Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


Jump to content
WikipediaThe Free Encyclopedia
Search

Fifield Site

Coordinates:41°34′20″N87°06′18″W / 41.57222°N 87.10500°W /41.57222; -87.10500
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archaeological site in Indiana
Fifield Site
Fifield Site is located in Indiana
Fifield Site
Location inIndiana
Show map of Indiana
Fifield Site is located in the United States
Fifield Site
Location in United States
Show map of the United States
LocationonDamon Run Creek near Babcock, Indiana
Coordinates41°34′20″N87°06′18″W / 41.57222°N 87.10500°W /41.57222; -87.10500
Area4 acres (1.6 ha)

TheFifield Site (Pr-55) is located on Damon Run Creek inPorter County, north-western Indiana. It is classified as a late prehistoric, single-componentUpper Mississippian Fisher village.

History of archaeological investigations

[edit]

Initial excavations were conducted by Robert Skinner in 1949. Follow-up excavations were undertaken by Robert Reichert from 1950 through 1959. Charles Faulkner examined collections from these excavations and performed an analysis which was published in 1972.[1]

Results of Faulkner’s Analysis

[edit]

The excavations yielded features, Prehistoric artefacts, animal bone, and plant remains.[1]

Features

[edit]

Approximately 45 features were encountered during excavations. Most were reported as basin-shaped, storage-refuse pits. There were 8 features showing firing in the bottom that were interpreted as roasting pits.[1]

Several post moulds were uncovered during the Reichert excavations. No house patterns were discerned but Reichert felt that the patterns of post molds indicated structures with rounded walls.[1]

Animal bone

[edit]

Approximately 2,713 animal bones were recovered. The most common types of animal remains weredeer,dog,elk,beaver,raccoon,bear,bison andturkey.[1] These bones were not modified into tools like the bone tools described in the Artifacts section below, and may be considered food remains.

Artifacts

[edit]

Artifacts recovered from the site included:[1]

  • Pottery (2,450 sherds from pottery vessels, of which 2,434 are from the Fisher component) - No whole or completely reconstructable vessels were found at the site. Therefore the researchers looked primarily at rim sherds and distinctive body sherds to analyze the pottery. The pottery artifacts will be described in more detail below
  • Stone artifacts 262 chipped stone tools: including 215projectile points (of which 104 are small triangular points); biface knives (16); humpback end scrapers (22); and drills (20 double-pointed and 5 expanded-hafting area)
  • Ground stone artifacts (9) - including 4 abraders (aka arrow shaft straighteners), 3 celts, 1 pipe fragment and one piece of hematite used to obtain red pigment for paint
  • Bone and antler artifacts (61) - including 3 fishhook blanks, 5 antler projectile points, 1antlerharpoon 3bison scapulahoes, 9 deer cannon bone beamers, 4 bird bone needles, 1 scapula scraper, 8 bone awls, 1 beaver incisor chisel, 1 scapula blade, 2 bird bone beads, 1 antler comb or hairpin, 10 antler cylinders/game pieces, 1 rasp (musical instrument) and 1 whistle
  • Copper artifacts (2) - including a copper pendant and a rare serpent figurine
  • Sherd pendant (1) with “weeping eye” motif
  • Stonepipe fragment (1)
  • Circular sherd disc (1)

Reichert's excavations uncovered a cache of domestic implements fashioned from bone and antler, overlain by a layer of what appeared to bered ochre:[1]

  • 4 deer cannon-bone beamers
  • Bonescraper made from elk or bison bone
  • Unmodified piece of cannon-bone which may have been raw material for a tool
  • Four needles made of bird bone
  • Antlerharpoon

These implements would have been used for domestic activities such as processing animal hide, sewing reed mats and making clothes. The cache may have hadceremonial significance because of the presence ofred ochre, which was known in earlyHistoric times to be used in a ceremonial context.[1]

Some of the most prominent and diagnostic non-pottery artifacts are summarized and/or illustrated here:

