Lidar And The Mystery of the Mounds
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ก.ค. 2024
- For over 200 years explorers and scholars have puzzled over small, low-relief "pimple" mounds found in Arkansas, Louisiana, eastern Texas, eastern Oklahoma and southern Missouri. Despite a number of theories, scholars have never reached a consensus on how these mounds were formed, and they remain very much a mystery. In the last few years, however, lidar imagery has become available, and it provides a startling new perspective on these features. While some of the mounds may be the result of erosion, most appear to defy theories of natural origin and many are located adjacent to known archeological sites. The implication - that there might be hundreds of thousands of manmade mounds hidden under forest canopy - would require a reevaluation of our understanding of the prehistory of the region.
- วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
![ตีสิบเดย์ [FULL] | ครอบครัวสะท้านทุ่ง "นางบี & อ้ายสติ๊ก"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/A1rhYcxxNtA/mqdefault.jpg)
When I went camping, I learned that my tent needs to be safe from run-off when it rains. So you can either build a berm around the tent, or you can set the tent at the top of a small hill. If you want to be there longer, you build a slight mound for your tent.
Valid hypothesis. Plains Indians regularly had teepees with 30' diameters. And the overhead layout looks similar to the layout of teepees when a tribe chooses an area in which to pitch camp.
Valid point, but if this was the logic behing their construction and there was so many of them, why would'nt newcomers just settle on previous mounds ?
The mound incidence looks like typical seeding patterns for cottonwoods. Root balls persist long after the tree is gone (and often regrow) and will often accumulate sediment, or prevent it from blowing away. There are old elms in the SoCal desert that create little round dunes. Such groves made good places to live, and still do, so one would expect some artifacts. However, if there were millions of house mounds, there should be millions of bones... and there are not.
And if you've never seen old growth cottonwoods... you don't know how big the root ball got. We have cut stumps down by the Yellowstone River that are 12 feet across, and the root ball is much larger than that, and is very hard and dense and rot-resistant.
YT had been throwing this video at me for a month, and today I finally gave in.... oh my, this is fascinating!
Thanks for the message. Among the comments I've received, ancient trees are the most popular theory. I don't rule it out, but there are a few observations that raise doubts.
1) No one has reported evidence of tree roots, even carbon remnants, or disrupted subsoil in the mounds. According to one paper, they appear to range from 600-2300 years old, not old enough, in my view to erase all such evidence.
2) The mounds are extraordinarily large for tree root balls, typically 50-100 feet in diameter, and 1-3 feet high.
3) The mounds occur on a variety of landforms, including thin soils over Pennsylvanian bedrock, which seem an unlikely setting for giant trees.
4) Although mounds proliferate up to the Mississippi alluvial plain, there are no mounds east of the Mississippi River, which has a similar geology and climate. I suppose, in theory, the river might have served as a barrier to the propagation of tree species, but there's no evidence of that with the current trees on the coastal plain.
@@FADowdy Interesting points. Yeah, lack of residue is a significant problem. But I'm having trouble making the mounds match the geology as the sole creator. Of course we may be entirely missing the critical factor. -- Would be fun to sic Myron Cook on these. (Geologist with channel here)
And maybe multiple causes, throwing all our ideas out the window.
Two thoughts regarding the non-human made mounds:
(1) I noticed the large oaks at my grandmother's home created huge mounds around their base which grew over the 40 years I'd visited. Some of this was the root ball, but I suspect some was the surrounding ground dropping as nutrients were sucked up by roots, and dropping leaves turning into soil.
(2) In the Everglades you'll find islands that crop up out of the slow-moving river. They often start when a tree falls over, then other plants capitalize and it slowly turns into land.
You'd expect both of these to average out over tens of thousands of years, but maybe there was a change that caused trees to stop growing there for a long time, or there was just enough erosion to erode away the land around the trees not held firm by their roots. Constant flooding could kill off some competing plants. Etc. But different types of trees could explain the different mound sizes and placement.
Also, are any of these mounds in flux? You shared pictures of trees growing on some of these mounds. These may change the shapes/locations of the mounds over time.
Your #1 was my first thought as well. Mounds do not appear in floodplains, do not appear above the treeline and the contrast in height under the canopy of forestation vs out in an open field explains at least the majority of mounds IMO.
The semi-circular mounds at the edges of rivers and tributaries is also a clear indication of it being caused by trees growing along the banks, at least IMO.
@@gronkvbs2795 I was thinking prairie dogs, but the trees probably make more sense.
I just hope its not an invasion of those darn no-see-um bugs. Their everywhere now....
@@LadyEtWatch Do you those cicadas things with the red eyes? They're huge and make a racket. And they go by some cycle underground, only coming up every X years?
At 21:20 this is classic Native American Indian farming technique of seasonal flooding by damming both rivers to wash silt onto the land at late winter early spring. This rotting grassland silt mix is scrapped onto the mounds then grown on a few months later in may.
Squashes especially love a freshly rotted / rotting mound.
Irish bogs have vegetative raised knolls. Their shape has a number of determining factors. Deforestation, where the old dead root system held the soil together longer against an increase in rain fall which eroded a drainage system around them, is most likely.
We have these in Washington State in flat areas. My theory in looking at your pictures and descriptions is that they develop in marshy areas where the ground is saturated and the vegetation makes islands for themselves as the build up the earth by their very growing and dying and growing, etc, until the land rises up slightly above the water table. Then the land dries out and leaves the pimple.
I think you’re spot on. Was thinking the same then saw that you beat me to it.
Thanks for the comment. It's a good insight. I agree that this phenomenon likely creates mounds in certain areas, particualrly in East Texas' "Big Thicket" area and in places on the Gulf Coast, such as Powderhorn Ranch on the west end of Matagorda Bay (which I've been designating as type 6 mounds). To me, the key characteristics, from a lidar perspective, are that they are typically in a wetlands environment, with mound tops lower than adjacent slightly higher ground, and that the mounds are of various sizes and shapes, including amorphous blob-shaped mounds. However, many of the mounds revealed by lidar don't fit that model - they are almost perfectly circular, relatively consistent sizes, and are located on well-drained uplands and mountain valleys.
