Generations of archaeologists have been amazed that the geographical location of Cahokia had "almost no inhabitants’ until 1000 CE.
[1]
Suddenly there was an influx of people of more than one group
[2]
- the "population surges by at least an order of magnitude within decades"
[3]
- bringing with them to this heretofore vacant spot a new social and settlement structure and an obsession with moundbuilding.
[4]
Bill Romaine (2009) has noted, based on lunar alignments used at Cahokia, there were cultural similarities to a Toltec site in Arkansas.
[5]
The period of 1000-1150 CE is thus one of great change and demographic expansion. The previous settlement pattern of nucleated clusters of houses "was abandoned in favor of widely scattered single-family farmsteads"
[6]
between which were structures "with special ritual and social significance."
[7]
Whilst most Cahokians were self-sufficient granaries were also present.
[1]
There were likely at least 50,000 people supported within the the 2000 Km2 region of ’greater Cahokia’
[8]
of which about 15,000 lived in an area called the ’central administrative complex’.
[8]
Many archaeologists are skeptical whether there was a ruler king at Cahokia
[9]
the polity more likely led by a "a priesthood or a group of ruler-priests"
[10]
within a social strata that included included chiefs, sub-chiefs, elders, priests, and other religious functionaries."
[9]
The Cahokians were capable of feats of organization that included the famous Monks Mound and other mounds which required moving 1.1 million m3 or earth and a 15m high wooden palisade that ran for nearly 3km.
[11]
[1]: (Peregrine/Trubitt 2014, 20) P Peregrine. S Ortman. E Rupley. 2014. Social Complexity at Cahokia. SFI WORKING PAPER: 2014-03-004. Sante Fe Institute.
[2]: (Peregrine/Iseminger 2014, 27) P Peregrine. S Ortman. E Rupley. 2014. Social Complexity at Cahokia. SFI WORKING PAPER: 2014-03-004. Sante Fe Institute.
[3]: (Peregrine 2014) P Peregrine. S Ortman. E Rupley. 2014. Social Complexity at Cahokia. SFI WORKING PAPER: 2014-03-004. Sante Fe Institute.
[4]: (Milner 2006, 168) G R Milner. 2006. The Cahokia Chiefdom: The Archaeology of a Mississippian Society. University Press of Florida. Gainesville.
[5]: (Peregrine/Pauketat 2014, 28) P Peregrine. S Ortman. E Rupley. 2014. Social Complexity at Cahokia. SFI WORKING PAPER: 2014-03-004. Sante Fe Institute.
[6]: (Milner 2006, 100) G R Milner. 2006. The Cahokia Chiefdom: The Archaeology of a Mississippian Society. University Press of Florida. Gainesville.
[7]: (Milner 2006, 101) G R Milner. 2006. The Cahokia Chiefdom: The Archaeology of a Mississippian Society. University Press of Florida. Gainesville.
[8]: (Pauketat 2014, 15) P Peregrine. S Ortman. E Rupley. 2014. Social Complexity at Cahokia. SFI WORKING PAPER: 2014-03-004. Sante Fe Institute.
[9]: (Iseminger 2014, 26) W R Iseminger. 2010. Cahokia Mounds: America’s First City. The History Press. Charleston.
[10]: (Peregrine 2014, 31) P Peregrine. S Ortman. E Rupley. 2014. Social Complexity at Cahokia. SFI WORKING PAPER: 2014-03-004. Sante Fe Institute.
[11]: (Milner 2006, 148) G R Milner. 2006. The Cahokia Chiefdom: The Archaeology of a Mississippian Society. University Press of Florida. Gainesville.
| 15 S |
| Cahokia - Lohman-Stirling |
| City Mounds | |
| Cahokia Mounds | |
| American Bottom |
| alliance with [---] |
| Middle Mississippian |
| Cahokia - Moorehead |
| [125,000 to 150,000] km2 |
| continuity |
| Preceding: Cahokia - Emergent Mississippian II (us_emergent_mississippian_2) [continuity] |
| loose |
| [10,000 to 15,000] people |
| [2,000 to 3,000] km2 |
| [40,000 to 50,000] people |
| inferred present |
| inferred absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| present |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| unknown |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| present |
| present |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| present |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| present |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| inferred present |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| Year Range | Cahokia - Lohman-Stirling (us_cahokia_1) was in: |
|---|---|
| (1050 CE 1199 CE) | Cahokia |
Note: during the Merrell-Edlehardt the name of the supracultural entity is known as Emergent Mississippian.
km squared. Cultural diffusion. Number refers to the estimated area of the Middle Mississippi region (taken from the map).
