DOCSLIB.ORG

A Historical Atlas of Cahokia Archaeology

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

The Cahokia Atlas A Historical Atlas of Cahokia Archaeology Mclvin f bwler '„ -^<P»P<> o o fa ^cP g) Q « ^ r,H.mt.,ltm /V»»J.—rf : / ^ Studies in Illinois Archaeology No. 6 Illinois Historic I*reservation Agency SURVEY. lamOlS HISTORlCAt ^<o-^^ THE CAHOKIA ATLAS STUDIES IN ILLINOIS ARCHAEOLOGY NUMBER 6 Thomas E. Emerson, Series Editor Michael D. Conner, Center for American Archeology, Volume Editor THE CAHOKIA ATLAS A Historical Atlas of Cahokia Archaeology Melvin L. Fowler 111 Illinios Historic Preservation Agency Springfield, Illinois ISBN 0-942579-06-2 Illinois Historic Preservation Agency Printed by Authority of the State of Illinois November 1989 This publication was financed in part with federal funds provided by the U.S. Department of the Interior and administered by the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency. However, the contents and opinions do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department of the Interior or the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency. TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures ix List of Tables xiv Acknowledgments xv Foreward xvi CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 Introduction to Cahokia Archaeology 12 CHAPTER 2: HISTORY OF INVESTIGATIONS OF THE CAHOKIA SITE 15 CHAPTER 3: THE MAPS OF CAHOKIA 44 CHAPTER 4: DESCRIPTIONS OF MOUNDS 1-37 62 Mound 1 62 Mound 2 62 Mound 3 64 Mound 4 64 Mound 5 64 Mound 6 68 Mound 7 68 Mound 8 70 Mound 9 70 Mounds 10 and 11 70 Mound 12 72 Mounds 13, 14, 15, and 16 72 Mound 17 75 Mound 18 77 Mound 19 79 Mound 20 79 Mound 21 80 Mound 22 80 Mound 23 80 Mound 24 80 Mound 25 82 Mound 26 82 Mound 27 82 Mound 28 83 Mound 29 83 Mounds 30 and 31 84 Mound 32 85 Mound 33 86 Mound 34 88 TABLE OF CONTENTS Mound 35 89 Mound 36 89 Mound 37 89 CHAPTER 5: MONKS MOUND 90 Structure 90 History of Observations and Excavations 101 CHAPTER 6: DESCRIPTIONS OF MOUNDS 39-88 108 Mound 39 108 Mound 40 110 Mound 41 Ill Mound 42 Ill Mound 43 Ill Mound 44 114 Mound 45 114 Mound 46 116 Mound 47 118 Mound 48 118 Mound 49 118 Mound 50 120 Mound 51 120 Mound 52 124 Mound 53 124 Mound 54 126 Mound 55 126 Mound 56 127 Mound 57 127 Mound 58 128 Mound 59 128 Mound 60 132 Mound 61 132 Mound 62 134 Mound 63 134 Mound 64 135 Mound 65 135 Mound 66 139 Mound 67 142 Mound 68 144 Mound 69 144 Mound 70 144 Mound 71 144 Mound 72 144 Mound 73 150 Mound 74 150 Mound 75 154 Mound 76 154 Mound 77 155 Mound 78 156 Mound 79 156 Mound 80 158 vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Mound 81 158 Mound 82 158 Mound 83 159 Mound 84 159 Mound 85 162 Mound 86 162 Mound 87 165 Mound 88 167 CHAPTER 7: DESCRIPTIONS OF MOUNDS 89-104 168 Mound 89 168 Mound 90 168 Mound 91 168 Mound 92 170 Mound 93 170 Mound 94 170 Mound 95 170 Mound 96 170 Mound 97 170 Mound 98 and Mound 99 172 Mound 100 172 Mound 101 and Mound 102 172 Mound 103 172 Mound 104 172 Other Possible Mounds 172 CHAPTER 8: BORROW PITS AT CAHOKIA 178 Borrow Pit 5-1 179 Borrow Pit 5-2 181 Borrow Pit 5-3 181 Borrow Pit 5^ 182 Borrow Pit 5-5 182 Borrow Pit 5-6 183 Borrow Pits 5-7, 5-8, 5-9, and 5-10 183 Borrow Pits 8-1, 8-2, 8-3, 8^, and 8-5 183 Borrow Pit 4-1 185 Borrow Pits 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, and 2-4 185 Discussion 185 CHAPTER 9: CAHOKIA AS A COMMUNITY 189 Cahokia Population 191 Community Organization 192 Platform Mounds 192 Conical Mounds 194 Ridge-Top Mounds 194 The Palisade 195 CHAPTER 10: DOWNTOWN CAHOKIA AND ITS SATELLITES 198 Downtown Cahokia 198 The Suburbs, Satellites, or Barrios 201 Vll TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 11: CAHOKIA YESTERDAY, TODAY, AND TOMORROW 206 APPENDIX 1: RADIOCARBON DATING 211 Limitations of Radiocarbon Dating 211 Cahokia Dates and Periods of Occupation 212 Radiocarbon Dating of Monks Mound 213 Other Mounds 214 The Pahsade 215 Habitation or Residential Areas 215 APPENDIX 2: KEY TO THE 1966 UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MILWAUKEE CAHOKIA MAP 219 APPENDIX 3: MOUND NUMBERS, LOCATIONS, AND FORMS 221 APPENDIX 4: CAHOKIA BORROW PITS 225 APPENDIX 5: CURRENT RESEARCH AT THE CAHOKL\ SITE (1984-1989) 227 William I. Woods and George R. Holley Interpretive Center Tract II 228 Utility Corridor 229 Monks Mound 229 Kunnemann Tract 229 Southern Palisade 230 Plaza Excavations 230 MRTC and Fairmont City 230 Falcoln Drive-In 231 Implications of Recent Research 231 