LANDSCAPE, COMMUNITY, HOUSEHOLD: EXAMINING THE USE OF SPACE FOR 
EVIDENCE OF COALESCENCE AMONG MIDDLE MISSISSIPPIAN AND BOLD 
COUNSELOR ONEOTA PEOPLES OF MORTON VILLAGE 

By 

Nicole M. Klarmann 

A DISSERTATION 

Submitted to  
Michigan State University 
in partial fulfillment of the requirements 
for the degree of  

Anthropology – Doctor of Philosophy 

2024 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ABSTRACT 

What happens when two populations with differing cultural identities interact and 

cohabitate? Coalescence, or the cultural reorganization and formation of multiethnic and 

multilingual communities, is one possible outcome (Birch 2012; Kowalewski 2006). In 

archaeological contexts, material culture can help determine the level of integration or 

coalescence between distinct groups that interacted or cohabitated. However, it should not be 

assumed that a one-to-one relationship between cultural materials and people exists. In many 

contexts of interaction, a mixture of materials attributable to differing groups of people may be 

found. How then can the mixing of archaeological materials be used to identify the degree of 

coalescence? Beyond archaeological contexts, understanding prolonged, spatially based 

interactions and coalescence has larger implications for understanding today’s cultural groups 

who find themselves cohabitating with other groups (e.g., post migration or as refugees) and 

possibly affecting policy and practice that could promote integration of these migrant or refugee 

groups into the larger society. 

This doctoral dissertation will add to the scholarship of coalescence by examining the 

understudied spatial dimension of cultural reorganization within an archaeological context. I 

employ a multiscalar spatial approach to identify processes of coalescence within the Morton 

Village archaeological site, integrating data from the community, household, and landscape 

spatial scales.  

Morton Village (11F2), located near Lewistown, Illinois, serves as the case study for this 

multiscalar spatial analysis. Dating to a single occupation, ca. late AD 1200 to 1400, the site 

provides clear evidence for the cohabitation of Middle Mississippian and Bold Counselor Phase 

Oneota groups (Conrad 1973; Conrad and Esarey 1983; Hollinger 1993; Santure et al. 1990).  

 
 
However, the level of cultural integration at the site is under-explored. Varying ceramic 

attributes and architectural styles have typically been used to discern Oneota and Mississippian 

contexts within the village.  

Material culture provides a valuable line of evidence for examining coalescence, but how 

people organize themselves within their landscape, community, and household can provide 

important data as well. Furthermore, analysis of space will allow an innovative and finer 

contextualization of the distinctions and the merging of material culture. The evidence for 

interaction, coupled with the number of excavations and analyses already performed at the site, 

makes Morton Village a prime case study for analyzing coalescence. 

Coalescence changes the social, political, ideological, and economic fabric of societies, 

bringing groups together in new spaces, where specific social strategies for social integration or 

collective defense are adopted to quell tensions that arise. These strategies are visible 

archaeologically through changes in infrastructure, including transformations in the 

size/organization of settlements and alteration of the structure of domestic and public spaces 

(Birch 2012; Gerritsen 2004:151; Hodder 1986:7-8; Thomas 2004:34).  I hypothesize that the 

processes of coalescence between Oneota and Mississippian cultures occurred at Morton Village. 

To investigate this hypothesis and to determine the level of coalescence present, I create a 

dichotomy between total separation (cohabitation of site, but no coalescence) and total 

integration (integration of both groups at every level, i.e., in households, intermarrying and 

ethnogenesis), although I expect a spectrum of social arrangements exist within the spatial 

organization of the site. If Morton Village is a coalesced village, it should show distinct signs of 

this integration in its spatial organization at the landscape, community, and household levels.  

 
 
 
 
Copyright by 
NICOLE M. KLARMANN 
2024 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
For Cameron Avery Klarmann, you will always be my little excavator. 

v 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

I would first and foremost like to thank my dissertation committee chair Dr. Jodie 

O’Gorman for her support through this (very) long journey and for taking a chance on me so 

long ago. Your guidance and support helped carry me to the finish line. Thank you for 

letting me crash your quiet cabin life and your ability to help talk through my thoughts. You 

are more than a mentor, you are family. 

To the rest of my committee, Drs. Lynne Goldstein, Ethan Watrall, and Susan 

Sleeper-Smith, thank you for your encouraging emails and zoom calls. For feedback and 

advice throughout the years and continued support. Thank you for seeing me through. To 

my unofficial/official committee member Dr. Michael Conner and his wife Katie, thank you 

for being my field parents and for taking care of me so many summers.  

To my graduate school cohort, Anthrogue Squadron, spread across the country and in 

amazing careers, you all have been my team throughout this journey. The friendships we’ve 

built are lifelong. We survived roots and went on to thrive.  

To anthropology graduate program friends who have gone on to fantastic careers, 

especially my fellow Morton Village graduate students, Andy Upton, Jeff Painter, Autumn 

Painter, Frank Raslich, Ryan Tubbs, and Jennifer Bengtson, your research helped shape this 

dissertation, for that I thank you. To friends that helped me many summers, Sarah Baylor, 

Tyler Ferree, Gwen McDaniel, Kayla Leer, and Kaitlin Roberts, thank you for your time and 

dedication. To the Dickson Mounds Museum, for multiple summers of collaboration and 

space/supplies, you will always hold a place in my heart. To Dr. William Lovis, thank you 

for taking the time during your methods course to help me cultivate a writing style of which 

I am proud.  

vi 

To my Kansas Historical Society family, especially the “Cool Cats”, thank you for 

taking a chance on me many years ago and giving me a job. It was difficult working full 

time and writing a dissertation, but I have been able to create a career, lifelong friendships, 

and a home there. Dr. Laura Murphy, I am blessed to have you as a friend, thank you for 

your encouragement on our writing outings and reminders that we write to win. 

This dissertation would not have been possible without funding from the Illinois 

Archaeological Association Permanent Fund, Michigan State University College of Social 

Science, Graduate School, and the Department of Anthropology. 

And last, but certainly not least, to my family, my husband Joshua and son Cameron 

Avery, thank you for your patience the last few years. I could not have done it without your 

encouragement and support. I love you both. To my parents, Pete and Kim Silva, and 

siblings/siblings in laws, and my sweet nieces, what a blessing you all are in my life, thank 

you for your financial support, encouraging texts, check-ins, and asking when I’ll finish. 

Well, I finally did it. To my in-laws Debbie and Noel McSweeney, who have always been 

so supportive of this journey, thank you.  

And finally, to my grandparents, Denise and Tim Mitchell and Ann and Don Silva, 

the four of you inspired me in so many ways on this journey, so thank you. This dissertation 

is dedicated to the memory of Papa Tim and Papa Don. We sadly lost both of them during 

the writing stages. They both never stopped encouraging me and supporting me. Two of the 

smartest men I’ve ever known, one never got the chance to go to college, but knew how to 

fix and build anything, and one who had the opportunity to get two master’s degrees and an 

MBA, who had a deep love for education. Thank you. You have taught me more than you 

will ever know, I love and miss both of you. Look at all you begat.  

vii 

 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... ix 

LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... xiii 

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................1 

CHAPTER 2: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND .......................................................................10 

CHAPTER 3: GEOGRAPHICAL BACKGROUND OF CASE STUDY SITE ...........................36 

CHAPTER 4: LANDSCAPE SCALE ...........................................................................................74 

CHAPTER 5: COMMUNITY SCALE .......................................................................................133 

CHAPTER 6: HOUSEHOLD SCALE ........................................................................................200  

CHAPTER 7: INTERPRETATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ...................................................267 

LITERATURE CITED ................................................................................................................281 

APPENDIX A: COMPARATIVE LANDSCAPE SITES ...........................................................316 

APPENDIX B: LANDSCAPE CHAPTER FREQUENCIES .....................................................322 

APPENDIX C: LANDSCAPE CHAPTER CROSS TABULATION RESULTS ......................324 

APPENDIX D: MORTON VILLAGE DATA ............................................................................328 

APPENDIX E: MULTIVARIATE CLUSTERING ANALYSIS ...............................................344 

APPENDIX F: HOUSEHOLD PATTERNS ...............................................................................369 

viii 

 
LIST OF TABLES 

Table 4.1: Oneota Regions, Localities, and Sites ..........................................................................90 

Table 4.2: Nearest Neighbor Results for Oneota Sites by Region .................................................93 

Table 4.3: Overall Variable Frequencies for Oneota Sites ............................................................98 

Table 4.4: Oneota Sites Chi-Square Analysis and Fisher’s Exact Test .........................................99 

Table 4.5: Oneota Localities/Regional Landscape Use Characteristics ......................................107 

Table 4.6: Middle Mississippian Regions and Sites ....................................................................114 

Table 4.7: Middle Mississippian Nearest Neighbor Results by Region ......................................115 

Table 4.8: Overall Variable Frequencies for Middle Mississippian Sites ...................................118 

Table 4.9: Middle Mississippian Chi-Square Analysis and Fisher’s Exact Test .........................119 

Table 4.10: Middle Mississippian Site Topographic Region Characteristics ..............................126 

Table 4.11: Sites with Bold Counselor Oneota Presence Landscape Characteristics ..................130 

Table 5.1: Structures Identified at Morton Village by Year ........................................................152 

Table 5.2: Morton Village Confirmed Public Architecture .........................................................158 

Table 5.3: Morton Village Domestic Ritual Spaces ....................................................................161 

Table 5.4: Morton Village Architecture Types ............................................................................166 

Table 5.5: Areas for Architecture Types ......................................................................................166 

Table 5.6: Nearest Neighbor Calculations for Morton Village Structures ..................................169 

Table 5.7: Determining Ideal Number of Clusters .......................................................................170 

Table 5.8: Spatial Pattern at Morton Village: Openings ..............................................................176 

Table 5.9: Spatial Pattern at Morton Village: Rows ....................................................................177 

Table 5.10: Spatial Pattern at Morton Village: Groupings ..........................................................178 

Table 5.11: Wever Terrace Clusters as Defined in Withrow (2004a) .........................................184 

ix 

Table 5.12: Comparison between Morton Village, Orendorf, and Wever Terrace .....................194 

Table 6.1: Variables for Production Behaviors ............................................................................209 

Table 6.2: Building Location Types ............................................................................................211 

Table 6.3: Building Styles............................................................................................................211 

Table 6.4: Ceramic Styles ............................................................................................................212 

Table 6.5: Volume Calculations Based on Pit Feature Shape .....................................................213 

Table 6.6: Foodway Types and Archaeological Correlates .........................................................215 

Table A.1: Oneota Site Points ......................................................................................................316 

Table A.2: Middle Mississippian Site Points ...............................................................................320 

Table B.1: Oneota Sites, Perennial Drainage Distance ................................................................322 

Table B.2: Oneota Sites, Topographic Location ..........................................................................322 

Table B.3: Oneota Sites, Perennial Drainage Type .....................................................................322 

Table B.4: Oneota Sites, Soil Type ..............................................................................................322 

Table B.5: Oneota Sites, River Valley .........................................................................................322 

Table B.6: Middle Mississippian Sites, Perennial Drainage Distance .........................................323 

Table B.7: Middle Mississippian Sites, Topographic Location ...................................................323 

Table B.8: Middle Mississippian Sites, Perennial Drainage Type ..............................................323 

Table B.9: Middle Mississippian Sites, Soil Type .......................................................................323 

Table B.10: Middle Mississippian Sites, River Valley ................................................................323 

Table C.1: Oneota Sites Crosstabulation, Perennial Drainage Distance by Perennial Drainage 

Type .................................................................................................................................324 

Table C.2: Oneota Sites Crosstabulation, Perennial Drainage Distance by Topographic  

Location ...........................................................................................................................324 

Table C.3: Oneota Sites Crosstabulation, Perennial Drainage Distance by River Valley  

Location ...........................................................................................................................324 

x 

 
 
 
 
 
Table C.4: Oneota Sites Crosstabulation, Perennial Drainage Distance by Soil Type ................324 

Table C.5: Oneota Sites Crosstabulation, Perennial Drainage Type by Topographic          

Location ...........................................................................................................................324 

Table C.6: Oneota Sites Crosstabulation, Perennial Drainage Type by River Valley         

Location ...........................................................................................................................325 

Table C.7: Oneota Sites Crosstabulation, Perennial Drainage Type by Soil Type ......................325 

Table C.8: Oneota Sites Crosstabulation, Topographic Location by River Valley Location ......325 

Table C.9: Oneota Sites Crosstabulation, Topographic Location by Soil Type ..........................325 

Table C.10: Oneota Sites Crosstabulation, River Valley Location by Soil Type ........................325 

Table C.11: Middle Mississippian Sites Crosstabulation, Perennial Drainage Distance by 

Perennial Drainage Type..................................................................................................326 

Table C.12: Middle Mississippian Sites Crosstabulation, Perennial Drainage Distance by 

Topographic Location ......................................................................................................326 

Table C.13: Middle Mississippian Sites Crosstabulation, Perennial Drainage Distance by River 

Valley Location ................................................................................................................326 

Table C.14: Middle Mississippian Sites Crosstabulation, Perennial Drainage Distance by Soil 

Type .................................................................................................................................326 

Table C.15: Middle Mississippian Sites Crosstabulation, Perennial Drainage Type by 

Topographic Location ......................................................................................................326 

Table C.16: Middle Mississippian Sites Crosstabulation, Perennial Drainage Type by River 

Valley Location ................................................................................................................327 

Table C.17: Middle Mississippian Sites Crosstabulation, Perennial Drainage Type by Soil     

Type .................................................................................................................................327 

Table C.18: Middle Mississippian Sites Crosstabulation, Topographic Location by River Valley 

Location ...........................................................................................................................327 

Table C.19: Middle Mississippian Sites Crosstabulation, Topographic Location by Soil         

Type .................................................................................................................................327 

Table C.20: Middle Mississippian Sites Crosstabulation, River Valley Location by Soil         

Type .................................................................................................................................327 

xi 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table D.1: All Morton Village Structures ...................................................................................328 

Table D.2: Morton Village Structures included in Analysis........................................................333 

Table D.3: Morton Village Pit Features included in Analysis .....................................................335 

Table D.4: Abbreviation Key for Table D.3  ...............................................................................342 

Table E.1: Multivariate Clustering (K-Means) Analysis Results ................................................344 

xii 

 
LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 2.1: Hierarchy of Spatial Scales .........................................................................................19 

Figure 3.1: Distribution of Oneota and Middle Mississippian Sites ..............................................38 

Figure 3.2: Middle Mississippian Sites in the CIRV .....................................................................47 

Figure 3.3: Sites with Bold Counselor Oneota Presence in the CIRV ................................. 59 

Figure 4.1: Oneota Site Points .......................................................................................................88 

Figure 4.2: Oneota Localities .........................................................................................................92 

Figure 4.3: Oneota Sites, River Valley Location by Perennial Drainage Type ...........................101 

Figure 4.4: Oneota Sites, River Valley Location by Soil Type ...................................................101 

Figure 4.5: Oneota Correspondence Analysis, Region by Perennial Drainage Distance ............103 

Figure 4.6: Oneota Correspondence Analysis, Region by Perennial Drainage Type ..................104 

Figure 4.7: Oneota Correspondence Analysis, Region by Soil Type ..........................................105 

Figure 4.8: Oneota Correspondence Analysis, Region by Topographic Location ......................105 

Figure 4.9: Middle Mississippian Site Points ..............................................................................111 

Figure 4.10: Middle Mississippian Regions ................................................................................113 

Figure 4.11: Middle Mississippian Sites, Topographic Location by Perennial Drainage    

Distance............................................................................................................................120 

Figure 4.12: Middle Mississippian Sites, Topographic Location by River Valley Location ......121 

Figure 4.13: Middle Mississippian (MM) Correspondence Analysis, Topographic Location by 

Perennial Drainage Distance ............................................................................................123 

Figure 4.14: MM Correspondence Analysis, Topographic Location by Perennial Drainage    

Type .................................................................................................................................124 

Figure 4.15: MM Correspondence Analysis, Topographic Location by River Valley        

Location ...........................................................................................................................124 

Figure 4.16: MM Correspondence Analysis, Topographic Location by Soil Type .....................125 

xiii 

 
 
 
 
Figure 4.17: Sites with Bold Counselor Oneota Presence in the CIRV.......................................129 

Figure 5.1: Locations of Community Scale Sites ........................................................................144 

Figure 5.2: Norris Farms 36 Cemetery and STR 53 ....................................................................147 

Figure 5.3: Magnetometry Results at Morton Village .................................................................151 

Figure 5.4: Structures at Morton Village .....................................................................................153 

Figure 5.5: Distribution of Areas .................................................................................................154 

Figure 5.6: Structure 16 Colorized, Adapted from O’Gorman and Conner 2015 .......................157 

Figure 5.7: Structure 34 Colorized, Adapted from O’Gorman and Conner 2016 .......................158 

Figure 5.8: Structure 50 excavation map colorized .....................................................................160 

Figure 5.9: Structure 20 Colorized, Adapted from O’Gorman and Conner 2016 .......................162 

Figure 5.10: Distribution of Areas for 142 Likely Domestic Structures .....................................164 

Figure 5.11: Distribution of Areas for 48 Excavated Domestic Structures .................................165 

Figure 5.12: Building Styles at Morton Village...........................................................................168 

Figure 5.13: Multivariate Clustering (K-Means) Analysis ..........................................................172 

Figure 5.14: Number of structures within each K-means cluster ................................................173 

Figure 5.15: Spatial Patterns at Morton Village ..........................................................................175 

Figure 5.16: Wever Site (13LE110) and Wever Cemetery (13LE327), Adapted from Figures 

3.16, 3.17, and 4.1 through 4.4 in Withrow 2004a ..........................................................183 

Figure 5.17: Wever Site Clusters as Defined by Withrow (2004a) .............................................185 

Figure 5.18: Wever Site and Wever Cemetery Possible Structures, identified by Withrow 

(2004b) .............................................................................................................................187 

Figure 5.19: Final Occupation at Orendorf Settlement D, Adapted from Figure 3.1 in Wilson and 
Melton (2019) ..................................................................................................................191 

Figure 5.20: K-Means Cluster Analysis of Final Occupation at Orendorf, Adapted from Figure 

4.5 in Wilson and Geiger (2019)......................................................................................193 

xiv 

 
 
 
 
Figure 6.1: Pit Feature Profile Shapes .........................................................................................214 

Figure 6.2: Excavated Structures Included in the Analysis .........................................................218 

Figure 6.3: Frequencies of Building Locations............................................................................219 

Figure 6.4: Frequencies of Building Styles..................................................................................220 

Figure 6.5: Building Styles in the Northern Half of Site .............................................................221 

Figure 6.6: Building Styles in the Southern Half of Site .............................................................222 

Figure 6.7: Frequencies of Ceramic Styles, Structure Floors Only .............................................224 

Figure 6.8: Frequencies of Ceramic Styles, Internal Pits Only....................................................224 

Figure 6.9: Correspondence Analysis, Building Style by Ceramic Styles, Structure Floors.......225 

Figure 6.10: Correspondence Analysis of Building Style by Ceramic Styles, Internal Pits ........226 

Figure 6.11: Frequencies of Ceramic Styles, External Pits .........................................................227 

Figure 6.12: Ceramic Production and Building Styles in the Northern Half of Morton  

Village ..............................................................................................................................229 

Figure 6.13: Ceramic Production and Building Styles in the Southern Half of Morton  

Village ..............................................................................................................................230 

Figure 6.14: Mixing of Ceramic Styles in and around Structures 4-8, and 15 ............................232 

Figure 6.15: Mixing of Ceramic Styles in and around Structures 10 and 11 ...............................233 

Figure 6.16: Frequencies of Pit Feature Shape ............................................................................235 

Figure 6.17: Pit Feature Areas (in square meters) .......................................................................236 

Figure 6.18: Pit Feature Depths (in meters) .................................................................................236 

Figure 6.19: Pit Feature Volumes (in liters) ................................................................................236 

Figure 6.20: Distribution of Pit Feature Volume by Depth .........................................................237 

Figure 6.21: Distribution of Pit Feature Area by Depth ..............................................................238 

Figure 6.22: Locations of Cooking Facilities ..............................................................................239 

xv 

 
 
 
 
Figure 6.23: Locations of Processing Facilities ...........................................................................240 

Figure 6.24: Locations of Multipurpose Facilities .......................................................................240 

Figure 6.25: Openings in the Northwest Corner of Site Showing Spatial Distribution of 

Foodways .........................................................................................................................242 

Figure 6.26: Northeast Corner of the Main Occupation Area Showing Spatial Distribution of 

Foodways .........................................................................................................................243 

Figure 6.27: Central Portion of the Main Occupation Area Showing Spatial Distribution of 

Foodways .........................................................................................................................244 

Figure 6.28: Southeastern Corner of Main Occupation Area Showing Spatial Distribution of 

Foodways .........................................................................................................................245 

Figure 6.29: Southeastern Ridgeline Toward Cemetery Showing Spatial Distribution of 

Foodways .........................................................................................................................246 

Figure 6.30: Northeastern Corner of Site Showing Spatial Distribution of Foodways ...............247 

Figure 6.31: Artifact Densities of Morton Village Pit Features ...................................................248 

Figure 6.32: Pit Feature Locations by Artifact Density ...............................................................249 

Figure 6.33: Depositional Episodes by Artifact Density .............................................................249 

Figure 6.34: Morton Village Structure 7 Excavation Map, Adapted from Harn and Klobuchar 

(2000) ...............................................................................................................................252 

Figure 6.35:  Morton Village Structure 26 Excavation Map, Adapted from Beyer et al.  

(2016) ...............................................................................................................................253 

Figure 6.36: Intrastructure Analysis, Structure 7 and Structure 26 .............................................255 

Figure 6.37: Morton Village Structure 7 Activity Areas, Adapted from Harn and Klobuchar 

(2000) ...............................................................................................................................257 

Figure 6.38: Intrastructure Analysis, Structure 26 with Activity Areas ......................................260 

Figure E.1: Multivariate Clustering (K-means) Analysis, Cluster 1 ...........................................346 

Figure E.2: Multivariate Clustering (K-means) Analysis, Cluster 2 ...........................................347 

Figure E.3: Multivariate Clustering (K-means) Analysis, Cluster 3 and 11 ................................348 

xvi 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure E.4: Multivariate Clustering (K-means) Analysis, Cluster 4 ...........................................349 

Figure E.5: Multivariate Clustering (K-means) Analysis, Cluster 5 ...........................................350 

Figure E.6: Multivariate Clustering (K-means) Analysis, Cluster 6 ...........................................351 

Figure E.7: Multivariate Clustering (K-means) Analysis, Cluster 7 ...........................................352 

Figure E.8: Multivariate Clustering (K-means) Analysis, Cluster 8 ...........................................353 

Figure E.9: Multivariate Clustering (K-means) Analysis, Cluster 9 and 18 ................................354 

Figure E.10: Multivariate Clustering (K-means) Analysis, Cluster 10 .......................................355 

Figure E.11: Multivariate Clustering (K-means) Analysis, Cluster 12 .......................................356 

Figure E.12: Multivariate Clustering (K-means) Analysis, Cluster 13 .......................................357 

Figure E.13: Multivariate Clustering (K-means) Analysis, Cluster 14 .......................................358 

Figure E.14: Multivariate Clustering (K-means) Analysis, Cluster 15 .......................................359 

Figure E.15: Multivariate Clustering (K-means) Analysis, Cluster 16 .......................................360 

Figure E.16: Multivariate Clustering (K-means) Analysis, Cluster 17 .......................................361 

Figure E.17: Multivariate Clustering (K-means) Analysis, Cluster 19 .......................................362 

Figure E.18: Multivariate Clustering (K-means) Analysis, Cluster 20 .......................................363 

Figure E.19: Multivariate Clustering (K-means) Analysis, Cluster 21 .......................................364 

Figure E.20: Multivariate Clustering (K-means) Analysis, Cluster 22 .......................................365 

Figure E.21: Multivariate Clustering (K-means) Analysis, Cluster 23 .......................................366 

Figure E.22: Multivariate Clustering (K-means) Analysis, Cluster 24 .......................................367 

Figure E.23: Multivariate Clustering (K-means) Analysis, Cluster 25 .......................................368 

Figure F.1: Household Patterns Closeup, Opening 1 ...................................................................369 

Figure F.2: Household Patterns Closeup, Opening 2 (north), Opening 3 (south), Rows 1 and 2, 

and Cluster Groupings .....................................................................................................370 

Figure F.3: Household Patterns Closeup, Opening 4 and Cluster Groupings .............................371 

xvii 

 
Figure F.4: Household Patterns Closeup, Opening 5 and Cluster Groupings .............................372 

Figure F.5: Household Patterns Closeup, Opening 6 and Cluster Groupings .............................373 

xviii 

 
 
 
 
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 

1.1. Introduction to the Research Problem 

What happens when two populations with differing cultural identities interact and 

cohabitate? Coalescence, or the cultural reorganization and formation of multiethnic and 

multilingual communities, is one possible outcome (Birch 2012; Kowalewski 2006). In 

archaeological contexts, material culture can help determine the level of integration or 

coalescence between distinct groups that interacted or cohabitated. However, it should not be 

assumed that a one-to-one relationship between cultural materials and people exists. In many 

contexts of interaction, a mixture of materials attributable to differing groups of people may be 

found. How then can the mixing of archaeological materials be used to identify the degree of 

coalescence? Beyond archaeological contexts, understanding prolonged, spatially based 

interactions and coalescence has larger implications for understanding today’s cultural groups 

who find themselves cohabitating with other groups (e.g., post migration or as refugees) and 

possibly affecting policy and practice that could promote integration of these migrant or refugee 

groups into the larger society. 

This dissertation adds to the scholarship of coalescence by examining the understudied 

spatial dimension of cultural reorganization within an archaeological context. I employ a 

multiscalar spatial approach to detect the level of coalescence using a case study of Morton 

Village, an archaeological site in the central Illinois River valley (CIRV), integrating data from 

three spatial scales: landscape, community, and household.  

1 

 
 
 1.2. Research Problem and Objectives 

People express their identity in multiple ways; one such way is through the alteration of 

space, which can be imbued with specific social aspects of the society or individuals using it. 

Migration and cultural interaction are the major causes of the transmission of cultural practices 

and the altering of the identities of participants. When creating or modifying one’s identity, 

material objects are often altered in the process and can reflect aspects of these identities. Space 

is one such medium used to express one’s constructed identity and social or cultural 

organization. This research seeks to examine the spatial organization of a prehistoric 

archaeological site at multiple scales to infer the level of integration of the two groups of people 

living there. At each scale, evidence of integration can be explored, and may provide evidence 

that varying levels of integration have occurred. An individual scale cannot explain all aspects of 

culture, but by using a multiscalar approach, these components can be considered in relation to 

each other, thus providing a more complete understanding of the people that inhabited that space 

(Walker 2012). The spatial scales utilized here—landscape, community, and household—focus 

on how artifacts, resource spaces, and activities are organized spatially across regions, within 

sites, and within structures. Each spatial scale has its own theoretical and methodological 

approaches that can be used to understand how people created and sustained these relationships, 

but analysis of each will influence the investigation of the other scales.  

Landscape choice refers to the negotiation between people and their physical 

surroundings or environment (Branton 2009; Clark and Scheiber 2008). I consider landscape 

choice using a regional approach, where large-scale relationships between archaeological 

remains and the physical environment can be considered (Kantner 2008). A regional view of 

landscape is used to examine and compare differences in resource selection, site location (why 

2 

people chose a certain location to inhabit), and how people inhabit landscapes within the same or 

different regions.  

Community organization investigates the spatial aspects of ‘community,’ defined as the 

largest grouping of persons in a cultural group whose day-to-day activities unite them into a self-

conscious corporate unit that is economically self-sufficient and politically independent 

(Beardsley et al. 1956). This scale explores the variety of different spaces used by people within 

the Morton Village community, including domestic, ceremonial, public, and spaces in between. I 

explore how space is occupied at Morton Village in terms of architecture, including where 

various types of architecture are located in relation to one another, to public spaces, and where 

they are situated topographically. These characteristics are informative about smaller scale 

interactions between individuals within the community.   

Household structure investigates the linkages between material culture and the 

environment, household demography, and activities that make up a household unit (Rogers 1995; 

Wilk and Rathje 1982). Households are the minimal architectural unit for people who live 

together and who share in basic domestic economic behavior. The structure of what a household 

can look like will likely be different within and between communities (Stanish 1989). 

Because spatial archaeology deals with human activities at every scale, a multiscalar 

investigation of the use of space can identify the social components of the individuals inhabiting 

the space. Combining multiple scales allows these components to be considered in relation to 

one another and provides a clearer understanding of how the residents inhabited that space 

(Walker 2012). The three spatial scales used here focus on how artifacts, resource spaces, and 

activities are allocated to particular locations across landscapes, within sites, and within 

structures.  

3 

The goal of this research is to create a model for examining coalescence within 

archaeological sites where there is known interaction but unclear levels of integration by 

examining the use of space. Guiding this research is the following overarching question:  

If spatial archaeology and the examination of multiple scales of space is informative on 

the social organization of its inhabitants, what then could the examination of spatial 

relationships tell us about how social identity may be influenced and altered by instances 

of cultural interaction and integration within archaeological communities?  

This question helps shape a research model for analyzing cultural interaction and integration on a 

site-by-site basis as instances of cultural interaction and integration vary across time and space. 

This question provides a general guide to the research and to the selection of a case study and 

specific questions related to it. Through a case study of interaction, multiple scales of space can 

be analyzed to understand whether/how a group integrated with another. 

Morton Village (11F2), located near Lewistown, Illinois, is the case study for this 

multiscalar spatial analysis. Dating to a single occupation ca. late AD 1200s to 1400, the site 

provides clear evidence for the cohabitation of Middle Mississippian and Bold Counselor phase 

Oneota groups (Conrad 1973; Conrad and Esarey 1983; Hollinger 1993; O’Gorman and Conner 

2023; Santure et al. 1990). In recent work, the level of cultural integration at the site has been 

explored in several different ways: cooking and foodways through ceramics (Painter 2021; 

Painter and O’Gorman 2019, 2024), faunal remains (Painter 2022), botanical remains (Nordine 

2020), diet (Tubbs 2013), the cemetery population (O’Gorman et al. 2020), and ritual activities 

(O’Gorman and Conner 2023). Additional work has explored larger scale transitions within 

social networks as a result of Oneota migration into the CIRV, which likely resulted in a period 

of communal coexistence within the region (Upton 2019). The approach used here incorporates 

4 

the spatial dimension of cultural integration by investigating multiple spatial scales to identify 

processes of coalescence taking place within the village.  

To discern Oneota and Middle Mississippian contexts within the village, ceramic 

attributes and architectural styles have typically been used. Material culture provides a valuable 

line of evidence for examining coalescence, but how people organize themselves within their 

landscape, community, and household can provide important data as well. Furthermore, analysis 

of space will allow an innovative and finer contextualization of the distinctions and the merging 

of material culture. The evidence for interaction, coupled with the number of excavations and 

analyses already performed at the site, makes Morton Village a prime case study for analyzing 

coalescence. 

Coalescence changes the social, political, ideological, and economic fabric of societies, 

bringing groups together in new spaces where specific social strategies for social integration or 

collective defense are adopted to quell tensions that arise. These strategies are visible 

archaeologically through changes in infrastructure, including transformations in the 

size/organization of settlements and alteration of the structure of domestic and public spaces 

(Birch 2012; Gerritsen 2004:151; Hodder 1986:7-8; Thomas 2004:34).  I hypothesize that the 

ongoing process of coalescence was part of the social fabric of life at Morton Village. To 

investigate this hypothesis and to determine the level of coalescence present, I create a 

dichotomy between total separation (cohabitation of site, but no coalescence) and total 

integration (integration of both groups at every level, i.e., in households, intermarrying and 

ethnogenesis), although I expect a spectrum of social arrangements exist within the spatial 

organization of the site. If the process of coalescence is occurring at Morton Village, it should 

5 

show distinct signs of this integration in its spatial organization at the landscape, community, and 

household levels.  

1.3. Significance of Research 

People are in constant interaction with those that are perceived to be different from them. 

This is true through all of human history, be it Neanderthal interactions with modern humans in 

Europe or migrant and refugee interactions at the Mexican and American border, or at any 

nation/country border. Modern-day cultural interactions are often fraught with conflict, 

aggression, and misunderstanding.  

One goal of this research is to explore ways that people of the past have negotiated and 

navigated these differences. Did acceptance of others and an ability to interact successfully occur 

(through cohabitation and cultural integration) or was the interaction unsuccessful, leading to 

conflict? Or was there some combination of successful integration and conflict with others. After 

its initial discovery and excavations in the 1980s, research on Morton Village and its associated 

cemetery, Norris Farms 36, focused on the evidence of trauma on the remains. Recently, with the 

Michigan State University-Dickson Mounds Museum (MSU-DMM) project, a large portion of 

the site has been investigated and the complexity of the cultural interactions that occurred there 

are beginning to be understood While acknowledging the clear signs of conflict, the project 

considers that conflict within a larger contexts of migration and possible coalescence. Evidence 

of interaction and cohabitation occurring at this site makes it an ideal case study to explore and 

identify the level of cultural integration of the two groups living at the village.  

I consider Morton Village a frontier settlement sitting on the borderlands of Middle 

Mississippian settlement (Naum 2010). Frontiers are those locations where two (or more) distinct 

6 

 
cultural groups interact and where a different or new identity and/or political entity is created 

(Naum 2010). In this instance two groups, Oneota and Middle Mississippians, both settled in this 

frontier settlement where violent interaction occurred. Although violence still occurred during 

the occupation of the village, new interactions within the Morton Village community led to 

transformation and change, where new practices were invented, and new relationships formed 

between inhabitants. Archaeologically, evidence for these transformations appears in the material 

culture, which includes how activities occurred spatially. Using Morton Village as a case study 

of cultural integration can help identify how people create and maintain interethnic ties in 

frontier contexts, how the interactions of multiple groups lead to intersections between them, and 

how frontier relationships can facilitate these cultural changes and innovations. 

Because evidence exists for both violent conflict and integration occurring at Morton 

Village, its complexity can be used to further explore the nature and possibility of human 

interactions that occurred amongst Indigenous American populations prior to European invasion. 

Archaeological evidence has proven that Native American communities interacted with each 

other regularly, exchanging material culture as well as social and cultural customs. The 

complexity of this cultural interaction can be further explored by incorporating concepts of 

coalescence to identify how these communities were reshaped to accommodate differing groups.  

1.4. Organization of Dissertation 

This dissertation is organized into seven chapters. Following the introduction to the research 

problem and overarching research question discussed in this chapter, Chapter 2 provides an 

overview of the theoretical framework that guides the research, including an overview of spatial 

analysis, cultural identity, cultural interaction, integration, and coalescence. Chapter 3 introduces 

7 

 
the case study site, Morton Village, and contextualizes its geographic and temporal setting in the 

Illinois River valley, providing background on the Middle Mississippian and Oneota periods in 

the midwestern United States.  

Chapters 4 through 6 explore each of the three spatial scales incorporated in this analysis. 

Chapter 4 explores the largest scale, landscape, to identify regional patterns to Oneota and 

Middle Mississippian settlement choices in an effort to identify which patterns Bold Counselor 

Oneota sites in the CIRV, i.e., Morton Village, reflect.  

Research Question 1: Are there differences or similarities in the positioning of Morton 

Village on the landscape compared to the positioning of earlier or contemporary Oneota 

sites in other areas and Middle Mississippian sites in the CIRV and in other areas? 

Chapter 5 explores the community scale, exploring how the Morton Village community is 

constructed. Questions here focus on where Oneota and Middle Mississippian spaces are within 

the village, how members of the community interact through day-to-day activities and 

ceremonial or ritual activities.  

Research Question 2: How is the Morton Village community organized? Are there 

differences or similarities when compared to the organization of Oneota and Middle 

Mississippian sites? 

Chapter 6 explores the smallest scale, the household, looking for micro-level interactions 

within domestic spaces to identify how Oneota and Middle Mississippian people constructed 

space, and integrated and interacted within this space.  

Research Question 3: How are the household spaces within the Morton Village community 

organized? Does one group utilize these spaces differently or is there overlap between the 

Oneota and Middle Mississippian spaces at the village? 

8 

Finally, Chapter 7 synthesizes the findings of the three spatial scales, bringing the three 

research questions together to address the overarching research problem. This chapter provides 

an interpretation of these results and conclusions reached through the research, as well as future 

directions for utilizing similar theories and analyses at other sites.  

The organization of space at the landscape, community, and household scales identify how 

the Oneota and Middle Mississippian inhabitants of Morton Village were interacting and 

cohabitating. Identifying evidence of integration of the spatial characteristics at these scales is 

then used to determine whether the process of coalescence was taking place amongst these 

residents.  

9 

 
 
CHAPTER 2: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 

2.1. Introduction  

One overarching research question guides this doctoral research: if spatial archaeology 

and the examination of multiple scales of space is informative on the social organization of its 

inhabitants, what then could the examination of spatial relationships tell us about how social 

identity may be influenced and altered by instances of cultural interaction and integration within 

archaeological communities? This chapter presents multiple theoretical viewpoints on how 

spatial organization can be used to analyze cultural engagement and the connections between 

space and identity. Considering archaeological spatial relationships is key to understanding 

social relationships and the construction of social identity amongst individuals within a 

community. Where people live and how they inhabit that space affects how social identity is 

constructed and negotiated.  

I begin with a discussion about the history of spatial analysis as it has been used in 

archaeology and current approaches that will be utilized in this dissertation. This includes the 

idea that the social organization and cultural identity of a group of people can be reconstructed 

from contextualizing material culture within the spatial organization of an archaeological site. 

How space is imbued with this identity, i.e., how it is given a sense of place, is also an important 

factor in understanding the cultural organization of a community. The difference between ‘space’ 

and ‘place’ will be detailed, followed by a discussion of multiscalar approaches to spatial 

analysis.  

Viewing space at a variety of scales contextualizes the organization of and types of 

material culture found within it. This dissertation examines three scales of space: 

10 

 
landscape/region, community, and household. Following the discussion of spatial analysis, a 

sense of place, and spatial scales, I move into a discussion of migration and cultural interaction. 

The movement of people and their subsequent interaction with other cultural groups often leads 

to an exchange of ideas, objects, and often identity. Based on this exchange, I consider ideas on 

how cultural identity is constructed. Specifically focusing on instances of cultural interaction 

leading to modifications or even the creation of new social and cultural identities through 

coalescence, and how this intersects with the construction of space and place. Finally, I will 

discuss how these instances of cultural interaction leading to coalescence can be viewed and 

interpreted through the archaeological record. 

2.2. Spatial Analysis in Archaeology 

For over 40 decades, archaeologists have recognized the role of spatial information in 

research. The incorporation of an analysis of the spatial location and organization of 

archaeological materials led to the creation of ‘spatial archaeology’, defined by Clarke (1977) as 

using archaeological spatial relationships to obtain information and the study of the 

consequences of human activities on space (1977:9). Being human means embodying spaces 

within a material world, and our manipulations of and activities within this space are what make 

humans distinct from each other (Gillings et al. 2020). Space here is defined as the physical 

location occupied or altered by an individual or group. There are two ways of viewing ‘space’: 

absolute, with space as a container for all material objects, existing independently of those 

objects that fill it, and relative, with space having a positional quality, making it impossible to 

view space in the absence of material things (Conolly and Lake 2006). Space could also be 

viewed as a combination of the absolute and relative; space does contain material objects, but the 

11 

 
relationships between these objects is important in understanding the individuals that inhabit the 

space (Conolly and Lake 2006). Early forays into spatial analysis in archaeology focused on the 

location of activities, without linking these activities to the social actors who conducted them 

(Ashmore 2002). Over time, the idea that the spatial relationships being analyzed could be linked 

to social processes of the individuals inhabiting those spaces gained popularity. Another 

approach, and the one that guides this dissertation is a middle ground between these two views 

on spatial relationships; focusing on space as a type of material culture (how artifacts are found 

in specific locations) and understanding how the use of these locations, their spatiality, can 

inform archaeologists on the social mores of its inhabitants (Baumanová 2016; Gillings et al. 

2020).  

Human activity tends to be non-random and spatial structure is one result of these non-

random human processes, making spatial structure informative about the way a society was 

organized (Goldstein 1981; Trigger 1989; Willey and Sabloff 1993). Spatial analysis has been 

referred to as ‘Middle Level Theory’ by Trigger (1989) because it attempts to connect patterning 

in the archaeological record with generalizations of higher-level theoretical inferences on the 

social and cultural aspects of space. This idea is also expressed by Gillings et al. (2020), when 

they discuss an “assumption of essential human spatiality” within spatial archaeology, meaning 

that the interpretation of spatial patterns in archaeological evidence can be related to those 

generative processes people in the past used to create those patterns.  

Archaeologists can examine how space was occupied to make inferences on the social 

organization of the group inhabiting it, as people choose to imbue space with their individual and 

cultural experiences, which is reflected in the physical space of the archaeological record. 

Societies and communities place particular force upon individuals to conform to specific social 

12 

organizations, and spatial patterning can be explained in terms of how these forces interact to 

form complex spatial structures (Urry 1985). Space is a process of repetitive, habitual, and 

routinized behavior or daily practices that have been physically manifest in an individual’s 

physical world (Lake 2010). The spatial patterning of these choices is visible in the architecture 

and artifacts preserved in the archaeological record and can be used to examine inter-cultural 

regularities or variations (Ashmore 2002; Gillings et al. 2020; Trigger 1989; Willey and Sabloff 

1993). Hegmon (1989) found that increased degrees of social integration in historic Pueblo 

societies could be interpreted from the built environment as architecture is engaged by people 

negotiating social relations and reformulating cultural identities. As Hegmon demonstrated, 

social relations are produced and reproduced through the organization of space, a notion 

supported by other scholars of spatial archaeology (Gregory and Urry 1985; Parker Pearson and 

Richards 1994). By analyzing the spatial structure of the archaeological record and its material 

dimensions (i.e., architecture and artifacts), archaeologists are able to interpret the nature of the 

social relations within past societies and those daily practices that helped create that spatiality.  

2.2.1. The Difference Between Space and Place 

While ‘space’ can be considered the physical backdrop on which social events occur 

(Prohansky et al. 1983), ‘place’ is how that physical backdrop has been imbued with meaning by 

the people inhabiting it. When an individual occupies a physical location or space for long 

enough, they create a ‘sense of place’ within that location. Space is considered an objective, 

blank canvas within which human activity takes place and within which these activities can be 

quantified (Gillings et al. 2020). Space also provides an analytical and conceptual framework 

within which this quantifiable activity can be integrated, related, and structured into a whole 

13 

 
(Gillings et al. 2020). Place is considered a culturally constructed location imbued with meaning 

through human actions and experiences that occur there (Cresswell 2004 as cited in Gillings et 

al. 2020). Places serve as key locales, rich in social meaning and significance, anchored in daily 

practices and everyday life (Gillings et al. 2020). Whitridge (2004) cautions against putting place 

in opposition to space, rather it is important to emphasize that space and place are 

complementary ideas (citing Tilley 1994; Barrett 1994). Place is seen as a movement of thought 

and practices, which imbues space with meaning, and is an inherently social, qualitative process; 

while space is taken to refer to a universal, abstract, and quantifiable. Although appearing to be 

in opposition to space, the creation of meaningful places is actually an aspect of space. Space is 

shaped by experience, knowledge, material culture, and sociality; it is also physical, people do 

not move through an “abstract biophysical matrix, but through meaningful cultural landscapes, 

within socially variable envelopes” (Whitridge 2004).  

As Basso (1996) found among the Cibecue Western Apache in Arizona, people’s 

connections to specific locations turns these spaces into places. Basso’s original goal was to 

create a map of the Cibecue area using Apache placenames, however, he discovered that those 

placenames have a deeper meaning to those that gave them. They tell a story of the people’s 

connections to their landscape and home (Basso 1996). Prohansky et al. (1983) describe this as 

creating ‘place-identity’, part of self-identity, focusing on how an individual’s experiences in a 

space create values, attitudes, and beliefs about that physical location. A ‘sense of place’ or 

‘place-identity’ is shaped by an individual’s experiences in the physical space and reflects how a 

person’s relationships with others in these spaces defines their day-to-day life (Prohansky et al. 

1983). Different cultural groups will have different senses of place, because they have different 

experiences within space, and changes in either the space (location) or community (interaction, 

14 

 
migration, etc.) will result in changes to the sense of place for people in that community 

(Prohansky et al. 1983). Our sense of identity is imbedded within the physical location in which 

we experience day-to-day life (Coen et al. 2017). Our traditions and culture are constructed on 

the basis of the places we live; the physical environment constructs our personal and our group 

identity (Coen et al. 2017). A community’s sense of place can be understood by investigating 

how they used space in their day to day lives.  

Through this dissertation, I investigate how physical space is structured within a context 

of cultural interaction and attempt to identify whether locations used in day-to-day life were 

given a ‘sense of place’ or ‘place identity’ by its inhabitants. I will accomplish this by examining 

the archaeological record and those specific material components housed within it, specifically 

how those material components are organized in space. According to Wheatley (2004), using 

appropriate theory and method with available computer mapping tools such as GIS to explore the 

meaningful spatial configuration of material remains gives archaeologists the freedom to 

construct an “archaeology of place”. An archaeology of place recognizes that how material 

culture is organized spatially depends on the activities of people. Any large-scale spatial patterns 

we identify archaeologically are the result of intended and unintended consequences of these 

people’s actions (Wheatley 2004, citing Giddens 1984). In contexts of interaction and possible 

cultural integration, there is potential for the actions of people of different backgrounds to 

construct different places within their space. These differences should be visible archaeologically 

through material culture left behind by the actions of those inhabiting these spaces.  

15 

 
 
2.2.2. Mapping Technology and Reconstructing a Sense of Place in Space 

How we interpret meaning from the spatial structure of the archaeological record has 

changed and so have the methods used to examine spatial relationships (Ashmore 2002). The 

identification, representation, and analysis of spatial patterns posed issues for archaeologists 

prior to the development of computer mapping tools (Gillings et al. 2020). With the development 

of these tools, utilizing paper maps in spatial analysis became obsolete as archaeologists can now 

ask more complicated questions of archaeological spatial information. The potential for these 

types of tools in the management, integration, and display of sizable and complex types of spatial 

data was significant for those archaeologists conducting spatial analysis (Gillings et al. 2020). 

Tools such as Geographic Information Systems (GIS) uniquely shape the way researchers 

examine spatial relationships at archaeological sites and expand the types of questions that can 

be asked of spatial data. 

In the 1970s, geographer Roger Tomlinson, credited as the ‘father of GIS’, saw the 

potential for these tools to be used by archaeologists and others because of the ability to store 

different layers of information in one map. These mapping tools have become so important in 

archaeological analyses, that some form of GIS are always used in analyses that examine the 

archaeological spatial relationships between material objects. GIS offers a diversity of options 

for the organization and analysis of multiple kinds of data at varying scales of analysis. Maps, 

whether paper or digital, simplify the world into manageable representations or models of spatial 

phenomena (Conolly and Lake 2006). GIS offer a more dynamic way of viewing spatial 

information than paper maps, which are static, two-dimensional, difficult to update, and difficult 

to relate to non-spatial data (Gillings et al. 2019, 2020; Jones 2017).  

16 

The advantage of GIS are that they permit the organization of different components of the 

same map into different layers, and you can view these layers all at once to make inferences on 

how these different elements interact (Connolly and Lake 2006). Maps can also never be 

considered ‘finished’, but as continually remade every time someone engages with them and 

instead of thinking of it as spatial, mapmaking should be thought of as a process (Gillings et al. 

2019). Although rooted in a quantitative system (i.e., coordinates), an archaeologists biological 

and cultural navigation of the map is more based on qualitative relationships (Gillings et al. 

2019). Maps can be viewed as assemblages of archeological knowledge, they distill what we see 

(sites, features, and artifact locations) for representation, but not an exact replica of what the 

people that inhabited it would have seen and experienced (Gillings et al. 2019). It is important to 

emphasize that GIS are a tool in archaeological analysis, and adequate theoretical concerns are 

required to dictate the use of the tool and to make any inferences based on the results of the 

analysis (Baumanová 2016; Gillings et al. 2019; Howey and Brouwer Burg 2017; Wheatley 

2004). In this dissertation, GIS are used as a tool of representation of archaeological spatial data 

and the material culture found within these spaces. These representations will be explored at a 

variety of spatial scales, each of which will be discussed and have their theoretical concerns 

detailed in the following sections. 

2.2.3. Multiscalar Approach to Space 

Spatial data exists at a variety of scales, or distinctive relative sizes, extents, or degrees (Curtis 

2014; Merriam-Webster 2018) and in the context of this analysis, I am investigating how people 

inhabit and alter space at multiple scales. Spatial archaeology deals with human activities at 

every scale: in the environments they impacted, the architecture which accommodated them, the 

17 

 
artifacts left behind, and in the relationships between these components. By using a multiscalar 

approach one can identify the social components of the individuals inhabiting the space. Scale at 

its simplest level is the details of and associations between artifacts, sites, and landscape 

(Gillings et al. 2020). An individual scale cannot explain all aspects of culture or behavior, but 

by combining multiple scales these components can be considered in relation to one another and 

provide a more holistic understanding of the people that inhabited a particular space (Walker 

2012). Clarke (1977) emphasized the need to use a multiscalar approach to examine spatial 

phenomenon and defined three levels or resolutions of space: macro, semi-micro, and micro; 

macro refers to spatial phenomenon between sites, semi-micro refers to spatial phenomenon 

within sites, and micro refers to spatial phenomenon within structures. These three levels 

correspond to this dissertation’s use of the scales of landscape/region, community, and household 

(respectively) and focus on how artifacts, resource spaces, and activities are allocated to 

particular locations across landscapes, within sites, and within structures. It is important to 

identify individual phenomena at single spatial scales and investigate how each relates to, 

integrates, and influences phenomena at other spatial scales (Curtis 2014; Llobera 2012; Lock 

and Molyneaux 2006); i.e., the analysis of one scale (community for example) will 

influence/determine the analysis of the other scales of landscape/region and household (Figure 

2.1). Each of the spatial scales used in this project has its own theoretical background of how it 

has been used to understand how people create and sustain social relationships. I will briefly 

describe these viewpoints and identify theoretical perspectives used in this analysis. 

18 

Figure 2.1: Hierarchy of Spatial Scales 

2.2.3.1. Landscape/Regional Scale 

While there are many different definitions for the word ‘landscape’, most place an 

emphasis on the negotiation between people and their physical surroundings (Branton 2009; 

Clark and Scheiber 2008). Interest in how people inhabit the space around them is not new to 

archaeology (Anschuetz et al. 2001; Feinman 1999; Knapp and Ashmore 1999). ‘Landscape’ is 

not simply a scale of space, but a subjective social formation, dictated by its inhabitants 

(Anschuetz et al. 2001; Ingold 1993).  

Landscape in relation to archaeological research does not necessarily directly correlate 

with the natural environment (Kozlowski 2011) but can be viewed as the space individuals 

inhabit and utilize to meet their day-to-day needs. Binford (1982) recognized the landscape as 

the arena for all of a group’s activities, because people derive meaning from their lived, everyday 

involvement in the world, the landscape they inhabit tells and is a story.  

Studying the landscapes that people inhabit or inhabited, as in archaeological contexts, 

allows for the interpretation of the social experiences of its inhabitants. According to Rossignol 

(1992), this can be done by viewing the distribution of archaeological materials relative to the 

19 

 
 
various elements on the landscape. These distributions are present because landscape use has 

continuities in its structure and organization throughout its occupation, making patterns visible 

archaeologically (Anschuetz et al. 2001). By looking for patterns in how a landscape is 

inhabited, like where the site is in relation to resources or in relation to other sites, inferences can 

be made about the experiences of the inhabitants. Human occupation is multilayered and any 

group occupying a specific physical setting instills their ‘sense of place’ on that space (see 

section 2.2.1 on the differences between space and place), which can be recognized by 

investigating landscape in this way (Anscheutz et al. 2001; Basso 1996; Coen et al. 2017; 

Gillings et al. 2020; Prohansky et al. 1983; Whitridge 2004). This means that populations inhabit 

the landscape differently and it is in the physical nature of the landscape in which the social 

perceptions of its inhabitants can be inferred (Basso 1996; Dommelen 1999). 

Archaeologists now recognize that boundaries between people and the relationships 

between people and the environment were regularly changing (Branton 2009; Kantner 2008). At 

this broadest scale, it is possible to compare how people inhabit the landscape and how they 

interact with the environment. By looking at the characteristics of multiple sites, archaeologists 

can identify and understand regional differences in this relationship between people and 

environment. According to Kantner (2008), “archaeological regions are spaces for which 

meaningful relationships can be defined between past human behavior, the material signatures 

people left behind, and/or the varied and dynamic physical and social contexts in which human 

activity occurred (41).” By taking a regional approach to archaeology, you can characterize 

large-scale spatial relationships between archaeological remains and the physical environment 

(Kantner 2008). A regional view of landscape can be used to examine and compare differences 

20 

in resource selection, site location (why people chose a certain location for a village/community, 

etc.), and how people inhabit landscapes within the same or different regions. 

2.2.3.2. Community Scale 

The ‘community’ scale is defined by Murdock (1949:79) as the maximum number of 

people who live together in regular, day-to-day association. This definition applies principally to 

residential groups that occupy nucleated settlements. Beardsley et al. (1956) expanded the 

definition of community, “as the largest grouping of persons in any particular culture whose 

normal activities bind them together into a self-conscious corporate unit, which is economically 

self-sufficient and politically independent (1956:133)”. This expanded description considers the 

shared social, political, and economical mores of those participating in the community and is the 

definition that will guide my work. 

In more recent research, there is an emphasis on community consisting of two 

components: the physical and material reality (usually consisting of a habitation site composed 

of multiple domestic and public structures) and the social concept (the thoughts, ideas, and 

beliefs that bind people together) (Yaeger and Canuto 2000). Marsh (2016) cites Anderson 

(1991) to analogize these components to ‘imagined community’, which refers more broadly to 

groups with shared interests and identity, and ‘geographic community’, which refers to groups 

that are sharing space. Anderson (1991) used the concept of ‘imagined community’ to analyze 

the causes of nationalism, describing a nation as a socially constructed community imagined by 

the people who perceive themselves as its members. Within this nation, participants may never 

personally know most of their members, but each member possesses knowledge of the shared 

aspects that constitute the community. People with shared experiences in watching and/or 

21 

 
participating in group activities will develop a sense of unity, group identity, and will share ideas 

about their mutual assumptions and goals with each other (Rautman 2014). This is similar to how 

a sense of place is created, which was discussed previously. As people inhabit a space and imbue 

it with their identity, beliefs, and customs, a sense of place or connection to that space is created, 

and within a physical community, those that consider themselves members of it create an 

imagined community which unites them socially through this physical location (Anderson 1991; 

Gillings et al. 2020). Despite there being much research into the social concept of communities, 

Knapp (2003:570) observes a disconnection between the physical and the social concepts of 

community in practice. O’Gorman (2010) explores how social concepts drive how people define 

communities and how, from an archaeological perspective, this will not necessarily correlate to 

the physical community at the scale of village. While physical interpretation of a site or 

settlement pattern is important, linking the social concept of community to the patterned material 

record is vital (O’Gorman 2010).  

Communities are settings for multiple social activities, and the built environment of these 

communities provides a framework for the spatial analysis of prehistoric social interaction and 

community organization (Byrd 1994:643; Cheney 1992:40; Gijseghem 2007; Kent 1990; Knapp 

2003:559; Lawrence and Low 1990; McGuire and Schiffer 1983; Netting et al. 1984; O’Gorman 

2010; Tsakirgis 1996; Yaeger and Canuto 2000). For Means (2006), the village is the physical 

manifestation of this social community concept, which generates the interactions that Murdock 

(1949) saw as central to the definition of the community. Although the village cannot be 

correlated directly with the social community, it can be recognized as having central importance 

in constructing and maintaining community identity (Butt 1977:9; Juan 2009). A material 

component of community includes the types of architecture or structures used within the 

22 

community, as social mores or community identity dictate that people conduct particular 

activities at particular times and conduct activities in appropriate spaces (Parker Pearson and 

Richards 1994).  

In anthropology, there has been a tendency in the past to put many aspects of human 

existence into a binary, e.g., nature/culture, male/female, life/death, space/time; an approach 

pioneered by Claude Lévi-Strauss in structural anthropology (Trigger 1989). This dichotomy was 

adopted in archaeology to divide community space and architecture into two spheres, public and 

private (Kent 1990). Public space was considered host to communal activities including special 

events, feasts, and rituals, while private space was considered host to activities involving a small 

kinship group, usually day-to-day activities confined to domestic structures (Kent 1990). This 

dichotomy is problematic as it creates predetermined boundaries within a community, rather than 

considering that there are a variety of different spaces used by people within communities, 

including domestic, ceremonial, public, and spaces in between. An individual’s experiences in 

these various spheres will help shape their sense of place about the community in which they live 

(Gillings et al. 2020). How space is occupied within a community, in terms of architecture, 

including where various types of architecture are located in relation to one another, to public 

spaces, and where they are situated topographically are informative about smaller scale 

interactions between individuals within the community and about the place-identity of members 

in that community.   

2.2.3.3. Household Scale 

One way to study communities in further depth is by examining domestic architecture, 

which would be used to meet the daily needs of the community, which is largely studied via the 

23 

 
concept of households. Household organization cannot simply be interpreted from dwellings 

(Wilk and Rathje 1982). The environment, household demography, and activities are all 

systematically linked with material culture to create the social construct of the household 

(Rogers 1995; Wilk and Rathje 1982). Wilk and Rathje (1982) describe the household as “the 

level at which social groups articulate directly with economic and ecological processes (618)”. 

To reiterate this from the viewpoint of Stanish (1989): these individual co-residential units define 

the minimal architectural unit of people who live together and who share in basic domestic 

economic behavior and the structure of what a household can look like will likely be different 

within and between communities. 

Households are adaptive and dynamic, and change in response to localized, short-term 

fluctuations in the economy or environment, so variation over time is to be expected (Bermann 

2014; Hirth 1993). Change over time in the community structures will also lead to changes in the 

‘sense of place’ held by the members of individual households (Prohansky et al. 1983). The 

patterns of house construction, repair, destruction, expansion, and movement within a 

community constantly fluctuate because household organization and community planning 

change with the needs of the society (Mehrer and Collins 1995). The archaeological patterns of 

domestic structures and the variation in these patterns can be analyzed to determine how the 

inhabitants constructed their day-to-day lives.  

2.3. Cultural Interaction and Cultural Identity 

I now explore the ways in which the movement of people and their subsequent interaction 

with other cultural groups leads to the exchange of ideas, objects, and often identity. Through 

24 

 
 
this exchange, the modification of or even the creation of new social and cultural identities is 

possible through processes of coalescence.   

2.3.1. Movement of People and Cultural Interaction  

The movement of people and their subsequent interaction with other groups has been the 

source of the exchange of people, objects, information, and ideas for millennia. This movement 

or migration can be seen as a catalyst for cultural change as people carry their culture with them 

to a new location and potentially come into contact with a different group of people at their 

destination (Curtis 2014; O’Gorman et al. 2020; Rouse 1986). This cultural dispersion does not 

usually result in cultural replacement or assimilation of one group of people into another, rather 

it can create a complex social map of intermixing and resilience (Clark 2001). The nature of 

interactions between local inhabitants and migrants varies; if both groups maintain their own 

traditions, ethnic boundaries develop (Curtis 2014 citing Barth 1969). This dispersal can also 

result in cooperative interaction and/or hostility, which can occur in the same location and at the 

same time depending on context (Clark et al. 2019). Positive outcomes are more likely in 

contexts where institutions for cooperative migrant-local interaction exists or develops over time, 

which allows power to be more evenly distributed and diversity to be tolerated or embraced 

(Clark et al. 2019). Amicable interaction results in reciprocal sharing of cultural traits, with each 

group adopting elements of the other’s culture (Burmeister 2000). If one group is dominant, the 

other may be absorbed (Burmeister 2000). Contentious interaction and hostility will also result in 

a variety of cultural strategies taken on by both groups, including those that affect the material 

record, as the groups attempt to carve out a space for their culture that would otherwise be 

diminished (O’Gorman and Bengtson 2020).  

25 

 
No matter the type of environment in which it occurs, when it does occur, migration 

creates and transforms relationships between people and places and is thus woven into a 

community’s social fabric (O’Gorman et al. 2020 citing Li et al. 2017). The idea of people 

moving around, and interacting is a basic component of humanity, but the results may vary. The 

focus in this dissertation is not migration, rather understanding that people move, they interact, 

and exchange goods, people, ideas, and cultures, and to what extent that exchange is visible 

archaeologically (Cameron 2013; Wobst 1977).  

The term ‘culture’ has gone through several iterations of meaning in anthropology, but it 

was originally defined by Tylor (1920 [1871]) as the totality of the world created by humans, 

including knowledge, belief, art, law, morals, customs, and any other attributes acquired by 

someone as a member of society. Each component of Tylor’s definition of culture can be 

difficult to view archaeologically as often times evidence may not be reflected in the 

archaeological record. Lewis Binford viewed culture an adaptive system, specifically how 

humans adapted to their environment, and he broke this system up into three subsystems: 

technology, social organization, and ideology, each being reflected in the material record 

(Trigger 1989). In this dissertation, I consider culture as all the aspects of a group of people that 

differentiate it from another group, their beliefs, ideas, cosmologies, language, all those things 

that unite members of that community under a shared identity.  

The terms frontier and borderland, defined as locations where two (or more) distinct 

cultural groups interact, and where a different or new ‘in-between’ identity and/or political entity 

is created, have gained popularity in cultural interaction analyses (Naum 2010). These distinct 

locations are found on the borders of the territories occupied by different groups. Frontier 

contexts are areas of transformation and change, where new practices are invented, and new 

26 

 
relationships form between differing groups of people. Frontier contexts are most likely to result 

in innovative cultural constructs, because these locations are sites for creative combinations of 

cultural elements from both groups (Rice 2015). Frontiers are active contexts and transitional 

zones, spatially and temporally, where active social agency and change take place (Rice 2015). 

There is agreement that analyses of cultural interaction contexts need to consider the variety of 

backgrounds, interests, and motivations of all parties involved in cultural change (Lightfoot and 

Martinez 1995). By analyzing material culture, research can potentially identify how people 

create and maintain interethnic ties in frontier contexts, how the interactions of multiple groups 

lead to intersections between them, and how frontier relationships can facilitate these cultural 

changes and innovations. 

It should be noted that cultural interaction is a process that occurs across time and space; 

however, this dissertation focuses specifically on North American contexts. Prior to European 

colonization, differing Native American communities interacted with each other regularly, 

exchanging material culture, as well as social and cultural customs. Some of these interactions 

likely took place on the frontiers or borderlands between two cultural groups. These types of 

interactions led to the development of new cultural systems, which Cook (2007) suggests 

occurred at the Fort Ancient Sunwatch Village site ca. A.D. 1200. Cook investigates Fort 

Ancient development with respect to Mississippian interaction and examined variation among 

architectural, mortuary, pit feature, and artifact attributes within Sunwatch Village. Cook 

concluded that the landscape likely consisted of Fort Ancient villages forming in periphery peer 

types of relations with other Fort Ancient villages and neighboring Middle Mississippian 

villages. Sunwatch Village can be viewed as existing on the frontiers/borders of Fort Ancient and 

Middle Mississippian communities. 

27 

Cultural interaction occurs whenever two groups of people with different cultural mores 

encounter each other, a phenomenon that occurs across time and space. Lightfoot (1995) 

emphasizes the need for an “archaeology of pluralism”, which considers how multiple groups of 

people with varying identities affect each other, specifically in the organization/structure of 

households and communities. Cultural interaction creates unique settings for the development 

and evolution of new social and cultural identities (Lewis 2006). Changes in some of these 

aspects should be visible archaeologically, especially in contexts of interaction, as each cultural 

group will likely leave a distinct archaeological signature. As these groups interact for an 

extended time period, these signatures should continue to separate or potentially merge into 

something different and new, which will be further addressed in the following two sections. 

2.3.2. Cultural Identity 

One of the key themes of the previous section was the idea of cultural interaction leading 

to the remolding of identity or even the creation of a new identity and how groups involved in 

interaction express or alter their identities. In this section, identity will first be defined followed 

by discussions of the multiple ways of creating identity.  