Inhabitants. Cahokia.
10,000-15,000 is a widely agreed upon number
Milner estimates that by the Morehead phase the Cahokia (i.e. city) population had fallen about 40% from the Lohmann peak,
[1]
which was:
"At its height (ca. A.D. 1100) the central administrative complex at Cahokia contained at least 15,000 residents though this high population was very short lived (probably less than 100 years)."
[2]
"“central administrative complex” (CAG) and was roughly 14 square kilometers in
area."
[3]
"“greater Cahokia” a region extending outward from Cahokia roughly 30 kilometers"
[3]
[1]: (Milner 2006, 124)
[2]: (Pauketat 2014, 15)
[3]: (Emerson 2014, 12)
in squared kilometers
"Eric Rupley, however, calculated the catchment needed to feed 15,000 people would be 625 square kilometers, which is well within the possible land area available in the American Bottom."
[1]
"The Cahokia heartland is about 2000 to 3000 square kilometers"
[2]
[1]: (Peregrine/Pauketat 2014, 15)
[2]: (Peregrine/Emerson 2014, 13)
People.
40,000-50,000 is a widely agreed upon number
Milner estimates the American Bottom population ("population figures for Cahokia were doubled to approximate the inhabitants of all mound centers and added to valley-wide estimates for small settlements") in the Moorehead phase had fallen about 25% from the Stirling total.
[1]
Which was:
"It is likely that at least 50,000 people lived within the 2000 square kilometer “greater Cahokia” region at its height (ca. A.D. 1100)."
[2]
"George Milner estimates that there were roughly 8000 people in the Cahokia central administrative complex and up to 50,000 in the greater Cahokia region after AD 1050. Before that the neither had large populations—perhaps less than 1000 people in the entire greater Cahokia region." However: "With new excavations at East St. Louis the estimate for the central administrative complex needs to be increased to something like 15,000."
[3]
[1]: (Milner 2006, 124)
[2]: (Pauketat 2014, 15)
[3]: (Peregrine/Pauketat 2014, 15)
levels.
4 levels widely-agreed upon.
"There was a four-tier hierarchy of sites, and these sites were integrated in terms of the organization of ritual space and in terms of material culture traits."
[1]
"There were at least four in terms of settlement, but it is not clear how or even if they were “stacked” organizationally. Smaller mound centers may have been independent but not “separate” from the larger Cahokian polity, perhaps reflecting a form of “complicated factionalism” in a network of elite controlling families."
[2]
5 level alternative hypothesied as
[3]
:
1. Hamlets (family head, 4 or 5 houses. 5-10 km away. On agricultural soils. Some argue seasonal. Could also be permanent.)
2. Hamlet integration site (single mound site)
3. Inner village ritual site
4. Multi-mound centers
5. Cahokia
Settlement
1. "First is the central administrative complex, containing three large mound and plaza complexes (Cahokia, East St.Louis, and St. Louis)."
[4]
2. "The second is an area of regular interaction which might be called “greater Cahokia.” This area contains 8-12 mound a plaza complexes with their own internal divisions."
[4]
3. "Third is a larger regional scale, including, for example, sites of the Langford Tradition and the Spoon River Focus. We do not have a good understanding of how sites in the larger region tie together. Each region seems to be separated by buffer zones. Perhaps each region reflects a single polity."
[4]
4. "During most of the Mississippian phases, communities outside of Cahokia were small and moundless, referred to as homesteads, farmsteads or hamlets. However, a number of villages of small to moderate size were scattered throughout the area, some with one or two mounds, which were probably local centers with special functions."
