Summary counts of the artifacts recovered from the Sugar Creek site are presented in Appendix 1. A total of 5,980 pieces of material (excluding faunal and floral remains, which were recorded by weight) were cataloged during the course of the investigation. This total includes the artifacts collected during the last survey of the eastern portion of the site. However, the following analysis was completed before the last survey, and the tables do not include items from it. The artifact assemblage was dominated by Late Prehistoric materials. All of the pottery recovered consisted of Oliver Phase vessels, and most of the projectile points were triangular forms. The following subsections provide extended descriptions for three major categories of cultural materials: sherds, lithics, and bone and antler.

The pottery assemblage was divided into four categories: rim sherds, neck sherds, body sherds, and handle fragments. (For a summary, see Appendix 1.) The rim sherds category consists of pottery fragments from the top of the vessel that retain enough surface area to distinguish the lip portion. Larger sherds that retain the rim and either the neck or body portion are also classified as rim sherds. A neck sherd is a pottery fragment that is missing the rim portion but includes enough curvature to identify it as a Late Prehistoric constricted-orifice jar. Neck sherds were separated because on Fort Ancient-like vessels, the neck is the preferred field for decoration. Body sherds are any fragments without a rim or neck portion. Handles are any fragments of Fort Ancient-like strap handles. A fifth category, indeterminant, contains items too small and fragmentary to be accurately distinguished and is not included in the percentage totals or in the following discussion. (For examples of the pottery assemblage, see Plates4.2a and 4.2b.)

Appendix 1 summarizes the frequencies of rim sherds, neck sherds, body sherds, and handle fragments, both by unit and by feature proveniences. Table 4.4 presents the frequency of rim, neck, and body sherds for temper and type of surface treatment and/or decoration. A distinction needs to be made between surface treatment and decoration: surface treatment is the result of finishing the surface of the vessel through smoothing and texturing and can include brushing, burnishing, cordmarking, fabric roughing, or smoothing (plain) (Rice 1987:136-37); decoration refers to the "embellishment of a vessel beyond the procedures used in forming the clay mass into the final vessel shape and finishing its overall surface" (Rice 1987:144). In the initial cataloging system, the surface treatment and decoration categories were a combined classification, since each sherd has a surface treatment and may have additional decoration. In cases where the sherd exhibited decoration, this was noted instead of the surface treatment. Individual attributes have been recorded for each sherd larger than 4.0 square cm, which made possible separate observations for decoration and surface treatment by fields divided into lip, rim, neck, and body. An analysis of this data is beyond the scope of this report, but observations are part of an ongoing research project by the senior author (McCullough n.d.b).

The temper of the great majority of vessels found at the Sugar Creek site was either crushed stone or grit. Approximately 99.3 percent of the sherds recovered were grit-tempered; only 0.6 percent were shell-tempered. One sherd contained sand temper; one sherd contained a mixture of shell and grog; and the small remainder of temper types could not be ascertained (indeterminant). This high percentage of grit-tempered ware along with minor amounts of shell-tempered is typical of other Oliver Phase sites that have been investigated (Dorwin 1971; Redmond 1994b; Redmond and McCullough 1996).

Decorated ceramics at the Sugar Creek site consisted of designs executed by incising or by cord impression, including cord-wrapped dowel impressions, which are typically associated with Oliver Phase sites from the East Fork of the White River (Redmond 1994b; Redmond and McCullough 1996) and from the upper West Fork of the White River (Dorwin 1971; McCullough 1991, 1992). Generally, pottery with the incised decoration resembled vessels commonly associated with the Anderson Phase of the Fort Ancient Tradition (Griffin 1943; Essenpreis 1982) in southern Ohio and southeastern Indiana. Cord-impressed designs exhibit a wider geographical distribution but are often found on vessels with collars that are similar to types from the southern Great Lakes region. Decoration from the Sugar Creek site conforms with what would be expected from an Oliver Phase site, but the frequencies of occurrence demonstrate some interesting variation.

The surface treatment/decoration tables indicate that about 83 percent (73.9 percent rims, 92.5 percent necks) of the rim and neck sherds recovered from the Sugar Creek site were undecorated (categorized as plain, cordmarked, brushed, smoothed, or fabric roughed). This contrasts with the Cox's Woods site, where 80 to 85 percent of the rims carried some type of decoration. At the Bundy-Voyles site, the percentage of decorated rims and necks was roughly the same as at Sugar Creek: 81.8 percent of the rims were undecorated and 82.3 percent of the necks lacked decoration. However, the ceramic assemblage at the Sugar Creek site differs from Bundy Voyles in that it has a higher percentage of decorated rims and a much lower percentage of decorated necks. The frequency of rims with cordmarking from the body onto the lip is also much higher at the Sugar Creek site than at the Bundy-Voyles site. There, the frequency of plain or smoothed rims (smoothed-over-cordmarked is underrepresented in this analysis) was about 38 percent, compared to 12 percent at the Sugar Creek site.

