Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Kevin C. Nolan
105
106 Kevin C. Nolan
Figure 1. Regional Context of the Reinhardt Site. All dots represent Ohio Archaeological
Inventory (OAI) sites with Late Woodland/Late Prehistoric Cluster (Justice 1987) projectile
points. The two most proximate intensively investigated sites are represented by the triangle
(Voss) and square (Gartner) (see Brady-Rawlins 2007; Mills 1904).
surveys (Nolan et al. 2008); however, here I focus on the shovel test and
surface collection data which is presented, fully analyzed, for the first time.
Not only is there a paucity of investigated sites in the middle and up-
per Scioto Valley, but the number of sites sufficiently investigated to reveal
intra-site patterning for the Fort Ancient period is small (see Figure 1). This
Dechiphering the Community Structure of a Fort Ancient Village 107
Figure 2. Location of Units Surveyed within the Plowed Village Area (PVA) with Surface
Faunal Distribution. The units that yielded fauna on the surface constitute an arc. Rows
46–49 extend beyond the plowed area. The collection units outside the plowed area are not
directly comparable in absolute quantity to those within; however, the presence of fauna on
the unplowed surface is suggestive of a continuation of the arc into the northwest portion of
the village.
does not allow full evaluation of extant hypotheses and models about Fort
Ancient development and social structure (Cook 2008; Nolan and Cook
2010; Pollack and Henderson 1992, 2000). In order to fully assess the fit
of these models, we need to drastically increase the number of sites with
a deciphered site structure. Excavation is an extremely inefficient way to
108 Kevin C. Nolan
Figure 3. Location of the 2007 Volumetric Shovel Tests. The east-west transects (T1-T3) were
8 liters and the north-south transects (T4-T8) were 16 liters.
Figure 4. The Reinhardt Tract and Local Setting of the Reinhardt Village (PI880). The
Reinhardt Tract (represented by the dotted line) was the subject of extensive and intensive
survey and evaluation work by Nolan (2009). Sites PI1012 through PI1022 were newly
defined by Nolan’s reconnaissance survey. Identified components represent the Early Archaic,
Late Archaic, Early Woodland, Middle Woodland, Late Woodland, and Late Prehistoric
periods. Background is the Commercial Point and Lockbourne 7.5 minute quads.
occupant of the Middle Ohio River Valley. Greenlee (2002) describes the Re-
inhardt site as a Late Woodland/early Late Prehistoric period site (LW/eLP),
but she did not have a radiometric date or know the location of the site.
In addition to the results reported below, Jarrod Burks and I conducted
a gradiometry survey and magnetic susceptibility survey. The results of these
surveys are reported by Nolan et al. (2008). These two surveys do not reveal
a clear structure for the site, but a circular or arc structure cannot be ruled
out on the basis of this evidence (Nolan et al. 2008). Burks identified over
Dechiphering the Community Structure of a Fort Ancient Village 111
Median 2-Sigma
AMS Lab Sample Measured Calendar Calendar
Samples Number Age (BP) Age (AD) Range (AD) Material
F1/1988 BETA 245378 830 ± 40 1220 1160–1270 Collagen
FS 583 BETA 255920 820 ± 40 1230 1160–1280 Wood Charcoal
FS 228 BETA 255916 770 ± 40 1270 1220–1290 Wood Charcoal
FS 287 BETA 255917 690 ± 40 1290 1270–1330; Wood Charcoal
1340–1400
FS 584 BETA 255921 620 ± 40 1300; 1370; 1280–1400 Nutshell
1380 Charcoal
FS 368 BETA 255918 650 ± 40 1310; 1360; 1280–1410 Wood Charcoal
1380
FS 436 BETA 255919 490 ± 40 1430 1400–1460 Wood Charcoal
TL Sample
X42–183– UW 2000 866.9 ± 46 1142 1050–1234 Grit-tempered
1 body sherd
specific activities (e.g., food preparation, food storage) within the village has
implications for the interpretation of social structure and inter-household
relations (Means 2007).
