At the present location of a motel at coordinates N410E1914 is Mound 104, based upon evidence still visible behind the motel. The elevation and the Reeves aerial photographs suggest this was a mound. Oscar Snyder (personal communication), however, believes it is not a mound.

These two mounds are surrounded by the 128 meter (419.9-foot) contour line, which was probably created by the leveling of the mounds. There is a high point, more or less in the center of this general area, at 128.2 meters (420.6 feet). Walking over the area, one detects slight rises in elevation at approximately the coordinates given for the mounds, indicating their remnants. Trenches would help determine if mounds had stood there prior to 1933. It would also suggest what data remain to determine the time of their approximate construction and their relationship to other mounds at the Cahokia site.

Close to Mound 97 are indications of two other mounds. Mound 98 is clearly indicated in the 1933 photos. It is enclosed by the 128-meter (419.9-foot) contour line and has a peak elevation of 128.3 meters (420.9 feet). It coincides with the location indicated by the early air photos. Northwest of Mound 98 the air photos show another probable mound, Mound 99.Today it is covered with structures and a small street.

Mounds 98 and 99 are near a depression that may be an aboriginal borrow pit. This well-defined depression is 1.7 meters (5.6 feet) deep. It is observable on the 1933 photos, but not on the 1931 USGS map. It should be examined and a test excavation made to determine if it is indeed a prehistoric feature.

To the southeast of Borrow Pit 5-1 is a small but obvious mound located in Section 5W at grid coordinate S940W35; it is designated Mound 96. A low elevation is observable in the area. It was not noticeable in the 1960s because of the trees and brush growing in the area. However, in the 1970s, much of the brush was cleared, revealing a low rise. This low mound is probably associated with Mound 72 to the northeast; it may have been the location of a charnel house from which body remains were taken for burial. It should be tested to determine its man-made nature and possible association with Mound 72.

Summer 1998 Project

The Cahokia Mounds Museum Society has agreed to partially support Dr. Melvin Fowler, of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, with his continue search for confirmation of another Woodhenge type structure in the area of Mound 72 and 96. He has had crews in the field for several seasons during the 90s and believes he has evidence to support his hypothesis for the existence of the post-circle monument.

The focus of this year’s project will be to examine basin type features beneath Mound 96 and others nearby. The length of the project depends on receipt of a grant from the National Science Foundation, but will start sometime in mid-June.

Surrounding the large Borrow Pit 5-1 are several small promontories whose heights give the appearance of mounds, albeit very low ones. Oscar Snyder (personal communication) suggests that at least one is a mound, here designated Mound 94. It is located in Section 5Q. A very large tree in the area obscures the mound on the UWM Map. Mound 94 is tentatively identified as a mound associated with Borrow Pit 5-1.

Just to the south of Mound 91 and cut by the modern highway and its ditches is another possible mound, Mound 92. It shows only as a slight elevation just below the 128-meter (419.9 foot) contour line. On some air photos there is a semicircular white area that suggests a mound disturbed by modern construction and cultivation. Its presence could be tested by cutting an east-west trench paralleling the highway ditch starting at about N20W746. If a mound is confirmed here, the four mounds (43, 44, 91, and 92) logically enclose a plaza, one designated the West Plaza (Fowler 1978a).

At N154W1660 is a modern house on top of a mound-like structure. Superficially, it appears to be a very well-preserved mound upon which modern residents have built their house. It has been examined quite extensively, although the contours do not show up on the 1966 UWM Map. It does, however, appear very clearly on the 1930-1931 compilation for the USGS map. There are other houses in various subdivisions that are on somewhat lower mound-like elevations, and in most cases these elevations are the result of house construction. That is, soil removed when the foundations or the basements were excavated was mounded up around the foundation, creating a slight contour elevation. Most of these elevations do not appear to be of aboriginal origin, as they fit too neatly the pattern of the distribution of modern houses. Mound 90, however, is much larger than the others, and its location does not fit the modern construction pattern. Because of its size, location, and unique nature, it has been designated a mound.

