Download - Fur Trade Archaeology in the Fort Ouiatenon Vicinity: The 2012/2013 Investigations

i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF FEDERAL ASSISTANCE

This material is based on work assisted by a grant from the Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Any opinions, findings, or conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of the Interior. Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the U.S. Department of the Interior prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, or disability in its federally assisted programs. If you believe that you have been discriminated against in any program, activity or facility as described above, or if you desire further information, please write to: Office of Equal Opportunity, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20240.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures ........................................................................................................................... iv List of Tables ......................................................................................................................... viii Chapter 1: Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1

Site Locations................................................................................................................. 2 Research Questions for the Current Project ................................................................... 4 Report Contents ............................................................................................................. 5

Chapter 2: The Natural and Historical Setting ........................................................................... 6

The Natural Setting ........................................................................................................ 6 History of the Wea, Kickapoo, and Mascouten Occupations at Fort Ouiatenon (1717-1790) ........................................................................................ 10 The Scott and Wilkinson Campaigns (Summer 1791) ................................................ 19 Aftermath of the Scott and Wilkinson Campaigns ...................................................... 24 Previous Archaeological Investigations ....................................................................... 26

Chapter 3: Magnetometry at 12-T-9 and 12-T-335 ................................................................. 34

Previous Magnetometry Surveys ................................................................................. 34 Methods........................................................................................................................ 38 Results, 12-T-9 ............................................................................................................. 40 Discussion, 12-T-9 ....................................................................................................... 59 Results, 12-T-335 ......................................................................................................... 61 Discussion, 12-T-335 ................................................................................................... 66

Chapter 4: Excavations at 12-T-9 ............................................................................................ 68

Excavation Areas and Methods ................................................................................... 68 Features ........................................................................................................................ 70

Chapter 5: Materials Recovered............................................................................................... 88

Historic Artifacts from 12-T-9 ..................................................................................... 88 Prehistoric Artifacts from 12-T-9 ................................................................................ 97 Artifacts from 12-T-25 ................................................................................................. 98 Artifacts from 12-T-335 ............................................................................................. 101

Chapter 6: Discussion ............................................................................................................ 104

Ethnohistoric and Ethnographic Data on Kickapoo Villages and Structures ............ 105 Archaeological Data on Kickapoo Structures ............................................................ 108 Comparison of the Ouiatenon Structures to Ethnohistoric and Archaeological Examples .................................................................................................................... 112 Artifact Distribution at Site 12-T-25.......................................................................... 112

Chapter 7: KOCOA Analysis of Scott’s Attack on Ouiatenon and Conclusions .................. 115

Future Research ......................................................................................................... 120

iii

Statements of NRHP Eligibility ................................................................................. 122 Recommendations for Site Preservation .................................................................... 123

References Cited .................................................................................................................... 124 Appendix A: FS Log, 12-T-9 ................................................................................................. 137 Appendix B: Artifact Catalog, 12-T-9 ................................................................................... 147 Appendix C: Artifact Catalog, 12-T-25 and 12-T-335 .......................................................... 175

iv

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1. Map showing routes of the Scott and Wilkinson expeditions and the location of the Ouiatenon settlements within present-day Tippecanoe County. ..................................... 2 Figure 1.2. Location of sites 12-T-9, 12-T-25, and 12-T-335 as shown on the U.S.G.S.

quadrangle. That portion of 12-T-9 owned by the TCHA is shown in yellow and the location of Fort Ouiatenon is shown as a black rectangle. ................ 3 Figure 2.1. Resource zones in the Fort Ouiatenon vicinity. Circles represent distances of 1.0, 5.0 and 10.0 km from the fort (modified from Martin 1986:Figure 1). .......................... 8 Figure 2.2. Soils present on site 12-T-9. .................................................................................... 9 Figure 2.3. Soils present on site 12-T-335. .............................................................................. 10 Figure 2.4. Soils present on site 12-T-25. ................................................................................ 11 Figure 2.5. Reported sites in the Ouiatenon vicinity. TCHA-owned portion of 12-T-9 is shaded in yellow and the location of Fort Ouiatenon is shown in red. ................................ 30 Figure 2.6. Previously excavated portions of Fort Ouiatenon, 1969-1978 (from maps presented in Martin 1986; Noble 1983; Tordoff 1983; von Frese and Noble 1984). .............. 31 Figure 3.1. Von Frese and Noble’s (1984:42) magnetometry map superimposed over the 2009 grid (the limits of the 2009 magnetometry survey are denoted by a heavy line). ..... 35 Figure 3.2. Von Frese and Noble’s (1984:44) interpretation of their data, showing the probable fort outline and other magnetic anomalies of interest. .............................................. 36 Figure 3.3. View of the TCHA-owned portion of site 12-T-9 (in grass) from the access road. Southern edge of 12-T-335 is on the extreme right of the photo. View to the southwest.................................................................................................................................. 39 Figure 3.4. Results of the magnetometry survey of 12-T-9. .................................................... 41 Figure 3.5. Portions of 12-T-9 that were surveyed in 2009 and 2012/2013 and site 12-T-9 site extents as recorded by the DHPA. ........................................................................ 44

v

Figure 3.6. Location of 12-T-9 magnetometry grids in relation to local topography. ............. 45 Figure 3.7. Monopolar positive anomalies from 12-T-9. ........................................................ 47 Figure 3.8. Likely structural anomalies from 12-T-9. ............................................................. 49 Figure 3.9. Structural anomalies 3 and 4. Anomaly 4 was partially excavated in 2013. ......... 51 Figure 3.10. Dipolar simple anomalies from 12-T-9. .............................................................. 52 Figure 3.11. Dipolar complex anomalies from 12-T-9. ........................................................... 56 Figure 3.12. Complex dipolar anomaly centered on N960, E940. .......................................... 60 Figure 3.13. Results of magnetometry survey at site 12-T-335, 2009 and 2012. .................... 62 Figure 3.14. Monopolar positive anomalies identified at 12-T-335. ....................................... 63 Figure 3.15. Dipolar simple anomalies identified at 12-T-335. ............................................... 64 Figure 3.16. Dipolar complex anomalies identified at 12-T-335............................................. 65 Figure 4.1. Location of 2013 excavation units in relation to Fort Ouiatenon and the structural anomalies identified in 2009. ................................................................................... 69 Figure 4.2. Trench 1 unit designations..................................................................................... 70 Figure 4.3. Location of Trench 1 units, relative to structural anomaly 4, identified in 2009. .................................................................................................................................... 71 Figure 4.4. Location of Trench 2 units, relative to large monopolar positive anomaly identified in 2009. .................................................................................................................... 72 Figure 4.5.Trench 1 planview map at 75 cmbd. ...................................................................... 73 Figure 4.6. Trench 1 planview map at 85 cmbd. Postholes within Feature 1 are infilled with white; those outside Feature 1 was infilled with black. ................................................... 75 Figure 4.7. Trench 1 excavations at 85 cmbd (view to the north). .......................................... 77

vi

Figure 4.8. Bisect of Feature 1, southern portion. ................................................................... 78 Figure 4.9. Trench 1 at the base of plowzone. ......................................................................... 79 Figure 4.10. Trench 1, west profile wall. ................................................................................. 81 Figure 4.11. Trench 1, north profile wall. ................................................................................ 82 Figure 4.12. Feature 3 profile. ................................................................................................. 83 Figure 4.13. Trench 2, Feature 4 planview. ............................................................................. 84 Figure 4.14. Trench 2, Feature 4 profile. ................................................................................. 85 Figure 4.15. Feature 6 planview. ............................................................................................. 86 Figure 4.16. Feature 6 profile. ................................................................................................. 87 Figure 4.17. Feature 7 profile. ................................................................................................. 87 Figure 5.1. Historic ceramics recovered from 12-T-9. ............................................................ 88 Figure 5.2. White clay pipestems from 12-T-9. ....................................................................... 89 Figure 5.3. Container glass fragments from 12-T-9. ............................................................... 90 Figure 5.4. Beads from 12-T-9. ............................................................................................... 90 Figure 5.5. Cuprous metal fragments from 12-T-9 .................................................................. 91 Figure 5.6. Ferrous metal spear tip from 12-T-9 ..................................................................... 92 Figure 5.7. Lead musketballs and shot from 12-T-9 ................................................................ 93 Figure 5.8. Silver ornament from 12-T-9 ................................................................................. 93 Figure 5.9. Possible rosary bead from 12-T-9 ......................................................................... 94

vii

Figure 5.10. Gunflints from 12-T-9 ......................................................................................... 95 Figure 5.11. Modified fragments of pipestone from 12-T-9 .................................................... 96 Figure 5.12. Chipped stone artifacts from 12-T-9. .................................................................. 97 Figure 5.13. Historic earthenware artifacts from 12-T-25. ...................................................... 99 Figure 5.14. Container glass fragments from 12-T-25. ......................................................... 100 Figure 5.15. Metal artifacts from 12-T-25. ............................................................................ 100 Figure 5.16. Gunflints from 12-T-25. .................................................................................... 101 Figure 5.17. Hafted bifaces from 12-T-25. ............................................................................ 102 Figure 5.18. Artifacts from 12-T-335. ................................................................................... 103 Figure 6.1. Planview map of units excavated by Michigan State University, exposing a portion of a circular structure similar to that encountered in 2013 ..................................... 109 Figure 6.2.South profile of MSU’s unit N1030, W1000 ....................................................... 110 Figure 6.3. East profile of MSU’s unit N1030, W1020 ......................................................... 111 Figure 6.4. Surface distribution of artifacts on 12-T-25, with suggested updates to site boundaries ................................................................................................................... 113 Figure 7.1. Location of the major defining features for Scott’s attack on Ouiatenon ........... 117 Figure 7.2. Probable route taken by Scott’s troops during the attack on the Ouiatenon towns, June 1, 1791. ............................................................................................................... 118 Figure 7.3. Line-of-sight from point 1 to point 4 on Figure 7.2. Elevation (in feet) is shown on the left axis. ........................................................................................................... 119 Figure 7.4. Study Area (yellow) and Core Area (orange) in the Ouiatenon vicinity, as defined by ABPP criteria. The three core areas represented by circles are estimated locations, based on incomplete contemporary descriptions. .................................................. 121

viii

LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1. Known Commandants at Fort Ouiatenon, 1717-1763. .......................................... 13 Table 2.2. Previously Reported Sites within 1.0 Mile of Site 12-T-9. ................................... 27 Table 3.1. Structural Anomalies Identified in the Magnetometry Data. ................................. 50 Table 7.1. Defining Features of Scott’s Attack on Ouiatenon, June 1, 1791. ....................... 116

ix

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thanks are due to a number of individuals who provided support for this project. Colby and Del Bartlett of the Tippecanoe County Historical Association [TCHA] have been of great help in all phases of the project, all the way from planning the fieldwork to lending us a boat when access to the site was flooded. The project could not have been done without their assistance. Thanks are also due to Kathy Atwell, Executive Director of the TCHA, who also provided a great deal of assistance. My appreciation also goes out to all the students, volunteers, and staff who helped make the project a success. Emily Lynn at USI’s Office of Sponsored Projects and Research Administration was also instrumental in helping me with the grant, from the beginning stages through the end of the fieldwork. Finally, I like to thank Bob McCullough, co-director of the project, for his dedication to archeology and ensuring a successful project.

1

Chapter 1IntroduCtIon

With funding from the American Battlefield Protection Program (grant #GA-2255-12-025), personnel from the University of Southern Indiana (USI) conducted arche-ological investigations at three sites related to the sum-mer 1791 Scott and Wilkinson expeditions against the Wabash River Indian villages. These expeditions were a key part of the United States’ attempts to pacify pro-British Native Americans after the Revolutionary War.

Native American peoples of the Old Northwest, who were feeling increasing pressure from white encroach-ment, began a campaign of violence against white set-tlers in the mid-1780s. These attacks were returned by the Kentucky settlers and a period of violent and in-tense back-and-forth retribution ensued. By the early 1790s, there were increased calls for the federal gov-ernment to address the settlers’ concerns for their safe-ty. As a result, a number of military expeditions were authorized to take care of the so-called Indian problem. From the perspective of the United States, it was be-lieved that the only way to make progress against the Indian raiders was to carry out “swift, punishing, and relatively brief campaigns deep into Indian territory” (Nelson 1986:221). At least nine such expeditions were launched during the period 1786 to 1794. Though in some instances, the Native American forces won the upper hand, they were ultimately defeated in August 1794, at the Battle of Fallen Timbers (Tanner 1987:71-73). The Treaty of Greenville, negotiated a year after Fallen Timbers, resulted in the longer-term pacification of the Old Northwest and large land cessions from the Native Americans, thereby opening up new areas to white settlement.

In May/June 1791, Brigadier General Charles Scott led one of the American expeditions, consisting of 900 Kentucky militia. The force departed from Kentucky in May 1791 and made its way to the anti-American Indian towns in the central Wabash River valley, near present-day Lafayette, Indiana. Native American vil-lages in this area were occupied by the Wea, Kickapoo, and Mascouten tribes. In the course of the expedition, Scott’s men attacked and burned several villages, de-stroyed crops, and took a number of prisoners as hos-tages. Later that summer, a second expedition was un-dertaken, this led by James Wilkinson. It consisted of a

force of 500 mounted Kentucky militia. This expedition attacked and burned additional villages in the Wabash River valley and revisited some of those destroyed by Scott, dispersing the Indians and destroying the crops a second time. The overall goal of these two expeditions was to damage the Native Americans’ ability/desire to make war against the United States and both were con-sidered successful in this regard, as the Wea Indians sat out the remainder of the Indian Wars in the Old North-west, while the Kickapoo and Mascouten fled to Illinois (Edmunds 1972).

The 2012/2013 investigations focused on devel-oping a better understanding of two Native American villages that may have been destroyed as part of the Scott and/or Wilkinson expeditions. Both are located in present-day Tippecanoe County (Figure 1.1). The first site, 12-T-9, encompasses the former location of Fort Ouiatenon (initially constructed by the French in 1717) as well as one or more unnamed Kickapoo/Mascouten Indian villages that were reportedly located near the fort (Figure 1.2). The second site, 12-T-335, is located immediately north of 12-T-9 and likely also represents one of the Kickapoo/Mascouten villages in the Ouiatenon vicinity. A large portion of site 12-T-9 is owned by the Tippecanoe County Historical Associa-tion (TCHA), while site 12-T-335 is privately owned. A limited, non-controlled surface collection was also con-ducted on site 12-T-25, which also lies to the north of 12-T-9. 12-T-25, which is privately owned, also likely represents the location of a Kickapoo/Mascouten vil-lage1.

Fieldwork was performed in two phases. The first, which occurred in November/December 2012, con-sisted of magnetometry survey at sites 12-T-9 and 12-T-335, with limited, non-systematic surface collections obtained from all three sites. The second phase con-sisted of additional magnetometry and ground-truthing excavations at 12-T-9 only. Dr. Michael Strezewski, Associate Professor of Anthropology at the University of Southern Indiana, and Dr. Robert G. McCullough of McCullough Archaeological Services, acted as co-1 The original research design approved by the ABPP in-volved research at 12-T-9 only. Because the research opportunity presented itself, investigations were undertaken at sites 12-T-335 and 12-T-25 as well.

4

reSearCh QueStIonS for the Current projeCt

The overarching goals of this project were to provide baseline information for the continued preservation of fur trade-era village sites in the Ouiatenon vicinity. All three sites investigated as part of the current proj-ect (12-T-9, 12-T-25, and 12-T-335)2 have experienced severe flood-related erosion in the past, and intact ar-cheological deposits are known to have been destroyed as a result. Given these threats, the collection of ba-sic site information is crucial to their future evaluation and preservation. Baseline data are needed in order for the State of Indiana and other interested agencies (e.g., INDR-DHPA and the TCHA) to develop goals and pri-orities for the preservation of these sites. Though previous investigations have taken place at all three sites (see Jones 1984; Noble 1983; Strezewski and McCullough 2010; Tordoff 1983) numerous ques-tions have remained regarding such things as the sites’ extents and the presence of intact cultural deposits. These were the primary goals of the 2012/2013 ABPP-funded investigations:

Site 12-T-9

Though extensive investigations (spanning 1968 to 1979) occurred within the fort itself (Noble 1983; Tordoff 1983) very little work has been done to identify and delineate the Native American habitation areas outside the fort, especially those areas lying out-side of the TCHA property. These Native American vil-lage sites, belonging to the Kickapoo and Mascouten, were mentioned in numerous historic documents. Un-fortunately, their locations relative to the fort are not noted in any contemporary accounts, nor is there any known map of the fort or the surrounding Native settle-ments. More than twenty-five years ago, Rick Jones (1984) performed surface survey across the length of 12-T-9 and noted a number of possible Native habitation areas. Later, in 2009, the author, along with Robert G. McCullough conducted magnetometry investigations at 12-T-9, comprising a portion of the TCHA-owned area. These investigations resulted in the identification

2 Only small-scale, informal investigations were undertak-en at site 12-T-25 during the 2012/2013 field season (see Chapter 6).

of numerous anomalies, which suggested the presence of Native American structures and other intact features. No subsurface investigations, however, was undertaken at that time. The main goals of the 2012/2013 investigations at 12-T-9 were:

1) Additional magnetometry survey: The most wide-ranging research goal at 12-T-9 was a magnet-ic survey of those areas not previously investigated in 2009, located east and west of the fort proper. Magnetometry survey was seen as an efficient and cost-effective means to document the presence and location of intact subsurface deposits in areas with-out any previous subsurface investigation. Our goal was to survey the vast majority of 12-T-9.

2) Ground-truthing excavations: Some of the more promising anomalies were selected for ground trothing excavations. These investigations were un-dertaken to a) confirm the presence and condition of subsurface deposits and, b) better understand the nature of the Native American occupation of the Ouiatenon vicinity, and c) document the stratigra-phy at 12-T-9, given its susceptibility to flooding and erosion.

Site 12-T-335

Investigations at 12-T-335 were focused on magnetom-etry survey over the western half of the site

Good quan-tities of fur trade-era materials have been identified at 12-T-335, but little is known whether intact subsurface deposits exist. In 2009, magnetometry survey was con-ducted on the eastern portion of 12-T-335 (i.e., that portion in mown grass) (Strezewski and McCullough 2010). The results of the survey were promising, and indicated the possibility of intact cultural deposits at the site. The western half of the site, however, is farmed, and it is obvious that considerable erosion has taken place as a result. Magnetometry survey was thought to be an efficient, cost-effective means of better understanding whether intact subsurface deposits were present in this portion of the site.

5

report ContentS

The following chapters describe the timing, nature, and results of USI investigations at 12-T-9, 12-T-25, and 12-T-335. Chapter 2 describes the natural and cultural set-ting of the project, summarizing available environmen-tal data (physiography, geology, hydrology, climate, flora, and fauna) and presenting an outline of the his-tory of the region. The latter portion of Chapter 2 pro-vides a summary of previous investigations at all three sites, and a summary of documented cultural resources within a 1.0 mile radius of the project areas. Chapter 3 focuses on the methods and results of the 2012/2013

magnetometry surveys conducted at 12-T-9 and 12-T-335. Chapter 4 covers the results of the excavations that were undertaken at 12-T-9. This is followed, in Chapter 5, by a discussion of the historic and prehistoric cultural materials that were recovered during the investigations. A treatment of the historical and behavioral implica-tions of the findings is undertaken in Chapter 6, while the final chapter of the report goes over the conclusions reached as a result of the 2012/2013 investigations of the Scott-Wilkinson related sites, explores some of the possible avenues for additional research, and presents an analysis of the battle from a military-based KOCOA perspective.

6

Chapter 2the Natural aNd historiCal settiNg

The following chapter outlines the geology, soils, and the prehistoric and historic occupations in the general vicinity of sites 12-T-9, 12-T-335, and 12-T-25. The fi-nal portion of the chapter provides a detailed history of Wea, Kickapoo, and Mascouten occupations in the Wabash River valley, and a recounting of the events surrounding the destruction of these towns by the Scott and Wilkinson expeditions in the summer of 1791.

the Natural settiNg

Both sites investigated in the course of the project lie within the Tipton Till Plain physiographic province, which is characterized by nearly flat to gently rolling glacial plains. The plains are nearly featureless, but are crossed by a number of end moraines, particularly in the west-central part of the state. Other glacial land-forms, such as eskers, esker troughs, and meltwater drainageways can also be found. Most are oriented in a general northeast-southwest drainage pattern (Schnei-der 1966:49-50).

Bedrock in the vicinity consists of shale and lime-stone of the Devonian and Mississippian ages (Howe 1997:8). In this area of Indiana, the bedrock is cov-ered by relatively young and undissected glacial drift (Gutschick 1966:5). In terms of Pleistocene and Ter-tiary geology, the bottomlands and terraces in the proj-ect area lie within the Lacustrine facies of the Atherton formation. These soils were formed after 14,000 years ago, as the glaciers began to recede during the terminal Pleistocene and early Holocene. Upland zones within the project area are within the Cartersburg Till member of the Trafalgar formation, which comprises a bed of glacial till that was formed during the Tazewell stade of the Wisconsin glaciation, between about 17,000 and 20,000 years ago (Wayne 1966).

Flora and Fauna

By 10,000 BC, the climate of Indiana was cooler and moister than it is today, although a long-term warming trend had begun with the northern retreat of the gla-ciers. During the next 2000 years, constantly changing

vegetational sequences characterized the state: some ar-eas were covered by open patches of grasslands, while others were covered with dense forests. Pleistocene megafauna would still have been ubiquitous through-out Indiana, although as they followed the migration of the glaciers northward, they would eventually leave the state altogether (Tankersley 1996:21). These imme-diate postglacial climatic and environmental changes were among the most profound and rapid that occurred during the entire period of human exploitation of the region. However, by approximately 6,000 BC, the post-glacial plant communities had become fairly well es-tablished, and although local compositions would have varied somewhat in the intervening periods, the general and widespread floral communities were approaching their modern distributions.

Following the demise of the Late Pleistocene fauna at approximately 10,000 BP, a diverse assortment of modern animal species was present in the region (Mum-ford 1969Mumford 1969Mumford 1969; Mumford and Whitaker 1982Mumford and Whitaker 1982Mumford and Whitaker 1982). Animals important to prehistoric peoples would have included white-tailed deer, turkey, raccoon, waterfowl, fish, shellfish, a variety of small mammals, and perhaps bison in the Late Prehistoric pe-riod.

Prior to extensive land alteration in the last 175 years, Tippecanoe County was primarily beech-maple forest, with extensive wetland areas (Petty and Jackson 1966:280). The Lafayette area lies near the borders of three natural regions (Homoya 1997:158). The two ar-cheological sites investigated in this project are within the Entrenched Valley Section of the Central Till Plain Natural Region. This area is characterized by erosion-al features that were caused by the drainage of glacial meltwaters. In places, deep canyons have been carved into the land surface, exposing the bedrock and creat-ing 50 to 100 foot cliffs in some areas. Plant communi-ties found in these cool, moist ravines are more typical of northern ecosystems, and include such species as eastern hemlock, white pine, and Canada yew (Hedge 1997:196-197).

To the northwest of the Wabash River bottoms lies the Grand Prairie Section of the Grand Prairie Natural

7

Region. Plant communities were dominated by grass-lands, sometimes growing five to six feet high. Tim-ber stands were limited to small, isolated groves. The most prominent grass species were the big bluestem, little bluestem, Indian, switch, and side-oats gramma. Though bison were found on these prairies, they had dis-appeared from Indiana by the early 1800s (Post 1997). More than one eighteenth century observer, in fact, re-marked upon the presence of bison in the Ouiatenon vicinity (Krauskopf 1955:161-162; McCord 1970:20).

Immediately to the southwest of the project area lies the Tipton Till Plain Section of the Central Till Plain Natural Region. This area consists of level to gently undulating landscape that was heavily forested prior to extensive Euroamerican settlement. Flatwoods, a type of forest occurring in level and often poorly-drained soils, was the most common forest type. Species pres-ent in poorly-drained areas include a variety of oaks, red maple, green ash, American elm, and sycamore. Less common, well-drained areas are characterized by mesic communities of American beech, sugar maple, tuliptree, white oak, white ash, and shagbark hickory (Hedge 1997). The Tipton Till Plain Section is charac-terized by loamy Wisconsinan till and nearly level to moderately rolling ground moraine. Occasional termi-nal moraines, knolls, and kames are present, with esker remnants and meltwater drainageways entrenched in the till. The entrenched channels often contain present-day streams or swamps or have been filled with sedi-ment, leaving shallow depressions (Strum 1979; Wayne 1966).

The area immediately surrounding Ouiatenon would have been a mixture of tall grass prairie and for-est (Figure 2.1). Prairie was located in both upland and terrace zones. The Wea Plain, in particular, is a nearly level second terrace on the south side of the Wabash River. Forests would have been located in the bottom-lands, adjacent to the Wabash River and its tributaries, on well-drained terraces, talus slopes, and well-drained uplands (Martin 1986:46-55).

Soils

The weathering of parent rock formations has resulted in soils of varying fertility, composition, and depth. Soil differences throughout the region are primarily the result of localized differences in parent material and to-pography. The following discussion details the specific soils within the three sites and provides a preliminary assessment of their potential to contain surface, near

surface, and/or deeply buried archeological deposits.

Site 12-T-9 Soil types and associations within Tippeca-noe County are described by Ziegler and Wolf (1998) and the following discussion is based upon these ob-servations. General soil associations for these two sites are Battleground-Alison-Lash soils, which are found in the bottomlands and low terraces. Battlegound-Al-ison-Lash soils consist of nearly level, well-drained soils that formed in alluvial deposits on floodplains.

The vast majority of this area is within the soil type Du Page Loam, frequently flooded (Dy) (Figure 2.2). Soils of this type are described as being very deep, well drained, and found on level floodplains. These areas are subject to frequent flooding for brief to long periods of time, during the winter and spring. Typical soil profile for Du Page Loam consists of a surface layer of very dark grayish brown loam about 10 inches thick. Below this lies very dark grayish brown to gray friable loam about 39 inches thick. Underlying material consists of 60 inches or more of dark brown sandy loam. Most ar-eas of Du Page Loam are used for cultivated crops in the present day (Ziegler and Wolf 1998:43).

The southern edge of the TCHA property lies with-in the soil type Battleground Silt Loam, frequently flooded (Bb). This portion of the property is at a lower elevation than the rest and reportedly floods quite of-ten (Del Bartlett, TCHA, pers. comm.). Battleground Silt Loam soils are found on level floodplains and is a very deep, well-drained soil. It is prone to flooding for brief or long periods from fall through spring. The soil profile consists of a surface layer of very dark grayish brown silt loam about 10 inches thick. This is followed by a layer of very dark grayish brown silty clay loam about 9 inches in thickness. The subsoil is dark brown, friable silty clay loam to a depth of 80 inches or more. Most areas within this soil type are used for cultivated crops in the present day (Ziegler and Wolf 1998:24).

The extreme eastern edge of the TCHA property lies within Lash Silt Loam, frequently flooded (Lm), which is a nearly level, very deep, well-drained soil found on floodplains. Soils of this type are subject to frequent flooding for brief or long periods of time dur-ing the winter and spring. The surface soil layer con-sists of a very dark grayish brown silt loam about 10 inches in thickness. Below this lies very dark grayish brown friable silt loam about 4 inches thick. Finally,

9

the subsoil consists of dark brown loamy sand, extend-ing to a depth of 60 inches or more below the surface. Most areas with this soil type are used for cultivated crops (Ziegler and Wolf 1998:57). As no subsurface re-connaissance was undertaken at 12-T-9 in the course of the current project, the soil associations as described by Ziegler and Wolf (1998) have not been independently confirmed.

A few small areas near the southwest edge of 12-T-9 are mapped as Tice silty clay loam, frequently flooded (Tg). These are somewhat poorly drained soils that are found on footslopes of floodplains. The typical soil pro-file consists of silty clay loam from 0 to 50 inches, fol-lowed by stratified silty clay loam to loam to a depth of 60 inches.

Site 12-T-335 as documented by Jones

(1984).

(Del Bartlett pers. comm. 2009). The site’s elevation drops off to the southeast.

The western part of 12-T-335 (i.e., west of the farm lane)

Those portions of the site that are of higher eleva-tion are classified as soil type Ouiatenon fine sandy loam, sandy substratum, frequently flooded (Oy) (Fig-ure 2.3). This is a nearly level, very deep, somewhat ex-cessively-drained soil found on floodplains. It is subject to frequent flooding for brief or long periods of time during winter and spring. The surface layer consists of very dark grayish brown fine sandy loam about 9 inches thick. This is followed by a subsurface layer also comprising very dark grayish brown fine sandy loam, 4 inches in thickness. Underlying materials, consisting of dark brown loamy sand and sand, extend to a depth of 60 inches or more below surface. Gravel in found in the underlying strata in some areas (Ziegler and Wolf

Figure 2.2. Soils present on site 12-T-9.

10

1998:76-77). The northwest and southwest edges of site 12-T-

335, which lie at a lower elevation, are within the soil type Du Page Loam, frequently flooded (Dy), described above. Since no subsurface investigations were con-ducted at 12-T-335 in the course of the current project, we have not been able to independently verify Ziegler and Wolf’s (1998) information. However, the presence of numerous sandy bare spots on the higher elevations at 12-T-335 clearly indicate the presence of a higher sand content at this site, relative to 12-T-9, which lies at a lower elevation.

Site 12-T-25

(see Figure 2.4).

The entire site is mapped as Du Page Loam, frequently flooded (Dy), described above. No subsurface investigations were conducted at

12-T-25 and it has therefore not been possible to con-firm Ziegler and Wolf’s (1998) soil designations.

history of the Wea, KiCKapoo, aNd MasCouteN oCCupatioNs at fort ouiateNoN (1717-1790)

At the beginning of sustained European contact in the western Great Lakes (ca. 1665), the Miami (including the Wea), Kickapoo, and Mascouten were known to be residing in southeastern Wisconsin and northeastern Il-linois. This was not their original homeland, however, as many of these Algonkian-speaking groups had likely fled west, ca. 1650-1655 in order to avoid the threat of Iroquois raids (Wheeler-Voegelin et al. 1974:40). Al-though villages moved often and historic information is scanty, records indicate that prior to the 1670s, the Wea and Mascouten occupied the Fox-Wisconsin River portage area, west of Lake Michigan, while another Wea village was present along the Mississippi River


11

(Jablow 1974:71). Shortly thereafter, these two groups were noted along the St. Joseph River in Michigan and later, around 1682, a large number of Wea moved to the upper Illinois River, at Starved Rock (Jablow 1974:55-57; Wheeler-Voegelin et al. 1974:42).

By the late seventeenth century, with the threat from the Iroquois waning, it became official French policy to draw native peoples farther to the east in order to establish firmer control of the western Great Lakes (Wheeler-Voegelin et al. 1974:46) and to counter the spread of British political and economic influence over the Indians of the region. The French territorial claims over the Great Lakes had to be backed up with a physi-cal presence and clear demonstration of control over Indian tribes (Barnhardt and Riker 1971:63, 68).

By 1691, a group of Miami Indians had moved to the southeast, along the Wabash River valley (Illinois State Historical Library 1934:392-393), though some were still residing along the Chicago River and at the Kankakee-Des Plaines confluence as late as 1699 (Jablow 1974:128, 135; Krauskopf 1953:24). Later, by the turn of the eighteenth century, the Wabash Riv-er vicinity was considered Miami hunting ground by the French (Krauskopf 1953:24). Since the Wea were sometimes grouped together with the Miami in contem-porary documents, is it possible that the Wabash River settlement referred to was a Wea town. Regardless, it is

certain that the Wea were living on the Wabash by the first years of the eighteenth century, and reportedly had 400 warriors (Michigan Pioneer and Historical Society 1904:441; Wheeler-Voegelin et al. 1974:50).

In 1715, rumors were circulating that British trad-ers were on the Mississippi River, creating alliances with the Illinois and Miami Indians. In order to counter this threat to French interests, Governor Antoine de la Motte Cadillac of New France put forth an order to es-tablish posts on the Wabash and lower Mississippi riv-ers (Krauskopf 1953:62-64).

By 1715 the Wea were resident at the archeological site known today as the Wea village (12-T-6), south-west of West Lafayette, Indiana,

(State Historical Society of Wisconsin

1902:326), and it was in this year that they requested the presence of a French official, blacksmith, and a missionary. Governor Vaudreuil was then authorized to grant these requests (Wheeler-Voegelin et al. 1974:120). The garrison was to consist of a captain, one subordi-nate officer, a sergeant, and ten enlisted men, with in-structions to prevent Indian trade with the English and keep peace between the Wea and Illinois (Krauskopf 1953:70). This peace was crucial as it was hoped that both tribes might be needed to fight against the hostile Mesquakie (Jablow 1974:145).


