Highlighting Hoosier Archaeological Sites: Southwest

A great deal is known about the mortuary patterns of the Woodland and Mississippian periods in Indiana. The preservation of elaborate grave goods and features such as stone or log burials or mounds, and later on, ethnographic accounts of burial customs, make the practices associated with these sites tangible to researchers and the public alike. Earlier sites, attributed to the Archaic and before, are often less elaborate and have less intact evidence of the practices associated with the populations of those time periods. However, this doesn’t mean that the burial of the dead was any less important during these time periods. The Jerger Site (12DA179) is a precontact mortuary site in Daviess County associated with the Early Archaic period (8000-6000 B.C.), and gives rare insight into the complex cultural and mortuary practices of some of the early peoples of Indiana.

The Jerger Site was archaeologically investigated by Curtis Tomak in 1977. The site was originally reported by residents of Daviess County and was already heavily impacted by cultivation activities when Tomak first visited. The surface of the site was littered with bifurcated points, bifacial chert objects, small bone fragments, red ochre, and chert flakes. Interestingly, the majority of the surface material showed evidence of burning. It was clear to Tomak from the surface reconnaissance that the site contained disturbed burial features. Further investigation of the site yielded the remnants of five features, all heavily disturbed, but still containing burned remains of bone and artifacts. The soil of the features was not burned, suggesting that the cremated remains and artifacts were brought in from a separate burning site. There were no other features identified at the site, suggesting that it was utilized for only mortuary purposes (Tomak 1979).

The cultural objects recovered at the Jerger Site show a cultural complexity, including trade, not often attributed to precontact groups dating to the Early Archaic. The diagnostic points from the site are bifurcated base Jerger points (Tomak 1970, 1979, 1983, 1991) which are similar to other bifurcated base points such as MacCorkle (Justice 1987). Jerger points are part of the Early Archaic Jerger Phase (Tomak 1983, 1991) which is found in portions of Greene, Daviess, and Knox counties. Almost all the points were either heat fractured or discolored by heat (Tomak 1979). In addition to the projectile points, a large number of fractured bifacial tools were recovered from the site, only two of which were complete. Again, these artifacts all exhibited evidence of being through some sort of burning episode. Of particular note were five small marine shells that showed signs of burning and were possibly used as beads. The shells were identified as Olivella, a species with a natural range including the southeastern United States. These shells are not native to Indiana and suggest movement of either people or materials over long distances. It is possible that the shells were utilized for personal adornment. The Jerger assemblage also included at least twenty-four perforated canine teeth and fourteen rounded bone fragments suggestive of bone awls. The shell, teeth, and awls all showed evidence of burning. The presence of these artifacts, and the burning of them, indicates that there was an inclusion of grave goods within the cremation ceremony.

A total of 10,852 grams of human bone and tooth fragments were recovered from the site, numbering in the tens of thousands. In 2008, Schmidt et al. studied a sample (n=2,893) of these fragments in order to understand the patterns of burial at the Jerger Site. All fragments were counted, weighed and measured, and then scored for evidence of burning, noting color, fracture pattern, and presence of bone warpage or delamination. When possible, the bones were identified as coming from the cranium, thorax, upper body, or lower body, but most bone fragments were unclassified. The nature of the fragments made identification difficult, as the mean maximum length of the fragments was 12.8 mm.

The study inferred that at least 14 people were represented by the highly fragmented remains, and of these all age groups, and possibly both sexes, were represented. The minimum number of individuals (MNI) was determined by a dental inventory, as most skeletal features were obscured by the breakup of the bone. Typically, robust bone fragments such as the petrous portion of the temporal bone are dense enough to preserve and provide an indication of MNI, but this was not the case with the Jerger materials. The highly-calcined and fragmented remains were well processed, at a level almost near modern-day cremations. In a study comparing the cremains from forensic, archaeological, and modern burials, the Jerger remains were most similar in size and degree of burning to that of a modern cremation (Bontrager and Nawrocki 2008). Based on dental eruption patterns and toothwear, it was apparent that the skeletal assemblage included individuals aging from newborn to the later stages of adulthood (Schmidt et. al 2008). No specific indicators of sex were preserved, but the presence of one particularly robust superciliary arch fragment suggests at least one male was present (Schmidt et. al 2008). Interestingly, for the adult sample, there was a higher rate of preservation for the right dentition. Given that the remains appeared to be in a secondary context, this may give insight into the primary burial position. It is possible that they were initially placed on their left sides, and skeletal elements were left behind during the removal process. 

There are two other documented sites in Indiana that are similar to the Jerger Site. The McCullough’s Run Site (12B1036) is a multicomponent site in Bartholomew County that shows similar Early Archaic burial treatment to what is seen at the Jerger Site (see the Bartholomew County entry for more information). The Steele Site, also in Daviess County, is comparable to the Jerger Site in that both sites appear to be single component, are located on sand deposits overlooking once marshy areas and were littered with the same types of artifacts within the plowzone (Tomak 1979, 1991). Additionally, both sites appear to be selected specially for mortuary functions, as no other features were identified at either site, and the mortuary treatment at each was similar (Tomak 1991). This evidence shows that Jerger was not an isolated occurrence of this cultural tradition.

The advanced degree of processing of the cremated human remains at the Jerger Site, as well as the evidence of trade in the form of the marine shells, make the site unique for its time in southern Indiana. This site is important in showing that the people inhabiting Indiana during the Early Archaic had a level of cultural complexity that is much higher than usually attributed to the early people of Indiana. 

References

Bontrager, Amanda B., and Stephen P. Nawrocki (2008).A T aphonomic Analysis of Human Cremains from the Fox Hollow Farm Serial Homicide Site. In The Analysis of Burned Human Remains, edited by Christopher W. Schmidt and Steven A. Symes, pp. 211-226. Elsevier, London.

Justice, Noel D. (1987).  Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Midcontinental and Eastern United States. Indiana University Press, Indiana University, Bloomington.

Schmidt, C.S., Curtis Tomak, Rachel A. Lockhart (Sharkey), Tammy R. Greene, Gregory A. Reinhardt (2008).  Early Cremations from Southern Indiana. In The Analysis of Burned Human Remains, edited by Christopher W. Schmidt and Steven A. Symes, pp. 227-237. Elsevier, London.

Tomak Curtis (1970). Aboriginal Occupations in the Vicinity of Greene County. Master’s thesis, Indiana University, Bloomington.

Tomak Curtis (1979).  Jerger: An Early Archaic Mortuary Site in Southwestern Indiana. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 88, pp. 62-69. Indianapolis.

Tomak Curtis (1983).  A Proposed Prehistoric Cultural Sequence for a Section of the Valley of the West Fork of the White River in Southwestern Indiana. Tennessee Anthropologist 8(1):67-94.

Tomak Curtis (1991). The Jerger Phase and Early Archaic Mortuary Ceremonialism in Southwestern Indiana. Paper presented at the 36th Annual Midwest Archaeological Conference, La Crosse, Wisconsin. 

A story highlighting Dubois County has not yet been received. Please check back soon.

A story highlighting Gibson County has not yet been received. Please check back soon.

The Hensley site,12GR338, is located on the edge of upland immediately adjacent to a marsh in Greene County. When surveyed in 1964, a light scatter of material occurred over an area of about an acre. Surface material from the site shows that it is multicomponent, having been occupied by various Archaic and Woodland groups. That material includes chert debris, broken and/or oxidized rock, one Dover Hill point (Early Archaic), one Jerger point (Early Archaic, Jerger phase), one Modesto point (Late Archaic, Scherschel phase), one Morgan point (Early Woodland, West phase), one triangular point (Late Woodland), six unidentified points, two bifaces, four drills, one bannerstone (Archaic), one plummet (Archaic-Woodland), and one potsherd (Middle Woodland, Allison-LaMotte tradition) (refer to Tomak 1970, 1983). 

Based upon what was known about the site, there was no indication that there was anything out of the ordinary about it until 1969 when a pit feature was found that contained a buried archaeological deposit that furnished significant information about the people who buried it. The deposit includes some of the special kinds of objects that are known from cache and mortuary contexts and, importantly, also includes some everyday utilitarian items that occur at habitation sites. Thus, archaeological cultural identification can be provided for other cache and mortuary sites, and different kinds of site can be linked together in a settlement system. The people who buried the deposit at the Hensley site and their culture are referred to as the West phase (Tomak 1983). Based upon various considerations, an approximated date for that occupation is sometime around 500 BC.

The Deposit and Artifacts from the Deposit

Grouped together in the pit was a mass of cremated human bone accompanied by red ochre, 14 chert blades, one drill, and one grooved sandstone “tablet.” Another blade had been present, but ground disturbance had removed it from the pit. The mass of bone with its accompanying artifacts was about 10 cm thick, 33 to 46 cm in diameter, and about 33 cm below ground surface. The dark fill of the pit contrasted with the surrounding yellowish clay subsoil.

There was no evidence of burning in the pit, indicating that the cremation had occurred elsewhere. After cremation, the bone and red ochre were placed in the pit. Four of the blades, the drill, and the grooved stone were positioned just above some of the bone and just south of the main concentration of bone. The drill was lying upon the grooved stone, and the rest of the blades were placed more or less horizontally on top of the bone and the above-mentioned artifacts. Eight of the overlying blades were irregularly grouped with most having an approximate east-west orientation. This group was bounded on the northwest and the southeast by a blade oriented northeast-southwest. Red ochre was on the blades, drill, grooved stone, and bone and in the surrounding matrix. The artifacts had not been burned. 

Within the pit and about 23 cm west of the aggregation of bone and artifacts was a stemmed point. The point was in undisturbed context at about the same elevation as the top of the aggregation. Upon screening the fill of the pit, one red chert flake and five gray fragments from a bifacial object(s) were found. This object(s) is made of Wyandotte chert, and it had been shattered by heat and undergone a heat-induced color change, presumably in the crematory fire. 

The blades are elongated leaf-shaped artifacts termed Black Creek points (Tomak 1970, 1983) (Figure 1, top row). They are widest in their midsection or their proximal portion and taper to a pointed to rounded basal edge. They are well flaked, and most of them exhibit terminal cortex and have at least some of their lateral edges dulled. They are made from Wyandotte chert. Length varies from 137 to 155 mm, with 11 of them being 146 to 154 mm long. Maximum width varies from 36 to 47 mm; however, 10 of them are 44 to 46 mm wide. Midpoint thickness ranges from about 7 to 10 mm.

The stemmed point is a Morgan point (Tomak 1970, 1983) (Figure 1, bottom center). The blade is 61 mm long, and the stem is 19 mm in length. The stem is inset from the blade by narrow sloping shoulders and tapers to a rather straight basal edge. The shoulder width is 29 mm, and the blade thickness is about 8 mm. This point is made from Wyandotte chert.

The drill (Figure 1, bottom right) has a rounded stem that is 32 mm long and 21 mm wide. The lateral edges of the stem are ground smooth. The bit is inset somewhat from the stem and is 60 mm long. Thickness varies from about 6 to 8 mm. This artifact is made from what appears to be Wyandotte chert.

