The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Lawhorn Site

This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

Title: The Lawhorn Site

Author: John Moselage

Editor: Robert T. Bray

Release date: February 26, 2020 [eBook #61515]

Most recently updated: October 17, 2024

Language: English

Credits: Produced by Stephen Hutcheson and the Online Distributed

Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE LAWHORN SITE ***

THE MISSOURI ARCHAEOLOGIST

VOLUME 24       DECEMBER 1962

THE MISSOURI ARCHAEOLOGIST

VOLUME 24, WHOLE VOLUME, COLUMBIA, MISSOURI       DECEMBER, 1962

Editor: Robert T. Bray, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri

Associate Editor: Carl H. Chapman, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri

Art Director: Eleanor F. Chapman

SOCIETY OFFICERS

Henry W. Hamilton, President

Vice-Presidents

J. Allen Eichenberger

Walter M. Davis

Richard A. Marshall, Secretary

Leonard W. Blake

Leo J. Roedl

Dale R. Henning, Treasurer

TRUSTEES

O. D. Evans, Chairman

Leo Anderson

Royal D. M. Bauer

C. L. Blanton, Jr.

Bartlett Boder

Dr. H. E. Calkin

Archie K. Cameron

R. I. Colburn

Harry L. Collins

J. L. Connelly

Dr. G. F. Cresswell

Jake M. Crick

Judge S. P. Dalton

Mrs. W. L. Davidson

Bruce Debo

Richard V. Dolby

Ralph J. Duerr

Terrance Dyche

William K. Erickson

Charles R. Fiorita

Franklin H. Flora

J. W. Gerhardt

Dr. Ernest B. Hanan

H. F. Hansen

Harry Harner

Dr. M. M. Hart

Leonard Haslag

Leo P. Hopper

Sam C. Irvine

Edwin Johnson

C. T. Kelly

George K. Kirk

Albert Kuchs

J. H. Larwill

Miss Margaret Lawlor

George O. Laun

James Lowe

Frank Magre

J. J. McKinny

Steve Miller

Art Province

Julian D. Pyatt

Wilson Reardon

Ralph Roberts

Leonard Rowe

Paul V. Sellers

C. K. Sheets, Jr.

John W. Taylor

Dr. P. F. Titterington

John C. Vinton

PRESERVATION OF SITES COMMITTEE

J. J. McKinny, Chairman

Lee M. Adams

Roy E. Coy

William R. Denslow

Robert L. Elgin

Arthur L. Freeman

Sam F. Hamra

Dr. H. Lee Hoover

M. E. Morris

Clyde C. Norman

Haysler A. Poague

Art L. Wallhausen

C. H. Turner

Robert L. Seelen

FRONTISPIECE

The author John Moselage, center, with assistants Charles Scheel, right, and Dan Printup, left.

PREFACE

by

Carl H. Chapman

The events leading to the publication of the following report by John H. Moselage has been one of the highlights of many years of work with amateur archaeologists. At first meeting it seemed that he protested too much that he wanted to do “real archaeology,” but this desire turned out to be quite genuine. He really wanted help. He wanted to do the job right at any cost.

Enthusiasm and determination clothed the man almost completely. Working with him was a challenge. During the few days of vacation he could spend with regular crews of professional archaeologists his quest for knowledge, techniques, methods and the proper tools was almost insatiable. Then followed long letters containing notes, profiles, photographs and maps, to be criticized, and with each new step the request for assurance of proper techniques and accepted methods before moving ahead. Months stretched into years; bundles of detailed notes, long letters of explanation, copies of hour by hour, day by day descriptions of work and progress were frequently interspersed by long distance calls to solve the problems in the field as they arose. His telephone greeting was “Mr. Chapman, I’ve got a problem!” It was usually thirty minutes to an hour later before a long distance operator could once again clear the line between Missouri and Tennessee or Missouri and Arkansas.

All his spare time, all the influence he could exert to get his friends to join him, were used to progress the work. His determination carried him through rain, mud, flood, and cold, in order to complete the job. His enthusiasm and drive carried many others along with him to the conclusion of the Lawhorn Site investigation.

Study of pottery types and projectile points became his steady reading diet. Long hours were spent in washing, numbering and cataloging the specimens from the digs. Analysis of the material through compilation of ground plans of the excavation, of house structures, and of vertical profiles was a tedious process necessitating the aid of many people. The most generous of these in giving time, advise, and use of facilities was Mr. Charles H. Nash.

The resulting report on the Lawhorn Site which follows is testimony to the unstinting efforts that John Moselage has made. It is an outstanding example of what can be done by a true amateur archaeologist and is a worthy goal for other dedicated amateur archaeologists. The search for knowledge has always led man to his greatest achievements. Research is never-ending as knowledge in any area of endeavor is never complete. The achievement in this instance is a solid contribution to the archaeology of the Eastern United States.

CONTENTS

Page

PREFACE

By Carl H. Chapman iv

THE LAWHORN SITE

By John Moselage 1

FOREWORD 2

LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 2

GEOLOGICAL SETTING 4

METHODOLOGY 9

Sunday, October 21, 1956 9

Saturday, October 27, 1956 9

November 25, 1956 10

38R5, Sunday, April 28, 1957 11

15R8, June 21, 1957 12

7R13, July 14, 1957 13

31R17, March 15, 1958 13

27R32, January 25, 1959 15

32R36, March 20, 1960 16

41R21, March 22, 1960 16

41R22, March 22, 1960 18

EXCAVATIONS 18

MATERIAL CULTURE 20

Pottery 20

Sand Tempered 20

Shell Tempered 25

Appendages 25

Effigies 30

Vessel Forms 34

Bowls 34

Jars 36

Water Bottles 36

DESCRIPTION AND COMPARISON 38

SUMMARY OF THE POTTERY 42

Pottery Disks 44

Projectile Points 44

Other Chipped Stone Artifacts 51

Mortars and Pestles 51

Stone Abraders and Whetstones 54

Pottery and Clay Abraders 54

Anvilstones 57

Hammerstones 57

Groundstone Celts 57

Pipes 57

Bone and Antler Artifacts 58

Brickette and Daub 58

Shell Artifacts 63

Vegetal Remains 63

FEATURES 63

Refuse Pits 63

Ash Pits 65

Firebasins 65

HOUSES 69

House 1 69

House 2 69

House 3 73

BURIALS 80

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 87

SOUTHEAST MISSOURI AREA CHRONOLOGY 93

APPENDIX A: IDENTIFICATION OF THE FAUNAL REMAINS FROM THE LAWHORN SITE

By Paul W. Parmalee 95

APPENDIX B: ANALYSIS OF VEGETAL REMAINS FROM LAWHORN SITE

By Leonard W. Blake 97

APPENDIX C: BURIALS AT THE LAWHORN SITE

By Charles H. Nash 99

REFERENCES CITED 104

ILLUSTRATIONS

Figures

Page

FRONTISPIECE iii

1. Map of Lawhorn Site in Relation to Archaeological Sites in the Central Mississippi Valley 3

2. Aerial View of the St. Francis River “Sunken Lands” and the Lawhorn Site 5

3. Aerial View of Drainage Ditch and Levee at the Lawhorn Site 6

4. Contour Map of the Lawhorn Site, with Levee, Drainage Ditch, Excavated Areas and Grid Control System 7

5. Cord Marked Sherds and Positive Impressions 21

6. Sand Tempered Textile Marked Sherds and Clay Impressions 22

7. Sand Tempered Textile Marked Sherds and Impressions 23

8. Pottery Handles and Lugs 26

9. Jar Forms 28

10. Pottery Handles 29

11. Human Effigy Head 31

12. Painted Pottery 32

13. Decorated Pottery Sherds 33

14. Bowls 35

15. Water Bottles 37

16. Pottery Vessels with Burial 24 40

17. Pottery Disks 45

18. Corner Notched and Stemmed Arrowheads 47

19. Ovoid and Trianguloid Arrowheads 48

20. Stemmed Projectile Points 50

21. Projectile Points 52

22. Chipped Stone Tools 53

23. Mortars and Pestles 55

24. Stone and Pottery Abraders and Stone Pipe 56

25. Bone Tools 59

26. Bone Beads and Burned Clay Daub 60

27. Brickettes or Fired Clay Artifacts 62

28. Shell Ornaments and Tools 64

29. Broken Pottery Jar 66

30. Firebasin of Unusual Shape 68

31. House Ground Plan with Charred Remains, Firebasin, Ash Dumps and Refuse Pit 70

32. Charred Cane Poles and Grass, Part of House 1 71

33. Houses 2 and 3 72

34. Pottery Vessel in House 2 Firebasin 74

35. Ground Plan of House 2 with Firebasin and Burned Floor Area, and House 3 with Details of the Burned Super-structure 75

36. Charred Wattle Work Wall or Roof Section of House 3 76

37. Basal Ends of Poles along West Wall of House 3 77

38. Cross Sectioned Log from Floor of House 3 78

39. Broken Pottery Vessel from House 3 79

40. Hypothetical Reconstruction of the House Type at Lawhorn 81

41. Burials 21 and 22 82

42. Burial 25 and Associated Pottery Bowl 83

43. Burial 36 84

44. Soil Profiles above and near Burial 36 85

45. Pottery Bowl Inverted over Shoulder of Burial 37 86

46. Cutting a Horizontal Profile in Square 27R32, Showing Use of Hand Tools 88

47. Vertical and Horizontal Profiles Showing Intrusion of Sand into Cracks in Soil, Judged to be caused by Earthquake Activity 90

48. Missouri Archaeological Society Achievement Award, 1961 106

49. Francis Stubbs, Achievement Award Recipient, 1960 107

50. Mr. and Mrs. Harry Collins, Achievement Award Recipient, 1961 108

51. Sam C. Irvine, Award Plaque Recipient 1961 109

Tables

Page

1. Summary of the Sand Tempered Pottery 24

2. Summary of Shell Tempered Plain and Decorated Pottery 25

3. Relative Occurrence of Pottery Lugs 27

4. Comparison of Domestic and Mortuary Vessel Forms 34

5. Summary of House Data 80

6. Comparative Analysis of Corn from Lawhorn and Four Area Sites 98

7. Comparative Dates from Lawhorn and Four Area Sites 98

8. Burial Data 101-102

9. Age and Sex Groups 102

10. Mortuary Vessels 103

11. Average Age of Fourteen Burials 103

THE LAWHORN SITE

by

John Moselage

FOREWORD

The success of the Lawhorn endeavors is due to the encouragement and efforts of many people. However, without the guidance of Carl H. Chapman, this venture could not have been undertaken. From its beginning, he always found time in his busy schedule to help me with the many problems which arose during the course of the excavation and narration of the site.

Mr. Charles Nash, Tennessee State Parks Archaeologist, aided in preliminary analysis of the material remains, analyzed the burial complex and prepared that section for this report. Mr. Nash also edited the first draft of the report and prepared the first typescript. The time and effort expended by Mr. Nash is sincerely appreciated.

Prior to the final draft and editing, a conference was held at the University of Missouri for an analysis and interpretation of the site material. Those participating in the conference were Carl H. Chapman, Robert T. Bray, Richard A. Marshall, Edwin Sudderth, Richard Bradham, and the writer. Editing of the second and final draft was by Robert T. Bray and Carl H. Chapman. The job is one which too often goes without recognition of the many long hours which are necessary in producing the finished report. Especial thanks are due the property owners, Mr. W. O. Lawhorn, whose cooperation made this investigation possible. It is with deep and sincere appreciation that I recognize the aid and assistance given me by my family—my daughters, my son, and my wife, and any success is shared equally with them.

Though the day-by-day crew seldom exceeded four in number, many gave unselfishly of their time making possible the successful completion of the field work. The following is a list of those most helpful:

J. L. Henson

J. T. King

Lavern Harris

F. N. Davis

Robert Smith

C. L. Scheel

Dan Printup

Harry Madison

Ted Nelson

Irby Long

Others too numerous to mention helped me from time to time, and I am most grateful to them all.

LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

The Lawhorn site is located on the Leachville-Arkansas-Missouri Quadrangle of the U.S. Army Engineer Map in the NW SW Sec. 5, T15N, R7E. This lies along the watercourse of the St. Francis River, in Craighead County four miles north of Monette, Arkansas. In all probability, at the time the site was occupied, the main river channel was not far away.

Figure 1 shows the general location of the site in northeast Arkansas just below the boot-heel of Missouri. The larger and better known sites shown on this map indicate the extent of the Mississippian groups in this region. The site is close to one just north and one or two south which seem to be almost identical judging by surface finds and tests. The Lawhorn material is mostly Mississippian or has a Mississippian component that predominates in the materials found. An early component is Woodland or Baytown but it is not well represented on the site.

Figure 1. Map Showing the Lawhorn Site in Relation to Archaeological Sites in the Central Mississippi Valley

CAHOKIA

HERRELL

KINCAID

WICKLIFFE

MATTHEWS

CAMPBELL

LAWHORN

Early St. Francis River meanders flowed eastward along the southern end of the site, and in doing so washed away, then redeposited new silt over that section. This showed quite clearly in the R22 profile drawings. Other than this, in discussing the general nature of the site, it must be recognized that the New Madrid earthquake of 1812 changed the contours and drainage of this area to a great extent. It is to be noted that the Lawhorn site lies on a natural levee or ridge; that is, a ridge in the terms of the people who live in this flat country. It is some three to five feet higher than the surrounding land. This rise is adequate to keep the site dry and well drained through periods of high water and floods except during abnormal years. An Army Engineer aerial photograph of the area (Fig. 2) shows the general topographic relationships. The old meander of the St. Francis River, where it cut through the southern end of the site, can still be made out. The most recent of the old channels of the St. Francis are quite apparent in the densely overgrown jungle-like terrain. This is the area known as the Sunken Lands.

The higher elevations on either side are protected by levees and by drainage ditches to carry off the immediate drainage water to a point where it can be siphoned back into the St. Francis. It is this drainage ditch which was cut recently through the Lawhorn site and which can be seen very clearly as it parallels the new levee. The site itself is in the left central part of the figure as marked by the delineating outline (Fig. 3). The black spots showing in the aerial photo are areas of higher moisture content due to irregular drying and perhaps have more to do with the New Madrid earthquake disturbances than with archaeological phenomena.

Figure 4 indicates the extent of the excavations and the method of horizontal control through a grid system. Base lines were established on the south and west sides of the site so that all squares carry an E (east) distance number combined with an N (north) distance number. Ten foot intervals or squares were used so that square 17R30, for example, would be marked by the southwest corner stake of a square 170 feet north and 300 feet west of datum. Datum control point was marked by an iron rod firmly set in the ground.

GEOLOGICAL SETTING

The geology of the Monette area along the St. Francis River is that of a complex river valley. It is further complicated by the New Madrid earthquake of 1812 and perhaps some earlier disturbances of the same nature.

On a substratum of undifferentiated plio-miocene deposits, the cross-sectional profile of the valley (Fisk 1944, Plate 15, Sheet 1) shows an elevation of 100 to 125 feet above the present mean sea level as the base of the alluvial deposit. The top of this extensive graveliferous alluvium, 225 feet above sea level, was laid down by the Ohio River as its channel pattern changed through the centuries, burying older channels under later ones as the ocean levels rose and the ice age melted out of existence, thus forming the area known as the Malden Plain. The present surface contour at the town of Monette is 235 feet. At the site under study the elevation readings are from 237 to 240 feet above sea level.

Figure 2. Aerial View of the St. Francis River “Sunken Lands” and the Lawhorn Site

(In circle)

Figure 3. Aerial View of Drainage Ditch and Levee at the Lawhorn Site.

(To the left of the levee is the St. Francis River in its present “Sunken Lands” channel. The site limits are shown by a dotted line)

Figure 4. Contour Map of the Lawhorn Site Showing Levee, Drainage Ditch, Excavated Areas and Grid Control System

This valley story is duplicated west of the area known locally as Crowley’s Ridge where the Mississippi River flowed during the waning of the ice age. Crowley’s Ridge, it should be noted here, is an old land surface that was not eroded by the late glacial run-off waters. It is this relatively unaltered ridge of land that originally separated the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers during the formative age of the present alluvial valley. This ridge, only a few miles west of Monette, Arkansas, offered a totally different environment and was, presumably, one which the Lawhorn people made, at least, seasonal use of. The St. Francis River channel, lying close to the eastern edge of Crowley’s Ridge is the end result of these early braided Ohio River channels while today the Black River has replaced the Mississippi in the western valley.

By 2000 B.C. the Mississippi River had moved to the east side of Crowley’s Ridge and well east of the Monette area. The Ohio River was then in the vicinity of the present Mississippi River. During the next 1000 years the Mississippi channel moved gradually eastward until it was flowing close to the Ohio River and roughly parallel to it, merging in the vicinity of Helena, Arkansas. By the beginning of the Christian era, the two rivers had joined near Cairo, Illinois and so began the modern alluvial valley pattern (Fisk, 1944).

If the interpretation of the time of geological developments is correct the story of mankind in this region would be limited to something less than 6000 years. Early Man may have wandered the shoreline of the ancient river channels, but if he did there is very little likelihood that any of his remains would be found today in this valley area since they would have been washed away or covered with the refilling of the valley.

Further complicating the picture there has been a tremendous amount of recent geological disturbance in this area due to the New Madrid earthquake and possibly others of earlier date. These geological developments set part of the environmental state for the users of the Lawhorn site. Later developments contrived to destroy much of the evidence left by man as a series of earthquakes changed the face of the land (Humphries, 1960, p. 32).

Another factor that must be taken into account is the recent work of the United States Army Engineers in protecting the higher lands from the floods of the St. Francis River Sunken Lands and in draining this entire region. Within the last five years a new ditch has been dug parallel to a new levee on the east side so that it cut through a section of the Lawhorn archaeological deposit. This work laid bare many skeletons and considerable occupational debris. Harmful as this activity is to archaeological sites it was nevertheless an important factor in bringing this site to the attention of the writer. It is unfortunate that most sites thus destroyed, in whole or in part, by drainage and levee building excavations cannot be similarly salvaged. Governmental machinery is available for this work but unfortunately there has been no institutional agency ready, willing and able to accept the burden in this area.

The first evidences of man at the Lawhorn site are sand tempered pottery and associated dart points. These show that this site was occupied by man long enough to produce an archaeological deposit judged to be Woodland or Baytown. The deposit is thin and gives little evidence of ever having been much deeper. Above this thin evidence were shell tempered pottery and related stone, bone and shell artifacts that indicated a more intensive use of the site at a later time by Mississippian people.

METHODOLOGY

The archaeological methods used were standard handtool methods. The following excerpts from day to day field notes will give a fair idea of how these were applied. These appear in essentially unedited form.

Sunday, October 21, 1956

We began the little project with the first crew, Mr. Irby Long, surveyor; C. B. and R. E. Gaylon; J. R. Marret of Caldwell, Missouri; Josephine, Carolyn, J. H., Jr., and myself (John Moselage).

The work consisted of determining the extent of the site, putting up the map table, and staking out the boundaries of the site and recording them on the map.

We had expected to have started the contour lines on the map but determining the boundaries of the site required most of the day.

The above mentioned boundaries were permanent markers, being long pieces of steel pipe. The steel markers were put in at the NW corner, and the SW corner; wooden stakes were used in the NE corner and SE corner, these were of wood due to that part of the site being in cultivation, however, all of our measurements used in regard to locating the squares are based on the measurements of the SW steel stake as it is the R 8 line although it is the SW corner of the site. The reason it is the R 8 line is due to the levee running in a NW direction and at the NW corner the site is 80 ft. in a westerly direction. All squares are to the right as the starting point is at the levee.

Saturday October 27, 1956

On the site early this A.M. were Mr. Long our surveyor, the Gaylons, John Jr., J. T. King, E. R. Deen, and myself. We all worked hard this day. We divided up into smaller crews and mapped in the contour lines, while the others staked out the R 8 line. This line, as before mentioned, began on the southwest corner of the site. The 32 line appeared to be about the center of the site due to the angles of the site. It was the likely point to begin the test trench, as we thought, and we began at the levee working in the direction of east on the south side of the 32 line. The soil was exceedingly hard and we had to work with small picks (Army surplus). During late evening I had the wall scraped down and drew the first profile.

Mr. King’s part of the trench did not work as easily as the part I had undertaken, and because the trench was irregular in depth, and the hour so late, we decided to resume work after there had been a good rain, in hopes that the ground would be in better condition to work, as the ground was like concrete. Though the soil was so hard, the profile was good.

There was distinct separation in soil colors and they changed in other parts of the trench. On the top was a brown color and at the bottom was brown with a band of what appeared to be ashes through most of the center.

At the end of the day we all felt proud of the map, and having actually started digging.

On the section line, or corner of the section, (NW corner) is a brass marker with elevation stamped on it, this was used to get the elevation of the highest point on the site.

This same elevation was transferred to a stake by a large gum tree. This stake is of walnut. The elevation was also transferred to a stake in the levee near the 32 line.

November 25, 1956

In company of J. L. Henson, we staked out square 38R9 of which over half was in the seep ditch. With such a small crew we decided on that small part of a square to excavate.

We recorded the datum depths on the NW and SW corners—the others being in the ditch—and removed the plow zone. At the bottom of the plow zone there were strips that measured approximately two inches, running in a straight line. With lots of concern we finally figured that it was where the bottom of the plow had sloped off toward the ditch, and we wanted to level the next surface, so the established depth of the plow zone for this square was set at DD 6.5 though at one edge it was not that deep. There was not anything that we could report for that level, and we went six inches lower to DD (Datum Depth) 7.0. In this area a pit showed up for when we scraped off the level at DD 7.0 we had the outline of a pit.

We cross sectioned the pit to obtain a profile, and it extended six inches below the top of the subsoil. The profile drawn shows the pit starting at DD 7.0 which is where we first discovered it. Subsoil was on an average of DD 7.6.

The outline of the pit was not as distinct as shown on the Feature form but that is closest lines that we could obtain of it. I packaged the pit material and classed it as belonging to the level from DD 6.5 to 7.0. See feature form 2 for details.

38R5, Sunday, April 28, 1957

Accompanied by J. L. Henson, Chas. Scheel and John Jr., we began work on the site. For the last few weeks we have removed our stakes after each day’s work because of the farming expected on the site. This causes an extra amount of work each trip that could have been used so badly in the excavation.

After removing the plowzone, the square was scraped off, and there was no pattern or postmold to be seen. We removed all potsherds, bone, and stone F. S. (Field Specimen) 83 DD 6.5 to 7.0, and again scraped off the soil, and again there was no pattern. We also found a projectile point in the above mentioned level F. S. 84. We removed the next 6 in. of the square collecting potsherds, etc., F. S. 85. Also in this level the soil changed from the strong midden rich brown in color to that color of the subsoil, which is of a light sandy brown to yellow. This soil presented a problem, it was of a mottled color, the same as found through the subsoil. There is so little difference between this soil and the absolute sterile soil. This soil has been checked the entire length of the site in the new seep ditch, which is over 6 ft. deep and there is no doubt of its being sterile. This situation is of great concern because of the burials that have been found in what appears to be the subsoil. There is positively no connection between this burial and the dark brown midden in the soil above. There is no sign of a pit leading to the burial, but there is a difference in pottery styles, texture, even the feel of the material found in what appears to be the subsoil, and in that found in association with the dark brown midden.

Mr. Scheel, working in the square with me, commented on the change of color, and I asked him what he would think if I told him there was a burial below where he was working. He asked me how I knew, and I told him of the legs being in the last square we worked, and he said it would be Woodland, as there was no connection with the Mississippi midden above the soil we were then working in. We were being pressed for time at this part of the square so we narrowed the square to 5 × 10 ft. and when we reached the burial, we also reached water. The river at this time was over the banks and seemed to boil up in the square; this presented a real problem. We debated as to whether we should quit the square and fill it up or do the best we could. We thought of filling in the 10′ × 10′ square and reopening it a year later but decided that we would finish since we had lots of decisive facts and we needed the rest to complete forms. We gathered up boards to stand on to keep from sinking in the sand, and the condition of the bone was so poor, being wet, it was just impossible for us to remove it. Though I did get the skull taped up before trying to remove it, the other bones were so soft they crumbled when handled, so the skull was all the bone that I could remove in one piece. There were three pottery vessels with this burial, a bottle, which was upside down, a bowl beside the head (it too was upside down) and a jar by the right arm which was right side up.

While working in square 37R5 this burial was partly in it (37R5) and there weren’t feet present (see photo 34). The absence of feet has occurred before and it is a trait that may be distinctive.

While removing the skull of this burial, which was on the line (R6), the arm of another burial, in square 38R6, was found. It was not removed, but was left for future investigation since the conditions are the same as the above mentioned burial. The soil color in the levels below the midden is of great concern in this area; there seems to be a discoloration in what appears to be the top part of the subsoil. There will be a thorough check made of the soil.

15R8, June 21, 1957

Accompanied by J. L. Henson and son, Charles, James Vorus, and John, Jr., we moved to the part of the site that I rented for the summer, and decided on a square on the highest part on this end of the site. We established the square 15R8 and put up the shelter over the square to protect us from the sun. We removed all potsherds from the plow zone to DD 4.7, at DD 4.7. There appeared a black area in the NW ¼ of the square. The NE ¼ had indications of burned clay. The black area suggested a pit but there was no outline of one. At DD 5.0 the black area was still there and contained above the normal amount of charcoal but still no define outline of a pit. At DD 5.5 we outlined the black area and sketched in the square form. At DD 6.0 the area did not exist. The only difference in this area and the rest of the square was the dark color; the contents or number of potsherds, and other evidences appeared to be the same as the rest of the square. I could not positively say that this area was a pit.

At DD 5.5 the soil changed to a lighter brown. There were tree root impressions visible that were not visible in the above level. This suggested another natural level. Also, there was little material to be found. The few sherds were not in a midden. There was little other sign of an occupation in this soil (the lighter brown soil).

This lighter brown soil was mottled in color, having light sandy streaks and circles and at DD 7.2 there was yellow sand. In this mottled sandy soil was a burial (25) under the R9 line and less than one foot north of the 15 line, and there was no sign of the midden with this burial, though there was a little darker appearance of the mottled soil. The members of the party and all kept up with activities throughout the whole square and it was plain to all that there seemed to be no connection between this burial and the midden above. There was a separation at the knees. Also, there appeared a sunken place in the pelvic region which was reflected in the midden above. It would also account for the separation between the bones at the knees. There was a deformity of the right femur which should be explained at a later time after examination by proper persons.

A different method of taking the soil profile was followed. This time I used the transit at each running foot of the east wall to record the lines inscribed in the wall.

According to the profiles of the four walls, they were nearly uniform in depth, that is, no marked difference was present to warrant drawing all four. The east wall was used because of the sunken area, on the R9 line. During the afternoon we had a shower of rain though we worked on through it.

We finished work at nightfall and then filled the square. It was nearly 9:00 P.M. when we finished. We arrived home after 11:00 P.M.

Highlights of the trip were when we found the burial which was quite a bit of excitement for James Vorus; the boat ride to the car in the darkness; and when we all got to the nearest store we each had three king size cold drinks.

In regard to the sunken area in the square which has shown up in the midden and in the burial in the subsoil, perhaps (this) has some connection with the New Madrid earthquake. This site is in the Sunken Lands. There was also the absence of the two strata profile in the midden. Perhaps future work will reveal the reason for the change.

7R13, July 14, 1957

James Vorus, Mr. F. N. Davis, John, Jr., and myself arrived at the site early this A.M. We had discussed moving to the edge of the site on the south end, which we did. We established square 7R13 and set up for work. The plowzone produced little material. The potsherds were scarce at the bottom of the plowzone. There was no pattern of pits, or other features to be found.

The next level, DD 6.2 to DD 6.5 produced several possible postmolds, but when cross-sectioned, they were either tree roots or just shallow black areas—not postmolds.

This level produced little material, only a few potsherds and debris. From Datum depth 6.5 to 7.0 there was just a handful of potsherds. This is a marked difference over the rest of the site that had been excavated to date. As a rule, the sherds are plentiful. At DD 7.0 when the surface was scraped off, the outline of a fireplace appeared and in the fireplace was a small flat stone, under which was a considerable amount of charred root. Readily identifiable were nut shells and hulls.

At DD 7.5 there was the outline of two pits in the subsoil (subsoil first showed at DD 7.2), one small pit, the other three feet in diameter. The pits were cross-sectioned with a two-foot trench. The two pits were then photographed. The north wall was then scraped and marked with lines at each running foot, the profile sketched in the wall, then photographed, and drawn on the graph paper, using datum depths at each line on each running foot of the profile. The square was filled shortly before dark.

31R17, March 15, 1958

The crew on the site early this A.M., and we decided to work on the east side of the ditch and in the vicinity of the burials that had been found previously. We staked out square 31R17, and began work; we removed the plow zone. We scraped off the new surface in search of any possible pattern of pit outline, or postmold, and there was none to be found. Potsherds, and other items, were collected for that level F. S. 185 which was the plow zone.

With no visible pattern in the horizontal profile at DD 5.0 we began the next level collecting potsherds, which were designated F. S. 187. At DD 5.0 to DD 5.5, and at two-tenths of a foot in the level there appeared the top of a skull (See burial form 34). Burial 34 had a skull at its feet, possibly a trophy skull, and was a positive association with burial 34. At the completion of the square, the following information was recorded:

There were four burials directly beneath Burial 34, and in a very compact arrangement; two of the burials were adults, and two of them infants. They were in a very disturbed condition, at the time they were discovered. The problem arose as to what took place. They were in an east-west direction, and in very compact arrangement. It seems as though each burial was disturbed when each succeeding burial was placed in the pit. The question arose, due to the placement of one atop each other in such an exact arrangement, could there have been some sort of mark to denote the location (That is, if each one had a time space between them.) But the search produced nothing to indicate such a marker; no postmolds could be found.

These burials began atop the subsoil, and continued upward to datum depth 5.2. If there was a pit outline in the square it was not visible to us, and that is one of the items we are so careful about. In spite of the fact that the burials were disturbed and in a very poor state of preservation, one assuring condition was the position of the remaining vertebrae which indicated the four burials were under burial 34. There was a broken bottle associated with these burials, and in all probability belonged to burial 34 F. S. 191; DD 5.7 to the bottom of the vessel.

The soil changed to a lighter brown at DD 5.5 and continued about the same to subsoil which was listed as DD 6.0. The DD was based on the average depth of subsoil.

About two inches south of the 32 line, there appeared another burial, which was almost entirely in the square to the north, square 32R17. The south half of square 32R17 was also opened in order to record this burial. In doing so, the top of a bottle appeared, about two feet north of Burial 32, and nearby were the fragments of an infant burial and there were no artifacts associated with it. The burial was partly in the plow zone, and was almost completely destroyed. The bone was in poor condition and crumbled in removal.

The bottle was associated with a burial. The burial was on top of the subsoil and consisted of part of one arm, the radius, ulna, and hand—nothing else. There was no indication of disturbance, and no missing bones were found in the midden. Less than two feet north of burial 34 was another burial, the feet extending into parts of squares 31R16 and 32R16. The burial was in a shallow pit in the subsoil, and had one association with it, a bowl F. S. 190. The vessel had little nodes on four sides near the top, four nodes to each side except one side which had three nodes. This burial was .4 ft. below the average datum depth of the subsoil of this square. There was no disturbance to burial 32 and burial 33 was partly under burial 32. Burial 33 was in a lighter brown soil than that above datum depth 5.5.

There have been many burials in somewhat similar condition in regard to the missing bones, both disturbed and undisturbed, throughout the whole site in which burials were found. The skeletons were removed to the best of our ability, one of the burials in its entirety.

We filled the square and returned home.

27R32, January 25, 1959

J. T. King, Dan Printup, and myself returned to the site. Continuation was in square 27R32 beginning at DD 5.5. There had been some disturbance to the square since we were there last. A large potsherd had been removed from the ground plan DD 5.5, and a portion of the skull that was showing in the east wall of the square had been dug out. Most of the skull remained. Otherwise things were just as we had left it.

We began removing the level DD 5.5-6.0. The soil was in the best of condition to work by the method of taking thin vertical cuts. The square produced as follows: in the SE quarter the soil was similar to the subsoil in color which was of a light brown or yellow color and with a high content of sand. There were lighter streaks and blotches throughout this area, and as has been found in most of the other squares, there was a small quantity of sand tempered fabric impressed sherds in the top part of this soil just described. The NW portion of the square had a concentration of the midden as is usually found in the main occupation. The NW quarter of the square produced a good quantity of shell tempered sherds. This area was screened but produced only sherds and a few small animal bones. This deposit continued through the depth of the level and was evident in the ground plan or horizontal profile at DD 6.0 though nearing the termination of it.

The ground plan at DD 6.0 revealed what appeared to be several postmolds in an arc-like pattern. Photographs, black and white and color were taken of this ground plan. These areas which appeared to be postmolds were cross sectioned and the cut was photographed in color. To date it is doubtful that they could be postmolds for the following reasons: there were no definite lines to indicate the post, the sand streaks were evident in the unbroken pattern of the rest of the soil, the soil appeared to be stained, and in one of the patterns in question, the stain was in a pattern similar to an outline of a postmold. In the others the depth varied from less than a tenth of a foot to five tenths and they were in an irregular shape in the cut or profile where it was cross sectioned.

32R36, March 20, 1960

From an aerial photograph of the site made in January, 1960, there appeared to be several dark areas along the east line of the site. These could have been damp spots or could have been patterns representing refuse pits, houses or some other features. They were in a straight line and uniformly spaced. It was difficult to locate the spot from the ground, but using photographs from two angles, we were able to find the approximate location of one of these dark areas. Then the grid system was staked out in this area and using 1 × 4 × 10 ft. boards painted white and placed at designated squares the site was again photographed from different angles and altitudes. Square 32R36 appeared to be within one of the dark circles, which did not appear as clearly as in the first aerial photograph for the site had been plowed in the meantime.

Charles Scheel and myself began work. The plowzone produced few potsherds and bone (F. S. 388) and a number of bits of burned clay appeared in the plowzone as well as the sherds. The first horizontal profile contained a considerable amount of charcoal bits. The profile indicated changes of color in different areas of the square but did not give any indication of a pit or postmolds or anything that would indicate a feature to us. There was evidence of earthquake disturbance on the west side of the square. There was a dark area on the east side with considerable charcoal and burned bits of clay with numerous potsherds and a fair amount of animal bone—quite suggestive of a refuse area. To the south of this was an area of medium brown sandy soil with a bit of clay mixed in but it contained little material.

