South American Archaeology: Environment, Subsistence, and Culture

Environment, Subsistence, and Culture

The rise of complex hunting and gathering cultures on the NWC during the late prehistoric and early historic periods
1. NWC of North America not the only case of complex hunters and gatherers
  1. Ancient sedentary hunters and gatherers with institutionalized social differentiation recognized in other coastal areas with rich inter-tidal and marine resources
2. Early anthropologists, such as Boas and Kroeber recognized the association between rich resources and character of NWC cultures
  1. Especially salmon
3. Later anthropologists, 1960s-1970s thought that maybe the focus on environmental rather than human factors in the rise of complex cultures was an incomplete picture, questioned the idea of straight cause and effect relationship between abundant salmon and sedentary, complex societies
  1. Studied the oral traditions of the people and found many examples of remembered periods of famine
    1. Considered that rich salmon runs might characterize the region as a whole but that within the region there were very some places that had lots of salmon and some areas that had less
      1. Found that people in areas of less favorable salmon resources were more likely to join into social relationships such as feasting circles which would have resulted in more equal distribution of the salmon
  2. Also found that the character of terrestrial resources, not just marine resources was also an important environmental factor; specifically they found that if one looks at the cultures of the NWC from Washington north to Alaska, the further north one goes the more focused the economy is on marine resources even though marine resources don't necessarily change; found that what was changing were the terrestrial resources, ie. hunting opportunities
4. Besides the role of salmon, people have looked at the role of food storage and salmon (and maybe other resources as well) and the rise of complex hunting and gathering cultures
  1. Salmon are in many ways a difficult resource to depend on
    1. Enormous runs (in Columbia River system historically 8-25 million annually, now less than 1 million), but short duration (days or weeks)
    2. Fairly predictable places and times, but some variation each year; variation would be most pronounced in rivers and streams farther up the river system than in major rivers
    3. So, if you were dependant on salmon it was important to be in the right place at the right time
    4. Even if you were it was not an easy task to catch and process salmon
      1. Very elaborate fishing technologies
        
        Salmon as well as other important species
        
        NWC halibut, herring, and candle fish
      2. But, even more critical was being able to process salmon, clean and dry before they spoiled
        
        Required organization of labor
5. NWC marine emphasis started about 6,000 years ago
  1. Although the archaeological record for the NWC is slim before about 6,000 years ago, it does not appear that there was as much resource specialization as after 6,000 years ago
    1. Evidence is diverse tool and faunal assemblages
      1. After about 6,000 years ago the archaeological record shows more and more types of fishing tools than hunting tools and faunal assemblages tend to be dominated by marine and riverine resources
  2. Production of surplus and storage (resource intensification) began about 4,000 years ago
    1. Wooden box containers, including houses!
  3. By about 2,000 years ago the social differential described for historic times seems to be present
    1. At Ozette found evidence that different shell beds were exploited by different households
    2. Defensive features constructed at sites
    3. Very large houses, arranged in villages and towns
6. Nature of natural resources important to development of complex cultures but social processes important also
  1. Maybe related to organization of labor
    1. Household was basic unit of production (and consumption), 100 people per house not uncommon
    2. Slave labor was important
    3. Households, especially farther north, held rights to resource gathering areas as well as certain ritual practices, ie. only member of certain households could perform certain songs, dances
    4. A household's subsistence focused on those resources that were owned by the household, but households participated in trading and other forms of exchange, such as potlatching, that helped redistribute resources
      1. Wealth was valued, but not hoarding, ie. people aspired to achieve wealth so they could give it away; social prestige came from generosity
      2. Inheritance occurred between members of household
    5. Household produced enough for their own needs, for trade, and also for the accumulation (even of temporary) of wealth for an emerging elite, ie., permanent, inherited, social differentiation, classes
      1. In household economies size of household related to nature of tasks to be done
        
        General assumption, if all of the houses are large they reflect household level production with each house having more or less the same status as other houses, although all of the individuals in each house may not be equal. If there are big houses and little houses, the interpretation is some houses represent more wealth, but not necessarily more people than other houses.
        
        Lineal tasks, one person can do them one step after another
        
        Simultaneous tasks, too many things need to happen at once for one person to do them all
        
        Requires specialization and thus interdependence of household members
The archaeological study of social complexity in the Northwest
1. Ozette house study by Steve Samuels
  1. Interested in relationships between socio-economic activities and patterns of deposition in the archaeological record
  2. Ethnographic record of socially complex NWC groups says houses have
    1. Defined living and working areas
    2. Space assigned on the basis of social rank
    3. All houses pretty dirty by modern, western standards, but houses of commoners especially dirty
      1. Doesn't mean lower class people are lazy or more inclined toward uncleanliness, upper class had more slaves to perform work for them
    4. Chief's house in center of front row along shore
      1. Lower class folks to the side and rear
    5. Houses had large central hearths for ceremonial occasions
    6. Also had small individual family cooking hearths
    7. Highest ranking family occupied the right, rear corner facing out toward the doorway
      1. Other important families in the other corners
      2. Lower ranked families along walls between corners
    8. Household activities included
      1. Food preparation and consumption
      2. Tool manufacturing and maintenance
      3. Weaving and sewing areas
      4. Sleeping
  3. Samuels asked, do archaeological houses have characteristics that reflect these historic and ethnographic observations?
    1. Looked at three houses
      1. 55,000 artifacts
      2. 12,000 house parts
      3. 1,000,000 faunal items
    2. Artifact and feature distribution
      1. Hearths between not under roof beams
      2. Hearths 2m in diameter, big!
      3. Two rows of hearths along long axis of houses
        
