Rosalind L. Hunter-Anderson - Academia.edu (original) (raw)

Papers by Rosalind L. Hunter-Anderson

Man, Mar 1, 1988

This book is about post-Pleistocene adaptive change among the aboriginal cultures of the mountain... more This book is about post-Pleistocene adaptive change among the aboriginal cultures of the mountains and deserts of Arizona and New Mexico. Conceived essentially as a natural science alternative to the prevailing culture history paradigm, it offers both a general theoretical framework for ...

American Indian Quarterly, 1989

Journal of Anthropological Research, Oct 1, 2011

A better understanding of coastal geomorphological processes and their relation to weather and cu... more A better understanding of coastal geomorphological processes and their relation to weather and currents in the Southwest Islands is also needed. Considering aged individuals' observations along with historical records, geomorphological, and archaeological data, can result in plausible reconstructions of the islands' past environmental states. This information is crucial to sound planning for the management of the natural and cultural resources of these small islands.

Archaeological data from south-central Guam are presented to show that technological and social a... more Archaeological data from south-central Guam are presented to show that technological and social adaptations enabled the ancestral Chamorros of the Mariana Islands, Micronesia, to remain mobile farmer-fishers despite a major climatic oscillation, from the Medieval Warm Period (MWP, c. 800-1350 C.E.) to the Little Ice Age (LIA, c. 1350-1900 C.E.). For several centuries people responded appropriately to increased aridity and harvest shortfalls during the LIA but tolerance limits for stresses to their cultural system were exceeded during violent clashes with Spanish colonizers in the late 17th century.

The 84th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, 2019

American Antiquity, Apr 1, 1984

Despite the importance of ceramics in archaeological studies of the Southwest, there has been no ... more Despite the importance of ceramics in archaeological studies of the Southwest, there has been no comprehensive treatment of a major portion of the region's pottery since the publication of several volumes of the Museum of Northern Arizona's ceramic series in the 1950s. In the intervening years, pottery has played an increasingly important role in analyses of the development of prehistoric cultures. Studies of ceramic composition and of design patterns have led to new ideas concerning the magnitude of trade between regions and the types of social ties or alliances between them. Aspects of form and composition have been emphasized in efforts to understand the types of activities conducted at sites. Furthermore, the focus on ceramic variation as a dating method has continued; pottery is still the primary data base used to date the overwhelming majority of sites. Debate over proper methods of studying and classifying sherds still persists, however, and many of the general issues raised in 1946 by J. O. Brew (Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 21) are still relevant. Does ceramic change occur gradually or in stages, and if gradually, are we advancing efforts to understand the development of prehistoric cultures by assigning sites to phases 100 to 150 years long? Should ceramic composition and stylistic attributes be combined in a single classification or should multiple classifications be developed for different needs? To what extent do similarities and differences in ceramic form and design reflect variation in patterns and kinds of social interaction? Southwestern Ceramics is an attempt to provide a much needed summary of current information on Southwestern pottery. It is the product of an advanced seminar held in 1979 at the School of American Research to "examine the ceramic situation over an extensive region [of the Southwest] in an attempt to outline origins, directions of flow, and the extent of transmittal of traits and styles (attributes)" (p. 3). The content of the volume is diverse. It begins and ends with articles by Albert Schroeder that outline the goals and conclusions of the seminar and describe the development of the various ceramic traditions in the area. A second introductory article by Steven LeBlanc provides a detailed discussion of the beginning of ceramic production in the Southwest. Most of the remaining chapters focus on ceramics of a particular region or culture, including the Hohokam (written by Bruce Masse), the Patayan of central and northwestern Arizona (Robert Euler), the Mogollon (Steven LeBlanc), the Navajo and Apache (David Brugge), and the Anasazi (David Breternitz and William Lucius). Other sections discuss individual ceramic traditions. For example, Roy Carlson considers polychromes, Richard Lang discusses Northern Rio Grande white wares, and David Snow examines the Rio Grande glaze, matte-paint, and plainware traditions. Thus, pottery traditions of all major areas of the Southwest, as well as of most time periods, are considered. Because of the extensive spatial and temporal coverage provided, some part of the volume will be of interest to anyone with a concern for Southwestern ceramics. As a comprehensive treatment of that pottery, however, the volume is weak because it does not provide adequate information on all of the areas and issues that are addressed. This is a result of two problems. First, there is considerable diversity in the quality of the presentations. The articles by Masse and LeBlanc, for example, synthesize past and recently collected information, succinctly outline the major questions concerning Hohokam and Mogollon ceramics, respectively, and provide some interesting answers to some of those questions. The weaker articles, however, add little to previous publications. The cursory discussion of the Four Corners Anasazi is the most disappointing in that it fails to consider the results of several major projects that have been conducted in parts of that area (e.g., Glen Canyon, Chaco Canyon, Salmon Ruin, Cedar Mesa, Hovenweep) in the last two decades. Second, some of the articles fail to examine the classificatory and theoretical questions relevant to any attempt to study such topics as intergroup relationships or to trace the transmission of styles. Ceramic change, for example, is sometimes treated apart from social and economic change. Thus, some discussions suggest that pottery vessels were simply traits that were traded or diffused instead of tools that not only were an important part of a group's food processing technology but also provided a symbolic medium used to communicate different types of information. (LeBlanc's excellent article on the origins of pottery is one exception to the latter statement, however.) In other cases, the discreteness of pottery types and a one-to-one correspondence between specific types and particular temporal phases are asserted, while at the same time it is argued that culture change…

