THE MISSOURI ARCHAEOLOGIST

VOLUME 24 DECEMBER 1962

THE MISSOURI ARCHAEOLOGIST

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

Editor: Robert T. Bray, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri Associate Editor: Carl H. Chapman, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri Art Director: Eleanor F. Chapman

SOCIETY OFFICERS

Henry W. Hamilton, President
Vice-Presidents

J. Allen Eichenberger

Walter M. Davis

Richard A. Marshall, Secretary

Leonard W. Blake

Leo J. Roedl

Dale R. Henning, Treasurer

TRUSTEES

O. D. Evans, Chairman

Leo Anderson

Royal D. M. Bauer

C. L. Blanton, Jr.

Bartlett Boder

Dr. H. E. Calkin

Archie K. Cameron

R. I. Colburn

Harry L. Collins

J. L. Connelly

Dr. G. F. Cresswell

Jake M. Crick

Judge S. P. Dalton

Mrs. W. L. Davidson

Bruce Debo

Richard V. Dolby

Ralph J. Duerr

Terrance Dyche

William K. Erickson

Charles R. Fiorita

Franklin H. Flora

J. W. Gerhardt

Dr. Ernest B. Hanan

H. F. Hansen

Harry Harner

Dr. M. M. Hart

Leonard Haslag

Leo P. Hopper

Sam C. Irvine

Edwin Johnson

C. T. Kelly

George K. Kirk

Albert Kuchs

J. H. Larwill

Miss Margaret Lawlor

George O. Laun

James Lowe

Frank Magre

J. J. McKinny

Steve Miller

Art Province

Julian D. Pyatt

Wilson Reardon

Ralph Roberts

Leonard Rowe

Paul V. Sellers

C. K. Sheets, Jr.

John W. Taylor

Dr. P. F. Titterington

John C. Vinton

PRESERVATION OF SITES COMMITTEE

J. J. McKinny, Chairman

Lee M. Adams

Roy E. Coy

William R. Denslow

Robert L. Elgin

Arthur L. Freeman

Sam F. Hamra

Dr. H. Lee Hoover

M. E. Morris

Clyde C. Norman

Haysler A. Poague

Art L. Wallhausen

C. H. Turner

Robert L. Seelen

FRONTISPIECE

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

PREFACE
by
Carl H. Chapman

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

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

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

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

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

CONTENTS

Page [PREFACE
By Carl H. Chapman] iv [THE LAWHORN SITE
By John Moselage] 1 [FOREWORD] 2 [LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION] 2 [GEOLOGICAL SETTING] 4 [METHODOLOGY] 9 [Sunday, October 21, 1956] 9 [Saturday, October 27, 1956] 9 [November 25, 1956] 10 [38R5, Sunday, April 28, 1957] 11 [15R8, June 21, 1957] 12 [7R13, July 14, 1957] 13 [31R17, March 15, 1958] 13 [27R32, January 25, 1959] 15 [32R36, March 20, 1960] 16 [41R21, March 22, 1960] 16 [41R22, March 22, 1960] 18 [EXCAVATIONS] 18 [MATERIAL CULTURE] 20 [Pottery] 20 [Sand Tempered] 20 [Shell Tempered] 25 [Appendages] 25 [Effigies] 30 [Vessel Forms] 34 [Bowls] 34 [Jars] 36 [Water Bottles] 36 [DESCRIPTION AND COMPARISON] 38 [SUMMARY OF THE POTTERY] 42 [Pottery Disks] 44 [Projectile Points] 44 [Other Chipped Stone Artifacts] 51 [Mortars and Pestles] 51 [Stone Abraders and Whetstones] 54 [Pottery and Clay Abraders] 54 [Anvilstones] 57 [Hammerstones] 57 [Groundstone Celts] 57 [Pipes] 57 [Bone and Antler Artifacts] 58 [Brickette and Daub] 58 [Shell Artifacts] 63 [Vegetal Remains] 63 [FEATURES] 63 [Refuse Pits] 63 [Ash Pits] 65 [Firebasins] 65 [HOUSES] 69 [House 1] 69 [House 2] 69 [House 3] 73 [BURIALS] 80 [SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS] 87 [SOUTHEAST MISSOURI AREA CHRONOLOGY] 93 [APPENDIX A: IDENTIFICATION OF THE FAUNAL REMAINS FROM THE LAWHORN SITE
By Paul W. Parmalee] 95 [APPENDIX B: ANALYSIS OF VEGETAL REMAINS FROM LAWHORN SITE
By Leonard W. Blake] 97 [APPENDIX C: BURIALS AT THE LAWHORN SITE
By Charles H. Nash] 99 [REFERENCES CITED] 104