The area to the west was of a lighter color and contained fewer charcoal bits, but about as many potsherds and bone. On the west side of the square beginning at the north end one foot east of the west wall, a vertical sand streak one half inch wide, possibly earthquake disturbance, running to the west wall four feet south of the north end, and another vertical sand streak two feet wide running about four and one half feet south of the north end to the south wall three feet east of the SW corner of the square.

In the NW quarter of the square Burial 38 was found. It was quite compact and not articulated. Some of the bone had been burned and was in fragments.

In the NE quarter of the square and just north of Burial 38 was located Burial 39. It too had been partially burned but the bones were more neatly placed than Burial 38. The skull and parts of the other bones were not burned. Both burials were photographed.

41R21, March 22, 1960

Charles Scheel and myself began work this A.M. Plowzone removed and potsherds etc., F. S. 400, were not too numerous in the plowzone. Also in the plowzone were fragments of glass, bottles, chinaware and crockery. At one time there was a house located some one hundred feet from this square, and this possibly accounts for this disturbance. Also in the plowzone at the south center of the square were found fragments of a skull and fragments of a pottery vessel (this bone fragment listed as Burial 40 and pottery fragments as F. S. 401, DD 4.4). The first horizontal profile at DD 4.5 produced a general overall color, medium dark brown.

At this point being mostly out of the present plowzone level there was not the clear cut undisturbed Indian deposit. There was a considerable amount of charcoal bits and a few pieces of burned clay showing in the horizontal profile.

DD 4.5 to 5.0, potsherds, stone and bone, F. S. 402, for this level. Burial 40 was evident in this level and was determined to be head to north from other bone fragments found. Recent disturbance was again noted in this level, the presence of a shotgun shell base, pieces of glass, chinaware and nails. The nails were in excellent condition.

An unidentified soft red sandstone object shaped somewhat like a boatstone, F. S. 403, DD 4.9, was found. An area to six feet north of the SE stake running to one foot east of the SW stake appeared to be undisturbed.

DD 5.0 to 5.5, NE corner at check for DD 5.5 appeared to be undisturbed soil and nearing the color of the subsoil. Part of this level on west side toward the south end of the square appeared to be recently disturbed but not as deep as DD 5.5. Several charred poles appeared as noted on horizontal profile at DD 5.5.

DD 5.5 to 6.0. The soil began to change to the color of the subsoil at DD 6.0 in the NW corner. Further work revealed a fired clay floor, and outline of same worked out as shown on horizontal profile (took photographs).

The fired clay floor did not cover the entire outline of the house pattern and where the fired floor was missing, there was evidence of its having been there, this evidence was on the west part of the house. Explanation of this evidence is due to the soil color—where a piece of the fired floor was removed there was a pink or red color indicating intense heat. The same color was found outside the area of the fired floor as was noted under the piece of floor lifted. There was a definite outline of the west edge of the fired floor and at the same level the soil changed to subsoil west of the line indicating the floor area. There were no postmolds to be seen. The soil color, as before mentioned, is an orange to yellow or very light tan color and since this was built atop the subsoil the postmolds should have been visible.

Evidently the debris had been removed if the house had burned, but there was a small amount of charred poles sizes from .1 to .2 foot in diameter at the northwest end of the pattern. The pattern at the west and north sides was in a square arrangement. There was a depression in the fired floor and associated with it was a pottery vessel, F. S. 406, and it was complete except for the top part. Also in the depression was charcoal but no ashes. The color of the depression indicated it was or had been used as a fireplace, Feature 22. The west and northwest end of the square indicated the house was square or rectangular in shape.

41R22, March 22, 1960

The west 4 feet of this square was opened and the house presented a problem. The fired floor as well as the color representing the soil under the fired floor was not evident, but being careful, following the vertical profile we were able to determine the approximate west line of the house. For safety’s sake we listed the east wall as indeterminate. There was no evidence to be seen of any postmolds. The south end of the house pattern was in this same condition. Further work on the adjoining squares produced another house. The house in 41R21 and 41R22 was partly under the house in 40R21, 40R22, 39R22, 39R21 and 39R22.

The preceding has been a selected sample of essentially unedited field notes not including much detail and barely mentioning the carefully drawn maps, and horizontal and vertical profiles that accompanied the written description. Profiles showing soil color changes were done in color, using colored pencils in an attempt to duplicate the colors observed. Photographs, both black and white and color were taken whenever anything showed up of possible use for record or interpretation. (The Editors).

EXCAVATIONS

A north-south cross sectional profile along the R22 line shows a rise of 3.4 feet from the south base line to a point of maximum elevation some 400 feet north. The midden deposit shows a corresponding increase in depth. The zero base line was on the south end of the site in an area that appears to have been destroyed by an early St. Francis River meander. Excavation was carried on from this point to square 40R22, a distance of 400 feet north, but not to the northern end of the site which is some distance beyond. The northern portion of the profile indicated that this was an area of major house building activity while to the south and just north of the area washed out by the St. Francis River meander there is some indication of a court or open community center. The ancient river meander was filled with a bluish sandy clay. This ends near stake 9R22 with a datum elevation of 1.2 feet above the base line.

From 5 to 8R22 there was a sandy deposit below the plow line which probably represents a deposit from standing water as the meander activity comes to a stop and filling in became a slow silting process. From 8 to 17R22 there was a thin hard-packed deposit from .2 to .3 feet in depth. Test pits through this section yielded almost no archaeological material while just north of 17R22 the midden deposit abruptly deepened. This area, almost 100 feet north-south, was also seen on the east-west profile. It is this area that gives the impression of being a plaza or community center (Fig. 2).

Starting just north of this open area there was a bank of clean sand and the midden deposit below suddenly dipped downward until at 21R22 it was quite pronounced with evidence of a sand boil. This disturbance was due to the New Madrid earthquake and can be clearly seen in many areas of this state. Here, the evidence for land subsidence, along with large sand boils originating from considerable depth, is clear. This earthquake evidence was no longer apparent north of square 29R22 and the full undisturbed midden deposit of 1.5 foot depth gives evidence of the Indian occupation. At square 40R22 the deposit was 1.8 feet deep and it is at this point that houses 2 and 3 were found. The excavation was not carried any farther north.

It is impossible to see absolute stratigraphic separation of archaeological materials in an inspection of cross sectional profiles. There was a general feeling among the excavators that the sand tempered sherds were more numerous in the lower levels but no clear association can be made. In several instances sand tempered sherds were found in the underlying subsoil but never were any shell tempered sherds so found.

It is to be noted that the firebasins and houses built on subsoil had only shell tempered pottery associations so it must be concluded that the people responsible for this pottery lived here at a time when the midden was non-existent. It is tempting to argue that evidence of an earlier occupation by people making the sand tempered pottery and perhaps dart points was washed away in some series of floods sweeping the camp-site clean except for a few minor items left behind in the newly silted sands. The earthquakes of recent times have played their part in reshifting the materials in this deposit thereby completely confusing such stratigraphic picture as may once have been present.

Two east-west cross sectional profiles are available for study, one at the northern end of the site and the other toward the south end. The northern portion of the deposit can be seen along the 32 line starting at the levee at stake 32R2 with a deposit depth of 2.2 feet. From this point to 32R10 the top of the subsoil was quite irregular and this irregularity is apparent on the surface of the land as the midden deposit follows the irregularities of the subsoil. It is probable that this is the result of the New Madrid earthquakes.

It was in this area that the presence of sand tempered pottery in the subsoil was first noted. A number of burials were encountered in this section of the excavation. From 23R10 to 23R16 the drainage ditch has removed all archaeological materials. At stake 32R19 the deposit was 1.6 feet in depth and continued to stake 32R25 where it was 2.2 feet deep. This full depth of deposit continued to 32R28 where it started to taper out until at stake 32R39, it was only .2 feet deep. While levee building has destroyed the western edge of the site we know that it was at least 400 feet wide. This would indicate a town four or more acres in extent.

An east-west profile was also drawn along the R17 line from the levee at stake 17R5 where the deposit is quite thin to 17R39 where it almost tapers out.

At 17R8 the depth was 1.4 feet while immediately across the drainage ditch the hard packed dark band becomes apparent with little or no deposit either above or below it. This hard packed area runs eastward for about 100 feet to 17R30. At 17R32 the deposit was again 2.2 feet in depth but this thinned out rapidly at 17R32-39 as the eastern limits of the village was reached.

MATERIAL CULTURE

Pottery

Pottery from the Lawhorn site represents two distinct traditions. By far the biggest is the standard shell tempered ware of this area, while a minor type is a sand tempered ware present as a plain, cord marked and textile marked series. The total sherd count was 10,423 of all types of which 9461 or 91% were of the familiar Mississippian shell tempered types and 962 or 9% were of the sand tempered series.

Sand Tempered

The sand tempered series are summarized in Table 1. Similar plain and cord marked sherds (Fig. 5) have been called Barnes, (Williams, 1956, p. 204). The textile marked sherds can now be added to this series (Figs. 6-7). The cord marked sherds ranged from very coarse to quite fine markings, but definitely favored the coarse variety. The 534 textile marked sherds yielded 293 (55%) that were clear enough to identify the weave. These show the preponderate of simple twined textiles.

It is of interest that the simple twined textiles seem to have a diagonal weft, or at least, in the finished piece as it was applied to wet clay vessels, to show this diagonal weave characteristic. The twisting and twining of the cords however seem to be typically simple twined (Fig. 7).

Edward G. Scully and Stephen Williams first named the Barnes series while working for the University of Michigan’s Central Mississippi Valley survey on Barnes ridge in southeastern Missouri. Williams later defined the type (Williams, 1956, Ph.D. Dissertation) as follows:

“This is a finely tempered plain ware in which the sand particles, although numerous in some specimens are quite small. The texture is such that in running one’s fingers over the surface the sandy nature of the temper is immediately noticed. This description of the temper and texture holds for all the Barnes wares. The shapes are similar to those of the Baytown Plain (Philips, et. al., 1951: 77-78). Barnes Cord Marked: This Cord Marked variety goes hand-in-hand in distribution with the Plain ware, and like it, resembles its clay tempered counterpart, Mulberry Creek Cord Marked, and there is occasionally a folded or added rim strip.”

The sand tempered sherds at Lawhorn answer to this description, but the question of vessel shape is left unanswered. One possible basal sherd was cord marked and conical in shape. The characteristic of a folded rim in the cord marked group was not identified in the Lawhorn series.

Figure 5. Cord Marked Sherds and Positive Impressions

Figure 6. Sand Tempered Textile Marked Sherds and Clay Impressions Showing Simple Twining Weave with Diagonal Pattern of Warp and Weft.

(Top and third row are sherds, 2nd and 4th rows are positive impressions)

Figure 7. Sand Tempered Textile Marked Sherds and Impressions

Speaking of sand tempered wares generally and fabric impressed specifically, as an early Woodland movement into the south from the north, Griffin and Sears indicate a relatively early period within the total ceramic horizon of the southeast. In most areas the textile marked tradition dies out by Middle Woodland times. Williams’ description would seem to equate Barnes Cord Marked with Mulberry Creek Cord Marked, which reached its peak during a Middle Woodland period although also present at an earlier time.

All this is of some help in establishing a chronological position for the sand tempered series within the known cultural sequences of this region. It might be construed as adding strength to the belief that there was a considerable time span between the sand tempered and shell tempered wares of the Lawhorn site, and suggests an Early Woodland period of occupation with the sand tempered pottery and the assorted dart points as the only remaining evidence of the early period.

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF THE SAND TEMPERED POTTERY

Percentage Of

Type

Total

Textile Marked

Fine

Med.

Coarse

Sand-Tempered

Cord-Marked

38

12

37

51

Plain

5.5

Textile Marked

56.5

Simple twined

93.6

5.8

26

68

Twilled twined

4.8

84

.7

7

Simple plaited

1.3

25

25

50

Twilled plaited

.4

100

Shell Tempered

The shell tempered series was 98.7% Neeley’s Ferry Plain and 1.3% decorated in some fashion. These can be summarized as follows in Table 2. All type definitions for the shell tempered series are from Phillips, Ford, Griffin, 1951, Section III.

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF SHELL TEMPERED PLAIN AND DECORATED POTTERY

Type

Percent of the Shell Tempered Series

Percent of the Decorated Total

Neeley’s Ferry Plain

93.1

Decorated Sherds all other types

1.3

Wallace Incised

13

(Fig. 17;1)

Miscellaneous—undefinable—incised

24

(Fig. 17;2) (Fig. 17;3)

Nodes punched from interior

2

(Fig. 25)

Old Town Red

57

Carson Red on Buff

3

(Fig. 18;2)

Nodena Red and White

1

The inclusion of a Bell Plain Type is so tentative as to be questionable. The few sherds so classified are better considered as a refinement of Neeley’s Ferry Plain. This viewpoint receives additional support with the statement that there was considerable variation in the workmanship shown on Neeley’s Ferry ware, some being well polished and with a finer shell temper. Some sherds that were first thought to be clay tempered were later determined to be shell tempered with the shell leached out. There was almost no lip decoration in the form of nicking or notching. The standard treatment was simply a rounded lip smoothed to the inside and outside vessel walls.

Appendages

Handles and lugs accounted for 1.4% of the sherd count. Of the identifiable pieces and whole specimens, there are 17 lugs, 2 loop handles, 2 intermediate and 49 strap handles. The lugs showed considerable variation and specialization which may be a local development. The Monette lug, as this local type has been called, is basically a U shaped applique with the ends pointing downward (Fig. 8;1-2). One example was well squared and gives the appearance of an old European churn handle. According to Nash, the cup lug is this same form inverted and these do occasionally turn up in less exaggerated form on the Lower St. Francis River sites. Eight of the lugs are rounded and are molded to the lip. Two are effigy tail lugs one of which was riveted to the vessel rim (Fig. 8;4). The other has a node in the center, outlined by an incised line. Two lugs are rounded and bifurcated. (Table 3).

Figure 8. Pottery Handles and Lugs

(No. 1 and 2. Monette lugs, 3. Riveted strap handle. 4. Riveted lug handle, 5. Applique strap handle, 6. Curved strap, 7. Square strap, 8. Round strap)

TABLE 3—RELATIVE OCCURRENCE OF POTTERY LUGS

Type

Number

Bifurcated

2

Effigy Tail

2

Rounded

7

Monette

8

Total Number

19

The loop handle was uncommon and quite small. One was made up of two strands or coils of clay loosely twisted to form the loop. The other is a simple loop that rises above the lip. Both attach to and are possibly riveted to the lip. They attach from lip to upper shoulder area.

Two handles are intermediate between loop and strap. One is attached below the lip. The other is attached at the lip and has a node at the top of the handle.

By far the most common appendage form was the strap handle and these were first divided into three sub groups based on profile shape to show attachment to the vessel wall (Fig. 8;6, 7, and 8). These handle forms, like many of the lug forms, show a high percentage of attachment to the vessel body wall by means of riveting (Fig. 8;3). They are molded to the rim. Of the total of 51 handles, 49 were strap handles. The handles vary from angular to curved in cross-section (Fig. 8;6, 7, 8). These are all simple, unmodified strap handles that have the following variations; 4 are parallel sided, 2 expand toward the lip attachment, 1 expands toward the shoulder attachment and four are undetermined in outline. One has an extension of a notched lip decoration across the top of the handle at the lip attachment.

Twenty-eight handles are bifurcated by nodes or an elevation of the sides to form a ridge on the outer edges and sometimes to give the appearance of a groove down the center (Fig. 9). Often there are ear-like projections on either side, 20 occurring at the top of the strap, but eight lower down toward midpoint (Fig. 10) are less common. All are parallel sided and join at or just below the lip and attach to the shoulder. All seem to be riveted to the shoulders, but molded to the lip. One is angular and has an applique transverse ridge in the center of the handle (Fig. 10).

Two strap handles have three fillets below the handle and extending from it; one on each side and one from the center of the handle. One of the two appears to have a small raised node on one side (Fig. 10; Row 2, right).

A similar handle has only two fillets extending below it. The handle edges are raised; the fillet appears to extend the raised edges onto the shoulders. The top of the handle is flattened and vertically perforated through the flat portion (Fig. 10; Row 2, left).

Another handle, similar in profile to that previously described, does not have the added fillets, but has the flattened top and vertical perforation. The handle is on a rim sherd decorated with a single U-shaped horizontal line along the neck.

Figure 9. Jar Forms

Figure 10. Pottery Handles

Two handles have longitudinal grooves as decorations. One has three U-shaped incisions or grooves and the two nodes at the upper end. The other has 2 single central grooves (Fig. 10; Row 1, left).

Three sherds with handles have been classed tentatively at Matthews Incised (Griffin, 1952, Fig. 122;d). One example shows a hole through the flat upper portion of the strap and this was done while the clay was still plastic (Fig. 10). Two sherds have bifurcated handles, the other has been described as a loop handle. There are two pieces of fillet-tail handles and pieces of five others. These were not identifiable as to type.

