Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Mound

A mound is a heaped pile of earth, gravel, sand, rocks, or debris, typically forming an elevated structure resembling a small hill.^[1] Mounds may occur naturally as rounded elevations in the landscape, but they are often constructed artificially for various purposes, including defense, demarcation, or ceremonial use.^[1] In archaeology, artificial mounds—also known as tumuli, barrows, or tells—represent some of the earliest monumental earthworks created by human societies, with examples dating back to around 4000 B.C. in regions like the Lower Mississippi Valley.^[2] These structures served diverse functions, such as burial sites, platforms for buildings, or markers for ceremonies and territories, and were built by layering soil, stones, and sometimes other materials over time.^[2] In North America, mound-building cultures, including the Adena, Hopewell, and Mississippian peoples, constructed thousands of such features across the eastern and central United States from the Archaic period (ca. 8000–1000 B.C.) through the Mississippian period (ca. A.D. 800–1600), often near rivers and in fertile valleys.^[3]^[2] Notable types include conical mounds, which are rounded and typically used for burials, standing 3 to 10 feet high and 50 to 100 feet in diameter; platform mounds, flat-topped and larger (up to 60 feet high and several acres wide), supporting temples, homes, or elite burials; and effigy mounds, animal- or shape-inspired earthworks (e.g., birds, bears, or serpents) built by Late Woodland peoples (ca. A.D. 650–1200) in the Upper Midwest for ceremonial purposes.^[4]^[2] These mounds provide critical insights into prehistoric societies' social organization, religious beliefs, and environmental adaptations, with over 1,100 recorded sites in areas like Mississippi alone, though many remain on private land and face threats from erosion and development.^[2] Beyond archaeology, the term "mound" also applies to modern contexts, such as the elevated pitcher's area in baseball.^[1]

Overview

Definition and Characteristics

A mound is defined as an artificial or natural elevation consisting of earth, stone, gravel, sand, rocks, or debris, typically smaller in scale than a hill. These formations vary in height from a few meters to tens of meters, distinguishing them from larger topographical features while emphasizing their prominence in landscapes.^[5]^[6] Key characteristics of mounds include their diverse shapes, such as conical, flat-topped, linear, rounded, oval, or square profiles, which reflect both natural processes and human intervention. Compositionally, they are built from materials like soil, rubble, organic remains, or a combination of earth and stone, often featuring additional elements such as ditches or surrounding structures. In terms of scale, diameters commonly range from 10 to 300 meters, allowing mounds to serve as visible landmarks or functional elevations in their environments.^[6]^[7] The word "mound" derives from Old English mund, meaning "protection" or "hand," which evolved through Middle English to signify an embankment, hedge, or heaped earthwork by the 16th century, reflecting its association with defensive or piled structures.^[8]^[9] In non-archaeological contexts, the term applies to natural insect constructions like ant or termite mounds and artificial features such as the pitcher's mound in baseball.^[1] In archaeology, mounds frequently represent ancient earthworks constructed by prehistoric societies for various purposes.^[10]

Natural versus Artificial Mounds

Natural mounds are geological features formed through non-biological processes such as glaciation, volcanism, and erosion. Glacial mounds, including drumlins, kames, eskers, and moraines, arise from the deposition of sediment by ice sheets and meltwater streams during periods of glaciation. Drumlins are streamlined, elongate hills of till shaped by subglacial flow, often occurring in fields aligned with former ice movement directions.^[11]^[12] Kames form as isolated mounds of stratified sand and gravel deposited at glacier margins when meltwater deposits slump upon ice melting.^[11] Eskers and moraines, such as terminal or lateral types, create sinuous ridges or arcuate mounds from subglacial tunnels or debris accumulation at glacier edges.^[12] Volcanic mounds, like cinder cones, develop from the accumulation of pyroclastic material around eruption vents, forming steep-sided, bowl-shaped elevations that erode into rilled surfaces over time.^[13] Erosional processes can also produce mound-like features, such as resistant chert concretions in limestone that protrude as low hills due to differential weathering by streams.^[14] In contrast, artificial mounds result from deliberate construction by humans or animals, exhibiting intentional layering or accumulation rather than random geological deposition. Human-built mounds often display uniform or patterned stratigraphy from piled earth, as seen in prehistoric earthworks where sediments are reworked and layered.^[15] Animal-constructed mounds, such as termite or ant hills, involve systematic piling of soil particles mixed with organic matter to create ventilated structures, forming dome-shaped elevations up to several meters high.^[16] These artificial features lack the irregular, bedded layering typical of glacial or volcanic deposits and instead show evidence of purposeful engineering, like internal chambers in termite mounds or cultural debris in human ones.^[17] Distinguishing natural from artificial mounds relies on stratigraphic analysis, artifact presence, and geomorphological surveys. Natural mounds typically exhibit irregular, heterogeneous layers from depositional processes, such as alternating coarse and fine sediments in cheniers or till in moraines, without human-modified materials.^[17] Artificial mounds, however, often feature more uniform or anthropogenic layering, with reversed dating in reworked sediments or embedded artifacts like pottery indicating human intervention.^[15] Geomorphological surveys, including LiDAR mapping, identify artificial origins through anomalous shapes, such as symmetrical peaks or clusters deviating from regional topography, while natural mounds align with broader landscape patterns like glacial fields.^[18] Overlaps occur when natural features are modified by human activity, complicating identification; for instance, ancient hillforts often incorporate and alter existing rises by adding ramparts and ditches to enhance defensive topography.^[19] In such cases, stratigraphic cores reveal hybrid layers where natural bases support artificial additions. Archaeological mounds represent a specific subset of human artificial mounds, focused on prehistoric constructions like burial or ceremonial earthworks.^[15]

