ANTHROPOLOGICAL PAPERS MUSEUM OF ANTHROPOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN NO. 21 THE STEUBEN VILLAGE AND MOUNDS A MULTICOMPONENT LATE HOPEWELL SITE IN ILLINOIS by DAN F. MORSE ANN ARBOR THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, 1963 © 1963 by the Regents of the University of Michigan The Museum of Anthropology All rights reserved ISBN (print): 978-1-949098-24-2 ISBN (ebook): 978-1-951519-46-9 Browse all of our books at sites.lsa.umich.edu/archaeology-books. Order our books from the University of Michigan Press at www.press.umich.edu. For permissions, questions, or manuscript queries, contact Museum publications by email at umma- [email protected] or visit the Museum website at lsa.umich.edu/ummaa. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The main participants in the excavation of the mounds and the collection of surface material were Mr. George Schoenbeck, Dr. Dan Morse, and Dan F. Morse. From time to time we were helped by other persons, including Melvin Fowler, Curator of Anthropology at the Illinois State Museum; Peter Cameron, Illi nois State Museum; Howard Winters, Curator of Archaeology in the Museum, Southern Illinois University; and Dr. Jose Albert, Resident Physician at the Peoria Municipal Tuberculosis Sani tarium. In addition, representatives from the University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology (UMMA) excavated two test pits at the Steuben site from April 2 to April 7, 1956. The participants of this expedition were: Dr. James B. Griffin, Director of UMMA; Dr. Griffin's son, David Griffin; Dr. Albert C. Spaulding, Curator of Archaeology, UMMA; and the following students majoring in anthropology at The University of Michigan: Phyllis A. Morse, formerly Phyllis Anderson; Dan F. Morse; Frances O'Hara; Mark Papworth; Bruce Powell; Judy Reynolds; and Janet Stone. Peter Gibson, a student of anthropology at Beloit College, Beloit, Wis consin, also participated in the Museum of Anthropology excava tions. Identification of the fauna from the site was done by Paul W. Parmalee, Curator of Zoology, Illinois State Museum, and the following members of the staff of the Museum of Zoology, Uni versity of Michigan: Dr. Reeve M. Bailey, Curator of Fishes; Dr. Norman E. Hartweg, Curator of Reptiles and Amphibians; Dr. Emmet T. Hooper, Curator of Mammals; Dr. Henry Vander Schalie, Curator of Mollusks; Dr. Philip Humphrey, Research Associate in Division of Birds; and Peter Stettenheim, Research Assistant in Division of Birds. Dr. Frederick P. Thieme, Chairman of the Department of Anthropology, University of Michigan, 1957-58, assisted in the identification of the human skeletal material. The discussion of pathological conditions in the human remains is due mainly to the efforts of Don F. Dickson, Dickson Mounds State Park, Lewis town, Illinois; Dr. Ernest Elzi and Dr. Joseph Kraft, Consultants in Pathology, St. Francis Hospital, Peoria, Illinois; and Dr. Dan Morse, Medical Director and Superintendent, Peoria Municipal Tuberculosis Sanitarium. iii iv THE STEUBEN VILLAGE AND MOUNDS I am indebted to Dr. James B. Griffin for his guidance dur ing the laboratory work on the artifacts from the Steuben site, and for his kindness in editing the present paper. Dr. Albert C. Spaulding also rendered valuable help; and appreciation is ex pressed for many helpful hints. My wife, Phyllis A. Morse, as sisted greatly in the editing of the final drafts. Plates labeled with a Museum of Anthropology catalog number were photo graphed by Eugene Kozlovitch; the others were photographed by Dr. Dan Morse and Dan F. Morse. A soil analysis was made possible through the help and guidance of Dr. Maurice W. Senstius, Associate Professor of Geology, University of Michigan. Last, but not least, appreciation is extended to the owners of the explored land. Mr. Walter Crew, Chillicothe, Illinois, owns the village site, Mound 2, and the major part of Mound 1. Mr. Peter Micano, Peoria, Illinois, owns the northern one-third of Mound 1 and the other seven mounds. All of the above persons, as well as others, have helped in the excavation of the site or in the preparation of this report. I take full responsibility, how ever, for whatever may be wrong or misleading in the following pages. Dan F. Morse CONTENTS Introduction ........ . 1 Physical Environment. • 3 Excavations in the Village 9 Burials .•....... 10 Pottery ......... . 