Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-05T13:14:16.421Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Construction, Use, and Abandonment of Angel Site Mound A Tracing the History of a Middle Mississippian Town Through Its Earthworks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

G. William Monaghan  and
Christopher S. Peebles
G. William Monaghan
Affiliation:
Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology, Indiana University, 423 North Fess Ave, Bloomington, Indiana 47407 ([email protected], [email protected])
Christopher S. Peebles
Affiliation:
Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology, Indiana University, 423 North Fess Ave, Bloomington, Indiana 47407 ([email protected], [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Mound A is the largest platform mound at the Angel site (12VG1), a Middle Mississippian town along the Ohio River in southwestern Indiana, and consists of an upper and lower platform joined by an offset conical peak. Solid-earth cores, geophysical data, and 14C ages indicate that mound construction began at 900 B.P. by stacking 10–15 cm-thick turf blocks two meters high at the junction of the upper-lower platform and that by 890 B.P. the upper platform was built to nearly its full 8m height. The dates from Mound A are among the earliest recorded from the site, which implies that earthwork construction coincided with the initial occupation of the site and was among the first construction tasks undertaken. Cultural features associated with a structure partly buried under the conical offset on the upper platform of Mound A yielded 14C ages of 750–520 B.P., which show that the upper platform surface was probably used throughout occupation. As also occurred on Mound F (the only other platform mound investigated at the site), the Mound A structure was destroyed and covered with a fresh layer of fill just before site abandonment. This final filling episode to cap the mounds may have been part of a "ceremonial closing" of the site. The youngest dates from the structures buried on Mounds A and F, as well as others across the site, suggest that the Angel site was essentially abandoned by 500 B.P., which also corresponds with the abandonment of Mississippian sites throughout the region.

Resumen

Resumen

"Mound A" es el más grande montículo de plataforma en el sitio de Angel (12VG1), una "Middle Mississippian" ciudad a lo largo del río Ohio en el suroeste de Indiana y consiste en una plataforma superior e inferior se unió a por un pico cónico. Núcleos de tierra sólida, datos geofísicos y las 14C edades indican que la construcción de montículo comenzó en 900 B.P. por apilamiento de 10–15 cm de espesor césped bloques de hierbados dos metros alto en el cruce de la plataforma superior-inferior y que por 890 B.P. la plataforma superior fue construido a casi su total 8 m de altura. Las fechas del "Mound A" están entre los primeros grabados desde el sitio, lo que implica esa construcción estadillos coincidió con la ocupación inicial del sitio y estaba entre las primeras tareas de construcción realizadas. Las características culturales asociadas con una estructura parcialmente enterrada bajo el desplazamiento cónico en la plataforma superior del "Mound A" dado las 14C edades de 750–520 B.P., que muestran que la superficie de la plataforma superior probablemente fue utilizada a lo largo de la ocupación. Como también ocurrió en el "MoundF" (sólo otra plataforma montículo investigado en el sitio), el montículo una estructura fue destruida y cubierta con una capa fresca de relleno justo antes de abandono del sitio. Este episodio final de llenado para colmo los montículos pudo haber sido parte de un "cierre de ceremonial" del sitio. Las fechas más joven de las estructuras enterradas en "Mounds A" y "F," así como a otros en todo el sitio, sugieren que el sitio de Angel esencialmente fue abandonado por 500 B.P., que también se corresponde con el abandono de sitios Mississippian en toda la región.

Type
Reports
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 75 , Issue 4 , October 2010 , pp. 935 - 953
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References Cited

