland time

periods is the presence of bladelets in the Middle Woodland and their absence during the

Late Woodland and subsequent time periods. Bladelets are hallmark artifacts found at

Hopewell sites and were typically made from high-grade, fine-grained cherts like that

from the Flint Ridge, Ohio source area. Also found in the Middle Woodland are chipped

stone tools made from obsidian sourced from the western United States. The obsidian

tools are many times found in contexts that suggest primarily ritual and/or ceremonial

13 uses (in burials and caches) rather than utilitarian contexts. Utilitarian chipped stone tool types found in Middle Woodland contexts include Snyders Cluster and Lowe Cluster

(Steuben Expanded Stemmed and Chesser Notched) projectile points (Justice 1995).

Early Late Woodland time period chipped stone projectile points found in the

Middle Ohio River Valley primarily are of the Lowe Cluster, especially Chesser Notched projectile points and Jack's Reef Pentagonal points (Justice 1995). The primary source material for the Chesser points found in central Ohio is the locally available Delaware chert and the occurrence of exotic materials is infrequent. This trait continues through the late Late Woodland time period. In the Late Prehistoric time period Triangular Cluster points are the predominant projectile point types in this area (Justice 1995).

Other than cordmarking on the ceramics, there is typically a lack of decoration on early Late Woodland ceramic vessels. In this time period there is commonly an angular shoulder on vessels – and this is lacking in Hopewell and Fort Ancient ceramic assemblages and in general, in late Late Woodland assemblages too. The vessels in the early Late Woodland also generally have thinner walls than Middle Woodland

(Hopewell) vessels (Braun 1987). Vessel forms in the early Late Woodland time period tend to be large with conoidal bases, whereas in the Middle Woodland and Late

Prehistoric time periods, there appears to be more variation in size and form of ceramic vessels. The ceramic vessels found at early Late Woodland sites appear to the almost exclusively utilitarian based on their lack of decorative attributes. In the Middle

Woodland and Late Prehistoric time periods special purpose vessels are found especially in burial contexts (Griffin 1967). Decoration on ceramic vessels is prevalent in both the

Middle Woodland and Late Prehistoric time periods although the decorative styles do

differ from one another. Another noticeable change is in the temper used for ceramic

vessels in the Late Prehistoric time period – there is more use of shell as a temper rather

than the grit (typically of granitic rocks or limestone) seen in the Middle and early Late

Woodland time periods (Griffin 1983).

Changes in settlement patterns have long been recognized in the history of the

Middle Ohio River Valley. This region has a rich archaeological record with sites dating

from Paleoindian times through the Historic era. William Dancey presents a model for

the chronology of settlement patterns for this region and discusses "an oscillating cycle of

community nucleation and dispersion" (Dancey 1998:5). One of the more dramatic

settlement pattern changes occurred between the Middle Woodland and Late Woodland

time periods, from small and dispersed sites to larger, nucleated sites. Another feature of

early Late Woodland sites is their placement "along water courses, usually on a high bluff

or terrace edge, with a protective ditch/enclosure completing definition of the settlement

space" (Dancey 1992:25).

One of the more interesting traits of the early Late Woodland peoples in the

Middle Ohio River Valley was the nucleation of their communities into large residential

sites. The earlier Middle Woodland (Hopewell) culture sites utilized small, dispersed

single- or multiple-family households for residential occupation (Dancey and Pacheco

1997). Dancey and Pacheco prefer to use the term "hamlet" which has a connotation of

"small size, below the scale of village" (1997:7). Based on their tabulation of Hopewell sites in the Middle Ohio region (Dancey and Pacheco 1997:Table 1.1), these hamlets do

15 range in size from 0.13 to 1.3 hectares with a median size of 0.44 hectares (1.08 acres), although most hamlets range between 0.13 and 0.53 hectares with a median size of 0.29 hectares (0.72 acres). The residential sites of the early Late Woodland people range in size from approximately 0.5 to over 3 hectares (Seeman and Dancey 2000), with a rough median size of 1.5 hectares (3.7 acres). Because the early Late Woodland sites are larger than a "hamlet," I refer to them as village sites. Less is known about late Late Woodland habitation sites; however, in general they are smaller and more on the scale of hamlets or small camps and are apparently more dispersed and ephemeral on the landscape (Shott and Jeffries 1992; Railey 1996; and Seeman and Dancey 2000).

In the Late Prehistoric time period sites appear to be nucleated again, although on an even larger scale (3 to 10 acres; Griffin 1978, Griffin 1983) than observed in the early

Late Woodland time period and it is generally accepted that the Late Prehistoric sites were permanent (Griffin 1978; Essenpreis 1978; Ottesen 1985; Henderson et.al. 1992).

Hopewell habitation sites are found in a variety of landscapes – terraces, uplands, hilltops, steep valleys, and floodplains (Dancey and Pacheco 1997), whereas early Late

Woodland habitation sites are almost exclusively found on terraces and high floodplains adjacent to major rivers or secondary rivers or waterways. The sites typically are bounded by a steep bluff along these waterways. In addition, the early Late Woodland people constructed a ditch or embankment around at least three of the well-known sites –

Water Plant (Dancey 1988), Scioto Trails (Dancey 1988; Potter 1966), and Childers (cf.

Shott et al. 1990). Two other Fairfield County, Ohio sites, the Swinehart Village site

(along Rush Creek) and the Ety site (in the Upper Hocking River drainage) are large open

16 sites with embankments and/or ditches enclosing a settlement area (Dancey 1988:233-

234). Data from the Ety site is not published, and little is published on the Swinehart

Village site, so they are not included in the site summaries and discussions below. In eastern and southeastern Ohio and Eastern Kentucky, early Late Woodland people did use rockshelters and/or caves for habitation (Prufer 1975; Ormerod 1983); however, I have focused on the open habitation sites. Late Prehistoric sites appear to have been constructed in the same environments as the early Late Woodland sites (Church

1987:171).

While we see differences in some of the cultural patterns between either the

Middle Woodland or the Late Prehistoric time periods and the Late Woodland time period, some of these differences are more subtle. An example would be in subsistence changes between the Middle Woodland and Late Woodland time periods. There was a reliance on horticulture (domesticated plants) in supplementing wild resources; however, there appears to be an intensification of horticulture and shift in proportions for specific wild and domesticated resources (Greenlee 2001:218; Wymer 1987:252-254). This trend continued through the late Late Woodland time period and then seemingly drastically changed with the reliance on maize in the Late Prehistoric time period (Church 1987;

Greenlee 2001; Wymer 1993).

Below is a description and summary of twelve early Late Woodland sites and the

W.S. Cole site. These sites generally comprise the body of knowledge published for open habitation sites occupied during the early Late Woodland time period. The section below on the Water Plant site is very brief and an expanded discussion of the previous

site work and findings is found in Chapter 4. The sites that are discussed below are

shown in Figure 1.

Sand Ridge Site (33HA17)

The Sand Ridge and Turpin Farm sites were first excavated in the 1880s although there is little mention of their Late Woodland components in any detail in the literature until James Griffin described the Sand Ridge site's Fort Ancient artifacts in 1943 (Griffin

1943:143-146). There was mention of an archaeological component that occurred in time between Hopewell and Fort Ancient in Frederic Putnam's report to the Trustees of the

Peabody Museum in 1886 when Putnam reports of some of the work Dr. Charles Metz

had conducted in the Little Miami Valley in the early 1880s. The Sand Ridge and Turpin

Farm sites are located near one another in the Little Miami River Valley and are both locations of Fort Ancient occupations overlying the early Late Woodland occupations. In

1943, James Griffin coined the term Newtown Focus in describing the site's early Late

Woodland archaeological components. Newtown is a town that exists near the Sand

Ridge and Turpin Farm sites and Griffin suggested the name “Newtown” to distinguish

the Late Woodland component because these sites were “well-known as a Fort Ancient

site” (Griffin 1952:187, speaking of the Turpin Farm site).

The Sand Ridge site was re-excavated by Donald Conover in the 1940s and he found the site to have stratified cultural deposits left by both Newtown Focus and Fort

Ancient peoples (Starr 1960:64). Metz's and Conover's site findings have not been published. The primary published information regarding the Newtown Focus at the Sand

Ridge site is the ceramic description by Edward McMichael (In Railey 1984) and by

Rodney Riggs in a summary of investigations at the site (Riggs 1986) and in his Ph.D.

dissertation (Riggs 1998).

McMichael originally wrote the type description for Newtown Cordmarked and

Newtown Plain ceramics in the 1960s but did not publish it. He used the Sand Ridge and

Turpin Farm sites ceramics as a basis for his analysis and they constitute the type

descriptions for Newtown Series ceramics. Fortunately Jimmy Railey (1984) published

McMichael's description as an Appendix to his report on the Pyles site (discussed below).

Newtown ceramics are characterized as being grit tempered with the grit primarily being comprised of crushed granitic and quartizitic rocks and also may have limestone grit. The vessels are typically cordmarked on the exterior and may (rarely) have interior cordmarking. Some vessels may also be smooth. There is rarely any decoration other than cordmarking; however, one sherd from the Sand Ridge site was described as having a punched (punctuated) rim. Riggs also found three similarly

punctuated rims at the site in the 1970s (1986:14). The characteristic form of vessels was

described by McMichael as "large, thin, well-made elongate jars" (Railey 1984:133) and

had semi-conoidal bases. Sherd (and vessel) thicknesses range between 3 and 10

millimeters (mm). The most distinctive characteristic of the Newtown Series vessels is

the presence of an angular shoulder. This type description fits well with the ceramics

found at the majority of other early Late Woodland sites.

The chronological placement of Late Woodland sites was beginning to be better understood in the 1950s and 1960s and with respect to chronological position,

McMichael stated that the Newtown Series ceramics were

A transitional Middle to Late Woodland cordmarked pottery of the Ohio area. Represents the end of the Hopewellian continuity in Ohio, but is part of the source of Fort Ancient pottery, along with the addition of Mississippian influence. Found stratigraphically under Fort Ancient at Turpin and Sand Ridge sites, and since in the large sample examined, no Classic Hopewellian sherds occurred it is a safe assumption that it postdates Classic Ohio Hopewell (McMichael in Railey 1986:134).

Botanical remains were recovered from the Sand Ridge site in the 1970s and discussed in Wymer's (1987:47) and Riggs' (1998) doctoral dissertations. Many wild plant species and wood charcoal were identified as were several domesticated plants.

The domesticated plants found at the site included Cucurbita pepo (squash), Phalaris caroliniana (maygrass), Chenopodium spp. (goosefoot), Polygonum spp. (knotweed), Iva anna (sumpweed), and Helianthus annuus (sunflower). Table 2 is a list of plant species found at the site, both wild and domesticated with their common names included. The common names will be used in this text after first introduction.

The Sand Ridge site is a multi-component site like most of the other early Late

Woodland sites described herein. Riggs excavated portions of the site again in 1973 and

1977 and he found evidence of Late Archaic, Early Woodland, Late Woodland

(Newtown) and Fort Ancient components (Riggs 1986). The Late Woodland component radiocarbon dates agree well with other early Late Woodland sites in the Middle Ohio

Valley. The specific radiocarbon dates will be discussed fully in Chapter 7.

Turpin Farm Site (33HA19)

The Turpin Farm site is another Late Woodland site in the Little Miami River

Valley and was first excavated in the 1880s. This site and the Sand Ridge site are

considered type sites for the Newtown Focus. As previously mentioned, it was due to the

presence of a Late Woodland site beneath a Fort Ancient site that archaeologists had

evidence for archaeological cultures existing between Hopewell and Fort Ancient.

No report was published for the first excavations (1880s) at the Turpin Farm sites; however, site details have been mentioned in other literature over the years (Griffin 1943,

1952; Oehler 1973; Riggs 1986). The site was revisited and portions were excavated by the Cincinnati Museum of Natural History between 1946 and 1947 (Oehler 1973), 1969 and 1974 (Riggs 1986), and in 1981 (Riggs 1986). The early Late Woodland group was referred to as the Newtown Focus by Griffin (1943); however, Oehler additionally named the Late Woodland people at the Turpin Farm as the "Stone Mound People" (Oehler

1973:2, 51). The reason for the name was because Late Woodland burials were found beneath a stone-covered mound that was associated with a Late Woodland village (which was under an earthen Fort Ancient mound). This name is not currently in use and most archaeologists would refer to the early Late Woodland component at the Turpin Farm site as being part of the "Newtown" group.

During the various excavations conducted at the site (Metz in 1881 through

Oehler in 1973; Riggs 1986) many postholes, other features and artifacts were uncovered for both the Late Woodland and Fort Ancient occupations. I will limit the discussion here to the findings made as part of the Late Woodland excavations. Artifacts included

pottery and tools and/or ornaments of stone, bone, antler, and marine shell. The most

remarkable of the artifacts found at the site was marine shell which consisted of 6 central columns from conch shell and was found in a human burial (Oehler 1973). No other marine shell materials have been found in association with Late Woodland sites in this region.

The stone tools recovered from the Turpin Farm site included chipped stone projectile points, ground-stone tools, chipped stone discs, and stone gorgets (for a complete list see Oehler 1973). The projectile points are noted as being stemmed and side-notched; however, no type classification is stated. These points were typically made of local chert. The ground-stone tools were granitic and included celts and grooved axes.

The chipped stone discs are interesting because they are a diagnostic artifact found at early Late Woodland sites. These discs are made from shale-like limestone at the Turpin

Farm site and their use is not known (Oehler 1973).

The ceramics found at the early Late Woodland Turpin Farm occupation were

sherds from thin-walled, grit-tempered vessels. The vessels had been cord-marked and

had diagnostic angular shoulders. Other decoration of the vessels was rare, although a

few sherds had interior as well as exterior cord-marking and a very few sherds had punctate decoration (Oehler 1973:54). Based on an examination of the Turpin Farm Late

Woodland ceramics, James Griffin classified it as Lewis Focus (Oehler 1973:12). The

Lewis site is a southern Illinois Woodland site that will not be discussed herein. In the remainder of his report, Oehler (1973) calls the ceramics Newtown Focus ceramics.

There were many bone tools such as scrapers, beamers, and awls found at the

Turpin Farm site and were primarily made from deer, elk and bird bones. Oehler

(1973:33-34) also reported the presence of bone flutes which he thought may have been used for calling animals during hunting. This is another very rare find and no flutes have been recovered from other Late Woodland sites in the region.

There were several human burials uncovered at the Turpin Farm site (no exact number is given). They are described as being primarily flexed, and there were some partial secondary burials and some locations of pulverized bones too. These Late

Woodland burials were found beneath the stone-covered mound at the site. There was one flexed burial that had a small ceramic pot placed next to it (Oehler 1973:50). No

other human burials of Late Woodland age are mentioned. What is rare about the burials

at this site is that the burials were beneath a mound. The Scioto Trails, Pyles, Water

Plant and Rogers Complex sites have burial mounds present at the site or very close by.

At the Scioto Trails and Childers sites human burials are found in graves or refuse pits.

No human burials have been encountered at the Water Plant site.

As a result of excavations at the Turpin Farm site several post holes and features were found. Postholes which were interpreted to represent the outline of rectangular houses were found and there were also interior postholes thought to have been the locations of "some sort of furniture or interior racks" (Oehler 1973:7). The presence of a rectangular-shaped structure is unique to the Turpin Farm site. Other structures and possible structures found at early Late Woodland sites are typically circular or semi- circular in shape. With respect to features, interior fire basins were found near the center

of the houses (Oehler 1973:7) and storage pits were found at the site as well (the storage

pits' locations were not detailed).

Oehler provides a summary of what is known about the Late Woodland people

(Stone Mound People) at the Turpin Farm site:

They were a group of Woodland Indians who lived in rather permanent villages, buried their dead at least in some instances in mounds constructed of stone and usually buried individuals in a partly flexed position. They made grit-tempered pottery and tools and ornaments from stone, bone and shell. They constructed and lived in rectangular shaped houses and dug storage pits in the floor of their village in much the same manner as other prehistoric Indians (Oehler 1973:52).

This description of site attributes did not change appreciably after Riggs used the

Turpin Farm site for his dissertation research (1981). His study and research at the Sand

Ridge and Turpin Farm sites was an examination of the transition from Late Woodland to

Fort Ancient and much of his research was focused on the ceramics. Riggs performed

additional excavation and encountered more postholes although no pattern could be

discerned. Artifacts recovered were similar to those previously found and Riggs does

type one of the projectile points as being a Chesser Notched point (Riggs 1986:10), a type

that has become known as a diagnostic early Late Woodland type.

In addition to the detailed analysis of the ceramics from the Sand Ridge and

Turpin Farm sites, Riggs did perform radiocarbon dating of the Late Woodland and Fort

Ancient components at both sites. The dating resulted in four dates for the Late

Woodland/Newtown components and are very much in line with other early Late

Woodland sites with similar characteristics and attributes.

W.S. Cole Site (33DE11)

In 1952 James Griffin (1952:187) referred to a Late Woodland component

excavated in Delaware County, Ohio. He was referring to the W.S. Cole site and

comparing it to the Newtown sites (Sand Ridge and Turpin Farm) found many years

earlier in the Little Miami Valley. The W.S. Cole site is in the Scioto River Valley and

was excavated in 1947 by Richard Morgan (Baby and Potter 1965). Raymond Baby and

Martha Potter (1965) published a description of the ceramics found there and compared

them to ceramics from the Merion Village (now referred to as the Zencor or Scioto Trails

site), O.C. Voss, and Lichliter sites (also Potter 1966). The Merion Village and Lichliter

sites are early Late Woodland sites and are discussed later in this chapter. The O.C. Voss site is a Fort Ancient site which was not recognized as such at the time of Baby and

Potter's analysis and will not be discussed herein.

The W.S. Cole site is situated on a glacial esker. Refuse or storage pits were encountered during excavation, and one contained an inhumation of a woman with a fetus. No mention of postmolds is made in the site description (Potter 1966) and "no evidence of structures was found" (Potter 1966:6). In their examination of the site information, Dancey and Seeman (2005) suggest that this locale was a cemetery rather than a village site as Potter suggested (1966).

The aforementioned sites were grouped together and designated as the Cole

Complex (Baby and Potter 1965). Potter (1966) went on to do further research on the ceramics and included an additional seven sites as the foundation for a Cole Complex as a Late Woodland presence in the Central Ohio region. Unfortunately, we now know

25 these sites are a mixture of Middle Woodland, early Late Woodland, late Late Woodland, and Fort Ancient components. Based on radiocarbon dating, the W.S. Cole site dates to the late Late Woodland time period according to Carr and Haas (1996); however, based on calendric dates, this site fits more appropriately within the Late Prehistoric time period.

The Cole Complex as a concept has been present in the literature since 1965

(Baby and Potter 1965), although due to the inconsistencies of the chronologic dates represented by the culturally different sites used to define the complex, it has little use as a taxonomic category unless it is formally re-evaluated and described. Dancey and

Seeman (2005) have examined the Cole Complex as a concept and came to the conclusion that the use of this taxonomic category is not warranted based on available data. The site characteristics and artifacts recovered do not fit into the current understanding of Late Woodland sites and in addition, radiocarbon dating results (Carr and Haas 1996) indicate a Late Prehistoric time frame for site use. No further discussion of this site will be included herein.

Lichliter Village Site (33MY23)

In 1957 John Allman published his findings obtained from the Lichliter site, located in the Great Miami Valley near Dayton, Ohio. One of the interesting things about this site was that it had a single archaeological component present (early Late Woodland).

Quite a few lithic artifacts were found on the surface and in excavations at the

Lichliter site. Flint tools and flakes as well as ground stone tools manufactured of other

materials were present. Allman (1957) describes the flint tools as projectile points and

knives. He also recovered some broken gorgets (the lithic material was not noted). Celts

and hammerstones were present too; they were manufactured from greenstone and slate

in the case of the celts and quartzitic and granitic rocks in the case of the hammerstones

(Allman 1957:62). Of particular interest were the rectangular and disc-like lithic pieces which had been worked. The disc-like lithic artifacts have become known as diagnostic artifact types from early Late Woodland sites. Their use is not known.

Ceramic sherds were found in many of the postmolds and some animal bone and antler were also recovered. Two decorated sherds (out of 700 total sherds) were found; one had punctates and the other had a knob. Several angular shoulder sherds were also present. Allman described the ceramics as thin, cordmarked and grit tempered (1957:61).

Based on his examination of the ceramics, James Griffin thought that the Lichliter site ceramics were of Late Woodland origin (Allman 1957:61).

At least four structures were found based on postmold configurations. Another interesting thing about this site was that the structures were large ("House 1" was approximately 48 feet in diameter) and were evidently comprised of a double wall in part

(Allman 1957). Allman noted two center posts, and together with the double-post walls he interpreted this as possible re-building. Within the structures he found fire pits containing burnt earth and charcoal and he also found some storage pits (Allman 1957).

A radiocarbon sample was tested from the Lichliter site (Crane and Griffin

1959:182) and the results were consistent with an early Late Woodland time period occupation and compare favorably to other early Late Woodland sites.

Merion Village/Zencor/Scioto Trails School Site (33FR8)

The Merion Village site is approximately 1 hectare (approximately 2.47 acres) in

size and is located in southern Franklin County, Ohio on a steep bank of the Scioto River.

The most striking feature of this site is a former prehistoric embankment which

circumscribed the site (discussed in more detail below).

The Merion Village site is the "official" site name as recorded on the Ohio

Archaeological Inventory at the Ohio State Historic Preservation Office in Columbus,

Ohio. The site has also been referred to as the Zencor Village site because the northern

portion of the prehistoric site was purchased from the Merion family and a housing subdivision was developed on that portion of the site. The southern portion of the site remained undeveloped and is part of the Scioto Trails School, owned by the Columbus

Public School system. The name changes make it a bit confusing although most archaeologists now refer to the location as the Scioto Trails site (or Scioto Trails School site). The name Scioto Trails site will be used here forth.

The northern portion of the site was excavated in 1957-1958 and then a housing subdivision was built, so the northern portion of the site is, for all intents and purposes, gone. The southern half of the site was excavated by The Ohio Historical Society (OHS)

between 1981 and 1984 and in 1982 OHS was assisted by The Ohio Sate University

(OSU). Tens-of-thousands of artifacts were recovered from the site and include chipped

stone tools and debitage, ground stone tools, fire-cracked rock, faunal and human

remains, plant remains, and ceramics. Unfortunately, and even though this has become a

well-known early Late Woodland site, no monograph or field reports have been

published. There is some information published in an unpublished MA thesis (Potter

1966), Ph.D. dissertations (Church 1987, Wymer 1987), a Midwest Archaeological

Conference meeting presentation (Royce 2006), and in several other articles (cf., Carr and Haas 1996; Dancey 1988; Shott 1989; Seeman and Dancey 2000).

Domesticated plant remains recovered from the Scioto Trails site included maygrass, goosefoot, erect knotweed, sumpweed, sunflower, and squash (Wymer 1987).

Martha Potter (1966:7) described the site (northern portion) as being enclosed by a 900-foot-long embankment based on the 1950's field notes. The site also included a low mound with human burials to the east of the village site. Hopewell artifacts were found to be cached nearby the mound (1966:7).

During the 1957 and 1958 excavations three structures were found based on the interpretation of postmold locations. The diameters of the circular structures were

between 25 and 36 feet (7.62 and 10.97 meters). There were many refuse pits found

within and outside of the structures (Potter 1966:8). Based on Potter's (1966) detailed

analysis of the ceramics, this site was attributed to the Late Woodland time period. Later,

radiocarbon dating confirmed an early Late Woodland occupation at the Scioto Trails site

(Carr and Haas 1996).

Archaeological excavation at the Scioto Trails site was conducted in the 1980s in

the area to the south of the 1950s excavations by the Ohio Historical Society. Several

human remains (six) were uncovered during those excavations (personal communication

with Martha Otto 2011). Details from the excavations in the 1980s is not published.

The Scioto Trails site was investigated using a fluxgate gradiometer (a type of magnetometer) between 1999 and 2003, and most recently in 2006. The first surveys just mentioned were conducted by OSU students as a test site for coursework projects and the results are not published. The most recent survey was lead by this author and a presentation of the data was made at the 2006 Midwest Archaeological Conference in

Urbana, Illinois (Royce 2006). Interestingly, the configuration and magnetic anomaly signature of the reported embankment are very similar to the prehistoric ditch found at the Water Plant site. It is possible that the Scioto Trail site had a ditch (in addition to the possible embankment) present. More research needs to be conducted at the site to confirm this.

Leonard Haag Site (12D19)

The Leonard Haag site is approximately 2.4 hectares (6 acres) in size and is

located in Dearborn County, Indiana just to the west of the Ohio state border in the Great

Miami River Valley. This site was first excavated in part in 1972 by Indiana University

and the University of Notre Dame. The Leonard Haag site is multi-component based on

lithic artifacts from the Early Archaic, Late Archaic, Early Woodland, Middle Woodland,

Late Woodland, and Mississippian time periods. There is also an early historic cemetery

that covers over an acre of the prehistoric site (Reidhead and Limp 1974:5). The major

occupation at the site was interpreted as Newtown (early Late Woodland) by Reidhead

and Limp (1974). Ceramic sherds were also recovered from the site and ranged in age

from Early Woodland through Mississippian times.

The ceramics associated with the Newtown occupation at the site compare

favorably with ceramics found in Ohio Newtown occupations like the Turpin Farm and

Sand Ridge sites. Diagnostic angular shoulders on vessels were observed and the sherds

were primarily grit tempered (about 15 percent were limestone tempered), thin, and had

exterior cordmarking (Reidhead and Limp 1974:9). A few rim sherds had small

punctates; however, for the majority of the sherds, decoration was rare (Reidhead and

Limp 1974:9).

Most of the site artifacts were recovered from midden deposit excavations;

however, several early Late Woodland features were excavated. These features included

hearths and shallow pits. Chesser points, gorgets and stone discoidal objects like those

found at other early Late Woodland sites were also present at the Leonard Haag site

(Reidhead and Limp 1974; Reidhead 1981).

Botanical remains were recovered at the Leonard Haag site and discussed in

Reidhead (1981). Domesticated plants found at the site included goosefoot, knotweed, maygrass, sumpweed, and squash. Many wild species of plants and wood charcoal were recovered as well.

Radiocarbon dating of the site places the site in the Middle Woodland time period; however, possible charcoal sample mixing from earlier occupations was suspected because the artifactual remains suggested an early Late Woodland cultural affiliation (Reidhead and Limp 1974:13).

Childers Site (46MS121)

The Childers site is located in Mason County, West Virginia along the Ohio

River. The original site size is not known, although it is estimated that over 60 percent of

the site was lost to erosion (Maslowski and Dawson 1980). The site was surveyed and

excavated several times from 1978 through 1987 (Maslowski and Dawson 1980; Shott et

al. 1990; Shott et al. 1993).

While this site had multiple occupations dating from Late Archaic, Late

Woodland and Late Prehistoric periods, the primary occupation was in the early Late

Woodland time period (Maslowski and Dawson 1980). Michael Shott suggests that the site was only occupied once and that was in the early Late Woodland based on the low rate of overlapping features (Shott 1992, Shott et al. 1993:25). Regardless of whether it was a multi- or single-component site, the artifactual evidence indicates the early Late

Woodland time period as the primary occupation.

Hundreds of features and tens-of-thousands of artifacts were recovered from the site through archaeological survey and excavation.

Lithic artifacts included chipped and ground stone tools, as well as chipped stone flakes. Ground stone tools included celts, gorgets, pitted cobbles, hammerstones and abraders. Shott et al. characterized the site's chipped stone tool assemblage as being dominated by the Late Woodland Chesser Notched and Lowe Flared Base types (1993:5).

The Chesser projectile points were made from "Flint Ridge and other…fine-grained cherts, while most Lowe specimens are fashioned from local Brush Creek chert" (Shott et al. 1993:5).

The ceramics recovered from the Childers site were described and classified as a

new type, the Childers Series Cordmaked and Plain (Shott et al. 1990). In general, the

ceramics were characterized as grit tempered (about 15 percent having limestone), with

exterior cordmarking present on most pieces and the cordmarking was oriented vertically,

and interior cordmarking was infrequent. There were several vessel forms represented.

Interestingly, angular shoulders which are typical of other early Late Woodland site

vessels were not common. One vessel did have some incising over the cordmarking. No

other decoration type was noted from the Childers site ceramics and the incising was low

in frequency (Shott et al. 1993).

Faunal remains consisted primarily of deer. Also present were turkey, box turtle

and small mammals and reptiles (Maslowski and Dawson 1980). Shott et al. (1993:18)

note that fish remains are not present in very large amounts and this is a departure from

other similar early Late Woodland sites.

Several sets of human remains were encountered during the archaeological survey

and excavations at the Childers site. Five sets of remains were from burials while two

were from pit features and others were recovered from disturbed contexts in the site's

steep banks (Shott et al. 1993; Maslowski and Dawson 1980).

A possible mound was tentatively identified located near the Childers site (Shott

et al. 1990: 283); however, it was not further investigated and there is nothing more published about it.

Over 60 plant species (wild and domesticated) plant remains at the Childers site and at least 28 tree taxa were represent too (Shott et al. 1993:20). Goosefoot is present in

the highest percentage of domestic plant remains at the site (Maslowski and Dawson

1980; Shott et al. 1993). There were other domesticated plants present such as maygrass,

knotweed, sumpweed, sunflower, squash, and Nicotiana spp. (tobacco; Shott et al.

1993:24).

With respect to features at the Childers site, they included fire pits or hearths,

refuse pits, post molds, a ditch and several human burials. One possible house structure

was uncovered and it appeared to have been re-built (Shott, et al. 1993). The house was circular to oval in shape and between 3.2 and 4.2 m in diameter (10.5 and 13.8 feet;

1993:5). The ditch feature was actually detected subsequent to the 1987 fieldwork, so the site was again revisited for investigation and excavation later in 1987 and in 1988 (Shott et al. 1990; Shott 1992) to confirm the ditch's presence.

The ditch circumscribes the site like the ditch at the Water Plant site and the possible embankment at the Scioto Trails site. The dimensions of the ditch are 4.5 m in width and approximately 1.5 m in depth. A palisade was not found nor were any other structures or features associated with the ditch (Shott et al. 1990).

The radiocarbon dating of the Childers site fits very nicely into those dates from other early Late Woodland sites (Shott 1989, 1992). While not all the early Late

Woodland diagnostic traits are present, for example, there is a lack of discoid artifacts and angular shoulders on the ceramic vessels, other important early Late Woodland diagnostic traits are present. Characteristics of the Childers site that are consistent with other early Late Woodland Site include: the site is a large nucleated open site on a major waterway, and there are Chesser and Lowe projectile points, relatively thin ceramic

34 vessels with a lack of decoration other than cordmarking, a suite of typical domesticated plants for the time period, and a ditch encompassing the site.

Pyles Site (15MS28)

The Pyles site is a 1.4 hectare (estimated) multi-component open habitation site located in Mason County, Kentucky along the Licking River. The site is very interesting in that it includes a central plaza with few artifacts surrounded by a dark circular midden area (Railey 1984). Nearby there are circular burial mounds, which have either been entirely destroyed or are severely deteriorated from agricultural cultivation (Railey

1984:30).

The Pyles site was investigated through archaeological surface collection and excavation in 1975 and 1976. Previously the site had been collected by people other than archaeologists. Recovered materials included chipped stone tools manufactured from primarily local chert materials, although some chert sources were exotic. Chipped stone tools included cores, crude bifaces and unifaces, modified and unmodified flakes, projectile points, and drills. The ages of these tools ranged from Early and Late Archaic,

Early Woodland (including Adena), Middle Woodland, Newtown (early Late Woodland), and Late Prehistoric time periods (Railey 1984). Ground stone tools such as celts, hammerstones, gorgets, expanded center bars, limestone hoes, and other items were also recovered.

The ceramics found at the Pyles site were primarily limestone tempered Newtown

Cordmarked. This is interesting because other Newtown sites typically do not have as

high a percentage of limestone tempering (98.5 percent; Railey 1984:77) and usually

have a higher percentage of other rock materials used as grit for tempering. Otherwise,

the Pyles site ceramics closely resemble Newtown Cordmarked and Plain, including the

diagnostic angular shoulders (Railey 1984:77).

Faunal and botanical samples collected from the Pyles site were also consistent with other early Late Woodland sites. There was a preference for deer and other

mammals and reptiles, all of which were local resources. With respect to botanical

samples, carbonized wood, nutshell and 3 aquatic plant seeds were recovered (Railey

1984:83). Unfortunately, the site's botanical sample was very small and no domesticated

plant species were identified.

Because the excavation locations at the Pyles site were very limited, only 13

features were identified. They included fire pits or hearths, a refuse pit, and three post

molds (Railey 1984).

As previously mentioned, the Pyles site appears to be a roughly circular area of

midden surrounding a central plaza with few artifacts. This pattern was evident from the

surface survey and aerial photographs of the site. In addition, a soil chemistry study was

conducted and the results indicate that the central portion of the site was higher in

phosphate concentrations. This is interesting because, while there were no durable

artifacts or features present, the central area did indicate heavy use for human activities

based on the phosphate concentrations (Railey 1984:91).

Railey (1984) does mention that there are stone mounds located near the site.

These were not investigated and they are of unknown association with any particular time period.

Radiocarbon dating at the Pyles site consists of one date and is within the range of similar early Late Woodland sites, such as the Rogers, Leonard Haag and Sand Ridge sites (Railey 1984:114-115). Two thermoluminescence (TL) dates on burned projectile points resulted in later dates (uncorrected) of A.D. 1000 ± 260 and A.D. 1100 ± 230

(Railey 1984:114).

Bentley Site (15GP15)

The Bentley site is a 1.2-hectare, multi-component site located in Greenup

County, Kentucky along the Ohio River south of the outlet of the Scioto River. This site was excavated in part in 1938 and 1984, and a surface archaeological survey was conducted in 1981. The site's occupational history includes Middle Woodland, early Late

Woodland, and a Historic Indian component (Henderson and Pollack 1985).

The only published information about the site was focused on the ceramics recovered from the site (Henderson and Pollack 1985). Newtown cordmarked ceramics comprise over half (55.1 percent) the recovered ceramics. The next two types in highest percentage are Limestone Plain (13.9 percent) and Peters Cordmarked and Plain (7.9 percent). These ceramic types are attributed to being similar to types found at Late

Woodland cave (and rockshelter) sites in southern and eastern Ohio (Chesser Cave,

Peters Cave B, White Rocks and Raven Rocks) (Prufer 1975; Prufer and McKenzie 1966;

Ormerod 1983).

