The traditional view of early Paleoindian groups has maintained that these populations roamed the countryside, armed with high quality stone points in pursuit of megafuana. However, this may be an oversimplification of the patterns in Paleoindian lifeways and the role of the hunt on social organization. What was the real role of big-game hunting for early Paleoindian in North America? Are our traditional assumptions of early Paleoindian behavior still viable when compared to modern ethnographic counterparts? John D. Speth, Khori Newlander, Andrew A. White, Ashley K. Lemke and Lars E. Anderson attempt to rock the boat of basic assumptions about Paleoindian systems in their article Early Paleoindian big-game hunting in North America: Provisioning or Politics?, by asking seven key questions that are meant to bring about a new way of thinking about and perhaps understanding Paleoindian behaviors.
“Were big game … really the mainstay of the Paleoindian diet” (Speth et al. 2010:2)? Speth et al. assert that large game hunting did take place, but acknowledge that a shift in evidence is pointing to a population that were “generalist” in their food intake rather than hunting specialists. Is it possible to address the view that these populations were specialized hunting groups, especially when much of the small faunal and floral remains are lost to time due to taphonomic processes?
“Do the distances from kills and campsites to sources of exotic flint reflect the actual geographic space over which Paleoindian groups ranged on an annual basis” (Speth et al. 2010:2)? “Why did flint procurement have to be embedded in the annual round of a social group? Why couldn’t the get it through exchange… or periodic treks to the sources for the express purpose of getting flint” (Speth et al. 2010:2)? Understanding lithic procurement strategies are a decisive factor in developing a cohesive model for Paleoindian behavioral practices. There are numerous accounts in the ethnographic literature of individuals and small groups willing to travel long distances to acquire symbolically important materials, distances beyond the typical scope of the annual subsistence round. Is it possible that flint may have fallen into this category of a symbolically meaningful resource to Paleoindian populations especially from non-local sources? There is also the potential that Paleoindian group’s acquired flint through economic and social exchange with other groups. Based on the ethnographic record, groups had the ability to transport exotics beyond the scope of basic subsistence needs and have been observed doing so. Speth et al. wants to move beyond the traditional utilitarian and economic explanations of resource movement, and bring in aspects of social, political and ideological forces into the mix, in order to have the ability to formulate a comprehensive assessment.
“Why all the hoopla about “high-quality flint in the first place …” (Speth et al. 2010:3) and “Why are Paleoindian projectile points so remarkably pretty?” (Speth et al. 2010:3)? If quality flint was vital to a group’s survival then the use of poor quality flint would be nearly absent in the archaeological record, but it is medium to poor quality stone that is the most prevalent. Fine quality flint is mainly observed in use as projectile points. However, why would you use material of high quality and of greater value in a method that it would be apt to break? “Does one really need a stone point on the end of a projectile weapon to kill an animal?” (Speth et al. 2010:3)? The basic answer is no. Wood-tipped arrows have been proven effective in not only hunting, but also warfare. Speth et al. raise the idea that high-quality stone points may lay in the realm of costly-signaling rather than basic survival.
The last and most pertinent question raised by Speth et al., is whether big-game hunting was merely for food procurement for the survival of the family or were the hunts taking place for social and political prestige. Speth et al. seem to favor the idea of prestige as an underlying goal of the hunt. Based on archaeological and ethnographic information, the hunt is not always the most beneficial method for a groups subsistence needs, but rather is available when subsistence needs are already met. The hunt itself becomes part of costly signaling.
Speth et al. raise several intriguing and fundamental question about Paleoindian behavior practices from a perspective that is rarely tackled. Even they acknowledge that the article was entirely speculative. It was meant to raise more questions than answers by providing a distinctly new social, political and ideological approach to Paleoindian lifeways. In this regard, they accomplished their task. The distinct set of seven questions posed by Speth et al. was able to build upon each other to help support understanding the next question until they culminated in a plausible alternative to traditional Paleoindian models. The use ethnographic analogous groups to support their perspective provided valuable comparative analysis, but they need to root their fundamental assumptions on hard archaeological evidence to solidify their model. As of now their assumptions are extremely generalized across the broad geographic landscape of North America, and therefore, may not be applicable to all Paleoindian groups. They have succeeded in laying the groundwork for a new approach to Paleoindian lifeways; however, they still have a long way to go before they can rewrite the traditional understanding of Paleoindians.
John D. Speth, Khori Newlander, Andrew A. White, Ashley K. Lemke and Lars E. Anderson
2010 Early Paleoindian Big-Game Hunting in North America: Provisioning or Politics?Quaternary International: in press.
No comments:
Post a Comment