Bibliography of Cahokia Archaeology 233 LIST OF FIGURES Artist's reconstruction Cahokiaca. A.D. 1100 frontispiece 1.1 The modem Mississippi River valley near St. Louis 2 1.2 Reconstruction of the rivers, creeks, and lakes in the American Bottom ca. 1800 3 1.3 A reconstruction of the map of 17 of the mounds in the East St. Louis mound group commissioned by J. R. Patrick about 1880 5 1.4 A reconstruction of the 1876 Patrick map of the Cahokia site 8 1.5 Map of the Cahokia site showing the boundaries of National Historic Site and the extent of mound distribution 10 1.6 Aerial view of Monks Mound looking towards the southwest 11 2.1 A portion of the Collot map of the Mississippi River valley near St. Louis 16 2.2 The Wild drawing of the central area of the Cahokia site as viewed from the west 19 2.3 Two drawings of Cahokia from the 1830s by Kari Bodmer 21 2.4 The engraved sandstone tablet described by Peet in 1891 23 2.5 A 1922 Goddard air photo of the west half of the Cahokia site viewed from the east 25 2.6 A 1922 Goddard air photo of the east half of the Cahokia site viewed from the west 26 2.7 A schematic map of the Cahokia site showing the locations and forms of mounds, borrow pits, and other cultural features 27 2.8 Warren King Moorehead 28 2.9 The Patrick map of the Powell mound group on the west end of the Cahokia site 29 2.10 A low, oblique air photo of the Powell Mound viewed from the west 30 2.11 The leveling of the Powell Mound in January 1931 31 2.12 Excavations in Tract 15B 33 2.13 Remains of houses found in Tract 15B 33 2.14 Excavations at Tract 15A 34 2.15 Students from the University of Illinois-Chicago Circle excavate the remains of a cedar log from a Woodhenge post pit 35 2.16 A reconstructed Woodhenge at Cahokia Mounds State Historic Site 35 2.17 A map of Monks Mound showing locations of various excavations during the 1971 cooperative archaeological project 36 IX LIST OF FIGURES 2.18 Vertical air photo of Monks Mound and the surrounding area taken on June 22, 1971 37 2.19 Washington University excavations on the fourth terrace 38 2.20 Solid-core drilling on the fourth terrace by Washington University researchers .... 39 2.21 Archaeologists from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee excavate a burned structure beneath a small mound on the southwest comer of the first terrace 40 2.22 Students in the Cahokia Museum Field School excavate along the palisade east of Monks Mound 42 3.1 A reconstruction of the 1876 Patrick Map 46 3.2 The 1882 McAdams Map 47 3.3 The 1894 Thomas Map 48 3.4 A portion of the 1888 USGS Quadrangle Map of the St. Louis area showring Monks Mound and other mounds at Cahokia 50 3.5 The 1906 Peterson-McAdams Map 51 3.6 Land survey map of the central portion of Cahokia published by the Ramey family in 1916 52 3.7 The 1922 Moorehead Map 53 3.8 The 1923 Moorehead Map 54 3.9 The 1929 Moorehead Map 55 3.10 Map of Cahokia based on the field notes for the USGS survey in 1930 and 1931 .... 56 3.11 The central section, Section 5, of the 1966 UWM Map 58 3.12 The central section of the UWM Map with streets, houses, and other modem features removed 59 3.13 The central section of the Patrick Map showing the equivalent of Section 5 of the UWM Map 60 4.1 Section 6H of the UWM Map showing the locations of Mounds 1 and 2 63 4.2 Section 3V of the UWM Map showing the location of Mound 3 65 4.3 Section 5E of the UWM Map showing the location of Mound 4 66 4.4 Portions of Sections 5C and 5D of the UWM Map showing the location of Mound 5 67 4.5 Mound 5 68 4.6 Section 2R of the UWM Map showing the locations of Mounds 6, 7, 8, 9, and a portion 10 69 4.7 Portions of sections 2R, 2S, 2V, and 2W of the UWM Map shoving Mounds 10, 11, and 12 71 4.8 Mound 11 73 4.9 Excavations into Mound 11 in 1922 by Moorehead 73 LIST OF FIGURES 4.10 Sections 5B and 5C of the UWM Map showing the locations of Mounds 13, 14, 15, and 16 74 4.11 Section 5H of the UWM Map showing the locations of Mounds 17, 36, 37, and 38 76 4.12 Section 5G of the UWM Map showing Mounds 18, 19, 20, and 30-35 78 4.13 Section 5F of the UWM Map showing the locations of Mounds 21-29 81 4.14 Mound 28 83 4.15 Caldwell's excavations in Mound 31 85 4.16 The circular trench and the circle of postmolds at the base of Mound 33 87 5.1 Featherstonhaugh's 1844 drawing of Monks Mound viewed from the south 91 5.2 Monks Mound as drawn by Bjo-on W.
Recommended publications
  • Burial Mounds in Europe and Japan Comparative and Contextual Perspectives