While there is some knowledge of settlement structure variability in cen-
tral Kentucky (Henderson 1998), little research has been done in southern
Ohio in general and within the Scioto Valley in particular on the range of
variability in settlement plan over space and through time. There is a recent
trend in Late Prehistoric Ohio Valley research towards getting beyond the
generalizations of the Culture History paradigm that dominates current in-
terpretations (Cook 2008; Hart et al. 2005; Means 2007; Nolan and Cook
2010). It is within this context that the current data collection project was
designed. The main goal of this project was to decipher the structure of the
Reinhardt settlement (see Nolan 2008b). Both Morton’s (1988) notes and
the existing models (Pollack and Henderson 2000; see also Church and
Nass 2002) lead to the expectation of a circular village plan.
and activity patterning within the village. However, it is equally clear that
this is not an efficient (in terms of time, labor, or use of the archaeologi-
cal record) means of deciphering village structure. Similar points could be
made by highlighting the amount of time and effort devoted to deciphering
community patterns through excavation at the Philo phase site in the Musk-
ingum Valley (Carskadden and Morton 1977, 2000).
Not all investigations of Late Prehistoric period site structure in the
Middle Ohio Valley have relied on excavation, however. In addition to the
Voss and Horseshoe Johnson investigations discussed above, Henderson’s
(1998) work in central Kentucky is a model of what can be accomplished
if extensive methods are favored over intensive efforts. Through a combina-
tion of survey, mapping of surface middens, analysis of aerial photographs,
and interviewing collectors and land owners, Henderson was able to docu-
ment a wide range in site size and structure during the Middle Fort Ancient
period. However, in many cases, only a single line of evidence is used to
interpret site structure because in many cases there was no opportunity for
additional investigation, a common situation in archaeology.
The use of complete or nearly complete horizontal excavation was
widespread during the Great Depression. The Works Progress Administra-
tion (WPA) and other public works institutions employed large labor forces
to systematically excavate and record whole sites. The glut of information
recovered during these endeavors has still not been fully analyzed or report-
ed. A great example of the use of Depression-era excavation data is Means’
(2007) investigation of variability in Monongahela community structure.
Means was able to analyze a variety of site plans from the entire span of the
Late Prehistoric period in Somerset County, Pennsylvania. Means limited
himself to examining circular villages, and he found that, contrary to tradi-
tional models of Monongahela development, there was no single trajectory
or progressive trend in organization and community size.
While Means’ work is quite distant from my focus and from the rest of
the examples discussed in this section, I mention it for two reasons. First,
Means’ efforts (Hart et al. 2005; Means 2007) illustrate the need for a large
sample of deciphered community structures to develop accurate narratives
of prehistoric social development. Second, Means’ reliance on Depression-
era complete-site excavations illustrates the enormity of the effort required if
we continue to rely primarily on excavation data to sufficiently increase the
sample of deciphered site structures to critically evaluate competing models.
The preceding is not an exhaustive review of sites with deciphered settle-
ment structures or the methods used to decipher them. However, it does
serve to illustrate the prevailing methods used in the region, especially on
116 Kevin C. Nolan
For the volumetric shovel test survey, three east-west transects were es-
tablished extending from the eastern edge of the plowed area westward 100
m. Transects 1–3 were spaced 20 m apart and 8 liters of the plow zone were
sampled every 10 m within transects (Figure 3). The choice of initial sam-
pling volume was a largely arbitrary choice based on the ease of measure-
ment in the field given available equipment. Any volume should work as
long as it is standardized, and easily measured in the field (very small vol-
umes may not detect actual patterns).
All soil was screened through .64 cm (¼ in) hardware cloth. The loca-
tions of T1-T3 were chosen to cut across the middle of the site. The location
of T1 was chosen to cut across the part of the site deemed most likely to
encounter a plaza if the site was organized in the typical ring shape (based
on current models). The plaza would be apparent as a decrease in artifact
density in the middle bracketed by higher densities per volume of plow zone
to the east and west. T2 and T3 were anticipated to encounter larger portions
of the habitation ring, especially if the Reinhardt site did fit Cook’s (2008)
small plaza size.
