Ind. circle believed to be ancient site
That’s enough information, so I looked for it on google maps/sat:
Here it is, right in the center of that dark stand of trees. 
I hope everything works out on the site, although a few things strike me as a bit strange.
The land all the way around the woodlot is being farmed, but no one happened to knock down those trees to add that section to the cropland and no one happened to mention that there was a circle inside the woodlot.
Now we have two successive owners who will not let the University folks examine the land, even though it was not being used for crop production before the “discovery” of the circle.
It might all be very innocent, but it seems to me to be a bit odd.
Thanks, Squink! Are you sure Letterman hasn’t been up to some mischief?
I take it that the GIS folks weren’t looking at Google when they spotted the “near perfect circle.”
I don’t suppose there is any hope that people will just leave the burial site alone. I’ve just begun to get involved with a project that is about taking responsibility for the reburial of ancient American Indian bones that have been disturbed through the last six centuries.
The owner’s selling of the land is not a good sign.
Well, the trees growing in and around the circle aren’t obviously disturbed, so its probably been there a while. Still, the site is close enough to West Muncie that you’d think the town would know about it, at least as a favorite drinking spot of the local teenagers. It is a bit odd.
I have a feeling that at least some of the locals had a reasonable idea what was there; it was just the Ball State archaeologists who didn’t.
Why didn’t officialdom notice before? Well, AFAIK, all states have some legal provisions requiring archaeological/historical surveys before any public works development (and sometimes private development) takes place. I don’t know the specifics about Indiana law, but I’d bet dollars to donuts that the laws weren’t in place when the highway was first built. The laws are there now, though, so the widening of the road triggered a survey that “discovered” the feature.
To my knowledge, though, no state requires private landowners to have archaeological surveys/excavation done on their property, just because. It’s within the landowner’s right to refuse someone permission to investigate when there is no change in land use (or lack thereof) planned.
From my reading of the article, the sale of the land between private owners is not related in any way to the site. My WAG is that the previous owner probably didn’t tell the new one in advance because of potential headaches (more below).
Actually, the reporting of this site in such detail is just an open invitation for looters who think they might have an untouched mound-related site to dig up. Pity. People in charge of cultural resource management always have to struggle with education vs. making sites vulnerable to tampering, but the people in charge here blew it by not encouraging the reporter to be a little more vague about location.
Anyway, the first reasons that pop into my head as to why the current owner would refuse to let the university people investigate (no value judgments here, just reasons I heard expressed while I was in the field):
- the owner has no curiosity about long-dead Indians (maybe) on their property
- the owner doesn’t want outsiders thinking that there is a treasure trove of stuff to loot, bringing the trespassers and pot hunters onto their property
- the owner is a private person and doesn’t want troops of strangers (archaeologists) hanging out on their property
- the owner is afraid that if a site of size and/or significance is found, that future land use will be restricted, or in the worst case, the land would be confiscated
If preliminary investigations (Phases I and II in cultural resource parlance) suggested the presence of a major site (much less burials), but the area wasn’t going to be affected ultimately by the road widening, then officially there would be no reason to disturb it further. That wouldn’t stop the potential looters, though… not unless the landowner invested in cyclone fencing and 24-hour guards. No joke.
I don’t find that part very odd. Where I grew up (Finger Lakes region NYS) it was fairly common for cropland to have (seemingly) random clumps of woods in and amongst the fields. Sometimes in the middle or corner of a long-used field. The clumps of woods were often lumpy and rocky (might have been used by the farmers as dumping ground for rocks they found in their fields), or an otherwise undesirable section of land.
If the circle is legitimate, I wouldn’t be surprised if the patch of woods was never cleared because the circle was in there. Successive farmers might have had enough cleared land, and knew that clearing a patch with weird humps inside it was more trouble than it was worth.
Pure conjecture, of course.
My wife and I were involved in this initiative near where we live in Connecticut. The Mohegan tribe after recieveing federal recognition opened what is now the 2nd largest single casino on the planet and has been reclaiming land all over southeastern Connecticut. For me, I say, have at it! Take it all back it was yours to begin with.
The site in the OP is suspicious in that it has been farmed around for what looks like quite a long time. If there has not been an archaeological dig there yet, what are they waiting for.
Please excuse me for addressing your post back to front…
There is nothing suspicious about it at all. Motorgirl gave a perfectly good reason why the patch of land might not have been disturbed before. You must be a city fella. 
And as I pointed in my previous post, there are certainly reasons (and that is not an exhaustive list) why a private landowner might not want an archaeological dig on their property. Even if it were public property, there could be other compelling reasons for leaving the area alone.
You do realize that the sentiment you expressed here does not at all jive with the attitude of, “well, something’s there so let’s dig it up!”? Especially if it does happen to be a burial site?
If the public good requires disturbance of a site, then absolutely, do a proper excavation, save the artifacts, and document the bejesus out of it. If the land is not going to be touched, though, leave it the heck alone. Taking stuff out of the ground =! preservation.
There are reasons that State Historic Preservation Offices recommend AVOIDANCE whenever possible. It’s not solely because of the time and expense involved in doing the excavation, documentation of the site and conservation of the artifacts, though those are no small consideration. It’s also not solely because future generations of archaeologists may have better techniques for analyzing materials that are currently best preserved in situ. A major reason is that, especially for burials, the descendants of the area’s former inhabitants would rather you not disturb their dead. I don’t see this as being markedly different from other folks not wanting their cemeteries moved for a highway or a housing development.
Of course, it’s quite possible that we’d have no proof that this was in fact a burial site without a full-scale excavation. But in the absence of a compelling need to do anything, I say you just have to live with the suspense.
Had the area around the circle been irregular or if it had been at the corner of two other lots, I would have drawn exactly the same conclusion. However, all the woodlots in my experience are either small irregular patches in ravines or on knolls or squared off sections along fence lines where it it easier to tell the tax assessor that the property is not working farmland. This lot is a near square surrounded by worked land, (narrow on two sides and extending out into the regular field on two sides), in Delaware county (one of the many of Northern Indiana across which one could roll a marble by simply lifting one corner four inches).
I do not dismiss the possibility that it was left alone, and perhaps turned into a rock pile, for whatever reason.
The 1986 USGS topographiacal map of the location shows the general area to be about as flat as I expected (aside from the stream to the North). Again, I do not harbor deep suspicions of evil deeds. Stuff falls through the cracks all the time. I just find it a bit odd.
Since the contour interval on the topo map you linked to is 10 feet, it’s entirely possible that there’s enough “bumpiness” to make it a nuisance for farming but still not be a visible feature on the map. Don’t discount also the necessity of clearing the trees and filling in the ditch… previous owners may not have considered it worth the time and effort. You’d have to conduct a systematic walkover of the area to have a better idea, because topo maps and aerial photos (GIS these days) can only tell you so much.
And, there is always the possibility that the local farmers had an idea that it was some Indian place with a superstition attached to it, so they left it alone. I have talked with plenty of farm folk about sites on their property, and the ones whose families have been around a long time often had a lot of such lore, as well as general knowledge of what was where, to pass on. Indeed, that’s why the initial phase of investigation includes talking to the locals as well as combing state records of known sites.
I see where you’re coming from, I think. But here are a couple of similarly square wooded plots left in fields, from not too far away from the circle plot.
Maybe the farmers in this area suffer from some sort of OCD where they feel the need to neatly square their unused land? 
There aren’t any satellite photos of the area where I grew up with enough reolution to show you some plots I know personally. I wish there were.
I won’t discount your spidey sense, but I just wanted to say that mine isn’t tingling at all.