Anthony, D. W. 1990 Migration in Archaeology: The Baby and the Bathwater. American Anthropologist 92:895–914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, G. A. 1967 The Angel Site: An Historical, Archaeological and Ethological Study. 2 vols. Indiana Historical Society, Indianapolis.Google Scholar
Buikstra, J. E., Charles, D. K., and Rakita, G. 1998 Staging Ritual: Hopewell Ceremonialism at the Mound House Site, Greene County, Illinois. Kampsville Studies in Archeology and History 1. Center for American Archeology, Kampsville, Illinois.Google Scholar
Bush, L. L. 2007 Report on file at the Glenn A. Black Laboratory for Archaeology, Indiana University, Bloomington.Google Scholar
Clay, R. B. 1997 The Mississippian Succession on the Lower Ohio. Southeastern Archaeology 16:16–32.Google Scholar
Cobb, C. R., and Butler, B. M. 2002 The Vacant Quarter Revisited: Late Mississippian Abandonment of the Lower Ohio Valley. American Antiquity 67:625–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalan, R. A., Holley, G., Woods, W., Watters, H., and Koepke, J. 2003 Envisioning Cahokia: A Landscape Perspective. Northern Illinois University Press, DeKalb, Illinois.Google Scholar
Drooker, P. B. 2002 The Ohio Valley, 1550–1750: Patterns of Sociopolitical Coalescence and Dispersal. In The Transformation of the Southeastern Indiana 1540–1760, edited by R. Efhridge and C. Hudson, pp. 115–133. University Press of Mississippi, Jackson.Google Scholar
Evans, A. 2007 Engineering Earthen Monuments. Poster Presented at the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Midwest Archaeological Conference 2007 Annual Meeting, October 4–6, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana.Google Scholar
Fowler, M. L. 1997 The Cahokia Atlas: A Historical Atlas of Cahokia Archaeology. Revised ed. Studies in Archaeology 2. Illinois Transportation Archaeology Program, University of Illinois, Urbana.Google Scholar
Gaffney, C. 2008 Detecting Trends in the Prediction of the Buried Past: A Review of Geophysical Techniques in Archaeology. Archaeometry 50:313–336.Google Scholar
Green, T. J., and Munson, C. A. 1978 Mississippian Settlement Patterns in Southwestern Indiana. In Mississippian Settlement Patterns, edited by B. D. Smith, pp. 293–330. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Greenlee, D. M. 2006 Dietary Variation and Prehistoric Maize Farming in the Middle Ohio Valley. In Histories of Maize, edited by J. E. Staller, R. H. Tykot, and B. F. Benz, pp. 215–233. Academic Press, Burlington, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Griffin, J. B. 1967 Eastern North American Archaeology: A Summary. Science 156:175–191.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hilgeman, S. L. 2000 Pottery and Chronology at Angel. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.Google Scholar
Hughen, K. A., Baillie, M. G. L., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J. W., Bertrand, C. J. H, Blackwell, P. G, Buck, C. E., Burr, G. S., Cutler, K. B., Damon, P. E., Edwards, R. L., Fairbanks, R. G., Friedrich, M., Guilderson, T. P., Kramer, B., McCormac, F G., Manning, S. W., Bronk Ramsey, C., Reimer, P. J., Reimer, R. W., Remmele, J. R., Southon, J. R., Stuiver, M., Talamo, S., Taylor, F. W., van der Plicht, J., and Weyhenmeyer, C. E. 2004 Marine04 Marine Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 26–0 ka B.P. Radiocarbon 46:1059–1086.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milner, G. R. 1998 The Cahokia Chiefdom: The Archaeology of a Mississippian Society. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Monaghan, G. W., Egan-Bruhy, K. C., Hambacher, M. J., Hayes, D. R., Kolb, M. F., Peterson, S., Robertson, J. A., and Shaffer, N. R. 2006 The Minnesota Deep Test Protocol Project. Electronic Document, http://www.mnmodel.dot.state.mn.us/pages/DeepTestProtocol.html, accessed March 30, 2009.Google Scholar
Monaghan, G. W., Gerke, T. L., Elswick, E. R., and Fik, C. 2008 Geoarchaeology and Geophysics at the Angel Site, Geological Society of America. North-Central Section Annual Meeting, Field Trip 11, Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology, Indiana University, Bloomington.Google Scholar
Muller, J. 1986 Archaeology of the Lower Ohio River Valley: New World Archaeological Record. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida.Google Scholar
