Beyond Foraging and Collecting: Evolutionary Change in Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems

447 Pages·2002·19.4 MB·English

by  Junko Habu

Beyond Foraging
and Collecting
Evolutionary Change in Hunter
Gatherer Settlement Systems
FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES IN ARCHAEOLOGY
Series Editors: Gary M. Feinman
The FieldMuseum, Chicago, Illinois
T. Douglas Price
University ofWisconsin-Madison
Editorial Board: Ofer Bar·Yosef, Harvard University' Christine Hastorf,
University ofCalifornia-Berkeley'Jeffrey Hantman,
University ofVirginia' PattyJo Watson, Washington
University· Linda Manzanilla, Universidad Nacional
Aut6noma deMexico'Jolm Parkington, Universityof
Capetown •Kiavs Randsborg, UniversityofCopenhagen •
Olga Soffer' University ofIllinois' MatthewSpriggs,
AustralianNational University']olm Yellen, National
Science Foundation
BEYOND FORAGING AND COLLECTING
Evolutionary Change in Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems
Edited by Ben Fitzhugh andJunko Habu
EMERGENCE AND CHANGE IN EARLY URBAN SOCIETIES
Edited by Linda Manzanilla
FOUNDATIONS OF SOCIAL INEQUALITY
Edited by T. Douglas Price and Gary M. Feinman
FROM LEADERS TO RULERS
Edited byJonathan Haas
LANDSCAPES OF POWER, LANDSCAPES OF CONFLICT
State Formation in the South Scandinavian Iron Age
Tina 1. Thurston
LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES, ECONOMIC ACTIVITY, AND INTERREGIONAL
INTERACTION
Social Complexity in Northeast China
Gideon Shelach
LIFE IN NEOLITHIC FARMING COMMUNITIES
Social Organization, Identity, and Differentiation
Edited by Ian Kuijt
AContinuationOrderPlanisavailableforthisseries.Acontinuationorderwillbringdeliveryof
eachnewvolumeimmediatelyuponpublication.Volumesarebilledonlyuponactualshipment.
Forfurther information pleasecontact the publisher.
Beyond Foraging
and Collecting
Evolutionary Change in Hunter
Gatherer Settlement Systems
Edited by
BEN FITZHUGH
UniversityofWashington
Seattle, Washington
and
llABu
JUNKO
UniversityofCalifornia
Berkeley. California
Kluwer AcademicI Plenum Publishers
New York Boston Dordrecht London Moscow
ISBN: 0-306-46753-4
©2002 KluwerAcademicIPlenum Publishers
233 SpringStreet. New York. New York 10013
http://www.wkap.nl/
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2
AC.I.P. record for this book is available from the LibraryofCongress
All rights reserved
No partofthis book may be reproduced. stored in a retrieval system. ortransmitted inany form
orby any means, electronic. mechanical. photocopying. microfilming. recording. orotherwise.
without written permission from the Publisher. with theexception ofany material supplied
specifically for the purposeofbeingenteredand executedon acomputersystem. forexclusive
use by the purchaserofthe work.
Contributors
Mark Aldenderfer, Department of Anthropology, University of
California, Santa Barbara, California 93106
Kenneth M. Ames, Department of Anthropology, Portland State
University, Portland, Oregon 97207
Ofer Bar-Yosef, Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge,
Massachusetts 02138
Lewis R. Binford, Department of Anthropology, Southern Methodist
University, Dallas, Texas 75275
AubreyCannon, Department of Anthropology, McMaster University,
Hamilton, Ontario, L8S 4L9 CANADA
Lynn E. Fisher, Sociology/Anthropology Program, University of
Illinois at Springfield, Springfield, Illinois 62794
Ben Fitzhugh, Department of Anthropology, University of
Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195
Junko Habu, Department of Anthropology, University of California,
Berkeley, California 94720
AmberL.Johnson, DepartmentofAnthropology, SouthernMethodist
University, Dallas, Texas 75275
LauraLeeJunker, Department ofAnthropology, University ofIllinois
at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60607
RenatoKipnis, Laborat6riode Estudosde EvolutivosHumanos,Instituto
de Biociencias, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, SP 0550~900 Brasil
T. Douglas Price, Department of Anthropology, University of
Wisconsin-Madison, Madison Wisconsin 53706
James M. Savelle, Department of Anthropology, McGill University,
Montreal, Quebec H3A 2T7 CANADA
David W. Zeanah, Department of Anthropology, California State
University, Sacramento, California 95819
v
Foreword
LEWIS R. BINFORD AND AMBER L.JOHNSON
The organizers of this volume have brought together authors who have
worked on local sequences, much as traditional archaeologists tended to
do, however, with the modern goal of addressing evolutionary change in
hunter-gatherer systems over long time spans. Given this ambitious goal
theywiselychose to ask the authors to build their treatments around afocal
question, the utility of the forager-eollector continuum (Binford 1980) for
research on archaeological sequences. Needless to say, Binford was flat
tered by their choice and understandably read the papers with a great
deal ofinterest. When he was asked to write the foreword to this provoca
tive book he expected to learn new things and in this he has not been
disappointed.
