You are on page 1of 20

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 THE CONSTRUCTION, USE, AND ABANDONMENT OF ANGEL SITE MOUND A: TRACING THE04/2013 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, re searchers, 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 " id="pdf-obj-0-32" src="pdf-obj-0-32.jpg">

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

http://www.jstor.org

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,

meters high at

and

14C ages

indicate thatmound construction began at 900 B.P. by stacking 10-15

cm-thick turf blocks two

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), theMound

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 the Angel site was essentially abandoned

by 500 B.P,

which also corresponds with the abandonment

ofMississippian

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

enterradas

en "Mounds A"

haber

sido parte de

un "cierre de ceremonial"

del sitio. Las fechas

mas

y "F," asi

como

a otros en todo el sitio, sugieren

que

el sitio de Angel

joven de

las estructuras

esencialmente fue aban

donado

por

500 B.P,

que tambien se corresponde

con el abandono

de sitios Mississippian

en toda la region.

MoundA is the largestplatform mound the Angel site (12VG1), aMiddle Mis

at

sissippian town along theOhio 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 thatmound construction began at 900 B.P. by stacking 10-15 cm thick turfblocks 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 fromMound A are

among the earliest recorded from the site, which implies thatearthwork 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 offseton the upper platform ofMound A yielded 14C ages of 750-520

G.

William

Monaghan

and Christopher

S. Peebles

Glenn A. Black Laboratory

of Archaeology,

North Fess Ave, Bloomington,

Indiana 47407

(Gmonagha@indiana.edu,

Peebles@indiana.edu)

Indiana University, 423

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

Copyright ?2010

by the Society forAmerican Archaeology

935

936AMERICAN

ANTIQUITY

[Vol.

75, No.

4,2010]

B.R, which show that the upper platform surface was probably used throughoutoccupation. As also occurred on Mound F (the only other platform

mound investigated at the site), theMound A struc turewas destroyed and covered with a fresh layer

of fill just before site abandonment. This final fill ing episode to cap themounds may have been part

of a "ceremonial closing" of the site.The

youngest

dates from the structuresburied onMounds A and F, as well as others across the site, suggest that the

Angel sitewas 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 thebeliefs 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

themost rudimentaryquestions 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

tualmodels of the subsurface, particularly if linked to ground-trutheddata, would be a significant addi

tion to archaeological

methods. Using

recent

research at a large mound at the Angel site (12VG1) in southwestern Indiana, we will show how com

plex and differently scaled data (i.e., small-diameter

solid-earth cores, traditional archaeological vations, as well as a variety of geophysical

exca

tools)

can be integrated intoa coherent framework to pro

vide regionally significant results and conclusions. This approach offers a methodological alternative tomore extensive archaeological excavations that can still yield significant informationabout thecon struction,use, and chronology of earthworks, but

with little or no impact tomounds

themselves.

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

The Angel

site is a large (ca. 47 ha) palisaded

Middle Mississippian agricultural townon theOhio River near Evansville, Indiana (Figure 1). The site

figures prominently in the late prehistoric settle

ment systems in theMidwest

(Griffin 1967; Mil

ner 1998; Muller

1986; Pauketat and Emerson

1997; Pollack 2004). Professional research has been ongoing at the site forover 80 years, although

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 from relatively

small, less than2 m high earthworks (D and J [Fig

ure 1]) toMound

A, which

is one of the largest

extantMiddle 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 amuch lesser extent (Figure

1). Even so, few chronological controls exist for

mound construction episodes or use (Tables 1-2).

Because

itwas completely excavated between

1939-1941

and 1964-1965,

the most detailed

informationexists forMound F and shows that it included two major episodes of construction and

use (Black 1967:figures 242-244). The firstis arel atively lowmound (ca. 2 m high) thatwas called the "primary mound surface," which was only about

half the footprint ofMound F as itexisted when it was completed and eventually abandoned (Figure 2b?c). Several rows of post-molds ringed the pri mary mound and a large structurethat covered the entiremound was built on its surface.The second construction phase ofMound F is a ca. 2-3 m thick

fill sequence referredto as the "secondary mound fill," which buried the entire primary mound sur

face, including the structureon it.No structuresor

other Mississippian-age

featureswere 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; Hilgeman2000).

