**Poverty Point State Historic Site**

**Addendum**

**G. Support of Stakeholders**

*The two U.S. Senators are not among those listed as supporters. Have
they been contacted, and what is their position on the application? For
each of those listed as supporting the application, please indicate
whether you have had direct contact with them regarding this
application, whether they have given verbal support of this application,
and if you have requested or if they have offered to provide letters of
support. Based on your response, some more specific evidence of support,
particularly from the Congressional delegation, may be requested.*

The stakeholders listed in the application were contacted in writing and
had responded positively either verbally or in writing (primarily
email). To a person, they offered to provide whatever means of support
they could. Since letters of support were not required for the
application, I did not request them at that time. Several individuals,
including the two U.S. Senators, did not respond to my initial letter.

Since receiving your comments, we have re-established contact with our
stakeholders, requesting letters of support. As Table 1 shows, several
letters have already been submitted. The Congressional delegation has
been contacted about this matter through the Lieutenant Governor's
office, but we have not yet received any response.

Table 1. Stakeholders contacted, response and status of support letters.

+-------------------------------+----------+---------------+----------+
| Stakeholder Contacted         | R        | Letter        | Letter   |
|                               | esponse? | Offer         | R        |
|                               |          | ed/Requested? | eceived? |
+===============================+==========+===============+==========+
| **Area Representatives:**     |          |               |          |
+-------------------------------+----------+---------------+----------+
| Governor Kathleen Babineaux   | SUPPORT  | YES           |          |
| Blanco                        |          |               |          |
|                               |          |               |          |
| Governor of LA                |          |               |          |
+-------------------------------+----------+---------------+----------+
| Lt. Governor Mitchell         | SUPPORT  | See Letter of |          |
| Landrieu                      |          | Angèle Davis  |          |
|                               |          |               |          |
| LA Lieutenant Governor        |          |               |          |
+-------------------------------+----------+---------------+----------+
| Ms. Angèle Davis              | SUPPORT  | YES           | YES      |
|                               |          |               |          |
| > Secretary of LA Department  |          |               |          |
| > of Culture, Recreation and  |          |               |          |
| > Tourism                     |          |               |          |
+-------------------------------+----------+---------------+----------+
| Senator Mary Landrieu         |          |               |          |
|                               |          |               |          |
| US Senator, LA                |          |               |          |
+-------------------------------+----------+---------------+----------+
| Senator David Vitter          |          |               |          |
|                               |          |               |          |
| US Senator, LA                |          |               |          |
+-------------------------------+----------+---------------+----------+
| Congressman Rodney Alexander  | SUPPORT  | YES           | YES      |
|                               |          |               |          |
| US House of Representatives,  |          |               |          |
| LA                            |          |               |          |
+-------------------------------+----------+---------------+----------+
| Senator Robert J. Barham      | SUPPORT  | YES           |          |
|                               |          |               |          |
| LA State Senate               |          |               |          |
+-------------------------------+----------+---------------+----------+
| Representative Charles        | SUPPORT  | YES           | YES      |
| McDonald                      |          |               |          |
|                               |          |               |          |
| LA House of Representatives   |          |               |          |
+-------------------------------+----------+---------------+----------+
| Representative Francis        | SUPPORT  | YES           | YES      |
| Thompson                      |          |               |          |
|                               |          |               |          |
| LA House of Representatives   |          |               |          |
+-------------------------------+----------+---------------+----------+
| Representative Mike Walsworth | SUPPORT  | YES           |          |
|                               |          |               |          |
| LA House of Representatives   |          |               |          |
+-------------------------------+----------+---------------+----------+
| Ms. Pam Breaux                | SUPPORT  | YES           | YES      |
|                               |          |               |          |
| LA State Historic             |          |               |          |
| Preservation Officer          |          |               |          |
+-------------------------------+----------+---------------+----------+
| Dr. Chip McGimsey             | SUPPORT  | YES           | YES      |
|                               |          |               |          |
| LA State Archaeologist        |          |               |          |
+-------------------------------+----------+---------------+----------+
| **Local Elected Officials and |          |               |          |
| Bodies:**                     |          |               |          |
+-------------------------------+----------+---------------+----------+
| Mr. Lavelle Brown             | SUPPORT  | YES           | YES      |
|                               |          |               |          |
| Mayor of Oak Grove, LA        |          |               |          |
+-------------------------------+----------+---------------+----------+
