**Moundville Site**

**Prerequisites for U.S. World Heritage Nominations**

An application for a property that does not meet all of the
prerequisites A through G, or for which answers are uncertain, should
not be completed or submitted. Such a property cannot be legally
considered. If you are in doubt about the answer to all these questions
being anything other than "yes," please contact the World Heritage
Advisor at the address and phone number provided for further guidance.

**Prerequisite 1 - Legal Requirements:**

**A. National Significance:**

Has the property been formally determined to be nationally significant
for its cultural values, natural values, or both (in other words, has it
been formally designated as a National Historic Landmark, a National
Natural Landmark, or as a Federal reserve of national importance, such
as a National Park, National Monument, or National Wildlife Refuge)? If
not, are there on-going processes to achieve any of the above
designations and what is their status? *(Listing in the National
Register of Historic Places is [not]{.underline} equivalent to National
Historic Landmark status.)*

YES: **X** NO:

Comment: **The Moundville Site was listed as a National Historic
Landmark in 1986**.

**B. Owner Concurrence:**

Are all the property owners aware of this proposal for the inclusion of
the property in the

U.S. Tentative List and do all of the property owners agree that it
should be considered? If any agreement is uncertain or tentative, or if
the ownership situation is disputed, otherwise complicated, or unclear,
please explain the issues briefly.

YES: **X** NO:

Comment: **Moundville Site is wholly owned by The University of
Alabama**

**C. Willingness to Discuss Protective Measures:**

If the property is nominated to the World Heritage List, it will be
necessary for all of the property owners to work with the Department of
the Interior to document fully existing measures to protect the property
and possibly to devise such additional measures as may be necessary to
protect the property in perpetuity. Are all the property owners willing
to enter into such discussions?

YES: **X** NO:

Comment: **A** **Site Master Plan was completed in 1992 and is currently
being revised; the revised Master Plan is scheduled to be completed in
spring 2007. An archaeological management plan has been in place since
1996. We would welcome assistance towards the preservation and
protection of the site.**

**D. Scheduling:**

If you wish a property to be nominated to the World Heritage List in a
particular year during the period 2009-2019, please indicate the
reason(s) why and the earliest year in which you feel it will be
possible to meet all requirements for nomination*. (Please review this
entire **Questionnaire** before finally answering this question.)*

Preferred Year: **Not Applicable**

Reasons:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**Prerequisite 2 -Specific Requirements for Nomination of Certain Types
of Properties:**

**E. Serial (multi-component) Properties:**

If you are proposing a nomination that includes separate components that
could be submitted separately over several years, do you believe that
the first property proposed would qualify to be placed on the World
Heritage List in its own right?

*Explanation: There will be a very limited number of sites nominated
over the next decade. Owners of similar properties likely will be
encouraged to work together to present joint proposals for serial
nominations. An example would be a proposal to nominate several
properties designed by the same architect. It is critical to note that
the first property presented in a serial nomination must qualify for
listing in its own right.*

YES: **X** NO:

Comment: **This site is being nominated as a single property, the
Moundville Site. If the committee thinks it is in our best interest to
add other properties, we believe that the Moundville Site qualifies for
WHS status in its own right.**

**F. Serial (multi-component) Properties:**

Are you proposing this property as an extension of or a new component to
an existing World Heritage Site?

YES: NO: **X**

Name of Existing Site: **Not Applicable**

**Prerequisite 3 - Other Requirements:**

**G. Support of Stakeholders**

In addition to owners, please list other stakeholders and interested
parties who support the property's proposed inclusion in the Tentative
List. Also note any known to be opposed.

*Explanation: The purpose of the Tentative List is to propose candidate
properties that ar*e\
*likely to be successfully nominated during the next decade. It is clear
that a consensu*s\
*among stakeholders will be helpful in nominating a site and later in
securing its prope*r\
*protection. Thus, only properties that enjoy strong, preferably
unanimous, support fro*m\
*stakeholders will be recommended for inclusion in the U.S. Tentative
List*.

*In addition to owners, stakeholders primarily include:\
*

*\--Governors, Members of Congress and State legislators who represent
the area where th*e\
*property is located*,\
*\--the highest local elected official, or official body, unless there
is none*,\
*\--Native Americans, American Indian tribes, or other groups and
individuals who posses*s\
*legally recognized claims or privileges in the area or at the site
being proposed (e.g., lif*e\
*tenancy or hunting and fishing rights)*,\
*\--organizations established to advocate for protection and appropriate
use of th*e\
*property proposed for nomination*.

*If definitive information is not available at the time you filled out
this Questionnaire,\
please so indicate.\
*

**Supporters:**

Honorable Bob Riley, Governor of Alabama

US Senator Richard Shelby

US Senator Jeff Sessions

US Congressman Artur Davis, 7^th^ Congressional District

Alabama State Senator Phil Poole, District 21

Alabama State Representative Gerald Allen, District 62

The University of Alabama Board of Trustees

Mr. Jack Morrison, Mayor of Moundville

Mr. Larry Taylor, President Moundville Community Development Corporation

**Native American Groups with Interest, but no legal claims, in the
Site:**

Poarch Band of Creek Indians (Federally recognized)

Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians (Federally recognized)

Chicasaw Nation of Oklahoma (Federally recognized)

Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma (Federally recognized)

Muscogee (Creek) Nation (Federally recognized)

Cherokee Tribe of Northeast Alabama (State recognized)

Cherokee Tribes of Southeast Alabama (State recognized)

Ecota Cherokee Tribe of Alabama (State recognized)

Machis Lower Creek Indian Tribe (State recognized)

Mowa Band of Choctaw Indians (State recognized)

Piqua Sept of Ohio Shawnee (State recognized)

United Cherokee Ani-Yun-Wiya Nation (State recognized)

Yufala Star Clan of Lower Muscogee Creeks (State recognized)

**Protective Organizations:\
**Alabama Historical Commission

Archaeological Conservancy

Alabama Department of Natural Resources

Alabama Department of Parks and Recreation

Forever Wild

National Park Service

**Other Individuals and Organizations with Interest in the Site:**

Dr. Vincas P. Steponaitis, Past President, Society for American
Archaeology, University of North Carolina

Dr. Vernon J. Knight Jr., Past Chairman of Anthropology Department, The
University of Alabama

Dr. Judith Bense, Past President, Society for Historical Archaeology,
University of West Florida

Dr. Mark Barnes, Senior Archaeologist, National Park Service, Southeast
Regional Office

Council on Alabama Archaeology

Alabama Association of Professional Archaeologists

Alabama Archaeological Society

West Alabama Regional Commission

West Alabama Regional Alliance

Talledaga National Forest, USFS, US Department of Agriculture

Tuscaloosa Convention and Visitors Bureau

Alabama Bureau of Tourism and Travel

Alabama Museums Association

Black Belt Action Coalition

Appalachian Regional Commission

Opponents: None who have made their opposition known

Comment:

**Information Requested about Applicant Properties**

**(The numbers of the sections and subsections below are in the same
order as and correspond to sections of the World Heritage Committee's
official [Format]{.underline} used for the nomination of World Heritage
Sites. This is to allow easy reference to and comparison of the
material.)**

**1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY OR PROPERTIES**

**1.a. Country:**

If it is intended that the suggested nomination will include any
properties in countries other than the United States, please note the
countries here.

