1990 Speth (Hunter-Gatherers in the American Southwest)

8/2/2019 1990 Speth (Hunter-Gatherers in the American Southwest)

1/8

14 Spielmann' 1 calized resources.Returning to the Southwest, I would argue that significant researchon the Archaic can, and to a limited extent is, being done. Modelssi rnilar to those of Hofman would expand ou r understanding of southwestern hunter-gatherer adaptations. Major obstacles to the testing ofsuch models are the lack of chronometric data and organic remainsfrom Archaic sites. Bayham {this volume) deal t with the c h r o n o ~ e t r i c problem -by explicitly focusing a portion of the Picacho ReservoirProject on obtaining a suite of radiocarbon dates. When this sort offocus is not possible, carefully reasoned projectile point chronologies,for the time being, are the primary alternative (see Huckell 1984).lack of subsistence remains can potentially be overcome by focusingefforts on "middle range" research which relates patterning in theubiquitous, nondiagnostic lithic artifacts to subsistence and sett lementbehavior, and perhaps to temporal change. Kelly (1985) in the GreatBasin, and Bostwick and Shackley (1987) in southern Arizona havebegun this sort of middle range research. Clearly, further efforts in thisdirection are crucial.With this said, let me now turn to the remaining papers in thehunter-gatherer section. They illustrate, in greater detail than I havehere, the current state of southwestern hunter-gatherer research.Bayham and Morris' study, as mentioned above, takes the results ofone contract project and illustrates what an explicitly ecologicalapproach can accomplish. Speth's paper points out other kinds ofinteresting questions which can be addressed by research on thesouthwestern Archaic. Villalpando focuses on the unique southwesternexample of hunter-gatherers with access to marine resources. Parryand Smiley provide significant new data for northeastern Arizona.While they describe the truly miserable state of affairs for Archaic andPaleoindian studies in this portion of the Southwest, the major thrustof their paper is that the data are there if archaeologists look forthem. Finally, Vierra's paper discusses an area with much betterinormation on the Archaic.In reading these papers, our hope is that one will come away withan understanding of both the realized and the future potential ofhunter-gatherer research in the Southwest.

1The Study of

Hunter-Gatherers in the AmericanSouthwest: New Insights from EthnologyJohn D. Speth

IntroductionThe archaeological record of the Southwest documents thepresence of hunter-gatherers in the region for over nine millennia,extending from at least as early as Clovis times well into the Christian

era {Cordell 1984). Moreover, conditions of preservation in the aridSouthwest are at times remarkable. It is not unusual for caves androckshelters, and even some open-air sites, to produce remains ofbaskets, sandals, blankets, traps and snares, macrobotanical remains,human coprolites, and even the mummified remains of the foragersthemselves. Given the time-depth and richness of the southwesternarchaeological record, the study of the region's prehistoric foragersholds tremendous promise for contributing to our general understanding of hunter-gatherer adaptations and evolution.Our ability to make effective use of the archaeological record,however, depends not just on the qualityof the sites we excavate, oron the sophistication of our recovery and analytical techniques, butalso on our keen awareness of new data and state-of-the-arttheoretical debates that are constantly transforming our understandingof living hunter-gatherer systems. It is this understanding that guidesus as archaeologists in choosing appropriate variables to investigateand in constructing useful models {Speth 1988a). Despite frequentallusions to problems in the use of analogy, a quick perusal of the

15


2/8

Investigations in American ArchaeologyPaul Minnis, Series EditorPatricia A. Gilman, Regional Editor, Southwest

Perspectives on Southwestern Prehistory, edited by Paul E. Minnisand Charles L. RedmanA -1heory ofNorthern Athapaskan Prehistory, John W. IvesEastern Paleoindian Lithic Resource Use, edited by Christopher J.Ellis and Jonathan C. LothropThe Sociopolitical Structure of Prehistoric Southwestern Societies,edited by Steadman Upham, Kent G. Lightfoot, and Roberta A.JewettThe Hopewell Site: A Contemporary Analysis Based on the Work ofCharles C. Willoughby, N'omi B. Greber and Katharine C. RuhlPrehistoric Obsidian Exchange in Social Context: A California Study,Thomas L. Johnson

