Distributional Survey of the Reinhardt Site

(33PI880), Pickaway County, Ohio

A Strategy for Deciphering the Community Structure of a Fort
Ancient Village

Kevin C. Nolan

Department of Anthropology, The Ohio State University, 4034 Smith

Laboratory, 174 W. 18th Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210–1106
(nolan.117@buckeyemail.osu.edu)

Abstract There is currently a paucity of Fort Ancient sites with deciphered

settlement structures. If settlement structure is reflective of social or-
ganization, then a larger sample of sites is needed to evaluate extant
models of Fort Ancient social development. A distributional survey
of the Reinhardt site, a Middle Fort Ancient habitation in the Middle
Scioto Valley, Ohio is proposed as a model of efficient, multi-staged
investigation that can aid in detection and interpretation of commu-
nity structure. By combining an intensive surface collection and a 10
× 20-m grid of small volumetric shovel test units, I was able to discern
a probable small plaza (circa 40 m diameter) and a partial, relatively
wide habitation ring (>30 m). I argue that this strategy can be usefully
employed in a variety of situations to increase our understanding of
variability in settlement organization in general, and specifically for
the Late Prehistoric agricultural societies of the Middle Ohio Valley.

The Reinhardt site (33PI880) is a Middle period (ca. AD 1200–1400) Fort

Ancient village in the middle Scioto Valley located in a poorly documented
area between the Voss (33FR52) and Gartner (33RO19) sites (Figure 1). The
site is well known to local collectors and amateur archaeologists. The first
systematic investigation of Reinhardt was conducted by James Morton and
Mike Ohlinger in 1988. Morton’s field notes provide the basis for what was
known about the site prior to the 2007 field season. The recent investigations
focused on discovering the precise location and structure of this Fort Ancient
village. Data collection techniques employed to date include a gradiometer
survey, a magnetic susceptibility survey (Nolan et al. 2008), an intensive sur-
face collection (Figure 2), and a volumetric (8 or 16 liter) shovel test survey
(Figure 3). A preliminary analysis of the data detailed below was previously
presented with the results of the magnetic susceptibility and gradiometry
Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 36, No. 1 (Spring 2011), pp. 105-130.
Copyright © 2011 Midwest Archaeological Conference, Inc. All rights reserved.

105
106 Kevin C. Nolan

Figure 1.  Regional Context of the Reinhardt Site. All dots represent Ohio Archaeological
Inventory (OAI) sites with Late Woodland/Late Prehistoric Cluster (Justice 1987) projectile
points. The two most proximate intensively investigated sites are represented by the triangle
(Voss) and square (Gartner) (see Brady-Rawlins 2007; Mills 1904).

surveys (Nolan et al. 2008); however, here I focus on the shovel test and
surface collection data which is presented, fully analyzed, for the first time.
Not only is there a paucity of investigated sites in the middle and up-
per Scioto Valley, but the number of sites sufficiently investigated to reveal
intra-site patterning for the Fort Ancient period is small (see Figure 1). This
 Dechiphering the Community Structure of a Fort Ancient Village 107

Figure 2.  Location of Units Surveyed within the Plowed Village Area (PVA) with Surface
Faunal Distribution. The units that yielded fauna on the surface constitute an arc. Rows
46–49 extend beyond the plowed area. The collection units outside the plowed area are not
directly comparable in absolute quantity to those within; however, the presence of fauna on
the unplowed surface is suggestive of a continuation of the arc into the northwest portion of
the village.

does not allow full evaluation of extant hypotheses and models about Fort
Ancient development and social structure (Cook 2008; Nolan and Cook
2010; Pollack and Henderson 1992, 2000). In order to fully assess the fit
of these models, we need to drastically increase the number of sites with
a deciphered site structure. Excavation is an extremely inefficient way to
108 Kevin C. Nolan

Figure 3.  Location of the 2007 Volumetric Shovel Tests. The east-west transects (T1-T3) were
8 liters and the north-south transects (T4-T8) were 16 liters.

accomplish this. Surface reconnaissance survey and analysis of visible mid-

den staining (on the ground or in aerials) are efficient, if under-used, al-
ternatives. However, these latter options are not silver bullets. Not all sites
and all soils will exhibit visible midden staining. Specifically, at the Rein-
hardt site, midden staining (and for that matter feature staining) does not
stand out in contrast to the low chroma value of the natural soil (see Nolan
2009:10, 17, 23–38). Additionally, in heavily collected areas, like the Scioto
Valley, one-time surface collections are unreliable and potentially unrepre-
sentative (e.g., Shott 2008). Systematic surface surveys also often employ
intervals (10–20 m) that may be too coarse for the type of analysis necessary
to decipher intra-site patterning. A multi-stage research strategy using mutu-
ally reinforcing data sets is most likely to be successful (e.g., Dancey 1991).
 Dechiphering the Community Structure of a Fort Ancient Village 109

I will present a case study of one potentially very efficient method of

identifying site structure that can be widely employed with small crews. The
investigations reported here were accomplished in less than two weeks with
a crew of students and volunteers ranging in numbers from 1–14 (and most-
ly fewer than 10). If this strategy is combined with regional siteless survey
(Dunnell and Dancey 1983) and occasionally supplemented with remote
sensing and geoarchaeological methods (e.g., magnetic susceptibility, gradi-
ometry [Nolan et al. 2008], and/or soil phosphate analysis [Roos and Nolan
2009]), the number of known village structures can be greatly multiplied.
The proposed methods for deciphering site structure are not only applicable
to Late Prehistoric contexts, but could potentially contribute greatly to, for
example, the debate on Ohio Hopewell settlement patterns (e.g., Cowan
2006; Dancey and Pacheco 1997; Yerkes 2002).

