Oak Forest Site
Location inIllinois Show map of Illinois Location in United States Show map of the United States
Location	inOak Forest nearChicago,Illinois
Coordinates	41°44′01″N87°40′01″W / 41.73361°N 87.66694°W /41.73361; -87.66694
Area	20 acres

The Oak Forest Site (11Ck-53) is located inOak Forest,Cook County,Illinois, near the city ofChicago. It is classified as a late prehistoric toProtohistoric/EarlyHistoric site withUpper Mississippian Huber affiliation.^[1]

In 1958 archaeological remains were noted during construction of a new road by theOak Forest Hospital. Excavations were carried out in 1958 as a salvage project under the auspices of theIllinois Archaeological Survey.^[2]

In 1978, during construction of two new buildings by theIllinois Department of Transportation more archaeological material was noted. A team fromNorthwestern University conducted a salvage excavation in 1979.^[1]

Excavations at the site yielded prehistoric toProtohistoric and earlyHistoricartifacts, house structures, pit features, plant remains (1979 excavations only) and animal bone.^[1]

A total of 8 house structures and 17 features were identified during the 1958 excavations. The house structures ranged from 25 to 47.5 feet long and 12–15 feet wide. Some of the houses had pit features as well (fire pits and refuse pits).^[2]

Most of the features had ash and carbonized material within their fill, and are classified as fire pits. Feature 15 was a bell-shaped storage pit that contained a fragment ofiron interpreted by the excavators to be earlyEuropean in origin.^[2]

An additional 55 features were identified in the 1979 excavations. They noted little variation in most of the pits and they may be interpreted as fire, storage or refuse pits.^[1] Feature 125 in particular was noted to be a roasting pit similar to those found at other Upper Mississippian-affiliated sites of Zimmerman,^[3][4] Rader,^[5]Knoll Spring,^[6]Schwerdt,^[7][8][9] Elam,^[7][8]Griesmer^[10] andMoccasin Bluff.^[11] At Griesmer the carbonized remains ofwhite water lily (Nymphaea odorata)tubers were recovered and atSchwerdt and Elam, the carbonized remains ofAmerican Lotus (Nelumbo lutea)tubers were recovered from this type of roasting pit.^{[1][10][7][8][9]}

No plant remains were reported from the 1958 excavations. This is becauseflotation data recovery techniques were not in wide use among archaeologists of that era. The 1979 excavations took 42 samples for flotation analysis (24 from features and 18 frommidden contexts) and as a result a wide variety of plant remains (wood charcoal, nutshell, maize, seeds and bulbs) were found which contribute immensely to our knowledge ofUpper Mississippian subsistence.^[12]

Plant analysis of flotation data is based primarily on carbonized remains; on plant material that was burned in afire pit orhearth but not completely consumed. The carbonized materials are rendered much more resistant to decay and thus are often available for the archaeologist to examine. Not all of the carbonized plant remains are from food items; some of the small seeds recovered may have been intrusive due to the normal seed dispersal process (i.e. the wind just blew them into the fire). Plant material that was not carbonized was of course subject to the normal process of decay and would not be available to the archaeologist except under extraordinary conditions.

Summary of Findings:^[12]

• Woodcharcoal - the vast majority of all flotation samples (from 82-95%) were naturally from the wood that was used as firewood. Each sample showed a great deal of diversity and althoughoak andhickory were dominant,maple,ash,American hornbeam,American elm,American hop hornbeam,poplar andhawthorn were also present. This mix reflects the trees present in the surroundingdeciduous forests andoak savannas.
• Nutshell - was ubiquitous and present in every sample.Hickory nut andblack walnut were the dominant species;hazelnut andacorn were also present. Trace amounts ofbutternut were present in a few features.
• Maize - was the most abundant of the food plant remains. Kernels, cupules and cob fragments of the 8- or 10-row variety were present in all samples.
• Cultivated seeds - 80% of all seeds recovered were ofgoosefoot (Chenopodium berlandieri),little barley (Hordeum pusillum) andknotweed (Polygonum erectum). This indicates that theUpper Mississippian residents were participants in theEastern Agricultural Complex (EAC) of cultivated seed plants that predated the introduction ofmaize in parts ofNorth America. The EAC plants were first identified inMiddle Woodland contexts and their use continued to the earlyHistoric period.
• Other cultivated plants -squash,sunflower and thecommon bean were also present.
• Wild rice - was also present. There is abundant evidence of Native American utilization of this resource in early Historic accounts.^[13]
• Fruit seeds -plum,sumac,grape,hawthorn andground cherry were also noted.
• Bulb - a carbonized bulb of what appears to bewild onion was recovered.
• Noneconomic seeds - seeds from several plants that are present in small quantities and do not have a food or other economic use are presumed to be intrusive; such asDesmodium (ground bulrush),Galium (tick trefoil),Xanthium (cocklebur) andHypoxis hirsuta (yellow star-grass). Even these intrusive seeds are useful to the archaeologist, because they can be used to help recreate the environment present at the time of site occupation. Some of the intrusive seeds present at Oak Forest indicate a moist marshy environment was nearby, and others indicate a habitat of open fields and oak savannas.