Perspectives onSouthwestern Prehistory

EDITED BYPaul E. Minnisand Charles L. Redman

Westview PressBOULDER, SAN FRANCISCO, & OXFORD


3/8

.''!t'stigations in American Archaeology

I IllS Westview softcover edition is printed on acid-free paper and bound in library'Ill;dity, coated covers that carry the highest rating of the National Association of Statelcxtbook Administrators, in consultation with the Association of American Publishers.t nd the Book Manufacturers' Institute.\II rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in

.tny form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording,')f any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing fromthe publisher.< opyright 1990 by Westview Press, Inc.Published in 1990 in the United States of America by Westview Press, Inc., 5500 Central\venue, Boulder, Colorado 80301, and in the United Kingdom by Westview Press, Inc.,16 Lonsdale Road, Summertown, Oxford OX2 7EW

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication DataPerspectives on Southwestern prehistory I edited by Paul E. Minnis andCharles L. Redman.p. em. - (Investigations in American archaeology)Includes bibliographical. references and index.ISBN 0-8133-7930-XI. Indians of North America-Southwest, New-History. 2. Indians\)r North America-Southwest, New-Antiquities. 3. Southwest, New-\ ntiquities. I. Minnis, Paul E. II. Redman, Charles L.Ill. Series.l 7 ~ . S 7 P 4 6 1990

'J 79'.01-dc20

l'rintcd and bound in the United States of AmericaThe paper used in this publication meets the requirements8 of the American National Standard for Permanence of Paperf()r Printed Library Materials Z39.48-1984.

111 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

90-38732CIP

ContentsIntroduction: The Current Context ofSouthwestern Prehistory Paul E. Minnisand Charles L. Redman

Section I.Hunters and GatherersIntroduction Katherine A. Spielmann1. The Study of Hunter-Gatherers in the AmericanSouthwest: New Insights from Ethnology John D. Speth2. Thermal Maxima and Episodic Occupationof the Picacho Reservoir Dune FieldFrank E. Bayham and Donald H Morris3. Hunters and Gatherers of the Sonoran IslandsMaria Elisa Villalpando C.4. Hunter-Gatherer Archaeology in Northeastern Arizonaand Southeastern Utah William J. Parry and F.E. Smiley5. Archaic Hunter-Gatherer Archaeology in NorthwesternNew Mexico Bradley 1 Vie"a

Section II.Transitions to SedentismIntroduction Michael E. Whalen and Patricia A. Gilman6. Sedentism and Settlement Mobility in the Tucson BasinPrior to A.D. 1000 Suzanne K Fish, Paul R. Fish, andJohn Madsen

1

9

15

2638

4757

71

76


4/8

16 Spetharchaeological l iterature shows that southwestern archaeologists clearlyr,::cognize and accept the critical and i n e s c a p a ~ l e link b ~ t w e e n thestudy of living hunter-gatherer systems and the Interpretation of prehistoric ones (Speth 1988a).The close and inevitable dependence of southwestern archaeologyon insights drawn from ethnology has been evident for decades.Steward:S (1938) classic study of Great Basin foragers, completed halfa century ago, became the standard framework upon whi_ch much ofour understanding of prehistoric hunters and. gathe_rers In both theGreat Basin and the Southwest has been butlt. It IS largely on thebasis of Steward's work, reformulated into the "Desert c u l t u r ~ " byJennings (1964) and into various e x p l i c i t l ~ s o ~ t ~ w e s t e r n regional"traditions" (e.g., Oshara and Hueco) by Irw1r:-WllhaT?-s ( ~ 9 7 3 , 19?9)and others, that we now routinely charactenze p r e h i s t o n ~ foragi;ngbands in the Southwest as small, dispersed, highly mobile, sociopolitically egalitarian, and eclectic in their resource use:Steward's pioneering reconstructive e t h n o g r ~ p h y In the GreatBasin has since been altered and augmented In Important ways,particularly by the incorporation of insights from the now classic w o ~ k of the Harvard Kalahari Project among the !Kung San (Bushmen) Insouthern Africa. This research, which provided the stimulus for theAfan the Hunter symposium (Lee and DeVore 1 9 6 ~ ) , has had a ~ r o found impact on all facets of h u n t e r - g a t h ~ r e r studies, a ~ c h a ~ o l o g i c a l as well as ethnographic. Thus, we now beheve t h ~ t prehtstonc southwestern foragers during the Holocene, much hke the Sa.n today,probably relied primarily on wild plant foods,_ devoted ~ e l a t i v e l y few!hours per day to the food quest, seldom expenenced s e r ~ o u s r e s ~ u r ~ e stress lived in small local groups or bands that were htghly fluid Inc o m p ~ s i t i o n , lacked any form of clear-cut terr.itoriali.ty or exclusiverights to resources, maintained flexible p o s t - m a n t ~ l residence patternsand bilateral descent systems, aggregated and dispersed seasonally,buffered themselves against uncertainty by maintaining broad-basedkinship networks and exchange ties, and kept their populations belowregional carrying capacity.In the 1970s and early 1980s, insights drawn from B i n f o r ? ~ s (1978,1980) ethnographic observations on p a t t ~ r n s of mobihty ~ n d technological organization among the Nunaffilut, San, an_d AustralianAborigines have further transformed our understanding of. bothcontemporary and prehistoric hunters and gatherers. Thus, In .theSouthwest, prehistorians now r o ~ t ~ n e l y l o o ~ . for archaeologicalindicators of residential and logistical mobility, and attempt todetermine the conditions that favored one pat tern over the other. Alsobased largely on Binford's work, southwestern archaeologists now view

