To achieve the goals outlined for this project, efforts were directed toward acquiring primary data that would help explain diachronic variability in settlement size, structure (intrasite patterning), function, subsistence strategies, and seasonality. Research methods included a combination of surface surveys, reviews of extant site records, extensive collector interviews, and limited subsurface testing.
Estimates of site size, function and, sometimes, structure (or intrasite patterning), which are necessary in order to identify diachronic trends in settlement variability, can be generated, in part, during the intensive survey portion of the investigation. Intensive surveys focused on sites that were known to have, or are likely to produce, adequate samples of prehistoric cultural materials for inclusion in a chronometric analysis designed to determine temporal trends in artifact assemblages.
The survey procedures consisted of a visual examination of the ground surface (if applicable) to confirm site location and size, to recover diagnostic archaeological materials, to determine artifact density, and to select sites for further subsurface testing. The majority of the surface survey portion of the project involved transversing the site area in transects spaced 5.0 meters apart and collecting all of the cultural material observed along these transects. Only culturally diagnostic artifacts, such as pottery or modified lithics, were collected from the areas between the 5.0-meter-wide transects.
A second type of survey, controlled surface survey, involved the subdivision of the site area into 5.0-meter squares with all cultural material collected from each square. This type of survey was only applicable in areas with very good surface visibility, which is usually only present in the spring. The Bundy-Voyles site (12 Mg 1) was collected in this manner by the Indiana University archaeological field school. Another type of controlled survey employed in the current study involved the collection of cultural materials from surface features, which are occasionally present in recently plowed fields. A portion of the Sugar Creek site (12 Jo 289) was collected in this manner.
A major aspect of this research was formal collector interviews of individuals with archaeological knowledge of the study area. Although the interviews attempted to focus on sites relating to the Late Prehistoric period, all archaeological sites identified were recorded. All sites reported were documented according to location, diagnostic materials, and other pertinent information. Site survey forms were completed, and locations were plotted on 7.5-minute United States Geological Survey topographic maps. The collector interview phase was conducted intermittently during the course of the project. Approximately 154 previously undocumented archaeological sites were recorded in this manner.
The testing phase of the proposed research was designed to recover data from feature contexts, to reveal site structure, and to evaluate the site's potential for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. The specific methodologies employed for the three sites selected for test excavations are presented by site in Section Three. Generally, small hand-excavated units were used first to determine soil stratigraphy, depth, and the nature of the archaeological deposits. On sites lacking adequate surface visibility, standardized volumetric sample (SVS) units measuring 50.0 cm by 50.0 cm were excavated on a 10.0- or 20.0-meter grid pattern, when practicable, to assess the spatial nature of the Late Prehistoric component.
Each 50.0 cm-by-50.0 cm SVS unit was hand excavated to at least the base of the plowzone. All soil was screened through 1/4-inch mesh, and all cultural material recovered was bagged separately. At least one wall profile in each excavation unit was cleaned and mapped to document the cultural and natural stratigraphy across the site. This method of subsurface reconnaissance provided regular volumetric samples of the site deposits that can be used both to construct distribution maps of prehistoric cultural material and to provide statistically valid comparative data with other Oliver Phase investigations (see Redmond 1994b; Redmond and McCullough 1993, 1996). This method can also assess the extent and severity of more recent cultural (for example, farming or construction activities) or natural (for example, erosion or colluvial deposition on ridge margins) impacts to the site.
On the Bundy-Voyles and Sugar Creek sites, units were then hand excavated to expose subsurface deposits. Placement of these units was based on excavation of the SVS units or on the controlled surface collection. In areas that had been cultivated previously, a 50.0 cm-by-50.0 cm SVS was first excavated (and 1/4-inch screened) to the base of the plowzone in a corner of the unit. The remainder of the unit was shovel scraped to the base of the plowzone. In previously undisturbed cultural deposits, such as midden, the entire excavated volume of the unit was 1/4-inch screened, with each unit excavated at least 10.0 cm into culturally sterile deposits. If it appeared that Late Prehistoric pit or storage features were present, a trenching strategy was employed from the area of the features outward to the edge of the site in an attempt to identify the general village layout and to determine whether a defensive palisade was present. All mechanically stripped trenches were shovel and/or trowel scraped and mapped in both plan and profile. Mechanical stripping of previously disturbed deposits, or the plowzone, was employed at the Sugar Creek and Crouch sites.
After the removal of plowzone soils in the excavation units and trenches, the exposed subsoil was cleanly scraped and all soil anomalies were mapped. Features were cross-sectioned, mapped, and photographed in both plan and profile views, and excavated by hand using standard archaeological techniques. The contents of all features were screened through 1/4-inch hardware cloth. Soil samples for flotation were taken from all feature contexts in natural levels, if present. Arbitrarily selected features had soil samples taken from within natural levels, which were further subdivided into 10.0 cm levels. Faunal and floral remains recovered in this manner can be used to assess seasonal variation in diet. (For an example, see Wagner and Shane, 1994. Charcoal samples for radiocarbon assay were collected as well. At the completion of the excavation, all units were backfilled, and the original surface contours were restored.
The materials recovered during the course of this investigation were taken to the Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology for processing and curation. Initial laboratory processing consisted of washing the materials and placing them in a drying oven at a temperature of 150 degrees F until dry. The artifacts were identified by class, then counted and weighed. Catalog cards containing all the provenience and artifact identifications for each item (or group of items) were completed. Each of the cards was entered into a database for later analysis. Only weights were recorded for the faunal and floral categories because of the fragmentary nature of these artifact classes. (For summaries, see appendixes 2 and 3). In selected proveniences from the field school excavation, a "debris" category was used to designate small pieces (smaller than 1.0 square cm) of pottery and rock that were too fragmentary to accurately identify. All flotation samples were processed with either a 0.6 mm or 1.0 mm mesh screen for the heavy fraction and a maximum of 0.4 mm for the light fraction. (For details of flotation methodology, see Appendix 2.) After initial processing, the flotation samples were allowed to air-dry for 12 hours and then completely dried in the drying oven at 150 degrees F and stored in clean containers.
A sample of the botanical remains from the three excavated sites was identified by Leslie Bush of the GBL. The results of this analysis are presented in Appendix 2. Rex Garniewicz, also of the GBL, examined a sample of the faunal remains from the same three sites. The results of the faunal analysis are presented in Appendix 3. Twelve radiocarbon samples from the three excavated sites were sent to Beta Analytic, Inc., for radiocarbon analysis. The results of this analysis are presented in Appendix 4.