The Plateau Interaction Sphere and Late Prehistoric ...

Society for American Archaeology

The Plateau Interaction Sphere and Late Prehistoric Cultural Complexity Author(s): Brian Hayden and Rick Schulting Source: American Antiquity, Vol. 62, No. 1 (Jan., 1997), pp. 51-85 Published by: Society for American Archaeology Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/282379 . Accessed: 03/10/2013 12:01 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Antiquity.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 163.1.62.81 on Thu, 3 Oct 2013 12:01:43 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE PLATEAU INTERACTION SPHERE AND LATE PREHISTORIC CULTURAL COMPLEXITY Brian Hayden and Rick Schulting

ThePlateau culture area of northwesternNorthAmericafits the criteria of an interactionsphere. Understandingthe general cultural dynamics responsiblefor the creation of interaction spheres has been poorly developed in archaeological and ethnological theory. Data from the Plateau Interaction Sphere are used to argue that the mainfactor responsiblefor the emergence of interaction spheres in transegalitarian societies is the development of an elite class. Elites who seek to maximize their power and wealth at the tribal level do so in part by establishing trading, marriage, ideological, military,and other ties to elites in other communitiesand regions. Theyuse these ties to monopolize access to desirable regional prestige goods and to enhance their own socioeconomic positions. In conformitywith expectations derivedfrom this model, the data from the Plateau demonstratethat interactionsphere goods are predominantlyprestige items and that these concentrate in communities that have the greatest potential to produce surplus and to develop socioeconomic inequalities. These same features also seem to characterize well-known interactionspheres elsewhere in the world. El area cultural del altiplano del noroeste de Norteamerica cumple con los criterios de una zona de interacci6n. Generalmente,la comprensi6nde lasfuerzas que crean las zonas de interacci6n no ha sido suficientementedesarrollada en la teoria arqueol6gica y etnol6gica. Los datos de la Zona de Interacci6n del Altiplano se utilizanpara mostrarque elfactor principal responsablepor el surgimiento de estas zonas en las sociedades "trans-igualitarias"es el desarrollo de las elites. Las eites que desean aumentarsus poderes y sus riquezas, cumplensus deseos, en parte, por medio del intercambio,del matrimonio, asi como a traves de alianzas ideol6gicas, militaresy de otro tipo con elites de otras comunidadesy regiones. Las elites utilizan estas relaciones para monopolizar el acceso a los objetos de valor de estas regiones y para asegurar sus propias posiciones socioecon6micas. De acuerdo con las expectativas de este modelo, los datos del Altiplano muestranque los productos dentro del sistema de interacci6n son pricipalmente objetos de valor; ademas estos datos muestranque esos productos son mas abundantesen las comunidadescon mayorpotencialparaproducir excedentesypara establecer desigualdades socioecon6micas. Al mismo tiempo, estos aspectos parecen caracterizar otras zonas de interacci6n muy conocidas en otras partes del mundo. T

he northwestern Plateauof NorthAmerica Sahaptianspeakers with different origins, while

has long been recognizedas a coherentand relativelyhomogeneouscultureareawith a distinctive hunting and salmon-based economy including significant food-storage capabilities, logistical residential patterning,and many common social and culturaltraits(Kroeber1939; Ray 1939; Sanger 1968a; Swanson 1962; Willey 1966; Wood 1980:105-106). The cultural similarities between groups on the Plateau may be due to a number of factors. Common historical origins may have played a role since the area is dominated by Interior Salish speakers. However, the southern part of the Plateau was inhabited by

outlying groups such as Athapaskan,Shoshonean, Chinook, and the possibly Algonkian-related Kutenai speakers provide still more historical diversity. Thus, other factors besides common historical origins must be invoked to explain similarities among Plateau groups. The homogeneity of the Plateau communities may also be viewed as a productof similar subsistence adaptationsby different groups to the same basic Plateau type of environment. While this ecological perspective certainlycan account for a significant amountof similarityin basic subsistence technology, it pro-

Brian Hayden mDepartmentof Archaeology, Simon FraserUniversity, Burnaby,British ColumbiaV5A 1S6 Canada Rick Schulting * Departmentof Archaeology, University of Reading, Reading RG6 2AA England American Antiquity, 62(1), 1997, pp. 51-85. Copyright? by the Society for AmericanArchaeology

51


52

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

vides less compelling explanationsfor similarities in nonsubsistencedomains such as art and ritual of groups with divergentorigins. Moreover,neitherthe culturehistoricalnor the subsistenceecological perspective adequately accounts for the variabilitythat does exist in the area:the similarities among some widely separatedcenters and the differingnaturesof interveninggroups. In orderto better understandthe natureof the similarities and differences among Plateau communities, we propose to examine the Plateauas a distinctive interaction sphere during Late Prehistoric times, particularly during what Richards and Rousseau (1987) have termed the Plateau and Kamloops horizons in British Columbia (2400-200 B.P.). For heuristic purposes, the complex of relatively similar Plateau cultures will be referred to as the "Plateau InteractionSphere."We will refrain from using acronyms.Caldwell (1964) defines an interaction sphere as involving several distinctive cultures that may retaintheir distinctivenessat the level of

[Vol. 62, No. 1, 1997

subsistencetechnology and local crafts,but which share a common set of supralocalvalues, rituals, behavior, styles, and materials.These supralocal cultural aspects are maintained by interactions and exchangesbetween communities.Much later, Dalton (1975) suggested that interactionspheres were also characterizedby pre-state politics and populationlevels, lineages or clan organizations, the use of primitive valuables for the establishment of alliances, and by endemic conflict. High levels of conflict were reportedethnographically for many Plateaugroups (Bouchardand Kennedy 1985:58-61; Cannon 1992; Dawson 1891:25; Kent 1980; Teit 1909:540, 550, 1928); therewere fortified settlements (Lamb 1960:80-82; Teit 1906:235-236, 239); and archaeologists have found substantial evidence for violent conflict (Chatters 1989; Lynch 1978; Rice 1978; Schultingand Oliver 1997; Smith 1977). Although J. Caldwell (1964) does not emphasize the role of elites, it is clear from the examples thathe, Dalton,and othersprovidethatinteraction

Site Identifications for Figures (Numbersrepresent those lusedon maps; blaclkpolyIgonsindicate the presence of an artifact type.) 1 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 16 18 20 22 23 24 26 27 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

WildcatCanyon, 35GM9 Wahluke,45GR306 Okanaganarea Lytton Chase, EeQwl Dalles Bell, EeRk4 Keatley,EeR17 Wells Reservoir Priest Rapids Vantage Chief Joseph Herzog Wakemap,45KL26 Lochnore-Nesikep locality WillametteValley and PleasantHill Bonneville McMinnville Arlington CrabCreek Potholes,45GR131 RoaringSpringsCave Basket MakerII HumboldtCave Dalles Cremation Colowesh Bottom/ Leachman Congdon II, 45KL41 Atlatl Valley

