CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE A Heuristic Affordance Landscape Analysis of ...

105 Pages·2017·27.56 MB·English

by  Alec Stevenson

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE
A Heuristic Affordance
Landscape Analysis of the Kawaiisu
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements
For the degree of Master of Arts in Public Archaeology
By
Alec Weinstein Stevenson
December 2017
Signature Page

The thesis of Alec Weinstein Stevenson is approved:

Dr. Mathew Des Lauriers Date

Dr. Soheil Boroushaki Date

Dr. James E. Snead, Chair Date

California State University, Northridge
ii
Table of Contents
Signature Page ................................................................................................................................ ii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. v
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... vi
Chapter 1 - Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1
Chapter 2: Theory and Theoretical Methodology ........................................................................... 3
The Formation of Landscape Theory – Processual Archaeology ................................................ 3
The Evolution of Landscape Theory – Post-Processual Archaeology ........................................ 5
A Different Approach – Phenomenology and Cognitive Systems .............................................. 6
Phenomenology ........................................................................................................................ 7
Cognitive Systems .................................................................................................................... 8
New Technology – Geographic Information Systems ................................................................ 9
Combining the Two - Affordance ............................................................................................. 10
Experiential Affordance ......................................................................................................... 10
Heuristic Affordance – The Future of GIS............................................................................. 11
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 12
Chapter 3: The Landscape ............................................................................................................ 14
Physiography and Geology ........................................................................................................ 14
Sierra Mountains .................................................................................................................... 14
Tehachapi Mountains ............................................................................................................. 17
Climate and Ecology ................................................................................................................. 17
Climate ................................................................................................................................... 17
Ecology................................................................................................................................... 18
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 21
Chapter 4: The Kawaiisu .............................................................................................................. 22
The Origin of People on a Landscape ....................................................................................... 22
Great Basin Societies – General Characteristics .................................................................... 23
Kawaiisu Origins .................................................................................................................... 24
The End of a Migration to European Contact ........................................................................ 25
Kawaiisu Cultural Identity and the Environment ...................................................................... 26
Seasonal Movement ............................................................................................................... 26
Social Organization ................................................................................................................ 27
Medicine and Rituals .............................................................................................................. 28
Subsistence ............................................................................................................................. 29
iii
Mythology .............................................................................................................................. 30
The Kawaiisu Today .............................................................................................................. 31
Chapter 5: Methods ....................................................................................................................... 32
The Heuristic Affordance Methodology .................................................................................... 32
Denoting the Study Area and Literature Research .................................................................... 33
Cultural Data.............................................................................................................................. 34
Landscape Data .......................................................................................................................... 36
Chapter 6: Analysis and Results ................................................................................................... 41
The Study Area Landscape ........................................................................................................ 41
Archaeological Sites and Features ............................................................................................. 41
Lithic Scatters ............................................................................................................................ 41
Subsistence Processing Features ............................................................................................... 42
Settlement Features.................................................................................................................... 42
Ritual Features ........................................................................................................................... 43
Additional Ritual Feature Analysis ........................................................................................... 44
Viewshed Analysis ................................................................................................................. 44
Spatial Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 44
Chapter 7: Discussion ................................................................................................................... 45
The Landscape ........................................................................................................................... 45
Cultural Indicators ..................................................................................................................... 47
The Landscape and Culture ....................................................................................................... 48
Chapter 8: Conclusion................................................................................................................... 49
The Next Step… ........................................................................................................................ 49
References ..................................................................................................................................... 51
Appendix A ................................................................................................................................... 59
Appendix B ................................................................................................................................... 92

iv
List of Figures

Embedded in Report

Figure 1 Study Vicinity…………………………………………..…..……15
Figure 2 Study Overview (General).………………………………..……..16