12

In spring 1717, Governor Vaudreuil sent Ensign François Picoté de Bellestre, four soldiers, and three other Frenchmen (including a blacksmith) to the Wea, with orders to establish a post at that location (Table 2.1). At that time Ouiatenon was the most advanced post toward the English (Krauskopf 1955:159). The Ouiatenon post was not intended to be permanent, but was to last only until the French could persuade the Wea to return to closer to Chicago or the upper Kankakee River, where their activities could be better monitored and the post more easily supplied (Barnhardt and Rik-er 1971:71; Krauskopf 1953:70). The Wea refused to leave the Wabash valley, however, and the fort became a permanent installation. The French felt obligated to stay with the Wea as it was important for them to not feel abandoned so that their allegiance could be count-ed upon (Krauskopf 1955:172; Wheeler-Voegelin et al. 1974:122). At about that time (1718), the Wea were es-timated to have 1,000 to 1,200 warriors, while other estimates (1722, 1725) put the number at 400 (Jablow 1974:167; Krauskopf 1955:116, 142).

Four trading permits were issued for Ouiatenon in 1718 and the first two traders to arrive were Pierre Commes dit Lajeunesse of Montreal and Claude Legris L’Espine of Quebec (Krauskopf 1953:78, 1955:162). During the French period, trade at Ouiatenon (and other posts) was strictly regulated by the crown, so as to con-trol the flow of furs to France and the prices paid for them. Three different methods were utilized in regulat-ing trade, which were changed as the government of New France and economic circumstances saw fit. First was a plan of farming out or leasing trade rights. Under this system, a monopoly on trade was sold, usually at auction, for a period of three years. No restrictions were placed on the amount of trade goods brought to the post. The commandant at Ouiatenon was obligated to protect the trade monopoly and, in return, was supplied with food, lodging, and transportation of his supplies.

The second system consisted of licensing one or more private traders who were permitted to trade only at certain posts. These licenses (congés) regulated the number of canoes each permit-holder was allowed to send and the route to be taken. Congés were not sold but rather, were issued upon application. Licensees were obligated to carry in a certain amount of goods for the post commandant. Finally, under the third system, the post commandant was the “farmer” who held a monop-oly of the post trade, with the profits derived constitut-ing part of his wages (Barnhart and Riker 1971:68-69; Krauskopf 1955:140). Though the forts at Ouiatenon

and Miamis were profitable for those engaged in the fur trade, the primary reason for their continued opera-tion was for diplomatic rather than economic reasons. The French were concerned that if the Native peoples felt abandoned, the British would fill the economic gap (Krauskopf 1953:143, 148).

Eventually, Colonial French presence within the present state of Indiana was concentrated within three core areas. As noted above, the first was established in 1717, with the construction of Fort Ouiatenon. Short-ly thereafter, in 1721, Fort Miamis was erected at the current location of Fort Wayne. Both Fort Ouiatenon and Fort Miamis were small military posts designed to facilitate the exchange of furs and trade goods be-tween Native Americans and traders. Although a few military personnel and traders were present at both of these facilities, no large-scale French settlement took place at either location. A little more than a decade after the forts were established (1732), Post Vincennes was founded on the lower Wabash. Vincennes was, in con-trast, a permanent town-like settlement, with a resident population of habitants, or farmers.

A Mascouten presence on the Wabash is mentioned as early as 1711, though most documents of this time period place the Kickapoo and Mascouten west of Lake Michigan or on the St. Joseph River (Jablow 1974:141, 149-150, 177). The Kickapoo were, nonetheless, re-portedly residents in the Ouiatenon vicinity by 1734 and they, along with the Mascouten were said to be recent arrivals to the area. The Kickapoo were living six leagues (about 15 miles) from Ouiatenon in win-ter 1734-35, possibly at their winter residence (Jablow 1974:186; Krauskopf 1953:175, 1955:147). In 1735, Governor Bienville of Louisiana mentioned that “the Kickapoo and Mascouten...came to make their village with the Miami two years ago,” which places their ar-rival more precisely (Jablow 1974:187). Bienville is likely speaking of “the Miami” in the broad sense here, and is actually making reference to the Wea on the Wa-bash. One year later, the Kickapoo were estimated to have 80 warriors, with 60 for the Mascouten, and 300 for the Wea (Jablow 1974:188; Krauskopf 1953:186). During this time, the Kickapoo also likely had villages in north-central Illinois, though their precise locations are not known (Tanner 1987:42).

By 1736, however, the Kickapoo and Mascouten were, by their own admission, not getting along with the Wea, and attempts were made to persuade the Kickapoo and Piankashaw to move to a proposed fort at mouth of the Tennessee River. They had promised

14

to move but apparently were not fond of the proposed location (Krauskopf 1953:190, 212). Later, in 1742, the Kickapoo requested permission to leave the Wea and settle on the “prairie of the Mascouten” (likely near Terre Haute). The Kickapoo requested a blacksmith, a “chief” (likely a commandant), and other Frenchmen, though this move also did not materialize (Krauskopf 1953:217).

By 1741, eight additional cabins of Mascouten from Wisconsin arrived to join a chief already resi-dent at Ouiatenon. This migration was reportedly due to fear of the Mesquakie. An unspecified number of additional Kickapoo also arrived at this time (Kraus-kopf 1953:213, 1955:191; Wheeler-Voegelin et al. 1974:126) and by 1750, a large Kickapoo contingent was present in the Wabash River area (Barnhardt and Riker 1971:66). Throughout this time, the Kickapoo al-ways considered the Wea to be the owners of their lands (Smith 1882:II:156).

In 1746, twenty French fur-traders and their fami-lies were reportedly living at Fort Ouiatenon, along with 600 Wea warriors capable of bearing arms (Barnhardt and Riker 1971:96; Krauskopf 1953:). A list of receipts for 1743 (Krauskopf 1955:193) provides some idea of the relative importance of Ouiatenon in the Great Lakes fur trade economy:

For the proceeds of twelve congés at Mis-silimackinac at 600£ each - 7200.£

For that of the fourteen of Detroit - 7000For the lease of the post of La Baye [Green

Bay] - 8100For that of Temiscamingue [S.W. Quebec]

- 5600For that of the Ouiatanon - 3000For that of Michipicoton [Lake Superior,

Ontario] - 3750For the proceeds of the post of the Miami

- 1200For that of Gamanastigoya [a.k.a. Kaminis-

tiquia, Thunder Bay Ontario] - 2733

For that of Rivière St. Joseph [Michigan] - 1200

For that of Chagouamigon [Lake Superior, northern Wisconsin] - 3000

For that of Lac Alepimigon [Lake Nipigon, Ontario] - 3000

For that of the Illinois - 2000

Though the main business of the post was the further-ance of the fur trade, Fort Ouiatenon was relatively un-

important in this regard, due to the fact few beaver skins were collected here (Krauskopf 1953:137). In general, the French had difficulties supplying frontier posts such as Ouiatenon, due to the great distances and a chronic lack of manpower (Barnhardt and Riker 1971:123). Un-like Vincennes, the residents at Ouiatenon were primar-ily engaged in the fur trade, not farming. At Vincennes a number of the habitants were granted land by the commandant, St. Ange. There is no evidence, however, that such land grants were made to the French living at Ouiatenon, a fact which suggests that all or nearly all of them lived within the confines of the fort. Though the French generally had good relations with the Native Americans, during the late 1740s, things soured considerably. A truce between France and Britain had ended in 1744, a situation which resulted in a general lack of presents for the Indians. As these were used to establish and maintain friendly relations, the British traders, who had goods available at a cheap-er price, became increasingly attractive (Barnhardt and Riker 1971:98). Native discontent erupted into violence at nearby Fort Miamis, which was burned and looted in 1747. Though the resident Native Americans at Ouiatenon did not attack their local fort, they were increasingly attracted to the British, who could better supply their desire for trade goods. The Ouiatenon com-mandant was warned by Raymond (at Fort Miamis) to take all necessary measures to keep the Indians at their posts and prevent them from crossing over to the Brit-ish (Krauskopf 1953:305). In 1750, it was reported that a secret Indian council was to be held at Ouiatenon, in which Miami sympathetic to the English hoped to per-suade the Wea, Kickapoo, Mascouten, and Piankashaw to abandon the French (Pease and Jenison 1940:169). By 1751 most of the Wea, under chiefs La Mouche Noire, La Peau Blanche, and La Comte, had left to join the British at Pickawillany a trading town, near pres-ent-day Piqua, Ohio (Krauskopf 1953:302, 1955:155). The Kickapoo and Mascouten who totaled about 300 warriors, remained loyal to the French. The hostility to-ward the French had grown to a degree that many of the French traders at Ft. Miamis abandoned the post, in the interest of their own safety (Jablow 1974:211, 220-221; Krauskopf 1953:311, 314, 316). The French, however, decided that force was the only way they could push the British traders out of territory they claimed as their own. In June 1752, a combined French and Indian force destroyed Pickawillany, an event which resulted in the return of the Wea to Ouiatenon (in August and Septem-ber 1752) to ask for French forgiveness (Barnhardt and

15

Riker 1971:98; Wheeler-Voegelin et al. 1974:129-130).There is very little information on the appearance

of the fort during the French period and there are no contemporary maps indicating its size or the structures located within at any given point in time. Sometime around 1758, Ouiatenon was described as a “fort of up-right poles, situated on the right [north] bank of the Wa-bash or St. Jerome [River]...” (Krauskopf 1955:220). Fort Miamis, which may have been of comparable size, was repaired in 1743-44, utilizing 900 stakes, each 14 ft long. Each of the stakes were sharpened and planted in the earth. A sentry box was also constructed at that time (Krauskopf 1953:234). Similarly, there are few ac-counts that would provide some information on daily life in the fort for the soldiers and traders that resided there. In the 1750s, a soldier’s rations amounted to a minot of corn per month (about 1 U.S. bushel), 1 ½ pounds of deer or other meat per day, and 7 ½ pounds of grease per month (when available) (Krauskopf 1953:367).

Renewed hostilities with Great Britain began in 1756, with the outbreak of the French and Indian War. Although Fort Ouiatenon was not directly involved with the conflict, Wea and Kickapoo Indians did travel to the east to aid the French forces (Krauskopf 1955). The war resulted in the capitulation of the French in September, 1760, with the entire province of Canada (including Fort Ouiatenon) included in the surrender. By 1763, with the formal signing of a treaty, France gave up all its possessions east of the Mississippi Riv-er, with the exception of the settlement at New Orleans (Barnhardt and Riker 1971:126-127).

In December 1760, Lieutenant John Butler arrived at forts Miami and Ouiatenon to take formal British possession. Fort Ouiatenon was in good condition at the time and was described in this manner:

....Agreable to my orders from major Rog-ers of the 7th Decr. 1760 I marchd with one officer and twenty-seven men to take pos-session of the forts...The Ouiyitonon fort I found well stockaded of 100 feet wide and 150 long on the side of the Wabash River sixty leagues from miamie, this fort has fourteen houses in it all of which belong to a french merchant at Montreal Except one. this fort is likewise on low land and last spring the water in the fort was four foot deep. Directly opposite the fort is an Indian village on fine high land; in this fort I found one french Serjt, Seven Regulars and Nine-

teen Canadians. The Regulars I marchd to maimie to joyn the officer, the Canadians I administered the oath and left them there [The National Archives, War Office 34/90, Kew, United Kingdom].

Later, in 1761, the British allotted an officer and 15 men to garrison each of the forts at Ouiatenon, Miamis, and St. Joseph. Lieutenant Edward Jenkins was put in com-mand of Ouiatenon (Barnhardt and Riker 1971:136, 140). The following year 200 Wea, 180 Kickapoo, 90 Mascouten, 100 Piankashaw were in the vicinity of Ouiatenon along with 15 French families. As before, the French residents of the fort were not farming, but were living off their small house gardens and trade. They also raised Indian corn “which they chiefly make their bread of” (Barnhardt and Riker 1971:139; Mc-Cord 1970:11-12).

The British occupation of Fort Ouiatenon, however, was only to last until 1763. It was in the summer of that year that Pontiac’s Rebellion began - a direct result of British policies toward the Indians. Due to the im-mense war debt resulting from the French and Indian War, a series of austerity measures had been instituted in order to reduce expenses, including a drastic reduc-tion in present-giving. In addition, the British method of doing business was in direct contrast to that of the French, who had most often been generous gift-givers and treated the Indians on a more equal footing. Servic-es and supplies that had been provided for the Indians under the French administration (e.g., blacksmithing, ammunition) now required payment in furs. In addi-tion, goods were no longer furnished on credit. Com-pounding these indignities were the high prices of trade goods and the low prices paid for furs (Barnhardt and Riker 1971:136-138).

In June 1763, the Wea, Kickapoo, and Mascouten at Ouiatenon were reportedly persuaded by the Potawa-tomi to attack Fort Ouiatenon. After Lieutenant Jenkins and a few soldiers were seized, the rest surrendered and were taken as prisoners to Fort de Chartres, in the Il-linois country. If it were not for the intercession of a French trader, Alexander Maisonville, the entire garri-son would likely have been killed (Barnhardt and Riker 1971:143). Pontiac’s Rebellion eventually resulted in the capture of all the British posts west of Niagara, with the exception of Detroit.

Though the British eventually persuaded the Na-tive peoples to seek peace, Ouiatenon was not re-gar-risoned, due to the fact that it was not thought to be

16

economically sensible to keep the smaller posts run-ning. Sir William Johnson (in Detroit) noted that “...to pretend to keep Posts in these distant Places without the consent of the Indians, or without having them by their own Desire and under their Protection, I consider as vain and delusive...” (Johnson Papers 11:6:20 [cited in Barnhardt and Riker 1971:157]). At this point in time, the warriors in and around Ouiatenon were estimated at 200 Wea, 100 Piankashaw, 180 Kickapoo, and 90 Mas-couten (Wheeler-Voegelin et al. 1974:133).

Our next account of Fort Ouiatenon is from 1765, when George Croghan, a British Indian Agent, was captured by Kickapoo Indians and brought to their vil-lage on the Wabash. He notes that at this time

About fourteen French families are living in the fort, which stands on the north side of the river. The Kickapoos and Musquattimes [Mascouten], whose warriors had taken us, live nigh the fort, on the same side of the river, where they have two villages; and the Ouicatanons have a village on the south side of the river...The French have a great deal of influence over these Indians...This post has always been a very considerable trading place [Thwaites 1904:144].

As Croghan mentioned, despite British political control over the former French colony, the continued influence and long-standing friendship of the Indians with the French traders made it quite difficult for British trad-ers to get a toehold in the business of the Indian trade, an animosity which persisted through the Revolution-ary War. This was compounded by the lack of a British government presence at the fort after 1763 (Barnhardt and Riker 1971:163). One British report (possibly second hand) states that by 1766, the fort was “completely in ruins” (Dunn 1894:414). However, a 1769 census of inhabitants at Fort Ouiatenon indicates the presence of twelve resi-dent traders, indicating that it was still habitable. No-tably, all those living at the fort had French surnames: Maisonville, Maignian, Paillé, Lamorceau, J. Cardinal, Lefevre, Vernette, La Riviere, Clement, Pierre Bertin, Crepo, and Aijot (Dunn 1894:440). This same year, many of the Wabash Indians were listed as traveling to Spanish territory (across the Mississippi River) to re-ceive presents (Wheeler-Voegelin et al. 1974:136).

Although no garrison was assigned to the fort, Ouiatenon continued to be an important regional hub for the fur trade through the 1770s. In 1771, 600 Wea

and Kickapoo warriors were present in the vicinity of the fort. They lived in two villages opposite one an-other, with the Wea on the south bank of the Wabash and the Kickapoo to the north (Barnhardt and Riker 1971:172).

A report from 1777 suggests that the fort contin-ued to be in good repair through the early days of the American Revolution. At this time 18 or 19 houses were noted within its limits, occupied by merchants and workers. The fort was reportedly about 70 yards from the river and “well situated, quite pretty, and its entrance well fortified. With regard to the Quiquapoux, Mascoutin, Ouyatanons, it is possible there are about 7 to 800 Indian men, bearing arms, of whom many [re-side] along the neighboring rivers” (Dunn 1894:436; Stevens 1987:374).

During the Revolutionary War, most of the Wabash Indians remained allied with the British (despite the ef-forts of the Americans to sway their opinions) and were used as proxies to fight the Americans along the fron-tier (Evans 1978). General Frederick Haldimand, Gov-ernor of Quebec, wrote in 1778 that “the expediency of supporting the Ouabash Indians is very evident...it might be expected that some of...[the Indians] might easily be induced to undertake expeditiously to clear all the Illinois of these Invaders” (Barnhardt and Riker 1971:197, 218). The Kickapoo of Ouiatenon initially supported the British cause during the American Revo-lution but switched their allegiance when their Prairie Kickapoo relations offered their services as scouts to the American forces under George Rogers Clark (Wag-ner 2011:23).

The British need for Indian allies was made clear after Vincennes was captured by the Americans in July 1778. In response, General Henry Hamilton (Lieuten-ant Governor of Quebec and Superintendent of Indian Affairs) undertook an expedition to recapture Vin-cennes from the Americans. En route, he stopped at Fort Ouiatenon, which “formd of a double range of houses enclosed with a Stockade 10 feet high, and [was] very poorly defensible against small arms. The Indian cab-ins of this settlement are about 90, the families may be estimated at 10 to a cabin” (Barnhardt 1951:208-209). Also mentioned was the presence of a chapel at the fort. In a letter to General Haldimand, Hamilton reported that Ouiatenon was a “miserable stockade sur-rounding a dozen of miserable cabins, called houses.” His opinion of the French residents was no more flat-tering, indicating that “the French settlers are few and as inconsiderable as debauchery and idleness can make

17

them” (Beckwith 1903:221). Although not stated di-rectly, Hamilton’s description of the fort indicates that, while still standing, Fort Ouiatenon may have been in a poor state of repair. This statement lies in direct contrast to the report of only one year earlier, which described the fort as “quite pretty” and “well fortified.”

While at Ouiatenon, Hamilton’s men fired six-pounder “to salute the Indians” and conducted firing practice (Evans 1978). Hamilton also met with a number of Indian chiefs in order to secure their loyalty, includ-ing Crooked Legs and Petite Face, both Wea war chiefs. Other chiefs mentioned in Hamilton’s report include La Natte (the Mat) and Le Forgeron (the Blacksmith), both Wea chiefs, and Mhinomba, a Kickapoo chief. Later, Hamilton noted of the Indians, the presence of 96 cab-ins at the Indian villages and computed that there were likely “10 souls per Cabin - Total 960 - reckon a third part Warriors 320 - but more likely 2 Warriors to a cabin 192 Warriors in all” (Barnhardt 1951: 214).

With the 1783 Treaty of Paris, which ended the Rev-olutionary War, the lower Great Lakes were formally incorporated into the territory of the United States. The U.S. claim to this area, however, was on paper only, and the British continued to occupy posts within American territory. The British also maintained alliances and trad-ing relationships with the Wabash River Indians (i.e., the Wea, Piankashaw, Kickapoo, and Mascouten), who, as a result, were mostly pro-British (Wheeler-Voegelin et al. 1974; White 1991:399-400, 434). The British, however, were unable to provide any direct assistance due to the official cessation of hostilities between them and the Americans (Wheeler-Voegelin et al. 1974:149). Part of the reason for the continued British interests in the lower Great Lakes was the profitable fur trade. Al-though the fur trade in the lower Great Lakes was on the decline by the last decade of the eighteenth century, fur exports out of Montreal still amounted to roughly £200,000 annually, with one half of this amount derived from the Upper Mississippi River valley and Great Lakes (Sleeper-Smith 2001:74; White 1991:481).

To the south, along the Ohio River, large numbers of American settlers were pouring into the region. The non-native population of Kentucky had gone from less than 1000 in 1780 to nearly 75,000 ten years later (Mc-Bride et al. 1996:191). By spring 1785, there were ap-proximately 2,200 families squatting north of the Ohio River (Wilson 1997:228). On the lower Wabash, the American population at Vincennes, which, since 1733, had been ethnically French, had risen dramatically as well, as more Americans moved into the region (Barn-

hart and Riker 1971:255). Native peoples of the Wabash Valley felt the pres-

sure of increasing numbers of land-hungry white settlers and, as a result, raids into Kentucky and along the Ohio River were common (Barnhart and Riker 1971:246). Although many settlers were killed, a secondary fo-cus of these raids was to destroy the Americans’ eco-nomic base, in the hopes that they would leave. Horses and merchandise were frequently stolen, and livestock were killed. Boats traveling on the Ohio River were also attacked and ransacked (Bergmann 2005:26-27). Native groups were aware of the potential destruction that might be brought down upon them as a result of these attacks, and feared American reprisals (Cunning-ham 1967:45, 47). George Rogers Clark indicated the American position on the matter in 1786 when he stated to the Wabash River Indians that

I now find that you are enticed by some Eng-lish Traders to take up the Hatchet against us. Their intentions are to prevent the great knives [the Americans] from trading with you and to engross the whole to themselves at the Risk of your Women and Children provided they have your skins they care no more about you. The Frequent Murders your young men have committed on our Women and Children have obliged us to take up the Hatchett and we are determined not to lay it down untill the Road are perfectly cleared [Draper Manuscripts 1949:11J:110].

By 1786, both Ouiatenon and Miamitown (pres-ent-day Fort Wayne) were being evacuated by traders due to increased Native hostility (Barnhardt and Riker 1971:257). In response to the continued Indian raids, George Rogers Clark attempted an expedition against the Wabash River villages in September of that year. However, only 1,200 of the 2,000 desired men showed up and these were conscripts rather than volunteers. Overall discipline was poor. After only two days march, the majority of the men mutinied and went home, having accomplished nothing (Barnhardt and Riker 1971:257-258; Helderman 1938).

The governor of the newly-formed Northwest Terri-tory (1787), Arthur St. Clair, was also concerned about Indian affairs in the area, especially Indian raids into Kentucky and unauthorized raids by white Kentucky settlers into Indian territory north of the Ohio River (Barnhart and Riker 1971:272, 281-282). In July 1787, the United States took its first steps in establishing

18

more effective control over the area. Congress autho-rized Colonel Josiah Harmar to negotiate a treaty with Wabash Indians in Vincennes and three companies of regulars were to be stationed there to prevent unauthor-ized retaliatory raids. Harmar left Major Jean François Hamtramck in command, who oversaw the construc-tion of Fort Knox (Barnhardt and Riker 1971:265-266). Harmar indicated that he wanted to let the Indi-ans know “that if they persisted in being hostile that a body of troops would march to their towns and sweep them off the face of the earth” (Wheeler-Voegelin et al. 1974:114-115).

At this point, a political impasse had been reached. The United States was adamant about making lands available for settlement, while the Indians were insis-tent that the Ohio River should be a permanent border between native and white lands. Though the U.S. even-tually acquiesced to purchasing the lands rather than demanding them by right of conquest, hostilities and depredations continued on both sides (Barnhardt and Riker 1971:280).

At about this time, in March 1788, an American named William Biggs was traveling from Bellfon-tain to Cahokia in the Illinois Country when he was captured by Kickapoo and Wea Indians (Biggs 1977 [1825]; Draper Manuscripts 1949:5NN). Biggs was forced to travel for ten days over a long distance and was eventually held at a number of Kickapoo towns and sugar camps along the Wabash River. He was later brought to what he called the “old Kickapoo trading town” (Biggs 1977 [1825]) or the “old Weaues town” (Draper Manuscripts 1949:5NN) about ten miles from one of the Kickapoo sugar camps. Though Biggs does not provide the Native name of the town, its location along the Wabash River, combined with its proximity to Kickapoo towns and sugar camps (known to have been in the vicinity [American State Papers, Indian Af-fairs 1832-1834:1:131]) suggests that the town he was speaking of was one of the Kickapoo towns adjacent to the old Fort Ouiatenon.

Upon arrival, Biggs met up with a number of its residents, including a Frenchman named Ebart, with whom he was already acquainted from the Illinois Country, a Spanish trader named Bazedone (a resident of Vincennes [McDonough 1883]), and a trader and freemason from the north of England named John Mc-Causlin. Another unnamed French resident was a baker. Interestingly, Biggs makes no mention of a fort, sug-gesting that it may have demolished and/or salvaged by this time. Nonetheless, it appears that several fur trad-

ers were still resident in the immediate area. Biggs was eventually able to buy his freedom and,

after three weeks, obtained passage to Vincennes with a French trader named Pyatt and his wife, whose

residence was at St. Vincennes, [and] with whom I had had some acquaintance; they had moved up to that Kickapoo town, in the fall of the year, in order to trade with the indians that winter; they were then ready to return home to Vincennes...We arrived at Vincens in forty-eight hours after we left the Kickapoo trading town, which is said to be two hundred and ten miles. The river was very high, and the four hands rowed day and night [Biggs 1977 (1825):21].

The distance from Ouiatenon to Vincennes, traveling along the Wabash River, is approximately 185 miles, a bit shorter than Biggs’ estimate.

In December 1790, George Sharp, a British trader at Miamitown (Quaife 1921:306) reported on the politi-cal and economic conditions from the British perspec-tive. Trade was suffering because of the tensions and it was quite dangerous for any white person (without the proper reputation among the Indians) to be in that area. Antoine Laselle and another individual were soon set-ting off for the Wabash

no body else being allowed to go to that quarter without being killed or plundered but themselves. None can leave the villages of the Miamis to go to the Ouias or any oth-er place but the Laselles. We are impatient [illegible] to know how we shall act in order to render such orders ineffectual otherwise your trade will suffer as well as ours [Sharp 1790].

Laselle countered this accusation in a letter of his own in which he states that the Miami, Shawnee, and Dela-ware “obliged me to go [to] Tepiconau on the Wabache to stop the Road and prevent the French Traders going to Post Vincennes, and to bring Mr. Fouchet a Prisoner to the Miamis” (Laselle 1790). Apparently the Miami were attempting to prevent the Wea from dealing with French traders originating from American controlled Vincennes and wanted the trade to proceed instead through Miamitown and on to British-controlled Detroit (The Gris 1791). Although not explained in Laselle’s letter, “Mr. Fouchet” may have been one of the French traders from Vincennes who was trading at Kethtippe-

19

canunk at the time. An individual named Bonaventure Fouche had been a resident of Vincennes prior to 1783 (Illinois Trails History and Genealogy 2007). This may be the individual mentioned in Laselle’s letter.

In 1790, one year before the Scott expedition, Ham-tramck estimated the number of warriors at Ouiatenon. Three hundred fighting men were present, as well as 100 among the Kickapoo on the north side of the riv-er (Jablow 1974:310). It is likely that the fort was no longer extant at this time, as neither William Biggs (in 1788) nor Charles Scott (in 1791) mentions its pres-ence. Later in 1790, Hamtramck persuaded a small portion of the Wea, consisting of 80 warriors and their families, to come under American protection. These individuals, under the leadership of Crooked Legs, es-tablished a new village farther down the Wabash, be-tween Vincennes and the mouth of the Vermillion River (Wheeler-Voegelin 1974:158-159).

the sCott aNd WilKiNsoN CaMpaigNs (suMMer 1791)

Between 1783 and 1790, 1,500 Kentucky settlers had been killed in Indian raids (James 1928:325) and the U.S. government felt increasing pressure to find a last-ing solution to the problem. In 1789, Governor St. Clair had asked President George Washington for in-structions regarding the increasing hostilities between the Wabash River Indians and the Kentuckians (Smith 1882:2:123-124). The President responded that Con-gress had empowered him “to call forth the militia of the States for the protection of the frontiers from the in-cursions of the hostile Indians” and that St. Clair should determine “whether the Wabash and Illinois Indians are most inclined for war or peace” (Smith 1882:2:125). War was to be a last resort, however, if all other av-enues had failed (Smith 1882:2:125-126).

After receiving news from the President, St. Clair sent a letter to Major Hamtramck, commandant at Vin-cennes (Barnhart and Riker 1971), enclosing a speech that he wanted forwarded to the Wabash Indians and the Miamis at Miamitown (Smith 1882:2:130), and Ham-tramck dispatched Antoine Gamelin in March 1790, to deliver the message to the tribes and assess their incli-nations (Barnhart and Riker 1971:282). Gamelin was to tell the aboriginal inhabitants along the Wabash that they would be dealt a heavy blow if the raids into Ken-tucky did not cease and they did not accept peace and friendship with the Americans. In his journal, Gamelin

noted that after setting out from Fort Knox at Vincennes, he eventually reached a Kickapoo village somewhere below Ouiatenon (Smith 1882:2:151-152, 155), likely in the vicinity of Terre Haute (Jablow 1974:304). The Kickapoo listened to his speeches and said

that they could not presently give me an answer, having some warriors absent, and without consulting the Ouiatanons, being the owners of their lands. They desired me to stop at Quitepiconnae [Kethtippeca-nunk], that they would have the chief and warriors of Ouiatanons, and those of their nation assembled there, and would receive a proper answer; they said that they expect-ed by me a draught of milk [liquor] from the great chief and the commanding officer of the Post, to put the old people in good humor; also, some powder and ball for the young men for hunting, and to get some good broth for their women and children; that I should know a bearer of speeches should never be with empty hands. They promised me to keep their young men from stealing, and to send speeches to their na-tions in the prairies to do the same [Smith 1882:2:125-126].

The Wea and Kickapoo gathered at Kethtippecanunk on April 14, and Gamelin was told that the Indians would decide “nothing without the consent of our elder brethren, the Miamis” (Smith 1882:2:156). Gamelin continued up the river, and was told when he arrived at Miamitown that he could be given no answer without consulting the Great Lakes nations and Detroit. Travel-ing back to Vincennes, Gamelin informed St. Clair of the equivocal response he had received from the Indi-ans. This failure to secure a promise of peace convinced St. Clair that there was no possibility of diplomacy with the Wabash Indians, so he started formulating plans for a military campaign against them (Smith 1882:2:158-160).

The first military expedition against the Indians was launched on September 30, 1790, and was led by Major Hamtramck, commander at Vincennes. Hamtramck was ordered to proceed up the Wabash and strike either the Vermillion (Piankashaw), Wea, or Eel River (Miami) towns. His force consisted of the garrison at Fort Knox, along with French and Kentucky militia - a total of 330 men. Hamtramck felt his numbers were inadequate to undertake the task, as he estimated that around 750 In-dian warriors were in the region (Jablow 1974:311).

20

After a march of eleven days, the American force came upon the Vermillion River Indian village, which they found deserted. Faced with limited supplies and grum-bling militia (many of whom had already deserted), Hamtramck decided to turn back to Vincennes, having accomplished little. This decision turned out to be a prudent one, as he later learned that a combined force of 600 Indians had prepared itself for battle farther up the Wabash River (Barnhardt and Riker 1971:285-286).

Later that year, in October, 1790, a second expedi-tion was launched into Indian country, this one under the command of general Josiah Harmar. Harmar, with a force of 320 regulars and 1,133 militia, proceeded from Fort Washington (present-day Cincinnati) to Mi-amitown, where the main villages of the hostile Miami were located. With little training and chronic discipline problems, Harmar’s force arrived on October 17, to find the settlement abandoned. After burning the towns, a smaller force under Colonel John Hardin was sent to reconnoiter the area. This force was ambushed by the Indians with 60 Americans killed. Harmar decided at this point to cut his losses and remove to Fort Wash-ington, but on the way back, Colonel Hardin asked to be allowed to return to Miamitown, with the hope that he could catch the Indians returning to their villages and redeem himself and his troops from their earlier defeat. Hardin marched back to Miamitown the night of October 21st with a force of 300 militia and 60 regulars. While lying in wait at sunrise, the Indians were alerted to the Americans’ presence, came out of hiding, and at-tacked Hardin’s force resulting in very heavy casualties for the Americans. Fifty of the 60 regulars were killed and a total of 180 men were either killed or wounded (Barnhardt and Riker 1971:283-284). The victory of the Indians against a large force only spurred their con-fidence that they could stand up to the Americans.

Despite Harmar’s defeat, plans for additional expe-ditions were underway. Charles Scott, a veteran of the Revolutionary War, had lived in Kentucky since 1785 and had lost a son in an Indian raid shortly thereafter (Nelson 1986:220). In 1790, with the Indian depreda-tions continuing unabated, Scott offered to help raise Kentucky volunteers to participate in a planned raid on Indian towns on the upper Scioto River. The expedi-tion did not encounter any Indians, however, and was considered a failure (Nelson 1986:224). Later that year, Scott was appointed a brigadier general of the Virginia militia (of which Kentucky was a part) with command over the “District of Kentucky” and was also appointed to the Kentucky Board of War.

Soon after, in January 1791, President Washington made the decision to accelerate the efforts to resolve the Indian problems north of the Ohio River and plans were made for St. Clair to command a force of 3,000 men to march against the Indian stronghold at Miami-town. Before St. Clair’s expedition, however, a smaller expedition was authorized to strike at the Wabash River towns in the spring. It was designed to put the Indi-ans off-balance prior to St. Clair’s larger expedition set out and “impress the Indians with a strong convic-tion of the power of the United States, to inflict that degree of punishment which justice may require...and demonstrating to them that they were within our reach, and lying at our mercy” (American State Papers, In-dian Affairs 1832-1834:1:129). Accordingly, the U.S. Congress gave Scott the authority to raise 900 mounted Kentucky militia with instructions to “proceed to the Wea, or Ouiatenon towns of Indians, there to assault the said towns, and the Indians therein, either by sur-prise, or otherwise, as the nature of the circumstances may admit, sparing all who may cease to resist, and capturing as many as possible, particularly women and children” (American State Papers, Indian Affairs 1832-1834:1:130). In April, the call out for volunteers went out. In a last-ditch attempt at diplomacy, an envoy was sent by the federal government to negotiate peace with the Miami; an effort which failed (Nelson 1986).

