|
Earlier reports estimated the mound to be as little as 43 m and as much as 64 m on a side, and from 7.5 to 12 m tall (Table 1). These estimates do not appear to be based on formal data from mapping instruments, and it is unclear whether the authors used tape measures, pacing methods, or dead reckoning to come up with the numbers. It is therefore not surprising that such variation exists. A topographic map of the mound made with a total station in 2004 (Figure 12) shows the current configuration of the mound. The mound is currently about 9 m above the surrounding ground level. A broad alluvial apron of sediment surrounds the mound, extending 10 to 30 meters out from what was likely the base of the mound when it was constructed. The upper portion of the eastern face of the mound is cut and exposes a nearly vertical profile, while the lower half of the eastern face is covered by material eroded from above.
The mound is about 50 meters north to south, although judging where the original mound edges were located is difficult given the current vegetation and the erosion the mound has experienced. East to west the mound is about 40 meters wide. Photographs from 1979 (see Figures 10 and 11) show the entire eastern face of the mound cut back to vertical, but the southeastern portion was not cut back as far. The projection off of the southeast corner is still expressed in the mound topography. The flattish summit portion of the mound is about 20 m side to side. There is a small, low mound off of the northeast corner of the main mound, which may be intact mound sediment, or may be spoil from the cut into the eastern side. Extrapolating from the preserved portions of the mound, its size falls well within the range given by the four early descriptions (see Table 1). Except for the cut in to the eastern side, in fact, it appears to be remarkably intact. Newkumet's 1940 sketch shows a bench around the base of the mound that is not mentioned in any later descriptions, and it is not expressed today in the topography of the mound. It is possible that Newkumet's "bench" was actually an accumulation of eroded material, forming an alluvial apron around its base. Loose material eroded from the top and sides (and possibly backfill from the historic internments on top?) could easily account for this. Newkumet's sketch shows a very sharply defined bench, though, and it is possible that this actually existed as it was drawn in 1940 and was only obscured by erosion after then. If this is the case, Cavanaugh would be the only mound in this region for which such a feature was recorded. |