Seventy-nine cultural features, of various components, were discovered during the excavations at the Crouch site. The excavated features have been divided into seven categories: deep storage pits; medium-storage pits; basin-shaped pits; elongated basins; large ovals; hearths; and historic fire pits. (Unexcavated features are not included in feature category totals.) Feature morphology is shown in Table 5.2, "Jo 5 Feature Summary Table." Summary artifact totals for each feature are presented in Appendix 1.

Deep storage pits (N=9) were the most prominent feature type recovered from 12 Jo 5 (Plate 5.2a). They were located on the apex and eastern slope of the highest ridge, around the vicinity of Block 2. Deep-storage pits were characterized by a cylindrical shape, a depth usually greater than the width, and a flat base, which often had a basal layer, or darker zone, probably representing a portion of the decomposed pit liner (Plate 5.2b). Occasionally, remnants of this liner were visible along the edges of the pits, giving a ring-shaped appearance to the larger storage pits. Figure 5.8 depicts the profile of Feature 5, a deep storage pit with the organic liner. Most of the deep storage pits contained very little cultural material (the upper portion of Feature 16 was an exception). The number of deep storage pits is probably underestimated, because several of the unexcavated pit features within Block 2 appeared to belong to this class of feature.

Medium-storage pit features (N=18) are typically wider than they are deep and have mostly flat bottoms and straight walls. Like the deep storage pits, many exhibit remnants of organic feature liners (Figures 5.9 and 5.10). Feature 2 (Figure 5.11) is an example of a stratified medium-storage pit with different use episodes and superpositioning. A sample from each natural level out of the quarter-section (Figure 5.11) was saved for flotation; the results of the botanical analysis are presented in Appendix 2.

Basin-shaped pit features (N=17) varied in depth from 9.0 cm to 48.0 cm, measured from the point of definition below the plowzone to the base of the feature. Basin-shaped pits exhibit rounded bottoms and insloping walls (Figure 5.12). Given the basin-shaped pits' small size, this type of feature contained a higher density of material on the average than either the deep or medium-storage pits (see Appendix 1).

Large oval-type features (N=3) in plan view are subrectangular to circular, with a discontinuous darker ring visible along the edges. The center of the ring appears to be filled with mostly sterile soil that is difficult to distinguish from the surrounding matrix soil. When the features have been placed in areas of compact clay loam soil with small sandy laminations, it seems as if the smaller particles have washed in and filled the features naturally. In profile (Figure 5.13), these features appear bathtub-shaped, with the darker ring of soil curving along the walls downward and forming a discontinuous liner along the bottom in portions of the feature. These darker areas are decomposed remnants of a feature liner; infrequent and small pieces of cultural material, including pottery, were recovered from the dark ring portion. Unfortunately, the flotation analysis was unable to help identify the organic material because of the paucity of charcoal (see Appendix 2). An additional large oval-type feature was identified as Feature 80 in Tr3A. This feature was not excavated (and thus not included in the count) because not enough of the anomaly was exposed in plan view. A soil probe confirmed that the sterile looking central portion of this feature was underlain by the darker rings identified in plan view.

Elongated basin-shaped features (N=5) are elongated in plan view, with insloping walls and irregular bottoms (Figure 5.14). One of these, Feature 71, was thought to contain a portion of an infant burial, but after laboratory analysis, it was determined by Dr. Stephen Nawrocki of the University of Indianapolis that the remains were not those of a human infant and were probably not human at all. These features belong to an unidentified cultural component at 12 Jo 5 because of the materials recovered, spatial placement, and feature morphology. No pottery, only two flakes, one piece of historic material, and high densities of fire-cracked rock were recovered from this feature cluster. A small piece of metal was recovered from a post mold adjacent to Feature 68. All of these features were located at the extreme southeast edge of the area investigated in the undestroyed portion of Chantry Way.

One hearth feature, consisting of a large shallow basin with burnt soils and measuring approximately 118.0 cm by 110.0 cm and 17.0 cm in depth, was identified in Block 1. This feature contained a high density of blocky fragments but no flakes, only two small pieces of pottery, a moderately high density of fire-cracked rock, and fourteen small pieces of what appeared to be red ochre.

One historic fire pit (Feature 51) was identified in Tr5 within the Ramsgate Road right-of way in the southwestern corner of the area tested. This feature was similar in shape to the elongated pit features but revealed a reddish ring around the outside of the feature. Large pieces of brick (some whole), concentrations of charcoal, and a few rocks were observed in the feature. No historic artifacts related to a domestic structure were observed in Feature 51.

The upper portion of the plowzone was mechanically stripped from blocks 1 and 2 and trenches 1A, 2A, 3A, 4A, 5A, 6A, and 7A on May 31, 1995. Block 1 and its related trenches (Figures 5.15a, 5.15b, and 5.15c) were shovel and trowel scraped by student workers and volunteers, with the work funded by the DHPA-administered grant. The Indiana University field school concentrated its efforts in the vicinity of Block 2. The extension off Trench 27 that exposed features 48 and 49 (see Figure 5.15c) was excavated during the contract for the road right-of-ways, although the segment between Block 1 and these features was labeled Tr4A in the field and was excavated with Block 1.

Block 1 (see Figure 5.15a) revealed six relatively shallow, basin-shaped pits, one hearth, one medium-storage pit, and a few scattered post molds. Another possible feature was identified in the northwest quadrant but not assigned a number. This feature consisted of a circular-shaped pattern of darker soil mottles that had been pulled downward into the matrix soil by large insect (grubs?) tunnels. This anomaly probably represents a very shallow basin-shaped feature that had been plowed away with the evidence of its existence preserved by bioturbation. No cultural material was recovered from this anomaly. The most common feature type was the basin-shaped pit that, relative to the deep storage pits identified in Block 2, contained a higher density of cultural material. One of these shallow, basin-shaped features, Feature 49, contained charcoal that produced a calibrated radiocarbon date of AD 1410 (see Appendix 4).

Feature 44 in Block 1 was a hearth, noticeably different from any others identified at 12 Jo 5. This feature could represent a different cultural component but more likely represents a specialized activity such as heat treatment of raw material (there was a high incidence of blocky fragments but no flakes) or some other type of resource processing (two small potsherds and pieces of what appeared to be red ochre were also discovered in this feature). The low frequency of this feature type could also be related to the eroded soils on 12 Jo 5, since most shallow features, such as Feature 44, would have been plowed away. On the other hand, the location of Block 1 on a relatively flat secondary rise (ridge spur) could have lessened the effect of erosion, giving such shallow features as a hearth or basin a higher likelihood of being preserved under the plowzone.

No features were identified east or west of Block 1 in trenches Tr5A and Tr7A respectively. A medium-storage pit (Feature 52) and a large oval feature (Feature 53) were identified in Trench 6A (Figure 5.15b). Only the western portions of these features were excavated. Feature 53 had the typical outer ring of darker soil that continued partially along the walls of the feature in a basin shape but did not line the base of the feature. The soil inside the darker ring was very close in appearance to the surrounding matrix.

Block 2, trenches 1A and 2A (Figures 5.16a, 5.16b, and 5.16c) were shovel and trowel scraped, after being mechanically stripped, by field school students. Even though the initial removal of the upper plowzone indicated that features were present within Block 2, the density and quality of the features after shovel scraping was unanticipated. Also, superimposed features 7 and 22 appeared as a linear anomaly in Trench 2A; Unit A was hand excavated to determine if the supposed linear anomaly represented a stockade wall. As Figure 5.16b indicates, the linear anomaly was actually a series of superimposed pit features. In all, forty-three features were identified in the vicinity of Block 2. Excavations by the Indiana University field school, student workers employed through the DHPA grant, and volunteers were able to excavate twenty of these features, identifying five basin-shaped features, ten medium-storage features, and five deep storage features. An additional five features (7, 19, 20, 21, and 22) were investigated during the salvage excavation, which revealed two medium-storage pits, two deep storage pits, and an unknown feature. Two possible features were identified in Block 2 (Figure 5.16a) and one in Trench 1A (Figure 5.16c). The midden scatter between features 13 and 76 is probably an area of superimposed features; the area labeled midden in the northwest quadrant is probably just an area of mottled (bioturbated?) soil. The midden area south of features 14 and 15 (labeled area Y in field notes) appeared thicker than the others and contained a large vessel section. Three calibrated dates -AD 1290, AD 1305, and AD 1410--have been obtained from features identified within Block 2 (see Appendix 4).

