Indian knoll

Coordinates: 37 ° 15 ′ 48 "  N , 86 ° 58 ′ 23.3"  W.

Indian knoll​

Kentucky

Under the name Indian Knoll (hilltop, hill) is an archaeological site south of Rockport in the northwest of the state of Kentucky in the USA , which is one of the National Historic Landmarks . It is located on the Green River and dates from the Archaic period , where it dates from around 3000 to 2000 BC. Is dated. The site was inhabited for almost three millennia. 55,000 artifacts and the remains of 1,178 people were discovered in it.

It extends over an area of ​​about one hectare and consists of an elongated, elliptical hill called shell midden of around 8,000 m², which is composed of artificially collected shells of sea ​​snails and mussels . The hill was up to 1.5 m high, the deposits up to 2.5 m deep.

The site has given its name to an archaeological phase, the Indian Knoll phase , so that other sites are also subsumed under this name.

Cultural space

In addition to Indian Knoll, a large number of other shell midden sites from the middle and late Archaic period lie on the upper reaches of the Green River . Other sites from the same era, which connect essential cultural traits with Indian Knoll and the Green River, were found on the Ohio River, its tributary Tennessee River and the Illinois River to the north . They all have the shell middens in common and, in particular, the styles of the bone needles make the north southeast appear as a common space with cultural exchange in the archaic period.

Shell middens

Shell middens were created from kitchen waste, the lime shells that arose during the preparation of mollusks ( sea ​​snails , mussels ). Indian Knoll is part of a tradition that exists across the entire southeast of the United States and also occurs in a culturally independent form on all coasts of North America in the temperate latitudes. The designed forms, often ring or semicircular systems, suggest a systematic deposit. There are a number of theories about its purpose. They could have originated from living quarters and have been visited again and again by the hunters and gatherers , with the people setting up camp on the hill. This use could have arisen from the need to create elevated storage areas that were protected from flooding along the river. If this assumption is correct, assumptions about the social structure of the people of the time could be derived from the form of the middens , which question the prevailing assumptions about an egalitarian culture without a leader. Prominent places such as the center of a ring or the middle of a semicircle would then have been inhabited by prominent people.

Other voices assume a predominantly or exclusively ritual use of the middens , whereby a sharp separation between ritual and profane actions in the Achaic period hardly makes sense. Shell middens would then be places for repeated or regular special events that were celebrated with the consumption of large quantities of snails and mussels. The parties involved in the individual celebrations do not have to be identical. Because middens were created from kitchen waste and the shapes require a conscious design, but not a central plan, they could have been built on by various nomadic groups over longer periods of time. They then symbolize the loose and unstable structures of a population in the founding phase of societies.

The Indian Knoll midden and other large middens are sometimes called in the literature shell mounds called what parallelism to the earthworks manufactures the Mound are called, and in the archaic period in the lower reaches of the Mississippi River arose. Other authors criticize this use of language and point out that mounds were built with the intention of shaping the landscape and thereby appropriating a place culturally. The origin of middens , however, is unclear. The first excavators consciously spoke neutrally about shell heaps. If shell middens emerged through cooperation over a long period of time without plan, direction or control, then the term mound would only be reserved for the facilities that were started a few hundred years later such as Watson Brake and finally the climax with Poverty Point further south. These presuppose, if not a stratified society, at least some form of leadership, even if the first approaches may have started similar to the shell middens .

Artifacts and found objects

Indian Knoll contained over 55,000 artifacts and the remains of 1,178 human individuals of all ages. The grave goods suggest a certain social differentiation, but the added objects were more geared towards gender and age. It is therefore assumed that it is more about the personal property of the deceased and that there was not yet any pronounced social differentiation. The men were given hatchets and tools for woodworking, as well as fishhooks, antler tools for working flint, axes, and finally things that could possibly be assigned to medicine bags. Only women were given stones for cracking nuts, pearls from bones, mortars and stone scrapers. Only about a third of the graves contained grave goods, about 4% of the graves contained objects that came from far away areas, such as jewelry made of copper or sea slugs and shells from the Gulf of Mexico .

Banner stones

Banner stone from Ohio, approx. 2000 BC Chr., Slate, height: 5.9 cm. This shape is known as a double-notched butterfly . The Michael C. Rockefeller Memorial Collection.

