Talk:Cahokia

Untitled

(Dates)

here I can read that Mound-Building didn't start before 1050. But in the own Article about the Monk Mound I read, that it was constructed between 900 and 950. So one of these two facts must be wrong and should be corrected. Please forgive me my bad english. -- Hartmann Schedel ^Prost 10:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC). Article is also inconsistent. It claims population peeked at 40,000 in 13th century, but later states that population began to fall in 12th century and was abandoned in 13th century.

Thanks for providing a fresh pair of eyes! It looks as if somebody confused the Mississippian culture with its forerunner, the Emergent Mississippian culture. David Trochos (talk) 19:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

you're welcome :-) -- Hartmann Schedel ^cheers 22:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this a joke? These people were wiped out by other Indians. Why is the article referencing climate data? Climate in the past 2k years had nothing to do with migration patterns of Indians. These were warring tribes. No mention that this may have been the northern extent of the southern press? Ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.67.134 (talk) 04:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

(Lat & longe)

The coordinates on the Cahokia Wikipedia page are incorrect. The correct coordinates are: 38°39'14.18"N 90° 3'52.38"W. I'd edit the page my self but I'm not sure where these values go. Best, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.31.165 (talk) 20:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why you want to change, as your coordinates are almost identical to the ones already listed on the page, which when you click "go to coords" it takes you to the site, near the conical mound of the two twin mounds. Coords should stay as they are. Heiro 21:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

In fact, I just checked again to be sure, and they are NEAR IDENTICAL, differing only by a few feet if that. Go play somewhere else please. Heiro 21:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Clarify units

In section Monks Mound, the text " It also contains about 814,000 yd of earth"; is that assumed cubic yards? In section Urban landscape the area of the Grand Plaza is listed as either 19 ha or 40 acres (16 ha). Any clarity? Bleakcomb (talk) 01:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

This unlikely source from 2001 states "over 814,000 cubic yards", which is probably more legitimate, given the uncertainty about the boundaries of the Mound. Similarly this source from 2010 gives the Grand Plaza area as "sixteen to twenty hectares". David Trochos (talk) 06:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

From Timothy Pauketats (one of the experts, lol) 2009 book : "Even Cahokias great central pyramid, Monks Mound-the largest such monument in North America, with a total volume in excess of 25 million cubic feet and covering approximately fifteen acres....Depending on how one defines the limits of the site, Cahokia covers somewhere between three and five square miles; this does not include the adjacent complexes of East St. Louis and St. Louis, each of which covers perhaps half a square mile or more (the St. Louis site being the lesser of the two). Subtracting plaza space and sparsely occupied areas leaves almost one square mile of high-density residential area."<ref name=PAUKETATCAHOKIA>{{cite book|authorlink=Timothy Pauketat|last=Timothy R.|first=Pauketat|title=Cahokia : Ancient Americas Great City on the Mississippi|publisher=[[Viking Press]]|year=2009|isbn=978-0-670-02090-4|page=26}}</ref> Heiro 07:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Same book, page 23, "...Cahokia was so large-covering three to five square miles-that archaeologists have yet to probe many portions of it. Its centerpiece was an open fifty-acre Grand Plaza, surrounded by packed-clay pyramids. The size of thirty-five football fields, the Grand Plaza was at the time the biggest public space ever conceived and executed north of Mexico."

And on page 34, "...a flat public square 1,600-plus feet in length and 900-plus feet in width." Heiro 08:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks both for your responses and the article text edits, Heiro. Much clearer. Pauketat's maths maybe a bit off, though. 1600 ft by 900 ft is 1440000 sq ft or approx 33 acres (13.4 ha), short of 50 acres. I am nitpicking, I know, but just trying to get text clear and non-contradictory. Pauketat's 25 million cu ft figure for the volume of Monks Mound converts to 925925 cu yds, which is close to the 814,000 cu yd figure already in text and the source from David Trochos. I'll take the liberty of adding cubic to the yards value and providing a conversion. Thanks again. Bleakcomb (talk) 00:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

