Society for American Archaeology Hohokam Political Ecology and Vulnerability: Comments on Waters and Ravesloot Author(s): Bradley E. Ensor, Marisa O. Ensor and Gregory W. De Vries Reviewed work(s): Source: American Antiquity, Vol. 68, No. 1 (Jan., 2003), pp. 169-181 Published by: Society for American Archaeology Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3557040 . Accessed: 04/10/2012 15:57 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Antiquity. http://www.jstor.org HOHOKAM POLITICAL ECOLOGY AND VULNERABILITY: COMMENTS ON WATERS AND RAVESLOOT Bradley E. Ensor, Marisa O. Ensor, and GregoryW. De Vries Watersand Ravesloot (2001) test the assumption that natural river channel change caused periods of Hohokamcultural reor- ganization. However, they conclude that channel changes did not correlate with all periods and areas of significant cultural changes and that landscape alone cannot explain Hohokamtransformations. An anthropologicalperspective on political ecol- ogy and disasters can explain why environmentalprocesses and events differentiallyimpact societies, differentiallyimpact soci- eties diachronically and differentially impact social groups within societies. Wesuggest that this perspective may explain the variability described by Watersand Ravesloot. Watersy Ravesloot (2001) examinanla presuncion de que los cambios de los canales naturales de los rios pueden haber causado periodos de reorganizacioncultural de los Hohokam.Sin embargo,concluyen que los cambios en los canales no se correlacio- nan con todos los periodos y areas que sufrieroncambios culturalessignificativos y que solo elpaisaje no puede explicar las trans- formaciones de los Hohokam.Una perspectiva antropoldgicasobre ecologia politica y el estudio de los desastres explicapor que los sucesos y procesos medioambientalestienen un impactodiferenciado en distintas sociedades, afectan de forma distinta a las sociedades diacronicamente,y tienen un impacto diferenteen distintosgrupos sociales dentro de las mismas sociedades. Suger- imos que esta perspectivapuede explicar la variabilidaddescrita por Watersy Ravesloot. In a recent paper,Waters and Ravesloot (2001) much attentionto climate and canal sedimentation examine the relationship between landscape recordsfor this reason. However,others argue that changesand evolutionary shifts in Hohokamcul- flood-associateddamage to canalheadgates was rel- ture. Landscapechange, in this instance, refers to ativelyeasy to repairunless damageextended down riverchannel downcutting, widening, braiding, and the canal (Huckleberry1999:8) or that floods were filling duringperiods of climatologicalinstability. relativelyephemeral events having little impact on Environmentallycaused landscape change is estab- Hohokamsociety (e.g., Dean et al. 1994:57). Simi- lishedas a possible"mechanism" for cultural change. larly,Masse (1991:219)states that the destructionof Watersand Ravesloot test this possibilityby cor- irrigationsystems is not a sufficientexplanation for relatingchanges in riverchannels with periods of cul- abandonmentsat the end of the Classicperiod. How- tural reorganization among the Hohokam. The ever,Waters and Ravesloot's focus on riverlandscape Hohokamare viewed as being dependentupon irri- change adds an importantdimension to this debate. gationagriculture, which made their food production According to Watersand Ravesloot, Hohokam system susceptible to changes in river channels. cultureinitiated and flourishedbecause there were Watersand Ravesloot are not alonein suspectingthat stable channels with periodic flooding creating floods influencedprehispanic and historic society in "excellentconditions for the establishmentof canal the PhoenixBasin. Dendrochronologicaldata origi- systems and the developmentof Hohokamculture" nally suggestedthis possibility,and since Graybill's (Watersand Ravesloot 2001:290). In the Sacaton (1989), andNials et al.'s(1989) studiesthere has been phase(A.D. 950-1150) of theLate Formative period, Bradley E. Ensor * Departmentof Anthropology,University of Florida, 1112 TurlingtonHall, PO Box 117305, Gainesville, FL 32611-7305, and SoutheasternArchaeological Research,Inc., PO Box 14776, Gainesville, FL 32604. [email protected] Marisa 0. Ensor * Departmentof Anthropology,Rollins College, 1000 Holt Avenue -2761, WinterPark, FL 32789-4499. [email protected] Gregory W. De Vries * School of NaturalResources and Environment,University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,MI 48109-1115. [email protected] AmericanAntiquity, 68(1), 2003, pp. 169-181 Copyright? 