Dados Bibliográficos

Resumo

The pithouse-to-pueblo transition in the southwestern United States is widely viewed as a period combining increasing sedentism and agricultural dependence. This paper argues that sedentarization and degree of agricultural dependence need not be directly linked across the transition, and that two kinds of preservational biases influence the appearance of a linkage. First, sample size effects result from better archaeobotanical preservation at large, relatively sedentary pueblos, compared to pithouse settlements that are often smaller and less intensively occupied. Second, differences in storage technology increase the likelihood of carbonization of domesticates at pueblos. Quantitative paleoethno-botanical data from the Dunlap-Salazar pithouse site and Robinson site pueblo in south-central New Mexico illustrate these problems. Dunlap-Salazar has lower quantities of domesticates in its flotation samples than Robinson pueblo. When preservational differences are taken into account using ratios or ubiquity counts, however, the contrast between the sites disappears. These findings have methodological implications, suggesting that casual qualitative or even quantitative comparisons between pueblo and pithouse sites in the Southwest (or analogous sites in other parts of the world) may be misleading. The results also suggest that the commonly accepted direct association between lower mobility and higher dependence on crops in pueblos in contrast to pithouse sites requires reevaluation.

Referências Citadas