IndianLakeSP.ArchaeologicalSurvey.4Aug2021.pdf

SCHOOLCRAFT COUNTY, MICHIGAN

MICHIGAN DNR PERMIT NO. AE2021-02

ER98-52.12

AUGUST 2021

Image Credits: (left) Shovel Test Pit FF4 profile by Jay Baril, Commonwealth Heritage Group, Inc.

(right) 1931 USGS topographic maps showing location of five structures in survey area

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY FOR INDIAN LAKE STATE

PARK—TOILET/SHOWER BUILDINGS REPLACEMENT AND

NEW DRAIN FIELDS

ER98-52.12

Prepared for

SANDERS & CZAPSKI ASSOCIATES, PLLC

109 SOUTH FRONT STREET, SUITE 210

MARQUETTE, MI 49855

FILE NUMBER 751 / 18092.TAP

Prepared by

COMMONWEALTH HERITAGE GROUP, INC.

3215 CENTRAL STREET

DEXTER, MICHIGAN 48130

Ethan A. Epstein, Ph.D., Principal Investigator

R-1580

August 2021

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Notice

The location of any archaeological site is considered sensitive information and is protected from release under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Site location data should not be released to the public because the information may create a risk, harm, theft, or destruction of a non-renewable resource. Information on archaeological sites should only be shared with those individuals directly involved with the subject project. Archaeological site information should not be used for future unrelated projects.

Archaeologica l Survey For Ind ian Lake State Park i

ABSTRACT

Commonwealth Heritage Group, Inc. was contracted by Sanders & Czapski Associates, PLLC to complete a Phase I archaeological resources survey for the Indian Lake State Park – Toilet/Shower Buildings Replacement and New Drain Fields project (Project). Sanders & Czapski Associates, PLLC provided maps and photographs of the project location to Commonwealth on January 23, 2021, and additional photographs and information on February 10, 2021, including Keyhole Markup Language Zipped (.kmz) files delineating three project components.

The survey area, or assumed area of potential effects (APE), consists of 7.28 ha (18.00 ac) in the Indian Lake State Park campground and is coincident with the Project’s limits (Project Area).

Located in the N½ SE¼ of Section 17, T41N R16W, Schoolcraft County, Michigan, the survey area includes modern camp sites, roads, woods, open grass areas, and a sanitation lagoon, all near the shore of Indian Lake. According to site files at the Michigan State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), all but a small segment of the survey area lies in the mapped boundaries of site 20ST280, the Indian Lake Civilian Conservation Corps Camp.

In order to assist the US Department of Interior – National Park Service, Midwest Region (NPS) in partial fulfilment of their Section 106 responsibilities, Sanders & Czapski Associates, PLLC sought archaeological testing in areas where ground disturbing activity related to the Project is planned to occur.

Eight cultural features were identified as a result of walkover survey and cultural material was recovered from four shovel test pits (STP). Although cultural materials and features were identified in the Survey Area, they are not likely to significantly inform regarding the area’s history. Given the types of features and materials encountered, it is not likely that significant archaeological resources will be affected by Project activity in the areas surveyed. Therefore, Commonwealth does not recommend further archaeological investigation in the Survey Area.

However, because only a portion of the 20ST280 site area, as presently mapped, was field investigated, Commonwealth recommends the site as a whole remain unevaluated under Criterion D regarding potential listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), pending further archaeological investigation in the park’s south unit.

ii

CONTENTS

Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... i

List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... iii

List of Tables ..................................................................................................................................v

Project Description

Environmental Background

Soils

Postcontact Period

Exploration and Settlement Periods

Road to Statehood

Historical Land Use of the Archaeological Project Area

Previously Documented Archaeological Resources

Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites and Surveys

Methods

Prefield Research

Field Methods

Shovel Testing, Pedestrian Reconnaissance, and Field Documentation

National Register of Historic Places Evaluation

Results of Field Investigations

Pedestrian Walkover Survey

Shovel Test Excavation

North Survey Area STPs

South Survey Area STPs

Summary of Fieldwork

Discussion and Recommendations

References Cited

Appendix A Shovel Test Data Tables and Profiles

Appendix B Artifact Catalog iii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Location map (1:24,000) of the Survey Areas and areas of planned ground disturbance

Figure 2. Aerial image showing Survey Areas and areas of planned ground disturbance

Figure 3. View north from the center of the survey area

Figure 4. View south-southeast along old campground entrance road near west end of the survey area ... 11

Figure 5. Map of soils in the survey area

Figure 6. 1931 USGS topographic map showing five structures in/adjacent to the South Survey Area

Figure 7. 1953 aerial photograph showing at least two standing structures in the South Survey Area

Figure 8. Previously recorded archaeological sites and surveys within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the Survey Area

Figure 9. Modern aerial image showing South Survey Area survey coverage

Figure 10. Modern aerial image showing North Survey Area survey coverage

Figure 11. Feature 1, possible structure location, old entrance road on the left of frame, drain field on the right

Figure 12. One of the brown beer bottles observed in Feature 2

Figure 13. “Continental Distilling Corp Philadelphia PA” bottle base from Feature 3

