**Poverty Point State Historic Site**

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

**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:

The Poverty Point site was formally designated a National Historic
Landmark on 13 June 1962 and it was named a National Monument on 31
October 1988.

**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:

The State of Louisiana is the sole owner of the Poverty Point State
Historic Site (16WC5).

**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:

We would welcome any assistance with our efforts to protect and preserve
the property.

**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: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

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:

We are nominating a single property, the Poverty Point State Historic
Site. If the evaluating committee deems it in our best interest to add
other properties, we believe that Poverty Point qualifies for listing 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 are likely to be successfully nominated during the next
decade. It is clear that a consensus among stakeholders will be helpful
in nominating a site and later in securing its proper protection. Thus,
only properties that enjoy strong, preferably unanimous, support from
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 the 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 possess legally recognized claims or privileges in the
area or at the site being proposed (e.g., life tenancy or hunting and
fishing rights),*

*\--organizations established to advocate for protection and appropriate
use of the property proposed for nomination.*

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

Supporters:

**Area Representatives:**

Governor Kathleen Babineaux Blanco (Governor of LA)

Congressman Rodney Alexander (US House of Representatives, LA)

Senator Robert J. Barham (LA State Senate)

Representative Charles McDonald (LA House of Representatives)

Representative Francis Thompson (LA House of Representatives)

Representative Mike Walsworth (LA House of Representatives)

Ms. Angèle Davis (Secretary, LA Department of Culture, Recreation and
Tourism)

Ms. Pam Breaux (LA State Historic Preservation Officer)

**Local Elected Officials and Bodies:**

Mr. Lavelle Brown (Mayor of Oak Grove, LA)

Mr. Lynn Lewis (Mayor of Delhi, LA)

**Native American Groups with Interest (not legal claims) in the Site:**

Adai Indian Nation

Caddo Nation of Oklahoma

Choctaw-Apache Tribe of Ebarb

Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians

Southern Cherokee Nation, LA precinct, Four-Winds Cherokee Tribe

Governor's Office of Indian Affairs

**Protective Organizations:**

Archaeological Conservancy

Archaeological Conservancy, Southeast District

Louisiana Archaeological Conservancy

Louisiana Archaeological Survey and Antiquities Commission

Louisiana Office of State Parks

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

> Dr. David G. Anderson (President-elect, Southeastern Archaeological
> Conference)

Dr. Mark R. Barnes (Senior Archeologist, Southeast Regional Office,
National Park Service)

Dr. Kenneth E. Sassaman (President, Southeastern Archaeological
Conference)

Dr. Joe Saunders (Northeast Regional Archaeologist, LA Division of
Archaeology)

Louisiana Archaeological Society

UPPA, Inc. (a "Friends of Poverty Point"-type association)

Opponents:

No individual or organization has indicated they oppose this
application.

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 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 Poverty Point State Historic Site is located in West Carroll Parish
in northeast Louisiana, about 4 miles northeast of the town of Epps, LA.
It covers portions of Sections 11, 12, 13 and 14, Township 19N, Range
10E. The physical address is 6859 Highway 577, Pioneer, LA.

**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.)*

**Poverty Point State Historic Site** is the name of the property
proposed for nomination.

***Popular and Historic names***

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

The property is known, both historically and popularly, as the Poverty
Point site. Among archaeologists, it is also known by its trinomial
designation, 16WC5. The property has also been referred to as the
Poverty Point State Commemorative Area, the Poverty Point State Park,
the Poverty Point National Historic Landmark and the Poverty Point
National Monument.

***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:

\- 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.

Figure 1. Location of Poverty Point State Historic Site on a)
continental, b) regional and c) local scales.

Figure 2. Legal boundaries of Poverty Point State Historic Site plotted
on 1986 USGS 7.5' Pioneer Quadrangle topographic map.

Figure 3. Schematic map showing the earthworks, natural features and
historic structures at Poverty Point State Historic Site.

![](media/image1.jpeg){width="5.874305555555556in"
height="8.305555555555555in"}Figure 1. Location of Poverty Point State
Historic Site on a) continental, b) regional and c) local scales.

![](media/image2.jpeg){width="5.991666666666666in" height="4.79375in"}

Figure 2. Legal boundaries of Poverty Point State Historic Site plotted
on 1986 USGS 7.5' Pioneer Quadrangle topographic map.

![](media/image3.jpeg){width="6.752777777777778in"
height="4.963888888888889in"}

Figure 3. Schematic map showing the earthworks, natural features and
historic structures at Poverty Point State Historic Site.

**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 area of the Poverty Point State Historic Site totals 162.687
hectares (= 402 acres).

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

**2.a. Description of 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.*

The Poverty Point site is situated on the eastern edge of Maçon Ridge in
West Carroll Parish, northeast Louisiana. Maçon Ridge is a low, almost
level, terrace-like geological feature that extends for nearly 160 km
north and south along the western edge of the Mississippi Alluvial
Valley. At Poverty Point, the ridge is about 9 m above Bayou Maçon,
providing a dependably dry spot overlooking what was likely a very wet,
swampy Mississippi River floodplain.

Calibrated radiocarbon determinations from a variety of contexts place
the main occupation of Poverty Point at 1700 -- 1100 BC. During that
time, an integrated architectural complex was constructed, including
four of the five earthen mounds, a series of six concentric,
semi-elliptical earthen ridges, a large, flat plaza and several borrow
areas. About 750,000 m^3^ of dirt was moved during mound and ridge
construction at Poverty Point (Gibson 1999). In addition, archaeological
evidence suggests that landscape preparation and maintenance probably
required an equivalent amount of earth movement. From an anthropological
perspective, that these monumental efforts were supported by a foraging
(hunting/gathering) economy makes these accomplishments even more
astounding.

Although some of the mounds were identified early-on as artificial
constructs, the ridges went unrecognized, mostly because of their
magnitude -- they are so large that their true dimensions and spatial
configuration are not easily perceived at ground level. In fact, it was
not until 1953, when archaeologist James Ford examined a series of
aerial photographs for the Lower Mississippi Valley region, that he
discovered the geometric arrangement of the ridged earthworks. The
ridges form a C-shaped enclosure, with the bluff edge of Maçon Ridge
"closing" the opening. At the time, Ford (1954) believed that the
original ridge construction was a complete ring that was subsequently
eroded into its modern form. Now we know that this was not the case and
that the ridges are essentially intact.

The ridges, which are believed to have served as living areas, are
numbered 1-6, with the innermost ridge being Ridge 1 and the outermost
one being Ridge 6. Standing 1-2 m high, the ridges are separated by
40-60 m wide depressions, called swales, the sediments from which were
used to construct the ridges. The ridges are divided into sectors by as
many as five alleyways, or aisles. In the southwest sector, an elevated
causeway connects all six ridges and extends roughly 100 m outside the
enclosure toward the southwest. The diameter of the enclosure at Ridge 6
is roughly 1.2 km and at Ridge 1, it is about 600 m. Straightened out
and laid end to end, the ridges would stretch over 12 km.

