The Archaeology of Frontiers and Boundaries

342 Pages·1985·21.934 MB·English

by  Stanton W. Green (Auth.)

The Archaeology of
Frontiers and Boundaries
Edited by
STANTON W. GREEN
Department of Anthropology
University of South Carolina
Columbia, South Carolina
STEPHEN M. PERLMAN
Sovran Bank, N.A.
Richmond, Virginia
1985
<$>
ACADEMIC PRESS, INC.
(Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers)
Orlando San Diego New York London
Toronto Montreal Sydney Tokyo
COPYRIGHT © 1985, BY ACADEMIC PRESS, INC.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
NO PART OF THIS PUBLICATION MAY BE REPRODUCED OR
TRANSMITTED IN ANY FORM OR BY ANY MEANS, ELECTRONIC
OR MECHANICAL, INCLUDING PHOTOCOPY, RECORDING, OR
ANY INFORMATION STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL SYSTEM, WITHOUT
PERMISSION IN WRITING FROM THE PUBLISHER.
ACADEMIC PRESS, INC.
Orlando, Florida 32887
United Kingdom Edition published by
ACADEMIC PRESS INC. (LONDON) LTD.
24-28 Oval Road, London NW1 7DX
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Main entry under title:
The Archaeology of frontiers and boundaries.
(Studies in archaeology)
Includes index.
1. Anthropo-geography--Addresses, essays, lectures.
2. Social archaeology—Addresses, essays, lectures.
3. Frontier and pioneer life--Addresses, essays, lectures.
4. Social structure—Addresses, essays, lectures.
I. Green, Stanton W. II. Perlman, Stephen M.
III. Series.
GF53.A73 1984 304.2 84-9325
ISBN 0-12-298780-2 (alk. paper)
PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
85 86 87 88 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
To my mother and the beloved memory
of my father; and to my wife, Claudia.
Stanton W. Green
To my wife, Judith, and children, Naomi,
Benjamin, and Lara, and to those events
that shape our lives.
Stephen M. Perlman
CONTRIBUTORS
Numbers in parentheses indicate the pages on which the authors' contributions
begin.
GORDON BRONITSKY (325), Department of Sociology and An­
thropology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721
CINDY BURLESON (325), University of Texas of the Permian Basin,
Odessa, Texas 76762
ROBIN DENNELL (113), Department of Prehistory and Archaeology, Uni­
versity of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, England
STANTON W. GREEN (3), Department of Anthropology, University of
South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina 29208
STEVEN HAMPSON (15), School of Social Sciences, University of Califor­
nia, Irvine, Irvine, California 92717
DONALD HARDESTY (213), Department of Anthropology, University of
Nevada, Reno, Nevada 89557-0006
IAN HODDER (141), Department of Archaeology, University of
Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3DZ, England
JOHN JUSTESON (15), 22 Caywood Place, Hyde Park, New York 12538
KENNETH E. LEWIS (251), Department of Anthropology, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824
ALAN MARKS (325), Department of Psychology, University of Texas of
the Permin Basin, Odessa, Texas 79762
THOMAS McGOVERN (275), Department of Anthropology, Hunter Col­
lege, City University of New York, New York, New York 10021
JAMES A. MOORE (93), Department of Anthropology, Queens College
and the Graduate Center, City University of New York, Flushing, New
York 11367
ROBERT W. PAYNTER (163), Department of Anthropology, University of
Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts 01003
XIV Contributors
STEPHEN M. PERLMAN (3,33), Sovran Bank, N.A., Richmond, Virginia
23261
PATRICIA E. RUBERSTONE (231), Department of Anthropology, Brown
University, Providence, Rhode Island 02912
PETER THORBAHN (231), Public Archaeology Laboratory, Inc., 217 An­
gelí Street, Providence, Rhode Island 02906
DAVID R. YESNER (51), Department of Geography-Anthropology, Uni­
versity of Southern Maine, Gorham, Maine 04038
PREFACE
The present volume, like many edited books, is derived from an organized
attempt of like-minded individuals. The inspiration in this case was a sym­
posium organized by us for the 1978 meetings of the Society for American
Archaeology in Tucson, Arizona (on the frontier for us easterners). The
discussion generated by this session made it clear to us that many of our
colleagues were working on similar problems, and a commonality of these
inquiries began to emerge: frontiers and boundaries were used as a focus for
studying perhaps the most slippery of anthropological constructs—social
process. More specifically, the margins of social systems were seen as a place
to begin the study of the openness of human society. A wide range of
theoretical and methodological approaches was brought to bear on this area
of study, within an equally wide range of prehistoric, historic, and contem­
porary contexts. Instead of working within the assumed bounds of the
traditional pristine closed model of human society and culture, frontier and
boundary researchers were trying to build theory and develop method for
interpreting the ways societies are interconnected.
