Social Lives from Paleoethnobotanical Data 1st Edition Matthew P. Sayre Visit to download the full and correct content document: https://textbookfull.com/product/social-perspectives-on-ancient-lives-from-paleoethno botanical-data-1st-edition-matthew-p-sayre/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant download maybe you interests ...
Perspectives on Social LCA: Contributions from the 6th International Conference Marzia Traverso
https://textbookfull.com/product/perspectives-on-social-lcacontributions-from-the-6th-international-conference-marziatraverso/
Data Science For Fake News: Surveys And Perspectives Deepak P
https://textbookfull.com/product/data-science-for-fake-newssurveys-and-perspectives-deepak-p/
Markets Perspectives from Economic and Social Theory
1st Edition Jackson
https://textbookfull.com/product/markets-perspectives-fromeconomic-and-social-theory-1st-edition-jackson/
Perspectives on Data Science for Software Engineering
1st Edition Tim Menzies
https://textbookfull.com/product/perspectives-on-data-sciencefor-software-engineering-1st-edition-tim-menzies/
Discovering the humanities Sayre https://textbookfull.com/product/discovering-the-humanitiessayre/
Cultural Sustainability Perspectives from the Humanities and Social Sciences 1st Edition Torsten Meireis (Editor)
https://textbookfull.com/product/cultural-sustainabilityperspectives-from-the-humanities-and-social-sciences-1st-editiontorsten-meireis-editor/
Academic Tourism: Perspectives on International Mobility in Europe João P. Cerdeira Bento
https://textbookfull.com/product/academic-tourism-perspectiveson-international-mobility-in-europe-joao-p-cerdeira-bento/
On the social and emotional lives of gifted children: understanding and guiding their development Cross
https://textbookfull.com/product/on-the-social-and-emotionallives-of-gifted-children-understanding-and-guiding-theirdevelopment-cross/
School social work : national perspectives on practice in schools 1st Edition Leticia Villarreal Sosa
https://textbookfull.com/product/school-social-work-nationalperspectives-on-practice-in-schools-1st-edition-leticiavillarreal-sosa/
Matthew P. Sayre · Maria C. Bruno Editors
Social Perspectives on Ancient Lives from Paleoethnobotanical Data SocialPerspectivesonAncientLives fromPaleoethnobotanicalData MatthewP.Sayre • MariaC.Bruno Editors
SocialPerspectives onAncientLives fromPaleoethnobotanical Data Editors MatthewP.Sayre DepartmentofAnthropology
UniversityofSouthDakota Vermillion,SD USA
MariaC.Bruno DepartmentofAnthropology andArchaeology
DickinsonCollege Carlisle,PA USA
ISBN978-3-319-52847-2ISBN978-3-319-52849-6(eBook) DOI10.1007/978-3-319-52849-6
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2017930792
© SpringerInternationalPublishingAG2017
Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsarereservedbythePublisher,whetherthewholeorpart ofthematerialisconcerned,specificallytherightsoftranslation,reprinting,reuseofillustrations, recitation,broadcasting,reproductiononmicrofilmsorinanyotherphysicalway,andtransmission orinformationstorageandretrieval,electronicadaptation,computersoftware,orbysimilarordissimilar methodologynowknownorhereafterdeveloped.
Theuseofgeneraldescriptivenames,registerednames,trademarks,servicemarks,etc.inthis publicationdoesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexemptfrom therelevantprotectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse.
Thepublisher,theauthorsandtheeditorsaresafetoassumethattheadviceandinformationinthis bookarebelievedtobetrueandaccurateatthedateofpublication.Neitherthepublishernorthe authorsortheeditorsgiveawarranty,expressorimplied,withrespecttothematerialcontainedhereinor foranyerrorsoromissionsthatmayhavebeenmade.Thepublisherremainsneutralwithregardto jurisdictionalclaimsinpublishedmapsandinstitutionalaffiliations.
Printedonacid-freepaper
ThisSpringerimprintispublishedbySpringerNature TheregisteredcompanyisSpringerInternationalPublishingAG Theregisteredcompanyaddressis:Gewerbestrasse11,6330Cham,Switzerland
Theoriginalversionofthebookwasrevised: Thebooktitlewascorrectedfrom “SocialPerspectives onAncientLivesfromPaleothnobotanicalData” to “SocialPerspectivesonAncientLivesfrom PaleoethnobotanicalData” .
1SocialPaleoethnobotany:NewContributionsto ArchaeologicalTheoryandPractice 1 MariaC.BrunoandMatthewP.Sayre
2IntegratingArchaeologicalDataTowardaBetter UnderstandingofFoodPlantsChoicesandTerritory ExploitationintheNorthwesternEuropeanEarlyNeolithic: TheCaseofRemicourt “EnBiaFloII”
15 AlexandreChevalierandDominiqueBosquet
3CultigenChenopodsintheAmericas:AHemispherical Perspective ...............................................
GayleJ.Fritz,MariaC.Bruno,BrieAnnaS.Langlie, BruceD.SmithandLoganKistler
4RethinkingtheRoleofWildResourcesinAgriculturalist Societies:ArchivesfromRockshelterCasesofNorthwestern Argentina 77 M.AlejandraKorstanje
5ExploringCulinaryPracticesThroughGISModeling atJoyadeCerén,ElSalvador 101 AlanFarahani,KatherineL.Chiou,RobQ.Cuthrell, AnnaHarkey,ShantiMorell-Hart,ChristineA.Hastorf andPaysonD.Sheets
6RitualandPlantUseatConchopata:AnAndean MiddleHorizonSite ....................................... 121 MatthewP.SayreandWilliamT.Whitehead
7RitualTime:TheStruggletoPinpointtheTemporality ofRitualPracticeUsingArchaeobotanicalData .................
ChristopherT.Morehart
8ACompellingIntersectionality:Paleoethnobotany, SocialTheory,andFeministCommitments
MargaretW.Conkey
9Commentary:PaleoethnobotanyBeyondDiet,Environment, andEcology
DeborahM.Pearsall
Index
EditorsandContributors AbouttheEditors Dr.MatthewP.Sayre iscurrentlyAssistantProfessorattheUniversityofSouthDakota.He teachescoursesinArchaeology,BiologicalAnthropology,andHistoricalEcology.Heisalso activeinthedevelopmentandteachingofthenewSustainabilityMajor.Hisresearchfocuseson thepastecology,ritual,andproductionpracticesofpeopleintheAndeanregionofSouthAmerica. HehasworkedattheUNESCOWorldHeritagesiteofChavindeHuantar,Peruoverthelast decadeandleadsa fieldprojectfocusedonthedomesticsettlementsintheLaBandasectorofthe site.
Dr.MariaC.Bruno iscurrentlyAssistantProfessoratDickinsonCollegewheresheteaches coursesinArchaeologyandWorldPrehistory,EnvironmentalArchaeology,andArchaeological MethodandTheory.SheisalsoactivelyengagedinDickinsonCollege’sinterdisciplinaryCenter forSustainabilityEducation.Herresearchfocusesontheenvironmental,technological,social,and politicaldynamicsofancientagriculturalsystemsinSouthAmerica,particularlyintheLake TiticacaBasinoftheAndesandintheLlanosdeMoxosregionoftheAmazonBasin.
