Angel Site

Society for American Archaeology

THE CONSTRUCTION, USE, AND ABANDONMENT OF ANGEL SITE MOUND A: TRACING THEHISTORY OF A MIDDLE MISSISSIPPIAN TOWN THROUGH ITS EARTHWORKSAuthor(s): G. William Monaghan and Christopher S. PeeblesSource: American Antiquity, Vol. 75, No. 4 (October 2010), pp. 935-953Published by: Society for American ArchaeologyStable 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 ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

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

http://www.jstor.org

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

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sam

http://www.jstor.org/stable/25766238?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


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 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, geo

physical 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 construc

tion coincided with the initial occupation of the site and was among the first construction tasks undertaken. Cultural fea tures associated with a structure partly buried under the conical offset on the upper platform of Mound 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 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.

"Mound A "

es el mas grande montwulo de plataforma en el sitio de Angel (12VG1), una "Middle Mississippian "

ciudad a lo

largo del no Ohio en el suroeste de Indiana y consiste en una plataforma superior e inferior se unio a por un 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 rior y que por 890 B.P. la plataforma superior fue construido a casi su total 8 mde altura. Lasfechas del "Mound A" estdn

entre los primeros grabados desde el sitio, lo que implica esa construccion estadillos coincidio con la ocupacion inicial del

sitio y estaba entre las primeras tareas de construccion realizadas. Las caracteristicas culturales asociadas con una estruc

tura parcialmente 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 la plataforma 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

donado por 500 B.P, que tambien se corresponde con el abandono de sitios Mississippian en toda la region.

Mound A is the largest platform mound at the Angel site (12VG1), a Middle Mis

sissippian 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 2 m high at the junction of the upper-lower platform and that

by 890 B.R the upper platform was built to nearly its full 8 m 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

G. William Monaghan and Christopher S. Peebles Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology, Indiana University, 423

North Fess Ave, Bloomington, Indiana 47407 ([email protected], [email protected])

American Antiquity 75(4), 2010, pp. 935-953

Copyright ?2010 by the Society for American Archaeology

935



936 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 75, No. 4,2010]

B.R, 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 struc ture was destroyed and covered with a fresh layer of fill just before site abandonment. This final fill

ing 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.R, which also corresponds with the abandonment of

Mississippian sites throughout the 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

lenges to systematic archaeological exploration, especially when it involves their complete excava tion. Today, such earthworks remain unexplored because they have relevance to the beliefs of con

temporary Native Americans, because they are

extremely expensive to excavate and because the risks (symbolic and financial) and rewards (in terms of archaeological data) are weighted toward the

former, rather than the latter. Consequently, even the most rudimentary questions regarding mound

composition, stratigraphy, construction methods,

chronology, etc., typically remain unanswered at

many sites. Clearly, a set of minimally invasive methods that can "see" underground to create vir

tual models of the subsurface, particularly if linked to ground-truthed data, would be a significant addi tion to archaeological methods. Using recent research at a large mound at the Angel site (12 VG1) in southwestern Indiana, we will show how com

plex and differently scaled data (i.e., small-diameter solid-earth cores, traditional archaeological exca

vations, as well as a variety of geophysical tools) can be integrated into a coherent framework to pro vide regionally significant results and conclusions. This approach offers a methodological alternative to more extensive archaeological excavations that can still yield significant information about the con

struction, use, and chronology of earthworks, but with little or no impact to mounds themselves.

Although not new, refining such procedures is crit ical to developing more targeted, efficient, and effective excavation strategies at complex locations like the Angel site.

The Angel site is a large (ca. 47 ha) palisaded Middle Mississippian agricultural town on the Ohio River near Evansville, Indiana (Figure 1). The site

figures prominently in the late prehistoric settle ment systems in the Midwest (Griffin 1967; Mil ner 1998; Muller 1986; Pauketat and Emerson

1997; Pollack 2004). Professional research has been ongoing at the site for over 80 years, although the majority of excavation occurred from the 1930s

through the 1960s (Black 1967). Eleven separate earthworks or mounds (A-K [Figure 1]) are scat tered across the site and vary in size from relatively small, less than 2 m high earthworks (D and J [Fig ure 1]) to Mound A, which is one of the largest extant Middle Mississippian earthworks anywhere. Only four of the earthworks at the site have been

excavated, Mound F nearly completely and Mounds A, I and K to a much lesser extent (Figure 1). Even so, few chronological controls exist for

mound construction episodes or use (Tables 1-2). Because it was completely excavated between 1939-1941 and 1964-1965, the most detailed information exists for Mound F and shows that it included two major episodes of construction and use (Black 1967:figures 242-244). The first is arel

atively low mound (ca. 2 m high) that was called the "primary mound surface," which was only about half the footprint of Mound F as it existed when it was completed and eventually abandoned (Figure 2b?c). Several rows of post-molds ringed the pri mary mound and a large structure that covered the entire mound was built on its surface. The second construction phase of Mound F is a ca. 2-3 m thick fill sequence referred to as the "secondary mound

fill," which buried the entire primary mound sur

face, including the structure on it. No structures or other Mississippian-age features were noted on the

secondary mound surface. The accepted 14C ages reported from the primary mound structure range from 1288 to 1397calA.D. (calibrated at 2a [Table 2]), which are very late in the Angel sequence (Black 1967; Hilgeman 2000).

Because only limited excavations occurred within it, much less is known about Mound A, which is several times larger than Mound F. Mound A measures ca. 200 x 125 m by up to 16 m high and consists of two platforms: a "lower" (ca. 75 m

long (4 m high) and an "upper" (ca. 125 m long x

8 m high [Figures 1 and 2]). Additionally, a small

(ca. 15 m diameter), conical offset rises about 6 m



REPORTS 937

A. Topographic map | of Angel site showing Nl earthworks (C.i =1 ft) TOO

C. Select Mississippian sites in Ohio-Wabash

Mississippi Valley area

Figure 1. Maps showing the location of the mounds and earthworks at the Angel site as well as the locations of other

nearby, significant Mississippian sites within the Wabash, Ohio and Mississippi valleys mentioned in the text, (a)

Topographic map of the Angel site showing locations of mounds (labeled) and other earthworks (after Black 1967 and Peebles and Peterson 2009; topographic base map provided courtesy of the Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology and Board of Trustees, Indiana University), (b) Parts of the Evansville South and Newburgh 7.5' Quadrangle map show

ing the Ohio River floodplain and location of the Angel site, (c) Map of middle Mississippi and lower Ohio River vaUeys showing locations of the Mississippian Period archaeological sites mentioned in text (d) Detailed topographic map of

Mound A (topographic contours based on relative datum of 100 m).