One type of archaeological object first discovered in Indian Knoll sparked a protracted scientific dispute that went down in the history of science as a bannerstone controversy . The first finds of pierced, polished stone objects in graves were interpreted as ceremonial objects, especially ritual axes , from the middle of the 19th century under the name banner stones . In 1916 Moore published his finds of hook-shaped pieces of antlers together with banner stones of various shapes. He interpreted them as tools for making fishing nets, especially for knotting regular meshes. As part of the New Deal , further excavations took place in Indian Knoll, on the Green River and in the wider region. From this, Byron Knoblock compiled an overview of the various types that is still considered relevant today. William Webb contradicted the theses. He interpreted the hook as a spear thrower , known in North America as the Atlatl . As a professor of physics, he interpreted the stone objects as weights that were attached near the rear end of the atlatl to reinforce the momentum of the throw. As a result, Webb published a book on the technique of the Atlatl throw in 1957, in which he developed theories as to how the flat, wing-shaped banner stones could have served this purpose because they shift the mass of the stone into the center of the vibrations generated during the throw. However, modern studies contradict this thesis. An atlatl increases the throwing power and distance for the experienced user, but it must be light and stiff at the same time so as not to lose energy when throwing through bending in the sling. A weight on the slinger is therefore harmful.

The situation in which the banner stones were found does not allow a decision on the controversy. More than half of the finds were made in graves, with Bannerstones as grave goods almost evenly distributed among the graves of men, women and children. A significant portion of the banner stones found in graves have broken, with strong evidence that they were deliberately destroyed for ceremonial purposes. The quality of many shapes and the effort involved in polishing the stones speaks against purely utilitarian objects and suggests a cultural use. The two-winged Bannersteine ​​type is made for almost all found objects from specially selected stone with a fine grain and a shape that runs parallel to the grain.

Finally, the distribution of the finds speaks against its use as an atlatl weight. Banner stones have only been found in the southeastern United States, while spear throwers have been used by cultures around the world.

Pearls, copper, shell of marine snails

A total of 18,378 beads were found, which were distributed over 143 graves. About 65% of these were gifts for children and adolescents. An accumulation of additions in children's graves can also be found at numerous other excavation sites, such as copper. The shells of sea snails that came from Florida, about 1200 km away or from other coastal areas on the Gulf of Mexico ( large fencing snail Lobatus gigas , the dwarf olive snail Olivella and the marginal snail Marginella ) were settled 42 dead . They were more likely to be found in men's graves (4.9% or 14 of 283 individuals) than in women's graves (2.3% or 5 of 220 individuals). Copper additions, around 50% of which were found in children's graves, came from the Great Lakes area .

Leftover food, cooking method

The remains of animal bones allowed a limited reconstruction of the eating habits. For example, several thousand remains found of white-tailed deer , raccoons , from Viginia- or Virginia Opossum , as well as 21 skeletons of dogs. There were also geese, some reptile and fish species. Large quantities of walnuts and acorns were also found. For cooking, sandstones and pebbles were apparently placed in the fire, and the hot stones brought the water to boil in which they were placed.

Burials

The tombs were dug into the mound as round or elliptical holes with vertical walls and flat bottoms. Some of them were shallow, others were buried up to 1.5 m deep. The dead were wrapped in crouches and placed in the pits, which were 60 to 100 cm in diameter. They were apparently wrapped tightly and placed in the narrow pits. Occasionally, older graves were disturbed by the complex, which was not surprising given the tightness of the occupancy.

The find situation corresponds to the picture that one would expect if nomadic hunters and gatherers often visit a particularly favorable location and, if members of the clan die there, bury their dead on the spot.

Studies of the skeletons

The numerous skeletons were examined with regard to gender and age, but also health status and injuries. It turned out that the children of Indian Knoll grew faster than those of the surrounding sites, but a little slower than the children of the similar sites in the prairies or in Europe. Of the approximately 900 deaths examined, over 10% had head injuries, 23 injuries that were probably due to projectile tips. One man even had a stone point stuck in a bone (burial 537). Despite good nutrition, the average life expectancy was extremely low. Newborns had an average life expectancy of 18.6 years. It was only half as high as in other indigenous societies whose life expectancy could be determined in North America. Many suffered from arthritis , tooth decay was largely unknown and more likely to occur in old age.

