Society for American Archaeology

THE CONSTRUCTION, USE, AND ABANDONMENT OF ANGEL SITE MOUND A: TRACING THE HISTORY OF A MIDDLE MISSISSIPPIAN TOWN THROUGH ITS EARTHWORKS Author(s): G. William Monaghan and Christopher S. Peebles Source: American Antiquity, Vol. 75, No. 4 (October 2010), pp. 935-953 Published by: Society for American Archaeology Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25766238 . Accessed: 14/04/2013 13:17
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Antiquity.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 129.89.24.43 on Sun, 14 Apr 2013 13:17:43 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE CONSTRUCTION, USE, AND ABANDONMENT OF ANGEL SITE MOUND A: TRACING THE HISTORY OF A MIDDLE MISSISSIPPIAN TOWN THROUGH ITS EARTHWORKS
G. William Monaghan and Christopher S. Peebles

Mound

A is the largest platform mound at theAngel 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, geo physical data, and 14C ages indicate thatmound construction began at 900 B.P. by stacking 10-15 cm-thick turfblocks 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 construc tion coincided with the initial occupation of the site and was among thefirst construction tasks undertaken. Cultural fea tures associated with a structure partly buried under the conical offset on the upper platform ofMound A yielded14 C 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 afresh layer offill just before site abandonment. This final filling episode to cap themounds may have been part of a " "ceremonial closing of the site. The youngest dates from the structures buried onMounds A and F, as well as others across the site, suggest that theAngel site was essentially abandoned by 500 B.P, which also corresponds with the abandonment ofMississippian "Mound A sites throughout the region.

" " es el mas grande montwulo de plataforma en el sitio de Angel (12VG1), una "Middle Mississippian ciudad a lo a se no en en una e un suroeste el de consiste unio del Indiana Ohio por y largo plataforma superior inferior pico conico. Nucleos de tierra solida, datos geoflsicos y las14C edades indican que la construccion de montwulo comenzo en 900 B.P. por apilamiento de 10-15 cm de espesor cesped bloques de hierbados dos metros alto en el cruce de la plataforma superior-infe del "Mound A" estdn rior y que por 890 B.P. la plataforma superior fue construido a casi su total 8 mde altura. Lasfechas entre los primeros grabados desde el sitio, lo que implica esa construccion estadillos coincidio con la ocupacion inicial del

con una estruc sitio y estaba entre las primeras tareas de construccion realizadas. Las caracteristicas culturales asociadas " turaparcialmente enterrada bajo el desplazamiento conico en la plataforma superior del "Mound A dado las14C edades de 750-520 B.P, que muestran que la superficie de laplataforma superior probablemente fue utilizada a lo largo de la ocupacion. Como tambien ocurrio en el "MoundF" (solo otra plataforma montwulo investigado en el sitio), el montwulo una estructura fue destruida y cubierta con una capafresca de relleno justo antes de abandono del sitio. Este episodio final de llenado para colmo los monticulos pudo haber sido parte de un "cierre de ceremonial" del sitio. Las fechas mas joven de las estructuras enterradas en "Mounds A" y "F," asi como a otros en todo el sitio, sugieren que el sitio de Angel esencialmente fue aban en toda la region. donado por 500 B.P, que tambien se corresponde con el abandono de sitiosMississippian

Solid-earth cores, geophysical data, and 14Cages indicate that mound constructionbegan at 900 B.P. blocks 2 m high by stacking 10-15 cm thick turf

firstconstruction tasks undertaken. Cultural features associated with a structure partly buried under the conical offseton theupper Mound A yielded 14Cages of 750-520 at thejunction of theupper-lower platformand that platformof
Indiana University, 423

mound at A is the largestplatform Mound a Middle Mis site the (12VG1), Angel town Ohio in River the along sissippian southwesternIndiana, and consists of an upper and lower platform joined by an offset conical peak.

by 890 B.R theupper platformwas built to nearly Mound A are its full 8 m height. The dates from among the earliest recorded from the site,which earthworkconstructioncoincided with implies that the initialoccupation of the siteandwas among the

G. William

Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology, S. Peebles and Christopher Monaghan North Fess Ave, Bloomington, Indiana 47407 (Gmonagha@indiana.edu, Peebles@indiana.edu) American Antiquity 75(4), 2010, pp. 935-953 by the Society forAmerican Archaeology Copyright ?2010 935

This content downloaded from 129.89.24.43 on Sun, 14 Apr 2013 13:17:43 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

AMERICAN 936

ANTIQUITY

[Vol.

75, No. 4,2010]

The Angel site is a large (ca. 47 ha) palisaded B.R, which show that the upper platform surface was probably used throughout Ohio occupation. As also Middle Mississippian agricultural townon the occurred on Mound F (the only other platform River near Evansville, Indiana (Figure 1).The site Mound A struc mound investigatedat the site), the figures prominently in the late prehistoric settle was destroyed and covered with a fresh layer ment systems in the ture Midwest (Griffin 1967; Mil ner 1998; Muller 1986; Pauketat and Emerson of fill just before site abandonment. This final fill mounds may have been part 1997; Pollack 2004). Professional research has ing episode to cap the of a "ceremonial closing" of the site.The youngest been ongoing at the site forover 80 years, although dates from the structures buried onMounds A and F, as well as others across the site, suggest thatthe Angel sitewas essentially abandoned by 500 B.R,

which also corresponds with the abandonment of Mississippian sites throughoutthe region. The process of recovering and contextualizing cultural information from strata is the heart of archaeological research. Large prehistoric earth works, particularly mounds, present extreme chal to lenges systematic archaeological exploration, especially when it involves theircomplete excava

1). Even so, few chronological controls exist for tion. Today, such earthworks remain unexplored mound construction episodes or use (Tables 1-2). because theyhave relevance to thebeliefs of con Because itwas completely excavated between are because Native 1939-1941 and 1964-1965, themost detailed Americans, temporary they to excavate and exists for because the information Mound F and shows that it extremely expensive risks (symbolic and financial) and rewards (in terms included twomajor episodes of construction and of archaeological data) are weighted toward the use (Black 1967:figures 242-244). The firstis arel was called former,rather than the latter. Consequently, even atively lowmound (ca. 2 m high) that most rudimentaryquestions regarding was the mound the"primary mound surface," which only about constructionmethods, half the footprint ofMound F as itexisted when it composition, stratigraphy, chronology, etc., typically remain unanswered at was completed and eventually abandoned (Figure many sites. Clearly, a set of minimally invasive 2b?c). Several rows of post-molds ringed the pri methods that can "see" to create vir mary mound and a large structurethatcovered the underground tual models of the subsurface,particularly if linked entire mound was built on its surface.The second toground-truthed a would be addi construction Mound F is a ca. 2-3 m thick data, significant phase of tion to archaeological methods. Using recent fill sequence referredto as the "secondary mound research at a large mound at the fill,"which buried the entire primarymound sur VG1) Angel site (12 in southwestern Indiana, we will show how com on it. or No structures face, including the structure and scaled data small-diameter were other on noted the (i.e., plex differently Mississippian-age features solid-earth cores, traditional archaeological exca secondarymound surface.The accepted 14Cages vations, as well as a variety of geophysical tools) reported from theprimarymound structurerange can be integratedintoa coherent frameworktopro vide regionally significantresultsand conclusions. This approach offersa methodological alternative tomore extensive archaeological excavations that from 1288 to 1397calA.D. (calibrated at 2a [Table 2]), which are very late in theAngel sequence

ure 1]) toMound A, which is one of the largest extant Middle Mississippian earthworksanywhere. Only four of the earthworks at the site have been excavated, Mound F nearly completely and Mounds A, I and K to amuch lesser extent (Figure

the majority of excavation occurred from the 1930s through the 1960s (Black 1967). Eleven separate earthworks ormounds (A-K [Figure 1]) are scat teredacross the site and vary in size fromrelatively small, less than2m high earthworks (D and J [Fig

can stillyield significantinformation about thecon struction,use, and chronology of earthworks,but with little or no impact tomounds themselves. Although not new, refiningsuch procedures is crit ical to developing more targeted, efficient, and effectiveexcavation strategiesat complex locations like the Angel site.