A 14 ha (35 acre) plaza is defined by the inner ridge and the bank of
Maçon Ridge. This plaza appears as a large flat expanse that one might
assume was the natural topography of Maçon Ridge. Soil cores and
excavations, however, have revealed that this area was the object of
considerable filling and leveling. Along the eastern edge of Maçon
Ridge, former gullies were leveled with as much as 6 m of prehistoric
fill, and in the northeastern part of the plaza near Mound C, the ground
surface was raised by the addition of about 1.2 m of fill. Clearly, the
plaza, as we see it today, is a created landscape.

Three mounds (A, B, E) are located outside and two (C, D) are located
inside the ridged enclosure. Standing roughly 23 m tall and about 216 m
long by 195 m wide, Mound A is the largest mound at Poverty Point. With
an estimated volume of 238,000 m^3^, it is the second largest earthen
structure in North America (Kidder et al. 2006). It is frequently
referred to as the "Bird Mound" because its cross shape reminds some of
a bird in flight; there is no empirical evidence to support this claim,
however. Mound A has three distinct parts, a cone, a platform and a ramp
leading from the platform to the top of the cone, that were constructed
in that order.

Mound B, located about 0.6 km north of Mound A, is a conical mound,
roughly 6.5 m high and 55 m in diameter. Its final shape is a product of
as many as five construction episodes.

Mound C is an oval mound in the plaza near the bluff edge of Maçon
Ridge. Believed to have been originally conical in profile, this mound
was bisected by the historic Deerfield-Arkansas trace. The mound is
about 70 m long; its original width is unknown as its eastern edge had
partially eroded into Bayou Maçon prior to the State's acquisition of
the property. The top of Mound C rises only about 2 m above the plaza,
but this is a misleading estimate of the mound's height, as it extends
about 1.2 m below the current plaza ground surface. Thus, the level of
the plaza in this area was raised after construction of the mound. This
mound is unusual at Poverty Point in that it was formed through numerous
episodes, evidenced by a sequence of 17 thin, flat, prepared surfaces of
distinct colors and textures, some with occupational debris on top; the
final construction event was the deposition of a \>1 m thick sediment
cap (Ortmann 2005).

Mound D provides the most significant evidence for prehistoric use of
the site that post-dates the major Late Archaic occupation. It is a
small, flat-topped rectangular mound near the southeast end of Ridge 2.
It measures roughly 40 m by 35 m, and rises about 2 m above the plaza.
This mound was built in two discrete construction phases (Ortmann 2005).
The first building phase looks like ridge fill and it was likely part of
the original ridge system. The fill deposited during the second building
episode contains diagnostic Coles Creek ceramics, making it about 2000
years younger than the other earthworks at Poverty Point. The
construction of Mound D may be associated with the Late Woodland
occupation of the Jackson site, located a few hundred m south of Poverty
Point. The mound also has known historic burials at its summit, which
has led some to speculate that it was built during the historic era
using fill from the Jackson site.

The fifth mound, Mound E, is located 183 m south of Mound A. It is a
flat-topped semi-rectangular mound, about 4.0 m tall, with current basal
dimensions of about 100 m by 80 m. Road construction in the 1970s
removed about 20 m from the southern end of the mound (otherwise it
would be more-or-less equidimensional). For many years, this mound was
thought to be a natural knoll, perhaps sculpted into shape by people,
but recent examinations have determined that it is an artificial
construction involving six discrete building episodes. Kidder et al.
(2004) noted several similarities in construction technique between
Mounds E and B.

The dirt for all of these construction projects had to come from
somewhere. As mentioned previously, dirt for the ridges likely came from
the adjacent swales. There are also huge depressions on the site that
simply must be borrow areas created during mound construction. Based on
the soil structure, up to 2 m of sediment was removed from a roughly
60,000 m^2^ area (known as Mound B field) north of Mound A (Ortmann
2005). In addition, a huge water-filled slough that does not appear to
be geological in origin is located west of the Mound A. Other
topographically depressed areas, most obvious when they are holding
water after a good rain, circle the site. Some have suggested that the
path of Harlin Bayou, a deep and active erosional channel running
west-east through the north end of the site, may have been influenced by
the location and orientation of borrow areas.

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

We believe that the earthen architecture at Poverty Point State Historic
Site qualifies this property for the World Heritage List on the basis of
cultural criterion iii (*bears a unique or at least exceptional
testimony to a cultural tradition or to a civilization which is living
or 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 property was acquired by the Louisiana State Parks and Recreation
Commission in 1972. The emphasis since that time has been to preserve
and protect the site, while making it accessible to visitors. The Office
of State Parks has constructed a complex of buildings and exhibits on
the eastern edge of the site that includes a manager's
office/library/archaeological laboratory, a museum, restroom facilities,
an observation tower, a scale model, a demonstration gazebo, and a
plaza/display area; a maintenance building, a manager's residence, a
curation facility, a dormitory, and a tram shelter are situated north of
the site proper. A pedestrian trail and a paved road, the latter used
for both ranger-guided tram and self-guided car tours, take different
routes through the site.

This present use differs significantly from previous historic era uses
of the site. The earliest documented historic use of the locale, in the
early 1800s, is evidenced by the remains of the Deerfield-Arkansas Road
(Hillman 1983), which connected current-day Delhi, LA, and the Arkansas
Post. This wagon trace ran in a north-south direction along the edge of
Maçon Ridge, which forms the eastern boundary of the site, heading
toward the northwest through the northern sector of the site. Portions
of the trace are still visible at the site. The dominant historic era
use of the property, though, was farming. Prior to the State of
Louisiana's acquisition of the site, more than half of the property was
in cultivation and most of that land had been cultivated since at least
the 1840s. Indeed, the name "Poverty Point" comes from a plantation
established at this location by Phillip Guier sometime prior to 1843.
Historically, a road (now LA Highway 577), at least five houses, several
outbuildings, two cemeteries and a church were constructed on various
parts of the site; none of those buildings is standing today.

What we consider the traditional use of the property was as an
occupational locale of prehistoric Native Americans from roughly 1700 to
1100 B.C. The exceptional earthen architecture constructed during
prehistoric use of the property serves as the basis for this nomination.

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

**History of Occupation and Construction at Poverty Point**

Low frequencies of diagnostic projectile points are consistent with a
first, ephemeral use of the Poverty Point locale during the PaleoIndian
(\>10,000 -- 7000 BC) and Early Archaic (7000 -- 4000 BC) periods. The
numbers and kinds of diagnostic artifacts and cultural features (e.g.,
Lower Jackson Mound) on Maçon Ridge increase slightly for the Middle
Archaic (4000 -- 2000 BC) period. Material of that age has been
recovered from Poverty Point, but there is no clear evidence for
significant occupation of the site during the Middle Archaic. The main
construction and occupation events of Poverty Point date to the Late
Archaic (2000 -- 500 BC) period.

The spectacular earthworks that dominate the Poverty Point site today
were constructed, with the exception of Mound D and perhaps Mound E,
during the time span 1700 -- 1100 BC. Refining the construction and
occupation sequence for the Poverty Point earthen complex is an ongoing
process (Connolly 2006; Kidder et al. 2006; Ortmann 2005). Our current
understanding is that Mounds B and C were built first (as early as ca.
1600 BC) and that the construction of Mound A (ca. 1450 BC) is roughly
coincident with the initiation of ridge construction.

It is particularly amazing how Mounds A, B and C are so different in
size, shape and construction technique given the short time span over
which they were built. Recall from Section 2.a. that Mound B was
constructed in as many as five stages, while Mound C evidenced at least
18 building events. Mound A was constructed in three parts: a cone, a
platform and a ramp. Macro- and microscopic examination of the cone and
platform sediments indicate that these two parts of Mound A used
different fill sources and have different construction histories. The
cone appears to be a gradual, accretionary (incremental) construction,
while the platform was built rapidly (in as little as two months?) with
no evidence of construction hiatuses (Kidder et al. 2006).

Given that some of the mounds appear to predate the construction of the
concentric ridges, it is not surprising that there is occupational
debris underlying the ridge construction fill in some areas. The ridges
themselves are believed to have been habitation areas based on the
features and artifacts found on them; no definitive evidence for
substantial structures has been identified on/in the ridge deposits,
however. If the ridges are, indeed, habitation areas, Poverty Point
would represent a heretofore unknown community organization. Excavations
and soil cores indicate that ridge construction was uneven. Some ridge
segments were apparently the product of a single building episode and
some revealed mid-construction building hiatuses, during which the
ridges were occupied; numerous building stages have been identified in
some ridge areas (Gibson 1993, 1994, 1998). Thus, their construction
history was exceedingly complex. Connolly (2003, 2006) has suggested
that the western ridges are older than the southern and northern ones.

Mound D provides the only evidence of significant prehistoric, post-Late
Archaic landscape modification at Poverty Point (recall from Section
2.a. that Mound D appears to be a Coles Creek mound built on top of
ridge fill). Other evidence for use of the site during the Woodland (500
BC -- AD 1200) period is minimal, in the form of a light scatter of
diagnostic ceramics distributed across the site.

Mound E remains the only earthwork lacking a secure age estimate. No
diagnostic artifacts or ^14^C-datable materials in good context have
been recovered from Mound E fill. Using optically stimulated
luminescence (OSL) to date the sediments has produced ambiguous results,
presumably as a result of poor bleaching of the sediments (Kidder et al.
2004). The degree to which soil formation processes have obscured
construction details is consistent with significant age, but the
cultural affiliation of Mound E has not been clearly established.

There is no indication that the site was occupied or otherwise used
during the Plaquemine/Mississippian (AD 1200 -- 1541) period. Nor is
there any documented historic use of the site until the early 1800s,
when the Deerfield-Arkansas Road was established. Much of the site was
under cultivation by 1843. Sections 2.a. and 3.d. describe briefly the
historic era uses of and alterations to the site. Importantly, these
historic impacts are relatively minor, thwarted by the durability and
dwarfed by the magnitude of the prehistoric archaeological
constructions.

**History of Archaeological Research at Poverty Point**

As Table 1 shows, there is a long history of archaeological research at
Poverty Point. It is important to point out, however, that only a
fraction, estimated to be less than 1%, of the total archaeological
deposit has been excavated (Connolly 2003). Connolly further notes that
such investigations have been fairly evenly distributed across the range
of different architectural components of the site.

Since the State of Louisiana acquired the site in 1972, archaeological
field research has been strictly controlled through a permitting
process. The Louisiana Archaeological Survey and Antiquities Commission
evaluates carefully each field research proposal, weighing the potential
value of the information to be acquired against potential damage to the
archaeological record. There has been a distinct trend in recent years
toward minimally-invasive (e.g., coring) and non-invasive (i.e., near
surface remote sensing) techniques whenever feasible and appropriate;
excavations are small in scale and highly focused.

Table 1. History of Archaeological Field Research at the Poverty Point
site.

  ------------------------- ------------- -------------------------------
  **Researcher**            **Year(s)**   **Type of Work**

  C. B. Moore               1912-1913     Mound Excavations

  C. H. Webb and C.         1930s --      Surface Collection and
  Alexander                 1960s         Excavation

  J. A. Ford et al.         1952-1955     Mound and Ridge Excavations

  W. G. Haag                1972-1976     Mound, Ridge and Plaza
                                          Excavations

  C. Kuttruff               1972-1973     Ridge Excavations

  D. Woodiel                1978          Ridge and Plaza Excavations

  S. I. Goad                1980-1982     Ridge Excavations

  J. E. Keller              1981          Mound Remote Sensing Survey

  G. S. Greene              1983 -1992    Ridge Excavations and Soil
                                          Coring

  J. L. Gibson              1983-1995     Mound, Ridge and Plaza
                                          Excavations and Soil Coring

  M. M. Hillman             1985          Plaza Excavations

  J. A. Doolittle           1988          Remote Sensing Survey

  K. Liu                    1994          Pollen Coring of Probable
                                          Borrow Pit

  R. P. Connolly            1996-2002     Mound, Ridge, Plaza and North
                                          of Ridges Excavations

  J. Saunders               2000          North of Ridges Excavation

  T. Britt                  2001          Mound and Ridge Remote Sensing
                                          Survey

  T. R. Kidder and T.       2001-2006     Topographic Survey, Mound
  Ortmann                                 Excavations and Soil Coring

  M. Hargrave and B. Clay   2006-2007     Ridge and Plaza Remote Sensing
                                          Survey and Soil Coring
  ------------------------- ------------- -------------------------------

Poverty Point has been important in the history of American archaeology
particularly because of the site's uniqueness -- early on,
archaeologists recognized that it did not "fit" into existing culture
historical schemes for the American Southeast. The sudden appearance of
such an impressive site with monumental architecture, an abundance of
nonlocal lithic raw materials and a refined lapidary industry, while
lacking a well-developed ceramic technology, posed an explanatory
problem for archaeologists who subscribed to a model of progressive
cultural evolution. How could the site be as old as it appeared to be
and be so amazingly complex? Within the existing framework, Poverty
Point could only be the product of immigrant groups from elsewhere
(e.g., Mesoamerica or the Ohio Valley), and, of course, it was assumed
that these cultural elaborations could not be supported in the absence
of an agricultural subsistence economy.

