Summary counts of artifacts recovered from the Crouch site are presented in Appendix 1. A total of 6,230 pieces of material, excluding faunal and floral remains, which were recorded by weight, was cataloged during the course of the investigation. The artifact assemblage was dominated by Late Prehistoric materials; most of the pottery was tentatively identified as Vincennes Phase, although some Oliver Phase material was noted. However, the Vincennes Phase in Indiana is not well defined, and what we have called Vincennes Phase may have closer ties to an unidentified Upper Mississippian component in central Indiana. The following subsections provide extended descriptions for three major categories of cultural material: sherds, lithics, and bone and antler tools.
The pottery assemblage was divided into three categories: rim sherds, neck sherds, and body sherds. (For a summary, see Appendix 1. Also see Table 5.3 12 Jo 5 Summary of Ceramic Data ) The rim sherds category consists of 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 vessel 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 were any fragments without a rim or neck portion. A fourth 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 Plates 5.3a and 5.3b.)
Appendix 1 summarizes the frequencies of rim sherds, neck sherds, and body sherds, both by unit and by feature provenience. Table 5.3 presents the frequency of rim, neck, and body sherds for temper and for type of surface treatment and/or decoration. A distinction is made here 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 most popular type of inclusion added to the vessels recovered from the Crouch site was fairly coarse shell. The vast majority of the sherds recovered from 12 Jo 5 had the shell leached out, rendering the fragments extremely friable. Exposed to the surface for any length of time, this pottery undoubtedly would have disintegrated, making this type of site hard to identify. In addition, burrowing insects' (grubs) holes were observed penetrating through the soft, shell tempered vessel segments. Sherds recovered from deeper feature contexts appeared to be better preserved, with the shell not leached out; however, the majority of the material was recovered from the upper portions of the features.
Approximately 84.7 percent of the sherds recovered were shell-tempered, and, if the mixed shell and grit sherds are included, the percentage increases to 86.5 percent. Only about 12.6 percent (N=177) of the sherds were grit-tempered, with sand, grog, and other inclusions representing a minor percentage of the total. The high percentage of shell tempering is not typical of Oliver Phase sites that have been investigated (Dorwin 1971;1994b; Redmond and McCullough 1996), nor, to the author's knowledge, does a site with predominantly shell-tempered pottery have any correlates in central Indiana. Two cord-impressed rim sherds that appear to be Oliver Phase were recovered from the site, and it is likely that some of the grit-tempered sherds are portions of these Oliver Phase "trade" vessels.
Similarly, the decorations expected at an Oliver Phase site were not present at 12 Jo 5. The surface treatment/decoration table (Table 5.3) indicates that of the rim and neck sherds recovered from the Crouch site, only about 5.5 percent exhibited decoration, a significant difference when compared to the other sites described in this report. Decorated ceramics at the Crouch site consisted of only two small rims with cord-wrapped dowel impressions on the rim and one unidentified type. Only one of these sherds was large enough to determine the motif, a series of short oblique lines of cord-wrapped dowel impressions on the thickened rim (Plate 5.3a, bottom center). (For a profile of this sherd, see the upper left corner of Figure 5.21.) Although fragmentary, it appeared that this vessel was slightly castellated. This grit-tempered rim is clearly different from the typical shell-tempered examples recovered from 12 Jo 5, even though it was recovered from a feature with a high density of shell-tempered pottery (Feature 18). A rim with this kind of decorative motif, method of decorative execution, and morphology is commonly associated with Oliver Phase vessels. As the radiocarbon dates in Appendix 4 indicate, this site overlaps the Oliver Phase in time; it is fair to assume that this specimen either represents a trade item or an ephemeral occupation at 12 Jo 5. 787 pottery sherds did not exhibit any decoration, which is more typical of Vincennes Phase pottery (Winters 1967; Sonner n.d.b; Barth 1982, 1991; Moffat 1985, 1991). Essentially, all of the shell tempered, Vincennes Phase-like sherds were undecorated.
In terms of surface treatment, of the 790 identifiable sherds, approximately 80 percent were plain, and 20 percent were cordmarked. However, the surface treatment was not consistent across the entire vessel. Roughly 85 percent of the body sherds were identified as plain, while only about 10 percent of the rim sherds were. Sonner reports a distribution of 65 percent plain and 35 percent cordmarked for two Vincennes culture sites in Knox County (12 K 129 and 12 K 81), noting that the rims were always plain, while cordmarking, if present, was restricted to the shoulder and below. Although the surface treatment at the Crouch site exhibits a different pattern than the two sites in Sonner's study in terms of the zone of vessel surface treatment, it is not known how representative the two Knox County sites are of Vincennes culture ceramics. Attributes from Vincennes Phase vessels from a variety of sites will need to be recorded consistently to determine how important an observation rim surface treatment is in understanding the ceramic assemblage. Such an attribute analysis has been initiated by the senior author (McCullough n.d.b). The results for body sherds larger than 4.0 square cm are presented in Table 5.4, and, as expected, plain shell tempered body sherds represent the majority (78.2 percent).
