Each generation likes to think it is unique, or at least living on the cutting-edge; but archaeologists have long known that history has a way of repeating itself. Although North America is often considered to be part of the "New World," inhabitations on this continent date back millennia. In this fascinating piece by Annalee Newitz for Ars Technica (whose length is perfect for plane reading) archaeologists uncover new sections of the lost city of Cahokia, which flourished between 1100 and 1400 A.D. in an area that is currently known as East St. Louis. A city of 30,000 that was more populous than Paris at the time, the pyramid and earthern-mound laden city went through all the statutte-endowed stages of societal refinement before taking the low road into ritual sacrifice and random trash fires. Sound familiar?
For more on the ancient world:
3 Comments
Rod Barnett addresses this vey site and links it to others in his piece in Places Journal. One of the questions he raises is how can the deep history of the region can be represented through design, deep ranging from the historic mounds to the far younger Jefferson Expansion Memorial (aka The Arch) building and grounds that are more recognized in architectural history.
It seems that these archeological digs may be one of the links that Barnett is pondering by focusing on the longitudinal characteristics of landscape and memory (a de facto part archeology) moreso than creating dioramas that fetishize the mounds, ignoring the people and customs (urbanism) that physically manifested themselves in the mounds.
As I noted elsewhere, the piece led me to recall a great post from 2011 re: mounds as "precedent for responding to floods." and a pre-Contact form of indigenous #infrastructuralurbanism.
Nam, the Davis piece points to an inconsistency between what (some) LA's and (some) archeologists think of these mounds. The question is if the earthwork is merely a piece of landscape infrastructure reflecting a best practice based on available technology or was it more complex than that with a greater range of social and cultural activities embedded into it and the surrounding landscape.
The connection to New Orleans is also interesting given the incredibly complex (read: rich with highs and lows) of the lower Mississippi. Making comparisons between these two large sites by using the much larger landscape of the lower Mississippi generates some interesting critiques, especially when the temporal aspects of the sites is taken into consideration.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.