Thousands of years ago another civilization inhabited Missouri

All that's left today are the mounds.
By MATTHEW ग्राहम, Columbia Missourian
April 14, 2007

On one of many pinnacles along the bluffs lining the Missouri River
southwest of Columbia, atop the steep face of jagged rock plunging to
the landing, there is an inconspicuous 10-foot lump of earth. What
appears to be a natural point in the landscape ˜ insignificant in the
swath of hills and valleys ˜ is a burial mound, formed by human hands
thousands of years ago.
American Indian burial mounds abound in mid-Missouri, especially along
the blufftops of the river. Many date back 2,000 years or more to what
is called the Woodland Period, from about 500 B.C. to about A.D. 900.
With developer Jose Lindner's purchase of the former W.B. Smith Feed
Mill and Hatchery property ˜ 1,024 acres between the city and the
river ˜ government officials say city annexation is inevitable. And
others say if planning doesn't precede development, the future of the
burial mounds along the blufftops is uncertain at best. Few protections
exist for the prehistoric sites. The federal legislation meant to
protect them only applies to development projects that are on federal
land or use federal money. State protection only applies to "known"
prehistoric sites. But without an official database, many sites only
become known when construction runs into them, at which point
archaeologists say the damage is generally already extensive.
Layers of history
While some city and county officials seek ways to protect the burial
mounds, development creeps steadily southwest toward the water. Boone
County is home to more recorded burial mounds and other archaeological
sites than any other Missouri county, with 1,300 known sites as of Aug.
31.
There are 37,000 known sites in the state, but that's probably a small
fraction of the total, said Judith Deel, an officer with the State
Historic Preservation Office.
Burial mounds were typically built on blufftops overlooking rivers or
streams. In some cases, mound builders saved the bones of their tribe's
dead for years until they camped in one area long enough to build a
mound. As a result, some mounds contain bones and cremations from
different years.
Many of these mounds have been excavated in the past, and the
information gleaned from their contents has given archaeologists a
picture of Missouri that dates back at least 12,000 years to the
Woodland Period and earlier.
Some recent discoveries were accidental. In 1989, during a construction
project along Forum Boulevard, a mound was hit. Because it was already
damaged and partly exposed, archaeologists decided to excavate its
contents. They found the remains of 11 people from the Late Woodland
Period, about A.D. 700 to A.D. 900. They also found a female who was
about 20 years old when she died, sealed in a limestone tomb and buried
in the mound. Carbon dating showed she had lived in the Early Woodland
Period, between 850 B.C. and 450 B.C.
Much of what is known about the historical and archaeological record of
Missouri is owed to Carl Chapman, the first person to graduate from MU
with experience in American archaeology. Chapman dedicated his life to
discovering Missouri's history and prehistory. In 1986, Chapman was
researching the Rogers Shelter area in the Osage River Basin when he
established what he estimated to be an 11,000- year timeline ˜ from
about 10,000 B.C. to about A.D. 1,000 ˜ for one civilization in
Missouri. The discovery is one of the longest cultural sequences found
in the state.
He also uncovered a mastodon tusk near Miami, Mo., in the 1970s. Even
more significant was the "flake knife" found next to it, suggesting
people may have lived in Missouri at the same time as the mastodon ˜
about 18,000 years ago.
Chapman discerned that the people of the Woodland Period were hunters
and gatherers, made ornate pottery and lived in campsites near the
mounds but probably didn't grow their own food. Religious rights
MU anthropology professor Todd Vanpool said that when excavations were
conducted through most of the 20th century, American Indian religious
rights weren't really considered. "With Native Americans ∑ the
unmarked graves were treated as basically abandoned property with no
clear ancestry present," he said. "And therefore, as abandoned property,
archaeologists could take the bodies and do with them what they wanted
to, because there was no clear ownership."
To some American Indians, the excavations ˜ intentional or otherwise
˜ were sacrilegious.
"Mostly (it was) federally subsidized grave desecration," said Lynda
Means, who teaches American Indian history at Lindenwood University in
St. Charles and is an elder in the Thunderbird Society, a nonprofit
organization that promotes American Indian culture. "We understand that
people wanted to know, but the idea is ˜ why don't they dig up white
people's cemeteries?" she said. Jane Livingston, president of the
Columbia-Jefferson City area Red Fox Lodge, one of the Thunderbird
Society's four lodges, said that while some American Indians share
Means' view, others try to see the historical benefits of excavations.
"The views of the full-blood traditionalists is very harsh," Livingston
said. "They see it as an insult ˜ the lack of caring, the lack of
understanding, the way people dismissed their (religious) views as
unimportant."
However, she said, "Some people recognize it was done for educational
purposes, to try to further the knowledge of the prehistory of the
United States."
But if archaeologists once considered the sites "abandoned property,"
Vanpool illustrates the more recent appreciation of Indian burials.
"These resources are valuable," he said. "It's a limited resource; there
is no way to get back a mound once it's been destroyed, or any
archaeological site once it's been destroyed. ∑ And the preservation
of these and the mitigation of damage that might occur to them needs to
be thought about before the development occurs." Changing ownership
Just a few miles up Smith Hatchery Road, there is another mound ˜ a
pile of concrete and debris piled long and high where the W.B. Smith
feed mill stood just months ago.
The land on which the debris is piled was bought by Lindner last year
and is already being cleared.
Attempts to reach the Lindner family for this story were unsuccessful.
But Stan Shawver, director of Boone County's Planning and Development
Department, said he expects Lindner to request a planned development
designation once he annexes into the city, which would allow for a
mixture of residential, recreational and commercial areas on the
purchased land.
Having already acquired 1,024 acres just outside Columbia city limits,
the developer has expressed a desire to buy land all the way to the
river. Though he has faced resistance, some, like city Planning and
Zoning Commissioner Jeff Barrow, think it's only a matter of time before
Columbia annexes the land lining the river. So far, some of the burial
mounds near the river have been protected by those who own the property,
such as Carl and Anne Orazio. They said they have turned down Lindner's
offers to buy their property. The Orazios say they believe in preserving
the artifacts in the area, as does Clifton Duval, who also lives on the
riverfront and is a member of the Missouri Archaeological Society. "I
think they should be left alone," Duval said. "There's surely enough
earth that they don't have to disturb their graves." Duval has spent
countless hours walking the bluffs and searching for artifacts. He said
he worries about developers pushing to the river, which he says would
ruin the area and threaten the mounds. "It's something that we ought to
guard against," he said. "Any kind of destruction of the mounds is
destroying our history." Carl Orazio said he believes the development at
the old W.B. Smith site is already causing damage.
"I just see dirt work being done. I haven't seen the actual machines
working on it, but I see the aftermath," he said. The property Lindner
bought is farther from the river than many of the known burials. But
there's only one more property between it and the river.
The law says construction must stop when human remains or funerary
objects are discovered. But even if a developer stops upon hitting a
mound, he or she may have already caused extensive damage. In Missouri,
it would be difficult for a developer to find out if sites exist on a
specific property because there is no official database of known sites.
The location of known sites is generally kept secret for fear of
vandals.
Toward the river
It would take a minimum of four property annexations for Columbia to
become a river city.
The majority of that land is Lindner's. He can't join the city yet
because two small properties stand between his land and the city
boundary; any voluntary annexation must be contiguous. The fourth
property is the 139-acre riverfront piece owned by the Orazios, who have
turned down offers from Lindner.
Lindner could bypass that land by acquiring a set of five plots that
border the Orazios' land on the east.
Either way, it's close enough to have Duval worried. "I didn't think
(development) was ever coming that far that quick," he said. "It shocked
me and everyone else around here." Barrow, the city planning and zoning
commissioner, said the importance of protecting burial mounds is part of
the reason for well- planned, low-impact development. To ensure the
protection of the blufftops, Barrow said the city and county should
employ more zoning tools to protect the mounds and the whole area beyond
what the state regulations offer.
"We're now in a position to fix it, and it's easier to do it before it's
broken," he said. "It would be wise for the city and county to start
planning" before development reaches the river. Preserving history
Without adequate federal and state protections for the mounds on the
blufftops along the Missouri River, some in the city and county planning
and zoning commissions think something should be done to preserve them.
The thinking is that if the county and city worked together, protections
could be implemented. "I would like to have the commissions work
together to come up with what should the area outside the city look
like, what should our plan be," said Mike Holden of the city Planning
and Zoning Commission. Barrow said overlay zoning along the river bluffs
could be used, which "wouldn't allow for clearing of trees, would limit
the height of houses, maybe have a setback from the bluffs." Barrow
points to the Les Bourgeois winery at Rocheport as an example of
obtrusive and nonobtrusive development. The restaurant goes up three
stories and "sticks out like a sore thumb," he said. "But the winery ˜
the A-frame ˜ that's not obtrusive at all, it blends in with the
bluffs."
Barrow said that if the city and county worked together to enact a
zoning overlay, the regulations could be implemented before any
development took place.
But Jerry Wade, the former chairman of the city planning commission,
said the City Council stopped joint planning efforts with the county in
2003. And the City Council and its planning department won't work
outside a "fringe area" ˜ about a mile outside city limits as of 2000
and 2001 ˜ designated in the Metro 2020 Plan. Meanwhile, the county
planning department decided not to implement at least one attempt by a
county Planning and Zoning Commission member to protect the mounds,
saying that city annexation is inevitable. State law doesn't allow for
dual jurisdiction, so county regulations would be void if the area is
annexed by the city. Shawver, the county Planning Department director,
also said it wasn't a priority because state protections already exist.
Both federal and state laws lay out protections for unmarked burial
mounds and other cultural resources. But there are problems with these
regulations: They rarely apply practically to private developments, and
the limited budget for people charged with watching over such sites
makes it difficult for them to do so effectively. Blanket protection of
historic or prehistoric sites is not allowed under state law, said Deel,
the State Historic Preservation officer, and general oversight and
monitoring is simply not an option because of budget constraints.
According to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, for any
development using federal funds, a survey must be conducted to assess
the potential damage or disruption to historic and prehistoric sites.
The national Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act,
passed in 1990, reinforced this requirement and added stipulations about
giving already excavated bones back to American Indian tribes. But some
in the American Indian community say the intended protections are still
too difficult to enforce. The grave protection act "was passed, and it's
still almost impossible to enforce some of this stuff unless there's
lots of people pushing and shoving," said Means, of the Thunderbird
Society. And the state law is even less concrete, Deel said. According
to State Chapter 194, a developer must work with the Historic
Preservation Office to avoid a site or arrange for proper excavation and
reburial, but only if the site is known. The legal catch
"The catch there is, that if it's not known for a fact, if or if not
(that) there's burials, they may not come talk to us until they've
already got into it and exposed human remains," Deel said. The
definition of "known" is also problematic. There are many maps, some
dating back hundreds of years, detailing burial mounds and other
American Indian sites. But the state has no official and publicly
accessible database of them. So even if the location of sites along the
river is known by those who live there now or if there are maps of them
in MU's anthropology department, it could be difficult to accuse a
developer of negligence.
It also makes it difficult for developers to know when they might be
encroaching on a site.
"In most instances, especially if it's not a recorded site, we don't
hear anything about it until either a neighbor calls or the developer
themselves realize what they've gotten into," Deel said. Minnesota also
faced problems protecting burial mounds but has set up a system to
preserve them.
In 1976, a private developer started building a bridge on an American
Indian site. In response, lawmakers extended greater protections. Now an
online database of known burial sites has been created to help avoid
site destruction without direct oversight. Many developers and public
bodies utilize the database to check for sites beforehand because the
cost of delaying construction is so high if a site is found. Out in the
open
Russ Duker, of the Boone County Planning and Zoning Commission, argues
that the debate of site accessibility shouldn't be as black- and-white
as whether to develop and surrender the sanctity of the sites or mark
off the entire area.
"There needs to be an allowance for some interaction with these
resources," Duker said. "We don't want to protect them to where no one
can use them. The whole reason that we have resources is so that people
can access them.
"I'd like to find a way, if we could, to utilize them to a community
benefit, and part of a community benefit might be having a commercial
spot that we could go to on the river and enjoy the river." Duker added:
"I would love to see a riverfront. I would love to see us exploit, if
you will, the presence of this interstate highway that used to be the
Missouri River, where the Indians used to come and they've got the
burial mounds, the different archaeological sites we've got here in
Boone County."
Duker said that a recently passed city stream water ordinance and a
similar measure proposed in the county would unintentionally but
effectively eliminate the possibility of any sort of riverfront
district.
He said he agrees with the ordinance in principle but thinks it's too
broad.
"All along the river or all along the stream or all along the creek
should you allow commercial development? By no means," he said. "But
there needs to be some type of allowance for interaction with these
resources."
He agreed that exposing sensitive sites, such as burial mounds, to the
public can increase the potential for damage to the areas, but, he said,
it could also galvanize the community to protect them. "Interaction with
the resources has the potential of saying, 'Hey, this is a great natural
resource. We need to protect it.' ∑ So somehow or another we need to
allow that interaction with these resources while monitoring it, not
just prohibiting it," he said. Van Meter State Park in Saline County
illustrates Duker's suggestion. The park contains part of the Utz site,
which is a former village of Missouri Indians. The park had been
primarily a recreation area, its history mostly ignored. But in the late
1980s, officials decided to build a visitor center and to dedicate the
park to the Missouri Indians. The Utz site had been home to as many as
6,000 Missouris when Jacques Marquette and Louis Joliet discovered it in
1673. The visitor center contains a mural depicting the lifestyle of the
Missouris as well as interactive informational exhibits, and the park
contains what is called the "Old Fort" and multiple burial mounds.
Connie Grisier, the park's site administrator who lives on the premises,
said a gate leading to the main burial mound is locked at night. But,
she said, having the sites public probably helps protect them.
"Actually having people around and then having them protected at night
seems to help," she said. "If they were secluded and people knew about
them, I could see people vandalizing them." No native voices
Because the tribes that once inhabited Missouri were forced west to
Kansas and Oklahoma, no American Indian tribes speak for the burials
near the river as religious ancestral sites. David Golden of the
Otoe-Missouria tribe, now based in Oklahoma, said that without the
ability to watch over the burial mounds effectively, the tribe's efforts
are now primarily focused on retrieving the remains of excavated
ancestors.
"What we have done is try to (get back) the objects that have already
been dug up" from previous excavations, he said. "Of course, by that
time it would pretty well be destroyed. We would rather see it
preserved, left alone. If the developer is gung-ho to get it developed,
there should be some concern given to those (burial mounds)." Golden
said that if the whole area is to be developed, the portion of land with
burials on it could be made into a park or otherwise protected to avoid
or minimize damage.
"The Otoe-Missouria tribe is not against any kind of development, road
building, et cetera. We're not trying to stop anything," he said. But
"if you're going to send out a bunch of bulldozers, everything's going
to get chewed up in the process. The position of the tribe, is we don't
want that stuff just destroyed with a backhoe, and if you send in a
builder, that's what's going to happen because they're building a
building or a road."
Barrow also said he isn't absolutely against development along the
river; he just wants it done in a way that's not overly disruptive to
the environment.
"One of my main concerns is that the whole river bluff area ... be
protected along the river so that people traveling down the river have
the same view that Lewis and Clark had," he said.







Mike Ruggeri's Ancient America and Mesoamerica News and Links
http://community-2.webtv.net/Topiltzin-2091/MIKERUGGERISANCIENT

Mike Ruggeri's Maya Archaeology News and Links
http://community-2.webtv.net/Topiltzin-2091/MIkeRuggerisMaya

MIKE RUGGERI'S MOUND BUILDERS/ ANCIENT SOUTHWEST NEWS AND LINKS
http://community-2.webtv.net/Topiltzin-2091/MIKERUGGERISMOUND

Ancient America, Mesoamerica and Andean Museum Exhibitions, Lectures and
Conferences
http://community-2.webtv.net/Topiltzin-2091/AncientAmerica

Mike Ruggeri's Andean Archaeology News and Links
http://community.webtv.net/Topiltzin-2091/MikeRuggerisAndean



************************************************
List Guidelines: http://www.rootsweb.com/~illinois/WelcomeMoundBuilders.html

For links to other MOUND-BUILDERS resources, visit the Mound Builders Links Web Site, located at: http://www.rootsweb.com/~illinois/LINKSMoundBuilders.html