If you notice, he adds ?plus feet to qualify his numbers, as the archaeologists don't know the exact limits of the plaza, as the whole area has not been completely excavated. I think we should stick as close as possible to his figures and not try to WP:SYNTH anything together. He is considered one of the experts on the site, lets stick to what he does say. Heiro 01:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Date Style

The original date style for this article is BC/AD establish on user: Parkwells at 14:53, June 24, 2008. The arbitrary edit in violation of WP:ERA was made by David Trochos at 12:48, August 6, 2008‎. Therefore, proper date style for this article is BC/AD, unless someone can provide a reason that is not based on preference, and a consensus can be reached on this talk page. Similar issues have already been discussed and resolved through the dispute resolution process [[1]]Primus128 (talk) 04:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The date style has been stable here for quite some time, it should be left as is. Do you plan to do this on every Native American article? Heiro 04:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Insert- Since Primus referred to an early edit I made in 2008, it would have been courteous to contact me about my preference; clearly I've made edits since then and have accepted the BCE-CE, as it is my preference for its neutrality. In 2008 I was less experienced with editing such articles in ancient timeframes and was probably finding the easiest way to keep track of the dates in my mind. I support continued use of BCE-CE and think it appropriate to this article, and have used it in many similar ones.Parkwells (talk) 12:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

"stable" is not mentioned at WP:ERA. Other articles are not relevant to this article. As the rule currently stands, if an article is originally BCE it should remain BCE. If it is BC, it should remain BC. Only when the procedures are followed and requirements are fulfilled may an article be change from the original. The burden falls to those changing from the original. This is the only fair way, and it is the only legitimate way provided at WP:ERA. If you disagree with my edits, seek a resolution through the dispute resolution process. Primus128 (talk) 04:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The fact it has been stable for 4 years with the BCE usage show the editors here obviously have reached a consensus to use this style. But we should wait a few days and let them actually vocalize it here. Heiro 04:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Four year is a long time, thus showing date stability I guess. Now for my personal opinion--> Why would we use old world christian calendars dates on an article that is about a culture that was not even aware of Christianity. BCE/CE is the most neutral and most scholarly abbreviations we have and should be used much more widely on articles of an indigenous origin who have had no and/or limited contact with the Christian world. "Cahokia was abandoned more than a century before Europeans arrived in North America". I would argue the opposite for an article like Carolingian Empire were BC/AD are much more appropriate even-though its less scholarly. Moxy (talk) 05:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The other user has started a related discussion Talk:Native Americans in the United States#Date Style if you care to leave your opinion th4ere as well. Heiro 05:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

where at wp:era does it state you can make an invalid edit, and if no one catches you, you get away with that edit? Once a date style is established, you MUST follow the rules to change it. There has been no valid argument given yet as to why the original style should be changed. The fact that the article is about a culture before Christianity arrived is irrelevant. They did not speak English then, yet the article is written in English, and they certainly had no knowledge of the BCE/CE style either. ONLY VALID reasons can justify the date style change from its original. I would argue the same point if the original style was BCE/CE and was changed invalidly to BC/AD. This is NOT about preference. Preference is specifically disallowed at wp:era. This is about whether wikipedia follows its rules or if we declare them meaningless. I do not have a Christian based agenda. My only agenda is to clean up articles, which includes taking the side of reason in debates like this Primus128 (talk) 05:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

See WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, before you started this there was no problem with this article, it had a stable date style for years. Deciding to come to this article and the other and "follow" process for 4 year old edits that hasn't bothered any of the regular editors here in that time is WP:DISRUPTIVE. And your WP:BATTLE mentality(starting a dispute resolution thread before anyone besides you and i had had a chance to respond here, REALLY?) is not helpful in the least.Heiro 06:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:EFA originally gave preference to the original style. That was changed and it no longer says that, so it's pretty clear that that is not a sufficient reason to revert an articl that hs been stable for four years back to that style. It's up to Primus to justify any change. Dougweller (talk) 06:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I also note that Primus is doing the same thing at Talk:Native Americans in the United States. Primus, you are arguing across two articles, one stable for at least two years, this one for over four. You are using an argument about 'originally' that was removed from the guideline. If you didn't realise it had been changed, you should say so and back away, with hopefully an apology to show good faith. If you can't or won't do this, then it's hard to agree with you that you are only here to enforce the 'rules' (which I would take more seriously if you ever changed from BC to BCE). Dougweller (talk) 09:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what I was thinking at that time in 2008 but generally, as other editors have stated, I prefer the neutral BCE-CE, and have especially used it for articles for non-Christian, prehistoric cultures. I am happy to support continued usage here of BCE-CE. Also, as it was used for four years with no argument, I think it should continue in that form.Parkwells (talk) 12:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me be more explicit - I have edited this article since 2008 and obviously accepted the BCE-CE; in fact, it is what I prefer. Its use should be continued here.Parkwells (talk) 12:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

And the reason for my apparent violation of policy was that I was reverting to the usage which had been stable from 2006 to the beginning of June 2007, when a brief edit war was resolved by removing era designations altogether. David Trochos (talk) 08:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

In any case, I think we can close this. See the discussion at WP:DRN as well. Dougweller (talk) 10:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Noting that WP:ERA as revised mentions nothing about the original version but says "Do not change the established era style in an article unless there are reasons specific to its content.". Dougweller (talk) 05:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Where the Mississipian Ones Are

Some dude changed one of my edits, reverting "United States" to "North America" stating that "[t]his was when there were no United States, not even as a dream." We oftentimes use modern place-names when describing historical events and cultures. (The first New World settlers set foot in Alaska, not northwestern North America). This reasoning makes no sense to me. By that reasoning, we should not use the word "Clovis" to describe the prehistoric Indian culture. We should also not describe important Clovis sites as being in Pennsylvania and South Carolina, but rather "eastern North America."

North America is a European name and construct. (Native Americans didn't cut the Western Hemisphere in half south of Panama). Central North America is in North Dakota which is not where the Mississippians lived. Eastern North America is the east coast of Panama to the east coast of Labrador or Greenland.

I will change the geographical location of this culture back to "the central and eastern United States" unless I'm missing something important here. If we continue to mention "North America," then please also tell me how we should rewrite the Squamish, Sacree, and Apache articles to either add redundant geographical place-names or possibly make them more geographically ambiguous. --AntigrandiosË^Talk 21:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Since the edit in question added in parenthesis "within the present-day United States", I don't see what the problem is. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I was just a little P.O.-ed, but the whole thing seems contradictory to me.

...which developed advanced societies in central and eastern North America (within the present-day United States)

Central North America is not the central United States, and it's not where these people were. The Mississipian sites are in the eastern United States, which in only a small sliver of eastern North America. It's geographically misleading and nonspecific. I can't find a similar example in any other articles about Native Americans/First Nations, either ancient or modern. --AntigrandiosË^Talk 22:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

World heritage sites

There are 21 whs sites in the u.s., but only 5 if them are cultural (plus one mixed). The site in the original source confirms this. I don't know why people keep undoing the revision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.248.3.235 (talk) 20:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree (except that there are 8 cultural sites out of the 21)- the ref from the "Designations" section (currently ref. 5) gives very clear lists. David Trochos (talk) 05:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Related Mounds photo

Is there a reason this image is flipped on the horizontal axis? You'll see that the cars are driving on the wrong side of the road for the US, and other photos found online show the arch to the right in the St. Louis skyline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.62.110.84 (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why it has been flipped, but after studying Google Maps and identifying the roads, several trees and buildings in foreground, I agree is has been. Will upload a corrected version at Commons. Heiro 00:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Neutral POV?