To the southwest of the Powell Mound, Patrick shows a small mound roughly oval in shape with a northwest axis. A similar mound is shown on the McAdams Map of 1882; he gives a height of 20 feet (6.1 meters). This is probably the same mound, though the McAdams’ location is a bit more difficult to confirm since the scale of his map is not as precise as Patrick’s. It does have the same oval shape with a north-south axis. A mound in a similar location is shown with a height of 10 feet (3.05 meters) on the Thomas Map of 1894. There is no indication of this mound on the 1966 UWM Map since its location was on the edge of the map and the area was being destroyed at that time.

Workers from the University of Illinois at the Powell Mound made a map with a 1-foot contour interval, and it shows a mound with a height of approximately 6 to 8 feet (1.8 to 2.4 meters). This appears to be where Mound 88 would be. There are no published references to Mound 88, and it is now totally destroyed; it is in the parking lot of the discount store mentioned above.

At what is generally considered the western edge of the Cahokia site was a large, rectangular-based, ridge-topped mound that is known as the Powell Mound after the property owners in the 1930s. The Powell Mound is shown rather distinctly on the additional segment of the map made by Patrick and his surveyors in the late 1870s. Dr. Paul A. Titterington, the St. Louis physician and local archaeologist, saw the mound and later observed its destruction in the 1930s. He describes it as follows:

“This mound, Number 46 in the Moorehead classification, was 310 feet long, 180 feet wide and 40 feet high. It was the most symmetrical mound in the group and was shaped like a large Hayrick.” (Titterington 1938: 15)

Fortunately, the mound was still standing in 1922 when Lt. Goddard of the US Army Air Service took oblique photographs of the site (Goddard 1969; Hall 1968; Fowler 1977). One was a low oblique shot of Powell mound group. It shows the nature Mound 86 and its shape, which conforms very well with the description by Titterington.

Scaling data from the Patrick Map indicates a north-south dimension of 150 feet (45.7 meters) and an east-west dimension of 300 feet (91.4 meters). Moorehead gives a north-south dimension of 170 feet (51.8 meters) and an east-west dimension of 310 feet (94.5 meters). Various heights have been recorded for this mound: Patrick in 1876 indicates a height of 45 feet (13.7 meters); McAdams in 1882, 30 feet (9.1 meters); Thomas in 1894, 35 feet (10.7 meters); Peterson-McAdams in 1906, 30 feet (9.1 meters); and Moorehead in 1929, 40 feet (12.2 meters). The dimensions are rather consistent, indicating an unchanging size through time. Given Titterington’s description and early photos, it appears that the mound had retained its primary form.

Because of its outstanding form and shape, the Powell Mound has been photographed and illustrated in many publications (Bushnell 1902: Figure 104: Moorehead 1929: Plate 39; Titterington 1938: Figures 35, 46, 48, 50 and 51).

As discussed at several points in this atlas, Moorehead referred to the Powell Mound as Mound 46, whereas Patrick did not number it and used 46 for another mound. It is unfortunate that the numbering for this mound is confused. I feel it important to maintain Patrick’s number 46 for the mound he intended it to represent, which is still partially preserved under the fill of the Interstate 55-70 (see discussion of Mound 46). Therefore, the number 86 has been assigned to the Powell Mound. However, those working at the site in the 1930s followed Moorehead’s lead, thus in much of the literature it is referred to as Mound 46.

Unfortunately, the Powell Mound was partially destroyed in 1930 and 1931. Titterington describes the event:

In December of 1930 and January of 1931, all but 5 feet of its base was removed, the object being to fill in an area of low ground 200 to 400 yards to the northwest. By doing this, the owners were able to put their whole tract of about 50 acres under cultivation.

It is regrettable that information from this mound was almost completely lost to science. The loss was due to lack of funds by the scientific institutions, and to the lack of public interest. For a period of several years the Powell brothers had a standing offer of $3,000 and 3 years time open to any institution that cared to study the mound; the only conditional requirement was that the dirt removed be placed in an area of low ground 200 to 400 yards away. The undertaking was too big for those scientifically interested, even with the financial assistance offered by the owners. It seems that the state wanted to buy the mound with a 50 foot margin around the base and a road leading to the main highway. This proposition did not appeal to the Powells because it would have taken a mushroom-shaped piece out of one end of their tract of land. They offered to sell their whole farm, but this in turn did not appeal to the state. With this deadlock, there were rumors of condemnation proceedings which precipitated the removal of the mound.

Work was started on the north side of the mound with a large steam shovel, which was hidden from the view of the highway by the large size of the mound. It was eight days before the public was aware that the mound was being taken down. At this time the Powells gave permission for a scientific man to watch the proceedings, and do what excavating he could as long as he did not interfere with the contractor.

This work was under the supervision of the Archaeological Department of the University of Illinois, but did not get underway until the razing had been in progress for a total of 16 days. [Titterington 1938: 13-14]

A. R. Kelly, then of the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana, observed the mound’s destruction. In February, 1931, Thorne Deuel, of the University of Chicago and representing the University of Illinois, conducted excavations into the remaining base of the Powell Mound, or about 5 feet (1.5 meters) of the original mound. Kelly observed:

Notes and photographs taken on the profile through the long axis of the large Powell mound by Dr. L. E. Worktnan of the State Geological Survey during the course of mound removal by steam shovel in 1930, indicate that the mound was constructed in two stages, and consisted of a top layer of mound earth about 1S20 feet in height, brought to an apex in a hogback ridge running along the greater axis of the mound, and underlying an original mound core which is approximately 27 feet high. The older mound was of the rectangular, flattopped variety familiar in the Cahokia area. No burials or burial furniture were found in the basal mound structure, and the pot sherds and artifacts contained there in were evidently chance inclusions made while the mound builders were obtaining the baskets of mound earth from adjacent camp and village sites.

Later a second mound was built over the original flat-topped structure, but first the mound builders made two unique burial plots on the surface of the basal mound. The first of these burials plots was destroyed by steam shovel: The second was hand trowelled by a member of the University staff and adequate notes were taken. The long bones and skulls of several secondary interments had been placed between alternating sheaths of cedar bark with a blanket or shell covering the bones. A thin cornhusk or grass mattinghad covered the whole burial plot, approximately 18-20 feet in diameter. Two wooden spools covered with sheet copper, interpreted as ear pendants, fell from the burial level during excavation… Other burials found on the slopes of the mound were without burial furniture. No material of cultural significance was found in the upper 20 feet of the Powell Mound. [Kelly 1933: 101]

The materials excavated by Thorne Deuel are stored at the Illinois State Museum. Kelly briefly noted these materials:

Excavations made in February 1931, provided information as to the structure of the seven feet of mound material left at the base of the large mound destroyed by steam shovel. Beneath the mound were extensive village site remains, pot sherds, stone and bone artifacts, and kitchen refuse. The pottery in the underlying camp site was of the same or related type as that accidentally included in the earth used in the mound construction. [Kelly 1933: 101]

An analysis of the materials from Thorne Deuel’s excavations at the Powell Mound, including sherds, artifacts, and Deuel’s notes, was made by Steven Ahler and Peter DePuydt 1986. Ahler and DePuydt compiled an excavation profile of the north wall of the east-west trench excavated by Deuel. The mound section showed three units of cultural activity. There was a premound occupation of the area with ceramics predominately related to the Fairmount phase. A small mound or mound core appeared in the profile; and a later mound fill seems to have been added over the entire mound. The small mound or mound core appears to have been close to 20 feet (6.1 meters) in height. Ahler and Depuydt’s analysis of the sherds from the mound fill suggests a Stirling phase association for these activities. Considerable stone chipping debris was found in the premound deposits.

Titterington talked to some who were present when razing of the mound commenced, before A. R. Kelly started his work, and he gives a much more detailed description of the findings, stratigraphy, and construction of the mound. Instead of quoting extensively from this description, I refer the reader to Titterington’s 1938 publication, pages 14 and 15.

In the early 1960s the remaining portion of the Powell Mound was threatened by construction of a large discount store. The University of Illinois Archaeological Field School, under the direction of Charles Bareis, excavated into the base of the decimated Powell Mound, in the remnants of smaller mounds, and nearby areas.

The razing of the Powell Mound in the 1930s and construction of the Gem Store in the 1960s nearly completed Powell Mound’s destruction. Charles Bareis (personal communication) states:

The area of the Powell Mound (No.86) is not totally destroyed. Two or three feet of the mound base remains north of the Venture Store and the parking lot behind the store. In some areas the mound was stripped so low by work for the original Gem International, Inc. Store and parking lot area that the original pre-mound surface has been exposed… Perhaps the northern one third or… one half of the bottom two feet of the mound is still there.

As noted previously, Moorehead erroneously equated Patrick’s Mound 46 with the Powell Mound at the western end of the site. On his map Moorehead shows two mounds, which he numbered 84 and 85, in the vicinity of what he thought was the Powell Mound; Mound 84 is south of Powell Mound, Mound 85 is to the north. The Patrick Map of this section of the site, however, shows two mounds south of the Powell Mound, another mound to the southwest, and a relatively large mound to the north. It is my interpretation that Moore head’s Mound 84 refers to the mounds between the Powell Mound and the mound due south, which is Mound 87 on the UWM Map. In Moorehead’s 1923 report he apparently used the number 84 for the mound that he later numbered 79 and called Mackie Mound. There is further confusion in the numbering, in that Titterington refers to excavations in the Powell Mound vicinity as follows:

“Mound 85, which was excavated by the University of Illinois in the summer of 1931… Lay just a very short distance south of the Powell Mound” (Titterington 1938: 15).

It seems clear that he is referring to what Moorehead had numbered 84 and not 85, which was to the north of the Powell Mound. The UWM Map adheres to Moorehead’s number for this mound, and I assume it is the larger of the two mounds south of Powell shown on the Patrick Map.

An arrangement of the mounds in this vicinity, very similar to that shown by Patrick, is noted on the early maps of the area. McAdams in 1882 shows Mound 84 with a height of 5 feet (1.5 meters); Thomas (1894), 10 feet (3.05 meters), and Peterson-McAdams in 1906,8 feet (2.4 meters). The McAdams Map differs more from the Patrick Map than the others, and it may be that the height he gives is for the smaller Mound 87 just to the south. In that case, his height agrees with the other maps of the area.

Mound 84 was destroyed in the 1930s at the same time as the Powell Mound (Mound 86). There were several efforts to salvage data from these mounds, and though most of the work was concentrated on the Powell Mound, excavations were made into other ones as well. Mound 84 was excavated in the summer of 1931 by a crew from the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana under the general supervision of A. R. Kelly and the direct supervision of Gene Stirling. Titterington reported that a burial with beads associated with it was found (Titterington 1938: Figure 35, J and K). Pottery was found in the mound fill, but of particular significance was a large refuse pit that contained materials stylistically different from that in the mound fill above. This presented for the first time some details of stratigraphy at Cahokia.

On the basis of excavations in Mound 84, a dichotomy was drawn between the earlier Old Village Culture and the later Beanpot, or Trappist, Culture. This two-period division of Cahokia archaeology was elaborated by James B. Grifffin in his important paper published in 1949 (Griffin 1949). This basic chronology persisted for many years, but was finally revised in 1971 and 1973 (Fowler and Hall 1975).

The mound assigned the number 85 by Moorehead lies to the north of the Powell Mound (86). Charles Bareis describes the relationships of the mounds in this group as follows:

According to that portion of the J.J.R. Patrick map… which applies to the western portion of the Cahokia site, the Powell Mound group originally consisted of five mounds… The arrangement of this complex included one mound located to the southwest [88], two located to the south… 84 and 87], and one situated to the north [85]… of the Powell Mound [86]…, the major earthwork of the group. [Bareis 1964: 5]