Hunter-Gatherer Ethnology 17tool assemblages in terms of various techno-organizational parameterscharacterizing some as expedient in nature and others as curated(Parry and Kelly 1987).

While it is clear that archaeologists depend heavily on insightsfrom e t h n o l ~ 8 ? ' ' as in my view they must (Speth 1988a), the pace ofresearch on hvtng hunters and gatherers has increased so rapidly in thelast few years that it has become exceedingly difficult for archaeologists to stay abreast of developments in the field and still continueto ?o archaeol?8?' Yet, if a.rchaeologists fall behind, they end up intheu model-butldtng employtng outdated ethnological frameworks andconstructs which have become mere conventions, a problem archaeologists have been explicitly trying to circumvent since the advent ofthe new archaeology (Binford 1962).

In this brief paper, I outline some of the major shifts that aretaking place in just one sphere of contemporary hunter-gathererstudies--diet and subsistence. This obviously will be far from anexhaustive review of the subject. However, I hope that thispresentation will alert southwestern archaeologists to some of thecritical and more interesting changes that are transformingh u n t ~ r - g a t h e r e r studies today; these changes have an importantbeanng on our models of prehistoric foraging adaptations in theSouthwest and the mechanisms by which these systems were transformed into village-based agricultural economies.

Hunter-Gatherer Diet and Subsistence:The "Original Aflluent Society" RevisitedPublication of the Man the Hunter symposium (Lee and DeVore1968), and particularly the papers by Richard Lee (1968) and MarshallSahlins (1968), have had a tremendous impact on our views of

contemporary and prehistoric hunter-gatherer adaptations. Lee 's workattempted t.o show that foragers living today in a so-called "marginal"desert environment, one not all that different from many parts of theSouthwest, were able to fulfill their basic nutritional needs workingat a leisurely pace and for only a few hours each day (see also Lee1969).Sahlins {1968) expanded on Lee's contributions, demolishing anyvestige of the 19th-century view that hunters and gatherers hoveredprecariously on the brink of starvation. In his typically eloquent styleSahlins argued that, given limited needs and adequate means, f o r a g e r ~ like the San epitomize the "Original Affluent Society."How have these views of affluence and security changed since thelate 1960s? Lee's initial calculations of San work effort, upon which


