Prostitution in Ancient Cahokia: Roles, Evidence, and Historical Context

What was Cahokia and why does prostitution come up in discussions?

Cahokia was the largest and most influential pre-Columbian Native American city north of Mexico, flourishing near modern-day St. Louis between approximately 1050 and 1350 CE. Discussions about “prostitution” in Cahokia often stem from misinterpretations of archaeological finds related to women’s roles, artistic depictions, historical analogies with other complex societies, and sensationalism. There is no direct archaeological evidence (like texts or unambiguous artifacts) explicitly documenting commercial sex work as understood today. The concept surfaces primarily through scholarly debate about social stratification, ritual practices involving women, and the potential existence of marginalized groups within this highly complex urban center.

What evidence exists about sexuality or gender roles in Cahokia?

Archaeological evidence provides clues about gender roles and social structure, but direct evidence of sexual practices or commercial prostitution is elusive and subject to interpretation.

• Figurines & Iconography: Pottery figurines sometimes depict nude or partially nude female figures, occasionally with exaggerated sexual characteristics. These are often interpreted as fertility symbols, representations of Earth Mother deities (like the widespread “Old Woman Who Never Dies” figure), or ritual objects rather than depictions of sex workers.
• Burial Practices: Cahokia’s elite were buried with lavish goods. Some mass burials, particularly the famous Mound 72, contain groups of young women interred near powerful men. While initially speculated to be sacrificed retainers or concubines, interpretations range from ritual attendants related to fertility cults to victims of political sacrifice with no direct link to prostitution.
• Artistic Motifs: Shell engravings (like those on marine shell cups) sometimes feature imagery interpreted as fertility-related or potentially depicting sexual acts within a ritual context, not necessarily secular commerce.
• Structural Evidence: No distinct “red-light” districts or brothel structures have been conclusively identified. Housing varied greatly, reflecting social status.

Could female figurines represent prostitutes?

It’s highly unlikely based on current scholarship. These figurines are more consistently linked to widespread Mississippian religious beliefs centered on agricultural fertility, life-death-rebirth cycles, and female supernatural powers. Their presence in domestic and ritual contexts suggests veneration, not commodification. Attributing them to prostitution imposes a modern, Western perspective onto complex Indigenous belief systems.

What about the young women in Mound 72?

The burial of over 50 young women near a high-status male in Mound 72 is complex and debated. They were likely sacrificed, possibly as part of a major leader’s funeral rites. Interpretations include:

• Ritual Retainers: Attendants chosen for their symbolic purity or connection to fertility deities, sacrificed to accompany the leader in the afterlife.
• Political Sacrifice: Individuals from subjugated communities offered as a display of power.
• Clan/Family Members: Though less likely given the numbers and selection criteria.

While their status was subordinate to the elite male, labeling them “prostitutes” lacks supporting evidence and oversimplifies their probable ritual significance.

What roles did women likely play in Cahokian society?

Women in Cahokia likely held diverse and significant roles, though social stratification was pronounced.

1. Food Production & Craft: Women were almost certainly primary agriculturalists (cultivating corn, beans, squash) and responsible for crucial tasks like pottery making, food preparation, and textile production.
2. Ritual & Healing: Women likely played key roles as healers, herbalists, and ritual practitioners, potentially linked to fertility and agricultural rites. Some may have held positions as priestesses.
3. Clan & Household Management: Matrilineal kinship was likely important in many Native American societies; women managed households and passed on lineage.
4. Elite Roles: High-status women existed, evidenced by rich burials with symbolic goods like copper, shell beads, and rare minerals. Their power may have derived from kinship, ritual knowledge, or political marriage alliances.

While exploitation certainly existed (as seen in sacrificial burials), the concept of widespread, secular “prostitution” as a primary occupation for women isn’t well-supported by the evidence compared to these other vital functions.

Is there any evidence for transactional sex or marginal groups?

While definitive proof is absent, it’s plausible that forms of transactional sex existed, as they do in most complex urban societies.