Revolutionary War veteran James Wilkinson, a set-tler in Frankfort, Kentucky, and friend of Scott’s, was appointed Lieutenant Colonel-Commandant. He held no commission at the time but had volunteered for the expedition (Marshall 1824:I:373). Other officers named in the various accounts were Col. John Hardin, Major Thomas Barbee, and Captains McCoy, King, Logsdon, James Brown, and William Price. The expedition set out from the mouth of the Kentucky River, near pres-ent-day Carrollton, on May 19th, with the entirety of the force across the river by the 23rd. Marching toward the Wabash towns with the utmost industry” and rain near-ly every day, Scott arrived on the morning of June 1st at the edge of an “extensive prairie” (the Wea Plains) to the south of the Wea village. Twenty-five years earlier, the Wea Plains had been described as tall-grass prairie, consisting of a “very Meadow clear for several Miles…These Meadows bear fine Wild Grass and Wild Hemp 10 or 12 Feet High…” (Krauskopf 1955:224).

Scott’s forces spotted an Indian on horseback a few miles distant. He was pursued in order to prevent him from warning the towns to the north but Scott’s men were unable to catch up with him. At 1 o’clock that day,

21

Scott’s forces encountered another extensive prairie and two small villages were sighted to the left, two and four miles distant. Colonel John Hardin and Captain McCoy with 60 mounted infantry and a troop of light horsemen were sent to attack the villages, while the remainder of the force marched through the prairie toward the Wea village, four to five miles ahead. A house was noted on the high ground above the village. It was assaulted with 40 men, and two Indians were killed (American State Papers, Indian Affairs 1832-1834:1:131).

After reaching the edge of the bluff, the enemy was spotted in confusion, attempting to make an escape to the north side of the river. Wilkinson was sent forward with the first battalion, which reached the edge of the river just as the Indians escaped. Brisk fire was returned from the opposite side of the river. Wilkinson’s men fired on those attempting to cross the river, killing five canoe loads of Indians (American State Papers, Indian Affairs 1832-1834:1:131).

Because the river was too deep at this point, Wilkin-son was sent with his battalion and their guides to find a fording place reportedly two miles above the town. The ford was impassible, however, and the men returned. About the same time, Captain King’s and Logsdon’s companies, under the direction of Major Barbee, were sent to march downriver to attempt a crossing. Several men swam over, while others canoed. These men were discovered by the Indians after they made it across and the Kickapoo-Mascouten village was evacuated as well (American State Papers, Indian Affairs 1832-1834:1:131).

Later, Colonel Hardin, who had been dispatched to attack two small villages to the left of the Wea village, reported that he was encumbered with prisoners. He had also discovered the presence of an even larger village further to the left of those attacked previously. Hardin moved to attack this village and Captain Brown and his company were detached to support him. Before sunset, Hardin’s contingent rejoined Scott’s main force, with 52 prisoners and six Indians reported killed (American State Papers, Indian Affairs 1832-1834:1:131).

The next morning (June 2nd) Scott made plans to send Wilkinson and 500 men to the Wea town of Keth-tippecanunk, at the confluence of the Wabash and Tippecanoe rivers. Kethtippecanunk had, in recent years, become a center of the Indian trade. Due to ex-treme fatigue, however, only 360 men could be found to make the 18-mile trip. Since the horses were exhausted, Wilkinson’s detachment proceeded on foot. Though not present at the attack, Scott’s report was as follows:

The next morning [June 2, 1791] I deter-mined to detach my Lieutenant Colonel-commandant, with five hundred men, to destroy the important town of Kethtippe-canunk...but on examination, I discovered my men and horses to be crippled, and worn down by a long laborious march, and the active exertions of the preceding day; that three hundred and sixty men only, could be found in a capacity to undertake the enter-prise, and they prepared to march on foot. Colonel Wilkinson marched with this de-tachment at half after five in the evening, and returned to my camp the next day at one o’clock, having marched thirty-six miles in twelve hours, and destroyed the most important settlement of the enemy in that quarter of the federal territory...Many of the inhabitants of this village were French, and lived in a state of civilization; by the books, letters, and other documents, found there, it is evident that place was in close contact with, and dependent on, Detroit; a large quantity of corn, a variety of house-hold goods, peltry, and other articles, were burned with this village, which consisted of about seventy houses, many of them well finished [American State Papers, Indian Af-fairs 1832-1834:1:131].

The next day, June 3rd, Wilkinson composed his report, describing the action at Kethtippecanunk:

The detachment under my command, des-tined to attack the village Kethtipecanunk, was put in motion at half after five o’clock last evening. Knowing that an enemy, whose chief dependence is in his dexter-ity as a marksman, and alertness in cover-ing himself behind trees, stumps, and other impediments to fair fight, would not hazard an action in the light. I determined to push my march until I approached the vicinity of the villages, where I knew the country to be champaigned. I gained my point without a halt, 20 minutes before 11 o’clock; lay upon my arms until 4 o’clock, and half an hour after, assaulted the town at all quarters. The enemy was vigilant; gave way on my ap-proach, and, in canoes, crossed Eel creek1,

1 Wilkinson mistakenly thought that Kethtippecanunk was located at the confluence of the Eel and Wabash Rivers, rather than the Tippecanoe and Wabash. The Eel River confluence is located about 40km further up the Wabash, in present day Cass County.

22

which washed the northeast part of the town; that creek was not fordable; my corps dashed forward with the impetuosity be-coming volunteers, and were saluted by the enemy with a brisk fire from the opposite side of the creek. Dauntless, they rushed on to the water’s edge, uncovered to the moc-cason, and finding it impassible, returned a volley, which so galled and disconcerted their antagonists, that they threw away their fire without effect. In five minutes, the sav-ages were driven from the covering, and fled with precipitation. I have three men slightly wounded. At half past five the town was in flames, and at six o’clock I com-menced my retreat [American State Papers 1832-1834:1:132].

Apparently the Indians at Kethtippecanunk were warned of the impending attack, for it was reported to Alexander McKee (British Indian agent at the Glaize) by an anonymous individual that

A young boy...found means to escape to Tipiconneau [Kethtippecanunk] six leagues higher up the River [from Ouiatenon], but no other person coming to confirm his re-port, they made no preparation for their de-fence or flight till the Enemy was close upon them, when all fled but three old men, who finding they were deserted by the others, crossed the River and made one discharge upon them, when each wounded his man, and the River being high the Americans did not think proper to pursue them.

They have destroyed and Burnt all Mr Jacques Godfroys goods to the amount it is supposed of four or five hundred pounds New York currency...A war chief of the Ouias who was killed at the first village they have literally skinned [Michigan Pioneer and Historical Collections 1905:273].

Although not stated outright, it seems that the destruc-tion of the French traders’ cabins was a clear goal of the raid on Kethtippecanunk, rather than a by-product of the action against the Native American inhabitants. This aggression was likely due to the fact it was widely believed that the traders were encouraging Indian vio-lence at the behest of the British government in Detroit (American State Papers, Indian Affairs 1832-1834:1:96 ; Quaife 1921:301).

Another account of the Kethtippecanunk attack is

provided by George Imlay (1916:11), a captain during the American Revolution, citing “a letter written by a member of the expeditions in 1791” (i.e., both Scott and Wilkinson’s campaigns):

Immediately after the engagement [at the Wea village], a council of war was called, when it was determined, that Wilkinson should cross the Wabash under cover of the night, with a detachment of four hundred men, and endeavour to surprise the town of Kathtippacamunck, which was situated upon the north side of that river, at the mouth of Rippacanoe creek, and about twenty miles above the Lower Weau towns. This expedition was conducted with so much caution and celerity, that Wilkinson arrived at the margin of the pararie [sic], within a mile, and to the west of the town, about an hour before the break of day; whilst a de-tachment was taking a circuit through the pararie, to co-operate with the main body on a given signal, day appeared, and the vol-unteers rushed into the town with an impe-tousity not to be resisted. The detachment in advance reached the Rippacanoe Creek the very moment the last of the Indians were crossing, when a very brisk fire took place between the detachment and the Indians on the opposite side, in which several of their warriors were killed, and two of our men wounded.

This town, which contained about 120 houses, 80 of which were shingle roofed, was immediately burnt and levelled with the ground; the best houses belonged to French traders, whose gardens and im-provements round the town were truly de-lightful, and every thing considered, not a little wonderful; there was a tavern, with cellars, bar, public and private rooms; and the whole marked a considerable share of order with no small degree of civilization [Imlay 1916:12].

Another eyewitness account of the destruction of Kethtippecanunk was recorded in the journal of Wil-liam Clark, brother of George Rogers Clark and later co-leader of the Lewis and Clark expedition. Clark was then a 20-year-old member of the Kentucky militia par-ticipating in the Scott campaign. Although his account is brief, it provides some details of the attack not men-tioned elsewhere.

23

Eel River 70 or 80 yards wide. Firing across the River continued 10 minutes the Indi-ans it is supposed with considerable loss. Burned and destroyed 70 houses among which were 30 or 40 shingle roofed houses. Destroyed several small villages. These In-dians appear to be Wealthy. The town was stockaded. Destroyed 1000 bushels of corn. A quantity of bear’s oil, kettles, and ploughs carts plough, salt, cattle, hogs, and so forth, burning a small village on our return [Drap-er Manuscripts 1949:63J:141].

Consistent with the other descriptions are the general details of the battle as well as the presence of well-built, shingle roof houses at Kethtippecanunk. Not men-tioned in any other account, however, is the presence of a stockade. In addition, the presence of plows, carts, and livestock suggest that the some of the European residents may have been engaged in agricultural pur-suits in addition to the fur trade. One additional bit of information is that they “destroyed several small villag-es” which suggests that Kethtippecanunk may not have been a concentrated town, per se, but rather a spread out collection of smaller settlements.

A final account is that of David Finley, who also marched with Wilkinson to Kethtippecanunk. He de-scribes that the route to the town was

just a path along the bottom of the river and that hung over with grass. An Indian path. We crossed the Wabash, and got to the up-per Towns [i.e., Kethtippecanunk], just a little before dark. Killed a great many of the individuals crossing the river from this side, in their canoes. Some of them got on top of their huts on the other side and fired on us. We had none killed and but two wounded [Draper manuscripts 1949, Early Kentucky History:147].

One unique piece of information mentioned here is the presence of structures on the opposite (east) side of the Tippecanoe River, suggesting that the portions of the town may have been on that side as well. Jones’ (1984) survey in this area, on the opposite side of the Tippeca-noe River, identified only one historic period artifact, a British gunflint, however.

On June 4th, General Scott composed a message for the Wabash Indians, saying that if they did not accept peace, they would suffer further attacks (Michigan Pio-

neer and Historical Society 1895:245). He stressed that

They have destroyed your old Town of Ouias & the neighboring villages & have taken away many men prisoners. Resting here two days to give you time to collect your strength they proceeded to your town of Kitipicancan [Kethtippecanunk]. but you again fled before them and that old Town has been destroyed [Michigan Pioneer and Historical Society 1895:245].

On that same day, Scott decided to free sixteen of the weakest and infirm prisoners for humanitarian reasons and so as not to encumber his forces. Before leaving, the men burned the towns and all the adjacent villages and destroyed the crops. A total of 41 prisoners were re-tained. Ten days later, Scott’s expedition arrived at Fort Finney (present-day Clarksville, Indiana), delivering the prisoners to Captain Joseph Asheton. No men were lost by enemy fire and only five were wounded (Ameri-can State Papers, Indian Affairs 1832-1834:1:132; Nel-son 1986).

British correspondence regarding the attack indi-cates that the majority of the men from the Indian towns (numbering 500 warriors) were not present at the time of the attack, and had left two days earlier to assist the Miami, who were believed to be the intended target. The warriors reportedly pursued Scott’s army with the intention of recovering the prisoners (U.S. National Ar-chives 1965: 59:588:Roll 7). Two months later, in August, 1791, the now Gen-eral Wilkinson conducted a second expedition against the Indians of the upper Wabash, consisting of a 500 Kentucky mounted militia. Officers accompanying the expedition were Colonel Russel, Majors McDowell, Caldwell, and Adair, and Captain Parker. Wilkinson’s force departed from Ft. Washington (present-day Cin-cinnati) and after making an initial feint toward Miami-town, they headed to the northwest with the objective being the Eel River Miami towns farther up the Wabash from Kethtippecanunk (American State Papers, Indian Affairs 1832-1834:1:133). Although a few Indians were encountered on the way, every effort was made to con-ceal their approach. On August 8th, Wilkinson’s force reached Kenapacomaqua, the Eel River Miami town at the confluence of the Wabash and Eel Rivers. The town was attacked and burned and the crops were destroyed. Forty prisoners were taken. On August 11th, he arrived at the former site of Kethtippecanunk, which he found abandoned

24

I reached Tippecanoe at twelve o’clock, which had been occupied by the enemy, who had watched my motions and aban-doned the place that morning. After the de-struction of this town, in June last, the en-emy had returned and cultivated their corn and pulses, which I found in high perfec-tion, and in much greater quantity than at L’anguille [the Eel River Indian village]. To refresh my horses and give time to cut down the corn, I determined to halt until the next morning [Smith 1882:2:237].

The party destroyed “about 200 acres of corn at Kathtippacanunck, Kickapoo, and the lower Weauc-tenau [Ouiatenon] towns” (Imlay 1916:14). At this point, however, the men were reluctant to proceed further into hostile territory, despite the reported pres-ence of a large Kickapoo town to the northwest. Nearly all of the horses were deemed too exhausted to make the trip and there were only five days’ worth of provi-sions remaining. Wilkinson decided instead to march a short distance up the Wabash, in order to destroy a reported Kickapoo town about three leagues to the west of Ouiatenon. Upon arrival, slight resistance was en-countered but the resistors quickly retreated. The town, which consisted of 30 houses, was destroyed, as was a “considerable quantity” of corn. Late that day, Wilkin-son’s force arrived at the former site of Ouiatenon and noted that the corn had been replanted with “several fields being well ploughed.” This corn was destroyed as well. The following day, Wilkinson’s force begins its return march, arriving at the Rapids of the Ohio (Lou-isville) on August 21st. All prisoners were delivered to General St. Clair at Fort Washington (American State Papers, Indian Affairs 1832-1834:I:133-135).

afterMath of the sCott aNd WilKiNsoN CaMpaigNs

Soon after the successful Scott and Wilkinson expedi-tions, in September, 1791, General St. Clair assembled a 2,700-man force for a second attack on Miamitown, the Miami Indian stronghold at the headwaters of the Maumee River. St. Clair planned to construct a series of forts along the way, in order to project American mili-tary presence deep into Indian territory. The expedi-tion, however, seemed doomed from the start, and was plagued by a lack of supplies, relatively little training, and low morale. Early in the morning of November 4th,

St. Clair’s army was camped along the upper Wabash near present-day Fort Recovery, Ohio, when it was at-tacked by a combined force of Miami, Delaware, and Shawnee Indians numbering 1,000 warriors. Caught by surprise, with no defensive works erected, St. Clair’s army was soundly routed, and retreated in confusion. Around 900 Americans were killed, wounded, and missing, resulting in the greatest defeat handed to the U.S. military by Native American forces.

Despite the Native military victories in 1790-1791, it appears that the Scott-Wilkinson expeditions had their desired effect among the Wabash River Indians. In the fall of 1791, the Wea ceased their hostilities toward the Americans and did not join the Miami in their rout of the Americans at St. Clair’s defeat. Later, in March 1792, seven Wea and two Eel River chiefs arrived in Vincennes and announced to Hamtramck their people’s intention to make peace with the United States. Ham-tramck signed a temporary agreement with them. The prisoners taken by Scott and Wilkinson (consisting of 56 women and children) were finally released in August 1792 and transported to Vincennes to be reunited with their brethren (Heckewelder 1888:49)

Later, in September, 1792, the Eel River Indians, Piankashaw, Wea, Kickapoo, Mascouten, Peoria, and Ottawa signed a treaty with the United States, agreeing to cease hostilities. Though the treaty was never ratified by Congress, the Wea never again took up arms against the United States (Wheeler-Voegelin et al. 1974:165). Throughout the remainder of the Northwest Indian Wars, which largely ended in 1794 with the defeat of the Indians at the Battle of Fallen Timbers, the ma-jority of the Wea opted out of the conflict (Edmunds 1972:248-252).

Though the Wabash River Indians had agreed to stop fighting, the Scott and Wilkinson expeditions did not immediately drive Native peoples from the immediate area. As discussed above, Wilkinson noted in August, 1791 that the corn and other crops had been replanted immediately following the destruction of Ouiatenon and Kethtippecanunk, indicating that the Indians (or at least a portion of them) did not permanently flee the area. Though the Kickapoo who had been living at Ouiatenon had fled to the Illinois River, the Wea chiefs promised Hamtramck that they would be held to the agreement if they decided to return (Jablow 1974:317). Information suggests that the Mascouten may have fled in this direction as well (Jablow 1974:325-326). Kicka-poo from the Ouiatenon vicinity may have had a hand in the construction of the Grand Village of the Kicka-

25

poo in McLean County, Illinois (Berkson 1992:121), while others returned to the Wabash River area, and were reportedly living on the Vermillion River in 1801-2 (Lasselle 1906:1-13).

A number of maps dating to the period after the Scott-Wilkinson expeditions continue to indicate the locations of the Ouiatenon villages and Kethtippeca-nunk (see Strezewski and McCullough 2010). These, however, may be referring to old information as there is no indication of substantial settlements at these loca-tions after 1791. The Imlay map of 1795 (1797), for ex-ample, shows the Wea village and Kethtippecanunk in relation one another, although the latter is placed on the wrong side of the river. Three later maps also show the location of the Wea village and Kethtippecanunk after their destruction. These include the Arrowsmith map of 1802 (map 103, Ohio Valley-Great Lakes Ethnohis-tory Archive [OVGLEA], Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology, Indiana University), the Carey map of 1805 (map 105, OVGLEA), and the Brock map of 1813 (Temple 1975:Plate 72). All are relatively accurate in terms of the towns’ locations.

In 1795, John Wade, an officer under General An-thony Wayne’s expedition, made a trip down the Wa-bash River in order to secure posts and keep lines of communication open along the Wabash River (Smith 1954:287-288). Close to the former location of Keth-tippecanunk, he found a group of Potawatomi now liv-ing there (Smith 1954:287). This is the first mention of the Potawatomi residing in this portion of the Wabash River valley. He observed the Potawatomi to be differ-ent from the other Wabash Indians he had encountered during his journey

Prior to my arrival at this place [Tippeca-noe], I was received with such civility and attention, as served to convince me of the difference between the Wabash and Po-tawatomies Indians, for the latter I found to be much under the influence of the British, insolent, haughty, and domineering, hold-ing forth the power and consequence of the British, declaring their determination to ex-act from every Boat which ascended such proportion of presents as they deemed prop-er and boasting of the quantity they received from Great Britain [Smith 1954:287].

Another source from the same year mentions a vil-lage of Potawatomi living “a day’s walk below the Wea towns on the Wabash” (Wheeler-Voegelin et al.

1974:174-175). It would appear that a number of Po-tawatomi quickly moved in to the fill the void created by the Scott-Wilkinson expeditions, though by their acknowledgment, they were “dependent on their Wa-bash Brethren for permission,” indicating that the Wa-bash Indians still laid claim to these lands. In 1797, the Wea were said to be “settled up the Wabash 200 miles from Vincennes,” near Ouiatenon, more or less (Jablow 1974:333, 335).

Several days journey downstream from mouth of the Tippecanoe River, Wade also encountered a small village of “Wabash Indians,” without further specify-ing to which group they belonged (Wheeler-Voegelin et al. 1974:170). Also in June 1795, Thomas Bodley, another of Wayne’s officers (Smith 1954), visited the mouth of the Tippecanoe River (Wayne Papers, vol. 41, OVGLEA). In the following, he describes the area and notes the presence of Wea and Potawatomi residents in or near the former site of Kethtippecanunk:

From the Ouiattanon to Tippicannoe river is 18 miles the Wabash is about 175 yds wide, about 5 feet deep, & gentle Current. Tippi-cannoe comes in on the N.W. side is about 60 yds wide & runs at the mouth nearly S.E. about 1/2 mile up the river was an old Village in a Prarie, about 200 acres is now under Cultivation by the Potawatomy & Weyaw Indians, the land is rich handsomely Situate & well watered by standing Springs - this is the most delightful place for a farm I ever beheld [Wayne Papers, vol. 41, OV-GLEA].

At Ouiatenon Bodley noted

The old [Wea] Village on the S.E. side [of the Wabash] stood on Low ground on the verge of the river - about 300 yds back is a high Hill on the Top of which is an ex-tensive Prarie about 10 miles in length & three in width. On the N.W. side was the old French Village [Fort Ouiatenon] it stood in a large Prarie [sic] part of which over-flows at times, the Soil is fertile - here about 300 acres has been cultivated by the Indi-ans - about one mile above the Old Village on the N.W. side is high ground and some beautiful Springs [Wheeler-Voegelin et al. 1974:172].

This passage indicates that area about one mile above

26

Ouiatenon area was inhabited and was intensively cul-tivated. Apparently Ouiatenon and the old Wea village, however, were abandoned. Though many (or most) of the Kickapoo appear to have vacated the Wabash River area following the Scott-Wilkinson expeditions, Kickapoo settlements along the Vermillion River are mentioned documents from 1804 -1809, indicating that a portion of this nation remained in the general area (Jablow 1974:343, 346, 353). This group may have been more accomodationist in their viewpoint, as op-posed to the Prairie Kickapoo, who were known for be-ing extremely conservative and Anti-American (Wag-ner 2011:25).

In the early 1800s, Indian groups continued to live on the Wabash, in the area around the old Wea villages. For example, in 1801, a list of traders licensed by Gov-ernor Harrison states: “December 4th. One [license] to Baptiste Bino to trade with the Potawatomie nation at their town of Tippicanou.” In 1802, an I.O.U. from “Jacque[s] Larivier[e]” to Mr. Hyacinth Lasselle was sent “From Piccano (Piccaunau)” (Lasselle Paper, doc. 619, Indiana State Library [ISL], Indianapolis). A year later, in June, a letter from Fort Wayne noted that “Ja[c]ques Roland hired out to Sieur Lasselle (La Selle) as a clerk to go to Tipecanoe (Tepicono) or to Chipaille & trade there for A. Lasselle” (Lasselle Papers, doc. 715, ISL).

In 1795, as part of the Treaty of Greenville, a six-mile square area, including the sites of the old French fort and the Wea/Kickapoo/Mascouten towns was ceded to the United States as a possible fort and trading post site, though neither was ultimately constructed (Wheel-er-Voegelin et al. 1974:174). In the next few years, the Wea moved farther south along the Wabash, possibly due to the fact that the fort was never constructed and the anticipated trade never materialized. In 1801, Wil-liam Henry Harrison, residing in Vincennes, referred to the Piankashaw, Wea, and Eel River Indians as the “tribes in this immediate Neighbourhood” and a few years later indicated that the Wea had a village at Point Coupee, about 25 miles north of Vincennes (Wheeler-Voegelin et al. 1974:177-178; Jablow 1974:344). In treaties signed in 1818 and 1820, the Wea ceded all of their claims within the present state of Indiana, and by 1832, the remaining Wea had migrated to reservations west of the Mississippi (Tanner 1987:140).

Large numbers of Kickapoo returned to the Wa-bash River (near the former site of Kethtippecanunk) after the establishment of Prophetstown by Tecumseh and Tenskwatawa in 1808 (Callender et al. 1978:662).

Notably, permission for the Shawnee brothers and their followers to settle on this land was granted by the Po-tawatomi, who had now become the de facto “owners” of this area (Edmunds 1983:68). The Kickapoo follow-ing the Prophet’s movement were primarily those who were former residents of the Wabash valley. Following the Battle of Tippecanoe, Prophetstown was destroyed, and the Kickapoo never again resided at Ouiatenon. The Mascouten, who were never a numerous group, were reportedly integrated into the Kickapoo by 1813 (Goddard 1978:670). The Kickapoo signed treaties in 1819, exchanging their lands for reservations across the Mississippi, and remaining Kickapoo villages on the Vermilion, lower Wabash, Embarras, and Kaskaskia rivers were abandoned by 1830, due to increasing white encroachment (Tanner 1987:139). All Kickapoo groups were eventually removed by 1834 (Callender et al. 1978:662).

previous arCheologiCal iNvestigatioNs

It is well recognized that the Lafayette area, along with Fort Wayne and Vincennes, was one of the three major early historic settlements in what would later become the state of Indiana. Accordingly, there are a large num-ber of early and later historic sites recorded in Tippeca-noe County.

Prehistoric occupations date from the Early Archaic through Late Prehistoric periods. sites have reported Historic period materials, likely re-flecting Historic Native American and/or French occu-pations within and surrounding Fort Ouiatenon (Figure 2.5).

Site 12-T-9

Site 12-T-9 comprises the site of Fort Ouiatenon as well as historic and prehistoric habitation areas to the east and west of the fort. Some of the historic period occu-pation areas are thought to represent the archeological remains of one or more of the Kickapoo and/or Mas-couten settlements that were located in the vicinity of the fort. After the destruction of the Wea, Kickapoo, and

30

(Noble 1991). Though numerous partial wall trenches were identified during these six field seasons, only one complete structure (a storehouse) was fully exposed and excavated. The excavations identified two major construction phases at the fort, both of which were rect-angular and oriented with magnetic north. The earlier of the two was approximately 50 x 35 m, while the later reconstruction of the fort was about 75 x 55 m in size (Figure 2.6). The second fort construction episode is thought to date to 1740s, based on associated artifacts, with subsequent repairs conducted during the British period. Excavations in 1977, 1978, and 1979 indicated extensive repairs on the north and east palisade walls were done by building a new wall 3.0 to 4.5 m outside the old one (Tordoff 1983:164). Overall, less than one-tenth of the fort site was excavated (Noble 1991:76).

The MSU excavations were summarized in the dis-

Figure 2.5. Reported sites in the Ouiatenon vicinity. TCHA-owned portion of 12-T-9 is shaded in yellow and the location of Fort Ouiatenon is shown in red.

sertations of Judith Tordoff (1983) and Vergil Noble (1983). These dissertations provide fairly detailed de-scriptions of the artifacts identified, though the individ-ual features are not as well covered. Later dissertations utilized the data from the MSU excavations. Terrence Martin (1986) addressed the faunal remains from the site, examining the utilization of wild vs. domestic spe-cies in a frontier French outpost. Martin found that do-mesticated species were only supplemental to the diet of the fort inhabitants. Misty Jackson’s dissertation (2005) examined French folk classification of artifacts and the impact of this concept on archeological inter-pretation. Beyond these works, however, few scholarly articles have resulted from the work performed at Fort Ouiatenon, and overall, there is no detailed summary of the archeological investigations or the features en-countered, either for a scholarly or lay audience (e.g.,

31

Johnson 2000; Noble 1991; Sauer et al. 1988). Later, from 1984 to 1990, James R. Jones and Neal

Trubowitz directed survey projects designed to identify previously unrecognized historic period Native Ameri-can sites in the Tippecanoe County area (Jones 1984; Trubowitz 1992a). Trubowitz’s work focused on field-work within three areas, two of which were within the Ouiatenon vicinity. The first was the Wea village (12-T-6)

. Surface survey, topographic mapping, and magnetometry survey were conducted at this site, followed by limited subsurface testing. Trubowitz’s (1992a:248-249) fieldwork identified historic depos-its with

Other contact pe-

riod Native American sites were identified on the south side of the Wabash.

Across the river, in the area surrounding Fort Ouiatenon, the bottomlands were surveyed

These surveys, conducted in 1984 and 1986, identified a number of sites thought to represent the remains of

Figure 2.6. Previously excavated portions of Fort Ouiatenon, 1969-1978 (from maps presented in Martin 1986; Noble 1983; Tordoff 1983; von Frese and Noble 1984).

32

eighteenth century Kickapoo-Mascouten villages (see Figure 2.5).

Those sites containing the largest quantities of re-ported or documented historic period materials,

Some of the artifacts associated with this area in-

cluded a musket ball, lead sprue, a gunflint, wrought nails, container glass, creamware sherds, and a brass sideplate fragment from a Type C trade gun (ca. 1680-1730).

Materials noted on the surface included “rough oval areas of stone” as well as a musketball, two cop-per/brass triangles, an iron chisel fragment, four bottle sherds, white clay pipestems, gunflints, and lithic de-bris.

, yielded fragments of wine bottles and a pharmaceutical bottle, and sherds of tin-glazed faience and redware, among other artifacts (Jones 1984:45). At the time of the surface collection, Jones noted a dark-stained area representing the fort, as well as “possible hearth rings” in the aboriginal area outside of the fort (SHAARD 2013). Prior to our work in 2013, no subsur-face testing of these areas has been attempted.

Jones’ surface collection of 12-T-9 also resulted in a fair quantity of prehistoric materials. Of these arti-facts, the vast majority are non-diagnostic and consist of cores and flakes, mostly of Attica or pebble cherts. Two aboriginal sherds were identified, both of which were grit tempered. These indicate a Woodland period occupation, though Noble (1983:123) suggests the pos-sibility that some may have been manufactured by the early eighteenth century Native American occupants, prior to the widespread use of copper/brass kettles of

European manufacture. Diagnostic lithics consisted of eight Late Prehistoric triangular projectile points (SHAARD 2013). Again, it is possible that these may have been manufactured by the historic period occu-pants of the fort.

Prehistoric materials were also recovered during the MSU excavations within the fort proper. Both No-ble (1983:123) and Tordoff (1983:272) report the in-frequent occurrence of aboriginal ceramics. Nearly all were grit tempered, with a few examples of shell and sand tempering encountered. The grit tempered sherds were both plain and cordmarked but are otherwise non-diagnostic. A few sherds were decorated but their tem-poral placement is not discussed.

Diagnostic chipped stone artifacts from within the fort were mostly Late Prehistoric triangles (n=17), with small examples of other projectile points encountered, including two of probable early Late Woodland age (Noble 1983:276; Tordoff 1983:368-370)2. In sum, it would appear that most of the diagnostic lithics from 12-T-9 are triangular arrow points that date to the Late Prehistoric or early eighteenth century. The aboriginal pottery, however, is non-diagnostic beyond a general Woodland designation.

Finally, the most recent investigations conducted at 12-T-9 were performed by archeologists from the Uni-versity of Southern Indiana (Strezewski) and the IPFW Archaeological Survey (McCullough). Research con-sisted of magnetometry survey along the western por-tion of the TCHA-owned part of 12-T-9. The survey area included not only Fort Ouiatenon proper but also areas outside the palisade walls. Most interestingly, the results indicated probable Native American structures and other cultural features outside the fort perimeter, concentrated mostly to the north and west of the pali-sade wall line (Strezewski and McCullough 2010). The results of the 2009 magnetometry survey are discussed further in Chapter 3 of this report.

Site 12-T-335

Site 12-T-335 was initially reported in the course of James R. Jones’ summer 1984 survey of historic pe-riod sites in the central Wabash River valley. The site is also thought to represent one of the Kickapoo and/or Mascouten villages that were located on the north side of the Wabash River, in the immediate vicinity of Fort Ouiatenon. Ample historic period materials have

2 Noble notes that corner notched and side notched points were found, but does not specify their types.

33

been reported on this site as well. These include cop-per scrap, strap hinges, trade beads, gunflints, and olive green bottle glass. A variety of non-diagnostic lithics, a single stone arrowpoint, and a few sherds of grit-tem-pered aboriginal ceramics have been reported as well, suggesting the presence of one or more prehistoric components. Eighteenth century-related materials have been found on both the eastern and western portions of the site. Though no subsurface investigations have been conducted at 12-T-335, the eastern portion of the site was subjected to magnetometry survey in summer 2009 (see Chapter 3). The results of the survey were inconclusive. Though a number of subsurface anoma-lies were identified, it was unclear which were due to natural phenomena and which were cultural in nature. No subsurface testing of the anomalies was conducted (Strezewski and McCullough 2010).

Site 12-T-25

Though no systematic work was performed at site 12-

T-25 during the 2013 investigations, a number of arti-facts were recovered from the site in the context of an informal walkover (see Chapter 5). Site 12-T-25 was initially reported in the 1960s and the site was system-atically surveyed and collected by Dr. Robert C. Mul-vey, a soil scientist from Purdue University. The results of his work, however, were never written up. For this reason, no detailed information on the site was avail-able prior to Rick Jones’ surface survey in 1984. Jones (1984:46) indicates that

and contained a large amount of eighteenth century mate-rial, including gunflints, bottle glass, trade beads, and copper/brass fragments (SHAARD 2013). Prehistoric materials on the site consisted of a single Kirk Corner Notched point, dating to the Early Archaic, and numer-ous non-diagnostic lithics.

