New research on why Cahokia Mounds civilization left | Hacker News Reader

New research on why Cahokia Mounds civilization left

scitechdaily.com

31 pointshistorynops15 comments

Cahokia Mounds are great, but I had to pass through the scariest, sketchiest, most bombed-out looking neighborhoods I have ever seen to get to them. This was 20 years ago, so maybe things are much better now, but I never thought I would see such urban blight and devastation in the USA. It makes me wonder about the civilization that used to live in St. Louis 50 years ago with their grand brick warehouses, industrial might and river boat commerce.

Maybe the population of St. Louis themselves also fits the narrative: “They put a lot of effort into building...but there were probably external pressures that caused them to leave,” Rankin said. “The picture is likely complicated.”

The pressures to cause people to leave st louis and other rustbelt cities 50-60 years ago amounted to internalized racism among the white population.

I used to live near the Missouri River before it meets the Mississippi River south of STL, but haven't yet made it to the Cahokia Mounds which are northeast and across the river from what is now St. Louis, Missouri.

Was it disease?

["Fusang" to the Chinese, various names to Islanders FWIU]

[?? BC/AD: Egyptian treasure in Illinois, somehow without paddleboats to steam up the Mississippi]

~800 AD: Lead Cross of Knights Templar in Arizona, according to America Unearthed S01E10. https://www.google.com/search?q=%7E800+AD%3A+Templar+Cross%2... ; a more recent dating of Tucson artifacts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tucson_artifacts

~1000 AD: Leif Erickson, L'Anse aux Meadows; Discovering Vinland: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leif_Erikson#Discovering_Vin...

And then the Story of Erik the Red, and a Skraeling girl in Europe, and Columbus; and instead we'll celebrate Juneteenth day to celebrate when news reached Galveston.

Did they plant those mounds? Did they all bring good soil or dirt to add to the mound?

May Pole traditions may be similar to "all circle around the mountain" practices in at least ancient Egyptian culture FWIU.

If there was a lot of contact there, would that have spread diseases? (Various traditions have intentionally high contact with hol y water containers on the way in, too, for example.)

FWIU there's strong evidence for Mayans and Aztecs in North America; but who were they displacing?

For one thing, the words you want are "Maya" and "Nahua". "Mayan" is the language family and "Aztec" refers to various things, none of which are what you want.

They're also definitely unrelated to the mound cultures except for the broadest possible relationships like existing on the same continent.

How are pyramid-building cultures definitely unrelated to mound-building cultures?

Cahokia Mounds: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cahokia :

> Today, the Cahokia Mounds are considered to be the largest and most complex archaeological site north of the great pre-Columbian cities in Mexico.

Chicago was a trading post further north FWIU, but not an archaeological site.

"Michoacan, Michigan, Mishigami, Mizugami: Etymological Origins? A Legend." https://christopherbrianoconnor.medium.com/michoacan-michiga...

Is there evidence of hydrological engineering or stonework?

It's not clear whether the megalithic Sage Wall in MT was man-made, and sort of looks like the northern glacier pass it may have marked.

FWIU there are quarry sites in the southwest that predate most timelines of stonework in the Americas and in Egypt, Sri Lanka / Indonesia, and East Asia; but they're not further north than Cahokia Mounds.

In TN, There are many Clovis sites; but they decided to flood the valley that was home to Sequoyah - who gave written form to Cherokee and other native languages - and also a 9500-year old archaeological site.

This says the Clovis people of Clovis, New Mexico are the oldest around: https://tennesseeencyclopedia.net/entries/paleoindians-in-te...

The Olmecs, Aztecs, and Mayans all worked stone.

From where did stonework like the Osireon originate?

> How are pyramid-building cultures definitely unrelated to mound-building cultures?

You're asserting a causal relationship, not a functional or morphological similarity. You haven't made an argument for that yet.

> This says the Clovis people of Clovis, New Mexico are the oldest around

They aren't. Pre-clovis is well established at this point. I'm not sure you intend this with your phrasing, but maybe this will be useful. Archaeological cultures like Clovis don't name a "people" because the actual humans or may not have shared unified identities. Type sites also just represent a clear example of the broader category they're naming rather than anything about where things originated.

There's also thousands and thousands of years separation between Clovis Mexica, Mound cultures, or the Maya, so unless you make an argument I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Do you think all lithics are the same?

> The Olmecs, Aztecs, and Mayans all worked stone.

1) you've made the same naming mistake again and 2) this isn't an argument for anything.

How far north did which peoples' ancient building methods culturally diffuse and in what years on which calendars; relative to Cahokia Mounds as one of the oldest ancient sites in the United States, perhaps Sage Wall MT, and NM and climate?

I had the (dubious) honor of - willingly, on a dare - having plunged rolling down the sides of one of the mounds, during a field trip.-

What fun.-

This reminds me to read "Cahokia Jazz", the new novel by Francis Spufford.

He previously wrote "Red Plenty", a brilliant historical fiction about the Soviet economy and cybernetics in a brief moment of post-Stalin optimism.

I just finished Cahokia Jazz. Best novel I've read in the last few years. The prose, plot, and characters were all exceptionally excellent. And I was surprised to learn the author is British!

Tl;Dr: they built a flourishing city, and one hypothesis was drought but new research ruled that out, so we have no idea why they left.

A couple of really cold Winters or hotter than normal Summers, or competition from other animals, including insects, crop disease, etc., can drive any population out to seek new land to conquer and inhabit. Also just internal disagreement and the braintrust left, the ones who stayed were left to fend for themselves...

It's more that it's more evidence towards it not being any one or few major disasters that caused a rapid abandonment as always suspected but just the slow, eventual decline of people moving elsewhere, not very exciting or newsworthy but sensible.

Sounds like maybe they're also suggesting, "Perhaps we don't need an environmental catastrophe, maybe it's more like what happened to Detroit."

Which seems pretty parsimonious to me? Without so much fixed infrastructure such as harbors and paved highways and the Ford Rouge factory, there's less to keep pulling people back to an urban lifestyle if that's not what they're after.

What, some different complexion natives moved in and got the cahokians scared enough to flee to the suburbs? That is what happened to Detroit.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com