The Chronology of Monks Mound

THE CHRONOLOGY OF MONKS MOUND

Timothy Schilling1

Monks Mound is the largest single Native Americanconstruction in North America. The mound sits at thecenter of the Cahokia site, and interpretations of itsconstruction and use are fundamental for understandinghow Mississippian peoples created mounds and landscapes.In the past, researchers speculated that Monks Mound wasboth one of the oldest and longest-lived monuments atCahokia. Using a Bayesian computer model that incorporatesboth archaeological information and radiocarbon dates, Iargue the mound is younger and was built more rapidly thanpreviously thought. The mound likely was built in two veryrapid efforts spanning fewer than twenty years. This analysisshows Cahokian society could mobilize vast quantities oflabor for short periods, which may have inhibited institu-tionalized, transgenerational sociopolitical hierarchies.

Starting perhaps 5,000 years ago (e.g., Saunders et al.1997), ancient North Americans began coming togetherand constructing monuments and landscapes. In someinstances, earthen architecture was used as substruc-tural platforms for important buildings (Anderson2001; Hally 1996) or to cover over high-rankingindividuals (Mainfort and Walling 1992; Milanich2002); in other instances, building with earth servedmore enigmatic purposes (Carr and Case 2005; Gibson2006). Flat-topped pyramidal platform mounds, inparticular, are a defining characteristic of Mississippianculture (A.D. 1000–1600). These structures range from afew centimeters high to the enormous edifice of MonksMound (Figure 1).

Monks Mound holds a central place at the Cahokiasite and is the largest single pre-Columbian construc-tion in North America. Either explicitly or tacitly,researchers in the American Bottom use constructionhistories of Monks Mound as partial justification forreconstructions of Mississippian sociopolitical struc-ture (Alt 2011; Emerson 1997; Milner 1998; Pauketat2000). Most scholars believe that Monks Mound tookdecades, if not centuries, to build and that it was one ofthe earliest constructions at the site (Dalan et al. 2003;Reed et al. 1968). Usually, Monks Mound is seen as anearly monument whose presence marks Cahokia as anexceptional place, in either time depth or politicalcomplexity. Yet as important as construction histories

of Monks Mound are for archaeological interpretationof Cahokia and Mississippian society, its absolutechronology is poorly understood. The current moundchronology is based on a suite of radiocarbon datesdone in the late 1960s that have been calibrated usingmodern calibration curves and indirect informationfrom potentially associated archaeological features.Recent work on the mound has produced informationthat suggests the current chronologies are inaccurateand in need of revision. In this article, I propose a newchronology for the construction Monks Mound basedon a Bayesian computer model that integrates bothchronometric and stratigraphic information from pastinvestigations. The model demonstrates that buildingMonks Mound occurred as a rapid process, taking lessthan a single generation, and happened later in timethan previously suspected.

Monks Mound

Standing over 30 m tall and towering over thefloodplain landscape near the confluence of theMissouri and Mississippi Rivers, Monks Mound wasconstructed of about 730,000 m3 of earth excavatedfrom the surrounding landscape (Dalan et al. 2003;Schilling 2012). The mound has several level surfaces,referred to locally as terraces, that supported a series ofwooden buildings and other structures (Figure 2).Terrace 1 projects to the south and connects the mainplatform mound to the Grand Plaza via a ramp andstairway. A small platform mound was built on thesouthwestern corner of the first terrace (Benchley 1975).Terrace 2 is located on the western side of the mainmound and is not a specifically constructed moundfeature; rather, it is the remnants of a slope collapse thatmay have happened during the thirteenth century(Collins and Chalfant 1993; Dalan et al. 2003). Terraces3 and 4 are the uppermost surfaces of the mound.Terrace 3 is a large, flat space that lies at the sameelevation as the summit when it was used by theCahokians (Reed 2009). Terrace 4 is just to the north of,and slightly higher than, Terrace 3. This terrace is asurface created when the Cahokians covered over theremains of buildings built on the mound’s summit.Monks Mound certainly held an essential place inMississippian society. The buildings on its summitwere probably important public buildings or the

Southeastern Archaeology sarc-32-01-03.3d 19/6/13 21:06:25 1

1Midwest Archeological CenterNational Park Service, Lincoln, NE 68508. e-mail: [email protected]

Southeastern Archaeology 32:000–000

residences of powerful chiefs or other political andreligious leaders.

During the summer of 2007, major slope failures onthe northwestern corner and eastern side (Figure 3) ofthe mound were excavated and repaired (Schilling2010; Schilling and Kelly 2009). The excavation pro-gram was designed to completely remove slickensidefeatures that geotechnical engineers determined werethe cause of the slope collapses. The slickensides

formed when groundwater traveling internally alonginterfaces of differentially permeable sediments through-out the mound deposited clay at the lithologicalcontacts. The clay-lined surfaces created planes ofweakness within the slopes. Slope failures, locallyknown as ‘‘slumps,’’ developed as heavy rains saturatedthe mound and large blocks of the heavy sedimentcollapsed in a series of catastrophic events alongthe wet, clay-lined slickensides. On the northwestern


Figure 1. Schematic map of the Cahokia site (base map adapted from Kelly (2009: Figures 29, 41). Monks Mound is centrallylocated, immediately south of the Edelhardt meander.

SOUTHEASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 32(1) SUMMER 2013

0

corner, excavation consisted of removing a 7.5-m-wideby 1.5-m-deep profile that ran in a stair-step fashionfor about 9 m down the mound slope. Excavation onthe eastern side was similar, but the profile was nearly20 m wide and 2 m deep. Steps were cut into themound from about 154.5 to 137.5 m amsl, exposingnearly 16 m along the midslope of the mound.

Excavation cuts revealed that the mound has a longhistory of slumping and instability. Small-scale crackswere seen on the northwestern corner that probablyresulted from settling near the time of construction(Kidder et al. 2007). On the eastern side, both ancientand historic slope failures and erosion were exposed. Inaddition to the ancient damage, excavation also


Figure 2. Topographic map of Monks Mound (drawing by G. William Monaghan).


0

revealed a great variety of fill types and constructiontechniques. The visible interior portions of the moundcontained preserved basket-loaded fill juxtaposed withbroadcast fills and masses of sod blocks. Within themound’s internal structure, fill sediments were depos-ited in small piles that were interconnected and buriedby subsequent fill units. Sediments were placed sorapidly that weathering or soil formation did not havetime to occur along bedding planes or sedimentcontacts suggesting that the identifiable lithological

contacts did not represent long-term (decadal scale orgreater) discontinuities in the depositional sequence.

Within the mound, excavators found a single soilinterface that may have been used as a surface pavedwith limestone. Large cypress posts appeared to beoriginally set vertically into the surface. Sometime afterbeing buried within the mound, the posts collapsed(Kelly et al. 2007; Schilling and Kelly 2009). Thecollapse may have happened when the mound wasfairly young since it probably caused a large gully to


Figure 3. Excavation areas discussed in text. Above right shows the east slope. Below right shows the northwest corner. Belowleft is a detail of the slickenside surface.