| Mr. Lynn Lewis                | SUPPORT  | YES           | YES      |
|                               |          |               |          |
| Mayor of Delhi, LA            |          |               |          |
+-------------------------------+----------+---------------+----------+
| **Native American Groups with |          |               |          |
| Interest (not legal claims)   |          |               |          |
| in the Site:**                |          |               |          |
+-------------------------------+----------+---------------+----------+
| Adai Indian Nation            | SUPPORT  | YES           |          |
+-------------------------------+----------+---------------+----------+
| Caddo Nation of Oklahoma      | SUPPORT  | YES           | YES      |
+-------------------------------+----------+---------------+----------+
| Choctaw-Apache Tribe of Ebarb | SUPPORT  | YES           | YES      |
+-------------------------------+----------+---------------+----------+
| Mississippi Band of Choctaw   | SUPPORT  | YES           |          |
| Indians                       |          |               |          |
+-------------------------------+----------+---------------+----------+
| Southern Cherokee Nation, LA  | SUPPORT  | YES           |          |
| precinct, Four-Winds Cherokee |          |               |          |
| Tribe                         |          |               |          |
+-------------------------------+----------+---------------+----------+
| Governor's Office of Indian   | SUPPORT  | YES           |          |
| Affairs                       |          |               |          |
+-------------------------------+----------+---------------+----------+
| **Protective Organizations:** |          |               |          |
+-------------------------------+----------+---------------+----------+
| Archaeological Conservancy    | SUPPORT  | YES           |          |
+-------------------------------+----------+---------------+----------+
| Archaeological Conservancy,   | SUPPORT  | YES           |          |
| Southeast District            |          |               |          |
+-------------------------------+----------+---------------+----------+
| Louisiana Archaeological      | SUPPORT  | YES           |          |
| Conservancy                   |          |               |          |
+-------------------------------+----------+---------------+----------+
| Louisiana Archaeological      | SUPPORT  | YES           |          |
| Survey and Antiquities        |          |               |          |
| Commission                    |          |               |          |
+-------------------------------+----------+---------------+----------+
| Louisiana Office of State     | SUPPORT  | YES           |          |
| Parks                         |          |               |          |
+-------------------------------+----------+---------------+----------+
| **Other Individuals and       |          |               |          |
| Organizations with Interest   |          |               |          |
| in the Site:**                |          |               |          |
+-------------------------------+----------+---------------+----------+
| Dr. David G. Anderson         | SUPPORT  | YES           |          |
|                               |          |               |          |
| > President-elect,            |          |               |          |
| > Southeastern Archaeological |          |               |          |
| > Conference                  |          |               |          |
+-------------------------------+----------+---------------+----------+
| Dr. Mark R. Barnes            | SUPPORT  | YES           | YES      |
|                               |          |               |          |
| > Senior Archeologist,        |          |               |          |
| > Southeast Regional Office,  |          |               |          |
| > National Park Service       |          |               |          |
+-------------------------------+----------+---------------+----------+
| Dr. Kenneth E. Sassaman       | SUPPORT  | YES           |          |
|                               |          |               |          |
| > President, Southeastern     |          |               |          |
| > Archaeological Conference   |          |               |          |
+-------------------------------+----------+---------------+----------+
| Dr. Joe Saunders              | SUPPORT  | YES           | YES      |
|                               |          |               |          |
| > Northeast Regional          |          |               |          |
| > Archaeologist, LA Division  |          |               |          |
| > of Archaeology              |          |               |          |
+-------------------------------+----------+---------------+----------+
| Louisiana Archaeological      | SUPPORT  | YES           | YES      |
| Society                       |          |               |          |
+-------------------------------+----------+---------------+----------+
| UPPA, Inc.                    | SUPPORT  | YES           |          |
|                               |          |               |          |
| > A "Friends of Poverty       |          |               |          |
| > Point"-type association     |          |               |          |
+-------------------------------+----------+---------------+----------+

**2.b. History and Development of the Property**

*Some references are made to historical developments that could use some
more detail. Can you clarify the date or period when the road through
the site was constructed? Reference is also made to eight "historic"
buildings on the site; please indicate when they were constructed.*

*Age of the road*

A 1931 state highway map archived by the Louisiana Department of
Transportation and Development (LaDOTD) does not indicate any state
route in the vicinity of Hwy 577. Indeed, LaDOTD's earliest record for
Hwy 577 dates to 1936; it is believed that a road was there prior to
that date, but it simply was not in the state highway system (Amy
Giddens, personal communication). This is confirmed in our earliest
aerial photograph of the site, taken in 1927 (Gibson 1987), which
clearly shows a road running through the site where Hwy 577 now runs. We
are searching other archives in an effort to better pin down the timing
of the road construction.