Contributors
DominiqueBosquet SPW-DGO4-Servicedel’Archéologieenprovincede BrabantWallon,Wavre,Belgium
MariaC.Bruno DepartmentofAnthropologyandArchaeology,Dickinson College,Carlisle,USA
AlexandreChevalier RoyalBelgianInstituteofNaturalSciences,Brussels, Belgium
KatherineL.Chiou DepartmentofAnthropology,UniversityofCalifornia, Berkeley,USA
MargaretW.Conkey DepartmentofAnthropology,UniversityofCalifornia, Berkeley,USA
RobQ.Cuthrell ArchaeologicalResearchFacility,UniversityofCalifornia, Berkeley,USA
AlanFarahani CotsenInstituteofArchaeology,UniversityofCalifornia,Los Angeles,USA
GayleJ.Fritz DepartmentofAnthropology,WashingtonUniversity,St.Louis, USA
AnnaHarkey DepartmentofSociologyandAnthropology,WoffordCollege, Spartanburg,USA
ChristineA.Hastorf DepartmentofAnthropologyandArchaeologicalResearch Facility,UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley,USA
LoganKistler DepartmentofAnthropology,NationalMuseumofNatural History,SmithsonianInstitution,Washington,D.C.,USA
M.A.Korstanje InstitutodeArqueologíayMuseo(FCNeIML,Universidad NacionaldeTucumán),InstitutoSuperiordeEstudiosSociales(CONICET/UNT), SanMigueldeTucumán,Argentina
BrieAnnaS.Langlie DepartmentofAnthropology,LoyolaUniversityChicago, Chicago,USA
ChristopherT.Morehart DepartmentofAnthropology,ArizonaState University,Tempe,AZ,USA
ShantiMorell-Hart DepartmentofAnthropology,McMasterUniversity, Hamilton,Canada
DeborahM.Pearsall DepartmentofAnthropology,UniversityofMissouri, Columbia,MO,USA
MatthewP.Sayre DepartmentofAnthropology,UniversityofSouthDakota, Vermillion,SD,USA
PaysonD.Sheets DepartmentofAnthropology,UniversityofColorado,Boulder, USA
BruceD.Smith PrograminHumanEcologyandArchaeobiologyandDepartment ofAnthropology,NationalMuseumofNaturalHistory,SmithsonianInstitution, Washington,D.C.,USA
WilliamT.Whitehead SWCAEnvironmentalConsultants,Albuquerque,NM, USA
Chapter1 SocialPaleoethnobotany:New ContributionstoArchaeologicalTheory andPractice MariaC.BrunoandMatthewP.Sayre
Introduction
Paleoethnobotanyorarchaeobotany,1 simplydefinedasthestudyofplantremains fromarchaeologicalsites,hasbecomeacentralcomponentofarchaeological practiceacrosstheglobe.Notonlyareitsmethodsfortherecoveryandanalysisofa widerangeofplantremainsregularelementsofthemostrigorousacademicand contractarchaeologicalprojectstoday,butresearchagendasareincreasingly informedbyquestionsthatcanbeansweredwitharchaeologicalplantremains (Marstonetal. 2015:9–10).Althoughstillsometimesviewedasmerelya methodologicalspecialization,paleoethnobotanistshavealonghistoryofusingthe datatheyproducetoaddresslargerquestionsaboutthehumanpastandcontribute tobroadertheoreticaldiscussionsinthe fieldofarchaeology(seeHastorf 1999; Marstonetal. 2015;Pearsall 2015;VanDerwarkeretal. 2016 forreviewsofthe discipline).Paleoethnobotanyhascontributedrathersubstantiallytotheoriesofthe natureofhuman–environmentalinteractionsandsubsistencechange,particularly theoriginsofagriculture.Ithasalso,butinamorelimitedway,contributedto theoriesaboutsocialandpoliticalprocesses,especiallywithregardtofoodproductionandconsumptionamongcomplexsocieties.Thisvolumeaddstothe growingarenaofsocialpaleoethnobotany(MorehartandMorell–Hart 2013)witha seriesofpapersexploringdynamicaspectsofpastsociallife,particularlythe
1ThetermpaleoethnobotanyismorecommoninNorthAmericawhereasarchaeobotanyisthe dominantterminEurope.Inthisvolumewewillrefertothe fieldaspaleoethnobotany.
M.C.Bruno(&)
DepartmentofAnthropologyandArchaeology,DickinsonCollege,Carlisle,USA e-mail:brunom@dickinson.edu
M.P.Sayre
DepartmentofAnthropology,UniversityofSouthDakota,Vermillion,USA e-mail:Matthew.Sayre@usd.edu
© SpringerInternationalPublishingAG2017
M.P.SayreandM.C.Bruno(eds.), SocialPerspectivesonAncientLives fromPaleoethnobotanicalData,DOI10.1007/978-3-319-52849-6_1
day-to-daypracticesandpoliticsofprocuring,preparing,andconsumingplants acrossrangeofplaces,times,andcontexts.Whilemanyofthepapersbringsocial perspectivestothemoretraditionalrealmsofpaleoethnobotanicalresearchsuchas definingsubsistencepracticesanddomesticactivities,theyalsodelveintotopics thatarestillemergingwithinthesub-fi eldincludingritualandgender.Together, thesepapersshedlightonwaysinwhichthespecializedanalysisofplantremains cancontributetotheorybuildingandadvancingarchaeologicalunderstandingof pastlifeways.
Althoughnotthefocusofthisvolume,methodologicaladvancementsinpaleoethnobotanyhavebeencentraltoitsgrowingimportancewithinarchaeologyas well(HastorfandPopper 1989;Marstonetal. 2015;Pearsall 2015).Fromthe adventofwater flotationfortherecoveryofmacrobotanicalremains,tothe chemicalextractionsofphytolithsandstarchgrains,andnowtechnologiesto collect aDNAfromarchaeologicalplantremains,apowerfulsuiteofbotanical techniquesaregrowingourpaleoethnobotanicaldatabases.Theideaspresentedin thesechaptersarefoundedontherigorousapplicationofawiderangeofpaleoethnobotanicalmethods.AsPearsall(thisvolume)highlightsinher finalchapter, theuseofmultiplelinesofpaleoethnobotanicalevidenceisessentialtocreating robustexplanationsregardingpasthumanactivities.
ArchaeologicalTheoryandPaleoethnobotany Thedevelopmentofpaleoethnobotanyhasfollowedsomeofthegeneraltrends apparentinthebroader fieldofarchaeologyinNorthAmericaandEurope(Hastorf andJohannessen 1996;Morell–Hart 2015),althoughitstrajectoryisalsolinkedto trendsintheeconomicsandpoliticsofarchaeologyasaprofession(Morehartand Morell–Hart 2013).Theearlieststudiesofplantremainsfromarchaeologicalsites weretheresultoffortuitousdiscoveriesofplantspreservedinuniquecontextssuch asEgyptiantombs,water-loggedsitesofEurope,andinextremelydrysitesinthe Andes(Ford 1979;Renfrew 1973).Intheseearlycases,botanistsweresoughtto identifythespeciesrecoveredandtheir findingspresentedasanappendixattheend ofareportorbook(Reitzetal. 2008).Aswithothermaterialculture,theplants encounteredatthesesitesenteredintodescriptivesummariesofpastculturehistoriescontributingtogrowingknowledgeaboutpastfoodways,construction,and craftingmaterials.
Asarchaeologistsbegantomovebeyonddescriptiontoaddressbroaderquestionsaboutthehumanexperience,theformalsub- fieldofpaleoethnobotany solidi fied.Practitionersnotonlydevelopedmorepreciseandsystematicmethods fortherecoveryandidenti ficationofawiderangeofplantremainsbuttheydidso inordertoaddressthecomplexinterrelationshipsofplantsandhumansinthepast (Ford 1994;HastorfandPopper 1989).AlthoughtheearlyadvancementofpaleoethnobotanycertainlycoincidedwiththeNewArchaeologyand “processual” approacheswithitsemphasisonenvironmentaladaptationsandsubsistence,its
rootsinethnobotanyalsomaderelevantthesocialandpoliticalnatureofhuman–plantinteractions(Ford 1994;Hastorf 1990;Jones 1941;Lentz 1991). Paleoethnobotanistswerethusamongthe firstoftheenvironmentalarchaeologists toevaluateissuessuchasmeaningandgenderusingtheirdatasetswithinthe “post-processual” movement(Fritz 1990;Hastorf 1991, 1993;Hastorfand Johannessen 1996;Jones 1985;WatsonandKennedy 1991).Inouranalysisof theoryandpaleoethnobotany,weaimtobreakdownthetraditional “processual/post-processual” divisionandexaminetheuniquewaysinwhich paleoethnobotanistshaveusedtheirdatasetstocontributetoawiderangeoftheoreticalissues.Whilewedoadvocateforgreateruseofthesocialapproachesinthis volume,werecognizethatpaleoethnobotanistsutilizingevolutionary/biological paradigmshavemadeeffortstotakeintoaccountthesocialandpoliticalnatureof human–plantinteractions(Gremillion 2015;Rosen 2007;Smith 2015).
Todate,paleoethnobotanicalcontributionstoarchaeologicaltheoryhavelargely engagedwithparadigmsthatcanbecategorizedasevolutionary,ecological,and biological.SomeofthemostprominentNorthAmericanpaleoethnobotanists includingKristenGremillion,ArleneMillerRosen,DeborahPearsall,Dolores Piperno,andBruceSmithhavewrittenmajortreatiesutilizingframeworkssuchas humanbehavioralecologyandnicheconstructiontheory(e.g.,PipernoandPearsall 1998;Rosen 2007;Smith 2011).Itisnoteworthythatthesepaleoethnobotanists havenotonlyutilizedtheseframeworkstoanalyzetheirdata,buthavesubstantially contributedtoelaboratingandmodifyingthesetheoreticalapproachesforarchaeology(e.g.,Gremillion 2002;Smith 2007).Theseapproachesgenerallyview humansandtheirinteractionswithplantsasanyotherorganismsonEarth,shaped bytheprocessesofnaturalselection,resourceavailability,andfeedbackloopsthat createparticularecologiesandevolutionarychanges.Socialandpoliticalaspectsof humanbehaviorareconceptualizedasextensionsofthebiologicaladaptationof culture.Suchapproachesshedlightongeneral,long-termprocessessuchassignificantshiftsinsubsistenceassociatedwithmajorclimaticchangesincludingthe Pleistocene–Holocenetransitionandtheecologicalconsequencesofhumaninterventionsintoplantcommunitiessuchasresourcedepletionordisturbance,butoften failtocapturethelocalized,small-scalesocialand/orpoliticalprocessesthatcontributetoormitigatesuchchanges.Theyareexplicitlyeticanalysesofthepastthat donotnecessarilyaimtocapturethelivedexperiencesandculturalimplicationsof theseprocesses.Also,whilethereareseveralcasesthatseemto fi tthesemodels (seeGremillion 2015),thereareoftenexceptions,andtheexceptionsarelikely betterexplainedbyculturalandsocialpreferencesratherthan “optimal,” risk-reducingcalculations(ChevalierandBoquetthisvolume;Ingold 1996).
