USOneot

From Seshat Data Browser
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Phase I Variables (polity-based)

General variables

♠ RA ♣ Enrico Cioni ♥

♠ Original name ♣ Oneota ♥

♠ Alternative names ♣ Fisher Phase; Huber Phase; Bold Counselor Phase; Oneota Classic Horizon ♥ Pauketat and Emerson [1] use "Fisher Phase" to describe the first phase of Oneota occupation of the region, up until the 1400s, and "Huber Phase" to describe its latter phase. Gibbon [2] uses the name "Bold Counselor Phase" for the Oneota occupation of the region between 1250 and 1450 CE, while the "Oneota Classic Horizon" roughly corresponds to the time-span between 1350 and 1450.

♠ Peak Date ♣ ♥


Temporal bounds

♠ Duration ♣ 1400-1650 CE ♥ [3]

from 1400 Iseminger 2010 http://seshat.info/File:Iseminger2010.21.jpg

♠ Degree of centralization ♣ quasi-polity ♥ [4]

♠ Supra-polity relations ♣ ♥

Supra-cultural relations

♠ preceding (quasi)polity ♣ Cahokia - Sand Prairie ♥
♠ relationship to preceding (quasi)polity ♣ population migration ♥ "People archaeologists call Oneota arrived in the central Illinois River valley seven hundred years ago. They may have come from Iowa or farther up the Mississippi River" [5].
♠ succeeding (quasi)polity ♣ Early Illinois Confederation ♥
♠ Supracultural entity ♣ ♥
♠ scale of supra-cultural interaction ♣ ♥ km squared.

♠ Capital ♣ none ♥ Quasi-Polity [6].


♠ Language ♣ ♥ [1]

General Description

'Oneota' is the modern name given to a group of late prehistoric or protohistoric cultures, known solely from their material remains and centred on modern-day Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin in the Midwestern United States.[7] Oneota migrations can be traced archaeologically: for instance, some groups using Oneota-style material culture began appearing alongside Mississippian populations in the American Bottom region (modern southwestern Illinois) during the Sand Prairie phase (c. 1275-1400 CE).[8] We are concerned here with the period of Oneota activity between c. 1400 and 1650 CE, but it should be noted that the roots of the tradition are to be found before 1400. Small quantities of European trade goods appear in the Illinois archaeological record around the beginning of the 17th century CE, marking the beginning of the 'protohistoric' period in this region.[9]

Population and political organization

Oneota society was relatively egalitarian, more so than the preceding Mississippian cultures: there is a lack of evidence from Oneota settlements or funerary contexts for inherited status or class distinctions.[10] It has been suggested that political leadership was provided by 'big men', who relied on informal support from village populations and could not pass on their positions to their children.[11]
Reliable estimates for the size of the Oneota population between 1400 and 1650 CE are lacking.[12]

Social Complexity variables

♠ RA ♣ Enrico Cioni; Agathe Dupeyron; Kalin Bullman ♥

Social Scale

♠ Polity territory ♣ 6,000 ♥ in squared kilometers. Oneota was around 60km long by 100km wide.[13]

♠ Polity Population ♣ ♥ People.

♠ Population of the largest settlement ♣ 200 ♥ Inhabitants. Morton Village was the largest Oneota settlement in the region [14], and it may have been occupied by 200 people [15]. However, it was eventually abandoned in favour of smaller sites [16].

Hierarchical Complexity

♠ Settlement hierarchy ♣ [2-3] ♥ levels. [17]

1. Larger sites
Morton, Sleeth, C.W. Cooper, and Crable.
2. Small family homesteads

Note: these impermanent sites are not part of the settlement hierarchy

3. Short-stay activity camps
For hunting and gathering.

♠ Administrative levels ♣ 1 ♥ levels.

1. Big man
"Villages, which were most likely pulled together by a single individual (a "big man"), would wax or wane, depending on the success of that individual" [18].

♠ Religious levels ♣ 1 ♥ levels.

1. Part-time shamans [19].

♠ Military levels ♣ [1-2] ♥ levels. AD: coded as range to allow for the presence of war chiefs.

1. War chiefs?

2. Individual warriors.

Professions

♠ Professional military officers ♣ ♥ Full-time specialists

♠ Professional soldiers ♣ ♥ Full-time specialists

♠ Professional priesthood ♣ absent ♥ "Like other tribal-level horticulturalists, the Oneota probably had part-time shamans rather than full-time priests" [20].

Bureaucracy characteristics

♠ Full-time bureaucrats ♣ ♥ Full-time specialists

♠ Examination system ♣ absent ♥ no known writing system.

