Psychology of Sites

Boundaries help to provide protection

We’ve been gradually working our way up through the various archaeological components at Blood Run National Historic Landmark (NHL). Artifacts are small things that might be picked up and put into a personal collection or a museum. Features are larger and often consist of concentrations of artifacts anchored in the land. Sites are larger still and can be considered to be groups of features. It’s at the scale of sites that some formal, legal protection can be provided. However, we’re also going to see that it’s not always that simple!

BUTTON

As a first step in providing protection for a location that has “cultural resources” like features and artifacts, we need to draw an outline around the target area. And, that’s where some of the complications start. Once a site has a formal designation and is assigned a “Smithsonian number”, there are legal guidelines that can be enforced. On the other hand, if enough folks understand the significance of an archaeological site then the good will of responsible people may actually provide better protection than the legal system. In either case, it generally all starts with studying and mapping the actual site.

Figure 1----A) Air photo of the main mound group at Blood Run. B) Computer-generated image of the landscape and mounds distributed through four “neighborhoods”.

Back in the 1980s, teams of volunteers walked through the field where mounds were marked by light spots in the soil (Figure 1-A). They collected artifacts that were eventually housed at Iowa City in the Office of the State Archaeologist (OSA). The mounds in that bare field are part of Neighborhoods 1 and 2 that are identified by distinctive characteristics. In addition to mounds which are circular features, there is also a variety of linear features found at Blood Run (like the subtle line located near the green star in Figure 1-B).

To the north of Blood Run Creek in Neighborhood 4, small circular features believed to be cache pits held concentrations of artifacts proportional to their size; small pits had fewer artifacts than large pits. However, the collections from the mounds in the bare field of Neighborhoods 1 and 2 didn’t follow that pattern. A plot of mound area and artifact count shows that each mound generally had less than 100 artifacts no matter what size it was. That’s maybe related to the surface collecting procedure rather than having an excavation that samples the total volume. In addition, we have seen that linear features can be based on a variety of archaeological features other than just concentrations of artifacts.

Figure 2---- Sites with formal numbers assigned in and around the Blood Run NHL.

In 2012 the Iowa OSA compiled all the recorded sites in the area that have designated numbers (Figure 2); that map was also used and discussed in the Master Plan which was done three years later. One of the main objectives of the 2012 work was to improve the outline of a boundary that would include all of the significant archeological sites in the area of Blood Run. The present NHL boundary includes only two sites: 13LO002 on the Iowa side of the Big Sioux River and 39LN2 on the South Dakota side west of the river. Those both incorporate relatively big areas (more than 200 hacares or 494 acres), but there is a whole constellation of smaller sites surrounding the NHL in Iowa. That difference is somewhat surprising because there was probably more pressure from economic development associated with the growth of the Sioux Falls metropolitan area in South Dakota. However, it may also reflect different uses of the landscape back when the Oneota culture lived in the area (about 1500 to 1700 AD). The main occupation locations may have been on the east side of the river and the west side might have been used for ceremonial purposes. In any case, whether the differences reflect modern sampling or “prehistoric” land use, there are some distinct patterns in the attributes of the recorded and numbered sites.

There is a “recipe” in the formal numbering system used for archaeological sites. The first number designates the state (for example, 13 for Iowa and 39 for South Dakota). The second two letters designate the county ( so, LO for Lyon County in IA and LN for Lincoln County in SD). And, the last number refers to the specific site listed in chronological order within the county. That means 13LO002 and 39LN2 were discovered very early in the history of archaeological work within their respective counties.

Figure 3---- Histograms of site size. Data from Iowa OSA Contract Completion Report 1959 (2012).

There are about 130 sites recognized in and around the NHL. Of these, the majority (about 60) cover an area of less than .07 acre and only three are larger than 35 acres. That pattern is also seen in the histograms for sites between .07 and 35 acres: in each of the three size ranges shown in Figure 3, there are more sites at the smaller end and fewer sites at the large end. About half of the 18 larger sites (2.5 to 20 acres) have had excavations or shovel tests, but less than a quarter of the 24 intermediate sized sites (.25 to 2.5 acres) have had any digging done. Virtually all of the remaining small sites are based on surface collections. About 20 of the larger sites include villages and mounds and over a 100 of the smaller sites are based on an isolated find or simple scatter of lithic artifacts. About two dozen sites have some evidence of association with the Oneota culture and almost 100 sites have an undetermined cultural association. So, the main message here is that although there are a large number of registered sites around the NHL, the vast majority are small and have no clear direct relationship to the large Oneota sites.

