Home Region:  Mississippi Basin (North America)

Cahokia - Sand Prairie

EQ 2020  us_cahokia_3 / USMisSd

The Sand Prairie phase is the name given by archaeologists to the period between around 1275 and 1400 CE in the American Bottom region, the portion of the floodplain of the Mississippi now located in southwestern Illinois. [1] [2] This period is considered the final phase of the Mississippian culture. [3] The chronology is not universally agreed upon, however: the dates given by different scholars for the Sand Prairie phase vary. [2]
Population and political organization
The Sand Prairie phase was one of decreasing social complexity and depopulation at the site of Cahokia and on the surrounding Middle Mississippi floodplain. [4] Already by 1150 CE, archaeological evidence indicates that the political and ceremonial ties binding the site of Cahokia and its elite to its hinterland were weakening, and by 1350, there are very few signs of culturally Mississippian populations left in the American Bottom. [5] During the Sand Prairie phase, Mississippians seem to have abandoned the old monumental sites and dispersed out of the river valley into the uplands. [6] The evidence for political hierarchies and inherited status distinctions is much weaker than for previous periods, and community activity may have revolved around funerary rites at rural cemeteries. [7]
The population of the site of Cahokia and the surrounding Mississippi floodplain reached its lowest point for several centuries during this period. [8] [9] Concrete population estimates are difficult to find, but archaeologist George Milner has estimated a Sand Prairie-period population density of between one and seven people per square kilometre for a stretch of the Mississippi floodplain just south of Cahokia. [8]

[1]: (Kelly et al. 1984, 130) Kelly, John E., Steven J. Ozuk, Douglas K. Jackson, Dale L. McElrath, Fred A. Finney, and Duane Esarey. 1984. "Emergent Mississippian Period." In American Bottom Archaeology: A Summary of the FAI-270 Project Contribution to the Culture History of the Mississippi River Valley, edited by Charles L. Bareis and James W. Porter, 128-57. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/2UP556X5.

[2]: (Hall 2000, 13) Hall, Robert L. 2000. "Cahokia Identity and Interaction Models of Cahokia Mississippian." In Cahokia and the Hinterlands: Middle Mississippian Cultures of the Midwest, edited by Thomas E. Emerson and R. Barry Lewis, 3-34. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/WNR98AWH.

[3]: (Milner 1986, 234) Milner, George R. 1986. "Mississippian Period Population Density in a Segment of the Central Mississippi River Valley." American Antiquity 51 (2): 227-38. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/P35FE59S.

[4]: (Emerson 1997, 6, 53) Emerson, Thomas E. 1997. Cahokia and the Archaeology of Power. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/QH7AMQ74.

[5]: (Pauketat and Bernard 2004, 38-39) Pauketat, Timothy, and Nancy Stone Bernard. 2004. Cahokia Mounds. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/MH4W8AV5.

[6]: (Emerson 1997, 53) Emerson, Thomas E. 1997. Cahokia and the Archaeology of Power. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/QH7AMQ74.

[7]: (Emerson 1997, 180) Emerson, Thomas E. 1997. Cahokia and the Archaeology of Power. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/QH7AMQ74.

[8]: (Milner 1986, 227) Milner, George R. 1986. "Mississippian Period Population Density in a Segment of the Central Mississippi River Valley." American Antiquity 51 (2): 227-38. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/P35FE59S.

[9]: (Pauketat and Lopinot 1997, 120) Pauketat, Timothy R., and Neal H. Lopinot. 1997. "Cahokian Population Dynamics." In Cahokia: Domination and Ideology in the Mississippian World, edited by Timothy R. Pauketat and Thomas E. Emerson, 103-23. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