Because only limited excavations occurred within it, much less is known about Mound A, which is several times largerthan Mound F.Mound A measures ca. 200 x 125m by up to 16m high

(Black1967; 2000). Hilgeman

and consists of two platforms: a "lower" (ca. 75 m x long (4 m high) and an "upper" (ca. 125m long 8 m high [Figures 1 and 2]). Additionally, a small (ca. 15m diameter), conical offset rises about 6 m

This content downloaded from 129.89.24.43 on Sun, 14 Apr 2013 13:17:43 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

REPORTS

937

A. Topographic map | siteshowing Nl of Angel

earthworks (C.i =1 ft)

TOO

C. Select Mississippian
sites in Ohio-Wabash

area Mississippi Valley

showing the location of the mounds and earthworks at the Angel site as well as the locations of other Figure 1.Maps in the text, (a) sites within the Wabash, Ohio and Mississippi valleys mentioned nearby, significant Mississippian (labeled) and other earthworks (after Black 1967 and Topographic map of the Angel site showing locations of mounds of Archaeology Peebles and Peterson 2009; topographic base map provided courtesy of the Glenn A. Black Laboratory and Board of Trustees, Indiana University), (b) Parts of the Evansville South and Newburgh 7.5' Quadrangle map show and lower Ohio River vaUeys ing the Ohio River floodplain and location of theAngel site, (c)Map ofmiddle Mississippi in text (d) Detailed sites mentioned Period archaeological topographic map of showing locations of theMississippian Mound A (topographic contours based on relative datum of 100 m).

(1967:365-367) concluded that the conical offset was a relatively late addition, constructed some time after theupper platformwas built and inuse. Although suitable organic samples were collected, unlike Mound F, no 14C ages were reported for Mound A until this research (Table 1).These ages onMounds A and F are indicate thatthe structures

above the southeast corner of the upper platform. A 3 x 9 m (10 x 30 ft)block was excavated on the upper platform of Mound A in 1955 (Black 1967:357-367). A structureof unknown size and extent thathad been partly buried under the coni cal offsetwas discovered (Figure 2d-g). Because was at least partlyburied by it, Black the structure

were generally temporallyequivalent and thatthey same at about the time also abandoned probably (Table 2). Prior to thisstudy, nothingwas known about the or engineering frame interior stratigraphy deeper, work ofMound A. Through our approach, useful was recoveredwithout resort data about its interior Mound ing to the level of excavations undertaken at non- orminimally F.We relied on several different, invasive methods thatcombined fine-scaled,point source data collected using minimally invasive, continuous solid-earthcores with fine-scale down hole electrical conductivity (EC) and electrical resistivity(ER) profilerdata. Cores and downhole

This content downloaded from 129.89.24.43 on Sun, 14 Apr 2013 13:17:43 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

938
Table Material3 Lab# A. Related Beta- 237767 [state] tomound construction (Geoprobe Juncus (spp., Juncaceae) (rush) [charred] Beta-232869 Beta-232870 grass/grass roots (no id) [uncharred] grass/grass roots 1.Newly Reported

AMERICAN 14C Ages Location

ANTIQUITY of Plant Material

[Vol. from theAngel Site.

75, No. 4, 2010]

14CAge B.P (conventional)

13C/12C Ratio

[Depth]b
cores) conical offset; Core 5 [468cm] upper platform (south);

Calendar Agec (% of area under curve)

890 ? 40

-10.1%o A.D. 1035-1219(100)

(ca. 4 m above Beta-232869) 890 ? 40 900 ? 40 -9A%c -26.3%o A.D. A.D. 1035-1219 1034-1214

Core 7 [625cm] Core 7 [810cm]

(100) (100)

(no id) [uncharred]

B. Related

upper platform (south);

Beta- 252377

to structure at edge of conical offset near top of upper platform {excavation 520 ? 50 FS94, Feature 2 Carya spp. (hickory/pecan) shell [charred] (F2/MA), ca. 130 cm below surface FS123, post mold base, ca. 300 cm below surface FS144; Feature 3

units) -24.7%o

A.D. A.D.

1303-1365 1383-1453

(30) (70)

Beta-252378

Carya spp., (hickory) wood [uncharred] Fraxinus wood spp. (ash) [charred]

750 ? 40

-26.6%o A.D. 1211-1298(100)

Beta-252379

(F3/MA);150-170cm

690 ? 40

-26.2%o

A.D. A.D.

1258-1324 1345-1393

(65) (35)

Beta

C. Related to Unit A {structure southeast ofMound A; excavation units) 246694 Arundinaria gigantean Catalog 11473-456; Unit AC (giant cane) - 246695 [charred] Gleditsia triacanthos (honey locust) wood [charred] 246696 Acer spp. (maple) (base of post mold?) Catalog 11473-457; Unit AD; base of structural Catalog (wall) trench? 11473-458; "midden" Unit AD_

690 ? 40

-25.9%o

A.D. A.D.

1258-1324 1345-1393 1299-1370 1380-1429 1291-1408

(65) (35) (0.60) (40) (100)

Beta

570 ? 40

-24.9%o

A.D. A.D.

Beta

610 ? 40

-22.4%o

A.D.

_wood [charred]_near aPlant identification by Leslie Bush (2007).

bSample derived from cores; depth measurement given in cm below ground surface; see Figure 3 for core locations and rel ative differences of the ground surface for cores. Calibrated calendar age based on 2ct distribution of conventional 14C age; calibration after Stuiver and Reimer, 1993 (CALIB Version 5.1), Hughen et. al. (2004), and Talma and Vogel (1993).

EC provided real-world, ground-truthinformation approaches toobtain subsurfacedata were followed necessary to realistically interprettheER results, during this research. One focused on collecting while the ER profiles linked thebroad stratigraphic physical, solid-earthcores from the mound and the units defined within cores across the mound. This second used a multiprobe ER-profiler system.ER procedure resulted in a grounded and realistic profilersare commonly used todefine vertical pro reconstructionof the interior of Mound A. In addi file sections of the subsurface and trace the stratig tion,organic samples collected from specific cul raphy of natural sediment and soil horizons, but turalevents also revealedwithin thecores provided they can also be used tomap broad culturally absolute chronology tovarious episodes ofmound derivedmound fill sequences (Gaffney2008; Mon et al. 2008; building. The preliminary results of this research aghan et al. 2006; Monaghan approach, as well as the regional implications of Papadopoulos et al. 2006; Perssona and Olofsson these data for Middle Mississippian settlements in 2004; Poreba 2006; Tonkov and Loke 2006). theOhio Valley, are described below. Implicit in this notion is that similar to alluvial Methods Two different, minimally invasive methodological deposits within floodplains, fill units within mounds are also structured, orderly,and composed of distinctand discrete layers selected by the mound builders based on theirphysical properties (Buik

This content downloaded from 129.89.24.43 on Sun, 14 Apr 2013 13:17:43 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

REPORTS
Table 2. 14CDates fromMajor Angel Phase Lab Context Angel site Angel Mound A Number Beta 232870 (Angel and Southwind) 14C agea (conventional) 900 ? 40c 890 ? 40c 890 ? 40c Sites.

939

Cal 2a Calendar Ageb (% of area under curve) A.D. A.D. A. D. A.D. A.D. A.D. A.D. A.D. A.D. 1034- 1214(100) 1035 - 1219 (100) 1035 - 1219 (100) 1211-1298(100) 1258-1324 (65) 1345-1393 1303-1365 (35) (31)

(construction)

Beta 232869
Beta 237776 Beta 252378

Mound A

(structure on upper platform)

Beta 252379
Beta 242377

750 ? 40c
690 ? 40c 520 ? 50c

Mound

M2

1340? 120d

M9

1980? 130d 1850? 120d 840? 80d 680 ? 50 630 ? 45 590 ? 60 530 ? 100 90 ? 110d
950 ? 80e

1383-1453 (69) 435 - 490 (4) AD. 509-517 (<1) A.D. 529 - 905 (92) A. D. 911-971 (4) B. C. 359-276 (4) (91) (3)

B. C. 259- 262 A.D. A.D. B.C. A.D. A.D. A.D. A.D. A.D. A.D.

M10 Beta 39232 DIC 2357 DIC 2358 Beta 39233 M4 DIC2359
Angel House/ feature ("older") Beta M7 Beta 39234 39235

278-328

116-430 A.D. 10301258 1283 1287 -

(100) 1281 (100) 1400 (100) 1404 (100) 1428 (100)

760 ? 100 750 ? 80

15581631 (8) 1634-1955 (100) A.D. 901 - 916 (1) A.D. 9671257 (99) 10421117104911241151 1107(10) 1399(90) 1084 (4)

A.D. A.D. A.D. A.D. A.D.

Angel House/

feature ("younger")

Beta 246694
Beta 44768 Beta 44769 M5

'690 ? 40c

A.D. A.D. A.D. A.D. A.D. A.D. A.D.

1137 (1) 1399 (95) 1258-1303 (69)

660 ? 60 640 ? 60 580 ? 100

Beta 246696 Beta 246695 Beta 44771 Beta 44770

610 ? 40c 570 ? 40c

A.D. A.D. A.D. A.D. A.D. A.D. A.D. A.D. A.D.

