Talk:Monks Mound

Merge?

Monk's Mound is the largest surviving mound within Cahokia Mounds State Historic Site. There is no reason for the two articles to be separate from each other and if someone wants to merge them, I would cheer them on. Bigturtle 18:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge them. Most of the info repeats anways.

I oppose the merge. There is a lot of information available on Monks Mound. The fact that it hasn't yet been incorporated into Wikipedia does not mean that it won't be. I didn't know there was a Monks Mound article, or I would have added the information. Also, analogously, Teotihuacan and the Pyramid of the sun have separate articles. Might as well treat Cahokia and its largest monumental construction the same way. TriNotch 03:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits and an editor's personal website

Yesterday a pretty poor article was replaced by one which I think would have passed the WP:GOOD article process. Since then, and with very few edit summaries explaining why, it has been changed in a way which changes it considerably (eg reverting the statement of 'there is no evidence of significant settlement' to 'there is evidence'. I think a lot of this has to do with Marburg72's own personal experience and a misunderstanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. He has stated elsewhere that he supports the truth, which is laudable in one sense, but I believe has led him to edit in line with his understanding of 'the truth' (an elusive goal normally). For instance, he (twice at least) removed a quote sourced from a university press book co-authored by the dean of Cahokia archaeology because he didn't believe the statement was accurate. He has very strong views on what is the 'truth' here about recent excavations, and it is understandably difficult for him to be objective about something in which he has been heavily involved and has very strong feelings. I am sure that he deserves the credit he has been given for his work with the Cahokia Archaeology Society, but personal knowledge cannot be a source for Wikipedia. I also have serious problems with his insistence on adding his personal web site[1] here and elsewhere. I'll ignore the conflict of interest in his adding his own website as it is the site itself that is the problem. First, it's a personal website, and it is rare for those to be acceptable as either sources or external links. (see WP:LINKSTOAVOID. Another editor has pointed out that it includes "much incorrect information", which is true. It is also [[WP:FRINGE]. For instance, it refers to "expert Rick Osmon, the host of the Out of Place Artifact show called OOPA LOOPA CAFE". The 'Out of Place Artifact' more or less makes it clear Osmon is fringe, and I'd question the use of 'expert'. Osmon also publishes in the cult archaeology journal Ancient American[2] and is clearly not a reliable source. Marburgy2/Vince Barrows[3] appears on his radio show from time to time according to his website. The website also treats as genuine fringe stuff such as the Walam Olum (with no mention of recent criticism and an implicit claim that someone who has now acknowledged it is a hoax still supports it), the Grave Creek Tablets, Burrows Cave (rejected as a hoax even by most people who support hyperdiffusionists like Barry Fell) etc. Sure, there is a lot of hard work in it, but it doesn't belong as a source or link in Wikipedia. Doug Weller (talk) 08:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• What about the limestone slabs business? I've never heard of that, seems easy to prove or disprove. This claim that the Codex canadiensis says the the site was inhabited past 1500 is odd, since the map shows the join of the Missouri as uninhabited, (although this is just me and my OR). How can there be debate over the dimensions? Why is there debate over the dimensions? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 08:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Depends what everybody means by "the limestone slabs business". So far, drilling has encountered some areas of rocky material which the operator said (just before the drill bit fell off) felt like limestone; and excavation last summer revealed some limestone slabs in a different location, probably a ceremonial feature from an earlier phase of the Mound's development- but there is so far no evidence that limestone was a significant constructional material within the Mound. The Codex Canadiensis claim does indeed defy both conventional scholarship and site archaeology. And there is debate over the dimensions because of the notorious slumping. Where does slumped Mound end and open field begin? David Trochos (talk) 12:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Phlegm Rooster is right I think about the Codex map. The claim is simply OR, a personal interpretation of the map (despite the fact that others have pointed out to him that if it shows the Mississippi it is odd that it doesn't show rivers, settlements etc that are on other maps (a quick Google search on 'Codex Canadiensis' and Cahokia turned up a discussion about it here[4]. As I've said, MB72 needs to follow WP policies and guidelines more - he keeps quoting them so you'd think he'd know them by now.Doug Weller (talk) 14:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Photos of the colored soil, limestone slabs, and destruction can be seen on the website. http://s243.photobucket.com/albums/ff280/Marburg72/ The limestone slabs hit on both sides of the mound indeed indicate that it is an important part of the construction materials. The codex map includes the mississippi river vally- a point that has been added to the website upon my recommendation. It is verified on their website. Look at the rivers - Mississippi, Illinois and Missouri come together and two huge mounds are depicted at the location of Cahokia, which states Manitou statue. It is verifiable on their website. http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/codex/026014-1000-e.html The debate over the dimensions is strange, because the map referenced states the dimensions specifically. The website http://www.freewebs.com/historyofmonksmound includes information about the excations in question and does not meet any of the criteria of links to avoid. It is well cited specific sources about the site - and not a "personal website" in subject by any means. Nor is it "fringe" Doug. Dougs attitude of calling everything fringe stems from his own website about fringe topics. He really needs to stop labeling everything as fringe. Also, his claims about Rick Osmon are entirely false, as Rick Osmon knows more about archaeology than anyone that I have ever spoken with.Marburg72 (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