Archaeological Mounds

Historical Development and Purposes

While the earliest artificial mounds in archaeology are settlement tells formed by accumulated debris dating to the Neolithic period in the Near East, around 7000 BCE, such as those at Çatalhöyük in modern-day Turkey,^[20] deliberate mound-building practices for monumental purposes emerged later, during the Neolithic around 5000–4000 BCE in regions including Europe and the Near East.^[21] These early structures represent initial human efforts to create elevated earthworks intentionally, evolving over millennia into more complex artificial constructions. Mound building reached significant peaks during the Bronze Age in Eurasia, with widespread tumuli and kurgans serving communal needs, and later in the Mississippian culture of North America from approximately 800 to 1600 CE, where large-scale platform mounds dominated regional landscapes.^[15]^[22] Primary purposes of archaeological mounds varied across cultures but centered on burial to honor the dead, ceremonial and ritual functions often involving astronomical alignments like solstices, defensive fortifications to protect communities, and symbolic roles as status markers for elites.^[23]^[22] Burial mounds, for instance, frequently served multifunctional roles combining interment with ritual gatherings.^[24] Mound-building practices evolved culturally from simple stone cairns in hunter-gatherer societies to complex, labor-intensive structures that mirrored growing societal complexity, particularly with the advent of agriculture and social hierarchies.^[25] This shift allowed for surplus resources and organized labor, enabling the construction of monumental earthworks that signified emerging chiefdoms and elite authority.^[26] Globally, mound building emerged as a widespread prehistoric practice through independent invention in multiple regions, including Europe, the Americas, and Asia, without evidence of direct cultural diffusion between continents.^[27] This convergent development highlights how diverse societies adapted earthen architecture to fulfill similar social, spiritual, and practical needs.^[28]

Construction Techniques and Materials

Archaeological evidence indicates that prehistoric mound construction primarily involved basket-loading techniques, where workers carried soil in woven baskets from nearby borrow pits to the building site, creating discernible layers of individual loads in mound profiles. This method, often supplemented by hand tools such as wooden hoes, clamshells, or animal shoulder blades, allowed for the incremental layering of earth to achieve stability and height. Ramp systems, constructed from graded earth or timber-supported inclines, facilitated the transport of materials to upper levels and provided access during construction phases. Timber frameworks, evidenced by postholes and charred log remains, were employed to reinforce internal structures, such as burial vaults or temporary platforms, preventing collapse under the weight of overlying soil.^[29]^[30]^[31] Materials for mounds were predominantly sourced locally to minimize transport efforts, including various soils such as clay for compaction and water resistance, sand for drainage, and loam for bulk fill. Organic inclusions like wood, bark, and reeds provided reinforcement, while stones, shells, and gravel layers added durability; for instance, shell middens in coastal regions supplied calcium-rich materials that enhanced structural integrity. In some cases, burned clay or ash was incorporated into basal layers to create hard, impermeable surfaces. These selections reflected adaptations to environmental availability, with layered combinations of clay, sand, and sod preventing slumping and promoting longevity.^[32]^[31]^[29] Labor organization for mound building relied on communal efforts, involving coordinated groups from surrounding communities rather than coerced or specialized workforces. Estimates suggest that large mounds required thousands of participants over extended periods, with calculations indicating that 50 workers could move approximately 2,000 cubic yards of earth in 100 days using primitive methods, while broader projects spanning centuries might engage 1,000 individuals seasonally. This collective approach, inferred from the scale and uniformity of construction layers, underscores social cooperation in creating stable bases for ceremonial activities.^[29]^[33] Engineering challenges were addressed through multi-phase construction, where mounds were built in successive stages with pauses for stabilization, allowing rebuilding after partial collapses. Erosion was mitigated by compacting layers, using sod or gravel veneers, and incorporating drainage features like internal sand cores or peripheral ditches to manage water flow. These techniques ensured mound survival for up to 1,000 years, as demonstrated by intact examples worldwide.^[29]^[34]

Types of Archaeological Mounds

Burial Mounds

Burial mounds, a prominent subtype of archaeological earthworks, were constructed primarily for interment purposes, serving as enduring markers of funerary practices across prehistoric societies. These structures typically enclosed human remains within earthen elevations, often incorporating internal features to protect or ritualistically position the deceased. Unlike other mound types, burial mounds emphasize the commemoration and disposal of the dead, reflecting beliefs in the afterlife and social hierarchies through their form and contents.^[2] Design features of burial mounds vary but commonly include conical shapes with rounded tops, typically 3 to 10 feet in height and 50 to 100 feet in diameter, though larger examples exist up to around 70 feet high and over 200 feet across, designed to cover primary burials. Many feature central chambers or cists—stone-lined pits or enclosures—that house the remains, sometimes accompanied by grave goods such as pottery vessels for sustenance in the afterlife and weapons symbolizing status or protection. These internal arrangements not only preserved the body but also facilitated ritual access during construction or secondary ceremonies.^[2] Associated rituals and beliefs underscore the mounds' role in processing death and honoring the deceased, frequently involving secondary burials where disarticulated remains were reinterred after initial decomposition, possibly to cleanse or communalize the body. This practice tied into ancestor veneration, positioning the dead as ongoing spiritual influencers over the living community. Elite tombs within larger mounds often included human sacrifices, such as retainers buried alongside high-status individuals to accompany them in the afterlife, evidencing beliefs in hierarchical continuity beyond death. Such rituals highlight the mounds as sites of transformation, where mortuary acts reinforced social bonds and cosmological order.^[35]^[36]^[37]^[38]^[39]^[40] Variations in burial mound forms reflect diverse cultural adaptations. Mound size frequently correlated with social status, where larger structures denoted higher-ranking individuals, incorporating richer grave assemblages and possibly multiple burials to signify influence and lineage prestige. Occasionally, burial mounds shared dual functions with platform types, incorporating interments beneath ceremonial surfaces.^[2] Archaeological evidence from burial mounds is enriched by bioarchaeological analysis of skeletons, revealing insights into health, diet, and interpersonal violence among the interred populations. Skeletal remains often show markers of nutritional stress, such as enamel hypoplasia from childhood malnutrition, or dietary patterns inferred from dental wear and isotopic signatures indicating reliance on maize or marine resources. Evidence of violence, including healed fractures or perimortem trauma, suggests conflicts or ritual killings, while overall pathology profiles health disparities tied to status, with elite burials displaying fewer signs of laborious stress. These analyses transform mounds from mere repositories into windows on prehistoric lifeways and inequalities.^[41]^[42]^[43]^[44]

Platform and Ceremonial Mounds

Platform and ceremonial mounds are artificial earthworks characterized by their flat summits, designed to support structures such as temples, elite residences, or open plazas for communal activities. These mounds typically feature broad, level tops accessed by ramps or staircases, with sides that are often straight or gently sloped, though stepped profiles appear in more complex constructions to facilitate stability and symbolic layering. Surrounding borrow pits or ditches, from which earth was excavated, commonly encircle the base, serving both practical and ritual purposes in delineating sacred spaces.^[45] Archaeological excavations reveal these mounds as central venues for non-funerary rituals, including astronomical observations, seasonal festivals, and governance ceremonies that reinforced social hierarchies. Posthole patterns on summits indicate the presence of large wooden buildings, such as thatched temples or council houses, where communal rites and elite decision-making occurred, often marked by burned floors from ritual terminations. Alignments of mounds with solstices or lunar cycles further underscore their role in tracking celestial events to guide agricultural and ceremonial calendars.^[46] Symbolically, platform mounds embodied cosmic mountains or the axis mundi, linking the earthly realm to the supernatural and representing the ordered emergence of the world from primordial waters. Their construction reenacted creation myths, symbolizing renewal, fertility, and social stratification, with layered building episodes mirroring the stratified cosmos and elite authority. Such mounds elevated rituals above the profane landscape, fostering communal identity and supernatural protection.^[47] Some platform mounds reach heights of 100 feet (30 m) with bases covering more than 14 acres (5.7 ha), highlighting the labor-intensive nature of mound-building societies involving thousands of workers over generations to create enduring symbols of power and piety.^[2]

