Table Of ContentANTHROPOLOGICAL PAPERS
MUSEUM OF ANTHROPOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
NO. 21
THE STEUBEN VILLAGE AND MOUNDS
A MULTICOMPONENT LATE HOPEWELL SITE IN ILLINOIS
by
DAN F. MORSE
ANN ARBOR
THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, 1963
© 1963 by the Regents of the University of Michigan
The Museum of Anthropology
All rights reserved
ISBN (print): 978-1-949098-24-2
ISBN (ebook): 978-1-951519-46-9
Browse all of our books at
sites.lsa.umich.edu/archaeology-books.
Order our books from the University of Michigan
Press at www.press.umich.edu.
For permissions, questions, or manuscript queries,
contact Museum publications by email at umma-
[email protected] or visit the Museum website at
lsa.umich.edu/ummaa.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The main participants in the excavation of the mounds and the
collection of surface material were Mr. George Schoenbeck, Dr.
Dan Morse, and Dan F. Morse. From time to time we were
helped by other persons, including Melvin Fowler, Curator of
Anthropology at the Illinois State Museum; Peter Cameron, Illi
nois State Museum; Howard Winters, Curator of Archaeology in
the Museum, Southern Illinois University; and Dr. Jose Albert,
Resident Physician at the Peoria Municipal Tuberculosis Sani
tarium.
In addition, representatives from the University of Michigan
Museum of Anthropology (UMMA) excavated two test pits at the
Steuben site from April 2 to April 7, 1956. The participants of
this expedition were: Dr. James B. Griffin, Director of UMMA;
Dr. Griffin's son, David Griffin; Dr. Albert C. Spaulding, Curator
of Archaeology, UMMA; and the following students majoring in
anthropology at The University of Michigan: Phyllis A. Morse,
formerly Phyllis Anderson; Dan F. Morse; Frances O'Hara; Mark
Papworth; Bruce Powell; Judy Reynolds; and Janet Stone. Peter
Gibson, a student of anthropology at Beloit College, Beloit, Wis
consin, also participated in the Museum of Anthropology excava
tions.
Identification of the fauna from the site was done by Paul W.
Parmalee, Curator of Zoology, Illinois State Museum, and the
following members of the staff of the Museum of Zoology, Uni
versity of Michigan: Dr. Reeve M. Bailey, Curator of Fishes;
Dr. Norman E. Hartweg, Curator of Reptiles and Amphibians;
Dr. Emmet T. Hooper, Curator of Mammals; Dr. Henry Vander
Schalie, Curator of Mollusks; Dr. Philip Humphrey, Research
Associate in Division of Birds; and Peter Stettenheim, Research
Assistant in Division of Birds.
Dr. Frederick P. Thieme, Chairman of the Department of
Anthropology, University of Michigan, 1957-58, assisted in the
identification of the human skeletal material. The discussion of
pathological conditions in the human remains is due mainly to
the efforts of Don F. Dickson, Dickson Mounds State Park, Lewis
town, Illinois; Dr. Ernest Elzi and Dr. Joseph Kraft, Consultants
in Pathology, St. Francis Hospital, Peoria, Illinois; and Dr. Dan
Morse, Medical Director and Superintendent, Peoria Municipal
Tuberculosis Sanitarium.
iii
iv THE STEUBEN VILLAGE AND MOUNDS
I am indebted to Dr. James B. Griffin for his guidance dur
ing the laboratory work on the artifacts from the Steuben site,
and for his kindness in editing the present paper. Dr. Albert C.
Spaulding also rendered valuable help; and appreciation is ex
pressed for many helpful hints. My wife, Phyllis A. Morse, as
sisted greatly in the editing of the final drafts. Plates labeled
with a Museum of Anthropology catalog number were photo
graphed by Eugene Kozlovitch; the others were photographed by
Dr. Dan Morse and Dan F. Morse. A soil analysis was made
possible through the help and guidance of Dr. Maurice W. Senstius,
Associate Professor of Geology, University of Michigan.
Last, but not least, appreciation is extended to the owners of
the explored land. Mr. Walter Crew, Chillicothe, Illinois, owns
the village site, Mound 2, and the major part of Mound 1. Mr.
Peter Micano, Peoria, Illinois, owns the northern one-third of
Mound 1 and the other seven mounds. All of the above persons,
as well as others, have helped in the excavation of the site or in
the preparation of this report. I take full responsibility, how
ever, for whatever may be wrong or misleading in the following
pages.