As with other Oliver Phase sites, cord impression appears to dominate the decorated rim sherds at the Sugar Creek site. Middle Fort Ancient-type designs, such as guilloche (or decorative techniques classified as thin- or broad-line-incised because the motif is too difficult to reconstruct on fragmentary pieces), are a relatively important decorative element, constituting about 33 percent of the rim and neck sherd assemblage. For the Bundy-Voyles site, the comparable figure is 20 percent.

As for surface treatments found in Oliver Phase ceramic assemblages, one treatment is classified as "fabric roughed," in which a roughened surface appears to have been created with a wad of cloth (Dorwin 1971). Sherds of this type often can be overlooked during the cataloging process. As part of the individual attribute analysis (McCullough n.d.b) and to ensure consistent surface treatment observations, body sherds larger than 4.0 square cm were examined for temper type and surface treatment. Body sherds were chosen because these are usually not decorated, making only surface treatment (and temper) observations possible. Table 4.5 presents the results of this analysis, demonstrating that cordmarked, grit-tempered ware was by far the most common on the site. However, sherds with a fabric-roughed surface treatment were significantly underrepresented during the cataloging process (see Table 4.4). The attribute analysis found that sherds with fabric-roughed surfaces constituted 10.7 percent of the sample, indicating that this style of surface finish was more popular than at the Bundy-Voyles site (4.7 percent). No shell tempered body sherds were identified in the size-sorted sample.(See Table 4.5: Jo 289 Body Sherds)

In terms of morphology, figures 4.21 through 4.23 illustrate examples of the vessel rim profiles recovered from 12 Jo 289. As expected on Oliver Phase sites, the profiles exhibit a combination of collared rims, cambered shaped rims, and Fort Ancient-like rim folds on broadly curving necks. In the lower right corner of Figure 4.21 is a typical Oliver Phase cambered rim vessel (Dorwin 1971; McCullough 1991; Redmond and McCullough 1996); this specimen exhibits cord-impressed decoration with an applied vertical node. The remainder of the rims in Figure 4.21 are examples of Fort Ancient-like vessel forms. The rim in the upper right corner had portions of a strap handle, and the other two specimens had broad-line incised decorative elements. Figure 4.22 shows examples of vessels with collared rims and more elongated body segments. The specimen on the right had a castellated rim with cord-impressed and punctate designs. Figure 4.23 shows three examples of sub-globular constricted-orifice jars, two of which exhibit the flattened shoulder sections that are thicker than the remaining vessel body.

In sum, the Sugar Creek site ceramic assemblage differs from other Oliver Phase sites, even though the basic styles are the same. Like the Bundy-Voyles site, Sugar Creek exhibits drastically lower frequencies of decorated vessels, especially when compared to the Cox's Woods site. But unlike the vessels at Bundy-Voyles, at Sugar Creek there is a slightly higher frequency (about 7 percent higher) of decorated rims and a much lower frequency of decorated necks (about 10 percent lower), both of which may indicate that the zone of decoration is farther down on the vessel at the Bundy-Voyles site. Fabric roughing also appears to be more popular at the Sugar Creek site; incised decorative techniques occur in higher frequencies; and a greater number of vessels exhibit cordmarked surface treatment over the rim surface. These differences deserve additional investigation and will be useful in developing a temporal sequence for Oliver Phase pottery; an individual attribute analysis of selected ceramic assemblages from south central Indiana is currently being conducted by the senior author (McCullough n.d.b), and the pottery from this site will be included in that analysis.

[return to top]

The assemblage at 12 Jo 289 represents a good cross-section of the stone tool inventory of a Late Prehistoric Oliver Phase village. This report intends to shed light on resource procurement strategies and lithic technologies employed by the prehistoric inhabitants that produced the assemblage. There is also evidence that other ephemeral historic and prehistoric occupations of this particular site occurred. Considering the location of 12 Jo 289 next to a shallows and near the confluence of two large streams, this is not surprising. All stages of the lithic reduction process are represented at 12 Jo 289. Raw material procurement, tool manufacture, and tool maintenance activities all took place at this location. This range of lithic artifact types suggests that 12 Jo 289 was a semi-permanent village site, occupied for a considerable portion of the year.