My interpretation of the map says no; Manitou/Great Spirit could just as well mean the place was haunted. Manitou statue is south of the Ohio; Cahokia north of the Ohio. It certainly is slim evidence of settlement, much like using the monsters at the ends of maps as proof of the Loch Ness Monster. Otherwise, no settlements are shown between the Ohio and the north end of the map. Even as OR it is weak. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 19:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

In fact it says very specifically Manitou statue ou les sauvages vont faire leurs adorations- "Manitou statue where the savages go to make their adorations". And indeed, no native settlements are shown in the valley of the Mississippi River north of the Ohio. David Trochos (talk) 20:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The river that Phelgm is interpreting to the be the Ohio is actually the Illinois (that the sangamon river flows into). It is not slim evidence considering the large mound representations and the inclusion of this suggestion on the Library and Archives of Canada website after my discovery and suggestion to them. =Cahokia is the location correctly depicted just south of the Illinois, Ohio, and Missouri rivers which are depicted correctly on the map. The suggestion by Trochos that it says Manitou statue where the savages go to make their adorations is an important piece of information because Cahokia is known to be the place of discovery of such statues that look identical to the drawing including the Keller and Birger figuriens, and the natives were known to make adorations there on the sacred ground. Hence the name Twakanda for the site. Marburg72 (talk) 02:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Upon reexamination, the map shows, in a distorted way, Lake Michigan, the portage at Chicago, and the Illinois. So the Manitou statue is about right for the Mounds. Still, it is not a settlement. I could easily see how people might still make pilgrimages there after the fall of the Mississipian civilization. So, it is interesting. But we can't use this one document to suggest that people lived onsite in large numbers after 1500. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 21:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I have nothing against Rick, but he has published in the cult archaeology/fringe/robs Native Americans of their heritage magazine Ancient American, his radio show "The "Oopa Loopa Cafe, where the Ozman debunks the debunkers" " is about fringe topics, he thinks Gloria Farley's book is great, etc. You obviously have your own definition of fringe (and as for labelling things fringe, please recall the fact that you labelled a quote from a university press book co-authored by the dean of Cahokia archaeology as fringe). Your website is a personal website, however many citations you may have on it. As for the map from the Codex, your interpretation is your interpretation. Phlegm Rooster admitted his interpretation was Original Research. Doug Weller (talk) 15:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted given the conflict of interest. If this continues, it should be taken to WP:COIN --Ronz (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I've taken to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review#Monk.27s_Mound. Marburg72 (talk) 16:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

