Proposal: Ancient/indian Mounds

[+DavidMac]

Around Tennessee and Mississippi, we have numerous dirt mounds built between 8,000 and 1,000 years ago. In fact, there are many others scattered throughout the world. Would this make a decent category?

 

Indian Mounds of the United States

Indian Mounds of Mississippi

 

Note that this is different from the "historic forts" category proposed previously in another thread in that many mounds were not necessarily used as a foundation for a fort, or even a structure. Maybe a subcategory could be created under "ruins"? The category would be limited to mounds that are at least 1,000 years old and primarily composed of packed dirt that was piled up to create an area that artificially rises above the surrounding elevation.

[+cavehop]

Don't forget Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida.

 

I think this would make an excellent (sub)category.

 

Edit: Oops, you didn't forget Mississippi did you. Silly me. Umm ... I guess I could add Ohio as another significant location for pre-historic earth mounds.

Edited January 30, 2006 by cavehop

[trekbabe]

I really like the idea of historical mounds of Native people. However would this just be limited to the United States? I'd really like to see if there are similiar types of mounds in other countries. And thanks for mentioning Ohio Cavehop. I live and in OH there are like 3 or 4 mounds within a 30 minute drive of here.

[+DavidMac]

I didn't forget the other states, I just mentioned TN and MS since I live there I've heard of mounds in Louisiana and North carolina, to name a few more.

 

I really like the idea of historical mounds of Native people. However would this just be limited to the United States? I'd really like to see if there are similiar types of mounds in other countries. ....

 

I think I have heard of mounds in other countries (South America?), but I can't seem to find much about them online. If I limit the category to the US only, it's easier to tell exactly what fits (eg. only mounds built before 1500 by Native Americans). But at the same time, It'd keep other interesting sites around the world from being listed, so I'll have to think about a solution. The mounds I'm thinking of had specific cultural purposes and the people who built them are even referred to as "mound builders" today. I wouldn't want people posting areas of mounded dirt that were used for anchient canals or castles in Europe, for example, since 1) they wouldn't really fit the category, and 2) the existing Castles category already accounts for "destroyed" castle sites.

[+chstress53]

This was proposed back in Dec

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...1&st=&p=entry

[+DavidMac]

This was proposed back in Dec

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...1&st=&p=entry

 

That's different. Their proposal was limited to ruins of buildings created by a specific group that inhabited the southwestern US.

 

An ancient ruin does not a mound make. Mounds can be ruins, but a ruin is not necessarily a mound. Many mounds didn't even have buildings on them, but were created for other purposes (religious, for one).

[+chstress53]

Why not a category for Indian Mounds/Ruins and then more specifi ones under the over arching category like the Historic Markers category has Califoorina, Ohio, Pa & Georgia.

[+DavidMac]

Why not a category for Indian Mounds/Ruins and then more specifi ones under the over arching category like the Historic Markers category has Califoorina, Ohio, Pa & Georgia.

 

Now, this idea I like. They could go under places->ruins.

Edited February 13, 2006 by DavidMac

[+Razak]

I could be wrong I do think the Indian Mound phenomena is mostly in the Americas, there could be a few elsewhere though. It does seem more prominant in North America. I still think that it is a mistake to limit it to the United States. In particular I consider Canada not a part of the United States and would be a fairly high probability that they might have them as well considering that Native Americans didn't really have a seperation between the two countries (and yes, we have Indian Mounds up in Wisconsin and Minnesota so it is feasable that they could go just little bit further North).

 

Plus, I mean what if other countries in Asia, Africa, and Europed DO have their own Indian Mounds? I was just watching a show on ancient Italy a week or two ago where they buried their dead in small structures that were covered in dirt and made into mounds. These weren't shaped like animals the way North American mounds were but they were mounds all the same (I think, this is goin off memory which I don't have much of!).

 

I do agree with the other post in this thread... we should definitely not be creating U.S. only categories where we don't need to be doing it.

[+Team Neos]

Hey, I remember learning about this in Art History! There are similar structures world-wide.

 

PBS did a series on mound-building people of Ireland

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/ancientireland/about.html

 

There are burial mounds (sometimes known as "barrows" or "dolmens") around the world. Some in complex patterns, although not usually in the shape of animals, like the serpent mounds of the Mississipian period in North America. The Stonehenge area has many barrows. One interesting source of information about mound-building for burial pruposes is here:

http://rogershepherd.com/WIW/solution12/mountain.html

 

A google search for burial mounds turns up lots of interest items.

[+DavidMac]

Team Neos, thanks for those links. I agree that it's better to avoid being too US-centric in what is a worldwide activity as discussed in the other thread, so I like the idea of lumping ancient mounds from around the world. If this category ever becomes a reality, I'd be sure to specify exactly what composes a mound (artificial raised area composed primarily of packed dirt built before 1500 and serving a specific cultural purpose?). I'd probably include variables for use (religious/structural/burial etc) and age. And I'd ask that people provide information as to the history of the site for verification (to prevent posting of any old natural lump of raised terrain).

[+Razak]

If this category ever becomes a reality, I'd be sure to specify exactly what composes a mound (artificial raised area composed primarily of packed dirt built before 1500 and serving a specific cultural purpose?). I'd probably include variables for use (religious/structural/burial etc) and age. And I'd ask that people provide information as to the history of the site for verification (to prevent posting of any old natural lump of raised terrain).

 

This sounds good to me... I would hope people wouldn't just put in any old mound of dirt, but I guess you are right to be cautious.

[+StagsRoar]

I'd give it a thumbs up!