USMisSp

From Seshat Data Browser
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Phase I Variables (polity-based)

General variables

♠ RA ♣ Edward A L Turner ♥

♠ Original name ♣ Cahokia - Emergent Mississippian I ♥

♠ Alternative names ♣ American Bottom; Emergent Mississippian; Sponemann Phase; Collinsville Phase; Loyd Phase ♥

♠ Peak Date ♣ 900 CE ♥

Temporal bounds

♠ Duration ♣ 750-900 CE ♥

♠ Degree of centralization ♣ none ♥

♠ Supra-polity relations ♣ none ♥

Supra-cultural relations

♠ preceding (quasi)polity ♣ Cahokia - Late Woodland III ♥
♠ relationship to preceding (quasi)polity ♣ Continuity ♥
♠ succeeding (quasi)polity ♣ Merrell-Edlehardt ♥
♠ Supracultural entity ♣ Cahokia - Emergent Mississippian II ♥
♠ scale of supra-cultural interaction ♣ ♥ km squared.

♠ Capital ♣ ♥


♠ Language ♣ ♥

General Description

The Sponemann-Collinsville-Loyd Period at Cahokia (750-900 CE) is significant for being a foundational period for later social developments at Cahokia. At this time appears the first signs of warfare, an increase in social complexity and more widespread consumption of farmed crops like maize.

The increase in social complexity was reflected in settlements with houses clustered into court-yard groups.[1] While there is little evidence for warfare in the preceding Middle Woodland[2] from c800 CE there is evidence of inter-group violence as human bones have been recovered with arrow points embedded into them in individual and group burials.[3] Some settlements even gained palisades and ditches[4], although at this time they were present at only a tiny fraction of all sites (0.5% between 800-950 CE[5]). After 700-800 CE there was a dramatic intensification of food production, particularly of maize farming, which brought higher yields and enabled more food to be extracted from a smaller territory and would lead to population growth.[6][7][8]

The evidence suggests communities experienced increased differentiation of social roles, with individuals dedicated to "community defense, organization of labor, and communal storage of maize in secure central places".[9] The Upper Mississippi region was populated by a number of small communities. The population of largest settlement was probably in the region of 500 people - although this population was not resident at the site that later became Cahokia.


Social Complexity variables

♠ RA ♣ Edward A L Turner; Kalin Bullman ♥

Social Scale

♠ Polity territory ♣ [100-200] ♥ in squared kilometers

Quasi-polities of the American Bottom might cover 100-200 KM2.


♠ Polity Population ♣ [400-500] ♥ People.

Population of largest settlement probably in region of 500 people and this would be the quasi-polity size. This is an upper limit estimate. This population was not resident at the site that later became Cahokia. One of the areas with this number of people is called the Range site.

After 700-800 CE maize cultivation lead to larger populations.[10]

♠ Population of the largest settlement ♣ [400-500] ♥ Inhabitants.

Population of largest settlement probably in region of 500 people. This is an upper limit estimate. This population was not resident at the site that later became Cahokia. One of the areas with this number of people is called the Range site.

Hierarchical Complexity

♠ Settlement hierarchy ♣ 2 ♥ levels.


Nucleated villages

"From the Late Woodland Patrick phase through Emergent Mississippian times, communities in the floodplain and immediately adjacent uplands tended to consist of groups of structures. Most people lived in these nucleated villages, each of which was occupied by at least a few tens of people, and sometimes several times that number. Only a small proportion of the valley's inhabitants lived in houses that were widely separated from one another." [11]
"It has been argued that villages with well over a hundred buildings had developed by the late Emergent Mississippian period." However "it is equally possible that the feature patterns represent nothing more than multiple super-imposed, short-term occupations that cannot be teased apart." [12]

Houses organized around a courtyard

In the Emergent Mississippian "The community pattern usually included organized groupings of houses and other structures arranged around a courtyard, often with a central post that was sometimes surrounded by four pits, and larger structures probably communal or ceremonial, to one side or in the courtyard area."[13]
"Site plans gained greater internal complexity as houses clustered into court-yard groups and, toward [1000 CE], the southern pattern of civic-ceremonial centers with large earthen mounds was established in many places. [14]



♠ Administrative levels ♣ 2 ♥ levels.