Figure 14. Crushed metal bucket from Feature 4

Figure 15. Active materials storage area, Feature 5

Figure 16. Soil dump/storage area, Feature 6

Figure 17. Section of cut limestone stairway, Feature 7

Figure 18. Refuse scatter, Feature 8

Figure 19. North Survey Area structure and area of STP B2, view west-southwest

Figure 20. STP A1 profile showing sandy-gravel fill

Figure 21. STP B2 profile showing disturbed/mixed soils

Figure 22. Soil profile of STP FF3 10W

Figure 23. Soil profile of STP FF4

Figure 24. Soil profile of STP KK2 iv

Figure 25. Lithic recovered from STP FF4 (Catalog # 03.L2736) v

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Soil horizons in the survey area

Table 2. Soil profile of STP FF3 10W

Table 3. Soil profile of STP FF4

Table 4. Soil profile of STP KK2

Table 5. Survey results

PROJECT OVERVIEW

Project Description

Commonwealth Heritage Group, Inc. was contracted by Sanders & Czapski Associates, PLLC (and their client, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources [DNR]) to complete a Phase I archaeological resources survey for the Indian Lake State Park – Toilet/Shower Buildings Replacement and New Drain Fields project. Sanders & Czapski Associates, PLLC provided maps and photographs of the project location to Commonwealth on January 23, 2021, and additional photographs and information on February 10, 2021, including Keyhole Markup Language Zipped (.kmz) files delineating three project components that are in two separate parts of the survey area, designated the North Survey Area and the South Survey Area.

The first component of the Project includes removing and replacing the north and central toilet/shower buildings with one standardized toilet/shower building. The north toilet building will be demolished to 24 inches below grade and undergo site restoration. The new standard toilet building, which is based on the toilet/shower design for Wilderness State Park, will be constructed at the site of the central toilet building. New ADA compliant sidewalks, site grading, and landscaping to connect the building to the existing parking area and roadway will be constructed. Three to four new parking spaces, at least one of which will be a van accessible ADA-compliant parking space and access aisle, will be constructed near the new toilet building as well. The second component of the Project involves demolishing or abandoning two standalone drain fields and removing the existing lagoon and replacing all three on-site wastewater disposal systems with one combined wastewater disposal system. The new combined wastewater disposal system will be either a lagoon or drain field. The third component of the Project includes replacing the existing waterline that supports the north toilet building.

Located in the N½ SE¼ of Section 17, T41N R16W, Thompson Township, Schoolcraft County, Michigan (Figure 1), the survey area includes modern camp sites, roads, woods, open grass areas, buried utilities, and a sanitation lagoon, all near the shore of Indian Lake (Figure 2). The survey area, or APE, consists of 7.28 ha (18.00 ac) in the Indian Lake State Park campground, is coincident with the Project Area, and includes all areas in which ground disturbing activity is planned to occur. Ground disturbing activities related to the new wastewater disposal system and construction of the new toilet/shower building are planned to occur in the 7.0 ha (17.3 ac) South Survey Area which is south of the 0.28 ha (0.70 ac) North Survey Area that is planned to be disturbed as a result of removing the north toilet/shower building. According to site files at the Michigan State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), all but a small segment of the APE in the North Survey Area lies in the mapped boundaries of site 20ST280, the Indian Lake Civilian Conservation Corp (CCC) Camp.

In order to assist the US Department of Interior – National Park Service, Midwest Region (NPS) in partial fulfilment of their Section 106 responsibilities, Sanders & Czapski Associates, PLLC sought archaeological testing in areas where ground disturbing activities related to the project are planned to occur. Commonwealth conducted archaeological and architectural resources background research (Remensnyder and Epstein 2021) for the project and received DNR permit number AE2021-02 to perform archaeological exploration, the current survey, on state-owned land.

Approximately 7.0 ha (17.3 ac) were subjected to pedestrian ground surface reconnaissance (walkover survey) and 174 STPs were excavated. Eight cultural features were identified as a result of walkover survey; a possible building foundation scar, two can and bottle scatters, a feature consisting of a metal bucket and fence wire, a materials storage area, a soils storage area, a refuse scatter, and a cut limestone stairway. Coal slag was identified in three STPs, and coal slag and a single lithic flake were recovered from one STP.

Although cultural materials and features were identified in the Survey Area during the current survey, field investigation suggests the likelihood of the surveyed area harboring significant archaeological resources is low. Therefore, it is not likely that significant archaeological resources will be affected by Project activity in the areas surveyed, and Commonwealth does not recommend further archaeological investigation in the Survey Area. However, because only a portion of the 20ST280 site area, as presently mapped, was field investigated, Commonwealth recommends the site as a whole remain unevaluated under Criterion D regarding potential listing in the National NRHP, pending further archaeological investigation in the park’s south unit.

Research by Remensnyder (Remensnyder and Epstein 2021:4), however, suggests that the south unit of Indian Lake State Park – the area that includes the campground, may be eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion A for Politics/Government and in the area of Recreation, or under Criterion C for its Rustic-style architecture.

Figure 1. Location map (1:24,000) of the Survey Areas and areas of planned ground disturbance

Figure 2. Aerial image showing Survey Areas and areas of planned ground disturbance

ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND

The Indian Lake State Park Campground is situated on a relatively level area atop an elongated northeast to southwest oriented strand. The main campground road is located on this level area.