Munson, C. A. (Editor) 1994 Archaeological Investigations at the Southwind Site, a Mississippian Community in Posey County Indiana. Report on file at the Indiana Department of Natural Resources—Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology, Indianapolis, Indiana.Google Scholar
Papadopoulos, N. G., Tsourlos, P., Tsokas, G. N., and Sarris, A. 2006 Two-Dimensional and Three-Dimensional Resistivity Imaging in Archaeological Site Investigation. Archaeological Prospection 13:163–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pauketat, T. R. 1997 Cahokian Political Economy. In Cahokia: Domination and Ideology in the Mississippian World, edited by T. R. Pauketat and T. E. Emerson, pp. 30–51. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.Google Scholar
Pauketat, T. R., and Emerson, T. E. 1997 Cahokia: Domination and Ideology in the Mississippian World. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.Google Scholar
Peebles, Christopher S., and Peterson, Staffan D. 2009 Angel Mounds State Historic Site, Indiana, Angel Mounds. In Archaeology in America. An Encyclopedia: 2. Midwest and Great Plains/Rocky Mountains, edited by Francis P. McManamon, pp. 133–136. Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticut.Google Scholar
Perssona, K., and Olofsson, B. 2004 Inside a Mound: Applied Geophysics in Archaeological Prospecting at the Kings’ Mounds, Gamla Uppsala, Sweden. Journal of Archaeological Science 31:551–562.Google Scholar
Pollack, D. 2004 Caborn-Welborn: Constructing a New Society After the Angel Chiefdom Collapse. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.Google Scholar
Poreba, A. 2006 Geophysical Survey of the Archaeological Grave Mounds Site in Cieszacin Wielki. Publications of the Institute of Geophysics, Polish Academy of Sciences, M-29 395:301–307.Google Scholar
Redmond, B. G. 1990 The Yankeetown Phase: Emergent Mississippian Cultural Adaptation in the Lower Ohio River Valley. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Indiana University, Bloomington.Google Scholar
Reed, N. A., Bennett, J. W., and Porter, J. W. 1968 Solid Core Drilling of Monks Mound: Techniques and Finding. American Antiquity 33:136–148.Google Scholar
Sherwood, S. A. 2006 The Geoarchaeological Study of Mound A, Shiloh Indian Mounds National Historic Landmark, Hardin County, Tennessee. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 38:391.Google Scholar
Smith, K. E. 1992 The Middle Cumberland Region: Mississippian Archaeology in North Central Tennessee. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Vanderbilt, Nashville, Tennessee.Google Scholar
Striker, M. A. (editor) 2009 Archaeological Investigations at the Southwind Site (12P0265), Posey County, Indiana. Project No. 07-55101. Report on file at the Indiana Department of Natural Resources—Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology, Indianapolis.Google Scholar
Stuiver, M., and Reimer, P. J. 1993 Extended l4C Database and Revised CALIB Radio carbon Calibration Program. Radiocarbon 35:215–230. (Version 5.1)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talma, A. S., and Vogel, J. C. 1993 A Simplified Approach to Calibrating C14 Dates. Radiocarbon 35:317–322 Google Scholar
Tankersley, K. B., Munson, C. A., and Smith, D. 1987 Recognition of Bituminous Coal Contaminants in Radiocarbon Samples. American Antiquity 52:318–330.Google Scholar
Tonkov, N., and Loke, M. H. 2006 A Resistivity Survey of a Burial Mound in the “Valley of the Thracian Kings.” Archaeological Prospection 13:129–136.Google Scholar
Van Nest, J., Charles, D. K., Buikstra, J. E., and Asch, D. L. 2001 Sod Blocks in Illinois Hopewell Mounds. American Antiquity 66:633–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witten, A. J. 2006 Handbook of Geophysics and Archaeology. Equinox Publishing Limited, London.Google Scholar
Williams, S. 1980 Armorel: A Very Late Phase in the Lower Mississippi Valley. Southeastern Archaeological Conference Bulletin 22:105–110.Google Scholar
Williams, S. 1990 The Vacant Quarter and Other Late Events in the Lower Valley. In Towns and Temples Along the Mississippi, edited by D. H. Dye and C. A. Cox. pp. 170–180, University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.Google Scholar
Williams, S. 2001 The Vacant Quarter Hypothesis and the Yazoo Delta. In Societies in Eclipse: Archaeology of the Eastern Woodlands Indiana, A.D. 1400–1700, edited by D. S. Brose, C. W. Cowan, and R. Mainfort, Jr., pp. 191–203. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar