Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
4Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Willey and Sabloff 2

Willey and Sabloff 2

Ratings: (0)|Views: 82|Likes:
Published by Anth5334

More info:

Categories:Types, School Work
Published by: Anth5334 on Dec 02, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

02/25/2014

pdf

text

original

 
258
THE MODERN PERIOD, (1960-1992)
of the goals of the understanding of cultural process with thoseounderstanding cultural history. Most American archaeologists seenoconflict in this, and their practices of the past thirty years reveal such partial, covert, or even subconscious accommodations to the tenetsof the New Archaeology. In this way, the cultural focus of the New Archae.ological revolt of the 1960s SOon entered and came to compose
the
mainstream of American archaeology by the end of the 1970s.During this time we have seen a tremendous amount of archaeological research over all parts of the Americas. Indeed, the volume ofwork over this period
is
probably greater than all of that from previous times.Thus, the examples described in this section are necessarily selective,butwe believe they are representative in showing a continuity of "older"(culture-historical) research interests combined with "newer" (proces·sual) concerns that clearly emerged in the 1970s. We have tried tospanWidely over subject matter, geographical areas, and chronological pen'ods.Let us begin with the earliest chronological bracket, the Pleistocene presence of humans in the New World. Although it is still a matter for debate (Haynes, 1967; Irwin-Williams, ed., 1968b; MacNeish, 1971;Bryan, 1973,1978; Dincauze, 1984; Adovasio et al., 1983; Guidon, 1986;Dillehay, 1989; Meltzer, 1989; Dillehey and Meltzer, eds., 1991,amongmany others), immigrants from northeast Asia may have entered the New World about 15,000to 20,000 years ago or perhaps even earlier;butIt was not until some time later _ 
ca.
10,000 to 8,000
B.C. _ 
that the Sitesand artifacts ofthe early American inhabitants began to take on themorereadily recognizable patterns and forms which archaeologists havetra-ditionally labeled as the
Paleo-Indian stage
57 
Some of the best example~of behavlOral and functional reconstructions of Paleo-Indian soctet)have been prOvided through the analyses of animal kill sites on theNorthAmencan Great Plains. In the Olsen-Chubbuck Site (Wheat, 1967)ll1eastern Colorado, some 200 bison skeletons were found, along WIthdiagnostic late PaleO-Indian projectile points and knives, in the confutesof a nOw-filled narrow arroyo. The animals had been driven into thearroyo, where they had toppled over and trampled on each other. Thosein the eastern, and deeper, end of the ravine had been speared
by
thehunters and prevented from escaping. Other hunters had presU1Il~bl~dnven the arumals into the natural ditch-trap. Since most of the bisoskeletons Werefound facing south the archaeologists reasoned thatthey~ad been pursued from the north; this ded uction allowed the furthe~me-pomt reconstruction that the Wind on the day of the hunt had beefrom the south, giving the animals no scent of their impending destrOY;:s. Another detail, from the osteological study of the animals, was
that 
e age of the bison calves was but a few days, thus placing the date
0MAINSTREAM ACCOMMODATIONS
259
~
a
bbuck site. (From University of 
. . trap at Disen-
IU
 Bison bone remains as excavated m ravme
ColoradoMuseum, Joe Ben Wheat photo)
 
260 
THE MODERN PERIOD, (1960-1992)
the kill in late Mayor early June. Some of the Olsen-Chubbuck animalshad been taken out of the arroyo and completely and systematically butchered; others, left in the arroyo, had been only partially cut up. Flintknlves for butchering were present at the site, as were numerous scrap-ers, the latter allowing the inference that hide preparation had beencarried out at the site. From the ethnographical knowledge that a Plains Native American could complete the butchering of a bison in an hour,and from estimates of the amount of meat taken from the
kill,
theexcavator, J.B.Wheat, reasoned that 100people might have done the jobin half a day. A minimum of 150 persons could have made use of themeat by eating it fresh for a month and drying the remainder.This reconstruction of an ancient activity carried within it clues for further questions. For instance, the diversity in the style of the projectile points found in this particular kill brings up matters of social or socio-economic organization. Does such diversity indicate the coalescence of a special task force, made up of representatives from several Paleo-In-dian groups?58In another Paleo-Indian study, E. N. Wilmsen (1970) attempted a broader reconstruction of culture and society than that seen in the behavioral reconstruction of a single
kill
site activity locus. Wilmsen took as his sample a series of artifact collections from eight North AmericanPaleo-Indian sites. Diagnostic fluted projectile points enabled him tomake his initial selection of these sites and to assign them to period andcultural position, but Wilmsen was interested in going beyond this tointensive attribute analyses of all the artifacts (and debris) from the sites.He particularly emphasized such attributes as flake angles, edge angles,and artifact dimensions, which were susceptible to quantitative scalerankings. Quantitative treatment, he points out, allows for measurementof variation (and, in effect, measurement of cultural change). His artifacttypes were based on these descriptive quantitative-qualitative data, onfunctional inferences, and geographic-chronologic-associational infor-
mation,
The processes of artifact manufacture were analyzed with refer-ence to raw materials, technological variation, and functional variatIOn.Armed with this impressive analysis of his data, Wilmsen then turnedto the question of site activities. Site variation, he states, is structured by
interacting
subsystems of the society and culture.
It
reflects differentcultural respo~es to divergent ecological opportunities. the size andsOCl~1composmon of the groups involved, and the duration and pen-odicitv of ~ccupation (involVing task activities, degree of mobility for these .aCtivlties, and seasonability of resources). From this study of vananon amo~g his eight sites, he came up with an initial two-foldclass~catlOn: bmlted activity locations" and "multiple activity loca-lions. Among the former were the Blackwater Draw, Homer, Wilham-
MAINSTREAM ACCOMMODATIONS
261
son, and Shoop sites; and to these we could add the Olsen-Chubbuck location just discussed. Wilmsen's prime example of a multiple activitylocation is the Linderuneier site in Colorado (see Roberts, 1933b, 1936).Excavation data from Linderuneier indicate that it was occupiedseasonally over a very long period of years. Activity loci were deter-mined from artifact and debris findings. A kill site was defined by the presence of the remains of nine young bison associated with only a fewartifacts, mostly projectile points. Other spots were localized by concen-trations of flint-chipping and bone-working debris, indicating manufac-tories. Many tools and weapons were made of locally obtained stone,others had been chipped out of exotic materials - but even most of thesehad been made at Linderuneier. Wilmsen's interpretation of the Linden-meier multiple activity location, derived from all these and other data,is that it was not only a multipurpose site but a multiband site as well.Occupied seasonally, it provided a place where various bands gatheredtogether for hunting cooperation, exchange of diverse raw materials,technological information, and general socializing.With this view of early Native American life as a much morecomplex structured one than that built around the single activity of biggame hunting, Wilmsen then ventures to discuss the processes of sitelocalization, the resolving choices involving living space and resources,segmentation into smaller specialized activity groups, the convergenceof these into small family bands, and the convergence of these intomultiband stations, as at Linderuneier. He speculates about culturalchange in these circumstances. A group enters anew environment. Here,itwould apply its old techniculture, which would, in time, be modifiedinthe new environment; and, a prolonged development would producea technology distinctive from the parent culture. Technological. func-tional, social, and ecological processes were structurally related
In
thePaleo-Indian cultural system, as indeed they are in any cultural system.Wilmsen's view is a fully systemic one: technological procedures of thePaleo-mdians were directed toward a production of useful tools.Changes in resource patterns elicited changes in functional responses.Patterns of sociocultural interaction were adapted to ecologTcal oppor-tunities and task-performance requirements. .Do these studies by Wheat and Wihnsen reflect a new attitude, asWehave claimed? For the Olsen-Chubbuck analysis, one rrught argueth. . f th bi herd and the huntersat Inferences about the behavior 
0
e ison .could all have been made within the comrnon-sensical scope of tradi-
ti
aI.
il inf ences have been madeon archaeology _ and itis true that
simi
ar er . bid d h ssary information foe are. Nevertheless, Wheat has proVl e t e nece , . .dPalIndian behavior Wilmsen,un erstanding larger patterns of eo-in
I
d. Ar h eolocical approach, at-a Optlllg a more comprehensive New c a
O'
 