The Reinhardt Site

The Reinhardt site is located on a Wisconsin-age outwash terrace approxi-
mately 150 m east of the Scioto River. The soil association for the Reinhardt
site is the well-drained and fertile Warsaw series. The Reinhardt site is one
of 13 sites recorded during a recent survey of the property (Figure 4; Nolan
2009). Prior to the 2007 field season, James Morton and Mike Ohlinger had
conducted a small surface collection and identified the site as an approxi-
mately 91 m (circa 300 foot) diameter Fort Ancient village characterized by a
visible midden ring on the surface immediately adjacent to the terrace edge
(Morton personal communication 2006). Morton and Ohlinger decided to
attempt to excavate a trash pit. Based on this surface footprint and Morton’s
prior experience with Fort Ancient villages in the Muskingum Valley (Car-
skadden and Morton 1977, 2000), Ohlinger and Morton opened a 3 × 3
m (10 × 10 ft) excavation unit on the periphery of the village and directly
on the tree line in the northwestern portion of the village. As expected, this
excavation unit exposed several pit feature stains in plan view. Morton and
Ohlinger selected one feature for excavation. This pit ended up being two
overlapping pits, each with a flexed burial in the bottom. The burials were
removed and analyzed by Dr. Paul Sciulli of The Ohio State University. An
accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) date obtained from one adult burial
returned a 2-sigma calibrated age range of AD 1170–1260 (Sciulli person-
al communication 2008). The same burial was analyzed as part of Diana
Greenlee’s dissertation (2002). The adult male (42 ± 5 years) yielded a δ13C
ratio of –10.55 ± 0.03 (Greenlee 2002:Table 79, sample 013). This indicates
a significant degree of maize consumption, as expected, for a Late Prehistoric
110 Kevin C. Nolan

Figure 4.  The Reinhardt Tract and Local Setting of the Reinhardt Village (PI880). The
Reinhardt Tract (represented by the dotted line) was the subject of extensive and intensive
survey and evaluation work by Nolan (2009). Sites PI1012 through PI1022 were newly
defined by Nolan’s reconnaissance survey. Identified components represent the Early Archaic,
Late Archaic, Early Woodland, Middle Woodland, Late Woodland, and Late Prehistoric
periods. Background is the Commercial Point and Lockbourne 7.5 minute quads.

occupant of the Middle Ohio River Valley. Greenlee (2002) describes the Re-
inhardt site as a Late Woodland/early Late Prehistoric period site (LW/eLP),
but she did not have a radiometric date or know the location of the site.
In addition to the results reported below, Jarrod Burks and I conducted
a gradiometry survey and magnetic susceptibility survey. The results of these
surveys are reported by Nolan et al. (2008). These two surveys do not reveal
a clear structure for the site, but a circular or arc structure cannot be ruled
out on the basis of this evidence (Nolan et al. 2008). Burks identified over
 Dechiphering the Community Structure of a Fort Ancient Village 111

Table 1.  Reinhardt Village Chronology

Median 2-Sigma
AMS Lab Sample Measured Calendar Calendar
Samples Number Age (BP) Age (AD) Range (AD) Material
F1/1988 BETA 245378 830 ± 40 1220 1160–1270 Collagen
FS 583 BETA 255920 820 ± 40 1230 1160–1280 Wood Charcoal
FS 228 BETA 255916 770 ± 40 1270 1220–1290 Wood Charcoal
FS 287 BETA 255917 690 ± 40 1290 1270–1330; Wood Charcoal
1340–1400
FS 584 BETA 255921 620 ± 40 1300; 1370; 1280–1400 Nutshell
1380 Charcoal
FS 368 BETA 255918 650 ± 40 1310; 1360; 1280–1410 Wood Charcoal
1380
FS 436 BETA 255919 490 ± 40 1430 1400–1460 Wood Charcoal
TL Sample
X42–183– UW 2000 866.9 ± 46 1142 1050–1234 Grit-tempered
1 body sherd

100 anomalies as probable prehistoric features in the gradiometry data, and

an approximately 80 m diameter area of high susceptibility was revealed.
In addition to the anomalies associated with the village, two previously
unknown Woodland earthworks were discovered (33PI917 and 33PI1013;
Nolan 2009; Nolan et al. 2008).
Since the 2007 investigations, the entire 31.5 ha tract surrounding the
Reinhardt site has been surveyed at 20 m intervals, and excavations have
been initiated within the village area (Nolan 2008a, 2008b, 2009). Thirteen
sites were identified during the reconnaissance survey conducted in the sum-
mer of 2008 (Figure 4) and intact cultural deposits associated with the vil-
lage were confirmed (Nolan 2009). Seven radiocarbon dates were obtained
during the 2008 investigations (Table 1, see Feathers and Deppen 2009).
The chronology places the village occupation within the Middle Fort An-
cient period (ca. AD 1200–1400).

Extant Models of Fort Ancient Development

The most widely cited model of Fort Ancient development was put forth by
David Pollack and A. Gwynn Henderson (1992). Pollack and Henderson’s
model is constructed within the progressive cultural evolutionary model of
112 Kevin C. Nolan

the development of social complexity by Johnson and Earle (1987). Briefly,

Pollack and Henderson’s model portrays the Early Fort Ancient period (AD
1000–1200) as a time of small hamlets which aggregate into large, often
circularly organized villages in the Middle Fort Ancient period (AD 1200–
1400). Concurrent with this proposed aggregation of the population is a
proposed increase in social complexity. Social complexity and degree of ag-
gregation continue to increase into the Late Fort Ancient (AD 1400–1540)
period. It has been argued that some of the Late period sites were not orga-
nized according to a set plan (Pollack and Henderson1992). That model is
based primarily on northern Kentucky Fort Ancient data, but frequently in-
corporates Ohio data in illustrating their expectations. Based on this model,
we would expect the Reinhardt village to exhibit a ring of habitation debris
around an open plaza.
Variability in Late Prehistoric settlement structure (locally and region-
ally) is generally under-investigated. Recent investigations have illustrated
that typological models of change may misrepresent the actual patterns in
prehistoric change (Cook 2008; Hart et al. 2005; Means 2007). Knowledge
of extant variability in the Middle Ohio Valley is limited; however, Cook
(2008:135–136) identifies two general sizes for plazas in southwestern
Ohio: circa 38 m (125 ft) and circa 19 m (62.5 ft) radii. Henderson (1998)
documented a range of 22–40 m for midden/domestic rings in circular vil-
lages of central Kentucky during the Middle period. In Ohio, most of the
deciphered village plans for Fort Ancient villages are circular or arc-shaped.
Most known Fort Ancient villages are composed of concentric rings of activ-
ity areas. There is variability in the organization of the various areas within
the habitation ring, mostly by drainage (Carskadden and Morton 2000;
Dunnell 1983; Graybill 1981; Heilman et al. 1988; Henderson 1998:421).
On the “Eastern Periphery” of the Fort Ancient area, some circular vil-
lages have a refuse disposal area behind the house ring at either end within
an oval palisade (Graybill 1981). In the Muskingum Valley, Carskadden and
Morton (2000) report that the area of trash disposal is a concentric ring
outside the house ring for Richards and Philo. In the Miami drainage, Sun-
Watch has both a trash disposal ring and a burial ring between the house
ring and the plaza (Cook 2008; Heilman et al. 1988). The Florence site in
Kentucky has a mortuary zone inside the domestic area and a trash disposal
ring on the village periphery (Henderson 1998:421). Often the trash dispos-
al zone consists of so-called trash pits or midden pits. In this case, it is im-
portant to separate final function from initial function. In many cases, food
storage was the initial, primary function of pits in the “trash disposal” zone
(an exception would be surface middens) (see Mills 1904). The location of
 Dechiphering the Community Structure of a Fort Ancient Village 113