*Age of the buildings*

All of the standing structures on the site post-date the Louisiana
Office of State Parks' purchase of the property.

1975 Restrooms/Ranger Station, Maintenance Shop; the parking area and
visitor's plaza with the observation tower, site model, pavilion and
display boards were also developed at this time

1980 Museum, Laboratory, Manager's Residence, Dormitory

2002 Curation Facility

2003 Tram Shelter

**3.b. Proposed statement of outstanding universal value**

*This statement places the site primarily within an American context.
With some additional work to develop comparative material (see 3.c.
comments below), this statement could be enhanced to state the
significance within a global context.*

When the concentric earthen ridges at Poverty Point were first observed
in an aerial photograph in the early 1950s, the singularity of this site
was recognized immediately by the archaeological community. Not only was
it the largest settlement of its time (1700 -- 1100 BC) in North
America, but its design was absolutely unique and its construction
required an unprecedented amount (over 750,000 m^3^) of earthmoving.

Artifact assemblages acquired via excavation and surface collection
further reinforce the notion that Poverty Point was not the product of a
"typical" Late Archaic foraging adaptation. Poverty Point was clearly
the center of a major exchange network: tons of exotic raw materials
including copper, steatite, sandstone, galena, hematite/magnetite and a
variety of different kinds of cherts were brought in from as far as 1600
km away. These raw materials and/or items made from them were
redistributed to related sites throughout the Lower Mississippi Valley.

Poverty Point is not only the "type" site for the Poverty Point
culture[^1] that inhabited the Lower Mississippi Valley ca. 2000 -- 500
BC, it is also its most outstanding representative. Indeed, Gibson
(1999) has noted that it is the Poverty Point site itself that makes the
Poverty Point culture so unusual within the culture history of North
America. Among the hierarchically-organized settlements (regional
centers, hamlets and extractive camps) of the Poverty Point culture, the
Poverty Point site is considered the "capital" because of the size, the
scale and the complexity of the extraordinary earthen architecture and
the quantity of exotic materials found there. No other Poverty Point
site even comes close.

The subsistence base at Poverty Point site is a critical element of its
international significance. As noted in Section 2.b., anthropological
models of social organization posit that such massive constructions
could only happen with an agricultural, particularly a maize-based,
subsistence system. There is no evidence for Late Archaic plant
cultivation at any of the Poverty Point culture sites; botanical and
faunal remains clearly indicate a hunting-gathering-fishing adaptation
to the Lower Mississippi Valley riverine environment. These data
challenge traditional models of hunter-gatherer society, with
implications for understanding hunter-gatherer social organization in
any environment.

Among the earthen mounds of eastern North America, the volume of Mound A
at Poverty Point is surpassed only by Monk's Mound at Cahokia, a much
later construction supported by an agricultural subsistence base. And,
although geometric earthworks have been constructed elsewhere (e.g.,
Ohio Hopewell), none duplicate the structure and arrangement of Poverty
Point's concentric earthen ridges. The population that created this
place has characteristics (e.g., long distance exchange, construction of
monumental architecture, artistic elaboration) in common with other
complex hunter-gatherer groups throughout the world, but the form and
magnitude of expression of these features at Poverty Point is not
matched elsewhere.

There is no archaeological site like Poverty Point on the World Heritage
List. There is no site like it in the world. Poverty Point's uniqueness
and the challenge it poses to our traditional expectations of
hunter-gatherer adaptation make it a site of universal significance.