MaterialDescriptionImageQtyFunction / useComments / associations
Chipped stoneSmall triangular points (aka Madison points)Projectile points104Hunting/fishing/warfareAlso known as “arrowheads”; are thought to be arrow-tips forbows-and-arrows. The usage of the bow-and-arrow seems to have greatly increased after c. A.D. 1000, probably as a result of increased conflict.[2][3]
Chipped stoneBiface blades/knivesBiface knives16Domestic function / cutting applicationsTypical of Upper Mississippian sites, particularly Huber and Oneota (Orr focus)
Chipped stoneUniface humpback end scraperEnd scrapers22; all but 2 are bifacially flakedDomestic function / processing wood or hidesTypical of Upper Mississippian sites, particularly Huber and Oneota (Orr focus)
Chipped stoneDrillsDrills20 double-pointed; 5 expanding-hafting areaDomestic function / processing wood or hides2 types are present; double pointed (left) and expanded base (right), which are both common types in Upper Mississippian contexts
StoneArrow shaft straightener4Domestic function / straightening arrow shafts for bows-and-arrowsTypical at Upper Mississippian sites
AntlerAntler projectile points; socketed and tanged5; 4 barbed and 1 socketedHunting/fishing/warfareThe tanged or barbed type is characteristic of Fisher; the unbarbed type is more typical of Oneota
AntlerAntler harpoonAntler harpoon1FishingAlso recovered from the Fisher site
BoneDeer cannon bone beamer9Domestic function / hide-working toolCommonly found at Fisher and Langford sites
BoneBison scapula hoesBison scapula hoe3Domestic function / Agricultural-horticultural or general digging toolCommon at Fisher and Oneota sites; they may have been used to dig out the pit features present at Fifield.
BoneBird bone needles4Domestic function / sewing mats or clothingCommon at other Upper Mississippian sites.
AntlerAntler comb or hairpin1Personal Adornment and/or Ceremonial functionCommon at Fort Ancient Madisonville focus sites; may have been used for personal adornment and/or as part of a costume for a ceremony
AntlerAntler cylinders / game pieces10Entertainment functionThese have been found at Fisher, Huber, Langford and Oneota (especially Grand River focus and Lake Winnebago focus) and may have been used in a gambling game. Gambling was noted to be a popular pastime among the early Native American tribes.
StoneEqual-arm type pipe fragmentEqual arm type pipe1Ceremonial-Recreational function / pipe smokingThis type of pipe has also been recovered at the Fisher and Anker sites.
CopperCopper pendantCopper pendant1Personal adornment or Ceremonial functionMay be part of a larger, broken item that was fashioned into a new ornament
CopperCopper serpentCopper serpent1Art piece or Religious functionSimilar copper serpent figurines have been found at other sites in theAmerican Midwest region: severalOneota Orr focus sites inIowa;[4] the Anker Site nearChicago,Illinois;[5] theSummer Island site in Michigan;[6] and the Madisonville site inOhio.[7] The Orr focus sites, Madisonville and Summer Island all have earlyEuropean trade goods associated, indicating these figurines were still being made at the time of European contact.
PotsherdSherd pendantSherd pendant1Art piece or Religious functionThis sherd pendant with the “weeping eye” motif is also indicative of a late prehistoric to earlyHistoric time placement. The weeping eye motif on shell mask gorgets has been observed at severalMiddle Mississippi sites;[1] at the Anker site nearChicago,Illinois;[5] and theDumaw Creek site inOceana County,Michigan.[8] It appears one of the Fifield residents copied this design on a potsherd and made a pendant out of it.
PotsherdSherd disc1UnknownThe circular sherd disc is a trait of late prehistoricOneota culture. It has been found at the Zimmerman site inIllinois, in an earlyHistoric context, indicating these objects were still being made at the time of European contact.[1][9]

Fisher ware pottery

[edit]

After 1000 AD, there was increased interaction and influence from theMississippian cultures of theMississippi River Valley. The local cultures in theGreat Lakes region and surrounding areas influenced by the Mississippians are designated asUpper Mississippians by archaeologists. Some of the cultures designated as Upper Mississippian are theOneota complex with its various foci. Fisher is closely related to Oneota and some archaeologists consider it to be a focus of Oneota.[2]

Fisher ware was first described at theFisher Mound site in northeasternIllinois near the mouth of theIllinois River.[10] It has also been noted at the Anker[5] and Boumanville[11] sites nearChicago,Illinois, and theGriesmer site inIndiana.[1]

This pottery is characterized by shelltempering, predominantlycordmarked surfaces, trailed or incised decoration and straight, excurved or flaring rims. Notched lips and rim lugs are also common.[10][5][11][1]

Three specific types of Fisher ware were identified at Fifield:[1]

  • Fifield Trailed - characterized by trailed, closely spaced fine to medium horizontal and/or vertical lines over a cordmarked surface; often nested chevron motifs and/or punctates are also present. Notched or crimped lips are common. Some vessels have lugs or handles.
  • Fifield Bold - same as Fifield Trailed, with the lines wider and possibly made by the finger rather than an incising tool.
  • Fisher Cordmarked - one vessel was found with plain cordmarked surface without decoration, which is rare in the Fisher tradition.