1. Chief

In the Emergent Mississippian period: "perhaps the appearance of chiefs" [15]

2. Elder

kin group leaders [16]


♠ Religious levels ♣ 2 ♥ levels.

"At Cahokia there may have been no difference between the religious and political hierarchy. They were interlocked, impossible to disentangle."[17]


1. Chief / Priest

In the Emergent Mississippian period: "perhaps the appearance of chiefs" [18]
"Cahokia may have been led by a priesthood or a group of ruler-priests, but a shift to “king” does not appear to have happened at Cahokia."[19]


2. Elder / Religious functionary

kin group leaders [20]


♠ Military levels ♣ suspected unknown ♥ levels.

1 or 2. More comfortable at 1 level at this point. Not until Mississippian evidence of warrior specialists.

Professions

♠ Professional military officers ♣ absent ♥

♠ Professional soldiers ♣ absent ♥

♠ Professional priesthood ♣ absent ♥

Bureaucracy characteristics

♠ Full-time bureaucrats ♣ absent ♥

♠ Examination system ♣ absent ♥

♠ Merit promotion ♣ absent ♥

♠ Specialized government buildings ♣ absent ♥

Law

♠ Formal legal code ♣ absent ♥

♠ Judges ♣ absent ♥

♠ Courts ♣ absent ♥

♠ Professional Lawyers ♣ absent ♥

Specialized Buildings: polity owned

♠ irrigation systems ♣ absent ♥
♠ drinking water supply systems ♣ absent ♥
♠ markets ♣ absent ♥ There is no evidence for markets, "nothing that would suggest an integrated economy of any kind."[21] "There were probably no markets at Cahokia. Distribution of food and manufactured goods (e.g. shell beads) were likely “event based”, taking place at feasts and rituals. Barter or reciprocal exchange was likely part of an informal economy that circulated goods on a limited basis. Some redistribution of surplus production may have taken place as well." [22]
♠ food storage sites ♣ inferred absent ♥ "Most of the people at Cahokia were self-sufficient, but granaries are present in Stirling/Moorehead Cahokia."[23] "Fluctuation in agricultural production (especially due to flooding) would have affected specific areas of the American Bottom on an almost annual basis, and may have required provisioning some parts of the population on an irregular basis. Granaries and other storage facilities may have held the surplus required for this provisioning."[24] After 700-800 CE maize cultivation lead to larger populations.[25]

Transport infrastructure

♠ Roads ♣ inferred absent ♥ "trail networks also are important, and some of the historic east-west ones cross near Cahokia."[26] Presumably these are frequently used pathways rather than maintained roads.
♠ Bridges ♣ absent ♥ There were no bridges in prehistoric North America.
♠ Canals ♣ absent ♥
♠ Ports ♣ absent ♥

Special purpose sites

♠ Mines or quarries ♣ present ♥ "Large chert cores were roughed out at quarries, not at valley sites." [27] From earliest times people of American bottom were visiting a number of sources. This is not mentioned in current literature. Two examples: Wyandot, in the Ohio river valley and Mill Creek just south of the American bottom.

Information

Writing System

♠ Mnemonic devices ♣ ♥
♠ Nonwritten records ♣ ♥
♠ Written records ♣ absent ♥ There is no written record for Cahokia.[28]
♠ Script ♣ absent ♥ "There are no inscriptions, images, or even unambiguous houses or burials of political leaders."[29]
♠ Phonetic alphabetic writing ♣ absent ♥

Kinds of Written Documents

♠ Lists, tables, and classifications ♣ absent ♥
♠ Calendar ♣ absent ♥
♠ Sacred Texts ♣ absent ♥
♠ Religious literature ♣ absent ♥
♠ Practical literature ♣ absent ♥
♠ History ♣ absent ♥
♠ Philosophy ♣ absent ♥
♠ Scientific literature ♣ absent ♥
♠ Fiction ♣ absent ♥