The grooved stone is also an interesting artifact which has more meaning than it might appear (Figure 1, bottom left). It consists of a tabular piece of fine-grained sandstone more or less rectanguloid in outline with one corner missing. It has a maximum length of 76 mm, a maximum width of 60 mm, and is 13 to 23 mm thick. The longest edge has been smoothed and has a narrow pencil-line groove along its midline. The other edges are broken and irregular. The concave edge has two narrow pencil-line grooves. One face has a diagonal groove about 45 mm long and about 10 mm wide. The other face exhibits two parallel diagonal grooves. One of them is about 45 mm long and about 10 mm wide, and the other is about 35 mm long and about 9 mm wide. Both faces also possess various scratches and narrow grooves.

Cultural Comparisons

The artifacts from the Hensley feature are like those occurring with cremations and other forms of burial at some sites in the Ohio Valley that belong to the same basic time period as Hensley and are sites that have been considered to be “Adena tradition” sites. Examples are given below.

The Tarlton mound (Webb 1943) was a small mound located near Lexington in Fayette County, Kentucky. It is reported to have contained a mass of cremated bone and red ochre accompanied by large leaf-shaped blades. Also reported are drills, a stemmed point, and a grooved sandstone whetstone, among other things. The blades, the stemmed point, and the grooved sandstone whetstone essentially duplicate the Black Creek points, the Morgan point, and the grooved sandstone tablet from the Hensley site.

The Fisher mound (Webb and Haag 1947) was a small mound located very close to the Tarlton mound in Fayette County, Kentucky. Deposits of materials were found in it which included artifacts like those from the Hensley deposit. For example, what was designated Burial 6 included drills such as that from the Hensley deposit, leaf-shaped blades, a sandstone whetstone or tablet, a scraper or “cutter” with a Morgan-like base, and red ochre. Other burials (including a cremation) were associated with points like Black Creek and Morgan points, drills such as that from the Hensley deposit, grooved sandstone whetstones or tablets, and red ochre, among other things. The close similarity of artifacts from Fisher and Tarlton to those from Hensley is quite apparent.

Further indication of the likeness of the artifacts from the Hensley deposit to those of the “Adena tradition” is provided by other Ohio Valley sites; for example, the Natrium mound (Solecki 1953) and the Cresap mound (Dragoo 1963) both of which were located along the Ohio River near Moundsville in West Virginia. Artifacts such as those from Hensley were well represented at those sites. For example, Feature 40 at Natrium contained human remains associated with, among other things, leaf-shaped blades, points like Morgan points, a drill, grooved whetstones or tablets, and red ochre. Other examples are Burials 30 and 42 from Cresap that were associated with leaf-shaped blades, points like Morgan points, grooved stone tablets, and red ochre, among other things. Cremated bone was also present. 

Dragoo (1963) utilized the stratified nature of the Cresap mound to formulate an Adena sequence. He divided the sequence into early-middle Adena and late Adena. Included among the attributes of his early-middle division are cremations, use of red ochre, and artifacts like the blades, point, drill, and grooved stone tablet from the Hensley deposit. He also included Fayette Thick pottery.

The Hensley site burial and associated artifacts fit right in with those of the foregoing Kentucky and West Virginia sites and conform quite well with the early-middle portion of Dragoo’s Adena cultural sequence. Not only do artifacts like those from Hensley occur at the Kentucky and West Virginia sites, but they occur in similar combinations and mortuary contexts that include cremations, although other artifacts may also be present. However, one noticeable difference is that the foregoing Kentucky and West Virginia sites are mounds, and the Hensley site is not.

The West Phase

The West phase is an Early Woodland occupation defined from sites in the Greene-Knox-Daviess county area in the White River Valley of southwestern Indiana. The initial formulation of the West phase appeared in my master’s thesis (Tomak 1970:87-102), and the deposit from the Hensley site was the basis for the formulation of that occupation. A paper discussing the Hensley site deposit was published (Tomak and O’Connor 1978), and the West phase is included in a summary of the archaeology of the lower valley of the West Fork of White River (Tomak 1983).

Black Creek points and Morgan points are characteristic of the West phase. The former are basically medium to large leaf-shaped blades which have a pointed to rounded basal edge. The latter are lanceolate points usually having small shoulders and a tapering stem. Both kinds of point are predominantly made of Wyandotte chert. Some Black Creek points may be preforms for Morgan points. Detailed descriptions and discussions of these points occur in Tomak (1970). Also refer to Perino (1985) and Tomak (1983).

Utilitarian artifacts such as drills and scrapers with a Morgan-like base, other everyday chert tools, celts, and such common items as hammerstones, other stone tools, bone tools, etc. would also be part of the assemblage of the West phase.

The predominant chert used for West phase artifacts is Wyandotte chert (Harrison County flint). It is a high quality, blue-gray, material that occurs in deposits along the Ohio River in the area of Harrison County, Indiana, about 110 km southeast of Greene County. With the West phase, there is a very noticeable increase in the use of Wyandotte chert in the Greene County area (Tomak 1970).

There is a kind of pottery that occurs in the Greene County area that is characteristically thick and tempered with large pieces of crushed rock and is often referred to as Marion Thick (Griffin 1952; Helmen 1950; Tomak 1970). Fayette Thick of the Ohio Valley (Dragoo 1963; Griffin 1943) is a Marion Thick-like pottery that is similar to the Greene County area pottery, and it is of interest that such pottery is also an item that in and near Kentucky is thought to be associated with artifacts like those of the West phase (e.g., Clay 1985). Thick pottery such as the foregoing was recovered from features at the Whisman site in Daviess County, Indiana, from which a radiocarbon date of 2570 ± 60 BP was obtained (Munson and Munson 2004). A possible lug is reported to be present on one of those sherds, and the authors indicate that lugs are not something that is associated with Marion Thick pottery from western Illinois where the Marion Culture has been defined. I am not sure how frequently lugs occur or how widespread they are, but they do occur on Fayette Thick and similar pottery in the Ohio Valley, as does gouged/pinched decoration such as exists on some Greene County sherds. Moreover, the six points from the Whisman site include two West phase Morgan points and two or three other points possibly related to the West phase. There is also some suggestion that Morgan points and local Early Woodland thick pottery are associated with one another based upon their co-occurrence at sites in the Greene County area (Tomak 1970, n.d.). My thought is that the affiliation of the Whisman pottery and other such pottery from the Greene County area is with the West phase whose cultural relationships are with the Ohio Valley.

There are other items that appear to be or are possibly associated with the West phase due to their associations in this area or elsewhere. I think that at least some of the local Turkey Tail points, boatstones, birdstones, tube pipes, biconcave gorgets, plummets, and/or galena cubes are associated with or are in some way connected to the West phase. It is of interest that some barite artifacts (e.g., boatstones) have been found in Greene County. Barite occurs naturally in the same locality in Kentucky as the previously-mentioned Tarlton and Fisher mounds whose artifact assemblages have such noticeable likenesses with that from the Hensley deposit (Anderson et al. 1982). In addition, a barite workshop at the Peter Village site has also been reported for that same locality (Clay 1985).

Site types of the West phase include caches, burial sites, habitation sites, and other utilized locations, but no mounds have been identified. Morgan points are found typically at habitation sites but are sometimes associated with caches or burials. Black Creek points typically occur in caches or with burials. It appears to be the pattern that West phase caches and burials are separated from habitation areas. This would not be a first-time occurrence for the Greene County area since the Early Archaic Jerger phase includes special cemetery areas separated from habitation sites (Tomak 1979, 1983, 1991).

The artifact assemblage, mortuary attributes, and chert preference of the West phase people along with the local early thick pottery and the barite objects from Greene County suggest that people using artifacts made of Wyandotte chert moved north from the Ohio Valley to the Greene-Knox-Daviess county area. They maintained their ties to the Ohio River and continued to rely upon Wyandotte chert not only for everyday utilitarian items but also for artifacts to be deposited in caches and with burials. Possible routes for this movement are up the White River from the Wabash River or maybe a more direct route involving the South Fork of the Patoka River to the White River.  

References

Anderson, Warren H., Robert D. Trace, and Preston McGrain (1982). Barite Deposits of Kentucky. Bulletin 1, Series 11. Kentucky Geological Survey, University of Kentucky, Lexington.                  

Clay, R. Berle (1985). Peter Village 164 Years Later: 1983 Excavations. In Woodland Period Research in Kentucky, edited by David Pollack, Thomas Sanders, and Charles Hockensmith, pp. 1-41. Kentucky Heritage Council, Frankfort.

Dragoo, Don W. (1963). Mounds for the Dead: An Analysis of the Adena Culture. Annals of Carnegie Museum, Vol. 37. Pittsburgh.

Griffin, James B. (1943). Adena Village Site Pottery from Fayette County, Kentucky. In The Riley Mound, Site Be15, and the Landing Mound, Site Be17, Boone County, Kentucky, with Additional Notes on the Mt. Horeb Site, Fa1, and Sites Fa14 and Fa15, Fayette County, by William S. Webb, pp. 667-672. Reports in Anthropology and Archaeology 5(7).  Department of Anthropology and Archaeology, University of Kentucky, Lexington.

Griffin, James B. (1952). Some Early and Middle Woodland Pottery Types in Illinois. In Hopewellian Communities in Illinois, edited by Thorne Deuel, pp.93-129. Scientific Papers 5(3). Illinois State Museum, Springfield.

Helmen, Vernon R. (1950). The Cultural Affiliations and Relationships of the Oliver Farm Site, Marion County, Indiana. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Indiana University, Bloomington.

Munson, Patrick J. and Cheryl Ann Munson (2004). Marion Culture (Early Woodland) Occupations in the Wabash and White River Valleys, Indiana, and East-Central Illinois. In Aboriginal Ritual and Economy in the Eastern Woodlands, Essays in Memory of Howard Dalton Winters, edited by Anne-Marie Cantwell, Lawrence A. Conrad, and Jonathan E. Reyman, pp.133-146. Scientific Papers, Vol. 30. Illinois State Museum, Springfield.

Perino, Gregory (1985). Selected Preforms, Points and Knives of the North American Indians, Vol. 1. Points and Barbs Press. Idabel, Oklahoma.

Solecki, Ralph S. (1953). Exploration of an Adena Mound at Natrium, West Virginia. Bulletin 151, Anthropological Papers 40. Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington.

Tomak, Curtis H. (1970). Aboriginal Occupations in the Vicinity of Greene County, Indiana. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Indiana University. Bloomington.

Tomak, Curtis H. (1979). Jerger: An Early Archaic Mortuary Site in Southwestern Indiana. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 88:62-69. Indianapolis.

Tomak, Curtis H. (1983). A Proposed Prehistoric Cultural Sequence for a Section of the Valley of the West Fork of the White River in Southwestern Indiana. Tennessee Anthropologist 8(1):67-94.

Tomak, Curtis H. (1991). The Jerger Phase and Early Archaic Mortuary Ceremonialism in Southwestern Indiana. Paper presented at the Midwest Archaeological Conference. La Crosse, Wisconsin.