Identity is defined as the expression of a real or assumed shared culture and common 

descent, and membership in these culturally distinct units is integral to an individual’s social 

persona and their interactions with others (Sullivan and Harle 2010). Identity is a 

multidimensional and fluid aspect of humanity, and can shift depending on the temporal, spatial, 

and circumstantial context, making it difficult to recognize in the archaeological record (Geller 

2009; Sullivan and Harle 2010). Everyone has a number of social identities, which entail 

constant negotiation and organize relationships with other individuals and groups within our 

28 

 
social world, yet we often forget about the subjective, inner world of the individual (Meskell 

2001). Identity operates at two levels, the broader social level in which identities are defined by 

formal associations or mores, and the individual or personal level, where a person experiences 

many aspects of identity subjectively, and fluidly over their lifetimes (Meskell 2001). Identifying 

the distinctions that prehistoric peoples used to segregate themselves from others is difficult. 

When there is direct cultural interaction and some shared technologies, ideologies, or symbolism, 

it can be more difficult to recognize significant differences in cultural identity.  

Identity studies in archaeology have focused on the multiple components of identity, 

including, ethnicity, gender, class, kinship, and age. The specific characteristics that a group used 

to mark its identity within the broader cultural milieu need to be recognized (Emerson and 

Hargrave 2000). However, there does not seem to be any particular class of material objects or 

behavioral traits that are consistently associated with ethnic identity.  

When examining the identity of past populations, archaeologists investigate material 

items left behind; these objects were used in daily activities and became imbued with the 

individual’s identity. The term ‘entanglement’ is used in multiple ways to examine the 

interaction between people and objects. Thomas (1991) identified entanglement as the inter-

connections between people resulting from the exchange of things. According to Thomas (1991), 

researchers need to get rid of generalizing types when discussing material culture, especially 

when analyzing exchange. The focus should not be on material objects, rather understanding the 

local cultural, political, and exchange systems in order to recognize the effects of human agency 

on those systems. Societies appear to be made up of humans interacting with each other, forming 

groups and associations, entering into various forms of relationships with each other leading to 

29 

changes in social and cultural identity; material things are involved in this process, assisting in 

exchanges of information. 

Identity can be a means through which social subjects are constructed into relationships 

of taxonomic similarity and difference in comparison with other subjects (Voss 2008). There is a 

tendency to study identities by isolating specific aspects without considering the ways that these 

social identities are experienced holistically (Voss 2008). Ethnic groups develop not in isolation 

but through intense ongoing interaction and ethnic boundaries are inherently permeable and 

constantly in flux (Voss 2008). Ethnic identity is the belief in a group’s affinity that is based on 

subjective beliefs or shared common ancestry (Hu 2013). A careful consideration of ethnicity 

reveals at least three components: how insider’s view membership, how outsiders relate to and 

interact with insiders, how and why institutions such as state bureaucracies and academia draw 

boundaries around and classify people (Hu 2013). In archaeology, it is not merely a matter of 

finding material correlates for these identities, it also involves considering how artifacts and 

other evidence operate within identity-making processes and how meanings and material culture 

become associated with social groups (Welk 2014). Hu (2013) discusses how the boundaries of 

archaeological cultures, based on material culture traits, do not neatly agree with how the people 

themselves perceived social, cultural, and ethnic boundaries. In archaeology, the viewing of 

identity as fluid, contested, and constructed has made comparative studies difficult, because the 

character of identities cannot be directly inferred from material culture (Hu 2013). 

Archaeologists have often treated identities as stable categories that can be used to sort people 

and the artifacts they leave behind into groups for comparative analysis (Voss 2008). Voss 

(2008) emphasizes the need to discover ways to talk about social identities that embrace change 

30 

as well as stability, permeability as well as bounded-ness, fluidity as well as fixity, and social 

agency as well as social structure (Voss 2008).  

Social groups alter the material world to express their social identities. Different social 

groups may occupy different locations or use the same location differently (Lightfoot and 

Simmons 1998; Meskell 2002). When social groups occupy the same space, new social identities 

may be formed. Various terms have been used to describe this pattern of communities coming 

together to form a social aggregate, including agglomeration (Hodder and Cessford 2004), 

aggregation (Kuijt 2000; Rautman 2000), convergence (Bradley 1987; Tuck 1971), hybridity 

(Alt 2006; Bhabha 1994; Deagan 2013; Peterson 2011; Silliman 2013; Stockhammer 2012; Yao 

2012) nucleation (Gerritsen 2004), and coalescence (Birch 2012:646; Clark et al. 2019; Ethridge 

and Hudson 2002; Kowalewski 2006). The ever-changing nature of identity is often most clear in 

these contexts of interaction. The exchange of ideas and objects can create new iterations of an 

individual and society’s cultural and social identity. Of all the above-mentioned terms, 

‘coalescence’ best encompasses this idea of the exchange of ideas and objects creating new 

iterations of an individual and society’s cultural and social identity. Due to its archaeological 

correlates that can be assessed, coalescence will be the concept used in this dissertation to 

address how cultural interaction effects identify and is detailed in the following section. 

2.3.3. Coalescence 

Coalescence is defined as the cultural reorganization and formation of aggregated, 

multiethnic, and multilingual communities (Birch 2012; Hill et al. 2004; Kowalewski 2006). 

According to Clark et al. (2019) the first use of the term coalescence by archaeologists was to 

describe how aggregation of groups of people affected regional settlement patterns (in Lehmer 

31 

 
1954). In the last 20 years, the term has been used as a conceptual framework for understanding 

how entire cultural systems are reshaped, most often in contexts of migration and the resultant 

cultural interaction (Clark et al. 2019, citing Hill et al. 2004). Coalescence brings about 

transformations in the social, political, ideological, and economic fabric of societies and brings 

individuals together in new locations where specific social strategies are adopted to quell 

tensions that might arise. At different times and spaces, small village communities came together 

to form larger and more complex social groups (Birch 2012; Hornbeck Tanner 1987). The 

strategies of coalescence are visible archaeologically and include changes in the built 

environment including transformations in the size or organization of settlements and changes in 

the structure of domestic and public spaces; these changes help archaeologists understand social 

and historical processes over time (Birch 2012; Gerritsen 2004:151; Hodder 1986:7-8; Thomas 

2004:34). Kowalewski (2006) defined 12 traits of coalescent societies but noted that not all 

societies will demonstrate every feature.  

Coalescent communities form when people create and recreate identities and traditions 

during periods of dramatic social, political, and cultural realignment (Birch 2012). The processes 

of small-scale movement and community reorganization associated with coalescence results in a 

blending of previously separate cultural traditions (Hill et al. 2004). These changes can be 

observed in material culture preserved in the archaeological record and represent the result of 

changing ideas about “how to do things” (Shennan 1989:12). Analysis is not merely a matter of 

finding material correlates for the separate cultural identities, it also involves considering how 

artifacts and other evidence operate within identity-making processes and how meanings and 

material culture become associated with social groups (Weik 2014:294). Identities are 

multidimensional, contested, and negotiated and no one class or set of material categories is 

32 

always chosen in emblematic expressions of identity (Alt 2002, 2006; Weik 2014:295). By 

examining small-scale changes in community-based practices, researchers can better understand 

how large-scale social and political transformations unfolded relative to everyday human lives. 

According to Birch (2012), there are two scales of study in coalescence; one that is 

regional in scale and focuses on identifying and explaining population movement over long 

periods of time across broad areas, and those that focus on intrasite analyses of individual 

settlements, including the history of occupation and the social, spatial, and temporal dynamics of 

these communities. Multiple scholars have emphasized a need for a multiscalar approach that 

moves between multiple temporal and spatial scales of analysis (Birch 2010; Blakney-Bailey 

2007; Pauketat and Alt 2005; Wylie 1989).  

 Clark et al. (2019) examine multiple dimensions of migration and focus on two case 

studies, one of which is of Kayenta in southern Arizona, interpreted as an example of a location 

where people migrated into an area with their own cultural identity and held onto some traditions 

when they integrated with locals in their new environment, thereby creating a coalescent society. 

Clark et al. (2019) cite Homi Bhabha’s third-space theory, where migrants and locals come 

together in a new space on equal footing, creating new ideas and tolerance of each other. 

Coalescence is essentially a framework through which to study the creation and maintenance of 

multicultural communities (Clark et al. 2019). Coalescence is more likely to occur when power 

can be distributed more evenly and those coalescent societies that succeed are built through 

integrative institutions, inclusive ideologies, and new identities that transcend social boundaries 

(Clark et al. 2013; Clark et al. 2019). Changes to these societies involve a redesign of the built 

environment and religious and cultural mixing (Clark et al. 2019; Liebmann 2013). This mixing 

may ultimately lead to ethnogenesis or the creation of new ethnic groups, however, because 

33 

 
 
coalescence brings groups together rapidly, it is seldom as easy as forming completely new 

ethnic identities and traditions with deep histories will persist (Clark et al. 2019; Cordell and 

Yannie 1991; Hill 2013).  

If coalescence is incomplete by the time an archaeologist recovers the evidence of the 

built environment, there may be a fragmented settlement structure with traces of these persistent 

group traditions reflected in subtle nuances in technological style, spatial organization, and 

cuisine (Clark et al. 2019). Clark et al. (2019) emphasize the need for archaeologists studying 

coalescence to focus on institutions and practices that developed in post-migration communities 

and how these communities were reshaped in ways that accommodated migrants and locals over 

many generations (Clark et al. 2019). 

2.4. Conclusion 

According to archaeologists studying cultural integration, there should be visible 

alterations of the built environment and of the spatial organization of communities if coalescence 

has occurred (Birch 2012; Clark et al. 2019; Gerritsen 2004:151; Hodder 1986:7-8; Thomas 

2004:34). Kowalewski (2006) defined 12 traits of coalescent societies, of these, only some apply 

archaeologically and will be important in my analysis of how spatial organization can be used to 

identify shifts in cultural identity. Because coalescence is a shift in ‘how to do things’ for a 

society, as described by Shennan (1989), there should be visible evidence in the material record 

left behind by communities involved in interaction that indicate strategies of 

coalescence/integration. This should include changes in the architecture/built environment, size 

or organization of communities, and changes in domestic and community spaces (Birch 2012; 

Clark et al. 2019; Gerritsen 2004:151; Hodder 1986:7-8; Liebmann 2013; Thomas 2004:34). 

34 

 
Utilizing a multiscalar approach in my analysis will allow me to examine small-scale changes in 

intra-site community practices, which will help me identify how interaction affects those people 

living within a community and whether integration/coalescence is present (Birch 2010; Birch 

2012; Blakney-Bailey 2007; Pauketat and Alt 2005; Wylie 1989), and to examine the larger 

landscape/regional scale that Birch (2012) uses as a scale of analyzing coalescence. These 

changes will be explored in detail in three analysis chapters, corresponding to the spatial scales 

being analyzed (landscape/region, community, and household), which will detail the specific 

research questions, theories, and methods being used to explore coalescence at the varying scales 

of space.  

If groups involved in interaction (say locals or migrant populations) have not integrated 

enough to use new or innovative cultural practices of how to do things, this should also be visible 

in the archaeological record (Clark et al. 2019; Shennan 1989). It is also possible that the case 

study site chosen for this analysis will not have any evidence of integration or will have evidence 

of only minimal integration, these variations will be evident in the traces of slight changes in 

technological style and spatial organization (Clark et al. 2019). By examining the spatial 

organization of the two populations involved in the interaction at my case study site, prior to 

their interaction, I will identify whether cultural traits have changed at a landscape/regional scale 

(Clark et al. 2019; Weik 2014). By examining shifts in the built environment and architecture, I 

will identify whether cultural traits have changed at the community level and within household 

contexts (Birch 2012; Clark et al. 2019; Gerritsen 2004:151; Hodder 1986:7-8; Liebmann 2013; 

Thomas 2004:34). By looking at the spatial organization or how space was used at these three 

scales (landscape/region, community, and household) I will understand whether coalescence or 

cultural reorganization has occurred and to what degree it has occurred at my case study site.  

35 

CHAPTER 3: GEOGRAPHICAL BACKGROUND OF CASE STUDY SITE 

3.1. Introduction 

This chapter presents the geographic and cultural background for the case study site, 

which will be examined for how its inhabitants’ use of space reflects whether coalescence has 

occurred within a community. The site chosen for this analysis is the prehistoric Morton Village 

site located in the central Illinois River Valley (CIRV). This site has evidence of two cultural 

groups inhabiting the location, however the degree and nature of their integration is unknown. 

This site exists at the boundaries of these two cultural groups, the Oneota to the north and Middle 

Mississippian populations to the south. I will identify whether the interactions between Bold 

Counselor Phase Oneota and Middle Mississippian groups at Morton Village moved from a 

coexistent or interdependent interaction to full coalescence or integration into a merged, single 

social system. Before this analysis can take place, the geographic region, the cultures that 

inhabited it, and the village itself must be contextualized as to why it presents a suitable case 

study for examining coalescence. 

3.2. Contextualizing the Mississippian Period in the Midcontinent 

Lightfoot and Martinez (1995) emphasize the need to understand the variety of 

backgrounds, interests, and motivations of all parties involved in cultural change. As there are 

two cultural groups, the Mississippians and the Oneota, involved in the interaction seen at the 

case study site, I will describe the development, social organization, subsistence strategies, and 

settlement systems for these cultural traditions before discussing the Morton Village site itself.  

36 

 
 
Prior to the Mississippian period, there were Late Woodland populations living in the 

midcontinent. Previously, the term ‘Mississippianization’ was used to refer to cultural changes 

that transformed these Late Woodland cultures into Mississippian period cultures around AD 

900/1000 (Blitz 2010; Griffin 1985; Schroeder 2004). However, several recent explorations of 

‘Mississippianization’ have found that there is no single process of the emergence of 

Mississippian cultural traits, and it is clear that Mississippian traits did not “emerge” from Late 

Woodland cultures (Wilson and Sullivan 2017:2).  The spread was the result of a variety of new 

traditions and cosmologies that developed across the midcontinent as the result of interactions 

between diverse groups of people, which were influenced by a variety of processes such as 

migration and trade (Blitz 2010; Pauketat et al. 2015; Wilson and Sullivan 2017).  

The Mississippian period lasted from about AD 900-1000 to AD 1600-1700 and is 

associated with the widespread development of interacting societies with significant variation in 

their hierarchical, social, political, and religious structure (Wilson and Sullivan 2017). 

Mississippian sites in the northern Midcontinent are referred to as ‘Upper Mississippian’ and are 

more often found in the upper Mississippi River valley, while Mississippian sites to the south 

and southeast are referred to as ‘Middle Mississippian’ and are more often found in the lower 

Mississippi and Illinois River valleys, in the Southeast, and elsewhere (McKern 1939) (Figure 

3.1). While recognizing the normative construct of this terminology, the Upper and Middle 

Mississippian differentiation remains a useful nomenclature as the sites attributed to each differ 

from each other and also have regional variations in their cultural characteristics across the 

midcontinent. The prehistoric inhabitants of Middle Mississippian and Upper Mississippian sites 

are treated and referred to by archaeologists as members of separate cultural formations, the 

characteristics of which will be discussed in the following sections. 

37 

Figure 3.1: Distribution of Oneota and Middle Mississippian Sites 

38 

3.3. Middle Mississippian 

The Mississippian period in the southern Midwest is referred to as ‘Middle 

Mississippian’ and is made up of a variety of a cultural developments found in segments of the 

Mississippi and Illinois River valleys and the southeast from around AD 1000 to 1600 (Blitz 

2010; Conrad et al. 2019; Goldstein 1980; Griffin 1985; Schroeder 2004; Wilson and Sullivan 

2017). Middle Mississippian civilizations reached a cultural peak between AD 1200 and 1400 

with the trade and exchange of ceremonial and status items, the largest populations, and 

significant increases in mound and fortification construction (Blitz 2010; Goldstein 1980; Griffin 

1985; Emerson et al. 2016; Kelly 2006, 2007; Kelly, Brown, and Kelly 2008; Pauketat and 

Emerson 2000; Pauketat et al. 2015b; Schroeder 2004; Tainter 2019; Wilson and Sullivan 2017).  

3.3.1. Middle Mississippian Social Organization, Settlement System, and Cultural 

Characteristics 

Middle Mississippian societies had complex social organizations, seen in the presence of 

a hierarchical settlement pattern composed of multi-mound ceremonial centers, single-mound 

village sites, and smaller hamlets and farmsteads that all interacted with one another (Conrad et 

al. 2019; Wilson and Sullivan 2017). There is evidence for the spread of Middle Mississippian 

cultures across the midcontinent’s river valleys, and social changes within this interconnected 

regional system likely affected local-level change within the smaller sites (Goldstein 1980; King 

2003; Milner 2004; Wilson 2008). Many Middle Mississippian sites have been found where 

resources were the most abundant, along major rivers and streams, which offered a diversified 

habitat for both terrestrial and aquatic resources (Bowne 2013; Byers 2013; Milner 2004). There 

was a common suite of architectural elements used to build and organize these communities, 

39 

 
including mounds, plazas, courtyards, palisades, and cemeteries (Blitz and Lorenz 2006; Cole 

and Deuel 1937; Deuel 1935; Griffin 1943). According to Goldstein (1980), there was a 

hierarchy of social statuses and ranks involved in the mortuary practices of Middle Mississippian 

populations. Larger multi-mound sites typically have more forms of interment and more exotic 

grave goods included with burials than smaller single-mound or village sites (Bowne 2013; 

Milner 2004). 

Middle Mississippian pottery is diverse in form, however there are generally both 

utilitarian and ceremonial wares (Blitz and Lorenz 2006; Bowne 2013; Goldstein 1980). 

Utilitarian pottery is usually smooth, plain/undecorated, or decorated with simple incised lines, 

cordmarking, or handles (Goldstein 1980). Ceremonial pottery is more elaborate in form, style, 

and technique than utilitarian wares (Goldstein 1980). These items include bowls, jars, beakers, 

bottles, shallow bowls, and plates, which vary by the addition of handles, the shape of the rim 

and base, and the addition of human and animal motifs (Bowne 2013). These wares are usually 

polished, painted, engraved, trailed, incised, punctated, fabric-impressed, or stamped. Generally, 

most Middle Mississippian pottery is tempered with shell, which allowed potters to create a 

variety of shapes with thin but strong walls that were better at conducting heat (Bardolph 2014; 

Bowne 2013; Pauketat et al. 2002; Wilson 1999).  

During the Middle Mississippian period, groups began to trade and import exotic raw 

materials and export manufactured items and new ideas through what is referred to as the 

Southeastern Ceremonial Complex (Bowne 2013). The Southeastern Ceremonial Complex or 

SECC is defined as a set of ritual paraphernalia, associated symbols, and related iconography 

seen in elite contexts from distantly separated sites (Brown and Kelly 2000; King 2007; Knight 

Jr. 2006). The presence of SECC related material goods across the Mississippian southeast 

40 

indicates that long distance trade occurred and at least elites were able to gain access to valuable 

materials and/or goods.  

3.3.2. Cahokia and Its Influence on the Midcontinent 

Cahokia, the largest and most well-known Middle Mississippian site, is located in 

Illinois, east of modern-day St Louis, in the broad, alluvial floodplain of the Mississippi River, 

called the American Bottom. Based on the tremendous number and size of the earthworks 

constructed (over 100), the presence of a palisade wall, a large central plaza, and the estimated 

population size (approximately 10-15K), Cahokia is interpreted as the ceremonial, political, and 

urban center of this area between about AD 1100 and 1250 (Alt and Pauketat 2017; 

Betzenhauser and Pauketat 2019; Blitz 2010; Bowne 2013; Emerson 2010; Emerson et al. 2020; 

Koldehoff and Pauketat 2018; Pauketat 2003, 2009; Pauketat and Alt 2008; Pauketat et al. 

2015a, 2017; Pauketat et al. 2015b; Tainter 2019). There is often a ‘Cahokia-centric’ model of 

how the origin and spread of Middle Mississippian traditions is viewed, because there are widely 

distributed sites that possibly served as outposts or resettlements of Cahokia (Birmingham and 

Goldstein 2006; Blitz 2010; Bowne 2013; Emerson 2010; Goldstein 1980; Pauketat 2003, 2009; 

Pauketat et al. 2015b). Timothy R. Pauketat and others have extensively investigated the 

religiosity of Cahokia and define Cahokia as the source of a shared religious ideology in the 

midcontinent (Alt and Pauketat 2017; Emerson et al. 2016; Koldehoff and Pauketat 2018; 

Pauketat 2012; Pauketat and Alt 2008; Pauketat et al. 2015a, 2017; Pauketat et al. 2015b).  

Cahokia was founded through the convergence of diverse peoples, formalization of 

religious practices, and a transformation of the landscape (Pauketat et al. 2015a). It is unlikely 

that politics were the only cause of the emergence of Cahokia and the spread of Mississippian 

41 

 
culture, rather Cahokia and other Mississippian complexes were religious centers where people 

could experience and engage with the cosmos in their daily lives (Alt and Pauketat 2017; 

Pauketat et al. 2015b). Religion at Cahokia was dynamic and altered the political, social, and 

economic lives of people in the American Bottom and elsewhere in the midcontinent (Pauketat et 

al. 2015a). Occupants at Cahokia traded and shared resources with other ceremonial centers in 

the southeast and likely controlled trade and interaction in the river valleys where other mound 

sites and smaller villages were located (Pauketat et al. 2015b). Evidence for interaction is found 

in similarities of architectural and settlement organization between the Middle Mississippian and 

later Upper Mississippian groups, the similarities in artifacts found throughout the eastern 

woodlands, and the presence of palisaded settlements, indicative of conflict and the need for 

defense (Bowne 2013).  

3.3.3. Middle Mississippian Groups Encountering Conflict 

The Mississippian period overall brought increased levels of violence across the 

Midwest. When considering Middle Mississippian development, the increase in violence was 

accompanied by larger population sizes, increased reliance on maize agriculture, and the 

development of ranked societies (Dale Spencer 2014 citing Milner 2004, 2007; Milner et al. 

2013). Middle Mississippian people encountered violence throughout their time in the Midwest. 

Regionally, there is evidence for cultural interaction and conflict for Middle Mississippians 

living in the CIRV between AD 1000-1500, including with Late Woodland and eventually 

Oneota populations (Buikstra and Milner, 1989; Dale Spencer 2014; Goodman et al., 1984; 

Hatch 2012, 2015; Strezewski 2006; Wilson 2010). Warfare was particularly intense in the CIRV 

42 

 
when compared to many other regions (Emerson 2007; Hatch 2012, 2015; VanDerwarker and 

Wilson 2016).  

Several recent articles have investigated deteriorating regional subsistence success and 

have concluded that an intensification of intergroup conflict is evident in the caloric and 

nutritional inadequacy of skeletal populations associated with CIRV sites (Conrad et al. 2019; 

Dale Spencer 2014; VanDerwarker and Wilson 2016; Wilson 2012; Wilson and VanDerwarker 

2015). Fortifications are present at multiple larger village sites dating to the Orendorf phase, 

including Lawrenz Gun Club and Orendorf, evidence that conflict was taking place in the CIRV 

during the Middle Mississippian period (Conrad et al. 2019; Milner et al. 2013; VanDerwarker 

and Wilson 2016). Additional evidence of violent encounters is present in bioarchaeological 

analysis of skeletal remains in several locations, but most notably in the CIRV at the Norris 

Farms 36 cemetery, Dickson Mounds site, and within Orendorf’s burial population (Harn 1980; 

Milner et al. 1991a; Milner et al. 1991b; Steadman 2008; Wilson 2010). Orendorf itself had a 

higher adult rate of violence-related skeletal trauma than any other Mississippian site in the 

entire Eastern Woodlands (VanDerwarker and Wilson 2016 citing Steadman 2008). The threat of 

violence and death in the CIRV led to increased nucleation of settlements and a decreased 

amount of time spent away from defended villages (Conrad et al. 2019; Milner et al. 1991a; 

Milner et al. 1991b; VanDerwarker and Wilson 2016). By AD 1300, much of the CIRV’s 

population was living in fortified towns, further proof that it was not safe to live without such 

protection (Conrad 1989, 1991; VanDerwarker and Wilson 2016).  

Wilson (2010) proposes that with the levels of violence in the upper Midwest (see earlier 

discussion of violence for Oneota) encountered by the Oneota could have led some groups to 

move south, eventually into the CIRV, where they were met with antagonistic relations with 

43 

local Mississippian groups (Wilson 2010). Recent work in the CIRV has sought to expand upon 

the nature of this interaction between Middle Mississippian populations with migrant Oneota 

groups coming into the region (Bengtson and O’Gorman 2016, 2017a, 2017b; Nordine 2020; 

O’Gorman et al. 2020; Painter 2021; Painter 2022; Painter and O’Gorman 2019; Upton 2019).  

3.3.4. Middle Mississippian Societies in the CIRV 

Middle Mississippian societies are most well-known for the large multi-mound site of 

Cahokia in the American Bottom region and other multi-mound ceremonial centers in the 

Eastern Woodlands. However, the focus of this dissertation are those Middle Mississippian 

mound and village sites, and smaller villages, hamlets, and farmsteads found in the central 

Illinois River valley (CIRV), the 210-km valley section of the Illinois River between modern 

towns of Hennepin (to the north) and Meredosia, Illinois (to the south) (Harn 1978). This area 

includes sections of the central Illinois and adjoining Mississippi River valleys, portions with a 

slow current and expansive floodplain which distinguishes the CIRV from the upper and lower 

portions of the Illinois River valley (Wilson 2010). Conrad (1991) considers there to be two 

geographical variants of Middle Mississippian cultures (referred to as central Illinois 

Mississippians) in the CIRV, the Spoon River Culture to the north, and the La Moine River 

Culture to the south, each associated with the river basin of its namesake. Within each of these 

geographical variants the Middle Mississippian occupation is divided into multiple phases, 

however, this temporal division of the Middle Mississippian period in the CIRV was later 

revised by Esarey and Conrad (1998). I follow Esarey and Conrad’s generalized subdivision of 

the Middle Mississippian period across the CIRV into four periods/phases: Eveland (AD 1100-

44 

 
1200), Orendorf (AD 1200-1250), Larson (AD 1250-1300), and Crable/Bold Counselor (AD 

1300-1450).  

The earliest archaeological explorations in the CIRV occurred in the late 1800s, however, 

well known explorations by the University of Chicago in 1930, directed by Fay-Cooper Cole 

(see Bennett 1945; Cole and Deuel 1937) led to the identification of over 900 sites (Conrad et al. 

2019; Wilson 2010). The development of Middle Mississippian cultures in the CIRV likely 

occurred because of an influx of people from the American Bottom between AD 1050-1150, 

which was followed by a regional change where Late Woodland populations began to model 

some aspects of a Cahokian way of life, including maize agriculture (Buikstra 1984; Conrad 

1991; Conrad et al. 2019; Cook 1984; Emerson 1999; Wilson et al. 2017; Wilson et al. 2019). 

The shift for Late Woodland populations into adapting Middle Mississippian traditions was 

modeled by Steadman (1998) and Droessler (1991), who found evidence for biological 

continuity between Late Woodland and Mississippian period skeletal samples in the CIRV. The 

population movement from the south into the central valley led to a simultaneous introduction of 

new ceramic, artifactual, and architectural complexes (Bardolph 2014).  

The settlement pattern in the CIRV differs from the complexly interrelated sociopolitical 

organization found at Cahokia, but there is evidence of a hierarchical social structure and 

participation in the Mississippian religious system, with evidence of high-status burials, platform 

mounds, large public buildings, and exotic religious/status artifacts (Conrad 1989; Conrad et al. 

2019). Rather than large multi-mound ceremonial centers, there were typically ‘central towns’, 

which would typically have clusters of buildings and a temple or charnel mound with a central 

plaza and fortifications (Conrad et al. 2019). These towns would often cover 10-20 acres and 

would be associated with smaller villages, hamlets, and farmsteads. Mound and village sites 

45 

were situated near each other along the river valley and include Eveland, Dickson Mounds, 

Orendorf, Larson, Lawrenz Gun Club, and Crable, among others (Figure 3.2). 

46 

Figure 3.2: Middle Mississippian Sites in the CIRV 

47 

 
In the earliest phase, Eveland (AD 1100-1200), there is an abrupt increase in the 

intensification of maize production and a decrease in wild nut consumption, one of the major 

differences between Late Woodland sites and those attributed to Middle Mississippian sites in 

the American Bottom (VanDerwarker et al. 2013; VanDerwarker and Wilson 2016). The 

namesake of this earliest Middle Mississippian phase in the CIRV, the Eveland site, is located at 

the base of the western bluffs of the Illinois River, upstream from the mouth of the Spoon River. 

Three burned Mississippian ceremonial structures, a circular, rectangular, and cross-shaped 

building, each with wall trench construction, were excavated between 1958 and 1960 (Esarey 

1996). The cross-shaped building is unique for the area, as it has no local precedent, but is 

similar to a structure found at Cahokia (Bardolph 2014; Conrad 1991). There are likely other 

structures in the surrounding area that could have been used as dwellings and there is evidence 

for a plaza (Byers 2013; Conrad 1991). Eveland has been interpreted as a location of contact 

between Late Woodland people and people from Cahokia because ceramics at the site are similar 

in style to those found in the American Bottom at Cahokia, but made with local pastes (Conrad 

1989, 1991; Harn 1975, 1978, 1991). Conrad (1991) interprets the site as the location for an in-

migration of Middle Mississippians from the American Bottom who came in contact with local 

Late Woodland populations in the CIRV, leading to an adaptation of many Middle Mississippian 

characteristics and a transition in cultural practices, leading to the development of Middle 

Mississippian cultures in the CIRV.  

About 300 meters northeast of the Eveland site is Dickson Mounds, a large burial mound 

containing over 1,000 individuals, possibly as many as 3,000 (Conrad 1972; Harn 1991). 

Excavations in the 1960s showed that multiple smaller burial mounds and a pre-mound cemetery 

were incorporated into the larger mound, creating distinct burial areas, which were added at 

48 

different times (Conrad 1972; Harn 1991). The mound has been interpreted as a central cemetery 

for villages in the area, with individuals interred at the site over a span of 150 to 200 years 

(Conner 2016; Conrad 1989; Harn 1991). Radiocarbon dates show that burials at Dickson 

Mounds began at the beginning of the Middle Mississippian period in the CIRV and went into 

the late AD 1200s (Conner 2016; Harn 1980, 1991). Surrounding the burial mound is the 

habitation site Myer-Dickson, which has Late Woodland and Larson Phase Middle Mississippian 

components, detailed by Conner (2009, 2010, 2013, 2016). The Late Woodland habitation areas 

predate the use of Dickson Mounds as a burial site by several centuries (Conner 2013, 2016).  

The Orendorf phase (AD 1200-1250) is named after the Orendorf site, a large, fortified 

town with at least five sequentially occupied settlements and at least nine mounds of various 

sizes (Conrad et al. 2019). The Orendorf site is an example of a central town, containing a plaza, 

platform mound, and public structures (Byers 2013). Orendorf also had a palisade, suggesting the 

threat of violence from the outside was felt at some point during the approximately century-long 

occupation of the town (Conrad 1991; Milner 1999; Santure 1981; Steadman 2008). The 

presence of fortifications is not the only evidence for conflict in the area, two pipes decorated 

with warrior portraits were recovered from excavations at the site, as well as skeletal evidence 

for traumatic injuries on multiple adults (Conrad 2005; Conrad et al. 2019; Steadman 2008; 

Tubbs 2013; Wilson 2010). The population size is estimated to have been around 400-500 people 

and although moderate in size, population-dependent diseases flourished there (Hanson 2000; 

Santure 1981). Isolation, periodic inability to procure food, and forced nucleation behind 

fortifications likely all influenced the health of the community that lived at the Orendorf site 

(Steadman 2008). 

49 

The Larson phase (AD 1250-1300) is defined by what Harn (1978) refers to as the Larson 

community, later called the Larson settlement system (1994), a clustering of Middle 

Mississippian sites that appear to have a hierarchical settlement model. The settlement system 

consists of a central core site or central town, the Larson site, a mound and village site located on 

a bluff about two kilometers southeast of Dickson Mounds (Byers 2013; Harn 1978). Around 

this central town are smaller lower-level sites, or subsidiary sites, which are distinguished by size 

and perceived function (Harn 1978). Harn suggests that this clustering of sites represents a 

Middle Mississippian polity in the CIRV that appeared after the earlier Eveland and Orendorf 

phases (Byers 2013; Harn 1978). Although these central towns are largely accepted as the heads 

of polities, there is disagreement over the hierarchical structure of the polities, their number, and 

development (Byers 2013). Conrad (1991) sees Larson as one site in a series of potentially 

contemporaneous polities within the CIRV, including the southern LaMoine River site, Lawrenz 

Gun Club. The Larson phase likely ended with many of the valley’s inhabitants leaving the 

Spoon River area to join these southern LaMoine River polities before the arrival of Oneota 

people in the area (Conrad et al. 2019). 

Lawrenz Gun Club is a large village containing at least ten mounds, a central plaza, and 

dozens of structures enclosed within a bastioned palisade, and includes several structures outside 

the village’s fortification (Krus et al. 2019). Nineteen radiocarbon samples taken from work 

conducted there between 2010 and 2016 indicate that the village was occupied from circa AD 

990-1165 to AD 1295-1450, throughout much of the Middle Mississippian period in the CIRV 

(Krus et al. 2019). The palisade was built circa AD 1150-1230, with continuous repairs and 

reconstruction for generations after its construction, evidence that the threat of conflict was 

ongoing for these inhabitants (Krus et al. 2019). Extensive geophysical survey of the site 

50 

indicates that Lawrenz Gun Club is likely the largest Mississippian period village in the CIRV 

(Krus et al. 2019).  

The Crable phase (AD 1300-1450) of the Middle Mississippian period in the CIRV is 

often assessed by the relationship between local Middle Mississippians and migrant Bold 

Counselor phase Oneota. The Crable site and namesake of this phase is a distinctive mound and 

village center with ceramic evidence of two groups living within its borders (Conrad and Esarey 

1985; Esarey and Conrad 1998). Harn (1978) and Conrad (1991) agree that the Crable site was 

likely the final expression of the central Illinois Mississippian settlement system, as CIRV sites 

were mostly abandoned towards the end of the Crable phase (see Cobb and Butler 2002; 

Ethridge 1999). Crable is located in the extreme southeast portion of Fulton County, on a plateau 

of the western bluff of the Illinois River valley (Smith 1951). Crable covers between 10-25 acres, 

and contains a cemetery, multiple conical mounds, and a pyramidal mound, which are all 

considered contemporaneous (McDonald 1952; Morse 1960; Smith 1951). In his 1951 report, 

Smith views Crable as different from other Middle Mississippian sites in the Spoon River area, 

referencing the variation in ceramic artifacts from other Middle Mississippian sites in the region, 

and what he refers to as Middle Mississippian ceramic types with Oneota ‘elements’. Conrad and 

Esarey (1985) tabulated ceramics from features excavated in the 1960s, 14% of which were 

Oneota style ceramics. Vessels unique to the Crable site are deep rimmed plates with Oneota 

style incised designs on the interior rim (Conrad and Esarey 1985). The interior rim is where one 

would usually find Mississippian incised designs, so these unique vessels were interpreted as a 

hybrid between Middle Mississippian and Oneota designs, hallmarks of what is known as the 

Bold Counselor phase Oneota for the CIRV (Conrad and Esarey 1985). However, ceramic 

evidence interpreted as Bold Counselor phase is considered a ‘minority admixture’ to Crable’s 

51 

mostly Middle Mississippian population, which Esarey and Conrad (1998) interpret as some 

level of social integration between the two groups, a relationship that will be expanded upon in 

the following section. 

3.4. Upper Mississippian Oneota 

As previously described, Upper Mississippian refers to those Mississippian sites found 

along the northern Mississippi River valley. The Upper Mississippian cultural formation focused 

on here is the Oneota culture, dating circa AD 900/1000 to the mid-1700s and is known mainly 

for its presence in Wisconsin, Illinois, and Iowa, but sites are also found in Minnesota, Missouri, 

Nebraska, Kansas, Indiana, and Michigan (Benn 1995; Brown and Sasso 2001; Gibbon 2001; 

Henning and Thiesson 2004; Hollinger 1995; Jackson 1998; Overstreet 1978, 1997; Ritterbush 

2006). Henning (1998) refers to the Oneota culture as a bridge between cultural formations in the 

Plains (Kansas and Nebraska) and the eastern Woodlands (Minnesota, Missouri, Indiana, 

Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa, and Michigan) via the Prairie Peninsula, which is a section of prairie 

that extends from western Iowa to western Indiana. The name ‘Oneota’ comes from the Oneota 

River valley in Iowa and was first used by Ellison Orr in 1914 and later by Charles R. Keyes and 

Will C. McKern in the 1920s-30s to describe pottery from northeastern Iowa (Berres 2001; 

Keyes 1927; McKern 1939). The Oneota cultural tradition was present along the margins of 

major lakes and rivers of southern and eastern Wisconsin by ca. AD 900-1100 and expanded 

between ca. AD 1300 and 1500, into the Dakotas, western Iowa, Minnesota, and the Illinois 

River valley (Brown and Sasso 2001; Gibbon 2001; Henning 1998).  

52 

 
 
3.4.1. Oneota Social Organization, Settlement System, and Cultural Characteristics 

Oneota societies are described as having an egalitarian, tribal level of sociopolitical 

organization, which lacked the complexity of Middle Mississippian cultures of the south, in 

terms of settlement hierarchies, complex sociopolitical organization, and status indicators in 

mortuary practices (Gibbon 2001; Henning 1998; O’Gorman 1996; O’Gorman 2001). The 

Oneota were not building the large, complex burials mounds that are iconic components of the 

Middle Mississippian south, instead they buried their dead in cemeteries, small mounds, isolated 

pits, and within or around domestic structures (O’Gorman 1996). Oneota sites are usually found 

near rivers, lakes, or marshes, with villages comprised of storage pits, processing pits, hearths, 

midden areas, refuse pits, and structures (Berres 2001; Henning 1998; Hollinger 1995; Overstreet 

1997). These village farming communities were likely more sedentary than the preceding Late 

Woodland populations, although smaller camps for hunting were likely used (Hollinger 1995).  

There is heterogeneity among architectural features found at Oneota sites, including 

domestic structures; some were extensive, and others small (Gibbon 2001; Hollinger 1993, 1995, 

2005; O’Gorman 2001, 2010). Palisades were also present in some villages, while others lacked 

any protective measures (Gibbon 2001; O’Gorman 2001). Domestic structures were small, 

single-family pit houses, mat/pole wigwam-style dwellings, or longhouses, which could 

accommodate multiple families (O’Gorman 2010). Despite this heterogeneity, one common 

element to all Oneota villages is the presence of numerous circular pits, likely used for the 

storage of horticultural products (Henning 1998; Hollinger 1995; O’Gorman 2001; Overstreet 

1997). Brown and Sasso (2001) suggest a ‘core-hinterlands’ pattern of Oneota settlement, where 

major habitation sites, palisaded villages with enclosures, agricultural sites, and cemeteries are 

constricted to core settlements, with smaller settlements restricted to areas around the core.  

53 

The location of rivers and wetland resources influenced where the Oneota people lived. 

Gallagher and Arzigian (1994), refer to Oneota subsistence strategies as intensification through 

diversification, where they practiced a diverse and mixed economy that included growing maize, 

beans, squash, and other cultigens, along with hunting, gathering, and fishing. This strategy of 

intensification focused on utilizing multiple types of subsistence, which could therefore reduce 

the risk of food shortages and improve the society’s welfare (Gallagher and Arzigian 1994). The 

economy was stabilized by efficient corn agriculture using a ridged field system, which is 

constructed by plowing parallel channels and piling the dirt between the channels to form long, 

low ridges thus increasing soil fertility and improving drainage (Gallagher and Arzigian 1994).  

An early criterion for establishing the presence of an Oneota site was the occurrence of 

ceramics tempered with crushed shell (Holmes 1903) and has been referred to as a “pottery 

culture” (Hall 1962; Wedel 1959). Ceramics are relied upon heavily for categorizing a site as 

being part of the Oneota cultural formation (Henning 1998). Each new site brings variations in 

these pottery styles, making categorizing ceramics slightly more difficult (Henning 1998). There 

are however broad temporal trends in ceramic attributes, like shape and size of vessels, and 

decorative motifs, including trailing width, lip notching, and handle shape, which characterize 

sites throughout the region (Benn 1995; Gibbon 2001; Henning 1998; Overstreet 1978, 1997). 

Typically, Oneota ceramics are tempered with shell, and jars are globular in shape with 

constricted, outward-flaring rims, rounded bottoms, and trailed line and punctate decorations 

(Gibbon 2001; Henning 1998). For jars, decorations, if applied, are usually found on the lip or 

from the inner to outer lip-rim juncture to the upper body or shoulder (Henning 1998). Almost all 

sites classified as Oneota have been designated as such by looking at ceramic characteristics. 

54 

 
3.4.2. Oneota Temporal Considerations 

Archaeologists debate the origins of those groups recognized as within the Oneota 

tradition, but there seems to be a shift from Late Woodland to Oneota across many areas of the 

Midwest (Benn 1995; Brown and Sasso 2001). Later Oneota populations are historically 

associated with northern Dhegihan Siouan speaking populations, while Middle Mississippians 

are linked to southern and southeastern historic populations (Bengtson and O’Gorman 2016; 

Henning and Thiesson 2004; Overstreet 1997). No matter where the Oneota Tradition originated, 

there has been increased recognition that Oneota cultural groups had their own, independent 

history separate from Middle Mississippian cultures to the south (Henning 1998). It is possible 

that the Oneota cultural formation developed out of some of the same socio-economic situations 

as ranked Middle Mississippian social formations, but with variations in the resulting cultural 

systems (Brown and Sasso 2001).  

Overstreet (1997) divided Oneota occupations into four periods, referred to as Horizons 

(see Willey and Phillips 1958), Emergent (AD 900-1000), Developmental (AD 1000-1350), 

Classic (AD 1350-1650), and Historic (AD 1650-1775). These designations have been used to 

describe an Oneota presence in the Eastern Woodlands and reflects what Hall (1962) calls ‘group 

continuity’, where within a specific locality or region, consistent traits are maintained through 

time, with only minor changes. During the Emergent Horizon (AD 900-1000) communities 

consisted of wigwam style houses and small semi-subterranean pit houses, while burials are 

found beneath house floors, in pits, and in cemeteries (Overstreet 1997). In the Developmental 

Horizon (AD 1000/1150-1350), there does not appear to be major changes in life ways of Oneota 

people beyond new elements of material culture and minor modifications in subsistence with 

beans being added to a mostly corn diet (Overstreet 1997). The Classic Horizon (AD 1350-1650) 

55 

is characterized by more population clustering and changes in material culture. Villages and 

settlements became densely clustered around prominent landscape features, with burials in 

multiple cemeteries within villages or associated with domestic structures (Overstreet 1997). 

Towards the end of this period fortifications were common and villages were often settled in 

defensible positions (Overstreet 1997). The Historic Horizon (AD 1650-1775) has been difficult 

to define due to a lack of archaeological evidence, but traditionally Historic period Oneota 

groups are linked with the Ho-Chunk Tribe (Winnebago) among others (Overstreet 1997; Staeck 

1995). Due to the extent of the Oneota occupation in the Midwest (AD 900-1775), there are 

certain characteristics that change through time no matter where Oneota cultural remains are 

found. 

3.4.3. Oneota Groups Encountering Conflict 

As Oneota populations spread across the Midwest, they inevitably interacted with other 

groups, and the range of outcomes for these interactions include instances of violence and 

conflict. These conflicts, which occurred throughout the Oneota presence in the Midwest, are 

believed to be the result of conflict with non-Oneota groups (Hollinger 2005; 2018; McTavish 

2019; Wilson 2010). This conflict appears to be spread across the various regions of Oneota 

settlement, including evidence in the Oneota occupied south-central Wisconsin (Birmingham and 

Goldstein 2006). The use of fortifications at the northern Middle Mississippian outpost site 

Aztalan make it clear that defense was a priority for these inhabitants (Birmingham and 

Goldstein 2006; Hollinger 2018). Violence is also evident in other regions, including the CIRV, 

as seen on the skeletal populations in the region (Milner et al. 1991a; Milner et al. 1991b; 

Steadman 2008).  

56 

 
There is limited evidence of Oneota settlement in the southern Mississippi and Illinois 

River valleys, known as the American Bottom, however, it is clear that Oneota populations were 

in the area when terminal Middle Mississippian populations were still inhabiting the region 

(Farnsworth and O’Gorman 1998; Henning 1998; Jackson 1998; Jackson and Emerson 2014). It 

is possible that the Oneota moved into this area to enable interactions with local Middle 

Mississippian populations or the Oneota moved in after the area had been almost completely 

abandoned by Middle Mississippian populations. The Oneota did not migrate to the American 

Bottom in high numbers, and it appears to have remained a periphery or southern frontier of the 

Oneota Tradition (Farnsworth and O’Gorman 1998). There are a series of sites found in the 

central Illinois River valley that appear to have had a great effect on the Middle Mississippian 

inhabitants that lived there when migrant Oneota groups arrived, known as Bold Counselor phase 

Oneota. 

3.4.4.1. Bold Counselor Phase Oneota Cultures in the CIRV 

The migration of Oneota people into the CIRV first occurred around AD 1300 

(O’Gorman and Conner 2023). Known as the Bold Counselor Oneota phase, this period is 

defined according to ceramic vessel forms and a mixing of Oneota and Mississippian traits 

(Esarey and Conrad 1998). Ceramic forms include jars, bowls, and deep-rimmed plates with 

decorative traits such as trailed lines with punctate borders, and stab-and-drag vertical 

decorations (Esarey and Conrad 1998). The presence of bowl and plate forms is unique to Bold 

Counselor sites in the central Illinois River valley and although these vessels are sometimes 

found in other Oneota sites outside the CIRV, it is rare, but they are typical of Mississippian-

Oneota contexts in the CIRV (Painter and O’Gorman 2019). Ceramic artifacts found at sites 

57 

 
attributed to the Bold Counselor phase provide evidence that the Bold Counselor Oneota in the 

central Illinois River valley interacted with nearby Middle Mississippian populations (Conrad 

1973; Conrad and Esarey 1983; Esarey and Conrad 1998; Hollinger 1993; Henning 1995; Painter 

and O’Gorman 2019; Santure et al. 1990). The Bold Counselor Phase can only be defined as the 

result of interaction between local Middle Mississippian populations and migrant Oneota groups. 

Oneota groups came into the Illinois River valley and interacted with Middle Mississippian 

populations, reconfiguring local social networks (Upton 2019), and creating the suite of material 

culture we refer to as Bold Counselor (Esarey and Conrad 1998). Five sites, located within 35 

km of each other on blufftops overlooking the Illinois River—Crable, C.W. Cooper, Sleeth, Otter 

Creek, and Morton Village/Norris Farms 36—have been identified as belonging to this phase 

(Figure 3.3) along with several smaller surface finds near Crable that are not considered further 

here (Esarey and Conrad 1998). Varying degrees of cultural interactions between Middle 

Mississippian and Oneota populations were inferred based on how prevalent Oneota or Middle 

Mississippian ceramic artifacts were at the five sites (Esarey and Conrad, 1998:43). Of the five 

sites, only three have had excavations conducted at them, while the other two have only had 

surface collections recovered from them. 

58 

Figure 3.3: Sites with Bold Counselor Oneota Presence in the CIRV 

59 

 
As described previously, the Crable site has evidence of the presence of both Middle 

Mississippian and Bold Counselor Oneota groups residing within the village. Conrad and Esarey 

(1985) determined that 14% of the site’s ceramics are Bold Counselor and Smith (1951) referred 

to Crable as a mixed site of roughly contemporaneous Oneota and Middle Mississippian 

ceramics, suggesting a simultaneous occupation of the site by the two groups. Despite Bold 

Counselor ceramics being less prevalent than Middle Mississippian ceramics, there was likely 

some social integration within households (Esarey and Conrad 1998). Painter (2014) examined 

ceramic types recovered during a 1969 surface collection and found that Mississippian and 

Oneota ceramics were found together across the entire survey area. However, Oneota material 

was concentrated to the northern part of the study area and Mississippian material was 

concentrated to the southern part of the study area (Painter 2014). Painter interprets the 

commingling of ceramic styles across the site as evidence that there were no rigid rules 

governing residential life and that if there were clear distinctions between the Oneota and 

Mississippians living at the site, this pattern would not be present (2014).  

The C.W. Cooper site was excavated in the 1960s, ‘70s, and ‘80s, uncovering burned 

Oneota structures, pit features, and burials. This small village site was well preserved and at the 

time there was no evidence recovered of Middle Mississippian presence at the site, and it was 

considered the archetype of Bold Counselor ceramic traits (Esarey and Conrad 1998). 

Excavations by Greg Wilson in the 2010s has uncovered evidence of early Mississippian 

occupations at the site dating to AD 1150 to 1200, prior to the Oneota occupations which date to 

the early 1300s (Wilson and VanDerwarker 2015).    

Based on aerial photographs and surface collections of artifacts, the Sleeth site has been 

identified as a possible densely populated village that covers less than two hectares (Esarey and 

60 

Conrad 1998). Aerial photography showed possible evidence for fortification, but no ground 

truthing has been conducted to confirm this (Esarey and Conrad 1998).  Both Bold Counselor 

and Middle Mississippian ceramics were found in a balanced frequency on the surface of the site, 

with evidence of the typically ‘hybridized’ ceramic forms and decorations (Esarey and Conrad 

1998). Almost all of the deep rimmed plates recovered from the surface are decorated in a 

Mississippian style rather than with the trailing and punctuation that are associated with Oneota 

ceramics (Esarey and Conrad 1998). The site has never been formally excavated, so not much is 

known about who occupied the village (Oneota, Mississippians, or both) and their relationship to 

other communities in the area. Similarly, the Otter Creek site is only represented by two surface 

collected Bold Counselor phase jar shoulders, two bird effigy bowl fragments, and a 1930s aerial 

photograph showing a number of house outlines (Esarey and Conrad 1998). Due to the lack of 

investigation at Sleeth and Otter Creek, it is impossible to infer who their inhabitants were 

(Oneota or Middle Mississippian) and what their relationship was to other residents in the CIRV.  

The fifth Bold Counselor phase site, Morton Village (and associated Norris Farms 36 

Cemetery) was initially interpreted as a mostly Bold Counselor phase Oneota village, whose 

inhabitants interacted or integrated with Middle Mississippian people on some level, making it a 

counterpart to Crable, which is interpreted as a Middle Mississippian village, whose inhabitants 

interacted or integrated with Bold Counselor Oneota people on some level (Esarey and Conrad 

1998). The Morton Village site and associated Norris Farms 36 Cemetery are being investigated 

in this dissertation and will be discussed in the following section.  

61 

 
3.5. Morton Village and Norris Farms 36 Cemetery 

The Morton Village site and associated Norris Farms 36 cemetery were discovered 

during a 1983 Phase I analysis for an expansion of highway 97/78 in Fulton County, Illinois, on 

a bluff-top overlooking Thompson Lake and the Illinois River. After cultural remains were 

recovered during this survey, Phase II investigations were recommended and showed the 

existence of a cemetery and at least portions of a village (Harn 1990). The cemetery and a 

potentially earlier structure within it could not be avoided by the project and was excavated in 

the resulting Phase III salvage project between 1984 and 1985, while only portions of the village, 

including portions of 11 domestic structures, some of which were rebuilding episodes of the 

same structure, were excavated. Geophysical surveys in the 2000s indicate the presence of at 

least 144 possible structures across approximately 18 acres of the site that has been surveyed 

(Horsley et al. 2015). Based on radiocarbon dates taken during the 1980s and 2000s from both 

the village and the cemetery, the site dates between ca. AD 1200 to 1400 (O’Gorman and Conner 

2023; Santure et al. 1990; Silva et al. 2014). There was a significant admixture of ceramic 

vessels and artifacts associated with both Bold Counselor and Middle Mississippian groups 

recovered from the 1980s excavations at the Morton Village site and associated Norris Farms 36 

cemetery (Esarey and Conrad 1998). Of the five documented Bold Counselor Oneota Phase sites, 

Morton Village/Norris Farms 36 provides the best documented evidence for interaction between 

the Oneota and Middle Mississippians in the central Illinois River valley. 

Ceramics have been classified as Oneota or Middle Mississippian based on particular 

ceramic designs and vessel forms, including the presence of trailed lines imprinted on wet paste 

sometimes found with punctations and lip decorations for the Oneota, and cordmarking on jars 

and bowls, thin lines incised on dry paste (usually plates), and the presence of water bottle forms 

62 

for Middle Mississippians (Bengtson and O’Gorman 2016; O’Gorman and Conner 2023; Yann et 

al. 2013). Previous analysis showed some correspondence between Oneota and Mississippian 

ceramics with certain architectural styles, but this interpretation requires further statistical and 

spatial analysis to determine the significance of this correlation (Yann et al. 2013). Painter and 

O’Gorman (2019) found that Middle Mississippian and Bold Counselor ceramics are found 

together across the village, including on the floors of domestic structures, with a mix of pottery 

styles occurring across the site.  

The Norris Farms 36 cemetery contained 264 individuals, with most ceramic artifacts 

recovered classified as Bold Counselor, and based on genetic evidence from the skeletal data, 

investigators infer that these individuals are all Oneota people (Harn 1990; Milner et al. 1991a; 

Milner et al. 1991b; Milner 1999; Santure et al. 1990; Steadman 1998; Stone 1996; Stone and 

Stoneking 1993, 1998, 1999). Steadman (1998) uses a population genetics method to analyze 

skeletal remains to determine the level of biocultural interaction between populations in the 

central Illinois River valley. Analysis of cranial measurements from the burials at Norris Farms 

36 determined that individuals interred there are morphologically distinct from Middle 

Mississippian populations at the Orendorf site located further up the river valley, which 

Steadman interpreted as evidence of little biological interaction between Bold Counselor and 

Middle Mississippian groups.  

Minimal faunal and botanical evidence from the 1980s village excavations and the 

instances of trauma and disease within the cemetery are interpreted as the result of conflict 

between local Middle Mississippian populations and the migrant Oneota populations living at the 

village (Milner et al. 1991a; Milner et al. 1991b). According to Milner et al. (1991a), conflict 

likely restricted the village inhabitants to the bluff-top, restricting access to resources, which was 

63 

substantiated by the limited faunal evidence available at the time. These early interpretations of 

the habitation site are based on limited village data, as the 1980s salvage excavations focused 

mainly on the cemetery and less on examining the extent of the village. Countering this idea of 

residents being restricted in their movements, Painter (2022) found that based on the variety and 

habitat of animal species being consumed at Morton Village, including diverse dietary options 

like fish and bivalve species, as well as deer and wapiti, circumscription appears to be less of a 

factor for the residents of Morton Village than was interpreted initially. 

Interestingly, no evidence for a protective palisade has been identified at the site, a 

defensive method used at other sites within the valley (e.g., Lawrenz Gun Club and Orendorf) 

and by some Oneota elsewhere (e.g., Valley View site), although the site’s position on the bluff 

top is itself a defensive method (Hollinger 2005). As mentioned above, Hollinger (2018) 

suggests that Oneota used their numbers elsewhere in the Midwest as a defensive mechanism. 

With the possibility of a smaller presence in the CIRV, the strategy may be different. 

It is important to contextualize the evidence of traumatic injuries on individuals within 

the cemetery and how this relates to the village occupation. Silva et al. (2014) separate 

radiocarbon dates from the site and the cemetery and found that dates from the cemetery indicate 

that it was likely used early on in the village occupation. The cemetery was a low-lying mound 

that was eventually capped in a red clay signifying an end to its use (Santure et al. 1990). The 

potential that the cemetery was filled early in the village’s occupation and that it ceased to be 

used at some point provides context for Steadman’s (1998) findings of minimal biological 

interaction (as indicated by cranial morphology) and provides evidence that violent conflict was 

not the only form of interaction between the two groups. Foley (2016) questions whether 

violence was endemic to the CIRV and instead argues that the conflict was inconsistently 

64 

distributed across the valley, emphasizing the evidence of trauma at Norris Farms 36 as an 

exception rather than the norm in the valley. Whatever the nature of violence elsewhere in the 

valley, it is clear that it was a part of life at least for a time for the inhabitants at Morton Village 

based on the skeletal population buried at Norris Farms 36.  

Although there is clear evidence of extensive violence against Oneota people during their 

time in the CIRV, as seen in trauma on skeletal remains in the associated Norris Farms 36 

cemetery, there is also evidence of social negotiation taking place at Morton Village. It is 

important to recognize that a variety of outcomes, including conflict, are always possible when 

two groups of people interact and cohabitate. It is also important to understand that through time 

differing groups that interacted often integrated into one community, sometimes as a means of 

defense against other groups (Arkush 2017). Conflict is not the only result of interaction that is 

possible and when it occurs, it may not endure, or it may lead to a shift in relationships between 

people. Conflict can and does occur, but post-conflict may come a time of understanding, a time 

of people getting to know each other and a mutual support of survival (Arkush 2017; Clark et al. 

2019). Conflict occurred at Morton Village (Milner et al. 1991a; Milner et al. 1991b), but this is 

not the entire story. 

Current research has focused on reexamining the interpretation of a restricted population 

at Morton Village and has attempted to better understand the relationship between the Bold 

Counselor Oneota and the Middle Mississippian populations in the river valley (e.g., Bengtson 

and O’Gorman 2016; O’Gorman and Conner 2023; O’Gorman et al. 2015; O’Gorman et al. 

2020; Painter and O’Gorman 2019; Upton 2019).  

Bengtson and O’Gorman (2016) reexamined the artifacts buried with children at Norris 

Farms 36 to see if they could identify whether these Oneota children might display some 

65 

evidence of interaction between the Oneota and Middle Mississippians in the village. The 

mortuary population at Norris Farms 36 was dominated by grave goods with Oneota styles. 

However, the residents of the village integrated certain Mississippian symbols into the graves of 

infants and children. Bengtson and O’Gorman suggest that children were active participants in 

the interaction between Oneota and Mississippian residents at Morton Village and likely helped 

bring the two groups together. 

O’Gorman et al. (2020) use the concept of necrogeography, or the study of spaces 

associated with death and dying (citing Muzaini 2017) specifically through a sense of migration 

and how mortuary practices help create a sense of place within a new environment. The Oneota 

migrants that lived at Morton Village used the location of their dead as a way of connecting 

themselves to their new landscape and also to their past experiences (O’Gorman et al. 2020). The 

small mound where the cemetery was constructed, although similar to their Middle Mississippian 

neighbors, was also used to mark their new environment in a new way and paid homage to how 

Late Woodland and Middle Mississippian people used the landscape (i.e., mound building) prior 

to the Oneota people’s arrival (O’Gorman et al. 2020).  The authors find that mortuary space at 

Norris Farms 36 was used by village inhabitants to link the landscape they were inhabiting but 

also to link their past, present, and future (O’Gorman et al. 2020). 

Upton (2019) includes Morton Village ceramics in his investigation of how migration 

alters the structure of human social networks in the CIRV from about AD 1200 to 1450. 

Specifically, Upton investigates how the ceramic industry influenced those networks of 

interaction via culture contact during this period. Using this approach, it is hypothesized that 

Oneota migrations into the CIRV likely created “a period of accommodative intercultural 

communal coexistence”, meaning that the Middle Mississippians and Oneota people were 

66 

possibly able to create social transformations within their groups through social relationships 

with each other (Upton 2019: 383).  

The Morton Village site provides clear evidence for Middle Mississippian and Oneota 

groups coming together (Conrad 1973; Conrad and Esarey 1983; Esarey and Santure 1990; 

Henning 1995; Hollinger 1993), however, prior to recent work by Bengtson and O’Gorman 

(2016), Nordine (2020), O’Gorman and Conner (2023), O’Gorman et al. (2020), Painter and 

O’Gorman (2019), Upton (2019), and various conference presentations, the level of cultural 

integration at the village was under-explored. Ceramic attributes and architectural styles have 

typically been used to differentiate between Oneota and Mississippian contexts at the village. 

Domestic structures or houses built using single posts are typically associated with Oneota 

contexts, while structures built using wall trenches are typically associated with Mississippian 

contexts (Alt and Pauketat 2011; Griffin 1967). While material culture provides a valuable line 

of evidence for examining coalescence or cultural reorganization, the spatial arrangement of the 

village and its households can also be used to investigate the degree of integration present. 

Excavations, as part of a collaborative research project between the Dickson Mounds 

Museum and Michigan State University from 2008-2017, have provided substantially more 

village data and enabled reassessment of Milner et al.’s (1991a) findings, including evidence for 

over 144 structures identified through magnetometer survey, 38 of which have been at least 

partially excavated. Evidence from these contexts indicate that the village inhabitants exploited a 

rich variety of resources, including a variety of faunal remains and botanical remains. Three 

complex ceremonial structures at the site have been identified. These structures include a large 

circular wall trench structure (STR 34), large ritual wall trench structure (STR16), and a small 

single-post structure, that is possibly a sweat lodge (STR 20) (O’Gorman and Conner 2016, 

67 

2023). Possible evidence of cohabitation exists in the presence of previously defined Oneota and 

Mississippian ceramic styles in 15 of the 24 identified domestic structures and presence of both 

styles of architecture in domestic structures. Of these domestic structures, 11 were built using 

wall trench construction, six using the single-post method, four structures utilized both 

construction methods, and three were of indeterminate construction (Conner and O’Gorman 

2012; Conner et al. 2014; Lieto and O’Gorman 2012; Yann et al. 2013). The finding of both 

ceramic styles within a variety of structures, could provide evidence for cohabitation. These 

characteristics will be considered in an analysis of whether the spatial organization of Morton 

Village reflects the degree of coalescence between the two communities, Middle Mississippian 

and Oneota, detailed in the next section. 

3.6. Investigating Coalescence at Morton Village 

Exploring cultural interaction and its effect on populations living within the central Illinois 

River valley is not new. Since the first discovery of archeological materials distinctive from local 

material culture, archaeologists have focused on how the migrant Oneota people bringing in this 

material culture and the local Middle Mississippian people interacted (Conrad 1973; Conrad and 

Esarey 1983; Esarey and Conrad 1998; Hollinger 1993; Henning 1995; Painter and O’Gorman 

2019; Santure et al. 1990; Smith 1951). Particular focus has been paid on the negative results of 

this cultural interaction (Harn 1990; Milner et al. 1991a; Milner et al. 1991b; Milner 1999; 

Santure et al. 1990). These interpretations were made based on evidence available at the time, 

specifically evidence of traumatic injury on skeletal remains and limited village data. These prior 

interpretations need to be reconsidered as additional evidence is uncovered at Bold Counselor 

Oneota sites like Morton Village, new questions arise as to the entire scope of the relationship 

68 

 
 
between the Oneota and Middle Mississippian peoples. This dissertation explores whether the 

spatial organization of the community of Morton Village provides evidence of cultural 

reorganization or coalescence between Oneota and Middle Mississippian people that inhabited 

the central Illinois River valley in the late prehistoric period.  

3.6.1. Reintroducing Coalescence 

As defined in chapter 2, coalescence is the cultural reorganization and creation of new, 

aggregated communities (Birch 2012; Hill et al. 2004; Kowalewski 2006). When societies 

coalesce, they are transformed socially, politically, ideologically, and economically (Birch 

2012). Coalescence is a tool used by communities to create a stronger society and by bringing 

groups together, can quell inter-cultural tensions (Birch 2012). Recognizing coalescence in a 

prehistoric archaeological setting is difficult, but it has been shown to be possible (Birch 2012; 

Kowalewski 2006) by examining architectural, technological, and stylistic changes within and 

between communities. Kowalewski (2006) provides a conceptual framework to investigate 

coalescence and defined 12 criteria for classifying a society as ‘coalesced’. These criteria are, an 

increase in the size of a settlement; new inhabitants moving to the area; migration to new 

locations for protection and subsistence success; use of a defensive structures; an increase in 

local production; an increase in trade; elaborate community and ceremonial organization (rituals 

of intensification); changes in domestic architecture and village layout to promote integration; an 

egalitarian social organization; belief in migration myths; collective leadership; and a macro-

regional basis of coalescence (Kowalewski 2006). Several of these criteria are not visible 

archaeologically (migration myths), but others can be investigated through the archaeological 

record and material culture (increased settlement size, defensive structures, intensified ritual, 

69 

 
 
domestic architecture changes, etc.). There are also instances where groups may not have 

integrated to a point of using new or innovative cultural practices or have evidence of only 

minimal integration, which should also be visible archaeologically in slight changes to 

technological style and spatial organization (Clark et al. 2019; Shennan 1989). 