Money

♠ Articles ♣ present ♥ Exchange-system economy. [30]
♠ Tokens ♣ ♥
♠ Precious metals ♣ ♥
♠ Foreign coins ♣ absent ♥
♠ Indigenous coins ♣ absent ♥
♠ Paper currency ♣ absent ♥

Postal System

♠ Couriers ♣ absent ♥
♠ Postal stations ♣ absent ♥
♠ General postal service ♣ absent ♥

Warfare variables

♠ RA ♣ Edward A L Turner; Kalin Bullman ♥

Military Technologies

Military use of Metals

♠ Copper ♣ ♥
♠ Bronze ♣ absent ♥
♠ Iron ♣ absent ♥
♠ Steel ♣ absent ♥

Projectiles

♠ Javelins ♣ absent ♥ Checked by Peter Peregrine.
♠ Atlatl ♣ absent ♥ Checked by Peter Peregrine.
♠ Slings ♣ absent ♥ Checked by Peter Peregrine.
♠ Self bow ♣ present ♥ "Beginning A.D. 300-400, the bow replaced the atlatl in most regions" [31] However, not regularly used as a weapon: evidence of victims "struck by arrows and clubs" increased only during "last half of the first millennium" [32] First evidence of intergroup violence appears in the archaeological record after 600 CE. "For the first time, there is evidence, in the form of group and individual burials with embedded arrow points, of the bow as the primary weapon of intergroup violence." [33]
♠ Composite bow ♣ absent ♥ Checked by Peter Peregrine.
♠ Crossbow ♣ absent ♥
♠ Tension siege engines ♣ absent ♥
♠ Sling siege engines ♣ absent ♥
♠ Gunpowder siege artillery ♣ absent ♥
♠ Handheld firearms ♣ absent ♥

Handheld weapons

♠ War clubs ♣ present ♥ Evidence of victims "struck by arrows and clubs" as inter-group conflicts increased during "last half of the first millennium" [34] Clubs [35]
♠ Battle axes ♣ inferred present ♥ Use of "heavy stone axe or mace". "However, whilst often referred to as a "stone axe" this weapon also could be called a mace or a club. It was a bludgeoning weapon.[36]
♠ Daggers ♣ absent ♥ Checked by Peter Peregrine.
♠ Swords ♣ absent ♥ Checked by Peter Peregrine.
♠ Spears ♣ absent ♥ Handheld thrusting spears absent.
♠ Polearms ♣ absent ♥ Checked by Peter Peregrine.

Animals used in warfare

♠ Dogs ♣ ♥
♠ Donkeys ♣ absent ♥
♠ Horses ♣ absent ♥
♠ Camels ♣ absent ♥
♠ Elephants ♣ absent ♥

Armor

♠ Wood, bark, etc ♣ absent ♥ No evidence for wooden shields. [37]
♠ Leather, cloth ♣ absent ♥ No evidence for the use of leather as armor. [38]
♠ Shields ♣ absent ♥
♠ Helmets ♣ absent ♥ Checked by Peter Peregrine.
♠ Breastplates ♣ absent ♥ Checked by Peter Peregrine.
♠ Limb protection ♣ absent ♥ Checked by Peter Peregrine.
♠ Chainmail ♣ absent ♥
♠ Scaled armor ♣ absent ♥
♠ Laminar armor ♣ absent ♥
♠ Plate armor ♣ absent ♥

Naval technology

♠ Small vessels (canoes, etc) ♣ present ♥ "Canoes identified so far are small, unable to carry high volumes of commodities."[39]
♠ Merchant ships pressed into service ♣ absent ♥
♠ Specialized military vessels ♣ absent ♥

