UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA

GRADUATE COLLEGE

LA CROSSE LOCALITY ONEOTA ARCHITECTURE:

A FUNCTIONAL APPROACH

A THESIS

SUMBITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

Degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

By

MIRANDA ALEXANDER Norman, Oklahoma

2013

LA CROSSE LOCALITY ONEOTA ARCHITECTURE: A FUNCTIONAL APPROACH

A THESIS APPROVED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY

BY

______________________________ Dr. Susan Vehik, Chair

______________________________ Dr. Patricia A. Gilman

______________________________ Dr. Richard Drass

© Copyright by MIRANDA ALEXANDER 2013 All Rights Reserved.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, I would like to thank my mentor Dr. James Theler for his

guidance, support, and patience. I would also like to thank Wendy Holtz-Leith, Jean

Dowiasch, Dr. Constance Arzigian, Dr. Joseph Tiffany, Dr. Kathy Stevenson, and

Mike Bednarchuk of the Mississippi Valley Archaeology Center for providing me

with the training in archaeological methods and for their assistance with my thesis.

Thanks also go out to Robert “Ernie” Boszhardt for conducting research on the La

Crosse locality Oneota and for guiding me towards the thesis topic at hand. Thank

you to Danielle Benden and the Anthropology Department of the University of

Wisconsin for taking the time to get the Overhead (47Lc20) collection ready for me

to analyze. Thank you to my thesis committee of Dr. Susan Vehik, Dr. Patricia

Gilman, and Dr. Richard Drass for taking me on as your student. Thank you to the

Wisconsin Historical Society and the Museum Archaeology Program for granting me

permission to use a graphic for the Tremaine site. Thanks also go out to my family

and friends for being patient and providing support during this process of obtaining

my master’s degree. Special thanks go to my mother Wanda, my boyfriend Bill, and

my friend and colleague Wendy for pushing me to finish. Also, special thanks to my

niece Annabelle and my boyfriend’s son Daniel for reminding me to take a break

here and there and have some fun.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page Acknowledgements ................................................................................................... iv List of Tables ............................................................................................................ vi List of Figures ......................................................................................................... vii Abstract ..................................................................................................................... ix Chapter 1: Variability in Oneota Architecture ........................................................... 1 Chapter 2: A Functional Approach to Oneota Architecture....................................... 9 Chapter 3: Oneota Tradition Background ................................................................ 17 Chapter 4: Archaeological Background of the Data Set .......................................... 36 Chapter 5: Architecture in the Ethnographic Record ............................................... 44 Chapter 6: Architecture, Internal Features, and Artifact Assemblages .................... 62 Chapter 7: La Crosse Locality Oneota Architecture Function ................................. 86 Chapter 8: Conclusions ............................................................................................ 96 References .............................................................................................................. 102

Appendix A: Descriptions of Artifact Types Listed on the MVAC Catalog Forms for Cataloging and Analysis ....................................................................... 117

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Page Table 1.1. Oneota Sites with Architecture ................................................................. 3 Table 5.1. Types of Structures Used by Native Americans in the Northeast/Great Lakes Area ............................................................................................................... 45 Table 6.1. Activities and Their Expected Artifacts .................................................. 63 Table 6.2. Expectations for Determining the Function of Oneota Architecture ...... 64 Table 6.3. Individual Oneota House Statistics in the La Crosse Locality................ 66 Table 7.1. House Phase Designation Based on Ceramics ........................................ 88 Table 7.2. Functional Classification of Houses ....................................................... 89

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Page Figure 1.1. Map of Sites within the Study Area ......................................................... 1 Figure 3.1. Midwestern Taxonomic Method............................................................ 18 Figure 3.2. Willey and Phillips Taxonomic System ................................................ 20 Figure 3.3. Geographical Area Covered by the Oneota ........................................... 21 Figure 3.4. Description of Ceramic Styles by Phase in the La Crosse Locality ...... 27 Figure 3.5. Ceramic Style Types by Phase in the La Crosse Locality ..................... 28 Figure 3.6. Map of the Driftless Area in Wisconsin ................................................ 31 Figure 4.1. Location of the Midway Village Complex Site (47Lc19) and the Tremaine Site (47Lc95) ........................................................................................... 37 Figure 4.2. Location of the Overhead Site (47Lc20) ............................................... 39 Figure 4.3. Location of the Krause Site (47Lc41) and the Meier Farm Site (47Lc432) ................................................................................................................ 41 Figure 5.1. Winnebago Wigwam Covered with Reed Mats .................................... 49 Figure 5.2. Summer House of the Ioway, Oklahoma ............................................... 52 Figure 5.3. Plan View Map of a Fox Summer House with an Attached Shelter ..... 54 Figure 5.4. Artist’s Rendition of an Oneota Longhouse .......................................... 55 Figure 6.1. House 1 at the Midway Village Complex Site ...................................... 68 Figure 6.2. Profile House 1 ...................................................................................... 68 Figure 6.3. House 2 at the Midway Village Complex Site ...................................... 70 Figure 6.4. Profile of House 2 .................................................................................. 70 Figure 6.5. House 3 at the Overhead Site................................................................. 71 Figure 6.6. House 4 at the Krause Site ..................................................................... 73

viii

Figure 6.7. Profile of House 4 .................................................................................. 74 Figure 6.8. Houses 5 – 11 at the Tremaine Site ....................................................... 75 Figure 6.9. House 12 at the Meier Farm Site ........................................................... 79 Figure 6.10. Houses 13 and 14 at the Meier Farm Site ............................................ 80

ix

ABSTRACT

This study examines the various forms of La Crosse locality Oneota

architecture using a functional approach. I argue that the variability in La Crosse

locality Oneota architecture is due to function. At least three different structure

forms were built during the Oneota occupation of the La Crosse locality: circular or

oval wigwams, semi-subterranean or pit structures, and longhouses. The data set for

this study contains 14 Oneota structures (two wigwams, three semi-subterranean, and

nine longhouses) from five Oneota sites.

To examine the functional use of each structure, I used multiple lines of

evidence. I examined the ethnographic record to gain a better understanding of the

types of structures used by Native Americans in historic times. The formal

properties of each structure, including size and form, were recorded. Another line of

evidence was the presence or absence and function of internal features. Artifact

assemblages were also used as data to determine the function of the structures.

Based on the evidence, I have found that the La Crosse locality Oneota

structures were used for domestic purposes rather than ceremonial. This claim is

supported by the formal properties of the architecture, presence/absence and function

of internal features, and artifact assemblages. A semiannual shift in residency or

dual structure pattern, i.e., wigwam for winter and longhouse for summer, is likely

based on the ethnographic record.

1

CHAPTER 1: VARIABILITY IN ONEOTA ARCHITECTURE

I argue that the variability in La Crosse locality Oneota house architecture is

due to function. At least three different house structure forms were built during the

Oneota occupation of the La Crosse locality: circular or oval wigwams, semi-

subterranean or pit structures, and longhouses. The La Crosse locality (Figure 1.1) is

an ideal area to study due to the variation in architecture and extensive excavations

and research, and it is the most well dated Oneota locality. The La Crosse locality is

located in southwestern Wisconsin.

Figure 1.1. Map of Sites within the Study Area. Courtesy of the Mississippi Valley Archaeology Center.

2

I am looking at house form variation at the locality level rather than a

regional level in hopes that the scale is small enough to ascertain function of

structures. Six Oneota sites in the La Crosse locality have architecture. Those sites

are Midway Village Complex (47Lc19), Tremaine (47Lc95), Krause (47Lc41),

Meier Farm (47Lc432), Gundersen (47Lc394), and Overhead (47Lc20).

A relatively low number of house structures have been identified at large,

extensive Oneota village sites. Postmolds and postmold patterns, i.e., structure

outlines, are extremely rare at these sites and this may be due to 1) the soft, sandy

soil which increases rodent disturbance and blurs soil stains, and 2) modern farming

causing a plow zone of 30 cm in depth which may distort or destroy postmolds and

house floors. Another problem with locating structures could be the project limits

that cultural resource management (CRM) firms face when conducting excavations.

Project boundaries can sometimes obscure site boundaries and the possible

identification of architecture which limits the knowledge an archaeologist can gain

about a site. Although these limiting factors are present, archaeologists who

specialize in the Oneota time period (A.D. 950–1650) have noted variation in shape

and size of architecture.

Throughout the Oneota region, various types of architecture have been

identified (Table 1.1). Types of house architecture include rectangular structures

with the individual posts dug into the ground, rectangular structures with posts set

into wall-trenches, semi-subterranean or pit structures, oval/circular wigwams, and

longhouses.

4

3

Table 1.1. Oneota Sites with Architecture.

4

Archaeologists are quick to assume that a structure is a house, but there is a

wide variety of structures that did not function in the domestic domain, such as sweat

lodges, charnel houses, menstruation huts, and ceremonial buildings. Postmolds may

also belong to arbors, windbreaks, outdoor kitchens, drying racks, palisades, or

fences. Dolan and Kuehn (2006) state that to better understand Oneota architecture

“season of occupation and structure function are key factors that need to be

addressed in any study of Late Prehistoric structures.”

Boszhardt (2004) and Dolan and Kuehn (2006) suggest that the variation in

architecture represents seasonal and functional differences, but yet very little has

been written in regards to interpretations of structure usage. Most details about

structures are relegated to generic, descriptive information about structure shape and

size (length and width), postmold information, and internal feature specifics.

Analyses have been conducted that address different research questions about

Oneota architecture (Hollinger 1993, 1995; McKusick 1973, 1974; Moss 2008, 2010;

O’Gorman 1995, 1996, 2001, 2010; O’Gorman and Hollinger 1991). Hollinger

(1993) concludes that regional or seasonal variation in house form could not be

determined with the available evidence.

Moss (2010) conducted an intrasite feature analysis at the Crescent Bay Hunt

Club site to differentiate between two different forms of structures at the site. He

used radiocarbon dates and artifact inventories with GIS to determine which of three

hypotheses was true. The three hypotheses were:

1) The two different forms of structures is the result of a seasonal shift in

residence patterns, where the smaller Houses 1 and 2 are single family

5

winter dwellings, and the larger Longhouse 1 is an extended family

summer dwelling.

2) The difference is functional, with Longhouse 1 representing a communal

structure, and Houses 1 and 2, residential ones.

3) The two patterns represent a diachronic shift in post-marital residence

patterns, where Houses 1 and 2 represent an early, patrilineal post-marital

residence pattern and Longhouse 1 represents a later, matrilineal post-

marital residence pattern (Moss 2010:1-2).

Moss (2010) concluded that the second hypothesis was supported. Therefore,

wigwams represented residential structures and longhouses were of the communal

type.

McKusick (1973) examined seasonality of structures at the Grant site in Iowa

and proposed that the Oneota practiced a seasonal round and dual structure pattern,

i.e., longhouses during the summer and wigwams during the winter. Hollinger

(1993:47) argued that seasonality is difficult to determine “due to the fact that most

seasonal indicators (i.e., plants) occur only from spring through fall.” I do not

disagree with this statement.

Hollinger (1993, 1995) examined 95 Oneota structures throughout the

geographical area inhabited by the Oneota. He examined temporal variations

throughout the tradition. Hollinger (1993, 1995) examined the floor area of each

house to test his expectation that there would be a shift from small floor areas

(patrilocal) to large floor areas (matrilocal) and back to small floor areas (patrilocal)

throughout time. He based his rules of residence on the generalization that smaller

6

houses are associated with patrilocal societies and larger houses are linked to

matrilocal societies. This generalization is supported by observations made in the

ethnographic record of matrilocal societies having significantly larger floor areas

than patrilocal societies (Hollinger 1993:15). Hollinger attributed the variation in

structure form to shifts in residence, i.e., patrilocal to matrilocal and then back to

patrilocal.

One problem with this claim of a shift in residence patterns has to do with

multiple structure forms that are contemporaneous. If a site has multiple

contemporaneous structure forms, then the claim of shift in residence would be null,

unless the site has different structure types that are associated with different

components, then the claim could be valid.

O’Gorman (1995) excavated and reported on the Tremaine site, a site I will

be examining in this thesis. In her site report, she proposed six research questions

revolving around the longhouses found at the site. The research topics included: 1)

houses functioned as domestic dwellings, 2) continuity of occupation, 3) length of

house occupation, 4) population size, 5) temporal relationship between longhouses

and burials, and 6) activity areas in the surrounding vicinity of the structures.

O’Gorman and Hollinger (1991) and O’Gorman (1995) determined that the

longhouses at the Tremaine site primarily functioned as domestic dwellings based on

structural data.

O’Gorman (1996, 2001) examined Oneota social organization at the

Tremaine site through a gender approach using domestic architecture and mortuary

practices. She observed production, distribution, and subsistence within and between

7

households and determined that an “incipient social inequality” constituted Oneota

social organization at the Tremaine site.

In her 2010 American Antiquity article, O’Gorman used the Tremaine site

longhouse data to explore the relationship between the longhouse and community

dynamics. She identifies five kinds of communities that may operate in longhouse

societies: longhouse, natal, marital, village, and regional. O’Gorman approaches the

study using the imagined community (material culture is the means, medium, and

outcome of social reproduction) rather than the natural community (material culture

is a reflection of the community). The imagined community focuses on identity,

agency, social boundaries, meaning, and social repercussions (O’Gorman 2010:572-

573). O’Gorman’s (2010:592) study had five findings. 1) The longhouse is critical

to individual and group identity and creates a distinctive type of household that in

and of itself can profitably be considered a community. 2) Individual longhouse

communities are also the spatial nexus for other kinds of community. 3) The

experience of community may be quite different for men and women. 4) Historical

circumstances, types of integration, and human relationships have had a significant

impact on the stability of longhouse-using village communities. 5) Community as a

whole may exist in multiple places, i.e., occupation of large tracts of land results in

multiple communities comprising a greater whole.

As you can see, a few studies have been conducted that present more than the

descriptive details of Oneota architecture. This thesis will also add to the knowledge

of Oneota architecture from a functional perspective. Multiple lines of evidence will

be used to address my argument that the variability in La Crosse locality Oneota

8

architecture is due to function. The lines of evidence include the ethnographic

record (Knight 2002; Lightfoot 1994; Morin 2006, 2010; Savelle and Habu 2004;

Smith 1995), formal properties of architecture including size and form (Hendon

1989; Johnston and Gonlin 1998; Mehrer 1995; Rogers 1995; Savelle and Habu

2004; Smith 1995), presence or absence and type of internal features (Harn and

Klobucher 2000; Johnston and Gonlin 1998; Lightfoot 1994; Mehrer 1995;

O’Gorman and Hollinger 1991; Rogers 1995; Smith 1995), and artifact

assemblage/activity areas (Harn and Klobucher 2000; Hendon 1989; Johnston and

Gonlin 1998; Lightfoot 1994; Mehrer 1995; Morin 2006, 2010; O’Gorman and

Hollinger1991; Rogers 1995; Savelle and Habu 2004; Smith 1995).

Summary

The purpose of this thesis is to determine why there is variability in shape

and size of La Crosse locality Oneota architecture. I argue that the variability is due

to function (domestic or ceremonial). I have identified three structure types in the La

Crosse area: wigwams, semi-subterranean structures, and longhouses. Multiple lines

of evidence will be used to address my research, including the ethnographic record,

the formal properties of architecture (size and form), the presence or absence and

type of internal features, and the artifact assemblages from each building.

9

CHAPTER 2: A FUNCTIONAL APPROACH TO ONEOTA ARCHITECTURE

“Archaeologists do not excavate households; they find the material remains

of dwellings” (Wilk and Rathje 1982:620). Determining the function of architecture

is the first step in addressing questions of household organization, activity areas, and

the composition of social groups (Clark 1998). Allison (1999:2) argues that “without

some structured perspective on the nature of households in the past they become an

elusive concept.” The primary goal of this thesis is to determine the function of La

Crosse locality Oneota architecture using the functional approach. Before I describe

the functional approach, I will briefly provide some background information on

middle range theory and household archaeology. Both are important to

understanding why I approached my thesis statement the way I did.

Middle-Range Theory

Middle-range theory links arguments between the present (static data) and the

past (dynamics) using analogy (Binford 1967; Gould and Watson 1982; Johnson

1999; Schiffer 1988). Static data are the archaeological record. The dynamics of

past societies are “the way past cultural systems functioned, developed, [and] were

transformed” (Johnson 1999:49). Middle-range theory infers human behavior from

archaeological data. Binford’s (1983:24) goal for middle-range theory “was to study

the relation between statics and dynamics in a modern setting. If understood in great

detail, it would give us a kind of Rosetta Stone: a way of ‘translating’ the static…”

Analogy is a means of linking the present and the past via the ethnographic

record. An analogy uses information from the present ethnographic record to explain

10

cultural materials found in the archaeological record. Ethnographic data include

published or unpublished written accounts, photographs, informant’s oral accounts,

and/or private collections of artifacts (Gould and Watson 1982). An analogy should

have some implicit or explicit relevance to the study (Stahl 1993).

Binford (1967:1) states that “Analogies should be documented and used as

the basis for offering a postulate as to the relationship between archaeological forms

and their behavioral context in the past.” An analogy is used to formulate

hypotheses, formulate general principles, extend theory, and provide interpretations

(Charlton 1981; Gould and Watson 1982). Analogs should be sought on a case-by-

case basis (Wylie 1985).

There are two types of analogy: direct historical and general comparative

(Charlton 1981; Gould and Watson 1982; Stahl 1993). A direct historical analogy is

based on the assumption that there was a direct historical connection between the

archaeological culture and the ethnographic cultures. A general comparative analogy

is one where prehistoric cultures have no known descendants.

Middle-range theory must be based on a uniformitarian assumption. A

uniformitarian assumption is where we assume that conditions in the past were

similar to those in the present. With that being said, analogy is strengthened when

some form of cultural continuity is present (Johnson 1999). “The past, although

never directly observable, is nevertheless knowable” (Gould and Watson 1982).

Shortcomings of Middle-range Theory

Raab and Goodyear (1984:258) consider middle-range theory in archaeology

to be methodological rather than theoretical. They state that middle-range theory is

11

too “focused on the methodological problems of dealing with material data” (Raab

and Goodyear 1984:262). Schiffer (1988:463) argues that “a theory can function as

method, but that use makes it no less theory.” Some archaeologists feel insecure

about using analogy. For example, Wylie (1985) feels that analogy should only be

used to generate hypotheses.

“Because analogical inference is a matter of projecting aspects of the present

onto the past, it carries an unavoidable risk of limiting what archaeologists can

understand of the past, obscuring what may be unique about past cultural forms”

(Wylie 1985:136). Analogical inference is always liable to error and distorts the

past. There is too vast a temporal distance and spatial distance to feel secure in using

analogy to bridge the present and the past.

Analogy does not prove or test anything. Also, uniformitarian assumptions

cannot be proven as correct (Johnson 1999). A caveat is that other interpretations are

possible (Gould and Watson 1982). What one person interprets, another may find a

different interpretation.

Another issue with the use of analogy is that the ethnographic record lacks

precise descriptions of material culture (Charlton 1981). Some archaeologists

replied to this problem through the use of ethnoarchaeology. Ethnoarchaeology is

where archaeologists observe an ethnographic culture in order to make

archaeological interpretations. In other words, the archaeologists are working from

the known (ethnographic record) to the unknown (interpretations of archaeological

data).

12

Household Archaeology

Household archaeology is the study of the material culture and activities

associated with households. First, it must be clarified that households and families

are not one and the same. The household is a task oriented residence unit, and a

family is a kinship group (Netting et al. 1984). There are two categories of family:

nuclear and extended. A nuclear family is a couple and their offspring, while an

extended family consists of several related nuclear families. It is important to note

that not all members of a household are necessarily in the same family, and not all

family members reside in the same household.

A household is composed of three elements: 1) social, 2) material, and 3)

behavioral (Wilk and Rathje 1982:618). The social element is the demographic unit.

The material element includes the dwelling, activity areas, and possessions. The

behavioral element of a household is the activities it performs.

A household has five functions or activities (Wilk and Netting 1984:5 prefer

the use of the term activities rather than functions): production (resource

procurement), distribution (moving resources from producers to consumers),

transmission (transferring rights, roles, land, and property between generations),

reproduction (rearing children), and co-residence (Wilk and Netting 1984:6-19; Wilk

and Rathje 1982:621-631). The size and form of a household are affected by the

activities/functions performed by the household (Wilk and Netting 1984:19; Wilk

and Rathje 1982:631).

13

The Functional Approach/Activity Area Studies

The functional approach “focuses on the house as an artifact endowed with

social organizational meaning” (Johnston and Gonlin 1998:143). The primary

function of a house is to provide shelter, but it also is constructed “for a complex set

of purposes” (Rapoport 1969:46). The function of a structure is indicated by the

presence of artifacts and features. The distribution of artifacts and features provides

an insight into activity organization and the function of a structure prior to

abandonment (Lightfoot 1994:87-88). Johnston and Gonlin (1998) and Knight

(2002) state that to determine function one must study:

1) The formal properties of architecture (size, form, construction materials),

2) The presence or absence of features (hearths, caches, burials), and

3) The composition of artifact assemblages found within the structures.

Knight (2002:31) argues “that the size of structures and the organization of

their interior space will be a reflection of the activities that have taken place in

them.” Households generally consist of activity areas. Activity areas are spatial

zones that illustrate evidence of regular and repeated activities (Flannery 1976;

Flannery and Winter 1976), such as food processing/preparation, tool

manufacture/maintenance, food storage, craft production, refuse dumping, and

ceremonial activities.

Activity area studies provide insight into the day-to-day activities of a

household. Size, feature morphology and arrangement, and debris attributes are

determining factors of an activity area. The study of activity areas is also used as

one line of evidence in determining the function of a structure. Unfortunately, the

14

data for this thesis are not adequate enough to determine activity areas. Piece

plotting is a means of determining activity areas. Although artifacts in a few of the

structures at the Midway site (47Lc19) were piece plotted, not all of them were. To

gain an idea of activity areas it would be better to have all of the structures excavated

the same way, which is not the case for this thesis.

Determining function of a structure, especially room function, is fairly

popular in the Southwest. The structures being dealt with in the Midwest are

different in form and construction than those studied in the Southwest. Even with

the differences, activity area studies in the Southwest are beneficial to developing

methods for determining function of Midwest structures. Cameron (1999) used

room size, floor features, and artifacts to assign function to pueblos in the Southwest.