During the excavation, pit features and postmolds were uncovered and two

possible Late Woodland structures were tentatively identified (Henderson and Pollack

1985). Based on a spatial analysis of fire-cracked rock and ceramics recovered from features, Henderson and Pollack (1985) suggest that there was a main domestic area utilized by early Late Woodland people and an area where little activity was conducted, possibly serving "as a plaza similar to the central area identified at the Pyles Site"

(Henderson and Pollack 1985:161).

Henderson and Pollack (1985) do indicate that there are at least two mounds located near the site. They are not discussed in their report and are of unknown association with any particular time period.

Radiocarbon dates from this site are consistent with early Late Woodland dates and the artifact evidence supports an occupation during this time period as well.

Water Plant Site (33FR155)

The Water Plant site is a large (approximately 3.2 hectares, or 8 acres) open

habitation site situated on a steep bluff along Big Walnut Creek in southern Franklin

County, Ohio. The site is multi-component based on archaeological surface surveys and excavation; however, the major occupation at the site was during the early Late

Woodland time period. The site was investigated between 1978 and 1980 (Dancey et al.

1987; Wymer 1987; Dancey 1988) and then again for this author's dissertation research

(2003 through 2008). Below is some brief information about the site. More details about the Water Plant site are found in the remaining chapters of this dissertation.

The major chipped tool types found at the Water Plant are that of the Chesser cluster (Dancey et al. 1987; Dancey 1988, 2001). Many ground stone tools have been found at the site as well. Interestingly, semi-circular to oval discoid stone artifacts have also been recovered at the site. Their function is not known; however, they are found at several early Late Woodland sites (Table 1).

The ceramics found at the site are similar to the Newtown ceramics found at other early Late Woodland time period sites. They are typically cordmarked on their outer surface, although a few sherds are plain. No other decoration on the sherds is present with the exception of some possible incising over the cordmarking on a few sherds and a possible punctate on one sherd. The sherds are typically thin in thickness and the diagnostic angular shoulders found at Newtown sites are present.

With respect to faunal remains, deer, small mammals, turtle, and fish were utilized by the site's occupants. To date, no human burials or remains have been encountered at the site.

Botanical remains from the site were recovered and examined in the 1980s and again during this research. Wood charcoal and charred seeds from wild plants were found and domesticated seeds were also recovered. The domesticated plants recovered from the site during both investigations were: maygrass, goosefoot, and erect knotweed

(Wymer 1987; this dissertation, Chapter 6). In addition, this author recovered squash and tobacco from the Water Plant site too. Interestingly, sumpweed was not found in the

sampling of botanical remains analyzed during this research; however, Wymer (1987) did

find sumpweed seeds present in the earlier research. Sumpweed could be present in the

unanalyzed sample processed and retained for the Water Plant site.

Based on the earlier research, it appeared that at least eleven households were present (Dancey 1988, 2001). This current research used geophysical methods to try to discern and better characterize the site and household locations. With respect to site features, numerous features and postmolds were found during the earlier field investigations (Dancey et al. 1987, Dancey 1988). In addition, an ancient ditch was excavated in two places and was found to be present on historical aerial photographs.

The excavation undertaken during this current research was directed and specific features were identified, probed, and excavated in part. The features were initially identified using geophysical methods and through a magnetometer survey, another, interior, ditch

was discovered and excavated in one location. At the new ditch location and another

location where it appeared like the ditch should extend in the magnetic image, a line of

posts was discovered on the outside of the new ditch. This new ditch is herein termed the

"inner ditch" and the previously known ditch is referred to as the "outer ditch." The new ditch is not apparent on historical aerial photographs.

A possible house or building structure was tentatively identified based on the site excavation conducted in 1980 and is noted on Figure 2 (Dancey 1988; and personal communication). In addition, on Figure 15 of Dancey's 1988 paper there is a line of post molds that could be part of a screen or curtain associated with the outer ditch. More discussion about the Water Plant site's interior arrangement is found in Chapter 8.

Initially when this site was added to the Ohio Archaeological Inventory (OAI), a possible mound was identified adjacent (east) of the Water Plant site and was given an

OAI accession number. No evidence of the mound currently exists and in the OAI information no cultural affiliation is given.

Radiocarbon dating of wood charcoal and nutshell from the Water Plant site confirm the artifact evidence that the major occupation at this location was during the early Late Woodland time period. The radiocarbon dates from the site agree nicely with other early Late Woodland sites and are discussed in more detail in Chapter 7.

Hansen Site (15GP14)

The Hansen site is a huge (estimated as 6 hectares, or 15 acres; Ahler 1988:43) multi-component open habitation site located in Greenup County, Kentucky along the

Ohio River across from (south of) the mouth of the Scioto River. While the primary occupation at the site occurred in the early Late Woodland time period, there is evidence of occupations during the Late Archaic, Early Woodland and Middle Woodland time periods too (Ahler 1988:111).

The major chipped tool types found at the Hansen site were of the

Lowe/Steuben/Chesser cluster (Ahler 1988:633). There were also other types of chipped stone tools, but they were in the minority. The typical general Woodland assemblage of ground stone tools was also found, such as celts, hammerstones, etc.

The primary ceramic series at the site is Newtown Cordmarked and Plain and limestone is the predominant temper material. Also described at the site was the

Newtown Check Stamped series which is associated with an early Newtown occupation

at the site (Ahler 1988:634).

With respect to botanical remains, a number of wild and domesticated plants were

present. The domesticated plants included maygrass, knotweed, sumpweed and

sunflower; squash was not found. Nuts were also found to be common at the site (Ahler

1988:634). Surprisingly, no goosefoot was recovered in the botanical samples.

Goosefoot is typically found as one of the more prevalent (if not the most prevalent)

domesticated plants found at early Late Woodland sites. The lack of goosefoot could be

due to sample size, lack of preservation, or possibly the site's inhabitants did not use this

plant. Unfortunately, the faunal remains from the site were too degraded or not preserved

enough to conduct an analysis (Ahler 1988:634).

Over 118 features, stains and charcoal concentrations were uncovered during the

1985 excavations at the Hansen site. Feature types included earth ovens, basins, storage and/or refuse pits, and 172 postmolds. Based on postmold pattering, at least three semi-

circular structures were identified, with a possible fourth structure identified (Ahler

1988:127). One of the structures appeared to have been rebuilt or moved slightly a couple of times. Ahler suggests that based on the structure locations in relation to associated features (such as shallow basins, a shallow storage feature and rock-filled features possibly for heating purposes) and the presence of deep possible storage types of features removed from the area of structures, that occupation at the site may have been during warm weather (Ahler 1988:638). Phosphorous concentrations were measured in

the soil and the results suggest that human activities were more intense outside the

structures (Ahler 1988:639).

Ahler (1988) looked at the area in which there were structures and compared it to

areas where there was a lack of structures. When speaking of the structure area he notes

that there are "No great differences between household level tasks specialization. There

is a great deal of redundancy between the structures, indicative perhaps of a high degree

of household autonomy and replication of tasks within each household" (1988:640).

Based on his analysis of the non-structure areas, Ahler concluded that they "may indicate an intentional organization of activities along more communal or cooperative lines than is seen in the organization or activities near the structures" (1988:641).

Based on the analyses of the lithic tools, and radiocarbon dating, Ahler (1988)

believes the Hansen site had two occupations during the early Late Woodland time period

– one early in the time period (second or third century A.D.) and one later (sixth century

A.D.). He does not think that the site was continuously occupied over the entire range of dates that the radiocarbon results would indicate (over 400 years), instead, the site's occupation was "either episodic or took place over a shorter interval within that time span" (Ahler 1988:643).

Rogers Site Complex (15BE33, 15BE34, 15BE35)

The Rogers site complex has three archaeological inventory numbers to denote a mound, an Upper Village, and a Lower Village, respectively. This complex is located in

Boone County, Kentucky along the Ohio River. The entire complex is estimated as

roughly 2.6 hectares (or 6.4 acres) in size. The three sites were investigated between

1951 and 1961 by the now named Behringer-Crawford Museum (Kreinbrink 1992:79).

This complex is interesting because the two villages were defined based on the

extent of two midden areas and are within 50 to 70 meters (m) from one another and the

space that separates them is sterile. Another interesting fact about the complex is the

presence of a burial mound within one of the village sites (Lower Village). At the time of

excavation, the mound was 70 feet (21.34 m) in diameter and 4 feet (1.22 m) in height

(Kreinbrink 1992:82). All three sites have Newtown artifacts and there are Middle

Woodland (Hopewell) artifacts also found in direct association with these sites

(Kreinbrink 1992:79).

Chipped stone tools dating from the Late Archaic through the Late Prehistoric

time periods were recovered from the site. Bladelets (diagnostic Hopewell tools) were recovered from the Lower Village and mound sites (Kreinbrink 1992:85). With respect to ground stone tools, celts, gorgets, hammerstones, expanded center stones and stone discoids were recovered, although the center stones and stone discoids were not found at

the mound location (Kreinbrink 1992:85).

Newtown Cordmarked (and one Plain sherd) ceramics were recovered from all

three sites and almost all had grit tempering. There were several sherds that were

decorated (other than cordmarking) found at the complex. These decorated sherds were

found in the burial mound and in the Lower Village area. In addition, a few shell

tempered sherds (found more commonly at Late Prehistoric or Fort Ancient sites) were present in the Lower Village (Kreinbrink 1992:93, 97).

Faunal remains were found primarily at the mound and Lower village sites and

were not in high density. Some of the animal bone had been fashioned into tools

(Kreinbrink 1992:85). No botanical remains were described and it is presumed no

paleobotanical analysis was conducted.

Human burials (forty-three individuals) were excavated from the mound. The

burials varied in type; some individuals were found in stone-lined or unlined graves and there were partial and bundle burials as well as cremations. Both males and females were interred and one child and one juvenile were present (Kreinbrink 1992:89). Eighteen of the burials had items such as tools or ornamental items (Kreinbrink 1992:92). No burials were encountered at the Upper or Lower Village sites areas outside of the Rogers Mound

(located with the Lower Village portion of the site). Due to gorgets and Chesser Notched and Lowe Flared Base projectile points found in association with some of the burials, the burials were interpreted as being Newtown, although some of the other burials had artifacts found more commonly in association with Middle Woodland people (Kreinbrink

1992:94).

A number of features were uncovered during the excavation of the Upper and

Lower Villages. In the Upper Village the features included both small and large pits, some with burned rock in their base and postmolds were also present. These features appeared "to cluster in two or three locations" (Kreinbrink 1992:88). No patterning could be definitively discerned for the post molds although most were found surrounding a large pit (Kreinbrink 1992:83). In the Lower Village, six large and deep pits were excavated. Kreinbrink reported that "No postmolds or other featuers other than the large

45 pits have been mentioned by the informants interviewed to date" (1992:96). There are scant details from the Lower village excavation; however, Kreinbrink believed that the pit features were clustered based on artifact provenience notes from materials recovered from the features (1992:96).

Radiocarbon dating from the Lower Village do indicate an early Late Woodland occupation as well as Archaic and Late Prehistoric occupations (Kreinbrink 1992:99).

No radiocarbon dating was conducted for the mound or Upper Village. Based on the artifact data, Kreinbrink believed that the Upper Village may post date the Lower Village within the early Late Woodland time period (1992:99).

Parkline Site (46PU99)

The Parkline site is a multi-component open habitation site located on the

Kanawha River in Putnam County, West Virginia. The site was investigated and excavated in 1989 due to being impacted by the Winfield Lock Replacement Project

(Niquette and Kerr 1993). Three different clusters of features were uncovered during excavation and one of these clusters was interpreted as a Childers phase early Late

Woodland occupation. The other two clusters were interpreted as being late Late

Woodland Parkline phase occupations (Niquette and Kerr 1993).

Based on artifactual (especially ceramics) and radiocarbon dating information, a new Late Woodland phase was described and named the Parkline phase. As just stated above, the Parkline phase is a late Late Woodland component post-dating the early Late

Woodland component (Childers phase). Only the Childers phase (early Late Woodland)

46 occupation is discussed herein and the use of "Parkline site" herein denotes only the early

Late Woodland information.

Lithic materials recovered from the Parkline site included Chesser and Lowe

Cluster projectile points manufactured from local materials (Niquette and Kerr 1993:49).

Niquette and Kerr do note: "Although there were few finished tools that could be directly association [sic] with the Childers phase occupation at Parkline, those that were associated were consistent with our expectations for a Childers phase use of the site"

(1993:49). Ground stone tools such as pitted stones, celts, an adze, hammerstones, and miscellaneous fragments were also found at the site (Niquette and Hughes 1991).

Ceramics recovered from the Parkline site do have angular shoulders and equal percentages of cordmarked and plain sherds were found. Other than cordmarking, the ceramics lacked decoration except a few sherds with a cross-hatch pattern (Niquette and

Kerr 1993:49). Niquette and Kerr (1993) attributed the ceramic type to that of Childers

Cordmarked and Childers Plain.

Botanical samples collected from the Parkline site included both wild and domesticated species. The site's inhabitants utilized a number of different tree species and nuts were being used, especially black walnuts and acorns. The domesticated plant seeds found were goosefoot, erect knotweed, and maygrass (Niquette and Kerr 1993:50).

Niquette and Kerr interpreted the presence of the domesticated plants at the Parkline site as being cultivated elsewhere and brought to the site because they believe the site was a short-term camp rather than a longer term permanent settlement (1993:49).

Features uncovered during excavation at the Parkline site included thirteen

thermal features, four postmolds, and four refuse pits (Niquette and Kerr 1993:50).

Unfortunately, no structures were detected at the site (Niquette and Kerr 1993:46).

As mentioned previously, Niquette and Kerr (1993) interpret the Childers phase

component at the Parkline site as a short-term occupation. They based their interpretation

"on the density of features, the lack of midden and the analysis of botanical and faunal remains recovered" (Niquette and Kerr 1993:50).

Radiocarbon dating results from the Parkline site confirm early Late Woodland and late Late Woodland habitations at the site. Two Early Woodland dates were also indicated; however, Niquette and Kerr believe these dates to be "spurious" because artifact evidence did not support them (1993:46).

Shared Characteristics

Even though the extent of investigation varies at the sites discussed above and not

all of the information is published, there are some general trends that can be observed at

these early Late Woodland habitation sites. Some of the early Late Woodland

characteristics and other general site characteristics are summarized in Table 1. All the

locations are open sites and in evaluating the material record, appear to represent

habitation sites based on the range of domestic materials such as lithics (chipped and

ground stone tools) and ceramics, and most sites also yielded faunal remains. In addition,

at seven of the sites (Sand Ridge, Parkline, Hansen, Childers, Scioto Trails and Water

Plant), paleobotanical remains were collected and support the premise that the locations

are habitation sites due to the presence of domesticated plants. The length of habitation

may have varied and is discussed below. Another characteristic that all the sites share is

their location on high terraces of either a major stream or river. A third similarity that all

sites share is they are multi-component sites. While this is not a necessary characteristic

of Early Late Woodland sites, it does explain in part why we face challenges in

characterizing these sites as a contiguous archaeological culture. However, in all cases

with the exceptions of the Sand Ridge and Turpin sites, the major occupational

component is in the Early Late Woodland time period. The Fort Ancient occupations at

Turpin and Sand Ridge appear to be the major habitation components at those two sites.

All of the twelve sites share the presence of ground stone and chipped stone tools

that are similar. The ground stone tools shared at most sites are hammerstones, celts, and

gorgets. Also present at most sites are what are described as "discoids" (Turpin Farm,

Lichliter, Leonard Haag, Rodgers, and Water Plant sites). Three of the early Late

Woodland sites share the presence of expanded center stones – and these sites have

radiocarbon dates in the earlier part of the time period (e.g., Turpin Farm, Pyles, and

Rodgers sites). Figure 3 includes a summary of radiocarbon dates for the twelve early

Late Woodland sites discussed in this chapter.

Most of the twelve sites have been attributed as being “Newtown” settlements.

This is based on the presence of Newtown Cordmarked and Plain ceramics. The

exceptions are the Childers and Parkline sites, which have similar ceramics but have been

called Childers ceramics (Shott et al. 1993; Niquette and Hughes 1991; Niquette and Kerr

1993). Another exception is the Scioto Trails site, which had what was called Cole

ceramics present (Potter 1966). As previously noted, this site is an early Late Woodland

site based on radiocarbon dating and also its similarity in ceramics (despite the name), and other site features. There is doubt whether a Cole Complex even existed and a convincing argument that it does not exist (at least as initially described) is found in

Dancey and Seeman (2005). The ceramics from the Water Plant site also look similar to

Newtown ceramics (Dancey et al. 1987:59; Dancey 1988:229; Dancey 2001:26).

The twelve sites, where fauna and paleoethnobotanical samples were obtained, share similarities in subsistence practices in that wild faunal species and both wild and domesticated plant species were utilized. Deer and small mammals were utilized at the early Late Woodland sites (and at Middle Woodland and Late Prehistoric sites as well).

Fish and other riverine animals were used too (e.g., turtles and mussels). With respect to plants, wild nuts and berries were recovered from most sites and domesticated plants like goosefoot, maygrass, knotweed, sumpweed, squash, sunflower, and tobacco were found.

With respect to site structure, function, or permanence, the picture is not

definitive. Due to the overall generally limited amount of data available, few global

statements can be made about these characteristics for the majority of the Early Late

Woodland sites in Table 1 (and Figures 1 and 3). Architectural structures (houses or

other buildings) are relatively few based on the existing data. The most striking evidence

for buildings is found at the Lichliter Village site where one circular structure was

excavated in its entirety and three others in part (Allman 1957). Also striking are the

rectangular structures excavated at the Turpin Farm site. Details of these structures are

not published; however, at least two are depicted in site photographs in Oehler (1973).

There were three circular structures excavated at Scioto Trails (Potter 1966) and Hansen

(with a possible forth structure; Alher 1988) as well. At both these sites the buildings

were circular or semi-circular and between 25 and 36 feet (7.6 and 11 m) in diameter at

Scioto Trails (Potter 1966), between 23.3 and 14.8 feet (7.1 and 4.5 m) at the Hansen site

(Ahler 1988), and the complete structure at Lichiliter Village was 48 feet (14.6 m) in

diameter (Allman 1957). Two smaller circular structures have been interpreted as being

present at the Childers site, measuring between 10.5 and 13.7 feet in diameter (3.2 and

4.2 meters; Shott et al. 1993. Possible structures have been identified at the Bentley site

as well (Henderson and Pollack 1985; no dimensions given). One possible circular

structure was also tentatively identified at the Water Plant site and was estimated as

roughly 10 meters in diameter (Dancey 1988). In general, due to the specific limits of

excavation at the other sites, while postmolds are present, their interpretation as being structures could not be definitively made.

The settlement structure (i.e., interior site layout) at most of the twelve sites is unknown. The Pyles site does show an arrangement of midden material around a relatively vacant center area and the site has been referred to as “doughnut” shaped

(Railey 1984). There may be some indication of site arrangement at the Bentley site based on fewer artifacts in a central portion of the site (Henderson and Pollack 1985).

The Water Plant site has eleven clusters of overlapping artifact classes (based on

archaeological surface surveys) that may represent at least that number of households at the site; however, there did not appear to be a particular patterning of these locations other than being located within the area circumscribed by the outer prehistoric ditch

(Dancey 1988, Dancey et.al. 1987). This site and its intra-site patterning is the subject of this research and is discussed at length in the remainder of this dissertation.

The most striking architectural feature at three of the early Late Woodland sites in the Middle Ohio River Valley region is the presence of a ditch (or possible embankment) circumscribing the sites on three sides, with the fourth side being a bluff edge. These sites are the Childers (ditch), Scioto Trails (possible embankment), and Water Plant

(ditch) sites. The ditches (or embankments) are not apparent at the ground surface; however, they have been discerned on aerial photographs. These sites and their ditches are specifically discussed further in Chapters 8 and 9.

With respect to the interpretations of site occupational length and site use, there are only a few researchers that have offered their evaluations. Henderson and Pollack interpret the Bentley site as representing “a relatively short habitation episode, perhaps less than 20 years” (1985:161). Niquette and Kerr interpret the Parkline site as a possible temporary extractive camp based on the artifact and feature density and analysis of botanical and faunal remains (1993:50). Shott and Jeffries interpret the Childers site as a nucleated settlement being occupied for approximately 20 years and may have included between 21 and 36 household (1992:53). The Water Plant and Scioto Trails sites are interpreted as being nucleated settlements and could possibly been occupied serially (first

Water Plant then Scioto Trails; Dancey 1988:233). Due to the relatively small areas of excavation (in proportion to total site size), it is difficult to estimate the length of occupation at most the other sites described in this chapter. There is more discussion about settlement types and intra-site patterning in Chapter 8.

The remainder of this dissertation focuses on the Water Plant site and the research conducted there. The following chapter describes the physical (i.e., environmental and physiographic) characteristics of the Water Plant site.

Chapter 3: Physical Setting at the Water Plant Site

The Water Plant site is located in southern Franklin County, Ohio. The site is situated on a high bluff along the Big Walnut Creek and is currently in agricultural production (Figure 4). This chapter describes the physical and other environmental characteristics of the site and surrounding area.

Physiographic Characteristics

The state of Ohio is part of three physiographic provinces, the Central Lowlands,

Appalachian Plateau, and Interior Low Plateau (Figure 5). Within these provinces there are five sections. In declining order of areal geographic areas these sections are the Till

Plains, Allegheny Plateaus, Glaciated Allegheny Plateaus, Huron-Erie Lake Plains, and

Bluegrass Section.

The Central Lowland province in Ohio comprises the western and most of the central portion of the state. This province is divided into the Till Plains (most of the western and central Ohio) and Huron-Erie Lake Plains (northern Ohio along Lake Erie) sections. The Appalachian Plateaus in Ohio extends from the south central to northeast portions of the state and is comprised of the Glaciated Allegheny Plateaus and Allegheny

Plateaus. A small portion of Ohio along the Ohio River in the south western part of the state has the Bluegrass section of the Interior Low Plateau.

The Water Plant site is in the Till Plains section of the Central Lowland province.

The Central Lowlands in general are described as:

an extensive area of slight relief in the interior of the continent. Here a vast expanse of nearly level land with fertile soils, a long growing season, and a favorable amount and distribution of rainfall have combined to make this one of the best agricultural regions in the world (Atwood 1940:185).

The Allegheny Escarpment (the boundary between the Till Plains and Glaciated

Allegheny Plateaus) lies only 10 miles or so to the southeast of the site.

Within the Till Plain section there are further divisions and the site lies within the

Columbus Lowland. This lowland is described as a "lowland surrounded in all directions

by relative uplands, having a broad regional slope toward the Scioto Valley; many larger

streams; elevation 600' – 850' (950' near Powell Morraine), moderately low relief (25')"

(ODGS 1998). To the north, the Columbus Lowland is bounded by the Powell Morraine,

to the east and south by the Allegheny Escarpment and to the west by the "flatter and

higher derby Plain" (ODGS 1998).

The bedrock geology underlying the Water Plant site area is "deep Devonian- to

Mississippian-aged carbonate rocks, shales and siltstones" (ODGS 1998). The geology

and soils are discussed in more detail below.

Geology

As just mentioned above, the bedrock underlying the site is Devonian in age,

which is dated to approximately between 408 to 360 million years before present (Figure

6). Devonian-aged bedrock in Central Ohio is comprised of shale underlain by limestone

(ODGS 2006).

The bedrock surfaces over most of Ohio were glaciated. The last continental

glaciation in central Ohio was in the Wisconsin period which dates to between 14,000

and 24,000 years ago. The glacial deposits at the site are characterized as ground

moraine and outwash (Figure 7; ODGS 2005). Ground moraines, in general terms, are

materials "deposited in sheets over the landscape" (Thornbury 1969:379), and can be

comprised "of both basal and superglacial till" (Thornbury 1969:380). Outwash materials

are deposited by streams emanating from the glacier edges (Atwood 1940:203,

Thornbury 1969:383). The thickness of the glacial material in the greater site area is

estimated between 161 and 260 feet (Figure 8; ODGS 2004).

Fortunately, there are geologic boring logs from the Water Plant site to shed more

information on the subsurface materials. In short, the glacial deposits within the site

boundaries are greater than 115 feet in thickness (City of Columbus Boring Logs, n.d.).

On the boring logs the subsurface materials were described as being a two-foot-layer of topsoil overlying layers of varying thickness of gravelly clays, gravels, sandy gravels, sand, silt, clay, and sandy clays. Two borings were advanced into bedrock. To the north of the site (in the field to the north of the site) limestone was encountered at 194 feet below ground surface. Shale at 169 feet below ground surface and then limestone at 174 feet below ground surface were encountered in a boring drilled at the south end of the current lagoon south of the archaeological site. These boring logs from the actual site area confirm the general published geologic information for the area.

Soils

The soils at the site are shown on Figure 9 (USDA 2008). The primary soil categories for the site are Celina silt loam (2 to 6 percent slopes) and Miamian silty clay loam (6 to 12 percent slopes). Less amounts of Celina-Urban land complex (2 to 6 percent slopes) and Eldean silt loam (2 to 6 percent slopes) are present near the Water

Plant site's boundaries (USDA 2008). Typical soil profiles for the two primary units are as follows (USDA 2008):

CeB – Celina silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes 0 to 7 inches: Silt loam. 7 to 25 inches: Silty clay loam. 25 to 70 inches: Loam.

M1C2 – Miamian silty clay loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes, eroded 0 to 9 inches: Silty clay loam. 9 to 36 inches: Clay loam. 36 to 70 inches: Loam

Both these soils are characterized as being present on till plains (and moraines in the case of the Celina silt loam). The parent material is loamy till. They are moderately well drained to well drained and do not tend to have pooling water on the surface (USDA

2008).

Hydrology

The Big Walnut Creek forms one of the site's boundaries. Big Walnut Creek is a primary stream that drains into the Scioto River approximately 3.5 miles downstream in

Pickaway County (straight-line distance; closer to 8 miles following the creek's course).

This stream has a total drainage area of 557 square miles (Childress 2001). The Scioto 57

River in turn drains into the Ohio River approximately 75 miles to the south at

Portsmouth (straight-line distance; over 120 miles following the river's course).

Interestingly, the Big Walnut Creek is labeled as the Gahanna River in a historic map published by Caldwell in 1872 (Figure 10). In terms of water resources, the site is obviously well-situated for having potable surface water available. In addition, Big

Walnut Creek could have been utilized for transportation.

Based on the USDA soils information (2008), the water table is 18 to 36 inches below ground surface. The boring logs from the site indicate that ground water is between 38 and 45 feet below ground surface. One explanation for this is the water table indicated in the soil survey is based on generalized information. The shallow water table could be due to perched water (on top of clay layers). Another thing to note is the data from the boring log descriptions of the water table is based on a sustained water level in a deep borehole.

The map published in 1872 (Caldwell 1872) indicates that a spring was present in the area where a lagoon for the water treatment plant currently exists. The presence of a spring so high above the adjacent creek really is not too surprising given the layering of gravels and clays and their potential for transmitting water under artesian conditions. No evidence is currently present of a spring in the area; however, this area was developed by the Plant and therefore modified greatly since 1872 when Caldwell published his map.

The presence of the spring may have been an attractive feature in the placement of a settlement for early Late Woodland people, presuming that the spring was present during

that time. A spring under artesian conditions on the bluff top would mean that fresh

water would not need to be hauled up the steep bank to the site.

Climate

The climate in the area of the Water Plant site is generally temperate as the site's

latitude and longitude is approximately 39° 50' 43'', 82° 59' 4''. The soils survey report

characterizes this area as having mean annual precipitation of 33 to 45 inches, a mean

annual air temperature of 50 to 55 degrees Fahrenheit, and a frost-free period of 151 to

180 days (USDA 2008). Atwood (1940) characterized this area as being in the Humid

Continental type climate and a part of the Long Summer phase.

What the climate was like when early Late Woodland peoples were at the site is not known with absolute certainty; however, it was likely similar to the conditions now observed. There has been climatic research in the greater Ohio region, especially using palynology; however, most data is dated to several thousand years before the early Late

Woodland time period.

By the end of the late Pleistocene and beginning of the Holocene (approximately

10,000 years ago) the "modern south-north precipitation gradient of ca 10 cm is apparently established" (Shane and Anderson 1993:316). Shane and Anderson (1993) also believe that temperature gradients were very similar to modern values. The

Hypsithermal climate interval that occurred between 8000 and 5000 years ago was characterized by changing climatologic patterns, but in general was a warm and dry interval. By approximately 5000 years before present sea levels were at their current

59 levels and "the modern climatic regime with precipitation available throughout the growing season was established in the southeast [area of Eastern North America]"

(Delcourt and Delcourt 1981:150). Also following the Hypsithermal interval at approximately 4000 years before present river systems in Eastern North America changed to a period of river aggradation and stabilization (Smith 1992b, Knox 1982).

After this time we see domesticated plants occur in the archaeological record in Eastern

North America (Smith 1992a).

Vegetation

Based on pollen studies the modern vegetation patterns (pre-European contact) were established in the Central Ohio region by 5000 years ago (Delcourt and Delcourt

1981:Figures 8 and 9), this area was primarily comprised of mixed hardwood forests.

Based on archaeological research at the Water Plant and other earlier sites in the region, domesticated plants were being utilized in the early Late Woodland time period. In fact,

"by Early Woodland the Eastern Agricultural Complex seems to be fully developed in many places in Eastern North America" (Cowan 1985:231).

The phrase "Eastern Agricultural Complex" (or EAC) is found in the archaeological literature; however, according to Bruce Smith "the "Eastern Agricultural

Complex" was neither agricultural nor a complex" (Smith 1992a:60). The EAC is generally characterized as being comprised of native weedy plants domesticated in

Eastern North America. According to Richard Yarnell, "there were about ten prehistoric cultigens (i.e., intensively domesticated crops) in the Eastern Woodlands" (Yarnell

1986:48). In his list of ten plants he included Zea mays (maize or corn) – a plant that was

not used in economic quantities until the Late Prehistoric times in Ohio. To date, corn

has not been found in the archaeological record at the Water Plant site. Domesticated

plants that were found at the Water Plant site include: goosefoot, sumpweed or

marshelder, maygrass, erect knotweed, and squash (Wymer 1987), plus tobacco (data

presented in this document). Other domesticated plants found in Eastern North America

include Lagenaria siceraria (bottle gourd), sunflower, corn, Phaseolus vulgaris (beans), and Amaranthus hypochondriacus (amaranth) (Yarnell 1986:48).

What many of the above-listed plants have in common is, in general, they are

weedy plants and prefer disturbed habitats (Smith 1992a). Interestingly, many of the

indigenous plants domesticated in Eastern North America that were important in the early

Late Woodland time period (and in earlier times) are no longer utilized as economic

crops (e.g., goosefoot, sumpweed, maygrass, and erect knotweed).

Quite a few wild plants were utilized at the site by early Late Woodland people,

including several tree species. Nutshell species identified at the site include hickory, hazelnut, acorn (and possibly chestnut), butternut, black walnut and Juglandaceae

(walnut) family (Wymer 1987:144, and this document). Other tree species were

undoubtedly utilized as well; however, a complete analysis of wood charcoal obtained

from the site has not been performed.

Fauna

At the time the Water Plant site was occupied in the early Late Woodland time

period faunal species that are present today were present. Based on the faunal analyses

completed for the site, the primary species of animal utilized was white tailed deer (Lee

2008, this document). Other animal remains at the site include Eastern box turtle,

raccoon, striped skunk, elk, beaver, groundhog, frog or toad, fish and unidentified small,

medium and large mammals, amphibians, medium and large birds, unidentified rodents

and a carnivore (this document).

No human remains were recovered from the Water Plant site, at least remains that

could be definitively identified as human. This is not to say that human burials were not

conducted at or near the site; they were not found in the excavations made at the site to

date. Human remains have been recovered at other early Late Woodland sites such as

Scioto Trails (Potter 1966), Childers (Maslowski and Dawson 1980, Shott et al. 1993),

Turpin Farms (Oehler 1973), and the Rogers Site complex (Kreinbrink 1992).

The next chapter discusses the previous archaeological work conducted at the

Water Plant site.

Chapter 4: Past Investigations at the Water Plant Site

The Water Plant site is located in southern Franklin County, Ohio and owned by the City of Columbus, Division of Water, Parsons Avenue Water Treatment Plant (the

Plant). It lies on a high bluff along Big Darby Creek and was estimated as being approximately 3.15 hectares (7.8 acres) when archaeological investigation of the site commenced in 1978. A new estimated site size is 3.2 hectares (8 acres). The site location is shown on Figure 4.

An Ohio Archaeological Inventory (OAI) form was filed with the Ohio Historic

Preservation Office in 1978 by a private individual. The accession number for the site is

33FR155. A private individual named the site after himself (Weidner Site); however, the site is known as the Water Plant Site based on the current land owner (City of Columbus,

Division of Water, Parsons Avenue Water Treatment Plant) and because results of the archaeological work has been published as the Water Plant Site (Church 1987; Dancey et al. 1987; Wymer 1987; Dancey 1988, 2001). A mound location was reportedly present at the site and was given the OAI accession number 33FR156. On the USGS topographic map at Ohio Historic Preservation Office (OHPO), the mound is located in the area where the Plant's lagoon is currently located. In field notes made in 1979, a possible mound location was surveyed using a construction trench as a reference. Based on those field notes, the mound is located at a topographic high. Based on site investigations

conducted in 1979-1980 by The Ohio State University (OSU) and the current research, no mound is obvious at the site. There are some subsurface anomalies in the magnetic data in this northern vicinity; however, no conclusive evidence supports the existence of a mound. Interestingly, the artifacts initially listed for both the sites are possibly Hopewell in age; however, no other Hopewell artifacts have been recovered at the Water Plant site, even with the extensive investigations that have been undertaken – during the research conducted in 1979 -1980 or the current research.

The Water Plant site as is known today was "discovered" during the construction of the City of Columbus' Parsons Avenue Water Treatment Plant (the Plant) in 1978.

The site was known by local collectors many years prior to that time. The first part of the archaeological site to become formally known to the City was a portion of the prehistoric ditch circumscribing the site.

During excavation for a drainage ditch in the northern portion of the site the prehistoric ditch was intersected. The cross-section of the prehistoric ditch was examined and pieces of ceramics, bone and lithic material were found in the dark-stained soil. The ditch location is shown on Figure 2.

The OSU Department of Anthropology operated as Region 6A of the OHPO at the time of the site's recording at the OHPO and the prehistoric ditch discovery and for that reason, OSU became involved with further investigation of this important archaeological site. A proposal for the investigation was initiated by Dr. William S.

Dancey in 1979 and it was accepted by the City through negotiations between the City,

OHPO, and OSU. The purpose for the extended investigation "was to collect data on the

64 size, shape, and internal structure of the site" (Dancey 1988:226). The City consented to modifying their construction plans to protect the archaeological site. The initial field work was conducted by OSU between April and June 1980 and consisted of systematic surface collection and test pitting. This was followed up in June and July of 1980 by feature detection and excavation conducted as part of a field school for Kenyon College students (Dancey 1988, Dancey personal communications).