38 39 40 41 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 51 52 54 55 56 58 59 60 61 64 66 67 72 73 74 76 77 78

Fish Hook Island, 45FR42 NorthYakima Sntl'exwenewixwtn, 450K355 Hayes Island Moha Mile 8 Large Nicoamen,EbRi7 Nicola Lake LowerNicola Government GrandForks SnehumptionCreek WhitestoneCreek, 45FE24 Palouse River CaptainJohn Creek Kouse Creek Berrian'sIsland,45BN3 Bead Patch Maybe IndianWell, 45KL42 Oliver,DhQv26 Deschutesarea Big Leap B. Stewart Sundale RabbitIsland,45BN15 Coeurd'AleneRiver Page 45AS2 (Asotin)

80 82 83 84 86 87 89 91 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 105 107 108 109 110 111 113 114

PriestRapidsWanapum Cache Creek, EeRhl Shuswap Botticelli Creek, EfQw21 SkwaamBay, EgQwl Tucannon,45CO1B BradfordIsland Miller'sIsland John Day Republic KellerFerry,45LI27 FountainBar EcRc 44 (Kamloops) GreenAcres, EeQw6 Shuswap,EfQv19 Neah Bay Beek's Pasture O'SullivanReservoir, 45GR27 Ksunku,45FE45 Kamloops,EdRa9 Sheep Island, 45BN55 Spences Bridge Monte Creek,EdQx15, 43 TexasCreek, EdRkl MurrayRanch,EeRl18 Sahhaltkum,EeQw3O Shuswaps,EeQwl5


115 McNary Reservoir, 45WW6 117 Rock Creek 118 Kamloops,EeRblO 120 Kamloops 121 Bridge River 122 EdR110 123 Miller'sCreek 124 Lillooet 125 Narrows,450K1 1 126 LowerArrowLake, DlQm4 127 Old Umatilla, 35UM35B 128 Mile 28 Ranch,EdRk3 129 Freeland,45FE1 130 45FE7 131 450K66 132 450K1 12 133 Selah 134 Natches 135 Tampico 136 Deer Park,DiQm4 137 Vallicam,DjQj 1 138 SkahaLake 139 45ST47 140 Sheep Creek.45ST46 141 DhQj 1 143 Seaside 144 45SJ24

53

PLATEAU ON THELATEPREHISTORIC INTERACTION CULTURAL

Hayden and Schulting]

DENTALIk A

incisedSTD

j

~48 .122

SHUSWAP

LAEKm

44

1f__t14,113.99

13

108

4,~~~~~~~~~~~~~4 @

51

z.

76

0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Figue1.Thepresnce/bseCe ston cuserngofocurece flueces nd he Llloet-143o

).Nt dentliumShelNnteAltaKseEal li nnie ditriuino ndYaim h Dscuts o heCoumiaRierbewen i Te alesreio rsrRvr ihte ie o h hmsn 3tecnlec7 reinaon

is primarilypromulgatedand maintainedby the elites or high-rankingindividualsof communities (cf. Earle 1990 and McGuire 1992). Thus, the existence of significant socioeconomic inequality is implied for interaction spheres. For convenience we refer to people at the top of these hierarchies as "elites" (see Blau 1977 for definition and discussion). The existence of these elites within Plateaucommunitiesis amply documented

h cn

ethnographically and has been demonstrated archaeologicallyfor the Late Prehistoricperiodof the Plateau by Schulting (1995) and Hayden (1996; Hayden and Spafford 1993). Following Dalton, it can be arguedthat because interaction between communities primarily involves elites, the supralocal similarities between communities involve elite goods and ritualsmore than common utilitarianitems.


54

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

[Vol. 62, No. 1, 1997

r-

NEPHRITE A sources

STUDY AREA

0

50

0 LAKE

ISHUSWAP

150

Km

A

11005

A

100

9,'O

A1 08

86,84,83

123

2'

