’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.
[1]
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).
[2]
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.
[3]
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.
[4]
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.
[4]
Reliable estimates for the size of the Oneota population between 1400 and 1650 CE are lacking.
[5]
[1]: (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.
[2]: (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.
[3]: (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.
[4]: (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.
[5]: (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.
| 15 S |
| Oneota |
| none |
| Oneota Classic Horizon | |
| Fisher Phase | |
| Huber Phase | |
| Bold Counselor Phase |
| Early Illinois Confederation |
| population migration |
| Succeeding: Early Illinois Confederation (us_early_illinois_confederation) [population migration] | |
| Preceding: Cahokia - Sand Prairie (us_cahokia_3) [population migration] |
| quasi-polity |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| inferred present |
| unknown |
| unknown |
| present |
| absent |
| unknown |
| unknown |
| unknown |
| unknown |
| unknown |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| present |
| absent |
| absent | 1400 CE 1500 CE |
| present | 1500 CE 1640 CE |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| inferred present |
| absent |
| present |
| absent |
| unknown |
| inferred present |
| unknown |
| inferred absent |
| inferred absent |
| unknown |
| inferred absent |
| inferred absent |
| Year Range | Oneota (us_oneota) was in: |
|---|---|
| (1400 CE 1639 CE) | Cahokia |
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.
[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
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.
[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
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.
[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
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.
[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
[1]
from 1400 Iseminger 2010EXTERNAL_INLINE_LINK: http://seshat.info/File:Iseminger2010.21.jpg
[1]: 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
"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" [1] .
[1]: Illinois State Museum, Late Prehistoric, Identity (2000), http://www.museum.state.il.us/muslink/nat_amer/pre/htmls/lp_id.html
Hall refers to ’new knowledge of the archaeological identity of the Illinois that suggests that the Illinois had a much shallower history of occupation in Illinois than previously believed and were more likely indigenous to a location in or near the Lake Erie basin than that of Lake Michigan’. [1] Emerson and Brown write: ’What is clear ... is that the historic groups encountered by the French in Illinois were themselves newcomers, with little connection to the prehistoric inhabitants’. [2] The Huber Oneota phase is ’now believed to have died out by the 1630s’. [3]
[1]: (Hall 1997, 173) Robert L. Hall. 1997. An Archaeology of the Soul: North American Indian Belief and Ritual. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
[2]: (Emerson and Brown 1992, 113) Thomas E. Emerson 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 Press.
[3]: (Ehrhardt 2010, 264) Kathleen L. Ehrhardt. 2010. ’Problems and Progress in Protohistoric Period Archaeology since Calumet and Fleur-de-Lys.’ Illinois Archaeology 22 (1): 256-87.
"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" [1] .
[1]: Illinois State Museum, Late Prehistoric, Identity (2000), http://www.museum.state.il.us/muslink/nat_amer/pre/htmls/lp_id.html
Inhabitants. Morton Village was the largest Oneota settlement in the region [1] , and it may have been occupied by 200 people [2] . However, it was eventually abandoned in favour of smaller sites [1] .
[1]: 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
[2]: Illinois State Museum, Late Prehistoric, Economy: Settlement (2000), http://www.museum.state.il.us/muslink/nat_amer/pre/htmls/lp_settle.html
in squared kilometers. Oneota was around 60km long by 100km wide. [1]
[1]: (Pollack 2006: 312) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/6FUV3LXY.
levels.
[1]
1. Larger sitesMorton, 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 campsFor hunting and gathering.
[1]: 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
levels. AD: coded as range to allow for the presence of war chiefs.
1. War chiefs?
2. Individual warriors.
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"
[1]
.
[1]: 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
Might have had administrative center at Slack Farm, which was centrally located. [1]
[1]: (Pollack 2006: 317) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/6FUV3LXY.
Following polity: "The statute-book, the judiciary, and courts of law with their prisons and instruments of punishment, were unknown" [1] .
[1]: 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
Following polity: "The statute-book, the judiciary, and courts of law with their prisons and instruments of punishment, were unknown" [1] .