Tomak, Curtis H. (n.d.). Unpublished research.

Tomak, Curtis H. and Norma J. O’Connor (1978). An Early Woodland Burial from Greene County, Indiana. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 87:90-97. Indianapolis.

Webb, William S. (1943). The Riley Mound, Site Be15, and the Landing Mound, Site Be17, Boone County, Kentucky, with Additional Notes on the Mt. Horeb Site, Fa1, and Sites Fa14 and Fa15, Fayette County. Reports in Anthropology and Archaeology 5(7). Department of Anthropology and Archaeology, University of Kentucky, Lexington.

Webb, William S. and William G. Haag (1947). The Fisher Site, Fayette County, Kentucky. Reports in Anthropology 7(2). Department of Anthropology, University of Kentucky, Lexington.

Introduction

Sitting along 1st Street in downtown Vincennes, near the campus of Vincennes University and the Indiana Territorial Capitol at Vincennes State Historic Site, The Old French House stands as the most intact early nineteenth century French Creole style house in Indiana. But in 1974 when it was rediscovered, it was quite the surprise for the city of Vincennes. The headline in the local newspaper from April 20, 1975 enthusiastically proclaimed: “City House May Be One of Oldest in State” (Vincennes Sun-Commercial [VSC]). The spark for the story came when the Old Northwest Bicentennial Corporation (ONBC) began searching for a way to interpret the deep history of Vincennes and got an important tip about a house in the area that might help them do just that. According to the newspaper article, someone had called the library about a home they described as “... built of logs that didn’t run parallel to each other as did the ones in early pioneer cabins” (VSC 1975:1).  

Upon further examination, historians quickly realized that they were looking at a house that blends perfectly into the backdrop of a town with deep French roots. Through much of its history, the house was poked and prodded – covered up to look more like a quaint American cottage (Figure 1:center). But with the realization of the importance of the house, archaeology, along with in-depth archival research, began to peel away the veneer of those past alterations to reveal what was hidden within. Today, the house is known as “The Old French House,” or the Michel Brouillet House, a tribute to what we know today and what we can see through the restoration efforts that took place following that extraordinary rediscovery. 

Background

The story of The Old French House begins with the establishment of Vincennes, or “Poste Vincennes” by François-Marie Bissot de Vincennes in 1732. The region was homeland to Native American nations, including the Piankashaw, who valued the region’s plentiful resources. The Piankashaw had established strong personal and economic ties with de Vincennes and had agreed to stay near the new post, which they did for a short time. Their primary villages were along the Vermillion River to the north (McCafferty 2008:141-143).

Initially established as a military outpost to block English traders, Vincennes quickly became an important trading post. It also served as an integral location connecting France’s claimed lands in what would later become Canada and those in the south including New Orleans (est. 1718) from which Vincennes was politically administered. The economy of Vincennes was centered on the fur trade, but an influx of French-Canadian immigrants helped to further characterize the town as a rural French settlement. In fact, it became one of a grouping of French agricultural communities centered in southern Illinois, with Vincennes as the easternmost village (Ekberg 2000:2, 82-84, 108). Settlers, or “habitants,” prized wheat and planted in narrow, long lots to give better access to roads and rivers. A commons, used for grazing, particularly pigs and cattle, was owned and maintained by everyone. Houses were parts of household compounds that included stables, barns, ovens, gardens, and orchards – all surrounded by tall wooden fences.

In 1786, Piankashaw chiefs Montoure and Antaya Dit Le Gros Bland with his wife, Amicouennequia, sold their land to Major François Bosseron and Jean Baptiste Vaudry. In 1791, Bosseron sold his land to Francois Vigo, who in turn sold the property lot to Michel Brouillet in 1810 (Cultural Resource Analysts, Inc. 2017:15; Jones 1982:4). Brouillet, however, had built the house a year earlier. We know this because the 1810 deed notes that the house had already been built. Also, initial data from recently conducted dendrochronology (the study of tree ring growth patterns) revealed that the trees used in building the house had been felled in, or just prior to, 1808 (Rubino 2005). Looking at a timeline, we see that the house was built about 45 years after France had ceded its claim to the region following the French and Indian war (1754 - 1763), and about 25 years after the region was ceded yet again, this time to the newly established United States of America following the American Revolution (1775 - 1783). Not surprisingly, the style of the house is characterized primarily as a French Creole style house that includes elements commonly seen in Euro-American architecture from the time. 

Michel Brouillet (1774 - 1838) was not a typical figure we might learn about in history class. He wasn't a famous politician or military hero, but rather more of a middle class “jack of all trades” sort. He was a fur-trader and interpreter, fully engaged in economic activities with his Native American partners. In 1807 he was appointed a Captain in the Knox County militia, a post he held in particularly high regard (Day 1984). As tensions increased before the War of 1812, he became a scout for then Territorial Governor William Henry Harrison, and during the war he served as an informant. To this last point, the Shawnee Prophet Tenskwatawa would proclaim: "Brouillet was here, he was a spy..." In 1819, Brouillet was appointed as Indian Agent at Fort Harrison and following this appointment, he sold groceries "…which seems to have mostly consisted of selling liquor" (Day 1984). Brouillet would father nine children, and the house he built would stay in his family until 1839. The house would be continually occupied until 1974. 

The House!

The house was constructed in the French colonial tradition called poteaux-sur-sole, or vertical “posts on sill.” Vertical posts were placed resting on a timber sill. At the Brouillet house, the sills are 12” x 12” hewn oak logs that were laid upon foundation walls, which were constructed using semi-dressed sandstone and mortar made of crushed shell, yellow sand, and clay (Gray 1975a:4). Up from the sills, angled braces and vertical posts connected by small stakes created the basic frame of the house. Bousillage, a mixture of straw and mud, was used to fill-in the areas between the posts, creating a solid wall. The interior walls, and probably the exterior walls, were then plastered and whitewashed (Gray 1975a:5). At the time the house was sold to the ONBC in 1975, vertical posts, bousillage and white staining were visible peeking out from various spots on the walls, but other elements common to this style of architecture were missing. Two key missing pieces were the porches and lean-to. Finding evidence of these and other landscape features such as outbuildings and picket fences were the primary goals of the archaeology that began immediately following the purchase of the property by the ONBC in 1975.

Spacious broad porches, or “galleries,” and lean-tos were key components archaeologists hoped to find. The 1975 archaeological project uncovered clear evidence for the original porches, which had been removed some 75 years prior. Excavating at the rear of the house, they uncovered a sandstone footer about 8.9’ away from the back of the house. One of these aligned perfectly with a slit in the sill in which the porch would have been attached (Figure 2). In the front of the house, they excavated underneath the current paved walkway and found evidence that stone footers may have been removed in preparation for the walkway (Gray 1975b:12-13).    

Lean-tos built off the sides of houses have been associated with Euro-American houses of the period as well as French Creole houses. Constructed on one or more sides of the structure, they were often used as summer kitchens. The 1975 excavations sought to find evidence of a lean-to and to determine if it was original or had been added later. Excavations revealed a fireplace made of dressed sandstone and brick. The stone interlocked with stone that formed part of the base of the fireplace inside. Larger pieces of sandstone found amidst a large amount of brick and fill were also recovered and were tentatively identified as possible footers for the lean-to. This evidence pointed toward a lean-to that was built as part of the original structure and used as a summer kitchen (Figure 2). 

The porches and lean-to were not the only things that could have potentially been revealed via archaeology. Richard Day, curator for The Old French House and then for Vincennes State Historic Site (retired), brought together evidence from comparable houses and property lots with detailed historical research to give a comprehensive overview of what the Brouillet house and property may have looked like (Day 1977). Along with the aforementioned elements, outbuildings such as a shed, barn, stable and oven were likely present amidst vegetable gardens and orchards. The most prominent feature, a tall picket fence that surrounded everything, could also have been a potential find. Two subsequent archaeological projects that took place in 1979 and 1980 focused primarily on trying to locate those possible outbuildings and the fence, but little definitive evidence was found. However, other evidence revealed in these excavations also help tell the story of the house. 

Features that may date to the early nineteenth century including trash pits, postholes, and possibly a well were recovered. Also recovered were artifacts dating from the early nineteenth century, such as creamware and pearlware ceramics, through the early twentieth century, such as glass soda bottles. Beyond the original (and relatively short lived) Brouillet occupation, the house and property proved to be a great example of a changing landscape in Vincennes. The early nineteenth century features, combined with a look at artifact types and densities as they were found in relationship to each other across the landscape, helped to characterize the property (Jones 1982; Orser 1979). The back half and the front half of the lot appear to have been used differently, with trash deposits in the front half and structures possibly in the back half. This could reflect “…a discernable French pattern for residential occupations…” or possibly changes in nationality/cultural traditions over time (Jones 1982:41-44).      

Over the years, the landscape has changed dramatically. Most notably, houses were built directly adjacent to the Brouillet House and alterations, including an addition to the back of the house, all contributed to the difficulty in locating intact features. However, an important note here is that a robust amount of data, including artifacts, were recovered that document the post-Brouillet through twentieth century period. Not only do the house and property serve to tell the story of early Vincennes and Indiana, but also the story of how we got to where we are today.  

The Brouillet house and property are registered with the Indiana Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology as archaeological site 12K690. In 2015, the Indiana State Museum and Historic Sites (ISMHS) acquired the property from the ONBC, and it is now a part of the Indiana State Museum, Vincennes State Historic Site. It is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, within the Vincennes Historic District (NRHP #74000022). Special thanks to all the property owners of the Brouillet house who so clearly cared for the house, making it possible for future generations to enjoy. 

References

Cultural Resource Analysts, Inc. (2017). Historic Structures Report / Cultural Landscape Report Michele Brouillet House. Evansville, Indiana.

Day, Richard (1977). “The French Town Lot in Vincennes, Indiana.” Unpublished manuscript on file, Indiana State Museum and Historic Sites. Indianapolis, Indiana.

Day, Richard (1984). Michel Brouillet, 1774-1838: A Vincennes Fur Trader, Interpreter, and Scout. Paper presented at the 2nd Annual George Rogers Clark Trans-Appalachian Frontier History Conference, Vincennes, Indiana. 

Ekberg, Carl J. (2000). French Roots in the Illinois Country. University of Urbana Press, Urbana and Chicago, Illinois.

Gray, Marlesa (1975a). The Brouillette House Site – A Preliminary Report. Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology, Indiana University. Bloomington, Indiana.

Gray, Marlesa (1975b). Field notes and photographs, 1979 Brouillet House excavations. Materials on file. Indiana State Museum and Historic Sites, Indianapolis, Indiana.

Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) (1974). Brouillette House, 509 North First Street, Vincennes, Knox County, IN. Electronic document,  https://www.loc.gov/item/in0042/  accessed February 24, 2021.

Jones, James R. III (1982). 1980 Summer Excavations at the Brouillet House Site, Vincennes, Indiana. Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana.  

McCafferty, Michael (2008). Native American Place Names of Indiana. University of Illinois Press, Urbana and Chicago, Illinois.

