The first printed mention of Cavanaugh probably comes from Goodspeed's History of Arkansas, first published in 1889. After a brief discussion of the "Mound Builder" question, Goodspeed relates, "There are some earth formations in Sebastian County supposed by some to have been made by the Mound Builders, but so far as they have been explored nothing of interest leading to a certainty of whether they were formed by nature or by man has been found" (Goodspeed 1889:687). No other earthworks are reported for Sebastian County, but there are numerous naturally-formed prairie mounds, which have occasionally been mistaken for prehistoric constructions. If this brief passage does relate to the Cavanaugh Mound it is the first time the site is mentioned in print. There does not appear to be further mention of the site for several decades after this.
The first systematic observations of Cavanaugh Mound come from Phil Newkumet, who visited the site in 1940 in conjunction with WPA work at the Spiro site (summarized in Brown 1996:176-179). Newkumet made a sketch of the mound at this time (Figure 2, from Brown 1996:178, Figure 1-57) that shows it as a truncated pyramid, 61 m (200 feet) on each side, and 12 m (40 feet) tall. The flat summit portion of the mound is shown as square and 23 m (75 feet) on a side. The sketch includes a tunnel going into the mound from near the base of the east side. A cemetery is shown in the northeast quarter of the upper, flat portion. A narrow terrace or bench-like feature is shown encircling the base of the mound. No dimensions are given for this bench, but from the sketch it appears to be about 2 m high.
Figure 2. Phil Newkumet's sketch map of Cavanaugh Mound,
made in 1940 (from Brown 1996:178, Figure 1-57)
The next observations come from James Shaeffer of the Oklahoma Anthropological Society, who visited the site in October of 1956 in conjunction with visits to other area sites in threat of destruction. Shaeffer's description reads:
Traveling farther south and east the Spiro mounds were visited under the guidance of Mr. and Mrs. Cecil Cleavanger [sic: should be Cleavenger] of Fort Smith, Arkansas. Following this a visit was made at a large mound south of Fort Smith on the property of Mr. Dale Brown, a displaced Oklahoman. This is a very well preserved and interesting mound about 30 feet high and perhaps 100 feet in diameter. There are no indications of settlements in the area and no points, pottery sherds or other debris have been seen in the vicinity. The mound itself appears to be flat topped and truncated. There are a number of white graves of the middle 1800's on top and near the base a tunnel about four feet in diameter has been cut almost to the center of the mound. Examination of the interior shows alternate banks of dark earth and a light grey clay mixed with large grains of burned clay. The bands are from 4 to 8 inches in width. It is estimated that there must be approximately a hundred layers or so within the mound. These facts seem to indicate a temple mound which is probably late in time. (Shaeffer 1956:4)
The next observations of the site come in the form of letters from Hugh C. Rogers of Fort Smith. Rogers was a long-time amateur archaeologist and a member of the Ft. Smith chapter of an archaeological society. Rogers sent a letter about Cavanaugh Mound to Robert Bell dated February 15 of 1958 (Bell 1980), and one to Charles McGimsey dated February 22 of 1958 (Rogers 1958). Both letters are substantially similar in their descriptions of Cavanaugh. The letter to McGimsey is slightly more detailed and contains background information on Rogers and his archaeological interests, including the Spiro site. The entire letter is reproduced here; the material directly concerning Cavanaugh begins with paragraph seven (There is a large mound...).
Dear Dr. McGimsey:-
We were glad that you could be with our Ft. Smith Chapter last Tuesday night and that we could get acquainted with you. I hope that we can work very closely with you and that we can get better acquainted as time goes on.
I have been an amateur archaeologist for over fifty years, first getting interested while in Vernon County, Mo. then in Lafayette County Missouri, where I was County Engineer for 29 years, and then as Supervisory Engineer at Camp (now Fort) Chaffee, for the past 15 years. I am now retired and hope, health permitting, to get interested in some Archaeological work here.
I am inclosing you a copy of my recent book, "Indian Relics and their Story" [Rogers 1954], and while it is not written in a technical manner, you might find something of interest in it. It has generally been received favorably by the public, and I have had some nice letters regarding it, and recently received an order from a man who stated that it had been recommended to him by the National Geographic Magazine. Feel free to "Pan" it if you desire.
In our meeting Tuesday, the question was brought up of "Site Preservation". I am very much interested in this, but certainly do not wish us to get a law passed that is patterned in a way after the Oklahoma Law. This law provides that there be no private excavation, even by the landowner, and that all material recovered become the property of some public museum. I feel that this law has proved unworkable, is unconstitutional in that it seeks to take private property without due process of law, and above all has been a hindrance to the actual spotting of definite source.
