Privatization, small-seed intensification, and the origins of pottery in the western Great Basin more

PRIVATIZATION, SMALL-SEED INTENSIFICATION, AND THE ORIGINS OF POTTERY IN THE WESTERN GREAT BASIN Jelmer W. Eerkcns "Hmwnware " pottery technologies became w idely used in the Great Basin around 600 years ago. A significant increase in the use of small seeds within the subsistence economy took place about the same time. I suggest that these two events are linked, that people consciously chose to focus on seeds because they could be privatized, that is, they could be individually owned and were not subject to unrestricted sharing. Pots were an integral component of this process because they could be individually made and owned and could be used within domiciles, placing food preparation and storage out of view from others in the com- munity. Privatization of a Staple food resource may have been a response to increased population size and. hence, the number of freeloaders, new village kinship organizations, and a desire to create surplus on the part of aggrandizers. Hace apmximadamente 600 anos la tecnologia de cerdmica "Hmwnware " Ueg<i a serampliamente ulilizada en la (Iran Cuenca de los Estados Unidos. en la misma e/xx a tuvo lugar tin aumento significative en la Utilization de semillas pequenas en la economia de subsistenciu. Se propone que estos dos eventos estuvieron relacionados. que la gente eligio conscientemente cen- trarse en la explotacion de semillas porque era un recurso que podia privatizarse. esto es. ellos podian poseer estas v no estar sujetos a las redes sociales de repartimiento general. Del mismo modo. la cerdmica era un componente integral en este ptth ceso porque era un recurso que podia ser elaborado y poseido DOT particulars, utilizado en las casus para la preparat ion V almacenamiento de alimentos. fuera de la vista de otras personas de la comunidad. La privatizat ion de una fuente de alimento btisico pudo haber sido la respuesta a un incremento de la poblacion. correspondiente tambien a un aumento en el niimero de "gormnes". a nuevas fonnas de organizat ion de parentesco en el pueblo, y at deseo de los "aggrandizers" de crear un exce- dente. The late prehistoric period, from 3,000 years ago until contact, was a lime of rapid and momentous change in the Great Basin (Kelly 1997). There were dramatic reductions in residen- tial mobility and major shifts in the subsistence economy, and several new technologies, such as the bow and arrow, potter)', and portable milling stones, became widely used. Though much is known about what happened, much less is known about why these changes took place. As Bellinger (1999b) has recently argued, many of our cherished explanatory models, including climatic change and population pressure, leave something to be desired. It is not that these models are wrong; it is just that they cannot account for everything that we see in the archaeo- logical record. Moreover, they often dismiss inter- nal or social factors as agents of culture change and fail to explain exactly how environmental shifts or population increases intersect with societal processes to bring about culture change. Recently Hildebrandt and McGuire (2002) have suggested new directions for our understanding of the earlier part of this period, between approxi- mately 3(XX) and 1000 B.P. Faunal assemblages dating to this period typically have high quantities of large mammals, whereas earlier and later assem- blages contain more small mammals. They suggest that changes in ihe costs and benefits of prestige hunting by men account for this pattern, higher rates of prestige hunting contributing to the spike in large mammals between 3000 and 1000 B.P. Their innovative thinking on the matter shows how factors other than climate change and population pressure can lead to culture change and how these processes can manifest themselves in the archaeo- logical record. Their analysis gives greater insight and understanding regarding prehistoric behavior in the Great Basin, in this case hunting, sharing, and the pursuit of prestige among men. This article focuses on a slightly later time Jelmer W. Kerkvns ■ Department of Anthropology. University of California. Davis. California °56I6 American Antiquity. 69(4). 2004. pp. 653-670 Copyright© 2004 by the Society tor American Archaeology 653 654 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 69, No. 4.2004 I iiMiiv 1. Map of study area and places mentioned in the text. period and problem, the Marana period (ca. 600 B.P. to contact) and the introduction of fired clay technologies. It begins with a basic question regard- ing the origins of a new technology in the region and ends with an exploration of the social context of the craft ami the factors that may have motivated people to adopt pottery. In particular. I focus on changes in the ownership of different food resources and how processing technologies and sharing strategies are related. Figure 1 shows the study area and regions discussed in the text. Seeds in the Western Great Basin At the time of contact, the inhabitants of the west- ern Great Basin were involved in a subsistence economy emphasizing gathering, particularly small seeds and pinon nuts. According to ethnographic accounts, the pursuit of these resources dictated much in the daily life of Paiute and Shoshone peo- ples, from settlement patterns, to material culture, to patterns in land ownership, to the timing of reli- gious ceremonies (Fowler 1986; Kelly and Fowler Jelmer W. Eerkens] 1986; Steward 1933. 1938; Stewart 1941. 1942). Indeed. Steward (1929. 1933; see also Lawton et al. 1976) suggested thai the Owens Valley Paiute were involved in a proto-agricultural system. Seeds w ere sown across individually owned plots of land that were fed bv a svsteni of initiation ditches. An elected man was honored with the position of "irri- gator" anil was in charge of overseeing water dis- tribution through a system of small canals. Roots and seeds from these irrigated plots were harvested in the fall. Despite apparent biases on the part of early ethnographers (Blackhawk 1997; Crum 1999; Thomas 1983: Walker !999:Wobst 1978),archae- ological evidence has generally supported ethno- graphic descriptions of native lifeways. especially in Owens Valley (Basgall and McGuire 1988: Bel- linger 1975. 1977. 1989: Delacorte 1990. 1999; Delacorte et al. 1995). Although the irrigation ditches anil plots in Owens Valley have not been the subject of much investigation, late prehistoric sites (post-15<K) B.P. and particularly after 6(X) B.P.) contain impressive numbers of groundstone arti- facts, widely assumed to have been used in seed processing. As well, dotation samples often con- tain large numbers of small seeds and pinon nut- shells. Sites and assemblages dating prior to this period (i.e.. pre-1500 B.P.) have much lower fre- quencies of groundstone and generally contain smaller numbers of charred seeds (Basgall and Giambastiani 1995; Basgall and McGuire 1988; Bettinger 1999a: Delacorte 1999; Delacorte et al. 1995). Two independent analyses are offered as exam- ples to demonstrate this change. First, flotation samples from radiocarbon-dated valley bottom house floor assemblages in southern Owens Valley demonstrate a shift to more intensive seed use around 600 B.P. Figure 2 plots the density of seeds per liter of sediment removed from house tlix>rs against uncalibraled radiocarbon dates. The marked increase in seed density in sites dating after 6(X) B.P is clear from the graph. Although some houses dat- ing after 600 B.P have low densities of seeds, all those with greater than 25 seeds per liter are from after this date. A regression curve (solid) is plotted through the scatter of points to show this increase. Because this line suggests a gradual increase in the importance of seeds through lime, a second "regres- sion" line (dashed) is also offered showing what I 655 believe the shift really looked like, that is. a more abrupt increase in seed use around 600 B.P. Recent notation analyses by Pierce (2002) and Rcddy (2003). in central and extreme southern Owens Val- ley, respectively, support these conclusions. Both studies tind significant increases in the representa- tion of seeds, especially dryland species, in archae- ological sites around 6(X) B.P. These results suggest that the shift to more intensive seed exploitation was a regional phenomenon in Owens Valley, not local to an\ one area. The second analysis is again from notation remains, this time from cooking features in the China Lake region in the northwest corner of the Mojave Desert (for greater discussion of the data set. see Eerkens and Rosenthal 2004). Features were classified as being associated with either seed orgeophyte processing based on the types of pale- obotanical remains recovered and the structure and layout of associated materials. Figure 3 plots radio- carbon dates (again uncalibraled) for these features and shows a marked shift around 300 B.P. from geo- phyte (i.e.. roots, bulbs, and tubers) to seed pro- cessing. Features older than 300 B.P. contain few seeds and are primarily formal circular pit hearths with large numbers of tire-cracked rock, which Rosenthal and I interpret as heating stones. On the other hand, most features younger than 300 B.P. are ephemeral charcoal scatters with high densities of charred seeds that often contain burned small- mammal bones (especially lagomorphs) and more rarely contain lire-cracked rock. These findings have been interpreted as representing a fundamen- tal shift in subsistence activities from geophyte pro- cessing to seed harvesting around 300 B.P. Why the transition to intensive seed use in the China Lake region seems to have taken place some 250 radio- carbon years later than it did in southern Owens Valley is beyond the scope of this article. However, what is clear from the two analyses is that a shift to intensive seed use took place quite late in pre- history, sometime after 600 B.P. The Relationship between Pots and Seeds This section attempts to link the introduction of pol- ler) technologies in the Great Basin to the increased use of seed resources discussed above. This is done through several means. Before reviewing the evi- dence, it is important to show at the outset that ORIGINS OF POTTERY IN THE WESTERN GREAT BASIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol.69. No. 4. 