With additional research, archaeologists established that there were
indeed Middle Archaic traditions for mound construction and a lapidary
technology. Poverty Point takes the moundbuilding tradition, in
particular, to a new high, but it is no longer seen as appearing
seemingly out of thin air. Equally important, the subsistence base is
known to have been a foraging, not a farming, one. Although Poverty
Point's place in the Lower Mississippi Valley cultural sequence is now
accepted, the challenge remains explaining how and why Late Archaic
hunter-gatherers so transformed their landscape.

**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)?

We propose using the existing publicly-owned property lines as the
boundary for this nomination. These property lines enclose what might be
considered to be the Poverty Point site proper. The complete ridge
configuration, the five mounds, and the associated borrow areas are
included within this boundary.

Also included within this property boundary are the museum, restrooms,
and support buildings (maintenance, laboratory, curation, offices)
necessary for management of the site. These buildings do not impinge on
the visual impact of the archaeological features; in fact, most of the
buildings are hidden by a wooded strip and thus are not visible to the
visiting public.

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

YES: **X** NO:

Some archaeologists have argued for a more "liberal" boundary that would
also include the Motley Mound (2 km north of the Poverty Point
earthworks), the significantly older Lower Jackson Mound (3 km south of
the Poverty Point earthworks) and other clusters of Poverty Point-aged
artifacts in the vicinity (e.g., Connolly 2003). Systematic and
nonsystematic surface surveys, however, have documented that the
distribution of occupational debris is not continuous between the
Poverty Point site proper and these other locales. Not having access to
these other properties does not appear to inhibit visitors' abilities to
grasp the significance of Poverty Point.

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**

**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:*

> *iii. bears 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 **Poverty Point State Historic
Site**.

The magnificent earthworks at Poverty Point represent the most
spectacular product of the so-called Poverty Point culture, centered in
the lower Mississippi River valley during the Late Archaic period
(2000 - 500 BC). This massive earthen complex, with five mounds, six
concentric ridges and a plaza, was the largest and most culturally
elaborate hunter-gatherer settlement of its time in North America.
Unique in our world and without parallel in the global archaeological or
ethnographic records, Poverty Point challenges anthropology's basic
assumptions about hunter-gatherer societies. Poverty Point is a most
exceptional witness to a vanished culture.

**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*

*- Internationally Significant Dates*

*- Internationally Significant Groups, Persons, Events*

*- Cultural Affiliation*

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 the
American Southeast. Among the hierarchically-organized settlements
(regional centers, hamlets and extractive camps) of the Poverty Point
culture, the Poverty Point site is generally considered to be the
"capital" because of its greater size, its extraordinary earthen
architecture and the quantity of exotic materials found there. No other
Poverty Point site even comes close.

Its subsistence base is part of what makes the Poverty Point site such a
significant site. As noted in Section 2.b., archaeologists initially
believed that such massive constructions could only happen with an
agricultural, particularly a maize-based, subsistence system. There is,
however, 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. Thus, while it would remain an amazing site
if it were a product of an agricultural system, that its construction
was supported by a hunting-gathering economy makes Poverty Point truly
exceptional.

The Poverty Point landscape represents an enormous labor investment
unmatched by any known hunter-gatherer societies. The challenge that
Poverty Point poses to our traditional expectations of hunter-gatherer
adaptation makes it a site of universal significance.

**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.*

Earthen mounds and embankments were not uncommon features of the
prehistoric landscape of eastern North America. In northeast Louisiana,
a tradition of building mounds stretches back some 6000 years, back into
the Middle Archaic period (Saunders et al. 1994). Thus, one could view
the Poverty Point site as just one point in a long moundbuilding
tradition, but that would be wrong. The sheer immenseness and unique
design of the earthen architecture at Poverty Point differentiate it
from all other Archaic mound sites.

The Poverty Point site clearly did not exist in a vacuum. Other sites
considered part of the Poverty Point culture are known in northeast
Louisiana, in the Yazoo Basin of northwest Mississippi and along the
Louisiana-Mississippi Gulf Coast. Some of these are identified as
regional centers on the basis of their size and preponderance of exotic
materials. The Poverty Point site, however, was the largest of these
centers and had the most elaborate earthworks. Archaeologists believe it
was the focal point for the entire Poverty Point culture.

Although many of the stone tool forms found at Poverty Point are
consistent with a typical North American Late Archaic technology, other
items, such as the clay figurines and some lapidary artifacts, are not.
Webb (1982) notes that Poverty Point art, as expressed in clay
figurines, stone jewelry, and the lapidary industry, was unsurpassed for
this early time period in North America. The prominent earthen mounds,
concentric ridges and settlement system found at Poverty Point further
set this site apart from contemporaneous Late Archaic cultures of North
America.

Comparisons of the Poverty Point site to sites outside of North America
are rare. Gibson (1973) and Webb (1982) both looked to the slightly
younger Olmec and Chavin cultures of coastal Mesoamerica and Peru,
respectively, for contemporaneous examples. Although the case might be
made that they (Olmec and Chavin) were roughly comparable to Poverty
Point in terms of the kinds of cultural elaborations they displayed
(monumental architecture, exotic materials, art and lapidary
technology), they both represent agricultural-based subsistence
adaptations. That Poverty Point, a riverine-based
hunting-gathering-fishing adaptation, is considered comparable in any
way to the Olmec and Chavin cultures is a testament to its
remarkability.

Other less-specific global statements have been made about the
uniqueness of the Poverty Point site. For example, Sassaman (2005:337)
notes: "In its unique monumental architecture, Poverty Point culture was
unlike other cultural traditions. Monumental or ritual centers worldwide
were duplicated in form across the landscapes of their respective
cultural milieus...Poverty Point, on the other hand, was not replicated
elsewhere -- at least not in its totality."

Kidder et al. (2006:102) perhaps make the strongest case as to the
universal significance of Poverty Point: "Poverty Point is an
extraordinary archaeological site at local, regional, national and
international levels. It may well be the largest hunter-gatherer
settlement in the world. If our labor estimates are even close to
correct it may have seen some of the largest population aggregations of
any hunter-gatherer settlement ever. Poverty Point is significant not
just because of its size and scale, but because it represents the most
remarkable expression of hunter-gatherer complexity yet witnessed. It is
clearly a far cry from the small-scale encampments of historically
recorded hunters and gatherers. The people who imagined, planned, and
constructed Poverty Point did so with a social structure that defies
interpretation using today's shopworn evolutionary models."

That argument is clearly supported by Gibson (1999:31): "Archaeologists
now recognize that the community at and around the Poverty Point site
was more sophisticated than most modern hunter-gatherer societies, which
make poor comparisons anyway, because they have all been changed by
exposure to the industrialized world. We cannot point to a single
modern-day hunter-gatherer society and say that is what Poverty Point
society was like. The precise kind of socio-political organization that
existed at Poverty Point may have happened only once and only there.
There is no necessary reason why something like it would have reappeared
once the particular circumstances and personalities responsible for it
disappeared."