An aerial photograph review was conducted by OSU at the start of the project and the prehistoric ditch that circumscribes the site was detected (Dancey et al. 1987). Both the 1976 and 1950 aerial photographs show evidence of the ditch and site area – with the

1950 photograph depicting the ditch quite clearly and the 1976 photograph depicting the area within the ditch as dark-stained soil (Figure 11).

The initial field work consisted of two archaeological surface surveys. The first survey was conducted in April and May 1980 and was designed as a stratified, systematic, unaligned sampling strategy and was performed on the site's natural weathered surface (Dancey et al. 1987:21). A site grid which was arbitrarily oriented perpendicular to an access road the City had constructed at the south end of the site. The grid was comprised of 10-meter by 10-meter blocks. This first survey (Sample 1 in

Dancey et al. 1987) further gridded the site into 5-meter blocks and one of the four 2.5- meter blocks within each 5-meter block was collected. During this survey, the fire- cracked rock and artifacts were mapped in the target block, and the artifacts collected

(but not the fire-cracked rock). In the remainder of the 10-meter unit, the fire-cracked

rock and diagnostic artifacts were mapped and then only diagnostic artifacts were

collected (Dancey et al. 1987:22).

The second archaeological surface survey was conducted in June 1980 and was designed as a systematic interval quadrant sample (Sample 2 in Dancey et al. 1987).

Prior to the survey, the field was plowed so that a fresh surface could be observed and collected. Using this strategy, "the central four, contiguous 2.5 m square units in each 10 m square were completely collected" (Dancey et al. 1987:22). No mapping of artifacts was conducted during this sampling within or outside of the collected squares, and none of the artifacts in the untargeted squares were collected.

A tremendous amount of information and artifacts were collected during the two

sampling events. It is estimated that the two sampling strategies covered 25 percent of

the entire site. Over 23,000 artifacts were collected and included ceramic sherds, ground

stone and chipped stone tools, and rock flakes (Dancey et al. 1987, 2001). The collection

and mapping information was plotted to see if there were patterns within the different

classes of artifacts. The tools were aged based on their diagnostic attributes.

As part of the Water Treatment Plant construction, a large overflow ditch was

placed at the south end of the archaeological site. The area's topsoil was stripped by a

bulldozer in a 20-meter by 70-meter area. OSU personnel then trowel- and shovel-

scraped the surface and archaeological features were mapped. There were over 100

features uncovered in this area. Eighty of the features were prehistoric features and 52 of

them were excavated (Dancey et al. 1987:25).

Out of the 80 features found, 66 were post molds and 14 were pits. Based on the

arrangement of the post molds it is believed that they "evidently point to the existence of

permanent structures at the site but no convincing house plan can be detected in their

distribution" (Dancey et al. 1987:25). This possible house or building structure is located

in Dancey's Cluster I and shown on Figure 2. With respect to the relationship of the post

molds to pit placement "most pits are outside the concentrations of post molds, possibly

suggesting that they are related to an activity that commonly takes place in the open"

(Dancey et al. 1987:26). Upon further evaluation, it does look like a line of posts (area

shown on Figure 2) that could be part of a screen associated with the outer ditch. There

was some darker stained soil observed in the excavation that could haven a remnant of

the ditch (Dancey, personal communication).

The prehistoric ditch was excavated in another location (separate from the initial

discovery and the large block excavation mentioned above) and is shown on Figure 2

(labeled as Feature/Trench 2). The cross-section of the ditch in this location is a bit different to the first location; in that Feature 2 is a V-shaped ditch as shown on Figure 12

(reproduced here from Dancey 1988:Figure 4). At both prehistoric ditch locations, the ditch was approximately between 5 meters and 7 meters in width at the top and approximately between 1.2 and 1.6 meters in depth below ground surface. The ditch labeled as Feature 1 on Figure 2 (intersected by the backhoe) has more of a flat bottom to it (unpublished field notes) and appears to be larger than Feature 2 (hand troweled), which has more of a V-shape geometry. I believe that the difference in the ditch geometry at these two locations is at least in part due to the angle in which the ditch was

intersected during excavation. The cross-section at Feature 2 is perpendicular to the ditch whereas at Feature 1, the cross-section is at an angle and therefore the ditch would appear to be stretched out.

Flotation was performed on soil samples at the site during the excavation of the large block. Dee Anne Wymer used the samples as part of her dissertation research

(Wymer 1987). She found nutshell and wood charcoal and both wild and domesticated plant remains. Nutshell species present at the site were hickory, hazelnut, acorn, butternut, black walnut, and walnut family (Wymer 1987:144). She found at least 10

taxa of trees based on her analysis of the wood charcoal recovered from the site. The tree

taxa were maple, hickory, ash, Kentucky coffeetree, walnut, red mulberry, black cherry,

oak, elm, and sycamore (Wymer 1987:Table 25). The domesticated plants that she found

were maygrass, goosefoot, erect knotweed, sumpweed, and squash (Wymer 1987:152).

The occurrence of these domesticated plants suggests that the site's occupants were

present at the site for an extended time.

Radiocarbon dating was conducted on three samples from the site and these data were used in Flora Church's dissertation research (Church 1987). In uncalibrated

radiocarbon years, midpoints were 1450 ± 80 B.P. (B-15506), 1330 ± 70 B.P. (B-15507), and 1450 ± 70 B.P. (B-15508) and as uncalibrated calendar dates are A.D. 500, A.D. 620, and A.D. 500, respectively (Church 1987:77, Dancey et al. 1987:26). These dates, when calibrated (Stuiver and Reimer 1993), result in 2 sigma (σ) calendar dates of calibrated

(cal) A.D. 420-694, cal A.D. 597-876, and cal A.D. 431-679, respectively. An additional radiocarbon dating sample from the Water Plant site was submitted for analysis by

Christopher Carr and Herbert Haas (1996). The results from the analysis was an

uncalibrated radiocarbon year midpoint of 1280 ± 102 B.P. (Carr and Haas 1996:Table

5). A calibration for this sample was re-run as part of this dissertation and the date it resulted in was a 2σ calibrated range of cal A.D. 596-980. These data are in Table 3 along with radiocarbon dates for this current research. More discussion about the radiocarbon dating results from the site is included in Chapter 7.

The Water Plant site was found to be multi-component based on the artifacts collected during the surface surveys. Projectile points from the Late Paleo-Indian, Early and Late Archaic, Late Woodland, and Late Prehistoric time periods were present; however, the majority of the projectile points were identified as Chesser type (Dancey et al. 1987), which are frequently found at Late Woodland sites. Another type of diagnostic lithic artifact found at the site is discoids. These discoids are described as "flat pieces of shale or slate of irregular shape with one or two straight, unmodified edges and a curved, bifacially chipped edge" (Dancey et al. 1987:44). They have also been reported at other early Late Woodland sites such as the Turpin Farm site (Oehler 1973), Lichiliter Village site (Allman 1957), Leonard Haag site (Reidhead and Limp 1974), and Rogers site

Complex (Kreinbrink 1992).

Ceramic sherds were recovered from both the surface surveys and the excavations conducted at the site (over 1,600). Dancey et al. state that the sherds resemble Newtown

Cordmarked ceramics (1987:59; Dancey 1988:229). The diagnostic early Late Woodland angular shoulders are present on the site sherds and there is a lack of decoration other than cordmarking.

To study the site structure, several different classes of artifacts collected from the site were mapped to see if there was any patterning or relationships in their distributions.

The different artifact classes used in this analysis included sherds, chipped stone flakes, and chipped stone blanks. The areas of their highest frequency were circled and then additional classes of artifacts were plotted on the map. The additional artifact classes were ground stone debitage, ground stone tools and ornaments, chipped stone tools and utilized flakes (Dancey et al. 1987). This analysis turned out to be very interesting because based on the overlapping class distributions there are what could be interpreted as at least 11 household clusters present at the site within the prehistoric ditch area.

Dancey et al. state "It is important to note that neither topography nor collection pattern can account for the existence or spacing of these clusters" (1987:69; Dancey 1988:231).

The interpreted household clusters are shown on Figure 2. Based on all the artifacts and data collected and analyzed from the Water Plant site, this site is a nucleated early Late

Woodland village.

Several unpublished papers and presentations by OSU students have been prepared based on artifacts and data collected during the initial investigation of the Water

Plant site. Because these studies are not published, they have not been cited herein with one exception. A faunal analysis was conducted in 1997 by Anne Lee and that information has been used with the current research in this dissertation because she also performed the current analysis.

Chapter 5: Current Site Work and Methodologies

This chapter details the methods used for data collection and analysis used during this dissertation research. The research plan and its four major tasks are described below.

Each part of the field work and laboratory components is then discussed separately.

Research Plan

Two goals of this dissertation were to better understand the community patterning of an archaeological site in the Middle Ohio River Valley and to add to basic knowledge in the characterization of geophysical anomalies produced by prehistoric archaeological features in this region. The Water Plant site (33FR155) offers a unique opportunity to examine the community patterning of an early Late Woodland period settlement in the

Middle Ohio River Valley. This site is relatively undisturbed and intact in contrast to other known sites of this time period. The Water Plant site was investigated primarily with the use of non-destructive geophysical techniques, in this way, impact to the site’s archaeological record was minimized and the areas of excavation were very focused and limited in extent.

Below is a short description of the four primary tasks that were planned to be completed as part of this dissertation research. Following the list are more detailed

71 descriptions of each of the four primary tasks. Specific tasks performed for this dissertation research were:

• Conduct a site characterization. This included a characterization of the soil,

topographic, hydrologic, geologic, and environmental conditions present at the

site;

• Survey the site’s entire 3.15-hectare area within and including the previously

identified prehistoric ditch using magnetic geophysical methods. The aim of this

portion of the investigation was to locate prehistoric and historic features at the

site using a non-destructive method;

• Survey a discrete proportion (estimated to between 5 and 10 percent) of the site

area using a secondary geophysical method; and

• Core soils, excavate discrete portions of specific features identified through the

geophysical surveys, and collect specimens for analyses. Soil sampling and

visual observation during excavation confirmed the identification of site features

as hypothesized through the interpretation of the geophysical data. Samples of

soil, artifacts (stone, bone, pottery), charcoal and plant remains were collected for

analysis.

Each of the above four tasks has a field and non-field (laboratory) aspect. The four tasks are described and then each part of the tasks is discussed further in separate field and laboratory sections below.

Site Characterization

Site characterization is an important part of this research in adequately interpreting the physical characteristics of the Water Plant site and its features.

Environmental factors such a hydrology, climate, vegetation and geology certainly all affected early Late Woodland people in their choice for locating their community at the

Water Plant site. In addition, to better interpret the geophysical data, an understanding of earth properties at the site (e.g., soil and magnetic field) is needed.

Aerial photographs, soil surveys, plant maps, and previous investigations and analyses of site materials were examined in order to adequately understand the site conditions and its surroundings. Many of these references were compiled during the previous investigation of the site and are readily available. These data provided important information that further enhances the interpretation of the site conditions.

Much of this information was incorporated into Chapters 3 and 4. Other literature, such as reports for other early Late Woodland sites in the Middle Ohio River Valley region was also reviewed. This information has been incorporated into Chapter 2 and Chapters

7 and 9.

The fieldwork portion of this site characterization task was the field verification

(visual) of soils, vegetation, and topography present at the site (incorporated into Chapter

3). A new topographic survey was conducted and a new map was generated. Global

Positioning System (GPS) data was collected in the field as well. The topographic and

GIS survey data included the locations of field references used during the conduct of the

geophysical surveys, excavation, and other sample collection. In this way, all the field

information collected can be referenced to UTM and latitude and longitude positions.

Fluxgate Gradiometer (Magnetic) Survey

The ultimate objective of this task was to be able to recognize subsurface

archaeological features on the basis of their geophysical anomaly. Different types of

natural and archaeological (i.e., man-made) features can create magnetic anomalies.

These anomalies were interpreted based on their intrinsic properties and their spatial

relationship with other anomalies within the surveyed area. After the magnetic survey

was performed the data were processed. The observed magnetic anomalies were

examined based on the type of anomaly such as pole or dipole, their strength, and other

characteristics (e.g., relationship with other anomalies). This information was used in

conjunction with soil probing of anomalies in the field for selecting locations to excavate.

Anomaly excavation was used to confirm the interpretation of the magnetic data and to

target locations for radiocarbon dating.

Magnetic Susceptibility (Second Geophysical) Survey

The purpose of using a second geophysical method at the site was to view and interpret site subsurface anomalies from a different perspective. Multiple geophysical methods of the same feature (or areas) can enhance the archaeological interpretation of the site data. Initially it was estimated that between 5 and 10 percent of the site would be

re-examined using a second geophysical method. Electrical resistivity data was collected in one 20-meter by 20-meter block; however, the instrument was not functioning correctly and the results are not usable.

A magnetic susceptibility survey was performed over the site instead. While magnetic susceptibility and a magnetic survey are related, they do obtain different information and proved to be quite successful at this site. This second set of geophysical data was used to characterize site conditions and provided an additional interpretative tool. The coverage of this survey was 100 percent of the area, although a susceptibility survey with closer sample collection would yield more detail. A discussion of the magnetic properties measured is discussed below under the Magnetic Susceptibility sections.

Coring, Excavation, and Sample Collection

Based on the presence of geophysical anomalies, specific site areas were investigated further using soil coring (i.e., Oakfield soil sampler). The coring of the identified magnetic anomalies was used as an aid in correlating the geophysical anomalies with cultural (archaeological) features. Additionally, the coring results were used as part of the selection criteria for excavation locations.

Several types of samples were collected from the site for further analysis. The

types of samples collected were:

• Soil samples – Soil from the site’s surface and from probing locations were

collected. The soil samples from the probing locations were discarded after they 75

were visually observed and described in the field. The samples from the magnetic

susceptibility survey were analyzed and have been retained. Possible future

analysis such as grain-size distribution or chemical characterization can be

conducted on these soil samples.

• Radiocarbon samples – Organic material (e.g., nutshell and wood charcoal) from

excavated features were collected. Eight of these samples were used for dating

the features. The remaining samples have been retained for possible testing and

identification (i.e., plant taxa or species) in the future.

• Paleoethnobotanical samples – Soil from excavation locations at archaeological

features were obtained. The soil collected was processed using flotation

equipment and analyzed for presence/absence of botanical remains. Eleven

sample locations were selected for preliminary identification of plant taxa or

species. A soil sample for phytolith analysis was collected from excavated units

so that they can be analyzed in the future if desired.

Each of the field and laboratory methods is discussed below.

Field Methods

Below is a description of the activities and methods used during the field work performed for this dissertation. Because the field in which the site lies is actively being cultivated, time in the field was very limited. Limitations due to the farming of the site necessitated conducting field work between the end of November (when the farmer had finished harvesting and fertilized the field for the next year) and the end of April or

76 beginning of May (when crops were planted). The archaeological site is part of the

Parsons Avenue Water Treatment Plant for the City of Columbus, Ohio, and since the

September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on New York City and other locations in the United

States, security at the site was tightened.

Access to the field site for this dissertation research necessitated signing into the plant and checking out a key to a gate allowing access to the site each day and then returning the key and signing out. Due to Homeland Security terrorist levels, no access was permitted under Orange or Red levels. Fortunately, at the times when field access was needed, the level was Yellow and entry to the field was granted. Again, due to heightened security, no extraneous personnel were wanted at the site. For this reason the majority of the field work was conducted solely by me and therefore, took longer than it was initially anticipated. Permission for assistance in the field from other archaeologists in the collection of topographic survey, a portion of the magnetic survey data, all the soil probing, all the magnetic susceptibility samples, and all the excavations was granted by the land owner. The Water Plant's personnel were very accommodating to field access requirements and this made the site a very pleasant work place. A total of about 45 days was spent in the collection of the field data between April 23, 2003 and April 25, 2007.

Site Grid

The first field activity for this research was conducted on April 23, 2003 with the establishment of a grid system over the site. The grid previously used at the site (Dancey et al. 1987) was based on 10-meter squares and was arbitrarily oriented to be parallel to

77 the Plant's access road at the south end of the field in which the archaeological site is located. Initially this grid was going to be retained so that the previously collected data could be easily correlated to the new data and the same base map (unpublished Plant drawing SW-10) could be used.

A 20-meter block of gradiometer data oriented in the same direction as the previous grid was collected to evaluate the ability of retaining the original site grid. After processing the data, it became obvious that the previous grid was not oriented in a manner in which the gradiometer data could be corrected for using the instrument's software (initially thought to be approximately 20° East different, later estimated as 28°

East). The grid was then adjusted to be in the direction of magnetic north and it was comprised of 20-meter blocks.

GPS Survey

A Trimble® Pathfinder Pro XR Global Positioning System (GPS) unit owned by the OSU Department of Anthropology was used to survey in the locations of magnetic grid block corners, field depressions, surface artifact finds, and other site features. The first GPS survey was conducted on May 1, 2003 and subsequent updates were conducted on April 20 and 22, 2005; April 14 and 15, 2006; and April 5 and 6, 2007.

The GPS data were collected for the purpose of spatial control and not for topographic data. No special corrections were made to the data collected. Even though the data were collected over a time period of four years, the locations that were re- collected several times were in agreement with previous the measurements.

Topographic Survey

The Plant personnel supplied me with a construction drawing that covered the

area investigated. This plant drawing included topographic data collected in 1978 and

was updated in 1983 to be an "as built" drawing to include construction details at the site.

Because this dissertation research was conducted 20 years since the map was completed,

new topographic data were collected in case the site's surface had changed due to

constant farming at the site.

The topographic survey for this dissertation was collected on April 16, 2005. At

that time, the field boundaries, permanent features (manholes, monitoring wells, overflow

ditch edge, utility poles, etc.), and grid block corner stakes were surveyed for topographic

and spatial control. Additionally, other locations within and around the site were

surveyed for topographic information. Three "spikes" (large iron-containing nails) were driven into the ground at the site on April 16, 2005 so that the grid block locations for the magnetic survey could be relocated in the future. These spikes were located at the site's southwest corner and are easily located using a magnetometer. Subsequent surveys were made on February 2, 2006 on and March 6 and 27, 2007 to re-establish grid block locations and to locate excavation block locations.

While this survey did collect elevation data, these data were not referenced to

USGS topographic elevations. The data were collected in metric units and were intended to show the relative topography across the site. An arbitrary base elevation of 100 meters was used.

Fluxgate Gradiometer Survey

A fluxgate gradiometer was selected to conduct a geophysical survey of the Water

Plant site for four reasons. The first reason this instrument was chosen was because the

subsurface (near surface) materials in this area allow for archaeological features to be

relatively easy to detect using this type of magnetic method. The second reason was this

instrument was chosen was, even though the site area is large, 100 percent of the site

could be covered and using this type of magnetometer data can be collected relatively fast

over large areas. The third reason a fluxgate gradiometer survey was decided upon was

because this method is relatively non-invasive and does not disturb the archaeological

site. The fourth reason this particular instrument was chosen was it is owned by the OSU

Department of Anthropology and therefore, economical for use during the large and

comprehensive survey. Below is a discussion of geophysical methods in general, some

background information about magnetics, an explanation of what a gradiometer

measures, and how the site gradiometer survey was conducted.

There are two primary ways that geophysical techniques are applied – actively and passively. Active methods are those in which a signal is transmitted into the subsurface and an altered signal is detected and interpreted. A passive method is one in which variations in a natural field are recorded and then interpreted. Active geophysical methods include: seismic refraction and reflection, electrical resistivity, induced polarization, self-potential, electromagnetic conductivity, and ground penetrating radar.

Passive geophysical methods applied to archaeological sites include: aerial photography, magnetics, microgravity, and thermography (Herz and Garrison 1998; Scollar et al.

1990). Some of these methods are not commonly used at archaeological sites. The

methods that are commonly used at archaeological sites are: aerial photography, electrical

resistivity, magnetics, electromagnetics, and ground-penetrating radar.

“Magnetic surveying responds to contrasts in the magnetic properties of soils, which can be brought about by, among other causes, human activities such as burning, by humic decomposition, by compaction, and by the introduction of structures” (Weymouth and Huggins 1985:191). This geophysical method is many times used in conjunction with electrical resistivity surveys because they complement one another well – what one method may not detect, the other usually will in the environment where this survey was performed. Features or artifacts that have been heated are especially visible with magnetic methods, as are features that exhibit significant contrast in magnetic susceptibility. Magnetic objects, storage pits and other dug features, stone foundations, forges, kilns, hearths and campfire sites can be detected using this geophysical method

(Wynn 1986). At the Water Plant site there were some magnetic objects, pits, dug features, and heated features detected. These features are discussed in Chapter 6.

An important factor in using geophysical methods at a site is to first understand the site conditions. The archaeologist needs to know to the extent possible what the site environment was like prior to occupation. In this way one can anticipate what the archaeological record might look like. Next, an understanding of the archaeological formation processes is important in the respect that the archaeologist needs to know what disturbances to the natural environment might have been made – not only at the time of occupation, but what might have affected the site following abandonment. In other

81 words, we need to know what to expect at a site before we survey or excavate it. “In a physical sense geophysical techniques only measure properties of the earth – soil and rock – or natural and man-made alterations in these components. One has to determine whether these geophysical properties have any archeological meaning” (Herz and

Garrison 1998:148).

As a requirement for being able to use geophysical methods effectively at a site, there needs to be some sort of contrast. If the target of investigation is physically and/or chemically similar or identical to the surrounding material, geophysical methods will be of limited use or not useful at all at the site. There are a number of geophysical techniques that have been used at archaeological sites and research continues in the development of new methods and refinements to the current ones.

Why the magnetic method was chosen for the geophysical investigation for this research is this method is very well suited for the soil conditions in the area of the Water

Plant site. Soils in this area have iron-containing minerals and when they are disturbed, such as is found in a heated feature, pit, ditch, or embankment they create a magnetic contrast to the surrounding materials. This contrast therefore creates a disturbance in the

Earth's ambient magnetic field and is detected using a magnetometer.

For materials to become magnetized it must have some amount of iron-containing materials or iron oxide. The three most common iron-containing minerals are magnetite, maghaemite (maghemite), and haematite (hematite) (Scollar et al. 1990). Materials with these substances can acquire a natural remanent magnetization (NRM) through natural processes. This occurs at the molecular level. When materials with a NRM are disturbed

82 or altered by humans, we can observe the alterations magnetically as anomalies. For more detailed information on magnetization of materials see for example, Collinson

(1983) or Thompson and Oldfield (1986).

Some materials “such as soil, rocks, and ferrous objects can become magnetized in the presence of a magnetic field” (Weymouth and Huggins 1985). The Earth's natural magnetic field acts as an induced field on the Earth's soil and rock materials and magnetization can be accomplished through secondary methods such as those described in Collinson (1983) or Thompson and Oldfield (1986). Topsoil generally has greater magnetic susceptibility than the underlying soils (Clark 1996) from the earth’s field and can be enhanced through human activity on the soil. This is due to the amount of organic matter present in the soil (higher in the topsoil) and a conversion of iron oxide minerals to more magnetic forms during anaerobic decomposition in humic soil (Aitken 1961).

When a pit, ditch, or other dug feature is filled with topsoil, there is a potential that the dug feature will be visible to a magnetometer due to having a higher magnetic reading than the surrounding soil. In addition, heated features will have a greater magnetic signature in comparison to the surrounding area.

A fluxgate gradiometer, a specific type of magnetometer, was used at the Water

Plant site. A fluxgate gradiometer is comprised of two fluxgate-type magnetometers housed as a single instrument. Having the two magnetometers together eliminates the need for measuring diurnal changes in the Earth's magnetic field at a base station over the duration of the survey. Diurnal changes in the Earth's magnetic field can be on the order of 50 nanoTeslas (nT) to 200 nT (Reynold 1997:137). Because the site anomalies are

relatively small, fluctuations of this magnitude could obscure the archaeological targets

(features, postmolds, ditch, etc.) at the site. Bevins (1998) states that many of the

anomalies archeologists target at prehistoric North American sites are on the order of 1

nT to 100 nT. In addition, the magnitude of the Earth's magnetic field intensity changes

with the height above the ground surface where it is measured. With a gradiometer, the

Earth's magnetic field intensity is measured simultaneously by the two magnetometers

and the difference between the two readings is what is recorded by the instrument. The

relative difference between the readings does not change; therefore, the diurnal variation

does not influence the readings and is measured in units of nT.

To collect magnetic data in a gradiometer survey, one must pass the instrument over the targeted area all the while walking steadily and holding the instrument level in three planes. The field conditions for conducting a gradiometer survey at the Water Plant were nearly ideal in that the land surface overlying the archaeological site was in agricultural production so walking over the site collecting the data was relatively simple.

The data collected are a passive way of observing the magnetic field strength gradient over the surveyed area. This means that no energy or other inputs are needed (e.g., sound, electricity, etc); the instrument simply records the magnetic gradient at the intended location.

Specifically, Geoscan® FM-36 and FM-256 fluxgate gradiometers were used for collecting magnetic data at the Water Plant site. The FM-36 used by the author is owned by the OSU Department of Anthropology. The FM-256 instrument is owned by Ohio

Archaeological Consultants, Ltd., who was contracted to collect some of the magnetic

data.

The difference between the two models of gradiometers is basically the capacity

of data the instrument can hold. As mentioned above, an attempt to collect the

gradiometer data at the same orientation as the grid system used in the site investigations

in 1980 was made. The data could not be processed easily because the survey using the

initial grid was not oriented in one of the 16 directions of the compass rose. For this

reason, the magnetic survey was oriented in the magnetic north direction to facilitate data

processing for this dissertation research.

The magnetic data were collected on 26 days – April 23 and 24, 2003; December

8, 9, and 15, 2004; March 30, 2005; April 1, 2, 6, 8, 11, 13, 14, 15, and 20, 2005; March

29, 2006; April 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 14, and 15, 2007; March 8, 9, and 29, 2007. Each grid was 20 meters by 20 meters and the data were collected at 0.5-meter intervals in the east- west direction and every 0.125 meters in the north-south direction in each grid. After the particular data collection grid was established it took 20 to 30 minutes to collect the magnetic data in each grid. A total of 83 full and 12 partial grids were covered by the survey (Figure 13).

The instruments were operated in a manner consistent with the manufacturer's recommendations. Each day the instrument was zeroed and balanced to ensure good data recovery and the same general location was used to perform these calibrations throughout the data collection. The magnetic data are shown on Figure 14.

Anomaly Probing

A total of 135 anomalies were identified and probed using an Oakfield soil sampler. The criterion for which an anomaly was selected is explained in the analytical section below (in Anomaly Probing). The Oakfield soil sampler has a 12-inch sampling tube that is open over approximately one-third of its diameter so that the soil sample can be easily viewed. The sampler has an approximate outside diameter of one and one-half inches.

Based on the fluxgate gradiometer survey data, anomalies were located on the ground surface using Engineer's tapes within the appropriate grid block. Typically several holes were advanced at each location. The first hole was at the specified anomaly center point. The next holes would be advanced approximately 0.3 meters to the east, south, west and north. At each location, the sampler was advanced in approximate 12- inch interval depths and then extracted. The soil was visually observed, described, and then discarded. The total depth of each probe location was to refusal, to sterile soil, or to a maximum of approximately 0.7 meters below ground surface. The probe locations are shown on Figure 15 and Table 4 includes the magnetic intensity of the anomalies targeted for probing.

Anomaly Excavations

Based on the fluxgate gradiometer survey and the anomaly probing results, six anomalies (five discrete anomalies and one area) were selected for excavation. The criteria by which they were selected are discussed below in the analytical section (under

Anomaly Excavations). The five discrete anomalies selected for excavation were

Anomalies 20, 34, 81, 110, and 116. In addition, a section of the linear anomaly within

the outer ditch (i.e., the inner ditch) was trenched to obtain a profile of the feature and the

magnetic anomaly to the north of it. At Anomaly 81, the excavation was extended to

include a linear anomaly in its vicinity as well. The locations of the excavations are

shown on Figure 16.

Ohio Valley Archaeology Consultants, Ltd. (OVAC) was contracted (through personal funding) to perform the excavations at the site. At each excavation location the plow zone was removed by shovel scraping to expose the entire anomaly, although at the two linear anomaly locations, only a portion of the entire anomalies were exposed (the linear anomalies were bisected). Typically the plow zone extended downward between

0.30 and 0.33 meters below ground surface. The entire anomaly at the five discrete locations was exposed so that a plan view could be drawn and the full extent of the anomaly was known. The anomalies became quite apparent as darker soil after the plow zone soil was removed. Once the anomaly was drawn, it was sectioned into quarters and one quarter was arbitrarily chosen for further excavation. The excavation was conducted in arbitrary 10-centimeter levels and complied with standard archaeological practices for hand excavation. This same process was followed at the Ditch/Trench and Anomaly 81

(arm) locations where the linear anomalies (ditch and palisade) were excavated.

A soil sample of between 1 and 15 liters was retained for flotation; most samples collected were between 5 and 10 liters at each arbitrary excavation level of 10 cm. The remainder of the feature fill was screened in the field on ¼-inch screen material.

Artifacts such as ceramics, lithics, bone, and charcoal were bagged for later processing.

Small soil samples for possible future phytolith analysis were collected at Anomalies 20,

34, 81 (pit and post/arm locations), 110, and 116 and from the trench (inner ditch)

location.

Magnetic Susceptibility Survey

As mentioned above in the Research Plan section, a second geophysical method

was planned for use at the Water Plant site. Because there were problems with the

electrical resistivity instrument, a magnetic susceptibility survey was used as a second

geophysical method. Even though magnetic susceptibility is very closely related to a

gradiometer survey (the magnetic reading made during the survey is based in part on the

magnetic susceptibility of the targeted material), these data enhance the gradiometer

information obtained from the site. Below is a discussion of magnetic susceptibility and

how the samples were collected.

Magnetic susceptibility is "a measure of the ease with which a material can be magnetized" (Thompson and Oldfield 1986:25). In SI units, magnetic susceptibility, κ

(Greek letter, kappa), is dimensionless. Strictly speaking, this measure of magnetic susceptibility is volume specific (Clark 1996:99, Evans and Heller 2003:21, Thompson and Oldfield 1986:25). The mass specific susceptibility, χ (Greek letter, chi), has dimensions of cubic meters per kilogram (m3 kg-1; Evans and Heller 2003, Thompson and

Oldfield 1986), and this was the parameter measured on soil samples collected at the

Water Plant site. In addition, the frequency based magnetic susceptibility was measured

on the soil samples. These measurements are discussed below in the Laboratory Method

section.

As previously mentioned, magnetic susceptibility is typically higher in value in

the topsoil as compared with deeper soils. This is called the La Borgne factor (Clark

1996, Scollar et al. 1990). La Borgne studied this phenomenon and suggested that it may

occur in two ways. The first mechanism to explain this may be due to bacterial action, in

that bacteria in soils reduce naturally occurring hematite to magnetite (Scollar et al.

1990). Hematite (the most common of the iron oxides) is naturally paramagnetic which means it has a weak positive magnetism, whereas magnetite is ferrimagnetic meaning this material has magnetism occurring without an external magnetic field being applied

(Scollar et al. 1990:380). A second mechanism may be due to the newly formed magnetite undergoing reoxidaization to maghemite while preserving the crystal structure of the magnetite (Scollar et al. 1990:397). Maghemite exhibits natural magnetization less than magnetite and is "the most important mineral responsible for soil magnetism in areas of human occupation with agriculture" (Scollar et al. 1990:388).

Another way that soils may undergo a magnetic susceptibility enhancement is with heat, such as the presence of kilns, earth ovens and hearths. The heat produced by the fires need to be relatively high in temperature and long in duration. For example, fires used in clearing land typically do not change the magnetic susceptibility appreciably

(Clark 1996, Scollar et al. 1990). Soils that have organic materials present can undergo enhancement of magnetic susceptibility (Clark 1996, Thompson and Oldfield 1986).

Through oxidation and reduction cycles during soil formation there may be magnetic susceptibility enhancement as well (Clark 1996, Thompson and Oldfield 1986).

Again, as stated previously, when a pit, ditch, or other dug feature is filled with topsoil, there is a potential that the feature will be visible to a magnetometer due to having a higher (or lower) magnetic reading than the surrounding soil; this is due to the difference in the magnetic susceptibilities between the feature and the surrounding materials. By measuring the magnetic susceptibility over the site, areas of disturbed soil, indicating greater frequency of activities or use can be observed.

Soil samples were collected for measuring the magnetic susceptibility of the near- surface soil at the Water Plant site. The sampling frequency was approximately every 20 meters in the north-south direction and every 10 meters in the east-west direction. A total of 250 soil samples were collected and the resultant data collected from these samples are in Table 5.

Each soil sample was collected using an Oakfield soil sampler (as described above in the Anomaly Probing section). The sampler was advanced approximately 8 –

10 centimeters (cm) and that soil was discarded. The sampler was re-advanced another 8

– 10 cm. This second soil sample was retained for analysis. The second, deeper, sample was analyzed because it is relatively less disturbed by more recent near-surface activities like the agricultural cultivation of the site. The magnetic susceptibility of soils from the site was measured in the laboratory and is discussed below (under Magnetic

Susceptibility).

Laboratory Methods

The field tasks described above also had a laboratory (or non-field) component.

The field and laboratory components are inter-related in that the criteria used for decision-making were based on the preliminary analysis of field data. The processing of the data and preliminary data analysis are described below. The interpretations of both the field and laboratory results are discussed in Chapter 6.

Site Grid

Because the site grid used in the 1980 investigations and the current grid established to facilitate the fluxgate gradiometer survey were different, the grids needed to be resolved so that the data from the earlier investigations could be used in this research. The site grid that was established in 1980 was originally placed on one of the

Plant's drawings (SW-10) and therefore, current landmarks are shared with this map. It was still difficult to match the grids exactly; however, based on the locations of test borings/wells TH-84, TH-85, and TH-87 a match was made (Figure 17).

Test borings/wells TH-84 and TH-85 had steel casings installed at the time they were drilled in 1977. The casings were left in place when the wells were abandoned and the steel casings present at these locations created very large magnetic anomalies which are quite visible on the fluxgate gradiometer survey. The steel casing at test boring/well

TH-87 was pulled and the magnetic anomaly left by the subsurface disturbance created an anomaly, but not nearly as strong. By overlying the initial archaeological site grid and the current one using the test boring/well locations as match points, the grids can be

91 correlated. Figure 18 shows the interpreted cluster areas from the initial investigations at the site (Dancey et al. 1987) based on the initial grid system overlying the current grid system.