**3.c. Comparison of proposed property to similar or related properties
(including state of preservation of similar properties)**

*Further details about comparable sites around the world would be
helpful. For example, the description of the property states that mound
A is the second largest earthen structure in North America, but should
include data about some of the others to demonstrate this and offer
comparison. The applications provides quotes from Kidder et al. (2006)
and Gibson (1999) that summarize nicely, but it would be more convincing
to also cite some specific examples.*

*There are various ways to make comparisons to this site, although
Poverty Point is indeed unique. It does challenge long-standing
anthropological categorizations of what foragers were likely to achieve
in terms of social organization and complexity. There are, however,
complex societies based on hunter-gatherers elsewhere, particularly on
the northwest coast of the U.S., and some comparison with those may be
useful, although they did not build this type of architecture. One
approach would be to compare large ceremonial complexes, particularly
those built of earth, and also societies with extensive exchange
networks. Another would be to compare the visible achievements of
foraging (hunting/gathering) societies. There may be no exactly
comparable World Heritage Sites. Stonehenge, for example, was built by
farmers, not by foragers, as was the Sukur Cultural Landscape in Nigeria
-- but this point needs to be made explicitly.*

It has been claimed that Mound A at Poverty Point is the second largest
earthen mound (by volume) in eastern North America (cf. Kidder et al.
2006). Monk's Mound at Cahokia is clearly the largest (Table 2). Mound A
appears to be the third largest mound in the East, however the volume
estimate for Emerald Mound is admittedly crude. Whether Poverty Point's
Mound A is the second, third or even fourth largest mound is almost a
moot point -- what is important is how much larger it is than mounds
built during the preceding Middle Archaic, than other mounds built
during the Late Archaic, and than mounds built during the Woodland
period. It wasn't until about 2,000 years later that mounds rivaling it
in magnitude were constructed, and those populations were supported by
an agricultural subsistence base.

Poverty Point is not the product of the world's only complex
hunting-gathering-fishing adaptation. Other well-documented complex
hunting-gathering-fishing populations include those of the Northwest
Coast of North America (2000 BC -- AD 1600), the Calusa of the southwest
Gulf coast of Florida (AD 800 -- 1600), the Jomon of Japan (10,000 --
300 BC) and the Natufians of the Levant (12,500 -- 10,200 BC). How does
Poverty Point compare to sites of these other complex hunting-gathering
populations?

In terms of created landscapes, the shell mounds of the Calusa provide
perhaps the closest comparison to Poverty Point's earthworks. Over 100
shell mounds of varying size, shape and function have been documented in
Calusa territory. The largest shell mound, Chokoloskee Island, covers an
area of nearly 61 hectares and is 6 m thick at its highest point.
(Volumetrically, that dwarfs even the great Monk's Mound of Cahokia.)
While some shellmounds served as living surfaces, others held burials
and still others were platforms for temples and other civic buildings.
Constructing with shell, a subsistence residue, is not precisely
equivalent to hauling dirt, but it is still an amazing accomplishment.
The Jomon are known for more modest shell mounds (some argue they are
simply middens); more impressive are their stone pavements and circles
of erected stone slabs.

Table 2. Estimated age and volume of fill for earthen mounds of eastern
North America. If no source is cited, volume was estimated by Greenlee.

  ----------------------------------- ------------------ ----------------
  Earthen Mound                       Est. Age           Est. Volume
                                                         (m^3^)

  Monk's Mound, Cahokia, IL^1^        Late Prehistoric   615,144

  Emerald Mound, MS                   Late Prehistoric   \*258,650

  Mound A, Poverty Point, LA^2^       Late Archaic       238,000

  Mound A, Etowah, GA^3^              Late Prehistoric   121,690

  Motley Mound, LA^4^                 Late Archaic       121,120

  Mound B, Moundville, AL^1^          Late Prehistoric   112,000

  Hopewell Mound, OH                  Middle Woodland    83,600

  Sauls' Mound, Pinson Mounds, TN^1^  Early Woodland     60,500

  Grave Creek Mound, WV               Early Woodland     50,286

  Mound K, Pritchard's Landing, LA^5^ Late Woodland      46,548

  Mound A, Mott, LA^5^                Late Woodland      45,923

  Mound 5, Troyville, LA^5^           Late Woodland      29,109

  Miamisburg, OH^3^                   Middle Woodland    8,811

  Mound A, Watson Brake, LA^5^        Middle Archaic     5,400

  Mound A, Monte Sano, LA             Middle Archaic     2,651
  ----------------------------------- ------------------ ----------------

Source: ^1^ Morgan (1999); ^2^ Kidder et al. (2006); ^3^ Silverberg
(1986); ^4^ Saunders et al. (2006); and ^5^ Gibson (1996).

\* Emerald Mound is a truncated pyramid with several mounds on top of
the platform. Estimated volume includes the platform and only one of the
mounds constructed on top of the platform and it does not take into
account the natural topography which was apparently incorporated into
the mound.

