Model of a highly integrated Cahokia chiefdom.
Interpreting a settlement hierarchy is not as straightforward as it might seem, however. Variation in mound center size, for example, could be the result of either length of occupation or the sociopolitical importance of a site. Moreover, data are limited on the contemporaneity of second line mound-towns, nodal settlements, hamlets and farmsteads. That is, collapsing sites with different occupational histories into one hierarchy also collapses the socio-political relations between sites.
| Thus, we do not know whether or not this settlement hierarchy represents the socio-political function of a Cahokia polity encompassing the whole American Bottom. If it does, then Cahokia surely represents the premier site of a very complex and tightly integrated chiefdom. |
|
|
|
|
The following pages summarize what the archaeological record tells us about how people lived in these different settlement types. Except for the elites and perhaps some living in Cahokia, household activities were probably similar regardless of where the family lived. What changed from farmstead to hamlet to village to mound-town to the Cahokia mound-center were the type and extent of socio-political and religious activities. This is where our archaeological lens becomes rather dirty. Creative answers to the basic question about the level of socio-political integration and control exercised by Cahokia require evidence from a variety of sources.