Other methods used to determine room function in the Southwest include the

ethnographic data approach to ascertain architectural characteristics, the inventory

approach using artifact distributions, and the activity-oriented approach using a

multivariate statistical technique and room types (Clark 1998).

It should be noted though that structure abandonment affects the functional

interpretation of activity areas (Cameron 1991:155). Diehl (1998) argues that at least

some of the variation in artifact frequencies is due to abandonment or post-

abandonment activities. Reasons for structure abandonment include structure

deterioration and social causes. Types of structure deterioration are intended

settlement longevity, rate of structural decay, changing structure function, and

maintenance. Domestic cycles, changes in population, external social causes, and

death and disease are all types of social causes for structure abandonment.

15

Structures are generally in a constant state of construction, repair, abandonment, and

reuse (Cameron 1991).

I will be using many lines of evidence to determine the function of Oneota

architecture. Those lines of evidence are:

1) The ethnographic record.

2) Formal properties of architecture including size and form.

3) Presence or absence and type of internal features.

4) Artifact assemblages.

The ethnographic record will be used as a guide to understand what historic Native

Americans built as architecture and what each type of architecture was used for and

in what season it was used. Documenting the formal properties of the architecture

will assist in recognizing patterns and applying those patterns to Oneota architecture.

The presence or absence and types of internal features (storage/refuse pit, hearths,

middens, burials, processing and/or manufacturing pits, and indeterminate pits) are

also important in determining function of a structure. Artifact assemblages are very

important in determining the function of a structure. The artifacts provide clues as to

what types of activities were being performed in that structure. Those activities help

determine whether or not a structure was occupied for domestic or ceremonial

purposes.

Summary

I will use a functional approach to address my research question. The

functional approach uses the formal properties of architecture, the presence and type

of internal features, and the composition of artifact assemblages to determine

16

structure function. Other theoretical perspectives present in this thesis are middle-

range theory and household archaeology. Middle-range theory links the present and

the past using analogy. I will use information from the ethnographic record to

explain the function of Oneota architecture. Household archaeology focuses on

households, especially their material culture and activities. I am looking at the

material elements of a household, which includes the dwelling, activity areas, and

cultural objects.

17

CHAPTER 3: ONEOTA TRADITION BACKGROUND

The following chapter will provide background information about the Oneota

tradition. This chapter will be divided into three sections: Oneota taxonomy and

terminology, the Oneota tradition, and the La Crosse locality. It is important to

understand the history of Oneota taxonomy and terminology as it has changed over

the years. Oneota taxonomy and terminology provides insight into why things are

classified the way they are. The background information on the Oneota and the La

Crosse locality are also needed because they are the people and study area of this

thesis.

Oneota Taxonomy and Terminology

McKern (1939) called for a taxonomic classification system for pre-European

contact Native American cultures in the Midwest. The system became known as the

Midwestern Taxonomic Method, also erroneously known as the McKern Method.

The Midwestern Taxonomic Method is a system for classifying cultural

manifestations based on material culture or “a complex of characteristics” (McKern

1939:304). Time depth is not a factor in the Midwestern Taxonomic Method

because the system was developed before the advent of radiocarbon dating. So, the

Midwestern Taxonomic Method is based on cultural factors, but not temporal and

geographical (spatial) factors (McKern 1939:303).

Although this taxonomic system is rarely in use, it is important for

archaeologists who study the Oneota time period to know and understand the

terminology as some of the sites and site information are still listed under the

18

Midwestern Taxonomic Method terminology. The Midwestern Taxonomic Method

uses terms such as focus, aspect, phase, and pattern. The terms are classified in order

of detailed, local types to general, broad types, respectively (McKern 1939). A focus

consists of culture traits that form a trait complex at the site level. If the trait

complex “is found to recur in characteristic purity and practical completeness at

other sites, to an extent suggestive of cultural identity,” (McKern 1939:308) then one

has identified a focus. An aspect results from comparing and contrasting foci for

similarities and dissimilarities. “All foci in a given aspect share the somewhat less

specific aspect trait units, but possess additional peculiarities in fine cultural detail”

(McKern 1939:308). A phase is a group of similar aspects and is more general than

the focus or aspect. A pattern, the most broad and general classifier, is several

phases that “share a small complex of broadly general traits” (McKern 1939:309).

Using the Midwestern Taxonomic Method, the classification for the cultural

manifestation being discussed in this paper would be Mississippian pattern, Upper

Mississippian phase, and Oneota aspect (Hall 1962; McKern 1945). Three foci of

the Oneota Aspect were identified: the Orr focus of northeastern Iowa and western

Wisconsin, and the Grand River and Lake Winnebago foci of eastern Wisconsin

(Figure 3.1).

Figure 3.1. Midwestern Taxonomic Method.

19

Subsequent archaeological finds and the development of radiocarbon dating

resulted in a change of Oneota taxonomy and terminology. The old terminology of

the Midwestern Taxonomic Method was replaced with new terminology introduced

by Willey and Phillips (1958) and became known as the Willey and Phillips

Taxonomic System. Unlike the Midwestern Taxonomic Method, the Willey and

Phillips Taxonomic System is comprised of cultural, temporal (time), and spatial

(geographical) data (Willey and Phillips 1958:17). Terminology used by Willey and

Phillips include tradition, horizon, phase, and locality.

A tradition is “a (primarily) temporal continuity represented by persistent

configurations in single technologies or other systems of related forms” (Willey and

Phillips 1958:37). Traditions are based on material culture and relative and

chronometric dating. A tradition is distinguished from another by differences in

settlement and subsistence patterns, changes in style and function of stone tools, the

appearance of pottery and the subsequent changes in types and motifs, and mortuary

practices. A horizon is defined as “a primarily spatial continuity represented by

cultural traits and assemblages whose nature and mode of occurrence permit the

assumption of a broad and rapid spread” (Willey and Phillips 1958:33).

The rules for defining a phase are tight temporal parameters, spatially limited

to the locality or region, and discontinuous, culturally or spatially separate, from

other phases. Willey and Phillips (1958:22) define a phase as:

an archaeological unit possessing traits sufficiently characteristic to distinguish it from all other units similarly conceived, whether of the same or other cultures or civilizations, spatially limited to the order of magnitude of a locality or region and chronologically limited to a relatively brief interval of time.

20

The guidelines for a locality are size with a range from a single site to a district, no

larger than an area occupied by a single community, and culturally homogenous at

any point in time.

In 1960, Robert T. Hall, Waldo R. Wedel, Mildred Mott Wedel, Carl H.

Chapman, Robert T. Bray, and Dale R. Henning decided to change the terminology

from aspect to tradition (Figure 3.2).

Figure 3.2. Willey and Phillips Taxonomic System.

After much discussion it was decided that Oneota should be conceived of as a tradition, the Oneota tradition, within which Emergent, Developmental, and Classic horizons should be recognized, with the Classic horizon corresponding largely to the Oneota Aspect as it has been described in the past. The Oneota tradition would derive its identity from the Oneota Aspect, and more particularly from its Classic horizon, but would also include selected components of the Apple River and Silvernale foci, which have never been included within the Oneota Aspect [Hall 1962:106].

Oneota Tradition

Keyes used the term Oneota in 1927 to designate archaeological finds in

northeastern Iowa. The Oneota tradition (Hall 1962) covered a vast geographical

area throughout the Midwest including Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota,

Missouri, Nebraska, South Dakota, Kansas, and Wisconsin (Figure 3.3). Sites in

21

Wisconsin are primarily located within the southern portion of the state. Oneota

occupation throughout Wisconsin dates to A.D. 950–1650.

Figure 3.3. Geographical Area Covered by the Oneota.

There are many current debates pertaining to the Oneota such as the

relationship between Late Woodland (A.D. 500–1200), Mississippian (A.D. 1000–

1200), and Oneota (A.D. 950–1650) traditions; Oneota origins (Benchley et al. 1997;

Boszhardt 1998; Gibbon 1972a, 1982; Griffin 1960; Hall 1962; Overstreet 1995,

1997, 1998; Theler and Boszhardt 2003); Oneota migration/site abandonment; and

Oneota site occupation duration, i.e., seasonal versus year-round (Hollinger 1995).

A number of theories have been postulated pertaining to the origins of the Oneota

including the Oneota being a Mississippian derived culture (Griffin 1960), an in situ

development from Woodland traditions (Gibbon 1972a; Stoltman 1983, 1986), or a

22

combination of the two (Gibbon 1982), and Oneota migration into Wisconsin from

the south (McKern 1945; Overstreet 1995; Ritzenthaler 1953).

Just as there are a number of theories pertaining to the origins of the Oneota,

there are an equal number of theories as to why the Oneota abandoned the area.

Oneota abandonment theories include transitioning into the Chiwere Siouan tribes

including the Winnebago (Ho-Chunk), Ioway, Oto, and Missouri (Griffin 1960;

McKern 1945; Wedel 1959), European diseases (Overstreet 1997), warfare, internal

strife, and changing social and economic patterns (Lurie 1960; Overstreet 1997).

Oneota sites are most easily recognized by their distinctive pottery. In fact,

ceramics are the single most diagnostic artifact of Oneota material culture. Oneota

vessels are usually shell tempered, smoothed, and globular in shape with wide

mouths and straight, flaring rims. The pottery was tempered with crushed mussel

shells. The tempering differs from Woodland pottery, which is grit tempered. The

exterior surface treatment of an Oneota vessel is also different from Woodland

pottery in that it is smoothed rather than cord roughened. Although Oneota ceramics

and Middle Mississippian ceramics both use shell temper, Middle Mississippian

vessels are more finely made, have different vessel forms, and have a polished or

painted exterior surface treatment.

The shoulders and rims of the pottery were decorated using a finger or a

narrow tool. Shoulder decorations are geometric motifs consisting of trailing,

incising, and/or punctates and are repeated around the area of the shoulder. The

most common designs are grouped parallel lines positioned vertically, vertically and

horizontally, vertically and obliquely, or obliquely; chevrons; punctates; and

23

curvilinear designs such as festoons, meanders, and arches. Rectilinear designs are

much more common than curvilinear designs. The rims are decorated with finger or

tool impressions either on the interior of the rim or on the lip top. Handles consist of

either broad, flat straps or small, round loops. Handles are usually found in pairs

with the most common occurrence of one pair, but occasionally two pairs of handles

are present. The handles of a vessel may also be decorated with trails. The lower

body of the vessel is rarely decorated. Vessel diameters vary from a few centimeters

to almost one-half meter.

Assortments of tool types are associated with but not exclusive of the Oneota

time period. The Oneota made knives, triangular projectile points, scrapers, drills

and perforators, manos and metates, sandstone abraders, and celts. The point type

associated with the Oneota is the small unnotched triangular point. This point type is

generally referred to as the Madison Triangular point, but it is also known as the

Triangular, Fresno, and Sanders Triangular (Boszhardt 2003:77-78). Madison

Triangular points are distributed all over North America. Scrapers are primarily end

or “thumbnail,” but side scrapers are also recovered.

The most common bone tool is the bison scapula hoe. The bison scapula may

also have been used as a fiber and hide processor. Bison scapulae were obtained

directly and/or through trade in the La Crosse locality (Sasso 1989, 1993; Theler

1989:170-171). Other bone tools include awls, perforators, pendants, bird bone

tubes, rasps, deer mandibles used as sickles or corn shellers, and worked beaver

incisors.

24

Other artifacts that are not as common are copper artifacts, catlinite pipes,

and worked catlinite. Copper artifacts tend to be in the form of beads, both tubular

and circular. A majority of copper artifacts excavated are in poor condition.

Catlinite pipes are generally found in burial contexts.

The Oneota tradition is characterized as having an egalitarian tribal level of

sociopolitical organization. Oneota culture lacked the complexity that the Middle

Mississippian culture had in settlement hierarchies, complex sociopolitical

organization, status indicators in mortuary practices, and craft specialization (Hall

1962; O’Gorman 2001; Stevenson 1984, 1985).

The Oneota in southwestern Wisconsin practiced an intensively diverse

subsistence strategy that “takes advantage of resource variability by combining

different procurement strategies” (Gallagher and Arzigian 1994:184). Oneota

subsistence economy is mixed (Arzigian et al. 1989; Stevenson 1984, 1985) and four

fold: 1) maize-beans-squash agriculture, 2) wild plant gathering such as nuts, seeds,

berries, and fruits, 3) exploitation of riparian and wetland environments including

wild rice, turtles, fish, waterfowl, reptiles, mussels, and mammals, and 4) hunting

large and small mammals (Arzigian et al. 1989; Overstreet 1997; Sasso 1993;

Stevenson 1985; Theler 1994; Theler and Boszhardt 2003). Although the Oneota

practiced maize agriculture, they were also hunters and gatherers (Arzigian et al.

1989; Overstreet 1997), exploiting fish, mussels, wild rice, and terrestrial resources

such as deer, elk, bison, and small animals (Overstreet 1997; Sasso 1993; Theler

1994). They hunted the floodplain, terrace, and upland for fauna (Stevenson 1985).

Large mammals were processed at the kill site and only the “technologically

25

important bones” (Theler 1994:343) such as mandibles, antlers, and scapulae were

brought back to the village.

Maize-beans-squash agriculture was the primary focus of Oneota subsistence

(Sasso 1993). The Oneota conducted agriculture through the use of a ridged field

system (Boszhardt 1994a, 1998; Boszhardt et al. 1985; Gallagher et al. 1985;

Gallagher and Sasso 1987; Sasso 1993; Theler and Boszhardt 2003). Intact ridged

field systems have been identified at three sites in the La Crosse locality: Sand Lake,

State Road Coulee, and Midway Village Complex (Gallagher and Sasso 1987).

Sasso (1993:338) argues that the Oneota were not “amateur cultivators,” and they

purposely selected fertile, productive floodplain areas to practice agriculture.

Oneota villages were near rivers, lakes, or marshes. The villages are

comprised of storage pits, processing pits, hearths, midden areas, refuse pits, and

architecture. Some villages are fortified with palisades and ditches or placed in

defensive locations. To date, only one Oneota village that had a palisade has been

located in the La Crosse locality, the Valley View site (47Lc34). There may be other

palisaded villages, but excavation boundaries may be limiting the discovery of

palisades, or previous disturbance may have obliterated any evidence of a palisade.

Types of architecture include rectangular structures with the posts dug into the

ground, rectangular structures with posts set into wall trenches, semi-subterranean or

pit structures, oval/circular wigwams, and longhouses.

There are a variety of mortuary practices exhibited by the Oneota. Burial

practices include interment in cemeteries, mounds, or isolated pits in villages.

26

Wisconsin Oneota culture history can be subdivided into four horizons (Hall

1962; Overstreet 1978, 1995, 1997). A horizon consists of different Oneota regions

that undergo parallel developments over time. These are the Emergent horizon (A.D.

950–1150), the Developmental horizon (A.D. 1150–1350), the Classic horizon (A.D.

1350–1650), and the Historic horizon (post-A.D. 1650) (Overstreet 1997; Theler and

Boszhardt 2003). It is the Classic horizon that is of importance to this paper because

the La Crosse locality was occupied by the Oneota during this time period.

Each horizon of the Oneota is further divided into phases for their respective

localities. Localities are areas where populations of Oneota nucleated (Boszhardt

1998, 2004; Henning 1998). The localities display marked continuities resulting in

local phase sequences (Boszhardt 1994a; Overstreet 1995). A phase incorporates

both material culture and time depth.

The Oneota occupied the La Crosse locality from A.D. 1300–1625. During

this time there are three major phases: the Brice Prairie phase (A.D. 1300–1400), the

Pammel Creek phase (A.D. 1400–1500), and the Valley View phase (A.D. 1500–

1625) (Boszhardt 1994a, 1996, 1998). The dates for each phase were determined

through changing ceramic styles, a chronology based on 70 radiocarbon dates,

different settlement patterns, lithic raw material preference, and presence/absence of

protohistoric artifacts (Boszhardt 1994a:173). Each phase has distinctive ceramic

styles that allow a researcher of the Oneota in the La Crosse locality to determine

during which phase a site was occupied (Figures 3.4 and 3.5).

27

Figure 3.4. Description of Ceramic Styles by Phase in the La Crosse Locality. Courtesy of the Mississippi Valley Archaeology Center.

28

Figure 3.5. Ceramic Style Types by Phase in the La Crosse Locality. Courtesy of the Mississippi Valley Archaeology Center.

The Brice Prairie phase (A.D. 1300–1400) begins the initial Oneota

occupation of the La Crosse locality (Boszhardt 1994a, 1996). Sites are along the

edge of the Pleistocene terrace or along the Mississippi floodplain margins. Artifacts

29

are abundant, especially pottery. Pottery rim decorations are on the inner edge of the

lip or the interior. Shoulder decorations include punctates as borders; nested

chevrons, festoons, or zig-zags; and occasional concentric circles.

Any of these may be combined with blocks of tool trails. Handles are

commonly loops or narrow straps attached at the lip and are usually undecorated.

Lithic assemblage raw materials are primarily of silicified sandstone and Grand

Meadow chert. The best known source of silicified sandstone is the Silver Mound

quarry near Hixton, Jackson County, Wisconsin, approximately 89 kilometers (55

miles) northeast of the La Crosse area. There are, however, other outcrops of

silicified sandstone closer to the Mississippi Valley. The nonlocal Grand Meadow

chert is from southeastern Minnesota, approximately 80 kilometers (50 miles) west

of the La Crosse area.

The Pammel Creek phase (A.D. 1400–1500) represents a transitional period

in the La Crosse locality between the Brice Prairie and Valley View phases

(Boszhardt 1994a, 1996). Sites shift farther from the river and closer to the bluff

bases in the mouths of small interior valleys. Ceramics appear transitional between

the Brice Prairie and Valley View phases. Rims are boldly decorated with finger or

wide tool notching on the lip top. Shoulder decorations still include punctate-border

motifs, but punctate-filled zones also appear along with other new motifs: vertical

finger trails, and continuous panels of oblique tool trails. Handles still include loops

and narrow straps attached at the lip, but also wide, decorated straps and some

handles that attach below the lip. Lithic raw materials focus on the use of local

Prairie du Chien chert rather than silicified sandstone and Grand Meadow chert.

30

Prairie du Chien cherts are found in nearby outcrops in various locations along the

bluffs that line the Mississippi Valley between the Wisconsin and Minnesota and

Iowa borders.

The final occupation and abandonment of the La Crosse locality occurs

during the Valley View phase (A.D. 1500–1650). As of today’s knowledge, we

know that the La Crosse locality was abandoned prior to European contact based on

the lack of early historic artifacts at sites. Sites are predominantly along the bluff-

base, but there are some sites located along the terrace edge. Rims are decorated

with fine lip top notching using a tool. Shoulder decorations still include punctate-

filled zones, panels of oblique tool trails, and vertical finger trails. Handles are wide

straps attached below the lip with punctates or trails for decorations. As with the

Pammel Creek phase, the lithic raw material of choice is Prairie du Chien chert

(Boszhardt 1994a, 1996).

La Crosse Locality

The following sites discussed in this thesis are found in the geographical area

known as the La Crosse locality (Figure 1.1). The La Crosse locality is defined by

the terraces, including La Crosse, Onalaska, New Amsterdam, Trempealeau, and

Brice Prairie, and floodplains of the Mississippi River and the mouths of its major

tributaries from the town of Stoddard, Vernon County, Wisconsin in the south to the

town of Trempealeau, Trempealeau County, Wisconsin in the north and from the

Wisconsin bluff line to the Minnesota bluff line, east to west, respectively. The La

Crosse locality is marked by a broad shallow floodplain, Pleistocene outwash terrace,

31

and a bluff line on the eastern side of the Upper Mississippi River trench (Boszhardt

1994a, 1998; Stevenson and Boszhardt 1993).

Environmental Setting

The La Crosse locality is in the Driftless Area (Figure 3.6), which is within

the Western Upland physiographic region. A physiographic region is determined by

the variations of texture and structure in the underlying rocks (Martin 1965:32). The

Western Upland is characterized as mostly unglaciated, steep wooded slopes,

winding thin soiled ridges, deeply cut valleys, and bare rock exposures of sandstone

and limestone (Finley 1976a:23).

Figure 3.6. Map of the Driftless Area in Wisconsin (adapted from Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey 2003).

32

The Driftless Area is 15,000 square miles of unglaciated land in southwestern

and western Wisconsin, southeastern Minnesota, northeastern Iowa, and

northwestern Illinois. Of the 15,000 square miles, 13,000 of those are in Wisconsin

(Finley 1976a; Martin 1965). The unglaciated area in southwestern Wisconsin is

characterized by a dendritic stream pattern, deep stream cut valleys, winding ridges,

and an absence of natural lakes (Finley 1976a:21).

The Driftless Area, a large part of the Western Upland, is a thoroughly

dissected cuesta. A cuesta is “an upland belt with a short, steep descent, or

escarpment, on one side and a long, gentle slope on the other” (Martin 1965:44).

Soils in Wisconsin have derived

from a variety of parent materials and have been modified by climate, slope, and

vegetation. In the Driftless Area, the upland soils developed in silts from Pleistocene

loess deposition, and valley soils developed in alluvial and lacustrine clay and sand

deposits (Curtis 1971).

The Mississippi River contributed strongly to the topography of the Driftless

Area, resulting in a dissected system of ridges and coulees (Martin 1965:43, 48). A

coulee is a term coined by the French for a “deep picturesque secluded valley”

(Finley 1976a:54). A large gorge was formed by the Mississippi River with the

bottom of the trench from one to six-and-a-half miles wide and the valley walls

anywhere from 230 to 650 feet above river level (Finley 1976a:61).

Wisconsin is divided by a tension zone that runs southeast-northwest across

the state resulting in two floristic provinces, the conifer-hardwood province to the

north and the prairie-forest province to the south. The prairie-forest province is of

33

importance to this paper due to all of the La Crosse locality Oneota sites being

located south of the tension zone. Each floristic province has distinct plant

communities. Plant communities north of the tension zone include the Boreal Forest,

Northern Mesic Forest, Pine Forest/Barrens, and Wetlands. Plant communities south

of the tension zone include the Oak Savanna, Southern Mesic Forest, and Wetlands.