The absolute artifact counts from T1-T3 were low. The subsequent sam-
pling volume for T4-T8 was doubled to increase the frequency of artifacts
recovered and increase the probability of detecting a spatial pattern. The
increased sample volume was processed as two 8-liter samples from each
location allowing comparison of the recovery results between the 8- and
16-liter sample volumes and for a completion of an entire grid with 8-liter
volume samples. The transects using a 16-liter sample volume were oriented
north-south (T4-T8 were perpendicular to T1-T3; see Figure 3). Sediment
screening and mapping methods were the same as those for the first three
transects.
The zero meter point for all five of the 16-liter transects was set along
the same east-west line. The baseline chosen for transects 4–8 was estimat-
ed in the field to be approximately 10 m south of the village as judged by
the subtle change in soil color observed within the plowed area and by the
previously detected artifact distributions from the PVA survey. In T4 (cen-
tral transect of the north-south transects), the volumetric shovel tests were
started at 5 m north and continued every 10 meters. At 0 m north and 10
m north within T4, 50 × 50-cm test units were excavated. It was initially
intended that the test unit strategy would parallel the volumetric shovel
test strategy throughout T4-T8; however, the greater cost of excavating these
units and limited availability of labor and time prior to crop planting caused
the abandonment of this sampling strategy in favor of complete site cover-
age with the volumetric strategy. The results of the 50 × 50-cm test units are
118 Kevin C. Nolan
not discussed except to note that the plow zone depth was determined to
range from 22–27 cm (this observation has been confirmed in subsequent
excavations [Nolan 2009]).
Results
Intensive Surface Survey
A total of four-hundred-twenty-eight 2.5 × 5-m collection units were sam-
pled resulting in a collection of 7,404 artifacts. Within the plowed area, rows
16–26, 33–36, and 40–49 were collected. With the exception of rows 46–49,
only plowed portions of the rows were collected (see Figure 2). The clearest
patterning was detected in the faunal and pottery remains. There is an un-
ambiguous arc in the plowed area. The arc is apparently open to the west,
but this is due only to the limits of the plowed portion of the village and
does not represent an actual absence of prehistoric activity. There is a very
clear open area in the center of the arc. Lithic artifacts are ubiquitous on
the plowed surface; however, there is a relative decrease in lithic density in
the center of the village coincident with the opening detected in the faunal
material. Fire-cracked rock (FCR) and flakes have an irregular, but distinct
distribution often peaking in density on either side of the faunal ring. From
the PVA collection, the Reinhardt site appears to be a circular or arc-shaped
village with a small plaza, relatively devoid of activity, in the center. (For
further details on the results of the PVA survey the reader is referred to Nolan
2010).
Figure 5. Transect 1 Artifact Frequency per Liter of Plow Zone. Transects 1–3 consisted of 8
liter samples of plow zone and were oriented with the zero point in the west and shovel tests
every 10 m east.
Figure 6. Transect 5 Artifact Frequency per Liter of Plow Zone. Transects 4–8 consisted of
16 liter samples of plow zone and were oriented with the zero point in the south and shovel
tests every 10 m north, perpendicular to T1–3.
120 Kevin C. Nolan
Figure 7. Transect 6 Artifact Frequency per Liter of Plow Zone. Transects 4–8 consisted of
16 liter samples of plow zone and were oriented with the zero point in the south and shovel
tests every 10 m north. T6 extends north past the Reinhardt village (33PI880) to encompass
the Keith Peters Square enclosure (33PI917) beginning around 80N (see Figure 3).
on the northern edge of the village. The transects on the edge of the sampled
area (T7 in the east and T8 in the west) did not yield any fauna or pottery;
however, T8 partially completes the view of the western portion of the vil-
lage. This mirrors the distribution of lithics and FCR relative to fauna and
pottery detected in the PVA survey. The shovel test survey appears to indicate
a circular village with a small open plaza (Figure 8; for further details on the
results of the shovel test survey the reader is referred to Nolan 2010, where
the full tables of artifact distributions can be found in Chapter 4).