Orser, Charles E. (1979). Archaeological Investigations at the Brouillet House Site, Vincennes, Indiana. Southern Illinois University-Carbondale, Carbondale, Illinois. 

Rubino, Darrin (2005). Vincennes Historical Building Dating. Hanover College, Hanover, Indiana.

Vincennes Sun-Commercial (VSC) Vincennes, Indiana (1975). “City House May Be One of the Oldest in State.” 20 April:1. Regional History/Genealogy Research Center, McGrady-Brockman House, Knox County Public Library, Vincennes, Indiana. 

A story highlighting Martion County has not yet been received. Please check back soon.

A story highlighting Pike County has not yet been received. Please check back soon.

The Mann site, located near the confluence of the Wabash and Ohio rivers in southwest Indiana, has been recognized for many years as an important Middle Woodland period site, unique not only in the state, but also in the greater Midwest. Radiocarbon dates from Mann and affiliated sites in the area indicate a late Middle Woodland occupation, covering a 450-year period running from about AD 150 to 600. The Mann site is situated on the edge of a high terrace within a mile of the Ohio River and overlooking a number of backwater sloughs that likely provided ample foodstuffs for its residents.

The earliest record of the site’s existence dates to the latter portion of the nineteenth century. It was not until 1940, however, that the Mann site was brought to the attention of the professional archaeological community. That was when a local collector first informed Glenn A. Black of the Mann site’s existence (Black 1941:34-35). Later investigations by both avocational and professional archaeologists followed in the subsequent decades (e.g., Kellar 1979; Lacer n.d.). It was not until 1997, however, that Bret Ruby summarized the state of knowledge about the Mann site in his dissertation (Ruby 1997), providing us with our first comprehensive description of the artifacts and earthworks present there. In more recent years, a series of large-scale magnetometry surveys at Mann have provided us with a clearer picture of what exactly is beneath the surface, documenting the presence and distribution of both habitation and ceremonial features at the site (Peterson 2007; Strezewski and Peterson 2019).

The results of these studies indicate that Mann is as enigmatic as it is unique. First is the massive overall size of the site in terms of the number and size of the accompanying earthworks (Figure 1). These consist of eight loaf-shaped and conical mounds (IU 1, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15), two oval or U-shaped enclosures (IU 7 and 17), at least two sets of square-to-rectangular geometric earthworks (IU 2 and 3), a small circular embankment (IU 16), a 770 m long linear embankment (IU 10), and two rectangular platform-shaped mounds (IU 8 and 9). Though the volume of earth used to construct these earthworks has not been calculated with any great accuracy, it is clear that the amount is unprecedented for the region and comparable only to the largest Middle Woodland Hopewell ceremonial centers of Ohio, such as Newark and Mound City. As a basis of comparison, it has been noted that two of the five largest Hopewell mounds anywhere in the Midwest (IU 1 and IU 9) are located at the Mann site (Ruby 1997:Table 98). Although earthworks are known from other Mann phase sites in southwestern Indiana, those at the Mann site proper are many orders of magnitude larger.

The second reason the Mann site stands out is the volume and variety of exotic goods present, indicating a level of extra-local contact not seen elsewhere in the region. Exotic materials from the Mann site include items such as obsidian from Idaho, copper from the upper Great Lakes, Tallahatta quartzite from southern Alabama, Knife River flint from the Great Plains, and mica and simple stamped pottery, likely from northwest Georgia (Hughes 2006; Keith 2010:474; Ruby 1997). Overall, the Mann site possesses a level of exotic artifact diversity surpassed by only five of 242 Hopewell sites studied by Seeman (1979). Swift Creek Complicated stamped ceramics, a common pottery type from Georgia and northern Florida, comprises a distinct minority ware at Mann, making up approximately 2.5% of the total ceramic assemblage (Kellar 1979:Table 14.1). While the vessel forms and design elements of the Mann specimens are identical to those found in Georgia, studies of the clay used to make these vessels indicate that they were locally manufactured, bringing up the possibility of non-local residents at the Mann site (Ruby and Shriner 2006). Similarly, pottery likely made at the Mann site has been found in a number of extra-regional contexts, including sites in Ohio, North Carolina, western Tennessee, and northwest Georgia (Keith 2010:314; Stoltman 2015:83-90).

The singularly distinctive characteristic of the Mann site, however, is the presence of dense and widespread habitation debris in association with the earthworks. Dark patches on aerial photos suggest that these habitation areas may cover as much as 40 hectares (99 acres), extending primarily along the southern site margin, from just west of the IU 2 rectangular earthworks to the cluster of conical mounds on the eastern edge of the site (Ruby 1997:315). Though largely unpublished, excavations by Indiana University in the 1960s and 1970s identified great quantities of materials and deep trash deposits, suggesting an occupation of some duration and/or intensity. Recent magnetometry surveys at Mann have confirmed the presence of thousands of habitation-type features such as earth ovens and trash pits adjacent to and segregated from the central ceremonial areas of the site (Peterson 2007; Strezewski and Peterson 2019). Despite the great deal of evidence for a fair number of residents at Mann, relatively little is known about the organization, duration, extent, overall size, and seasonality of those occupations. Significantly, the strong evidence for a resident population at Mann lies in sharp contrast to Middle Woodland habitation sites elsewhere in the midcontinent, which are typically quite small and usually some distance from earthwork complexes (Ruby et al. 2006). Although larger-scale concentrations of residential features have been noted at a few Middle Woodland sites in the Southeast (e.g., Keith 2013; Pluckhahn et al. 2018), it is yet unclear how these compare in size, intensity, and organization to that identified at Mann.

Information suggests that Mann phase subsistence is similar to that of other Middle Woodland manifestations, such as those found in Illinois and Ohio. Botanical analyses indicate a dominance of cultivated Eastern Agricultural Complex (EAC) plants, including goosefoot (Chenopodium sp.), maygrass (Phalaris caroliniana), and erect knotweed (Polygonum erectum). Though Mann phase peoples were clearly agriculturally focused, nuts and wild plants and animals also made up a significant portion of the diet (Turner 2011).

Recent magnetometry survey at the site has provided a wealth of data on some of the ceremonial areas at Mann, particularly mound IU 9, the largest platform mound. The fact that a Middle Woodland platform mound is present at the site is, in itself, an anomaly. Most such mounds are in the Southeast, with very few found north of the Ohio River. The results of the IU 9 survey, shown in Figure 2, indicate a wealth of activity atop its summit. There appears to be two sets of bilaterally symmetrical post enclosures on top of the mound. The western of the two consists of a number of conjoined enclosures, linked together from north to south. These enclosed areas are almost certainly not structures, as most are far too large to have been covered by a roof. The eastern post enclosure complex at IU 9 is confined to the northeastern portion of the mound summit, and consists of a paired circle and square, reminiscent of the large paired circle-and-square earthworks seen in Ohio. Numerous features are found within the enclosures’ limits, suggesting a wealth of activity, some of which likely involved the use of intense burning. A series of linear features, possibly representing a gravel wall, surround the mound along its base. This may have served as a means to delineate and limit access to a sacred space (Strezewski and Peterson 2019).

How do these data compare to features found on other Middle Woodland platform mounds? The short answer is that nothing even remotely comparable has been previously identified elsewhere. Features associated with southeastern platform mounds often include small- to large-sized posts; the arrangement of these posts, however, is often seemingly random, with little evidence for a formal structure on the summit. While some have suggested that these posts may represent the remains of scaffolds and/or large ceremonial markers, the function of Middle Woodland platform mounds is far from clear. So, what activities took place on top of IU 9? While we cannot be certain, the data thus far suggest that one purpose of the large enclosures may have been to shield sacred ceremonial activities from viewing by the general public. These ceremonies, possibly related to celebration and/or commemoration of the dead, may have been reserved for those with the knowledge and/or right to be within this sacred area.

Although the Mann site is clearly one of the most important sites in the state, it is also one of the most perplexing. Recent work, however, has shed considerable light on the nature of the site, with the hope that we may better understand the lives of the site’s residents and the reasons why they devoted enormous amounts of effort into building, maintaining, and using the earthworks found there. 

Black, Glenn A. (1941). Cultural Complexities of Southwestern Indiana. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 50:33-35.

Hughes, Richard E. (2006). The Sources of Hopewell Obsidian: Forty Years after Griffin. In Recreating Hopewell, edited by Douglas K. Charles and Jane E. Buikstra, pp. 361-375. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Keith, Scot (2010). Archaeological Data Recovery at the Leake Site, Bartow County, Georgia, volume 1. Southern Research, Historic Preservation Consultants. Report submitted to the Georgia Department of Transportation, Atlanta.

Keith, Scot (2013). The Woodland Period Cultural Landscape of the Leake Site Complex. In Early and Middle Woodland Landscapes of the Southeast, edited by Alice P. Wright and Edward R. Henry, pp. 138-152. Florida University Press, Gainesville.

Kellar, James H. (1979). The Mann Site and “Hopewell” in the Lower Wabash-Ohio Valley. In Hopewell Archaeology: the Chillicothe Conference, edited by David S. Brose and N’omi Greber, pp. 100-107. Kent State Press, Kent, Ohio.

Lacer, Charles R. (n.d.). The Mann Site, Posey County, Indiana (12 Po 2). Manuscript on file at the University of Southern Indiana Archaeology Laboratory, Evansville.

Peterson, Staffan (2007). Surface Mapping and Subsurface Imaging of the Mann Archaeological Site (12-Po-2), Posey County, Indiana. HPF 21517-11. Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana.

Pluckhahn, Thomas J., Martin Menz, Shaun E. West, and Neill J. Wallis (2018). A New History of Community Formation and Change at Kolomoki (9ER1). American Antiquity 83(2):320-344.

Ruby, Bret J. (1997). The Mann Phase: Hopewellian Subsistence and Settlement Adaptations in the Wabash Lowlands of Southwestern Indiana. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Indiana University, Bloomington.

Ruby, Bret J., Christopher Carr, and Douglas K. Charles (2006). Community Organizations in the Scioto, Mann, and Havana Hopewellian Regions. In Gathering Hopewell: Society, Ritual, and Ritual Interaction, edited by Christopher Carr and D. Troy Case, pp. 119-176. Springer, New York, New York.

Ruby, Bret J. and Christine M. Shriner (2006). Ceramic Vessel Compositions and Styles as Evidence of the Local and Nonlocal Social Affiliations of Ritual Participants at the Mann Site, Indiana. In Gathering Hopewell: Society, Ritual, and Ritual Interaction, edited by Christopher Carr and D. Troy Case, pp. 553-572. Springer, New York, New York.

Seeman, Mark F. (1979). The Hopewell Interaction Sphere: The Evidence for Interregional Trade and Structural Complexity. Prehistory Research Series 5(2). Indiana Historical Society, Indianapolis.

Strezewski, Michael and Staffan Peterson (2019). Geophysical Survey at the Mann Site (12-Po-2): Middle Woodland Ceremonialism in Southwest Indiana. Reports of Investigations 17-01. University of Southern Indiana Archaeology Laboratory, Evansville, Indiana.