Effigy Mounds

Effigy mounds are distinctive earthen structures shaped to resemble animals, humans, or other symbolic forms, primarily constructed by Late Woodland peoples (ca. A.D. 650–1200) in the Upper Midwest of North America. Unlike conical or platform mounds, these earthworks emphasize representational art and ceremonial significance, often depicting birds, bears, serpents, or lizards, with lengths ranging from 50 to 300 feet (15 to 91 m).^[3] These mounds served ceremonial purposes, possibly related to clan identities, spiritual beliefs, or territorial markers, and some contain burials or offerings, blending funerary and ritual functions. Over 200 effigy mounds are preserved at sites like Effigy Mounds National Monument in Iowa, providing evidence of complex symbolic landscapes and environmental adaptations by prehistoric communities. Construction involved careful planning and communal labor, with surfaces sometimes covered in clay or gravel for definition.^[4]^[48]

Regional Archaeological Examples

North America

North American mound-building traditions represent some of the most extensive and diverse examples of indigenous earthwork construction in the world, spanning from the Archaic period through the late prehistoric era. The earliest monumental mounds in the region date to around 1700 BCE at Poverty Point in northeastern Louisiana, where hunter-gatherer societies constructed massive earthworks including six concentric C-shaped ridges and five large mounds surrounding a central plaza, demonstrating organized labor without reliance on agriculture.^[49] This site, one of the oldest known complex societies in North America, featured Mound A—a bird effigy rising 72 feet high—built rapidly using basket loads of soil, highlighting early capabilities for large-scale projects.^[50] Subsequent cultures built upon these foundations, with the Adena tradition emerging around 800 BCE in the Ohio River Valley, where communities constructed conical burial mounds up to 75 feet tall, such as the Grave Creek Mound in West Virginia, often containing timbered tombs with grave goods for elite interments.^[51] The Adena, who persisted until about 100 CE, marked a shift toward more sedentary lifestyles with early horticulture, using mounds for ceremonial and funerary purposes across Ohio, West Virginia, and Kentucky.^[52] Building on Adena practices, the Hopewell culture flourished from 200 BCE to 500 CE, renowned for expansive trade networks that exchanged materials like copper from the Great Lakes, obsidian from the Rocky Mountains, and Gulf Coast shells, facilitating the creation of geometric enclosures and burial mounds at sites like the Hopewell Mound Group in Ohio.^[53] These networks connected distant regions, underscoring the Hopewell's role in cultural exchange and ritual complexity.^[54] The Mississippian culture, spanning 800 to 1600 CE, represents the pinnacle of mound-building in North America, with intensive maize agriculture generating surpluses that supported urban centers and hierarchical societies. At Cahokia near present-day St. Louis, Illinois—the largest prehistoric city north of Mexico—over 120 mounds, including the massive Monks Mound (100 feet high and covering 14 acres), formed a planned urban landscape housing up to 20,000 people by 1050 CE.^[55] Further south, the Etowah site in Georgia featured three large platform mounds up to 63 feet tall, used as bases for elite residences and temples in a chiefdom capital that thrived from around 1250 to 1375 CE.^[56] Iconic effigy mounds, such as Ohio's Serpent Mound—a 1,348-foot-long serpentine earthwork constructed by the Fort Ancient culture around 1000 CE, possibly with an earlier Adena phase around 300 BCE—illustrate symbolic and astronomical alignments in these traditions.^[57] Mound construction across these cultures was enabled by agricultural innovations, particularly the adoption of maize, beans, and squash in Mississippian societies, which produced food surpluses to sustain labor-intensive projects and social elites, though earlier groups like Poverty Point relied on diverse foraging.^[58] These earthworks served multifaceted roles, from burials and platforms for ceremonies to markers of territorial and spiritual significance. The decline of major mound-building began before European contact due to environmental stresses and internal conflicts, but accelerated after 1492 with the introduction of diseases like smallpox, which decimated populations—reducing the Lower Mississippi Valley's inhabitants by up to 90%—alongside colonization and warfare that disrupted communities and abandoned sites like Cahokia by 1400 CE.^[59] Recent advancements in LiDAR technology have revolutionized mound studies in the 2020s, revealing hidden earthworks obscured by vegetation and modern development. For instance, surveys in Michigan uncovered vast Native American agricultural fields and structures dating over 1,000 years old, while in Wisconsin and Indiana, LiDAR mapped previously unknown effigy mounds and enclosures, expanding our understanding of Woodland and Mississippian landscapes.^[60] These non-invasive discoveries, including over 29 additional effigy mounds identified in 2020, underscore the vast scale of indigenous engineering across North America.^[61]