Lu

m

~~~~137

64

130

Figure2. Th presnce/abence istriution to te

nothen Plteaunot

theconcntrtion

f neprite

n the latea (seeTable ). Depite

on he

In orderto examine Plateau communitiesas a possible example of an interactionsphere in the above sense, it is necessary to identify items that can be reasonably viewed as elite, or prestige, goods. It is also necessary to identify basic subsistence items and styles and to determinethe relative development of wealth and socioeconomic inequality within various communities. At the regional and culture-arealevels, it is also necessary to identify factors that can explain differ-

iddlColmbi

ourceslargey resricte

River

ences and similarities between communities in interaction patterns and exchanged goods. Our approach assumes that wealthier communities with more powerful and richer elites should be more similar to each other in terms of prestige goods and styles, even at considerabledistances, than to poorer communitieslacking the ability to support strong or wealthy elites. In taking this perspective, we view the emergence of elites, as well as the interaction and exchange between



CULTURAL INTERACTIONON THE LATE PREHISTORIC PLATEAU

them, as the product of relatively abundantbut spatiallyrestrictedresourcesthatare not susceptible to overexploitation(Hayden 1990, 1992). Regional Subsistence Item Traditions Because of the general homogeneity of the Plateau environment,the basic subsistence adaptations do not differ as dramaticallyas they do in interaction spheres with more heterogeneous environments.Nevertheless, there are some striking regional differences in subsistence technologies and their associated styles. For instance, the very long pestles and associated mortarsfound in the southwesternand central part of the Plateau are generally absent from the CanadianPlateau. Styles of shorter pestles also vary regionally. Similarly, although fish is an important staple everywhere, several styles of net weights commonly occur in varying relativefrequenciesin the southern region, including perforated, notched, and girdled varieties. Most of these varieties appear to be absent from the CanadianPlateau, although Smith (1910:144) remarkscasually that notched sinkersare found in the Thompsonarea. The use of harpoons, leisters, and multipronged fish spears is similarly variable, with a numberof regional stylistic variantsof each type (harpoons can have composite valved heads or single-piece heads that occur in a numberof basic styles). Fish-processingtechnologies also display stylistic differences by region, with ground-slate fish knives reported for the Lytton, Thompson, and Shuswap areas (Sanger 1968a:107; Smith 1899:140, 1900:414), but not elsewhere. Finally, atlatl weights are found in the Middle Columbia region (Butler and Osborne 1959; Schulting 1995:45) but are lacking on the CanadianPlateau, while basic projectilepoint styles differ considerably from region to region. Shiner(1961:246), for example, notes few similaritiesbetween the point types of Lyfttonand the Lower Snake River. In explaining such differences, Sanger(1969) points out the very different cultural origins of groups occupying the Fraservs. the Columbiadrainages. Distinctive linguistic and technological variability existed on the Plateau, indicating that a number of local traditions maintained some of their original culturalheritagedespite the need to adapt to similar environments.These distinctive

55

cultural origins probably also account for the slight degree of regional stylistic variation that occurs in virtually all artifact types. Given the varying cultural origins of the Plateau groups, however, when attention is turned from subsistence artifacts to those related to ideology, prestige, and art, similarities can no longer be explainedin terms of the environment.Otherfactors must be invokedto explain the similaritiesin the domain of nonsubsistenceideological materials. We will first documentthe similaritieswithin this class of materials on the Plateau, and then elaborate on explanations as to why we believe there are such strong similaritiesin these objects on the Plateau. Sampling Unfortunately,the quality of the archaeological data that can be used for examining distribution patterning across the Plateau is extremely variable. Some reported occurrences are not even associated with sites, but only localities or regions. Some excavations were conducted by amateursand lack contextualor temporalassociations; some excavationsconstitutesmall tests or opportunistic discoveries; some excavations are of very large magnitude or are part of regional salvage surveys; some sites are residential,while othersare burialsites (rangingfrom single graves to entire cemeteries). Given this much variability in the limited database available, no meaningful sampling design seemed possible. On the other hand,in terms of the broaddistributionalperspective that we were adopting in this heuristic exercise, it seemed that the broad presence/absence distributionsof variousculturalitems at these different types of sites were meaningful. Clearly, substantialareas might lack observations,but the broad range and spectrum of activities of both amateursandprofessionalsalong the length of the Columbiaand Fraserriverdrainagesover the past 50 to 100 years leads us to expect that the presence/absence data we have gatheredis generally reflective of real distributions. Prestige Items: Materials Prestige items can be defined either in terms of the raw materialfrom which they are made or the amountof labor and skill involved in their manu-


[Vol. 62, No. 1, 1997

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

56

Table 1. Occurrence of Exotic Materials. Materialand Site

Context

Reference

Native copper Butler 1959 burial Dalles cremation Butler 1959 Colowesh Bottom burial Butler 1959 burial Congdon Strong 1959 burial Atlatl Valley Bergt 1978 Old Umatilla burial Combes 1968:32 Fish Hook Island burial Krieger 1928a:13 burial Wahluke Smith 1910:95 burial North Yakima Sntl'exwenewixwtn burial Chattersand Zweifel 1987 Stapp 1984 burial Hayes Island burial Schulting 1994b; Smith 1899 Lytton Skinnerand Copp 1986 burial Nicoamen Sanger 1970 housepit Lochnore Schulting 1994b burial Moha Mile 8 Hayden 1996 housepit Keatley Creek Smith 1900 burial Large Stryd 1973 housepit Bell Nephrite Butler 1959 burial Maybe Butler 1959 IndianWell burial Seaman 1946 burial Bead Patch Crabtree1957 burial Rabbit Island II Osborne 1957 burial Berrian'sIsland Combes 1968 burial Fish Hook Island burial Wahluke Krieger 1928a:12 Sprague 1967 burial CrabCreek Crabtree1957 Pot Holes burial Perry 1939 burial Palouse River Spinden 1964 CaptainJohn Creek burial burial Spinden 1964 Kouse Creek Collier et al. 1942 Whitestone Creek burial Collier et al. 1942 burial Sheep Creek Collier et al. 1942 burial 45ST47 (Upper Columbia) burial Spragueand Birkby 1973 Narrows Barlee 1969a burial GrandForks Harrison 1961 burial Deer Park Barlee 1969b SnehumptionCreek burial burial Caldwell 1954 Skaha Lake Smith 1900 burial Nicola Lake von Krogh 1976 burial Lower Nicola Smith 1900 burial Government Smith 1900 burial Large burial Chase Sanger 1969 Stryd 1973 Bell housepit Hayden 1996 housepit Keatley Creek burial Lillooet Wigen 1984 burial Texas Creek Sanger 1968b burial Mile 28 Ranch Sanger 1968a, 1970 Lochnore Sanger 1970 housepit burial Smith 1899; Dawson 1891 Lytton Skinnerand Copp 1986 burial Nicoamen Harrison 1961 DhQj I

Reference

