I don't get the sense that that's what the headline is alluding to. It refers to the bias in interpreting the archeological evidence at the time. > "The splend

I don't get the sense that that's what the headline is alluding to. It refers to the bias in interpreting the archeological evidence at the time. > "The splendor of the mounds was visible to the first white people who described them. But they thought that the American Indian known to early white settlers could not have built any of the great earthworks that dotted the midcontinent. So the question then became: Who built the mounds?" The article itself confirms what you found in wikipedia in the first paragraph: > "Around 1100 or 1200 A.D., the largest city north of Mexico was Cahokia, sitting in what is now southern Illinois, across the Mississippi River from St. Louis. Built around 1050 A.D. and occupied through 1400 A.D., Cahokia had a peak population of between 25,000 and 50,000 people." Yeah, the headline is more "exciting" than I would have written, but that seems to be the trend nowadays. My skin is slowly thickening to that.