0

form on the east slope, which was filled by theCahokians (Schilling 2010:158). The paved surfacewas used for only a very brief time and almostimmediately covered after the posts were set. Individ-ual basket-loaded deposits could be traced on thesurface, and sediments did not have time to becomemixed during its exposure. The limestone and logfeature was exposed for such a short amount of timethat it may be considered an integral component of themound’s internal structure, intended to be buried inthe mound rather than a finished surface. Together themassive, rapid, nearly unbroken fill sequence and theshort time that the limestone and log feature wasexposed imply that the upper half, if not the entiremound, was built as a single project, albeit one thatmay have extended across several individual workefforts perhaps over multiple years (Schilling 2010:120).Once construction began, it did not appear to stop untila particular size and shape was attained. After themound reached the intended size, it was maintainedfor a substantial time—long enough for major erosionalgullies to form and be repaired on the east side and astable, easily identified light-colored slope wash de-posit to form on the mound’s exterior. Building in thisway contrasts with the slow, incremental, and un-planned construction histories of the mound (i.e., Dalanet al. 2003; Reed et al. 1968).

The most obvious way to reconcile the manyversions of the mound’s construction would be to usetraditional excavation to expose and document theinternal structure and recover artifacts for dating. Thesize and iconic nature of the mound would make sucha project both unfeasible and ill advised. The problemcan be approached in another, less destructive manner.Differences in the proposed chronological placementand duration of construction provide a fundamentalway to sort between the different construction histories.The stratigraphy observed in 2007 demonstrates thatconstruction episodes were massive and unweathered,indicating mound building was expeditiously pur-sued. It may have only taken a few years to reachthe final dimensions. All other construction historiesrequire tens of decades to centuries for the mound’scompletion.

The Age of Monks Mound

Monks Mound has been widely known and writtenabout for over two centuries (Fowler 1997). Earlyresearchers disagreed over the origin of the mound.Most preferred to the see the mound as either a whollynatural phenomenon or a natural feature that wassubsequently modified by Indians (Crook 1914), butothers preferred a cultural origin for the entire mound(Moorehead 1929). The controversy lingered, in some

places, into the 1960s, when Nelson Reed and col-leagues (1968) cored through the mound and demon-strated that it was in fact an entirely human builtstructure. Based on their coring work in 1965 and 1966,and a deep excavation into the summit, Reed et al.(1968:143) initially proposed that the mound wasconstructed incrementally in 14 stages between A.D.950 and 1150. Although this chronology was the firstattempt to systematically place the age of the mound inan absolute frame, it likely is an overestimation becausethe chronology relies on the uncritical use of multiple,poorly understood radiocarbon samples. For example,they place great importance on the age of a singlesample (I2308) recovered by coring from deep withinthe mound, directly above a thick clayey stratum. It isnot possible to accurately judge either the association ofthe age of the wood to cultural behavior or what part ofthe tree was sampled, yet they argued the date fromthis sample is contemporaneous with mound construc-tion (Reed et al. 1968:144). Both the sample’s contextwithin the mound and likelihood that heartwood wasassayed suggest a great chance that the sample is relicwood and not a good indicator of the mound’s true age.Moreover, their chronological reconstruction includesthe identification of multiple mound stages, identifiedby iron deposits found along soil contacts at similardepths below surface. The inclusion of multiple moundstages intuitively suggests a long construction history(Reed et al. 1968:146). Later, further excavation on thesummit showed iron oxide deposits form along mostlithological contacts within fill deposits and are not areliable indicator of a stable, long-lived mound surface.In particular, the final construction stages identified byReed et al. are a palimpsest of small-scale constructionand filling that may have lasted for nearly a century(Reed 2009:25–33).

More recently, Dalan et al. (2003) proposed a shorterconstruction history. They argued that most of themound was built in six stages over perhaps as few as100 years beginning about A.D. 900 or 950 (Dalan et al.2003:108, 136). Based on excavations documentingnumerous in-filled borrow pits and a possible episodeof horizontal borrowing (Dalan 1997), they argue thatthe sediments used to build the initial mound stageswere quarried from the area south of the mound,within the future location of the Grand Plaza. Potteryfound in the initial fill deposits of many of the borrowpits dates to the Late Emergent Mississippian (A.D.950–1050) and Lohmann phases (A.D. 1050–1100),which they argue is the time when the borrow pitswere filled (Dalan et al. 2003:110). Consequently, thetime when the borrow pits were filled provides amaximum age for the beginning of Monks Mound. Themound had reached its near final height by the end ofthe Lohmann phase, or as late as A.D. 1150 (Dalan et al.2003:108). Later, after the collapse of the western slope,



0

Terrace 1 was extended to the west to patch over theapparent damage by slope failure (Dalan et al. 2003:136).

Although this construction history is plausible, thehistorical sequence relies on two assumptions that maynot be valid. First, the connection between the sourceof the initial mound sediments and the borrow pitsis unclear. The Cahokia site lies within a complexgeomorphic environment and was built atop multiplesuperimposed river-channel sequences (Milner 1998:36–44). Monks Mound and the Grand Plaza were builtover the deep cutbank sediments of the Edelhardtmeander–aged Mississippi River channel, which inturn superimposes the earlier Spring Lake–age pointbar deposits. Based on the landscape position of theGrand Plaza and recent soil coring around the mound,the landscape immediately surrounding Monks Moundconsists of fine-grained silt drapes or coarser point bardeposits. (Schilling 2012). Organic-rich back-swampclay deposits likely did not form immediately south ofMonks Mound; these deposits are found along the relicSpring Lake along the southern edge of the GrandPlaza. The more likely source of the sediment for theinitial mound deposits is the relic Edelhardt meander,an in-filled river channel immediately north of themound. The Edelhardt meander would be a moreconvenient and plentiful source for the organic richsediments seen in the lowest mound layers (Reed 2009;Schilling 2012). Second, the association of the ceramicsfound in the basal borrows pit fills and the age of fill-ing is tenuous. In an increasingly densely occupiedlandscape, it may have been more expedient to mineabandoned village or other remnant occupation areasfor fill sources rather than quarrying soil from occupiedplaces. The age of pottery from abandoned living areasmay predate the age of filling by decades or more andintroduce a time lag.