The Driftless area “was open to direct colonization by plants at all times”

(Curtis 1971:12). Due to the warm, moist growing season in the Driftless Area

during glacial times, it is likely that the vegetation was similar to that of today

(Curtis 1971:13). Pre-modern vegetation in southern Wisconsin consists of a

hardwood forest with scattered prairie openings. The area of study is comprised of

prairie (big bluestem and Indian Grass, composites, Graminae, legumes, and

flowers), deciduous forest including oak forests and oak openings (bur oak, white

oak, and black oak), and wetland vegetation including marsh and sedge meadows,

wet prairies, lowland shrubs, swamp conifers (white cedar, black spruce, tamarack,

and hemlock), and lowland hardwoods (willow, soft maple, box elder, ash, elm,

cottonwood, and river birch) (Finley 1976b).

The Driftless Area has a temperate, continental climate. The summers are

generally hot and humid, while the winters are long and cold (Finley 1976a:118;

Martin 1965:13). In the prairie-forest province, the mean January temperature is

15.1 degrees Fahrenheit, and the mean July temperature is 71.1 degrees Fahrenheit.

The mean annual temperature in the prairie-forest province is 44.6 degrees

Fahrenheit (Curtis 1971:37). The mean annual temperature in La Crosse, Wisconsin

is 47 degrees Fahrenheit. The extreme temperature ranges for the state of Wisconsin

34

are 111 degrees above zero in the summer time and 50 degrees below zero during the

winter months (Benchley et al 1997; Martin 1965:14). The growing season in

southern Wisconsin lasts from four-and-a-half to over five-and-a-half months (Finley

1976a:137).

Annual precipitation, snow in the winter and rainfall in the summer, in most

of the state ranges between 30 to 32 inches (Benchley et al. 1997; Finley 1976a:141).

The mean annual precipitation in La Crosse, Wisconsin is 30 inches (Martin

1965:15). Summer precipitation (June, July, and August) averages from 11 to 12

inches with June being the wettest month. Winter precipitation (December, January,

and February) totals three-and-a-half to four inches with February being the driest

month (Finley 1976a:146). Most winter precipitation in Wisconsin is snow, and one

inch of rainfall is equivalent to approximately 10 inches of snowfall. Snow covers

southern Wisconsin for an average of 85 days (Finley 1976a:147).

The Mississippi trench causes an ameliorating climatic effect in the La

Crosse locality. This ameliorating climatic effect results in temperatures in the

trench being several degrees warmer than those at upland localities of the same

latitude. The warmer temperature in the trench lengthens the growing season by

approximately 15 days (Cawley 1973). The end result is a longer growing season for

the La Crosse locality Oneota compared to other surrounding communities.

Summary

Oneota sites in Wisconsin are primarily located within the southern portion of

the state and date to A.D. 950-1650. The Oneota tradition is subdivided into four

horizons, including the Emergent (A.D. 950-1150), the Developmental (A.D. 1150-

35

1350), the Classic (A.D. 1350-1650), and the Historic (post-A.D. 1650). The Oneota

occupied the La Crosse locality from A.D. 1300-1625. There are three major phases

of the La Crosse area: the Brice Prairie phase (A.D. 1300-1400), the Pammel Creek

phase (A.D. 1400-1500), and the Valley View phase (A.D. 1500-1625). Oneota sites

are easily recognized by their distinctive shell tempered pottery. An assortment of

tool types are associated with but not exclusive of the Oneota tradition, including

triangular projectile points, scrapers, knives, drills and perforators, manos and

metates, sandstone abraders, celts, and bison scapula hoes.

36

CHAPTER 4: ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND OF THE DATA SET

The La Crosse locality exhibits Oneota sites showing variation in

architecture. This variation raises many questions, and I am asking if this variation

is a result of structure function. The La Crosse locality has been selected because it

falls within only the Classic Horizon, rather than multiple horizons; it has three

phases that each span a century; and most importantly, it has variation in architecture

including wigwams, longhouses, and semi-subterranean houses.

Oneota sites are scattered throughout the La Crosse locality and date from

about A. D. 1300 to 1625. Although there are over 200 Oneota sites in the La Crosse

locality, only six of the 200 sites have recognized evidence of structures. It should

be noted that not all 200 Oneota sites are village sites, and so structures are not

necessarily expected at each site. The six sites with architecture are Midway Village

Complex (47Lc19), Overhead (47Lc20), Krause (47Lc41), Tremaine (47Lc95),

Gundersen (47Lc394), and Meier Farm (47Lc432) (Figure 1.1). The Gundersen site

will not be discussed any further in this thesis on the grounds that there is a lack of

well defined postmold patterns. Also, the Tremaine site will be approached

differently than the remaining sites discussed in this thesis, since O’Gorman (1995)

determined the function of the structures at the Tremaine site.

47Lc19 – Midway Village Complex Site

The Midway Village Complex site, a multi-component habitation and

mortuary site, is in the Township of Onalaska, La Crosse County, Wisconsin (Figure

4.1). The site sits on the edge of the La Crosse terrace at an elevation of 213 meters

37

(700 feet) above sea level. The nearest water source is Halfway Creek, a perennial

stream, which drains into the Black River. Halfway Creek separates the Midway

Village Complex site from the Tremaine site.

Figure 4.1. Location of the Midway Village Complex Site (47Lc19) and the Tremaine Site (47Lc95).

Numerous excavations have been conducted at the Midway Village Complex

site, but very little has been written. Excavations began in the 1920s by Professor

38

A.H. Sanford of the La Crosse State College, now known as the University of

Wisconsin-La Crosse. In 1929, W.C. McKern (1945) of the Milwaukee Public

Museum conducted an excavation. Approximately 35 years later, Guy Gibbon

(1970), a University of Wisconsin-Madison graduate student, excavated a portion of

the site in 1964. The State Historical Society-Burial Sites Program excavated in

1987. In 1994, the State Historical Society of Wisconsin-Museum Archaeology

Program conducted excavations. The Mississippi Valley Archaeology Center

(MVAC) conducted salvage excavations in 1983, 1985, 1988, 1994, and 1996 during

various quarry expansions. The MVAC excavations consisted of heavy machinery

stripping the plow zone, identification of features, and then hand excavation of

identified features. Due to a lack of funding, the excavations conducted by the

MVAC have not been written up as reports, although the site has been included in

reports as a brief site summary (Boszhardt 1994b).

During the 1988 Mississippi Valley Archaeology Center excavations, two

large feature stains were discovered. The features were designated as Feature 234

and Feature 241. Both features were determined to be semi-subterranean structures

by the principal investigators while in the field (Mississippi Valley Archaeology

Center [MVAC], 1988: field notes [FN], Midway site, 47Lc19). A radiocarbon

sample of wood charcoal (WIS-2110) was submitted for Feature 234 and resulted in

a corrected and calibrated date of A.D. 1409-1527 at the 2-sigma (80 percent)

(Boszhardt et al. 1995). Based on this date, Feature 234 can be classified as

primarily Pammel Creek phase. Radiocarbon dating was not conducted on any

samples from Feature 241.

39

47Lc20 – Overhead Site

The Overhead site is located in the Town of Shelby, La Crosse County,

Wisconsin (Figure 4.2). Overhead is a multi-component habitation and mortuary

site. The site is on the La Crosse terrace at an elevation of 195 meters (640 feet)

above sea level overlooking the Mississippi River floodplain. Both the Mississippi

River and Pammel Creek form a western boundary to the site.

Figure 4.2. Location of the Overhead Site (47Lc20).

Professional excavations were first conducted at the Overhead site in 1971 by

Dr. James B. Stoltman of the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Stoltman was

alerted of the site after bulldozers had removed an undetermined amount of topsoil

exposing artifacts and features. Stoltman (1973:7-15) and a crew of undergraduate

students from the University of Wisconsin-Madison excavated five features,

including an oval postmold pattern resembling a wigwam. The State Historical

40

Society-Highway Archaeology Program of Wisconsin conducted surveys in 1978

prior to highway work. The University of Wisconsin-La Crosse surveyed the area in

1979, 1980, 1983, 1985, and 1988-1989.

Stoltman set up a 183 meter (600 foot) long north-south baseline bisecting

the site. Three areas of high artifact concentration resulted in the excavation of a 3

meter (10 foot) square in each area. The area where the postmolds were found was

expanded to a 6 by 9 meter (20 by 30 foot) block to include all of the postmolds.

Stoltman and crew started out skim shoveling and sifting the soil through a ¼ inch

mesh screen. Screening was abandoned due to the sparse numbers of artifacts, but

the back dirt piles were periodically checked for artifacts. Features were troweled,

mapped, and photographed. Matrix samples were collected from the features for

water screening and flotation. Soil not collected for matrix was screened through ¼

inch mesh (Stoltman 1973:4-7).

Only Stoltman’s excavations at the Overhead site produced architecture, an

oval postmold pattern with two internal features, Features 2 and 4. Stoltman (1973)

submitted a wood charcoal sample for radiocarbon dating from Feature 4. The

sample (WIS-573) resulted in a corrected and calibrated date of A.D. 1405-1638 at

the 2-sigma (100 percent) (Boszhardt et al. 1995). This date would place that

structure in the Pammel Creek and Valley View phases.

47LC41 – Krause Site

The Krause site is on high sandy knolls overlooking what would have been

the eastern shore of Sand Lake in the City of Onalaska, La Crosse County,

Wisconsin (Figure 4.3). Krause is a multicomponent habitation and mortuary site.

41

The site is along the bluff line of Sand Lake Coulee with an elevation of 220 meters

(720 feet) above sea level. The nearest water source is an unnamed intermittent

stream. The nearest major water source is the Black River which is 2.5 miles to the

west of the site.

The Mississippi Valley Archaeology Center excavations in 2000 consisted of

heavy machinery stripping the plow zone, identification of features, and then hand

excavation of identified features. Excavations conducted by the MVAC in the

summer of 2000 resulted in the identification of a semi-subterranean structure

(Feature 423). As with the Midway site, the Krause site structure was defined in the

field by the principal investigator (MVAC, 2000: FN, Krause site, 47Lc41).

Figure 4.3. Location of the Krause Site (47Lc41) and the Meier Farm Site (47Lc432).

42

47LC95 – Tremaine Site

The Tremaine site, a multicomponent habitation and mortuary site with an

extensive Oneota occupation, is north of La Crosse in the Township of Onalaska, La

Crosse County, Wisconsin on a high terrace in the Mississippi River trench (Figure

4.1). The site is near Halfway Creek opposite the Midway Village Complex site.

The Tremaine site is one of four sites that compose the Tremaine Complex.

The earliest documentation of the site was by Charles E. Brown in 1906. In

1981, the site was surveyed for the Great River Road archaeological survey (Penman

1984). The area of interest at the Tremaine site is Area H, which contained at least

seven longhouses and numerous storage and processing pits. The Museum

Archaeology Program of the State Historical Society of Wisconsin excavated the

Tremaine site from 1987 to 1991 (O’Gorman 1993, 1994, 1995; Penman and

Hamilton 1990). The Mississippi Valley Archaeology Center also excavated at the

Tremaine site in 1990, but not to the extent of the Museum Archaeology Program of

the State Historical Society of Wisconsin (Gallagher et al. 1992).

47LC432 – Meier Farm Site

The Meier Farm site is on a sand dune overlooking what would have been the

southwest shore of Sand Lake in the City of Onalaska, La Crosse County, Wisconsin

(Figure 4.3). Meier Farm is a multicomponent habitation site. The site is near the

mouth of Sand Lake Coulee with an elevation of 223 meters (730 feet) above sea

level. The nearest water source is an unnamed intermittent stream. The nearest

major water source is the Black River which is 2.5 miles to the west of the site.

43

The Mississippi Valley Archaeology Center excavations consisted of heavy

machinery stripping the plow zone, identification of features, and then hand

excavation of identified features. Excavations conducted by the Mississippi Valley

Archaeology Center in the summer of 2003 (Boszhardt 2009) resulted in the

identification of at least two longhouses (Feature 239; the longhouses overlap) and

one wigwam (Feature 220).

Summary

There are six Oneota sites in the La Crosse locality with recognized evidence

of architecture. Five of the six sites will be discussed in this thesis. Those sites are

the Midway Village Complex (47Lc19), Overhead (47Lc20), Krause (47Lc41),

Tremaine (47Lc95), and Meier Farm (47Lc432). The function of the Tremaine site

longhouses has been determined by another researcher as domestic with some

ceremonial activities (O’Gorman 1995). The Midway Village complex site has two

semi-subterranean structures. The Overhead site has one wigwam. The Krause site

has one semi-subterranean structure. The Tremaine site has at least seven

longhouses. And, the Meier Farm site has one wigwam and two longhouses.

44

CHAPTER 5: ARCHITECTURE IN THE ETHNOGRAPHIC RECORD

“Without some structured perspective on the nature of households in the past

they become an elusive concept” (Allison 1999:2). The structured perspective

Allison mentions is the ethnographic record. The ethnographic record is

“fundamental” (Allison 1999:3) to the study of households. Allison (1999:3;

emphasis in original) states that “ethnography should be employed as a signifier of

complexity rather than a prescriber of household behavior.” For the purposes of my

study, I am using the ethnographic record as a guide or analytical tool to understand

the variability of structures used by Native Americans in the Upper Mississippi

Valley.

The ethnographic culture area of interest for this thesis is the Northeast/Great

Lakes (Nabokov and Easton 1989). Siouan, Algonquian, and Iroquoian language

groups are found throughout this culture area. The climatic zone is temperate, and

the ecology is that of the woodland/prairie boundary. The archaeological sites

discussed in this thesis are on a prairie-savanna overlooking the Mississippi River

floodplain and near uplands of mixed deciduous and coniferous woods and upland

prairie (Boszhardt 1994a). The most common domestic building types for Native

Americans in the Northeast/Great Lakes culture area prior to European contact were

wigwams, longhouses, and subarctic tipis (Nabokov and Easton 1989). See Table

5.1 for a list of possible structures used by Native Americans in the Northeast/Great

Lakes Area.

45

Table 5.1. Types of Structures Used by Native Americans in the Northeast/Great Lakes Area. Structure

Type Floor Plan Dimensions Season of

Occupation Function Internal

Layout Wigwam Circular or

elliptical -Circular: 2 - 6 meters in diameter -Elliptical: 6 meters long by 4 meters wide

-Winter -Late Fall -Early Spring

-Domestic -Seasonal

-Storage features -Hearth -Benches

Summer House

Square or rectangular

-5.5 meters square -9 - 12 meters long by 6 meters wide by 4 meters high

Summer (March to October)

-Domestic -Seasonal

-Storage features -Hearth -Benches

Longhouse Elongated with rounded, tapered, or rectangular ends

15 - 40 meters long

Summer -Domestic -Ceremonial -Seasonal

-Storage features -Hearth(s) -Benches

Menstrual Hut

Circular 2 - 4 meters in diameter

Year round -Ceremonial (Ritual seclusion)

Hearth

Sweat Lodge

Circular 2 meters in diameter

Year round Ceremonial Hearth

Ceremonial Lodge

Elongated 30 meters long Year round Ceremonial -Hearth(s) -Lack of benches

Council Lodge

Elongated 30 meters long Year round Ceremonial -Hearth(s) -Lack of benches

Medicine Lodge

Elongated 30 meters long Year round Ceremonial -Hearth(s) -Lack of benches

Although there is very little information in the ethnographic record

concerning the actual function of structures (Knight 2002:31), the ethnographic

record does provide details on structures and the variability of structures used by

Native Americans. Nabokov and Easton (1989:12) found that “native building

traditions designated specific structures for sleeping, working, worshipping,

meditating, dancing, lounging, giving birth, decision-making, cleansing, storing or

preparing food, caring for animals, and honoring the dead.” A group of Native

46

Americans could have more than one kind of dwelling that they used at any given

time.

Thus, it will be understood no one group occupied habitations of a single form to the exclusion of all others, and again practically all the tribes had two or more types of dwellings which were reared and used under different conditions, some forming their permanent villages, others, being easily removed and transported, serving as their shelters during long journeys in search of buffalo [Bushnell 1922:8].

The type of dwelling used depends on the season of the year, building materials, and

sometimes the occupant family’s wealth (Driver and Massey 1957:294).

Radin (1923) describes eight different types of structures, each used

synchronously by the Winnebago, also known as the Ho-Chunk Nation, in

Wisconsin. The eight types of structures included round lodge, long lodge, tipi,

gable lodge, platform lodge, ceremonial lodge, sweat lodge, and grass lodge. These

structures could be further divided by construction method, i.e., wigwam, longhouse,

and tipi. The round lodge, sweat lodge, and grass lodge would fall under the

wigwam construction method. The long lodge, gable lodge, platform lodge, and

ceremonial lodge best fit under the construction method of longhouse. The tipi is its

own category.

The Oto built bark houses similar to the Winnebago before the adoption of

Plains traditions (Whitman 1969:2). This statement also holds true for the Missouri

and the Ioway. As with the Winnebago, the Ioway were known to have a variety of

structures in use at one time. Skinner (1926:271) attributes this variety in structures

to the Ioway being a border Plains tribe and formerly a woodland people. The types

of structures found at Ioway villages were earth lodges, wattle and daub houses,

47

square bark and oval mat houses, and the buffalo hide tipi (Bushnell 1922; Radin

1923; Skinner 1926, Wedel 1986). The earth lodge is a Plains phenomenon and will

not be further discussed in this thesis.

Wedel (1986) describes the Ioway village as semi-permanent with separate

dwellings grouped around an open, ceremonial/ritual area. Along with the

dwellings, a village may have pole and brush arbors for shade located just outside the

dwelling doors, a large ceremonial lodge, sweat lodge, and menstruation huts. The

ceremonial lodge is a larger, longer structure (Bushnell 1922). Storage pits are found

within and outside of the houses, but not within the ceremonial lodge.

A semiannual shift in residency or dual structure pattern is evident in the

ethnographic record of tribes in the Midwest (Bushnell 1922; Faulkner 1977; Fugle

1954; Nabokov and Easton 1989; Skinner 1926; Wedel 1986). A dual structure

pattern is where two different types of structures are used depending on the season,

i.e., wigwam for the winter and a square or rectangular house for the summer.

Faulkner (1977:148-149) suggests two reasons for the dual structure pattern: 1)

cultural adjustment to the climate, and 2) changes in subsistence and settlement

patterns, i.e., shift to sedentism. Means of controlling climate included internal

partitions, centrally located hearths, double wall construction, arbors, thatched roofs,

open-sided buildings, and raised floors (Nabokov and Easton 1989:24-29).

People would live in a wigwam during the late fall, winter, and early spring,

while the summer house was occupied the remainder of the year (Bushnell 1922;

Faulkner 1977; Fugle 1954; Ritzenthaler and Ritzenthaler 1983; Skinner 1911, 1921,

1926). Larger structures are generally associated with summer occupation when

48

extended families lived together or for ceremonial purposes. Smaller structures are

likely for the winter because they are easier to heat and can house nuclear families

(Wedel 1986), and smaller family units make it easier to forage (McKusick 1974).

The tribes that practiced the dual structure pattern “…merely removed the mats from

the first house and placed them on the other. The framework of the abandoned house

was left standing, to be used at the next semiannual shift” (Ritzenthaler and

Ritzenthaler 1983:58). The winter house had substantial construction, large heating

and cooking facilities, and floral remains of primarily nut shells, while the summer

house had a lighter built framework and an absence of substantial heating facilities

(Faulkner 1977:144). Skinner (1921:96) describes the summer house of the

Menominee as “too open and airy for comfort in the winter,” whereas the winter

lodge is “comfortably warm in the coldest weather.” The oval bark and mat house of

the Ioway was used in the winter and the square bark house in the summer (Skinner

1926:277).

Wigwam

In the Midwest, the wigwam (Figure 5.1) was generally associated with the

winter season (Faulkner 1977; Skinner 1921, 1923, 1926) or inhabited from late fall

through the winter and into the spring (Ritzenthaler and Ritzenthaler 1983). The

wigwam is commonly known as the winter house, but it is also referred to as a hot

house by the Algonquian tribes (Faulkner 1977).

49

Figure 5.1. Winnebago Wigwam Covered with Reed Mats (Nabokov and Easton 1989:57).

The wigwam may be circular or elliptical in floor plan. A circular floor plan

accommodated a single family, while an elliptical floor plan housed an extended

family (Driver and Massey 1957:299). The circular floor plan ranged from 2 to 6

meters (7 to 20 feet) in diameter (Nabokov and Easton 1989:57). A typical elliptical

floor plan was 6 meters (20 feet) long by 4.2 meters (14 feet) wide (Ritzenthaler and

Peterson 1956:83). The Ioway generally constructed an elliptical bark and mat

wigwam with dimensions of 4 to 6 meters (14 to 16 feet) long by 3 meters (10 feet)

wide. Benches were along the side, and the fireplace was in the center (Skinner

1926:277). Nabokov and Easton (1989:72) describe the elliptical floor plan as 6

meters (20 feet) long by 4 meters (14 feet) wide and 3 meters (9 feet) tall. The

framework of the elliptical floor plan described by Nabokov and Easton was

50

comprised of 25 to 30 saplings set .46 to .61 meters (1.5 to 2 feet) apart in an ovoid

floor plan. Two interior posts supported a horizontal ridgepole. The wigwam

housed nuclear families for the winter months (Wedel 1986, 2001).

The Ojibwa of Wisconsin lived in a wigwam with a circular floor plan. The

wigwam was 3 to 5 meters (10 to 16 feet) in diameter and 2 to 3 meters (6 to 10 feet)

in height. There was a fireplace and smoke hole in the center of the structure. The

Ojibwa wigwam housed two to three nuclear families or 12 persons (Morgan

1965:117-118).

Pairs of poles were set vertically in the ground at the proper distance and bent over to form a series of arches. Encircling horizontal poles were firmly lashed to the arches to strengthen the frame, which was covered with woven or sewn mats, pieces of bark, and sometimes hides [Driver and Massey 1957:299].

The Menominee (Skinner 1921) and the Sauk (Skinner 1923) built a circular

wigwam or winter lodge. A smoke hole was placed in the center of the roof. A

bench was built around the inside of the wigwam from doorpost to doorpost.

