Architecture+and+Urban+Layout

= Architecture, Urban Layout, and Social Inequality at Cahokia = By Brett Mogensen

Introduction
Cahokia is the largest prehistoric site north of Mexico on the North American continent. According to Young and Fowler (2000), “Cahokia was the largest and most complex expression of Precolumbian Native American civilization in North America.” At its height, Cahokia was home to thousands of people. However, many questions can be asked about this site. One these questions involves complexity. How complex was the society which occupied Cahokia? One aspect in which to measure complexity is social inequality. Social inequality can be defined as a difference in access to resources between different individuals. In many cases, the architecture and layout of a site can reflect social inequality. By looking at the monumental architecture, specifically mounds, and layout of the site of Cahokia, it is apparent that social inequality existed at this site.

Geography and Chronology
Cahokia is located near modern St. Louis, Missouri in the state of Illinois. It is positioned in the vicinity of the Mississippi River in a region known as the “American Bottom.” Dalan et al. (2003) describe the area as “a large flood plain found immediately below the confluence of the Illinois, Missouri, and Mississippi Rivers.” This area is known to have very fertile soils and thus would have been quite valuable for agriculture. Cahokia, being Mississippian, would have relied heavily on agriculture. Thus, the American Bottom’s fertile soils would have been important to the population at Cahokia.

The chronology of the Cahokia site can be broken down in multiple ways. Broadly, the site fits into the Emergent Mississippian period and the Mississippian period. The Emergent Mississippian period lasted from around A.D. 800 to A.D. 1000. The Mississippian period covered the time span from A.D. 1000 to A.D. 1400. These two periods can also be broken down further into site specific phases based on various factors.

Site Layout
The physical layout of the site of Cahokia is important to the study of the culture and people who resided there. It can also be interpreted as a form of evidence for the presence of social inequality among those people. The site of Cahokia is generally broken down into two broad portions. The first part consists of the central portion of the site. Young and Fowler (2000) refer to this section as “Downtown Cahokia.” The second part of the site covers the outlying mound groupings that surround the central area. The central district of Cahokia, or Downtown Cahokia, is the heart of the site that contains many of its well-known features. Young and Fowler (2000) divide the central district into the Monk’s Mound precinct, Grand Plaza precinct, and Mortuary precinct. The Monk’s Mound precinct in the north consists of the largest mound on the site, Monk’s Mound, and a number of nearby smaller mounds. The Grand Plaza precinct in the center includes the largest plaza, the Grand Plaza, and associated mounds. The Mortuary Precinct in the south is made up of a number of mounds, including Fox and Round Top. Altogether, the central district includes 18 mounds. However, Young and Fowler (2000) see the limit of the central district as being defined by the construction of a palisade around these features. Other sources disagree with this interpretation of the central district due to the relatively late age of the palisade. Noting that the Palisade was constructed in a later period, Dalan et al. (2003) suggest that it does not define the site core during earlier periods as it cut through established areas and left out possible important sites. However, they do agree to the existence of a central core, but feel it was demarcated by other features like “ridges, waterways, and borrows” in earlier periods (Dalan et al. 2003).



A second part of the site of Cahokia includes the outlying groupings of mounds. Young and Fowler (2000) identify two rings of these which amount to “86 numbered mounds scattered over nearly five miles.” The groups in the outer ring include, clockwise from the north, the Kunnemann Group, East Group, Rattlesnake Group, Rouch Group, and Powell Group. The second, or inner, ring includes, clockwise from the north, the Creek Bottom Group, Ramey Group, Tippetts Group, Borrow Pit Groups, Merrell Group, and Mound 44 Group. The mounds included in each of these individual groups are thought to have been related to the others in that group. However, Young and Fowler (2000) note that the mounds in the Borrow Pit Groups may not be associated. So, how does this layout reflect social inequality? Many agree that the central district held the greatest importance within the community. Young and Fowler (2000) state that it was “the seat of power” and “residential area for Cahokia’s elite.” Certainly the grand size of the structures in this area and their location at the center of Cahokia add to this interpretation. What other evidence supports this though? One of the possible uses of platform mounds suggests that they were residences for the elite. Using measurements of various mounds, Dalan et al. (2003) determined that platform mounds suitable for residence were between 1,000 and 3,000 square meters and that the mounds fitting this description were all located in the central district. So, if one accepts that the elites at Cahokia lived on platform mounds, then most of livable mounds were located in the more elite central area. Furthermore, additional evidence for the elite status of Downtown Cahokia may be provided by the palisade wall. Trubitt (2000) states that the palisade “may have functioned to delineate a central ceremonial space and to demarcate elite vs. nonelite areas of the site, but regularly spaced bastions indicate that it also functioned for defense.” The building of this wall adds a special importance to the central area of Cahokia, whether it was erected to defend this section or to wall it off due to special importance. From this evidence, one can see that the central area of Cahokia was of special importance and thus shows that the layout of Cahokia reflects inequality.

