This book is about post-Pleistocene adaptive change among the aboriginal cultures of the mountain... more This book is about post-Pleistocene adaptive change among the aboriginal cultures of the mountains and deserts of Arizona and New Mexico. Conceived essentially as a natural science alternative to the prevailing culture history paradigm, it offers both a general theoretical framework for ...
This book is about post-Pleistocene adaptive change among the aboriginal cultures of the mountain... more This book is about post-Pleistocene adaptive change among the aboriginal cultures of the mountains and deserts of Arizona and New Mexico. Conceived essentially as a natural science alternative to the prevailing culture history paradigm, it offers both a general theoretical framework for ...
Despite the importance of ceramics in archaeological studies of the Southwest, there has been no ... more Despite the importance of ceramics in archaeological studies of the Southwest, there has been no comprehensive treatment of a major portion of the region's pottery since the publication of several volumes of the Museum of Northern Arizona's ceramic series in the 1950s. In the intervening years, pottery has played an increasingly important role in analyses of the development of prehistoric cultures. Studies of ceramic composition and of design patterns have led to new ideas concerning the magnitude of trade between regions and the types of social ties or alliances between them. Aspects of form and composition have been emphasized in efforts to understand the types of activities conducted at sites. Furthermore, the focus on ceramic variation as a dating method has continued; pottery is still the primary data base used to date the overwhelming majority of sites. Debate over proper methods of studying and classifying sherds still persists, however, and many of the general issues raised in 1946 by J. O. Brew (Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 21) are still relevant. Does ceramic change occur gradually or in stages, and if gradually, are we advancing efforts to understand the development of prehistoric cultures by assigning sites to phases 100 to 150 years long? Should ceramic composition and stylistic attributes be combined in a single classification or should multiple classifications be developed for different needs? To what extent do similarities and differences in ceramic form and design reflect variation in patterns and kinds of social interaction? Southwestern Ceramics is an attempt to provide a much needed summary of current information on Southwestern pottery. It is the product of an advanced seminar held in 1979 at the School of American Research to "examine the ceramic situation over an extensive region [of the Southwest] in an attempt to outline origins, directions of flow, and the extent of transmittal of traits and styles (attributes)" (p. 3). The content of the volume is diverse. It begins and ends with articles by Albert Schroeder that outline the goals and conclusions of the seminar and describe the development of the various ceramic traditions in the area. A second introductory article by Steven LeBlanc provides a detailed discussion of the beginning of ceramic production in the Southwest. Most of the remaining chapters focus on ceramics of a particular region or culture, including the Hohokam (written by Bruce Masse), the Patayan of central and northwestern Arizona (Robert Euler), the Mogollon (Steven LeBlanc), the Navajo and Apache (David Brugge), and the Anasazi (David Breternitz and William Lucius). Other sections discuss individual ceramic traditions. For example, Roy Carlson considers polychromes, Richard Lang discusses Northern Rio Grande white wares, and David Snow examines the Rio Grande glaze, matte-paint, and plainware traditions. Thus, pottery traditions of all major areas of the Southwest, as well as of most time periods, are considered. Because of the extensive spatial and temporal coverage provided, some part of the volume will be of interest to anyone with a concern for Southwestern ceramics. As a comprehensive treatment of that pottery, however, the volume is weak because it does not provide adequate information on all of the areas and issues that are addressed. This is a result of two problems. First, there is considerable diversity in the quality of the presentations. The articles by Masse and LeBlanc, for example, synthesize past and recently collected information, succinctly outline the major questions concerning Hohokam and Mogollon ceramics, respectively, and provide some interesting answers to some of those questions. The weaker articles, however, add little to previous publications. The cursory discussion of the Four Corners Anasazi is the most disappointing in that it fails to consider the results of several major projects that have been conducted in parts of that area (e.g., Glen Canyon, Chaco Canyon, Salmon Ruin, Cedar Mesa, Hovenweep) in the last two decades. Second, some of the articles fail to examine the classificatory and theoretical questions relevant to any attempt to study such topics as intergroup relationships or to trace the transmission of styles. Ceramic change, for example, is sometimes treated apart from social and economic change. Thus, some discussions suggest that pottery vessels were simply traits that were traded or diffused instead of tools that not only were an important part of a group's food processing technology but also provided a symbolic medium used to communicate different types of information. (LeBlanc's excellent article on the origins of pottery is one exception to the latter statement, however.) In other cases, the discreteness of pottery types and a one-to-one correspondence between specific types and particular temporal phases are asserted, while at the same time it is argued that culture change…
In a recent article [Journal of Pacific Archaeology, vol 1(2), 2010], Scott Fitzpatrick contends ... more In a recent article [Journal of Pacific Archaeology, vol 1(2), 2010], Scott Fitzpatrick contends that the AD 1300 event model is unhelpful as a key to understanding environmental and societal change in the Pacific during the past 1500 years. We reject this contention on the grounds ...
This book is about post-Pleistocene adaptive change among the aboriginal cultures of the mountain... more This book is about post-Pleistocene adaptive change among the aboriginal cultures of the mountains and deserts of Arizona and New Mexico. Conceived essentially as a natural science alternative to the prevailing culture history paradigm, it offers both a general theoretical framework for ...
This book is about post-Pleistocene adaptive change among the aboriginal cultures of the mountain... more This book is about post-Pleistocene adaptive change among the aboriginal cultures of the mountains and deserts of Arizona and New Mexico. Conceived essentially as a natural science alternative to the prevailing culture history paradigm, it offers both a general theoretical framework for ...
