Pro tip: I changed my mind about the 'lost city' of Cahokia after seeing the new 3D models

For a long time, I thought Cahokia was just a big mound site in Illinois. Then I saw the new digital reconstructions from the University of Illinois team. The before view was flat earthworks, but the after model shows a real city with neighborhoods and plazas, home to maybe 20,000 people around 1100 AD. The cause was better LIDAR data that mapped subtle features invisible on the ground. Does anyone else think we need to stop calling these places 'settlements' and start calling them what they were: cities?

4 comments

4 Comments

marywilson2mo ago

What about the other mound sites down the river? I saw something on a show about the one in Arkansas, Toltec Mounds... they had a huge plaza and a wooden wall around it. If Cahokia was a city, that place was a serious town too. It makes you wonder how many other spots we're still just calling villages because the old maps were bad. The new tech is totally changing the story.

william_garcia2mo agoMost Upvoted

Yeah, the "old maps were bad" part hits hard. It's wild how much we probably got wrong.

fiona_west212mo agoTop Commenter

Exactly, and like MaryWilson said, it's not just Cahokia. We're finding these places all over, and each one changes the story a bit more. The old maps didn't just miss a few spots, they missed a whole network. It makes you wonder what else is still hidden under a cornfield.

mary_west2d ago

I read something just the other day about that network idea, and it really stuck with me. There was this article talking about how they used lidar to find a whole series of connected settlements in the Amazon rainforest, totally changing what we thought about that area. It's like you said, "The old maps didn't just miss a few spots, they missed a whole network." Makes you wonder if every cornfield in the Midwest is just hiding another piece of a puzzle we never knew existed.