The elevation of Indian Lake is approximately 186 m (610 ft) above mean sea level (amsl), but elevation quickly increases in the survey area to approximately 193 m (633 ft) amsl within 40 m (131 ft) of the shoreline (Figure 3). Elevation begins to decline approximately 75 m (245 ft) southeast of the shoreline, just southeast of a secondary campground road that parallels the main campground road (Figure 4). An old north-south oriented campground entrance road intersects the secondary campground road.

Soils

The majority of surface soil in the survey area is Rubicon sand, 6 to 15 percent slopes (United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 2021).

Rubicon sand can be found on the summits, shoulders, and backslopes of beach ridges, ground moraines, and hillslopes, and develops from sandy glaciofluvial deposits. In the survey area, these sands form a band adjacent to Indian Lake (Figure 5) that is consistent with the northwest slope and level area within 40 m (131 ft) of the shoreline. The typical soil profile of Rubicon sand includes sand to a depth of at least 203 cm (80 in) below the ground surface (Table 1).

Southeasterly adjacent to the Rubicon sand, Wurtsmith-Tawas-Deford complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, sands form a second band that is consistent with the back or southeast slope that begins approximately 75 m (245 ft) southeast of the shoreline. Wurtsmith-Tawas-Deford complex sands can be found on the summits, backslopes, and shoulders of beach ridges and outwash plains, and are typical beach sands. The typical soil profile of Wurtsmith-Tawas-Deford complex sands includes sand to a depth of at least 203 cm (80 in) below ground surface.

Table 1. Soil horizons in the survey area

Rubicon sand, 6 to 15 percent slopes Wurtsmith-Tawas-Deford complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes A - 0 to 3 cm (0 to 1 in): sand A - 0 to 5 cm (0 to 2 in): sand

E - 3 to 18 cm (1 to 7 in): sand E - 5 to 18 cm (2 to 7 in): sand

Bs1 - 18 to 28 cm (7 to 11 in): sand Bw - 18 to 38 cm (7 to 15 in): sand

Bs2 - 28 to 46 cm (11 to 18 in): sand BC - 38 to 66 cm (15 to 26 in): sand

BC - 46 to 97 cm (18 to 38 in): sand C - 66 to 203 cm (26 to 80 in): sand

C - 97 to 203 cm (38 to 80 inches: sand

Figure 3. View north from the center of the survey area

Figure 4. View south-southeast along old campground entrance road near west end of the survey area

Figure 5. Map of soils in the survey area

CULTURAL BACKGROUND

Precontact Period

The Straits of Mackinac region has attracted archaeological researchers for more than a century.

The region was occupied throughout prehistory. The prehistory of the Straits region reflects both regional cultural developments and cultural influences from other regions. The historical era begins with the introduction of European explorers and colonizers in the seventeenth century, who established permanent settlements on both sides of the Straits. The area has remained a point of settlement to the present day, changing in economy from military outposts to fur trade, to fishing and logging, and tourism.

Paleoindian (11500 B.P. to 9500 B.P.)

Paleoindian groups are the earliest known inhabitants of North America (Shott and Wright 1999). Paleoindian peoples were the first inhabitants of the upper Great Lakes, entering the region from the south during the retreat of the ice sheet at the end of the last glacial maximum, as early as 12,000 BP and lasting until around 10,000 PB. At the time, the environment was far different than it is today. Much of the region had recently been covered with, or was significantly affected by, glacial ice. Spruce-fir forests, muskeg, swamps, and barren glacial outwash plains occurred over most of the area, while tundra persisted along the fringes of the receding ice. The transition from a post-glacial environment to forest communities more similar to today may have been quite rapid, with modern floral communities becoming established by 8,000 BC in the upper Midwest (Davis 1983; Huber 1995).

During the Paleoindian era, water levels in the Great Lakes basins were in flux, resulting in a forested environment that was different from the present era. Following the retreat of the Two Rivers glacial advance, the region experienced isostatic rebound and down-cutting of outlet channels to the east. Paleoindian sites have been identified on Lake Algonquin shorelines and other pro-glacial lake features, as well as in inland contexts, such as river terraces and glacial moraines (Buckmaster and Paquette 1996; Dudzik 1993; Mulholland et al. 1997).

Early Paleoindian sites (10,000 BC to 8000 BC) are poorly represented in the upper Great Lakes, although several early Paleoindian sites have been identified in eastern Wisconsin (Mason 1986:189–190; Nero 1955; Palmer and Stoltman 1976; Ritzenthaler 1966). Evidence from Early Paleoindian sites suggests that the first occupants of the region entered from the south during late glacial times, around 9500 BC. These populations were apparently well adapted to the forest-steppe environment and pursued big game hunting. Early Paleoindian sites are interpreted as short-term encampments with material culture characterized by large, lanceolate projectile points (Mason 1986:198).

The late Paleoindian stage began ca. 8000 BC and overlaps in time with the Early Archaic stage.

It is difficult to say exactly when the stage ended because the Paleoindian tradition was replaced by Archaic tradition cultures at different times in different places; therefore, the end of the Paleoindian tradition is broadly estimated to be between 6,000 BC and 5.000 BC.

The late Paleoindian stage is marked by changes in projectile point styles, and an expansion of populations northward into recently deglaciated areas and the newly exposed shores of the downward-draining Great Lakes. These changes reflect the development of an adaptation to lake and forest environments as areas became deglaciated and the level of the Great Lakes dropped.

During the Lake Chippewa low phase, between 8,000 BC and 5,500 BC, the water level of Lake Michigan dropped approximately 113 m (370 ft) from 183 m (600 ft) to 70 m (230 ft) above mean sea level (amsl) (Larsen 1987:14).The vast tracts of newly exposed lake plain were colonized by plants and animals. Late Paleoindian hunters and gatherers were probably attracted to the lake-plain forest and lake margin because of the ecological productivity and diversity of these areas. Unfortunately, many late Paleoindian sites are probably now inundated by up to 122 m (400 ft) of water (Mason 1986:192–193).

Paleoindians are traditionally viewed as big game hunters (such as caribou, bison, and mammoths). There are no known Paleoindian sites in the Straits region (Taylor and Dunham 2002:3–1). However, late Paleoindian material culture is known from sites in the nearby Lake Superior basin (Greenman and Stanley 1943; Julig 1984; Lee 1954, 1955; Mason 1986; Mason and Irwin 1960; Salzer 1974). Buckmaster and Paquette (1989, 1996) have identified a series of late Paleoindian or Plano sites in the Upper Peninsula in association with quartzite outcrops, inland lakes, and glacial outwash features of the Marquette glacial readvance. Scottsbluff, Eden, Agate Basin, and other collaterally flaked points have been found in concentrations that suggest cremations or other discrete activities. Several other late Paleoindian sites have been identified in the upper Great Lakes (Cleland and Ruggles 1996; Dudzik 1993; Mason 1981, 1986; Salzer 1974). Although poorly understood, late Paleoindian adaptations in the upper Great Lakes are thought to have been nomadic, focusing primarily on the hunting of large game such as elk and caribou and opportunistically exploiting a variety of other resources (Cleland 1983; Kelly and Todd 1988:223; Mason 1981). Investigations in northern Wisconsin suggest that late Paleoindian hunters of the region were exploiting a wide variety of mid-sized and small game on a regular basis, perhaps relying on such game as the primary mode of subsistence (Kuehn 1998; Meinholz and Kuehn 1996).

Archaic (9500 B.P. to 2600 B.P.)

The Archaic tradition follows the Paleoindian tradition, dating from sometime after 8,000 BC to 1,000 BC (Mason 1986:198; Mason and Irwin 1960). There are several Archaic sites in the Straits of Mackinac region, although none in the study area (Taylor and Dunham 2002:3–1).

There are three defining characteristics of the Archaic tradition; a subsistence economy based on exploitation of a wide variety of wild plant and animal resources; the absence of pottery; and burial of the dead in discrete areas or natural knolls. The Archaic cultural tradition evolved during a period of major environmental change. At this time, post-glacial lake levels fluctuated dramatically in the Huron and Michigan basins (e.g., Anderton 1993; Hough 1958; Larsen 1985a, 1985b) and the phytogeography of the region changed (Davis 1983; Webb et al. 1983).

The tundra and spruce landscape of the Paleoindian tradition began to be replaced by pine forests

ca. 8,000 BC, and then changed to a mixed deciduous-coniferous forest ca. 6,000 BC. This gave way to the current Canadian-Carolinian biotic province by 5,500 BC. The large game that the Paleoindian hunters relied on began to disappear, and subsistence assemblages reflect an increasing use of small game, aquatic resources, and plants. The tool kit expanded to include tool forms for efficient exploitation of the new suite of resources (see Meinholz and Kuehn 1996).

Early and Middle Archaic sites are virtually absent in much of the Upper Peninsula, although Early Archaic-like material has been identified in Marquette County, but not as far south as Mackinac and Emmet Counties. This hiatus in the cultural record has been attributed to several factors. The seemingly low population density of the Early Archaic stage may be due to a population decline following the Paleoindian tradition and/or inundation of the majority of Early Archaic sites by higher lake levels. Alternatively, Stoltman (1986:213) suggests that "we have not learned to discriminate the archaeological remains of these peoples from those of either earlier or later cultures". It is possible that lanceolate-shaped spear points characteristic of the Plano/Late Paleoindian stage were manufactured by Early Archaic populations. It is also possible that large, side-notched points currently ascribed to the Middle Archaic stage were manufactured earlier. A third possibility is that large points with diagonal or corner notches, expanding stems, or bifurcate base points – dated to the Early Archaic period in other states – may be of comparable age in northern Michigan (e.g., Mason 1981:131–133; Stoltman 1986:215).

The Middle Archaic stage dates from ca. 3000 BC to 1200 BC. The period is particularly noted for distinctive, large, side-notched projectile points, and/or knives of chert are found in this era.

Copper tools and ornaments, as well as groundstone items, are also associated with this stage.

The Old Copper culture, which is primarily identified as a mortuary complex, flourished during the Middle Archaic stage (Ritzenthaler 1957). Copper goods were manufactured from Lake Superior copper using a cold-hammer technique. The vast majority of Old Copper culture sites in the upper Great Lakes have been surface finds. Few Old Copper sites have been systematically excavated; however, sites in Wisconsin (e.g., Oconto, Reigh, and Osceola) provide some insight into the varied mortuary practices of this cultural tradition. Burials were interred in what some interpret to be cemeteries. Burials can occur both singularly and in multiple interments; in both extended and flexed positions; as secondary bundle burials; and as cremations. Grave goods are often interred with the burials. There has been considerable controversy over the Old Copper culture time frame because of inconsistencies in the radiocarbon dates from these sites. Current evidence suggests that the Old Copper culture postdates the Lake Nipissing maximum, with a span between 2,300 BC and 1,200 BC (Stoltman 1986:224–226); however, it should be noted that Salzer (1986:273) has suggested that many of the so-called Old Copper artifacts may actually have been produced by Initial Woodland peoples.