As this discussion relates to more than this article, it has been moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America#Discussion about possible eurocentric and colonialist mentality in indigenous peoples of North America articles to attract wider participation
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Time and Time again I come across an Indigenous American related article (and similar articles) only to find articles that are extremely skewed toward European world views and completely ignoring Indigenous world views. This is NOT making articles with NEUTRAL Points of View! When an Indigenous person chimes in to point out the euro-western lens that the article is presented in, nothing is done or the point is discredited, usually followed by citing a book written by.... you guessed it a european, completing the circle of the euro-western lens. This has been my and my colleagues' experience anyway. There are plenty of Indigenous Nations and Indigenous organizations to contact as well as books and documentaries made by Indigenous people. It is NOT necessary to exclusively site non-Indigenous texts, web sites, etc.. This article's perpetuation of "human sacrifice" among Indigenous cultures is extremely defamatory and dangerous to today's Indigenous people. This also goes for the linked article "Mound 72". Wikipedia has become a household name and people take it very seriously whether they should or not. They believe what they read here for the most part and the beliefs they get from this site extends to the racism towards Indigenous peoples and it contributes to the defamation towards Indigenous peoples. I am an Anishinaabe and Tsalagi Indigenous person, I have been a member of a very well known Indigenous rights organization for well over two decades. I know many Traditional people and no where ever at any time have I EVER heard of any of us in north OR south america practicing human sacrifice or ritual torture. I have however heard this from genocidal european colonists who were trying to give a reason or excuse for the holocaust they were/are inflicting upon our people but never NEVER have I heard of such things in our Traditional stories and knowledge, which by the way not only includes oral tradition but our own forms of writing, book making and record keeping. You can believe Indigenous people or the people that committed the largest holocaust ever and killed 98 percent of North and South Indigenous Americans. Since you supposedly have a policy of keeping a "Neutral POV" you should at the very least let us have our say. Myself and others have tried to contribute, following your rules and everything but still our contributions are deleted or edited beyond recognition by overzealous editors. Wiki is an Indigenous word, it is Hawaiin - how ironic that you insist on casting us in untrue and defamatory ways. Please just try to think about this with an open mind and heart. I am not interested in back-and-forthing with anyone, just remember We Indigenous People Are Still Here and we read and sometimes contribute to Wiki. Chi Miigwech and thank you. Zoongitozi (talk) 06:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC) I take your point, but I'd also like to note a few other things. First, the holocaust you speak of can't be blamed on the current generation of non-Native Americans, so please don't suggest that we are responsible. There are no genocidal European colonists in the Americas. Some are descendants of such many generations back, but this sort of accusation is the sort of attack that I would think you'd reject if it was the other way. Secondly, I would find it very strange if all human sacrifices (and there were many) were done by only Europeans, Asians, Africans, etc, and none in the Americas. Whether you know of them or not, and I doubt that your knowledge extends to every Native American culture. And thirdly, what's your explanation for Mound 72? Dougweller (talk) 10:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC) Actually, there is a point to be made that it does continue today. You still have reservations, you still have Native American children being taken from tribes and adopted by European-Americans, and a multitude of other issues. That's not to say that you or anyone you know are intentionally pursuing such policies, but the issues still exist. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 17:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Please try to hear me with an open mind at least. By continuing to occupy the lands of Indigenous people and continuing the cultural genocidal activities and the literal genocidal activities that colonists have been doing for the past 500 years or so is continuing the holocaust. Just because you may not have literally murdered an Indigenous person does not mean you are not participating in the continual colonization and holocaust in the americas (or any other colonized place a colonist may be occupying). You have a eurocentric view and a colonist view. You were born into it and what happened in the past is not your fault but what you do NOW is. My main point is that most Indigenous american articles on Wiki are not of a NEUTRAL point of view. TRY to open your mind and heart and make an attempt at least to understand the Indigenous point of view. We are still here, not all of us are gone and that means that there are full blooded traditionalists you could talk to, to try to understand a particular culture and their are many many books written by Indigenous people. I know Wiki requires very particular types of sources to support any information and that makes it even harder for Indigenous people to have a fair say in Wiki articles since it seems that non-Native sources from people with non-Native education and culture are preferred. I would not even care but it is a problem because Wikipedia is a household word now, nearly everyone reads it and it's one of the first things to come up in a search engine. So what is said here, especially about people is very very important. I mostly replied to this hoping someone else with an open mind may come across