I will incorporate several of the criteria defined by Kowalewski (2006), including the 

presence of new inhabitants in an area (in this case Oneota moving to the CIRV), potential 

defensive measures taken, an exploration of community and ceremonial system organization, and 

investigating domestic architecture and village layout. Oneota communities in the northern 

Mississippi valley have been interpreted as having an egalitarian social organization (Gibbon 

2001; Henning 1998; O’Gorman 1996, 2001) and have been shown to have migrated into other 

locations, including the American Bottom and the CIRV (Gibbon 2001; Henning 1998). 

Egalitarianism is a sharp contrast to the hierarchical social organization of Middle Mississippians 

in the American Bottom. The smaller mound and village settlements of the CIRV display aspects 

of a hierarchical social organization but appear not to be as influenced by Cahokia’s economic 

system at the time Oneota people first appeared in the central valley circa AD 1200 (Conrad 

1989; Conrad et al. 2019).  

3.6.2. Potential for Coalescence at Morton Village 

The suite of artifact attributes described as Bold Counselor Oneota is unique to the CIRV, 

although some sites have been identified in the American Bottom (Esarey and Conrad 1998; 

Jackson et al. 1992). As one of only five Bold Counselor sites identified in the valley, and one 

that was originally classified by researchers as “primarily Oneota in identity but shows a 

significant admixture in vessels…and other artifacts…that are typically associated with Late 

70 

 
 
 
Mississippian manifestations (Esarey and Conrad 1998:41)”, it is a prime candidate to explore 

the nature of the relationship between the two groups. The site’s proximity to Middle 

Mississippian towns, the complex ceremonial architecture, ceramic variability detailed by Esarey 

and Conrad (1998) and Painter and O’Gorman (2019), and the presence of a variety of 

architectural forms provides material remains through which to further explore the full results of 

interaction at Morton Village.  

Other researchers have recently been exploring the nature and extent of cultural interaction 

in the CIRV, specifically at Morton Village (Nordine 2020; Painter 2021; Painter 2022; Painter 

and O’Gorman 2019; O’Gorman et al. 2015; Upton 2019). This research focuses on how 

foodways can provide evidence of cultural integration by examining ceramic vessels and faunal 

remains, but also by investigating technological and stylistic changes within the ceramic industry 

in the CIRV. All of these analyses have considered some aspect of the site’s spatial organization, 

but a full consideration of the spatial organization of Morton Village at a regional, community, 

and household level has not been undertaken.  

In this case, I hypothesize that coalescence or cultural reorganization is taking place at 

Morton Village between Middle Mississippian and Oneota people. My analysis is set up as a 

dichotomy between total separation (cohabitation of site, but no coalescence) and total 

integration (integration of both groups at every level, i.e., in households, intermarrying and 

ethnogenesis). I do this as a heuristic model to develop some measure of coalescence and expect 

that there is actually a range of social arrangements within the village. This hypothesis will be 

explored at several different spatial scales in order to look at the nuances of how coalescence 

may be affecting spatial relationships at a regional, community, and household level. The use of 

a multiscalar approach considers the views of scholars who suggest that an investigation of 

71 

 
 
coalescence should occur at multiple temporal and spatial scales of analysis (Birch 2010; 

Blakney-Bailey 2007; Pauketat and Alt 2005; Wylie 1989). Examining only one spatial scale 

will make differentiating the mechanisms of cultural change difficult to interpret, but 

incorporating regional and local and community levels, can reveal how social practices of 

everyday life are changed (Birch 2012 citing Hally 2008; Hodder and Cessford 2004; Kintigh et 

al. 2005; Kuijt 2000; Pauketat 2007: 107).  

A major assumption of this analysis is the idea of Morton Village representing a ‘mixture’ 

of Oneota and Mississippian groups and cultural identities. It is important to look at different 

spatial scales when analyzing integration and acknowledge that each scale might indicate that 

there is something beyond ‘mixing’ that is occurring at Morton Village, i.e., analyzing whether 

coalescence is an ‘all or nothing’ phenomenon or if there is a range of social arrangements 

possible for a coalesced community. Clark et al. (2019) recognizes that the likelihood of 

coalescence being an ‘all or nothing’ situation is unlikely and that if coalescence of the two 

cultural formations is incomplete, settlement structures may present evidence of persistent group 

traditions. I recognize that evidence for some degree of integration or separation will be most 

informative on the degree of coalescence present. 

The spatial organization of a coalesced society should exhibit differences to how sites 

attributed to each cultural formation involved are organized at a regional/landscape, community, 

and household scale (Clark et al. 2019; Weik 2014). Investigating shifts in the built environment 

and architecture contextualized by the distinctive technological and stylistic differences between 

Middle Mississippian and Oneota material culture (mainly ceramics), I will identify whether 

cultural traits have changed at a regional/landscape, community, and household scale (Clark et 

al. 2019; Weik 2014). The built environment as material culture is a valuable way to investigate 

72 

 
 
how social relationships are produced and reproduced and variation in social organization can be 

interpreted from the structure of the built environment (Birch 2012 citing Bourdieu 1970 and 

Hegmon 1989). The spatial organization or how space is used at these three scales 

(landscape/region, community, and household) will provide evidence as to whether coalescence 

has occurred and to what degree at the Morton Village site.  

In chapter two, I introduced the overarching research question guiding this dissertation, 

which focuses on examining what spatial relationships can tell archeologists about how 

community social identity and organization is affected from interaction with other groups. I will 

use those theories outlined in chapter two to investigate various spatial relationships at the 

Morton Village site, including the sites relationship to its environment and to other sites, of 

domestic and ceremonial architecture to each other, and the variety seen within domestic 

structures themselves. The site should show distinct signs of coalescence in its spatial 

organization if a new cultural system was created by the migrant Oneota inhabitants of Morton 

Village and the local Middle Mississippian populations.  These spatial signatures will be 

discussed in the following three chapters, which focus on outlining case study specific research 

questions at each scale of space (landscape, community, and household), and detailing the 

methods, analysis, and results in addressing these questions. 

73 

 
 
 
CHAPTER 4: LANDSCAPE SCALE 

4.1. Research Question 1: Are there differences or similarities in the positioning of Morton 

Village on the landscape compared to the positioning of earlier or contemporary Oneota 

sites in other areas and Middle Mississippian sites in the CIRV and in other areas? 

Instances of coalescence lead to distinctive social and community changes, which should 

be visible archaeologically (Kowalewski 2006). These changes often include a transformation in 

the size and/or organization of settlements (Birch 2012; Gerritsen 2004; Hodder 1986; Thomas 

2004). Because coalesced communities are gathering points of multiple groups of people, 

migrant and local, new ideas are shared creating distinctive differences from how the two groups 

lived prior to this integration (Clark et al. 2019). In this case, a regional approach is taken to 

characterize large-scale spatial relationships between archaeological remains and the physical 

environment (Kantner 2008). Kantner (2008) describes archaeological regions as spaces where 

the interrelated aspects of past human behavior, material signatures people left behind, and/or the 

physical and social context where human activity took place can be explored.  

The term landscape not only describes a physical location but is also used to describe 

how people negotiate with their physical surroundings (Branton 2009; Clark and Scheiber 2008). 

Natural spaces influence humans prior to the construction of communities, and settlement 

choices are often made based on a variety of factors, including the way a space makes people 

feel (Steadman 2015). Investigations of landscape focus on how individuals inhabit and utilize 

their natural environment to meet their day-today needs (Kozlowski 2011). Within this space, all 

of a group’s activities take place and their experiences are shaped by and shape this space, 

creating a sense of place (Binford 1982). Landscape is not just space, but a subjective social 

74 

 
formation, created by its inhabitants (Anschuetz et al. 2001; Ingold 1993). By studying the 

landscape that people inhabited, the social experiences of these inhabitants can be interpreted. 

The use of a landscape has continuity in its structure and organization throughout an occupation, 

creating visible landscape use patterns in the archaeological record (Anschuetz et al. 2001; 

Rossignol 1992). In this chapter, I gathered data on several related landscape use attributes; 

however, this list is not an exhaustive view of landscape, and I recognize that landscape is more 

complex than these characteristics alone.  

By examining the spatial organization of Oneota and Middle Mississippian communities 

prior to their interaction in the CIRV, changes in cultural traits at a landscape/regional scale at 

Morton Village can be identified (Clark et al. 2019; Weik 2014). By analyzing the characteristics 

of multiple sites, I will identify and understand regional differences in the relationship between 

people and their environment. At this broadest scale I compare how people inhabit the landscape 

and interact with their environment by looking at aspects of resource selection, site location, and 

variation in how people inhabit landscapes within the same or different regions, I refer to these 

choices as ‘landscape use’. 

How a group chooses to inhabit their environment is important, as that location serves to 

reproduce the existing social order (Dommelen 1999; Steadman 2015). Changes in these choices 

post migration can reveal whether two groups are exchanging or integrating the specific social 

mores for settlement location. A comparative analysis will be especially important to first 

establish if there are differences between CIRV Middle Mississippian choice of landscape and 

Oneota choice of landscape in other areas. Because origins of the Oneota group or groups that 

migrated to Morton Village is unknown, this analysis will include multiple regions where this 

cultural tradition is documented. Expected distinctions between Middle Mississippian and 

75 

Oneota will be used to help understand the post-migration negotiations at Morton Village. The 

landscape choices made by Morton Village inhabitants will be compared to other Oneota and 

Middle Mississippian sites to determine whether landscape choice was more aligned with an 

Oneota or Middle Mississippian pattern of landscape use. Hybridity theory at this level suggests 

that the selection of a completely new location is possible, however due to potential confounding 

factors, this may not make sense for the CIRV. Namely, that the region was already settled by 

Middle Mississippian populations at the time, which would affect how the Bold Counselor 

Oneota would settle there. Perhaps Morton Village was already there when the Oneota arrived in 

the area, either actively inhabited by Middle Mississippian populations or abandoned from an 

earlier occupation. 

This part of the analysis will have limitations as existing data from previously excavated 

and identified archaeological sites vary due to differences in collection and reporting methods. 

Middle Mississippian sites from the CIRV and LIRV will be the focus here. Sites in the 

American Bottom were not included in the analysis due to their distinctiveness when compared 

to the CIRV and their characteristics related to the urbanization of Cahokia (Betzenhauser 2017; 

Schroeder 2004). Further, Middle Mississippian sites in northern Illinois and in Wisconsin were 

not included because they are isolated from other Middle Mississippian sites and different in 

their characteristics. Because Oneota sites are less abundant in the CIRV and LIRV, sites will be 

included from northern Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin. There will be variability in the landscape 

use characteristics for Oneota and Middle Mississippian communities across the three states and 

clear patterns for Oneota or Middle Mississippian landscape use may be difficult to assess, 

however, it is likely that broad patterns can discerned from the data.  

76 

By investigating these patterns through the physical nature of the landscape, the social 

perceptions of its inhabitants and how populations elsewhere differ can be explored. In a best-

case scenario, the place of origin for the Oneota group(s) that migrated to the CIRV would be 

known. This is not the case, so this study will also need to assess the variation within Oneota 

landscape choice. Rather than a hinderance, this exploration counteracts normative thinking 

about settlement patterns. My research seeks to understand the overall picture of how Oneota and 

Middle Mississippian people established their settlements prior to interacting and cohabitating at 

Morton Village.  

4.1.1. Structure of Chapter 

Descriptions of landscape use by either Oneota and Middle Mississippian populations 

have been reported previously (Gallagher and Stevenson 1982; Harn 1978, 1994; Jackson 1998; 

Overstreet 1978; Rodell 1983, 2000; Smith (ed.) 1978). Here, I approach landscape choice by 

using a quantitative spatial and statistical comparison of landscape use for both Oneota and 

Middle Mississippian sites by examining a sample of characteristics for each community to 

allow for easier comparison between populations. Spatial data were collected so that various 

methods, including spatial analysis and nearest neighbor calculations, variable frequency and 

percentages, and statistical comparisons including chi-square, Fisher’s exact test, and 

correspondence analysis could be employed. These methods are used to quantify the landscape 

choices of Oneota and Middle Mississippian sites. Once defined for each type of site, they are 

compared to each other. Finally, the landscape use patterns of the five distinctive Bold Counselor 

sites in the CIRV, including Morton Village, are explored and compared to the landscape use 

patterns for Oneota and Middle Mississippian sites elsewhere.  

77 

 
4.1.2. Methods of Comparing Landscape Use 

I now explore the methods used to quantify the landscape choices of Oneota and Middle 

Mississippian sites, which can be explored quantitatively using variable frequencies, chi-square,  

Fisher’s exact test, and correspondence analysis.  

4.1.2.1. Landscape Use Variables  

In this analysis, five landscape use categories have been identified through which to 

compare Oneota and Middle Mississippian communities: distance to nearest perennial drainage, 

perennial drainage type, river valley location, soil type, and topographic location. Distance to 

water is an important consideration for any residential site, as easy access would be beneficial 

when considering both Oneota and Middle Mississippian people were agriculturalists, not to 

mention for other day-to-day needs. Differences in this characteristic could inform the discussion 

of Oneota vs. Middle Mississippian landscape use, and how each community prioritized access 

to water amongst other considerations of landscape use. These distances were measured in 

ArcGIS Pro, using Euclidean distance, i.e., a planar measurement using two-dimensional 

Cartesian mathematics (ESRI 2022). The measurement was taken from the site points, i.e., the 

estimated center of the site, to the nearest perennial drainage. Once calculated, the distances were 

reduced into three groups for ease of comparison: less than 0.5 mile, 0.5 to 1 mile, and greater 

than 1 mile.  

The type of nearest perennial drainage is related to the distance of the nearest perennial 

drainage, but differentiates these drainages as either rivers, creeks, or lakes. This variable 

addresses whether communities settled nearest to river valleys or along smaller perennial 

drainages, seeking to address whether there is differentiation between the type of drainage sought 

78 

 
  
out by communities. Past research has shown that Middle Mississippian sites tend to be found 

along rivers and streams, seeking a diversified habitat for resources (Bowne 2013; Byers 2013; 

Milner 2004), and Oneota sites tend to be found along rivers, lakes, or marshes (Berres 2001; 

Henning 1998; Hollinger 1995; Overstreet 1997). Does a quantification of Middle Mississippian 

and Oneota site locations confirm this characterization of settlement patterns?  

One limitation of identifying the nearest perennial drainage type, is that it does not 

consider the locations of flow through lakes. Rodell (1983) identifies the importance of eutrophic 

flow through lakes for Oneota settlement in Eastern Wisconsin. These lakes were slow moving, 

with shallow waters that had an abundance of vegetation communities, including wild rice 

(Rodell 1983). Many of these lakes once existed along the Fox, Wolf, and Rock Rivers, but have 

been obscured by modern damming (Rodell 1983). The assessment of landscape here did not 

account for locations flow through lakes, as I identified the nearest perennial drainage type using 

modern topographic maps. The landscape modifications that have occurred since the time of 

occupation have obscured these locations and I was only able to identify a site’s proximity to 

existing, perennial lakes as I did not have access to a source that distinguished between different 

types of lakes. Despite these limitations, my focus is on a general exploration of Oneota 

landscape use, and although I do not incorporate information on flow through lakes in this work, 

I hope to further consider the importance of these locations to Oneota people in future research.  

Soil type can be used as a proxy to understand cultivation potential, and to see if different 

conditions linked to particular soils were preferred. Soil information was gathered using the 

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service’s Web Soil Survey, which provides soil data and 

information for the United States (USDA 2022). This data comes from modern soil types, which 

are related to past landscapes, which is affected by land cover such as timber or prairie, position 

79 

on the landscape, how disturbed it is by human activities, erosion/deposition, and other factors. 

Archaeologists can use this information as an indicator of past soil condition. Soil types have 

been reduced to loam, sand, silt loam, silty clay loam, and other, which includes miscellaneous 

categories of soil that only had one or two sites with that soil type (e.g., orthents loamy, pebbles 

and gravel, etc.). 

River valley locations provides a generalized regional classification of sites, which differs 

between Oneota and Middle Mississippian sites. River valley locations for Middle Mississippian 

sites included the central Illinois River valley (CIRV), the lower Illinois River valley (LIRV), 

and the Mississippi River valley (MRV). For Oneota sites, the river valley options are, upper 

Mississippi River valley (UMRV), upper Illinois River valley (UIRV), central Mississippi River 

valley (CMRV), Sioux River valleys (SIOUX), Des Moines (DMOIN), Fox (FOX), Rock 

(ROCK), and those near the lakes of central and eastern Wisconsin (LAKE). This variable is 

used to identify groupings of sites along river valleys and any differentiations between these 

regions in other landscape use characteristics.  

Topographic location separates sites based on their location on the landscape, either flood 

plain, terrace, and bluff top, to identify any difference between Oneota and Middle Mississippian 

sites in settlement location. Understanding how each community selected for their topographic 

location can provide information on differences between the two groups. Where did each groups 

prefer to place their settlements and how do these compare to one another? Like soil type, the 

topographic locations of today are related to the past landscapes, and the assumption here is that 

the topography of these site locations are the same as they were at the time they were occupied or 

similar enough to the time of occupation, despite several being located in areas heavily modified 

by anthropogenic and natural forces.  

80 

I acknowledge that these criteria are not representative of all the ways the inhabitants of 

these spaces would have selected locations for settlement. I also acknowledge that there are 

additional, social and cultural reasons to choose specific settlement areas. However, these criteria 

present general landscape selection characteristics, which can be used to compare Oneota and 

Middle Mississippian sites within their areas of influence. 

4.1.2.2. Site Selection and Identifying Spatial Relationships 

To identify landscape choice of Oneota and Middle Mississippian populations, I first 

gathered archaeological site information across the Midwest with evidence of Oneota and Middle 

Mississippian habitation. Site information from state site files in Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin is 

reviewed and then compiled into a GIS document, which allows for the visualization of all sites 

together. With Oneota and Middle Mississippian sites selected, patterns of landscape choice can 

be quantified. For site locations, a central point, rather than polygon, is added to a corresponding 

layer to represent each site, which reduces visual clutter by simplifying site locations (Dempsey 

2022). Only Oneota and Middle Mississippian sites classified as villages were selected, rather 

than camps or smaller farmsteads, which do not have the level of habitation of interest for 

comparison, i.e., settled communities. 

First, Oneota and Middle Mississippian sites are examined to identify any dispersion or 

clustering across the landscape. Then, to quantify any patterning, the Average Nearest Neighbor 

tool in ArcGIS is performed to identify the proximity of sites to one another, which calculates an 

index ratio based on the average distance between each site point (IBM 2022). This index ratio is 

used to identify whether the sites trend toward clustering or toward dispersion, if the ratio is less 

81 

 
than one, the pattern exhibits clustering, if the ratio is greater than one, the trend is toward 

dispersion.  

Additionally, this tool provides z-scores and p-values, which are measures of statistical 

significance. The p-value is a probability value that the spatial pattern observed was created 

randomly, when this value is small (<.05), it is unlikely that the spatial pattern is the result of 

random processes, therefore the null hypothesis can be rejected (IBM 2022). The z-score is a 

standard deviation, if there is a small p-value and either a high or low z-score (<-1.96 or >1.96), 

it is unlikely that the spatial pattern reflects a random pattern, allowing a rejection of the null 

hypothesis, i.e., that features are randomly distributed (IBM 2022).  

4.1.2.3. Landscape Use Characteristics: Variables and Frequencies 

Based on the results of the spatial analysis, descriptive statistical techniques are used to 

explore whether the samples of sites (Oneota or Middle Mississippian) have distinctive patterns 

in their landscape use. For both data sets, basic statistical information, including frequencies and 

percentages of specific characteristics, is gathered. These statistics are useful, as they provide 

information about the variables in our sample and highlight relationships between the sites. 

4.1.2.4. Landscape Use Comparisons: Chi-Square and Correspondence Analysis 

Landscape use characteristics are compared to identify whether groupings are statistically 

related to each other by using a crosstabs/chi-square analysis, which compares the variables 

within each data set, looking for correlations (i.e., does topographic location correlate with what 

drainage system type is closest). This tool incorporates the inferential statistical test, chi-square 

test for independence, to measure the association between two nominal variables by comparing 

82 

 
 
the observed values to the expected values, identifying departures from the average (Drennan 

2009). The comparison of the five landscape use variables for Oneota and Middle Mississippian 

sites results in ten separate comparisons. 

Each categorical variable is compared, and I hypothesize that there is a statistically 

significant relationship between each set of variables being compared. Chi-square (X2) provides a 

significance test that sums up its comparisons with a single probability value, ‘p’, used to 

determine the likelihood that an observed outcome is the result of chance (Drennan 2009). For 

the chi-square, any p-value less than 0.05 (the standard value used, meaning 95% confidence), 

indicates a statistically significant relationship between the two variables, thus rejecting the null 

hypothesis (Drennan 2009). If the p-value is more than 0.05, there is not enough evidence to 

suggest an association between variables and the null hypothesis cannot be rejected.  

When the sample size is small or produces several instances of expected values less than 

five, reliance on the chi-square statistic as the sole indicator of association is problematic 

because of its reliance on approximations (Drennan 2009). Another statistical measure, Fisher’s 

exact test, is used with chi-square test to provide an exact comparison of significance 

probabilities. When chi-square and Fisher’s exact test are similar, the null hypothesis can be 

rejected or accepted with more certainty.  

Initially, many of the chi-square analyses performed had options where cells had 

expected values less than five. The fewer expected values under five, the more accurate the p-

value will be. To address this issue, several variables were recoded to reduce the options used in 

the comparison. For Oneota sites, two variables were reduced: river valley location and soil type. 

Soil type was reduced by combining silt loam and silty clay loam into the loam category. River 

valley locations combined the upper and central Mississippi River valleys into Mississippi River 

83 

valley, and “Other”, which combined river classifications for Des Moines, Fox, Rock, and Sioux. 

The upper Illinois River valley was renamed Illinois River valley for ease of interpretation. For 

Middle Mississippian sites, soil type was reduced, which had silt loam and silty clay loam 

combined into a loam category. After reducing the options, several comparisons continued to 

produce expected values less than five. At this point, the categories cannot be reduced further 

without losing aspects of the information they represent for later interpretation.  

Based on the results of the chi-square/fisher’s exact analysis, additional statistical 

techniques can be used to compare how habitation locations may have been selected based on 

landscape characteristics. Correspondence analysis provides a method for easily identifying 

statistically significant associations between variables by reducing the comparisons into a 

simplified graphical representation of the relationship (Alberti 2022; IBM 2022; Sterry 2018). 

This technique reduces the data dimensions to maximize the representation of correspondence 

between rows and columns by creating biplots, which offer a graphical representation of how the 

data compares to identify patterns (Alberti 2022). Variables plotted in close proximity to each 

other are similar, showing correspondence/association between the categories (Alberti 2022).  

4.2. Oneota Landscape Use 

Do Oneota sites have a specific pattern in their landscape use characteristics? The 

following sections address this by first identifying Oneota sites and their landscape use 

characteristics, then exploring their spatial distribution across the landscape, quantifying their 

landscape use characteristics, and statistically comparing these characteristics. If patterns exist, 

they should be discernable within the spatial and statistical characteristics. 

84 

 
 
4.2.1. Identifying Oneota Sites  

Oneota sites are dispersed across multiple states, dating from between AD 900/1000 to 

the mid-1700s. A “core area” of Oneota settlement is defined by Theler and Boszhardt (2006), 

which dates from AD 1150 to 1700, and encompasses all of Iowa, the southern two-thirds of 

Wisconsin, the northern half of Illinois, the southern quarter of Minnesota, the northern quarter 

of Missouri, and the northeast corner of Kansas (2006: 435). Because Oneota sites are spread 

across such a vast area, ranging from a variety of different time periods, specific states were 

selected to identify sites and landscape use for Oneota communities: Illinois (north of the CIRV), 

Iowa, and Wisconsin. Iowa and Wisconsin were selected because of the extensive amount of 

Oneota research in these areas, which increases the likelihood of having a large sample of sites 

for comparison. Illinois north of the CIRV was included to identify Oneota landscape use in 

close proximity to the Bold Counselor Oneota sites, i.e., the potential precursors to these CIRV 

communities. Sites in southeast Iowa are geographically close as well. Sites in Kansas, 

Minnesota, Missouri, and Nebraska were not included due to their locations far to the southwest 

and north of the Oneota core area, and their later occupation periods, i.e., historic occupations 

with potential influence from Euro-American interaction, which would alter landscape use 

characteristics. Sites in these areas could be incorporated in future explorations to address later 

Oneota landscape use through time, but are not appropriate to include here, which focuses on 

identifying Oneota landscape use prior to Bold Counselor Oneota occupations in the CIRV.   

Despite reducing the locations to search, gathering archaeological site data from three 

different state GIS databases, each with differing ways of recording and presenting information, 

creates potential problems. To account for these potential differences, site records were 

systematically searched for each of the three states. Sites were identified using the Illinois 

85 

Inventory of Archaeological Sites (IIAS), the Iowa online archaeological site inventory, ‘I-Sites’, 

and the Wisconsin Archaeological Site Inventory system.  

To identify Oneota sites in Illinois, all areas north of the CIRV were searched. This 

includes all areas north of Hennepin along an arbitrary east/west boundary. There are two local 

variants of Oneota in northeastern Illinois that are included here: Fisher and Huber (see section 

3.4.3, which discusses Oneota regional variation) (Schroeder 2004). An additional Upper 

Mississippian tradition Langford is also found in northeastern Illinois and is therefore considered 

here to provide an additional view of settlement in the upper Midwest and to identify any 

potential precursors to Bold Counselor sites (Schroeder 2004).  

These specific phase/tradition names are not options when searching the IIAS, only 

‘Upper Mississippian’ is a search option. I selected all sites that indicated there were Upper 

Mississippian artifacts present in their assemblages by using various filter functions and 

excluded sites that consisted of only an isolated artifact find. The remaining site polygons and 

their associated information were used to identify sites for comparison. The map viewer is then 

positioned on the northwestern corner of the state and moved west to east and then back east to 

west, selecting each site polygon and their associated site forms along the way. Those sites with 

limited information in the site file or those that were listed as ‘open habitation’ or ‘camp’ were 

not selected as comparative sites, as there was not enough information available to adequately 

classify them as a village. In total, 13 sites classified as Upper Mississippian, either Oneota, 

Langford, and Huber/Fisher, were identified in northern Illinois. 

To identify Oneota sites in Iowa, I used I-Sites Pro, the state’s online map viewer, and the 

Iowa Archaeological Site File (ISF). Oneota sites in Iowa date from approximately AD 1000 to 

1650, with a variety of phases based on location, including Orr, Correctionville, Moingona, and 

86 

Burlington (Green 1995). Sites were identified in the database portion of the I-Sites Pro system, 

which is searchable by cultural affiliation. To identify sites classified as Oneota, each of the 99 

Iowa counties was systematically searched by cultural affiliation. Sites labeled as ‘Historic 

Oneota’ were not investigated due to their late occupation and potential influence from European 

interaction post-colonization. The rest were further investigated by examining individual site 

files, looking specifically for key words like ‘village’ and ‘village and cemetery’ to see if there 

was sufficient archaeological site information available. After each county was investigated, a 

total of 32 Oneota village sites were identified as having enough information for comparison. Of 

these sites, 12 are located along the western and central portions of Iowa, while the other 20 are 

along the eastern border within the Mississippi River valley.  

To identify Oneota sites in Wisconsin, I utilized the Wisconsin Archaeological Site 

Inventory. Of all three states, Wisconsin’s system is the easiest to search based on site type and 

culture, but its GIS capability is limited, and maps can only be accessed through individual site 

files. I selected ‘campsite/village’ for site type, ‘Oneota’ for culture, and selected Wisconsin 

Oneota archaeological phases as described by Gibbon (2001) and Overstreet (1997): Adams 

phase, Blue Earth, Brice Prairie, Classic Horizon Oneota, Developmental Horizon Oneota, 

Emergent Horizon Oneota, Grand River Oneota, Koshkonong phase Oneota, Lake Winnebago 

phase Oneota, Lohmann phase, Orr, and Pammel Creek phase. With these search criteria 

selected, each site record was reviewed, if sufficient information was available, it was included. 

In Wisconsin, 42 sites were identified, of these, 20 are along the western border with Iowa and 

Minnesota and 22 are located centrally and along the eastern border with the Great Lakes. From 

the three states, a total of 87 Oneota village sites were identified for comparison at a 

landscape/regional scale (Figure 4.1; Table A.1). 

87 

 
Figure 4.1: Oneota Site Points 

88 

 
 
4.2.2. Oneota Site Distribution and Spatial Patterns 

Oneota researchers have long recognized that Oneota sites are positioned in a non-

continuous, patchy manner (Henning 1998; Henning and Benn 1998; Overstreet 1997). These 

patches of sites are called localities, a term that originates from Willey and Phillips (1958), 

defined as “…a geographical space small enough to permit the working assumption of complete 

cultural homogeneity at any given time.” (1958: 18). Further definitions describe localities as 

areas where populations of Oneota people nucleated with cultural continuity (Boszhardt 1998, 

2004; Henning 1998) and is common nomenclature within Oneota studies. Archaeological work 

in Wisconsin, Iowa, and northern Illinois has found that Oneota material culture clusters into 

distinct geographic areas starting around AD 1150, with groups of sites physically separated 

from others with large portions of vacant landscape between them (Alexander 2013; Gibbon 

1969, Henning 1998; Henning and Benn 1998; Jeske et al. 2020; Overstreet 1976; Rodell 1983; 

Theler and Boszhardt 2000, 2006).  

When Oneota sites were identified for this analysis using the archaeological site 

databases from Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin, the concept of regions or locality was not 

considered. When examining the map of Oneota sites created from this search, it is clear that the 

method of systematic review and selection of recorded archaeological sites in these areas 

demonstrates that there are clear geographic regions where Oneota sites tend to cluster. This 

serves to further quantify the spatial absence of Oneota sites between localities, allowing for a 

clearer differentiation of these sites into specific regions. Oneota sites can be grouped into seven 

generalized geographic clusters, corresponding closely to regions and localities defined in the 

literature (Figure 4.2; Table 4.1).  

89 

 
Table 4.1: Oneota Regions, Localities, and Sites 

Region 
Central Des 
Moines 

Locality 

None 

Sites 
Christenson; Clarkson; Cribbs Crib/Leftwick; 
Goodhue Farm (5) 

Citation 

Henning 1998 

Northwest 
Iowa 

Lower Little 
Sioux River 
Locality, Iowa’s 
Great Lakes 
Locality, Big 
Sioux River 
Locality 

Bastian; Blood Run; Correctionville; Cross 
Valley/Dixon; Gillet Grove; Gothier; 
Harriman Hill; Milford (8)  

Henning 1998 

Central 
Wisconsin 

Lake 
Koshkonong 

Blue Heron; Carcajou Point; Crescent Bay 
Hunt Club; Koshkonong Creek (4) 

Henning 1998; 
Jeske, Sterner, and 
Edwards 2020; 
Overstreet 1997 

Eastern 
Wisconsin 

Lower Lake 
Michigan 

Door Peninsula 
Grand River  
Green Bay 
Middle Fox 
River 
Waupaca 
Chicago Lake 
Plain  
Fox/Des Plaines 
Upper Illinois 
River 

La Crosse 
and Red 
Wing 

La Crosse 
Lake Pepin 
Lower Root 
River Valley 
Red Wing 
Upper Iowa 
River Valley 

Mississippi 
Alluvial 
Plain 

Lima Lake 
Lost Creek 
Spring Creek 
Kingston 
Toolesboro 

Bornick; Burley Brew; Entire Road; Furman; 
Grignon; Karow; Lasley’s Point; Mary 
Nichols; McCauley; Mero; Overton Meadow; 
Pipe; Point Sauble; Sauer Resort; Sensiba; 
Sherman; Walker Hooper; Zarling Lake (16) 

Gibbon 2001; 
Henning 1998; 
Jeske, Sterner, and 
Edwards 2020; 
Overstreet 1997 

Anker; Feltes; Fisher; Forest Home Cemetery; 
Gentleman Farm; Grant Creek; Hoxie Farm; 
Huber; Joe Louis; Langford; Oak Forest; 
Rinkenberger; Washington Irving (13) 

Gibbon 2001; 
Henning 1998; 
Jeske, Sterner, and 
Edwards 2020 

Adams; Armstrong; Burkes; Diamond Bluff; 
Filler; Fish Farm; Fisher Mounds; Flatiron 
Terrace; Gang Village; Grant Village; Hays 
Farm; Hester’s Place; Jim Braun; Lee; Malone 
Terrace; Midway; New Road/Meier Farm; 
O’Regan Buhlman Terrace; Old Bockus Place; 
Old Flynn Place; Olson; Sand Cove; Onalaska 
Village; OT; Overhead; Pammel Creek; Sand 
Lake; Sanford; Swennes; Tremaine; Shrake 
Gillies; Valley View; Weymiller Village; 
Woolstrom Village; Zieman’s Farm Site 1 (35) 

Basso 1993; 
Henning 1998; 
Jeske, Sterner, and 
Edwards 2020; 
Overstreet 1997; 
Theler and 
Boszhardt 2000 

Kelley; Kingston; McKinney; Patterson 
Cornell; Wever Terrace (6) 

Gibbon 2001; 
Henning 1998; 
Jeske, Sterner, and 
Edwards 2020 

90 

 
 
When considered as a whole, the 87 Oneota site points show statistically significant 

values for the average nearest neighbor calculations. The index ratio value of 0.37 indicates that 

the sites are clustered. The p-value is less than 0.05 and z-score is -11.2, indicating that the null 

hypothesis can be rejected, and it is unlikely that Oneota sites are randomly distributed, i.e., the 

clustering of sites is not random. The average distance between sites is 10.2 miles, which is quite 

close when considering the immense area that is included in this analysis. When considered as 

one population, Oneota sites produce a statistically significant nearest neighbor value, indicating 

that they cluster in a non-random pattern, what then will the separation of these sites into 

regions/localities indicate in terms of clustering within these smaller geographic differentiations? 

The seven geographic clusters are defined as follows, Eastern Wisconsin, Lake 

Koshkonong, Lower Lake Michigan, Lima Lake, La Crosse, Northwest Iowa, and Central Des 

Moines. These differentiations correspond to regions and localities defined in the literature. Each 

region/locality is defined, and spatial characteristics are assessed, including the average nearest 

neighbor statistic and identification of spatial outliers (Table 4.2). I will describe any deviations 

between the literature defined localities/regions and my own groupings in the following 

discussion of the geographic differentiations used in this analysis. 

91 

 
Figure 4.2: Oneota Localities 

92 

 
 
 
 
Table 4.2: Nearest Neighbor Results for Oneota Sites by Region 

Region/Locality 

Number of 
Sites 

Avg. Distance 
(mi) 

Index Ratio 

P-Value 

Z-Score 

Central Des 
Moines 
Eastern 
Wisconsin 
Lake 
Koshkonong 
La Crosse/Red 
Wing 
Mississippi 
Alluvial/Lima 
Lake 
Lower Lake 
Michigan 
Northwest Iowa 

5 

16 

4 

35 

6 

13 

8 

5.82 

16.93 

1.24 

3.01 

8.99 

16.4 

23.46 

3.8 

0.97 

2.15 

0.44 

2.05 

1.31 

1.38 

0.00 

0.83 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.03 

0.04 

10.7 

-0.2 

2.15 

-6.34 

4.5 

2.16 

2.04 

The Central Des Moines region in central Iowa does not have any localities defined in the 

literature, so will be referred to by its regional name (Henning 1998). For this analysis, this 

region consists of four sites, all clustered around modern-day Des Moines (Table 4.1). Three of 

the sites are southeast of the city, while Christenson, sits northwest of the city. The index ratio 

indicates dispersion of sites, with the p-value and z-score indicating a non-random distribution, 

with an average distance between sites of 5.82 miles. 

The Eastern Wisconsin region has six localities defined, Door Peninsula, Grand River, 

Green Bay, Lake Koshkonong, Middle Fox River, and Waupaca (Gibbon 2001; Henning 1998; 

Jeske et al. 2020; Overstreet 1997). The Door peninsula and Green Bay localities can be grouped 

under the Wolf River Tradition, which covers the northeast corner of Wisconsin around Green 

Bay and into the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. (Jeske et al. 2020). For this analysis, the sites in 

the Lake Koshkonong Locality are spatially separate from these more northern localities and is 

therefore treated on its own, while the other five localities (Door Peninsula, Grand River, Green 

93 

 
Bay, Middle Fox River, and Waupaca) are grouped under the Eastern Wisconsin region (Table 

4.1). 

The Eastern Wisconsin grouping consists of 18 sites around Lake Winnebago and Green 

Bay, with the majority located around the major lakes in the area, Winnebago, Butte Des Morts, 

Winneconne, and Poygan (11), two sites to the southwest of the lakes (Bornick and Walker 

Hooper), one to the northwest of the lakes (Burley Brew), two to the Northeast of the lakes 

(Point Sauble and Sensiba), and two far to the north (Zarling Lake and Mero) (Table 4.1). These 

final two sites appear as spatial outliers on the map. The index value for this region, however, 

indicates clustering of sites, with an average distance between sites of 16.93 miles. 

The Lake Koshkonong Locality consists of four sites, three grouped around the lake and 

one a little over two miles upstream from Koshkonong (Table 4.1). The sites included in this 

locality in this analysis correspond to sites defined for the locality in the literature (Henning 

1998; Jeske et al. 2020; Overstreet 1997). The index ratio for this region indicates dispersion of 

sites, with an average distance between sites of 1.24 miles.  

The Mississippi Alluvial Plain region consists of three localities, one east of the 

Mississippi River, Lima Lake, and four west of the Mississippi River, Lost Creek, Spring Creek, 

Kingston, and Toolesboro (Henning 2004; Tiffany 1979). Lima Lake is used here for ease of 

description and includes six sites, all located along the Mississippi River valley on the Illinois or 

Iowa sides of the river, with no apparent spatial outliers (Table 4.1). Henning (1998) describes 

this region as having over 25 Oneota sites on the Iowa side and several on the Illinois side (1998: 

374). It is clear that the many of the over 25 sites Henning references in this region were not 

selected, perhaps a result of site files with minimal information. The Wever Terrace site is 

proposed as the beginning of the Oneota occupation in this region, while the McKinney site is 

94 

proposed as the end of these occupations (Henning 1998: 374). For this analysis, I refer to the six 

sites in this region by the singular locality, Lima Lake, for ease of description. The index ratio 

for this region, indicates dispersion of sites, with an average distance between sites of 8.99 miles. 

In western Wisconsin, there are two regions, La Crosse, and Red Wing, which together 

consist of five localities and have the largest number of sites (Table 4.1). Although these regions 

have been treated separately in prior works (Henning 1998; Overstreet 1995; Theler and 

Boszhardt 2000), they are grouped together as La Crosse/Red Wing due the general spatial 

proximity of sites in the region (35). The Red Wing locality sites include Adams, Armstrong, and 

Diamond Bluff (Henning 1998), with the other 32 sites from the La Crosse locality (Henning 

1998; Jeske et al. 2020). Of the 35 sites, 16 are directly within or around La Crosse, four are 

further north up the river valley (Adams, Armstrong, Diamond Bluff, and Shrake Gillies), the 

remaining 11 sites are within the boundaries of northeast Iowa, along the upper Iowa River. The 

index ratio for this region indicates clustering, with an average distance between sites of 3.01 

miles (Table 4.2).  

The Lower Lake Michigan region outside Chicago and within the upper Illinois River 

valley, consists of three localities as described by Jeske et al. (2020), Fox/Des Plaines, Chicago 

Lake Plain, and Upper Illinois River valley, and is referred to in this analysis by its regional 

name described by Henning (1998) and Gibbon (2001). Henning (1998) further differentiates 

sites in this region as belonging to one of two localized traditions: Langford and Fisher and 

Huber. The Langford phase sites are concentrated in the upper Illinois River valley, while the 

Fisher and Huber phases are concentrated in the lower lake Michigan area. Schroeder (2004) 

describes Fisher and Huber as a localized tradition of Oneota, while Langford represents a 

separate Upper Mississippian tradition, which even if separate from Oneota, provides an 

95 

additional view of settlement in the upper Midwest and a view of potential precursors to Bold 

Counselor sites (Schroeder 2004). In this analysis, Fisher, Huber, and Langford sites are 

considered as part of the Lower Lake Michigan region based on descriptions used by Henning 

(1998) and Gibbon (2001). This region is represented by 13 sites, with seven clustered around 

Lake Michigan within 10 miles of the Lake, three far west outside of Chicago (Feltes, Gentleman 

Farm, and Langford), two southwest of the lake (Fisher and Grant Creek), and one northwest of 

the main cluster of sites (Washington Irving) (Table 4.1). The index value for this region 

indicates dispersion of sites, with an average distance between them of 16.4 miles. 

Henning (1998) describes four localities in Northwest Iowa, the lower Little Sioux River 

(Dixon, Gothier, Correctionville), around Iowa’s Great Lakes (Gillette Grove, Milford, 

Harriman), on the Big Sioux River east of Sioux Falls (Blood Run), and the Bastian site serves as 

its own locality just north of Cherokee on the Little Sioux River. The Northwest Iowa region is 

represented here by eight sites located along the Little Sioux River and one along the Big Sioux 

River valley (Blood Run). The index ratio for this region indicates dispersion, with an average 

distance between them of 23.46 miles. Blood run is located over 95 miles away from the other 

seven sites, potentially skewing the results of the nearest neighbor calculation for this region.   

Within these geographical differentiations, the p-value and z-score provide information 

as to the ‘randomness’ of the data. All regions except Eastern Wisconsin have values that 

indicate a non-random distribution of sites (p-value <.05 and z-score <-1.96 or >1.96). The index 

ratio and average distance also provide important information on the distribution of sites. Only 

two regions have values that indicate clustering of sites: Eastern Wisconsin and La Crosse/Red 

Wing. Using nearest neighbor calculations, I found that the majority of the regional distributions 

are non-random, indicating some sort of organization of the pattern of sites. When considering 

96 

Oneota sites in the upper Midwest, it is clear from the map that Oneota sites cluster in distinctive 

geographic regions, further confirming the distribution of Oneota ‘localities’ across the upper 

Midwest, though it should be noted that this spatial distribution cannot speak to cultural 

continuity within each of these areas. It is also clear that even within regions and localities, site 

distribution varies, no two regions are dispersed the same across the landscape. Future work 

could explore the question of landscape use from a more regional perspective for localities, to 

address why there are so many localities so close together and what this may mean culturally.  

4.2.3. Oneota Landscape Use Characteristics  

 In the following sections, the landscape use characteristics of all Oneota sites are 

quantified to identify overall patterns within the sample of sites (see Tables B.1 through B.5). 

There are distinctive patterns to the landscape choice variables within the full sample of 87 

Oneota sites. For river valley location, the majority of sites are located in the upper Mississippi 

River valley (42.5%), with the next highest number near lakes (19.5%), followed by the upper 

Illinois River valley (11.5%). The closest perennial drainage types are creeks and rivers, which 

share similar percentages/frequencies, 40.2% and 42.5%, respectively, while sites near lakes 

make up 17.3% of the sample. When considering distance to these perennial drainages, sites are 

74.7% likely to be within 0.5 mile of the nearest perennial drainage, 16.1% of sites are located 

between 0.5-1 mile away from perennial drainage, and 9.2% are located over 1 mile away from a 

perennial drainage. For topographic location, Oneota sites considered as a whole are most 

frequently located on terraces (56.3%), or flood plains (28.8%), with very few located on bluff 

tops (14.9%). When considering soil type, 39.3% of Oneota sites are on silty loam soils and 

97 

 
32.1% are on sandy soils. When considering the other loam-based soils, sites with straight loam 

soils make up 14.3% of the sample and silty clay loam soils make up 8.3% of the site sample. 

Based on the frequencies of these characteristics, a generalized Oneota landscape use 

pattern emerges. Oneota sites appear to be most often located on terraces, with silty loam or 

sandy soils, often less than 0.5 miles from either creeks or rivers, with the majority of the sample 

in the Mississippi River valley (particularly the upper valley) (Table 4.3). It should be noted that 

because this river valley has the largest number of sites from the sample, it impacts the 

percentages of landscapes represented, which is why it is important to also consider each of the 

regions separately. All of these characteristics make sense for communities focused on mixed 

agriculture as well as hunting, gathering, and fishing. As described in Chapter 3, Oneota 

communities utilized a subsistence strategy known as intensification through diversification, 

growing a variety of crops, along with hunting, gathering, and fishing (Gallagher and Arzigian 

1994). This focus on agriculture influenced settlement patterns of Oneota communities, as they 

would need easy access to rivers and wetland resources nearby to help irrigate their ridged field 

agricultural system (Gallagher and Arzigian 1994: 181, citing Gallagher and Stevenson 1982). It 

was known that Oneota village sites tend to be found near rivers, lakes, or marshes, however, this 

analysis further quantifies landscape choice for Oneota settlement (Berres 2001; Henning 1998; 

Hollinger 1995; Overstreet 1997).  

Table 4.3: Overall Variable Frequencies for Oneota Sites 

Variable 
River Valley Location 
Perennial Drainage Distance 
Perennial Drainage Type 
Soil Type 
Topographic Location 

Highest Frequency Trait(s) 
Upper Mississippi River Valley 
<0.5 mile 
River & Creek 
Silt Loam & Sand 
Terrace 

Percentage 
42.5% 
74.7% 
42.5% & 40.2% 
39.3% & 32.1% 
56.3% 

98 

 
4.2.4. Oneota Landscape Use Comparisons: Chi-Square and Correspondence Analysis 

The landscape use variables for Oneota sites can now be compared to each other to 

identify relationships between the variables, for example, do Oneota sites on terraces tend to be a 

certain distance away from the nearest perennial drainage? Exploring these relationships may 

illuminate patterns not seen in the descriptions of the variable frequencies completed in the 

previous section. This is accomplished using chi-square/crosstabs as well as correspondence 

analysis, techniques defined earlier in the chapter.  

4.2.4.1. Landscape Use Comparisons for Oneota Sites: Chi-Square 

A chi-square test of independence and Fisher’s exact test were performed to assess the 

association/relationship between each of the variables. Both values are almost identical for the 

Oneota comparisons, meaning the resulting p-values can be used to accept or reject whether any 

two variables are statistically associated with each other with more certainty. Of the ten chi-

square comparisons for Oneota sites, only two had statistically significant p-values (< .05), 

indicating an association between the two variables: perennial drainage type vs. river valley 

location and soil type vs. river valley location (Table 4.4). The other eight comparisons can be 

found in Tables C.1 through C.10. In this instance, the river valley locations are only a reduced 

version of the regions/localities previously defined for Oneota sites.  

Table 4.4: Oneota Sites Chi-Square Analysis and Fisher’s Exact Test 

Comparison 

Chi-Square P-Value 

Fisher’s Exact P-
Value 

Statistical Association 
(Y or N)? 

Perennial Drainage vs. 
Perennial Type*4 

Perennial Drainage vs. 
River Valley*7 

.155 

.146 

.157 

.112 

99 

N 

N 

 
Table 4.4 (cont’d) 

Comparison 

Chi-Square P-Value 

Fisher’s Exact P-
Value 

Statistical Association 
(Y or N)? 

Perennial Distance vs. 
Topographic 
Location*5 
Perennial Type vs. 
River Valley*5 
Soil Type vs. Perennial 
Drainage*5 
Soil Type vs. Perennial 
Type*4 
Soil Type vs. River 
Valley*5 
Soil Type vs. 
Topographic 
Location*4 
Topographic Locations 
vs. Perennial Type*2 
Topographic Location 
vs. River valley*5 

.562 

<.001 

.494 

.541 

.015 

.183 

.448 

.146 

.531 

<.001 

.439 

.589 

.016 

.164 

.427 

.161 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

*Number of comparisons where expected value is less than 5. 

The results of the chi-square test show that there is a statistically significant association 

between the river valley location of Oneota sites and its type of nearest perennial drainage (X2 (6, 

N = 87) = 56.57, p < .001), a result confirmed by the Fisher’s exact test results (p < .001). Sites 

in the Mississippi River valley are almost equally likely to be near creeks as they are to rivers, 

sites in the Illinois River valley are equally likely to be found near creeks and rivers, sites near 

the “Other” river valley category (Des Plaines, Fox, Rock, and Sioux) are twice as likely to be 

found near rivers as they are to creeks, and finally sites near the lakes in eastern Wisconsin are 

confirmed to be primarily near lakes. 

100 

 
Figure 4.3: Oneota Sites, River Valley Location by Perennial Drainage Type 

The result of the chi-square statistic shows that there is a statistically significant 

association between an Oneota site’s river valley location and its soil type (X2 (6, 87) = 15.86, p 

= .014), a result confirmed by the Fisher’s exact test results (p = .016). This relationship can be 

further explored by examining its visual representation, the bar chart (Figure 4.9). Oneota sites in 

the Mississippi River valley are equally likely to have loam soils as they are to have sandy soils, 

sites in the Illinois River valley and near Lakes are more than twice as likely to have sites on 

loam soils than on sandy soils, and finally, sites in the “Other” river valley category (Des 

Plaines, Fox, Rock, and Sioux) are eight times as likely to have sites on loam soils than sandy 

soils.  

Figure 4.4: Oneota Sites, River Valley Location by Soil Type 

The variable frequencies showed that Oneota sites are most often found on terraces, in 

the Mississippi River valleys, in areas with silty loam or sandy soils, less than 0.5 mile away 

101 

 
 
from creeks or rivers. With these frequencies in mind, chi-square analysis and Fisher’s exact test 

were conducted on the five Oneota site variables, comparing each variable to the next for a total 

of 10 comparisons. The goal of this comparison was to identify any potential relationships 

between the five landscape choice variables. For Oneota sites, there are only two statistically 

significant comparisons, both of which include the river valley location. An Oneota site’s river 

valley location is statistically associated with its nearest perennial drainage type and its soil type. 

Meaning, the river valley location where a site is located influences what type of perennial 

drainage a site is closest to and what soil type the site will be located on. Soil type is always 

closely tied to position on the landscape due to the way soils form and we do not know the 

predominant reason a location on the landscape is selected, was it because of soil or because of 

proximity to water, and/or position on the landscape? All characteristics are closely intertwined. 

Additionally, the river valley location variable is a somewhat reduced version of the 

concept of Oneota regions/localities. I argue that the spatial separation of Oneota sites into these 

regions/localities is an important factor in determining how Oneota people chose to make their 

home upon the landscape. How then do these broader localities relate to each of the landscape 

choice variables based on region?  

4.2.4.2. Landscape Use Comparisons for Oneota Sites: Correspondence Analysis  

Although the river valley location was part of both statistically significant chi-square 

comparisons, its four options are only a reduced version of the seven regions/localities identified 

in the spatial analysis section. The value of correspondence analysis here, is that it can be used 

with the larger locality/regional differentiations to better visualize regional patterns of landscape 

use. I use these differentiations to perform a correspondence analysis against each of the other 

102 

  
four landscape choice variables to identify patterns, to gain a nuanced understanding of Oneota 

regional variation. 

When comparing region/locality to perennial drainage distance, sites in the three 

Wisconsin regions as well as Lower Lake Michigan tend to be located less than .5 miles from the 

nearest drainage (Figure 4.10). Sites in the Central Des Moines and Northwest Iowa regions are 

almost equally likely to be less than .5 miles away from the nearest drainage as they are to be .5-

1 mile away. Sites in the Lima Lake Locality are slightly more likely to be greater than 1 mile 

than between .5 and 1 mile from the nearest perennial drainage.  

Figure 4.5: Oneota Correspondence Analysis, Region by Perennial Drainage Distance 

When examining regions in relation to perennial drainage type, sites in the Eastern 

Wisconsin region and Lake Koshkonong Locality are more likely to be near lakes, sites in the 

Northwest Iowa and Lower Lake Michigan regions are more likely to closer to rivers, and sites 

in the Lima Lake Locality and La Crosse/Red Wing Region are more likely to be near creeks 

(Figure 4.11). The Central Des Moines regions does not have a clear correspondence but does lie 

nearer to rivers than creeks or lakes. 

103 

 
Figure 4.6: Oneota Correspondence Analysis, Region by Perennial Drainage Type 

When comparing region by soil type, the La Crosse/Red Wing region is more likely to 

have sites on sandy soils, while the Eastern Wisconsin region is equally likely to have sandy or 

loam soils, and the other five regions are most likely to have loam soils (Figure 4.12). The Lower 

Lake Michigan region and Lima Lake locality are more likely to have silty loam soils, while the 

Iowa regions, Central Des Moines and Northwest Iowa are more likely to have silty clay loams. 

Lake Koshkonong does not have a clear soil type preference but is closer to loam or silty loam 

than sand or silty clay loam.   

104 

 
Figure 4.7: Oneota Correspondence Analysis, Region by Soil Type 

When comparing region by topographic location, sites in the La Crosse/Red Wing region 

are more likely to be found on terraces, sites in the Lake Koshkonong locality are more likely to 

be found on bluff tops, sites in the Central Des Moines, Eastern Wisconsin, and Lower Lake 

Michigan regions are more likely to be on flood plains, and sites in the Lima Lake Locality and 

the Northwest Iowa region are equally likely to be on bluff tops or terraces (Figure 4.13).  

Figure 4.8: Oneota Correspondence Analysis, Region by Topographic Location 

105 

 
 
4.2.5. Oneota Landscape Use Summary 

Based on the frequencies/counts of the landscape use variables, there are general patterns 

that emerge for Oneota sites, which appear mostly on terraces, with silty loam or sandy soils, 

often less than 0.5 miles from either creeks or rivers, with the majority of the sample in the 

Mississippi River valley (particularly the upper valley). However, it is clear that additional 

complexity is present for how Oneota site locations are selected. To investigate the complexities 

of these landscape use characteristics, the chi-square/Fisher’s exact test was used to compare the 

variables to each other. For Oneota sites, there are only two comparisons with statistically 

significant p-values (< .05) indicating an association: perennial drainage type vs. river valley 

location and soil type vs. river valley location. Based on the presence of river valley location in 

both statistically significant comparisons, it is likely that river valley location has an effect on 

landscape choice by Oneota people. Further, the river valley variable is a reduced version of the 

locality/regional variable used to differentiate Oneota sites. It is clear that there is too much 

variation in how Oneota people selected specific settlement locations on the landscape to define 

one generalized way landscape use was selected; choice of settlement location depends on the 

region where the site is located. 

Using seven Oneota regions/localities, I used correspondence analysis to identify 

landscape use characteristics based on these differentiations. What I found is that no two 

localities have the same set of landscape use characteristics (Table 4.5).  

For the Central Des Moines region, sites are equally likely to be found on flood plains 

with loam soils, either less than .5 mile or .5-1 mile from rivers. For the Eastern Wisconsin 

region, sites are mostly on flood plains with either sandy or loam soils, less than .5 mile from 

lakes. For the Northwest Iowa region, sites equally likely to be found on bluff tops and terraces 

106 

with loam soils, either <.5 mile or .5-1 mile away from rivers. For the La Crosse/Red Wing 

region, sites found mostly on terraces with sandy soils, less than .5 mile away from creeks. For 

the Lake Koshkonong locality, sites are most likely to be found on bluff tops with loam soils, 

less than .5 mile away from lakes. For the Lime Lake locality, sites are equally likely to be found 

on bluff tops and terraces with loam soils, over 1 mile away from rivers. For the Lower Lake 

Michigan region, sites are found mostly on flood plains with loam soil less than .5 mile away  

from creeks. 

Table 4.5: Oneota Localities/Regional Landscape Use Characteristics 

Locality/Region 

Central Des 
Moines 

Perennial 
Drainage 
Distance 
Equal between <.5 
or .5-1 

Perennial 
Drainage Type 

Slightly close to 
river 

Soil Type 

Topographic 
Location 

loam 

Flood plain 

Eastern Wisconsin 

<.5 

Northwest Iowa 

Equal between <.5 
or .5-1 

La Crosse/Red 
Wing 
Lake Koshkonong 

Lima Lake 

Lower Lake 
Michigan 

<.5 

<.5 

>1 

<.5 

lake 

river 

creek 

lake 

river 

creek 

Equal between 
sand and loam 

loam 

sand 

loam 

loam 

Flood plain 

Equal between 
bluff top and 
terrace 

terrace 

Bluff top 
Equal between 
bluff top and 
terrace 

loam 

Flood plain 

The spatial differentiation of Oneota sites across the landscape and the corresponding 

variation in landscape choice indicates how dynamic landscape use can be. For Oneota people, 

each locality offers differing options, leading to differing uses of the landscape by the different 

groups of people who inhabited them. There does not appear to be a larger Oneota pattern of 

landscape use that is driving settlement decisions, instead, each locality and those people living 

in them create their own unique sense of place within these spaces (Prohansky, Fabian, and 

107 

 
 
Kaminoff 1983). Because each group has different senses of place, they will each have different 

experiences within the space, which are reflected in the landscape use variation that is seen 

between localities/regions. Do Middle Mississippian sites outside the Cahokia area also show 

variation in landscape use from region to region? How different are landscape choices made by 

Mississippian groups from those made by Oneota? These questions will be explored in the 

following sections. 

4.3. Middle Mississippian Landscape Use 

Do Middle Mississippian landscape characteristics have a specific pattern? The following 

sections address this question by first identifying Middle Mississippian sites and their landscape 

use characteristics, then explores their spatial distribution across the landscape, quantifying their 

landscape use characteristics, and statistically comparing these characteristics. If patterns exist, 

they should be discernable within the spatial and statistical characteristics of the sites. 

4.3.1. Identifying Middle Mississippian Sites  

To identify comparable Middle Mississippian sites at a landscape/regional scale, I 

collected information on temple towns and smaller villages in the Illinois River valley from just 

west of Grafton at the confluence of the Mississippi and Illinois River, north to Hennepin (Dale 

Spencer 2014; Friberg et al. 2021; VanDerwarker et al. 2017). The Illinois River valley can be 

further subdivided into the lower and central valleys. The lower Illinois River valley is where the 

Illinois River and Mississippi River converge just west of Grafton, Illinois, north to Meredosia, 

Illinois (VanDerwarker et al. 2017). The central Illinois River valley (CIRV) is the 210-km 

valley section of the Illinois River between Meredosia, Illinois (to the south), and Hennepin (to 

108 

 
 
the north) (Harn 1978). This area includes sections of the central Illinois and adjoining 

Mississippi River valleys, portions with a slow current and expansive floodplain which 

distinguishes the CIRV from the upper and lower portions of the Illinois River valley (Wilson 

2010). Sites from both Illinois and Iowa along the Mississippi River valley were also added (n = 

10) from just west of Grafton, Illinois, north to Dubuque. In total, information has been collected 

on landscape choice on 48 Middle Mississippian sites. These three river valleys have distinctive 

landscape/topographic differences, which could be reflected in how settlements were selected by 

the populations in habiting this area.  

Sites in the alluvial floodplain of the Mississippi River, called the American Bottom were 

not considered as comparative sites due to the distinctiveness of sites in the region when 

compared to the CIRV (Schroeder 2004). Middle Mississippian sites in the American Bottom are 

associated with the complex chiefdom, Cahokia (detailed in chapter 3.3.2.), the social, political, 

and religious center of the region. The sites in this area have characteristics that are related to the 

urbanization of Cahokia (Betzenhauser 2017), with distinctly different settlement patterns than 

the CIRV Mississippian occupations, which consisted of central towns instead of the large, 

multi-mound ceremonial centers found in Cahokia (Brown and Kelly 2000; Emerson 2010; Kelly 

2006; Pauketat 1998, 2003, 2009).  

In order to systematically identify sites to include in this comparative landscape analysis, 

I requested and was granted access to the Illinois Inventory of Archaeological Sites (IIAS), and 

the associated CRM Database that is hosted and maintained by the Illinois State Archaeological 

Survey (ISAS). The IIAS system is GIS based, showing archaeological site polygons and the 

boundaries of previously conducted archaeological surveys across Illinois. Because of the sheer 

number of sites from varying time periods across the search area, various filters were used within 

109 

the site inventory was used to show only those sites that are classified as Middle Mississippian in 

the CIRV. Through the filter tool, particular characteristics were selected to search for 

Mississippian habitation sites and remove sites consisting of isolated finds. These expressions 

significantly reduced the number of site polygons that appeared along the CIRV, however a large 

sample size remained. No other filters were appropriate to restrict the sample size. Therefore, 

each site polygon and its associated information is examined to identify comparable sites. 

Starting at Grafton, Illinois, all sites within the central and lower Illinois River valleys 

and all sites at a distance of approximately one mile west and east of the valley were selected, 

moving north toward Hennepin. Those sites with limited information in the site file or those that 

were listed as ‘open habitation’ or ‘camp’ were not selected as comparative sites, as there was 

not enough information available to adequately classify them as a village. Sites labeled as 

‘village’ and ‘village/mounds’ were selected and added to a spreadsheet with the geographic 

locations added as points to a GIS document. Through this systematic searching, 48 Middle 

Mississippian village sites in the CIRV and LIRV were identified for comparison at a 

landscape/regional scale (Figure 4.9; Table A.2). 

110 

Figure 4.9: Middle Mississippian Site Points 

111 

 
4.3.2. Middle Mississippian Site Distribution and Spatial Patterns 

When the nearest neighbor statistic is calculated for all 48 Middle Mississippian site 

points, the index ratio is 0.48, the p-value is less than 0.05, and the z-score is -6.87, indicating 

that the null hypothesis can be rejected, and it is unlikely that these features are randomly 

distributed. The index value indicates clustering of the site points, and the p-value and z-score 

indicate that it is unlikely these features are randomly distributed. The average distance between 

the 48 Middle Mississippian sites is 7.1 miles. One way to further explore the average distance 

between sites is to split them into their specific regions or groupings of sites. Of the 48 Middle 

Mississippian sites selected for analysis, 30 are found within the central Illinois River valley, 

seven in the lower Illinois River valley, five in the lower-central Mississippi River valley, and 

three in the upper Mississippi River valley (Figure 4.10; Table 4.6). The three sites in the upper 

Mississippi River valley, Mills Group, John Chapman, and Mark Seeman, are located in close 

proximity to each other in far northern Illinois along the Mississippi River valley. These three 

sites are the only Middle Mississippian sites this far north with enough information to be 

included in the analysis.  

112 

 
Figure 4.10: Middle Mississippian Regions 

113 

 
 
Table 4.6: Middle Mississippian Regions and Sites 

Region 

Sites 

Central Illinois River Valley 

Lower Illinois River Valley 

Anderson; Baker Preston; Buckeye Bend; Clear Lake; Crab 
Tree; Crable; CW Cooper; Emmons; Ester Berry; Eveland; 
Fandel; Fiedler; Fouts; Frederick; Golarte; Hildenmeyer/Ten 
Mile Creek; Houston Shyrock; Larson; Lawrenz Gun Club; 
McKinley; Orendorf; PCWD1; Raskamp Group; Sister 
Creeks; Sleeth; Star Bridge; Sybl Walsh; Tree Row; Weaver; 
Williams/Kingston Lake (30) 
Audrey; Bushnell Hollow; Closser; Housing Unit; Lyons; 
Koster; Whiteside (7) 
Albert Young; Coultas; Brammael; Booker Mound; Oetting 
(5) 

Lower-Central Mississippi 
River Valley 
Upper Mississippi River Valley  John Chapman; Mark Seeman; Mills Group (3) 
Spatial Outliers 

Floyds; Noble Wieting; Phantom (3) 

The remaining three sites do not fit into one of these regions and exist as spatial outliers 

when compared to the others: Floyds, Noble Wieting, and Phantom. The Floyds site is located in 

far western Illinois in the central Mississippi River valley, just south of modern-day Burlington, 

Illinois. While five Oneota sites are located nearby, no Middle Mississippian sites were 

identified in the immediate vicinity. The Noble Wieting site is east of the central Illinois River 

valley, just south of modern-day Normal, Illinois, with no other sites in the proximity. And 

finally, the Phantom site, is the first site along the Mississippi River valley west of the split 

between Mississippi and Illinois rivers, about 45 miles south of the next site found in this valley, 

along the eastern bluff. There are a number of potential reasons these outliers exist: 1. Uneven 

survey coverage, 2. The strict site selection method used in this analysis potentially excluding 

sites that would fill in the spatial gaps, 3. Preservation bias, i.e., that if there was a habitation in 

the areas between these outliers, the sites were not preserved, or 4. That these areas were not 

heavily inhabited by Middle Mississippian people and therefore only a few sites are found there.  