Europe and Middle East

In Europe, archaeological mounds played a central role in Neolithic and Bronze Age funerary practices, with long barrows representing some of the earliest monumental constructions. These elongated earthen tumuli, often exceeding 100 meters in length, were built primarily between 4000 and 3000 BCE to house collective burials and served as territorial markers for early farming communities. A prominent example is Wayland's Smithy in Oxfordshire, England, dated to approximately 3590–3555 BCE through radiocarbon analysis of its timber and stone phases, which included a wooden mortuary structure later encased in a stone chambered tomb. This site exemplifies the Cotswold-Severn tradition of long barrows, where sarsen stones and chalk rubble formed trapezoidal mounds enclosing transepted chambers for excarnated remains.^[62] During the Bronze Age, round barrows became prevalent across northern and central Europe, typically 10–30 meters in diameter and used for single or small-group inhumations accompanied by grave goods like bronze artifacts and weapons. These mounds reflected emerging social hierarchies and were often clustered in barrow cemeteries, symbolizing ancestral ties to the landscape. The Sutton Hoo ship burial in Suffolk, England, dating to the early 7th century CE, illustrates a later Anglo-Saxon adaptation of this tradition; the 27-meter-long mound covered an 80-foot oak vessel containing a high-status chamber with gold jewelry, silverware, and weaponry, likely for King Rædwald, highlighting the persistence of mound burial into the early medieval period.^[63] Megalithic tombs, incorporating massive stone orthostats, further diversified European mound architecture, with passage graves in Iberia and Scandinavia dating from 4500 BCE onward; these structures, such as those in Galicia and southern Sweden, facilitated repeated ancestral rituals and were linked to maritime networks along the Atlantic facade.^[64] In medieval contexts, artificial mounds evolved into defensive forms like motte-and-bailey castles, where a steep earthen motte—often 10–20 meters high—supported a wooden keep, surrounded by a ditched bailey for livestock and troops; originating in 10th-century Normandy, this design spread across western Europe post-1066 Conquest, enabling rapid fortification of conquered territories.^[65] In the Middle East, mound traditions diverged toward urban and religious functions, with ziggurats emerging as massive stepped platforms in Mesopotamia around 2100 BCE. Constructed from mud-brick cores faced with baked bricks, these artificial hills rose in tiers to support temples dedicated to deities, embodying a connection between earth and heaven. The Ziggurat of Ur, built by King Ur-Nammu of the Third Dynasty of Ur for the moon god Nanna, featured three principal levels reaching about 30 meters high, with ramps and a summit shrine; its design influenced later Babylonian and Assyrian examples, serving ceremonial and administrative roles in city-states.^[66] Complementary to ziggurats were tells, natural accumulations of stratified settlement debris forming low, oval mounds up to 20 meters high from repeated occupation and abandonment over millennia. Tell es-Sultan at Jericho, occupied from the 10th millennium BCE, exemplifies this, with its 8–12-meter-high mound revealing 23 successive layers of mud-brick houses, plastered walls, and storage silos from Neolithic to Bronze Age phases, as excavated by Kathleen Kenyon in the 1950s.^[67] Recent ancient DNA studies have illuminated migration dynamics underlying European mound-building cultures, particularly linking Bronze Age barrows to steppe pastoralists. Analysis of mitochondrial genomes from Corded Ware burials—associated with round barrows—shows an east-to-west cline of Yamnaya-related ancestry, originating from the Pontic-Caspian steppe around 3000 BCE and contributing up to 75% of northern European genetic makeup by 2500 BCE, suggesting male-biased migrations that influenced Indo-European language spread and barrow traditions.^[68]

Asia and Africa

In Asia, archaeological mounds often served as monumental burial and religious structures, reflecting imperial authority and spiritual traditions. During Japan's Kofun period (c. 250–538 CE), keyhole-shaped tombs emerged as elite funerary monuments, particularly for imperial clans, with the Mozu-Furuichi group featuring 49 earthen mounds up to 486 meters long, surrounded by moats and topped with haniwa clay figurines symbolizing status and cosmology. These structures, built using layered earth and stone reinforcements, underscore the period's socio-political centralization under the Yamato polity.^[69] Buddhist stupas in India and Southeast Asia functioned as relic mounds enshrining the Buddha's remains or those of disciples, evolving from simple hemispherical domes to ornate complexes. The Great Stupa at Sanchi, constructed in the 3rd century BCE under Emperor Ashoka and enlarged in the 2nd century BCE, comprises a brick core encased in polished sandstone, measuring 36.6 meters in diameter and 16.5 meters high, with gateways depicting Jataka tales that highlight its role in pilgrimage and doctrinal dissemination. Jain traditions paralleled this with stupas like Kankali Tila in Mathura (c. 150 BCE–1077 CE), a brick mound yielding relic caskets and inscriptions evidencing early bone relic veneration among Jains.^[70] In China, tumuli exemplified grand imperial burials, as seen in the Mausoleum of Qin Shi Huang (d. 210 BCE), a 51-meter-high rammed-earth mound covering an underground palace complex spanning 56 km², accompanied by terracotta warrior pits that symbolize the emperor's quest for eternal rule and unification of the realm. Recent LiDAR surveys at Angkor in Cambodia (2010s–2020s) have uncovered networks of earthen temple mounds and reservoirs from the Khmer Empire (9th–15th centuries CE), revealing integrated ritual and hydraulic landscapes previously obscured by forest cover. Across Asia, these mounds facilitated imperial burials and religious continuity, influenced by dynastic migrations and belief systems emphasizing ancestor worship.^[72] In Africa, mounds manifested in funerary pyramids and settlement earthworks, tied to trade networks and ritual practices amid migrations like the Bantu expansions (c. 2500 BP onward), which spread iron metallurgy and farming, shaping monumental architecture in sub-Saharan regions. The Nubian pyramids at Meroë (c. 300 BCE–300 CE), part of the Kingdom of Kush, consist of over 200 small, steep-sided structures built on earthen bases with sandstone facing, averaging 30 meters high and distinct from Egyptian prototypes by their compact scale and chapels for offerings, serving as royal tombs blending local and Mediterranean influences.^[73]^[74] Great Zimbabwe (c. 11th–15th centuries CE) exemplifies African earthwork integration, where massive dry-stone enclosures rest on dhaka (puddled clay and gravel) platforms forming mound-like bases for elite residences and ritual spaces, with scattered debris mounds evidencing decayed housing and symbolic cattle symbolism linked to Shona trade in gold and ivory. These sites highlight mounds' roles in African rituals and commerce, with Bantu migrations enabling cultural synthesis in southern landscapes.^[75]^[76]