We believe that Poverty Point merits World Heritage inscription under
criterion *iii* (bears a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a
cultural tradition or to a civilization which is living or which has
disappeared). Perhaps Gibson (1999:33) put it best when he wrote, "The
quality of our lives is owed directly to the people who walked the land
before us. The people responsible for Poverty Point culture are gone,
but their magnificent achievements and contributions to the saga of
human development stand proudly before us today. Theirs is a legacy
worth understanding and protecting."

**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: Does the property retain its original design, materials,
workmanship and

setting?

YES: **X** NO:

The Poverty Point State Historic Site clearly meets the conditions for
authenticity, defined as the genuineness of the resource, in terms of
original design, materials, workmanship and, to a lesser degree,
setting. Archaeological authenticity for each of these attributes is
established below:

Design. The original form and design of the created landscape, which
includes both the earthworks and plaza, are well-preserved at the site
and are rather easily appreciated today. Archaeologists have established
the spatial and temporal relationships between the different earthen
architectural components of the complex and how they relate to the
surrounding landscape; we still know relatively little about the design
and construction of impermanent architecture (e.g., house structures).
By examining the spatial distribution of the material culture,
archaeologists are working to understand how the community and its
activities were organized across the site.

Materials. The earthworks we see today at Poverty Point are original
constructions. Evidence obtained through excavation and coring of the
mounds and ridges has been invaluable in determining the source of the
construction materials -- of particular interest is the observation that
some of the fill was apparently mixed from disparate, but local, sources
following a specific "recipe" (Kidder et al. 2006). Although this World
Heritage application has focused on the earthen architecture of Poverty
Point, its artifact assemblage is well known for having a great
abundance of nonlocal lithic raw materials.

Workmanship. Excavation and coring of Poverty Point's mounds and ridges
has provided great insight into how they were constructed. As described
in sections 2.a. and 2.b., different construction techniques were used
for different elements of the architectural complex. Since no features
of the property have been reconstructed, the original workmanship is
still in evidence. The artifact assemblage from the site is especially
regarded for the skilled workmanship with which its lithics, in
particular, were manufactured.

Setting. The location of the monumental earthworks at Poverty Point has
not changed, but the environmental setting has. This is practically
unavoidable in a rural agricultural situation like we have in northeast
Louisiana. The Bayou Maçon has been dredged and surrounding lands have
been drained and leveled in support of the modern agroecology. Most of
the property is currently in grassland; that grasses were abundant in
the area prehistorically is supported by pollen and phytolith evidence.
Trees cover part of the property, but the site management plan aims,
over the long term, to reduce their number through attrition without
replacement.

Integrity: 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:

Site integrity, as a measure of the intactness of the earthen
architecture, is high at Poverty Point. This is not to say that there
have not been alterations since the site's construction and occupation.
Below, I review the integrity of each component of the complex.

The concentric earthen ridges have experienced some deflation in the
southern sectors due to farming activities in the nineteenth and
twentieth centuries, while most of the northern portion of the ridges
appears to have escaped such activities. Although the southern ridges
are less distinct than those in the north, they are still visible
topographically. Archaeological excavations have demonstrated that there
are still intact archaeological features and artifacts in the southern
ridges, and near surface remote sensing has revealed that details about
ridge construction are accessible. Thus, even roughly 140 years of
cultivation have not destroyed the integrity of these architectural
features.

In 1993, a small portion of Ridge 6 in the southern sector was
land-leveled (Gibson and Saunders 1993). The property was in private
ownership at the time; it was subsequently donated to the State. It is
unclear whether any subsurface remnants are present.

Mound A is intact except for a small cut in its southeastern edge,
produced by the removal of material for road fill in the early twentieth
century. Mound B is largely intact; a large trench excavation by Ford in
1955, although backfilled, altered its conical shape slightly. Mound C's
deposits are mostly intact, but its shape has been bisected by the
historic trace and it is narrower than originally constructed due to
erosion along its eastern border. Mound D is intact, although probably
reduced in size due to historic farming activities. Mound E is slightly
truncated on its southern end. We believe that, where there has been
damage to and/or truncation of the mounds, the mound bases still exist
and thus remain potential research targets.

No features of the property are recreated, although small alterations
(e.g., catch basins and drains, ditches, low berms, the tram road, steps
up Mound A) have been made as the State sought to minimize damage from
erosion and visitation.

There are 8 historic buildings on the state-owned property. These
structures consist of the site museum, archaeological laboratory,
curation facility, and other buildings used by the Louisiana Office of
State Parks to maintain the site. The State of Louisiana undertook
archaeological investigations prior to construction to recover any
archaeological material or features. A road, now State Highway 577, runs
through the state-owned parcel, cutting through the earthen ridges in
the southern and northwestern sectors. This structure was built prior to
the discovery of the earthen ridges and long before the establishment of
the state park; no assessment of the effect of this structure on
archaeological features at Poverty Point has been undertaken.

Recent structures have been, and future ones will be, constructed on
above-ground concrete slabs, or crushed gravel, thereby minimizing
disturbance to the subsurface archaeology.

Overall, the earthworks at Poverty Point have a high degree of
integrity. One can clearly get a sense of the design of the site and the
sheer enormity of the task undertaken in its construction so long ago.

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?

Authenticity and integrity are nearly equally represented in this
property. The earthen architecture is authentic; the site's integrity
has been only slightly reduced over the roughly 3500 years since
construction as a result of natural processes and historic activities.
Historic elements (roads, the museum and other buildings) do not
overwhelm or distract from the significance of the site.

Repairs: 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.

No repairs have been made.

**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 best described as
"very good." The earthworks have undoubtedly been affected by treefalls
and erosion over the past 3000 years. And, roughly 140 years of
cultivation have also had an impact on the site, particularly on the
concentric ridges. Still, the monumental architecture of Poverty Point
remains impressive and this is, we believe, a reflection of the
engineering skills of the people who constructed the earthworks.

Poverty Point State Historic Site is protected by a suite of federal and
state conservation laws, summarized in section 5.b. The Louisiana
Department of Culture, Recreation and Tourism recognizes its obligation
to conserve the State's cultural resources and annually appropriates
money to carry out this mission. The on-site staff includes a site
manager, a park manager trainee, a station archaeologist, a collections
manager, several interpretive rangers and a small maintenance crew. The
grounds are patrolled routinely to guard against vandalism and to
identify natural threats to the earthworks.

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?

No repairs to the archaeological deposits are planned. As described
below in Section 4.b.(*ii*), a major bank stabilization project along
Harlin Bayou is scheduled to take place later in the spring. This
project will not impact the earthworks -- its goal is to protect them.

