1 PREHISTORY OF CANAAN VALLEY: AN ECOLOGICAL VIEW ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Central-place foraging – Canaan Valley: 9. provided large-bodied prey (e.g., deer, elk, bison) that were carried back to permanent villages; small food items (e.g., nuts, brook trout, hares) were eaten on site; 10. hosted brief (e.g., 1-2 days) visits after which users returned to more permanent camps; 11. will yield few tools; if found, toolkits were made of traveling items; 12. will yield debitage reflecting on-the-go tool maintenance, and with no re-use potential; 13. was used by non-established individuals, e.g., young males; 14. contains few or no hearths; if found, hearths were single-use; and 15. contains few or no prehistoric burials; if found, burial sites contain no or few artifacts associated with long-term settlements. Testing hypotheses 5-15 will help us determine whether Canaan Valley was occupied as a camp along an annual migration, briefly while central-place foraging, or both. My subjective ecological judgment leads me to prefer the central-place foraging hypothesis. Most of these hypotheses are testable with current archeological methods; one (13) must await new techniques. In broad outline, my general model is consistent with Neumann’s (1992) partitioning of 205 South Branch Potomac sites into two clusters: (1) large, low drainage/low elevation sites and (2) small, high drainage/high elevation sites. To the extent this paper stimulates hypothetico-deductive tests of the general theory, I will consider it a success. Comparisons with Modern Humans I close with a sociobiological resolution of an apparent paradox. The literatures of aboriginal ethics and spirituality convey themes like "respect for the environment" and "intimate connection to the land." Their oral traditions seem consistent. In Cherokee myth, an animal killed by a hunter after use of a chant would come to life again, thereby avoiding the decline of game. Leaders felt responsible for 7 generations into the future (Shenandoah 1992). "The frog does not drink up the pond in which he lives." Several modern scholars agree. Prehistoric Americans had a conservation ethic (Noss and Cooperrider 1994) that included a holistic respect for nature (Rockefeller and Elder 1992). The typical traditional American Indian attitude was to regard all parts of the environment as enspirited, i.e., with consciousness, reason, and volition (Callicott 1989). Rocks, trees, and insects had personalities as fully as people. Yet several lines of evidence suggest that Native Americans degraded their environment. In the East, they slashed and burned forests to create canopy gaps for growing crops, and then depleted soils until decreasing yields pushed them elsewhere (Krech 1999). Fuel was exhausted, game became scarce. Like Indians in other parts of North America (Botkin 1995), Cherokees practiced periodic burning of the forest (Silver 1996) to drive and kill deer, open travel corridors, and create open security zones where enemies could be detected; but sometimes they kindled destructive fires. Today, tribal governments sometimes favor resource extraction and other development projects even if they are projected to have serious environmental impacts (Krech 1999). 12
How do we reconcile Native Americans' (a) respect for the environment, conservation ethic, and keen sense of interdependence; with their (b) depleting soils, over hunting game, and setting destructive fires? If we accept the proposition that the evolutionary processes of natural selection, and its extensions of sexual and kin selection, have functioned similarly in people of all times (Wilson 1975, Trivers 1985), then prehistoric and modern Canaan Valleyans have had the same basic needs, motives, and responses. In humanistic terms, we have been similarly contradicted–with differences among individuals within groups, and with inconsistencies within each of us expressed at different times. We have been hypocritical, short-sighted, and selfish; and also helpful, far-sighted, and altruistic. Perhaps they were no better or worse than the average person today. Acknowledgements I have been helped by many generous people. Lee Avery, Ruth Brinker, John Calabrese, Bob Hoffman, Hunter Lesser, David Matchen, Dewey Sanderson, and Tom Wynn shared scientific insights. Doug Wood helped to map the trails. Friends at CVI, including Kip Ambro, Beverli Badgley, Ryan Gaujot, Cindy Phillips, Ron Preston, Matt Sherald, Jocelyn Smith, Ron Wigal, Paula Worden, and especially Ellen Voss, helped in various ways. Leah Constantz, MAAR Associates, and Bob Maslowski provided literature. Nancy Ailes, Jim Rawson, and two anonymous reviewers criticized the manuscript. Thanks to all. References Adovasio, J.M., and J. Page. 2002. The first Americans: in pursuit of archaeology’s greatest mystery. Modern Library, New York NY. 330 p. Adovasio, J.M., J. Donahue, and R. Struckenrath. 1990. The Meadowcroft Rockshelter radiocarbon chronology 1975-1990. American Antiquity 55: 348-354. Alcock, J. 1984. Animal behavior: an evolutionary approach, third edition. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, MA. 596 p Botkin, D.B. 1995. Our natural history: the lessons of Lewis and Clark. G.P. Putnam's Sons, New York, NY. 300 p. Brashler, J.G. 1984. Exploitation of diffuse resources: Archaic settlement in mountainous West Virginia. In: Geier, C.R., M.B. Barber, and G.A. Tolley (eds.), Upland Archeology in the East, Symposium Number 2. USDA Forest Service-Southern Region and Archeological Society of Virginia, Special Publication Number 38-Part 2: 5-24. Brashler, J.G., and W.H. Lesser. 1985. The Limekiln Run site and the reduction of Greenbrier chert in Randolph County, West Virginia. West Virginia Archeologist 37 (1): 27-40. 13
Page 1 and 2: PREHISTORY OF CANAAN VALLEY: AN ECO
Page 3 and 4: animals, archaic toolkits were more
Page 5 and 6: How many native North Americans wer
Page 7 and 8: 2002). In June 2002, over 200 shove
Page 9 and 10: The prehistoric human animal was in
Page 11: The ultimate currency for measuring
Page 15 and 16: Southern Region and Archeological S
Page 17 and 18: Henderson, A.G. 1992. Dispelling th
Page 19 and 20: Pielou, E.C. 1991. After the ice ag
Page 21 and 22: Verano, J.W., and D.H. Eubelaker. 1

1 PREHISTORY OF CANAAN VALLEY: AN ECOLOGICAL VIEW ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?