Injuries

From 1993 to 1996, 917 individuals from three sites, 459 from Indian Knoll, 240 from Ward and 218 from Carlston-Annis, i.e. from the three Late Archaic burial sites in Kentucky, were examined for injuries that they had suffered during their lifetime or after their death. Attempts were made to distinguish between combat or hunting injuries - such as stab or cut marks - and those that indicated that trophies had been taken. These could be indications of scalping, decapitating or cutting off the extremities. For this purpose, those skeletons had to be identified and sorted out whose injuries indicated removal of the meat after death, which was very rare, or animal bite marks. Then the remaining individuals were divided according to whether the wounds were unhealed, whether they were about to heal, or whether they had already healed. It turned out that the injured were often buried together. In Indian Knoll this applies to 33.3% of the dead, in Ward even to 46.2% of the cases. Conversely, in around 50% of the cases, traces of injury were found in graves with multiple skeletons. 76.7% of the skeletons that could be safely identified as male or female and exhibited injuries were male. According to this study, a total of five men could be proven that they had been scalped shortly before or after their death, plus 18 beheaded men.

A total of 44 individuals were killed, who could be traced back to battle. 6 of them showed signs of healing, so they probably did not die from these injuries. 35 out of 42 injuries are due to projectile tips . Two dead had marks on the parietal bone or on the inside of a cervical vertebra , the latter probably indicating an attack on the neck. By far the most common type of injury indicates the use of clubs. In the sites in Kentucky, osteological investigations showed that 10.7% of the dead had such traces, of which two-thirds of the cases were men. Over 90% of the dead were older than 15 years, so only a few children were affected. Of all those who showed such club marks, apparently most had survived these blows. Only in two cases are the men proven to have died from these beatings. While this type of relatively minor injury was common in Kentucky, it was undetectable in Tennessee . They seem to indicate disputes within the groups. The accumulation of several men with injuries in one grave, on the other hand, indicates warrior associations, i.e. external conflicts.

It is still unclear whether these warlike activities are related to the narrowing of the hunting spectrum of the groups involved and consequent disputes over the prey and the hunting areas. The conflicts may also be related to the emergence of tribal associations, which lived together in a relatively fixed and permanent manner. It is believed that the population lived in such a favorable place that they often had to defend it by force.

Excavation history

Clarence B. Moore brought the first research results to the public as early as 1915. He had excavated 298 skeletons for the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia . He was also able to prove early clay processing and pottery, a comparatively new insight at the time, as well as the fact that these cultures go back a long way.

Further investigations followed in 1939 and 1940, this time under the auspices of the Works Progress Administration founded by President Roosevelt . This program under the New Deal was used to create jobs during the Great Depression . The excavation was made possible because a violent flood in 1937 destroyed the houses there. During the excavation it turned out on the one hand that Moore had not recorded the position of the objects in relation to one another very precisely, on the other hand, surprisingly, considerably more human remains could be excavated. In total there were around 880 individuals. Dogs were also buried. The area turned out to be considerably larger than expected. Traces of posts on the hill indicate that simple accommodations were there.

literature

• Francis E. Johnston: Growth of the Long Bones of Infants and Young Children at Indian Knoll , in: American Journal of Physical Anthropology 20 (1962) 249-254.
• Charles E. Snow : Indian Knoll Skeletons of Site Oh 2, Ohio County, Kentucky , in: University of Kentucky Reports in Anthropology 4,3 (1948).
• William Snyder Webb: Indian Knoll site, Oh 2, Ohio County, Kentucky , in: University of Kentucky Reports in Archeology and Anthropology 4,3 (1946) 115-365.
• William Snyder Webb , Howard D. Winters: Indian Knoll , University of Tennessee Press, 1974, reissued 2001.