*Explanation: Please note that the United States can nominate only
property under U.S. jurisdiction. You are not expected to contact other
governments and owners abroad, although you may do so if you wish. Each
national government must nominate its own sites, although the United
States will consider forwarding your suggestion to another government
for that government to consider as a joint nomination with the United
States.*

Names of countries: **United States jurisdiction only**

**1.b. State, Province or Region:**

In what State(s) and/or Territories is the property located? Also note
the locality and give a street address if one is available.

**The Moundville Site is located in Tuscaloosa and Hale Counties,
Alabama 13 miles south of the city of Tuscaloosa, Alabama and
immediately adjacent to the town of Moundville, Alabama. The street
address of the site is 13075 Mound State Parkway, Moundville, AL
35474.**

**1.c. Names of Property:**

What is the preferred or proposed name of the property or properties
proposed for nomination? If the site has multiple names, explain why you
chose the primary choice or choices. (*The name should not exceed 200
characters, including spaces and punctuation.)*

**Moundville Site is the name under which this locality is listed as a
National Historic Landmark and that which is most commonly referred to
in the archaeological literature.**

***Popular and Historic names***

What are any popular or historic names by which the property is also
known?

**The site was at one time named Mound State Park and later Mound State
Monument. It is also referred to as Moundville Archaeological Site to
differentiate it from the modern town of Moundville. As an additional
referent, the site is listed in the Alabama Archaeological Site File
with the number 1Tu500.**

***Naming of serial (multiple component) properties and transboundary
sites*.**

Try to choose brief descriptive names. In the case of serial
nominations, give an overall name to the group (e.g., *Baroque Churches
of the Philippines*). (*Give the names of the individual components in a
table that you insert under **1f.) ***

Group or Transboundary Name: **Not Applicable**

***Other names or site numbers***

*Explanation: If a site has multiple names, explain why you chose the
primary choice or choices. If the site has no common name or is known
only by a number or set of numbers, please explain.*

**Not Applicable**

**1.d.-e. Location, boundaries, and key features of the nominated
property**

Include with this **Application** sketch maps or other small maps,
preferably letter-size, that show:

1.  -the location of the property

    -the boundaries of any zones of special legal protection

\- the position of major natural features and/or individual buildings
and structures -any open spaces (squares, plazas) and other major
spatial relationships (the space between buildings may at times be more
important than the buildings)

Please provide here a list of the maps that you have included.

**Map 1 Outline map of State of Alabama showing location of Moundville
Site**

**Map 2 Fosters, Alabama USGS topographic map showing National Historic
Landmark**

**Boundary**

**Map 3 Map depicting legal boundaries of property owned by the
University of Alabama**

**Map 4 Site map published in 1907.**

**Map 5 Archaeological map indicating location of defensive palisade
largely defining the**

**site boundaries**

**1.f. Area of nominated property (ha.)**

*Explanation: State the approximate area proposed in hectares (1
hectare=2.471 acres). Give corresponding acre equivalents in
parentheses. Insert just below this question a table for serial
nominations that shows the names and addresses of the component parts,
regions (if different for different components), and areas.*

**The Moundville Site is 74.86 hectares (185 acres). The property owned
by The University of Alabama containing the site is 129.5 hectares (320
acres).**

**2. DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY OF THE PROPERTY**

**2.a. Description of the Property**

> (select the one following category that best fits the property)

**Cultural property**

Briefly describe the property and list its major components. A summary
in a few paragraphs or pages should be all that is required.

*Explanation: This section can describe significant buildings, their
architectural style, date of construction, materials, etc. It can also
describe the setting such as gardens, parks, associated vistas. Other
tangible geographic, cultural, historic, archeological, artistic,
architectural, and/or associative values may also merit inclusion*.

**Moundville, located on the Black Warrior River in west-central
Alabama, is one of the largest centers of Mississippian Culture in the
United States. Carbon-14 dating and the ceramic chronology from the site
indicate an occupation that began approximately AD 1050 and continued
until as late as AD 1650. Extensive archaeological research has produced
a impressive collection of archaeological literature that continues to
explore the chronology, political, religious, subsistence and settlement
aspects of this complex stratified society. But as extensive as the
research has been, less than 2% of the site has been archaeologically
explored.**

**The Moundville site occupies an ancient riverine terrace that is well
above the alluvial valley of the Black Warrior River. The site occupies
an elevation that is considerably above the 100-year flood level. The
Black Warrior River forms the northern boundary of the site and Carthage
Branch, a deeply entrenched minor tributary, serves as the boundary for
much of the eastern side of the site. The western, southern and the
remainder of the eastern boundary of the site is defined by the
archaeologically-defined and projected alignment of a defensive palisade
line that is not visible above the ground surface. Current
archaeological evidence suggests that the most intensively occupied
areas of the site were within the palisade line. Within these cultural
and natural boundaries, the site occupies approximately 75 hectares (185
acres). Included with the site limits is a minimum of 29 earthen mounds
constructed during the heyday of the Mississippian occupation. A
topographic survey in 1930 documented 3 topographic rises that were also
interpreted as cultural features, and 2 others were mapped at a later
date, bringing the total to 34 mounds.**

**With few exceptions the mounds are flat-topped pyramidal earthen
structures, many of which served as platforms for the placement of
residences of leaders and for religious purposes. The largest of the
mounds (Mound B) is 17.3 meters high and contains over 85,000 cubic
meters of earth. This structure is one of the largest prehistorically
constructed features in the United States. Researchers at the site have
identified, and the attached site maps (Maps 4 and 5), clearly show the
deliberate arrangement of mounds around a quadrilateral plaza. Within
the plaza is a single large mound (Mound A), the second largest at the
site, that is not oriented in the same alignment as other mounds, but
bisected by a north-south axis through the center of the plaza.**

**The site is a large, compact, bounded settlement similar to other
fortified Mississippian centers such as Cahokia (IL), Etowah (GA), and
Angel (IN). But it is not only the size, nor the structural organization
of features, that sets this site apart from most other Mississippian
centers in the eastern United States. The degree of preservation of the
visible structure of the site is a sociogram of the vanished culture
that constructed and occupied this location. The rural setting of the
site, the recognition of its importance to understanding cultures of
North America's indigenous people, and its purchase for protection by
insightful leaders over 70 years ago has preserved its structure in a
manner readily visible to visitors to better understand the organization
and cultural complexity of a vanished civilization.**

Which features or aspects of the property do you believe qualify it for
the World Heritage List?

> **All of the earthen structures, plaza, borrow pits (ponds), and
> buried archaeological features qualify the Moundville Site for the
> World Heritage List on the basis of cultural criterion ii because it
> exhibits an important interchange of human values, over a span of
> time, on developments in town-planning and cultural criterion iii
> because it bears a unique and exceptional testimony to a cultural
> tradition or civilization which has disappeared.**

What are the important present or proposed uses of the property and how
do they compare with the traditional or historic uses of it?

**The site is currently open to the public every day and operated as an
interpreted historic site to tell the Moundville and Mississippian
Culture story. The site is incorporated within an entity known as
Moundville Archaeological Park with visitor amenities consisting of a
museum, restrooms, picnic facilities, nature trails, and a campground.
An archaeological research center is also present within the park
boundaries, but hidden in a wooded area near the boundary of park
property. The historic use of the site was as the central town and
religious center of a prehistoric American Indian chiefdom.**

**Cultural landscapes (*combined works of nature and humans*)**

Briefly describe the property and list its major components. A summary
in a few paragraphs or pages is all that is required.

Which features or aspects of the property do you believe qualify it for
the World Heritage List ?

What are the important present or proposed uses of the property and how
do they compare with the traditional or historic uses of it?

Consider how both natural and cultural processes have contributed to
creating the cultural Landscape and give special attention to the
interaction of humans and nature. All major aspects of the history of
human activity in the area need to be considered.

**Natural property**

Briefly describe the property and list its major components. A summary
in a few paragraphs or pages is all that is required.

*Explanation: This section can describe the property's important
physical features and scientific values, including geography, geology,
topography, habitats, species and population sizes (including an
indication of any that are threatened), and other significant ecological
features and processes.*

Which features or aspects of the property do you believe qualify it for
the World Heritage List?

What are the important present or proposed uses of the property and how
do they compare with the traditional or historic uses of it (e.g., to
what extent and by what methods are natural resources being exploited)?

**Mixed property (one that meets at least one natural criterion and one
cultural criterion---see Section 3a just below for criteria)**

Briefly describe the property and list its major components. A summary
in a few paragraphs or pages is all that is required.

Which features or aspects of the property do you believe qualify it for
the World Heritage List?

What are the important present or proposed uses of the property and how
do they compare with the traditional or historic uses of it?

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

> *( select the one following category that best fits the property)*

**Cultural property**

When was the site built or first occupied and how did it arrive at its
present form and condition? If it has undergone significant changes in
use or physical alterations, include an explanation.

*Explanation: If the property was built in stages or if there have been
major changes, demolitions, abandonment and reoccupation, or rebuilding
since completion, briefly summarize these events. For archeological
sites, the names of archeologists and dates of their work should also be
noted, especially if the site is regarded as important in the history of
archeology as well as for its intrinsic merits.*

Moundville, located on the Black Warrior River in west-central Alabama,
is one of the largest centers of Mississippian Culture in the United
States. Carbon-14 dating and the ceramic chronology from the site
indicate an occupation that began approximately AD 1050 and continued
until as late as AD 1650. Extensive archaeological research began at the
site over 100 years ago (Table 1), producing a impressive collection of
archaeological literature that continues to explore the chronology,
political, religious, subsistence and settlement aspects of this complex
stratified society. However, less than 2% of the site has been
archaeologically excavated. Current archaeological interpretation
indicates that the most intensively occupied areas of the site were
within the defensive palisade line, constructed and reconstructed
numerous times due to the decomposition of the natural materials of
which it was made. Within the cultural and natural boundaries, the site
occupies approximately 75 hectares (185 acres). Included within the site
limits is a minimum of 29 earthen mounds constructed during the heyday
of the Mississippian occupation. A topographic survey in 1930 documented
3 topographic rises that were also interpreted as cultural features, and
2 others were mapped at a later date, bringing the total to 34 mounds.
With few exceptions, the mounds are flat-topped pyramidal earthen
structures, many of which served as platforms for the placement of
residences of leaders and for religious purposes

The mounds are labeled with letters of the alphabet that were initially
assigned by C.B. Moore in 1905-06. Additional mounds documented since
have been added to that alphabetical list.

**Table 1** List of Moundville excavations with dates of excavation when
known

[Year Archaeologist(s) Location\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