Unexcavated features 31, 32, and 33 in Block 2 appeared very similar in form and fill content to the very deep cylindrical pits (deep storage pits) numbered 5, 6, and 9. The alignment of these features appeared to arc around the northwestern perimeter of the feature cluster. Unlike the sandy loam elsewhere in Block 2, the soil in the area of these features was a compact sandy clay loam underlain by loose sand. Several deep storage pits excavated during the salvage portion of the excavation were also placed along the edge of this stiff clay loam soil. Even though not all the pits classified as deep storage were placed where the stiffer soil was present (for example, Feature 16), it appears as if this type of soil had been selected for this type of feature. A stiff upper layer may have allowed a narrow cylindrical shape to be maintained without having to widen the orifice. Further, such a shape permits easier concealment and drainage over a compacted upper surface, while the sand subsurface affords excellent subsurface drainage (and easy digging).

At the time of the mechanical stripping, no features were identified in Tr3A, because the equipment was kept well above the base of the plowzone. After shovel and trowel scraping, however, four features and one area of disturbance were identified in the sandy loam portion of the trench (Figure 5.17). The southern portion of the trench, south of Feature 80, was a compact clay loam soil in the subsurface. Feature 80 appeared to be a large oval-type feature, with a dark ring around the edges and the soil in the center much like the matrix soil. Soil probes indicated that a darker band of soil was present about 30.0 to 50.0 cm below the lighter colored center of the feature. None of the features located within Trench 3A were excavated, both because of a lack of time and because none of them revealed discrete edges.

After the completion of the field school and grant excavations, Eclipse Development, Inc., invited the GBL to conduct subsurface reconnaissance-level and partial Phase II-level archaeological investigations on two 50-feet-wide right-of-ways in and around 12 Jo 5. The fieldwork portion of the investigation was conducted between July 24 and August 22, 1995. Specifically, the investigation focused on the right-of-ways of Lionshead Lane and Ramsgate Road, in section 2 of the Foxberry Trace Master Plan (see Figure 5.4). The contract portion of the evaluation of 12 Jo 5 can be divided into two segments: an area investigated at the level of Phase II testing, which included the western two hundred feet of the proposed Lionshead Lane and the northern portion of the proposed Ramsgate Road (from the south edge of the intersection with Lionshead); and the area investigated at a subsurface reconnaissance level, which ran along the western edge of the site. In total, 59 trenches (Figure 5.5), measuring between 3.0 to 5.0 meters in length along with various extension areas to investigate any soil anomalies and four 2.0 m-by 2.0 m units were excavated within the right-of-way boundaries. All soil excavated from these units was passed through 1/4-inch hardware cloth to test for the presence of significant archaeological deposits. None were identified within the right-of-way boundaries.

The Phase II testing revealed that the eastern and the extreme northern edges of the project area (around units B and D) had been buried by spoil piles related to the construction of the existing housing addition. These areas revealed intact plowzone buried under fill dirt, with a dark subsurface indicating poorly drained soils probably related to the Rensselaer series. In the area of Unit D, the fill dirt was up to 1.0 m thick over a buried plowzone (Figure 5.18). Neither the trench profiles nor unit excavations revealed subsurface cultural materials in these deeper deposits. Alternatively, the area between units C and D, in the vicinity of trenches 34 to 36 (Figure 5.5) already had been graded with the upper soil layer removed during the initial earthmoving on 12 Jo 4 and 12 Jo 5 in 1992. This grading resulted in a linear depression oriented north-south along the western edge of the fill observed near Unit D and Trench 38 (figures 5.18 and 5.5). The area between units C and D apparently already had the upper levels of the soil removed, resulting in a linear depression oriented north-south.

Two features were identified during the Phase II testing of Lionshead Lane. Feature 48 partially extended into the southern edge of the Lionshead right-of-way, and Feature 49 was located immediately outside the right-of-way boundary. Both were shallow basin features with significant disturbances. No other features were identified in the area evaluated at the Phase-II level of investigation. However, outside the right-of-way in Block 1, and in the trench extending from this block to the south, prehistoric cultural features have been identified, indicating the northwestern-most extent of significant subsurface archaeological deposits. However, after the completion of the Phase II investigation, the area around features 48 and 49 south to the edge of Block 1 was destroyed by earthmoving activities.