1345-1393 (31) 1261 - 1411 (100) 1272- 1413 (100) 1223 - 1496 (99) 1507- 1511 (<1) 1601 - 1615 (<1) 1291-1408 (100) 1299-1370 1389-1429 12971302(60) (40)

570? 50 530 ? 50 510 ?50 360 ? 50

DIC 1024 DIC 1023 straet al. 1998;Dalan et al. 2003; Evans 2007; Sher wood 2006; Van Nest et al. 2001). How much of thisselection reflectsconvenience or aesthetics and how much relates to theirengineering properties is an open but important map question. ER profilers

1383 - 1448 (63) 1305 1363 (24) 1385 - 1463 (76) 1449-1639 (100)

1431 (100) 1366 (37)

these layers of mound fills and surfaces based mainly on their lithological contrasts (Gaffney

paction. Fine-grained, moist, and compact materi more easily and so have low als conduct electricity resistivity. Coarse-grained, dry, and loose materi

ER (i.e., amea 2008; Witten 2006). In general, the sure of theearth's ability to inhibitelectrical flow) of sediment and soil is controlled by three main soil or sedimentproperties: texture, moisture, and com

This content downloaded from 129.89.24.43 on Sun, 14 Apr 2013 13:17:43 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

940 Dates Table 2. 14C

AMERICAN fromMajor Angel Phase Lab

ANTIQUITY (Angel and Southwind) 14C age3

[Vol. Sites (continued).

75, No. 4, 2010]

Context Southwind Site Other Features

Number

(conventional) 1085 ? 85f'g

Cal 2a Calendar Ageb (% of area under curve) A.D. A.D. 720-741 769-1059 892-1175 777-1265 (1) (90) (9) (100) (100)

UGA4645

A.D.1064-1155

UGA4647 UGA4716 UGA4646

Beta-248604

1005 ? 65f'g 995 ?

A.D. A.D. A.D. A.D. A.D. A.D. A.D. A.D. A.D. A.D. A.D. A.D. A.D. A.D. A.D. A.D. (1967);

955 ? 115fg 920 ? 40h 890 ? 135f 380 ? 40h 790 ? 40h 770 ? 40h 680 ? 40h 900 ? 40h
(2000) and Black

125f'g

827-840(1) 864-1279 (99) 1027-1191 (97) 1196-1207 879-1321 1349-1391 1442-1529 1543-1634 1174-1281 1186-1202 1205-1289 1263-1325 1344-1394 1034-1214 (3) (98) (2) (58) (42) (100) (3) (97) (59) (41) (100)

UGA4715
Beta-248603 House/House Basin Beta-248606 Beta-248608 Beta-248605 Palisade (bastion east palisade) Beta-248607

aExcept where otherwise noted, reported conventional dates fromHilgeman date methods. Calibrated calendar age based on 2a distribution of conventional (CALIB Version 5.1), Hughen et. al. (2004) and Talma and Vogel in parenthesis after date range.

standard radiometric

14C age; calibration after Stuiver and Reimer, 1993 (1993); percentage of area under 2a normal curve shown

cNewly reported date from this study; AMS date methods. See table 1 for details. dDate rejected by Hilgeman (2000) as too old and also considered to not accurately date the cultural event of its context in this study. eDate rejected by Hilgeman (2000) but considered to accurately date the cultural events of its context in this study. Munson fAs reported in (1994:Table 15-3); standard radiometric date methods. gDate rejected as coal contaminated (Munson 1994:Table 15-3; and Hilgeman 2000). date methods. Context from Striker (personal communication, 2009).

hAs reported in Striker (2009); AMS

als are poor conductors and so have high resistiv These factors are not independent. For exam ity. ple, fine-textured sediments also tend to hold moisture better than coarser-grained deposits in unsaturated profiles, accentuating theER differ ences between these layers.For most shallow pro

depth, and thecloser theprobe spacing, thegreater the resolution. Consequently, a finite number of probesmore closely spacedwill yieldmore detailed resolution of the subsurface butwill also produce shallower images. With theconfigurationemployed in the Mound A study (i.e., 1m probe-spacing,

files inunconsolidated materials, textureis the most Wenner andDipole-Dipole array) maximum depths to and the that about 15-20 property important broadly corresponds equal percent of the total array observed ER profiles in Mound A at the site. could be imaged (e.g., 10-14 m depths) and Angel length A Syscal model Pro, multichannel ER-profile only layers greater than 50 cm thick could be a was with resolved.Along some profiles (i.e.,N-S profile of system 72-probe linear array attached used. The arraywas arrangedwith probes spaced Mound A [Figure 3a]) that were longer than72 m, m apart and laid both parallel and perpendicular 1 a "roll-along" surveymethod was employed and to the long axis of themound. Both Wenner and observations linked in software.The ER data was were used tocollect data. The Dipole-Dipole arrays (GeoT processed and invertedusing RES2DINV omo software). depth and resolutionof subsurface images is a func tionof probe spacing and the total lengthof the lin ear array?the longer the array, the greater the A total of seven, small-diameter, minimally invasive, solid-earth cores were collected from

This content downloaded from 129.89.24.43 on Sun, 14 Apr 2013 13:17:43 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

REPORTS

941

shown and labeled, f) Photo of post molds at base of 1955 Mound A test excavation (view south); 14C- dated post-mold labeled (see Table 1 [Group "B"]). (g) Southern end of 1955 excavation block showing the locations and 14C ages of Feature 2 ("roof) and Feature 3 (pit; see Table 1 [Group "B"]). Photos shown in a, b, c, f, g are courtesy of the Glenn and Board of Trustees, Indiana University. Photos shown in d courtesy of G. of Archaeology A. Black Laboratory William Monaghan. 14C calibration after Stuiver and Reimer (1993), Hughen et al. (2004), and Talma and Vogel (1993); 2a range of calibrated calendar years shown.

F, Mound A, and the 1955 excavation blocks Figure 2. Photos, diagrams, and 14C ages from the excavation ofMound from theMound A upper platform, (a) Photograph showing complexity of primary mound fill below "primary mound surface." (b) Air photograph ofMound F after "primary mound surface" as exposed inNovember 1941; post molds and WPA archaeolog of structure on primary mound surface emphasized by Black in original photograph, (c) Photograph ical crew exposing the "primary mound surface" in 1941; remnant of "secondary mound fill" and original ground sur face labeled. Age of primary mound surface based on calibrated pooled mean average of 14C ages (see Table 2 [Context "Mound F'j); ages shown are 2a range of calendar years, (d) Photograph of long axis ofMound A (view east, north on (3D) rendering ofMound A, locations or traces of cores and ER profiles (e) Three-dimensional right side of diagram),

This content downloaded from 129.89.24.43 on Sun, 14 Apr 2013 13:17:43 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

AMERICAN 942

ANTIQUITY

[Vol.

75, No. 4, 2010]

Mound A during this project andwere derived using a GeoProbe (model TR-54) and a Dual-Tube (model DT21) sampling system.The DT-21 sam pler drives a core casing along with the sampler to prevent the collapse of the borehole during sam

was attached to the top of theprevious casing and a new sample tubewith drive rod attached placed

pling.A122 cm long (2.9 cm diameter sample tube was placed within the core casing and driven into the mound. The core-sample tubewas extracted, labeled, and saved.Another section of core casing

because theydid not fit into a preconceived cul turalchronology and, as discussed below, theirreli ability and significance should be reevaluated. Results Stratigraphy and Mound Construction

the early years of 14Cdating or, alternatively, may accurately indicate theage of shell but not the time was used. Other dates were rejected largely that it

resultfromeitherproblems with understanding the systematics of carbonate dates from shell during

into thecasing. This new segmentwas thendriven 122 cm into the mound and then the sample tube was extracted. In this manner, continuous cores (in 122 cm sections) were collected until thebase of the mound was penetrated.The core-sample tubes

viously excavated archaeological units.The six 14C or natural contexts of this broad stratigraphycan dates from Mound A were derived from carefully be constrained and understood through the fine selected cultural contexts and provide an absolute scale layering revealed from the solid-earth cores use for the and of Mound A with minimal impact to the cultural deposits. For chronology building at the In most site. the of contrast, Angel previously example, core samples reveal that thebasal, high dates the from 14C site reported "unacceptable" resistivity zone corresponds to bedded, coarse reflect either 1967; (Black poor Hilgeman 2000) grained (sand) deposits, which probably derived as or contexts exam or channel sediments (Figure 3). Conversely, unsuitable For bar sample samples. to the of the the age ple, compared underlying primary overlying low resistivityhorizons, which are mound surface, charcoal from the secondary fill particularlyobvious underlying the lowerplatform, consist mainly of much finer-grained sediment layer on Mound F provided a 14C age thatwas 500-700 years too old (e.g.,M2, 1340 ?120 B.P. (Figure 3a). A fining-upward alluvial sequence is was The charcoal to unrelated [Table 2]). clearly typical of vertical accretion and often associated the construction of the Mound F and was likely with levee formation within ridge and swale flood detrital charcoal deposited as part of the original alluvial sequence from which thefillwas derived. It may accurately reflectthedepositional age of the Mound A show thebasal plains. The ER profiles of coarse-grained sediments rise northwardunder the lowerplatformand forma "levee ridge" palimpsest