In contrast to the preceding Early and Middle Archaic stages, the Terminal or Late Archaic stage is documented at a number of sites in the upper Great Lakes region (Anderton 1993; Benchley et

al. 1988; Conway 1980; Dunham and Anderton 1999; Fitting 1974; Franzen 1987; Wright 1972).

Late Archaic populations were hunter-gatherers. While the availability and productivity of large terrestrial animals, nuts and the potential for agricultural production were limited in the upper Great Lakes; fish were an abundant, highly productive, and reliable resource. The earliest evidence for fishing in the upper Great Lakes is found in the context of the Old Copper complex, where fishing equipment is a common component of the artifact assemblages (Cleland 1982).

The evolution of Late Archaic settlement/subsistence strategies is a major research interest in the region. Based on archaeological data derived from several sites in the Great Lakes, Cleland (1982) posited a general settlement/subsistence model for the Late Archaic in which hunting was a year-round activity. During the spring and summer, populations moved to coastal locales where they subsisted by spearing shallow-water spawning fish, hunting waterfowl and mammals in adjacent wetlands, and collecting wild plant foods.

Research in the Upper Peninsula suggests that some of the aceramic sites associated with relict Nipissing and Algoma shoreline features may be Late Archaic in age (Anderton 1993; Conway 1980; Franzen 1987, 1998). Since the occupation of a shoreline cannot predate the creation of that landform, those sites below 193 m (633 ft) amsl could not have been occupied prior to ca.

2,700 BC, and those below 189 m (620 ft) amsl could not have been occupied before ca. 2,000 BC (Anderton 1993). Thus, the elevation of a paleoshoreline provides a potential horizon marker for dating these sites. Additionally, a recent study of the raw material composition of debitage has demonstrated a relationship between raw material type and the relative age of coastal archaeological sites in the Munising Bay area (Drake et al. 2009). Based on this study, Archaic sites typically include 70% or more quartzite in their lithic assemblage, whereas Woodland sites include less than 30% quartzite. The proportion of quartzite on multicomponent sites falls between 30 and 70%. In other words, the elevation of a site and its raw material composition of debitage can be used in tandem to date aceramic coastal archaeological sites in the Upper Peninsula.

Woodland (2600 B.P. to 400 B.P.)

The Woodland period follows the Archaic (600 BC [2600 BP] to AD 1600). It is characterized by the introduction of ceramics, the construction of burial mounds, and the use of domesticated plants (Brashler et al. 2000). Many Woodland period sites are known in the Straits region (Taylor and Dunham 2002)

Throughout much of the Midwest the Woodland tradition is divided into three stages: Early Woodland (1,000 BC to 200 BC); Middle Woodland (200 BC to AD 600); and Late Woodland (AD 600 to AD 1600). The beginning of the Woodland tradition is marked by the introduction of ceramics. In the upper Great Lakes the Archaic tradition persists about 1,000 years longer than in more southerly parts of the Midwest, and the Woodland tradition does not begin until around AD 1 (see Brose and Hambacher 1999; Fitting 1975). Ceramics do not appear in the eastern Upper Peninsula until then, which corresponds to the Middle Woodland tradition in other parts of the upper Great Lakes. The first ceramics to appear in the eastern Upper Peninsula are Middle Woodland forms representing Laurel and North Bay expressions (Brose 1970; Brose and Hambacher 1999; Janzen 1968; Mason 1981). Thus, the terms Initial and Terminal Woodland are often substituted for Middle and Late Woodland in the Upper Peninsula.

The ensuing Initial Woodland stage (AD 1 to AD 500) in the northern Great Lakes represents the first widespread introduction of ceramics in the region. In general, Initial Woodland sites in the Upper Peninsula may represent Lake Forest (Fitting 1975) or Northern Tier (Mason 1966) adaptations, sharing material culture affinities with Laurel sites to the south, north, and west (Janzen 1968). Settlement and subsistence patterns suggest seasonal fishing, collecting, and hunting, with an increasing emphasis on exploiting aquatic resources. Initial Woodland sites such as Summer Island (Brose 1970), Winter (Richner 1973), and Naomikong Point (Janzen 1968) are interpreted as warm season fishing villages. Martin (1989) argues that several coastal sites in this region attest to the use of fall-spawning fish and the possible early use of gill-net technology. In the St. Ignace area, a number of sites having Initial Woodland components are thought to have been satellite summer or winter camps (Fitting and Clarke 1974; Fitting 1978). Spider Cave on the Garden Peninsula may have been a ritual locale (Cleland and Peske 1968).

The Terminal Woodland stage (AD 500 to AD 1600) is perhaps the best-documented cultural period in the northern Great Lakes. Archaeological data suggest that there were two separate populations in the Upper Peninsula. Cultural affiliations for the western Upper Peninsula are clearly associated with Oneota populations to the south and west in Wisconsin. The eastern Upper Peninsula, Straits of Mackinac, and northern Lower Peninsula reflect a shift from a more western Blackduck affiliation during the early Terminal Woodland to an eastern Iroquoian influence during the late Terminal Woodland (McPherron 1967). A variety of new tools were developed in the latter part of the Woodland period including the bow and arrow, the birchbark canoe, and ceramic vessels (Taylor and Dunham 2002:3–1).