Materialand Site

Context

Steatite Dalles-Deschutes IndianWell Big Leap Bead Patch Congdon Maybe II IndianWell II B. Stewart Sundale Rabbit Island II Old Umatilla Palouse River Selah Ksunku Sheep Creek Oliver Lytton Nicoamen Murray Texas Creek Mile 28 Ranch Bell Lillooet Mile 28 Ranch Chase

burial Strong et al. 1930:PI. 1Id burial Butler 1959 burial Butler 1959 Seaman 1946 burial Butler 1959 burial Butler 1959 burial burial Butler 1959 Butler 1959 burial Bergen 1989 burial Crabtree 1957 burial Rice 1978 burial Perry 1939 burial Bergen 1989 burial midden Chance and Chance 1985:61 Collier et al. 1942 burial Oliver 1991 burial burial Smith 1899; Dawson 1891 burial Skinnerand Copp 1986 Stryd and Baker 1968 burial Sanger 1968b burial Sanger 1970 burial Stryd 1973 burial Wigen 1984 burial Sanger 1968a, 1970 burial Sanger 1968a burial

Obsidian burial/midden? Mackey 1974:75 Willamette Valley midden Strong et al. 1930:84 Dalles (-5%Oof lithics) Smith 1910:26 burial YakimaValley burial Wahluke Krieger 1928a:13 Shiner 1952:13 McNary Reservoir midden Combes 1968 burial Fish Hook Island Crabtree1957 burial Rabbit Island midden Grabert 1974:68 Okanagan Barlee 1969b SnehumptionCreek burial HP/midden Nicola Valley Wyatt 1972 Bell Stryd 1973 housepit Hayden 1996 housepit Keatley Creek Graphite Wildcat Canyon Wells Reservoir Keatley Creek

burial Dumond and Minor 1983:61 burial? Chatters 1986:204 Hayden 1996 housepit

Galena burial! Butler and Osborne 1959 Dallesmidden? Deschutes burial Bergen 1989 Congdon Coeur d'Alene River ? Strong 1958 Smith 1899:159 burial? Lillooet




57

Table 1. Continued. Material and Site Marine shells Willamette Valley Congdon Beek's Pasture Sundale Klickitat Wildcat Canyon

Context midden/ burial? burial burial burial burial HP/burial

Reference Mackey 1974:77-79

Bergen 1989 Bergen 1989 Bergen 1989 Bergen 1989 Dumond and Minor 1983:183 Old Umatilla burial Rice 1978 Wahluke burial Krieger 1928a:12 Page burial Krieger 1928b:138 45AS2 (Snake River)burial Daugherty and Dammel 1952:128 McNary Reservoir midden Shiner 1952:32, 1961:212 (only one fragment of dentalium shell found) Berrian'sIsland HP/burial Osborne 1957:107-110 (vast majority of marine shell found with burials) Rabbit Island burial Crabtree1957 Tucannon burial Iverson 1977 Smith 1910:126 Tampico burial Naches River Smith 1910 burial Selah burial Bergen 1989 Pot Holes burial Crabtree 1957 Priest Rapidshousepit Greengo 1986 Wanapum Whitestone Creek burial Collier et al. 1942:43 Keller Ferry burial Collier et al. 1942 45FE7 (Upper burial Collier et al. 1942 Columbia) Freeland burial Sprague and Birkby 1970 burial Collier et al. 1942 Sheep Creek 45ST47 (Upper burial Collier et al. 1942 Columbia) Wells Reservoir burial Sloan and Greengo 1963; Chatters 1986:190 Okanogan burial Grabert 1970:218 Vallican burial Mohs 1982 Deer Park burial Harrison 1961 Okanagan burial/midden Grabert1974:68 Skaha Lake burial Caldwell 1954 SnehumptionCreek burial Barlee 1969b Nicoamen burial Skinner and Copp 1986 Lytton burial Smith 1899; Dawson 1891 Bell burial Stryd 1973 burial MurrayRanch Stryd and Baker 1968 Moha 8 Mile burial Schultin 1994b

facture. In either case, it is generally difficult for lower rankingmembersof communitiesto obtain prestige items. Contextmust also be consideredif the argumentspresentedfor the recognitionof the following prestige items are to be accepted. Unfortunately,there has been considerable loot-

Materialand Site

Context

Reference

Keatley Creek housepit Hayden 1996 Texas Creek burial Sanger 1968b burial Mile 28 Ranch Sanger 1970 Lochnore burial? Sanger 1970 burial Nicola Valley Smith 1900 Cache Creek burial Pokotylo et at. 1987 Smith 1900 burial Kamloops EeRbIO housepit Richardsand Rousseau (Kamloops) 1982, 1987 EeRc8 (Kamloops) burial Wilson 1976 HP/burial Mohs 1980 Shuswap Lake Botticelli Creek housepit Antiquus 1993:158 Chase burial Sanger 1968a:123 Hills 1971 Skwaam Bay burial Incised dentalia Berrian'sIsland burial Rabbit Island burial Wahluke burial burial Tampico Naches River burial Tucannon burial Pot Holes burial Upper Columbia burial Freeland burial GrandForks burial SnehumptionCreek burial Lillooet burial Bell burial Lochnore burial? Merritt(Nicola lake) burial Green Acres

burial

Osborne 1957 Crabtree 1957 Krieger 1928b:137 Smith 1910:126 Smith 1910 Iverson 1977:29 Crabtree1957:97 Collier et al. 1942:93 Spragueand Birkby 1970 Barlee 1969a Barlee 1969b Stryd and Hills 1972 Stryd 1973 Sanger 1970 Heritage Conservation Branch 1979-37B Johnson-Fladmark1973

Domesticated dogs Wildcat Canyon Snake River

ritual Dumond and Minor 1983 Cressman 1977:136 ? ? Leonhardyand Rice 1970 Wahluke burial? Krieger 1928a:15 YakimaValley burial Smith 1910:154 Whitestone Creek burial Collier et al. 1942:43 Nicola Valley burial Smith 1900 burial Sanger 1968a EdR110(Lillooet) Keatley Creek HP/ritual Hayden 1996 Bell housepit Stryd 1973 Bridge River housepit Stryd 1973 Monte Creek housepit Wilson 1992

ing of many Plateau burial sites, particularlyin what we suspect to be the richest regions-The Dalles region (at the confluences of the Deschutes River with the Columbia River) and the LyttonLillooet region (at and immediately north of the confluence of the ThompsonRiverwith the Fraser


58

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

River).Thus, for many specimenslittle contextual informationis available.Still, in general,it seems fairly clear that items within the majority of the artifactclasses discussed below tend to be found in burialcontexts (Schulting 1995; see also Tables 1 and 2). When these items are found in housepit or midden contexts, they are often broken. A wide range of prestige materials circulated on the Plateau, including copper, dentalia and other marine shells, whalebone, nephrite, graphite, galena, and fine silicious lithics. It seems likely that certain bird feathers were also widely exchanged. Table 1 presents an initial appraisal of the distribution of these materials from sites in the core areaof the Plateau.Some of the items, such as dentalia shells, and to a lesser degree nephrite,(Figures 1 and 2) are very widespread, although both materials are quite restrictedin terms of their origins: dentalia from restrictedlocations in Californiaand on the west coast of Vancouver Island; nephrite from the Fraser and Thompson rivers and also from the Rogue River in Oregon (Strong 1959; Smith [1900:406] also recorded some "float" nephrite boulders along the Nooksack River in Washington). Other materials such as copper, graphite, and galena are distinctive enough to indicate special and similar culturalvalues associated with these materials, but occur much more sporadically. Because of the low frequenciesof these objects, it is difficult to determinewhethertheir occurrence is governed by accidental finds, regional differences in values, varyingaccess of communitiesby reason of wealth differentials,or simply sampling biases and sizes. No source is indicated for graphite, while the only sources of galena of which we are aware occur on the western slopes of the Cascades (Butler and Osborne 1959:216) and in the Kamloops area (Cole and Lockner 1989). Native copper is reported by Smith (1899:113) to occur in the mountains around Lytton and by Dawson (cited in Sanger 1968a:125) as occurring at Copper Creek at the west end of Kamloops Lake. Boas (1890:85) writes: "Copperwas obtained,partlyby trade,but some was dug by the natives themselves. There was a digging at Kamloops Lake, which was workedup to the last generation,when a man was