And since the article wasn't deleted, you've been told you were in the wrong place. Doug Weller (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, you have been told that your personal website (and it is a personal website, I clicked 'About Me' on the top menu and there you were) is not a reliable source, and you keep reinstating it. If you want to argue the case, go to WP:RSN. Doug Weller (talk) 17:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Define Personal Website. According to Wikipedia, Personal web pages are World Wide Web pages created by an individual to contain content of a personal nature. This web page contains no personal information. It is entirely on the topic of the Mound excavations and the History of Cahokia, and Monks Mound. No personal information is contained. Therefore this claim that it is a personal website is false and completely wrong, again. If you define personal website as a website created by a person, then every website is. This is not a personal website, any questions? Marburg72 (talk) 00:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, if this was about somebody putting a link to those pictures of yours in the External Links section, I wouldn't care. It is the reinterpretation you imposed on the text that is troubling. Some of what you say may turn out to be true, but Wikipedia is not the place to publish your original research. That's actually policy. In my field, I spot many things that are incorrect in the literature and on Wikipedia. If I can't find a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal to cite when I make the change to Wikipedia, I don't make the change. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 02:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, the website is important and it has been reviewed by many who have all appreciated the information that it contained. Many stated that it is the best piece on Cahokia Mounds available. It has been peer-reviewed by archaeologists who have stated "we strongly support this native American-oriented ethnohistory of Cahokia". It is strange that such information (especially when it is free) could be rejected as a link that may interest readers.Marburg72 (talk) 02:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you would benefit from going to graduate school. I see that a number of profs have been impressed with your dedication, which is all that is really required for admission. It'll be a lot more fun to work within the system. For one thing, you get paid, even as a student. If you are interested, I can explain how to go about doing that--leave me a message on my talk page. As far as this article is concerned, we have to stick to material published in reliable sources. Please don't argue any more. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 03:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what Phelgm Rooster has said above. Grad school sounds a good and viable option. As for the web page, you have misunderstood or not read the appropriate guidelines. The article on personal web pages is irrelevant. See WP:SPS. "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.[Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." I have explained with some detail why your site is not acceptable. The fringe content is there, although I suspect largely overlooked, and anything else relevant to the article should be available from reliable sources. Doug Weller (talk) 05:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate Phlegm's polite response and do not appreciate Dougs continuted rudeness and accusations of falsehoods including fringe. He really needs to stop accusing everything as being Fringe - look at his talk page- he has a long history of these sorts of accusations - and hosts a website on fringe topics. The RFC that Trochos file against me is considered abuse of policy. If wikipedia is not a battleground, then why are these rude comments and false accusations being thrown around? Marburg72 (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You state that the RfC is 'considered an abuse of policy'. The statement reads as thought is is more than your personal opinions. Who besides considers it to be an abuse of policy? As for fringe, I presume you and I have different definitions of what it means. In this context I mean supporters of what would, for example, fall into the pseudoarchaeology category, eg supporters of Barry Fell, the idea that Egyptians visited America, the authenticity of the Davenport Tablets, etc. And so far as I know, you are one of those supporters and I have made no false accusation. I am not saying that you have made statements about all of these things here, simply that these are things you support. (And for anyone who is wondering about his comments about my website, it contains, among other links about archaeology, a number of links to articles that expose various fringe claims). As for my talk page, I have called two things fringe there, The Urantia Book and the Davenport tablets. Two topics among the 46 that are on there at the moment. That doesn't exactly bear out your comment that I am "accusing everything as being Fringe". Doug Weller (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_policy#Behavioral I find that Dougs accusations of "support" for psuedoarchaeology are in violation of the Policy No Personal Attacks. Your opinions of my "support" is untrue and unsupported by any facts. Please refrain from making such accusations from now on. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks Marburg72 (talk) 23:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it is an explanation of one of the reasons your personal web page is not an acceptable source. Your web page strongly endorses Rick Osmon and you are a guest on his radio show. Your web page also shows that you take 'Burrows Cave' seriously as a source of genuine tablets, even though it is considered a hoax by a lot of people who support writers like Barry Fell (for those who wonder what this is, see [5]. I don't know what you hope to gain by calling this an attack and denying it. Can we clarify this? What is your position on Ancient Egyptians, Jews, Celts and Phoenicians having visited North America? I know you think the Burrows Cave tablets are genuine, who do you think created them? I guess it is possible that I have misunderstood you. Doug Weller (talk) 12:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Getting back on track