My typologies are subjective and arbitrary and it's often difficult to distinguish mound types. I've been revisiting a site in Ouachita Co., Arkansas, for example, where lidar reveals a nice rectangular platform mound that is 25 feet high . Less than a mile away there appear to be classic looking, round pimple mounds, 3-4 feet high. A bit further away, however, you see blob shaped mounds of varying sizes that are probably erosional remnants. Confusing.
@@FADowdyHey, I think you need to take into account what the root system of the plants and trees will do in situations like this over time. Tree roots of old trees will take decades to clear out. These root systems will stop most erosion and as the roots expand from a growing tree they will raise the soil ever so slightly. This combined with years of water pooling around the trees which will cause the ground settling. Most of these "pimples" are likely where old tall trees grew and then died without falling over and ripping up their root systems. Probably even cut down over time. Just imagine the life time of a tree that is maybe 1 to 2 hundred years old and what happens around it as it grows and eventually dies.
Another idea involves earthquakes shockwaves building up the mounds over time. The mounds overlie thick flood basalt.
Obviously they are goosebumps. Something must have really spooked the earth. Maybe a very scary comet flew by that was uncomfortably close.
Fascinating video. As most of my geologic observations have been in the Artic and Subarctic regions, my first thought was that they might be the remnants of ancient pingos, but the disbursement of these pimple mounds is far too dense.
What if, in the distant past, there was a forest of big trees, with intricate root systems, then a flood came that washed away the ground that was not held together by these root systems. I've seen things like this happen along some of the rivers in Alaska. In time, all the remnants of the root system would have rotted away. The only way to find out is to excavate, and compare the mounds with the soil around them. It is not at all surprising for some of them to have been chosen for camp, or house sites. Mysteries only remain mysteries until they are solved. Thank you for the thought provoking presentation. I know it took a lot of work.
UAF or UAA?
I grew my garden on one of these from 1985 to 2003.
I found hundreds of beautiful arrowheads.
Thanks for the comment. Where was your garden located?
Cool. My dad, as a young boy, was raised on a farm plowed by horses. He had a bucket of arrowheads found by the plowmen. Western Illinois. I think your use is the same as the native Americans who built the mounds.
I was pulling for homesites halfway through the presentation. When the era of a possibility of 30,000 years of occupation came up 100,000 - or even more - occupation sites wouldn't be beyond possibility.
Entertaining and educational. Don't stop now...
A little over 40 years ago I worked at Fall Creek Falls State Park in Tennessee! While there I saw a photo of an American Chestnut Tree with a family of 18 standing shoulder to shoulder in front of the tree and there was tree trunk showing at each side of the family! Also on our family farm there were ancient tree stumps 12 and 14 feet wide all over the forest. These are all rotted away but they were cut over 100 years ago as the timber on that land was harvested again about 50 years ago! All our virgin timber is gone except a few areas that are protected. Even the oaks that my wife planted as each of our children were born a little over 20 years ago have pushed the soil into mounds around their base. Three or four hundred years from now when someone cuts them I imagine there will be a mound left in the forest to mark where they stood. Some of those patterns look like huge orchards of fruit trees or maybe hut bearing trees! Other patterns look like random forest trees! Just a thought!
Thanks. Earlier researchers have suggested they could have been the remnants of very large trees, including "blow downs". There's no evidence of roots or overturned soil in the mounds however. There are also no mounds, whatsoever, east of the Mississippi, which adds a bit to the mystery of natural origin theories.
Old legends of ancient oaks in England that an entire family or village could live in. Been gone for thousands of years!
Lots of the areas these mounds cover were traditionally tree free until the past few hundred years. The indigenous burns and Buffalo herds didn't allow forest growth west of the Mississippi
Wouldn’t it seem likely that some living trees would have something of the same kind of mound?
@FADowdy
I'm curious how many mounds have actually been excavated/cored and how recently anybofbthesenkinds of surveys have been done.
Can you recommend a good resource, or a specific library that has these surveys archived?
I think the mounds are the results of large trees having been uprooted many thousands of years ago. When a large tree is blown over the root base is tilted on its side and leaves a mound of soil that erodes into a mound. I have seen that in areas where storms blew larger trees over.
i definitley think something alive played a roll, trees, termites, naked mole rats, i feel like somthing had to help make those
The mounds definitely correspond to the trees, not uprooted, necessarily, as the areas upon which LIDAR imagery indicates mounds, satellite imagery depicts as currently heavily forested. You could practically overlay the respective maps, tree for mound.
Core drillings from selected mounds compared with core drillings from nearby non-mound soil should help with analysis.
Probably not if the mounds were agricultural raised beds. That use would simply involve pulling the topsoil up into the mounds. If core drilling shows modified subsoil then I think your assertion could be correct. Ag use probably wouldn't modify subsoil.
Fascinating presentation. I wasn't aware that these mounds exist, let alone are so prolific in number. Lidar is an impressive technology that will hopefully lead to a better understanding of archaeology, geology, and so on. Thank you for providing this.
Thanks.
It's best to put your hut on a mound to protect it from rainwater inundation. Many a camping trip, for me, was ruined by rain water. Especially in the Mississippi valley. The first thing you try is digging channels around your tent. But on flat land, they fill up with water. What's not realized, by modern man, is these ancient peoples lived out their entire lives, in these places. Possibly 40-50 years. Even inheriting their hut-site, from their parents, in multiple generations. Putting your willow-branch, packed with mud, hut on a mound would be your best option. Thank you for your wonderful video.
EXACTLY
But in that case, surely there’d be evidence?
@@alisn.7998 THERE is....didn't you watch the video..
Erosion can make some really interesting topography through completely natural processes.
The LIDAR images of the Bosnia Pyramids blew me away. Really astonishing what this technology is doing for Archeology
Having grown up in the St Lawrence river 'valley' and along the Mississippi the whole issue has always seems quite clear and common sense. Unless there are some actual burial goods or ritual goods found inside the mound (which nearly never are) they still make sense because of flooding alone. Trying to live in that area is a nightmare of local and flash flooding even with modern post-TVA flood control. I can only imagine before the 'taming' of the Mississippi basin, building home sites at ground level simply makes no sense and I'd be sure to have at least one mound in my community everyone can go to when the water comes up (as it always does).
Combine that with what we know of native American traditions of not occupying former villages or home sites for cultural/superstition reasons and that number seems very plausible.
Additionally, this shows how the americas were much more heavily populated than realized. Imagine the first europeans coming, unintentionally introducing disease, then a few hundred years aftet when more people arrive, the population would have appeared to be much less.
