Cultural transmission, language, and basketry traditions amongst the California Indians

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22 (2003) 42–74 www.elsevier.com/locate/jaa

Cultural transmission, language, and basketry traditions amongst the California Indiansq Peter Jordan* and Stephen Shennan AHRB Centre for the Evolutionary Analysis of Cultural Behaviour, Institute of Archaeology, University College London, 31–34 Gordon Sq, London WC1H 0PY, UK Received 26 March 2002; revision received 8 October 2002; accepted 12 November 2002

Abstract Much recent debate has focussed on the relative significance of phylogenetic (branching) versus ethnogenetic (culture contact induced) processes of cultural transformation. In this paper we employ a longterm and regional framework to analyse the transmission of languages and craft traditions amongst Californian Indian groups. Initial results suggest that basketry assemblages exhibit a significant ethnogenetic signal, arising from the horizontal transmission of cultural attributes across sharply defined linguistic boundaries. These findings converge with those from other regions, where geographic propinquity rather than linguistic affinity has been shown to have a slightly greater—but not exclusive—influence on the composition of material culture assemblages. However, the results presented here also indicate that despite these broader similarities local basketry traditions remain relatively distinct, and therefore cannot be explained through ethnogenesis alone. It remains a possibility that differential rates of cumulative innovation in language and craft traditions may have been present, leading to the erosion of phylogenetic signals for shared descent and the rapid emergence of distinct local basketry traditions. These issues require further research at a sub-regional scale.
2003 Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved. Keywords: Cultural evolution; Transmission; Phylogenesis; Ethnogenesis; Languages; Basketry; California Indians

Introduction In recent years long-standing issues concerning the relationships between the biological, linguistic, and cultural attributes of populations have received renewed attention. The theoretical frameq

Supplementary data for this article are available on ScienceDirect (http://www.sciencedirect.com). Original data for this paper is also available at http://www.ucl. ac.uk/ceacb. * Corresponding author. Fax: +44-0207-383-2572. E-mail address: [email protected] (P. Jordan).

work for such studies, not always made explicit, is that of Darwinian ‘‘descent with modification.’’ Biological, linguistic, and other cultural attributes are passed on through the generations and are affected by a variety of processes that result in change. The paradigmatic pattern for the outcome of such processes is that established in historical linguistics, in which new languages come into existence as a result of the splitting of older ones, when members of the populations concerned gradually cease to interact with one another. While this phylogenetic or branching model is widely accepted in historical linguistics, and of

0278-4165/03/$ - see front matter
2003 Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S0278-4165(03)00004-7

P. Jordan, S. Shennan / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22 (2003) 42–74

course within biology as a description of the generation of relationships between species, anthropologists have long argued that within the non-linguistic socio-cultural sphere processes of blending are much more important. Moreover, while the phylogenetic model describes the relations between biological species, it is not so obvious that it applied to the relations between populations within a species, where gene flow can and does occur (cf. Moore, 1994). While geneticists have found at least some apparent—albeit contentious—correlation between major language and genetic groupings (cf. Cavalli Sforza and Menozzi, 1994), the concern of this paper is to explore the relationship between linguistic ‘‘descent with modification’’ processes and the transmission of material culture traditions. In short, if craft traditions are passed between generations (a) via the same socially grounded mechanisms that languages are, and (b) are subject to the same strategies of social selection as these languages, then speakers of closely related languages would be expected to have similar material culture repertoires. Alternatively, if diffusion across language ‘‘boundaries’’ is a strong force, then adjacent communities would be expected to share, say, similar craft traditions irrespective of their linguistic affiliation. Previous studies of this issue have come to contrasting conclusions. Guglielmino et al. (1995) found a strong correlation between linguistic affiliation and a variety of other socio-cultural variables, while Welsch et al. (1992) found no such correlation in the case of artifact types on the north coast of New Guinea, although that conclusion has been heavily disputed (e.g. Moore and Romney, 1994). Two factors complicate the issue. Firstly, many elements of material culture form the adaptive technology in particular environments. Groups speaking different languages but sharing similar ecological niches may come to share a common technology either by convergent adaptation or cultural diffusion. Second, speakers of related languages often share contiguous areas. If material culture assemblages are very similar, it becomes impossible to determine whether this is a result of shared ancestry, geographic diffusion, or indeed convergent adaptation. For these reasons, the ideal location for research into processes of cultural transmission would be an area of high linguistic diversity, rather than a large area populated by speakers of related languages. In linguistically diverse areas many of these