Please take the discussions of editors' behavior to more appropriate venues: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Marburg72 Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#user:_Marburg72, and Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/David_Trochos, as well as the editors' talk pages. --Ronz (talk) 16:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent deletion of much of this page

People might want to look at the history of this page. Doug Weller (talk) 21:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Area of Monks Mound

This is a minor point, but the quoted area figures don't add up- if the mound is 291 meters by 236 meters, that's 68676 square meters, or 6.87 hectares, or 17 acres. Is my math wrong? This makes it noticeably larger in area than the 13 acres of the Great Pyramid. TriNotch (talk) 15:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

No your math seems ok, Monk's Mound is big at its base but the Great Pyramid is 5 times taller. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Erm, also, the article text says the mound has slumped a lot, widening it. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Gwen has half the explanation- the other half is also in the article text: "including the access ramp at the southern end". In other words, the quoted linear dimensions are maxima of a rather complex shape, very unlike the almost-precise square of the Great Pyramid. David Trochos (talk) 22:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The mound has dimensions of 92 feet in height, 951 feet (290 meters) long and 836 feet (255 meters) wide. Monks Mound base covers about 14.4 acres and has a volume of about 21,551,623 cubic feet (610274 cubic meters) and consists of more than 2.16 billion pounds of non-local soil types. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.41.89 (talk) 00:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

(note I have deleted an attempt to spam some fringe websites ... Dougweller (talk) 05:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC))

Page move

Reluctantly, I have to agree with Parkwells' decision to move "Monk's Mound" to "Monks Mound". That is indeed the official version of the name, and the fact that the official website gives "reconstruction's" as the plural of "reconstruction" indicates a consistent, if unconventional, grammatical logic. David Trochos (talk) 22:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Botched apostrophes always worry me, but there's a lack of one at archaeology.org. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

So I guess it would otherwise be Monks' Mound had the apostrophe not been dropped early on, rather understandably. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Building of this Mound

here in the Article I can read, that construction happens between 900 - 950 CE. But in the own Article Cahokia History it is mentioned, that constructions of mounds don't happen before 1050. This is a difference over 100 Years and one of this Informations must be wrong. Please forgive me my bad english. -- Hartmann Schedel ^Prost 10:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Other article corrected, thanks! David Trochos (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Both are wrong - the Cahokia Area was occupied and construction is found from the paleo and early archaic. The site was a well established trade center around 5000 Years ago. See: http://books.google.com/books?id=awsA08oYoskC&lpg=PA356&dq=cahokia%20archaic&pg=PA368#v=onepage&q=cahokia%20archaic&f=false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.36.249 (talk) 01:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you point to evidence for Archaic-era work on Monks Mound, which is what this article is about? Given that the article specifically states that the Mound was built on top of earlier buildings, I'm not sure what you are trying to contribute here. David Trochos (talk) 05:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

when I click on the Link from IP than there is a sentence saying: this page can't be shown... etc." -- Hartmann Schedel ^cheers 11:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The page the IP had linked to was an index page of a book that consisted of some references to archaic period occupations at Cahokia. It was not a body of text. It also in no way implied that the mounds were constructed in that period instead of the Mississippian period. Yes, there were Arciac period occupations in the American Bottom, and also in much of North America, there was even mound building during the Archaic in Louisiana, but not at Cahokia, those mounds are very firmly dated to a MUCH later period. Heiro 12:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Heiro : -) -- Hartmann Schedel ^cheers 12:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The statement that Cahokia Mounds are very Firmly dated is not true. ICT-II Cahokia locality (nearby to monks Mound) is the ::location of mounds with a significant Late Archaic Prairie Lake-phase occupation.