were opened in the lab and thecore was described Mound A includes severalbroad profiles reveal that in respect to soil and sediment colors, textures, resistivity zones that can be traced across the inclusions,etc. Samples of any organicmaterial that mound: a basal zone thathas very high resistivity overlain by a low-resistivityzone that is, in turn, might provide an absolute chronology for thecon horizons were also collected. On thebasis struction overlain by various zones of moderate and low of theircontext and stratigraphicpositions, three resistivity(Figure 3). In places, particularly on the of these samples were submitted for 14Cage esti conical offset,thisuppermost zone shows veryhigh mates. This layering roughly reflects the nat resistivity. The chronology ofmound construction isbased ural configuration and stratigraphyof premound on AMS 14Cages of organic matter foundwithin sediments as well as the stratigraphy and structure the cores and organic material archived frompre of culturallyderivedmound-fill units.The cultural

observations related to the Several new, important constructionmethods, materials, and engineering ofMound A emerged from our research. The ER

alluvium but not the timeof final filling of Mound F (Black 1967). Two other "bad dates" from Mound F were obtained on shell fromgood Mississippian

contexts within Feature 12 (primary mound sur face) (Black 1967). These dates are 800-1,000 years too old (M9 and M10 [Table 2]) and may

below the conical offset (Figure 3a-c). This land form-mound relationship suggests that Mound A was placed on a natural topographic high associ ated with a preexisting levee ridge and probably marks the place where Mound A construction began. Although not unusual, the specific place

This content downloaded from 129.89.24.43 on Sun, 14 Apr 2013 13:17:43 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

REPORTS

943

Figure 3. ER profiles through various parts ofMound A; locations of cores and ER profile traces shown on Figure 3d. (a) location of Core 7 and depths of associated North-south ER profile through upper and lower platforms; approximate 14C location of Cores 5 ages (B.P.) shown, (b) East-west ER profile through conical offset and upper platforms; approximate loca and 7 and depths of associated 14C ages (B.P.) labeled, (c) North-south ER profile through conical offset; approximate tion of Core 5 and depths of associated 14C age (B.P.) labeled, (d) Three-dimensional (3D) rendering ofMound A.

ment of theoriginalmound on this leveeridgemay also have importantcultural or ceremonial signif icance. That the upper and lower platforms and conical offsetjoin on topof thisridge suggests that this location probably continued as the "central

deposits were generally composed of 10-20 cm thick, clayey-to-very-fine-sandy silt loam layers derived fromboth surface and subsurface soil hori zons (A and E, B or BC, respectively [Figure4d]). Some fills were stacked by color, with alternating "red/brown" and "yellow/grey" 10-20 cm thick (Bw/Bg-horizon) layers.Notably, the surface ("A or grass horizon") units sometimes included turf

Bg/Cg soil profile developed within silty-very-fine place" ofMound A. A "mound" of low-resistivity deposits also sandy loam and siltyclay loam sediments.The fact on thata complete, generally undisturbed,natural pro theoriginal leveeridge (Fig appears palimpsest ure 3). Even though these lowER values appear to file directly underlies the stacked turf blocks at the cases a most base of the mound in be continuation of the fine-grained alluvial suggests that the deposits underlying the lowerplatform,as thecores mound fillwas stacked directly on thepreexisting show, thesedeposits are actually composed ofmul ground surfacewith littleor no leveling, cutting, or other significant surface preparation. construc tiple layersof culturally derived,mound The turf blocks are most common (or at least tion fill (Figure 3). Cores that penetrate these best preserved) in thebasal part of the mound, par ticularly in thearea where theupper and lowerplat form join with the conical offset.Here theyoccur as a ca. 2-2.5 m thick sequence and are overlain

"turf'fillswere cut and transported, possibly inbas as were and kets, whole blocks carefully stacked mound by overturning theblock (or basket) on the pile. This stacked sequence rests directly on an intactnatural soil profile consisting of an A/Bw

preserved between the layers and probably repre blocks cut, transported, sented 10-15 cm thick turf and stacked to form the mound base. Interestingly, the turf blocks were stacked by overturning them (i.e., stacked in such a manner that the "grass lay were now ers"marking theoriginal ground surface found at thebottom of each of theblocks; Figure 4d). Although overturned, the soil profilewas gen erally preserved intact,which suggests that the

by stacked, similarly thick (i.e., 10-20 cm) units of soil that mainly derived from the soil "B-horizon" (Figures 3-4). Although the stacked B-horizon derived units are general across theupper platform ofMound A, the sequence of stacked blocks ofA overlain by stacked B-horizon units horizon [turf] does not appear tobe general across theupper plat form. Rather, these are confined mainly to thecores

taken from the south half of the upper platform where itjoins with theconical offset. In cores taken from thenorthernend of the mound, on theother are blocks hand, the turf apparently absent and the 10-20 cm thick, Bt/Bg- or BC-horizon layers

This content downloaded from 129.89.24.43 on Sun, 14 Apr 2013 13:17:43 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

944

AMERICAN

ANTIQUITY

[Vol. 75, No. 4, 2010]

A interior, (a) East-West the Mound fill Figure 4. Interpretive diagrams summarizing profile showing generalized sequences that comprises Mound A (east and west [E and W, respectively] labeled, view south). Fill distribution and con tacts based on cores and resistivity profiles (see Figure 3c). Chronological controls based on 14C ages of organic materi als in Cores 5 and 7 (labeled on diagram); position of organic samples shown on core; material dated and ages shown as 14C years BP; calibrated 2a range in calendar years shown in parenthesis; calibration after Stuiver and Reimer (1993), Hughen et. al. (2004) and Talma and Vogel (1993). (b) Topographic map ofMound A showing location of profile shown in a. (c) Photograph of rush sample (Beta-237767, Table 1) related to burn feature in Core 5. Note burnt soil (redden of dated grass earth) under charred rush in close-up of core (left side of c) showing intensive burning, (d) Photograph sample from near base of Core 7 (Beta-232870, Table 1). Contacts between overturned turf blocks, which are where pre served grass occurs, are indicated by arrows on core (lower part of d). Up-directions of cores in c and d labeled and indi cated by an arrow adjacent to cores. Photographs provided courtesy of G. William Monaghan.

mark thebase of theupper platform at its southern margin (see areas near cores 5 and 7, Figure 3a-b) more cohesive or finer apparentlycoincide with the grained sediments related to the stackedA-horizon units. These high-resistivityzones do not extend where very farnorthacross theupper platformfrom it joins with the conical offset (Figure 3a-c).
soil moisture, textural variation, or compaction?

extend to thepremound ground surface (e.g., "Core dimensionally. 2" on Figure 3a). Such a subsurface spatial con The significance of the sequence of basal, mound stratigraphy stacked A-horizon-derived units overlain by figuration is supported by the inferred from the ER profiles (Figure 3). For exam stackedB-horizon-derived unitsmay have cultural For exam ple, the relatively thickhigh-resistivityzones that meaning or specific engineering import.

may contribute?including Although other factors

ple, the color ordering of themound fillsmay be connected to religious and aesthetic principles of the inhabitants of theAngel site (Buikstra et al. 1998; Sherwood 2006; Van Nest et al. 2001). It might also relate to specific engineering properties of the selected soil or sediment types and relate to construction stabilityor competence (Evans 2007; Van Nest et al. 2001). Alternatively, the stacked sequence may not have any particular engineering or cultural importance but simply reflects an

the coincidence of specific resistivityzones with general stratigraphicunits shows that themound was constructed in an orderly and coherentman ner that can be traced and mapped three

"unroofing" process that resulted from the order thatfill unitswere excavated at theborrow pit.As A-horizon soil was cut from the surface of borrow

This content downloaded from 129.89.24.43 on Sun, 14 Apr 2013 13:17:43 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

REPORTS945 areas and stacked on the mound to form thebasal B-horizon soilwas exposed. fill,underlying,deeper These were thencut and stacked on the A-horizon fills to form the mound and the resultant sequence which the fill unitswere merely reflectstheorder in
quarried.

northwest margin of the conical offset in 1955 revealed the remains of a structure (Black was inferred from the 1967:368). The structure two presence of generally N-S oriented rows of as thecharred remnantsofwhat as well post-molds was a possibly collapsed "roof."Because elements of the structureextended across the entire block, itsfull size isunknown, but itclearly extends under the conical offset some distance and was buried under at least 140 cm of mound fill (Black