“Crotched stakes are driven into the ground at intervals, two or more feet out from

the wall, and other poles are laid in the crotches, which are two to two and one-half

feet above the floor, to form an inner circle” (Skinner 1921:91). Objects were stored

under the wall bench.

…about sixteen saplings, each eighteen feet in length and about one and one-half inches in diameter at the butt, are selected and cut. Four of these poles are set upright in the ground so as to form a rectangle three or four feet broad by twelve or fifteen feet long, the latter dimension being intended for the breadth of the house. When these “doorposts” have been erected, the women (for generally two at least are required to build a wigwam of this character), bend the poles toward the center of the long sides of the rectangle, and lash them together with basswood bark…These doorposts having been connected,

51

the other poles are set up and arched over them transversely, and all are bound together in the same way [Skinner 1921:88-89].

A description of the Fox wickiup:

The framework of the Fox wickiup usually consisted of 15 or 16 saplings placed in the ground in a circle or oval which formed a round or oval structure with the entrance to the east. A second entrance sometimes faced the southwest. Some wickiups had a partition built at the rear that functioned as a storage place for firewood and as a windbreak [Fugle 1954:7].

There were two types of wigwams, residential and community, discussed by

Faulkner (1977). How does one tell the difference between a residential wigwam

and a community wigwam? Both structures were constructed the same way but had

different functions. The residential wigwam was primarily used for sleeping, while

the community wigwam functioned as a political and religious center for the

community (Faulkner 1977:142). Faulkner states that the two structures can be

differentiated based on size. The residential wigwam would be smaller than the

community wigwam.

Summer House

A summer house (Figure 5.2) was located nearby the winter house. The floor

plan of the summer house was rectangular or square with a gabled or arched roof

(Faulkner 1977; Skinner 1921). A bench was built .61 meters (2 feet) off the ground

by .61 meters (2 feet) wide along the interior wall (Skinner 1921:98). The fireplace

was built in the center of the summer house under the smoke hole in the roof. A

typical summer house measured 5.5 square meters (59 square feet). The summer

house would be occupied from March to October (Ritzenthaler and Peterson

1956:87).

52

The frame consisted of upright poles firmly set in the ground, usually five upon the sides, and four at the ends, including those at the corners. Upon the forks of these poles, about 10 feet from the ground, cross poles were secured horizontally, to which the rafters, also poles, but more numerous and slender, were adjusted. The rafters were strengthened with transverse poles, and the whole were usually so arranged as to form an arching roof [Morgan 1901:308-309].

Figure 5.2. Summer House of the Ioway, Oklahoma. Courtesy of Denver Public Library, Western History Collection, Call Number X-30974. The summer house described above by Morgan was 6 meters (20 feet) by 5 meters

(15 feet) and could accommodate a family of eight. The summer house of the

southeastern tribes housed a single family and was 5 to 6 meters (15 to 20 feet) in

length and the width was slightly less than the length. This version of the summer

house was rectangular, had a gabled roof, and was covered with wattle and daub or

thatch (Driver and Massey 1957).

53

The Menominee and Ioway tribes practiced the dual structure pattern. The

Menominee’s summer house was square and built with a gabled roof. An arbor was

built in front of the summer house (Skinner 1921). The Ioway summer house was

rectangular, 6 meters wide by 9 to 12 meters long (20 by 30 to 40 feet) (Skinner

1926:276), housed extended families for the summer months, and was also used for

ceremonial purposes (Wedel 1986, 2001).

Poles are cut and peeled, and four upright crotched saplings are set in the corners of a rectangle about fifteen to twenty-five feet long, by ten to twelve feet broad. Next, four horizontal connecting poles are laid in, or fastened close to, the crotches. A short, crotched upright is lashed at its butt to the center of each cross beam at each end of the framework, its apex being from seven to eight feet from the ground. The ridge-pole is then laid longitudinally in the crotches, and tied fast with basswood bark. Not infrequently the forked upright at the rear is run into the ground, since there is no door at this end to be allowed for. Next, poles to serve as rafters are lashed from the ridgepole to the longitudinal side beams. A pole bound horizontally across the front of the frame, at a height of about four or five feet, forms a lintel. Along the four sides, vertical poles are then set up, extending from the ground to the upper longitudinal beams, and securely tied in place. At intervals of about a yard apart, horizontal poles are bound to these from end to end [Skinner 1921:93-94].

The summer house of the Fox had a frame of timbers, which were up to 10

inches in diameter. The floor plan was square. The Fox attached an open shelter to

the front of the square summer house (Figure 5.3). An archaeologist looking at the

postmold pattern of this structure with the shelter would see a rectangular longhouse

(Fugle 1954).

The house is formed of a nearly square summer house with a shelter on the east side. The complete structure is forty-four and one-half feet long and twenty-two feet wide. Both roofs are gabled but that of the summer house is two feet higher than the shelter roof. Cedar posts were preferred for this house, but elm was also used. Some of the elm posts were charred to prevent rotting before being set in the post holes. The shelter, built mainly of soft locust posts which do not rot easily, is really another summer house without

54

sides which has been added. If necessary, one simply adds to the length of the summer house when additional material is available. The outer posts of this house are six inches in diameter and are seven and one-half feet high after placement in the post holes three feet deep. Two by four inch braces extend across the tops of the outer posts to support the roof rafters. The apex of the roof is fourteen feet high and is supported by a king post six and one-half feet high centered above each door and by the two center support posts that are nine inches in diameter. Two by four inch rafters twenty-eight inches apart extend one foot over the sides of the house and complete the roof frame. The roof is sheathed and shingled with an opening left in the center for the smoke hole which is twenty eight inches square. The sides of the house are sheathed with boards. The shelter roof is twelve feet high… [Fugle 1954:11-12].

Figure 5.3. Plan View Map of a Fox Summer House with an Attached Shelter (adapted from Fugle 1954:10).

Longhouse

The longhouse (Figure 5.4) was used as a place of dwelling by the Iroquois

and Eastern Algonquian tribes and as a ceremonial structure by the Menominee,

55

Central Algonquian, and Southern Siouan tribes (Skinner 1911, 1921). The

longhouse is most commonly associated with the Iroquois. A longhouse could hold

up to 200 people (Nabokov and Easton 1989:67).

Figure 5.4. Artist's Rendition of an Oneota Longhouse. Courtesy of the Mississippi Valley Archaeology Center.

The typical longhouse consists of a central corridor with hearths, interior

support posts, benches or sleeping platforms along the walls, partitions, smoke holes

in the roof, and storage space and doorways at the ends of the structure (Driver and

Massey 1957; Knight 2002; O’Donnell 2003). The ends of the longhouse could be

rounded, tapered, or rectangular (Noble 2002; Trigger 1990). The longhouse was a

windowless structure, resulting in natural light only entering through the entryways

and the smoke holes. The central hallway was 2 to 3 meters (6 to 10 feet) wide and

ran the length of the interior. A series of fireplaces ran down the center of the

hallway. Each fireplace was shared by a pairs of families in adjacent apartments.

The apartments were on each side of the central hallway, and each apartment was

occupied by a family (Driver and Massey 1957). Noble (2002:21) found that the

56

historic Neutral Iroquois sometimes used the end storage areas for primary subsoil

burial of an important adult, who would later have a secondary reburial in an

ossuary.

The Algonquian longhouse was 15 to 24 meters (50 to 80 feet) in length, and

round or barrel roofed. The structure was covered with matting. The Algonquian

longhouse was large enough to house several families. Algonquian villages

consisted of longhouses, a council house, and a chief’s house organized around a

central open plaza, and the whole village was surrounded with a palisade (Morgan

1965:119-120).

The Menominee built a longhouse that was similar in construction to the bark

house or summer house, but it was much longer and larger. The longhouse for the

Menominee served as a communal structure, but later the function of the longhouse

shifted to ceremonial, especially for the Medicine Dance. The longhouse is

rectangular in floor plan, 15 to 18 meters (50 to 60 feet) long by 3 to 5 meters (10 to

15 feet) wide, and with an arched roof approximately 2 meters (8 feet) high, a door at

each end, and no internal partitions (Skinner 1921:99-100).

Iroquois longhouses were matrilineal, matrilocal, multi-family living

structures (Trigger 1990). An Iroquois longhouse could be anywhere from 15 to 40

meters (50 to 130 feet) in length, but it was generally 15 to 18 meters (50 to 60 feet)

long and 5 meters (16 feet) wide. A Neutral Iroquois longhouse ranged from 9 to

44.5 meters (30 feet to 146 feet) in length with an average length of 18.2 meters (60

feet) (Noble 2002:22). Driver and Massey (1957:299) found that the average

57

longhouse was 18 meters (60 feet) in length, 5 meters (18 feet) in width, and 5

meters (18 feet) in height.

Poles were set in the ground at proper intervals around the periphery of the building. These were braced by horizontal poles across the tops of paired poles, and by other horizontal poles along the walls. The roof was made by bending over a series of pairs of flexible poles so that it formed a half cylinder, hence the label barrel-roofed [Driver and Massey 1957:299].

A house 37 meters (120 feet) long would have 10 fires and 20 families (Morgan

1901:307). Morgan (1965:64) described an Iroquois longhouse as 9, 15, 24, or 30

meters (30, 50, 80, or 100 feet) in length, and these houses would accommodate 5,

10, or 20 families.

It [Iroquois longhouse] consisted of a strong frame of upright poles set in the ground, which were strengthened with horizontal poles attached with withes, and surmounted with a triangular [gabled], and in some cases with a round roof. It is covered over, both sides and roof, with large strips of elm bark tied to the frame with strings or splints. An external frame of poles for the sides and of rafters for the roof were then adjusted to hold the bark shingles between them, the two frames being tied together.

The interior of the house was comparted at intervals of six or eight feet, leaving each chamber entirely open like a stall upon a passage way which passed through the center of the house from end to end. At each end was a doorway covered with suspended skins. Between each four apartments, two on each side, was a fire pit in the center of the hall, used in common by their occupants. Thus a house with five fires would contain twenty apartments and accommodate twenty families, unless some apartments were reserved for storage. They were warm, roomy, and tidily kept habitations. Raised bunks were constructed around the walls of each apartment for beds [Morgan 1965:126]. “…Since structures are generally built to last for the life of a settlement,

builders attempt to predict the abuse or stress a structure may encounter” (O’Donnell

2003:218). Each longhouse was constructed to last a few decades (Trigger 1990:71)

and to accommodate large or extended families (Noble 2002:20). A structure

58

encounters both environmental stress and stress from being modified to

accommodate more residents. Modification is more stressful to a structure than

environmental stressors. Iroquois longhouses were built to withstand the stress

incurred from extending the structure to accommodate more residents (O’Donnell

2003:218). To make more room, one end of the house was removed and a new

section was added (Trigger 1990).

Menstrual Hut

The menstrual hut was a smaller version of the wigwam near the family

dwelling (Radin 1923; Ritzenthaler and Ritzenthaler 1983; Skinner 1923; Whitman

1969). Both Skinner (1921) and Radin (1923) describe the menstrual hut as barely

large enough to accommodate one person. The women were watched and once

menses began a lodge was erected over their heads, large enough to fit their body

(Radin 1923:89). Radin (1923) also mentions that a menstrual hut could hold one to

three women at a time.

Sweat Lodge

The sweat lodge was a small pole framework similar to the wigwam

(Ritzenthaler and Ritzenthaler 1983). The sweat lodge of the Northeast/Great Lakes

culture area was 2 meters (7 feet) in diameter and 1.5 meters (5 feet) high.

Approximately 15 poles were set in a round floor plan to make the sweat lodge

(Nabokov and Easton 1989:72). The Winnebago (Radin 1923:57) and Oto

(Whitman 1969:104) sweat lodges were round bark buildings with a four pole

framework. The Oto heated the rocks outside of the sweat lodge, and once the rocks

were ready they were brought in.

59

Driver and Massey (1957:314) discuss two methods of introducing heat to the

sweat lodge: the direct fire method and the water vapor method. The direct fire

method is where a fire is built within a structure, and the individuals are confined

inside the building with the fire, while the water vapor method involves heating

stones outside of the structure, rolling them into the structure once they are hot, and

then pouring water over the stones to produce water vapor. The direct fire method is

usually in a permanent wigwam with a circular floor plan, and the structure is semi-

subterranean. The water vapor method is sometimes a permanent wigwam with a

circular floor plan.

The historic Neutral Iroquois also built cabins, which are virtually identical to

the longhouse, except they are shorter in length. The length of the cabin ranged from

6 to 8 meters (19 to 26 feet) with an average length of 6.8 meters (22 feet). The

cabins also differed from the longhouse in that they had one central entry, an activity

area on one side of the interior, and a clean space on the other side of the interior

(Noble 2002:21-22). The historic Neutral Iroquois cabins were not used for

habitation. The function could be a smoke house or a sweat lodge. Noble suggests

that the cabins were smoke houses developed in response to the white-tailed deer

trade.

Ceremonial Lodge

The ceremonial lodge of the Winnebago was a large, long bark lodge. The

structure was oriented east to west with one entrance at the eastern end. The western

end was reserved for the women and children to sit (Radin 1923:57, 395). The

60

ceremonial lodge built by the Menominee, Central Algonquian, and Southern Siouan

tribes was a longhouse (Skinner 1911, 1921).

Council Lodge

The council lodge was a long lodge (longhouse) with one doorway on the

east end and two fireplaces in the center of the lodge. Important decisions were

made in the council lodge (Radin 1923).

Medicine Lodge

Medicine lodges were built like wigwams, except longer, up to 30 meters (98

feet) in length (Ritzenthaler and Ritzenthaler 1983). The Menominee built their

Medicine lodge in the same manner as the wigwam, but longer (Skinner 1921:90).

The Winnebago Medicine Dance lodge was constructed like a longhouse with a

dome roof and center posts. There were no benches in the Medicine Dance lodge;

seating was on the ground (Radin 1923). The Oto Medicine lodge (Whitman 1969)

was an 18.3 meter long by 6.1 meter wide (60 feet long by 20 feet wide) wigwam

with the entrance to the east. In the summer, an arbor was built instead of a

wigwam.

Summary

I have identified eight types of buildings in the ethnographic culture area of

the Northeast/Great Lakes. The types of structures used by Native Americans in the

Northeast/Great Lakes area are wigwams, summer houses, longhouses, menstrual

huts, sweat lodges, ceremonial lodges, council lodges, and medicine lodges. Based

on the ethnographic record, wigwams, summer houses, and longhouses can be

identified as domestic structures. The following buildings were identified as

61

ceremonial in the ethnographic record: longhouses, sweat lodges, ceremonial lodges,

council lodges, medicine lodges, and menstrual huts. One caveat of the ethnographic

record is that Native Americans in the Northeast/Great Lakes culture area did not

build semi-subterranean structures. Thus, no data could be recorded about semi-

subterranean buildings from the ethnographic record of the Northeast/Great Lakes

culture area.

62

CHAPTER 6: ARCHITECTURE, INTERNAL FEATURES, AND ARTIFACT ASSEMBLAGES

Household data includes artifacts, dwellings, features, burials, and activity

areas (Nass 1989). This chapter will focus on three of the four lines of evidence used

in this thesis: the formal properties of architecture including size and form, presence

or absence and type of internal features, and artifact assemblages. The fourth line of

evidence is the ethnographic record, which was discussed in chapter 5.

The formal properties of architecture are fairly straightforward. I will

describe the structure type or form (wigwam, longhouse, semi-subterranean), size

(length, width, diameter), and number of postmolds. Presence or absence and type of

internal features will be noted.

Numerous features are identified at Oneota sites. The main feature

classifications are storage/refuse pits, hearths, middens, burials,

processing/manufacturing pits, and indeterminate pits. A storage/refuse pit is filled

with either stored or discarded artifacts and food refuse. A hearth is a fireplace or

oven used for cooking, heating, and processing stone, wood, and/or faunal/floral

remains. Hearths commonly contain FCR (fire-cracked rock), fragmented fish and

animal bones, carbonized shell, charcoal, ash, and other waste products. A midden is

a dump deposit of animal bone, floral remains, shells, pottery sherds, lithics

(especially debitage), and other artifacts and ecofacts. A burial is a ritual of placing

a dead person or animal into the ground. Processing/manufacturing pits are used in

the preparing of faunal or floral materials, including bone marrow extraction, or in

the manufacture of lithic tools (e.g., heat treatment) or pottery (e.g., firing of

63

vessels). The pit’s contents reflect which type of processing or manufacturing was

taking place in the feature. Lastly, indeterminate pits have an unknown function.

This is primarily due to a lack of artifacts in the feature to suggest which activities

were being conducted or what items were being stored or discarded.

Artifact assemblages will also be examined to determine which types of

activities (domestic or ceremonial) were conducted in the structures. Nass (1989:8)

states that all tool classes should be used to determine function of a structure. Each

tool category can be associated with one or many activities, i.e., food preparation and

processing, cooking, hide working, quillwork, agricultural activities, butchering,

bone/antler working, wood working, hunting, and warfare (Table 6.1). Appendix A

provides the Mississippi Valley Archaeology Center’s cataloging process and

procedures manual. The artifact assemblages discussed in this thesis were cataloged

using the Mississippi Valley Archaeology Center’s methods. The manual has a list

of terminology used to define artifact categories.

Table 6.1. Activities and Their Expected Artifacts. Activity Expected Artifacts

Food preparation and processing Grinding stones (metates) and manos, knives

Cooking Cooking jars

Hide working Knives, scrapers, awls, drills/perforators

Agricultural activities Knives, hoes

Butchering Knives

Hunting Points

Warfare Points

Wood working Stone axes, wedges, knives, scrapers, gravers,

abraders

Bone/antler working Scrapers, gravers, abraders

Lithic tool manufacturing Hammerstones, lithic debitage

64

As previously stated, the purpose of this thesis is to determine the function of

Oneota architecture. I have identified two types of Oneota architecture, domestic

and ceremonial, that may be represented at La Crosse locality sites. To determine

the function of a structure, the artifact assemblages from each structure need to be

compared and contrasted (Morin 2006, 2010). Specific artifacts and features reflect

activities occurring at a structure, thus defining its function (Table 6.2).

Table 6.2. Expectations for Determining the Function of Oneota Architecture. Function Expected Archaeological Evidence

Domestic domestic activities: food processing, cooking, ceramic and lithic tool manufacturing or maintenance, utilitarian objects

sleeping benches hearths and/or smudge pits trash/storage pits floral/faunal food remains maintenance and/or expansion of the

structure Ceremonial ritual activities

ritual seclusion (menstrual huts) burials (?) ceremonial objects ritual animal remains special or rare foods in large

quantities intentional destruction of the

structure hearths and/or smudge pits sparse and unique assemblages gender specific artifacts gathering space roasting pits storage/refuse pits no sleeping benches

Domestic structures are homes in which household affairs take place. They

could exhibit food processing, abundant utilitarian objects, hearths and/or smudge

pits, trash/storage pits, floral and faunal food remains, ceramic and lithic

manufacturing or maintenance, and maintenance and/or expansion of the structure

65

(O’Gorman and Hollinger 1991:9). Based on the ethnographic record, wigwams,

summer houses, and longhouses can be identified as domestic structures.

Ceremonial structures are locations where ceremonies or ritual acts take

place. A ceremony is an activity conducted on an important occasion. O’Gorman

and Hollinger (1991) determined that ceremonial structures would have evidence of

processing and display of human remains, cremation, ceremonial objects, ritual

animal remains, and intentional destruction of the structure. Ceremonial structures

would also have sparse and unique assemblages (Morin 2006, 2010). The following

structures were identified as ceremonial in the ethnographic record: longhouse, sweat

lodge, ceremonial lodge, council lodge, medicine lodge, and menstrual hut.

Menstrual huts were used for ritual seclusion (Morin 2006, 2010). Morin

(2006, 2010) found menstrual huts to have a central pit, no mammal bone due to

dietary restrictions, gender specific artifacts, and limited trampling of the floor.

Menstrual huts are smaller than wigwams, generally 3 meters in diameter.

Data Analysis

To date, 14 Oneota structures have been excavated in the La Crosse locality

(Table 6.3). There are three semi-subterranean structures, two wigwams, and nine

longhouses. Two of the three semi-subterranean structures are found at the Midway

site (47Lc19), and the third is at the Krause site (47Lc41). One wigwam was

discovered at the Overhead site (47Lc20) and the other at the Meier Farm site

(47Lc432). Seven of the nine longhouses are from the Tremaine site (47Lc95), and

the remaining two longhouses are at the Meier Farm site (47Lc432).

66

Table 6.3. Individual Oneota House Statistics in the La Crosse Locality. Site # House

# Structure

Type Length

(m) Width

(m) Number

of Internal Features

Number of

Postmolds

Comments

47Lc19 1 (F.234)

Semi-subterranean

8.75 5 0 0

2 (F.241)

Semi-subterranean

9 ? 1 0

47Lc20 3 Wigwam 7.6 5.5 2 64 47Lc41 4

(F.423) Semi-subterranean

9.5 3 0 0

47Lc95 *5 (1) Longhouse 47.4 7.5 133 4 burials *6 (2) Longhouse 48.2 7.6 42 7 burials *7 (3) Longhouse 40 8.5 57 19 burials *8 (4) Longhouse 26 7 16 1 burial *9 (5) Longhouse 49.4 7.4 80 16 burials

*10 (6) Longhouse >25 7.5 14 1 burial *11 (7) Longhouse 65 8.5 48 burials

47Lc432 12 (F.220)

Wigwam 7.5 5.5 5 40

13 (F.239)

Longhouse 34 9 13 321 Easternmost, House 13 and 14 overlap, 4 internal features are located within the overlap

14 (F.239)

Longhouse ? 9 2 321 Westernmost, House 13 and 14 overlap, 4 internal features are located within the overlap

* Houses 5-11 not analyzed using the same methods as the other houses due to the function being determined by O’Gorman (1995). The information for number of internal features and number of postmolds was not provided in O’Gorman (1995) for Houses 5-11, but I counted the number of internal features and burials from the house maps.