I have been far too busy to do much actual work during the time I have been at the Post, but have carried on a Project, to salvage as much Spiro material as possible from the old private collections in the area. I have been able to acquire a number of important Spiro artifacts, some from collections made by excavation years prior to the Commercial Excavation. I still have some relics brought in to me that I am sure were recovered from the mound (digging has not stopped) but have had to turn them down as the owner, fearing the Oklahoma law, simply states that they were "plowed up in a field". I always ask, How? When? Where? and by Whom? and in the event that I cannot trace the Artifact back to Spiro, I pass it up. I am sure that I have turned down many genuine Spiro relics, and it is a shame that many of these are still being scattered over large areas outside of Oklahoma and Arkansas.
I have done some Bluff Dweller investigations in Crawford County, just North of here, and have had two papers published in the Missouri Archaeologist. These are in Volume 16, No. 2 July 1954, and Volume 19, No. 4, December 1957. The latter might interest you, since Dr. Dellinger feels that it records the first direct association of the bow and arrow to the Bluff Dweller Culture. He has a copy, but if neither of these issues are available to you, would be glad to send you copies.
There is a large mound just South of the City Limits of Fort Smith. It has a base about 210 feet East and West, by 160 feet North and South, is about 25 feet high, and contains about 21,000 cubic yards. The top is flat (truncated) about 70 feet square, and on it is a family cemetery containing about 16 burials. Twelve of these are marked by headstones and foot stones, and burials date from 1881 to 1895. I have been told that this cemetery was put there by a former landowner who has Indian blood in his veins, expressly to prevent the mound from ever being disturbed. There is a clause in the transfers of the land requiring this cemetery to remain. A number of Archaeologists have looked this mound over, but like in the course of Spiro, they have considered it to be a House Mound, and have not been interested in its investigation. I looked at it five years ago and arrived at the same opinion, taking into account the truncated top and the steep sides. The angle of repose of the slopes approaches 50 degrees from the horizontal in places, and indicates a high degree of compaction.
The land on which the mound is located has recently been purchased by Mr. and Mrs. Frank Etter, who are interested in Archaeology, and they wish to investigate it, and have asked me to act as a kind of unofficial technical advisor. I have carefully examined the mound, and feel that a proper investigation might indicate some other use than as a House, or Temple Mound. About 50 years ago there was an exploratory tunnel driven into the middle of the East end, beginning about six feet above the natural ground then sloping steeply down to the natural surface, and then back about 20 feet. I am very much interested, as an Engineer in the degree [of] compaction obtained by the builders, since no caving or spalling, either of the walls or ceiling has occurred during the ensuing years, even though it has never had any shoring or bracing. I feel sure that the degree of compaction would closely approach that possible with modern construction equipment, and would be about 100 percent (Proctor). The walls do not indicate much stratification, but show lamination in about six inch layers.
One thing that influenced me to classify it as a house mound was that on the South side, near the bottom, there was a fanlike accumulation of earth which I assumed to be the remains of an old ramp. On running down rumors about this mound, I was told that about 50 or 60 years ago, there had been a tunnel driven into the South side of the mound and that a number of fine artifacts had been recovered. Mr. and Mrs. Etter have made a test excavation at this point and uncovered the plugged mouth of this tunnel, and it runs back about 25 feet, ending in a room about six feet square, and earth excavated from this tunnel was wheeled out and formed the deformation of the mound, which I had thought to be the remains of the ramp. Rumor has it that the further excavations were stopped by the landowner who feared that it would injure the cemetery.
Since the cemetery on top is on flat ground, it might be possible that the ground was leveled at the time of the construction of the cemetery, explaining the truncated appearance. Since this mound cannot be investigated in the usual manner, due to the location of the cemetery, the usual method of excavation of the mound is impossible. I have therefore recommended that an earth auger be used to sink holes down from the top, seeking to find a void which might indicate a chamber. If so, it would be practical to drift a tunnel in from the side slope.
In the event that something important turns up, will keep in touch with you.
Sincerely, Hugh C. Rogers
P.S. Have a large collection of artifacts from all over the United States, of which less than half is shown on the plates of my book, and would be glad to have you stop in anytime and look these over.
The only substantive difference in Rogers' letter to Bell one week earlier (Bell 1980:11) is that the north-to-south length of the mound is given as 170 feet (instead of 160 feet).
Later the same year (May of 1958) the site was recorded by amateur archaeologist Clyde Dollar. Like Rogers, Dollar was a long-time avocational archaeologist, and also worked as an engineer for Fort Chaffee. Dollar also occasionally worked for the University of Arkansas Museum under Charles McGimsey. It is unclear whether Dollar was acquainted with Rogers (who had retired from his work at Fort Chaffee at this time), but it is possible that Rogers' letter to McGimsey led to Dollar's visit. Dollar's designation for Cavanaugh Mound was "Site Zeta", and his report for the U. of A. Museum is worth quoting at length (Dollar 1958).
