Historical Socionatural Systems and Models

2007

How should archaeologists and other social scientists tackle the big and little questions of change in socionatural systems? Most nonpractitioners think that the answer is obvious—fieldwork! That is certainly the place to start, and we know very few archaeologists who were not first drawn to their profession because of a love of fieldwork and discovery. Still, it does not take long before we realize that the things we discover, in and of themselves, are not immediately helpful in answering the questions that usually intrigue us most—those involving explanations for change. This realization might start with little questions: why is one raw material for making stone tools prevalent at this site, while right next door, another was more important? But before long, bigger questions surface: how and why do humans cooperate so successfully in large, unrelated groups, and how and why do human societies move from egalitarian to more hierarchical organizations? Every time we ask one of these ...

American Antiquity, 1997

Human social systems are constituted at different scales; the local community, while an important organizational unit cross-culturally, has received limited archaeological study. We argue that community-centric studies in archaeology have significant potential in documenting the diversity of small-scale agricultural systems and in promoting comparative study of local societies. Using comparative data from social anthropology, we put forth a definition of community useful for the archaeologist based upon three irreducible elements; social reproduction, agricultural production, and self-identification. These elements provide an ideal framework for cross-cultural comparison. We also argue that operationalizing a community approach requires certain methodological refinements, such as adopting an appropriate research scale, conducting intensive surface survey, and using analytical strategies such as labor investment and boundary maintenance. We present recently collected data from two prehistoric agricultural communities, Waiohuli in Hawai'i and Tsikwaiye in northern New Mexico, in order to illustrate the strength of this mode of research. Los sistemas sociales humanos se organizan en diferentes escalas; la comunidad local, a pesar de ser una importante unidad organizativa omnipresente en toda cultura, ha recibido poca atención por parte de los arqueólogos. En este artículo planteamos que los estudios que se concentran en el análisis de la comunidad tienen un amplio potencial de documentar la diversidad de sistemas agrícolas de pequeña escala y en promover estudios comparativos de sociedades de carácter local. Al utilizar información comparativa obtenida de la antropología social, presentamos una definición de comunidad, útil para el arqueólogo, basada en tres elementos irreductibles; reproducción social, producción agrícola y auto-identificación. Estos elementos proveen un marco ideal para realizar comparaciones inter-culturales. También argüimos que para operar estudios a escala comunitaria se requiere de ciertos afinamientos metodológicos, tales como adoptar una escala apropiada de investigación, llevar a cabo reconocimientos de superficie intensivos, y usar estrategias analíticas como el análisis de inversión laboral y mantenimiento de espacios sociales. Presentamos informacion recientmente recolectada de dos comunidades agrícolas prehistóricas, Waiohuli en Hawaíí y Tsikwaiye en el norte de Nuevo México para ilustrar la solidez de esta forma investigacion.

Because of advances in methods and theory, archaeology now addresses issues central to debates in the social sciences in a far more sophisticated manner than ever before. Coupled with methodological innovations, multiscalar archaeological studies around the world have produced a wealth of new data that provide a unique perspective on long-term changes in human societies, as they document variation in human behavior and institutions before the modern era. We illustrate these points with three examples: changes in human settlements, the roles of markets and states in deep history, and changes in standards of living. Alternative pathways toward complexity suggest how common processes may operate under contrasting ecologies, populations, and economic integration.

2020

This course examines archaeological approaches to understanding ancient complex societies: i.e.; those societies in which there was institutionalized inequality, specialization, and interdependence among social groups. The discussion begins with the conceptual framework of social evolution, its critique, and the subsequent search for new theories and methods in the study of ancient states and their historical trajectories. While some of these more recent trends represent a continuation of the evolutionary paradigm, the seminar highlights the methodological and theoretical shift to “archaeology of the political”, alternative ontologies, and network analysis. The case of ancient Maya polities is used to illustrate the interplay of broader paradigmatic changes vs. new field data.

Because of advances in methods and theory, archaeology now addresses issues central to debates in the social sciences in a far more sophisticated manner than ever before. Coupled with methodological innovations, multiscalar archaeological studies around the world have produced a wealth of new data that provide a unique perspective on long-term changes in human societies, as they document variation in human behavior and institutions before the modern era. We illustrate these points with three examples: changes in human settlements, the roles of markets and states in deep history, and changes in standards of living. Alternative pathways toward complexity suggest how common processes may operate under contrasting ecologies, populations, and economic integration. anthropology | cultural evolution | economics | sociology | political science