43

complicating factors can potentially be isolated and disentangled. Indigenous California is one of the worldÕs most linguistically diverse regions and there is abundant data on sophisticated indigenous basketry traditions. As with Welsch et al. (1992), the key aim of the current paper is to explore whether geographic distance or linguistic affinity have exerted the greatest influence on the material culture traditions of particular ethno-linguistic communities. If material culture traditions are transmitted vertically ‘‘in tandem’’ with linguistic traditions then communities who speak related languages but perhaps reside in spatially distant areas, thereby not sharing common borders, will tend to have a similar repertoire of material culture due to their shared cultural history. If horizontal transmission predominates over a certain period, then sets of adjacent communities will tend to have similar material culture, irrespective of the local linguistic affinities of particular groups. Finally, if basketry functions primarily as an adaptive technology, then populations in similar ecological zones will have the same kinds of material culture, irrespective of their linguistic affinity or geographic proximity to groups residing nearby but in areas with different ecological characteristics.

Californian languages and material culture Languages At the time of European contact there were 94 distinct and mutually unintelligible languages spoken along the Pacific Coast and South West of Northern North America. This high level of linguistic diversity can be contrasted with the low count of only 18 mutually unintelligible languages spoken throughout the Great Basin and Plateau, an area of similar geographical size (Jorgensen, 1980, p. 58). The linguistic topography of California was particular rich, with between 64 and 80 languages, further differentiated into multiple dialects, spread over the mountains valleys and deserts. However, it is important to realise that the colonial history of California was extremely traumatic for indigenous groups (see Castillo, 1978), resulting in an estimated 90% demographic collapse between 1770 and 1900, as well as huge disruptions in their way of life. The languages that have survived the turbulent processes of colonialism and external cultural contact have ‘‘provided the modern researcher with a glimpse,

44

P. Jordan, S. Shennan / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22 (2003) 42–74

however faded, of a marvellous linguistic diversity with its origins lying millennia in the past (Shipley, 1978, p. 80).’’ Nevertheless, the potential significance of this demographic bottleneck for the nature and extent of the linguistic and cultural variation that was recorded in the early 20th century should not be forgotten (cf. Shennan, 2000, 2001). Californian languages have been subjected to historical analyses, where ‘‘a basic system of recurrent sound correspondences is the only known certain diagnostic for validating a genetic relationship among any group of languages (Shipley, 1978, p. 80).’’ Using these principles the languages of California have been classed as indigenous (Penutian, Hokan, Yukian) or exterior stocks (Algic, Na-Dene, Uto-Aztecan), on the basis of their genetic relationships with non-local languages (Shipley, 1978, pp. 81–82). Linguistic diffusion has complicated this process of identifying historic relationships, although the spatial patterning of linguistic relationships encouraged the conclusion that, in general outline, a series of six successive colonisations had taken place, with new waves of population speaking different groups of related languages. Those of the Hokan stock were thought to be derived from the oldest indigenous communities in the area, whilst speakers of Penutian languages were understood to have arrived later, displacing Hokan speakers from the great central valley. Later, there proceeded an advance of Uto-Aztecan languages into the area from the south. While the relative chronology of Yukian- and Algic-speaking arrivals was less certain, it was clear that the Athapaskan languages arrived most recently, probably from Oregon (Shipley, 1978, pp. 81–82). The veracity of this model rests entirely on the validity of its higher level linguistic classifications, from which deeper historical processes are inferred. These taxonomies have been challenged recently in the context of wider debates between the language group ‘‘lumpers’’ and ‘‘splitters,’’ which have proceeded at both continental and regional scales (e.g. Greenberg, 1987). Californian language groupings—and especially the two ‘‘great language stocks—Hokan and Penutian (Shipley, 1978, p. 81)’’—have been criticised for including very different levels of internal linguistic diversity (see Goddard, 1996 and especially Mithun, 1999, pp. 303–304). Shipley notes that the postulated Penutian and Hokan stocks represent ‘‘unverified hypotheses’’ but adds optimistically that it is ‘‘likely that both theories will eventually be vali-

