Archeologists Discover Ancient Metropolis Beneath St. Louis

I saw that mound in the link and it reminded me of the native american burial mounds throughout the midwest. Not saying that's what this is, but it could very well be mistaken identity. As bodies were buired with objects with some sort of meaning attatched to those that passed away. Here are some links depicting some of the burial mounds.

digitalcommons.macalester.edu...

apps.detnews.com...

www.sacred-destinations.com...

There's tons more but these sites have some good images and information about them.

Originally posted by calmbutwary
reply to post by thepupils

 

Really? You need to make fun of someone's religion right in the middle of an interesting thread?

FYI: His name is Joseph Smith, and it's Kolob.

If you have any questions about the LDS faith, please PM me or go to mormon.org.

Ummm...no thanks. I'm not superstitious. But thanks for the offer, though.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by thepupils

 

I was under the impression the tablets were found out west, not in the central part of the US where these mounds are. If im wrong my apologies, but thats what I remember seeing.

The tablets were purportedly not found at all, as the mormons claim that an angel name Moroni (yes...that is actually the name) descended from "heaven" in Manchester, New York and trusted the direct word of god to known felon and convicted con man, John Smith and then ordered him to go out to the wastelands in Utah that nobody else wanted and start tithing the peasants.

Originally posted by thepupils

Originally posted by calmbutwary
reply to post by thepupils

 

Really? You need to make fun of someone's religion right in the middle of an interesting thread?

FYI: His name is Joseph Smith, and it's Kolob.

If you have any questions about the LDS faith, please PM me or go to mormon.org.

So was J.S into ancient ruins of st. Louis? It's a joke people, lighten up.

It is a valid question. Did j.s know about some ancient civ. And knew it was similar to Egyptian? Thats when the angel maroni led him to the golden tablets that were buried in a mound?

It actually is a valid question and isn't off topic, would anyone like to give me input into this theory?
Or is it just easier to send me to Mormon.org and not come up with an answer to my question?

Typical religious sheep behavior...

That IS a perfectly valid question. I would surmise that it's certainly possible that John Smith might have known aobut the mounds and ruins...mostly because they were discovered by French monks circa 1764 and were quite well known to have existed even before we declared independence from Britain.

However, given that John Smith was a convicted con man and felon prior to claiming that an angel named Moroni (yes...that is not a typo) gave him the golden tablets containing the direct word of god himself, I would surmise that John Smith's pick of St. Louis as "jerusalem" probably had more to do with the fact that it was the "gateway to the west" and thus conveniently was the single best place in the country to go in the 1800's if one was to get outfitted for a migration to somewhere out west. Say...Utah, for example.

Fortunately, god had the good foresight to put "jerusalem" right next to an excellent supply of covered wagons, oxen, and bulk supplies of all sorts.

Westward Ho!!

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Thanks so much for all that info, i really appreciate it.
The 1300 CE date is very interesting - possibly victims of rampaging Toltecs and Aztecs? (A bit of a leap of faith i know but the time frame fits).

Early Spanish explorers encountered groups in Florida who still reflected the Mississippian culture, and apparently the leadership referred to their subjects as 'stinkards'.
I've always kinda figured that the inhabitants took a look around at their roles in a highly stratified society...looked away to the lush landscapes of the region...and simply walked off to explore better options.

Yep. You are more or less correct. Although there is a fair amount of speculation as to what how rigid the social hierarchy was, the archeological record supports that there certainly was one.

The one thing the archeological record tells us FOR CERTAIN is that the city was so large at it's peak circa 1400 or so that it's ballpark 40,000 inhabitants probably had a pretty hard time procuring enough food from the environment relative to the state of their technology being employed.

They farmed...but did not have the plow. No surprise, since they also didn't have horses and the North American Buffalo tended to be somewhat uncooperative when instructed to pull something behind it. Thus, all agriculture had to be done by hand and was inherently more labor intensive/less productive. South American Indians built incredible civilizations around mostly hand-farming, but they still had the llama to move the harvest around, as well as the benefit of year long, or nearly year-long growing seasons. In present-day St. Louis, the culture was still very, very, much oriented towards hunting and fishing as well to get them through the winter months.

Thus, not only was growth inhibited by less productive farming methods...but these farming methods were also only available for the half the year with the balance of the caloric intake coming from hunting in the surrounding lands...once again without the horse. All travel was on foot.

Skeletal data seems to indicate that around 1350-1400 AD or so, the overall nutritional intake for the average resident appeared to be on a relatively downward trajectory. They just didn't have the animals they needed to pull more calories from the land and sooner or later just said the hell with it and walked away...much like you stated.

Likewise...if I know human nature at all, I would surmise that the ruling elite tended to have a far superior diet than the commoner and thus would not in the least bit be surprised if the hierarchy aspect ALSO played a significant role. However, the last time I did any serious research on Cahokia was in the late '90's and at that time not much was known about the social structure of the society. However, new information and evidence has most assuredly come to light since then.

I should really dig into that a little bit one of these days.