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 structure of unknown size and extent that had been partly buried under the coni cal offset was discovered (Figure 2d-g). Because the structure was at least partly buried by it, Black

(1967:365-367) concluded that the conical offset was a relatively late addition, constructed some time after the upper platform was built and in use.

Although suitable organic samples were collected, unlike Mound F, no 14C ages were reported for Mound A until this research (Table 1). These ages indicate that the structures on Mounds A and F are

generally temporally equivalent and that they were

probably also abandoned at about the same time

(Table 2). Prior to this study, nothing was known about the

deeper, interior stratigraphy or engineering frame work of Mound A. Through our approach, useful data about its interior was recovered without resort

ing to the level of excavations undertaken at Mound F. We relied on several different, non- or minimally invasive methods that combined fine-scaled, point source data collected using minimally invasive, continuous solid-earth cores with fine-scale down hole electrical conductivity (EC) and electrical

resistivity (ER) profiler data. Cores and downhole



938 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 75, No. 4, 2010]

Table 1. Newly Reported 14C Ages of Plant Material from the Angel Site.

Lab#

Material3

[state]

Location

[Depth]b 14C Age B.P 13C/12C Calendar Agec

(conventional) Ratio (% of area under curve)

A. Related to mound construction (Geoprobe cores) Beta- 237767

Beta-232869

Beta-232870

Juncus (spp., Juncaceae)

(rush) [charred]

grass/grass roots

(no id) [uncharred]

grass/grass roots

(no id) [uncharred]

conical offset; Core 5 [468cm]

(ca. 4 m above Beta-232869)

upper platform (south); Core 7 [625cm]

upper platform (south); Core 7 [810cm]

890 ? 40 -10.1%o A.D. 1035-1219 (100)

890 ? 40 -9A%c A.D. 1035-1219 (100)

900 ? 40 -26.3%o A.D. 1034-1214 (100)

B. Related to structure at edge of conical offset near top of upper platform {excavation units) Beta- 252377

Beta-252378

Beta-252379

Carya spp.

(hickory/pecan) shell [charred]

Carya spp., (hickory) wood [uncharred]

Fraxinus spp. (ash) wood [charred]

FS94, Feature 2 520 ? 50

(F2/MA), ca. 130 cm

below surface

FS123, post mold base, ca. 300 cm below surface

FS144; Feature 3 690 ? 40

(F3/MA); 150-170 cm

-24.7%o A.D. 1303-1365 (30) A.D. 1383-1453 (70)

750 ? 40 -26.6%o A.D. 1211-1298 (100)

-26.2%o A.D. 1258-1324 (65) A.D. 1345-1393 (35)

C. Related to Unit A {structure southeast of Mound A; excavation units) Beta - 246694 Arundinaria gigantean Catalog 11473-456; 690 ? 40

(giant cane) Unit AC

[charred] (base of post mold?) Beta - 246695 Gleditsia triacanthos Catalog 11473-457; Unit AD; 570 ? 40

(honey locust) base of structural

wood [charred] (wall) trench? Beta - 246696 Acer spp. (maple) Catalog 11473-458; "midden" 610 ? 40

_wood [charred]_near Unit AD _

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).

-25.9%o A.D. 1258-1324 (65) A.D. 1345-1393 (35)

-24.9%o A.D. 1299-1370 (0.60) A.D. 1380-1429 (40)

-22.4%o A.D. 1291-1408 (100)

EC provided real-world, ground-truth information

necessary to realistically interpret the ER results, while the ER profiles linked the broad stratigraphic units defined within cores across the mound. This

procedure resulted in a grounded and realistic reconstruction of the interior of Mound A. In addi

tion, organic samples collected from specific cul tural events also revealed within the cores provided absolute chronology to various episodes of mound

building. The preliminary results of this research

approach, as well as the regional implications of these data for Middle Mississippian settlements in the Ohio Valley, are described below.

Methods

Two different, minimally invasive methodological

approaches to obtain subsurface data were followed

during this research. One focused on collecting physical, solid-earth cores from the mound and the second used a multiprobe ER-profiler system. ER

profilers are commonly used to define vertical pro file sections of the subsurface and trace the stratig raphy of natural sediment and soil horizons, but

they can also be used to map broad culturally derived mound fill sequences (Gaffney 2008; Mon

aghan et al. 2006; Monaghan et al. 2008; Papadopoulos et al. 2006; Perssona and Olofsson

2004; Poreba 2006; Tonkov and Loke 2006). Implicit in this notion is that similar to alluvial

deposits within floodplains, fill units within mounds are also structured, orderly, and composed of distinct and discrete layers selected by the mound builders based on their physical properties (Buik



REPORTS

Table 2. 14C Dates from Major Angel Phase (Angel and Southwind) Sites.

939

Context Lab

Number

14C agea

(conventional)

Cal 2a Calendar Ageb (% of area under curve)

Angel site

Angel Mound A (construction)

Mound A (structure on upper platform)

Mound F

Angel House/ feature ("older")

Angel House/ feature ("younger")

Beta 232870

Beta 232869 Beta 237776

Beta 252378

Beta 252379

Beta 242377

M2

M9

M10 Beta 39232 DIC 2357 DIC 2358 Beta 39233 M4 DIC2359 Beta 39235

M7

Beta 39234

Beta 246694

Beta 44768

Beta 44769

M5

Beta 246696

Beta 246695

Beta 44771

Beta 44770

DIC 1024

DIC 1023

900 ? 40c

890 ? 40c

890 ? 40c

750 ? 40c 690 ? 40c

520 ? 50c

1340 ? 120d

1980 ? 130d

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

760 ? 100

750 ? 80

'690 ? 40c

660 ? 60 640 ? 60 580 ? 100

610 ? 40c

570 ? 40c

570 ? 50 530 ? 50

510 ?50

360 ? 50

A.D. 1034- 1214(100) A.D. 1035 - 1219 (100) A. D. 1035 - 1219 (100) A.D. 1211-1298(100) A.D. 1258-1324 (65) A.D. 1345-1393 (35) A.D. 1303-1365 (31) A.D. 1383-1453 (69) A.D. 435 - 490 (4)

AD. 509-517 (<1) A.D. 529 - 905 (92) A. D. 911-971 (4) B. C. 359-276 (4)

B. C. 259- 262 A.D. (91) A.D. 278-328 (3)

B.C. 116-430 A.D. (100) A.D. 1030- 1281 (100) A.D. 1258 - 1400 (100) A.D. 1283 - 1404 (100) A.D. 1287 - 1428 (100) A.D. 1558- 1631 (8) A.D. 1634-1955 (100) A.D. 901 - 916 (1)