Postcontact Period

The following generalized postcontact period history of Michigan is divided into periods that include Exploration and Settlement and the Road to Statehood. Subsequent to statehood, this report’s focus narrows to a discussion on historical land use of the Archaeological Survey Area.

Exploration and Settlement Periods

1625–1650: French and other Europeans in the name of the French crown sought economic opportunity and a route to Asia westward from Canadian settlements, expanding into the Great Lakes region.

1668–1760: French fur traders, Jesuit priests, and Metis (mixed French and Native American heritage) persons established missions and fur trading posts around the Straits of Mackinac.

Eventually both activities were conducted in forts, especially following the French presence in Detroit ca. 1700. The introduction of European trade goods, especially iron, began to replace stone and wooden tools, resulting in an increased reliance on these goods, a diminishment of native skills, and economic dependency on the fur trade industry.

1760–1796: British fur traders, military installations, and the French and Indian War allowed British influence to overtake many previously held French areas; however, British relationships with tribes remained tense. Although the British reused French trading sites, most of Michigan remained open territory.

1796–1814: American military installations were established further westward, including the reoccupation of British facilities in support of inland territorial settlement. Farmsteading, homesteading, land clearing, and cultivation occurred as Native American rights were ceded via treaty.

Road to Statehood

1818–1837: The Michigan Territory was formed, the American Fur Company dominated the fur trade, and the completion of the Erie Canal in 1825 fostered a vast increase in population.

Although the Toledo Strip Conflict ceded lands to Ohio, the Upper Peninsula was granted to Michigan in 1836, and Michigan was proclaimed the twenty-sixth state in 1837.

1837–1861: Many areas of Michigan were settled by Americans from New England and New York, often with population origins still evident in place names. Seeking opportunity, the arrival of these groups resulted in a dramatic population increase and significant steamboat travel growth on the Great Lakes. Southern Michigan’s prairie landscape was found to be excellent farmland in need of little clearing and its abundance fostered commercial farming. Early east-west railroads in the lower part of the state linked communities on Lakes Huron and Michigan via overland routes, providing market access in addition to that provided by maritime transportation.

Post 1861: The first substantial occupation by Euroamericans in the Upper Peninsula began with the logging era. Following the depletion of forest resources on the east coast of North America, loggers turned their attention to the Great Lakes region. Beginning in the 1870s, immigrants came to the Upper Peninsula to work in the logging camps. Karamanski (1984, 1989) divides logging activity in the Upper Peninsula into three periods based on changes in technology and in the forest products being exploited. The water-pine era, between 1835 and 1900, consisted of the harvesting of pine and other softwood species. These products were shipped and processed by water- and wind-powered technologies. During this period, logging resulted in the removal of much of the area’s virgin white pine. Between ca. 1900 and 1935, the rail-hardwood period opened up many areas away from major rivers for the harvesting of hardwood species and their transportation by rail. The last period, called the gasoline-pulpwood era, began during the Depression in the 1930s and featured motorized logging equipment, such as trucks and chainsaws. Modern forest harvesting operations are classified in this last period.

Following the major logging boom, some settlers tried to farm areas that had been cleared by forest harvesting activities. In the Upper Peninsula, farmsteads/homesteads were occupied by a variety of ethnic groups, included Swedes, Finland Swedes, Norwegians, Danes, French- Canadians, and Native Americans, including the Chippewa/Ottawa (Franzen 2003). Households diversified their economic bases to include commercial fishing, harvesting/gathering and small-scale processing, craft making, and logging industry wage labor, in addition to stone quarrying, garden plots, and fruit trees, especially apple trees. This diversification of labor was, for numerous ethnic groups, a continuation of pre-migration lifeways.

Two major periods of American agricultural history are most represented in the Upper Peninsula:

the Golden Age of Agriculture from 1900–1920, a product of high market prices, and the Farm Depression era, ca. 1920–1932, a result of social issues including buffering against wage labor risk (Franzen 2003). Kolehmainen (1950) is quick to remind, however, that many families were driven by the desire to own land for one’s self. Although wage labor required social interaction with disparate groups, its part-time basis did allow ethnically grouped homesteaders to prolong acculturation into the greater Upper Peninsula community as a whole and to maintain use of their native languages (Franzen 2003). Homesteading attempts were mainly unsuccessful due to a variety of factors: poor soils, long distances to potential markets, the high cost of receiving goods and supplies, short growing seasons, and the collapse of market prices. Eventually, most of the resource-depleted lands became tax delinquent and reverted to the state government, forming the base for the national and state forests of Michigan (Quinlan 1975). Attempts to rectify past land management abuses were carried out by Depression-era public works projects such as the CCC.

Today, forest products, mining, and recreation form the Upper Peninsula’s resource base.

Historical Land Use of the Archaeological Project Area

The survey area occupies approximately 7.28 ha (18.00 ac) in the N½ SE¼ of Section 17, T41N R16W, Thompson Township Schoolcraft County, Michigan (see Figure 1). In an effort to identify previous land use and to identify structures and/or other cultural features in the survey area, Commonwealth reviewed historic records, historic maps, plat maps, and aerial photographs that include the survey area.