2004 3000 2500 - c = 50 . Radiocarbon Years tU'. Figure 2. Flotation samples from southern Owens Yalle) house Moors through lime. Source: Data from BasgaH and McCiuire 14*HS; Delacnrte 1999: Delaeorl. ;uul McCiuire IW: IMacorte el al. 1995; Kerkens 1997: (iilnalh 1995. . 1*0 5 MM 3 MOO 40fl 109 n •/ /Ail* 1 --77 , 1 - I - — ; Seed-Pntctssin g Features Geophvte-Processing Features Figure 3. Radiocarbon dales (uncalibraledi from China Lake (hernial features showing one- and lwinsignia confidence inters als. Jelmer W. Eerkens] ORIGINS OF POTTERY IN THE WESTERN GREAT BASIN 657 I here is a correlation in the timing of the introduc- tion of pottery and seed intensification. Although dating ceramics has not been a focus of much archaeological research in the Great Basin, a few studies have broached this topic. Rhode s (1994) thermoluminescence study of brown ware pottery across the entire Great Basin suggests a late date for the inception of pottery. The majority of his brownware Samples date after 500 B.P. (11 of 13). and all postdate 1130 B.P. Similarly. Pippin (1986) reviews radiocarbon data from the central Great Basin and. after discounting a number of tenuous older dates, finds that the only securely dated con- texts with pottery postdate 500 B.P. The earliest of those accepted dales occurs at Hogup Cave at 480 ± 80 B.P. Dehcorte (1999) reaches a similar conclusion in Ov\ ens Valley where brownware pot- terv is not associated with any feature dating ear- Her than 780 radiocarbon years before the present, and all except one postdate 500 B.P. Farther afield. Wright (1978) comes to a similar conclusion in W\ oming. where the oldest secure pottery-bearing contexts arc dated to 450 ± 80 B.P.. and many assemblages postdate this figure. Although there is a handful of sherds from earlier contexts (e.g.. Herkenset al. 1999) indicating some experimenta- tion with the craft from 1400 B.P onward, these results demonstrate that the lion's share of pottery in the Great Basin postdates 6(X) B.P. In a tempo- ral sense, then, pottery production and an increase in seed use are coeval. Several lines of evidence, however, suggest a more direct association between pottery and seeds. First, an analysis of the technological attributes of both whole vessels and rim sherds suggests that the majority of pots in the western Great Basin were not built for storage or to transport goods (Eerkens 2001. 2003). Thin walls, mineral temper, minimal organic temper, and roughened exteriors are all design features that facilitate the efficient and even transfer of heat from an external source to the ves- sel contents and allow pots to withstand repeated episodes of heating and cooling (Braun 1983: Juhl 1995; Pierce 1999:129-137; Schiffer 1990; Schif- feretaJ. !994;Skiboctal. 1989). Attributes for west- ern Great Basin sherds, shown in Table 1. are in line with these expectations and support the notion that axiking was one of the primary functions of pots in this area. Supporting evidence comes from the frequent presence of sooting or blackening on the I >. f -z s E c 1 a 0 S U i < "3 ft Z y I I. I C i O y Us E 5 c Q |8 3 — E 12 7Z c 1 t ••J I c "3 = % 9 M SI I - 'i 1 < - * a - 33 u II *« i £ = O J. — ^> ?rt =. — OS'"' — -C — = r* x r* r- 5* v. >: v. ^ = ^ " - * P", ^ 25 = 2 2 ?! r. 22 yC *A X — X *r* — <^ _ r*, <m f^, ri r** r^j r»i r^J M n r^i ^ C x x r* ri - — ri ^ r^. r- r- — *r C v. > *ri *e <i *r. „ — _ a a 2 E 13 E c 51 c 2 |S 658 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol.69. No. 4, 2004 41) 0 N. Owens Yalle> D Whirlwind Vallev China Lake 10 20 Density of Groundstone 30 40 Figure 4. (Groundstone and pot sherd densities by region. exterior of pots and the occasional presence of car- bonized materials on the inside of pots near the rim. As discussed by Henrickson and McDonald (1983). pots designed for storage are typically larger and thicker and display more constricted mouth open- ings than the values in Table I. As well, serving pots are typically smaller and thinner and are usually dec- orated. More specifically, the open and noncon- stricting mouths of western Great Basin pots suggest use in boiling and simmering activities. Such cook- ing is particularly conducive to the preparation of gruels of oily and carbohydrate-rich foods, such as ground seeds (e.g., Braun 1980. 1983; Crown and Wills 1995b; Juhl 1995; Linton 1944;Skibo 1992; Smith 1985; Wandsnider 1997). Thus, the way in which these pots were constructed is consistent with high-temperature boiling activities, the optimal method for preparing seeds. Second, there is a strong association on a regional scale between the density of pot sherds and the density of groundstone (Eerkens 2001). Figure 4 plots the density of pot sherds and ground- stone in several large Great Basin surveys. Pol sherd and groundstone densities have been stan- dardized to the density of a third, independent arti- fact category, late period projectile points, specifically Desert Side-Notched and Cottonwood Triangular points (for a discussion of the tempo- ral placement of these points in the Great Basin, see Bettinger and Taylor 1974; Thomas 1981). With the exception of three notable outliers that are not included in the calculation of the regres- sion line, the number of sherds increases linearly with the number of groundstone artifacts. As pre- viously mentioned, groundstone is usually asso- ciated with the processing (i.e., grinding) of plant resources, especially hard seeds and nuts. The cor- relation between groundstone and pot sherds sug- gests that as more seeds were ground, more sherds were deposited, implying a link between pottery making and seed processing. The three outliers contain more groundstone than expected given the Jelmer W. Eerkens] ORIGINS OF POTTERY IN THE WESTERN GREAT BASIN 659 Fublc 2. I-iliimgraphic Accounts of Food Preparation and the Use of Pottery. (iroup Region Foods Cooked in Pots Foods Not Cooked in Pots Reference Western Mono Western Sierra Nevada greens, deer meat. acorn mush (rarely I Owens Valley Paiule Owens Valley Western Shoshoni Tuhatulabal Western Shoshoni seeds, pifton, berries, acorn, rabbit, water fowl, sheep. Pandora moth, bnne fly Western Nevada seeds, roots, animal internal organs Southern Sierra Nevada seeds, piiion. elderberry, yucca. buckeye, acorn. meat flesh Inyo County seeds, rabbit small rodents, fish, man/anita. grasshopper tish. deer, rodents meat flesh, pi Aon. acorn small game. lish. freshwater mussel. ri*>is pifton. blue dick. Joshua tree seeds Gayton l<W8 Steward 1933 Steward I*M1 Voegelin I93H Irwin 1980 density of pottery. Three explanations come to mind to account for these anomalies: groundstone could have been used to process other resources in these areas, seeds could have been prepared in nonceramic cooking containers, or the manner in which "groundstone" was defined by the archae- ologists is inconsistent among the different areas. This issue is revisited below. Third, gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) analysis of organic residues preserved within the walls (i.e.. not on the surface) of west- ern Great Basin pot sherds is consistent with the conclusion that the majority were used to boil seeds (Eerkens 2001. 2004). Although the identification of specific species or genera is not possible using GC-MS. this technique can be used to identify gen- eral food classes represented in the residues of pots, such as meats, fish, roots, greens, berries, and nuts and seeds (Evcrshed et al. 1997: Malainey et al. 1999a. 1999b; Mottram et al. 1999: Patrick et al. 1985). Seventy-five pot sherds from the western (ireat Basin were analyzed for fatty acids using GC- MS. Based on the ratios of various fatty acids, over half the sherds appear to have been used to cook seeds: 27 percent for seeds alone and 27 percent for seeds mixed with other plants or meat. An addi- tional 13 percent of the sherds could only be assigned to a generic "plant" category and may also represent seed processing. The remaining 32 percent seem to have been used primarily to process roots, greens, and berries. Thus, although pots were used to process a variety of foods, seeds seem to have been the primary component. Finally, ethnographic data suggest that boiling seeds was one of the main uses of earthenware pots. Table 2 summarizes data on food preparation tech- niques and potteiy use for several western Great Basin groups. Although we should be skeptical of ethnographic data about pottery because produc- tion had ceased some 50 years before ethnographic fieldwork commenced, ethnographers did try to reconstruct prehistoric lifeways as best as they could. As shown in the table, ethnographic data often