♠ Merit promotion ♣ ♥

♠ Specialized government buildings ♣ suspected unknown ♥ Might have had administrative center at Slack Farm, which was centrally located.[21]

Law

♠ Formal legal code ♣ absent ♥ Following polity: "The statute-book, the judiciary, and courts of law with their prisons and instruments of punishment, were unknown" [22].

♠ Judges ♣ absent ♥ Following polity: "The statute-book, the judiciary, and courts of law with their prisons and instruments of punishment, were unknown" [23].

♠ Courts ♣ absent ♥ Following polity: "The statute-book, the judiciary, and courts of law with their prisons and instruments of punishment, were unknown" [24].

♠ Professional Lawyers ♣ absent ♥ Following polity: "The statute-book, the judiciary, and courts of law with their prisons and instruments of punishment, were unknown" [25].

Specialized Buildings: polity owned

♠ irrigation systems ♣ inferred absent ♥ Not mentioned in the literature, probably not necessary in this geographic region. Inference approved by Peter Peregrine.
♠ drinking water supply systems ♣ ♥
♠ markets ♣ inferred absent ♥ Scholars such as Porter or Fowler have theorised that after 1400 CE, the Cahokia region saw a return from a market-based system to a redistributive system. [26] However, this literature dates from the 1960s/1970s or earlier, and does not necessarily reflect current thinking.
♠ food storage sites ♣ present ♥ Villages characterised by large storage pits [27].

Transport infrastructure

♠ Roads ♣ inferred absent ♥ not directly mentioned in the literature but cannot be excluded: "Although there were important highways (often called "warpaths") across over- land areas in Historie times, water transportation appears to have been at least as important. Large canoes are documented in historical times, and archaeological finds elsewhere in the Southeast have shown that prehistoric Mississippian people made similar vessels." [28] " There was an extensive network of footpaths that crisscrossed Eastern North America as one of your quotes suggests. I wouldn’t really call them roads, though. Most of them paralleled rivers and were unimproved or informal—they simply represented the best route between locations and so were used over and over. They were not part of a formally planned transportation system." [29]
♠ Bridges ♣ absent ♥ Inference approved by Peter Peregrine.
♠ Canals ♣ absent ♥ Approved by Peter Peregrine.
♠ Ports ♣ inferred absent ♥ "There were no formal “ports”, although rivers were major transportation routes." [30]

Special purpose sites

♠ Mines or quarries ♣ inferred present ♥ Mill Creek waning after 1300 CE. "It would be an extraordinary coincidence if these developments were unrelated in some manner to the disappearance of the Cambria, Silvernale, and Mill Creek complexes in the region by A.D. 1300, and, more broadly, to the major cultural transitions that were occurring from the Plains to the Atlantic seaboard in the northeastern United States during the A.D. 1200-1300 period." [31] "There were still quarries being used; indeed Blood Run has a lot of material from the Pipestone National Monument in Minnesota as I recall, so that was certainly a “mine” of sorts." [32]

Information

Writing System

♠ Mnemonic devices ♣ ♥
♠ Nonwritten records ♣ ♥
♠ Written records ♣ absent ♥ Certainly absent.
♠ Script ♣ absent ♥ Certainly absent.
♠ Phonetic alphabetic writing ♣ absent ♥ Certainly absent.

Kinds of Written Documents

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

Money

♠ Articles ♣ suspected unknown ♥
♠ Tokens ♣ suspected unknown ♥
♠ Precious metals ♣ ♥
♠ Foreign coins ♣ absent ♥
♠ Indigenous coins ♣ absent ♥
♠ Paper currency ♣ absent ♥

Postal System

♠ Couriers ♣ ♥ unknown?
♠ Postal stations ♣ ♥ probably absent, however no information (RA's guess)
♠ General postal service ♣ ♥ probably absent, however no information (RA's guess)

Warfare variables

♠ RA ♣ Enrico Cioni ♥

Military Technologies

Military use of Metals

♠ Copper ♣ absent ♥ Not mentioned by sources; it seems most Oneota technology derived from wood and stone[33].
♠ Bronze ♣ absent ♥ Not mentioned by sources; it seems most Oneota technology derived from wood and stone[34].
♠ Iron ♣ absent ♥ Not mentioned by sources; it seems most Oneota technology derived from wood and stone[35].
♠ Steel ♣ absent ♥ Not mentioned by sources; it seems most Oneota technology derived from wood and stone[36].

Projectiles

♠ Javelins ♣ absent ♥ Code checked by Peter Peregrine. Previous notes: Archaeological evidence for warfare appears to "only" include "[d]efensive structures around villages, violent injuries on human remains, "trophy heads," the abandonment of regions, and the positioning of sites in ever more defensive positions"[37], though a few weapon types can be cautiously inferred, such as bow and arrows and spears[38], and, at a later date, firearms[39].
♠ Atlatl ♣ absent ♥ Code checked by Peter Peregrine. Previous notes: Archaeological evidence for warfare appears to "only" include "[d]efensive structures around villages, violent injuries on human remains, "trophy heads," the abandonment of regions, and the positioning of sites in ever more defensive positions"[40], though a few weapon types can be cautiously inferred, such as bow and arrows and spears[41], and, at a later date, firearms[42].
♠ Slings ♣ absent ♥ Code checked by Peter Peregrine. Previous notes: Archaeological evidence for warfare appears to "only" include "[d]efensive structures around villages, violent injuries on human remains, "trophy heads," the abandonment of regions, and the positioning of sites in ever more defensive positions"[43], though a few weapon types can be cautiously inferred, such as bow and arrows and spears[44], and, at a later date, firearms[45].
♠ Self bow ♣ present ♥ The bow and arrow was the principal weapon, but bow type is not specified by the sources [46].
♠ Composite bow ♣ absent ♥ Code checked by Peter Peregrine. Previous notes: Archaeological evidence for warfare appears to "only" include "[d]efensive structures around villages, violent injuries on human remains, "trophy heads," the abandonment of regions, and the positioning of sites in ever more defensive positions"[47], though a few weapon types can be cautiously inferred, such as bow and arrows and spears[48], and, at a later date, firearms[49].
♠ Crossbow ♣ absent ♥
♠ Tension siege engines ♣ absent ♥
♠ Sling siege engines ♣ absent ♥
♠ Gunpowder siege artillery ♣ absent ♥
♠ Handheld firearms ♣ absent: 1400-1500CE ; present: 1500-1640 ♥ The Oneota "probably acquired guns through trade with Native people already in contact with Europeans" [50].

Handheld weapons

♠ War clubs ♣ inferred present ♥ Code checked by Peter Peregrine. Previous notes: Archaeological evidence for warfare appears to "only" include "[d]efensive structures around villages, violent injuries on human remains, "trophy heads," the abandonment of regions, and the positioning of sites in ever more defensive positions"[51], though a few weapon types can be cautiously inferred, such as bow and arrows and spears[52], and, at a later date, firearms[53].
♠ Battle axes ♣ inferred present ♥ Code checked by Peter Peregrine. Previous notes: Archaeological evidence for warfare appears to "only" include "[d]efensive structures around villages, violent injuries on human remains, "trophy heads," the abandonment of regions, and the positioning of sites in ever more defensive positions"[54], though a few weapon types can be cautiously inferred, such as bow and arrows and spears[55], and, at a later date, firearms[56].
♠ Daggers ♣ suspected unknown ♥ Archaeological evidence for warfare appears to "only" include "[d]efensive structures around villages, violent injuries on human remains, "trophy heads," the abandonment of regions, and the positioning of sites in ever more defensive positions"[57], though a few weapon types can be cautiously inferred, such as bow and arrows and spears[58], and, at a later date, firearms[59].
♠ Swords ♣ absent ♥ Code checked by Peter Peregrine. Previous notes: Archaeological evidence for warfare appears to "only" include "[d]efensive structures around villages, violent injuries on human remains, "trophy heads," the abandonment of regions, and the positioning of sites in ever more defensive positions"[60], though a few weapon types can be cautiously inferred, such as bow and arrows and spears[61], and, at a later date, firearms[62].
♠ Spears ♣ present ♥ Martin, Quimby and Collier [63] mention "[p]aired sandstone shaft-smoothers [...] used for making arrow- or spear-shafts".
♠ Polearms ♣ absent ♥ Code checked by Peter Peregrine. Previous notes: Archaeological evidence for warfare appears to "only" include "[d]efensive structures around villages, violent injuries on human remains, "trophy heads," the abandonment of regions, and the positioning of sites in ever more defensive positions"[64], though a few weapon types can be cautiously inferred, such as bow and arrows and spears[65], and, at a later date, firearms[66].

Animals used in warfare

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

Armor

♠ Wood, bark, etc ♣ suspected unknown ♥ The Oneota are known solely from their material remains[67], and things made out of wood do not tend to survive in the archaeological record.
♠ Leather, cloth ♣ suspected unknown ♥ The Oneota are known solely from their material remains[68], and leather and cloth do not tend to survive in the archaeological record.
♠ Shields ♣ inferred absent ♥ Inferred from lack of shields in previous and later polities.
♠ Helmets ♣inferred absent♥ Inferred from lack of helmets in previous and later polities.
♠ Breastplates ♣ inferred absent ♥ Inferred from lack of breastplates in previous and later polities.
♠ Limb protection ♣ inferred absent ♥ Inferred from lack of limb protection in previous and later polities.
♠ Chainmail ♣ ♥
♠ Scaled armor ♣ ♥
♠ Laminar armor ♣ ♥
♠ Plate armor ♣ ♥