Modern Study and Preservation

Excavation Methods and Challenges

Contemporary excavation of archaeological mounds emphasizes non-invasive geophysical techniques to minimize site disturbance while mapping subsurface features. Ground-penetrating radar (GPR) is widely used to detect burials and structural anomalies without excavation, providing depth information and enabling the identification of internal mound layers.^[77] Magnetometry surveys complement GPR by revealing magnetic anomalies from burned soils or metallic artifacts, as demonstrated in investigations of prehistoric burial mounds where these methods outlined feature distributions prior to any digging.^[78] These approaches allow archaeologists to create detailed subsurface maps, guiding targeted interventions and preserving mound integrity. When invasive methods are necessary, stratigraphic trenching is preferred over full excavation to document construction sequences and recover samples with minimal impact. Trenches are strategically placed to expose vertical profiles, revealing episodes of mound building through layered sediments and artifacts, while avoiding the destruction of large areas.^[30] This technique has been applied at sites like the Hopewell Mound Group, where limited trenching combined with radiocarbon dating of charcoal samples resolved chronological debates, confirming mound construction between approximately 200 BCE and 500 CE.^[79] Advanced technologies enhance these methods by providing broad-scale data for mound analysis. LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) and drone-based surveys penetrate vegetation to reveal hidden earthworks; a 2022 LiDAR study in the Bolivian Amazon identified 26 settlement sites featuring platform mounds in an area spanning 4,500 square kilometers, with the survey covering 204 km², uncovering previously unknown settlement patterns without ground disturbance.^[80] Geographic Information Systems (GIS) integrate these datasets with elevation models to simulate site development and predict undiscovered mounds, as seen in predictive modeling for Native American sites that overlays LiDAR-derived topography with environmental variables.^[81] At Cahokia Mounds, LiDAR surveys have mapped potential buried features, aiding non-invasive prospection of the expansive urban complex.^[82] Despite these advancements, mound excavations face significant challenges that complicate research and preservation. Looting remains a primary threat, with unauthorized digging destroying contexts and removing artifacts from sites across the United States, often driven by the illicit antiquities market.^[83] Natural erosion and human-induced factors like urban encroachment further degrade mounds; for instance, development pressures and weathering have accelerated sediment loss at major North American sites, reducing visibility of surface features.^[84] Ethical concerns, particularly the repatriation of human remains and funerary objects under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), add layers of complexity, requiring consultation with descendant communities before any invasive work and often halting projects to facilitate returns.^[85] These issues demand interdisciplinary collaboration to balance scientific inquiry with cultural sensitivity.

Cultural and Legal Protection

Archaeological mounds hold profound cultural importance in contemporary society, serving as vital links to Indigenous heritage and attracting global tourism. Sites like the Monumental Earthworks of Poverty Point in Louisiana, inscribed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 2014, exemplify this significance, drawing visitors to explore their 3,400-year-old earthworks, which represent advanced Native American engineering and trade networks.^[86] The site features guided tours, hiking trails, and a museum that educate on its role as a ceremonial and residential center, fostering appreciation for pre-Columbian Indigenous cultures while generating economic benefits through tourism.^[87] Additionally, Indigenous communities actively reclaim mounds as spiritual sites, as seen in the Lipan Apache Tribe of Texas's 2021 repatriation of the Cementerio Del Barrio de los Lipanes burial mound in Presidio, Texas, through negotiations that restored tribal control over this sacred landscape divided by urban development.^[88] Legal protections for mounds are anchored in national and international frameworks designed to safeguard archaeological heritage. The U.S. Antiquities Act of 1906 empowers the President to designate national monuments protecting historic and prehistoric sites on federal lands, including earthen mounds, from excavation, destruction, or commercialization, marking the first comprehensive federal law for such resources.^[89] Internationally, the UNESCO 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property obligates states to prevent trafficking in archaeological artifacts, including those from mound sites, through export controls, repatriation agreements, and cooperation against illicit markets that fuel site looting.^[90] Mounds face escalating threats from climate change, particularly in riverine regions, where rising waters and erosion imperil their integrity. In the Mississippi River Valley, intensified flooding—driven by wetter conditions and altered river flows from dams—has eroded banks by 5-10 feet since the 1940s, submerging and destabilizing dense clusters of Indigenous mounds along the Wisconsin-Iowa border and in the Mississippi Delta, where over 100 mound and midden sites are at risk of inundation.^[91] Responses include community-led conservation, such as tribal co-management initiatives with federal agencies on erosion control and vegetation management, to preserve these ancestral landscapes.^[92] In September 2025, the Osage Nation completed the repatriation of Sugarloaf Mound in St. Louis, Missouri, reclaiming full ownership of the last remaining Indigenous mound in the city.^[93] Additionally, the Ocmulgee Mounds National Park and Preserve Establishment Act, introduced in 2024, advanced efforts to establish federal protections for the Ocmulgee Mounds in Georgia.^[94] Looking ahead, digital reconstructions and education programs offer promising avenues for mound preservation and cultural revitalization, countering persistent stereotypes. Virtual reality models and online field trips, such as those recreating sites like Ocmulgee and Etowah Mounds, enable non-invasive access for researchers and the public, enhancing understanding without physical disturbance.^[95] Educational initiatives, including curricula that debunk the 19th-century "Mound Builder" myth—which falsely portrayed mounds as non-Indigenous achievements to justify displacement—promote accurate narratives of Native ingenuity and ongoing connections to these sites.^[96]