Located in Appendix A

Figure 3 Study Overview (Elevation).…………………………………….60
Figure 4 Study Overview (Slope)...…………………………………..……61
Figure 5 Study Overview (Aspect).……………………………………..…62
Figure 6 Study Overview (Vegetation)..……………………………..……63
Figure 7 Study Overview (Geology).……………………………..…...…..64
Figure 8 Lithic Features (Elevation)………………………………………65
Figure 9 Lithic Features (Slope).…………………………………………..66
Figure 10 Lithic Features (Aspect).…………………………………………67
Figure 11 Lithic Features (Vegetation)..………………………………....…68
Figure 12 Lithic Features (Geology).……………………………………….69
Figure 13 Lithic Features (Cost Distance to Water).………………………..70
Figure 14 Subsistence Features (Elevation)………...………………………71
Figure 15 Subsistence Features (Slope)………….....………………………72
Figure 16 Subsistence Features (Aspect)…………...………………………73
Figure 17 Subsistence Features (Vegetation)……….………………………74
Figure 18 Subsistence Features (Geology)………….………………………75
Figure 19 Subsistence Features (Cost Distance to Water)….………………76
Figure 20 Settlement Features (Elevation)………….………………………77
Figure 21 Settlement Features (Slope)……………...………………………78
Figure 22 Settlement Features (Aspect)…………….………………………79
Figure 23 Settlement Features (Vegetation)………...………………………80
Figure 24 Settlement Features (Geology)…………..………………………81
Figure 25 Settlement Features (Cost Distance to Water)...…………………82
Figure 26 Ritual Features (Elevation)……………....………………………83
Figure 27 Ritual Features (Slope)…………………..………………………84
Figure 28 Ritual Features (Aspect)………………....………………………85
Figure 29 Ritual Features (Vegetation)……………..………………………86
Figure 30 Ritual Features (Geology)………………..………………………87
Figure 31 Ritual Features (Cost Distance to Water)..………………………88
Figure 32 Ritual Features (Ma’a’puts Rock Viewshed)…………….....……89
Figure 33 Ritual Features (Nearest Neighbor Analysis)……………………90
Figure 34 Ritual Features (Moran’s I Analysis)..…………...………………91

v
Abstract

A Heuristic Affordance
Landscape Analysis of the Kawaiisu

By
Alec Weinstein Stevenson

Master of Arts in Public Archaeology

Archaeological landscape analysis has evolved and changed over the last half century. It started
as a way to catalog information, then changed to inductive predictive methodology, and
eventually became a means to interpret cultural identity and ideology. Unfortunately, these shifts
have left landscape analysis in a crisis of identity as inductive methodologies clash with the
deductive. There is no consensus with how to perform landscape analysis; often times one
method outright rejecting another along theoretical lines. It is argued here that this can be solved
using Heuristic Affordance. This study utilizes Heuristic Affordance within the Tehachapi
Mountains on the Kawaiisu people as a means to establish its credibility as a distinct
methodology that can bring together polar theoretical disciplines. This will be accomplished by
ascertaining how archaeological feature typologies (lithic scatters, subsistence, settlement, and
ritual sites) associate with the landscape and how that compares to cultural indicators.
Establishing Heuristic Affordance will help express alternative methodologies so that landscape
analysis can become more effective in a modern technological environment. All while using
computer software and deductive research to better understand how people interact with their
landscape and why.
vi
Chapter 1 - Introduction
Landscape is the totality of our world. It represents the space in which we operate; both
physically and culturally. It is a place we interact with and one that in turn interacts with us; not
directly bound to what we can see but instead how far our cognitive perception extends. This
changes between one person and another; dictated by differences in both individuals and
cultures. In archaeology, there is disagreement over how much role the landscape plays within
various cultural systems. This is shown in both theory and method, from Processual statistical
modeling analysis to Post-Processual phenomenological studies. However, there is light at the
end of the tunnel. This disagreement can be mended through the use of fluid ever changing
methodology, one that takes both sides of the equation into account. A method highlighted here,
known as Heuristic Affordance, has the potential to accomplish this.

Processual and Post-Processual processes within landscape studies are reactions to each other.
They are two sides to a coin that often go too far in any one direction. Within Processual
ecological systems, it is often argued that landscapes are physical products that imply physical
conditions onto people as biological beings (Redman 1978: 93-103). Post-Processual studies
argue that the landscape has a direct effect on cultural systems (Johnson 2010:107). These
cultural systems are not only affected by but transform the landscape itself, individuals, and other
cultures. This makes the landscape part of an integral breathing organism directly connected to
the people that occupy it (Ashmore and Knapp 1999:6-7).

It is impossible to separate the ecology of landscape from the biology of individuals. Biological
needs are required to survive and therefore play large roles in behavior. Access to food, water,
and shelter are incredibly strong variables dictating landscape use. Therefore, shouldn’t biology
be a major factor when determining how and why people use the landscape? Isn’t biology going
to override all other forms of decision making? Not necessarily. Cultural identity can, and will,
strongly dictate behavior beyond what is seemingly biologically logical. It is often the case that
culture dictates behavior beyond personal survival, leading a potential danger to not only
individuals but the entire society as a whole (Gillings 2012:604-608). If this is possible, should
culture be the determining factor in landscape study? Should the personal and cultural human
experience and its relation to the landscape dictate most behavior? Both sides are arguments
brought forth by archaeologists using various theoretical and methodological ideologies
(Ashmore and Knapp 1999; Gillings 2009; Gillings 2012; Jones and Perry 2012:115-131; Tilley
1994).