support an association between pots and seeds. Seeds are nearly ubiquitously mentioned as having been boiled in clay pots. These results are in line with other studies in the eastern part of the Great Basin. For example, in the Little Boulder Basin of north-central Nevada. Bright. Ugan. and Hunsaker(2002) found that late prehistoric (i.e.. post-600 B.P.) brown ware sherds are rare in the sediments surrounding hearths con- taining high counts of mammal bone. Instead, over 90 percent of brow n ware pottery is associated with smaller hearths containing large numbers of charred seeds. Presumably these hearths were used to boil seeds cooked within these pots, suggesting a link between the two. in sum. evidence from several independent lines is consistent in linking pottery with seed process- ing and consumption. This is not to say that Paiute and Shoshone people did not use pots for other purposes. Like most technologies and artifact classes, pots were probably used for a variety of purposes. When the need for a temporary storage or transport container arose, pots were surely put 660 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 69. No. 4.2004 Table 3. Distribution of Pol Sherds and Groundstone by Environmental /one I Adjusted by Area Surveyed) Pot Sherds Groundstone p , in \ ,ii 11 // on vjiic) ft 111 rllUMU f ilOOVC fj . ft ■ ft \ 1 1 1 1 ill i on *lt in Piilon/ ft III r I lion/ vf uDOVC nouoni \ WW i[K \ t vi)4in /.one i J, 'till 1 IMUJVf i j **\< ft * % f m bill I nil mi /'Mil \t Ailkft#jBft|ftt*iaJ a i Keiereiicetsi Owens Vallc\ 86 12 4 48 52 0 Bcttinger 1975 Deep Springs 64 36 0 62 31 7 Delacorte 1**9(1 Monitor Valle\ 76 15 9 51 28 2! Thomas 1988 Reese River 100 0 0 57 38 4 Thomas 1971 China Lake 63 37 0 48 52 0 Gilreath and Hildebrandt 1997; Hildebrandt and Rub\ 2004 to use. However, given the substantial supporting evidence presented above. I submit that the origins of pottery production and intensive seed harvest- ing were intricately linked in the western Great Basin, that is. one was not possible without the other. The Origins of Pottery in the Western Great Basin Why did western Great Basin groups begin mak- ing and using pots? As discussed above, it clearly has something to do with the processing of seeds. But it is not simply the consumption of some seed resources that brought about this new technology. Small numbers of seeds were being eaten long before pots were adopted. Instead, it is the signif- icant increase of seed processing with which the origins of pottery is associated. What is it about seed intensification that encouraged the production of pots (or perhaps vice versa)? A number of studies in other parts of the world have focused on the origins of pottery (e.g.. Barnett and Hoopes 1995: Rice 1999). These studies have produced a range of models to explain the origins of pottery, whether by innovation or by diffusion from another area. For example, some suggest that pots provided access to a wider range of foods by facilitating detoxification and increasing payabil- ity (Arnold 1985:Braun 1983: Ikawa-Smith 1976). Others emphasize the value of a mobile system of storage (e.g.. Damp and Vargas 1995:Matson 1972: Moore 1995). the conservation ol fuel/firewood when cooking with pots (e.g., Bettinger 1999b: Bel- linger el al. 1994). the economy of scale afforded by pottery production (e.g.. Brown 1989). the ease with which pots can be decorated to express ethnic or individual identity (Armit and Hnlayson 1995). or the ability of pots to render oils and ferment bev- erages for use in competitive feasts (e.g.. Hayden 1990.1995; Hoopes 1995). Although some of these factors may haw played a role in the Grcal Basin, none explains the process with great satisfaction (Eerkens 2001; Eerkenset al. 2(X)2). In short, there is no evidence for new foods being incorporated into the diet at this time, pots do not seem to have been designed for storage, pots are not more plentiful in areas where firewood is scarce, pots seem to have been produced on a local scale in small numbers, most pots (ca. 80-90percent)arc undecorated (and only minimally in a standardized fashion when they are), and pots were not used in a manner consistent with competitive feasting. Instead, following the work of Crown and Wills (1995b) and Sassaman (1993). I have argued that pots in the Great Basin served to minimize time and labor demands on women (Eerkens 2001). In terms of nutrition, seeds are optimally processed by grind- ing to increase surface area and the amount of food that can be absorbed by the human digestive tract. Grinding is followed by extended boiling to help break down complex organic compounds that are otherwise difficult to digest in the gut (Crown and Wills 1995a: Wandsnider 1997). Seeds can cer- tainly be processed in this manner without the use of earthenware pots. This is typically accomplished by "stone-boiling" in baskets. However, stone-boil- ing is a labor-intensive activity, requiring constant stirring of stones to avoid burning Ihe basket and frequent replacement of cooled rocks with hot ones. As many have pointed out (e.g.. Arnold 1985:128; Crown and Wills 1995b; Ikawa-Smith 1976:514; Van (Camp 1979:74). one of the advantages of pots is that they can sit over an open tire or healed coals with minimal attention, allowing fixxls to simmer Prior to 600 B.P.. small-seed processing was not Jolmer W. Eerkens] ORIGINS OF POTTERY IN THE WESTERN GREAT BASIN 661 a major activity in the western Great Basin, and women likely had the lime to occasionally stone- boil seed resources in baskets. Although they knew about pots from intermittent trade with pottery- using populations in the Southwest and rarely even made their own pots (Eerkens et al. 1999). the lim- ited importance of seeds did not outw eigh the costs (time, labor, and fuel to lire) associated with large- scale pottery production. However, with the shift to more intensive seed use around 600 BP., the sit- uation changed. Seed-processing tasks likely became loo time consuming to continue using bas- kets and stone-boiling, and the production ol earth- enware pots was added to the range of chores required of women. Ethnographic data are consis- tent in mentioning women as the producers of pots (e.g.. Driver 1937:80; Gayton 1929; Steward 1933:266; Voegelin 1938:35). In this respect, the use of pots facilitated the intensive extraction and processing of seed resources (e.g., Oyuela-Caycedo 1995). As found by Bettinger < 1975 >. Deiacorte (1990). and Thomas (1971. 1988). the distribution of pot sherds across the landscape is skewed toward val- ley bottom and lowland locations, especially near riverine and lacustrine settings (Table 3; for greater discussion, see Eerkens 2003). That is. although sites anil artifacts are found across the landscape, pot sherds are found predominantly in lowlands. In accordance with the arguments made above, these environments are known for their seed pro- ductivity, especially compared with upland loca- tions that are known more for their pinon nut and geophyte resources. Not surprisingly.Table 3 shows that groundstone is frequently found at higher den- sities on the lowlands of the landscape as well. Interestingly, two instances where groundstone is actually more common in the pinon /one occur in northern Owens Valley and China Lake. As dis- cussed earlier, these regions were found to be anom- alous in that they contained far more groundstone relative to pottery (Figure 4). This suggests that a significant fraction of the groundstone in these areas was used for processing nonseed resources in the pinon /one that did not require the use of pots, such as geophytes and pinon nuts. That pots are primarily undecorated (see Table 1) supports the notion that they were not used to express identity or group affiliation. In fact, they were not even made in a consistent and symmetric manner, often displaying variable wall thickness and undulating rims. Such traits are seldom asso- ciated with a status or identity-expressing artifact class. In short, pots were functional objects used to meet a certain end. namely, cooking seed resources. Seed Use, Sharing, and Privatization Although the cost-benefit explanation ol" potter) as a lime- and labor-saving technology for women is more satisfying than other models for the adoption of pottery and fits well with existing data from the region. I think that this is only part of the story. There are several other characteristics of seeds and pots that bind them together, particularly when examined from the viewpoint of resource owner- ship strategies and artifact production and use. In many hunting and gathering societies sub- sistence resources are often shared. However, as Waguespack (2003) has recently discussed, shar- ing is context dependent and varies based on fac- tors such as kinship distance, social obligations, and whether the resource is acquired through indi- vidual or communal efforts. Ethnographically. meat is among the most widely shared products in such societies. Plant foods, on the other hand, are often regarded as private properties, especially those that are gathered and cooked individually. The reasons for this seem to stem, in part, from the spatial and temporal predictability of plants rel- ative to animals. Because hunting is typically less predictable on a day-to-day basis, sharing is an effective strategy to even out variability and ensure a more constant and steady suppls of meat (Gould 1982; Gurven et al. 2000; Kaplan and Hill 1985: O'Shea 1981: Winterhalder 1986. 