    Burial Mounds in Europe and Japan Comparative and Contextual Perspectives

    Comparative and Global Perspectives on Japanese Archaeology Burial Mounds in Europe and Japan Comparative and Contextual Perspectives edited by Access Thomas Knopf, Werner Steinhaus and Shin’ya FUKUNAGAOpen Archaeopress Archaeopress Archaeology © Archaeopress and the authors, 2018. Archaeopress Publishing Ltd Summertown Pavilion 18-24 Middle Way Summertown Oxford OX2 7LG www.archaeopress.com ISBN 978 1 78969 007 1 ISBN 978 1 78969 008 8 (e-Pdf) © Archaeopress and the authors 2018 © All image rights are secured by the authors (Figures edited by Werner Steinhaus) Access Cover illustrations: Mori-shōgunzuka mounded tomb located in Chikuma-shi in Nagano prefecture, Japan, by Werner Steinhaus (above) Magdalenenberg burial mound at Villingen-Schwenningen, Germany,Open by Thomas Knopf (below) The printing of this book wasArchaeopress financed by the Sainsbury Institute for the Study of Japanese Arts and Cultures All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright owners. Printed in England by Oxuniprint, Oxford This book is available direct from Archaeopress or from our website www.archaeopress.com © Archaeopress and the authors, 2018. Contents List of Figures .................................................................................................................................................................................... iii List of authors .................................................................................................................................................................................
  • A Many-Storied Place