Motivated by these considerations, we pursued the revision of the original
papers (four of which appear in this volume), and the solicitation of comple­
mentary chapters (a total of nine new chapters are included in the volume).
The result of this effort is this book: a diverse and innovative set of case
studies that address fundamental questions concerning social change
through the study of anthropological archaeology. All of the original chap­
ters have been revised and updated (Lewis, Perlman, Paynter, and Moore),
and the other chapters represent original research.
The concept of social systems as open systems is not original in theory.
However, its explicit incorporation into an archaeological frame of refer­
ence is, we believe, quite innovative, perhaps because it is methodologically
difficult to break away from closed models of human behavior. While we do
not pursue here the specifically methodological angle, we do strongly be­
lieve that the frontier and boundary approach provides a viable and power-
XV
XVI Preface
ful means for incorporating open systems notions into the study of social
process and change.
The overall theoretical contribution of this volume derives from each
author's attempt to free him or herself from the necessarily closed an­
thropological models used in the study of culture process. The methods used
range from the analysis of prehistoric and historic artifactual and biological
remains, through ethnohistory, ethnoarchaeology, and the study of contem­
porary U.S. material culture. Temporal contexts range from the Mesolithic
period through the twentieth century; geographic representation includes
Africa, Europe, Greenland, and North America. This diversity in theory,
method, and data underlies the volume's strength in making a case for
frontier and boundary research in archaeology.
The book is, in fact, organized in such a manner as to promote the
evaluation of our open system's proposition. The table of contents resem­
bles a traditional culture-evolutionary sequence (in simplified form). The
intent is to encourage comparison within and between broad categories of
sociocultural scale to demonstrate the notion that at all levels of complexity
social systems are open systems. In the end we hope this encourages all
archaeologists to bear in mind the open system's model in whatever context
they work.
The book is divided into three parts with a total of 13 chapters. Part I
includes 2 introductory chapters that are respectively a presentation of our
frontier and boundary approach and introduction to the other chapters, and
a discussion of the methodological difficulties of modeling open systems.
Part II includes 5 chapters on foraging, pastoral, and nonindustrial farming
societies. Of these, Moore presents a theoretical treatise on forager-farmer
interaction using simulation experiments, Perlman and Dennell deal pri­
marily with prehistoric materials, Yesner includes ethnohistoric records
with his archaeological evidence, and Hodder bases his work on eth­
noarchaeology. Part III includes 6 chapters on complex, world-system so­
cieties. Paynter, Hardesty, Lewis, and Rubertone and Thorbahn present
case studies on the historic archaeology of the Anglo-American world sys­
tem, McGovern studies the aboriginal populations of Greenland within the
context of Norse expansion, and Bronitsky, Marks, and Burleson present a
study of contemporary behavior and material culture among American
Baptists.
The diversity of these case studies provides a powerful first evaluation of
an open system's approach within archaeology. We believe that a critical
reading of this volume will lay a convincing foundation for the study of
frontiers and boundaries and bear important insights for the an­
thropological study of social process.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Acknowledgments, we think, have two purposes. They should, of course,
give credit to individuals who have substantively contributed to the project.
They can also make known the conditions under which the project was
completed.
