The Crouch site is a Late Prehistoric site situated on a sandy ridge within the Tipton Till Plain physiographic province (Schneider 1966), approximately 0.7 miles east of the town of Smith Valley in the northeastern portion of Johnson County, Indiana. Specifically, the project area is located in the northwestern portion of Section 2, Township 13 N, Range 3 E (White River Township) on the Bargersville, Indiana, quadrangle (Figure 5.1).

Sturm (1979) identifies the soils on the site as belonging to the Fox complex, 6 to 12 percent slopes, and eroded, which are typically found on moderate slopes along drainageways, beds, and side slopes of kames or eskers. Unless covered in woods or permanent pasture, these soils are typically severely eroded (as is the case on the higher areas of 12 Jo 5). Surface layers of Fox complex soils can be sandy loams, loam, gravelly clay loam, clay loam, and sandy clay loam, which makes mapping these as separate units impractical. On the 12 Jo 5 site, the soils at the base of the plowzone alternate between a loose sandy loam and an extremely compact sandy clay loam. Cobblestones and glacial pebbles are scattered on the surface, also typical for this soil complex. Rensselaer silty clay loam, which is characterized by very poor drainage that supports water tolerant grasses, usually in lake basins, drainageways, or depressional areas, is present east of the site. Kevin Crouch reported seeing cattails in the area east and northwest of the site during his childhood, and wild rice was identified from feature context (Appendix 2), perhaps confirming the presence of water-tolerant grasses. Wetland areas next to high, well-drained soil could also help explain the presence of a Late Prehistoric village several miles from the main channel of the White River (Figure 5.2).

This site (12 Jo 5) and 12 Jo 4 were initially reported and surveyed by Mr. Crouch in November of 1973. (For extensive lists of cultural material recovered by Mr. Crouch during surveys spanning at least five years, see site information abstracts in Appendix I, McCullough and Kearney 1992:22-35). The collections are curated at the Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology (GBL), under accession numbers 4786, 4787, 8313, and 8314. During a 1992 reconnaissance survey (McCullough and Kearney 1992), approximately 13.8 acres of land within the boundaries of the proposed Foxberry Trace subdivision were examined. Examination of the two previously recorded archaeological sites confirmed the site locations and classifications recorded in the GBL site and survey files.

Data from the 1992 reconnaissance survey and earlier information from sites 12 Jo 4 and 12 Jo 5 suggested that both sites may have been eligible for inclusion on the Indiana Register of Historic Sites and Structures and the National Register of Historic Places. Based on the recovery of a high density of cultural material dating to the Late Prehistoric period (ca. AD 1000-1500), it was recommended that both sites be avoided (McCullough and Kearney 1992) by future development, unless further archaeological investigations were conducted. The high frequency of triangular projectile points and prehistoric ceramics pointed to a sedentary village occupation, and Late Prehistoric village sites in central Indiana often contain structures related to community patterning, such as intact storage pit features, houses, palisade walls, and human burials (McCullough and Kearney 1992:15-16; Dorwin 1971; Redmond 1994b; Redmond and McCullough 1993, 1996).

Subsequent to the 1992 survey, Purdue University conducted Phase II archaeological investigations on site 12 Jo 4 and concluded that it was not eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places (Helmkamp 1992). Site 12 Jo 5 did not undergo archaeological investigations until the spring of 1995, because construction of the Foxberry Trace addition had avoided this area. Preliminary testing of the Crouch site by staff from the GBL in the spring of 1995 confirmed earlier investigations and delimited the site boundaries more precisely.

In the summer of 1995, excavations were conducted by personnel from the GBL during Indiana University's archaeological field school under the direction of Stephen J. Ball and with a Department of the Interior (DOI) grant (#10070-15). A Late Prehistoric village site at 12 Jo 5 was identified through an unusually high number of intact cultural features preserved below the level of previous cultivation disturbance. Information recovered from these excavations--blocks 1 and 2, Unit A, and the southern portion of trench 27 (Tr4A), and trenches 1A, 2A, 3A, 5A, 6A, and 7A (Figure 5.3)--indicated that site 12 Jo 5 is eligible for nomination for the National Register of Historic Places. The determination is based not only on the quantity and quality of the subsurface features, but on the uniqueness of finding a Late Prehistoric component in central Indiana that appears to be associated with the Mississippian tradition.

After these excavations, Eclipse Development, Inc., contracted with the GBL to evaluate two 50-feet-wide right-of-ways in section 2 of the Foxberry Trace Master Plan (Figure 5.4). The level of investigation involved both subsurface reconnaissance and Phase II archaeological testing within the proposed right-of-way that extended from about lot 96 west along Lionshead Lane and south along Ramsgate Road to about lot 112 in section 3 of the master plan. The main question addressed by the 1995 summer contract was whether the subsurface deposits identified in blocks 1 and 2 of the field school excavations extended north and west into the two right-of-ways. The summary report, submitted to the Department of Natural Resources, Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology (DHPA) in August of 1995 (McCullough n.d.d), noted that, even though significant archaeological deposits did extend up to the edge of the right-of-way in the northern portion of site 12 Jo 5, no significant archaeological resources would be affected by construction activities related to the roadways, as long as the impacts were confined to within 25 feet of the centerline of the right-of-ways. However, systematic Phase II archaeological investigations had not been conducted outside the right-of-way boundaries.

The recommendations further stated that earthmoving equipment and related construction activities should NOT be allowed south of the Lionshead Lane right-of-way or east of the Ramsgate Road right-of-way at any time during the proposed project unless a qualified archaeologist were present (see Figures 5.4 and 5.5). In section 2, lots 96 to 102 needed to be archaeologically evaluated before construction activities proceeded south of the right-of-way boundary. These boundaries were clearly marked on the site by wooden laths with the upper portions spray-painted orange (McCullough n.d.d).

A subsurface reconnaissance was conducted within the Ramsgate Road right-of-way along the western edge of the site and around the curve (southwest of site 12 Jo 5) to about lot 112 in the extreme western edge of section 3. This area was also delimited with laths spray-painted orange to form a continuous line with those placed along the northern extent of the site. The engineer's staked centerline also stopped at this point. The portion of site 12 Jo 5 that extends into Section 3 was not archaeologically evaluated because construction activities in this area were to be postponed.

Unfortunately, construction activities at the Foxberry Trace addition extended beyond the areas recommended by the GBL and exposed subsurface cultural features and prehistoric cultural materials (lithics and pottery). These earthmoving activities consisted of grading the eastern slope on site 12 Jo 5 in the vicinity of Unit A, a linear area south of Lionshead Lane, the area within the Chantry Way right-of-way in section 3, and the area south of Chantry Way (Figure 5.6). The areas impacted included a portion of the field school excavations, where at least five features were present in and around Unit A. These features had been left unexcavated because most were not fully exposed, but more important, this area was not to be developed because it was located underneath the existing powerlines. Salvage excavations to mitigate the damage on areas not completely destroyed were subsequently conducted by personnel from the GBL beginning December 12, 1995, and ending April 5, 1996.