5/8

18 Speth. Sahlins based his conclusions, focused almost entirely on the timespent procuring food away from camp (Lee 1969). These figuresdisregarded most of the time and labor spent in camp processing foodsfor consumption, particularly cracking and roasting mongongo nuts, the!Kung staple. His figures also omitted the time and labor involved in..:ollecting firewood and water, making and repairing tools, and manydther activities that were vital to procuring food and preparing a meal.In more recent publications, Lee (1979) has substantially increased his~ s t i m a t e s for total work effort. While the new figures certainly do notapproach the levels seen in many traditional agricultural societies,they do indicate that the San labor considerably harder and longerthan Lee's original figures led us, and Sahlins, to believe.- Looking from a somewhat different perspective specifically at thework effort of !Kung women, the major food providers among the San,I3lurton Jones and Sibley (1978) have concluded that heat stress duringth1e hotter months of the year may severely constrain the loads (i.e.,both food and babies) that women can safely transport. Thus, theirseemingly light and irregular work schedule may, in part, reflectthermal constraints rather than a non-Protestant work ethic (see alsoBentley 1985).Nancy Howell (1979, 1986) and others (e.g., Truswell 1977;Truswell and Hansen 1976; Wilmsen 1978, 1982, 1986) have stressedhow little body fat the San actually have. Howell (1986), in fact, nowcharacterizes the San as chronically undernourished, a dramatic shiftin perspective from the view of Eden presented less than 20 yearsearlier by Lee and Sahlins. In the 1960s, Lee (1979) measured Sanbody weights at two different points in the year and found no evidenceof significant intra-annual fluctuation. More recently, however,W:ilmsen (1978, 1982, 1986) recorded monthly body weights and, incontrast to Lee, found fairly dramatic declines (up to 6%) during thedry season.There are many other factors that also point to recurrent nutritional stress among the San (Gaulin and Konner 1977:69; l-Iarpendingand Wandsnider 1982; Wiessner 1977, 1981). For example, the Sanfrequently complain of hunger (Howell 1986). Many anthropologistsregard this merely as a sign that preferred foods are in short supply,not that total calories or critical nutrients are lacking. But there is agrowing sense that these complaints of hunger may have a real underlying basis, especially in light of their exceedingly small body fatreserves and seasonal weight changes (Truswell 1977; Truswell andi Iansen 1976; Wilmsen 1978, 1982).In addition, most adults carry high parasite and disease loads (e.g.,l\!Jetz et al. 1971). While some of these parasites and diseases may be

Hunter-Gatherer Ethnology 19relatively recent introductions (e.g., gonorrhea), others may have muchgreater time-depth among the San. Thus, while caloric intakes mayseem adequate, the actual levels of nutrients available to an individualmay be insufficient.There is a growing consensus among anthropologists that even thediminutive size of the San and other foragers may itself be anadaptation to chronic resource inadequacies (e.g., Stini 1981; Tobias1962; Truswell and Hansen 1976:190), and Hausman and Wilmsen(1985:57) present evidence for significant undernutrition and retardedgrowth in San girls.Hitchcock (1986) notes that mongongo nut trees do not provide aperpetual bonanza of food for the !Kung, contrary to the vieworiginally presented by Lee {1968, 1979), but periodically fail likemany other nut-bearing trees. Interestingly, some San plant foods mayactually fail during periods of elevated rainfall, not drought, becauseunder wetter conditions these plants invest their energy in vegetativegrowth rather than in edible reproductive parts such as seeds or nuts(cf. Harpending and Wandsnider 1982). Thus, Lee's (1968) originalfieldwork, conducted during a period of drought, may not have beenthe ideal time to witness the !Kung system under stress. Nevertheless,the general conclusion drawn by Lee that the !Kung's eclectic dieteffectively buffers them from serious hardship during times of droughthas been called into question. More recent data indicate thatprolonged droughts may, in fact, have drastic negative impacts on Sanforagers, leading to severe food shortages, starvation, and massivepopulation displacements (Hitchcock 1986).Konner and Shostak (1987) suggest that even the high sucklingfrequency of !Kung infants, one of the key factors responsible formaintaining low fertility levels among the San (Konner and Worthman1980), may at least to some extent reflect inadequate milk productionby lactating mothers.Finally,. the !Kung consume nearly 2 kg of meat per person perday during the height of the dry season (Lee 1982:40), at precisely thepoint in time when, according to Wilmsen (1978, 1982), their bodyweight drops to its minimum. This amounts to an intake of over 70%of their total calories in the form of protein (not taking into accountthe considerable amount of protein derived from vegetable foods), alevel of consumption substantially higher than the highest values seen,under normal circumstances, among the Eskimos (Speth 1989, inpress). Spielmann and I have argued elsewhere that the meat of mostMrican ungulates during the dry season is extremely lean and providesforagers with a poor source of sustenance (Speth and Spielmann 1983;see also, Ledger 1968; Speth 1983, 1987a, 1987b). I can now state this