The physical landscape such as mountains, hills, rivers, and trees as well as human biology such
as subsistence has always been accounted for, however, today there is a shift in both theory and
method as the cultural aspect of the landscape is being studied more often (Ashmore and Knapp
1999; Gillings 2012; Jones and Perry 2012; Lock and Stancic 1995:336-339; Redman 1978).
How this should happen is still up for debate with disagreement on the proper way to study how
individuals both interact with and interpret their surroundings. Many arguments, one way or
another, assume continuity in how the human condition is affected by the landscape (Redman
1978). However, the perception of culture, landscape, and individuals is different between not
1
only cultures but locations. Not only is the physical landscape going to affect cultural behavior,
but cultural behavior will in turn affect the landscape.

This cyclical process is difficult to predict. Therefore, an evolving research process is required,
considering not only statistical landscape research but also previous studies on the unique
processes of the one culture being studied. Heuristic Affordance attempts to solve this by
understanding both landscape and culture using exploratory methodologies created to evolve
throughout research when studying dynamic and unique cultural systems (Gillings 2012). It is
argued here that Heuristic Affordance is the most useful method for performing landscape
analysis. This is claimed by ascertaining the effectiveness and quality of Heuristic Affordance
techniques through studying one indigenous society, the Kawaiisu, within a defined area of the
Tehachapi Mountains, California. They are researched in this context to ascertain their traditional
physical and cultural relationship with the landscape.

This study aims to show not only the importance of Heuristic Affordance as a methodology, but
argue why it is important theoretically and how this can help future landscape studies. This is
accomplished in the following ways: 1) Landscape spatial data is used to understand the
ecological association between landscape usage established through archaeological feature
comparison, 2) Experiential data is utilized to find out the relationship between archaeological
feature locales, 3) The two are then compared to better understand how they influence cultural,
spatial distribution, 4) This comparison is then related back what is known about the Kawaiisu
and the landscape in the literature, and 5) This further relates back to ways of improving future
landscape study, methodology, and research.

This is done in a particular order to establish a proper argument (Chapter 1). Chapter 2 explains
the general ideology behind this research by describing Heuristic Affordance and alternative
theories proposed for landscape analysis. Chapter 3 sets the landscape background of the study
area including the geography, topology, ecology, geology, and other environmental details.
Chapter 4 describes Kawaiisu culture, emphasizing elements that relate to landscape including
migration, seasonal movement patterns, subsistence, medicine, rituals, and mythology. Chapter 5
establishes the methods of research including where and how data was collected, and how it was
used. Chapter 6 presents the raw data used for analysis and the results. Chapter 7 is the
qualitative discussion relating the data back to the literature and what is known about the
Kawaiisu. Lastly, Chapter 8 concludes the Thesis, discussing how the findings contribute to
archaeological study of the landscape, not only for academic studies, but for CRM and
exploratory statistical landscape analysis.
2
Chapter 2: Theory and Theoretical Methodology
Archaeological theory is fraught with turbulence (Johnson 2010; Trigger 2006). There are many
reasons for this, including changing world views of archaeologists themselves. Preucel (1995)
argues that archaeological theory develops over a disagreement in interpretation. In this manner,
theory often exists as a critique of opposing ideas (Johnson 2010:4-5; Trigger 2006:6-8). This
dynamic can be frustrating, leading many archaeologists to the conclusion that archaeological
theory is not heading in any stable direction but instead going nowhere (Hodder 2006:23).
However, there is another way to look at it. Changing archaeological theories throughout history
can potentially be problematic, but conversely, each proposed theory also unlocks the
opportunity to think of something better. Bits and pieces of old discarded ideas adopted in the
past are still potentially useful (Preucel 1995:147). This is more prevalent in the use of new
methodologies that challenge and use opposing theoretical ideologies in tandem.
Method is the driving force behind any form of research. It determines not only how research is
done but why as it directly ties into its interconnected theory. It represents, alters, and is altered
by associated theoretical ideology. The symbiosis between theory and method, a trait in all fields
of science, is of particular importance in archaeology. Archaeological methods can include ways
to conduct fieldwork, lab work, pre-field research, writing, or statistics; all having their own
detailed systems that eventually fall back onto the source theoretical perspective in which they
derived.
The influence of method on theory is a never-ending cycle, one that is problematic if the
researcher is not cognizant of its impact. Problems occur when methodology does not always
keep pace with theory. Often, as theory grows and changes, the method does not. It can remain
rigid, with few attempts to let it evolve into new theoretical frameworks. This can be extremely
problematic as any attempt to conduct research will end in failure as methods operate beyond
their intended purpose (Verhagen and Whitley 2011:50).
Landscape theory reflects this complex interweaving of theory and method. Over the last 60
years, it has experienced a roller coaster of success and failure all created by conceptual shifts in
the archaeological community as the study of the landscape was implemented, thrown out, and
later rewritten (Johnson 2010; Trigger 2006). During growth in the 1950s, landscape study
originated out of theoretical ideas based on models and systems. Later, in the 1980s, new
theoretical concepts took center stage where the landscape was used in its original format to try
and prove new ideas. Today, these methods are being addressed in a different light, blurring the
lines between practice and theory (Gillings 2012). This concept not only takes landscape analysis
into new areas of archaeology with new strength but also develops an understanding of new
theoretical ideology.