2003 by the Society for AmericanArchaeology 169 170 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 68, No. 1, 2003] Hohokamsettlements and ballcourt villages reached Watersand Ravesloot conclude their paper by their maximum extent and many villages reached statingthat changes in riverlandscapes were factors their maximum size and complexity as floodplain in culturalreorganization at the beginning of the deposits continuedto build vertically (Watersand Classicperiod but not atthe end of the Classicperiod Ravesloot 2001:291). According to Waters and when the most dramaticchanges in Hohokamcul- Ravesloot(2001:291-292), there was a majorchange turalhistory occurred(except in the TucsonBasin in the Middle Gila River floodplain occurring and Lower San PedroValley). They found that the betweenA.D. 1020 and 1160. The channelwas sub- environmentaldeterministic approach they entertain ject to downcuttingand widening.This period also could not explain why landscapechange correlates was markedby intensifiedhigh-magnitude flooding with culturalchange at certaintimes andplaces, but (Waters and Ravesloot 2001:292). According to not at others, except to state that landscapeis one Watersand Ravesloot (2001), these environmental factor that should be considered. However, brief changes made it difficultfor Hohokamfarmers to statementsin theirabstract and conclusionssuggest manage their canal intake structureslocated in the anawareness that cultural trends were alsomajor fac- river channels. They claim the resulting cultural tors:"As shown, a regionalepisode of channelero- changes at the beginning of the Classic period sion appearsto have contributedto social, political, included abandonment of some villages, shifts economic, and demographicchanges seen in the towardnew architecturalforms, shifts from crema- Hohokam culture area between ca. A.D. 1050 to tion burialsto inhumations,partial replacement of 1150 by accelerating cultural changes that were previous pottery types, changes in exchange pat- alreadyunderway" (Waters and Ravesloot 2001:296; terns, the collapse of the ballcourtsystem and the emphasisadded). Here, we suggest that an anthro- emergence of platform mound architecture.They pological perspectiveon political ecology and vul- claimthe canalsystems were consolidated into "irri- nerabilityto disastersmay help to explain some of gation communities"(hierarchically arranged set- the differentialimpacts of floods and riverchannel tlements along each canal network)in the Classic changesreported by Watersand Ravesloot. periodand irrigation farming was supplementedwith Political and Disaster dry and floodwaterfarming on bajadas(Waters and Ecology Vulnerability Ravesloot2001:291). "TheClassic period Hohokam Since the 1970s the growth of political ecological responded to fluvial instability by pooling their perspectivesand hazardsperspectives in the social resourcesand organizingtheir labor, reengineering sciences has led many scholarsin those disciplines theircanals, placing canalheads in stablepositions, to considerdisasters less as the result of geophysi- and increasingand diversifyingfood productionby cal extremessuch as floods, droughts,earthquakes, pursuingdry and floodwaterfarming" (Waters and or hurricanesand moreas functionsof social condi- Ravesloot2001:292). Riverfloodplains became sta- tions(e.g., Alexander 1997:28; Bassett 1988;Blaikie ble again between A.D. 1300 and 1400. At the end et al. 1994; Hewitt 1983; Lees and Bates 1990; of the Classic period (ca. A.D. 1450), villages were Schminkand Wood 1987; Stonich 1993; Susmanet abandonedand Hohokamculture ended. Although al. 1983; Toledo 1989; Wisner 1976, 1978; Wolf no majorlandscape changes occurredat the end of 1972)."It is now widely recognizedthat 'natural dis- the Classic period in the Middle Gila River,Lower aster'is a conveniencedterm that amounts to a mis- Salt River,and Tonto Creek, arroyo cutting did take nomer"(Alexander 1997:28). This approachfocuses place in the SantaCruz and San Pedrorivers.' on the effectivenessof societaladaptation to the total Watersand Ravesloot use a period of hardship environment,including the natural,modified and amongthe late nineteenth-centuryAkimel O'odham constructedmilieu of which the communityis a part as an analogyto the effects of channelinstability on (Hewitt 1983). the Hohokam.The Gila Riverchannel widened and Politicalecology is basedon thepremise that polit- frequent flooding caused the destructionof canal ical, social,and economic considerations