34

Chapter 3MagnetoMetry at 12-t-9 and 12-t-335

The numerous remote sensing methods commonly available to the archeologist (e.g., magnetometry, resis-tivity, conductivity, ground-penetrating radar) are de-signed to see beneath the soil, providing information about subsurface features in a cost-efficient, timely, and non-destructive manner. Because of its relative speedi-ness, remote sensing can often be applied to the entire site, or at least a large portion of the site. This is op-posed to archeological excavation, in which, due to time and monetary constraints, only a small area can usually be investigated during a given field season. Due to the wide areal coverage possible with remote sens-ing, broad-scale information about site layout can often be obtained (e.g., the arrangement of structures within a village), something that traditional archeological sur-vey and excavation projects can rarely provide. Inves-tigations at 12-T-9 and 12-T-335 were designed to take advantage of the properties of remote sensing in order provide information on the layout and extent of these sites.

Magnetometry

A gradiometer (two magnetometer heads combined into a single sensor) is used to detect fluctuations in the earth’s natural magnetic field caused by the presence of cultural materials such as fired clay, heated rock, or iron artifacts. Magnetometry data of varying resolution are commonly used to discern broad elements of site struc-ture as well as the size, shape, contents, and function of individual features (e.g., Marshall 1999; Martin et al. 1991; von Frese 1984; von Frese and Noble 1984). Magnetometers are very sensitive to the presence of ferrous metals (e.g., iron) that create very strong, dis-tinctive magnetic signatures. However, magnetometers are different from a standard metal detector in that they are extremely sensitive to subtle magnetic changes in soils (on the order of fractions of nanoteslas).

Aside from ferrous metals, magnetometers react to two types of magnetization on archeological sites. The first is thermoremanent magnetization. When soils and/or rocks are heated to the ferromagnetic Curie tem-perature (ca. 500 to 700○ C), the magnetic particles are realigned to the local magnetic field, producing a per-manent remanent magnetization. When the soil, rock,

or object is cooled, the magnetic particles recrystallize and are oriented toward magnetic north (Burks 2004:8). This produces a subsurface magnetic anomaly in an otherwise neutral magnetic environment. Common fea-tures of this type include deposits of ceramics, burned structures, and pits filled with fire-cracked rocks.

The second type of detectable magnetization is termed magnetic susceptibility. Soils with high mag-netic susceptibility are those that react when exposed to a magnetic field, such as earth’s own magnetic field. The presence of bacteria that produce small magnetic particles are one of the major factors affecting a soil’s magnetic susceptibility. Certain soils, such as topsoil, are often of a greater magnetic susceptibility than sub-soils. If, for example, a hole is dug in the ground and filled with soils of differing magnetic susceptibility than the surrounding subsoil, this should be detectable by a magnetometer (Burks 2004:8). The detectability of a given anomaly is a function of the magnetic noise level of the soil, the distance between the instrument and the anomaly in question, and the intensity of the anomaly (von Frese 1984:7). All three of these factors must be taken into consideration when interpreting the results of a given survey.

previous MagnetoMetry surveys

Contemporary accounts regarding the location of the fort and the surrounding Kickapoo-Mascouten villages are descriptive only; there are no historic maps of the fort, its dimensions or placement relative to the river, or of the location of the Indian villages in the vicinity. Furthermore, there are no known historic descriptions of the Native houses at any point in time, their distribu-tion across the landscape, or the presence of any other facilities (e.g., council houses) that might be detectable archeologically. Extensive excavations within the fort, coupled with descriptions from historic period documents, clearly in-dicate that Fort Ouiatenon consisted of a stockade that enclosed approximately twelve structures at any given time. Archeological evidence indicates that many of the structures were of typical French-style poteaux-en-terre construction (i.e., built by placing vertical posts into a

36

Figure 3.2. Von Frese and Noble’s (1984:44) interpretation of their data, showing the probable fort outline and other magnetic anomalies of interest.

conducted with a Bartington Grad 601-2 gradiometer, with a 0.5 m transect interval, set to 8 readings per me-ter (see Strezewski and McCullough 2010). In 2009, a total of sixty-four whole or partial 20 by 20 m grids was surveyed at 12-T-9, comprising a total of approximately 2.53 hectares (6.24 acres). That same field season, 17 whole or partial grids were surveyed at 12-T-335, with a total area of 0.67 hectares (1.66 acres) investigated.

The results of the 2009 surveys are discussed below.

Survey Expectations

Given the properties and limitations of magnetometry and the results of previous magnetometry surveys in the Ouiatenon vicinity, we can make some predictions about what types of materials and activities may be de-

37

tectable at 12-T-9 and 12-T-335. The following is not an exhaustive list but provides some idea of the sorts of materials that might be expected at a site of this time period, given what we know about the types of structures that may be present, the circumstances of the site’s destruction, and the results of previous investiga-tions in 2009.

1) It is known from historic documents that the Kickapoo-Mascouten villages on the north side of the Wabash were burned in the aftermath of the Scott and Wilkinson expeditions. Notably, none of the contem-porary observers mention the presence of a fort at this time, nor did Scott or Wilkinson indicate the presence of French or English traders on this side of the Wa-bash. These omissions suggest that many or most had moved to Kethtippecanunk, a trading town further up the Wabash River (see Chapter 2). William Biggs’ 1788 captivity narrative suggests, however, that a number of traders were present in the Ouiatenon area at this late date, though we do not know if they still resided with-in the fort area or were dispersed amongst the Native American habitation areas.

In terms of magnetometry, burning the villages may have resulted in an alteration to the magnetic proper-ties of the soils - an alteration that may be detectable with the magnetometer. Structural fires commonly reach temperatures above the ferromagnetic Curie tem-perature, and those that burn hot and burn to the ground may be especially visible (Burks 2004:2, 8). Any clay chinking (possibly used in traders’ structures within or outside the fort) that may have been fired when the structures were destroyed should also be detectable. Although it is likely that much of the burned material from structures would have been incorporated into the plowzone, these soils should still be dectectable despite the lack of intact subplowzone deposits (Burks 2004:2). The fact that we identified a number of probable Native American structures in the 2009 survey suggested the possibility that more might be encountered.

Despite the lack of first-hand sources, it is most likely that Native structures were of lighter construc-tion than those occupied by the soldiers and traders that lived within the fort - a fact which would reduce their visibility both archeologically and via remote sensing. Most native houses were probably lightly-built wig-wam-type dwellings common in the Great Lakes area (Callender 1978:682). Such dwellings continued to be

built by Native peoples of the Great Lakes well into the 1830s (Wagner et al. 2001:11) and would probably be difficult to detect with a magnetometer. It is pos-sible, however, that some of the more well-built Native dwellings may have been of log construction, as this technique seems to have become more common among Native Americans during the latter portion of the eigh-teenth century (Jones 1988:362).

2) At Historic-period fur-trade era sites such as 12-T-9 and 12-T-335, we should expect fair quantities of ferrous metal in the form of nails, hinges, hooks, axes, gun parts and other items. The 1974-75 and 2009 sur-veys at Ouiatenon indicated large quantities of ferrous metal within the fort proper and excavations confirmed its presence. Even though it seems unlikely that the out-lines of Native structures would be identifiable with a magnetometer, numerous other activities that took place within these settlements may have left behind evidence of the habitation in the form of ferrous metal. The main disadvantage of having ferrous metal on a site is that, since it is highly magnetic, too much can drown out more subtle features that also may be of interest.

As was discovered during previous excavations at the trading town of Kethtippecanunk (Strezewski et al 2007; Strezewski and McCullough 2010), it seems that the most reliable indicator of a structure or clus-ter of structures was the presence of numerous small pieces of ferrous metal, as the outlines of the structures themselves proved invisible via magnetometry. Ferrous materials, especially larger pieces, should be highly de-tectable with the magnetometer using 0.5 m transects, and may give information on the location of structures or other activity areas.

3) Any in situ burning or the presence of burned materials related to the occupation of the site should also be visible via magnetometry. This includes such features as concentrations of fire-cracked rock, hearths, or concentrations of pottery. Many features produced in prehistory would likely fall under this category. Since there are known prehistoric components at 12-T-9 and 12-T-335 (Jones 1984), some anomalies may have been produced by prehistoric activities. Unfortunately, apart from actual excavation, there is no reliable way to dis-tinguish between a historic-period rock-filled pit and a prehistoric one.

38

Methods

Magnetometry survey at 12-T-9 was conducted inter-mittently from November/December 2012 through May 24, 2013, while the survey of site 12-T-335 was done in December 2012. Data collection was supervised by Dr. Robert McCullough and Scott Hipskind. The instru-ment used was a Bartington Grad 601-2 dual gradiome-ter. The heads on the Bartington gradiometer are spaced 1.0 m apart, providing for deeper ground penetration (to a depth of about 1.0 m) than a number of other instru-ments (e.g., the Geoscan FM-256) with head spacing of only 0.5 m. All grids were collected with a transect interval of 0.5 m with 8 readings taken per meter, pro-ducing a relatively high density of data points that was more than adequate for a reconnaissance-level survey of a historic period site such as this one. Prior to the 2009 magnetometry survey, the MSU site datum was reacquired. The datum is marked with an iron fence post and covered with a tire. The MSU datum consists

The original coordinates of the MSU datum are N1000 feet, W800 feet, and the grid was oriented toward magnetic north (Tordoff 1983:147, 168). During the 2009 IPFW/USI magnetometry sur-vey at 12-T-9, the original MSU datum (N1000 feet, W800 feet) was renamed N1000 meters, E800 meters2, with the elevation set arbitrarily at 100.00 m (Strezews-ki and McCullough 2010). In 2009, the orientation of the survey grid was determined with a Brunton pocket theodolite, as there was only one site datum set up by MSU. Though the alignments of the two grids may not be perfect, the method we used was as accurate as could be accomplished in the field.

After the 2009 magnetometry survey was complet-ed,

Each datum consisted of an aluminum spike set in concrete, placed flush with the ground surface. An aluminum spike, rather than iron, was used in order to prevent magnetic noise if another magnetic survey of the site were to be conducted in the future.2 The main reason the grid system was changed to metric measurement is that the magnetometer used in our surveys (Bar-tington Grad 601-2) will only record grids in meters. Note also that the MSU grid system identified points in north and west coordi-nates, while ours uses the more familiar north and east.

Using a total station, the entire survey area was di-vided into 20 by 20m grids using wooden stakes and plastic pin flags. Typically, the magnetometry survey crew consisted of three individuals. One person oper-ated the instrument while the other two set up the grids and moved the ropes used to mark the individual tran-sects. The individual collecting the data was alternated every three grids. This allowed for nearly continuous data collection throughout the day, as the burden of data collection was not put upon a single individual but was instead spread among three persons. The instrument was typically rebalanced after every three grids. All data were collected using zig-zag transects. The data were downloaded to a laptop, compiled, and analyzed each evening.

At the time of the 2012-2013 survey,

(Figure 3.3). Prior to its pur-chase by the TCHA in 1972, the central portion of the site had been in agricultural use since the first half of the nineteenth century. After this point,

The presence of driftwood and other debris on the site clearly indicates that the prop-erty continues to flood on a regular basis, as it did dur-ing the eighteenth century.

Identical survey methods and parameters were used for magnetometry at 12-T-335. For ease in comparing the spatial relationship between the two sites, a transit was used to extend the Fort Ouiatenon grid out to the north and east. The survey grid was set up with the tran-sit, using wooden stakes and plastic pin flags.

suggesting a fair amount of ongoing ero-

sion at the site.

Data Processing and Analysis

Data from both surveys were processed using the pro-gram Terrasurveyor, version 3.0.19.16 Terrasurveyor is

39

a program specifically designed to download, assem-ble, and process geophysical data from archeological sites (Wilbourn 2013:1). The general data processing steps were as follows: The data above and below a given value were first clipped (e.g., between 8 and -8 nanoteslas [nT]). This process is designed to minimize large spikes in the data caused by the presence of iron objects. When the data are clipped within a relatively narrow range, less intense variation is brought out to a greater degree, giving the user better visual contrast for detection of any subtle anomalies that may exist. Too much clipping, however, can increase the visibility of non-archeological “noise” in the data, thereby making it difficult to pick out anomalies of interest.

Next, the data were subjected to the “de-stripe me-dian traverse” function which removes major instru-ment and operator-induced data defects. The process calculates the median of each traverse within a particu-lar grid and then subtracts the median from the traverse. The final process applied to the data was the “de-stag-ger” function. This process corrects data collection er-rors caused by the operator habitually walking too slow

or too fast during the transects. It is particularly use-ful for surveys done in the zig-zag mode (as was ours) (Wilbourn 2013).

Following data processing, the resulting magnetic anomalies were classified into three different catego-ries, in order to aid in their interpretation. The follow-ing categories are based upon those used by Burks’ (2004:12-13) at the site of Pickawillany, a mid-eigh-teenth-century English fort and trading post in Miami County, Ohio. Though the process of anomaly selection and classification is by no means scientific, attempts were made to use conservative criteria in interpret-ing the survey results. Potential anomalies with fuzzy outlines or those which could be possible noise in the data were eliminated from consideration. In addition, anomalies that were obviously the result of natural phe-nomena (e.g., those caused by river-based deposition of sand and gravel) were also eliminated. It was felt that the most meaningful results could be obtained by these methods, as nothing would be gained by counting dubi-ous or non-cultural anomalies that would, in the long run, only add clutter to the overall spatial analysis.

Figure 3.3. View of the TCHA-owned portion of site 12-T-9 (in grass) from the access road. Southern edge of 12-T-335 is on the extreme right of the photo. View to the southwest.

40

Monopolar positive

Monopolar positive anomalies are those that exhibit a localized, positive peak intensity. They appear on our maps as a discrete dark-colored spot. Monopolar anomalies are often caused by local areas of soil with increased magnetic susceptibility (e.g., pits that were excavated and filled with soil of greater magnetic sus-ceptibility). Anomalies such as these could be either prehistoric or historic in origin. Monopolar anomalies can also be caused by a dipolar object (e.g, a ferrous metal object) that is buried in the ground with the posi-tive pole closer to the surface than the negative pole. In such cases, the magnetometer can only “see” the posi-tive pole of the object, thus making it look as though it were monopolar. Monopolar positive anomalies range in intensity between 1 and 200 nT. Most prehistoric anomalies, however, are no greater than 10 nT, though some unusually strong features can produce readings up to about 35 nT (Burks 2004:12).

Dipolar Simple

These distinctive anomalies are identified by the presence of a single positive and negative peak im-mediately adjacent to one another. The peaks can be similar or dissimilar in intensity, and can range up to hundreds of nanoteslas. Dipolar simple anomalies are most commonly caused by ferrous metal objects and magnetic rocks, with the two peaks reflecting the posi-tive and negative poles of the magnetic object (Burks 2004:12-13). Lightning strikes can also cause large di-polar simple anomalies in the soil as can very magnetic prehistoric features, such as intensely burned hearths or earth ovens filled with fire-cracked rock. The pres-ence of very large or multiple dipolar simple anomalies in a given survey grid can be an impediment to data interpretation, as they can obscure other, less intense anomalies that may be of archeological significance. In the case of historic period sites, like Fort Ouiatenon, concentrations of dipolar anomalies may reflect areas of more intensive activity.

Dipolar Complex

Dipolar complex anomalies consist of numerous posi-tive and negative peaks that are clustered within a gen-eral area. The peaks can be of varying intensities. This type of anomaly can occur when numerous, smaller di-polar objects are dumped in one spot (e.g., a pit, cellar,

or well), but can be associated with burned areas, dis-turbances, or animal burrows as well (Burks 2004:13). The magnetic signature of a dipolar complex anomaly can be weak or very strong. For the purposes of this analysis, relatively wide areas containing numerous small, individual dipolar anomalies were categorized as dipolar complex. These anomalies may represent areas where numerous smaller ferrous objects are concentrat-ed (e.g., nails, hinges, or buckles), possibly represent-ing a habitation area.

results, 12-t-9

A total of 121.6 complete or partial grids were surveyed in 2012-2013, with each standard grid measuring 20 by 20 meters in size (Figure 3.4). In total, the current survey covered an area of approximately 4.86 hectares (12.02 acres). This, combined with the 64 grids com-pleted during the 2009 survey, brings the total surveyed area of 12-T-9 to 7.39 hectares (18.26 acres), or approx-imately 89.1 percent of the total site extents (Figure 3.5). Virtually all areas of highest elevation have been surveyed. The location of the 12-T-9 survey in relation to the local topography is shown in Figure 3.6. Follow-ing data processing and analysis, all anomalies outside of the fort perimeter were identified and classified ac-cording to the above typology. For the sake of com-pleteness, the following analysis of the results includes those areas surveyed in 2009 as well. The most apparent anomalies in the survey area are not cultural, consisting of a number of parallel dark-colored broad bands running in a general east-west direction. These bands are believed to be a result of natural sediment deposition (i.e., silt and gravel) in the course of floodplain formation. The bands run paral-lel to the Wabash River channel. One other recently-formed anomaly merits mentioning. This anomaly con-sists of paired parallel lines running from coordinates N990, E830 to N980, E980 and most likely represents the path taken by the MSU vehicles during their exca-vations in the 1970s (see Noble 1991:Figure 5-1). Though some anomalies can be discounted in our analysis, many others, however, are likely archeologi-cal in nature. These are discussed below.

Monopolar Positive Anomalies

Of the numerous monopolar positive anomalies identi-fied on 12-T-9 (Figure 3.7), most are relatively weak in intensity (less than 10 nT in magnitude), relatively

41

Figu

re 3

.4. R

esul

ts o

f the

mag

neto

met

ry su

rvey

of 1

2-T-

9 (w

este

rn p

ortio

n).

42

Figu

re 3

.4 (c

ontin

ued)

. Res

ults

of t

he m

agne

tom

etry

surv

ey o

f 12-

T-9

(cen

tral

por

tion)

.

43

Figu

re 3

.4 (c

ontin

ued)

. Res

ults

of t

he m

agne

tom

etry

surv

ey o

f 12-

T-9

(eas

tern

por

tion)

.

44

well-defined, and roughly circular to oval in planview. Although there are some exceptions (discussed be-low), most were between 1.0 and 2.0 m in diameter. As a rule, monopolar positive anomalies could be either prehistoric or historic in nature and most are probably the result of localized areas with increased magnetic susceptibility (e.g., pit features filled with topsoil or organic-laden debris). Given the known presence of prehistoric materials on 12-T-9 (Jones 1984), it is highly likely that at least a portion of these anomalies may pre-date the occupation of Fort Ouiatenon and the Historic Kickapoo-Mascout-en villages. Unfortunately there is no means of readily distinguishing between prehistoric and historic anoma-lies of this type. Other monopolar positive anomalies may be deeply buried pieces of iron in which only the positive pole of the piece is “visible” to the magnetom-eter. This may be the case with the few that are higher than 15-20 nT in magnitude.

One area of interest was noted in grids N1040, E680 and N1040, E700. It was here that a cluster of much larger monopolar positive anomalies was observed. These anomalies are all circular to oval, relatively well-defined and less than 10 nT in intensity. Given these traits, it is highly likely that many or most are archeo-logical in nature. Most are from 2.0 to 4.0 meters in maximum diameter, quite large for an aboriginal fea-ture. One of these anomalies was tested in 2013 and designated Feature 4. Though not completely excavat-ed, the feature encountered proved to be a wide, deeply buried pit containing a moderate density of fire-cracked rock but little else (see Chapter 4). It may have been a processing pit of some sort, though there was little in the way of artifacts to confirm or refute this interpreta-tion. The cultural affiliation of the pit is uncertain as well.

Moderate densities of large monopolar anomalies were found to the north and west of the fort with a

Figure 3.5 Portions of 12-T-9 that were surveyed in 2009 and 2012/2013 and site 12-T-9 site extents as recorded by the DHPA.

slightly lower density on the east side of the fort. Most are likely related to fort-related activities and/or aborig-inal occupations, either prehistoric or historic. Without additional testing, it is difficult to determine with cer-tainty. The monopolar anomalies continue to the east, with the density dropping off only slightly through the E1020 line. Only a few monopolar anomalies were noted in the extreme eastern portion of the survey area (i.e., east of E1070), suggesting a lower-intensity occu-pation within this area. Similarly, the density of mono-polar anomalies drops off considerably in the western portion of the survey area (i.e., west of E640 or so). One exception to this generalization is a loose cluster of anomalies in the northwestern corner of the survey (i.e., northwest of N1040, E460) that may represent an occupation area of some sort. Another exception is the extreme southeastern portion of the western survey area, comprising grids N960, E640 and N980, E640, in which a moderate density of monopolar positive anom-alies was observed.

An anomaly of particular interest was noted at the northwest corner of the projected fort outline, in the southeast corner of square N1020, E720. It was here that an h-shaped linear anomaly was observed. The anomaly is less than 5 nT in strength and is most likely cultural in origin3. Its function is unknown, though giv-en the regular, rectilinear outline of the anomaly and its low intensity, it may be structural in nature.

Most interesting are a number of similar monopo-lar positive anomalies first encountered in 2009, all of which are thought to be good candidates for structures. At least fifteen were identified; twelve are circular, two are rectangular, while the remaining example is oval in planview (Figure 3.8). Some of the probable struc-tures are more clearly defined than others (e.g., the two

3 The anomaly does not correspond to any known IU or MSU excavation area, and is therefore likely not a result of previous ground disturbance.

45

Figu

re 3

.6 L

ocat

ion

of 1

2-T-

9 m

agne

tom

etry

grid

s in

rela

tion

to lo

cal t

opog

raph

y.

46

Figu

re 3

.7 M

onop

olar

pos

itive

ano

mal

ies f

rom

12-

T-9

(wes

tern

por

tion)

.

47

Figu

re 3

.7 M

onop

olar

pos

itive

ano

mal

ies f

rom

12-

T-9

(cen

tral

por

tion)

. For

t O

uiat

enon

stoc

kade

out

lines

are

show

n in

red.

48

Figu

re 3

.7 M

onop

olar

pos

itive

ano

mal

ies f

rom

12-

T-9

(eas

tern

por

tion)

.

49

anomalies in N980, E700). The dimensions, character-istics, and location of each anomaly are summarized in Table 3.1. No additional structural anomalies were identified during the 2012/2013 survey.

With one exception, all consisted of a band of mo-nopolar positive readings (Figure 3.9), often with some sections displaying slightly higher readings than others. The single exception was a circular anomaly located in square N1060, E760 that consists of a circular band of monopolar positive readings surrounding a “bulls-eye” of lower magnetic readings. It is possible that this represents a large, deeply-buried piece of ferrous metal with the negative pole closer to the surface, though this is deemed unlikely due to the relatively low positive and negative readings within the circular anomaly (be-tween about 6.0 and -4.0 nT).

One of the anomalies identified in 2009 (our struc-tural anomaly number six) had been partially exposed

and excavated by MSU in the 1970s (see Chapter 6), providing us with some idea of the subsurface nature of these features prior to our own investigations. Deemed Feature 51/136, the structural remains were described as a “circle twenty feet in diameter filled up with char-coal in a matrix of brown sand.”4 Though the excava-tors were unsure as to its function or cultural associa-tion, about three-quarters of the circle was exposed in plainview and the eastern edge and northwest corner were completely excavated. Though the available de-scriptions do not provide much detail, the site maps (Tordoff 1983:147, von Frese and Noble 1984:47) in-dicate that Feature 51/136 consisted of a circular wall trench in planview. The structure would have measured 4 The feature was first encountered and partially excavated by Tordoff (1983), who referred to it as Feature 51. Additional por-tions of the feature were excavated by Noble (1983:333), who des-ignated the “charcoal ring” Feature 136.

Figure 3.8 Likely structural anomalies from 12-T-9.

51

Figure 3.9 Structural anomalies 3 and 4. Anomaly 4 was partially excavated in 2013.

were also identified in the course of the survey (Figure 3.10), most of which appear to be larger-sized pieces of ferrous metal. Though some may be related to the post-eighteenth century use of the area (e.g., horseshoes, tractor parts, or other ferrous debris), it is likely that many to most are archeological in nature. Given that prehistoric Native Americans did not have ferrous met-al, dipolar anomalies are one means of isolating the his-toric component at the site (unlike monopolar positive anomalies that could be either prehistoric or historic). The most apparent of the dipolar simple anomalies was located at N1000, E800. This is the MSU site datum, consisting of an iron fence post embedded in concrete.

Dipolar simple anomalies were also clustered in a number of spots within the survey area. Most appar-

ent is the greater density of these anomalies on the east side of the fort. The consistent presence of large ferrous metal fragments in this area suggests the definite pres-ence of Historic period occupation - possibly that of the Kickapoo-Mascouten or one or more fur traders. Di-polar simple anomalies were particularly concentrated near the eastern edge of the projected stockade outline, suggesting that some of this ferrous metal may be the result of garbage deposition outside the fort limits. In-terestingly, the density of dipolar simple anomalies is low in the area where the circular structures were iden-tified. This is surprising, as one would expect a higher density of iron fragments in areas where definite habi-tation occurred. This fact alone suggests that higher densities of ferrous metal fragments may not be a good

52

Figu

re 3

.10

Dip

olar

sim

ple

anom

alie

s fro

m 1

2-T-

9 (w

este

rn p

ortio

n).

53

Figu

re 3

.10

cont

inue

d D

ipol

ar si

mpl

e an

omal

ies f

rom

12-

T-9

(cen

tral

por

-tio

n). F

ort O

uiat

enon

stoc

kade

out

lines

are

show

n in

red.

54

Figu

re 3

.10

cont

inue

d D

ipol

ar si

mpl

e an

omal

ies f

rom

12-

T-9

(eas

tern

por

-tio

n).

55

indicator or aboriginal occupation areas.A second concentration of ferrous metal was noted

north of the fort’s southwest corner and may also be re-lated to fort-related activities. Larger pieces of ferrous metal seem to be relatively infrequent to the west and northwest of the fort. Moving to those areas surveyed in 2012/2013 – the simple dipolar anomalies in the western survey area (i.e., west of E680) were of a different nature than those located in proximity to the fort. These anomalies were, with some exceptions, very large, particularly in the area surrounding grid N1040, E540. These large di-poles may represent very large pieces of iron or, alter-natively, may be pieces of naturally-deposited magnetic rock. The general absence of smaller simple dipoles in the western survey area supports the conclusions drawn from the monopolar positive anomaly distribution; the western survey area does not display evidence for dense habitation, unlike the area around the fort. This is not to say, however, that the western survey area is devoid of cultural activity – certain areas (particularly the area northwest of N1040, E460 and grids N960, E640 and N980, E640) are potential candidates for future testing. Finally, the frequency of dipolar simple anomalies is relatively low in the far eastern block of the sur-vey area, mirroring the lower frequency of monopolar anomalies in this area. This fact further confirms our suspicions that activities along the eastern edge of the site were less intensive.

Dipolar Complex Anomalies

Dipolar complex anomalies differ from the simple di-polar anomalies only in the fact that the individual di-poles are smaller in size and are loosely scattered over a specific area. Similar anomalies have been noted during past surveys at the fur-trade site of Kethtippecanunk (Strezewski et al. 2006, 2007; Strezewski and Mc-Cullough 2010). Again, smaller dipolar anomalies such as these are thought to be an indicator of historic-period activity, and are likely due to the presence of smaller pieces of ferrous debris such as nails, hinges, buckles, and iron scrap. In 2009, four areas were identified con-taining higher frequencies of these small dipoles. The four areas were located: 1) immediately north of the fort proper, 2) about 30 m east of the fort, 3) near the southwest corner of the fort, and 4) near the northwest corner of the 2009 survey area (Figure 3.11).

The first of the four, adjacent to and running along the north edge of the fort, may represent a historic

period activity area. It is possible that this is the fort entrance, though one would expect that the entrance would more likely lie in the south side of the fort, closer to the river. Though there is no mention of an apparent entrance to the fort in Noble’s (1983) dissertation, there is no detailed discussion of the features in this publica-tion if such an entrance had been encountered. If this were, in fact, the entrance to the fort, the area would have seen a great deal of foot traffic and other fort-relat-ed activities. The increased activity in this area would likely have resulted in the deposition of small pieces of ferrous metal and other debris. Also within this area are structural anomalies 9 through 12. The many small ferrous metal fragments in this area may also be due, in part, to the occupation of these structures.

The second anomaly of this type was noted approx-imately 30 m east of the fort, within an area of larger dipolar anomalies. No structural anomalies were noted within its limits. Jones (1984:45) mentions a “possible aboriginal village area on the east side” of the fort, on which he noted “some rough oval areas of stone” as well as numerous eighteenth century artifacts. While Jones does not identify the exact location of this artifact concentration, the correspondence between our anom-aly and Jones’ descriptions suggests that they may be one in the same. Quite a few monopolar positive anom-alies were identified within this area as well, suggesting that at least some of these may be related to the historic period component at the site.

The third dipolar complex anomaly is located near the southwest corner of the projected fort outline, in and around structural anomalies 1 and 2. Jones (1984:42) noted what he termed a “military activity area” in this area, based on the nature of the artifacts found during his surface survey of 12-T-9. These included musket balls, a brass sideplate from a Type C trade gun (Ham-ilton 1980:29-33), gunflints, and other assorted historic debris. While it is unclear whether this was a “military activity area” per-se, it is clear that this area contains a notable amount of ferrous debris suggesting a more substantial historic occupation. The two possible rect-angular structures noted in this area may be related to operations at the fort or may be traders” structures that post-date the fort. Relatively few larger ferrous metal fragments (i.e., simple dipoles) are found in this area, though the significance of this fact is uncertain.

The fourth dipolar complex anomaly identified in 2009 is located approximately 40 m northwest of the fort, in grids N1020, E680 and N1040, E680, which lies near the eastern edge of the modern treeline. No

56

Figu

re 3

.11

Dip

olar

com

plex

ano

mal

ies f

rom

12-

T-9

(wes

tern

por

tion)

.

57

Figu

re 3

.11

cont

inue

d D

ipol

ar co

mpl

ex a

nom

alie

s fro

m 1

2-T-

9 (c

entr

al p

ortio

n).

58

Figu

re 3

.11

cont

inue

d D

ipol

ar co

mpl

ex a

nom

alie

s fro

m 1

2-T-

9 (e

aste

rn p

ortio

n).

59

structures or monopolar anomalies were identified in this area. However, this dipolar complex anomaly is located immediately south of a number of very large monopolar positive anomalies and west of two possible structures (numbers 7 and 8). The spatial separation of these three anomaly classes is particularly clear in this area of the site, suggesting that different activities were taking place in these separate areas. Jones (1984:45) noted evidence for an historic aboriginal component west of the fort during his surface survey. However, it is unclear whether this area of our survey corresponds to the village area described by Jones. During the 2012/2013 magnetometry survey an ad-ditional six complex dipolar anomalies were identified. The first of these was found along the northern edge of the survey area, in grid N1060, E660. The anomaly is located at the southern terminus of a modern farm lane and may be due to the relatively recent deposition of garbage in this area rather than part of the archeological occupation of 12-T-9. This is the only complex dipolar anomaly identified in the western portion of the survey area. The second anomaly (Figure 3.12) covers an area of approximately 40 by 20 meters and is centered on coordinates N960, E940. The anomaly appears as a dis-crete cluster of high and low magnetometry readings and does not appear to be a concentration of ferrous metal (i.e., most of the positives and negatives are not paired). The areas of high and low readings are < 2.0 m in diameter over most of east and central portion of the anomaly, and most readings lie between -10 and 10 nT. Areas of larger-sized highs and lows are found along the western edge of the anomaly (i.e., west of N960, E940). Readings in this area are slightly higher, lying between -20 and 20 nT. Though no discrete structures or walls could be discerned from the magnetometry data, this area seems represent a concentration of cultural activity and is one of the most promising candidates for future investigations at 12-T-9. The third dipolar complex identified during the cur-rent project lies at coordinates N962, E914 and is ap-proximately 5 by 2 meters in size. It consists of a dis-crete cluster of highs and lows, forming an oval-shaped anomaly and lying directly west of the well-defined anomaly discussed previously. Magnetic readings with-in this anomaly are relatively high, lying between -50 and 50 nT, a fact which suggests that is may be due to a concentration of ferrous metal. Two other smaller-sized complex dipolar anoma-lies lie along the southern edge of the survey area. The

first is found between E970 and E1002 and consists of a relatively discrete area of highs and lows that do not appear to be due to ferrous metal. Most of the read-ings in this area lie between -10 and 10 nT, with a few areas between -20 and 20 nT. The other complex dipo-lar anomaly is found at coordinates N920, E1020 and consists of a small area of high and low readings lying between -5 and 5 nT. The final complex dipolar anomaly identified dur-ing the current fieldwork is located on the extreme east-ern portion of the survey area, lying south of N970 and between the E1070 and E1120 lines. This anomaly ap-pears to be different from most of the other complex dipolar anomalies identified in 2013 as it consists of nu-merous small discrete dipoles spread over a relatively wide area. As such, it would appear that this anomaly represents many smaller pieces of ferrous metal. The presence of these small dipoles suggests that the most intensive occupation of this eastern area may be found south of the N970 line.

disCussion, 12-t-9

The most notable anomalies identified during the 12-T-9 magnetometry survey are the structures north and west of the fort, which were initially identified in 2009. Given the data provided by our magnetometry investi-gations, it is clear that, 1) MSU’s Feature 51/136 was the remains of a circular aboriginal structure, 2) there are many other similar features in the vicinity of the fort, and 3) the structural features most likely post-date 1740. Addressing the last point, it seems most unlikely that Native American occupation would have been al-lowed immediately adjacent to the fort, especially dur-ing its use as a military outpost. Given the defensive function of the fort (at least in part), the immediate perimeter would have likely been kept clear of trees or structures (i.e., anything that could have been used as cover in the event of an attack). Consequently, it is most reasonable to assume that the structures post-date the fort itself, possibly dating to the 1780s and/or early 1790s.