Whiletheseevolutionaryapproachesremaindominantinthe field,agrowing numberofpaleoethnobotanistshavearguedforgreaterconsiderationofsocial factorsshapinghuman–plantinteractionsandtheirrolesinunderstandingthepast humanexperience(e.g.,AsoutiandFuller 2013;Bruno 2009;Denham 2005, 2009; Fairbairn 2008;Hastorf 1991, 1993;HastorfandJohannessen 1996;Jones 1985; MorehartandHelmke 2008;MorehartandMorell–Hart 2013;Morell–Hart 2015). Plantremainsarenotonlyevidenceofenvironmentalphenomenabutalsoofdeeply
culturalandpoliticalonesaswell.Althoughhumansinteractwiththeplantworldin averymaterialway,theseinteractionsareimbuedwithmeaningthatshapevarious realmsofhumansociallife.Inmanyhumansocieties,plantsarenotsimplyviewed asresourcestobeusedandcaloriestobeconsumed,butarecentralentitiesinthe dailylivesofpeoplewhocollect,tend,cultivate,transform,destroy,andingest them(e.g.,Anderson 2000;Arnold 1996;Balée 1994;Descola 1994;Fowler 1996; Rival 1998).Manyarchaeologistsaremoreinterestedinaccessingtheseelements ofthehumanpastthantestingevolutionarymodels.
Plantremainsareparticularlywell-suitedforqueryingthesocialandpolitical dynamicsofpasthumansocieties.Plant-relatedactivitiesoftenoccuronadaily basis,theirremainsregularlydeposited,preserved(albeitnotperfectly),and accessibletoarchaeologistswhoemploythewiderangeofrecoverytechniques nowavailable.Plant-basedcraftandfoodproductionarecarriedoutinprescribed waysresultinginculturallyacceptableobjectsandmealsthatgetreproducedover generationsbutarealsolociforchangeandinnovation(AtalayandHastorf 2006; Bruno 2014;Morell–Hart 2015).Yet,notallplantsareappropriateinallcontexts. Plantsareoftenusedtomarkparticulartimes,people,andplaces,makingimportant contributionstoculturaldefinitionsofcontextssuchasdomestic,ritual,male, female,child,adult,life,anddeath(e.g.,Allen 1988;Descola 1994;Hastorf 2003; Morehartetal. 2005;Sayre 2014).Thus,paleoethnobotanistsarewellpositionedto engagewithsocialtheoriesofthehumanexperienceincludingagency,practice, identity(race,gender,class),andembodiment.Suchapproachesdonotexclude environmental/ecologicalaspectsofthehumanexperience,however.Ratherthan viewinghumansassimplyadaptingtoenvironmentalconstraints,moresocial environmentalparadigmsconsiderthedialecticimpacthumanshaveonshaping localecologies(andviceversa),aswellasthecreationoflandscapes,thephysical andconceptualentitieswroughtfromhuman–environmentalinteractions(Baléeand Erickson 2006;Crumley 1994;Ingold 2000).
Anearlyexampleofasocialpaleoethnobotanycomesfromthepioneering studiesofwooduseintheUpperMantaroValleyofthePeruvianAndesby ChristineHastorfandSisselJohannessen(HastorfandJohannessen 1996; JohannessenandHastorf 1990).Paleoethnobotanistsandpaleoecologistshavelong usedwoodcharcoaltoidentifyspecies’ compositioninpastenvironments,andthe impactofhumanactivitiesparticularlyburninganddeforestation(Asoutiand Austin 2005;DelcourtandDelcourt 1988;SmartandHoffman 1988).Common economicandevolutionarymodelsofhuman–treeinteractionsviewedwoodsimply asaresourcetobeexploitedforfuelandconstruction,anditsoverusewouldbe inevitablethroughexpandedagricultureandincreasinghumanpopulations.Sitesin theUpperMantaroValleycontainedevidenceofpre-Hispaniclifethatspannearly 1000yearsfromapproximatelyAD500tothetimeofSpanishcontactAD1532 (HastorfandJohannessen 1991:144).HastorfandJohannessenfoundthatwood charcoalwasubiquitousacrossalltimeperiodsslightlydecliningintheMiddle Horizonperiods(AD900–1300)butincreasingsignificantlyintheLate IntermediatePeriods(AD1300–1460)andcontinuingintotheInkaperiod.This increaseinwoodcharcoalinthelaterperiods,whenagricultureintensi fiedand
populationsgrew,contradictedevolutionaryandeconomicmodelexpectations. Furthermore,notalltreespeciesincreased,butrathertheyfoundashiftfromthe predominanceof Polylepis sp.and Colletia sp.intheearlierperiodstoanincrease in Buddlejia sp.inthelaterperiods.
Itwascleartotheauthorsthatthepre-Hispanicpopulationsweremanagingthe treepopulations.Whilethiscouldhavesimplybeenforfuel,Hastorfand Johannessenexaminedtherichethnographicandethnohistoricrecord,andHastorf conductedinterviewstolearnthattreesweremorethan firewood,butentitieswith deepculturalandpoliticalsignificanceintheregion.Woodcollectingwasan importantactivityofdailylifewithbothyoungandoldindividualsspendingupto eighthoursperdayscollectingfuelfortheirhome fires.Thisnotonlykeptthe hearthburningbutanabundantstoreof firewood “wasasignofprosperity” in Andeanhouseholds(JohannessenandHastorf 1990:77).Giventhatthishigh,dry regionissparselyforested,therearewrittenrecordsofmanagementpracticesthat gobacktotheInca,butbasedonthearchaeologicalrecordevendeeper.TheInka hadexplicitlawsaboutwhereandwhentreescouldbeused,evendesignating sacredforests(HastorfandJohannessen 1996:75–76).Moreover,thescarcityand importanceofcertainspeciesofwoodgavethemdistinctmeaningintermsof symbolicandpoliticalvalue.
Buddlejia sp.,or quishuar inQuechua,wasparticularlysignificanttotheInka. TherearehistoricmemoriesoftheInkamanagingitscultivationandcollectingitas tribute.Moreover,the quishuar (aswellasothertrees)weresymbolicintermsof linkingfamiliestotheland.Aspecificterm mallqui wastorefertoacultivated tree(usuallyplantedinahomecompound).Treesbeinglong-lived,connectingthe earth,water,andsky,symbolizedpermanenceonthelandscape.Intriguingly,theterm mallqui alsomeantancestormummies,whichwereoftenkeptinplacesthatrepresentedalineage’slinktoaparticularterritory(HastorfandJohannessen 1996:73–74).
Buildingfromtheseethnohistoricsources,HastorfandJohannessenarguedthat thearchaeologicalcharcoaldatawereindicativeoftheantiquityoftreecultivation intheregionbeginningbeforetheInkawiththeLateIntermediatePeriodWanka residents.Theyfurtherarguedthatduringthisparticularlycontentiousperiodof politicalhistoryintheregiontrees,likemummies,mayhavebeenusedtoindicate territory.Themanagementoftreesthusservedtomaintainanimportant,consumableresourcebutalsoplayedasigni ficantroleindefiningcontestedsocialand politicalspaces.
Thisexampleillustratesthesocialandpoliticalimportanceofplants,and demonstrateshowpatternsinplantdatacanforceustoreconsiderourassumptions aboutpasthumanbehavior.Thiscanhelpusbuildmorenuancedandrobust theoreticalmodelsfromwhichtothinkaboutbroadertrendsinthepast.Withthis examplewecontendthatpaleoethnobotanistsarewellpositionedtomakesubstantialcontributionstosocialtheoriesofhumanbehaviorandexperienceasthey havetoevolutionaryandbiologicaltheoriesinthesocialsciences.
Thediversesetofpaperspresentedinthisvolumedrawonthepioneeringwork ofsocialpaleoethnobotanists,suchasHastorfandJohannessen.ChristineHastorf ’s contributions,inparticular,havenotonlybeencentraltoadvancing
paleoethnobotanicalmethodandinterpretationbutmakingthisspecializedanalysis anessentialcomponentofgeneralarchaeologicalpracticeandtheorybuilding.She wasamongthe firstpaleoethnobotaniststouseplantdatatobuildsocialtheoriesof theoriginsofagriculture(Hastorf 1998, 2006)andtheemergenceofthestate (Hastorf 1993).Perhapsmostsigni ficantly,shewascentralinshiftingtheviewof plantsas “lowlyitems” hardlyworthyofstudy(Hastorf 1999:57),tocentralunits ofarchaeologicalresearchbecauseoftheirsocialandpoliticalimportanceinthe dailylivesofpeople,particularlywomen(Hastorf 1991, 1998, 2001).Inrecognitionofherwork,shewastherecipientoftheFryxellAwardforInterdisciplinary Researchatthe77thAnnualMeetingoftheSocietyforAmericanArchaeology Meetingandseveralofthepapersinthisvolumeoriginatedinthesessionorganized incelebrationofheraward.Examplesofherworkareusedascasestudies throughoutthisvolume.
NewStudiesinSocialPaleoethnobotany The firstthreechaptersofthevolumeaddress “traditional” paleoethnobotanical issuesrelatedtosubsistence:thecollectionofwildresources,thedomesticationof crops,andspreadofagriculture.Thesechaptersbuildonrichdatasetsofthespatial andtemporaldistributionofwildanddomesticatedplantspecies,andwhatthese patternsindicateabouttherolethesespeciesplayedinthefoodwaysoftheregions examined.Asdiscussedabove,thishaslongbeenoneoftherealmswhereevolutionarytheoriespredominateintheliterature,andthesechaptersprovidenewinsights intothemoresocialprocessesthatcontributedtosubsistencepracticesandchange.
Webeginwithouronlynon-AmericancontributionbyChevalierandBosquet whoexaminetheadoptionofagricultureinNorthwesternEuropethroughthe analysisof fivedifferentbotanicalproxiesfromtheearlyNeolithic(LBK)siteof Remicourt “EnBiaFloII” ineasternBelgium.Thisin-depthstudynotonlyclari fies thetimingoftheentranceofdomesticatedspeciesintotheregionbutalsointerrogatesthesocio-politicalprocessesthatshapedthisprofoundtransformationof localfoodways.ChevalierandBosquetcomparetheutilityofHumanBehavioral Ecological(HBE)andHistoricalEcological(HE)paradigmsforevaluatingthe adoptionofagricultureinthisregion.Theyarguethatofthetwomodels,HE providesamoreappropriateinterpretiveframeworkforitbetteraccountsforthe botanicalevidence,whichdonotmeetthestrictlyadaptationistexpectationsofan HBEmodel.Forexample,theformsofwheatandbarleyencounteredinthesites arenotthosebestadaptedtotheconditionsinthisregion,butratherappeartobe thosepreferredforculturalreasons,like flavororcookingqualities.Furthermore, theyshowthroughpollenandwoodanalysesthattheearlyfarmingpopulationsdid notsimplyadapttolocalenvironmentalconditionsbutmodifi edthelocal florato meettheneedsoftheirfarmingsystemsandplantpreferences.
Fritz,Bruno,Langlie,Smith,andKistlerbringtogetherrecentarchaeobotanical andmoleculardataonthedomesticationandroleoftheimportantgenus
Chenopodium inNorthandSouthAmerica.Bybuildingonmethodsdevelopedand modifi edinbothregions,theseauthorsshowthatitisnotonlypossibletoidentify wildversusdomesticatedformsofthesespeciesbutdifferentvarietieswithinthem thatrepresentthechoicesmadebyfarmersbaseduponamixofecological,social, political,andculturalvariables.Molecularstudiesdemonstratethat Chenopodium wasindependentlydomesticatedineasternNorthAmerica,Mesoamerica,and SouthAmerica,revealingtheindividualagencyofearlygatherer–hunters throughouttheAmericas.Whileitsecologicaltendencytooccupyhuman-disturbed spaceslikelycontributedtoitsdomesticationinbothregions,comparisonofthe speci fictrajectoriesrevealsdistinctsocialandpoliticalhistoriesofthesechenopod species.Finally,inlightofitsresurgenceininternationalmarketstoday,thisstudy reflectsonhowcolonialincursionsplayedaroleinthe “loss” ofthisgenus’s importanceacrosstheAmericas.
ThesechaptersarefollowedbyKorstanje’sinterrogationofthecommon dichotomyofwildversusdomestic,notintermsofdifferentiatingwildprogenitors fromcrops,buttounderstandtheroleofnondomesticatedplantspeciesinagriculturalandpastoralsocieties.Shedoessobyexaminingthewell-preservedplant remainsfromrocksheltersinNorthwestArgentina.Theconsiderationofrocksheltersthemselveschallengestraditionalarchaeologicalcategoriesofhunter–gathererversusagriculturalist –pastoralistbecausesuchplaceshavelongbeen associatedwiththeformerbut,infact,providerichdataonplantusebythelatter. Korstanjerevealsthediversityofnondomesticatedspeciesthatagriculturalgroups broughttoandusedintherockshelters,andarguesthatalthoughtheywerenot plantedandraised,thelaborandsocialorganizationrequiredtoprocurethemwas stillsignifi cant,especiallyasmanyofthemcamefromotherregions.
Thenextthreechaptersalsodrawonalongtraditioninpaleoethnobotanyof examiningthespatialcompositionanddistributionofplantremains,inconjunction withotherarchaeologicalremains,toelucidatetheactivitiesthattookplaceinparticularcontexts(Hastorf 1988).Suchstudieshavenotonlybeencentralforclarifying thefunctionofdifferenttypesofcontexts,butshedlightontheparticularpractices thatproducedthemandgavemeaningtobothdailylifeandspecialoccasions.
ThechapterbyFarahani,Chiou,Cuthrell,Harkey,Morrell–Hart,Hastorf,and Sheets,whileincludingpaleoethnobotanicaldata,examinearangeofother remarkablywell-preservedobjectsthatwereleftinplaceinasinglehousehold beforetheeruptionoftheLomaCalderavolcanoatthesiteJoyadeCeréninEl Salvador.UsingGeographicInformationSystems(GIS),theauthorsexaminethe spatialrelationshipsofplantremainsaswellasceramics,grindingstones,and animalremains,toshedlightontheculinarypracticestypicalofdailylifeatthis communityinseventhcenturyAD.Theircarefulanalysisofobjectsacrossvarious spaceswithinHousehold1providesavividrenditionoftheinterrelatedactivities, ortaskscapes,involvedindailyfoodways.Thespatialassociationofseveralplant foods,includingbeansandcornnearaduckthathadbeenleftbehind,remindsus thatdomesticfoodstuffsarenotalwaysdestinedforhumansbutalsoprovidefood forothercreaturesthatcontributetoahousehold,includingthosethatmayeventuallybecomefoodthemselves.
SayreandWhiteheadexaminehowplantremainsinformtheinterpretationof differentspacesatthePeruvianMiddleHorizonsiteofConchopata,whichwasa provincialcenteroftheWaristatebetweenAD650and1000.Archaeologists workingatsuchsitesoftendifferentiatedomesticversusritualspaceusingarchitectureandceramicremains.SayreandWhiteheadarguethatplantremainscan providenewinsightintotheformalseparationanddesignationofspaceaswellas theactivitiescarriedoutindomesticandritualareas.LikeKorstanje’spaperthat challengedthewild–domesticdichotomy,theyexploretheboundariesoftheritual–domesticdivideand findareaswhereitisnotsoclearcut.Theyprovideimportant insightintohowthefoodsanddrinksconsumedintheritualspacesareoften preparedinthedomesticones,andthatritualcaninfusedailyactivitiesaswell. Whiletherewassomeclearcontextsofstate-sponsoredfoodanddrinkproduction atConchopata,particularlyforthemaizebeer, chicha,smallerspacesofritualfood anddrinkproductionarealsohintedatinhouseholds.
Morehartalsocontributestotheanthropologicalstudyofritualusingpaleoethnobotanicaldatatodiscernthetemporalityofparticularritualscarriedoutata shrinenearLakeXaltocandatingtotheEpiclassicperiod(AD600–900)in Mexico’snorthernBasin.Morehartdrawsuponthebiologicalaspectsoftheplants encountered,includingtheirlifecycles,ediblepartmaturationseason,particularly maize,andpeakbloomingperiodof flowers,todiscerntheseasonalityofwhen ritualstookplaceusingspecificplants.Then,hedrawsuponethnographicand ethnohistoricinformationonthesymbolismoftheseplants,especiallyasofferings todeities,inMexicancosmologyandtheceremonialcalendarinordertoelucidate thepracticesandmeaningsthatcontributedtheritual(s)conductedatthisshrine. Throughthisanalysis,Morehartarguesthatitispossibletoaccesstheimmaterial, ormeaning,ofritualinarchaeologicalcontextsthroughthestudyofplants.