Effigies

Five modeled effigy pottery decorations or attachments were found in the general excavations. Two were painted while the other three were of Neeley’s Ferry paste. One was a human effigy of the full face with a rounded open mouth, quite large and prominent nose and eyes defined only by overhanging brows (Fig. 11). The hair arrangement was similar to bangs indicated along the line of the top of the forehead. One of the painted heads was of a bird, perhaps turkey, showing a trace of red, white and black paint. This could possibly be a negative painted sherd but the evidence was not conclusive. The other painted effigy was Old Town Red and apparently represented some bird form. The other two forms may have been bats and seem to have been facing inside the vessel.

Almost the entire shell tempered pottery complex is of Neeley’s Ferry Plain with an extensive use of strap handles on large jars, many of which were of six to eight gallons capacity (Fig. 9, center). These handles were normally paired and on opposite sides of the vessel. Decorated types are extremely rare, in all less than 2% of the sherds. Of these Old Town Red comprises more than 50%.

Add the small percentage of Carson Red on Buff and Nodena Red and White and these account for over 60% of all decorated types (Fig. 12). Of the balance, only a sprinkling of incised types, one possibly Wallace Incised, are present (Fig. 13). These low totals are possibly accounted for by considering them trade pieces rather than local techniques, or perhaps outside ideas of decoration that had not become fully accepted. One form of local decoration which shows an increase when complete vessels are considered is the pushing out of small areas around the pot to form rounded nodes or projections. Associated with some of these large jars was a crude incising around the shoulder area which was a very poor imitation of the Barton Incised of the St. Francis area. This is very suggestive of a new idea in decoration with little real interest in technical achievement. That these people were skilled enough in ceramics to have done fine work is attested to by the elaboration of workmanship in the strap handle assemblage.

Figure 11. Human Effigy Head

Figure 12. Painted Pottery

(1. A large shallow bowl with red painted design on buff background, painted areas intensified with water color, 2. Carson Red on Buff)

Figure 13. Decorated Pottery Sherds

Vessel Forms

It was possible to identify vessel forms from 3.4% of the shell tempered sherds collected. These forms are listed and their frequency of occurrence shown in Table 4, Column I. The most common forms were the wide mouthed bowl of small to medium size and wide mouthed jars which showed extreme variation in size from small jars of perhaps a pint capacity to very large ones of several gallons capacity (Fig. 9). Water bottles were a very uncommon form of vessel if judged from the sherd collection.

Among the complete vessels recovered the water bottle was over 50% of the total while the sherd collection yielded only 1.3 of this class (Table 4). This is a strong example of a mortuary vessel form which found little use in the daily domestic scene. The water bottle at Lawhorn was apparently not a vessel of utility to the living but only to the dead.

TABLE 4—COMPARISON OF DOMESTIC AND MORTUARY VESSEL FORMS

Column I

Column II

Column III

Vessel Shape

Vessel Shape From Sherds

Vessel Shape 31 Vessels

Vessel Shape 23 Mortuary Vessels

Water Bottles

1.3

45

52

Shallow Bowls

6.3

13

13

Deep Bowls

37

30

26

Plates

1.8

0

0

Jars

49

13

9

Salt Pans (?)

2.5

0

0

Flat Bases

3.3

61

65

The vessel forms found at Lawhorn can be described as bowls, jars and water bottles.

BOWLS:

Three pottery bowls have almost vertical sides with flat bases (Fig. 14;1, 2, 3) while one very crude vessel with vertical sides is round bottomed. Three of the bowls are quite shallow, approaching the plate form but lacking the flattened plate rim (Fig. 14;5). The plate forms identified for Lawhorn were from the sherd collection and these represent 1.8% of the identified shapes. Four other bowls are small round-bottomed pots typical of the Memphis-St. Francis Mississippian groups.

The only recovered vessel showing painted decoration were two shallow bowls. One of these was Carson Red on Buff slipped on both the inside and outside surface (Fig. 12;1). It is a very shallow bowl with a diameter of 3 cm. and a depth of 8 cm. The lip was flat and scalloped around the outer edge. The interior had been painted with a red design composed of four large triangles drawn as opposing parts so that on two the apex was up while on the other pair it was down.

Figure 14. Bowls

(1-3. Straight sided bowls with flat bases, 4. Old Town Red slipped shallow bowl, 5. A typical shallow bowl)

JARS:

Jars range in size from small vessels of perhaps a pint capacity to vessels of several gallons. Only the smaller jars occurred as burial furniture, however. The larger jars have been reconstructed from sherds found in refuse pits and so are part of the domestic complex. Most of the jars have some form of strap handle and seem to have been the only vessel form decorated by incising or by punching out nodes. Such examples of incising as are evidenced in this collection are very poorly executed (Fig. 9).

WATER BOTTLES:

This vessel form was very largely a mortuary form with little apparent value on the domestic scene. This is particularly true of the long, narrow necked vessels. These often showed specialized or individualized treatment by the addition of ridges or collars of clay at the base of the neck, occasionally at the midpoint of the body (Fig. 15;2) and by the variation of treatment of the base so that in this collection no one form could be called standard. There was a tendency, however to flatten and then indent the bottom of the bottles. Other basal embellishments included a narrow truncated base and angular forms (Fig. 15;1, 2, 3, 4). Our most interesting bottle was found on the floor of house three (Fig. 15;5). It was crudely made but uniquely shaped—reminiscent almost of a Grecian urn. An elongated globular body with a short and narrow neck. Strap handles run from the rim to the shoulder, but not out to its full width.

Figure 15. Water Bottles

DESCRIPTION AND COMPARISON

As a check against interpretation and as a means of getting an idea of possible relationships of the Neeley’s Ferry Plain vessels found elsewhere, each vessel was taken up separately. The procedure used consisted first in describing the vessel, and secondly any comparisons that could be made.

The vessels were roughly classified and then evaluated in order. First was a broken water bottle that has had an angular ring base which has a fillet at the base of the neck. The body is sub-globular, tending toward carination but not enough so that there was agreement that it is carinated (No. 75 found with burial 21). A similar vessel is shown by Griffin (1952, p. 320) and is identified with the New Madrid focus. Griffin (1952, plate 124K) shows a vessel that is similar coming from the St. Francis area. Williams (1956) in his thesis, has included the New Madrid Focus in the Cairo Lowland which he notes as a Phase. Another similar vessel is a Neely’s Ferry Plain bottle coming from Monette, Arkansas (Phillips, et al., 1951, Fig. 105, F). It seems from the references that this particular vessel is relatively typical of the St. Francis Malden Plain area but could have some relationship to the Cairo Lowland area.

Another water bottle has an annular ring base that is perforated (No. 189, burial 35). The body is sub-globular and is definitely carinated. The neck is long and flares at the opening and the vessel surface is burnished. It is classed as Neeley’s Ferry Plain due to the prevalence of large flakes of shell which show on the surface. It is comparable to a vessel figured in Phillips, et. al., (1951, Fig. 103f) noted as a Neeley’s Ferry or Bell Plain bottle that comes from the St. Francis River near Monette, Arkansas.

The next bottle (F. S. 60 with burial 17) has a globular body, a long neck and flares slightly at the opening. The base is flat. It is a Neeley’s Ferry Plain vessel. The overall bottle shape seems to be a generalized one and none could be found with which it compared very thoroughly. A similar Neeley’s Ferry Plain water bottle (F. S. 88 with burial 24) also has an almost globular body with a flat base but this vessel has a fillet at the base of the neck and the neck is slightly flaring. A vessel somewhat similar to this is figured on plate 3 of Potter and Evers (1880) in the center at the top of the page. The vessel shown came from southeastern Missouri. A broken water bottle (F. S. 406, house 2), was associated with the fireplace in house two. It compares very favorably with specimen number 60 but is somewhat carinated similar to specimen number 75. The neck is missing. A Neeley’s Ferry Plain long necked water bottle (F. S. 81, burial 23), has a globular body but has a flat base which extends from the body and is similar in external appearance to an annular ring base. The neck contracts toward the opening and has a slightly smaller diameter at the opening. The body shape and base are somewhat similar to Keno Trailed shown in the Belcher Mound report plate 112 A through D (Webb, 1959). The neck shape is similar to Sanders Plain (Suhm, et. al., 1954). The neck shape also approaches that of the Spiro Engraved (Baerreis, 1957, pl. 64, A, D, F, G and H). However, the neck does not contract as much at the opening. It appears that this neck shape may be derived from or at least be related to the neck shapes in the Caddo area.

A broken water bottle or a jar (FS 118, burial 27) is not readily identifiable as to exact form. The body of the vessel is sub-globular and the base is somewhat rounded. Perhaps it was a short necked vessel. A short necked (FS 76, burial 22) Neeley’s Ferry Plain jar is broken. It is a sub-globular shaped vessel with a flat base that is very similar in body shape to vessel number 60. Another short necked water bottle (FS 39, burial 15) has a globular body with a flattened and depressed base. This compares with a Neeley’s Ferry vessel (Phillips, et. al., 1951: Fig. 104A) from Cross county, Arkansas. There is some uncertainty concerning the type base on this vessel. Another specimen (FS 191, burial 34) is a short necked water bottle that has a sub-globular body and a depressed base. It is similar to field specimen 39 but the body is not quite as globular.

A very unusual vessel, also Neeley’s Ferry Plain (FS 418), was found associated with house 3. It is a water bottle form but has two strap handles (Fig. 15;5). It is somewhat similar to a vessel from Cross county, Arkansas (Phillips, et. al., 1951: Fig. 93D). The latter has a much wider opening and the body is much more globular.

The next group of vessels consists of plates and bowls. An Old Town Red plate or bowl (FS 119, burial 27) is painted both inside and out. It has a flat disk bottom. The one vessel that it seems to compare with in general shape is a Sanders Plain (Suhm, et. al., 1954; pl. 60, D) which is of a different temper but is partly red filmed. A plate or shallow bowl has approximately the same shape as that of the Old Town Red but is Neeley’s Ferry Plain (FS 313, burial 37). It seems to be in the same tradition because the lip is flattened in the same manner as the Old Town Red plate. The rims on these plates are indistinct, grading into the bowl wall. The other plate form (FS 145, house 1) is not quite as well done as the two previously described but is approximately the same shape and has the same characteristics. It is also a Neeley’s Ferry Plain plate and is much like the two preceding except it is larger than the others. An example of a plate that is somewhat similar in shape and which is red filmed or red painted, and thus an Old Town Red vessel, is shown in Evers (1880: pl. 17, Fig. 173).

Bowls are the next group of vessels. One is a shallow bowl (FS 25 burial 7) of Neeley’s Ferry Plain ware. It has a rounded lip. It compares very closely with two vessels from Cross County, Arkansas (Phillips, et. al., 1951: Fig. 100 F and G). Another shallow bowl (FS 104, burial 25) is of the same type and general shape. A slightly different bowl (FS 90, burial 24) (Fig. 16) has notches around the edge of the lip giving it a pie-crust effect and it is much the same as one from Mississippi county, Arkansas (Evers, 1880, Fig. 100 F and G).

Straight sided bowls (FS 35 burial 12 and FS 61 burial 17) of Neeley’s Ferry Plain ware have relatively straight sides, rounded bases and rounded lips and compare to Sanders Plain (Suhm, et. al., 1954: pl. 60 B, D, E). The bowls are similar to one that is smaller in size that was found in a house on the Lofton Site I, 23SN42, in the Table Rock Reservoir, Missouri (Chapman, personal communication).

Figure 16. Pottery Vessels with Burial 24

Two bowls, marked as field specimen 190, occurred with burial 33. The field notes mention only one bowl and no picture was made of the burial. One bowl is plain (Suhm, et. al., 1954: pl. 60B), and the other is straight sided of Neeley’s Ferry Plain paste which has a series of nodes placed opposite each other, four on three sides and three on one side (Fig. 14;3). No vessels could be found that were comparable.

A Neeley’s Ferry Plain bowl (FS 36 burial 12) has an incurved side and a somewhat rounded, almost flat base. It compares in shape with a Barkman Engraved bowl shown in plate 4,C (Suhm, et. al., 1954). Also similar in shape is F in the same plate. Several of the engraved types from the Caddoan area have somewhat similarly shaped bowls represented within them and it seems very possible that this bowl shape derives from that general area.

A small bowl (FS 26) is Neeley’s Ferry Plain. It is relatively deep and steep sided with a rounded bottom. It was unassociated with any feature. It is roughly made and nothing could be found to compare it with.

Two jars of the same type but differing in size are of importance in the interpretation. One is a large jar (FS 419, house 3) of globular shape with a recurved rim. The other is a miniature jar of the same type (FS 89, burial 24) (Fig. 16 right). Both have two bifurcated strap handles. The large vessel seems to be the standard utility ware of the Neeley’s Ferry Plain and of the widespread so-called Mississippi Plain. A vessel very similar is shown in a group of shell tempered ones from Middle Mississippi features at Moundville (Griffin, 1952; Fig. 151: 4). The small vessel associated with the burial was probably made specifically as a grave offering rather than for utilitarian purposes. This tends to support the suggestion made earlier that the whole vessels found with burials are representative of mortuary customs rather than a true representation of the pottery characteristically used domestically.

A decorated pottery vessel (FS 426) was found associated with house 3. It is Neeley’s Ferry paste, has a bifurcated handle and has a decoration that is a series of incised half moon designs on the shoulder, each of three lines similar to Matthews Incised decoration. The incising is crude on the vessel and it is suspected that this might be an influence from the Cairo Lowland area where Matthews Incised is much better done and is more prominent. Another Neeley’s Ferry Plain jar (FS 13) with the bifurcated strap handles has a design on it that is similar to the Matthews Incised and it also has a series of punch and bosses associated with the design. A vessel similar to this is shown in Porter and Evers (1880; pl. 12, center right). On this same plate are two other vessels with the punch and boss impressions both of which are middle Mississippi types from southeastern Missouri. The incised decoration and bosses are also shown on vessels found at the Matthews site (Walker and Adams 1941; p. 116, pl. 15, A and B).

There are three other vessels from the site. One is a water bottle (FS 2, burial 1) which has a raised portion rather than a fillet at the base of the neck and which has a straight long neck slightly tapering toward the opening. Similar to it is a long necked Neeley’s Ferry Plain vessel (FS 125, burial 28) with a carination which is partly filleted. The base is flat. The last of the three is one with a cut base. It is a relatively long straight necked water bottle. There is no information concerning its location on the site.

SUMMARY OF THE POTTERY

The sherd analysis gives a picture of the domestic ceramic complex. A study of the whole vessels indicates the mortuary wares and shapes used by these people. That these are not the same as the domestic styles is clearly shown from the data in Table 4. The 31 complete or restorable vessels from Lawhorn constituted 76% mortuary types. The other 24% came from house floors and refuse pits to give a picture of the domestic wares. Except for the one unusual strap handled water bottle, these were bowls and jars of assorted size. While some shallow bowls and a few plate forms were identified from sherds no complete vessels of these types were found on the domestic scene. Shallow bowls in their complete state were entirely within the mortuary list of finds. The difference in vessel form as indicated by potsherds from the domestic complex and whole vessels for this mortuary complex is tabulated in Table 4. In column III only those vessels found with burials have been tabulated to give a more precise picture of the mortuary ceramic complex. This will point out how nearly the complete vessel inventory is indicative of the mortuary class. In addition to vessel type it will be noted that there is an impressive rise in the number of vessels with flat bases in the mortuary vessel group as compared to the evidence from the potsherd collection.

It becomes clear that while complete pottery vessels present an accurate ceramic picture it is a specialized one and different from that of the sherd count analysis. The difference may be a direct reflection of different segments of the village life pattern, the funerary customs on the one hand and home life on the other.

Other interpretations might be made on the same pottery and potsherd collection. Variation of mortuary wares between major towns could easily exist while utility wares of each followed a more widespread and fundamental pattern so that little variation would be apparent between two such towns if judged from potsherds, but a pronounced difference if judged by complete vessels.

With the early type pottery, or with one assumed to be early, the conclusion was reached that the best way to describe the sand tempered wares would be to call them “sand tempered plain,” “sand tempered cord marked” and “sand tempered fabric impressed.” The sand tempered plain is similar to Thomas Plain in the lower valley (Phillips, et. al., 1951; 141-2) and to Barnes Plain in the Cairo Lowland (Williams, 1956; 204). The sand tempered cord marked is similar to the Blue Lakes Cord marked in the Lower Valley (Phillips, et. al., 1951: 142-4) and to Barnes Cord marked in the Cairo Lowland (Williams, 1956: 204). The fabric impressed sand tempered sherds are similar to the Twin Lakes Fabric Impressed (Phillips, et. al., 1951: 144-5) in the lower valley and similar to the fabric impressed occurring in the Barnes series in the Cairo Lowland. It does not seem advisable to name the sand tempered sherds that are from the Lawhorn site as separate types. Further, the distribution of the Lower Valley types Thomas Plain, Blue Lake Cord marked and Twin Lakes Fabric Impressed appear to be too far away to equate them with the Lawhorn series on the basis of the sample at Lawhorn. The same can be said for the Barnes series.

The pottery was first classified with the aid of books and advice of several archaeologists. Before publication a check of the pottery was made resulting in the re-evaluation of a few of the types. Most important was the declassification of incised sherds other than Wallace Incised. Further, the painted wares were classed as Carson Red on Buff and Nodena Red and White only.

