Chapter III: Part 3

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

__

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.

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.

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).

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