To reconcile the multiple chronological reconstruc-tions with the observations made in 2007, stratigraphicinformation and the radiocarbon database were for-mally modeled using a modified Harris Matrix (Harris1989). Then the archaeological model was programmedinto the OxCal 4.1 software (Bronk Ramsey 2009).OxCal and other similar Bayesian statistical modelingprograms calculate posterior probability densities forradiocarbon dates and other absolute chronologicalinformation based on a priori information. Bayesianmodeling uses Bayes’ theorem, a theory of probabilitythat states posterior probabilities are proportional tothe product of an observed likelihood and priorprobabilities (Buck et al. 1996). In stratigraphic model-ing, the relative positions of dated samples are used asprior certainties and calibrated radiocarbon dates areobserved likelihoods. The complex mathematics ofcalibrating radiocarbon dates with regard to theirstratigraphic position does not yield the same solution

every time, so OxCal uses a Markov chain Monte Carlomethod to calculate a stable, representative solution.This solution can then be evaluated using an agreementindex to determine if the data are consistent with themodel. OxCal calculate agreement indices for individ-ual dates, the model, and the overall agreementbetween the agreement indices (A, Amodel, and Aoverall).Models can have individual dates with low agreementindices, but the overall model is still acceptable. TheAoverall index measures the consistency of the agree-ment indices. The agreement index provides a way tocompare the modeled probability of a radiocarbon dateor group of dates with the unmodeled distribution.Models that have agreement values greater than 60percent indicate that calculations based on the con-straints (e.g., stratigraphic ordering) yields values thatare statistically indistinguishable from the unmodeledvalues (Bronk Ramsey 1995:427–428). In other words,values above 60 percent indicate the a posterioriradiocarbon calibrations are consistent with the un-modeled radiocarbon calibrations and the model isvalid.

Modeling provides a robust and replicable way torefine radiocarbon dates, but because it requires strictlydefining the stratigraphic sequence of archaeologicalevents, researchers can make fine-scaled inferencesabout events that are not directly datable. In the MonksMound example, it is not possible to directly date whenmound construction began and ended, but likely agesfor these events can be calculated by modeling the agesof known events based on their relative positioning.From a stratigraphic viewpoint, the construction ofMonks Mound consists of a series of constructionepisodes bounded by surfaces that were used by theCahokians. In particular, the main part of the mound,north of Terrace 1, was built first, followed by a seriescaps on the summit and the addition or extensionof Terrace 1 (Dalan et al. 2003:136; Goodwin 1999;Martignoni 2003). It is certain that both projectsincluded many smaller activities, from adding singlebasket-loads of earth to finishing or shaping the finalproject, but this general abstraction allows calculationof the age and duration of construction using the sparseavailable data. Although it is not clear if all of Terrace 1was added in a single event or if only the westernportion was, the general sequence of constructionevents is demonstrated by excavation that shows theupper several meters of Terrace 1 overlies the southslope of the main mound (Bareis 1975; Dalan et al. 2003:136).

This stratigraphic sequence was programmed intoOxCal 4.1 as a single sequence containing twocontiguous phases. The first phase (‘‘build mainmound’’) was defined as the time between the age ofthe submound materials and the summit materials. Thesecond phase (‘‘build Terrace 1’’) followed the first. The



0

upper temporal limit of the second phase wasconstrained by materials on the surface of Terrace 1.There are no materials unambiguously associated withthe time of construction, so radiocarbon dates were notincluded within the phases. Rather, the phases were‘‘empty,’’ and their boundaries were constrained by theages and stratigraphic positions of materials that eitherpredate or postdate mound construction. This methodis the most conservative way of modeling the MonksMound sequence and has the potential to yieldprobability distribution functions that are longer thanactual past activity (for a similar use of this method, seeLu et al. 2001).

A maximum probable time needed to construct themound was calculated by subtracting the probable ageof submound materials from the probable age ofmaterials on the summit. A maximum probableduration of construction for Terrace 1 was found bysubtracting the probable age of submound materialsfrom the probable age of materials found on the surfaceof Terrace 1. This approach is the most straightforwardand parsimonious way to estimate the likely age andmaximum duration of construction. The chronometricdatabase for Monks Mound consists of 28 14C (Table 1)and five archaeomagnetic dates (Table 2). The databaseincludes several relatively new dates. Four dates wererun on samples collected and described by Hajic (Hajic2005; Schilling and Kelly 2009), and four samples werecollected in association with the recent slump excava-tions (Schilling 2010; Schilling and Kelly 2009).

Six 14C dates were excluded from analysis on a priorigrounds. Three were excluded because the standarderror was greater than 100 years. All of these wereproduced before 1970 and may represent aggregatesamples, thus casting doubt on their reliability.

Two samples were excluded because of the possibil-ity of modern contaminations. One (BETA241384),consisting of unidentified grass and rootlet fragmentsexcavated as part of the eastern slope repairs in 2007,was excluded because results of carbon isotopeanalysis indicated the possible inclusion of C4 pathwayplant fragments. The expectation for ancient plantsaround Cahokia is a C3 pathway. Contamination mayhave come from the inclusion of root fragments ofJohnson Grass (Sorgum halepense), a non-native tropicalgrass which has a deep root system and is found onthe mound’s slopes. The other sample (BETA207043)returned a date of 118 radiocarbon years beforepresent. The sample was recovered from a soil coretaken from the east slump at a depth of about 1.8 mbelow surface. These materials were probably intro-duced into the east slump during one of the recentrepair efforts.

Finally, sample WIS586, a date run by Williams(1975), was excluded from analysis because it may havecome from an intrusive pit at the base of the eastern

slope. This sample was excavated before the extent ofslumping on the mound was known. The contextsuggests that it is from a feature excavated into thesurface of the eastern mound slope and was subse-quently buried by slumping. In this instance, the age ofthe mound building would appear younger than itactually was because the slumping displaced oldermound fills on top of younger cultural features.

The computer model includes several assumptionsbased on archaeological observations. First, calcula-tions assume the ancient limits of the mound approx-imate the modern footprint. Typical platform moundsat Cahokia were constructed by adding blankets ofsediments that entombed earlier stages. In this methodof mound construction, the mound would grow bothupward and outward through time. Although blanketmantle construction appears to be the preferredmethod at Cahokia, especially later in the site’s history,other mounds across eastern North America were builtin a layer cake fashion where the footprint of themound was initially established and later constructionenlarged the mound upward without increasing thebasal area. However, neatly categorizing constructionmethods as blanket mantle or layer cake techniquesobscures much variation. For example, Holder (Pauke-tat 1993), Smith (1969), and Fowler (1999) excavatedmounds at Cahokia and revealed complex constructionsequences that may be a hybrid of the two methods.

At Monks Mound, two soil cores by Reed et al. (1968)encountered a nearly 6.5-m-thick organic clay stratumat the base of the mound. Later work led others (Dalanet al. 2003: 136) to propose that the initial clay depositsmay extend to the near modern edges of the mound.Subsequent soil coring by Hajic (2005) encounteredsimilar, dark-colored clay deposits beneath the easternand western slopes that may pinch out or thin towardsthe edges. These data show that the initial moundsediments probably came from the same source andwere deposited as a single construction episode. At thesame time, soil coring by Schilling (2012) revealed onlya single massive slope-wash episode around themound’s base. All told, the basal sediments of themound indicate that the mound did not grow outwardincrementally and the initial construction likely pro-ceeded in a layer cake fashion. For modeling purposes,contexts below this initial deposit are consideredtermini post quem for the beginning of moundconstruction.