A search of the literature on southeastern pottery was done to try to find the time period in which the Lawhorn pottery fitted. According to Phillips, Ford and Griffin (1951: 132-133), the Carson Red on Buff and Nodena Red and White are included under the term Avenue Painted and this ware extends into period B about half way. Wallace Incised, although it is primarily a late type, in period A, has been found on sites extending all the way to the end of period C. The other incised types are somewhat similar to Barton Incised and Kent Incised, but neither type could be definitely identified. Barton Incised has been found in the St. Francis area on sites extending back almost to Period D, and Kent Incised occurs at least halfway into Period B. Due to the small number of sherds and uncertainty of identification of type all of the incised sherds except Wallace were thrown into an unclassified category.

On the basis of the pottery types, the most predominant being Neeley’s Ferry Plain which starts at approximately the beginning of Period B or Period C and maintains this maximum popularity to the end of Period B, it was decided that this site probably falls in the latter part of Period B.

Pottery Disks

These were quite common on the site, particularly in areas of house concentration. A total of 33 either whole or fragmentary specimens were catalogued. Of these, six were the plain disks so common to Mississippian sites (Fig. 17:1) while 27 were perforated. All of the perforated specimens had a hole through the center of the disk and may well have been spindle whorls (Fig. 17:2). These ranged in size from 3 to 8 cm. in diameter. Nine of the spindle whorl type disks had well smoothed edges while the remaining edges were either roughly smoothed or unmodified after breaking. All of them were of Neeley’s Ferry Plain except one made from an Old Town Red sherd. The drilled disks were most commonly found in association with the houses, although several specimens were found in refuse pits. Four of the perforated disks had more than one hole drilled in them (Fig. 17:3). One had two completed holes with a third just started on one surface. Another example had a central hole and another drilling had been started from both sides but not carried to completion (Fig. 17:4).

In eleven of the drilled disks the holes were at an angle, probably due to improper drilling, the angle drilling from one side being necessary to meet the perforation from the opposite side.

There were six unperforated disks which ranged in size from 2 to 6 cm. in diameter. Two of these had smoothed edges while the others had been roughly shaped only. The smallest of these disks had a smoothed edge with a groove incised into it.

Seven examples of drilled pottery were found of which two are perforated rims, the holes being drilled after firing. One piece has been perforated several times. One of the drilled rimsherds, (FS 124) was on the chest of burial 28. It may have been used as a pendant. Another specimen, (FS 225) had three incompleted holes as well as the perforation. One perforated sherd was Old Town Red, another sand-tempered cord-marked and the rest were Neeley’s Ferry Plain.

Projectile Points

The projectile points found at the Lawhorn site presented a variety of forms and sizes. The wide range of types seemed at first very difficult to explain. Further, pictures and written definitions of points were very hard to reconcile with the specimens at hand. An example of this difficulty was a point that seemed to answer all the requirements of the Motley type (Ford, Phillips, Haag 1955; p. 129), but which failed the test of visual examination by Ford. How many of the others originally typed would fail a similar visual examination test is open to question. Therefore, a separation of like with like form was made and unless a fair number of a particular type was present, no certain identification of type was made.

There was a total of 95 identifiable points of which 84% were surface finds. Only 4% were found in the general midden, but 12% were at the very base of the deposit. These points were first separated into 26 types, however eighteen of these were represented by one or, at most, two specimens. Only eight of the types were present in sufficient numbers to represent a local industry.

Figure 17. Pottery Disks

In theory, at least, points found in repetitive numbers should represent a local industry and so aid in identifying their makers. The one-of-a-kind types would likely represent individual variation, trade, or the result of some Indian’s collecting habits.

All of the projectile points except one which appears to be missing were separated according to the characteristics of size, shape and general process of manufacture. The 95 projectile points were placed into four major groups and a number of smaller units.

One general arrowhead type seemed to be characteristic and made up more than a third of the total number of points from the site. These were 34 corner notched points with straight or rounded bases that varied in length from 44 mm. to 22 mm. and in width measured at the shoulders 11 to 18 mm. (Fig. 18;1-3). There is a rather great range in thickness due to the fact that some of the stone was of poor quality and could not be thinned properly. The usual thickness was 2 to 5 mm. This particular point type is, in general, similar to the Scallorn type (Bell, 1960; 84, pl. 42). It also compares fairly well with the points that come from the Matthews site and similar sites in the Cairo lowland area. It is approximately the same as the Table Rock Corner Notched arrowhead from the Table Rock area southwestern Missouri (Bray, 1956, Fig. 18, Rows 4-5, and p. 126). A secondary type that occurs with this and which is of some probable importance is made up of ten specimens. These have a relatively straight stem but otherwise are very similar to the major point type (Fig. 18;4). The points are similar to the Bonham points (Bell, 1960, 10 pl. 5). The dimensions on these points are as follows. The length ranges from 27 to 38 mm. and the width ranges from 12 to 19 mm.; the thickness is on the average 5 to 6 mm.

Probably associated with these two types and considered to be a part of the projectile point complex of the Mississippi occupation is a small ovoid type made up of seventeen specimens some of which may have been blank forms since they do not appear to be finished (Fig. 19;1). The range in length of these specimens is from 22 to 37 mm. Thickness ranging from 4 to 8 mm varies considerably probably due to the fact that some are blank forms rather than finished products. Width at the base which is, for the most part, the widest position of the points varies from 14 to 20 mm. These points are somewhat similar to the Catan points, (Bell, 1958; 14 pl. 7). The Catan points range from 500 to 800 A.D. according to Bell’s compilations. The Lawhorn specimens are also similar in some respects to Young points (Bell, 1960; 100, pl. 50). Young points supposedly range from 1200 to 1500 A.D. They also compare rather closely with ovate forms, Category “O,” found abundantly only in the late marginal Mississippi Complex at the Rice Site (Bray, 1956, Fig. 13, and p. 79).

Figure 18. Corner Notched and Stemmed Arrowheads

(1-3. Scallorn or Table Rock Corner Notched. 4. Bonham)

Figure 19. Ovoid and Trianguloid Arrowheads

(1. Catan, 2. Young, 3. Maude, 4. Fort Ancient, 5. Mississippi triangular, 6. unclassified)

There are a few triangular points that may be of some diagnostic value. One group of three are concave based triangular points and are relatively large in size. The one nearly complete specimen is 38 mm. long and 13 wide (Fig. 19;3). These perhaps can be compared with the Maude point (Bell 1958; 48, pl 24). They also might be comparable with the Fresno points (Bell, 1960; 44, pl. 22). However, these points seem to be much shorter than the Maude variety and it is probable that those found on the Lawhorn site are more comparable with the Maude if with either of the two. The Maude points supposedly date between 1200 and 1500 A.D. The Fresno points are thought to date from 800 to 900 A.D. along to 1600 A.D.

There are also two triangular points with straight base and these are not very comparable to any others except the general Mississippian type (Fig. 19;5). One triangular form is very long, serrated (Figure 19;4) and is strikingly similar to the Fort Ancient point (Bell, 1960; 40, pl. 20), which supposedly dates between 1200 and 1600 A.D. The length of this point is 46 mm. and the width is 13 mm. One other point compares favorably with some that occur in the Table Rock Reservoir area in southwestern Missouri associated with the late complex which includes shell tempered pottery. It is a side notched variety with a straight base and is 41 mm. long and 14 mm. wide (Fig. 19;6). The length width proportions are similar to those of the most prominent arrowhead types on the site. Thus, it may have been made by someone on the site.

The preceding types seem to form a general complex that is associated primarily with the Mississippian occupation and there is no indication that there has been any great deal of influence in the area except from the same directions (North and South) that were noted in regard to the pottery. The Scallorn point type is similar to those from the Cairo lowland area and the Bonham is similar to those from the Caddo area from the south. It is expected that both are good Malden Plain, St. Francis River area types.

One other type might possibly be associated with the Mississippian occupation and it is one that can be classed as Gary (Bell, 1958; 28 pl. 14). There are four specimens (Fig. 20;1). Gary is supposed to date somewhere between 2000 B.C. to 600 A.D. but the evidence in the Table Rock area indicates that this probably dates more nearly between 1000 A.D. and 1500 A.D. (Marshall, 1958). The fact that the Gary type has been found in association with earlier periods elsewhere makes it questionable to place it with the Mississippian occupation here. It should be pointed out that it might be associated with the Mississippian component for the type was definitely associated with the latest occupation in the Table Rock area on upper White River.

The prominent type that seems to be associated with the earliest occupation or the component associated with the sand tempered pottery on the site is a relatively small dart point that is a stemmed form with a convex base and has little or no shoulder (Fig. 20,2-5). The range in size is from 38 mm. to 51 mm. long and 19 to 27 mm. wide. They are relatively thick (6 to 12 mm.) points, and there are seven represented from the site.

Figure 20. Stemmed Projectile Points

(1. Gary. 2-5. Unclassified)

There are no other main groupings but there were a number of points about the same size that could not be readily classified (Fig. 21;1-2). One in this group is very similar to the Hardin point (Bell, 1960; 56, pl. 28) for it is beveled, serrated, and has the correct shape but it is much smaller than the Hardin points usually are (Fig. 21;3). This is not thought to be a Hardin point but is perhaps in the same general tradition. There are two relatively large points that are somewhat similar to the Burkett points and these may have some association with the main ones from the site (Fig. 21;6). One point (Fig. 21;4) is comparable to the Motley (Bell, 1958; 62, 131) which supposedly dates between 1300 and 200 B.C. A projectile point similar in type to Snyder (Fig. 21;5) was missing from the collections when they were restudied. Another point (Fig. 21;7) compares very favorably with the Uvalde (Bell, 1960; 92, p. 146), which supposedly dates somewhere between 4000 and 1000 B.C.

It is very probable that some of the early points were picked up by the people making the sand tempered pottery. For that matter they may have been picked up by the later occupants, the Mississippi people. Certainly, it is felt that these cannot be used for dating the early occupation on the site. There is no assurance, for example, that the site was not used by people earlier than the time of the sand tempered pottery. There is no evidence from stratification or superposition from the excavations, that indicated more than two occupations of the site.

The points that did not seem to have like members present were placed in a general unclassified category and some of these have been illustrated in case they might have some significance that would aid in placing the early or the late components on the site.

Other Chipped Stone Artifacts

Chipped stone tools were relatively uncommon at Lawhorn and are typified in Figure 22. Number 1 and 2 are unifacial thumb nail scrapers. Number 3 is a reworked projectile point while numbers 4 and 5, are fine pointed drills or scrapers. Number 6 is a graver.

One large tool showed a good work polish and also indications that it had been resharpened (Fig. 22;7). It was 7 cm. wide and 15.5 cm. long. There were several flint fragments showing a high degree of work polish which came from similar type tools.

Two chipped and polished celts were found. One of these was 3 cm. wide in the center and 2.4 cm. at the bit. It was 7.5 cm. long but broken so that the true length could only be estimated at perhaps 10 cm. This was a chisel type of tool. The second specimen was made by removing large flakes over two faces to give a crude hand axe type of specimen 8 cm. × 4.5 cm. × 2 cm. thick. Work polish was evident on the highest portions of the surface.

Mortars and Pestles

There were five sandstone mortars found on this site, two of which were surface finds and which measured respectively (1) 15 cm. in diameter, 6.5 thick with a central depression of 1.5 cm. and (2) 7.5 cm. × 13 cm. × 6 cm. thick. The latter was utilized on both surfaces. The first of these two specimens, made of red sandstone, was the best of the mortars from this site (Fig. 23;2).

Figure 21. Projectile Points

(1-2. Unclassified. 3. Hardin-like. 4. Motley. 5. Snyders Notched. 6. Burkett-like. 7. Uvalde)

Figure 22. Chipped Stone Tools

(1-2. Thumbnail end scrapers. 3. Reworked projectile point scraper. 4-5. Drills. 6. Graver. 7. Adz)

Associated with house 1 and located near the fire-basin were two mortars. One of these was 20 × 15 × 8 cm. and had a central depression of 2 cm. The reverse side was used as a whetstone. The other mortar was much smaller, measuring 9 × 13 × 4.5 cm., basin shaped on one side and bearing use marks of a crude pestle on the other. Associated with these two mortars were six stones showing wear as crude unmodified stone pestles (Fig. 23;1). Feature 12, a fire basin, also had a mortar and pestle association. A small mortar 8 × 10 × 5 cm. had five stone pestles with it. Four of these stones showed considerable wear while the fifth was not used.

All of these mortars and pestles were basically unmodified field stones or river pebbles which gradually received some alteration of shape through use.

Stone Abraders and Whetstones

There were nine abraders, two of which are of particular interest. One showed heavy use as an abrader on one side and three edges. Much of this use was as a sharpener for small pointed objects. The other side, while showing use as an abrader, was also cupped for grinding purposes. Over much of the surface, powdered yellow ochre had become impregnated into the porous sandstone. Another specimen showed long wide grooves on two surfaces while another had been ground flat. This portion of the stone was heavily impregnated with red ochre. The other abrading stones were unmodified pieces except for the miscellaneous grooves resulting from use (Fig. 24;1, top).

Four asymmetrical whetstones were found in the general midden. These were about 5 × 8 cm. by 1.5 cm. One of these was bitted at one end much like a celt. Their use as whetstones was rather obvious (Fig. 24;1, bottom).

Pottery and Clay Abraders

The use of potsherds for abrading is reported from the Mississippi alluvial valley area as far south as Memphis. It is a very minor trait. The occasional finds point up this usage as a stop-gap measure when a good stone abrader was not immediately available. This is a thing to be expected in the relatively stoneless alluvial valley. At the Lawhorn site 16 sherd abraders have been found. These show the same haphazard use over their surfaces as do the stone abraders. Ten of them were from Neeley’s Ferry shell tempered sherds and six were made from the sand tempered sherds. Two of the Neeley’s Ferry abraders show only the narrow pointed type of abrading groove while the other eight show the full length and width abrading slots such as might have been used for arrow shaft straightening and smoothing (Fig. 24;2, left). All of the sand tempered sherd abraders show the pointed narrow type of groove none of which are large enough to be used as shaft grinders (Fig. 24;2, right). In spite of the fact that it appears that sand tempered and shell tempered sherds represent two components with perhaps a considerable time span between them, it seems most probable that this use of sherd abraders is to be linked with the Mississippian component and that the use of the earlier sand tempered sherds by the later people was simply a convenience procedure. Two burned clay masses, of very sandy clay, were also used as abraders. These were the pointed narrow type.

Figure 23. Mortars and Pestles

Figure 24. Stone and Pottery Abraders and Stone Pipe

(1. Stone abraders, 2. Potsherd abraders, 3. Stone pipe)

Anvilstones

Two anvilstones were found on the surface, one made from limestone and the other from sandstone. Their opposing surfaces seemed to have been used as grinders or pestles. Here again, there is multiple usage of rough unmodified stones. They were seldom pecked or ground to a shape, rather they were modified through use.

Hammerstones

Seven pebble hammerstones were found in the general excavations. Most of them were either sandstone or chert and of nondescript shape ranging in size from 4 to 8 cm. in diameter. Many of the sandstone specimens showed use as grinding Stones as well as hammerstones, again pointing up the multiple tool use of pebbles. The chert pieces were not shaped, showing only the natural weathered surfaces except where they had been used.

Groundstone Celts

Six fragments of celts were found, five of which were granite and one hematite. The five granite specimens consisted of three bit ends and two poll ends and the hematite specimen was only the central shaft section. These celts were all small, probably not over 10 to 18 cm. long. The bits were about 4.8 cm. wide with thickness averaging 2.5 cm. The poll ends were somewhat narrower than the bits but not pronouncedly so.

Pipes

Only one pipe was found but it may be of considerable value for interpretation of the relationship of the site to other areas. It was picked up by Mr. Lawhorn when his plow turned over a burial. The pipe is made of stone and has a non-functional stem projection commonly seen on pipes from Spiro (Baerreis, 1957 p. 25). The bowl is quite large and at right angles to the stem (Fig. 24;3). The bowl is slightly elliptical in outline with both sides flattened on their lower portions. The bottom of the bowl and the stem projection have also been flattened while the functional portion of the stem is round in cross section. This is about ⅓ longer than the depth of the bowl. The projection is quite small. There is a crudely incised groove around the stem.

Bone and Antler Artifacts

Bone tools were of common occurrence in the general midden of the site and were also associated with house patterns 1 and 3. Six deer ulna awls and three ulna awls from small animals (Fig. 25;1); ten splinter awls (Fig. 25;4) and a single fish fin awl; a deer cannon bone beamer (Fig. 25;2) and a deer scapula hoe (Fig. 25;3) make up most of the inventory of bone tools. One deer mandible appeared to have been utilized since a dull work polish is noticeable on it. The teeth are fractured on one side as if broken off in the course of use.

Bone beads were found associated with house patterns and were made from bird bones (Fig. 26;1 bottom). One measured 1.5 cm. and another 1.3 × 1.5 cm. and a third .8 × 2.6 cm. A large bird bone had been in the process of bead manufacture (Fig. 26;1, top). The bone had been cut at each end then circled in two places with cuts that hadn’t been completed.

Antler tips were utilized for various purposes. Specimens included two barbed projectile points and one unfinished tip with a drilled base. Twelve other tips were probably flaking tools.

Brickette and Daub

Brickette and daub were so scarce that many pieces were catalogued as specimens. These present an interesting class of materials and give aid far beyond their intrinsic worth in telling the Lawhorn story. Once again this points up the value of saving everything found during the course of field work.

