The Fox Site: A Central Ohio Valley Archaic Site in Southeast Indiana	by Daniel Lawson,
Central States Archaeological Societies 2018 April Journal	Terre Haute, Indiana

Figure 1: McWhinney points from the Fox Site.

 

I wish to share with you the particulars of a site my father and I surface collect to which I gave the name “The Fox” site many years ago. This site lies along the Whitewater River in southeast Indiana. The Central Ohio Valley Archaic Complex is an interesting time period to study which is Late Archaic and filters thru to the Transitional Archaic period. The Central Ohio Valley Archaic people of the tri-state area of southeast Indiana, southwest Ohio and northern Kentucky, burst onto the scene around 2750 B.C. and lasted at least until 1750 B.C. They left behind generous amounts of material for us to examine but it seems never enough. For the longest time I had no idea how all these artifacts my father and I had collected fit together. I keep outstanding records of the artifacts that we find and was able to use that information to further study them and to write this article. Ross Moffett’s report on the Raisch-Smith Site in nearby Preble County, Ohio, started me on a quest to learn all I could about this localized manifestation. Information on the Central Ohio Valley Archaic is not the plentiful information found authored on the Hopewell or Ft. Ancient, but it is enough to give one a vision of what their lives were like, and that is all we can hope to do as students of history.

Late Archaic peoples made large base camps along the Ohio River and adjoining larger tributaries and their valleys. Satellite camps split away from the base camps at certain times of the year when they exploited particular seasonal commodities. These seasonal camps were usually located up the larger tributaries into the upland hills. The Fox site in Union County, Indiana, and the Miles site in Clark County, Indiana, it seems are most likely some of these seasonal camps (there has been a lot of work done at the Miles site and is worth reading about). At these sites, the gathering of walnuts, hickory nuts, butternut, acorns and hazelnuts was conducted along with other needed resources. Hickory nuts and walnuts have proven to be very important to the Late Archaic peoples by the amounts of the shells or hulls found on these sites. Other wild plants harvested included wild grapes, persimmon, chokeberry, erect knotweed, marsh elder, pondweed and hawthorn. Gourds and squash were harvested and it has been proposed that rather than the seeds being taken and planted as if in a true agricultural setting, the areas around the plants may have been cleared out to help “volunteers” spread the species on their own. Variations from river valley to river valley in respect to proteins hunted most likely varied. Deer accounted for most of the protein obtained along with wild turkey, rabbit, squirrel, turtle, and other various animals that made up the rest of their diet. Science can tell us only so much, the rest sometimes is left to the imagination and conjecture. Let us now take a small glimpse into the world of these people by the things they left behind.

Figure 2. McWhinney hafted scrapers from the Fox Site.

Figure 3. Brewerton points from the Fox Site.

 

The McWhinney point was first described by J.M. Heilman based on a surface found collection from McWhinney Village in Preble County, Ohio. As to the use of these points, there is varying opinions. Kent Vickery (1972) has the opinion the McWhinney point at the Miles site was used as a projectile point based on the high frequency of impact fractures and low cutting or scraping wear that he observed. Mocas-Smith (1996) explains that the breakage pattern at the Miles Site is consistent with the McWhinney point being used as a prying tool. Melody Popes’ (2001) findings from the Webster site, another Late Archaic site in Switzerland County Indiana, using micro wear analysis of one complete McWhinney point and two possible fragments, suggests use as a knife and projectile point function. One interesting fact I discovered at the Dupont site in Hamilton County Ohio, was that a male burial was found with multiple points embedded in the bone. One of the embedded points in the Dupont male was reported to be a McWhinney point. This fact strongly suggests projectile point functionality. Based on what my Father and I have collected from the Fox site, I would have to agree with Popes’ conclusion; that the McWhinney was assigned various duties. In the photos, you can see this selection of McWhinney specimens (Fig. 1) were most likely projectile points. I have two McWhinney points with tip fractures inflicted upon them. I am not totally convinced that these are impact fractures and may just be from “prying use.” I hope in the future to get a second opinion to verify this conclusion. With the high number of reworked hafted scrapers found on this type of site, I think the theory of McWhinney points being used as a prying instrument and/or as a projectile point also holds weight. Coupled with the amount of tips found at the Fox site, it makes sense that the tips were broken off by the prying function, leaving the base to be reworked into hafted scrapers. It is reported at the Miles Site in Clark County, Indiana, that 4 burials have McWhinney points being deposited upon or in the burial feature containing cremated remains.

Also at the Rosenburger Site in Jefferson County, Kentucky, McWhinney points were interred with 14 burials. Besides a tool of survival, what if any significance did this utilitarian tool hold for its owners in life and death? At the end of the day, I think the McWhinney was the Swiss Army Knife of the Archaic period, serving as projectile point, knife and scraper. McWhinney points “exhibit considerable stylistic variation and probably represent several varieties.” (Vickery 1972) This statement is very true when examining pieces from the Fox site. You can see the variations at the stem and shoulder areas of all the pieces. The materials used at the Fox Site to make these points are predominantly Four Mile Creek chert. Laurel chert is also present. In Figure 2 you can see the hafted scrapers. It is interesting to see one made utilizing Coshocton flint from Ohio. This scraper, once a larger tool, may have been crafted using leftover material from a then bygone day of the Early Archaic period. (early Archaic peoples heavily used Coshocton Flint to craft their Lost Lake points on this same site).

Figure 4. Bead made from banded red slate found at the Fox site.