[Vol. 62, No. 1, 1997

killed by a fall of rocks which buried the mine. Since that time it has never been worked."Teit (1912b:343-4) reports another source at Green Lakebetween Lillooet and Squamish.Native copper nuggets also occur as placer deposits in the Bridge River near Lillooet, and another source may be present at CopperCreek in southwestern Washington.Whateverits origins, materialsfrom these sources must have been tradedover considerable distances (Figure 3). The alacrity with which groups all over the Northwest sought out copper from the first European traders is testimony to the prestige and value that this material must have conferred in pre-contact times (see Stapp 1984). Obsidian was available from a number of sources (the best in central Oregon), was widely traded (Carlson 1994; Nelson et al. 1975), and also may have been a materialwith considerable prestige attachedto it, at least in some partsof the Plateau.While obsidian surely had a more practical role in early prehistoricperiods when more egalitarian hunter-gatherersforaged over very large ranges, it seems to have acquiredmore of a status role in Late Prehistorictimes when band ranges were much more restricted,and many raw materialssuch as obsidian had to be obtainedby exchange. In Late Prehistorictimes, large obsidian blades and large finely made points are particularlyassociatedwith high status(Butler 1959; Crabtree1957; Krieger 1928a; Seaman 1946). Crafted Prestige Items Thereis a wide arrayof distinctivelycraftedprestige items that display remarkable similarities across the Plateau,or at least between communities with similar population and wealth profiles. These items include bone and antler combs, incised tooth and bone gaming pieces, antlerdigging-stick handles, bone tubes, L-shaped awls, fine tubular pipes, zoomorphic and nipple top mauls, zoomorphic bowls, bone and stone clubs, eccentric chipped-stone pieces and pendants, shaped slate pendants, rock art motifs, thinned incised decorative bone, incised dentalia shells, bird and predator claws, and perforated elk canines. And we would add nephritecelts/adzes, dogs, and slaves as prestige items. We will not deal at length with all of these categoriessince the


59

PLATEAU ON THELATEPREHISTORIC INTERACTION CULTURAL


COPPER A

sourcesSTD AREA

0 48

120

o'82 142

110

12A H *ATHOMPSoN

100

50

150

K

SHUSWAP LAKE

K

114, 113, 98, 99,7

7 15

*

OAJ'

109,86,84,83 5

3~~~~~0

108

137

LU

13812 a Zd 64

~4 140

13

00994

1290 144

~ ~ ~ ~131~

132 K

103 52

0~~~~~~3 sorce0ae (ee abe 1. Kow f atie cppr o th Plteu Figre . Te resnceabenc ditrbuton th Dscute n heDalesreionarun cocetrtedocurencs otte srogl by ringes an Frser ive coflunce egin aoun th Thopso confuene adi theLilooe-Lyton

full documentationof the distribution,frequency, and emic importance of Plateau prestige items and styles is a topic more appropriatefor a doctoral dissertation.However,we will briefly draw on the major archaeological and ethnographic works of the areain orderto comment on some of these categories since it may not be evident why all of them should be considered prestige items. The major occurrences of the crafted prestige

ad

idicte rve olubi

items are presentedin Table2. The carefully crafted ground-stoneand sculpturedbone prestige objects arethe most distinctin the area.In general,they exhibit shapes otherthan those that are createdfor use, shapes that are time consuming to make and cumbersomeor delicate to handle. Unusual elaborationssuch as careful symmetry,carved features such as zoomorphs or anthropomorphs,and adjunctgeometricaldesigns


60

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

[Vol. 62, No. 1, 1997

Table 2. Occurrenceof Crafted Prestige Items. Item and Site

Context

Reference

Whalebone clubs WillametteValley burial Mackey 1974:75, PI. 22 BradfordIsland burial Phebus 1978 Leachman burial Strong 1959 B. Stewart burial Butler 1959 Miller's Island burial Strong et al. 1930:57 Colowesh Bottom burial Butler 1959 John Day burial? Strong 1959 Republic no context Sprague 1971 Keller Ferry burial Collier et al. 1942 Fountain burial Stryd 1973, 1983 Kamloops burial? Smith 1900:422 Chase burial Sanger 1968a:119 Miller's Creek no context Smith n.d. Digging-stick handles WillametteValley midden/ burial Herzog midden? (Lower Columbia) burial Congdon Wildcat Canyon burial

Mackey 1974:73, P1. 21 Sieberg 1966

Butler 1959 Dumond and Minor 1983:182 Old Umatilla burial Rice 1978 Shiner 1961:212 McNary Reservoir midden Berrian'sIsland burial Osborne 1957:84-85 YakimaValley Smith 1910:135 Rabbit Island burial Crabtree 1957 Nelson 1969: Fig. 86 Vantage midden? Whitestone Creek burial Collier et al. 1942:43 Ksunku Chance and Chance midden lag 1985:138 ? Grabert 1974:69 (rare) Okanagan Smith 1899:137; burial? Lytton Dawson 1891 Bell housepit Stryd 1973 burial Texas Creek Sanger 1968b Keatley Creek housepit Hayden 1996 EeRc44 housepit Eldridge and Stryd 1983 (Kamloops) Chase burial Sanger 1968a:111 burial Johnson-Fladmark1973 Green Acres EfQv 19 (Shuswap) housepit Johnson-Fladmark1973 Seaside village Connolly 1992 R. Sprague, ? 45-SJ-24 personal communication

Bone/antler combs ? Neah Bay (Lower Columbia) burial/midden Wakemap Beek's Pasture Vantage Fish Hook Island

Bergen 1960

Caldwell 1956; Hall 1958; Strong 1957 burial Bergen 1989; Schulting 1995 ? Huntzinger 1962; Nelson 1969 burial Combes 1968:160

Item and Site Berrian'sIsland Rabbit Island Wahluke

Context

Reference

burial burial burial

Osborne 1957 Crabtree1957 Krieger 1928a:28, P1.6 (wood) Crabtree 1957 Collier et al. 1942:87,152

Pot Holes burial burial 45ST47 (Upper Columbia) Wells Reservoir ? EarlscourtRanch burial (Lytton) Bell burial

Chatters 1986:204 Schulting 1994b Stryd 1973, 1981

Bone tubes Fish Hook Island burial Combes 1968:160 Priest Rapids Greengo 1982:230 Wahluke burial Krieger 1928a:28, P1.6 Old Umatilla burial Rice 1978 Berrian'sIsland burial Osborne 1957 YakimaValley burial Smith 1910:154 O'Sullivan housepit Daugherty 1952:382 Reservoir Pot Holes burial Crabtree 1957 Whitestone Creek burial Collier et al. 1942:43 Freeland burial Sprague and Birkby 1970 Collier et al. 1942 Sheep Creek burial Ksunku Chance and Chance midden lag 1985:49 Smith 1899:154 Lytton burial burial MurrayRanch Stryd and Baker 1968 Texas Creek burial Sanger 1968b Cache Creek burial Pokotylo et al. 1987 burial Smith 1900:428 Kamloops EeRa4 (Kamloops) housepit Carlson 1980 EdRa9 (Kamloops) housepit Wilson and Carlson 1980:45 burial Chase Sanger 1968a:121 burial Adams Lake Antiquus 1994 burial GreenAcres Johnson-Fladmark1973 L-shaped awls Wakemap

?

Wildcat Canyon

?

Priest Rapids

?

McNary Reservoir midden Fish Hook Island burial Vantage YakimaValley ? Keatley Creek housepit

Caldwell 1956:Pl. 18; Gerity 1962 Dumond and Minor 1983:223 Greengo 1982:283; Morton 1956 Shiner 1952:30, PI. IVa Combes 1968 Nelson 1969:Fig. 76 Smith 1910:72 Hayden 1996

Gaming pieces Dalles-Deschutesburial/midden Strong et al. 1930:58 burial Wahluke Krieger 1928a:28, Pl. 6 Smith 1910:106 burial? YakimaValley Shiner 1961 McNary Reservoir



CULTURAL INTERACTION ON THELATEPREHISTORIC PLATEAU

61