It should be noted that the current grid system, which is oriented in the magnetic north direction is the grid used throughout the current research.

GPS Survey

No corrections were made for the GPS survey because these data were not used for topographic control and just used for site referencing while conducting the field work.

The topographic survey data was used as the primary method of ensuring site spatial control over the course of the current research. One of the advantages of the Trimble®

Pathfinder software used to download and display the data is the units can be changed between Latitude and Longitude and Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) easily.

Topographic Survey

The topographic survey data are shown on Figure 19. This figure is very similar to the site conditions as surveyed by the Plant in 1978. No special processing was needed to display the data using the manufacturer's software; however, the data was downloaded and saved to an Excel® file which was then used in Golden Graphic's Surfer® 8 software. Using Surfer®, the data can be displayed using different algorithms and intervals for the interpolation of the surface between data collection points. The data shown in Figure 18 used linear kriging which is a statistical method for gridding.

Fluxgate Gradiometer Survey

The fluxgate gradiometer data were processed in the laboratory using Geoplot®

3.00 software published by Geoscan Research for the instruments used (FM-36 and FM-

256). The data were processed by applying Zero Mean Traverse, Despike, Interpolation,

Low Pass Filter functions and then rotating the data. The data were rotated because the

software uses the British convention of displaying North to the right (or in the United

States, the conventional East direction). Each of the processing functions is described

below.

Zero Mean Traverse is an averaging algorithm that is applied to each block of

data; in the case of the data collected each block was 20 meters by 20 meters. The

background mean along each traverse within a grid is set to zero using this function. The

function then performs this operation on a grid-by-grid basis. The algorithm used is a least mean squares straight line fit to adjust the data. According to the software documentation "It is useful for removing striping effects in the traverse direction which often occur in fluxgate gradiometer data. This also has the effect of removing grid edge discontinuities at the same time" (Geoscan Research 1994:9-17).

The Despike function is used to remove random spikes (extremely high or low values) in the data. To determine if a measurement is a spike, the algorithm is designed to compare each value against a threshold value, which for this data was selected as 3 standard deviations and the value is replaced by the mean of the sampling window

(Geoscan Research 1994:9-49).

Interpolation of the data was performed so that the data would be more evenly

spaced for further processing. Eight measurements in the north-south direction and two

measurements in the east-west direction were collected each meter. By interpolating in

the y-direction (as referenced in the Geoscan software), the number of data points in the

east-west direction was increased to four and then the data were interpolated in the x-

direction so that the data were decreased to four in the north-south direction. By increasing the number of data points there is a smoother appearance in the data. For the increase in data points a sin(x) function was applied to the data and a linear function was applied to decrease the number of data points (Geoscan Research 1994:9-67).

The Geoplot software has the capability of applying low, high, or median pass filters. These filters are types of Fast Fourier Transfers and have the result of smoothing the data. A low pass filter removes high frequency features within the data, a high pass filter removes low frequency features present in the data, and a median filter is "used to remove random spurious readings present in survey data and smoothes the data at the same time. It is most useful for high sample density data" (Geoscan Research 1994:9-2).

The Low Pass filter that was used on the Water Plant data smoothed the data and

enhanced larger weaker archaeological features (Geoscan Research 1994:9-72). To accomplish this, "it calculates the weighted average within the window and replaces the central reading in the window with this value. All other readings remain unchanged and dummy readings are ignored" (Geoscan Research 1994:9-71). Dummy readings are magnetic values that exceed the scale of measurement and are given a value of 2450.

Based on the visual appearance of the anomalies produced by features at the site,

the anomalies were categorized by OVAC and were used to select the locations for

probing. Several types of anomalies were noted in the site data – monopolar positive,

monopolar positive-diffuse, monopolar negative, dipolar simple, dipolar simple-bullseye,

and dipolar complex. These descriptive terms refer to the nature and "charge" of the

anomaly (additional discussion is below in the Anomaly Probing section).

The resultant data processed by the methods above are shown in Figure 14. The

interpretation of the magnetic data is discussed in Chapter 6.

Anomaly Probing

A total of 134 anomalies (numbered 1 through 135; numbers 83 and 84 were not

probed and 105a was added) were probed across the Water Plant site and are shown on

Figure 15. Anomalies within and outside of the ditch were probed. The

intensity/magnitude of the anomalies was based on the data after zero mean traverse was

applied on the gradiometer survey data. The criterion for selecting anomalies for probing

was based on the visual display of the fluxgate gradiometer data as well as the magnitude

of the gradient intensity readings. Only large anomalies with respect to both size and

magnitude/intensity were categorized. The size was based on the number of traverse the

anomaly was detected in the east-west direction which was the greater distance (0.5 meters) in the field. As mentioned above, the nature or visual appearances of the magnetic anomalies were categorized into seven groups. These groups were monopolar positive, monopolar positive-diffuse, monopolar negative, dipolar simple, dipolar simple-

bullseye, dipolar complex, and monopolar-dipolar complex anomalies. The categories

and system for their characterization was developed and applied to the data by Dr. Jarrod

Burks of OVAC. Examples of each type of anomaly are described below and are shown

on Figure 20.

A monopolor positive anomaly looks like a sharply defined circular to oval dark

to black area in contrast to the surrounding readings. A monopolar positive-diffuse anomaly is a less well defined dark circular to oval area. A monopolar negative anomaly has a very light-colored to white circular to oval area. A dipolar simple anomaly is either a dark to black or light to white circular to oval area with a corresponding light to white or dark to black, respectively, circular to oval area adjacent to a portion of the anomaly.

A dipolar simple-bullseye is a dark to black circular to oval area surrounded by a light to white area and has the appearance of a 'bullseye." A dipolar complex anomaly is a dark

to black area with a corresponding light to white area that is not circular or oval. A

monopolar-dipolar complex anomaly is an anomaly that was a cross between a

monopolar and dipolar complex anomaly in that it was not circular or oval and the

negative value associated with the positive value was not substantively different.

In terms of distribution across the site of the different categories of anomalies

targeted for probing, approximately 62 percent (83) were monopolar, 17 percent (23)

were monopolar-diffuse, 16 percent (21) were dipolar simple, 4 percent (6) were dipolar

simple bullseyes, and 1 percent (1) was a mixed category of monopolar and dipolar-

complex; there were no dipolar complex anomalies.

Excavation of Anomaly Locations

The decision making process for excavating magnetic anomaly locations was

based on the results of the anomaly probing and these anomaly locations were found to be prehistoric archaeological features. Of the 135 anomalies identified for probing, 134 were actually probed in the field. Anomaly numbers 83 and 84 were skipped over in the numbering system and 105a was added.

Observations of the subsurface materials collected during the probing were made and recorded. Based on the observations another classification scheme was developed.

The categories were based on an evaluation for the likelihood that an archaeological feature would be encountered during excavations. These categories were: excellent, good to excellent, good, fair to good, fair, and nothing found (Figure 15). Table 6 lists the rating categories and the criteria for each category. Theses categories were based on the gradiometer data, size and type of anomaly and on the visual field observations of the soils during the field probing. The frequencies of these categories were: 38 percent (52 observations) nothing observed, 13 percent (17) fair, 9 percent (12) fair to good, 7 percent each (9 anomalies each) for good and good to excellent, and 26 percent (35) excellent. Table 4 is a list of the probe locations with the anomaly strength values, anomaly class and the probing results based on the classification scheme.

Five discrete anomalies were selected for excavation based on an "excellent" rating during the probing and on their locations within the site. The anomalies are numbered 20, 34, 81, 110, and 116. The inner ditch was an important feature to investigate further, so a trench was excavated to bisect it (Figure 16).

Anomaly 20 was chosen as an excavation location because it was located within

the inner ditch area and this anomaly is located near some other similar, large anomalies

as well as being in an area where there appeared to be a high magnetic background in the

vicinity. This high background noise is now attributed to being in the area where a soil

boring was drilled during the siting of the current-day Water Treatment Plant.

Anomaly 34 was selected for excavation due to its location in a break in the magnetic signature of the inner ditch. In addition, there were three other large anomalies

(both in size and intensity) nearby this anomaly, and together, these anomalies (33, 34,

35, and 50) create a semi-circular pattern around the gap in the ditch. This seemed like a very interesting area to investigate further.

Anomaly 81 was selected because it is located just outside of where the inner ditch could be projected to extend. This anomaly was also chosen because it appeared to abut the faint, thin linear anomaly in the magnetic data. The excavation was expanded to include the linear anomaly observed in the magnetic survey data.

Anomaly 110 was chosen for excavation due to a couple of reasons. First, it was a large anomaly and second, it was relatively isolated from other magnetic anomalies, so potentially it could be different from the other site anomalies already selected for excavation. Third, it too, like anomaly 34, was located near a gap in the outer ditch.

Anomaly 116 was excavated because it was located between the outer ditch and thin, linear anomaly in the magnetic data. In addition, his anomaly was seemingly isolated within an area that did not have a lot of potential prehistoric features based on the magnetic data and could potentially yield good information about site use.

Because the inner ditch was discovered during this research, it was important to

examine this feature in detail, as well as the thin linear anomaly seen in the magnetic data

surrounding the inner ditch. The location of the trench to investigate these features is

shown on Figure 16. This trench was excavated in an N-S direction and bisected both features. The findings from this trench excavation and the five other discrete anomaly excavations are discussed in Chapter 6.

Magnetic Susceptibility

Magnetic susceptibility readings on the plow zone soils from the Water Plant site were conducted by Dr. Jarrod Burks of OVAC and were made using a Barrington MS-2

with a MS-2B lab sensor. Two measurements were made on each of the 250 soil samples

collected from the site and are presented in Table 5. The soil samples were first analyzed

for mass specific susceptibility and then for frequency dependent susceptibility.

The mass specific susceptibility of a soil sample is measured by packing a dried,

room-temperature sample into a container, ensuring that there are no air voids. The soil

sample is weighed and approximately 10 grams (g) of soil is used for the measurement.

A reading is made after subjecting the sample to a low frequency magnetic field [0.465

kiloHertz (kHz)]. When making the frequency dependent measurement the sample is

subjected to a second, higher, magnetic field at a frequency of 4.65 kHz.

The data from both sets of measurements are shown in Figures 21 and 22. The

data are discussed in Chapter 6.

Flotation and Botanical Remains Collection

Sixty-two soil samples were collected from the anomaly excavations were

processed using standard flotation techniques. Sample sizes ranged between 1 and 15

liters (l), with most samples (52) being between 5 and 10 l. A Floe-Tech flotation machine was used to flot the samples. Standard laboratory procedures were followed during the processing.

Each soil sample was reduced to a heavy fraction and light fraction sample. The heavy fraction samples were materials that sank during the processing and consisted of rocks, ceramic sherds, lithic artifacts (debitage and worked rock materials), and occasionally bone, and large pieces of charred plant material. The light fraction flot material that was light and floated during processing consisted of modern plant remains,

carbonized plant remains and wood charcoal, and light bone, ceramics, and small lithic

material.

The heavy fraction samples were size-sorted using stand screens and sieve sizes of > 63 millimeters (mm), 25-63 mm, 6-25 mm, 2-6 mm, and < 2 mm. Each of the samples were then examined and the bone and ceramic materials and occasionally charcoal, were separated from the rock materials. Each size grouping and artifact type was weighed separately. This initial sorting of materials collected during excavation was

conducted to facilitate possible future analyses of the rock materials. Obvious artifacts

like projectile points and pieces of ground stone tools were separated for identification.

The ceramic and bone materials recovered are described below. The charcoal was

100 packaged for later possible analyses if additional dating of the features is needed or wanted.

Ten light fraction sample locations were selected for analysis, primarily to determine what carbonized seeds were present at the Water Plant site. The samples were size-sorted using standard sieve sizes of < 2mm, 2 mm, 0.5 mm, and < 0.5 mm. Steven

Howard, a PhD candidate at OSU, performed the analyses following generally accepted laboratory methods (Pearsall 2000) under the direction of Dr. Kristen Gremillion in the

OSU Paleoethnobotanical Laboratory housed in the Department of Anthropology. The sized samples were sorted to eliminate extraneous artifacts such as lithic materials, ceramics, bone, and debris and residue. The resultant samples were then sorted into three major categories: wood charcoal, nutshell, seeds, debris and other materials. The material in each of these categories was weighed and counted. The weights by species of seeds, rind and wood charcoal are in Table 7. The unanalyzed samples are being retained for possible future analysis.

Two samples of wood charcoal and six carbonized nutshell samples were submitted to Beta Analytic, Inc. for radiocarbon dating using accelerated mass spectrometry (AMS). All appropriate standard laboratory methods were followed during the performance of these analyses. The radiocarbon dating results are discussed in detail in Chapter 7.

101

Faunal Remains Identification

An analysis of faunal remains collected from the Water Plant site was made by

Anne Lee. Over 8000 bones and bone fragments were recovered from the site during the

anomaly excavations and flotation of soil samples. To the extent that was possible, a

determination of animal species was made of the bone material. Standard bone

identification procedures were followed and bones were counted and weighed. The

results are summarized in Table 8. Some of the bone materials collected was modified

into possible tools. A discussion of the faunal material is found in Chapter 6.

Ceramics

Ceramic sherds were recovered during the site investigation at the Water Plant

site primarily through the anomaly excavations and flotation of soil samples; a couple of

pieces were recovered from the site's surface. Over 5,300 sherds and sherd fragments

were collected and preliminarily examined. Measureable sherds are those that were

generally larger than 1 centimeter (cm) and had both the inner and outer surfaces present.

The sherds were measured for an average thickness, counted, and weighed as a group for each collection level (provenience). The sherd fragments were simply counted and

weighed as a group for each collection level. The data are summarized in Table 9.

One hundred and nineteen sherds were identified as being diagnostic. A

diagnostic sherd was defined as being part of a rim, base, or angular shoulder. Also

included in the diagnostic sherds were some small pieces of clay that appeared to have

been hand-rolled because they were unusual, although not diagnostic, they were

102 separated out due to their uniqueness. One ceramic sherd appeared to have a punctate and three sherds and one possible piece of daub appeared to be incised. The other sherds and sherd fragments were primarily cord marked although a small number were plain. A few sherds had cross-cord marking. Beyond these descriptions above, no further detailed analyses were made; however, there is a general discussion of the ceramics included in

Chapters 6 and 7.

Lithics

Lithic material collected from the Water Plant site consists primarily of those materials recovered during the anomaly excavations and flotation. Additional lithic materials were collected from the site's surface during the geophysical survey and other site activities; these lithic items are generally projectile points, projectile point fragments, and concoidal disks. The materials recovered during the excavations and flotation include fire-cracked rock, debitage, disks, projectile points (and fragments), and rocks that are not artifacts but were part of the soil samples and material washed later because they were retained on the screens used as part of the anomaly excavations.

An initial examination of the washed rock materials recovered during flotation and excavation was made and projectile points (or diagnostic projectile point fragments) or ground stone tools were separated out. These points and fragments were tentatively identified referring to Justice (1995) and in consultation with Dr. William S. Dancey.

The rock material can be more thoroughly studied in the future and they were washed,

103 size-sorted and weighed to facilitate additional analyses. There are short discussions of the projectile points found at the Water Plant site in Chapters 6 and 7.

104

Chapter 6: Current Site Work Findings

This chapter details the findings of the data collection and analysis performed as

part of this dissertation research. Each component of the research as presented in the

previous chapter is discussed below.

Site Grid

As previously mentioned, an attempt to retain the site grid established during the

1979-1980 field work at the water Plant site was made. The initial grid was arbitrarily

chosen as perpendicular to a site access road running northwest to southeast where an

overflow ditch was subsequently dug for plant use. The orientation of that baseline for

the grid is approximately 62° west, and thus, north is approximately 28° east. A line of

utility poles also were aligned along the baseline. The 20W, 0N datum of the original

grid was indicated in the field notes as being a utility pole that is still at the site and was

used as a reference when the current research began.

The original gridding of the site was denoted as 10-meter by 10-meter squares over an approximate area of 32,300 square meters, or 3.23 hectares. The coordinates of the site were 0N, 40W (southwest corner); 0N, 130E (southeast corner); 190N, 130E

(northeast corner); and 190N, 40W (northwest corner).

105

Initially the gradiometer survey for the current research was referenced to the same site grid as the initial work; however, the magnetic data collected could not be easily processed in the field because the orientation was not in on of the 16 compass rose directions (N, NNE, NE, ENE, etc.). A decision was made to establish a new site grid with the baseline in the east-west direction so the gradiometer data would be collected in a north-south orientation. Twenty-meter blocks were measured out at the site for the magnetic survey. The blocks were numbered in the order the data were collected in them from 1 to 95 (Figure 13). These blocks covered approximately 3.68 hectares.

To correlate the data collected from both investigations, an overlay of the interpretation of the initial archaeological survey data depicting possible household areas

(Dancey et al. 1987) was made and superimposed on the gradiometer survey data. This is shown on Figure 18. The discussion of these data is at the end of this chapter.

GPS Survey

The Geographic Positioning System (GPS) survey was only used in an interpretation of the fluxgate gradiometer data with respect to mapping site locations for future reference in locating the positions of the gradiometer survey blocks and for referencing other site features such as surface artifacts, the agricultural field boundaries, manholes, wells, etc.

106

Topographic Survey

The topographic survey data collected at the site was used to confirm site

topography from Plant drawings and also as a way of relocating the gradiometer survey

block locations. Based on these data the site topography is relatively unchanged since the

Plant's site topographic data was collected in 1978.

No attempt was made to reconcile the 1978 and current topographic survey with respect to actual elevations. The current topographic data were collected to establish relative elevations across the site and an arbitrary elevation of 100 m was used at the topographical level instrument location. The topography of the site is shown on Figure

19. The site is generally gently sloping to the southwest and falls off steeply on its eastern border along Big Walnut Creek (not measured; however, approximately 40 feet below the site's surface based on the previous topographic survey).

There is some gentle undulation across the site and several rises are evident in both surveys. There are two more prominent higher areas within the site; one is in the east within the middle part of the site and the other is in the east at the northern part of the site. The northern higher area is in the general vicinity of where a mound was noted in

1978 (on the original Ohio Archeological Inventory form); however, it appears to be a natural (geological) variation in topography because no artifacts or other evidence was found as part of the current investigation. The geophysical data do not appear to indicate a mound in this area either. The higher elevated area in the middle and eastern portion of the site, which is actually higher in elevation than the area to the north, was not as evident in the previous topographic survey due to the contour intervals used. This general area

107

also appears to be naturally occurring based on a lack of high density artifact evidence

and the magnetic anomalies in the vicinity do not appear to be strikingly different that

observed elsewhere within the site.

Fluxgate Gradiometer Survey

The focus of this dissertation was to use the fluxgate gradiometer data as a primary means of characterizing the early Late Woodland village present at the surface and beneath this site.

The gradiometer survey resulted in the detection of thousands of magnetic anomalies. The data were processed as described in Chapter 5 to help discern what anomalies are due to natural (geological or non-human biological) causes and what were due to human activity at the site. Some of the human-induced magnetic anomalies were recent (within the last 100 years or so) while the land has been farmed. It does appear a greater number of the larger magnetic anomalies are due to pre-historic activities at the

Water Plant site.

The more recent, or historical, magnetic anomalies at the site include a number of magnetic "spikes" due to lost or buried iron-bearing items and those due to larger-scale re-arrangement of the site's landscape. Magnetic anomalies that appear to be due to lost iron-bearing items are typically small in areal scale but large in magnetic intensity or

magnitude. The largest example of this type of anomaly is the jet fuel line that crosses

the northeast part of the site and is depicted in the data as a white line with black areas

within it. This effect is produced by steel piping that has north and south magnetic poles

108

on the sections of piping. While conducting the gradiometer survey, pieces of metal,

presumed to be parts of farm machinery, were occasionally encountered as were spent

shotgun shells and 1960s-1970s – era pull tabs from canned beverages. These anomalies

are again, very small in areal extent, but large in magnetic intensity and add to the general

background magnetic noise present at the site. Additional magnetic background noise is

due to geological (iron-bearing glacially deposited rocks) processes. These anomalies

generally result in small white or black spots on the data image. Figure 23 has historic magnetic anomalies labeled on it.

There are three boreholes at the site which were drilled in the 1970s. Two of these locations, TH-84 and TH-85, are very evident in the data as large "holes." There is an apparent void of data (where the instrument "pegged out") surrounded by dark and light circles (positive and negative values, respectively). The steel casings installed during the drilling are evidently still in place. A third borehole, TH-87, is apparent by a dark (positive anomaly) area and presumably, no steel casing was left in the borehole.

Prehistoric anomalies in the vicinities of all three of these boring/well locations are somewhat obscured due to the more recent human activities (Figure 23).

Another large historical magnetic anomaly is visible in the data as a WNW to

ESE linear trace in the north part of the site. This is a drainage ditch installed at the plant in the late 1970s and it intercepted the prehistoric ditch circumscribing the site in the northwest site area. It appears as a light colored line with dark edges along its traverse

(Figure 23).

109

While it can be difficult to differentiate between the remaining historic and prehistoric the magnetic anomalies at the site, I have focused on the larger anomalies.

The remaining naturally occurring and/or historical anomalies are just noise with respect to the current research. The prehistoric anomalies I have focused on appear in the data as the large (in magnetic magnitude/intensity) dark, light, or a combination of dark and light shapes (typically spherical or ovoid) and are 0.5-1.0 m (and larger) in areal extent.

Several of the prehistoric anomalies are seen in the data as lines as well. Figure 24 has the major prehistoric anomalies that are discussed below labeled.

The larger scale dark lines or traces in the magnetic data are prehistoric. The wide (1-2 m) dark trace with a light halo that circumscribes the site is the prehistoric ditch first intercepted by Plant construction activities in the late 1970s. This ditch is apparent in the aerial photographs of the site taken in 1950 (Figure 11). The ditch is not seen in subsequent aerial photographs of the site, nor has it been noted as being apparent at the surface. There was a dark staining in the block excavation conducted in the first archaeological investigation in 1980 thought possibly to be part of a wall trench; it now appears that it may have in fact been part of the prehistoric ditch (personal conversations with Dr. William S. Dancey). This ditch is prehistoric based on excavation results

(detailed in Chapter 4 and later in this chapter and Chapter 8). One of the interesting things bout the ditch is it appears to be very regular shaped – like a backwards capital "D" in the aerial photograph, but has more of a meandering shape to it based on the geophysical data. Another interesting observation made based on the geophysical data is that there are breaks in it; it is apparently not continuous. An even more exciting

110 observation made from the geophysical data of the ditch is across these breaks, there are very faint linear anomaly traces on the outside of the ditch (to the west and also to the north at the northeast extent). Based on the findings from the inner ditch (described below), these faint traces were likely screens of posts positioned at these strategic locations.

As just alluded to, an inner ditch was observed in the geophysical data. This was very exciting because the aerial photographs and other previous work at the site did not detect it. This is the first site (to date) of its age in this region to have this type of site architecture (two ditches, one within the other). What is additionally interesting about the inner ditch is it has a palisade of posts almost entirely along its path. This inner ditch and palisade was further confirmed through excavation (discussed later in this chapter).

The inner ditch is not quite as wide (1 to 1.5 m) as the outer ditch and has a more systematic, regular "C" shape to it in plan view. Both ditches are between 0.9 to 1m below land surface in depth. The inner ditch ends at the north part of the inner site and does not extend to the bluff edge like the outer ditch; however, the palisade does extend to the bluff edge. Besides its presence, the more interesting fact about this inner ditch is that it has the palisade – not just at the breaks in its traverse, but extending the entire length and then some. This may give us some information about how the site was constructed (discussed below and in Chapters 7 and 8).

Also detected in the fluxgate gradiometer survey were sections of posts or screens located at breaks in the outer ditch. This observation in addition to the fact that the outer

111 ditch has a V-shaped profile leads to an interpretation of this being a defensive site.

More discussion on this is in Chapter 8.

Anomaly Probing

To confirm interpretations about the magnetic anomalies observed at the Water

Plant site, a soil probing program was undertaken. Soil probes were performed and classified at anomaly locations as described in Chapter 5. Visual observations of the material collected in the probes were made and recorded and were the basis on which excavation locations were selected.

Based on the probing results approximately 39 percent of the anomaly locations resulted in no visual indication of prehistoric disturbances. The remaining 61 percent of anomaly locations did show indications of possible impact due to prehistoric human causes in the form of burnt earth, charcoal, bone, pottery, lithic fragments or stained soil

(Table 4). These locations were classified as fair to excellent with respect to the likelihood of being within a prehistoric feature.

While the largest percentage of anomalies identified for probing were classified as

"nothing in probe," there are several possible reasons for that classification. One possibility could be that the anomaly source was very small and missed during the probing. The anomaly signature could have been caused by a rock containing iron minerals or a historic metallic object that was not visually apparent. Another possible explanation for the classification could be that the anomaly source was simply not recognized during the visual inspection of the probed soil. At two probe/anomaly

112

locations numbers 37 and 44, nothing remarkable was observed in the probe; however,

the soils at these locations did appear to be disturbed (and recorded in the field notes as

being a possible former excavation unit). These locations could in fact have been within

the inner and outer ditches, respectively (Figure 15).

The largest category in terms of percentage of possible prehistoric impact was in

the "excellent" category at 43 percent (35 probe locations out of the 82 probe locations in

the positive categories). If the "good to excellent" category is added to this (9 locations;

11 percent), then the number of anomalies probed that likely were due to prehistoric

impact is 44, or approximately 54 percent of the locations with favorable results. These

probe results were classified as excellent or good to excellent based on the presence of

burnt earth, dark-stained soil, charcoal and/or the presence of burned or unburned bone

(Table 4).

This probing strategy was very useful in the decision-making process for selecting

locations for excavation. Interestingly after further examining the information, there is

no obvious correlation between the data collected during the soil probing and the

anomaly geometry classifications and apparent size of the anomaly (based on the number

of transects the anomaly intersected). For example, at anomaly location 13, the anomaly

is large in area and intensity and was classified as monopolar-positive diffuse but no

subsurface observations of possible prehistoric source was noted. It was recorded in the

field notes that there was burnt rock in the plow zone at anomaly location 13. This

anomaly is similar in size, anomaly type and intensity to anomaly location 53 and the

probing at anomaly location 53 resulted in mottled dark soil, burnt rock and unburned

113

bone and thus considered to be in the excellent category. To further illustrate the caution

that should be exercised in interpreting the geophysical data in the absence of a sampling

strategy, anomaly location 75 appears to be similar to anomaly location 20; however,

absolutely nothing was observed in the soil probe at anomaly location 75 and anomaly

location 20 was found to be a prehistoric feature that is approximately 3.3 meters by 3.9 meters and 0.75 meters deep and one-quarter of the feature yielded thousands of artifacts

(carbonized plant remains, lithics, bone, and pottery).

By using the probing strategy to further examine the magnetic anomalies at the

site, the locations selected for excavation had a greater probability of yielding

information about the prehistoric uses of the Water Plant site. The anomaly locations

selected for excavation were anomalies 20, 34, 81, 110, 116 and another location

bisecting the inner ditch (Figure 16) and all the excavations are discussed below.

Anomaly Locations Excavations

Anomaly locations 20, 34, 81, 110 and 116 were selected for excavation based on

the fluxgate gradiometer data and the soil probing results as discussed above. An

additional location that bisected the inner prehistoric ditch was also selected for

excavation. These anomalies were also selected for excavation based on their location

within the Water Plant site so that radiocarbon dating samples could be collected to

determine if the entire site was used contemporaneously.

114

The approximate dimensions of the archaeological features (initially identified as

magnetic anomalies) excavated are in Table 10 and the excavated profiles are presented

as figures in the discussion of each location below.

Radiocarbon dating of carbonized plant material from the excavated features

revealed that they were not all dated to the early Late Woodland time period. For this

reason, Anomalies 20, 34, 110, the ditch, and Anomaly 81 trench/feature arm will be discussed as one group and Anomaly 81 pit and 116 will each be discussed separately.

An extended discussion and presentation of the radiocarbon dating results is in Chapter 7.

In brief, the majority of excavated features (largest group named above) date to the early

Late Woodland time period. Anomaly 81 pit dates to the Late Archaic time period, as does anomaly 116, although anomaly 116 predates anomaly 81 by 700 years or so.

Anomaly 116

Anomaly 116 was measured as approximately 1.2 m by 1.45 m when exposed below the plow zone and oval to almost circular in plan view. The depth, at its deepest point was 0.38 m below the plow zone in the center of the feature. The plow zone was

approximately 0.27 m. The shape of this anomaly was bowl-shaped with vertical sides

and rounded base in profile (Figure 25). A small divot or post mold was found at the base of Anomaly 116 on its southeast side and was 28 cm in diameter; it was labeled as

116A. This feature began at approximately 20 centimeters below the plow zone (cmbpz)

and extended to 35 cmbpz. The southeast quarter of Anomaly 116 was excavated.

115

Artifacts found in Anomaly 116 consisted of broken ground stone tools, lithic

fragments, fire-cracked rock (FCR), ceramics and botanical remains. While there are a

number of varieties of artifacts found in this excavation, the actual number of artifacts is

small compared to the other site feature excavations. With respect to the lithic fragments,

only an initial cursory examination of these materials has been made. Lithic materials of

note are two black flint flakes recovered at 10-20 cmbpz, one large piece of Delaware flint from the same interval, as well as, several broken ground stone tools from 0-10 and

10-20 cmbpz. The ground stone tools and other lithic pieces are not diagnostic and

cannot be correlated to any specific time period. There was only a relatively small

amount of FCR observed at this anomaly.

Thirteen ceramic sherds were recovered from Anomaly 116 (six from 10-20

cmbpz and eight from 20-30 cmbpz) and all were very eroded and weathered. Of these

sherds, one may be a possible rim (from 20-30cmbpz), but it is eroded and not

measureable (both surfaces, inner and outer, are not present). Only one sherd was

measureable and it was 13.1 mm thick. There is no cord marking evident, but again, it is

very eroded and weathered. The matrix appears to have more sand than other sherds

from the site and the sand grains are larger than those observed in ceramic sherds from

other features at the site.

Initially two bone fragments were identified, but upon further inspection, the

fragments are one ceramic sherd and one stone.

Botanical remains from this feature were collected as flotation samples (Table 7).

One of the samples from Anomaly 116 was analyzed, as was one sample from 116a.

116

Wood charcoal, hickory shell and walnut family shell were identified from the sample collected from 0-10 cmbpz. The same materials were found in the sample collected from

116a at 30-40 cmbpz and walnut shell was also identified at this location. A piece of nut shell from the 0-10 cmbpz was selected for radiocarbon dating. This specimen was identified by Dr. Kristen Gremillion as walnut shell. The result of the analysis on this sample (BETA-234104) by AMS was an uncalibrated radiocarbon year midpoint of

3810±40 BP. This date equates to between 2351 BC and 2137 BC (2σ calibrated radiocarbon calendar date range) which falls into the Late Archaic time period. A more detailed discussion of the radiocarbon dating is in Chapter 7. Suffice it to say, this feature pre-dates all the other features at the site that had radiocarbon samples analyzed.

Anomaly 81 (pit)

Another early site feature was found at Anomaly 81. This anomaly was initially excavated and identified as a pit. The feature excavation was extended based on soil color and a trench containing posts was found. The dating of botanical remains from these separate parts of the feature identified the pit as being much older than the trench and post feature. The Anomaly 81 pit is discussed here and the trench and post portion, referred to as Anomaly 81 posts or feature arm is discussed near the end of this section.

During excavation the pit and feature arm were distinctly two separate features between

30 and 40 cmbpz.

Anomaly 81 pit was approximately 1.9 m by 1.8 m and ovoid to square in plan view when first encountered below the plow zone. As just mentioned above, based on

117

soil color, there was an arm extending to the west and was 35 cm wide in plan view. The

northwest quarter of the feature was excavated. At 30 cmbpz there was a soil texture

change and the feature arm feature was comprised of sand, whereas, the pit was more of a

silt loam. The pit extended to 63 cmbpz and the plow zone was 0.27 m. The sides were

vertical and the bottom had a curved basin shape (Figure 26).

Artifacts retrieved from Anomaly 81 pit consisted of lithic and botanical

materials. No ceramics were found and the two pieces of bone initially classified as bone

were classified as undetermined material (not bone) upon further inspection. The lithic

materials included complete and broken projectile points, ground stone tools, flakes (one

was worked), a small possible core and FCR.

The ground stone tools found were from the surface (2 of them), one from 0 – 10 cmbpz, one from 30 – 40 cmbpz, and another from 40 – 50 cmbpz. The two ground stone tools collected at ground surface included one discoid item, but it was more rectangular than oval or circular in shape; the second tool was broken and may be part of a celt. The ground stone tools collected from beneath the ground surface appear to be fire-cracked.

The one complete projectile point collected at 0 – 10 cmbpz resembles a Merom

Cluster point (Justice 1995:130) which is attributed to the Late Archaic Riverton culture dating from 1600 B.C. to 1000 B.C. and is in keeping with the radiocarbon dating (by

AMS) of botanical remains (hardwood, unidentified) from the same depth as the projectile point; the uncalibrated radiocarbon year midpoint is 3210 ± 40 BP (2σ calibrated calendar years of 1538 BC to 1410 BC). The second projectile point is a

118 broken, narrow (midshaft, likely), and flat point of undetermined type. It may be part of a drill-type tool.

As mentioned above, a botanical sample of hardwood charcoal was used for radiocarbon dating. A paleoethnobotanical analysis was performed on samples from 0 –

10 cmbpz and 40 – 50 cmbpz (Table 7). Species of trees and other plants identified were walnut family, Carya (hickory), Corylus spp. (hazelnut) and Quercus (oak).

Anomaly 20

Anomaly 20 is located in the central part of the site (Figure 16). This anomaly measures approximately 3.2 m by 3.9 m and extended 0.75 meters below ground surface

(0.45 m below the plow zone). The shape of this anomaly was nearly rectangular with curved corners in plan view and in profile had gently sloping sides (Figure 27). The southeast quarter of Anomaly 20 was excavated.

This feature yielded a large number of artifacts in the form of ground stone tools, projectile points, flakes, ceramics, faunal material, as well as botanical material. There were three possible discoids from 0 – 10, 10 – 20 and 40 – 50 cmbpz and several pieces of possible ground stone tool fragments which appear to be fire-cracked. At the bottom of the excavation (40 – 50 cmbpz) there were several pieces of limestone and this was not found in the other anomaly excavations.

The majority of the rock material consisted of small rocks and debitage, although there were four projectile points or partial points and part of a stone drill-like tool found

(Figure 28). The projectile points found in the plow zone is a Chesser type (of terminal

119

Middle Woodland association; Justice 1995:210, 214). Another projectile point, from 10

to 20 cmbpz, is a blank or preform and it was recovered with the point of a drill-like tool

of undetermined type. Another projectile point base was recovered from 20 – 30 cmbpz

and could not be typed. The last projectile point recovered from this anomaly was from

the 30 – 40 cmbpz depth and resembles a Chesser Notched point (Justice 1995:210, 214).