Description and Use of Site:
A large earthen mound shaped roughly in a pyramidical form with truncated top. The sides and dimensions are generally symmetrical with a plus or minus factor of 10 feet. The site presents a most interesting problem in that the dirt of which the mound is built apparently did not come from any place in the immediate area. This absence of excavation may indicate that nearby river banks could have been the source of dirt. At present, the Poteau River, the closest natural water supply outside of shallow wet weather springs, is approximately 2.5 miles away. The soil used in the construction is also notable in its complete lack of foreign material such as sticks, grass, and rocks other than small sedimentary type pebbles of 1/8" to 1/4" diameter. The soil itself is a white sand and has the appearance of being screened before use.
The probable use of this mound by its builders was for religious ceremonies or similar occasions. Intermittent excavations for the past 60 years have apparently revealed nothing of value whatsoever. It is interesting to note that this site has been known and recognized as an "Indian" mound for almost a century. The flat area on top contains a cemetery of at least 12 marked graves and an undetermined number of unmarked graves. The present existing tombstones date from 1833 to the beginning of the 20th century. The abstract for the land specifically has a condition of sale that this cemetery will not be violated or moved. At present there are trees growing from the top of the mound; estimated age of the oldest tree is approximately 50 to 60 years old.
Description and Location of Artifacts:
No artifacts have ever actually been found by this observer at the site. However, other individuals have made small finds, some dubious as to relationship to the mound, and all somewhat inconclusive. Among these finds was one small potsherd, found in the southwestern quarter of the field immediately around the mound, the stone end of a war club, broken and of poor quality, and what was reputed to be a human skull, in badly mutilated condition, taken from a three foot grave at the top of the mound. Undoubtedly this latter was an unmarked settler's grave, and no other artifact was found in association with it. The disposition of these artifacts is not known, inasmuch as the individuals who found them retained possession.
Previous Work and Amount of Disturbance:
In recent months, Mr. Frank Etter, a man who has a passing interest in archaeology and visions of much wealth, purchased the land surrounding this mound. In December, 1957, he began operations which apparently have been carried on very spasmodically and with no tangible results other than much disturbance to the site. He began a tunnel from the south face, middle way up. It extends for approximately 20 feet into the mound. Although he claims to have discovered a previously emptied 'room' (4' x 6' x 4'), this observer was unable to find any trace of it. Mr. Etter has never displayed any material taken from his diggings.
Recommendations:
It is the opinion of this observer - or rather a guess - that this site represents the work of a very ancient culture. The mounds' obvious symmetry and workmanship, coupled with its close proximity to the Spiro Mound, tend to support this guess. It is recommended that further study be given to this site and that initial excavations be undertaken, if possible, in order to establish definitely if the site is a burial mound or otherwise.
In addition to the site description, Dollar's report includes a sketch
of the mound dimensions (Figure 3), four photographs from the ground (Figures
4 through 7), and one low altitude aerial photograph (Figure 8). These
photographs represent the most detailed documentation of the mound before
its shape was altered by excavation. The sketch is schematic, showing
the major dimensions of the mound and compass headings from each of the
four corners. The photographs appear to have been taken in the fall or
early spring, with leaves mostly down and the field around the mound in
close-cropped pasture. The overall shape of the mound is clearly visible
as a flat-topped or truncated pyramid. The base of the mound slopes gradually
into the surrounding ground, but this may be due to erosion. Tunnels into
both the east and south sides of the mound are visible in Figures 6 and
7, with a door resting above the southern tunnel. The aerial photograph
shows the flat summit free of trees and brush, apparently in close-cropped
grass.
Figure 3. Clyde Dollar's sketch of the mound
made in 1958 (AAS site files).
Figures 4-7 are photographs taken by Clyde Dollar in
1958 (University of Arkansas Museum).
Figure 9 is a photograph Dollar took sometime in the 1960s
(University of Arkansas Libraries Clyde Dollar Manuscript Collection:
MC489, slide 25).
|
|
|
 Figure 6. Facing North. The southern tunnel is open, with fresh backfill accumulated beneath it. |
 Figure 7. Facing West. The eastern tunnel is open. |
 Figure 8. Aerial photograph of the mound. The flat summit is visible as as cleared area. |
|
Dollar visited the site again sometime in the 1960s, when a large portion of the mound had been removed from the southeastern quarter. Figure 9 is a photograph Dollar took at this time. The south tunnel does not appear to be open in this photograph, but the slope of the mound above it is slumping. The figure is from a color slide, but unfortunately the resolution is not clear enough to make out any mound stratigraphy that may have been exposed. The reason for the excavation of this section of the mound is unclear, but it may have been the work of land owner Frank Etter.