Mound Construction and Use Chronology of The age of thebase of Mound A (i.e., the time when construction began) is given by uncharred grass stems or roots derived from the stacked turf block sequence thatformed thebasal 2m ofCore 7 (Fig

1967:359-361, figures 385-387). Consequently, itsconstruction and use predate the finalconstruc ures 3a, 3c, and 4). Although many units with in tion phase of the conical offset.Abundant plant situ grasses in growth position (but overturned) material was associated with various components were identifiedin the stratigraphicsequence, sam of thisstructure. Uncharred Hickory orPecan wood ples fromnear the top (ca. 625 cm below surface) and bottom (ca. 810 cm below surface) were selected for age determination. Uncharred grass stemsor roots, which the which mark the season in was cut and stacked,were hand picked from turf blocks. the interface between setsof overturnedturf

arranged inparallel and probably represent thatch material (Bush 2007). This pattern, combined ing a with the small twigs, suggests thatFeature 2 may minimum In 14C addition, (Table 1;Figures 3^4). been have of of the much for upper platform age composed of collapsed roofingmater completion ial.A few trashor storage pits were also discov and conical offset, 890 ?40 B.P. (Beta-237767: between thepost-molds and 1035-1219 cal A.D. [Calibrated at 2a]) (Table 1), ered stratigraphically derived froma largepiece of charred rush (Juncus; roof. One of these, Feature 3, included partly charredZea mays and nutshell (Carya spp.),wood Table 1), a wetland annual grass, collected 480 cm charcoal (Carya illinoenensis; Castanea dentate) in Core 5 conical surface the offset below the of cores mammal bone (Black 1967:360-361; Bush and from The dates three (Table 1; (Figures 3^t). a are with 2007). Because the feature clearly extends some pooled remarkably consistent, Figure 4) distance under the conical offset,a direct correla mean age of 893 ?23 B.P. (1044-1213 cal A.D. [Calibrated at 2a]), and are statistically identical at a 95 percent Confidence Interval (C.I. [Table 3]). The rush inCore 5 was part of a distinct reddish
colored, burned-earth "feature" that was in proper

These yielded 14Cages (top and bottom, respec tively) of 890 ?40 B.P. (Beta-232869: 1035-1219 calA.D. [Calibrated at 2a]) and 900 ?40 B.P. (Beta 232870: 1034-1220 cal A.D. [Calibrated at 2a])

other small (less than2 mm) diameter plant stems and grasses (Poaceae: Andorpogon, Sorgastrum, Phragmites andElymus) (Bush 2007). Under mag nification, these grassy stems appeared to be

(Carya spp.) occurred in the post-molds and the as Feature 2 roof, designated (Black included partly charred small 1967:360-361), diameterHickory or Pecan (Carya spp.) twigs and

stratigraphicposition (i.e., not disturbed and the burned earthunderlay charred rush remains). This feature may mark a ceremonial surfaceor otherhia tus inmound construction of unknown duration and, ifprojected out from the conical offset, this horizon roughly intersectsthe surfaceof theupper platform (Figures 3b and 4). In addition to the cores,which show thedeeper of the mound, an N-S oriented, shal stratigraphy

tion of this structure with theCore 5 burn feature buried under the conical offsetmight seem rea within sonable (Figure 4). The 14Cages of features the structure, however, show that itwas built and used between ca. A.D. 1250 andA.D. 1400 a few hundred years after theCore 5 burn feature (Fig ure 5). Three 14C age estimates were obtained from organic samples in features excavated by Black in 1955. These include uncharredwood from thebase of one of the post-molds, a small, charredFraxi nus (Ash) twig (inner and outer rings indicate 6 years growth [Bush 2007]) from the "roof (Fea ture2), and a charred nutshell from theFeature 3 pit (Table 1 :"GroupB"). Unlike theage of samples

low (less than 1.5m deep; Figures 3 and 5) roughly 3 x 9 m block excavated by Glenn Black into the

This content downloaded from 129.89.24.43 on Sun, 14 Apr 2013 13:17:43 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

946

AMERICAN

ANTIQUITY

[Vol. 75, No. 4, 2010]

Slack Farm

14C ages from Caborn-Welborn sites

14Cages fromMiddle and Mississippian Caborn-Welborn sites in the Ohio/Wabash valley region.

Hovey Lake Caborn

extend to (intercepts present)

Murphy

14C ages Middle contexts

from site

Mississippian at the Angel

Table mound (charcoal sample (M2, 2)from "secondary fill" (considered 2000) "unacceptable" by Hilgeman

MoundA at top under (structure conical offset) MoundA (construction elements) 14C ages from Middle

contexts Mississippian site at the Southwind

600.

800.

1000.

1200. Calendar Years

1400. (A.D.)

1600.

1800.

Figure Mound

and Ohio valleys region. The Angel Site grouped by major contexts: 5.14C ages from sites in the lowerWabash A, Mound F and Houses/Features. Age ranges of the dated material show the 2a probability distribution of cal ibrated calendar years; calibration after Stuiver and Reimer (1993), Hughen et. al. (2004), and Talma and Vogel (1993); shaded area in each grouping shows the 2a calibrated pooled means for the grouping (for simplicity, range reflects min imum and maximum ages in 2a range). 14C ages that are statistically noncontemporaneous with the grouping are marked with a "star" symbol; samples from Southwind site suspected of coal contamination 1993:Table (see Munson 15.5) are marked with "C" on right side of probability distribution. site after Pollack 14C ages from Caborn-Welborn (2004); Southwind (Table site after Hilgeman (2000) and Striker (2009); Angel site after Hilgeman (2000), Black (1967), and this paper 1).

This content downloaded from 129.89.24.43 on Sun, 14 Apr 2013 13:17:43 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

REPORTS
Table 3. Statistical Comparison of 14C Ages Pooled from theAngel Num Difference Site.

947

Pooled Means of sample populations grouped By context from theAngel Site_mean Angel: Angel: Angel: Angel: Angel: Angel site/ contexts Mound A (construction): Mound Mound A (structure): (all): F (all): Houses/Features 893 671 652 619

date_dates_t_(95% C.I.)_ ? 23 B.P. ? 25 B.P. ? 26 B.P. ?21 Yes B.P. 31.4 No 3.74 ? 49 B.P. ? 24 B.P. 789 ? 16 B.P. 789 ? 17 B.P. 663 ? 18 B.P. 743 ? 15 B.P. ? 49 B.P. No .04 3 8.63 5 9 3 7.06 5 No 6 56.4 47.1 8 Yes 14.1 8 Yesb 12 77.0 No 14 .95 Yes Yes No

Yesa 5.99 3

Houses/Features 828 ("older"): 570 Angel: Houses/Features ("younger"): Mound A (construction) Mound A (structure): Mounds A (construction) - all Mound F: - all Mound A (structure) Mound F: - all Houses/Features: Mounds A (construction) Mound (structure)- all Houses/Features All Mound F - all Houses/Features: Other sites and contexts "Old" Angel Site (Mound A (construction), - Southwind: Mound F & Houses/Features "Young" Angel Site (Mound A (structure),Mound F & Houses/ Features?All Caborn/Welborn sites:_ A 828

906 ? 19 B.P. 588 ? 9 B.P.

11 14.6 33

No No 40.2

aNo statistical difference exists if sample from feature (Beta252377; pit feature; Table 2) is discounted. Samples from struc tural "post mold" and "roof are statistically the same with a pooled mean age of 720 ? 28 B.P. and t-statistic of 1.12 (95% C.I.). bNo statistical difference exists between Mound Table 2) is discounted. F and Mound A (structure) samples if sample of post mold (Beta252378;

was built 720 ?28 B.P. (i.e., 1281-1324 cal A.D. related to episodes ofmound building (i.e., Table use of and 1345-1393 cal A.D. [Calibrated at 2a]) and 1:"Group A"), these samples record the was Mound A after it mainly built and show thatat based on theage ofFeature 3,was used at leastuntil least theupper platformwas used throughout the 520 B.P. (ca. A.D. 1303-1453 [Tables 1 and 3]). because it is theear The laterage is particularly intriguing Not surprising, Angel site. occupation of the to elements (i.e., liestdates derive from the structural statisticallysimilar theage of featureson thepri Mound F as well as theages of the posts and roof).Uncharred wood froma post-mold mary surfaceof the site (Tables houses and features across youngest yielded an age of 750 ?40 B.P. (Beta-252378: time the of site aban mark 1211-1298 cal A.D. [Calibrated at 2a] [Tables 2-3; Figure 5) andmay was a donment. charred Ash twig from the "roof 1-2]),