    A Many-Storied Place

    A Many-storied Place Historic Resource Study Arkansas Post National Memorial, Arkansas Theodore Catton Principal Investigator Midwest Region National Park Service Omaha, Nebraska 2017 A Many-Storied Place Historic Resource Study Arkansas Post National Memorial, Arkansas Theodore Catton Principal Investigator 2017 Recommended: {){ Superintendent, Arkansas Post AihV'j Concurred: Associate Regional Director, Cultural Resources, Midwest Region Date Approved: Date Remove not the ancient landmark which thy fathers have set. Proverbs 22:28 Words spoken by Regional Director Elbert Cox Arkansas Post National Memorial dedication June 23, 1964 Table of Contents List of Figures vii Introduction 1 1 – Geography and the River 4 2 – The Site in Antiquity and Quapaw Ethnogenesis 38 3 – A French and Spanish Outpost in Colonial America 72 4 – Osotouy and the Changing Native World 115 5 – Arkansas Post from the Louisiana Purchase to the Trail of Tears 141 6 – The River Port from Arkansas Statehood to the Civil War 179 7 – The Village and Environs from Reconstruction to Recent Times 209 Conclusion 237 Appendices 241 1 – Cultural Resource Base Map: Eight exhibits from the Memorial Unit CLR (a) Pre-1673 / Pre-Contact Period Contributing Features (b) 1673-1803 / Colonial and Revolutionary Period Contributing Features (c) 1804-1855 / Settlement and Early Statehood Period Contributing Features (d) 1856-1865 / Civil War Period Contributing Features (e) 1866-1928 / Late 19th and Early 20th Century Period Contributing Features (f) 1929-1963 / Early 20th Century Period
  • Ohio History Lesson 1

    Ohio History Lesson 1

    http://www.touring-ohio.com/ohio-history.html http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/category.php?c=PH http://www.oplin.org/famousohioans/indians/links.html Benchmark • Describe the cultural patterns that are visible in North America today as a result of exploration, colonization & conflict Grade Level Indicator • Describe, the earliest settlements in Ohio including those of prehistoric peoples The students will be able to recognize and describe characteristics of the earliest settlers Assessment Lesson 2 Choose 2 of the 6 prehistoric groups (Paleo-indians, Archaic, Adena, Hopewell, Fort Ancients, Whittlesey). Give two examples of how these groups were similar and two examples of how these groups were different. Provide evidence from the text to support your answer. Bering Strait Stone Age Shawnee Paleo-Indian People Catfish •Pre-Clovis Culture Cave Art •Clovis Culture •Plano Culture Paleo-Indian People • First to come to North America • “Paleo” means “Ancient” • Paleo-Indians • Hunted huge wild animals for food • Gathered seeds, nuts and roots. • Used bone needles to sew animal hides • Used flint to make tools and weapons • Left after the Ice Age-disappeared from Ohio Archaic People Archaic People • Early/Middle Archaic Period • Late Archaic Period • Glacial Kame/Red Ocher Cultures Archaic People • Archaic means very old (2nd Ohio group) • Stone tools to chop down trees • Canoes from dugout trees • Archaic Indians were hunters: deer, wild turkeys, bears, ducks and geese • Antlers to hunt • All parts of the animal were used • Nets to fish
  • I. a Consideration of Tine and Labor Expenditurein the Constrijction Process at the Teotihuacan Pyramid of the Sun and the Pover

    I. a Consideration of Tine and Labor Expenditurein the Constrijction Process at the Teotihuacan Pyramid of the Sun and the Pover

    I. A CONSIDERATION OF TINE AND LABOR EXPENDITURE IN THE CONSTRIJCTION PROCESS AT THE TEOTIHUACAN PYRAMID OF THE SUN AND THE POVERTY POINT MOUND Stephen Aaberg and Jay Bonsignore 40 II. A CONSIDERATION OF TIME AND LABOR EXPENDITURE IN THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS AT THE TEOTIHUACAN PYRAMID OF THE SUN AND THE POVERTY POINT 14)UND Stephen Aaberg and Jay Bonsignore INTRODUCT ION In considering the subject of prehistoric earthmoving and the construction of monuments associated with it, there are many variables for which some sort of control must be achieved before any feasible demographic features related to the labor involved in such construction can be derived. Many of the variables that must be considered can be given support only through certain fundamental assumptions based upon observations of related extant phenomena. Many of these observations are contained in the ethnographic record of aboriginal cultures of the world whose activities and subsistence patterns are more closely related to the prehistoric cultures of a particular area. In other instances, support can be gathered from observations of current manual labor related to earth moving since the prehistoric constructions were accomplished manually by a human labor force. The material herein will present alternative ways of arriving at the represented phenomena. What is inherently important in considering these data is the element of cultural organization involved in such activities. One need only look at sites such as the Valley of the Kings and the great pyramids of Egypt, Teotihuacan, La Venta and Chichen Itza in Mexico, the Cahokia mound group in Illinois, and other such sites to realize that considerable time, effort and organization were required.
  • View / Open Gregory Oregon 0171N 12796.Pdf