        2-4m from benches along walls
      4. Only one house had a large central "ceremonial" hearth
      5. Houses divided into two "bays", interpreted as "family" areas
        
        At least one hearth per bay
        
        Each bay had bench zone
        
        Each bay had an open central zone
    3. Samuels plotted midden elements by area by zone
      1. Midden elements included
        
        Artifacts
        
        Structural remains and post molds
        
        Shellfish, mammal, and fish remains
    4. Results
      1. Composite of each house showed house one had equal proportions of artifactual and faunal remains
        
        Of the shellfish remains half were large pieces and half were small pieces
      2. Second and third houses had three times as much faunal material as artifactual material and most of the faunal material was very small fragments
      3. Interpreted this to mean second and third houses had more garbage, less cleaning activity than house one
      4. House one was located in the front row near the water
      5. House one was the only house with a large central hearth
      6. House one had a greater number of carved panels and inlaid bench planks
      7. Interpretation, archaeological record mirrors expectations from historical and ethnographic record

Class reading and discussion:
Hayden, Brian
1997 The Pit Houses of Keatley Creek. Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

This is another small book with lots of illustrations. It is a very easy read and like Stein book is broken into chapters that make it easy for students to report on a specific topic so again students were assigned chapters to report on to the class. As with the earlier case study, they did not have to prepare a written report and there was no grade other than participation versus no participation. No one failed to participate and we had very good discussion about his interpretation of the site. The reporting and discussion took two class periods.

Warfare and Slavery
1. World wide generally associated with ranked and stratified societies
  1. Smaller scale, egalitarian societies stress non-violent solutions
2. Warfare on the NWC and the Plateau
  1. Archaeological studies
    1. Evidence for violent deaths
      1. Skeletal evidence projectile points lodged in bone and bone fractures
      2. 9-6 KYA examples of murder NWC and Plateau, but is this warfare?
    2. Artifacts—NWC
      1. Armor
      2. Weapons
      3. Fortifications
        
        Far north, palisades
        
        Farther south, defendable locations
        
        Inaccessible bluffs
        
        Sometimes permanent villages
        
        Sometimes special use locations
        
        Storage features make even non-fortified villages more defendable
        
        Plank houses
        
        After +/- A.D. 300 locations moved from most sheltered part of bay with access to most resources to more open parts of inlet, better "look out"
    3. Plateau
      1. Mesa tops as fortifications?
        
        Oral history
        
        Projectile points
        
        Stone alignments
      2. Some think were game lookouts
    4. Last 500-1,500 years on both Plateau and NWC
      1. Villages get bigger, multiple family houses represent alliances?
      2. Bow and arrow technology began to be used
        
        Weapon of warfare, not hunting?
3. Why do people fight, group not individual violence?
  1. Probably originated in circumstances of competition for resources
    1. Good locations
    2. "Crop" failure
  2. First appears during times of increased sedentism
    1. "Territoriality"
4. By historic times disease based population declines
  1. Reduced resource competition
  2. But warfare still prevalent
    1. Honor fighting? (ie. revenge for real or perceived insult)
    2. Family feuds
    3. Capture of slaves
      1. Cheap source of labor for wealth building enterprises
        
        Slave ownership as sign of "elite" status
        
        Most slaves were war captives
        
        Mostly women and children
        
        Important to major tasks of processing food and other resources
        
        Controlled by violence
        
        Could be ransomed by families if wealthy
        
        Could, and did escape, but not easy
        
        Unfamiliar and unfriendly territory
        
        Stories of killing "master" and escaping while on trips
        
        Slaves had no rights
        
        No family, so no "identity"
        
        It was a great shame to be a slave
        
        Could be sold/traded/gambled away
        
        Could be killed
        
        Were sexually exploited
        
        Sometimes were freed
        
        Required ritual transformation of status
        
        Slave trade was important business
        
        Major commodity
        
        Slave raids
        
        Basis for evidence for violence on Plateau?
        
        General belief is that not that many people were born into slavery
        
        Hard life, females less fertile
        
        High infant mortality
        
        Extent of slavery unclear
        
        Hudson Bay Co. census data 1800s, weak data but best available
        
        Slavery not equal up and down coast
        
        Greatest far north
        
        +\- 15% of population were slaves
        
        Could have been more before epidemics
        
        Antiquity of slavery unclear
        
        Archaeological evidence limited
        
        Mortuary data
        
        Skeletal evidence for different populations in same community
        
        Flattened versus natural head form
        
        Different burial treatment
        
        Little or no ceremony for slaves, midden and sea burials
        
        Few or no funerary objects
        
        Dietary and health differences
        
        Could be as old as beginning as ranked society and warfare, circa AD 500 (1.5 KYA)
        
        Slavery mostly ended after contact
        
        Ironically when slavery was flourishing in the USA
        
        European traders opposed
        
        Abolished by British Empire 1834 but difficult to enforce in remote colonies
        
        Attention focused on African slave trade
        
        Noted among Chinook as late as 1875
        
        Remnants among other tribes as late as 1850s-1860s
        
        A few NWC sea traders participated in slave trade
        
        Some HBC families owned slaves
        
        Property of native wives
        
        Not encouraged, but not actively discouraged until after 1865 (Emancipation Proclamation)
        
        Gone by 1900s but slave ancestry still a factor in social status