Implications for the Phoenix Basin Hohokam
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
THE ORGANIZATION OF AGRICULTURAL LABOR AMONG SMALLHOLDER IRRIGATION AGRICULTURALISTS: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PHOENIX BASIN HOHOKAM Christopher N. Watkins ABSTRACT all the labor necessary to maintain agricultural lands Recent research has highlighted the ways in which Hohokam and irrigation features. Canal agriculture is a labor- households organized labor. In this study I consider the possibility intensive activity that requires people to perform a that the Hohokam may have drawn on agricultural labor from be- series of different tasks at coordinated times. This yond the immediate household. Using a sample of 10 ethnographi- form of agriculture encourages large households and cally known smallholder irrigation agriculturalists, I examine the necessitates cooperation between households (see nature and occurrence of supra-household agricultural labor. Wilk and Netting 1984; Wilk and Rathje 1982). While it Sharecropping, or working the land of another in exchange for a share of the crop, is present universally in the ethnographic cases is clear the Hohokam households combined labor to examined. Other forms of supra-household labor such as slavery, construct, maintain, and operate their canal systems, servitude, wage labor, and fixed rent arrangements are present, there has been little research on the source of this la- but are much less common. I propose that sharecropping arrange- bor and the labor required to manage fields and crops. ments did exist between patron-households and client laborers in Should we expect that Hohokam households provided prehistoric Hohokam communities of the Phoenix Basin. Further- all or most of their own labor? If not, where might pa- more, I argue that field houses are a likely context to observe such tron households have turned for client labor? behavior. To support this hypothesis, I describe the excavation of a In this study, I examine the ways in which Hoho- Hohokam field house site on the Arizona State University Campus kam households utilized the agricultural labor of peo- that may have been used by sharecroppers. ple who were not household members. I test a hy- pothesis that Hohokam villagers who maintained land- As the “most common social component of subsis- holdings and/or water rights used agricultural labor tence, [and] the smallest and most abundant activity from outside their water-users group, which is defined group within a community” (Wilk and Rathje as an irrigation cooperative without centralized leader- 1982:618), the household is a key concept in any an- ship (Hunt et al. 2005). This kind of cooperative may thropological investigation. The household has been a be congruent with the archaeologically defined Hoho- critical unit of analysis in Hohokam archaeology since kam canal systems. Non-household members that con- Pre-Classic period courtyards were correlated with tributed to household production are defined as share- these social units nearly 30 years ago (Wilcox et al. croppers. In order to generate expectations for the 1981). The subsequent decades have yielded a wealth presence of sharecroppers in the Hohokam economy, I of Hohokam household research, from Pre-Classic gathered data pertaining to the organization of extra- courtyards (Craig 2000, 2001, 2007; Henderson 2001; household labor in an ethnographic sample of 10 small Huntington 1986; Rice 1987) to Classic period com- -holder irrigation agriculturalists. This sample is identi- pounds (Jacobs 1994:301–322; Sires 1987) on subjects cal to that used by Clark (2004) in her study of Hoho- as diverse as craft production (Abbott 2000; Howard kam land use and canal management. 1993; Seymour and Schiffer 1987) and ritual organiza- I begin this study by describing the ethnographic tion (Rice 1987, 2000). data that form the basis for test expectations. I then Research on Hohokam households, however, has outline an archaeological test of the expectations that not fully addressed if Hohokam households provided uses ceramic data collected from Hohokam field Christopher N. Watkins / Logan Simpson Design, Inc. / [email protected] Journal of Arizona Archaeology 2011, Volume 1, Number 2: 105-119 Copyright © 2011 by the Arizona Archaeological Council 105 Watkins 106 JAzArch Spring 2011 houses and irrigation villages. Finally, I discuss the re- tionship the landlord is compensated regardless of the cent excavations at a field house site on the campus of harvest and any deficit falls upon the tenant. Share- Arizona State University as a case study which sup- croppers, who work the land and split the harvest with ports the proposed hypothesis of sharecropping. the landlord, have supervision requirements and moti- vation levels that lie between those of wage