Second, samples with uncertain associations serve astermini post quem for the next clearly identifiedcontext. In instances where the association or materialsare not well identified, sampling problems may arise.For wood or charcoal samples, the ‘‘old woodproblem’’ (Schiffer 1986) is especially troublesome ifthe species of tree and the sample’s location relative tothe outermost growth rings cannot be reasonably



0


Table 1. Radiocarbon dates from Monks Mound.

ID RCYBPStandard

Error Material Reference ContextEvent/Position

in Model

I2309 1110 70 Carbonized wood(species unidentified)

Reed et al. 1968;Fowler 1997

Submound, from premoundsediments

TPQ begin moundconstruction

ISGS1252 1190 90 Carbonized wood(species unidentified)

McGimsey andWiant 1984

Submound, Core 1, c.127.9–126.69 m amsl


WIS587 925 60 Carbonized grass/cane Williams 1975 Submound, Feature 284, eastlobe excavation, covered byslopewash deposits


BETA207042 1010 40 Uncarbonized deciduouswood and bark

Hajic 2005; Kelly andSchilling 2009

Submound, core MMD3,6.56 m below surface ofwest slope


BETA207039 980 40 Uncarbonizedherbaceous grass


Mound fill, core MMD1,8.06 meters below surfaceof west slope


BETA207040 960 60 Uncarbonized diffuseporous wood, Populusor Betula, single piece


Mound fill, core MMD1,16.74 m below surface ofwest slope


BETA207041 950 40 Charcoal: acorn shell,grass stems; maygrass &knotweed seeds; corn




BETA207044 900 40 Many tiny fragments ofuncarbonized deciduouswood and bark




A1160 1030 15 Uncarbonized wood(Taxodium sp.)

Schilling 2010 Mound fill, log associatedwith limestone and logfeature on east slope

TPQ end moundconstruction

BETA241385 960 40 Uncarbonized wood(Taxodium sp.)

Schilling 2010 Mound fill, log associatedwith limestone and logfeature on east slope


A1159 955 15 Grass fragments/speciesunidentified

Schilling 2010 Mound fill, east slopeexcavation, sod blockfeature c. 144.3 m amsl


W528 970 60 Carbonized wood(Cary sp.)

Fowler 1997;Reed 2009

Summit main mound,Feature 1-C, post insouthern wall of structure

TAQ end moundconstruction



Summit main mound,Feature 1-B, post insouthern wall of structure




Summit main mound,Feature 1-H, post insouthern wall of structure


WIS365 840 55 Carbonized wood(unknown species)

Benchley 1975 Terrace 1, Structure B TPQ platform moundcompletion on Terrace 1


Benchley 1975 Terrace 1, Structure B,Log 1

TPQ platform moundcompletion on Terrace 1


Benchley 1975 Structure A, log lyingon floor


I2947 760 95 Carbonized wood(unknown species)

Benchley 1975 Mound fill aboveTerrace 1 structures


WIS545 740 55 Carbonized wood(possibly Quercus sp.)

Benchley 1975 Terrace 1, charcoal frompost associated withstructure on top of platformmound (Feature 139)



Benchley 1975 Terrace 1 surface,charcoal from Feature 149



Benchley 1975 Terrace 1 surface,Structure B, burned floor



Benchley 1975 Terrace 1 surface,Structure A, Post 1


M982 850 100 Carbonized wood(unknown species)

Benchley 1975 Mound fill abovestructure on Terrace 1

Excessive standard error

I2308 1020 100 Wood (species notidentified)

Reed et al. 1968 Mound fill, c. 21.5 mbelow surface of Terrace 4


M1636 840 150 Wood Reed et al. 1968;Reed 2009

Mound fill, Level L c. 2 mbelow surface of Terrace 4


BETA241384 770 40 Grass fragments/species unidentified

Schilling 2010 Mound fill, east dark,loose feature associatedwith sod block featurein east slope

Possible moderncontamination

c. 144.3 m amslWIS586 640 55 Charcoal Williams 1975 East Lobes Possible recent sample, not

in stratigraphic orderBETA207043 118 6 .3 pMC Uncarbonized

monocot stemsHajic 2005 East slump, Core MMD-4,

1.84 m below surfaceModern


0

determined. Dating heartwood from a very long-livedtree species, like cypress or oak, may make a sampleappear hundreds of years older than the true age of thetree cutting. This problem is exacerbated when theassociation of the sample is poor. In dating earthworks,it is necessary to guard against the possibility forincluding relic wood samples that may have beenbrought in as part of construction process. It is possible,especially in swampy, flooded, or other low-oxygenenvironments, for woody materials to become buriedand not decompose for hundreds of years after thedeath of the tree (Taylor 1997). Dating such materialswould make an archaeological context appear centuriesolder than the activities that formed it.

In modeling, materials with uncertain associations orpotentially old wood dates should be used carefullybecause they can either invalidate the model, makingcorrect models appear incorrect, or skew the age ofpreceding events. Even though wood or charcoal dateswith uncertain associations can create misleadingresults if not used carefully, they still provide impor-tant information as maximum ages for the overlyingcontexts (Bayliss et al. 2011). Archaeological logicdictates that, assuming no intrusive disturbance, oldermaterials must lie below younger materials. If thematerial dated is either old wood or unidentifiedheartwood, then using these dates as maximal agesfor subsequent events is of little consequence, but ifrelic wood dates were used in a sequence, then oldwood has the potential to adversely affect the outcomeof calculations. Using the dates from samples withuncertain contexts, like mound fills, as termini postquem is the best way to use these data.

Third, materials from the summit postdate theconstruction of the earthen platform mound. Three14C ages were derived from carbonized wood posts(Carya sp.) associated with a building on the mound’ssummit (Reed 2009:35). At least two posts wereassociated with extraction ramps, which indicates thatthese were replacement posts. The remaining samplewas associated with the same wall trench as the otherposts (Reed 2009:37), and it is also assumed to be areplacement post. The charcoal was part of the post andprobably represents the outer, but not the outermost,growth rings since charring the exposed wood on thebottom portion of posts buried in the ground was atypical practice Native Americans used when placing

posts in the ground (e.g., Alt and Pauketat 2011). Thepost molds associated with the wood charcoal samplesmeasured about 30 cm in diameter. Trees of thisdiameter should be less than 60–90 years old (Boisenand Newlin 1910:30). Although there is no definite wayto gauge the association of the charcoal to the age ofcutting, charring likely did not penetrate very deep.Based on the growth rate of Carya (ca. 2.5 cm/8–9 years)(Boisen and Newlin 1910:29), dating charcoal fromthese posts may induce an age offset of about a decade.Although the date from the charcoal may be a decadeolder than when the tree was actually cut, the age offsetis not particularly troubling since the posts are associ-ated with a rebuilding episode. Conservative estimatesof the span of the useful life of a Mississippian buildingare about 10 years, with larger buildings like theselasting longer (Milner 1998; Pauketat and Alt 2005).Consequently, the age of posts probably postdate theinitial use of the summit, and these dates are useful asconservative termini ante quem for the completion of themain mound. In the event that the posts are old wood,then the age of the completion of mound constructionmay appear to be earlier. The potential for this effect issomewhat ameliorated because other elements in thesequence (i.e., the age of the submound materials andthe age of the Terrace 1 materials) constrain the potentialrange of ages for the use of the mound’s summit.