The area along Ramsgate Road south of the intersection with Lionshead Lane was investigated at the reconnaissance level of investigation. About 122 square meters (3.8 percent) of the surface area were excavated to determine whether the prehistoric features encountered in blocks 1 and 2 and Tr3A extended to the western edge of the proposed housing addition. The results of this investigation demonstrated that they did not extend into the Ramsgate Road right-of-way in section 2. Feature 51, identified in the right-of-way between sections 2 and 3, represents an historic fire hearth of unknown function containing brick and ash deposits. No other cultural materials could be found in association and the surface and associated backdirt (and trench walls) lacked any evidence of domestic refuse in the area around the hearth.

Unit E was placed in a low area within the Ramsgate right-of-way to test for presence of midden areas or buried cultural deposits. No cultural materials were recovered from undisturbed subsurface deposits.

The main purpose of the contract archaeological evaluation was to determine whether the subsurface deposits identified in blocks 1 and 2 extended north and west into the proposed roadways. The GBL concluded that, even though significant archaeological deposits extended up to the edge of the right-of-way in the northern portion of 12 Jo 5, no significant archaeological resources would be affected by construction activities related to the roadways as long as the impact was confined within twenty-five feet of the centerline of the right-of-ways. The recommendation stated that earthmoving equipment and related construction activities should NOT be allowed south of the Lionshead Lane right-of-way at any time during the proposed project unless a qualified archaeologist were present. In section 2 of the master plan, lots 96 to 102 needed to be archaeologically evaluated before construction activities could be permitted (see Figure 5.4). These boundaries were clearly marked on the site with wooden laths, whose upper portions were spray painted orange (McCullough n.d.d). Only a small portion of section 3 along Chantry Way was evaluated--from about lot 112 westward around the curve to Ramsgate Road.

Unfortunately, construction activities at Foxberry Trace addition extended beyond the areas recommended by the GBL and exposed subsurface cultural features and prehistoric cultural materials such as fire-cracked rock, lithics, and pottery. Figure 5.5 depicts the areas impacted by these construction activities. The portions on Figure 5.6 that are designated "areas of 1996 winter salvage excavations" are areas that were impacted by earthmoving activities but appeared to possess at least some possibility for intact archaeological deposits. Portions designated "destroyed areas" are places where any possibility of finding subsurface archaeological deposits has been eliminated. On the main portion of the site, construction activities consisted of grading the eastern slope that intersected Unit A and Trench 2A of the field school excavations. Everything beyond this to the east has been totally destroyed by the construction of a holding pond.

During the salvage portion of the work at 12 Jo 5, approximately 1,094 square meters of surface area were mechanically scraped over the areas impacted by the construction activities. Portions of these investigated areas have been arbitrarily subdivided into blocks 3, 4, 5, and 6 for discussion. Block 3 (Figure 5.19a; Plate 5.1b) represents the portion of the salvage excavation over Unit A of the field school excavation. In all, eleven features were identified within Block 3: four deep storage pits (features 7, 19, 56, and 57); five medium-storage pits (features 20, 21, 54, 55, and 58); and two pits of an unknown type. Not enough of Feature 81 was exposed, and Feature 22 was too badly destroyed by superpositioning, to determine the feature-type for either. One-half of each feature in Block 3 was excavated to determine depth and superpositioning. Unfortunately, these features contained very small amounts of cultural material, making the separation of material by relative superpositioning of little value. Remnants of plowzone soil were observed over these features, but the construction grading had penetrated to an unknown depth east of features 54 and 57 (see Figure 5.19a).

Block 4 (Figure 5.191b) is the segment north of the feature cluster in Block 3. Features 59 and 60 represent examples of the large oval-type feature, or a bathtub-shaped feature with a discontinuous darker soil ring around the edges and base. The interiors of both these features appeared to be almost sterile matrix, while very small amounts of cultural material were observed in the darker rings. The function of these large features is unknown, although one possible explanation is that these represent a type of sleeping hut. They are large enough for two adults and some small children to lie down in; the dark soil band may represent a decomposed liner of grasses or other material (floral analysis was unable to identify the original liner). Bent poles and a covering of skins could have been placed over the shallow pit in a low arch. Another explanation is that these features represent shallow, above-ground storage areas with some type of covering stretched over the top. No large post holes were associated with these features; smaller, more efficient ones appropriate to a temporary hut would have been either plowed or graded away. Feature 61, located farther to the north, was a medium-storage pit; the area immediately east of this feature was completely destroyed.

