Settlement Data and Subsistence Systems Robert L. Bettinger American Antiquity, Vol. 46, No. 3. (Jul., 1981), pp. 640-643, Stable URL hitp:/Mlinks.jstor-org/sicisici=0002-T3 16% 28198107%2946%3A3% 3C640%3ASDASS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-M American Antiquity is currently published by Society for American Archaeology Your use of the ISTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at hup:/www,jstororglabout/terms.hml. ISTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www jstor.org/journals/sam. html ch copy of any part of'a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the sereen or printed page of such transmission, ISTOR is an independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to creating and preserving a digital archive of scholarly journals. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support @ jstor.org. hupulwww jstor.org/ Mon May 1 16:19:09 200640 [AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol 48, No.3, 1983) McGuire, Kelly M, end Alan P. Garfinkel 1976. Commeni on "The development of pinyon exploitation in central eastorn California.” Journal of California Anthropology 3(2}83-84, Mobringer, Pter J 1077, Great Basin Late Quaternary environments and chronology. In Models and Great Basin prehistory: ‘symposium, edited by Don D. Fowler. University of Nevada Desert Research Institute Publications in the Social Seiencat 12°113-167. O'Connell, James F. 1975. The prehistory of Surprise Valley. Ballena Press Anthropological Papers 4 Rhoades, Robert E. 1878." Archaoological use and abut ‘Antiquity 43:008-614 Stoward, Julian H 1938 Basin Plateau aboriginal sociopolitical groups, Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 120, ‘Thomas, David Hurst 1971 Prehistoric subsistence setemont patterns of the Reese Rivor Valley, central Nevado, Ph.D. dissar- ‘ation, University of California, Davis. Univer 1972a "A computer simulation modal of Gre In Models in orchooology, edited by David L. Clarke, pp. 871-708. Methuen, London. 19725 Western Shoshone ecology. In Groat Basi cultural ecology a eymposiim adited by Don D. Fowler. University of Nevada Desert Resoarch Institute Publications in tho Social Scioncos 8:135-183, 1973 An empirical test for Stoward's model of Great Basin settlement patterns, American Antiquity 36:185-177. 1974 An archaeological porspoctive on Shoshonoan bands. American Anthropologist 7:1-23. Thomas, David Hurst, and Robert L. Betingor 1976. Prohistorc pion acotonesettlamont ofthe uppor Roose River Valley, central Nevada. Anthropolog ‘eal Papers of the American Museum of Natural History 53:263-368. Weide, Margaret 1074 North Warner subsistence network: a prehi esearch Paper 5182-79. ‘Willams, Leonard, David Hurst Thomas, and Robert Bettinger 1973. Notions to numbers: Groat Basin settlements os polythotic gots, In Research and theory in current ‘archeology, edited by Charles L, Redman, pp. 218-237. Wiley, New York of ecological concopts and studios: tho acotone example. American ric band territory. Nevada Archovological Survey SETTLEMENT DATA AND SUBSISTENCE SYSTEMS Robert L. Bettinger Reply to Modsen. Madson hes taken mo to task for my proposals regarding aboriginal pinyon exploitation in (Owens Valley, eastern California (refer to American Antiquity 46:640-644). Ho argues that Ihave furnished no evidence of seasonality or subsistence patterns for sites I have identified as pinyon camps (0... Bettinger 1975a, 1975b, 1976, 1977a, 1979), and hence that the question of aboriginal Great Basin pinyon exploitation remaine in doubt. Two related points emerge as central to thie argument: 1) that subsistence data (e.g. food remains) furnish the only valid basia for testing sub- jstance models, from which it follows that (2) site locations and artifact assemblages cannot be used as data to test subsistence models. Robert 1, Bettinger, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis, CA 95616‘COMMENTS, es Madsen's emphatic objection to tests based on locational and assemblage data apparently ‘ariaes from his belief that such data are either “not directly related to” or ‘‘unrelated to” ques- tions of seasonality and subsistence. This is implausible. Procurement and processing tools are routinely considered key elaments of subsistence systems (cf. Flannery 1968); locational strato- 410s, likewise, are accepted as an essential aspect of subsistence