Naval technology

♠ Small vessels (canoes, etc) ♣ suspected unknown ♥
♠ Merchant ships pressed into service ♣ suspected unknown ♥
♠ Specialized military vessels ♣ suspected unknown ♥

Fortifications

♠ Settlements in a defensive position ♣ present ♥ The sites of Sleeth and C.W. Cooper were located on "steep, defensible bluff crests" [69].
♠ Wooden palisades ♣ inferred present ♥ The sites of Sleeth and C.W. Cooper were fortified [70]. Fortification type is not specified, but, given that Cahokia and East St Louis had been fortified with wooden palisades [71], it seems reasonable to infer that this same type of fortification was used for Oneota sites as well.
♠ Earth ramparts ♣ suspected unknown ♥ Apparently the sites of Sleeth and C.W. Cooper were "fortified"[72], but fortification type is not specified. Given that Cahokia and East St Louis had been fortified with wooden palisades [73], it seems reasonable to infer that this same type of fortification was used for Oneota sites as well. However, it is entirely possible that fortifications, here, did include earth ramparts, do it does not seem correct to code this variable as absent. And it is not unknown, as someone out there must know what these fortifications consisted of.
♠ Ditch ♣ suspected unknown ♥ Apparently the sites of Sleeth and C.W. Cooper were "fortified"[74], but fortification type is not specified. Given that Cahokia and East St Louis had been fortified with wooden palisades [75], it seems reasonable to infer that this same type of fortification was used for Oneota sites as well. However, it is entirely possible that fortifications, here, did include ditches, do it does not seem correct to code this variable as absent. And it is not unknown, as someone out there must know what these fortifications consisted of.
♠ Moat ♣ suspected unknown ♥ Apparently the sites of Sleeth and C.W. Cooper were "fortified"[76], but fortification type is not specified. Given that Cahokia and East St Louis had been fortified with wooden palisades [77], it seems reasonable to infer that this same type of fortification was used for Oneota sites as well. However, it is entirely possible that fortifications, here, did include moats, do it does not seem correct to code this variable as absent. And it is not unknown, as someone out there must know what these fortifications consisted of.
♠ Stone walls (non-mortared) ♣ suspected unknown ♥
♠ Stone walls (mortared) ♣ suspected unknown ♥
♠ Fortified camps ♣ suspected unknown ♥
♠ Complex fortifications ♣ suspected unknown ♥ Not mentioned by sources.
♠ Long walls ♣ 0 ♥ km.
♠ Modern fortifications ♣ absent ♥

Phase II Variables (polity-based)

Institutional Variables

♠ RA ♣ Jenny Reddish ♥

Limits on Power of the Chief Executive

Power distributed

♠ Constraint on executive by government ♣ inferred absent ♥ According to Peregrine and Gibbon,[78][79] status was primarily achieved in Oneota society, and rather than durable, hereditary executive offices, villages were pulled together by 'big men'. There was no formal 'government', and I have inferred that in the absence of a formal executive office, there would have been no legally enshrined rights to constrain the executive.
♠ Constraint on executive by non-government ♣ ♥ According to Peregrine and Gibbon,[80][81] status was primarily achieved in Oneota society, and rather than durable, hereditary executive offices, villages were pulled together by 'big men'. I have inferred that in the absence of a formal executive office, there would have been no legally enshrined rights to constrain the executive.
♠ Impeachment ♣ inferred absent ♥ According to Peregrine and Gibbon,[82][83] status was primarily achieved in Oneota society, and rather than durable, hereditary executive offices, villages were pulled together by 'big men'. In the absence of a formal executive position, I have inferred that there would have been no legally defined impeachment procedure.

Social Mobility

Status

Elite status

♠ elite status is hereditary ♣ inferred absent ♥ 'The Oneota are believed to have had a tribal level of political organization in which social status was primarily achieved, as inferred from a lack of differential mortuary treatment and settlement structure. Villages, which were most likely pulled together by a single individual (a "big man"), would wax or wane, depending on the success of that individual'.[84]

Religion and Normative Ideology

♠ RA ♣ Enrico Cioni; Agathe Dupeyron; Jenny Reddish ♥ 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 ♥ This period saw decreasing social complexity in the American Bottom region. Oneota settlements were more egalitarian than those of the preceding Mississippian (Cahokian) culture, and status was mainly achieved, so there were no real social classes.[85]