[5]
Cahokia 120 mounds; East St. Louis 45 mounds; St. Louis 26 mounds.
[6]
[1]: (Peregrine 2014, 31)
[2]: (Kelly 2014, 22)
[3]: (Peregrine 2015, Personal Communication)
[4]: (Peregrine/Emerson 2014, 13)
[5]: (Iseminger 2010, 30)
[6]: (Iseminger 2010, 30-31) Iseminger, W R. 2010. Cahokia Mounds: America’s First City. The History Press. Charleston.
levels.
"At Cahokia there may have been no difference between the religious and political hierarchy. They were interlocked, impossible to disentangle."
[1]
1. Chief / Priest
"Members of the highest social strata probably included chiefs, sub-chiefs, elders, priests, and other religious functionaries."
[2]
"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."
[3]
"The central administrative complex represents the core of the Cahokian polity. The location of ridgetop mounds within this area may equate with kin groupings or other administrative units. East St. Louis, being newer, may have been a higher status community of isolated elites."
[4]
At Mound 72 "Analysis of the skeletal remains shows that certain burial groups were of higher status than others and that some may have come from places other than Cahokia."
[5]
New analysis of the skeletons in the burial suggest they were of a man and a woman. "’Now we realize we don’t have a system in which males are these dominant figures and females are playing bit parts,’ Emerson said. He explained that this interpretation of the beaded burial is more in line with what is known about the fertility and agricultural symbolism found in the rest of the ancient city."
[6]
"Ridge top mounds may also reflect ritual performances or “tableaus” associated with these mound and plaza complexes. In this control of ritual activity there may have also have been specialists in maintaining and performing specific rituals at various community levels."
[7]
2. Sub-chief / Sub-priest?
"Members of the highest social strata probably included chiefs, sub-chiefs, elders, priests, and other religious functionaries."
[2]
"The answers provided by the working group seem to point to Cahokia being an urban settlement that was the center of a regional government, but the picture is not entirely clear."
[3]
"Regional political integration appears to have been an essentially ritual one; that is, the site hierarchy that is present appears to be more of a hierarchy of ritual spaces than of political jurisdictions."
[3]
"Cahokia was also the center of a regional government of some kind, at least for a short period of time."
[3]
"mound complexes may have been organized around sodalities rather than around kin groups. Perhaps these sodalities were secret societies"
[2]
"Mound and plaza groups may represent corporate (perhaps kin-based) political and
ritual complexes, each of which would have been maintained by their own administrativespecialists or generalized leader."
[7]
"priests, and other religious functionaries."
[2]
3. Elder / Religious functionary
"Members of the highest social strata probably included chiefs, sub-chiefs, elders, priests, and other religious functionaries."
[2]
kin group leaders
[2]
"lower-level religious functionaries"
[2]
[1]: (Peregrine/Kelly 2014, 23)
[2]: (Iseminger 2014, 26)
[3]: (Peregrine 2014, 31)
[4]: (Peregrine/Emerson 2014, 14)
[5]: (Iseminger 2010, 82)
[6]: http://www.archaeology.org/news/4708-160805-cahokia-beaded-burial
[7]: (Kelly 2014, 22)
levels.
1. King ?
Hypothesised level. Between 1050-1150 CE there may have been a king. However, a majority of scholars may disagree.
1. Chief / Priest
"Members of the highest social strata probably included chiefs, sub-chiefs, elders, priests, and other religious functionaries."
[1]
"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."
[2]
"The central administrative complex represents the core of the Cahokian polity. The location of ridgetop mounds within this area may equate with kin groupings or other administrative units. East St. Louis, being newer, may have been a higher status community of isolated elites."
[3]
At Mound 72 "Analysis of the skeletal remains shows that certain burial groups were of higher status than others and that some may have come from places other than Cahokia."