Stoltman, James B. (2015). Ceramic Petrography and Hopewell Interaction. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Turner, Jocelyn C. (2011). Macrobotanical Analysis of Two Hopewell Mound Samples from the Mann Site (12Po2) in Indiana. Southeastern Archaeology 30(2):365-376.

The early history of investigations at Kramer Mound (12SP7) began with the work of Arthur Veatch and Clarence Kennedy in 1896. Veatch and Kennedy dug a trench “10 feet long, 4 feet wide, and 6 feet deep,” which “revealed the usual stratification found in shell middens” (Kellar 1956:24). In 1916, a human burial was encountered, while additional human remains were recovered in the 1930s during the excavation of post holes (Kellar 1956: 24). James Kellar, in his 1956 study, An Archaeological Survey of Spencer County, identifies the site as the Kramer Mound, although he states that it is not “an artificially constructed tumuli. Rather, it is a midden deposit made up of an underlying concentration of mussel shell covered by a stratum of dark soil” (Kellar 1956:24)

 The site was further recorded in 1987 by Indiana University. At that time, it was characterized as a Late Archaic (4000 BC – 1500 B.C.; see Jones and Johnson 2016 for a precontact chronology of Indiana) shell mound covering an area of three acres. The 1987 Indiana University Archaeological Survey Form described “heavy potting” at Kramer Mound and stated that during the removal of a barn on the property, “the site was backhoed out to 15 feet depth.” While it was believed the midden deposits had been completely destroyed, investigations conducted by the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology (DHPA) related to accidental discoveries of precontact materials at the site in 1999 and 2000, suggested portions of the Late Archaic midden remained intact.

2010 Field Investigations

In 2010, scientific recovery investigations were conducted, again precipitated by an inadvertent disturbance to the site, due to soils that were excavated to form a shallow retaining basin (Bergman 2011). The fieldwork involved two separate phases, characterized as recovery and investigation, respectively. The recovery phase involved the recording and collection of disturbed archaeological materials scattered on the surface and within the basin and surrounding berms, as well as within an ‘Ap’ or plowzone soil segregation pile. The investigation phase consisted of the examination and profiling of undisturbed wall sections in order to assess the site’s stratigraphy, as well as to collect samples for paleobotanical and AMS dating purposes. This part of the study was limited in scope and directed at identifying in situ deposits in the least intrusive manner possible. 

The Archaeological Assemblages

A total of 271 Projectile Points/Knives (PPKs) were collected, and 43.9 percent (n = 119) of these could not be classified. The remaining 152 PPKs were assigned to specific clusters ranging in date between the Early Archaic and Late Woodland periods (ca. 8000 B.C. – A.D. 1200). There were 106 Middle and Late Archaic (ca. 6000 B.C. – 1500 B.C.) projectile points, which comprise 69.7 percent of the 152 PPKs that were assigned a temporal bracket. Most of these specimens are represented by the Brewerton Eared and Matanzas varieties (41.2 percent of the total of 106; Figure 1), as well as McWhinney Heavy Stemmed (17.0 percent of the total of 106) and other stemmed forms. These point types are characteristic of the French Lick phase, which typically includes Matanzas Side Notched, Big Sandy II, Karnak Stemmed, and straight- to expanding stemmed PPKs (collectively referred to as the M-B-K-S grouping).  

The groundstone and ‘other’ artifacts included axe and celt fragments, bannerstone fragments, hematite objects, fossils, collected stones and water-worn flaked stone artifacts, hammerstones, pitted stones and grinding stones, as well as red ochre. Fossil crinoid stem sections, geodes, and even water worn prehistoric tools of earlier manufacture were probably collected during various subsistence or recreational forays and brought back to the site by the Archaic inhabitants. Whether they were regarded as mere curios or invested with greater significance is unknown.

The processed bone, antler, and teeth artifacts comprise three basic groups: 1) manufacturing debris, 2) finished tools and ornaments, and 3) an ‘other’ group, predominantly objects suspected to be pressure flaker tips. The first group consists of objects like grooved and snapped antler processing discards, while the second group comprises finished artifacts like an atlatl hook fragment, a beaver tooth chisel with visible sharpening striations, awls, decorated and undecorated pins, and ornamental beads. The third group consists of shaped pieces of antler modified for use as pressure flakers, which display cuts, striations and microflaking at their tips. The collection of beads from Kramer Mound is quite diverse in design and manufacture and includes drilled canine teeth, tube beads made of bone, and barrel-shaped beads made of antler, including one highly decorated example. The decorated bead is deeply incised (Figure 2, upper row, left) and is one of only three specimens currently known from Indiana, all of which are virtually identical and possibly made by the same artisan (Morrison et al. 2016). Two of these artifacts are from Spencer County, and one is from Gibson County at least 50 miles away.  

The presence of decorated pins suggests links with other Middle-Late Archaic sites in the region. Most of the Kramer Mound sample is represented by single specimens, except for four pins with fishtail-shaped bases (Figure 3). The fishtail-shaped style has been reported from Crib Mound in Spencer County and the McCain Site in Dubois County, as well as the Koster and Black Earth sites in Illinois, indicating the presence of regional exchange networks among groups participating in similar cultural expressions (Jefferies 1997). Such social interaction between precontact peoples involved in a shared cultural milieu is expected, but counterbalanced by occasional violent exchanges. 

The Faunal Assemblage

A total of 23,747 (32,396.06 grams) faunal specimens were analyzed by Tanya Peres Lemons (Middle Tennessee State University) representing 45 different taxa or groupings of animals, including vertebrates and invertebrates. Large mammals (n = 5588 or 23.5 percent Number of Identified Specimens [NISP]), especially white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus, incl. cf; n = 1145 or 4.8 percent NISP), dominate the assemblage, and it is clear deer were processed for meat, as evidenced by the presence of both cut marks and spiral fractures. In addition, meat and hides were not the only resource deer supplied – bone marrow and grease were likely also exploited. The current data from Kramer Mound is highly suggestive that the long bones of large mammals, specifically white-tailed deer, were split and fractured to allow for marrow extraction. A preliminary analysis of the faunal assemblage yielded a total of 5,256 (22.1 percent) bone flakes, indicating that nearly one-quarter of the entire faunal collection evidences processing for marrow.

Various animals identified from the site were likely to have been exploited for reasons other than subsistence, including bobcat, striped skunk, red fox, muskrat, red-tailed hawk, sandhill crane, gar, and bowfin. Gar and bowfin teeth are known to be used for making scratching and/or tattooing implements up through historic and modern times. The striped skunk and red fox are fur-bearing animals, and thus were probably exploited for their pelts. The bobcat, red-tailed hawk, and sandhill crane were powerful images for later precontact Native Americans (such as at Cahokia Mounds), ideological attributes that may have ultimately originated in the Archaic Period. Finally, a turtle shell rattle was identified at the Bluegrass Site (12W162) in Warrick County, suggesting that some of the numerous box turtle (Terrapene carolina) remains (n = 1053 or 4.43 percent NISP) are attributable, at least in part, to non-subsistence purposes. Indeed, two box turtle specimens from Kramer Mound, both marginal scutes from around the carapace edge (Figure 2c), had perforations and may have formed parts of rattles.

Paleobotanical Remains

The small flotation sample consisted of 56.8 liters of water sorted and screened soils, which yielded wood charcoal and carbonized nutshells along with a sample of unidentified botanical remains. Of the nutshell fragments selected for Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) dating, and identified to genus-level, walnut (Juglans sp., 3.3 grams) and hickory (Carya sp., 4.1 grams) are most common at 68 and 87 individual specimens, respectively. Oak acorns (Quercus sp., 0.08 grams) are poorly represented with only three specimens, perhaps due to their thin pericarp, or outer shell.

Radiocarbon Dating

Two AMS dates were obtained using carbonized hickory, walnut, and oak acorn nutshell fragments. Beta Sample 284033 was collected from Stratum IIb, lower Ap horizon, Unit West 17, and yielded a calibrated radiocarbon age of 4220 B.C. (conventional radiocarbon age of 5300 + 40 B.P.). Beta Sample 284032 was collected from Stratum III, midden horizon, Unit South 7, and yielded a calibrated radiocarbon age of 3760 B.C. (conventional radiocarbon age of 4980 + 40 B.P.). These dates fall within the range of the French Lick Phase, which spans the later Middle Archaic into the early part of the Late Archaic.

Human Osteology

The Minimum Number of Individuals (MNI) indicated by the human remains recovered from the Kramer Mound was 41, including 24 adults and 17 subadults (Bergman et al. 2014). Christopher Schmidt (University of Indianapolis) believes the pathology, anatomical features like femoral subtrochanteric flatness, the sizable percentage of children represented, and heavy dental wear are consistent with contemporary sites in the region.  There was a single individual with trauma occurring at or near death, in common with other Middle and Late Archaic mortuaries in southern Indiana along the Ohio River. Sites such as Bluegrass (12W162) in Warrick County, Meyer (12SP1082) in Spencer County, 12HR6 in Harrison County, and Firehouse (12D563) in Dearborn County have at least one instance of an individual missing a limb and/or their head, or display some evidence of trauma such as scalping. In general, trophy taking was more common than scalping during the Archaic Period (Lockhart Sharkey 2011), but the latter was present in Indiana and neighboring states at that time. The violence that produced the scalping and trophy taking was likely small-scale and perhaps infrequent, but it did persist largely unchanged within the Archaic Period.

References

Bergman, Christopher A. (2011). Scientific Recovery Investigations at the Kramer Mound (12Sp7): Fieldwork, Stratigraphy and Dating. Indiana Archaeology 6(1):49-63.

Bergman, Christopher A., Tanya P. Lemons, and Christopher Schmidt (2014). Scientific Recovery Investigations at the Kramer Mound (12Sp7): Prehistoric Artifact Assemblage, Faunal and Floral Remains, and Human Osteology. Indiana Archaeology 9(1)1:13-101.

 Jefferies, R. W. (1997). Middle Archaic Bone Pins: Evidence of Mid-Holocene Regional-Scale Social Groups in the Southern Midwest. American Antiquity 62(3):464-487.

 Jones, James R. and Amy L. Johnson (2016). Early Peoples of Indiana. Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology, Indianapolis.

Kellar, James H. (1956). An Archaeological Survey of Spencer County. Indiana Historical Bureau, Indianapolis.

Lockhart Sharkey, Rachel A. (2011). A Comparison of Middle and Late Archaic and Late Prehistoric Trophy Taking. University of Indianapolis, Indianapolis.

Morrison, Gary, Terry Meade, and Christopher A. Bergman (2016). Distinctive French Lick Phase Antler Beads from Three Locations in Indiana. Indiana Archaeology 11(1):26-35.

A story highlighting Sullivan County has not yet been received. Please check back soon.

Angel Mounds (12VG1), just east of Evansville in Vanderburgh County, is one of Indiana’s most iconic Native American archaeological sites. It is a National Historic Landmark, the only large precontact town in the state, one of the first archaeological sites to be acquired by the people of Indiana for preservation and is at the core of Indiana University's Midwestern archaeology program. State managed since 1946, it hosts tens of thousands of visitors yearly who come to walk the grounds of the 103-acre town and to view its rich, immersive museum exhibits. For over 80 years, scores of archaeologists, myself included, have worked hard to understand the people who created and lived at Angel.