The relationship between sites within the distinct spatial regions can be further 

investigated using the nearest neighbor statistic (Table 4.7). There are 48 Middle Mississippian 

114 

 
sites overall, but only 45 included in the regional differentiation. The three outlier Middle 

Mississippian sites (Floyds, Noble Wieting, and Phantom) are not included in a more focused use 

of the nearest neighbor statistic by region.  

Table 4.7: Middle Mississippian Nearest Neighbor Results by Region 

Region 

Central Illinois 
Lower Illinois 
Lower Central 
Mississippi River 
Upper Mississippi 
River 

Number of 
Sites 
30 
7 
5 

Avg. Distance 
(mi) 
4.0 
4.1 
9.4 

3 

2.0 

Index Ratio 

P-Value  Z-Score 

0.82 
1.75 
3.66 

7.46 

0.057 
0.00 
0.00 

-1.89 
3.78 
11.39 

0.00 

21.4 

In terms of general positioning, most sites in the central Illinois River valley are located 

on the western side of the river valley (25 of 30 sites). Additionally, sites in this region appear 

well distributed across the 130-mile stretch of the CIRV, with the majority of sites clustered 

between Havana and Banner, Illinois. For the central Illinois valley region, the nearest neighbor 

index ratio indicates a trend toward clustering of the sites, at an average approximate distance of 

4.0 miles apart. 

Sites in the lower Illinois River valley are found mostly on the eastern bluff edge (5 of 7) 

and appear to be dispersed across the region. This dispersion is confirmed by the nearest 

neighbor index ratio, with an average approximate distance of 4.1 miles apart. 

All sites along the Mississippi River valley are located on the eastern bluff, including 

sites in the lower-central and upper valleys, including outlier sites Floyds and Phantom (10). 

Sites in the lower-central Mississippi River valley region appear to be spaced equidistant across 

the region, except for two sites located 1.8 miles away from each other (Booker Mound and 

Brammael). The nearest neighbor index ratio for this region indicates dispersion of sites, at an 

average approximate distance of 9.4 miles apart. 

115 

 
 
Sites in the upper Mississippi River valley appear to be grouped near each other on the 

eastern bluff edge of the river. The nearest neighbor index ratio for this region indicates 

dispersion of sites, at an average approximate distance of 2.0 miles apart. Sites in this region are 

themselves an outlier group, as the majority of the Middle Mississippian sites included in this 

discussion are along the central Illinois or lower Mississippi River valleys.  

Only the central Illinois valley sites indicate clustering of the site points, while the other 

regions indicate a dispersed pattern of sites. This result potentially relates to the central Illinois 

region having the most sites included in the nearest neighbor calculations, with the other regions 

having much less. It is likely that the sample size is affecting the index ratio, the more sites, the 

more chances there are for the average to display a clustered distribution. The average distance 

calculation also quantifies the spread of these sites across each region. The 30 sites in the central 

Illinois valley all average a distance of 4.0 miles apart, meaning sites are spread across 

approximately 120 miles, which is quite interesting considering the fact that the central Illinois 

River valley is only 130 miles long. The seven sites in the lower Illinois River valley all average 

a distance of 9.4 miles apart, meaning sites are spread across approximately 28.7 miles. The five 

sites in the lower-central Mississippi River valley average a distance of 9.4 miles apart, meaning 

sites are spread across approximately 47 miles. And finally, the three sites in the upper 

Mississippi River valley average a distance of 2.0 miles apart, meaning sites are spread across 

approximately 6 miles. It will be interesting to see if sites within regions display variability in the 

characteristics of landscape choice in the following sections.  

116 

 
4.3.3. Middle Mississippian Landscape Use Characteristics 

There are distinctive patterns to the landscape choice variables within the sample of 48 

Middle Mississippian sites (see Tables B.6 through B.10). For river valley location, the majority 

of sites (60.4%) are located in the central Illinois River valley. The closest perennial drainage 

types for Middle Mississippian sites are creeks and rivers, which share similar 

percentages/frequencies. When considering distance to the nearest perennial drainage, 50% of 

Middle Mississippian sites are found within 0.5 mile of the nearest perennial drainage, while the 

rest of the sites are almost evenly split between 0.5 to 1 and over 1 mile away. For topographic 

location, 37.5% of Middle Mississippian sites in the sample are found on both bluff tops and 

flood plains, while only 25% are found on terraces. When considering soil type, 75% of Middle 

Mississippian sites are located on silty loam soils, while only 8.3% of sites are on sandy soils, 

which is the 3rd most popular soil type when also straight loam soils (10.4%) and silty clay loam 

soils (6.3%). 

Based on the frequencies of these characteristics, a generalized Middle Mississippian 

landscape use pattern emerges. Middle Mississippian sites are most often found on bluff tops or 

floodplains, with silt loam soils, often less than 0.5 miles from either creeks or rivers, with the 

majority of the sites found in the central Illinois River valley (Table 4.8). Although it is known 

that Middle Mississippian town and village sites north of the American Bottom tend to be found 

along rivers and streams, this analysis shows that sites appear to be fairly well distributed along 

the Illinois River up to Banner in the north, which differs from the Mississippi River valley 

where sites are fairly evenly spaced in the south up to Quincy and then cluster in the north of the 

study region starting at Blackhawk with only one site in between.  

117 

 
 
Table 4.8: Overall Variable Frequencies for Middle Mississippian Sites 

Variable 
River Valley Location 
Perennial Drainage Distance 
Perennial Drainage Type 
Soil Type 
Topographic Location 

Highest Frequency Trait(s) 
Central Illinois River Valley 
<0.5 mile 
Creek & River 
Silt Loam 
Bluff Top & Flood Plain 

Percentage 
60.4% 
50% 
56.25% & 43.75% 
75% 
Both 37.5% 

Middle Mississippian sites differ from Oneota sites in one major area, topographic 

location. Oneota sites in the La Crosse region (the largest region) are found mostly on terraces, 

while Middle Mississippian sites are overall found equally on bluff tops and flood plains. 

Additionally, Middle Mississippian sites are less likely to be found in locations with mainly 

sandy soils (8.3%), while 32.1% of Oneota sites have sandy soils. Next each of the site variables 

will be compared to each other using crosstabs/chi-square analysis to identify potential 

relationships between landscape choice characteristics.  

4.3.4. Middle Mississippian Landscape Use Comparisons: Chi-Square and Correspondence 

Analysis 

The landscape use variables for Middle Mississippian sites can now be compared to 

identify relationships between the variables, for example, do Middle Mississippian sites on the 

bluff tops tend to be a certain distance away from the nearest perennial drainage? Exploring 

these relationships may illuminate patterns not seen in the descriptions of the variable 

frequencies completed in the previous section. This is accomplished using chi-square/crosstabs 

as well as correspondence analysis, techniques defined earlier in the chapter.  

118 

 
 
 
4.3.4.1. Landscape Use Comparisons for Middle Mississippian Sites: Chi-Square 

The chi-square and Fisher’s exact values are almost identical for the Middle 

Mississippian site variable comparisons, meaning the resulting p-values can be used to accept or 

reject whether any two variables are statistically associated with each other with more certainty. 

Of the ten chi-square comparisons for Middle Mississippian sites, only two had statistically 

significant p-values (less than .05), indicating an association between the two variables; 

perennial drainage distance vs. topographic location and topographic location vs. river valley 

location (Table 4.9). The other eight comparisons without a statistically significant relationship 

can be found in Tables C.11 through C.20.  

Table 4.9: Middle Mississippian Chi Square Analysis and Fisher’s Exact Test 

Comparison 

Chi-Square P-Value 

Perennial Distance vs. 
Perennial Type*1 
Perennial Distance vs. 
River Valley*5 
Perennial Distance vs. 
Topographic 
Location*4 
Perennial Type vs. 
River Valley*2 
Soil Type vs. Perennial 
Distance*3 
Soil Type vs. Perennial 
Type*2 
Soil Type vs. River 
Valley*3 
Soil Type vs. 
Topographic 
Location*3 
Topographic Location 
vs. Perennial Type*0 
Topographic Location 
vs. River Valley*6 

0.683 

0.1 

0.057 

0.752 

0.459 

0.188 

0.562 

0.483 

0.832 

0.037 

*Number of comparisons where expected value is less than 5. 

Fisher’s Exact P-
Value 
0.692 

Statistical Association 
(Y or N)? 
N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

0.133 

0.038 

0.846 

0.656 

0.306 

0.624 

0.540 

0.932 

0.028 

119 

 
The chi-square comparison between topographic location and perennial drainage distance 

and for Middle Mississippian sites indicates an association between the two variables (X2 (4, 48) 

= 9.17, p = .056). Despite the p-value for this comparison being slightly >.05 with the chi-square 

statistic, results of the Fisher’s exact test (p = .038), supports rejecting the null hypothesis and 

accepting that the two variables are associated. The majority of Middle Mississippian sites are 

less than .5 mile from the nearest perennial drainage, but when examining each topographic 

location type, the pattern varies (Figure 4.11). There are double the amount of Middle 

Mississippian flood plain sites within .5 miles of the nearest perennial drainage (n = 10) than 

flood plain sites between .5 and 1 mile away (n = 5), and over three times the number of flood 

plain sites more than 1 mile away from the nearest drainage (n = 3). This make sense, when 

considering that sites on flood plains should naturally be closer to a perennial drainage. No 

terrace sites are located between .5 and 1 mile from the nearest perennial drainage; although 

some are located over 1 mile away (n = 3), the majority less are than .5 miles away (n = 8). Bluff 

tops are the only topographic location type to be mostly further away from perennial drainages, 

which are more likely to be .5 to 1 mile away from the nearest perennial drainage, however, this 

is only slightly more than the number of bluff top sites less than .5 mile away (n = 6) but triple 

the number of bluff top sites over 1 mile away (n =3).  

Figure 4.11: Middle Mississippian Sites, Topographic Location by Perennial Drainage Distance 

120 

 
The chi-square comparison between a Middle Mississippian site's topographic location 

and its river valley location indicates an association between the two variables (X2 (4, 48) = 

10.18, p = .036), a result confirmed by the Fisher's exact test results (p = .031). The three river 

valley locations display clear patterns for where sites are located topographically. Over 55% of 

central Illinois River valley sites are located on bluff tops (n = 16), while only one site from both 

the lower Illinois River valley and Mississippi River valley were found on bluff tops. It is clear 

from this that sites in the lower Illinois River valley and Mississippi River valley are generally 

unlikely to be found on bluff tops (Figure 4.12). Flood plain sites were almost evenly dispersed 

between the central Illinois, lower Illinois, and Mississippi River valleys (n = 7, 5, 6, 

respectively), while sites on terraces were mostly found in the central Illinois valley (n = 6), with 

half as many found in either the lower Illinois valley or the Mississippi valley (n = 3).  

Figure 4.12: Middle Mississippian Sites, Topographic Location by River Valley Location 

The variable frequency calculations showed that Middle Mississippian sites are most 

often found on bluff tops or floodplains, with silt loam soils, often less than .5 miles from either 

creeks or rivers, with the majority of the sites found in the central Illinois River valley. With 

these frequencies in mind, chi-square analysis and Fisher's exact test were conducted on the five 

Middle Mississippian site variables, comparing each variable to the next for a total of 10 

121 

 
comparisons. For Middle Mississippian sites, there are only two statistically significant 

comparisons, both of which include topographic location. A Middle Mississippian site's 

topographic region is statistically associated with its distance to the nearest perennial drainage 

and its river valley location, meaning a Middle Mississippian site's topographic location is 

related to how far the nearest perennial drainage will be and also to its location within one of the 

three river valleys.  

I argue that topographic location is an important determining factor in how Middle 

Mississippian people chose to make their home upon the landscape. In Middle Mississippian 

research, there has been a generalization that village sites are found on bluff tops, perhaps this 

use of topographic location to differentiate these communities is reflective of reality, with 

slightly more complexity, as sites are equally likely to be found on flood plains. One option for 

further exploring how the topographic location of a site is related to the other characteristics is to 

reduce the number of dimensions present to make relationships between the variables clearer, 

which can be done using correspondence analysis, a multivariate statistical technique described 

in the following section.  

4.3.4.2. Landscape Use Comparisons for Middle Mississippian Sites: Correspondence 

Analysis 

Unlike Oneota sites, Middle Mississippian sites do not necessarily have clear regional 

differentiations beyond their river valley locations, but as found in the chi-square analysis, the 

topographic location of Middle Mississippian sites does provide two statistically significant 

comparisons. How do the key characteristic used to define Middle Mississippian sites, 

topographic location, compare to the other variables? If there is a distinctive pattern to how 

122 

 
Middle Mississippian people selected their settlement locations based on topographic location, 

the following section’s correspondence analysis should make them clear. Topographic location 

of Middle Mississippian sites will be compared to each of the other four variables using 

correspondence analysis, to identify specific settlement patterns for these landscape features.   

When topographic location is compared to perennial drainage distance, flood plain sites 

are typically less than .5 mile from the nearest drainage, bluff top sites are .5-1 mile away, and 

terrace sites are greater than 1 mile away from the nearest perennial drainage (Figure 4.13). 

Figure 4.13: Middle Mississippian (MM) Correspondence Analysis, Topographic Location by 
Perennial Drainage Distance 

For the correspondence analysis of Middle Mississippian (MM) sites, one variable, 

perennial drainage type, did not have enough dimensions to reduce, with only creek and river as 

options. To account for this, the variable had to be further subdivided, with river being split into 

three options: Illinois, Mississippi, or Spoon. This allowed the correspondence analysis to reduce 

the dimensions of this variable and compare it to the others. When this variable is compared to 

topographic location, Illinois River sites are typically on terraces, bluff top sites appear to be 

123 

 
 
equally between the Illinois River and creeks, while flood plain sites are typically near creeks 

(Figure 4.14).  

Figure 4.14: MM Correspondence Analysis, Topographic Location by Perennial Drainage Type 

When topographic location is compared to river valley location, there appear to be clear 

differentiations. Bluff top sites are typically in the central Illinois River valley, flood plain sites 

are typically found in the Mississippi River valley, and terrace sites are typically in the lower 

Illinois River valley (Figure 4.15).  

Figure 4.15: MM Correspondence Analysis, Topographic Location by River Valley Location 

124 

 
 
When comparing topographic location and soil type, bluff top sites are typically located 

in areas with silt loam soil, terrace sites are split between sandy and silt loam soils, and flood 

plains sites are split evenly between loam, silt loam, and silty clay loam soils (Figure 4.16).  

Figure 4.16: MM Correspondence Analysis, Topographic Location by Soil Type 

4.3.5. Middle Mississippian Landscape Use Summary 

Each topographic location where Middle Mississippian sites are located has varying 

correlations with the other landscape use characteristics (Table 4.10). The correspondence 

analysis shows that Middle Mississippian sites are very closely correlated with specific river 

valley locations and the distance to perennial drainages. Sites on bluff tops are located in the 

central Illinois River valley, between .5-1 mile away from creeks or the Illinois River itself, on 

silt loam soils. Flood plain sites are located in the Mississippi River valley, less than .5 mile from 

creeks with loam, silt loam, or silty clay loam soils. Sites on terraces are found in the lower 

Illinois River valley over 1 mile from the Illinois River with sand or silt loam soils.  

125 

 
 
 
 
Table 4.10: Middle Mississippian Site Topographic Region Characteristics 

Topography 
Location 
Bluff Top 

Perennial 
Distance 
.5-1 

Flood Plain 

Terrace 

<.5 

>1 

Perennial Type 

Creek or Illinois 
River 
Creek 

Illinois River 

River Valley 
Location 
Central Illinois River 
valley 
Mississippi River 
valley 
Lower Illinois River 
valley 

Soil Type 

Silt loam 

Loam, silt loam, 
silty clay loam 
Sand or silt loam 

Based on the frequencies/counts of the landscape use variables, Middle Mississippian 

sites appear to be most often found on bluff tops or floodplains, with silt loam soils, often less 

than 0.5 miles from either creeks or rivers, with the majority of the sites found in the central 

Illinois River valley. To investigate the complexities of these landscape use characteristics, the 

chi-square/Fisher’s exact test was used to compare the variables to each other. For Middle 

Mississippian sites, only had two comparisons with statistically significant p-values (less than 

.05), indicating an association: perennial drainage distance vs. topographic location and 

topographic location vs. river valley location. 

Based on the presence of topographic location in both statistically significant 

comparisons, it is likely that this characteristic has an effect on landscape choice by Middle 

Mississippian people. Correspondence analysis was used to better visualize these relationships 

between topographic location and the other variables. Sites found on the three topographic 

locations closely correlate with specific river valley locations and specific distances to the 

nearest perennial drainage, matching the statistically significant association found in the chi-

square/Fisher’s exact between these variables. Sites on bluff tops are found in the central Illinois 

River valley between .5-1 mile away from the nearest drainage, sites on flood plains in the 

Mississippi River valley are less than .5 miles away, and sites on terraces in the lower Illinois 

River valley are over 1 mile from the nearest drainage. Middle Mississippian site characteristics 

126 

 
will vary depending on the topographic location where it is located, which is closely related to its 

river valley location and distance to perennial drainage.  

Like Oneota sites, positioning of a Middle Mississippian site on the landscape depends on 

the site’s regional location. There are real landscape/topographic differences between the CIRV, 

LIRV, and MRV, and Middle Mississippian landscape use reflects these differences. For 

example, CIRV blufftops are very different than LIRV and MRV blufftops in terms of 

accessibility. CIRV bluff faces generally have less of a slope, which makes them easier to 

traverse while lower Illinois valley and lower Mississippi River valley bluff faces tend to be 

limestone faced and steep with a wide floodplain. Similarly, the topography around La Crosse in 

areas of Oneota settlement consists of many terraces with smaller streams running through them. 

Perhaps in each case, the determining factor really is the local conditions. 

4.4. Answering Research Question 1: Coalescence in Landscape Use 

This analysis initially sought to generalize Oneota and Middle Mississippian landscape 

use, but it is clear that generalizing the settlement characteristics reduces the complexity of how 

these groups may have selected their settlement locations and the complexity of the landscapes 

themselves. There is no set “Oneota landscape use pattern” or “Middle Mississippian landscape 

use pattern”. Both cultural groups adapted to the specific environments they settled in, selecting 

landscapes based on what each location offered. Landscape use although a potential connecting 

point between communities, shifts based on environment and interactions with communities in 

new spaces. Oneota landscape use is dependent on the locality/region within which a site is 

located, each offers different landscape options for settlement. Middle Mississippian landscape 

use is intrinsically tied to topography and the local landscape of each region. How then do the 

127 

 
landscape use variables for the five sites in the CIRV with Bold Counselor Oneota presence 

compare to the characteristics of Oneota sites cluster and to those of Middle Mississippian sites 

(Figure 4.17; Table 4.11)?  

128 

 
Figure 4.17: Sites with Bold Counselor Oneota Presence in the CIRV 

129 

 
 
Table 4.11: Sites with Bold Counselor Oneota Presence Landscape Characteristics 

Site Name 

Perennial 
Drainage Type 

Crable 
CW Cooper 
Morton Village 
Otter Creek 
Sleeth 

creek 
creek 
creek 
creek 
creek 

Perennial 
Drainage 
Distance 
.5-1 
<.5 
<.5 
<.5 
.5-1 

River Valley 
Location 

Soil Type 

Topographic 
Location 

CIRV 
CIRV 
CIRV 
CIRV 
CIRV 

Silt loam 
Silt loam 
Silt loam 
Silt loam 
Silt loam 

Bluff top 
Bluff top 
Bluff top 
Bluff top 
Bluff top 

The five sites with Bold Counselor Oneota characteristics are similar, with sites all 

located on the western bluff tops of the CIRV, 0-1 mile from creeks. These characteristics can be 

compared to patterns for the Oneota localities and Middle Mississippian topographies to identify 

which it resembles. The nearest neighbor analysis shows that Bold Counselor sites, on average, 

are 5.28 miles apart, with the index ratio (2.89) indicating a trend toward dispersion, and the low 

p-value (p = 0.00) and z-score (z = 8.09) indicating a non-random spatial pattern. The average 

distance is greater than those average distances found for the Middle Mississippian sites in the 

different river valleys, however, the nearest neighbor values are closest to the Middle 

Mississippian sites in the lower central Mississippi River valley (5 sites, 9.4 miles, index ratio 

3.66, p-value 0.00, z-score 11.39) and Oneota sites in the lower Lake Michigan region (13 sites, 

16.4 miles, index ratio 1.31, p-value 0.03, z-score 2.16). When looking at the landscape use 

characteristics themselves, the sites with a Bold Counselor Oneota presence compare closest to 

Middle Mississippian sites found on bluff tops. This is not a pattern identified in any of the other 

regions/localities examined for Oneota sites.  

As this analysis has shown, it is difficult to generalize the characteristics of Morton 

Village and the other Bold Counselor Oneota sites based on landscape characteristics of either 

Oneota or Middle Mississippians sites. There are generalizations that can be made about sites 

with Bold Counselor Oneota presence when compared to the more northern Oneota sites 

130 

(mostly on terraces) and Middle Mississippian sites in the CIRV (mostly on bluff tops). The 

Morton Village site itself and the other four sites with a Bold Counselor Oneota presence are 

deep in Middle Mississippian territory, and the group of sites here are some of the most 

southern Oneota sites in the Midwest, (not considering those contemporaneous and later historic 

period Oneota sites in the American Bottom). The five sites with a Bold Counselor Oneota 

presence have an almost identical set of landscape characteristics, which differ from the more 

northern regions of Oneota settlement and are most aligned with those Middle Mississippian 

sites in the central Illinois River valley. 

The Bold Counselor Oneota phase is defined as the result of interaction between local 

Middle Mississippian populations and migrant Oneota groups (Esarey and Conrad 1998). 

Although this interaction clearly reconfigured local social networks (Upton 2019), the Oneota 

populations coming into the CIRV are likely not just transferring their preferred ideas about 

village location wholesale into this new area, which may have to do with factors other than 

coalescence, such as strategic placement on the landscape to “fit in” for safety purposes or to 

familiarize them with the people and cultures already in the area. Previous Bold Counselor 

Oneota research has questioned whether Oneota people coming into the CIRV would live where 

they lived elsewhere (Esarey and Conrad 1998; O’Gorman and Conner 2023), potentially 

bringing characteristics from these locations to the central Illinois River valley. This explanation 

does not necessarily account for an already inhabited CIRV, where Middle Mississippian 

communities were well established (see Chapter 3.3.4) by the time the Bold Counselor Oneota 

arrived in the area. As summarized in Chapter 3, it is unknown whether all sites identified with a 

Bold Counselor Oneota component are associated with an earlier or contemporary Middle 

Mississippian site. It is possible that the Oneota people coming into the central Illinois River 

131 

valley moved into actively inhabited Middle Mississippian villages, which would provide social 

benefits (protection, trade, intermarriage) to a migrant group in a new, foreign space. With 

Morton Village serving as the representative Bold Counselor Oneota site, a finer scale 

investigation of how these Oneota people created and adapted to these communities in this 

predominantly Middle Mississippian area will be further explored at a community level.  

132 

 
 
CHAPTER 5: COMMUNITY SCALE 

5.1. Research Question 2: How is the Morton Village community organized? Are there 

differences or similarities when compared to the organization of Oneota and Middle 

Mississippian sites? 

In the preceding chapter, the way Morton Village is situated on the landscape was found 

to most closely resemble the landscape choices utilized by Middle Mississippian populations 

inhabiting the CIRV. Specifically, Bold Counselor Oneota sites compare closest to Middle 

Mississippian sites found on bluff tops, a pattern not identified in any of the regions/localities 

examined for Oneota sites. Radiocarbon dates and structural evidence indicate that Morton 

Village has an earlier Middle Mississippian occupation. As the occupation of Morton Village 

continued, there was a migration of Oneota people into the area. This resulted in a cohabitation 

and cultural integration of Oneota and Middle Mississippian people within the Morton Village 

community (O’Gorman and Conner 2023). What does this Oneota integration into a Middle 

Mississippian village look like at the community level? Does it appear that the process of 

coalescence, or creation of a new integrated community, appear to be occurring here? The 

community is the next scale of space that is used to explore the overarching research question, 

i.e., how socio-spatial relationships are influenced and altered by instances of cultural interaction 

and integration. 

As defined in Chapter 2, community is the largest group of people whose day-to-day life 

is bound together into a self-conscious corporate entity that is economically and politically 

independent (Beardsley et al. 1956). Understanding the spatial organization at the community 

level is important because people often built their houses near their kin groups, who were those 

133 

 
they interacted with on a day-to-day basis and can reflect how people organized themselves in 

their daily lives (Gargett and Hayden 1987; O’Connell et al. 1987). Comparisons of the spatial 

characteristics of community organization to both Oneota and Middle Mississippian sites can 

assist in better understanding how integration affected the community of Morton Village. How 

then does the community organization at Morton Village compare to the community organization 

found at the Oneota and Middle Mississippian sites in the regions found to be comparable in the 

landscape chapter? 

5.1.1. Revisiting the Space of Community  

Although it cannot be known exactly how an archaeological society organized itself, 

clues are left behind in the physical occupation of space that can be used to infer some aspects of 

this organization. Archaeologists can visualize how a space was occupied through the 

architecture or built environment (Parker Pearson and Richards 1994). The creation of these 

structures is governed by social mores or community identity, which dictate appropriate 

construction methods, locations, and layout, and are built by people in response to their needs 

(Bourdieu 1977; Hegmon 1989; Parker Pearson and Richards 1994; Steadman 2015). Once 

constructed, these structures help to either reinforce and maintain social order or modify and 

transform the social order (Hegmon 1989).  

Architecture can also be used within a community to define groups of individuals, 

thereby constraining and restricting social relationships (Hegmon 1989). Within non-hierarchical 

societies the social order depends on cooperation and integration between these groups (Hegmon 

1989). Spatial structure is informative about the way a society was organized and interpreting 

spatial patterns in the form of architecture and artifacts is informative about how people 

134 

 
inhabited that space and created a sense of place within it (Bourdieu 1977; Gillings et al. 2020; 

Goldstein 1981; Trigger 1989; Willey and Sabloff 1993). This is similar to the previously 

discussed concept of ‘sense of place.’ As people inhabit a space and imbue it with their identity, 

beliefs, and customs, a sense of place or connection to that space is created. Understanding the 

variety of different spaces used within communities provides insight on an individual’s 

experiences in various social spheres (Gillings et al. 2020).  

Community consists of two parts, one physical (the architecture of community) and one 

social (the thoughts and ideas that bind people together) (Yaeger and Canuto 2000). The physical 

equates to the concept of geographic community (people sharing physical space) and the social 

equates to the concept of imagined community (people sharing interests and identity) (Marsh 

2016; O’Gorman 2010). Community is dynamic and is shaped by our behavior, sense of 

belonging in the world, and our morality (O’Gorman 2010). Community also shapes our 

experiences and how we engage in relationships with others (O’Gorman 2010).  

O’Gorman (2010) uses the concept of imagined community to investigate how the 

creation of meaningful spaces is a dynamic force in shaping communities. The physical 

community is created when families or households share a level of physical space, which is 

shaped by their life experiences (O’Gorman 2010). In this physical community, the material 

record is interpreted as the reflection of the community’s behavior (O’Gorman 2010). However, 

O’Gorman argues that only investigating the physical community ignores important aspects of 

community that can be better investigated by using the concept of imagined communities to 

reorient the community as the object of study rather than the spatial unit of analysis (O’Gorman 

2010). In this case, the material culture is not a reflection of the nature of the community but of 

the way in which the social aspects of community are reproduced (O’Gorman 2010).  

135 

Additionally, community may reflect linkages to other people and places that are not 

present at a given "physical" location (O’Gorman 2010). It is unknown what connections there 

might have been between Oneota people in the CIRV and Oneota people elsewhere, or for the 

Morton Village Middle Mississippian population to groups elsewhere. Oneota and Middle 

Mississippian inhabitants of Morton Village are each dealing with the other physically present 

group, but also those social and emotional linkages these individuals carry from elsewhere. 

Within a physical community, those that consider themselves members create an imagined 

community which unites them socially (Gillings et al. 2020; Anderson 1991). This location is 

imbued with the social and imagined aspects of community, thereby creating that sense of place 

or connection to that physical space. 

One concept applicable to this discussion of the built environment is hybridity, defined 

by Card (2013), as “the production of material objects incorporating elements of multiple 

existing stylistic or technological traditions (2013:1)”. This concept was briefly mentioned in 

Chapter 2, but its discussion is most applicable here. This creation of new cultural forms out of 

pre-existing and novel elements is a complex, multi-agent process (Card 2013). According to 

Card (2013), significant and notable spatial or cultural divisions often separate these pre-existing 

elements. Silliman (2013) emphasizes the need to consider hybridity and human agency 

simultaneously, because social/cultural change and reproduction are active processes. People 

possess the quality of hybridity at certain moments, but there is no state of being “hybrid” 

(Silliman 2013). Alt (2006) defines hybridity as the innovation and invention of a new cultural 

form that is the unification of two original cultural forms. Encounters between populations leads 

to the creation of third spaces of identity, which do not belong to one group, but are new spaces 

occupied by both groups. This is similar to Homi Bhabha’s (1994) work on hybridity, where the 

136 

idea of ‘third spaces’ originates. Naum (2010) expands on this, by using the concept of frontiers 

from culture contact studies as a metaphor for Bhabha’s third spaces in cultural hybridity theory.  

Frontiers in this way function as third spaces, landscapes in between, where there is a 

reshaping of identity and the creation of new personhoods (Naum 2010). According to Petersson 

(2011:175), hybridity functions as a “bridge between the binaries that create cultural difference 

in a traditional modern discourse,” challenging notions of groups of people as natural opposites. 

The CIRV serves as a frontier space between the northern Oneota regions and the Middle 

Mississippian epicenter in the American Bottom, where this migrant population of Bold 

Counselor Oneota people navigated interactions with local Middle Mississippian people, creating 

distinctive communities where both Oneota and Middle Mississippian uses of space are found, or 

where they have created a new third-space, combining attributes from both cultural groups into a 

new distinctive form. 

One of the tenets of coalescence that Kowalewski (2006) defined was the promotion of 

community integration between the coalescing groups using the layout of domestic architecture 

and creation of public spaces. How buildings are organized within a community can provide 

insights into changes in public and private space over time (Foster 1989; Moore 1992; Tabor 

1976). According to Cook (2007), if more than one group is present at a site, public contexts will 

likely be controlled by the dominant group. The presence of ritual spaces within a community 

shows that it is inclusive enough to incorporate such spaces into its organization. Where ritual 

structures are located in relation to the groupings of domestic architecture can show how the 

village inhabitants interacted with public structures on a day-to-day basis. How does 

understanding the organization of these spaces help in the assessment of social identity and 

integration at Morton Village? 

137 

As discussed previously, Bold Counselor Oneota and Middle Mississippian populations 

generally differed in the construction method of domestic architecture. Domestic structures built 

using single posts are typically associated with Oneota contexts, while structures built using wall 

trenches are typically associated with Mississippian contexts (Alt and Pauketat 2011; Griffin 

1967). Single-post construction consists of wall posts set into individual holes, while wall-trench 

construction consists of wall posts set into a long trench; each method leaves a distinct 

archaeological pattern. Middle Mississippian populations also tend to have multiple kinds of 

structures within a community of varying shapes, sizes, and purposes (Bowne 2013; Conner 

2016; Conrad 1991; Harn 1978; Oetelaar 1993; Rogers 1995). It is important to contextualize the 

architecture of domestic structures depending on the organization of the village (i.e., clusters, 

rows, etc.) in order to address whether the architectural styles typically used by one group, or the 

other were separated or integrated at Morton Village.  

By analyzing where communal/public spaces and domestic/private spaces are and their 

relationship to one another, the specific social connections between domestic groupings within 

the village can be understood. Using Kowalewski’s (2006) model of coalescence, there should be 

an elaboration of community integration and a universalizing of collective ritual practices in 

contexts of coalescence, making these activities available for everyone. Evidence of new forms 

of communal architecture, aggregation centered on the communal architecture, and continued 

focus on communal ritual should be present in coalesced communities (Stone 2008).  

What is considered communal or public space here are those locations that host special 

events, feasts, and rituals (Kent 1990). Domestic or private space is host to smaller scale events, 

mainly day-to-day activities that only involve a small kinship group (Kent 1990). It is possible to 

differentiate between public and private spaces archaeologically, as shown by Oetelaar (1993) in 

138 

an analysis of a Late Mississippian site in south-central Illinois, where change in spatial patterns 

was indicative of social and economic organization of the community. Despite issues with the 

dichotomy between communal/public and domestic/private potentially creating predetermined 

boundaries within a community or the emphasis that these spaces serve one distinctive purpose 

rather than a multitude of functions within the community (Adler and Wilshusen 1990), this 

generalization is appropriate in the case of Morton Village, where public/communal architecture 

is generally distinctive in its form and apparent function when compared to private/domestic 

architecture (O’Gorman and Conner 2023). If there is integration between Oneota and 

Mississippian groups, communal/public structures were likely created through new communal 

practices, with spatial contexts that will be informative about the way the community engages in 

public activities (see Kowalewski 2006). 

5.1.2. Methods of Analysis: Exploratory Multivariate (K-Means) Cluster Analysis and 

Qualitative Assessment of Patterns 

A quantitative approach using spatial statistics is used to explore whether quantifiable 

patterns exist within the community organization of Morton Village. Spatial statistics are 

statistical descriptions of spatial data and a spatial pattern or process (Sankey 2017). The 

observed data represent the spatial arrangements and organization of archaeological features 

across space and the causes for these patterns can be understood as implicated in social, political, 

and economic systems (Ervin 2014).  

One quantitative, spatial statistical method, K-means cluster analysis, has been utilized in 

archaeological spatial analyses since Kintigh and Ammerman (1982) popularized the technique. 

Kintigh and Ammerman (1982) distinguish between spatial patterning and spatial structure, the 

139 

 
 
first being the spatial distribution of items and the latter being related to abstract organizing 

principles that are responsible for the creation of patterns. They assume that cultural processes 

create the spatial distributions that can be examined for patterns and emphasize the importance of 

having prior theoretical ideas of how to link spatial patterns to cultural structures. Kintigh and 

Ammerman found that K-means proved capable of identifying obvious patterning and provided 

analytical insight when no patterning was observed (1982).  

K-means presents a non-hierarchical cluster analysis that minimizes intra-cluster 

variances while maximizing inter-cluster distances, by separating points (n observations) into 

groups (k clusters) starting with a single cluster, which is then subdivided to identify more 

clusters (Kintigh and Ammerman 1982). K-means analysis looks for cluster configurations based 

on a user specified number of clusters (Kintigh and Ammerman 1982; Wilson and Geiger 2019). 

Within ArcGIS Pro, a K-means analysis is incorporated into the multivariate clustering 

tool within the geoprocessing package. This tool finds the natural clusters of features based 

solely on feature attribute values (ESRI 2023). The tool works well with spatial data using x- and 

y-coordinates as its variables (Wilson and Geiger 2019). To use this tool, the center point of each 

polygon is first calculated, then “calculate geometry attributes” was used to find the x- and y-

coordinates of these points. When the number of clusters is provided, the tool identifies clusters 

where all features within a cluster are as similar as possible, and all clusters are as different as 

possible, which is done by using the K-means algorithm for comparison (ESRI 2023). The K-

means algorithm identifies seeds used to grow each cluster, which matches the number of 

clusters (ESRI 2023). The default option, optimized seed locations, is used here, as it randomly 

selects the first seed and adds features that are far away from each other in data space as 

additional seeds (ESRI 2023).  

140 

To identify the most appropriate number of clusters to split the data into, the tool is first 

run without defining the number of clusters, which automatically evaluates the optimal number 

of clusters using a pseudo-F statistic based on solutions from 2 to 30 clusters, with the optimal 

number of clusters having the highest pseudo-F statistic value (ESRI 2023). This statistic is also 

known as the Calinski-Harabasz pseudo-F statistic, which is a ratio of between cluster variance 

to within cluster variance (Calinksi and Harabasz 1974; ESRI 2023). When the multivariate 

analysis is first run without defining the number of clusters it produces a pseudo-F statistic; 

however, the statistic result varies each time the analysis is run. To minimize bias, the analysis is 

run 10 times to identify an average number of clusters that the pseudo-F statistic indicates the 

data should be split into. The tool is then run again using the average cluster value. When the 

multivariate clustering tool is run using a K-means algorithm comparison, it creates a new layer 

with those features belonging to specific clusters differentiated by color.  

Once quantifiable patterns are identified, several questions need to be asked: what do the 

clusters look like? do they appear randomly or uniformly spaced? what is the size and shape of 

these clusters? Although the tool identifies cluster patterning, it cannot identify meaning behind 

the patterning. A dilemma with the multivariate clustering analysis is its selection of a random 

seed to start dividing the data; therefore, the clusters vary slightly each time the analysis is run. 

Therefore, this method should be used to explore the mathematical patterns in the data, using a 

heuristically defined analysis (Wilson and Geiger 2019). As Wilson and Geiger (2019) noted in 

their K-means cluster analysis of the Middle Mississippian comparative site Orendorf (see 

section 5.3 of this chapter), it is difficult to evaluate which clustering combination represents real 

patterns in the archaeological record and one must be careful not to force the data to reflect a 

subjective goal.  

141 

Those statistical clusters identified with the multivariate clustering analysis can be 

assessed qualitatively to identify distinctive patterns (i.e., rows, clusters, or other patterns) within 

these spaces. Kroll and Price (1991) emphasize the importance of scrutinizing a map to identify 

the presence of an overall structure or pattern of space; as Goldstein (1981) showed, people 

structured space in a meaningful and organized way, which should be apparent in a basic visual 

assessment. I acknowledge the limitations of using a spatial statistical tool to identify patterning 

at Morton Village and recognize that the clusters themselves are based on the tool’s separation of 

the data and that the identification of patterning using a qualitative approach is naturally 

subjective and based on my own initial interpretations of the multivariate clusters. Because 

clustering has previously been performed for both the Mississippian comparative site, Orendorf, 

using K-means as described in Wilson et al. (2019) and for the Oneota comparative site, Wever, 

as determined by Withrow (2004a), identifying clustering at Morton Village allows for 

comparison between the three sites.  

5.1.2.1. Structure of the Chapter 

The goal of this chapter is to address how the community of Morton Village (as a 

representative site of Bold Counselor Oneota sites) is organized. This will involve comparing 

Morton Village’s community organization to Oneota communities outside of the CIRV and local 

Middle Mississippian communities within the CIRV (Figure 5.1). For an Oneota site, Wever 

Terrace in the Lost Creek locality of the Mississippi Alluvial Plain region, serves as the 

comparative community. For a local Middle Mississippian site, the Orendorf site in the CIRV 

serves as the comparative community. Wever Terrace and Orendorf predate Morton Village, 

presenting potential precursors from which community organization attributes could have been 

142 

 
adopted by the Bold Counselor Oneota inhabitants at Morton Village. If Morton Village 

represents a coalesced community, there should be clues within the community organization. The 

spatial organization of Morton Village will be described in detail, leading to a discussion of how 

Morton Village’s community organization compares to Wever Terrace and Orendorf. The use of 

these comparative sites will be extended into the final scale of space, household, to address how 

Morton Village compares to Oneota and Middle Mississippian household use. 

143 

Figure 5.1: Locations of Community Scale Sites 

144 

 
5.2. Bold Counselor Oneota Site: Morton Village 

As described in Chapter 3, there is a contingent of migrant Oneota in the central Illinois 

River valley (CIRV) during the Middle Mississippian Crable phase (AD 1300-1450) (Hollinger 

1995, 2005; O’Gorman 2010; O’Gorman and Conner 2023). Referred to as the Bold Counselor 

phase, a suite of ceramic vessel forms and a mixing of Oneota and Mississippian traits represent 

this formation (Esarey and Conrad 1998; O’Gorman and Conner 2023). These ceramic forms are 

unique to sites with a Bold Counselor Oneota presence in the CIRV, with only rare instances of 

the forms found within Mississippian contexts outside the CIRV (Painter and O’Gorman 2019). 

This phase is defined as the result of interaction between local Middle Mississippian populations 

and migrant Oneota groups. Five main sites—Crable, C.W. Cooper, Sleeth, Otter Creek, and 

Morton Village/Norris Farms 36—located within 35 km of each other, all have levels of Bold 

Counselor presence based on their artifact assemblages (Esarey and Conrad 1998). 

5.2.1. History of Excavations 

Of the five Bold Counselor Oneota sites, Morton Village and Norris Farms 36 has been 

the most systematically explored, making it an ideal candidate as the comparative site for Bold 

Counselor phase Oneota occupations in the CIRV. Excavations in the 1980s and then between 

2008-2017 as part of the collaborative Michigan State University-Dickson Mounds Museum, 

Morton Village Archaeological Project, provide an extensive dataset through which to 

investigate community organization. 

5.2.1.1. 1980s Excavations 

As described in Chapter 3, eleven structures, labeled as ‘houses’, were identified in the 

145 

 
 
 
village and one structure was identified in the Norris Farms 36 cemetery in the 1980s. One 

structure with evidence of several rebuilding episodes, House 1-3, was labeled by Santure, Harn, 

and Esarey (1990) separately and named in order of discovery rather than in the sequence of 

rebuilding. House 3 was determined to be constructed first, then House 1, and finally House 2. 

This structure will be referred to as Structure 1-3 to encompass all of its iterations, which 

represent constructing one or more new walls for the structure. In instances where the structure 

number is needed for analysis, it is labeled as Structure 1 (STR 1). This was also the case with 

House 8-9, which had evidence of a single rebuilding episode, but given two distinct numbers. 

This structure will be referred to as ‘Structure 8-9’, except in cases where the number is needed 

for analysis, where it will be labeled Structure 8 (STR 8). 

The cemetery structure, called Norris Farms #36 House 1, had wall trench architecture 

and no Bold Counselor Oneota ceramic artifacts. The structure was intruded upon by burials, 

leaving the 1980s excavators to conclude that the structure predated the Oneota occupation of the 

village. Radiocarbon dates in the 2000s were taken from short-lived species from the village and 

bone collagen from six burials within the cemetery and provide further contextualization of the 

structure. Silva et al. (2014) examined these dates alongside 11 others from features and 

structures within Morton Village. The cemetery dates trend toward an early occupation for the 

village. The cemetery structure cannot be excluded from analysis based on these dates alone, as 

there is a jog in the calibration curve for radiocarbon dates from this period, making it difficult to 

clearly interpret how the dates for the cemetery and village compare without more dates from 

each (Silva et al. 2014). It is important to include this structure in the current investigation of 

interaction between Bold Counselor Oneota and Middle Mississippian people, as no other 

structures are excluded for only containing artifacts belonging to one group or the other or for 

146 

having a specific architectural style. Therefore, the Norris Farms #36 structure is included in the 

analysis of community structure and will be referred to as Structure 53 (STR 53) (Figure 5.2). 

Figure 5.2: Norris Farms 36 Cemetery and STR 53 

147 

 
5.2.1.2. MSU-DMM Archaeological Project 

Additional investigations at Morton Village did not take place until 2008 with the start of 

the Michigan State University and Dickson Mounds Museum Morton Village Archaeological 

Project (MSU-DMM). Excavations for this project are restricted to the property owned by The 

Nature Conservancy as part of the Emiquon Preserve, which includes the majority of the bluff 

top along the highway and to the west. Excavations between 2008-2016 were restricted to the 

northern half of the site and in 2017 excavations were allowed elsewhere on the property. Larger 

field schools for undergraduates took place in 2008, 2009, 2012, 2014, and 2016, while smaller 

research seasons were conducted in 2010, 2011, 2013, 2015, and 2017. Unlike the 1980s, the 

MSU-DMM project did not add additional structure numbers for instances of rebuilding.  

Buildings discovered between 2008 and 2017 were referred to as structures regardless of 

whether they were interpreted as houses. To minimize confusion, structure numbers were 

continued from the 1980s excavations. Throughout this analysis the term ‘structure’ will be used 

whether referring to the 1980s excavations (Structures 1-14 and Structure 53) and those in the 

2000s (Structures 15-52).  

Spatial data from the 1980s and 2008-2017 excavations was provided by MSU-DMM 

Project Co-Director, Dr. Michael Conner. A total station was used for mapping the 2008-2017 

excavations and the 1980s field maps were digitized in relation to the more recent excavations. 

The spatial data was projected into a site-specific orthogonal grid not related to a real-world 

projection. This may limit which spatial statistical methodologies are available, but all 

measurements within this site projection are accurate to the measurements taken in the field. 

To identify potential structures and features without the need for massive excavation 

efforts and to guide selection of excavation areas, geophysical surveys were conducted on the 

148 

 
 
 
main Nature Conservancy property and in an agricultural field to the northeast across the 

highway. The breadth and boundaries of the site are unclear beyond this property. However, 

topography of the surrounding area and geophysical surveys conducted at the site indicate that 

prevalence of structures drops off outside the main bluff area along the ridges. It is likely that 

those structures already identified at the site represent the main occupation area of the site, 

although it is possible there is some occupation along the ridges of the bluff to the north, east, 

south, and southwest. 

The first geophysical survey at Morton Village was conducted by Dr. Timothy Horsley in 

May 2010. Horsley used high resolution magnetometer survey over a 2.2. hectare area, and 

identified anomalies for 35 possible house basins, several possible post-built structures without 

basins, an additional 30 potential structures with less clear signatures, and numerous pit-like 

anomalies (Horsley 2010; Horsley et al. 2015). Horsley also found that in the central area of the 

site there was a high degree of magnetic interference due to the remains of a historic building 

and gravel parking lot taking up an area of approximately 3,000 square meters. 

Matthew Pike conducted geophysical survey in March 2013 south of the 2010 survey 

conducted by Horsley. This survey covered roughly 1.86 hectares and was a continuation of the 

2010 survey with precautions taken to recreate the 2010 survey parameters (Pike 2013). 

Additional structure anomalies were identified during Pike’s 2013 survey. There is a large 

topographic depression in the southwest of the site just before the fingers of the bluff extend out. 

This area was surveyed but did not show any anomalies. It is possible this location held water 

through parts of the year (Conner personal communication 2023).  

Horsley’s original magnetometer survey did not pick up the signature of a large, public 

structure (STR 34), which was first identified through excavation. Horsley returned to Morton 

149 

Village in 2014 to target 1500 m2 with a high-resolution ground-penetrating radar (GPR) survey 

and additional areas with magnetometer survey (Horsley et al. 2015). The location of STR 34 

was covered by the finer scale GPR since it was missed by the original magnetometry survey due 

to the historic disturbance. The results of the GPR survey showed similar features to the 

magnetometer results but with more detail and evidence for structures not previously detected, 

specifically showing the size of STR 34. Horsley et al. (2015) attribute the success of the GPR 

survey to the fact that it is not as affected by modern iron debris like the magnetometer survey. 

The magnetometer survey was conducted along the western border of the Emiquon Nature 

Preserve property and along the southern and southeastern ridges of the bluff. All data from these 

geophysical surveys at Morton Village were processed in a similar fashion to ensure consistency, 

therefore making the data from both Horsley and Pike nearly seamless in their coverage of the 

property (Horsley et al. 2015) (Figure: 5.3). 

Ground truthing efforts began in 2011, with a variety of structures identified using 

excavation blocks placed over areas with anomalies and areas without anomalies. This work 

continued through 2017 (Table 5.1). In 2017, ground truthing focused on 18 possible or likely 

structures first identified by geophysical survey. The goal of these tests was two-fold: first to 

confirm that these geophysical anomalies were in fact structures and second to identify the 

architectural style of these structures. Once possible/likely structures were chosen, a small 

section of the presumed location of the wall was excavated to reveal the architecture. Of the 18 

possible/likely structures identified through geophysical survey and tested in 2017, 15 were 

confirmed to be structures.  

150 

 
 
Figure 5.3: Magnetometry Results at Morton Village 

151 

 
 
 
Table 5.1: Structures Identified at Morton Village by Year 

Year 

1980s 
2008-2010 
2011 
2012 
2013 
2014 
2015 
2016 
2017 

Structures Identified 

Used 
Geophysical? 
no 
1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10-14, 53 
no 
15-21, 30-32 
yes 
22-24 
yes 
25-29 
no 
33 
no 
34 
yes 
None 
yes 
35, 36, 37 
38-52 (3 not STRs) 
yes 
Total number of structures identified 

Revisited 
Structures? 
n/a 
n/a 
n/a 
n/a 
16 
33 
n/a 
26, 34 
21 

Total New 
Structures 
12 
10 
3 
5 
1 
1 
0 
3 
15 
50 

Structures 1, 4-8, and 10-53 have been excavated to some extent, and thus received 

structure numbers, while the remaining 94 structures have not been given official numbers 

(reminder, 2, 3, and 9 are rebuilding episodes of original structures). Because of this, Structure 

numbers 54-147 have been arbitrarily assigned to these structure anomalies (Figure 5.4). Some 

anomalies when tested turned out not to be structures, despite their appearance as such on the 

geophysical survey. This includes three tested during the 2017 season: two were historic in age 

and one was a cluster of pit features, with no evidence of a structure basin. I accept that not all of 

the anomalies identified by remote sensing are structure basins utilized by the inhabitants of the 

village and I accept that the estimations of size and shape made by Horsley and Pike may not be 

the exact shape and size of the structures as they once stood. For those structures that were 

identified using geophysical survey and then at least partially excavated, the interpreted edge of 

the structure varied generally between 0.2 to one meter off to the actual edge. This is slightly off 

but not a substantial enough difference to discredit the use of the anomaly interpretations made 

by Horsley and Pike.  

152 

 
 
 
Figure 5.4: Structures at Morton Village 

153 

 
Based on the success rate of the ground truthing efforts conducted as part of the MSU-

DMM project, I accept the interpretations made by Horsley and Pike as to the number and size of 

possible structures at Morton Village. I also accept that the 50 confirmed and 94 potential 

structure anomalies may not be all the structures that once stood at Morton Village and that the 

site likely extends beyond the boundaries of the Nature Conservancy property. Based on the 

accepted site extent, the 144 structures (50 confirmed and 94 potential) will be used as part of the 

assessment of spatial organization of the Morton Village community.  

The average area of all structures at Morton Village is 36.6 m2, with a standard deviation 

of 14.7 m2 and a range from 5.3 m2 (STR 20) to 107.8 m2 (STR 34) (Table D.1; Figure 5.5). The 

data are slightly positively skewed (skew = 1.02) with a positive kurtosis value of 6.2, meaning 

the area distribution has an outlier on the right side of the distribution (STR 34). The majority of 

structure areas are plus or minus one standard deviation from the mean (95 of 144 structures). 

This distribution is calculated for all 144 structures at Morton Village, but this grouping is not 

reflective of the varying uses of these structures by the Morton Village inhabitants. This 

distribution serves to show where the vast majority of structure areas fall. 

Figure 5.5: Distribution of Areas 

154 

 
 
 
5.2.2. Types of Spaces Used at Morton Village 

There appears to be clustering of structures around the northern section of the site, where 

the highest number of structures are located (O’Gorman and Conner 2023). I refer to this area as 

the ‘main occupation area’ (Figure 5.4). Outside of the main occupation area, structures tend to 

follow the natural topography of the bluff top, distributed around the natural topographic 

depression to the southwest and become more dispersed along the ridges of the bluff to the south. 

The majority of the 144 structures appear to be either square or rectangular in shape, with the 

two shorter sides oriented along a northwest to southeast axis (see Structure 26), there are some 

structures that appear to be oriented north to south (see Structure 7). Two structures (STR 20 and 

34) are circular in shape. STR 34 is interpreted as a communal/public structure, while STR 20 is 

a domestic ritual structure.  

The people of Morton Village utilized their space in a variety of ways, both publicly for 

communal activities and privately in the domestic sphere as well as for domestic rituals 

(O’Gorman and Conner 2023). Where these structures are located can show how the village 

inhabitants interacted with public structures on a day-to-day basis or whether there was spatial 

separation from these structures based on cultural affiliation. How then are these types of spaces 

organized across the Morton Village community? 

5.2.2.1. Communal and Ritual Spaces 

Two structures have been identified as likely having public or communal use (STRs 16 

and 34) (Figure 5.4). Structure 16, initially discovered in 2008, was excavated in its entirety 

during excavations between 2009-2011 and 2013 (Figure 5.6). This 9 by 9 meter, square, single-

post structure is located in the eastern part of the main occupation area. Structure 16 has a unique 

155 

 
 
 
 
 
architectural style, with a prepared outer bench inside the semi-subterranean structure, with the 

basin leveled out to natural B-horizon soil (O’Gorman and Conner 2023). The bench is about one 

meter wide with wall posts around the outer edge, the inner edge drops about 20 cm down 

sharply, forming the wall of an inner basin (O’Gorman and Conner 2016). There is an extension 

ramp on the east side of the structure that may have functioned as an alcove (O’Gorman and 

Conner 2016). O’Gorman and Conner (2023) suggest that this area could have been a space for a 

ritual display, visible to people in the building. There is a clay-lined hearth, set east of center 

with three renewal episodes located near the alcove and a nearby pavement of Oneota jar 

sections, each carefully placed with exterior faces downward (O’Gorman and Conner 2016). A 

bundle burial of an adult female and at least two subadults was found in a shallow basin in the 

center of the structure (O’Gorman and Conner 2023). Oneota ceramics predominate in the 

structure, but Mississippian pottery is also present. This structure represents an increase in ritual 

intensity at the site, likely serving as an integrative facility between Middle Mississippian and 

Oneota people (O’Gorman and Conner 2023). 

156 

Figure 5.6: Structure 16 Colorized, Adapted from O'Gorman and Conner 2015 

Structure 34 is a large, circular, wall trench structure, with a center post, associated with 

at least two rebuilding episodes, one concentric and the other slightly offset (Figure 5.7). The 

structure is approximately 11.5 meters in diameter for the at least one of the iterations of the 

structure. It is located amongst domestic structures in the center of the main occupation area. It 

crosscuts at least one domestic, wall trench structure (STR 36). Oneota and Mississippian pottery 

was recovered from inside the wall trenches of STR 34, with most being Mississippian in style 

and form. O’Gorman and Conner (2023) found that similar non-domestic, ritual structures are 

known from Mississippian sites elsewhere in the region. Initially this structure was not identified 

on magnetometer survey as it lacks an internal basin like the other structures, but later GPR 

successfully identified the architecture.  

157 

 
Figure 5.7: Structure 34 Colorized, Adapted from O'Gorman and Conner 2016 

The two confirmed communal structures are both found within the main occupation area 

of the village, surrounding a naturally occurring topographic depression at the site. Interestingly, 

there was a general lack of super-positioning of structures and pit features within the village, 

except for areas of re-structuring the village to accommodate placement of the communal ritual 

structures (O’Gorman and Conner 2023). The structures vary in size and shape, with varying 

architectural styles, one having single post architecture (STR 16) and one having wall trench 

architecture (STR 34) (Table 5.2). If additional communal structures exist within the village, 

there may be ways to identify them.  

Table 5.2: Morton Village Confirmed Public Architecture 

Structure 
No. 

Shape 

16 

Square 

Architecture 
Type 
Single Post 

Perimeter (m) 

Area (in m2) 

33.28 

77.45 

158 

 
 
Table 5.2 (cont’d) 

Structure 
No. 

Shape 

Architecture 
Type 

Perimeter (m) 

Area (in m2) 

34 

Circular 

Wall Trench 

36.87 

107.82 

5.2.2.1.1. Other Potential Communal and Ritual Spaces 

Due to the variability in size of the two communal structures, I examined the remaining 

142 structures for similar areas/perimeters (Table D.1). The magnetometry results and structure 

interpretations can be inspected for similarly shaped structures. STR 34 is the largest structure 

found at Morton Village, and there are no comparable structures in terms of size and shape 

elsewhere in the village. Based on the findings of the geophysical survey, it is likely that this 

circular wall trench structure is unique within the community; however, since the magnetometer 

did not pick up STR 34, it is possible there are similar structures in unexcavated portions of the 

site.  

STR 16 is the second largest structure found at Morton Village, and there are two 

structures relatively close in size (within 5 m2): STR 42 and STR 118. STR 42 is a wall trench 

structure, measuring 75.5 m2 in area and located in the southwest section of the site, just before 

the southwest bluff ridge. This structure was identified during the 2017 testing, but only a small 

portion was excavated. STR 118 is an unexcavated structure measuring 72.40 m2 in area, on the 

far western edge of the site.  

Although size and shape are not an exact means of identifying additional communal 

structures, this exercise shows that there are potentially more communal structures that have not 

been identified within the Morton Village community. Among these could be special use 

structures that are similar in size and shape to known domestic structures.  

159 

 
 
 
One structure with an unknown function but similar benchlike architecture to STR 16, is 

STR 50, a 7 by 8-meter, wall trench structure on the western edge of the site that was identified 

as part of the 2017 testing (Figure 5.8). Only the southwest corner of the structure has been 

excavated; however, several sherds within the structure have Oneota designs. The excavations of 

STR 50 are limited and due to remaining questions over its use, its function cannot be confirmed, 

therefore it is not included as a communal/public structure and is instead included in the later 

discussion of domestic space.   

Figure 5.8: Structure 50 excavation map colorized 

One structure that appears to have clear evidence of a special use is structure 25, a wall 

trench structure with a high number of pit features identified in the excavated portion of the 

structure (seven features in one 16 m2 excavation block), which indicate that the structure likely 

had a special use (O’Gorman and Conner 2023). One feature, F224, has been interpreted as a 

multi-phased feasting event due to its sheer number of artifacts and clear depositional zones 

(O’Gorman and Conner 2023). These events likely brought both Middle Mississippian 

inhabitants and Bold Counselor Oneota inhabitants together, based on the commingling of 

160 

 
ceramic types found within the different zones (O’Gorman and Conner 2023). The inhabitants at 

Morton Village had access to a variety of communal/public use structures, used for a variety of 

ceremonial or ritual purposes that would have been accessed by a larger portion of the 

community. Is there evidence for other private ceremonial practices occurring within the 

community?  

5.2.2.1.2. Ritual at the Household Level 

Morton Village also has a confirmed example of a domestic ritual space being utilized by 

its inhabitants, STR 20 (O’Gorman and Conner 2023). This space is unique in that it is directly 

associated with a single domestic structure (STR 19), likely only utilized by the inhabitants of 

that structure or potentially inhabitants of other nearby structures (O’Gorman and Conner 2016). 

This structure will be discussed as its existence and use provides insight into a finer scale of 

ritual or ceremonial spaces than those larger communal structures.  

Structure 20 is a small, circular, single-post structure, approximately 2.5 meters in 

diameter, located amongst other domestic structures in the northwest village area, directly to the 

southeast of a larger structure (STR 19) (Table 5.3). Structure 20 contains both Oneota and 

Mississippian ceramics as well as grinding stones, charcoal, and rock. Based on its proximity to 

STR 19 and artifacts found within, it is likely that the structure was used as a sweat lodge or 

other restricted-use, household ancillary structure likely associated with ritual (Figure 5.9) 

(O’Gorman and Conner 2023). 

Table 5.3: Morton Village Domestic Ritual Spaces 

Structure 
No. 

Shape 

20 

Circular 

Architecture 
Type 
Single Post 

Perimeter (m) 

Area (in m2) 

8.35 

5.27 

161 

 
 
Figure 5.9: Structure 20 Colorized, Adapted from O'Gorman and Conner 2016 

Interestingly, its role as a sweat lodge or ancillary structure serves to shift the dichotomy 

of communal/public structures vs. private. Public architecture is not the only space incorporating 

ritual or ceremony within Morton Village, there are also smaller spaces used for individualized 

household ritual within the community (O’Gorman and Conner 2023). It is clear that although 

there are publicly accessible ritual spaces (STR 16 and STR 34), some rituals were reserved to 

individual households within the village. 

5.2.2.1.3. Mortuary Spaces 

These structures are also not the only ways in which communal space is created and 

utilized in this community. The nearby Norris Farms cemetery indicates an emphasis on public 

mortuary ritual (see Figure 5.2). The cemetery is located approximately 350 m from the main 

occupation area of the site, within walking distance of the village. Burials within the cemetery 

were left open or covered with thatch until use of the cemetery was discontinued, indicated by a 

162 

 
 
red-clay capping/mounding of the area (Santure et al. 1990). Although not the main focus of this 

dissertation project, the cemetery is important to acknowledge for its role in community 

construction at Morton Village.  

Norris Farms 36 cemetery had 264 individuals buried within its boundaries. Most 

ceramic artifacts recovered from these burials are recognized as Bold Counselor Oneota, an 

inference supported by the genetic evidence of the people buried there, which investigators infer 

is from Oneota people and not local Middle Mississippian populations (Harn 1990; Milner et al. 

1991a; Milner et al. 1991b; Milner 1999; Santure et al. 1990; Steadman 1998; Stone 1996; Stone 

and Stoneking 1993, 1998, 1999). However, radiocarbon dating from the cemetery and the 

village indicate that the burials were interred early in the village occupation (O’Gorman and 

Conner 2023; Silva et al. 2014). Adding to this is the fact that the low-lying mound was 

eventually capped in red clay signifying an end to the use of the cemetery at some point during 

the occupation of the village. The potential of an early use of the cemetery helps to contextualize 

Steadman’s (1998) findings of a mostly Oneota population biologically. If the cemetery was 

populated early, perhaps later populations of people living within the village were buried in an 

alternative mortuary facility that has not been identified. It could be possible that there were 

separate mortuary facilities for Middle Mississippian populations that lived at Morton Village 

and that the Middle Mississippian people at the village were not buried at Norris Farms 36. 

O’Gorman et al. (2020) suggest that Norris Farms 36 served to create a new sense of place for 

these migrant communities, thus connecting them with their past, present, and future. The fact 

that such a variety of communal spaces exists within the community is interesting and shows that 

there was a focus on communal and ceremonial activities by the inhabitants of the village. 

163 

 
5.2.2.2. Domestic Spaces 

The predominant structure type in the village are those domestic structures used to meet 

the daily needs of the people living there. When STR 16 and 34 are removed, it is likely that the 

majority of the remaining 142 structures served as domestic architecture. The remaining 

structures have an average area of 35.9 meters, with a standard deviation of 13.1 m2. This value 

includes those that have been excavated and those that have only been identified as anomalies in 

the geophysical surveys (Figure 5.10). These structures range from 5.27 m2 to 75.5 m2 in area, 

with a skewness indicating an almost symmetrical data set (0.31) and kurtosis value (3.22) 

indicating a slight chance for outliers. There is a large range between the smallest and the largest 

structures areas, and it is likely that some of these anomalies could have uses outside of the 

domestic sphere.  

Figure 5.10: Distribution of Areas for 142 Likely Domestic Structures 

When the 94 unexcavated structures are removed from the area calculations, the area, 

standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis values are similar. The average area of the 48 

structures that have been at least partially excavated is 36.3 m2, with a standard deviation of 13.9 

m2 (Figure 5.11). The majority of these structures (16) are between 40.4 m2 and 49.2 m2 in area. 

When the areas are displayed, the skewness (0.19) indicates an almost symmetrical data set, and 

the kurtosis (3.33) value indicates a chance for outliers, which based on the graphical distribution 

of these areas are the smallest, STR 20 (5.27 m2), and largest STR 42 (75.5 m2), structures 

(Figure 5.11). This exercise shows that despite 94 structures being identified using geophysical 

164 

 
 
survey without ground truthing, the removal of their area calculations do not significantly alter 

the distribution of the areas of the remaining 48 structures.  

Figure 5.11: Distribution of Areas for 48 Excavated Domestic Structures 

5.2.2.2.1. Incorporating Building Styles 

As discussed in Chapter 3, Middle Mississippian and Oneota communities generally differed in 

the type of architecture used to build homes. Oneota villages typically used single-post 

architecture, while Middle Mississippian villages utilized wall-trench architecture (Alt and 

Pauketat 2011; Griffin 1967). Of the 50 structures (2 communal and 48 other) at least partially 

excavated at Morton Village, architecture was identified for 43 of them, with 7 indeterminate 

(Table 5.4). Of these 24 are wall-trench structures (48% of known structures) and 15 are single 

post (30% of known structures) (Figure 5.12). This number is not drastically different, but it is 

notable that wall-trench structures outnumber single-post structures in a space where it has been 

assumed that Oneota people would be the predominate residents of the community (Esarey and 

Conrad 1998). Four structures (STRs 10, 17, 22, and 24) incorporate both building styles. In the 

American Bottom region, similar patterns of two sets of architecture are present and have been 

interpreted as rebuilding episodes where the house basin is reused (Pauketat and Alt 2005). 