General Variables
Identity and Location
Utm Zone:
15 S  
Original Name:
Cahokia - Sand Prairie  
Alternative Name:
City Mounds  
Cahokia Mounds  
American Bottom  
Sand Prairie Phase  
Temporal Bounds
Duration:
[1,275 CE ➜ 1,400 CE]  
Political and Cultural Relations
Suprapolity Relations:
none  
Supracultural Entity:
Middle Mississippian  
Succeeding Entity:
Oneota  
Scale of Supracultural Interaction:
[125,000 to 150,000] km2  
Relationship to Preceding Entity:
continuity  
Preceding Entity:
Cahokia - Moorehead  
Degree of Centralization:
loose  
Language
Linguistic Family:
NO_VALUE_ON_WIKI  
Language:
NO_VALUE_ON_WIKI  
Religion
Social Complexity Variables
Social Scale
Population of the Largest Settlement:
[5,000 to 7,000] people  
Polity Territory:
[500 to 1,000] km2  
Polity Population:
[12,000 to 15,000] people  
Hierarchical Complexity
Settlement Hierarchy:
3  
Religious Level:
3  
Military Level:
2  
Administrative Level:
3  
Professions
Professional Priesthood:
present  
Bureaucracy Characteristics
Specialized Government Building:
inferred absent  
Full Time Bureaucrat:
inferred absent  
Law
Professional Lawyer:
absent  
Judge:
unknown  
Formal Legal Code:
unknown  
Court:
unknown  
Specialized Buildings: polity owned
Market:
absent  
Irrigation System:
absent  
Food Storage Site:
inferred present  
Drinking Water Supply System:
absent  
Transport Infrastructure
Road:
present  
Port:
absent  
Canal:
absent  
Bridge:
absent  
Special-purpose Sites
Mines or Quarry:
present  
Information / Writing System
Written Record:
absent  
Script:
absent  
Phonetic Alphabetic Writing:
absent  
Information / Kinds of Written Documents
Scientific Literature:
absent  
Sacred Text:
absent  
Religious Literature:
absent  
Practical Literature:
absent  
Philosophy:
absent  
Lists Tables and Classification:
absent  
History:
absent  
Fiction:
absent  
Calendar:
absent  
Information / Money
Token:
unknown  
Precious Metal:
absent  
Paper Currency:
absent  
Indigenous Coin:
absent  
Foreign Coin:
absent  
Article:
present  
Information / Postal System
Postal Station:
absent  
General Postal Service:
absent  
Information / Measurement System
Warfare Variables (Military Technologies)
Fortifications
  Wooden Palisade:
present  
  Stone Walls Non Mortared:
absent  
  Stone Walls Mortared:
absent  
  Settlements in a Defensive Position:
absent  
  Modern Fortification:
absent  
  Moat:
absent  
  Fortified Camp:
absent  
  Earth Rampart:
absent  
  Ditch:
absent  
  Complex Fortification:
absent  
  Long Wall:
absent  
Military use of Metals
  Steel:
absent  
  Iron:
absent  
  Bronze:
absent  
Projectiles
  Tension Siege Engine:
absent  
  Sling Siege Engine:
absent  
  Sling:
absent  
  Self Bow:
present  
  Javelin:
absent  
  Handheld Firearm:
absent  
  Gunpowder Siege Artillery:
absent  
  Crossbow:
absent  
  Composite Bow:
absent  
  Atlatl:
absent  
Handheld weapons
  War Club:
present  
  Sword:
absent  
  Spear:
absent  
  Polearm:
absent  
  Dagger:
absent  
  Battle Axe:
present  
Animals used in warfare
  Horse:
absent  
  Elephant:
absent  
  Donkey:
absent  
  Camel:
absent  
Armor
  Wood Bark Etc:
absent  
  Shield:
absent  
  Scaled Armor:
absent  
  Plate Armor:
absent  
  Limb Protection:
absent  
  Leather Cloth:
absent  
  Laminar Armor:
absent  
  Helmet:
absent  
  Chainmail:
absent  
  Breastplate:
absent  
Naval technology
  Specialized Military Vessel:
absent  
  Small Vessels Canoes Etc:
present  
  Merchant Ships Pressed Into Service:
absent  
Religion Tolerance Nothing coded yet.
Human Sacrifice Nothing coded yet.
Crisis Consequences Nothing coded yet.
Power Transitions Nothing coded yet.

NGA Settlements:

Year Range Cahokia - Sand Prairie (us_cahokia_3) was in:
 (1275 CE 1399 CE)   Cahokia
Home NGA: Cahokia

General Variables
Temporal Bounds
Duration:
[1,275 CE ➜ 1,400 CE]


"The people that were a part of Cahokia made a conscious decision not to continue after ca. A.D. 1250." [1] "We know that by the mid-300s Cahokia was basically abandoned." [2]

[1]: (Peregrine/Kelly 2014, 24)

[2]: (Iseminger 2010, 148)


Political and Cultural Relations

Supracultural Entity:
Middle Mississippian


Scale of Supracultural Interaction:
[125,000 to 150,000] km2

km squared. Cultural diffusion. Number refers to the estimated area of the Middle Mississippi region (taken from the map).



