Thirty-nine prehistoric pit features were excavated at the Clampitt site (Figure 13), and all but two of these features were located within the defined village boundaries. Feature numbers 9 and 12 were situated to the west of the village proper in Unit A (southwest corner of Figure 13). Feature 12 was only partially exposed in plan and not excavated. Feature 9 was completely excavated and found to contain very little cultural material and no pottery. The cultural affiliation of Feature 9 remains uncertain; however, the pit did underlie one of the few large surface concentration of Oliver phase pottery that was detected outside the village proper (Figure 6), and, therefore, is likely to have been related to this occupation.
Pits included a range of sizes, shapes, and material fill which most likely reflect something of their former functions ( Plate 2 ). The excavated fill from most of the pit features comprised varying amounts of such habitation refuse as animal bone fragments, lithic debitage, fire-cracked rock, burned limestone, charcoal, pottery sherds, burned nutshell, charred maize, beans, and squash, and mollusk shell. Contents such as these indicated that most pits ended their use-life as trash receptacles. Evidence of the original functions of these features was much more elusive.
The ratio of base diameter to orifice diameter was used to quantitatively characterize the profile shapes of pits. Accordingly, this index assigned a value of ca. 0.1 to true basins (i.e. round-bottomed features) and a value of ca. 1.0 to regular cylinders. Indices of profile shape were calculated for the twenty-five pit features that could be measured accurately . Six other pits with undulating bases were classified as "irregular" in form, and these were not included in this part of the analysis.
The frequency distribution of form indices revealed a trimodal distribution that was used to set the parameters for pit form classes (see Figure 14). As a result, features with indices less than 0.3 were labeled as "basins", "flat-bottomed basins" clustered between values of 0.3 and 0.8, and "cylinders" had ratios between 0.8 and 1.0. Feature shapes ranged from nearly perfect basins like Feature S (index of fill) to flat-bottomed, straight-sided pits like Feature 27 (index of 0.95). No expanded base or "bell-shaped" pits were identified. The most common pit shape was a flat- bottomed basin with sloping walls (n= 18). A selection of feature profile shapes is illustrated in Figures 15,16,17,18. The morphological characteristics of all measurable pit features from the Clampitt site are summarized in Tables 1 and 2 and Provided in greater detail in Appendix B.
The mean depth and capacity calculations for the various pit forms in Table 2 indicate that basins and flat-bottomed basins were very similar in size. Both types of features were less than 1.0 meter in depth and generally of intermediate capacity. In contrast, one of the cylindrical forms, Feature 30, stood out as the deepest and largest of all pits investigated with a maximum depth of 120.0 cm and a capacity of 1300.5 liters. This atypical feature will be discussed at greater length below. Finally, the pits of irregular form were generally smaller than the rest and most likely represent partially disturbed examples of basins or flat- bottomed basins.
Figure 19 compares the densities of cultural materials contained within each [ pit feature. Most pits contained a variety of cultural material at relatively low densities which most likely reflect their ultimate functions as receptacles for generalized "trash." In order to determine the makeup of village "trash" in general, the contents of two segments (i.e. Features 48 and 55) of the inner stockade trench (to be described in more detail below) were examined. On the basis of the observed contents of this fill (i.e. large sections of broken vessels, broken and burned floral and faunal remains, chert debitage, etc.), it was reasoned that the stockade trench had been used as a trash receptacle sometime prior to the abandonment of the village. More to the point, it was concluded that the contents of the stockade trench were unlikely to have resulted from any activity other than trash disposal and, therefore, would be representative of the kinds of fill also deposited into so-called "trash pits".
The stockade trench fill (i.e. Features 48 and 55) was found to contain average densities of ceramic, chert, fire-cracked rock, limestone, and floral and faunal remains which totaled less than 1.0 grams per liter (g/l) (Figure 20). In terms of their proportional representation in the trench fill, pottery remains were the most common followed by chert and fire-cracked rock; limestone was particularly rare as were floral and faunal remains (Figure 20).