systems (cf. Struever 1968). In- dood, as Steward (1938) long ago recognized, for aboriginal socioeconomic groups of the kind in question hera, itis difficult to determine at just what point subsistence leaves off and technology or settlement begins, because within any individual adaptive system the three aro inoxtricably bound together. Given their close mutual relationship, it soems pointless to draw rigid boundaries botwoen subsistence, settlement, and technological systems or to exclude the possibility that data defined as belonging to one of these systems might also serve as a basis for tosting hypotheses about the others; in fact, this possibility would soom inherent to any viable model of regional human ecology. ‘My Owens Valley research approached pinyon exploitation as a subsistence system, or more precisely, as one aspect of a regional subsistence-settlement system, with this broader view in ‘mind; consequently, the data brought to bear on the question are more diverse in nature than Madsen finds acceptable. In taking this tack, I was not unmindful of the uses of subsistence data (pinyon macrofossils had proviously boon recovered from archaeological sites in several Great Basin localities including Owens Valley. e.g., Pastron 1972; Riddell 1951). Nevertheless, I was firmly convinced, and continue to be, that subsistence data from individual sites sorve little pur- ‘pose unless tied to @ comprehensive regional system. In Owons Valley I addressod this more basic problem by means of a rogional survey aimed at dofining major settlement categories. The ‘evidence for pinyon exploitation stems from the pinyon camp settlement category, and there are several lines of locational and artifactual evidence to support interpretations regarding the seasonality and subsistence activities characterizing these sites. Let me illustrate this with an example from the Owens Valley survey—in this case, the historic, aboriginal component at the Pinyon House site, a pinyon camp situated in the pinyon woodland ‘east of Owens Valley (cf. Bettinger 1975a, 1975b). The assemblage pertaining to this component ‘consists of at least five roofed log dwellings with interior hearths, several additional featuras in- cluding storage caches, and an extensive surficial artifact assemblage partly described ‘elsewhere (Bettinger 1975b). Analysis of these data suggosts the following interpretation. First, the abundant surface debris, elaborate dwellings, and storage facilities appear to indicate ex- tended, as opposed to short-term, occupation. The main season of this occupation is fixed between, late fall and early spring. This is based on the inferred uso of snow as a water source by the oc- cupants of the site, there being no free water sources in the vicinity (the closest is nearly 2 km ‘away, requiring a vertical descent of more than 400 m over extremely rugged terrain}. Ths inter- pretation is supported by the prasance of at least two features (snow basins) that are thought to have been used to store snow or meltwater (cf. Bettinger 197Sa, 1975b). Examination of the resources available within the catchment ofthe site shows that only nuts of the pinyon pine (Pinus ‘monophylla} and ungulates (Odocoileus hemionus and Ovis canadensis) are present in sufficient quantity to attract aboriginal occupation. The ungulates may have been an important constituent of the diet but range studies indicate itis unlikely that they alone could sustain even a small group for any length of time and certainly not for the duration of occupation indicated. Pine nuts, on the other hand, offer a large, storable resource readily available during the inferred interval of oc- cupation. More directly, pinyon exploitation is reflected archaeologically by the presence of mill- ng equipment and specialized pinyon procurement and processing tools including a probable cone beater, nut anvils, and pinyon hooks (ef. Dutcher 1893; Battinger 19778). ‘Taken together, these data are consistent with the notion that Pinyon House was occupied for ‘an extended length of time, the bulk of this beginning in the lato fall and ending with the disap- pearance of the snowpack in early spring, and that during this timo pine nuts were harvested and probably consumed. I would not argue, of course, that this interpretation has been demonstrated ‘a8 fact, but merely that its far more consistent with the data than any