Overall, there seems to be relatively little corre-spondence between the location of dipolar anomalies and the presumed circular structures. In fact, many of the structures are located in areas with relatively few di-polar anomalies - basically the opposite of what would be expected. If the structural anomalies had not been identified during the magnetometry survey, these areas

60

Figure 3.12 Complex dipolar anomaly centered on N960, E940.

would likely not have otherwise been noted as possible habitation areas.

In general, it seems that most of the western survey area (i.e., west of E640) is relatively quiet in terms of activity identifiable via the magnetometer. There is one good cluster of monopolar positive anomalies north-west of N1040, E460, but otherwise, the majority of the anomalies in this portion of the survey area are of the large dipolar simple variety, which may or may not be of archeological interest.

In contrast, the area east of Fort Ouiatenon pres-ents evidence for a much more intensive occupation. In particular, there are a number of complex dipolar anomalies found between E800 and E1020, many of which are good candidates for aboriginal occupation. This coupled with the presence of many monopolar positive anomalies, indicates a high probability for en-countering evidence of Native American occupation in this area. The monopolar complex anomaly centered on N960, E940 is felt to be particularly promising, and any

61

future excavators outside the fort may wish to further explore this area.

In general, the far eastern segment of the survey area (i.e., east of E1070) is relatively quiet over most of the grids, the main exception being the southern portion of the survey, in which numerous small dipolar simple anomalies were scattered over a wide area. This portion of the far eastern segment is felt to be the most likely candidate for intact subsurface remains.

Finally, it was noted that, in general, the anomalies along on the northern edge of the survey area (north of N1050) were much more diffuse than those south of this point. It was felt that this may be a sign that the cul-tural remains are more deeply buried along the northern edge of the property, possibly as a result of the repeated flooding that has been known to occur, from the his-toric period to the present. The results of the 2013 ex-cavations (see Chapter 4) confirmed these suspicions; Feature 4, which was located at N1052, E708 and par-tially excavated, was identified beneath about 75 cm of nearly sterile overburden.

Although the goal of the current survey was not the fort itself, it is clear from our 2009 survey that the inte-rior of the fort perimeter contains large concentrations of anomalies. Most of these are dipolar simple, likely due to the presence of large quantities of ferrous metal within the fort. The disadvantage of these ferrous metal concentrations in terms of interpreting the magnetome-try data is that their strong signature tends to drown out, smaller and/or weaker anomalies that might be present (e.g., structural remains and palisade walls). There are, however, a few anomalies that are of particular interest.

One of these is a square monopolar positive anom-aly located near the western wall of the earlier fort, centered on the coordinates N969, E752.5. It measures about 4.0 x 4.0 m and has a halo of negative readings around most of the perimeter. Magnetometry readings running east-west through the center of the anomaly indicate that it reaches a maximum of about 43 nT in the center, with slightly negative readings (ca. -10 nT) along the edges (see Figure 3.4). Given these relatively high positive readings, this anomaly may be a burned structure, possibly semisubterranean. This anomaly lies directly north of a trapezoidal area excavated by ama-teurs in the early 1970s (von Frese and Noble 1984:47)5. 5 It should be noted that the excavation summary maps presented by von Frese and Noble (1984:47), Tordoff (1983:147), and Martin (1986:222) differ in terms of the number of excavation units, their placement, and their dimensions. Some of the differ-ences are considerable. One goal in any future investigations at the site should be to reconcile these maps with the excavation notes

A second, slightly smaller square anomaly was iden-tified at coordinates N980, E786.5. This anomaly was also monopolar positive. Its small size, however, (3.0 x 3.0 m) suggests that it may not be structural. Read-ings within the anomaly were relatively low, reaching no more than about 10 nT in intensity.

It can also be seen that the southern end of the fort (south of N940, more or less) seems to be less “busy” than other areas. This is likely due to scouring along the southern edge of fort, due to repeated flooding epi-sodes. Excavators remarked that the fort’s preservation was poor in this area (Noble 1979:6) and it is likely that subsurface remains have been negatively impacted.

results, 12-t-335

In 2009 a total of 17 whole or partial grids was collected at 12-T-335, comprising an area of approximately 0.67 hectares (1.66 acres). The 2009 grids were collected on the eastern side of the site (i.e., east of the farm lane). Most of this area lies within the portion of the site that is in grass and uncultivated. This total was supplemented by an additional eight grids collected in 2012. The 2012 grids were on the western portion of the site, west of the north-south farm lane. Following the completion of the 2012 survey, the total area of 12-T-335 covered by magnetometry amounts to 0.99 hectares (2.45 acres). The results of the 2009 and 2012 magnetometry surveys of 12-T-335 are shown in Figure 3.13. All anomalies were outlined and classified according to the typological methods used at 12-T-9. The locations of all identified anomalies are shown in Figures 3.14 through 3.16. The location of the grid in relation to the local topography is shown in Figure 3.17.

Monopolar Positive Anomalies

One feature seen at 12-T-335 that was not noted at 12-T-9 was the presence of a number of very large, linear, monopolar anomalies. Most ran in a general northeast-southwest direction and a few exhibited right angles (i.e., with an “arm” headed toward the southeast). One example of this type is the large anomaly in squares N1175, E1110 and N1175, E1130, while a second is found in the southern half of square N1155, E1070. A superficial reading of the data might suggest that these represent the remains of large structures of some sort. However, there are a few arguments against this inter-and field maps.

62

Figu

re 3

.13

Resu

lts o

f mag

neto

met

ry su

rvey

at si

te 1

2-T-

335,

200

9 an

d 20

12.

63

Figu

re 3

.14

Mon

opol

ar p

ositi

ve a

nom

alie

s ide

ntifi

ed at

12-

T-33

5.

64

Figu

re 3

.15

Dip

olar

sim

ple

anom

alie

s ide

ntifi

ed at

12-

T-33

5.

65

Figu

re 3

.16

Dip

olar

com

plex

ano

mal

ies i

dent

ified

at 1

2-T-

335.

66

pretation. Though the anomalies are low in intensity (<10 nT), they are irregular in width, which would not be expected with a human-made trench, regardless of its function. Second, they are much too wide (ca. 3 to 4 m in width) to be wall or stockade trenches. Finally, if they were wall trenches, the structure in question would be much larger (up to 20 m in length) than expected for a Native American site of this time period. Given these arguments, it is most likely that these linear anomalies are geological in nature, representing the deposition of materials related to alluvial activity.

A number of very large, circular-to-oval monopolar anomalies were also identified in the survey (e.g., in the north half of square N1135, E1090 and in the southwest corner of N1175, E1070). Like the linear anomalies, discussed above, these monopoles were also of rela-tively weak strength (<10 nT). However, their origin is not immediately apparent. Most are on the order of 3 to 5 m in diameter, which would be very large for most human-made features. On the other hand, the boundar-ies of the features are relatively discrete, which would be less likely if they were natural. One possibility is that these may be the remains of small semi-subterra-nean structures that were filled in with organic trash or topsoil, though this interpretation is far from certain.

Numerous smaller, circular monopolar anomalies were scattered throughout the survey area, with rela-tively few noted in the western portion of the survey. These may be cultural in origin - whether prehistoric or historic, however, we do not know. Interestingly, these smaller monopoles are infrequent at the top of the ridge (i.e., the highest elevation in the survey area), in the area running from squares N1155, E1050 to N1155, E1090. This suggests that some of the anomalies may not be cultural in origin but ground truthing would be needed to test this supposition. Overall, while some of the monopolar positive anomalies noted in the survey may be the result of prehistoric and/or historic occupa-tion of site 12-T-335, there is no means to confirm this possibility without some type of subsurface testing.

Dipolar Simple Anomalies

Dipolar simple anomalies were identified across the survey area. Though it is impossible to distinguish eighteenth century metal from that deposited more re-cently, the distribution of dipolar anomalies suggests a few patterns. First, one cluster of dipolar anomalies was noted at the eastern edge of the survey area, to the east of the site’s boundaries, as defined by Jones (1984).

A second, denser cluster was observed on the west-ern edge. This cluster, described in the next section, is thought to be relatively recent in origin. Two large di-polar anomalies are of the most interest: one located in the southeast corner of square N1155, E1070, the other in the northeast corner of square N1155, E1130. Both are bull’s-eye-shaped anomalies, with a magnetically positive center surrounded by negative readings. The maximum nanotesla reading for the western anomaly is about 100 nT, while that of the eastern anomaly is on the order of 2,400 nT. There are a number of phenom-ena that could account for these anomalies. Both could be the remnants of a ferrous object stuck vertically into the ground (e.g., a broken-off iron fence post). This sug-gestion is more likely for the eastern anomaly, given its large magnetic signature. Another possibility is that the anomalies represent an intensely burned feature, such as an earth oven or large hearth. The western bull’s-eye anomaly, which is about 100 nT in intensity, is the more likely candidate for this possibility. A number of smaller-sized bull’s-eye anomalies were noted in square N1135, E1090. These may also be hearths or roasting pits. As was the case with the monopolar anomalies, the highest elevations of the survey area had the fewest overall frequency of dipolar anomalies, suggesting that this area might have been kept intentionally clean.

Dipolar Complex Anomalies Two areas of the survey area contained large clusters of very strong dipolar anomalies. Both were located along the western edge of the survey area, directly adjacent to the north-south farm lane bisecting site 12-T-335. It seems most likely that these clusters do not represent eighteenth century activities and are, rather, related to relatively recent garbage deposition. Ground truthing would be necessary to confirm this suspicion.

disCussion, 12-t-335

Overall, it seems, given the results of the survey, that ground truthing would likely indicate the presence of intact cultural deposits at site 12-T-335. Of the numer-ous low-intensity and well-defined monopolar posi-tive anomalies at the site, many are likely candidates for intact archeological features. Though the survey identified numerous large, linear monopolar anomalies that superficially resemble structural remains, these are thought to be geological in origin.

67

The fact that the eastern portion of the site has not been plowed in recent memory has undoubtedly aid-ed in the preservation of subsurface remains. This is particularly relevant given the sandy soils present on 12-T-335 and their susceptibility to erosion. Notably, the eastern portion of 12-T-335 (planted in grass) is ap-proximately 1.0 m or so higher in elevation than the western portion, which is planted annually. This serves as a stark reminder of the ongoing erosion at this site and others in the Ouiatenon vicinity.

The survey of 12-T-335 suggests that the site is naturally much more magnetically “busy” than 12-T-9, a fact which makes pinpointing cultural activity more difficult. This is compounded by the known presence

of multiple prehistoric components on the ridge (Jones 1984).

Interestingly, the highest elevations within the sur-vey area were the most magnetically “quiet,” both in terms of monopolar positive and dipolar simple anoma-lies. This is exactly the opposite of what would be ex-pected, since those areas of highest elevation would be the most favorable for habitation, given the known susceptibility of the immediate area to spring/winter flooding. Though this pattern is difficult to account for, it is possible that this area may be quiet due to the fact that it was intentionally kept clear of structures and/or habitation debris.

68

Chapter 4exCavations at 12-t-9

Investigations at 12-T-9 took place in conjunction with the 2013 University of Southern Indiana field school, supervised by Dr. Michael Strezewski, Associate Pro-fessor of Anthropology. Work was conducted between May 20th and June 14th, 2013. Seven students partici-pated the 2013 field school: Whitney Brown, Cory Heck, Eli Jay, Lauren Owens-Cobb, Korine Poindex-ter, James Saberniak, and Cecilia Szmutko. Supervi-sors at the site were Dr. Robert McCullough and Scott Hipskind (McCullough Archaeological Services), and Kelsey Noack Myers (Indiana University). Excavations at 12-T-9 were undertaken to ground truth the results of the 2009 and 2013 magnetometry surveys and, in particular, to identify/document the presence of intact features related to the Native American occupation of the Fort Ouiatenon vicinity. Prior to excavations, the MSU site datum was reacquired so that the grid used for our fieldwork could be matched up with that from the 1970s1.

exCavation areas and Methods

A total of 32 individual 1.0 x 1.0 m units were opened up in 2013 (Figure 4.1). Units were located in two ar-eas, both of which were spots where magnetic anoma-lies had been identified. General excavation procedures were as follows: each 1.0 x 1.0 m unit was excavated as a separate provenience unit. As a rule, plowzone soils were removed by hand and were not screened, though any notable artifacts encountered were retained. All below-plowzone contexts were put through either 1/4” or window screen. Unit excavations were conducted using both natural and arbitrary levels, depending on the goals and circumstances of the excavation. Excava-tion level forms were filled out during the excavation of each level. Each form includes information about sedi-ment texture, color, disturbance, and inclusions, as well as other observations. Treatment of subsoil anomalies (features, postholes, and potential features/postholes) varied depending on the size, characteristics, and depth of the anomaly in question. Standard excavation pro-cedures (cross-sectioning, profiling, drawing, and pho-tographing) were employed to investigate anomalies 1 See Chapter 2 for information on datum locations.

that seemed to be of cultural origin. As a rule, all un-modified pebbles and land snails were discarded in the field. All other materials were retained for washing and cataloging. Both excavation trenches were completely backfilled at the end of the excavations and the original surface contours were restored.

Trench 1

The southern excavation area, termed Trench 1, con-sisted of 30 1.0 x 1.0 m units forming a contiguous 5.0 x 6.0 m block (Figure 4.2). The southwest corner of Trench 1 was located at coordinates N982, E715. Verti-cal control was maintained using a rotating laser level, placed approximately 1.0 m west of Unit F. The eleva-tion of the Trench 1 datum was 100.05 m at the ground surface. The elevation of the laser level (i.e., 0 cmbd) was 100.41 m. The Trench 1 area was chosen for excavation due to the presence of a large donut-shaped monopolar mag-netic anomaly, which was thought to be a structure (see Figure 4.3). Initial exploration of the area consisted of a 1.0 x 5.0 m north-south trench comprising units A through E. It was found that the plowzone in this area of the site extended to a depth of 25 to 30 cm below surface. After the feature was positively identified, the trench was expanded to encompass the entire southeast quadrant of the structure. Initially, we decided to use dry window screening on every other unit in the block, in order to recover very small items such as beads and microfauna (see Appendix A). However, after a period of time, this strategy was abandoned due to 1) the gen-eral absence of cultural material in the structure (other than charcoal), and 2) the fact that the window screen-ing was moving very slowly. It was felt that more would be gained by the complete excavation of the features in the trench, rather than taking a large amount of time to continue the use of window screening with little net benefit. Due to the very large amounts of charcoal en-countered during the Trench 1 excavation, only pieces larger than ~2.0 cm in size were retained. A number of flotation samples were taken from the structure in or-der to sample smaller-sized flora and fauna. All features and postholes identified in Trench 1 were completely

69

Figure 4.1. Location of 2013 excavation units in relation to Fort Ouiatenon and the structural anomalies identi-fied in 2009.

excavated. Trench 2

The second excavation area consisted of two 1.0 x 1.0 m units near the northwest corner of the TCHA-owned property. The units were placed in this spot in order to investigate a very large monopolar anomaly that was identified during the 2009 IPFW/USI magnetometry survey of 12-T-9 (Strezewski and McCullough 2010) (Figure 4.4). Initial plans were open up a larger area over the anomaly (hence the name “Trench” 2) but af-ter very little cultural material was encountered, these

plans were scaled back. Vertical control for Trench 2 was maintained using a stake and line level. The stake was located approximately 75 cm west of Unit C’s southwest corner. The ground elevation at that point was 98.876 m and the elevation of the line level was 28 cm above the surface (i.e., 99.156 m). The two units of Trench 2 were designated Units B and C, both of which were opened simultaneously2. Unit C was located at N1052, E708, while Unit B was at N1053, E709. Soil in both units was removed to a 2 As noted above, initial plans were to open up a larger block over the monopolar anomaly. However, because our excava-tion goals were scaled back in this area, Unit A of the trench was never opened up.

70

Figure 4.2. Trench 1 unit designations.

depth of about 40 cmbs without reaching the base of the plowzone. After removing a second level in Unit B, to a depth of 80 cmbd, the base of plowzone had still not been reached. A split-spoon soil probe was then placed in the southeast corner of the unit, to provide a idea of the general stratigraphy. The probe indicated that the plowzone continued to a depth of 110 cmbd, followed by a 30 cm thick zone of mottled soil. The mottled soil contained a charcoal fleck and piece of sandstone. Ster-ile sand was reached at a depth of 135 cmbd. At this point, it was decided to focus only on Unit C, due to the ca. 80 cm of overburden that covered any features that might be located in the area. Unit C was then excavated down to a final depth of 130 cmbd, ex-posing a portion of Feature 4 (described below).

Features

A total of seven features were numbered in the field, six of which were cultural in origin. All are described below.

Feature 1 (Linear wall trench)

Feature 1 was an isolated linear wall trench, running roughly north-south, close to the eastern edge of the large excavation block. The feature was first identified at 75 cmbd and ranged from 25 to 40 cm wide at this point. In the 75 cmbd planview map (Figure 4.5), Fea-ture 1 clearly superimposed the dense charcoal zone di-rectly outside the Feature 2 wall trench, indicating that it was constructed after the destruction of the circular

71

Figure 4.3. Location of Trench 1 units, relative to structural anomaly 4 identified in 2009.

structure. At a depth of 85 cmbd, it can be seen that Feature 1 ran within centimeters of the wall trench for the circular structure (Feature 2) but the two did not intersect (Figures 4.6 and 4.7). The central portion of Feature 1 had been impacted to some degree by rodent burrowing (Figure 4.5, zone E) but was otherwise relatively undisturbed. The south-ern portion of the feature was bisected at the point of definition (Figure 4.8). The feature extended to about 50 cm below the point of definition (i.e., ca. 85-90 cm be-low the current surface). Two zones of digging/infilling were identified in profile. A number of postholes were also noted along the length of the feature, the largest of

which were 15-18 cm in diameter. Postholes were ap-parent in some sections of the feature, while none were noted in other sections. In general, the posts did not ex-tend more than a few centimeters beyond the depth of the trench and there was no consistent spacing between the posts. A section of unburned wood was recovered from posthole 16 in Unit N (cat #2013.019.482). Oth-erwise, the postholes were merely dark stains that were seemingly devoid of wood charcoal, suggesting that the posts had not been fire-hardened prior to their place-ment in the trench. The function of the feature is not clear. It does not appear on the magnetometry data and so, cannot be

72

Figure 4.4. Location of Trench 2 units, relative to large monopolar positive anomaly identified in 2009.

traced out beyond the limits of the 2013 excavations. It may be part of a very large wall-trench structure, a por-tion of a palisade wall, or a fenced enclosure of some sort. The feature runs approximately 18 meters west of (and nearly parallel to) the westernmost palisade wall of Fort Ouiatenon, identified during the MSU excavations. The magnetometry data clearly show, however, that the area of greatest magnetic activity falls off abruptly west of the western MSU palisade wall, a fact which sug-gests that Feature 1 likely does not represent a previ-ously unrecognized rebuilding of Fort Ouiatenon. Sup-porting this supposition is the fact that Fort Ouiatenon’s outer palisade wall, excavated by MSU, extended to ca.

1.4 m below the surface, about 50 cm deeper than our Feature 1. There was very little present in this feature to sug-gest its function or temporal affiliation. Artifacts iden-tified in the feature fill included a few pieces of lithic debitage, 221.6 g of faunal material, numerous charcoal fragments, a white clay pipe stem, a hand-wrought nail, one cuprous metal fragment, and a fragment of lead. Though almost certainly dating to the fur-trade period occupation of the site, the fact that Feature 1 superim-posed burned materials from the structure suggests that its construction may have been very late in the eigh-teenth century.

73

Figure 4.5. Trench 1 planview map at 75 cmbd.

74

Figure 4.5. (continued).

Feature 2 (Remains of circular structure)

Feature 2 is a portion of a circular Native American structure of probable Kickapoo or Mascouten construc-tion. The structural outline was originally identified during the 2009 magnetometry survey of 12-T-9, which indicated a donut-shaped monopolar anomaly west of Fort Ouiatenon – one of many such features noted (see Chapter 3, this report and Strezewski and McCullough 2010). Based on ethnographic descriptions of Kicka-poo dwellings (e.g., Latorre and Latorre 1976; Ritzen-thaler and Peterson 1970), this anomaly was thought to be a good candidate for a structure. MSU excavated a similar circular feature in the 1970s (see discussions in chapters 3 and 6) though they did not identify it as an aboriginal structure at the time. The anomaly we chose for excavation was selected based upon its discrete magnetic signature and relatively modest size. At the base of plowzone (Figure 4.9), Feature 2 appeared as a very large and dark-colored charcoal stain, running the entire east-west length of the block,

and south to approximately N984. Charcoal fragments were up to 3 cm in length and were jumbled. The fea-ture was criss-crossed by a number of plowscars at this point. At 75 cmbd, the fea-ture became better defined, consisting of a wide, donut-shaped charcoal stain (see Figure 4.5). The stain con-tinued to the eastern edge of the block and was clearly superimposed by Feature 1. The center portion of the structure (Figure 4.5, zone I) was lighter in color, with much less charcoal present. Continuing to 85 cmbd (see Figure 4.6), the outline of the structural wall trench became clearer. The inte-rior portion of the structure (in the northwest corner of the block) was relatively sterile, indicating that the structure’s floor lay above this point. Bisection of the

Feature 2 wall trench showed that it was wide and shal-low. In the west profile wall (Figure 4.10, zone 8) the trench extended about 15 cm below the lens of charcoal that was created when the structure burned. The trench was about 50 cm wide at the point of definition. Simi-larly, in the north profile wall (Figure 4.11, zone 12), the wall trench was about 20 cm in depth and about 75 cm wide. Despite careful examination, only two structural posts were identified in the wall trench. One post extended 11 cm beyond the wall trench while the other was much deeper (38 cm below the wall trench). The general absence of posts within the Feature 2 wall trench may be due to the small size of the posts used and/or the possibility that the posts were not typically driven beyond the depth of the trench. A total of five interior posts were identified during the excavations (see Figure 4.6). Most notable was a cluster of three postholes found in Unit K. All three were small – no larger than 10 cm diameter – and ex-tended from 19 to 44 cm below the point of definition. This may have been the location of a support post that

75

Figure 4.6. Trench 1 planview map at 85 cmbd. Postholes within Feature 1 are infilled with white; those outside Feature 1 are infilled with black..

76


had been replaced at least twice. The cluster of three posts was noted in the center of the structure’s south-east quadrant, suggesting that corresponding posts may have been placed in the center of the other three quad-rants. Also worth noting are the 15 posts located out-side of the structure. Most were identified to the south of the Feature 2 wall trench, roughly surrounding the structure’s perimeter. The significance of this location, relative to the structure, is not certain. Overall, excavations indicate that the structure was approximately 6.2 m in maximum diameter (measured from the interior of the wall trench) and contained ap-proximately 30.2 m2 of interior space. A total of 9.5 m2 of the structure’s interior (ca. 31 percent) was ex-cavated in 2013. The charcoal fragments identified in the feature were jumbled and relatively small; no in-tact portions of the structural framework were identi-fied. Though centrally-located internal hearths are often mentioned in ethnohistoric descriptions of Kickapoo structures (see Chapter 6) we did not identify a hearth

in our excavations. Ex-trapolating from the por-tion excavated, it would ap-pear that the center of our structure was likely located somewhere near the north-west quadrant of Unit E, near the edge of the exca-vation block. It is possible that such a hearth may be yet be identified within the structure, in those areas not yet investigated. Data from the current investigations suggest that the structure was construct-ed by digging a wide and shallow trench, into which small, pliable saplings were placed. These saplings were bent over and se-cured, creating a dome-like structure, which was then covered in bark. The lowest elevation in the structure was along the wall perim-eter (e.g., Figure 4.10, zone 7a), rising slightly toward the structural interior. After its period of use ended, the

structure was cleaned out, leaving behind few artifacts, and burned. The burned remains of the structure were scattered somewhat, likely by exposure to the elements. Burned material from the structure was later disturbed by the excavation of the trench associated with Feature 1. Apart from charcoal (g=12,107.6) and faunal re-mains (g=154.1), few other artifacts were recovered from the structure. These consist of three small frag-ments of container glass, a portion of a brass kettle patch, and a single hand-wrought nail. Fire-cracked (g=205.7) and non fire-cracked (g=18.0) rock were found in small quantities. One of the pieces of non fire-cracked rock was an unmodified pipestone fragment while the remainder consisted of small limestone frag-ments.

Feature 3 (Pit feature)

Though not excavated in its entirety, Feature 3 was

77

Figure 4.7. Trench 1 excavation at 85 cmbd (view to the north).

likely a small pit feature. The feature, which was found in Trench 1, Unit DD, was partially exposed in plan-view at 75 cmbd, in the southeast corner of the large excavation block (Figure 4.5). In planview, Feature 3 was difficult to distinguish from the surrounding sub-soil, apart from the presence of a large piece of FCR, a few charcoal flecks, and slightly mottled soil. The portion of the feature in Unit DD was removed, revealing a profile in the south wall of the block. The feature fill consisted of mottled soil with charcoal fleck-ing. In profile (Figure 4.12), Feature 3 appeared to be a bowl-shaped pit. It extended to a depth of about 45 cm below the point of definition and was virtually devoid of artifacts, apart from the fire-cracked cobble, 0.1 g of faunal material, and 6.7 g of charcoal. The function of the pit is uncertain.

Feature 4 (Pit feature)

Feature 4 was the only feature identified in the northern part of the excavation (i.e., Trench 2). Due to the thick overburden in the area and the general lack of artifacts, Feature 4 was partially excavated, documented, and

backfilled. The feature was initially encountered at 104 cmbd and consisted of sandy loam with scattered char-coal flecking and a moderate density of fire-cracked rock (Figure 4.13). In profile (Figure 4.14), two zones of overburden were noted. The topmost stratum consisted of an ac-cretional plowzone that extended about 35 cm below the surface. This was followed by a stratum of alluvium which extended to a depth of 70 to 85 cm below sur-face. Both upper strata were virtually devoid of arti-facts. Though not completely exposed nor excavated, Feature 4 appears to be a wide but relatively shallow feature, ca. 35-40 cm in depth. Its maximum extents are not known. In the eighteenth century, it is likely that the immediate area lay at a considerably lower el-evation than Fort Ouiatenon and the large structure we excavated. The surface just east of Ft. Ouiatenon (i.e., the MSU datum), for example, lies at 100.00 m and the surface just east of the structure is at 100.05 m. The top of Feature 4, in contrast, lies at 97.836 m. Other than fire-cracked rock (g=1,249.5), very few artifacts were recovered from Feature 4. These consist-ed of 1.3 g of charcoal and one fragment of lithic deb-

78

Figure 4.8. Bisect of Feature 1, southern portion.

itage (g=0.5). Due to the paucity of artifacts, the func-tion and cultural affiliation of the feature are uncertain. The presence of fire-cracked rock within the feature suggests that it may have been related to food process-ing, though the absence of burned soil suggests that the burning was not in situ.

Feature 5 (Infilled rodent burrow [not pictured])

This feature was identified following the removal of the Feature 2 wall trench in Unit S. It appeared as a darker-colored linear stain, lying underneath the struc-tural wall trench. It was initially thought to be a cultural feature though after excavation, it became clear that “Feature 5” was a naturally-infilled rodent burrow. It is

most likely related to other rodent disturbances noted in this general area. The presence of a cigarette butt in the “feature’s” fill confirms the recent nature of the distur-bance. A small amount of faunal material, charcoal, and FCR were recovered from the fill, along with a white clay pipe stem and a small, unmodified fragment of pipestone.

Feature 6 (Rodent-damaged feature remnant)

Feature 6 was a small intact portion of a feature located in Unit T, an area that was heavily damaged by rodent activity. The feature was originally mapped in planview at 85 cmbd (Figure 4.6, zone H) but was thought to be part of the extensive disturbance noted in the immediate

79

Figure 4.9. Trench 1 at the base of plowzone.

80


area. After removal of a number of obvious rodent dis-turbances, an intact-looking charcoal-stained remnant was identified at 100 cmbd (Figure 4.15). Although somewhat linear in planview, the small portion of the feature still remaining prevents us from saying much about its original shape. In profile (Figure 4.16), the feature was bowl shaped and extended a maximum of 8 cm beyond the point of definition. The feature, how-ever, was obviously truncated by rodent activity and no doubt was likely originally at least 20 cm deeper. Aside from charcoal fragments (g=52.9) the fea-ture was completely devoid of any other cultural mate-rial. The presence of large pieces of charcoal suggests

that Feature 6 may have been open when the structure burned. Alternatively, charcoal in the feature may be related to its use, possibly as a smudge pit, though charred corncobs (the defining feature of a smudge pit) were absent (see Wagner 2011:98).

Feature 7 (Possible wall trench segment)

This feature was originally identified at 80 cmbd, midway through level 3 of Unit N. At that point, it appeared to be an oval zone containing very large charcoal fragments up to 6 cm in size. The zone was taken down to 85 cmbd and mapped as part of the entire block (Figure 4.6, zone I). At this level, the feature had narrowed, and appeared to be a short linear feature that had been truncated by the Feature 1 wall trench. At 85 cmbd, the

main characteristic distinguishing it from the surround-ing subsoil was the presence of small-to-large frag-ments of charcoal, ranging from 1 to 3 cm in size. The feature was bisected along its long axis (Figure 4.17). In profile, Feature 7 was quite shallow, extending only an additional 5-7 cm beyond the point at which it was mapped. The profile map clearly showed that Feature 7 was superimposed by the Feature 1 wall trench. Aside from charcoal (g=31.0), no other cultural material was found in Feature 7. Though interpretive information on this feature is sparse, Feature 7 may be somehow re-lated to the larger adjacent structure, possibly a short wall trench at or near the structure’s entrance.

81

Figu

re 4

.10.

Tre

nch

1, w

est p

rofil

e w

all.

82

Figu

re 4

.11.

Tre

nch

1, n

orth

pro

file

wal

l.

83

Figure 4.12. Feature 3 profile.

84

Figure 4.13. Trench 2, Feature 4 planview.

85

Figure 4.14. Trench 2, Feature 4 profile.

86

Figure 4.15. Feature 6 planview.

87



88

Figure 5.1. Historic ceramics recovered from 12-T-9 (L to R: 2013.019.159, -183, -97, -86, and -528).

Chapter 5Materials reCovered

Artifacts were recovered from three sites in the Fort Ouiatenon vicinity. The vast majority of materials originated from our excavations at 12-T-9, with a small amount of material recovered from surface contexts on the far eastern portion of the site (i.e., east of the north-south farm lane that runs along the eastern edge of the TCHA property). A small number of artifacts, however, were recovered from two other sites, 12-T-25 and 12-T-335. Materials from each of the three sites are described separately. A catalog of the recovered materials is pre-sented in Appendix C.

historiC artifaCts froM 12-t-9

Ceramics

Relatively few ceramic artifacts were found on site 12-T-9. All are likely associated with the eighteenth cen-tury occupation of the area and are described below.

Earthenware (n=5, g=5.9) Only five fragments of his-toric ceramic earthenware vessels were recovered. All were relatively small in size (Figure 5.1). These fragments consist of one piece each of creamware (2013.019.159), tin-glazed earthenware (2013.019.183), clear lead-glazed redware (2013.019.97), whiteware

(2013.019.86), and English salt-glazed stoneware (2013.019.528). Given that whiteware dates to the post-1820 period, this is the only fragment that may not be associated with the Fort Ouiatenon era. The whiteware sherd, however, is very small and its identification is equivocal. Four of the five sherds are undecorated body sherds and are otherwise non-diagnostic. The only decorated piece is a scratch blue English salt-glazed sherd, which is part of a saucer base. Scratch blue designs were made by incising thin geometric lines into the unfired body of a vessel, which were infilled with cobalt blue paint. Scratch blue ceramics generally date to ca. 1744-1775 (Noël Hume 1969:117-118). Previous excavations within the fort suggest that scratch blue ceramics are relatively uncommon at Ouiatenon, with a total of only 24 sherds recovered from the MSU excavations (Noble 1983:148; Tordoff 1983:265-266). The scratch blue sherd was found on the surface, on the far eastern por-tion of the site, while the remaining pieces were recov-ered from excavated contexts in Trench 1.