dated, probably with minor, possibly with major alterations (1978, p. 81).’’ Hokan, in particular, has been argued to represent a kind of ‘‘wastebasket stock’’ for a suite of very different languages that have very little—or indeed no— demonstrable internal relatedness but that lack evidence for affinity with some of the more clearly established language groups like Na-Dene. The justification for a Hokan stock has a somewhat circular reasoning behind it, the argument turning on the fact that while some limited genetic relations can be inferred between the Hokan languages the high internal diversity in the stock can be explained away through reference to the deep antiquity of Hokan language speakersÕ settlement of the area. Conveniently, this deep history is inferred via reference to the high internal diversity of the Hokan language stock, which came about through the Hokan speakers very long-term settlement of the area. There is now more or less general consensus that these older ‘‘ambitious’’ classifications (e.g. Shipley, 1978), should now be tempered by more cautious taxonomies where Hokan and, to some extent, Penutian have been either rejected as ‘‘superstocks’’ or else accepted with a heavy note of caution (see also Mithun, 1999, pp. 303–304). In our current analyses we accommodate both ‘‘lumper’’ and ‘‘splitter’’ language classifications to reflect the diversity of this language debate. Appendix A lists 39 ethno-linguistic groups from California in terms of their language affiliation as classified by Shipley (1978) who has argued for the presence of the contentious Hokan and Penutian stocks. These classification debates focus on the deeper historical processes by which progressive bifurcation of ancestral protolanguages into dialects eventually generates new sets of mutually unintelligible languages. When viewing the results of these processes ‘‘on the ground’’ researchers have recurrently noted the sharp linguistic boundaries that characterise the linguistic geography of California. This tight linguistic packing stands in sharp contrast to the more graded linguistic topography of adjacent areas of the Great Basin and Plateau (Jorgensen, 1980, p. 58). In explaining these distributions Jorgensen argues that local ecosystems exerted important influences on patterns of local linguistic evolution, with areas of concentrated, highly productive and reliable resources encouraging very localised procurement and ownership regimes, which produced and then enforced the maintenance of sharp language divisions amongst isolated communities who tended

P. Jordan, S. Shennan / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22 (2003) 42–74

to exhibit quite low levels of long-range mobility (Jorgensen, 1980, p. 60). Basketry Californian basketry traditions represents one of the richest craft traditions in the world, exhibiting endless variation both within and between the different ethnic groups that comprise the indigenous population. There is also a general unity in the broader Californian basketry tradition, which Elsasser (1978) ascribes to the prominence of acorn processing as a key subsistence adaptation: Gathering, carrying, storing, milling, and cooking of acorns, from north to south, were all performed in approximately the same way; and the similarity of procedures reflected in the forms of the baskets that otherwise remotely related groups employed (Elsasser, 1978, p. 626).

This inherent variety within a broader basketry tradition represents an ideal focus for the investigation of cultural transmission: all groups produce baskets but each according to local tradition. In other words, the data are regionally comparable, though subject to the kind of localised influences we seek to explore. Elsasser (1978, p. 627) notes key differences in the spatial extent of various basketry traditions: (a) Local scale: There were ‘‘numbers of remarkable variations in. . .form. . .technique. . . decoration. . .sometimes among closely neighbouring groups. While there is no ready explanation for these discrepancies. . .they may be looked upon as forming a simple corollary to the well-known cultural and linguistic separatism of California Indian groups. . . (Elsasser, 1978, p. 626).’’ (b) Regional scale: Despite these small-scale and more qualitative differences in material culture, all groups produced twined baskets; the northern tribes used this technique exclusively, whilst those in the south also made twined baskets but preferred to employ the coiled technique (see Fig. 1). Elsasser (1978) has compiled extensive crosscultural data on the techniques, types, usages, materials, ornamentation, and dyes employed by 39 California Indian groups in the production of their basketry. The data are drawn from the published literature as well as from detailed study of museum collections, in particular, that of the University of California, Berkeley. The latter