http://books.google.com/books?id=awsA08oYoskC&lpg=PA356&dq=cahokia%20archaic&pg=PA322#v=onepage&q=ICT-II%20archaic&f=false

Limestone slabs are found from Mounds with archaic graves in the lower Illinois valley. Monks mound also had limestone slabs in it.

http://books.google.com/books?id=awsA08oYoskC&lpg=PA356&dq=cahokia%20archaic&pg=PA275#v=onepage&q=mound%20illinois%20archaic&f=false

Milner discusses the difficulty of dating mounds in his book “the Cahokia Chiefdom”.

Milner states that several problems with radiocarbon dates at Cahokia include:

1. the nature of samples and their assignment to particular phases should be checked systematically by going back to field ::notes and museum collections

2. currently dated specimens exhibit all the defects of a sample collected in a higgledy-piggledy fashion.

3. radiocarbon dates are skewed toward the portions of phases that produced the most datable materials.

4. even in the best of circumstances radiocarbon determinations are relatively imprecise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.36.249 (talk) 04:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

You will not find it stated anywhere that Monks Mound is from the Archaic period. Those texts you did provide do not mention Monks Mound, but discuss small mortuary mounds. Many sites throughout the Midwest and Southeast had multiple occupations that span centuries. Are you somehow seeking to imply that the major mound structures at Cahokia are far older than written here? If so, provide unequivocal proof in a reliable source. Seeing as how Emerson (the author of the book you keep linking to) is one of the foremost experts on the site, him saying so would do. Heiro 05:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

“What little is known about Monks mound comes from Soil Coring”, Milner stated in his book Cahokia Chiefdom. Collins states the temporal parameters are previously established for the construction of Monks Mound by Reed in his article “Solid core drilling of Monks Mound”. In the article, Reed cited only four radiocarbon dates. Three of four were from the surface of the mound. The fourth date that Reed cites is from a piece of wood that he reported from 70 feet below the surface of the mound. How the surface samples relate with the construction date of the mound is unanswered. How Reed’s 70 foot deep sample date represents the beginning of construction of the 90 foot high mound is unanswered. The other problem is summarized by Milner: “the dated specimens from Cahokia had been taken with no thought given to an overall sampling design“. Collins 1993 article “Second Terrace Perspective of Monks Mound” states that Reed’s radiocarbon dates are at odds with Benchley's (1975:20) suggestion that the second terrace was constructed late in the Cahokia sequence. Collins reports that the largest and best funded excavation was the ICT II (interpretive center tract building) excavation, which yielded substantial Archaic settlement next to Monks Mound. http://libsysdigi.library.illinois.edu/oca/Books2008-07/archaeologyofcah00coll/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.36.249 (talk) 04:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Notice that that isn't stating that Monks mound dates from the Archaic period. Many sites were used over and over, because of their geographic location, proximity to rivers, resources, etc. for many thousands of years, by many different succeeding cultures. For the same reasons many of our cities now occupy the same sites. Finding Archaic habitations at the site is not a surprise or an anomoly, nor does it prove that the mound is thousands of years older than archaeologists say it is. Heiro 05:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi IP, is it possible to sign your comments with this 4x ~~~~? would be nice -- Hartmann Schedel ^cheers 11:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