The finaltwochaptersofthevolumeexaminethebroaderimplicationsfora sociallyengagedpaleoethnobotanyinreviewofworkbyotherpaleoethnobotanists andthosethatcontributedtothisvolume.Conkeyplacestheworkofpaleoethnobotanyinthebroaderhistoryoffeministapproachestoarchaeology.Sheargues thattheintersectionofthesetwoapproachesremindsusthatwedonotjustdo theoryordata,butthatthereisarelationshipbetweenthesedomainsandthey mutuallyinformoneanother.Thisperspectivepermitsustousebotanicalremains toinformnotonlyourunderstandingofpastsubsistencebutalsoonthenatureof genderrolesinsocieties.Asthe fieldhasexpanded,ithasbeguntoinvestigate socialquestionsthatgettotheheartofsocialidentity.Pearsallprovidessummarizingremarksonthepaperswithspecialemphasisonhowmuchpaleoethnobotany hasmovedbeyonddietandsubsistence.Shedescribeshowthe fi eldhasmoved fromafocusonmethodologytowardonethatconsidersmanyofthebroader implicationsofthisresearch.Thissummaryofthevolumeexaminesthreemajor themes:seeking “theinvisible” inthepaleoethnobotanicalrecord,revealingnew aspectsofritualbehavior,andusingpaleoethnobotanytogainnewperspectiveson thesocialrealm.Herperspectiveisimmenselyvaluableassheprovidesinsights intohowimportantitistoanalyzebotanicaldatafromavarietyofperspectives.
Conclusions Thecontributorstothisvolumeillustratehowonecanbridgedifferencesbetween thenaturalandsocialsciencesthroughthemoresociallyfocusedinterpretationsof botanicaldatasets.Thesepapersdemonstratethatpaleoethnobotanistsnolonger simplyprovidealistofspeciesforotherstointerpretbutareintegratingmultiple linesofevidenceinordertobestunderstandthepatternsinplantremainsthatthey areencounteringwithinthebroadsocietiesthattheystudy.Thefocusonlivedlives ispresentedindiscussionsofchangingfoodpractices,andconsiderationsofhow socialrelationshipssuchasgenderandstatusalteredtherolesthatagentsplayedin thepast.Thisvolumehighlightshowhumaninteractionswiththeplantworldmust beembeddedwithinculturaldiscussionsoffood,place,ritual,andgender.Taken together,thesepaleoethnobotanicalcasestudiesmoveforwardtheoreticaldiscussionsregardingthedomesticationandspreadofplantagriculture,theimportanceof wildplanttaxaincomplexsocieties,landscapesandtaskscapes,themeaningand interpretationofritual,aswellasfeministandintersectionalapproachestothepast. Additionally,thechaptersinthisvolumereflectthediversityofplantremains thatcontributetogeneralpaleoethnobotanicalpracticetoday.Severalchaptersdraw uponmacro-botanicalremainsincludingwood,seeds,andstoragetissues,while manychaptersalsoincorporatemicro-botanicalremainsincludingpollen,phytoliths,andstarchgrains.Whileallofthesedatasetscontributetoourunderstanding ofspeciespresentinpasthumanactivities,thecontextsinwhichtheyarerecovered andthevariationwithwhichtheyappearshedlightontherolestheplantsplayedin thepast.Therichestinterpretationscomefromprojectsthatareabletoconsiderthe widestrangeofdatatypes,particularlyifweaimtogetbeyondsimpledescriptions offooditemsandenvironmentalsettings.Finally,thesepapersillustratethatplant remainsarebestinterpretedinrelationtotheirassociatedartifactsandfeatures, makingthemtrulyculturalartifacts(MorehartandMorell–Hart 2015).
Paleoethnobotanicalanalysesprovideexcellentexamplesofselectionprocesses, nicheconstruction,resilience,andadaptation,butasanthropologistsofthepastwe alsoaimtolearnaboutthesubtletiesof “theholdlifehas” ontheseuniqueplaces andtimesfromourdatasets(Allen 1988:22).Ascanbeseenwiththe Chenopodium examplepresentedbyFritzandcolleagues,wecanobservevery similar,ifnotidentical,biologicalprocessestakingplacethousandsofmiles apart.Theexperiencesandoutcomesofthoseprocesses,however,differgreatlyin theirculturalandpoliticalcontext.Ratherthanattemptingtointerpretarchaeologicaldatathroughthelensesofoneparticulartheoreticalapproach,thesepapers demonstratehowpaleoethnobotanicaldatacan,infact,helprupturetraditional patternsofthoughtandbuildtheorybyhighlightingthesubtlepatternsofhuman behaviorthatoftenrevealinconsistenciesorsurprisesthatdonot fitneatlyinto speci ficexpectationsoutlinedbyparticularparadigms.Ifplantdatateachusanything,itisthatweshouldconstantlybecriticalofourassumptions,viewthedatain newways,andratherthanignoringirregularities,pursuethemandallowthemto refineourthinkingandmodel-building.
Bybringingtolightsocialinterpretationsofarchaeologicalplantremains, paleoethnobotanistscanmakesubstantialcontributionstoawiderrangeof archaeologicalandanthropologicaltheoriesandpractice.Theknowledgethatwe gainfromtheseinvestigationsiswellbeyondlaundrylistsoftaxagathered,andin themomentofinterpretation,disparatepartsofthepastcometogethertoforma broadandattimescohesivevisionofliveslived.Thistackingbackandforth betweendataandtheoryisvitaltoallaspectsofarchaeologybutespeciallywith regardtothesocialimplicationsoflandscapemanagement,thegastropolitical aspectsoffood,theculturallyspecifi cmeaningsofplants,andtherolesthatwomen andmenplayedinconstructingtheseworlds.Paleoethnobotany,therefore,should andwillplayakeyroleinthefuturedevelopmentofarchaeologicalsocialtheory.
References Allen,C.(1988). Theholdlifehas:CocaandculturalidentityinanAndeancommunity. WashingtonD.C.:SmithsonianInstitutionPress.
Anderson,M.K.(2000).CaliforniaIndianhorticulture:Managementanduseofredbudbythe SouthernSierraMiwok.InP.E.Minnis(Ed.), Ethnobotany:Areader (pp.29–40).Norman: UniversityofOklahomaPress.
Arnold,J.E.(Ed.).(1996). Emergentcomplexity:Theevolutionofintermediatesocieties (ArchaeologicalSeries,Vol.9).AnnArbor:InternationalMonographsinPrehistory.
Asouti,E.,&Austin,P.(2005).Reconstructingwoodlandvegetationanditsexploitationbypast societies,basedontheanalysisandinterpretationofarchaeologicalwoodcharcoal macro-fossils. EnvironmentalArchaeology,10, 1–18.
Asouti,E.,&Fuller,D.Q.(2013).Acontextualapproachtotheemergenceofagriculturein southwestAsia. CurrentAnthropology,54(3),299–345.
Atalay,S.,&Hastorf,C.A.(2006).Food,meals,anddailyactivities:FoodhabitusatNeolithic Çatalhöyök. AmericanAntiquity,71(2),283–319.
Balée,W.(1994). Footprintsoftheforest:Ka’aporethnobotany Thehistoricalecologyofplant utilizationbyanAmazonianpeople.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress.
Balée,W.,&Erickson,D.(2006).Timeandcomplexityinhistoricalecology.InW.Balée&D. Erickson(Eds.), Timeandcomplexityinhistoricalecology (pp.1–17).NewYork:Columbia UniversityPress.
Bruno,M.C.(2009).Practiceandhistoryinthetransitiontofoodproduction. Current Anthropology,50(5),703–706.
Bruno,M.C.(2014).Beyondraised fields:Exploringfarmingpracticesandprocessesof agriculturalchangeintheancientLakeTiticacaBasinoftheAndes. AmericanAnthropologist, 116(1),1–16.
Crumley,C.L.(1994).Historicalecology:Amultidimensionalecologicalorientation.InC. L.Crumley(Ed.), Historicalecology:Culturalknowledgeandchanginglandscapes (pp.1–16).SanteFe,NM:SchoolforAmericanResearchPress. Delcourt,H.R.,&Delcourt,P.A.(1988).Quaternarylandscapeecology:Relevantscalesinspace andtime. LandscapeEcology,2(1),23–44.
Denham,T.(2005).EnvisagingearlyagricultureinthehighlandsofNewGuinea:Landscapes, plants,andpractices. WorldArchaeology, 37(2,GardenAgriculture),290–306.
Denham,T.(2009).Apractice-centeredmethodforchartingtheemergenceandtransformationof agriculture. CurrentAnthropology,50(5),661–667.