At GBL the lithic material was separated into four primary groups for cataloging. These groups were: chert/debitage, chert/tool, groundstone tool, and flaked stone tool. These primary groups were subdivided further as needed. A summary of lithic material follows. (For examples of the lithic assemblage, see Plate 4.1b.)

Chert/Debitage. The chert debitage category, or the waste byproduct of lithic tool manufacturing, includes chert flakes and blocky fragments. These two classes form the bulk of the lithic assemblage (Table 4.6). By count, flakes (N=970) account for 78.3 percent of the total assemblage, and blocky fragments (N=215) comprise an additional 17.4 percent; together, the two debitage categories account for 95.7 percent of all chert artifacts recovered at 12 Jo 289. Measured in gram weight, the average flake weighs 0.8 grams with flakes accounting for 34.2 percent of the total assemblage weight. Blocky fragments, though not nearly as numerous, are considerably larger and heavier, with an average weight of 5.7 grams apiece; they account for an additional 46.8 percent of the total assemblage weight. By weight, the two debitage classes account for 81.0 percent of all chert artifacts. (See Table 4.6: Jo 289 Summary of Chert Tools and Debitage)

Chert/Tool. The chert/tool category contains the remaining chert artifacts, including such well defined tool types as projectile points, drills, and scrapers, as well as the more problematic tools such as bifaces and utilized flakes. These artifacts represent the end product of the lithic reduction process, and the technical attributes and aesthetic qualities of the finished tools are interpreted as an investment in time and energy made by prehistoric groups. The following breakdown for tool types, discussed in the order of frequency, was conducted using morphological attributes observed at the macroscopic level. A microscopic use-wear analysis undoubtedly would result in some minor adjustments to the totals that follow, but that is outside the scope of this report.

Projectile Points and Point Fragments (N=16). A total of 16 points was recovered from feature context and surface survey at 12 Jo 289. Nine of these are Madison-type arrow points, two of which are too fragmentary to be analyzed further. For the remaining seven, the morphological attributes observed and recorded include basal shape, blade shape, ear shape, and symmetry of cross section. Also noted was the presence or absence of edge serrations, cortex, and heat alteration. (See Table 4.7.) Metric measurements and chert type are shown in Table 4.8. All seven Madison-type arrow points have straight to slightly convex bases, straight blades, and sharp ears. All are symmetrical in cross section and lack blade serrations and cortical remnants. Only one point is heat altered. The remaining seven projectile points recovered were identified as follows: one Early Archaic Lake Erie-type bifurcate, three Late Archaic Matanzas points, one basal fragment of an Adena stemmed variety, and two unidentifiable tip fragments.

If triangle point morphology is a valid temporal indicator, 12 Jo 289 would appear to be an excellent site for contributing to a tighter chronology for the Late Prehistoric in Indiana. Because the excavation strategy employed at 12 Jo 289 assumed a circular village structure, the small sample size attributable to the Oliver Phase component should not be interpreted as an indicator of duration or intensity of occupation. Trenches and excavation units were laid out in a pattern designed to intercept a stockade wall with the associated high concentration of artifacts characteristic of this site type. Only later did it become apparent that 12 Jo 289 consisted of a roughly circular pattern of individual house sites, each with an associated midden.

Bifaces and Biface Fragments (N=12). Technically, a biface can be any chert piece that shows evidence of flaking on two opposing sides; whether bifaces are finished tools, preforms, or aborted attempts at tool manufacture is a matter of considerable debate. To bring some clarity to this rather ambiguous artifact category, bifaces were divided into two classes, shaped and unshaped. Shaped bifaces (N=8) must show a systematic flake pattern on two opposing surfaces and have a well defined edge that is also manufactured by percussion or pressure flaking. In addition, this edge should be roughly planar so that when viewed in plan, the artifact has a well defined outline that can be easily described, for example, as ovoid or triangular. The unshaped bifaces, by contrast, can be amorphous in shape with no orientation that is intuitive. Also in the unshaped class are fragments that are too small to assess the morphology of the original artifact.

Cores and Core Fragments (N=7). A total of seven artifacts were cataloged as cores. Of these, only two can be positively identified as examples of the primary lithic resource: a glacial cobble of Liston Creek chert and a tabular piece of Haney chert. Both retain considerable cortex on opposing surfaces and are slightly less than 6.0 cm on the longest axis. No doubt the small size and inherent structural flaws in this primary chert resource influenced the lithic technology and contributed to the restricted size and type range associated with a Late Prehistoric lithic assemblage. The remaining five cores are fragmentary but show areas where flakes of sufficient size to manufacture another tool have been removed. All artifacts identified as cores show evidence of battering on one or more edges. This could be interpreted as evidence for bipolar reduction, or it could mean they were used as chert hammers.