specific activities (e.g., food preparation, food storage) within the village has
implications for the interpretation of social structure and inter-household
relations (Means 2007).
While there is some knowledge of settlement structure variability in cen-
tral Kentucky (Henderson 1998), little research has been done in southern
Ohio in general and within the Scioto Valley in particular on the range of
variability in settlement plan over space and through time. There is a recent
trend in Late Prehistoric Ohio Valley research towards getting beyond the
generalizations of the Culture History paradigm that dominates current in-
terpretations (Cook 2008; Hart et al. 2005; Means 2007; Nolan and Cook
2010). It is within this context that the current data collection project was
designed. The main goal of this project was to decipher the structure of the
Reinhardt settlement (see Nolan 2008b). Both Morton’s (1988) notes and
the existing models (Pollack and Henderson 2000; see also Church and
Nass 2002) lead to the expectation of a circular village plan.

Deciphering Community Structure

Few village structures have been deciphered in the Scioto Valley. Recent-
ly, the Voss site was found to have a circular structure with an open plaza
(Brady-Rawlins 2007). Brady-Rawlins conducted a full coverage gradiometer
survey of the Voss site. The village structure was not immediately apparent
in the processed data. Only when she eliminated all anomalies less than
three standard deviations above the background mean signal did a probable
circular band of storage/refuse pits become apparent (Brady-Rawlins 2007:
Figure 40). The artifact densities in shovel test pits of a transect through the
center of the site correlate with this suspected habitation ring and plaza .
Additional support for this interpretation of the community structure was
provided when Brady-Rawlins was able to estimate the location of Ray-
mond Baby’s excavation units from the 1960s (Brady-Rawlins 2007:Figure
39). The Voss site’s plaza (60–70 m diameter) corresponds closely to Cook’s
(2008) large size plaza (76.2 m). Brady-Rawlins (2007:98–99, Figure 39)
indicates that there were storage pits between the houses and the plaza, but
goes on to note that “[t]he [excavation] data does not suggest a pattern of
strictly concentric rings of activity with zones of burials, pit features, and
houses radiating outward from the central plaza.” Careful examination of
the SunWatch site map does not reveal “strictly concentric rings of activity”
either. Brady-Rawlins’ (2007) efforts are in the same mold as the methods
employed at Reinhardt. However, she did not have full site coverage with her
shovel testing grid, there was no surface survey, and her final interpretation
114 Kevin C. Nolan

of site structure was heavily reliant on the horizontally extensive excavations

of Baby in the 1960s. Her efforts do illustrate how site structure may be
deciphered in noisy gradiometry data, but the amount of labor required to
support her interpretations is still quite large.
The Blain site is also argued to be a circular village in the Scioto Valley
with dates overlapping those of the Reinhardt site (Prufer and Shane 1970;
Hart et al. 2002; see discussion of dating by Brady-Rawlins 2007). Brady-
Rawlins suggests that the Gartner site may have been a circular village as well
(based on the location of Mills’ excavation units). The existence of concen-
tric rings at any of these Scioto Valley sites is still an open question. A com-
mon methodological link between these sites is that the main technique of
investigation is a time consuming and destructive large-scale excavation.
Beyond the Scioto Valley, trench and test pit excavation is the dominant
method of investigating site structure. There are, however, a few notable excep-
tions. Hawkins (1998) presents an analysis similar to the approach taken at
Reinhardt. Hawkins’ analysis of the surface distribution of artifacts from the
Horseshoe Johnson site revealed several discrete clusters that were interpreted
as households. It appears that Horseshoe Johnson represents a small, incom-
plete circular village. In fact, the household clusters appear to be spaced in such
a way that room was left either for expansion of households or for the influx
of families that never arrived. In situations where a full, high-resolution sur-
face survey is feasible, the surface holds much promise for deciphering com-
munity structure. However, whenever possible, multiple mutually reinforcing
techniques of data collection will bolster confidence in interpretations.
The Horseshoe Johnson site is used by Cook (2008) to illustrate the
possible existence of two discrete plaza sizes (in this case a small plaza).
Cook’s primary focus for his research is the SunWatch site, and SunWatch
is his prime example of a large-plaza village. SunWatch is often taken as
the “typical” Middle Period Fort Ancient village. The reason for this is, due,
in part, to the extremely large surface area exposed by excavation, the large
number of dissertations and theses that have resulted from analyzing the
wealth of material produced by these excavations, and the efforts of James
M. Heilman at promoting the site and erecting a reconstruction of the vil-
lage and an interpretive center on the site.
The entire western two-thirds of the SunWatch habitation ring was ex-
cavated along with transects through the plaza over a period of more than
20 years (Heilman et al. 1988; see also Cook 2008). There can be no doubt
from the examination of the site map that SunWatch is definitively a circular
village with an open plaza. In that respect, the methods used at SunWatch
are quite effective for uncovering great detail about the community structure
 Dechiphering the Community Structure of a Fort Ancient Village 115