DRING A YEAR-LONG settlement pattern study on Map Island, Yap, I found that prehistoric use of th... more DRING A YEAR-LONG settlement pattern study on Map Island, Yap, I found that prehistoric use of the lagoon was intensive and left many physical traces (Plate I). Traditional fishing within Yap's fringing reef was characterized by heavy dependence upon weirs, nets, and traps of bamboo and stone. In this article I present a summary of the information obtained about Yapese stone traps, combining data from Mueller (1917) and my own observations. This will be followed by some suggestions about the selective context for the first use of these facilities on Yap. Information follows on five basic types of stone trap: arrow traps; V-shaped, lagoon traps; V-shaped, reef-crest traps; piled-rock traps; and rectangular, surround traps. Of these, only the arrow trap and the piled-rock trap have been described previously. THE ARROW TRAP Arrow traps (in Yapese, arch) are the most common permanent fishing facility seen today in Yap's lagoon, although very few are still maintained (Fig. 1). They were usually built near the shore, with the tip of the arrow (actually a chamber) pointing away from the shore in the direction of the outgoing tide. Others were built around deep holes in the lagoon floor, with the tip pointing toward the hole's center. Still others were built in protected areas such as Tamil Harbor, on the edges of the reeffacing the main channel. Arrow traps were designed to trap fish in the shallow parts of the lagoon. These fish must evacuate the near-shore zone during low tide. As they swim toward the reef, they are guided by the sides of the trap through its primary and secondary gates, thus entering its primary (kengin na arch) and secondary (may) chambers. The walls were approximately 1.5 m high and 1 m thick. Traps at the margins of deep holes caught the fish retreating Rosalind L. Hunter-Anderson is a research associate of the Pacific Studies Institute, Guam.