6/8

20 Spethn1ore precisely: consumption of protein (plant and animal combined)in excess of about 50% of total calories for extended periods can leadto serious health problems (Speth 1989, in press). Protein intakesabove this threshold may exceed the rate at which the liver canmetabolize amino acids, and the body can synthesize and excrete urea,leading to hypertrophy and functional overload of the liver andkidneys, elevated, even toxic levels of ammonia in the blood,dehydration and electrolyte imbalances, calcium loss, micronutrientdeficiencies, and lean tissue loss (Cahill 1986:42; Hegsted andLinkswiler 1981; McArdle et al. 1986:545; Miller and Mitchell1982:115-116; Whitney and Hamilton 1984:145).In pregnant women, the safe upper limit of total protein intakemay actually be considerably lower. A number of studies have shownthat supplementation with high protein foods of an otherwise balancedand caloric adequate material diet usually leads to declines rather thangains in infant birth weight, and often to increases in perinatalmortality as well. Infants who are born prematurely appear to be mostseverely affected by material protein supplements (Kerr-Grieve et al.1979; Rush 1982; Rush et al. 1980). Declines in infant birth weightare seen even in situations where material weight increases in responseto dietary supplimentation, and the decline becomes more pronouncedthe greater the mother's protein intake. Birth weight also declineswhen the mother's total caloric intake is restricted, but appears to bemore extreme when the diet is both low in energy and high in protein.Interestingly, the total amount of protein in the diets reported in thesestudies seldom exceed about 15% to 25% of calories (Rush 1982).Thus, high protein intakes may have a serious negative impact on thehealth and mortality of the fetus and may prove to be a critical factorin understanding the food-sharing behavior, food taboos, andreproductive success of the San and other hunting and gatheringpopulations.Shortages of drinking water and high daytime temperatures,conditions typical of the Kalahari, may exacerbate the dangers of adiet high in protein, since the physiological need for a substantialincrease in water consumption may not elicit an immediate response(Alfred E. Harper, personal communication). Moreover, if the dietaryshift from low to high protein intake occurs rapidly, the body's abilityto adapt to the increased amino acid load may be exceeded, againleading to acute adverse effects (Harper 1974:16). Thus, Lee's(1982:40) observation that the San gorge on lean meat during theheight of the dry season, at the same time that their body weightdeclines to its minimum, points to relatively severe nutritional stress.

Hunter-Gatherer Ethnology 21There are numerous other observations that have been made inthe past few. years among the San and other foraging groups thattarmsh the p t ~ t u r e of general affluence and security painted for us by

L e ~ and Sahhns. For example, anthropologists have focused on thes o c t ~ l . a s p e c t s of meat sharing, stressing the utopian view that everyoneparticipates and everyone receives a more or less "equivalent" sharebut they have missed the important fact that the portions received'w h i l ~ _perhaps of comparable size, may not always be of equivalentn ~ t n . t t o n a l worth (Speth 1988b, in press). Fat is not uniformlyd i s t n b u t ~ ? through_out the b.ody of an ungulate, and these fat depositsare mobilized at different times and at different rates depending onthe s e a s o ~ of the year, as well as on the age, sex, overall health, and~ e p r o d ? c t l v e s t _ a ~ e of the a ~ i m a l . (Speth 1983). Thus, it is virtuallyI m p o s ~ I b l e t.o divtde up an animal In such a way that everyone receivesa portion With the same fat content. These nutritional inequities maybe e x a ~ e r b a t e d the m?re. sty!ized and traditional the pattern o fb u t ~ h e n n g and meat distnbutlon; by the hunters' snacking on thechoicest fatty parts directly at the site of the kill; and by widespreadfood taboos which often prevent adolescent and adult women fromaccess to animal fat at precisely the times when these resources wouldbe IJ?-OSt valuable to them--at puberty and when they are pregnant ornursi!lg (Speth 1988b, l?ress; Spielmann 1988, in press). Inequitiesof this sort ~ a y be.of IDimmal.consequence to women during periodswhen food Is plentiful; but dunng seasons, or inter-annual periods ofresource s ~ r e s s , women's ~ i f f e r e ~ ~ i a l access to fatty meat may hav'e aprofound Impact on theu fertility and/or on the rates of infantmortality.