[1]: 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
Following polity: "The statute-book, the judiciary, and courts of law with their prisons and instruments of punishment, were unknown" [1] .
[1]: 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
Following polity: "The statute-book, the judiciary, and courts of law with their prisons and instruments of punishment, were unknown" [1] .
[1]: 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
Not mentioned in the literature, probably not necessary in this geographic region. Inference approved by Peter Peregrine.
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." [1] " 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." [2]
[1]: (Muller 1997, 366)
[2]: (Peter Peregrine 2016, personal communication)
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." [1] "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." [2]
[1]: (Schlesier 1994, 138)
[2]: (Peregrine 2016, personal communication)
The sites of Sleeth and C.W. Cooper were fortified [1] . Fortification type is not specified, but, given that Cahokia and East St Louis had been fortified with wooden palisades [2] , it seems reasonable to infer that this same type of fortification was used for Oneota sites as well.
[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]: J. Galloy, The East St. Louis Mound Center: America’s Original “Second City” (2011), in The Cahokian Fall 2011: 11-15
The sites of Sleeth and C.W. Cooper were located on "steep, defensible bluff crests" [1] .
[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
Apparently the sites of Sleeth and C.W. Cooper were "fortified" [1] , but fortification type is not specified. Given that Cahokia and East St Louis had been fortified with wooden palisades [2] , 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.
[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]: J. Galloy, The East St. Louis Mound Center: America’s Original “Second City” (2011), in The Cahokian Fall 2011: 11-15
Apparently the sites of Sleeth and C.W. Cooper were "fortified" [1] , but fortification type is not specified. Given that Cahokia and East St Louis had been fortified with wooden palisades [2] , 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.
[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]: J. Galloy, The East St. Louis Mound Center: America’s Original “Second City” (2011), in The Cahokian Fall 2011: 11-15
Apparently the sites of Sleeth and C.W. Cooper were "fortified" [1] , but fortification type is not specified. Given that Cahokia and East St Louis had been fortified with wooden palisades [2] , 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.
[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]: J. Galloy, The East St. Louis Mound Center: America’s Original “Second City” (2011), in The Cahokian Fall 2011: 11-15
Not mentioned by sources; it seems most Oneota technology derived from wood and stone [1] .
[1]: Illinois State Museum, Late Prehistoric, Technology: Weapons (2000), http://www.museum.state.il.us/muslink/nat_amer/pre/htmls/lp_weapons.html
Not mentioned by sources; it seems most Oneota technology derived from wood and stone [1] .
[1]: Illinois State Museum, Late Prehistoric, Technology: Weapons (2000), http://www.museum.state.il.us/muslink/nat_amer/pre/htmls/lp_weapons.html
Not mentioned by sources; it seems most Oneota technology derived from wood and stone [1] .
[1]: Illinois State Museum, Late Prehistoric, Technology: Weapons (2000), http://www.museum.state.il.us/muslink/nat_amer/pre/htmls/lp_weapons.html
Not mentioned by sources; it seems most Oneota technology derived from wood and stone [1] .
[1]: Illinois State Museum, Late Prehistoric, Technology: Weapons (2000), http://www.museum.state.il.us/muslink/nat_amer/pre/htmls/lp_weapons.html
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" [1] , though a few weapon types can be cautiously inferred, such as bow and arrows and spears [2] , and, at a later date, firearms [3] .
[1]: 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
[2]: P.S. Martin, G.I. Quimby and D.Collier, Indians Before Columbus (1947), p. 316
[3]: Illinois State Museum, Late Prehistoric, Technology: Weapons (2000), http://www.museum.state.il.us/muslink/nat_amer/pre/htmls/lp_weapons.html
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" [1] , though a few weapon types can be cautiously inferred, such as bow and arrows and spears [2] , and, at a later date, firearms [3] .
[1]: 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
[2]: P.S. Martin, G.I. Quimby and D.Collier, Indians Before Columbus (1947), p. 316
[3]: Illinois State Museum, Late Prehistoric, Technology: Weapons (2000), http://www.museum.state.il.us/muslink/nat_amer/pre/htmls/lp_weapons.html
The Oneota "probably acquired guns through trade with Native people already in contact with Europeans" [1] .
