Question about the Cahokia Mounds debate: were they a city or just ceremonial?

I was down in Collinsville, Illinois last spring checking out Monk's Mound and got into it with a professor who was saying the whole area was more like a seasonal gathering spot, not a permanent city. On the other hand, the visitor center there says it held 10,000 to 20,000 people at its peak with residential zones. Who's got the better evidence on this, the old school population estimates or the newer revisionist take?

2 comments

2 Comments

the_rose16d agoTop Commenter

Totally get where you're coming from with this debate, it's a tough one to sort through. I spent a summer volunteering at a dig out near the Ohio River, and the arguments between the two camps felt almost personal sometimes. The revisionist folks make some good points about seasonal use, but the sheer amount of residential debris I saw at similar mound sites makes me lean toward permanent occupation. Your mileage may vary, but the old school population estimates have never felt way off to me.

wyatt_green3115d ago

My buddy Dave worked a dig in southern Illinois a few years back and said the same thing about the debris. He found so many broken pottery shards and animal bones in one spot it was hard to argue it was just some weekend spot.