Descola,P.(1994). Inthesocietyofnature:AnativeecologyinAmazonia.NewYork:Cambridge UniversityPress.
Fairbairn,A.(2008).Beyondeconomy:Seedanalysisinlandscapearchaeology.InB.David& J.Thomas(Eds.), Handbookoflandscapearchaeology (pp.442–450).WalnutCreek,CA:Left CoastPressInc.
Ford,R.I.(1979).PaleoethnobotanyinAmericanarchaeology. AdvancesinArchaeological MethodandTheory,2, 285–336.
Ford,R.I.(1994).Ethnobotany.InR.I.Ford(Ed.), Thenatureandstatusofethnobotany (2nded., pp.viii–xxxii).AnnArbor:MuseumofAnthropology,UniversityofMichigan.
Fowler,C.S.(1996).HistoricalperspectivesonTimbishaShoshonelandmanagementpractices, DeathValley,California.InE.J.Reitz,L.A.Newsom,&S.J.Scudder(Eds.), Casestudiesin environmentalarchaeology (pp.87–101).NewYork:PlenumPress.
Fritz,G.J.(1990).Multiplepathwaystofarminginpre-contacteasternNorthAmerica. Journalof WorldPrehistory,4(4),387–435.
Gremillion,K.J.(2002).Foragingtheoryandhypothesistestinginarchaeology:Anexplorationof methodologicalproblemsandsolutions. JournalofAnthropologicalArchaeology,21(2),142–164.
Gremillion,K.J.(2015).Humanbehavioralecologyandpaleoethnobotany.InJ.M.Marston, J.D’AlpoimGuedes,&C.Warinner(Eds.), Methodandtheoryinpaleoethnobotany (pp.339–354).Boulder:UniversityPressofColorado.
Hastorf,C.A.(1988).theuseofpaleoethnobotanicaldatainprehistoricstudiesofcropproduction, processing,andconsumption.InC.A.Hastorf&V.Popper(Eds.), Currentpaleoethnobotany: Analyticalmethodsandculturalinterpretationsofarchaeologicalplantremains (pp.119–166).Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.
Hastorf,C.A.(1990).TheeffectoftheInkastateonSausaagriculturalproductionandcrop consumption. AmericanAntiquity,55, 262–290.
Hastorf,C.A.(1991).Gender,spaceandfoodinprehistory.InJ.Gero&M.Conkey(Eds.), Engenderingarchaeology:Womenandprehistory (pp.132–159).Oxford:Blackwell Publishers.
Hastorf,C.A.(1993). AgricultureandtheonsetofpoliticalinequalitybeforetheInka.Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress.
Hastorf,C.A.(1998).Theculturallifeofearlydomesticplantuse. Antiquity,72, 773–782.
Hastorf,C.A.(1999).Recentresearchinpaleoethnobotany. JournalofArchaeologicalResearch, 7(1),55–103.
Hastorf,C.A.(2001).Makingtheinvisiblevisible:Thehiddenjewelsofarchaeology. InP.Drooker(Ed.), Fleetingidentities:Perishablematerialcultureinarchaeologicalresearch (pp.27–42,CenterforArchaeologicalInvestigationsOccasionalPaper28).Carbondale,IL: SouthernIllinoisUniversityPress.
Hastorf,C.A.(2003).Andeanluxuryfoods:Specialfoodfortheancestors. Deitiesandthe Élite. Antiquity,77(29),545–554.
Hastorf,C.A.(2006).DomesticatedfoodandsocietyinearlycoastalPeru.InW.Balée&C. L.Erickson(Eds.), Timeandcomplexityinhistoricalccology:studiesintheNeotropical lowlands (pp.87–126).NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress.
Hastorf,C.A.,&Johannessen,S.(1991).Understandingchangingpeople/plantrelationshipsin theprehispanicAndes.InR.W.Pruecel(Ed.), Processualandpostprocessualarchaeologies: Multiplewaysofknowingthepast (pp.140–158).Carbondale,IL:CenterforArchaeological Investigations.
Hastorf,C.A.,&Johannessen,S.(1996).Understandingchangingpeople/plantrelationshipsin theprehispanicAndes.InR.Preucel&I.Hodder(Eds.), Contemporaryarchaeologyintheory: [areader] (pp.61–78).Oxford:Blackwell.
Hastorf,C.A.,&Popper,V.(1989). Currentpaleoethnobotany:Analyticalmethodsandcultural interpretationsofarchaeologicalplantremains.Chicago,IL:UniversityofChicagoPress. Ingold,T.(1996).Theoptimalforagerandeconomicman.InP.Descola&G.Pálsson(Eds.), Natureandsociety:Anthropologicalperspectives (pp.25–44).NewYork:Routledge.
Ingold,T.(2000). Theperceptionoftheenvironment:Essaysonlivelihood,dwellingandskill. NewYork:Routledge.
Johannessen,S.,&Hastorf,C.A.(1990).Ahistoryoffuelmanagement(A.D.500tothepresent) intheMantaroValley,Peru. JournalofEthnobiology,10(1),61–90.
Jones,M.K.(1985).Archaeobotanybeyondsubsistencereconstruction.InM.K.Jones(Ed.), BeyonddomesticationinprehistoricEurope (pp.107–128).Oxford:OxbowPress.
Jones,V.(1941).Thenatureandstatusofethnobotany. ChronicaBotanica,6(10),219–221. Lentz,D.L.(1991).Mayadietsoftherichandpoor:PaleoethnobotanicalevidencefromCopan. LatinAmericanAntiquity,2(3),269–287.
Marston,J.M.,Warinner,C.,&D’AploimGuedes,J.(2015).Paleoethnobotanicalmethodand theoryinthetwenty-firstcentury.InJ.M.Marston,J.D’AploimGuedes,&C.Warinner (Eds.), Methodandtheoryinpaleoethnobotany (pp.1–16).Boulder:UniversityPressof Colorado.
Morehart,C.T.,&Helmke,C.G.B.(2008).Situatingpowerandlocatingknowledge:A paleoethnobotanicalperspectiveonLateClassicMayagenderandsocialrelations.InE. Brumfiel,&C.Robin(Eds.), Gender,householdsandsocieties:Unravelingthethreadsofthe pastandthepresent.ArchaeologicalPapersoftheAmericanAnthropologicalAssociation 18 (1),60–75.NewYork:Wiley-Blackwell.
Morehart,C.T.,Lentz,D.L.,&Prufer,K.M.(2005).Woodofthegods:Theritualuseofpine (Pinus spp.)bytheancientlowlandMaya. LatinAmericanAntiquity,16(3),255–274.
Morehart,C.T.,&Morell-Hart,S.(2013).Beyondtheecofact:Towardasocialpaleoethnobotany inMesoamerica. JournalofAnthropologicalArchaeology,22(2),483–511.
Morehart,C.T.,&Morell-Hart,S.(2015).Beyondtheecofact:Towardasocialpaleoethnobotany inMesoamerica. JournalofArchaeologicalMethodandTheory,22, 483–511.
Morell-Hart,S.(2015).Paleoethnobotanicalanalysis,post-processing.InJ.M.Marston, J.D’AploimGuedes,&C.Warinner(Eds.), Methodandtheoryinpaleoethnobotany (pp.371–390).Boulder:UniversityPressofColorado.
Pearsall,D.M.(2015). Paleoethnobotany:Ahandbookofprocedures (3rded.).WalnutCreek, CA:LeftCoastPress.
Piperno,D.R.,&Pearsall,D.M.(1998). TheoriginsofagricultureinthelowlandNeotropics.San Diego:AcademicPress.
Reitz,E.J.,Newsom,L.A.,Scudder,S.J.,&Scarry,C.M.(2008).Introductiontoenvironmental archaeology.InE.J.Reitz,C.M.Scarry,&S.J.Scudder(Eds.), Casestudiesinenvironmental archaeology (2nded.,pp.3–19).NewYork:Springer.
Renfrew,J.(1973). Paleoethnobotany:TheprehistoricfoodplantsoftheNearEastandEurope NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress. Rival,L.(Ed.).(1998). Thesociallifeoftrees:Anthropologicalperspectivesontreesymbolism Oxford:Berg.
Rosen,A.M.(2007). Civilizingclimate:SocialresponsestoclimatechangeintheancientNear East.Lanham,MD:AltaMiraPress.
Sayre,M.(2014).CeremonialplantsintheAndeanregion.InA.Chevalier,E.Marinova,&L. Peña-Chocarro(Eds.), Cropsandpeople:Choicesanddiversitythroughtime (pp.369–373). Brussells:EuropeanScienceFoundation/EarlyAgriculturalRemnantsandTechnicalHeritage Program.