Table 2. Continued. Reference Osborne 1957 Garth 1952:44; Crabtree1957 Garth 1952:49 burial Sheep Island ? Vantage Nelson 1969:Fig. 93 ? Cressman 1977:136; Snake River Leonhardyand Rice 1970 burial Crabtree1957 Pot Holes Collier et al. 1942:90 Whitestone Creek burial Grabert1970 burial Okanogan Barlee 1969b SnehumptionCreek burial Lytton Smith 1899:153 burial von Krogh 1978 Spences Bridge housepit Texas Creek burial Sanger 1968b Nicola Valley HP/midden Wyatt 1972 Smith 1900:428 Kamloops burial? EeRc44 housepit Eldridge and Stryd 1983 (Kamloops) Monte Creek housepit Stryd 1981 Keatley Creek housepit Hayden 1996 burial Sprague and Birkby 1970 Freeland burial 45FE7 Collier et al. 1942

Item and Site Berrian'sIsland Rabbit Island

Context burial burial

Sculptured clubs of stone/bone/antler isolated find Mackey 1974:31, P1. 6 Willamette Valley Dalles burial? Strong et al. 1930:92 Middle Columbia? burial? Strong 1959:143-146 Middle Columbia? burial? Morton 1960 Indian Well burial Butler 1959 burial Old Umatilla Rice 1978 YakimaValley burial Smith 1910:46, 77-81 Texas Creek burial Sanger 1968b MurrayRanch burial Stryd and Baker 1968 Kamloops burial Smith 1900:422 Chase burial Sanger 1968:113 Tubular stone pipes Willamette midden/burial Mackey 1974:75 Valley burial Lower/Middle Strong 1959:133-140 Columbia Wakemap midden Caldwell 1956 Dalles-Deschutes burial Strong et al. 1930:Pl. 24 B. Stewart burial Butler 1959 burial Strong 1959; Bergen 1989 Maybe Wildcat Canyon burial Dumond and Minor 1983:183 Sundale burial Bergen 1989 Beek's Pasture burial Bergen 1989 Bead Patch burial? Seaman 1946 Big Leap burial Butler 1959 Rabbit Island burial Crabtree1957 Fish Hook Island burial Combes 1968:157 Wahluke burial Krieger 1928a:12 YakimaValley burial Smith 1910:112

Item and Site Selah Berrian'sIsland Sheep Island Pot Holes Priest RapidsWanapum O'Sullivan Reservoir Wells Reservoir Sheep Creek Ksunku Okanogan Lytton Nicoamen Nicola Valley Lillooet Texas Creek Mile 28 Ranch Lochnore Keatley Creek Bell Kamloops Chase Chase Shuswap

Context burial burial burial burial housepit

Reference Bergen 1989 Osborne 1957:57-59 Garth 1952:40, 43 Crabtree1957 Greengo 1986

housepit

Daugherty 1952:381-382 (basalt?) burial Sloan and Greengo 1963 burial Collier et al. 1942:43 HP/midden Chance and Chance 1982 burial Grabert1970 burial Smith 1899:154; Dawson 1891 burial Skinnerand Copp 1986 HP/midden Wyatt 1972 burial Wigen 1984 burial Sanger 1968b burial Sanger 1970 burial? Sanger 1970 housepit Hayden 1996 burial Stryd 1973 burial Smith 1900:429 burial Sanger 1968a:165 housepit Arcas 1988 (pipe frags) housepit Johnson-Fladmark1973

Ground-slate pendants/effigies Wildcat Canyon burial?

Dumond and Minor 1983:183 Strong et al. 1930:P1.lIe Strong 1959:203

Dalles-Deschutes Lower/Middle burial? Columbia McNary Reservoir midden Shiner 1961:214 McNary Reservoir burial Osborne 1957:65-68 Sheep Island burial Garth 1952:40 Rabbit Island burial Crabtree1957 Wahluke burial Krieger 1928a:28, P1. 6 YakimaValley no context Smith 1910:93 Upper Columbia midden Collier et al. 1942:43, 76 Keatley Creek housepit Hayden 1996 Serrated chipped-stone pendants Dalles Strong 1957a, 1959:132 McNary Reservoir midden Shiner 1961:212 (fetishes) Skaha Lake burial Caldwell 1954 Lochnore-Nesikepburial/HP? Sanger 1970:75 Mile 28 Ranch burial Sanger 1970 Keatley Creek housepit Hayden 1996 Non-serrated bone varieties Kamloops housepit Wilson and Carlson 1980:61 Wildcat Canyon burial? Dumond and Minor 1983 Lochnore-Nesikepburial/HP? Sanger 1970:75 Green Acres burial Johnson-Fladmark1973


62

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

Table 2. Continued. Context

Item and Site

Eccentrics Decker (Oregon) McMinnville (Oregon) Arlington Bonneville

Reference

Britten 1962; Strong 1958 Sieberg 1967 Marshall 1958 Wiedemann 1963; Strong 1956 Smith 1899:136 burial Lytton Sanger 1969 Lochnore-Nesikepburial/HP? Smith 1900:409 Nicola Valley burial Hayden 1996 housepit Keatley Creek Stryd 1981 housepit Monte Creek (Shuswap)

Sculpted pestles Dalles Dalles-Deschutes Wakemap Bead Patch Wildcat Canyon

? ? ? ?

Cressman 1977:135 Strong et al. 1930:Pl. 26c,d Caldwell 1956 midden burial? Seaman 1946:78 burial? Dumond and Minor 1983:227 burial Krieger 1928a:Pl. 1 Wahluke no context Smith 1910:46 YakimaValley burial Osborne 1957:70, Pl. IX Berrian'sIsland burial Garth 1952:43 Sheep Island Daugherty and 45AS2 (Snake River)burial Dammel 1952:128 Crabtree1957 burial Pot Holes Grabert1974:68 ? Okanagan Sanger 1970:75 Lochnore-Nesikepburial/HP? Hayden 1996 housepit Keatley Creek housepit Richardsand Rousseau Kamloops 1982, 1987:28 burial Sanger 1968a:102 Chase ?

Stone sculpture WillametteValley no context Dalles

Mackey 1974:55, Pls. 10-12 no context Krieger 1928b:137; Maryhill Museum burial/midden Strong et al. 1930:106

DallesDeschutes Caldwell 1956 midden Wakemap Seaman 1946:78 burial? Bead Patch burial Strong 1959; Butler 1959 Big Leap burial/midden Bergen 1989 Maybe burial Strong 1959 Leachman Heizer 1942 ? Miller's Island no context Burke Museum, Seattle Rock Creek (Middle Columbia) burial Krieger 1928a:11 Wahluke Smith 1910:126 no context Priest Rapids Smith 1900:413 burial? Kamloops Smith 1907:426-428 no context Yale Smith 1899 ? Lytton ? Teit 1900:204 Thompson

[Vol. 62, No. 1, 1997

requireconsiderablecare, effort, time, and skill to create. Moreover,virtually all these items could be much more easily crafted of softer materials such as wood. In fact, thereappearsto be a largely unrecognized bias in most ethnographies and archaeological analysis that predisposes readers to view illustratedand describedobjects as "normal" equipmentfor all families in communities. Careful reading of the British Columbianethnographiesreveals that early ethnographersfocused almost entirelyon the more spectacularobjects in study communities,that is, objects owned by the wealthiest and most prestigious members of the community. Teit (1900: 186ff; 1906:218-220) makes this very clear in his discussion of clothing. Rich families had buckskin clothes of very high quality,and these are the ones that are illustrated (see Tepper 1987). But such clothing was far from the norm. In fact, very few families had buckskin clothes; most families had bark capes and garments. Significantly, Teit includes no illustrationsof these poorerPlateaugarments. Similarly,Kennedy and Bouchard (1992:288, 290) reportthat leisters and fish hooks were typically made of hard wood. A few bone examples are known from the archaeologicalrecordbut the numbersrecoveredare far from what one would expect of fishing-adaptedcultures.Why did some people use wood and othersuse bone, and why are there so few examples of bone leisters? We suggest that bone was much more difficult to work than hardwoods, and only those individualswho wantedto enhancethe prestige of their tools took the troubleof makingordinaryimplementsout of bone. The vast majorityof leisters, as well as harpoons, combs, mortars,pipes, digging-stick handles, awls, needles (e.g., Cressman1960:34), and perhapseven wedges, may all have been made of hard woods that simply have not been preserved, if, in fact, average families even took the trouble to make combs, pipes, and digging-stickhandles. Results from excavations of wet sites, such as Ozette, on the Washington coast, certainly demonstratethatthe vast majorityof most objects such as arrow points and wedges were made of wood, with only a small proportionmade of bone or stone (Friedman1975). Thus, we arguethat to a large extent, the very fact that bone or groundstone was used at all for




63

Figure 4. A decorated antler digging-stick handle from Lytton, British Columbia (Smith 1899:137).

