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,


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


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


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


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


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


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


8/16

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

the 2011 midwest mound culture site review

Documents