♠ Rulers are gods ♣ suspected unknown ♥ This period saw decreasing social complexity in the American Bottom region. Oneota settlements were more egalitarian than those of the preceding Mississippian (Cahokian) culture, and status was mainly achieved, so there were no real social classes.[86]

Normative Ideological Aspects of Equity and Prosociality

♠ Ideological reinforcement of equality ♣ suspected unknown ♥ This period saw decreasing social complexity in the American Bottom region. Oneota settlements were more egalitarian than those of the preceding Mississippian (Cahokian) culture, and status was mainly achieved, so there were no real social classes.[87]

♠ Ideological thought equates rulers and commoners ♣ suspected unknown ♥ This period saw decreasing social complexity in the American Bottom region. Oneota settlements were more egalitarian than those of the preceding Mississippian (Cahokian) culture, and status was mainly achieved, so there were no real social classes.[88]
♠ Ideological thought equates elites and commoners ♣ suspected unknown ♥ This period saw decreasing social complexity in the American Bottom region. Oneota settlements were more egalitarian than those of the preceding Mississippian (Cahokian) culture, and status was mainly achieved, so there were no real social classes.[89]

♠ Ideology reinforces prosociality ♣ suspected unknown ♥

♠ 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. [90] [91] [92]

References

  1. T. Pauketat and J. Brown, The late prehistory and protohistory of Illinois, in J.A. Walthall and T.E. Emerson (eds.) Calumet & fleur-de-lys: archaeology of Indian and French contact in the midcontinent (1992), pp. 77-128
  2. G. Gibbon, Oneota, in P. Peregrine, M. Ember and Human Relations Area Files, Inc. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Prehistory: Volume 6: North America (2001), pp. 389-407
  3. G. Gibbon, Oneota, in P. Peregrine, M. Ember and Human Relations Area Files, Inc. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Prehistory: Volume 6: North America (2001), pp. 389-407
  4. G. Gibbon, Oneota, in P. Peregrine, M. Ember and Human Relations Area Files, Inc. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Prehistory: Volume 6: North America (2001), pp. 389-407
  5. Illinois State Museum, Late Prehistoric, Identity (2000), http://www.museum.state.il.us/muslink/nat_amer/pre/htmls/lp_id.html
  6. G. Gibbon, Oneota, in P. Peregrine, M. Ember and Human Relations Area Files, Inc. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Prehistory: Volume 6: North America (2001), pp. 389-407
  7. (Hall 1997, 142) Hall, Robert L. 1997. An Archaeology of the Soul: North American Indian Belief and Ritual. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/8KH357GV.
  8. (Pauketat 1994, 47) Pauketat, Timothy R. 1994. The Ascent of Chiefs: Cahokia and Mississippian Politics in Native North America. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/NJHPTUJ8.
  9. (Emerson and Brown 1992, 102) Emerson, Thomas E., and James A. Brown. 1992. "The Late Prehistory and Protohistory of Illinois." In Calumet and Fleur-De-Lys: French and Indian Interaction in the Midcontinent, edited by J. Walthall and T. Emerson, 77-125. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/C877T4HD.
  10. (Gibbon 2001, 390-91) Gibbon, Guy E. 2001. "Oneota." In Encyclopedia of Prehistory, Volume 6: North America, edited by Peter N. Peregrine and Melvin Ember, 389-407. New York: Springer Science+Business Media. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/QU7PNRMC.
  11. (Gibbon 2001, 390-91) Gibbon, Guy E. 2001. "Oneota." In Encyclopedia of Prehistory, Volume 6: North America, edited by Peter N. Peregrine and Melvin Ember, 389-407. New York: Springer Science+Business Media. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/QU7PNRMC.
  12. (Hart 1990, 570-71) Hart, John P. 1990. "Modeling Oneota Agricultural Production: A Cross-Cultural Evaluation." Current Anthropology 31 (5): 569-77. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/MJKQA3W5.
  13. (Pollack 2006: 312) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/6FUV3LXY.
  14. G. Gibbon, Oneota, in P. Peregrine, M. Ember and Human Relations Area Files, Inc. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Prehistory: Volume 6: North America (2001), pp. 389-407
  15. Illinois State Museum, Late Prehistoric, Economy: Settlement (2000), http://www.museum.state.il.us/muslink/nat_amer/pre/htmls/lp_settle.html
  16. G. Gibbon, Oneota, in P. Peregrine, M. Ember and Human Relations Area Files, Inc. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Prehistory: Volume 6: North America (2001), pp. 389-407
  17. G. Gibbon, Oneota, in P. Peregrine, M. Ember and Human Relations Area Files, Inc. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Prehistory: Volume 6: North America (2001), pp. 389-407
  18. G. Gibbon, Oneota, in P. Peregrine, M. Ember and Human Relations Area Files, Inc. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Prehistory: Volume 6: North America (2001), pp. 389-407
  19. G. Gibbon, Oneota, in P. Peregrine, M. Ember and Human Relations Area Files, Inc. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Prehistory: Volume 6: North America (2001), pp. 389-407
  20. G. Gibbon, Oneota, in P. Peregrine, M. Ember and Human Relations Area Files, Inc. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Prehistory: Volume 6: North America (2001), pp. 389-407