Preceding Entity:
Cahokia - Moorehead

Degree of Centralization:
loose

"The people that were a part of Cahokia made a conscious decision not to continue after ca. A.D. 1250." [1] "We know that by the mid-300s Cahokia was basically abandoned." [2]

[1]: (Peregrine/Kelly 2014, 24)

[2]: (Iseminger 2010, 148)


Language

Language:
NO_VALUE_ON_WIKI

"Cahokia was made up of different ethnic groups, perhaps even different linguistic groups." [1] However Cahokia did not exist in this period: "The people that were a part of Cahokia made a conscious decision not to continue after ca. A.D. 1250." [2] "We know that by the mid-300s Cahokia was basically abandoned." [3]

[1]: (Peregrine/Emerson 2014, 13)

[2]: (Peregrine/Kelly 2014, 24)

[3]: (Iseminger 2010, 148)


Religion

Social Complexity Variables
Social Scale
Population of the Largest Settlement:
[5,000 to 7,000] people

Inhabitants. Cahokia.
Milner estimates that by the Sand Prairie phase the Cahokia (i.e. city) population had fallen about 66% 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]

[1]: (Milner 2006, 124)

[2]: (Pauketat 2014, 15)


Polity Territory:
[500 to 1,000] km2

in squared kilometers
"We know that by the mid-300s Cahokia was basically abandoned." [1]
"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." [2]
"The Cahokia heartland is about 2000 to 3000 square kilometers" [3]
"“central administrative complex” (CAG) and was roughly 14 square kilometers inarea." [4]

[1]: (Iseminger 2010, 148)

[2]: (Peregrine/Pauketat 2014, 15)

[3]: (Peregrine/Emerson 2014, 13)

[4]: (Emerson 2014, 12)


Polity Population:
[12,000 to 15,000] people

People.
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 Sand Prairie phase had fallen about 75% from the Stirling peak. [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)


Hierarchical Complexity
Settlement Hierarchy:
3

levels.
Down to 3 levels of settlement.
1. Hamlets (5 houses at most)
2. Hamlet integration site (single mound site).
3. Multi-mound centers (3 of these left in this period)


Religious Level:
3

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 prom places other than Cahokia." [5]
"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." [6]

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." [6]
"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]: (Kelly 2014, 22)



Administrative Level:
3

levels.
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 prom places other than Cahokia." [4]

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." [5]

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]: (Kelly 2014, 22)


Professions
Professional Priesthood:
present

"Those who planned and organized the construction of the Cahokian cosmographical landscape can be interpreted as being religious specialists." [1]

[1]: (Pauketat 2014, 28)


Bureaucracy Characteristics
Specialized Government Building:
absent

’The break with the complex, rural Stirling phase [c. 1050-1150 CE] bureaucratic structure was total and complete - in an archaeological instance all the specialized facilities and elites disappeared’. [1] Moreover, ’Current data suggest that this was a period of minimal activity at the site of Cahokia. Mantles may have been added to some of the mounds, but there is little evidence of elite activity at the site.’ [2] The Sand Prairie phase was one of disintegration and decline at Cahokia. Emerson describes the results of archaeological excavations of Sand Prairie sites in the American Bottom region: ’Sand Prairie phase sites showed no evidence for political activities of either a community-centered or elite nature; instead, the focus was on community-centered mortuary ceremonialism’. [3] The overall pattern is one of ’social segmentation and community autonomy’. [4]

[1]: (Emerson 1997, 260) Thomas E. Emerson. 1997. Cahokia and the Archaeology of Power. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.

[2]: (Emerson 1997, 53) Thomas E. Emerson. 1997. Cahokia and the Archaeology of Power. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.

[3]: (Emerson 1997, 148) Thomas E. Emerson. 1997. Cahokia and the Archaeology of Power. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.

[4]: (Milner 1983, 298 in Emerson 1997, 53) Thomas E. Emerson. 1997. Cahokia and the Archaeology of Power. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.


