Dating the middle to late woodland transition in the Illinois Valley: Radiocarbon and thermoluminescence dates from the Baehr-Gust site

Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology, Spring 2003 by Holt, Julie Zimmermann, Feathers, James K

Researchers who designate early White Hall and Weaver as Late Woodland often consider the most essential differences between Havana and White Hall/Weaver material culture to be those found in the ceramic assemblages (McConaughy 1993:347; Stafford and Sant 1985:26; Wiant and McGimsey 1986:32). Winters deemed this practice of linking cultural change to ceramic change "ceramic determinism" (Winters et al. 1989:7-8). He argued instead that early White Hall should be considered terminal Middle Woodland because of the persistence of Middle Woodland artifacts on early White Hall sites (Boesch 1994; Munson 1986). Winters acknowledged that such artifacts are frequently interpreted by archaeologists as evidence of an earlier occupation at the site, but he dismissed this interpretation: "A simple operation suffices to show that such an interpretation is frequently untenable, since removal of the Whitehall [sic] sherds, leaves a very peculiar residue consisting of a few decorated sherds, an occasional lamellar flake blade, and even examples of points such as Snyders, Gibson, Manker, etc. If there were an earlier Middle Woodland occupation, one might well expect substantial representation of Havana and/or Pike utility ceramics" (Winters et al. 1989:7).

Winters supported his argument by citing evidence from Mound House, where he had excavated for one season, and Baehr-Gust, where he had excavated over several seasons.1 Winters claimed that White Hall ceramics had been found in the fill of Mound 1 at Mound House, and that White Hall ceramics had been found in association with Middle Woodland artifacts at Baehr-Gust.

The University of Chicago field school, in cooperation with the Center for American Archeology, has since conducted additional excavations at Mound House, including reopening NYU's trench in the mound (Buikstra et al. 1998). The evidence they gathered indicates that Winters was wrong about the age of mound construction at Mound House. White Hall ceramics are found in surface collections (Buikstra et al. 1998:18-21), but they are "relatively rare in mound fill and are typically found in only the most superficial levels" (Buikstra et al. 1998:32). This discrepancy could result from disagreement over ceramic classification, especially if the NYU sample was composed primarily of body sherds. However, six uncalibrated radiocarbon dates from submound deposits range from 90 B.C. to A.D. 40, and four uncalibrated dates from mound fill range from A.D. 50 to 150 (Buikstra et al. 1998:Table 5.1). Two of the samples dated-one from a submound deposit and one from mound fill-were taken from the NYU trench at Mound House. These dates indicate that the mound was completed during the height of the Havana tradition. Thus, the University of Chicago investigations provide several lines of evidence against Winters's hypothesis that White Hall people built the main mound at Mound House.

Analysis of the artifacts recovered during the NYU excavations at both Mound House and Baehr-Gust is incomplete, interrupted by Winters's death in 1994. However, an attempt to resolve the chronological debate regarding Baehr-Gust has been made through stratigraphic analysis and radiometric dating (Holt 2000). Methods and results of the radiometric analysis are reported here.