Figure 4----The iconic Pitted Boulder in the fence line marking the edge of the NHL. A) Photo taken by Jim Zangger at about noon on the autumnal equinox in 2023. B) Random photo taken at a different time of day in a different season.

Artifacts, mounds and cache pits are not the only significant archaeological features. The Pitted Boulder is probably the most well-known feature at Blood Run because it’s so easy to see. The surface is covered with distinctive “cups” or “pits” (Figure 4), but the purpose of the display is unknown. It’s been suggested to be a territorial marker, an artistic representation of a meteorite or other unique rock type, the remains of tool marks from collecting powdered rock, or possibly some kind of ceremonial object. Whatever the original purpose was, there does seem to be a relationship to the sun and season.

This past week we celebrated the first day of spring (AKA, vernal equinox). A couple of years ago on the first day of fall, Jim Zangger set up a time-lapse through the noon hour and captured distinctive linear shadows defined by aligned pits (Figure 4-A). The shadowed line of pits is not very obvious in other photos (Figure 4-B). All of this suggests that maybe the Pitted Boulder is/was some kind of astronomical marker. Whatever the original purpose, it is definitely one of the more important archaeological features that warrants protection.

Figure 5----Other types of archaeological features within the Blood Run NHL. A) Rock rings originally located in Neighborhood 2. B) The Sacred Spring located near Neighborhood 4.

In addition to the Pitted Boulder, there are other archaeological features that are not directly tied to artifacts, mounds or cache pits. When the area was first mapped in the 1880s, there were rings of rocks spread between the mounds in both Neighborhood 1 and 2 (Figure 5-A). Although the rings have been suggested to be “tepee rings”, it’s worth repeating that traditional knowledge keepers have discounted that interpretation. Like the Pitted Boulder, the rock rings were once really conspicuous. However, unlike the Pitted Boulder, the rocks have been removed from the field and are now lined up along the edge of the plowed ground. It’s too late to provide any protection for them!

The Sacred Spring (Figure 5-B) is another important archaeological feature located within the outline of the Blood Run NHL. It’s scheduled to undergo a clean-up and restoration sometime in the near feature. It could be argued that both the Sacred Spring and Pitted Boulder warrant separate designations within the very large site assigned the number 19LO002. In a similar way, the “geoglyphs” found when the Visitor’s Center was being built across the river at Good Earth State Park, are probably important enough to get a separate designation other than the 39LN2 for a site in South Dakota. All of these are examples of “splitting” out smaller sites within the outlines of a larger site. And, that would represent a distinct psychology or philosophy of designating site numbers.

Figure 6----A. Map of numbered sites. B. Photo of Gravel pit currently located at or near Site 13LO141.

The two main large sites, 13LO2 and 39LN002, are circled in red and colored yellow in Iowa and purple in South Dakota (Figure 6-A). Locations for four features (viz. the Pitted Boulder, rock rings, Sacred Spring, and geoglyphs) that might warrant “splitting” out for special recognition within those two large sites are shown as red stars. Two sites with additional mound locations are shown with red Xs numbered 1 and 2. Outside of the large sites there are numerous small sites concentrated in two areas: one to the southeast and one to the northeast (shown as dashed red circles in Figure 6-A). Those small sites could be “lumped” together into two new large sites, in contrast with “splitting” out small sites within larger ones.

At a size of about 36 acres, site 13LO141 (circled in red, Figure 6-A) is the third largest site in the area and does show evidence for Oneota affiliation. Fortunately, it’s located on land owned by the state of Iowa and that provides some protection. Unfortunately, there’s a relatively new gravel pit (Figure 6-B) just to the north of 13LO141. So, any designated and numbered sites located in that area probably are already compromised and at risk. However, most of those sites are small and not clearly related to the Oneota culture.

The system of formal recognition and numbering of archaeological sites does provide a legal basis for protecting archaeological sites. But, we have seen that sites are extremely variable in the artifacts and features that are included within their boundaries. Decisions about boundaries and numbers are generally done by archaeologists working for the state and that provides some flexibility in the assignment of a formal site designation. However, that policy also opens a potential for uneven and variable standards. In addition, the formal designation does not guarantee compliance with the imperatives of protection.

There may be other routes to providing protection other than registering archaeological sites or outright ownership by the Federal or state government. I’m planning to explore some possible alternatives in these articles over the next few months.

However, the next couple of posts will be somewhat different than our usual focus on Blood Run and Lone Tree Farm. Then, we’ll get back into the normal routine after that with a look at sites on the Farm. Thanks to Jim Zangger for sharing his photographs and to Phyllis Johnson for sharing information about site boundaries.