In addition, ~ o t all males hunt as frequently as others, nor do allmen own the equipment needed to hunt (e.g., nets, traps), nor do theyhave the same success rates (Speth 1988b, in press). While thesedifferences .among hunters have been common knowledge for decades,recent s t u ~ ~ e s show that bett er hl!nters, i-? fact, have better diets, theyare more hkely to marry, and theu offspnng are more likely to survive(Bailey 1 ~ 8 8 ; Kaplan and Hill 1985a, 1985b; Siskind 1973).Even Issues such as territoriality and conflict resolution have comeunder renewed scrutiny. For example, while Lee and others in theMan the Hunter symposium (Lee and DeVore 1968) stressed thenon-territorial nature of the San and other foragers (see also Lee1972), new field studies and reexamination of older accounts arep r o v i d ~ n g insights that suggest the issue of space and resource use may,In reality, be far more complex. Thus, the very fact that foraging bandshave a regular and comparatively stable distribution over the landscape suggests that forces are at work to maintain the spatial array


7/8

2 ~ 2 Speth. (see, for example, Moore 1981). Moreover, the existenceof unutilizedareas, or areas of overlapping use, in no way proves that groups arenon-territorial. The critical question is: who has access to these areasur resources during stressful periods when at least some of these1esources may becon1e limiting? In addition, there are frequentd tations in the literature that San families considered certainresources their own, often actually flagging them in some manner (e.g.,!viarshall 1976; Passarge 1907); these observations point to a patternof resource use somewhat different from the totally "egalitarian"Manthe Hunter image.And finally, the peaceful San and many other foraging societiesare turning out to have extremely high homicide rates, not infrequentlyex-ceeding the per capita rate in the United States (e.g., Knauft 1987).lbe fact that they have appeared so tranquil to most ethnographersturns out to be largely a sampling problem--given their small population sizes, very few homicides occur within the relatively short fieldstay of the observer. However, when these events are expressed on aper-thousand basis, the rates have turned out tobe astonishingly high.While many kinds of evidence now suggest that the San live in amuch more stressful world than we once thought, it would bemisleading to conclude that all foragers face comparable forms andlevels of stress. In fact, perhaps the most striking revelation of thepast ten years of hunter-gatherer research is the tremendous variabilityfrom group to group in virtually every aspect from stature and bodyweight to daily and seasonal work patterns and even to fertility andrr10rtality patterns (Hill and Hurtado in press; Hurtado and Hill1987:184-185). Clearly we must not simply "see the past through Saneyes." Instead, one of our most urgent and immediate tasks is todocument and explain the ecological and adaptive underpinningsofthe tremendous cross-cultural variability.

ConclusionsIt should be clear from this discussion that the image of the"Original Affluent Society" which emerged from the Man the Huntersymposium was at best misleading. I certainly do not mean to pushthe pendulum back to the 19th-century view and argue that huntersand gatherers are, after all, perpetually hovering on the brink ofstarvation. What I do mean to suggest, however, is that this image,spawned by the idealism of the 1960s, diverted our attention awayfrom some critical sources of stress that may lie at the very heart ofthe adaptive responses and evolutionary transformations we are tryingto identify and explain (e.g., increasing sedentism; the adoption of, and