Despite the importance of ceramics in archaeological studies of the Southwest, there has been no ... more Despite the importance of ceramics in archaeological studies of the Southwest, there has been no comprehensive treatment of a major portion of the region's pottery since the publication of several volumes of the Museum of Northern Arizona's ceramic series in the 1950s. In the intervening years, pottery has played an increasingly important role in analyses of the development of prehistoric cultures. Studies of ceramic composition and of design patterns have led to new ideas concerning the magnitude of trade between regions and the types of social ties or alliances between them. Aspects of form and composition have been emphasized in efforts to understand the types of activities conducted at sites. Furthermore, the focus on ceramic variation as a dating method has continued; pottery is still the primary data base used to date the overwhelming majority of sites. Debate over proper methods of studying and classifying sherds still persists, however, and many of the general issues raised in 1946 by J. O. Brew (Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 21) are still relevant. Does ceramic change occur gradually or in stages, and if gradually, are we advancing efforts to understand the development of prehistoric cultures by assigning sites to phases 100 to 150 years long? Should ceramic composition and stylistic attributes be combined in a single classification or should multiple classifications be developed for different needs? To what extent do similarities and differences in ceramic form and design reflect variation in patterns and kinds of social interaction? Southwestern Ceramics is an attempt to provide a much needed summary of current information on Southwestern pottery. It is the product of an advanced seminar held in 1979 at the School of American Research to "examine the ceramic situation over an extensive region [of the Southwest] in an attempt to outline origins, directions of flow, and the extent of transmittal of traits and styles (attributes)" (p. 3). The content of the volume is diverse. It begins and ends with articles by Albert Schroeder that outline the goals and conclusions of the seminar and describe the development of the various ceramic traditions in the area. A second introductory article by Steven LeBlanc provides a detailed discussion of the beginning of ceramic production in the Southwest. Most of the remaining chapters focus on ceramics of a particular region or culture, including the Hohokam (written by Bruce Masse), the Patayan of central and northwestern Arizona (Robert Euler), the Mogollon (Steven LeBlanc), the Navajo and Apache (David Brugge), and the Anasazi (David Breternitz and William Lucius). Other sections discuss individual ceramic traditions. For example, Roy Carlson considers polychromes, Richard Lang discusses Northern Rio Grande white wares, and David Snow examines the Rio Grande glaze, matte-paint, and plainware traditions. Thus, pottery traditions of all major areas of the Southwest, as well as of most time periods, are considered. Because of the extensive spatial and temporal coverage provided, some part of the volume will be of interest to anyone with a concern for Southwestern ceramics. As a comprehensive treatment of that pottery, however, the volume is weak because it does not provide adequate information on all of the areas and issues that are addressed. This is a result of two problems. First, there is considerable diversity in the quality of the presentations. The articles by Masse and LeBlanc, for example, synthesize past and recently collected information, succinctly outline the major questions concerning Hohokam and Mogollon ceramics, respectively, and provide some interesting answers to some of those questions. The weaker articles, however, add little to previous publications. The cursory discussion of the Four Corners Anasazi is the most disappointing in that it fails to consider the results of several major projects that have been conducted in parts of that area (e.g., Glen Canyon, Chaco Canyon, Salmon Ruin, Cedar Mesa, Hovenweep) in the last two decades. Second, some of the articles fail to examine the classificatory and theoretical questions relevant to any attempt to study such topics as intergroup relationships or to trace the transmission of styles. Ceramic change, for example, is sometimes treated apart from social and economic change. Thus, some discussions suggest that pottery vessels were simply traits that were traded or diffused instead of tools that not only were an important part of a group's food processing technology but also provided a symbolic medium used to communicate different types of information. (LeBlanc's excellent article on the origins of pottery is one exception to the latter statement, however.) In other cases, the discreteness of pottery types and a one-to-one correspondence between specific types and particular temporal phases are asserted, while at the same time it is argued that culture change…
In a recent article [Journal of Pacific Archaeology, vol 1(2), 2010], Scott Fitzpatrick contends ... more In a recent article [Journal of Pacific Archaeology, vol 1(2), 2010], Scott Fitzpatrick contends that the AD 1300 event model is unhelpful as a key to understanding environmental and societal change in the Pacific during the past 1500 years. We reject this contention on the grounds ...
Within Micronesia, the southern Mariana archipelago stands
out for the quantity and variety of i... more Within Micronesia, the southern Mariana archipelago stands out for the quantity and variety of its rock art, images painted and incised on the dark walls of caves and rock shelters. The small images colored red, brown, black and white have attracted scholarly and popular attention for decades. Most archaeological accounts of these sites take the historical narrative form, about events in the Chamorro past. This approach to the archaeological record serves an important function, affirming the legitimacy of Chamorro identity. Anthropological archaeologists have a different purpose and “identity”: explaining cultural variability, locally and globally, as scientists. Both approaches generate stories but the anthropological framework involves stories that are subject to empirical test, while the structure of culture histories precludes direct falsification and encourages ad hoc accommodation, or complete ignoring, of inconsistent findings. Both approaches co-exist but have different implications for understanding prehistoric rock art in small scale, non-literate societies generally.
Uploads
Papers
out for the quantity and variety of its rock art, images painted and incised
on the dark walls of caves and rock shelters. The small images colored red, brown, black and white have attracted scholarly and popular attention for decades. Most archaeological accounts of these sites take the historical narrative form, about events in the Chamorro past. This approach to the archaeological record serves an important function, affirming the legitimacy of Chamorro identity. Anthropological archaeologists have a different purpose and “identity”: explaining cultural variability, locally and globally, as scientists. Both approaches generate stories but the anthropological framework involves stories that are subject to empirical test, while the structure of culture histories precludes direct falsification and encourages ad hoc accommodation, or complete ignoring, of inconsistent findings. Both approaches co-exist but have different implications for understanding prehistoric rock art in small scale, non-literate societies generally.