Full Time Bureaucrat:
absent

’The break with the complex, rural Stirling phase [c. 1050-1150 CE] bureaucratic structure was total and complete - in an archaeological instance all the specialized facilities and elites disappeared’. [1] Moreover, ’Current data suggest that this was a period of minimal activity at the site of Cahokia. Mantles may have been added to some of the mounds, but there is little evidence of elite activity at the site.’ [2] The Sand Prairie phase was one of disintegration and decline at Cahokia. Emerson describes the results of archaeological excavations of Sand Prairie sites in the American Bottom region: ’Sand Prairie phase sites showed no evidence for political activities of either a community-centered or elite nature; instead, the focus was on community-centered mortuary ceremonialism’. [3] The overall pattern is one of ’social segmentation and community autonomy’. [4]

[1]: (Emerson 1997, 260) Thomas E. Emerson. 1997. Cahokia and the Archaeology of Power. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.

[2]: (Emerson 1997, 53) Thomas E. Emerson. 1997. Cahokia and the Archaeology of Power. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.

[3]: (Emerson 1997, 148) Thomas E. Emerson. 1997. Cahokia and the Archaeology of Power. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.

[4]: (Milner 1983, 298 in Emerson 1997, 53) Thomas E. Emerson. 1997. Cahokia and the Archaeology of Power. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.


Law


Formal Legal Code:
unknown

"formal adjudication structures were also present, but it is not clear what these might have been." [1]

[1]: (Kelly 2014, 22)



Specialized Buildings: polity owned

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)


Irrigation System:
absent

"There is evidence of maize pollen in swales, and some drainage and irrigation facilities." [1] However, there were "no irrigation systems evident at Cahokia." [1]

[1]: (Peregrine/Trubitt 2014, 20)


Food Storage Site:
present

"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)



Transport Infrastructure

[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.


Special-purpose Sites
Mines or Quarry:
present

"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)


Information / Writing System
Written Record:
absent

There is no written record for Cahokia. [1]

[1]: (Peregrine 2014, 32)


"There are no inscriptions, images, or even unambiguous houses or burials of political leaders." [1]

[1]: (Peregrine 2014, 31)



Information / Kinds of Written Documents









Information / Money

Shell beads may have been tokens of exchange.






Article:
present

Exchange-system economy. [1]

[1]: (Milner 2006, 138)


Information / Postal System


Information / Measurement System

Warfare Variables (Military Technologies)
Fortifications
Wooden Palisade:
present

"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]

[1]: (Kelly 2014, 22)

[2]: (Peregrine/Pauketat 2014, 16)




Settlements in a Defensive Position:
absent

Settlements primarily located for access to water and arable land. [1]

[1]: (Peregrine 2014, personal communication)









Projectiles


Checked by Peter Peregrine.


Self Bow:
present

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)


Javelin:
absent

Checked by Peter Peregrine.





Composite Bow:
absent

Checked by Peter Peregrine.



Handheld weapons
War Club:
present

Evidence of victims "struck by arrows and clubs" as inter-group conflicts increased during "last half of the first millennium" [1] Clubs [2]

[1]: (Milner 2006, 174)

[2]: (Iseminger 2010, 78)


Checked by Peter Peregrine.


Handheld thrusting spears absent.


Polearm:
absent

Checked by Peter Peregrine.


Checked by Peter Peregrine.


Battle Axe:
present

"heavy stone axe or mace" [1] 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.

[1]: (Iseminger 2010, 78)


Armor
Wood Bark Etc:
absent

No evidence for wooden shields. [1]

[1]: (Peregrine 2014, personal communication)





Limb Protection:
absent

Checked by Peter Peregrine.


Leather Cloth:
absent

No evidence for the use of leather as armor. [1]

[1]: (Peregrine 2014, personal communication)



Checked by Peter Peregrine.



Breastplate:
absent

Checked by Peter Peregrine.


Naval technology

Small Vessels Canoes Etc:
present

"Canoes identified so far are small, unable to carry high volumes of commodities." [1]

[1]: (Trubitt 2014, 18)




Human Sacrifice Data
Human Sacrifice is the deliberate and ritualized killing of a person to please or placate supernatural entities (including gods, spirits, and ancestors) or gain other supernatural benefits.
- Nothing coded yet.
- Nothing coded yet.
- Nothing coded yet.