A.D. 967- 1257 (99) A.D. 1042- 1107(10) A.D. 1117- 1399(90) A.D. 1049- 1084 (4) A.D. 1124- 1137 (1) A.D. 1151 - 1399 (95) A.D. 1258-1303 (69) A.D. 1345-1393 (31)

A.D. 1261 - 1411 (100) A.D. 1272- 1413 (100) A.D. 1223 - 1496 (99) A.D. 1507- 1511 (<1) A.D. 1601 - 1615 (<1) A.D. 1291-1408 (100) A.D. 1299-1370 (60) A.D. 1389-1429 (40)

A.D. 1297- 1431 (100) A.D. 1302- 1366 (37) A.D. 1383 - 1448 (63) A.D. 1305 - 1363 (24) A.D. 1385 - 1463 (76) A.D. 1449-1639 (100)

stra et al. 1998; Dalan et al. 2003; Evans 2007; Sher wood 2006; Van Nest et al. 2001). How much of this selection reflects convenience or aesthetics and how much relates to their engineering properties is an open but important question. ER profilers map these layers of mound fills and surfaces based

mainly on their lithological contrasts (Gaffney

2008; Witten 2006). In general, the ER (i.e., a mea sure of the earth's ability to inhibit electrical flow) of sediment and soil is controlled by three main soil or sediment properties: texture, moisture, and com

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

resistivity. Coarse-grained, dry, and loose materi




Table 2. 14C Dates from Major Angel Phase (Angel and Southwind) Sites (continued).

Context

Lab

Number

14C age3

(conventional)

Cal 2a Calendar Ageb (% of area under curve)

Southwind Site

Other Features

House/House Basin

Palisade (bastion east palisade)

UGA4645

UGA4647 UGA4716 UGA4646

Beta-248604

UGA4715

Beta-248603

Beta-248606

Beta-248608

Beta-248605

Beta-248607

1085 ? 85f'g

1005 ? 65f'g

995 ? 125f'g

955 ? 115fg

920 ? 40h

890 ? 135f

380 ? 40h

790 ? 40h 770 ? 40h

680 ? 40h

900 ? 40h

A.D. 720-741 (1) A.D. 769-1059 (90) A.D.1064-1155 (9) A.D. 892-1175 (100) A.D. 777-1265 (100)

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

A.D. 1034-1214 (100)

aExcept where otherwise noted, reported conventional dates from Hilgeman (2000) and Black (1967); standard radiometric

date methods.

Calibrated calendar age based on 2a distribution of conventional 14C age; calibration after Stuiver and Reimer, 1993

(CALIB Version 5.1), Hughen et. al. (2004) and Talma and Vogel (1993); percentage of area under 2a normal curve shown

in parenthesis after date range.

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. fAs reported in Munson (1994:Table 15-3); standard radiometric date methods.

gDate rejected as coal contaminated (Munson 1994:Table 15-3; and Hilgeman 2000). hAs reported in Striker (2009); AMS date methods. Context from Striker (personal communication, 2009).

als are poor conductors and so have high resistiv

ity. These factors are not independent. For exam

ple, fine-textured sediments also tend to hold moisture better than coarser-grained deposits in unsaturated profiles, accentuating the ER differ ences between these layers. For most shallow pro files in unconsolidated materials, texture is the most

important property and broadly corresponds to the observed ER profiles in Mound A at the Angel site.

A Syscal model Pro, multichannel ER-profile system with a 72-probe linear array attached was used. The array was arranged with probes spaced 1 m apart and laid both parallel and perpendicular to the long axis of the mound. Both Wenner and

Dipole-Dipole arrays were used to collect data. The

depth and resolution of subsurface images is a func tion of probe spacing and the total length of the lin ear array?the longer the array, the greater the

depth, and the closer the probe spacing, the greater the resolution. Consequently, a finite number of

probes more closely spaced will yield more detailed resolution of the subsurface but will also produce shallower images. With the configuration employed in the Mound A study (i.e., 1 m probe-spacing,

Wenner and Dipole-Dipole array) maximum depths that equal about 15-20 percent of the total array length could be imaged (e.g., 10-14 m depths) and

only layers greater than 50 cm thick could be resolved. Along some profiles (i.e., N-S profile of

Mound A [Figure 3a]) that were longer than 72 m, a "roll-along" survey method was employed and observations linked in software. The ER data was

processed and inverted using RES2DINV (GeoT omo software).

A total of seven, small-diameter, minimally invasive, solid-earth cores were collected from



REPORTS 941

Figure 2. Photos, diagrams, and 14C ages from the excavation of Mound F, Mound A, and the 1955 excavation blocks

from the Mound A upper platform, (a) Photograph showing complexity of primary mound fill below "primary mound

surface." (b) Air photograph of Mound F after "primary mound surface" as exposed in November 1941; post molds and

structure on primary mound surface emphasized by Black in original photograph, (c) Photograph of WPA archaeolog 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 of Mound A (view east, north on

right side of diagram), (e) Three-dimensional (3D) rendering of Mound A, locations or traces of cores and ER profiles 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

A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology and Board of Trustees, Indiana University. Photos shown in d courtesy of G.

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.




Mound A during this project and were 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

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

was attached to the top of the previous casing and a new sample tube with drive rod attached placed into the casing. This new segment was then driven 122 cm into the mound and then the sample tube

was extracted. In this manner, continuous cores (in 122 cm sections) were collected until the base of the mound was penetrated. The core-sample tubes were opened in the lab and the core was described in respect to soil and sediment colors, textures, inclusions, etc. Samples of any organic material that

might provide an absolute chronology for the con struction horizons were also collected. On the basis of their context and stratigraphic positions, three of these samples were submitted for 14C age esti

mates.

The chronology of mound construction is based on AMS 14C ages of organic matter found within the cores and organic material archived from pre viously excavated archaeological units. The six 14C dates from Mound A were derived from carefully selected cultural contexts and provide an absolute

chronology for the building and use of Mound A at the Angel site. In contrast, most of the previously reported "unacceptable" 14C dates from the site

(Black 1967; Hilgeman 2000) reflect either poor sample contexts or unsuitable samples. For exam

ple, compared to the age of the underlying primary mound surface, charcoal from the secondary fill

layer on Mound F provided a 14C age that was 500-700 years too old (e.g., M2, 1340 ?120 B.P.

[Table 2]). The charcoal was clearly unrelated to the construction of the Mound F and was likely detrital charcoal deposited as part of the original alluvial sequence from which the fill was derived. It may accurately reflect the depositional age of the alluvium but not the time of final filling of Mound F (Black 1967). Two other "bad dates" from Mound F were obtained on shell from good 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

result from either problems with understanding the

systematics of carbonate dates from shell during the early years of 14C dating or, alternatively, may

accurately indicate the age of shell but not the time that it was used. Other dates were rejected largely because they did not fit into a preconceived cul tural chronology and, as discussed below, their reli

ability and significance should be reevaluated.