Fourth, archaeomagnetic dates associated with theuse of Terrace 1 represent termini ante quem ages forthe main platform. Excavation on the southwest cornerof Terrace 1 by Benchley (1975) provided a series ofarchaeomagnetic dates related either to the use ofbuildings on its surface or their subsequent destruction.When the firing, and subsequent setting of themagnetic declination, may have taken place is unclear.Consequently, the most certain way to treat these datais as an age limit for the construction of the surfacewhere they were found. Although this strategy likelyintroduces an unknown time lag, using the dates astermini ante quem is the most conservative strategysince, assuming the clay was fired in place, the heatingmust have occurred on the surface which could notexist until the underlying construction was completed.These dates provide a minimum age for Terrace 1.

Finally, multiple iterations of the model were runusing various end dates from A.D. 1300 to radiocarbonpresent. An upper limit of A.D. 1400 was found to


Table 2. Archaeomagnetic dates from Monks Mound.

ID Age Material Context Event

O273 1230 6 17 Fired earth Surface of platform mound on Terrace 1 TAQ build First TerraceO623 1120 6 25 Fired earth Surface of Terrace 1, outside of buildings TAQ build First TerraceO272 1135 6 25 Fired earth Surface of Terrace 1, inside Structure A TAQ build First TerraceO396 1160 6 25 Fired earth Surface of Terrace 1, inside Structure A TAQ build First TerraceO395 1180 6 25 Fired earth Surface of Terrace 1, inside Structure A TAQ build First Terrace

Note: All dates represents termini ante quem for the construction of the first terrace. All dates are after Benchley (1975).


0

reduce statistical noise and long tails skewed toward thepresent caused by a lack of constraints. Earlier datestended to yield poor agreements because they placedunwarranted constraints on the data. The final terminusante quem of A.D. 1400 agrees with the observation thatthe Mississippian occupation of Cahokia terminated bythe end of the fourteenth century (Kelly 2009:156).

Results

Running the computer model shows the parametersand the data are consistent. Agreement indices are allwell above 60 percent (Amodel 5 100.8 and Aoverall 5

99.4). All of the individual dates also agree with themodel. Multiple runs produced similar results indicat-ing the overall model is stable and robust. In thisinstance, the high agreement values may be a result ofusing a conservative terminus post quem/terminusante quem approach. Tables 3 and 4 present themodeled age ranges and duration of important eventsas calculated by OxCal, respectively. These results castdoubt on an early construction date for the mound.Construction could not have occurred before A.D. 1050at the earliest (Figure 4). There is a high probability thatmound construction began near the end of the eleventhcentury A.D. The main mound was probably finishedsome years later, perhaps in the first decades of the1100s, and Terrace 1 may have been finished by A.D.1130 at the latest. Together, the total time forconstruction of the main body of the mound andTerrace 1 likely did not exceed a single generation(Figures 5 and 6). The central tendencies of construc-tion duration for each phase are between five and15 years (see Tables 3 and 4). The most probableestimates of construction duration are less than fiveyears. These estimates suggest the construction effortsoccurred at a subdecadal scale. Overall, modelingshows a high likelihood that mound construction wasquicker and later than previously supposed.

Discussion

Building on the large-scale has a long history ineastern North America, and these projects were often

accomplished on restricted time schedules (Blitz andLivingood 2004; Galaty 1996; Kidder 2011; Lepper 2004;Milner 1998; Muller 1997). For example, the construc-tion of the Grand Plaza at Cahokia was likely built as asingle project in a relatively short period and may haverequired moving a volume of earth equivalent to abouthalf that of Monks Mound (Dalan et al. 2003: 110).Many of the mounds built at Cahokia after about A.D.1100 were built through the addition of massiveblankets of earth (Pauketat 1993; Pauketat and Alt2003). Often times, blanket mantles for a final stagecompletely entombed a mound and enlarged its finalsize vastly, like the Powell Mound on the eastern edgeof the Cahokia site (Bareis 1971; Moorehead 1929).Nearly 3,000 years earlier, Mound A at Poverty Point,the second largest prehistoric earthen mound in NorthAmerica (238,500 m3), may have been constructed inless than three months (Sherwood and Kidder 2011:15).Other examples of large, rapid construction may befound in the Hopewell region, where the Newarkearthworks (200,000 m3 of earth laid out over almost10 km2) may have been built in a few years (Lepper2004).

Understanding the rates and ages of mound con-struction has importance to our understanding of theexpectations, organization, and capabilities of Missis-sippian society at Cahokia. Specifically, the previous,erroneous conclusions as to when and how quicklyMonks Mound was built have been used to supportconclusions about the political hierarchy and socialstratification inherent in or arising through the con-struction process (Dalan et al. 2003; Pauketat 2000).These implications appear sensible because of the sheerscale of the mound. Construction would seem like aburdensome task, but it was not (Muller 1997:271–279).For example, a work force of 5,000 people who eachmoved about three baskets of sediment a day (ca.0.75 m3) for 40 days each year could build the entiremound in fewer than five years. Assuming that threepeople are required to support one worker, the effortwould need a minimum regional population of about20,000. This estimate is at the lower end of regionalpopulation estimates, which range from about 15,000 to50,000 people (Milner 1998:124). Such approximationsindicate that Monks Mound could have been built in a


Table 3. Modeled ages of construction events.

Event

95.4% Range(Calendar

Years A.D.) Mean s Median Mode

Begin constructionmain mound 1052–1136 1095 21 1096 1100

End constructionmain mound 1069–1147 1110 19 1111 1115

End constructionFirst terrace 1101–1167 1134 16 1135 1135

Table 4. Maximum time required to build main mound andfirst terrace.