1996). Seeds are much more predictable spatially, and sharing would do little to ensure a more reliable supply. As well, the hunting of some game, particularly herding animals that can be driven toward an ambush or cliff, often involves the cooperation of large numbers of individuals where the end prod- uct is shared. Seeds typically do not require such cooperation during harvest and preparation. Were seeds regarded .is private resources in the Clival Basin? If so. is it possible that they were targeted as a staple after 600 B.P. because they could be owned and stored and did not have to be shared? Several lines of evidence suggest that this might be the ease. 662 First, unlike the technologies used to harvest other resources, the items needed to harvest and process seeds can be individually made and used. This is true of seed beaters, burden baskets, grind- ing stones, winnowing trays, and the cooking uten- sil, whether a basket or pot. On the other hand, the tools used to harvest many other resources do not exhibit this property. For example, though a rabbit net can be made individually, it requires large num- bers of people to drive rabbits into the net. As a con- sequence, returns of the hunt are typically shared by all involved, though the owner of the net may take a bigger share. Similarly, roots and tubers, which are optimally prepared by steaming (Wand- snider 1997). are usually cooked in pit hearths. Although a small pit hearth could be excavated and used by an individual, in fuel-scarce areas large pits will be preferred in order to conserve firewood, favoring communal construction and cooking. Moreover, the large size of such pits will support construction in the open where everyone in the community can see them. Both of these factors make hoarding foods cooked in pit hearths diffi- cult. Indeed, as discussed by Wandsnider (1997). pit hearth roasting in North America was typically a communal affair where the results were shared by all. and the use of communal pit hearths is known from ethnographic work in many Great Basin cases (e.g.. Drucker 1937:10: Kelly 1932: Lowie 1909, 1939: Steward 1941:333). Thus, the harvesting and processing technologies used to process roots and tubers subject these resources to sharing. As dis- cussed earlier, there is evidence in the China Lake region for a shift from the use of pit hearths used for roasting roots and tubers to the use of more ephemeral cooking features associated with seeds. This shift may have been a conscious effort on the part of families to target resources that were more amenable to individual harvesting and processing and did not have to be shared. Not only can seed-processing tools be made and used individually but there is chemical evidence that western Great Basin pots were (Eerkens el al. 2002). Of 380 unique sherds sourced by Instru- mental Neutron Activation Analysis, few seem to have been traded or moved, even over relatively short distances of 30-40 km. Overall, the organi- zation of pot production seems to have been on a small scale. There was no attempt to economize the production of pots by having a few specialists make [Vol. 69. No. 4. 2004 pots for everyone. Moreover, the size of most pots, typically between 20 and 40 cm in height and width (Eerkens 2001:56. 63: Lockett and Pippin 1990). suggests that they could easily have been used by a single person to prepare a modest-sized meal to Iced a small group of people (i.e.. a family). In this respect, the technology used to process seeds (i.e.. pots) seems to have been an individual endeavor for family-level use. A second line of evidence linking pots and pri- vatization comes from the spatial distribution of sherds within archaeological sites. Unlike pit hearth roasting and certain other cooking technologies, pots can be operated entirely within a house. The significance here is that such use potentially puts food preparation outside of the view of other peo- ple in the community. I say potentially because in order for this to be true we must assume that the interior of a house represents family-level and "pri- vate" space and was demarcated from community- level and "public" space across the rest of the site (see Sorenson 2000:156-165). As discussed by Dow ling (1968:503). there is ethnographic evi- dence among hunter-gatherers that individuals con- sciously exploit indoor cooking to avoid sharing with other members of the group. That is. if others cannot see what is being prepared and stored, it is harder for them to demand a share. Data presented in Table 4 suggest that western Great Basin pots were used primarily inside houses. The density of pot sherds on. to 20 cm above, the floors often excavated houses in southern Owens Valley is much higher than that just outside these houses or in general midden contexts. As it is unlikely that broken sherds were carried from out- side houses and placed within them before aban- donment, this distribution implies that pots were used and deposited primarily within houses. Though it is difficult to establish contemporaneity between house floors and general midden contexts, such a distribution is less pronounced for other arti- fact categories, such as debitage. where interior and exterior densities are more equal. This suggests that whereas some activities, such as pot use. look place within the house, others, such as flint knap- ping, took place in public out in the open. Because pots could just as easily have been used outside the house, a concerted effort to restrict the space where seeds were boiled and stored is implied. A desire to keep seed mush out of view and limit the access AMERICAN ANTIQUITY Jelmer W. Eerkens] ORIGINS OF POTTERY IN THE WESTERN GREAT BASIN 663 Table 4. Density of Pen Sherds within Houses, Hxtcrior to Houses, and in General Midden Contexts in Southern Owens Valley Site Context ,4C Date B P. Sherds liti^it * IX* tillage Hoor Exterior Midden Moor 1 Merit h Midden lny-30 Structure 9 ISO 21.4 6.1 0.1 79 17 227 lny-5207 Structure 1 20S 18.0 i.O 891 1688 Iny-3769 Structure 1 293 4.0" 0.6 LI 16.5* 13 20 lny-30 Structure 10 360 16.0 0 1.4 389 820 330 lny-30 Structure 1 390 23.1 0 0.1 223 40 262 lny-30 Structure 5 410 16.6 0 0.1 139 16 262 lny-30 Structure 8 470 148.0 0 0.1 93 75 257 lny-30 Structure 7 480 0.0 2.7 0.1 186 158 257 lny-30 Structure 13 710 6.5 1.3 577 1775 lny-30 Structure o ; s (i 0.1 471* 16 262 • Data from house till substituted because of lack of data from floor. Note: Density given in counts per cubic meter: I4C date reflects weighted average of several dates if more than one exists Source: Data from Basgall and McGuire 1988; Delacorte 1999; Delacorte el al. 1995; Eerkens 1997: and original museum catalogs nf those studies. of nontamily members is consistent with a deter- mined effort to privatize these resources. Finally, there is support for seeds being privately owned from the ethnographic record itself. As dis- cussed by Steward (1933. 1938:74, 119). many plant foods, especially seeds, were regarded as pri- vate gotxls once they had been collected, that is. once work or energy had been invested. This notion does not unilaterally extend to all resources, how- ever. Hunters were obligated to freely and publicly distribute game such as deer, antelope, and moun- tain sheep (e.g.. Steward 1938:115.120.184.253). Intermediate to these extremes, caches of pinon nuts were owned by families, but permission to open them was sometimes extended to other rela- tives. Theft often resulted in fights (i.e., was not tol- erated), but no killing was reported (Steward 1938:73). Because pots can be individually made and can be used inside houses, they are well suited to pri- vatization. Indeed, everything about pots in the western Great Basin suggests small-time produc- tion anil privatized use. Though other artifacts, including shell beads and obsidian, were widely exchanged, pots were made and used locally. As well, pots were differentially used within domi- ciles, out of view from the rest of the community. This probably also explains why pots were largely undecorated (only ca. 10 percent), that is. because they were not on display. Finally, the ethnographic record demonstrates that seeds, which were pre- pared in pots, were largely considered private go<xls. Whether pots were instrumental in the pri- vatization of seeds or were adopted to process an already privatized resource is unclear. However, all these findings are highly consistent with what we would expect of a private technology used to process privatized gtxxls. Why Privatize? What factors could have promoted a shift to the use of tools that COltkl be operated by individuals (i.e.. pots) and resources that could be owned by indi- viduals or families (i.e.. seeds)? Answering ques- tions addressing the motivations of individuals in the past is always harder than identifying what they did and how they did it. Admittedly, answers often form only speculative hypotheses. However. I would like to briefly consider this question and offer some potential explanations that. I hope, can be tested in future research. When considering this question, several possi- bilities come to mind. First, as Bettinger (1999b) has recently argued, a focus on privately owned resources solves the "freeloader problem." Free- loading occurs when certain indiv iduals reap the benefits of additional work by others without invest- ing any labor themselves. When resources are held as common pool or public goods, there is little incentive to invest additional time and energy in gathering them because they are easily lost to oth- ers in the sharing process (Hawkes 1992. 