this and try to understand us through OUR words, not the words of the colonists or anyone else other than the people you are trying to understand. Watch some talks by John Trudell, that is a very good starting point in understanding the Indigenous point of view. Chi Miigwech and thank you for hearing me out with an open mind and heart. Zoongitozi (talk) 06:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Well, at least you understand that there is a sourcing problem. If you don't actually have any sourced changes you want to make, this is in danger of becoming a WP:FORUM type of discussion and inappropriate. It certainly isn't appropriate to accuse me of having a Eurocentrist or colonialist point of view, see WP:AGF (and I'd love to know how I can be a colonist as presumably colonists have some place to go back to - over the centuries my family have lived in America I suspect my ancestry is extremely mixed, with possibly even indigenous American blood). You might want to raise the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America. Dougweller (talk) 08:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC) I think you're right - what should we do to move the discussion there? Sourcing is also a problem, like you stated. GregJackP Boomer! 17:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC) I think that there has been a pretty good presentation of some of the philosophical issues involved, but what I feel we need to do now is look at some specifics. Zoongitozi (if you put something, anything on your user page your user name will appear as a blue link rather than a red one, making you appear as not just some new editor arriving with an agenda) please point out some specific sentences that you feel are incorrect and I, and probably others here, will be glad to look at them. That native peoples have no passed on tradition suggesting that native groups engaged in human sacrifice is not, to me, a very compelling argument. My family tree can be traced back to 600 or 700 AD and we have a rich oral and written traditions and nowhere in them is mention made of my ancestors engaging in genocidal practices, for example. Yet I believe that they did these and other terrible things. So, what passages in this article would you like to examine? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Also, a statement such as, "no where ever at any time have I EVER heard of any of us in north OR south america practicing human sacrifice or ritual torture." pretty much cries out for a rather long list of very documented cases of both. You might be surprised at how open the minds of many wikipedia editors are, but please be careful about making statements such as the one above. That you never heard of them does not mean that these things did not happen and you only (in my opinion) weaken your own point. Carptrash (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Zoongitozi, you said to try "to understand [you] through [YOUR] words", I think the best way for that would be to write a Wikipedia in your language(s) and your words, not in English which is the colonialist language after all and its (forced) use by the Indigenous people is an important part of why the Native cultures are still regressing today (which is indeed considered as a cultural genocide by many), if you need help in creating a Wikipedia project in any Indigenous languages please contact me and I can assist with that. I'm not saying the English (and other main languages) Wikipedia shouldn't be neutral and that you should stop to try to bring the Native side of things on it, I'm just saying having a Wikipedia in your own language(s) is also a very important thing in my opinion. Thanks, merci, gracias, we'lalin, meegwich, Amqui (talk) 19:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Here's some of the Indigenous American language Wikipedias and Wikipedia Incubators. All of them could use more participants: American Indigenous language Wikipedias Avañe'ẽ (Warani) Aymar aru (Aymara) ᏣᎳᎩ (Cherokee) Chahta (Choctaw) ᐃᔨᔫ (Cree) Diné bizaad (Navajo) ᐃᓄᒃ (Inuktitut) Iñupiak Kalaallisut (Greenlandic Inuit) Mvskoke (Muscogee) Nahuatlahtolli (Nahautl) Qhichwa Simi (Quechua) Shoshoni Tsêhesenêstsestôtse (Cheyenne) Wüne pakina (Mapudungun) Yucatec Maya Languages of the First Nations of Canada Canadian Aboriginal Languages Wikipedia Coordination Indigenous languages of Latin America Wikiproyecto:Lenguas indígenas de América Native American languages of the US in Wikimedia Incubator Alabama Blackfoot Chinook Jargon Choctaw Lakota Micmac Mohawk Northwestern Ojibwa O'odham Shoshoni Unami-Lenape Central Alaskan Yup'ik Zuni The human sacrifice at Cahokia is very documented. Osage and Pawnee people have historical ceremonies that involved human sacrifice (the Morning and the Morning Star Ceremonies, respectively). The way to combat Eurocentric bias in Wikipedia is to actively encourage more Native people to participate and to use more sources written and published by Indigenous peoples. Indian Country Today is a fantastic online resources. More and more tribal newspapers are up online, such as the Osage News, there's a growing number of tribal publishing companies, and there's a wealth of books published by Native peoples. As Gloria Bird suggests in Reinventing the Enemy's Language, that forcing all Native American tribes to speak English might have given us a powerful tool for communicating with each other. -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi Thanks for this list, please also see Wikimedia Indigenous Languages which is more international, but if anybody needs support for a small Wikipedia, one in the Incubator or even one that doesn't exist yet in any indigenous, aboriginal or minority languages, that's the best place to find it. Speaking English (or Spanish or even French depending on where you are) is important for the Native peoples to survive in today's world, but preserving the dying ancestral languages is even more important. Amqui (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC) P.S. I think we should copy this discussion to the main project talk page.