[4]
New analysis of the skeletons in the burial suggest they were of a man and a woman. "’Now we realize we don’t have a system in which males are these dominant figures and females are playing bit parts,’ Emerson said. He explained that this interpretation of the beaded burial is more in line with what is known about the fertility and agricultural symbolism found in the rest of the ancient city."
[5]
2. Sub-chief / Sub-priest?
"Members of the highest social strata probably included chiefs, sub-chiefs, elders, priests, and other religious functionaries."
[1]
"The answers provided by the working group seem to point to Cahokia being an urban settlement that was the center of a regional government, but the picture is not entirely clear."
[2]
"Regional political integration appears to have been an essentially ritual one; that is, the site hierarchy that is present appears to be more of a hierarchy of ritual spaces than of political jurisdictions."
[2]
"Cahokia was also the center of a regional government of some kind, at least for a short period of time."
[2]
"mound complexes may have been organized around sodalities rather than around kin groups. Perhaps these sodalities were secret societies"
[1]
"Mound and plaza groups may represent corporate (perhaps kin-based) political and
ritual complexes, each of which would have been maintained by their own administrativespecialists or generalized leader."
[6]
3. Elder / Religious functionary
"Members of the highest social strata probably included chiefs, sub-chiefs, elders, priests, and other religious functionaries."
[1]
kin group leaders
[1]
[1]: (Iseminger 2014, 26)
[2]: (Peregrine 2014, 31)
[3]: (Peregrine/Emerson 2014, 14)
[4]: (Iseminger 2010, 82)
[5]: http://www.archaeology.org/news/4708-160805-cahokia-beaded-burial
[6]: (Kelly 2014, 22)
"East St. Louis started out as a residential group, but evolved into an administrative/storage like complex." [1] The identification of any Mississippian-period structures in the Cahokia region as specialized government buildings is far from clear, but the sites of activity within the ’central administrative complex’ [2] may have combined administrative and ceremonial functions. Peter Peregrine discussed the evidence in an email to us: ’There are a few larger buildings that could have been "meeting rooms", but were those ceremonial or administrative, or just big houses (they have fire pits)? Was there a difference? There were also the henges and secondary plazas. I guess I would argue that there are multi-use administrative "places" throughout the Cahokia, but maybe not formal buildings as such.’ [3]
[1]: (Peregrine/Emerson 2014, 14)
[2]: (Peregrine/Emerson 2014, 14) Peregrine P, Ortman S, Rupley, E. 2014. Social Complexity at Cahokia. SFI WORKING PAPER: 2014-03-004. Sante Fe Institute.
[3]: Peter Peregrine, pers. comm., February 2018.
There is no written record for Cahokia [1] so there probably were no full-time administrators in a formal state bureauracy. If administrators did exist they may have used a non-written method of record-keeping (e.g. perhaps something similar to knots in string known from early Cuzco) but there is no evidence for this in the archaeological record. Activity within the "central administrative complex" [2] may have largely been of religious significance and perhaps communal or elite storage rather than used as sites explicitly for the administration or processing of taxes and management of records (for which we have no evidence). One might hypothesise that the new "social roles linked to community defense, organization of labor, and communal storage of maize in secure central places" [3] of the preceding Emergent Mississippian were developed into something more formal and institutional in this period but this does not necessarily mean a state bureaucracy with full-time officials responsible to a king. Whatever institutions were in place at Cahokia to manage resources, they did not require a centralized institution for record-keeping with an extensive hierarchy of full-time officials.
[1]: (Peregrine 2014, 32) Peregrine P, Ortman S, Rupley, E. 2014. Social Complexity at Cahokia. SFI WORKING PAPER: 2014-03-004. Sante Fe Institute.
[2]: (Peregrine/Emerson 2014, 14) Peregrine P, Ortman S, Rupley, E. 2014. Social Complexity at Cahokia. SFI WORKING PAPER: 2014-03-004. Sante Fe Institute.
[3]: (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.
