Munson and McCullough FY2003 NPSHPFDHPA Grant appli - PDF document

1 Munson and McCullough, FY2003,
Munson and McCullough, FY2003, NPS-HPF/DHPA Grant application, page 2 This proposal to the

2 FY2003 archaeological HPF grant program
FY2003 archaeological HPF grant program is envisioned and structured asthe first year of a multi-year invest

3 igation of a large but poorly known Miss
igation of a large but poorly known Mississippian site – the Prather site(12-CL-4) – in Clark County, Indian

4 a. This first year will involve basic t
a. This first year will involve basic topographic mapping and initialtransect survey, which will provide th

5 e foundation for future investigations.
e foundation for future investigations. As presently conceived,future work would involve boundary and areal

6 surveys, as well as geophysical and geo
surveys, as well as geophysical and geoarchaeologicalsurveys, followed by test excavations. Finallygeophys

7 ical anomalies, would follow, if funds c
ical anomalies, would follow, if funds can be secured from other grant programs.Cheryl Ann Munson (Departmen

8 t of Anthropology, Indiana University-Bl
t of Anthropology, Indiana University-Bloomington [IU-B]) andRobert G. McCullough (IPFW Archaeological Surve

9 y, Indiana University-Purdue University
y, Indiana University-Purdue University Ft. Wayne[IPFW]) will combine their expertise to co-direct this prog

10 ram of survey and research. IPFW's work
ram of survey and research. IPFW's work forLouisville metropolitan area in Grant 52, between is also situat

11 ed immediately west of the formerIndiana
ed immediately west of the formerIndiana Army Ammunition Plant (INAAP), in a once rural area that is rapidly

12 being transformed byresidential and ind
being transformed byresidential and industrial development (Figure 2). In the 1940s, the Prather family fa

13 rm extended south ofSR 62 and into the a
rm extended south ofSR 62 and into the area developed for the INAAP (Figure 3). This area is presently the

14 subject ofindustrial development plans,
subject ofindustrial development plans, and residential escale and pace of development. Consequently, the

15 long term preservation of this site is t
long term preservation of this site is threatened bymultiple modern developments. Land use in the site loca

16 le previously was row cropsthe mounds ob
le previously was row cropsthe mounds observed previously. Today, the site locale is used forpasture and no

17 -till agriculture, and the mounds – whet
-till agriculture, and the mounds – whether man-made constructions for structures, refuseaccumulations, or u

18 ndulations of the karst upland – are su
ndulations of the karst upland – are suggested only by several slight elevationsof the keys to understandin

19 g the nature of theMississippian occupat
g the nature of theMississippian occupation in the cental Ohio River Valley, which is essentially restricted

20 to the Falls of theOhio River region (G
to the Falls of theOhio River region (Guernsey 1939, 1942; Janzen 1972; communication). Prior to historic

21 modifications, the Falls themselves were
modifications, the Falls themselves were a series of rapids locatedbetween Louisville, Kentucky, and Jeffers

22 onville, Indiana. Since Prather is the
onville, Indiana. Since Prather is the best preserved of a smallnumber of known Mississippian sites at the

23 Falls, the term “Prather Complex” has be
Falls, the term “Prather Complex” has been used by several the Mississippian occupation in the Falls localit