Following the assumption that the density data from stockade trench fill are reflective of the general makeup of village refuse, the refuse deposits at the Clampitt site appear to have contained representative mixtures of all artifact classes, but at very low densities (i.e. < 1.0 g/liter). In contrast, the total average density of cultural material from the entire sample of pit features was nearly 4.0 g/liter (Figure 14). Consequently, it can be expected that true "trash pits" (i.e. pit features of unknown original function which ended their use-lives as trash receptacles) will exhibit artifact densities well below this average of 4.0 g/liter.
These strikingly low densities of material remains appear, at first, to contradict the assumed purpose of prehistoric "trash" pits, that is, the deliberate disposal of large quantities of food or craft remains. If the stockade trench and any of the pit features at the Clampitt site were ultimately used as garbage dumps, then why do most of them contain so little in the way of material objects? Possible answers to this question come from disparate sources; one is based on the nature of local soils and the other relates to the ways in which these pits were used.
The most immediate explanation has to do with the fact that the Tyner-Alvin loamy sands of the terrace on which the settlement was constructed are naturally acidic (range pH 4.5-7.3) and are described as "excessively" well drained with a low organic content (Thomas 1985). The characteristics of low pH and heavy leaching have combined to produce a very poor environment for the preservation of organic materials. In fact, the inventory of excavated materials shows a distinct paucity of bone and shell which are common components of most "midden" deposits in the Midwest. Therefore, the apparent "emptiness" of the Clampitt site pits may be simply due to the fact that much of the original contents (i.e. unmodified fragments and tools made from bone and shell) have not been preserved.
A more intricate explanation for the low densities of material remains in pit features involves the assumption that trash disposal in pits was an "expedient" behavior which occurred only when a convenient hole was available and when someone had something to throw away. It is highly unlikely that any pits were dug for the sole purpose of trash disposal and instead, when a pit was determined to be no longer useful (for cooking, storage, etc.) it was filled as quickly as possible, because large, open holes would undoubtedly pose a potential danger for the inhabitants, particularly children. Under these circumstances, the soil that was used to fill the pit may or may not have contained village refuse; in fact it is reasonable to expect that the contents of re-filled pits would be highly variable in terms of the amounts and kinds of material contents. This latter explanation finds some support in ethnoarchaeological studies of refuse disposal among Highland Mayan farmers of Mexico. Research by Brian Hayden (Hayden and Cannon 1983) and Michael Deal (Deal 1985), among others, indicates that pits were never dug for purposes of trash disposal. Furthermore, trash-filled pits were found to be extremely rare, and, when they did occur, were found to have been used in a strictly opportunistic fashion as described above (Hayden and Cannon l983:140- 146; Deal 1985:263). A similar pattern of behavior was observed among village-dwelling peoples of the Great Plains during the nineteenth century (cf. Wilson 1934: 367-368).
. Eighteen of the pit features discovered at the Clampitt site contained total artifact densities under 4.0 g/l and, consequently, were classified as "trash pits" (Features 1, 6, 9, 14, 18, 26, 28, 31, 32, 34, 35, 42, 49, 54, 56, 60, 64, and 65). This subset included basin, flat-bottomed basin, and irregular forms (Figures 15,16,17,18). The remaining pits (n=10) with total artifact densities greater than 4.0 g/liter contained disproportional amounts of cultural material in comparison to the trash pits (Feature nos. 2, 3, 5, 10, 19, 27, 28, 30, 45, 69, and 71).
Most of these non-refuse pit features contained large amounts of lithic material (chert, fire-cracked rock, or limestone) and very little pottery or floral and faunal remains. For example, Feature 10, a large basin, contained mostly limestone and chert debitage (Figure 19). Evidence of in situ burning, in the form of fire-reddened soil, was absent, and charred wood or food remains were practically nonexistent. The relatively high density of limestone found here indicated that this pit was not used for trash disposal and instead may have functioned as an earth-oven or cooking pit that made use of some form of indirect heating (e.g.. stone- boiling). Features 5 and 45 were flat-bottomed pits, and Feature 69 was an irregular-shaped pit and each were similar in content to Feature 10 and may have functioned in a like manner (Figure 19).