slightly younger, 690 ?40 B.P. (Beta-252379: 1258-1324 calA.D. and 1345-1393 calA.D. [Cal Discussion and Regional Significance ibrated at 2a]). These two dates are statistically identical (95 percent C.I.; see Table 3 n. 1). A Generalizing our new evidence concerning the time Mound A to thedevel occurs andmeans of constructionof charred nutshell from Feature 3, which as a whole, let alone to the site between the roof and post-mold, opment of Angel stratigraphically the temporal and cultural place of the Angel site in yielded an age of 520 ?50 B.P. (Beta-252377: The ori thebroaderOhio Valley prehistory,is risky. 1303-1365 calA.D. and 1383-1453 calA.D. [Cal

ibrated at 2a] [Table 1]) and is also statistically gins and fate of the Angel site and its inhabitants, are for elements the of structural than diverse, complex, and open todis (i.e., example, age younger cussion and revision (see Black 1967; Clay 1997; roof and post-mold [Tables 1 and 3]). Such a dif ference is logical and may reflect the difference Hilgeman 2000; Muller 1986; Pollack 2004; Red was built and itsuse mond 1990). Although the research reportedhere between the time the structure reflectedby features. If so, thepooled mean age of will not settle these debates, itdoes establish a bet thepost-mold and roof suggests that the structure ter chronology for the foundation and abandon

This content downloaded from 129.89.24.43 on Sun, 14 Apr 2013 13:17:43 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

AMERICAN 948

ANTIQUITY

[Vol.

75, No. 4,2010]

ment of the Angel site fromwhich to theorize its

regional associations.

The 26 14Cages thathave been reported from the Angel site, including thenine from thisproject (Tables 1-2), derive fromdiverse cultural contexts that trace site development from foundation
through abandonment. Twenty-two dates are con

may have been occupation suggests that building it one of thefirstconstruction tasksundertaken.This conclusion also implies that the initial sitepopula tionwas large enough and sufficientlyorganized to raise a major earthwork.Although other con structionscenariosmay have occurred, on thebasis of chronology, general core stratigraphy, and ER

of these dates derive frommounds (five from Mound F and six from Mound A) and the remain der (13) is from structuresor features scattered across the site.Mainly on the basis of the previ ously reported 14Cages and on a pottery seriation she developed, Hilgeman (2000) assigned a to 1200 the age post-A.D. Mississippian occupa tion at the Angel site and proposed thatthe "initial lateprehistoric occupation at Angel sitebegan dur

suggested previously for anomalous dates from Mound F, probably represent inappropriateor poor contexts ratherthancontaminated samples. Eleven

sidered reliable (i.e., provide an accurate age esti were mate for thecultural featuresfrom which they derived [Table 2, Figure 5]) and the remainder, as

where theupper and lower platforms join with the conical offset and themound was probably built up and outward from this core area (Figures 2-4). Such a building sequence is supported by the con centrationof thebasal turf blocks in thiscentral area and by the lateral variation in theN-S ER profile (Figure 3a). The correspondence of ages fromnear

mound, the earliest, profile reconstructions of the central portion of the mound was built palimpsest on a preexisting levee ridge. This ridge occurs

the top and base ofMound A is remarkable (i.e., Group A inTable 1 ages identical to the95 percent C.I.; Table 3), which indicates thatat least thecen tral portion of themound was probably built to nearly the full height of the upper platform very may not quickly (Figure 4). Such rapid construction be unusual and is also implied from the chronol ogy reported from ca. 21 m long solid-earth cores extracted from the FourthTerrace (i.e., highest plat

form) ofMonks Mound, which is also considered one of thefirst mounds erected at Cahokia (Reed 2a calibrated range of basal dates from et al. 1968:146-147; see Figure 6). The 14Cages Mound A [Table 2; Figure 5]). Similar early ages from the of organic material sampled fromnear thebottom A.D. 1200) were largely and topof the Monks Mound core indicate thatthe Angel site (i.e., older than as "not bulk of the mound was raised between 1020 ?100 rejected acceptable" (Hilgeman the rationale for B.P. 2000:appendix B). Although (1-2308; basal date) and 840 ?150 B.P. (M rejec tionof these dates was not given, neitherpoor con 1636; 674-1151 cal A.D. and 935-1409 cal A.D., texts nor suspect material was cited (Hilgeman respectively [Calibrated at 2a] [Reed et al. 1968]). The of the seri 2000:appendix B). pottery validity Despite their relatively large error ranges, the ation by Hilgeman is not doubted, but, based on Monks Mound dates are both statistically identical the new Mound A construction chronology (Fig to each other (95 percent C.I.; pooled mean aver ures 4 and 5), thereliabilityof theearly dates from age age of 1034 ?83, 806-1164 cal A.D. [Cali theAngel site should be reevaluated. Moreover, brated at 2a]) and to those of Mound A at the Angel fieldwork conducted at the site (i.e., Table l:"Group A"). Although up to 14 Angel site in 2008 and 2009 have excavated a burned house 150m west different within the building stageswere indentified of Mound A that has both potteryand 14Cages that Monks Mound core sequence, many of the lower Mound A levels are quite thick.The lower six levels average support theearly dates reportedhere for and the ca. 3.5m thickand inplaces, such as under the third Angel site in general. The dates from Mound A are among theoldest terrace, the deepest few levels indentified totaled less than 16m, which ismore than the height of yet obtained from the site and confirm a Missis as as ca. site Mound A (Reed et al. 1968:figures 6 and 7). Given sippian presence at the Angel early A.D. 1050-1100 (Figure 5). Additionally, the link thisobservation, a lack ofmultiple building stages Mound A erectionwith the initial Mound A may not be surprising and shows age of Angel site from

ing the Angel II phase (A.D. 1200-1325)" (Hilge man 2000:244). Although this may be reasonable, that clusters date assuming broadly reflect occu several also show that dates Mis pational intensity, at the site sissippian occupation actually occurred as early as ca. A.D. 1050-1100 (e.g., early end of

This content downloaded from 129.89.24.43 on Sun, 14 Apr 2013 13:17:43 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

REPORTS

949

Slack Farm Calibrated 14C ages ofCaborn-Welborn sites inthe Wabash Ohio valley region Hovey Lake Caborn ~~ Murphy' Bone Bank Stephan- Steincamp ? Southwind

Calibrated 14C ages of select Middle Mississippian sites in the Wabash-Ohio valley region

houses/features

Angel

Calibrated 14C ages of select Middle in sites Mississippian theBlack Bottomof Ohio Valley the

otherBlack Bottom sites Angelly Kincaid

Calibrated 14C ages from mound and other contextsat Cahokia

Mound contexts Monks Mound

1000

1200 1400 Calendar Year (AD)

1&00 locations calibra Cahokia (2000), Caborn

sites and locales; showing the calibrated, 2a range of 14C ages from various archaeological Figure 6. Diagram of sites shown on Figure le. 14C ages shown in calendar years (A.D.); each bar represents 2a range of one date; tion after Stuiver and Reimer (1993), Hughen et al. (2004), and Talma and Vogel (1993). Sources for 14C ages: sites after Hilgeman after Fowler (1997); Southwind and Stephen-Steinkamp (2000), Angel site after Hilgeman Black (1967), and this study (Table 1); Kincaid, Angelly, and other Black Bottoms sites after Hilgeman (2000); sites after Pollack (2004). Welborn

This content downloaded from 129.89.24.43 on Sun, 14 Apr 2013 13:17:43 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

AMERICAN 950

ANTIQUITY

[Vol.

