The Padua project surveyed an area that covers all of the ecological zones
described above and is pictured in Figure 1a. Within this area, we can assume
that the Padua project discovered all (or nearly all) of the archaeological sites
present in the landscape. From studies of surface remains at these sites,
researchers have been able to date them. For this study, the relevant periods of
occupation for understanding the process of domestication are the Macani and
Coca phases, dated to 2000-1000 B.C. and 1000-0 B.C. respectively. Only sites
from these phases are shown on Figure 1a, and some basic data on them are
reported in Table 1. The team found that there were few major changes in
artifacts between these two phases. Projectile points do not change in form from
one phase to another, but there does appear to be significant variation in form
between different areas of the Padua Region. In addition, five sites were
excavated in the survey area. In each of these sites, archaeologists collected a
10% sample of the archeological deposits and took great care in recovering
animal remains. However, they were unfortunately not familiar with techniques
for recovering plant remains. Therefore, you have no direct evidence for plant
use, despite the fact that the residents of the Padua region definitely consumed
at least some plant material.
In addition to the survey data, the following categories of data are summarized
for you in in Tables 2 and 3 below:
1. Stone tools. All of the projectile points, scrapers, and grinding (milling)
stones from the sites have been reported. We can probably assume that
these projectile points were used as spear tips, that scrapers were used in
hide preparation, and that milling stones were used to grind hard seeds.
2. Animal bones. A qualified faunal analyst has separated the deer from the
camelid bones and classified all the bones by age at death – in a series of
categories: 0-6 months, 6-12 months, 12-18 months, adults, and aged
individuals. “Adults” range in age from 18 months to 5 years of age,
while “aged” animals are older than 5 years old. Accordintly, each of
these latter two categories should contain a greater number of animals
proportionally, due to their greater age range.
3. Site Size. Site sizes are available for all 21 sites, except #17. While it’s not
clear how site size and population correlate with one another,
ethnographic evidence suggests that herding sites of around 250 m2
tend to contain 20-25 people. In the largest sites (#’s 9, 13, 18), we’ve
found evidence of stone walled architecture. The other sites are mostly
cave occupations with no evidence of substantial structures.
Your Analysis:
Describe patterns of seasonal site distribution. There is no reason to suspect that
any one group’s subsistence area incorporated the entire area, nor that all
people living in the region followed the same subsistence pattern.
1. Can you identify evidence for animal domestication in the faunal data –
and is there any circumstantial evidence for plant domestication? If so, in
what sites and during what periods do you find this evidence?
2. What factors do you think led to the domestication of animals (and
perhaps plants) in this region? Do you think human population pressure
played a role? And do the data support Ingold’s alternative interpretation
of the trajectory of domestication?
3. What seems to be the impact of domestication on human lifeways – in
terms of mobility, group size, and political economy? Do you see evidence of major changes in the use of natural resources around these sites that are correlated with domestication?
4. Are there certain areas where domestication seems not to have occurred,
or domesticates are lacking? What reasons might explain the(se)
absence(s) – i.e., what factors may have led to the domestication of
animals and plants in some subregions, and not others?
5. Consider how your SAMPLE data relate to the POPULATION of animals
from which they were drawn. You obviously have only a few sites’ worth
of data to work with, and you’re relying on limited excavations even
within those sites (i.e., 10% of their total area). Also, your survey data is
from a relatively small geographical area. In what ways might the
sampling procedure be influencing your interpretations? If you had only
dealt with one site from among all those in the area, would you have
been able to come to the same conclusions about settlement patterns
and the timing and location of domestication?