Hunter-Gatherer Ethnology 23increasing dependence upon, cultigens; hunter-gatherer and horticultural interaction; "devolution" from farming to foraging economies;and so forth).Even if we accept that the San live in a more stressful world thanLee and Sahlins led us to believe, anthropologists are quick to pointout that the San probably tell us little about most of the world'sprehistoric foraging adaptations. After all, we are repeatedly remindedthat the San, like Pygmies in the dense tropical forests of centralAfrica or Eskimos in the barren tundras of the Arctic, occupy theworld's most inhospitable and "marginal" corners, "wastelands"unwanted by the rest of humanity (of course, most of the aridSouthwest would also fall into this same category).By this logic, the desirable, "non-marginal" parts of the world,presumably, are those that are inhabited today by farmers. Yet I findit hard to believe that the corn and wheat belts of the central UnitedStates or the prime agricultural areas of central Europe would beparticularly "benign" habitats for hunter-gatherers during the latewinter or spring. The frequent presence of Harris lines, enamelhypoplasia, and other stress indicators in prehistoric skeletons fromsites throughout the temperate latitudes suggests that foragers in thesesupposedly "non-marginal" areas also experienced recurrent shortfalls(see discussion and references in Speth and Spielmann 1983). In fact,in a continent-wide study of skeletal pathologies in AustralianAborigines, Webb (1984) found the lowest incidences of stress indicators, not in the well-watered coastal areas, but in the arid interior."Marginality" is clearly a very slippery term, one which would bestbe dropped entirely from the hunter-gatherer vocabulary. The extentto which an area is "marginal" to a foraging population is not simplya function of the number of millimeters of rainfall per year or themean annual temperature; it is very much dependent on the techniques and technological organization available to the foragers who usethe area.In closing, let me turn more explicitly to hunter-gatherer archaeology in the Southwest, and briefly discuss what I believe to be acritical and challenging theoretical problem which southwesternarchaeologists can help to resolve. I draw heavily here on aperspective developed by the ecologist,John Wiens (1977). FollowingWiens, but referring here to cultural selection rather than naturalselection in the usual biological sense, foraging populations experienceperiodic stress, and during these stressful periods or adaptive bottlenecks, selection is intensified, favoring particular cultural andbehavioral configurations over others. The more intense or persistentthe stress, the greater the selection for an optimal configuration.


8/8

24 SpethDuring the intervals between periods of stress, selection is relaxed anda greater range of suboptimal cultural and behavioral patterns areviable without penalty. It is during these stressful periods or"bottlenecks," when selection is most intense, that we can most easilyobserve what factors actually constrain or limit a system and form theprincipal focal points of adaptive response and evolutionary change.Given the almost unprecedented precision with which the paleoclimatic history of the Southwest is known, and the potentials of theregion's archaeological and skeletal record, southwestern prehistoriansare in an ideal position to study the impact on foraging systems ofstresses of differing magnitudes and frequencies, and to observe the-nature of the resulting adaptive responses (see Minnis [1985] for asimilar approach to the responses of horticultural systems undervarious types and levels of stress). Cultural anthropologists, becausethey observe a group for only a few years at best, are far less likely towitness major bottlenecks, since these may recur infrequently, if at all,in the lifetime of any one individual. Instead, the configurations thatethnographers observe are actually, at least in part, the consequencesof stresses and their associated responses that occurred in the past.Nevertheless, most anthropologists attempt to account for today'sconfigurations largely in terms of ecological or other parametersobservable today. Thus, for example, hunter and gatherer populationlevels are assumed to be somehow adjusted to current resource conditions. But how then do hunter-gatherers keep their population levelsbelow carrying capacity? The traditional response to this question is toinvoke Liebig's Law of the Minimum: population levels are somehowfine tuned to the lowest recurring set of conditions. But herein lies theheart of the problem. How low? And recurring how often (see Mine1986 for an interesting attempt to address these issues)? Many otheraspects of hunter-gatherer adaptations come up against the sameproblem, that is contemporary configurations probably are not fullyexplainable in terms of contemporary conditions; past stresses and pastresponse histories must be incorporated into the explanation.These are questions that probably cannot be answered by anethnographer on the basis of field studies lasting only a year or so.Without the critical temporal perspective that probably can only beprovided by archaeologists and historians (augmented perhaps bysimulation studies), our understanding of hunter-gatherer adaptations,and the transformations that gave rise to more complex sociopoliticalsystems, will remain far from complete.Acknowledgments. This paper was originally presented at the Southwest Symposium,Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, January 15-16, 1988. I am grateful to PaulMinnis, Charles Redman, and Katherine Spielmann for their invitation to participate

Hunter-Gatherer Ethnology 25in this volume. I would also like to acknowledge the comments and suggestions onthe paper offered by Katherine Spielmann. Robert Whallon drew my attention to theimportance of adaptive "bottlenecks" in hunter-gatherer adaptations and the usefulframework developed by Wiens (1977). The protein arguments, presented in greaterdetail elsewhere (Speth 1989, in press), have benefitted greatly from comments offeredby AHred E. Harper, George F. Cahall, and David Rush.

Documents

1990 Speth (Hunter-Gatherers in the American Southwest)