1905 C.B. Moore Summit of Mound A

1905 C.B. Moore Field North of Mound B

1905 C.B. Moore Field West of Mound B

1905 C.B. Moore Summit of Mound C

1905 C.B. Moore Ground Northeast of Mound C

1905 C.B. Moore Mound D

1905 C.B. Moore South of Mound D

1905 C.B. Moore Summit of Mound E

1905 C.B. Moore Mound F

1905 C.B. Moore Summit of Mound G

1905 C.B. Moore Mound H

1905 C.B. Moore Mound I

1905 C.B. Moore Summit of Mound J

1905 C.B. Moore Summit of Mound K

1905 C.B. Moore Summit of Mound L

1905 C.B. Moore Summit of Mound M

1905 C.B. Moore Summit of Mound N

1905 C.B. Moore Mound O

1905 C.B. Moore Summit of Mound P

1905 C.B. Moore Summit of Mound Q

1905 C.B. Moore Field north of Mound Q

1905 C.B. Moore Summit of Mound R

1905 C.B. Moore Low Ridge North of Mound R

1905 C.B. Moore Field West of Mound R

1905 C.B. Moore Mound S

1905 C.B. Moore Mound T

1906 C.B. Moore Near Mound A

1906 C.B. Moore Field East of Mound G

1906 C.B. Moore Field Near Mound M

1906 C.B. Moore Field West Mound N

1929-30 D. DeJarnette North of Mound E

1930 D. DeJarnette North of Mound C

1930 D. DeJarnette East of Mound I and South of Mound I

1930 D. DeJarnette Southeast of Mound H

1930 D. DeJarnette Between Mounds G and H

1930 D. DeJarnette Field West Southwest of Mound R

31. D. DeJarnette South and Southeast of Mound M

1930-31 D. DeJarnette Southwest of Mound M

1930-31 D. DeJarnette North of Mound R

1931 D. DeJarnette East of Mound R

1931-32 D. DeJarnette East of Mound E

1932 D. DeJarnette East and East Southeast of Mound E

1932 D. DeJarnette North of Mound E (2)

1932 D. DeJarnette Sound of Mound D

1933 D. DeJarnette East of Mound F

1933 D. DeJarnette West of Mound N

1934 D. DeJarnette South and Southwest of Mound G

ca. 1934 D. DeJarnette North and Northwest of Mound W

1935 D. DeJarnette North of Mound D

1936 D. DeJarnette North of Mound N'

1936 D. DeJarnette West of Mound P

1936 D. DeJarnette West of Mound P'

1937 D. DeJarnette East of Mound D

? D. DeJarnette South of Mound L

? D. DeJarnette Misc. excav. South of Mound W and West of Mound P

? D. DeJarnette East of Mound P

1940 D. DeJarnette South of Mound R

1940 D. DeJarnette Mound W

1940. D. DeJarnette Museum Parking Area

1940 D. DeJarnette Administration Building

1947. D. DeJarnette Cottage #1

1951 D. DeJarnette Knoll Southwest of Mound R

1951 D. DeJarnette Picnic Building

1956. D. DeJarnette West of R

1969-72 D. DeJarnette Mound M

ca. 1977 Walthall and Koblenz Western Palisade

1978-84 J. Vogel and J. Allen Mound X and East Palisade

ca. 1988 M. Scarry Riverbank North of Mound R

1991-92 M. Scarry Northwest Riverbank

ca. 1990 B. Driskell Plaza

ca. 1991 V.J. Knight Mounds E and Q

1995-96 B. Ryba Craft Pavilions

1997 M. Gage Coring and GPR of Mound R

1999-2002 V.J. Knight Mound V

2004 J. Blitz Mound X

2005 J. Blitz South of Mound R and West of Mound M

2006 J. Blitz East of Mound N and South of Mound K

Mound B, the largest of the mounds, 17.3 meters high and containing over
85,000 cubic meters of earth, sits at the north centeral edge of the
plaza. This structure is one of the largest prehistorically constructed
features in the United States. Fourteen other mounds surround the
rectilinear plaza and the attached site maps (Maps 3 and 4) clearly
show, the deliberate arrangement of mounds around a quadrilateral plaza.
This arrangement is seen as a deliberate construction representing a
sociogram of the prehistoric community organization of Moundville
society. Most of the mounds appear to have been constructed in a very
short period of time (less than 100 years) about AD 1200. During this
early period (ca. AD 1200 to 1300) the community appears to have been
occupied by about 1,500 to 3,000 persons. This central town was the
political and religious center of a chiefdom that stretched 20
kilometers both north and south of the site. The chiefdom's population,
most living at twelve identified secondary mound sites and hundreds of
farmsteads, is estimated at nearly 10,000 inhabitants. During this time
Moundville serves as a major necropolis with hundreds to thousands of
dead interred at the site.

After another 100 to 150 years (ca. AD 1300 to 1450) many of the mounds
are abandoned and the number of inhabitants is dramatically reduced. At
this point the site appears to fit the description of a largely "vacant
ceremonial center" with a few leaders and their attendants in residence.
At this time most of the mounds at the southern end of the site are
abandoned. However the site continues its function as a major
necropolis. After AD 1450 (until as late as AD 1650) only the 3 larger
mounds (Mounds B, E, and R) at the north side of the plaza, show
evidence of continued occupation. The site appears to have remained
vacant after AD 1650 until early Euro-American settlers occupy the site
in the early 19^th^ century. At that time the site is brought under
cultivation for cotton and continues in that role until the early 20^th^
century. The larger and steeper-sloped mounds on the north side of the
site were cultivated on the tops of the mounds and up to the base of the
mounds, causing some, but relatively little alteration of their overall
mass and form. Six of the lower height mounds along the southern edge of
the plaza (Mounds H, I, J, K, L and M), as well as Mound T were plowed
over their entire surface and as a result were reduced in height and
broadened in circumference. Once the site was removed from cultivation
in the 1930s, Walter B. Jones and David DeJarnette directed
archaeological cross-trenching of these mounds resulting in the
identification of the original mound basal configurations. These
parameters were used to restore the mounds (except Mound M) to their
pre-cultivation size, and in their original location. The restored mound
height was estimated by the quantity and distribution of fill above and
about the prehistoric mound defined basal outline. Erosional washouts
have appeared from time to time on mound side slopes and are repaired
quickly to prevent larger surface scars.

**Cultural landscape**

What have been the major aspects of the history of human activity in the
area and their impact on the landscape?

**Natural property**

What are the most significant events in history or prehistory that have
affected the property? How have humans used or affected it?

*Explanation: This discussion can include changes in the use of the
property and its natural resources for hunting, fishing or agriculture,
or changes brought about by climatic change, floods, earthquake or other
natural causes.*

**Mixed property**

Consider the questions raised just above for both natural and cultural
properties.

**2.c. Boundary Selection**

Propose a boundary for the property and explain why you chose it. Is the
boundary reasonable on logical grounds, such as if it conforms to
topography or landforms or (for natural areas) to the range of wildlife
or (for cultural properties) to any historical boundary or defining
structures (such as walls)?

**The boundaries of the site are defined by two factors:**

1)  **The limits of most intensive occupation, earthen mounds and
    archaeological deposits are contained within the bastioned,
    defensive palisade built in the 12^th^ or 13^th^ century. This area
    is about 75 hectares (Map 5). This area is contained within the
    boundaries established as the National Historic Landmark (see Map
    2).**

2)  **The limits of the property in the protective ownership of The
    University of Alabama defined as Moundville Archaeological Park is
    129.5 hectares and contains the full extent of the archaeological
    features defined by the limits of the defensive palisade.**

**The larger of the two areas (Map 3) is proposed as the boundary for
the property because it provides a visual and encroachment buffer zone
around the archaeological features and other manifestations identified
at the site visible in Maps 4 and 5.**

Are all the elements and features that are related to the site's
significance included inside the proposed boundaries?

*Explanation: Careful analysis should be undertaken to insure that the
proposal embraces the internationally significant resources and excludes
most, if not all, unrelated buildings, structures and features.*

YES: **X** NO:

If no, please explain:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Are there any enclaves or inholdings within the property and, if so, do
they contain uses\
or potential uses contrary to the conservation or preservation of the
site as a whole?\
YES: NO: **X**\
If yes, please explain:

**3. JUSTIFICATION FOR INSCRIPTION IN THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST**

> **3.a. Criteria under which inscription is proposed**

From the World Heritage criteria listed below, identify each criterion
that you believe applies to your property and briefly state why you
believe each criterion you have selected is applicable.

*Explanation: You may find the discussion under this heading in
"Appendix A" to the **Guide to the U.S. World Heritage Program** to be
helpful in completing this section. Please refer to a paper copy or
follow the hyperlink.*

*To be included on the World Heritage List, a site must be of
outstanding universal value and meet at least one of these ten selection
criteria in a global context:*

*i. represent a masterpiece of human creative genius;*

> \_\_\_\_ This criterion applies to the property I am proposing
> Reason:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

ii. *exhibit an important interchange of human values, over a span of
    time or within a cultural area of the world, on developments in
    architecture or technology, monumental arts, town-planning or
    landscape design;*

> **X** This criterion applies to the property I am proposing
>
> Reason: **From ca. AD 1200 to AD 1350 Moundville represented the
> largest known community in North America. Overall it is the second
> largest known Mississippian Culture center in the United States. The
> site represents one of the best preserved Mississippian Centers in the
> United States. Of the 34 extant mounds, 15 flat-topped mounds form a
> deliberately planned arrangement defining a rectilinear plaza covering
> approximately 13 hectares. Moundville is literally a construction of
> rank distinctions of kin groups through the relative size and location
> of mound pairs creating a diagrammatic ceremonial center reflecting in
> a tangible nature the social order of the stratified society that
> created it. The mirrored arrangement of large and small mound pairs
> east and west of a central north-south axis through the plaza are the
> remains of what were foundations for ceremonial structures and for
> residential and burial purposes respectively. The remainder of the
> mounds served specialized functions that also appear to have been
> purposefully placed. The highly visible and well-preserved arrangement
> of mounds, seen as a sociogram by V. J. Knight Jr. (1998), was built
> over a very short period of time ( ca.100 years) and provides a unique
> document of the planning and structure of the society that built this
> complex community.**

iii. *bear a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural
     tradition or to a civilization which is living or which has
     disappeared;*

