Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New research on why Cahokia Mounds civilization left

scitechdaily.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–17 of 17 posts

Re: New research on why Cahokia Mounds civilization left

#11

Post by _xerces_ »

Cahokia Mounds are great, but I had to pass through the scariest, sketchiest, most bombed-out looking neighborhoods I have ever seen to get to them. This was 20 years ago, so maybe things are much better now, but I never thought I would see such urban blight and devastation in the USA. It makes me wonder about the civilization that used to live in St. Louis 50 years ago with their grand brick warehouses, industrial might and river boat commerce.

Maybe the population of St. Louis themselves also fits the narrative: “They put a lot of effort into building...but there were probably external pressures that caused them to leave,” Rankin said. “The picture is likely complicated.”

Re: New research on why Cahokia Mounds civilization left

#12

Post by [deleted] »

westurner wrote: post #9

I used to live near the Missouri River before it meets the Mississippi River south of STL, but haven't yet made it to the Cahokia Mounds which are northeast and across the river from what is now St. Louis, Missouri. Was it disease? ["Fusang" to the Chinese, various names to Islanders FWIU] [?? BC/AD: Egyptian treasure in Illinois, somehow without paddleboats to steam up the Mississippi] ~800 AD: Lead Cross of Knights…

[deleted]

Re: New research on why Cahokia Mounds civilization left

#13

Post by kjkjadksj »

_xerces_ wrote: post #11

Cahokia Mounds are great, but I had to pass through the scariest, sketchiest, most bombed-out looking neighborhoods I have ever seen to get to them. This was 20 years ago, so maybe things are much better now, but I never thought I would see such urban blight and devastation in the USA. It makes me wonder about the civilization that used to live in St. Louis 50 years ago with their grand brick warehouses, industrial m…

The pressures to cause people to leave st louis and other rustbelt cities 50-60 years ago amounted to internalized racism among the white population.

Re: New research on why Cahokia Mounds civilization left

#14

Post by kjkjadksj »

bunderbunder wrote: post #6
engineer_22 wrote: post #2

Tl;Dr: they built a flourishing city, and one hypothesis was drought but new research ruled that out, so we have no idea why they left.

Sounds like maybe they're also suggesting, "Perhaps we don't need an environmental catastrophe, maybe it's more like what happened to Detroit." Which seems pretty parsimonious to me? Without so much fixed infrastructure such as harbors and paved highways and the Ford Rouge factory, there's less to keep pulling people back to an urban lifestyle if that's not what they're after.

What, some different complexion natives moved in and got the cahokians scared enough to flee to the suburbs? That is what happened to Detroit.

Re: New research on why Cahokia Mounds civilization left

#15

Post by westurner »

AlotOfReading wrote: post #10
westurner wrote: post #9

I used to live near the Missouri River before it meets the Mississippi River south of STL, but haven't yet made it to the Cahokia Mounds which are northeast and across the river from what is now St. Louis, Missouri. Was it disease? ["Fusang" to the Chinese, various names to Islanders FWIU] [?? BC/AD: Egyptian treasure in Illinois, somehow without paddleboats to steam up the Mississippi] ~800 AD: Lead Cross of Knights…

For one thing, the words you want are "Maya" and "Nahua". "Mayan" is the language family and "Aztec" refers to various things, none of which are what you want. They're also definitely unrelated to the mound cultures except for the broadest possible relationships like existing on the same continent.

How are pyramid-building cultures definitely unrelated to mound-building cultures?

Cahokia Mounds: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cahokia :

> Today, the Cahokia Mounds are considered to be the largest and most complex archaeological site north of the great pre-Columbian cities in Mexico.

Chicago was a trading post further north FWIU, but not an archaeological site.

"Michoacan, Michigan, Mishigami, Mizugami: Etymological Origins? A Legend." https://christopherbrianoconnor.medium.com/michoacan-michiga...

Is there evidence of hydrological engineering or stonework?

It's not clear whether the megalithic Sage Wall in MT was man-made, and sort of looks like the northern glacier pass it may have marked.

FWIU there are quarry sites in the southwest that predate most timelines of stonework in the Americas and in Egypt, Sri Lanka / Indonesia, and East Asia; but they're not further north than Cahokia Mounds.

In TN, There are many Clovis sites; but they decided to flood the valley that was home to Sequoyah - who gave written form to Cherokee and other native languages - and also a 9500-year old archaeological site.

This says the Clovis people of Clovis, New Mexico are the oldest around: https://tennesseeencyclopedia.net/entries/paleoindians-in-te...

The Olmecs, Aztecs, and Mayans all worked stone.

From where did stonework like the Osireon originate?

Re: New research on why Cahokia Mounds civilization left

#16

Post by AlotOfReading »

westurner wrote: post #15
AlotOfReading wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For one thing, the words you want are "Maya" and "Nahua". "Mayan" is the language family and "Aztec" refers to various things, none of which are what you want. They're also definitely unrelated to the mound cultures except for the broadest possible relationships like existing on the same continent.

How are pyramid-building cultures definitely unrelated to mound-building cultures? Cahokia Mounds: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cahokia : > Today, the Cahokia Mounds are considered to be the largest and most complex archaeological site north of the great pre-Columbian cities in Mexico. Chicago was a trading post further north FWIU, but not an archaeological site. "Michoacan, Michigan, Mishigami, Mizugami: Etymologic…

> How are pyramid-building cultures definitely unrelated to mound-building cultures?

You're asserting a causal relationship, not a functional or morphological similarity. You haven't made an argument for that yet.

> This says the Clovis people of Clovis, New Mexico are the oldest around

They aren't. Pre-clovis is well established at this point. I'm not sure you intend this with your phrasing, but maybe this will be useful. Archaeological cultures like Clovis don't name a "people" because the actual humans or may not have shared unified identities. Type sites also just represent a clear example of the broader category they're naming rather than anything about where things originated.

There's also thousands and thousands of years separation between Clovis Mexica, Mound cultures, or the Maya, so unless you make an argument I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Do you think all lithics are the same?

> The Olmecs, Aztecs, and Mayans all worked stone.

1) you've made the same naming mistake again and 2) this isn't an argument for anything.

Re: New research on why Cahokia Mounds civilization left

#17

Post by westurner »

AlotOfReading wrote: post #16
westurner wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are pyramid-building cultures definitely unrelated to mound-building cultures? Cahokia Mounds: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cahokia : > Today, the Cahokia Mounds are considered to be the largest and most complex archaeological site north of the great pre-Columbian cities in Mexico. Chicago was a trading post further north FWIU, but not an archaeological site. "Michoacan, Michigan, Mishigami, Mizugami: Etymologic…

> How are pyramid-building cultures definitely unrelated to mound-building cultures? You're asserting a causal relationship, not a functional or morphological similarity. You haven't made an argument for that yet. > This says the Clovis people of Clovis, New Mexico are the oldest around They aren't. Pre-clovis is well established at this point. I'm not sure you intend this with your phrasing, but maybe this will be u…

How far north did which peoples' ancient building methods culturally diffuse and in what years on which calendars; relative to Cahokia Mounds as one of the oldest ancient sites in the United States, perhaps Sage Wall MT, and NM and climate?
Post reply on HN