Event95.4% Range

(Calendar Years) Mean s Median Mode

Main moundconstruction 0–47 16 14 12 2.5

First terraceconstruction 0–35 11 10 8 2.5


0

very short time with the available labor force and notbe particularly taxing if the entire regional populationparticipated. Moreover, large aggregations did happenat Cahokia. For example, excavation into a borrow pitbeneath Mound 51 documented a large, rapidly buriedtrash deposit that contained remains from an excep-tional feast. (Pauketat et al. 2002). Archaeologicalmaterials included remains from perhaps as many as9,000 partially articulated deer that were buried soquickly that blow fly larvae were preserved (Kelly2001). The rapid accumulation and expenditure of suchgreat quantities of food and other materials clearlydemonstrate that, at times, very large gatheringshappened at Cahokia.

Monumental construction in ancient North Americaappears to be, at a practical level, an exercise in logisticsand organization. No new knowledge or techniqueswere needed for the construction of Monks Mound, butonly the application of existing practices at a larger

scale (Schilling 2012:309–311, cf. Dalan et al. 2003:134–139). The logistical commitment to manage, feed, outfit,and house such a large, concentrated workforce wouldhave compelled the entire community to expendtremendous human and societal capital, at least forthe short term. Such a commitment would appear torequire an efficient system of redistribution, but asOrtmann and Kidder (2013:78; see also Evans-Pritchard1950) point out, monumental construction could beundertaken in a largely decentralized manner withindividual work groups responsible for their ownwelfare. Still, planning, coordinating, and mobilizingthe numbers needed for a rapid construction likelyrequired new leadership positions. Throughout time,Native American people were able to address the needfor larger social groups without resorting to permanentsocial stratification or political hierarchy by temporar-ily fusing equivalent social segments along established,traditional relationships (such as clan organizations)


Figure 4. Modeling results. Top distribution is the maximum age for the construction for the construction of Terrace 1. Middledistribution shows the maximum age for the end of the main mound. Lower distribution shows the minimum age for thebeginning of mound building.

Figure 5. Estimate of maximum time required for construc-tion of the main mound, north of Terrace 1.

Figure 6. Estimate of the maximum time required to buildTerrace 1.


0

into a single entity (Anderson 2002:246–247; Ortmannand Kidder 2013:80; Smith 1986). Such organizations donot arise spontaneously but require some kind ofleadership, perhaps a single charismatic individual or asmall group of dedicated individuals (Pauketat 2008).

While Monks Mound was built using traditionaltechniques and, perhaps, longstanding, communalpractices, its realization was probably the result ofunique historical agents who were able to successfullyjoin preexisting social units for a common purpose.Because of the symbolic and social importance of beinginvolved in such a great project, as well as theincreased chance to secure social ties to a wider rangeof people, those who labored and produced the moundwanted to build it (Dalan et al. 2003:174–175; Knight2006:430). Charismatic leaders may only have beennecessary to inspire a large enough group andintercede at important moments in the constructionprocess, such as enacting the consensus to begin orhelping bring about the determination that the monu-ment was complete. Vying for and achieving thesetemporary positions would have offered plenty ofopportunity for elevated status. Nonetheless, theorganizational hierarchy needed during mound build-ing may not have translated into permanent socialstratification, especially if one considers why Missis-sippian societies built monuments.

At least one motivation for mound building canreadily be inferred (Lindauer and Blitz 1997). Themound elevates and prioritizes a building on itssummit. This objective has often been cited as evidencefor chiefdom-like political systems, hierarchical socialorganization, and the establishment of political elites atMississippian sites (e.g., Anderson 1990; Hally 1996).Through mound building, elites produced and thendemonstrated their elevated social statuses by livingatop the mounds (Steponaitis 1986).

The structure on the summit of Monks Mound wasthe largest Mississippian building ever built, and therecan be no denying it was an important building, but thelack of domestic debris encountered during excava-tions of the summit building suggests that it was nota residence, elite or otherwise (Reed 2009:65). The lackof human remains also indicates the building wasprobably not a mortuary structure or charnel house.Presumably then, it would have been a locus ofcommunal decision making, like a council house ormeetinghouse. The size of the building suggests manypeople were involved in these mound-top decisions.That the building may have been surrounded by wallsor other forms of screens may indicate some privacywas desired to the decision-making process. Access tothe building may have been restricted, but restrictionmay have been situationally—rather than institution-ally—determined, at least initially.

Regardless, this objective may have been secondaryto another, less obvious reason for mound construction(Blitz 2010). In the early Southeast, platform moundswere seen as powerful world icons and communalsymbols (Knight 2006). The social ties brought aboutthrough the ritual undertaking of building suchimportant icons may have been a primary reason forbuilding mounds (Lindauer and Blitz 1997:187). MonksMound was the largest of these, and in spite ofincreasing the chance of social stratification, theconstruction process would have brought together anunprecedented number separate social groups into asingle integrated community. After construction ended,the immediate organizational needs and structurewould have faded. In this way, building Monks Moundor any other large-scale communal project on planned,restricted schedules may have been a way to counterthe power differentials that arise in large social groupsover the long run. By restricting these activities in timeand working according to a preconceived plan, anyextraordinary status arising out of the constructionprocess would have been minimized since any unusualorganizational relationships would have been limitedby the duration of the project. Likewise, aggregationson the scale needed to build the mound may have beenparticularly unstable and difficult to maintain becausethe individual segments would largely be self-suffi-cient. The lack of large-scale, systemic food redistribu-tion may have hastened the need to work quickly, sincewhen local resources were depleted and communalsurpluses expended or spent down to dangerous levels,some would simply vote with their feet and leave. Asthe nonresident work force left Cahokia, any unusualorganizational hierarchy and the influence of aspiringleaders would quickly diminish, but the social tiesbetween segments would remain. While the rapidconstruction of earthen monuments certainly indicatessome type of leadership and organization, afterconstruction was completed, individuals may havesubsequently been able to leverage status gainedduring construction into more permanent politicalpower within the enlarged social networks. Neverthe-less, permanent and hereditary social hierarchy maynot have been either a sufficient precondition or anecessary outcome for building Monks Mound.

Summary

Many Mississippian platform mounds were builtincrementally over considerable periods, yet some donot appear to follow the same mode of construction.Often, these outliers arose in fewer, larger constructionefforts (Blitz and Livingood 2004). The Bayesian modelpresented here demonstrates a high probability that thelargest platform mound in North America was erected



0

very quickly, perhaps in less than a few years but morelikely in fewer than twenty. Although Monks Mound isa platform mound, it is not a typical platform moundthat grew slowly over centuries. Rather, it was acommunal monument, planned and built to outsizeproportions from the beginning. As our researchquestions become more and more refined, we need tobegin understanding past phenomenon at a humanscale. The Bayesian analysis presented here demon-strates that by building on previous work andincorporating multiple kinds of archaeological data ina model-based approach, transparent chronologieshave the potential to reshape archaeological historiesof the lived past.