Miniature vessels were also present at Fifield. These are common at other sites in the area and could be interpreted as “toy” pots or attempts by young children to practice making pottery.[1]

Several sherds of Langford Ware, an Upper Mississippian culture from northwestern Illinois, were also present. These sherds were grit-tempered, with either cordmarked or smoothed-over cordmarked surfaces, and are interpreted as trade ware.[1]

Significance

[edit]

The Fifield site is a single-componentUpper Mississippian Fisher site. The pottery styles, along with the presence of certain artifacts such as the copper serpent, sherd disk and weeping eye sherd pendant, indicate the site was occupied almost to the time ofEuropean contact. Based upon the type of plant remains and animal bones, and the presence of numerous storage pits, the excavators felt that the season of occupation was fall and winter, and that the site was a semi-permanent agricultural village. No evidence ofmaize was recovered, but there was no effort made by the excavators to systematically collect plant remains.[1]

References

[edit]
  1. ^abcdefghijklmnopFaulkner, Charles H. (1972). "The Late Prehistoric Occupation of Northwestern Indiana: A Study of the Upper Mississippian cultures of the Kankakee Valley".Prehistory Research Series.V (1). Indianapolis, Indiana: Indiana Historical Society:1–222.
  2. ^abMason, Ronald J. (1981).Great Lakes Archaeology. New York, New York: Academic Press, Incl.
  3. ^Lepper, Bradley T. (2005).Ohio Archaeology (4th ed.). Wilmington, Ohio: Orange Frazer Press.
  4. ^Wedel, Mildred M. (1959). "Oneota Sites on the Upper Iowa River".Missouri Archaeologist.21 (2–4):1–181.
  5. ^abcdBluhm, Elaine A. and Allen Liss (1961). "The Anker Site in Chicago Area Archaeology" (Bulletin No. 3). Urbana, Illinois: Illinois Archaeological Survey:89–137.{{cite journal}}:Cite journal requires|journal= (help)
  6. ^Brose, David S. (1970).The Archaeology of Summer Island: Changing Settlement Patterns in Northern Lake Michigan. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology, Anthropological Papers No. 41.
  7. ^Hooton, Earnest A. and Charles C. Willoughby (1920). "Indian Village Site and Cemetery near Madisonville, Ohio".Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology.8 (1).
  8. ^Quimby, George Irving (1966). "The Dumaw Creek Site: A Seventeenth Century Prehistoric Indian Village and Cemetery in Oceana County, Michigan".Fieldiana.56 (1):1–91.
  9. ^Brown, James A., ed. (1961).The Zimmerman Site: A Report on Excavations at the Grand Village of the Kaskaskia, LaSalle County, Illinois. Springfield, Illinois: Illinois State Museum, Report of Investigations, No. 9.
  10. ^abLangford, George (1927)."The Fisher Mound Group, Successive Aboriginal Occupations near the Mouth of the Illinois River".American Anthropologist.29 (3):153–206.doi:10.1525/aa.1927.29.3.02a00260.
  11. ^abFenner, Gloria J. (1961). "The Boumanville Site, in Chicago Area Archaeology" (Bulletin No. 3). Urbana, Illinois: Illinois Archaeological Survey:37–56.{{cite journal}}:Cite journal requires|journal= (help)

Further reading

[edit]
  • Charles H. Faulkner (1972), "The Late Prehistoric Occupation of Northwestern Indiana: A Study of the Upper Mississippi Cultures of the Kankakee Valley",Prehistory Research Series, Indiana Historical Society, Indianapolis, Indiana,V (1):1–222
Middle
Mississippian
American Bottom
and Upper Mississippi
Lower Ohio River and
Confluence area
Middle Ohio River
Tennessee and
Cumberland
Central and Lower
Mississippi
South Appalachian
Mississippian
Fort Walton culture
Pensacola culture
Plaquemine
Mississippian
Caddoan
Mississippian
Upper Mississippian
cultures
Oneota
Fort Ancient culture
Culture
Agriculture
Artwork
Languages
Religion
Archaeological
cultures
Archaeological
sites
Human
remains
Miscellaneous
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fifield_Site&oldid=1160023018"
Category:
Hidden categories:

[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2025 Movatter.jp