Raven Garvey

Confronting complexities of artifact–geofact debates: re-analysis of a coarse volcanic rock assemblage from Chilean Patagonia

An assemblage of coarse volcanic rock (CVR) derived from the walls of a rockshelter in Aisén, Chile was recently described as consisting of bifaces, projectile points, and picks [Prentiss et al. 2015a. Lithic Technology 40:112–127]. The objects are not universally accepted as cultural, however, on account of both their crude appearance and the fact that CVR industries have not been previously identified in either the valley where the objects were found or elsewhere in Patagonia. We present the results of three independent studies—a single-blind poll of lithics specialists, on-site assessment of stone availability and natural agents of modification, and protein residue analysis using cross-over immunoelectrophoresis—none of which support a cultural origin for the CVR specimens. We discuss these findings in terms of a more general debate in lithics analysis regarding reconciliation of conflicting evidence and interpretations in ambiguous cases.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL AGE ESTIMATION BASED ON OBSIDIAN HYDRATION DATA FOR TWO SOUTHERN ANDEAN SOURCES

Las obsidianas son abundantes en los sitios arqueologicos de la provincia de Mendoza (Argentina). Sin embargo, hasta el momento no existen estimaciones para las tasas de hidratacion de estas rocas que puedan utilizarse para fechar esos conjuntos liticos. La realizacion de fechados directos sobre artefactos de obsidiana resulta particularmente importante para esta region, dado que existe un vasto registro arqueologico de superficie -compuesto principalmente por artefactos liticos- y solo se cuenta con tipos morfologicos cronologicamente sensibles para el Holoceno Tardio. Aqui se presentan y evaluan 12 modelos para estimar las edades de los artefactos de obsidiana basados en la medicion optica de los anillos de hidratacion. Especificamente estos modelos fueron desarrollados para las dos obsidianas mas comunes en los contextos arqueologicos de la region, procedentes de las fuentes de Las Cargas y Laguna del Maule. Las edades estimadas son derivadas para cada fuente a partir de pares de medicion del espesor de la corteza de hidratacion-fechado radiocarbono, y calibradas con variables cuya influencia sobre la hidratacion ha sido establecida experimentalmente. Las ecuaciones que presentamos son actualmente las que mejor predicen las edades conocidas de artefactos que han sido fechados independientemente por radiocarbono y, por lo tanto, pueden utilizarse con cautela para estimar la antiguedad de los artefactos de obsidiana procedentes de la region.

Marxist and Structural Marxist Perspectives of Hunter-Gatherers

The entirely unnecessary confusion regarding the differences between middle-range and optimal foraging theory reviewed in Chapter 4 indicates the kinds of problems that arise when research is conducted in the absence of a firm understanding of how it relates to general theory. Middle-range theorists to the contrary, like any other scientific enterprise, hunter-gatherer research requires a decent body of general theory. In the sense I intend here, to be viable that general theory must present, minimally, a coherent explanatory matrix in which materialist explanation and a concern for evolutionary processes figure prominently. I assume, further, that just as these features will characterize any modern theory of hunter-gatherers, so must they characterize any modern general theory of anthropology. These stipulations reflect my own theoretical perspective and assumptions regarding the quintessential role of hunter-gatherers in anthropology. Note further still that by invoking these stipulations and the body of theory underlying them, I am denying deliberately any possible role here for what has been called “post-processual archaeology” (Hodder 1982a, b, 1983). As Yengoyan (1985) notes, that approach effectively precludes any chance of doing comparative or generalizing research, which is assumed to be the principal purpose of all the theories, limited and general, in question here (see later discussion).

More Complex Models of Optimal Behavior Among Hunter-Gatherers

One problem in evaluating the potential utility of foraging theory in anthropology is that the results of critical behavioral tests are seldom clear-cut. Historically, where optimal models have been applied to real cases (see Chapter 4), the fit between expected and observed behavior has been close enough to satisfy advocates and loose enough to encourage critics. Because alternative theories weigh facts differently, such empirical indeterminacies are unavoidable. Constructive critics of foraging theory have made this a productive area of research. They regard the inevitable mismatches between observed and expected foraging behavior neither as devastating (providing an excuse to ignore such models) nor as uninteresting (to be dismissed as noise reflecting faulty or incomplete data). Rather, the constructive critics of optimal foraging theory see such mismatches as opportunities to develop better models. These alternative models all sacrifice some of the simplicity of explanation that characterizes the foraging models previously discussed by introducing additional assumptions and logical complexity. In each case it is assumed that the loss in elegance is justified by gains in predictive accuracy or in model realism.

Neo-Darwinian Theory and Hunter-Gatherers

Neo-Darwinian theories explain macro-level phenomena as the cumulative consequence of explicitly defined processes acting on a micro level, specifically on reproductive individuals. There are currently three schools of neo-Darwinian thought in anthropology: evolutionary archaeology, human behavioral ecology, and cultural transmission theory (sometimes called dual inheritance theory). In this chapter, we deal primarily with human behavioral ecology in which behavior is interpreted in terms of genetic fitness and often modeled using game theory. Central to human behavioral ecological studies is the tension between individual and group interests. We describe the fundamental tenets of human behavioral ecology and explore its advantages and limitations through a variety of models and case studies.

The History of Americanist Hunter-Gatherer Research

As we have seen, social evolutionary theory rested on the premise that material economy—more particularly subsistence economy—is fundamental to cultural progress and determines its evolutionary trajectory. Hunter-gatherers were conceptually critical to that premise. In opposing culture and nature, progressive evolutionary theory necessarily implied that the behavior of primitive peoples was to be construed in natural rather than cultural terms, that is, as a direct response to nature, technology, and environment. It followed that in its initial stages evolutionary progress was accomplished by replacing the natural hunting and gathering economy with a cultural economy founded on agriculture (see later discussion). As hunter-gatherers known in the nineteenth century showed, without this first step human progress was impossible (cf. Chinard 1947:51; Pearce 1988:66–72, 132). In social evolutionary theory, then, ecology and environment and hunter-gatherer research were inseparable; one could not account for the latter without considering the former.