Archaeology and Ethnoarchaeology of Mobility
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Archaeology and Ethnoarchaeology of Mobility Edired by Frederic Seller, Russell Greaves, and Pei-Lin Yu University Press ofFiorida Gainesviiie/Taiiahassee/Tampa/Boca Raton Pensacoia/Oriando/Miami/]acksol1viiie/Ft. Myers '-Z-r) () G ogy, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. Kelly, R. L. 1992 Mobility/Sedentism: Concepts, Archaeological Measures, and Effects. Annudl From Atlatl to Bow and Arrow Review ofAnthropology 21: 43-66. Implicating Projectile Technology in Changing Systems Koster, H. A. 1977 The Ecology of Pastoralism in Relation to Changing Patterns of Land Use in the of Hunter-Gatherer Mobility Northeast Peloponnese. Ph.D. dissertation. University ofPennsylvania. Moshkova, M. G. PEl-LIN YU 1992 Stepnaya polosa Asiatskoi chasti SSSR v skifo-sarmdtskoi vremi (Steppe Region of the Asiatic Part of the SSSR in the Scythe-Sarmanti Time). Nauka Izdatel'stvo, Moscow. Nance,]. D., and B. F. Bal1 In regional culture histories, the transition from large, broad-based projectile 1986 No Surprises?: The Reliability and Validity ofTest Pit Sampling. Americdn Antiq points to smaller, lightweight forms is often cited as a shift in the launching uity 51 (3): 457-483. method from spearthrower (or atlatl) to bow and arrow (cf. Aikens and Higuchi Plog, F. T. 1982: 109; Cabrera Valdez 1984: 279; Grayson 1994: 250). Much research on 1973 Diachronic Anthropology. In Resedrch and Theory in CurrentArchdeology, edited the projectile transition has focused on intrinsic attributes ofpoints in order to by C. L. Redman, pp. 181-198.]ohn Wiley, New York. separate them into discrete types (Bettinger and Eerkens 1999: 231; Beck 1998: Rosen, A. M., C. Chang, and F. P. Grigoriev 21). In addition to formal variation in stone points, the reduction method may 2000 Paleoenvironments and Economy of Iron Age Saka-Wusun Agro-pastoralists in differ. Analysis of one sample from northeastern North America showed that Southeastern Kazakhstan. Antiquity 74: 611-623. dart points are typically reduced from cores and arrow points from Bakes (Nas Rouse, I. saney and Pyle 1999: 251-252). 1972 Settlement Patterns in Archaeology. In lvfdn, Settlement, dnd Urbdnism, edited by Projectile point types are often used as chronological markers or "guide fos P.]. Ucko, R. Tringham, and G. W. Dimbleby, pp. 95-107. Duckworth, London. sils" (HuckellI996: 326), although variation in form may also result from me Shott, M.]. chanically conditioned behaviors, such as breakage, repair, and resharpening 1995 Reliability of Archaeological Records on Cultivated Surfaces: A Michigan Case (HuckellI996: 327). In a global survey, Pierre Cattelain (1997: 232) found that Study.Journal ofField Archaeology 22(4): 475-490. projectilepoint form alone is not correlated with hafting contexts or means of Stuiver, M., et al. launching. Charlotte Beck's (1998) analysis of examples from GatecliffShelter 1998 INTCAL98 Radiocarbon Age Calibration. Radiocarbon 40(3): 1041-1083. indicates that neck width is acted upon by selective forces and is useful in dis Wandsnider, L., and E. L. Camilli tinguishing darts from arrow points. Statistical tests for many archaeological 1992 The Character of Surface Archaeological Deposits and Its Influence on Survey sequences show that small, lightweight points replace or augment large, heavy, Accuracy.Journal ofField Archaeology 19(2): 169-188. Yablonsky, L. T. broad-based points (Shott 1997). 1995 The Material Culture of the Saka and Historical Reconstruction, Chapter 14. In The projectile transition occurred at different times, and at different rates, Nomads ofthe Eurasian Steppes in the Early Iron Age, edited by J. Davis-Kimball, throughout the world. The transition to bow and arrow never occurred in Aus V. A. Bashilov, and L. T. Yablonsky, pp. 201-240. Zinat Press, Berkeley. tralia. Atlatls and bows and arrows were used in tandem in the recent past in the Arctic, the North American Southeast, and parts of Mesoamerica. Recent efforts to explain the variation in scope and timing of the'projectile transition have focused on distinguishing between in situ development and diffusion, es pecially in North America (cf. Bettinger and Eerkens 1999; Nassaney and Pyle 1999), then proceeding to test models for different modes oftransmission. Rob 202 / Pei-Lin Yt. Projectile Technology in Changing Systems ofHunter-Gatherer Mobility / 203 ..-----------------~ ert L. Bettinger and Jelmer Eerkens (1999: 240) explicitly define the projectile 120 transition as a cultural evolutionary stage indicative ofa culture's versatility and innovativeness. 