1993: Kohler 2004; Smith 1988: Winterhalder 1986). Such public access systems strongly discourage storage, ev en when storage would be advantageous SSA AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 69. No. 4, 2004 in the face of seasonal fluctuations in the avail- ability of foods (Bettinger I999b:7l). Weissner (1982) has previously proposed a division of hunter-gatherer societies into two types, those that pool risk at the group level and those that pool risk at the family level. The shift from a public goods system to a privatized one would correlate well with such a division. If the population in the Great Basin was increas- ing and overtaxing local food resources, freeload- ing may have been favored as a way to make up resource shortfall or simply to work less. As the number of these freeloaders increased and tradi- tional social leveling mechanisms failed, the bur- den may have been kx> great on other community members, and they may have turned to privatiza- tion as a strategy to keep food within the family. Storage of privately owned seeds may also have been a strategy to bank food resources for possible future subsistence (Bettinger and King 1971; Dela- corte 1999:389). A shift to the use of pots and small seeds in the Great Basin, then, may reflect the con- scious actions of individuals to move aw ay from har- vesting and cooking technologies that required cooperative behavior (to either make or use)or had to be used out in the open, such as communal hunt- ing and pit hearth roasting. In other words, once the loss of energetic returns related to freeloading was factored in. the return rates on seeds, including har- vesting and production of all associated artifacts, may have been higher than those for other foods. In addition, seeds could have been stored, solving potential seasonal resource shortfall problems (Dclacorte 1999). Pots are convenient storage con- tainers and could have doubled in this capacity. 'Pie positive correlation between pot use and the production of easily digestible gruels that can sub- stitute for mother's milk is also worth mentioning. In the Southwest, the production of such gruels has been argued to facilitate earlier weaning of children and to increase infant survivability, both of w hich act to increase population levels (Crown and Wills 1995a. 1995b). Such a positive feedback cycle may have heightened the need to privatize resources. Second, the shift to privately owned resources may have been an outgrowth of the desires of cer- tain individuals to increase production of foods to create surplus (Bettinger 1978; Bettinger and King 1971; Delacorte 1999). Within most egalitarian societies surplus would normally be shared; how- ever, privatization would allow ownership and hoarding of surplus, which could have been used toward a number of ends, principally the acquisi- tion of social status (Arnold et al. 1997: Bender 1985: Earle 1991; Saitta and Keene 1990). For example, surplus foods could be used to maintain and expand long-distance exchange networks to acquire exotic items to mark one's higher status. As well, surplus could be redistributed locally to create debt, which can later be recalled to mobilize the labor of others. Thus, spending time and labor on processing foods that were not subject to shar- ing may have been in the interest of prestige-seek- ing individuals. Seeds may have been one such option in the western Great Basin. Third, it is possible that privatization of seed resources was a reaction to the privatization of hunted foods. Bettinger < 1999b) has argued that use of the bow and arrow, which became widespread around 15(H) B.P. encouraged individual hunting of smaller game, such as rabbits. Because they were individually tracked and shot, animals of this sort may not have been subject to sharing. Once estab- lished, the notion of privatized foods may have spread to other resources such as seeds. Extending myself even further, it is possible that certain seg- ments of the community, especially unmarried or widowed women who no longer had access to pub- licly shared meat resources (assuming men were doing the hunting), may have sought to intensify other oil-rich foods (i.e.. seeds) that did not have to be shared. This reasoning might also explain why an increase in seed use followed the intro- duction of bow and arrow technology. Finally, changes in the social structure (i.e.. kin- ship) of Great Basin communities may have fos- tered seed intensification and pottery use. Ethnographic data indicate that individuals are more likely to share with kin and people they have shared with in the past than with genetically unre- lated individuals (Gould 1980; Gurven et al. 2000; Vellen 1977). If so. changes in postmarital resi- dence patterns and rates of endogamous marriages may have resulted in the formation of communi- ties where most individuals were unrelated to the majority of other members. Such a change could have prompted intensification of foods that did not have to be shared, such as seeds. Unfortunately, it is not possible to evaluate which of these hypotheses (or some other hypoih- Jelmer W. Eerkens] ORIGINS OF POTTERY IN THE WESTERN GREAT BASIN 665 esis) best explains the transition to privatization or it they all play a role. Additional archaeological data will need to be collected from the region. In par- ticular, we will need to gather information on com- munity structure just before and after 600 B.P.. including population size, genetic relatedness of different households, the establishment of long- distance exchange networks, and other data on shar- ing (i.e.. following the model set forth in Waguespack 2003). I hope that this research will help spark an interest in the topic and prompt the collection of this information. Summary and Conclusions A shift to the use of pots and the intensification of small seeds are clearly evident in the archaeologi- cal record of the western Great Basin. Rotation studies and radiocarbon and thermoluminescence dales from Owens Valley indicate that these changes look place in concert around 600 B.R A comparison of radiocarbon-dated thermal features from China Lake (see Figure 3) suggests that this shift took place some 300 years later in that area. Thus, climate change, at least in isolation, is not accountable for these broad patterns, for climate is assumed to have been similar in these two nearby regions. Instead. I argue that other factors, includ- ing population pressure, an increase in the number of freeloaders, changes in community kinship struc- ture, and possibly social striving, were responsible. Although the reasons for these changes were prob- ably complex, one outcome of this process was the privatization of a staple food resource, namely, seeds. Two factors imply that privatization was an intentional outcome and not simply a by-product of the process of intensification. First, people could just as easily have cooked and stored seeds in pots outside their homes where thev would have been 0 available for sharing to all in the community. Instead they chose to process and store seeds within their domiciles where they were out of view. Sec- ond. Owens Valley inhabitants could have chosen to intensify the extraction of other food resources, such as roots and tubers, large game, or perhaps even grasshoppers, brine My. or other insects. They could have moved their residential bases to other parts of the landscape to better and more intensively exploit such resources. Instead, sometime between 1500 and 6(K) B.R. they chose to locate their vil- lages and activities in areas that were highly pro- ductive in their output of seed resources (Basgall and Giambastiani 1995; Basgall and McGuire 1988;Bellinger 1975. l978;DcIacorte 1990,1997. 1999). I believe that these decisions were a response to. in part, the technologies available for process- ing these different resources. Everything about seeds, from they way they are harvested and processed (individually), to how the tools used in these activities are manufactured (individually), to where they are cooked (inside houses), suits them to small-scale and family-level ownership. As I have argued, this is not the case with the technolo- gies needed to harvest other resources, such as pit hearths and game drives. It is for these reasons that I propose seeds were specifically targeted in the western Great Basin In short, intensilied harvest- ing of small seeds seems to have been a by-prod- uct of the desire to privatize the subsistence economy and not vice versa. Extending these ideas even further geographi- cally, it is perhaps no accident worldwide that the introduction of pots, seed intensification, and the development of social stratification often appear together temporally (or nearly so). If pots allowed for individual ownership of seed resources, elimi- nated the "freeloader problem." and fostered stor- age and the production of surplus, certain enterprising individuals may have seized on these factors, time and again, to build wealth and social debt. This could have been accomplished by giv- ing away or trading surplus foods for labor or future gifts. A focus on seeds and pottery technology may have allowed certain individuals to cook food within their houses and circumvent traditional le\ cling mechanisms (e.g.. sharing) that promoted egalitarianism. These hardworking individuals and their families may then have inspired others to pur- sue similar strategies, thereby spreading seed inten- sification and pottery technologies over large areas. As more and more individuals withdrew from tra- ditional sharing networks, others may have been forced to follow suit because they no longer had access to reliable sources of food. For those with- out the ability to even out the variable return rates of higher-risk foods such as game by pooling returns across a larger set of people (Cashdan 1985; Gurven et al. 2000; Kaplan and Hill 1985; Win- terhalder 19X6. 