> **X** This criterion applies to the property I am proposing
>
> Reason: **Moundville is the second largest known Mississippian center
> in the United States. The site represents one of the best preserved
> Mississippian Centers. Initially occupied ca. AD 1050, and containing
> evidence of occupation as late as AD 1650, the site reflects at least
> 5 developmental stages during its life cycle. The site contains 34
> extant mounds, of which 15 flat-topped mounds form a deliberately
> planned arrangement defining a rectilinear plaza covering
> approximately 13 hectares. This diagrammatic ceremonial center
> reflects constructed social distinctions through the relative size and
> location of mound pairs. It contains other mounds that appear to have
> been purposefully placed for specialized functions. The well-preserved
> arrangement of mounds, constructed ca. AD 1200, were built during the
> emergence of Moundville as a central town and ceremonial center near
> the center of a large chiefdom that stretched for 40 kilometers along
> the Black Warrior River Valley. The archaeological data is valuable
> for understanding the emergence and decline of a culture that has
> disappeared. The site contains cemetery areas, a broad range of
> archaeological remains of habitation structures, activity areas, and
> the refuse important to document the rich context and broad range of
> community inhabitants**.
>
> *iv. be an outstanding example of a type of building, architectural or
> technological ensemble or landscape which illustrates (a) significant
> stage(s) in human history;*
>
> \_\_\_\_ This criterion applies to the property I am proposing
> Reason:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
>
> *v. be an outstanding example of a traditional human settlement,
> land-use, or sea-use which is representative of a culture (or
> cultures), or human interaction with the environment especially when
> it has become vulnerable under the impact of irreversible change;*
>
> \_\_\_\_ This criterion applies to the property I am proposing
> Reason:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
>
> *vi. be directly or tangibly associated with events or living
> traditions, with ideas, or with beliefs, with artistic and literary
> works of outstanding universal significance. (The Committee considers
> that this criterion should preferably be used in conjunction with
> other criteria);*
>
> \_\_\_\_ This criterion applies to the property I am proposing
> Reason:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
>
> *vii. contain superlative natural phenomena or areas of exceptional
> natural beauty and aesthetic importance;*
>
> \_\_\_\_ This criterion applies to the property I am proposing
> Reason:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
>
> *viii. be outstanding examples representing major stages of earth\'s
> history, including the record of life, significant on-going geological
> processes in the development of landforms, or significant geomorphic
> or physiographic features;*
>
> \_\_\_\_ This criterion applies to the property I am proposing
>
> Reason:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
>
> *ix. be outstanding examples representing significant on-going
> ecological and biological processes in the evolution and development
> of terrestrial, fresh water, coastal and marine ecosystems and
> communities of plants and animals;*
>
> \_\_\_\_ This criterion applies to the property I am proposing
>
> Reason:
> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
>
> *x. contain the most important and significant natural habitats for
> in-situ conservation of biological diversity, including those
> containing threatened species of outstanding universal value from the
> point of view of science or conservation.*
>
> \_\_\_\_ This criterion applies to the property I am proposing
>
> Reason:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
>
> **3.b. Proposed statement of outstanding universal value**

Based on the criteria you have selected just above, provide a brief
**Proposed Statement of Outstanding Universal Value** summarizing and
making clear why you think the property merits inscription on the World
Heritage List. If adopted by the World Heritage Committee, the statement
"will be the key reference for the future effective protection and
management of the property."

*Explanation: This statement should clearly explain the
**internationally** significant values embodied by the property, **not**
its **national** prominence.*

*"**Outstanding Universal Value**" **is formally defined as "...
cultural and/or natural significance which is so exceptional as to
transcend national boundaries and to be of common importance for present
and future generations of all humanity. As such, the permanent
protection of this heritage is of the highest importance to the
international community as a whole." ***

**Cultural property**

*For example, a cultural World Heritage Site may be a unique survival of
a particular building form or settlement or an exceptional example of a
designed town or the best work by a great internationally recognized
architect. It may be a particularly fine or early or rich survival and
it may bear witness to a vanished culture or way of life, or ecosystem.
Elements to consider for inclusion in the statement may be such cardinal
facts about the site as:*

> *-Historic Context*
>
> *-Period of International Significance*

1.  *-Internationally Significant Dates*

    *-Internationally Significant Groups, Persons, Events*

> \-*Cultural Affiliation*
>
> **As the second largest known center of Mississippian Culture,
> Moundville also represents one of the best preserved of such sites in
> the United States. Initially occupied ca. AD 1050, and containing
> evidence of occupation as late as AD 1650, the site reflects at least
> 5 developmental stages during its life cycle (Knight and Steponaitis
> 1998). The site contains 34 extant mounds, of which 15 flat-topped
> mounds form a deliberately planned arrangement defining a rectilinear
> plaza covering approximately 13 hectares. This diagrammatic ceremonial
> center reflects constructed social distinctions through the relative
> size and location of mound pairs and contains other mounds that were
> purposefully placed for other specialized functions. The
> well-preserved arrangement of mounds, constructed in less than a
> century around AD 1200, were built during the emergence of Moundville
> as a central town and ceremonial center near the center of a large
> chiefdom that stretched for 40 kilometers along the Black Warrior
> River Valley. The archaeological data contained in the site is
> valuable for understanding the emergence and decline of a stratified
> society and a culture that has since disappeared. The site contains
> cemetery areas, and a broad range of archaeological remains of
> habitation structures, activity areas, and refuse important to
> document the rich context and broad range of community inhabitants**.

**Cultural landscapes**

*Such landscapes illustrate the evolution of human society and
settlement over time under the influence of the physical constraints
and/or opportunities presented by the natural environment and of
successive social, economic, and cultural forces, both external and
internal**. ***

**Natural property**

*For example, a natural World Heritage Site may be a unique existence of
a type of habitat or ecosystem. It may comprise assemblages of
threatened endemic species, exceptional ecosystems, outstanding natural
landscapes or other natural phenomena.*

**Mixed property**

*A mixed property must be justified under at least one cultural
criterion (i-vi) under 3a above and one natural criterion (vii-x) under
3a above.*

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

Please provide a statement explaining how the property being proposed
compares with all other similar or related properties anywhere in the
world, whether already on the World Heritage List or not.

*Explanation: Examples of questions that may be useful to consider
include whether the proposed property is part of a series or sequence of
similar sites belonging to the same cultural grouping and/or the same
period of history. Also, are there features that distinguish it from
other sites and suggest that it should be regarded as **more**,
**equally** or **jointly** worthy than they are? What is it that makes
this property intrinsically better than others and qualifies it for the
World Heritage List? For example, does it have more features, species or
habitats than a similar site? Is the property larger or better preserved
or more complete or less changed by later developments?*

*It will be especially helpful if specific reference can be made to a
study placing the property in a global context. The absence of
comparative information may indicate that the property is either truly
exceptional (a difficult case to prove) or that it lacks international
importance. If the results of the comparative review reveal that
multiple sites possess roughly comparable merit and may possess
international significance as a group, you may wish to recommend that
more than one site be proposed, as a serial nomination or as a joint
nomination by the United States and another country.*

*Also please make note of any major works that evaluate the property in
comparison to similar properties anywhere else in the world.*