Pipe fragments (n=12, g=12.3) Twelve pipe fragments were recovered from 12-T-9, all of which were of the white clay variety (Figure 5.2). All the fragments are pieces of pipe stems. All, except one, were found in ex-cavated contexts within Trench 1. They do not seem to

89

Figure 5.2. White clay pipestems from 12-T-9 (L to R: 2013.019.110, -202a, -202b, and -535).

have been concentrated in any one particular area of the trench, however. The only fragment not from excavated contexts was found on the surface, on the far eastern portion of the site.

Glass

Container glass (n=38, g=186.0) Although 38 frag-ments of container glass were recovered from the ex-cavations, at least 22 of these (g=142.3) have various attributes which suggest that they do not date to the eighteenth century occupation of the site. It is likely that most of these more recent fragments were brought to the site during one of the many flooding episodes over the past 150 or more years. Confirming this sus-picion is the fact that the vast majority of the modern container glass fragments were found in the first levels of their respective units. The remaining 16 fragments (g=43.7) (Figure 5.3) are likely associated with the eighteenth century com-ponent at 12-T-9. All were recovered from the Trench 1 units. Ironically, and for unknown reasons, it appears that most were found in units outside of the structure. Only two pieces were found within feature contexts. These consist of a single fragment from level 4 of Unit B and another piece from the west half of Feature 1

in units U and Y. All of the container glass fragments are body fragments, with the exception of a single piece (2013.019.252) that may be the neck of a wine bottle. Four of the fragments were aqua in color, nine were clear, while the remaining three were too heavily patinated to distinguish the original glass color. Oddly enough, blue-green and olive glass, the two most com-mon container glass fragments at Fort Ouiatenon, were not positively identified in our excavations (Noble 1983:184-185). Some of the very heavily patinated fragments that we recovered, however, may have been originally been olive or blue-green in color.

Beads (n=2, g=0.1) Beads were distributed to Native Americans in very large quantities and therefore are often identified at fur-trade era sites. Two-hundred pounds of beads, for example were given to the Wea in May 1747, to encourage their warriors to attack “to encourage the young warriors during the absence of their chiefs who went to Montreal to see their father” (Krauskopf 1955:202). Only two very small glass beads were identified dur-ing our excavations (despite the use of window screen in many of the units). Both beads are plain and white in color and were found in level 2 of Unit Y, above Feature 1 (Figure 5.4). The first (2013.019.243a) is a cylindrical

90

Figure 5.3. Container glass fragments from 12-T-9 (L to R: 2013.019.252, -253, and -378).

Figure 5.4. Beads from 12-T-9 (L to R: 2013.019.243a, 243b, and -494).

imitation drawn wampum bead measuring 3.6 mm in length and 3.2 mm in width. Drawn beads were made by pulling a molten glass blob into a long, hollow tube, which was subsequently cut or broken into short lengths (Berkson 1992:143). Similar imitation wampum beads were recovered from excavations at Kethtippecanunk (12-T-59) (Strezewski et al. 2007:152; Strezewski and McCullough 2010:228).

The second bead (2013.019.243b) is a tiny “seed bead,” 2.0 mm in diameter, which looks like a sphere flattened on both sides. Seed beads were primarily used in ornamental beadwork (Armour 1977). Both imita-tion wampum and small seed beads are indicative of the Late Historic period (i.e., 1760-1820) (Quimby 1966:87-88).

91

Flat glass (n=24, g=12.9) A small number of flat glass fragments were recovered from the 2013 excavations. A single fragment originated from Trench 2, with the remainder coming from the Trench 1 block. Four of the flat glass fragments appear to be modern window glass, leaving 20 pieces that are likely attributable to the eigh-teenth century component. Thirteen of these are aqua-colored, five are clear, and one is olive-colored. At least a portion of the eighteenth century flat glass likely originated from window panes. Given, howev-er, that it is highly unlikely that the excavated Native American structure had windows, most of the flat glass fragments are either, 1) window pane fragments, likely from fort-related structures, that found their way out-side the fort or 2) flat pieces of glass that were from something other than a window pane. It is likely that at least three flat glass fragments fit into the latter category. Two are atypical colors for window glass (i.e., olive and clear but opaque). The third fragment (2013.019.212) is a fragment of a mirror recovered from level 2 of Unit O. Its identification as a mirror was due to the presence of reflective material on one side of the fragment. Flat glass was made using a number of different methods, all of which carry some diagnostic utility. The fragments from our excavations, however, were much too small to allow identification of manufacturing tech-nique.

Unidentified glass (n=3, g=18.2) Three glass fragments were unidentifiable. All were found in the Trench 1 ex-cavations. One piece was clear-colored, while the color

of the other two fragments was unidentifiable. Two of the unidentifiable pieces were melted blobs of glass, possibly as a result of the structure’s burning.

Metal

Cuprous (n=4, g=6.9) Four fragments of copper/brass were identified (Figure 5.5). All were found in sub-plowzone contexts within Trench 1. One (2013.019.52) is a tube-like fragment of copper measuring 5.4 cm in length. It may have been originated from the rim of a copper kettle, though it is too damaged/bent to be cer-tain. It was found in level 2 of Unit B. A second frag-ment, this found in level 3 of Unit S (2013.019.392), is a small triangular section of a kettle patch. The fragment shows evidence of having been scored and snapped on two sides. A single copper rivet is pres-ent along the fragment’s edge. The final two fragments (2013.019.280 and -487) are small unidentified pieces of copper/brass. One was located in Unit DD, while the second was found in Feature 1.

Ferrous (n=29, g=110.6) Of the ferrous metal frag-ments, nearly half (n=14, g=58.1) were nails or frag-ments thereof. All of the nails were found within Trench 1 contexts. All of the remaining nails are hand-wrought and consistent with the eighteenth century occupa-tion of Ouiatenon (Nelson 1968; Wells 1998). Of the hand-wrought nails, eight were flat-headed, three had rose-heads, while the remaining three were unidentifi-able. The presence of nails in and around the structure

Figure 5.5. Cuprous metal fragments from 12-T-9 (L to R: 2013.019.52, -392, -280, and -487).

92

suggests their possible use in its construction, though it should be pointed out that over half of the nails were found in the plowzone levels of their respective units and therefore cannot be directly associated with the use period of the structure. Other ferrous metal artifacts consist of four modern screw-top lid fragments, a washer (all within the plow-zone of their respective units), and what appears to be a spear tip (2013.019.197), found in level 1 of Unit K (Figure 5.6). Though found in the plowzone, this arti-fact is consistent with the eighteenth century occupa-tion of 12-T-9. The spear tip measures 15.1 cm in length and was made from an iron rod that was hammered into a point that is triangular in cross-section. The opposite end of the artifact was hammered flat, with a slot on each side, both of which run parallel to the long axis. The purpose of these slots is unknown. One possibility is that they were used as a means to attach the spear point to a wooden handle. The remaining nine pieces of ferrous metal were relatively small fragments of iron that were otherwise unidentifiable.

Lead (n=5, g=53.7) Five lead artifacts were recovered, all from Trench 1 contexts (Figure 5.7). Three were musket balls (2013.019.131, -178, and -46). The first two are .56 caliber, while the third is flattened and mis-shapen, probably from firing, and therefore not mea-surable. Nearly two-thirds of the musket balls from the MSU excavations lay between .54 and .58 caliber in size, indicating that the two recovered from the current excavations are typical for the site as a whole (Noble 1983:270; Tordoff 1983:322).

Also found was a small piece of lead shot (2013.019.281), 5.1 mm in diameter, found in level 2 of Unit DD. It is not perfectly round and has a dimple on one face, which suggests that it is a piece of Rupert shot, made by placing molten lead and hot coals in a brass colander. The molten drops of lead fell through the colander into a pan of water, creating small pieces of shot in the process. The means for making Rupert shot were invented in 1665. Rupert shot was the pre-dominant type of shot through roughly 1769, when it was replaced by the more spherical drop shot (Hamil-ton 1980:132). The final lead artifact is a small unidentifiable frag-ment which appears to be a piece that dripped while in the molten state. All of the lead artifacts from the current excavations were recovered from subplowzone contexts, with the exception of one of the musket balls (2013.019.131).

Silver (n=1, g=0.7) The single silver item recovered in 2013 was a small, flat, triangular ornament with a per-foration along one of the vertices (2013.019.60) (Figure 5.8). These have been referred to as “triangular dangles” other sources (Noble 1983:287; Wagner 2011:160). It measures 16 mm from apex to base. Scoring is present along the base on both sides of the artifact. Nearly identical ornaments (n=13) were recovered from the MSU excavations in the fort (Noble 1983:287). Some of these were perforated in two spots; at the apex and base. Similar silver triangles have also been identi-fied at the Kickapoo Grand Village (Berkson 1992:Fig-ure 17p), Michilimackinac (Stone 1974:138), and the Rock Island site (Mason 1986:125-126). This suggests

Figure 5.6. Ferrous metal spear tip from 12-T-9 (2013.019.197).

93

Figure 5.7. Lead musketballs and shot from 12-T-9 (L to R: 2013.019.131, -178, -46, and 281).

Figure 5.8. Silver ornament from 12-T-9 (2013.019.60).

that this ornament style was a well-accepted “type” in the Great Lakes area. Silver items were actively traded during the period 1760-1821, suggesting that the piece from our excavation post-dates the formal French occu-pation of Fort Ouiatenon (Fredrickson 1980:43). Most trade silver was made from melted down silver coins, which were rolled into thin sheets and cut out into vari-ous shapes (Gibb 1980:107).

Burned Soil

Waste clay (n=1, g=0.2) The only artifact under the cat-

egory “burned soil” is a small piece of fired clay. This amorphous piece is not part of a ceramic vessel and does not have any added temper.

Fauna

All unmodified faunal material was divided into two categories: shell and bone/antler/tooth. Due to the frag-mentary nature of many of the pieces, the faunal mate-rial was weighed but not counted. The faunal remains are currently being analyzed as part of a dissertation project on the part of Kelsey Noack-Myers of Indiana

94

University, Department of Anthropology. Preliminary analysis of materials has been completed and results in-dicate that only 229 fragments were larger than 3.0 cm in size or highly diagnostic; most remains were frag-mentary, likely due to post-depositional taphonomic factors. Only 6.1 percent of the identifiable fragments (by NISP) were burned. Species identified at the pres-ent time include, domestic dog (Canis familiaris), large and medium-sized birds, raccoon (Procyon lotor), and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). Also pres-ent are a number of elements from domestic pig (Sus scrofa). By far, the most common identified species is white-tailed deer. Notably, no fish remains have yet been identified, despite the use of flotation within a number of areas of the structure’s interior (Noack-Myers 2014).

Mussel Shell (g=72.4) A small amount of shell was identified, all of which originated from Trench 1.

Bone/antler/tooth (g=1,349.7) A total of 1,349.7 grams of bone was recovered from the excavations. The vast majority of faunal remains were from Trench 1, with only 7.6 g originating from Trench 2.

Flora (g=26,875.4)

All floral material recovered from the excavations was weighed but not counted. Given the fact that the partial-ly-excavated Native American structure was burned, it is not surprising that a very large quantity of burned material (mostly wood) was recovered. A sample of the wood remains has been sent to Darrren Rubino of Hanover College for analysis, though the results of the analysis are not yet available.

Modified Flora / Fauna

Bead (n=1, g=0.7) A single bead was found during the excavation of the Feature 2 structural wall trench in units O, S, and W. This bead (2013.019.494) is a red-dish-brown in color, spherical, and measures 8.7 mm in diameter. Concentric rings can be seen on the surface of the bead, which suggests that it may be of ivory that had been dyed a deep red color (Figure 5.9, see also Figure 5.4). The bead may be from a rosary (Lisa Ma-rie Malischke pers. comm. 2013). A total of 40 rosary beads were recovered from the MSU Fort Ouiatenon

Figure 5.9. Possible rosary bead from 12-T-9 (2013.019.494).

95

Figure 5.10. Gunflints from from 12-T-9 (L to R: 2013.019.311, -29, and -526).

excavations, all of which were made from either ivory or bone (Noble 1983:294; Tordoff 1983:238). Though the colors of the beads are not mentioned in the reports, they were most likely white.

Historic Mineral / Stone

Gunflints (n=3, g=8.7) Three gunflints were recovered from the 12-T-9 investigations (Figure 5.10). Two were found in association with the Trench 1 excavations, in non-feature contexts, while the third was found on the surface along the eastern edge of the site. In gen-eral, eighteenth century gunflints can be sourced to two countries of origin, France and Britain. English flint grades from very dark black and translucent to gray and opaque with inclusions. Black varieties were not exten-sively mined until after ca. 1790 (Kenmotsu 1990:95). French gunflints, in contrast, are typically honey-col-ored and translucent. Durst (2009), however, points out that distinguishing between the two can sometimes be quite difficult by macroscopic means alone. The two gunflints found in Trench 1 consist of a very small flake from a honey-colored French gunflint (2013.019.311) and a heavily-utilized spall gunflint (2013.019.29) of possible British origin. The French gunflint fragment retains one battered edge (due to use), indicating that it was a gunflint and not a portion of a prehistoric flaked stone tool. The color and texture of the material are also consistent with that used for French gunflints. Due to the small size of the fragment,

the method of manufacture (spall or blade) could not be determined. The British gunflint is whole but was heav-ily used, with signs of battering along all four edges. It measures 18.4 by 25.2 mm in size1. The third example, found on the surface, is a heav-ily-utilized gray-colored spall gunflint (2013.019.526), possibly of British origin, with signs of use along all intact edges. One section of this gunflint has a pebbly surface, suggesting exposure to heat. It measures 18.9 by 23.0 mm. The MSU excavations indicate that within Fort Ouiatenon proper, spall gunflints are at least five times more frequent than blade gunflints (Noble 1983:196-206; Tordoff 1983:311-319). The absence of blade gun-flints in our excavations suggests that this pattern may apply to contexts outside the fort as well. Noble and Tordoff do not discuss the relative frequency of French vs. English gunflints for the MSU excavations within Fort Ouiatenon.

Modified chert flake (n=1, g=1.7) A trianguloid, dark gray chert flake 2013.019.534) was recovered from the surface of 12-T-9. The flake, which retains cortex on one side, has numerous percussion marks around its pe-rimeter. Some of these may have been created by use as a expedient gunflint. On one side of the triangular flake, the percussion marks are such that a u-shaped indenta-1 Gunflint measurements are given according to standards used by Honerkamp and Harris (2005), among others. In this study, length refers to its axis parallel to the gun when mounted, while the width is its side-to-side measurement.

96

tion was made along the edge, suggesting that the flake had been used in conjunction with a firesteel (i.e., used in creating sparks for fire-making). This artifact may have been a prehistoric flake that was recovered and reutilized in the eighteenth century.

Cinder (n=15, g=55.4) A small number of cinders was recovered from the excavations. Only three were found in the plowzone, a fact which suggests that most are as-sociated with the eighteenth century occupation of the area.

Unmodified mudstone (pipestone) fragments (n=9, g=8.3) Three basic pipe types are known from Ouiatenon: calumet, mic-mac, and vase-shaped (No-ble 1983:299). The majority of native-made pipes at Ouiatenon were manufactured of catlinite, limestone, or mudstone. The mudstone typically used for pipes at Ouiatenon is light gray in color, typically with a patina of dark brown limonite occurring along natural breaks in the stone. Though catlinite is exotic (being found in southwestern Minnesota) it is assumed that the lime-stone and mudstone are more local in origin. Trubowitz (1992b:104) reports that mudstone would have been available within upland glacial till deposits. Though no catlinite pieces were identified in the current excavations, a number of local mudstone frag-ments were recovered. Nine of these mudstone frag-ments were found which showed no evidence of modi-fication. Most were blocky fragments. The three pieces

of mudstone that did show evidence of modification are described below under the category of “non-chipped stone tools.”

Fire-cracked rock (n=232, g=5,670.0) A total of 232 pieces of fire-cracked rock was recovered from the ex-cavations. The vast majority were various non-chert stones, with only a small minority of fire-cracked chert present (n=3, g=11.7). One hundred of the FCR pieces were from Trench 1 (g=4,373.1). The most notable piece was a fragment from a large unmodified river cobble, found at the top of Feature 3. Of the fire-cracked rock from Trench 1, 83 originated from subplowzone con-texts. These were lightly spread across the entire block and were not concentrated in any specific area. One hundred twenty-eight FCR fragments (g=1,284.2) were found in Trench 2, the vast majority of which originated from Feature 4.

Non-fire-cracked rock (n=53, g=1,636.5) Of the non-fire-cracked rocks recovered from the excavations, the vast majority (n=51) consisted of various-sized pieces of limestone. Considering the absence naturally-oc-curring rock at Ouiatenon (with the exception of very small pebbles), all of the limestone fragments had to have been brought to the site by humans, though the reason for their presence is uncertain. Forty-one of the limestone fragments from Trench 1 were from subplowzone contexts. Though very light-ly spread across the block, most of the fragments were

Figure 5.11. Modified fragments of pipestone from 12-T-9 (L to R: 2013.019.50, -59 and -136).

97

found inside or immediately outside the circular struc-ture.

Historic non-chipped stone tools

Modified mudstone (pipestone) fragments (n=3, g=27.2) Three pieces of modified mudstone (pipestone) were identified (Figure 5.11). The first (2013.019.50) con-sists of a small block-shaped piece with one worked face exhibiting striations indicative of intentional grinding. It was found in level 2 of Unit F, south of the structure. The second (2013.019.59) is a very small piece with evidence that it was drilled, grooved, and polished. It was found in Unit B, level 2 and may be a piece of a finished artifact of undetermined type. The third piece of modified pipestone (2013.019.136) is a slab-like piece with a shallow saw-mark along one edge, indicating that the piece had been broken by a groove-and-snap technique. It was found in the plow-zone of Unit R. The presence of both modified and unmodi-fied mudstone fragments (see the category “Mineral/Stone,” above) suggests that the manufacture of Native American-style pipes occurred within the village area. Similar fragments, representing finished and unfinished pieces, were also found within the fort proper. This fact suggested to Tordoff (1983:228, 231) that some Native

style pipes may have been made by Europeans to serve as trade goods. The fact that many fragments were identified near an iron forging area tended to support this possibility, though Tordoff points out that many pipe fragments were found elsewhere as well. Regard-less, our excavations suggest that at least some of the mudstone pipes were made by Native Americans.

prehistoriC artifaCts froM 12-t-9

Although the vast majority of the materials recovered from the 2013 excavations clearly dated to the fur-trade period, a small amount of prehistoric materials was recovered as well. Previous investigations by Jones (SHAARD 2013) have indicated the presence of lithic materials across most of the site. Prehistoric ceramics, however, are infrequent.

Chipped StoneA total of five prehistoric stone tools were recovered from 12-T-9 (Figure 5.12). All but one was found on the surface, at the eastern edge of the site.

Unifacial tool (n=1, g=14.2) The only unifacial stone tool recovered from 12-T-9 was a large endscraper manufactured from a cream-colored material with

Figure 5.12. Chipped stone artifacts from 12-T-9 (L to R: 2013.019.524, -533, -230, -525, and -527).

98

light gray inclusions, most closely resembling Kenneth chert. Sources of Kenneth chert are in Cass and Car-roll counties, immediately upstream from Tippecanoe County, but little is known about the periods in which it was most commonly utilized (Cantin 2008:46-47).

Unrefined biface (n=1, g=66.2) One large unrefined bi-face was recovered from 12-T-9 (2013.019.533). It was found on the surface on the eastern edge of the site, at coordinates N980, E606. The artifact consists of a large flake that was struck from a water-worn cobble and minimally worked on both sides. The material is an unidentified striated chert of a medium- to dark-gray color.

Hafted biface (n=3, g=8.4) Three hafted bifaces were recovered from 12-T-9. The first (2013.019.230) is the tip of a refined biface, possibly a Late Prehistoric arrow point. It was manufactured from an unidentified light tan-colored chert and is otherwise non-diagnostic. This artifact, which was found in the plowzone of Unit Z, is the only tool identified from excavated contexts. The second hafted biface (2013.019.525) is a nearly whole Kramer point made from an unidentified heat-treated fossiliferous chert. Stemmed Kramer points date to the Late Archaic/Early Woodland transition, ca. 500 B.C. (Justice 1987:184). The final hafted bi-face (2013.019.527) is the base of a triangular arrow-point. It was made from an unidentified light gray chert with a waxy luster. A total of 17 triangular arrow-points were recovered from 12-T-9 during the MSU excavations within the fort (Noble 1983:276; Tordoff 1983:368-369). Additional examples were reported by Jones during his surface survey of the site (SHAARD 2013). Though the triangular points recovered from 12-T-9 may be due to a Late Prehistoric occupation of the site (after A.D. 1000), we must also consider the possibility that some chipped stone tools may repre-sent the retention of stone tool manufacturing technol-ogy amongst the Kickapoo, particularly in light of their well-known conservatism. A similar presence of triangular stone projectile points in association with fur trade-era sites has been noted at two other Kickapoo sites, the Grand Village of the Kickapoo (n=13) and the Rhoads site (n=2), both of which date to the late eighteenth/early nineteenth cen-turies (Berkson 1992; Wagner 2011). These towns may have been established by Kickapoo who were fleeing the Scott-Wilkinson raid of 1791 (Berkson 1992:121) and may therefore represent the immediate descendants

of the Ouiatenon residents. Though triangular points were recovered during the investigation of these two sites, no examples of Native-made ceramics were re-covered. This suggests that although ceramic-making technology had dropped out by the late eighteenth cen-tury, lithic manufacture and use may have continued. Supporting this possibility are historic accounts from central Illinois and northwestern Indiana, which in-dicate that Native peoples continued to manufacture stone arrowpoints into the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries (Wagner et al. 2001:82). In sum, the above evidence suggests that we may have to re-evaluate our categories of “prehistoric” ver-sus “historic” period Native American remains (par-ticularly chipped stone material) at sites such as 12-T-9 (see e.g., Cobb 2003). Unfortunately though, there is currently no way of distinguishing prehistoric arrow-points from those that may have been made by the his-toric Kickapoo/Mascouten residents of Ouiatenon.

Debitage (n=12, g=8.3) Twelve pieces of debitage were also recovered; all were small in size. Eleven of the twelve were found in Trench 1, with the remain-ing piece recovered from Trench 2. Of the identifiable debitage fragments, three were likely of Liston Creek chert, while another three were Kenneth. Both chert types outcrop upstream from 12-T-9 (Cantin 2008:9). The remaining six pieces of debitage were all of un-identifiable cherts, possibly from glacially-transported cobbles that would have been available in the Wabash River. One of the six was heat-treated.

Ceramics

Body sherds (n=4, g=9.9) A small number of aboriginal ceramics were recovered from the investigations at 12-T-9. All four were undecorated body sherds, each less than 4.0 grams in weight. Two were found on the sur-face, at the eastern edge of the site. The surface sherds consisted of a plain shell-tempered sherd and a cord-marked grit-tempered sherd. The two remaining sherds were from excavated contexts. One is a sand-tempered sherd with an uniden-tifiable surface treatment. The second was a plain grit-tempered sherd. Of the aboriginal ceramics recovered from the site, only one, the shell-tempered sherd, has much diagnostic value. Shell-tempered ceramics are diagnostic of the Late Prehistoric period (i.e., after ca. A.D. 1100). Very little, however, is known about Late Prehistoric occupations in this portion of the Wabash

99

River valley.

artifaCts froM 12-t-25

Though no formal investigations were conducted at site 12-T-25, an informal non-controlled walkover of the site resulted in the identification of several artifacts. A total of 20 artifacts were recovered, weighing a total of 102.6 grams. Both historic and (probable) prehistoric materials were identified. A discussion of the artifacts’ distribution and the methods used in their recovery is presented in Chapter 6.

Historic Ceramics

Earthenware (n=3, g=9.5) Three pieces of earthenware were identified from the surface, all of which likely date to the eighteenth century component at 12-T-25 (Figure 5.13). Two (2013.029.8 and -19) are redware. The first is a small rim-portion from a vessel with a narrow ori-fice, possibly a jug. Both the inner and outer surfaces are unglazed. The second redware sherd is a small body sherd in which both the inner and outer surfaces are spalled. Course earthenwares are relatively common on French colonial-era sites, making up about one-quarter of identified vessels (Walthall 1991:101). The final earthenware fragment (2013.029.10) is the rim of a tin-glazed faience vessel, possibly a bowl, with a tan-colored paste. It is of the type faïence blanche, which exhibits white tin glaze on the interior and ex-

terior (Waselkov and Walthall 2002:63). The sherd is decorated with two hand-painted blue lines running along the vessel’s circumference. One is located at the top edge of the lip; the other lies along the base of the outer rim fold. A series of reddish-brown half-circles are painted along the edge of the lip, below the blue line. Though small, the fragment recovered from 12-T-25 is most similar to the subtype St. Cloud, a Rouen-influenced style which incorporates a number of poly-chrome decorative motifs (see Waselkov and Walthall 2002:Figure 3c). Rouen is located on the Seine River in eastern Normandy and was a major faience producer be-ginning in the 1640s. Though not identical, the rim dec-oration on the 12-T-25 sherd is similar to those dating to the mid-eighteenth century (Waselkov and Walthall 2002:66). Similar decorative motifs have been found at Fort de Chartres in Illinois (Noble 1997:Figure 5b). The MSU excavations indicate that polychrome faience sherds are relatively rare at Ouiatenon, comprising only 11 of 785 tin-glazed fragments (Noble 1983:126-129; Tordoff 1983:249-251).

Glass

Container glass (n=5, g=20.1) Five fragments of con-tainer glass were found, all of which probably date to the eighteenth century occupation of the area (Fig-ure 5.14). Two pieces are from vessel necks. The first (2013.029.17) is dark olive-colored (i.e., “black glass”) and heavily patinated, while the other (2013.029.15) is

Figure 5.13. Historic earthenware artifacts from 12-T-25 (L to R: 2013.029.8, -19, and -10).

100

Figure 5.14. Container glass fragments from 12-T-25 (L to R: 2013.029.17, -20, -14, -15, and -9).

Figure 5.15. Metal artifacts from 12-T-25 (L to R: 2013.029.8, -19, and -29).

bluish-green. The remaining three pieces are container glass body fragments. Two (2013.029.14 and -20) are black glass, one of which is heavily patinated. The re-maining piece (2013.029.9) is light green in color. Bluish-green and light green glass are not specifi-cally indicative of any particular time period. Black glass, however, is more diagnostic. It can be found as early as the mid-seventeenth century in Europe and is ubiquitous on historic sites dating up to ca. 1880. Prior to 1820, black glass was typically used for liquor and mineral water containers (Jones and Sullivan 1989:12; Society for Historical Archaeology 2013).

Metal

Cuprous (n=2, g=30.5) Two cuprous artifacts were

recovered from 12-T-25 (Figure 5.15). The first (2013.029.1) consists of a brass kettle rim section. Though damaged, it has a rolled edge typical of fur-trade-era kettles. The second cuprous artifact is a frag-ment of a gun’s sideplate (2013.029.16). It is engraved with a foliate design and has a large hole for insertion of the screw which attached to the lock on the oppo-site side of the gun. Though not identical, the sideplate fragment is quite similar to that from a Type C trade gun, which Hamilton dates to the period 1680-1730 (Hamilton 1980:29, 33, 94). Jones (SHAARD 2013) reports that a similar sideplate was recovered from the surface of 12-T-9. Noble (1983:228) indicates that most of the sideplates recovered from the MSU excavations were of the “serpent” type (see Hamilton 1980) and are likely British in origin.

101

Figure 5.16. Gunflints from 12-T-25 (L to R: 2013.029.2, -3, -18, -6, and -11).

Ferrous (n=1, g=12.2) The single ferrous artifact re-covered from 12-T-25 is a fragment of a large hand-wrought nail with a flattened head (see Figure 5.15).

Historic Mineral/Stone

Gunflints (n=5, g=21.7) Five gunflints were identi-fied on the surface of 12-T-25 (Figure 5.16). Three (2013.029.2, -3, and 18) are medium to dark-gray in color and may be English in origin, while the other two are likely French. The first of the three possible British gunflints is a light brownish-gray spall gunflint with in-clusions; this is the only whole example from the site. It is 28.4 mm long and 28.6 mm wide, with a maximum thickness of 8.5 mm. This gunflint exhibits chipping in-dicative of use around all four edges. The second gunflint, though heavily utilized, ap-pears to have been manufactured using the spall meth-od. It is made from a light brownish-gray flint with in-clusions. It is 18.8 mm in length and 27.3 mm wide. The third example is a fragment of a broken gunflint manufactured from a medium gray flint. All three non-broken edges were utilized. The fragment is too small to determine manufacturing technique. The remaining two gunflints (2013.029.6 and -11) are likely of French origin. The first is a blade gunflint. Because it is broken in half, only a width measurement (28.9 mm) could be obtained. It appears to have only been lightly used. The second French gunflint consists of a relatively small triangular flake broken off of a larger piece. It exhibits secondary flaking and bashing along two of the edges, possibly suggesting that the broken piece had been utilized with a firesteel. Jones reported the presence of both British and French gun-

flints on site 12-T-25, during his 1984 survey of the site (SHAARD 2013).

Prehistoric Chipped Stone

Refined biface (n=1, g=0.9) The single refined biface fragment (2013.029.7) recovered from 12-T-25 is likely a broken-off tip from a projectile point, possibly a trian-gular arrowpoint. It is pressure flaked along the edges, indicating that it is part of a finished tool. The biface fragment is made of a fine-grained gray and white speckled chert, likely Kenneth (Cantin 2008:46).

Hafted biface (n=2, g=2.5) Two hafted bifaces (2013.029.12, and -13) were found on the surface of 12-T-25 (Figure 5.17). Both are whole examples of triangular arrowpoints. The first is a thick and some-what crude triangle made of a chert with white and light gray mottles or bands, possibly Kenneth. The second is a well-made, thin triangle manufactured of a light and medium gray colored chert, possibly Liston Creek (Cantin 2008:55). Triangular points, dating to the Late Prehistoric (or early historic periods) have not been previously reported on 12-T-25.

Prehistoric Ceramics

Body sherds (n=1, g=1.3) The only aboriginally-manu-factured sherd recovered from 12-T-25 is a small grog-tempered piece. Both surfaces are eroded and surface treatment is indeterminate. Alternatively, this sherd may be a small piece of historic period redware in which both the inner and outer surfaces have spalled off.

102

Figure 5.17. Hafted bifaces from 12-T-25 (L to R: 2013.029.12 and -13).

artifaCts froM 12-t-335

Two artifacts were recovered from site 12-T-335. They were picked up during the magnetometry survey of the western portion of the site. The first (2013.30.1) (Figure 5.18) is a small perforated triangle made from a scrap of copper/brass, possibly a recycled kettle fragment. These triangles (both perforated and unperforated) are thought to have served as arrowpoints and have been identified from numerous fur trade-era sites in the Great Lakes area, including Fort Ouiatenon (Noble 1983:111 and Tordoff 1983:199-200) and Kethtippeca-

nunk (Strezewski et al. 2007:157; Strezewski and Mc-Cullough 2010:226). The second artifact (2013.30.2) is the proximal two-thirds of a hafted biface, probably a Late Archaic/Early Woodland stemmed point. It is likely manufactured of Wyandotte chert from south-central Indiana. The point, however, appears to have been reutilized, as there are marks from bashing all along the tool’s perimeter. It is possible that this may be a prehistoric hafted biface that was later utilized with a firesteel during the fur trade occupation of Ouiatenon.

103

Figure 5.18. Artifacts from 12-T-335 (L to R: 2013.030.1 and -2).

104

Chapter 6DisCussion

Following the 2013 investigations, we now have confir-mation that the circular anomalies first identified in the 2009 magnetometry data are Native American struc-tures, likely representing a small village (Strezewski and McCullough 2010). It is important to note though, that the magnetometer is likely only able to see a subset of the structures and other features once present in the area surrounding the fort and other areas of 12-T-9. It is quite likely that the remains of other structures and associated features, both Native American and Euro-American, are present across this portion of the site, but that they are not detectable via magnetometry. It is worth noting that our 2009 measurements of the struc-ture diameters (done without any excavated data) (see Table 3.1) matched well with their measurements fol-lowing excavation. The structure excavated in 2013 was originally estimated to be 6.2 m in diameter in ex-terior dimensions and about 5.0 m in interior dimen-sions. Following excavation, the interior dimensions of the structure were measured at 5.2 m. This fact indi-cates that the magnetometry data are likely an accurate reflection of the other structural anomalies found at the site. It would appear that the structures identified dur-ing the magnetometry survey were visible for two main reasons: 1) they burned completely to the ground, 2) they were large, averaging over 7 m in diameter. In particular, the wall trenches of the structure were filled with charcoal, and it seems that this is the portion of the structure that was most detectable via magnetometry. The 2013 excavation data indicate that the structures were circular to oval in planview and were constructed by placing small posts in a wide, shallow trench. The posts were likely bent over, forming a dome-like frame-work, which was then covered by bark. The structure we excavated, at least, likely had four small but deeply set interior posts, one in each quadrant of the circle and situated about 1.3 m from the structure wall. Though we did not identify an interior hearth during our ex-cavations, only ca. 31 percent of the structure was ex-posed in planview and excavated. Extrapolation of the structure’s extents indicates that its center would have been located in the northwest corner of our excavation. If the structure had a hearth, it does not appear to have been in the structure’s center.