Fortifications

♠ Settlements in a defensive position ♣ absent ♥ Settlements primarily located for access to water and arable land. [40]
♠ Wooden palisades ♣ present ♥ "Mississippian sites often featured curtain walls with frameworks of stout posts accompanied by large bastions, high embankments, and deep ditches." [41] According to the temporal distribution of "131 walled settlements corresponding to Mississippian societies and their immediate predecessors" the breakout point for increasing percent of sites having palisades is around 900-950 CE. 800-950 CE: 0.5% of sites. 1000 CE: 1.5% of sites. 1050 CE: 3% of sites. 1100 CE: 4% of sites. 1200: 7% of sites. [42]
♠ Earth ramparts ♣ present ♥ "Mississippian sites often featured curtain walls with frameworks of stout posts accompanied by large bastions, high embankments, and deep ditches." [43]
♠ Ditch ♣ present ♥ "Mississippian sites often featured curtain walls with frameworks of stout posts accompanied by large bastions, high embankments, and deep ditches." [44]
♠ Moat ♣ absent ♥
♠ Stone walls (non-mortared) ♣ absent ♥
♠ Stone walls (mortared) ♣ absent ♥
♠ Fortified camps ♣ absent ♥
♠ Complex fortifications ♣ absent ♥
♠ Long walls ♣ 0 ♥ km.
♠ Modern fortifications ♣ absent ♥


Phase II Variables (polity-based)

Institutional Variables

♠ RA ♣ Edward A L Turner ♥

Limits on Power of the Chief Executive

Power distributed

♠ Constraint on executive by government ♣ absent ♥ Chiefs are thought to have possibly appeared after 700-800 CE[45] and from this time there were newly created "social roles linked to community defense, organization of labor, and communal storage of maize in secure central places".[46] However it would be a stretch too far to call these new social roles a "government."
♠ Constraint on executive by non-government ♣ inferred present ♥ Chiefs are thought to have possibly appeared after 700-800 CE[47] and from this time there were newly created "social roles linked to community defense, organization of labor, and communal storage of maize in secure central places".[48] It is possible that the emerging chiefs would have needed the cooperation of other powerful individuals e.g. kin group leaders, as the chief may not have had full-time enforcers or military to punish non-compliance.
♠ Impeachment ♣ inferred absent ♥ Chiefs are thought to have possibly appeared after 700-800 CE[49] and from this time there were newly created "social roles linked to community defense, organization of labor, and communal storage of maize in secure central places".[50] It is possible that the emerging chiefs would have listened to advice from other powerful individuals e.g. kin group leaders. The idea such individuals could "impeach" the chief seems a little elaborate for this small-scale society.

Social Mobility

Status

Elite status

♠ elite status is hereditary ♣ suspected unknown ♥ Chiefs are thought to have possibly appeared after 700-800 CE[51] and from this time there were newly created "social roles linked to community defense, organization of labor, and communal storage of maize in secure central places".[52] It is probably unknown whether the title and position of the chief was inherited.

Religion and Normative Ideology

♠ RA ♣ Edward Turner, Enrico Cioni ♥ The name of the research assistant or associate who coded the data. If more than one RA made a substantial contribution, list all.

Deification of Rulers

♠ Rulers are legitimated by gods ♣ suspected unknown ♥ Chiefs are thought to have possibly appeared after 700-800 CE[53] and "there may have been no difference between the religious and political hierarchy. They were interlocked, impossible to disentangle."[54] We have no detail on their religious beliefs.

♠ Rulers are gods ♣ suspected unknown ♥ Chiefs are thought to have possibly appeared after 700-800 CE[55] and "there may have been no difference between the religious and political hierarchy. They were interlocked, impossible to disentangle."[56] We have no detail on their religious beliefs.