alternative hypothesis thaton AMERICAN ANTIQUITY Wot. 8 No.3, 1083) ‘excludes pinyon exploitation or fall-winter occupation. In this case, locational and assemblage data sustain reasonably preciso inferences about seasonality and subsistence. That this is post ble follows from the definition of pinyon exploitation as a subsistence system rather than @ dietary trait lst Madsen concedes, howaver grudgingly. that locational and assemblage data are related to aub- sistence in sufficient degree that they might be useful in generating subsistence hypotheses. This being the case, his unqualified insistence that such hypotheses can be tested only with sub- sistence data must turn on the premise that these data, regardless of kind or quality, are more dofinitive of subsistence systems than any kind of locational or assemblage data, This, too, is im- plausible—not only on the grounds that it undorestimates the proper use of locational and ‘assemblage data, but also on the grounds that it overestimates the reliability of gubsistence data, ‘their ease of interpretation, and lack of potential for alternative interpretation. There is no need to review here the many acrimonious debates waged over opposing interpretations of coprolites, macrofossils obtained by flotation, and pollen counts—precisely the data Madson considers prerequisite to demonstrating aboriginal Great Basin pinyon exploitation. To drive the point ‘home, I will only observe that despite the intensive analysis of macrofossils and pollen extracted from coprolites and midden samples, Madsen and his colleagues in the eastern Great Basin still find themselves embroiled in arguments regarding whothor such sites as Danger Cave end Hogup Cave wore occupied seasonally by groups on the brink of starvation or essentially year-round by ‘groups living comfortably on abundant local resources (cf. Madsen and Berry 1978} perhaps an investigation of regional settlement patterns would help in testing the implications of these con- flicting hypotheses drawn from subsistence data. Tam not suggesting that food remains are useless in making inferences about aubsistence systems, Instead, my point is that subsistence aystems are rather more complicated than Madsen’s approach admits, and because ofthis, the relative utility of subsistence, locational, and ‘assemblage data will vary according to the problem in quostion and the data at hand. Obviously, {in some cases food remains are going to be critical. Even in these instances, however, it would be foolish to ignore the essential role of locational and assemblage date; clearly, data from coprolites and flotation samples aro virtually meaningless when divorced from their locational and func- tional context, On the other hand, in some cases locational and assemblage data may take precedence over food remains. For instance, were pinyon macrofossils not forthcoming from the Pinyon House site, in light of its location and archaeological assemblage, it would be more appro- priate to attribute this to some aspect of processing or preservation than to conclude that pinyon procurement did not occur (atleast this would be the most parsimonious interpretation) Finally, it is worth noting here that satisfactory methods have yet to be developed that would permit the pro- portional importance of dietary elements to be reliably estimated from coprolites or flotation samples; in investigating this important aspect of subsistence systems, it may be the case that locational analyses along the general lines suggested by Wood (1976), Reidhead (1979), or Jochim (1976) will prove more suitable than direct analysis of food remains ‘Against this background, Madsen’s assertion that I favor the use of locational data (from the westorn Great Basin) over subsistence data (from the eastern Great Basin) misses the point. The discussion to which he refers (Bettingor 1978) concerned Great Basin regional subsistence-settle- ‘ment systems, At the time of its writing the subsistence data from the eastern Great Basin were from isolated sites, and the results of published research precluded incorporation of these data in regional subsistence models. The issue, thus, was one between regional data and site data, not locational data and subsistence data, as Madsen believes, It comes down to this. [have marshalled a variety of locational and assemblage data in support of a hypothesis of pinyon