Evidence of a "sprawling metropolis" that existed in E St. Louis from 1000-1300 A.D.

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
Apr 25, 2002
15,044
157
0
#1
Evidence of a "sprawling metropolis" that existed in E St. Louis from 1000-1300 A.D.

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/arts-and-lifestyle/2012/01/lost-city-cahokia/848/

In last week's issue of the journal Science, Andrew Lawler gives a lengthy report on the forgotten city of Cahokia. For a while now archaeologists have known about this Native American settlement beneath modern East St. Louis, but many believed it was what Lawler calls a "seasonal encampment." A new round of archaeological digs, done in preparation for a bridge being constructed across the Mississippi River between Missouri and Illinois, has unearthed evidence of "a sophisticated, sprawling metropolis stretching across 13 kilometers on both sides of the Mississippi" that existed about a thousand years ago, Lawler writes:

[A] millennium ago, this strategic spot along the Mississippi River was an affluent neighborhood of Native Americans, set amid the largest concentration of people and monumental architecture north of what is now Mexico.

Back then, hundreds of well-thatched rectangular houses, carefully aligned along the cardinal directions, stood here, overshadowed by dozens of enormous earthen mounds flanked by large ceremonial plazas. … Cahokia proper was the only pre-Columbian city north of the Rio Grande, and it was large even by European and Mesoamerican standards of the day, drawing immigrants from hundreds of kilometers around to live, work, and participate in mass ceremonies.

Archaeologists believe people began to gather at Cahokia around the year 1000 A.D. Inspired perhaps by the sighting of Halley's Comet in the year 989, settlers erected ceremonial mounds at the site, some of which line up with the sun's position during the winter solstice. Around the year 1100 they began to build Monks Mound — the largest mound, reaching some 100 feet off the ground, created from millions of baskets of dirt. A vast palisade that enclosed Monks Mound and other parts of the settlement was constructed around the year 1200. For reasons still debated, the whole city failed around the start of the following century.

The latest excavations have uncovered evidence of more than five hundred thatched houses and signs of workshops where residents created various goods. The homes surrounded the ceremonial sites, and at its peak the settlement may have expanded out into a primitive metropolitan area that served as residence to tens of thousands of Native Americans. But as a city Cahokia lacked the density of Mayan or European settlements; instead it appears to have organized itself more along the lines of "modern American urban sprawl," Lawler writes.

While settlement at Cahokia was short-lived, its cultural impact appears to have been widespread. Researchers working as far away as Wisconsin have found evidence of Cahokia-style pottery and housing. Why exactly the city disappeared it still a matter of conjecture. The leading assumptions point to political problems, a changing climate, or a combination of both. In a paper published in a 2009 issue of the journal American Antiquity, a research team led by Larry Benson of the U.S. Geological Survey presented climate-related evidence that "a series of persistent droughts occurred in the Cahokian area" which may have contributed to the city's abandonment:

By A.D. 1150, in the latter part of a severe 15-year drought, the Richland farming complex was mostly abandoned, eliminating an integral part of Cahokia's agricultural base. At about the same time, a 20,000-log palisade was erected around Monks Mound and the Grand Plaza, indicating increased social unrest. During this time, people began exiting Cahokia and, by the end of the Stirling phase (A.D. 1200), Cahokia's population had decreased by about 50 percent and by A.D. 1350, Cahokia and much of the central Mississippi valley had been abandoned.

It's fitting that the construction of a new bridge has led to additional revelations about the lost city. As Glenn Hodges reported in National Geographic in early 2011, it was the implementation of the Interstate Highway System that led to a surge of new interest in the settlement, by providing funds for excavation near highway sites. Interstate 55/70 in East St. Louis now bisects what was Cahokia's north plaza, Hodges writes.
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#5
I've read the Science article on it two weeks ago. I know the story.

I just asked the rhetorical question to point out that its fate can teach us something about the future of our own sprawling metropolises
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#9
E Saint Louis is a the most ghetto city i have ever seen. The poverty level there is extremely high.
Have you actually been there?

I was looking at picture from East St. Louis some time ago, then I decided to spend some time with Google Map and Street View and see what it looks like - it seems like it's not going to be a ghetto for too long because it's basically in the process of becoming a ghost town

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_St._Louis,_Illinois#Demographics
 
May 9, 2002
37,066
16,282
113
#14
Have you actually been there?

I was looking at picture from East St. Louis some time ago, then I decided to spend some time with Google Map and Street View and see what it looks like - it seems like it's not going to be a ghetto for too long because it's basically in the process of becoming a ghost town

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_St._Louis,_Illinois#Demographics
Yes, many times. My family is from Springfield, IL and i have driven through there several times. I know some of the history of from the last 25 years or so. And youre right, it IS becoming a ghost town. The poverty and unemployment levels are so high, crime outwheighs everything there. I have never felt more unsafe in broad daylight than i have been riding around in ESTL.
 
Jun 1, 2004
447
244
43
41
#15
Im high so heres my opinion. if it is a city underneath ground like im thinkin and they lack the structures like the maya then perhaps they were afraid of the alien allies who threorhetically helped the maya advance. which is why they were underground because they thought the sky was always watchin them. Not opinion, there is a similiar underground city in the middle east dated around the same, and needless to say I think they were against the egyptian alien allies as well which ran them far and underground. still high tho.