EARLY VILLAGE LIFE IN SOUTHEASTERN INDIANA: RECENT FIELD INVESTIGATIONS AT THE GUARD SITE (12D29)

Abstract

Investigations at the Guard site (12D29), located in Dearborn County, Indiana, have provided evidence pertaining to the development of early Fort Ancient villages. Recent geophysical survey and excavations alongside many new radiocarbon dates have allowed for improved understanding of household architecture and intrasite variability. Although some scholars have hypothesized that Middle Fort Ancient villages developed out of small early Fort Ancient hamlets, the Guard site provides explicit evidence for villages early in the Fort Ancient sequence. Guard also contains key Mississippian indicators for interaction, particularly wall-trench architecture and a Ramey knife. These findings demand that we reconceptualize the inception of Fort Ancient villages.

Keywords:

• Fort Ancient village
• Mississippian period
• Guard site
• household architecture

Notes

1 Burks (e.g., 2004, 2006, 2013) has developed a five-class system of anomaly types that often occur at archaeology sites based on the visual appearance of magnetic anomalies on a two-dimensional map: Monopolar Positive, Dipolar Simple, Dipolar Complex, Multi-Monopolar Positive, and Monopolar Positive/Dipolar Simple. The shape, size, intensity, and polarity (positive or negative) of magnetic anomalies are determined by the characteristics of the anomaly's source (or target), including the target's (object or archaeological feature) shape, material composition, mass, orientation, depth, and presence of burning. These anomaly types are adopted in whole or in part from a variety of sources (e.g., Bevan 1998; Breiner 1973; von Frese 1984; Weymouth and Nickel 1977) and are used in a similar way by other archaeogeophysical practitioners in the United States and beyond (e.g., Hargrave 2006; Perttula et al. 2008). The principles of magnetic anomaly formation and interpretation used here follow Aitken (1961), Aspinall et al. (2008), Clark (2000), and Gaffney and Gater (2003).

2 Due to the likelihood that this feature might contain a burial, excavation was halted, in accord with Indiana state law and consultation.

3 A caveat to note is the issue of the old wood problem (sensu Schiffer 1986, 1987), which Nolan (2012) implies is problematic at Fort Ancient sites. Recently, however, Cook and Comstock (2014) have shown that this problem, while a clear issue in arid environments, is not applicable in our temperate study region. Some of the earliest dates at Guard were sampled from architectural timbers, and thus would ostensibly represent candidates to be dismissed based on old wood issues. However, each of these early dates was sampled from deep stratigraphic deposits (e.g., house floors), and is thus expected to be earlier than other dates from the site. The dates at Guard are thus most likely not affected by this issue and we provide an accurate assessment of some of the earliest houses yet discovered in the Fort Ancient region.

4 We acknowledge that this is an initial exploration of the spatial patterning at the site based on relatively few structures (n = 3 [∼11 percent]) and that 1-m wide trenches may not be representative of the entire structure.

5 Due to lack of curated organic materials, wall-trench structures have only been directly dated at Guard, Hahn, Horseshoe Johnson, Schomaker, and SunWatch. However, State Line and Turpin have been solidly dated to between A.D. 1000 and 1300 and contain numerous wall-trench segments. Madisonville spans the longest temporal range, and its wall-trench structure has not been directly dated.

6 There are earlier occurrences of wall-trench structures in the study region, namely during the Middle Woodland period (Cowan 2006). However, these are very different in form than those found at Late Prehistoric period sites. The Mississippian connection is clear in trade items that co-occur at sites with Mississippian-style wall-trench structures.

7 This observation is obviously speculative, based on a single tooth. However, it was the only other occurrence of human bone we encountered.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Robert A. Cook

Correspondence to: Robert A. Cook, Department of Anthropology, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA. E-mail: [email protected].