**4.b. 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 as 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:

Changes in farming practices on land surrounding the archaeological site
are having the greatest impact on the property. Land clearance and
leveling has resulted in increased water run-off and has changed the
drainage patterns in the local area. This, along with dredging of Bayou
Maçon, has exacerbated the greatest natural threat to the site, erosion.

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

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

YES: **X** NO:

Erosion is the dominant environmental process affecting the property
today. Excavations by archaeologists along the eastern edge of Maçon
Ridge and elsewhere have demonstrated that erosion posed problems
prehistorically, as well. There are locales in the site where gullies
4-6 m deep were filled prehistorically with midden. The staff members of
Poverty Point State Historic Site are constantly monitoring the site to
determine the impact of erosion on the site and are working, with some
success, to stabilize actively eroding areas.

Forty years ago, the U.S. National Park Service determined that erosion
along the banks of Bayou Maçon posed the greatest threat to the site.
The Office of State Parks, working with hydrological engineers from the
local office of the Soil Conservation Service, devised an erosion
control plan (involving a system of catchbasins, pipes and low berms)
that allowed them to successfully stop headward erosion of gullies into
both the plaza area and the southern sector of the site. Then, the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers were able to riprap, and thus stabilize, the
eroding bluff of Maçon Ridge that was threatening the museum.

The most serious threat to the site currently is the deep gully erosion
occurring along Harlin Bayou and in its feeder fingers. Harlin Bayou
empties into Bayou Maçon on the north end of the site. The Office of
State Parks is taking a multi-faceted approach to solving these
problems. They have joined with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Vicksburg District, to stabilize eroding banks of Harlin Bayou that, if
left unchecked, would eventually threaten Mound B and the dormitory
facility. The Office of State Parks has also teamed with the Louisiana
Department of Transportation and Development and will be working with
the Natural Resources Conservation Service to develop water runoff
control measures which will abate the headward expansion of gullies that
feed Harlin Bayou.

Problems with sheet erosion on Mound A and in other areas have been
minimized by thinning shade trees, discouraging young tree growth, and
encouraging the establishment of protective ground cover. Woven jute and
excelsior cloth, when combined with seed of erosion resistant grasses,
have been found to be effective for establishing new ground cover on
exposed soils.

***(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**

Seismic events: According to the 2002 National Seismic Hazard Map, there
is a low risk of damaging ground motions in northeast Louisiana. More
specifically, according to the United States Geological Survey (USGS),
the probability of an earthquake of magnitude ≥ 6.01 in the next 100
years and with an epicenter within 50 km of the site is .002 \> x \>
.001. Seismic activity is an unlikely threat.

Floods: It is highly improbable that even the most extensive floods
would cover the Poverty Point site itself, located as it is some five
meters above the average floodplain elevation and over nine meters above
the average water level in Bayou Maçon (Gibson 1973). There is no
archaeological evidence for flooding of the site prehistorically and we
are unaware of any flooding episodes during the historic era. Maçon
Ridge remained dry even during the great Mississippi Valley flood of
1927 (Barry 1997). A sophisticated Federal levee system was developed
and constructed along the Mississippi River system subsequent to that
flood, making a repeat event of comparable magnitude unlikely. Flood
hazard maps generated by the Federal Emergency Management Administration
do not indicate that Poverty Point State Historic Site is at risk.

Fires: The local area is so wet that the uncontrolled spread of fire is
unlikely. Indeed, USGS wildfire hazard maps indicate a low risk for
wildfires. Farmers do burn field debris in the area, however, and
occasionally they do get out of control. In order to minimize the
likelihood of such a fire impacting the park, a ten foot wide fire lane
is mowed inside the boundary fence line every other year. In the event
of a conflagration, the earthworks would be affected most by erosion
resulting from the removal of groundcover.

Winds: The area is subject to high winds, sometimes tornadoes. Indeed,
hazard maps produced by the USGS indicate that the area around Poverty
Point is at high (but not the highest) risk for tornadoes. The National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration has compiled maps that show
historic patterns of tornado frequencies: this area of the United States
experiences 6-10 tornadoes/year/1000 sq. miles. Uprooted trees do
disturb the archaeological deposits and, if they are situated along the
bayou banks or on the mounds, they could create an erosional "sore."

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

YES: **X** NO:

The Office of State Parks has developed an emergency response plan for
Poverty Point State Historic Site. This plan anticipates several
different types of emergencies -- civil disorder, explosions, downed
aircraft, earthquakes, fires, ice storms, tornadoes, chemical spills,
natural gas pipeline ruptures and bomb threats -- and provides a
step-by-step guide to the appropriate response. These plans, which are
available for review, are oriented toward human safety, not earthwork
protection.

***(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:

In recent years, Poverty Point State Historic Site has been visited by
about 15,000 visitors annually. The established practical limit for
visitation, based on the current restroom and septic system capacity, is
about 300 persons/day. Accordingly, with the existing schedule (open
9:00 am -- 5:00 pm, 362 days/year), the practical annual "carrying
capacity" without improvements to the existing facilities would be about
108,600 visitors.

***(v) Other***

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

YES: NO: **X**

The Poverty Point State Historic Site is owned by and managed by agents
of the State of Louisiana, a government which is committed to preserving
the site. It is located within an agricultural area and is not in close
proximity to any major population center, thus the site is free of urban
developmental pressures. We have already considered the threats posed by
natural processes. We are unaware of any other potential threats.

**5. PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT**

**5.a. Ownership**

Provide the name(s) and addresses of all owners:

State of Louisiana

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

None.

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:

Public access is restricted to the operating hours of the site and to
approved zones within the property.

**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 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:

# Property Deed

# Boundaries clearly identify extent of property

# Restrictions specify that property is to be used as a park and archaeological site

> Restrictions prevent owner from alienating property without approval
> by Secretary of the United States Department of Housing and Urban
> Development

# Louisiana Constitution Article IX § 1 

# Establishes a public policy to protect and conserve state resources, including the "scenic, historic, and esthetic quality of the environment" 

# 

# Louisiana Constitution Article VII § 14 

# Prohibits loan, pledge, or donation of public property 

(1) **Louisiana Constitution** **Article XII § 13**

> Prevents state lands from being acquired by the public through
> acquisitive prescription

## **Louisiana Revised Statutes 56:1682 et seq.** 

## State Parks statutory governance; purpose given as "preserving, protecting, and portraying historic and scientific sites of statewide importance" 

## Classifies Poverty Point as a State Historic Site under the jurisdiction of the Louisiana Office of State Parks, and grants all ensuing privileges, such as supervision by wardens and penalties for violation of rules

Requiring legislative approval before the alienation of any land under
the jurisdiction of the Office of State Parks

# Louisiana Administrative Code Title 25 Cultural Resources, Part IX Office of State Parks, Chapters 1-9

> Louisiana Office of State Parks administrative rules
>
> § 303. Park Property and Environment\
> (B) No person shall intentionally remove, damage, disturb, or destroy
> state park property or the property of another person, without the
> consent of the owner.\
> (G) No person may excavate, remove, damage, or otherwise alter or
> deface any archaeological resource located on any park. The display,
> possession, and/or use of metal detectors or other devices is
> prohibited. It is strictly forbidden to dig for or otherwise remove
> any historical feature, relic or artifact. Persons wishing to excavate
> and remove historical features by professional archaeological means
> for research purposes must request a permit from the Louisiana
> Archaeological Survey and Antiquities Commission. Applications for
> such permits must be made through the assistant secretary, office of
> state parks.
>
> § 507. Special Uses and Restrictions\
> (C)(1) A state historic site is an area which possesses a historical,
> cultural, or memorial significance when judged on a statewide basis.
> Activities and uses of historic sites are limited to those appropriate
> to the significance of each site as defined by the master plan and
> interpretive prospectus of the unit.