45

dataset was analysed and described by A.L. Kroeber, S.A. Barrett, and others after extensive fieldwork in the early 1900s. Elsasser presented data for amalgamated ethno-linguistic tribal units (see Fig. 2) like the Pomo, Monache, Yokuts, etc. (in contrast to the village-based data sets examined by Welsch et al. (1992) in their study of New Guinea). While general technical variables are described (e.g. Fig. 1), including, for example, the presence/absence of feather, banded, or other decoration, more subtle contextual details like the specific composition or combination of individual design motifs are too detailed for the database to accommodate (cf. Barrett, 1905). With the synthesised nature of the database it is not possible to explore the historical development of the traditions; rather, the summary represents a ‘‘snapshot’’ of techniques and traditions across a postulated ‘‘ethnographic present’’ of the later 19th/early 20th century. However, the cladistic analytical techniques we employ below are able to pull out historical signals in the basketry assemblages by testing whether the present forms could have arisen either by a blending of techniques between groups or the progressive bifurcation of older traditions into newer techniques and practices through cultural phylogenesis. In California, it appears that the day-to-day production and use of much basketry was predominantly a female occupation, with close associations with domestic food preparation, cooking, grinding, and so on (Wallace, 1978). Nevertheless, a range of elegant ‘‘special purpose’’ baskets were made by some groups, including the Pomo and Chumash (Elsasser, 1978, p. 638). Wallace (1978, p. 683) notes that that craft traditions were strictly demarcated according to gender, citing OÕNeale (1932) and arguing that ‘‘Women wove the indispensable baskets. It is noteworthy that the Californian Indians left this, the most advanced of their handicrafts to females. Men had no hand in basket weaving other than fashioning coarsely twined fish traps and other forms used exclusively by them.’’ It appears that only amongst the Pomo and adjacent tribes did men routinely make some limited contribution to the weaving of specific openwork twined baskets (Elsasser, 1978, p. 626). If basketry production has gender associations then kinship practices such as marriage traditions will have influenced cultural transmission. Jorgensen (1980, p. 451) records Californian community marriage patterns as being of both exogamous (outside) and agamous (endogamy

46

P. Jordan, S. Shennan / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22 (2003) 42–74

Fig. 1. Coiling and twining techniques used in california baskets (after Elsasser, 1978).

and exogamy; no clear preference for mates inside or outside the community) types. Jorgensen speculates as to the existence of periodic unilineal descent groups amongst the Penutian, and perhaps Hokan and Uto-Aztecan speakers, which formed around the appropriation of key extractive resource areas: ‘‘As they settled around their resources in independent communities, the monolineage communities (single lineage communities) may have engaged in marriages between cross-cousins (1980, p. 166).’’ At the time of

contact, it appeared that in Californian extractivebased unilineal societies a partner was sought beyond the immediate community. In northern California leading families created strategic alliances between distant groups through careful choice of partners: ‘‘marriage was an important mechanism in creating formal relations among competitive groups’’ who otherwise had minimal political organisation (1980, p. 166). Jorgensen also notes the practice of ‘‘intense bartering’’ in northern California, and Heizer (1978b) records

P. Jordan, S. Shennan / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22 (2003) 42–74

47

Fig. 2. Key to tribal territories (After Heizer, 1978a,b).

limited evidence that baskets were passed between Californian groups, whose broader trade relations were characterised by one-for-one exchange, with the use of shell bead currency in some areas. Nevertheless, at appears that ‘‘people travelled only short distances: even people living on the navigable rivers did not travel far. People who were caught considerable distances from their home communities might be treated as poachers

and repulsed. Even trade and ceremonial relations were maintained within and between neighbouring communities in northern California. Marriage alliances, too, were between people from communities in the same tribelet or neighbouring tribelets (Jorgensen, 1980, p. 168).’’ To summarise, there is limited evidence of trade, marriage and other patterns of general interaction between the various ethno-linguistic groups. However,