The next recorded visit to the site by archaeologists was in 1972, when Martha Rolingson of the Arkansas Archeological Survey (AAS) visited the site with Mickey and Cecil Cleavenger. At this time they noted that the east face of the mound had been cut away, but it is unclear whether more had been cut away than in Dollar's slides. The AAS site revisit form from this trip reads:
Mound site once cut by large equipment does not appear to have been cut into for some time. No new holes on top of mound or erosion on sides. No gravestones could be located on either the mound top or at the base. A fresh backhoe trench along the access road some 100' off the mound did not have any artifacts present or evidence of prehistoric disturbance or occupation. (AAS Site files for 3SB3)
Neal Trubowitz and other AAS personnel visited the site in 1979 to check on the mound's condition. Trees and dense underbrush covered much of the mound at this time, and footpaths crossing the summit were eroding into it. The eastern tunnel, which had been exposed along the cut in the eastern edge, was sealed at this time. A local resident reported that he had been in the tunnel before it was sealed, and that it went about 6 m into the mound and opened up into a room large enough for a person to stand up in. This was likely the "potato cellar" mentioned in Dollar's (1958) report.
At this time the cut into the eastern face had been expanded, exposing a straight, vertical profile through much of the mound, extending from the ground surface to near the very top of the mound. Figures 10 and 11 show the cut as it appeared in 1979. Exactly when and why the entire eastern face was cut away is not recorded. An access road for a trailer park passes just east of the mound, and the cut may have been made in order to make room for this road. The cut is still vertical and largely intact in the 1979 photographs, suggesting that it had not been exposed for a long time. The photographs from this visit are black and white only, and the profile cut is quite rough, so little stratigraphic detail is visible.
 Figure 10. Eastern cut of the mound in 1979, facing SW. Note shovel marks above the area covered by corrugated metal. AAS negative # 794342. |
 Figure 11. Eastern cut of the mound in 1979, facing NW. AAS negative # 794346. |
The eastern tunnel is covered by corrugated metal in the 1979 photographs, but the profile immediately around the tunnel opening shows a widened area where the tunnel emerges from the mound. Above this widened area, the profile is cut back further with clearly visible, apparently recent shovel marks. The tunnel may have begun collapsing as the cut was made, creating a cavity as an artifact of the recent construction, or the cavity may represent the "potato cellar" at the end of the eastern tunnel shown on Newkumet's 1940 map and mentioned in later descriptions. The area above the cavity may have been cut away for safety, in order to keep it from collapsing into the cavity below.
No gravestones could be found during the 1979 visit, although Trubowitz reported (in an AAS site revisit form) that the dense undergrowth on the top of the mound could easily have obscured any gravestones present. The only material noted or collected at this time were some pieces of bone near the top of the mound (later identified as turtle, of recent origin), and a historic metal button or closure.
Jerry Hilliard visited the site again for the AAS in 1981 and noted severe erosion along the cut eastern face. A large pothole was visible at the top of the mound near the eastern edge, and two areas along the eastern profile had been recently scraped with a shovel. Foot trails and motorbike paths were continuing to entrench into the mound. No artifacts were found in these disturbances. Hilliard also examined areas of recent construction and grading a few hundred meters from the mound at this time, but found no features or artifacts.
The eastern face continued to erode and the tunnel into the east face was re-exposed by 1991, when the site was visited by Arkansas Archeological Society member Mark Orsbun. Orsbun scraped a short section of the eastern profile clean, about 3 m above the surrounding ground level. This profile exposed several different colors of fill (yellow, red, and brown), and two lenses of charcoal. No samples were taken, and there are no photographs from this visit.
The eastern tunnel was plugged with rebar and concrete sometime during or after 1991, but was later re-exposed by local children. In 1994 Jerry Hilliard and George Sabo of the AAS visited the site with City of Fort Smith workers, who were there to plug the opening again. At this time Hilliard reported that "basket loading" was visible in a profile near the tunnel, and "1.7 m above ground surface at this point a probable mound stage division could be seen" (AAS site files for 3SB3).
The site was visited by myself several times from 2002-2004, and by myself and Jerry Hilliard, Michelle Berg Vogel, and Bob Dalton in 2004 in order to make a formal map documenting the remains of the mound. The condition of the mound continues to deteriorate: foot paths and sledding runs are entrenching more deeply into several sections, and the eastern face is still eroding back from the cut. Sediment washed from the exposed profile is accumulating at the base of the cut, and now forms a 4 to 5 m tall "ramp" up to the tunnel. The rebar and concrete plug over the tunnel have again been removed, and (as of late 2004) it is still open and occasionally visited by local children. A local resident reported that a tire had been set on fire in the tunnel several years ago, which the fire department was called to extinguish. There are several large depressions near the northeastern quarter of the summit, which may be pot holes or sunken graves. Aside from the cleared paths the mound is covered in dense underbrush and modern trash. The majority of the mound, however, appears to be intact.