(2) **Louisiana Revised Statutes 8:671 et seq. and Louisiana Revised
    Statutes 36:209**

Louisiana Unmarked Human Burial Sites Preservation Act

Empowers the Secretary of the Department of Culture, Recreation, and
Tourism to issue permits for the disinterment and study of human remains
and burial artifacts found in unmarked burial sites

Provides for civil and criminal penalties for disturbance of an unmarked
burial site or for removal of remains or artifacts without a permit

# Louisiana Administrative Code Title 25, Chapter 1, Subchapter G 

# Louisiana Office of Cultural Development administrative rules for Indian burial Sites

> Provides that no one shall be allowed to excavate burial sites except
> pursuant to a contract for survey and salvage
>
> Allows for unclaimed remains and artifacts to become property of the
> state
>
> Provides for emergency landmark preservation of any newly discovered
> site believed to be in danger of desecration before it can be given
> official status
>
> Requires any construction project that unexpectedly uncovers a
> possible burial site to immediately halt operation

# United States Code Title 25, Chapter 32 §§ 3001-3013 and United States Code Title 18, Part I, Chapter 53 §1170

# Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

> Prohibits sale of Native American remains and cultural items from
> burials

Are the protections in perpetuity or are there potential gaps in the
protection?

YES: **X** NO:

Provisions (2)-(9) given above are statutory, carrying the full force
and effect of law, and can be revoked only by the legislative or
administrative amendment process.

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

YES: NO:

Unknown.

**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:

The owner is responsible for protection through measures (1) through
(6), and (8). The Louisiana Attorney General's Office is responsible for
enforcing the criminal provisions of the Louisiana Unmarked Human Burial
Sites Preservation Act in measure (7). The United States Attorney is
responsible for enforcing the provisions of the Native American Graves
Protection and Repatriation Act in measure (9).

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

Each department is adequately equipped with resources to enforce its own
rules or laws.

**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.*

After checking with local and state officials and Ms. Miriam Russell,
the Northeast Regional Director of Louisiana Economic Development, we
have determined that there are no proposed developments that will impact
negatively the protection of the property. There are several projects
under development, however, that could enhance visitation.

The Franklin Farm megasite is the largest development in the region.
Situated in Holly Ridge, Richland Parish, about 37 km southeast of
Poverty Point, the megasite is managed by the Louisiana Economic
Alliance (www.nelea.us). They are currently seeking to attract a major
industry which would require a significant employee base; a large number
of well-paid employees in the region will boost the local economy and
support improvements to the infrastructure.

The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development is widening
sections of major north-south running highways located in north-central
Louisiana (www.timedla.com). There are no plans to widen or otherwise
"improve" LA 577, the highway running through the center of Poverty
Point State Historic Site.

There are recent and continuing efforts to increase and accommodate
tourism in the northeast Louisiana region. New and recently remodeled
motels are available within 30 km of the site; Poverty Point Reservoir
State Park, located roughly 24 km south of the site, features newly
built cabins and a large campground
([www.crt.state.la.us/parks/ireservoir.aspx](http://www.crt.state.la.us/parks/ireservoir.aspx)).
Several cities (e.g., Bastrop, Monroe, Winnsboro) in the region have
constructed or are planning civic/community/tourist centers. Other
initiatives include the Ancient Mounds Driving Trail and the Scenic
By-Ways programs.

**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:

As a regular course of action, park administrators prepare and update
plans specific to the Poverty Point State Historic Site every five
years. The *Operations Plan for Poverty Point State Historic Site* was
last updated in 2003 and will be updated again in 2008.

The purpose of the management plan for Poverty Point State Historic Site
is to supply the manager with information concerning the methods of
operation within this particular historic site. The plan documents all
administrative, interpretive and maintenance services at the site. It is
written in concert with the current adopted Policy and Procedures that
govern Louisiana state parks and historic sites.

Maintenance activities at Poverty Point are conducted with reference to
relevant National Park Service manuals (*Earthworks under Forest Cover*
and the *Earthworks Landscape Management Manual*).

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

YES: **X** NO:

**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 nomination of the property
for inscription on the World Heritage List.*

The Station Archaeologist at Poverty Point has recently initiated a
remote sensing study to evaluate the impact of historic cultivation on
the earthworks (cf. National Center for Preservation Technology and
Training 2000). We believe that this will provide a useful base for
monitoring the current and future condition of the property.

**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:

Image A. 1946 aerial photograph of the property. (Army Corps of
Engineers, Vicksburg District)

Image B. 1998 aerial photograph of the property. (United States
Geological Survey)

Image C. Surface topographic map, with labels. (Division of Archaeology,
Office of Cultural Development, Department of Culture, Recreation and
Tourism, State of Louisiana)

Image D. Aerial view of Mound A, view looking southeast. (Division of
Archaeology, Office of Cultural Development, Department of Culture,
Recreation and Tourism, State of Louisiana)

Image E. Mound B, view looking north. (Diana M. Greenlee)

Image F. Mound C, view looking southeast; note impression left by the
historic Deerfield-Arkansas Road. (Diana M. Greenlee)

Image G. Mound D, view looking south. (Diana M. Greenlee)

Image H. Mound E, view looking west. (Diana M. Greenlee)

Image I. Ridges 2 -- 5, view looking north, with Mr. Drake's 8^th^ grade
history class from Vicksburg Jr. High School for scale. (Diana M.
Greenlee)

Image J. Pen and ink reconstruction of the occupation at Poverty Point,
view looking southwest. (Jon Gibson, artist; Division of Archaeology,
Office of Cultural Development, Department of Culture, Recreation and
Tourism, State of Louisiana)

The Office of State Parks has commissioned paintings of Poverty Point
from artist Martin Pate and they will be submitted upon completion.