All of the structures were determined to be so in the field by the lead

archaeologist. It is not the purpose of this thesis to determine whether or not the

principal investigators were correct in their determinations. The most difficult

structures for the reader to agree as architecture would be those categorized as semi-

subterranean, as they do not have a distinct plan view. With that said, I am taking

the determination as is and not evaluating the lead archaeologists’ assessment.

67

47Lc19 – Midway Village Complex Site

House 1 (Feature 234). House 1 (Figures 6.1 and 6.2) is an irregular, semi-

subterranean structure. The structure is 8.75 meters long by 5 meters wide. No

internal features were discerned in the field. A total of 7,420 artifacts were collected

from House 1 including five stage I bifaces, two stage II bifaces, six stage III bifaces,

12 Madison Triangular points, one drill/perforator, one graver, one miscellaneous

biface fragment tip, one miscellaneous biface fragment midsection, 22 end scrapers,

one side scraper, 26 modified flakes, 27 bipolar cores, seven platform cores, 1,703

pieces of lithic debitage (20 primary flakes, 212 secondary flakes, 1,389 tertiary

flakes, 82 chunks/shatter), two abraders, five hammerstones, one metate, two

unidentifiable pecked/ground stone fragments, 5,474 shell tempered pottery sherds

(733 rim/handle/decorated pottery sherds and 4,741 undecorated pottery sherds), 10

grit tempered pottery sherds (four rim/decorated pottery sherds and six undecorated

pottery sherds), 12 pieces of daub, one piece of unworked copper, one worked bone

(antler tip), 67 bags of unworked bone, and 30 bags of unworked shell.

The Oneota ceramics for House 1 date to all three phases - Brice Prairie,

Pammel Creek, and Valley View. Of the rims available to examine, only one dates

to the Brice Prairie phase (A.D. 1300–1400). Four of the rims are from the Pammel

Creek phase (A.D. 1400–1500). One vessel dates to the Valley View phase (A.D.

1500–1625).

68

Figure 6.1. House 1 at the Midway Village Complex Site.

Figure 6.2. Profile of House 1.

69

House 2 (Feature 241). House 2 (Figures 6.3 and 6.4) is an oval, semi-

subterranean structure. The length is 9 meters and the width is not known. One

internal feature, Feature 242, was located within House 2. This feature was

classified as a charcoal lens in the field. Dimensions of Feature 242 were 90 cm by

70 cm with a circular plan view. A depth was not given for this feature. Feature 242

had 69 artifacts including one modified flake, one platform core, 33 pieces of lithic

debitage (four secondary flakes, 26 tertiary flakes, three chunks/shatter), 31 shell

tempered pottery sherds (one rim/handle/decorated pottery sherd and 30 undecorated

pottery sherds), one undecorated grit tempered pottery sherd, and two bags of

unworked bone.

A total of 1,921 artifacts were collected from House 2, not counting the

artifacts from Feature 242. The artifacts include one stage I biface, one stage II

biface, one stage III biface, four Madison Triangular points, one drill/perforator, one

graver, one miscellaneous biface fragment base, four end scrapers, 12 modified

flakes, three bipolar cores, 694 pieces of lithic debitage (12 primary flakes, 98

secondary flakes, 535 tertiary flakes, 49 chunks/shatter), one metate, 1,129 shell

tempered pottery sherds (104 rim/handle/decorated pottery sherds and 1,025

undecorated pottery sherds), 35 grit tempered pottery sherds (six rim/decorated

pottery sherds and 29 undecorated pottery sherds), seven pieces of daub, one piece of

worked copper, one piece of catlinite, 19 bags of unworked bone, and four bags of

unworked shell.

Three ceramic rims for House 2 date to the Brice Prairie phase (A.D. 1300–

1400) and two to the Valley View phase (A.D. 1500–1625). Due to the structure

70

having two different ceramic phase types present, the house can date to either the

Brice Prairie phase of the Valley View phase.

Figure 6.3. House 2 at the Midway Village Complex Site.

Figure 6.4. Profile of House 2. 47Lc20 – Overhead Site

House 3. Excavations at the Overhead site in 1971 resulted in five features

being discovered. Two of the five features are within a wigwam-like structure

71

(Figure 6.5) consisting of 64 postmolds arranged in an oval pattern. The postmolds

range from 12.7 to 15.24 cm (5 to 6 inches) in diameter. Stoltman (1973:7) states

that the pole framework was constructed of saplings averaging 7.62 cm (3 inches) in

diameter. An internal partition of postmolds running east to west bisects the

structure. It is also important to note the cluster of postmolds along the western edge

of the structure. The cluster of postmolds could possibly be a sheltered entryway, an

exterior shed or storage rack, or an internal storage or sleeping platform. The

internal sleeping platform is Stoltman’s (1973:9) preferred interpretation.

Figure 6.5. House 3 at the Overhead Site.

The dimensions of the structure are 7.62 meters (25 feet) east-west by 5.49

meters (18 feet) north-south. A house floor could not be discerned by visible

changes in soil color, texture, or compaction.

72

Two features were found within the postmold pattern. Feature 2 was determined to

be a hearth. The hearth was circular and about 1 meter (3.5 feet) in diameter. The

feature profile was 20 cm (8 inches) deep and basin shaped. Seventy-one artifacts

were collected from Feature 2 including FCR, one stage II biface, two stage III

bifaces, one Madison Triangular point, one drill/perforator, one end scraper, five

modified flakes, two platform cores, 23 pieces of lithic debitage (16 tertiary flakes

and seven chunks/shatter), one abrader fragment, 34 shell tempered pottery sherds

(six rims/handles/decorated sherds and 28 undecorated sherds), unworked bone, and

unworked shell. An Oneota vessel from the hearth dates to the Brice Prairie phase

(A.D. 1300–1400).

Feature 4 was a storage pit. The feature was circular and about 1 meter (3.1

feet) in diameter. In profile the storage pit was 30 cm (1 foot) deep and basin

shaped. A wood charcoal sample (WIS-573) was submitted for radiocarbon dating

resulting in a corrected and calibrated date of A.D. 1405 – 1638 at 2-sigma (100

percent) (Boszhardt et al. 1995). An Oneota vessel found in this feature also dates to

the Brice Prairie phase (A.D. 1300–1400). Other artifacts collected from Feature 4

total 71 including one graver, one modified flake, 11 pieces of lithic debitage (seven

tertiary flakes and four chunks/shatter), one granite cobble, 56 shell tempered pottery

sherds (13 rims/handles/decorated pottery sherds and 43 undecorated pottery sherds),

and one bison scapula hoe.

47Lc41 – Krause Site

House 4 (Feature 423). House 4 (Figures 6.6 and 6.7) is an irregular oval,

semi-subterranean structure. The house is 9.5 meters long by 3 meters wide. No

73

internal features were defined in the field. A total of 5,660 artifacts were collected

from House 4. These artifacts include five stage I bifaces, six stage II bifaces, two

stage III bifaces, one wedge, one chopper, 10 Madison Triangular points, one Honey

Creek Corner-notched point, two knives, one drill/perforator, two miscellaneous

biface fragment tips, 13 end scrapers, eight modified flakes, one bipolar core, two

platform cores, 3,401 pieces of lithic debitage (19 primary flakes, 165 secondary

flakes, 2,561 tertiary flakes, 78 uncertain flakes, 578 chunks/shatter), two metates,

2,044 shell tempered pottery sherds (109 rim/handle/decorated pottery sherds and

1,935 undecorated pottery sherds), six grit tempered pottery sherds (one

rim/decorated pottery sherd and five undecorated pottery sherds), seven pieces of

daub, one piece of worked copper, three worked bone (two bison scapula hoes and

one deer jaw sickle), 88 bags of unworked bone, and 53 bags of unworked shell. All

ceramics from this house date to the Valley View phase, A.D. 1500–1625.

Figure 6.6. House 4 at the Krause Site.

74

Figure 6.7. Profile of House 4. 47Lc95 – Tremaine Site

The function of the Tremaine site longhouses are those of O’Gorman and

Hollinger (1991) and O’Gorman (1995), primarily from the latter reference. I am

providing their results, as the data for this site would be a thesis in and of itself. This

data is important to the overall picture of the analysis at hand, and I could not

exclude it from my analysis. My thoughts will be interjected about the Tremaine site

longhouses and how those compare and contrast to the longhouses at the Meier Farm

site.

At least seven postmold patterns were identified at Tremaine (O’Gorman

1995; O’Gorman and Hollinger 1991), and the seventh longhouse has been

interpreted as being two longhouses (Figure 6.8). All of the longhouses had long

parallel sides with rounded ends. The structures ranged in widths from 7 to 8.5

meters, and most exhibited rebuilding episodes and extensions of length, which

ranged anywhere from 35 to 50 meters. There was usually more than one end wall

due to extensions of the longhouse. An extension of the longhouse was a result of

longer occupations and/or an increase in the number of occupants.

75

Figure 6.8. Houses 5-11 at the Tremaine Site (adapted from O’Gorman 1995:57). Courtesy of the Wisconsin Historical Society and the Museum Archaeology Program.

Postmold diameters ranged from 16 to 18 cm and the walls were of single

post construction. Depths of postmolds ranged from 10 cm to over 40 cm below

ground surface (O’Gorman 1995:59). Various types of trees were used for the posts,

including spruce, larch, oak, and black ash. All of these trees were strong and

resistant to rotting (O’Gorman 1995:79). A center line of postmolds extended the

length of the longhouses. Entrances could not be identified in the postmold patterns.

Interior partitioning and benches were evident.

76

Numerous refuse/storage pits were found within and outside of the structures.

Hearths and/or smudge pits were identified. Burials were found in the structures and

numbered anywhere from one to 25 per structure, excluding House 11.

O’Gorman and Hollinger (1991) and O’Gorman (1995) found that the

primary function of the longhouses was domestic, although some ceremonial

activities also took place within the structures. Structural data were used to evaluate

the function of the longhouses. O’Gorman (1995:85) concluded that the longhouses

were for domestic purposes due to rebuilding and expansion episodes of the

postmold patterns and low density of graves.

House 5 (House 1 in O’Gorman 1995:61-64). House 5 is a longhouse. The

longhouse’s maximum dimensions are 47.4 meters long by 7.5 meters wide with a

maximum area of 355.5 meters2. There are 133 non-burial and four burial features

associated with this longhouse. House 5 dates to the Brice Prairie and Pammel

Creek phases and probably into the early Valley View phase based on radiocarbon

dates and ceramics (O’Gorman 1995:34-35).

House 6 (House 2 in O’Gorman 1995:64-69). House 6 is a longhouse, and

its maximum dimensions are 48.2 meters long by 7.6 meters wide with a maximum

area of 366.3 meters2. There are 42 non-burial and seven burial features associated

with this longhouse.

Remnants of a living floor were recorded in the northwest corner of House 6.

Numerous lithic tools, lithic debitage, and Oneota pottery sherds were recovered

from this occupational surface suggesting some manufacturing activities (O’Gorman

1995:67). The lithic tools included six scrapers, three points, and one graver.

77

Pecked/ground stone was also found on the remnant living floor and included one

metate, two hammerstones, and one abrader fragment. Based on radiocarbon dates

and ceramics, House 6’s primary date is the Pammel Creek phase with some Valley

View phase dates also present (O’Gorman 1995:35-38).

House 7 (House 3 in O’Gorman 1995:69-72). House 7 is a longhouse with

maximum dimensions of 40 meters long by 8.5 meters wide and a maximum area of

340 meters2. There are 57 non-burial and 19 burial features associated with this

longhouse. House 7 dates to the Pammel Creek phase based on radiocarbon dates

and ceramics (O’Gorman 1995:38).

House 8 (House 4 in O’Gorman 1995:64-69). The plan of House 8 is a

longhouse. The maximum dimensions are 26 meters long by 7 meters wide with a

maximum area of 182 meters2. There are 16 non-burial and one burial features

associated with this longhouse. Radiocarbon dates and ceramics date House 8 to the

transition between Brice Prairie phase and Pammel Creek phase, circa A.D. 1400

(O’Gorman 1995:38).

House 9 (House 5 in O’Gorman 1995:73-76). House 9 has a postmold

pattern in the shape of a longhouse. The maximum dimensions are 49.4 meters long

by 7.4 meters wide with a maximum area of 365.56 meters2. There are

approximately 80 non-burial and 16 confirmed burial features associated with this

longhouse. House 9 dates to the Pammel Creek phase based on radiocarbon dates

and ceramics (O’Gorman 1995:38-42).

House 10 (House 6 in O’Gorman 1995:76-78). House 10 is a longhouse in

plan view. The maximum dimensions are more than 25 meters long by 7.5 meters

78

wide with a maximum area of more than 187.5 meters2. There are 14 non-burial and

one burial features associated with this longhouse. Based on radiocarbon dates and

ceramics, House 10 dates to the Pammel Creek phase (O’Gorman 1995:42).

House 11 (House 7 in O’Gorman 1995:78-79). The postmold pattern of

House 11 is a longhouse, although the postmold pattern was not fully excavated.

House 11 could represent one large, heavily populated structure or more than one

structure (O’Gorman 1995:78). The maximum dimensions are 65 meters long by 8.5

meters wide with a maximum area of 552.5 meters2. There are numerous non-burial

features and 48 burial features associated with this longhouse. Radiocarbon dates

and ceramics date House 11 to the Pammel Creek and early Valley View phases

(O’Gorman 1995:42).

47Lc432 – Meier Farm Site

Three structures, one wigwam and two longhouses, were identified at the

Meier Farm site.

House 12 (Feature 220). Feature 220 (Figure 6.9) is a wigwam comprised of

40 postmolds in an oval pattern. The structure’s dimensions are 7.5 meters long by

5.5 meters wide. There are five features designated Features 220A-E within the

postmold walls. A total of 130 artifacts were found within the postmold pattern of

House 12: one stage II biface, one graver, one miscellaneous biface fragment tip,

three end scrapers, one uniface tool, one modified flake, 89 pieces of lithic debitage

(one primary flake, 17 secondary flakes, 68 tertiary flakes, three chunks/shatter), 31

shell tempered pottery pieces (four rim/handle/decorated pottery sherds and 27

undecorated pottery sherds), one bag of unworked bone, and one bag of unworked

79

shell. Based on lip decoration of the two diagnostic rims, House 12 dates to the

Pammel Creek phase, A.D. 1400–1500.

Figure 6.9. House 12 at the Meier Farm Site.

Feature 220A is an indeterminate pit. It is 158 cm by 152 cm with an oval

plan. The depth of the feature is 27 cmbss (cm below scraped surface). No cultural

materials were found.

Feature 220B is an indeterminate pit with a circular plan (50 cm by 43 cm).

It is a shallow basin in profile with a maximum depth of 14 cmbss. No artifacts were

recovered, but charcoal was scattered throughout.

Feature 220C is an indeterminate pit. The plan is circular (54 cm by 36 cm),

and the profile is a shallow basin (18 cmbss deep). Artifacts included FCR on the

surface of the feature.

Feature 220D is an indeterminate pit. The feature is 36 cm by 18 cm

(circular) and 23 cmbss deep (shallow basin). No cultural materials were found.

80

Feature 220E is an indeterminate pit with an oval plan view (59 cm by 63

cm). The feature is a shallow basin in profile with a depth of 20 cmbss. No cultural

materials were discovered.

Houses 13 and 14 (Feature 239). Feature 239 (Figure 6.10) contains two

longhouses, Houses 13 and 14, that overlap on the long axis. There were over 321

postmolds for the two longhouses. The easternmost longhouse has been designated

as House 13, while the westernmost longhouse is House 14. House 13 is 34 meters

long by 9 meters wide. House 14’s length is undeterminable due to a lack of

postmolds in the southeast end of the structure, but its width is 9 meters.

Figure 6.10. Houses 13 and 14 at the Meier Farm Site.

81

There are 20 internal features designated as Features 239A-S with Feature

239B being divided into two features, Feature 239B and Feature 239B1. Thirteen

features fall strictly within House 13, Features 239C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, M, P, Q,

and R. Features 239F, 239G, and 239K have been eliminated as pit features. Two

features belong to House 14, Features 239N and O. After closer examination of

Feature 239O, it was removed from the study because it is a Woodland feature. Five

features overlap the two structures, Features 239A, B, B1, L, and S. Features 239L

and 239S have also been eliminated due to postmolds intruding into the features.

Ceramic rims were analyzed for phase designation. No rim sherds fell

strictly within House 13, but there were rim sherds excavated in the overlap area of

the longhouses, which date to the Pammel Creek phase (A.D. 1400–1500) and the

Valley View phase (A.D. 1500–1625). One rim sherd belonged to House 14 and that

dates to the Valley View phase (A.D. 1500–1625), although Pammel Creek phase

cannot be ruled out due to the overlapping of the two longhouses.

Feature 239C is an indeterminate pit. The plan is circular (72 cm by 64 cm),

and the profile is a shallow basin (15 cmbss). Only small flecks of charcoal were

discovered within the feature.

Feature 239D is a storage/refuse pit. The feature is ovoid (380 cm by 380

cm) with a maximum depth of 60 cmbss. Feature 239D is two conjoined features

(D1 and D2). A total of 12 artifacts were discovered in Feature 239D, prior to

learning that this was two features, including 11 pieces of lithic debitage (one

secondary flake and 10 tertiary flakes) and one undecorated shell tempered pottery

sherd. Feature 239D1 has a total of 84 artifacts including one Madison Triangular

82

point, one miscellaneous biface fragment tip, one scraper-other, 17 pieces of lithic

debitage (one primary flake, three secondary flakes, 13 tertiary flakes), 62 shell

tempered pottery (six rim/handle/decorated pottery sherds and 56 undecorated

pottery sherds), and two bags of unworked bone. Feature 239D2 has 179 artifacts

including two drills/perforators, one end scraper, one modified flake, one platform

core, 134 pieces of lithic debitage (three primary flakes, seven secondary flakes, 120

tertiary flakes, and four chunks/shatter), 30 shell tempered pottery (two

rim/handle/decorated pottery sherds and 28 undecorated pottery sherds), one

undecorated grit tempered pottery sherd, two bags of red ochre, five bags of

unworked bone, and two bags of unworked shell.

Feature 239E is an indeterminate pit. The feature dimensions are 55 cm by

55 cm (circular) with a depth of 20 cmbss (shallow basin). No cultural materials

were found.

Feature 239H is an indeterminate pit. This feature is irregular in shape (61

cm by 32 cm). The feature is a shallow basin (10 cmbss). One bag of unworked

bone was collected from this feature.

Feature 239I is a storage/refuse pit. The plan is oval (115 cm by 95 cm) with

a depth of 41 cmbss. Twelve artifacts were found in this feature including one

Madison Triangular point, four pieces of lithic debitage (one primary flake, one

secondary flake, one tertiary flake, one chunk/shatter), and seven undecorated shell

tempered pottery sherds.

Feature 239J is a storage/refuse pit. The feature plan is amorphous with

dimensions of 80 cm by 100 cm. The profile is that of a basin (30 cmbss deep). This

83

feature was very rich in artifacts, totaling 562. The artifacts include one stage I

biface, four stage II bifaces, two Madison Triangular points, one wedge, five end

scrapers, one uniface tool-other, five modified flakes, two platform cores, 380 pieces

of lithic debitage (three primary flakes, 36 secondary flakes, 331 tertiary flakes, and

10 chunks/shatter), two hammerstones, one mano, 146 shell tempered pottery (16

rim/handle/decorated pottery sherds and 130 undecorated pottery sherds), six bags of

unworked bone, and six bags of unworked shell.

Feature 239M is a storage/refuse pit. This feature is also amorphous in plan

(145 cm by 100 cm). The depth is 40 cmbss. A total of 52 artifacts was found

including six pieces of lithic debitage (five tertiary flakes and one chunk/shatter), 39

shell tempered pottery (one rim/handle/decorated pottery sherd and 38 undecorated

pottery sherds), two bags of red ochre, four bags of unworked bone, and one bag of

unworked shell.

Feature 239P is an indeterminate pit. The dimensions are 55 cm by 32 cm

(amorphous) with a depth of 15cmbss. This feature was originally thought to be a

postmold; however, while skimming the surface, the feature faded out. Feature 239P

was therefore not formally excavated. One tertiary flake was unearthed.

Feature 239Q is a midden with a depth of 7 cmbss. A total of 25 artifacts

was excavated including one Madison Triangular point, 19 pieces of lithic debitage

(two primary flakes, two secondary flakes, and 15 tertiary flakes), four undecorated

shell tempered pottery sherds, and one bag of unworked shell.

Feature 239R is an indeterminate pit. The feature dimensions are 80 cm by

75 cm (circular) with a depth of 10 cmbss (basin). The artifact count is 31 including

84

one modified flake, 18 pieces of lithic debitage (three secondary flakes and 15

tertiary flakes), and 12 undecorated shell tempered pottery sherds.

One feature belongs to House 14. Feature 239N is an indeterminate pit with

an amorphous plan (42 cm by 30 cm). The basin is 30 cmbss deep. A total of 25

artifacts were recovered including one knife, and 24 shell tempered pottery (three

rim/handle/decorated pottery sherds and 21 undecorated pottery sherds).

Two features were excavated in the longhouse overlap area, Feature 239A

and Feature 239B. Feature 239A is a storage/refuse pit. This feature is circular in

plan (90 cm by 88 cm), and 80 cmbss deep (basin-shaped). Two hundred seventy-

six artifacts were recovered including one stage I biface, one stage II biface, one

Madison Triangular point, three modified flakes, 44 pieces of lithic debitage (five

secondary flakes, 36 tertiary flakes, and three chunks/shatter), 204 shell tempered

pottery (25 rim/handle/decorated pottery sherds and 179 undecorated pottery sherds),

one bag of red ochre, one worked bone (bison scapula hoe), 13 bags of unworked

bone, and seven bags of unworked shell.

Feature 239B is two small circular features. The dimensions of the feature

are 155 cm by 200 cm, and 75 cmbss deep (irregular basin). Artifacts for Feature

239B total 136 and include one end scraper, one modified flake, nine pieces of lithic

debitage (one secondary flake, seven tertiary flakes, and one chunk/shatter), 123

shell tempered pottery (35 rim/handle/decorated pottery sherds and 88 undecorated

pottery sherds), and two bags of unworked bone. Feature 239B1 had one tertiary

flake unearthed from it.