1996. 1997). low-risk (but low- AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 69. No. 4. 2004 return) resources such as seeds may have been par- ticularly attractive. In this respect, seed intensifi- cation probably created a positive feedback cycle where more and more individuals were forced to participate in a system that devalued sharing and emphasized private ownership. The changes proposed above for Owens Valley are remarkably similar to those that Flannery (2(K)2) has recently discussed for early villages in Mesoamerica and the Near East. As he discussed (see also Weissner 1982). both regions witnessed changes in house configuration (from round to rec- tangular), a shift in the location of storage facili- ties (from out in the open to within domiciles), an intensification of food production, a privatization of food resources, and a decrease in sharing between family units. Although houses remained circular in Owens Valley, as discussed above we do have direct and tangential evidence for many of these other processes. Flannery (2002:421) relates these changes in Mesoamerica and the Near East, in large part, to rapidly increasing population lev- els. Within growing villages individuals had to mit- igate against unrestricted sharing with neighbors they were no longerclosely related to and resolved to privatize food resources. If we use these cases as a model for the western Great Basin (i.e.. these processes are applicable cross-culturally), they lend much support to Bellinger's (1999b) notions about an increase in the number of freeloaders in late pre- historic Great Basin societies. In conclusion. I am arguing that the way in which available seed-harvesting technologies were produced and used in the western Great Basin, namely, baskets and especially pots, promoted pri- vatization of seed resources. I suggest that privati- zation was at least in part a conscious and preconceived goal that ultimately resulted in seed intensification. Most likely, population increase and a greater presence of freeloaders and aggran- dizers played a role in the process as well (Bellinger 1999b; see also Delacorte 1999; Kohler 2004: Rosenberg 1998). In order to bring a better under- standing to the introduction of new technologies and economies archaeologically. such as pottery and seed intensification, we need to consider how different processes, including environment and population pressure, as well as social factors, inter- act. Ownership strategies, which have not received much attention in the past, are integral to these issues. It is really at the intersection of all these processes that we are likely to rind more satisfying explanations for past behaviors. Although I have applied these ideas in the western Great Basin. I certainly think that they can be relevant in other archaeological contexts. Finally, what mighi we expect a "privatized" technology, or at least one that promoted individ- ual ownership of the goods it was associated with, to look like in the archaeological record?The argu- ments provided here for pots and seeds in the Great Basin give some general direction. These ideas are particularly applicable in societies where the notions of privatized goods are not yet widespread and well established. First, the majority of the mate- rial components of the technology should have the potential to be manufactured by indiv iduals or small numbers of related individuals. Second, individu- als should be able to operate the tools, when assem- bled, without assistance from others. In general, this should limit the technology to relatively small and lightweight items. Third, individuals should be able to use the technology out of view from the rest of the community, likely within a domicile or other walled structure or compound, again limiting the size of material components. II used within the house, it also precludes the use of hazardous mate- rials that would threaten either the structural sta- bility of the house (e.g.. large bonlires or extremely high temperatures, if houses are made of com- bustible materials) or the immediate health of indi- viduals (e.g.. the release of poisonous fumes). Fourth, because they are generally out of view, such technologies should have only a minimal role in village-level social functions (i.e.. they should not be put on display or used to signal wealth or sta- tus). As a result they may often be undecorated or only minimally decorated according to individual preferences. Acknowledgments. I kindly thank Michael Dclaeorie. William Barnett. and an anonymous reviewer tor their thoughtful comments on an earlier draft. Much of this research comes from my dissertation, which was supported by a National Science Foundation dissertation improvement grant (#*W02836> and a Wenner-Gren prcdocioral grant (#6529). 1 also thank Michael Jochim. Robert Hettinger. Michael Glassow. and Mark Aldcnderler for reading and commenting on the dissertation and Kli/abeth Klarich lor help with the Spanish abstract. Any mistakes are mine, of course. Jolmer W. Eerkens] References Cited Annit. Ian. ami William L. Einlavson ■ 1995 Social Strategics and Economic Change: Pottery in Context. In The Emergence of Pottery: Technology and Innovation in Ancient Societies, edited by William K. Bar- neti and John W. Hoopcs. pp. 267-276. Smithsonian Insti- tution. Washington. D.C. Arnold. Dean E. 1985 Ceramic Theory and Cultural Process. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. Arnold. Jeanne I-.. Roger H. Colten. and Scott Plcika 1997 Contexts ol' Cultural Change in Insular California. American Antiquity 62:300-31X. Harnetl. William K.. and John W. Hix>pes (editors) 1995 The Emergence of Pottery: Technology ami Innova- tion in Ancient Societies. Smithsonian Institution. Wash- ington. D.C. Basgall. Mark I:.. ami Mark A. Giambastiani 1995 Prehistoric Use of a Marginal Environment: Conti- nuit\ ant! Change in Occupation of the Volcanic Table- lands. Mono and lino Counties. California. Center for Archaeological Research at Davis. Publication No. 12. Davis. California. Basgall. Mark I:., and Kelly R. McGuirc I9K8 Tlie Archaeology of CA-lny-M>: Prehistoric Culture Change in the Southern Owens Valley. California. Report submitted to the California Department of Transportation. Sacramento. Ear Western Anthropological Research Group. Davis. California. Bender. Barbara 1985 Emergent Tribal Formations in the American Mid- continent. American Antiquity 50:52-62. Hettinger. Robert L. 1975 The Surface Archaeology of Owens Valley. Eastern California: Prehistoric Man-Land Relationships in the Great Basin. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Anthropology. University of California. Riverside. 1977 Aboriginal Human Ecology in Owens Valley: Pre- historic Change in the Great Basin. American Antiquity 42:5-17. 1978 Alternative Adaptive Strategies in the Prehistoric Great Basin. Journal of Anthropological Research 34:27-46. 1989 The Archaeology of Pinyon House. Two Eagles, and Crater Midden: Three Residential Sites in Owens Valley. Inyo County. California. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History. No. 67. New York. 1999a l-roin Traveler to Processor: Regional Trajectories of Hunter-Gatherer Sedentism in tlx- Inyo-Mono Region. Cal- ifornia. In Settlement Pattern Studies in the Americas. Fifty Years since Viru. edited bv B. R. Billman and G. M. Fein- man. pp. 39-55. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washing- ton. D.C. 1999b What Happened in the Medithermal. In Models for the Millennium, edited by Charlotte Beck. pp. 62-74. Uni- versitv of Utah Press. Salt Lake Citv. w w Bellinger. Robert L.. and Thomas F. King 1971 Interaction and Political Organization: A Theoretical Framework for Archaeology in Owens Valley. California. University of California Archaeological Survey Annual Report 13:187-195. Bellinger. Robert L.. David B. Madsen. and Robert G. Elston 1994 Prehistoric Settlement Categories and Settlement Sys- tems in the Alashan Desert of Inner Mongolia. PRC. Jour- nal of Anthropological Archaeology 13:74-101. Bcttinger. Robert L.. and R. E. Taylor 1974 Suggested Revisions in Archaeological Sequences ol 667 the Great Basin and Interior Southern California. Neiadu Archaeological Survey Research Papers 5:1 -26. Blackhawk. Ned 1997 Julian Steward and the Politics of Representation: A Critique ol Anthropologist Julian Steward's Ethnographic Portrayals ol American Indians of the Great Basin. Amer- ican Indian Culture and Research Journal 21:61-81. Braun. David 1980 Experimental Interpretation of Ceramic Vessel Use on the Basis of Rim and Neck Formal Attributes. In The Navajo Project: Archaeological Investigations. Page to Phoenix 500 KV Southern Transmission Line, edited by Donald C. Fiero. R. W. Munson. M. T. McClain. S. M. Wilson, and A. II. Zier. pp. 170-231. Museum of North- ern Arizona. Flagstaff. 