Normative Ideological Aspects of Equity and Prosociality

♠ Ideological reinforcement of equality ♣ inferred present ♥ Chiefs are thought to have possibly appeared after 700-800 CE[57] and "there may have been no difference between the religious and political hierarchy. They were interlocked, impossible to disentangle."[58] We have no detail on their religious beliefs. However it was still a relatively egalitarian society which was unlikely to have yet had serfs or slaves. Archaeologists have not found great estates or manor-type houses. "The community pattern usually included organized groupings of houses and other structures arranged around a courtyard, often with a central post that was sometimes surrounded by four pits, and larger structures probably communal or ceremonial, to one side or in the courtyard area."[59] Did the central post which had a "communal or ceremonial" role help to ideological reinforce equality - the community structue?

♠ Ideological thought equates rulers and commoners ♣ inferred present ♥ Chiefs are thought to have possibly appeared after 700-800 CE.[60] We have no detail on their religious beliefs. However it was still a relatively egalitarian society which was unlikely to have yet had serfs or slaves. Archaeologists have not found great estates or manor-type houses. "The community pattern usually included organized groupings of houses and other structures arranged around a courtyard, often with a central post that was sometimes surrounded by four pits, and larger structures probably communal or ceremonial, to one side or in the courtyard area."[61] This might suggest that the chief was at this time a ruler who was still considered one of the community.
♠ Ideological thought equates elites and commoners ♣ inferred present ♥ Chiefs are thought to have possibly appeared after 700-800 CE.[62] We have no detail on their religious beliefs. However it was still a relatively egalitarian society which was unlikely to have yet had serfs or slaves. Archaeologists have not found great estates or manor-type houses. "The community pattern usually included organized groupings of houses and other structures arranged around a courtyard, often with a central post that was sometimes surrounded by four pits, and larger structures probably communal or ceremonial, to one side or in the courtyard area."[63] This might suggest that the "elites" - if we can all a chief this - were still considered of the community.

♠ Ideology reinforces prosociality ♣ inferred present ♥ This still was a relatively egalitarian society which was unlikely to yet have had serfs or slaves. The community pattern[64] does not show great estates or manors - so it is possibly doubtful the early chiefs had either an elite class or retainers to sacrifice, since archaeologists have not found sacrifice victims in burials from this time. Warfare, if it occurred at all, was still rare so there was, in any case, little opportunity to sacrifice prisoners of war. No mention in this period for lavish burials for rulers. In fact: "There are no inscriptions, images, or even unambiguous houses or burials of political leaders."[65] It is possible that the "communal or ceremonial" structures[66] within the communities had an ideological role to reinforce prosociality.

♠ production of public goods ♣ suspected unknown ♥

Moralizing Supernatural Powers

♠ Moral concern is primary ♣ inferred absent ♥
♠ Moralizing enforcement is certain ♣ inferred absent ♥
♠ Moralizing norms are broad ♣ inferred absent ♥
♠ Moralizing enforcement is targeted ♣ inferred absent ♥
♠ Moralizing enforcement of rulers ♣ inferred absent ♥
♠ Moralizing religion adopted by elites ♣ inferred absent ♥
♠ Moralizing religion adopted by commoners ♣ inferred absent ♥
♠ Moralizing enforcement in afterlife ♣ inferred absent ♥
♠ Moralizing enforcement in this life ♣ inferred absent ♥
♠ Moralizing enforcement is agentic ♣ inferred absent ♥

These data were reviewed by expert advisors and consultants. For a detailed description of these data, refer to the relevant Analytic Narratives, reference tables, and acknowledgements page. [67] [68] [69]