Ceramic sherds were abundant from this anomaly excavation and a few samples

are shown on Figure 29. Over 2000 sherds or sherd pieces were collected and they weighed over 5,300 grams. There were 31 rims and vessel shoulders recovered. The majority of the sherds were cordmarked while there were a few plain pieces and a couple of incised pieces. A couple of sherds had cordmarkings that were crossed and one sherd is tentatively identified as being incised. The sherds are similar to the Newtown-type

ceramic style and this is discussed later in this chapter.

Over 3500 pieces of faunal material were recovered from the Anomaly 20

excavation (Table 8). The majority of the material was from mammals although there

were a few bone fragments representing birds, fish and amphibians and reptiles collected.

The majority of the bone material was not culturally modified, but some of it was burned

or charred or calcined. There was carnivore damage noted on eleven fragments and

ranged from light to heavy damage. There were six fragments that did appear to be

worked by humans and two pieces have tentatively been identified as possible tools.

Further discussion is found later in this chapter.

Botanical material from the Anomaly 20 excavation included nutshell, wood

charcoal and seeds of both wild and domesticated species of seeds (Table 7). This

120 anomaly excavation yielded the most diversity in plant species compared to the other anomaly excavations. Species of wild plant material found were: walnut family, black walnut, hickory, hazelnut, oak, Rhus (sumac), Solanum nigrum (black nightshade), Rubus

(blackberry), Fragaria (strawberry), Vitis (grape), Galium (bedstraw), and Lamium amplexicaule (henbit or deadnettle). Domesticated plants found included squash (rind), goosefoot, knotweed, maygrass, and tobacco. Grasses and another 158 unknown seeds and 752 pieces of unidentified wood charcoal were observed as well.

Radiocarbon dating by AMS was conducted on a charred piece of hickory nutshell collected from the Anomaly 20 excavation at a depth of 30 to 40 cmbpz. The uncalibrated radiocarbon years midpoint was 1290 ± 40 BP (uncalibrated calendar date of

A.D. 660) and the 2σ radiocarbon date is cal A.D. 653 to A.D. 783, which are consistent with an early Late Woodland time.

Anomaly 34

Anomaly 34 is located on the west side of the site to the west of Anomaly 20.

This anomaly is one of seven or eight large anomalies in a circular arrangement around an extremely large anomaly in a break of the inner ditch and interestingly is cross-cut by what appears to be more of the palisade bordering the inner ditch.

The dimensions of Anomaly 34 when excavated were approximately 1.65 m by

1.6 m in plan view and 0.84 m below the ground surface (0.58 m below a plow zone of

0.26 m at this location). The shape in plan view is almost circular but compressed on the

121

west side and in profile, has very steep sides and nearly flat bottom (Figure 30). The

southeast quarter of this anomaly was excavated.

Artifacts collected from the southeast quadrant of Anomaly 34 included ground

stone and other lithic materials, ceramics, paleobotanical and faunal remains. The ground

stone material collected was tentative in that there were fragments of metamorphic rocks

that appear to be fire-cracked and are not definitely identified as parts of ground stone

tools until further analyses can be performed, except that one fragment did look like a

tool. This piece of metamorphic stone material resembles the shape of a projectile point

and was collected from a depth of 20 – 30 cmbpz; however, it is not clear if it is actually

a tool or not.

In terms of other rock material recovered from Anomaly 34, there were limestone

cobbles and pieces found throughout the 10 cm depths excavated like were found at

Anomaly 20 (although the limestone fragments were found only at the bottom of the

Anomaly 20 excavation). Chert debitage was also encountered throughout this

excavation. Two whole projectile points and two fragments were also found (Figure 31).

From the 0 – 10 cmbpz level one broken narrow-tipped point of a projectile point was

found, as was a base of another projectile point. The projectile point base resembles a

Lowe Cluster projectile point (Justice 1995:208-210), which is diagnostic of terminal

Middle Woodland to early Late Woodland time periods. The projectile points found in the 10 – 20 cmbpz level were a Brewerton Side Notched of Late Archaic association

(Justice 1995:115-116) and a Chesser Notched projectile point of terminal Middle

Woodland to Late Woodland association (Justice 1995:210, 213-214).

122

A large number of ceramic sherds were collected from the Anomaly 34

excavation and generally resemble Newtown ceramics in their appearance based on the

materials used in their formation, their thickness, and their cordmarked exterior surfaces.

In addition, four sherds were parts of angular shoulders which are a hallmark of Newton

ceramics. Eleven rim fragments were also collected. In total, there was in excess of 250

sherd fragments weighing over 200 grams (g) and 312 measureable (measureable

meaning having an inner and outer surface so a thickness could be measured) sherds at a

weight of over 1600 g. Some representative sherds from the Anomaly 34 excavation are

shown on Figure 32.

Over 1300 bone fragments were excavated from Anomaly 34 and primarily

represent small to large mammal bones (Table 8). There was possible carnivore damage to 17 pieces and cut marks on another 3 fragments. Five bone fragments showed indications of being worked and could be portions of bone tools. Ten bone fragments had the appearance of being polished and may have also been used as tools.

Paleoethnobotanical material was found in abundance in this feature, although not as many different species as were observed in Anomaly 20 (Table 7). The plant material represented as wood charcoal, nutshell and seeds. The wild species included walnut family, black walnut, hickory, hazelnut, oak, black nightshade, and Stellaria (chickweed).

The domesticated species included squash, goosefoot, knotweed, maygrass, and tobacco.

Twenty-two unknown seeds and 225 fragments of unidentified wood charcoal were also found.

123

A fragment of charred hickory nutshell was used for radiocarbon dating by AMS.

The sample was collected from a depth of 40 to 53 cmbpz and the result was an

uncalibrated radiocarbon years midpoint of 1280 ± 40 BP (uncalibrated midpoint calendar date of AD 670). This date equates to a 2σ calibrated radiocarbon calendar date range of AD 658 to AD 783. This date too (like Anomaly 20 and other anomalies in the following discussion) agrees with an early Late Woodland time frame for site occupation.

Anomaly 110

Anomaly 110, like Anomaly 20, was a very large excavation. It was located in

the northwest portion of the site close to the outer ditch and near a break in the outer

ditch. The dimensions of Anomaly 110 were 3.1 m by 3.55 m in plan view and it was

0.78 m deep (0.44 m below a plow zone of 0.28 m). This anomaly was oblong or oval- shaped with an axis in the northeast/southwest direction. The sides were more sloped in the east-west direction and steeper in the north-south direction. The southwest quarter of

this anomaly was excavated. This feature had an area on the west that had rocks that exhibited a high degree of weathering making the rock material friable. The excavated

profile of this location is shown on Figure 33.

Lithics from the Anomaly 110 excavation consisted ground stone tool remnants,

an abundance of debitage, projectile points and chert blanks for tool formation. Possible

ground stone tool fragments were encountered throughout the depths of this excavation.

At the 0 – 10 cmbpz level, four definitive ground stone tools or fragments were collected.

Two were pieces of small-to-medium celts and another celt, approximately three-quarters

124

in tact was also collected. There was also a discoid artifact found made of metamorphic

rock.

Fourteen projectile points or parts of projectile points were collected from the

Anomaly 110 excavation (Figure 34). One was collected from the ground surface, one

from the plow zone (0 - 0.28 cm below ground surface), nine from the 0 – 10 cmbpz layer

and another three from the 20 – 30 cmbpz layer. For a majority of the projectile points it

was difficult to definitively identify a type due to either missing tips or bases. The

projectile point recovered from the surface at Anomaly 110 resembles a Kramer type

point (Justice 1995:184-185) of Early Woodland time period association. The projectile

point recovered in the plow zone at this location is missing its base, so identification was

not made. The three projectile points collected in the 0 – 10 cmbpz at Anomaly 110 are

a Brewerton Eared-Notched, a Lowe Cluster, and an unknown type (Justice 1995).

Four projectile points were recovered in the 10 – 20 cmbpz level. One projectile

point is of unknown type because it only a long tip with a missing base; it could be a drill

but it is wider than typically observed for stone drills. Two of the points are Chesser

types which are associated with the terminal Middle Woodland to Late Woodland time periods and the third is a Lowe cluster type of terminal Middle Woodland time period association (Justice 1995:210, 212-214). There were two chert artifacts that appear to be blanks or preforms for projectile points also collected from the 10 – 20 cmbpz excavation level.

One of the three projectile points recovered from the 20 – 30 cmbpz level at

Anomaly 110 is a Snyders Cluster type (Justice 1995:201-203) of Middle Woodland

125 association and the other is a Lowe Cluster type (Justice 1995:210, 212-213) of terminal

Middle Woodland association. The third projectile point was not identified.

A large amount of ceramic sherds were collected during the excavation at

Anomaly 110. Figure 35 shows some examples of the ceramics recovered and table 9 summarizes the information. There were over 1200 not measurable sherds and over 1000 measureable sherds and weighed approximately 1,200 g and over 4,700 g, respectively.

Within this sample, there were 35 rims, 5 angular shoulder sherds and one sherd had both inner and outer cordmarking on its surfaces. The vast majority of sherds were cordmarked and resemble Newton-type ceramics based on the cordmarking, thicknesses measured, materials used in their formation and the presence of angular shoulder sherds.

There was also an abundance of faunal material collected from this excavation

(Table 8). Over 3,100 bone fragments were examined from this excavation. They primarily represent small to large mammals, but other animal species in the reptiles, amphibians, fish and bird families were also represented in a much smaller degree. One bone fragment had indications of carnivore marks, two had cut marks, and seven had a polished appearance. One bone fragment appeared to have a drill hole through it and eight could be possible tools due to apparent shaping and polish, suggesting human modification.

Paleoenthobotanical remains were collected from the Anomaly 110 excavation

(Table 7). There was wood charcoal, nutshell and seeds present at this location. Plant species represented at Anomaly 110 were walnut family, black walnut, hickory, hazelnut, oak, squash, goosefoot, knotweed, maygrass, sumac, black nightshade, tobacco,

126 blackberry, and an additional 124 unidentified seeds. Like at the other anomaly excavation locations, these plants represent both wild and domesticated species.

A piece of hickory nutshell was analyzed by AMS for a radiocarbon date for this feature. The charred nutshell was collected from the 30 – 40 cmbpz excavation level.

The uncalibrated radiocarbon years midpoint for this sample was 1260 ± 40 BP (midpoint uncalibrated calendar year of AD 710) and has a 2σ calibrated calendar date range of AD

680 to AD 882. As with the Anomaly 20 and 34 dating results, Anomaly 110 dates to an early Late Woodland time frame.

Anomaly 81 (arm/trench)

Anomaly 81 (pit) was expanded to the west based on soil texture and color during excavation and this part of the anomaly is referred to as Anomaly 81 arm (or trench). It was in this "arm" of the feature that a trench with seven post molds became apparent as the excavation advanced (Figure 36). The trench or arm was approximately 0.35 m wide with vertical walls extending to a depth of 60 cmbpz. The post molds were approximately 0.15 m (6 inches) in diameter. Ceramics and one possible ground stone tool fragment were encountered as artifacts in this anomaly excavation.

The one possible ground stone tool recovered at this excavation area from the 0 –

10 cmbpz depth was broken but was very interesting in that is has two smooth parallel grooves and some small smoothed depressions on its surfaces. The unbroken faces of the artifact are not totally smooth, so presumably this possible tool was used on selected

127

surfaces only or possibly was unfinished before it was broken. No projectile points or

debitage were found in this part of the excavation.

Forty-five ceramic sherds (34 of which were measureable) and one rim fragment

(from 0 – 10 cmbpz) were recovered from all excavation levels in the Anomaly 81 arm

location (Table 9). Another seven sherds (one of which was measureable) were collected from the base of Post 3 (at 50 – 60 cmbpz). These sherds resemble others found at the

Water Plant site in that they are cordmarked and appear to be comprised of the same

matrix and have the same construction and resemble the Newtown ceramic type.

Wood charcoal and nutshell from several tree species were identified in the plant

remains processed from the Anomaly 81 arm feature (Table 7). The species identified

were walnut family, black walnut, hickory, and hazelnut. In addition, three unknown

seeds and two squash seeds were identified. Paleoethnobotanical samples from the post

molds were collected and floted and can be analyzed at a later date.

Animal bone fragments from small to large mammals were recovered and

identified from this excavation area (Table 8). There were 30 fragments from the

Anomaly 81 arm feature and another 3 fragments identified as the part of a mandible of a

small mammal from the Post 3 excavation specifically.

A piece of hazelnut nutshell was analyzed by AMS and resulted in an

uncalibrated radiocarbon years midpoint of 1360 ± 40 BP (uncalibrated calendar year

midpoint of AD 590) and a 2σ calibrated calendar date range of AD 606 to AD 717.

This date is the same as was found in the post/palisade excavation on the northwest part

of the inner ditch in the Trench excavation.

128

Trench

A five-meter long by one-meter wide excavation was dug across the inner ditch

and post/palisade in a north-to-south traverse in the northwest section of the inner ditch at the Water Plant site (Figures 16 and 37). The excavation was extended to 0.70 cmbpz (1

m below ground surface with a 0.3 m plow zone at this location). The ditch profile

indicates that the ditch is approximately 4.4 m wide with a gently sloping U-shape. The

area of the post trench to the north of the ditch is between 0.35 m (east facing part of the

excavation) and 0.5 m wide (west facing part of the excavation) and the depth was

between 0.75 m and 0.85 m below ground surface. The northernmost part of the

excavation was Unit 5 and the southernmost 1 m by 1 m unit was Unit 1. Unit 1 was not

excavated deeper than 30 cmbpz based on a lack of differing soil color or texture to that

depth. The most interesting part of this excavation was the fact that the post trench was

on the outside of the ditch location and given its U-shaped profile, the ditch does not

suggest being defensive in nature, although it obviously served some importance to the

site's inhabitants giving the great amount of work it likely took to construct this very

large feature. As will be discussed in Chapter 8, U-shaped ditches do not typically

suggest a defensive purposed, whereas, a V-shaped ditch does, particularly when a

palisade or post screens are present (Keeley et al. 2007).

There was not an abundance of artifacts collected from this excavation; however,

those recovered, did represent all classes of artifacts found at the other excavation

locations at the site. Ground stone, a projectile point, debitage, ceramics, bone, wood

charcoal and nutshell were all collected.

129

Some pieces of possible ground stone tools were collected from Units 2, 3 and 5

in the Trench excavation at depths throughout these locations, but the pieces are too

fragmental to definitely identify them as specific tools. Only one projectile point was

found in the trench excavation in Unit 3 at a depth of 50 – 60 cmbpz. The point is of

undetermined type. Debitage was rare in this excavation.

Ceramic sherds were found in Units 2 (in a feature labeled TA at the base of this

unit), 3 and 4 (Table 9). Unit 4 did not have any diagnostic sherds; however, Units 2 and

3 had three rims (one from Unit 2 and two from Unit 3) and an angular shoulder sherd

was found in Unit 2. In addition, Unit 3 had a sherd from near the base of a vessel and

one of the sherds was incised. Like at the other excavation locations at the site, the sherds

resemble Newtown ceramics in their matrix composition, cordmarking, thicknesses and

the presence of an angular shoulder sherd.

Faunal remains in the form of bone fragments were found in Units 2, 3 and 4

although not in great quantities (64, 68, and 2 fragments, respectively). The bone

fragments were identified as being from small to large mammals (Table 8). Two

fragments of Cervidae taxon (deer) from Unit 2 in the basal TA feature (60 – 70 cmbpz)

showed some smoothing or polishing on them and may be possible bone tool fragments.

No faunal remains were identified in Unit 5.

Botanical remains were recovered from Units 2, 3, 4 and 5; however, only samples from Units 2 and 5 were analyzed as part of this dissertation research (Table 7).

The sample from Unit 2 was collected from the basal feature TA (60 – 70 cmbpz) within the inner ditch location and samples from Unit 5 (0 – 10 and 50 – 60 cmbpz) were

130

selected because it was the location of the outer post trench around the inner ditch. Wood

charcoal, nutshell, one blackberry seed and 3 unknown seeds were identified in Unit 2.

Wood charcoal and one blackberry seed was identified in Unit 5.

Radiocarbon dating by AMS was conducted on a piece of hickory or acorn

nutshell from 60 – 70 cmbpz in feature TA at the base of Unit 2 (inner ditch location).

The uncalibrated radiocarbon years midpoint date for this sample is 1240 ± 40 BP

(uncalibrated calendar midpoint date of AD 710) and a 2σ calibrated calendar date range of AD 680 to AD 882. A piece of wood charcoal of unidentified species from 0 – 10 cmbpz was analyzed from Unit 5 and resulted in an uncalibrated radiocarbon years midpoint date of 1360 ± 40 BP (unclaibrated calendar date midpoint of d 590) and a 2σ calibrated calendar date range of AD 606 to AD 717. It is interesting to note that the post trench dates at this location are identical to that analyzed on the sample from the post trench next to Anomaly 81. Although the dates of the post trench and inner ditch are close, the palisade appears to have been constructed prior to the inner ditch (more discussion on the site chronology is in Chapter 7).

Magnetic Susceptibility Survey

The field and laboratory methodologies for the magnetic susceptibility survey conducted at the Water Plant site were discussed in Chapter 5. The magnetic susceptibility data collected (Table 5) were plotted and are shown on Figures 21 and 22.

Figure 21 shows the mass specific susceptibility data while Figure 22 shows the frequency dependent susceptibility data. In the figures, the "cooler" colors like greens

131

and blues indicate lesser values for magnetic susceptibility while the "warmer" colors like

yellow and red indicate higher magnetic susceptibility values. The higher values indicate more human activity in that site area.

Please note that the color scales in the figures are different. The minimum and maximum magnetic susceptibility values are approximately 6 and 20 for the mass dependent data and 3 and 9 for the frequency dependent data. The different color schemes were used to represent the different magnetic susceptibility values so that more detail could be shown in the frequency dependent data. Had the same color scales been used, the frequency dependent figure (Figure 22) would be almost entirely "warm" colors

(red and orange). What both these data sets illustrate is that the Water Plant site does exhibit characteristics of high intensity of human use.

The difference between mass susceptibility and frequency dependent

susceptibility can be a indication of the relative amount of human activity versus the

natural occurring magnetic susceptibility of the soil materials. According to Clark "if the

frequency dependence is constant and low these are probably due to varying

concentrations of natural magnetic minerals in the soil. Sites of human activity will be

distinguished as areas of high susceptibility accompanied by increased frequency

dependence." (Clark 1996:103). This makes the interpretation of the Water Plant site

data interesting, because the frequency dependent data along with the mass specific

susceptibility appear to be somewhat different; however, part of this is due to the

different color schemes.

132

The mass dependent susceptibility data (Figure 21) indicate that the area within the inner ditch, extending to the north in the area where the inner ditch is not present (but the palisade is present) is an area of more frequent human use. In Figure 22 the frequency dependent data suggests that the areas of more frequent human use is within the outer and inner ditches and extends both outside of the outer ditch and within the inner ditch, so these areas were used to higher degree than the other parts of the site. Due to the differences in the scales of the data shown on the figures, these data not contrary and do suggest that the Water Plant site had a high degree of human use.

Flotation and Botanical Remains Collection

Wood charcoal and carbonized nutshell and seeds were recovered from the Water

Plant site from flotation samples collected at excavation locations at all levels except the plow zone. As part of this dissertation, approximately 18 percent of all samples (11 samples out of 62 collected) were closely examined by Steve Howard, a PhD candidate

(now PhD) at The Ohio State University under the direction of Dr. Kristen Gremillion in the OSU Department of Anthropology's Paleoethnobotanical Laboratory. These samples represented nine excavation units throughout the site. The largest proportion of the samples analyzed was wood charcoal and much of it was not identified. The results of the analyses are summarized in Table 7. The wood charcoal identified were walnut family, black walnut, hickory, hazelnut, and oak. Squash rind was also identified.

Charred wood charcoal and nutshell was present in all the samples analyzed.

133

Wild seeds identified included sumac, black nightshade, blackberry, wild

strawberries, wild grapes, bedstraw, henbit or deadnettle, and chickweed. Domesticated

seeds indentified included goosefoot, knotweed, maygrass, and tobacco. In addition, undifferentiated grass and unknown seeds were also counted and weighed.

With respect to distribution of seeds at the Water Plant site, very few to none were

indentified in the samples from the ditch trench (locations U2TA, U5S and U5T in Table

7), Anomaly 81 (pit), and Anomaly 116. Anomaly 81 (arm/trench) had 3 unidentified

seeds and squash rind present. Anomalies 20, 34 and 110 all had a variety of charred seeds with Anomaly 20 having the greatest variety (12 out of the 12 identified at the site) and Anomaly 34 having the least variety (7 out of the 12). The greatest numbers of seeds

were found at Anomaly 110. The seeds at all locations are from both wild and domesticated species. The seeds of domesticated or cultivated plants included goosefoot, knotweed, maygrass and tobacco. Squash (rind) is another domesticated species and it was found at all three of these locations.

The relative percentages of these domesticated plants are different between these three anomaly locations although they were dated by radiocarbon analysis to essentially the same age. The depth of the samples analyzed are the same for Anomalies 20 and 110

(30 – 40 cmbpz) and a little deeper from Anomaly 34 (40 – 53 cmbpz). The differing

relative percentages could be due to the fact that the anomalies differed in volume and

size, only one excavation level for each unit was analyzed, and only one-fourth of each anomaly was excavated.

134

In Anomaly 20, the majority of identified seeds were knotweed and equal amounts of goosefoot and maygrass were present. At Anomaly 110, where the greatest actual number of seeds was encountered, maygrass was the more prevalent species followed by goosefoot and knotweed. Anomaly 34 was similar to 110 but had many fewer seeds and goosefoot was a bit more prevalent than maygrass followed by knotweed. A tobacco seed was identified in Anomalies 34 and 110 and nine were found in Anomaly 20. Squash rind was found in all three locations. When evaluated as a group

(all three locations together), the greatest number of seeds identified were maygrass followed by knotweed and goosefoot.

The previous analysis of the seed assemblage from eleven features at the site (all in the southern portion of the site where a current ditch for the water plant now exists) by

Dee Anne Wymer (1987) resulted in maygrass having the greatest percentage followed by goosefoot and knotweed (Wymer 1987:152). No tobacco seeds were identified in the previous analysis. Again, the differences between the samples could be due to sampling differences; however, both analyses (previous and current) are not that dissimilar and result in maygrass being the most prevalent domesticated seed species. These domesticated plants (maygrass, goosefoot and knotweed) are found at other early Late

Woodland sites in the region (see Chapter 2 in the other site summaries) and are the same domesticated species that were utilized in this region by Middle Woodland and earlier people.

It is interesting that the domesticated plants found at the Water Plant site are all starchy seeds and oily seeds like sunflower and sumpweed are absent in the

135

paleoethnobotanical samples analyzed during the current research. In her dissertation

research at the Water Plant site, Dee Anne Wymer (1987) identified sumpweed seeds.

The lack of sumpweed identified during this current research can possibly be explained in

a couple of ways – only a portion of the features were excavated at each location,

sumpweed was present at the site in large quantities, and/or sumpweed was not

recognizable in the charred seed remains.

The results of the paleoethnobotanical analysis indicate that both wild and

domesticated plants were utilized at the Water Plant site and are consistent with other

sites of similar and earlier ages within the Middle Ohio River Valley region.

Faunal Remains Identification

An analysis of the faunal material (primarily bone, with a few pieces of antler)

from the Water Plant site was conducted by archaeologist Anne Lee. The data collected

and observations made during the analysis are in summarized in Table 8.

Over 8,000 bone fragments (and few antler pieces) were examined as part of the faunal analysis and resulted in primarily mammal species being identified. Much of the faunal material was burned, charred and/or calcined and almost all the bones were fragmented. Anomaly locations 81 (pit) and 116, the two features that date to the Late

Archaic time period did not yield any faunal material during excavation; all the other locations did have faunal material collected. No human bones were identified from any of the excavation locations at the site.

136

The bone fragments examined from Anomaly 81 in the arm/trench area where the post molds were found were identified as being from small to large mammals. The trench that cut through the inner ditch and palisade in the north central part of the site

(Trench excavation) did have faunal material in 1m by 1m Units 2, 3 and 4. Like

Anomaly 81 (arm), these units also had small to large mammal bone fragments. Two fragments, one identified as being from the deer family (metatcarpal/tarsal, unsided) and the other identified simply as a large mammal (long bone shaft fragment), had indications that they had been smoothed and had a light polish on them. This suggests cultural modification in that these bones were used in some way other than just being part of a meal.

Anomaly 20 yielded the largest number of bone fragments (3,465) and they were primarily identified as small to large mammal bones; however, large bird, fish or amphibian, and amphibian or reptile bones were also identified. Using a comparative collection during the faunal analyses more specific identification was performed. The specific species identified were white-tailed deer, Eastern box turtle, elk, raccoon, and

American beaver. More generalized identification included frog/toads and bony fish.

Large and medium mammal bones comprised the majority of the remains recovered at this location and deer family bones was most prevalent in this sample.

At Anomaly 20, sixteen bones, primarily long bone fragments, had signs of light to heavy carnivore damage with one of these fragments showing possible signs of having been digested. Five bone fragments, primarily long bones, had indications of possible cultural modification in the form of being rounded or shaped and smoothed and one has

137

cut marks on it. One piece of deer antler was calcined and had a rounded tip and may

have been worked. One large bird long bone shaft has what looks like a puncture, but it

is not clear whether this is a cultural modification or not.

Anomaly 34 had 1,225 pieces of faunal material recovered from it. The bones

were identified primarily as from large mammals with a few small to medium mammals,

birds, amphibians and fish. More specifically, White-tailed deer, Eastern box turtle and a

Striped skunk were identified. Generically identified, there were also bony fish and frog and/or toad bone fragments present as well as a radius from an animal of the Order

Carnivora. Carnivore damage, from light to heavy, was observed on 18 bone fragments

(long bones, vertebra and ribs) and one of these may have been digested. The skunk mandible from Anomaly 34 also had carnivore damage as did a piece of deer antler. The piece of deer antler also looks like it has been worked with an "incised groove around the beam, perpendicular to the long axis" (personal communication with Anne Lee 2008).

Eighteen bone fragments, primarily deer or deer family long bone parts, had signs of polishing and/or shaping. One was tentatively identified as a needle, two other as possible awl tips, and another five as informal or expedient tools based on their polished surfaces and one of these fragments had cut marks too. Four other fragments of these eighteen had cut marks visible.

Anomaly 110 had 3,166 pieces of faunal material collected. The generalized identification of animals included large mammals and some small to medium and medium to large mammals too. Other general animal types found were large bird, turtles, amphibians and/or reptiles, toad/frog, rodents, bony fish, and a member of the Canis

138

(dog) family. Specific species identified were White-tailed deer, Eastern box turtle, softshell turtle family, catfish family, groundhog, raccoon, squirrel family, snake, and tentatively identified fox, bobcat and grey wolf. Five bone fragments showed light to heavy carnivore damage and 15 fragments showed indications of possible cultural modification. The signs of cultural modification included rounding, shaping, polishing, cut marks or striations. In addition, one large mammal long bone shaft had two drill hoes through it.

Because the bone material was fragmented, no estimate can be made as the minimum number of individuals for any of the features excavated. It does appear that deer was the primary species utilized by people at the site and that in addition to

(presumably) eating the animals, some bone and antler materials were fashioned into and used as tools. Wild animal resources were used by people from all time periods in this region and this site data is consistent with that fact.

Ceramics

Ceramics in the form of sherds, both measurable and not measureable were encountered and collected from the site excavations. Measureable means that the sherd had both interior and exterior surfaces present and its thickness could be measured. A few sherds were found on the Water Plant site's surface; however, the vast majority of sherds were from the anomaly excavations. Unfortunately, no unbroken vessels were encountered and no attempt at re-fitting the sherds was undertaken as part of this

139 dissertation. Table 9 summarizes the data collected on the ceramic sherds. Examples of ceramic sherds found at the site are on Figures 29, 32 and 35.

The most distinctive feature found in the ceramics collection from the Water Plant site was sherds that are part of an angular shoulders present on vessels. This angular shoulder is a diagnostic feature not found in ceramic types dating to before or after the early Late Woodland time period in this region. The Water Plant site sherds closely resemble the Newtown Cordmarked and Newtown Smoothed ceramic types described by

Edward McMichael in the 1960s. His type description is Appendix A of a report on the

Pyles Site (Railey 1984).

Over 2,700 measureable sherds were recovered from the site and in general, they are grayish brown on the exterior and reddish or blackened on the inner surfaces and have a crushed rock temper. The average thickness of measureable sherds is approximately

6.5 mm. Cordmarking is present on the majority of sherds and a small percentage is plain. There is virtually no decoration or other adornment besides the cordmarking. One sherd from Unit 3 in the trench across the inner ditch was incised and another six from

Anomaly 20 were incised too. One sherd from Anomaly 20 had a small punched hole and there were some sherds that had cross-cordmarking from this anomaly excavation.

There were 88 rim sherds in total collected from the Water Plant site. Five sherds at the site appear to be from near the base of vessels based on their shape and greater thickness than other sherds. Three sherds appear to be from the necks of vessels based on their shape and relative thinness in comparison to the other sherds. Twelve angular shoulder sherds were collected and another seven sherds appear to be the inner portions

140 of angular shoulders based on their shape. All the other sherds collected are from the body of vessels and are indeterminate with respect to diagnostic features besides the general characteristics given above.

As previously mentioned, this ceramic collection resembles the Newtown

Cordmarked and Newtown Smoothed ceramic types. A more detailed analysis of the ceramics will be made in the future.

Lithics

Very little analysis of the lithic material collected from the Water Plant site was performed as part of this dissertation with the exception of identifying the projectile point types. Rock materials encountered during excavation and flotation included both natural occurring and culturally modified items, with the majority being naturally occurring.

Projectile points, stone discoids and other ground stone tools and tool fragments were separated from the excavated material for identification. Table 11 is a summary of the tools and interesting lithic materials recovered from the excavations and Table 12 summarizes all the artifacts collected from the site's ground surface and are primarily projectile points. All the rock material was washed and the material collected through flotation was size sorted and the tools or possible tools were separated out. The rock material has been retained for possible further analysis at a later date.

The recovery of projectile points from within the anomaly excavation locations is important because these artifacts are distinctive and diagnostic of different time periods.

The projectile points recovered from only the anomaly excavations (Table 11) are

141

primarily identified as being terminal Middle Woodland to Late Woodland time periods

(Chesser and Lowe type projectile points). The presence of the Chesser points from within the excavations serves as a confirmation of an early Late Woodland date for site use.

The identification of the other, earlier types of projectile points, such as

Brewerton Eared-Notched (Late Archaic), Kramer (Early Woodland) and Snyders

(Middle Woodland) from Anomaly 110 could be due to a couple of reasons. The Kramer and Brewerton Eared-Notched projectile points were found in the plow zone (0 – 30 cm below ground surface) and 0 – 10 cmbpz level of the excavation, respectively, and could be present due to site disturbance (i.e., farming). They could be present as a result of being found and used by early Late Woodland people at the site and another possibility is they were not identified correctly. The presence of the Snyders Cluster point in the 20 –

30 cmbpz could be due to the same reasons.

Similarly, one Brewerton Eared-Notched projectile point was found in Anomaly

34 from 10 – 20 cmbpz. The other two identified points in Anomaly 34 were Lowe and

Chesser Cluster types (found at 0 – 10 cmbpz and 10 – 20 cmbpz, respectively).

The Merom Cluster projectile point found in Anomaly 81 (pit) dates to the Late

Archaic time period and the radiocarbon dating of a piece of wood charcoal from this location resulted in a Late Archaic date (Table 3).

Surface-collected projectile points (Table 12) vary more in age affiliations than the excavated projectile points. Projectile points collected from the site surface range in age affiliations from Early Archaic through Late Woodland; however, five of the nine

142 points were of the Lowe Cluster which date to the terminal Middle Woodland and Late

Woodland time periods (Justice 1995:208-220).

Figure 38 shows seven discoids found at the water Plant site. As has been mentioned previously, the purpose of these items is not known. They are found at other early Late Woodland time period sites (Table 1) and at the Water Plant; the rock types of these items are metamorphic and sedimentary. The rock types of discoids from the other sites are not known.

143

Chapter 7: Dating the Water Plant Site

This chapter details the findings made as a result of the radiocarbon dating of charred paleoethnobotanical remains and the examination of ceramic and lithic materials collected and at the site. In addition, placing this site within the timeline of other early

Late Woodland sites is discussed.

Radiocarbon Dating of Site Samples

Three wood charcoal samples from the Water Plant site were analyzed by Beta

Analytic, Inc. in 1986 as part of the initial investigations of the site. As part of this dissertation, an additional eight samples from excavated features in 2007 were analyzed by Beta Analytic, Inc. Six of the samples submitted for analysis as part of this dissertation were nutshell and two were wood charcoal. The sample information and results are summarized in Table 3 and Figure 39. The initial three samples were analyzed by conventional radiocarbon methods as was the sample analyzed by Carr and Haas

(1996). The eight recent samples were analyzed by Accelerated Mass Spectrometry

(AMS). The advantage of the AMS analysis is less sample material is needed for an analysis because this method is a direct counting method of the radiocarbon atoms rather than needing to record the decay of the radiocarbon atoms (Linick et al. 1989).

144

CALIB (Revision 5.0, Stuiver et al. 2005), a computer program that converts radiocarbon age to calibrated calendar years was used for the data collected for this dissertation. The previously collected radiocarbon data from the Water Plant site was also subjected to this conversion as were the data from other sites in the region. This was performed so that a better representation of the data could be evaluated and particularly

so that all the data regardless of when it was analyzed could be compared more

realistically. The program calculates the probability of the radiocarbon age, given the

sample error and comparison to data sets of radiocarbon information. These data sets are

important because radiocarbon concentrations in the atmosphere are not constant, thereby

necessitating some sort of calibration to be able to compare data with less bias.

The three previous radiocarbon dates for the Water Plant site indicate that the site

is early Late Woodland in age and are very slightly earlier dates than the more recent results indicate; however they can be considered essentially the same given the amount of error. The variation could be due to the difference in methods used to determine the radiocarbon age, it could also be due to materials sampled (wood charcoal previously and primarily nutshell in the more recent samples), and it could also be due to the portion of the site previously sampled was used earlier than the locations from which the recent samples were collected. The portion of the site previously sampled was confined to features in the south part of the site (which is now gone), whereas the more recent samples were collected at locations dispersed across the site. Both sets of data result in an early Late Woodland occupation for the site; they just represent a possible earlier and later use within the site.