Archaeologists refer to the people and ways of life at Angel as Mississippian, a culture present across parts of the Midwest and mid-south U.S. from about AD 1050 to 1450. These people shared specific types of architecture, artifacts, and likely religious beliefs. They lived in farmsteads, villages, and large towns like Angel, generally in fertile river valleys. The largest Mississippian settlements nearest to Angel are Kincaid on the Ohio River in southern Illinois, and Cahokia. Cahokia, near East St. Louis, Missouri, was at the center of the Mississippian world and was the largest precontact city north of Teotihuacán in Mexico, with perhaps 50,000 residents at its peak. Mississippian towns like Angel may have been places where people from smaller nearby settlements could exchange goods and ideas. The presence of civic and ceremonial architecture including mounds and a large plaza supported development of a shared religion and culture. These large, planned communities within an urban/hinterland context appear to have been unprecedented in the precontact period of the eastern U.S., and had a profound impact on all aspects of life (Pauketat 2004; Pauketat and Alt 2015).

These towns share a number of architectural characteristics, including rectangular houses of wattle and daub construction and thatch roofs, often set in densely occupied neighborhoods. Archaeological excavations and geophysical imaging of the subsurface shows that within neighborhoods, the residents often rebuilt or repaired houses on top of earlier ones, making it difficult to estimate how many were standing at any given time. Existing excavation and geophysical data indicate that about 350 “house lots” were used at Angel across the duration of its occupation (Figure 1). A reasonable estimate, based on this house lot information, is that Angel at its peak was home to hundreds of families (Peterson 2015:84). Charred food remains and residues recovered in excavations indicate that people primarily depended upon the corn they farmed, but also upon the wild plants, game, and fish that thrived in the rich river valleys where they preferred to settle. Reber et al. (2015) were able to determine the types of food cooked in a plain ceramic jar from Angel by chemically analyzing the residues still present after 900 years (lean fish or shellfish, and plant resources, likely including maize). Large scale corn production is a major innovation in the Mississippian period. Corn was the only staple that could provide quantities of storable food sufficient to support the concentrated populations we know lived at Angel and other large Mississippian places (Emerson et al. 2020). 

The larger Mississippian settlements have large rectangular flat topped and low conical earthen mounds, a large plaza, and sometimes a defensive log palisade around the town. At Angel and some other towns, the larger mounds were laid out with particular geometric orientations, such as in the direction of the sunset every year at summer solstice (Peterson 2010), or towards the set of the moon’s northern minimum standstill every 18 ½ years (Romain 2018; Watts-Malouchos 2020). This hints at one aspect of Mississippian ritual life and even political organization. Accomplishing such architectural precision at the scale of a whole town and over a long period suggests an intense engagement with celestial phenomena, sophisticated town planning, and the means to implement it. It is also interesting that the appearance of some of these Mississippian innovations occurred nearly simultaneously up and down the Mississippi and Ohio valleys and into the mid-south around AD 1050-1100, very soon after the rise of Cahokia, with continued spread to the south over the following century (Pauketat 2007:106). The rapid spread of new and distinctive architectural and ritual practices were elements of a new cultural blueprint that developed in part via the influence of Cahokia (Pauketat and Alt 2015:5).

Angel has a long history of investigation. It was first mapped by the Indiana Geological Survey in 1875 and again by the U.S. Bureau of Ethnology in 1890, but it did not receive professional archaeological investigation until 1939 when Eli Lilly and Glenn A. Black became interested in the site (Black 1967). In 1938, with a donation from Eli Lilly, the Indiana Historical Society purchased the land and then donated it to the State of Indiana. Black became its main investigator, initially as part of the Depression-era Works Progress Administration and then as faculty at Indiana University (IU) until he passed in 1964 (Kellar 1967). The huge excavations of that era resulted in collections that researchers have been analyzing for decades. Over 2.5 million artifacts excavated from Angel are permanently housed at IU’s Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology, along with original maps, field notes, and photos. In recent decades, many Ph.D. students associated with IU and others have completed studies on ceramics, stone tools, plant and animal remains, soils, bioarchaeology and genetics, architecture, subsurface imaging, and radiocarbon dating. In 2010, I completed a multi-year magnetometer survey of the entire town, providing the first precise subsurface image of the town plan (Fig. 1) (Peterson 2010; 2015). To date, about 6% of the occupied area of Angel has been excavated, but this is only about 3% of the known extent of the town. About 80% of the area inside the largest palisade has no evidence of any architecture and may have been used for farm fields or gardens.

The chronology of the Angel occupation is today generally well understood. Dozens of radiocarbon dates from several excavation contexts and a ceramic seriation have enabled the construction of a three-period chronological outline: Angel 1: AD 1050–1200; Angel 2: AD 1200–1325; Angel 3: AD 1325–1450 (Hilgeman 2000; Krus et al. 2013). Interestingly, the largest of the mounds – Mounds A and F – appear to have been rapidly constructed during the Angel 1 period (Watts-Malouchos 2020). This suggests that Angel was a clean slate upon which an idealized architectural scheme was realized very early in the town’s history. The placement of highly visible and ideologically charged architectural statements such as mound top temples may have enabled leaders to make claims about origins, society, and legitimacy. However, the founders of the Angel settlement remain unknown. A compelling argument is that migrants from the Cahokia area had involvement in the rise of the town (Peterson 2010; Watts-Malouchos 2020). The earlier Yankeetown people that occupied the Wabash and Ohio River valleys in the AD 900–1000 period may have also had some involvement. However, the social relationships present at the founding of the town were no doubt complex, and definitive evidence of nexuses in this period with Cahokia, Yankeetown, or other peoples are still lacking.

At some time after AD 1280, the large encircling palisades were erected, possibly for defensive purposes built in a time of increased social stress (Krus et al. 2013). The majority of radiocarbon dates is from residential areas, and cluster in the AD 1300s, and the latest radiocarbon dates are circa AD 1450 when the town appears to have been abandoned. Archaeologist Cheryl Munson and others argue that around the latest period of the Angel occupation, Mississippian people began living just downstream of Angel near the confluence of the Wabash and Ohio rivers. While their house types and ceramics continued to be recognizable as Mississippian, there were no mound centers or large palisades. This later culture, known as the Caborn-Welborn Mississippian, persisted in that area until perhaps AD 1700 (Munson 2000; Pollack 2004).

Archaeologists studying ceramics of Angel have shown how they change over time, how they were used, and how their production could be tied to specific households. The stylistic and chronological framework developed by Sherri Hilgeman (2000) uses variation in pottery tied to radiocarbon dates from excavation features to show stylistic change over time. In their earliest forms, utilitarian jars have loop handles that are circular in cross section, while middle- and late-period handles are flat straps. Dru McGill (2013) has shown that the tools and residues of pottery production were only present in domestic areas, and were quite variable across the town. Stylistic attributes of pottery can also point to aspects of religious belief. Hilgeman associated Angel’s distinctive “sun in circle with modified cross” negative painted pottery motif with the historically recorded Green Corn Ceremony of the southeastern Creek and Yuchi tribes, that relates to the cyclical renewal of this critical crop (Hilgeman 2000:191-203). She notes a stability of these motifs nearly across the history of Angel. The Angel “kneeling man” statue, for example, is a type that also appears at several Mississippian sites in the mid-south (Smith 2006), and the cross in star motif on the distinctive Angel negative painted ceramics also are found at other Mississippian sites along the Ohio River (Hilgeman 1985). Thus, shared Mississippian religious practices across large areas are evidenced by shared iconography.

An important and widespread aspect of Native American belief, as documented by ethnographers and preserved in practice by many North American tribes to the present day, is engagement with the four directions. This tradition extends to prayer and cosmology, envisioned in architectural terms (e.g., Hall 1997; Nabakov and Easton 1989). At Angel and Mississippian places generally, reference to four sides or directions is seen in architecture, aesthetics, and some have argued, in town plans as well. Knight has argued that the distinctive flat topped pyramidal mound and four-sided house replicates cosmological understandings of a flat earth and the four directions. The rare and distinctive “sun in circle with modified cross” motif at Angel also appears to reference the four directions. Thus, the mounds, like pottery motifs, may have been sacred symbols, and their construction an enactment of a burial and renewal ritual. He finds that certain historically documented Muskogee and Creek practices are perhaps transformed versions of such Mississippian ritual (Knight 1986:683). Similarly, the town plan as a whole may in its conception and execution reference myth and origins, whether cosmological or genealogical (Knight 1986; Pauketat 2008).

These understandings of Angel are all results of careful preservation of archaeological information by curators, and decades of research by archaeologists. However, while some of the most compelling insights on Angel have incorporated tribal knowledge, Native American voices have been largely absent from those endeavors, diminishing what can be learned by excluding the voices of the heirs and keepers of Native culture. It seems appropriate then that new information on Angel and all other Native places must grow only in partnership with descendant peoples. A long overdue recognition of Native voices in how such places are respected is being developed at IU, most recently with the repatriation of the remains of 725 individuals from Angel for reburial, and the establishment of formal collaborative relationships with tribes going forward (Indiana University 2021). 

References

Black, Glenn A. (1967).  Angel Site: An Archaeological, Historical, and Ethnological Study. Indiana Historical Society, Indianapolis.

Emerson, Thomas, Kristin M. Hedman, Mary L. Simon, Mathew A. Fort and Kelsey E. Witt (2020). Isotopic Confirmation of the Timing and Intensity of Maize Consumption in Greater Cahokia. American Antiquity 85(2):241-262.

Hall, Robert L. (1997). An Archaeology of the Soul: North American Indian Belief and Ritual. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

Hilgeman, Sherri L. (1985). Lower Ohio Valley Negative Painted Ceramics. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 10(2):195-213.

Hilgeman, Sherri L. (2000). Pottery and Chronology at Angel. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Indiana University (2021). ‘IU works with Native American Tribes on New Measures to Strengthen Partnership.’  https://news.iu.edu/stories/2021/06/iu/releases/03-native-american-tribes-new-measures-strengthen-partnership.html  Accessed June 5, 2021.

Kellar, James H. (1967).  "Glenn A. Black." Indiana Magazine of History 63(1):49.  https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/imh/article/view/9236 . Retrieved August 22, 2021.

Knight, Vernon James (1986). The Institutional Organization of Mississippian Religion. American Antiquity 51(4):675-687.

Krus, Anthony, Timothy Schilling, and George W. Monaghan (2013). The Timing of Angel Mounds Palisade Construction: A Search for the Best Chronological Model. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 38(2):171-182.

McGill, Dru (2013). Craft Production Variation at Angel Mounds: Results from the 2006-2009 Indiana University Field-Schools. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 38(2):205-218.

Munson, Cheryl Ann (2000). Archaeological Survey and Testing at Protohistoric Mississippian Sites in Southwestern Indiana. Department of Anthropology, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana.