1983 Pots as Tools. In Arthaeological Hammers and The- ories, edited by James A. Moore and Arthur S. Keene. pp. 107-134. Academic Press. New York. Bright. Jason. Andrew Ugan. and Lone Hunsaker 2002 The Effect of Handling Tune on Subsistence Tech- nology. World Archaeology 34:164-1XI Brown. James A. I9H9 The Beginnings of Pottery as an Economic Process In What's New? A Closer Look at the Process of Innova- tion, edited bv Sander E. van der Lecuw and Robin Tor- rence. pp. 203-224. Unwin Hyman. London Cashdan. Elizabeth 1985 Coping with Risk: Reciprocity among the Basarwa of Northern BiHswana. Man 20:454—174. Crown. Patricia U. and Wirt H. Wills 1995a Economic Intensification and the Origins of Ceramic Containers in the American Southwest. In The Emergence of Pottery: Technology and Innovation in Ancient Societies, edited by William K. Barnett and John W. Hoopcs. pp. 241-254. Smithsonian Institution. Washington. D.C. |995h The Origins of Southwestern Ceramic Containers: Women's Time Allocation and Economic Intensification. Journal of Anthropological Research 51:173-186. Crum. Steven J. 1999 Julian Steward's Vision of the Great Basin: A Critique and Response. In Julian Steward and the Great Rosin: The Making of an Anthropologist, edited by Richard O. Clem- mer, L Daniel Myers, and Mary Elizabeth Rudden. pp. 117-127. University of Utah Press. Salt Lake City. Damp. Jonathon E.. and L. Patricia Vargas 1995 TJk" Manv Contexts of Earlv Valdivia Ceramics. In The Emergence of Pottery: Technology and Innovation in Ancient Societies, edited by William K. Barnett and John W. Hoopcs. pp. 157-168. Smithsonian Institution. Wash- ington. D.C. Delacorte. Michael CI. 1990 The Prehistory of Deep Springs Valley. Eastern Cal- ifornia: Adaptive Variation in the Western Great Basin. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Anthro- pology. University of California. Davis. 1997 Culture Change along the Eastern Sierra Nevada/Cascade Front, vol. 7: Pah Rah Uplands. Report submitted to Tuscarora Gas Transmission Co.. Reno. Ear Western Anthropological Research Group. Davis. Cali- fornia. 1999 The Changing Role of Riverine Environments in the Prehistory of the Central-Western Great Rosin: Data Recovery Excavations at Six Prehistoric Sites in Owens Valley. California. Report submitted to Caltrans District 9. Bishop. California. Far Western Anthropological Research Group. Davis. California. Delacorte. Michael G.. Matthew C Hall, and Mark E Basgall ORIGINS OF POTTERY IN THE WESTERN GREAT BASIN 668 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 69. No. 4. 2004 1995 Final Report on the Evaluation of Twelve Archaeo- logical Sites in the Southern Owens Valley. Inyo County. California. Report submitted to the California Department of Tran sport at ion. Sacramento. Delacorte. Michael G.. and Kelly R. McGuire 1993 Report of A rchaeological Test Evaluations at Twenty- Threc Sites in Owens Valley, California. Report submitted to Contel Corporation. Far Western Anthropological Research Group. Davis, California. Dowling. John H. 1968 Individual Ownership and the Sharing of Game in Hunting Societies. American Anthro/Milogist 70:502-507. Driver. Harold E. 1937 Culture Element Distributions. VI: Southern Sierra Nevada. University ofCalifornia Anthropological'Records I(2):53-1S4. Drucker. Philip 1937 Culture Element Distributions. V: Southern Califor- nia. University of California Anthropological Records !(l):l-51. liarlc. Timothy K. 1991 The Evolution of Chiefdoms. In Chiefdoms: Power. Economy, and Ideology, edited by Timothy K. Earle. pp. 1-15. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. Eerkens. Jelmer W. 1997 Preliminary Report on Survey and Test Excavations on the Western and Southern Fringes of Owens Lake. Report on rile with Bureau of Land Management. Bishop. California. 2001 The Origins of Pottery among Late Prehistoric Hunter- Gatherers in California and the Western Great Basin. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Anthro- pology, University of California. Santa Barbara. 2003 Residential Mobility and Pottery Use in the Western Great Basin. Current Anthropology 44:728-738. Eerkens. Jelmer W.. Hector NetT. and Michael Glascock 1999 Early Pottery from Sunga'vaand Implications for the Development of Ceramic Technology in Owens Valley. Call fornifl. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthro- pology 20:275-285. 2002 Ceramic Production among Small-Scale and Mobile Hunters and Gatherers: A Case Study from the South- western Great Basin. Journal of Anthropological Archae- ology 21:200-229, 2004 GC-MS Analysis and Eatty Acid Ratios of Archaeo- logical Potsherds from the Western Great Basin of North America. Archaeometry, in press. Eerkens. Jelmer W.. and Jeffrey S. Rosenthal 2004 The Transition from Geophyte to Seed Processing in the Northern Mojave Desert: Evidence from Thermal Fea- tures Near China Lake. Pacific Coast Archaeological Soci- ety Quarterly, in press. Evershed. Richard P.. Hazel R. Mottram. Stephanie N. Dudd, Stephanie Charters, Andrew W. Stott. G. J. Lawrence, A. M. Gibson. A. Conner. Paul W. Blinkhorn. and V. Reeves 1997 New Criteria for the Identification ol Animal Fats Pre- served in Archaeological Pottery. Naturwissenschaften 84:402-406. I lannerv. Kent V. 2002 The Origins of the Village Revisited: From Nuclear to Extended Households. American Antiquity 67 A17-433. Fowler. Catherine S. 1986 Subsistence. In Handbook of North American Indi- ans, vol. II: Great Rosin, edited by Warren L. d' Azcvedo. pp. 64-97. Smithsonian Institution. Washington. DC. Gayton. Anna H. 1929 Yokuts and Western Mono Pottery-Making. Univer- sity of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnography 24<3>:239-251. 1948 Yokuts and Western Mono Ethnography. University of California Anthropological Reconls 10:1-302. Gilreath. Amy J. 1995 Archaeological Evaluations of Thirteen Sites for the Ash Creek Project. Inyo County. California. Report sub- mitted to the California Department of Transportation, Sacramento. Gilreath. Amy J., and William R. Hildebrandt 1997 Prehistoric Use of the Coso Volcanic Field. Contri- butions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility. No. 56. Berkeley. Gould. Richard 1980 Living Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1982 To Have and Have Not: The Ecology of Sharing among Hunter-Gatherers. In Resource Managers: North American and Australian Hunter-Gatherers, edited by Nancy M. Williams and Eugene S. Hunn. pp. 69-92. West- view Press. Boulder Gurven. Michael. Kim Hill. Hi Hard Kaplan. Ana Hurtado. and Richard Lvles 2000 Food Transfers among Hiwi Foragers of Venezuela: Tests of Reciprocity. Human Ecology 28:171-214 Hawkes. Kristen 1992 Sharing and Collective Action. In Evolutionary Ecol- ogy and Human Behavior, edited by Eric A. Smith and Bruce Winterhalder. pp. 269-300. Aldine tie Gruyter. New York. 1993 Why Hunter-Gatherers Work: An Ancient Version of the Problem with Public Goods. Current Anthropology 34:341-362. Hayden. Brian 1990 Nimrods. Piscators. Pluckers. and Planters: The Emer- gence of Food Production. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 9:31-69. 1995 The Emergence of Prestige Technologies and Pottery. In 77/e Emergence of Pottery: Technology and Innovation in Ancient Societies, edited by William K. Barnett and John W. Hoopes. pp. 257-265. Smithsonian Institution. Washington. D.C. Henrickson. Elizabeth F.. and Mary A. McDonald 1983 Ceramic Form and Function: An Ethnographic Se;uvh and an Archaeological Application. American Anthropol- ogist 85:630-643. Hildebrandt. William R.. and Kelly R. McGuire 2002 The Ascendance of Hunting during the California Middle Archaic: An Evolutionary Perspective. American Antiquity 67:231 -256. Hildebrandt. William R.. and Allika Ruby 2004 Prehistoric Pinyon Exploitation in the Southwestern Great Basin: A View from the Coso Range. In Avocados to Millingstones: Papers in Honor of I). L. True, edited by Georgie Waugh and Mark E. Basgall. Monographs in Cal- ifornia and Great Basin Prehistory' 3. California State Uni- versity-Sacra men to Press. Sacramento. Hoopes. John W. 1995 Interaction in Hunting and Gathering Societies as a Context for the Emergence of Pottery in the C entral Amer- ican Isthmus. In The Emergence of Pottery: Technology and Innovation in Ancient Societies, edited by William K. Barnett and John W. Hoopes. pp. 185-198. Smithsonian Institution. Washington. D.C. Ikawa-Smith. Fumiko 1976 On Ceramic Technology in East Asia. Current Anthro- pology 17:513-515. Jelmer W. Eerkens] ORIGINS OF POTTERY IN THE WESTERN GREAT BASIN 669 Irwin. Charles N. I(>K0 The Shoshoni Indians of Inyo County. California: The Kerr Manuscript. Ballena Press. Independence. California. Juhl. Kirsien 1995 The Relation betw een Vessel Form and Vessel Func- tion: A Methodological Study. Arkeologisk museum i Sta- vanger. Stavanger. Norway Kaplan. Milliard, and Kim Hill 1985 FihxI Sharing aiming the Ache F:oragers: Tests of Kxplanatorv Hvpotheses. Current Anthropology 26:223-245." Kelly, Isabel T. 1932 Ethnography of the Surprise Valley Paiute. Univer- sity of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 31(3):67-210. Kelly. Isabel T. and Catherine S. howler 1986 Southern Paiute. In Handbook of North American Indians, vol. II: Great Hasin. edited by Warren L. d'A/cvedo. pp. 368-397. Smithsonian Institution. Wash- ington. D.C. Kellv. Robert L. 1997 The Late Holocene Prehistory of the Great Basin. Journal of World Prehistory 11:1 -49. Kohler. Timothy A. 2(XM Population and Resources in Prehistory. In The Archaeology of Global Change, edited by Charles L. Red- man. Steven R. James. Paul R. l-'ish. and J. Daniel Rogers, pp. 257-270. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington. D.C. l-awton. Harry W.. Philip J Wilke. Man IX-IXvker. and William M. Mason 1976 Agriculture among the Paiute of Owens Valley. Jour- nal of California Anthropology 3:13-50. Linton. Ralph 1944 North American Cooking Pots. American Antiquity 9:369-380. Lockctt, Can. and Lonnic Pippin 1990 Rc-Examining Brownware Ceramics in the Central and Southern Great Basin. In Hunter-Gatherer Pottery from the Far West, edited by J. M. Mack. pp. 67-82. Nevada State Museum Anthropological Papers No. 23. Carson City. Nevada. Louie. Robert H. 1909 The Northern Shoshone. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History. Vol. 2. pt. 2. 1939 Ethnographic Notes on the Washo. University of Cal- ifornia Publications in American Archaeology and Eth- nology 36<5>:30l-352. Malainc). Man E.. Roman Pr/ybylski. and Barbara L SherrilT 1999a The Fatty Acid Composition of Native Ftxxl Plants and Animals of Western Canada. Journal of Archaeolog- ical Science 26:83-94. 1999b Identifying the Former Contents of l^aie Precontact Period Pottery Vessels from Western Canada Using Gas Chromatography. Journal of Archaeological Science 26:425-438. Matson. Frederick R. 1972 Ceramic Studies. In The Minnesota Messenia Expe- dition, edited b\ William A. McDonald and George R. Rapp Jr.. pp. 220-224. University of Minnesota Press. Minneapolis. Moore, A. M.T. 1995 The Inception of Potting in Western Asia and lis Impact on Economy and Society. In The Emergence of Pot- tery: Technology and Innovation in Ancient Societies. edited by William K Burnett and John W. Hoopes. pp. ^9 54 Smithsonian Institution. Washington. D.C. Mottram. Ha/el R.. Stephanie N. Dudd.G.J. Lawrence, Andrew W. Stoti. and Richard P. Evershed 1990 Now Chromatographic. Mass Spectrometry and Sta- ble Isotope Approaches to the Classification of Degraded Animal Fals Presen ed in Archaeological Pottery . Journal of Chromatography A 833:209-221. O" Shea. John 1981 Coping with Scarcity: Exchange and Social Storage. In Economic Archaeology: Towards and Integration of Ecological and'SocialApproaches, edited by Alison Sheri- dan and GeolT Bailey, pp. 167-186. BAR International Series 96. Oxford. Oyuela-Caycedo. Augusto 1995 Rocks versus Clay: The Evolution of Pottery Tech- nology in the Case of San Jacinto 1. Colombia. In The Emergence of Pottery: Technology and Innovation in Ancient Societies, edited by William K. Barnelt and John W. Hoopes. pp. 133-144. Smithsonian Institution. Wash- ington. D.C. Patrick. M.. Adrianus J. deKoning. and Andrew B. Smith 19S5 (ias Liquid Chromatographic Analysis of Fatty Acids in Food Residues from Ceramics in the Southwestern Cape. South Africa. Archaeometry 27:231-236. Pierce. Christopher D. 1999 Explaining Corrugated Pottery in the American South- west: An Evolutionary Approach. Unpublished Ph.D. dis- sertation. Department of Anthropology, University of Washington. Pierce. Wend\ 2002 Paleoethnobotanical Remains. In Final Report on Phase II Investigations at 26 Archaeological Sites for the Aberdeen Hlacknu k Four-Line Project on Highway 395, Inyo County. California, vol. I. edited by David Zeahah and Anastasia Leigh, pp. 623-634. Report submitted to Caltrans District 9. Bishop. California. Pacific Legacy and Archaeological Research Center. Sacramento. Pippin. Lonnie C. 19X6 Intermountain Brown Wares: An Assessment. In Pot- tery of the Great Basin and Adjacent Areas, edited by Suzamw Griset. pp. 9-21. Anthropological Papers. No. III. University of Utah. Salt Lake Citv. Reddv. Seetha 2003 Harvests in the Past: Paleoethnobotanical Remains from INY-1317. INY-1991. INY-5967. INY-5987. INY- 6021. and INY-6263. In Lac usi ruin Lifestyles along Owens hike: NRHP Evaluation of 15 Prehistoric Sites for the Olancha/Cartago Four-lMiieProject, U.S. Route 395, Inyo County. California, edited by Brian F. Byrd and Micah Hale. pp. 713-763. Report submitted to Caltrans District 9. Bishop. California. ASM Affiliates. San Diego. Rhode. David 1994 Direct Dating of Brown Ware Ceramics Using Thcr- molutumescence and Its Relation to the Numic Spread. In Across the West: Human Population Movement and the Expansion qf the Numa. edited by David B. Madsen and David Rhode, pp. 124-130. University of Utah Press. Salt Lake City. Rice. Prudence M. 1999 On the Origins of Pottery. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 6:1 -54. Rosenberg. Michael 1998 Cheating at Musical Chairs: Territoriality and Seden- lism in an Evolutionary Context. Current Anthropology 39:653-681. Saitta. Dean J., and Arthur S. Keene 1990 Politics and Surplus Flow in Prehistoric Communal Societies. In Evolution of Political Systems: SociOpOtitiCS 670 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 69. No. 4. 2004] in Small Scale Sedentary Societies, edited by Sieadman Upham. pp. 203-224. Cambridge University Press. Cam- bridge. Sassaman. Kenneth 1993 Early Pottery in the Southeast: Tradition and Inno- vation in Cooking Technology. University of Alabama Press. Tuscaloosa. Schiffer. Michael B. 1990 The Influence of Surface Treatment on Healing Effec- tiveness of Ceramic Vessels. Journal of A rchaeological Sci- ence 17:373-381. Schiller. Michael B.. James M. Skibo. Tamara C. Boclkc. Mark A. Neupen. and Meredith Aronson 1994 New Perspectives on Experimental Archaeology: Sur- face Treatments and Thermal Responses of the Clay Cook- ing Pot. American Antiquity 59:197-217. Skibo. James M. 1992 Pottery Function: A Use-Alteration Perspective. Plenum Press. New York. Skibo. James M.. Michael B. Schiffer. and Kenneth C. Reid I9S9 Organic-Tempered Pottery: An Experimental Study. American Antiquity 54:122-146. Smith. Eric A. 1988 Risk and Uncertainty in the "Original Affluent Soci- ety": Evolutionary Ecology of Resource Sharing and Land Tenure. In Hunters and Gatherers, vol I: History. Evolu- tion, and Social Change, edited by Tim Ingold. David Riches, and James Woodbum. pp. 222-251. Berg. Oxford. Smith. Marion K. Jr. 1985 Towards an Economic Interpretation of Ceramics: Relating Vessel Size and Shape to Use. In Decoding Pre- historic Ceramics, edited by Ben A. Nelson, pp. 254-309. Southern Illinois University Press. Carbondale. Sorenson. Marie L. S. 2000 Gender Archaeology. Polity Press. Cambridge. Steward. Julian H. 1929 Irrigation without Agriculture. Papers of the Michi- gan Academy of Science. Arts, and Letters 12:149-156. 1933 Ethnography of the Owens Valley Paiutc. University of California Publications in American Arclmeology and Ethnography 33:233-350. 1938 Basin-Plateau Aboriginal Sociopolitical Groups. Smithsonian Institute. Washington. D.C. 1941 Culture Element Distributions. XIII: Nevada Shoshoni. University of California Anthropological tf«wifr4<2):209-360. Stewart. Omcr C. 1941 C ulture Element Distributions. XIV: Northern Paiute. University of California Anthropological Records 4:361-446. 1942 Culture Element Distributions. XVII: Ute-Southem Paiute. University of California Anthropological Records 6:231-356. Thomas, David H. 1971 Prehistoric Subsistence-Settlement Patterns of the Reese River Valley. Central Nevada. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Anthropology. University of California. Davis. 1981 How to Classify the Projectile Points from Monitor Valley. Nevada. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 3:7-43. 1983 On Steward's Model of Shoshoncan Sociopolitical Organization: A Great Bias in the Basin? In The Devel- opment of Political Organization in Native North Amer- ica, edited by Elisabeth looker and Morton H. Fried, pp. 59-67. American Ethnological Society. Washington. D.C. 1988 Tlie Archaeology of Monitor Valley, 3: Survey and Additional Excavations. Anthropological Papers. Vol. 66. Pi. 2. American Museum of Natural History. New York. Van Camp. Gena R. 1979 Kumeyaay Pottery: Paddle-and-Anvil Techniques of Southern California. Ballena Press. New Mexico. Voegelin. Erminie 1938 Tuhatulabal Ethnography. University of California An thro/x/logical Records 2( I): 1-84. Wagucspack. Nicole M. 2003 Caribou Sharing and Storage: Helming (he Palangana Site. Journal of AnthmpoU)\iicalAn haeolog\ 21:396-417. Walker. Deward E.Jr. 1999 A Revisionist View of Julian Steward and the Great Basin Paradigm from the North. In Julian Steward and the Great Basin: Vie Making of an Anthropologist, edited by Richard O. Clemmer. L. Daniel Myers, and Mary Eliza- beth Rudden. pp. 60-84. University of Utah Press. Salt Lake City. Wandsnider. Luann 1997 The Roasted and the Boiled: Food Composition and Heat Treatment with Special Emphasis on Pit-Hearth Cooking. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 16:1-48. Weissncr. Polly 1982 Beyond Willow Smoke and Dogs" Tails: A Comment on Binford's Analysis of Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Sys- tems. American Antiquity 47:171-178. Winterhalder. Bruce 1986 Diet Choice. Risk, and Food Sharing in a Stochastic Environment. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 5:369-392. 1996 A Marginal Model of Tolerated Theft. Ethology and Sociobiology 17:37-53. 1997 Gifts Given. Gifts Taken: The Behavioral Ecology of Non-Market. Intragroup Exchange. Journal of Archaeo- logical Research 5:121-168. Wobsi. Martin H. 1978 The Archaco-Ethnology of Hunter-Gatherers or the Tyranny of the Ethnographic Record in Archaeology. American Antiquity 43:303-309. Wright. Gary A. 1978 The Shoshonean Migration Problem. Plains Anthro- pologist 23:113-137. Yellen. John E. 1977 A rchaeological Appnxit lies to the Present: Models for Reconstructing the Past. Academic Press. New York. Received July I. 2003: Revised February 4. 2004: Accepted February 4. 2004.