Eleven of the circular structures identified via mag-netometry were clustered in an area west and northwest of the Fort Ouiatenon footprint and likely represent a village built after the fort had already been dismantled (i.e., after 1780 or so) and burned prior to the Scott and Wilkinson expeditions of 1791. Reasons for this sup-position include

• The presence of a silver pendant, seed beads, and glass imitation wampum in and around the struc-ture, all of which are indicative of a post-1760 date (Quimby 1966:91).

• The fact that the French and/or British would likely not have looked favorably on a Native American village in such close proximity to the fort, especially during the time in which it was being used as a military outpost (i.e., between 1717 and 1763).

• The near absence of cultural material in the struc-ture, suggesting that it had been intentionally burned by the Native Americans themselves. It therefore seems unlikely that the structure was destroyed as part of the Scott/Wilkinson expedi-tions in summer 1791.

• The fact that a later wall trench (Feature 1) su-perimposed the burned material from the struc-ture’s destruction. All historic accounts indicate that the Ouiatenon area was essentially aban-doned following the American attacks and so, we would not expect additional construction activity to overlap the structure, had it been destroyed by Scott in 1791.

Furthermore, none of the post-1778 accounts of the Ouiatenon locale mentions the presence of a fort, a fact which suggests that it may have been taken down sometime between 1778 and 1791. These include ac-counts written by Scott, Wilkinson, and William Biggs (an American captive brought to Ouiatenon in 1788). Though the fact that the fort was not mentioned is not definitive proof that it did not exist at this late date, one must take this possibility into account.

105

The magnetometry data indicate that most of the structural anomalies are oriented along a southwest-northeast axis. These formed a rough oval, possibly with an open area in the center. The village area occupies ap-proximately 0.4 ha (0.98 acres). We would assume that additional facilities (e.g., storage/processing/smudge pits, drying racks, etc.) should be located in and around these structures, though we have not yet been able to test these assumptions, given the small area we opened up. It is also uncertain as to how many of the structures were occupied at any given time. The fact that two of the anomalies overlap (numbers 11 and 12) indicates that limited rebuilding, at least, likely took place. Now that we have more detailed information on the nature of these structures, the question remains; how well does the structure excavated in 2013 correspond to our knowledge of Kickapoo dwellings from ethnohis-toric, ethnographic, and archeological sources?

Ethnohistoric and Ethnographic Data on Kickapoo Villages and Structures

There are few detailed descriptions of traditional Kick-apoo structures or villages that date to the pre-1820 period, and so our knowledge base for this period in time consists largely of piecemeal information from untrained contemporary observers1. Various groups of Kickapoo, however, retained the use of traditional structures for some time, with some subgroups and individuals using them well into the twentieth cen-tury (Dillingham 1963; Latorre and Latorre 1976). As would be expected, these observations tend to be more detailed but are farther removed in time from the fur trade era. Summer villages and dwellings In general, the Kick-apoo, like many groups of the Great Lakes area, had both summer and winter villages. Ethnohistoric data in-dicate that summer villages were occupied from April to October, with some time spent away from the vil-lage during hunting excursions. Hunting grounds could be some distance from their home territory. The prairie Kickapoo of Illinois, for example, traveled to western Illinois and west of the Mississippi River on their sum-mer hunts. Summer villages ranged from five to six structures in size, up to about 30 or so, with those occupied dur-

1 Wagner (2011:46-52) provides a comprehensive discus-sion of the data on Kickapoo villages and structures. The following discussion is largely based on this work.

ing peacetime lying along the lower end of the range. Structures were typically built from a sapling frame-work that was covered by bark, mats, or skins. Dill-ingham (1963:82) indicates that the Oklahoma Kicka-poo used elm bark for structures, which they peeled off with a long axe handle-like pole. Holes were punched in the edges of the bark sheets while still wet; these holes were used to affix the bark to the frame. Though the number of individuals living in each structure is not well known, British General Henry Hamilton estimated that ten persons were housed within each “cabin” when he stopped at Ouiatenon in 1778 (Barnhardt 1951:208-209). Summer villages contained such features as struc-tures, cemeteries, council houses, dance grounds, sweat lodges, menstrual huts, food drying scaffolds, and ag-ricultural fields. The Kickapoo preferred to locate their summer villages in ecotonal areas, favoring a spot near the juncture of the forest and prairie. For example, in 1833, John Irving (1835:80-81) described a post-re-moval period Kickapoo village as being located at the edge of a gallery forest which ran along the Missouri River, adjacent a large prairie. Summer village dwellings were of at least two types. This first type is a possible longhouse-style structure, which, according to one observer, was large enough to house 50 individuals. One account, for ex-ample, noted “fourteen lodges of considerable size” at a village in Illinois in May 1813. These structures were further described as being “very large houses built in the first style [?] of indian archetecture [sic]” (Carter 1948:334). At another village, the lodges were described as being “connected for twenty-five yards,” further supporting the use of longhouse-type dwellings among the Kickapoo. Other structures in the same vil-lage, however, were noted as being smaller in size, sug-gesting that more than one dwelling type was present in the same village. Overall, accounts seem to mention these smaller dwellings more often, possibly suggesting that this type was the more common of the two. For example, one ac-count from Illinois, this dating to the 1820s, indicates that the Kickapoo “lived in wigwams or cabins ten or fifteen feet square covered with bark with a hole in the center of the top for the escape of the smoke made of the fire on the ground in the center…” (Custer 1907:5, cited in Wagner 2011). Similarly, another account from Illinois states that

their Wigwams were nearly all made

106

circular and were mostly made of bark. They would get the bark in the season of the year when it would peel from the tree the best…I have seen them get off pieces perhaps 3 feet and a half wide. They would make their wigwams with a little opening at the top for the smoke of their camp-fire to escape, as they always built their fire in the middle of their wig-wams. Then they would get out their wolf and deer skins and spread them on the ground around the fire. They used the skins to sit on and lay on for their beds. [Hendrix 1889, cited in Wagner 2011:48-49]

A final account, this from mid-nineteenth century Kansas, reinforces those previously mentioned. This description relates that the Kickapoo “…wove matting similar to [the] Japanese and covered the floors, except in the center, and sides of their houses with it; and the interior of their houses was swept clear, Their houses were made of poles set in the ground and bent over thus and covered with skins, sometimes the sides would be of matting” (Mead 1904, cited in Wagner 2011:49) There are few detailed period descriptions of the methods used to construct wigwams of this type. Though describing Potawatomi structures, Harvey Lee Ross’ (1899:52) account is one of the most detailed. His description dates to the 1830s, in the Spoon River val-ley.

They had erected some twenty wig-wams….A common sized wigwam for a family of eight or ten persons would be about 12 x 16 feet in size. Small sap-lings would be cut and set firmly in the ground, big ends down, in rows three feet apart, all round the plat (12 x 16 feet) to be enclosed. Then the limber tops of the poles would be brought to-gether and fastened with hickory wyths or strips of leather. Then small poles would be tied lengthwise to the saplings, making a cross-barred and solid frame. The whole would then be covered with a heavy matting that had been woven by the squaws from the coarse swamp grass yet to be found on the bottom lands. This completed the wigwam, and it had the

shape of a hay stack. An opening was left as a door way and this was protected by a blanket. A pit 2 x 3 feet in size and eight or ten inches deep would be dug in the center under the wigwam for a fire-place, and there was an opening at the top for the smoke to pass through. The Indians were quite comfortable in these wigwams, with their blankets and furs, in the coldest weather.

The structure described by Ross is slightly smaller and likely oval in planview, but may be otherwise similar to that identified at 12-T-9. Summer houses amongst the twentieth century Oklahoma Kickapoo had the entrance on the east side (Dillingham 1963:82). Dillingham (1963:77) notes further that when building a traditional-type dwelling, most of the house construction was done by women, though men sometimes helped with the assembly of the sapling framework. Because of their primary role in its construction and upkeep, dwellings were usually seen as belonging to women. The same rule applies to the modern Kickapoo of Coahuila, Mexico (see below) (Latorre and Latorre 1976:37).

Winter villages and dwellings Following the fall har-vest, the residents of the summer village split into smaller groups to take up their winter quarters. Win-ter activities included hunting, trapping, nut and fruit collection (in the early fall and spring) and sugar mak-ing (in late winter to early spring) (Wagner 2011:51). In contrast to the presence of ethnohistoric accounts of Kickapoo summer houses, there are very few detailed descriptions of winter villages or dwellings. One account (Dillingham 1963:85) from the twenti-eth century Kickapoo of Oklahoma indicates that winter dwellings were built of cattail mats over a pole frame, seemingly similar to the wigwam-type summer houses described above. Structures were a “long oval” in shape and faced the east. The interior of the house had a fire-place, located in the center of the floor. Mats and blan-kets, laid on a layer of grass, were placed around the structure’s perimeter. There were no interior benches or scaffolds. Winter houses were constructed in Octo-ber or November, with winter quarters occupied until April or so. William Biggs, for example, an American who was held captive by the Wabash valley Kickapoo in 1788, reports that the family he was with returned to Ouiatenon in early April (Biggs 1977 [1825]), a fact

107

which would suggest that the structures identified at 12-T-9 are summer structures. During Biggs’ captivity, he resided for some time in a Kickapoo sugaring camp. He does not describe the dwellings, however, noting only the presence of a “large cabin.” The most of the detailed information we have on Kickapoo house construction comes from the twenti-eth-century Mexican Kickapoo, a culturally-conserva-tive subgroup who moved to Coahuila, Mexico in the 1860s (Goggin 1951; Latorre and Latorre 1976; Rit-zenthaler and Peterson 1970). Given that nearly two-hundred years have elapsed between the occupation of Ouiatenon and the collection of these ethnographic data, we would expect some changes to have occurred, regardless of their cultural conservatism. In addition, we must consider the obvious environmental differenc-es between northern Mexico and central Indiana, which would likely have resulted in some modification to the manner in which their dwellings were built and the raw materials that were used. However, because these descriptions are among the most detailed, the data are worth considering as part of the current discussion.

A typical Mexican Kickapoo household consists of winter and summer dwellings, a cook house, and a menstrual hut. Of these structures, Latorre and Latorre (1976:35) suggest that the cook house may be an adap-tation to conditions in Mexico. Unlike their eighteenth century ancestors, the Mexican Kickapoo do not have separate summer and winter villages.

Both summer and winter dwellings have a single door that faces east and is covered by a canvas flap. Summer houses are square to rectangular, averaging 5.5 by 4.6 in size, and are constructed of a vertical pole framework of juniper or desert willow. Some accounts indicate that sheets of elm bark are used to cover the walls and roof, while others report that the walls are covered with sotol leaves, with mats used for roofing (Goggin 1951:320-321; Latorre and Latorre 1976:40-43). In-ground benches line the inside of the summer house and an open-sided arbor is constructed on the outside, attached to the entrance. Summer houses are occupied from late March through October. They typi-cally last four years, after which they are dismantled and rebuilt elsewhere in the compound (Latorre and Latorre 1976:43).

Though a small single-household dwelling with a rectangular floor plan does not correspond well with the ethnohistoric descriptions of Kickapoo houses, similar structures were definitely used in the Great Lakes area

during the eighteenth century. For example, the house of Coo-coo-chee, a Mohawk woman living amongst the Shawnee and Miami at the Glaize in 1792 seems quite similar to the summer houses of the Mexican Kicka-poo. Her house was reportedly typical for those in the village and was described as

...constructed of small poles, of which some, planted upright in the ground, served as posts and studs, supporting the ridge poles and eve bearers, while others firm-ly tied to these by thongs of hickory bark formed girders, braces, laths, and rafters. This frame was covered with large pieces of elm bark seven or eight feet long and three or four feet wide; which being pressed flat and well dried to prevent their curling, fas-tened to the poles by thongs of bark, formed the weather boarding and roof of the cabin. At its western end was a narrow doorway about six feet high, closed when necessary by a single piece of bark placed beside it, and fastened by a brace, set either within or on the outside as occasion required [Quaife 1917:83].

This suggests at least, that the Mexican Kickapoo sum-mer house has a fur trade era analog amongst other peoples of the lower Great Lakes.

Winter structures of the Mexican Kickapoo are cir-cular or oval in shape, and constructed of a bent sap-ling framework covered with rush mats, similar to that described in the ethnohistoric accounts, and similar to the structure excavated at Ouiatenon (Callendar et al. 1978:658; Latorre and Latorre 1976:40; Ritzenthaler and Peterson 1970:81). The posts used in house con-struction are previously soaked in the river, to make them pliable. Woods used in winter house construction include hackberry, bald cypress, and sycamore (Callen-dar et al. 1978:658; Latorre and Latorre 1976:40). Win-ter houses are about 7.6 m (25 ft) in length, larger than summer dwellings (Ritzenthaler and Peterson 1956:30-31). These structures are typically made of less durable materials than summer houses because they are not ex-pected to last as long. Benches are constructed along the front and rear portions of the house. Some sources indicate that woven mats, placed on the floor of the house, are used in lieu of benches. These are used for sleeping, working and eating. One area of the house is reserved for storage and there is a hole in the roof to allow smoke to escape2 (Latorre and Latorre 1976:41; 2 The interior plan of a Mexican Kickapoo winter house is il-

108

Ritzenthaler and Peterson 1970:83).

Archeological Data on Kickapoo Structures

Although not recognized at the time, all evidence indi-cates that the MSU Ouiatenon investigations resulted in the excavation of a second circular Native American structure, very similar to that found in 2013. In order to better understand the MSU excavations, the author, along with Robert McCullough, returned to the original excavation records, which are curated by the TCHA. The results of the archival work are presented in Figure 6.1. The central and eastern portions of the structure were uncovered by Tordoff in 1975, with the western 5 by 5 ft unit opened up by Noble in 1979. The feature was given separate designations by the two excava-tors; Feature 51 and Feature 136, respectively. Neither Tordoff nor Noble, however, was certain as to the na-ture of the feature, suggesting that its “functional and temporal placement [were] undetermined” (Tordoff 1983:163). As the feature was not recognized as a Na-tive American structure during the MSU excavations, there is no separate discussion of the materials derived from it, relative to the fort-related deposits and features. In 1975, Tordoff excavated a small portion of the structure, that lying along the far eastern edge. She de-scribes Feature 51 in this manner

This strange feature appeared to be a circle twenty feet in diameter filled up with charcoal in a matrix of brown sand. It appeared at the bottom of the bulldoz-er cut [used to remove the plowzone], in the block excavation area, at 2.4’ BD. Surrounding the feature was sterile golden-brown sand. Only two segments of Feature 51 were excavated to comple-tion…the feature was gone by 3.3’ BD. The feature contained practically no ar-tifacts whatsoever, and few fragments of animal bone were recovered. It is not known what this feature represents. It overlays Feature 54, a trench running east-west in N1020 W1000. It is pos-sible that the feature was created after the occupation of Ouiatenon. [Tordoff 1983:162]

lustrated by Ritzenthaler and Peterson (1970:Figure 39).

Materials associated with Tordoff’s excavation includ-ed charcoal, burned and unburned animal bone, fire-cracked rock, two pieces of glass, one piece of brass, one nail, and one shell fragment. Notably, Feature 51 superimposed Feature 54, which, in turn, was super-imposed by the fort’s outer stockade wall (represented by Feature 52), which was thought to post-date 1740. Thus, Tordoff concluded that the structure must have been constructed after the 1740s-era expansion of the fort (Feature 52). Her best guess was that Feature 51 may post-date the fort’s occupation. A profile map of the feature (Figure 6.2) indicates it was a wide and shallow wall trench, quite similar to the Feature 2 wall trench identified in our excavations. The structural wall trench contrasted sharply with the pro-file of Feature 52 (the Fort Ouiatenon stockade trench) which was quite narrow and much deeper. The details of Noble’s Feature 136 excavation have not been completely researched, nor do we know much regarding the contents of the feature along its western edge. Noble (1983:333) simply refers to Feature 136 as a “charcoal ring” in his dissertation, indicating the pres-ence of burned material. A profile map of the feature from square N1030, W1020 (Figure 6.3) shows that it consisted of a wide and shallow wall trench that ex-tended to ca. 50 cm below surface. Though the profile maps and descriptions are not detailed, it is notable that neither shows a stratum of burned material overlying the wall trench, unlike the structural profile identified during the current project. Measurements of the feature indicate that it was approximately 5.2 m in diameter, measured from the interior walls. This is approximately 1.0 m smaller in diameter than the structure excavated during 2013. Aside from those excavated at Ouiatenon, there are relatively few archeological data on Kickapoo struc-tures. Although excavations have been conducted at a few Kickapoo-related sites in Illinois (e.g., Berkson 1992; Smith 1978) structures have been identified at only one, the Rhoads site (11-Lo-8), located in Logan County (Wagner 2011). The Rhoads site was originally occupied ca. 1790 to 1830 and was investigated as part of a salvage operation in the early 1970s. Nearly all of the six acre habitation area was stripped and excavated, resulting in the identification of 477 Kickapoo-era fea-tures and postmolds. Many of these features were pits of various types and configurations, used for storage, hide smudging, and heating/cooking. A total of three structural outlines were identified as well. One of the structures was rectangular and was built by placing in-

109

Figu

re 6

.1. P

lanv

iew

map

of u

nits

exc

avat

ed b

y M

ichi

gan

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

, exp

osin

g a

port

ion

of a

circ

ular

stru

ctur

e sim

ilar t

o th

at e

ncou

nter

ed in

20

13.

110

Figu

re 6

.2. S

outh

pro

file

map

of M

SU’s

unit

N10

30, W

1000

.

111

Figu

re 6

.3. E

ast p

rofil

e m

ap o

f MSU

’s un

it N

1030

, W10

20.

112

dividual posts into the ground. The Rhoads site struc-ture 1 was oriented east-west and was at least 13.6 by 6.0 m in size. It lacked a house basin or intact living floor, however. Judging from its dimensions and con-struction method, this dwelling may have been similar to the longhouse-type structures noted in the ethno-historic literature. The house was flanked on the north and south sides by storage and smudge pits (Wagner 2011:104). The second of the three structures was oval; it was also constructed by placing individual posts into the ground. It measured 5.3 by 3.5 m in size, with an inte-rior space of 14.7 m2. A small hearth was located in the interior, though not in the center of the structure. Ten storage pits were located to the north, and smudge pits were identified to the north, south, and east (Wagner 2011:106). The final structural outline identified at the Rhoads site was difficult to discern, and consisted of an 11 by 11 m area containing numerous postholes, which likely represented one or more rebuilding episodes on the same spot. A large hearth was identified in the midst of the posts, which may have been inside one or more of the structures. A number of features were identi-fied both north and south of the post cluster (Wagner 2011:108). Overall, data from the Rhoads site indicates the use of at least ntwo different structural types, one similar to the longhouse-type structures noted in the ethnohis-toric data, the other corresponding to a wigwam-style dwelling constructed of individual posts set into the ground. None of the Rhoads sites structures was built in a manner identical to our Feature 2 or Feature 51/136 excavated by MSU, particularly in the absence of a wall trench.

Comparison of the Ouiatenon Structures to Ethno-historic and Archeological Examples

All data indicate that the Ouiatenon structures (our Fea-ture 2 and MSU’s Feature 51/136) are similar to the wigwam-type structures reported for the historic Kick-apoo as well as the winter houses built by the contem-porary Kickapoo of Mexico. It is particularly notable that Mexican Kickapoo winter houses are reportedly built with four interior posts, used to support the raf-ters, quite similar to those interior posts identified in the Ouiatenon structure (Latorre and Latorre 1976:40). It is interesting to note, however, that no sources, archeological or otherwise, mention the use of wall trenches in the construction of Kickapoo dwellings,

even though both of the structures excavated at Ouiaten-on were built in this manner. The use of wall trenches at Ouiatenon might possibly be explained by the sandy loam soils in the immediate area. The presence of sandy soils may have made it easier to dig a shallow trench, into which individual posts were placed, rather than excavating a separate, narrow hole for each post. On the other hand, the structures excavated at the Rhoads site (the only other site from which Kickapoo structures have been excavated), were apparently of single post construction, and the soils at that site consisted of eo-lian deposited loess and sand, which would have likely been easy to excavate as well (Wagner 2011:6).

Artifact Distribution at Site 12-T-25

Initial plans were to conduct a magnetometry survey of site 12-T-25 in the fall of 2012, after the crops had been removed3. In preparation for the survey, Robert McCullough and Scott Hipskind walked the previously reported location of the site, east of the treeline, in order to re-identify the site boundaries (see Figure 2.5). Infor-mal transects were walked in the vicinity of the treel-ane/farmlane but no surface artifacts were noted in this area. After walking eastward, however, a scatter of his-toric and prehistoric materials was encountered, which prompted the investigators to lay out a grid across 12-T-25 with a transit and tapes. Additional diagnostic ar-tifacts were collected during the course of gridding out the site. The fall fieldwork at Ouiatenon ended in De-cember 2012, and plans were made to collect the data in spring 2013, prior to planting. Unfortunately, these plans had to be abandoned due to the flooding in the bottoms, which left the entirety of 12-T-25 underwater. After the floodwaters had receded, the field was planted and we were unable to collect magnetometry data at the site. Regardless, a number of interesting diagnostic arti-facts were collected from the surface, which were dis-cussed in Chapter 5 of this report. A distribution map of these artifacts is presented in Figure 6.4. As can be seen, a variety of prehistoric and eighteenth century historic period materials were recovered. These were concentrated north of the N1260 line and east of the E780 line, possibly representing one or more habitation areas. It is notable that the prehistoric and historic peri-od materials overlap considerably in their distributions.

3 Plans for work at site 12-T-25 were not included in the original Research Design presented to the ABPP but the opportu-nity to work at the site presented itself in fall 2012.

113

Figu

re 6

.4. S

urfa

ce d

istrib

utio

n of

art

ifact

s on

12-T

-25,

with

sugg

este

d up

date

s to

site

boun

darie

s.

114

As noted in Chapter 5, we must consider the possibility that some of the “prehistoric” materials recovered from 12-T-25 may be of eighteenth century manufacture. In sum, it seems clear that despite our limited research at the site, it appears that 12-T-25’s site limits should be updated to include the concentrations of materials that

we encountered to the east. Updated boundaries are presented in Figure 6.4. Overall, it would appear that the site may have significant potential for undisturbed subsurface deposits, though a more controlled surface collection and geophysical survey would do much to clear up this question.

115

Chapter 7KOCOa analysis Of sCOtt’s attaCK

On OuiatenOn and COnClusiOns

During the short battle at Ouiatenon, aspects of the ter-rain were the basis for military decisions on both sides. Terrain dictates the movement, formation, and posi-tions of forces, and correct use of the terrain is a crucial factor in the outcome of a battle. Battlefield terrain has two aspects for consideration. The first is the weather, climate, and season. The second is the topography. To-pography includes such factors as relief and drainage, natural and cultivated vegetation, and the presence of manmade features. All of these must be evaluated for both offensive and defensive purposes (Naval Educa-tion and Training Professional Development and Tech-nology Center [NETPDTC] 1993:5-1). The key points to remembering and evaluating the military aspects of terrain have been summarized by the U.S. military using the acronym KOCOA (U.S. Marine Corps 1993:3-16), which stands for:

K - Key terrain. - Any feature or area in which the sei-zure or control of it offers a marked tactical advantage (e.g., bridges, fording sites, high ground, road junc-tions).

O - Observation and fields of fire. - The influence of ter-rain on reconnaissance, surveillance, target acquisition, and direct fire capabilities.

C - Concealment and cover. - Concealment is protec-tion from enemy observation, while cover is protection from the effects of weapon fire.

O - Obstacles (natural and manmade). - Natural and synthetic terrain features that stop, impede or divert military movement.

A - Avenues of approach and mobility corridors. - Routes by which a force may reach key terrain or an objective.

The key to KOCOA analysis is the identification and categorization of those defining features that were critical to the outcome of the battle (Lawhon 2002). These features may have been used in different or mul-tiple ways by the various combatants involved in the conflict. The key to KOCOA’s usefulness is isolating

aspects of terrain that were key to success or failure. Table 7.1 outlines the major defining features of the battle at Ouiatenon, which occurred on June 1, 17911. These tables provide information on the location and relevance of each feature. Unfortunately, the contem-porary descriptions of the battle do not provide much detail on the precise locations where each of the rel-evant actions took place. In these cases, locations have been approximated, based upon descriptions given by Scott and others. Available accounts also do not gener-ally provide much information on some of the less per-manent landscape features that may have been relevant to the outcome of the battle (e.g., stands of woods, loca-tions of structures). Despite our limited knowledge, it is likely that the basic topography has changed little over the past 200 plus years, and this can provide the basis for our analysis. Figure 7.1 illustrates the locations of the relevant features on a modern topographic map. Be-cause of the vague descriptions of the battles that have been handed down to us, the locations of many of these features should be considered no more than educated approximations. Our best description of Scott’s attack on the Wea village and the Kickapoo/Mascouten villages comes from Scott himself, in his official account of the ac-tion to Congress (American State Papers, Indian Affairs 1832-1834:I:131-132). A few additional details are pro-vided by William Clark’s journal (Draper Manuscripts 1949:63J). One thing to be kept in mind is that Scott was, by his own admission, “deficient in guides and in-formation along the route,” indicating that he was oper-ating with relatively little knowledge of what he would find once he reached the Wea settlements. On the evening of May 31st, after having marched a total of 135 miles, Scott’s force encamped at the edge of a large, unfamiliar prairie. The next day, the men marched 13 miles before spotting a Native American man on horseback, off in the distance (identified as Captain Bull in other accounts). An attempt was made to intercept him, before he could warn the towns of the impending attack, but he eluded capture. Scott’s forces marched through some woods and emerged on the high ground at the southern edge of 1 See Strezewski and McCullough (2010) for a KOCOA analysis of the battle at Kethtippecanunk, which occurred on June 2nd and 3rd, 1791.

117

Figure 7.1. Location of the major defining features for Scott’s attack on Ouiatenon.

the Wea Plain, a large low-lying prairie along the south side of the Wabash River (Figure 7.2, number 1). The topography and vegetation of the area was described by Thomas Bodley, an American officer in 1795, a few years after Scott’s attack:

“The old Village on the S.E. side [ ] stood on Low

ground on the verge of the river - about 300yds back is a high Hill

on the Top of which is an extensive Prairie about 10 miles in Length and three in width. On the N.W. side was the old French Village it stood in a large Prairie part of which overflows at times...about one mile above the Old Village on the N. W. side, is high ground and Some beautiful Springs...” [Smith 1954:284-285].

Considering that most of the vegetation in the immedi-ate area was prairie, the vantage point taken by Scott provided an ideal means for him to identify most or all of the nearby villages and thereby give him an advan-tage in deploying his troops. Though the Wea report-edly had extensive fields of corn, squash, and melons in the vicinity of their village (Krauskopf 1955:162), these crops (the corn in particular) would not have been a major impediment to visibility, as the attack occurred in early June, when the plants were not yet mature. From the high ground on the edge of the plain, Scott spied two villages, two miles to his left. They were esti-mated to be two and four miles distant. Scott dispatched Col. John Hardin with 60 mounted infantry and Capt. McCoy with a troop of light horse to attack the two towns (Figure 7.2, numbers 2 and 3). In the meantime, Scott, accompanied by the remainder of his force, pro-ceeded north in order of battle, toward the Wea vil-lage, which he estimated to be about four miles distant.

118

Figure 7.2. Probable route taken by Scott’s troops during the attack on the Ouiatenon towns, June 1, 1791.

From his vantage point on the high ground, Scott did not have a direct line of sight to the village itself but spotted smoke and headed in that direction (Figure 7.2, number 4). A line of sight from points 1 to 4, illustrated in Figure 7.3, indicates the difficulty Scott would have had spotting the Wea village. Upon reaching the edge of the bluffs, immediately south of the Wea village, Scott dispatched Wilkinson to rush forward with the first battalion (likely 400 men or so) to attack the Wea village. At that point, he realized that the Indians had been forewarned of their approach by Captain Bull, who had been spotted earlier on horse-back. Wilkinson’s men reached the edge of the Wabash just as five canoes of Wea were beginning to cross over. The canoes were fired upon and the men “destroyed all the savages.” Meanwhile, the militiamen were receiv-ing fire from the Kickapoo on the opposite side of the river, likely in the vicinity of site 12-T-9 (Figure 7.2, number 5). Finding the Wabash too deep to ford at this spot,

Scott ordered Wilkinson with the first battalion to a spot reportedly two miles upstream (Figure 7.2, number 6),

, which the guides indicated would provide a means of crossing the river. Wilkinson, however, found the low ground in this area flooded to a depth of three feet and the ford impassible. Rather than risking the crossing here, he decided to march the men back to the Wea village. Faced with the fact that he had no good means of crossing the river in order to attack the villages on the north side, Scott dispatched Captain King’s and Logs-don’s companies upriver (approximately 200 men), un-der the command of Major Barbee, to attempt a crossing there (Figure 7.2, number 7). Scott does not specify the distance upriver in this case. From Scott’s descriptions, it appears that a few men were able to cross undetected, some by swimming, and others in a small canoe. De-spite the presence of only a small number of Americans on the north side of the river, once the Indians noticed them, they immediately abandoned these villages as

119

Figure 7.3. Line-of-sight from point 1 to point 4 on Figure 7.2. Elevation (in feet) is shown on the left axis.

well. About this time, Scott received word that a larger village had been spotted by Hardin and McCoy (Figure 7.2, number 8), who had taken a number of prisoners while attacking two other villages earlier in the day2. The messenger indicated that they were preparing to attack this village. Scott immediately ordered Captain Brown with his company (approximately 100 men) to travel the six miles to assist Hardin and McCoy. Brown, however, arrived too late to participate in the attack. A total of 32 Indians were killed and 58 taken prisoner. After the towns were occupied by the militia, the towns and crops were destroyed and sixteen of the pris-oners, mostly elderly, were released. Scott reported that no men were killed by the enemy and only five injured. William Clark, a participant in the expedition, indi-cates that three men and eight horses drowned on the return trip, while crossing the main fork of the White River (American State Papers, Indian Affairs 1832-1834:I:131-132; Draper Manuscripts 1949:63J) British reports following the raid note that 500 war-riors from this area had left two days prior to the attack as they believed Scott’s force was sent to attack Miami-town, a fact which undoubtedly aided Scott’s ability to overtake and destroy the towns and crops. This same report indicates that the Indian force pursued Scott’s army after they left Ouiatenon but apparently did not engage them, as Scott’s does not report any enemy encounters on the return trip (U.S. National Archives 2 Historic period materials, including gunflints are reported from site 12-T-500, which is located on the Wabash bottoms, south of the Wabash River and about 1.1 km east of the Granville Bridge. It is possible that this site may represent the larger village referred to in Scott’s account.

1965:59:588:Roll 7). Though Scott indicated that “no act of inhumanity” was committed upon the enemy, a British report reported that “a war chief of the Ouias who was killed at the first village they have literally skinned” (Michigan Pioneer and Historical Collections 1905:273). Analysis of the terrain’s effect on the battle indi-cates that there were few impediments to Scott’s ad-vance into the Wea towns on the south side of the Wa-bash. It would appear, based on multiple descriptions, that the high ground occupied by Scott prior to his at-tack afforded him a clear view across the Wea plain. Despite the faulty intelligence provided by his guides, Scott was able to discern important elements of the ter-rain, giving him great tactical advantage. A lack of cov-er (with the exception of a few wooded areas) left an open field of fire and made Indian resistance difficult, especially considering the slight advance warning giv-en to the Wea prior to the attack. Overall, the absence of many (or most) of the Wea and Kickapoo warriors at the time of the attack all but ensured Scott’s success. The one element of the terrain that defied Scott’s men was the Wabash River. It allowed the vast major-ity of the Wea to escape, while at the same time, pre-venting Scott’s forces from crossing easily. Due to the heavy rains that had been falling during Scott’s march to Ouiatenon, the river was flooded and, in the absence of boats, no means of crossing was available. A small number of Major Barbee’s men were able to get to the other side, however, causing the enemy to retreat im-mediately. Again, the ease with which Scott’s men dis-lodged the enemy probably had much to do with the absence of warriors. Had these men been present, it is

120

likely that stiffer resistance would have been encoun-tered. Wilkinson revisited the Ouiatenon battlefield site only two months later, in August 1791, as part of his mounted expedition to destroy the town of Kenapaco-maqua on the Eel River. Upon his arrival at Ouiatenon, Wilkinson noted that the corn had been replanted since their visit. No battle, however, was fought during this second visit, though Wilkinson’s men did destroy the crops.