Web links

• National Historic Landmarks, Indian Knoll (very scarce)

Remarks

1. ↑ According to the Oxford Dictionary of Archeology 2500 to 2000 BC. Chr.
2. ↑ Richard W. Jeffries: Regional Scale Interaction Networks and the Emergence of Cultural Complexity along the Northern Margins of the Southeast , in: Jon L. Gibson, Philip J. Carr (Eds.): Signs of Power - The Rise of Cultural Complexity in the Southeast , University of Alabama Press, 2004, pp. 71-85.
3. ^ George M. Crothers: The Green River in Comparison to the Lower Mississippi Valley during the Archaic: To Build Mounds or not to Build Mounds? , in: Jon L. Gibson, Philip J. Carr (Eds.): Signs of Power - The Rise of Cultural Complexity in the Southeast , University of Alabama Press, 2004, pp. 86-96.
4. ^ Michael Russo: Measuring Shell Rings for Social Inequality . In: Jon L. Gibson, Philip J. Carr (Eds.): Signs of Power - The Rise of Cultural Complexity in the Southeast . University of Alabama Press, 2004, ISBN 0-8173-1391-5 , pages 26-70
5. ^ George M. Crothers: The Green River in Comparison to the Lower Mississippi Valley during the Archaic: To Build Mounds or not to Build Mounds? , in: Jon L. Gibson, Philip J. Carr (Eds.): Signs of Power - The Rise of Cultural Complexity in the Southeast , University of Alabama Press, 2004, pp. 86-96.
6. ^ George M. Crothers: The Green River in Comparison to the Lower Mississippi Valley during the Archaic: To Build Mounds or not to Build Mounds? In: Jon L. Gibson, Philip J. Carr (Eds.): Signs of Power - The Rise of Cultural Complexity in the Southeast , University of Alabama Press, 2004, ISBN 0-8173-1391-5 , pages 86-96, here: p. 94.
7. ^ Robert L. Hall: An Archeology of the Soul: North American Indian Belief and Ritual. University of Illinois, 1997, pp. 110f.
8. ↑ Byron William Knoblock: Banner-stones of the North American Indian - A specialized illustrated volume prepared for the primary purpose of putting forth conclusions regarding distribution, possible uses, methods of manufacture, evolution of types, adoption of special materials for particular types, and to establish a system for classifying the diversity of shapes of banner stones by their lines and planes. With articles by Prof. Charles E. Brown, Dr. Fay-Cooper Cole ... [and others] , La Grange, Ill., 1939
9. ^ Samuel O. Brookes: Cultural Complexity in the Middle Archaic of Mississippi , in: Jon L. Gibson, Philip J. Carr (Eds.): Signs of Power - The Rise of Cultural Complexity in the Southeast , University of Alabama Press, 2004 , Pp. 97-113.
10. ↑ Unless otherwise stated, this chapter is based on: Kenneth E. Sassaman: Technological Innovations in Economic and Social Contexts . In: Kenneth E. Sassaman, David G. Anderson (Eds.): Archeology of the Mid-Holocene Southeast . University Press of Florida, 1996, ISBN 0-8130-1434-4 , pages 57-74.
11. ^ George M. Crothers: The Green River in Comparison to the Lower Mississippi Valley during the Archaic: To Build Mounds or not to Build Mounds? , in: Jon L. Gibson, Philip J. Carr (Eds.): Signs of Power - The Rise of Cultural Complexity in the Southeast , University of Alabama Press, 2004, pp. 86-96.
12. ^ Stuart J. Fiedel: Prehistory of the Americas. 2nd Edition. Cambridge University Press, 1987, 1992, pp. 102f.
13. ↑ George R. Milner: Old Mounds, Ancient Hunter-Gatherers, and Modern Archaeologists . In: Jon L. Gibson, Philip J. Carr (Eds.): Signs of Power - The Rise of Cultural Complexity in the Southeast . University of Alabama Press, 2004, ISBN 0-8173-1391-5 , pages 300-315
14. ↑ This and the following, according to Jon Muller: Archeology of the Lower Ohio River Valley. Left Coast Press, 2009, pp. 77f.
15. ^ Claire M. Cassidy: Skeletal Evidence for Prehistoric Subsistence Change in the Central OHio River Valley. In: Mark N. Cohen, George J. Armelagos (Eds.): Palaeopathology at the Origin of Agriculture. Academics Press, New York 1984, pp. 307-346, here: pp. 324-326.
16. ↑ Robert P. Mensforth: Warfare and Trophy Taking in the Archaic Period. In: Olaf H. Prufer, Sara E. Pedde, Richard S. Meindl (Eds.): Archaic Transitions in Ohio and Kentucky Prehistory. Kent State University Press 2001, pp. 110-138.