References

  1. (Blitz and Porth 2013, 89-95) J H Blitz. E S Porth. 2013. Social complexity and the Bow in the Eastern Woodlands. Evolutionary Anthropology. 22:89-95. Wiley.
  2. (Blitz and Porth 2013, 89-95) J H Blitz. E S Porth. 2013. Social complexity and the Bow in the Eastern Woodlands. Evolutionary Anthropology. 22:89-95. Wiley.
  3. (Blitz and Porth 2013, 89-95) J H Blitz. E S Porth. 2013. Social complexity and the Bow in the Eastern Woodlands. Evolutionary Anthropology. 22:89-95. Wiley.
  4. (Blitz and Porth 2013, 89-95) J H Blitz. E S Porth. 2013. Social complexity and the Bow in the Eastern Woodlands. Evolutionary Anthropology. 22:89-95. Wiley.
  5. (Milner, Chaplin and Zavodny 2013) G R Milner. G Chaplin. E Zavodny. 2013. Conflict and Societal Change in Late Prehistoric Eastern North America. Evolutionary Anthropology. 22:96-102. Wiley.
  6. (Blitz and Porth 2013, 89-95) J H Blitz. E S Porth. 2013. Social complexity and the Bow in the Eastern Woodlands. Evolutionary Anthropology. 22:89-95. Wiley.
  7. (Iseminger 2010, 26) W R Iseminger. 2010. Cahokia Mounds: America's First City. The History Press. Charleston.
  8. (Milner 2006, xx) G R Milner. 2006. The Cahokia Chiefdom: The Archaeology of a Mississippian Society. University Press of Florida. Gainesville.
  9. (Blitz and Porth 2013, 89-95) J H Blitz. E S Porth. 2013. Social complexity and the Bow in the Eastern Woodlands. Evolutionary Anthropology. 22:89-95. Wiley.
  10. (Iseminger 2010, 26) Iseminger, W R. 2010. Cahokia Mounds: America's First City. The History Press. Charleston.
  11. (Milner 2006, 98)
  12. (Milner 2006, 99 cite: Kelly 1990; Milner 2006, 99-100)
  13. (Iseminger 2010, 26) Iseminger, W R. 2010. Cahokia Mounds: America's First City. The History Press. Charleston.
  14. (Blitz and Porth 2013, 89-95)
  15. (Iseminger 2010, 26)
  16. (Iseminger 2014, 26)
  17. (Peregrine/Kelly 2014, 23)
  18. (Iseminger 2010, 26)
  19. (Peregrine 2014, 31)
  20. (Iseminger 2014, 26)
  21. (Peregrine 2014, 31)
  22. (Trubitt 2014, 18)
  23. (Peregrine/Trubitt 2014, 20)
  24. (Trubitt 2014, 18)
  25. (Iseminger 2010, 26) Iseminger, W R. 2010. Cahokia Mounds: America's First City. The History Press. Charleston.
  26. (Peregrine/Trubitt 2014, 21)
  27. (Milner 2006, 82)
  28. (Peregrine 2014, 32)
  29. (Peregrine 2014, 31)
  30. (Milner 2006, 138)
  31. (Blitz and Porth 2013, 89-95)
  32. (Milner 2006, 174)
  33. (Blitz and Porth 2013, 89-95)
  34. (Milner 2006, 174)
  35. (Iseminger 2010, 78)
  36. (Iseminger 2010: 78) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/G56KRN8Q.
  37. (Peregrine 2014, personal communication)
  38. (Peregrine 2014, personal communication)
  39. (Trubitt 2014, 18)
  40. (Peregrine 2014, personal communication)
  41. (Milner, Chaplin and Zavodny 2013, 100)
  42. (Milner, Chaplin and Zavodny 2013)
  43. (Milner, Chaplin and Zavodny 2013, 100)
  44. (Milner, Chaplin and Zavodny 2013, 100)
  45. (Iseminger 2010, 26) Iseminger, W R. 2010. Cahokia Mounds: America's First City. The History Press. Charleston.
  46. (Blitz and Porth 2013, 89-95) Blitz J H, Porth E S. 2013. Social complexity and the Bow in the Eastern Woodlands. Evolutionary Anthropology. 22:89-95. Wiley.
  47. (Iseminger 2010, 26) Iseminger, W R. 2010. Cahokia Mounds: America's First City. The History Press. Charleston.