There is no way of knowing how much of this material has been lost as a result of erosion and the almost melting away of softer pieces in the heavy rains of the passing centuries. Slightly over 100 pieces which were eroded beyond identification were picked up during the course of excavation. They represent either daub or broken clay objects of unknown use. There were 103 pieces of daub, broken into various sizes, which had been heavily impregnated with grass. Six of these specimens show impressions of small poles which would have been from 2 to 5 cm. in diameter (Fig. 26;2). The composition of the fired material ranges from a sandy clay to a white ball clay with a heavy sand admixture. It should be noted that the natural soils of the Lawhorn site do not contain enough clay to fire into a brickette form. Consequently such brickette as was found must be the result of clays brought in from a distance.

Most specimens were rather soft and it is doubtful if they had ever been used as heating stones. Many samples show some surface smoothing as if they were portions of floors, firebasins or perhaps house walls. It is presumed that if the daub was used on house walls, the firing was accidental as the result of house burnings, that only a minor portion of such daub would survive. However, judging from the burned clay floors and fire basins found, it is evident that burned clay, as such, fired well enough to withstand the erosion of time. A higher percentage of wall daub should have been found if it had been extensively used.

Figure 25. Bone Tools

(1. Ulna awls, 2. Beamer, 3. Deer scapula hoe, 4. Splinter awls)

Figure 26. Bone Beads and Burned Clay Daub

(1. Cut bone, a step in making beads, and bone beads. 2. Daub with whole cane impressions and evidence of interweaving of canes)

There were twenty pieces of brickette flattened and smoothed in such a way as to indicate that they were probably part of house floors. They were smoothed on one side and grass impregnated on the underside and throughout the body of the specimen as the result of puddling the clay. They were made of a sandy clay and ranged in size from 2 to 4 cm. in thickness. The undersurface was irregular and showed no contact with a prepared surface such as the cane mats of wall daub specimens would leave.

There were 163 pieces of fired clay objects showing considerable use which were made of a poorly fired sandy clay. Four specimens were tempered with crushed shell while one was clay tempered. Most of the others contain some grass although many are without any apparent tempering material. Use of these specimens is undetermined. One specimen (FS 425) was a rectanguloid brickette 10 × 12.5 cm. and 2 cm. thick with a slightly rounded base (Fig. 27;3). This was found in a form fitting depression on the fired clay floor of house 3. It shows considerable wear from use, especially on the bottom. It, perhaps, was used for grinding seeds or rubbing skins. The other clay objects are of different shapes, seemingly of round cylindrical devices with flat bottoms and rounded edges. From some of the better samples they appear to be about five inches in diameter but the length or height could not be determined. They do not show any appreciable wear. There was no evidence of excessive firing and most of the specimens crumble easily. The latter may be due to the sandy clay from which they were formed. It is suggested that these were anvils or stretchers for use in skin work or other soft materials such as textiles. They certainly were an important domestic item.

There was one specimen with a central hole, apparently lengthwise, which suggests that it was suspended, perhaps as a loom weight (Fig. 27;1).

The clay objects occur in considerable numbers in all parts of the site and throughout the deposit and constitute the biggest percentage of all the brickette material from the site. In point of fact these items are not broken bits of daub, such as are so common on Mississippian sites, but are items of domestic importance in the material culture assemblage, and must be so treated in the final analysis. They are not accidental formations, such as building daub, but have been precisely formed to a pattern. While many seemed to conform to a cylindrical shape others did not. One specimen has a groove around it but its position with reference to the complete object was not apparent. One piece shows a coarse textile impression on one side and a surface well smoothed on the other. It is not a potsherd. Another piece shows the imprint of a finger apparently curled around the clay—a very small finger—probably that of a child at play. One piece looks as if it could have been a pottery trowel, but is a questionable specimen.

Two of the broken clay objects have been secondarily used as abraders for sharpening bone awls or similar pointed items. One specimen (FS 217) is the stem of a pottery trowel, a standard item of Mississippian groups. A complete modified conical object was recovered from a nearby site and is a graphic representation of another shape of these objects (Fig. 27;2).

Figure 27. Brickettes or Fired Clay Artifacts

(Brickette with central hole, 2. Semi-conical clay objects. 3. Rectanguloid clay brickette)

It should be obvious from the above that much of the burned clay material from Lawhorn is not truly daub but rather fragmentary pieces of a multitude of domestic utility objects which played an important part in the material culture of the people.

Shell Artifacts

Six beads were made from marine shell (Fig. 28;1). These were small, being from 7 to 10 mm. in diameter and 10 to 16 mm. long. One drilled mussel shell hoe or scraper was found in the general digging and this is typical of the specimens commonly found on Mississippian sites (Fig. 28;2).

Vegetal Remains

Carbonized food occurred in several instances. A few acorn hulls were found in Feature 18, a nut shell in Feature 5, both fire basin and a small number of corn cobs in the general midden excavation. The corn cobs according to Nash, seem typical of the Eastern Complex corn. They are all fragmentary but three specimens show a tapering cob. The first of these had twelve rows of kernels spaced as pairs. The cob was probably not over 6 cm. in length and had a diameter of 2 cm. some distance from the probable butt. Kernels measured about 4 mm. wide and 2 mm. thick. The second specimen had ten paired rows of kernels and was 1.6 cm. in diameter. The third specimen had been split longitudinally but indicated twelve paired rows of kernels. The cob was 1.7 cm. in diameter. The largest kernels were 5 mm. wide and 2.4 mm. thick (See Appendix B).

FEATURES

Refuse Pits

Eight refuse pits were identified during the course of excavation. The shapes varied from circular to oblong with considerable range in depth. In most instances, however, the bottoms were flat, or nearly so. The five examples of pits with a circular outline ranged from 1.2 feet to 3 feet in diameter and from 1 to 1.5 feet in depth. The three oblong pits ranged from 2.5 to 3.8 feet wide, from 4 to 5 feet long, and from 1.8 to 2.7 feet in depth. Two of the refuse pits were associated with houses—one with House 1 and the other with House 3. These will be described as associations with these houses. Feature 13, a refuse pit, was unusual in that it contained a number of broken vessels, bone awls, a drilled pottery disk and a considerable amount of animal bone and potsherds. The vessels were all jars ranging in size from small to large and were wide mouthed vessels. Most of these jars had strap handles while the two largest were decorated with crude incising on the shoulders and by a series of nodes punched from the inside, below that. A large broken vessel in one of the pits is shown in Figure 29.

Figure 28. Shell Ornaments and Tools

(1. Marine shell beads. 2. Perforated mussel shell scraper or hoe.)

Little more can be said of these pits except that they represent a method of disposal of refuse but certainly not the standard approach to this problem.

Ash Pits

There were a number of ash dumps which were always associated with fireplaces. They were present in all three of the houses excavated. One outstanding characteristic is the completeness of combustion represented by the ashes. In no instance were small charred pieces of wood found with the ash, a thing to be expected unless the fire burned under forced draft or was carefully tended. While the ash in the dumps could have been selectively collected so that only the completely burned ash was thrown out, the same would not be true of the ash found in every fireplace excavated. It is suggested that this result would be normal only if low flame charcoal fires were used and these nursed to produce the desired heat, with red hot coals being buried in the ash to slow down their combustion until such time as it was desired to rekindle a hotter fire. A further consideration would be that only this type of fire would be relatively safe inside a grass thatched house.

House 1 had three ash dumps, two of which were inside the house and in close contact with the firebasin, and one outside the house. These dumps tended to be rounded and about two feet in diameter. In depth they ranged from .6 foot in the center but tapered away to nothing at the outer edges. The single ash dump associated with house 3 was similar in all respects.

Firebasins

The firebasins at Lawhorn are quite definite and well formed of puddled clay and are good examples of those so common to Mississippian sites of the area. Rebuilding was common, with new construction leaving the remains of some portion of the old basin to one side. Often this was a half-moon shaped affair that may have continued in use. In all instances these basins were filled with a white wood ash which showed complete combustion so that there were no bits of unburned charcoal left in the ash. It may be that this bed of ash was maintained in basins at all times and was used to bury hot coals to hold the fire during periods of non-use. There were numerous specimens found near the fire basins which added to the impression of domestic hearth sites associated with whatever house forms these people had. The most notable trait was the presence of stone mortars and pestles near many of the basins. Drilled pottery disks were also commonly found nearby. Bone awls were found on one occasion.

House 1 had a fire basin two feet in diameter and without a raised rim section. It was half filled with white to reddish wood ash without any partially burned charred material left in it. The fire area in House 3 was not a puddled basin but rather a flat area on the floor where continued fire building had hardened the ground underneath. The House 2 basin was puddled but poorly made. In two of these fireplaces small broken bowls were found half buried in the ash. Another burned area was found in square 17R13 which also showed use as a hearth site. Nearby was a circular refuse pit almost flat on the bottom. Here, carbonized nut hulls were found.

Figure 29. A Large Broken Pottery Jar in a Refuse Area

In no instance were postmold patterns found in association with the firebasins at this site nor, for that matter, were any found in the entire excavation that could be thought of as forming a pattern.

Feature 12 was a puddled clay fire basin with a rim section .1 foot above the surrounding floor. The basin was circular in shape with a diameter of 1.3 feet and a depth of .3 foot. It had been dug into subsoil and so was associated with the early levels of the site. To one side were two possible postmolds while nearby was a mortar and several crude pestles. Two bone awls and a drilled pottery disk were found close to the basin. Feature 14 was a similar fire basin but it was in poor condition. It was found just above the subsoil in the square just west of feature 12 and became the center point of an extended trench excavation in an unsuccessful search for a postmold wall pattern. The basin was filled with a white wood ash. Two shell tempered sherds were found in this ash.

Feature 18, a firebasin, (Fig. 30) also built on subsoil, was of puddled clay filled completely with wood ash. This ash did not contain any specimen. There was a burned clay floor .1 foot below the rim of the firebasin but this was not very extensive and in all probability only surrounded the firebasin area. Once again, an extended trench excavation was undertaken in a search for postmolds. The subsoil was a light colored sand and such disturbances as tree roots and pits were very clear. Indeed many of these tree roots were cross sectioned in an attempt to locate postmolds. No postmolds of any description were found.

Feature 5 was a large fired area with a heap of ashes extending beyond the burned clay. The area was circular with a diameter of 1.6 feet and burned to a depth of .3 foot. Associated with this area was a charred nut, either hickory or walnut, and a thin flat stone which had been subjected to intense heat.

Feature 24 was very similar to feature 18 in that it, too, had been rebuilt and enlarged. The rebuilt basin was oval in shape being two feet long by 1.7 feet wide with an interior depth of .5 foot and a thickness of burned clay wall of .1 foot. The combined length of the basin was 3 feet with a half moon section of the original basin being all that remained of it. The original basin was about 1.6 feet in diameter. Both sections were filled with wood ash and apparently continued in use.

Feature 25 was the remaining half of a puddled clay fire basin under house 1. Whether the basin was circular or oval could not be determined due to an ash pit that had been cut through it. The basin was 1.6 feet in diameter with an interior depth of .6 foot and a clay wall thickness of .1 foot. The pit was filled with white wood ash and a few shell tempered sherds.

Figure 30. Feature 18, a Firebasin of Unusual Shape

HOUSES

The evidence for dwellings at Lawhorn rests on two burned structures, house 1 and house 3, and a fire basin and associated floor area adjacent to house 3. In the main, the evidence is as conclusive as to shape, ground plan and superstructure as is most such archaeological evidence from Mississippian sites. That no postmold patterns were discernable during the entire four years of work at Lawhorn must be taken at face value, especially when the cross sectional data from house 3 is considered.

House 1

This house was built on top of subsoil and was rectangular in shape (Fig. 31). The area of charred remains was ten feet by fifteen feet so that the house itself must have been at least that large and probably somewhat larger. Final excavation showed that no posts had been placed in the ground to support the superstructure. The charred material found on the floor indicated a house built of light poles, cane and thatch.

There was no evidence of the use of daub on either walls or roof of the building. The main support poles were about .2 foot in diameter and poles half this size were interwoven to form a widely spread lattice work. Cane was fastened on this, apparently in layers, but there was no evidence as to whether this was woven or bound into mat form. There was no split cane in evidence, only whole cane poles (Fig. 32). Apparently the entire house was covered with thatch since evidence of it was found over the whole charred area and overlying the rest of the charred material. The house did not have a fired clay floor. The floor was highly compacted, however. There was a central firebasin made of puddled clay which was two feet in diameter, six inches deep with the lip level with the floor. It was filled with a white to reddish ash. To one side of the basin was a pile of ashes in which the skeleton of an infant was found. Outside the house was a refuse pit and another ash dump. Two mortars and six crude pestles were found on the floor close to the fire basin. Bone awls, pottery disks and bone beads were found on the floor. The list of specimens found in association with this house is as follows: four drilled pottery disks, three undrilled pottery disks, two projectile points, two bone awls, three bone beads and one pottery vessel.

House 2

This house had been built on top of subsoil and apparently, it partially underlay the northern portion of house 3 (Fig. 33 and 35). No new information came to light here but the size and shape apparently agreed with that of house 1. Here, the central section of the floor was hard burned and had been puddled with a clay and grass mixture before firing. Central to this floor area was an irregular and poorly shaped fire basin which was filled with white wood ash. Partially buried in this ash was a small broken shell tempered pottery bowl (Fig. 34). A few pieces of charred logs were found lying just above the floor of this house, but, they were too small and too few to be diagnostic of superstructure. It is even possible that these few pieces were from the house three conflagration.

Figure 31. House Ground Plan Showing Charred Remains, Firebasin, Ash Dumps and Refuse Pit

Figure 32. Charred Cane Poles and Grass, Part of House 1, Overlying Pottery Sherds

Figure 33. Houses 2 and 3

(House 2 in foreground, house 3 in background)

House 3

This house was thirteen by fifteen feet as indicated by the charred remains of the superstructure (Fig. 35). Many of the poles appeared to be rafters and were about .2 foot in diameter. Interwoven between them were small poles forming a loose lattice work wall or roof (Fig. 36). Several small sections of cane matting were found near the basal ends of many poles. Typically these were of small whole cane laid at right angles to the poles. At one location there was some split cane matting but it is questionable whether this was part of the wall construction or was a portion of the house furnishings. Several of the wall poles had basal ends still in place. These basal ends were apparently resting on the surface of the ground since they originated at the same level as the house floor. The group at the southwest corner of the house were .9 foot apart. Cross sectioning vertical cuts under these posts failed to yield any evidence of postmolds or rotted out underground portions of the poles (Fig. 37). The evidence would seem to be quite clear that there were none.

There was considerable evidence of thatch throughout the burned areas although this was very fragmentary. There were several hard fired floor areas that seemed to have been made of puddled clay. The fireplace was not dug out but was simply a central area on the floor identified by the heavy burning, the concentration of ash, and a small broken bowl buried in this ash (Fig. 34). There was an ash pit to one side of the fireplace which cut down through feature 25, firebasin. There was no evidence of daub being used in the construction of the house. One internal feature of extreme interest was a log lying on the floor which had been hewn to shape (Fig. 38). This was not apparent in the field but was discovered when the specimen was brought into the lab. Careful study revealed that the top section of the log had been cut down leaving a ledge at right angles to it. The split cane matting already mentioned was found in association with this log and may well have been part of some house furnishings. Quite a number of specimens were found lying on the floor of this house including the strap handled water bottle (Fig. 15;5). Another broken vessel was beneath charred roof or wall timbers (Fig. 39). Outside the house there was a refuse pit and an infant burial. Specimens found on the floor are as follows: one whetstone, four pottery vessels, two broken celts, one projectile point, three drilled pottery disks, two bone awls, one chipped hoe, one hammerstone, one rectanguloid clay pad, one bottom of a wooden container and one antler tip.

Much of the interpretation of the house superstructure seems to be based on good solid evidence, but, even so, much is still conjectural and will remain so until more evidence is forthcoming. The absence of postmolds and the positive evidence of wall poles originating on the ground level led to the judgement that in some way the structure leaned upon itself in self support (Table 5).

Figure 34. Closeup of Pottery Vessel in House 2 Firebasin

Figure 35. Ground Plan House 2 showing Firebasin and Burned Floor Area and House 3 Showing Details of the Burned Superstructure

Figure 36. Charred Wattle Work Wall or Roof Section of House 3

Figure 37. Basal Ends of Poles along West Wall of House 3

(These poles rested on the house floor and were not sunk into the ground)

Figure 38. Cross Sectioned Log from Floor of House 3

(It appears to have been hewn to shape)

Figure 39. Broken Pottery Vessel Found Beneath Charted Wall or Roof Timbers in House 3

TABLE 5—SUMMARY OF HOUSE DATA

Traits

House 1

House 2

House 3

Fired clay floors

-

x

x

Compacted floors

x

-

-

Puddled firebasins

x

x

-

Mortar and pestles near firebasins

x

-

-

Wood ash in firebasin

x

x

x

Broken bowl in basin

-

x

x

Ash pit beside basin

x

x

x

Associated infant burial

x

-

x

(outside house)

Refuse pit outside house

x

?

x

Lack of daub

x

x

x

Pole, whole cane and thatch construction

x

?

x

No post molds

x

x

x

A hypothetical reconstruction (Fig. 40) is an ‘A’ frame building that makes use of all the archaeological data found here. Other forms might as easily be conceived including prefabrication of wall sections which could then be bound at the corners and braced outside against any roof thrust. There is no doubt that these dwellings were made of poles, cane and thatch and that these materials were assembled in such a way as to give strength and some degree of permanency to the house.