The common organizing questions addressed among the contributors
to this volume are simply, how useful is the forager-eollector continuum
for explanatory research on sequences, and what else might we need to
know to explain evolutionary change in hunter-gatherer adaptations? Most
sequences document systems change, in some sense. Though we don't
necessarily know how much synchronous systemic variability there might
have been relative to the documented sequence, most authors have tried
to address the problem ofwithin systems variability. In this sense, most are
operating with sophistication not seen among traditional culture historians.
The primary problem for archaeologists of the generation prior to
Binford was how to date archaeological materials. Techniques of seriation
were developed to figure out how to use artifacts and cultural materials to
LEWIS R. BINFORD AND AMBERL.JOHNSON • Department of Anthropology, SOLlthern
Methodist University. DallasTexas7';27';.
vii
viii FOREWORD
produce a temporal sequence for a site or region (see O'Brien and Lyman
2000:245-396 for a current reactionary discussion of this point of view).
Nevertheless, the traditional strategy of grouping similar assemblages into
the same chronological unit meant that synchronous internal variation in
the system could he inappropriately assigned chronological significance.
Sequences were not necessarily sequences.
In the 1950s, the adventofradiocarbon dating made it possible to date
many materials directly. therefore reducing the relevance of artifact seri
ation. Not surprisingly, the goals of research for some ofthe generation of
archaeologists who were students in the 1950s changed from simply pro
ducing a sequence to studying variability in the archaeological record at
various scales-hopefully referable to within systems postures or functional
variants and between distinct states of systems. It was in the context of
dealing with variability among hunter-gatherer cultural systems that the
forager-collector distinction was advanced.
When "Willow Smoke and Dog's Tails" and other related papers were
written. the dominant view in anthropology was that the Kalahari San were
representative of Paleolithic hunter-gatherers anywhere around the globe
under any environmental conditions. The ethnography ofthe San was used
to interpret Paleolithic archaeology in Europe (Clarke 1976), a near-glacial
environment! A prominent part of the dominant argument was that there
was no important diversity among hunter-gatherers that was not related to
either colonization, acculturation, or other "corrupting influences" (See
Schrire 19843. b; Wilmsen and Denbow 1990)as imaginedearlier by Service
0962. 19(6)
Binford (1980) was trying to emphasize that there were legitimate
hunter-gatherers that were not organized like the San and that the Nunamiut
was one such example. The forager-collector continuum was an attempt
to dimensionalize the recognized variability so that it could hopefully be
measured in some meaningful sense. In turn, it was suggested that such
variability was conditioned by the relative spatial congruence among neces
sary resources in different habitats. The latter had as much to do with the
distribution and availability of exploited products, that were not foods, as
with foods themselves, although this point hasoften been missed. The argu
ment was simply that, other things being equal, the more challenges the
members of a cultural system faced, the more things they would need to
survive, the higher the probability of incongruence in the distribution of
necessary resources, and the greater the likelihood that some things would
be acquired through logistical mobility. Different strategies for positioning
people relative to resources were expected to occur in (1) places where all
or most necessalY resources were available in the immediate proximity ofa
residential site, whereas in (2) places where there was some considerable
FOREWORD ix
distance between access locations for necessary resources, more distant
ones would be procured using logistical principles oforganization. This was
not an argument about patch choice, but about positioning with respect to
a variety of necessary resources or patches. The contrast between the
Nunamiut and the Kalahari cases was used to propose some factors, other
than colonization or acculturation, that might condition variability among
hunter-gatherer systems.
Though generally recognizing the utility of the forager-collector con
tinuum, several contributors to this volume have realized that all other
things are not equal among groups identified as hunter-gatherers, that is,
there are dimensions ofvariability other than congruence ofresources that
must be controlled to anticipate archaeological variability accurately. Among
those recognized here are transport technology, access to market trading
opportunities. and demography or population packing.
At about the same time the forager-collector continuumwas introduced
to the literature, Binford spelled out the packing model in his book In
Pursuita/thePast0983a:210-213). This was presented as a contrastto then
current arguments about population pressure. Unlike the forager-collector
continuum which was initially viewed as appropriate to studying variability
among hunter-gatherer systems in different environments, but which was
not stressed as resulting in a linear trajectOlY, packing did address a mech
anism for evolutionalY change within archaeological sequences. It was only
after Eder(984) published a critical argument based on his experience with
the Batek in the Philippines that Binford seriously considered the relation
ship between logistical strategies and sedentism. His original thought had
been focused on mobile peoples. The link between mobile and sedentary
peoples relative to foraging versus collecting makes it possible to think
about collecting replacing foraging in some settings, but this was never fully
spelled out by Binford as an evolutionary argument (see. however, Binford
2001)
Other responses to the original presentation of the forager-collector
continuum were less productive. There wasn't anything new in Woodburn
(980) or Bettinger and Baumhoff (982). except the point of view they
brought to the empirical ideas. Wiessner (982), however, argued that social
considerations had to be taken into account when discussing mobility. This
seems an appropriate place to point out that Binford never answered Polly
Wiessner's critique because he thought it was an example ofworking at the
wrong scale. In the Kalahari, families move with respect to socbl networks
in and out of places where they have kin. Neither the places nor the com
positions ofgroups in a given place were stable. Wiessner was still working
with a band model. discussing a socially defined unit with set membership
anel mobility in those terms. Binford 0983b) had stopped thinking about
x FOREWORD
bands, having recognized that among some mobile collectors and perhaps
most foragers, the unit that made decisions about when and where to move
was the family. It was the pileup ofsuch decisions by a number offamilies
that resulted in camps coalescing and disappearing. Thus, the camp could
not be thought ofas a band. Kin-based social networks are important in all
small-scale societies, and kinship relationships are a constant matrix in
which decisions are made. This does not mean, however, that they are the
determinants of mobility patterning such that differences between residen
tial versus logistical forms ofmobilitycould be understood in "social terms."