Smart,T.L.,&Hoffman,E.S.(1988).Environmentalinterpretationofarchaeologicalcharcoal. InC.A.Hastorf&V.Popper(Eds.), Currentpaleoethnobotany:Analyticalmethodsand culturalinterpretationsofarchaeologicalplantremains (pp.167–205).Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress.
Smith,B.D.(2007).Nicheconstructionandthebehavioralcontextofplantandanimal domestication. EvolutionaryAnthropology,16(5),188–199.
Smith,B.D.(2011).Aculturalnicheconstructiontheoryofinitialdomestication. Biological Theory,6(3),260–271.
Smith,B.D.(2015).Documentinghumannicheconstructioninthearchaeologicalrecord. InJ.M.Marston,J.D’AlpoimGuedes,&C.Warinner(Eds.), Methodandtheoryin paleoethnobotany (pp.355–370).Boulder:UniversityPressofColorado. VanDerwarker,A.,Bardolph,D.,Hoppa,K.,Thakar,H.B.,Martin,L.S.,Jaqua,A.L.,etal. (2016).NewWorldpaleoethnobotanyinthenewmillenium(2000–2013). Journalof ArchaeologicalResearch,24(2),125–177. Watson,P.,&Kennedy,M.(1991).ThedevelopmentofhorticultureintheEasternWoodlands: Women’srole.InJ.Gero&M.Conkey(Eds.), Engenderingarchaeology:Womenand prehistory (pp.255–275).Oxford:Blackwell.
Chapter2 IntegratingArchaeologicalDataToward aBetterUnderstandingofFoodPlants ChoicesandTerritoryExploitation intheNorthwesternEuropeanEarly Neolithic:TheCaseofRemicourt “EnBia FloII”
AlexandreChevalierandDominiqueBosquet
TheBelgianEarlyNeolithic(LBK)WithintheOverall EuropeanNeolithizationProcess
InitiatedatthePleistocene-Holocenetransition,around13,000yearsagointhe NearEast,theneolithizationprocesstooksome6000yearstoreachNorthwestern Europe,around5300BCEthroughtheDanubianexpansion(Mazurié deKeroualin 2001).The Linearbandkeramik (LBK)istheDanubiancentralandnorthwestern culturalcomponentthatpresentsaceramic,lithicandarchitecturalhomogeneity thatspreadsacrossmorethan2000kmfromNorthernSerbiatoMiddleBelgium andtheParisbasin,acrossHungary,Austria,Slovakia,theCzechRepublic,Poland, Germany,EasternFrance,andTheNetherlands(Fig. 2.1).1 TheBelgianLBKis thereforesituatedonthewesternedgeofanexpansionareawhichspreadfromthe BlackSeatoNormandyinitsmaximumextension(Golitko 2015:33,Fig. 2.4). Fromachronologicalpointofview,itseemsthattheLBKexpandswestward withinarelativelyshortperiodoftime,roughlyfrom5600BCEto4700BCE (Golitko 2015;Jadin 2003).TheLBKwasnotaninsituneolithizationprocess,but
1ThetwoothermaincontemporaryEuropeanNeolithicexpansiontraditionsaretheCardialinthe AdriaticSeaarea,Italy,SouthernFranceandeasternSpain;andtheChasséeninCentraland WesternFrance,andtheBritishIslands.
A.Chevalier(&)
RoyalBelgianInstituteofNaturalSciences,Brussels,Belgium e-mail:achevalier@naturalsciences.be
D.Bosquet
SPW-DGO4-Servicedel’ArchéologieenprovincedeBrabantWallon,Wavre,Belgium e-mail:dominique.bosquet@spw.wallonie.be
© SpringerInternationalPublishingAG2017
M.P.SayreandM.C.Bruno(eds.), SocialPerspectivesonAncientLives fromPaleoethnobotanicalData,DOI10.1007/978-3-319-52849-6_2
MapoftheLBKextension(adaptedfromSalavert 2010a)
apopulationmovement itisstillamatterofdebatewhetheritwasaconscious migrationordemographicexpansion,orboth thatbroughtalongdomesticated plantandanimals,introducedagriculturalandpastoralpractices,aswellasceramic technology.Itinitiallybeganinforestedareasgrowingonloesssoils,thenspread intootherecologicalsettings,mostofthetimesimplyreplacingnomadicMesolithic groups.Withonlyafewexceptions,suchastheLimbourggroupincurrentCentral Benelux,ortheBlickygroupinSouthernBelgium,nointeractionoracculturation processeswereobservedbetweenhunter-gatherersandagro-pastoralgroups (Mazurié deKeroualin 2001;Gallay 1995).Mesolithicgroupsweremostlikely displacedinlessproductiveareas,wheretheirlifestylefadedunderthe agro-pastoralactivitiesratherthanintegratedintothenewNeolithicpopulations. Agro-pastoralgroupseventuallyreplacedcompletelynomadicandsemi-nomadic Mesolithichunter-gathererswithinabout fivecenturies,forthereisnomoreevidenceoftheMesolithictraditionbythebeginningofthe fifthmillenniumin NorthwesternEurope(ibid.).
Economicpracticesimplyspecifi cmindsetsaboutsocialrelationships,space organization,andperceptionofnature(Ingold 2000):theswitchfromapredation economytoanexploitationeconomyimplies,therefore,strongchangesinsocialand spatialorganizations,aswellasthewayhumansidentifythemselveswithnature.
TwoTheoreticalApproachestoInterpretingtheTransition fromPredationtoFoodProduction
Ofthemanytheoreticalschoolstryingtounderstandandpredicthuman–nature relationshipsinarchaeology,HumanBehavioralEcology(HBE),andHistorical Ecology(HE)arethetwopredominantonescurrentlyusedtoexplainthe
Second LBK extension (5300-4900 aBCE)
Fig.2.1
neolithizationprocess(domesticationand/orspreadofdomesticatedplants).Niche ConstructionTheory(NCT),whichbridgessomeofthedifferencesbetweenHBE andHE,andhasrecentlybeenappliedtoexplaindomesticationprocessesaround theworldandhumanresiliencetoecologicalchange(Smith 2012, 2015;Boivin etal. 2016).WebrieflypresenthereHBEandHEonly, firstbecausewearenot facedwithadomesticationprocess suigeneris,andsecondbecausewhileNCT, unlikeHBE,recognizestheimportanceofmutualinteractionsofthe co-evolutionaryprocessbetweenhumangroupsandnature,itfailstorecognizethat culturalinheritanceisequallyasimportantasecologicalandgeneticones.Cultural processesareoftenthetriggerofchanges,ortheoriginofastatusquo,which induceecologicalandgeneticinheritances,asHEexplicitlyrecognizes.
HBE,alsocalledevolutionaryecology,aimsatpredictingbehavioralresponses tochangingsocio-ecologicalconditions,suchas:exceedingenvironmentalcarrying capacityduetodemographicincrease;alteringlivingresources,whicheitherleads todrasticallylimitingthemortoredistributingthem;climaticchanges;andsocial changeviaendogenoussocioeconomiccompetition,whichcanhappen,according toHBE,onlyinresource-richareasandinsocietieswithpriorsocioeconomic differentiation.Inordertounderstandtheseresponsesandtopredictthem,HBE usesonemainassumption:humanstendtooptimizetheiractions(inputs)togetthe mostoutofthem(outputs).ThedifferentmodelsthatHBEusesarebasedon economicconcepts,suchasmarginalvalue,opportunitycosts,discounting,orrisk analysis.Theuseoftheseconceptsimpliesthathumansbehaverationallyandthat theyassesstherisksandbenefi ts “ofalternativecoursesofactionunderarangeof environmentalconditions” (WinterhalderandKennett 2006:13)whentheydecide whichcourseofactiontheywilltake.
Severalmodelspredictingspeci fichumanbehaviorsstemfromthesemain assumptionsandeconomicconcepts: dietbreadth impliesarankingofresources andtheirfrequencyinagivenspaceinordertomakepredictionsaboutwhether pastgroupsexploitedspecifi cresourcesornot; patchchoicepredictability depends ontheconcentrationofagivenresourceandtherankingoftheresource: patch residencetime predictsthatthebigger,andthereforethelonger,thetraveltime acrossitis,thelongertheresidencetimewillbe; habitatselection,anhabitatmay encloseseveralpatches,predictionisdrivenbyboththeabundanceofgiven resourcesandthedensityofpopulationbasedontheconceptofIdealFree Distribution,thatisanoptimaloccupationofhabitatsaccordingtotheirrankingand thechronologyofsettlements/settlersona firstcome- firstservebasis; centralplace foraging predictsthatthemorecosts,bothintraveltimeandindistance,are associatedtoreacharesource,themorethisresourcemustbevaluableeitherin quantitiesorinquality; settlementrelocation aimsatpredictingwhengroupsmust changetheir centralplace becauseofdepletedresources,theirseasonalavailability orachangeintheirassignedvalue,takenintoaccountthecostassociatedtomove fromonelocationtoanotherone(opportunitycosts).