Results

Stratigraphy and Mound Construction

Several new, important observations related to the construction methods, materials, and engineering of Mound A emerged from our research. The ER

profiles reveal that Mound A includes several broad

resistivity zones that can be traced across the mound: a basal zone that has very high resistivity overlain by a low-resistivity zone that is, in turn, overlain by various zones of moderate and low

resistivity (Figure 3). In places, particularly on the conical offset, this uppermost zone shows very high resistivity. This layering roughly reflects the nat ural configuration and stratigraphy of premound sediments as well as the stratigraphy and structure of culturally derived mound-fill units. The cultural or natural contexts of this broad stratigraphy can be constrained and understood through the fine scale layering revealed from the solid-earth cores with minimal impact to the cultural deposits. For

example, core samples reveal that the basal, high resistivity zone corresponds to bedded, coarse

grained (sand) deposits, which probably derived as bar or channel sediments (Figure 3). Conversely, the overlying low resistivity horizons, which are

particularly obvious underlying the lower platform, consist mainly of much finer-grained sediment

(Figure 3a). A fining-upward alluvial sequence is

typical of vertical accretion and often associated with levee formation within ridge and swale flood

plains. The ER profiles of Mound A show the basal

coarse-grained sediments rise northward under the lower platform and form a "levee ridge" palimpsest 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



REPORTS 943

Figure 3. ER profiles through various parts of Mound A; locations of cores and ER profile traces shown on Figure 3d. (a) North-south ER profile through upper and lower platforms; approximate location of Core 7 and depths of associated 14C

ages (B.P.) shown, (b) East-west ER profile through conical offset and upper platforms; approximate location of Cores 5 and 7 and depths of associated 14C ages (B.P.) labeled, (c) North-south ER profile through conical offset; approximate loca tion of Core 5 and depths of associated 14C age (B.P.) labeled, (d) Three-dimensional (3D) rendering of Mound A.

ment of the original mound on this levee ridge may also have important cultural or ceremonial signif icance. That the upper and lower platforms and conical offset join on top of this ridge suggests that this location probably continued as the "central

place" of Mound A. A "mound" of low-resistivity deposits also

appears palimpsest on the original levee ridge (Fig ure 3). Even though these low ER values appear to be a continuation of the fine-grained alluvial

deposits underlying the lower platform, as the cores

show, these deposits are actually composed of mul

tiple layers of culturally derived, mound construc tion fill (Figure 3). Cores that penetrate these

deposits were generally composed of 10-20 cm

thick, clayey-to-very-fine-sandy silt loam layers derived from both surface and subsurface soil hori zons (A and E, B or BC, respectively [Figure 4d]). 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 horizon") units sometimes included turf or grass

preserved between the layers and probably repre sented 10-15 cm thick turf blocks cut, transported, 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 ers" marking the original ground surface were now found at the bottom of each of the blocks; Figure 4d). Although overturned, the soil profile was gen erally preserved intact, which suggests that the

"turf' fills were cut and transported, possibly in bas

kets, as whole blocks and were carefully stacked

by overturning the block (or basket) on the mound

pile. This stacked sequence rests directly on an intact natural soil profile consisting of an A/Bw

Bg/Cg soil profile developed within silty-very-fine sandy loam and silty clay loam sediments. The fact that a complete, generally undisturbed, natural pro file directly underlies the stacked turf blocks at the base of the mound in most cases suggests that the mound fill was stacked directly on the preexisting ground surface with little or no leveling, cutting, or other significant surface preparation.

The turf blocks are most common (or at least best preserved) in the basal part of the mound, par ticularly in the area where the upper and lower plat form join with the conical offset. Here they occur as a ca. 2-2.5 m thick sequence and are overlain

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 the upper platform of Mound A, the sequence of stacked blocks of A horizon [turf] overlain by stacked B-horizon units does not appear to be general across the upper plat form. Rather, these are confined mainly to the cores taken from the south half of the upper platform where it joins with the conical offset. In cores taken from the northern end of the mound, on the other

hand, the turf blocks are apparently absent and the 10-20 cm thick, Bt/Bg- or BC-horizon layers




Figure 4. Interpretive diagrams summarizing the Mound A interior, (a) East-West profile showing generalized fill

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 of Mound 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 earth) under charred rush in close-up of core (left side of c) showing intensive burning, (d) Photograph of dated grass 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.

extend to the premound ground surface (e.g., "Core 2" on Figure 3a). Such a subsurface spatial con

figuration is supported by the mound stratigraphy inferred from the ER profiles (Figure 3). For exam

ple, the relatively thick high-resistivity zones that mark the base of the upper platform at its southern

margin (see areas near cores 5 and 7, Figure 3a-b) apparently coincide with the more cohesive or finer

grained sediments related to the stacked A-horizon units. These high-resistivity zones do not extend

very far north across the upper platform from where it joins with the conical offset (Figure 3a-c).

Although other factors may contribute?including soil moisture, textural variation, or compaction? the coincidence of specific resistivity zones with

general stratigraphic units shows that the mound was constructed in an orderly and coherent man ner that can be traced and mapped three

dimensionally. The significance of the sequence of basal,

stacked A-horizon-derived units overlain by stacked B-horizon-derived units may have cultural

meaning or specific engineering import. For exam

ple, the color ordering of the mound fills may be connected to religious and aesthetic principles of the inhabitants of the Angel 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 stability or 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

"unroofing" process that resulted from the order that fill units were excavated at the borrow pit. As

A-horizon soil was cut from the surface of borrow



REPORTS 945

areas and stacked on the mound to form the basal

fill, underlying, deeper B-horizon soil was exposed. These were then cut and stacked on the A-horizon fills to form the mound and the resultant sequence merely reflects the order in which the fill units were

quarried.