BURIALS

The human skeletal material and the field notes concerning the burials were turned over to Charles Nash, Tennessee State Parks Archaeologist, for study and interpretation. The result of his study has been included as Appendix C. Figures 41 through 45 have been included here to illustrate the burial types at the Lawhorn site.

Figure 40. Drawing Showing Hypothetical Reconstruction of the House Type at the Lawhorn Site

Figure 41. Burials 21 and 22 on the Bank of the Diversion Ditch

Figure 42. Burial 25 and Associated Pottery Bowl

(Mud can be seen at the lower edge of the picture)

Figure 43. Burial 36 Showing the Usual Supine, Extended Position of Burials at the Lawhorn Site

(Note that the lower legs are crossed, an unusual position)

Figure 44. Soil Profiles above and near Burial 36

Figure 45. Pottery Bowl Inverted Over the Shoulder of Burial 37

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The location of the Lawhorn site is in the St. Francis River valley in an area that has had little archaeological investigation. Using the subdivision of the Alluvial Valley (Phillips, et. al., 1951, Fig. 1) the Lawhorn site comes within the Malden Plain, and lies between Crowley’s Ridge and the Little River Lowland. The Cairo Lowland lies to the north and east and is separated from the Malden Plain by the Morehouse Lowland. All except the Morehouse Lowland were described, at least in part, by Williams (1956). The Malden Plain area is less well known than the other areas described by Williams. To the south of the Malden Plain is the Lower St. Francis Basis which was discussed by Griffin in Archaeology of Eastern United States (1952).

The site is relatively small and seemed to have no more than two components represented. The materials that were obtained from the site in the preliminary testing did appear to be somewhat unusual yet not intrusive in the St. Francis valley area. One reason that the site was picked for excavation is that it is relatively small in size making it possible for more aspects of the site to be investigated within a relatively short time. The excavation of the site was, in part, an experiment to determine whether or not a group of serious amateur archaeologists could produce information that would be of value to the field of archaeology and professional and amateur archaeologists alike on the necessary basis of working on weekends and during vacation time. There were no funds for the excavation other than those provided by the group of men interested in carrying out this experiment, and, as is usual in such endeavors, though many worked on the project, a small nucleus of four did most of the work. There were 8 to 10 persons who worked as much as a year on the project. In spite of the changing crews and the difficulties under which the different groups worked, a rather full sample of the entire site was obtained. The total time spent covered a period of four years in the field and two years of laboratory work. The work from start to finish was under the direction of one individual, the writer, and thus there was always an organization and a continuity to it.

The methodology followed in the excavation is that of accepted hand methods of archaeology (Fig. 46) controlled by making a map of the site and excavating within a grid system and with depths provided by a farmer’s level transit. All notes and excavation procedures were checked with professional archaeologists and when some new problem arose a professional archaeologist was contacted for advise or consultation before the excavations progressed further. Since time was always at a premium this consultation was many times by telephone and quite often several long distance phone calls were necessary before some phase of the work could be carried to a conclusion. Furthermore, the site was ninety miles from the base station of those working on the project which meant a round tip of 180 miles on each weekend or other excursion to the site.

Figure 46. Cutting a Horizontal Profile in Square 27R32, Showing Use of Hand Tools

The analysis and interpretation of the materials excavated pointed up the necessity of obtaining many notes and saving all material from the site. Part of the analysis was done prior to the finish of the excavation and this was helpful in gaining fuller information from some of the later parts of the excavation. Most of the analysis was done at the Chucalissa State Park Museum, Memphis, Tennessee, through the courtesy of the museum director, Charles Nash.

The site covered approximately four acres and the portions excavated included the village living area with house sites, a plaza area, and cemetery area. What was considered to be a fair sample was obtained from all of these areas. Incidental to this sample was the sampling of the earlier component since all excavations were carried to sterile subsoil.

In the analysis most of the time was spent on the pottery since it seemed probable that the pottery was the most diagnostic in determining the cultural position and the time of the site. It was broadly apparent from the beginning of analysis that the pottery represented two distinct traditions. The greatest part of it was the standard shell tempered pottery of the area, Neeley’s Ferry Plain with a small percentage of decorated types on the Neeley’s Ferry Plain base. The secondary type was a sand tempered ware that was plain, cord marked and textile marked. The sand tempered ware was representative of the early component on the site and was of a type that has not been named for this particular part of the lower Mississippi valley.

The sand tempered pottery had some variety and was divided upon the basis of the size of the cord markings as well as the textile markings. Only a small percentage was plain. Seemingly associated with the sand tempered pottery was a lithic complex that has not been described elsewhere. The prominent projectile point or dart point type that appeared to be associated was less than 2½ inches in length and was relatively thick. It had little or no shoulders and was approximately twice as long as wide. There were no diagnostic points that were associated definitely with this component but it is possible that the one Motley point found on the site gives an indication of the time period of the component. The Motley points supposedly date between 1300 and 200 B.C. A Uvalde point was also found on the site but there is no assurance that this was not an accidental inclusion in the site. Four Gary points were also found but it is just as possible that these may have been associated with the later component on the site.

There were no features that could be definitely related to the early component and it was necessary to separate the early component primarily upon typology and secondarily upon superposition. One reason for this was the fact that the site itself is on a very sandy bench of land and it seems probable that the evidence of the early occupation was shifted and many were exposed at the time the later occupation took place causing a certain amount of mixing in the deposits. Furthermore, earthquake activity had disturbed the deposits (Fig. 47). The old surface that the site lies on is the A1 surface of the Ohio according to Fisk (1944 Plate 15 sheet 1).

Figure 47. Vertical and Horizontal Profiles Showing the Intrusion of Sand into Cracks in the Soil, Judged to be caused by Earthquake Activity

The sand tempered pottery is very similar to the Barnes series that has been named in the Cairo Lowland area (Williams 1956). The ware also fits the description of the Thomas Plain, Blue Lakes cord marked and Twin Lakes fabric impressed (Phillips, et. al., 1951). It was decided not to utilize the names of the types from either area since the descriptions were not sufficient for it to be certain that the cord marked series here could be equated with either the lower alluvial valley types or the Cairo Lowland area. It does seem relatively certain, however, that the early component on the site is representative of a period that may have preceded the Baytown or Middle Woodland period or which may have been contemporaneous with it. It is of interest that no Baytown Pottery occurred on the site. The fact that Baytown pottery occurs in some profusion on sites in the surrounding area might indicate that the early component on the Lawhorn site is earlier than Baytown and that the site was never utilized during the Baytown or Middle Woodland period.

It is possible that the sand tempered wares represented in the early component on the site are a middle Woodland type and the evidence for this is the fact that the Cairo Lowland area to the north, Williams (1956, in his table 2, page 32) places Barnes Ridge where the Barnes Series of Sand tempered types occur after Burkett and Hoecake and prior to Black Bayou. This places it in a Middle Woodland position. Furthermore on page 29 in Williams Table I he places the Barnes Ridge component at LaPlant after the Hoecake. The Hoecake equates with Woodland. Barnes Ridge, in his Table 3 page 38, is noted as Middle Baytown. This would equate with Middle Woodland in the central Mississippi valley.

If the situation here in the Malden Plain area is similar to that in the Cairo Lowland and the sequence that Williams has suggested is correct, this would explain why no clay tempered Baytown material occurred on the site for this would be a component of the Middle Baytown period and would be preceded and perhaps followed by the clay tempered Baytown series.

The late component on the site, or the Mississippian component, is not easily placed in either its cultural position or the time period in which it existed. The pottery is rather distinctive and is wholly a Neeley’s Ferry Plain and a few associated decorated types. The Neeley’s Ferry Plain vessel shapes consist of water bottles of two types, the long necked and the short necked and an unusual amphora water bottle; plates with undifferentiated rims and undecorated with the exception of red filming; shallow bowls; moderately deep, straight sided bowls; and deep bowls both straight sided and those with an incurvate side similar to some of the Caddo wares; and a usual jar form with strap handles and relatively low rim. A few of the jars are decorated and the most prominent decorated type is Wallace Incised or something very similar. Another minor decorated type is Matthews Incised and there are sherds of incised decoration which were not classified. These may possibly be Barton or Kent Incised but the number of sherds having the decoration on them and their small size was such that it was not considered desirable to try to classify them. Painted wares were all under the general term Avenue Painted and consisted of Old Town Red, Carson Red on Buff and at least one sherd of Nodena Red and White.

The water bottles had a sub-globular shape in most instances and had a fillet around the base of the neck. They either had a flat base or an annular ring base that was perforated. The shape in general compared favorably with other vessels from the general St. Francis River area and to some extent with water bottles from the Caddoan area to the southwest. The steep sided bowls and the one incurvate sided bowl are similar to some of the Caddo shapes but these shapes in the Caddo area are associated with engraved wares and are upon much different paste.

The appendages on the vessels, both effigies and lugs and handles are of aid in determining the relationship of the site to other areas. The handles were perhaps the best guide since they seem to be copies of the typical handles at Crosno, at Kinkaid and in the general lower Ohio River valley. The handles have nodes at the top and in some instances have a groove down the center or have two raised ridges on either side of the strap handle. The strap handle is the most prominent on the site although a very few loop handles do occur.

Judging from the pottery, the site is typically St. Francis River Mississippian of the late B period (Phillips, et. al., 1951), and it has some slight relationship to the Cairo Lowland area to the north and to the Lower White River Basin to the south. Both of these relationships might be expected due to the physical or geographical location of the site between the two areas.

The other more diagnostic artifacts that were used in determining the relationship of the Lawhorn site to surrounding areas were the projectile points. The typical projectile point type is a small corner notched arrowhead which has been named the Scallorn point in Oklahoma and Texas and is supposed to date between 700 and 1500 A.D. It is also very similar to the Table Rock Corner Notched arrowhead in southwestern Missouri on the White River which is associated with a Shell tempered pottery complex—the latest occupation in the area. Furthermore, the arrowhead appears to be rather similar to the corner notched arrowheads associated with the Matthews site and with the Mississippi cultures in the Cairo Lowland area. Other important arrowhead types that might aid in the association of the site elsewhere is the Bonham point which supposedly dates between 800 and 1200 A.D. and which is found in the Caddo area to the southwest. This point occurs only about a third as frequently as the Scallorn point which seems to be similar to the relationship expressed by the pottery from the site. Also occurring are triangular points that are similar to the rough, ovoid triangular points found at the Campbell site in the Little River Lowland of the Memphis cultural sub-area, and to the triangular points that are common on Mississippi sites throughout the central Mississippi Valley. One of these triangular points, the Fresno, is supposed to date from 800 or 900 to 1600 A.D. Another, the Maude point, is noted to date from 1200 to 1500 A.D. These dates compare favorably with those for the ovoid points, the Young, which date from 1200 to 1500 A.D. and the Catan, which dates from 500 to 1800 A.D. Another triangular point that may be important is one that can be classified readily as a Fort Ancient point and dates from 1200 to 1600 A.D. All of these points tend to run through the period 1200 to 1500 A.D., which is the general period that was considered probable as the date of the site by analysis and interpretation of the pottery. Therefore, the projectile point types from the Late component appeared to verify the dating of the site in the latter part of the B period as it has been established in the lower alluvial valley by Phillips, Ford and Griffin (1951).

There are other items that are associated with the complex that might aid in establishing its position and its relationship elsewhere. The one pipe hints at relationships toward the Caddo area for it is similar to those found at Spiro. The thumbnail scraper is similar to the ones found on the Campbell site and other late sites in the Mississippi Valley, but the small number of these suggest an earlier time period. These miscellaneous items strengthen, rather than weaken the conclusions drawn from the pottery and projectile points.

It is premature to suggest the sequence in this Malden Plain area of the St. Francis River basin, but it might be helpful to present the sequence here that will show the position of the Lawhorn components to the probable sequence of the general area. The Southeast Missouri Area Chronology Chart of Williams (1956, p. 38, Table 3) has been used, and the probable position of the Lawhorn components are indicated and underlined. The sequence is Williams (1956, Table 3) with the addition of the underlined items.

SOUTHEAST MISSOURI AREA CHRONOLOGY

Historic (Shawnee and Delaware)

Late Mississippi (Nodena)

Middle Mississippi (Cairo Lowland)

Lawhorn Mississippian Component

Early Mississippi (Malden Plain)

Late Baytown (Black Bayou)

Middle Baytown (Barnes Ridge)

Lawhorn Sand Tempered Component

Early Baytown (Hoecake)

Tchula (Burkett and Pascola)

Pre-Ceramic (O’Bryan Ridge)

Dalton

Early Hunters (Fluted Points)

It was not expected that the information contained here is the final answer to the story of the Lawhorn site or more than a start to finding out about the people who lived in the Malden Plain area of the St. Francis valley. It is hoped that this information will be at least a base from which others can work and that it adds enough new information that it will stimulate more people to do similar jobs within this area and surrounding areas.

During the final stages of editing, three radio-carbon dates were received from the University of Michigan Memorial—Phoenix Project Radio Carbon Laboratory, H. R. Crane, Director. As these are of interest with regard to Lawhorn and, no doubt, to persons with commitments in that area, the dates are given below.

M-1156 Lawhorn site General Midden 625±150 Charred log (F. S. 78). General Midden west of drainage ditch. Collected by John Moselage, March, 1957.

M-1157 Lawhorn Site House 3 375±150 Charred Pole, possibly oak (F. S. 408) from floor of house 3. Collected March, 1960, by John Moselage.

M-1158 Lawhorn Site House 1 750±150 Charred pole, possibly oak (F. S. 518) from floor of House 1. Collected December, 1957, by John Moselage.

APPENDIX A

IDENTIFICATION OF THE FAUNAL REMAINS FROM THE LAWHORN SITE

by

Paul W. Parmalee

Curator of Zoology

Illinois State Museum, Springfield

Bone

Mammals

White-tailed deer, Odocoileus virginianus

393

Raccoon, Procyon lotor

42

Cottontail, Sylvilagus floridanus

15

Canid, probably dog, Canis familiaris

14

Man, Homo sapiens

10

Beaver, Cantor canadensis

10

Mink, Mustela vison

7

Muskrat, Ondatra zibethicus

9

Swamp Rabbit, Sylvilagus aquaticus

4

Gray squirrel, Sciurus carolinensis

5

Opossum, Didelphis marsupialis

3

Bobcat, Lynx rufus

1

Striped skunk, Mephitis mephitis

1

Fox Squirrel, Sciurus niger

1

Gray Fox, Urocyon cinereoargenteus

1

Marsh Rice Rat, Oryzomys palustris

1

Birds

Turkey, Meleagris gallopavo

14

Mallard, Anas platyrhynchos and/or Black Duck Anas rubripes

6

Duck, spp;

5

Prairie Chicken, Tympanuchus cupido (probably)

5

Canada Goose, Branta canadensis (probably)

3

King Rail, Rallus elegans

1

Wood Duck, Aix sponsa

1

Ring-necked Duck, Aythya collaris, or lesser Scaup, Aythya affinis

1

Turtles

Box Turtle, Terrapene sp.

50

Turtle, Pseudemys, Chrysesemys, Graptemys group

34

Turtle spp.

14

Pond Terrapin, Pseudemys sp.

24

Soft-shelled Turtle, Trionyx sp.

4

Snapping Turtle, Chelydra serpentina

4

Fishes

Bowfin, Amia calva

25

Gar, Lepisosteus sp.

6

Fresh-water Drum, Aplodinotus grunniens

3

Northern Pike, Esox lucius

2

Catfish, Ictalurus sp.

6

Sunfish, Bluegill group, Centrarchidae

2

Unidentifiable large mammal bone fragments, most probably deer

1,126

Unidentifiable bird bone fragments

30

Unidentifiable fish bone fragments

14

Shell

Mussels

Amblema cf. costata, Three ridge

80

Actinonaias carinata, Mucket

8

Elliptio dilatatus, Spike

4

Plectomerus dombryanum, Bank crawler

4

Lampsilis ventricosa (or l. ovata) Pocketbook

3

Ligumia recta, Black sand shell

2

Pleurobema cordatum, Small Niggerhead

1

Plagiola lineolata, Butterfly

1

Obliquaria reflexa, Three-horned Warty-back

1

Tritogonia verrucosa, Buckhorn

1

Elliptio crassidens, Elephant’s Ear

1

Quadrula quadrula, Maple-leaf

1

Snails

Campeloma sp.

2

APPENDIX B

ANALYSIS OF VEGETAL REMAINS FROM LAWHORN SITE

by

Leonard W. Blake

St. Louis, Missouri

There is always a possibility that any sample, particularly a small one, may not be fully representative. The collection from the Lawhorn site consists of fragments of seven cobs, all either 10 or 12 rowed. Three of the cobs have cupule widths ranging from 7.7 to 8.6 mm. It differs from a larger sample from the Banks site, which is in nearby Crittenden County and which may have been occupied at about the same time (Table 6), in having a higher mean row number and greater median cupule width. Corn from both these sites shows evidence of a mixture with low rowed varieties to a lesser extent than that from the other sites shown in Table 6, except that from Mound 34 at Cahokia, which is presumably earlier (Table 7).