No structures or other cultural features are depicted in Section 17 on the original Bureau of Land Management General Land Office survey map (BLM GLO 1846). However, the map does indicate that the southeast shore of M’O’Nistique Lake (Indian Lake) was wetland that extended approximately 0.4 km (0.25 mi) inland from the shoreline encompassing the entire survey area.

Although the strand, as a topographic feature is not depicted, the wetlands presumably surrounded the strand. The BLM GLO Land Records database contains no information regarding the initial transfer of lands in the N½ SE¼ of the section into the public domain (BLM GLO 2021). The only land record in the database pertaining to Section 17 is the sale of the SE¼ in 1854 under the Land Act of 1820. The SE¼ is just beyond the wetland boundary as shown on the BLM GLO (1846) map.

No structures or other cultural features aside from the road that would become CR-442 are depicted in the SE¼ of Section 17 on a 1917 plat map (Hixson 1917). The 1917 plat map indicates that the NW¼ SE¼ was owned by F. Miller and the NE¼ SE¼ was owned by the Upper Michigan Lumber Company. The Upper Michigan Lumber Company retained title to the NE¼ SE¼ through at least 1930 while J. Fashar and Company had acquired the NW¼ SE¼ (Hixson 1930). The State of Michigan acquired the land for the south unit of Indian Lake State Park in 1932 and workers from the Camp Manistique CCC began developing the park in 1933 (Michigan Department of Natural Resources 2021). By late June 1937, a large, log-constructed, Rustic style bath house was open to the public (Escanaba Daily Press 1937). It is also likely that men with the Works Progress Administration (WPA) helped with the park’s development as well, although additional research is needed in this area.

Examination of a USGS topographic map from 1931, that is based on a 1931 survey, shows that two roads entered the survey area from CR-442, the more southern of which turns to the northeast and connects with a northern road that continues north, east of the lake (United States Geological Survey 1931). Five structures are depicted on the map (Figure 6). One south of the corner where the southern road turns northeast, and four north of the corner between the road and the lake. A trail leading south-southwest from the structures is also shown. The fact the five structures were present in the survey area in or before 1931, suggests that they were constructed prior to the State of Michigan owning the property and prior to CCC development of the property. By 1959, the two 1931 access roads are no longer shown on USGS maps (NETROnline 2021), and a loop road network is shown in the survey area. The five structures on the 1931 map are no longer shown, however, two structures not previously depicted are in the far west of the campground area. A USGS topographic map from 1984 shows the addition of two structures in the northeast part of the campground.

An aerial photograph from 1953 (NETROnline 2021) shows the network of roads shown on the 1931 topographic map. Two, possibly three structures are visible (Figure 7), one at the curve where the southern 1931 road turns northeast, one approximately 41 m (135 ft) north of the first structure, and a third possible structure near the shore, northwest of the second structure. The structures can longer be seen on an aerial photograph from 1981, the two southeastern structure areas becoming wooded, or lawn covered in a 2016 aerial image (NETROnline 2021).

Figure 6. 1931 USGS topographic map showing five structures in/adjacent to the South Survey Area

Figure 7. 1953 aerial photograph showing at least two standing structures in the South Survey Area

PREVIOUSLY DOCUMENTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL

RESOURCES

Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites and Surveys

Pre-field research for the area that includes the North and South Survey Areas and a 1.6 km (1.0

mi) buffer (Archaeology Study Area) around the North and South Survey Areas was completed in March, 2021 (Remensnyder and Epstein 2021). SHPO records indicate that one previously recorded archaeological site (20ST280) and parts of two previously recorded archaeological investigations (ER-2222 and ER-895082) are present in the Archaeology Study Area (Figure 8).

According to SHPO site files, all but a small segment of the survey areas lies in the mapped boundaries of site 20ST280. Hinsdale’s Archaeological Atlas of Michigan (Hinsdale 1931) does not depict any archaeological resources in or near the survey area, although a mound and village are shown on either side of the Indian River near the shore of Indian Lake approximately 5.5 km (3.5 mi) northeast of the survey area. Similarly, a review of Halsey’s Retrieving Michigan’s Buried Past: The Archaeology of the Great Lakes State (1999) did not result in the identification of archaeological resources in or near the survey area.

20ST280, the Indian Lake CCC Camp, was field verified by the Office of the State archaeologist in 1995 when they conducted field visits, informant interviews, and historical research (Jackson et al. 1996). The research indicates that originally there were five structures at the site and that three were still standing at the time of the field visits. One of the structures was reported as being riddled with powder post beetles and the demolished buildings were said to be survived by wooden foundation remains. The actual total area of the camp was reported as unknown, however, a 1931 USGS topographic map (United States Geological Survey 1931) depicts the location of five structures in the current survey area (see Figure 6). As of January 1997, the camp was considered unevaluated for listing in the NRHP, requiring additional information prior to any further recommendation. Current research by Remensnyder (Remensnyder and Epstein 2021:4), however, suggests that “Because of its associations with the CCC and WPA [Works Progress Administration], the south unit of Indian Lake State Park [within which the campground is located] may be eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion A for Politics/Government and in the area of Recreation. It may also be eligible under Criterion C for its Rustic-style architecture”.