  48. (Blitz and Porth 2013, 89-95) Blitz J H, Porth E S. 2013. Social complexity and the Bow in the Eastern Woodlands. Evolutionary Anthropology. 22:89-95. Wiley.
  49. (Iseminger 2010, 26) Iseminger, W R. 2010. Cahokia Mounds: America's First City. The History Press. Charleston.
  50. (Blitz and Porth 2013, 89-95) Blitz J H, Porth E S. 2013. Social complexity and the Bow in the Eastern Woodlands. Evolutionary Anthropology. 22:89-95. Wiley.
  51. (Iseminger 2010, 26) Iseminger, W R. 2010. Cahokia Mounds: America's First City. The History Press. Charleston.
  52. (Blitz and Porth 2013, 89-95) Blitz J H, Porth E S. 2013. Social complexity and the Bow in the Eastern Woodlands. Evolutionary Anthropology. 22:89-95. Wiley.
  53. (Iseminger 2010, 26) Iseminger, W R. 2010. Cahokia Mounds: America's First City. The History Press. Charleston.
  54. (Peregrine/Kelly 2014, 23) Peregrine P, Ortman S, Rupley, E. 2014. Social Complexity at Cahokia. SFI WORKING PAPER: 2014-03-004. Sante Fe Institute.
  55. (Iseminger 2010, 26) Iseminger, W R. 2010. Cahokia Mounds: America's First City. The History Press. Charleston.
  56. (Peregrine/Kelly 2014, 23) Peregrine P, Ortman S, Rupley, E. 2014. Social Complexity at Cahokia. SFI WORKING PAPER: 2014-03-004. Sante Fe Institute.
  57. (Iseminger 2010, 26) Iseminger, W R. 2010. Cahokia Mounds: America's First City. The History Press. Charleston.
  58. (Peregrine/Kelly 2014, 23) Peregrine P, Ortman S, Rupley, E. 2014. Social Complexity at Cahokia. SFI WORKING PAPER: 2014-03-004. Sante Fe Institute.
  59. (Iseminger 2010, 26) Iseminger, W R. 2010. Cahokia Mounds: America's First City. The History Press. Charleston.
  60. (Iseminger 2010, 26) Iseminger, W R. 2010. Cahokia Mounds: America's First City. The History Press. Charleston.
  61. (Iseminger 2010, 26) Iseminger, W R. 2010. Cahokia Mounds: America's First City. The History Press. Charleston.
  62. (Iseminger 2010, 26) Iseminger, W R. 2010. Cahokia Mounds: America's First City. The History Press. Charleston.
  63. (Iseminger 2010, 26) Iseminger, W R. 2010. Cahokia Mounds: America's First City. The History Press. Charleston.
  64. (Iseminger 2010, 26) Iseminger, W R. 2010. Cahokia Mounds: America's First City. The History Press. Charleston.
  65. (Peregrine 2014, 31) Peregrine P, Ortman S, Rupley, E. 2014. Social Complexity at Cahokia. SFI WORKING PAPER: 2014-03-004. Sante Fe Institute.
  66. (Iseminger 2010, 26) Iseminger, W R. 2010. Cahokia Mounds: America's First City. The History Press. Charleston.
  67. http://seshatdatabank.info/databrowser/moralizing-supernatural-punishment-acknowledgements.html
  68. http://seshatdatabank.info/databrowser/moralizing-supernatural-punishment-narratives.html
  69. http://seshatdatabank.info/databrowser/moralizing-supernatural-punishment-nga_tables.html

Peregrine P, Ortman S, Rupley, E. 2014. Social Complexity at Cahokia. SFI WORKING PAPER: 2014-03-004. Sante Fe Institute.

Milner, G R. 2006. The Cahokia Chiefdom: The Archaeology of a Mississippian Society. University Press of Florida. Gainesville.

Iseminger, W R. 2010. Cahokia Mounds: America's First City. The History Press. Charleston.

Blitz J H, Porth E S. 2013. Social complexity and the Bow in the Eastern Woodlands. Evolutionary Anthropology. 22:89-95. Wiley.

Milner G R, Chaplin, G and Zavodny, E. 2013. Conflict and Societal Change in Late Prehistoric Eastern North America. Evolutionary Anthropology. 22:96-102. Wiley.