References

[1]
MOUND Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
1. a small hill or heap of dirt or stones (as one made to mark a grave) 2. the slightly raised ground on which a baseball pitcher stands.Missing: encyclopedia | Show results with:encyclopedia
[2]
[PDF] Indian Mounds - Natural Resources Conservation Service
Indians first built mounds in the. Lower Mississippi Valley by about 4000 B.C. Widespread construction of mounds, however, began around 100 B.C. Mounds.
[3]
Effigy Mounds National Monument: Effigy Moundbuilders
Oct 12, 2025 · The construction of effigy mounds was a regional cultural phenomenon. Mounds of earth in the shapes of birds, bear, deer, bison, lynx, turtle, panther or water ...
[4]
Archeology - Effigy Mounds National Monument (U.S. National Park ...
Effigy mounds, built by Midwestern tribes (AD 650-1200), are shaped like animals, located on high areas, and served as burial and ceremonial sites. Effigy ...
[5]
What Is A Mound in Geography? - World Atlas
Jul 20, 2018 · A heaped pile of sand, gravel, debris, earth, or rocks is known as a mound. Mounds form on earth most of the time. Particularly they appear artificial and ...
[6]
Burial Mounds - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
Burial mounds are defined as earthen structures erected as graves, often associated with cultural practices of burial among various prehistoric populations, ...
[7]
Serpent Mound - Ohio History Connection
It is an effigy mound (a mound in the shape of an animal) representing a snake with a curled tail. Nearby are three burial mounds—two created by the Adena ...
[8]
Mound - Etymology, Origin & Meaning
Originating in the 1500s, "mound" means a hedge or embankment, and as a verb, to enclose or heap up, with an obscure origin influenced by "mount."
[9]
MOUND Definition & Meaning - Dictionary.com
noun · a natural elevation of earth; a hillock or knoll. · an artificial elevation of earth, as for a defense work or a dam or barrier; an embankment. · a heap ...Missing: encyclopedia | Show results with:encyclopedia
[10]
Archaic Mounds Research Papers - Archaeology - Academia.edu
Archaic mounds are earthworks constructed by prehistoric Native American cultures in North America, primarily during the Archaic period (circa 8000-1000 BCE).
[11]
Glacial landform - Moraine, Outwash, Drumlin | Britannica
Glacial geologists sometimes employ the term kame moraine to describe deposits of stratified drift laid down at an ice margin in the arcuate shape of a moraine.Depositional Landforms Of... · Meltwater Deposits · Glaciofluvial Deposits
[12]
14 Glaciers – An Introduction to Geology - OpenGeology
Moraines are mounded deposits consisting of glacial till carried in the glacial ice, and of rock fragments scoured from the U-shaped valley walls. The glacier ...
[13]
Volcanic Rocks and Associated Landforms - Our Dynamic Desert
Dec 18, 2009 · Two notable areas that display volcanic rocks and associated landforms include the Cinder Cones and Lava Flows National Natural Landmark Area.
[14]
[PDF] "Natural Mounds" of Northeastern Texas, Southern Arkansas, and ...
In southwestern Missouri chert con- cretions in limestone have given rise to mounds by their great resistance to stream erosion (21).Missing: examples | Show results with:examples
[15]
The largest prehistoric mound in Europe is the Bronze-Age Hill of ...
May 31, 2023 · ... stratigraphic cores was key to distinguishing natural and anthropogenic sediments. Our data show that the size and shape of the Udine Castle ...
[16]
Animal architecture - ScienceDirect.com
Nov 22, 2021 · Many animals shape and modify their physical environment, thereby creating a diversity of structures, from underground burrows to constructed nests to towering ...
[17]
Distinguishing Natural and Archaeological Deposits - ResearchGate
Middens are deposited on cheniers by humans as refuse. LCP mounds often are recognizable using criteria such as topographic expression, and both middens and ...
[18]
Geomorphometric Methods for Burial Mound Recognition and ...
I present a methodology through which burial mounds (tumuli) from LiDAR (Light Detection And Ranging) DEMS can be identified. This methodology uses ...
[19]
Hillfort archaeology and nature | National Trust
Hillforts are Iron Age earthworks, built for defense or status, and are now special wild places with diverse plant, bird, and animal species.
[20]
Neolithic Site of Çatalhöyük - UNESCO World Heritage Centre
The western mound shows the evolution of cultural practices in the Chalcolithic period, from 6200 bc to 5200 bc. Çatalhöyük provides important evidence of the ...Gallery · Maps · Documents · Indicators
[21]
Pre-Columbian Mounds & Mound Builders of North America
During the Archaic period, many Native American cultures built mounds for burial purposes. These mounds were typically conical or oval-shaped and were used to ...Brief Introduction to 'Mound... · The 'Mound Builder Myth' · Effigy Mounds National...
[22]
Who Were the 'Mound Builders'? · The Moundbuilders' Art
The Adena, Hopewell, and Fort Ancient Native American cultures built mounds and enclosures in the Ohio River Valley for burial, religious, and, occasionally, ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[23]
6,000 Year Old Neolithic Burial Mounds were Later Used for Ritual ...
Mar 17, 2024 · A complex Neolithic burial with two monumental mounds has been unearthed on the Eulenberg near Magdeburg, Germany. Dated to 6,000-years-ago ...
[24]
The Mound-Builders - The Archaeological Conservancy
Jan 31, 2024 · The latest dating techniques prove that moundbuilding started before pottery and before agriculture in the Archaic period when humans first ...Missing: multiple | Show results with:multiple
[25]
Uncovering the Legacy of America's Mound Builders
May 8, 2023 · The society that built the mounds was complex and hierarchical, with evidence of a chiefdom system that included a class of nobles who ...
[26]
https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/718b834bdf4141f4a585afde2fef0aab
[27]
The Native American mound builders - Heritage Daily
Aug 16, 2022 · Proper academic studies have shown that the mounds were built by Native American cultures over a period that spanned from around 3500 BC to the ...Missing: invention | Show results with:invention
[28]
[PDF] THE MOUND-BUILDERS - ScienceViews.com
Archaeological and Historical Society. Leaving behind their mounds and earthworks ... Timber structures—Primitive engineering in the mound area—Geometric.
[29]
[PDF] methods and problems of mound excavation
Sep 9, 2020 · In order to understand mound construction, they divided all earthworks into five categories: enclosures for defense, mounds of sacrifice, temple ...
[30]
[PDF] The Mound Builders - University of Kentucky
Such mounds contain a great amount of discarded and broken flints, pottery and shells together with a large number of animal bones of many kinds and ...
[31]
What Makes a Mound? Earth-Sourced Materials in Late Iron Age ...
Aug 13, 2021 · Common materials in mound-making in this period are rounded stones, slabs, turf, peat, sediments (especially sands and clays), charcoal and ...
[32]
[PDF] Who Built the Mounds? - Open Access Journals at IU Indianapolis
other archeologists estimate 45 pounds per load. On the larger mounds construction often continued over a period of several years; the sea- sonal ...
[33]
Construction methods and materials of archaeological mounds ...
Construction methods and materials of archaeological mounds: implications for uranium tailings impoundments. Journal Article · · Nucl. Saf.; (United States).
[34]
[PDF] British and Western European Prehistoric Megaliths - Mt. SAC