In terms of morphology, Figure 5.21 illustrates some examples of the vessel rim profiles recovered from 12 Jo 5. The example in the upper left corner represents an Oliver Phase cord impressed rim sherd (see Plate 5.3a, bottom center). The other examples do not exhibit the typical combination of collared rims, cambered shaped rims, and Fort Ancient-like rim folds or broadly curving necks typical of the Oliver Phase. Instead, the rims are sharply everted, with short, thick necks. Cordmarking, as remarked earlier, is either on the entire vessel or restricted to the rim. The interior of the neck, where the rim everts outward, often makes a sharp crease. Rim sherds with this type of morphology typically break at the neck, thus underrepresenting the number of sharply everted rims, but a small portion of the crease can still be observed. Many of the fragmentary non Oliver Phase rim sherds recovered from 12 Jo 5 appear to be segments of the sharply everted vessel forms. The example in the upper right corner (Figure 5.21) is a portion of a large vessel for which almost the entire rim was recovered (Plate 5.3b). This vessel exhibited deep scalloping, denoted by the dashed line in the figure, along the lip. This scalloping represents the only embellishment beyond surface treatment noted on any of the shell-tempered vessels from 12 Jo 5.
The rim profiles illustrated by Sonner (n.d.b) demonstrate that all the Vincennes Phase rim sherds recovered from the Knox County sites in his study exhibited the sharply everted rim profile like those found at 12 Jo 5. Cordmarked, shell-tempered rim sherds with sharply everted profiles were also identified by Winters (1967: Figure 20) as being diagnostic of the Vincennes Phase ceramic assemblage. The Bowen site report (Dorwin 1971: Plate XXI) illustrates a sharply everted shell-tempered rim sherd with cordmarking that appears similar to the ones recovered from this site. The carbon dates from the multicomponent Bowen site (Dorwin 1971) are widely dispersed but overlap with those obtained for 12 Jo 5. The presence of this vessel indicates that contact with inhabitants of the Crouch site occurred or that there was an ephemeral occupation there by Vincennes Phase peoples.
In sum, the Crouch site ceramic assemblage differs from those recovered from Oliver Phase sites in central Indiana. Unlike the contemporaneous Oliver Phase sites, the pottery used at 12 Jo 5 is mostly shell-tempered with both plain and cordmarked surfaces. The vessels, or jars, are undecorated, globular shapes with rounded shoulders and sharply everted rim profiles that often exhibit definite creases on the inside edge. Because similar vessels have been described for the Vincennes Phase (Winters 1967; Sonner n.d.b) in the Wabash Valley, the authors are tentatively associating the inhabitants of 12 Jo 5 with the Vincennes Phase culture. 12 Jo 5 is contemporary with the Oliver Phase, as indicated by radiocarbon assay (see Appendix 4), and a Vincennes Phase-like vessel has been recovered from the Bowen site (Dorwin 1971). Another site with both Oliver Phase and Vincennes Phase ceramics, the Heaton Farm site (12 Gr 122) in Greene County, Indiana, is currently being excavated by the 1996 Indiana University field school in archaeology. It is hoped that this investigation will assist in developing a temporal sequence for the Late Prehistoric ceramic assemblages in central and south central Indiana.
The lithic assemblage recovered at the Crouch site (12 Jo 5) represents a good cross section of a Late Prehistoric lithic industry. A relatively complete range of chert and groundstone tools are represented by this collection, indicating that all stages of stone tool manufacture, use, and maintenance took place at this location. (For examples of the lithic assemblage, see Plate 5.4a.)
There were two general observations made during the cataloging process that are worthy of mention here. First, the density of artifacts recovered in all phases of the excavations was rather low compared to the scope of the investigations. This phenomenon was common to all classes of artifacts, not just the lithic materials, and certainly resulted in low counts for finished artifact types in the chert and groundstone tool categories. Second, the general size of the chert artifacts is small compared to those at the other two sites (12 Jo 289 and 12 Mg 1) tested during the summer. The validity of this observation is best confirmed by the low average weights of the two debitage categories (flakes and blocky fragments) and the metric measurements of the projectile points (tables 5.5 and 5.6).