Although not of the same magnitude in terms of distance or volume as at
Poverty Point, there is evidence that Northwest Coast, Jomon and
Natufian populations also participated in the long-distance movement of
raw materials. Northwest Coast folks exchanged obsidian, nephrite,
copper and dentallum; Jomon groups traded greenstone and obsidian;
Natufians imported shell, obsidian and gemstones, and they moved huge
boulder mortars, some weighing as much as 150 kg, over distances up to
30 km. It is important to note that, unlike the other groups, Poverty
Point's raw material imports were apparently not restricted in use or in
distribution. Exotic materials were used to manufacture both utilitarian
tools and ornamental items and all segments of the population appeared
to have access to them.

The Northwest Coast, Calusa and Jomon adaptations were strongly, though
not completely, reliant on marine resources. The Natufians, living in an
inland setting, had a subsistence base oriented toward exploitation of
wild cereals, with significant fish or antelope in some areas, while the
Late Archaic Poverty Point population was supported by an inland
riverine subsistence base. As a consequence of these efficient local
subsistence adaptations, settlements were generally larger, more often
sedentary, and with greater permanence, than seen for "simpler"
hunter-gatherers.

So, what is it that really sets Poverty Point apart from sites of these
other complex hunter-gatherer-fisher groups? Although they all have many
features in common, it is the form and the magnitude -- that "over the
top, take it to the next level" quality -- of the Poverty Point
expression that stands out. The immense investment reflected in
landscape preparation and maintenance, earthwork construction, and
movement of raw materials is simply not evidenced at other complex
hunter-gatherer sites in the way and to the degree that it is at Poverty
Point.

With the exception of Canada's historic SGaang Gwaii (Anthony Island),
sites of known complex hunter-gatherer groups are not represented on the
World Heritage List. The current World Heritage List does include sites
with piled earth architecture (e.g., Jelling Mounds, Runic Stones and
Church, Denmark; Archaeological Site of Vergina, Greece; Etruscan
Necropolises of Cerveteri and Tarquinia, Italy; Capital Cities and Tombs
of the Ancient Koguryo Kingdom, China), but these are burial mounds,
functionally different from Poverty Point's mounds. While there are
sites with nonmound earthen architecture (e.g., Stonehenge, Avebury and
Associated Sites, United Kingdom), they do not display the design
complexity seen in the concentric ridges of Poverty Point, nor did they
function as platforms for habitation.

**5.b. Protective designations**

*Please explain why U.S. Housing and Urban Development approval for
alienating property is a part of the deed.*

Our research shows the property was acquired by the Louisiana State
Parks and Recreation Commission from the West Carroll Tourist
Development Corporation in 1972 with federal money. Although the deed
file does not specify that HUD money was used in the transaction, it is
our belief that HUD was the source of the funds and that accounts for
that particular deed restriction.

[Additional References Cited (not in the original
application):]{.underline}

Gibson, Jon L. (1987) *The Ground Truth about Poverty Point: The Second
Season, 1985*. Center of Archaeological Studies Report No. 7. Lafayette:
University of Southwestern Louisiana.

Gibson, Jon L. (1996) *Ancient Earthworks of the Ouachita Valley in
Louisiana*. Technical Reports No. 5, Southeast Archeological Center.
Tallahassee, FL: National Park Service.

Morgan, William N. (1999) *Precolumbian Architecture in Eastern North
America*. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.

Saunders, Joe, Reca B. Jones and Thurman Allen (2006) *2006 Annual
Report for Management Unit 2, Regional Archaeology Program, Department
of Geosciences, University of Louisiana at Monroe*. Report submitted to
the LA Division of Archaeology, Baton Rouge.

Silverberg, Robert (1986) *The Mound Builders*. Athens: Ohio University
Press.

[^1]: Sites have been assigned to the Poverty Point culture on the basis
    of several diagnostic artifacts, including: lamellar microliths,
    especially so-called Jaketown perforators; exotic lithic materials;
    steatite and/or sandstone containers; hematite and/or magnetite
    plummets; lapidary items; finger-molded baked clay balls (a.k.a.
    Poverty Point Objects \[Moore 1913\]) in a variety of shapes; baked
    clay figurines; and fiber-tempered pottery (Webb 1982). Larger sites
    tend to have one or more modest mounds, some have a single C-shaped
    embankment, and some have neither.