Mound Types
Mounds compose an important category of features at Cahokia. They can also be seen as evidence in support of an argument for the presence of social inequality. Young and Fowler (2000) report that there are 18 mounds, including Monk’s Mound, within Cahokia’s central district and 86 mounds in the surrounding areas. These numbers bring the total number of mounds located at Cahokia to over 100. The mounds are categorized based on their shape and structure. Included at Cahokia are flat-top platform mounds, rounded conical mounds, and a unique type called ridge-top mounds (Demel and Hall 1998). Each of the mounds had a variety of uses and purposes, based on the type. According to Demel and Hall (1998), these include “locales for temples and charnal houses, foundations for residential and public buildings, burial chambers, and marker monuments at critical locations within the community.” So, how do these mounds reflect social inequality at Cahokia?

Platform Mounds
Each of the different mound types at Cahokia may provide evidence of social inequality. The first mound type to be discussed is platform mounds. Platform mounds are numerous throughout sites in the Mississippian culture area and Cahokia is no exception. These mounds are typically square or rectangular and rise up to form a platform at their summit. This platform served as the base for structures to be built on the top of the mound. At Cahokia, additional terraces were put on some mounds, like Monk’s Mound, for added height (Dalan et al. 2003).

One of the uses for platform mounds may have elite residences. Fowler (1978) notes a “large building on its summit” in reference to Monk’s Mound. Demel and Hall (1998) note that this was a “30- by 12 meter structure on the highest terrace.” Judging by the size and location of the building, this is very possibly an elite or chiefly residence. Located at the highest point of the most dominating feature of the site, this building certainly conveyed a sense of power. Furthermore, other platform mounds may also have served as elite residences. Fowler (1978) suggests that the smaller platform mounds around Monk’s Mound were “possibly the residences of high-status persons.” One example of a residential platform mound cited by Dalan et al. (2003) is Mound 56. Excavations from this mound revealed items such as “a preponderance of fancy ceramics, a disproportional representation of high-utility meat cuts, and a bead manufactured from a shark spine” (Dalan et al. 2003). These high-status items suggest an elite occupation at Mound 56.

Conical Mounds
The next type of mound constructed at Cahokia was the conical mound. Conical mounds were quite different from the aforementioned platform mounds. This type was generally more rounded and appeared to be similar to a cone. These mounds would have been wider at the base than the top. What purpose, however, did these rounded conical mounds serve?

One purpose suggested for the existence of the conical mounds was as mortuary facilities (Demel and Hall 1998). It is worth noting that many of these conical mounds at Cahokia were found in association with a platform mound. These pairs are widely believed to have had mortuary significance. One example of these pairs consists of Round Top Mound and Fox Mound. “Fowler believes that Fox Mound was a charnel-house mound and Roundtop its affiliated burial mound (Young and Fowler 2000). Young and Fowler (2000) suggest that these two mounds were the “burial sites of the highest-ranking persons at Cahokia.” This was due to their location near the settlement’s center. Milner (1984) notes that “a skeleton with a large copper serpent resting on its chest” was found at Round Top. This individual, complete with an item of status, seems to have been elite in nature.

Ridge-Top Mounds


The last type of mound located at Cahokia is the ridge-top mound. Dalan et al. (2003) note that these mounds were similar to platform mounds in design. However, they were different in that they formed a “narrow ridge along the summit” (Dalan et al. 2003). Some examples of these mounds include Mound 72, Powell Mound, and Rattlesnake Mound. These mounds could have possibly had multiple functions.

Demel and Hall (1998) suggest that these were probably a form of community marker. As a community marker, they would have marked off various places within Cahokia. However, the ridge-top mounds seemed to have also had other purposes. One of these in particular, Mound 72, tends to garner a great deal of attention. Dalan, et al. (2003) note that “it has been shown by excavations to have been an important elite burial mound.” According to Milner (1984), evidence for this includes “an empty charnal structure; two individuals associated with a layer of marine shell disc beads; bundled burials; and several large features containing many articulated skeletons, one group of which consisted of skeletons lacking crania and hands.” These high status items are evidence of a complex, elite burial in Mound 72. This evidence shows that at least one of the functions of ridge-top mounds reflects social inequality at Cahokia.

Conclusion
Due to the evidence derived from these categories, one can see that the monumental architecture and urban layout at Cahokia reflect the existence of social inequality. In regards to site layout, the establishment of the central district as an area of elite residence indicates the existence of social inequality. Furthermore, each of the various categories of mounds provides evidence for the existence of an elite class. This includes elite residences at platform mounds, burials at conical mounds, and further mortuary instances in ridge-top mounds. So, for these reasons architecture and urban layout show social inequality at Cahokia.

Images
Figure 1: Image created using Google Earth

Figure 2: Mintz, S. (2007). Explorations: The World Before 1492. //Digital History//. Retrieved April 17, 2009 from []

Figure 3: Personal Photograph

Figure 4: Image created using Microsoft Visual Earth, []

Figure 5: UW-Milwaukee Archaeological Laboratory (2001). Mound Function Analysis. Retrieved April 17, 2009 from []