Chronology of Mound Construction and Use

The age of the base 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 that formed the basal 2 m of Core 7 (Fig ures 3a, 3c, and 4). Although many units with in situ grasses in growth position (but overturned) were identified in the stratigraphic sequence, sam

ples from near the top (ca. 625 cm below surface) and bottom (ca. 810 cm below surface) were

selected for age determination. Uncharred grass stems or roots, which mark the season in which the turf was cut and stacked, were hand picked from the interface between sets of overturned turf blocks. These yielded 14C ages (top and bottom, respec

tively) of 890 ?40 B.P. (Beta-232869: 1035-1219 cal A.D. [Calibrated at 2a]) and 900 ?40 B.P. (Beta 232870: 1034-1220 cal A.D. [Calibrated at 2a]) (Table 1; Figures 3^4). In addition, a minimum 14C

age for completion of much of the upper platform and conical offset, 890 ?40 B.P. (Beta-237767: 1035-1219 cal A.D. [Calibrated at 2a]) (Table 1), derived from a large piece of charred rush (Juncus; Table 1), a wetland annual grass, collected 480 cm

below the surface of the conical offset in Core 5

(Figures 3^t). The three dates from cores (Table 1;

Figure 4) are remarkably consistent, with a pooled 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 in Core 5 was part of a distinct reddish

colored, burned-earth "feature" that was in proper

stratigraphic position (i.e., not disturbed and the

burned earth underlay charred rush remains). This

feature may mark a ceremonial surface or other hia tus in mound construction of unknown duration

and, if projected out from the conical offset, this

horizon roughly intersects the surface of the upper

platform (Figures 3b and 4). In addition to the cores, which show the deeper

stratigraphy of the mound, an N-S oriented, shal

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

northwest margin of the conical offset in 1955 revealed the remains of a structure (Black 1967:368). The structure was inferred from the

presence of two generally N-S oriented rows of

post-molds as well as the charred remnants of what

possibly was a collapsed "roof." Because elements of the structure extended across the entire block, its full size is unknown, but it clearly extends under the conical offset some distance and was buried under at least 140 cm of mound fill (Black 1967:359-361, figures 385-387). Consequently, its construction and use predate the final construc tion phase of the conical offset. Abundant plant

material was associated with various components of this structure. Uncharred Hickory or Pecan wood

(Carya spp.) occurred in the post-molds and the

roof, designated as Feature 2 (Black 1967:360-361), included partly charred small diameter Hickory or Pecan (Carya spp.) twigs and other small (less than 2 mm) diameter plant stems

and grasses (Poaceae: Andorpogon, Sorgastrum, Phragmites and Elymus) (Bush 2007). Under mag nification, these grassy stems appeared to be

arranged in parallel and probably represent thatch

ing material (Bush 2007). This pattern, combined with the small twigs, suggests that Feature 2 may have been composed of collapsed roofing mater

ial. A few trash or storage pits were also discov ered stratigraphically between the post-molds and roof. One of these, Feature 3, included partly charred Zea mays and nutshell (Carya spp.), wood charcoal (Carya illinoenensis; Castanea dentate) and mammal bone (Black 1967:360-361; Bush

2007). Because the feature clearly extends some

distance under the conical offset, a direct correla tion of this structure with the Core 5 burn feature buried under the conical offset might seem rea

sonable (Figure 4). The 14C ages of features within the structure, however, show that it was built and

used between ca. A.D. 1250 and A.D. 1400 a few

hundred years after the Core 5 burn feature (Fig ure 5).

Three 14C age estimates were obtained from

organic samples in features excavated by Black in

1955. These include uncharred wood from the base

of one of the post-molds, a small, charred Fraxi nus (Ash) twig (inner and outer rings indicate 6

years growth [Bush 2007]) from the "roof (Fea ture 2), and a charred nutshell from the Feature 3

pit (Table 1 :"Group B"). Unlike the age of samples




14C ages from Middle

Mississippian and Caborn-Welborn sites

in the Ohio/Wabash

valley region.

Slack Farm

Hovey Lake

Caborn

Murphy

14C ages from Caborn-Welborn

sites

(intercepts extend to present)

14C ages from Middle Mississippian

contexts at the Angel site

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

14C ages from Middle

Mississippian contexts at the Southwind site

600. 800.

Mound A (structure at top under

conical offset)

Mound A (construction elements)

1000. 1200. 1400.

Calendar Years (A.D.)

1600. 1800.

Figure 5.14C ages from sites in the lower Wabash and Ohio valleys region. The Angel Site grouped by major contexts: Mound 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 (see Munson 1993:Table 15.5) are marked with "C" on right side of probability distribution. 14C ages from Caborn-Welborn site after Pollack (2004); Southwind site after Hilgeman (2000) and Striker (2009); Angel site after Hilgeman (2000), Black (1967), and this paper (Table 1).



REPORTS

Table 3. Statistical Comparison of 14C Ages from the Angel Site.

947

Pooled Means of sample populations grouped Pooled Num Difference

By context from the Angel Site_mean date_dates_t_(95% C.I.)_

Angel site/ contexts

Angel: Mound A (construction): 893 ? 23 B.P. 3 .04 No

Angel: Mound A (structure): 671 ? 25 B.P. 3 5.99 Yesa

Angel: Mound F (all): 652 ? 26 B.P. 5 8.63 No

Angel: Houses/Features (all): 619 ?21 B.P. 9 31.4 Yes

Angel: Houses/Features ("older"): 828 ? 49 B.P. 3 3.74 No

Angel: Houses/Features ("younger"): 570 ? 24 B.P. 5 7.06 No

Mound A (construction) - Mound A (structure): 789 ? 16 B.P. 6 56.4 Yes

Mounds A (construction) - all Mound F: 789 ? 17 B.P. 8 47.1 Yes

Mound A (structure) - all Mound F: 663 ? 18 B.P. 8 14.1 Yesb

Mounds A (construction) - all Houses/Features: 743 ? 15 B.P. 12 77.0 Yes

Mound A (structure)- all Houses/Features

All Mound F - all Houses/Features: 828 ? 49 B.P. 14 .95 No

Other sites and contexts

"Old" Angel Site (Mound A (construction), 906 ? 19 B.P. 11 14.6 No

Mound F & Houses/Features - Southwind:

"Young" Angel Site (Mound A (structure), Mound F 588 ? 9 B.P. 33 40.2 No

& Houses/ Features?All Caborn/Welborn sites:_ 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 F and Mound A (structure) samples if sample of post mold (Beta252378; Table 2) is discounted.