ER2222 is a survey of pipelines that cross the Upper and Lower Peninsulas of Michigan. One of the corridors surveyed is approximately 0.4 km (0.25 mi) southeast of the current survey area.

Roughly 805 km (500 mi) of 23 m (75 ft) wide ROW were surveyed and 55 new archaeological sites were reported, although none of these sites are in the Archaeology Study Area (Weir 1981).

ER-895082 is a 43 ha (106 ac) survey of three pipeline segments where access had previously been denied. One of the corridors surveyed is approximately 0.4 km (0.25 mi) southwest of the current survey area. No archaeological sites were identified as a result of the survey (Branstner 1991).

Figure 8. Previously recorded archaeological sites and surveys within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the Survey Area

METHODS

Prefield Research

Commonwealth conducted a review of SHPO files and compiled information regarding previously identified archaeological sites and surveys in the survey area and in the 1.6-km (1.0-

mi) Archaeology Study Area (Remensnyder and Epstein 2021). In addition, Commonwealth reviewed aerials and maps, in an effort to understand the archaeological potential in the Archaeology APE (Remensnyder and Epstein 2021).

Field Methods

The first objective of a Phase I archaeological resource survey is to identify the archaeological resources located in the proposed survey areas. The process of archaeological site identification in the field was carried out using a combination of pedestrian reconnaissance and shovel testing techniques.

Pedestrian reconnaissance typically consists of pedestrian transects through survey areas and the examination of exposed surfaces (e.g., pine plantation furrowing, tree falls, unimproved road/trail surfaces, etc.). Where surface visibility is good, such as in a plowed agricultural field, pedestrian reconnaissance is the best way to identify archaeological sites in a Phase I survey context (e.g., Krakker et al. 1983; Nance 1979). However, 10-m (32-ft) interval pedestrian reconnaissance transects were used in this survey, despite heavily wooded areas, particularly to try and identify structural remains.

Phase I shovel testing strategies are designed to identify archaeological resources and to delineate their boundaries (Shott 1985). In the northern Great Lakes, shovel testing has been most useful in identifying precontact sites because of the small, low-density nature of many of the sites and the often-limited surface visibility in the forest (see Krakker et al. 1983; Lovis 1976; Nance 1979; Shott 1985). Although shovel testing is often a technique associated with identifying precontact sites, the technique is also useful in identifying buried but near-surface postcontact cultural materials and features.

Shovel Testing, Pedestrian Reconnaissance, and Field Documentation

Archaeological survey of the north grass covered and partially wooded area and the south wooded area – the areas of planned ground disturbance –consisted of surface survey and shovel testing. Typically, surface survey would not be employed in wooded areas such as these;

however, the reported presence in 1996 of foundation remains from the CCC camp warranted surface inspection at closer interval than is afforded during shovel testing at standard intervals.

Systematic surface survey at 10-m (32-ft) intervals was conducted to target foundations, other features, and cultural materials that might help to define, set the boundaries of, and establish the period of occupancy for 20ST280 or another site if identified. Each surface find location (artifacts and features) was recorded with a handheld GPS unit, a digital image(s) of the artifact(s) or feature(s) was recorded, and notes were taken describing the cultural material and setting.

The placement of STPs at 15-m (49-ft) intervals across the proposed areas of ground disturbance was used to target near-surface cultural material that might help to define, set the boundaries of, and establish the period of occupancy for 20ST280 or another site if identified. Shovel tests were not placed in areas with hydric soils, impermeable surfaces, standing water, steep slope, or in areas where other ground surface obstructions were present. Commonwealth used 35 cm (14 in) as the standard shovel test diameter. Shovel tests were excavated to a 50 cm depth when possible. Excavated soils from each shovel test unit were screened through 0.25-inch mesh hardware cloth. The number of transects excavated and the specific implementation of this strategy were dependent on actual field conditions (i.e., field conditions determined the number and location of shovel test transects). Upon the recordation of a positive shovel test, secondary shovel tests were excavated at 5-m (16-ft) intervals out from the positive units, both perpendicular and parallel to the baseline transect, until two sterile shovel tests were excavated in each direction from the primary positive shovel test(s). Using the same basic strategy, additional shovel tests were excavated in the same fashion from any secondary positive units. Each shovel test location was recorded using a handheld GPS unit. STP profile information (soil type, color, horizon depth) was recorded on Commonwealth’s standard STP form for each test. Digital images of soil profiles were taken for some STPs either to show a typical profile or an anomalous profile.

All precontact period cultural material was collected in the field (a single lithic flake, Catalog # 03.L2736), and postcontact period architectural debris were inventoried and recorded. Non-architectural postcontact period material was inventoried and recorded. These materials, mainly associated with camper activity, were not collected because they hold little additional information regarding the historic use of the site.

National Register of Historic Places Evaluation

According to the Advisory Council for Historic Preservation (ACHP; ACHP 1997), to be eligible for the NRHP, a property must possess the quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, and culture present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, or objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association; and it must:

A. be associated with events that have made a contribution to the broad patterns of history;

or, B. be associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or, C. embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant or distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or, D. have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

To be included in the NRHP, a property must meet one of the criteria for evaluation and must possess integrity. Integrity may be defined as the authenticity of a property’s historic identity as demonstrated by the survival of physical characteristics that existed during the postcontact or precontact period of the property, and is defined here as a characteristic of a property that both renders it significant to modern cultural groups and is…