| OCR Text |
Show subsistence specialization, but there is considerable debate about the extent of economic dependence on cultigens during the preceramic farming interval (see Wills and Huckell 1994:34-39). Matson (1991; Matson and Chisholm 1991) presents evidence that late Basketmaker II (ca. AD 100-400) populations on Cedar Mesa were nearly as dependent on maize as were the later Puebloan populations of this mesa (cf. Wills and Huckell 1994:38-39). But can this evidence be extrapolated to the Kayenta region? Moreover, did the shift to food production occur in the context of increased population density or was that a consequence of that shift? We had these and many other questions in mind as we began to excavate Basketmaker II sites within the N16 ROW during the mid 1990s. DEFINITION Credited to discoveries by Richard Wetherill and brothers (Blackburn and Williamson 1997; McNitt 1966), initially publicized by Pepper (1902; also Prudden 1897), and corroborated and elaborated upon by Kidder and Guernsey (1919:32, 204-212; Guernsey and Kidder 1921), the term Basketmaker became formalized as three stages of cultural development (I-III) in Kidder's (1927:557-558) summary of the first Pecos Conference (see also Kidder 1924). Basketmaker II was the pre-pottery, atlatl-using, initial farming stage; these early farmers created the spectacular inventory of mostly perishable remains unearthed from shelters scattered across the Four Corners region. Basketmaker I was the postulated pre-agricultural stage of nomadic hunting and gathering that today is known as the Archaic (see the preceding Chapter 12). Basketmaker III was characterized by the use of pottery and pit houses,1 but also the elaboration or refinement of perishable items such as sandals (e.g., Guernsey 1931:75-92; Hays-Gilpin et al. 1998). Granted that the Basketmaker II concept has a long and distinguished pedigree, it is abundantly evident that this term has different meanings among archaeologists (see Matson 2006b). Precisely because of its derivation, Basketmaker has cultural, geographical, and lifeway connotations that are difficult to avoid-connotations that are themselves legitimate subjects of inquiry, but that are difficult to examine once the label is applied. Opinions differ about what constitutes Basketmaker II, "whether it is a stage, a constellation of traits, a time period, a lifeway, an ethnic group, a geographic area, or some combination of the above" (Tipps 1995:143). Matson (1991:123) emphasized adaptation or lifeway, stating that "Basketmaker II, then, indicates a stage rather than a cultural or ethnic group, which I think fits well with the term's original use in the Pecos classification." Matson (1991:309) goes on to observe that "if one believes that the adoption of maize was gradual, a natural corollary would be that the first Anasazi were not fully dependent upon maize … we rejected this corollary because of recent evidence about maize reliance." He refers to his work on Cedar Mesa (Matson and Chisholm 1991; Chisholm and Matson 1994; Aasen 1984). Thus, Basketmaker II is not just preceramic groups merely with domesticates, first-time dabblers with corn and squash,2 but groups fully dependent upon domesticates. In their assessment of where the Basketmaker II diet occurs between the two ends of the dietary spectrum for Holocene populations of the Colorado Plateau-Archaic broad-spectrum hunter-gatherers or Formative maizebased horticulturalists-Chisholm and Matson (1994:249-250) argued that "Basketmaker II belongs on the ‘Formative' side of this distinction." The use of domesticates is a key defining aspect for Basketmaker II, but the degree of commitment to farming was not an explicit part of the original definition. It appears that Kidder (1927:556-558; 1962:241- 244, 323-327) viewed the stage as transitional in economy, but perhaps less midway than what some have thought in the past. According to Lipe (1993:4), "over the years a number of archaeologists have tended to treat BM II as a variant of the late Archaic, with maize farming playing a fairly minor role in subsistence." McGregor (1977:18), for example, stated that Basketmaker people "had some agriculture, but apparently extensively supplemented it with gathering and hunting." If Basketmaker II is Formative, then what about those groups less reliant on farming? Lipe (1994:339) has questioned whether "‘Basketmaker II' is the most appropriate rubric for considering all of the prepottery but maize-growing manifestations in the northern Southwest? … would it be better to consider some of this material as ‘Late Archaic with Maize,' and reserve ‘Basketmaker II' for the more intensive maize growers?" He does not necessarily advocate this approach, suggesting that it may confuse matters because the issue of maize dependence would be solved largely by chronological placement rather than investigation. Perhaps the Basketmaker I label could be dusted off and reinstated with a revision of meaning, as the earliest portion of the Basketmaker 1 Pit houses are now well documented during Basketmaker II, and even during the early Archaic (see Metcalf and Black 1991; Shields 1998). 2 A case can be made that dabbling with domesticates in a secondary setting is not actually viable (e.g., Wills and Huckell 1994:50), perhaps especially during the earliest stages of the Archaic-Formative transition in the Southwest because of the need to maintain a seed. V.14.2 |