and activity patterning within the village. However, it is equally clear that
this is not an efficient (in terms of time, labor, or use of the archaeologi-
cal record) means of deciphering village structure. Similar points could be
made by highlighting the amount of time and effort devoted to deciphering
community patterns through excavation at the Philo phase site in the Musk-
ingum Valley (Carskadden and Morton 1977, 2000).
Not all investigations of Late Prehistoric period site structure in the
Middle Ohio Valley have relied on excavation, however. In addition to the
Voss and Horseshoe Johnson investigations discussed above, Henderson’s
(1998) work in central Kentucky is a model of what can be accomplished
if extensive methods are favored over intensive efforts. Through a combina-
tion of survey, mapping of surface middens, analysis of aerial photographs,
and interviewing collectors and land owners, Henderson was able to docu-
ment a wide range in site size and structure during the Middle Fort Ancient
period. However, in many cases, only a single line of evidence is used to
interpret site structure because in many cases there was no opportunity for
additional investigation, a common situation in archaeology.
The use of complete or nearly complete horizontal excavation was
widespread during the Great Depression. The Works Progress Administra-
tion (WPA) and other public works institutions employed large labor forces
to systematically excavate and record whole sites. The glut of information
recovered during these endeavors has still not been fully analyzed or report-
ed. A great example of the use of Depression-era excavation data is Means’
(2007) investigation of variability in Monongahela community structure.
Means was able to analyze a variety of site plans from the entire span of the
Late Prehistoric period in Somerset County, Pennsylvania. Means limited
himself to examining circular villages, and he found that, contrary to tradi-
tional models of Monongahela development, there was no single trajectory
or progressive trend in organization and community size.
While Means’ work is quite distant from my focus and from the rest of
the examples discussed in this section, I mention it for two reasons. First,
Means’ efforts (Hart et al. 2005; Means 2007) illustrate the need for a large
sample of deciphered community structures to develop accurate narratives
of prehistoric social development. Second, Means’ reliance on Depression-
era complete-site excavations illustrates the enormity of the effort required if
we continue to rely primarily on excavation data to sufficiently increase the
sample of deciphered site structures to critically evaluate competing models.
The preceding is not an exhaustive review of sites with deciphered settle-
ment structures or the methods used to decipher them. However, it does
serve to illustrate the prevailing methods used in the region, especially on
116 Kevin C. Nolan

Fort Ancient sites. A consistent drawback in most previous investigations is

the time, labor, and archaeological record consumed by reliance on hori-
zontal excavation. That is not to say that horizontal excavation should be
avoided, simply that it is not an efficient means of deciphering settlement
structure and increasing the sample of known site structures within a region.
There are certainly admirable uses of surface and plow zone deposits in the
region as well; however, these are often only single technique investigations.
The methods used to investigate the Reinhardt site structure, if nested in a
larger regional survey program, can help to expand our knowledge of the
variability and change in settlement structure (and associated social struc-
tures) through time and over space. In turn, we will be able to more critically
evaluate the extant and competing models of Late Prehistoric social devel-
opment in the Ohio River Valley.

Collection Strategies and Methods

The 2007 investigations at the Reinhardt site used two collection strategies:
an intensive surface collection of a plowed portion of the field (plowed vil-
lage area, or PVA; see Figure 2) and eight transects of volumetric shovel test
samples of the plow zone (Figure 3). Both of these strategies were aimed at
collecting information about the distribution of materials and associated
activities within the settlement in an attempt to decipher settlement struc-
ture. For the intensive surface survey, a grid of two and a half m north-south
by five m east-west collection units was established encompassing approx-
imately six acres around the area that Morton (personal communication
2006) indicated was the location of the village. The grid consisted of col-
umns labeled A-BB from east to west and rows 1 through 60 from south
to north. Keith Peters (who rents the land from the City of Columbus and
farms the property) plowed approximately three acres within the originally
plotted area. Only Columns K-BB and rows 16–49 were in the PVA. Ap-
proximately 70 percent of the rows within the PVA were collected (see Figure
2). The goal when selecting rows to collect was to ensure that the southern
edge of the settlement could be determined and that all available sections
of the site were covered. As such, there is a large southern strip (16–26), a
central strip (33–36), and a northern strip of rows (40–49; see Figure 2). The
location of the grid corners and the outline of the PVA were recorded with
a GPS receiver for quick import into the GIS database. The GPS recording
significantly cut down on survey and mapping time and the standard devia-
tion (≤1 m) of the position estimates (>20 reading per point) was deemed
acceptable for accurately mapping plow disturbed deposits.
 Dechiphering the Community Structure of a Fort Ancient Village 117

For the volumetric shovel test survey, three east-west transects were es-
tablished extending from the eastern edge of the plowed area westward 100
m. Transects 1–3 were spaced 20 m apart and 8 liters of the plow zone were
sampled every 10 m within transects (Figure 3). The choice of initial sam-
pling volume was a largely arbitrary choice based on the ease of measure-
ment in the field given available equipment. Any volume should work as
long as it is standardized, and easily measured in the field (very small vol-
umes may not detect actual patterns).
All soil was screened through .64 cm (¼ in) hardware cloth. The loca-
tions of T1-T3 were chosen to cut across the middle of the site. The location
of T1 was chosen to cut across the part of the site deemed most likely to
encounter a plaza if the site was organized in the typical ring shape (based
on current models). The plaza would be apparent as a decrease in artifact
density in the middle bracketed by higher densities per volume of plow zone
to the east and west. T2 and T3 were anticipated to encounter larger portions
of the habitation ring, especially if the Reinhardt site did fit Cook’s (2008)
small plaza size.
The absolute artifact counts from T1-T3 were low. The subsequent sam-
pling volume for T4-T8 was doubled to increase the frequency of artifacts
recovered and increase the probability of detecting a spatial pattern. The
increased sample volume was processed as two 8-liter samples from each
location allowing comparison of the recovery results between the 8- and
16-liter sample volumes and for a completion of an entire grid with 8-liter
volume samples. The transects using a 16-liter sample volume were oriented
north-south (T4-T8 were perpendicular to T1-T3; see Figure 3). Sediment
screening and mapping methods were the same as those for the first three
transects.
The zero meter point for all five of the 16-liter transects was set along
the same east-west line. The baseline chosen for transects 4–8 was estimat-
ed in the field to be approximately 10 m south of the village as judged by
the subtle change in soil color observed within the plowed area and by the
previously detected artifact distributions from the PVA survey. In T4 (cen-
tral transect of the north-south transects), the volumetric shovel tests were
started at 5 m north and continued every 10 meters. At 0 m north and 10
m north within T4, 50 × 50-cm test units were excavated. It was initially
intended that the test unit strategy would parallel the volumetric shovel
test strategy throughout T4-T8; however, the greater cost of excavating these
units and limited availability of labor and time prior to crop planting caused
the abandonment of this sampling strategy in favor of complete site cover-
age with the volumetric strategy. The results of the 50 × 50-cm test units are
118 Kevin C. Nolan

not discussed except to note that the plow zone depth was determined to
range from 22–27 cm (this observation has been confirmed in subsequent
excavations [Nolan 2009]).

Results
Intensive Surface Survey
A total of four-hundred-twenty-eight 2.5 × 5-m collection units were sam-
pled resulting in a collection of 7,404 artifacts. Within the plowed area, rows
16–26, 33–36, and 40–49 were collected. With the exception of rows 46–49,
only plowed portions of the rows were collected (see Figure 2). The clearest
patterning was detected in the faunal and pottery remains. There is an un-
ambiguous arc in the plowed area. The arc is apparently open to the west,
but this is due only to the limits of the plowed portion of the village and
does not represent an actual absence of prehistoric activity. There is a very
clear open area in the center of the arc. Lithic artifacts are ubiquitous on
the plowed surface; however, there is a relative decrease in lithic density in
the center of the village coincident with the opening detected in the faunal
material. Fire-cracked rock (FCR) and flakes have an irregular, but distinct
distribution often peaking in density on either side of the faunal ring. From
the PVA collection, the Reinhardt site appears to be a circular or arc-shaped
village with a small plaza, relatively devoid of activity, in the center. (For
further details on the results of the PVA survey the reader is referred to Nolan
2010).

Shovel Test Survey

A total of 85 volumetric (8 or 16 liter) shovel tests were excavated within
eight transects yielding a total of 1030 artifacts. Transects 1–3 were oriented
east-west and consisted of 8liter samples of the plow zone. Transects 4–8
were oriented north-south and consisted of 16liter samples of the plow
zone. Transects were spaced 20 m apart and the shovel tests were located
every 10 m within transects (Figure 3).
The east-west transects detected artifact density two peaks (>1.13 arti-
facts/liter) on the eastern and western extremes of the sampled area (Fig-
ure 5). Transect 1 exhibits an elevated transect-wide artifact density which
corresponds with the southern arm of the PVA faunal arc. The north-south
transects indicate a debris ring around an open, relatively debris-free (<1.13
artifacts/liter) central area (Figures 6 and 7). The eastern transects (T6 and
T7) indicate increased activity in the vicinity of the Peters Square enclosure
 Dechiphering the Community Structure of a Fort Ancient Village 119

Figure 5.  Transect 1 Artifact Frequency per Liter of Plow Zone. Transects 1–3 consisted of 8
liter samples of plow zone and were oriented with the zero point in the west and shovel tests
every 10 m east.

Figure 6.  Transect 5 Artifact Frequency per Liter of Plow Zone. Transects 4–8 consisted of
16 liter samples of plow zone and were oriented with the zero point in the south and shovel
tests every 10 m north, perpendicular to T1–3.
120 Kevin C. Nolan

Figure 7.  Transect 6 Artifact Frequency per Liter of Plow Zone. Transects 4–8 consisted of
16 liter samples of plow zone and were oriented with the zero point in the south and shovel
tests every 10 m north. T6 extends north past the Reinhardt village (33PI880) to encompass
the Keith Peters Square enclosure (33PI917) beginning around 80N (see Figure 3).

on the northern edge of the village. The transects on the edge of the sampled
area (T7 in the east and T8 in the west) did not yield any fauna or pottery;
however, T8 partially completes the view of the western portion of the vil-
lage. This mirrors the distribution of lithics and FCR relative to fauna and
pottery detected in the PVA survey. The shovel test survey appears to indicate
a circular village with a small open plaza (Figure 8; for further details on the
results of the shovel test survey the reader is referred to Nolan 2010, where
the full tables of artifact distributions can be found in Chapter 4).

Discussion
The Reinhardt Picture
The gradiometry survey at Reinhardt did not reveal a “typical” circular struc-
ture as expected (Nolan et al. 2008). However, there is a very distinct cluster
of anomalies that nearly agrees with the estimates of the size of the village
given by Morton (1988). It is possible that other components are obscuring
the view of village structure in the magnetometry data; however, it is ex-
pected that the Late Prehistoric component, due to intensity and duration of
occupation, should swamp all other components and dominate any pattern
 Dechiphering the Community Structure of a Fort Ancient Village 121

Figure 8.  Shovel Test Unit Artifact Density per Liter. The shovel test units (STU) are
represented by graduated symbols illustrating the intra-transect trends indicated in the text
and the site-wide patterning of artifact density per liter of plow zone. The background shows
the correspondence between the PVA fauna distribution and the soil phosphate (Soil P)
concentrations and the STU artifact density. The Soil P distribution is adapted from Roos and
Nolan (2009).

analysis (see e.g., Dunnell 1983). There are at least four other time periods
represented by bifaces at the site (Middle and Late Archaic, Middle Wood-
land, and Late Woodland; see Figure 9). It is likely that most of the mate-
rial recovered relates to the Fort Ancient occupation, but it is possible that
pits from the other components are also present in the gradiometry data.
122 Kevin C. Nolan

Figure 9.  Diagnostics and Tools Recovered from the Plowed Village Area. Top row artifacts
are from the following collection units: 24Y, 40S, 36V, 17Z, and 23R. Second row artifacts are
from collection units: 36Y, 45R, 48U, 34Y, and 48P. Third row artifacts are from units: 41Q
and 26L. Bottom row artifacts are from collection units: 17AA, 36N, 42R, 17M, and 36T.
 Dechiphering the Community Structure of a Fort Ancient Village 123

Regardless, the gradiometer survey alone is not capable of revealing settle-

ment structure in this instance.
The magnetic susceptibility data matches the magnetometry data quite
well, indicating an approximately 80 m diameter area of elevated intensity.
Within that area, there were several peaks. The peaks were distributed in
an arc with a slight trough in between them (Nolan et al. 2008:Figure 2).
Turning to the artifact distributions, we can see a possible arc or ring-shaped
distribution in the surface collection (western edge possibly truncated by the
extent of plowing). Interestingly, we see a consistently open area in multiple
classes of artifacts across both collection strategies (Figure 8; Nolan et al.
2008:Figures 4–7). The area that was nearly devoid of surface and plow zone
artifacts almost corresponds with the magnetic susceptibility trough, and
the surface clusters overlap the interior of these peaks. Additionally, analysis
of soil phosphate concentrations (Roos and Nolan 2009) indicates an area
of relatively low concentration of phosphate in the area within the village
that was devoid of fauna and pottery on the surface and where artifact densi-
ties do not exceed one artifact per liter of plow zone soil (see Figure 8). The
coincidence of these four (soil phosphate, magnetic susceptibility, shovel
tests, and intensive surface collection) data sets indicates a possible plaza-
like area of limited activity within the village.
The Railroad site (36SO113), a Monongahela village, presented a cir-
cular surface signature, but was found to actually consist of a series of non-
contemporaneous hamlets upon excavation (Means 2002:292–293). This
remains a possibility for Reinhardt that cannot be definitively ruled out
based on current evidence; however, it is a low possibility given the extant
chronology for Reinhardt (see Table 1) compared to the tenth to fifteenth
century span of dates for the Railroad site (Means 2002:292). For this rea-
son, I will treat the pattern as representative of contemporaneous activity at
Reinhardt in the remainder of the discussion.
The open area at Reinhardt is very close to Cook’s (2008) small plaza
size (circa 40 m diameter). Therefore, we now have at least one village in
the Middle/Upper Scioto Valley that corresponds roughly to each of Cook’s
plaza sizes (Voss and Reinhardt, respectively). Both Voss and Reinhardt
have overlapping radiocarbon chronologies, so this variability appears to be
roughly synchronic.
As for the habitation ring around the possible plaza, it is quite intrigu-
ing that a village with a small plaza has a habitation ring that is larger than
average. Henderson (1998) documented a range of 22–40 m for habitation
rings in central Kentucky during the Middle Fort Ancient period with an
average of 30 m. The observed distribution of artifacts at the Reinhardt site
(Figure 8) was between 30 m and 40 m wide. This is quite a large habitation
124 Kevin C. Nolan

ring relative to the plaza size. Additionally, the 2009 excavations at the Rein-
hardt site have uncovered a partial house pattern outside of the surface and
plow-zone-indicated debris ring, and therefore the actual habitation ring
may be closer to, or even greater than, 40 m. The meaning and cause of such
a large habitation ring around a small village is not known. Much work re-
mains to be done to discover the uniqueness of this co-occurrence of village
structure attributes and the true variability of each of these attributes within
the Scioto Valley and throughout the Middle Ohio Valley.

The Broader Picture

In culture historical narratives of Ohio prehistory, Fort Ancient groups are
often depicted as living in ring-shaped villages with an open plaza and con-
centric zones of activity (Carskadden and Morton 2000; Heilman et al. 1988;
Henderson 1998). What little variation in site structure that is observed is
often treated as having temporal significance (e.g., Graybill 1981; Pollack
and Henderson 1992, 2000); however, the number of sites sufficiently in-
vestigated to reveal site structure is small. Recent analyses have illustrated
the importance of examining local variation within cultural historical types
and phases (Hart et al. 2005; Means 2007). As highlighted Means’ (2007)
analysis, reliance on these types and phases for our interpretations glosses
over much variation and can result in incomplete and/or incorrect narratives
about the record (see also Essenpreis’ [1978] critique of Prufer and Shane
[1970]). The paucity of sites sufficiently investigated to decipher community
structure applies to the Middle Scioto Valley as well. Only two villages have
been the focus of sustained investigation, and the excavations at Gartner do
not permit reconstruction of site structure (Mills 1904; see also discussion of
Baum phase site structure in Brady-Rawlins 2007).
As a result, we have very little information about the structure of Fort
Ancient villages in this northern Fort Ancient territory. Evidence shows that
the one village with a deciphered structure is a large circular village (Brady-
Rawlins 2007). Site structure, especially with regards to the presence of a
circular pattern, is often argued to be directly related to social structure. This
is especially true among Late Prehistoric Ohio River Valley agricultural-
ists (Cook 2008; Means 2007; see also discussion in Thompson and Turck
2009). In order to construct accurate historical narratives, we need to have
an understanding of the variation in community patterns present in each
region (Cook and Schurr 2009; O’Brien and Lyman 2000; Truncer 2006).
The Reinhardt site is positioned well to contribute to our understanding
of the Late Prehistory of the Middle Scioto River Valley. In order to evalu-
ate generalized models for change in village structure over time (Pollack
 Dechiphering the Community Structure of a Fort Ancient Village 125

and Henderson 2000) and construct accurate historical narratives, a large

sample of sites with a deciphered settlement structure is needed. As Figure
1 illustrates, the Reinhardt site is located in a geographic data gap. The 2007
investigations have already contributed to a greater understanding of the
range of variability in site size and community structure in the Middle Scioto
Valley. Additionally, the 2007 Reinhardt investigations can serve as a model
for increasing the sample size of villages with deciphered structures. Excava-
tion sufficient to decipher site structure is very expensive and a return to
full-scale excavation of the Depression-era relief projects is not likely. The
investigations reported herein were conducted with less than two weeks of
fieldwork using a limited volunteer and student labor force. To rephrase this,
two to three sites could be sampled in each 5-week field school or four to six
sites in an 8 to 10week field season.
Excavation is not a one-size-fits-all tactic to address important archaeo-
logical issues. Even though most archaeologists will acknowledge the need
for different methods for different questions, most academic investigations
and field schools in the Midwest tend to focus on excavation. Midwestern
archaeologists need to wean themselves off of their addiction to trench and
test pit excavation. It consumes large quantities of time, money, and the
resources we are ethically tasked to preserve. In fact, excavation is quite in-
adequate to answer some of the most important questions about prehistoric
social systems (e.g., regional settlement patterns, variability in community
organization).
Further, the efficiency of data recovery is much greater for surface survey
and other extensive data recovery strategies. For example, in four months
of excavation in 2008 at the Reinhardt site, just over 8,000 artifacts were
recovered from fifteen 2 × 2-m units (Nolan 2009). Contrast this with the
1 week intensive surface collection that netted over 7,000 artifacts from the
entire extent of the site. I do not mean to imply that quantity of artifacts is
of utmost importance. The point is that the Reinhardt surface investigation
was able to recover nearly the same quantity of material over a larger por-
tion of the site in one-sixteenth the time. This makes it more likely that the
full suite of activities is represented for the site within the time available for
investigation. Short of complete WPA-style excavation of a large number of
sites, field strategies like the one advocated here are the only way to begin to
decipher patterning of activity at the community level across large regions.
The 2007 Reinhardt project illustrates the efficiency of the field methods
described above in problem-oriented research. The 10 × 20-m grid used in
the Reinhardt shovel test survey is probably the lowest sampling resolution
that could yield results. A tighter resolution would be useful at a wider array
of sites and a wider variety of site types. I recommend a 5 × 5-m resolution
126 Kevin C. Nolan

