Developing Frames of Reference for Archaeological Research with Data on Hunter-Gatherer Technology, Social Organization and Environment

Southern Methodist University, Dallas TX

Investigators

Abstract

Dr. Binford and his colleagues will address a number of basic questions regarding the organization of cultural systems and why they change thru time. They will organize ethnographically documented information on hunter-gatherer material culture into data sets germane to exploring archaeologically patterning in the spatial and temporal distribution and association of items of material culture ( eg. Tools, containers ornaments, and clothing). This work will provide a link between the items of material culture archaeologists regularly record and previous research establishing relationships between such properties as mobility patterns, food procurement, groups sizes and varying scales of leadership hierarchy and both environmental and systems states variability (Binford 2001). We will use a well proven means of coding ethnographically described tools (Oswalt 1973, 1976) used in food procurement. We will expand the data on technology to include fabrication and processing tools. The latter have clear archaeological implications (See Binford 2001: ) and may be easily related to the already documented data on the actual practices of food procurement (Binford 2001). We will specifically research containers. A "pre-study" has already shown that when the first ceramics to appear in a sequence are simple bowls, the makers are invariably heavily dependent upon grain foods. We know that early ceramics from many different places may be large pointed bottom pots (Japan, parts of North America, and Scandinavia), small mug like containers (Greece), small round jars or other forms. We want to know why such variability occurs in the form of early ceramics. Therefore, we will document the uses of all containers. That is whether wooden, bark, or other containers are used and what such use is correlated with environmentally or culturally. It is hoped that such a knowledge of non-ceramic container alternatives will be demonstrably related to fabrication tools as well as changing use of containers in the context of varying subsistence strategies. These are all exciting possibilities which should change the way we interpret archaeologically observed innovations in technology. We will develop codes for documenting the types of clothing employed and the forms of body decoration employed by each ethnic group previously studied (Binford 2001). We anticipate exciting results, relating clothing to the frequencies of stone tools used in clothing manufacture and both should vary with climatic variables. We expect to learn why some hunter-gatherers invest heavily in body decoration and personal items, which may end up as grave furniture, and others do not. This is particularly important since the appearance of beads and body ornaments are currently accepted by many as the earliest evidence for fully modern behavior on the part of Homo-sapiens yet not all modern Homo Sapiens use beads or other ornaments.!Other archaeologists see grave furniture and included personalities as evidence for social ranking! Among the questions this research seeks to answer are whether these assumptions are accurate and whether we can explain variability in the use of such items among hunter-gatherer peoples?