    View / Open Gregory Oregon 0171N 12796.Pdf

    CHUNKEY, CAHOKIA, AND INDIGENOUS CONFLICT RESOLUTION by ANNE GREGORY A THESIS Presented to the Conflict and Dispute Resolution Program and the Graduate School of the University of Oregon in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science June 2020 THESIS APPROVAL PAGE Student: Anne Gregory Title: Chunkey, Cahokia, and Indigenous Conflict Resolution This thesis has been accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Science degree in the Conflict and Dispute Resolution Program by: Kirby Brown Chair Eric Girvan Member and Kate Mondloch Interim Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School Original approval signatures are on file with the University of Oregon Graduate School. Degree awarded June 2020. ii © 2020 Anne Gregory This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs (United States) License. iii THESIS ABSTRACT Anne Gregory Master of Science Conflict and Dispute Resolution June 2020 Title: Chunkey, Cahokia, and Indigenous Conflicts Resolution Chunkey, a traditional Native American sport, was a form of conflict resolution. The popular game was one of several played for millennia throughout Native North America. Indigenous communities played ball games not only for the important culture- making of sport and recreation, but also as an act of peace-building. The densely populated urban center of Cahokia, as well as its agricultural suburbs and distant trade partners, were dedicated to chunkey. Chunkey is associated with the milieu surrounding the Pax Cahokiana (1050 AD-1200 AD), an era of reduced armed conflict during the height of Mississippian civilization (1000-1500 AD). The relational framework utilized in archaeology, combined with dynamics of conflict resolution, provides a basis to explain chunkey’s cultural impact.
  • Understanding Community: Microwear Analysis of Blades at the Mound House Site

    Understanding Community: Microwear Analysis of Blades at the Mound House Site

    Illinois State University ISU ReD: Research and eData Theses and Dissertations 4-16-2019 Understanding Community: Microwear Analysis of Blades at the Mound House Site Silas Levi Chapman Illinois State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.library.illinoisstate.edu/etd Part of the History of Art, Architecture, and Archaeology Commons Recommended Citation Chapman, Silas Levi, "Understanding Community: Microwear Analysis of Blades at the Mound House Site" (2019). Theses and Dissertations. 1118. https://ir.library.illinoisstate.edu/etd/1118 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by ISU ReD: Research and eData. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ISU ReD: Research and eData. For more information, please contact [email protected]. UNDERSTANDING COMMUNITY: MICROWEAR ANALYSIS OF BLADES AT THE MOUND HOUSE SITE SILAS LEVI CHAPMAN 89 Pages Understanding Middle Woodland period sites has been of considerable interest for North American archaeologists since early on in the discipline. Various Middle Woodland period (50 BCE-400CE) cultures participated in shared ideas and behaviors, such as constructing mounds and earthworks and importing exotic materials to make objects for ceremony and for interring with the dead. These shared behaviors and ideas are termed by archaeologists as “Hopewell”. The Mound House site is a floodplain mound group thought to have served as a “ritual aggregation center”, a place for the dispersed Middle Woodland communities to congregate at certain times of year to reinforce their shared identity. Mound House is located in the Lower Illinois River valley within the floodplain of the Illinois River, where there is a concentration of Middle Woodland sites and activity.
  • Cultural Affiliation Statement for Buffalo National River

    Cultural Affiliation Statement for Buffalo National River

    CULTURAL AFFILIATION STATEMENT BUFFALO NATIONAL RIVER, ARKANSAS Final Report Prepared by María Nieves Zedeño Nicholas Laluk Prepared for National Park Service Midwest Region Under Contract Agreement CA 1248-00-02 Task Agreement J6068050087 UAZ-176 Bureau of Applied Research In Anthropology The University of Arizona, Tucson AZ 85711 June 1, 2008 Table of Contents and Figures Summary of Findings...........................................................................................................2 Chapter One: Study Overview.............................................................................................5 Chapter Two: Cultural History of Buffalo National River ................................................15 Chapter Three: Protohistoric Ethnic Groups......................................................................41 Chapter Four: The Aboriginal Group ................................................................................64 Chapter Five: Emigrant Tribes...........................................................................................93 References Cited ..............................................................................................................109 Selected Annotations .......................................................................................................137 Figure 1. Buffalo National River, Arkansas ........................................................................6 Figure 2. Sixteenth Century Polities and Ethnic Groups (after Sabo 2001) ......................47
  • An Archaeological Inventory of Alamance County, North Carolina