Discussion
The Reinhardt Picture
The gradiometry survey at Reinhardt did not reveal a “typical” circular struc-
ture as expected (Nolan et al. 2008). However, there is a very distinct cluster
of anomalies that nearly agrees with the estimates of the size of the village
given by Morton (1988). It is possible that other components are obscuring
the view of village structure in the magnetometry data; however, it is ex-
pected that the Late Prehistoric component, due to intensity and duration of
occupation, should swamp all other components and dominate any pattern
Dechiphering the Community Structure of a Fort Ancient Village 121
Figure 8. Shovel Test Unit Artifact Density per Liter. The shovel test units (STU) are
represented by graduated symbols illustrating the intra-transect trends indicated in the text
and the site-wide patterning of artifact density per liter of plow zone. The background shows
the correspondence between the PVA fauna distribution and the soil phosphate (Soil P)
concentrations and the STU artifact density. The Soil P distribution is adapted from Roos and
Nolan (2009).
analysis (see e.g., Dunnell 1983). There are at least four other time periods
represented by bifaces at the site (Middle and Late Archaic, Middle Wood-
land, and Late Woodland; see Figure 9). It is likely that most of the mate-
rial recovered relates to the Fort Ancient occupation, but it is possible that
pits from the other components are also present in the gradiometry data.
122 Kevin C. Nolan
Figure 9. Diagnostics and Tools Recovered from the Plowed Village Area. Top row artifacts
are from the following collection units: 24Y, 40S, 36V, 17Z, and 23R. Second row artifacts are
from collection units: 36Y, 45R, 48U, 34Y, and 48P. Third row artifacts are from units: 41Q
and 26L. Bottom row artifacts are from collection units: 17AA, 36N, 42R, 17M, and 36T.
Dechiphering the Community Structure of a Fort Ancient Village 123
ring relative to the plaza size. Additionally, the 2009 excavations at the Rein-
hardt site have uncovered a partial house pattern outside of the surface and
plow-zone-indicated debris ring, and therefore the actual habitation ring
may be closer to, or even greater than, 40 m. The meaning and cause of such
a large habitation ring around a small village is not known. Much work re-
mains to be done to discover the uniqueness of this co-occurrence of village
structure attributes and the true variability of each of these attributes within
the Scioto Valley and throughout the Middle Ohio Valley.
Conclusion
Increased accuracy and efficiency argue for the use of volumetric shovel tests
over the standard 50 × 50-cm shovel testing. When used in combination
with intensive surface collection, geoarchaeological (e.g., soil phosphate),
and geophysical surveys, a high density grid of volumetric shovel test units
can be efficiently employed to rapidly increase the sample of deciphered
village structures for the Fort Ancient period in the Middle Scioto Valley and
beyond.
Acknowledgements. Many people helped make this project possible. The City
of Columbus, Division of Water and especially the director of the Parsons
Avenue Water Plant, William Eitel, graciously allowed access to the property
and provided regular assistance and support. Keith and Don Peters, who
rent the farm from the City, have been very accommodating of my interfer-
ence in their planting and harvesting activities. Keith performed the plowing
Dechiphering the Community Structure of a Fort Ancient Village 127
for the PVA surface collection at no cost, and Don, on more than one oc-
casion, rescheduled his activities around my work schedule. I am indebted
to Dr. William S. Dancey for his guidance throughout my time at OSU and
his active participation in the field portion of this project. Dancey lent his
expertise, his weekends, and his Field Methods students to the project. I am
thankful for all of the students and volunteers who performed much of the
labor and analysis, especially: Steven P. Howard, Sean D. Nolan, Jacob E.
Deppen, and Alex Corkum. Dr. Paul Sciulli used his own research funds to
obtain the first radiometric date for the site. Thanks to Jacob Deppen and
James Feathers for providing the TL date reported here. I would also like to
thank Mike Ohlinger and James Morton for their efforts towards discovery
and preservation and allowing me access to all their records and collections
from the site. I also acknowledge the funding of the Certified Local Govern-
ment grant (#39–08–21740) program administered by the Ohio Historic
Preservation Office and the National Science Foundation Doctoral Disser-
tation Improvement Grant program (BCS–0832272). Funding from these
sources supported the 2008–2009 investigations which are discussed and
provided the funding for the AMS dates. Finally, thanks are due to the editor
and the anonymous reviewers for their critical attention and constructive
comments which greatly improved this manuscript. Any remaining omis-
sions, errors, or faults of logic are my own.
