Download - The 2011 Midwest Mound Culture Site Review
-
8/6/2019 The 2011 Midwest Mound Culture Site Review
1/16
2011 Mound Culture Site Review
By James Michael Iddins
Valparaiso University
ancient North America was not an embarrassingly depauperate place
with nothing to suggest its own glorious and mysterious past. For here
certainly was the work of a populous, highly civilized race
J. M. Adovasio
Introduction
In the late spring of 2011, I was given the opportunity to participate in
a field course at Valparaiso University which exposes students to various
Native American mound culture sites in the Midwest. To my knowledge,
-
8/6/2019 The 2011 Midwest Mound Culture Site Review
2/16
Professor Ron Jankes mound culture field study is the only course of its kind
in the country. Through daily readings, films, notes, and reflections, the class
aims to make the most of each mound site. Necessarily the course
encourages critical thought, as the students interact firsthand with the
course material and at several points encounter experts in the field. In
visiting a number of sites in the region, the class gained a broad
perspective, not only on who these ancient American mound builders were,
but on how the state and various other social and cultural entities utilize and
maintain the various mound sites, which make up such a compelling part of
this continents (and the worlds) past.
In this paper, I wish to address only the second aspect a review of the
mound sites themselves. This analysis will, of course, be informed by my
general knowledge of the ancient mound builders, as gained in this course
and through various supplementary readings and explorations. I hope to set
forth some fairly objective criteria by which we may judge each of these sites
as they reflect the mound culture/cultures to which they are dedicated. My
main motivation for completing such an analysis is to promote an informed
and comparative approach to all mound sites, which I and others in the class
felt many of the particular sites lacked. Ultimately, I hope (at the very least)
to make this resource available online to each of the sites in question,
scholars in the field, and any member of the general public who is interested
in learning about our regional archaeology. If continually updated, this type
2 | P a g e
-
8/6/2019 The 2011 Midwest Mound Culture Site Review
3/16
of comparative review could become a helpful resource for teachers,
students, scholars, tourists, and the sites themselves.
Method
To piece together this general analysis, I surveyed the class on their
experience of each mound site visited using an online survey hosting website
(Survey Monkey). I first asked for the reviewers level of familiarity with
mound culture prior to spring 2011 course. Then, I questioned the class
concerning the following aspects of each site:
Primary orientation of site (elementary ed., popular ed./tourism,
scholarly/archaeological, perhaps a combination)
Site preservation (amount saved from destruction, as well as amount
excavated)
Site restoration
Interpretation of site (include general awareness of other sites)
Literature (official pamphlets and websites)
Site presentation (include variables such as preferential treatment of
groups/specific groups, electronic media use/misuse, museum,
resident experts, etc)
Hospitality
Overall experience (more subjective)
3 | P a g e
-
8/6/2019 The 2011 Midwest Mound Culture Site Review
4/16
I left room at the bottom of each question to allow for additional comments
or concerns that could not necessarily be addressed so quantitatively.
Results
Having collected responses from the class, I was able to get a decent picture
of how they perceived the differences between each of the mound sites. It is worth
noting that of the students that participated in this Mound Culture field-study class
and the survey I conducted relating to it, some were undergraduate level students
and some were graduate level students. We were accompanied by several
professors, each of whom I would also be interested in surveying about their
experience of the sites. Undoubtedly the professors have a more broad knowledge
upon which to make their analysis than the students. This would be a helpful future
addition to the critique. As for now, I will concern myself with analyzing the
responses of the students in the class.
Individual Site Analysis
To begin the survey, I asked each respondent to approximate their level of
experience with Mound Culture prior to completing Professor Jankes Mound Culture
field study. Forty percent of the class indicated that they were completely
inexperiencedregarding Mound Culture in general before taking the class. Forty
percent indicated that they were somewhat experiencedor familiar with the basics
of Mound Culture. Twenty percent of the class listed themselves as experienced
prior to the course, noting that they had read one or more book on the subject
and/or explored the mounds themselves. In what follows, I will look at how each site
4 | P a g e
-
8/6/2019 The 2011 Midwest Mound Culture Site Review
5/16
was rated on certain aspects individually and then I will focus on a comparison of
the sites.
Dickson Mounds
As the first stop on the first leg of our journey into mound culture, Dickson
Mounds was a great place to start. The overwhelming majority of the class listed the
site orientation as primarily scholarly and archaeological, though as one student
noted, Dickson is scholarly if you can meet with a guide to further explain the site
and see the artifacts. But the museum itself is purely elementary and popular
tourism. This seems to be a fairly accurate statement. The class seemed to think
that on the whole the site was well-preserved, but that what was reconstructed of
the original site was reconstructed only decentlyor worse. The class indicated that
the literature relating to Dickson Mounds was at least accurate or better, given our
general knowledge of mound culture. The overwhelming majority of the class
indicated that the Dickson Mounds site was interpreted by the staff on hand
extremely well. This most likely had much to do with our tour, which was given by
resident archaeologist Alan Harn, a long-time archaeologist on the site and resident
of the area. This man radiated excitement about the site and information relating to
it. He was perhaps the most animated personality we encountered on the entire
field study. It is doubtful that the class would have rated Dickson Mounds nearly as
positively without having encountered Alan Harn. One is tempted to say that for us,
Alan Harn was Dickson Mounds. One hundred percent of the class agreed his
presentation of the site was absolutely wonderful. Multiple students were impressed
enough by their experience at Dickson Mounds to comment on it (which was not the
case with many other sites). Students said of Dickson mounds, Dickson is great for
5 | P a g e
-
8/6/2019 The 2011 Midwest Mound Culture Site Review
6/16
gathering information and that it was extremely informative. One student said
that, Dickson Mounds stands out for its very knowledgeable staff and very warm,
friendly, and informative tour. Fantastic!
Cahokia Mounds
As the second stop on our journey, I felt that Cahokia was a good choice
because it gives one a good idea of the sheer magnitude of ancient mound culture
and of what they were capable. It seems to be successful in capturing the popular
imagination, as we were told they receive large numbers of visitors from all over the
world. Cahokia seems to be unique in this way that the works on site and the
interpretation of those works have undoubtedly played a sizable role in arousing
interest in the history of the mound people. The class indicated that the primary
orientation of the site was aimed atpopular education, tourism, and interpretation.
The main facility, in addition to the more standard features, contains a research
library, which is something unique in the way of interpretation. The class indicated
that they felt the original mounds on site were either fairly well-preservedor well-
preserved.The overwhelming majority of the class felt that the original site was at
least decently reconstructed, though several noted the fact that the house and
power wires to the house in the middle of the mound site detracts from the site. The
class felt that interpretation of the site ranged from just okto excellent, the majority
stating that interpretation was just ok. It is possible that this lower rating had to do
with our disappointment at hearing that our tour guide, the chief interpreter of the
site, Bill Iseminger, had come down ill. One wonders how much more positively the
class would have rated the interpretation had Iseminger been able to show us
around. Most of the class felt that the literature associated with Cahokia was at
accurate, though one felt that it was not accurate at all and another felt it was only
6 | P a g e
-
8/6/2019 The 2011 Midwest Mound Culture Site Review
7/16
fairly accurate. The overwhelming majority of the class felt that the Cahokia site
had good presentation, though one person seemed to think it was terrible. Only one
person in the class felt strongly enough one way or the other to comment on
Cahokia specifically: The writing permit is degrading and contrary to the goal of
interpretation. Knowledge of the Audience + Knowledge of the Resource =
Interpretive Opportunity. Cahokia failed at Knowledge of the Audience for college
students and adults.
Angel Mounds
The third stop on our journey through mound culture sites, Angel Mounds
began to introduce the class to a few of the more unique shapes in terms of mound
structures. The class had the opportunity to listen to the presentation of an Indiana
University doctoral thesis on different mound culture fortifications, which included a
nice introduction to magnetometry (a non-invasive archaeological mapping
technique). Once again the class was met with disappointment when they were
informed that their scheduled tour guide, the lead archaeologist, would have to see
to other business. We were then taken on a brief, but informative tour of the site by
another Indiana University archaeology student. The majority of the class indicated
that they felt the Angel Mounds site was primarily oriented toward elementary
education with a minor focus on archaeological pursuits. The majority of the class
felt that the original mounds on the site were well-preserved, though one student
felt they were not well-preservedat all. Most of the class felt that any
reconstruction undertaken at Angel Mounds was at least decent. The overwhelming
majority of the class felt that interpretation of the Angel Mounds site by its staff was
only ok.The same was the case with its presentation, though one student thought
the presentation was goodand another thought it was terrible. These were
7 | P a g e
-
8/6/2019 The 2011 Midwest Mound Culture Site Review
8/16
definitely not notable features of the site. Most of the class was not sure how
accurate the literature associated with the site was. No one in the class felt strongly
enough about the site to add additional comments.
Serpent Mounds
As the first site on the fourth day of our journey, the Serpent Mounds site
introduced the class to effigy mounds and added another layer of mystery to these
ancient cultures. The class indicated that the site primarily caters topopular
education/ tourism, though one student noted that this site either has or has had
both interpretive and archaeological significance. The majority of the class felt that
this site was extremely well-preserved. Half of the class seemed to think that a
question regarding reconstruction of the Serpent Mounds site was not applicable,
but in fact it is applicable. The site was almost totally deconstructed and
reconstructed by Harvard scholar F.W. Putnam and then donated to the Ohio
Historical Society. The half of the class that knew this question was applicable to the
Serpent Mounds site were split evenly between it being reconstructed very well and
it notbeing reconstructed very well. Most of the class indicated that interpretation
of this site was only ok, though one person said it was goodand one said it was not
interpreted well at all. The majority of the class felt that the literature concerning
the site was at least fairly accurate, though one person felt it was very accurate and
another was not sure. The overwhelming majority of the class felt that the way the
site was presented to us was only ok. One additional comment was that Serpent
Mounds is a must-see due to its architecture and site recreation.
Fort Hill
As the second stop on our fourth day exploring sites dedicated to mound
culture, Fort Hill (probably never a fort at all) gave the class the opportunity to do
8 | P a g e
-
8/6/2019 The 2011 Midwest Mound Culture Site Review
9/16
some hiking in what seemed to be a very unique and healthy ecosystem. Hiking the
trails, we came upon a fawn nursing and stopped to observe for a bit. We were also
able to observe the ancient borrow pit, which is now a thriving marsh, in the center
of the hill. Unfortunately we were not able to explore the museum at all, as it was
closed at the time. The overwhelming majority of the class felt that the primary
orientation of this site was toward elementary education. Half the class felt that the
site was well-preserved. The other half was evenly split between it being well-
preservedand notbeing well-preservedat all. The class accurately agreed that no
reconstruction had taken place. Of the two class members that felt a question
regarding site interpretation was relevant, one felt it was only okand the other felt
it was not interpreted well at all. The overwhelming majority of the class was not
sure how accurate the literature relating to this site was. One person felt it was not
accurate at all. The majority of the class agreed that since we were not able to visit
the museum, a question regarding site presentation was not applicable. Although,
one person felt the presentation (I am assuming signs) was goodand another just
ok. There were no additional comments on Fort Hill.
Seip Mounds
This third stop on the fourth day of our trip was a good example of just how
much destruction many mounds sites have experienced. There is not much left of
this site, which was at one time gigantic to be sure. The class agreed that this site
was not well-preservedat all and not reconstructed well at all. The overwhelming
majority of the class indicated that this site was obviously oriented primarily toward
elementary education orpopular education/tourism . Although there is not much left
of this site, it is at least an introduction to the more geometric mounds or
earthworks associated with Hopewell culture. The majority of the class agreed that
9 | P a g e
-
8/6/2019 The 2011 Midwest Mound Culture Site Review
10/16
a question concerning interpretation was not relevant to this site. The only
information on the site was limited to a few signs (maybe a total of three). It also
looked as though there had been some vandalism at the site. The class was spread
out evenly concerning how accurate the literature relating to the site was.
Responses range anywhere from: not accurate to accurate, to not sure. The class
was evenly split on the question of site presentation, one half saying the question
was noteven applicable and the other saying it was terrible. No one added
additional comments on this site.
Hopewell Culture National Historical Park
Our fourth and final stop on the fourth day of our trip, this site offered a good-
sized reconstruction of a Hopewell site. We were told to think of it as a Hopewellian
cemetery. The overwhelming majority of the class agreed that this site was
dedicated topopular education/tourism . A few members of the class saw this site
as being slightly oriented toward interpretation and elementary education as well.
Half of the class felt that this site was fairly well-preserved. The other half was split
evenly between it being well-preservedand it notbeingpreserved very well at all.
The overwhelming majority of the class felt that the reconstruction of this site was
decent. The class was split evenly on how well site was interpreted. Half of the class
said it was only ok, whereas the other half felt it was good. Half of the class felt that
the literature associated with this site was accurate, though a quarter of the class
felt that it was only fairly accurate and another quarter felt unsure. Half the class
felt that this site had a good presentation. The other half was split between it being
terrible and it being merely ok. One interesting perk to this site was that the class
was shown how to throw at latl, the ancient hunting and gaming technique.
Sunwatch Archaeological Park
10 | P a g e
-
8/6/2019 The 2011 Midwest Mound Culture Site Review
11/16
The first stop on the last leg of our journey, Sunwatch was distinctly different
from the other sites we visited in a number of ways: It contains no mounds on site.
The site has been almost totally excavated and reconstructed. It seems to be the
site of an ancient village rather than a city or special-purpose site. It is used by
modern Native Americans during ceremonial periods. The class seems to agree that
this site, out of all the sites, seems to cover the most territory in terms of how it is
oriented. It simultaneously serves the purpose of elementary education, popular
education/tourism, scholarly interpretive work, and scholarly archaeological work. A
few in the class indicated that it might be slightly more oriented toward
archaeological work than the rest, but that nonetheless it covers them all. Students
commented: Sunwatch covered the most bases in terms of its orientation and
Sunwatch offers great information that goes beyond basic tourism if a person is
interested, thus scholarly. The class was split evenly on the topic of preservation,
half indicating that it was well-preservedand the other half indicating that it was at
least fairly well-preserved. The whole class agreed that the reconstruction at
Sunwatch was excellent. The overwhelming majority of the class indicated that on-
site interpretation was excellentas well, with only one person marking that it was
just ok. The majority of the class agreed that the literature associated with
Sunwatch was accurate. The entire class agreed that the presentation at this site
was excellent. One student commented that, Sunwatch stands out for its
knowledgeable staff, friendly and informational tour, and excellent interpretive
reconstruction. Another student noted that Sunwatch is also a must-see due to
its architecture and reconstruction. Several students agreed that the museum at
Sunwatch was much more informative and well-executed than many of the other
museums we encountered.
11 | P a g e
-
8/6/2019 The 2011 Midwest Mound Culture Site Review
12/16
Comparative Site Analysis
To better critique the information on each individual site listed above, we will
now look at a few visual representations of the data for the purpose of drawing a
better comparison between all the sites.
Orientation
In looking at the above graphs, we see a few obvious conclusions we can draw. The
first is that, at least from our sample of reviewers, Cahokia lacks any substantial
archaeological component, although it is strong in both interpretive work and tourist
attraction. We see that Dickson, Angel, and Sunwatch are clearly the more
archaeological in orientation. Hopewell, Seip, and Serpent also boast more
generalized popular or tourist education. Seip, Fort Hill, and Angel all seem strong in
elementary education. Both Dickson and Sunwatch seem to be the most versatile
12 | P a g e
-
8/6/2019 The 2011 Midwest Mound Culture Site Review
13/16
sites in terms of the potential audiences they can attract, Sunwatch only slightly
more so than Dickson.
Mound or Site Preservation
In looking at the above charts, a few things immediately become clear. Dickson,
Cahokia, Serpent, and Sunwatch seem to be the best preserved of the sites, as far
as our class was concerned. Out of these four, Serpent stands out as the best
preserved. The Hopewell National Historic Site and Fort Hill have identical
distributions, in terms of how well-preserved the class perceived them to be, with
the majority of the class feeling that they were fairly well-preserved and the rest of
the class split between not well-preserved and well-preserved. Angel stands out as
the most fairly well-preserved, placing it significantly below comparable sites.
Seip by far stands out as the worst-preserved of all the sites.
Reconstruction/ Restoration
In looking at these graphic representations of how our class perceived each sites
reconstruction or lack thereof, we get a good overall picture of the attention paid to
the physical details involved in each site. We can clearly see that Sunwatch, by far
has the best reconstruction of its site. I would also add that it goes even further by
its recreation of the everyday life of its inhabitants. Hopewell, Angel, and Cahokia all
13 | P a g e
-
8/6/2019 The 2011 Midwest Mound Culture Site Review
14/16
seem to have decent or better reconstructions of the original sites as far as we can
tell. It is clear that the Seip site was not reconstructed well at all. There seemed to
be a little confusion or at the very least a wide difference in opinion on whether or
not Serpent was reconstructed at all, and if so, how well. There seems to be a
difference of opinion on the Dickson site as well. It is clear that Fort Hill was not
reconstructed at all.
Site Interpretation
In looking at the above charts, we discover some interesting things about one of the
most important components of the mound culture site. As indicated earlier, Dickson
Mounds rated extremely high in the interpretive area, most likely due to our tour
with resident archaeologist Alan Harn. Also highly rated in the interpretive area was
Sunwatch, whose volunteer tour guides were extremely knowledgeable. Cahokia,
Angel, and Serpent all seemed to hover around the ok line, but not move much up
or down from there. Perhaps Cahokia and Angel would have been different had we
been able to meet with the scheduled guides, the resident experts. It seemed the
class had mixed feelings about interpretation on the Hopewell site and it seemed
that for both Fort Hill and Seip the question of interpretation was basically non-
existent.
Accuracy of Literature
14 | P a g e
-
8/6/2019 The 2011 Midwest Mound Culture Site Review
15/16
There are a few fairly obvious conclusions we can draw here. The class was
decidedly not sure about the literature relating to Fort Hill and Angel Mounds. About
half the class felt that both the Cahokia and the Hopewell Culture literature was
accurate, the rest of the class wavering on the literature relating to these sites. It
seems that the class was most sure that the literature regarding Sunwatch was
accurate. Interestingly the class was evenly split regarding the accuracy of the
information about the Seip site. This was the only site that had a draw in terms of all
the categories of accuracy. The Serpent Mound site came close, but more people
felt that its information was at least fairly accurate. Dickson was the only one that
seemed to be notably very accurate.
Presentation
In looking at the above representations of how the class felt regarding the
presentation of each site, we learn a few interesting facts that were only obvious to
those in attendance. The class indicated that both Sunwatch and Dickson were
stellar or excellent in their presentation of the site and information relating
thereto. Presentation at Cahokia seemed to be overwhelmingly good despite our
misfortune of losing our guide. Presentation at Hopewell was also rated as primarily
good despite the lack of experience on the part of our tour guide. I must admit he
was most friendly and honest about what he did and did not know. Presentation at
Angel and Serpent seemed to be just ok or worse. Overwhelmingly the class felt
15 | P a g e
-
8/6/2019 The 2011 Midwest Mound Culture Site Review
16/16
presentation was terrible or non-existent at the Seip site, which will be clear to
anyone who visits the site. Fort Hill was rated only slightly better, though the
difference in reason is unclear.
Conclusion
The overall experience of visiting all of these mound sites made for a very good
general overview of mound culture and how it is presented. This general knowledge
is something the class as a whole felt was lacking in interpretation at many of the
sites. I am sure there are other components and many other sites that went
unreviewed, but I felt that this trip was as good as any to begin a comparative
analysis of the sites and information surrounding them. It would also be interesting
to conduct an international comparison of mound sites, so that the past might be
better illuminated and the possibility of uncovering lost truths brought closer to
ourselves.
16 | P a g e