Cahokia was much, much larger - but lacked stone buildings.
Again, population estimates are based on extrapolation from archeological data, but the estimated population of Cahokia at its height range from 10,000 - 20,000 to over 40,000 - so on par with contemporary European cities.
(Cahokia was located right across the river from modern St. Louis - Cahokia is in Illinois. It was at its height in the 13th century AD, eventually being abandoned around 1300 for unknown reasons).
Whenever I see ancient ruins I wish I could also see a rendering of what it would have looked like when it was new/in use, assuming there's enough evidence that such a rendering could be produced.
Jmag1992 on September 16th, 2019 at 16:46 UTC »
Do you know the name of the site?
Malthus1 on September 16th, 2019 at 17:55 UTC »
Cahokia was much, much larger - but lacked stone buildings.
Again, population estimates are based on extrapolation from archeological data, but the estimated population of Cahokia at its height range from 10,000 - 20,000 to over 40,000 - so on par with contemporary European cities.
(Cahokia was located right across the river from modern St. Louis - Cahokia is in Illinois. It was at its height in the 13th century AD, eventually being abandoned around 1300 for unknown reasons).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cahokia
kittens_are_tasty on September 16th, 2019 at 18:48 UTC »
Whenever I see ancient ruins I wish I could also see a rendering of what it would have looked like when it was new/in use, assuming there's enough evidence that such a rendering could be produced.