85

Summary

This chapter focused on the formal properties of architecture, the presence or

absence and type of internal feature, and the artifact assemblages of each structure,

three of the four types of data used to answer my question pertaining to the function

of Oneota architecture. Based on the ethnographic record, two types of function

were identified, domestic and ceremonial. Details were provided about the formal

properties of architecture including size and form, the presence or absence and type

of internal features, and the artifact assemblages of each structure. To date, 14

Oneota buildings have been excavated in the La Crosse locality, including two

wigwams, three semi-subterranean structures, and nine longhouses. All but two of

the buildings, House 1 at the Midway Village Complex site and House 4 at the

Krause site, have internal features. Artifact assemblages were available for all of the

structures to use in determining building function.

86

CHAPTER 7: LA CROSSE LOCALITY ONEOTA ARCHITECTURE FUNCTION

A variety in Oneota architecture has been observed in the La Crosse locality.

Three different types of architecture have been identified: wigwam, longhouse, and

semi-subterranean. The Oneota structures were analyzed to determine their function,

domestic or ceremonial. I believe that function is the reason for the variation in

Oneota architecture. Several lines of evidence were used to determine the function

of each structure. The supporting evidence is the ethnographic record, the formal

properties of architecture including size and form, the presence or absence and type

of internal features, and the artifact assemblages.

The ethnographic record provided a guide for variation in types of structures

used by historic Native Americans. This record allowed me to see what was being

built by tribes in the Northeast/Great Lakes area and apply that knowledge to the

archaeological data in the La Crosse study area. The types of structures in the

ethnographic record, their construction methods, and the internal layout of the

structures were evaluated in relation to the use or function of each ancient building.

Three structures were identified in the ethnographic record as domestic:

wigwam, summer house, and longhouse. Structures of the ceremonial type include

longhouse, sweat lodge, ceremonial lodge, council lodge, medicine lodge, and

menstrual hut. The longhouse falls within both categories of function. A ceremonial

lodge, council lodge, medicine lodge, and to some extent summer house can look

like longhouses because they are all elongated. A summer house could be similar to

a smaller longhouse when an arbor is attached to the square or rectangular habitation

87

part of the structure resulting in an elongated look. A similar problem arises with the

circular structures, i.e., the wigwam, the menstrual hut, and the sweat lodge, but the

wigwam is larger in size than the menstrual hut or sweat lodge. Once shape of the

floor plan is determined, one must examine the internal layout of the structure, the

presence or absence and types of internal features, and the artifact assemblages to

differentiate between domestic or ceremonial structures.

A domestic structure differs from a ceremonial structure in the types of

activities performed in each building. Domestic activities include food preparation

and processing, cooking, butchering, hide working, wood working, bone/antler

working, and lithic tool manufacturing. The expected archaeological evidence of a

domestic structure includes sleeping benches, hearths, trash/storage pits, floral/faunal

food materials, and evidence of maintenance and/or expansion of the structure. An

abundant amount of utilitarian objects (cooking vessels, clay spoons, unnotched

triangular points, end scrapers, awls, drills/perforators, gravers, knives, manos and

metates) will be present.

Ceremonial structures will have a sparse and unique artifact assemblage. A

lack of artifacts suggests that it was not a location for domestic activities, but as a

place for special occasions. The expected archaeological evidence includes

ceremonial objects (exotic trade items, ritual paraphernalia, catlinite pipes, copper

ornaments), ritual animal remains (wolf skulls, bear skulls), special or rare foods in

large quantities (feasting), intentional destruction of the structure, hearths, a

gathering space, roasting pits, a lack of sleeping benches, and gender specific

88

artifacts. Ceremonial structures may also have evidence of human remains and/or

burials within the walls of the architecture.

As part of the artifact assemblage analysis, I also examined the ceramic

assemblages of each structure to determine within which of the three La Crosse

locality phases the structures dated (Table 7.1). The analysis involved examining

each rim sherd excavated from a structure to assign a phase designation. I did this to

determine whether or not structure variation might correlate with a La Crosse

locality Oneota phase. For example, there are three La Crosse locality Oneota

phases; does the wigwam belong to one phase, the longhouse to another, and the

semi-subterranean to the other? If the variation is due to Oneota phase then it would

not be due to function. Due to the sites being heavily occupied and multicomponent,

this form of analysis was not useful. Few of the houses can confidently be assigned

to only one phase.

Table 7.1. House Phase Designation Based on Ceramics. Brice Prairie Phase Pammel Creek Phase Valley View Phase

House 1 X X X House 2 X X House 3 X House 4 X House 5 X X X House 6 X X House 7 X House 8 X X House 9 X House 10 X House 11 X X House 12 X House 13* X X House 14* X X

*Phase designation for house overlap and general surface are included.

89

Table 7.2 provides the functional classification of each house in this thesis.

The table includes the house number, structure type, number of internal features,

type of internal features, and house function. Following Table 7.2 is a detailed

discussion of each building and how it fits my expectations of each function,

domestic or ceremonial.

Table 7.2. Functional Classification of Houses. House

Number Structure Type Number of

Internal Features

Type of Feature House Function*

House 1 Semi-subterranean 0 - Domestic House 2 Semi-subterranean 1 F.242 - Hearth Domestic House 3 Wigwam

2 F.2 - Hearth F.4 – Storage/refuse pit

Domestic

House 4 Semi-subterranean 0 - Domestic House 5 Longhouse

- - Domestic with some ceremonial activities

House 6 Longhouse - -

Domestic with some ceremonial activities

House 7 Longhouse - -

Domestic with some ceremonial activities

House 8 Longhouse - -

Domestic with some ceremonial activities

House 9 Longhouse - -

Domestic with some ceremonial activities

House 10 Longhouse - -

Domestic with some ceremonial activities

House 11 Longhouse - -

Domestic with some ceremonial activities

House 12 Wigwam

5

F.220A - Indeterminate pit F.220B - Indeterminate pit F.220C - Indeterminate pit F.220D - Indeterminate pit F.220E - Indeterminate pit

Domestic

House 13 Longhouse

10

F.239C - Indeterminate pit F.239D - Storage/refuse pit F.239E - Indeterminate pit F.239H - Indeterminate pit F.239I - Storage/refuse pit F.239J – Storage/refuse pit F.239M - Storage/refuse pit F.239P - Indeterminate pit F.239Q - Midden F.239R - Indeterminate pit

Domestic

House 14 Longhouse 1 F.239N – Indeterminate pit Domestic *The functions of Houses 5-11 were determined by O’Gorman and Hollinger (1991) and O’Gorman (1995).

90

House 1 is an irregular, semi-subterranean structure based on the field

assessment. Semi-subterranean structures were not built by Native Americans in the

Northeast/Great Lakes culture area, and so data were not obtained for this structure

type ethnographically. The structure is 8.75 meters long by 5 meters wide. There

are no internal features. There are 7,420 artifacts associated with this feature.

Artifact types include bifaces, Madison Triangular points, a drill/perforator, a graver,

end scrapers, a side scraper, modified flakes, bipolar and platform cores, lithic

debitage, sandstone abraders, hammerstones, a metate, pottery, pieces of daub, an

unworked piece of copper, a worked bone (antler tip), and faunal and floral

materials. The artifact assemblage is that which is commonly found in an Oneota

village. The artifacts are those that would be used in day-to-day activities (Table

6.1), such as food preparation and processing (metates), cooking (pottery), hide

working (scrapers), hunting and/or warfare (points), wood and bone/antler working

(scrapers, gravers, abraders), and lithic tool manufacturing (hammerstones and lithic

debitage). The tools were not unique or ceremonial in nature. Based on the artifact

assemblage, the primary function of House 1 is domestic (Table 7.2).

House 2 is an oval, semi-subterranean (determined by principal investigator)

structure with one internal feature (Feature 242) present. As with the other semi-

subterranean structure, the ethnographic record does not apply to this building. The

length of House 2 is 9 meters, and the width is not known. Feature 242 is a charcoal

lens, which suggests a hearth was present. Feature 242 had 69 artifacts including a

modified flake, a platform core, lithic debitage, pottery, and faunal remains.

Artifacts found while excavating House 2 (non-feature area) total 1,921. Artifact

91

categories include bifaces, Madison Triangular points, a drill/perforator, a graver,

end scrapers, modified flakes, bipolar cores, lithic debitage, a metate, pottery, pieces

of daub, a piece of unworked copper, a piece of catlinite, and faunal and shell

remains. House 2 artifact assemblage does not contain any unique artifacts. In fact,

the artifacts suggest activities of food preparation and processing, cooking, hide

working, hunting and/or warfare, and wood and bone/antler working (Table 6.1).

The primary function of House 2 is domestic (Table 7.2), based on the artifact

assemblage.

House 3 is a wigwam based on the ethnographic record and its size (7.62

meters east-west by 5.49 meters north-south) and form (oval postmold pattern). Two

internal features, a hearth and a storage/refuse pit, are within the postmold pattern of

this structure. A possible sleeping platform is also present based on a cluster of

postmolds (Figure 6.5). One hundred and forty-two artifacts were unearthed from

the two features including FCR, bifaces, a Madison Triangular point, a

drill/perforator, an end scraper, a graver, modified flakes, platform cores, lithic

debitage, pottery, a bison scapula hoe, and faunal and shell materials. The artifact

assemblage suggests day-to-day activities, such as cooking, hide working,

agricultural activities, hunting and/or warfare, wood working, and bone/antler

working (Table 6.1). The ethnographic record, formal properties of architecture,

presence and types of internal features, and artifact assemblage suggest that the

primary function of House 3 is domestic (Table 7.2).

House 4 is an irregular, semi-subterranean structure (field assessment). The

house dimensions are 9.5 meters long by 3 meters wide. No internal features were

92

identified. A total of 5,660 artifacts were collected from House 4 including bifaces,

a wedge, a chopper, Madison Triangular points, a Honey Creek Corner-notched

point, knives, a drill/perforator, end scrapers, modified flakes, a bipolar core,

platform cores, lithic debitage, metates, pottery, pieces of daub, a piece of worked

copper, worked bone (bison scapula hoes and a deer jaw sickle), faunal remains, and

shell. The activities present based on artifacts are food preparation and processing,

cooking, hide working, agricultural activities, butchering, hunting and/or warfare,

wood working, and bone/antler working. House 4 has more agricultural tools (bison

scapula hoes and a deer jaw sickle) than any other house. The primary function of

House 4 is domestic (Table 7.2), based on the artifact assemblage.

Houses 5-11 are longhouses, which ethnographically can be domestic or

ceremonial structures. Numerous storage/refuse pits were found within and outside

of the structures. Hearths and/or smudge pits were identified also. Houses 5-11

differ from Houses 13 and 14, which are also longhouses, in that they have burials.

In fact, Houses 5-11 are the only excavated structures in the La Crosse locality with

burials. O’Gorman and Hollinger (1991) and O’Gorman (1995) found the primary

function of the longhouses to be domestic, but they also state that some ceremonial

activities were taking place due to the burials. O’Gorman (1995:85) based her

conclusion that the longhouses were for domestic use rather than ceremonial due to

rebuilding and expansion episodes of the postmold patterns and low density of

graves.

House 12 is a wigwam based on the ethnographic record and its size (7.5

meters long by 5.5 meters wide) and form (oval postmold pattern). There are

93

internal postmolds which may suggest a sleeping platform. Five internal features, all

in the indeterminate pit category, were identified. One feature, Feature 220B, has

charcoal and another feature, Feature 220C, has FCR. Other than those cultural

materials, the features have no artifacts. A total of 130 artifacts were found within

the postmold pattern of House 12 including a biface, a graver, end scrapers, a uniface

tool, a modified flake, lithic debitage, pottery, and faunal and shell remains. House

12 is different than the other structures because it has very few artifacts. The lack of

artifacts could be a result of the building being thoroughly cleaned out when it was

abandoned. The few artifacts that are present suggest the following activities:

cooking (pottery), hide working (scrapers), wood and bone/antler working (scrapers

and gravers). The artifact assemblage does not seem to be unique and is similar to

the other structures. Based on the ethnographic record, the formal properties of

architecture, and the artifact assemblage, I feel that the primary function of House 12

is domestic (Table 7.2).

Houses 13 and 14 are longhouses that overlap on their long axis. House 13 is

34 meters long by 9 meters wide. House 14 has an undeterminable length due to a

lack of postmolds in the southeast end of the structure and a width of 9 meters. A

total of 10 internal features were located within the boundaries of House 13. Five of

the features were of indeterminate pit function, four were storage/refuse pits, and one

was a midden. Artifacts found within House 13 features include bifaces, Madison

Triangular points, drills/perforators, scrapers, a wedge, a uniface tool, modified

flakes, platform cores, hammerstones, a mano, lithic debitage, pottery, shell, and

faunal materials. House 13 also has evidence of partitioning based on the postmold

94

pattern, which suggests family units or apartments, rather than an open space. The

postmold pattern also suggests sleeping benches in House 13. House 14 has one

internal feature within in its postmold pattern. The feature function is in the

indeterminate pit classification. Twenty-five artifacts were excavated from the

feature including a knife and pottery. Two additional features, Features 239A and

239B, are present within the house overlap of Houses 13 and 14, but it is difficult to

discern whether or not they belong to House 13 or House 14. Both features are

categorized as storage/refuse pits. Artifacts found in the overlap features include

bifaces, a Madison Triangular point, modified flakes, a scraper, lithic debitage,

pottery, a bison scapula hoe, shell, and faunal remains. No unique artifact

assemblages were present in Houses 13 and 14. The artifact assemblage of House 13

is indicative of the following activities: food preparation and processing, cooking,

hide working, agricultural activities, hunting and/or warfare, wood working,

bone/antler working, and lithic tool manufacturing. The following activities were

present in House 14, cooking, hide working, agricultural activities, butchering,

hunting and/or warfare, wood working, bone/antler working, and lithic tool

manufacturing. The house overlap artifacts were factored into the types of activities

present in Houses 13 and 14. The primary function of Houses 13 and 14 is domestic

(Table 7.2) based on the ethnographic record, the formal properties of architecture,

the presence and types of internal features, and the artifact assemblages.

Summary

The following lines of evidence were used to address my research question

about La Crosse locality Oneota architecture: the ethnographic record, the formal

95

properties of architecture, the presence or absence and types of internal features, and

the artifact assemblages of each structure. Based on the lines of evidence, all of the

structures in the study area were used for domestic purposes. The structures

contained artifacts that were used in day-to-day activities, such as food preparation

and processing, cooking, butchering, hide working, wood working, bone/antler

working, lithic tool manufacturing, hunting, and agricultural activities. None of the

houses, except for the Tremaine site longhouses, had evidence of ceremonial use.

The Tremaine site longhouses are considered to be primarily domestic with some

ceremonial use, i.e., human burials.

96

CHAPTER 8: CONCLUSIONS

The La Crosse locality is an ideal area to study the Oneota due to the

variation in architecture, and it is the most well dated Oneota locality. I argued that

the variation in La Crosse locality Oneota architecture was due to function, i.e.,

domestic or ceremonial. Based on the results of all of the structures being used for

domestic purposes, another argument needs to be postulated to explain the variation

in La Crosse locality Oneota architecture.

The La Crosse locality Oneota sites fall within the Classic horizon and can be

divided into finer phase divisions; Brice Prairie (A.D. 1300–1400), Pammel Creek

(A.D. 1400–1500), and Valley View (A.D. 1500–1625). I conducted a locality level

study rather than a regional level study in hopes that the scale would be small enough

to determine the function of the structures. Although this study was at the locality

level, it was difficult to pinpoint the structures to just one phase. This difficulty is

due to Oneota sites being heavily occupied, and most of the sites are

multicomponent. Therefore, I could not detect whether there was a correlation

between phase and structure type.

Fourteen Oneota structures (two wigwams, three semi-subterranean

structures, and nine longhouses) were examined to determine their functional use.

The following lines of evidence were used in my research: the ethnographic record,

the formal properties of architecture, the presence or absence and function of internal

features, and the artifact assemblages of each structure.

97

Based on the artifact assemblages, I have concluded that all of the structures

were used for domestic purposes. O’Gorman and Hollinger (1991) and O’Gorman

(1995) also concluded that the Tremaine site longhouses, Houses 5-11 in this thesis,

were used for domestic reasons, but that those longhouses also showed some

evidence of limited ceremonial uses, i.e., human burials. The artifact assemblages of

the buildings, other than the Tremaine site longhouses, compare favorably with those

typical of a structure used for domestic purposes, suggesting domestic activities such

as food processing, cooking, ceramic and lithic manufacturing or maintenance, and

production of other tools and utilitarian objects.

Based on the ethnographic record, the structures compare favorably to those

used for domestic purposes. I identified three structures in the ethnographic record

with a domestic function (wigwams, summer houses, and longhouses). Structures of

the ceremonial type include longhouses, sweat lodges, ceremonial lodges, council

lodges, medicine lodges, and menstrual huts. The longhouse falls within both

categories of function. To differentiate a domestic longhouse from a ceremonial

longhouse, one must examine the artifact assemblage, the internal layout of the

longhouse, and the presence or absence of burials. The archaeological data for my

thesis included semi-subterranean structures, which were not present in the

ethnographic record of the Northeast/Great Lakes culture area.

The formal properties of architecture including size, form, and internal layout

were useful in classifying the wigwams and longhouses as domestic rather than

ceremonial. Some of the structures, Houses 3, 12, and 13, have evidence of sleeping

benches which are indicative of a domestic structure. The internal postmolds of

98

House 13 not only suggest sleeping benches, but also imply partitioning of the

longhouse into apartments or family units. All of the structures, except for the semi-

subterranean structures, exhibit maintenance and/or expansion of the building,

another indicator of a domestic use.

One caveat of this research is based on the assumption that the internal

features belonged to that structure. I was able to differentiate some features as not

belonging to a certain structure because the features had postmolds intruding on

them, and therefore I removed those features from the data set. Another feature was

eliminated from House 14 because it belonged to the earlier Woodland time period.

As for the rest of the features, I cannot say with complete certainty that they belong

to that structure, but I must approach the study as if they do. In general, Oneota sites

are very complex based on their extensive occupation of sites over a 300 year period.

Other than Houses 5–11, none of the structures in this thesis exhibit evidence

of use for ceremonial purposes. The only reason Houses 5–11 are an exception is

that they contain burials. The burials located within the structures do not make a

strong case that the longhouses were for primarily ceremonial purposes.

Hollinger (1993, 1995) has presented one opposing theory to the variation in

Oneota structures. He conducted a study of 95 Oneota structures throughout the

geographical area inhabited by the Oneota and found that the variation in structure

form is due to shifts in residence, i.e., patrilocal to matrilocal and then back to

patrilocal. Hollinger (1993, 1995) examined the floor area of each house to test his

expectation that there would be a shift from small floor areas (patrilocal) to large

floor areas (matrilocal) and back to small floor areas (patrilocal) throughout time.

99

He concluded that the variation in structure form was a result of the Oneota

practicing shifts in rules of residence, i.e., patrilocal during the Emergent and

Developmental horizons (small floor areas) to matrilocal during the Classic horizon

(large floor areas) and then back to patrilocal during the Historic horizon (small floor

areas).

There is no evidence for shifts in house forms within the Classic horizon in

the La Crosse area that would support Hollinger, but I did not have the fine temporal

control necessary to compare structures from different phases. The La Crosse

locality has multiple forms of structures including wigwams, longhouses, and semi-

subterranean houses during the Classic horizon of the Oneota time period. This

contrasts Hollinger’s findings that the Oneota should have been building structures

with large floor areas during the Classic horizon. Although there are a higher

number of longhouses compared to wigwams and semi-subterranean structures in the

La Crosse locality, they were all used for domestic purposes.

While viewing the ethnographic record, I came across a common practice of

Native Americans in the Great Lakes area practicing a semiannual shift in residency

or dual structure pattern. As stated before, a dual structure pattern is where two

different types of structures are used depending on the season, i.e., a wigwam for the

winter and a square/rectangular house or longhouse for the summer. Larger

structures are generally associated with summer occupation when extended families

lived together or for ceremonial purposes. Another argument that the larger

structures were used for summer occupation is that the Oneota agglomerated in the

summer for agricultural purposes which involved tending of the ridged field systems

100

(Boszhardt 2009). Smaller structures are likely for the winter because they are easier

to heat (Nabokov and Easton 1989) and can house nuclear families (Wedel 1986).

Breaking into smaller groups in the winter also made it easier to forage (McKusick

1974).

Although the evidence of a dual structure pattern is not strong, solely based

on the ethnographic record, I find it still to be plausible. Further research would

need to be conducted to address the seasonality of the domestic architecture. I bring

this up as an option for explaining the variation in the buildings simply because all of

the structure types in my study were determined to be used for domestic purposes.

Historic Native Americans were known to practice a semiannual shift in residency

by building different structure types, and so why would that not be the case for

prehistoric Native Americans?

Future work in the La Crosse locality needs to be done to gain more

information about Oneota architecture. Currently, our field methods may be hurting

us more than helping us. Most sites are stripped using heavy machinery. This is the

most expedient way to remove the plow zone, but it also removes more of the feature

than necessary and smears the sand, and so not all of the features at a site are

detected. Since I do not foresee a decrease in the use of heavy machinery, I suggest

that skim shoveling occur to uncover most if not all of the features after the heavy

machinery has been through.

I suggest that when a structure is discovered it would be beneficial to piece

plot the artifacts. This will help in determining activity areas. Although most

projects are under time constraints, which limits the amount of time that can be spent

101

on excavations, resulting in a loss of archaeological knowledge. The time constraint

also limits the type of excavation conducted at a site, i.e., use of remote sensing or

piece plotting.

Another item that hurts Oneota archaeology is modern farming, which causes

a plow zone of 30 cm in depth that may distort or destroy any evidence of postmolds

and house floors. Most features and postmolds are truncated by the plow zone,

which results in an incorrect depth of the feature or postmold. We as archaeologists

cannot control the damage that has already been done by modern farming, but we

could use remote sensing prior to excavations to locate features and postmolds.

Remote sensing techniques that would be beneficial are ground penetrating radar,

magnetometry, resistivity, and conductivity.