exploitation that assesses the importance of this activity, defines its en- vironmental, seasonal, technological, and social context, and places its inception at A.D. 600. In doing 80, several alternative hypotheses that exclude pinyon procurement or assign it much re- ‘duced importance after A.D. 600 or date its inception before A.D. 600 wore entertained and set ‘aside as inconsistent with the data gathered (cf. Bettinger 1977b}, I do not regard these alter- native hypotheses as disproved. Nor is the hypothesis of pinyon exploitation proved; it merely‘COMMENTS, os shows the best fit with the available data. This uncertainty is not due to some logical fallacy of which fam guilty, as Madsen avers, but rather is symptomatic ofthe nature of scientific inquiry in general (Salmon 1976). The acquisition of subsistence data would certainly increase our under- standing of the problem of pinyon exploitation in several respects and might require reassessment of all the various alternative hypotheses in quostion. Nevertheless, the recovery of pinyon macro- fossils from pinyon camps would not prove the hypothesis of pinyon exploitation, although it might strongthen the caso in its favor. Similarly, failure to recover this material would not disprove the hypothesis (especially in view of the other supporting evidence), although it might weaken it vis- vis alternative hypotheses. In short, the hypothesis of pinyon exploitation has been tested and found to have merit for certain pariods of Owens Valley prehistory. The hypothesis and the tests cannot be made to disappear simply by means of a word game in which site location and ar- chaeological assemblage count as nondata and subsistence data count as proof. Acknowledgments. “Thanks are due to Anne Marie Centwoll who road and made comments on various Madson, 1 avoided the pointe most central to his research, and he did the same for point central to mine REFERENCES CITED Bottingor. Robort L 19788 "Tho surface archaoology of Owans Valley. oastorn California: prohistoric man land relationships In the Great Basin. Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Anthropology, University of California, Riverside 1973b Late prohistoric and historic structures in Owens Valley, easiern California. Journal of California ‘Anthropology 2(2}198-204 1076. Tho davelopment of pinyon exploitation in central 6 10 California. Journal of California Anthro. al human ecology in Owens Valley, eastern California: prehistoric change in the Groat ‘Basin. American Antiquity 423-17. 1977" Reply to McGuire and Garfinkel, Journal of Gafornia Anthropology 41}130-192. 1970 Alternative adaptive etrategis in the prehistoric Great Basin. Journal of Anthropological Research ‘34{1):27-46 1979 Multivariate statistical anelysis of a subsistence-sottloment model for Owons Valley, fornia, American Antiquity 44455-470. Dutcher, BH. 1893." Pinyon gathering among the Panamint Indians, American Anthropologist 6(4):377-980, Flannery. Kent V. 1968 Archeological systems theory and sarly Mesoamerice. in Anthropological archeology in the Ameri ‘cas, edited by B. Moggers, pp. 67-87. Anthropological Society of Washington, Washington. D.C. Jochim, Michaol A 1976 Huntergotheror subsistence and settlement: a predictive model. Academic Press, Now York Madsen, David B. and Michael S. Borry 1975 A roassossment of northeastorn Great Basin prehistory, American Antiquity 40:301-408, Pastron, Allon G 1972 The Grass Valloy Project: excavation of two rock shelters. Nevoda Archaoological Survey Research Paper 3:34-67. Reno, Novada Reidhead. Van A 1979" Linoar programming models in archavology. Annual Review of Anthropology 8:543-878. Riddell, Harry 5. Tr 1951 Archaoiogy of @ Paiute vil voy Report 12(13}14-26. Berkey. Salmon, Merrlee H 1676" “"Deductive” versus “inductive” archaeology. American Antiquity 1:976-981, Steward, Julion H. 1838, Basin-Pletoau aboriginal sociopolitical groups. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 120, Struover, Stuart 1968 Problems, method ‘archeology in the Ame Washington, D.C Wood, John 1078." Optimal location in sotdoment space: a model for describing locational strategies. American An tiquity43:288-270. Jn Cal site in Owons Valloy. University of California Archavological Su ology. In Anthropological Society of Washington snd organization a disparity inthe growth of arche as, edited by B. Meggers, pp: 121-151. Anthropol