When the average area is considered for the differing building styles, wall-trench structures are 

the largest, averaging about 5 m2 larger than single-post structures (Table 5.5). 

165 

 
 
Table 5.4: Morton Village Building Types 

Architecture Type 

Count 

Structure Nos. 

Both 
Single Post 
Wall Trench  
Indeterminate 
Unknown 

4 
15 
24 
7 
94 

10, 17, 22, 24 
6, 7, 11, 12, 19, 33, 43-45, 47-49, 51 
1, 5, 8, 15, 18, 21, 23, 25-32, 36, 38-42, 53 
4, 13, 14, 35, 37, 46, 52 
54-147 

Table 5.5: Areas for Building Types 

Architecture 
Type 

Count 

4 
Both 
15 
Single Post 
Wall Trench 
24 
Indeterminate  7 
94 
Unknown 

Mean 
(m2) 
37.9 
38.4 
43.4 
22.8 
35.6 

Median 
(m2) 
37.8 
39.5 
41.8 
24.5 
35.6 

Standard 
Deviation (m2) 
12.6 
15.2 
20.0 
7.97 
12.8 

Kurtosis 

Skewness 

1.2 
5.2 
5.8 
1.95 
3.1 

0.01 
0.5 
1.3 
0.2 
0.4 

The spatial distribution of the two building styles should reflect how the cultural groups 

arranged themselves within the village. If Bold Counselor Oneota and Middle Mississippian 

inhabitants were completely separated at Morton Village, then their building styles will be 

spatially segregated from each other (Burmeister 2000; Clark et al. 2019). If Bold Counselor 

Oneota and Middle Mississippian inhabitants are completely integrated, there may not be a 

difference in where the building styles are found; groupings of structures will be constructed 

using either style, or a mix of building styles. 

Of those structures with architecture identified, the majority are found within the 

previously described main occupation area and extend south along the eastern edge of the site 

(Figure 5.12). The lack of architecture data or exploration of those structural anomalies on the 

southwestern corner of the property is due to excavation limitations while in the field (i.e., 

landowner restrictions).  

No single-post structures exist outside of the main occupation area, while wall trench 

architecture extends southeast along the bluff ridge towards Norris Farms 36. Wall trench 

166 

 
 
structures also outnumber single post structures in the center of the village between STR 34 and 

west of STR 16. Three of the four structures that utilized both building styles are found in a 

somewhat linear pattern intermixed with wall trench structures in the northwest of the site. These 

structures with both architecture appear to have been rebuilt from wall trench to single post 

(O’Gorman and Conner 2023). Perhaps as O’Gorman and Conner (2023) interpreted, these 

rebuilding episodes represent a shift in architecture by Middle Mississippian residents or a shift 

in the use of a structure from one group to the other. The group of structures along the highway 

also show a mixture of styles within the same area, but no evidence of rebuilding from wall 

trench to single post.  

Both wall trench and single post architecture exist around STR 16 and STR 34. Both of 

these structures intruded upon earlier Middle Mississippian wall trench structures, which 

indicates that these two structures were added after the earliest Middle Mississippian occupation 

(O’Gorman and Conner 2023). With this in mind, there does not appear to be a preference by the 

two groups (Oneota and Middle Mississippian) for where their domestic structures should go in 

relation to their communal structures, reflecting a joint reorganization of village space. 

Additionally, there are areas where single-post and wall-trench structures are in proximity to 

each other, often interspersed between each other, likely reflecting integration of the two groups 

of people and a limited emphasis on separation of architectural styles. On the ridge leading to 

Norris Farms 36, there is a predominance of wall-trench structures, which could be a function of 

how the village layout shifted over time. There were Middle Mississippian people living on the 

bluff-top prior to the Oneota arrival, these wall-trench structures on the ridge predate this arrival 

(Conner personal communication 2023). Perhaps after Oneota integration, the village 

167 

consolidated to the main occupation area with wall-trench and single-post structures being used 

simultaneously. 

Figure 5.12: Building Styles at Morton Village 

168 

 
5.2.3. Spatial Patterning at Morton Village 

Despite a section of the main occupation area of the site being obstructed by the historic 

building and former gravel parking lot, patterns can be interpreted in the layout of the structures. 

Across the site, structures average 12.1 meters away from each other, calculated using the 

Average Nearest Neighbor method, with results indicating that structures exhibit nonrandom 

clustering across the site (Table 5.6). Although helpful in understanding the proximity between 

structures across the site, this measure does not allow for an exploration of spatial organization; 

however, it can be used to explore proximity between structures as part of later analyses.  

Table 5.6: Nearest Neighbor Calculations for Morton Village Structures 

Observed Mean Distance 
Expected Mean Distance 
Nearest Neighbor Ratio 
Z-Score 
P-value 

12.094404 m 
15.589752 m 
0.775792 
-5.147109 
0.000000 

To further explore how the spatial organization of structures at Morton Village may 

reflect the level of social integration between the two groups living there, patterns within the 

spatial data can be assessed using a quantitative multivariate clustering (K-means) analysis. This 

tool is run using the x- and y-coordinates of the center point of structures and identifies statistical 

clustering of these points. These clusters will then be qualitatively assessed for distinctive spatial 

patterns. Together, a quantitative approach to define clusters and a qualitative approach to define 

patterns within these clusters allows for a more nuanced approach to interpreting the spatial 

organization of Morton Village. People organized their space in distinctive ways that should be 

clear to any observer, including lines of structures or clusters of structures. Parsing out these 

patterns within a large spatial area with 144 structures to explore can be a challenge, hence the 

incorporation of a quantitative approach for initial separation.  

169 

 
 
 
 
 
5.2.3.1. Quantitative Multivariate Clustering (K-Means) Analysis 

To identify spatial statistical patterns within the village organization, multivariate 

clustering (K-means) analysis can be incorporated. Once run, the resulting clusters can be 

analyzed for distinctive patterns within them, and in turn, those patterns can be used to make 

observations/inferences on how the Morton Village community was structured. The multivariate 

analysis is first run without defining the number of clusters, which produces a pseudo-F statistic; 

however, the statistic result varies each time this analysis is run. To minimize bias, the analysis is 

run 10 times, which is used to identify an average number of clusters using the pseudo-F statistic 

(Table 5.7).  

Table 5.7: Determining Ideal Number of Clusters 

Test Number 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
Average Number of Clusters 

Pseudo-F Statistic Cluster Value 
28 
25 
25 
28 
30 
24 
26 
24 
15 
26 
25.1 

This test found an average of 25 clusters is most appropriate for maximizing the ratio of 

between cluster variance to within cluster variance. The tool is then run again using this number 

of clusters using the optimized seed locations, with the resulting clusters separated by color 

(Figure 5.13). Seeds are the features used to grow the individual clusters (i.e., individual 

structures), with 25 clusters, 25 initial seeds are randomly selected by the system to optimize 

analysis results and performance (ESRI 2023). A potential dilemma with this analysis and its 

selection of initial random seeds to divide the data, is that clusters vary slightly each time the 

170 

 
 
analysis is run. Again, this analysis is used to explore quantitative patterns in the data, which can 

then be analyzed for distinctive, intra-cluster spatial patterns. These patterns likely reflect socio-

spatial relationships and can be interpreted accordingly. 

171 

 
 
Figure 5.13: Multivariate Clustering (K-Means) Analysis 

172 

 
 
 
Detailed characteristics of each cluster, including number of structures, area, and average 

size of those structures can be found in Table E.1. The average distances between structures 

within 15 of clusters are less than the average for the entire site, indicating proximity between 

these structures within their clusters. Clusters vary in the number of structures grouped within 

them, the clusters with the most structures are Cluster 15 and Cluster 17, which contain 9 

structures each. Meanwhile, cluster 6 has the fewest structures (n = 2) and is found in the 

southwest corner of the site. Within clusters, distance between structures varies; several exceed 

the previously calculated average distance for the entire site (12.1 m), while other clusters have a 

smaller average distance apart. Clusters also vary in how many structures each contains; the 

majority of clusters (n = 5) have 7 structures (Figure 5.14). Closeup maps of each of the clusters 

can be found in Appendix E (Tables E.1 through E.23).  

Number of Structures within Clusters

s
r
e
t
s
u
l
C

f
o
.
o
N

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

No. of Structures

Figure 5.14: Number of structures within each K-means cluster 

The majority of clusters are within the main occupation area, which makes sense given 

this is the densest area of structures. Several of the cluster designations are clearly appropriate 

173 

 
 
 
 
 
given their spatial segregation from other structures (see cluster 4, 6, 9, 16, 18, and 19), with 

clusters 9 and 18 separated by the main site by the highway.  

5.2.3.2. Qualitative Assessment of the Spatial Organization of Morton Village 

Using the quantitative patterns as a guide, what then does a qualitative assessment of 

these clusters indicate about how the village is organized? When these clusters are analyzed 

qualitatively, there appear to be three ways structures are organized spatially at Morton Village: 

around openings, in rows, and in groupings (Figure 5.15).  

174 

 
 
Figure 5.15: Spatial Patterns at Morton Village 

175 

 
 
First, there are clusters grouped around six open, circular areas, referred to here as 

openings. These open spaces are within groups of domestic structures, perhaps an incorporation 

of public/open spaces at the household level. The largest opening is in the southeast portion of 

the site, between clusters three, eight, and 17, with STR 105 centered within the open space. If 

no other structures were once in this area, perhaps STR 105 served some sort of special purpose. 

The opening in cluster 25 is the clearest example of the quantitative approach picking up on a 

distinctive spatial opening, as all seven structures around this opening were placed into the same 

cluster (Appendix F; Table 5.8).  

Table 5.8: Spatial Pattern at Morton Village: Openings 

Number 

Structures 

Clusters Involved 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

54-60 
19, 20, 65, 80-
83 
18, 22, 23, 24, 
48 49, 67, 68, 
80, 132 
25, 26, 28, 30, 
31, 35, 72, 79 
101-104, 116, 
122, 123, 136 
38, 40-42, 114, 
115, 120, 121, 
127, (105 in 
center) 

9. 18 

25 

7, 12, 23, 25 

5, 14, 15 

1, 10, 20 

3, 8, 17 

Approximate Area of opening 
(m2) 
679.8 

622.6 

1023.7 

738.4 

784.3 

2303.7 

In those openings that have been excavated (even portions of them), the spaces are not 

clear of activity like those plazas found at the larger Middle Mississippian mound and village 

sites (like Orendorf); rather, they have evidence of various activities taking place within them, 

such as storage pits and processing areas. Bardolph (2014) found that at the Mississippian Lamb 

site, an early Mississippian site in the CIRV, households restricted their spatial organization of 

activities, mainly storage pits and earth ovens, into specific areas between structures. The spatial 

176 

 
 
 
 
organization of these processing, cooking, and storage areas likely structured the inhabitants’ 

movements throughout the day (Bardolph 2014). This may be a similar phenomenon to what is 

seen at Morton Village, and perhaps these openings are best thought of as common areas 

(O’Gorman and Conner 2023). One area that appears to be an opening but is the result of the 

large topographic depression discussed earlier, is found in the southwest corner of the site, and is 

not included as an opening here.  

Next, there appear to be rows of structures in the northwest corner of the site (Table 5.9). 

These rows create a semi-rectangular opening (opening 3) in the northwest of the site, with one 

row of structures on each side, a pattern reminiscent of Orendorf’s village organization (as 

discussed later) but at a much smaller scale. This area is different than the previously defined 

openings in how the structures are organized around the opening (rectangular vs. circular). It 

could represent an earlier Middle Mississippian portion of the village, which will be 

contextualized further with an incorporation of architectural styles in the next section. 

Interestingly, the multivariate analysis separated what appears to be a linear group of structures 

into three other clusters, cluster seven, 23, and 25. It’s clear that the multivariate tool is not able 

to handle a complex, multi-pattern area like the one seen in the northwest edge of the site with 

both openings and rows. The more southern row in cluster 12 appears to have remained intact 

with additional structures added to the cluster. 

Table 5.9: Spatial Pattern at Morton Village: Rows 

Pattern 

Rows 

Number 
1 
2 

Structures 

Clusters Involved 

18, 22-24 
19, 48, 65-67, 132 

12 
7, 23, 25 

Finally, 15 of the K-means clusters were found to have average distances between 

structures that are less than the average distance between all structures (12.1). These 15 clusters 

177 

  
 
 
 
 
can be thought of as groupings, with the structures contained within them being closer in 

proximity to each other than what is found in other clusters (see Table E.1 for area and distance 

values). Many of these clusters have smaller groupings /separation of structures within them. 

Perhaps the quantitative approach picked up on domestic groupings of inter-related residents, 

and within these clusters there are further differentiation between houses. These intra-cluster 

groupings were identified by examining each of the 15 clusters individually and identifying 

proximity to structures within the cluster, those that appear further away from other structures in 

the cluster were separated as these smaller groupings (Table 5.10). 

Table 5.10: Spatial Patterns at Morton Village: Groupings 

Cluster 
Number 
4 
5 
7 
10 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
21 
22 
23 
25 

Groupings within 
Cluster 
1 
2 
3 
2 
3 
2 
3 
3 
2 
3 
1 
2 
4 
2 

Average Distance Between 
Structures (m) 
7.5 
8.24 
8.89 
11.08 
7.97 
10.17 
8.64 
9.33 
9.14 
11.08 
10.4 
10.66 
9.91 
9.43 

5.2.4. Morton Village Community Organization Summary 

The Morton Village community is located on a bluff top overlooking Thompson Lake in 

the CIRV. Domestic structures are square or rectangular in shape, oriented similarly, making up 

the majority of structures across the site. Communal structures with complex internal 

architecture are also present, with two confirmed and the potential for additional communal 

178 

 
 
 
structures within the community. The two confirmed communal structures are different sizes, 

shapes, and have differing internal organization, signifying multiple types of uses for these 

structures across the community. Additional spaces within the village indicate an emphasis on 

household ritual (STR 20) and ritual feasting events (STR 25). The deceased were buried in a 

designated low-lying, mounded cemetery south of the main occupation area of the site, on the 

ridge of the bluff although other mortuary facilities could exist (Santure et al. 1990). These 

communal, ritual, and mortuary spaces indicate intricacies in the community organization at 

Morton Village. Communal spaces are located within the main occupation area, and there does 

not appear to be a distinction for either the single post or wall trench communal structures to be 

surrounded by similar architectural styles, which indicates that both Oneota and Middle 

Mississippian people had access to these spaces.  

The inhabitants living at Morton Village organized their community in multiple patterns, 

including rows, groupings, and openings (i.e., around common areas). Rows in the northeast 

corner of the site bound what could be interpreted as a rectangular opening, slightly different 

from the other openings, which appear roughly circular. The two defined rows are different in 

their architectural styles (see Figure 5.12). The northern row has several structures utilizing 

single-post architecture and the southern row has structures utilizing wall trench architecture and 

a transition from wall trench to single post architecture.  

Openings could represent areas where these smaller extended family groups are collected, 

creating common areas, potential extended family work and open areas, where multiple 

households can interact on a daily basis (O’Gorman and Conner 2023). There are three clear 

openings but likely others that existed within the village but likely were not detected in the 

magnetometry data. As mentioned previously, the space between rows in the northwest of the 

179 

site is reminiscent of Orendorf’s spatial organization, but at a smaller scale and with a mix of 

architectural styles within them. The organization of structures around open spaces is not the rule 

for all houses/households across the site, i.e., not all houses are associated with an opening. 

Although an example of how multiple households could engage across the village, it is likely that 

these interactions were not restricted to these common spaces, as shown by the ability to access 

communal activities outside of openings (e.g., STR 34, not in an opening).  

Groupings are restricted to the northeast section of the site, perhaps indicating a continual 

investment in these smaller groups through rebuilding, through simultaneous occupation of the 

structures for larger family groups, or perhaps serving a different function within the community, 

maybe an option for only some inhabitants. Pairs, however, appear to be a pattern used by some 

inhabitants across the site.  

It is clear that several spatial patterns were utilized by the inhabitants at Morton Village 

to organize their community. Overall, these patterns, groupings, rows, and openings, incorporate 

both wall trench and single post architecture. These patterns were utilized by both groups (as 

represented by architectural styles in this instance), often in the same areas, indicating minimal 

distinction of who had access to certain spaces. Using architecture as a proxy for cultural group, 

it is clear that no one group is exclusively associated with the spatial patterns seen at Morton. 

Both groups had access to communal spaces and placed their houses in the same areas. The 

inhabitants varied the spatial organization of spaces and sometimes grouped structures around 

common areas where a variety of activities could take place, such as storage and processing, as 

evidenced by the presence of storage pits across these areas.  

Both groups were inhabiting the same spaces within the village, if one group was 

dominant at Morton Village, these spaces would likely be separated, as Cook (2007) found at 

180 

Sunwatch village in Ohio. Perhaps, at Morton Village, there was no dominant group and both 

groups had equal access to construct their homes in proximity to each other. When all the 

variations of domestic spatial patterning identified by quantitative and qualitative measures are 

considered, no exclusive Oneota nor Mississippian pattern emerges, likely reflecting integration 

within these community spaces and at the household level. The final analysis chapter will further 

explore the reasons for these spatial patterns through the lens of individual household structure 

and use of space inside and outside of these structures.  

5.3. Site Comparison: Identifying Coalescence at the Community Level 

In addition to examining how Morton Village was organized internally, research 

Question 2 seeks to identify differences or similarities in the community organization of Bold 

Counselor sites when compared to Oneota and Middle Mississippian sites elsewhere. This 

question was simplified by identifying representative sites for each of the cultural groups. 

Morton Village serves as the representative for Bold Counselor Oneota, Orendorf in the CIRV 

for Middle Mississippian, and Wever Terrace in the Mississippi alluvial plain for Oneota. When 

the community organization of Orendorf and Wever Terrace are compared to the community 

organization of Morton Village, it is clear that there are similarities and differences present 

among the three sites. 

5.3.1. Spatial Organization of the Oneota Comparative Site, Wever Terrace 

As discussed in Chapter 4, the Mississippi Alluvial Plain region is used as the Oneota 

comparative region, which is physically close to the Bold Counselor Oneota sites (approximately 

80 miles away) and from around the same time period (Withrow 2004b). Although my analysis 

181 

 
 
finds that the Mississippi Alluvial Plain region is not statistically similar to Bold Counselor 

landscape use, there is potential to identify comparable community organization characteristics 

between Morton Village and sites in this nearby region. The Wever Terrace site, a circa AD 

1300s Oneota village in the Lost Creek locality on the Iowa side of the Mississippi Alluvial Plain 

region, has been selected as the representative site for this region. Wever Terrace is the most 

extensively excavated site in this region, with comprehensive spatial information available in its 

report (Withrow 2004a), making it the region’s best option for comparison. Withrow’s (2004a) 

interpretations are used as a guide for how the Wever Terrace community was organized. 

Deep plowing of the site destroyed clear evidence of structures; however, deeper pits 

were still visible below the plow zone (Withrow 2004c). Almost 2,000 Oneota features and 

almost 200,000 artifacts were uncovered at Wever Terrace, with potentially only half the site 

excavated (Withrow 2004b). The distribution of these features represents a map of the Wever 

Terrace community as it would have appeared 70-100 cm below the surface. These deep features 

leave negative space where potential structures, more shallow features, or larger open spaces 

might have existed, allowing for a tentative discussion of community organization at the site 

(Figure 5.16).  

182 

Figure 5.16: Wever Site (13LE110) and Wever Cemetery (13LE327), Adapted from Figures 3.16, 
3.17, and 4.1 through 4.4 in Withrow 2004a 

183 

 
The village has a roughly c-shaped, semi-circular organization with a gap facing the 

Mississippi River bottoms, a central opening that would have been surrounded by houses and 

related features (Benn et al. 2004). There is no evidence of defensive structures. It is unlikely 

that houses were semi-subterranean, as the terrace’s sandy soils make this construction style 

untenable (Benn et al. 2004). The most likely residential structure was the longhouse or at least 

linear clusters of houses, an interpretation supported by the spatial patterns of associated features 

(Benn et al. 2004). Some posts and hearths were identified despite the deep plowing, some of 

which were lined with limestone cobbles, a distinctive pattern also seen at the Tremaine Oneota 

site in western Wisconsin (Benn et al. 2004; O’Gorman 1995). The site is densely covered by pit 

features that are likely storage pits, which are potentially related to domestic spaces and above 

ground structures. Some pits at the village appear to be stabilized with limestone, interpreted as 

supports for central posts within structures (Benn et al. 2004). There are distinctive clusters of 

pits across the site, with at least 10 clusters identified by Benn et al. (2004) (Table 5.11; Figure 

5.17).  

Table 5.11: Wever Terrace Clusters as Defined in Withrow (2004a) 

Cluster 

Description 

1 

2 

3 
4 
5 
6 

7 

8 
9 
10 

Probable house and related activity areas with one or more possible longhouse 
patterns on south end of site. 
Probable house and related activity areas with one or more possible longhouse 
patterns on south end of site. 
Potential community midden area 
Pits along the south wall of a possible longhouse 
Pits along the north border of a possible longhouse 
Linear arrangement of 101 features 
Group of features segregated from others on east edge of possible charnel house 
structure 
Low density of features, interpreted as a public space within the community  
Possible buffer area between residential and public spaces at the site 
Circle of posts: charnel house or mortuary facility 

184 

 
Figure 5.17: Wever Site Clusters as Defined by Withrow (2004a) 

185 

 
Cluster 8 represents a low density of features, which is interpreted as public space within 

the community by Withrow (2004b). Oneota sites that have had broad areas sufficiently mapped 

exhibit evidence of open areas, including the Tremaine, Fisher, Hayes, Keeshin Farm, and 

possibly Grant, Oak Forest, and Lane Enclosure (Withrow 2004b). While Withrow (2004b) 

interprets at least two distinctive structural spaces (a single longhouse between clusters 4 and 5 

and the circular enclosure/charnel house of cluster 10), I argue that there are potentially more 

longhouses at Wever Terrace (Figure 5.18). Given Withrow’s (2004b) definition of structural 

space, several additional areas with an absence of features have potential, but it is impossible to 

say that any of these open spaces are in fact longhouses (Benn et al. 2004 citing Hollinger 1993).  

186 

Figure 5.18: Wever Site and Wever Cemetery Possible Structures, identified by Withrow (2004b) 

187 

 
Burials are found in a circular cemetery area to the northeast of the village at 13LE327 

and in two clusters along the edges of the central open area. One of these clusters (10) represents 

a specialized mortuary facility, which differs from Tremaine, where burials are within houses. 

Cluster 10 has approximately 20 burial features grouped in a more or less circular pattern. 

Withrow (2004) interprets this pattern as a probable charnel house or mortuary facility, as there 

is evidence of substantial structural supports (central post) and single post construction encircling 

the graves. When identified, burials were not excavated but were identified by size and shape 

and left in place (Hollinger and Vrandenburg 2004). The two circular mortuary complexes are 

located less than a quarter mile (0.15 miles) from each other. The third burial area is located east 

of the highway right-of-way (Benn et al. 2004).  

There are two communal storage areas, one at Wever Terrace (cluster 6) and one within 

the cemetery to the northeast; these were defined by the high number of storage pits in the same 

area. Based on the sheer density of pits found at in the village and cemetery, it is unlikely that all 

were open at the same time, rather they were likely used and filled at different time periods. 

Density of pits in clusters 1-3, 7, and 9 suggest that there was some shifting of house positions 

within these clusters at various points in time. Few situations of pit super-positioning suggest a 

short occupation period, i.e., feature construction took place quickly, while traces of earlier 

features were still observable when later pits were dug. 

It is difficult to fully ascertain the spatial organization at Wever Terrace with its lack of 

clear structural remains; however, some interpretations can be made. There is no evidence of any 

defensive structures and no traces of a palisade within the village. It is likely that the inhabitants 

lived in large, multifamily longhouses, with likely single-post architecture. The longhouses at 

Wever Terrace would be some of the earliest in the Oneota Tradition with the 1100-1200 

188 

occupation (within the Developmental Horizon) at the site (Withrow 2004b). It is clear the 

clusters of pits and longhouses represent long-term investments in the village.  

5.3.2. Spatial Organization of the Middle Mississippian Comparative Site, Orendorf 

In the landscape chapter, I found that bluff-top Middle Mississippian sites in the CIRV 

are the most similar to Morton Village’s landscape organization. As previously described, the 

settlement pattern for Middle Mississippian sites in the CIRV differs from the complexly 

interrelated sociopolitical organization found at Cahokia in the American Bottom (see chapter 3). 

The CIRV had ‘central towns’, which would typically have clusters of buildings and a temple or 

charnel mound with a central plaza and fortifications, covering 10-20 acres (Conrad et al. 2019). 

Often associated with smaller villages, hamlets, and farmsteads, these mound and village sites 

are situated near each other along the central valley. Orendorf, a circa AD 1200-1250 village was 

selected as the Middle Mississippian representative site in the CIRV due to the extensive 

excavations performed at the site and the accessibility of spatial information, which has been 

reported on in an extensive 2019 site report (Conrad et al. 2019). This report is the basis for this 

discussion, and its conclusions will be incorporated in my own interpretation of the site 

organization. 

Orendorf (11F1284) Settlement D is the largest and most densely occupied village in a 

sequence of four or five Middle Mississippian towns with associated mounds on the bluff 

(Conrad, Esarey, Emerson 2019). The settlement has several instances of residential expansion, 

increasing from about 33 structures to as many as 100 around a central plaza (Wilson and Melton 

2019). The residential expansion coincides with an expansion of the palisade that surrounds the 

village (Wilson and Melton 2019). The final occupation, dating to the Orendorf phase (AD 1200-

189 

 
1250) was destroyed by fire (Conrad 1989, 1991). The settlement’s mortuary mound (11F107) 

was located approximately 0.5 km northeast of Settlement D. 

The 93 structures within the palisaded boundaries have four different structure shapes: 

rectangular, circular, L-shaped, and cruciform (Wilson and Melton 2019). The majority are 

rectangular, likely residences with a variety of domestic activities taking place inside them. The 

other shapes served a variety of purposes: as ritual storage, as homes for elites, or as community 

buildings. The palisade was expanded several times, leading to several configurations of the 

settlement (Wilson and Melton 2019). The final configuration consisted of 76 structures: 72 

domestic, one large circular, 1 large rectangular, and 2 small circular (Figure 5.19). 

190 

Figure 5.19: Final Occupation at Orendorf Settlement D, Adapted from Figure 3.1 in Wilson 
and Melton (2019) 

191 

 
Wilson and Geiger (2019) conducted K-means cluster analysis, which separated the 76 

structures into 42 different house clusters (Figure 5.20). A common pattern across the site is the 

pairing of two to three small rectangular domestic structures, with discrete pits clustered around 

individual structures (Wilson and Geiger 2019). These structures outline the perimeter of the 

village with the center of the community used as a communal, plaza space. These smaller 

groupings of structures may have served as multifamily household clusters within the Orendorf 

community, separate from these communal spaces. Even the larger rectangular and circular 

structures, interpreted as homes for elites by Wilson and Geiger (2019), had smaller, ancillary 

structures within their clusters. These structures are on the edge of the plaza areas, connecting 

the interior, communal space to the perimeter, domestic space within the community. 

Although the final occupation of Orendorf is the main community of comparison, it is 

important to look at the continual investment in this space and the rapid expansion. This growth 

is interpreted as a response to the intensification of warfare in the 13th century, correlating with 

violence-related skeletal trauma in the mortuary population (Emerson, et al. 2019; Steadman 

2008). New members coming in enacted a similar suite of household organizational practices as 

the early residents in the village (Wilson and Geiger 2019). Additionally, public structures were 

rebuilt to expand their size, thereby incorporating new people into the community. 

192 

 
Figure 5.20: K-Means Cluster Analysis of Final Occupation at Orendorf, Adapted from Figure 
4.5 in Wilson and Geiger (2019) 

193 

 
In each iteration of the village, structures are organized in a line around the perimeter of 

the village, following the palisade walls, with a central, open plaza area in the center of the 

community. The public space also has multiple public structures that were rebuilt and expanded 

multiple times as the community grew in size. The village was likely organized hierarchically, 

with elites living in larger homes, while other residents of the village lived in smaller, 

rectangular structures of a standard size. These homes all surrounded a central plaza, which 

likely engaged the majority of people within the community.  

5.3.3. Community Organization Comparison 

With the community organization of Morton Village detailed and Orendorf and Wever 

Terrace described, the community characteristics of the sites can be compared. One major 

difference is found in the domestic structure forms for Oneota vs. Middle Mississippian sites 

(Table 5.12). Wever Terrace domestic structures are likely multi-family longhouses, while 

Orendorf and Morton Village have smaller, likely single-family dwellings, many of which are 

grouped together into smaller, likely household units.  

Table 5.12: Comparison between Morton Village, Orendorf, and Wever Terrace 

Site Name 
Architectural Style 

Wever Terrace 
Single post 

Domestic Structure 
Forms 

Longhouses 

Treatment of the 
Dead 

Presence of 
Communal 
Architecture 

Charnel house(s); 
within domestic 
structures 

Yes, charnel house; 
common area 

Morton Village 
Single post, wall 
trench, both 
Rectangular and 
square, semi-
subterranean 
Low, mounded 
cemetery outside of 
village; some within 
communal structure 
Yes, of varying size, 
shape, and type; 
common areas 

Orendorf 
Wall trench 

Rectangular, semi-
subterranean 

Burial mounds 
outside of village 

Yes, of varying size, 
shape, and type, 
likely reserved for 
elites; central plaza 

194 

 
Table 5.12 (cont’d) 

Site Name 
General Structure 
Size 
Defensive Structures  None 

Wever Terrace 
Multi-family 
dwellings 

Household Patterns 

Single longhouses, or 
pairs  

Morton Village 
Single family 
dwellings, grouped  
None (bluff-top 
location) 
Groupings, Rows, 
around common areas 

Orendorf 
Single family 
dwellings, grouped 
Palisade and bluff-top 
location 
Groupings around 
central plaza 

When compared to Orendorf, Morton Village has similar domestic-structure shapes and 

sizes. Although Oneota sites elsewhere do have other forms of domestic structures that would be 

more comparable, there are few from the same time period or in proximity that have data 

(Hollinger 1995). Orendorf has significantly more variety in the shape and function of its 

structures, but Morton Village does have complex communal and ceremonial architecture, 

present in STRs 16 and 34. The large, circular STR 34 is reminiscent of the large circular 

structure found at Orendorf. Additionally, Orendorf has several small circular sweat lodges, 

similar to STR 20 at Morton Village. As the spatial analysis of Morton Village showed, there are 

potentially other ancillary ritual structures associated with domestic structures, which may mean 

that STR 20 is only one instance of domestic ritual behavior that might have existed at Morton 

Village. 

The internal architecture and organization of STR 16 is unique to Morton Village, but 

there is a possibility that there are other structures with similar features within the community, 

i.e., STR 50, indicating that perhaps what may have initially been perceived as the only structure 

of its type in the village could have corollaries elsewhere in the site. Additionally, Morton’s STR 

34 is similar to Middle Mississippian sites elsewhere, including those circular structures found at 

Orendorf (STR 169 and 187). Like those, STR 34 does not appear to have an internal basin, but 

the two congruent rebuilding episodes of the structure do have a central post. The two Orendorf 

195 

 
structures were interpreted as meeting spaces or council houses; perhaps STR 34, as the only one 

of its kind at Morton, served a similar purpose. Additionally, there is evidence of household 

ritual at Morton Village (STR 20), which is similar to a small circular structure found at 

Orendorf (STR 173) and interpreted as a sweat lodge. Interestingly, Morton Village does not 

appear to have one open plaza, like Orendorf, but smaller common areas within household 

spaces, potentially similar to the open area at Wever Terrace near the charnel structure. 

Communal spaces at Morton Village are smaller but appear more numerous and dispersed across 

the site. When the lack of plaza and apparent use of these open common areas is considered, 

Morton Village is organized more like an Oneota village (in this case Wever Terrace), than a 

Middle Mississippian village.  

Each of the three sites has distinctive mortuary practices. At Wever Terrace, the dead are 

buried in a charnel-house-like structures, at Orendorf, they are buried in mounds outside of the 

palisaded village, while at Morton Village they are buried in a designated cemetery (Norris 

Farms 36) that was eventually covered and mounded but are also found in the communal 

structures (STR 16). We do not know whether Norris Farms 36 was the only cemetery utilized 

by the Morton Village inhabitants, especially considering the high number of Oneota ceramics 

found. It is possible that there are additional cemetery spaces utilized by inhabitants of the 

village. Additionally, Wever Terrace and Morton Village appear to have no defensive 

architecture, while Orendorf used palisade walls around the village, which were rebuilt several 

times. Interestingly, this lack of defensive architecture mirrors other areas of Oneota influence, 

where sites do not typically have palisades, and defensive measures seem to rely instead on the 

density of people (Hollinger 2018). 

196 

Morton Village and Orendorf have similar community features, with similarly shaped 

domestic structures, groupings of two or more structures, and an emphasis on communal 

architecture and domestic ritual spaces (i.e., STR 20). Although different from the singular large 

plaza, Morton Village has distinctive openings surrounded by structures, likely common areas, 

although potentially similar to the open space (cluster 8) at Wever Terrace and other Oneota 

communities. The largest difference between Morton Village and Orendorf is its lack of a 

palisade or any defensive architecture, a characteristic shared with the Wever Terrace site. 

Additionally, Morton Village lacks an organized plaza, another characteristic shared with Wever 

Terrace. The open areas represent domestic work areas and are not formal plazas as are present 

at Middle Mississippian mound and village sites. Our understanding of the full variation within 

the Oneota tradition is much less understood than Middle Mississippian community organization 

in the CIRV. This makes it difficult to definitively say that the inhabitants at Morton Village 

were more influenced by Middle Mississippian community patterns over Oneota community 

patterns. With that in mind, the community organization at Morton Village reflects some 

characteristics of both Oneota and Middle Mississippian communities.  

5.4. Answering Research Question 2: Coalescence in the Community 

In this chapter I have explored questions of community organization at three sites: Wever 

Terrace as a representative of Oneota communities, Orendorf as a representative of Middle 

Mississippian communities, and Morton Village as a representative of Bold Counselor Oneota 

communities. When the three are compared, Morton Village has attributes that are reminiscent of 

both Wever Terrace and Orendorf; however, it has some unique attributes as well. I now turn to 

the question of whether the community organization of Morton Village indicates that 

197 

 
coalescence was occurring between Middle Mississippian populations and Bold Counselor 

Oneota populations at Morton Village. 

Within Kowalewski’s (2006) model of coalescence, he emphasizes that there should be 

an elaboration of community integration and a universalizing of collective ritual practices in 

contexts of coalescence, making these activities available for everyone. This should be evident in 

new forms of communal architecture, aggregation centered on the communal architecture, and 

continued focus on communal ritual should be present in coalesced communities (Stone 2008). 

The large, wall trench structure, STR 34, is similar to Orendorf’s Structure 187 and both 

were the largest structures in the respective settlements.  Morton Village does have its own 

unique communal architecture in the form of STR 16, used for ceremonial purposes described 

previously (O’Gorman and Conner 2023). Additionally, communal structures at Morton Village 

are within the main domestic occupation area, surrounded by likely domestic structures, not 

spatially separated. Based on their spatial locations and the presence of both Oneota and Middle 

Mississippian ceramics in these structures, it appears that these communal structures could be 

used by the larger community, and likely served as integrative structures between the people 

residing there.  

An additional tenet of coalescence defined by Kowalewski (2006) is the promotion of 

community integration between the coalescing groups using the layout of domestic architecture 

and creation of public spaces. How buildings are organized within a community provides 

insights into changes in public and domestic space over time (Foster 1989; Moore 1992; Tabor 

1976). According to Cook (2007), if more than one group is present at a site, public contexts will 

likely be controlled by the dominant group. Considering architectural style as a proxy for cultural 

group and considering the artifact styles typically associated with Mississippian vs. Oneota 

198 

contexts, the two public structures at Morton Village do not indicate a preference for one group 

over the other accessing these public spaces. They both sit in the main occupation area and have 

evidence of both ceramic styles within them.  

Further, if wall-trench architecture represents Middle Mississippian influence within the 

village, it should be noted that it is the predominant architecture for the excavated structures at 

the site and specifically within the main occupation area. There are also single-post structures 

within this area, often next to wall trench structures or in close proximity. With any 

archaeological site, additional information would better show differences/similarities in 

architectural styles across the site, but with the currently known data, it is clear that both wall 

trench and single post architecture is utilized within the densest occupation area of the village. 

Additionally, the spatial patterns identified at Morton Village—groupings, rows, openings, and 

pairs of structures—all incorporate both wall trench and single post architecture. I argue that 

based on these patterns and those seen at Oneota and Middle Mississippian sites elsewhere, both 

the Oneota and Middle Mississippian inhabitants at Morton Village brought aspects of their 

identities into this new community space, integrating architectural styles, communal/ceremonial 

spaces, and domestic spaces.  

With Morton Village’s community structure contextualized in comparison to the Middle 

Mississippian site (Orendorf) and Oneota site (Wever Terrace), a finer scale can be explored to 

see how Morton Village compares to these sites on a household level. Focusing on these 

domestic spaces and the artifactual differences between them can identify whether the patterns 

seen at the community level, i.e., the integration of architectural forms and communal spaces and 

increased access to communal architecture, are reflected in the individual household groups 

found at Morton Village.   

199 

CHAPTER 6: HOUSEHOLD SCALE 

6.1. Research Question 3: How are the household spaces within the Morton Village 

community organized? Does one group utilize these spaces differently or is there overlap 

between the Oneota and Middle Mississippian spaces at the village? 

At the largest spatial scale considered in this dissertation, landscape, I sought to 

generalize the settlement characteristics of both Oneota and Middle Mississippian sites to 

compare to Morton Village. What I found is that there is no set Oneota or Middle Mississippian 

landscape use pattern. Both groups adapted to the locations in which they settled. Oneota 

landscape use depends on the locality/region it is in, while Middle Mississippian landscape use is 

tied to topography and the local landscape. When these ideas are applied to Bold Counselor 

Oneota sites in the CIRV, including Morton Village, they most closely align with Middle 

Mississippian sites in the CIRV. This resemblance was likely the result of Oneota populations 

moving into a CIRV already occupied by Middle Mississippians.  

Diving further into this idea of Oneota groups in a Middle Mississippian area, the second 

spatial scale, community, was examined. The goal of that chapter was to identify whether the 

organization at Morton Village most closely resembled an Oneota or Middle Mississippian 

community. I found that Morton Village has attributes that are reminiscent of both, with unique 

attributes as well. Morton Village lacks a central plaza and palisade; instead of a plaza it exhibits 

multiple smaller common areas (openings), where groups of structures (groupings or rows) are 

organized, creating household groupings. With these considerations, it is likely that Oneota and 

Middle Mississippian inhabitants both brought aspects of their identities into Morton Village, 

integrating architectural styles, artifact styles, and their communal, ceremonial, and domestic 

200 

 
 
 
spaces. With the groupings identified in the community chapter, the smallest spatial scale, 

household can be explored further.  

This chapter investigates this smallest scale for evidence of coalescence, using the 

Morton Village site as a case study. The household, as used here, is defined as the physical 

manifestation of a variety of societal factors that structures how people shape their residences 

(Coen, Meredith, and Condie 2017; Steadman 2015; Wilk and Rathje 1982). The concept can be 

used to investigate those smaller-scale interactions between individuals, examining how 

domestic structure reflects the social order or the inhabitant’s creation of place through the 

material culture left behind. 

Variations in the built environment and architecture will be examined, identifying 

particular cultural traits within household contexts (Birch 2012; Clark et al. 2019; Gerritsen 

2004: 151; Hodder 1986: 7-8; Liebmann 2013; Thomas 2004: 34). In order to explore this, 

archaeological proxies for certain behaviors shall be identified and their spatial distribution 

assessed. Comparison of households will provide information with which to explore whether the 

process of coalescence was occurring at Morton Village. As discussed earlier, coalescence is 

essentially a framework through which to study the creation and maintenance of multicultural 

communities (Clark et al. 2019). The landscape and community chapter showed that Oneota 

people came into a Middle Mississippian space and adapted that space to maintain aspects of 

their Oneota identity in a Middle Mississippian world. These adaptations can be further 

evaluated by identifying how households used and shaped their spaces through specific 

behaviors.  

201 

 
6.2. Revisiting the Space of Households 

Domestic architecture/dwellings are used by communities to meet the daily needs of their 

inhabitants, studied as part of the household concept (Wilk and Rathje 1982). The physical 

domestic structure is related to environment, household demography, and activities to form the 

social concept of household (Rogers 1995; Wilk and Rathe 1982). Often, the concept of 

household will extend beyond the boundaries of a single house, encompassing multiple 

structures whose inhabitants come together to meet their day-to-day needs. 

An archaeology of place recognizes that how material culture is organized spatially 

depends on the activities and social relationships of people. Spatial patterns identified 

archaeologically are the result of intended and unintended consequences of these people’s 

actions (Wheatley 2004, citing Giddens 1984). Households are actively affected by the actions of 

various forces within the community, including economic, social, and ideological interests of the 

inhabitants (Parker and Foster 2012; Matthews 2012). Households are not static; as the structures 

of these relationships change, so too may the components of households. This is an important 

point because in contexts of interaction and integration, people of different backgrounds will 

construct their space differently. These differences should be visible archaeologically through the 

items left behind by the inhabitants of these spaces. As Hillier and Hanson (1984:2) say, “the 

ordering of space in buildings is really about the ordering of relations between people.” 

One of the tenets of coalescence defined by Kowalewski (2006) is that domestic 

architecture and village layout will be designed to promote integration. Archaeological patterns 

in domestic architecture can be analyzed to determine how inhabitants constructed their day-to-

day lives. Households vary over time and between cultures, and members of communities will 

adapt their ‘sense of place’ based on fluctuations of the status quo (Bermann 2014; Hirth 1993; 

202 

Prohansky et al. 1983). The introduction of new people belonging to new cultural groups alters 

the ‘sense of place’ that a community feels in relation to their space (Gillings et al. 2020). This 

may result in subtle shifts in the organization of space, particularly within domestic architecture 

(Coen et al. 2017). Patterns of house construction, repair, destruction, expansion, and movement 

fluctuate as household organization and community planning needs change within a society 

(Mehrer and Collins 1995). The archaeological patterns of domestic structures inhabited by 

members of a society and the variation in these patterns can be analyzed to determine how the 

inhabitants structured their day-to-day lives. Clark et al. (2019) acknowledge that incomplete 

coalescence may result in fragmented settlement structure, with traces of either group identity 

reflected in aspects of the technological style, domestic space organization, or foodways used by 

the household. 

Diehl (1998) finds that households can be identified by isolating architectural and 

artifactual patterns among groups of structures. Households are the smallest spatial units that are 

repeated over a settlement, with the most obvious indicator being the spatial segregation of 

structures or groups of structures (Diehl 1998). These groups should have archaeological remains 

of various domestic activities, with patterns that should repeat in each of these architecturally 

defined groupings (Diehl 1998).  

How then can household organization be used to identify processes of coalescence? 

Stanish (1989) and Diehl (1998) both hypothesize that variations in domestic architectural types 

correspond to ethnically distinct groups. The household is the best means of characterizing 

resident populations and differentiating between discrete ethnic groupings within the community 

(Diehl 1998). Diehl (1998) emphasizes the need to look at households without assigning kinship 

relationships between them, which helps to isolate the archaeological correlates of these 

203 

domestic spaces. The existence of differing household types suggests different ethnic groups 

inhabited a site (Diehl 1998). While I do not specifically deal with ethnicity, my analysis will 

draw on this idea to identify physical correlates of households within the Morton Village 

community and ask whether the Oneota and Middle Mississippian people living there were in the 

process of coalescing in these household spaces (Kowalewski 2006).  

One of the key functions of the household is production, defined by Wilk and Rathje 

(1982) as human activity that procures resources or increases their value. Many activities 

associated with production take place in or around household units, meaning archaeological 

evidence of these behaviors is often left behind. The use of space around and within households 

at Morton Village can be explored by identifying archaeological correlates of these production 

behaviors. This exercise can further be reduced to look at repetitive artifactual patterns within 

households, and especially within individual structures, to identify specific behaviors associated 

with the households (Kent 1990). Focusing on production behaviors provides insight into how 

the inhabitants of Morton Village were engaging with their space to perform these basic needs. 

Understanding these everyday interactions and where they took place within the village allows 

for a more nuanced approach to exploring how the process of coalescence was taking place 

amongst the inhabitants at Morton Village. 

6.2.1. Structure Life Cycles 

For this analysis, it is critical to consider the life cycle of houses and households and how 

that may impact what is observed archaeologically. LaMotta and Schiffer (1999) examine the life 

cycle of structures to assist in identifying depositional stages for archaeological resources. They 

define three stages in this cycle: habitation, abandonment, and post-abandonment. Within each of 

204 

 
the stages, there are forces of accretion (addition of objects) and depletion (removal of objects) at 

work within the structures that will affect what items are visible in the archaeological record. 

Two of these stages are of interest when considering the assemblage at Morton Village, 

specifically the habitation and abandonment stages. In the habitation stage, artifacts are deposited 

in structures in several ways, through primary or accidental deposition, secondary deposition, or 

provisional discard (LaMotta and Schiffer 1999).  

Primary deposition is the accumulation of objects in the archaeological record at their 

locations of use, either through discard or accidental deposition (LaMotta and Schiffer 1999). 

These context include where artifacts are found on floors and the spatial placement of features 

and artifacts within structures is applicable for the Morton Village assemblage. Diehl (1998) 

defines primary deposition using the floor assemblages, i.e., artifacts found within 15 cm of the 

structure’s floor. An assumption made if using this definition of floor assemblages is that all 

cases were not affected by other processes (Diehl 1998; Schiffer 1987). If we accept this, floor 

assemblages can provide insight into patterns of household behavior; further, burned floor 

assemblages while occupied or just after abandonment may provide an even clearer picture of 

what a structure looked like at the time of occupation.  

Secondary deposition, the removal of refuse from an area of activity to a spatially 

separate location, is applicable when considering the contents of pit features that were used for 

refuse by providing a snapshot of household waste products in the archaeological record. As part 

of the abandonment stage, it is possible for archeological evidence of the day-to-day life of the 

inhabitants to be preserved in situ (i.e., left the way its inhabitants used it) on the floors of 

structures (LaMotta and Schiffer 1999; Oetelaar 2000; Pfälzner 2015). This is also referred to as 

de facto refuse, or the abandonment of still usable objects on the floors of structure (Diehl 1998; 

205 

LaMotta and Schiffer 1999; Pfälzner 2015). Houses would typically be cleared out of belongings 

in the abandonment stage if the home was no longer a viable living space or in cases of 

movement or migration (Diehl 1998; LaMotta and Schiffer 1999). Sometimes forces, either 

natural (i.e., fire or erosion) or manmade (i.e., conflict or intentionally set fire) would destroy 

structures prior to removal of belongings, leaving a primary deposition of objects, a snapshot of 

domestic life at the moment the structure was abandoned. These instances are ideal for a 

comparison of intrahousehold organization, as these structures can reflect the way the space in 

the structure was utilized at the time of its abandonment.  

Considering the life cycles of structures allows for a selection of specific archaeological 

contexts through which to explore household organization. I consider structure floors as 

instances of primary and sometimes de facto deposition of artifacts (depending on abandonment 

status). I consider the spatial organization of pits as representative of primary context in so much 

as these features themselves are artifacts of human behaviors and activities; contents of the pits 

are of secondary deposition when used for refuse (see Bardolph 2015). These depositional forces 

at the village provide an archaeological snapshot of how the inhabitants of the village organized 

and used their household spaces to meet their day-to-day needs. These concepts can be used to 

identify archaeological correlates of how the inhabitants at Morton Village may have structured 

their space similarly or differently across the village. Often there are only small sample sizes 

available to try and gain insight on these processes. Limited archaeological information can still 

be used to discern large-scale processes at work within the community by examining multiple 

facets of how space is organized there.  

206 

 
6.2.2. Indicators of Interaction 

In Chapter 5, I argued that Morton Village’s community structure reflects an 

amalgamation of cultural practices that were brought by Middle Mississippian and Oneota 

inhabitants to their community. Here, I further examine the household patterns identified as part 

of the previous community scale analysis. Groupings of structures represent likely household 

units, with multiple, likely related, family groups living close to each other to meet daily needs. 

The organization of rows and openings create smaller common areas, where multiple households 

can gather and utilize space for a variety of activities (O’Gorman and Conner 2023). These 

patterns were utilized by both groups (as represented by architectural styles in this instance), 

often in the same areas, indicating minimal distinction of who had access to certain spaces. 

Architectural style and ceramic attributes have consistently been used in previous work to 

identify Middle Mississippian and Oneota spaces within Morton Village (Nordine 2020; 

O’Gorman and Conner 2023; Painter 2021; Painter 2022; Painter and O’Gorman 2019, 2024) 

while recognizing the likely fluidity of the group identities. The distribution of architectural 

types (single post, wall trench, both, and indeterminate/unknown) were defined in Chapter 5, 

where I argued that traditions of building as seen in wall construction are an important variation 

within and between household spaces. Ceramic attributes are restricted to pottery designs and 

forms, including the presence of trailed lines imprinted on wet paste sometimes found with 

punctations and lip decorations for the Oneota, and cordmarking on jars and bowls, thin lines 

incised on dry paste (usually plates), and the presence of water bottle forms for Middle 

Mississippians (Bengtson and O’Gorman 2016; O’Gorman and Conner 2023; Painter 2021; 

Yann et al. 2013). Using architecture and artifact styles as a proxy for cultural group, it is clear 

that no one group had sole access to the spatial pattern types seen at Morton. 

207 

As discussed previously (see Chapter 2 and Chapter 5), I recognize that architecture or 

pottery style is not always representative of identity and may not directly correlate with cultural 

groups as defined through the archaeological record (Painter 2021 citing Croucher and Wynne-

Jones 2006 and Gosselain 2000). However, as Painter (2021) finds, differences in ceramic styles 

are an important variability seen at Morton Village. However, these variables are not simply 

reflections of behavior, but were actively used by inhabitants in the process of negotiating a new 

community. Examining how architecture and ceramic styles are used throughout the village 

provides clues on identity making processes going on amongst the inhabitants living there (Weik 

2014). Examining small-scale differences or similarities in the expression of these behaviors 

archaeologically provides clues on how large-scale social and political transformations were 

unfolding in relation to day-to-day life (Alt 2002, 2006; Weik 2014).    

6.2.3. Structure of the Analysis: Interstructure and Intrastructure 

This chapter addresses whether there are differences between how different groups of 

people use/create space in Morton Village by examining production behaviors related to the 

household units defined in Chapter 5. I explore the research question at two different spatial 

levels—interstructure and intrastructure—which serve as the primary organizational structures.  

At the interstructure level, proxies of production behaviors will be used, including 

building styles and placement of structures, which show construction preferences and serve as 

one of the indicators of interaction at the household level. Ceramic styles found within and 

around the households (i.e., on floors or in pits) indicate ceramic preferences (i.e., what styles are 

being made or otherwise acquired, used, and discarded) and serve as the second indicator of 

interaction at the household level. Finally, the placement of storage, cooking, and processing 

208 

 
facilities in these household units will be explored in relation to foodway preferences. Then the 

repurposing of the facilities for refuse is used to explore waste disposal practices. 

At the intrastructure level, I explore some of the same production behaviors as well as 

new ones (like caching, tool production, and craft production) but with a closer lens. Examining 

the proxies of behaviors related to production at multiple spatial scales provides a 

multidimensional view of how space is used by the inhabitants of the village. Much like the 

landscape comparison in Chapter 4, this examination using inter- and intrastructure comparison 

seeks to identify broad patterns in the organization of households at Morton Village, while also 

leaving space to identify finer scale patterning within individual domestic structures. Once 

described, the results of both the interstructure and intrastructure investigations will be used to 

answer the question of how space is being organized by the inhabitants of Morton Village and 

how this use reflects processes of coalescence occurring there.  

6.3. Methods of Analysis: Defining Proxies of Production Behaviors 

To identify how household space is organized at Morton Village, several proxies of 

production behavior will be assessed. These include construction preferences, ceramic 

production, and foodways (Table 6.1). To examine these variables, archaeological correlates of 

these behaviors can be identified and assessed using statistical and spatial measures.  

Table 6.1: Variables for Production Behaviors 

Production Behavior 

Variables 

Construction Preferences 

Ceramic Use and Discard 

Foodways 

Building Locations 
Building Style  
Ceramics within structures 
Ceramics outside of structures 
Storage facilities (and caching) 
Cooking facilities 

209 

 
 
Table 6.1 (cont’d) 

Production Behavior 
Foodways (cont’d) 

Waste Disposal 

Variables 
Other/Multipurpose facilities 
Artifact Densities in Pits 
Pit Feature Locations 

The variable information is added to an IBM SPSS Statistics table and all calculations are 

completed using analysis tools within SPSS. Basic statistical information, including frequencies 

and percentages of these characteristics, is gathered. In some cases, correspondence analysis is 

used to graphically display these relationships. As described in Chapter 4, correspondence 

analysis provides a simplified graphical representation of the relationship between variables. 

With basic statistical information defined, all variables will be contextualized spatially, using 

maps to show their distribution across the site. This approach, though mainly qualitative, 

provides the best way to consider spatial differences in these behaviors across the site. 

6.3.1. Construction Preferences 

When examining construction preferences, two variables will be explored: building 

location and building style. For building location, Chapter 5 identified household spaces using 

K-means clustering and qualitative assessment of the spatial organization at Morton Village. 

These analyses identified groupings of structures as constituting household units. Not all 

structures are found in groupings, and some are found around common areas (openings) others 

have no other structures nearby (Table 6.2). These organizational patterns are used to identify 

how the inhabitants organized their household spaces. Was the preference to place structures in 

household groupings or to separate structures?  

210 

 
 
 
 
 
Building style references the type of architecture structures exhibit: wall trenches, single 

posts, or both types (Table 6.3). There are also structures whose architecture could not be 

determined during excavations, which are classified as indeterminate. Building style is used as a 

proxy for how Oneota and Middle Mississippian people organized their spaces within the village. 

I acknowledge that individual structures are not necessarily representative of all structures within 

a household, but because archaeological information is not available for every structure at 

Morton Village, individual structures are used to describe household spaces. 

Building location and building style are also used to contextualize the other behaviors 

being explored (i.e., ceramic production and foodways). Maps for these behaviors have the 

household patterns and building styles displayed, which further contextualizes the instances of 

interaction across the village.   

Table 6.2: Building Location Types 

Grouping 

Opening 

Multiple (i.e., in groupings around openings) 
None 

Table 6.3: Building Styles 

Wall Trench 
Single Post 
Both 
Indeterminate 

6.3.2. Ceramic Use and Discard 

When examining ceramic use and discard, the ceramic styles that are used as an indicator 

of interaction between the inhabitants of the village are further contextualized spatially. 

Ceramics are classified as one of four options: Middle Mississippian, Oneota, Both, or 

211 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Unidentifiable (Table 6.4). Middle Mississippian ceramic styles are represented by cordmarking 

on jars and bowls, thin lines incised on dry paste (usually plates), and the presence of water 

bottles. Oneota ceramic styles are represented by the presence of trailed lines imprinted on wet 

paste sometimes found with punctations and lip decorations. When both ceramic types are found 

within these archaeological contexts they are designated as both. There are some instances where 

no artifacts with these distinctive decorations or forms are found, and they are classified as 

unidentifiable.  

Table 6.4: Ceramic Styles 

Middle Mississippian 
Oneota 
Both 
Unidentifiable 

These assessments are done by examining artifact catalogues for structure floors and pit 

features. All structure proveniences were assessed as to whether they were associated with the 

floor or just above it (Conner personal communication 2023), and any artifacts in those 

proveniences were classed as floor related. Artifacts in pit features were identified by examining 

pit feature data sets and identifying any artifacts that correspond to these styles. Determinations 

were made using a presence/absence approach, i.e., if only Oneota ceramic styles are found in 

floor proveniences or pit features, the ceramic preference for that structure or pit was considered 

Oneota. Pit features included in the analysis are described further in the discussion on foodways. 

With determinations made, information on the prevalence of certain ceramic styles in varying 

contexts around the site (i.e., within vs. outside of structures), can be used to make inferences on 

how the people living at the village made, used, and discarded these items.  

212 

 
 
6.3.3. Foodways 

When examining foodways, there are several different behaviors that can be explored: 

storage, food processing/multipurpose spaces, and cooking spaces (using hearths). To explore the 

spatial organization of these behaviors, archaeological correlates can be identified using 

information gathered from pit features across the site. To identify the functions of each pit, 

various characteristics are quantified including shape, area, depth, and volume. Only those pits 

that were completely excavated are included in this analysis as they provide the level of detail on 

these characteristics needed for comparison. 

 Pit feature shape is defined by examining the profiles of pits. Shape types are modeled 

after analyses elsewhere (Bardolph 2015; O’Gorman 1996; Wilson and Melton 2019) but are 

simplified based on the range of shapes seen at Morton Village (Figure 6.1). Next, areas (in 

square meters) of the tops of features are calculated using ArcGIS. When calculating volume, pit 

shape is used to select volume formulas (Table 6.5). Volume is calculated in liters using these 

formulas, incorporating depth, length, width, and the radius of pits. Pit depths are measured 

using profile maps, from the defined top of the feature to the where it transitions to natural soil. 

Table 6.5: Volume Calculations Based on Pit Feature Shape 

Volume Type 

Basin 
Cone Frustum 
Cylinder 

Volume Formula 
.16πd (3lw + d2) 
d/2(πr2 [base] + πr2 [surface]) 
πr2d 

Corresponding Shape 
Basin 
Bell-Shaped 
Flat-Bottomed 

Where r = radius, d = depth, l = surface length, w = width) 
Formulas from Pauketat (1998) 

213 

 
Figure 6.1: Pit Feature Profile Shapes 

How then can these characteristics be used to identify the initial function of these 

facilities? Following Bardolph’s (2015) functional analysis of pit features at the Middle 

Mississippian Lamb site in the CIRV, pit function is assessed using pit depth, area, volume, and 

evidence of in situ burning. Three functions are identified based on these distributions: cooking, 

storage, processing, and multipurpose (Table 6.6).  

Cooking facilities are identified based on the presence of oxidization (burned soil) in 

features (Bardolph 2015). To identify storage facilities the ratio of volume to depth is examined. 

Storage facilities are considered those where goods would have been stored by inhabitants for 

future use. These facilities tend to have smaller openings to protect against scavengers and 

214 

 
environmental factors and are deeper but can have larger areas when the volume is large 

(Bardolph 2015). Deep pit features with large volumes are classified as storage facilities.  

To identify processing facilities the ratio of area to depth is examined (Bardolph 2015). 

Following Bardolph (2015), processing are those foodways activities that would not be 

considered cooking, specifically instances where the use of fire is not required. Processing 

facilities tend to have larger openings but shallower depths (Bardolph 2015). The distribution of 

areas, depth, and volume will be plotted to identify how these values are distributed for the pits 

at Morton Village. If pits do not meet any of these three criteria, they are considered as 

“Multipurpose”, as their true function cannot be identified and will be discussed separately.  

Table 6.6: Foodway Types and Archaeological Correlates 

Type of Facilities 
Cooking (hearths) 
Storage 
Processing 
Multipurpose 

Archaeological Correlate 
Evidence of soil oxidization (burning) 
Large volume, Deep 
Large area, Shallow 
Does not fit above criteria 

With functions identified, pit context can be defined. This variable refers to where pit 

features are located in relation to structures, either internal or external, i.e., inside, or outside of 

the structure. External pits are further differentiated as either within 3.4 m (the average distance 

between pits) of other pits or more than 3.4 m from other pits. Internal pits are differentiated as 

either centrally located or located along the periphery of the structures. This variable is used to 

identify where the production behaviors associated with foodways were occurring in relation to 

the structures within the household groupings.  

215 

 
 
6.3.4. Waste Disposal 

One final aspect of production behaviors that can be considered is the density of waste 

materials inside and outside of structures, i.e., instances of secondary disposal as defined by 

LaMotta and Schiffer (1999). Pits at Morton Village were initially utilized for one of the varying 

functions associated with foodways (as described in the previous section). It is unlikely that pits 

would be excavated solely for refuse, see Bardolph (2015:154), rather they would be repurposed 

from their original function for refuse disposal. Following Lightfoot et al. (1998), the densities of 

artifacts within these spaces can be considered, which are calculated by dividing the total weight 

in grams of artifacts by the volume in liters. The material densities for all pit features are 

examined and the distribution is quantified in relation to the other pits. Then, these pits are 

contextualized spatially, to identify whether waste is deposited more inside or outside of 

structures. 

6.4. Interstructure 

Using the household patterns identified in Chapter 5, the spatial organization of 

households can be contextualized within the village. These patterns will be displayed in all maps 

of the site so that each of the three production behaviors—construction preferences, ceramic 

production, and foodways—can be contextualized spatially in relation to these household groups. 

Of the 144 structures identified through geophysical survey and excavation, only 50 structures 

have been at least partially excavated. Of these, three are classified as ceremonial or special use 

structures (16, 20, 34); these are included on site maps showing building style but are not 

considered as part of the discussion of households. The remaining 47 structures are used 

throughout the interstructure investigation of these production behaviors, representing a sample 

216 

 
of structures at Morton Village (Table D.2; Figure 6.2). I recognize that this sample may not be 

representative of all the ways household space is structured at Morton Village, especially with no 

structural information from the southwest area of the site. Many of the structures only have small 

areas excavated. I accept that there is potential bias when only considering such small sections of 

features, which could lead to misrepresentation of the ceramic types across the site. However, 

these structures can be used to make interpretations on general characteristics of the households 

within the village. This sample provides a snapshot of household spatial organization, which can 

be further assessed by using archaeological proxies of certain production behaviors used by the 

inhabitants of the village, i.e., construction preferences, ceramic production, and foodways. 

217 

Figure 6.2: Excavated Structures Included in the Analysis 

218 

 
6.4.1. Construction Preferences 

To examine construction preferences used by the inhabitants, two behaviors are explored 

archaeologically: building location and building style. When building location is examined, it is 

clear that the majority of structures are found in groupings (59.6%), then in groupings around 

openings, i.e., multiple patterns (25.5%), then by themselves (12.8%), and finally around 

openings (2.1%) (Figure 6.3). There is a preference in the village to place structures in proximity 

to other structures. These groupings were interpreted in Chapter 5 as household units, i.e., 

domestic groupings of inter-related residents. With these household units defined, how then are 

the other production behaviors expressed in relation to these spaces? 

Figure 6.3: Frequencies of Building Locations 

When considering building style, the majority of structures are constructed using wall-

trench architecture (51.1%), then single-post architecture (25.5%), and use of both styles within a 

single structure is relatively infrequent (8.9%). Indeterminate building styles make up 14.9% of 

the sample (Figure 6.4). As one of the indicators of interaction, it is interesting that the 

predominate architectural style of structures is wall trench, which would suggest a Middle 

Mississippian influence on building style within the village. Where then are these structures in 

relation to one another within the village? 

219 

 
Figure 6.4: Frequencies of Building Styles 

The distribution of these characteristics is best viewed spatially. I have split the site into 

northern and southern halves, focused over those structures where excavations have occurred. 

The northern half covers the main occupation area in the northeast of the site, while the southern 

half covers the ridge leading to Norris Farms 36 cemetery (Figure 6.5 and 6.6).  

When architectural differences are incorporated with the household patterns, household 

groupings do not appear to be restricted by building styles, i.e., structures in groupings do not all 

have the same architecture. There appears to be more of a preference for inhabitants to construct 

structures using wall-trench architecture rather than single post architecture within the village, 

but there does not always appear to be preference for using only one type of architecture within 

household groupings. Both Middle Mississippians and Bold Counselor Oneota people organized 

their structures within household groups. Further, at least two groupings of structures have 

multiple architectural styles in use (see STRs 4-8, 14 and STRs 18, 22-24). Beyond both groups 

utilizing these spatial patterns to organize their households, Oneota and Middle Mississippian 

structures were constructed in the same household groups.  

220 

 
Figure 6.5: Building Styles in the Northern Half of Site 

221 

 
Figure 6.6: Building Styles in the Southern Half of Site 

222 

 
6.4.2. Ceramic Use and Discard 

To explore how ceramics are used and discarded, the presence and locations of the 

different styles of ceramics is quantified. When considering ceramic styles found within 

structures, two archaeological contexts are explored, structure floors and internal pit features. 

When considering ceramic styles found outside structures, external pit features are explored. 

These contexts reflect how ceramics are used both within and outside of the home. In this 

instance, ceramics on structure floors represent artifacts likely deposited there by the inhabitants 

at the time of occupation, while ceramics found in pit features represent waste or discard of 

products used by inhabitants (Diehl 1998; LaMotta and Schiffer 1999).  

When ceramics on structure floors are considered, these contexts are equally likely to 

have only Oneota ceramics or unidentifiable ceramics (36.2%) (Figure 6.7). Floors with both 

Mississippian and Oneota ceramics are also prevalent (23.4% of structures), whereas only 4.3% 

of floors have only Middle Mississippian styles. When ceramics in the 25 pits found within 

structures are considered, these contexts are most likely to have unidentifiable ceramics 

(41.18%), but an almost equal number of pits have both styles of ceramics (35.29%) (Figure 6.8). 

As with structure floors, few internal pits have only Middle Mississippian style ceramics (5.9% 

respectively). Oneota and Middle Mississippian ceramics are clearly both being used and 

discarded within Morton Village houses and where Middle Mississippian ceramics are used, 

Oneota ceramics are also being used.   

223 

Figure 6.7: Frequencies of Ceramic Styles, Structure Floors Only 

Figure 6.8: Frequencies of Ceramics Styles, Internal Pits Only 

As an indicator of interaction, the structures where the styles of ceramics are known are 

helpful in further contextualizing relationships between Oneota and Middle Mississippian 

occupants. This is accomplished by using correspondence analysis to visualize the relationship 

between these characteristics. For ceramics on structure floors, the majority of single post 

structures have both styles of ceramics within them (Figure 6.9). The majority of wall trench 

structures or structures with indeterminate architecture tend to have only Middle Mississippian 

ceramics in them or unidentifiable styles of ceramics. In those four structures where both wall 

trench and single post architecture are found, only Oneota ceramics are identified. Oneota 

ceramics appear almost equally likely to be found on the floors of any kind of structure.  

224 

 
 
Figure 6.9: Correspondence Analysis, Building Style by Ceramic Styles, Structure Floors 

A similar result is found when the ceramic styles of internal pit features are compared to 

building styles of the structures in which they are found (Figure 6.10). In this instance, structures 

with both styles of architecture do not appear to be related to any ceramic style found in pits. But 

Oneota ceramics are almost equally likely to be found in internal pits in any type of structure.  

225 

 
Figure 6.10: Correspondence Analysis of Building Style by Ceramic Styles, Internal Pits 

When ceramics in the 122 pits found outside of structures are considered, several external 

pits have only Oneota ceramics in them (36.9%), however, pits with both Oneota and Middle 

Mississippian ceramics are also prevalent (33.6%) (Figure 6.11). Instances where pits have both 

styles of ceramics is double the number of pits with only Middle Mississippian style artifacts 

(14.8%). External pits appear to mostly contain Oneota ceramics or a combination of Oneota and 

Middle Mississippian ceramics. There are limited instances where only Middle Mississippian 

ceramics are found in pits outside of structures.  

226 

 
Figure 6.11: Frequencies of Ceramic Styles, External Pits 

The distribution of these characteristics (i.e., building style and ceramic styles of 

structure floors and pit features) are best viewed spatially. This provides a clearer view of the 

spatial distribution of these ceramic characteristics at the site in different areas. In the maps, 

building styles maintain the same color scheme used in Figures 6.5 and 6.6 in the discussion of 

construction preferences. Ceramic styles found on structure floors are designated using two letter 

codes, MM for Mississippian, ON for Oneota, BT for Both, and UN for Unidentifiable. 

In the northern half of the village, many of the wall trench structures have both types of 

ceramics on their floors, while single post structures tend to have both styles of ceramics on their 

floors or only Oneota styles of ceramics (Figure 6.12). Further, pits just outside of structures tend 

to group together, and many have both ceramic styles or just Oneota ceramics found in them. 

Oneota and Middle Mississippian ceramics are often used within the same contexts in the 

village, structures with single-post and wall-trench architecture often have both types of ceramics 

within them and just outside of them.  

In the southern half of the village, there are only a few structures with known building 

style, and they are all constructed using wall trench architecture; however, there is variety in the 

227 

 
kinds of ceramics found on their floors (Figure 6.13). One of these structures has only Oneota 

ceramics, two have only Middle Mississippian ceramics, and one has both styles of ceramics on 

their floors. There are less pit features excavated in this area, but if these wall trench structures 

are representative of Middle Mississippian households in the southern part of the village, these 

inhabitants are still including Oneota ceramics in their domestic spaces. Further, this is the only 

area where structures have only Middle Mississippian ceramics found on their floors.  

228 

 
 
Figure 6.12: Ceramic Production and Building Styles in the Northern Half of Morton Village 

229 

 
Figure 6.13: Ceramic Production and Building Styles in the Southern Half of Morton Village 

230 

 
Based on these maps and the statistical frequencies of these ceramic characteristics, 

Oneota and Middle Mississippian ceramics appear to be used in both single post and wall trench 

structures. There are only a few instances where only Middle Mississippian ceramics are found 

on structure floors or in pits both inside and outside of structures. Further, both styles of ceramics 

are found in pits outside of structures, or only Oneota ceramics; however, pits with these 

characteristics are found interspersed amongst each other across the village.  

This mixing of architectural styles and ceramic styles within and outside of structures is 

clearest in the household grouping of STR 4-8 and 14 (Figure 6.14) and the grouping of STR 10 

and 11 (Figure 6.15). There are single-post and wall-trench structures in the same groupings, 

with internal pits tending to have only Oneota or a combination of ceramic styles and the floors 

of these structures having mostly Oneota style ceramics. It is interesting that contexts where only 

Middle Mississippian style artifacts are found are so limited. There does not appear to be a 

preference to only use Middle Mississippian ceramics by households; in fact, the preference is 

for incorporating both Middle Mississippian and Oneota style ceramics into household spaces. 

231 

 
 
  
Figure 6.14: Mixing of Ceramic Styles in and around Structure 4-8, and 15 

232 

 
Figure 6.15: Mixing of Ceramic Styles in and around Structure 10 and 11 

233 

 
What does this mean when we consider how different styles of ceramics are used in 

Morton Village? Household spaces at Morton Village tend to have both Oneota and Middle 

Mississippian style artifacts within them. Structures are mostly constructed using wall trench 

architecture, but ceramic styles of both types are often found in structures constructed using any 

style of architecture. It is clear that although Oneota ceramics predominate within the village, 

there are still significant numbers of Middle Mississippian wares being used. There does not 

appear to be a preference for one style or the other, because in contexts where only Oneota 

ceramics or only Middle Mississippian ceramics are found, a pit or structure containing both 

styles of ceramics are often nearby. Based on this mixing of ceramic styles found within and 

outside of structures across the village, it is clear that potters at Morton Village were continuing 

to create both styles of wares and the inhabitants continued to use both styles across the village. 

Potential explanations for this distribution include a preference for using certain ceramic styles 

by the inhabitants of these structures, possible exchange of ceramic pots between cultural groups 

within the community, or perhaps inhabitants brought their own styles of ceramics into their 

households through marriage. 

6.4.3. Foodways  

Figure 15 

To examine the spatial aspect of production behaviors through foodways, pit features 

from across the village are considered. There are 147 pits at Morton Village with enough 

information available for analysis (Table D.3). This excludes pits in the ceremonial or special use 

structures, STR 16, 20, and 34, as well as pits from STR 25, which also had a potential special 

use for a multiphased feasting event. At Morton Village there appear to be three types of pit 

feature shapes: basin, flat-bottomed, and bell (Figure 6.16). The majority of pits are basin shaped 

(59.9%), then flat bottomed (34.7%), and then bell shaped (5.4%).  

234 

Figure 6.16: Frequencies of Pit Feature Shape 

Of the pit functions, identifying those used for cooking is the most straightforward and 

was completed by examining feature forms and identifying evidence of in situ burning and 

oxidization of the soils. Twelve pits are classified as cooking pits based on this criterion. Of 

these, all but one is basin shaped. A single feature (280) is flat-bottomed. Cooking facilities have 

an average volume of 126.4 L, an average area of 0.36 m2, and an average depth of 0.19 m. 

Feature 280 is larger than the other cooking pits (389 L, 0.46 m deep) but evidence of in situ 

burning was found throughout the feature, which is why it is still considered a cooking facility. 

Six of the cooking pits were found inside of structures, while the other six were found outside of 

structures, including two in the openings in the northwest area of the site, two just outside of 

structures in the main occupation area, and two not in proximity to structures or other pits. The 

spatiality of where these pits are found are discussed further in a future section.  

To identify functions of storage, processing, and multipurpose pits, the distribution of 

areas, depths, and volumes are quantified. Feature areas range from 0.07 to 2.09 m2 with a mean 

of .77 m2, and a standard deviation of .47 m2 (Figure 6.17). Pit depths range from .06 to 1.63 m, 

235 

 
with a mean of .34 m, and a standard deviation of .24 m (Figure 6.18). Volume for pit features at 

Morton Village has a range from 10 to 2766 L, with a mean of 441.3 L, and a standard deviation 

of 451.5 L (Figure 6.19). 

Figure 6.17: Pit Feature Areas (in square meters) 

Figure 6.18: Pit Feature Depths (in meters) 

Figure 6.19: Pit Feature Volumes (in liters) 

236 

 
 
   
 
With these values quantified, they can be used to identify storage, processing, and 

multipurpose pits. As discussed above, storage pits will be those deep pits with large volumes, 

while processing pits will be those shallow pits with large areas. All other pits (low volumes, 

small areas, shallow depths) are classified as multipurpose. To identify storage pits, volume and 

depth are plotted against each other (Figure 6.20). Looking at this plot, the majority of pits 

cluster under 1,500 L and under 1.0 m in depth. A large volume for the pits at Morton Village is 

considered over 1,500 L and deep pits are those greater than 1.0 m deep. Pits matching this are 

considered storage facilities. Only five pits meet these criteria and will be explored further in 

discussions of storage behaviors at the village. Of these, two are bell-shaped and three are flat-

bottomed. Storage facilities have an average volume of 1,986.2 L, an average area of 1.78 m2, 

and an average depth of 1.19 m. 

Figure 6.20: Distribution of Pit Feature Volume by Depth 

To identify processing pits, area and depth are plotted against each other (Figures 6.21). 

Looking at this plot, the majority of pits cluster under 1.0 m2 in area and under 1.0 m in depth. 

237 

 
Pits with large areas at the village are those over 1.0 m2 and pits with shallow depths are those 

under 1.0 m. Pits matching these criteria are considered processing facilities. Thirty-three pits 

meet these criteria. Of the 33 pits classified as processing facilities, there is a mix of flat-

bottomed (60.6%) and basin shaped (39.4%) pits. Processing facilities have an average volume 

of 795.7 L, an average area of 1.36 m2, and an average depth of 0.44 m. 

Figure 6.21: Distribution of Pit Feature Area by Depth 

Finally, the remaining 97 pits, generally those with small areas, small volumes, and 

shallow depths are considered multipurpose facilities. These pits may have been used for storage 

or processing activities, but their sizes and shapes do not appear to match what is generally seen 

for storage and processing (Bardolph 2015). Of these, the majority are basin-shaped (66%), then 

flat-bottomed (27.8%), and then bell-shaped (6.2%). Multipurpose facilities have an average 

volume of 297.8 L, an average area of 0.58 m2, and an average depth of 0.28 m. With the pits 

classified by function, the statistical and spatial characteristics for each can be discussed.  

238 

 
 
6.4.3.1. Considering the Spatiality of Foodways at Morton Village 

When considering context, there are equal numbers of cooking pits found inside of 

structures as there are outside of structures. Of the pits, 41.7% are found outside of structures, 

but in proximity to other pits (Figure 6.22). Then, they are mostly found centrally within 

structures (33.3%) or along the walls inside of structures (16.7%). Only one cooking pit is not in 

proximity to other features or structures (Feature 13). All storage pits were found outside of 

structures in proximity to other pits. The majority of processing pits were found outside of 

structures in proximity to other pits (75.8%) (Figure 6.23). Some were found outside not in 

proximity to other pits (15.2%), and only three were found along the walls inside of structures 

(9.1%). The majority of multipurpose pits are found outside of structures in proximity to other 

pits (68%), then outside of structures away from other pits (15.5%) (Figure 6.24). There are 

multipurpose pits found inside of structures (n = 16), with the majority of these being found 

along the walls of the structure (n = 12), rather than centrally located (n = 4).  

Figure 6.22: Locations of Cooking Facilities 

239 

 
Figure 6.23: Locations of Processing Facilities 

Figure 6.24: Locations of Multipurpose Facilities 

With the general locations of pits of specific functions described, what do these 

production behaviors look like when examined spatially? Based on the spatial distribution of 

these pits within the site, it is clear that there are a variety of different foodways activities taking 

place within and around structures (Figure 6.25 through 6.30). When considering where these 

facilities occur in relation to the household patterns defined in Chapter 5, it is clear that the 

common areas (i.e., openings) in the northwest and furthest northeast part of the site display a 

range of activities taking place within them (Figure 6.25 and 6.30). In the northwest corner of the 

main occupation area, the northern opening has both storage and multipurpose facilities in the 

small, excavated areas, while the southern opening has processing, cooking, and multipurpose 

240 

 
 
 
facilities in similarly sized excavation areas. In the northeastern corner of the site there are a mix 

of multipurpose and processing pits in the common area. It is likely that with more excavations 

in these common areas additional facilities of varying function would be identified. When 

considering the organization of foodways activities in households, there appears to be a diversity 

of pit types being used in the spaces between individual structures (Figure 6.26 through 6.29). In 

areas with more extensive excavations, see Figure 6.26 and 6.27, there are pit features of every 

function in the spaces between structures. Outside of Structure 7, there are storage and 

processing facilities in close proximity to each other, indicating that there was no spatial 

separation between where these two activities occur within this household. A variety of 

behaviors associated with foodways tend to be found outside of houses within household 

groupings. Cooking tends to occur inside; however, there are locations where there are cooking 

facilities outdoors (Figure 6.29). There does not appear to be a spatial distinction between where 

processing or storage can take place outside of structures.  

241 

Figure 6.25: Openings in the Northwest Corner of Site Showing Spatial Distribution of 
Foodways 

242 

 
Figure 6.26: Northeast Corner of the Main Occupation Area Showing Spatial Distribution of 
Foodways  

243 

 
Figure 6.27: Central Portion of the Main Occupation Area Showing Spatial Distribution of 
Foodways  

244 

 
Figure 6.28: Southeastern Corner of Main Occupation Area Showing Spatial Distribution of 
Foodways 

245 

 
Figure 6.29: Southeastern Ridgeline Toward Cemetery Showing Spatial Distribution of 
Foodways 

246 

 
Figure 6.30: Northeastern Corner of Site Showing Spatial Distribution of Foodways  

247 

 
6.4.4. Considering Household Waste 

To identify how waste is disposed of within the village, artifact densities of the excavated 

pit features are calculated. Of 138 fully excavated pits with enough information to calculate 

artifact weights, the average artifact density is 5.4 g/L with a standard deviation of 14.7 g/L 

(Figure 6.26). The majority of pits (n = 111) have artifact densities under 5 g/L with all but 4 pits 

having densities under 40 g/L.  

Figure 6.31: Artifact Densities of Morton Village Pit Features 

When location of pits (i.e., inside, or outside of structures) and total artifact densities for 

these contexts are considered, pits outside of structures have double the amount of total waste in 

them (500.9 g/L) than pits inside of structures (250.5 g/L). When the specific contexts of these 

pits are considered in relation to density, external pits in proximity to other features tend to have 

less waste deposited in each of them (Figure 6.27). Despite this, there are still instances where a 

large amount of waste was discarded in pits outside of structures. Of the four pits with large 

densities (over 40 g/L), they are equally split between external pits and internal pits, with the two 

internal pits having the highest density of artifacts within the site (Features 137 and 269).  

248 

 
Figure 6.32: Pit Feature Locations by Artifact Density 

When the number of depositional episodes of these pits are considered, (i.e., was trash 

deposited in this feature all at once or in multiple instances), the densely filled internal pits have 

multiple depositional episodes of material, suggesting inhabitants reused these waste facilities. 

One of the larger external pits, Feature 214, has multiple fill episodes, while the other, Feature 

278, has a single fill episode representing a onetime use of the pit for refuse. When density is 

considered for the rest of the pits, there are equal numbers of pits that have single or multiple fill 

episodes, regardless of density.  

Figure 6.33: Depositional Episodes by Artifact Density 

249 

 
 
Of the two internal pits with extensive discard of waste, Feature 137 is found inside of 

STR 32, a wall-trench structure in the northeast part of the main occupation area and Feature 269 

is found inside of Structure 33, a single-post structure in the eastern part of the main occupation 

area (directly south of STR 32). Feature 137 contained only Middle Mississippian style artifacts 

and Feature 269 had only unidentifiable ceramic styles. Both were classified as multipurpose 

facilities in the discussion of foodways. Feature 137, founding within STR 32, contained over 

33,000 g of material (roughly 74 lbs. total) within 286 L, a mix of ceramics, burned and 

unburned bone, chipped-stone tools and debitage, modified ground stone, unmodified sandstone, 

and charcoal. STR 32 was rebuilt several times, indicating the pit was likely used for a long time. 

Feature 269 contained over 2,000 g of material (roughly 4.6 lbs. total) within 21 L, a mix of 

ceramics, bone, charcoal, chipped stone flakes, burned sandstone, and burned and unburned 

bone.   

Once pits at Morton Village were no longer being used for their initial function (i.e., 

storage, processing, cooking, etc.), they served as waste facilities. Overall, it appears that 

households discarded their waste outside of their structures. Pits would be used for a single trash 

disposal event or continued disposal of waste; however, generally only small amounts of waste 

were discarded in each of these pits. This likely reflects regular day-to-day refuse accumulating 

and being dispersed in multiple pits. It is unlikely that refuse pits would have stayed open very 

long, but it is clear that sometimes these pits were being reused multiple times by households.  

6.5. Intrastructure 

For a finer-grained exploration of the use of space, individual structures of single-post 

and wall-trench construction are compared at an intrahousehold scale. The interstructure analysis 

250 

 
 
raised several issues that can be further addressed at this scale, such as where specific activities 

were taking place within structures, beyond just occurring on the floors or within pits, how 

structures were organized internally, and how the differing ceramic styles were used within 

structures. At this scale I investigate many of the same production behaviors explored in the 

interstructure discussion, but with a finer lens. Only burned structures that have been completely 

excavated (i.e., potential in situ or de facto deposition of artifacts) are considered, which leaves 

two structures: Structure 7 and Structure 26. I accept that there is potential bias with this small 

sample size, however, these structures can be used to make interpretations on some general 

characteristics of the internal organization of houses at the village. 

Generalized artifact maps of the structure floors were created. The artifacts included in 

these maps are those found on the floor or in close proximity to the floor, i.e., those likely in use 

when the structure was abandoned. In Structure 26, context was determined based on 

provenience, first the floor provenience was identified by examining structure forms and photos 

to identify where the floor was encountered in each provenience during the excavation. Artifacts 

found within the floor proveniences are assigned the context of “floor”, while items outside of 

this provenience were assigned the context of “basin fill” (Conner personal communication 

2023). 

Structure 7 is a square semi-subterranean structure constructed using single post 

architecture. It measures 6.2 m by 6.3 m in size to the outside of the walls, with an interior floor 

space of 5.7 m by 5.7 m with an area of 32.5 m2 of livable space (Harn and Klobuchar 2000) 

(Figure 6.26). Charred pole and thatch roof remains found along the walls and areas of hardened 

baked clay are evidence of the structure burning (Harn and Klobuchar 2000). Excavators 

251 

recorded the locations of 123 items on the floor of the structure (Harn and Klobuchar 2000). A 

version of their map is used here, and the locations of these items will be used in this discussion. 

Figure 6.34: Morton Village Structure 7 Excavation Map, Adapted from Harn and Klobuchar 
(2000) 

Structure 26 is a roughly square, semi-subterranean wall-trench structure (Figure 6.27). It 

was originally 4.6 m by 4.2 m to the outside of the walls, with an interior floor space of 4.3 m by 

3.9 m and 16.8 m2 of livable space. It was rebuilt once, which increased the size of the structure 

to 6.2 m by 5.8 m to the outside of the walls, with an interior floor space of 5.8 m by 5.2 m and 

area of 30.2 m2 of livable space. The rebuilt structure had charred post and thatch roof remains 

along the wall, burned pots on the floor, and a baked clay floor surface, evidence of the structure 

burning down (Beyer et al. 2016).  

252 

 
 
   
Figure 6.35: Morton Village Structure 26 Excavation Map, Adapted from Beyer et al. (2016) 

Structure 26 was likely burned while occupied, while Structure 7 was likely burned after 

abandonment, likely the reason no complete pots or large items were left behind. Although the 

assemblages differ, these structures can still be compared, as the small items left behind in STR 7 

present residue of activities that can be interpreted as occurring within it prior to abandonment. 

6.5.1. Construction Preferences within Structures 7 and 26 

When the construction preferences of each structure are considered, Structure 26 sits in 

the main occupation area and Structure 7 is found 125 meters to the southeast (Figure 6.28). Both 

are found in groupings with other structures. Structure 7 is in a grouping with five other 

253 

 
 
 
structures (4-6, 8, 14), which are a mix of single post, wall trench, and indeterminate 

architectural styles. Structure 26 is in a grouping with four other structures (35, 37, 99, and 100), 

all with indeterminate architecture styles.  

When building style is considered, Structure 7 was constructed using single post 

architecture and had a large central post (Feature 52) and other smaller interior posts, likely 

functioning as additional roof supports (Harn and Klobuchar 2000). An entryway was found in 

the center of the south wall, with a prepared clay ramp (Harn and Klobuchar 2000). Structure 7 

has no evidence of rebuilding. Structure 26 was constructed using wall trench architecture, 

having been rebuilt at least once. There is no evidence for a central post or interior supports or 

where the entryway might be for this structure.  

The second iteration of Structure 26 is only slightly larger than Structure 7 (by 2.3 m2 of 

livable space). The structures appear to be oriented differently, with Structure 26 on a diagonal 

with its corners on the north-south axis, while Structure 7 has an almost north-south axis. The 

difference in orientation may be reflective of some ideological difference related to the cardinal 

directions, or the orientation may just be a choice made in different locations and/or relative to 

other nearby structures. 

254 

 
Figure 6.36: Intrastructure Analysis, Structure 7 and Structure 26 

255 

 
6.5.2. Ceramic Use and Discard within Structures 7 and 26 

When considering ceramic use and discard within each structure, the ceramics on the 

floor of Structure 7 had only Oneota ceramic styles, but it is in proximity to pits with both styles 

of artifacts within them and is directly next to a wall trench structure (Structure 8) that had only 

Oneota styles within it, except for a beaker handle (see Figure 6.12 from interstructure analysis).  

Vessel analysis revealed 22 ceramic vessels on the floor of Structure 26, with a mixture 

of Middle Mississippian (n = 14) and Oneota styles (n = 3) and some indeterminate styles (n = 

5), with Middle Mississippian pots predominating these wares (O’Gorman personal 

communication 2024). These vessels appear to have been used simultaneously within the 

structure and in the same areas. An external pit on the edge of Structure 26 contained only 

Middle Mississippian style ceramics and does not appear to have other pits nearby. Neither of the 

structures had their internal features excavated, so there is no information about what ceramic 

types were in them.  

6.5.3. Foodways and Other Production Activities within Structures 7 and 26 

To consider how production behaviors of foodways occurred within these structures, the 

spatial organization of activities within Structure 7 and Structure 26 will be described.  

6.5.3.1. Structure 7 

Harn and Klobuchar (2000) infer a variety of activities were taking place inside of 

Structure 7; they defined six discrete areas of activity (Areas A-F) (Figure 6.29). Activities that 

took place within these spaces include cooking, flintknapping, bone and wood working, and 

paint production. Harn and Klobuchar (2000) also infer that there is evidence of activities that 

256 

 
 
took place outside of the structure, with limited evidence of them found within the structure, 

including horticulture, hunting, and gathering based on the presence of hoes, corn, botanical food 

remains, animal bone and arrowpoints, and the burned thatch and a possible sickle. 

Figure 6.37: Morton Village Structure 7 Activity Areas, Adapted from Harn and Klobuchar 
(2000) 

Cooking took place around the hearth and oven at the house center as well in the eastern 

hearth in Area B (Harn and Klobuchar 2000). The eastern hearth also had evidence of baked 

clay, which is interpreted as waste from either mud-baking or pottery making.  

Locations where there is evidence of food processing (either plants or fauna) are in Area 

E, where a pile of burned nut or acorn meal was found, and in Area A, where corn cobs and 

animal bone were found. Additionally, evidence of plant processing is inferred by Harn and 

257 

 
 
Klobuchar (2000) based on the large amount of heavily burned limestone, which may indicate 

that it was being turned into lime, part of the process of nixtamalization, where the alkaline in 

lime breaks down corn making it more nutritious (Katz, Hediger, and Valleroy 1974; Upton, 

Lovis, and Urquhart 2015).  

Stone-tool production was identified in all activity areas except Areas C and F. Of all the 

areas, D has the most chipped-stone debris, which Harn and Klobuchar interpret as it being a 

possible flintknapping waste area. Bone and woodworking evidence is present in all areas around 

the perimeter, but absent in Area D. I argue that with the large antlers in Area B and its evidence 

for several bone working tools (antler tines, sandstone abraders, etc.), that this could have been 

the main location for processing bone tools. Evidence of paint production is inferred from the 

worked hematite found in two areas (A and C) (Harn and Klobuchar 2000).  

To summarize, there appear to be spatially separated groupings of artifacts associated 

with a few activity types, including cooking and food processing, and production. Despite a 

heavy distribution of activity areas along the periphery of the structure, there is no direct 

evidence of activity in the center or interior of the structure except for some flintknapping 

residue on the northern house floor (Area D). Cooking facilities are centrally located, but there 

do not to appear to be related artifacts around the hearths or cooking pit (Harn and Klobuchar 

2000). The majority of artifacts are found in the eastern half of the structure, leading Harn and 

Klobuchar (2000) to interpret that the western area was not used as a work area as frequently.  

6.5.3.2. Structure 26 

In Structure 26, there are areas where only a few artifacts cluster and then larger areas 

with a higher density of artifacts. Initial analysis suggested that a variety of activities took place 

258 

 
within this structure (Beyer et al 2016), and this is supported below with the identification of 

small and large clusters. To differentiate from Structure 7 activity areas (A-F), Structure 26 

activity areas are numbered one through ten (1-10). These designations are subjective and 

represent areas where there are clear groupings of artifacts within the structure (Figure 6.30). 

These areas range in size from only a few artifacts to dozens. The northern half of the structure 

has significantly fewer artifacts, with the northern corner completely devoid of them.  

259 

Figure 6.38: Intrastructure Analysis, Structure 26 with Activity Areas 

260 

 
Several pit features were identified within and around Structure 26, but most remained 

unexcavated. Probing of the features indicates that one (Feature 330) was used as a hearth due to 

the presence of extensive burning. Another small pit, Feature 333, is also located centrally within 

the structure; however, when probed the soil had no indication of burning. 

Cooking and food processing areas are found in Areas 2-7 and Area 9. Area 7 offers the 

clearest evidence of a cooking space with the broken jar next to the hearth. Area 3 is potentially a 

food processing area or location for vessel storage shown by the crushed, intact vessels found 

there. It is clear that most of the activity taking place within Structure 26 is related to these two 

activities. Evidence of stone-tool production are found on two sides of the structure, in Areas 4, 

5, 8, and 9. Items representing ground-stone tool production are present in Area 4. Bone or 

woodworking tools were found in a separate area with tools cached in Area 1, and the activity of 

modifying bone is evidenced only in Area 5, where several pieces of worked bone were 

identified.  

Other activities are indicated by only a few artifacts and not necessarily entire areas, 

including cloth production (two spindle whorls identified), fishing (eight net sinkers found), 

agriculture with the presence of a chipped-stone hoe and other botanical remains (not indicated 

on the map), and the gathering of foodstuffs (four nutting stones and at least eight nut 

fragments). Not all artifacts were directly on the floor of the structure. The hoe was found within 

a shallow depression with two celts in the western corner of the structure in Area 1. Three of the 

nutting stones are found in Areas 4, 6, and 9.  

To summarize, there appear to be spatially separated groupings of artifacts associated 

with a few activity types, including cooking and food processing, and production of stone and 

bone tools. Despite a heavy distribution of activity areas in the southern half of the structure, 

261 

there is no evidence of activity in the northern corner of the structure. Cooking facilities are in 

the north-central area with some ceramics found nearby. These findings support Beyer et al.’s 

(2016) interpretation that a variety of activities took place within this structure. 

6.5.4. Comparing Production Activities Between Structure 7 and Structure 26 

Structure 26 has significantly more artifacts within it than Structure 7. There is evidence 

that both Structure 7 and Structure 26 burned down (both had charred timbers found inside of 

them). There could be several reasons for this difference in quantity, including the likelihood that 

STR 26 burned while occupied, whereas STR 7 was burned after abandonment. It is clear that 

the remaining items within both structures represent snapshots of the activities that took place 

there.  

Activities in Structure 7 are found in every corner of the structure but are mainly 

concentrated along the eastern and southern walls, with the northern wall free of debris. Structure 

26 has activities in every corner except the north, with the entire northern half appearing to have 

fewer artifacts than the high density seen in the southern half. In Structure 7 minimal activity 

took place along the northern wall and the southern half of the western wall. Perhaps these areas 

were used as sleeping areas (Harn and Klobuchar 2000) or they were kept free of debris from 

activities performed there. Cooking took place in the center and eastern portion of Structure 7 

and along the northwestern wall in Structure 26. More activities took place toward the center of 

Structure 26, while Structure 7 had most activities (besides cooking) occurring on the perimeter 

of the structure. Both structures have evidence of activities that took place outside of the 

structure, mainly fishing and agriculture/gathering. Although evidence of paint production is 

262 

 
found in Structure 7, it does not appear in Structure 26, while evidence of cloth production only 

appears in Structure 26.  

Cooking and food processing was taking place inside of these structures, with evidence of 

a variety of tool production (i.e., chipped, ground, bone, and wood) and cooking facilities. Both 

structures show evidence of their inhabitants participating in agriculture, hunting, and gathering 

of resources. It is likely that with additional complete floor assemblages from structures burned 

in situ, there may be clearer differences identified between wall trench and single post structures, 

but with only these two representative structures available, it is clear that although the 

architectural styles and pottery styles represented therein may differ, structures have similar 

activities taking place within them. 

6.6. Answering Research Question 3: Coalescence in the Household 

Research Question 3 seeks to identify how household spaces within Morton Village are 

organized, specifically asking whether the two groups living there used this space differently or 

similarly. As described by Kowalewski (2006), when coalescence occurs, integration will be 

promoted through domestic architecture and village layout. Archaeological patterns in domestic 

architecture were analyzed to determine how Morton Village’s inhabitants constructed their day-

to-day lives. Based on these analyses, it is clear that Morton Village’s household organization, 

like its community and landscape organization, is not as straight forward as saying ‘here is where 

Oneota people lived’ and ‘here is where Middle Mississippian people lived.’  

The spatial organization of households at Morton Village has been explored using 

archaeological proxies of specific behaviors related to production within household contexts, 

including construction preferences, ceramic production, foodways, and waste disposal. This 

263 

 
analysis was split into two spatial scales, an interstructure analysis, which sought to identify 

broad patterns across the site, and an intrastructure analysis, which sought to identify finer-

grained patterns within structures.  

At the interstructure level, it was determined that the people living at Morton Village 

organized their structures into groupings, which likely represent household units. These 

households do not appear to be restricted in what building styles they used for their houses as 

they often have a mix of building styles within them. The majority of structures in the village 

have wall trench architecture, but these structures are often found near single post structures or 

structures with evidence of walls rebuilt from wall trench to single post. When considering 

ceramic style, Oneota and Middle Mississippian ceramics were used in both single post and wall 

trench structures across the village. Further, there is often a mix of ceramic styles discarded in 

the pits just outside of structures. There are few instances where only Middle Mississippian 

ceramics have been found on the floor of structures, and these are restricted to the southeastern 

ridge of the site. Even in this area Oneota ceramics are found on the floors of other nearby 

structures. 

When foodways are considered, the pits used for cooking tend to occur inside of 

structures, while processing and storage pits occur mainly outside of structures. There is a large 

subset of pits (n = 97) that could not be clearly classified as storage or processing pits and were 

identified as likely having multiple uses. These pits are also dispersed across the site. Common 

areas were used for a majority of these activities, and it is likely that even more evidence of these 

activities would be found if additional excavations were conducted in these spaces.  

The intrastructure analysis found that within two fully excavated domestic structures in 

the village, there is evidence of the inhabitants participating in a variety of activities, including 

264 

 
agriculture, hunting, and gathering of resources, all related to production. There are some slight 

distinctions in the ways these structures are organized internally; typically, activities cluster to 

one side of the structure with at least one corner clear of activity, but the location of these areas 

differed between the two structures. Despite these and the differences in architectural style and 

ceramic styles, these structures have similar activities taking place within them.  

Based on these analyses, I argue that Oneota and Middle Mississippian people organized 

their household spaces similarly within the community of Morton Village and integrated these 

spaces by incorporating a variety of activities, ceramic styles, and construction styles within 

them. Using building style and ceramic style as indicators of interaction, it is clear that both 

Oneota and Middle Mississippian inhabitants constructed their buildings in the same households 

and utilized both Oneota and Middle Mississippian ceramic styles in their structures and 

discarded them in their refuse pits.  

There are instances where Middle Mississippian wall-trench structures only have Middle 

Mississippian ceramics on their floors and instances where Oneota single-post structures have 

only Oneota ceramics on their floors; however, as the view is expanded to outside of these 

structures, there are often nearby pits with both styles of ceramics within them and structures 

built using a different building style. There are places where there may be only one group 

inhabiting a space (such as the ridgeline toward the cemetery) and people constructed specific 

styles of houses in the same spaces, but these households often still incorporate ceramics of the 

other group within them. It is possible that an earlier Middle Mississippian occupation of the 

blufftop may be skewing how these interactions are being interpreted. However, it is clear that 

Oneota ceramics are being incorporated into Middle Mississippian structures across the site and 

vice versa. 

265 

When processes of coalescence are considered, it is possible that the forming of these 

integrated households is the result of marriages between Oneota and Middle Mississippian 

inhabitants, where families are sharing preferences for ceramics made and used and building 

styles for their homes, resulting in the mix of characteristics seen at this site (Kowalewski 2006). 

It is likely that not all the instances of mixing are the result of intermarriage, and some 

households likely incorporated traded items into their communities. As I acknowledged earlier in 

the chapter, these distinctive architectural and ceramic styles do not represent a one-to-one 

relationship to the people that inhabited these spaces and used these objects. However, it is clear 

that if these characteristics represent instances of interaction between groups, their mixing shows 

that Oneota and Middle Mississippian people were sharing space within the village, evidence 

that the process of coalescence was ongoing within this community. Beyond sharing space, the 

Middle Mississippian and Oneota inhabitants of Morton Village were intimately living together 

and forming households together across the site. 

266 

 
 
CHAPTER 7: INTERPRETATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 

7.1. 

Introduction 

The goal of this dissertation has been to investigate whether processes of coalescence 

were taking place within the Morton Village community by examining three spatial scales for 

evidence of integration: landscape, community, and household. I have found that after an Oneota 

migration into a small, likely Middle Mississippian village, there appears to be various processes 

of coalescence taking place within the community and household scales. By examining how 

space was used at these three scales, I have a better understanding of how processes of 

coalescence shaped the spatial organization of Morton Village. The results of this investigation at 

each of the three scales are summarized below and implications for future research on 

coalescence and in the CIRV are detailed.  

7.2.  Results of Addressing the Overarching Research Question: If spatial archaeology 

and the examination of multiple scales of space is informative on the social organization of 

its inhabitants, what then could the examination of spatial relationships tell us about how 

social identity may be influenced and altered by instances of cultural interaction and 

integration within archaeological communities? 

This dissertation explored how spatial organization can be used to identify the level, 

range, or variability of cultural integration within communities following a migration episode 

where two distinct groups interact or cohabitate, where aspects of their social and cultural 

identities are likely to be shared with each other. Examining spatial relationships can tell 

archeologists about how community social identity and organization are affected by interaction 

267 

 
 
with other groups. Interaction and integration were explored through the concept of coalescence, 

or cultural reorganization and formation of multiethnic and multilingual communities (Birch 

2012; Kowalewski 2006). This process leaves distinctive archaeological evidence that can be 

ascertained through an analysis of spatial relationships within the community (Birch 2012; Clark 

et al. 2019; Cordell and Yannie 1991; Gerritsen 2004:151; Hill 2013; Hodder 1986:7-8; 

Liebmann 2013; Thomas 2004:34). This evidence includes changes in the built environment, 

including transformations in the size or organization of settlements and changes in the structure 

of domestic and public spaces. When identified, these changes help archaeologists understand 

social processes, including coalescence, that may have taken place within a community (Birch 

2012; Clark et al. 2019; Cordell and Yannie 1991; Gerritsen 2004:151; Hill 2013; Hodder 1986: 

7-8; Liebmann 2013; Thomas 2004:34).  

Spatial relationships are influenced by the inhabitants of that space, thus imbuing those 

spaces with a sense of place (Whitridge 2004). When groups interact and cohabitate, these spatial 

characteristics can shift with sustained exposure to new ways of organizing their spaces. There 

should be visible changes to the built environment and of the spatial organization of communities 

if processes of integration and coalescence are taking place there (Birch 2012; Clark et al. 2019; 

Gerritsen 2004:151; Hodder 1986:7-8; Thomas 2004:34). These changes include shifts in the 

architecture styles used within the community, the size or organization of communities, changes 

in domestic and community spaces, and changes in behaviors associated with certain activities 

within the community (Birch 2012; Clark et al. 2019; Gerritsen 2004: 151; Hodder 1986: 7-8; 

Liebmann 2013; Thomas 2004: 34). The spatial organization of a coalesced society should 

exhibit differences from how other sites attributed to each cultural formation are organized 

(Clark et al. 2019; Weik 2014). 

268 

I used a multiscalar approach to investigate various spatial relationships at Morton 

Village, a Bold Counselor Oneota site in the CIRV. These spatial signatures were discussed at 

three spatial scales, landscape, community, and household. When considering the overarching 

research question through these spatial scales, I hypothesized that coalescence or cultural 

reorganization was taking place at Morton Village between Middle Mississippian and Oneota 

people. Examining only one spatial scale makes differentiating the mechanisms of cultural 

change difficult to interpret, but incorporating several spatial levels reveals how social practices 

of everyday life are changed (Birch 2012 citing Hally 2008; Hodder and Cessford 2004; Kintigh 

et al. 2005; Kuijt 2000; Pauketat 2007:107). When viewed holistically, these spatial scales can be 

used to inform our understanding of the others. For example, understanding where a settlement is 

on the landscape can be informative on the ways the people structured their community. Does a 

bluff top site offer more protection and limit the need for defensive structures within a 

community? Or perhaps certain types of houses were preferred in one topographic location or 

another, or a range of structure types were constructed when certain community systems (e.g., 

religious and/or political) were put into place. Considering these scales in relation to one another 

provides a more complete understanding of the people that inhabited a particular space and the 

processes of change that may have occurred there. 

Each scale explored an aspect of the larger research question, incorporating varying 

theories and methods. Although a model of total separation (cohabitation of site, but no 

coalescence) and total integration (integration of both groups at every level, i.e., in households, 

intermarrying and ethnogenesis) was used to examine the site, I found that a range of social 

arrangements took place within the village. The site shows distinct signs of coalescence in its 

spatial organization, indicating new cultural practices were being incorporated into Morton 

269 

Village by its migrant Oneota and local Middle Mississippian inhabitants. The findings at each 

spatial scale are detailed in the following sections.   

7.2.1.  Identifying Coalescence at Morton Village through Landscape – Addressing 

Research Question 1: Are there differences or similarities in the positioning of Morton 

Village on the landscape compared to the positioning of earlier Oneota and Middle 

Mississippian sites? 

The goal of this analysis was to generalize Oneota and Middle Mississippian landscape 

use, but I found that generalizing the settlement characteristics reduces the complexity of how 

Oneota and Middle Mississippian groups may have selected their settlement locations and the 

complexity of the landscapes themselves. At the landscape scale, I gathered information on five 

landscape use characteristics (distance to nearest perennial drainage, perennial drainage type, 

river valley location, soil type, and topographic location) from 87 Oneota settlements and 48 

Middle Mississippian settlements in Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin. The initial goal was to 

generalize Oneota and Middle Mississippian landscape use to identify which characteristics the 

Bold Counselor Oneota sites most closely resemble. These characteristics were quantified 

separately for Oneota sites and Middle Mississippian sites. First, frequencies for each variable 

were calculated, then these characteristics were compared using chi-square and Fisher’s exact 

statistical tests to identify relationships between them. These comparisons were then visualized 

using correspondence analysis to identify patterns in these relationships.  

My analysis clearly shows there is no set “Oneota landscape use pattern” or “Middle 

Mississippian landscape use pattern” at an interregional level. Both cultural groups adapted to, 

and selected landscapes based on what each location offered. Oneota landscape use is dependent 

270 

 
 
on the locality/region within which a site is located, while Middle Mississippian landscape use is 

intrinsically tied to topography and the local landscape of a site’s region. For Oneota people, 

each locality offered differing options, leading to differing uses of the landscape by the people 

who inhabited them. There is not a larger Oneota pattern of landscape use that is driving 

settlement decisions; instead, those people living in a given locality created their own sense of 

place within these spaces (Prohansky, Fabian, and Kaminoff 1983). For Middle Mississippian 

people, the topography of the river valleys in which they lived offered varying settlement options 

due to accessibility. I have found that Oneota and Middle Mississippian people’s settlement 

choices were affected by the local conditions of their environment.  

There are generalizations that can be made about sites with Bold Counselor Oneota 

presence in the CIRV when compared to the more northern Oneota sites (mostly on terraces) and 

Middle Mississippian sites in the CIRV (mostly on bluff tops). Morton Village and the other sites 

with a Bold Counselor Oneota presence in the CIRV are deep within Middle Mississippian 

territory. Sites with a Bold Counselor Oneota presence are some of the most southern Oneota 

sites in the Midwest (excluding those contemporaneous and later historic period Oneota sites in 

the American Bottom). These five Oneota sites in the CIRV have an almost identical set of 

landscape characteristics, which differ from the more northern regions of Oneota settlement and 

are most aligned with those Middle Mississippian sites in region.  

It is clear that the Oneota populations entering the CIRV were not just transferring their 

preferred ideas about village location into this new area. This may have been the result of factors 

not directly related to coalescence, such as strategic placement on the landscape to “fit in” for 

safety purposes or as part of familiarizing themselves with the people and cultures already in the 

area. Middle Mississippian communities were well established in the CIRV at the time of the 

271 

Oneota people’s arrival, making it likely that the Oneota coming into the area moved into or near 

actively inhabited Middle Mississippian villages, which would provide social benefits 

(protection, trade, intermarriage) to a migrant group in a new, foreign space, rather than creating 

their own, new communities. The Oneota people that arrived in the CIRV do not appear to have 

shown up as one might assume of a group making a hostile incursion into a new territory with a 

pre-existing social order; rather the migration of Oneota people appears to have been much 

smaller, where these groups could have easily incorporated themselves within communities that 

were part of the pre-existing social system. To further explore how these Oneota people created 

and adapted to these communities in this predominantly Middle Mississippian area, a community 

scale analysis was then incorporated.  

7.2.2.  Identifying Coalescence at Morton Village through Community - Addressing 

Research Question 2: How is the Morton Village community organized? Are there 

differences or similarities when compared to the organization of Oneota and Middle 

Mississippian sites? 

At the community scale, multivariate clustering (K-Means) analysis was used to identify 

spatial statistical patterns amongst the distribution of structures at Morton Village. This method 

separates data points (in this case structure centroids) into multiple groups or clusters. For 

Morton Village, the analysis found that separating structure centroids into 25 clusters maximized 

the ratio of between cluster variance to within cluster variance. Once created, these clusters were 

analyzed for distinctive patterns within them to identify how the Morton Village community was 

structured. I found that the community of Morton Village was organized in multiple ways: in 

groupings, which were interpreted as household groupings; around openings, which are 

272 

 
interpreted as common areas; and in rows, which are similar to groupings, but structures appear 

in a line. The patterning seen at Morton Village was then compared to other representative sites, 

Wever Terrace for Oneota communities and Orendorf for Middle Mississippian communities.  

These differences and similarities are outlined in Chapter 5, but in summary I found that 

Morton Village has attributes that are reminiscent of both Wever Terrace and Orendorf; 

however, it has some unique attributes as well. The largest difference between Morton Village 

and Orendorf is its lack of a palisade or any defensive architecture, a characteristic shared with 

the Wever Terrace site. Additionally, Morton Village lacks an organized plaza, also similar to 

Wever Terrace. The open areas represent domestic work areas and are not formal plazas like the 

one at Orendorf. Mortuary practices differ between the three sites, and it is likely that additional 

mortuary facilities existed for Morton Village that are not yet known.  

When these characteristics are considered in relation to cultural integration, I argue that 

processes of coalescence were occurring between Middle Mississippian populations and Bold 

Counselor Oneota populations at Morton Village. It appears that the communal structures at 

Morton Village were accessible to the majority of inhabitants, as they are found within the main 

occupation area surrounded by domestic structures. The presence of both Oneota and Middle 

Mississippian ceramics in these structures further suggests the communal structures were likely 

used by the larger community and served an integrative function. This follows Kowalewski’s 

(2006) criterion of an elaboration of community integration and a universalizing of collective 

ritual practices in contexts of coalescence, making these activities available for everyone.  

Both STR 16 and STR 34 are the only instances of superpositioning of structures in the 

village, indicating the community appeared to be reorganized around these structures (O’Gorman 

and Conner 2023). STR 34 is similar to structures seen at other Middle Mississippian sites, 

273 

including STR 187, a circular wall-trench structure at Orendorf, which is also the largest 

structure within that community (Wilson and Melton 2019). The Oneota people within this 

village were participating in Middle Mississippian related communal events within STR 34 

based on ceramic evidence. 

Meanwhile, STR 16 appears to be a brand-new style of ceremonial structure. It was 

constructed using completely new architecture and had completely different activities occurring 

within it compared to Middle Mississippian ceremonial structures elsewhere (O’Gorman and 

Conner 2023). O’Gorman and Conner (2023) found that STR 16 likely represents processes of 

hybridity being at work in Morton Village. Further, the unique architecture of STR 16 appears to 

meet additional coalescence criteria, including the creation of new forms of communal 

architecture, aggregation centered on this communal architecture, and a continued focus on 

communal ritual (Stone 2008). STR 16 incorporated traditional symbols from both Oneota and 

Middle Mississippian groups within the context of this new ceremonial space (O’Gorman and 

Conner 2023), likely serving to further integrate the people that used these communal spaces.  

Further, if wall-trench architecture represents Middle Mississippian spaces, it is the 

predominant architecture for the excavated structures at the site and specifically within the main 

occupation area. There are also single-post structures in this area, often in proximity to wall-

trench structures. Finally, the spatial patterns employed at Morton Village —groupings, rows, 

openings, and pairs of structures—all incorporate both wall trench and single post architecture. 

With these findings in mind, I argue that both the Oneota and Middle Mississippian inhabitants 

at Morton Village integrated their identities within this new community space through 

architectural styles, communal/ceremonial spaces, and domestic spaces. The community level 

patterns, i.e., the integration of architectural forms and communal spaces and increased access to 

274 

communal architecture, are explored at the final spatial scale, household, to identify whether 

integration is also reflected within individual households of Morton Village.  

7.2.3.  How are the household spaces within the Morton Village community organized? 

Does one group utilize these spaces differently or is there overlap between the Oneota and 

Middle Mississippian spaces at the village? 

At the household scale I investigated whether there were differences between how 

Oneota and Middle Mississippian inhabitants of the village used and created space by examining 

various production behaviors related to household spaces. These behaviors are construction 

preferences, ceramic use/discard, foodways, and waste disposal. Each behavior was investigated 

at a broad interstructure level and at a finer-grained intrastructure level by considering statistical 

frequencies and spatial context. Archaeological patterns in household spaces were analyzed to 

determine how Morton Village’s inhabitants constructed their day-to-day lives.  

Based on these analyses, it is clear that Morton Village’s household organization is 

complex. At the interstructure level, I found that the people living at Morton Village organized 

their structures into household groupings which are not homogeneous in terms of architectural 

style. Although the majority of structures in the village have wall trench architecture, these are 

often found near single post structures or structures with evidence of wall rebuilding using both 

techniques. In terms of ceramic style, I found that Oneota and Middle Mississippian ceramics 

were used in both single post and wall trench structures across the village, often with a mix of 

ceramic styles discarded in the pits just outside these structures. Instances where only Middle 

Mississippian ceramics are found are restricted to the southeastern ridge of the site, although 

Oneota ceramics are still found on the floors of other nearby structures. In terms of foodways, 

275 

 
cooking tends to take place inside of both kinds of structures, while processing and storage 

facilities are found outside of structures, with common areas containing many of these activities.  

At the intrastructure level, I found that within domestic structures, there is evidence of the 

inhabitants participating in a variety of production activities, including agriculture, hunting, and 

gathering of resources. Despite some slight distinctions in the ways domestic structures are 

organized internally and the differences in their architectural and ceramic styles, these structures 

have similar activities taking place within them.  

Based on the interstructure and intrastructure analyses, Oneota and Middle Mississippian 

people organized their household spaces similarly within the community of Morton Village and 

integrated these spaces by incorporating a variety of activities, ceramic styles, and construction 

styles within them. Using building style and ceramic style as indicators of interaction, I argue 

that Oneota and Middle Mississippian inhabitants shared household spaces, and used both 

Oneota and Middle Mississippian ceramic styles in their homes and discarded them in their 

refuse pits.  

When processes of coalescence are considered, I argue that the forming of these 

integrated households is likely the result of intermarriage, where families shared preferences for 

various ways of doing things, resulting in the mix of characteristics seen at this site (Kowalewski 

2006). Trade was likely occurring as well, with some traded items incorporated into some 

households. Despite not representing one-to-one relationships to the people inhabiting Morton 

Village, the mixing of ceramic and building styles shows that Oneota and Middle Mississippian 

people were sharing space within the village, intimately living together, and forming households 

together across the site, evidence that the process of coalescence was ongoing within this 

community. 

276 

7.3. Implications of Results for Coalescence at Morton Village  

Space is an important part of coalescence to consider because as people shift their ideas 

of “how to do things”, they then shift the physical world around them. The integration of 

differing groups of people leads to new alterations of space, including new methods of 

construction and new ways of organizing communities and households. Archaeologically, 

residues of how people once used their space may be some of the only information we have 

about a past community. This spatial evidence can provide clues to how they structured their 

day-to-day lives as the organization of space is inherently tied to a community’s sense of place. 

These places shift and change as the cultural practices of each group are exchanged and new 

senses of place develop within these spaces.  

It is clear that Oneota and Middle Mississippian inhabitants were integrating their cultural 

practices at Morton Village. Although we do not yet understand the sequence of Oneota 

migration into the CIRV, i.e., if all sites were settled at the same time or there was a sequence of 

migrations, it is clear that Oneota people chose to come to an area which had long been home to 

a Middle Mississippian population. It is also clear that the Mississippians had been engaged in 

violent conflict in the region for several generations prior to Oneota arrival. Trauma evident in 

the Norris Farms 36 cemetery makes clear that this violence persisted and perhaps even 

increased after the Oneota arrived in the CIRV. The Oneota people that migrated to the CIRV 

chose to move to an area where conflict was part of the social landscape. Despite this, there is 

mounting evidence that the community was engaged in processes of coalescence. My study of 

space as it was used and created by Morton Village residents contributes a key component to this 

evidence and further suggests that aspects of both cultural traditions persisted.  

277 

Looking back at the definition of coalescence, i.e., the cultural reorganization and 

formation of aggregated, multiethnic communities, it is clear that processes of coalescence were 

ongoing at Morton Village, meaning the site was not completely coalesced at the time of 

abandonment. However, this process was far enough along that this specific settlement does not 

quite match the spatial organization of Middle Mississippian or Oneota sites elsewhere. Rather, 

Morton Village residents developed new ways to organize and use space, while still 

incorporating aspects from both groups within the community. 

Recent work by others supports the idea that the inhabitants of Morton Village shared 

ideas about foodways and about ways of interacting with sacred or ceremonial spaces within the 

village (Bengtson and O’Gorman 2016; Nordine 2020; O’Gorman and Conner 2023; O’Gorman 

et al. 2020; Painter 2021; Painter 2022; Upton 2019). The Oneota and Middle Mississippian 

people living at Morton Village shared more than space, they shared their homes, communal 

spaces, ideas of how to construct buildings, and how to organize these buildings within this 

space.  

7.4. Future Research and Conclusions 

This multiscalar approach of contextualizing material culture in space can be applied 

elsewhere, including other areas of Oneota settlement. Various work has identified evidence of 

interaction amongst an Oneota enclave in Kansas with local Central Plains tradition populations 

after about AD 1250 (Ritterbush 2002a, 2002b, 2006; Ritterbush and Logan 2000). 

Characteristics of this interaction can be further explored by incorporating a similar multiscalar 

lens through which to view spatial organization of these communities. This approach can also be 

applied to non-Oneota contexts of interaction, such as recent work in western Kansas that 

278 

 
produced evidence of southwestern Puebloan groups entering far western Kansas as refugees 

who interacted with local Dismal River aspect people (ancestors of the Apache Tribe) for a 

period of time in the 1600s (Beck and Trabert 2014; Trabert 2015, 2017; Trabert et al. 2016, 

2023). Do processes of coalescence always take place in instances where two groups of differing 

backgrounds come together? Further explorations of the spatial organization of integration can 

contextualize such instances of interaction where the groups end up cohabitating and often 

integrating through trade and intermarriage.  

Although archaeologists ultimately do not know how these people identified themselves 

or how they felt about such interactions and integrations within their communities, additional 

knowledge could be gleaned from working with the various descendant communities linked to 

Oneota, including the Kaw Nation of Oklahoma and the Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska and 

others. Perhaps tribal histories reflect the interaction and integration seen in many of the regions 

where Oneota people migrated (like the CIRV and northeastern Kansas). There is more that can 

be gained from such a collaboration and perhaps could help contextualize the archaeological 

work that has been accomplished there.  

Although we do not yet know why the migration into the CIRV by Oneota people 

occurred, or what the ultimate fate of the village was, this dissertation supports other recent work 

that speaks to cooperation and negotiation of Oneota and local Middle Mississippian people 

regardless of the threat of conflict. When considering the overall impact of this analysis, a 

multiscalar investigation of the spatial organization of other Bold Counselor Oneota sites in the 

CIRV would help contextualize how Oneota populations integrated within the valley overall. Did 

the integration that was occurring in Morton Village also take place in sites with a Bold 

Counselor Oneota presence elsewhere? Or were there a unique set of circumstances that led to 

279 

processes of coalescence taking place at Morton Village? In any case, based on these analyses, 

coalescence was ongoing at Morton Village, with the Oneota and Middle Mississippian 

inhabitants sharing more than spaces within this community, as shown through the landscape, 

community, and household choices that they made.    

280 

  
 
 
LITERATURE CITED 

Aguilar-San Juan, Karin  
2009  Little Saigons: Staying Vietnamese in America. University of Minnesota Press, 

Minneapolis. 

Alberti, Gianmarco  
2022  Correspondence Analysis in Archaeology, http://cainarchaeology.weebly.com/. Accessed 

November 2022. 

Alexander, Miranda  
2013  La Crosse Locality Oneota Architecture: A Functional Approach. Master’s Thesis, 

University of Oklahoma.  

Allen, David W. 
2009  GIS Tutorial II. ESRI Press, Redlands, California. 

Alt, Susan M.  
2002 

Identities, Traditions, and Diversity in Cahokia’s Uplands. Midcontinental Journal of 
Archaeology 27:217-235. 

2006  The Power of Diversity: The Roles of Migration and Hybridity in Culture Change. In 
Leadership and Polity in Mississippian Society, edited by Brian M. Butler and Paul D. 
Welch, pp. 289-308. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale. 

Alt, Susan M., and Timothy R. Pauketat  
2011  Why Wall Trenches? Southeastern Archaeology 30(1):108–122. 

2017  The Elements of Cahokian Shrine Complexes and Basis of Mississippian Religion. In 

Religion and Politics in the Ancient Americas, edited by Sarah B. Barber and Arthur A. 
Joyce, pp. 51-74. Routledge Publishing, London and New York. 

Anderson, Benedict  
1991 

Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. 2nd 
edition. Verso, London. 

Anschuetz, Kurt F., Richard H. Wilshusen, and Cherie L. Scheick  
2001  An Archaeology of Landscapes: Perspectives and Directions. Journal of Archaeological 

Research 9:157-211.  

Ashmore, Wendy  
2002 

‘Decision and Dispositions’: Socializing Spatial Archaeology. American Anthropologist 
104:1172-1183. 

Bardolph, Dana N.  
2014  Evaluating Cahokian Contact and Mississippian Identity Politics in the Late Prehistoric 

281 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Central Illinois River Valley. American Antiquity 79(1):69-89. 

2015  Lamb Site Features: Clues to Cooking and Community Organization in the Central 

Illinois River Valley. Illinois Archaeological Survey, Inc., Illinois Archaeology 27:150-
173.  

Barrett, John C.  
1994  Fragments from Antiquity: An archaeology of social life in Britain, 2900-1200 BC. 

Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, England. 

Barth, Fredrik  
1989  The analysis of culture in complex structures. Ethnos 54(3-4):120-142. 

Basso, Keith H.  
1996  Wisdom Sits in Places: Landscapes and Language Among the Western Apache. 1st 

edition. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. 

Baumanová, Monika  
2016  Space matters: A reflection on archaeological theory and method for interpreting the 

materiality of space. Interdisciplinaria Archaeologica 7:209-216. 

Beardsley, Richard K., Preston Holder, Alex D. Krieger, Betty J. Meggers, John B. Rinaldo, and 

Paul Kutsche  

1956  Functional and Evolutionary Implications of Community Patterning. Memoirs of the 

Society for American Archaeology 11:129-157. 

Beck, Margaret and Sarah Trabert  
2014  Kansas and the Postrevolt Puebloan Diaspora: Ceramic Evidence from the Scott County 

Pueblo. American Antiquity 79:314-336. 

Bengtson, Jennifer D., and Jodie A. O’Gorman  
2016  Children, Migration and Mortuary Representation in the Late Prehistoric Central Illinois 

River Valley. Childhood in the Past 9(1):19-43. 

2017a  War at the door: evolutionary considerations of warfare and female fighters. In 

Bioarchaeology of women and children in times of war: case studies from the Americas, 
edited by Debra L. Martin, pp. 27-48. Springer, Cham, Switzerland. 

2017b  Women’s Participation in Prehistoric Warfare: A Central Illinois River Valley case study. 

International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 27(2):230-244.   

Benn, David W.  
1995  Woodland People and the Roots of the Oneota. In Oneota Archaeology: Past, Present, 

and Future, edited by William Green and David W. Benn, pp. 91-139. University of Iowa 
Press, Iowa City, Iowa. 

282 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Benn, David W., R. Eric Hollinger, and Randall M. Withrow 
2004  The Wever Site and the Wever Terrace Occupations. In Oneota Occupations on the 

Wever Terrace. Archaeological Data Recovery for the U.S. 61 Wever Bypass, Lee 
County, Iowa, DE-61-1(24)--2A-56, Volume III, pp. 548-566. Prepared for the Iowa 
Department of Transportation, Ames, Iowa. Prepared by The Louis Berger Group, Inc., 
Marion, Iowa. 

Bennett, John W.  
1945  Archaeological Explorations in Jo Daviess County, Illinois. University of Chicago Press. 

Bermann, Marc  
2014  Household Archaeology. In Lukurmata: Household Archaeology in Prehispanic Bolivia, 
edited by Marc Bermann, pp. 19-41. Princeton Legacy Library, Princeton, New Jersey.  

Berres, Thomas E.  
2001  Power and Gender in Oneota Culture: A Study of a Late Prehistoric People. Northern 

Illinois University Press, DeKalb, Illinois.  

Betzenhauser, Alleen  
2017  Cahokia’s Beginnings: Mobility, Urbanization, and the Cahokian Political Landscape. In 
Mississippian Beginnings, edited by Gregory D. Wilson, pp. 1-28. University of Florida 
Press, Gainesville. 

Betzenhauser, Alleen and Timothy R. Pauketat  
2019  Elements of Cahokian Neighborhoods. Archeological Papers of the American 

Anthropological Association 30:133-147. 

Beyer, Autumn M., Michael Conner, Jodie O’Gorman, Jeffrey Painter, SarahJane Potter, and 

Nikki Silva  

2016  There’s No Place Like Home: Domestic Negotiations at Morton Village. Poster Presented 
at the 60th Annual Meeting of the Midwest Archaeological Conference, Iowa City, Iowa. 

Bhabha, Homi K.  
1994 

 The Location of Culture. Routledge Publishing, London and New York. 

Binford, Lewis R.  
1982  The Archaeology of Place. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1:5-31. 

Birch, Jennifer  
2010  Coalescent Communities in Iroquoian Ontario. PhD Dissertation, McMaster University. 

2012  Coalescent Communities: Settlement Aggregation and Social Integration in Iroquoian 

Ontario. American Antiquity 77:646-670. 

Birmingham, Robert A., and Lynne G. Goldstein  
2006  Aztalan: A Mississippian Town. In Aztalan: Mysteries of an Ancient Indian Town, edited 

283 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
by Robert A. Birmingham and Lynne G. Goldstein, pp. 48-84. Wisconsin Historical 
Society Press, Madison, Wisconsin. 

Blakney-Bailey, Jane Anne  
2007  An Analysis of Historic Creek and Seminole Settlement Patterns, Town Design, and 

Architecture: The Paynes Town Seminole Site (8AL366), A Case Study. PhD Dissertation, 
University of Florida. 

Blitz, John H.  
2010  New Perspectives in Mississippian Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Research 

18(1):1-39. 

Blitz, John H.  and K.G. Lorenz  
2006  The Chattahoochee chiefdoms. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 

Bourdieu, Pierre  
1970  The Berber house or the world reversed. Social Science Information 9:151-70. 

1977  Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge Studies in Social Anthropology. Cambridge 

University Press, Cambridge, London. 

Bowne, Eric E.  
2013  The Middle Mississippian Period, AD 1200-1400. In Mound Sites of the Ancient South: A 
Guide to the Mississippian Chiefdoms, pp. 109-177. University of Georgia Press, Athens, 
GA. 

Boszhardt, Robert F.  
1998  Oneota Horizons: A La Cross Perspective. The Wisconsin Archeologist 79:196-226. 

2004  Blind Dates and Blind Faith: The Timeless Story of the “Emergent Oneota McKern 

Phase. The Wisconsin Archeologist 85:3-30. 

Bradley, James W.  
1987  Evolution of the Onondaga Iroquois: Accommodating Change 1500-1655. Syracuse 

University Press, Syracuse. 

Branton, Nicole  
2009  Landscape Approaches in Historical Archaeology: The Archaeology of Places. In 

International Handbook of Historical Archaeology, edited by Teresita Majewski and 
David Gaimester, pp. 51-65. Springer Publishing, New York. 

Brown, James A., and John Kelly  
2000  Cahokia and the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex. In Mounds, Modoc, and 

Mesoamerica: Papers in Honor of Melvin L. Fowler, Vol. XXVII, edited by Steven R. 
Ahler, pp. 469-510. Illinois State Museum Scientific Papers, Springfield, Illinois. 

284 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Brown, James A., and Robert F. Sasso  
2001  Prelude to History on the Eastern Prairies. In Societies in Eclipse: Archaeology of the 

Eastern Woodlands, Indians, A.D. 1400-1700, edited by David S. Brose, C. Wesley 
Cowan, and Robert C. Mainforth Jr., pp. 205-228. Smithsonian Institution Press, 
Washington, D.C. 

Buikstra, Jane E.  
1984  The Lower Illinois River Region: A Prehistoric Context for the Study of Ancient Diet and 

Health. In Paleopathology at the Origins of Agriculture, edited by Mark Nathan Cohen 
and George J. Armelagos, pp. 215-234. Academic Press, New York. 