  21. (Pollack 2006: 317) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/6FUV3LXY.
  22. J. Monette, History of the discovery and settlement of the valley of the Mississippi, by the three great European powers, Spain, France, and Great Britain (1971 [c. 1846]), p. 191
  23. J. Monette, History of the discovery and settlement of the valley of the Mississippi, by the three great European powers, Spain, France, and Great Britain (1971 [c. 1846]), p. 191
  24. J. Monette, History of the discovery and settlement of the valley of the Mississippi, by the three great European powers, Spain, France, and Great Britain (1971 [c. 1846]), p. 191
  25. J. Monette, History of the discovery and settlement of the valley of the Mississippi, by the three great European powers, Spain, France, and Great Britain (1971 [c. 1846]), p. 191
  26. (Hall 1991, 18)
  27. T. Pauketat and J. Brown, The late prehistory and protohistory of Illinois, in J.A. Walthall and T.E. Emerson (eds.) Calumet & fleur-de-lys: archaeology of Indian and French contact in the midcontinent (1992), pp. 77-128
  28. (Muller 1997, 366)
  29. (Peter Peregrine 2016, personal communication)
  30. (Peter Peregrine 2016, personal communication)
  31. (Schlesier 1994, 138)
  32. (Peregrine 2016, personal communication)
  33. Illinois State Museum, Late Prehistoric, Technology: Weapons (2000), http://www.museum.state.il.us/muslink/nat_amer/pre/htmls/lp_weapons.html
  34. Illinois State Museum, Late Prehistoric, Technology: Weapons (2000), http://www.museum.state.il.us/muslink/nat_amer/pre/htmls/lp_weapons.html
  35. Illinois State Museum, Late Prehistoric, Technology: Weapons (2000), http://www.museum.state.il.us/muslink/nat_amer/pre/htmls/lp_weapons.html
  36. Illinois State Museum, Late Prehistoric, Technology: Weapons (2000), http://www.museum.state.il.us/muslink/nat_amer/pre/htmls/lp_weapons.html
  37. G. Gibbon, Oneota, in P. Peregrine, M. Ember and Human Relations Area Files, Inc. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Prehistory: Volume 6: North America (2001), p. 391
  38. P.S. Martin, G.I. Quimby and D.Collier, Indians Before Columbus (1947), p. 316
  39. Illinois State Museum, Late Prehistoric, Technology: Weapons (2000), http://www.museum.state.il.us/muslink/nat_amer/pre/htmls/lp_weapons.html
  40. G. Gibbon, Oneota, in P. Peregrine, M. Ember and Human Relations Area Files, Inc. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Prehistory: Volume 6: North America (2001), p. 391
  41. P.S. Martin, G.I. Quimby and D.Collier, Indians Before Columbus (1947), p. 316
  42. Illinois State Museum, Late Prehistoric, Technology: Weapons (2000), http://www.museum.state.il.us/muslink/nat_amer/pre/htmls/lp_weapons.html
  43. G. Gibbon, Oneota, in P. Peregrine, M. Ember and Human Relations Area Files, Inc. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Prehistory: Volume 6: North America (2001), p. 391
  44. P.S. Martin, G.I. Quimby and D.Collier, Indians Before Columbus (1947), p. 316
  45. Illinois State Museum, Late Prehistoric, Technology: Weapons (2000), http://www.museum.state.il.us/muslink/nat_amer/pre/htmls/lp_weapons.html
  46. P.S. Martin, G.I. Quimby and D.Collier, Indians Before Columbus (1947), p. 316
  47. G. Gibbon, Oneota, in P. Peregrine, M. Ember and Human Relations Area Files, Inc. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Prehistory: Volume 6: North America (2001), p. 391
  48. P.S. Martin, G.I. Quimby and D.Collier, Indians Before Columbus (1947), p. 316
  49. Illinois State Museum, Late Prehistoric, Technology: Weapons (2000), http://www.museum.state.il.us/muslink/nat_amer/pre/htmls/lp_weapons.html
  50. Illinois State Museum, Late Prehistoric, Technology: Weapons (2000), http://www.museum.state.il.us/muslink/nat_amer/pre/htmls/lp_weapons.html
  51. G. Gibbon, Oneota, in P. Peregrine, M. Ember and Human Relations Area Files, Inc. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Prehistory: Volume 6: North America (2001), p. 391
  52. P.S. Martin, G.I. Quimby and D.Collier, Indians Before Columbus (1947), p. 316
  53. Illinois State Museum, Late Prehistoric, Technology: Weapons (2000), http://www.museum.state.il.us/muslink/nat_amer/pre/htmls/lp_weapons.html
  54. G. Gibbon, Oneota, in P. Peregrine, M. Ember and Human Relations Area Files, Inc. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Prehistory: Volume 6: North America (2001), p. 391
  55. P.S. Martin, G.I. Quimby and D.Collier, Indians Before Columbus (1947), p. 316
  56. Illinois State Museum, Late Prehistoric, Technology: Weapons (2000), http://www.museum.state.il.us/muslink/nat_amer/pre/htmls/lp_weapons.html
  57. G. Gibbon, Oneota, in P. Peregrine, M. Ember and Human Relations Area Files, Inc. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Prehistory: Volume 6: North America (2001), p. 391
  58. P.S. Martin, G.I. Quimby and D.Collier, Indians Before Columbus (1947), p. 316
  59. Illinois State Museum, Late Prehistoric, Technology: Weapons (2000), http://www.museum.state.il.us/muslink/nat_amer/pre/htmls/lp_weapons.html
  60. G. Gibbon, Oneota, in P. Peregrine, M. Ember and Human Relations Area Files, Inc. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Prehistory: Volume 6: North America (2001), p. 391
  61. P.S. Martin, G.I. Quimby and D.Collier, Indians Before Columbus (1947), p. 316