Nov 2, 1984 · Most of the dolmens appear to be tombs and of three types: single chambered, gallery graves,or passage graves. A single chambered megalithic ...Missing: variations | Show results with:variations
[35]
Lesson 6: Narrative – Aegean Prehistoric Archaeology
The artifacts from the tombs (vessels of both pottery and stone, tools and weapons, jewelry, and seals) show that a dead person was buried with his or her ...
[36]
Kofun: Japan's Keyhole-Shaped Burial Mounds | Amusing Planet
Oct 3, 2016 · These peculiar structures are ancient burial mounds called kofuns. Kofuns were built by the Imperial family and members of the ruling classes as tombs for the ...
[37]
Burial Mounds and 'Ritual Tumuli' of the Aegean early Bronze Age
Within the cairn, there were one or rarely two cist tombs containing a individual cremation in an upright standing burial jar, with one pot or no grave goods ...
[38]
[PDF] The Archaeology Of Death And Burial
Ancestral Worship: Some cultures practice secondary burials to honor ancestors, moving remains to a more sacred location. 2. Ritual. Cleansing: In some cases ...
[39]
Pre-Columbian burials | Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute
Sep 24, 2018 · ... secondary burial of remains, which is believed to have a common ancestor-veneration practice in pre-Colombian Panama. Previous. Pre-Columbian ...Missing: mound | Show results with:mound
[40]
[PDF] IDENTIFYING MORTUARY RITUAL AND ANCESTOR VENERATION
This study is an investigation of the ritual activity associated with ancestor veneration in the. Peruvian Andes through a survey of eighty tombs at the site of ...
[41]
[PDF] A controlled comparative analysis of secondary burial practices
Ancestor worship became ancestor veneration, as rights to land and water became an issue. The practice of ancestor veneration ultimately is not about the ...
[42]
The Nature of Moche Human Sacrifice : A BioArchaeological ...
Moche sacrifice victims were initially thought to be local warriors, but analysis suggests they were from competing Moche polities, not local.
[43]
Mound 72 Bird Man burial - Alliance for Networking Visual Culture
Dec 2, 2016 · The Mound 72 Bird Man burial involved a male on a falcon-shaped shell bed, with nearby human sacrifices, believed to be an elite burial.
[44]
[PDF] Dead Tell Tales: Studying Scandinavian Burials With Science
May 4, 2020 · Long barrows, however, are now considered to be contemporary with dolmens, but older than passage graves. With a century separating these two ...
[45]
Inequality in relational wealth within the upper societal segment
May 2, 2024 · Hence, the larger the burial mound, the wealthier, more powerful, and the better integrated the buried individual into local and regional ...
[46]
Ancestry and identity in Bronze Age Catacomb culture burials
Archaeology has developed its methods and criteria for assessing the social status of buried persons, such as the size of the burial kurgans, the location of ...
[47]
Osteobiography: A Platform for Bioarchaeological Research - PMC
The term “osteobiography” was conceived early in the history of bioarchaeology as part of attempts to bring skeletal data out of the ghetto of appendixes of ...
[48]
Bioarchaeology: Interpreting Human Behavior From Skeletal Remains
The study of human skeletons can reveal information about diet, stress, and lifestyle of individuals. This in turn, contributes to our understanding of social ...Missing: mounds | Show results with:mounds
[49]
Making and Marking Maleness and Valorizing Violence
I explore how (bio)archaeology investigates both overt physical violence and structures of violence that can be hidden yet are deeply impactful.Missing: mounds | Show results with:mounds
[50]
Ancient bones, teeth, tell story of strife at Cahokia
Aug 4, 2016 · A new study of Cahokia finds that those buried in mass graves likely lived in or near the pre-Columbian city most of their lives.Missing: bioarchaeology diet
[51]
Higher ground: The archaeology of North American platform mounds
Platform mounds serve as significant ceremonial architecture, reflecting social hierarchies in communities. Monk's Mound at Cahokia, the largest platform ...
[52]
Cahokia: Mirror of the Cosmos, Sally A. Kitt Chappell, an excerpt
The archaeological evidence clearly demonstrates that the mounds were built in stages and, like the plazas, palisades, woodhenges, and other public works at ...
[53]
Symbolism of Mississippian Mounds - ResearchGate
The practice of building platform mounds was also a ritual act imbued with mythic meaning as it was linked to the origins of the earth and its periodic ...
[54]
Mound 38 – Monks Mound – Cahokia Mounds State Historic Site
Oct 22, 2015 · Using the 130-meter contour line for the base, the height is 28.1 meters (92.2 feet); using the 128-meter contour gives 30.1 meters (98.8 feet).Missing: source | Show results with:source
[55]
Monumental Earthworks of Poverty Point: World Heritage Site
Jul 23, 2020 · Poverty Point is a series of earthen mounds and ridges built by hunter-gatherers between 1700 and 1100 BCE, with five mounds, six ridges, and a ...Missing: earliest | Show results with:earliest
[56]
Archaic Native Americans built massive Louisiana mound in less ...
Jan 28, 2013 · Archaic Native Americans built massive Louisiana mound in less than 90 days, research confirms. Poverty Point site recently nominated for UNESCO world heritage ...Missing: earliest | Show results with:earliest<|separator|>
[57]
Grave Creek Mound - National Park Service
Jan 11, 2024 · ... Adena cultural tradition. They lived throughout the Ohio River Valley. They buried their loved ones in timbered vaults inside these mounds.
[58]
Ohio's Prehistoric Past (U.S. National Park Service)
Jul 22, 2021 · Early Woodland Period: about 800 BCE BC to CE 500 The early Woodland culture in Ohio is known as the Adena. The Adena culture lived in large ...
[59]
Hopewell Mound Group - National Park Service
Jul 10, 2024 · Hopewell Mound Group is one earthwork site that is part of the Hopewell Culture National Historical Park and is located at 4731 Sulphur Lick Road, Chillicothe, ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[60]
Hopewell - Summary - eHRAF Archaeology
Conical burial mounds containing distinctive grit-tempered ceramics with elaborate stamped and incised decoration, copper ornaments, ground stone pipes, gorgets ...
[61]
Beyond digging in the dirt: CSU researcher uses geophysical, digital ...
May 2, 2023 · What comes to mind when you think about the first city in North America? Roads and plazas, shops and sewer systems, neighborhoods and water ...
[62]
[PDF] OCLASSIFICATION - NPGallery - National Park Service
Etowah consists of three large platform mounds, two plaza areas, associated village debris, and a surrounding ditch attached to large borrow pits. Early ...
[63]
The Adena People, No. 2 - eHRAF Archaeology
The reader is cautioned that Webb and Baby date Adena from about 800 B.C. to 700 A.D. (2800 B.P.- 1300 B.P.). This was due to the poor state of radiocarbon ...
[64]
(PDF) Maize and Mississippian Beginnings - Academia.edu
Here, public works projects like mound building were funded by surplus food collection, not production, indicating that early social complexity emerged in the ...
[65]
Emerald Mound - Natchez Trace Parkway (U.S. National Park Service)
The rapid decline of the Mississippian culture was likely the result of several factors including disease introduced by De Soto and his men, the intrusion ...
[66]
Massive Fields Where Native American Farmers Grew Corn, Beans ...
Jun 10, 2025 · The lidar survey also revealed other intriguing structures, including a circular dance ring and a rectangular building foundation that ...
[67]
Effigy Mounds Research Papers - Academia.edu
Higher resolution lidar flown in 2020 revealed another 29 effigy mounds at 13... ... A long-term project to map and catalog all precontact Native American burial ...
[68]
Once in a Lifetime: the Date of the Wayland's Smithy Long Barrow
Jan 30, 2007 · Wayland's Smithy II was a unitary construction, with transepted chambers, secondary kerb and secondary ditches all constructed together.
[69]
The Anglo-Saxon ship burial at Sutton Hoo | British Museum
Inside the burial mound was the imprint of a decayed ship and a central chamber filled with treasures.
[70]
Megalithic tombs in western and northern Neolithic Europe were ...
Apr 15, 2019 · These Neolithic megalithic tombs are concentrated along the Atlantic coastal areas, stretching from the Mediterranean to Scandinavia, including ...
[71]
Motte-and-bailey castles of Europe. Some aspects concerning their ...
The motte-and-bailey castles evolved from atypical forms in the 10th century. Early castles did not start with a classical geometric design. The paper discusses ...
[72]
Ziggurat of Ur - Smarthistory
The ziggurat at Ur and the temple on its top were built around 2100 BCE by the king Ur-Nammu of the Third Dynasty of Ur for the moon goddess Nanna.
[73]
Excavations at Jericho - jstor
KATHLEEN M. KENYON, C.B.E., F.S.A.. Director, British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. WHEN IN I952 political conditions made it possible to ...<|separator|>
[74]
Mitochondrial genomes reveal an east to west cline of steppe ...
Aug 2, 2018 · These observations led some researchers to suggest a possible Yamnaya migration toward the Baltic drainage basin15 or a massive westward ...Missing: paper | Show results with:paper
[75]
Mozu-Furuichi Kofun Group: Mounded Tombs of Ancient Japan
Jul 6, 2019 · Burial mounds of significant variations in size, kofun take the geometrically elaborate design forms of keyhole, scallop, square or circle.<|separator|>
[76]
Buddhist Monuments at Sanchi - UNESCO World Heritage Centre
The archaeological remains of the Buddhist Monuments at Sanchi are authentic in terms of their locations and setting, forms and design, and materials and ...Gallery · Videos · Documents · MapsMissing: mound | Show results with:mound
[77]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440324001262
[78]
Mausoleum of the First Qin Emperor - UNESCO World Heritage Centre
Mausoleum of the First Qin Emperor. No doubt thousands of statues still remain to be unearthed at this archaeological site, which was not discovered until 1974.Gallery · Maps · Documents · Videos
[79]
Archaeological Sites of the Island of Meroe
Criterion (iv):The pyramids at Meroe are outstanding examples of Kushite funerary monuments, which illustrate the association with the well preserved remains ...
[80]
Middle to Late Holocene Paleoclimatic Change and the Early Bantu ...
This article reviews evidence from biogeography, palynology, geology, historical linguistics, and archaeology and presents a new synthesis of the ...
[81]
Great Zimbabwe National Monument
The property, built between 1100 and 1450 AD, extends over almost 800 ha and is divided into three groups: the Hill Ruins, the Great Enclosure and the Valley ...Missing: mounds | Show results with:mounds
[82]
[PDF] The Preservation of Great Zimbabwe - ICCROM
Numerous mounds scattered inside and outside the stone enclosures are evidence of deteriorated dhaka structures which, when excavated, reveal prehistoric dhaka.
[83]
Archaeological investigation of burials preluded by ground ...
Ground penetrating radar (GPR) is a non-invasive and efficient scientific tool in burial analysis that can 'see the unseen,' answering both simple questions.
[84]
Using Geophysics to Characterize a Prehistoric Burial Mound in ...
Near-surface geophysics methods have been widely applied to this kind of archaeological feature over years. For example, magnetometry has proven its great value ...
[85]
Building the Ohio Hopewell Chronology: An Incremental Approach ...
May 22, 2023 · Ohio Hopewell is an archaeological concept that is known worldwide but that suffers from “a disarray of radiocarbon results” (Lynott ...
[86]
Lidar reveals pre-Hispanic low-density urbanism in the Bolivian ...
May 25, 2022 · Our results indicate that the Casarabe-culture settlement pattern represents a type of tropical low-density urbanism that has not previously been described in ...
[87]
GIS - Illinois State Archaeological Survey
LiDAR data is processed to produce highly detailed, spatially accurate digital elevation models. Burial mounds and other archaeological landscape modifications ...
[88]
NGA, SLU team up to survey Cahokia Mounds archaeological site
High-tech LiDAR and Unmanned Aerial Systems help search for undiscovered ancient burial mounds within area once home to the biggest and most sophisticated ...
[89]
Cultural heritage at risk: United States - Smarthistory
The United States experiences unique challenges with the looting of archaeological sites. Objects of cultural heritage, unless discovered on federal or tribal ...
[90]
Conservation of Prehistoric Mound sites - ArcGIS StoryMaps
Safeguards were put in place to control erosion from the encroaching Black Warrior River in the form of stones along its bank, and mound excavations have been ...Missing: engineering | Show results with:engineering
[91]
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
Apr 29, 2024 · Since 1990, Federal law has provided for the protection and return of Native American human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural ...
[92]
Monumental Earthworks of Poverty Point
Poverty Point's archaeological and visual setting and its agricultural character support the Outstanding Universal Value of the property and require ...
[93]
Welcome to Poverty Point World Heritage Site | Explore Louisiana
Poverty Point is a 3,400-year-old trading hub and engineering marvel, a UNESCO site with a 72-foot mound, and a National Historic Landmark.History & Artifacts · Poverty Point Events · Things to Do Near Poverty Point
[94]
In Far West Texas, a Sacred Burial Site is Reclaimed Through ...
Oct 16, 2024 · Beyond the mounds recognized by Lipan Apache descendants, Hernandez says there are other Indigenous burial sites in and around the area.
[95]
Antiquities Act of 1906 | GovInfo
Jun 5, 2025 · This Act authorized the President to proclaim national monuments, historic and prehistoric structures, or objects of historic or scientific ...
[96]
Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit
The States Parties to this Convention shall respect the cultural heritage within the territories for the international relations of which they are responsible, ...
[97]
Mississippi River eroding Indigenous mounds on Wisconsin-Iowa ...
Oct 14, 2024 · It's a product of climate change, which is causing wetter ... One of North America's densest collections of Indigenous mounds is at risk.
[98]
A Journey of Healing: Creating Co-Stewardship with Tribal ...
Nov 14, 2023 · For more than a decade, the S'eḏav Va'aki Museum—a collection of pre-contact archaeological sites formerly known as the Pueblo Grande Museum and ...
[99]
Indian Mounds | Virtual Field Trip - PBS LearningMedia
The Indian Mounds experience includes virtual field trips to Ocmulgee National Monument, Kolomoki Mounds State Park, and Etowah Indian Mounds Historic Site.
[100]
[PDF] Teaching About American Indians: Stereotypes and Contributions
The Moundbuilder myth reinforced the dominant nineteenth century stereotype of the prehistoric native peoples as “bloodthirsty savages.” Indeed, it has been ...