The Great Basin Tribes - Assignment Example

North American Archaeology The Great Basin is an upland area that generally covers most of Nevada and Utah as well as parts of California, Idaho and Wyoming and extending into areas of Oregon and Colorado. It is characterized by a high, dry and somewhat cool desert environment that is believed to be similar to the environment this region experiences today. It is commonly geographically defined by the mountain ranges that surround it on three sides, but remains somewhat undefined on its southern border, where the ancient tribes of the Southwest and the Basin mingled both in terms of tribal customs and living conditions and no large-scale natural boundaries exist. “The foragers in the Basin and the cultivators in the Southwest and the ways of survival both learned, reach back to a common base in the Desert Archaic Period” (Garbarino, 1985: 203). These high-desert dwelling people perfected the art of foraging, creating a unique and successful society that persisted for thousands of years, having evidently replaced the bands of primarily hunters that had come before them. Scientists have learned a great deal about the way in which these people lived in these harsh surroundings through their careful study of the Great Basin region, turning the field into a laboratory in order to piece together the lives of these foragers, and how foraging developed as a way of life, from the remnants that have been left behind. The dominant tribes of the Great Basin have been identified as being primarily hunter-gatherers, foragers, who lived in this fashion for thousands of years, having probably replaced earlier tribes that subsisted primarily on hunting big game (Bettinger & Baumhauf, 1982: 485). However, it is not believed that these people wandered aimlessly throughout their territory or even took the area over by force. “Each group roamed forever over a given territory around a recognized central site, picking a living – an immensely knowledgeable one – from the pastel deserts and the brilliant, flowery, barren desert mountains. They hunted and snared game large and small, from deer and antelope to grasshoppers and birds, gathered wild seeds and fruits, and made some use out of nearly every object within their horizon” (Brandon, 2003: 395). The reason these peoples spread in the way they did is the subject of much study, but requires some basic knowledge of the people themselves. The tribes of the Great Basin are grouped together not only by their geographic locations, but also by their language group, which is basically Shoshone, also referred to as Numic. Most of the people associated with these tribes are also physically characteristically Shoshone, “short-legged and dark skinned” (Brandon, 2003: 395). Shoshone tribes that have been identified as having taken long-term residence in these regions include the Gosiute and the Rocky Mountain Shoshone such as the Comanche. Of these tribes, there were wide differences in style of living as the former remained incredibly poor while the latter lived lavish lifestyles that made much of the richness of their lands. Those who fall under the Shoshone umbrella were not the only peoples who inhabited the Great Basin region, however. Other tribes sharing the Shoshone characteristics living in this region included the Utes, who ranged throughout Utah and into the Colorado Rockies, and the Paiute, who lived primarily in Nevada and along its borders. There were also tribes who did not fit within the Shoshone tribal language systems, but who shared some of the characteristics of the Basin tribes. These included the Washo in the Reno / Lake Tahoe region, the Klamaths and the Modocs, who made their livings along the California / Oregon border. These latter two tribes were especially known for their fierce, warlike tendencies (Brandon, 2003: 396). Some of these tribes were the remnants of earlier hunter tribes that lived primarily by hunting whatever big game could be had at the fringes of the basin region. “Abundant milling equipment dating back to 9000 B.C. indicates that by then people were shifting away from big game hunting, depending more and more on wild plants for food. People of that period left behind other evidence of their way of life; wooden digging sticks, netting and basketry” (Garbarino, 1985: 203). In addition, it is believed limited resources forced these tribes to adopt other survival skills in order to live deeper in the desert regions. By studying the descendents of these early peoples, especially those who maintain the same traditions and culture that has been passed down to them through the millennia, identified as the Paiute and Shoshone, researchers such as Thomas (2001) began to piece together an idea of the early social structure. “Men continued to hunt, but the economic burden had shifted to women. Aside from their role as companion and mother, their foraging and gathering made them the principal providers. And as the woman’s economic role became more central, her status and sociopolitical power increased” (Thomas et al, 2001: 39). This re-organization of the social order meant that women were no longer required to move to the home of their husbands, had greater control over the selection of their husbands and were remembered in the family lineage. Thus, women of the high desert had more autonomy than did women in many other of the world’s societies at this point in time. One woman who was not afraid to put her talents to use for her own welfare was the famous Sacajawea of Lewis and Clark Fame (Brandon, 2003). In addition to the greater importance of women within these tribes, it has been documented that the population likely remained fairly thin throughout the region creating a unique social structure among the tribes living here. This was because the harsh surroundings would only provide enough food for a small group of people for a short period of time. However, caches would be created throughout the territory, where small groups would begin to gather in winter months, which served to maintain close connections among the various tribes. “The changing composition of participants in winter settlements, hunts, harvests and ceremonies created a network of relationships across the Great Basin that worked against the formation of regional differences” (Hopkins, 1965: 48). This was not behavior occurring among the Shoshone tribes alone, but that also included the surrounding tribes that necessarily shared a common language as a means of trading information and negotiating peaceful passage. Harris (1938: 630) claims there was a “constant territorial overlapping