  62. Illinois State Museum, Late Prehistoric, Technology: Weapons (2000), http://www.museum.state.il.us/muslink/nat_amer/pre/htmls/lp_weapons.html
  63. P.S. Martin, G.I. Quimby and D.Collier, Indians Before Columbus (1947), p. 316
  64. G. Gibbon, Oneota, in P. Peregrine, M. Ember and Human Relations Area Files, Inc. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Prehistory: Volume 6: North America (2001), p. 391
  65. P.S. Martin, G.I. Quimby and D.Collier, Indians Before Columbus (1947), p. 316
  66. Illinois State Museum, Late Prehistoric, Technology: Weapons (2000), http://www.museum.state.il.us/muslink/nat_amer/pre/htmls/lp_weapons.html
  67. (Hall 1997, 142) Hall, Robert L. 1997. An Archaeology of the Soul: North American Indian Belief and Ritual. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/8KH357GV.
  68. (Hall 1997, 142) Hall, Robert L. 1997. An Archaeology of the Soul: North American Indian Belief and Ritual. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/8KH357GV.
  69. T. Pauketat and J. Brown, The late prehistory and protohistory of Illinois, in J.A. Walthall and T.E. Emerson (eds.) Calumet & fleur-de-lys: archaeology of Indian and French contact in the midcontinent (1992), pp. 77-128
  70. T. Pauketat and J. Brown, The late prehistory and protohistory of Illinois, in J.A. Walthall and T.E. Emerson (eds.) Calumet & fleur-de-lys: archaeology of Indian and French contact in the midcontinent (1992), pp. 77-128
  71. J. Galloy, The East St. Louis Mound Center: America’s Original “Second City” (2011), in The Cahokian Fall 2011: 11-15
  72. T. Pauketat and J. Brown, The late prehistory and protohistory of Illinois, in J.A. Walthall and T.E. Emerson (eds.) Calumet & fleur-de-lys: archaeology of Indian and French contact in the midcontinent (1992), pp. 77-128
  73. J. Galloy, The East St. Louis Mound Center: America’s Original “Second City” (2011), in The Cahokian Fall 2011: 11-15
  74. T. Pauketat and J. Brown, The late prehistory and protohistory of Illinois, in J.A. Walthall and T.E. Emerson (eds.) Calumet & fleur-de-lys: archaeology of Indian and French contact in the midcontinent (1992), pp. 77-128
  75. J. Galloy, The East St. Louis Mound Center: America’s Original “Second City” (2011), in The Cahokian Fall 2011: 11-15
  76. T. Pauketat and J. Brown, The late prehistory and protohistory of Illinois, in J.A. Walthall and T.E. Emerson (eds.) Calumet & fleur-de-lys: archaeology of Indian and French contact in the midcontinent (1992), pp. 77-128
  77. J. Galloy, The East St. Louis Mound Center: America’s Original “Second City” (2011), in The Cahokian Fall 2011: 11-15
  78. (Gibbon 2001, 391) Guy E. Gibbon. 2001. 'Oneota', in Encyclopedia of Prehistory, Volume 6: North America, edited by Peter N. Peregrine and Melvin Ember, 389-407. New York: Springer Science+Business Media.
  79. (Peregrine 2001, xx) Peter Peregrine. 2001. 'Introduction', in Encyclopedia of Prehistory, Volume 6: North America, edited by Peter N. Peregrine and Melvin Ember, xix-xxii. New York: Springer Science+Business Media.
  80. (Gibbon 2001, 391) Guy E. Gibbon. 2001. 'Oneota', in Encyclopedia of Prehistory, Volume 6: North America, edited by Peter N. Peregrine and Melvin Ember, 389-407. New York: Springer Science+Business Media.
  81. (Peregrine 2001, xx) Peter Peregrine. 2001. 'Introduction', in Encyclopedia of Prehistory, Volume 6: North America, edited by Peter N. Peregrine and Melvin Ember, xix-xxii. New York: Springer Science+Business Media.
  82. (Gibbon 2001, 391) Guy E. Gibbon. 2001. 'Oneota', in Encyclopedia of Prehistory, Volume 6: North America, edited by Peter N. Peregrine and Melvin Ember, 389-407. New York: Springer Science+Business Media.
  83. (Peregrine 2001, xx) Peter Peregrine. 2001. 'Introduction', in Encyclopedia of Prehistory, Volume 6: North America, edited by Peter N. Peregrine and Melvin Ember, xix-xxii. New York: Springer Science+Business Media.
  84. (Gibbon 2001, 391) Guy E. Gibbon. 2001. 'Oneota', in Encyclopedia of Prehistory, Volume 6: North America, edited by Peter N. Peregrine and Melvin Ember, 389-407. New York: Springer Science+Business Media.
  85. (Gibbon 2001, 391) Guy E. Gibbon. 2001. 'Oneota', in Encyclopedia of Prehistory, Volume 6: North America, edited by Peter N. Peregrine and Melvin Ember, 389-407. New York: Springer Science+Business Media.
  86. (Gibbon 2001, 391) Guy E. Gibbon. 2001. 'Oneota', in Encyclopedia of Prehistory, Volume 6: North America, edited by Peter N. Peregrine and Melvin Ember, 389-407. New York: Springer Science+Business Media.
  87. (Gibbon 2001, 391) Guy E. Gibbon. 2001. 'Oneota', in Encyclopedia of Prehistory, Volume 6: North America, edited by Peter N. Peregrine and Melvin Ember, 389-407. New York: Springer Science+Business Media.
  88. (Gibbon 2001, 391) Guy E. Gibbon. 2001. 'Oneota', in Encyclopedia of Prehistory, Volume 6: North America, edited by Peter N. Peregrine and Melvin Ember, 389-407. New York: Springer Science+Business Media.
  89. (Gibbon 2001, 391) Guy E. Gibbon. 2001. 'Oneota', in Encyclopedia of Prehistory, Volume 6: North America, edited by Peter N. Peregrine and Melvin Ember, 389-407. New York: Springer Science+Business Media.
  90. http://seshatdatabank.info/databrowser/moralizing-supernatural-punishment-acknowledgements.html
  91. http://seshatdatabank.info/databrowser/moralizing-supernatural-punishment-narratives.html
  92. http://seshatdatabank.info/databrowser/moralizing-supernatural-punishment-nga_tables.html