Population of London and Paris

Just looking at source for London, 100,000 looks pretty clearly wrong. Gwyn Williams says[2] "It seems reasonable to suggest, therefore, that London's population increased from some 20,000 in 1200 to some 40,000 in 1340. If anything, these guesses err on the side of conservatism." This CUP book][3] "By the year 1200 the city of Paris was home to 110,000 residents, and London to 20,000-25,000." Dougweller (talk) 17:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

For present, I have removed the London and Paris claims. Seems this is not a particularly great article or talk page to have disputes about London and Paris. And we should in any event not have arguable misinformation about those cities in this article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Thread necromancy here, but the surviving claim: "Cahokia's population at its peak in the 1200s was among the largest cities in the world" is risible. The highest estimate mentioned in the article text is 40,000, which would place its population at a small fraction of that of any number of contemporary cities in China, the Middle East, and even Europe. This kind of thing is presumably intended to combat the Natives' deplorable reputation for being "uncivilized," but it backhandedly supports it by implying that the only way to make them look cultured is to lie about their history and make puffed-up comparisons to the rest of the world. TiC ^(talk) 10:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Your presumption is risible, as well as bizarre; it probably just has to do with trying to understand the site. Moreover, 40,000 (and there are larger estimates in the literature) in c. 1250 CE is a large city even in literate societies. See eg., Taylor, Peter. Extraordinary Cities: Millennia of Moral Syndromes, World-Systems and City/State Relations. Edward Elgar Publ. (2013) -Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, don't include totally wack information in articles if you don't want people to speculate about your motives for doing it. It wasn't in any way among the largest cities in the world. TiC ^(talk) 00:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't come up with totally wack speculation, since you don't you're talking about. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Image used in article-possible copyvio

Would any editors of this article care to check this out and weigh in? See here. 184.190.215.159 (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Illustration needed

Articles on ancient and since-abandoned cities typically have pictures of not just ruins, but mock-ups of what they looked like while inhabited and flourishing. We need an image of what Cahokia would have looked like during it's heyday. I haven't found any such images on Wikipedia or in the Commons just yet, if anybody can find it, or can upload such an image, please do so.--RM (Be my friend) 21:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

;-) Added. Heiro 18:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Often the problem with such images is that they (the mock-ups) are found in the museum associated with the site and that copyright issues quickly emerge. Carptrash (talk) 18:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Except I am an illustrator and I make such images for museums, archaeologists, magazines, etc. and this is one of my own images which I recently added at Commons. No copyvio as it is my own work. Heiro 18:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Wood circle at Stonehenge

Probably a reference to this one a half-mile from Stonehenge: [4]. Rmhermen (talk) 08:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Or possibly the hypothesis that the Aubrey Holes were post-holes. WhaleyTim (talk) 10:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Neither of course is well-known. Could be either or something else I supposed.