In tropical mexico and further south, this technology shows huge cities in the overgrown jungle.
Each one could be a base for a hut/shelter to raise them up for when it rains a lot. That would be a very large metropolis.
Certainly possible.
This is how native people grew crops. European farmers plant in rows. Native farmers grow on mounds, tall corn in the middle, beans around the beans can grow on the corn stalks, and around that pumpkins and squash.
I observed a large, 20'+ tall Indian mound in the Caddo Valley, Ar. vicinity when I did seismic work in the area in the 1980's. A prominent one visible from I-30 was razed flat by the farmer who owned the land. Archeology is just a big word in Arkansas.
That's a tall injin
Thanks for the comment. Lidar shows a 20 ft high mound about 100 yards east of the Caddo River and 1/4 mile west of I-30. This is on the side of the "Old Military Road" about 1.5 miles northwest of the mounds I visited at Arkadelphia. Don't know about another one, but it would be a shame if it was razed.
Have you ever seen air imaging of marsh or shallow lake areas where muskrat like to build their dens? They make mounds out of plant material in the shallow water that can be 5 feet or taller and similar diameter, and many areas have evenly spaced dens, dozens or hundreds depending on the area and rodent population. These patterns reminded me of exploring google earth for fishing spots and seeing clusters of those dens.
This is an amazing insight into a little known historical data collection! I've seen/read tons of historical documents, documentaries, papers, etc, on mounds and archeological sites, and this has more data than most of them combined. Great video!
I think it's pretty obvious that the majority of the pimple mounds are natural. Even without "cut" roads, frequently traveled paths and trails would show up. And if there were as many people traveling to the area as there are mounds, there would definitely be signs of trails and roads (unless they built tree-top pathways, maybe). Since the mounds are found in a wide variety of ecologies, it is more likely that they are all the result of the same process (besides the obviously different mounds). They are spaced pretty evenly like a forest of trees. If they were manmade, they would still have some sort of pattern that would identify a pathway. Even primitive settlements are arranged in a manner to access them from a central location.
We know 75% of the landmass was burned during the Younger Dryas event. Trees would have been reduced to stumps. Floods would have covered the stumps and replaced the organic materials with minerals. Those lidar images have signs of massive flood and recession events. Buildup of silt, sand, etc, would occur during the flood water recession. Any agricultural activities would loosen the compacted soil and make it more vulnerable to washing away, especially after the organic material decayed and left a cavity.
I'd like to see a collection of data for excavated pimple mounds. Seems some of the data mentioned said they found "post" holes and charcoal (were they in the same mound?). Could be a root system from a tree and the remains of its burnt trunk.
I wonder if these mounds are remnants of large American Chestnut Trees. The mounds appear in their historic ranges.
The American Chestnut Tree was once the dominate tree species in the Eastern/Southern US and would grow to enormous size.
I was thinking they may be the result of a tree with a large knee. In Alabama forest in flat areas, they still bear witness to where such trees once stood.
But these seem to be more like a purposed layout of some sort.
Across permafrost areas in the USSR, recent warming has let to numerous holes from methane emission. Spacing of these is similar to the pimple mound spacing. I propose that the pimple mounds are formed subsequently as surface material is absorbed and ejected from these holes during freezing cycles.
No. This is TH-cam , keep your comments to aliens or advanced race of people.
My guess: these are agricultural mounds used to grow the three sisters. When planting three sisters gardens, a mound is made to help with drainage and keep the soil aerated. Also the mound retains heat and top of the mound will be warmer than the bottom, which help the crops grow in colder weather. Has any evidence of maize or squash been found by these mounds?
Fascinating - very neat observation. Let's bring in the soil scientists into this debate.
Thanks for the comment. If they are manmade, I suspect they were either house mounds or built for some sort of agricultural purpose. However, my understanding is that the 3 sisters "hills" are much smaller than these mounds - no more than a couple of feet across, and maybe 5-6 feet apart, where the farmer would plant 4-5 maize seeds.
Several researchers and commenters have suggested that these could have served as raised beds for agricultural production. This seems possible, particularly for low-lying areas. Even then, however, it would have required a lot of work for not much gain. For example, based on the average size mound measured on the Chesney Prairie in northwest Arkansas, 20.9 meters (68 feet) in diameter and 0.7 meters (2.3 ft.) high, I calculated that the mound might have required 8000 basket loads of soil to build, but would cover less than 1/10th of an acre. If they were growing maize, even assuming an excellent maize yield of 40 bushels/acre, all that work would produce less than 4 bushels of maize a year, and a typical household might need 10 or more to meet nutritional needs.
Maybe households grew some other crop on the mounds. Perhaps they started with a lower raised bed, and when the nutrients in the soil were depleted, added another layer from the surrounding soil, and over many years built up a much higher mound. However, for a well-drained area, it seems like it would be easier to simply plant the seeds in an adjacent area, rather than hauling that soil to the existing bed.
That’s what I was thinking
Do they not realize how big these mounds are?
If these mounds can be imaged from the air that means they are much bigger than an average agricultural mound. Not only that but with erosion they should've been completely flattened by now.
You have to build up your floor at house sites or stay wet when it rains. They are all over Zambia, where I served in the Peace Corps.
Thanks for the insight. Any details on how high above surrounding ground they build house sites?
If the mounds were manmade, house sites are one of the more logical purposes, and mounds on low-lying areas, like the Gulf Coast, could be reasonable sizes to keep the household dry. For well drained areas, however, like the uplands of SE Arkansas, we currently see mounds that are 2-3 feet high, which seems excessive. Also, where they've excavated mounds, I haven't seen reports of researchers finding remnants of postholes in the mounds such as those found at archeological sites further east.
You don't need post holes for compressed earth buildings. The floors of Zambian houses were about two feet high, but when a house is abandoned and the walls collapse, the mound becomes higher and slowly erodes. The posts are often only set in the floor mound and would be recycled for other buildings or firewood after the building is abandoned. The people of Zambia would also grow crops on these old mounds as the soil tended to be slightly better in the mounds.@@FADowdy
Thanks. Interesting insights.
Would there not be visible "borrow pits" (aka moats) though? Where are they? If these mounds are from a human build-up effort, then surely LIDAR would also reveal pitting, no?