Figure 5.19c depicts the feature cluster arbitrarily labeled Block 5, located northeast of the wooden power poles and underneath the powerlines. This feature cluster consisted of four basin shaped features (features 62, 63, 64, and 67). One anomaly (Feature 65) turned out to be a mottled area (perhaps where a feature had been plowed away) and was not classified (Table 5.2); Feature 66 was classified as unknown because of the massive amount of bioturbation in this area. When the relatively darker soils around the vicinity of Block 5 were first observed, only Feature 62 could be identified with certainty. The soil around all the other features was too mottled and bioturbated to detect feature outlines. Three units (F, G, and H) were placed over the area (excluding a block around Feature 62) and excavated down 10.0 cm with soils subdivided into soil zones. All soil was passed through 1/4-inch screen with the material bagged separately by soil zone. A relatively low density of material was recovered from these units and most of the features. The only exception was Feature 63, which contained a moderate amount of material, including a sharply everted cordmarked, shell-tempered rim sherd and two triangular projectile points. In general, the soil in this area was badly bioturbated, but some intact features were still identifiable. The area immediately southeast of the feature cluster had been completely destroyed by the time the salvage excavation began.

Again, construction activities also impacted the Chantry Way right-of-way in section 3 (see figures 5.4 and 5.6). The southern one-half of the right-of-way had been scraped at least 1.0 m below surface, completely destroying any in situ deposits that may have been present. The northern half of the right-of-way had also been impacted, but in most places basal plowzone remnants were observed. This northern one-half of the Chantry Way right-of-way was cleanly scraped, and five features (68, 69, 70, 71, and 72) were identified near the highest elevation (figures 5.20a and 5.20b).

These five features in Block 6 were different from any others identified at 12 Jo 5: all were elongated basin-shaped features with irregular bottoms. One, Feature 71, contained small pieces of bone, including three articulated ribs. At first, it was thought that these remains might represent a human infant burial, but no skull, phalanges, or other diagnostic portions were recovered. Later examination by Dr. Nawrocki determined that the material was not a human infant and was probably not human at all. Further analysis of these remains is continuing at this time. Features 68 and 70 contained a combined total of only four rocks, with no debitage or pottery identified, even though all the features in Block 6 were excavated in their entirety (see Appendix 1). A nail was recovered from a large post mold excavated adjacent to Feature 68. Feature 69 (see figures 5.20b and 5.14) contained an extremely high density of charcoal and fire-cracked rock (N=1205) in the bottom portion of the feature, overlain by soil with a much lower density of charcoal and fire-cracked rock. No other cultural materials were recovered from Feature 69. An examination of the charcoal by Leslie Bush of the GBL indicated that all the wood recovered from this feature was hickory but that there were no nut shell fragments. Feature 72 was similar in appearance to Feature 69, with high densities of charcoal overlain by a layer of soil with reduced amounts. However, the density of fire-cracked rock was greatly reduced in Feature 72. Only two small chert flakes were recovered, along with a piece of historic brick weighing less than 4.0 g. Another small piece of brick was identified on top of Feature 70 during the mechanical scraping, but, because this piece could not be associated with the feature with absolute certainty, it was not included in the artifact totals in Appendix 1. The lack of pottery, the spatial separation, and the different morphology exhibited by these five features indicate that they are not associated with the Late Prehistoric component on 12 Jo 5. Instead, the evidence from the elongated-basin features--the presence of a metal fence staple in a nearby post mold, a piece of brick, the other brick fragment near Feature 72, the recovery of only two flakes from five completely excavated features, the presence of only hickory wood but no nut shells in Feature 72, and the nonbioturbated nature of the features- suggests a historic component. In addition, the historic fire pit feature (Feature 51) located in Trench 5 exhibited a morphology similar to the elongated-basin features identified in Block 6, strongly suggesting that these types of features are historic roasting, or barbecue, pits.

An examination of the partially scraped ground surface south of the Chantry Way right-of way (an area mechanically scraped during construction activities but with plowzone still present) failed to produce either evidence of historic domestic structures or any scatter of prehistoric materials. The area north of the Chantry Way right-of-way did not exhibit any ground surface visibility.