related to episodes of mound building (i.e., Table

1:"Group A"), these samples record the use of Mound A after it was mainly built and show that at

least the upper platform was used throughout the

occupation of the Angel site. Not surprising, the ear

liest dates derive from the structural elements (i.e.,

posts and roof). Uncharred wood from a post-mold yielded an age of 750 ?40 B.P. (Beta-252378: 1211-1298 cal A.D. [Calibrated at 2a] [Tables 1-2]), a charred Ash twig from the "roof was

slightly younger, 690 ?40 B.P. (Beta-252379: 1258-1324 cal A.D. and 1345-1393 cal A.D. [Cal ibrated at 2a]). These two dates are statistically identical (95 percent C.I.; see Table 3 n. 1). A

charred nutshell from Feature 3, which occurs

stratigraphically between the roof and post-mold,

yielded an age of 520 ?50 B.P. (Beta-252377: 1303-1365 cal A.D. and 1383-1453 cal A.D. [Cal ibrated at 2a] [Table 1]) and is also statistically younger than the age of structural elements (i.e., roof and post-mold [Tables 1 and 3]). Such a dif

ference is logical and may reflect the difference

between the time the structure was built and its use

reflected by features. If so, the pooled mean age of

the post-mold and roof suggests that the structure

was built 720 ?28 B.P. (i.e., 1281-1324 cal A.D. and 1345-1393 cal A.D. [Calibrated at 2a]) and based on the age of Feature 3, was used at least until 520 B.P. (ca. A.D. 1303-1453 [Tables 1 and 3]). The later age is particularly intriguing because it is

statistically similar to the age of features on the pri mary surface of Mound F as well as the ages of the

youngest houses and features across the site (Tables

2-3; Figure 5) and may mark the time of site aban donment.

Discussion and Regional Significance

Generalizing our new evidence concerning the time and means of construction of Mound A to the devel

opment of the Angel site as a whole, let alone to

the temporal and cultural place of the Angel site in

the broader Ohio Valley prehistory, is risky. The ori

gins and fate of the Angel site and its inhabitants, for example, are diverse, complex, and open to dis

cussion and revision (see Black 1967; Clay 1997;

Hilgeman 2000; Muller 1986; Pollack 2004; Red

mond 1990). Although the research reported here

will not settle these debates, it does establish a bet

ter chronology for the foundation and abandon




ment of the Angel site from which to theorize its

regional associations.

The 26 14C ages that have been reported from the Angel site, including the nine from this project (Tables 1-2), derive from diverse cultural contexts that trace site development from foundation

through abandonment. Twenty-two dates are con

sidered reliable (i.e., provide an accurate age esti mate for the cultural features from which they were

derived [Table 2, Figure 5]) and the remainder, as

suggested previously for anomalous dates from Mound F, probably represent inappropriate or poor contexts rather than contaminated samples. Eleven of these dates derive from mounds (five from

Mound F and six from Mound A) and the remain der (13) is from structures or features scattered across the site. Mainly on the basis of the previ ously reported 14C ages and on a pottery seriation she developed, Hilgeman (2000) assigned a

post-A.D. 1200 age to the Mississippian occupa tion at the Angel site and proposed that the "initial late prehistoric occupation at Angel site began dur

ing the Angel II phase (A.D. 1200-1325)" (Hilge man 2000:244). Although this may be reasonable,

assuming that date clusters broadly reflect occu

pational intensity, several dates also show that Mis

sissippian occupation at the site actually occurred as early as ca. A.D. 1050-1100 (e.g., early end of 2a calibrated range of basal dates from Mound A

[Table 2; Figure 5]). Similar early ages from the

Angel site (i.e., older than A.D. 1200) were largely rejected as "not acceptable" (Hilgeman 2000:appendix B). Although the rationale for rejec tion of these dates was not given, neither poor con texts nor suspect material was cited (Hilgeman 2000:appendix B). The validity of the pottery seri ation by Hilgeman is not doubted, but, based on the new Mound A construction chronology (Fig ures 4 and 5), the reliability of the early dates from the Angel site should be reevaluated. Moreover, fieldwork conducted at the Angel site in 2008 and 2009 have excavated a burned house 150 m west of Mound A that has both pottery and 14C ages that

support the early dates reported here for Mound A and the Angel site in general.

The dates from Mound A are among the oldest

yet obtained from the site and confirm a Missis

sippian presence at the Angel site as early as ca. A.D. 1050-1100 (Figure 5). Additionally, the link

age of Mound A erection with the initial Angel site

occupation suggests that building it may have been one of the first construction tasks undertaken. This conclusion also implies that the initial site popula tion was large enough and sufficiently organized to raise a major earthwork. Although other con

struction scenarios may have occurred, on the basis of chronology, general core stratigraphy, and ER

profile reconstructions of the mound, the earliest, central portion of the mound was built palimpsest on a preexisting levee ridge. This ridge occurs where the upper and lower platforms join with the conical offset and the mound was probably built

up and outward from this core area (Figures 2-4). Such a building sequence is supported by the con

centration of the basal turf blocks in this central area and by the lateral variation in the N-S ER profile (Figure 3a). The correspondence of ages from near the top and base of Mound A is remarkable (i.e., Group A in Table 1 ages identical to the 95 percent C.I.; Table 3), which indicates that at least the cen tral portion of the mound was probably built to

nearly the full height of the upper platform very quickly (Figure 4). Such rapid construction may not be unusual and is also implied from the chronol

ogy reported from ca. 21 m long solid-earth cores extracted from the Fourth Terrace (i.e., highest plat form) of Monks Mound, which is also considered one of the first mounds erected at Cahokia (Reed et al. 1968:146-147; see Figure 6). The 14C ages of organic material sampled from near the bottom and top of the Monks Mound core indicate that the bulk of the mound was raised between 1020 ?100 B.P. (1-2308; basal date) and 840 ?150 B.P. (M 1636; 674-1151 cal A.D. and 935-1409 cal A.D., respectively [Calibrated at 2a] [Reed et al. 1968]). Despite their relatively large error ranges, the Monks Mound dates are both statistically identical to each other (95 percent C.I.; pooled mean aver

age age of 1034 ?83, 806-1164 cal A.D. [Cali brated at 2a]) and to those of Mound A at the Angel site (i.e., Table l:"Group A"). Although up to 14 different building stages were indentified within the Monks Mound core sequence, many of the lower levels are quite thick. The lower six levels average ca. 3.5 m thick and in places, such as under the third terrace, the deepest few levels indentified totaled less than 16 m, which is more than the height of

Mound A (Reed et al. 1968:figures 6 and 7). Given this observation, a lack of multiple building stages from Mound A may not be surprising and shows



REPORTS 949

Slack Farm

Calibrated 14C ages of Caborn-Welborn sites in the 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

Mississippian sites in the Black Bottom of

the Ohio Valley

other Black Bottom sites

Angelly

Kincaid

Calibrated 14C ages from mound and other contexts at Cahokia

Mound contexts

Monks Mound

1000 1200 1400 1&00 Calendar Year (AD)

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




that mounds can be constructed rapidly by stack

ing very thick, continuous sequences of fills, as

proposed for the bulk of Mound A.

Considered as a whole, the 14C ages from the

Angel site show that its founding age is similar to

those of other Middle Mississippian sites in the lower Ohio Valley and that its founding is part of a very rapid, nearly simultaneous, expansion of

Mississippian towns throughout the region soon

after A.D. 1000 (Figures 5-6). For example, the ear

liest dates from the Angel site also generally cor

respond with the initial occupation at other Angel Phase or similar-age settlements in the Black Bot tom and OhioAVabash Valley regions (Figures 5-6). Of the Angel Phase sites that have produced use

ful data near the Angel site, only the Southwind site, located ca. 50 km downriver from the Angel site

(Figure 1), has been comprehensively excavated; first by Munson (1994) and more recently by Striker

(2009). On the basis of the ceramics found at the

site, and despite the fact that 14C ages similar to those from the base of Mound A at Angel (Table 2,

Figure 5) were reported from Southwind (see Mun son 1994:table 15.3), the occupation of Southwind was originally suggested to postdate ca. A.D. 1150-1200 (Munson 1994:chapter 15:9). Although

most of the 14C dates from Southwind were dis counted as coal contaminated (Munson 1994:Chap ter 15:10; Tankersley et al. 1987), they are actually statistically identical (95 percent C.I.) with those from early contexts from the Angel site (i.e., Mound A and "older" houses and features [Table 3, Fig ure 5]). Such a similarity suggests that the rejected Southwind dates may be a better indicator of site

founding than previously believed. A reevaluation of the founding age for Southwind is also supported by recently reported AMS dates from the site

(Striker 2009:73-75). These newly reported dates show that a bastion in the palisade was constructed 900 ?40 B.P. (Beta-248607: 1034-1214 cal A.D.

[Calibrated at 2a] [Table 2]) and that other Mis

sissippian houses and features were also extant

early in the Angel Phase as well (e.g., Beta-248604: 920 ?40, 1027-1207 cal A.D. [Calibrated at 2a] [Table 2, Figure 5]). The pooled mean average date for the early ages from Angel site and those from Southwind is 906 ?19 B.P. (Table 3) and indicates that a significant Middle Mississippian presence existed in at least two towns within the lower Ohio and Wabash valleys by A.D. 1041-1183 (i.e., cal

2a of pooled mean age [Table 3]). The early founding of the Southwind and

Angel sites shows that Angel Phase settlements

expanded into the Ohio/Wabash region very early in the Middle Mississippian sequence (Table 2,

Figure 6) and may reflect a regional trend in

expansion of Mississippian settlements similar to

the A.D. 1050 "Big Bang" in the American Bot tom (Pauketat 1997:31-33). On the basis of sur

vey and site data in hand, which is far from a

representative sample of the area, no good candi dates for the immediate ancestors of the Angel phase population have been identified within 20 km of the Angel site. Although the absence of evi dence is not equal to the evidence for absence, a

provisional hypothesis is that the Angel site might have been founded by an immigrant Mississippian group, rather than through some form of in situ cultural development of local indigenous popula tions. That Angel represents an immigrant popu lation is also supported by the absence of the types of ceramic transformations from local pottery varieties (i.e., Yankeetown) into Angel Phase that should exist at Angel or nearby sites (Hilgeman 2000:235). The nearest site where such in situ transformations have been noted is the Andelex site located ca. 50 km south of Angel in Kentucky (Clay 1997:28; Hilgeman 2000:234-236).

The youngest ,4C age of features related to struc tures on Mounds A and F also have implications for the termination of occupation at the Angel Site

(Figure 5). The ages of these structures show that

they were used contemporaneously and then were dismantled and buried by a layer of new mound fill coincident with the abandonment of the Angel site

(i.e., ca. A.D. 1400 [Tables 2-3]). This process, which is similar to that noted by Clay (1997:25) for the mound at Tinsley Hill on the Cumberland River in western Kentucky, very likely related to some ritual behavior whose ends are not known but

may be associated with a ceremonial closing of the site. Such a linkage is implied because the capping of Mounds A and F correlates with the youngest dates across the site and no other structures were found on the new mound surface to replace those that were buried. The rarity of post-A.D. 1400 14C

ages supports the conclusion that the Angel site was

effectively abandoned soon after, if not coincident

with, mound capping. Moreover, comparison of the occupational spans of major Mississippian sites



REPORTS 951

across the lower Ohio 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 tion process is summarized by Drooker:

In the mid-sixteenth century, people were liv

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

ern West Virginia; and in the upper reaches of the Monongahela (which flows north to join the Allegheny River at present-day Pittsburgh, forming the Ohio). The archaeological tradi tions in these three regions during this time are

called Caborn-Welborn, Fort Ancient, and

Monongahela, respectively [2002:118].

Building on work by Anthony (1990), Drooker

(2002) also identified the "negative," "push," and

"pull" factors that affected the transformation of societies that ultimately came to dynamic rest (in

archaeological time) as these three regional archae

ological cultures. These transformative forces included: (1) the depredations of the Iroquois, (2) the general, regionwide changes in climate related to the end of the Medieval Warm period and the onset of the Little Ice Age as well as specific aspects of Ohio Valley climate (see Greenlee 2006), and

(3) the restructuring of routes of exchange, ulti

mately brought about by direct and indirect trade with Europeans. More general, regional explana

tions for the decline of the Mississippian within the midcontinental region have also been noted, par

ticularly resource overexploitation, the long-term environmental changes mentioned above, and other

political factors (e.g., Cobb and Butler 2002; Dalan et al. 2003; Griffin 1967; Milner 1998). The out come of this transformation in southwest Indiana

and western Kentucky is the abandonment of the

Angel site and concentration of the regional pop ulation within a number of relatively large (albeit smaller than Angel site) Caborn-Welborn villages (Green and Munson 1978:table 11.1; Pollack

2004). These villages are situated near the mouth

of the Wabash just downriver from the Angel site

(Figure 1). Chronological data concerning the end of the

Angel Phase and the Angel site have significant overlap with the Caborn-Welborn phase (Figures 1, 4, and 5). The relationship between Angel and

Caborn-Welborn phases is not clear-cut and opin ions range from no relationship through the latter as descendent of the former (Green and Munson

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

relationship. Most dated contexts at Caborn Welborn sites are contemporaneous with the

"younger" contexts from the Angel site (pooled mean of 588 ?9 B.P. [2a cal A.D. 1314-1357 and A.D. 1387-1404] [Table 3]). This date grouping is

statistically identical (95 percent C.I.) when the six dates marked with "stars" from Caborn-Welborn

sites, all of which are younger than the pooled mean, are discounted (Figure 5; Table 3). An exten

sion of native occupation to European contact is not

surprising because a few Caborn-Welborn sites include European trade goods (Clay 1997; Pollack

2004). The continuity of Caborn-Welborn sites into the

historic period, and lack of such continuity for the

Angel site, shows that Caborn-Welborn occupa tions maintained longevity in the Ohio and Wabash

valleys not achieved by any Middle Mississippian town (Figures 5-6). Regardless of such longevity, however, if numbers of 14C ages broadly reflect

occupation intensity, even these sites underwent an

apparent general decline after A.D. 1400; a decline that was coincident with the "Angel Chiefdom col

lapse" (sensu Pollack 2004:1-5), the shift in focus from mound building to creation of cemeteries

(Clay 1997:30), and regional abandonment of Mid dle Mississippian sites (Figures 5-6). Such a

decline is conceptually consistent with elements of

the post-A.D. 1400 "Vacant Quarter" hypothesis (Williams 1980) or at least as later modified (Cobb and Butler 2002; Williams 1990, 2001) and given

support by the work in the Cumberland Valley (Smith 1992).