11 Projectile Points .. . 30 Other Flint Artifacts 32 Other Stone Artifacts . 34 Copper Artifacts .• 35 Bone Awls .... 36 Bone Punctators .. 37 Game Bones .•... 39 Turtle Carapace Artifacts .. 41 Drilled Bear Canines . . . 42 Other Bone Artifacts . • . 42 Barbed Antler Tines •.• 43 Other Antler Artifacts . . 46 Shell Hoes ......... . 46 Shell Scrapers ....... . 47 Other Shell Artifacts . . . 47 Morse and Umma Surface Collections from the Village 47 Pottery. ........................... . 48 Projectile Points, Notched Scrapers, and Drills 52 Other Flint Artifacts . . . . . . . . ...... . 60 Other Stone Artifacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Copper and Galena Artifacts •. 65 Bone Artifacts. . 65 Antler Artifacts. • . . . . . . . . . 66 She 11 Artifacts. . . . . . . • . . . . 67 Other Surface Collections from the Village. 67 Pottery. ........•.••.... 68 Projectile Points .••.. 70 Other Flint Artifacts . 72 Other Stone Artifacts . 72 Other Artifacts .... . 75 Mound Excavations ..... . 75 Mounds 2 through 9 .. 77 Mound 1 •.......... 78 Mound 1 Burial Analyses 88 Summary and Interpretations 96 The Steuben Site ..... . 96 Classification within Hopewell. 111 Radiocarbon Dates .......•. 113 v vi THE STEUBEN VILLAGE AND MOUNDS Appendix A. Fauna from Test Pit I by Levels .•....• 115 Appendix B. Summary of Fauna from Test Pit I ..... . 120 Appendix C. Fauna from Test Pits II and III and Their Extensions ..... 122 Appendix D. Other Fauna from the Steuben Village Site. 124 Appendix E. Fauna from the Steuben Mounds . • . . . . . . 125 Appendix F. Skullduggery: A Day Among Dead Men's Bones, Peoria Daily Transcript, September 28, 1877 •....•• 126 Appendix G. The Mound Builders, Peoria Daily Transcript, September 29, 1877 .........•.•.•.••.•....•. 128 Appendix H. More Mound Digging, Peoria Daily Transcript, October 8, 1877. . . ........... . 129 Literature Cited . 130 Plates ....... . · · .......••.•..•..•... (after) 134 INTRODUCTION The Hopewell culture, called the Hopewellian Phase in the Mc Kern Taxonomic System, inhabited most of the eastern United States from around 500 B.C. to A.D. 500. Within this period and area, prestate organized, agriculturally based societies existed in a primitive condition loosely connected by trade. The cultur al phase began in the Illinois-Ohio region some five hundred years after the introduction of agriculture and pottery into this area. The strongest influences on the Hopewellian phase were received from the ancestral groups in the Illinois-Ohio area. The expansion of Hopewell culture is a story of undramatic diffusion and not of war and mass migration. But expand it did, altering cultures in its path sufficiently to show cultural relatedness, but not dominance. For a period of two to four centuries, around the birth of Christ, the Hopewell culture was at its height in mag nificence; then, in most of the eastern United States, with the Southeast a possible exception, there was a gradual deterioration in those aspects of Hopewell culture which were the most elab orate. Around A.D. 500, the deterioration had changed the Hope well culture into an altogether different phase. Southwestern Ohio constituted the major center of influence, and appropriately enough the Hopewell site, the type site, is lo cated there. Ohio was a center from which individuals may have traveled to the West or Northwest for obsidian and grizzly bear canines, to the North for copper and silver, and to the Southeast for mica and ocean shells. Or it may be that the prestige of Ohio was so great that these items were passed from group to group as trade items until they reached Southwestern Ohio, since between southern Ohio and the source areas there are compara tively small amounts of such items. Also, in southern Ohio are found the largest and most elaborate earthworks and a greater amount of burial furniture and retainer burials, with more diver sity and more elaboration in artifacts. This elaboration indi cates that the Hopewell culture was highest developed in south western Ohio in terms of social heterogeneity. Illinois, particularly along the lower Illinois and the Ohio Rivers, is secondary only to the Ohio Aspect in cultural develop ment during the Hopewellian phase. Much of the available Illi nois data will be discussed throughout this paper while describing different aspects of the Steuben site; but lack of opportunity has 1