Nabakov, Peter, and R. Easton (1989). Native American Architecture. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Pauketat, Timothy R. (2004). Ancient Cahokia and the Mississippians. Cambridge University Press, London.

Pauketat, Timothy R. (2007). Chiefdoms and Other Archaeological Delusions. Altamira Press, Lanham, Maryland.

Pauketat, Timothy R. (2008). Founders’ Cults and the Archaeology of Wa-kan-da. In Memory Work: Archaeologies of Material Practices. Barbara J. Mills and William H. Walker (Eds.), pp. 61-79. School for Advanced Research Press, Santa Fe.

Pauketat, Timothy R., and Susan M. Alt (2015).  Medieval Mississippians: The Cahokian World. School for Advanced Research Press, Santa Fe.

Peterson, Staffan D. (2010). Townscape Archaeology at Angel Mounds. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Indiana University, Bloomington.

Peterson, Staffan D. (2015).  Lost Towns Found on the Ohio River. In Medieval Mississippians. Timothy R. Pauketat and Susan M. Alt (Eds.), pp. 80-85. School for Advanced Research Press, Santa Fe.

Pollack, David (2004). Caborn-Welborn Constructing a New Society after the Angel Chiefdom Collapse. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Reber, Eleanora, Timothy E. Baumann, George W. Monaghan, and Kelsey Noack Myers (2015). Absorbed Residue Analysis of a Mississippi Plain Jar from Angel Mounds (12Vg1): Lipid Distribution Revisited. Advances in Archaeological Practice 3(1):29-49.

Romain, William F. (2018). Ancient Skywatchers of The Eastern Woodlands. In Archaeology and Ancient Religion in the American Midcontinent, T. R. Pauketat and B. H. Koldehoff (Eds.), pp. 304-342. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Smith, Kevin E. with James V. Miller (2006). Speaking with the Ancestors: Mississippian Stone Statuary of the Tennessee-Cumberland Style. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Watts-Malouchos, Elizabeth (2020). Angel Ethnogenesis and the Cahokian Diaspora. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 27:28-156.

The results of the data recovery efforts by Cultural Resource Analysts, Inc., in 2017 indicate that Evansville’s Bee Slough Dump was a public dump from circa the 1890s to 1940s. The portion of the dump recorded as 12VG1357 is on a terrace slope behind several residential lots in downtown Evansville (Figure 1). Some historic dumps consist of small, household-sized, single mass-disposal episodes, while others are larger community/village dumps, city dumps, or even landfills. Depending on the dump and its environmental setting, different techniques can be used to sample the deposits within. In the case of site 12VG1357, this consisted of monitoring the construction of a combined sewer overflow pipeline, artifact sampling, and trenching. Due to the project location and setting, there were challenges in recording the stratigraphy of this dump—in particular with regard to safety concerns—but overall, the artifact assemblage collected is a valid representation of items commonly used, and disposed of, by individuals and households in early- to mid-twentieth-century Evansville.

Up to the mid-twentieth century, Evansville was like many other American cities in that variable methods of garbage collection and disposal caused citizens to look for supplemental ways of disposing their waste. The result was piles of unregulated garbage, and manure in yards and pits, city streets and alleys, open dumps, and watercourses such as the Ohio River, Pigeon Creek, and Bee Slough. Due to the growing amount of garbage, unreliable collection, and laws forbidding public dumping, Evansville residents in the 1890s had begun complaining that there was no public place for them to put their refuse. During this period, the public had already appropriated much of the Bee Slough area on their own for use as a public dump. By 1895, the problem of people dumping into the lower part of Bee Slough had grown large enough for the city to employ a guard to protect the waterway (Evansville Journal 1895). In the early twentieth century, the city of Evansville officially began purchasing land to expand Sunset Park. While the public dumping may have been considered a “nuisance” by the city ordinances, the dirt, street sweepings, ash, and other refuse were a convenient and cost-efficient solution not only to address public complaints, but also to in-fill the low-lying land to be part of the new park property. Circa 1911, the city stopped the dumping and filling, and landscaped at least portions of the upper part of Sunset Park to Shawnee Drive. This likely exponentially increased the amount of refuse being dumped near site 12VG1357. There are numerous accounts of activity in the area between Adams Street (Shawnee Drive) and Parrett Street between 1900 and the 1930s. At least one account indicates that the fire and police departments had to oust squatters from this dump site (Evansville Journal News 1908). People created small camps and remained there for weeks. By 1919, the police were even using what they called the Parrett Street dump as their official dumping ground for confiscated alcohol bottles during prohibition. In 1937, the city engineer submitted a detailed report to the Board of Health on 33 dump sites in the city and recommended that 23 of them be eliminated, including the one at Bee Slough (The Evansville Courier 1937; The Evansville Press [TEP] 1937). However, public dumping continued in that area of the city, slowly moving southward, up to the 1970s (TEP 1975).

Sullivan and Griffith (2005:16) indicate that because open dump sites are primarily composed of artifacts (as opposed to features), the analysis of the artifact’s technological, stylistic, chronological, and functional attributes will yield the greatest and most significant information about the site as a whole. One of the general research questions developed during the project was to determine how long this portion of the dump may have been used. While the archival research suggested that the dump was utilized circa 1900 to 1940, the archaeology and artifact analysis served to test the historic record. In this case, the two are virtually identical. Both date the site with a maximum range of 1895 to1940, with a more likely intense use range of 1900 to1930.

From the overall artifact assemblage collected from the site, container glass produced the most reliable ranges of dates among the recovered materials because of the presence of proprietary embossing and maker’s marks (Figure 2). The mean date of manufacture for all of the hand-blown vessels with identifiable maker’s marks was 1907. The mean date of the semi-automatic machine-made container glass with datable maker’s marks or logos was 1915. Fully machine-made glass comprised the largest category of artifacts recovered from site 12VG1357 (n = 188) and accounted for approximately 29% of the entire artifact assemblage. The mean dates for the embossed maker’s marks identified on the ABM glass ranged from 1912 to 1926, and the mean maker’s mark date was 1919. Approximately 44 % (n = 18) of the identified maker’s marks (n = 41) on the ABM glass containers were attributed to The Illinois Glass Company and date from 1912 to1929 (Lockhart et al. 2005:Table 1).

The overall mean date for the entire ceramic assemblage was 1904. It should be noted that many of the recovered ceramics were likely utilized over the course of many years and only discarded when they were broken. As with all of the non-perishable goods recovered from this site, depositional lag time due to use should always be considered. This would have certainly been the case for ceramics, which also may have been valued by individuals as family heirlooms or keepsakes. The identifiable maker’s marks highlight that the site deposits likely date after 1900. The mean date for all of the ceramics with maker’s marks was 1917. The types of ceramic maker’s marks included, but were not limited to, a Homer Laughlin “Hudson” mark that dates from 1900 to 1907; a Homer Laughlin “Genesee” mark that dates from 1890 to 1910; nine Crown Potteries Company marks that date from 1891 to 1955; a Buffalo Pottery Company mark that dates from 1905 to 1917; a Greenwood Pottery Company mark that dates from 1900 to 1975; and a Pope Gosser China Company mark that dates from 1903 to 1913 (Lehner 1988).

Two of the main research questions to be addressed with the artifact analysis were: 1) how many of the items recovered reflect locally produced items versus imported products; and 2) were different products more likely to be imported than others. The recovered information regarding the manufacturers showed that approximately 16 % (n = 17) of all of the manufacturing companies identified (n = 105) had been located in Evansville. A strong and relatively diverse localized market also existed for certain industries in Evansville at the time that site 12VG1357 was developing. The recovered data shows that ceramics, glass containers, sodas, beer, and container closures were all manufactured within the city limits. The Evansville based companies that manufactured, distributed, or are otherwise associated with materials found during the investigation of site 12VG1357 are: Bernardin Bottle Cap Company, Charles Wunderlich and Son, Chero-Cola Bottling Company, Crown Potteries Company, Evansville Bottling Company (Works), Evansville Pure Milk Company, F.W. Cook Brewing Company, Graham Glass Company (Works), H.V. Bennighof and Sons, Home Bottling Company (Works), Ideal Dairy Company, Independent Bottling Company (Works), J. Vogel and Sons, Louis Wimberg, and Mountain Valley Bottling Company (Works). While the recovered materials do not represent all the manufacturers in Evansville during this period, they do highlight specific industries that produced goods meant for local consumption and show that this town was a strong competitor in the regional marketplace. For example, the data pertaining to refined ceramics (e.g., whiteware, ironstone, and porcelain) with identifiable makers marks recovered from this site (n = 19) shows that approximately 47 % (n = 9) of the ceramic marks were attributable to the Crown Potteries Company. This does highlight what appears to have been a local bias towards purchasing and using ceramics that were manufactured in town. To an even greater degree, a similar local bias was identified among the recovered soda bottles. Of the 35 identified soda bottles recovered, approximately 63 % (n = 22) exhibited embossing or manufacturer’s marks that were attributable to either distributors, bottling companies, or manufacturer’s that operated within the city limits in the first half of the twentieth century. An example of the regional influence of the soda bottle manufacturing industry was the Graham Glass Company. This plant produced the most beer, ginger ale, soda, and general purpose bottles of any single glass factory in the nation in 1914 (Lockhart et al. 2015:425).

Indiana was the most well-represented state among the identified manufacturers, and accounted for approximately 27 % (n = 28) of the manufacturing companies in the assemblage recovered from this site. Other than Evansville, additional cities in Indiana that were represented among the manufacturing companies included Terre Haute, French Lick, Marion, Muncie, Loogootee, and Ft. Wayne. New York was the second most well represented manufacturing state in the artifact assemblage recovered from site 12VG1357, and the total number of companies from New York (n = 15) was comparable to the number of manufacturers that were located in the city of Evansville. Other states represented among the identified manufacturing companies included Pennsylvania (n = 9), New Jersey (n = 6), Maryland (n = 2), Illinois (n = 10), Massachusetts (n = 4), Vermont (n = 1), Ohio (n = 6), Iowa (n = 1), Michigan (n = 1), Missouri (n = 7), West Virginia (n = 2), Kentucky (n = 3), Minnesota (n = 1), Virginia (n = 1), Louisiana (n = 2), Maine (n = 1), and Wisconsin (n = 1). Approximately 4 % of the manufacturers were located in Europe, and the only two European countries represented were Germany and England.

One manufacturing sector that appears to have been heavily imported to the state was medicine bottles and patent medicines. Medicine bottles were the most common glass container type recovered from site 12VG1357, though none of the 95 medicine bottles could be directly associated with manufacturers or businesses located in Evansville.  Approximately 23 different types of patent medicines were recovered from site 12VG1357. The patent medicine bottles contained amalgamations of ingredients that were meant to cure nearly every ailment that may have afflicted individuals around the turn of the twentieth century. The patent medicine types most common among the medicine bottles were “Bromo-Seltzer” (n = 4) and “Listerine” (n = 3). Also, one medicine container was recovered that may have been associated with a government issued cure used for treating an epidemic in Evansville such as cholera, typhoid, or yellow fever. This bottle was simply embossed with “U.S. Public Health Service, 100 CC”. Anytime one analyzes patent medicine bottle assemblages, it has to be kept in mind that they often were refilled. Hence, it can be difficult to ascertain just how much “medicine” was being consumed by those who disposed of the bottles.