145

The radiocarbon dating of samples from Anomalies 81 (pit) and 116 indicate that

there were earlier occupations of the Water Plant site. The earliest date for the site was

found at Anomaly 116 and is between 2351 BC and 2137 BC (2σ calibrated radiocarbon

calendar date range) and is in the Late Archaic time period (based on chronological dates

given in Griffin 1983). Anomaly 81 (pit) is also dated to a Late Archaic time frame at

between 1536 BC and 1410 BC (2σ calibrated radiocarbon calendar date range) but is closer to the terminal part of that time period. These dates agree with some of surface artifact time period affiliations and confirm that this site has had multiple occupations.

The other six recent radiocarbon dating samples result in dates that are between

AD 606 and AD 882 (the earliest and latest dates based on the 2σ calibrated radiocarbon calendar date ranges). These samples were collected from Anomalies 20, 34, 110, 81 arm and the Trench excavation.

In 1996, Christopher Carr and Herbert Haas published an article in West Virginia

Archaeologist and obtained 35 new radiocarbon dates for Woodland and Fort Ancient sites in Ohio. One of the samples was from the Water Plant site from a feature in the same area as the three earlier samples (Dancey et al. 1987) from the site. The result of the analysis was an uncalibrated radiocarbon date of 1280 ±102 and a 2σ calibrated radiocarbon calendar date range of AD 596 to AD 980 (Carr and Haas 1996:46, calibrated using CALIB 5.0 as part of this dissertation). This date is close to the dates found in the recent analyses and again confirms an early Late Woodland occupation of the Water Plant site (Figure 39).

146

Radiocarbon data from other early Late Woodland sites gathered from a literature

search were examined in the context of how the Water Plant site fits into the chronology

of Ohio archaeology. Of particular interest are the Scioto Trails and Childers sites

because they too have ditches circumscribing their occupation areas similar to the Water

Plant site. Using data from the Carr and Haas report (1996) and from Michael Shott's

1992 article on radiocarbon dates from the Childers site, there are six radiocarbon dates

for the Scioto Trails site and eighteen dates for the Childers site. The results are

summarized in Table 13 and shown on Figure 40. The results indicate that the Childers

site in general has some of the earliest dates, but the variation in the data coincides with

dates at both the Water Plant and Scioto Trails sites. The Scioto Trails site data agree

closely with the range of dates for the Water Plant site and show the widest variation in

dates. In general these dates are in agreement with site occupations within the AD 400 to

AD 800 for early Late Woodland sites in the Middle Ohio River Valley region.

Data from Ahler (1988), Carr and Haas (1996), Henderson and Pollack (1985),

Kreinbrink (1992), Railey (1984), Shott (1989, 1992), and Niquette and Kerr (1993) for

other Late Woodland sites were examined next and are summarized in Table 14 and

Figure 3. These data indicate that many of these sites were generally contemporaneously occupied in the early Late Woodland time period. Several sites, the Leonard Haag,

Lichliter, Pyles, Hansen, Bentley, Rogers Complex, Turpin Farm, and Parkline sites have the earliest possible occupations, although these sites, with the exceptions of Lichliter,

Bentley and Pyles sites (because there is only one date for these sites) also have later dates too. The sites with the latest (more recent) occupations may be the Sand Ridge,

147

Childers and Scioto Trails sites based on these data. The agreement in the radiocarbon dating from all these sites is compelling for contemporaneous occupation of the region by early Late Woodland society.

Ceramics

As briefly discussed in Chapter 6, the site ceramic collection resembles Newtown

Cordmarked and Newtown Smoothed ceramics. The type description was developed by

Edward McMichael in the 1960s but not published at that time. The type locations for the descriptions are the Turpin Farm and Sand Ridge sites in southwestern Ohio. Railey

(1996) included McMichael's description in his report for the Pyles site (Railey

1996:Appendix A) and attributed that site's ceramics to the Newtown types. Other sites in the region cited as having Newtown-type ceramics are the Leonard Haag, Bentley,

Hansen and Rogers Site Complex (see Chapter 2 for brief discussions of the ceramics recovered from these sites). A new ceramic type, Childers, was developed for the

Childers site. Interestingly, the ceramics from that site do not have any indications of angular shoulders. The Parkline site ceramics are attributed to the Childers-type; however, the Parkline site ceramics did have angular shoulders present in the collection.

No particular ceramic type was assigned for the collection recovered from the Lichliter site and this site's ceramics did have angular shoulders. The description of the ceramics recovered from the Scioto Trails site resulted in their classification as Cole ceramics

(Potter 1996). They include some decorative attributes that are missing from Newtown

148

ceramics and may suggest a later time in the Late Woodland time period (Dancey,

personal communication).

The similarity in ceramic styles for most of the sites dating to essentially the same

time period (early Late Woodland) in the region suggests that these people were in

contact with one another, sharing similar cultural attributes.

Lithics

As with the radiocarbon dating and similarity in ceramic styles, there were

similarities in the projectile point types found at several of the twelve sites that have been

discussed here. The site reports for the Leonard Haag, Childers, Hansen, Parkline, and

Water Plant sites refer to Late Woodland projectile point types of the Lowe, Chesser,

Steuben clusters or types and for the Pyles site, they are referred to as Newtown types

(Railey 1996). For the other early Late Woodland sites, no specific projectile point type is mentioned.

Stone discs or discoids were found at three other sites besides the Water Plant site

(Figure 38) and these sites are the Turpin Farm, Lichliter and Leonard Haag sites. It is not known whether they were present at the other sites and just not mentioned in published site documentation. The use of these items is not known, but their presence at several early Late Woodland sites suggests they did have a purpose or were otherwise significant.

149

Chapter 8: Community Patterning

This chapter discusses the community patterning of the Water Plant site at a local

and regional scale. Specifically, the site structure with respect to the arrangement of site

features is discussed.

All the sites mentioned herein that have been identified as early Late Woodland

sites are in fact multi-component sites (Table 1). The major portions of the sites,

however, do indicate strong evidence for early Late Woodland occupations based on the

artifacts found and radiocarbon dating performed on paleoethnobotanical samples at these

sites. These sites are relatively large compared to habitation sites found in the Middle

Woodland, the time period immediately pre-dating the time period under current investigation. Site areas are difficult to estimate in their entirety because in some cases the entire potential site area was not investigated or was no longer present at the time of investigation due to erosion or development, etc. For example, at the Childers and Scioto

Trails sites, erosion and/or construction have heavily affected the site areas. Table 1 lists

the twelve early Late Woodland sites discussed in this dissertation with rough estimates

of site area, when known.

150

Structures

Houses or other structures at these early Woodland sites have been for the most

part, difficult to identify. Based on post mold configurations found during excavations,

structures or possible structures were encountered at the Turpin Farm site (one), Litchliter

Village site (four), Scioto Trails site (three), Childers site (one), Bentley site (two),

Hansen site (four), and Water Plant site (one). These structures were described as circular, semi-circular, or oval in shape with the exception of the structure at the Turpin

Farm site, which was rectangular. The range in house (or generically, structures) sizes, is from estimates of 3.2 m to 4.2 m at the Childers site to 10 to 15 m at the Bentley site.

Table 1 includes estimates for structure sizes at these and other early Late Woodland sites.

A possible 10-meter-diameter structure was identified during the initial site investigation (Dancey 2001) and the area is indicated on Figure 2. Finding house structures and determining their arrangement at the Water Plant site was one of the primary research objectives for this dissertation; however, in the recently collected geophysical data, there was no definitive basis for identifying them. Nevertheless, in the gradiometer data there are faint traces of what could be sections of post molds and might be traces of structures; examples of this are in magnetic date collection grid numbers 55 and 27, 15, 19, 34 and 53 (Figures 13 and 41). Due to the large number of large anomalies at the site, some of the smaller, but undoubtedly significant, anomalies are obscured. These faint indications of possible post mold traces are circular in configuration and may indicate large structures with diameters of roughly 15 m (49 feet).

151

Four of these traces could correspond to Clusters G (grid block 55 and 27), F (grid blocks

15 and 19), and D (grid block 34) identified by Dancey et al. (1987); the fifth area is in grid block 53 and is located to the north of the area previously investigated by Dancey et

al. (1987). As mentioned above, additional analysis and research does need to be

performed in this aspect of the site data collected.

Site Layout

With respect to site structure, the Pyles site appears to have a "doughnut" shape in

that there is a circular pattern in the artifact densities around a seemingly "vacant" center

(Railey 1984). At the Bentley site, based on artifact densities and feature locations, the

investigators suggested that this site too may have had a central plaza area like the Pyles

site (Henderson and Pollack 1985:161). The investigations at other early Late Woodland

sites have not shown this to be the case, but have been limited by the site areas

investigated. Site layout with respect to houses and other buildings was not evident as a

result of this dissertation research; however, once the inner ditch was "discovered" the

research objective changed to more closely examining the nature of the newly discovered

inner ditch and its role in site structure.

The Childers and Scioto Trails sites have ditch and/or embankments

circumscribing them similar to the Water Plant site. Unfortunately, the arrangement of

houses and other buildings within the site structural demarcations made by the ditch

and/or embankment are not known at these sites either.

152

For the most part, at the other early Late Woodland sites (listed in Table 1 and

discussed in Chapter 2), there is not enough information to be able to comment on their

internal arrangement of houses and other structures. This is because not that many

houses or other buildings/structures were defined. Post molds were found at all the early

Late Woodland sites; however, in most cases could not be definitively attributed to any specific type of architectural structure.

Seasonality and Duration

Some of the investigators at the various sites interpreted their findings at the early

Late Woodland sites listed in Table 1 in regard to the site's seasonality and duration. The seasonality of a site was based on the variety of artifact types and presence of houses and the variety of paleoethnobotanical materials found in features. The sites that were interpreted as semi-permanent to permanent (regardless of length of occupation) are the

Turpin Farm (Oehler 1973), Lichliter Village (Allman 1957), Childers (Shott et al. 1993),

Pyles (Railey 1984), and Water Plant (Dancey et al. 1987; this dissertation research).

Riggs (1986) interpreted the Sand Ridge site as having a long term occupation, but did not comment on whether it was a permanent settlement. The Bentley site has been described as "fairly short-lived but intensive" (Henderson and Pollack 1985:163). The

Hansen site occupation was interpreted as "either episodic or took place over a shorter interval" (Ahler 1988:643, when referring to radiocarbon dates for the site ranging from

AD 300 to AD 600). The Parkline site was interpreted as being a temporary camp

(Niquette and Kerr 1993). No discussion of the site's permanence or duration was

153

included in the published information for the Leonard Haag (Reidhead and Limp 1974) and the Rogers site (Kreinbrink 1992). No interpretation is published for the Scioto

Trails site; however, given its range in artifact types, houses, and features present

(unpublished data), presence of a ditch and/or embankment and similar appearance to the

Water Plant site, it appears to be a permanent occupational site.

The above interpretations result in a range of possible site uses and occupational duration – from short-lived seasonal use over many years to year-round occupations of

varying lengths in duration. More investigation is warranted at these sites and of the data

collected to date, as well as new sites yet identified, to fully understand the early Late

Woodland occupational variation and cultural history. The range in dates of site

occupations was discussed in Chapter 7 and roughly spans a period of AD 400 through

AD 800, although support for continuous occupation for the entire duration of the time

period is not currently suggested for these sites. As previously mentioned, these sites

have evidence for multi-components of occupations; what is evident is these site

locations were favored by people in the region over many millennium.

Nucleation

Berle Clay and Steven Creasman (1999) argue that there is a lack of evidence for

nucleated settlements in the Middle Ohio River Valley during the Late Woodland time

period. One of the main points they focus on is that these sites were not locations of

sedentary year-round occupations. They state that "one would expect a full range of

seasonal subsistence indicators, the presence of storage facilities, the presence of

154

domestic dwellings, the rebuilding of houses on the same location, and a diverse artifact

assemblage indicative of a variety of procurement, maintenance, and processing

activities" (1999:2). In their discussion they discount the archaeological interpretations

that have been formulated at the sites for to a variety of reasons. As indicated in the site

summaries in Chapter 2, many of the early Late Woodland sites of this region do exhibit

the type of site attributes that indicate permanent settlements based on Clay and

Creasman's (1999) definition. William Dancey (2001) responded to Clay and Creasman's arguments and addressed each of their points. The Water Plant site, based on its paleoethnobotanical data, large refuge pits, presence of possible houses, the variety in artifacts (domesticated plant remains, ceramics, and lithics), site size and site architecture in the form of two ditches and associated palisade and screens, does indicate that this site is a nucleated community.

According to Clay and Creasman, another argument against nucleated settlements in this region during the early Late Woodland time period is a lack of palisades at the three ditched sites (Scioto Trails, Water Plant and Childers) and therefore, these sites in their view were not defensive sites (1999). No evidence was found for a palisade at the

Childers site, and it is unknown whether there was a palisade present at the Scioto Trails site. There definitely was a palisade at the Water Plant site and combined with the V-

shaped out ditch, this does suggest that the Water Plant site was a defensive site.

155

Mounds and Human Burials

Another feature type, mounds, not previously discussed herein in any detail, has

been associated with some of the early Late Woodland sites. In his characterization of a

new complex, which he coined "Newton Focus," Griffin (1952:187) included stone slab

mounds as being associated with Late Woodland occupational sites. While this type of

mound may be located near or within Late Woodland sites, many have found to be

associated with earlier and later occupations at Late Woodland sites based on either

radiocarbon dating or artifact evidence. Of the twelve early Late Woodland sites

discussed in this dissertation, seven sites (Rogers Complex, Turpin Farms, Pyles, Scioto

Trails, Water Plant, Bentley and Childers) had mounds nearby or within the site. Kellar

(1960) compiled research that had been conducted on stone slab mounds that were

present in the middle and upper Ohio River Valley. These stone mounds were frequently

found near Early Woodland through Late Prehistoric sites in the region. Their presence

was referred to as "The Stone Mound Problem" in that little was known about their origin. In his examination of the problem, Kellar (1960) found that that most of the mounds had not been studied to any great extent, and those that were examined, do range in affiliation from Adena (Early Woodland) to Fort Ancient (Late Prehistoric) times.

Later research has added to this finding; for example, the mounds at the Scioto

Trails and Rogers Complex sites are likely Middle Woodland (Hopewell) in age (Potter

1966 and Kreinbrink 1992, respectively), although some of the burials at the Rogers

Complex mound could be Late Woodland based on associated artifacts. Based on investigation of the Water Plant site both by Dancey (in the late 1970's and 1980's) and

156

this current research, no evidence of a mound was found, although one was reported on

an Ohio Archaeological Inventory form filed in 1978 (as site 33FR156). The mound at

the Turpin Farms site was attributed to being of Fort Ancient in age and having an earlier

component of post-Hopewell and pre-Fort Ancient people of the Newtown Focus (Oehler

1973). The mound located near the Pyles site was not investigated further, or at least no information about it is published. No published information on the mounds near the

Bentley site was found. A possible mound was reportedly present near the Childers site

(Shott et al. 1990).

Human remains in early Late Woodland contexts were found at four sites. One

site was the Turpin Farm site and was discussed above. The exact number of human

burials is not given in Oehler's report (1973), although he does mention that over 100

burials are Fort Ancient. The number of burials in the stone mound being associated with

the Newtown Focus is not reported. The other three sites are the Rogers Complex, Scioto

Trails and Childers sites. The 43 human burials at the Rodgers Complex site were

associated with the Hopewellian mound located there, although some of the burials did

have Newtown artifacts (ceramics and projectile points in or in close association;

Kreinbrink 1992). In addition, six burials were documented in refuse pits inside the area

circumscribed by the ditch and/or embankment in the southern part of the site (at the

eastern edge of the Scioto Trails site; Otto, personal communication). Ten individuals

were found at the Childers site, five in burials, two in pit features, and three in the

eroding banks of the site.

157

In the published information about the other early Late Woodland sites, there is no mention of human remains or burials being encountered. So it seems that the treatment of the dead does seem to vary at these sites as a whole.

Ditches and Embankments

Ditches and/or embankments were present at Scioto Trails and Childers sites in addition to the Water Plant site. Shott et al. (1990:284), in their discussion of the

Childers site, mentioned that there are three other sites that have ditches – Swinehart

Village site (Fairfield County, Ohio), Highbanks site (Delaware County, Ohio), and the

Erp site (near Dayton). The Highbanks site is likely a Middle Woodland site and the Erp site is likely Fort Ancient in age. The Swinehart Village site has been investigated and a

"linear depression 1 to 2 m wide and 15 m long" (Schweikart 2005:116) separates part of the site along with an earthen embankment surrounding the 1.4 ha site area and reportedly an earlier investigator at the site "identified postholes 'around the edge of the embankment' at the site" (Schweikart 2005:124). This site is thought to date within the terminal Middle Woodland to early Late Woodland time period but no radiocarbon dating has been performed; this site certainly does warrant further investigation.

The ditch and/or embankment at Scioto Trails has been documented in a fluxgate gradiometer survey conducted by the author. The magnetic signature is similar to the ditches found at the Water Plant site.

The ditch circumscribing the Childers site was excavated and it was found to have a gently sloping U-shape profile. It is approximately 4.5 m in width (Shott et al. 1990).

158

The outer ditch at the Water Plant site was bisected by a water line being excavated at the site in 1978 (and was the initial discovery of the outer ditch at the site).

The cross-section does indicate a U-shaped profile; however, the ditch was intersected at an angle and not perpendicular to its location, so this leads to the appearance of being U- shaped. The outer ditch was excavated at another location (shown on Figure 2 as Trench

2) where the trench was perpendicular to the ditch and it does show that the ditch profile is V-shaped (Dancey 1988:240 reproduced here as Figure 12). The inner ditch was intersected by the Trench excavation as part of this dissertation research and was found to be U-shaped (Figure 12).

Palisades

Palisades are another site structural feature that have been looked for at early Late

Woodland sites. None have been conclusively confirmed at early Late Woodland sites except at the Water Plant site. Sites that did actually include investigations for the presence of a palisade include Pyles (Railey 1984) and the Childers site (Shott et al.

1990). At these two sites, excavation of trenches was used to investigate the presence or absence of a palisade on the outer part of those sites and no palisade was detected at either site. At the Scioto Trails site, the gradiometer surveys did extend to areas outside

(east) of the ditch and/or embankment there; however, the data collection spacing was greater than that performed at the Water Plant site, so it would not be totally accurate to say there is no palisade at the site and further investigation at a finer data collection density is warranted. As mentioned above, reportedly post molds were identified along

159 the edge of the embankment at the Swinehart site (Schweikart 2005) but these data are not published.

A palisade at the Water Plant site was definitely identified outside (west and north, depending on curve of the ditch) of the inner ditch at two locations (Anomaly 81 arm and Trench – Unit 5) through the gradiometer survey and confirmed through excavation. Given the signature of the palisade in those locations, sections of palisade or screens (or curtains) of posts can be identified at locations on the outside (west and northwest, depending on location) of the outer ditch at places where there are breaks or openings in the ditch.

The palisade around the inner ditch does not suggest defensive intent because the palisade is on the outside of the ditch and for defensive means, the ditch is typically located outside of the palisade. The inner ditch might be an "artifact" of the palisade's presence in that the ditch was more or less a borrow pit structure because the soils dug from this area were likely used to fill in gaps between posts. The fact that the palisade is present at the north part of its trace and the ditch is not present leads me to think that the ditch is unfinished in this portion of the site. The radiocarbon dating of the palisade in the two locations where it was excavated indicates that it may be slightly older (2σ uncalibrated radiocarbon calendar year ranges of AD 606 to AD 717 at Anomaly 81 arm and Unit 5) than the base of ditch (AD 680 to AD 882, 2σ uncalibrated radiocarbon calendar year range for the basal feature in Unit 2). The reason for the palisade is not known; presumably it did serve an important function (defensive?) at the Water Plant site given the amount of effort and time that must have been invested in its construction.

160

There has been considerable research on enclosures and fortifications in Europe

(particularly in the Neolithic age there starting around 6500 B.C.). Researchers interpret

the presence of a palisade in many ways and reasons for palisades can include defensive

purposes, for keeping people or animals in or out of an area, defining an occupational

area, or delineating an area for some other purpose or significance, just to name a few

possibilities (cf., Darvill and Thomas 2001; Keeley et al. 2007; Parkinson and Duffey

2007).

George Milner (1999, 2000, 2007) in several articles discusses prehistoric warfare in the Eastern Woodlands of North America as differing between the northern (where the

Middle Ohio River Valley is located) and southern areas. He discusses that there are two strong indications that warfare or conflict occurred – trauma observed in human remains and walled settlements. Eastern Woodland inhabitants exhibiting violent deaths due to trauma (blunt-force head injuries, scalping, and other injuries due to projective points and other stone tools) are visible in the Late Archaic time period (Milner 1999, 2007). Few violent causes of death are observed until a sharp increase is observed during the late 11th

century. Due to the paucity of human remains dating to early Late Woodland time

period, little can be said about the causes of death for people during this age in the

Middle Ohio River Valley.

The other hallmark of conflict and/or warfare is the presence of walled (palisaded)

settlements. These too increase sharply in the late 11th century. The Water Plant site,

based on this information does appear to be among the earliest sites showing evidence for

conflict in this region. Many of the sites cited by Milner (1999, 2000, 2007) as having

161

palisades occur at the time of or a bit later than the Water Plant site, with most sites being

later (particularly increasing at around AD 1050 and continuing until European contact).

The presence of a seemingly defensive ditch with screens/curtains or portions of a palisade at ditch openings make the Water Plant unique and this site may be "the earliest dated clearly defensive sites in N. America north of Mexico" (personal communication,

Keeley 2007).

In his extensive literature search, Milner has observed that the size of posts used

for walled settlements in the northern areas as compared to the southern areas are smaller

and typically are 15 cm and less (1999, 2000, 2007). Fifteen centimeters is the size of the

postmolds observed in the trench at Anomaly 81 (arm) at the Water Plant site. This line

of observed evidence leads me to believe that there was conflict/warfare occurring in this

region during the time the Water Plant site was constructed and occupied.

The Water Plant site is located in a defensible position atop a high, steep bank

along a major stream (Big Walnut Creek) on one side with the ditches encircling the

remainder of the site. Another line of strong evidence for the Water Plant site being a

defensive site is based on the outer ditch cross-section and the screens or curtains of posts

located at ditch openings or gates. The ditch is between 4 and 5 m wide and

approximately 1.2 m deep with a V-shaped profile. The significance of the shape is that these types of ditches are found at defensive sites around the world (Keeley et al. 2007).

These V-shaped ditches were called Fossa Fastigata (sloped or pointed ditches) by the

Romans and "Their surface width, depth, steep sides, and narrow bottoms make them

difficult for attackers to negotiate" (Keeley et al. 2007:58). The curtains of posts (or

162 screens) located at, and on the outside, of the gates/openings along the ditch are called

Titulum (Keeley et al. 2007: Figure 3 and p. 66). Keeley et al. (2007) include a third feature for clearly defense sites – bastions; however, none were observed at the Water

Plant site.

Beyond the architecture of the site (outer ditch and screens), no direct evidence for actual warfare has been observed at the Water Plant site. Stone tools, like ground stone celts and projectile points, are ubiquitous across the site. No human remains have been recovered from the Water Plant site, so whether site inhabitants had signs of trauma one might expect as a result of warfare is not known.

Summary

The Water Plant site is similar to other early Late Woodland sites in the Middle

Ohio River Valley region based on site size, ceramics and stone artifacts found, subsistence of both domesticated and wild resources, and radiocarbon dating. This site was also found to be unique in its site structure and adds to our understanding of early

Late Woodland people.

The internal arrangement of actual houses is still not known for the Water Plant site, although there are at least 11 clusters of household-associated artifacts that suggest this site was a year-round permanent settlement (Dancey et al. 1987, Dancey 1988). The site is defined by the outer and inner ditches, with the outer ditch geometry and associated palisade sections suggesting that this was a defensive site. As suggested in

163

Figure 41, there may be house structures present at the site; however, additional

investigation will be needed to confirm their presence at the locations indicated.

Based on the magnetic susceptibility and radiocarbon data, I think that the outer ditch and palisade (or screen) sections at the gaps in the outer ditch were constructed first and then the inner ditch with palisade was built later. The lack of the palisade along the north part of inner ditch may indicate that the site's occupants abandoned the site before completing the inner ditch and palisade configuration. Dancey (1988) suggests that the

Water Plant inhabitants may have moved to the Scioto Trail site (located to the northwest of this site), given the similarity in site attributes and the later radiocarbon dates that exist there.

There is still much to learn about the early Late Woodland inhabitants of this region and this site will continue to play an important role as further investigation of this site and others are continued.

164

Chapter 9: Summary and Conclusions

This chapter summarizes the results of the research objectives for this dissertation and the conclusions. Also included are recommendations for future investigations.

The first question of particular interest to this researcher was the intra-site organization of structures, features, and activity areas within the Water Plant site. In other words, did this site grow randomly or was there patterning to the arrangement of site households? Unfortunately, this question was not answered fully; however, a large amount of data was collected and adds to our knowledge of the archaeological use of the site. The site does appear to be defensive in nature based on the presence of the outer ditch with screened (with posts) sections at the ditch gaps. An interior ditch and palisade were also constructed at the site.

The locations of household structures are not readily apparent in the data collected, yet hundreds of archaeological features were found. The most interesting features found include the inner ditch in association with a palisade structure and screens of posts located at openings in the outer ditch. Five magnetic anomaly locations were excavated and thousands of artifacts were collected from them. In addition, the inner ditch and associated palisade were excavated. The excavation locations are shown on

Figure 16.

165

With respect to household structures or buildings, there may be indications for

their presence at five locations shown on Figure 41, although further investigation of these areas will be needed. The gradiometer data collected at the site for this dissertation has the potential to yield more information about these features with further interpretation as well.

The second question to be answered about the village was to locate the ancient ditch boundaries within the archaeological record. This research question was completed. The outer ditch was defined to the extent possible (the southern end was destroyed as a result of the current Water Treatment Plant operations) and an inner ditch was "discovered." Three interesting things about the outer ditch were that it is not as a linear as it appears the aerial photographs, there are breaks along its trace, and outside of the breaks there appear to be post screens. Figure 11 has the 1950 aerial photograph of the site on it and Figure 24 has some of the prehistoric features indicated on it, such as the outer and inner ditches, the palisade around the inner ditch, and post screens outside the outer ditch.

Along with defining the outer ditch, a third research question was to determine whether the relatively large village (3.2 hectares or 8 acres) was used contemporaneously.

Eight radiocarbon samples were analyzed by AMS from locations across the site within the outer ditch (and within in the inner ditched area as well) and demonstrate that there are site features across this large site that have essentially contemporaneous dates (within the margin of error). These new radiocarbon dates agree with the radiocarbon dates previously analyzed from the southern area of the site (reported in Dancey et al. 1987,

166

Dancey 1988 and 2001). The range in dates for the early Late Woodland occupation of

the Water Plant site is AD 420 and AD 882 (the date analyzed by Carr and Haas, 1996

was not included in this range due to the larger error range for their sample). In addition,

two radiocarbon dates from the site date to the Archaic time period, demonstrating that

the Water Plant site is a multi-component site as the age range in projectile points

collected during the initial investigations (1980) from the surface suggests.

Preliminary examinations of the lithic materials, ceramics, faunal remains, and

paleoethnobotanical materials support the radiocarbon dating information in that this site

was used by people in the early Late Woodland time period. Data and artifacts found at

the Water Plant site compare favorably with those from other early Late Woodland sites

in the Middle Ohio River Valley region. During this time period, there were

communities between AD 400 and AD 800 using like resources, making similar

projectile points and ceramics, and occupying large nucleated open sites.

A fourth research question was whether the questions above could be answered

using geophysical methods. The answer is yes, this site investigation would not have

yielded as much information about the site structure - without the geophysical data, the

inner ditch and palisade, the outer ditch screens and many of the site features could have

been missed using conventional methods such as a soil sampling strategy. The

gradiometer survey data covered 100 percent of the site, and for a site this size,

excavation of the entire site would not be reasonable or feasible as a single Ph.D.

dissertation. In addition, the gradiometer survey by itself was minimally destructive to the site because the grid location markers were only temporarily set and only extended 10

167

cm or so into the site. The soil probing of specific features based on the gradiometer data

was also minimally destructive; the diameter of the probe used was approximately one-

and-a-half inches. The soil probing strategy was important in pinpointing specific

anomalies to excavate so that the excavations would be very limited in area. Because this

may be the earliest defensive site in this part of Eastern North America, preservation of

this site is an important aspect.

The magnetic susceptibility survey of the site was also successful in

demonstrating that the entire site was impacted by humans and it too provided 100

percent site coverage, although the sampling density was much less than the gradiometer

survey. The impact of this survey on site integrity was minimal as well in that the soil

samples collected for the magnetic susceptibility analyses extended to approximately the base of the plow zone (0.20 to 0.30 below ground surface).

The fifth research question was what could be learned about the site's buried features using geophysics. There is a growing number of archaeological sites where large geophysical surveys are being performed. Using soil probing and excavation strategies in

combination with the gradiometer survey at this site adds to the growing knowledge of what the actual archaeological features appear as in the geophysical data. Most exciting was the geophysical signature that the palisade exhibited and was confirmed through excavation. There are some potential areas at the Water Plant site that can be further investigated in the future, particularly in regard to potential house structures based on the data collected during this dissertation research.

168

Based on this dissertation research, the Water Plant site is a unique site archaeologically and in the present. In the present it is unique in that it is nearly intact and offers us additional opportunity to investigate an early Late Woodland time period community in its (almost) entirety. Archaeologically it is unique particularly in regard to the presence of a defensive outer ditch and inner ditch with an associated palisade.

Based on the radiocarbon data, magnetic susceptibility data, and ditch geometry in profile, the chronology of site construction can be interpreted. One scenario could be that the outer ditch with post screens at ditch openings at the Water Plant site was constructed first and then the palisade and inner ditch were constructed. The frequency dependent magnetic susceptibility data indicates that the entire site area shows an intensity of human influence (Figure 22). The mass dependent magnetic susceptibility values also indicate that the site area, particularly within the palisade and inner ditch area was intensively utilized by site occupants (Figure 21).

The corrected radiocarbon data indicate that the palisade at the Trench location in

Unit 5 and at Anomaly 81 (arm) are the same date of AD 590 (uncalibrated calendar year midpoint date or a 2σ calibrated calendar date range of AD 606 to AD 717), whereas the date from the bottom of the inner ditch at Trench Unit 2 suggests it is slightly more recent date of AD 710 (uncalibrated calendar date midpoint or a 2σcalibrated calendar date range of AD 680 to AD 882); see Figure 16 for anomaly excavation locations. This suggests that the palisade was built first and the ditch was constructed later, possibly the soils removed from the ditch were used as daub and chinking material for the palisade.

The site household dwellings could have been within the entire area of the outer ditch and

169

as the inner ditch and palisade were built, structures could have been concentrated within

the inner ditched area. Also, because the ditch is not present in the north section of the

inner palisade, it may suggest that the ditch is unfinished. Why the inner ditch was not

completed is not known – one possibility is that the site's inhabitants abandoned the

Water Plant site before the inner ditch was fully constructed.

The inner and outer ditches have different shapes in profile; the inner ditch is U-

shaped and the outer ditch is more V-shaped. Personal communication with Lawrence

Keeley (2007) confirms that the outer ditch does seem to be defensive in nature given its

V-shape. This alone does not necessarily mean the outer ditch is defensive, but the

presence of portions of palisades or screens at breaks in the outer ditch look like

defensive configurations observed in fortifications in other areas, particularly in Europe

(Keeley et al. 2007). According to Keeley (2007 and personal communication), the

screens at the openings in the ditch are examples of classic titulum configuration

constructed for defensive means.

Dancey et al. (1987) suggest that the Scioto Trails site, which is only about 4 miles away from the Water Plant site, could have been occupied by people from the

Water Plant site after it was abandoned. Radiocarbon dates for the Scioto Trails site indicate that the site was occupied earlier, at the same time, and later than the Water Plant

site. No palisade has been observed in conjunction with the ditch at the Scioto Trails site

and the ditch geometry at Scioto Trails is not known, so whether it is a defensive site or

not would need further investigation there.

170

Unfortunately, there is no radiocarbon date for the outer ditch which would aid in interpreting the Water Plant site's history. The location of actual houses and their arrangement was not determined through this research, so there is much more work that can be performed in better understanding this community. No human remains have been found at the site so the only evidence for warfare is the defensive nature of site features such as the outer ditch, post screens at openings in the outer ditch openings, and the site's placement on a high bluff along a waterway. While there has been investigation of several early Late Woodland sites in the region, additional research is needed to be able to understand more about early Late Woodland people's culture in terms of social relationships.

In terms of recommendations for future research at the Water Plant site, a radiocarbon date for the outer ditch is important. Excavation of one of the screened sections of the outer ditch and radiocarbon dating of the feature will also provide important information. Excavation of areas where possible postmold traces in the geophysical data may indicate house locations (Figure 41) will provide important and useful information as well. Further data interpretation of the gradiometer data will definitely provide additional insight in the house locations at the site. Finally, all the paleoethnobotanical, ceramic and lithic artifacts collected at the site can also yield additional information about the Water Plant site and early Late Woodland time period community sites in general if they are further analyzed.

171

Bibliography

Ahler, Steven R. 1988 Excavations at the Hansen Site (15GP14) in Northeastern Kentucky. Archaeological Report 173. Program for Cultural Resource Assessment, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky.

Aitken, M.J. 1961 Physics and Archaeology. New York: Interscience Publishers Inc.

Allman, John C. 1957 A New Late Woodland Culture for Ohio: The Lichliter Village Site Near Dayton. Ohio Archaeologist 7(2):59-68.

Atwood, Wallace W. 1940 The Physiographic Provinces of North America. Ginn and Company, New York.

Baby, Raymond S. and Martha A. Potter 1965 The Cole Complex: A Preliminary Analysis of the Late Woodland Ceramics in Ohio and Their Relationship to the Ohio Hopewell Phase. Papers in Archaeology of the Ohio Historical Society, Number 2. Columbus, Ohio.

Bevins, Bruce W. 1998 Geophysical Exploration for Archaeology: An Introduction to Geophysical Exploration. Midwest Archeological Center Special Report No. 1. United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Midwest Archeological Center, Lincoln, Nebraska.