Because

only limited excavations

occurred

within it, much less is known about Mound A,

which is several times larger thanMound F.Mound

A measures

ca. 200

x 125 m by up to 16m high

and consists of two platforms: a "lower" (ca. 75 m

long (4 m high) and an "upper" (ca. 125m long x 8 m high [Figures 1 and 2]). Additionally, a small

(ca. 15m diameter), conical

offset rises about 6 m

REPORTS 937 A. Topographic map | Nl of Angel site showing TOO earthworks (C.i =1 ft)
REPORTS
937
A. Topographic map
|
Nl
of Angel site showing
TOO
earthworks (C.i =1 ft)
C.
Select Mississippian
sites inOhio-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 structureof unknown size and

extent thathad been partly buried under the coni

cal offsetwas discovered (Figure 2d-g). Because

the structurewas 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 structureson Mounds A and F are

generally temporallyequivalent 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 ofMound A. Through our approach, useful

data about its interiorwas recoveredwithout resort

ing to the level of excavations undertaken atMound

F.We relied on several different, non- or minimally

invasivemethods thatcombined 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.

 

Table

1. Newly Reported

14C Ages

of Plant Material

from the Angel

Site.

 

Material3

 

Location

 

14C Age B.P

13C/12C

Lab#

[state]

[Depth]b

 

(conventional)

Ratio

A.

Related

tomound construction

(Geoprobe

cores)

 

Beta- 237767

Juncus (spp., Juncaceae)

 

conical offset;

 

890

? 40

-10.1%o

(rush) [charred]

Core

5 [468cm]

 

(ca. 4 m

above

Beta-232869)

 

Beta-232869

grass/grass roots

upper platform (south);

 

890

? 40

-9A%c

(no id) [uncharred]

 

Core 7 [625cm]

 

Beta-232870

grass/grass roots

upper platform (south);

 

900

?

40

-26.3%o

(no id) [uncharred]

 

Core 7 [810cm]

 

B.

Related

to structure at edge of conical offset near top of upper platform {excavation

units)

 

Beta- 252377

 

Carya

spp.

FS94,

Feature 2

520 ?

50

-24.7%o

(hickory/pecan)

(F2/MA),

ca.

130 cm

 

shell [charred]

 

below

surface

Beta-252378

Carya

spp., (hickory)

FS123,

post mold base,

 

750

? 40

 

wood

[uncharred]

ca.

300

cm below

surface

 

Beta-252379

Fraxinus

spp. (ash)

FS144;

Feature

3

690

?

40

-26.2%o

wood

[charred]

(F3/MA); 150-170cm

 

C.

Related

to Unit A {structure southeast of Mound

A; excavation

 

units)

 

-

Beta

246694

Arundinaria

gigantean

Catalog

11473-456;

 

690 ?

40

-25.9%o

 

(giant cane)

 

Unit AC

 
 

[charred]

(base of post mold?)

 
 

-

Beta

246695

Gleditsia

triacanthos

Catalog

11473-457; Unit AD;

570 ?

40

-24.9%o

 

(honey locust)

base of structural

 

wood

[charred]

(wall) trench?

 
 

-

Beta

246696

Acer

spp. (maple)

Catalog

11473-458;

"midden"

610

? 40

-22.4%o

 

_wood [charred]_near

Unit AD _

 

aPlant identification by Leslie Bush

(2007).

 

75, No.

4, 2010]

Calendar

Agec

(% of area

under curve)

A.D. 1035-1219 (100)

A.D.

1035-1219

(100)

A.D.

1034-1214

(100)

A.D.

1303-1365

(30)

A.D.

1383-1453

(70)

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

A.D.

A.D.

1258-1324

1345-1393

(65)

(35)

A.D.

A.D.

1258-1324

1345-1393

(65)

(35)

A.D.

A.D.

1299-1370

1380-1429

(0.60)

(40)

A.D.

1291-1408

(100)

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-truth information

necessary to realistically interpret theER results,

while theER profiles linked thebroad stratigraphic

units defined within cores across themound. This

procedure resulted in a grounded and realistic

reconstructionof the interiorof Mound A. In addi

tion, organic samples collected from specific cul

turalevents also revealed within thecores provided

absolute chronology to various episodes ofmound

building. The preliminary results of this research

approach, as well as the regional implications of

these data forMiddle Mississippian

settlements in

theOhio Valley, are described below.

Methods

Two different, minimally invasive methodological

approaches toobtain subsurfacedata were followed

during this research. One focused on collecting

physical, solid-earth cores from themound and the

second used a multiprobe ER-profiler system. ER

profilers are commonly used todefine vertical pro

file sections of the subsurface and trace the stratig

raphy of natural sediment and soil horizons, but

they can also

derivedmound

aghan

et

al.

Papadopoulos

2004; Poreba

be used

to map

broad culturally

fill sequences (Gaffney 2008; Mon

2006; Monaghan

et

al.

2008;

et al. 2006; Perssona and Olofsson

2006; Tonkov

and Loke

2006).

 

fill units within

 

composed

themound

Implicit in this notion is that similar to alluvial

deposits within floodplains,

mounds are also structured, orderly, and

of distinctand discrete layers selected by

builders based on their physical properties (Buik

REPORTS

939

Table

2. 14CDates

from Major Angel Phase

(Angel and Southwind)

Sites.

Context

Angel site

Angel Mound

A

(construction)

Mound

A

(structure on upper platform)

Mound

F

Lab

Number

Beta 232870

Beta 232869

Beta 237776

Beta 252378

Beta 252379

Beta 242377

M2

Angel House/

feature ("older")

Angel House/

feature ("younger")

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

14C agea

(conventional)

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

Cal

2a Calendar

(% of area under

Ageb

curve)

A.D.

A.D.

A. D.

1034-

-

1035

-

1035

1214(100)

1219

1219

(100)

(100)

A.D.

A.D.

A.D.

A.D.

A.D.

A.D.

1211-1298(100)

1258-1324

1345-1393

1303-1365

1383-1453

435

-

490

(65)

(35)

(31)

(69)

(4)

AD.

A.D.

509-517

529

-

905

A. D.

911-971

(<1)

(92)

(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.

A.D.

A.D.

A.D.

1030-

-

1258

-

1283

-

1287

1281 (100)

1400

1404

1428

(100)

(100)

(100)

A.D.

A.D.

A.D.

1558-

1631

(8)

1634-1955

(100)

901

-

916

(1)

A.D.

A.D.

A.D.

A.D.

A.D.

A.D.

967-

1042-

1117-

1049-

1124-

-

1151

1257 (99)

1107(10)

1399(90)

1084

1137

(4)

(1)

1399

(95)

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.

1258-1303

(69)

1345-1393

(31)

1261

-

1411 (100)

1272-

-

1223

1507-

-

1601

1413 (100)

1496

1511

1615

(99)

(<1)

(<1)

1291-1408

(100)

1299-1370

(60)

1389-1429

(40)

1297-

1302-

-

1383

-

1305

-

1385

1431 (100)

1366 (37)

1448

1363

1463

(63)

(24)

(76)

A.D.

1449-1639

(100)

straet al. 1998; Dalan et al. 2003; Evans 2007; Sher

wood

2006; Van Nest

et al. 2001). How much of

this selection reflectsconvenience or aesthetics and

how much relates to their engineering properties is

an open but importantquestion. ER profilersmap

these layers of mound fills and surfaces based

mainly on their lithological contrasts (Gaffney

2008; Witten 2006). In general, theER (i.e., amea

sure of the earth's ability to inhibitelectrical flow)

of

or

sediment and soil is controlled by threemain soil

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

  • 940 AMERICAN

 

Table

2.

Context

Southwind Site

Other Features

House/House

Basin

Palisade

14CDates

(bastion east palisade)

from Major Angel Phase

Lab

Number

UGA4645

UGA4647

UGA4716

UGA4646

Beta-248604

UGA4715

Beta-248603

Beta-248606

Beta-248608

Beta-248605

Beta-248607

 

[Vol.

75, No.

4, 2010]

(Angel and Southwind)

Sites (continued).

 
 

14C age3

 

Cal

2a Calendar

Ageb

(conventional)

(% of area

under

curve)

1085

?

85f'g

A.D.

720-741

(1)

 

A.D.

769-1059

(90)

A.D.1064-1155

(9)

1005

?

65f'g

A.D.

892-1175

(100)

995

?

125f'g

A.D.

777-1265

(100)

955

? 115fg

A.D.

827-840(1)

 

A.D.

864-1279

(99)

920

? 40h

A.D.

1027-1191

(97)

 

A.D.

1196-1207

(3)

890 ? 135f

A.D.

879-1321

(98)

A.D.

1349-1391

(2)

380

? 40h

A.D.

1442-1529

(58)

 

A.D.

1543-1634

(42)

790

? 40h

A.D.

1174-1281

(100)

770

? 40h

A.D.

1186-1202

(3)

 

A.D.

1205-1289

(97)

680

? 40h

A.D.

1263-1325

(59)

 

A.D.

1344-1394

(41)

900

? 40h

A.D.

1034-1214

(100)

 

(2000)

and Black

(1967);

standard radiometric

ANTIQUITY

aExcept where otherwise noted, reported conventional dates from Hilgeman

date methods.

Calibrated calendar age based on 2a distribution of conventional 14C age;

calibration after Stuiver and Reimer,

1993

(CALIB Version 5.1), Hughen

in parenthesis after date range.

et. al.

(2004)

and

Talma

and Vogel

 

date

methods.

See

(2000)

as

too old and also

considered

(2000) but considered

 

(1993); percentage

table 1 for details.

to not

of area under 2a

normal curve shown

cNewly reported date from this study; AMS

dDate rejected

by Hilgeman

this study.

eDate rejected

by Hilgeman

accurately date the cultural event of its context in

to accurately date the cultural events of its context in this study.

fAs reported inMunson (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 inunconsolidated materials, textureis themost

importantproperty and broadly corresponds to the

observed ER profiles inMound 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

1m apart and laid both parallel and perpendicular

to the long axis of themound. Both Wenner and

Dipole-Dipole

arrays were used to collect data. The

depth and resolutionof subsurface images is a func

tionof probe spacing and the total length of the lin

ear array?the longer the array, the greater the

depth, and thecloser 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 configurationemployed

in theMound A study (i.e., 1m probe-spacing,

Wenner and Dipole-Dipole

array) maximum depths

that equal about 15-20 percent of the total array

length could

only layers

be imaged (e.g., 10-14 m depths) and

greater than 50 cm thick could

be

resolved. Along some profiles (i.e., N-S profile of

Mound A [Figure 3a]) thatwere longer than72 m,

a "roll-along" survey method was employed and

observations linked in software.The ER data was

processed and inverted using RES2DINV

omo

software).

(GeoT

A

total of seven, small-diameter, minimally

invasive, solid-earth cores were collected from

REPORTS 941
REPORTS
941
 

Figure

2. Photos,

diagrams,

and 14C ages from the excavation ofMound

F, Mound

A,

and

the 1955 excavation

blocks

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

structure on primary

mound

surface emphasized

by Black

in original photograph,

 

(c) Photograph

ofWPA

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 ofMound

A

(view east, north on

right side of diagram),

(e) Three-dimensional

(3D) rendering ofMound

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

o