of group and tribal boundaries. Paiute camps often came east into Shoshoni territory, and Shoshoni camps went west into the Paiute area.” Tribes did not live in the tipis associated with the Indians of the plains just as they did not occupy the more permanent longhouses seen in the east. Like the Plains Indians, the Great Basin tribes required shelter that either moved with them or did not deplete too many energy reserves to erect for temporary use during the warmer summer months. Bands typically lived in temporary huts or worked under windscreens created of brush as a means of providing protection from the sun. These did not provide a great deal of lasting quality for scientists working to understand their way of life, being constructed of materials and in such a way that they were not expected to last an entire season, much less preserved for all time. Winter camps were more permanent, offering archaeologists with some evidence to explore in modern times. These dwellings were called wickiups. These were slightly better constructed, consisting of a conical or domed hut held up with poles and covered with brush, matting or bark strips (Garbarino, 1985: 206). These dwellings held a fire pit in the center and a smoke hole in the roof. In addition, bands would occasionally use easy-to-find caves as dwelling places for short periods of time. Caves were also the preferred locations for winter and emergency caches. It is within these caves that the greatest amount of archaeological evidence has been preserved, allowing scientists in the field to investigate back as far as 8100 B.C. While much information can be learned by looking to the traditions and customs of the descendents of these tribes, geologic and archaeological evidence is necessary to understand just how much these customs and traditions resemble the evidence their ancestors have left behind. The dry, arid nature of the Great Basin region meant that much of this information was preserved within these caves while the relatively identical modern climate as compared to the climate in which these people lived provides an almost ready-made laboratory. Continued sparseness of settlement in the area has also made the Great Basin an ideal place in which archaeologists can study the tools and practices of the forager peoples to gain a better understanding of how these types of tribes might have lived or evolved in other regions of the world. In 1930, John Steward worked with other archaeologists from the University of Utah to identify the Indian tribes that had inhabited the region surrounding Great Salt Lake as it became possible to enter caves that had previously been inhabited by these peoples. The ability to date the lakeshore with the rising and falling of Lake Bonneville, the predecessor of the current day Great Salt Lake, enabled scientists to place approximate dates on the artifacts that might be found. “Although absolute age estimates in this matter are subject to the usual reservations involved in geological reckoning so that they can serve only as working hypotheses, and although future geological and archeological research may require a radical revision of these estimates, the stratigraphic relationship of artifacts in individual sites and the correlation of the sites with stages of Lake Bonneville will always remain valid” (Steward, 1937: 1). Since Lake Bonneville is believed to have hit its final peak levels from approximately 40,000 to 25,000 years ago (Antevs, 1925: 77), geographical evidence in the form of the Provo Shelf and the Stansbury Level provide evidence that these caves could have been occupied as early as 10,000 years ago (Steward, 1937: 3). Because of the sensitivity of the artifacts that were to be collected as well as the probability that amateur diggings would disturb the site, “it was deemed advisable to excavate completely the large caves rather than carry on a more extensive reconnaissance” (Steward, 1937: 3). In conducting his research in this manner, Steward illustrates the concept of creating a laboratory out of the excavation field, providing future archaeologists with a framework upon which to work. Geographical knowledge and archaeology have also combined to help puzzle together the way in which people managed to live during lean times in the Great Basin. According to Thomas (2001), piñon pine trees covered a great deal of the terrain within the Great Basin, providing an important source of high-bulk food in the form of the piñon nut. This food source could be stored for up to three years and became an important staple of the Great Basin people’s diet. While the nuts provided an important food source that could easily be included in the many caches that were stored throughout the region, the nuts only ripened during a short period in the fall, giving rise to larger group meetings and reasons for community celebrations. Although no part of the basin could support large numbers of people at once, these harvesting periods provided a means for the various bands to come together and reestablish connections. To determine what else these people did to survive in the harsh environment of the Great Basin, archaeologists such as Jesse Jennings (1968) have researched the contents of cave dwellings and caches found throughout the Great Basin region. Through these examinations, Jennings and others have identified numerous types of tools that the people who lived here used as well as determined the type of diet they subsisted upon. “At present the Desert culture is seen as oriented toward exploitation of all species, as opposed to being concentrated only upon big-game animals […] this list includes such traits as an intensive unrestricted exploitation of species; small-seed harvesting and consequent special cookery of mushes and cakes; fur cloth; woven sandals (sometimes hide moccasins); the atlatl and dart; …” (Jennings, 1968: 137). The contents of these caves, and their similarity across great regions, such as the similarities in the contents of Danger Cave in western Utah with the contents found in Etna Cave near Las Vegas, Nevada, indicates the level of connections that were maintained. In fact, the food plants, mammals, birds and insects utilized by the Gosiute (and by the western Shoshoni-speaking tribes of the Basin generally) during the annual subsistence cycle is closely parallel to that inferable from the fauna and flora found in Danger Cave. The parallel between the historically observed Shoshoni cultures and the inferences warranted about the archaeologically derived cultures is so close that we assume no basic shifts in economy, in general balance with