some artifactscan be a good reason for considering these artifactsas prestige items. A few artifact types may have requiredhardermaterials,such as stone adzes and grinding stones, but these appear to be the exception rather than the rule on the Plateau. We now turn to consider individual artifact types. Digging-Stick Handles Antlerdigging-stickhandles (Figures4 and 5) are one of the most widespreadand distinctive items of the Plateau,althougha very few examples have also been reported from the Washington and Oregon coasts (Connolly 1992:98; Roderick Spragueand Ken Ames, personal communication 1995). They are also highly unusual and perhaps unique features of digging sticks. We know of nothing quite comparableto them anywhereelse in the world. Cressman (1960:70) indicates that they had a special status,being made for specific young female membersof a communityand given to them as personal possessions for life. Such behavior seems far more appropriatefor highranking families than it does for more ordinary families. The central shaft holes must have been fairly time consuming to make given stone technology. The white, polished, and often engraved handle of a digging stick would be highly visible in any task group and in any encampment.As Wobst (1977) argues, highly visible objects are the most effective for communicatingsocial messages, such as relativerank,to others. Roots were a very importantstaple resource on the Plateau. Women dug roots in task groups that worked in close proximity, and thus the tools being used could be displayedto advantage.The ability to dig many roots was seen as an indication of strong

guardian spirit power and made the successful woman desirableas a wife (Marshall1991). Thus antler digging-stick handles are good potential candidates for prestige items, especially if ordinary digging sticks had handles made of wood (Nancy Turner, personal communication 1993; Cole and Lockner 1989:417; Smith 1910:35;Teit 1909:514) or lacked handles altogether,which is the usual case elsewhere in the world. Desmond Peters, Sr., a senior memberof the PavilionBand, near Lillooet, British Columbia, told us in 1991 that digging-stick handles made of antler or ocean-spray wood (Holodiscus discolor) were harderto make than handles made of otherwoods and would be traded.He thoughtthat only traders and hunters'families probablyhad antlerhandles. Moreover,while antlerhandlesare widely distributed archaeologically, they are also relatively rare-much rarer, we would argue, than one would expect if they had been used by every female throughoutthe Plateau for every generation over a period of several thousandyears. Combs Combs (Figure 6) are also obvious display items indicative of prestige, particularlystriking given the contrast of white bone on dark hair and the elaborate carving involved in many specimens. These items are considerablymore laborintensive to produce than digging-stick handles and are much rarer in the area. Yet the similarities between examples from opposite ends of the Plateau demonstrate strong interactive connections between families using them, as well as similar aesthetics and values involved in their manufacture and use. Cross-culturally,hair is often associated with power and status.A distinctive group of antlerand stone humanfigure carv-


64

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

[Vol. 62, No. 1, 1997

DIGGINGSTICK HANDLES STUDY

AREA

0

r\_1

50

SHUSWAP 118 2

43

g

r82

~2

44

120

121241

.O)t-

J

100

150

Km

LAKE

48

114, 113,

M GO

109, 86, 84, 83

22 128 IoMPSONlWJ

142

108

123 46 47

(DS

140

64z

1

Y

T

24

83~~~~~~14

939 131

32~~~~

Figure 5. The presence/absence distribution of antler digging-stick handles on the Plateau (see Table 2). Note the clustering in The Dalles and the Lillooet-Lytton regions as well as some secondary centers on the Middle Columbia River and in the Shuswap Lake region.

ings, concentratedin The Dalles-Deschutes area, demonstrates that elaborate hair styles, sometimes using combs, were part of what was almost certainly an elite costume and iconography (Schulting 1995:46-50). On the Columbia Plateau, many of these carvings also show obvious connections to Tsagiglalal-a highly distinctive and elaboraterock art image overlookingthe

Long Narrows near The Dalles (Butler 1957; Keyser 1992; Ostapkowicz 1994). Bone Tubes The use of elaboratelycarvedbone drinkingtubes during female puberty and menstrual rituals is anotherwidespreadphenomenon.However,given the lengthy time that women were supposed to



CULTURALINTERACTIONON THE

stay secluded for these rituals 2 years for first it is difficult to i agine enses Teit 1906:265 that all 'wo en religl'ously adhered to such ideals. Rather, as in the case of bone artifacts, the elaborate descri tions of training and rituals see far ore appropriate to the highest ranking and ,wealthiest fa ilies of a co unitywho could use such events to display their 'wealth, leisure, and supenor spirituality. Teit 1900 1906 lKastiDch 1954 and Ro anoff 1992b all repeatedly stress the i ortance of ro er training and uplaringing for elite fa i'lies. It is proper training and conduct that largely distinguished the elites unities. Nnd 'we fro other fan-iilies in the co suggest that it i's predo inantly the idealized elite vie,w of hovv things should be done that has been recorded in ost Plateau ethnographies. As 'with other prestige classes, bone drinking tubes tend to be rare archaeologi Dcally an we suspect.,were not even used by ost fa i'lies prehistofically. 31

ID

30

Inc'lsed Dental'ia and ()ther IN4arine Shells Cleo etncal y incise(i dentall'a shells are foun(i in 'widely di'sperse places Figures I and 7 and see 'well established as a prestige ite . Mfhile no have been reported archaeologically This content downloaded from 163.1.62.81 on Thu, 3 Oct 2013 12:01:43 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

66

AMERICAN A

Figure 7.Exampes of incised dntalium

L-Shaped Bone

awls

are

items,

and

indeed,

enough

to

easy

and

ing

not

elbow,

or

different

(Figure

made

from

scapulae,

also

have

size end

for

be

tive

iconological

suggested. One

noteworthy:

other

It

motif

appears

meant attribute

generally

awls

be

greatly but

they

protrusion

functional be

to

more

to

convey

of

these


their

some-

these

worked

few

the

is

are

must

lateral

which

mak-

awl

only

carefully thin

are

basket

blade Not

awls

However,

which

and

can

tion.

8).

a distinctive

proximal

in

functions. shoulder

prestige

ulna

effective

piercing

L-shaped

in

typical

and

what reduced

considered

more

make

other

Awls

usually the

shells rom

needlelike

at

the

purposes a

distincinforma-

awls points.

is


CULTURALINTERACTIONON THE L

0' B

cm Figure 9. Examples of lahal gaming pieces from The Dalles Keatley Creek (center) (Smith 1900:*428; Strong 1959:201).

is

wealthy and cm

decorated

These

1 0).

which

of

rated

beaver

been

stylistic on

lines were

or

the

of

were

bone

teeth

variants.

Gambling

Plateau,

and

The

about

5

with

zigzags),

and

and

Decorated

woodchuck

9

decorated

(generally

plain.

(Figures

piece

sections which

of

some

geometric

some

gaming

short

were

length,

in

incised

activity

the

undeco-

appear

to

was

Dalles


a in

have

M

t

t

m

popular

m

particu-

a

lar was known as "'. .. a gambling mecca second to

h

68

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

[Vol. 62, No. 1, 1997

GAMINGPIECES STUDY AREA

0 48

0

44

'9122 43

382

50

SHUSWAP LAKE

100

150

Km