I have traveled many of these areas on foot. There are so many mounds stretching well into Wisconsin. All along or near rivers and creeks. All are mound building from Native Americans. Many sites are known to the universities and are not well known otherwise. People destroy them looking for treasure and other nonsense. There is no treasure and to disturb them is a crime. Thanks for the links to the lidar photos. It is a beautiful tool that is much easier than travel. Many are very hard to discern from ground level and plant growth.
Perhaps these mounds were constructed to simply form an elevation for a teepee to control rainwater runoff and keep it dry.
If you're building your tepee or house on a flat plain that floods every year it would make sense to make a little hill to build it on. Then when it floods you just wait a couple of days for the water to go back down.
Actually this is true, but some tribes such as Scandinavian Sami people just build their tee pees on flat earth but then dig a deep hole for cold air to sink into, it’s still done by the Swedish and Norwegian military during winter survival techniques.
Other tribal people made earth mounds to raise their teepees from damp moist ground before rains started to flood wooden areas. It’s a technique that some Siberian Mongolians used to stay warm and dry after the ground L’s became wet from hard long storms.
Maybe they are where round houses were they built up the ground slightly to keep the floors dry .
These bear an amazing resemblance to the Mima Mounds of the south Puget Sound area in Washington State. Same construction, no one has figured out the mystery yet. Not Burial mounds. Reference Mima Mounds Natural Area Preserve, Washington State Department of Natural Resources.
Thanks for all the time and effort obviously put into this , when I saw in your answer to a comment there are none east of the Mississippi that blew my mind even further . I sure hope the weird hair dude from "Ancient Aliens" doesn't see this , you know what he'd have to say...
Thanks. Yes, I hadn't seen any east of the Mississippi but just found it confirmed in another reference - (Robert Saucier, Geomorphology and Quaternary Geologic History of the Lower Mississippi Valley 2004) that states:
"...perhaps the most interesting aspect of pimple mound distribution is the acknowledged fact that irrespective of landform age, morphology, or lithology, not a single mound exists anywhere east of the Mississippi River."
Saucier goes on to speculate that the mounds may have been formed by ants or termites whose population was bounded by the river.
Agree that we should keep this away from the guy with the weird hair. "Ancient Alien Theorist" is not a job description I want to add to my resume.
I thought about posting the " I'm not saying......" saying, but then that one's getting old.😅
Have you been to Broseley, Mo. On hiway 51, you will notice mounds on both sides of 51. Sometimes, the roadway runs thru the middle of the mound. Nearly every mound is topped by barns, houses, Sometimes whole farms, barns and houses are perched there. I noticed this when traveling from hiway B, onto 51, before FF, down to hiway 53. This area is heavily farmed. Some of the mounds are low because of this others are high, because disks have not touched them, because of building s
Right away, I thought this reminded me of Cahokia Mounds Historic Site. This Butler County area is close to the Black River. I hope you look into this.I think it is an important site to be investigated....before the ditches were put in in the early 1900's this area was swamps. Early man made causeways thru the water, like in Mexico, at Teachtolian(sp)...e
Okay i have an idea thats not on the list, and not yet mentioned. But its a goofy, rediculous out-there stretch. I remember seeing pictures that look like your mounds made by scientists in sand or cornstarch or some similar agregate material with sound waves. So my wackadoodle theory is that maybe some meteor event made vibrational sound waves that made the mounds shaking them into existence. Crazy right?! Here's some quick googling i didnt cite references i just copy pasted. Sorry.
"Impact induced seismic waves and associated seismic shaking can modify the surface of an asteroid"
"Meteors are able to create sound waves. As they tear their way through the atmosphere they can create a sonic boom in the same way a fast-moving aeroplane does"
"Dr. Hans Jenny explains, but also with the way they are generated. By systematically producing vibrations with a series of tones and sending them through different materials, living patterns appear which reveal the possibility of movement, which is inherent in, for example, a heap of sand. The vibration takes hold of the grains of sand and moves them according to the way in which the field of vibration is arranged. We observe apparently free dynamics when the grains of sand move"
That said. The one that makes the most logical sense to me was the guy who said its for sheep to get out of water. Except with all the weird topography variables it doesnt hold up. But i liked that one best. Well second best. I think a meteor made a sonic boom, or sonic impact, vibrated the dirt and mounds happened. Mystery solved. Crazy till it isnt.
A tectonic hum that oscillates the terrain? Very interesting!🧐
interesting. nice theory.
Washington State Maima mounds look it up
The Nephilim knew the correct frequency
I use to mow over 10 acers of those mounds on my grandads place between Spiro and Panama, Oklahoma. Up and down, up and down. I wish I had been older and had investigated more or at least taken...Polaroids, of them. It's an inserting area, that's for sure.
There are certainly a number of mounds in that part of the state. If interested, you could take a look at your grandad's place on the USGS national map at apps.nationalmap.gov/viewer/ Use the online tool to zoom in to the area. Then you can activate one or more of the map layers to visualize satellite imagery and lidar. I've found a layer titled "hillshade stretched" really useful for seeing the mounds. Happy to provide more info if needed.
I grew up in Poteau. I remember driving by acres and acres of mounds in the area. There was some talk of the mounds being caused by gases under the ground. 🤔
@FADowdy Thank you. I have a lot of interest in the Carolina Bays and Neb. Rainwater Basins also and so far I've subscribe to the Antonio Zamora secondary impacts theory and I think i still do but I never knew that the "pimple" mounds(i always called them pitchers mounds because no one likes a pimple) are everywhere. It's almost disturbing how wide spread they are. It throws everything I thought I knew into question, and I don't really know where to start to try to put these various features into context. Thank you again for bringing attention to this. With all the crazy things I'm interested in and the fact i once lived in the middle of these mounds, it's incredible that I didn't know the full extent of them.
@@sgtrock68makes your feel like everything you were taught was a lie…
@@FADowdyThere is a cluster of those mounds around Avilla Arkansas. (Saline Co.)I've wondered my whole life what they are
Hello, I have a theory. Long ago, the area was forested by giant redwood forests. when a tree falls over, the roots pull up the soil and deposit it in a mound as they rot away. I have seen this happen with trees blown over in storms, then rotting away leaving a mound of dirt. Imagine then, giant redwood trees being knocked over by a cataclysmic event...you would have thousands of mounds after a few thousand years when the roots and trunk are all gone.. the patterns of the mounds are reasonable spacing for trees of the size I describe. give this some thought and I look forward to your thoughts. George.
Thanks for the comment. Several researchers proposed this decades ago, and it is the most popular theory among folks who have looked at the video.
Scholars have pointed out three problems with the theory: 1) The mounds are much larger (50-100 feet in diameter, 2-3 feet tall) than typical tree root balls. 2) Unlike "blow down" areas where you see toppled trees, there is no corresponding depression next to the mound where the tree would have originally stood, 3) There is no evidence of tree roots or overturned subsoil in the mounds that have been excavated. They are typically just thicker layers of the A layer soil in adjacent areas.
I doubt you have a real grasp of the size of the old growth trees prior to the arrival of the axe and saw. It is reasonable that a tree that would be a thousand or several thousand years old, would have a root base hundreds of feet across. the void left by an upturned tree root mass would fill in quickly. we are talking about tens of thousands of years. Just as there is not wood left from those old forests, there would be no wood in the ground. I think your scholars lacked first hand knowledge and relied on the gleaned knowledge fed to them from books. Your video is nicely done. good job. real scientific discovery does not start with an assumption and discard everything contrary until no alternate theory is left standing. science grows on examples and similarities and first hand experience and knowledge that grew on site not as a hand me down from an author. I have scholarly knowledge but I do not trust it before my own knowledge. I have work to do, good day. @@FADowdy
In my country, ancient "untouched" forest turns out to be growing on neolithic farmland, and is crisscrossed with balks, full of burial mounds and ancient villages.
Usin lidar i found so many graveyard from different eras around my community it's unreal
Some of the artifacts that we find in these mounds defy explanation with our modern mindset. Look at the crystal face painted on my avatar, the site in North Carolina has everything preserved in red clay-we have a recovered a wooden Bow, A charred wooden Club, and Crystal statues of children and women.
You hear a lot about the uniqueness of Göbekli Tepe and how people were still just hunter-gatherers, but someone did ground penetrating radar and found about 50 stone huts in the immediate area, plus there's another similar structure a couple miles away. Ruins the mystique and the research grants, so you never hear about either.
Don't let Graham Hancock hear about this.
😂😂😂
Yeh. It’ll be a long lost super intelligent alien civilisation that’s done all this before the worldwide mud flood.
@philthycat1408 your comment drips of ignorance. Maybe the comments will evolve in the future.
@@Wyatt1314. tawt
@@Wyatt1314.Dont let the " carrington event" worry you.
So… majority of mounds show zero artifacts or burials? Fantastic video. I’m awed by your thoroughness.
Thoroughly engrossing academic analysis of an intriguing phenomenon. Doubtless an important contribution to the topic. Thank you for sharing your insights.
Nice presentation, thank you for making it.
Indian Tepee foundations.. sounds like the best answer for rain and flooding
That's what i think.
Yes, fascinating LiDAR images. I am even more interested in the horseshoe shaped mounds on many of the geographic areas, as I am trying to identify remnant paleo hunting blinds in eastern Oregon. I have not done this kind of assessment, but sure can aspire to get computer capable to do it. Similar shapes of known hunting blinds still evident in highland hunting of caribou historically, and in paleo times. Groundtruthing some of these horseshoe shapes might clarify if they were likely remnants of hunting strategies related to how movements were likely to relate to more subtle topographic features. IMHO
I grew in East Hopkins County Texas which was first settled by the whites in the 1830-40s and where the Caddo's or others lived at one time. I used to find a lot of arrow heads, flint knives and such when i was growing in the the late 1940s and 50s there in certain areas. Back in the 1950's I recall seeing these little mounds as you describe located about 1/2 miles south from a local community called Saltillo which is located on present day I-30 between Sulphur Springs and Mount Vernon. They were not in a forest but at one time cotton was grown there, and then later it became pasture land. So there might have been a forest there earlier. I always used to look at them when I passed through that area. As a kid, most people explained them as being where the Indians put their Teepees to keep the water out of their structures. Anyway in the early 1960s I left that area but still go back to visit it periodically. In the 1980s or 1990s i noticed that the mounds are no longer there. I was thinking that perhaps the owner had had them graded level on his land. Not sure what happened to them. Also about 6-8 miles Southeast of this location was a tall hill that could have been a temple mount. It was the highest point in that part of the country and we as kids called it a mountain. Anyway, 50-60 years later when i went to visit that area I found that the new owner of the land had sold it for fill dirt. It is now just a small rise. Not sure if they found anything when they dug it up but I used to play on that Hill and remember seeing some big boulders on it. Not sure what happened to them. I always thought that that hill was man made. It was just so out of character with the rest of land around it.
Thanks for the information. The mounds you described could be pimple mounds, and it's interesting that you found artifacts there. I checked, but unfortunately the lidar in that part of Texas is not of a high enough resolution to detect the mounds l've been finding. Maybe in the future it will be improved.
An overlay of historic Chestnut Tree growth. Build up of animal deposits over thousands of years. Oak forest growth and Chestnut symbiosis. Can easily cause a stable base to resist erosion. Wind or water flow that grasslands cannot support. It has something to do with trees. The dispersion is to consistent. And wide spread. Just a thought for your consideration. Use a shovel is my recommendation.
and they're perfectly circular, along with being very consistent and wide spread. I agree with you.
Excellent work. Professional quality. You mentioned that some of the mounds are located "on top of terraces of various geological ages." This bit of information - coupled with the fact that hundreds (if not thousands) of these mounds were dug up and found to be man made archeological sites - seems to be pointing to the notion that all of them are human made. Perhaps for many different reasons. The evidence seems to point to this conclusion.
Another thought that I had is that the mounds were formed at the locations were large trees had grown, died, and decomposed over and over again over many millennia. This would result in large pileup of organic matter around the site. This idea also comes from the fact that many of these existing mounds (outside of farm fields) have trees growing on them. This would make sense if there was a large deposits of nutrients on those mounds that contributed to large growing trees. Something similar happens in desert locations, where large sand dunes form when sand is caught and piled up at the base of desert trees, acting as the beginnings of a sand dune.
Thanks for the comment. Actually, only a small fraction of the mounds that have been excavated show signs of human occupation, which complicates any assumption that they were manmade. A number of viewers have suggested they were the remnants of large trees; several researchers have proposed that they were remnants of "coppice dunes" or "nebkhas".
Most all of the mounds i found near 2 rivers on the granville durham county nc line contained large amounts of artifacts
Same in Missouri. They are home foundations. These comments are gold though. Cymatic meteors, salt, erosion, gourds, and giant beavers 😂😂😂
Most of these people have never searched for artifacts
Maybe the red bearded giants left the artifacts
I think you should look at Michael Tellinger's S. African corals. I don't think this is natural, have you checked other parts of the world? if it is natural, it would occur in all forested areas :) Thanks for sharing!!
As the nebkhas, oblong in shape, relate to the vegetation growing upon them, the mounds, round as they are, relate to tree trunks. Just look at the maps -- you can practically overlay the satellite map upon the LIDAR map, tree for mound! A notable exception is some of the areas in which mounds are indicated by LIDAR, current satellite imagery does not depict amy relative trees, however, in these instances, the narrator stated these were areas from which trees had been cleared. Also, the formations situated on archeological sites that are being referred to as mounds, absent relative trees, appear to be entirely different, structurally, to all else termed mounds in this presentation.
Fascinating. You've really added a major new layer of original research to the 'mound mystery'. Let's hope you and others will expand on this great work.
Thanks.
Great presentation and independent work! Thanks!
Thanks!
Get information thank you very much for taking the time to do this research and making it available
I believe what you are seeing is the remnants of ground lifted by plants that have spatially disbursed themselves like pinion pine trees, which grow squat. Such plants grow in the very patterns you are displaying. Their roots consist of heart roots that gown down, oblique roots that essentially grow diagonally to the surface, and lateral roots that follow the surface. This makes them very stable against wind and flood. In this process of growth, many have pulled the ground up, or driven the ground up at the base. Vast areas of of southern Africa are covered by similarly disbursed plants. Perhaps a form of this type of growth is what you are seeing? And perhaps when these areas were flooded and frozen, they flash killed all this plant life that quickly decayed once exposed to oxygen, leaving no sign of the original plants that created the mounds. In the same process in Africa, there are distinct circles of evenly disbursed plants that have discoloration at the center, giving the idea that the center that prevents growth may have been a seasonal pond or lake, and/or may contain growth preventing minerals. In this, there would obviously be numerous features that would dictate growth or lack of growth, as well as features of interesting shape and distribution.
What a fantastic and scientifically rigorous presentation. Thank you!
Thanks.
I'm from the Northwoods, and the randomly situated mounds look an awful lot like the mounds that naturally grow at the base of 150-250 year old White Pines. If you have a forest of these old trees, and nobody has been "cleaning up" the forest floor for 200 years, they grow a mound around the base of the tree consisting of all the vegetation falling off the tree and composting in a big pile at the base over time. In a forest setting these huge old trees only have branches and needles at the very top where the sunlight is, so all those branches and needles from the rest of the tree fall off and land at the base and become soil. Why couldn't some of these random mound areas be old forests from a time when it was much cooler in the South? The mounds around live, 200 year old pines I see, are about 3 feet high and 20 foot in diameter, roughly. I'm confused why I've not seen this hypothesis in any discussion of the random mounds. BTW, they would have a natural stratigraphy.
Thanks for the comment. The theory that they were the remnant of ancient trees has been proposed by a number of commenters, and was one of the theories contemplated by scholars a century ago. One problem is that the mounds are big - averaging about 65 feet in diameter in SE Arkansas, for example, and 100 ft or more in diameter in some places. One early investigator suggested that the trees would have to be the size of Sequoias or larger to generate this size mound. A second challenge is that none of the mounds that have been excavated show any sign of a root system or even evidence that a taproot had penetrated the subsoil. A third problem is that in some areas, such as the Arkansas Valley, the mounds lie on relatively thin soils, which might not be conducive to the growth of giant trees. That said, all the other theories also encounter multiple challenges. Most researchers have been reduced to finding one that seems least implausible.
Interesting. I was under the belief that some of the mounds were smaller. @@FADowdy
As a person who is a map junkie (just for fun) and who especially loves topography, this is brain candy❤
Agree, but be warned that the National Map can be pretty addictive for map junkies.
LOL, yes, nothing beats Map Porn :D
Interesting. You'd enjoy LIDAR images in eastern Washington saw some cool stuff flying over it.
SOOOOO interesting! Would love to see Lidar of Ohio, as we had many villages here along the rivers, one was a huge settlement well known to all.
I grew up in finley oklahoma, there was a road from my grandma's to the old school house. The pasture on the west side of the road had several mounds in it. My dad always said thats where indians put their teepees year after year .
Interesting presentation. I grew up in Logan County, Arkansas and there are numerous examples of these types of mound features.
Excellent research and very interesting, thank you for your work.
Thank you.
We have a “ pimple mound” near us. It was examines in the 1920,s. It was determined to be a hut sight. Two small fire pits and very little in the way of household items.
That confirms my suspicion and would explain the sheer numbers, why they are "clustered," and in some cases, even in rows, much like we live today. Blessings!
Thanks. I would be interested in the location of the mound, if possible. There have only been a few documented cases of archeological remnants in the mounds.
These mounds could have been made to protect their huts from seasonal floods.
Very possible, but that would make it a very large metropolis.
Fascinating presentation! It opened up my eyes, in a pleasant and easy to follow way, to the intrigue of and the desire to further understand the nature of surface geology.
Fascinating work! More research needed for sure.
Thanks. Agreed.
I have seen these in northeast Oklahoma. The landowner said they had been investigated and no stones, bones or artifacts where found. The theory is these were BlackBerry thickets that collected soil from the dust bowl.
Yes, something entrapping soil somehow then vanishing. Funny that none overlap.
The smallest mounds are lodge mounds, the mound is for water runoff. So the water runs away from the lodge. Great video.
Good Idea. I speculate this was a secondary application. See comment section below.
what are lodge mounds?
@@joebobmarley2854 the small mounds where they put their teepee/lodge. Water runs off the mounds. That's why they build them up.
@@joebobmarley2854 I live next to a field, that has maybe 100 or more. And across the field they are building houses on top of them. Arkansas and Oklahoma border. I can picture native tepees or something like that on all of them. Lots of history in the Arkansas river valley. Interesting cool stuff.
I listened and enjoyed every minute while trying on dresses tonight. Lovely company. Thank you.
Thanks
Excellent presentation. Thank you.
any flooding from heavy rain in that area back then? only saying because we have similar mounds in parts of the UK and its for sheep to move up onto to get out of the wet, sheep get foot rot easily and prefer dry land, there's no one around to herd them so small mounds everywhere the sheep naturally move up themselves
Hello @spudspuddy
Thank you! I learned MORE from your input than anything from this video. And I would bet that you don't even have a Phd!!!!!!!
Cheers from Canada.
@@Finness894 i might be wrong i don't know if that area is near tidal rivers like we are here, i've lived in a farming community all my life so just throwing my two pennies worth in the pot
Not to discount human activity completely, but with the massive amount of these mounds it makes me believe practically all of this is natural. Also, shouldn't there be at least some robust structural evidence?
One would certainly think that, if these were man-made, there would be vastly more artifact evidence (pot sherds, tools, burnt wood, etc) found in and around them. Yet, there has been very little. A huge 20,000 to 250,000 populace that leaves zero artifacts? Seems implausible.
Excellent work!
Excellent presentation! Happy New Year, new subscriber
How about the mounds were used as " foundations " for their dwelling ?
A massive underneath dry thermal mass
I find the horseshoe structures pretty intertesting too. not the big meander ones, but the tiny, isolated ones that look like defensive or herding structures. for example at 24:17 lower left corner of red box
Thanks. Normally, these are farm ponds.
Great work! I have subscribed and given you a thumbs up👍🏼
Most of the mounds occur in low-lying swampy areas, so it looks like they served as foundations for round structures like teepees or roundhouses. The taller ones may have served as lookout towers and/or may have had a calendric function.
Since these structures are almost all round shaped, I'd say they are remnants of root structures of very large trees of some kind. Maybe they are the result of some kind of "plantation" process, that lasted for many centuries?
I found this presentation enthralling. It is obviously the outcome of a lot of work. You clearly explained your research, the observations, the analysis and your conclusions. You also referred to your literature survey in the links to other academic's work. If this isn't a summary (or partial summary) of a PhD thesis then I think that it should be. Either way, I hope that other researchers draw upon your work and give you credit for it. I've subscribed and look forward to watching more of your videos.
Thanks for the comment. I have no interest in a PhD, but have drafted a paper which I hope to submit soon to a journal. It, unfortunately, is even drier than the presentation, but contains some references that may be of interest. When I submit, I'll post a copy on Researchgate as well to provide open access.
@@FADowdy Good luck with your Journal submission.
Thanks for this detailed analysis of pimple mounds. My first thought was that these could have been caused by old tree trunks, as I see others have mentioned. I'd love to see follow-up research as more as uncovered. Very nice job on the video, images, and narration.
Thank you for sharing this. It’s a fun mystery.
Thanks
When we cannot rely on Academia, or established mainstream Science as a whole, there is really only one way in which we can begin to dig up the Truth and that is exactly what you have done here Sir. If 1,000 of us began to go out and get hands on, document and coordinate with other like minded and independent individuals, i fully believe we would start to see just how different our actual history truly is, vs the textbook narratives. I think endeavors like this one are imperative for us to start to come to terms with. We certainly wont get much from institutions like Smithsonian Gate. Good video, I subscribed.
people do this already. its field work, usually led by universities. this is called academia. glad you're a big fan
@@petekreamer4492 “We can’t trust so-called “scientists” and “academics”. We need to find people to go out in the field, examine and record the real evidence on the ground, synthesize their data into an overall framework that explains and predicts phenomena we want to know about, and share it all publicly so others can examine it and draw conclusions. THATS how we could FINALLY get the TRUTH…”
😳🤦🏻♂️🤯…
I keep going back and forth about which has been the bigger failure, our education system or our mental healthcare system.
Replies like these make me strongly lean towards yes.
@@petekreamer4492 . As long as it is in line with the donors, all is well. When it isn't in line, that is a different matter.
Just sayin
I found something of real importance and have been open about it for eight years, people will not listen. Top Academia go out of their way to lie and obfuscate the truth directly on my facts in videos and everyone still doesn't see it. What is really strange are channels being complicit with it, they laugh, scoff, and are incredulous, then fly to Gobekli Tepe and get a tour by the lead man where it would be impossible to not see the symbology in question and say nothing. The next level down is promulgating that The Tas Tepeler Culture is devoid of symbology and all the carving in stone are mere decoration! And it is not about Pillar 43.
@@BlackestSheepB.Barker what “donors”? You mean academic grants? The VAST majority of research is publicly funded. That’s not to say there’s no problems or biases in academia - there absolutely are, and it could certainly be improved - but it’s a self-correcting process that gets it right way more often than not and there’s significant incentive to expose and correct any flawed or biased or non-factual studies.
My hypothesis is the naturally occurring mounds were essentially formed by geological/hydraulic processes with some extreme events such as repeated New Madrid like earthquakes causing boils through upper more confined horizons. Archaeological sites were simply peoples of the time recognizing the comfort and utility of dry feet.
Fascinating theory!!
Great video
Interesting video Mr Dowdy and enjoyed your presentation. Pleistocene Giant Moles! Has to be
Rabbit or hare warrens, prairie dogs, fox dens, trees, they are all over out in the sage, the ground is inverted something dug there and gave the flora advantage. I saw HUGE rodent dwellings in the pacific rain forest , voles. They might be badger dens , ground squirrels, I think they are wildlife related here in the sage brush glacial cuts.
Very interesting presentation. I'm always amazed how new evidence and information can be revealed by applying modern and more sophisticated technology.
I'm a scientist who's job is to analyse and compare data, and draw conclusions from that. And of course your presentation inspired me to do so about this topic, too. So, below are my thoughts and conclusions (and sorry for maybe not using the specific scientific terms that should be applied, as English is not my native language):
- 19:25 I think this you may have overlooked some. When looking more closely, you will see more mounds that are located on the Ordovician layer, clearly outside the Mississippi bedrock.
- I don't see how it is reasonable to assume that one or more geological processes on completely different geological layers would lead to the exact same result. If a geological process would be the cause for the mounds, there should be geological evidence for that. For example, the material inside the vast majority of the mounds should be different from the base outside, or layers should be found inside, or some mounds should be found to have been partly eroded or in a more irregular pattern. But what I have seen in your presentation does not show that. The cut-off mounds are clearly a modern feature caused by roads and agriculture.
- some of the mounds are elongated, however, only a few are found to overlap, and the larger of the pimple mounds are almost always well separated from each other. In my opinion this excludes plants to be the cause. There would be much more merged and overlapping mounds of irregular shape, especially in the areas where they are dense. Even more when taking the greatly varying climate conditions into account that can be assumed between the oldest and the youngest mounds. Plants would have adapted and not kept growing in the exact same way.
- the mounds on the 1st and 2nd river terrace in Humphrey Slough (7:10) seem to be much more densely packed compared to those found in the 3rd terrace and the uplands. Hence it is unlikely that the mounds in 1st and 2nd terraces existed before the river changed its path, and that the ones in between were just washed away. Neither there is evidence of partly eroded mounds, which should be found on such occasions.
- the singled-out larger mounds, e.g. Watson Brake (20:50), Venable and Caney mounds (21:20), Green Lake mounds located in the Green Island area (21:38), etc., are significantly different in size and may have a different origin. Maybe such mounds were part of the inspiration to build more, but smaller ones (also see conclusion below)
- the evidence for human habitation can't be ignored, even though it is not present in all investigated mounds
Concluding from all of the above, I think it can be concluded that the vast majority of the mounds are somehow related and have similar origin. And it seems more reasonable to assume cultural origin than geological processes. The mounds could have been used for a kind of worshipping (maybe inspired by some naturally created mounds for the existence of which the respective civilisation did not have explanations), for sacrificial actions, as burial places for a ritual that is known as Sky Burial, for intermediate storage, to process a harvest, used for a special hunting technique, to dry meat of hunted animals... there are many possibilities. And there is no reason to assume just one single purpose of the mounds. Especially when taking ceremonial reasons into account, we can find dozens of examples of seemingly otherwise useless institutions that required great effort to make.
But geological causes as the _only_ reason can surely be excluded.
Thanks for the comment. Note that the larger mounds at Watson Brake, Green Island, etc. are recognized archeological sites, unquestionably manmade.
As I noted, I believe four typologies are tied to erosion or chemical weathering. As for the other typologies, I agree that it is difficult to come up with a geological process that would explain the origin of these mounds. In particular, if the mounds were the result of eolian or fluvial deposition, one would have to explain why they are limited to this region. According to a 1994 study by Roger Saucier:
".....perhaps the most interesting aspect of pimple mound distribution is the acknowledged fact that irrespective of landform age, morphology, or lithology, not a single mound exists anywhere east of the Mississippi River."
Saucier, Roger T, Geomorphology and Quaternary Geologic History of the Lower Mississippi Valley, 1994.
erdc-library.erdc.dren.mil/jspui/bitstream/11681/22077/1/Sausier_Vol_I_text.pdf
Saucier speculates that perhaps they were formed by ants or termites, which might have been restricted to one side of the river, but acknowledges that the mounds are a "truly perplexing, enigmatic aspect ofLower Mississippi Valley Quaternary geomorphology that has defied concerted efforts at explanation and for which there is no consensus."
@@FADowdy Thanks for the reply. So, what puzzles me if even even some types of mounds would have been of geological origin is that, to my current knowledge, they are not found on other continents. But there should have been at least some places with comparable conditions, as there are such huge numbers of mounds.
However, maybe it just requires more high-res LIDAR images from elsewhere to find those.
There are mounded landscapes found around the world, often related to some kind of vegetative patterning. A good paper I've found:
Cramer and Barger. Are mima-like mounds the consequence of long-term stability of vegetation spatial patterning? (2014) dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.palaeo.2014.04.026
Visually, the pimple mounds most closely resemble "Heuweltjies" found in South Africa, but these usually have calcrete layers close to the surface, often contan large rocks, and are thought to date from 4000-30,000 Years BP. The authors also discuss various origin theories including trees, termites and prairie gophers, and eolian processes.
@@human_isomer
@@FADowdy Thanks! Will look into it.
Very interesting presentation, thanks very much for the work!
Thanks.
🤎 Nice! Thank you for ALL of this information.
So, there is NO one reason for ALL mounds' origins.
A fellow told me once, that some mounds (Pimpled Prairie of Lowrey, OK ) reminded him of a geological formation. When he was skiing in Colo. he observed an avalanche; when the snow settled at the base of the fall zone, little puffs of air poofed up & left mound looking spots. That reminded him of the pimpled praiies. He also said that when the farmers plowed the mounds down, then quit plowing; after a few years of not plowing, the mounds would reappear.
I believe that different mounds are formed in many different ways.
❤️
I live in ft Smith Arkansas those use to be homes made of clay n mud looked like a egloo or hut ! They all collapse n now you see what’s left! I see them every day !
It's clear to me that when in a teepee which is round at the base, you want the ground to slope away from the base. Keeping the ground water from entering the teepee. Logical and simple.
You’re welcome for my attention.
The mystery deepens.
Speaking as a homemaker, I wouldn’t want my house level with the mud and slush in inclement weather 😊
Simple explanation. Previous native dwellers knew they needed to live on elevated ground to avoid seasonal flooding. Your welcome.
How about old trees pull-up the ground and then rot away
For every pull-up there is a depression. No depressions shown
This looks like some sort of erosion pattern in most cases. This is where armchair geology has many drawbacks. for conclusive data many different sites need to have cross sections excavated of the mounds. if these were habitation mounds there will be evidence of that, if these were some kind of agricultural process there will be soil evidence of this however it is my opinion from the data presented here that the overwhelming majority of these "mounds" are the result of some natural process, possibly evidence of a type of flora or fauna. it reminds me of prairie dog mounds, or root ball mounds, not made by humans with any kind of intentional pattern.
This video is fascinating. I'm going to sub.
This is amazing !! Thank you USGS and Mr.Dowdy !
Thanks.
I have found some amazing things (on the map)...I am going this weekend to an area I discovered using the techniques you explained... this is truly a Game changer for amateurs and professionals alike. I would not have known about this if not for your video. Thanks again
@@captainspalding6383 Thanks. Note that the lidar imagery can greatly exaggerate vertical relief, so some features that you see on the map can be quite subtle on the ground. Good luck on your search.
These comments are wild. if there was such a simple answer it wouldn't be such a mystery