Chapter 1
Empirical Archaeology and Human Adaptation in Mesoamerica
KIRK D. FRENCH AND NANCY GONLIN
Archaeological imagination [is] finding new ways of asking questions that link the most empirical of research projects with innovative social theory.
âElizabeth Brumfiel (Hauser 2012, 184)
Over half a century ago the deliberate transformation of archaeology into a more scientifically based discipline from its culture-historical period began in North America (Willey and Sabloff 1974). Ten years prior to that time, an innovative explanatory perspective called cultural ecology emerged as a viable theoretical orientation to explain human adaptation and cultural evolution in both contemporary and ancient societies. These separate yet intertwined pursuits created the foundation for a paradigm shift in North American archaeology that was embraced by numerous researchers who were dissatisfied with simply documenting chronology and culture areas and were seeking an explanatory framework such as that provided by the combination of ecology and culture. The New Archaeology was, and still is, the dominant paradigm in North American Archaeology (e.g., McClung de Tapia 2013), although numerous other paradigms have significantly contributed to our understanding of the past. And while it has evolved in recent years with the incorporation of different perspectives, the core commitment of New Archaeology to a comparative anthropological basis, explanatory power, and scientific robusticity remains a key contribution of this perspective. The chapters in this volume highlight the applicability and sustainability of the concept of adaptation within the perspective of cultural ecology in archaeological research in Mesoamerica, and particularly in the Maya area.
The theoretical orientation of the Anthropology Department at The Pennsylvania State University (Penn State, or PSU) has emphasized the intersection of ecology and culture, whether in the field of archaeology, biological anthropology (e.g., Baker 1978; Wood 1992), or cultural anthropology (e.g., Johnson 2003). The approaches of anthropological archaeology and human adaptation have been successfully used to orient the investigation of ancient cultures through dozens of Penn State archaeological projects over the last 50 years (figure 1.1) with the production of abundant research that has furthered the knowledge of the human condition (see Milner, this volume). Understanding of sociopolitical evolution and conflict has been advanced through an empirical approach to the studies of settlement patterns, household archaeology, demography, the environment, and mortuary studies, among other topics.
A Genealogical History of Approaches to Human Adaptation and Cultural Ecology
As with the culture-historical approach that preceded the New Archaeology, it seems fitting to begin with a descriptive narrative detailing the background of cultural ecology, human adaptation, and empirical research in archaeology. To better understand these approaches and their relevance to the contributions in this volume, it is informative to present the background as an academic genealogy.
Julian Stewardâs (figure 1.2) theoretical trajectory was divergent to that of his mentor, Alfred L. Kroeber. Unlike Kroeberâs reliance on the historical approach (adopted from his mentor, Franz Boas), much of Stewardâs energy was devoted to the study of the environmental adaptation of specific societies. Kroeber suggested that cultures in analogous environments would often follow the same developmental stages and formulate similar responses to environmental challenges. However, Steward did not believe that cultures followed the same universal development. Rather, he proposed that cultures evolved in many distinctive patterns depending on circumstances of their environment, referring to his theory as multilinear evolution (Steward 1955). The approach Steward outlined for multilinear evolution involved an area of study he called cultural ecologyâthe analysis of cultural adaptations formulated by human beings to meet challenges and opportunities created by their environments.
William Duncan Strong, who was also a student of Kroeberâs and a classmate of Stewardâs, conducted exhaustive research in the western United States, eastern Canada, and Peru (Strong et al. 1930; Stewart and Strong 1939; Strong 1957). In 1941 Strong named his student, Gordon Willey (figure 1.3), as his field assistant for the Pachacamac Project in Peru. Strong taught Willey how to command and synthesize large amounts of data. A year after receiving his PhD in 1942, Willey had the opportunity to work for Strongâs colleague, Julian Steward, at the Smithsonianâs Bureau of American Ethnology. While there, Willey was assistant editor of Stewardâs monumental Handbook of South American Indians (Steward 1940â1947). Around the same time, Steward, Strong, and Willey began planning the Viru Valley Project of Peru. Settlement archaeology relies on landscape, ecology, and site recording, but it was the concept of culture that allowed for interpretations of settlement patterns, because ultimately, it is behavior and meaning that are of utmost importance to anthropological archaeologists in understanding the past. It was during this project that Steward suggested to Willey that he make settlement study his top priority (Billman and Feinman 1999). Willey joined the faculty in the Department of Anthropology at Harvard in 1948, and in the following year he accepted William T. Sanders (figure 1.4) as his graduate student.