Galloy, J. 2011. The East St. Louis Mound Center: America’s Original “Second City”. The Cahokian Fall 2011: 11-15.

Gibbon G. 2001. Oneota. In Peregrine, P., M. Ember and Human Relations Area Files, Inc. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Prehistory: Volume 6: North America pp. 389-407. New York; London: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

Hall, R.L. 1991. Cahokia Identity and Interaction Models of Cahokia Mississippian. In T. E. Emerson and R. B. Lewis (eds.) Cahokia and the Hinterlands: Middle Mississippian Cultures of the Midwest, pp. 3-34. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

Illinois State Museum. 2000. Late Prehistoric. Accessed at http://www.museum.state.il.us/muslink/nat_amer/pre/htmls/late_pre.html. Last accessed: 24th July 2015.

Pauketat, T. and J. Brown 1992. The late prehistory and protohistory of Illinois. In Walthall, J.A. and T.E. Emerson (eds.) Calumet & fleur-de-lys: archaeology of Indian and French contact in the midcontinent pp. 77-128. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Martin, P.S., G.I. Quimby and D.Collier. 1947. Indians Before Columbus. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Muller, J. 1997. Mississippian Political Economy. New York: Springer.

Schlesier, K. H. 1994. Plains Indians, A.D. 500-1500 : The Archaeological Past of Historic Groups. Norman, London: University of Oklahoma Press.