Notes

Acknowledgments. This work would not have been possiblewithout the support and encouragement of T. R. Kidder andJohn Kelly of Washington University in St. Louis. Others whoprovided valuable insight and criticism, listed in no particularorder, include Gayle Fritz from Washington University in St.Louis; Christopher Peebles, G. William Monaghan, andAnthony Krus of the Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archae-ology; Mark Esarey and Bill Iseminger from Cahokia MoundsState Historic Site; Charles McNutt; the Central MississippiValley Archaeological Research Institute; and Mark Lynottand the staff at the Midwest Archeological Center. Commentsby Thomas Pluckhahn, John Blitz, and two anonymousreviewers provided comments and feedback that greatlyimproved this paper.

References Cited

Alt, Susan M.2011 Histories of Mound Building and Scales of Explanation

in Archaeology. In Ideologies of Archaeology, edited byReinhard Bernbeck and Randall McGuire, pp. 194–211.University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Alt, Susan, and Timothy Pauketat2011 Why Wall Trenches? Southeastern Archaeology 30:

108–133.

Anderson, David G.1990 Stability and Change in Chiefdom-Level Societies. In

Lamar Archaeology: Mississippian Chiefdoms in the DeepSouth, edited by M. Williams and G. Shapiro, pp. 187–213.University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

2002 The Evolution of Tribal Social Organization in theSoutheast. In The Archaeology of Tribal Societies, edited byW. A. Parkinson, pp. 246–277. Archaeological Series 15,International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor, MI.

Bayliss, Alex, Hans Van der Plicht, Christopher Bronk Ramsey,F. G. McCormac, Frances Healy, and Alasdair Whittle

2011 Towards Generational Time-scales: The QuantitativeInterpretation of Archaeological Chronologies. In Gather-ing Time: Dating the Early Neolithic Enclosures of SouthernBritain and Ireland, edited by Alex Whittle, Frances Healy,and Alistair Bayliss, pp. 17–59. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Benchley, Elizabeth1975 Summary Field Report of Excavations on the South-

west Corner of the First Terrace of Monks Mound. InCahokia Archaeology: Field Reports, edited by Melvin L.Fowler, pp. 16–20. Research Series. Illinois State Museum,Springfield.

Blitz, John H.2010 New Perspectives in Mississippian Archaeology. Jour-

nal of Archaeological Research 18:1–39.Blitz, John H., and Patrick Livingood2004 Sociopolitical Implications of Mississippian Mound

Volume. American Antiquity 69:291–301.Boisen, Anton T., and J. A. Newlin1910 The Commercial Hickories. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Washington, DC.Box, George E. P., and Norman R. Draper1987 Empirical Model-building and Response Surfaces. Wiley,

New York.Bronk Ramsey, Christopher1995 Radiocarbon Calibration and Analysis of Stratigraphy:

The OxCal Program. Radiocarbon 37(2):425–430.2009 Bayesian Analysis of Radiocarbon Dates. Radiocarbon

51(1):337–360.Buck, Caitlin E., William G. Cavanagh, and Clifford D. Litton1996 Bayesian Approach to Interpreting Archaeological Data:

Statistics in Practice. Wiley, Chichester, UK.Carr, Christopher, and D. Troy Case2005 The Gathering of Hopewell. In Gathering Hopewell: Society,

Ritual, and Ritual Interaction, edited by C. Carr and D. T. Case,pp. 19–50. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York.

Collins, James M., and Michael L. Chalfant1993 A Second-Terrace Perspective on Monks Mound.

American Antiquity 58:319–332.Crook, Alaga R.1914 Cahokia or Monks Mound not of Artificial Origin.

Science 40(1026):312.Dalan, Rinita A.1997 The Construction of Mississippian Cahokia. In Cahokia:

Domination and Ideology in the Mississippian World, editedby T. R. Pauketat and T. E. Emerson, pp. 89–102.University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

Dalan, Rinita A., George R. Holley, William I. Woods, HaroldW. Watters, Jr., and John A. Koepke

2003 Envisioning Cahokia: A Landscape Perspective. NorthernIllinois University Press, DeKalb.

Emerson, Thomas E.1997 Cahokia and the Archaeology of Power. University of

Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.Evans-Pritchard, Edward E.1950 The Nuer: A Description of the Modes of Livelihood and

Political Institutions of a Nilotic People. Clarendon Press,Oxford.

Fowler, Melvin L.1997 The Cahokia Atlas: A Historical Atlas of Cahokia Archae-

ology. Revised ed. Studies in Archaeology 2. University ofIllinois, Urbana.

1999 The Mound 72 Area: Dedicated and Sacred Space in EarlyCahokia. Illinois State Museum Society, Springfield.

Galaty, Michael L.1996 Labor, Population, and Social Complexity. Chicago

Anthropology Exchange 22:33–49.



0

Gibson, Jon L.2006 Navel of the Earth: Sedentism at Poverty Point. World

Archaeology 38(2):311–329.

Goodwin, Mary C.1999 Monks Mound: A 3D Perspective. Unpublished mas-

ter’s thesis, Department of Geography, Southern IllinoisUniversity, Edwardsville.

Hajic, Edwin R.2005 Preliminary Stratigraphic Evaluation of the 2005 Slumps

on Monks Mound. Pathfinder. CRM LLC, Spring Grove,MN, Submitted to Illinois Historic Preservation Agency,Springfield.

Hally, David J.1996 Platform-Mound Construction and the Instability of

Mississippian Chiefdoms. In Political Structure and Changein the Prehistoric Southeastern United States, edited by John F.Scarry, pp. 92–127. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Harris, Edward C.1989 Principles of Archaeological Stratigraphy. 2nd ed. Aca-

demic Press, San Diego.

Kelly, John2009 Contemplating Cahokia’s Collapse. In Global Perspec-

tives on the Collapse of Complex Systems, edited by JimRailey and Richard Martin Reycraft, pp. 147–168. An-thropological Papers No 8. Maxwell Museum of Anthro-pology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

1996 Redefining Cahokia: Principals and Elements ofCommunity Organization. Wisconsin Archaeologist 77(3–4):97–119.

Kelly, John, Tristram R. Kidder, and Timothy Schilling2007 Preliminary Results of the 2007 Investigations at Monks

Mound, Cahokia. Paper presented at the Illinois Archaeo-logical Survey annual meeting, Carbondale, IL.

Kelly, Lucretia2001 A Case of Ritual Feasting at the Cahokia Site. In Feasts:

Archaeological and Ethnological Perspectives on Food, Politics,and Power, edited by Michael Dietler and Brian Hayden,pp. 334–367. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington,DC.

Kidder, Tristram R.2011 Transforming Hunter-Gatherer History at Poverty

Point. In Hunter-Gatherer Archaeology as Historical Process,edited by Kenneth E. Sassaman and Donald H. Holly, Jr.,pp. 95–119. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Kidder, Tristram R., Timothy M. Schilling, and John Kelly2007 Preliminary Results of the 2007 Excavations at Monks

Mound, Cahokia. Paper presented at the MidwestArchaeological Conference, South Bend, IN.