The Formation of Landscape Theory – Processual Archaeology
History has a way of making perspectives clearer. Knowing where something originated and how
it changed is just as important as its current state. Landscape analysis in archaeology can be
traced back to 1953 in the works of Gordon Willey in a paper titled Prehistoric Settlement
Patterns in the Viru Valley, Peru (Willey 1953). Here Willey attempts to develop theories about
3
settlement patterns using varying ceramic distribution. Instead of focusing on ceramic
chronology in the usual theoretical fashion of the time, Willey uses ceramic models to infer
settlement patterns, where he specifically focuses on small satellite localities (Willey 1953).
Unfortunately, these ideas were greatly hindered by the dominant theoretical ideology at the
time, Culture History, a perspective mostly focusing on information acquisition with very little
interpretation (Trigger 2006:311-312).
Gordon Willey set the stage; however, landscape analysis did not form in any discernable
manner until the abandonment of Culture Historical perspectives (Stark 2000:632-633; Wiley
1953). This occurred in the early 1960s during a period of over saturation of archaeological data
and lack of interpretive analysis, eventually leading to discontent in the scientific community
(Clarke 2014:11-12). This was expressed in what would eventually be known as Processual
archaeology, outlined through the works of Joseph Caldwell and Lewis Binford (Martin 1971:5-
6; Trigger 2006:387-391).
Processual archaeologists, or Processualists, seek to understand a culture through adaptive
change caused by external forces (Johnson 2010:25). The process of this change can be
explained as a modeled system that applies universally within a culture. These modeled systems
are interchangeable with the hypothesis (Trigger 2006:400-405). They can be inferred by
methodically collecting and analyzing data related to the hypothesized system (Binford
1965:203; Martin 1971:5; Redman 1978; Rothman 2004:82). A processualist focuses on cultural
evolution, models and systems, adaptations to external environments, the scientific method, and
attempts to eliminate subjectivity were instrumental in fostering landscape analysis (Johnson
2010:23-27). As time went on, this form of analysis developed unique and specific systems.
Landscape analysis in Processual archaeological theory operates along two methods of research.
The first involves utilizing data on ecological and environmental conditions that are
hypothesized to change social behavior (Redman 1978). In this case, models are not used to find
specific locations but instead to form universal cultural theories on behavior. The logic is that
landscape analysis can be built around known data that can then be used elsewhere to predict
behavior as it relates to changing environments. This is mostly theoretical and an enlightening
example of method affecting theory (Redman 1978; Verhagen and Whitley 2011:50-51). The
second extrapolates environmental variables quantitatively to predict site locations in unsurveyed
areas. This form of analysis does not necessarily hypothesize universal systems but instead uses
systems to predict how people operate on the landscape (Redman 1978; Verhagen and Whitley
2011:51).
Both methods function under a strong positivist ideology. This assumes an overabundance of
causal factors, placing landscape analysis far and above where it should operate, leaving it in a
precarious state (Westcott and Brandon 2000). The status of landscape analysis in a processual
framework during the 1970s is described by Mehrer and Westcott (2006). During Mehrer’s post-
doctoral work at the University of Denver, he became involved in a volume of work known as
Quantifying the Present and Predicting the Past: Theory, Method, and Application of
Archaeological Predictive Modeling (Judge and Sebastian 1988). Here, several Processualist
authors drew from Mehrer’s knowledge of the predictive modeling process. While working with
colleagues, he was shocked by overestimation in what landscape analysis could accomplish.
They explained to him that “…models generated through deductive reasoning were ‘good’ and
potentially ‘explanatory,’ while models utilizing statistical methods were not only ‘inductive’ (a
4