100 ~ Technology, however, unlike cultural markers such as style, articulates closely with adaptive strategies of resource use and mobility and therefore is expected 80 to co-vary with selective forces (Beck 1998: 23; Knecht 1997: 2). If selective c forces are less intense in a given case, technological behaviors may be adopted OJ () 60 and incorporated as part of the preexisting system. In this case the material re ill 0.. cord would show the new and old technologies coexisting, at least for a time. More intense selective forces and in situ development ofa new technology may 40 Large projectile point lead to total replacement of the old system and corresponding replacement in Dabsent the archaeological record. This chapter builds on the substantial body ofwork on projectile point classi .present fication and development ofregional chronologies by exploring the larger adap ':L ~unknown tive context of the projectile transition. In order to do this, it is necessary to A-e-lr ans ition fust-transition compare archaeological sequences that share similar projectile transitions but Site type are geographically distinct. Defining and explaining changes in a varied set of adaptive contexts should shed new light on the significance of the projectile Figure 9.1. Bar graph ofpre- and posr-transitional projectile points for the study areas. point transition for the larger issue ofcultural evolution. Lithic tool density (n tools per cubic meter of excavated sediment) in the 3 AREAS OF STUDY study areas tends to stay within a range of about 0-100 tools/m (Figure 9.2). Post-transition sites show a Y-shaped distribution after ca. 17,000 BP, in which The archaeological records of northeast Asia, southern Europe, and the North they become densely deposited or continue to be sparsely deposited. American Great Basin all indicate that large projectile points were either re Detailed information on sediment accumulation was not available for all placed by or augmented by smaller, lightweight points. sites, but light lithic tool deposition is apparently an important characteristic of The decrease in sites containing only large points is a defining characteristic of the projectile transition, regardless of time or place (Figure 9.1). Table 9.1. PrOjectile Point Transition Sites in the Analysis The following cultural sequences were selected because they include well Coastal Spain Japan North American Great Basin dated projectile point transition sites or levels within multicomponent sites: La Riera Suzuki Corn Creek Dunes (1) Late Paleolithic/Initial Jomon periods of central Japan and Hokkaido; (2) E[ Rascano Nogawa Danger Cave Late Solutrean/Early Magdalenian periods of Cantabrian Spain; and (3) Late EIJuyo Uenodaira Hogup Shelter Archaic/Early Prehistoric periods ofthe North American Great Basin. Table 9.1 Ekain Shirataki-Hattori dai Sudden Shelter shows the sites discussed in this chapter. Altamira Tachikawa Cowboy Cave Ambrosio Kidosaku E[ Castillo Horokazawa ESTABLISHING ARCHAEOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS E1 Pendo Midorigaoka Basic information on lithic tool types and counts, faunal species present, and Chunn Fukui methods ofexcavation is routinely recorded in study area archaeological site re Cuero de la Mina Natsushima Kamikuroiwa ports. These data are useful in determining the nature ofthe tool kit, the animals Kosegasawa targeted, and the depOSitional context ofartifacts. Study area sites or site levels Yubetsu-Ichikawa that bracket the proiectile transition were selected. 202 I Pei-Lin Yu ert L. Bettinger and Jelmer Eerkens (1999: 240) explicitly define the projectile transition as a cultural evolutionary stage indicative ofa culture's versatiliry and innovativeness. Technology, however, unlike.culturalmarkers such as style, articulates closely with adaptive strategies ofresource use and mobility and therefor~ is expected to co-vary with selective forces (Beck 1998: 23; Knecht 1997; 2). Ifselective forces are less intense in a given case, technological behaviors may be adopted. and incorporated as part ofthe preexisting system. In this case the material re cord would show the ne'Y and old technologies coexisting, at least for actime:-~ More .intense selective fo~~es and in situ devel0pnlent ofa new technology m~y' lead to total replacement ofthe old system and corresponding replacement in the archaeologiCal record. This chapt~r builds on the substantialbody ofwork on projectile point classi~ fication anddevelopment ofregional chronologies by exploring the larger adap~ tive conte~ ofthe projectile transition. In order to do this, it is necessaryt~i compare archaeological sequences that share similar projectile transitions b!:l:~ are geographically distinct. Defining and explaining changes in a varied setdfi . adaptive contexts should. shed new light on the significance of the projectije point transition for the larger issue ofcultural evolution. ' AREAS OF STUDY The archaeological records ofnortheast Asia, southern Europe, and the-North ' American Great