the environment, or in cultural orientation to have occurred since man first invaded the Basin. Further, a socio-political organization and a cultural orientation very like that of the historic tribes are postulated for all the cultures of the Great Basin for the past 10,000 years. (Jennings, 1957: 3). Jennings bases his findings upon stratigraphy, which is defined as “the method of determining the age of remains for their stratification, in other words, developing their calendar” (Ceram, 1971: 8). This is illustrated in a discussion regarding Danger Cave, located in western Utah. Although cultural accumulations reached a depth of 13 feet, there were various layers of this accumulation that represented five different periods of use. “With good stratigraphic control, it was possible to see the invention or adoption of new tools as time passed” (Jennings, 1968: 138). By controlling the environment being worked, scientists can judge with reasonable expectation of accuracy, the time period in which a particular artifact is dated based upon the level at which it is found. To help explain the spread of Numic peoples, archaeologists have adopted several forms of evolutionary-ecology models. These models are all based upon the basic idea that ethnic spread is the result of one group of peoples having special circumstances or other attributes that allow them to become more successful in a given area than another tribe, even when both tribes are following a form of hunter-gatherer pattern. Bettinger and Baumhoff (1982) argue that there are too many incidents of one hunter-gatherer tribe displacing another hunter-gatherer tribe without the presence of special circumstances such as unique tools or other innovations to be explained on these terms. Instead, they propose that the Numic take-over of the Great Basin was the result of competitive advantages inherent in their cultural adaptive strategy. “Adaptive strategies, of course, comprise innumerable features that might afford such advantages, but the one most significant in competitive situations is likely to be cost, specifically in the form of the replacement of low-cost strategies by high-cost strategies” (Bettinger & Baumhoff, 1985: 488). In other words, when two hunter-gatherer groups are working to make a living in the same unyielding area of land, the group that is more willing or able to engage in high-cost strategies as a means of surviving is the one most likely to displace the other group. For foraging groups, costs are associated with one of the four main activities: travel time, search time, extraction time and processing time. The tribe that can afford more time in any or all of these activities is the tribe that will retain the use of the land. Having the archaeological data regarding the types of foods gathered and processed most often allows researchers to determine what some of these factors might have been in the determination of which peoples succeeded in this region. Information available in the archaeological record provides us with a detailed list of not only the types of tools that the tribes of the Great Basin used, but also the types of foods that they regularly ate. This record is stratified within the caves that were used as storage houses for the various bands of people that made a nomadic way of life here, allowing researchers to also reliably anticipate the dates of these artifacts even before carbon dating and other methods of age-determination were developed. By comparing artifacts throughout the region, it is possible to notice how similar each of these tribes were to each other, as well as to determine various ways in which they were different, primarily in the types of specific tools they used for regional differences such as the presence of a lake or a more arid region. Geographical data such as the types of flora and fauna that were available to these people, a highly predictable variable as the region hasn’t changed significantly since they lived here, allows scientists to determine with some accuracy the amount of caloric energy had to be expended to support even a small band of people in the area during different times of the year while continued sparse settlement of these areas has allowed many of the ancient sites to remain relatively untouched before archaeologists arrived to catalog contents appropriately. This knowledge has helped develop the theories of evolutionary ecology that explain why bands of people with similar lifestyles might displace other bands in a particular region. Finally, the ability to learn from living descendents of these tribes, many of whom remember if not still practice the old traditions and customs of their native culture, presents a clearer picture of how these peoples might have interacted, organized and subsisted despite not having any control over where or when their next meal might come from. Armed with all this information, it is possible to deduce a great deal of information about how these people must have lived, including food choice, daily activities, social structure, living arrangements and political clout. All of this is possible thanks to the unique conditions presented in the Great Basin itself, the weather contributing to the preservation of many of the necessary objects that have decayed in other portions of the world where similar societal structures have formed. This unique perspective provides a window into the foraging tradition that has been lost elsewhere. Works Cited Antevs, Ernst. On the Pleistocene History of the Great Basin. Washington: Carnegie Institute of Washington, Publication No. 352, (1925), pp. 53-114. Bettinger, Robert L. & Baumhoff, Martin A. “The Numic Spread: Great Basin Cultures in Competition.” American Antiquity. (1982), pp. 485-503. Ceram, C.W. The First American: A Story of North American Archaeology. New York: Harcourt Brace, 1971. Garbarino, Merwyn. Native American Heritage. (2nd Ed.). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, 1985. Harris, Jack S. “Western Shoshoni.” American Anthropologist. Vol. 40, N. 3, (1938), p. 407-410. Hopkins, Nicholas A. “Great Basin Prehistory and Uto-Aztecan.” American Antiquity. Vol. 31, N. 1, (July, 1965), pp. 48-60. Jennings, Jesse D. Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology. No. 14. Salt Lake City, (1957). Jennings, Jesse D. Prehistory of North America. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1968. Steward, Julian H. Ancient Caves of the Great Salt Lake Region. Washington D.C.: Bureau of American Ethnology, 1937. Thomas, David Hurst. The Native Americans: An Illustrated History. New York: JB Press, 2001. Read More