Archaeological Excavations at the Ehler Site (12-Hu-1022): An Early 19th Century Miami Indian Habitation Site Near the Forks of the Wabash, Huntington County, Indiana. by Rob Mann With Sections By Terrance J. Martin and J.C Richmond Leslie L. Bush Michele A. Lorenzini Report of Investigation 95TN0062-P3r01 ,January 1996 LANDMARK Archaeological and Environmental Services, Inc. Archaeological Excavations at the Elller Site (12-Hu-1022): An Early 19th Century Miami InQan Habitation Site Near tlie Forks of tlle Wabash, Hmltington County, InQana Prepared For I~l&anaDepartment of Transportation Indianapolis. Indiana Prepared Bj- Landmark Arcllaeological and Environmental Senices, Inc. 5 18 S. Main Street Sheridan. Indiana Author and Principal Investigator Rob Mann Contributors Terrance J. Martin and J.C. Richmond Leslie L. Bus11 Michele A. Lorenzini Art Director and Illustrator An~yHartman Report ofIn.rrestigation 95IN0062 - P3r01 Acknowledgments The successful completion of the mitigation of site 12-Hu-1022 stems fro111 the cooperation of several indviduals and institutions. At the Indiana Department of Transportation Mr. Curtis Tomak was particularly helpful during all phases of this work. The field work was accomplished, under sometimes less than favorable conditions, by a hard working crew that included at various times, Chris Jerrells, David Sherman, E. Benton Tackitt, Amy Hartman, Beth Leitz and Bill Kramer. Charlie Milholland of Charlie's Excavating deftly provided the backhoe work at the site. Several persons with an interest in the forks of the Wabash region supplied information at various times. Mr. Tom Castaldi was most helpful concerning the construction and history of the Wabash and Erie Canal. Mrs. Jean Gernand and the staff of the Estoric Forks of the Wabash were helpfid concerning local history and providing contacts with other interested persons. Specifically, Mrs. Luke Scheer of Huntington, Indiana proved to possess a well of information concerning the early history of the upper Wabash country. Copies of documents collected by the late Luke Scheer over several decades (The Luke Scheer Collection) were an invaluable source of information. Back at the laboratory, the assistance of several ind~vidualsin the processing, sorting and analysis of the artifacts rnust be acknowledged. Much of the glamour-less work was done by Wchele Lorenzini, Mamie Hilton-Plunkett, Stacy Bennett, Lennie Van Zeeland and Nancy Johnson. Michele Lorenzini provided the detailed bead analysis included in ths report. Thanks also to the other contributors to this report Dr. Terrance J. Martin and J. C. R~chn~ondof the Illinois State Museum and Leslie L. Bush of the Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology. Stacy Bennett did extensive research concerning the historic ceramics found on the site and their possible sigd~cance.Amy Hart~nandid the analysis of the gunflints recovered. Additionally, Amy was involved in all aspects of the preparation of this report, serving as Art Director and Illustrator. Her computer generated maps and illustrations greatly enhance the quality of tllis report. Amy was initially tutored in the use of computer graphics programs by Susan Baldry and her assistance is appreciated. In speaking of computers, I would be remiss if I Qd not acknowledge the advice and gwdance given by our resident cotnputer wizard, Jeff Plunkett. The following institutions and agencies graciously supplied or provided access to documents, maps, sketches and photographs; the Archives of Ontario, the Cranbrook Institute of Science, the Detroit Institute of Arts, the Friends Historical Library of Swarth~noreCollege, the Huntington County Surveyor's M~ce,the Indiana Department of Transportation, the National Archives of Canada and the William L. Clements Library at the University of Michigan. Several colleagues in the fields of archaeology and history must be thanked for their insight and assistance. Mitch Zoll and Donald Cocluan of Archaeological Resources Management Services, Ball State University provided information and documentation concerning the Phase I1 testing at the site. My sincere thanks to Mr. Mark J. Wagner at the Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University for sharing information about the Windrose site in northeastern Illinois. In particular, Mark's suggestion that what is not found in the archaeological record at sites such as Windrose and the Ehler site can be just as important as what is found has been well taken. Historians Larry Nelson of the Fort Meigs State Memorial and Dennis Au kindly suggested sources concerning the War of 1812 era in the Old Northwest. Terrance Martin and J. C. Fbchmond offer the following acknowledgtnents: Several persons in Springfield contributed to the conlpletion of this project and their assistance is greatly appreciated. Washing, sorting, refitting, and prelinlinary identifications of various animal remains from 12-Hu-1022 were enthusiastically carried out by Erin Brand, Barbara Lary, and Tim Martin. Dee Ann Holtschlag- Watt and Colette Kolis eagerly assisted with the inspection of faunal remains from 12-Hu-93.5. Rob Mann and Jeff Plunkett of Landmark Archaeology, Inc. provided maps and information on the two sites. Claire Fuller Martin provided editorial comments on an earlier draft of ths ~nanuscript.We thank Rob Mam for giving us the opportunity to study the animal remains from the forks of the Wabash area. Finally, Iny genuine thanks to our intrepid leader, Tliomas C. Beard, for the opportunity to work on this exciting and unique site and for llis confidence in my ability to carry out the task. Thank you Tom. TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknotvledgments............................................................................................................................... i Chapter 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2. Methodology .................................................................................................................... 5 Chapter 3. Biophyical Setting ......................................................................................................... 10 Chapter 4 . Research Design .............................................................................................................. 16 Chapter 5. Miami Ethnohistor:- ........................................................................................................ 21 Chapter 6. Field Investigations......................................................................................................... 98 Chapter 7. Artifact Analj-sis............................................................................................................. 137 Chapter 8. Animal Remains from 12-Hu-1022 .......................................*.........................................158 Chapter 9. Botanical Analysis........................................................................................................... 177 Chapter 10. Evaluation of Research Questions ................................................................................ 187 Chapter 11. Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 207 References Cited ................................................................................................................................ 208 APPENDIX A. Metal Artifact, Electrolytic Bath ..............................................................................A-1 APPENDIX B. Artifacts ..................................................................................................................... B-1 APPENDIX C. Trade Bead Data Recording Form ...........................................................................C-1 APPENDIX D . 12-Hu-1022 Botanical Remains ...............................................................................D-1 APPENDIX E. 12-Hu-1022 Botanical Remains in grams ................................................................E-1 List of Figures Figure 1. Map of the forks of the Wabash rqiorr; .................e~+.a...~~...... ........... 2 Figure 2. 7.5 Minute Series Bippus. Indiana Quadrangle showing the location of site 12-Hu-1022 and the Wabash and Erie Canal .................................................................3 Figure 3. 12-Hu-1022 site plan map ..........................................................................................6 Figure 4. Huntington Count) drainage map (Purdue University and State Highw a) Department of Indiana 1959) ..........................................................................................11 Figure 5. May of the natural vegetation of Indiana ca. 1816 .........................................................13 Figure 6. Miami Indian Villages and French Forts. 1641.1701 .................................................. 22 Figure 7. Miami Indian Villages and French Forts. 1720-1761 ..................................................... 28 Figure 8. Delisle's map of 1703 (Tucker 1942.P1.13) ......................................................................29 Figure 9. Delisle's map of 1718 (Tucker 1942.P1.15) ...................................................................... 30 Figure 10. Miami and Wea Indian Villages. ca.1772.1781 .............................. .. .......................... 45 Figure 11. Miami and Wea Indian Villages. ca. 1787-1794 ............................................................