References
Brady-Rawlins, K.
2007 The O.C. Voss Site: Reassessing What We Know About the Fort Ancient Oc-
cupation of the Central Scioto Drainage and its Tributaries. Unpublished
Ph.D. Dissertation, Anthropology, Ohio State University, Columbus.
Carskadden, J., and J. Morton
1977 The Richards Site and Philo Phase of the Fort Ancient Tradition. The Musk-
ingum Valley Archaeological Survey, Zanesville, Ohio.
2000 Fort Ancient in the Central Muskingum Valley of Eastern Ohio: A View
from Philo II Site. In Cultures Before Contact: The Late Prehistory of Ohio
and Surrounding Regions, edited by R. A. Genheimer, pp. 158–193. Ohio
Archaeological Council, Columbus.
Church, F. and J.P. Nass
2002 Central Ohio Valley during the Late Prehistoric: Subsistence-Settlement
Systems’ Response to Risk. In Northeast Subsistence-Settlement Change, A.D.
700-A.D. 1300, edited by J. P. Hart and C. Reith, pp. 11–42. New York State
Museum Bulletin 496, University of the State of New York, Albany.
Cook, R.A.
2008 SunWatch: Fort Ancient Development in the Mississippian World. University of
Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
128 Kevin C. Nolan
Hawkins, R.A.
1998 Coming Full Circle: Plowzone Assemblages and the Interpretation of Fort
Ancient Settlement Structure. In Surface Archaeology, edited by AP Sullivan
III, pp. 91–109. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Heilman, J.M., M.C. Lileas, C.A. Turnbow (editors)
1988 A History of 17 years of Excavation and Reconstruction – A Chronicle of 12th
Century Human Values and the Built Environment, Volume I: Excavation. Day-
ton Museum of Natural History, Dayton, Ohio.
Henderson, A.G.
1998 Middle Fort Ancient Villages and Organizational Complexity in Central Ken-
tucky. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Kentucky, Lexington. University Mi-
crofilms, Ann Arbor.
Johnson, A.W., and T. Earle
1987 The Evolution of Human Societies: From Foraging Group to Agrarian State. Stan-
ford University Press, Stanford, California.
Justice, N.D.
1987 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Midcontinental and Eastern United
States: A Modern Survey and Reference. Indiana University Press, Indianapo-
lis, Indiana.
Lyman, R.L., and T.L. VanPool
2009 Metric Data in Archaeology: A Study of Intra-analyst and Inter-analyst Vari-
ation. American Antiquity 74:485–504.
Means, B.K.
2002 The Later Prehistory of Meyersdale, Pennsylvania, and Its Surroundings:
An Overview. North American Archaeologist 23(4):281–307.
2007 Circular Villages of the Monongahela Tradition. The University Alabama Press,
Tuscaloosa.
Mills, W.C.
1904 Explorations of the Gartner Mound and Village Site. Ohio State Archaeologi-
cal and Historical Society Publications 13:129–191.
Morton, J.
2006 personal communication
Nolan, K.C.
2008a Survey Methodology Report for Archaeological Survey of the Reinhardt Tract,
Pickaway County, Ohio. The Ohio State University. Manuscript on file with
the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus, Ohio.
2008 Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant: Documenting Variability in
Environmental Exploitation and Settlement Structure in the Central Scioto
Valley. National Science Foundation, Columbus, Ohio.
2009 Archaeological Survey of the Reinhardt Tract Property through a Certified Local
Government (CLG) Grant on behalf of the City of Columbus in Harrison Town-
ship, Pickaway County, Ohio, Volume I: Survey Results. The Ohio State Univer-
sity. Submitted to the Ohio Historic Preservation Office. Copies available
from the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus, Ohio.
2010 Multi-Staged Analysis of the Reinhardt Village Community: A Fourteenth
Century Central Ohio Community in Context. Doctoral dissertation, De-
partment of Anthropology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
130 Kevin C. Nolan