"There was some interpretive disagreement among the authors of the 1983 ICT report as to the

nature of the Late Archaic occupation. On the basis of archaeobotanical evidence, Lopinot (Nassaney et al. 1983:107) envisioned "a diverse assortment of subsistence activities, more typical of a generalized base camp than a specialized extractive camp." Others concluded "that the best interpretation of the Cahokia Late Archaic remains is still one of a series of intermittent, relatively short-duration occupations during different seasons of the year" (Nassaney et al. 1983:1 13). The data from the ICT-II Archaic Block are insufficient to support either postulate." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.36.249 (talk) 01:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The above might be useful for the general article on Cahokia, but this article is about Monks Mound. Incidentally, the earlier puzzle "How Reed’s 70 foot deep sample date represents the beginning of construction of the 90 foot high mound is unanswered" might be solved by finding exactly where the core in question was taken- 70 feet down from terrace 4 is very different from the same distance below terrace 3. David Trochos (talk) 06:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

How anyone can separate a monks mound 1000 feet away in ICT-II tract from the largest central feature of the excavated are of the site is also unexplained I(see maps on page 2 and page 31). "At present estimate it (cahokia) is thought to encompass over 3700 square acres (5.8 sq. Miles, 15.02 sq. Kms.) and to include within this more than 100 mounds of various sizes and shapes. The largest of these features, and the one which dominates the site is Monks Mound." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.36.249 (talk) 01:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

There is an article about Cahokia, this one is about Monks Mound. Accept it. Heiro 01:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Both are wrong, because they make no mention of the substantial archaic settlement at Cahokia right beside Monks Mound. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.36.249 (talk) 02:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Find enough reliable scientific sources about the "substantial" Archaic settlement and add it to the Cahokia article. Otherwise stop coming here every six months to complain. Heiro 03:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Read the sources provided: "Radiocarbon assays of charcoal recovered from these features cluster

around 1200 B.C. These dates, together with recovered diagnostic lithic artifacts, firmly place the Late Archaic habitation of the tract in the early portion of the Prairie Lake phase (Nassaney et al. 1983: 109). A diversity of multi-season subsistence and maintenance activities was identified for this occupation." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.36.249 (talk) 03:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you take your own advise from your edit summary. Read my last post. If you have reliably sourced information, add it. Just realize it will be gone over with a fine toothed comb. Especially if you try to add nonsense again claiming the actual mound was built during the Archaic period. And please, sign your posts with ~~~~ so signbot wont have to keep signing for you. Heiro 03:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

"Found on Monks Mound third terrace excavations was an artifact called a Boatstone: hollowed and drilled at both ends, 8.4 cm x 3 cm"

Excavations on the Third Terrace and Front Ramp of Monks Mound, Cahokia: A Personal Narrative, ©2009 Illinois Archaeological Survey, Inc., Illinois Archaeology, vol. 21, pp. 1–89

The boatstone is an old artifact which was popular during the Archaic period.

This article continued about a dog skelton found on monks mound: "Compared with the dogs submitted by William Haag, this Monks Mound mutt, based on these few measurements, falls nicely within range of Haag’s Archaic Kentucky and Alabama shell heap dogs [Paul Parmalee, pers. comm. October 8, 1971]."

"There was prehistoric debris, since the soil came from village area borrow pits below, but all of this was thoroughly mixed. A fragment of an Archaic period artifact was found near a French gunflint. The only useful analysis of this material was to identify the most recent prehistoric pottery for a terminal date of mound activity, but even that was questionable because of historic mixing from the surface. This decision to use earth-moving equipment was widely questioned."

No one is denying there was an Archaic settlement of some kind at the site. So far there is no evidence for a "substantial" one. These things you just added do not provide any information on it, only noting some artifacts from this time have been found. Nor do they suggest in any way that Monks Mound was built earlier than what is already included in the article. And, you are still not signing your posts. I'm getting the feeling you are here merely to push your POV and be disruptive. Heiro 15:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

If you read the "Archaic Societies" book mentioned above, you will see over 100 refernces to significant archaic settlement in the Cahokia mounds, including the American Bottom region. Now the Illinois Archaeology article points to evidence for Archaic-era work on Monks Mound. Archaic evidence that includes a boatstone, archiac lithic, and an articulated Archaic dog skeleton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.36.249 (talk) 00:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)