Utilized Flakes (N=6). Six artifacts were identified as utilized flakes, or "expedient tools." They are flakes of different sizes that show only slight modification and use-wear and represent a minimum of time and effort on the part of their maker. Their specific function and use life is no doubt as variable as their shape.

Scrapers (N=5). Five scrapers were recovered at 12 Jo 289. Two of these are sidescrapers, made on large, heavy, lunate flakes and showing preferential use-wear and unifacial retouch along the thin edge. Two more are on thick round flakes and show use-wear and retouch on more than one area of their circumference. The last example is a large, heat-treated endscraper, flaked flat on one surface, with a pronounced hump on the other side creating a steeply beveled edge. This scraper may be associated with the Late Archaic Matanzas points also found at the site.

Drills and Drill Fragments (N=3). Three drills were identified in the lithic assemblage from 12 Jo 289. Two are associated with the Oliver Phase occupation of the site. One is a complete specimen made from a modified triangular preform characteristic of the Late Prehistoric. The other complete example is much more robust, with a morphology and flaking that suggest it may be associated with the Late Archaic points. The third drill is a tip fragment too small to identify further.

Unifaces (N=2). Two artifacts were classified as unifaces, for lack of a better descriptive term. They are both rather large and blocky but show unifacial flaking in one area of their edge. Like the utilized flakes, they represent a minimum of modification and could be considered expedient tools.

Gravers (N=1). One graver was recovered at 12 Jo 289. It is a thin flake with the characteristic graving spur that has been isolated on one edge by careful bifacial pressure flaking.

Knives (N=1). One "commissary knife" (Hartman 1968) was recovered from the eastern portion of 12 Jo 289 during surface reconnaissance. It is an incomplete specimen, but enough is present to show the pentagonal shape, straight base, and thin cross section that defines this tool class. This artifact may be temporally significant: as an earlier type of Late Prehistoric knife, it may provide a referent for correlating triangular point morphology. It is worthy of note that no "hump-backed knives" (Munson and Munson 1972), which are often found on sites of this time period, were recovered.

Groundstone Tool (N=3). Groundstone tools are any tools that are shaped by pecking or abrading or a combination of the two methods. This tool category can subsume something as crude as a hammerstone, as well as more sophisticated tool forms such as axes, celts, and even bannerstones. At 12 Jo 289 only three groundstone tools were recovered. One is a bit fragment from a celt too fragmentary to estimate the size and shape of the original tool, although it does show enough of the characteristic beveling and polish to identify it with certainty. One hammerstone and a grinding stone were also identified in the lithic assemblage.

Flaked Stone Tool (N=1). This tool category is represented by one artifact, a slab of slate that has peck marks on one surface and a crude groove produced by percussion flaking. It is apparently an unfinished tool, since it shows no polish from use-wear or hafting. Its overall morphology resembles an ax and it was catalogued as such. The use of slate as a raw material for an implement such as an ax seems odd. The nature of the work expected from an ax and the properties of slate seem to make it a poor choice as a raw material. But slate is abundant in nearby Sugar Creek and is easily shaped, so the minimal investment in procurement and manufacture might compensate for a short use-life.

Bone and Antler Tools(pp. 98-99)

Beamers (N=1). No. 0570. Manufactured from a deer metatarsal. This specimen is broken, so that only the distal shaft of the bone remains. Modification consists of a large longitudinal groove into the marrow cavity on the dorsal, or posterior, surface. (See Plate 4.1b.)

Bone Rings (N=1). No. 1224. A large mammal shaft fragment has been worked into a bone ring. Although only a small section was recovered, the cross section and curvature are clear indicators that this was a portion of a bone ring.

Awls (N=3). No. 0349. This worked midsection of a deer ulna shaft appears to be a fragment of an awl. It is ground on the sides, with both the proximal and distal ends broken off. No. 0848. This is an extremely small fragment, only the very tip, of an awl. Thus it is worked on all surfaces except where broken. It is not from a deer ulna, though it is the end of a long bone. It strongly resembles No. 1095, and may be the ulna of a large canid.

No. 1095. This complete specimen of an awl was manufactured from the left ulna of a fairly large coyote (Canis latrans). The only modification is heavy grinding on the distal end that has exposed the marrow cavity and may have impaired the function of the artifact. (See Plate 4.1b.)

Scores/Snaps (N=1). No. 0932. This scored and snapped fragment is from the long bone of a large mammal. It appears to be manufacture waste.

Indeterminant (N=2). Nos. 0631, 0643. Both of these fragments are heavily scraped and polished portions of a medium mammal long bone shaft. Heavy scraping has either penetrated through the cortex or made it so thin that it broke off.