75, No. 4,2010]

2a of pooled mean age [Table 3]). mounds can be constructed rapidly by stack that as of The early founding of the Southwind and continuous fills, sequences ing very thick, A. of the Mound bulk Angel Phase settlements Angel sites shows that proposed for as a into the the Ohio/Wabash the from 14Cages Considered whole, region very early expanded Middle Mississippian sequence (Table 2, Angel site show that its founding age is similar to in the those of otherMiddle Mississippian sites in the Figure 6) and may reflect a regional trend in lowerOhio Valley and that its founding is part of expansion of Mississippian settlements similar to American Bot a very rapid, nearly simultaneous, expansion of A.D. 1050 "Big Bang" in the the soon tom (Pauketat 1997:31-33). On the basis of sur Mississippian towns throughout the region ear A.D. 1000 (Figures 5-6). For example, the after vey and site data in hand, which is far from a liest dates from the representative sample of the area, no good candi Angel site also generally cor respond with the initialoccupation at otherAngel Phase or similar-age settlements in theBlack Bot tomandOhioAVabash Valley regions (Figures 5-6). Of the Angel Phase sites thathave produced use dates for the immediate ancestors of theAngel phase population have been identifiedwithin 20 km of the Angel site. Although theabsence of evi dence is not equal to the evidence for absence, a

son 1994:table 15.3), theoccupation of Southwind was originally suggested to postdate ca. A.D. 1150-1200 (Munson 1994:chapter 15:9).Although most of the 14Cdates from Southwind were dis counted as coal contaminated (Munson 1994:Chap ter 15:10; Tankersley et al. 1987), theyare actually

(Figure 1), has been comprehensively excavated; first Munson (1994) andmore recently by Striker by at the found the basis of the ceramics On (2009). site, and despite the fact that 14Cages similar to Mound A atAngel (Table 2, those from thebase of were Figure 5) reportedfromSouthwind (seeMun

fuldata near the Angel site,only theSouthwind site, located ca. 50 km downriver from the Angel site

Angel site might provisional hypothesis is that the have been founded by an immigrant Mississippian group, rather than through some form of in situ

statistically identical (95 percent C.I.) with those fromearly contexts fromthe Mound Angel site (i.e., A and "older" houses and features [Table 3, Fig ure 5]). Such a similaritysuggests thatthe rejected

Southwind dates may be a better indicator of site founding thanpreviously believed. A reevaluation of thefoundingage forSouthwind is also supported by recently reported AMS dates from the site (Striker2009:73-75). These newly reporteddates show thata bastion in thepalisade was constructed

coincident with theabandonment of the Angel site ca. A.D. 1400 This [Tables 2-3]). (i.e., process, which is similar to thatnoted by Clay (1997:25)

2000:235). The nearest site where such in situ transformationshave been noted is theAndelex site located ca. 50 km south ofAngel inKentucky (Clay 1997:28; Hilgeman 2000:234-236). The youngest ,4Cage of featuresrelated to struc tures onMounds A and F also have implications for the terminationof occupation at the Angel Site structures The of these show that ages (Figure 5). were were used and then they contemporaneously dismantled and buried by a layerof newmound fill

of ceramic transformations from local pottery varieties (i.e.,Yankeetown) into Angel Phase that should exist atAngel or nearby sites (Hilgeman

cultural development of local indigenous popula tions.That Angel represents an immigrantpopu lation is also supported by theabsence of the types

existed in at least two townswithin the lowerOhio andWabash valleys byA.D. 1041-1183 (i.e., cal

may be associated with a ceremonial closing of the site. Such a linkage is implied because thecapping ofMounds A and F correlates with the youngest 920 ?40, 1027-1207 cal A.D. [Calibrated at 2a] dates across the site and no other structures were found on thenew mound surface to replace those [Table 2, Figure 5]). The pooled mean average date for the early ages from were buried. The rarity of post-A.D. 1400 14C Angel site and those from that Southwind is 906 ?19 B.P. (Table 3) and indicates ages supports theconclusion thatthe was Angel site that a significant Middle Mississippian presence effectivelyabandoned soon after,ifnot coincident with, mound capping. Moreover, comparison of theoccupational spans ofmajor Mississippian sites

900 ?40 B.P. (Beta-248607: 1034-1214 cal A.D. [Calibrated at 2a] [Table 2]) and thatotherMis sissippian houses and features were also extant early in the Angel Phase as well (e.g.,Beta-248604:

for the mound at Tinsley Hill on theCumberland River inwestern Kentucky, very likely related to some ritualbehavior whose ends are not known but

This content downloaded from 129.89.24.43 on Sun, 14 Apr 2013 13:17:43 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

REPORTS951 across the lowerOhio Valley, as well as Cahokia in the Mississippi Valley (Figures 1 and 6) shows a similar regionwide abandonment of towns by A.D. 1400-1450 (Figure 6). The protohistoric outcome for the upper and lower Ohio Valley of this population reorganiza tionprocess is summarized by Drooker: In the mid-sixteenth century, people were liv Angel Phase and theAngel site have significant overlap with theCaborn-Welborn phase (Figures 1, 4, and 5). The relationship between Angel and Caborn-Welborn phases is not clear-cut and opin ions range fromno relationship through the latter as descendent of the former (Green andMunson

main trunk of the Ohio River pri ingalong the at in three the mouth of the locations: marily Wabash at theIllinois-Indiana state line; in the
area between southeastern Indiana and west

1978;Hilgeman 2000; Muller 1986; Pollack 2004). As noted by others (Cobb and Butler 2002; Hilge man 2000:240-241; Pollack 2004:2-3), a statisti

ern West Virginia; and in theupper reaches of the Monongahela (which flows north to join the Pittsburgh, Allegheny River at present-day formingtheOhio). The archaeological tradi tions in these threeregionsduring thistimeare
Caborn-Welborn, Fort Ancient, and

relationship. Most dated contexts at Caborn Welborn sites are contemporaneous with the "younger" contexts from theAngel site (pooled mean of 588 ?9 B.P. [2a cal A.D. 1314-1357 and 1387-1404] [Table 3]). This date grouping is statistically identical (95 percentC.I.) when the six dates marked with "stars" fromCaborn-Welborn sites, all of which are younger than the pooled mean, are discounted (Figure 5; Table 3).An exten A.D. sion of native occupation to European contact isnot a few because Caborn-Welborn sites surprising includeEuropean tradegoods (Clay 1997; Pollack

cal comparison of 14Cages of the Caborn-Welborn and Angel sites suggests caution in uncritically accepting the validity of an ancestor-descendent

called

Monongahela, respectively [2002:118]. Building on work byAnthony (1990), Drooker (2002) also identified the "negative," "push," and "pull" factors that affected the transformationof societies thatultimately came to dynamic rest (in archaeological time) as these threeregional archae

2004). The continuityofCaborn-Welborn sites intothe historic period, and lack of such continuityfor the Angel site, shows thatCaborn-Welborn occupa Wabash Ohio and maintained longevity in the to the end of the Medieval Warm period and the tions not achieved Middle onset of the Little IceAge as well as specific aspects Mississippian by any valleys town (Figures 5-6). Regardless of such longevity, of Ohio Valley climate (see Greenlee 2006), and of routes of exchange, ulti however, if numbers of 14C ages broadly reflect (3) the restructuring even these sitesunderwent an trade and indirect occupation intensity, mately brought about by direct after A.D. 1400; a decline decline More with Europeans. apparent general explana regional general, was the with coincident that the within tions for thedecline of the "Angel Chiefdom col Mississippian Pollack midcontinental region have also been noted, par 2004:1-5), the shiftin focus lapse" (sensu mound resource from the building to creation of cemeteries long-term overexploitation, ticularly Mid environmentalchangesmentioned above, and other (Clay 1997:30), and regional abandonment of a Such sites dle Dalan Butler Cobb and factors 2002; (Figures 5-6). Mississippian (e.g., political decline is conceptually consistentwith elements of et al. 2003; Griffin 1967; Milner 1998). The out the post-A.D. 1400 "Vacant Quarter" hypothesis come of this transformationin southwest Indiana modified (Cobb of the the western abandonment is and (Williams 1980) or at least as later Kentucky Williams Butler and of the 1990, 2001) and given 2002; regional pop Angel site and concentration the Cumberland Valley in the work a ulation within number of relatively large (albeit support by ological cultures. These transformative forces included: (1) thedepredations of the Iroquois, (2) thegeneral, regionwide changes in climate related smaller than Angel site) Caborn-Welborn villages 1978:table 11.1; Pollack (Green and Munson mouth 2004). These villages are situated near the If regardless of theircultural affiliation,occu pations declined throughout theOhio Valley after or not Angel popula of the Wabash just downriver from the Angel site A.D. 1400-1450, whether or tions migrated to merged with Caborn-Welborn (Figure 1). the of the end data ignores the importance of a largercultural people concerning Chronological

1992). (Smith

This content downloaded from 129.89.24.43 on Sun, 14 Apr 2013 13:17:43 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

AMERICAN 952

ANTIQUITY

[Vol.