or at least a 10 × 10-m interval. The 10 × 20-m interval was selected based on

the previously observed variation in plaza and habitation ring size discussed
above. However, if different settlement sizes do exist, then tighter resolution
will be necessary. The 5 × 5-m interval has been successfully employed by
Robert A. Cook (personal communication 2009) at the Wildcat site, a small,
non-circular Middle Fort Ancient site in the Miami Valley. One significant
difference between the strategy employed by Cook (and most often em-
ployed in shovel testing surveys) and the strategy discussed here is that a 50
× 50-cm shovel test survey was not completed at Reinhardt. The volumetric
shovel testing tactic can be used more efficiently in deciphering village struc-
ture. Not only is there a greater volume of sediment to excavate and screen
with 50 × 50-cm shovel tests, but there can be inter-person differences in the
volume of sediment excavated within a typical 50 × 50-cm test unit (sloping
walls, imperfect unit corners, etc.) and standardization of artifact counts by
excavation unit may not be as sensitive as smaller, standard-volume shovel
tests. It is possible to measure the volume of each 50 × 50-cm test unit;
however, this increases the recording time necessary for field workers and
is prone to greater recording error (i.e., blunders sensu Lyman and VanPool
2009) than the simple standard volume samples. With 50 × 50-cm shovel
testing, additional labor time is devoted to measuring and squaring walls,
a labor cost eliminated by the volumetric approach. By way of illustration,
in the time that we excavated two 50 × 50-cm excavation units at Reinhardt,
all of the T4 volumetric shovel test samples (N=10, spanning 90 m) were
excavated and screened and T5 was started.

Conclusion
Increased accuracy and efficiency argue for the use of volumetric shovel tests
over the standard 50 × 50-cm shovel testing. When used in combination
with intensive surface collection, geoarchaeological (e.g., soil phosphate),
and geophysical surveys, a high density grid of volumetric shovel test units
can be efficiently employed to rapidly increase the sample of deciphered
village structures for the Fort Ancient period in the Middle Scioto Valley and
beyond.

Acknowledgements. Many people helped make this project possible. The City
of Columbus, Division of Water and especially the director of the Parsons
Avenue Water Plant, William Eitel, graciously allowed access to the property
and provided regular assistance and support. Keith and Don Peters, who
rent the farm from the City, have been very accommodating of my interfer-
ence in their planting and harvesting activities. Keith performed the plowing
 Dechiphering the Community Structure of a Fort Ancient Village 127

for the PVA surface collection at no cost, and Don, on more than one oc-
casion, rescheduled his activities around my work schedule. I am indebted
to Dr. William S. Dancey for his guidance throughout my time at OSU and
his active participation in the field portion of this project. Dancey lent his
expertise, his weekends, and his Field Methods students to the project. I am
thankful for all of the students and volunteers who performed much of the
labor and analysis, especially: Steven P. Howard, Sean D. Nolan, Jacob E.
Deppen, and Alex Corkum. Dr. Paul Sciulli used his own research funds to
obtain the first radiometric date for the site. Thanks to Jacob Deppen and
James Feathers for providing the TL date reported here. I would also like to
thank Mike Ohlinger and James Morton for their efforts towards discovery
and preservation and allowing me access to all their records and collections
from the site. I also acknowledge the funding of the Certified Local Govern-
ment grant (#39–08–21740) program administered by the Ohio Historic
Preservation Office and the National Science Foundation Doctoral Disser-
tation Improvement Grant program (BCS–0832272). Funding from these
sources supported the 2008–2009 investigations which are discussed and
provided the funding for the AMS dates. Finally, thanks are due to the editor
and the anonymous reviewers for their critical attention and constructive
comments which greatly improved this manuscript. Any remaining omis-
sions, errors, or faults of logic are my own.

References
Brady-Rawlins, K.
2007 The O.C. Voss Site: Reassessing What We Know About the Fort Ancient Oc-
cupation of the Central Scioto Drainage and its Tributaries. Unpublished
Ph.D. Dissertation, Anthropology, Ohio State University, Columbus.
Carskadden, J., and J. Morton
1977 The Richards Site and Philo Phase of the Fort Ancient Tradition. The Musk-
ingum Valley Archaeological Survey, Zanesville, Ohio.
2000 Fort Ancient in the Central Muskingum Valley of Eastern Ohio: A View
from Philo II Site. In Cultures Before Contact: The Late Prehistory of Ohio
and Surrounding Regions, edited by R. A. Genheimer, pp. 158–193. Ohio
Archaeological Council, Columbus.
Church, F. and J.P. Nass
2002 Central Ohio Valley during the Late Prehistoric: Subsistence-Settlement
Systems’ Response to Risk. In Northeast Subsistence-Settlement Change, A.D.
700-A.D. 1300, edited by J. P. Hart and C. Reith, pp. 11–42. New York State
Museum Bulletin 496, University of the State of New York, Albany.
Cook, R.A.
2008 SunWatch: Fort Ancient Development in the Mississippian World. University of
Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
128 Kevin C. Nolan

Cook, R.A, and M.R. Schurr

2009 Eating between the lines: Mississippian migration and stable carbon
isotope variation in Fort Ancient populations. American Anthropologist
111:344–359.
Cowan, F.L.
2006 A Mobile Hopewell? Questioning Assumptions of Ohio Hopewell Seden-
tism. In Recreating Hopewell, edited by D.K. Charles and J.E. Buikstra, pp.
26–49. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Dancey, W.S.
1991 A Middle Woodland settlement in Central Ohio: A preliminary report on
the Murphy site (33Li212). Pennsylvania Archaeologist 61:37–72.
Dancey, W.S., and P.J. Pacheco (editors)
1997 Ohio Hopewell Community Organization. The Kent State University Press,
Kent, Ohio.
Dunnell, R.C.
1983 Aspects of the Spatial Structure of the Mayo Site (15-JO–14) Johnson
County, Kentucky. In Lulu Linear Punctated: Essays in Honor of George Irving
Quimby, edited by RC Dunnell and DK Grayson, pp. 109–165. Anthropo-
logical Papers 72, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor.
Dunnell, R.C., and W.S. Dancey
1983 Siteless Survey: A Regional Scale Data Collection Strategy. In Advances in
Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 6, edited by M.B. Schiffer, pp. 267–
287. Academic Press, San Diego.
Essenpreis, P.
1978 Fort Ancient Settlement: Differential Response at a Mississippian-Late
Woodland Interface. In Mississippian Settlement Patterns, edited by B.D.
Smith, pp. 141–168. Academic Press, New York.
Feathers, J.K. and J.E. Deppen
2009 Chronometric Dating Report for the Reinhardt Site (33PI880). In Archaeo-
logical Survey of the Reinhardt Tract Property through a Certified Local Govern-
ment (CLG) Grant on behalf of the City of Columbus in Harrison Township,
Pickaway County, Ohio. Edited by K.C. Nolan, Appendix B. The Ohio State
University. Submitted to the Ohio Historic Preservation Office. Copies
available from Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus, Ohio.
Graybill, J.R.
1981 The Eastern Periphery of Fort Ancient (A.D. 1050–1650): A Diachronic Ap-
proach to Settlement Variability. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washing-
ton. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.
Greenlee, D.M.
2002 Accounting for Subsistence Variation among Maize Farmers in Ohio Valley
Prehistory. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Anthropology, University of
Washington, Seattle.
Hart, J.P., D.L. Asch, C.M. Scarry, and G.W. Crawford
2002 The age of the common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) in the northern Eastern
Woodlands of North America. Antiquity 76:377–385.
Hart, J.P., J.P. Nass, B.K. Means
2005 Monongahela subsistence/settlement change. Midcontinental Journal of Ar-
chaeology 30: 327–365.
 Dechiphering the Community Structure of a Fort Ancient Village 129