Hopefully, as excavations continue in the La Crosse locality, we will be able

to discover more structures. With the excavation of new structures, it would be

beneficial to set up a plan of action to obtain as much information as possible, i.e.,

piece plotting the artifacts; collecting GIS data of the structure location, postmolds,

and non-structure features at a site; faunal/floral data; and formal properties of

architecture including size, form, and construction materials. “The dilemma of

determining function is as old as archaeology itself and remains as problematic today

as ever. As difficult as it may be to ascertain, however, there is some consensus that

we must at least try to make such interpretations” (Knight 2002:27).

102

REFERENCES

Allison, Penelope M. 1999 Introduction. In The Archaeology of Household Activities, edited by Penelope

M. Allison, pp. 1-18. Routledge, New York. Arzigian, Constance M., Robert F. Boszhardt, Holly P. Halverson, and James L. Theler 1994 The Gundersen Site: An Oneota Village and Cemetery in La Crosse,

Wisconsin. Journal of the Iowa Archeological Society 41:3-75. Arzigian, Constance M., Robert F. Boszhardt, James L. Theler, Roland L. Rodell, and Michael J. Scott 1989 Human Adaptation in the Upper Mississippi Valley: A Study of the Pammel

Creek Oneota Site (47Lc61) La Crosse, Wisconsin. The Wisconsin Archeologist 70.

Benchley, Elizabeth D., Blane Nansel, Clark A. Dobbs, Susan M. Thurston Myster, and Barbara H. O’Connell 1997 Archaeology and Bioarchaeology of the Northern Woodlands. Arkansas

Archaeological Survey Research Series No. 52. Arkansas Archaeological Survey, Fayetteville.

Benn, D. W. 1984 Excavations at the Christenson Oneota Site (13Pk407), Central Des Moines

River Valley, Iowa. Center for Archaeological Research No. 592. Springfield. Binford, Lewis R. 1967 Smudge Pits and Hide Smoking: The Use of Analogy in Archaeological

Reasoning. American Antiquity 32:1-12. 1983 In Pursuit of the Past: Decoding the Archaeological Record. Thames and

Hudson, London. Bluhm, Elaine A., and Gloria J. Fenner 1961 The Oak Forest Site. Chicago Area Archaeology. Illinois Archaeological

Survey Bulletin 3:139-161. Bluhm, Elaine A., and Allen Liss 1961 The Anker Site. Chicago Area Archaeology. Illinois Archaeological Survey

Bulletin 3:89-137.

103

Boszhardt, Robert F. 1994a Oneota Group Continuity at La Crosse: The Brice Prairie, Pammel Creek,

and Valley View Phases. The Wisconsin Archeologist 75:173-236. 1994b Oneota Archaeology at La Crosse, Wisconsin: Introduction. The Wisconsin

Archeologist 75:165-172. 1998 Oneota Horizons: A La Crosse Perspective. The Wisconsin Archeologist

79:196-226. 2003 A Projectile Point Guide for the Upper Mississippi River Valley. University

of Iowa Press, Iowa City. 2004 Blind Dates and Blind Faith: The Timeless Story of the “Emergent” Oneota

McKern Phase. The Wisconsin Archeologist 85:3-30. 2009 Archaeological Data Recovery at the Meier Farm Development within the

Sand Lake Archaeological District, La Crosse County, Wisconsin. Reports of Investigations No. 576. Mississippi Valley Archaeology Center, University of Wisconsin-La Crosse.

Boszhardt, Robert F., Thomas W. Bailey, and James P. Gallagher 1985 Oneota Ridged Fields at the Sand Lake Site (47Lc44), La Crosse County,

Wisconsin. The Wisconsin Archeologist 66:47-67. Boszhardt, Robert F, Wendy Holtz, and Jeremy Nienow 1995 A Compilation of Oneota Radiocarbon Dates as of 1995. In Oneota

Archaeology: Past, Present, and Future, edited by William Green, pp. 203-227. Report 20. Office of the State Archaeologist, University of Iowa, Iowa City.

Bray, Robert T. 1991 The Utz Site: An Oneota Village in Central Missouri. The Missouri

Archaeologist 52:1-146. Brown, James A. 1961 The Zimmerman Site, a Report on Excavations at the Grand Village of the

Kaskaskia, LaSalle County, Illinois. Reports of Investigations 9. Illinois State Museum, Springfield.

Brown, Margaret K. 1975 The Zimmerman Site: Further Excavations at the Grand Village of the

Kaskaskia. Reports of Investigations 32. Illinois State Museum, Springfield.

104

Bushnell, David I., Jr. 1922 Villages of the Algonquian, Siouan, and Caddoan Tribes West of the

Mississippi. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 77. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C.

Cameron, Catherine M. 1991 Structure Abandonment in Villages. Archaeological Method and Theory

3:155-194. 1999 Room Size, Organization of Construction, and Archaeological Interpretation

in the Puebloan Southwest. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 18:201-239.

Cawley, Edward T. 1973 Final Report, Environmental Impact Assessment Study, Pool 10 of the

Northern Section of the Upper Mississippi River. North Star Research Institute, Minneapolis.

Chapman, Carl H. 1959 The Little Osage and Missouri Indian Village Sites: Ca. 1727-1777 A.D. The

Missouri Archaeologist 21:1-69. 1985 Introduction. In Osage and Missouri Indian Life Cultural Change: 1675-

1825, pp.1-15. Final Performance Report on National Endowment for the Humanities Research Grant RS-20296.

Chapman, Carl H., and R. P. Wiegers 1985 Archaeological Investigations on Historic Missouri, Little Osage and Big

Osage Village Sites. In Osage and Missouri Indian Life Cultural Change: 1675-1825, pp.273-379. Final Performance Report on National Endowment for the Humanities Research Grant RS-20296.

Charlton, Thomas H. 1981 Archaeology, Ethnohistory, and Ethnology: Interpretive Interfaces. In

Advances in Archaeological Method and Theoy, Vol. 4, edited by Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 129-176. Academic Press, San Diego.

Clark, Tiffany C. 1998 Assessing Room Function Using Unmodified Faunal Bone: A Case Study

from East-Central Arizona. Kiva 64:27-51. Conrad, L. A., and D. Esarey 1985 The Bold Counselor Phase: The Oneota Occupation of the Central Illinois

River Valley. Manuscript on file at Dickson Mounds Museum and Western Illinois University.

105

Curtis, John T. 1971 The Vegetation of Wisconsin: An Ordination of Plant Communities.

University of Wisconsin Press, Madison. Diehl, Michael W. 1998 The Interpretation of Archaeological Floor Assemblages: A Case Study from

the American Southwest. American Antiquity 63:617-634. Dobbs, Clark A. 1984 Excavations at the Bryan Site: 1983-1984. The Minnesota Archaeologist

43:49-58. Dolan, Shannon, and Steven R. Kuehn 2006 An Oneota Longhouse Structure from East-Central Wisconsin. Paper

presented at the Midwest Archaeological Conference, Urbana. Driver, Harold E., and William C. Massey 1957 Comparative Studies of North American Indians. Transactions of the

American Philosophical Society 47:16-456. Faulkner, Charles H. 1972 The Late Prehistoric Occupation of Northwestern Indiana: A Study of the

Upper Mississippi Culture of the Kankakee Valley. Prehistoric Research Series 5, No. 1. Indiana Historical Society, Indianapolis.

1977 The Winter House: An Early Southeast Tradition. Midcontinental Journal of

Archaeology 2:141-159. Finley, Robert W. 1976a Geography of Wisconsin. The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison. 1976b Original Vegetation Cover of Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Extension,

Madison. Flannery, Kent V. 1976 Research Strategy and Formative Mesoamerica. In The Early Mesoamerican

Village, edited by Kent V. Flannery, pp. 1-11. Academic Press, New York. Flannery, Kent V., and Marcus C. Winter 1976 Analyzing Household Activities. In The Early Mesoamerican Village, edited

by Kent V. Flannery, pp. 34-45. Academic Press, New York. Fugle, Eugene 1954 A Fox Village Site. Journal of the Iowa Archaeological Society 4:4-15.

106

Gallagher, James P., and Constance M. Arzigian 1994 A New Perspective on Late Prehistoric Agricultural Intensification in the

Upper Mississippi River Valley. In Agricultural Origins and Development in the Midcontinent, edited by William Green, pp. 171-188. Report No. 19. Office of the State Archaeologist. University of Iowa, Iowa City.

Gallagher, James P., Robert F. Boszhardt, Robert F. Sasso, and Katherine Stevenson 1985 Oneota Ridged Field Agriculture in Southwestern Wisconsin. American

Antiquity 50:605-612. Gallagher, James P., and Robert F. Sasso 1987 Investigations into Oneota Ridged Field Agriculture on the Northern Margin

of the Prairie Peninsula. Plains Anthropologist 32:141-151. Gibbon, Guy E. 1969 The Walker-Hooper and Bornick Sites: Two Grand River Phase Oneota Sites

in Central Wisconsin. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

1970 The Midway Village Site: An Orr Phase Oneota Site in the Upper Mississippi

River Valley. The Wisconsin Archeologist 51:79-162. 1972a Cultural Dynamics and the Development of the Oneota Life-way in

Wisconsin. American Antiquity 37:166-185. 1972b The Walker-Hooper Site: A Grand River Phase Oneota Site in Green Lake

County. The Wisconsin Archeologist 53:149-290. 1979 The Mississippian Occupation of the Red Wing Area. Minnesota Prehistoric

Archaeology Series No. 13. Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul. 1982 Oneota Origins Revisited. In Oneota Studies, edited by Guy E. Gibbon, pp.

85-90. Publications in Anthropology No. 1. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Gibbon, Guy E., and Clark A. Dobbs 1991 The Mississippian Presence in the Red Wing Area, Minnesota. In New

Perspectives on Cahokia: Views from the Periphery, edited by James B. Stoltman, pp. 281-306. Monographs in World Archaeology No. 2. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin.

Gould, Richard A., and Patty Jo Watson 1982 A Dialogue on the Meaning and Use of Analogy in Ethnographical

Reasoning. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1:355-381.

107

Griffin, James B. 1960 A Hypothesis for the Prehistory of the Winnebago. In Culture in History:

Essays in Honor of Paul Radin, edited by Stanley Diamond, pp. 809-865. Columbia University Press, New York.

Griffin, John W. 1944 New Evidence from the Fisher Site. Illinois State Academy of Sciences

Transactions 37:37-40. Hall, Robert L. 1962 The Archeology of Carcajou Point. 2 volumes. University of Wisconsin

Press, Madison. Harn, Alan D., and Nicholas W. Klobuchar 2000 Inside Morton House 7: An Oneota Structure from the Central Illinois River

Valley. In Mounds, Modoc, and Mesoamerica: Papers in Honor of Melvin L. Fowler, edited by Steven R. Ahler, pp. 295-335. Illinois State Museum Scientific Papers Vol. XXVIII. Illinois State Museum, Springfield.

Harvey, Amy 1979 Oneota Culture in Northwestern Iowa. Report 12. Office of the State

Archaeologist, University of Iowa, Iowa City. Hendon, Julia A. 1989 Elite Household Organization at Copan, Honduras: Analysis of Activity

Distribution in the Sepulturas Zone. In Households and Communities: Proceedings of the Twenty-first Annual Conference of the Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, edited by Scott MacEachern, David J.W. Archer, and Richard D. Garvin, pp. 371-380. University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Henning, Dale R. 1998 Managing Oneota: A Reiteration and Testing of Contemporary

Archaeological Taxonomy. The Wisconsin Archeologist 79:9-28. Hollinger, R. Eric 1993 Investigating Oneota Residence through Domestic Architecture. Unpublished

Masters thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Missouri-Columbia.

1995 Residence Patterns and Oneota Cultural Dynamics. In Oneota Archaeology:

Past, Present, and Future, edited by William Green, pp. 141-174. Report 20. Office of the State Archaeologist, University of Iowa, Iowa City.

108

Horner, G. R. 1947 An Upper-Mississippi House-Pit from the Fisher Village Site: Further

Evidence. Illinois Academy of Science Transactions 40:26-29. Hurley, W. M. 1978 The Armstrong Site: A Silvernale Phase Oneota Village in Wisconsin. The

Wisconsin Archeologist 59:1-88. Jackson, Douglas K., Andrew C. Fortier, and Joyce A. Williams 1992 The Oneota, Bold Counselor Complex Component. In The Sponemann Site 2:

The Mississippian and Oneota Occupations, with contributions by Lucretia S. Kelly, Kathryn E. Parker, and Maria Mercer Hajic. American Bottom Archaeology FAI-270 Site Reports Vol. 24. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

Johnson, Matthew 1999 Archaeological Theory: An Introduction. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford. Johnston, Kevin J., and Nancy Gonlin 1998 What Do Houses Mean? Approaches to the Analysis of Classic Maya

Commoner Residences. In Function and Meaning in Classic Maya Architecture, edited by Stephen D. Houston. Pp. 141-185. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington, D.C.

Keyes, C. R. 1927 Prehistoric Man in Iowa. The Palimpsest 8:215-229. Knight, Dean H. 2002 The Function of Longhouses: An Example from the Ball Site. The Bulletin:

Journal of the New York State Archaeological Association 118:27-40. Lightfoot, Ricky R. 1994 The Duckfoot Site. Volume 2, Archaeology of the House and Household.

Occasional Paper No. 4. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado.

Lurie, Nancy O. 1960 Winnebago Protohistory. In Culture and History: Essays in Honor of Paul

Radin, edited by Stanley Diamond, pp. 790-808. Columbia University Press, New York.

McKern, W.C. 1939 The Midwestern Taxonomic Method as an Aid to Archaeological Culture

Study. American Antiquity 4:301-313.

109

1945 Preliminary Report on the Upper Mississippi Phase in Wisconsin. Bulletin of the Public Museum of the City of Milwaukee 16:109-285.

McKusick, Marshall 1973 The Grant Oneota Village. Report 4. Office of the State Archaeologist,

University of Iowa, Iowa City. 1974 Reconstructing the Longhouse Village Settlement Patterns. Plains

Anthropologist 19:197-210. Martin, Lawrence 1965 The Physical Geography of Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Press,

Madison. Mehrer, Mark W. 1995 Cahokia’s Countryside: Household Archaeology, Settlement Patterns, and

Social Power. Northern Illinois University Press, DeKalb. Milner, G. R., T. Emerson, M. Mehrer, J. Williams, and D. Esarey 1984 Mississippian and Oneota Period. In American Bottom Archaeology, edited

by C. J. Bareis and J. W. Porter, pp. 158-186. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

Mississippi Valley Archaeology Center 1988 Original unpublished field notes from the Midway site, 47Lc19. Manuscript

on file, University of Wisconsin-La Crosse. 2000 Original unpublished field notes from the Krause site, 47Lc41. Manuscript on

file, University of Wisconsin-La Crosse. Moffat, C. R., and B. Koldehoff 1990 Overview of Oneota Studies at Lake Red Rock. In Archaeological Data

Recovery at Five Prehistoric Sites, Lake Red Rock, Marion County, Iowa, pp. 417-465. American Resources Group, Carbondale.

Morgan, Lewis Henry 1901 League of the Ho-de-no-sau-nee or Iroquois, Volume I. Burt Franklin, New

York. 1965 Houses and House-Life of the American Aborignes. University of Chicago

Press, Illinois.

110

Morin, Jesse 2006 Non-Domestic Architecture in Prehistoric Complex Hunter-Gatherer

Communities: An Example from Keatley Creek on the Canadian Plateau of British Columbia. Unpublished Masters thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of British Columbia.

2010 Ritual Architecture in Prehistoric Complex Hunter-Gatherer Communities: A

Potential Example from Keatley Creek on the Canadian Plateau. American Antiquity 75:599-625.

Moss, James 2008 Intrasite Feature Analysis of the Crescent Bay Hunt Club Site. Paper

presented at the Midwest Archaeological Conference, Milwaukee. 2010 Intrasite Feature Analysis of the Crescent Bay Hunt Club Site (47Je904), An

Oneota Site in Southeastern Wisconsin. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.

Nabokov, Peter, and Robert Easton 1989 Native American Architecture. Oxford University Press, New York. Netting, Robert McC., Richard R. Wilk, and Eric J. Arnould 1984 Introduction. In Households: Comparative and Historical Studies of the

Domestic Group, edited by Robert McC. Netting, Richard R. Wilk, and Eric J. Arnould, pp. xiii-xxxviii. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Nass, John, Jr. 1989 Household Archaeology and Functional Analysis as Procedures for Studying

Fort Ancient Communities in the Ohio Valley. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 59:1-13.

Noble, William C. 2002 Historic Neutral Iroquois Settlement Structures. The Bulletin: Journal of the

New York State Archaeological Association 118:19-26. O’Donnell, Neil P. 2003 Eaton Longhouses: Considering the Development of a Standardized

Architecture. North American Archaeologist 24:215-220. O’Gorman, Jodie 1993 The Tremaine Site Complex: Oneota Occupation in the La Crosse Locality,

Wisconsin. Volume 1: The OT Site (47Lc262). Archaeology Research Series No. 1. Museum Archaeology Program, State Historical Society of Wisconsin, Madison.

111

1994 The Tremaine Site Complex: Oneota Occupation in the La Crosse Locality, Wisconsin. Volume 2: The Filler Site (47Lc149). Archaeology Research Series No. 2. Museum Archaeology Program, State Historical Society of Wisconsin, Madison.

1995 The Tremaine Site Complex: Oneota Occupation in the La Crosse Locality,

Wisconsin. Volume 3: The Tremaine Site (47Lc95). Archaeology Research Series No. 3. Museum Archaeology Program, State Historical Society of Wisconsin, Madison.

1996 Domestic Economics and Mortuary Practices: A Gendered View of Oneota

Social Organization. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.

2001 Life, Death, and the Longhouse: A Gendered View of Oneota Social

Organization. In Gender and the Archaeology of Death, edited by Bettina Arnold and Nancy L. Wicker, pp. 23-49. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California.

2010 Exploring the Longhouse and Community in Tribal Society. American

Antiquity 75:571-597. O’Gorman, Jodie A., and R. Eric Hollinger 1991 The Tremaine Structures: Methodological and Theoretical Issues. Paper

presented at the Midwest Archaeological Conference, La Crosse. Overstreet, David 1976 The Grand River, Lake Koshkonong, Green Bay and Lake Winnebago Phases

– Eight Hundred Years of Oneota Prehistory in Eastern Wisconsin. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.

1978 Oneota Settlement Patterns in Eastern Wisconsin: Some Considerations of

Time and Space. In Mississippian Settlement Patterns, edited by Bruce D. Smith, pp. 21-49. Academic Press, New York.

1981 Investigations at the Pipe Site (47Fd10) and Some Perspectives on Eastern

Wisconsin Oneota Prehistory. The Wisconsin Archeologist 62:365-525. 1989 Oneota Tradition and Culture History – New Data from the Old Spring Site

(47Wn350). Great Lakes Archaeological Research Center. Reports of Investigations No. 219. Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

112

1995 The Eastern Wisconsin Oneota Regional Continuity. In Oneota Archaeology: Past, Present, and Future, edited by William Green, pp. 33-64. Office of the State Archaeologist Report 20. The University of Iowa, Iowa City.

1997 Oneota Prehistory and History. The Wisconsin Archeologist 78:250-297. 1998 East and West Expressions of the Emergent Oneota Horizon: Perceptual

Problems and Empirical Realities. The Wisconsin Archeologist 79:29-37. Penman, John T. 1984 Archaeology of the Great River Road: Summary Report. Archaeological

Report No. 10. Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Madison. Penman, John T., and Kelly Hamilton 1990 Prehistoric Sites in La Crosse County. Archaeological Report No. 17.

Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Madison. Peske, G. Richard 1973 Commentary. In The Grant Oneota Village, written by Marshall McKusick,

pp. 164-165. Report 4. Office of the State Archaeologist, University of Iowa, Iowa City.

Raab, L. Mark, and Albert C. Goodyear 1984 Middle-Range Theory in Archaeology: A Critical Review of Origins and

Applications. American Antiquity 49:255-268. Radin, Paul 1923 The Winnebago Tribe. Thirty-seventh Annual Report of the Bureau of

American Ethnology. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Rapoport, Amos 1969 House Form and Culture. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Ritzenthaler, Robert E. 1953 Prehistoric Indians of Wisconsin. Popular Handbook Series, No. 4.

Milwaukee Public Museum, Wisconsin. Ritzenthaler, Robert E., and Fredrick A. Peterson 1956 The Mexican Kickapoo Indians. Publications in Anthropology 2. Milwaukee

Public Museum, Wisconsin. Ritzenthaler, Robert E., and Pat Ritzenthaler 1983 The Woodland Indians of the Western Great Lakes. Waveland Press, Prospect

Heights, Illinois.

113

Rodell, Roland L. 1991 The Diamond Bluff Site Complex and Cahokia Influence in the Red Wing

Locality. In New Perspectives on Cahokia: Views from the Periphery, edited by James B. Stoltman, pp. 253-280. Monographs in World Archaeology No. 2. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin.

Rogers, J. Daniel 1995 The Archaeological Analysis of Domestic Organization. In Mississippian

Communities and Households, edited by J. Daniel Rogers and Bruce D. Smith, pp. 7-31. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Sank, K. M. 1993 Salvage Excavations at an Oneota Village. Illinois Antiquity 28:6-10. Santure, Sharron K., Alan D. Harn, and Duane Esarey 1990 Archaeological Investigations at the Morton Village and Norris Farms 36

Cemetery. Reports of Investigations No. 45. Illinois State Museum. Sasso, Robert F. 1989 Oneota Settlement Practices in the La Crosse Region: An Analysis of the

Coon Creek Drainage in the Driftless Area of Western Wisconsin. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois.

1993 La Crosse Region Oneota Adaptation Changing Late Prehistoric Subsistence

and Settlement Patterns in the Upper Mississippi Valley. The Wisconsin Archeologist 74:324-369.

Savelle, James M., and Junko Habu 2004 A Processual Investigation of a Thule Whale Bone House, Somerset Island,

Arctic Canada. Arctic Anthropology 41:204-221. Schiffer, Michael B. 1988 The Structure of Archaeological Theory. American Antiquity 53:461-485. Skinner, Alanson 1911 A Comparative Sketch of the Menomini. American Anthropologist 13:551-

565. 1921 Material Culture of the Menomini. Indian Notes and Monographs. Museum

of the American Indian, Haye Foundation, New York. 1923 Notes on the Museum’s Collecting Expeditions in 1922: A Summer among

the Sauk and Ioway Indians. Yearbook of the Public Museum of the City of Milwaukee 2:6-22.