The junior author believes that the smallness of the chert assemblage is directly related to the distance between the habitation site and the source of the lithic raw material. Glacial cobbles, exposed by erosion along major waterways are one of the primary lithic resources exploited in the Late Prehistoric period. The West Fork of the White River is the nearest major river. Unlike most recorded villages of this time period, which are located adjacent to these waterways, 12 Jo 5 is over three miles from the White River. Since it would be inefficient both in time and energy to bring complete cobbles from the White River back to the village for reduction, the initial steps in the lithic reduction sequence most likely took place at the chert source, or river. This strategy would account for the light debitage assemblage at the village site, as well as the small size of the triangular point assemblage and the extensive retouch that has reduced their size, which reflect a high replacement cost, or a situation where it is more efficient to resharpen a tool to the point of exhaustion than to return to the primary resource area.
The lithic material recovered at the Crouch site (12 Jo 5) was processed and curated at the GBL. To facilitate the cataloging procedure, the lithics were divided into two primary categories. These primary groups are chert and groundstone tools. These groups were then broken down into specific artifact classes based on attributes observed at the macroscopic level. A description of each class follows.
Chert/Debitage. Debitage is the waste material produced by stone tool manufacturing. While this byproduct can give insights on raw material sources, reduction technologies, site use patterns, and a host of other behaviors not directly represented in the archaeological record, but, for this report, debitage was counted and weighed with no further analysis being performed.
The debitage category was divided into two classes: chert flakes and blocky fragments. Flakes are distinguished by a bulb of percussion and a thin cross section; blocky fragments are more angular and generally larger. These two classes commonly represent the bulk of a lithic assemblage whether measured by count or weight, as was the case at 12 Jo 5. By count, debitage accounted for 96.8 percent chert artifacts recovered. Measured by gram weight, debitage represents 83.4 percent of all chert.
Chert/Tool. The chert/tool category subsumes all remaining chert artifacts. Whether whole or fragmentary, these artifacts represent the final product of the lithic reduction process. Some tools, such as projectile points and drills, are well defined and easily recognizable. Others are more problematic. When defined at a macroscopic level, tools such as utilized flakes and the various bifaces become difficult to quantify, and the names used for tool classes do not necessarily imply tool function. Although a microscopic analysis would doubtless rearrange some of the following totals, an analysis of this sort is outside the scope of this report.
Projectile Points and Point Fragments (N=35). A total of thirty-five projectile points were recovered at 12 Jo 5 from excavation context or as surface finds. Of this total, six are unidentifiable tip fragments of Archaic points. The remaining twenty-nine are examples of Late Prehistoric Madison-type arrow points. Eleven of these are too fragmentary for further analysis. Metric and morphologic attributes were recorded for the remaining eighteen triangular points. Table 5.6 showsmetric attributes and chert type, while Table 5.7 shows various observations pertaining to morphology. The relatively small size of this assemblage is best quantified on the metric table. The most consistently available measurement for the 12 Jo 5 assemblage is basal width. The average basal width of the twelve examples is only 15.4 mm. At 12 Mg 1 and 12 Jo 289 the average basal width is 17.6 and 16.0 mm respectively. Again, the low number of triangular points recovered and the extent of resharpening suggest they were a dear resource.
Biface and Biface Fragments (N=19). A total of nineteen bifaces, or any chert artifact that has been flaked on two opposite surfaces, were recovered from all contexts at 12 Jo 5. This broad definition encompasses a wide variety of shapes and sizes and even includes fragments of finished tools. To give some clarity to the biface category they were divided into three sub categories: shaped, unshaped or crude, and fragments. Seven of the bifaces from 12 Jo 5 are shaped. Of the seven, four are triangular in plan view and bi-convex in cross section but too bulky to be arrow points. They are almost exclusively percussion flaked, with little or no retouch or edge wear. The lack of edge refinements precludes their classification as knives; these may be preforms rather than finished tools. Of the remaining three bifaces, two are ovoid and the last is teardrop shaped. Again, the overall morphology is suggestive of a more formally defined tool type, but the bulky cross section and unrefined edges make assignment at a more precise functional level impossible. In a sense, the shaped biface category defines a step in the lithic reduction process rather than a tool class. The remaining twelve artifacts classed as bifaces are too fragmentary to assess their original size or shape.
Utilized Flakes (N=12). Like the bifaces, utilized flakes are quite variable in both morphology and function. However, utilized flakes can be considered as finished, expedient tools. As the name implies they are flakes that show any purposeful modification. The amount of energy invested in their manufacture suggests these tools are readily available and expendable. They were likely manufactured on the spot for a specific task and then discarded.
Cores (N=3). Cores generally represent the primary lithic resource being exploited, and their presence at 12 Jo 5 indicates that at least some cobbles were returned to the village site for further reduction. However only three cores were recovered. This paucity of cores and their small size, (avg. weight 18.5 g) supports the assumption that most of the initial lithic reduction took place outside the village area. All three cores are river-worn glacial cobbles with large areas of cortex intact. There is no uniformity of shape or flaking pattern, nor is there any evidence for a bipolar reduction technology. These are classified as cores on the basis of their large size relative to the rest of the chert assemblage and the fact that flakes large enough to produce other tools have been removed.
Drill (N=1). One drill was recovered at 12 Jo 5 from Feature 63. It does not appear to be a modified Madison-type triangle. It is 40.0 mm long, which is outside the normal range for an arrow point. It has an expanded, convex base and is manufactured from glacial chert. From feature context, it can be associated with the Upper Mississippian/Vincennes occupation at 12 Jo 5.
Knife (N=1). Only one knife, triangular in shape and lenticular in cross section, was recovered at 12 Jo 5. It is distinguished from the other triangular shaped bifaces by obvious use wear and retouch along both edges. Because the knife was recovered as an isolated find in trench 62 to the west of the main habitation area, its association is not certain, but the technology employed in its manufacture suggests a Late Prehistoric temporal placement. No "humpbacked" knives (Munson and Munson 1972) were recovered from excavations at 12 Jo 5, but several are curated at the GBL in a surface collection amassed in the 1970s by Kevin Crouch.
Scrapers (N=4). Two endscrapers and two thumbnail scrapers were recovered from various contexts. Both endscrapers are heat altered and fragmentary but still show the characteristic plano-convex cross section, bifacial flaking, and steeply beveled working edge that are typical for a hafted endscraper. By comparison, the thumbnail scrapers are small and nearly circular. The steep bevel is present, but the flaking is all on one face. The back sides of the thumbnail scrapers are the smooth ventral side of a flake. Since these come from feature context, thumbnail scrapers may have some potential as a cultural or temporal indicator. No sidescrapers, which are generally made on large flakes, were recovered during this excavation. However, there are two biface fragments which may represent this tool type, but the small size of the fragments made it impossible to be certain.
Graver (N=1). One graver was found on the surface in the area of Block 2. It is made on a thin, heat-altered flake and is pentagonal in shape with the graving spur at the apex.
Groundstone Tools (N=6). Groundstone tools, the nonchert portion of the lithic assemblage, are any stones that show alteration by means of grinding or pecking or a combination of these methods. They are all manuports and, no doubt, had a protracted use life. Two hammerstones were recovered at 12 Jo 5. One is granitic and the other is of quartzite. Both are about the size of a golf ball and show the isolated areas of peck marks that characterize this tool class.
One pitted stone was also recovered. It too is a granitic cobble, but it is not spherical. This stone has two flat parallel faces with dimples worn into them both.
Another irregularly shaped granitic stone was identified as a grinding stone. Viewed from an end it is semi-circular. The flat surface shows a polish that suggests considerable wear.
One nearly complete metate was also found at 12 Jo 5. A large, irregularly shaped granitic cobble with one flat face, it is by far the largest lithic artifact (g= 3629). The face has a depression worn into it that leaves only a slightly elevated rim around the edge. This wear pattern could only have come about through long use as a platform for grinding.
Two pieces of sandstone were identified as abraders, based on the presence of a polished face on both fragments although no deeply worn grooves are evident. It is possible that these two are fragments of grinding stones, but, for such a task, the short use life of sandstone would make it less satisfactory than granite.
One midsection of a pendant was also found at 12 Jo 5, recovered from a disturbed surface context to the south of the main habitation area. It is made of banded red slate, is lenticular in cross section, and both ends are broken off. The breaks bisect the two holes, so its finished shape remains unknown.
Scapula Hoes (N=1).
Nos. 9152/0381 and 9152/0377. Manufactured from the blade portion of a very
large mammal (elk- or bison-sized), this specimen is scraped and polished along
the inferior edge; wear on the lateral edge and on the surface of the blade
suggests use as a digging implement. Both specimens are from the same artifact
(Plate 5.4b).
Awls (N=2).
No. 9152/0288. This midsection of a turkey (Meleagris) tarsometatarsus has grinding
along the lateral surface that suggests that it was the midsection of a tarsometatarsus
awl. No. 9152/0955. This awl tip was manufactured from bird bone and is probably
another fragment of a tarsometatarsus awl.
Indeterminant (N=1).
No. 9152/0950. Two fragments of bird long bone, both exhibiting heavy scraping
on all surfaces. These are long shaft fragments that have been scraped along
their entire length.
Worked Shell (N=1).
No. 9152/100. This small fragment of mussel shell has a minutely scalloped edge.