Study, Core, and Potential National Register Bound-aries of the Battle Site

Given what we know from historic and archeological sources, we have a fair idea of the movement of troops, the location of the Native American villages, and the points of conflict between the two opposing forces at Ouiatenon. The ABPP defines the “Study Area” as the extent of the battle as it unfolded across the landscape, containing those resources known to relate or contrib-ute to the battle. This includes such elements as: where troops maneuvered and deployed before and after combat, and where fighting took place during combat. Delineation of the Study Area has been based on his-toric accounts of the participants and terrain analysis, and includes the extent of historic and archeological resources associated with the battle may be found and protected. The Core Area, according to the ABPP cri-teria, represents the area of fighting on the battlefield – that is – positions that delivered or received fire, and the space in between them. Given these criteria, the Study Areas and Core Areas for the Ouiatenon battle site are represented in Figure 7.4.

Unlike the Study and Core Areas, which are based on the interpretation of historic events, the Potential National Register (PotNR) boundary represents an as-sessment of the Study Area’s current integrity. The area encompassed within the PotNR boundary are consid-ered worthy of further attention though more intense evaluation in the future may reveal more or less integ-rity than indicated. For the Ouiatenon battlefield site, it is the opinion of the authors that the PotNR may be coincident with the Study Area, as illustrated in Fig-ure 7.4. However, it should be noted that investigations were only conducted within a small portion of this area located on the north side of the Wabash River. Since the entire battlefield area was not field inspected nor visited, an assessment of integrity elsewhere is solely based upon the fact that most of the area in question is

in agricultural use, which would tend to minimize the impact on any intact archeological remains.

future researCh

Though the 2013 field season has accomplished much in terms of the basic understanding of the extent and na-ture of the historic period remains in the vicinity of Fort Ouiatenon, much work still needs to be done before we can gain a thorough appreciation of these sites. The fol-lowing discussion outlines possible avenues for future research and immediate issues of site preservation.

12-T-9

Although the area within Fort Ouiatenon’s footprint has been thoroughly excavated, up to now, other areas of 12-T-9 have received much less attention. The 2013 in-vestigations have partially addressed the imbalance in the data, with the partial excavation of a Native Ameri-can structure to the west of the fort. However, much more still needs to be done to better understand the Kickapoo and Mascouten habitation areas on the north side of the Wabash. The 2012/2013 magnetometry sur-vey, combined with the data from 2009, has resulted in nearly complete coverage of site 12-T-9. The survey has conclusively shown the presence of intact subsur-face remains in numerous areas of 12-T-9, particularly to the north and northwest of the fort, with apparent concentrations of activity in other areas of the site. As far as we can tell, the magnetic anomalies outside the fort are likely related to 1) fort-related activities that were deemed too messy or space intensive to have oc-curred within the fort, 2) activities related to the Kick-apoo-Mascouten habitation of the general area, or 3) a combination of both. As far as future subsurface investigations are con-cerned, there is presently no reason to further disturb the fort site itself since extensive investigations have already taken place within its limits, and these excava-tions have not yet been adequately summarized, either for a scholarly or public audience. This should be our first priority. Since the fort site is currently protected from further disturbance (either agricultural or natural) there is no pressing need for further excavations within its limits. Additional testing should be undertaken, however, to determine the nature and affiliation of other anoma-lies identified at 12-T-9, particularly in those areas un-

121

Figure 7.4. Study Area (yellow) and Core Area (orange) in the Ouiatenon vicinity, as defined by ABPP criteria. The three core areas represented by circles are estimated locations, based on incomplete contemporary descrip-tions.

der cultivation. One area of particular interest is the large complex dipolar anomaly centered on coordinates N960, E940, encompassing an area of ca. 40 by 20 meters (see Chapter 3). Though no discrete structures could be discerned in the data, all evidence points to this area as a concentration of habitation-related activi-ties. Our magnetometry survey also indicated the pres-ence of anomalies in the cultivated portions of 12-T-9, suggesting that intact features may remain in these areas. However, we know little or nothing about the nature of these anomalies or their cultural affiliation. These data are particularly necessary, given the fact that the site floods often and portions of 12-T-9 are known to have suffered from flood-related erosion. The effects

of repeated cultivation on these anomalies should also be assessed. Another research avenue involves the use of addi-tional methods of subsurface investigation. Because the various methods of subsurface investigation are recep-tive to different properties of the soil, it is worth the ex-tra time to conduct more than one type of survey, so that a more complete picture of the site is generated before any subsurface investigations begin. One possibility is resistivity survey, which detects human activities by identifying culturally produced differences in the abil-ity of an electrical current to pass through the soil. In general, resistivity survey takes longer to cover a given area than magnetometry survey and so, it might be best used in certain areas of the site where concentrations

122

of anomalies have already been identified via magne-tometry. The fact that the TCHA-owned portion of the property is in grass suggests that resistivity survey may produce fruitful results.

12-T-335

The results of our magnetometry survey at site 12-T-335 were less definitive than those obtained from 12-T-9. The eastern area of the site seems to have a large amount of natural magnetic variability, making the resulting image “busy” and harder to interpret (i.e., it is difficult to separate out culturally related anomalies from those caused by natural phenomena). The western portion of the survey, however, is clearer, and a num-ber of large-sized monopolar positive anomalies were identified, suggesting the presence of intact subsurface remains at the site. Overall, it seems that there is very good potential for encountering intact subsurface remains related to the historic period Native occupation, especially con-sidering the fact that the eastern part of the floodplain ridge has not been plowed in recent memory due to the droughtiness of the sandy soils. Test excavations of promising anomalies should be considered to de-termine the presence or absence of intact subsurface remains and their cultural affiliation. Damage to the western portion of the site is clearly ongoing, however, due to scouring and erosion, as evidenced by the clear difference in elevation on the western and eastern sides of the farm lane that separates the two halves of the site. Site 12-T-335 should also be considered for resis-tivity survey, though the excessively drained nature of the soils on the eastern portion of the site may impede the resistivity meter’s ability to detect culturally related disturbances, due to a lack of contrast between cultural and non-cultural deposits. In instances like this, it is of-ten best to attempt a survey rather than write it off, as it is very difficult to predict if satisfactory results will be obtained.

12-T-25

Unfortunately, time and weather-related issues prevent-ed us from undertaking more than cursory investigations at 12-T-25. However, the presence of numerous historic period artifacts on the surface of the site suggests the possibility of intact subsurface remains. Magnetometry survey and/or other subsurface investigations should be undertaken at 12-T-25 to aid in determining if intact

features may be present. This issue is particularly press-ing, given the repeated annual flooding that occurs at the site and the resultant possibility of erosion.

Other sites in the Ouiatenon vicinity have not yet been investigated beyond their initial identification in the 1980s. Many may have intact subsurface deposits but the possibility has not yet been confirmed. Potentially interesting sites on the north side of the Wabash River include

statements Of nrhp eligibility

12-T-9

The site of Fort Ouiatenon was added to the National Register of Historic Places in February, 1970 (item number 70000008). Although the limits of the fort proper were included in the site’s nomination, our in-vestigations have shown that areas outside the fort also contain intact subsurface deposits related to the historic period occupation of the area. In particular, it is likely that the remains of numerous intact Kickapoo-Mascout-en structures as well as other intact subsurface features can be found in the area surrounding the fort. Given its high potential for contributing additional information to the history (and possibly prehistory) of the region, and the site’s role in the French fur-trade era and the later subjugation/displacement of Native Americans in the present state of Indiana, is the opinion of the au-thor that the areas of 12-T-9 outside the fort proper are clearly eligible for the NRHP under criteria A and D.

12-T-335

Surface survey, conducted in 1984, resulted in the re-covery of numerous prehistoric and historic period ar-tifacts on the western and eastern portions of site 12-T-335. Although no subsurface investigations have been conducted at the site, the fact that

suggests that erosion has been minimized and that portions of it may be well-preserved. Our magnetometry investigations in this portion of the site indicate numerous anomalies, some of which are likely archeological in nature. Simi-larly, magnetometry on the western portion of the site also identified a number of anomalies of a potential cul-tural nature.

123

Given these facts, it is the opinion of the authors that the density of prehistoric and historic-period arti-facts, along with the results of the magnetometry inves-tigations, suggest that the site has potential for intact cultural deposits and will likely contribute additional information to understanding the prehistory and/or his-tory of the region. Site 12-T-335 may be eligible for the National Register for Historic Places under criterion D, based upon the density of materials and the demonstrat-ed presence of intact prehistoric and historic cultural deposits. The site may also be eligible under criterion A, as it was associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our his-tory, namely, its role in the French fur-trade era and the later subjugation/displacement of Native Americans in the present state of Indiana.

12-T-25

Though no systematic investigations of site 12-T-25 were undertaken, a casual walkover of the site indi-cates the presence of fair quantities of cultural materi-als, both prehistoric and historic, on the surface. Giv-en these facts, it is the opinion of the authors that the density of artifacts that the site has potential for intact cultural deposits and will likely contribute additional information to understanding the prehistory and/or his-tory of the region. Site 12-T-25 may be eligible for the National Register for Historic Places under criterion D, based upon the density of materials and the demonstrat-ed presence of intact prehistoric and historic cultural deposits. The site may also be eligible under criterion A, as it was associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our his-tory, namely, its role in the French fur-trade era and the later subjugation/displacement of Native Americans in the present state of Indiana. A more definitive estima-tion of the site’s potential eligibility may be possible if the site were to be subjected to geophysical survey.

reCOmmendatiOns fOr site preservatiOn

12-T-9

The east-central portion of site 12-T-9 (including Fort Ouiatenon itself) is currently under ownership by the

Tippecanoe County Historical Association (TCHA), while the site’s eastern and western extremes are pri-vately owned and are currently in agricultural use. The area in and around 12-T-9 floods frequently, as evi-denced by the presence of driftwood and other floating debris in the immediate area, and our first-hand experi-ence of the flooding in 2013. Fortunately,

. However, the privately-owned portions of 12-T-9 are undoubtedly in danger due to these factors. Unfortunately, there is not much that is currently being done preserve these por-tions of the site and it is extremely likely that damage to the resources in these areas is ongoing.

12-T-335

Most of the eastern half of 12-T-335 (i.e., the part of the site subjected to magnetometry in 2009)

This has undoubtedly aided in reducing erosion, as the soils in the immediate area are quite sandy and there-fore susceptible to being washed downhill. We believe that the current measures on this part of the site are suf-ficient to its further preservation. The western portion of the site, however, (i.e., that portion to the west of the north-south farm lane) is currently in agricultural use. It is clear from our field observations that the western portion of the site is at a significantly lower elevation that the eastern portion. This is almost certainly due, at least in part, to erosion and/or scouring of the site due to rain and/or flooding. Continued agricultural use is almost certainly contributing to its destruction.

12-T-25

No formal site assessment was undertaken at site 12-T-25, given the short length of time spent there. However, it is apparent that the site floods often (12-T-25 was un-derwater during a portion of our 2013 field season). It is unknown what effects these repeated flooding episodes may have on the integrity of possible cultural deposits and whether there is any erosion occurring. Site 12-T-25 is currently in agricultural use and there is no doubt this may exacerbate any negative effects due to repeat-ed flooding.

124

REFERENCES CITED American State Papers, Indian Affairs

1832- American State Papers, Indian Affairs [1789-1827]. 2 vols. Gales and Seaton, 1834 Washington, D.C.

Armour, David

1977 Beads in the Upper Great Lakes: A Study in Acculturation. In Beads: Their Use by Upper Great Lakes Indians, pp. 9-26. Grand Rapids Public Museum, Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Barnhart, John D. (editor)

1951 Henry Hamilton and George Rogers Clark in the American Revolution with the Unpublished Journal of Lieut. Gov. Henry Hamilton. R. E. Banta, Crawfordsville, Indiana.

Barnhart, John D., and Dorothy L. Riker

1971 Indiana to 1816: The Colonial Period. Indiana Historical Bureau and Indiana Historical Society, Indianapolis.

Beckwith, Hiram W.

1903 Collections of the Illinois State Historical Library, vol 1. H.W. Rokker, Springfield, Il.

Bergmann, William H.

2005 Commerce and Arms: The Federal Government, Native Americans, and the Economy of the Old Northwest, 1783-1807. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cincinnati. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.

Berkson, Alice

1992 Cultural Resistance of the Prairie Kickapoo at the Grand Village, McLean County, Illinois. Illinois Archaeology 4(2):109-205.

Biggs, William

1977 [1825] Narrative of William Biggs, While He was a Prisoner with the Kickepoo Indians. The Garland Library of Narratives of North American Indian Captivities, vol. 37. Garland Publishing, New York.

Burks, Jarrod

2004 Searching for Fort Pickawillany: Large-Area Geophysical Survey at a Mid-Eighteenth Century English Trading Post in Miami County, Ohio. Contract Report 2004-24. Ohio Valley Archaeological Consultants, Columbus, Ohio.

125

Callender, Charles 1978 Miami. In Northeast, edited by Bruce G. Trigger, pp. 681-689. Handbook of

North American Indians, vol. 15, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Callender, Charles, Richard K. Pope, and Susan M. Pope

1978 Kickapoo. In Northeast, edited by Bruce G. Trigger, pp. 656-667. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 15, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Cantin, Mark

2008 Provenience, Description, and Archaeological Use of Selected Chert Types of Indiana. Indiana State University Anthropology Laboratory, Technical Report No. 05-01, Indiana State University, Terre Haute.

Carter, Clarence E., ed.

1948 Territorial Papers of the United States, vol 16. United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Cobb, Charles R., ed.

2003 Stone Tool Traditions in the Contact Era. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Craig, Oscar

1893 Ouiatanon: a Study in Indiana History. Indiana Historical Society Publications 2(8):317-348.

Cunningham, Wilbur M. (editor)

1967 The Letter Book of William Burnett: Early Fur Trader in the Land of the Four Flags. Fort Miami Heritage Society of Michigan.

Custer, Milo

1907 Milo Custer to George J. Remsburg, January 16, 1907. George Jacob Remsburg Papers, Collection 78. Kansas State Historical Society, Topeka.

Dillingham, Betty Ann Wilder

1963 Oklahoma Kickapoo. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Draper Manuscripts

1949 Draper Manuscript Collection [microform]. Department of Photographic Reproduction, University of Chicago.

Dunn, Jacob P.

1894 Documents Relating to the French Settlements on the Wabash. Indiana Historical Society Publications 2(2):404-442.

126

Durst, Jeffrey J.

2009 Sourcing Gunflints to their Country of Manufacture. Historical Archaeology 43(2):18-29.

Edmunds, R. David

1972 Wea Participation in the Northwest Indian Wars, 1790-1795. The Filson Club History Quarterly 46:241-253.

1983 The Shawnee Prophet. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

Evans, William A.

1978 Detroit to Fort Sackville, 1778-1779, The Journal of Normand MacLeod. Wayne State University Press, Detroit.

Fredrickson, N. Jaye

1980 The Covenant Chain: Indian Ceremonial and Trade Silver. National Museums of Canada, Ottawa.

Gibb, Sandra

1980 Catalog. In The Covenant Chain: Indian Ceremonial and Trade Silver, by N. Jaye Fredrickson, pp. 73-162, National Museums of Canada, Ottawa.

Goddard, Ives

1978 Mascouten. In Northeast, edited by Bruce G. Trigger, pp. 668-672. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 15, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Goggin, John M.

1951 The Mexican Kickapoo Indians. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 7(3):314-327.

The Gris [Miami Chief]

1791 Letter to Indian Agent Alexander McKee, January 9, 1791. U.S. National Archives, Record Group 59, Microcopy 588, Roll 7.

Gutschick, Raymond C.

1966 Bedrock Geology. In Natural Features of Indiana, edited by Alton A. Lindsey, pp. 1-20. Indiana Academy of Science, Indianapolis.

Hamilton, T. M.

1980 Colonial Frontier Guns. The Fur Press, Chadron, Nebraska.

127

Heckewelder, John 1888 Narrative of John Heckewelder’s Journey to the Wabash in 1792 (part II).

Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 12:34-54, 165-184. Hedge, Roger L.

1997 Forested Swell and Swale: The Central Till Plain Natural Region. In The Natural Heritage of Indiana, edited by Marion T. Jackson, pp. 195-199. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.

Helderman, L.C.

1938 The Northwest Expedition of George Rogers Clark, 1786-1787. Mississippi Valley Historical Review 25(3):317-334.

Hendrix, William M.

1889 Letter of W. M. Hendrix. McLean County Historical Society Collections, Volume I. McLean County Historical Society, Bloomington, Illinois.

Homoya, Michael A.

1997 The Natural Regions of Indiana: An Introduction. In The Natural Heritage of Indiana, edited by Marion T. Jackson, pp. 158-160. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.

Howe, Robert C.

1997 Of Time, Rocks, and Ancient Life: Bedrock Geology. In The Natural Heritage of Indiana, edited by Marion T. Jackson, pp. 3-13. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.

Illinois State Historical Library (IHC)

1934 Collections, vol. 23. Illinois State Historical Library, Springfield. Illinois Trails History and Genealogy

2007 Vincennes Land Grants. http://www.iltrails.org/nw_vincennes_land_1.htm. Electronic document accessed March 16, 2007.

Imlay, George

1797 A Topographical Description of the Western Territory of North America. 3rd ed. Debrett, London, England.

1916 A Topographical Description of the Western Territory of North America, 1793. In

Indiana as Seen by Early Travelers: A Collection of Reprints from Books of Travel, Letters, and Diaries Prior to 1830, edited by Harlow Lindley, pp. 9-16. Indiana Historical Commission, Indianapolis.

128

Irving, John T., Jr. 1835 Indian Sketches Taken during an Expedition to the Pawnee Tribes. Carey, Lea,

and Blanchard, Philadelphia. Jablow, Joseph

1974 The Indians of Illinois and Indiana: Illinois, Kickapoo, and Potawatomi Indians. Garland Publishing, New York and London.

Jackson, Misty Mae

2005 Classifications by Historical Archaeologists and Eighteenth Century Montreal Merchants and Military Personnel in New France: Emic and Etic Approaches. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Michigan State University.

Johnson, Mary M.

2000 Ouiatenon: The French Post among the Ouia. Ouabache Press, West Lafayette, Indiana.

Jones, James R., III

1984 Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Century Aboriginal and Euroamerican Occupations in the Vicinity of Lafayette, Tippecanoe County, Indiana. Report prepared for the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology. Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology, Indiana University, Bloomington.

1988 Degrees of Acculturation at Two 18th Century Aboriginal Villages near Lafayette,

Tippecanoe County, Indiana: Ethnohistoric and Archaeological Perspectives. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Anthropology, Indiana University, Bloomington.

Jones, Olive and Catherine Sullivan

1989 The Parks Canada Glass Glossary for the Description of Containers, Tableware, Closures, and Flat Glass, revised edition. National Historic Parks and Sites, Canadian Parks Service.

Justice, Noel D.

1987 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Midcontinental and Eastern United States. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.

Kellar, James H.

1970 The Search for Ouiatanon. Indiana History Bulletin 47(11):123-133.

129

Kenmotsu, Nancy 2000 Gunflints: A Study. In Approaches to Material Culture Research for Historical

Archaeologists, compiled by David R. Brauner, pp. 340-372. 2nd ed. Society for Historical Archaeology, California, Pennsylvania.

Krauskopf, Frances

1953 The French in Indiana, 1700-1760: A Political History. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of History, Indiana University, Bloomington.

Krauskopf, Frances (editor and translator)

1955 Ouiatanon Documents. Indiana Historical Society Publications 18. Indianapolis. Latorre, Felipe A. and Dolores L. Latorre

1976 The Mexican Kickapoo Indians. University of Texas Press, Austin and London. Lawhon, Katie

2002 Gettysburg the Way the Soldiers Saw It in 1863. CRM 4:36-39. Laselle, Antoine

1790 Letter to Indian Agent Alexander McKee. December 15, 1790. U.S. National Archives, Record Group 59, Microcopy 588, Roll 7.

Lasselle, C.B.

1906 The Old Indian Traders of Indiana. Indiana Magazine of History 2(1):1-13. Marshall, A.

1999 Magnetic Prospection at High Resolution: Survey of Large Silo-pits in Iron Age Enclosures. Archaeological Prospection 6:11-29.

Marshall, Humphrey

1824 History of Kentucky, 2 vols. George S. Robinson, Frankfort, Ky. Martin, Terrance J.

1986 A Faunal Analysis of Fort Ouiatenon, An Eighteenth-Century Trading Post in the Wabash Valley of Indiana. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Michigan State University, Lansing.

Martin, W. A., J. E. Bruseth, and R. J. Huggins

1991 Assessing Feature Function and Spatial Patterning of Artifacts with Geophysical Remote-Sensing Data. American Antiquity 56(4):701-720.

Mason, Ronald J.

1986 Rock Island: Historical Indian Archaeology in the Northern Lake Michigan Basin. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology Special Paper 6. Kent State University Press, Kent.

130

McBride, K.A., W.S. McBride, and D. Pollack (editors) 1996 Historical Archaeology in Kentucky. Kentucky Heritage Council, Frankfort.

McCord, Shirley S.

1970 Travel Accounts of Indiana, 1679-1961. Indiana Historical Bureau, Indianapolis. McDonough, J. L. and Co.

1883 Combined History of Edwards, Lawrence and Wabash Counties, Illinois: with Illustrations Descriptive of their Scenery and Biographical Sketches of some of their Prominent Men and Pioneers. J. L. McDonough and Co., Philadelphia.

Mead, J. R.

1904 J.R. Mead to George J. Remsburg, February 13, 1904. George Jacob Remsburg Papers, Collection 78. Kansas State Historical Society, Topeka.

Michigan Pioneer and Historical Society

1895 Michigan Pioneer and Historical Society Collections, vol. 24. Robert Smith and Co., Lansing.

1904 Michigan Pioneer and Historical Society Collections, vol. 33. Wynkoop

Hallenbeck Crawford, Lansing.

1905 Michigan Pioneer and Historical Society Collections, vol. 34. Wynkoop Hallenbeck Crawford, Lansing.

Moogk, Peter N.

1975 Building a House in New France. McClelland and Stewart, Toronto. Mumford, R. E.

1969 Distribution of the Mammals of Indiana. Monograph 1. Indiana Academy of Science, Indianapolis.

Mumford, R. E., and J. O. Whitaker

1982 Mammals of Indiana. Indiana University Press, Bloomington. Naval Education and Training Professional Development and Technology Center

1993 Seabee Combat Handbook, vol 1. Non Resident Training Course Manual NAVEDTRA 14234. Naval Education and Training Professional Development and Technology Center, Pensacola, Florida.

Nelson, Lee H.

1968 Nail Chronology as an Aid to Dating Old Buildings. Technical Leaflet No. 48, American Association for State and Local History, Nashville.

131

Nelson, Paul David 1986 General Charles Scott, the Kentucky Mounted Volunteers, and the Northwest

Indian Wars, 1784-1794. Journal of the Early Republic 6:219-251. Noack-Myers, Kelsey

2014 Another Look at Fort Ouiatenon: Native-European Creolization and the Frontier Meat Diet. Poster presented at the 47th Annual Meeting of the Society for Historical Archaeology, Quebec City, Canada, January 8-12, 2014.

Noble, Vergil E., Jr.

1997 Eighteenth-Century Ceramics from Fort de Chartres III. Illinois Archaeology 9(1-2):36-78.

1991 Ouiatenon on the Ouabache: Archaeological Investigations at a Fur Trading Post

on the Wabash River. In French Colonial Archaeology, edited by John H. Walthall, pp. 65-77. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

1983 Functional Classification and Intra-site Analysis in Historical Archaeology: A

Case Study from Fort Ouiatenon. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Michigan State University, Lansing.

1979 Discovering Fort Ouiatenon: Its History and Archaeology. Tippecanoe Tales, No.

6. Tippecanoe County Historical Association, Lafayette, Indiana. Noël Hume, Ivor

1969 A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

Pease, Theodore C. and Ernestine Jenison

1940 Illinois on the Eve of the Seven Years’ War 1747-1755. Illinois State Historical Library, Springfield.

Petty, R. O., and Marion T. Jackson

1966 Plant Communities. In Natural Features of Indiana, edited by Alton A. Lindsey, pp. 264-296. Indiana Academy of Science, Indianapolis.

Post, Thomas W.

1997 Where Tallgrasses Waved: The Grand Prairie Natural Region. In The Natural Heritage of Indiana, edited by Marion T. Jackson, pp. 189-193. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.

Quaife, Milo M. (editor)

1917 The Indian Captivity of O. M. Spencer. R. R. Donnelley and Sons, Chicago. 1921 Fort Wayne in 1790. Indiana Historical Society Publications 7(7):293-361.

132

Quimby, George I. 1966 Indian Culture and European Trade Goods. University of Wisconsin Press,

Madison. Ritzenthaler, Robert E. and Frederick A. Peterson

1970 The Mexican Kickapoo Indians. Milwaukee Public Museum Publications in Anthropology, Number 2. Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticut.

Ross, Harvey Lee

1899 The Early Pioneers and Pioneer Events of the State of Illinois. Eastman Brothers, Chicago.

Sauer, Norman J., Samual S. Dunlap, and Lawrence R. Simson

1988 Medicolegal Investigation of an Eighteenth Century Homicide. American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology 9:66-73.

Schneider, Allan F.

1966 Physiography. In Natural Features of Indiana, edited by Alton A. Lindsey, pp. 40-56. Indiana Academy of Science, Indianapolis.

SHAARD

2013 Indiana State Historic Architectural and Archaeological Research Base [SHAARD]. (https://secure.in.gov/apps/dnr/shaard/welcome.html).

Sharp, George

1790 Letter from George Sharp at Miamitown to unknown recipients, December 16, 1790. U.S. National Archives, Record Group 59, Microcopy 588, Roll 7.

Sleeper-Smith, Susan

2001 Indian Women and French Men: Rethinking Cultural Encounter in the Western Great Lakes. University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst.

Smith, Charles R.

1978 The Grand Village of the Kickapoo: An Historic Site. Unpublished M.S. thesis, Department of Anthropology, Illinois State University.

Smith, Dwight

1954 Notes on the Wabash River in 1795. Indiana Magazine of History 50(3):277-290. Smith, William Henry (editor)

1882 The St. Clair papers: the Life and Public Services of Arthur St. Clair, Soldier of the Revolutionary War, President of the Continental Congress, and Governor of the North-Western Territory, with His Correspondence and Other Papers. 2 vols. Robert Clarke and Co., Cincinnati, Ohio.

133

Society for Historical Archaeology 2013 Historic Glass Bottle Identification and Information Website.

(http://www.sha.org/bottle/).

State Historical Society of Wisconsin 1902 Collections of the State Historical Society of Wisconsin, vol. 16. Democratic

Printing, Madison. Stevens, Paul L.

1987 “One of the Most Beautiful Regions of the World”: Paul Des Ruisseaux’s Mémoire of the Wabash-Illinois Country in 1777. Indiana Magazine of History 83:360-379.

Stone, Lyle M.

1974 Fort Michilimackinac, 1715-1781: An Archaeological Perspective on the Revolutionary Frontier. Michigan State University Museum Publications 2. Michigan State University Museum, Lansing.

Strezewski, Michael, James R. Jones III, and Dorothea McCullough

2006 Archaeological Investigations at Site 12-T-59 and Two Other Locations in Prophetstown State Park, Tippecanoe County, Indiana. Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne, Reports of Investigations 703. Submitted to American Battlefield Protection Program (Grant # GA 2255-04-004), Washington, D.C.

Strezewski, Michael and Robert G. McCullough

2010 Report of the 2009 Archaeological Investigations at Three Fur Trade-Era Sites in Tippecanoe County, Indiana: Kethtippecanunk (12-T-59), Fort Ouiatenon (12-T-9), and a Kickapoo-Mascouten Village (12-T-335). Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne Archaeological Survey, Reports of Investigations 903. Submitted to American Battlefield Protection Program (Grant # GA 2255-08-016), Washington, D.C.

Strezewski, Michael, Robert G. McCullough, Dorothea McCullough, Craig Arnold, and Joshua J. Wells

2007 Report of the 2006 Archaeological Investigations at Kethtippecanunk (12-T-59), Tippecanoe County, Indiana. Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne, Reports of Investigations 703. Submitted to The Office of Environmental Services, Indiana Department of Transportation, Indianapolis.

Strum, R. H.

1979 Soil Survey of Johnson County, Indiana. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.

134

Tankersley, Kenneth B. 1996 Ice Age Hunters and Gatherers. In Kentucky Archaeology, edited by R. Barry

Lewis, pp. 21-38. University Press of Kentucky, Lexington. Tanner, Helen Hornbeck (editor)

1987 Atlas of Great Lakes Indian History. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Temple, Wayne C.

1975 Indian Villages of the Illinois Country. Publications 2:Part 1, Supplement. Illinois State Museum, Springfield.

Thwaites, Reuben Gold, ed.

1904 Early Western Travels, 1748-1846, vol 1. Arthur H. Clark Co., Cleveland, Ohio. Tordoff, Judith D.

1983 An Archaeological Perspective on the Organization of the Fur Trade in Eighteenth Century New France. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Michigan State University, Lansing.

Trubowitz, Neal L.

1992a Native Americans and French on the Central Wabash. In Calumet and Fleur-de-Lys: Archaeology of Indian and French Contact in the Midcontinent, edited by John A. Walthall and Thomas E. Emerson, pp. 241-264. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

1992b Thanks, But We Prefer to Smoke Our Own: Pipes in the Great Lakes-Riverine

Region During the Eighteenth Century. In Proceedings of the 1989 Smoking Pipe Conference: Selected Papers, edited by Charles F. Hayes III, pp. 97-102. Rochester Museum and Science Center, Rochester, New York.

United State Marine Corps

1993 U.S. Marine Corps Training Manual MCW2-12.1, Geographic Intelligence. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

United States National Archives

1965 War of 1812 Papers of the Department of State, 1789-1815. Record Group 59 (General Records of the Department of State), Microcopy 588. National Archives and Records Service, Washington, D.C.

von Frese, Ralph R. B.

1984 Archaeomagnetic Anomalies of Midcontinental North American Archaeological Sites. Historical Archaeology 18:4-19.

1978 Magnetic Exploration of Historical Midwestern Archaeological Sites as

Exemplified by a Survey of Fort Ouiatenon. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Purdue University.

135

von Frese, Ralph R. B., and Vegil E. Noble

1984 Magnetometry for Archaeological Exploration of Historical Sites. Historical Archaeology 18:38-53.

Wagner, Mark J.

2011 The Rhoads Site: A Historic Kickapoo Village on the Illinois Prairie. Illinois State Archaeological Survey, Studies in Archaeology No. 5. University of Illinois, Urbana.

Wagner, Mark J., Terrance J. Martin, Lee A. Newsom, and Kathryn E. Parker

2001 The Windrose Site: An Early Nineteenth-Century Potawatomi Settlement in the Kankakee River Valley of Northeastern Illinois. Reports of Investigations 56. Illinois State Museum, Springfield.

Waselkov, Gregory A., and John A. Walthall

2002 Faience Styles in French Colonial North America: A Revised Classification. Historic Archaeology 36(1):62-78.

Wayne, William J.

1966 Ice and Land: A Review of the Tertiary and Pleistocene History of Indiana. In Natural Features of Indiana, edited by Alton A. Lindsey, pp. 21-39. Indiana Academy of Science, Indianapolis.

Wells, Tom

1998 Nail Chronology: The Use of Technologically Derived Features. Historical Archaeology 32(2):78-99.

Wheeler-Voegelin, Erminie, Emily J. Blasingham, and Dorothy R. Libby

1974 Miami, Wea, and Eel River Indians of Southern Indiana: An Anthropological Report on the Miami, Wea, and Eel-River Indians. Garland Publishing, Inc. New York and London.

White, Richard

1991 The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires, and Republics in the Great Lakes Region, 1650-1815. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Wilbourn, David

2013 Terrasurveyor User Manual, Program Version 3.0.22. DW Consulting, Barneveld, The Netherlands. (http://www.dwconsulting.nl/TerraSurveyor%20manual3022.pdf)

Wilson, Denise M.

1997 Vincennes: From French Colonial Village to American Frontier Town: 1730-1820. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Eberly College of Arts and Sciences, West Virginia University.

136

Ziegler, Thomas R., and Douglas R. Wolf

1998 Soil Survey of Tippecanoe County, Indiana. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.

137

APPENDIX A FS LOG, 12-T-9

147

APPENDIX B ARTIFACT CATALOG, 12-T-9

175

APPENDIX C ARTIFACT CATALOG, 12-T-25 AND 12-T-335

Download - Fur Trade Archaeology in the Fort Ouiatenon Vicinity: The 2012/2013 Investigations

Top Related