There is no evidence for markets, "nothing that would suggest an integrated economy of any kind." [1] "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." [2]
[1]: (Peregrine 2014, 31)
[2]: (Trubitt 2014, 18)
"Most of the people at Cahokia were self-sufficient, but granaries are present in Stirling/Moorehead Cahokia." [1] "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." [2]
[1]: (Peregrine/Trubitt 2014, 20)
[2]: (Trubitt 2014, 18)
[1] "Roadways link external centers to Cahokia providing a physical connection between them." [2] "LiDAR helped to identify a causeway 25m wide from Monks Mound to Rattlesnake Mound." [3] "trail networks also are important, and some of the historic east-west ones cross near Cahokia." [4] "Emerald, for example, was out on the prairie, and may have been a pilgrimage site, as roadways connected it to Cahokia and to the Southeast." [5]
[1]: (Peregrine/Pauketat 2014, 28)
[2]: (Pauketat 2014, 28)
[3]: (Peregrine/Kelly 2014, 23)
[4]: (Peregrine/Trubitt 2014, 21)
[5]: (Peregrine/Emerson 2014, 13)
"There was geographically widespread trade between Cahokia and other communities (and between those other communities themselves) especially along the Mississippi. However, this trade appears to have been low volume, with only small amounts being exchanged at any given time. Canoes identified so far are small, unable to carry high volumes of commodities. There is no evidence for centralized control of this exchange, except perhaps for high-status goods and exceptional ritual objects." [1] [1]
[1]: (Trubitt 2014, 18)
There were no bridges in prehistoric North America.
"Large chert cores were roughed out at quarries, not at valley sites." [1] 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.
[1]: (Milner 2006, 82)
No direct evidence for messengers but may be inferred present due to the scale of the integration and hierarchy.
"The main mound and plaza region of Cahokia was palisaded after ca. A.D. 1200, also indicating a high level of violence." [1] "After about A.D. 1100 there is an increase in numbers of palisaded sites (they were present earlier at Toltec)." [2] The center of Cahokia was palisaded "late in the 1100s." This wall was rebuilt at least four times. [3] "Ceramic data and radiocarbon dates indicate that construction of all four stockades occurred during the Late Stirling and Moorehead phases and most likely over the one-hundred-year period from about AD 1175 to 1275." [4]
[1]: (Kelly 2014, 22)
[2]: (Peregrine/Pauketat 2014, 16)
[3]: (Iseminger 2010, 137)
[4]: (Iseminger 2010, 138)
Palisade 2.8km in length, 15m in height according to Iseminger et al. [1] Whilst the mounds were easily built over hundreds of years by a small number of workers, working few hours in a year, "partial walls were useless" and so arguably amounted to the more impressive challenge. [1] In terms of time and resources the first palisade was the biggest challenge because subsequent palisades could initially incorporate what was left standing from the earlier one. [1] Conservative estimate, 291,000 hours spent building each palisade. "1,000 workers could have erected a formidable wall in two to three months" [1] "If Cahokia’s residents could afford to move more slowly, taking nine months to complete the job, then 220 to 340 laborers were needed." [1]
[1]: (Milner 2006, 148)
Palisade 2.8km in length, 15m in height according to Iseminger et al. [1] Whilst the mounds were easily built over hundreds of years by a small number of workers, working few hours in a year, "partial walls were useless" and so arguably amounted to the more impressive challenge. [1] In terms of time and resources the first palisade was the biggest challenge because subsequent palisades could initially incorporate what was left standing from the earlier one. [1] Conservative estimate, 291,000 hours spent building each palisade. "1,000 workers could have erected a formidable wall in two to three months" [1] "If Cahokia’s residents could afford to move more slowly, taking nine months to complete the job, then 220 to 340 laborers were needed." [1]
[1]: (Milner 2006, 148)
Arrow points from at least c600 CE. [1] "Projectile points thought to be from arrows were common by the Patrick phase, having been introduced earlier in Late Woodland times. The timing of their appearance coincides roughly with the earliest widespread use of the bow-and-arrow throughout eastern North America." [2] "bow and arrow introduced sometime around AD 400" [3]
[1]: (Peregrine/Pauketat 2014, 16)
[2]: (Milner 2006, 83)
[3]: (Iseminger 2010, 26)