**The authenticity and integrity of this property are equivalent or
superior to that of other major Mississippian Culture ceremonial
centers. Preservation of prehistoric features and the very limited
extent of modern visual intrusions allows visitors a less impeded
interpretation of the original nature, extent and condition of the site
as it existed during its period of significance from AD 1050 to 1650. As
examples, mound features at the Angel Site in southern Indiana, have had
similar alteration due to agricultural activity. Some mounds were
completely archaeologically excavated and then reconstructed. The Etowah
Site in northern Georgia, has a very similar history. Both sites are now
preserved as part of their respective state historic site systems. In
addition, the Cahokia site in southwestern Illinois, already a WHS, and
the only known Mississippian site larger than Moundville, is a truly
impressive site. The Cahokia site covered at least three times the area
of Moundville. However, its proximity to the large metropolitan area of
St. Louis, Missouri and associated transportation and commercial
developments has resulted in the destruction of an untold number of its
mounds. Public and commercial landholdings and development within the
bounds of what was once the Cahokia community has resulted in difficulty
in visualizing the setting, feeling, and community structure present
during the height of its occupation.**

**Although the following publications provide data on Moundville and
discuss other Mississippian sites, they do not specifically compare
Moundville in terms of the context of significance under discussion
here: Smith, B. D. (editor) *Mississippian Settlement Patterns*.
Academic Press, New York; Earle, T. (editor) *Chiefdoms: Power, Economy
and Ideology.* Cambridge University Press, New York; Pauketat, T.R*. The
Ascent of Chiefs: Cahokia and Mississippian Politics in Native North
America.* University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa; Knight, V.J. Jr. and
V. Steponaitis *Archaeology and the Moundville Chiefdom.* Smithsonian
Institution Press, Washington. Milner, G.**

**3.d. Integrity and/or Authenticity**

*Explanation: As with a site's international significance, the clear
intent of this requirement is that a World Heritage Site's authenticity
or integrity must rise to a superlative level. Thus, for example, it is
quite important to understand that reconstructions of historic
structures or sites or largely restored ecosystems will usually be
disqualified from inscription in the World Heritage List.*

**Cultural property**

[Authenticity]{.underline}: Does the property retain its original
design, materials, workmanship and setting?

YES: **X** NO:

Comment: **All of the mounds have had some archaeological excavation**
**that has been subsequently backfilled. Even the excavations by Moore
in 1905-1906 were backfilled and erosion control devices were used to
prevent excavation fill from eroding along the mound slopes. Mounds I,
J, K, and L (see Map 3) along the south edge of the plaza were plowed
down from their original height by 19^th^ and 20^th^ century
agricultural activities. Archaeological trenching of these mounds was
undertaken in the 1930s that defined the original boundaries of the
mounds. Earthen fill was brought into the site which was used to restore
the features to their original basal dimensions and approximate original
height. Mound M retains its plowed-down configuration while retaining
its original location.**

[Integrity]{.underline}: Do the authentic material and spatial evidence
inside the proposed boundaries remain in sufficient quantity to convey
the full significance of the site? To tell the full story of why the
site is outstanding? Is the integrity weakened by the intrusion of
discordant and/or abundant elements or buildings that are unrelated to
the significance and detract from the visual unity of the place?

YES: **X** NO:

Comment: **The site, despite the restoration of some mounds that had
been plowed down from agricultural activities, maintains its authentic
material and spatial evidence. Moundville is one of the best preserved
of all the major Mississippian ceremonial centers, maintaining the
spatial configurations that reflect the social structure of the culture
that built and used it. The two buildings visible from the mowed plaza
and surrounding mound area do not detract from the significance nor the
visual unity of the place. Although there is a roadway loop that tracks
through the site (see Map 3), the visual perspective of the site
obtained from ground level (the only perspective seen by the vast
majority visitors) is unimpeded by the road presence, and not a visible
feature along most of its length.**

Note that that there can be authenticity without integrity, as in a
highly eroded archaeological ruin. There can also be authenticity with
full integrity of materials, but seriously undermined by the
overwhelming presence of newer or inappropriate elements.

How do authenticity and integrity compare for this property?

**The authenticity and integrity of this property are equivalent or
superior to that of other major Mississippian Culture ceremonial
centers. As examples, mound features at the Angel Site in southern
Indiana, have had similar alteration due to agricultural activity. Some
mounds were completely archaeologically excavated and then
reconstructed. The Etowah Site in northern Georgia, has a very similar
history. Both sites are now preserved as part of their respective state
historic site systems. In addition, the Cahokia Site in southern
Illinois, already a WHS, and the only known Mississippian site larger
than Moundville, is a truly impressive site. Cahokia covered at least
three times the area of Moundville. However, its proximity to the large
metropolitan area of St. Louis, Missouri and associated transportation
and commercial developments has resulted in the destruction of an untold
number of mounds. Public and commercial landholdings and development
within the bounds of what was once the Cahokia community has resulted in
more difficulty in perceiving the nature and extent of community
structure present during its prehistoric occupation.**

[Repairs:]{.underline} If repairs have been made, were they carried out
using traditional materials and methods? If yes, please discuss. If not,
please explain the methods used and why.

YES: **X** NO:

Comment: **Repairs have been made to some of the site mound features to
fillerosional scars and to check further erosion. Most soil replacement
in steep slope areas on the slopes of mounds were placed by hand using
the same general soil types available to the prehistoric Native
Americans that initially built them. Plowed-down mounds that were
partially reconstructed in the 1930s were also rebuilt by hand labor.
This happened in part because of the organizational structure of the
public works programs that brought work crews to do archaeology and
construction at Moundville during the Great Depression.**

**Cultural landscapes:**

Authenticity: Does the property retain its distinctive character and
components?\
YES: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ NO: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\
Comment:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**Natural property**

Are there intrusions by non-native animals or plants and are there any
human activities that could compromise the property's condition?

YES: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ NO: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comment:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
If efforts are being made to conserve or restore a site or ecosystem,
what is their nature and are scientifically directed measures being
used? If the site comprises a unique ecosystem or habitat values, is the
area proposed of sufficient size and configuration to contain as
complete a representation of an ecosystem or habitat as is practicable
or reasonable?

Nature of conservation or restoration
measures:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Proposed area is sufficient:

YES: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ NO: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comment:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**Mixed property**

Does the property's authenticity or integrity rise to a superlative
level?\
YES: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ NO: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\
Comment:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**4. STATE OF PRESERVATION AND FACTORS AFFECTING THE PROPERTY**

**4.a. Present state of preservation of the property**

**Cultural property**

What is the present state of preservation of the property (including its
physical condition and preservation measures in place)?

**The present state of preservation of the property is very good and
well developed management and preservation policies are in place.**

Are there any recent or forthcoming planned major repair projects? Are
there any major repairs needed to buildings or structures that have not
been planned or financed?

**The Jones Archaeological Museum in Moundville Archaeological Park is
in the design stage of a major renovation project that will replace
current exhibits and add barrier free restrooms and expanded visitor
amenities. This renovation will involve the removal of a non-historic
addition to the museum and replace it with one slightly larger and of
higher quality construction materials consistent with NHPA guidelines
and in consultation with the ALSHPO. The \$4.5 million fund raising for
the project is approximately at 75% of its goal**

**Cultural landscapes:**

What is the present state of preservation of the property (including its
physical condition and preservation measures in place)?

Are there any recent or forthcoming planned major repair projects? Are
there any major repairs needed to buildings or structures that have not
been planned or financed?

