Produced by Stephen Hutcheson and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net









                       THE MISSOURI ARCHAEOLOGIST


    [Illustration: Artifacts]

                       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

    [Illustration: 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.

    [Illustration: 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.

    [Illustration: Figure 2. Aerial View of the St. Francis River
    “Sunken Lands” and the Lawhorn Site
    _(In circle)_]

    [Illustration: 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)_]

    [Illustration: 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.

    [Illustration: Figure 5. Cord Marked Sherds and Positive
    Impressions]

    [Illustration: 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)_]

    [Illustration: 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     Fine    Med.   Coarse
                                     Marked

  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   Percent of the
                                        Shell Tempered   Decorated Total
                                            Series

  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).

    [Illustration: 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.

    [Illustration: Figure 9. Jar Forms]

    [Illustration: 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.

    [Illustration: Figure 11. Human Effigy Head]

    [Illustration: 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)_]

    [Illustration: 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     Vessel Shape     Vessel Shape
                     From Sherds      31 Vessels       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.

    [Illustration: 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.

    [Illustration: 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).

    [Illustration: 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.

    [Illustration: 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).

    [Illustration: Figure 18. Corner Notched and Stemmed Arrowheads
    _(1-3. Scallorn or Table Rock Corner Notched. 4. Bonham)_]

    [Illustration: 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.

    [Illustration: 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).

    [Illustration: Figure 21. Projectile Points
    _(1-2. Unclassified. 3. Hardin-like. 4. Motley. 5. Snyders Notched.
    6. Burkett-like. 7. Uvalde)_]

    [Illustration: 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.

    [Illustration: Figure 23. Mortars and Pestles]

    [Illustration: 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.

    [Illustration: Figure 25. Bone Tools
    _(1. Ulna awls, 2. Beamer, 3. Deer scapula hoe, 4. Splinter awls)_]

    [Illustration: 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).

    [Illustration: 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.

    [Illustration: 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.

    [Illustration: 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.

    [Illustration: 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.

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

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

    [Illustration: 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).

    [Illustration: Figure 34. Closeup of Pottery Vessel in House 2
    Firebasin]

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

 __

    [Illustration: Figure 36. Charred Wattle Work Wall or Roof Section
    of House 3]

    [Illustration: 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)_]

    [Illustration: Figure 38. Cross Sectioned Log from Floor of House 3
    _(It appears to have been hewn to shape)_]

    [Illustration: 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          x        ?        x
   construction
 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.

    [Illustration: Figure 40. Drawing Showing Hypothetical
    Reconstruction of the House Type at the Lawhorn Site]

    [Illustration: Figure 41. Burials 21 and 22 on the Bank of the
    Diversion Ditch]

    [Illustration: Figure 42. Burial 25 and Associated Pottery Bowl
    _(Mud can be seen at the lower edge of the picture)_]

    [Illustration: 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)_]

    [Illustration: Figure 44. Soil Profiles above and near Burial 36]

    [Illustration: 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.

    [Illustration: 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).

    [Illustration: 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.   8    10   12   14   16   Mean    K. Th.   C.W.[1]
               Cobs                          Row No.

  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      Age       Sex     Position       Condition and      Grave Goods
 Number                                        Completeness

       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            none
                                           missing—poor
      10  25-30 yr   female  ext. on back  disturbed but         none
                                           complete
      11  -6 yr      child   ext. on back  hands and feet        none
                                           missing—poor
      12  25-30 yr   female  ext. on back  both legs             two bowls
                                           missing—poor
      13  -2 yr      infant  on back       incomplete            none
      14  adult      ?       ext. on back  all above pelvis      none
                                           missing
      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           bottle and
                                           feet—disturbed        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      male    ext. on back  complete but crushed  none
          plus
      33  35-40      male    ext. on back  pathological suture   bowl
                                           closure only
                                           squamous open
      34  25-30 yr   male    ext. on back  complete but poor     bottle
                                           condition
      35  adult      ?       ?             only an arm present   bottle
      36  plus 60    male    ext. on back  complete—all          none
                                           sutures closed—no
                                           upper teeth—no
                                           lower molars
      37  adult      ?       ?             not worked out        shallow bowl
      38  plus 20    female  scattered     burned                none
                             bone          bone—heaviest at
                                           feet—none on skull
      39  plus 20    female  scattered     burned bone—deep      none
                             bone          charring general
                             some          over body—not on
                             placement of  skull
                             long bones?
      40  plus 50    male    ?             ?
   41-42  pre-natal  infants bundled       complete—42 covered   none
                                           with a sherd

                       TABLE 9—AGE AND SEX GROUPS
                               35 Burials
           Total   Male  Female Indeterminate  2-6 yr  Infant Pre-natal
          Percent

 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.

    [Illustration: 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_

    [Illustration: Figure 49. Francis Stubbs, Achievement Award
    Recipient, 1960.]

    [Illustration: 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_

    [Illustration: Figure 51. Mr. and Mrs. Harry Collins, Achievement
    Award Recipient, 1961]

    [Illustration: 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_.