~~~~~118

120

114398,99,7 105

886883

9

142 -40 g

H28

T?"PSON eIVe

T

5

[

} \

1

12

137~~~~7

26

~~ ~ ~ ~

~~4

134E

138

126KE0/

94

3

Figure 10. The presence/absence distribution of lahialgaming pieces on the Plateau (see Table 2). Note the strongly clustered occurrences in the region around the Snake and Columbia river confluence and in the Lillooet-Lytton region around the Thompson and Fraser river confluence, as well as a few secondary centers.

bothareassharedvery similaraestheticsandvalues andwere using clubs in comparablesocial contexts to convey similarmessagesto theirrespectivecommunities.A strikingexample involves two nearly identicalcopperclubs with incised humanfaces on their blades: one was found near The Dalles (Bergen 1959) and the other at Spuzzum on the FraserRiverbelow Lytton(Smith 1899:150).Both

were in burial contexts. While these specimens undoubtedlydate to the protohistoricperiod,their form and the added designs are paralleledin prehistoricstone and whaleboneclubs from the same regions(Boas 1907). Stone Bowls Another artifact type that seems to occur fre-


Hayden

and Schulting]

CULTURAL INTERACTION ON THE LATE PREHISTORIC PLATEAU

quently in the context of emerging and early elites is carved and scuLlpturedstone bowls (e.g., Gero 1989:104; Schmandt-Besserat 1977). These, too, make good objects for displaying special statuLs and ranik on formal occasions when otlhers are attending. Both plain and sculptured stone bowls are extremely characteristic of the Plateau, and in soime areas grade into zoomorphic or anthropomorphic sculptures without any apparent utilitarian function. Because of the great variability in the bowls' forms, and indeed in other stone sculpture as well, further documentation and analysis of sinmilaritiesand differenices in style and meaning an effort beyond the scope of this paper is required. Nevertheless, the general similarities of numerous examples from throughout the area arc evident and, in conjunction with the geometric incising of bone, constitute a distinctive Plateau artistic style. Strong et al. (1930:114) remark on the considerable similarities between the ground stone of The Dalles and the Lytton area, as opposed to that of central Washington. These two areas exhibit a large and elaborate stone-carving indtustry, one which is not expressed to nearly the same degree over the intervening area (cf. Duff 1956:1 1 1). An excellent example of a strong stylistic similarity is seen in two anthropomorphic stone-head bowls, one from the vicinity of The Dalles (Maryhill Museum, Catalog No. 101-15) and the other from near Yale, British Colum-bia (Smith 1907:428, Figure 192b). The highily distinctive seated human figure conmplex of British Coltumbia (Duff 1956, 1975) has strong parallels at The Dalles (Figure 12). Buehler ( 1956) describes a seated hlumnan steatite figure (the majority of the bowls fouLndon the Fraser River, possibly the center of the style, are of steatite). While the figure in Buelhler's accompanying photograph does not cradle a bowl, it does assume the familiar posture of a seated huLmarian figure, arms folded on drawn-up knees, the head tilted back, and the prominent eyes staring upward. Skeletal imagery, another common element in the style, is present in the form of incised ribs. Stylistically, this sculpture is nearly identical to those of the Fraser River. Although less readily recognizable, there is another stone figure from The Dalles area that also exhibits certain features reminiscent of the seated hunmanfig-

69

ii

Figure 11. Examuples (lesft and Kiamloops area Dalles (right, WashingTtoji, Seattle).

of scuilpted wvhalebone clubs fronm and ls'he center, Snmith 1900:422) oDf [inireErsity Bulrke Nluseum,

ure complex. Some bird-headed (owl') maulls are also stylisticallv identical 'rn the two rections (Fi:ure 2). Pipes Othierground-stone artifacts that nmightbe associated with elites include finely shaped nipple-top maelso nephrite and sculptured zoonorphic and tubular steatite celts/adzes, pipes. Of these, the fiDlerexamples of tubular pipes (Figure 13) were clearly prlzed possessbirds. Many specimens are faiely incised with geometrlic desigts (rButler are sooae 1968a; Strong 1959), and 1957OSanger fully sculptLral (zCrabtree197); one particularty fine examples the Moses Coulee Pipe ( Strong was found near Wenatchee, 1959:137-139),


70

AMERICANAN

It

I

1,

_

S

$>u

11H i:

.

e

g +B;eg1>

-

*e

>SS

:

ws

;

x

,>f

z a

R

;h?

69

$

g

e

t

a

p

9

?.s;s_

.>

9

P;

W*

_

X

6

*

&

g_

;

..

.

_t

s

N

v

.....

,

?

'

_

.

,

.

o

9

_

4

;

6

9

t

9

t

9

!

-

2

le

let.tell{z

g i:

t

.:& .-e

e

6

2>-tv,>9,*99,?S^,zU,

9

S

.

9

>

.

^

8

|

6

.

4

Z

i

6

.

.........................................

.....

x0_1

t s

_t

. o .

f

.

.

_

N_i_

2

N? 9

k

-:s.:

.

X_ 5oy

9X929,%

6

e

R

-

6

x

,>

*

9

%

2

9WC&6

mX

'

Q

'

)

i-

>

This content downloaded from 163.1.62.81 on Thu, 3 Oct 2013 12:01:43 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 96

_?9

6to

?

}

9 9

b

9

9

6

4

_9

t

i

_FtW

*>

->

R

0

fi

S

96

S

Z

?

?2v

93

q

9

pz 5

*

g

2

*

6

N

f

(

v

9

6

:0 X t:

f

22