Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T16:23:42.084Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sod Blocks in Illinois Hopewell Mounds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Julieann Van Nest ,
Douglas K. Charles ,
Jane E. Buikstra  and
David L. Asch
Julieann Van Nest
Affiliation:
New York State Museum, Albany, NY 12230
Douglas K. Charles
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Wesleyan University, Middletown, CT 06459
Jane E. Buikstra
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131
David L. Asch
Affiliation:
Illinois State Museum, Springfield, IL 62703
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Explaining prehistoric mound development requires both anthropological and geoarchaeological perspectives. Illinois Hopewell (Middle Woodland) mounds are remarkable for the range of earthen materials used in their construction. Adding to this variety we document the presence of upturned sod blocks in a mound at the Mound House site. There and at other Illinois sites the sods have dark, 3-10-cm-thick A horizons with minimal or no evidence of B horizon development. They required no more than a few decades to form and did so under a grass cover. Humans probably created the conditions that enabled sods to form, but the sod blocks were not cut from soils adjacent to the mounds (unless from another mound surface nearby) or from soils in habitation areas. In some respects, sod blocks would have been a superior earthen building material, appropriately chosen, for instance, to construct stable, near-vertical walls of above-ground tombs. Their selection and use, however, cannot be explained solely according to principles of sound and efficient mound construction. We argue that sod blocks and other kinds of earth for Illinois Hopewell mounds surely had important symbolic dimensions in addition to their structural properties.

Résumé

Résumé

Explicar el desarrollo de los montículos prehistóricos requiere la perspectiva de conocimiento de antropología y geoarqueología. Los montículos de Illinois Hopewell (Woodland medio) resultan notables por su extraordinario rango de materiales utilizados en su construcción. Sumando a esta diversidad, documentamos la presencia de bloques depasto removido en el sitio de Mound House. En este y otros sitios de Illinois el tepe está caracterizado por suelos oscuros, entre 3 y 10 centímetros de espesor de horizontes A con una mínima presencia o ausencia de desarrollo de horizontes B. Estos tepe no requieren mas allá de algunas décadas para formarse y lo logran bajo una cubierta de hierba. La presencia humana problamente creó las condiciones que permitieron la formación del tepe, pero los bloques de tepe nofueron cortados de suelos adyacentes a los montículos (al menos de otra superficie de un montículo cercano) o de suelos de áreas habitacionales. En algunos aspectos los bloques de tepe debieron ser de un material terroso de construcción superior, apropiado, para construir paredes estables, casi verticales arriba de las tumbas. Esta selección y uso, sin embargo, no pueder ser explicados solamente de acuerdo a los principios de sonido y eficiencia en la construcción de monticulo. Nosotros argumos que los bloques de tepe y otras closes de tierra de los montículos de Illinois Hopewell seguramente poseían importantes dimensiones simbólicas además de sus propiedades estructurales.

Type
Articles
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 66 , Issue 4 , October 2001 , pp. 633 - 650
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ammons, J. T., Newton, D. L., Foss, J. E., and Lynn, W. R. 1992 Soil Genesis of Two Indian Mounds in West Tennessee. Soil Survey Horizons 33: 38–45.Google Scholar
Asch, N. B., and Asch, D. L. 1985 Archeobotany. In The Hill Creek Homestead and the Late Mississippian Settlement in the Lower Illinois Valley, edited by Conner, M. D., pp. 115–170. Research Series 1, Center for American Archeology, Kampsville, Illinois.Google Scholar
Asch, N. B., and Asch, D. L. 1986 Archeobotany. In Woodland Period Occupations of the Napoleon Hollow Site in the Lower Illinois Valley, edited by Wiant, M. D. and McGimsey, C.R. pp. 427–512. Research Series 6, Center for American Archeology, Kampsville, Illinois.Google Scholar
Atwater, C. 1820 Description of the Antiquities Discovered in the State of Ohio and the Western States. Transactions and Collections of the American Antiquarian Society 1: 109–251.Google Scholar
Bettis, E. A., III 1988 Pedogenesis in Late Prehistoric Indian Mounds, Upper Mississippi Valley. Physical Geography 9: 263–279.Google Scholar
Buikstra, J. E., Charles, D. K., O’Briant, K. M. H., and Smith, K. T. 1997 The Mound House Site: Summary of the 1995-1996 Investigations Conducted by the University of Chicago, the University of New Mexico and Wesleyan University. Center for American Archeology, Kampsville, Illinois. Submitted to the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, Springfield.Google Scholar
Buikstra, J. E., Charles, D. K., and Rakita, G. F. M. 1998 Staging Ritual: Hopewell Ceremonialism at the Mound House Site, Greene County, Illinois. Kampsville Studies in Archeology and History 1, Center for American Archeology, Kampsville, Illinois.Google Scholar
Bullington, J. 1988 Middle Woodland Mound Structure: Social Implications and Regional Context. In The Archaic and Woodland Cemeteries at the Elizabeth Site in the Lower Illinois Valley, edited by Charles, D. K., Leigh, S. R., and Buikstra, J. E., pp. 218–241. Research Series 7, Center for American Archeology, Kampsville, Illinois.Google Scholar
Butzer, K. W. 1977 Geomorphology of the Lower Illinois Valley as a Spatial-Temporal Context for the Koster Archaic Site. Reports of Investigations 34. Illinois State Museum, Springfield.Google Scholar
Charles, D. K., Leigh, S. R., and Buikstra, J. E. (editors) 1988 The Archaic and Woodland Cemeteries at the Elizabeth Site in the Lower Illinois Valley. Research Series 7, Center for American Archeology, Kampsville, Illinois.Google Scholar
Cole, F. C, and Deuel, T. 1937 Rediscovering Illinois: Archaeological Explorations in and around Fulton County. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Cremeens, D. L. 1995 Pedogenesis of Cotiga Mound, a 2100-year-old Woodland Mound in Southwest West Virginia. Soil Science Society of America Journal 59: 1377–1388.Google Scholar
Cremeens, D. L., Landers, D. B., and Frankenberg, S. R. 1997 Geomorphic Setting and Stratigraphy of Cotiga Mound, Mingo County, West Virginia. Geoarchaeology 12: 459–477.Google Scholar
Crocker, R. L., and Major, J. 1955 Soil Development in Relation to Vegetation and Surface Age at Glacier Bay, Alaska. Journal of Ecology 43: 427–448.Google Scholar
Curtis, J. T. 1959 The Vegetation of Wisconsin: An Ordination of Plant Communities. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.Google Scholar
Downey, C. E., Grantham, D. R., and Fehrenbacher, J. B. 1974 Soil Survey of Greene County, Illinois. Soil Report 93, Illinois Agricultural Experiment Station, Urbana.Google Scholar
Evans, D. K. 1975 Characteristics of Flora and Succession in the Middle Mississippi River Floodplain. Proceedings of the West Virginia Academy of Science 47: 7–13.Google Scholar
Evers, R.A. 1955 Hill Prairies of Illinois. Bulletin 26(5), Illinois Natural History Survey, Urbana.Google Scholar
Fowke, G. 1902 Archaeological History of Ohio: The Mound Builders and Later Indians. Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, Columbus.Google Scholar
Griffin, J. B., Flanders, R. E., and Titterington, P. F. 1970 The Knight Mound Group. In The Burial Complexes of the Knight and Norton Mounds in Illinois and Michigan, by Griffin, J. B., Flanders, R. E., and Titterington, P. F., pp. 11–123. Memoirs 2, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Grossman, R. B. 1983 Entisols. In Pedogenesis and Soil Taxonomy: The Soil Orders, edited by Wilding, L. P., Smeck, N. E. and Hall, G. F., pp. 55–90. Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Hajic, E. R. 1990 Late Pleistocene and Holocene Landscape Evolution, Depositional Subsystems, and Stratigraphy in the Lower Illinois River Valley. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Geology, University of Illinois, Urbana.Google Scholar
Hall, R. L. 1997 An Archaeology of the Soul: North American Indian Belief and Ritual. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.Google Scholar
Henriksen, H. C. 1965 Utica Hopewell, A Study of Early Hopewellian Occupation in the Illinois River Valley. In Middle Woodland Sites in Illinois, edited by Herold, E. B., pp. 1–67. Bulletin 5, Illinois Archaeological Survey, Urbana.Google Scholar
Huber, J. K. 1999 Results of a Pollen and Loss-on-Ignition Investigation of Postulated Turf Blocks from Mound House Site (11-GE-7), Greene County, Illinois. Report 99- 28, Archaeometry Laboratory, University of Minnesota, Duluth. Submitted to Center for American Archeology, Kampsville, Illinois.Google Scholar
Ingram, R. L. 1954 Terminology for Thickness of Stratification and Parting Units in Sedimentary Rocks. Geological Society of America Bulletin 65: 937–938.Google Scholar
Jackson, J. 1997 Glossary of Geology. 4th ed. American Geological Institute, Alexandria, Virginia.Google Scholar
Kelly, A. R., and Cole, E. C. 1931 Rediscovering Illinois. Blue Book of the State of Illinois, for the Years 1931-1932, pp. 318–341. Secretary of State, Springfield.Google Scholar
Klein, W. M., Daley, R. H., and Wedum, J. 1975 Environmental Inventory and Assessment of Navigation Pools 24, 25, and 26, Upper Mississippi and Lower Illinois Rivers. Missouri Botanical Garden, St. Louis.Google Scholar
Leighton, M. M. 1923 The Cahokia Mounds, Part II: The Geological Aspects of Some of the Cahokia (Illinois) Mounds. University of “Illinois Bulletin 21: 59–97.Google Scholar
Leighton, M. M. 1930 Geology of the Indian Mounds. Transactions of the Illinois State Academy of Science 22: 65–71.Google Scholar
Leighton, M. M. 1934 Some Observations on the Antiquity of Man in Illinois. Transactions of the Illinois State Academy of Science 25: 83.Google Scholar
Leighton, M. M. 1937 Significance of Profiles of Weathering in Stratigraphic Archaeology. In Early Man: As Depicted by Leading Authorities at the International Symposium, The Academy of Natural Sciences Philadelphia, March 1937, edited by MacCurdy, G. G., pp. 163–172. J. B. Lippincott, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Leighton, M. M., and MacClintock, P. 1930 Weathered Zones of the Drift-Sheets of Illinois. Journal of Geology 38: 28–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, L. C. 1944 Rate of Soil Development as Indicated by Profile Studies of Indian Mounds. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Agronomy, University of Illinois, Urbana.Google Scholar
McComb, A. L., and Loomis, W. E. 1944 Subclimax Prairie. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 71: 46–76.Google Scholar
Moorehead, W. K. 1929 The Mound Builder Problem to Date. American Anthropologist 31: 544–554.Google Scholar
Mulholland, S. C. 1999 Basic Analysis of Phytoliths from Sediments, Mound House Site (11-GE-7), Greene County, Illinois. Report 99- 26, Archaeometry Laboratory, University of Minnesota, Duluth. Submitted to Center for American Archeology, Kampsville, Illinois.Google Scholar
Nelson, D. W, and Sommers, L. E. 1982 Total Carbon, Organic Carbon, and Organic Matter. In Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 2: Chemical and Microbiological Properties. 2nd ed., edited by Page, A. L., pp. 539–579. American Society of Agronomy and Soil Science Society of America, Madison, Wisconsin.Google Scholar
Nielson, G. A., and Hole, F. D. 1964 Earthworms and the Development of Coprogenous A1 Horizons in Forest Soils of Wisconsin. Soil Science Society of America Proceedings 28: 426–430.Google Scholar
Parsons, R. B., Scholtes, W. H., and Riecken, F. F. 1962 Soils of Indian Mounds in Northeastern Iowa as Benchmarks for Studies of Soil Science. Soil Science Society of America Proceedings 26: 491–496.Google Scholar
Perino, G. H. 1968 The Pete Klunk Mound Group, Calhoun County, Illinois: The Archaic and Hopewell Occupations. In Hopewell and Woodland Site Archaeology in Illinois, edited by Brown, J. A., pp. 9–124. Bulletin 6, Illinois Archaeological Survey, Urbana.Google Scholar
Saunders, J. W, and Allen, T. 1994 Hedgepeth Mounds, An Archaic Mound Complex in North-Central Louisiana. American Antiquity 59: 471–489.Google Scholar
Saunders, J. W., Allen, T., and Saucier, R. T. 1994 Four Archaic? Mound Complexes in Northeast Louisiana. Southeastern Archaeology 13: 134–153.Google Scholar
Smith, K. T., Van Nest, J., Charles, D. K., and Buikstra, J. E. 1997 Walls of Sod: A New Interpretation of Hopewell Mound Construction. Paper presented at the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Nashville, Tennessee.Google Scholar
Snortland, J. S. 1994 Northern Plains Woodland Mortuary Practices. In Skeletal Biology in the Great Plains: Migration, Warfare, Health, and Subsistence, edited by Owsley, D. W and Jantz, R. L., pp. 51–70. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.Google Scholar
Snyder, J. F. 1895 A group of Illinois mounds. The Archaeologist 3: 77–81, 109-113.Google Scholar
Snyder, J. F. 1898 A group of Illinois mounds. The American Archaeologist 2: 16–23.Google Scholar
Soil Survey Staff 1975 Soil Taxonomy. United States Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. Washington.Google Scholar
Squier, E. G., and Davis, E. H. 1848 Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley Comprising the Results of Extensive Original Surveys and Explorations. Contributions to Knowledge 1, Smithsonian Institution, Washington. Bartlett & Welford, New York.Google Scholar
Struever, S. 1960 The Kamp Mound Group and a Hopewell Mortuary Complex in the Lower Illinois Valley. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois.Google Scholar
Struever, S. 1968 A Re-examination of Hopewell in Eastern North America. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Chicago, Chicago.Google Scholar
Tanner, W. F. 1969 The Particle Size Scale. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 39: 809–812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, C. 1873 Ancient Mounds of Dakota. In Sixth Annual Report of the United States Geological Survey of the Territories, Embracing Portions of Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, and Utah; Being A Report of Progress of the Explorations for the Year 1872, edited by Hayden, F. V., pp. 655–658. Washington.Google Scholar
Thomas, C. 1894 Report on the Mound Explorations of the Bureau of American Ethnology. In Twelfth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, 1890-1891, by Powell, J. W., pp. 3–372. Washington.Google Scholar
Van Nest, J. 1997 Late Quaternary Geology, Archeology and Vegetation in West-Central Illinois: A Study in Geoarcheology. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Geology, University of Iowa, Iowa City.Google Scholar
Van Nest, J. 1998 The 1994 Geological Investigations at the Mound House Site. In Staging Ritual: Hopewell Ceremonialism at the Mound House Site, Greene County, Illinois, edited by Buikstra, J. E., D. K. Charles, and G. F. M. Rakita, Appendix 3, pp. 118–173. Kampsville Studies in Archeology and History 1, Center for American Archeology, Kampsville, Illinois.Google Scholar
Van Nest, J. 2000 Geoarchaeological Reconnaissance of the Baehr-Gust Mound Group, Brown County, Illinois. In Animal Exploitation and the Middle to Late Woodland Transition: A Comparison of Animal Use at Mound Centers and Hamlets in the Lower and Central Illinois Valleys, by Julie Zimmermann Holt, Appendix B, pp. 394–438. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, New York University.Google Scholar
Van Nest, J., Charles, D. K., and Buikstra, J. E. 1999 Locating Moundfill Sources at the Middle Woodland Mound House Site in the Lower Illinois Valley. Poster presented at the 64th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Chicago.Google Scholar
Van Nest, J., and Snortland, J. S. 2000 Building Mounds the Illinois Hopewell Way in North Dakota. Paper presented at the Joint Midwest Archaeological and Plains Anthropological Conference, St. Paul, Minnesota.Google Scholar
Vimmerstedt, J. P., and Finney, J. H. 1973 Impact of Earthworm Introduction on Litter Burial and Nutrient Distribution in Ohio Stripmine Spoil Banks. Soil Science Society of America Proceedings 37: 388–391.Google Scholar
Voigt, J. W. and Mohlenbrock, R. H. 1964 Plant Communities of Southern Illinois. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.Google Scholar
Walker, W. M. 1952 The Dickison Mound Group, Peoria County, Illinois. In Hopewellian Communities in Illinois, edited by Deuel, T., pp. 13–42. Scientific Papers 5, Illinois State Museum, Springfield.Google Scholar
Walter, N. R, Hallberg, G. R., and Fenton, T. E. 1978 Particle Size Analysis by the Iowa State University Soil Survey Laboratory. In Standard Procedures for the Evaluation of Quaternary Materials in Iowa, edited by Hallberg, G. R., pp. 61–74. Technical Information Series 8, Iowa Geological Survey, Iowa City.Google Scholar
Woermann, J. W 1902-1904 Map of the Illinois and Des Plaines Rivers from Lockport, Illinois to the Mouth of the Illinois River (Sheet 11). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. H Doc 263-59-1.Google Scholar