The results of the investigation by Cultural Resource Analysts Inc. at site 12VG1357 show that the inhabitants of Evansville had the means to acquire goods from across the eastern half of the United States and Europe. Items from as far south as Louisiana and as far north as Wisconsin were also within reach for Evansville consumers. The material culture recovered from the site also showed that the residents of the city purchased items that spanned the entire socioeconomic spectrum. These items ranged from utilitarian goods, such as stoneware crocks or metal slop buckets, to more expensive goods, such as Limoges porcelain and unique medical remedies.

The data yielded from the investigation provides valuable insight into the lifeways of Evansville residents, and highlights regional variations in manufacturing and consumption, as well as health and sanitation practices in urban environments. In addition, the materials recovered, stratigraphy of the site, and land use patterns offer information about Evansville waste management practices that can be compared with regional and national trends, as well as other waste management studies in other cities from around the world.

References

Evansville Journal (EJ) (1895). The Board of Health. 19 May. Evansville, Indiana.

Evansville Journal-News (EJN) (1908). Squatter Disturbed, Leads Fire Chief on Great Race. 19 December. Evansville, Indiana.

Lehner, Lois (1988). Lehner’s Encyclopedia of U.S. Marks on Pottery, Porcelain and Clay. Collector Books, Paducah, Kentucky.

Lockhart, Bill, Bill Lindsey, David Whitten, and Carol Serr (2005). The Dating Game: The Illinois Glass Company. Bottles and Extras 16(1):54–60. Electronic Document, https://sha.org/bottle/pdffiles/IGCo_BLockhart.pdf, accessed July 10, 2017.

Lockhart, Bill, Pete Schulz, Beau Schriever, and Carol Serr (2015). Graham Glass Co. Electronic Document, https://sha.org/bottle/pdffiles/GrahamGlass.pdf, accessed July 11, 2017. The Society for Historical Archaeology.

Sullivan, Michael, and Carol Griffith (2005). Down in the Dumps: Context Statement and Guidance on Historical Period Waste Management and Refuse Deposits. Arizona State Parks, Phoenix.

The Evansville Courier (TEC) (1937). Close 23 Dumps, Geupel Suggests After Inspection. 18 April. Evansville, Indiana.

The Evansville Press (TEP) (1937). Move is to Regulate City‘s Dumps. 18 April. Evansville, Indiana.

The Evansville Press (TEP) (1975) He’s Not Kidding, Rattler Helps Back Snake Reports. 3 September. Evansville, Indiana.

In 1938, while working at the Angel site in Vanderburgh County, archaeologist Glenn Black was told of a previously unreported site adjacent to the Ohio River in Warrick County, Indiana, south-southwest of the small settlement of Yankeetown. The informant, Smith Hazen, noted large quantities of shell tempered pottery on the surface, as well as other materials that were rapidly eroding out of the riverbank. Upon investigation of the bank’s stratigraphy, Black identified the presence of multiple buried components. Most abundant among these was an occupation bearing a previously unrecognized type of well-made grog tempered pottery. These sherds, derived from jars and bowls, bore distinctive decorative motifs consisting of thin-line incised designs, bar-stamping, nodes, and “fillet” motifs produced by applying thin, notched strips of clay to the vessel surface (Black 1940:34; Blasingham 1965:1; Redmond 1990) (Figure 1). Black’s initial description led him to conduct limited excavations in 1950 and 1951, consisting of a small test pit and salvage of an eroding feature in the riverbank. Soon after, Emily Blasingham, undertook the first formal description of these unique ceramics, which we now recognize as the most distinguishing characteristic of the Yankeetown phase of southwestern Indiana and adjoining areas (Blasingham 1953). Presently, approximately 150 Yankeetown components are recognized in Indiana and adjoining areas of Kentucky and Illinois (Figure 2). A number of radiocarbon dates obtained over the years indicate that the site dates from A.D. 700 through 1200, squarely within the Late Woodland and early Mississippian period, likely overlapping somewhat with the earliest occupations at nearby Angel Mounds.

Archaeological deposits present in the cutbank have been noted along a mile-long stretch of the Ohio River, with the Yankeetown cultural materials occupying a portion of this extent. The quantity and variety of artifacts found eroding out of the bank over the years suggest an occupation of fair duration and/or intensity. Unfortunately, we still have very little information on the site’s size, aside from the linear extent of the materials washing out of the riverbank. This is because the features and artifacts are buried beneath considerable overburden, making it difficult to access or investigate the materials. The Yankeetown phase occupation, for example, is found between 60 and 100 cm below surface, with artifacts from earlier components extending up to 3.0 m deep (Dorwin and Kellar 1968:8; Garniewicz et al. 2009:75; Vickery 1970:21).

A number of attempts to access some of these deeply buried deposits have been undertaken over the past 50-plus years. These include four excavations in the 1960s near the edge of the riverbank. These investigations were conducted prior to the completion of the Newburgh Lock and Dam, downriver from Yankeetown, which was to raise the river level and possibly exacerbate the erosion-related destruction of the site (Blasingham 1965; Dorwin 1967; Dorwin and Kellar 1968; Vickery 1970). The 1960s work at the site uncovered several Yankeetown features, including basin, bell-shaped and straight-sided pits, as well as features dating to even earlier occupations. Most recently, in 2008, the Indiana State Museum conducted additional work at the site, including magnetometry survey, excavations, and salvage of features eroding from the riverbank. These investigations added greatly to our knowledge of the site, including the identification of the first Yankeetown structural basin (Garniewicz et al. 2009; Greenan and Garniewicz 2010).

Over the years, investigations at Yankeetown have cemented our understanding of the site’s stratigraphy, resulting in the identification of four discrete components. The first is a Late Archaic component, found at a depth of 3.4 to 3.6 m below the current surface (Dorwin and Kellar 1968:9). This occupation, however, appears to be light in intensity, with few features identified. Two radiocarbon dates have been run on materials associated with the Late Archaic occupation; one provided a date of 1125-775 B.C. while the other suggested an occupation between 1690-1500 B.C. (both dates calibrated) (Dorwin and Kellar 1968:33; Garniewicz et al. 2009:18). The differences between these two dates suggest that the Late Archaic use of the immediate area may be best characterized as long-term but intermittent.

The second component at the Yankeetown site dates to the early Middle Woodland period, specifically to a Crab Orchard occupation, represented by relatively thick ceramics exhibiting the flat bases and general flowerpot vessel shape typical of the period (Ruby 1994; Strezewski 2018). Sherds are grog tempered, with an admixture of quartz, chert, or limestone in some examples. Most of the ceramics are cordmarked on the exterior, though some fabric impressed sherds have been observed as well (Dorwin 1967; Dorwin and Kellar 1968:34; Garniewicz et al. 2009:83). A number of Crab Orchard features have been identified at the site. The single radiocarbon date from this component puts its occupation in the 480-90 B.C. time range (calibrated, 1-sigma) (Dorwin 1967:33). 

An Angel phase Mississippian component has also been reported from the site, although relatively little is known about its nature or extent, given that no Mississippian features and few artifacts have yet been encountered during the archaeological projects yet conducted. Blasingham (1965:5, 14, 46) notes that, while seemingly substantial, the Mississippian component appears to be spatially separated from the Yankeetown occupation, with some degree of overlap between the two. Mississippian materials reported from the site include fragments of negative painted and red filmed pottery, salt pans, hooded water bottles, and effigy bowls (Blasingham 1965:14).

Artifacts related to the Yankeetown phase component are by far the most abundant at the site, suggesting an occupation of some intensity and duration. There is some evidence that this village, however, was not a concentrated settlement. Rather, it seems that the residents may have been clustered on elevated ridges of the floodplain landscape, with diffuse midden deposits (and an absence of features) found in lower and more flood-prone areas (Garniewicz et al. 2009:111). While the presence of maize cultivation has been demonstrated at the Yankeetown site and other related sites in the region, few data are available as to the initial timing and degree of its use. Evidence indicates that Yankeetown peoples also cultivated Eastern Agricultural Complex plants such as goosefoot, maygrass, and little barley (Garniewicz et al. 2008:109; Redmond 1990:191). Large quantities of charred nutshell at the Yankeetown site, often in association with fire-cracked rock and oxidized soil, suggest the use of roasting pits for food preparation (Redmond 1990:191).

Unfortunately, the Yankeetown site continues to erode into the Ohio River as it has been for many years. One estimate suggests that the site may be completely lost within the next twenty years, with an estimate that up to 100 feet of riverbank has been lost to the Ohio River since the mid-1960s (Garniewicz et al. 2009:2). 

References

Black, Glenn A. (1940). Cultural Complexities of Southwestern Indiana. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 50:33-35.

Blasingham, Emily J. (1953). Temporal and Spatial Distribution of the Yankeetown Cultural Manifestation. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Indiana University, Bloomington.

Blasingham, Emily J. (1965). Excavation of Yankeetown (12W1), 1965. Report submitted to the National Park Service. Manuscript on file at the Midwest Archaeological Center, Lincoln, Nebraska.

Dorwin, John T. (1967). Archaeological Salvage of the Yankeetown Site. Report submitted to the National Park Service. Manuscript on file at the Midwest Archaeological Center, Lincoln, Nebraska.

Dorwin, John T. and James H. Kellar (1968). The 1967 Excavation at the Yankeetown Site. Report submitted to the National Park Service. Manuscript on file at the Midwest Archaeological Center, Lincoln, Nebraska.

Garniewicz, Rexford C., Michele Greenan, and Colin Graham (2009). Archaeological Investigations at the Yankeetown Site (12W1). Report submitted to the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology, Indianapolis.

Greenan, Michele and Rexford Garniewicz (2010). Investigations at the Yankeetown Site (12W1). Indiana Archaeology 5(1):28-48.

Redmond, Brian G. (1990). The Yankeetown Phase: Emergent Mississippian Cultural Adaptation in the Lower Ohio River Valley. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Indiana University, Bloomington.

Ruby, Bret J. (1994). An Archaeological Investigation of Crab Orchard Tradition Settlement Patterns in Southwestern Indiana. Reports of Investigations 94-15. Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology, Indiana University, Bloomington.

Strezewski, Michael (2018). The Barker Variant: A Crab Orchard Related Cultural Manifestation at the Ohio-Wabash Confluence. Illinois Archaeology 30:137-166.

Vickery, Kent D. (1970). Excavation of the Yankeetown Site, 1968 Season. Report submitted to the National Park Service. Manuscript on file at the Midwest Archaeological Center, Lincoln, Nebraska.

 Return to DHPA Archaeology Page 

 StoryMap Introduction 

 Northwest Region Sites 

 North Central Region Sites 

 Northeast Region Sites 

 West Central Region Sites 

 East Central Region Sites 

 South Central Region Sites 

 Southeast Region Sites