From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


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)

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 (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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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. --AntigrandiosËTalk 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. --AntigrandiosËTalk 22:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

World heritage sites[edit]

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 (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[edit]

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 (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?[edit]

Population of London and Paris[edit]

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[edit]

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

Illustration needed[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 16:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)