Science News, Sep 5, 1998

Journal of Anthropological Research, Oct 1, 2011

Archaeology and Physical Anthropology in Oceania, Oct 1, 2009

This paper argues that human actions had nothing to do with creating tropical Pacific island sava... more This paper argues that human actions had nothing to do with creating tropical Pacific island savannas, which likely arose during the Pleistocene, and that geographic factors such as soils, climate, and fire are responsible for their distribution and persistence in the Holocene. Palaeontological observations from the southern Mariana Islands, including charcoal particles, pollen, and spores in palaeosediments from Guam and Saipan, cited by archaeologists as evidence for human-caused savannas, are re-interpreted as a natural outcome of geo-climatic conditions. Archaeological and ethnographic findings, past climate proxies, and field studies in soil science are also brought to bear on the issue. The data and arguments presented in favor of natural causation of the Marianas savannas motivate a re-examination of proposals that purport to explain the presence of savannas elsewhere in the tropical Pacific. Implications for future research are drawn. '… to kill an error is as good a service as, and sometimes even better than, the establishing of a new truth or fact.' Charles Darwin (1809-1882) Given the continuing debate over whether the Pacific Islands grasslands, or savannas, are anthropogenic, this paper provides reasons for archaeologists to abandon the notion that prehistoric human actions were responsible for the development of grasslands, or savannas, in the Mariana Islands of Micronesia (Fig. 1), and it calls into question the appropriateness of anthropogenic savannas elsewhere in Oceania. It considers palaeoenvironmental data (fossil pollen, spores, and charcoal particles in wetland sediments) that have been cited as evidence for this view and argues that in order to include such palaeoenvironmental observations in models of the human past, extra care is needed to warrant their use as human behavioral proxies. The paper shows that such care is lacking in the proposal by Athens and colleagues that deliberate firing of 'pristine forests', presumed to have covered the southern Mariana Islands upon human entry, resulted in the rise and spread of savannas beginning by c. 4300calBP or even earlier (Athens and Ward 2004a, 2004b; Athens et al. 2004). A geoclimatic alternative to the Athens model of Marianas savanna anthropogenesis is offered below, supported by palaeosediment data generated during fieldwork by Athens and colleagues, as well as by observations from archaeology, ethnography, geography, and soil science with which the Athens model does not conform. The paper is organized as follows. First, current explanations for savanna formation, derived from mid-20th century theories of Pacific botanists F.R. Fosberg and J. Barrau and applied to the Pacific Islands, are presented and their problems indicated. Next, a recent proposal by archaeologist J.S. Athens and colleagues that also invokes prehistoric human actions to account for the savannas of the southern Marianas is reviewed and critiqued. A geoclimatic alternative then is outlined, with attention to its ability to account for observations that have been problematic for human-impact theories. The paper ends with suggestions for future research.

American Antiquity, 1981

Cordell and…

ANU Press eBooks, Nov 1, 2011

Journal of Pacific archaeology, 2011

In a recent article [Journal of Pacific Archaeology, vol 1(2), 2010], Scott Fitzpatrick contends ... more In a recent article [Journal of Pacific Archaeology, vol 1(2), 2010], Scott Fitzpatrick contends that the AD 1300 event model is unhelpful as a key to understanding environmental and societal change in the Pacific during the past 1500 years. We reject this contention on the grounds ...

Man, Mar 1, 1988

American Indian Quarterly, 1989

Journal of Anthropological Research, Oct 1, 2011

The 84th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, 2019

American Antiquity, Apr 1, 1984

Science News, Sep 5, 1998

Journal of Anthropological Research, Oct 1, 2011

Archaeology and Physical Anthropology in Oceania, Oct 1, 2009

American Antiquity, 1981

Cordell and…

ANU Press eBooks, Nov 1, 2011

Journal of Pacific archaeology, 2011

Within Micronesia, the southern Mariana archipelago stands out for the quantity and variety of i... more Within Micronesia, the southern Mariana archipelago stands
out for the quantity and variety of its rock art, images painted and incised
on the dark walls of caves and rock shelters. The small images colored red, brown, black and white have attracted scholarly and popular attention for decades. Most archaeological accounts of these sites take the historical narrative form, about events in the Chamorro past. This approach to the archaeological record serves an important function, afﬁrming the legitimacy of Chamorro identity. Anthropological archaeologists have a different purpose and “identity”: explaining cultural variability, locally and globally, as scientists. Both approaches generate stories but the anthropological framework involves stories that are subject to empirical test, while the structure of culture histories precludes direct falsiﬁcation and encourages ad hoc accommodation, or complete ignoring, of inconsistent ﬁndings. Both approaches co-exist but have different implications for understanding prehistoric rock art in small scale, non-literate societies generally.