Remains from several species were recovered from the site. The main species present weredeer andfish; also present wereturtle,dog,bald eagle,sandhill crane,otter and others. These remains were not modified into tools like the bone tools described in the Artifacts section below, and may be considered food remains or, in the case of the dog, the remains ofceremonial activities. Dog sacrifice and dog meat consumption was observed to have ceremonial and religious implications in earlyNative American tribes.^[14] In addition, bald eagles, sandhill cranes and otters were known to have spiritual significance in historic Native American religious groups/ceremonies such as theMidewiwin.^[15]

Artifacts recovered from the site included:^[1]

• Pottery - total of 1,270 sherds were recovered in the 1958 excavations, and another 3,347 were recovered in 1979. The pottery artifacts will be discussed in more detail below.
• Stone artifacts - includingprojectile points,scrapers (including humpback scrapers),gravers, graver drills, knives, cores, utilized flakes and a chopper. Of the projectile points, the most numerous category was the small triangular Madison point.
• Ground stone artifacts - includinggrinding stones,hammerstones/manos,metates, abraders and a piece ofhematite that may be arubstone.
• Bone andantler tools - includingscapulahoes, an antlerwrench and aharpoon.
• Seashell - a uniqueduck effigypendant made out of seashells was present at the site.
• Early Historic artifacts - in 1958, a singleiron fragment was found which was thought to be an earlyHistoric artifact ofEuropean manufacture. In 1979 many more such remains were found due largely to the use offlotation; including 2 tubular sheetbrass hair pipes (similar to thecopper specimens found at theDumaw Creek site^[16]), 3 fragments of crumpled sheet brass, 15 iron pieces (6 nails, 1 bolt, 1 washer, a strap with pendant tabs, 2 sheet fragments and 4 unidentified fragments), and a single white glassbead similar to those found atIroquoian sites inOntario andNew York State (where they have been dated to the early 1600s).

The non-pottery artifacts found at an archaeological site can provide useful cultural context as well as a glimpse into the domestic tasks performed at a site;ceremonial orreligious activities; recreational activities; and clothing or personal adornment.^[10]

Some of the most prominent and diagnostic non-pottery artifacts are presented here in more detail:^[1]

Material	Description	Image	Qty	Function / use	Comments / associations
Chipped stone	Small triangular points (aka Madison points)		33	Hunting/fishing/warfare	Also known as “arrowheads”; are thought to be arrow-tips forbows-and-arrows. The usage of the bow-and-arrow seems to have greatly increased during theLate Woodland, probably as a result of increased conflict.[17][18]
Chipped stone	Biface blades/knives		6	Domestic function / cutting applications	Typical ofUpper Mississippian sites, particularly Huber andOneota (Orr focus)
Chipped stone	Humpback end scraper		22	Domestic function / processing wood or hides	Typical ofUpper Mississippian sites, particularly Huber andOneota (Orr focus); present at Moccasin Bluff in Michigan where they are called "thick steep-edge" scrapers
Chipped stone	Drills		2 expanding-base, 5 double pointed	Domestic function / processing wood or hides	2 types are present; expanding base (left) and double pointed (right), which are both common types inUpper Mississippian contexts
Stone	Arrow shaft straightener		3	Domestic function / straightening arrow shafts forbows-and-arrows	Typical atUpper Mississippian sites
Antler	Antler wrench		1	Domestic function / specific use unknown	Similar artifacts were found at the nearby Anker site
Bone	Boneharpoon		1	Fishing function	Similar harpoons made of antler were recovered from the Fisher andFifield sites
Bone	Scapulahoes		28 (fragmentary)	Domestic function / Agricultural-horticultural or general digging tool	Common at Fisher andOneota sites; they may have been used to dig out the pit features present at Oak Forest.
Marine shell	Marine shellduck effigypendant		4	Art work / Personal Adornment and/or Ceremonial application	Well-made, unique artifact; found in a burial nearbycopperbangles that were probably suspended from it at one time.

Archaeologists often findpottery to be a very useful tool in analyzing aprehistoric culture. It is usually very plentiful at a site and the details of manufacture and decoration are very sensitive indicators of time, space and culture.^[19]

Although the Huber tradition was well known by archaeologists for decades following the original excavations at theHuber site in 1929, a formalizedtypology was not developed until Charles Faulkner devised one in his 1972 report on theGriesmer site in northwesternIndiana, just to the east ofChicago.^[10]

Huber pottery is characterized by shell-tempered, plain surface pottery with globular vessel shape and restricted orifices with everted rims. Some vessels also have strap handles. Decoration (when present) usually consists of vertical or obliquely applied incised lines generally running from the lip to the shoulder. Rarely, surfaces arecordmarked or smoothed over cordmarked. The top of the lip is either plain or decorated with fine to wide notching. A minority also have punctate decoration, mostly in combination with the trailed lines.^{[1][10][20][21]}