114

1926 Ethnology of the Ioway Indians. Bulletin of the Public Museum of the City of

Milwaukee 5:189-362. Smith, Bruce D. 1995 The Analysis of Single-Household Mississippian Settlements. In

Mississippian Communities and Households, edited by J. Daniel Rogers and Bruce D. Smith, pp. 224-249. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Spector, Janet D. 1975 Crabapple Point (Je93): An Historic Winnebago Indian Site in Jefferson

County, Wisconsin. The Wisconsin Archeologist 56:270-345. Stahl, Ann Brower 1993 Concepts of Time and Approaches to Analogical Reasoning in Historical

Perspective. American Antiquity 58:235-260. Stevenson, Katherine P. 1984 The Oneota Study Unit in Region 6, Western Wisconsin. Reports of

Investigations No. 20. Mississippi Valley Archaeology Center, University of Wisconsin-La Crosse.

1985 Oneota Subsistence-Related Behavior in the Driftless Area: A Study of the

Valley View Site near La Crosse, Wisconsin. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Stevenson, Katherine P., and Robert F. Boszhardt 1993 The Current Status of Oneota Sites and Research in Western Wisconsin: The

Oneota Study Unit in Region 6, 1993 Update. Reports of Investigations No. 163. Mississippi Valley Archaeology Center, University of Wisconsin-La Crosse.

Stoltman, James B. 1973 The Overhead Site (47Lc20), an Orr Phase Site near La Crosse, Wisconsin.

The Wisconsin Archeologist 54:2-35. 1983 Ancient Peoples of the Upper Mississippi River Valley. In Historic Lifestyles

in the Upper Mississippi River Valley, edited by John Wozniak, pp. 197-255. University Press of America, New York.

1986 The Appearance of the Mississippian Cultural Tradition in the Upper

Mississippi Valley. In Prehistoric Mound Builders of the Mississippi Valley, edited by J.B. Stoltman, pp. 26-34. Proceedings of a symposium sponsored by Putnam Museum, Davenport, Iowa.

115

Stortroen, C. E. 1984 The Bryan Site: A Prehistoric Village in Southern Minnesota. The Minnesota

Archaeologist 43:37-48. Theler, James L. 1989 The Pammel Creek Site Faunal Remains. The Wisconsin Archeologist

70:157-241. 1994 Oneota Faunal Remains from Seven Sites in the La Crosse, Wisconsin, Area.

The Wisconsin Archeologist 75:343-392. Theler, James L., and Robert F. Boszhardt 2003 Twelve Millennia: Archaeology of the Upper Mississippi River Valley.

University of Iowa Press, Iowa City. Trigger, Bruce G. 1990 The Huron: Farmers of the North. 2nd edition. Holt, Rinehart and Winston,

Inc., Fort Worth, Texas. Wedel, Mildred Mott 1959 Oneota Sites on the Upper Iowa River. Missouri Archaeologist 21:1-181. 1986 Peering at the Ioway Indians Through the Mist of Time: 1650-Circa 1700.

Journal of the Iowa Archaeological Society 33:1-74. 2001 Iowa. In Plains, edited by Raymond J. DeMallie, pp. 432-446. Handbook of

North American Indians, Vol. 13, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Whitman, William 1969 The Oto. Reprinted. AMS Press, New York. Originally published 1937,

Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology Volume 28. Columbia University Press, New York.

Wilk, Richard R., and Robert McC. Netting 1984 Households: Changing Forms and Functions. In Households: Comparative

and Historical Studies of the Domestic Group, edited by Robert McC. Netting, Richard R. Wilk, and Eric J. Arnould, pp. 1-28. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Wilk, Richard R., and William L. Rathje 1982 Household Archaeology. In Archaeology of the Household: Building a

Prehistory of Domestic Life, edited by Richard R. Wilk and William L. Rathje, pp. 617-639. American Behavioral Scientist 25:611-724.

116

Willey, Gordon R., and Philip Phillips 1958 Method and Theory in American Archaeology. University of Chicago Press,

Illinois. Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey 2003 1971 Landforms of Wisconsin Map. Electronic document,

http://wisconsingeologicalsurvey.org/lnfm.htm, accessed December 12, 2011. Wylie, Alison 1985 The Reaction against Analogy. In Advances in Archaeological Method and

Theory, Vol. 8, edited by Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 63-111. Academic Press, San Diego.

117

APPENDIX A: DESCRIPTIONS OF ARTIFACT TYPES LISTED ON THE MVAC CATALOG FORMS FOR CATALOGING AND ANALYSIS

Stage I Biface: These are large pieces of raw material with evidence of bifacial percussion

flaking. The flaking forms a wavy edge on one or more of the margins; the tools vary in

shape and size. Cortex is often present on one or more faces or margins. Each of these tools

receives a catalog number and is labeled; broken pieces are also included in the count.

Stage II Biface: These tools are medium to large prefoms which have been reduced from

Stage I bifaces to a semi-oval shape, by percussion flaking. The percussion flaking produces

a wavy appearance on all the margins. At this stage, most - to all of the cortex has been

removed. Sometimes these preforms were shaped in a quarry area and brought back in this

form to the habitation or campsite; shaped preforms are easier to transport than large chunks

of raw material. Most Stage II bifaces are non-utilized, however, occasionally a piece will

118

show use wear in the form of crushing or additional flake removal on one or more margins.

Each of these tools receives a catalog number and is labeled; broken pieces are also included

in the count.

Stage III Biface: Point preforms – This stage is reserved for a special type of small, roughly

triangular preform. These are simply crude points with wavy margins that have not had the

fine pressure flaking retouch and final shaping and thinning applied to them. Each of these

tools receives a catalog number and is labeled; broken pieces are also included in the counts.

119

Points: These tools have a definite point or spear shape and are usually defined by

characteristics on the base. Basal features are considered diagnostic or specific

components and/or time periods, for example, Oneota points are usually triangular,

with a straight base. Earlier point types include a stemmed base, or a notched corner

or side for ease in hafting the point to a shaft made of wood or bone. Only artifacts

that are complete enough to definitely show their original shape are to be sorted into

this category; as a rule, tips, bases and midsections are considered fragments since

they could have been either points or knives. Points are symmetrical, and in finished

form, have regular bifacial flaking on both lateral margins. Each of these tools

receives a catalog number and is labeled; broken pieces are not included in the

counts unless it is possible to determine that the fragment is definitely from a point,

i.e. a diagnostic base.

Knives: These tools usually differ from points in size and use wear. They are

essentially larger bifaces than points, although they can vary in size. Often they are

asymmetrical in shape from use and/or retouching on one lateral margin more than

the other. Knives may or may not have notched bases. Each of these tools receives a

120

catalog number and is labeled; broken pieces are not included in the count unless it is

possible to determine that the piece is definitely from a knife.

Drills/perforators: These tools have a specialized function and shape. Drills are

bifaces with steep retouching on both lateral margins, which produces a rod-like

projection with a rounded or chisel-like tip. The lateral margins are usually not

sharpened but may show crushing. Sometimes drills are made out of discarded points

or knives so that the bases may have a variety of shapes. Perforators are steeply

retouched bifaces with a long, thick, and narrow blade. In cross section, this blade

may be slightly rounded or may be rhomboidal. The perforator is usually beveled

which makes it distinguishable from a drill. Each of these tools receives a catalog

number and is labeled; broken pieces are also included in the counts.

121

Miscellaneous biface fragments: These tool fragments are small pieces of points

and knives only. They are pieces that are too incomplete to determine whether or not

they belong in the point or knife categories. They are either tips, midsections, or

bases. Each of these tools receives a catalog number and is labeled.

Other Bifaces: These tools are fragments with undetermined function. They are

found too infrequently to warrant a category of their own. They show bifacial

retouching on one or more margins. Use the comment section for specific

descriptions. Each of these tools receives a catalog number and is labeled; broken

pieces are also included in the counts.

Scrapers: Scrapers are a special form of retouched flake with a known function and

distinctive shape. Scrapers have at least one steeply retouched edge. End Scrapers

are often teardrop in shape, with the scraping edge on the distal end. Bifacially

modified end scrapers contain bifacial retouching on the lateral margins and/or the

end opposite the scraping edge. The retouch was applied to the piece to remove a

Tip

Mid-section

Base

122

prominent bulb of percussion or other hafting obstruction and is usually limited to

one or two flakes. Side Scrapers are less distinctive in overall shape, but they

usually have a steeply retouched lateral edge. Miscellaneous scrapers are fragments

with distinctive retouch but they are so incomplete that they cannot be placed in

either the side or end scraper category. This category also contains whole scrapers

that exhibit steeply retouched edges on tools lacking distinctive characteristics, in

other words, you cannot determine whether the retouch is on the distal or lateral

margin, or on a flake or other type of artifact. Each of these tools receives a catalog

number and is labeled; broken pieces are also included in the counts.

Other

End End

End

Side

Side Side

End

123

Gravers: Gravers are flake tools, which show evidence of fine retouch producing a

triangular projection used in engraving or incising. Unifacial retouch must be present

on both lateral margins. Each tool receives a catalog number and is labeled; broken

pieces are also included in the count.

Other Unifaces: These are tools or fragments with undetermined function or are

tools found too infrequently to warrant a category of their own. They show unifacial

retouching on one or more margins. Use the comment section for specific

descriptions. Each tool receives a catalog number and is labeled; broken pieces are

also included in the counts.

Modified Flakes: These flakes have been intentionally modified for use as tools, or

modified while used as tools. Plow zone materials may sometimes look like modified

flakes. Plowing sometimes scars the flakes, leaving a “retouched” or “utilized” edge.

Retouched flakes show obvious intentional pressure flaking along one or more

edges, which modifies the overall shape of the flake. This modification may be

124

unifacial or bifacial. Usually a series of three or more continuous flake scars is

enough to classify the artifact as a retouched flake. Utilized flakes are less obvious

than retouched flakes (plow zone materials are often mistaken for utilized flakes).

These flakes show discontinuous edge damage from using the flake without first

retouching the edge. The characteristic to look for in distinguishing retouched from

utilized flakes is the intentional modification, which leaves a continuous flow of

flake scars on the retouched flake. Worn flakes will have a rounded edge from

extended use. These flakes may have been discarded because of being too worn, too

small to resharpen or broken. Watch out for water worn edges or edges with hinge

fractures. Hinge fractures have rounded edges caused by natural or unintentional

cultural actions. Other flakes may show special modification or a combination of

retouching and utilization. This category is to be used sparingly; ask before you

assign any artifact to this category. Each of these flakes receives a catalog number

but will not be labeled, as a specialist will do the determination of retouch,

utilization, etc. later; broken pieces are also included in the counts.

125

Cores: Cores are chunky pieces of raw material, which is usually chert, and silicified

sandstone (orthoquartzite), which exhibit evidence of flake removal to obtain pieces

to be shaped into tools. Large cores often have cortex while small cores probably

will not. Bipolar Cores are fairly distinctive from the more numerous platform

varieties. Placing the raw material on an anvil stone and striking the top with a

hammer stone, to remove the flakes, form them. This causes crushing to appear on

both distal and proximal ends as well as flake scarring from the top to the bottom.

Bipolar cores are often called wedges. Bipolar core fragments are also included in

this category. Platform Cores have a prepared platform from which the flakes are

struck. These cores usually have a flat surface (platform) with flake scars emanating

down from the platform. These are the most numerous types of cores and are found

in all shapes and sizes. Core fragments are usually of platform cores. Each of these

cores and fragments receive a catalog number and are labeled.

Platform

Bipolar

126

Unmodified Flakes: These flakes are the waste product of stone tool manufacturing

and maintenance. They are driven from cores, bifaces and other tools by either

percussion or pressure flaking techniques. Flakes are distinct from naturally broken

aw material as they have a bulb of percussion, a striking platform, and a smooth, flat

ventral surface. The dorsal surface will often show flake scars from flakes taken

previously from the core or tool. Flakes are classified as primary, secondary, or

tertiary, depending upon the amount of cortex present on the dorsal surface. Primary

flakes are often large and have 100% cortex covering the dorsal surface. These flakes

were formed in an initial stage of core reduction. Secondary flakes are various sizes

and have less than 100% cortex on the dorsal surface Tertiary flakes have no cortex

and exhibit multiple and/or overlapping flake scars on the dorsal surface. Each of

these flakes receives a catalog number but is not labeled; broken pieces are also

included in this count. Chunks/Shatter are pieces of debitage that do not have a

bulb of percussion, striking platform or other flake characteristics. They are usually

blocky in shape and should not be confused with small reduced or exhausted cores,

which show distinct core characteristics. Each piece of debris receives a catalog

number but is not labeled; broken pieces are also included in the count.

Abraders: Abraders are tools made of coarse raw material such as sandstone. They

exhibit broad, concave grooves produced during grinding, sharpening, or soothing

materials such as wood, bone, and antler. Each of these pieces receives a catalog

number and is labeled; broken pieces are also included in the counts.

127

Axes/Celts: Axes and Celts are ground stone tools most commonly made of basalt.

These tools were used primarily for woodworking and may exhibit grinding on the

whole artifact, or sometimes only on the bit edge. Lateral edges are usually straight

and parallel, and sometimes convex and parallel. The working edge is generally

tapered and straightedges. Axes my or may not be grooved; if grooves exist, they can

be one-quarter of the way around the piece, three quarters off the way around the

piece, or fully-grooved. Sometimes axes have bits (tapered straight edges) on both

ends (double-bitted). Axes and celts may be fluted on their faces or margins. Both

tool types may also exhibit polish on all surfaces (part of the manufacturing process)

or only on the bit (from use). Each of these tools receives a catalog number and is

labeled; broken pieces are also included in the count.

128

Hammer stones/Anvils: A Hammer stone is a cobble with evidence of battering on

one or more lateral edges from use in percussion flaking. An anvil/anvil may show,

in addition to the battering, pecking on one or more surfaces where it has been used

to hold a piece of raw material during bipolar flaking. Each tool receives a catalog

number and is labeled; broken pieces are also included in the count.

Axes

Celts

Axe with fluted blade (decoration)

Axe with fluted margin (shaping)

½ ¾ Full

129

Manos: A mano is a hand-held grinding stone with at least one smoothed surface.

Sometimes manos have slight pitting on one or more surfaces from cracking

nutshells or corn kernels. Each tool receives a catalog number and is labeled; broken

pieces are also included in the count.

Metate: These tools are frequently large, flat cobbles with evidence of pecking

and/or smoothing on one or two opposing surfaces. These surfaces are usually

concave. This is the lower grinding stone used in conjunction with a mano, and is

larger than the hand can hold. Each tool receives a catalog number and is labeled;

broken pieces are also included in the counts.

130

Unidentifiable fragments: These groundstone tool fragments are so small or

fractured that they cannot be placed in any of the other groundstone tool categories.

These fragments are also called spalls. Each tool fragment receives a catalog number

and is labeled.

Other Groundstone: This category is reserved for tools, ornaments, or other

groundstone artifacts that are not frequently found in the assemblages, such as

sandstone or limestone pipes, stone beads, etc. Catlinite artifacts are also included in

this category. Each piece receives a catalog number and is labeled; broken pieces are

also included in the counts.

Burned Rock: This category consists of fire-cracked and/or burned rock, which

appears, primarily in sandstone, limestone and chert raw materials. This rock has

been culturally modified by burning only and appears as blocky pieces with irregular

faces however, (limestone is smooth and gritty). These rocks usually break apart

easily; they sometimes are charred but other than that, color will vary and is not a

determining factor. Do not give a catalog number or label burned rock. Do not count

the pieces, this rock is sorted into pieces larger than ½ inch, weighed and later

discarded.

131

Unburned Rock: For most of the sites, only a few categories of unburned rock are

kept. Small rounded pebbles and debris are sorted out and discarded since small

pieces occur naturally on the sites. All pieces of water worn chert and medium to

large cobbles of igneous and calcareous rock are kept. At some sites these pieces

have been manually carried onto the site (manuport) and even though they do not

have any evidence of cultural reshaping, they are still considered cultural materials,

as they do not occur naturally. Each cultural piece is assigned a catalog number and

is labeled; broken pieces are included up to ½ inch. All natural rock is later

discarded. Weigh only the cultural pieces as a group.

Pottery: Pottery from prehistoric sites is either Woodland (primarily Grit-

Tempered) or Oneota (primarily Shell-Tempered). Temper is the material added to

the clay to strengthen the vessel and to prevent cracking during firing. Shell-temper

has pieces of crushed shell mixed with the clay. Grit-temper has pieces of crushed

rock mixed with the clay. Other temper includes pottery with pieces of grog (crushed

fired pottery from old broken pots), sand, limestone or a mixture of temper mediums.

Decorated Sherds: Decoration is any intentional design, paint or slip placed on a

pot or other ceramic artifact. It does not include impressions left from shaping the

pot with a special tool or wrapping, i.e. cord roughening. Undecorated Sherds: This

pottery includes plain sherds and those with impressions left from shaping the pot

with a special tool or wrapping (called surface treatment). All ceramics are separated

into handles, rims, decorated body sherds, and undecorated body sherds, and then

sorted by temper. All handles, rims, and decorated body sherds receive a catalog

132

number. All undecorated body sherds less than a ¼” will be noted and later discarded

unless there is only one sherd in the bag. Saved undecorated body sherds receive a

catalog number but are not labeled. Note, when doing totals, place the number of

Oneota sherds (shell-tempered) and the number of Woodland sherds (grit tempered)

in the spaces provided.

Cord roughening process (Woodland)

Cord roughened body sherd

(not decoration)

Woodland grit-tempered decorated pottery

133

Other Ceramics: This category includes ceramic pipes and beads etc., as well as

pieces of daub (unshaped pot making medium and/or patching material used during

house construction). Burnt clay is usually a sample from the base of a fire pit or

hearth. This clay will not have temper, which makes it distinguishable from daub or

pieces of pottery. Each piece receives a catalog number but is not labeled.

Oneota shell-tempered decorated pottery

Body sherd

Rim

Rim sherd with handle and decoration

Handle

Body sherd

134

Prehistoric Worked Metal: artifacts are usually made by taking a piece of ore and

cold hammering, or grinding and smoothing it into a tool or ornament. Excavated

copper artifacts usually have a blue/green coating on them; this is caused by the

oxidation of the copper molecules as a result of exposure to natural weathering.

Other Material: This category is for non-metal worked and selected

work/unworked raw materials that occur infrequently in our region. Catlinite

artifacts are those made from reddish raw material (pipestone) quarried primarily in

southwest Minnesota. Pieces of this material were chipped and ground into a wide

range of artifact types: pipes, pendants, ear whorls, etc. Only worked pieces of

catlinite are to be included here. Hematite is an iron concretion found in glacial

debris and among some rock formations. Usable hematite is sometimes encased n a

sheet of lesser quality and varies in size and shape. Hematite was chipped and/or

ground into a variety of tools and ornaments; the ore was also ground up to make red

ochre. Only unworked pieces of hematite are included here. Each piece receives a

catalog number and is labeled; broken pieces are included in the count. Unworked

Copper may take the form of nuggets or pieces of ore impregnated with natural

copper veins. They may exhibit a blue/green patina on them. Galena Ore has a dull

Ceramic pipe

135

gray luster and is the principal ore of lead. Care should be taken when handling the

material. Always wash hands after handling. Ochre is the medium used in paint.

Most ochre samples will be red although any of the primary colors is possible. This

medium was mixed with dap, blood, spit or other viscous liquid to a consistency

optimal for application on pottery, ornaments, hide materials, basketry and bodies of

humans and animals. Place ochre in a glass vial by color and assign a catalog number

to the vial each vial. Do not count the pieces.

Animal Remains: These faunal remains include bone, shell, scales, etc. A specialist

will analyze this category further. There are two groups (four categories) for animal

remains: Worked Bone and Shell, and unworked bone and shell. Worked bone are

pieces of animal bone that have been reshaped into tools or ornaments (i.e. bison

scapula hoes, awls, needles, fishhooks, beads, pendants, etc.) and/or exhibit applied

decoration such as incising or engraving. (Bones with cut marks from breaking open

for marrow extraction are not considered worked but should be noted in the

comments). Each piece receives a catalog number and is labeled only if the label can

be applied without destruction. Bone preservation is usually poor; the bone is porous

and brittle and must be handled with extreme care. Broken pieces are included in the

count. Use the comment section for specific description. Worked shell are pieces of

mussel shell that have also been shaped or used for a specific purpose (i.e. spoons,

pendants, hoes, beads, etc). Each piece receives a catalog number and again is only

labeled if the shell is well preserved. Most worked shell cannot be labeled; ask if

unsure. Broken pieces are also included in the counts. Use the comment section for

136

specific description. Unworked bone is bagged, and given one catalog number. A

count of unworked bone within the bag is not necessary. Unworked shell is handled

in a similar manner. Do not count or label the shell and assign one catalog number to

the bag. Place the total number of bags that you have from each of the sub-categories

on the line provided for totals. For example, if there are two worked bones, one bag

of unworked bone, and one bag of unworked shell, there will be 3 bags on the total

line. This count is designed to alert the specialist to the number of bags he or she

needs to locate for this particular catalog number.

Shell hoe Shell spoon

Shell beads

Bone bead (incised)

Bone awl

Bison scapula hoe

Bone fishhook

137

Plant Remains: These floral remains include all seeds, charcoal, bark and other

primarily charred plant remains. A specialist will analyze this category separately.

Pull out and discard modern grass, roots, and twigs. Place all remains in one bag,

weigh it and record the weight on the catalog sheet. Plant remains gets one catalog

number per bag. Do not count the remains.

Historic Remains: This category includes both early and modern historic. With

post-WWII pieces, check with the project manager; most pieces may not be kept.

The metal, glass, and ceramic categories include broken as well as unbroken pieces.

Other (early) refers to pieces of bone, shell, cloth, and perishables, which happen to

have survived. Other (20th Century) are pieces of late artifacts that the field managers

decide to keep (primarily for information concerning modern disturbances to

prehistoric or early historic components). Each piece receives a catalog number

unless otherwise advised.