    An Archaeological Inventory of Alamance County, North Carolina

    AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVENTORY OF ALAMANCE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Alamance County Historic Properties Commission August, 2019 AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVENTORY OF ALAMANCE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA A SPECIAL PROJECT OF THE ALAMANCE COUNTY HISTORIC PROPERTIES COMMISSION August 5, 2019 This inventory is an update of the Alamance County Archaeological Survey Project, published by the Research Laboratories of Anthropology, UNC-Chapel Hill in 1986 (McManus and Long 1986). The survey project collected information on 65 archaeological sites. A total of 177 archaeological sites had been recorded prior to the 1986 project making a total of 242 sites on file at the end of the survey work. Since that time, other archaeological sites have been added to the North Carolina site files at the Office of State Archaeology, Department of Natural and Cultural Resources in Raleigh. The updated inventory presented here includes 410 sites across the county and serves to make the information current. Most of the information in this document is from the original survey and site forms on file at the Office of State Archaeology and may not reflect the current conditions of some of the sites. This updated inventory was undertaken as a Special Project by members of the Alamance County Historic Properties Commission (HPC) and published in-house by the Alamance County Planning Department. The goals of this project are three-fold and include: 1) to make the archaeological and cultural heritage of the county more accessible to its citizens; 2) to serve as a planning tool for the Alamance County Planning Department and provide aid in preservation and conservation efforts by the county planners; and 3) to serve as a research tool for scholars studying the prehistory and history of Alamance County.
  • Doi 10136

    Doi 10136

    <ennewick Man--Ames chapter http://www.cr.nps.gov/aad/design/'kennewick/AMES.HTM IARCHEOLOG¥ _z ETHNOGRAPHY PROGRAM Peoples&gultures Kennewick Man Chapter 2 CulturalAffiliationReport Section1 Review of the Archaeological Data Kenneth A_ Ames Acknowledgments Alexander GalE,Stephanie Butler and ,Ion Daehnke, all of Introduction Portland State University, gave me invaluable assistance in the production of this document. They assisted me with :: scopeofWorkand library research, the bibliography, data bases and so on and Methodology on. However, neither they, nor any of the people with whom :: ,_:,rganizatiofonthis I consulted on this work (see list below) bear any Report responsibilities for errors, ideas, or conclusions drawn here. -he _',:,Ghem ,',ColumL_ia) That responsibility is solely mine. Plat _aU Background =s-:uesProodem Introd uction "EartierGroup" This report is part of the cultural affiliation study, under NAGPRA, of the Kennewick human remains. The ._.r,:haeologvortheEarly circumstances of the finding of those remains, and the Modern Period: The Other resulting controversies, are well enough known not to EndoftheSequence require rehearsal here. The present work reviews the extant Reviewd the archaeological record for the Southern Columbia Plateau Archaeological Record: (sensu Ames et al. 1998) (Figure 1). Continuities, Discontinuities an:Ga s Scope of Work and Methodology Cotlclusions The framework for this study is set out in the scope of work Bibliography (SOW) dated December 9, 1999. It is important to be quite explicit about what the scope of work and the parameters of LiaofFigures this study are. Therefore, in summarizing the SoW, I either closely paraphrase its wording, or quote extensively. The project's scope of work included: • "Identify an "earlier group" with which the Kennewick human remains could be associated.
  • 62Nd Annual Midwest Archaeological Conference October 4–6, 2018 No T R E Dame Conference Center Mc Kenna Hall

    62Nd Annual Midwest Archaeological Conference October 4–6, 2018 No T R E Dame Conference Center Mc Kenna Hall