New henge at Stonehenge is really a bad name for an article. Can anyone find anything later than 2010 about it? I agree it should be part of Landscape of Stonehenge or some such article. See[5] which also notes that there seems to have been a basic religious change around the time of these monuments, and [6] also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 16:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cahokia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120623230142/http://cahokiamounds.org/explore/cahokia-mounds/number/72 to http://cahokiamounds.org/explore/cahokia-mounds/number/72/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Cahokia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080303145337/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=682&ResourceType=Site to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=682&ResourceType=Site
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111019093843/http://cahokiamounds.org/learn/congressional-representative-letter/ to http://cahokiamounds.org/learn/congressional-representative-letter/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070806054640/http://www.cahokiamounds.com/bib.html to http://www.cahokiamounds.com/bib.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060907154057/http://www.lth6.k12.il.us/schools/gallatin/cahokia.htm to http://www.lth6.k12.il.us/schools/gallatin/cahokia.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Possible role as a capital

I've just removed a sentence saying it might have been a capital from Mound Builders#Mississippian culture as it needs development here first. See for instance [7][8][9][10] Doug Weller talk 19:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

There's still plenty of debate about whether or not Cahokia can be called a "state" (lack of a writing system seems to be the major objection if I remember correctly), I think it probably was at least a proto-state if not an actual state. What I objected too in that sentence is that it controlled an "empire" that vast (Wisconsin to Louisiana) and I do not recall any professional arguing for that interpretation. Heiro 20:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree entirely which is why I deleted it. I wouldn’t imagine that a section here about its possible role as a capital would make the empire claim. Doug Weller talk 21:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Ancient Cahokians Mississippian Period Painting Mural At Cahokia Mounds Historic Site Museum Enhanced Cropped.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:59, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Scientific American magazine attributes downfall to drought

The article at https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/hot-planet/lost-cities-and-climate-change/ connects the dissipation of Cahokia as directly related to climate change in the early 1300's: "In the middle of the fourteenth century, the climate swung back toward drought. This shift was likely associated with shifting temperature patterns in the ocean that affected the jet stream, pulling cool air down from the Arctic and displacing rainfall patterns. These changes are attributable to some combination of natural internal climate variability and externally forced changes from solar activity and increased volcanic eruptions. Their effects were profound. In Europe around the same time, a confluence of natural factors perhaps related and perhaps separate from the forces drying out the Mississippi Valley caused it to rain heavily in the summer of 1314..."

Ancient poop helps show climate change contributed to fall of Cahokia and [11] Doug Weller talk 19:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Chiefdom or State?

It seems not a little bit biased (and hence against Wikipedia's policy of NPOV) that there is no discussion of at least the possibility that Cahokia was a state society. This is clearly debatable, but given that the article itself points out it may have surpassed London for a time in population, and that we never refer to Medieval England as a "chiefdom," this does seem suspicious. Now, you might say the English left written records and the Mississippians didn't, and that's true. But the Andeans (unless you could the Quipu), the Ancient Hawaiians, and many Precolonial states in Central and Southern Africa also lacked writing, so this does seem a good enough excuse. And don't forget that the descendents of the people who built Cahokia are still alive, and they have their own history, regardless if it is traditionally an oral one instead of written.

I know original research is a big no-no here, so I'll provide some potential sources:

https://www.santafe.edu/news-center/news/cahokia-small-state-jumbo-chiefdom

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/56269264-the-dawn-of-everything (*The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity*).

I don't know of any public indigenous sources or transcribed oral traditions, let alone ones translated into English and available online, but it would be great if somebody with ready access to a university library or archive could provide us all some resources from those points of view.

Jamutaq (talk) 02:04, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

New discovery “ North 'plaza' in Cahokia usually underwater

See [12] Doug Weller talk 18:42, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Cahokia in SF literature

Tidbit: James Kennedy's SF "Dare To Know" relates the mass sacrifice to the 1054 supernova. 2.206.238.199 (talk) 08:54, 3 May 2023 (UTC)