Buikstra, Jane E, and George R. Milner 
1989  The Dickson Mounds Site: An annotated bibliography. Illinois State Museum Society, 

Springfield, Illinois. 

Burmeister, Stefan  
2000  Archaeology and Migration: Approaches to an Archaeological Proof of Migration. 

Current Anthropology 41:539-567. 

Butt, Audrey  
1977  Land Use and Social Organization of Tropical Forest Peoples of the Guianas. In Human 

Ecology in the Tropics, edited by J.P. Garlick and R.W.J. Keay, pp. 1-17. Halstead Press, 
New York. 

Byers, A. M.  
2006  Cahokia: A World Renewal Cult Heterarchy. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 

2013  From Cahokia to Larson to Moundville. Newfound Press, The University of Tennessee 

Libraries, Knoxville. 

Byrd, Brian F.  
1994  Public and Private, Domestic and Corporate: The Emergence of the Southwest Asian 

Village. American Antiquity 59:639-666. 

Cameron, Catherine M.  
2013  How people moved among ancient societies: Broadening the view. American 

Anthropologist 115:218-231. 

Card, Jeb  
2013  The Archaeology of Hybrid Material Culture. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.  

Cheney, Susan L.  
1992  Uncertain Migrants: The History and Archaeology of a Victorian Goldfield Community. 

Australasian Historical Archaeology 10:36-42. 

Clark, Bonnie J., and Laura L. Scheiber  

285 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2008  A Sloping Land: An Introduction to Archaeological Landscapes on the High Plains. In 
Archaeological Landscapes on the High Plains, edited by Bonnie J. Clark and Laura L. 
Scheiber, pp. 1-16. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. 

Clark, Jeffery J.  
2001  Tracking Prehistoric Migrations: Pueblo Settlers Among the Tonto Basin Hohokam. 

Anthropological Paper No. 65, University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 

Clark, Jeffery J., Deborah H. Huntley, J. Brett Hill, and Patrick D. Lyons  
2013  The Kayenta diaspora and Salado meta-identity in the late pre-contact U.S. Southwest. In 
The Archaeology of Hybrid Material Culture, Occasional Paper 39, edited by Jeb J. Card, 
pp. 399-424. Center for Archaeological, Investigations, Southern Illinois University, 
Carbondale. 

Clark, Jeffery J., Jennifer A. Birch, Michelle Hegmon, Barbara J. Mills, Donna M. Glowacki, 

Scott G. Ortman, Jeffrey S. Dean, Rory Gauthier, Patrick D. Lyons, Matthew A. Peeples, 
Lewis Borck, John A. Ware  

2019  Resolving the migrant paradox: Two pathways to coalescence in the late precontact U.S. 

Southwest. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 53:262-287. 

Clarke, David L.  
1977  Spatial Information in Archaeology. In Spatial Archaeology, 1st edition, edited by David 

L. Clarke, pp. 1-17, Academic Press, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts.  

Cobb, Charles R., and Brian M. Butler  
2002  The Vacant Quarter Revisited: Late Mississippian Abandonment of the Lower Ohio 

Valley. American Antiquity 67:625-641. 

Coen, Sharon, Joanne Meredith, and Jenna Condie  
2017 

I Dig Therefore We Are: Community Archaeology, Place-based Social Identity, and 
Intergroup Relations Within Local Communities. Journal of Community & Applied 
Social Psychology 27:212-225. 

Cole, Fay-Cooper and Thorne Deuel  
1937  Rediscovering Illinois. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 

Conner, Michael D.  
2009  Preliminary Perspectives on Spoon River Mississippian from the Myer-Dickson Portion 
of the Dickson Mounds Site, Fulton County, Illinois. Paper Presented at the 55th Annual 
Midwest Archaeological Conference, Iowa City, Iowa. 

2010  The Myer-Dickson Phase and Late Woodland in West-Central Illinois. Paper Presented at 

the 56th Annual Midwest Archaeological Conference, Bloomington, Indiana. 

2013  The Meyer-Dickson Phase and Late Woodland in West-central Illinois. Illinois 

Archaeology 25:191-221. 

286 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2016  Mississippian Habitation Components at Dickson Mounds in the Central Illinois River 

Valley. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 41(1):67-92. 

Conner, Michael D. And Jodie A. O’Gorman  
2012  Spatial Distribution of Cultural Components and House Types at Morton Village. Paper 

Presented at the 58th Annual Meeting of the Midwest Archaeological Conference, East 
Lansing, Michigan. 

Conner, Michael D., Jodie A. O’Gorman, Timothy J. Horsley, and Matthew D. Pike  
2014  Spatial Organization of an Oneota-Mississippian Community. Poster Presented at the 60th 

Annual Midwest Archaeological Conference, Champaign, Illinois. 

Conolly, James and Mark Lake  
2006  Geographical Information Systems in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, 

Cambridge. 

Conrad, Lawrence A.  
1972  1966 Excavations at the Dickson Mound: A Repo-Spoon River Burial Mound in the 

Central Illinois River Valley. Master’s Thesis, University of Wisconsin, Madison. 

1973  The Nature of the Relationship between Cahokia and the Central Illinois River Valley. 

Paper Presented at the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Central State Anthropological Society. 
St. Louis, Missouri. 

1989  The Southeastern Ceremonial Complex on the Northern Middle Mississippian Frontier: 
Late Prehistoric Politico-Religious Systems in the Central Illinois River Valley. In The 
Southeastern Ceremonial Complex: Artifacts and Analysis: The Cottonlandia 
Conference, edited by Patricia K. Galloway, pp. 93-113. University of Nebraska Press, 
Lincoln. 

1991  The Middle Mississippian Cultures of the Central Illinois River Valley. In Cahokia and 

the Hinterlands: Middle Mississippian Cultures of the Midwest, edited by Thomas E. 
Emerson & R. Barry Lewis, pp. 119-156. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.  

2005  Ancient Lives: The View from the Orendorf Habitation Areas with Brief Comments on 

Mortuary Customs. Paper presented at the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Southeastern 
Archaeological Conference, Columbia, South Carolina. 

Conrad, Lawrence A., and Duane Esarey  
1983  Oneota in West-Central Illinois. Paper Presented at the 31st Annual Midwest 

Archaeological Conference, Iowa   City, Iowa. 

1985  The Bold Counselor Phase: The Oneota Occupation of the Central Illinois River Valley. 
Draft manuscript on file at Western Illinois University Archaeological Research Lab and 
Dickson Mounds Museum. 

287 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Conrad, Lawrence A., Duane E. Esarey, and Thomas E. Emerson 
2019  The Orendorf Project. In Orendorf Settlement D: A Burned Fortified Mississippian Town 

in the Central Illinois River Valley, pp. 19-62. Research Report No. 50, Illinois State 
Archaeological Survey, Prairie Research Institute, University of Illinois at Urbana 
Champaign. 

Conrad, Lawrence A., Kjersti E. Emerson, Thomas E. Emerson, Duane E. Esarey (editors.)  
2019  Orendorf Settlement D: A Burned Fortified Mississippian Town in the Central Illinois 

River Valley. Research Report No. 50, Illinois State Archaeological Survey, Prairie 
Research Institute, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign. 

Cook, Della C.  
1984  Subsistence and Health in the Lower Illinois Valley: Osteological Evidence. In 

Paleopathology at the Origins of Agriculture, edited by Mark N. Cohen, and George J. 
Armelagos, pp. 237-270, Academic Press, New York. 

Cook, Robert A.  
2007  SunWatch: Fort Ancient Development in the Mississippian World. 1st Edition. University 

Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 

Cordell, Linda S., and Vincent J. Yannie  
1991  Ethnicity, ethnogenesis, and the individual: a processual approach toward dialogue. In 

Processual and Postprocessual Archaeologies: Multiple Ways of Knowing the Past, 
edited by Robert W. Preucel, pp. 96-107. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale. 

Creswell, Tim  
2004  Defining Place. In Place: A Short Introduction, pp. 1–14. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 

Chicester. 

Croucher, Sarah and Stephanie Wynne-Jones 
2006  People, not Pots: Locally Produced Ceramics and Identity on the Nineteenth-Century 

East African Coast. International Journal of African Historical Studies 39(1):107-124. 

Curtis, Jenneth E.  
2014  Migration and Cultural Change: The Northern Iroquoian Case in South-Central Ontario. 

Journal of World Prehistory 27:145-195. 

Dale Spencer, Susan  
2014  Violence in the Lower Illinois River Valley (ca AD 700-1250): An Examination of 

Injuries at Schild Utilizing Taphonomy, Paleopathology and Forensic Science. PhD 
Dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington. 

Deagan, Kathleen  
2013  Hybridity, Identity, and Archaeological Practice. In The Archaeology of Hybrid Material 

Culture, Occasional Paper 39, edited by Jeb J. Card, pp. 260-276. Center for 
Archaeological, Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. 

288 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Dempsey, Caitlin  
2022  Types of GIS Data Explored: Vector and Raster. Electronic document,  

https://www.gislounge.com/geodatabases-explored-vector-and-raster-data/, accessed 
August 22, 2022. 

Deuel, Thorne  
1935  Basic Cultures of the Mississippi Valley. American Antiquity 37:429-445. 

Diehl, Michael W.  
1998  The Interpretation of Archaeological Floor Assemblages: A Case Study from the 

American Southwest. American Antiquity 63:617-634. 

Dommelen, Peter van  
1999  Exploring Everyday Places and Cosmologies. In Archaeologies of Landscape: 

Contemporary Perspectives, edited by Wendy Ashmore and A. Bernard Knapp, pp. 277-
285. Wiley-Blackwell, Malden, Massachusetts. 

Douglass, John G. and Nancy Gonlin 
2012  The Household as Analytical Unit: Case Studies from the Americas. In Ancient 

Households of the Americas: Conceptualizing What Households Do, edited by John G. 
Douglass and Nancy Gonlin, pp. 1-46. University Press of Colorado, Louisville. 

Drennan, Robert  
2009  Statistics for Archaeologists: A Common Sense Approach (second edition). Springer.  

Droessler, Judith  
1981  Craniometry and Biological Distance; Biocultural Continuity and Change at the Late 
Woodland-Mississippian Interface. Center for American Archaeology at Northwestern 
University, Evanston, Illinois. 

Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) 
2022  ArcGIS: Resources. https://www.esri.com/en-us/arcgis/products/arcgis-pro/resources.  

Emerson, Thomas E.  
2007  Cahokia and the evidence for late pre-Columbian war in the North American 

Midcontinent. In North American indigenous warfare and ritual violence, edited by R.J. 
Chacon and R.G. Mendoza, pp. 129-148. University of Arizona Press: Tucson. 

2010  Cahokia and the Archaeology of Power. In Cahokia and the Archaeology of Power, 

edited by Thomas E. Emerson, pp. 249-267. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 

Emerson, Thomas E. and Eve Hargrave  
2000  Strangers in Paradise? Recognizing Ethnic Mortuary Diversity on the Fringes of Cahokia. 

Southeastern Archaeology 19(1):1-23. 

Emerson, Thomas E., Lawrence A. Conrad, Duane E. Esarey, Kjersti E. Emerson, and Madeleine 

289 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evans  

2019  The Contribution of the Orendorf Settlement D Excavations to Spoon River 

Mississippian History, In Orendorf Settlement D: A Burned Fortified Mississippian Town 
in the Central Illinois River Valley. Research Report No. 50, Illinois State Archaeological 
Survey, Prairie Research Institute, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign. 

Emerson, Thomas E., Kristin M. Hedman, Eve A. Hargrave, Dawn E. Cobb, and Andrew R. 

Thompson  

2016  Paradigms Lost: Reconfiguring Cahokia’s Mound 72 Beaded Burial. American Antiquity 

81:405-425. 

Emerson, Thomas E., Kristin M. Hedman, Tamira K. Brennan, Alleen M. Betzenhauser, Susan 
M. Alt, and Timothy R. Pauketat  
2020 

Interrogating Diaspora and Movement in the Greater Cahokian World. Journal of 
Archaeological Method and Theory 27(1):54-71. 

Ervin, Kelly M.   
2014  A Comparative Spatial Analysis of Two Communities from the Hickory Ground Site in 

Wetumpka, Alabama. Master’s Thesis, Auburn University, Auburn.  

Esarey, Duane  
1996  Summary of 1957-1995 Investigations at the Eveland Site (11F353): A Site Management 
Tool. Illinois State Museum, Quaternary Studies Program, Technical Report No. 96-000-
6, Springfield Illinois. 

Esarey, Duane, and Lawrence A. Conrad  
1998  The Bold Counselor Phase of the Central Illinois River Valley: Oneota’s Middle 

Mississippian Margin. The Wisconsin Archaeologist 79:38-61. 

Esarey, Duane, and Sharron K. Santure  
1990  Archaeological Research at the Morton Site Complex. In Archaeological Investigations 
at the Morton Village and Norris Farms 36 Cemetery. Illinois State Museum Reports of 
Investigations No. 45, edited by Sharron K. Santure, Alan D Harn, and Duane Esarey, pp. 
6-10. Illinois State Museum, Springfield, Illinois. 

Ethridge, Robbie F.  
2009 

Introduction: Mapping the Mississippian Shatter Zone. In Mapping the Mississippian 
shatter zone: the Colonial Indian slave trade and regional instability in the American 
South, edited by Sheri M. Shuck-Hall and Robbie F. Ethridge, pp. 1-62. University of 
Nebraska Press, Lincoln.  

Ethridge, Robbie F., and Charles M. Hudson (editors)  
2002  The Transformation of the Southeastern Indians, 1540-1760. University Press of 

Mississippi, Jackson. 

Evans, Madeleine G., Kjersti E. Emerson, and Amanda J. Butler  

290 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2019  Burned House Floor Assemblages In Orendorf Settlement D: A Burned Fortified 

Mississippian Town in the Central Illinois River Valley, edited by Lawrence A. Conrad, 
Kjersti E. Emerson, Thomas E. Emerson, Duane E. Esarey, pp. 355-486. Research Report 
No. 50, Illinois State Archaeological Survey, Prairie Research Institute, University of 
Illinois at Urbana Champaign. 

Farnsworth, Kenneth B., and Jodie A. O’Gorman  
1998  Oneota in the Lower Illinois River Valley. Wisconsin Archaeologist 79:62-92.  

Feinman, Gary M.  
1999  Defining a Contemporary Landscape Approach: Concluding Thoughts. Antiquity 73:684-

685. 

Ferring, C.R.  
1984 

Intrasite Spatial Patterning: Its Role in Settlement-Subsistence Systems Analysis. In 
Intrasite Spatial Analysis in Archaeology, edited by H.J. Heitala, pp. 116-126, Cambridge 
University Press, Cambridge, London.  

Foley, Allison J.  
2016  Trauma in the Central Illinois River Valley: A Paleopathological Analysis of the Morton 

Site. PhD Dissertation, Indiana University. 

Foster, Sally M.  
1989  Analysis of Spatial Patterns in Buildings (access patterns) as an Insight into Social 

Structure: Examples from the Scottish Atlantic Iron Age). Antiquity 63(238):40-50.  

Friberg, Christina M., Gregory D. Wilson, Dana N. Bardolph, Jeremy J. Wilson, John S. Flood, 

Scott D. Hipskind, Matthew D. Pike, Duane Esarey  

2021  The geophysics of community, place, and identity in the Mississippian Illinois River 

Valley. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 36 (10288):1-13. 

Gallagher, James P., and Constance M. Arzigian  
1994  A New Perspective on Late Prehistoric Agricultural Intensification in the Upper 

Mississippi River Valley. In Agricultural Origins and Development in the Midcontinent, 
edited by William Green, pp. 171-188, Office of the State Archaeologist, University of 
Iowa, Report No. 19, Iowa City, Iowa.  

Gallagher, James P., and Katherine Stevenson  
1982  Oneota Subsistence and Settlement in Southwestern Wisconsin. In Oneota Studies, edited 

by G. Gibbon, pp. 15-28. Publications in Anthropology No. 1. University of Minnesota, 
Minneapolis. 

Gargett, Rob and Brian Hayden  
1987  Site Structure, Kinship, and Sharing in Aboriginal Australia: Implications for 

Archaeology. In The Interpretations of Archaeological Spatial Patterning, edited by 
Ellen M. Kroll and T. Douglas Price, pp. 11-32, Springer Science+Business Media, New 

291 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
York, New York. 

Geller, Pamela L.  
2009 

Identity and Difference: Complicating Gender in Archaeology. The Annual Review in 
Anthropology 38:65-81. 

Gerritsen, Fokke  
2004  Archaeological Perspectives on Local Communities. In A Companion to Archaeology, 

edited by John Bintliff, pp. 175-199. Blackwell Publishing Ltd., Oxford. 

Gibbon, Guy E.  
1969  The Walker-Hooper and Bornick Sites - Two Grand River Phase Oneota Sites in Central 

Wisconsin. PhD Dissertation, The University of Wisconsin. 

2001  Oneota. In Encyclopedia of Prehistory, edited by Peter N. Peregrine and Melvin Ember, 

pp. 389-407. Springer Publishing, New York. 

Giddens, Anthony  
1984  The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. University of 

California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles. 

Gijseghem, Hendrik Van, and Kevin J. Vaughn  
2007  Regional Integration and the Built Environment in Middle-Range Societies: Paracas and 
Early Nasca Houses and Communities. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 27:111-
130. 

Gillings, Mark, Piraye Hacigüzeller, and Gary Lock (editors)  
2019  Re-Mapping Archaeology. Routledge Publishing, London and New York. 

Gillings, Mark, Piraye Hacigüzeller, and Gary Lock  
2020  Archaeology and Spatial Analysis. In Archaeological Spatial Analysis, edited by Mark 
Gillings, Piraye Hacigüzeller, and Gary Lock, pp. 1-16. Routledge Publishing, London 
and New York. 

Goldstein, Lynne G.  
1980  Mississippian Mortuary Practices. Center for American Archaeology Press, Kampsville, 

Illinois. 

1981  One-Dimensional Archaeology and Multi-Dimensional People: Spatial Organization and 
Mortuary Analysis. In The Archaeology of Death, edited by Robert Chapman, Ian 
Kinnes, and Klavs Randsborg, pp. 53-69. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 

Goodman , AH, GJ Armelagos, JC Rose 
1984  Health changes at Dickson Mounds, Illinois (A.D. 950-1300). In Paleopathology at the 

Origins of Agriculture, edited by MN Cohen and GJ Armelagos, pp. 271-305. New York: 
Academic Press. 

292 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Gosselain, Olivier P.  
2000  Materializing Identities: An African Perspective. Journal of Archaeological Method and 

Theory 7:187-217. 

Green, William  
1987  Between Hopewell and Mississippian: Late Woodland in the Prairie Peninsula as Viewed 
from the Western Illinois Uplands. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison. 

Green, William (editor)  
1995  Oneota Archaeology: Past, Present, and Future. Office of the State   
Archaeologist, Report No. 20. The University of Iowa, Iowa City.  

Gregory, Derek and John Urry (editors)  
1985  Social Relations, Space and Time. In Social Relations and Spatial Structures, edited by 

Derek Gregory and John Urry, pp. 20-48. St. Martin’s Press, New York. 

Griffin, James B. 
1943  The Fort Ancient Aspect, Its Cultural and Chronological Position in Mississippi Valley 

Archaeology. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. 

1967  Eastern North American Archaeology: A Summary. Science 156(3772):175-191. 

1985  Changing Concepts of the Prehistoric Mississippian Cultures of the Eastern United 

States. In Alabama and the Borderlands: From Prehistory to Statehood, edited by R. 
Reid Badger and Lawrence A. Clayton, pp. 40-63. The University of Alabama Press, 
Tuscaloosa. 

Hall, Robert L.  
1962  The Archaeology of Carcajou Point. Vols. 1, 2. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison. 

Hall, Edward T.  
1963  A System for the Notation of Proxemic Behavior. American Anthropologist 65:1003-

1026. 

Hally, David  
2008  King: The Social Archaeology of a Late Mississippian Town in Northwestern Georgia. 

University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 

Hanson, Angela J.  
2000  Skeletal evidence of tuberculosis and treponematosis in a prehistoric population from 

west-central Illinois. Master’s Thesis, Iowa State University, Ames. 

Harn, Alan D.  
1975  Cahokia and the Mississippian emergence in the Spoon River area of Illinois. 

Transactions of Illinois State Academy of Science 68:414-434. 

293 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1978  Mississippian Settlement Patterns in the Central Illinois River Valley. In Mississippian 
Settlement Patterns, edited by Bruce D. Smith, pp. 233-268. Academic Press, Inc., New 
York. 

1980  The prehistory of Dickson Mounds: the Dickson excavation. State of Illinois, Institute of 

Natural Resources, Illinois State Museum, Springfield, Illinois. 

1990 

Introduction. In Archaeological Investigations at the Morton Village and Norris Farms 
36 Cemetery, edited by Sharon K. Santure, Alan D. Harn, and Duane Esarey, pp. 1-3. 
Illinois State Museum Reports of Investigations No. 45., Illinois State Museum, 
Springfield, Illinois. 

1991  Comments on Subsistence, Seasonality, and Site Function at Upland Subsidiaries in the 

Spoon River Area: Mississippianization at Work on the Northern Frontier. In Cahokia 
and the Hinterlands: Middle Mississippian Cultures of the Midwest, edited by Thomas E. 
Emerson and R. Barry Lewis, pp. 157-163. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. 

1994  The Mississippian Occupations. In Variation in Mississippian Pattern: The Larson 

Settlement System in the Central Illinois River Valley, pp. 10-61. Illinois State Museum, 
Report of Investigation, No. 50, Springfield, Illinois. 

Harn, Alan D. and Nicholas W. Klobuchar  
2000 

Inside Morton House 7: An Oneota Structure from the Central Illinois River Valley. In 
Mounds, Modoc, and Mesoamerica: Papers in Honor of Melvin L. Fowler, Vol. XXVII, 
edited by Steven R. Ahler, pp. 297-335. Illinois State Museum Scientific Papers, 
Springfield, Illinois. 

Hatch, Mallorie A. 
2012  Meaning and the Bioarchaeology of Captivity, Sacrifice, and Cannibalism A Case Study 

from the Mississippian Period at Larson, Illinois. In The Bioarchaeology of Violence, 
edited by Debra L. Martin, and Ryan P. Harrod, pp. 201-2025. University Press of 
Florida, Gainesville. 

2015  The Social Costs of War: Investigating the Relationship between Warfare and Intragroup 
Violence during the Mississippian Period of the Central Illinois River Valley. PhD 
Dissertation, Arizona State University. 

Hegmon, Michelle  
1989  Historical and Analytical Perspectives on Architecture and Social Integration in the 

Prehistoric Pueblos. In The Architecture of Social Integration in Prehistoric Pueblos, 
edited by William D. Lipe and Michelle Hegmon, pp. 15-34. Occasional Papers, Crow 
Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado. 

Hendon, Julia  
2010  Houses in a Landscape: Memory and Everyday Life in Mesoamerica. Duke University 

Press, Durham, North Carolina.  

294 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Henning, Dale R.  
1995  Managing Oneota. Paper Presented at the 41st Annual Midwest Archaeological 

Conference. Beloit, Wisconsin. 

1998  The Oneota Tradition. In Archaeology on the Great Plains, edited by Raymond D. Wood, 

pp. 345-414. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence. 

Henning, Dale R. and Thomas D. Thiessen  
2004  Central Siouans in the Northeastern Plains: Oneota Archaeology and the Blood Run Site. 

Plains Anthropologist 49(192):345-625.  

Hill, Jonathan D.  
2013  Long-term patterns of Ethnogenesis in Indigenous Amazonia. In The Archaeology of 

Hybrid Material Culture, Occasional Paper 39, edited by Jeb J. Card, pp. 165-184. Center 
for Archaeological, Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. 

Hill, Brett J., Jeffery J. Clark, William H. Doelle, and Patrick D. Lyons  
2004  Prehistoric Demography in the Southwest: Migration, Coalescence, and Hohokam 

Population Decline. American Antiquity 69:689-716. 

Hillier, B., and J. Hanson  
1984  The Social Logic of Space. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.  

Hirth, Kenneth G.  
1993  The Household as an Analytical Unit: Problems of Method and Theory. In Prehispanic 

Domestic Units in Western Mesoamerica: Studies of the Household, Compound, and 
Residence, edited by Robert S. Santley and Kenneth G. Hirth, pp. 21-35. CRC Press, 
Boca Raton. 

Hodder, Ian  
1986  Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology. Cambridge 

University Press, Cambridge. 

2012  Entangled: An Archaeology of the Relationships between Humans and Things. Wiley-

Blackwell, Malden, Massachusetts. 

Hodder, Ian, and Craig Cessford  
2004  Daily Practice and Social Memory at Catalhoyuk. American Antiquity 27:111-130. 

Hollinger, R. Eric  
1993 

Investigating Oneota Residence Through Domestic Architecture. Master’s Thesis, 
University of Missouri, Columbia. 

1995  Residence Patterns and Oneota Cultural Dynamics. In Oneota Archaeology: Past, 

Present, and Future, edited by William Green, pp. 141-174. University of Iowa Press, 
Iowa City. 

295 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2005  Conflict and Culture Change in the Late Prehistoric and Early Historic American 

Midcontinent. PhD Dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. 

2018  Conflict and Culture Change on the Plains: The Oneota Example. In Archaeological 

Perspectives on Warfare on the Great Plains, edited by Andrew J. Clark and Douglas B. 
Bamforth, pp. 267-274. University Press of Colorado, Denver.  

Hollinger, R. Eric and Joseph A. Vradenburg  
2004  Human Skeletal Remains. In Oneota Occupations on the Wever Terrace. Archaeological 
Data Recovery for the U.S. 61 Wever Bypass, Lee County, Iowa, DE-61-1(24)--2A-56, 
Volume III. Prepared for the Iowa Department of Transportation, Ames, Iowa, pp. 394-
422. Prepared by The Louis Berger Group, Inc., Marion, Iowa. 

Holmes, William H.  
1903   Aboriginal Pottery of the Eastern United States. Twentieth Annual Report, Bureau of 

American Ethnology, United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 

Hornbeck Tanner, Helen  
1987  Atlas of Great Lakes Indian History. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. 

Horsley, Timothy J.  
2010  Morton Village Site (11F2), Fulton Co. Illinois: Report on Geophysical Surveys, May 

2010. Report 2010-03. Horsley Archaeological Prospection, LLC.  

Horsley, Timothy J., Jodie A. O’Gorman, and Michael Conner (3, 5) 
2015  Understanding settlement organization through geophysical survey at the Morton Village 
Site. Poster Presented at the 80th Annual Society for American Archaeology Conference, 
San Francisco. 

Howey, Meghan C. L., and Marieka Brouwer Burg  
2017  Assessing the state of archaeological GIS research: Unbinding analyses of past 

landscapes. Journal of Archaeological Science 84:1-9. 

Hu, Di  
2013  Approaches to the Archaeology of Ethnogenesis: Past and Emergent Perspectives. 

Journal of Archaeological Research 21:371-402. 

IBM Corporation  
2022  Correspondence Analysis. SPSS Statistics, IBM Knowledge Center. http://www-

01.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSLVMB_20.0.0/com.ibm.spss.statistics.help/idh_
cors.htm?lang=en 

Illowsky, Barbara and Susan Dean  
2013 

Introductory Statistics. OpenStax, Houston, Texas. 
https://openstax.org/details/books/introductory-statistics. Accessed November 1, 2022. 

296 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ingold, Tim  
1993  The Temporality of the Landscape. World Archaeology 25:152-174. 

Jackson, Douglas K.  
1998  Settlement on the Southern Frontier: Oneota Occupations in the American Bottom. 

Wisconsin Archaeologist 79:93-116. 

Jackson, Douglas K., and Thomas E. Emerson  
2014  The Hoxie Farm Site Fortified Village: Late Fisher Phase Occupation and Fortification 

in South Chicago. ISAS Research Report No. 27, Illinois State Archaeological Survey, 
Champaign. 

Jackson, Douglas K., Andrew C. Fortier, and Joyce A. Williams  
1992  The Sponemann Site 2: The Mississippian and Oneota Occupations. American Bottom 
Archaeology, FAI-270 Site Reports. University of Illinois Press, Urbana and Chicago. 

Jeske, Robert J., Katherine Sterner, and Richard W. Edwards IV  
2020  New Perspectives from Lake Koshkonong. Midwest Archaeological Conference, Inc. 

Occasional Papers 4: 1-26. 

Jones, Eric E.  
2017  Significance and context in GIS-based spatial archaeology: A case study from 

Southeastern North America. Journal of Archaeological Science 84:54-62.  

Kantner, John  
2008  The archaeology of regions: From discrete analytical toolkit to ubiquitous spatial 

perspective. Journal of Archaeological Research 16:37-81.  

Katz, S. H., M.L. Hediger, and L. A. Valleroy  
1974  Traditional Maize Processing Techniques in the New World: Traditional alkali 

processing enhances the nutritional quality of maize. Science 184(4138): 765-773. 

Kelly, John E.  
1990  The Emergence of Mississippian Culture in the American Bottom Region. In The 

Mississippian Emergence, edited by Bruce D. Smith, pp. 113-152. Smithsonian 
Institution Press, Washington. 

2006  The Ritualization of Cahokia: The Structure and Organization of Early Cahokia Crafts. In 

Leadership and Polity in Mississippian Society, edited by Brian M. Butler and Paul D. 
Welch, pp. 236-263. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois 
University, Occasional Paper No. 33, Carbondale.  

2007  Contemplating Cahokia’s Collapse. In Global Perspectives on the Collapse of Complex 

Systems, edited by Jim A. Railey and Richard Martin Reycraft, pp. 147-169. Maxwell 
Museum of Anthropology, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

297 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Kelly, John E., James A. Brown, Lucretia S. Kelly  
2008  The Context of Religion at Cahokia: The Mound 34 Case. In Religion, Archaeology, and 
the Material World, edited by Lars Fogelin, pp. 297-318. Center for Archaeological 
Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Occasional Paper No. 36, Carbondale. 

Kent, Susan   
1984  Analyzing Activity Areas: An Ethnoarchaeological Study of the Use of Space. 

Albuquerque: University of New Mexico. 

1990 

(ed.) Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space. Cambridge University Press, 
Cambridge. 

Keyes, Charles R.  
1927  Prehistoric Man in Iowa. Palimpsest 8:185-229. 

King, Adam  
2003  Etowah. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 

2007  The Southeastern Ceremonial Complex From Cult to Complex. In Southeastern 

Ceremonial Complex: Chronology, Content, Contest, edited by Adam King and David H. 
Dye, pp. 1-14. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 

Kintigh, Keith W., and Albert J. Ammerman  
1982  Heuristic Approaches to Spatial Analysis in Archaeology. American Antiquity 47(1):31-

63. 

Kintigh, Keith W., Jeffrey H. Altschul, Mary C. Beaudry, Robert D. Drennan, Ann P. 

Kinzig, Timothy A. Kohler, W. Fredrick Limp, Herbert D. G. Maschner, William K. 
Michener, Timothy R. Pauketat, Peter Peregrine, Jeremy A. Sabloff, Tony J. 
Wilkinson, Henry T. Wright, and Melinda A. Zeder  

2014  Grand challenges for archaeology. American Antiquity 79(1):5-24. 

Knapp, A. Bernard  
2003  The Archaeology of Community on Bronze Age Cyprus: Politiko Phorades in Context. 

American Journal of Archaeology 107:559-580. 

Knapp, A. Bernard, and Wendy Ashmore  
1999  Archaeological Landscapes: Constructed, Conceptualized, Ideational. In Archaeologies of 
Landscape: Contemporary Perspectives, edited by Wendy Ashmore and A. Bernard 
Knapp, pp. 1-30. Wiley-Blackwell, Malden, MA. 

Knight Jr., Vernon J.  
2006  Farewell to the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex. Southeastern Archaeology 25(1):1-5.  

Koldehoff, Brad H. and Timothy R. Pauketat (editors)  
2018  Archaeology and Ancient Religion in the American Midcontinent. The University of 

298 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 

Kowalewski, Stephen A. 
2006  Coalescent Societies. In Light on the Path: The Anthropology and History of the 

Southeastern Indians, edited by Thomas J. Pluckhahn and Robbie Ethridge, pp. 94-122. 
University Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 

Kozlowski, Leszek  
2011  The Persistence and Interaction of Multi-Ethnic Settlement Remnants in the Cultural 

Landscape. Bulletin of Geography. Socio-Economic Series 16(16):35-55. 

Kroll, Ellen M. and T. Douglas Price (editors)  
1991  The Interpretation of Archaeological Spatial Patterning. Plenum Press, New York.  

Krus, Anthony M., Edward W. Herrmann, Matthew D. Pike, G. William Monaghan, and Jeremy 

J. Wilson  

2019  Chronology of a Fortified Mississippian Village in the Central Illinois River Valley. 

Radiocarbon 61:713-731. 

Kuijt, Ian  
2000  People and Space in Early Agricultural Villages: Exploring Daily Lives, Community 
Size, and Architecture in the Late Pre-Pottery Neolithic. Journal of Anthropological 
Archaeology 19:75-102. 

Lake, Mark W.  
2010  The Uncertain Future of Simulating the Past. In Simulating Change 

Archaeology Into the Twenty-first Century, edited by Andre Costopoulos and Mark W 
Lake, pp. 12-20. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 

LaMotta, Vincent M. and Michael B. Schiffer  
1999  Formation Processes of House Floor Assemblages. In Archaeology of Household 
Activities, edited by Penelope M. Allison, pp. 19-29. Routledge, London.  

Lawrence, D., and S. Low  
1990  The Built Environment and Spatial Form. Annual Review of Anthropology 19:453-505. 

Lehmer, Donald  
1954  Archaeological Investigations in the Oahe Dam Area, South Dakota, 1950-1951. Bureau 

of American Ethnology Bulletin 158:1-190. 

Lewis, Kenneth E.  
2006  Camden: Historical Archaeology in the South Carolina Backcountry. Thomson Higher 

Education, Belmont, California. 

Li, Wei, Emily Skop, and Adriana Morken  
2017  Geography of Migration. Oxford Bibliographies. 

299 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Liebmann, Matthew J.  
2013  Parsing hybridity: archaeologies of amalgamation in seventh-century New Mexico. In 

The Archaeology of Hybrid Material Culture, Occasional Paper 39, edited by Jeb J. Card, 
pp. 25-49. Center for Archaeological, Investigations, Southern Illinois University, 
Carbondale. 

Lieto, Josh, and Jodie O’Gorman  
2012  The Broad-Rimmed Bowl: A Preliminary Analysis of an Oneota and Mississippian Form 
at the Morton Site. Paper Presented at the 58th Annual Midwest Archaeological 
Conference, East Lansing. 

Lightfoot, Kent G.  
1995  Culture Contact Studies: Redefining the Relationships between Prehistoric and Historic 

Archaeology. American Antiquity 60:199-217. 

Lightfoot, Kent G., and Antoinette Martinez  
1995  Frontiers and Boundaries in Archaeological Perspective. Annual Review of Anthropology 

24:471-492.  

Lightfoot, Kent G., and William S. Simmons  
1998  Culture Contact in Protohistoric California: Social Contexts of Native and European 
Encounters. Journal of California and Great Basin Archaeology 20:138-170. 

Lightfoot, Kent G., Antoinette Martinez, and Ann M. Schiff 
1998  Daily Practice and Material Culture in Pluralistic Social Settings: An Archaeological 

Study of Culture Change and Persistence from Fort Ross, California. American Antiquity 
63:199-222.  

Little, Keith J.  
1999  The Role of Late Woodland Interactions in the Emergence of Etowah. Southeastern 

Archaeology 18(1):45-56. 

Llobera, Marcos  
2012  Life on a Pixel: Challenges in the Development of Digital Methods Within an 

“Interpretive” Landscape Archaeology Framework. Journal of Archaeological Method 
and Theory 19:495-509. 

Lock, Gary, and Brian L. Molyneaux  
2006 

Introduction: Confronting Scale. In Confronting Scale in Archaeology, edited by Gary 
Lock and Brian L. Molyneaux, pp. 1-11. Springer Publishing, New York.  

Marsh, Erik J.  
2016  Building Household and Community through Active Assemblages: A Late Formative 

Patio Group at Khonkho Wankane, Bolivia. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 26:305-
327. 

300 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Mason, Ronald J.  
1966  Two Stratified Sites on the Door Peninsula of Wisconsin. Anthropological Papers No. 26. 

Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 

1993  Oneota and Winnebago Ethnogenesis: An Overview. The Wisconsin Archeologist 

74:400-421. 

Matthews, Wendy  
2012  Defining Households: Micro-contextual Analysis of Early Neolithic Households in the 

Zagros, Iran. In New Perspectives on Household Archaeology, edited by Bradley J. 
Parker and Catherine P. Foster, pp. 183-216, Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake. 

McDonald, S. Edgar  
1950  The Crable Site, Fulton County, Illinois. Journal of the Illinois State Archaeological 

Society 7:16-18. 

McGuire, Randall H., and Michael B. Schiffer  
1983  A Theory of Architectural Design. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 2:227-303. 

McKern, Will C.  
1939  The Midwestern Taxonomic Method as an Aid to Archaeological Culture Study. 

American Antiquity 4:301-313. 

McTavish, Rachel C. 
2019  Foodways and a Violent Landscape: A Comparative Study of Oneota and Langford 
Human-Animal-Environmental Relationships. PhD Dissertation, The University of 
Wisconsin-Milwaukee. 

Means, Bernard K.  
2006  Circular Reasoning: Drawing on Models of Ring-Shaped Village Spatial Layouts to 
Examine Villages in Late Prehistoric Pennsylvania. PhD Dissertation, Arizona State 
University, Tempe. 

Mehrer, Mark W., and James M. Collins  
1995  Household Archaeology at Cahokia and in Its Hinterlands. In Mississippian Communities 
and Households, edited by J. Daniel Rogers and Bruce D. Smith, pp. 32-57. University of 
Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 

Merriam-Webster  
2021  Scale. Merriam-Webster Dictionary and Thesaurus. Online. https://www.merriam-

webster.com/. 

Meskell, Lynn  
2001  Archaeologies of Identity. In Archaeological Theory: Breaking the Boundaries, edited by 

Ian Hodder, pp. 187-213. Polity, Cambridge, UK. 

301 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2002  The Intersections of Identity and Politics in Archaeology. Annual Review of 

Anthropology 31(1):279-301. 

Milner, George R.  
1990  The late prehistoric Cahokia cultural system of the Mississippi River valley: Foundations, 

fluorescence, and fragmentation. Journal of World Prehistory 4:1-43. 

1999  Warfare in Prehistoric and Early Historic Eastern North America. Journal of 

Archaeological Research 7:105-151. 

2004  The Moundbuilders: Ancient Peoples of Eastern North America. Thames & Hudson, New 

York. 

2005  Nineteenth-Century Arrow Wounds and Perceptions of Prehistoric Warfare. American 

Antiquity 70(1):144-156. 

2007  Warfare, population, and food production in prehistoric Eastern North America. In North 
American indigenous warfare and ritual violence, edited by R.J. Chacon and R.G. 
Mendoza, pp. 182-201. University of Arison Press, Tucson. 

Milner, George R., Eve Anderson, and Virginia G. Smith  
1991a  Warfare in Late Prehistoric West-Central Illinois. American Antiquity 56:581-603.  

Milner, George R., George Chaplin, and Emily Zavodny 
2013  Conflict and Societal Change in Late Prehistoric Eastern North America. Evolutionary 

Anthropology 22:96-102.  

Milner, George R., Virginia G. Smith, and Eve Anderson  
1991b  Conflict, Mortality, and Community Health in an Illinois Oneota Population. In Between 

Bands and States, edited by Susan A. Gregg, pp. 245-264. Board of Trustees, Southern 
Illinois University, Carbondale. 

Moore, Jerry D.  
1992  Pattern and Meaning in Prehistoric Peruvian Architecture: The Architecture of Social 

Control in the Chimu State. Latin American Antiquity 3:95-113. 

1996  The Archaeology of Plazas and the Proxemics of Ritual. American Anthropologist 

98:789-802.  

Morse, Dan F.  
1960  The Southern Cult: The Crable Site, Fulton County, Illinois. Central States 

Archaeological Journal 7:124-135. 

Murdock, George  
1949  Our Primitive Contemporaries. The MacMillan Company, New York. 

302 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Naum, Magdelena  
2010  Re-emerging Frontiers: Postcolonial Theory and Historical Archaeology of the 
Borderlands. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 17:101-131. 

Netting, R. McC, Richard R. Wilk, and Eric J. Arnould (editors)  
1984  Households: Comparative and Historical Studies of the Domestic Group. University of 

California Press, Berkeley. 

Nordine, Kelsey  
2020  Building Communities: Interpreting Oneota and Mississippian Interaction through 

Paleoethnobotanical Analysis at the Morton Village Site (11F2), West-Central Illinois. 
PhD Dissertation, Washington University in St. Louis. 

O’Connell, James F., Kristen Hawkes, and Nicholas Blurton Jones  
1987  Distribution of Refuse-Producing Activities at Hadza Residential Base Camps: 

Implications for Analyses of Archaeological Site Structure. In The Interpretation of 
Archaeological Spatial Patterning, edited by Ellen M. Kroll and T. Douglas Price, pp. 
61-76. Springer, New York, New York.  

O’Gorman, Jodie A. (2 5) 
1993  The Tremaine Site Complex: Oneota Occupation in the La Crosse Locality, Wisconsin. 

State Historical Society of Wisconsin, Madison. 

1995  Volume III: The Tremaine Site (47 Lc-95), The Tremaine Site Complex. Oneota 

Occupation in the La Crosse Locality, Wisconsin. Archaeology Research Series, Number 
3, Museum Archaeology Program, State Historical Society of Wisconsin.  

1996   Domestic economics and mortuary practices: A gendered view of Oneota social 
organization. PhD Dissertation, The University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee. 

2001  Life, Death, and the Longhouse: A Gendered View of Oneota Social Organization. In 

Gender and the Archaeology of Death, edited by Bettina Arnold and Nancy Walker, pp. 
23-49, Altamira Press, Lanham, Maryland. 

2010  Exploring the Longhouse and Community in Tribal Society. American Antiquity 75:571-

597. 

O’Gorman, Jodie A., and Michael D. Conner  
2016  Variability in Ritual at the Intersection of Oneota and Mississippian Worlds. Poster 
Presented at the 62nd Annual Midwest Archaeological Conference, Iowa City. 

2023  Making Community, Implications of Hybridity, and Coalescence at Morton Village. 

American Antiquity 88(1):79-98. 

O’Gorman, Jodie A., Bengtson, Jennifer D., & Michael, Amy R.  
2020  Ancient history and new beginnings: necrogeography and migration in the North 

303 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
American midcontinent. World Archaeology 52(1):16-34. 

O’Gorman, Jodie A., Michael D. Conner, Nicole Silva, Timothy Horsley, Andrew Upton, 

Terrance Martin, Jessica Yann, Jeffrey Painter, Ryan Maureen Tubbs, Frank Raslich, and 
Jennifer Bengtson  

2015  Negotiating Migration and Violence in the Pre-Columbian Mid-Continent. Poster Session 

at the 80th Society for American Archaeology Conference, San Francisco. 

Oetelaar, Gerald A.  
1993 

Identifying Site Structure in the Archaeological Record: An Illinois Mississippian 
Example. American Antiquity 58:662-687. 

Overstreet, David F.  
1976  The Grand River, Lake Koshkonong, Green Bay and Lake Winnebago Phases Eight 

Hundred years of Oneota Prehistory in Eastern Wisconsin. PhD Dissertation, The 
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. 

1978  Oneota Settlement Patterns in Eastern Wisconsin: Some Considerations of Time and 

Space. In Mississippian Settlement Patterns, edited by B. Smith, pp. 21-52. Academic 
Press, Inc., New York.  

1989  Oneota Tradition Culture History: New Data from the Old Spring Site (47WN350). 

Reports of Investigations No. 219. Great Lakes Archaeological Research Center, 
Milwaukee. 

1997  Oneota Prehistory and History. Wisconsin Archaeologist 78(1/2):250-296. 

Painter, Autumn 
2022  Coalescence and Animal Use: Examining Community Building at the Multi-Ethnic 

Morton Village Site. PhD Dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing. 

Painter, Jeffrey M.  
2014  Sharing more than spaces: Oneota and Mississippian social and cultural interaction at 
the Crable site, Fulton Co., Illinois. Master’s Thesis, Illinois State University, Normal. 

2021  Cooking and Coalescence: Exploring the Construction of Community and Cuisine at 
Morton Village. PhD Dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing. 

Painter, Jeffrey M., & O’Gorman, Jodie A.  
2019  Cooking and Community: An Exploration of Oneota Group Variability through 

Foodways. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 44:231-258. 

2024 

(forthcoming) Plates, Cuisine, and Community at the Morton Site, In Ancient Indigenous 
Cuisines: Archaeological Explorations of the Midcontinent, University of Alabama Press. 

Parker, Bradley J. and Catherine P. Foster (editors)  

304 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2012  New Perspectives on Household Archaeology. Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake.  

Parker Pearson, Michael and Colin Richards  
1994  Architecture and Order, Approaches to Social Space. Routledge Publishing, London and 

New York. 

Pauketat, Timothy R  
1998  The Archaeology of Downtown Cahokia: The Tract 15A and Dunham Tract Excavations. 
Studies in Archaeology No. 1. Illinois Transportation Archaeological Research Program, 
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.  

2003  Some archaeological correlates of ranked societies. American Antiquity 68(1):39-66. 

2007  Chiefdoms and Other Archaeological Delusions. AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland. 

2009  Cahokia: Ancient America’s Great City on the Mississippi. Penguin Books, London. 

2012  An Archaeology of the Cosmos: Rethinking Agency and Religion in Ancient America. 

Routledge Publishing, London and New York. 

Pauketat, Timothy R. and Susan M. Alt  
2005  Agency in a Postmold? Physicality and the Agency of Culture-Making. Journal of 

Archaeological Method and Theory 12:213-216.  

2008  Mounds, Memory, and Contested Mississippian History. In Archaeologies of Memory, 

pp. 151-179. Blackwell Publishers Ltd.  

Pauketat, Timothy R., Susan M. Alt, and Jeffery D. Kruchten  
2015a  City of Earth and Wood: New Cahokia and Its Material-Historical Implications. In The 
Cambridge World History: Volume III: Early Cities in Comparative Perspective, 4000 
BCE-1200 CE, edited by Norman Yoffee, pp. 437-454. Cambridge University Press, 
Cambridge. 

2017  The Emerald Acropolis: elevating the moon and water in the rise of Cahokia. Antiquity 

91(355):207-222. 

Pauketat, Timothy R., and Thomas E. Emerson  
1999  Representations of Hegemony as Community at Cahokia. In Material Symbols: Culture 

and Economy in Prehistory, edited by John E. Robb, pp. 302-317. Center for 
Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper No. 26, Carbondale, Illinois. 

Pauketat, Timothy R., and Thomas E. Emerson (editors)  
2000  Cahokia: domination and ideology in the Mississippian world. University of Nebraska 

Press, Lincoln. 

305 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Pauketat, Timothy R., Robert F. Boszhardt, and Danielle M. Benden  
2015b  Trempealeau Entanglements: An Ancient Colony’s Causes and Effects. American 

Antiquity 80:260-289. 

Pauketat, Timothy R., Lucretia S. Kelly, Gayle J. Fritz, Neal H. Lopinot, Scott Elias, and Eve 

Hargrave  

2002  The Residues of Feasting and Public Ritual at Early Cahokia. American Antiquity 67:257-

279. 

Petersson, Caroline  
2011 

In Things We Trust: Hybridity and the Borders of Categorization in Archaeology. 
Current Swedish Archaeology 19:167-181. 

Pfälzner, Peter  
2015  Activity-Area Analysis: A Comprehensive Theoretical Model. In Household studies in 

complex societies. (Micro)archaeological and textual approaches, edited by Miriam 
Müller, pp. 29-60. Papers from the Oriental Institute Seminar Household Studies in 
Complex Societies, held at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, (Oriental 
Institute Seminars 10), Chicago, Illinois. 

Pike, Matthew  
2013  Morton Village South Magnetometer Survey. Manuscript on file, Dickson Mounds 

Museum, Lewistown, Illinois.  

Prohansky, Harold M., Abbe K. Fabian, and Robert Kaminoff  
1983  Place-Identity: Physical World Socialization of the Self. Journal of Environmental 

Psychology 3:57-83. 

Rapoport, Amos  
1990  The Meaning of the Built Environment: A Nonverbal Communication Approach. 

University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona.  

Rautman, Alison E.  
2000  Population Aggregation, Community Organization, and Plaza-Oriented Pueblos in the 

American Southwest. Journal of Field Archaeology 27:271-283. 

2014  Social Integration and the Built Environment of Aggregated Communities in the North 

American Puebloan Southwest. In From Prehistoric Villages to Cities: Settlement 
Aggregation and Community Transformation, edited by Jennifer Birch, pp. 111-133. 
Routledge Publishing, London and New York.  

Research Connections  
2022  https://www.researchconnections.org/research-tools/descriptive-statistics. Accessed 

August 2022. 

Rice, Prudence M.  

306 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
2015  Context of Contact and Change: Peripheries, Frontiers, and Boundaries. In Studies in 
Culture Contact: Interaction, Culture Change, and Archaeology, edited by James G. 
Cusick, pp. 44-66. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper No. 25, 
Southern Illinois University Press. 

Rigaud, Jean-Philippe and Jan F. Simek  
1987 

Interpreting Spatial Patterns at the Grotte XV: A Multiple Method Approach. In The 
Interpretation of Archaeological Spatial Patterning, edited by Ellen M. Kroll and T. 
Douglas Price, pp. 199-220. Springer, New York, New York. 

Ritterbush, Lauren W.  
2002a  Leary Site Revisited: Oneota and Central Plains Tradition Occupation along the Lower 

Missouri. Plains Anthropologist 47(182):251-264. 

2002b  Drawn by Bison: Late Prehistoric Native Migration into the Central Plains. Great Plains 

Quarterly 22:259-270. 

2006  Late Prehistoric Oneota in the Central Plains. In Kansas Archaeology, edited by Robert J. 
Hoard and William E. Banks, pp. 151–164. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence. 

Ritterbush, Lauren W. and Brad Logan 
2000  Late Prehistoric Oneota Population Movement into the Central Plains. Plains 

Anthropologist 45(173):257-272. 

Rodell, Roland  
1983  The Late Prehistory of Eastern Wisconsin: A Survey of the Archaeological Research and 
Interpretations Pertaining to Oneota Settlement and Subsistence. Master’s Thesis, 
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee. 

2000  Patterns of Oneota Settlement Within the Middle Portion of the Upper Mississippi 

Valley. In Mounds, Modoc, and Mesoamerica: Papers in Honor of Melvin L. Fowler, 
edited by S.R. Ahler, pp. 375-404. Illinois Papers Vol. XXVIII, Springfield, Illinois.  

Rogers, J. Daniel  
1995  The Archaeological Analysis of Domestic Organization. In Mississippian Communities 
and Households, edited by J. Daniel Rogers and Bruce D. Smith, pp. 7-31. University of 
Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.  

Rossignol, Jacqueline  
1992  Concepts, Methods, and Theory Building: A Landscape Approach. In Space, Time, and 

Archaeological Landscapes, edited by Jacqueline Rossignol and LuAnn Wandsnider, pp. 
3-19. Plenum Press, New York. 

Rouse, Irving  
1986  Migrations in Prehistory: Inferring Population Movement from Cultural Remains. Yale 

University Press, New Haven. 

307 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sankey, Temuulen Tsagaan  
2017  Statistical Descriptions of Spatial Patterns. In: Shekhar S., Xiong H., Zhou X. (eds) 

Encyclopedia of GIS. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17885-1_1351. 

Santure, Sharon K.  
1981  The changing community plan of Settlement C. In The Orendorf site preliminary working 
papers, edited by Duane Esarey and Lawrence A. Conrad, pp. 5-80. Western Illinois 
University, Macomb. 

Santure, Sharon K., Alan D. Harn, and Duane Esarey 
1990  Archaeological Investigations at the Morton Village and Norris Farms 36 Cemetery. 
Illinois State Museum Reports of Investigations No. 45. Illinois State Museum, 
Springfield. 

Schiffer, Michael B.  
1987  Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. University of New Mexico Press, 

Albuquerque. 

Schneider, Seth A. and Natalie A. Carpiaux  
2020 

Identities in Clay: Displays of Group Identity on Pottery from Oneota Villages on Lake 
Koshkonong. Midwest Archaeological Conference, Inc. Occasional Papers 4: 47-62. 

Schroeder, Sissel  
2004  Current Research on Late Precontact Societies of the Midcontinental United States. 

Journal of Archaeological Research 12:311-372. 

Shennan, Stephen J.  
1989 

Introduction. In Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity, edited by Stephen J. 
Shennan, pp. 1-30. Routledge Publishing, London and New York. 

Silliman, Stephen W.  
2013  What, Where, and When is Hybridity? In The Archaeology of Hybrid Material Culture, 

Occasional Paper 39, edited by Jeb J. Card, pp. 486-500. Center for Archaeological, 
Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. 

Silva, Nikki, Jodie A. O’Gorman, and Michael D. Conner 
2014 

Implications of Recent Radiocarbon Dating at Norris Farms 36 Cemetery and Morton 
Village. Paper Presented at the 60th Annual Midwest Archaeological Conference, 
Champaign. 

Smith, Bruce D. 
1986  The Archaeology of the Southeastern United States: From Dalton to De Soto. 10,500-500 

B.P. In Advances in World Archaeology, edited by Fred Wendorf and A. E. Close, pp. 1-
92. Academic, New York.  

Smith, Hale G.  

308 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1951  The Crable Site, Fulton County, Illinois. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. 

Staeck, John 
1995  Oneota Archaeology Past, Present, and Future: In the Beginning, Again. In Oneota 

Archaeology Past, Present, and Future, edited by William Green, pp. 3-18. Office of the 
State Archaeologist: University of Iowa, Iowa City. 

Stanish, Charles  
1989  Household Archaeology: Testing Models of Zonal Complementarity in the South Central 

Andes. American Anthropologist 91(1):7-24. 

Steadman, Dawnie Wolfe  
1998  The Population Shuffle in the Central Illinois Valley: A Diachronic Model of 
Mississippian Biocultural Interactions. World Archaeology 30:306-326. 

2008  Warfare related trauma at Orendorf, a middle Mississippian site in west-central Illinois. 

American Journal of Physical Anthropology 136(1):51-64.  

Steadman, Sharon R. 
2015  Archaeology of Domestic Architecture and the Human Use of Space. Routledge, London, 

United Kingdom. 

Steponaitis, Vincas 
1986  Prehistoric Archaeology in the Southeastern United States, 1970-1985. Annual Review of 

Anthropology 15: 363-404.  

Sterry, Martin  
2018  Multivariate and Spatial Visualization of Archaeological Assemblages, Internet 
Archaeology 50. https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.50.15. Accessed November, 2022. 

Stockhammer, Philipp W.  
2012  Conceptualizing Cultural Hybridization in Archaeology. In Conceptualizing Cultural 

Hybridization: A Transdisciplinary Approach, edited by Philipp W. Stockhammer, pp. 
43-58. Springer Publishing, New York. 

Stone, Anne C.  
1996  Genetic and Mortuary Analysis of a Prehistoric Native American Community. PhD 

Dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University. 

Stone, Tammy  
2008  Transformation during the Process of Aggregation. In Cultural Transmission and 

Archaeology: Issues and Case Studies, edited by Michael John O’Brien, pp. 158-163. 
Society for American Archaeology.  

Stone, Anne C. and Mark Stoneking  
1993  Ancient DNA from a pre-Columbian Amerindian population. American Journal of 

309 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Physical Anthropology 92:463-471. 

1998  mtDNA Analysis of a Prehistoric Oneota Population: Implications for the Peopling of the 

New World. The American Journal of Human Genetics 62:1153-1170. 

1999  Analysis of Ancient DNA from a Prehistoric Amerindian Cemetery [And Discussion]. 

Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences 354(1379):153-159. 

Strezewski, Michael 
2006  Patterns of interpersonal violence at the Fisher site. Midcontinental Journal of 

Archaeology 31(2):249-279. 

Sullivan, Lynne P. and Michaelyn S. Harle  
2010  Mortuary Practices and Cultural Identity at the Turn of the Sixteenth Century in Eastern 

Tennessee. In Mississippian Mortuary Practices: Beyond Hierarchy and the 
Representationist Perspective, edited by Lynn P. Sullivan and Robert C. Mainfort Jr., pp. 
234-249. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 

Tabor, Philip  
1976  Analyzing Communication Patterns. In The Architecture of Form, edited by Lionel 

March, pp. 284-351. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.  

Tainter, Joseph A.  
2019  Cahokia: Urbanization, Metabolism, and Collapse. Frontiers in Sustainable Cities 1. 

Thomas, Nicholas  
1991  Entangled Objects: Exchange, Material Culture, and Colonialism in the Pacific. Harvard 

University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 

Thomas, Julian  
2004  The Great Dark Book: Archaeology, Experience and Interpretation. In A Companion to 
Archaeology, edited by John L. Bintliff, pp. 21-36. Wiley-Blackwell, Maiden, 
Massachusetts. 

Tilley, Christopher  
1994  A Phenomenology of Landscape: Places, Paths, and Monuments. Berg Publishers, 

Oxford. 

Tiffany, Joseph A. 
1979  An Overview of Oneota Sites in Southeastern Iowa: A Perspective from the Ceramic 

Analysis of the Schmeiser Site, 13DM101, Des Moines County, Iowa. Proceedings of the 
Iowa Academy of Science 86:89-101. 

Tobler, Waldo R.  
1970  A Computer Movie Simulating Urban Growth in the Detroit Region. Economic 

Geography, Supplement; Proceedings, International Geographical Union Commission on 

310 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quantitative Methods 46(234-240).  

Trabert, Sarah 
2015  Plural Communities on the Plains: Dismal River People and the Puebloan Diaspora. 

PhD Dissertation, University of Iowa. Iowa City, IA. 

2017  Considering the indirect effects of colonialism: Example from a Great Plains middle 

ground. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 48: 17-27. 

Trabert, Sarah, Margaret E. Beck, and Matthew E Hill 
2016  The Long Path to Kansas: Puebloan Migrants and Apachean Residents. Newsletter of the 

New Mexico Archeological Council (2016-2):6-11.  

Trabert, Sarah, Matthew E. Hill Jr., and Margaret E. Beck 
2023  Movement or Diaspora? Understanding a Multigenerational Puebloan and Ndee 
Community on the Central Great Plains. Open Archaeology 9(1):1-20. 

Trigger, Bruce G. 
1989  A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 

Tsakirgis, Barbara  
1996  Houses and Households. American Journal of Archaeology 100:777-781. 

Tuck, James A.  
1971  Onondaga Iroquois Prehistory: A Study in Settlement Archaeology. Syracuse University 

Press, Syracuse. 

Tylor, Edward B.  
1920 [1871]  Primitive Culture: Research into the Development of Mythology, Philosophy, 

Religion, Art, and Custom, Volume 2. John Murray, London. 

United States Department of Agriculture  
2022  Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of 

Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. Available online at the following link: 
http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/. Accessed July 26, 2022. 

Upton, Andrew J.  
2019  Multilayer Network Relationships and Culture Contact in Mississippian West-Central 
Illinois, A.D. 1200-1450. PhD Dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing. 

Upton, Andrew J., William A. Lovis, and Gerald R. Urquhart  
2015  An empirical test of shell tempering as an alkaline agent in the nixtamalization process. 

Journal of Archaeological Science 62:39-44. 

Urry, John  
1985  Social Relations, Space and Time. In Social Relations and Spatial Structures, edited by 

311 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Derek Gregory and John Urry, pp. 20-48. St. Martin’s Press, New York. 

VanDerwarker, Amber M., and Gregory D. Wilson  
2016  War, Food, and Structural Violence in the Mississippian Central Illinois Valley. In The 
Archaeology of Food and Warfare: Food Insecurity in Prehistory, edited by Amber M. 
VanDerwarker and Gregory D. Wilson, pp. 75-105. Springer Publishing, New York. 

VanDerwarker, Amber M., Dana N. Bardolph, and C. Margaret Scarry  
2017  Maize and Mississippian Beginnings. Mississippian beginnings, from emergence to 

beginnings. In Mississippian Beginnings, edited by Gregory D. Wilson, pp. 1-28. 
University of Florida Press, Gainesville. 

VanDerwarker, A. M., Wilson, Gregory D., & Bardolph, Dana N.  
2013  Maize Adoption and Intensification in the Central Illinois River Valley: an Analysis of 
Archaeobotanical Data From the Late Woodland To Early Mississippian Periods (A.D. 
600–1200). Southeastern Archaeology 32:147-168. 

Voss, Barbara  
2008  Ethnogenesis and the Archaeology of Identity. In The Archaeology of Ethnogenesis: Race 
and Sexuality in Colonial San Francisco, pp. 9-37. University of California Press, 
Berkeley and Los Angeles. 

Walker, John H.  
2012  Recent Landscape Archaeology in South America. Journal of Archaeological Research 

20:309-355. 

Wedel, Mildred Mott  
1959  Oneota Sites on the Upper Iowa River. The Missouri Archaeologist, Vol. 21. 

Weik, Terrance M.  
2014  The Archaeology of Ethnogenesis. Annual Review of Anthropology 43:291-305. 

Wheatley, David  
2004  Making space for an archaeology of place. Internet Archaeology 15. 

https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.15.10. 

Whitridge, Peter  
2004  Landscapes, Houses, Bodies, Things: “Place” and the Archaeology of Inuit Imaginaries. 

Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 11:213-250. 

Wilk, Richard R. and William L. Rathje  
1982  Household Archaeology. American Behavioral Scientist 25:617-639. 

Willey, Gordon R., and James L. Phillips  
1958  Archaeological Unit Concepts. In Method and Theory in American Archaeology, edited 
by R. Lee Lyman and Michael J. O’Brien, pp. 11-78. University of Chicago Press, 

312 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chicago. 

Willey, Gordon R. and Jeremy A. Sabloff  
1993  A History of American Archaeology. W H Freeman & Co, New York. 

Wilson, Gregory D.  
1999  The Production and Consumption of Mississippian Fineware in the American Bottom. 

Southeastern Archaeology 18:98-109. 

2008  The Archaeology of Everyday Life at Early Moundville, Vol. 1. The University of 

Alabama Press Tuscaloosa. 

2012  Living with War: The Impact of Chronic Violence in the Mississippian-Period Central 
Illinois River Valley. In The Oxford Handbook of North American Archaeology, edited 
by Timothy R. Pauketat, pp. 423-533. Oxford University Press, Oxford. 

Wilson, Gregory D. and Bee Geiger 
2019  Community Layout and Occupational History. In Orendorf Settlement D: A Burned 

Fortified Mississippian Town in the Central Illinois River Valley, edited by Lawrence A. 
Conrad, Kjersti E. Emerson, Thomas E. Emerson, and Duane E. Esarey, pp. 91-118. 
Research Report No. 50, Illinois State Archaeological Survey, Prairie Research Institute, 
University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign. 

Wilson, Gregory D. and Mallory A. Melton 
2019  Features. In Orendorf Settlement D: A Burned Fortified Mississippian Town in the 

Central Illinois River Valley, pp. 63-90. Research Report No. 50, Illinois State 
Archaeological Survey, Prairie Research Institute, University of Illinois at Urbana 
Champaign. 

Wilson, Gregory D. and Lynne P. Sullivan  
2017  Mississippian beginnings, from emergence to beginnings. In Mississippian Beginnings, 
edited by Gregory D. Wilson, pp. 1-28. University of Florida Press, Gainesville. 

Wilson, Gregory D., and VanDerwarker, Amber M.  
2015  The functional dimensions of earth oven cooking: An analysis of an accidently burned 
maize roast at the C.W. Cooper site in West-central Illinois. Journal of Field 
Archaeology 40:166-175. 

Wilson, Gregory D., Colleen M. Delaney, and Phillip G. Millhouse  
2017  The Mississippianization of the Illinois and Apple River Valleys. In Mississippian 
Beginnings, edited by Gregory D. Wilson, pp. 97-129. University of Florida Press, 
Gainesville. 

Wilson, Gregory D., Mallory A. Melton, and Amber M. VanDerwarker  
2018  Reassessing the chronology of the Mississippian Central Illinois River Valley using 

Bayesian analysis. Southeastern Archaeology 37(1):22-38.  