-1""'1
262
THE MODERN PERIOD,
(1960-1992)tempts to expand this goal. Has he accompli~hed something differen:from what a traditionally oriented archaeologIst nught have acrue;ed,We believe that he has, for the following reason: Wilmsen's emphasis
0:
variability in the archaeological record allows hIS data to be related
t
ongoing ethnographical and ethnoarchaeological studies of hunting
and
gathering bands; because of this, he is in a better position than tradl!Io,na1archaeologists to coordinate archaeological and
ethnoarchaeological
data toward the testing of ideas about the adaptations of bands to
their 
environments. The older typological emphasis simply would not allowsuch kinds of studies. h
I
For further examples of attitudinal changes in American arc
aeoi-
ogy, let us go on to a later developmental stage, that of the beginrunJ'of New World agriculture, As early as the 1950s, following
Macl'Jeis s
(1950, 1958)59work in the Mexican Tamaulipas caves, it had becomeapparent to many American archaeologists that the origins of NewWorld agriculture should be conceived of as "a process rather than ~event.'; Stratigraphy in the dry preserving cave dusts had demonstrat~that early cultivation of plants had proceeded only very gradually ov"the millennia-had been indeed a very "slow-footed revolutIOn(Willey and Phillips, 1958: p. 145). 'But this important new irISightwa;only the beginning; the next question was how it all happened.
~:;h
have noted above, Kent Flannery (1968a) approached this quesno lsh'. f MacNels'a systems-theory model, drawmg upon new data rom .''. hi
studies m
(1967)further fIeldwork 
in
the Tehuacan V~IIey and sown 1986),Oaxaca (Flannery, Marcus, and KOWalewski, 1981; Flannery, ed. in
I·
ti
began
I
To review Flannery's model very briefly, plant cu trva on
O
C
or eventhe central and south Mexican highlands as early as 500
B,. .
I·
Till
I
I'· f h
tin
g collectIngear ier. s ear y se ective plantmg was a part
0
a un subSistence system, which utilized a number of wild plants. A very. ., b
ut
5000
Be,
 prumbve maize appears in the Tehuacan sequence at a
0
t
'. 74)M~
 possibly a true WIldancestor of 
Zea mays
(Mangelsdorf, 19 ,likely, a very early mutant representing an evolutionary link be~:teosmte
(Zea mexzcana)
and domesticated maize (Beadle, 1977). d-latter hypothesis is correct it would imply that the wild teosinte
see" dmes-
 bearmg grass, through harvesting and selection, had become a
a
ticate. For a long while, however, this had little effect on the system;,food procurement; wild piant-eollecting still dominated the scene. ~
at about 3000
B.C.,
there are indications in the archaeological record
0
I
eseen- popu ation mcreases, changes in settlement location, and a mor 
ly
l'f . ted eatary
I
estyle, all of which suggest that maize and other aSSOClaul' , .
I
ffeels onc bvars were begInning to have notable social and cullura e , bthe inhabitants of these regions. These changes were accompanI:n~spectacular unprovements in the maize itself, with the plant beco
MAINSTREAM ACCOMMODATIONS
.~;ficant thresholdB 2000 to 1500
B,C.,
a SI6'-'a more valuable food source. y
mai ould be harvested per 
O
kl amso maize c . f had been crossed: 200 to 25
I
ogr . dentary comrnuruty
0
. ffici
t to sustam a se
id
P
lanted hectare a ratio su icien I . gthe circle ofeVI ence,
' all
And c osm .the size found in the Tehuacan V ey. itu ted on good farming soils,
' t
villages,
st
aat this time the first permanen rm in the valley. , became the dominant settlement fo d
it
seemed very satisfac-When this hypothesis was promulgate
I .'
I
how things happened,. t Itexpams dtory - and it still does, up to a porn., lations between humans anin the sense of diagramming the artlC~
I
courses of both. What is still plants and the interrelated developmen akethe step from plant-collect-,
hy 
Why rna
did
otoccur laCkingis an explanation
0
w,
h this crucial step
1
ningto plant-eultivation? It isnow clear t at nd gatherers selected theh hunters a forth at that point in the sequence were
I
tin".
ca.
5000
B.C.,
but e. It
doorside
p an
<Y
d to devote
first
wild seeds for desu ory the decision was rna
e
h aalong
(ca
2000-1500
B.C.)
where
I
lIn'
g of extensive fields. Suc' . . dpan hdbeenSubstantial labor to the deanng an once such labor a thdecision would have been crucial, because'pursUits ofwild plant-ga d·' al economICdiverted from the more tra ItlOn
263
Maize cobsfrom
the
Tehuacan
Valley, Mexico. This series
illustrates an evolutionary sequencein the development of maize, from
ca.
5000 
B.C.
to
A.D.
1500 
(right).(From
R.
S.
MncNeish,
Roberf 
S.
 Peabody Foundation for  Archileology)

Activity (4)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
Ahnjonatas added this note
thanks
Ahnjonatas liked this
1 hundred reads
bhbatson liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->