Dan F. Morse
CONTENTS
Introduction ........ . 1
Physical Environment. • 3
Excavations in the Village 9
Burials .•....... 10
Pottery ......... . 11
Projectile Points .. . 30
Other Flint Artifacts 32
Other Stone Artifacts . 34
Copper Artifacts .• 35
Bone Awls .... 36
Bone Punctators .. 37
Game Bones .•... 39
Turtle Carapace Artifacts .. 41
Drilled Bear Canines . . . 42
Other Bone Artifacts . • . 42
Barbed Antler Tines •.• 43
Other Antler Artifacts . . 46
Shell Hoes ......... . 46
Shell Scrapers ....... . 47
Other Shell Artifacts . . . 47
Morse and Umma Surface Collections from the Village 47
Pottery. ........................... . 48
Projectile Points, Notched Scrapers, and Drills 52
Other Flint Artifacts . . . . . . . . ...... . 60
Other Stone Artifacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Copper and Galena Artifacts •. 65
Bone Artifacts. . 65
Antler Artifacts. • . . . . . . . . . 66
She 11 Artifacts. . . . . . . • . . . . 67
Other Surface Collections from the Village. 67
Pottery. ........•.••.... 68
Projectile Points .••.. 70
Other Flint Artifacts . 72
Other Stone Artifacts . 72
Other Artifacts .... . 75
Mound Excavations ..... . 75
Mounds 2 through 9 .. 77
Mound 1 •.......... 78
Mound 1 Burial Analyses 88
Summary and Interpretations 96
The Steuben Site ..... . 96
Classification within Hopewell. 111
Radiocarbon Dates .......•. 113
v
vi THE STEUBEN VILLAGE AND MOUNDS
Appendix A. Fauna from Test Pit I by Levels .•....• 115
Appendix B. Summary of Fauna from Test Pit I ..... . 120
Appendix C. Fauna from Test Pits II and III and Their
Extensions ..... 122
Appendix D. Other Fauna from the Steuben Village Site. 124
Appendix E. Fauna from the Steuben Mounds . • . . . . . . 125
Appendix F. Skullduggery: A Day Among Dead Men's Bones,
Peoria Daily Transcript, September 28, 1877 •....•• 126
Appendix G. The Mound Builders, Peoria Daily Transcript,
September 29, 1877 .........•.•.•.••.•....•. 128
Appendix H. More Mound Digging, Peoria Daily Transcript,
October 8, 1877. . . ........... . 129
Literature Cited . 130
Plates ....... . · · .......••.•..•..•... (after) 134
INTRODUCTION
The Hopewell culture, called the Hopewellian Phase in the Mc
Kern Taxonomic System, inhabited most of the eastern United
States from around 500 B.C. to A.D. 500. Within this period and
area, prestate organized, agriculturally based societies existed
in a primitive condition loosely connected by trade. The cultur
al phase began in the Illinois-Ohio region some five hundred
years after the introduction of agriculture and pottery into this
area. The strongest influences on the Hopewellian phase were
received from the ancestral groups in the Illinois-Ohio area. The
expansion of Hopewell culture is a story of undramatic diffusion
and not of war and mass migration. But expand it did, altering
cultures in its path sufficiently to show cultural relatedness, but
not dominance. For a period of two to four centuries, around
the birth of Christ, the Hopewell culture was at its height in mag
nificence; then, in most of the eastern United States, with the
Southeast a possible exception, there was a gradual deterioration
in those aspects of Hopewell culture which were the most elab
orate. Around A.D. 500, the deterioration had changed the Hope
well culture into an altogether different phase.
Southwestern Ohio constituted the major center of influence,
and appropriately enough the Hopewell site, the type site, is lo
cated there. Ohio was a center from which individuals may have
traveled to the West or Northwest for obsidian and grizzly bear
canines, to the North for copper and silver, and to the Southeast
for mica and ocean shells. Or it may be that the prestige of
Ohio was so great that these items were passed from group to
group as trade items until they reached Southwestern Ohio, since
between southern Ohio and the source areas there are compara
tively small amounts of such items. Also, in southern Ohio are
found the largest and most elaborate earthworks and a greater
amount of burial furniture and retainer burials, with more diver
sity and more elaboration in artifacts. This elaboration indi
cates that the Hopewell culture was highest developed in south
western Ohio in terms of social heterogeneity.
Illinois, particularly along the lower Illinois and the Ohio
Rivers, is secondary only to the Ohio Aspect in cultural develop
ment during the Hopewellian phase. Much of the available Illi
nois data will be discussed throughout this paper while describing
different aspects of the Steuben site; but lack of opportunity has
1