313 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Wilson, Jeremy J.  
2010  Modeling Life Through Death in Late Prehistoric West-Central Illinois: An Assessment 

of Paleodemographic and Paleoepidemiological Variability. PhD Dissertation, Iowa 
State University, Ames. 

Withrow, Randall M. (editor) 
2001 

(ed.) Paleoindian, Archaic, and Woodland Period Occupations on the Wever Terrace. 
Archaeological Data Recovery for the U.S. 61 Wever Bypass, Lee County, Iowa, DE-61-
1(24)--2A-56, Volume II. Prepared for the Iowa Department of Transportation, Ames, 
Iowa. Prepared by The Louis Berger Group, Inc., Marion, Iowa.  

2004a  (ed.) Oneota Occupations on the Wever Terrace. Archaeological Data Recovery for the 
U.S. 61 Wever Bypass, Lee County, Iowa, DE-61-1(24)--2A-56, Volume III. Prepared 
for the Iowa Department of Transportation, Ames, Iowa. Prepared by The Louis Berger 
Group, Inc., Marion, Iowa.  

2004b  Introduction to Volume III. In Oneota Occupations on the Wever Terrace. 

Archaeological Data Recovery for the U.S. 61 Wever Bypass, Lee County, Iowa, DE-61-
1(24)--2A-56, Volume III, pp. 1-16. Prepared for the Iowa Department of Transportation, 
Ames, Iowa. Prepared by The Louis Berger Group, Inc., Marion, Iowa. 

2004c  Site Contexts and Chronology. In Oneota Occupations on the Wever Terrace. 

Archaeological Data Recovery for the U.S. 61 Wever Bypass, Lee County, Iowa, DE-61-
1(24)--2A-56, Volume III, pp. 58-99. Prepared for the Iowa Department of 
Transportation, Ames, Iowa. Prepared by The Louis Berger Group, Inc., Marion, Iowa. 

Wobst, H. Martin  
1977  Stylistic Behavior and Information Exchange. In For the Director: Research Essays in 
Honor of James B. Griffin, edited by Charles E. Cleland, pp. 317-342. Anthropological 
Papers No. 61. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 

Wylie, Alison  
1989  Archaeological Cables and Tacking: The Implications of Practice for Bernstein’s 

“Options beyond Objectivism and Relativism.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 19:1-
18. 

Yaeger, Jason and Marcello A. Canuto  
2000 

Introducing an Archaeology of Communities. In The Archaeology of Communities: A 
New World Perspective, edited by Marcello A. Canuto and Jason Yaeger, pp. 1-14. 
Psychology Press, East Sussex. 

Yann, Jessica, Jeffrey Painter, and Michael Conner  
2015   The Spatial Distribution of Domestic Facilities in the Multiethnic Morton Village Site. 
Poster Presented at the 80th Annual Society for American Archaeology Conference, San 
Francisco. 

314 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Yao, Alice  
2012  Sarmatian Mirrors and Han Ingots (100 BC – AD 100): How the Foreign became Local 

and Vice Versa. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 22(1):57-70. 

Yerkes, Richard W.  
1983  Microwear, Microdrills, and Mississippian Craft Specialization. American Antiquity 

48:499-518. 

315 

 
 
 
APPENDIX A: COMPARATIVE LANDSCAPE SITES 

Table A.1: Oneota Site Points 

Site Name 

Site No. 

Topographic 
Location 

Perennial 
Drainage 
Distance 

Soil Type 

Perennial 
Drainage  

Olson 

47LC76 

flood plain 

Grant Village 
Harriman/Indian 
Hill 
Burkes 

13AM201 

bluff top 

13CY1 

bluff top 

13AM14 

Fish Farm 

13AM46 

Flatiron Terrace 

13AM1 

Gang Village 
Hays Farm 

13AM63 
13AM10 

Hesters Place 

13AM2A 

terrace 

terrace 

terrace 

terrace 
terrace 

terrace 

0.88 

0.4 

0.48 

0.07 

1.42 

0.1 

0.13 
0.88 

0.16 

loamy 
sand 
loam 
silty clay 
loam 
sand 
loamy 
sand 

loamy 

silt loam 
silt loam 
sand 
gravel 

creek 

river 

river 

creek 

river 

river 

creek 
river 

river 

Malone Terrace 

O'Regan Buhlman 
Terrace 

13AM6, 
60 

terrace 

0.1 

silt loam 

creek 

13AM21 

terrace 

0.23 

silt loam 

river 

Old Bockus Place 

13AM18A 

Old Flynn Place 

13AM7 

Sand Cove 

13AM23 

Weymiller Village 

Woolstrom Village 

13AM42 
13AM61, 
188 

ZiemansFarmSite1  13AM12A 

Correctionville 

13WD6 

Cross Valley/ 
Gothier 

13WD3, 
219 

Dixon 

13WD8 

Bastian 

13CK28 

0.1 

0.16 

0.9 

0.6 

0.04 

0.1 

0.21 

0.54 

0.14 

0.31 

loamy 
sand 
silt loam 
loamy 
sand 
sand 

silt loam 

silt loam 
sand 
gravel 
silt clay 
loam 
silt clay 
loam 
loam 

creek 

creek 

creek 

creek 

creek 

creek 

river 

river 

river 

creek 

terrace 

terrace 

terrace 

terrace 

terrace 

terrace 

terrace 

terrace 

terrace 

terrace 

316 

 
Table A.1 (cont’d) 

Site Name 

Site No. 

Topographic 
Location 

Perennial 
Drainage 
Distance 

Soil Type 

Perennial 
Drainage  

Christenson 

13PK407 

terrace 

Clarkson 
Cribbs Crib 
Leftwick 

13WA2 

flood plain 

13WA105 

terrace 

Gillet Grove 

13CY2 

bluff top 

Goodhue Farm 
Kelley 
Kingston 

Patterson Cornell 

McKinney 

13PK1 
13DM140 
13DM3 
13DM68, 
294 
13LA1 

flood plain 
terrace 
bluff top 

bluff top 

terrace 

Milford 

13DK1 

bluff top 

13LE59, 
110, 117 
13LO2 

11CK21 

terrace 

terrace 

terrace 

Wever Terrace 

Blood Run 

Anker 

Forest Home 
Cemetery 

0.05 

0.39 

0.41 

0.5 

0.67 
1.02 
4.73 

0.66 

0.95 

0.46 

0.78 

0.05 

0.07 

silty clay 
loam 
silt loam 
silty clay 
loam 
silty clay 
loam 
loam 
loam 
silt loam 

silt loam 

silt loam 
sandy 
loam 
loamy 
sand 
silt loam 
silty clay 
loam 

river 

river 

river 

river 

river 
river 
river 

creek 

river 

creek 

creek 

creek 

river 

11CK36 

flood plain 

0.22 

silt loam 

river 

Hoxie Farm 

11CK4 

terrace 

Huber 

11CK1 

terrace 

JoeLouis 
Oak Forest 
Rinkenberger 
Feltes 
Washington Irving 

11CK284 
11CK53 
11CK142 
11K50 
11K52 

terrace 
terrace 
bluff top 
bluff top 
flood plain 

Fisher 

11WI5 

flood plain 

Grant Creek 

11WI2739 

terrace 

Gentleman Farm 

11LS27 

flood plain 

0.16 

0.15 

0.07 
1.16 
0.67 
0.76 
0.07 

0.21 

0.25 

0.03 

loamy 
sand 
loamy 
sand 
silt loam 
silt loam 
silt loam 
silt loam 
silt loam 

loamy 

silt loam 

silt loam 

creek 

creek 

river 
creek 
creek 
river 
creek 

river 

creek 

river 

317 

 
Table A.1 (cont’d) 

Site Name 

Site No. 

Topographic 
Location 

Perennial 
Drainage 
Distance 

Soil Type 

Perennial 
Drainage  

Langford 

11WO23 

flood plain 

Filler 
Jim Braun 
Lee 

47LC149 
47LC59 
47LC390 

flood plain 
flood plain 
flood plain 

Midway 

47LC19 

terrace 

0.09 

0.66 
0.9 
0.29 

0.19 

sandy 
loam 
fill 
sand 
silt loam 
loamy 
sand 

river 

creek 
river 
creek 

creek 

47LC432 

flood plain 

1.8 

sand 

creek 

New Road Meier 
Farm 
Onalaska Village 
Cemetery 
OT 

47LC288 

terrace 

47LC262 

terrace 

Overhead 

47LC20 

flood plain 

Pammel Creek 

47LC61 

Sand Lake 
Sanford 
Swennes 

47LC44 
47LC394 
47LC333 

Tremaine 

47LC95 

terrace 

terrace 
terrace 
terrace 

terrace 

Valley View 
Entire Road 
Furman 
Grignon 
Karow 
Lasleys Point 

47LC34 
47WN562 
47WN216 
47WN118 
47WN57 
47WN96 

terrace 
flood plain 
terrace 
flood plain 
terrace 
terrace 

Mary Nichols 

47WN56 

terrace 

McCauley 

47WN222 

terrace 

Overton Meadow 

47WN106 

flood plain 

Sauer Resort 
Sherman 
Blue Heron 
Carcajou Point 

47WN207 
47WN228 
47JE1001 
47JE2 

flood plain 
flood plain 
terrace 
bluff top 

318 

0.31 

0.16 

0.23 

0.07 

1.81 
0.3 
0.15 

0.16 

0.09 
0.06 
0.15 
0.19 
0.06 
0.25 

0.11 

0.03 

0.09 

0.1 
0.14 
0.42 
0.31 

urban 

fill 
loamy 
sand 
loamy 
sand 
silt loam 
urban 
silt loam 
loamy 
sand 
sand 
clay loam 
silt loam 
sand 
silt loam 
silt loam 
silty clay 
loam 
silt loam 
silty clay 
loam 
sand 
silt loam 
silt loam 
loam 

creek 

creek 

creek 

creek 

creek 
river 
creek 

creek 

river 
lake 
lake 
lake 
lake 
lake 

lake 

lake 

creek 

lake 
lake 
lake 
lake 

 
Table A.1 (cont’d) 

Site Name 

Site No. 

Topographic 
Location 

Perennial 
Drainage 
Distance 

Soil Type 

Perennial 
Drainage  

Crescent Bay Hunt 
Club 
Koshkonong Creek 

47JE904 

bluff top 

47JE379 

flood plain 

Point Sauble 

47BR101 

flood plain 

Sensiba 

Adams 

47BR163 

flood plain 

47PI12 

bluff top 

Diamond Bluff 
Armstrong 

47PI132 
47PE12 

Burley Brew 

47PT159 

terrace 
terrace 

terrace 

Bornick 

47MQ65 

flood plain 

Fisher Mounds 

47VE825 

terrace 

Mero 

Pipe 

Shrake Gillies 

47DR83 
47FD10, 
13 
47TR44 

flood plain 

flood plain 

flood plain 

Walker Hooper 

47GL65 

bluff top 

Zarling Lake 

47FR186 

bluff top 

0.3 

0.09 

0.09 

0.36 

0.28 

0.45 
0.96 

0.23 

2.55 

0.14 

0.02 

0.12 

1.03 

0.43 

0.21 

silt loam 

silt loam 
loamy 
sand 
muck 
sandy 
loam 
silt loam 
sand 
sandy 
loam 
loamy 
sand 
loamy 
sand 
sand 

lake 

creek 

lake 

river 

river 

river 
river 

river 

river 

river 

lake 

silt loam 

creek 

sand 
sandy 
loam 
loamy 
sand 

river 

river 

lake 

319 

 
 
 
 
Table A.2: Middle Mississippian Site Points 

Site Name 

Site No. 

Topographic 
Location 

Albert Young 
Anderson 
Audrey 
Baker Preston 
Booker Mound 
Brammael 
Buckeye Bend 
Bushnell Hollow 
Clear Lake 
Closser 
Coultas 
Crable 
Crabtree 
CW Cooper 

11A43 
11PK1068 
11GE20 
11F20 
11PK867 
11PK120 
11F310 
11GE488 
11T1 
11GE26 
11PK74 
11F249 
11BR5 
11BR10 

flood plain 
flood plain 
terrace 
bluff top 
terrace 
bluff top 
flood plain 
terrace 
bluff top 
flood plain 
flood plain 
bluff top 
bluff top 
bluff top 

Emmons 

11F218 

flood plain 

Ester Berry 
Eveland 
Fandel 
Fiedler 
Floyds 
Fouts 
Frederick 

11F13_332 
11F353 
11WD4 
11F356 
11HA62 
11F164 
11SC11 

bluff top 
terrace 
flood plain 
bluff top 
flood plain 
bluff top 
bluff top 

Golarte 

11MN7 

terrace 

Hildenmeyer/Ten 
Mile Creek 
Housing Unit Site 
Houston Shyrock 
John Chapman 
Koster 
Larson 
Lawrenz Gun 
Club 

11T2 

flood plain 

11C24 
11F114 
11JD12 
11GE4 
11F3 

bluff top 
bluff top 
terrace 
terrace 
bluff top 

11CS4 

flood plain 

Perennial 
Drainage 
Distance 
0.14 
1.93 
0.09 
1.37 
0.06 
0.2 
0.09 
1.2 
0.91 
0.06 
3.1 
0.74 
0.31 
0.43 

0.99 

0.72 
0.24 
0.24 
0.89 
0.14 
0.2 
0.9 

0.07 

0.17 

0.98 
1.32 
0.16 
1.64 
0.38 

0.77 

Lyons 

11PK1051 

flood plain 

0.27 

Soil Type 

Perennial 
Drainage 

silt loam 
silt loam 
sand 
silt loam 
silt loam 
silt loam 
loam 
silt loam 
sand 
silt loam 
loam 
silt loam 
silt loam 
silt loam 
silty clay 
loam 
silt loam 
silt loam 
loam 
silt loam 
silt loam 
silt loam 
silt loam 
loamy 
sand 
sandy 
loam 
silt loam 
silt loam 
silt loam 
silt loam 
silt loam 

sand 

silty clay 
loam 

creek 
creek 
creek 
creek 
creek 
creek 
river 
creek 
river 
creek 
creek 
creek 
creek 
creek 

creek 

creek 
creek 
creek 
river 
river 
creek 
river 

river 

creek 

river 
river 
river 
creek 
river 

river 

river 

320 

 
Table A.2 (cont’d) 

Site Name 

Site No. 

Topographic 
Location 

Mark Seeman 

11JD140 

terrace 

McKinley 

11F55 

bluff top 

Mills Group 
Noble Wieting 
Oetting 
Orendorf 
PCWD1 
Phantom 

11JD11 
11ML24 
11PK1084 
11F1284 
11PK1512 
11C85 

flood plain 
flood plain 
flood plain 
bluff top 
flood plain 
flood plain 

Raskamp Group 

11F110_99_100 

bluff top 

Sister Creeks 
Sleeth 
Star Bridge 
Sybl Walsh 
Tree Row 
Weaver 
Whiteside 
Williams/Kingston 
Lake 

11F15 
11F48 
11BR17 
11BR11 
11F53 
11F61 
11GE1 

terrace 
bluff top 
terrace 
bluff top 
terrace 
terrace 
flood plain 

11P15_11 

flood plain 

Perennial 
Drainage 
Distance 
0.07 

1.2 

0.06 
0.24 
0.26 
0.7 
0.51 
0.51 

0.36 

0.21 
0.72 
0.42 
0.55 
1.56 
1.85 
2.86 

0.52 

Soil Type 

Perennial 
Drainage 

silt loam 
silty clay 
loam 
silt loam 
silt loam 
silt loam 
silt loam 
silt loam 
silt loam 

river 

river 

river 
creek 
creek 
creek 
creek 
river 

silt loam 

creek 

silt loam 
silt loam 
silt loam 
silt loam 
silt loam 
silt loam 
silt loam 

loamy 

creek 
creek 
river 
creek 
river 
river 
river 

river 

321 

 
 
 
APPENDIX B: LANDSCAPE CHAPTER FREQUENCIES 

Table B.1: Oneota Sites, Perennial Drainage Distance 

Value 
<0.5 mile 
0.5-1.0 mile 
>1.0 mile 
Total 

Frequency 
65 
14 
8 
87 

Percent 
74.7 
16.1 
9.2 
100.0 

Table B.2: Oneota Sites, Topographic Location 

Value 
Bluff top 
Flood plain 
Terrace 
Total 

Frequency 
13 
25 
49 
87 

Percent 
14.9 
28.7 
56.3 
100.0 

Table B.3: Oneota Sites, Perennial Drainage Type 

Value 
Creek 
River 
Lake 
Total 

Value 
Loam 
Sand 
Other 
Total 

Value 
IRV 
Lake 
MRV 
Other 
Total 

Frequency 
35 
37 
15 
87 

Table B.4: Oneota Sites, Soil Type 

Frequency 
55 
27 
5 
87 

Percent 
40.2 
42.5 
17.2 
100.0 

Percent 
63.2 
31.0 
5.7 
100.0 

Table B.5: Oneota Sites, River Valley 

Percent 
11.5 
19.5 
47.1 
21.8 
100.0 

Frequency 
10 
17 
41 
19 
87 

322 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table B.6: Middle Mississippian Sites, Perennial Drainage Distance 

Value 
<0.5 mile 
0.5-1.0 mile 
>1.0 mile 
Total 

Frequency 
24 
14 
10 
48 

Percent 
50.0 
29.2 
20.8 
100.0 

Table B.7: Middle Mississippian Sites, Topographic Location 

Value 
Bluff top 
Flood plain 
Terrace 
Total 

Frequency 
18 
18 
12 
48 

Percent 
37.5 
37.5 
25.0 
100.0 

Table B.8: Middle Mississippian Sites, Perennial Drainage Type 

Value 
Creek 
River 
Total 

Frequency 
27 
21 
48 

Percent 
56.3 
43.8 
100.0 

Table B.9: Middle Mississippian Sites, Soil Type 

Value 
Loam 
Silt loam 
Silty clay loam 
Sand  
Total 

Frequency 
5 
36 
3 
4 
48 

Percent 
10.4 
75.0 
6.3 
8.3 
100.0 

Table B.10: Middle Mississippian Sites, River Valley 

Value 
CIRV 
LIRV 
MRV 
Total 

Frequency 
29 
9 
10 
48 

Percent 
60.4 
18.8 
20.8 
100.0 

323 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
APPENDIX C: LANDSCAPE CHAPTER CROSS TABULATION RESULTS 

Table C.1: Oneota Sites Crosstabulation, Perennial Drainage Distance by Perennial Drainage 
Type 

<0.5 mile 
0.5-1.0 mile 
>1.0 mile 
Total 

Creek 
25 
7 
3 
35 

River 
25 
7 
5 
37 

Lake 
15 
0 
0 
15 

Total 
65 
14 
8 
87 

 Table C.2:  Oneota Sites Crosstabulation, Perennial Drainage Distance by Topographic 
Location 

<0.5 mile 
0.5-1.0 mile 
>1.0 mile 
Total 

Bluff top 
8 
4 
1 
13 

Flood plain 
18 
4 
3 
25 

Terrace 
39 
6 
4 
49 

Total 
65 
14 
8 
87 

Table C.3: Oneota Sites Crosstabulation, Perennial Drainage Distance by River Valley Location 

<0.5 mile 
0.5-1.0 mile 
>1.0 mile 
Total 

IRV 
8 
1 
1 
10 

Lake 
17 
0 
0 
17 

MRV 
26 
9 
6 
41 

Other 
14 
4 
1 
19 

Total 
65 
14 
8 
87 

 Table C.4:  Oneota Sites Crosstabulation, Perennial Drainage Distance by Soil Type 

<0.5 mile 
0.5-1.0 mile 
>1.0 mile 
Total 

Loam 
44 
7 
4 
55 

Sand 
17 
6 
4 
27 

Other 
4 
1 
0 
5 

Total 
65 
14 
8 
87 

Table C.5:  Oneota Sites Crosstabulation, Perennial Drainage Type by Topographic Location 

Creek 
River 
Lake 
Total 

Bluff top 
3 
7 
3 
13 

Flood plain 
9 
10 
6 
25 

324 

Terrace 
23 
20 
6 
49 

Total 
35 
37 
15 
87 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table C.6: Oneota Sites Crosstabulation, Perennial Drainage Type by River Valley Location 

Creek 
River 
Lake 
Total 

IRV 
5 
5 
0 
10 

Lake 
3 
1 
13 
17 

MRV 
22 
19 
0 
41 

Other 
5 
12 
2 
19 

Total 
35 
37 
15 
87 

Table C.7: Oneota Sites Crosstabulation, Perennial Drainage Type by Soil Type 

Creek 
River 
Lake 
Total 

Loam 
19 
26 
10 
55 

Sand 
13 
9 
5 
27 

Other 
3 
2 
0 
5 

Total 
35 
37 
15 
87 

Table C.8: Oneota Sites Crosstabulation, Topographic Location by River Valley Location 

Bluff top 
Flood plain 
Terrace 
Total 

IRV 
1 
3 
6 
10 

Lake 
2 
9 
6 
17 

MRV 
5 
8 
28 
41 

Other 
5 
5 
9 
19 

Total 
13 
25 
49 
87 

Table C.9: Oneota Sites Crosstabulation, Topographic Location by Soil Type 

Bluff top 
Flood plain 
Terrace 
Total 

Loam 
12 
13 
30 
55 

Sand 
1 
10 
16 
27 

Other 
0 
2 
3 
5 

Total 
13 
25 
49 
87 

Table C.10: Oneota Sites Crosstabulation, River Valley Location by Soil Type 

IRV 
Lake 
MRV 
Other 
Total 

Loam 
8 
12 
18 
17 
55 

Other 
0 
0 
5 
0 
5 

Total 
10 
17 
41 
19 
87 

Sand 
2 
5 
18 
2 
27 

325 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table C.11: Middle Mississippian Sites Crosstabulation, Perennial Drainage Distance by 
Perennial Drainage Type 

<0.5 mile 
0.5-1.0 mile 
>1.0 mile 
Total 

Creek 
15 
7 
5 
27 

River 
9 
7 
5 
21 

Total 
24 
14 
10 
48 

Table C.12: Middle Mississippian Sites Crosstabulation, Perennial Drainage Distance by 
Topographic Location 

<0.5 mile 
0.5-1.0 mile 
>1.0 mile 
Total 

Bluff top 
6 
9 
3 
18 

Flood plain 
10 
5 
3 
18 

Terrace 
8 
0 
4 
12 

Total 
24 
14 
10 
48 

Table C.13: Middle Mississippian Sites Crosstabulation, Perennial Drainage Distance by River 
Valley Location 

<0.5 mile 
0.5-1.0 mile 
>1.0 mile 
Total 

CIRV 
13 
11 
5 
29 

LIRV 
3 
2 
4 
9 

MRV 
8 
1 
1 
10 

Total 
24 
14 
10 
48 

Table C.14: Middle Mississippian Sites Crosstabulation, Perennial Drainage Distance by Soil 
Type 

<0.5 mile 
0.5-1.0 mile 
>1.0 mile 
Total 

Loam 
22 
12 
10 
44 

Sand 
2 
2 
0 
4 

Total 
24 
14 
10 
48 

Table C.15: Middle Mississippian Sites Crosstabulation, Perennial Drainage Type by 
Topographic Location 

Creek 
River 
Total 

Bluff top 
11 
7 
18 

Flood plain 
10 
8 
18 

Terrace 
6 
6 
12 

Total 
27 
21 
48 

326 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table C.16: Middle Mississippian Sites Crosstabulation, Perennial Drainage Type by River 
Valley Location 

Creek 
River 
Total 

CIRV 
16 
13 
29 

LIRV 
6 
3 
9 

MRV 
5 
5 
10 

Total 
27 
21 
48 

Table C.17: Middle Mississippian Sites Crosstabulation, Perennial Drainage Type by Soil Type 

Creek 
River 
Total 

Loam 
26 
18 
44 

Sand 
1 
3 
4 

Total 
27 
21 
48 

Table C.18: Middle Mississippian Sites Crosstabulation, Topographic Location by River Valley 
Location 

Bluff top 
Flood plain 
Terrace 
Total 

CIRV 
16 
7 
6 
29 

LIRV 
1 
5 
3 
9 

MRV 
1 
6 
3 
10 

Total 
18 
18 
12 
48 

Table C.19: Middle Mississippian Sites Crosstabulation, Topographic Location by Soil Type 

Bluff top 
Flood plain 
Terrace 
Total 

Loam 
17 
17 
10 
44 

Sand 
1 
1 
2 
4 

Total 
18 
18 
12 
48 

Table C.20: Middle Mississippian Sites Crosstabulation, River Valley Location by Soil Type 

CIRV 
LIRV 
MRV 
Total 

Loam 
26 
8 
10 
44 

Sand 
3 
1 
0 
4 

Total 
29 
9 
10 
48 

327 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
APPENDIX D: MORTON VILLAGE DATA 

Table D.1: All Morton Village Structures 

Structure 
No. 

Architecture 
Type 

Magnetometry 
Identification 

Excavated 
(yes or no) 

Perimeter 
(m) 

1 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 

Wall trench 
Indeterminate 
Wall trench 
Single post 
Single post 
Wall trench 
Both 
Single post 
Single post 
Indeterminate 
Indeterminate 
Wall trench 
Single post 
Both 
Wall trench 
Single post 
Single post 
Wall trench 
Both 
Wall trench 
Both 
Wall trench 
Wall trench 
Wall trench 
Wall trench 
Wall trench 
Wall trench 
Wall trench 
Wall trench 
Single post 
Wall trench 
Indeterminate 
Wall trench 

yes 
yes 
yes 
yes 
yes 
yes 
yes 
yes 
yes 
yes 
yes 
yes 
yes 
yes 
yes 
yes 
yes 
yes 
yes 
yes 
yes 
yes 
yes 
yes 
yes 
yes 
yes 
yes 
yes 
yes 
yes 
yes 
yes 

None 
None 
None 
None 
None 
None 
None 
None 
None 
None 
None 
Likely 
None 
Likely 
Likely 
Likely 
None 
Likely 
Likely 
Likely 
Likely 
None 
None 
None 
None 
None 
None 
None 
Likely 
Likely 
Likely 
Possible 
None 

328 

21.7 
14.7 
25.3 
20.6 
25.1 
20.2 
25.4 
25.4 
24.0 
20.8 
20.1 
16.8 
33.3 
27.5 
26.4 
19.7 
8.3 
30.3 
20.2 
25.7 
18.8 
24.4 
24.3 
19.7 
24.3 
17.6 
24.4 
24.4 
24.3 
24.1 
36.9 
16.0 
17.3 

Area 
(m2) 

31.3 
15.9 
45.0 
27.9 
44.7 
29.1 
46.0 
45.5 
40.5 
25.2 
28.4 
20.4 
77.5 
51.1 
51.7 
26.8 
5.3 
65.3 
29.7 
47.8 
24.9 
41.0 
41.5 
26.8 
43.8 
21.3 
41.0 
41.0 
42.5 
40.7 
107.8 
17.4 
20.6 

 
 
 
Structure 
No. 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 

Architecture 
Type 
Indeterminate 
Wall trench 
Wall trench 
Wall trench 
Wall trench 
Wall trench 
Single post 
Single post 
Single post 
Indeterminate 
Single post 
Single post 
Single post 
Single post 
Indeterminate 
Wall trench 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 

Table D.1 (cont’d) 

Excavated 
(yes or no) 
yes 
yes 
yes 
yes 
yes 
yes 
yes 
yes 
yes 
yes 
yes 
yes 
yes 
yes 
yes 
yes 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 

Perimeter 
(m) 
18.9 
26.1 
28.7 
23.6 
24.3 
33.7 
23.0 
23.1 
24.2 
24.0 
23.0 
21.5 
20.3 
27.2 
12.9 
14.3 
21.0 
22.9 
26.7 
20.7 
24.0 
23.7 
14.8 
19.6 
20.5 
18.5 
20.3 
19.0 
20.5 
22.7 
23.0 
18.5 
18.2 
20.1 
21.7 

Area 
(m2) 
24.5 
47.2 
58.0 
37.4 
42.0 
75.5 
39.0 
36.7 
40.5 
35.4 
39.5 
32.0 
29.3 
49.8 
12.5 
12.7 
29.4 
37.3 
48.6 
29.5 
40.0 
39.2 
17.1 
27.2 
30.5 
23.4 
30.5 
24.2 
21.0 
35.6 
35.6 
25.7 
23.2 
29.9 
33.7 

Magnetometry 
Identification 
Possible 
Likely 
Likely 
Likely 
Likely 
Likely 
Likely 
Likely 
Likely 
Likely 
Likely 
Likely 
Likely 
Likely 
Likely 
None 
Likely 
Likely 
Likely 
Likely 
Likely 
Likely 
Likely 
Possible 
Possible 
Likely 
Possible 
Possible 
Likely 
Likely 
Possible 
Possible 
Possible 
Likely 
Possible 

329 

 
Structure 
No. 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 

Architecture 
Type 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 

Table D.1 (cont’d) 

Magnetometry 
Identification 
Likely 
Possible 
Possible 
Possible 
Likely 
Likely 
Possible 
Likely 
Likely 
Likely 
Likely 
Possible 
Likely 
Possible 
Likely 
Likely 
Likely 
Possible 
Possible 
Likely 
Likely 
Likely 
Likely 
Likely 
Possible 
Possible 
Likely 
Likely 
Possible 
Likely 
Likely 
Possible 
Possible 
Possible 
Likely 
Possible 

330 

Excavated 
(yes or no) 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 

Perimeter 
(m) 
21.5 
23.4 
12.7 
20.4 
15.5 
21.4 
15.8 
22.0 
20.8 
25.8 
20.6 
17.2 
22.9 
23.3 
31.8 
27.8 
28.3 
16.0 
18.0 
23.7 
22.0 
16.7 
25.4 
25.3 
24.2 
15.5 
21.1 
27.3 
23.3 
24.9 
19.4 
22.7 
14.0 
19.8 
26.6 
17.7 

Area 
(m2) 
34.1 
39.4 
11.4 
30.4 
17.0 
33.7 
18.5 
34.1 
32.4 
48.2 
30.9 
22.1 
35.7 
38.6 
69.7 
53.6 
51.5 
17.5 
21.7 
41.3 
34.6 
11.4 
45.0 
45.2 
39.5 
17.2 
33.6 
52.5 
37.6 
42.8 
24.1 
37.8 
13.5 
28.0 
50.3 
22.2 

Structure 
No. 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 

Architecture 
Type 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 

Table D.1 (cont’d) 

Magnetometry 
Identification 
Likely 
Likely 
Likely 
Likely 
Likely 
Likely 
Likely 
Likely 
Likely 
Likely 
Likely 
Likely 
Likely 
Likely 
Likely 
Likely 
Possible 
Likely 
Likely 
Likely 
Likely 
Likely 
Likely 
Possible 
Likely 
Likely 
Likely 
Likely 
Likely 
Likely 
Likely 
Likely 
Likely 
Likely 
Likely 
Likely 

331 

Excavated 
(yes or no) 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 
no 

Perimeter 
(m) 
24.7 
25.1 
23.6 
26.2 
19.8 
25.4 
20.5 
30.5 
26.2 
31.8 
23.6 
29.3 
24.1 
26.8 
25.0 
19.6 
22.4 
17.5 
20.1 
29.0 
23.5 
20.6 
19.3 
23.2 
23.5 
24.6 
25.0 
24.9 
19.2 
24.4 
27.8 
20.2 
23.1 
16.9 
23.4 
28.5 

Area 
(m2) 
45.1 
45.6 
39.7 
49.7 
30.4 
46.1 
29.5 
63.4 
50.2 
72.4 
37.5 
60.2 
42.0 
51.6 
44.8 
27.5 
36.7 
22.0 
28.6 
58.3 
37.7 
29.7 
25.4 
37.2 
39.5 
44.0 
44.4 
42.3 
28.2 
41.6 
54.2 
28.6 
37.8 
20.2 
39.0 
56.9 

Table D.1 (cont’d) 

Structure 
No. 
145 
146 
147 

Architecture 
Type 
Unknown 
Unknown 
Unknown 

Magnetometry 
Identification 
Likely 
Likely 
Likely 

Excavated 
(yes or no) 
no 
no 
no 

Perimeter 
(m) 
21.0 
17.7 
11.7 

Area 
(m2) 
32.6 
21.3 
9.0 

332 

 
 
Table D.2: Morton Village Structures included in Analysis 

Structure No. 

Architectural 
Style 

Household 
Pattern 

Ceramic 
Styles 

Burned or 
Unburned 

1 

4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
17 
18 
19 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 

wall trench 

none 

indeterminate 
wall trench 
single post 
single post 
wall trench 
both 
single post 
single post 
indeterminate 
indeterminate 
wall trench 
both 
wall trench 
single post 
indeterminate 
both 
wall trench 
both 
wall trench 
wall trench 
wall trench 
wall trench 
wall trench 
wall trench 
wall trench 
wall trench 
single post 
wall trench 
wall trench 
indeterminate 
wall trench 
wall trench 
wall trench 

grouping 
grouping 
grouping 
grouping 
grouping 
grouping 
grouping 
grouping 
grouping 
grouping 
grouping 
grouping 
multiple 
multiple 
grouping 
multiple 
multiple 
multiple 
grouping 
grouping 
none 
grouping 
none 
grouping 
multiple 
none 
grouping 
multiple 
grouping 
grouping 
multiple 
grouping 
multiple 

333 

middle 
mississippian 
unidentifiable 
unidentifiable 
oneota 
oneota 
oneota 
oneota 
both 
oneota 
oneota 
oneota 
oneota 
unidentifiable 
both 
oneota 
both 
oneota 
oneota 
oneota 
both 
both 
unidentifiable 
oneota 
unidentifiable 
unidentifiable 
unidentifiable 
oneota 
both 
unidentifiable 
unidentifiable 
unidentifiable 
oneota 
unidentifiable 
unidentifiable 

unknown 

unknown 
unknown 
burned 
burned 
unknown 
burned 
burned 
unburned 
unburned 
unknown 
unburned 
burned 
burned 
unknown 
unburned 
unburned 
burned 
unknown 
burned 
burned 
unburned 
unburned 
unburned 
unknown 
burned 
unburned 
burned 
unburned 
unburned 
unknown 
burned 
unknown 
burned 

 
Table D.2 (cont’d) 

Structure No. 

Architectural 
Style 

Household 
Pattern 

Ceramic 
Styles 

Burned or 
Unburned 

41 

42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 

wall trench 

multiple 

wall trench 
single post 
single post 
single post 
indeterminate 
single post 
wall trench 
single post 
wall trench 
single post 
indeterminate 
wall trench 

opening 
grouping 
grouping 
grouping 
grouping 
grouping 
multiple 
multiple 
none 
grouping 
grouping 
none 

middle 
mississippian 
both 
both 
both 
both 
unidentifiable 
oneota 
unidentifiable 
unidentifiable 
oneota 
both 
unidentifiable 
unidentifiable 

burned 

burned 
burned 
unburned 
burned 
burned 
unburned 
unburned 
unburned 
burned 
unburned 
burned 
unknown 

334 

 
 
 
Table D.3: Morton Village Pit Features included in Analysis 

No.   Wt.  Dens. 

Vol. 
(L) 

Area 
(m2) 

Depth 
(m) 

Dep.  Funct.  Context  Style  Shape  Pattern 

10 

2.0 

0.0 

106 

0.3 

0.2 

single  mp 

11 

null 

null 

38 

0.5 

0.1 

single  mp 

12 

null 

null 

13 

0.1 

0.2 

single  mp 

13 

5.2 

0.1 

113 

0.2 

0.3  mult 

cook. 

14 

293.7 

0.3 

972 

2.0 

0.5  mult 

proc. 

15 

654.8 

1.5 

431 

0.9 

0.3 

single  mp 

16 

null 

null 

24 

0.2 

0.1 

single  mp 

ext. 
(>3.4m) 
ext. 
(>3.4m) 

ext. 
(>3.4m) 
ext. 
(>3.4m) 

ext. 
(<3.4m) 

ext. 
(<3.4m) 
ext. 
(>3.4m) 

unid.  basin 

none 

unid.  basin 

none 

unid. 

flat 

none 

mm  basin 

none 

mm 

flat 

none 

mm  basin 

none 

unid.  basin 

none 

17 

10.5 

0.1 

140 

0.4 

0.2 

single  mp 

int. (p)  unid.  basin 

none 

18 

0.3 

0.0 

107 

0.2 

0.2 

single  cook. 

int. (c)  unid.  basin 

none 

19 

26.2 

0.1 

190 

0.2 

0.4  mult 

cook. 

int. (c)  mm  basin 

none 

20 

470.8 

1.6 

288 

0.6 

0.5  mult  mp 

int. (p)  mm 

bell 

none 

21 

235.8 

2.9 

82 

0.3 

0.1 

single  cook. 

22 

102.4 

0.6 

158 

0.4 

0.2  mult  mp 

23 

272.1 

0.4 

647 

0.6 

0.3  mult  mp 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

85.2 

1.5 

55 

0.2 

0.1 

single  mp 

198.5 

0.6 

350 

0.6 

0.3 

single  mp 

57.8 

0.3 

227 

0.6 

0.2  mult  mp 

47.2 

0.4 

0.5 

0.0 

97 

10 

0.3 

0.2 

0.2 

single  mp 

0.1  mult 

cook. 

335 

ext. 
(<3.4m) 

ext. 
(<3.4m) 

ext. 
(>3.4m) 
ext. 
(<3.4m) 
int. (p) 
ext. 
(>3.4m) 

on 

basin 

none 

on 

basin 

none 

on 

basin 

none 

unid.  basin 

none 

on 

basin 

grp. 

on 

flat 

none 

ext. 
(>3.4m) 
int. (p)  unid.  basin 

basin 

on 

grp. 

grp. 

Table D.3 (cont’d) 

No.   Wt.  Dens. 

Vol. 
(L) 

Area 
(m2) 

Depth 
(m) 

Dep.  Funct.  Context  Style  Shape  Pattern 

30 

28.5 

1.1 

26 

0.2 

0.1  mult  mp 

32 

36.7 

0.2 

220 

0.4 

0.3  mult  mp 

33 

35.4 

0.2 

216 

0.6 

0.5 

single  mp 

35 

null 

null 

515 

0.4 

0.3  mult  mp 

36 

6621.5 

10.9  2337 

1.8 

1.0  mult  storage 

37 

500.6 

3.6 

138 

0.6 

0.2 

single  mp 

38 

178.0 

0.5 

324 

0.7 

0.6  mult  mp 

39 

79.2 

0.6 

144 

0.6 

0.1 

single  mp 

40 

174.1 

1.1 

155 

0.4 

0.2  mult  mp 

41 

2.1 

0.0 

347 

0.1 

0.2 

single  mp 

42 

2323.8 

11.7 

198 

1.6 

0.6  mult 

proc. 

43 

12.3 

0.1 

89 

0.3 

0.2 

single  mp 

44 

68.0 

0.4 

156 

0.5 

0.3 

single  mp 

45 

143.6 

0.4 

399 

0.5 

0.2 

single  mp 

46 

484.8 

0.3 

1793 

2.1 

1.0  mult  storage 

47 

48 

49 

271.8 

0.5 

565 

1.7 

0.8  mult 

proc. 

23.9 

0.0 

570 

0.7 

0.4  mult  mp 

202.2 

0.2 

1002 

0.4 

0.6 

single  proc. 

ext. 
(<3.4m) 

ext. 
(<3.4m) 
ext. 
(<3.4m) 

ext. 
(<3.4m) 
ext. 
(<3.4m) 

ext. 
(<3.4m) 
ext. 
(<3.4m) 

ext. 
(<3.4m) 

ext. 
(<3.4m) 
ext. 
(<3.4m) 

ext. 
(<3.4m) 
ext. 
(<3.4m) 

ext. 
(<3.4m) 

ext. 
(>3.4m) 
ext. 
(<3.4m) 

ext. 
(<3.4m) 
int. (p) 
ext. 
(<3.4m) 

on 

flat 

none 

unid.  basin 

none 

unid. 

bell 

none 

unid. 

bell 

none 

both 

bell 

grp. 

both 

flat 

grp. 

on 

flat 

grp. 

unid.  basin 

grp. 

on 

flat 

none 

mm  basin 

none 

on 

flat 

grp. 

unid. 

flat 

grp. 

on 

basin 

grp. 

on 

basin 

grp. 

on 

flat 

grp. 

on 

on 

flat 

flat 

grp. 

grp. 

both  basin 

grp. 

336 

 
Table D.3 (cont’d) 

No.   Wt.  Dens. 

Vol. 
(L) 

Area 
(m2) 

Depth 
(m) 

Dep.  Funct.  Context  Style  Shape  Pattern 

56 

743.0 

1.6 

468 

1.0 

0.2  mult 

proc. 

57 

121.5 

0.7 

170 

1.3 

0.4 

single  proc. 

58 

6.7 

0.1 

104 

0.4 

0.1 

single  mp 

59 

611.6 

1.0 

622 

1.0 

0.3  mult 

proc. 

60 

952.7 

1.7 

565 

0.7 

0.4  mult  mp 

61 

2323.1 

2.0 

1183 

1.7 

0.7  mult 

proc. 

62 

1435.0 

0.8 

1765 

1.7 

0.5  mult 

proc. 

63 

304.0 

0.2 

1300 

1.5 

0.4  mult 

proc. 

64 

94.1 

0.2 

433 

0.9 

0.3  mult  mp 

65 

94.3 

0.6 

148 

0.5 

0.2 

single  mp 

66 

31.1 

0.1 

234 

0.7 

0.2 

single  cook. 

67 

814.0 

1.8 

447 

0.9 

0.5 

single  mp 

68 

422.7 

2.4 

178 

0.9 

0.1 

single  mp 

69 

480.9 

1.1 

421 

0.8 

0.5  mult  mp 

70 

1141.0 

2.2 

517 

0.9 

0.3  mult  mp 

71 

362.7 

0.7 

534 

0.6 

0.4 

single  mp 

72 

362.7 

1.1 

330 

1.2 

0.5  mult 

proc. 

73 

68.3 

0.2 

341 

0.7 

0.2 

single  mp 

ext. 
(<3.4m) 

ext. 
(<3.4m) 
ext. 
(<3.4m) 

ext. 
(<3.4m) 
ext. 
(<3.4m) 

ext. 
(<3.4m) 
ext. 
(<3.4m) 

ext. 
(<3.4m) 

ext. 
(<3.4m) 
ext. 
(<3.4m) 

ext. 
(<3.4m) 
ext. 
(<3.4m) 

ext. 
(<3.4m) 

ext. 
(<3.4m) 
ext. 
(<3.4m) 

ext. 
(<3.4m) 
ext. 
(<3.4m) 

ext. 
(<3.4m) 

both 

flat 

grp. 

on 

flat 

grp. 

unid.  basin 

grp. 

on 

basin 

grp. 

on 

basin 

grp. 

on 

flat 

grp. 

on 

flat 

grp. 

both 

flat 

grp. 

both  basin 

grp. 

on 

basin 

grp. 

on 

basin 

grp. 

on 

flat 

grp. 

on 

basin 

grp. 

both 

flat 

grp. 

both 

flat 

grp. 

on 

flat 

none 

both 

flat 

none 

on 

basin 

none 

337 

Table D.3 (cont’d) 

No.   Wt.  Dens. 

Vol. 
(L) 

Area 
(m2) 

Depth 
(m) 

Dep.  Funct.  Context  Style  Shape  Pattern 

74 

408.0 

0.9 

474 

0.8 

0.3 

single  mp 

76 

167.9 

0.4 

420 

0.8 

0.2  mult  mp 

77 

1522.6 

7.9 

193 

0.7 

0.2 

single  mp 

78 

63.1 

0.3 

222 

0.6 

0.2 

single  mp 

79 

null 

null 

118 

0.5 

0.1 

single  mp 

ext. 
(<3.4m) 

ext. 
(<3.4m) 
ext. 
(<3.4m) 

ext. 
(<3.4m) 
ext. 
(<3.4m) 

both 

flat 

none 

on 

basin 

none 

both  basin 

grp. 

on 

basin 

none 

unid.  basin 

none 

80 

82 

365.6 

0.8 

479 

1.8 

0.2 

single  proc. 

255.9 

0.7 

354 

0.2 

0.4  mult  mp 

83 

3085.1 

3.3 

924 

1.0 

0.4  mult  mp 

84 
87 

89 

442.1 
2.3 

1.4 
0.0 

327 
245 

0.7 
0.2 

0.2  mult  mp 
0.3  mult  mp 

139.0 

0.7 

191 

0.9 

0.1 

single  mp 

90 

360.9 

1.0 

350 

0.7 

0.2  mult  mp 

91 

281.8 

0.4 

659 

1.1 

0.3 

single  proc. 

92 

11.4 

0.1 

86 

0.8 

0.2 

single  mp 

93  19077.4  27.7 

689 

0.4 

0.6  mult  mp 

94 

95 
96 

97 

32.1 

0.4 

73 

1.1 

0.1 

single  proc. 

354.7 
21.2 

0.8 
0.2 

444 
121 

0.1 
0.6 

0.3 
0.2 

single  mp 
single  cook. 

79.8 

0.1 

716 

1.3 

0.2 

single  proc. 

98 

272.2 

0.3 

866 

1.0 

0.4 

single  mp 

338 

on 

flat 

mm  basin 

ext. 
(<3.4m) 
int. (c) 
ext. 
(>3.4m) 
flat 
int. (p)  both 
int. (c)  unid.  basin 

both  basin 

grp. 

grp. 

grp. 

grp. 
grp. 

ext. 
(<3.4m) 

ext. 
(<3.4m) 
ext. 
(<3.4m) 

on 

basin 

grp. 

both 

flat 

grp. 

both  basin 

grp. 

bell 

both 

mm  basin 

ext. 
(<3.4m) 
ext. 
(<3.4m) 
ext. 
(<3.4m) 
int. (c)  both  basin 
int. (c)  unid.  basin 

unid.  basin 

grp. 

grp. 

grp. 

grp. 
grp. 

ext. 
(<3.4m) 

ext. 
(<3.4m) 

mm 

flat 

grp. 

both  basin 

grp. 

 
Table D.3 (cont’d) 

No.   Wt.  Dens. 

Vol. 
(L) 

Area 
(m2) 

Depth 
(m) 

Dep.  Funct.  Context  Style  Shape  Pattern 

99 

210.3 

1.8 

119 

0.6 

0.1 

single  mp 

100 

177.9 

1.0 

170 

0.4 

0.2 

single  mp 

101 

0.9 

0.0 

180 

1.4 

0.3 

single  proc. 

ext. 
(<3.4m) 

ext. 
(<3.4m) 
ext. 
(<3.4m) 

on 

basin 

grp. 

on 

basin 

grp. 

on 

flat 

grp. 

102 

null 

null 

91 

0.7 

0.1 

single  mp 

103 

140.5 

0.3 

467 

0.4 

0.4  mult  mp 

104 

231.9 

0.9 

259 

0.5 

0.3  mult  mp 

105 

466.2 

1.1 

444 

0.8 

0.3 

single  mp 

106  1773.6 

2.1 

841 

1.4 

0.3 

single  proc. 

108 

376.2 

1.0 

395 

0.8 

0.3 

single  mp 

109  7858.5 
54.6 
110 
52.4 
111 

15.8 
0.2 
0.6 

498 
284 
83 

1.2 
0.7 
0.3 

0.7 
0.2 
0.1  mult 

single  proc. 
single  mp 
cook. 

113 

39.8 

0.1 

355 

0.4 

0.3 

single  mp 

115 

34.4 

0.6 

58 

0.4 

0.1 

single  mp 

125 
126 
127 

null 
0.5 
null 

null 
0.0 
null 

18 
481 
61 

0.2 
0.9 
0.4 

0.1 
0.2 
0.1 

single  cook. 
single  mp 
single  mp 

128 

null 

null 

54 

0.6 

0.1 

single  mp 

132  2875.1 

6.4 

450 

1.0 

0.7  mult  mp 

133 

767.7 

1.7 

449 

0.6 

0.4 

single  mp 

137  33608.2  117.5  286 

0.5 

0.5  mult  mp 

152  13793.6  27.5 

502 

0.5 

0.4 

single  mp 

339 

unid.  basin 

ext. 
(<3.4m) 
int. (p)  both  basin 

both  basin 

ext. 
(<3.4m) 
ext. 
(<3.4m) 
int. (p)  both  basin 

both 

flat 

on 

basin 

ext. 
(<3.4m) 
flat 
int. (p)  both 
int. (p) 
flat 
on 
int. (c)  unid.  basin 

grp. 

grp. 

grp. 

grp. 

grp. 

grp. 

grp. 
grp. 
grp. 

ext. 
(>3.4m) 

on 

basin 

grp. 

on 

basin 

ext. 
(<3.4m) 
int. (p)  unid.  basin 
flat 
int. (p)  unid. 
int. (p)  unid.  basin 

grp. 

grp. 
grp. 
grp. 

ext. 
(>3.4m) 
ext. 
(>3.4m) 

unid.  basin 

grp. 

both  basin 

none 

ext. 
(>3.4m) 
int. (c)  mm 

mm  basin 

grp. 

bell 

none 

ext. 
(>3.4m) 

mm 

flat 

none 

 
Table D.3 (cont’d) 

No.   Wt.  Dens. 

Vol. 
(L) 

Area 
(m2) 

Depth 
(m) 

Dep.  Funct.  Context  Style  Shape  Pattern 

154  29605.6  10.7  2766 

1.2 

0.9  mult 

proc. 

160  1341.7 

5.0 

269 

0.6 

0.3 

single  mp 

164  4663.7 

8.1 

573 

1.2 

0.3 

single  proc. 

171  6718.6 

4.0 

1659 

2.0 

1.6  mult  storage 

173  5165.2 

8.6 

598 

1.0 

0.3  mult  mp 

206  5610.4 

3.9 

1435 

1.9 

0.7  mult 

proc. 

213  6452.8 

22.4 

288 

0.7 

0.4  mult  mp 

214  6744.8 

42.7 

158 

0.4 

0.3  mult  mp 

217 

453.1 

0.7 

631 

1.1 

0.3  mult 

proc. 

220 

146.4 

0.5 

311 

0.4 

0.3 

single  mp 

222 

410.1 

1.3 

313 

0.8 

0.4  mult  mp 

228 

205.2 

0.9 

238 

0.7 

0.3 

single  mp 

231  1159.6 

3.0 

393 

1.4 

0.2 

single  proc. 

232  12110.5 

5.2 

2319 

2.0 

1.1  mult  storage 

235  1388.0 

11.0 

126 

0.4 

0.1 

single  mp 

236  3314.4 

4.1 

817 

1.2 

0.4  mult 

proc. 

237  5942.6 

8.3 

720 

0.7 

0.8  mult  mp 

243  5791.8 

15.7 

369 

1.1 

0.3 

single  proc. 

ext. 
(>3.4m) 

ext. 
(>3.4m) 
ext. 
(<3.4m) 

ext. 
(<3.4m) 
ext. 
(<3.4m) 

ext. 
(<3.4m) 
ext. 
(<3.4m) 

ext. 
(<3.4m) 

ext. 
(>3.4m) 
ext. 
(<3.4m) 

ext. 
(<3.4m) 
ext. 
(<3.4m) 

ext. 
(<3.4m) 

ext. 
(<3.4m) 
ext. 
(<3.4m) 

ext. 
(<3.4m) 

ext. 
(<3.4m) 

ext. 
(<3.4m) 

both  basin 

open. 

both  basin 

none 

on 

basin 

grp. 

both 

flat  mult. 

on 

basin 

grp. 

both 

flat 

grp. 

on 

basin 

none 

on 

basin 

none 

mm 

flat  mult. 

mm  basin 

none 

both  basin 

none 

both  basin 

grp. 

both 

flat 

none 

both 

flat  mult. 

unid. 

flat  mult. 

both  basin 

none 

both  basin 

none 

both  basin 

open. 

340 

Table D.3 (cont’d) 

No.   Wt.  Dens. 

Vol. 
(L) 

Area 
(m2) 

Depth 
(m) 

Dep.  Funct.  Context  Style  Shape  Pattern 

246  2474.0 

12.1 

204 

0.9 

0.1 

single  mp 

253 

809.3 

2.5 

330 

0.5 

0.3  mult  mp 

254 

138.6 

0.5 

265 

1.0 

0.2 

single  mp 

256 

429.6 

8.3 

52 

0.2 

0.2 

single  mp 

257 

989.9 

7.2 

137 

0.5 

0.3 

single  mp 

259 

158.1 

0.8 

196 

0.4 

0.2  mult  mp 

260  3265.3 

6.5 

503 

1.0 

0.5  mult  mp 

268 
0.2 
3.6 
269  2119.4  100.9 

17 
21 

0.1 
0.2 

0.1  mult  mp 
0.1  mult  mp 

278  1326.9 

55.3 

24 

0.4 

0.5 

single  mp 

279  2907.7 

6.3 

464 

0.8 

0.6  mult  mp 

280  2840.3 

7.3 

389 

0.8 

0.4  mult 

cook. 

281  4053.6 

12.9 

314 

0.5 

0.5 

single  mp 

283 

280.8 

0.4 

668 

1.0 

0.3 

single  proc. 

284  4815.5 

6.9 

701 

1.1 

0.6  mult 

proc. 

286 

93.0 

0.6 

154 

0.6 

0.2 

single  mp 

287  5919.5 

3.2 

1823 

1.1 

1.2  mult  storage 

288  2498.2 

1.9 

1294 

0.9 

0.7  mult  mp 

289  1297.0 

9.2 

141 

0.8 

0.2 

single  mp 

341 

ext. 
(<3.4m) 

ext. 
(<3.4m) 
ext. 
(<3.4m) 

ext. 
(<3.4m) 
ext. 
(<3.4m) 

mm  basin  mult. 

both  basin 

grp. 

both  basin 

grp. 

on 

basin 

grp. 

both 

flat 

grp. 

mm  basin 

ext. 
(<3.4m) 
ext. 
(<3.4m) 
int. (p)  unid.  basin 
int. (p)  unid.  basin 

both 

flat 

grp. 

grp. 

grp. 
grp. 

ext. 
(<3.4m) 
ext. 
(<3.4m) 

ext. 
(<3.4m) 

ext. 
(<3.4m) 
ext. 
(>3.4m) 

ext. 
(<3.4m) 
ext. 
(<3.4m) 

ext. 
(<3.4m) 

ext. 
(<3.4m) 
ext. 
(<3.4m) 

both 

flat 

open. 

both 

bell 

open. 

on 

flat 

open. 

on 

flat 

open. 

unid.  basin 

grp. 

both 

flat 

open. 

on 

flat 

open. 

both 

bell 

open. 

on 

basin 

open. 

on 

basin 

open. 

Table D.3 (cont’d) 

No.   Wt.  Dens. 

Vol. 
(L) 

Area 
(m2) 

Depth 
(m) 

Dep.  Funct.  Context  Style  Shape  Pattern 

292  2137.6 

2.3 

931 

1.5 

0.5 

single  proc. 

ext. 
(>3.4m) 

mm 

flat 

none 

296 

65.1 

3.4 

19 

0.1 

0.1 

single  cook. 

306  4214.0 

5.3 

788 

1.4 

0.3 

single  proc. 

307  2368.2 

15.5 

153 

0.5 

0.1 

single  mp 

308  1540.6 

4.6 

338 

0.6 

0.3  mult  mp 

311 

686.8 

1.9 

365 

0.6 

0.5  mult  mp 

312  1311.2 

1.2 

1097 

1.5 

0.7  mult 

proc. 

313 

305.3 

0.8 

399 

0.8 

0.5  mult  mp 

314  1436.3 

1.1 

1358 

1.2 

0.6  mult 

proc. 

315  2039.4 

1.9 

1092 

1.7 

0.6  mult 

proc. 

316 

638.5 

6.0 

106 

0.6 

0.1 

single  mp 

318  8481.5 

13.7 

618 

1.7 

0.2  mult 

proc. 

319  1152.7 

7.6 

151 

0.5 

0.3  mult 

cook. 

ext. 
(<3.4m) 
int. (p)  both 

unid.  basin 

open. 

flat 

grp. 

on 

basin 

ext. 
(<3.4m) 
ext. 
(<3.4m) 
int. (p)  both  basin 

both  basin 

grp. 

grp. 

grp. 

ext. 
(>3.4m) 

ext. 
(<3.4m) 
ext. 
(<3.4m) 

ext. 
(<3.4m) 
ext. 
(<3.4m) 

ext. 
(<3.4m) 

ext. 
(<3.4m) 

mm 

flat 

open. 

mm 

flat 

open. 

mm  basin 

open. 

mm 

flat 

open. 

on 

basin 

grp. 

both  basin 

grp. 

both  basin 

grp. 

No. 
Wt. 
Dens. 
Vol. (L) 
Area (m2) 
Depth (m) 

Dep.  
Single 
Mult 

Table D.4: Abbreviation Key for Table D.3 

Numerical Columns 

Feature Number 
Weight in grams 
Density of artifacts in grams per Liter 
Volume of pit in Liters 
Area of top of pit in square meters 
Depth of pit in meters 

Categorical Columns 

Depositional episodes 
Pit has one depositional episode 
Pit has multiple depositional episodes 

342 

 
Funct. 
Mp 
Cook. 
Proc. 
Storage 
Context 
Ext. (>3.4 m) 
Ext. (<3.4 m) 
Int. (p) 
Int. (c) 
Style 
Unid. 
Mm 
On 
Both 
Shape 
Flat 
Basin 
Bell 
Pattern 
Grp. 
Open. 
Mult. 
None 

Table D.4 (cont’d) 

Function 
Multipurpose pit 
Cooking pit 
Processing pit 
Storage pit 
Where pit is located in relation to structures and other pits 
Pit outside of structures and further than 3.4 m from other pits 
Pit outside of structures and closer than 3.4 m from other pits 
Pit inside of structure along the periphery 
Pit inside of structure in the center 
Ceramic styles within 
Pit with unidentifiable ceramic styles within it 
Pit with only Middle Mississippian style ceramics within it 
Pit with only Oneota style ceramics within it 
Pit with both style of ceramics within it 
Shape of pit in profile 
Flat-bottomed pit 
Basin-shaped pit 
Bell-shaped pit 
Household Pattern 
Pit found in a grouping of structures 
Pit found in an opening between structures 
Pits found in multiple household patterns 
Pits not found in a household pattern 

343 

 
 
APPENDIX E: MULTIVARIATE CLUSTERING 

Table E.1: Multivariate Clustering (K-Means) Analysis Results 

Cluster 
No. 

STRs in 
Cluster 

No. of 
STRs 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

50, 76, 
133-137 
27, 29, 78, 
84, 85 

112-115, 
141-143, 
145 

4-8, 14 

17, 21, 28, 
72-75, 
77 

117, 124 
49, 51, 
66-69, 
106 
42, 105, 
107, 120, 
121 

54, 56-58 

101-104 

109-111, 
125, 144 

18, 22-24, 
34, 36, 
70, 71 

10, 11, 44, 
108 

15, 16, 25, 
30, 31, 
52, 79 

7 

5 

8 

6 

8 

2 

7 

5 

4 

4 

5 

8 

4 

7 

Avg. 
Distance 
Between 
STRs (m) 

Nearest 
Neighbor 
Ratio 

z-
score 

p-value 

Avg. 
Domestic 
STR Size 
in Cluster 
(m2) 

12.06 

1.78 

3.92 

0.000087 

39.87 

14.51 

3.01 

8.61 

0.000000 

27.9 

16.23 

2.49 

8.08 

0.000000 

35.64 

7.5 

2.54 

7.23 

0.000000 

31.83 

8.24 

2.01 

5.48 

0.000000 

36.97 

31.91 

11.3 

27.86 

0.000000 

38.83 

8.89 

2.23 

6.2 

0.000000 

32.14 

23.7 

2.2 

5.12 

0.000000 

48.29 

17.92 

11.08 

2.5 

2.53 

5.72 

0.000000 

36.86 

5.85 

0.000000 

35.6 

24.26 

2.39 

5.93 

0.000000 

44.79 

7.97 

1.77 

4.16 

0.000031 

41.94 

10.17 

2.48 

5.65 

0.000000 

37.61 

8.64 

1.78 

3.94 

0.000081 

35.96 

344 

 
Table E.1 (cont’d) 

Avg. 
Distance 
Between 
STRs (m) 

Nearest 
Neighbor 
Ratio 

z-
score 

p-value 

Avg. 
Domestic 
STR Size 
in Cluster 
(m2) 

9.33 

1.62 

3.55 

0.000390 

32.44 

9.14 

2.16 

4.96 

0.000001 

46.88 

11.08 

1.23 

1.3 

0.193742 

35.98 

15.54 
41.0 

12.23 

3.47 
3.47 

4.04 

8.18 
8.18 

0.000000 
0.000000 

10.07 

0.000000 

31.2 
27.2 

53.3 

10.4 

2.67 

0.38 

0.000000 

41.34 

10.66 

2.17 

5.47 

0.000000 

32.38 

9.91 

12.4 

9.43 

1.72 

3.88 

0.000102 

29.47 

2.13 

5.74 

0.000000 

43.98 

5.79 

3.17 

0.001479 

28.83 

Cluster 
No. 

STRs in 
Cluster 

No. of 
STRs 

15 

16 

17 

18 
19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

13, 26, 35, 
37, 97- 
100 

118, 119, 
138-140 

38-41, 
126-128, 
146, 147 

55, 59, 60 
1, 53, 129 
116, 122, 
123 
33, 43, 45, 
96 
46, 47, 91, 
92, 94, 
95 

48, 61-64, 
130-132 
32, 86-90, 
93 
19, 20, 65, 
80-83 

9 

5 

9 

3 
3 

3 

4 

6 

8 

7 

7 

345 

 
 
Figure E.1: Multivariate Clustering (K-means) Analysis, Cluster 1 

346 

 
Figure E.2: Multivariate Clustering (K-means) Analysis, Cluster 2 

347 

 
 
Figure E.3: Multivariate Clustering (K-means) Analysis, Cluster 3 and 11 

348 

 
 
Figure E.4: Multivariate Clustering (K-means) Analysis, Cluster 4 

349 

 
Figure E.5: Multivariate Clustering (K-means) Analysis, Cluster 5 

350 

 
Figure E.6: Multivariate Clustering (K-means) Analysis, Cluster 6 

351 

 
 
Figure E.7: Multivariate Clustering (K-means) Analysis, Cluster 7 

352 

 
 
Figure E.8: Multivariate Clustering (K-means) Analysis, Cluster 8 

353 

  
Figure E.9: Multivariate Clustering (K-means) Analysis, Cluster 9 and 18 

354 

  
Figure E.10: Multivariate Clustering (K-means) Analysis, Cluster 10

355 

 
Figure E.11: Multivariate Clustering (K-means) Analysis, Cluster 12 

356 

  
Figure E.12: Multivariate Clustering (K-means) Analysis, Cluster 13 

357 

  
Figure E.13: Multivariate Clustering (K-means) Analysis, Cluster 14 

358 

 
Figure E.14: Multivariate Clustering (K-means) Analysis, Cluster 15 

359 

 
Figure E.15: Multivariate Clustering (K-means) Analysis, Cluster 16 

360 

 
Figure E.16: Multivariate Clustering (K-means) Analysis, Cluster 17 

361 

 
Figure E.17: Multivariate Clustering (K-means) Analysis, Cluster 19 

362 

 
Figure E.18: Multivariate Clustering (K-means) Analysis, Cluster 20 

363 

 
Figure E.19: Multivariate Clustering (K-means) Analysis, Cluster 21 

364 

 
Figure E.20: Multivariate Clustering (K-means) Analysis, Cluster 22 

365 

 
Figure E.21: Multivariate Clustering (K-means) Analysis, Cluster 23 

366 

 
Figure E.22: Multivariate Clustering (K-means) Analysis, Cluster 24 

367 

 
Figure E.23: Multivariate Clustering (K-means) Analysis, Cluster 25 

368 

 
 
 
APPENDIX F: HOUSEHOLD PATTERNS 

Figure F.1: Household Patterns Closeup, Opening 1 

369 

 
 
Figure F.2: Household Patterns Closeup, Opening 2 (north, Opening 3 (south), Rows 1 and 2, 
and Cluster Groupings 

370 

 
Figure F.3: Household Patterns Closeup, Opening 4 and Cluster Groupings 

371 

 
Figure F.4: Household Patterns Closeup, Opening 5 and Cluster Groupings 

372 

 
Figure F.5: Household Patterns Closeup, Opening 6 and Cluster Groupings 

373