• Urban Dynamics: Cahokia’s large population (10,000-20,000+ at peak), diverse inhabitants (locals, immigrants, traders, pilgrims), social inequalities, and presence of non-elites create conditions where such practices *could* emerge.
• Lack of Direct Evidence: Archaeologists have found no artifacts (like specific tokens, brothel signage, or textual records – Cahokians had no writing) or architectural features conclusively linked to commercial sex.
• Ritual vs. Secular: Any sexual activity documented in art or inferred from context appears deeply embedded in ritual and cosmology, not a separate commercial enterprise.
• Captives & Slaves: Cahokia likely had captives or slaves acquired through warfare or trade. Their exploitation could have included sexual coercion, but this differs significantly from the concept of “prostitution” involving negotiation or commerce.

Could “temple prostitutes” have existed?

The concept of “sacred” or “temple prostitution” is highly controversial in archaeology globally and lacks support at Cahokia.

1. Problematic Term: The term itself is often a Western projection onto ancient societies, conflating ritual roles involving sexuality with commercial sex.
2. Ritual Specialists: Women involved in fertility rituals at Cahokia were likely respected ritual specialists or priestesses whose roles were sacred, not commercial. Their activities were part of communal religious practice, not individual transactional encounters.
3. No Temple Structures: Cahokia had large ceremonial plazas, mounds (platform and burial), and potentially council houses or elite residences used ritually, but no identified “temples” housing such figures in the Mesopotamian or Classical sense.

Why is the idea of Cahokian prostitutes persistent?

Several factors contribute to the persistence of this idea despite weak evidence:

1. Historical Analogy: Drawing parallels with ancient civilizations like Rome, Greece, or Mesopotamia where prostitution *is* documented, assuming Cahokia must have had similar institutions.
2. Misinterpretation of Figurines/Burials: Seeing nude female figurines or groups of buried women and jumping to the most sensationalistic modern explanation (prostitution) rather than exploring complex Indigenous ritual and cosmological meanings.
3. Popular Culture & Sensationalism: Books, documentaries, and media often emphasize titillating or controversial aspects like “human sacrifice” or “sex cults” to attract audiences, sometimes blurring scholarly nuance.
4. Projection of Modern Concepts: Imposing contemporary Western understandings of gender, sexuality, and commerce onto a very different culture with its own belief systems.
5. Focus on Elite Power: The undeniable evidence of social inequality and elite power (like Mound 72) leads some to assume the exploitation must have included widespread sexual servitude.

How do archaeologists approach this topic responsibly?

Responsible archaeologists use careful methodology and critical theory to avoid harmful stereotypes:

• Evidence First: They start with the physical evidence (artifacts, features, burials, settlement patterns) and build interpretations cautiously, avoiding assumptions.
• Context is Crucial: Figurines found in a household shrine versus a trash midden suggest different uses. Burial goods indicate status and role.
• Ethnographic Analogy (Cautiously): They look to historically recorded Native American cultures (especially descendant Dhegihan Siouan groups like the Osage, Omaha, Ponca, Quapaw) for potential insights into social organization and belief systems, recognizing these are not direct parallels.
• Engaging with Indigenous Perspectives: Collaboration with descendant communities is increasingly vital to understand the cultural meaning of symbols, rituals, and social roles, moving beyond colonial interpretations.
• Avoiding Anachronism: They rigorously avoid imposing modern terms (“prostitute,” “slave,” “king”) without careful qualification and definition within the specific Cahokian context.
• Acknowledging Uncertainty: They clearly state when interpretations are speculative or based on limited evidence.

What are the broader implications of this discussion?

Understanding (or misunderstanding) gender and sexuality in Cahokia shapes our view of Native American history and complex societies.

• Complexity of Indigenous Societies: Debates highlight that Cahokia was a sophisticated, stratified urban center facing challenges like inequality and social tensions common to large settlements, challenging simplistic “noble savage” stereotypes.
• Agency vs. Exploitation: It forces us to grapple with the realities of power dynamics, potential exploitation (especially of captives or lower-status individuals), while also recognizing the significant agency, ritual power, and economic roles many women held.
• Ritual Centrality: It underscores how profoundly intertwined sexuality, fertility, and the human life cycle were with Cahokia’s religion and cosmology, contrasting sharply with secular modern views.
• Dangers of Projection: The persistence of the “prostitution” narrative serves as a cautionary tale about how easily modern biases can distort our understanding of the past, particularly regarding gender and marginalized groups.
• Importance of Ethical Interpretation: It emphasizes the responsibility of archaeologists and historians to present evidence accurately and sensitively, avoiding sensationalism that can perpetuate harmful stereotypes about Indigenous peoples.