75, No. 4,2010]

ronmental factors, relate to the regionwide abandonment ofMiddle Mississippian towns, the decline ofCaborn-Welborn villages and alterations of theirdiffering settlementpatterns (Clay 1997). References Cited
Anthony, D. W. 1990 Migration inArchaeology: The Baby and theBath water. American Anthropologist 92:895-914. Black, G. A. and 1967 The Angel Site: An Historical, Archaeological Ethological Study. 2 vols. Indiana Historical Society, Indi anapolis. Buikstra, J.E., D. K. Charles, and G. Rakita at the Ceremonialism 1998 Staging Ritual: Hopewell Mound House Site, Greene County, Illinois. Kampsville Studies inArcheology and History 1. Center forAmeri can Archeology, Kampsville, Illinois.

which lateprehistoric set ecology framework into tlement systems fit.Questions of ancestry or cul turalcontinuityand development are importantto more culturehistorynarratives,but overlook larger, fundamental concerns of how settlement system atics, as well as cultural, technological, or envi

Academic Press, Burlington, Massachusetts. Griffin, J.B. 1967 Eastern North American Archaeology: A Summary. Science 156:175-191. Hilgeman, S. L. 2000 Pottery and Chronology at Angel. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. W. Beck, Hughen, K. A., M. G. L. Baillie, E. Bard, A. Bayliss, J. C. J.H Bertrand, P. G. Blackwell, C. E. Buck, G. S. Burr, K. B. Cutler, P. E. Damon, R. L. Edwards, R. G. Fairbanks, M. Friedrich, T. P Guilderson, B. Kromer, F. G. McCor mac, S. W. Manning, C. Bronk Ramsey, P. J.Reimer, R. W. Reimer, J.R. Remmele, J.R. Southon, M. Stuiver, S. Talamo, F. W. Taylor, J. van der Plicht, and C. E. Wey

2006 Dietary Variation and Prehistoric Maize Farming in Middle Ohio Valley. InHistories ofMaize, edited by the J. E. Staller, R. H. Tykot, and B. F. Benz, pp. 215-233.

sissippian Society. Smithsonian Institution Press, Wash ington,D.C. Monaghan, G. W., K. C. Egan-Bruhy, M. J.Hambacher, D. R. A. Robertson, and N. R. Hayes, M. F. Kolb, S. Peterson, J. Shaffer 2006 TheMinnesota Deep Test Protocol Project. Electronic Document, http://www.mnmodel.dot.state.mn.us/pages/ accessed March 30, 2009. DeepTestProtocol.html, Monaghan, G. W., T. L. Gerke, E. R. Elswick, and C. Fik and Geophysics at theAngel Site, 2008 Geoarchaeology Society of America. North-Central Section Geological Annual Meeting, Field Trip 11,Glenn A. Black Labora toryofArchaeology, Indiana University, Bloomington. Muller, J. 1986 Archaeology of the Lower Ohio River Valley: New World Archaeological Florida. Munson, C. A. (Editor) Record. Academic Press, Orlando,

henmeyer 2004 Marine04 Marine Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 26-0 ka B.P. Radiocarbon 46:1059-1086. Milner, G. R. 1998 The Cahokia Chiefdom: The Archaeology of a Mis

Bush, L. L. 2007 Report on file at theGlenn A. Black Laboratory for Archaeology, Indiana University, Bloomington. Clay, R. B. Succession on the Lower Ohio. 1997 The Mississippian Southeastern Archaeology 16:16-32. Cobb, C. R., and B. M. Butler 2002 The Vacant Quarter Revisited: Late Mississippian Abandonment of theLower Ohio Valley. American Antiq

uity 67:625-641. Dalan, R. A., G. Holley, W. Woods, H. Watters, and J.Koepke 2003 Envisioning Cahokia: A Landscape Perspective. Northern Illinois University Press, DeKalb, Illinois. Drooker, P. B. 2002 The Ohio Valley, 1550-1750: Patterns of Sociopolit ical Coalescence and Dispersal. In The Transformation of the Southeastern Indiana edited by R. 1540-1760, Ethridge and C. Hudson, pp. 115-133. University Press of Mississippi, Jackson. Evans, A. 2007 Engineering Earthen Monuments. Poster Presented at the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Midwest Archaeological

1994 Archaeological Investigations at the Southwind Site, a Mississippian Community in Posey County Indiana. of Natural Report on file at the Indiana Department ofHistoric Preservation andArchae Resources?Division ology, Indianapolis, Indiana. Papadopoulos, N. G., P. Tsourlos, G. N. Tsokas, and A. Sarris and Three-Dimensional Resistiv 2006 Two-Dimensional Site Investigation. Archae ity Imaging in Archaeological ological Prospection 13:163-181. Pauketat, T. R. 1997 Cahokian Political Economy. In Cahokia: Domina tion and Ideology in the Mississippian World, edited by T.

B. D. Smith, pp. 293-330. Academic Greenlee, D. M.

Illinois, Urbana. Gaffney, C. 2008 Detecting Trends in thePrediction of theBuried Past: A Review of Geophysical Techniques inArchaeology. Archaeometry 50:313-336. Green, T. J., and C. A. Munson 1978 Mississippian Settlement Patterns in Southwestern Indiana. InMississippian Settlement Patterns, edited by Press, New York.

Conference 2007 Annual Meeting, October 4 -6, Univer sity of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana. Fowler, M. L. 1997 The Cahokia Atlas: A Historical Atlas of Cahokia Archaeology. Revised ed. Studies inArchaeology 2. Illi nois Transportation Archaeology Program, University of

R. Pauketat and T. E. Emerson, pp. 30-51. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. Pauketat, T. R., and T. E. Emerson and Ideology in the Mississip pian World. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. Peebles, Christopher S., and Staffan D. Peterson 2009 Angel Mounds State Historic Site, Indiana, Angel Mounds. InArchaeology in America. An Encyclopedia: 2. Midwest 1997 Cahokia: Domination

and Great Plains/Rocky Mountains, edited by Francis P.McManamon, pp. 133-136. Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticut. Perssona, K., and B. Olofsson 2004 Inside aMound: Applied Geophysics in Archaeolog ical Prospecting at theKings' Mounds, Gamla Uppsala, Sweden. Journal ofArchaeological Science 31:551-562.

This content downloaded from 129.89.24.43 on Sun, 14 Apr 2013 13:17:43 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

REPORTS Pollack, D. 2004 Caborn-Welborn: Constructing a New Society After the Angel Chiefdom Collapse. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Poreba, A. 2006 Geophysical Grave Survey of the Archaeological Mounds Site inCieszacinWielki. Publications of theInsti tute of Geophysics, Polish Academy of Sciences, M-29 395:301-307. Redmond, B. G. 1990 The Yankeetown Phase: Emergent Mississippian Cul turalAdaptation in theLower Ohio River Valley. Unpub

953

lished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Indiana University, Bloomington. W. Bennett, and J. W. Porter Reed, N. A., J. 1968 Solid Core Drilling of Monks Mound: Techniques and Finding. American Antiquity 33:136-148. Sherwood, S. A. 2006 The Geoarchaeological Study of Mound

ley of the Thracian Kings." Archaeological Prospection 13:129-136. Van Nest, J.,D. K. Charles, J.E. Buikstra, and D. L. Asch 2001 Sod Blocks in Illinois Hopewell Mounds. American Antiquity 66:633-650. Witten, A. J. Handbook ofGeophysics and A rchaeology. Equinox Publishing Limited, London. Williams, S. 1980 Armorel: A Very Late Phase in theLower Mississippi 2006

Talma, A. S., and J.C. Vogel 1993 A Simplified Approach to Calibrating C14 Dates. Radiocarbon 35:317-322 Tankersley, K. B., C. A. Munson, and D. Smith 1987 Recognition of Bituminous Coal Contaminants in Radiocarbon Samples. American Antiquity 52:318-330. Tonkov, N., andM. H. Loke 2006 A Resistivity Survey of a Burial Mound in the "Val

Smith, K. E. 1992 The Middle Cumberland Region: Mississippian in North Central Tennessee. Unpublished Archaeology

A, Shiloh Indian Mounds National Historic Landmark, Hardin Society of America Geological County, Tennessee. Abstracts with Programs 38:391.

Ph.D. dissertation, Department ofAnthropology, Vander bilt, Nashville, Tennessee.

edited by D. H. Dye and C. A. Cox. pp. 170-180, Uni versity ofAlabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 2001 The Vacant Quarter Hypothesis and the Yazoo Delta. In Societies inEclipse: Archaeology of theEastern Wood

Valley. Southeastern Archaeological Conference Bulletin 22:105-110. 1990 The Vacant Quarter and Other Late Events in the Lower Valley. In Towns and Temples Along the Mississippi,

M. A. (editor) Striker, 2009 Archaeological

Investigations at the Southwind Site (12P0265), Posey County, Indiana. ProjectNo. 07-55101. Report on file at the Indiana Department of Natural ofHistoric Preservation andArchae Resources?Division

lands Indiana, A.D. 1400-1700, edited by D. S. Brose, C. W. Cowan, and R. Mainfort, Jr.,pp. 191-203. Smithson ian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

ology, Indianapolis. Stuiver,M., and P. J.Reimer 1993 Extended 14C Database carbon Calibration (Version 5.1)

and Revised CALIB

Radio Submitted July 21, 2009; Revised October Accepted October 21, 2009 9, 2009;

Program. Radiocarbon

35:215-230.

This content downloaded from 129.89.24.43 on Sun, 14 Apr 2013 13:17:43 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions