Archaeologists seek to research, restore the ‘Cavanaugh Mound’

Jessica Crawford traveled from Marks, Miss., to Fort Smith to look at a BIG pile of dirt.

It’s an historic piece of ground, in fact, located behind the New Liberty Baptist Church in south Fort Smith and believed to be constructed by Native Americans (possibly Caddo Indian ancestors) between AD 1100 and 1300.

Crawford is the southeast regional director for The Archaeological Conservancy, the private, non-profit organization that purchased the “Cavanaugh Mound” in 2006 to prevent its further destruction. The Archaeological Conservancy was formed in 1980 for the purpose of acquiring and preserving important archaeological sites.

“Since its beginning in 1980, the Conservancy has acquired more than 325 endangered sites in 39 states across America,” according the conservancy’s Web site. “These preserves range in size from a few acres to more than 1,000 acres. They include the earliest habitation sites in North America, a 19th-century frontier army post, and nearly every major cultural period in between.”

One of those early habitation sites is where Crawford and Tim Mulvihill, an archeologist with the University of Arkansas system, spent much of Thursday clearing brush and trash from around the already damaged eastern side of the mound. The mound, originally about 200 feet long at the base of each of the four sides and about 40 feet tall, is a project the Conservancy will research and restore. Crawford said at some point the Conservancy may build a small park around the mound with signage and other exhibits that explain the historic site. The cost and timeframe for that eventuality is unknown, Crawford said. Just clearing the vegetation and trees that have taken over the mound could cost up to $15,000.

“It’s going to be a big job. … Something like this, with the research, could take several years,” she said.

Fortunately, considerable research has been conducted at the site.

“Cavanaugh is mostly intact and well-preserved for a mound of this age in this region. There appears to be no associated village area, and no other associated mounds, making Cavanaugh somewhat unusual. It is likely that it was associated with the Spiro site, about 15 km to the west, but this has yet to be definitely established,” noted a 2005 research report by Gregory Vogel, assistant professor of anthropology at Southern Illinois University-Edwardsville.

Vogel, who visited the site between 2002-2004, also noted: “The size, shape, and stratigraphy of the mound all indicate that it was constructed and used in a manner similar to other Caddoan era platform mounds in the Arkansas River valley. The mound appears to be alone on the landscape, not connected of a group of surrounding mounds and not located within or near a contemporaneous settlement. It overlooks the Poteau/Arkansas River bottoms to the west and was probably visible from both the Spiro and Skidgel sites in prehistoric times.”

Vogel says the first mention of site was in Goodspeed’s History of Arkansas first published in 1889. The site was afforded its first “systematic observations” by Phil Newkumet in 1940, who was working on the Spiro mound site. Other inspections were made in 1956, 1958, 1972, 1979 and 1981. Vogel outlines the history of investigations in this section of his report.

The Spiro Mounds were built as part of a culture that thrived between A.D. 900 to 1300. The Caddoan culture is part of the American Late Prehistoric period (AD 700-1700)

Mulvihill and Crawford stay in contact with the Caddo Nation while working on the Cavanaugh Mound. The Nation, now based in Binger, Okla., was estimated to have 4,774 members in 2006. Caddo territory once included southwestern portions of Arkansas and northeast portions of Texas.

The mound top includes a burial plot when the land was owned by the Henry Stappleman family. Vogel’s research suggests 12 members of the family were buried on the mound top between 1890 and 1900. No grave markers are now present. Mulvihill said part of the new research will likely include ground sensing equipment to determine the location of graves and other potential artifacts.

Mulvihill said much work is need to secure the eastern face of the mound — a large section of dirt was removed at some unknown time for some unknown reason — and to do more investigation of how and when the mound was built. Despite the damage, Mulvihill is excited about the project.

“I’m amazed that it survived (the surrounding development of south Fort Smith),” Mulvihill said. “I think the landowners that held it wanted to keep it intact.”

Indeed, the history of the mound shows that in the late 1950s or early 1960s Frank Etter built a large teepee-shaped gift shop with the idea of capitalizing on the mound. Etter’s entrepreneurial effort didn’t last long.

But the property remains privately owned, Crawford stressed, noting that The Archaeological Conservancy is a private organization that has posted “No trespassing” signs on and near the mound. She said the Conservancy hopes to build a fence around the mound during the research and renovation.