However, the second terrace in no way matches those reconstruction's. Patrick's map shows the northwest quadrant of Monks Mound relatively uniform in slope and curvature. It is difficult to define any terrace in that area based upon his map. His model, however, shows the northwest quadrant of Monks Mound much as we see it today, that is, as a series of projections. These project almost as though they extend from a central point, like radii of a circle in that portion of the mound.
Putnam (1880: 470-475) describes the models in 1880:
I am glad to be able to state that Dr. J. J. R. Patrick, a
careful and zealous archaeologist, residing in the vicinity of this
interesting monument, has, with the assistance of other gentlemen, not
only made a survey of the whole group of which Cahokia is the
prominent figure, but has also prepared two accurate models of the
mound itself.... One of these models represents the mound as it now
appears, with its once level platform and even slopes gullied,
washed, and worn away; and the other is in the form of a restoration,
showing the mound as it probably existed. Before the plough of the
white man had destroyed its even sides and hard platforms, and thus
given nature a foothold for her destructive agencies.
Putnam suggests that plowing the mound had contributed to the irregular nature of Monks Mound.
J. F. Snyder suggested that this portion of Monks Mound is so irregular because:
the tribe became demoralized and abandoned the work. The arrest of
their labors may have resulted from one or two causes. They were,
perhaps, overwhelmed and dispersed by an incursion of wild savages;
or, owing to the incoming herds of buffalo, they relapsed from their
higher development of semi-sedentary life and agricultural pursuits
back into nomadic savagery and subsistence by the chase.
[Snyder 1909: 91-92]
Moorehead, in the 1920s, suggests that some of these earlier ideas may not have been correct. After quoting McAdams (1887) to the effect that the protrusions on the northwest side were probably the result of erosion and rainstorms, Moorehead says the following:
It should be added that on the north side, there are projecting
spurs, 50 to 100 feet long and 30 to 50 feet high. Some have
horizontal summits, while others are sloping and have the form of
approaches. This is the most abrupt side and some gullying has no
doubt taken place . . . The present writer's impression of the form
of this huge mound with its platform and approaches is in harmony
with that of Dr. Fenneman that it 'plainly indicates the work of
man and not of geological processes.' [Moorehead 1923: 68]
Another suggestion as to the nature of these irregularities on the northwest side of Monks Mound is that they were deliberate. They do seem to project with irregularity and, as Moorehead suggests, some have flat surfaces while others appear almost as approaches or ramps leading up to the mound. The protrusions radiate around this section of Monks Mound as if from a central point somewhere on the third terrace. Further argument for their deliberate manufacture is presented by Reed et al. (1968: 137):
The second terrace is an irregular mass on the western side of
the mound with a partially level area 65.5 feet high. It has long
been assumed that this structure was largely destroyed by erosion,
but our photogrammetric map . . . suggests that there is not enough
wash at the base to account for the deep gullies. Moreover,
excavation in the wash area near the base of the mound revealed a
Mississippian house structure 18 inches beneath the present surface.
(1968: 137).
That this Mississippian house was built on a sloping surface and appeared so close to the modern surface suggests that the gullies were not caused solely by wash created from the Mississippian period to the present.
Irregular though it is, there is certainly evidence that the second terrace represents a deliberate construction feature of unknown function as a part of the building up of Monks Mound to its present form. However, only detailed excavation can determine conclusively whether it is erosional or deliberate, or if there is some other explanation for the second terrace.
The third and fourth terraces occupy a central location in the eastern half of the main mass of the mound. In terms of the structure of the mound, they occur in the uppermost level in what would be the northeast quadrant. The steepest slopes of Monks Mound are on the north and east sides. Altogether the third and fourth terraces encompass an area approximately 100 meters (328.1 feet) north-south by 50 meters (164.0 feet) east-west. The entire area is encompassed in the 155-meter (508.5-foot) contour line on the UVVM Map. The fourth terrace, which is higher, is encompassed basically within the 157-meter (515.9-foot) contour line.
The fourth terrace was apparently the residence of T. A. Hill;
according to DeHass (1869: 197)
"[Hill] moved on the property in 1831 and erected a cabin upon
the very summit. He there lived many years, died and lies buried at
the north-west corner of the great tumulus."
Hill's residence is illustrated in McAdams'(1887)drawing of
Monks Mound as well as in the 1840 drawings of the artist Karl Bodmer.
In the 1960s and again in 1971, excavations were carried out on the
third and fourth terraces of Monks Mound by archaeologists from
Washington University. They discovered the remains of a very large
building 30 by 12 meters (100 by 40 feet)-partially enclosed by a wall and with a large upright post in front on the fourth terrace.
What locals call the "east lobes" of the mound are noted on most of the maps and drawings of Monks Mound. The Patrick Map of 1876 shows two rather large protrusions extending from the east side, more-or-less due east of the fourth terrace. These same types of protrusions are shown quite clearly on the UVVM Map.
Alternative explanations for the east lobes have been given. One is
that they represent a natural slumping of material from the steep east
side of Monks Mound. Moorehead may have been referring to these lobes
and to this phenomenon in 1923 when he wrote:
"On the east side there is some evidence of creep of considerable
masses of material and deposition at the base of the mound of material
washed down from above." (Moorehead 1923: 68)
Excavations into the lobes were conducted in 1971 by crews from the University of Wisconsin Milwaukee; they found that the lobes were made up of basket-loaded clay laid over very late Mississippian archaeological material. This suggests that, whatever their original purpose or source, they covered the area in the late fourteenth century.
The winter of 1984 was a particularly wet one in the Cahokia area, and there were major slumps of the north and east faces of Monks Mound. The eastern slump was very near the northernmost east lobe. This slump was tested by archaeologists of the Illinois State Museum and found to be made of disturbed basket loading (McGimsey and Wiant 1984). The 1984 slump looks very much like the existing lobes, suggesting that the east lobes were not ramps but slumps as Moorehead (1923) thought.
Besides the features mentioned already, there are many other unique mound features mentioned in the early literature, but they are neither confirmable nor substantiated by later data. The early reports on the dimensions and appearance of Monks Mound are fairly uniform in their reporting of size and shape; however, various writers have offered a unique comment on one or another particular feature of the mound. Their comments could be based either on acute observation or fanciful speculation. They cannot be accepted at face value, but are provocative and interesting nonetheless.
Several people comment on a general terracing of Monks Mound
other than the four major terraces mentioned here. A general comment of
this type was made by Wild in 1841:
Monks Mound, when viewed from the west, presents strikingly, the
appearance of a strong castle or fortress, which time has just begun
to mark with ruin, . . . while the terraces, which rise on this side,
rise with considerable regularity above each other, look as if they
were intended for armed host to parade upon.
[Wild 1841: 53]
Wild was probably referring to the standard first, second, third, and fourth terraces of the mound, though his description suggests a step-terrace appearance.
Photographs of Monks Mound taken in 1892 and in the possession of the Missouri Historical Society indicate a sort of step-terracing on the east face of Monks Mound. They may represent the impression that Wild had. These terraces may be the result of vegetation that checked erosion, producing a terrace-like appearance, or L they could be cattle paths along the side of the mound. On the other hand, the photos may demonstrate the early appearance of the mound and the nature of its construction before erosion and vegetation changed its profile. Evidence that Monks Mound may have been terraced in this nature comes from data from the 1964 excavations of Charles J. Bareis in the area where the first terrace meets the slope of the third terrace:
Perhaps the most significant data obtained from the excavations
conducted on the first terrace was the exposure of five minor
terrace levels in plan and profile in the test trench. These levels
constitute the original south side of the third terrace and indicate
that at least a portion of this side was constructed in a series of
plateaus or ramps rather than built from top to bottom in a steeply
inclined sloping manner. The levels do not appear to represent the
steps of a stairway, but an adequate functional explanation cannot
be offered at the present time because only a very small section of
the Original south side of the third terrace has been exposed.
[Bareis 1964b: 5]
Another author suggests Monks Mound may have been surrounded by a
moat at one time. In 1843 William Oliver, author of one of the many
popular advice-to-immigrant books, made the following observations:
The earth for the construction of this huge mass has been lifted
from the circumference of its base, as is evident from the regular
ditch-like depression intervening between it and the surface of the
prairie. On the north side, which I could not get at, it appeared to me
that the ground naturally fell away towards a creek in the immediate
neighborhood. It is not unlikely that the immense ditch contained
water, which has either been drained away artificially or by the
natural depression of the creek. [Oliver 1843: 170-171].
Examination of recent contour maps provides no clue to the location
of this moat.
The Cahokia Mounds area was flooded several times after 1843.
According to Moorehead:
The highest known flood level of the Mississippi River at St. Louis
was in 1844, when the waters rose 7.58 feet above the city district,
reaching an altitude of 420.31 feet above sea level. According to
the topographic map of the St. Louis quadrangle, published by the
U. S. Geological Survey, involving the site of the Cahokia Mounds,
there are considerable levels above the 420 foot level along the
foot of the east valley wall and in the vicinity of Granite City.
Monks Mound and few others nearby are on a slight swell a little
above 420 feet, but the surface surrounding most of the others
appears to be somewhat under that level. Hence, it is thought that
many of the mounds were surrounded by this flood. The flood of 1903,
two or three feet below that of 1844, reached and covered the low
sags in the vicinity of the mounds. [Moorehead 1923: 71]
Another extensive flood after Moorehead's visit, since 1903,
is described by Gregory Perino. Perino (personal communication)
has stated that:
large areas of the ground just northeast of Monks Mound were washed
away and the ground level lowered 2 or 3 feet. Such flooding could
have alternately filled in and/or removed the evidence of the moat
described by Oliver. However, Oliver is the only writer who makes
mention of a ditch surrounding Monks Mound.
Variations in topography have also been examined. A rough comparison of elevations on Patrick's 1876 map with those of the 1966 UWM Map suggests that elevations of the south edge of the first terrace projections and elevations of the north and east edges of the mound are comparable. However, Patrick's survey shows the area slightly east and west of the borders of the central portion of the mound about 6 feet (1.8 meters) higher than present data. Again, archaeological excavations would be necessary to resolve this question of the moat and erosion from flooding.
Several investigators report secondary mounds on different terraces of Monks Mound. William McAdams reports:
"to the northwest corner of the base of the structure [Monks Mound]
there seems to be a small mound attached, in exact imitation of the
small mounds attached to the base of the pyramids of Egypt as well
as those of Mexico. [McAdams 1882: 58-59]
No map shows any definite outline of a mound in this area, but buildings located near the northwest corner of Monks Mound are on a slight rise of land.
Other early observers did not note the ridge or land on the west
side of the first terrace mentioned above. Wild, for example, says:
"On the south side of this mound is a terrace, about two hundred and
fifty yards along and ninety in width, perfectly level, and elevated
about forty-five feet above the surface of the prairie"
(Wild 1841: 52).
As discussed above, excavations into this ridge indicated that a small platform mound occupied by public buildings had been constructed at the southwest corner of Monks Mound's first terrace.
Since the visit to Cahokia Mounds by Featherstonhaugh in 1834-1835, the existence of a mound on the third terrace has been reported.
Mr. Hill laid the foundation of his dwelling upon an eminence
he found on the summit of this elevated territory, and upon digging
into it found large human bones, with Indian pottery, stone axes and
tomahawks; from whence it would appear that these mounds not only
contained a sepulcher at their base, but have been used for the same
purpose in after-times at the summit. [Featherstonhaugh 1844: 266-267]
DeHass (1869: 296) also describes this mound:
The great mound was originally surmounted by a conical mound 10
feet in height. This peculiar feature characterizes one of the
square elevations west of the great tumulus [Mound 42]. Removal of
the small mound revealed numerous interesting relics-human bones,
stone implements and weapons, vases of unburnt earthen ware, etc.
These with a large collection of ancient art were long kept by
Mr. Hill, former proprietor of the mound [DeHass 1869: 296].
Although McAdams does not refer to the mound, he observed traces of
Hill's former home in the 1880s:
"On the top of the pyramid are the remains of a house, said to
have been commenced by the monks, but afterwards added to and
finished as a comfortable residence for the family of a man named
Hill". [quoted by Moorehead 1929: 19].
The UWM contour map shows a circular-like extension of the contours in the southeast corner of the third terrace of Monks Mound. This may represent remnants of the mound after it was torn down and leveled by Hill.
Another unique feature was mentioned by only one person. Parish in 1906 said:
A Mr. Hill, who once lived upon it, while making excavation near
the northwest extremity uncovered human bones and white pottery in
considerable quantities. The bones, which instantly crumbled to dust
on exposure to the air, appeared larger than ordinary, while the
teeth were double in front as well as behind. [1906: 22]
Unfortunately, no other references to this burial is found in other writings about Monks Mound. Therefore, it is difficult to determine whether Parish obtained it from local hearsay, or whether he confused direction and is referring to the mound Hill excavated on the third terrace.
The following tantalizing bit of information was obtained by DeHass in an interview will Hill's widow:
Many of the larger tumuli are believed to have contained secret
entrances which were used after the structure had been completed.
This was the case of the great mound at Grave Creek, Virginia, a
mound near New Madrid, and it is a notable feature in the Pyramids.
Mrs. Hill, who resided a quarter of a century on the great mound,
informs me that a large entrance was at one time discovered, but
filled up to prevent wild animals making therein their dens.
[DeHass 1869: 295]
Patrick's 1876 map notes a "narrow ridge" on Monks Mound's north side that extends from the northwest corner of the fourth terrace down to the base of the mound at a very slight angle to the west. This ridge is also apparent on some of the Missouri Historical Society photographs taken in 1892. A contour on the 1966 UWM Map suggests a ridge in approximately the same location. No other maps show this ridge nor is there an explanation as to what it might represent.
Although not directly on Monks Mound, the burial group discovered by McAdams would seem to be closely associated with the mound:
In excavating near the base of the great temple mound of Cahokia,
whose towering height of over 100 feet gave a grateful shade for our
laborers, we found in a crumbling tomb of earth and stone a great
number of burial vases, over one hundred of which were quite perfect.
It was a most singular collection, as if the Mound-Builder, with
patient and skillful hand, united with artistic test in shaping the
vessels, had endeavored to make a representation of the natural
history of the country in ceramics. Some of these were painted, and
there were also the paint pots and dishes holding the colors,
together with the little bone paddle for mixing, and other implements
of the aboriginal artist.[McAdams 1887: 57].
A further discussion of this burial is found under the discussion of
Mound 17.