Also associated with the McWhinney phase tool kit is the Brewerton Series points (Fig. 3). These come in three varieties: side notched, (thought to be the oldest variation), corner notch and the Brewerton eared triangle. There are varying opinions on whether the Brewerton and McWhinney co-existed. Usually on Central Ohio Valley Archaic sites where there are McWhinney points you also find Brewerton points. At the Fox site this is also true. My father and I have collected a fair number of Brewerton’s from this site. I agree with Strothers’ (1996) theory that these two types could be different tools for different jobs that resided in the same tool kit. These two tool types are dated in the same archaeological context together at several different Late Archaic sites including the Rosenburger site in Kentucky. Two Brewerton side notched points were found associated with 2 burials at Rosenburger; one of these burials also included a McWhinney point. Another commonly found flint tool found on Central Ohio Valley Archaic sites and at the Fox site is the “casual” core. These cores have no discernable shape unlike common conical cores found at other sites. Large numbers of these cores indicate a great need for flakes for a needed task at hand. These cores are made of the same materials as the other Central Ohio Valley Archaic tools but unlike most of the points and knives on the Fox site, they are not heat treated.

Hardstone tools have been found by my father and I on the Fox Site, mostly in one concentrated area on a bluffline overlooking the river. These consist of full groove and three-quarter groove axes, conical and bell pestles and a partial fragment of a grooved hammerstone (you can see these axes in the Central States Archaeological Journal Volume 63, April 2016). I mention the hammerstone because Tony DeRegnaucourt states that: “grooved hammerstones appear exclusively during the Late Archaic period.” He also states that there are main two areas specifically where the grooved hammerstone is found in concentration. One is extreme northwest Ohio, west central Ohio, and adjoining Indiana where the Fox site lies. One thought on the concentration of the hardstone tool location. The Fox site fits Kent Vickerys’ floating site model. This essentially states that during repeated occupations of the terrace edge there is not a deliberate reuse of a single particular location. While the terrace was the desired central habitation location, the exact location may have shifted for each occupation. I think the heavy hardstone axe heads and pestles were cached in a particular area to be recovered at the next collection/harvest season. Just a note; located on a Late Woodland site named the Sloan site in eastern Kentucky, groundstone tools were found cached in pits. Also several caches of pestles were uncovered at the Archaic period Indian Knoll site (15OH2) in Ohio County, Kentucky. The Fox site hardstone axes and pestles were found on the upper terrace within an easy stones throw of one another. It is possible the plow pulled them from such a cache. This area of the terrace is what I call the ‘workshop.’ Large amounts of fire cracked stone are very abundant in this area. This could be the byproduct of utilization of the stone in some food processing activity, such as ‘hot rock boiling’ or for baking freshwater muscles.

Figure 5. Side notch point made from hematite found at the Fox site.

Another hardstone type found on the Fox site is banded glacial slate tools. My Father found a notched hoe made from slate. Other than the two notches and polish on the bit area, the slate was left in its natural form with no further workmanship exhibited. Other slate tools found on the site are what I call ‘diggers’ because that is what they look like they were designed to do. These ‘diggers’ take on different sizes and shapes and are simply fashioned by flaking them to the desired shape and thickness. It is interesting to note the later Maple Creek Phase culture often used limestone to make grubbing tools. These tools may have been used to dig roots for food or medicine or (as mentioned before) to clear areas for further growth for volunteers of the squash and gourd plants.

Mentioned in many sources are another slate item commonly found on McWhinney sites and they are listed as slate bars. These are plentiful on the Fox site. These pieces are speculated to have been pre-forms for pendants, gorgets, and also atlatl weights. At the Indian Knoll site these bars are without a doubt utilized as atlatl weights since Webb excavated many burials with these in conjunction with atlatl hooks and handles. In closing, I wish to share two interesting finds from the Fox Site found by my father. The first thing is a banded slate bead (Fig. 3). Even though the drilling is not completed, it is a remarkable piece. Art Gerbers’ book, The Art Gerber Story has several plates of complete necklace sets with center piece beads just like the one my father found. Most of Gerber’s necklace sets came from the Crib Mound in Spencer County, Indiana, with one also from the Green River area of Kentucky, a place thought connected with the McWhinney phase people of Indiana and Ohio. Artifacts distributed around the Mid-Continent, identical to each other, makes it highly likely that these Archaic period people interacted socially with other archaic groups on a regular basis. Clarence B. Moore also reports these specific bead types were also found in the shell mound at the Indian Knoll Site in Kentucky.

The last artifact I will mention is the side notch point fashioned from hematite (Fig. 5). It is a one of a kind find and I have not seen anything like it in any publication. What was the significance of this point and was it tied to the Central Ohio Valley Archaic people?

 

 

References:

• Collins, Michael B.
  1979 Excavations at Four Archaic Sites in the Lower Ohio Valley, Jefferson County
  Kentucky, Occasional Paper in Anthropology, Lexington, KY: Department of Anthropology,
  University of Kentucky
  
• Gerber, Art
  2007 The Art Gerber Story: A Lifetime of Collecting Along the Ohio River. Privately
  printed
  Jefferies, Richard
  2009 Holocene Hunter Gatherers of the Lower Ohio River. University of Alabama
  Press
  
• Lewis, R. Barry
  1996 Kentucky Archaeology. University Press of Kentucky
  Moffett, Ross
  1949 The Raisch-Smith Site, An Early Indian Occupation in Preble County, Ohio.
  Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society Quarterly
  
• Moore, Clarence B.
  1918 Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Vol. XVI
  Otto, Martha P. and Redmond, Brian G.
  2009 Transitions, Archaic and Early Woodland Research in the Ohio Country, Ohio.
  University Press of Kentucky
  
• Webb, William S.
  1946 Indian Knoll. University of Tennessee Press,, Knoxville.
  White, Andrew A.
  2003 The Late Archaic Component of the Miles Site, Clark County, Indiana. Proceedings
  of the Indiana Academy of Science 112(2): 117-131
  Wikipedia, McWhinney Point.