[1]: Illinois State Museum, Late Prehistoric, Technology: Weapons (2000), http://www.museum.state.il.us/muslink/nat_amer/pre/htmls/lp_weapons.html
The Oneota "probably acquired guns through trade with Native people already in contact with Europeans" [1] .
[1]: Illinois State Museum, Late Prehistoric, Technology: Weapons (2000), http://www.museum.state.il.us/muslink/nat_amer/pre/htmls/lp_weapons.html
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" [1] , though a few weapon types can be cautiously inferred, such as bow and arrows and spears [2] , and, at a later date, firearms [3] .
[1]: 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
[2]: P.S. Martin, G.I. Quimby and D.Collier, Indians Before Columbus (1947), p. 316
[3]: Illinois State Museum, Late Prehistoric, Technology: Weapons (2000), http://www.museum.state.il.us/muslink/nat_amer/pre/htmls/lp_weapons.html
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" [1] , though a few weapon types can be cautiously inferred, such as bow and arrows and spears [2] , and, at a later date, firearms [3] .
[1]: 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
[2]: P.S. Martin, G.I. Quimby and D.Collier, Indians Before Columbus (1947), p. 316
[3]: Illinois State Museum, Late Prehistoric, Technology: Weapons (2000), http://www.museum.state.il.us/muslink/nat_amer/pre/htmls/lp_weapons.html
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" [1] , though a few weapon types can be cautiously inferred, such as bow and arrows and spears [2] , and, at a later date, firearms [3] .
[1]: 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
[2]: P.S. Martin, G.I. Quimby and D.Collier, Indians Before Columbus (1947), p. 316
[3]: Illinois State Museum, Late Prehistoric, Technology: Weapons (2000), http://www.museum.state.il.us/muslink/nat_amer/pre/htmls/lp_weapons.html
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" [1] , though a few weapon types can be cautiously inferred, such as bow and arrows and spears [2] , and, at a later date, firearms [3] .
[1]: 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
[2]: P.S. Martin, G.I. Quimby and D.Collier, Indians Before Columbus (1947), p. 316
[3]: Illinois State Museum, Late Prehistoric, Technology: Weapons (2000), http://www.museum.state.il.us/muslink/nat_amer/pre/htmls/lp_weapons.html
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" [1] , though a few weapon types can be cautiously inferred, such as bow and arrows and spears [2] , and, at a later date, firearms [3] .
[1]: 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
[2]: P.S. Martin, G.I. Quimby and D.Collier, Indians Before Columbus (1947), p. 316
[3]: Illinois State Museum, Late Prehistoric, Technology: Weapons (2000), http://www.museum.state.il.us/muslink/nat_amer/pre/htmls/lp_weapons.html
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" [1] , though a few weapon types can be cautiously inferred, such as bow and arrows and spears [2] , and, at a later date, firearms [3] .
[1]: 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
[2]: P.S. Martin, G.I. Quimby and D.Collier, Indians Before Columbus (1947), p. 316
[3]: Illinois State Museum, Late Prehistoric, Technology: Weapons (2000), http://www.museum.state.il.us/muslink/nat_amer/pre/htmls/lp_weapons.html
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" [1] , though a few weapon types can be cautiously inferred, such as bow and arrows and spears [2] , and, at a later date, firearms [3] .
[1]: 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
[2]: P.S. Martin, G.I. Quimby and D.Collier, Indians Before Columbus (1947), p. 316
[3]: Illinois State Museum, Late Prehistoric, Technology: Weapons (2000), http://www.museum.state.il.us/muslink/nat_amer/pre/htmls/lp_weapons.html
The Oneota are known solely from their material remains [1] , and things made out of wood do not tend to survive in the archaeological record.
[1]: (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.
Inferred from lack of shields in previous and later polities.
Inferred from lack of limb protection in previous and later polities.
The Oneota are known solely from their material remains [1] , and leather and cloth do not tend to survive in the archaeological record.
[1]: (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.
Inferred from lack of helmets in previous and later polities.
Inferred from lack of breastplates in previous and later polities.