ILLUSTRATIONS

Figures Page [FRONTISPIECE] iii [1. Map of Lawhorn Site in Relation to Archaeological Sites in the Central Mississippi Valley] 3 [2. Aerial View of the St. Francis River “Sunken Lands” and the Lawhorn Site] 5 [3. Aerial View of Drainage Ditch and Levee at the Lawhorn Site] 6 [4. Contour Map of the Lawhorn Site, with Levee, Drainage Ditch, Excavated Areas and Grid Control System] 7 [5. Cord Marked Sherds and Positive Impressions] 21 [6. Sand Tempered Textile Marked Sherds and Clay Impressions] 22 [7. Sand Tempered Textile Marked Sherds and Impressions] 23 [8. Pottery Handles and Lugs] 26 [9. Jar Forms] 28 [10. Pottery Handles] 29 [11. Human Effigy Head] 31 [12. Painted Pottery] 32 [13. Decorated Pottery Sherds] 33 [14. Bowls] 35 [15. Water Bottles] 37 [16. Pottery Vessels with Burial 24] 40 [17. Pottery Disks] 45 [18. Corner Notched and Stemmed Arrowheads] 47 [19. Ovoid and Trianguloid Arrowheads] 48 [20. Stemmed Projectile Points] 50 [21. Projectile Points] 52 [22. Chipped Stone Tools] 53 [23. Mortars and Pestles] 55 [24. Stone and Pottery Abraders and Stone Pipe] 56 [25. Bone Tools] 59 [26. Bone Beads and Burned Clay Daub] 60 [27. Brickettes or Fired Clay Artifacts] 62 [28. Shell Ornaments and Tools] 64 [29. Broken Pottery Jar] 66 [30. Firebasin of Unusual Shape] 68 [31. House Ground Plan with Charred Remains, Firebasin, Ash Dumps and Refuse Pit] 70 [32. Charred Cane Poles and Grass, Part of House 1] 71 [33. Houses 2 and 3] 72 [34. Pottery Vessel in House 2 Firebasin] 74 [35. Ground Plan of House 2 with Firebasin and Burned Floor Area, and House 3 with Details of the Burned Super-structure] 75 [36. Charred Wattle Work Wall or Roof Section of House 3] 76 [37. Basal Ends of Poles along West Wall of House 3] 77 [38. Cross Sectioned Log from Floor of House 3] 78 [39. Broken Pottery Vessel from House 3] 79 [40. Hypothetical Reconstruction of the House Type at Lawhorn] 81 [41. Burials 21 and 22] 82 [42. Burial 25 and Associated Pottery Bowl] 83 [43. Burial 36] 84 [44. Soil Profiles above and near Burial 36] 85 [45. Pottery Bowl Inverted over Shoulder of Burial 37] 86 [46. Cutting a Horizontal Profile in Square 27R32, Showing Use of Hand Tools] 88 [47. Vertical and Horizontal Profiles Showing Intrusion of Sand into Cracks in Soil, Judged to be caused by Earthquake Activity] 90 [48. Missouri Archaeological Society Achievement Award, 1961] 106 [49. Francis Stubbs, Achievement Award Recipient, 1960] 107 [50. Mr. and Mrs. Harry Collins, Achievement Award Recipient, 1961] 108 [51. Sam C. Irvine, Award Plaque Recipient 1961] 109 Tables Page [1. Summary of the Sand Tempered Pottery] 24 [2. Summary of Shell Tempered Plain and Decorated Pottery] 25 [3. Relative Occurrence of Pottery Lugs] 27 [4. Comparison of Domestic and Mortuary Vessel Forms] 34 [5. Summary of House Data] 80 [6. Comparative Analysis of Corn from Lawhorn and Four Area Sites] 98 [7. Comparative Dates from Lawhorn and Four Area Sites] 98 [8. Burial Data] 101-102 [9. Age and Sex Groups] 102 [10. Mortuary Vessels] 103 [11. Average Age of Fourteen Burials] 103

THE LAWHORN SITE

by
John Moselage

FOREWORD

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

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

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

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

J. L. Henson

J. T. King

Lavern Harris

F. N. Davis

Robert Smith

C. L. Scheel

Dan Printup

Harry Madison

Ted Nelson

Irby Long

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

LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

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

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

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

CAHOKIA HERRELL KINCAID WICKLIFFE MATTHEWS CAMPBELL LAWHORN

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

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

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

GEOLOGICAL SETTING

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

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

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

Figure 3. Aerial View of Drainage Ditch and Levee at the Lawhorn Site.
(To the left of the levee is the St. Francis River in its present “Sunken Lands” channel. The site limits are shown by a dotted line)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

METHODOLOGY

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

Sunday, October 21, 1956

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

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

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

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

Saturday October 27, 1956

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

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

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

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

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

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

November 25, 1956

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

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

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

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

38R5, Sunday, April 28, 1957

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

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

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

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

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

15R8, June 21, 1957

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7R13, July 14, 1957

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

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

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

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

31R17, March 15, 1958

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We filled the square and returned home.

27R32, January 25, 1959

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

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

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

32R36, March 20, 1960

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

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

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

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

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

41R21, March 22, 1960

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

41R22, March 22, 1960

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

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

EXCAVATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MATERIAL CULTURE

Pottery

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

Sand Tempered

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

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

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

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

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

Figure 5. Cord Marked Sherds and Positive Impressions

Figure 6. Sand Tempered Textile Marked Sherds and Clay Impressions Showing Simple Twining Weave with Diagonal Pattern of Warp and Weft.
(Top and third row are sherds, 2nd and 4th rows are positive impressions)

Figure 7. Sand Tempered Textile Marked Sherds and Impressions

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

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

Shell Tempered

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

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

Appendages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Figure 9. Jar Forms

Figure 10. Pottery Handles

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

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

Effigies

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

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

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

Figure 11. Human Effigy Head

Figure 12. Painted Pottery
(1. A large shallow bowl with red painted design on buff background, painted areas intensified with water color, 2. Carson Red on Buff)

Figure 13. Decorated Pottery Sherds

Vessel Forms

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

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

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

BOWLS:

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

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

Figure 14. Bowls
(1-3. Straight sided bowls with flat bases, 4. Old Town Red slipped shallow bowl, 5. A typical shallow bowl)

JARS:

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

WATER BOTTLES:

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

Figure 15. Water Bottles

DESCRIPTION AND COMPARISON

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Figure 16. Pottery Vessels with Burial 24

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

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

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

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

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

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