Braun, David P. 1987 Coevolution of Sedentism, Pottery Technology, and Horticulture in the Central Midwest, 200 B.C. – A.D. 600. In Evolutionary Archaeology, Theory and Application, edited by Michael J. O'Brien, pp. 270-283. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. (reprinted from Emergent Horticultural Economies of the Eastern Woodlands, edited by W. F. Keegan, pp. 153-181. Occasional Paper No. 7, Center for Archaeological Investigations. Copyright 1987 by the Board of Trustees, Southern Illinois University).

172

Caldwell, Joseph A. 1872 Caldwell's Atlas of Franklin Co. and the City of Columbus, Ohio. From actual surveys by and under the direction of J.A. Caldwell & H.T. Gould, assisted by Henry Cring, J.N. Headington & Josiah Kinnear. J.A. Caldwell and H.T. Gould, Columbus, Ohio.

Carr, Christopher & Herbert Haas 1996 Beta-Count and AMS Radiocarbon Dates of Woodland and Fort Ancient Period Occupations in Ohio 1350 B.C. – A.D. 1650. West Virginia Archeologist 48(1&2): 19-53.

Childress, Valerie (ed.) 2001 Gazetteer of Ohio Streams. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water publication. Accessed on April 17, 2008 at: http://ohiodnr.com/?TabId=4260

Church, Flora 1987 An Inquiry into the Transition from Late Woodland to Late Prehistoric Cultures in the Central Scioto Valley, Ohio, circa A.D. 500 to A.D. 1250. Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University.

City of Columbus, Ohio, Division of Water n.d. Unpublished Well Logs for the Parsons Avenue Treatment Plant.

Clark, Anthony J. 1996 (New Edition) Seeing Beneath the Soil: Prospecting Methods in Archaeology. B.T. Batsford, Ltd., London.

Clay, R. Berle and Steven D. Creasman 1999 Middle Ohio Valley Late Woodland Nucleated Settlements: "Where's the Beef." West Virginia Archeologist 51(1 & 2):1-10.

Collinson, D.W. 1983 Methods in Rock Magnetism and Palaeomagnetism: Techniques and Instrumentation. Chapman and Hall: London.

Cowan, C. Wesley 1985 Understanding the Evolution of Plant Husbandry in Eastern North America: Lessons from Botany, Ethnography and Archaeology. In Prehistoric Food Production in North America, edited by Richard I. Ford, pp. 205-243. Anthropological Papers No. 75 Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Crane, H.R. and J. B. Griffin 1959 University of Michigan Radiocarbon Dates IV. Radiocarbon 1:173-198.

173

Dancey, William S. 1988 The Community Plan of an Early Late Woodland Village in the Middle Scioto River Valley. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 13(2): 223- 258. 1992 Village Origins in Central Ohio: The Results and Implications of Recent Middle and Late Woodland Research. In Cultural Variability in Context; Woodland Settlements of the Mid-Ohio Valley, edited by Mark F. Seeman, pp. 24-29. MCJA Special Paper No. 7. The Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio. 1998 The Value of Surface Archaeological Data in Exploring the Dynamics of Community Evolution in the Middle Ohio Valley. In Surface Archaeology, edited by Alan P. Sullivan III, pp. 3-19. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 2001 Comment on "Middle Ohio Valley Late Woodland Nucleated Settlements: Where's the Beef?," West Virginia Archeologist 53: 25-30. 2001 Errata for Comment on "Middle Ohio Valley Late Woodland Nucleated Settlements: Where's the Beef?." West Virginia Archeologist 53:55.

Dancey, William S., Mary Lou Fricke, and Flora Church 1987 The Water Plant Site and Other Sites in Southeastern Hamilton Township, Franklin County, Ohio. Report prepared for the Ohio Sate Historic Preservation Office, Columbus, Ohio.

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

Dancey, William S. and Mark F. Seeman 2005 Rethinking the Cole Complex, a Post-Hopewellian Archaeological Unit in Central Ohio. In Darlene Applegate & Robert C. Mainfort, Jr. (Eds), Woodland Period Systematics in the Middle Ohio Valley, pp. 134-149. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Darvill, Timothy and Julian Thomas (editors) 2001 Neolithic Enclosures in Atlantic Northwest Europe. Neolithic Studies Group Seminar Papers 6. Oxbow Books, London.

Delcourt, P.A. and H. R. Delcourt 1981 Vegetation Maps for Eastern North America: 40,000 YR B.P. to the Present. In Geobotany II, edited by R.C. Romans, pp. 123-165. Plenum Press, New York.

174

Essenpreis, Patricia S. 1978 Fort Ancient Settlement: Differential Response at a Mississippian –Late Woodland Interface. In Mississippian Settlement Patterns, edited by Bruce D. Smith, pp. 141-167, Academic Press, New York.

Evans, Michael E. and Friedrich Heller 2003 Environmental Magnetism: Principles and Applications of Enviromagnetics. Academic Press, San Diego.

Ford, James A. and Gordon R. Willey 1941 An Interpretation of the Prehistory of the Eastern United States. American Anthropologist 43: 325-363.

Geoscan Research 1994 Instruction Manual 1.01. Instruction manual for Geoscan geophysical instruments. Heather Brae, Chrisharben Park, Clayton, Bradford, West Yorkshire, UK.

GOOGLE EARTH 2007 Google Earth Image of the Water Plant Site. Latitude 39°50'46.12" N 82°58'37" W, February 28, 2007. Accessed online on July 31, 2011.

Greenlee, Diana. M. 2001 Dietary Variation and Village Settlement in the Ohio Valley. In Posing Questions for a Scientific Archaeology, edited by Terry L. Hunt, Carl Phipo, and Sarah L. Sterling, pp. 217-250. Bergin and Garvey, Westport, Connecticut.

Griffin, James B. 1943 Appendix A: Comments on the Classification. In The Fort Ancient Aspect: Its Cultural and Chronological Position in Mississippi Valley Archaeology, pp. 327-341. 1946 Cultural Change and Continuity in Eastern United States Archaeology. In Man in Northeastern North America, edited by Frederick Johnson, pp. 37- 95. Robert S. Peabody Foundation for Archaeology, Papers, III. 1952 The Late Prehistoric Cultures of the Ohio Valley. Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly 61:186-195. 1967 Eastern North American Archaeology: A Summary. Science Vol. 156, Number 3772: 175-191. 1978 Late Prehistory of the Ohio Valley. In Handbook of North American Indians: Northeast, edited by Bruce Trigger, pp. 547-549. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 1983 The Midlands. In Ancient North Americans, edited by Jesse Jennings, pp. 243-301. W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, California.

175

Henderson, A. Gwynn and David Pollack 1985 The Late Woodland Occupation at the Bentley Site. In Woodland Period Research in Kentucky, edited by David Pollack, Thomas Sanders, and Charles Hockensmith, pp. 140-164. Kentucky Heritage Council, Frankfort, Kentucky.

Henderson, A. Gwynn, David Pollack & Christopher A. Turnbow 1992 Chapter XVIII Chronology and Cultural Patterns. In A. Gwynn Henderson, Editor (pp. 253-279), Fort Ancient Cultural Dynamics in the Middle Ohio Valley. Monographs in World Archaeology No. 8. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin.

Herz, Norman and Ervan G. Garrison 1998 Geological Methods for Archaeology. New York: Oxford University Press.

Justice, Noel D. 1995 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Midcontinental and Eastern United States: A Modern Survey and Reference. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Indiana.

Keeley, Lawrence H. 2007 Personal communication via e-mail.

Keeley, Lawrence H., Marisa Fontana and Russell Quick 2007 Baffles and Bastions: The Universal Features of Fortifications. Journal of Archaeological Research (15):55-95.

Kellar, James H. 1960 The C.L. Lewis Stone Mound and the Stone Mound Problem. Prehistory Research Series, Volume III, Number IV. Indiana Historical Society, Indianapolis.

Knox, J.C. 1982 Responses of River Systems to Holocene Climates. In Late Quaternary Evironments of the United States. Volume 2, The Holocene, edited by H.E. Wright, Jr., pp. 26-41. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.

Kreinbrink, Jeannine 1992 The Rogers Site Complex In Boone County, Kentucky. In Current Archaeological Research in Kentucky: Volume Two, edited by David Pollack and A. Gwynn Henderson, pp. 79-102. Kentucky Heritage Council, Frankfort, Kentucky.

176

Lee, Anne B. 1997 Unpublished faunal analysis of Water Plant site faunal remains collected in 1980. 2008 Personal communication and work product in the form of the faunal analysis performed for this dissertation research. 2011 Personal communication and work product in the form of the faunal analysis performed for this dissertation research.

Linick, T.W., P.E. Damon, D. J. Donahue and AJT Jull 1989 Accelerator Mass Spectrometry: The New Revolution in Radiocarbon Dating. Quaternary International 1:1-6. Maslowski, Robert F. and David L. Dawson 1980 Childers (46MS121): A Terminal Late Woodland Village. The West Virginia Archeologist 30(Fall): 4-32.

McKern, W. C. 1939 The Midwestern Taxonomic Method as an Aid to Archaeological Culture Study. American Antiquity 4(4):301-313.

McMichael, Edward V. 1960s Type Descriptions for Newtown Series Ceramics. Reproduced in Railey 1994 as Appendix A, (see citation below).

Metz, Charles L., M.D. 1881 The Prehistoric Monuments of Anderson Township, Hamilton County, Ohio. Journal of the Cincinnati Society of Natural History: 4(3).

Milner, George R. 1999 Warfare in Prehistoric and Early Historic Eastern North America. Journal of Archaeological Research 7(2):105-151. 2000 Palisaded Settlements in Prehistoric Eastern North America. In City Walls: The Urban Enceinte in Global Perspective, edited by James D. Tracy, pp. 46-70. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK. 2007 Warfare, Population, and Food Production in Prehistoric Eastern North America. In North American Indigenous Warfare and Ritual Violence, edited by Richard J. Chacon and Ruben G. Mendoza, pp. 182-201. The University of Arizona Press: Tucson.

Niquette, Charles M. And Myra A. Hughes (editors) 1991 Late Woodland Archaeology at the Parkline Site (46PU99) Putnam County, West Virginia. Cultural Resource Analysts, Inc. Contract Publication Series 90-93.

Niquette, Charles M. and Johathan P. Kerr 1993 Late Woodland Archeology at the Parkline Site, Putnam County, West Virginia. West Virginia Archeologist 45:43-59.

177

Oehler, Charles 1973 Turpin Indians. A Revised Report of the Findings of the Cincinnati Museum of Natural History’s Archaeological Exploration of the Turpin Site, Hamilton County, Ohio 1946-1949. Cincinnati Museum of Natural History Popular Publications Series, No. 1. The Journal of the Cincinnati Museum of Natural History Vol. XXIII No. 2.

Ohio Division of Geological Survey (ODGS) 1998 Physiographic Regions of Ohio. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey, page-size map with text, 2p. Scale 1:2,100,00. 2004 Shaded Drift-Thickness Map of Ohio. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey Map SG-3, generalized page- size version with text, 3p. Scale 1:2,000,000. 2005 Glacial Map of Ohio. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey, page-size map with text, 2p. Scale 1:2,000,000. 2006 Bedrock Geologic Map of Ohio. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey Map BG-1, generalized page-size version with text, 2p. Scale 1:2,000,000.

Ormerod, Dana E. 1983 White Rocks: A Woodland Rockshelter in Monroe County, Ohio. Research Papers in Archaeology 4. Kent State University, Kent, Ohio.

Ottesen, Ann I. 1985 Woodland Settlement Patterns in Northwestern Kentucky. In Woodland Period Research in Kentucky. Edited by David Pollack, Thomas N. Sanders, and Charles D. Hockensmith, pp. 166-186.. Kentucky Heritage Council: Frankfort, Kentucky.

Otto, Martha 2011 Personal conversation regarding the Scioto Trails site.

Parkinson, William A. and Paul R. Duffy 2007 Fortifications and Enclosures in European Prehistory: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. Journal of Archaeological Research (15):97-141.

Pearsall, Deborah M. 2000 Paleoethnobotany: A Handbook of Procedures. Academic Press, San Diego.

Potter, Martha 1966 Cole Ceramics: A Study of Late Woodland Pottery. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.

178

Prufer, Olaf H. 1975 Chesser Cave: A Late Woodland Phase in Southeastern Ohio. In Studies in Ohio Archaeology, edited by Olaf H. Prufer and Douglas H. McKenzie, pp. 1-62. Western Reserve University Press, Cleveland, Ohio.

Prufer, Olaf H. and Douglas H. McKenzie 1966 Peters Cave: Two Woodland Occupations in Ross County, Ohio. The Ohio Journal of Science 66(3):233-253.

Putnam, Frederick 1886 Eighteenth and Nineteenth Annual Reports of the trustees of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology. Vol. III Nos. 5 and 6: 499-500.

Railey, Jimmy A. 1984 The Pyles Site (15MS28) A Newton Village in Mason County, Kentucky. Occasional Paper 1, William S. Webb Archaeological Society, Lexington, Kentucky. 1996 Woodland Cultivators. In Kentucky Archaeology edited by R. Barry Lewis, pp. 79-125. The University Press of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky.

Reidhead, Van A. 1981 A Linear Programming Model of Prehistoric Subsistence Optimization: A Southeastern Indiana Example. Indiana Historical Society Vol. 6, No. 1. Indianapolis, Indiana.

Reidhead, Van A. and W. Frederick Limp 1974 The Haag Site (12D19): A Preliminary Report. Archaeological Bulletin 1:4-18. Indiana Historical Society, Indianapolis, Indiana.

Reynolds, J. M. 1997 An Introduction to Applied and Environmental Geophysics. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

Riggs, Rodney E. 1986 New Stratigraphic Sequences From the Lower Little Miami Valley. West Virginia Archeologist 38(2):1-21. 1998 Ceramics, Chronology and Cultural Change in the Lower Little Miami River Valley, Southwestern Ohio, Circa 100 B.C. to Circa A.D. 1650. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Royce, Karen L. 2006 The Late Woodland Scioto Trails Site (33FR8) in the Middle Ohio River Valley. Paper presented at the Midwest Archaeological Conference, Urbana, Illinois.

179

Schweikart, John F. 2005 The Swinehart Village Site: A Late Woodland Village in the Upper Hocking Valley. In The Emergence of the Moundbuilders: The Archaeology of Tribal Societies in Southeastern Ohio, edited by Elliot M. Abrams and AnnCorinne Freter, pp. 115-125. Ohio University Press: Athens, Ohio.

Scollar, I., A. Tabbagh, A. Hesse, and I. Herzog 1990 Archaeological Prospecting and Remote Sensing. Cambridge University Press.

Seeman, Mark F. and William S. Dancey 2000 The Late Woodland Period in Southern Ohio: Basic Issues and Prospects. In Late Woodland Societies: Tradition and Transformation across the Midcontinent, ed. by T.E. Emerson, D.L. McElrath, and A.C. Fortier, pp. 583-611. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, Nebraska.

Shane, Linda C.K. and Katherine H. Anderson 1993 Intensity, Gradients and Reversals in Late Glacial Environmental Change in East-Central North America. Quarternary Science Reviews 12(5):307- 320.

Shott, Michael J. 1989 Childers, Woods, and Late Woodland Chronology in the Upper Ohio Valley. The West Virginia Archeologist 41(2):27-40. 1992 Radiocarbon Dating as a Probabilistic Technique: The Childers Site and Late Woodland Occupation in the Ohio Valley. American Antiquity 57:202-230.

Shott, Michael J. and Richard W. Jefferies 1992 Late Woodland Economy and Settlement in the Mid-Ohio Valley: Recent results from the Childers/Woods Project. In Cultural Variability in Context, Woddland settlements of the Mid-Ohio Valley, edited by M.F. Seeman, pp. 52-57. MCJA Special Paper No. 7. Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.

Shott, Michael J., Rolfe D. Mandel, Gerald Oetelaar, Nancy O’Malley, Mary L. Powell, and Dee Anne Wymer 1990 Childers and Woods: Two Late Woodland Sites in the Upper Ohio Valley, Mason County, West Virginia. Archaeological Report 200. Program for Cultural Resource Assessment. University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky.

180

Shott, Michael J., Richard W. Jefferies, Gerald Oetelaar, Nancy O’Malley, Mary L. Powell, and Dee Anne Wymer 1993 The Childers Site and Early Late Woodland Cultures of the Upper Ohio Valley. West Virginia Archeologist 45:1-30.

Smith, Bruce D. 1992a The Independent Domestication of Indigenous Seed-Bearing Plants is Eastern North America. In Rivers of Change: Essays on Early Agriculture in Eastern North America, pp. 35-66. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington. [Originally appeared in Emergent Horticultural Economies of the Eastern Woodlands, edited by W. Keegan, (1987): 3-47. Center for Archaeological Investigations Occasional Paper 7. Southern Illinois University at Carbondale.] 1992b Prehistoric Plant Husbandry in Eastern North America. In The Origins of Agriculture: An International Perspective, edited by C.W. Cowan and P.J. Watson, pp. 101-119. Smithsonian Series in Archaeological Inquiry. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.

Starr, S.F 1960 The Archaeology of Hamilton County, Ohio. The Journal of the Cincinnati Museum of Natural History. Vol. XXIII No.1

Stuiver, Minze and Paula J. Reimer 1993 Extended 14C Database and Revised CALIB Radiocarbon Calibration Program. Radiocarbon (350):215-230.

Stuiver, Minze, Paula J. Reimer, and Ron W. Reimer 2005 CALIB 5.0 Radiocarbon Program (Web-based), used in conjunction with above reference.

Thompson, Roy and Frank Oldfield 1986 Environmental Magnetism. Allen & Unwin, London.

Thornbury, William D. 1969 Principles of Geomorphology (Second edition). John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1950 Aerial Photograph BCF-2G- 74, 75. 1976 Aerial Photograph S38-39049-672-46 2008 Web Soil Survey. Accessed on April 17, 2008 at: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx

United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1992 1:24000 Topographic Quadrangle Map, Lockbourne, OH.

181

Weymouth, J.W. and R. Huggins 1985 Geophysical Surveying of Archaeological Sites. In Rapp, G. and J.A. Gifford (eds). Archaeological Geology. Yale University Press, pp. 191- 235.

Wymer, D. 1987 The Paleoethnobotanical Record of Central Ohio – 100 B.C. to A.D. 800: Subsistence Continuity Amid Culture Change. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, The Ohio State University. 1993 Cultural Change and Subsistence: The Middle Woodland and Late Woodland Transition in the Mid-Ohio Valley. In Foraging and Farming in the Eastern Woodlands, edited by C.M. Scarry, pp. 138-156. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Wynn, J.C. 1986 Archaeological Prospection: An Introduction to the Special Issue. Geophysics 51(3):533-537.

Yarnell, R.A. 1986 A Survey of Prehistoric Crop Plants in Eastern North America. The Missouri Archeologist 47:47-59.

182

Tables

183

Site Leonard Lichliter Rogers Turpin Sand Scioto Water Characteristic Haag Village Complex Farm Ridge Pyles* Trails Plant Bentley Hansen Parkline Childers Multicomponents Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Estimated size 2.4 ha unk 2.6 ha unk unk 1.4 ha 1 ha 3.2 ha 1.2 ha 6 ha unk unk Chesser points Y Y Y Y Y Y Discoids Y Y Y Y Ceramics** Newt. Newt. Newt. Newt. Newt. Newt. Cole Newt. Newt + Newt. Child/Pk Child. Shoulders*** Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Domesticates Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Human Remains Y Y Y Y Y Mounds Y Y Y Y Y? Y Y Structures(No.) Y (4) Y (1) Y (3) Y(1) Y (2) Y (4) Y (1) Size 14.6m unk 7.6-11m 10m 10-15m 5.5-7.1m 3.2-4.2m Ditch/Embankment Y Y (2) Y Notes: A blank indicates that details are not published. Y = Yes, characteristic is present. A number after the Y indicates the number of such characteristics. A ? indicates no current evidence of occurrence. N = No, characteristic is not present. ha = hectares; m = meters unk = unknown * The Pyles site has a vacant center to the site. ** Newt. = Newtown; Newt. + = Newtown plus several other types; Child. = Childers; Pk. = Parkline; Cole = Cole

1 *** Shoulders = Shoulders on ceramic vessels. 8

4 Mounds = presence does not necessarily indicate a Late Woodland association. References: Leonard Haag: Reidhead and Limp 1974; Reidhead 1981. Lichliter Villager: Allman 1957. Rogers Complex: Kreinbrink 1972. Turpin Farms: Griffin 1952; Oehler 1973; Riggs 1986. Sand Ridge: Putnam 1886; Griffin 1943; Starr 1960; Railey 1984; Riggs 1984, 1986. Pyles: Railey 1984. Scioto Trails: Potter 1996; Church 1987; Wymer 1987; Dancey 1988; Shott 1989; Dancey 1988; Carr and Haas 1996; Seeman and Dancey 2000. Water Plant: Church 1987; Wymer 1987; Dancey et al. 1987; Dancey 1988, 1992. Bentley: Henderson and Pollack 1985. Hansen: Ahler 1988. Parkline: Niquette and Hughes 1991; Niquette and Kerr 1993. Childers: Maslowski and Dawson 1980; Shott et al. 1980; Shott 1989, 1992; Shott et al. 1993.

Table 1. Summary of Early Late Woodland Sites in the Middle Ohio River Valley

184

Latin Name Common Name Amaranthus hypochondriacus amaranth Carya hickory Chenopodium spp. goosefoot Corylus spp. hazelnut Curcubita pepo squash Fragaria strawberry Galium bedstraw Helianthus annuus sunflower Iva annua sumpweed Juglandaceae family walnut family Juglans nigra black walnut Lagenaria siceraria bottle gourd Lamium amplexicaule henbit or deadnettle Nicotiana rustica tobacco 1 8

5 Phalaris caroliniania maygrass Phaseolus vulgaris beans Polygonum spp knotweed Quercus oak Rhus sumac Rubus black berry Solanum nigrum black nightshade Stellaria chickweed Vitis grape Zea maize corn

Table 2. List of Paleoethnobotantical Materials and Their Common Names

185

Uncalibrated Location Lab Sample Conventional Midpoint 2σ Calibrated Number Number Radiocarbon Uncalibrated Radiocarbon Sample Reference Years (B.P.)1 Calendar Date2 Calendar Date Range3 F 12 B-15506 1450 ± 80 AD 500 AD 420 – AD 694 Church 1987, Dancey et al. 1987 F 21 B-15507 1330 ± 70 AD 620 AD 597 – AD 876 Church 1987, Dancey et al. 1987 F 76 B-15508 1450 ± 70 AD 500 AD 431 – AD 679 Church 1987, Dancey et al. 1987 F 90 SMU-1973 1280 ± 102 AD 670 AD 596 – AD 980 Carr and Haas 1996 A 20 Beta-234099 1290 ± 40 AD 660 AD 653 – AD 783 Royce, this document A 34 Beta-234100 1280 ± 40 AD 670 AD 658 – AD 783 Royce, this document Ditch U2 Beta-234105 1240 ± 40 AD 710 AD 680 – AD 883 Royce, this document Ditch U5 Beta-234106 1360 ± 40 AD 590 AD 606 – AD 717 Royce, this document A 81 Posts Beta-234101 1360 ± 40 AD 590 AD 606 – AD 717 Royce, this document A 110 Beta-234103 1240 ± 40 AD 710 AD 680 – AD 882 Royce, this document A 81 Pit Beta-234102 3210 ± 40 1260 BC 1538 BC – 1410 BC Royce, this document A 116 Beta-234104 3810 ± 40 1860 BC 2351 BC – 2137 BC Royce, this document 18

6 1

B.P. = Years before present, with "present: as a date of 1950. 2 Simple midpoint date based on the uncalibrated radiocarbon years. 3 Calibrated calendar date rage dates were derived by calibrating the dates using CALIB 5.0 (Stuiver et al. 2005). The 2σ (95% confidence) range is given above. When there were multiple ranges, the range for the greatest amount of the sample is given.

Table 3. Radiocarbon Dates for the Water Plant Site.

186

Anomaly # Peak Intensity (nT)a Anomaly Classb #of Transects Probingc Projected Target 1 8.46 MP 4 F-G 2 11.85 MP 4 N 3 7.16 MP 4 G-E 4 +17.52/-5.41 DS-B 4 G-E 5 13.04 MP 4 F-G 6 5.33 MP-D 4 G-E 7 5.38 MP-D 3 N 8 7.41 MP 3 G 9 7.7 MP-D 4 N 10 6.83 MP 4 G-E 11 7.12 MP 4 G 12 5.9 MP 4 F-G 13 9.29 MP-D 5 N 14 6.65 MP-D 5 F 15 7.72 MP 2 N 18 16 5.32 MP-D 3 F 7

17 11.27 MP 3 G 18 5.24 MP 2 F 19 +11.52/-5.53 DS-B 4 E 20 7.07 MP 5 E 21 10.45 MP/DC 5-6 E unknown 22 16.67 MP 3 N 23 5.4 MP-D 4 F 24 +10.51/-4.16 DS 4 F 25 8.92 MP 5 F 26 8.95 MP 3 E 27 6.91 MP 3 G 28 4.36 MP 2-3 F 29 7.72 MP 3 E 30 19.43 MP 5 N 31 +12.64/-5.56 DS 4 N possible rock Continued Table 4. Anomaly Probe Data

187

Table 4 continued Anomaly # Peak Intensity (nT)a Anomaly Classb #of Transects Probingc Projected Target 32 7.49 MP 3 F 33 6.65 MP 4 E 34 +16.64/ -4.65 DS 4 E 35 11.01 MP 4 E 36 9.61 MP 2 F-G probable rock 37 +9.29/-6.40 DS 8-9 N excavation unit? 38 +29.8/-3.13 DS 3 N Rock/Iron 39 +8.45/-4.13 DS-B 3-4 E 40 6.63 MP 4 E 41 8.79 MP 3 N 42 +11.7/-4.84 DS 5 N 43 5.57 MP 4 G 44 15.52 MP 7-8 N excavation unit? 45 5.83 MP-D 4-5 N

18 46 4.18 MP-D 5 N 8

47 +8.4/-4.26 DS 4 N probable rock/iron 48 9.14 MP 4 E 49 33.47/-2.31 DS-B 4 N probable iron 50 12.37 MP 7 E 51 +7.38/-4.03 DS 4 E 52 +4.07/-4.09 DS-D 7 N 53 8.37 MP-D 3 E 54 9.54 MP 3 E 55 6.73 MP 4 E Ochre? 56 +21.29/-2.8 DS 4 E 57 6.41 MP 3 F 58 5.47 MP-D 3 G 59 13.67 MP 5 E 60 6.28 MP-D 3 G 61 6.17 MP-D 5 N 62 5.29 MP-D 3 N Continued

188

Table 4 continued Anomaly # Peak Intensity (nT)a Anomaly Classb #of Transects Probingc Projected Target 63 5.81 MP 2 N 64 +20.57/-5.92 DS-B 4 N 65 7.78 MP-D 3 N 66 +12.81/-3.23 DS 3 G-E 67 6.25 MP 7-L F-G 68 10.36 MP 3 G 69 7.07 MP 5 E 70 4.95 MP 3 N 71 3.6 MP 2 N 72 3.7 MP 2 N 73 +14.02/-4.53 DS 4 N 74 11.57 MP-D 3 N probable rock/iron 75 5.94 MP 5 N 76 6.31 MP 4 N 77 7 MP 3 N 78 +7.52/-6.07 DS 4 N 79 14.91 MP 3 G-E

1 80 +19.25/-5.15 DS-B 4-5 E 89 81 22.24 MP 4-5 E

82 9.83 MP 2 G-E 83 Not sampled 84 Not sampled 85 15.12 MP 4-5 F-G 86 10.03 MP 8-L N 87 9.76 MP 3 F-G 88 5.5 MP-D 3 N 89 9.62 MP 4-5 F 90 8.77 MP 3 G 91 27.49 MP 5 E 92 +16.12/-3.95 DS 5 E 93 6.33 MP-D 4 F Continued

189

Table 4 continued Anomaly # Peak Intensity (nT)a Anomaly Classb #of Transects Probingc Projected Target 94 6.65 MP 2 F-G 95 19.19 MP 3 F-G 96 +8.58/-6.75 DS 5 G-E 97 4.43 MP-D 3 F 98 6.38 MP 3 F 99 8.14 MP 4 E 100 9.06 MP 3 F 101 7.04 MP 5-L N 102 14.77 MP 3 F-G 103 5.83 MP 3 N 104 5.22 MP 3 N 105a 5.69 MP 5-6-L N 1

9 105 19.06 MP 5 E 0

106 +12.94/-3.58 DS 4 E 107 5.5 MP-D 2 N 108 +20.02/-3.1 DS 5 E 109 7.16 MP 3 N 110 +9.17/-4.56 DS 4-5 E 111 +27.45/-8.22 DS 4 N 112 9.14 MP 3-4 F 113 +9.77/-4.1 DS 3 N 114 4.94 MP 3 F 115 6.08 MP 5-6-L F-G 116 6.07 MP 4 E 117 6.63 MP 5-L N 118 7.5 MP 3 E 119 7.62 MP 5 F 120 +29.38/-23.08 DS 3 N iron object 121 5.65 MP-D 4 N 122 6.11 MP 4 N 123 5.61 MP 3 N Continued

190

Table 4 continued 124 15.07 MP 2 E rock 125 14.31 MP 4 E 126 9.33 MP-D 3 N 127 14.63 MP 4 E 128 12.1 MP 6 F-G 129 16.84 MP 4 E 130 16.97 MP 4 E 131 8.34 MP 3 G-E 132 6.89 MP 3 N 133 5.58 MP 5 N 134 5.9 MP-D 6 N 135 5.39 MP 5 N

a - Peak intensity recorded from magnetic gradient data after processing with Zero Mean Traverse. b – MP=Monopolar Positive; MP-D=Monopolar Positive-Diffuse; MN=Monopolar Negative; DS=Dipolar Simple; DS-B=Dipolar Simple-Bullseye, DC=Dipolar Complex 1 9

1 c – Probing evaluation based on six-tier scale: Nothing Observed (NO), Fair, Fair-Good, Good, Good-Excellent, Excellent.

191

North East x(lf) XFD North East x(lf) XFD North East x(lf) XFD 940 1010 14.06 6.42 1020 1020 15.56 6.75 953 1030 14.73 5.69 1120 1040 10.40 7.64 980 1020 13.27 7.17 960 1000 16.82 7.20 1100 1050 10.66 6.83 960 1010 14.36 6.75 1080 1090 13.02 6.25 1000 1060 17.84 4.50 1020 1000 14.13 9.59 1020 1030 19.25 6.27 1120 1050 9.55 8.05 1080 1010 11.79 7.07 1120 1100 9.44 7.28 1140 1030 10.54 5.64 1080 1020 11.46 6.63 1020 1040 17.01 5.63 1120 1000 12.75 6.84 1140 1120 12.94 6.28 968 1040 14.70 6.56 1140 1020 14.21 5.09 1060 1060 17.12 5.99 1060 1060 13.08 7.69 1060 1100 12.78 5.80 985 1050 20.26 4.43 1120 1070 8.47 7.97 1100 1010 11.22 7.43 1100 1000 9.74 7.48 940 970 13.37 7.80 1080 1020 11.07 6.82 980 1010 16.36 6.48 1000 1020 16.81 5.47 1100 1030 11.99 5.18 920 1010 16.10 6.05 1000 1030 12.26 6.45 1140 1000 10.07 6.67 1000 1040 13.52 5.94 1050 1090 15.30 5.06 1100 1080 8.70 7.86 1060 1010 13.58 8.33 1093 1110 13.39 5.78

1 1040 1040 16.77 6.15 1000 1010 18.40 6.62 1140 1040 11.33 6.38 9 2

1080 1030 14.44 6.41 1120 1030 10.23 5.14 1100 1110 10.36 5.71 1140 1050 9.85 6.92 1040 1010 14.2 8.48 1080 1060 12.46 8.72 1080 1050 13.38 7.62 1040 1020 18.99 5.67 960 980 18.48 8.22 1080 1040 15.03 6.52 1140 1070 9.09 7.38 1000 970 13.35 7.44 1040 980 14.40 6.99 1120 1010 12.17 6.57 1083 1120 6.61 3.48 960 1020 15.57 6.15 1020 1050 15.74 5.49 980 970 13.56 8.33 933 1020 17.39 5.71 1060 1050 17.09 6.02 1060 980 14.25 6.72 1020 1060 17.57 5.05 1060 1020 14.46 8.75 940 980 13.53 7.26 1040 1030 16.69 5.62 1120 1020 11.36 5.98 920 980 12.51 7.18 910 1010 16.71 4.42 900 980 13.80 6.99 980 1030 15.06 6.56 1140 1010 10.57 6.02 1080 1100 12.89 6.54 1060 1090 13.91 5.37 1040 1060 17.50 5.86 960 990 13.96 8.30 1080 1080 11.05 8.47 960 1030 13.65 5.99 940 1020 13.94 6.96 1100 1090 8.44 7.80 Continued Table 5. Magnetic Susceptibility Data

192

Table 5 continued North East x(lf) XFD North East x(lf) XFD North East x(lf) XFD 1000 1050 21.58 4.69 1080 1070 13.07 8.29 1100 1120 10.83 4.40 1020 1010 13.85 8.80 1060 1040 16.06 6.96 1140 980 9.78 6.78 1120 1090 8.33 7.86 960 960 13.60 8.07 1020 940 11.66 6.37 1140 1100 10.30 6.94 1040 960 12.04 8.26 940 960 13.02 9.28 980 1040 17.05 5.67 1060 950 13.09 5.24 1100 980 10.00 7.18 1060 1080 15.08 5.62 980 950 12.44 6.39 968 1000 13.96 5.51 1120 1110 10.80 6.35 1120 1120 11.35 6.44 920 940 13.51 8.09 873 980 16.36 6.04 1100 960 10.11 5.59 1020 840 9.14 9.38 1040 1080 16.02 5.84 1140 1080 8.51 9.09 1020 890 11.28 6.13 1100 1070 9.41 7.55 880 970 12.59 7.66 920 1000 13.65 6.58 1040 1050 17.72 6.76 1020 950 11.47 7.39 980 990 17.77 8.14 1140 1110 11.93 5.24 880 980 11.63 6.74 1140 990 12.25 5.96 1020 1060 15.77 5.28 1080 970 9.94 7.47 1120 960 11.58 5.19 1060 1070 15.81 6.44 1040 970 13.43 7.62 1060 990 13.59 7.32 900 970 15.46 5.95 1080 980 11.40 6.15 960 940 12.69 8.23 1060 970 12.60 7.51 1000 980 13.81 8.62 1000 870 11.69 6.33

1 1120 1080 8.46 8.76 1060 960 11.98 6.13 940 1000 15.85 5.86 9 3

1100 1060 7.89 8.89 1080 1000 11.22 5.94 980 960 14.89 6.93 920 970 13.25 7.59 900 960 17.02 4.47 1020 990 13.41 9.32 1100 1040 10.79 6.78 960 970 15.36 9.30 1100 940 10.16 7.22 1040 1070 16.67 5.56 1020 980 11.20 8.56 1060 940 11.40 5.39 1100 1100 7.95 6.82 900 950 13.91 5.47 980 980 16.35 8.79 1140 1090 8.25 8.03 1120 970 13.51 5.51 900 1000 14.84 5.19 865 990 14.00 5.80 893 950 11.70 6.10 1040 940 11.60 6.12 1100 970 9.26 6.79 960 950 12.69 8.47 1080 960 9.83 7.30 880 1000 16.45 4.95 940 940 14.26 7.97 1080 950 9.04 8.07 1000 990 14.02 9.57 980 1000 15.76 7.46 1000 1000 15.60 8.42 1120 1060 9.39 6.54 885 960 14.67 7.04 1140 960 11.66 6.09 1000 940 12.44 7.01 1120 990 11.52 6.83 1120 980 10.16 6.45 Continued

193

Table 5 continued North East x(lf) XFD North East x(lf) XFD North East x(lf) XFD 1060 1030 14.56 6.42 960 990 15.64 6.07 980 940 12.84 6.19 1040 1060 8.63 7.97 1100 950 6.311 6.31 1080 990 10.98 5.97 1000 960 13.08 7.56 900 940 11.30 6.50 1040 990 14.60 7.00 880 990 15.17 5.75 980 870 14.67 5.56 960 920 11.94 6.31 1080 930 11.32 7.61 1040 1000 14.25 7.26 1020 910 9.53 6.04 1020 960 10.53 8.54 1000 920 9.36 8.13 953 870 10.49 6.28 920 990 13.30 2.99 980 880 13.20 5.63 1000 890 12.45 6.11 1100 990 9.49 7.83 1000 860 10.05 6.35 940 900 11.49 7.21 1080 940 8.24 8.00 960 870 12.28 6.47 980 930 10.71 7.65 1080 920 11.16 7.43 1020 860 9.68 7.26 933 900 10.99 7.50 960 860 10.53 7.82 1020 870 11.75 5.77 1020 930 8.79 6.88 980 920 10.99 7.41 980 910 9.67 7.87 940 930 13.44 7.60 980 860 12.96 5.60 920 990 13.28 6.81 960 930 12.73 7.14

1 1040 950 12.81 7.17 980 900 10.94 7.49 960 910 12.50 8.89 9

4 1020 970 10.49 8.81 1040 930 11.38 5.86 960 900 12.99 7.95 980 850 12.29 7.27 940 920 12.61 7.49 960 890 13.55 6.45 970 850 10.77 5.52 947 880 12.27 5.86 1000 900 12.73 6.30 940 950 14.07 8.68 1060 930 11.06 5.56 1040 910 9.17 7.27 1000 950 14.04 6.80 1060 920 9.84 8.24 910 930 11.06 7.54 920 960 12.47 6.03 940 890 12.33 6.72 1020 900 11.60 5.50 1000 840 10.55 8.38 1020 920 8.83 8.23 1040 900 8.26 7.24 1000 850 10.96 7.18 960 880 14.83 5.68 1000 910 10.32 6.67 920 950 14.49 6.34 1000 930 10.77 7.11 940 910 11.32 8.47 980 890 12.82 5.29 1000 880 14.07 5.64 920 920 13.55 6.01 1020 850 10.38 4.17 1020 880 12.42 5.93 927 910 12.57 6.22 980 840 11.54 6.11 1040 920 11.09 7.35 1120 970 10.55 6.25 920 930 14.75 6.74 x(lf) = Mass magnetic susceptibility value, to the nearest 100th decimal place in units of m3kg-1. XFD = Frequency magnetic susceptibility value, to the nearest 100th decimal place in units of m3kg-1. North and East coordinates are the current arbitrary site grid units in meters.