We begin with the second type of acknowledgment. Both of the editors
began this volume with the support of our academic institutions. Initially,
the University of South Carolina encouraged both of us to pursue our
project, first through the development of the symposium on frontiers and
boundaries at the 1978 Society for American Archaeology meetings, and
then, after Perlman left that Institution for Virginia Commonwealth Univer­
sity, through the pursuit of its publication. Green would like to thank the
Department of Anthropology at the University of South Carolina for its
continued support during the development and completion of the project.
Edited volumes are often considered second-class citizens in the world of
publish or perish, but in Green's case this project was respected by his col­
leagues and acknowledged fairly within tenure and promotion concerns.
Green would especially like to thank Karl Heider, Leland Ferguson, Mor­
gan MacLachlan, and Stanley South for their support.
Perlman's experiences were somewhat different. Rather than review them
all, a summary statement will suffice. Anthropology has almost been elimi­
nated at Virginia Commonwealth University. This loss is even greater be­
cause we are at a time when anthropology's importance to the academic and
nonacademic world should be increasing. Instead, a poor vision by academ­
ia of existing and future educational and behavioral needs is creating a trend
in the opposite direction. Interestingly, the same appears not to be true
for the nonacademic side.
The speed with which Perlman found employment, first as Vice President
and Director of Administrative and Operations Training at Wheat, First
Securities, Inc., and presently as a Training Officer at Sovran Bank, N.A.,
xvii
XV111 Acknowledgments
indicates that the business community can understand the value of an­
thropological training. Of course, the product must be "packaged" and
"marketed" correctly. Therein lies the challenge to academic anthropology.
Focusing on Perlman's own recent experiences, he wants to thank F. C.
Tiller, Chief Executive Officer, Marcia Haight, Senior Vice President, Bill
Fields, Executive Vice President, and Brenda Watts, Vice President, all at
Wheat, First Securities, Inc., and Bob Hamilton, Vice President, and Bob
Blake, First Vice President at Sovran Bank, N.A., among others, for facilitat­
ing a most important personal transition. Thanks to you all.
With regard to specific substantive contributions, we first wish to thank
all of the participants in the symposium and volume for their hard work and
patience. Martin Wobst and Mike Schiffer provided constructive and diver­
gent critiques of the symposium to get us off to a good start. Stanley South
read through early drafts of many of the papers and encouraged our pursing
publication. John Justeson offered comments of great import, specifically on
our introductory chapter. Also, we want to thank the editors and staff of
Academic Press, who have guided this volume through publication.
Finally, emotional support from our families has made this project possi­
ble. Our wives Claudia and Judy certainly deserve their fair share of what­
ever credits result from this effort for their patience and indulgence. And,
both authors would like to acknowledge the never-ending loyalty and quad­
rupedal support of Tammy and her son Marz; their incredible ability to run
around in circles has minimized the editors' need to do the same.
1
CHAPTER
Frontiers, Boundaries, and Open Social Systems
STANTON W. GREEN
Department of Anthropology
University of South Carolina
Columbia, South Carolina
STEPHEN M. PERLMAN
Sovran Bank, N.A.
Richmond, Virginia
Something there is that doesn't love a wall, That sends the
frozen-ground-swell under it, And spills the upper boulders
in the sun; And makes gaps even two can pass abreast.
"Mending Wall," Robert Frost, 1912
The world of humankind constitutes a manifold, a totality
of interconnected processes, and inquiries that disassemble
this totality into bits and pieces and then fail to reassemble
it falsify reality. Concepts like "nation," "society" and
"culture" name bits and threaten to turn names into things.
Only by understanding these names as bundles of rela
tionships, and by placing them back into the field from
which they were abstracted, can we hope to avoid mislead
ing inferences and increase our share of understanding.
Europe and the People without History, Eric R. Wolf, 1982
INTRODUCTION
As students of human behavior, anthropologists are forced to "construct
walls" around social activities in order to define workable units of study. In
such a manner, ethnographic cultures are created from observations of
living peoples, and archaeological cultures are derived from the remains of
The Archaeology of Frontiers and Boundaries 3 Copyright © 1985 by Academic Press, Inc.
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
ISBN 0-12-298780-2