Theory, Prehistoric Land Use and Archaeology

It seems to me that archaeologists use many terms and concepts which are not really defined. This is particularly true in CRM archaeology. In fact, I would say it is rampant in CRM archaeology. I often feel like much of what I read is a bunch of terms and phrases strung together, without a real feel for what those terms actually mean or how they are used.

Great Quote

I should like to record an overwhelming impression that many students [of prehistory] are but slightly reformed antiquarians. To one who is a layman in these highly specialized realms there seems a great deal of obsessive wallowing in detail of and for itself. No one can feel more urgently than this writer the imperative obligation of anthropologists [particularly archaeologists] to set their descriptions in such a rich context of detail that they can properly be used for comparative purposes. Yet proliferation of minutiae is not its own justification (Kluckhohn 1940:42).

From Introduction, by Lee Lyman and Michael J. O’Brien. In Method and Theory in American Archaeology by Godon R. Willey and Philip Philips, 1958. Reprinted 2001. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa and London.

I think I need to read Kluckhohn.

Kettle Falls

I am heading up to Kettle Falls, Washington today. Was invited to a ceremony by the Colville Tribe. As I worked along the Upper Columbia every spring from about 1997 to 2003, it will be like going home again. It was definitely one of my great jobs in archaeology, although I wish I knew then what I know now. Working up there was like archaeology camp, archaeology all day, every day, with nothing else to do but drink (at least for the crews). The area has been built up these days, but back then there was no or limited internet and cell phone connections were very sporadic. Houses were scattered and not many people were around. There was no one to bother you, no way to really get a hold of you. It was wonderful. I think crews today don’t know what they are missing by having technology.

Thin Archaeology

Saw a great talk yesterday. Ken Ames repeated his NWAC keynote address for a PSU audience. The talk was worth it both times, although he did have more of a rush going for the first one, which is hard to recreate.

The thing that struck me was the idea of a “thin” understanding of the past. That is, our knowledge is often dependent on a few sites or a small amount of data. It appears robust and detailed, but one new discovery can change everything.

GPS Units

Hmm, is sub-meter accuracy really worth the an extra 2 grand? I say no most of the time.

Some thoughts on prehistoric land use in NE Oregon

So…first blog, first blog entry. Not quite sure what to write, so might as well start off with what I have been working on recently. Two weeks ago, I attended the Northwest Anthropological Conference (NWAC) in Newport, Oregon. Saw a number of good papers, some not so good. In general, the conference was fun and informative.

I presented on some stuff I have been playing with for a little while. It was a pretty simple review of prehistoric land use in the Blue Mountains of NE Oregon. The data was collected for a recent project, but as the project is probably canceled, I thought I should proceed with using the data and what I learned. May work it up into an article.

I only used excavated data, no site forms, ethnographic or historic information. That's all great stuff, but I wanted to try and get a grip on what we are learning from the archaeology. There were a lot of problems with the data. For some strange reason, no one in that part of the state puts quantitative data in tables, which makes collecting info pretty hard.

Anyway, I ended up with about 18 temporally discreet sites dating to the Middle Holocene (8,000 to 4,000) and Late Holocene (4,000 to 0). I used diversity and cluster analysis to try and define site types, then sees how these types varied over time and space.

There were no significant differences in diversity or elevation between the Middle and Late Holocene assemblages.

The most satisfactory clustering provided two primary clusters:

Cluster 1, which included most of the sites, was richer and more even. Overall, these sites seem to have a generalize suite of tools. The mean elevation for Cluster 1 sites is lower and they occur in both the Middle and Late Holocene.

Cluster 2 included three sites, which were less rich and more uneven. This clusters formation appeared driven by very high densities of used flakes, maybe more cores and cobble choppers, but fewer scrapers. I included a site that had only four points and lots of bison bone into this cluster. Due to the small number of tools, I had excluded it from clustering. The mean elevation for Cluster 2 sites is higher and they occur only in the Late Holocene.

All differences in diversity and elevation were significant (p<0.05).>

Overall, it appears land use diversifies in the Late Holocene. At least two types of specialize sites occur and activities are segregated across the landscape.

What’s really important here is what we don’t have. We don’t have villages (at least no housepits), clear quarry sites or specialized plant processing sites. Their lack is probably a sampling issue. We just have not excavated any of these types of site yet. But, that may also not be the case.

Take the lack of quarry sites. The assemblages from 35UN52, the Stockoff Quarry site, don’t really look like a quarry. Assemblages are large and diverse, with moderate biface densities and only a little early reduction debitage. The site seems to be a generalized residential site, rather than a specialized quarry site. Thus, it’s probably a logistical base. While it was certainly used while quarrying basalt at the nearby outcrops, the lack of a typical quarry signature suggests we may be looking at an embedded raw material procurement system.

I would have to do some more analysis, but I also think projectile point densities increase in the Late Holocene, while groundstone decreases. As noted above, this could be a sampling issue and we just have not excavated specialized plant sites. But it does seem that ground stone is more rare at sites dating after about 4,000 years ago. Maybe we are seeing an increase in the importance of hunting and a decrease in plant processing. Hmmm.

What’s really fascinating about all this is all the possibilities for research. I really like this approach for getting a handle on archaeological work.