Previous work on corn from the Northern Mississippi Valley indicates that row number tended to decrease and cupule width to increase in that area in time in the protohistoric and historic periods. This has been interpreted as being the result of an increasing mixture of predominantly 8 rowed Northern Flint with wide cupules with earlier 14 rowed Tropical Flints slightly modified by possible traces of Mexican Pyramidal Dent. It is reasonable to expect that the proportion of the hardier Northern Flints would increase more rapidly in the Northern part of the valley than in the Southern, particularly, if there was a minor climatic cooling trend in the period of about 1200-1700 A.D., as Griffin (1960, p. 27) has suggested.

Northern Flint was present in the Southeast as well as in the North before European settlement. Brown and Anderson (1947, pp. 8-13) found Northern Flint in collections of corn from archaeological sites in Northeastern Alabama, Eastern Tennessee, South Carolina and Georgia as well as in greater concentrations in Western New York and the Upper Ohio Valley. Actually, a lot of corn at the Missouri Botanical Garden from a Georgia site poses some of the same problems as that from Lawhorn. Mean row number is just under 11 and there are no 14 rowed ears. Cupule width of all but a few of the cobs ranges from 7 to 11 mm. with a median of 9 mm. It is suspected that the wide cupules on the three Lawhorn cobs might be attributed to diffusion of Northern Flint from the Southeast as readily as from the North, possibly in diluted form. In the case of the Banks site, Cutler and Blake (1961) suggested that the influence of Northern Flint may have reached there in the form of a mixture rather than directly or, alternatively, that low row numbered corn may have entered from the Southwest where 8 and 10 rowed corn was dominant after 700 A.D.

TABLE 6—COMPARATIVE ANALYSES OF CORN FROM LAWHORN AND FOUR AREA SITES

Row No. % total Cobs

Median (in mm.)

Site

No. Cobs

8

10

12

14

16

Mean Row No.

K. Th.

C.W.[1]

Lawhorn

7

—

28.6

71.4

—

—

11.4

3.3

6.8

Banks

51

3.9

47.1

43.1

5.9

—

11.0

3.3

5.4

Mound 34

27

7.4

18.5

48.2

22.2

3.7

11.9

3.6

6.4

Crosno

16

31.3

43.7

25.0

—

—

9.9

3.4

7.0

Plum Island

17

35.3

29.4

35.3

—

—

10.0

3.8

7.4

[1]K. Th. = Kernel Thickness

C.W. = Cupule Width, a measure of the cob cavity in which a pair of grains is borne.

TABLE 7—COMPARATIVE DATES FROM LAWHORN AND FOUR AREA SITES

Site

Location

Estimated Date

Lawhorn

Craighead Co., Ark.

On Channel B, 1550 A.D. Plus. (Phillips et al., 1951, p. 304)

Banks

Crittenden Co., Ark.

C14, 1535 A.D. ± 150 years. (Letter G. Perino, Oct. 27, 1959)

Crosno

Mississippi Co., Mo.

Middle Mississippi. (Date?)

Mound 34

Madison Co., Ill.

Submound pit, C14, 700-900 B.P. ± 300 years. (Griffin, 1952, p. 367)

Plum Island

LaSalle Co., Ill.

Protohistoric

(11LS2)

Circa 1600-1650 A.D.

APPENDIX C

BURIALS AT THE LAWHORN SITE

by

Charles H. Nash

Memphis, Tennessee

The 35 burials from which we can get some data concerning sex and age groups seem to represent a relatively homogeneous group. Over half of the 26 adult burials were either too fragmentary for any further determination or the bone was not recovered during the course of excavation. In such instances, age group associations were made in the field. Burial determinations in Tables 8-11 were made in the laboratory.

Of the 35 burials, twelve, or 34% had grave goods which included, in all cases, pottery vessels. Two burials had single beads with them but these were probably items of dress and not mortuary offerings. The only other object found was a questionable association of a flint drill. There were only three burials, 9%, which had more than one vessel in association and, of these, one had two bowls, another had a bottle and a bowl and the third had a bottle, a bowl and a small jar. Twenty three, or 66%, of the burials had no grave goods with them. The pottery vessels were divided about evenly between bottles and bowls.

There were fourteen adult burials from which closer age criteria were available.

The two females in their early twenties were not representative of the burial customs of these people, being in fact depositions of scattered bone showing little or no orientation and obviously not articulated. The crushing of the bone was probably due to earth moving machinery of recent years, but the general broken nature of the bones may more likely be the work of the Indians themselves. These bones appeared to have been laid on the ground and then covered over and it would seem that both had been interred at the same time. Both individuals show heavy charring of the bone; in one instance the feet were intensely charred with the rest of the bone showing progressively less toward the skull and the skull showing none. The most intense heat was obviously at the feet. The hands and lower arms also show heavy charring. The other individual was more generally charred but once again little or no burning appeared around the skull. These burials were not cremated at the spot at which they were found since there was no evidence of a heavy fire there. It must be assumed that the burning occurred elsewhere and that after further mutilation the bones were finally interred at this place. It is difficult not to conclude that these young ladies were victims of tribal displeasure.

Insufficient skeletal material has been recovered and is in too fragmentary condition to yield a great deal of information. It might be well to mention at this point that ‘week end’ archaeology is hard put to produce a satisfactory record of this type of material. The days’ activities of locating and staking a square, preliminary excavation and organization take up so much time that once a skeleton is located there is insufficient time to uncover it properly, record it and remove the bones with minimum damage. Even if the material is in good condition it is hard to do an adequate job in one day; if the bone is in a poor state of preservation the job becomes much more complicated. The specimens come easy but to clean, photograph, record and remove skeletal material will almost always require a second day. The thought comes to mind that with proper preparation much could be removed encased in protective materials for further processing at home thereby speeding up the process in the field. There are a number of ways this can be done, from using plaster impregnated burlap over the entire burial to wrapping bones in crumpled newspaper with much of the surrounding earth still in place and carefully placing in cartons large enough to hold them freely. Transportation must be handled with equal care. Much important information concerning the people themselves, their diet and health can be learned from skeletal material and no amateur “week end” archaeologist should feel free to ignore this class of data or throw it away.

This sampling of skeletons is perhaps ample to give a general picture of the burial customs of these people. The universal position was supine and apparently laid out on top of the ground or in a shallow scooped out grave no deeper than the body itself. This then was presumably covered with a mound of earth and possibly marked by logs until decay had once again leveled the ground. There was no evidence of the use of pits. Grave goods, when present, were always pottery vessels presumably containing food and water for the departed. These were placed at the head. There was little or no evidence of clothing or decoration other than the two beads mentioned before.

This burial complex is more like the extended burials of the Walls focus to the south than other comparable groups. Even the use of bottles and bowls together is suggestive. The almost total absence of grave goods other than pottery and the positioning around the head is again a Walls trait, as is the complete absence of other grave goods with many burials. This is the major evidence of Walls focus traits among the Lawhorn folk and even here the bottle form is at quite some variance.

TABLE 8—BURIAL DATA

Burial

Number

Age

Sex

Position

Condition and Completeness

Grave Goods

6

adult

?

?

frag. and poor

none

7

9-12 yr

child

ext. on back

poor—legs missing

small bowl, bone bead

8

35-40

male

ext. on back

lower legs missing

none

9

8-9 yr

child

ext. on back

lower legs missing—poor

none

10

25-30 yr

female

ext. on back

disturbed but complete

none

11

-6 yr

child

ext. on back

hands and feet missing—poor

none

12

25-30 yr

female

ext. on back

both legs missing—poor

two bowls

13

-2 yr

infant

on back

incomplete

none

14

adult

?

ext. on back

all above pelvis missing

none

15

adult

?

ext. on back

complete—poor

bottle

16

adult

?

ext. on back

complete—very poor

none

17

plus 50

male

ext. on back

poor complete

bottle and bowl

18

adult

?

ext. on back

fragmentary

none

19

adult

?

ext. on back

fragmentary

none

20

?

?

?

very frag. disturbed

none

21

adult

?

ext. on back

crushed by machinery

bottle

22

adult

?

ext. on back

completely crushed

bowl

23

plus 30

female

ext. on back

no hands or feet—disturbed

bottle and shell bead

24

plus 30

male

ext. on back

no feet present

flint drill, bottle jar, bowl

25

adult

?

ext. on back

complete

bowl

26

pre-natal

infant

?

none

27

28

25-30 yr

male

29

3 yr

child

30

31

pre-natal

infant

in a firebasin

32

35 yr plus

male

ext. on back

complete but crushed

none

33

35-40

male

ext. on back

pathological suture closure only squamous open

bowl

34

25-30 yr

male

ext. on back

complete but poor condition

bottle

35

adult

?

?

only an arm present

bottle

36

plus 60

male

ext. on back

complete—all sutures closed—no upper teeth—no lower molars

none

37

adult

?

?

not worked out

shallow bowl

38

plus 20

female

scattered bone

burned bone—heaviest at feet—none on skull

none

39

plus 20

female

scattered bone

some placement of long bones?

burned bone—deep charring general over body—not on skull

none

40

plus 50

male

?

?

41-42

pre-natal

infants

bundled

complete—42 covered with a sherd

none

TABLE 9—AGE AND SEX GROUPS

35 Burials

Total Percent

Male

Female

Indeterminate

2-6 yr

Infant

Pre-natal

Adults

74

22

14

37

Children

11

5.5

5.5

Infants

14

3

11

TABLE 10—MORTUARY VESSELS

Bottles

Bowls

Jars

Total

Adult Male

4

4

1

9

Adult Female

1

2

3

Adult Indet.

2

2

4

Children

1

1

Infants

0

Totals

7

9

1

17

TABLE 11—AVERAGE AGE OF FOURTEEN BURIALS

Age Group

Percentage

Male

Female

Total

Remarks

20 yr

14

0

2

2

See discussion

25-30 yr

29

2

2

4

30-35 yr

14

1

1

2

35-40

21

3

3

40-46

0

0

50 plus

21

3

3

Totals

9

5

14

REFERENCES CITED

BAERREIS, DAVID A.

1957 The Southern Cult and the Spiro Ceremonial Complex. Bulletin of the Oklahoma Anthropological Society. Vol. III.

BELL, ROBERT E.

1958 Guide to the Identification of Certain American Indian Projectile Points. Special Bulletin No. 1 Oklahoma Anthropological Society.

BRAY, ROBERT T.

1956 The Culture Complexes and Sequence at the Rice Site (23SN200) Stone County, Missouri. The Missouri Archaeologist, Vol. 18, nos. 1-2.

BROWN, WILLIAM L., and ANDERSON, EDGAR

1947 The Northern Flint Corns. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden, Vol. 34, No. 1.

CUTLER, HUGH C., and BLAKE, LEONARD W.

1961 Corn from the Banks Site, Crittenden County, Arkansas. (ms)

EVERS, EDWARD

1880 Ancient Pottery of Southeastern Missouri Contributions to the Archaeology of Missouri. Archaeological sections of the St. Louis Academy of Science, part 1, pp. 21-30.

FISK, HAROLD N.

1944 Geological Investigations of the Alluvial Valley of the Lower Mississippi River. Washington, D. C.

FORD, JAMES, A., and CLARENCE WEBB

1956 Poverty Point, A Late Archaic Site in Louisiana. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History, Vol. 46, No. 1, New York.

FORD, JAMES A., PHILLIP PHILLIPS and WILLIAM G. HAAG

1955 The Jaketown Site in West Central Mississippi. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History, Vol. 45, No. 1, New York.

GRIFFIN, JAMES B.

1952 Prehistoric Cultures of the Central Mississippi Valley, in Archeology of the Eastern United States, University of Chicago Press.

GRIFFIN, JAMES B.

1960 Climatic Change: A Contributory Cause of the Growth and Decline of Northern Hopewell Culture. Wisconsin Archaeologist, Vol. 41, no. 2.

GRIFFIN, JAMES B.

nd. Prehistoric Pottery of the Eastern United States, mimeographed, Ann Arbor.

HUMPHRIES, CECIL C.

1960 The Formation of Reelfoot Lake and Consequent Land and Social Problems. The West Tennessee Historical Society, Papers, Vol. XIV.

MARSHALL, RICHARD A.

1958 The Use of Table Rock Reservoir Projectile Points in the Delineation of Culture Complexes and Their Distribution, M.A. Thesis, University of Missouri.

PHILLIPS, PHILIP, JAMES A. FORD, and JAMES B. GRIFFIN

1951 Archaeological Survey in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley 1940-1947. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. XXV.

SUHM, DEE ANN

1954 An Introductory Handbook of Texas Archaeology, Vol. 25. The Texas Archaeological Society.

WALKER, WINSLOW and ROBERT McCORMICK ADAMS

1946 Excavations in the Mathews Site, New Madrid County, Missouri. Transactions of the Academy of Science of St. Louis, Vol. XXXI No. 4.

WEBB, CLARENCE H.

1959 The Belcher Mound. American Antiquity, Vol. XXIV, No. 4, Part 2.

WILLIAMS, STEPHEN

1956 An Archaeological Study of Mississippi Cultures in Southeast Missouri. Ph.D. Dissertation, Harvard.

FIGURE 48.

Missouri Archaeological Society

Achievement Award—1960

Be it known to all whom these presents come that

FRANCIS L. STUBBS

in recognition of his sustained and active interest in the preservation of archaeological materials; for his very active participation in the survey, excavation, and exhibit work of the Society; for his many contributions to public information and education through work with the News Letter and by lectures; and for his help in Society business matters—is hereby accorded the award of and is designated Man of the Year 1960 of the Missouri Archaeological Society.

Respectfully submitted by the Awards Committee

Virginia Watson, Charles R. Steen, Waldo R. Wedel, Chairman

In the name of the Society this certificate is awarded and Francis L. Stubbs is designated Man of the Year 1960 and his name is inscribed on the Achievement Plaque displayed in the Museum of Anthropology of the University of Missouri.

Attested by

Henry W. Hamilton

Richard A. Marshall

President

Secretary-Treasurer

Figure 49. Francis Stubbs, Achievement Award Recipient, 1960.

Figure 50.

Missouri Archaeological Society

Achievement Award—1961

Be it known to all whom these presents come that

HARRY and FLORENCE COLLINS

in recognition of their active participation in the preservation of archaeological sites and materials; for their outstanding interest in and support of archaeological salvage work; for their very active role in the State Fair exhibits of the Society and in other public relations work; and for their sustained efforts toward public enlightenment and education through talks to various clubs, societies, and other local groups—are hereby accorded the award of and designated Man of the Year 1961 of the Missouri Archaeological Society.

Respectfully submitted by the Awards Committee

Virginia Watson, Charlie R. Steen, Waldo R. Wedel, Chairman

In the name of the Society this certificate is awarded and Harry and Florence Collins are designated collectively, Man of the Year 1961 and their names are inscribed on the Achievement Plaque displayed in the Museum of Anthropology of the University of Missouri.

Attested by

Henry W. Hamilton

Richard A. Marshall

President

Secretary-Treasurer

Figure 51. Mr. and Mrs. Harry Collins, Achievement Award Recipient, 1961

Figure 52. Sam C. Irvine, Award Plaque Recipient, 1961

To SAM C. IRVINE

In recognition of his 25 years of consistent help to the study of the archaeology of Missouri, in survey, excavation, and public relations.

October 28, 1962

Transcriber’s Notes

- Silently corrected a few typos.

- Retained publication information from the printed edition: this eBook is public-domain in the country of publication.

- In the text versions only, text in italics is delimited by _underscores_.

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE LAWHORN SITE ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works provided that:

- • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”

- • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.

- • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.

- • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™

Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.

Table of Contents

THE MISSOURI ARCHAEOLOGIST

SOCIETY OFFICERS

TRUSTEES

PRESERVATION OF SITES COMMITTEE

FRONTISPIECE

PREFACE by Carl H. Chapman

CONTENTS

ILLUSTRATIONS

THE LAWHORN SITE

FOREWORD

LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

GEOLOGICAL SETTING

METHODOLOGY

Sunday, October 21, 1956

Saturday October 27, 1956

November 25, 1956

38R5, Sunday, April 28, 1957

15R8, June 21, 1957

7R13, July 14, 1957

31R17, March 15, 1958

27R32, January 25, 1959

32R36, March 20, 1960

41R21, March 22, 1960

41R22, March 22, 1960

EXCAVATIONS

MATERIAL CULTURE

Pottery

Effigies

DESCRIPTION AND COMPARISON

SUMMARY OF THE POTTERY

Pottery Disks

Projectile Points

Other Chipped Stone Artifacts

Mortars and Pestles

Stone Abraders and Whetstones

Pottery and Clay Abraders

Anvilstones

Hammerstones

Groundstone Celts

Pipes

Bone and Antler Artifacts

Brickette and Daub

Shell Artifacts

Vegetal Remains

FEATURES

Refuse Pits

Ash Pits

Firebasins

HOUSES

House 1

House 2

House 3

BURIALS

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

SOUTHEAST MISSOURI AREA CHRONOLOGY

APPENDIX A IDENTIFICATION OF THE FAUNAL REMAINS FROM THE LAWHORN SITE

APPENDIX B ANALYSIS OF VEGETAL REMAINS FROM LAWHORN SITE

APPENDIX C BURIALS AT THE LAWHORN SITE

REFERENCES CITED

Transcriber’s Notes

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE