Skip to Main Content
 

Global Search Box

 
 
 
 

Files

File List


3146.pdf (2.8 MB)

ETD Abstract Container

Abstract Header

Was Yankeetown an Angel Mounds Progenitor?

Pritchett, Phoebe
http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=ucin1368013931

Abstract Details

2013, MA, University of Cincinnati, Arts and Sciences: Anthropology.
A significant and lingering question in Ohio Valley archaeology is the genetic ancestry and cultural origin of Mississippian peoples. Most archaeologists assume that Mississippian peoples migrated into the Mississippi River valley from an undefined cultural homeland. Recent archaeological data, however, challenges the cultural homeland hypothesis. An alternative hypothesis suggests that Mississippian culture developed from a pre-existing in situ population in the Ohio River valley, such as Yankeetown. Evidence in support of this hypothesis is the appearance of Mississippian-like artifacts and features that predate developed Mississippian populations. Presently, these opposed hypotheses remain untested. The development of Mississippian sites seems to happen simultaneously over a large area with a multitude of potential causes. Migration may have played a role in some areas, but not everywhere. Mississippianization of the area may be a result of a combination of human population growth, changes in subsistence strategy, and/or sociopolitical organization. The Yankeetown site, which dates from ca. A.D. 700 to A.D. 1100, has been defined as both a Late Woodland and Emergent Mississippian site depending upon cultural traits and inferred subsistence strategy. It is located in Warren County, Indiana, less than ten miles from the Mississippian Angel Mounds site located in adjacent Vanderburgh County, Indiana. Angel Mounds was occupied between ca. A.D. 1050 and A.D. 1400 and is a classic example of a Mississippian ceremonial center, village and mortuary site with platform mounds and a central plaza. The possible relationship between Yankeetown and Angel Mounds has long been debated. Because of the chronological overlap and geographic proximity of these two sites, it seems likely that goods, services, or people were exchanged. Alternatively, it may be possible that the people of Yankeetown were the founding population of Angel Mounds. If the Yankeetown people were the progenitors of Angel Mounds, then we should expect to see a closely related pattern of cultural traits (i.e., artifacts and archaeological features). In order to test the relationship of the cultural traits of Yankeetown and Angel Mounds, I performed hierarchical cluster analysis on 364 distinctive cultural traits from sixteen penecontemporary archaeological assemblages in the Midwestern United States using Euclidean distances and maximum linkages.
Kenneth Tankersley, Ph.D. (Committee Chair)
Heather Norton, Ph.D. (Committee Member)
128 p.
Archaeology
Archaeology; Yankeetown; Angel Mounds; Mississippian; Late Woodland; Emergent Mississippian;

Recommended Citations

Citations

  • Pritchett, P. (2013). Was Yankeetown an Angel Mounds Progenitor? [Master's thesis, University of Cincinnati]. OhioLINK Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=ucin1368013931

    APA Style (7th edition)

  • Pritchett, Phoebe. Was Yankeetown an Angel Mounds Progenitor? 2013. University of Cincinnati, Master's thesis. OhioLINK Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center, http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=ucin1368013931.

    MLA Style (8th edition)

  • Pritchett, Phoebe. "Was Yankeetown an Angel Mounds Progenitor?" Master's thesis, University of Cincinnati, 2013. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=ucin1368013931

    Chicago Manual of Style (17th edition)

ucin1368013931
923
© 2013, all rights reserved.
This open access ETD is published by University of Cincinnati and OhioLINK.