    62nd Annual Midwest Archaeological Conference October 4–6, 2018 No t r e Dame Conference Center Mc Kenna Hall Parking ndsp.nd.edu/ parking- and- trafǢc/visitor-guest-parking Visitor parking is available at the following locations: • Morris Inn (valet parking for $10 per day for guests of the hotel, rest aurants, and conference participants. Conference attendees should tell t he valet they are here for t he conference.) • Visitor Lot (paid parking) • Joyce & Compt on Lot s (paid parking) During regular business hours (Monday–Friday, 7a.m.–4p.m.), visitors using paid parking must purchase a permit at a pay st at ion (red arrows on map, credit cards only). The permit must be displayed face up on the driver’s side of the vehicle’s dashboard, so it is visible to parking enforcement staff. Parking is free after working hours and on weekends. Rates range from free (less than 1 hour) to $8 (4 hours or more). Campus Shut t les 2 3 Mc Kenna Hal l Fl oor Pl an Registration Open House Mai n Level Mc Kenna Hall Lobby and Recept ion Thursday, 12 a.m.–5 p.m. Department of Anthropology Friday, 8 a.m.–5 p.m. Saturday, 8 a.m.–1 p.m. 2nd Floor of Corbett Family Hall Informat ion about the campus and its Thursday, 6–8 p.m. amenities is available from any of t he Corbett Family Hall is on the east side of personnel at the desk. Notre Dame Stadium. The second floor houses t he Department of Anthropology, including facilities for archaeology, Book and Vendor Room archaeometry, human osteology, and Mc Kenna Hall 112–114 bioanthropology.
  • The Common Field Mississippian Site(23SG100), As Uncovered by the 1979 Mississippi River Flood Richard E

    The Common Field Mississippian Site(23SG100), As Uncovered by the 1979 Mississippi River Flood Richard E

    The Common Field Mississippian Site(23SG100), as Uncovered by the 1979 Mississippi River Flood Richard E. Martens Two of the pictures I took during an early visit to the he Common Field site occurs near the bluffs in the site are shown in Figure 1. The first shows Mound A, the TMississippi River floodplain 3 km south of St. Gen- largest of the six then-existing mounds. The nose of my evieve and approximately 90 km south of St. Louis. It is brand-new 1980 Volkswagen parked on the farm road is a large Mississippian-period site that once had as many as in the lower right corner of the picture. The second photo eight mounds (Bushnell 1914:666). It was long considered shows the outline of a burned house structure typical of to be an unoccupied civic-ceremonial center because very many evident across the site. Although it has been noted few surface artifacts were found. This all changed due that many people visited the site shortly after the flood, I to a flood in December 1979, when the Mississippi River did not meet anyone during several visits in 1980 and 1981. swept across the Common Field site. The resulting erosion I subsequently learned that Dr. Michael O’Brien led removed up to 40 cm of topsoil, exposing: a group of University of Missouri (MU) personnel in a [a] tremendous quantity of archaeological material limited survey and fieldwork activity in the spring of 1980. including ceramic plates, pots and other vessels, articu- The first phase entailed aerial photography (black-and- lated human burials, well defined structural remains white and false-color infrared) of the site.
  • Mississippian Architecture: Temporal, Technological, and Spatial Patterning of Structures at the Toqua Site (40M R6) Richard R

    Mississippian Architecture: Temporal, Technological, and Spatial Patterning of Structures at the Toqua Site (40M R6) Richard R

    University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Masters Theses Graduate School 12-1985 Mississippian Architecture: Temporal, Technological, and Spatial Patterning of Structures at the Toqua Site (40M R6) Richard R. Polhemus University of Tennessee - Knoxville Recommended Citation Polhemus, Richard R., "Mississippian Architecture: Temporal, Technological, and Spatial Patterning of Structures at the Toqua Site (40M R6). " Master's Thesis, University of Tennessee, 1985. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes/3320 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a thesis written by Richard R. Polhemus entitled "Mississippian Architecture: Temporal, Technological, and Spatial Patterning of Structures at the Toqua Site (40M R6)." I have examined the final electronic copy of this thesis for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts, with a major in Anthropology. Charles H. Faulkner, Major Professor We have read this thesis and recommend its acceptance: Gerald F. Schroedl, Jefferson Chapman Accepted for the Council: Carolyn R. Hodges Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School (Original signatures are on file with official student records.) To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a thesis written by Richard R. Polhemus entitled 11Mississippian Architecture: Temporal , Technolog ical, and Spatial Patterning of Structures at the Toqua Site ( 40MR6) •11 I have examined the final copy of this thesis for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts , with a major in Anthropology.