Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association最新文献

For over a century, archaeologists have investigated the vast network of prehistoric Hohokam canal irrigation systems in the lower Salt River and middle Gila River valleys, as well as in other areas of southern Arizona. However, documentation of the agricultural fields in which prehistoric farmers irrigated their crops generally was lacking until the last 25 years. This is largely a result of the difficulty in identifying ancient fields, since they are not visible on the surface and have been obscured or destroyed by natural landscape processes as well as historic and modern disturbances. More recent archaeological investigations have revealed ancient irrigated fields through innovative methods and excavation techniques. The fields were constructed both by Hohokam irrigators (450–1450 CE) as well as by farmers from preceding cultural traditions during the Early Agricultural period (2100 BCE–50 CE). These discoveries occurred during projects conducted in compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act. In this chapter, I highlight these important studies that have expanded the view of ancient agricultural landscapes in southern Arizona.

How do we identify ancient fields and farming systems in areas where the same spaces of cultivation have been used repeatedly over thousands of years? In the limestone karst landscapes of northern Dalmatia, on the Adriatic coast of Croatia, drystone field walls, terraces, and cairns are common features that attest to generations of working the land for agriculture. While confounding archaeological objects due to complex histories of reuse, drystone terraced field systems throughout the Mediterranean are believed to have roots in ancient and prehistoric land use. Against this backdrop, this paper works to better understand the dynamic patterns and outcomes of field “recycling” through multiple lines of evidence for long-term changes in cropping patterns and agroecology in multi-millennial agricultural landscapes of northern Dalmatia. We compare archaeobotanical data from the Ravni Kotari plain to documents of preindustrial land use from the 1826 Franciscan cadastre. We also draw upon contemporary observations of traditionally managed, semi-wild olive groves on the nearby Adriatic island of Ugljan to better understand the land-use legacies inherent in the landscapes of northern Dalmatia today. These data show that, despite a relatively static agricultural built environment of field walls and terraces, Dalmatian communities held historically dynamic relationships with domesticated and wild plant ecologies. Prehistoric integration of cereal agriculture with wild forest resources appears to have shifted to commercial-scale domesticated arboriculture in the Classical period, leaving a multifaceted legacy of commercial agriculture, traditional farming, and rewilding among the contemporary cultural landscapes of Dalmatia.

Ancient agricultural landscapes are increasingly recognized as a vital subject of archaeological inquiry, the study of which requires methods and approaches of the social and natural sciences as well as the humanities. This chapter identifies three recurring themes addressed variously in the contributions to this volume that demonstrate the broad relevance of agricultural landscapes to an understanding of ancient society: globalization and hierarchy, niche construction, and memory embedded in agricultural practice and material traces of ancient fields.

During the 1930s, J. Alden Mason was a curator at the Penn Museum in Philadelphia. He was best known during this time for his work at the site of Piedras Negras in northwestern Guatemala. Yet, the 1930s excavations at Piedras Negras were not published until 2005. This delayed publication prevented other scholars from building on this work. Also, during the 1930s, Mason led lesser-known excavations around the Philadelphia area with federal work relief funding. No field records exist for these investigations, the whereabouts of artifacts are unknown, and only a single short article was ever published on the scant archaeological findings. Exactly what archaeology was done and where through these New Deal investigations is unknown and may be unknowable. Mason struggled with the overly bureaucratic nature of New Deal archaeology, and this might help explain his lack of due diligence with archiving his records, or with completing a properly detailed report. Today's archaeologists deal with similar constraints. But we are also ethically bound to publish our results in a reasonable time frame, rather than hoard our data the way a dragon hoards a mountain of gold. If we fail to meet these ethical principles, we really are little more than well-educated looters.