laborers ETHNOGRAPHIC CASES and fixed renters. I classified extra-household agricultural labor ob- In her research on Hohokam canal irrigation, Clark served in the ethnographic sample into Netting’s three (2004:143) compiled a sample of 10 ethnographic types of extra-household labor. I also noted cases cases that represented “a diverse array of ethno- where slaves or servants assisted in household produc- graphic and ethnohistoric irrigation-based agricultural tion. When compensated, extra-household labor was groups… covering a wide variety of environments, cul- institutionalized as a class or caste, or when labor was tural traditions, and historic contexts” (Table 1). The classified as such by the ethnographer, I categorized inclusion of the Pima in this sample is of particular the labor as servitude, as opposed to wage labor. relevance to prehistoric Hohokam communities, be- When slavery was clearly identified by the ethnogra- cause the Pima are considered to be among the popu- pher, I coded slave labor as present. I also attempted lations that are likely Hohokam descendants. Thus, a to determine whether Netting’s extra-household labor direct-historical approach between Pima and Hoho- types were drawn from within the water-users group kam communities may be appropriate (Bahr et al. or from beyond this group. Unfortunately, the pres- 1994; Teague 1993). ence or absence of well-defined water-user groups I reanalyzed this set of ethnographic cases in order was not always noted in the ethnographic literature. to identify the presence and form of agricultural labor organized beyond the level of the household unit. Net- Amhara ting (1993:72–80) distinguishes three types of extra- Most people in this Ethiopian feudal kingdom were household agricultural labor: wage labor, fixed rent peasants who were divided into three social classes. relationships, and sharecropping. Wage labor, in which These classes, which roughly corresponded to internal an individual exchanges their labor for money, live- ethnic definitions, include 1) rist (those that owned stock, or some other medium of exchange, provides some land), 2) gebbar sharecroppers, and 3) people the least motivation for the laborer and requires the who were categorized by their occupations, including most supervision from the employer. Fixed rent rela- smiths, tanners, etc. (Messing 1985:191–192). These tionships, in which the tenant pays the landlord a fixed social classes are related to Amhara concepts of land amount (typically in cash or crop) per year, requires tenure (Shack 1974:23–24). The rist class, or freehold- the least amount of supervision from the landlord and ers, passed the rights to land along geneaological lines; the most motivation for the tenant. In this kind of rela- the term rest refers to these land rights. Sharecropping gebbar typically worked the rest of freeholdings and/ Table 1. Summary of ethnographic sample. Traditional Social Group Country Organization (Precolonial) References Asia Sinhalese Sri Lanka Kingdom Leach 1961 Ifugao Philippines Tribe Barton 1919, 1922; Lambrecht 1929 Korea South Korea Kingdom Brandt 1971 Ghilzai Pashtun Afghanistan Tribe Ahmed 1980 Africa Sonjo Tanzania Tribe Adams et al. 1994; Gray 1958, 1963 Amhara Ethiopia Feudal State Messing 1985; Shack 1974 Idaw Tanan Morocco Tribe Hatt 1974 Europe Törbel Switzerland Confederation/State Netting 1974; 1981 North America Pima U.S.A. Tribe Castetter and Bell 1942; Hill 1936 Tehuacan Valley Mexico City-State Enge and Whiteford 1989 Watkins 107 JAzArch Spring 2011 or other land called gult, hereditary fief-like grants After the conquest, indigenous populations, or controlled by a feudal lord. Rights to land were unsta- indios, were pressed into Hacienda serfdom under the ble for the gebbar sharecroppers, because their use encomienda and repartimiento systems. Indigenous rights were controlled by absentee feudal landlords. communities initially held some communal land and Gebbar rarely worked the same piece of land each water rights, but these were eventually co-opted by year, and the land that they used varied in quality the haciendas. Sharecropping relationships were ar- (Messing 1985:42). ranged among haciendas and indios, as well as among Some gebbar in the service of feudal lords were native peoples themselves. By about A.D. 1900, all of wage laborers, and provided additional non- the indios were either sharecroppers or rural wage agricultural as well as agricultural labor as part of their laborers (Enge and Whiteford 1989:84, 117). contract. They usually hired on in March when light Land reforms followed the Mexican Revolution, rains sparked the plowing season. The gebbar were and much native land was returned to indigenous required to furnish a was, a person who was responsi- communities. In 1982 in the Tehuacan Valley, there ble