194

Rating Category Description Excellent (Black) Burnt earth, charcoal, bone, pottery, lithic fragments or stained soil present. Good-Excellent (Black) Same as excellent but relatively less. Good (Red) Some of the excellent category properties present. Burnt earth, charcoal and/or stained soil present. Fair (Green) Some to little burnt earth, charcoal or stained soil present and artifacts may be present Poor (Yellow) Little to no burnt earth , charcoal or stained soil present or other artifacts present. Nothing in probe (no color) No brunt earth, charcoal, or soil stained soil present and no artifacts in soil.

1 9 5

Table 6. Anomaly Probing Rating Categories

195

Sample Context Level1 Total Wt.2 Wood3 Wt.2 Juglandaceae3 Wt.2 Juglans nigra3 Wt.2 A20lf SWQ 30-40 56.33 752 11.58 153 1.11 37 0.83 A20hf SWQ 30-40 5.40 72 2.92 1 0.03 0 0 A34lf SEQ 40-53 10.49 225 2.01 12 0.17 1 0.00 A34hf SEQ 40-53 1.50 44 1.16 0 0 0 0 A81lf NWQ 0-10 6.04 70 0.54 0 0 0 0 A81lf NWQ 40-50 2.20 6 0.03 0 0 0 0 A81hf NWQ 40-50 0.08 7 0.05 1 0.01 0 0 A81lf F. Arm 40-50 6.27 112 2.33 2 0.01 0 0 A81hf F. Arm 40-50 1.55 92 1.21 3 0.01 1 0.04 A110lf SWQ 30-40 41.06 1454 16.07 38 0.24 8 0.06 A110hf SWQ 30-40 8.97 168 4.46 1 0.01 3 1.65 A116lf SEQ 0-10 0.80 10 0.05 5 0.02 0 0 A116hf SEQ 0-10 0.43 18 0.41 1 0.02 0 0 19

6 A116lf SH 30-40 2.11 18 1.58 2 0.01 0 0 A116hf SH 30-40 0.15 7 0.08 1 0.00 2 0.02 U2TAlf SH 60-70 13.65 150 1.77 1 0.01 0 0 U2TAhf SH 60-70 3.66 334 2.94 17 0.08 0 0 U5SDlf X 50-60 3.21 0 0 0 0 0 0 U5Tlf X 0-10 11.41 8 0.05 1 0.00 0 0 U5Thf X 0-10 0.06 17 0.06 1 0.00 0 0 Totals 175.37 3564 49.38 240 1.74 52 2.60 Continued

Table 7. Summary of Paleoethnobotanical Analysis

196

Table 7 continued

Sample Level1 Carya3 Wt.2 Corylus3 Wt.2 Quercus3 Wt.2 Cucurbita pepo3 Wt.2 A20lf 30-40 227 4.4 49 0.52 47 0.09 7 0.01 A20hf 30-40 17 1.18 8 0.31 1 0.04 0 0 A34lf 40-53 5 0.02 3 0.05 4 0.00 5 0.00 A34hf 40-53 9 0.25 1 0.04 0 0 0 0 A81lf 0-10 0 0 19 0.25 1 0.00 0 0 A81lf 40-50 0 0 1 0.01 0 0 0 0 A81hf 40-50 1 0.02 0 0 0 0 0 0 A81lf 40-50 0 0 2 0.01 0 0 1 0.00 A81hf 40-50 5 0.08 0 0 0 0 1 0.01 30-40 181 1.72 15 0.16 20 0.02 17 0.01

19 A110lf

7 A110hf 30-40 29 1.18 1 0.01 0 0 0 0 A116lf 0-10 2 0.05 0 0 0 0 0 0 A116hf 0-10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A116lf 30-40 5 0.04 0 0 0 0 0 0 A116hf 30-40 6 0.05 0 0 0 0 0 0 U2TAlf 60-70 5 0.06 2 0.01 0 0 0 0 U2TAhf 60-70 10 0.14 5 0.04 0 0 0 0 U5SDlf 50-60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U5Tlf 0-10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U5Thf 0-10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 502 9.20 106 1.41 73 0.15 31 0.04 Continued

197

Table 7 continued

Phalaris Sample Level1 Chenopodium3 Wt.2 Polygonum3 Wt.2 caroliniana3 Wt.2 Rhus3 Wt.2 A20lf 30-40 10 0.01 131 0.15 10 0.00 19 0.04 A20hf 30-40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A34lf 40-53 12 0.01 4 0.01 9 0.00 0 0 A34hf 40-53 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A81lf 0-10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A81lf 40-50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A81hf 40-50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A81lf 40-50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

19 A81hf 40-50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8 A110lf 30-40 53 0.02 3 0.00 214 0.07 12 0.02

A110hf 30-40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A116lf 0-10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A116hf 0-10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A116lf 30-40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A116hf 30-40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U2TAlf 60-70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U2TAhf 60-70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U5SDlf 50-60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U5Tlf 0-10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U5Thf 0-10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 75 0.03 138 0.16 233 0.08 31 0.07 Continued

198

Table 7 continued

Solanum Nicotiana Sample Level1 nigrum3 Wt.2 rustica3 Wt.2 Rubus3 Wt.2 Fragaria3 Wt.2 A20lf 30-40 2 0.00 9 0.00 6 0.00 2 0.00 A20hf 30-40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A34lf 40-53 3 0.00 1 0.00 0 0 0 0 A34hf 40-53 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A81lf 0-10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A81lf 40-50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A81hf 40-50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A81lf 40-50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A81hf 40-50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 199 A110lf 30-40 6 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 0 0 A110hf 30-40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A116lf 0-10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A116hf 0-10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A116lf 30-40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A116hf 30-40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U2TAlf 60-70 0 0 0 0 1 0.00 0 0 U2TAhf 60-70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U5SDlf 50-60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U5Tlf 0-10 0 0 0 0 1 0.00 0 0 U5Thf 0-10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 11 0.00 11 0.00 9 0.01 2 0.00 Continued

199

Table 7 continued

Lamium Sample Level1 Vitis3 Wt.2 Gallium3 Wt.2 amplexicaule3 Wt.2 Stellaria3 Wt.2 A20lf 30-40 5 0.02 2 0.09 1 0.00 0 0 A20hf 30-40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A34lf 40-53 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0.00 A34hf 40-53 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A81lf 0-10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A81lf 40-50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 A81hf 40-50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A81lf 40-50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A81hf 40-50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A110lf 30-40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A110hf 30-40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A116lf 0-10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A116hf 0-10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A116lf 30-40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A116hf 30-40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U2TAlf 60-70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U2TAhf 60-70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U5SDlf 50-60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U5Tlf 0-10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U5Thf 0-10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 5 0.02 2 0.09 1 0.00 4 0.00 Continued

200

Table 7 continued

Sample Level1 Grass3 Wt.2 Unknown Seed3 Wt.2 A20lf 30-40 1 0.00 158 0.14 A20hf 30-40 0 0 0 0 A34lf 40-53 0 0 22 0.01 A34hf 40-53 0 0 0 0 A81lf 0-10 0 0 0 0 A81lf 40-50 0 0 0 0 A81hf 40-50 0 0 0 0 A81lf 40-50 0 0 3 0.00 A81hf 40-50 0 0 0 0 201 A110lf 30-40 0 0 124 0.05

A110hf 30-40 0 0 0 0 A116lf 0-10 0 0 0 0 A116hf 0-10 0 0 0 0 A116lf 30-40 0 0 0 0 A116hf 30-40 0 0 0 0 U2TAlf 60-70 0 0 3 0.00 U2TAhf 60-70 0 0 0 0 U5SDlf 50-60 0 0 0 0 U5Tlf 0-10 0 0 0 0 U5Thf 0-10 0 0 0 0 Totals 1 0.00 310 0.20

lf = light fraction hf = heavy fraction 1Level = centimeters below the plow zone 2Wt. = weight in grams, rounded to the 100th decimal place 3Count of the seeds/plant remain.

201

Excavation Unit Count Taxon/Common Name Taphonomy-Animal Cultural Modification1 Mammal, Bird, Turtle, Fish/Amphibian, Amphibian/Reptile, White-Tailed deer, 2 digested, 17 with Anomaly 20 3612 Eastern Box and Softshelled Turtle, Elk, 6; 1 with puncture, 1 antler carnivore damage Raccoon, Frog/Toad, American Beaver, Bony fish, Ray-finned fish 18 with carnivore Mammal, Bird, Amphibian, Fish, Frog, damage, 1 digested, 1 Turtle, White-Tailed deer, Eastern Box 19; 6 with cut marks; Anomaly 34 1516 antler and skunk turtle, bony fish, Frog/Toad, small incised groove on antler mandible with carnivore, Canine family, Striped skunk carnivore damage Anomaly 81 Pit 0 Anomaly 81 (arm) 33 Mammal (small to large)

20 Anomaly 110 Mammal, Turtle, Rodent, Fish, Bird, Canis, 2

Fish, Amphibian/Reptile, White-Tailed deer, Eastern Box and Softshelled turtle, 3173 5 carnivore damage 15 Catfish family, groundhog, raccoon, squirrel, Frog/Toad, Snake, Grey Wolf (tentative), Bobcat (tentative) Anomaly 116 0 Trench Unit 2 67 Mammal (small to large), Deer family 2 Trench Unit 3 61 Mammal (small to large) Trench Unit 4 2 Mammal (medium)

1 = Cut marks, polishing, shaping, etc.

Table 8. Summary of Faunal Analysis

202

Unmeasured Wt. Measured Thickness Diagnostic or Other Excavation Unit Wt. (g) Sherds (g) Sherds (mm) Characteristics Some cross-marked, 6 incised, 38 rims, 8 cordmarked in and out, 1 Anomaly 20 1,071 5,397 1,014 >4,340 6.5 neck, 6 shoulders, 3 inner shoulder, 1 punched 12 rims, 4 bases, 2 necks, 2 inner Anomaly 34 253 206 314 1,582 6.6 shoulders, 2 shoulders

Anomaly 81 (Pit) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Anomaly 81 (Arm) 17 14 28 96 6.6 0

Anomaly 81 (Post 3) 1 1 6 18 6.7 0

35 rims, 3 shoulders, 2 inner Anomaly 110 1,207 1,197 1,037 >4,775 6.2 shoulders, 2 cordmarked in and out Anomaly 116 12 15 2 16 13.1 All very eroded Trench Unit 2 50 52 115 493 7.1 1 rim, 1 shoulder Trench Unit 3 103 106 137 633 7.1 2 rims, 1 incised

20 Trench Unit 4 27 34 45 371 7.8 0 3

Wt. (g) = Weight in grams Thickness (mm) = Average thickness in millimeters

Table 9. Summary of Ceramic Data

203

Plow Location Dimensions Depth Shape/Comments Zone Anomaly 20 Almost rectangular, with curved borders; 3.2 x 3.9 0.45 0.30 gently sloping sides Anomaly 34 1.65 x 1.6 0.58 0.26 Almost circular but compressed; steep sides Anomaly 81 (Pit) 1.9 x 1.8 0.65 0.27 Almost square but oval; steep sides. Anomaly 81 (Arm/Trench) 0.35 0.65 0.27 Seven posts. Anomaly 110 Oblong oval; more sloped on E-W profile 3.1 x 3.55 0.44 0.28 and steeper on N-S profile Anomaly 116 Oval, almost circular; steep sides; feature at 1.2 x 1.45 0.38 0.27 base Trench (Ditch) 4.4 wide 0.60 0.30 Four layers in profile Trench (Posts) East profile was less wide and shallower 20 0.35 to 0.50 wide 0.45 to 0.55 0.30

4 than West profile

Dimensions, Depth and Plow Zone are in meters. Depth is in meters below the plow zone.

Table 10. Summary of Anomaly Excavation Dimensions

204

Location Ground Stone Projectile Points/Tools Other Anomaly 20 Fragments, 3 possible 1 drill tip, 1 blank/preform, 1 Chesser, discoids 2 broken unidentified, 1 whole unidentified Anomaly 34 Fragments 1 narrow tip, 1 Chesser, 1 Lowe, 1 Projectile point shaped rock of Brewerton Eared-Notched metamorphic rock material Anomaly 81 (Pit) Fragments, small celt 1 Merom, 1 flat awl (?) fragment 1 worked flake (?) and 1 small core fragment, discoid (?) Anomaly 81 (Arm) Fragments (?), 1 with None grooves Anomaly 110 2 fragments small to 2 Chesser, 3 Lowe, 1 Kramer, 2 medium celts, ¾ another blanks/preforms, 1 Snyders, 1

20 celt, discoid Brewerton Eared-Notched, 1 long tip 5

of unknown type, 3 unidentified Anomaly 116 Fragments None Delaware chert fragments Trench Unit 2 Fragments (?) None Trench Unit 3 Fragments (?) 1 unidentified Trench Unit 4 Fragments (?) None

Chesser (5) = terminal Middle Woodland and Late Woodland (Justice 1995:210, 213-214) Lowe (4) = terminal Middle Woodland (Justice 1995:210, 212-213) Brewerton Eared-Notched (2) = Late Archaic (Justice 1995:122-124) Kramer (1) = Early Woodland (Justice 1995:184-185, 187) Snyders (1) = Middle Woodland (Justice 1995:201-204) Merom (1) = Late Archaic (Justice 1995:130-132)

Table 11. Ground Stone, Projectile Points and Other Rock Artifacts from Anomaly Excavation Locations

205

Location Description 1 Piece of weathered shoe sole (?) - Recent 2 Deer (?) tooth 3 Broken projectile point – Unidentified 4 Broken projectile point – Unidentified 5 Chesser projectile point 6 Broken projectile point – Unidentified 7 Preform or blank 8 Broken projectile point – Kirk Corner Notched 9 Broken projectile point – Chesser Notched 10 Flake 11 Broken projectile point – Lamoka (?) 12 Preform or blank 13 Base of projectile point – Unidentified 14 Base of projectile point – Unidentified

20 15 Projectile point missing base – Unidentified

6 16 Chesser projectile point

17 Broken projectile point – Unidentified 18 Broken projectile point – Unidentified 19 Kramer (?) projectile point 20 Ceramic sherd 21 Broken projectile point – Unidentified 22 Ceramic sherd 23 Broken projectile point – Unidentified 24 Ground stone tool fragment 25 Ceramic sherd 26 Preform or blank 27 Ceramic sherd 28 Ceramic sherd Continued Table 12. Surface-collected Artifacts

206

Table 12 continued 29 Midshaft part of drill 30 Broken projectile point – Unidentified 31 Flake 32 Broken Chesser Notched projectile point 33 Stanley Stemmed projectile point 34 Base of a projectile point – Unidentified 35 Broken projectile point – Unidentified 36 Discoid fragment (?) 37 Drill (?) fragment 38 Broken projectile point – Unidentified 39 Discoid fragment (?) 40 Broken Lowe projectile point 41 Broken projectile point – Unidentified

20 42 Discoid of metamorphic rock 7

Anomaly 77 Ceramic sherd, thick and very weathered

Kirk Corner Notched (1) = Early Archaic (Justice 1995:71-74) Chesser (4) = terminal Middle Woodland and Late Woodland (Justice 1995:210, 213-214) Lamoka (1) = Late Archaic (Justice 1995:127-130) Kramer (1) = Early Woodland (Justice 1995:184-185, 187) Stanley Stemmed (1) = Middle Archaic (Justice 1995:97-99) Lowe (1) = terminal Middle Woodland (Justice 1995:210, 212-213)

207

Uncalibrated Midpoint 2 σ Calibrated Sample Laboratory Conventional Uncalibrated Calendar Date Site Location Number Radiocarbon Calendar Range using Years (BP)1 Date2 CALIB3 F12 WP4 B-15506 1450 ± 80 AD 500 AD 420 – AD 694 F21 WP4 B-15507 1330 ± 70 AD 620 AD 597 – AD 876 F76 WP4 B-15508 1450 ± 70 AD 500 AD 431 – AD 679 F90 WP5 SMU-1973 1280 ± 102 AD 670 AD 596 – AD 980 A20 WP6 B-234099 1290 ± 40 AD 660 AD 653 – AD 783 A34 WP6 B-234100 1280 ± 40 AD 670 AD 658 – AD 783 Ditch U2 WP6 B-234105 1240 ± 40 AD 710 AD 680 – AD 882 Ditch U5 WP6 B-234106 1360 ± 40 AD 590 AD 606 – AD 717 A81 WP6 B-234101 1360 ± 40 AD 590 AD 606 – AD 717 Posts A110 WP6 B-234103 1240 ± 40 AD 710 AD 680 – AD 882 5T ST5 SMU-1964 1448 ± 40 AD 502 AD 548 – AD 656 12 ST5 ETH-3067 1435 ± 80 AD 515 AD 428 – AD 714 5M ST5 B-4348 1330 ± 60 AD 620 AD 602 – AD 784 5B ST5 B-4349 1200 ± 60 AD 750 AD 682 – AD 905 6 ST5 B-4350 1170 ± 50 AD 780 AD 766 – AD 986 2 ST5 B-4347 950 ± 50 AD 1000 AD 1013 – AD 1208 35 C7 SMU-2223 1250 ± 65 AD 700 AD 655 – AD 897 62 C7 SMU-2224 1380 ± 70 AD 570 AD 536 – AD 782 105 C7 SMU-2254 1440 ± 70 AD 510 AD 431 – AD 688 97 C7 SMU-2269 1300 ± 65 AD 650 AD 637 – AD 885 167 C7 SMU-2270 1470 ± 110 AD 480 AD 335 – AD 777 11 C7 B-22397 1330 ± 80 AD 620 AD 574 – AD 885 15 C7 B-22789 1610 ± 90 AD 340 AD 242 – AD 622 66 C7 B-27277 1450 ± 80 AD 500 AD 420 – AD 694 92 C7 B-27278 1660 ± 70 AD 290 AD 232 – AD 557 134 C7 B-27279 1470 ± 80 AD 480 AD 412 – AD 684 142 C7 B-27280 1580 ± 70 AD 370 AD 333 – AD 623 92 C7 DIC-1882 1210 ±60 AD 740 AD 675 – AD 901 WP = Water Plant; ST = Scioto Trails; C = Childers 1 B.P. = Years before present, with "present: as a date of 1950. 2 Simple midpoint date based on the uncalibrated radiocarbon years. 3 Calibrated calendar date rage dates were derived by calibrating the dates using CALIB 5.0 (Stuiver et al. 2005). The 2σ (95% confidence) range is given above. When there were multiple ranges, the range for the greatest amount of the sample is given. 4 Reference is Church 1987, Dancey et al. 1987 5 Reference is Carr and Haas 1996 6 Reference is Royce, this document 7 Reference is Shott 1992

Table 13. Early Late Woodland Radiocarbon Dates for the Water Plant, Scioto Trails and Childers Sites.

208

Uncalibrated Midpoint Conventional Uncalibrated Site Laboratory Radiocarbon Years Calendar 2 σ Calibrated Calendar Date Number BP1 Date2 Range using CALIB3 Leonard Haag4 GX-2929 1910 ± 225 AD 40 AD 399 – 596 BC Leonard Haag4 DIC-242 1670 ± 100 AD 280 AD 132 – AD 82 Leonard Haag4 DIC-241 1300 ± 100 AD 650 AD 569 – AD 903 Lichliter4 M-537 1600 ± 250 AD 350 AD 113 – 904 BC Pyles5 TX-3947 1590 ± 120 AD 360 AD 210 – AD 662 Hansen6 B-15511 1770 ± 90 AD 180 AD 53 – AD 436 Hansen6 B-15082 1630 ± 90 AD 320 AD 222 – AD 618 6 Hansen B-15510 1630 ± 100 AD 320 AD 213 – AD 638 Hansen6 B-14573 1520 ± 60 AD 430 AD 423 – AD 642 Hansen6 B-15804 1510 ± 70 AD 440 AD 416 – AD 652

2 6

09 Hansen B-15509 1410 ± 80 AD 540 AD 526 – AD 775 6

Hansen B-15512 1400 ± 70 AD 550 AD 533 – AD 776 Hansen6 B-14575 1360 ± 70 AD 590 AD 548 – AD 783 Bentley7 B-11850 1380 ± 60 AD 570 AD 560 – AD 730 Rodgers8 M-1351 1440 ± 130 AD 510 AD 335 – AD 887 Rodgers4 UGa-552 1485 ± 55 AD 465 AD 505 – AD 653 Rodgers4 1470 ± 65 AD 480 AD 502 – AD 661 Rodgers4 UGa-553 1415 ± 60 AD 535 AD 534 – AD 716 Rodgers4 UGa-749 1345 ± 60 AD 605 AD 575 – AD 782 Rodgers4 UGa-750 1245 ± 60 AD 705 AD 659 – AD 895 Turpin4 UGa-4485 1775 ± 75 AD 175 AD 80 – AD 414 Turpin4 UGa-4484 1760 ± 120 AD 190 AD 16 – AD 545 Turpin4 Wis-1751 1460 ± 70 AD 490 AD 430 – AD 670 Turpin4 Wis-1750 1320 ± 70 AD 630 AD 605 – AD 879 Turpin4 UGa-4486 1155 ± 245 AD 795 AD 406 – AD 1296 Continued Table 14. Radiocarbon Dates for Other Early Late Woodland Sites

209

Table 14 continued Uncalibrated Midpoint Conventional Uncalibrated 2 σ Calibrated Calendar Laboratory Radiocarbon Calendar Date Range using Site Number Years BP1 Date2 CALIB3 Turpin4 Wis-1749 1140 ± 70 AD 810 AD 765 – AD 1201 Sand Ridge4 UGa-929 1510 ± 100 AD 440 AD 326 – AD 687 Sand Ridge4 Wis-1792 1320 ± 70 AD 630 AD 605 – AD 879 Sand Ridge4 Wis-1747 1230 ± 70 AD 720 AD 662 – AD 900 Sand Ridge4 UGa-1333 1135 ± 60 AD 815 AD 771 – AD 1019 Sand Ridge4 Wis-1748 1080 ± 70 AD 870 AD 775 – AD 1049 Parkline9 B-36737 1730 ± 70 AD 220 AD 126 – AD 437 Parkline9 B-34195 1700 ± 60 AD 250 AD 211 – AD 466 9 2 Parkline B-36735 1580 ± 50 AD 370 AD 386 – AD 596 1 9 0 Parkline B-36736 1580 ± 80 AD 370 AD 325 – AD 640

1 B.P. = Years before present, with "present: as a date of 1950. 2 Simple midpoint date based on the uncalibrated radiocarbon years. 3 Calibrated calendar date rage dates were derived by calibrating the dates using CALIB 5.0 (Stuiver et al. 2005). The 2σ (95% confidence) range is given above. When there were multiple ranges, the range for the greatest amount of the sample is given. 4 Reference is Shott 1989 5 Reference is Railey 1984 6 Reference is Ahler 1988 7 Reference is Henderson and Pollack 1985 8 Reference is Kreinbrink 1992 9 Reference is Niquette and Kerr 1993

210

Figures

211

Figure 1. Early Late Woodland Sites and the W.S. Cole Site

212

Notes: Original figure from Dancey et al. 1987:Figure 31. Orange indicates the approximate outer ditch location. Green indicates the approximate inner ditch location. Red indicates the area where a possible ditch location was observed (Dancey et al. 1987). Yellow indicates the location of the possible house structure (Dancey et al. 1987).

Figure 2. 1987 Dancey et al. Interpretation of the Water Plant Site, Augmented

213

Notes: The red line indicates the Early Late Woodland time period (AD 400 – AD 800). Data points: 1-3 Leonard Haag (Shott 1989) 4-9 Rodgers Complex (Kreinbrink 1972; Shott 1989) 10-15 Turpin Farm (Shott 1989) 16-20 Sand Ridge (Shott 1989) 21 Lichliter (Shott 1989) 22 Pyles (Railey 1984) 23 Bentley (Henderson and Pollack 1985) 24-31 Hansen (Ahler 1988) 32-35 Parkline (Niquette and Kerr 1993) 36-47 Childers (Shott 1989) 48-53 Scioto Trails (Carr and Haas 1996) 54-63 Water Plant (Dancey et al. 1987; Carr and Haas 1996; Royce this document)

Figure 3. Radiocarbon Dates for Early Late Woodland Sites

214

Notes: On the left is the USGS Lockbourne, OH Topographic Quadrangle (1992). On the right is a GoogleEarth image (2007).

Figure 4. The Water Plant Site Area

215

Map is from the Ohio Division of Geological Survey (1998). The red dot indicates the general vicinity of the Water Plant site.

Figure 5. Physiographic Provinces of Ohio

216

Map is from the Ohio Division of Geological Survey (2006). The red dot indicates the general vicinity of the Water Plant site.

Figure 6. Bedrock Geological Map of Ohio

217

Map is from the Ohio Division of Geological Survey (2005). The red dot indicates the general vicinity of the Water Plant site.

Figure 7. Glacial Map of Ohio

218

Map is from the Ohio Division of Geological Survey (2004). The red dot indicates the general vicinity of the Water Plant site.

Figure 8. Shaded Glacial Drift-Thickness Map of Ohio

219

Source: USDA (2008) Soil types are discussed in Chapter 3.

Figure 9. USDA Soil Survey Map of the Water Plant Site Area

220

Notes: Map from Caldwell (1872) Scale is approximately 2.5 inches = 1 mile.

Figure 10. 1872 Map of the Water Plant Site Vicinity

221

Source: USDA (1950; 1976) Approximate scale is 1 inch = 930 feet

Figure 11. 1950 and 1976 Aerial Photographs of the Water Plant Site

222

Top figure is the outer ditch as excavated in 1980 (Dancey 1988:Figure 4). Bottom figure is a field drawing by Ohio Valley Archaeological Consultants during excavation.

Figure 12. Cross-sections of the Water Plant Site Outer and Inner Ditches

223

Notes: Each grid block is 20 meters square. The site grid references (arbitrary) are given in meters.

Figure 13. Gradiometer Data Collection Grid Number Reference Map

224

Notes: Each grid block is 20 meters square. The site grid references (arbitrary) are given in meters. Dark shades above are high magnetic values and light shades are negative values.

Figure 14. Gradiometer Data Map for the Water Plant Site

225

Figure 15. Magnetic Anomaly Probing Locations

226

Notes: The site grid references (arbitrary) are given in meters. The thick red lines are the approximate locations of the ditches. The thin red lines are the approximate locations of the palisade or screens. Excavation locations are labeled with the gradiometer survey anomaly number. Original map base by Dr. Jarrod Burks.

Figure 16. Excavation Locations at the Water Plant Site

227

Notes: Each grid block is 20 meters square. The current site grid references (arbitrary) are given in meters. The red lines are selected grid lines from the original site grid system (Dancey et al. 1987) and the coordinate intersections are indicated above the location in meters.

Figure 17. Grid Systems Used at the Water Plant Site, Initial and Current Investigations

228

Notes: The site grid references (arbitrary) are given in meters. The light blue line is the approximate location of the outer ditch in the initial investigation (Dancey et al. 1987). The red lines are the interpreted household clusters (from Dancey et al. 1987: Figure 31).

Figure 18. Gradiometer Data with the Dancey et al. 1987 Interpretation Overlay

229

Notes: Shaded area is the approximate site area for the gradiometer survey. The contour interval is in meters and is arbitrary.

Figure 19. Topographic Map of the Water Plant Site 230

Notes: Each grid block is 20 meters square. Dark shades above are high magnetic values and light shades are negative values. The current site grid references (arbitrary) are given in meters. MP = Monopolar Positive MP-D = Monopolar Positive-Diffuse MN = Monopolar Negative (none observed, so not indicated above) DS = Dipolar Simple DS-B = Dipolar Simple-Bullseye DC = Dipolar Complex (none observed, with exception listed below) MP/DC = Monopolar Positive cross with Dipolar Complex

Figure 20. Anomaly Types 231

Notes: The site grid references (arbitrary) are given in meters. The thick red lines are the approximate locations of the ditches. The thin red lines are the approximate locations of the palisade or screens. The range in susceptibility values (in units of m3kg-1) is from approximately 9 to 17. Colors representing the data above are: 17 and greater is red; 15 is yellow; 14 is black; 12 is white; 11 is green; and 9 and less is blue.

Figure 21. Mass Magnetic Susceptibility Map

232

Notes: The site grid references (arbitrary) are given in meters. The thick red lines are the approximate locations of the ditches. The thin red lines are the approximate locations of the palisade or screens. The range in susceptibility values (in units of m3kg-1) is from approximately 9 to 17. Colors representing the data above are: 8and greater is red; 6.5 is yellow; 6 is black; 5.5 is white; 5 is green; and 4 and less is blue.

Figure 22. Frequency Dependent Magnetic Susceptibility May

233

Notes: Each grid block is 20 meters square. The site grid references (arbitrary) are given in meters. Dark shades above are high magnetic values and light shades are negative values.

Figure 23. Gradiometer Data with Historic Anomalies Indicated

234

Notes: Each grid block is 20 meters square. The site grid references (arbitrary) are given in meters. Dark shades above are high magnetic values and light shades are negative values.

Figure 24. Gradiometer Data with Prehistoric Anomalies Indicated

235

Smaller marks on the scale are 1 cm.

Figure 25. Anomaly 116 Excavation Profile

236

Smaller marks on the scale are 1 cm.

Figure 26. Anomaly 81 (pit) Excavation Profile

237

Smaller marks on the scale are 1 cm.

Figure 27. Anomaly 20 Excavation Profile

238

Figure 28. Anomaly 20 Projectile Points

239

Figure 29. Anomaly 20 Ceramics.

240

Smaller marks on the scale are 1 cm.

Figure 30. Anomaly 34 Excavation Profile

241

Figure 31. Anomaly 34 Projectile Points

242

Figure 32. Anomaly 34 Ceramics

243

Smaller marks on the scale are 1 cm.

Figure 33. Anomaly 110 Excavation Profile 244

Figure 34. Anomaly 110 Projectile Points

245

Figure 35. Anomaly 110 Ceramics

246

Figure 36. Anomaly 81 and Palisade

247

Smaller marks on the scale are 1 cm.

Figure 37. Inner Ditch Profile and Plan View in Trench Excavation

248

Figure 38. Discoids

249

Notes: F12, F21, F76 (Dancey et al. 1987) F90 (Carr and Haas 1996) A20, A34, D U2, D U5, A81 arm, A110, A81 pit, and A116 (Royce, this document)

Figure 39. Radiocarbon Dates for the Water Plant Site

250

Notes: Data points 1-10 Water Plant (Dancey et al. 1987; Carr and Haas 1996; Royce this document) Data points 11-16 Scioto Trails (Carr and Haas 1996) Data points 17-28 Childers (Shott 1989)

Figure 40. Radiocarbon Dates for the Water Plant, Scioto Trails and Childers Sites

251

Notes: Each grid block is 20 meters square. Dark shades above are high magnetic values and light shades are negative values. Red circles are around areas that could be traces of postmolds for houses.

Figure 41. Possible Postmold Traces of Houses in the Gradiometer Data

252