If regardless of their cultural affiliation, occu

pations declined throughout the Ohio Valley after

A.D. 1400-1450, whether or not Angel popula tions migrated to or merged with Caborn-Welborn

people ignores the importance of a larger cultural




ecology framework into which late prehistoric set

tlement systems fit. Questions of ancestry or cul

tural continuity and development are important to

culture history narratives, but overlook larger, more

fundamental concerns of how settlement system atics, as well as cultural, technological, or envi ronmental factors, relate to the regionwide abandonment of Middle Mississippian towns, the

decline of Caborn-Welborn villages and alterations of their differing settlement patterns (Clay 1997).

References Cited

Anthony, D. W. 1990 Migration in Archaeology: The Baby and the Bath water. American Anthropologist 92:895-914.

Black, G. A. 1967 The Angel Site: An Historical, Archaeological and

Ethological Study. 2 vols. Indiana Historical Society, Indi

anapolis. Buikstra, J. E., D. K. Charles, and G. Rakita

1998 Staging Ritual: Hopewell Ceremonialism at the Mound House Site, Greene County, Illinois. Kampsville Studies in Archeology and History 1. Center for Ameri can Archeology, Kampsville, Illinois.

Bush, L. L. 2007 Report on file at the Glenn A. Black Laboratory for

Archaeology, Indiana University, Bloomington. Clay, R. B.

1997 The Mississippian Succession on the Lower Ohio. Southeastern Archaeology 16:16-32.

Cobb, C. R., and B. M. Butler 2002 The Vacant Quarter Revisited: Late Mississippian

Abandonment of the Lower 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 1540-1760, edited by R.

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 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 in Archaeology 2. Illi nois Transportation Archaeology Program, University of

Illinois, Urbana.

Gaffney, C. 2008 Detecting Trends in the Prediction of the Buried Past:

A Review of Geophysical Techniques in Archaeology. Archaeometry 50:313-336.

Green, T. J., and C. A. Munson 1978 Mississippian Settlement Patterns in Southwestern

Indiana. In Mississippian Settlement Patterns, edited by B. D. Smith, pp. 293-330. Academic Press, New York.

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.

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.

Hughen, K. A., M. G. L. Baillie, E. Bard, A. Bayliss, J. W. Beck, 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 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

sissippian Society. Smithsonian Institution Press, Wash

ington, D.C.

Monaghan, G. W., K. C. Egan-Bruhy, M. J. Hambacher, D. R.

Hayes, M. F. Kolb, S. Peterson, J. A. Robertson, and N. R. Shaffer

2006 The Minnesota Deep Test Protocol Project. Electronic

Document, http://www.mnmodel.dot.state.mn.us/pages/ DeepTestProtocol.html, accessed March 30, 2009.

Monaghan, G. W., T. L. Gerke, E. R. Elswick, and C. Fik 2008 Geoarchaeology and Geophysics at the Angel Site,

Geological Society of America. North-Central Section Annual Meeting, Field Trip 11, Glenn A. Black Labora

tory of Archaeology, Indiana University, Bloomington. Muller, J.

1986 Archaeology of the Lower Ohio River Valley: New World Archaeological Record. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida.

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 Archae

ology, Indianapolis, Indiana.

Papadopoulos, N. G., P. Tsourlos, G. N. Tsokas, and A. Sarris 2006 Two-Dimensional and Three-Dimensional Resistiv

ity Imaging in Archaeological Site Investigation. Archae

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. R. Pauketat and T. E. Emerson, pp. 30-51. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

Pauketat, T. R., and T. E. Emerson 1997 Cahokia: Domination 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. 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.

Perssona, K., and B. Olofsson 2004 Inside a Mound: Applied Geophysics in Archaeolog

ical Prospecting at the Kings' Mounds, Gamla Uppsala, Sweden. Journal of Archaeological Science 31:551-562.



REPORTS 953

Pollack, D. 2004 Caborn-Welborn: Constructing a New Society After

the Angel Chiefdom Collapse. University of Alabama

Press, Tuscaloosa.

Poreba, A. 2006 Geophysical Survey of the Archaeological Grave Mounds Site in CieszacinWielki. Publications of the Insti tute of Geophysics, Polish Academy of Sciences, M-29 395:301-307.

Redmond, B. G. 1990 The Yankeetown Phase: Emergent Mississippian Cul

tural Adaptation in the Lower Ohio River Valley. Unpub lished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Indiana University, Bloomington.

Reed, N. A., J. W. Bennett, and J. W. Porter 1968 Solid Core Drilling of Monks Mound: Techniques

and Finding. American Antiquity 33:136-148.

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.

Smith, K. E. 1992 The Middle Cumberland Region: Mississippian Archaeology in North Central Tennessee. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Vander

bilt, Nashville, Tennessee.

Striker, M. A. (editor) 2009 Archaeological Investigations at the Southwind Site

(12P0265), Posey County, Indiana. ProjectNo. 07-55101.

Report on file at the Indiana Department of Natural Resources?Division of Historic Preservation and Archae

ology, Indianapolis. Stuiver, M., and P. J. Reimer

1993 Extended 14C Database and Revised CALIB Radio carbon Calibration Program. Radiocarbon 35:215-230.

(Version 5.1)

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., and M. H. Loke 2006 A Resistivity Survey of a Burial Mound in the "Val

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. 2006 Handbook of Geophysics and A rchaeology. Equinox

Publishing Limited, London.

Williams, S. 1980 Armorel: A Very Late Phase in the Lower Mississippi 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, edited by D. H. Dye and C. A. Cox. pp. 170-180, Uni

versity of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 2001 The Vacant Quarter Hypothesis and the Yazoo Delta.

In Societies in Eclipse: Archaeology of the Eastern Wood 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.

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

Accepted October 21, 2009



Angel Site

Documents

Transcript of Angel Site