Of all pit features examined, Feature 4 contained the highest density of animal bone and shell (Figure 19). In addition, this pit exhibited a thin, burned-earth lense and small ash deposits near its base. Floral remains in the form of charcoal and charred nutshell were also relatively abundant. The evidence for in situ burning near the bottom of Feature 4 and a general lack of ceramic "trash" suggested that this pit was used as a cooking facility (e.g. roasting pit).
Features 2, 19, and 27 were pits which contained high densities of artifacts and were unlikely to have functioned as cooking facilities (Figure 19). Feature 27 was a cylindrical pit that contained several large sections of at least two ceramic vessels and a bone beamer. Its straight sided form (refer to discussion of feature 30 below), lack of evidence for burning, and relatively large capacity (570 liters) point to a primary use as a storage facility. Nevertheless, its contents of unquestionable refuse (i.e. broken artifacts) strongly suggested that it be grouped with the trash pits. Feature 2 also contained a large amount of ceramic debris; however, an even greater density of chert debitage pointed to an ultimate function as a trash pit. Despite the high concentration of material in this pit, little evidence for heating or cooking was found, thus making an accurate determination of its original function unlikely.
Feature 19 compares an unusually high density mix of all artifact classes. Pottery sherds were the most common item found, but relatively high quantities of limestone and fire-cracked rock were also contained in the fill of this pit. In addition, nearly ten times the average density of floral remains (mostly wood charcoal) were found in the upper levels of the feature, much of it concentrated in a thick lense. Like Feature 4, Feature 19 contained a high density of faunal remains but, no heat- oxidized soil was evident. Taken alone, the large amount of ceramic debris would seem to classify this pit as a trash receptacle, but the abundant, charred remains may indicate a use as a cooking facility or perhaps a smudge-pit. The stratified nature of the pit fill would seem to raise the possibility of multiple functions over an extended period of time.
The most atypical pit feature discovered at the Clampitt site was Feature 30. This was a large, cylindrical pit that contained a moderate density of materials (Figure 19). Feature 30, by far the largest pit feature recorded at the site, had a depth of 120 cm and a capacity of 1,300 liters. The contents of this pit exhibited a rather complex stratigraphy which consisted of alternating layers of cultural debris and nearly sterile fill. The presence of multiple soil lenses suggested an extended function as a trash pit. Furthermore, a thin lense of fire-reddened soil in the middle of the fill testified to the temporary use of this feature as a cooking pit.
The overall form and size of Feature 30 most closely resembled large, cylindrical to bell-shaped storage pits documented for numerous settled horticultural societies of prehistoric eastern North America. These pits have most often been interpreted as large underground "silos" for the storage of maize and other crops (Schroedl 1980 cited in DeBoer 1988; Bendremer et al. 1991). The use of subsurface storage features has been cited as evidence for settlement nucleation, communal subsistence strategies, food surpluses, and seasonal (i.e. winter) abandonment of villages (DeBoer 1988). The closest analog for Feature 30 are the large storage pits recorded at the Bowen site (Darwin 1971) and numerous Fort Ancient Tradition village sites in the Middle Ohio Valley (Essenpreis 1982; Nass 1987; Cowan 1987).
Several of the pit features from the Clampitt site that were classified as trash pits were of sufficient size and shape to have functioned originally as storage pits. Like Feature 27 described above, Features 1, 18, and 49 were deep, flat-bottomed pits with capacities well above the sample mean of 337.2 liters. In addition, these three features contained low densities of artifacts in their fill and lacked any evidence for other functions. As is the case with most so-called storage pit features, direct evidence of the primary functions of these features (i.e. stored contents) is lacking, and we are forced to rely on such indirect attributes as overall morphology (i.e. deep and large) and final contents (i.e. generalized fill).
Much less can be said concerning the primary functions of the smaller pits
noted above for which no evidence of their primary functions remains. Nevertheless,
it is unlikely that any of these features were created solely for the purpose
of trash disposal.