YES: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ NO: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Comment:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**Natural property**

What is the present state of conservation of the property (including its
physical condition and conservation measures in place)?

Are there data on species trends or the integrity of ecosystems and are
there any on-going or planned interventions to restore natural
conditions (e.g., to restore altered topography or manage invasive
species and/or restore native ones)?

YES: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ NO: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comment:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**Mixed property**

What is the present state of preservation of the property (including its
physical condition and preservation measures in place)?

Are there any recent or forthcoming planned major repair projects? Are
there any major repairs needed to buildings or structures that have not
been planned or financed? Are there data on species trends or the
integrity of ecosystems and are there any on-going or planned
interventions to restore natural conditions (e.g., to restore altered
topography or manage invasive species and/or restore native ones)?

YES: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ NO: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comment:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**4b. Factors affecting the property**

If there are known factors likely to affect or threaten the outstanding
universal values of the property or there any difficulties that may be
encountered in addressing such problems through measures taken, or
proposed to be taken, please use the following is a checklist to help in
identifying factors.

***(i) Development Pressures (e.g., encroachment, modification,
agriculture, mining)***

Are there development pressures affecting the property? Or major changes
in traditional land use? Or demographic shifts, especially in sites
still in the hands of the descendants of their creators, or, for
example, traditional ethnic communities.

YES: **X** NO:

Comment: **The town of** **Moundville, now that it has been linked to
the nearby city of Tuscaloosa by a new 4-lane highway, is experiencing
rapid growth as a bedroom community for individuals working in
Tuscaloosa. The potential for development of an associated service
structure has some potential for creating as yet unknown pressure on
land use in the general vicinity of the site. Encroachment near the
northeastern edge of the property already exists from the Lawter
International Chemical Plant industrial site developed over 30 years
ago. This industrial property is currently screened by forest vegetation
and few visitors to the site know the industrial site even exists. As
seen on the boundary map (Map 3), this property is separated from the
Moundville site by a heavily forested, steep-walled ravine containing
Carthage Branch and a 8.5 hectare (21 acre) parcel that is privately
owned.**

***(ii) Environmental pressures (e.g., pollution, climate change,
desertification)***

Are there major sources of environmental deterioration currently
affecting the property?

YES: NO: **X**

Comment: **Periodic erosional scars have been the primary source of
deterioration of the mounds since the middle of the 20^th^ century. The
remainder of the site lies in a nearly level plain and is little
affected by erosion issues. Headward advancement of ravines leading to
the Black Warrior River appear to have been a problem in the past when
the site was actively cultivated. Restoration of forest vegetation in
the steep ravines and a thick mat of sod at the head of the ravines has
effectively checked this problem.**

***(iii) Natural disasters and risk preparedness (earthquakes, floods,
fires, etc.)***

Are natural disasters likely to present a foreseeable threat to the
property? If so, are there available background data (e.g., for a
property in a seismic zone, give details of past seismic activity, or
the precise location of the property in relation to the seismic zone,
etc.)

YES: NO: **X**

Comment: **The University of Alabama has a university-wide disaster
preparedness plan and trains employees to carry it out. Risk
preparedness is the responsibility of the Risk Management department
which has preparedness plans for both cultural and natural disasters.**

**Seismic activity: There is an unlikely threat from seismic activity to
the site. According to the National Seismic Hazard Map (2002), there is
a low risk of damaging ground motion in west central Alabama.**

**Flood: The site sits on a Pleistocene terrace well above the 100 year
flood elevation. Flood hazard maps produced by FEMA do not indicate the
Moundville Site is at risk.**

**Fire: In extremely hot and dry years the grass cover on the
habitation, plaza and mound surfaces could be dry enough to burn. Trees
in ravines north of the site could also burn in very dry conditions.
Neither situation would have a direct effect on archaeological features
and resources on the site, however the removal of surface vegetation,
until reestablished, could increase the potential for erosion.**

**Wind: Moundville is subject to high winds from storms, tornadoes and
hurricanes. Damage that might result from high winds is the uprooting of
trees that would take with them archaeological materials contained
within the root mat.**

Are there contingency plans for dealing with disasters, whether by
physical protection\
measures or staff training?

YES: **X** NO:

Comment: **Natural factors of erosion from the adjacent Black Warrior
River began advancing along the northern edge of the site before 1990.
The United States Army Corps of Engineers constructed extensive bank
stabilization measures to protect the site from advancing erosion from
the Black Warrior River and prevent further erosion. That construction,
consisting of rock-filled gabions and rip rap has been extremely
effective in protecting the site over the last 15 years.**

**The University of Alabama has disaster preparedness and management
plans for dealing with disasters.**

***(iv) Visitor/tourism pressures***

If the property is open to visitors, is there an established or
estimated \"carrying capacity\" of the property? Can it absorb or
mitigate the current or an increased number of visitors without
significant adverse effects?

YES: **X** NO:

Comment: **The site currently has approximately 40,000 visitors per
year. It is estimated that the site can accommodate at least 3 times
that number. If spread relatively evenly over the year, that amounts to
fewer than 350 visitors per day. New more efficient sanitary facilities
are under design that would provide visitor amenities for a much greater
number of visitors. Handicapped accessible walking trails are on
elevated boardwalks. Wood chip trail surfaces allow for greater numbers
of visitors without erosional problems and distribute weight more
equitably to reduce compaction from foot traffic. A paved roadway,
constructed in the 1930s, loops through the site providing access to
busses as well as individual automobiles to varying vistas and numerous
site features.**

***(v) Other***

Are there any other risks or threats that could jeopardize the
property's Outstanding\
Universal Values?

YES: **X** NO:

Comment: **Encroachment by structural development, such as housing, on
nearby properties could provide an adverse visual impact to a portion of
the site that has a limited width buffer zone.**

**5. PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT**

**5.a. Ownership**

Provide the name(s) and addresses of all owners: If any of these owners
are corporations or other nongovernmental entities, identify which are
public and which private. Identify any traditional or customary owners.

Public organization owners: **The University of Alabama**

Private organization owners: **None**

Traditional or customary owners: **None**

If there are any other authorities with legal responsibility for
managing the property, provide their names and addresses:

For properties having multiple owners, is there any representative body
or agent which speaks for all owners? If so, does that representative
body or agent have authority to act on behalf of all the owners? If so,
provide the name and address of that representative body or agent:

Are there any restrictions on public access to the property?

*Explanation: Public access is not required for inclusion in the World
Heritage List. Policies in effect should be explained, however. )*

YES: **X** NO:

Comment: **Site is open to the public from sunrise to dusk 365 days per
year. Site is closed to the public from dusk to sunrise. Museum is open
daily except for 5 holidays per year.**

**5.b. Protective designations**

What are the principal existing (and pending) legal measures of
protection that apply to the property?

*Explanation: List, [but do not attach]{.underline} copies of, all
relevant known or proposed legal, regulatory, contractual, planning,
institutional and/or traditional measures that affect the status of the
property: e.g., national park, wildlife refuge, historic monument,
zoning, easements, covenants, deed restrictions, State and local
historic preservation ordinances and regulations, and the like.*

List of measures: **Moundville Archaeological Park Master Plan 1992
(2007 revision underway); Moundville was established as Mound State Park
in 1933 and designated Mound State Monument in 1938.**

**Give the title and date of legal instruments and briefly summarize
their main provisions. Provide the year of designation and the
legislative act(s) under which the status is provided.**

Titles, dates, and brief summaries of legal
instruments:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Are the protections in perpetuity or are there potential gaps in the
protection?\
YES: **X** NO:

Comment: **The site protections provided by ownership of The University
of Alabama are in perpetuity.**

Are there any traditional ways in which custom safeguards the property?