Knight, Vernon J.2006 Symbolism of Mississippian Mounds. In Powhatan’s

Mantle: Indians in the Colonial Southeast, edited by GregoryA. Waselkov, Peter H. Wood, and M. Thomas Hatley,pp. 421–435. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

Lepper, Bradley T.2004 The Newark Earthworks: Monumental Geometry and

Astronomy at a Hopewellian Pilgrimage Center. In Hero,Hawk, and Open Hand: American Indian Art of the AncientMidwest and South, edited by Richard F. Townsend,pp. 72–81. Art Institute of Chicago and Yale UniversityPress, New Haven.

Lindauer, Owen, and John H. Blitz1997 Higher Ground: The Archaeology of North American

Platform Mounds. Journal of Archaeological Research 5:169–207.

Lu, Xiangyang, Zhiyu Guo, Hongji Ma, Sixun Yuan, andXiaohong Wu

2001 Data Analysis and Calibration of Radiocarbon DatingResults from the Cemetery of the Marquises of Jin.Radiocarbon 43(1):55.

Mainfort, Robert C., Jr., and Richard Walling1992 1989 Excavations at Pinson Mounds: Ozier Mound.

Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 17:112–136.Martignoni, Andrew J.2003 Monks Mound: Retrospective and Prospective. Un-

published master’s thesis, Department of Geography,Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville.

McGimsey, Charles R., and Michael D. Wiant1984 Limited Archaeological Investigations at Monks Mound

(11-MS-38): Some Perspectives on Its Stability, Structure, andAge. Studies in Illinois Archaeology No. 1. Illinois HistoricPreservation Agency, Springfield.

Milanich, Jerald T.2002 Weeden Island Cultures. In The Woodland Southeast,

edited by David G. Anderson and Robert C. Mainfort, Jr.,pp. 352–372. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Milner, George R.1998 The Cahokia Chiefdom: The Archaeology of a Mississippian

Society. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.Moorehead, Warren K.1929 The Cahokia Mounds. University of Illinois Bulletin,

Volume 26, No. 4, Urbana.Muller, Jon1997 Mississippian Political Economy. Plenum, New York.Ortmann, Anthony L., and Tristram R. Kidder2013 Building Mound A at Poverty Point, Louisiana:

Monumental Public Architecture, Ritual Practice, andImplications for Hunter-gatherer Complexity. Geoarch-aeology 28:66–86.

Pauketat, Timothy R.1993 Temples for Cahokia Lords: Preston Holder’s 1955–1956

Excavations of Kunnemann Mound. Volume 26, Memoirs ofthe University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology.University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

2000 The Tragedy of the Commoners. In Agency in Archae-ology, edited by Marcia A. Dobres and John E. Robb,pp. 113–129. Routledge, New York.

2008 Founders’ Cults and the Archaeologies of Wa-Kan-da.In Memory Work: The Archaeologies of Material Practice,edited by Barbara Mills and William H. Walker, pp. 61–80.School for Advanced Research Press, Santa Fe, NM.

Pauketat, Timothy R., and Susan M. Alt2003 Mounds, Memory, and Contested Mississippian His-

tory. In Archaeologies of Memory, edited by R. M. Van Dykeand S. E. Alcock, pp. 151–179. Blackwell, Oxford.

2005 Agency in a Postmold? Physicality and the Archaeol-ogy of Culture-Making. Journal of Archaeological Methodand Theory 12(3):213–236.

Pauketat, Timothy R., Lucretia Kelly, Gayle J. Fritz, Neal H.Lopinoit, Scott Elias, and Eve Hargrave

2002 The Residues of Feasting and Public Ritual at EarlyCahokia. American Antiquity 67:257–280.



0

Reed, Nelson A.2009 Excavations on the Third Terrace and Front Ramp of

Monks Mound, Cahokia: A Personal Narrative. IllinoisArchaeology 21:1–89.

Reed, Nelson A., John W. Bennett, and James W. Porter1968 Solid Core Drilling of Monks Mound: Technique and

Findings. American Antiquity 33:136–148.Saunders, Joe W., Rolfe D. Mandel, Roger T. Saucier, E.

Thurman Allen, C. T. Hallmark, Jay K. Johnson, Edwin H.Jackson, Charles M. Allen, Gary L. Stringer, Douglas S.Frink, James K. Feathers, Stephen Williams, Kristen J.Gremillion, Malcolm F. Vidrine, and Reca B. Jones

1997 A Mound Complex in Louisiana at 5400–5000 YearsBefore the Present. Science 277:1796–1799.

Schiffer, Michael B.1986 Radiocarbon Dating and the ‘‘Old Wood’’ Problem:

The Case of the Hohokam Chronology. Journal ofArchaeological Science 13:13–30.

Schilling, Timothy2010 An Archaeological Model of the Construction of

Monks Mound and Implications for the Development ofCahokian Society (800–1400 A.D.). Unpublished Ph.D.dissertation, Department of Anthropology, WashingtonUniversity in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO.

2012 Building Monks Mound, Cahokia, Illinois, A.D. 800–1400. Journal of Field Archaeology 37:302–313.

Schilling, Timothy, and John Kelly2009 Report on the 2007 Monks Mound Stabilization Project.

Central Mississippi Valley Archaeological Institute, Co-lumbia, IL. Submitted to Illinois Historic PreservationAgency, Springfield.

Sherwood, Sarah C., and Tristram R. Kidder2011 The DaVincis of Dirt: Geoarchaeological Perspectives

on Native American Mound Building in the MississippiRiver Basin. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 30:69–87.

Smith, Bruce D.1986 The Archaeology of the Southeastern United States:

From Dalton to De Soto, 10,500 B.P.–500 B.P. In Advancesin World Archaeology. Vol. 5, edited by F. Wendorf and A.Close, pp. 1–92. Academic Press, Orlando.

Smith, Harriet M.1969 The Murdock Mound: Cahokia Site. In Explorations

into Cahokia Archaeology, edited by Melvin L. Fowler,pp. 49–88. Vol. 7. University of Illinois, Urbana.

Steponaitis, Vincas P.1986 Prehistoric Archaeology in the Southeastern United

States, 1970–1985. Annual Review of Anthropology 15:363–404.Taylor, R. E.1997 Radiocarbon Dating. In Chronometric Dating in Archae-

ology, edited by R. E. Taylor and Martin J. Aitken,pp. 65–96. Plenum Press, New York.

Williams, Kenneth1975 Preliminary Summation of Excavations at the East

Lobes of Monks Mound. In Cahokia Archaeology: FieldReports, edited by Melvin L. Fowler, pp. 21–24. ResearchSeries No. 3. Illinois State Museum, Springfield.



0

The Chronology of Monks Mound

Documents

Transcript of The Chronology of Monks Mound