Allthesedifferentmodelshavebeenwidelyusedinarchaeology(Kennetand Winterhalder 2006;SmithandWinterhalder 1992),andinparticularintheAisne valleyinNorthernFrance,toexplainthedistributionofLBKsitesandthe exploitationoftheterritorybytheirsettlers(Duboulozetal. 2012).Itisnotthe placetocriticizeheretheHBEtheories;thereisenoughliteratureshowingpotential flawsinreasoningandapplication(Ingold 1996;Zeder 2012).However,wewould liketostressthatresearchinmicroeconomicsandconsumerbehaviorhasbeen tryingfordecadestounderstandandtopredictcurrentconsumer ’schoicesbasedon thesameconceptsusedbyHBE,withoutanyclearanddefi nitivesuccess;consumer ’schoicestendnottofollowthemicroeconomicmodels(Mason 1998).In fact,consumerchoicesmayappearillogicalandirrationalifwedonottakeinto accounttheirindividualsocialandpsychologicalsettings(Acharetal. 2016;Foxall 2009),whicheconomicmodelsrarelydiduntilrecently.Sohowcanweapplythe verysameconceptsandpretendtopredictbehaviorsofpasthumangroups?In particular,HBEneglectstoincludesocialandculturalfactorsthatinfluencefood choicesovertime,forinhumangroupsthesefactorsarecrucialwhenitcomesto selectingfoodfromavastarrayofpossibilities,andtodecidewhichonesaregood toeatandwhichonesshouldbeavoided(Chevalieretal. 2014a).
Historicalecologyaimsatshowinghow “humansocieties[...]ratherthanadapt theirsubsistenceactivities,seasonalroundspopulationssizes,settlementsizes,and soontopreexistingconstraintsoftheenvironment havetransformedmostof thoseconstraintsintonegligiblephenomenaasconcernspeciesdiversities,landscapeheterogeneity,archaeologicalsiteformation,andthedevelopmentofthebuilt environmentmoregenerally” (BaléeandErickson 2006:x).Assuch,Historical EcologyopposestheconceptsandmodelsofHBE(andgoesbeyondNCT); humansarenotobjectsoftheenvironmentswhoneedtocontinuouslyadapttoits changes.Onthecontrary,theyareconsideredasagentsofthesechanges,notonly inthesenseofdegradation,butmostofitinthesenseofenhancementofitstotal biologicalrichnessandlandscapediversity. “Environmentsare[…]adaptedtothe socioculturalandpoliticalsystems(ortohumans’ needsanddesires)thathave coexistedwiththem” (ibid:4).Inturnthesemodi ficationsinfluencehumangroups, theirperceptionsandtheirsocioculturalorganization;andsooninanendless movementofreciprocalinfluence.
ThecentralobjectofHistoricalEcologyisthelandscapeasbothwitnessofthe manyactivitieshumanscarriedoninthebiosphereandasabuildingagentof humansocioculturalandpoliticalsystems:itisthebookofhumanhistorywhichis “embeddedinthelocalandregionallandscape” (ibid.:6),thatcanbereadthrough “patternofresidues,anomaliesandculturalimprints” (ibid.:7)translatedinto biodiversity,biogeography,archaeobotany,geology,soilchemistry,linguistic,or materialculturestudies.
Conscioustransformationofthelandscape,byfavoringspeci ficplantspeciesfor humanpurposes,hasbroughtmodifi cationsthatareobservableinforesttree composition,asdescribedbyBalée(1994)fortheAmazonbasin,forinstance,and
betweenthepioneerLBKphaseandthesecondoccupationphaseofoccupationin Hesbaye,togiveroomforagricultureandpasture,aswewillshowwithpollenand woodcharcoalanalyses.Theanalysisofbotanicalmacroremains,ofcourse,reveals informationregardingtheintroductionofdomesticates,butweeds,aswewillshow, areofparticularinterest,notonlytostudytheswitchfromapredationtoaproductioneconomy,butalsotoassessagriculturalpractices.
AnalyticalToolsofEnvironmentalArchaeology andFoodways Severalanalyticaltoolscanprovideinformationforpaleoecologicalandpastland coverreconstitutions,suchaspollenandwoodcharcoalanalyses.However, obtainingrepresentativedatasetsrequiresnewapproachesforobtainingsuch information,forpollengrainsarenotpreservedinmosttypesofsoil.Inaddition, thisproxycanonlyprovideregionalandsupraregionalinformation.Whenitcomes tounderstandingthelocalhumanimpactonvegetation,anotherproxyisneeded togetherwithwoodcharcoalanalysis,namelyphytolithanalysis,inordertoobtain accuratedataonvegetationcoverchangesonthesmallpatchessurrounding settlements.
Similarly,thedominantmethodinarchaeologytoanalyzeplantchoiceforfood ismacrobotanicalanalysis(Hastorf 1990, 1993, 2003).Unfortunately,analysisof seedsremainsisextremelylimitedinthisregionmainlybecausethesoilsofthis regionarenotamendabletotheirpreservation.Moreover,plantsthatproduceitems suchastuberssimplycannotbeidenti fiedinarchaeologicalsitesbecausetheydo notleaveremainsonceingestedasfoodormedicine.Microbotanicalremainssuch asphytolithsandstarchgrainsarethereforenecessarytoanalyzewhensoilconditionsoragedepositsdonotpermitotherplantremainstobepreserved.These microremainsarecomplementarytootherarchaeobotanicalanalysesinnormal conditionsofpreservationthatpermitarchaeologiststogetinformationonplant partsthatmaynotleavemacroremains.
Differentlinesofevidence seed,woodcharcoal,phytoliths,andstarchgrain analyses havebeenappliedtoseveralsitesintheHesbayeregioninordertobetter understandthehuman–naturerelationshipsandsocialprocessesthattookplace duringinitialLBKsettlementandlaterperiodsoftheearlyNeolithicoccupation (Table 2.1).Inthisarticle,wefocusonthesiteofRemicourt “EnBiaFloII” with somecomparisonstoothersiteswhendataareavailable.Phytoliths,starchgrains, andpollenanalysesareongoingandwillbeappliedinthefuturetootherLBK settlementsinordertobroadenandrefi netheinformationalreadyavailableon changesinvegetationcoverduringtheBelgianLBK(Heim 1985),aswellasin foodprocurementprocessesandsocialorganization.
Table2.1 HesbayesiteswiththeanalysescarriedonandtheirrespectiveC14dates
Pollen analysis Starchgrain analysis Phytolith analysis C14dates a
SitesPioneer houses Laterphases houses Seeds analysis Wood charcoal analysis
Remicourt “ EnBiaFloII ” 19YesYesNoYesYes6108 –6219BP
Remicourt “ FonddeMomalle ” 1or211or10NoNoNoNoYes –
Remicourt “ TombedeHodeige ” NoNoNoNoYes –
Fexhe-le-Haut-Clocher “ Podr î l ’ Cortri ” 39YesYesNoNoYes6120 –6240BP
Fexhe-le-Haut-Clocher/Voroux-Goreux NoNoNoNoYes –
Waremme “ Longchamps ” 11YesYesYesNoNo –
Darion “ Colia ” 14YesYesYesNoNo6060 –6205BP
Alleur “ Domainemilitaire ” –3YesYesNoNoNo –a OnlyAMSdatesonshortlifesamples( Triticum spp.,charredhazelnuts);datesoncharcoalhavebeenexcluded
BelgianLBK TheBelgianLBKwasidenti fiedduringthelate19thcentury,butitwasonly thoroughlydocumentedbeginninginthe1960swiththe firstextensiveexcavations atthesiteofRosmeer(Roosens 1961).Theseexcavationswerefollowedinthe years1980–1990byaseriesofexcavationsinthreecontiguousBelgianprovinces: intheHesbayeintheLiègeprovince,wheremorethan200sitesareknown(Cahen etal. 1990),inFlemishBrabant(Lodewijckx 1990)andinthewesternHainaut (ConstantinandDemarez 1984).Thankstoarchaeologicalrescueoperations undertakenbetween1993and1999bytheWalloonregion,togetherwiththeRoyal BelgianInstituteofNaturalSciences,anunprecedentedcorpusofsiteshasbeen uncoveredandmadeavailableforstudy(Bosquetetal. 2004;Jadin 2003;Keeley etal. 2005;Livingstone-Smithetal. 2012)onthehigh-speedtrainpathbetweenthe FrenchborderandthetownofLiège(Fig. 2.2).TheUniversityofIllinois(Chicago,
MapofBelgiumwiththeLBKsitescluster
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works 1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
1.F. 1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and
expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™ Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no
prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