Hawkins, R.A.
1998 Coming Full Circle: Plowzone Assemblages and the Interpretation of Fort
Ancient Settlement Structure. In Surface Archaeology, edited by AP Sullivan
III, pp. 91–109. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Heilman, J.M., M.C. Lileas, C.A. Turnbow (editors)
1988 A History of 17 years of Excavation and Reconstruction – A Chronicle of 12th
Century Human Values and the Built Environment, Volume I: Excavation. Day-
ton Museum of Natural History, Dayton, Ohio.
Henderson, A.G.
1998 Middle Fort Ancient Villages and Organizational Complexity in Central Ken-
tucky. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Kentucky, Lexington. University Mi-
crofilms, Ann Arbor.
Johnson, A.W., and T. Earle
1987 The Evolution of Human Societies: From Foraging Group to Agrarian State. Stan-
ford University Press, Stanford, California.
Justice, N.D.
1987 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Midcontinental and Eastern United
States: A Modern Survey and Reference. Indiana University Press, Indianapo-
lis, Indiana.
Lyman, R.L., and T.L. VanPool
2009 Metric Data in Archaeology: A Study of Intra-analyst and Inter-analyst Vari-
ation. American Antiquity 74:485–504.
Means, B.K.
2002 The Later Prehistory of Meyersdale, Pennsylvania, and Its Surroundings:
An Overview. North American Archaeologist 23(4):281–307.
2007 Circular Villages of the Monongahela Tradition. The University Alabama Press,
Tuscaloosa.
Mills, W.C.
1904 Explorations of the Gartner Mound and Village Site. Ohio State Archaeologi-
cal and Historical Society Publications 13:129–191.
Morton, J.
2006 personal communication
Nolan, K.C.
2008a Survey Methodology Report for Archaeological Survey of the Reinhardt Tract,
Pickaway County, Ohio. The Ohio State University. Manuscript on file with
the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus, Ohio.
2008 Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant: Documenting Variability in
Environmental Exploitation and Settlement Structure in the Central Scioto
Valley. National Science Foundation, Columbus, Ohio.
2009 Archaeological Survey of the Reinhardt Tract Property through a Certified Local
Government (CLG) Grant on behalf of the City of Columbus in Harrison Town-
ship, Pickaway County, Ohio, Volume I: Survey Results. The Ohio State Univer-
sity. Submitted to the Ohio Historic Preservation Office. Copies available
from the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus, Ohio.
2010 Multi-Staged Analysis of the Reinhardt Village Community: A Fourteenth
Century Central Ohio Community in Context. Doctoral dissertation, De-
partment of Anthropology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
130 Kevin C. Nolan

Nolan, K.C., J. Burks, and W.S. Dancey

2008 Discovering Ohio’s Newest Earthwork: Geophysics and Distributional Sur-
vey of a Fort Ancient Village and a Hopewellian Enclosure at the Reinhardt
Site, Pickaway County, Ohio. Poster presented at the 73rd Meeting of the
Society for American Archaeology, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Nolan, K.C., and R.A. Cook
2010 An Evolutionary Model of Social Change in the Middle Ohio Valley:
Was Social Complexity Impossible During the Late Woodland but Man-
datory During the Late Prehistoric? Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
31(2):119–154.
O’Brien, M.J., R.L. Lyman
2000 Applying Evolutionary Archaeology: A Systematic Approach. Kluwer Academic
with Plenum Publishers, New York.
Pollack, D., and A.G. Henderson
1992 Towards a Model of Fort Ancient Society. In Fort Ancient Cultural Dynam-
ics in the Middle Ohio River Valley, edited by AG Henderson, pp. 281–294.
Monographs in World Archaeology No. 8. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wis-
consin.
2000 Insights into Fort Ancient Culture Change: A View from South of the Ohio
River. In Cultures before Contact: The Late Prehistory of Ohio and Surround-
ing Regions, edited by RA Genheimer, pp. 194–227. Ohio Archaeological
Council, Columbus.
Prufer, O.H., O.C. Shane
1970 Blain Village and the Fort Ancient Tradition in Ohio. Kent State University
Press, Kent, Ohio.
Roos, C.I. and K.C. Nolan
2009 Geoarchaeological Survey and Village Structure at a Middle Fort Ancient
Village in the Scioto Valley. Paper presented at the 2009 Archaeological
Sciences of the Americas Symposium, Tampa, Florida.
Shott, M.J.
2008 equal o nll roofht w ded I e vsbr cted: A Proposal for Conservation of Pri-
vate Collections in American Archaeology. Archaeological Record 8(2):30–
34.
Thompson, V.D, and J.A. Turck
2009 Adaptive Cycles of Coastal Hunter-Gatherers. American Antiquity 74:255–
278.
Truncer, J.
2006 Taking Variation Seriously: The Case of Steatite Vessel Manufacture. Ameri-
can Antiquity 71:157–163.
Yerkes, R.W.
2002 Hopewell Tribes: A Study of Middle Woodland Social Organization in the
Ohio Valley. In The Archaeology of Tribal Societies, edited by WA Parkinson,
pp.227–245. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor, Michi-
gan.