YES: **X** NO:

Comment: **The local town of Moundville (previously called Carthage)
population has for a long time taken pride and ownership in the site as
an important local historical feature. Law enforcement officials have
received calls from Moundville residents notifying officials of foul
play and suspected illegal activity on the site. While this is not a
fool-proof system, it works a lot like a "neighborhood watch" in
providing additional eyes and ears to help managers prevent unauthorized
activities at the site.**

**5.c. Means of implementing protective measures**

Will the owner(s) be responsible for ensuring that the nominated
property will be protected in perpetuity, whether by traditional and/or
statutory agencies? If no, identify who will be responsible.

YES: **X** NO:

Responsible entity other than the owner: **Not applicable**

What is the adequacy of resources available for this purpose? Please
briefly explain your reasoning.

**The University of Alabama, through the University of Alabama Museums,
provides funding for a site manager, educational specialists, sales
personnel and 4 maintenance workers at the site. Funding for maintenance
equipment and its repair, while below budgetary requests, has been
adequate to maintain the site facilities. In addition, access to campus
maintenance and facilities workers are provided on an as-needed basis
for extensive building repairs and for technical support. As an example,
in 2003 an old erosion scar was re-exposed from heavy rains on the west
side of Mound E. Park maintenance staff scraped the eroded soil from the
grassy surface with a front loader and placed it, along with additional
fill, into the erosion scar. In another example, window and door
replacement, handicapped ramps and toilet facility upgrades were
provided for the meeting facility in the park by the UA Facilities
Department in 2006 and 2007.**

**5.d. Existing plans related to municipality and region in which the
proposed property is located (e.g., regional or local plan, conservation
plan, tourism development plan)**

*Explanation: List, [but do not attach]{.underline}*, plans of which you
are aware that have been officially adopted or are currently under
development by governmental or other agencies *that you believe directly
influence the way the property is developed, conserved, used or visited.
Include the dates and agencies responsible for their preparation and
describe their general nature, including whether they have the force of
law. It is recognized that this information may be difficult to compile
and that it may be difficult to decide what to include, but the
information will be very useful in determining how well the property is
protected.*

**University of Alabama Master Plan (no force of law)**

**5.e. Property management plan or other management system**

Is there a formal management plan or other management system for the
property? If yes, when was it last updated? If not, is one in
preparation and when will it be completed? (*It is not necessary to
provide copies, but a summary can be included if one is available.)*

YES: **X** NO:

Comment: **A master plan was prepared for Moundville Archaeological Park
in 1992. However because the plan is over 10 years old it is currently
being revised as a component of The University of Alabama Master Plan.
The current site master plan does not include a summary statement for
this purpose.**

> Is this management plan or other management system being effectively
> implemented?

YES: **X** NO:

Comment: **The current site master plan, although dated in some
respects, continues to serve as a useful document to provide priority
status to the protection and enhancement of archaeological components
and features and guidance for general site management. The development
of an updated master plan, which is underway, will incorporate
up-to-date preservation and conservation practices into the plan. The
"Management Policies for the Treatment of Archaeological Resources"
continues to serve as an effective tool to manage and focus ongoing and
future research at the site.**

**6. MONITORING**

*Because monitoring the condition of a property is not essential to a
decision as to whether a property meets the basic qualifications for
nomination to the World Heritage List, no information about the
property's monitoring program is being requested at this time. If the
property is subsequently added to the U.S. Tentative List, a set of key
indicators for assessing the property's condition, the arrangements for
monitoring it, and information on the results of past monitoring
exercises will be required to complete the l nomination of the property
for inscription on the World Heritage List.*

**7. DOCUMENTATION**

**7.a Photographs, slides, and other audiovisual materials**

If recent images (prints, slides and/or, where possible, electronically
formatted images, videos and aerial photographs) are available that give
a good general picture of the property, please provide a few photographs
and/or slides. If available, film/video, or electronic images may also
be provided. They should give a good general picture of the property and
illustrate the qualities/features that you believe justify the
nomination of the property to the World Heritage List. (Ten views or so
should be adequate for all but the most complicated properties.)

Please label the images you supply and provide a separate list of them
here, including the photographer's name. Please do not include any
copyrighted images or other images to which you do not possess the
rights or do not have permission.

Images being supplied and names of their authors:

**Figure 1 Photograph of Moundville Plaza area and mounds, view to the
southeast with**

**Mound B in foreground ca. 1995 (Photographer: Unknown)**

**Figure 2 Aerial photograph of Moundville Site ca. 2003 during Native
American**

**Festival (Photographer: Unknown)**

**Figure 3 Mound B in 1899 (Photographer: Robert S. Hodges)**

**Figure 4 Mound B, west side, slope erosional damage 1937
(Photographer: Henry**

**O'Quinn)**

**Figure 5 West side of Mound B following repair to slope erosion 1941
(Photographer:**

**David L. DeJarnette)**

**8. CONTACT INFORMATION**

**8a. Preparer/Responsible Party for Contact:**

**Name: Robert Alan Clouse, Ph.D., RPA**

**Title: Executive Director, The University of Alabama Museums**

**Address: 120 Smith Hall, Box 870340, The University of Alabama**

**City, State/Territory, Zip Code: Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487**

**Telephone: 205-348-7552**

**Cellular phone: 205-310-0723**

**Preferred Days/Hours for Contact: Monday -- Friday/ 8:00 AM to 5:00
PM**

**Fax: 205-348-9292**

**E-mail and/or website: rclouse@bama.ua.edu/museums.ua.edu**

**8.b. Responsible Official or Local Institution/Agency**

If different from the preparer above, provide the same information for
the agency, museum, institution, community or manager locally
responsible for the management of the property. In the case of public
property, identify both the responsible official and the agency. If the
normal reporting institution is a national agency, please also provide
that contact information.

**Name: Bill Bomar, M.A.**

**Title: Director, Moundville Archaeological Park, The University of
Alabama Museums**

**Address: 13075 Mound State Parkway, Moundville Archaeological Park**

**City, State/Territory, Zip Code: Moundville, Alabama 35474**

**Telephone: 205-371-2234**

**Cellular phone:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

> **Fax: 205-371-4180**

**E-mail and/or website: <bbomar@bama.ua.edu/> museums.ua.edu**

**9. Signatures of All Owners of Private Properties or Authorizing
Officials for Public Properties:**

**Explanation: No property will be included in the U.S. World Heritage
Tentative List without the written concurrence of all its property
owners. This is because U.S. law expressly forbids nomination of such
sites. In addition, at the time of nomination, property owners must
pledge to the legal protection or the development of legal protection of
the property in perpetuity.**

**Signature
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

> **Dr. Robert Witt, President, The University of Alabama**

**Date: [April 1, 2007 ]{.underline}**