![](media/image4.jpeg){width="5.989583333333333in"
height="6.319444444444445in"}

Image A. 1946 aerial photograph of the property. (Army Corps of
Engineers, Vicksburg District)

![](media/image5.jpeg){width="5.973611111111111in"
height="4.258333333333334in"}

Image B. 1998 aerial photograph of the property. (United States
Geological Survey)

![](media/image6.jpeg){width="5.99375in" height="5.98125in"}

Image C. Surface topographic map, with labels. (Division of Archaeology,
Office of Cultural Development, Department of Culture, Recreation and
Tourism, State of Louisiana)

![](media/image7.jpeg){width="5.993055555555555in"
height="3.9784722222222224in"}

Image D. Aerial view of Mound A, view looking southeast. (Division of
Archaeology, Office of Cultural Development, Department of Culture,
Recreation and Tourism, State of Louisiana)

![](media/image8.jpeg){width="5.997222222222222in"
height="3.2881944444444446in"}

Image E. Mound B, view looking north. (Diana M. Greenlee)

![](media/image9.jpeg){width="5.997222222222222in"
height="2.9854166666666666in"}

Image F. Mound C, view looking southeast. Note impression left by the
historic Deerfield-Arkansas Road. (Diana M. Greenlee)

![](media/image10.jpeg){width="5.996527777777778in"
height="3.0722222222222224in"}

Image G. Mound D, view looking south. Note historic grave markers on
top. (Diana M. Greenlee)

![](media/image11.jpeg){width="5.992361111111111in"
height="3.6798611111111112in"}

Image H. Mound E, view looking west. (Diana M. Greenlee)

![](media/image12.jpeg){width="5.990277777777778in"
height="3.185416666666667in"}

Image I. Ridges 2 -- 5, view looking north, with Mr. Drake's 8^th^ grade
history class from Vicksburg Jr. High School for scale. (Diana M.
Greenlee)

![](media/image13.jpeg){width="5.999305555555556in" height="4.2375in"}

Image J. Pen and ink reconstruction of the occupation at Poverty Point,
view looking southwest. (Jon Gibson, artist; Division of Archaeology,
Office of Cultural Development, Department of Culture, Recreation and
Tourism, State of Louisiana)

[References Cited]{.underline}

Barry, John M. (1997) *Rising Tide: The Great Mississippi Flood of 1927
and How it Changed America*. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Connolly, Robert P. (2003) *2003 Poverty Point Site (16WC5) Research
Design*. Unpublished manuscript on file at Poverty Point State Historic
Site.

Connolly, Robert (2006) An assessment of radiocarbon age results from
the Poverty Point site. Unpublished manuscript on file at Poverty Point
State Historic Site.

Ford, James A. (1954) Additional notes on the Poverty Point site in
Northern Louisiana. *American Antiquity* 19:282-285.

Gibson, Jon L. (1973) *Social Systems at Poverty Point: An Analysis of
Intersite and Intrasite Variability*. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Southern Methodist University.

Gibson, Jon L. (1993) *In Helona's Shadow: Excavations in the Western
Rings at Poverty Point, 1991*. Center for Archaeological Studies, Report
No. 10. Lafayette: University of Southwestern Louisiana.

Gibson, Jon L. (1994) *Cool Dark Woods, Poison Ivy, and Maringoins: The
1993 Excavations at Poverty Point, Louisiana*. Center for Archaeological
Studies, Report No. 12. Lafayette: University of Southwestern Louisiana.

Gibson, Jon L. (1998) Elements and organization of Poverty Point
political economy: high-water fish, exotic rocks, and sacred earth.
*Research in Economic Anthropology* 19:291-340.

Gibson, Jon L. (1999) *Poverty Point: A Terminal Archaic Culture of the
Lower Mississippi Valley*, 2^nd^ ed. Anthropological Study Series, No.
7. Baton Rouge: Department of Culture, Recreation and Tourism, Louisiana
Archaeological Survey and Antiquities Commission.

Gibson, Jon. L. and Joe Saunders (1993) The death of the south sixth
ridge at Poverty Point: What can we do? *SAA Bulletin* 11(5):7-9.

Hillman, Mitchell (1983) *Poverty Point State Commemorative Area
Interpretive Prospectus*. Unpublished manuscript on file at Poverty
Point State Historic Site.

Kidder, Tristram R., Lee. J. Arco, Anthony L. Ortmann, Timothy
Schilling, Caroline Boeke, Rachel Bielitz, Tabitha Heet, Katie A.
Adelsberger, Joe Saunders and Thurman A. Allen (2006) *Poverty Point
Mound A: Final Report of the 2005 Field Season*. Unpublished manuscript
on file at Poverty Point State Historic Site.

Kidder, Tristram R., Anthony Ortmann and Thurman Allen (2004) Testing
Mounds B and E at Poverty Point. *Southeastern Archaeology* 23:98-113.

Moore, Clarence B. (1913) Some aboriginal sites in Louisiana and
Arkansas. *Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia*,
Series 2, Volume 16, Part 1.

National Center for Preservation Technology and Training (2000) *Use of
Remote Sensing to Evaluate and Monitor the Condition of Prehistoric
Earthen Structures*. Archeology and Collections Series, Number 2000-14.

Ortmann, Anthony L. (2005) *Project 2/01: Results of the 2001 and 2002
Field Seasons at Poverty Point*. Unpublished manuscript on file at
Poverty Point State Historic Site.

Sassaman, Kenneth E. (2005) Poverty Point as structure, event, process.
*Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory* 12:335-364.

Saunders, J. T., E. T. Allen and R. T. Saucier (1994) Four Archaic?
mound complexes in northeast Louisiana. *Southeastern Archaeology*
13:134-153.

Webb, Clarence H. (1982) *The Poverty Point Culture*, 2^nd^ ed.
Geoscience and Man, Volume XVII. Baton Rouge: School of Geoscience,
Louisiana State University.

**8. CONTACT INFORMATION**

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

**Name:** Diana M. Greenlee

**Title:** Poverty Point Station Archaeologist

**Address:** Poverty Point State Historic Site, P.O. Box 276

**City, State/Territory, Zip Code:** Epps, LA 71237

**Telephone:** 318-926-3314

**Cellular phone:** 425-241-1606

**Preferred Days/Hours for Contact:** M-F 8:00 am -- 4:30 pm (Central
time)

**Fax:** 318-926-3314

**E-mail and/or website:** <greenlee@ulm.edu> or povpoint@bayou.com

**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:** James D. LaBatt

**Title:** State Historic Site Manager II

**Address:** Poverty Point State Historic Site, P.O. Box 276

**City, State/Territory, Zip Code:** Epps, LA 71237

**Telephone:** 318-926-5403 or 318-926-5492

**Fax:** 318-926-5366

**E-mail and/or website:** <povertypoint_mgr@crt.state.la.us>

**Agency:** Louisiana Office of State Parks

![](media/image14.jpeg){width="5.973611111111111in"
height="4.305555555555555in"}

![](media/image15.jpeg){width="5.997916666666667in"
height="4.315277777777778in"}

[^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.