Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

5 Multicrafting in Prehispanic Oaxaca

5 Multicrafting in Prehispanic Oaxaca In chapter two of this volume's introduction, Hirth highlights the factual disconnect between observed household dynamics and the typical archaeological reconstruction: “archaeologists characterize households as stable, small‐scale and self‐sufficient producers that depend on outside forces to initiate change.” This characterization runs counter to any number of ethnographic studies of household production (e.g. Netting 1993 ) and our own experiences working in rural Mexico. The gap between ethnography and archaeology is exacerbated by the lack of appropriate economic models for prehispanic Mesoamerica. Hirth suggests reconnecting archaeology with actual domestic behavior in a general model of household diversification that enhances economic well being and reduces risk. Our evidence for diverse craft industries at the archaeological site of Tayata in the Mixteca Alta suggests an extension of the risk buffering strategy of Archaic foragers into early village times, a transition to sedentary lifeways that occurred by the mid 2 nd millennium B.C. ( Marcus and Flannery 1996 :62–64). It was at Archaic macroband encampments like Gheo‐Shih and Tlapacoya (a possible incipient village) that the archaeological record for craftwork begins ( Marcus and Flannery 1996 :59, 73–74; Niederberger 1979 ). The risk buffering framework also fits 16 th century ethnohistorical patterns in http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association Wiley

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/5-multicrafting-in-prehispanic-oaxaca-CWSIDtkjqP

References (31)

Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
© 2009 by the American Anthropological Association
ISSN
1551-823X
eISSN
1551-8248
DOI
10.1111/j.1551-8248.2009.01013.x
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

In chapter two of this volume's introduction, Hirth highlights the factual disconnect between observed household dynamics and the typical archaeological reconstruction: “archaeologists characterize households as stable, small‐scale and self‐sufficient producers that depend on outside forces to initiate change.” This characterization runs counter to any number of ethnographic studies of household production (e.g. Netting 1993 ) and our own experiences working in rural Mexico. The gap between ethnography and archaeology is exacerbated by the lack of appropriate economic models for prehispanic Mesoamerica. Hirth suggests reconnecting archaeology with actual domestic behavior in a general model of household diversification that enhances economic well being and reduces risk. Our evidence for diverse craft industries at the archaeological site of Tayata in the Mixteca Alta suggests an extension of the risk buffering strategy of Archaic foragers into early village times, a transition to sedentary lifeways that occurred by the mid 2 nd millennium B.C. ( Marcus and Flannery 1996 :62–64). It was at Archaic macroband encampments like Gheo‐Shih and Tlapacoya (a possible incipient village) that the archaeological record for craftwork begins ( Marcus and Flannery 1996 :59, 73–74; Niederberger 1979 ). The risk buffering framework also fits 16 th century ethnohistorical patterns in

Journal

Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological AssociationWiley

Published: Mar 1, 2009

There are no references for this article.