Wiessner overlooked the relevant question, which is, Why do camps coa
lesce, dissolve, or organizationally restructure while kin presence is a con
stant? I suggest that this occurs with respect to variation in environmental
and demographic variables. There is little evidence suggesting that this
viewpoint is nonproductive.
The above developments of the early 1980s era focused upon vari
ability arising from processes internal to systems, but they occurred in an
intellectual context where there was great concern for identifying the "cor
rect" locus of cause, for example, social versus environmental causes or
mental versus behavioral causes standing behind properties ofthe archae
ological record. The latter concern might be best thought ofas a search for
the "reasons" behind variability in the archaeological record, much as his
torians seek "reasons" for events (See Hexter 1971). In spite of the draw
backs, these approaches marked a contrast to the earlier (pre-carbon-14)
emphasis upon sequence building and comparison for purposes of histor
ical reconstruction.
Although the issue of variability was addressed, the early 1980s also
witnessed a turn to intellectual chaos. Proponents of dueling paradigms
were seeking to capture the field and the minds of young students, upon
whom the future ofthe field depended. This infighting lasted thru the early
19905.
The organizers of this book should be strongly commended for put
ting together a collection of papers which were not designed to illustrate
the opined superiority of one paradigm over another; instead they have
asked a well-chosen group of archaeological specialists, who represent a
large segment ofthe globe, to use the archaeological record as a source of
problems when viewed relative to the collector-forager range of mobility
organization. The goal is an assessment of its utility and directly addresses
the issue of explaining sequential variability, or change through time, in
their respective regions. The latter, of course, has the goal of moving
"beyond foraging-eollecting" toward more sophisticated forms of under
standing. The results are fascinating and can be viewed as a sample ofthe
analytical challenges arising in contemporary archaeology and a cross
FOREWORD xi
section of the intellectual approaches common to contemporary archaeol
ogy. Seen in this light, this book can be viewed as a most useful anthology
for use as a comparative reader in general courses treating the state ofthe
art in contemporary archaeology.
One of the most striking features of the material synthesized by the
contributors is the large size of the data sets used and the fact that such
large-scale archaeological coverage is generally a product of many differ
ent field workers. This is certainly a new characteristic when compared to
one field worker, one sequence, one site, types ofproducts common in the
pre-carbon-14 era of sequence production. Several features of change
within archaeology contribute to the contrast noted here. The expansion of
the field both in terms ofoverall funds available for research and the num
bers of persons engaged in archaeological research ensures that there is a
fast accumulation of large quantities of data. This data must be addressed
analytically because it does not speak for itself. Archaeologists are just now
beginning to address this issue and, thus far, few new techniques appro
priate to large-scale comparative research have been forthcoming. This is
apparent from the analytical approaches employed by many ofthe authors.
For instance, one of the unfortunate uses of the forager-collector contin
uum has been as a taxonomy to assign a label to sites and/or systems
which was, in most cases, operationally defined to use the particular data
available. This taxonomic approach to understanding is present in a large
number of the papers that seek to evaluate the forager-collector contin
uum. Such an approach normally results in the logical fallacy of confirm
ing the consequent or finding in the data what was a priori dictated by
definition to accommodate the particular data used. The use ofsimple site
size as an indicator ofcamps versus residential locations could be an exam
ple. This type of potential failure to link data and concepts such that data
get "to talk back to our ideas" must be solved if archaeology is to realize
the learning opportunities that the analysis oflarge data sets actually holds
out to contemporary researchers.
A legacy ofthe "period of intellectual chaos" between the early 1980s
and the 1990s is best referred to as the top-down approach to accom
modative argument. One advocates the paradigm oftheir choice and then
accommodates the data to fit a priori beliefs. This problem is certainly man
ifest in a few ofthe papers in this book. Such an approach ensures that the
data are prevented from ever "talking back"' to the ideas with which the
researcher started. Needless to say, no learning is possible when such
approaches are employed.
An additional characteristic of contemporary archaeology that is well
illustrated in some of the papers in this book is the tendency to "interpret"
one's data by simply applyingan accommodative argument to the patterning