The 1958 excavations recovered 1,270 sherds, almost all of it Huber ware. Surface was plain on 98% of sherds and cordmarked on 2%. Half of the lips were unnotched. The most common rim profile reported was everted with flat lip and either wide-notched or unnotched lip. Rarely, sherds were red-slipped on the exterior and/or interior.^[2]

An additional 3,347 sherds were recovered in the 1979 excavations, of very similar attributes. None of these sherds were reported to be cordmarked except for 3 sherds that were classified as Danner series. 45% of the rims were unnotched and of the decorated sherds, 93% were incised with fine lines.^[20]

Following Faulkner’s typology,^[10] this is the proportion of the pottery types at the site:^[15]

• Huber Plain - 88%, characterized by a plain surface
• Huber Trailed - 7%, characterized by a plain surface decorated with fine incised lines
• Huber Bold - 2%, characterized by a plain surface decorated with wide lines, possibly finger-trailed
• Huber Cordmarked - 2.5%, characterized by a cordmarked surface
• Fisher - 0%
• Other types - 0.5%

The trends in certain pottery traits are very time-sensitive and can be used as indicators of relative age. Based on information on other Huber sites in the area, archaeologists have determined early Huber pottery is more likely to havecordmarked surface finish; wide-trailed decoration; and notched lips. Early Huber sites have also been observed to have significant amounts of Fisher Ware as well. Late Huber pottery has predominately plain surface finish; fine-line incised decoration; and unnotched lips. A minority also have punctate decoration, mostly in combination with the trailed lines.^[15][10][11]

In the Oak Forest site assemblage, only 2.5% of sherds are cordmarked, Wide-line decoration is reported to be rare. Also, about half of the lips are unnotched. There is also no Fisher Ware at all in the Oak Forest assemblage; but Danner Ware is present, which has been found in earlyHistoric contexts at the Zimmerman site in northwesternIllinois. This combination of traits indicates a relatively later time placement for Oak Forest within the Huber sequence.^{[2][20][10][15]} This is supported by 6 radiocarbon dates which indicate the occupation of Oak Forest took place between a range of A.D. 1425-1625.^[22]

Huber ware (and Huber culture) are often mentioned together with Fisher. Both Fisher and Huber areUpper Mississippian cultures which existed in the southernLake Michigan region in the states of northernIllinois andIndiana and southwestMichigan. Both have shell-tempered pottery but Huber is predominantly plain surface with fine-line decoration and Fisher is predominantly cordmarked surface with wide-line decoration.^[15][10][23]

The relationship of Huber and Fisher both with each other and with otherUpper Mississippian cultures in the area has long been a matter of debate and speculation among archaeologists. James Griffin, upon examining the artifacts from the original 1929 excavations, felt that Huber was a Component of theOneota Aspect based on the form and design of the pottery, close to the Orr and Lake Winnebago foci, and that Fisher was part of a separate focus.^[21] Since that date, we’ve obtained a great deal more information and now we know that Fisher is the older of the two and Huber is the one that survived to theHistoric period. Nevertheless, both Fisher and Huber coexist at the same sites seemingly at the same time.Hoxie Farm,Griesmer andMoccasin Bluff are examples of this.^{[10][15][11][23]}

Most archaeologists now believe that both Fisher and Huber are taxonomically-related phases within theOneota tradition. The relationship between the two is time-related in that Huber is derived from Fisher; but there are also late Fisher sites likeFifield, where Fisher pottery is associated with late prehistoric artifacts, so it is possible that Fisher also survived until theProtohistoric or earlyHistoric period.^[23][10][11]

There is direct evidence of cultivated plants at Oak Forest. The remains ofmaize were found along withsquash and thecommon bean.Sunflower andwild rice were also recovered. Also, the recovery ofknotweed,little barley andgoosefoot indicates the Huber culture participated in theEastern Agricultural Complex.Deer bone was also present in abundance, along witharrowheads forbows-and-arrows, indicating the site residents still relied onhunting; andfish andturtle were also present in the animal bone remains, so they were also exploiting food resources of the nearby marshes and creeks.^[1]

With regards to seasonality of occupation, based on the presence of several house structures, and supported by an analysis of the animal bone and plant remains, the researchers determined the site functioned as a permanent to semi-permanent agricultural village.^[1]

Along with thePalos site, Oak Forest had some European-made trade articles included in the assemblage. This indicates the Huber culture lasted until European contact and therefore was one of the HistoricNative American tribes encountered by the early explorers andfur traders. It has not been conclusively demonstrated which tribe exactly made the Huber pottery. However, thePotawatomi,Illinois andMiami have been recorded as present in the lower shores ofLake Michigan in the early historic period, and all have been suggested as the tribe corresponding to the Huber culture.^{[23][10][11][24]}

• James A. Brown, ed. (1990),At The Edge of Prehistory: Huber Phase Archaeology in the Chicago Area, Center for American Archaeology, Kampsville, Illinois

• Mississippian culture
• Archaeological sites in Illinois
• History of Cook County, Illinois
• Potawatomi
• Miami tribe
• Illinois Confederation

• Pages using gadget WikiMiniAtlas
• CS1: long volume value
• Articles with short description
• Short description matches Wikidata
• Coordinates on Wikidata