48

P. Jordan, S. Shennan / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22 (2003) 42–74

even proceeding at very low intensities over long time periods this cultural contact could have permitted the partial flow of ideas, genes, portable artefacts and other cultural attributes across the network of cultural and linguistic frontiers that characterised the region (see Figs. 2 and 3). Aside from these general observations, we have no real data on how basketry production was learned and reproduced. Nor do we have detailed data on rates of innovation. Barrett suggests that, for the Pomo at least, some degree of manipulation of a basic range of decorative motifs was acceptable, thereby ‘‘permitting a great variety’’ of design combinations. However, there seems to be an inherent conservatism in the craft: ‘‘Borrowing of designs or of names seems almost

lacking among the Pomo, and invention of designs, as also of weaves and forms, is quite unknown (Barrett, 1905, p. 652).’’ Nevertheless, the evidence for trade and kinship suggests at least some degree of horizontal exchange and there is clear evidence that certain characteristics were shared by adjacent tribes: ‘‘the lattice twined weave seems to be confined entirely to the Pomo and adjacent Indians of other linguistic stocks but of similar culture (Barrett, 1905, p. 648).’’ In another area, for example, ‘‘Northern and Central Yana informants recognized 24 designs [motifs] as their own after looking at Maidu and Achumawi [basketry] specimens (Johnson, 1978, p. 365, drawing on the work on Sapir and Spier, 1943, p. 265).’’

Fig. 3. Spatial locations of Californian ethno-linguistic groups (Classified according to Shipley, 1978).

P. Jordan, S. Shennan / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22 (2003) 42–74

Research hypotheses In this paper we aim to explain the origins of diversity in the basketry assemblages recorded in Elsasser (1978) (see Appendix B). Three macroscale factors are identified for each group: geographic location, linguistic affinity, and local environment. We assume that language functions as a medium of group communication and similarities and differences are maintained through active social selection, to signal both identity and the bounds of general reciprocity (cf. Nettle, 1999). As elements of a particular group interact less often, new languages arise from the bifurcation of the older one via a process of linguistic phylogenesis. Often, historic language relations have been assumed to form a proxy record of population histories but even where associations with biological populations are weak—or indeed controversial—there is no doubt that the clear branching nature of internal relations between say Indo-European, Uralic, Bantu, etc. records one set of cultural transmission ‘‘vectors’’ via which a broad body of cultural knowledge/ability/information has been subjected to long-term processes of ‘‘descent with modification.’’ In California, we employ linguistic relations as a conceptual template that serves (a) as one potential proxy for population history and/or (b) a record of the transmission route-ways that have affected one cultural variable in the region and which we can compare and contrast to those followed by basketry traditions and practices. In short, we ask whether transmission, continuity, or change in material culture assemblages is governed more by phylogenesis or ethnogenesis. In order to explore these transmission pathways we use data on language (a proxy for ancestry), geographic distance and adjacency (proxy measures of horizontal diffusion), and ecology (a proxy for convergent adaptation). Language: If basketry traditions are transmitted within particular linguistic communities rather than being geographically diffused between groups, then speakers of related languages will have similar basketry irrespective of geographic location. Moreover, the relationships between the basketry assemblages of the different groups will reveal a similar branching pattern, which will have arisen through the cumulative bifurcation of techniques through history. Geography: If diffusion (ethnogenesis) is the predominant process, then adjacent groups sharing a border (Fig. 2) or perhaps closely located in

49

space but not actually adjacent (Fig. 3), will have similar basketry assemblages irrespective of their linguistic affinity and the local ecology. Ecology: Finally, if basketry technology is primarily a means of environmental adaptation— in other words, that given ecological factors ‘‘produce’’ certain basketry types—then groups whose tribal areas include similar environmental elements (soils, vegetation, climate, and relief, etc.) will have similar basketry assemblages. Conversely, groups whose tribal areas are made up of very different environments will have very different basketry assemblages, irrespective of their population history (i.e., linguistic affinity) and regardless of the potential for horizontal diffusion of traits from neighbouring groups (i.e., adjacency/proximity). The processes of phylogenesis and ethnogenesis form opposite ends of a continuum. In reality, the distribution and association of particular cultural attributes may be the product of both processes. Moreover, ecology, language and geography are not likely to be mutually exclusive influences and diffusion may conceivably occur into adjacent areas of similar language and ecology. The main aim of the paper is to explore and quantify the importance of these relative influences and to identify the relative input of different cultural transmission processes. A further factor to build into the equation is the relative rate at which different cultural attributes are transformed through time, and to model the cumulative effects of these incremental changes. Languages may, for example, change rapidly over time and at a rate, say, faster than innovation in craft traditions (and vice versa). In these situations—and even within a broadly defined cultural lineage (cf. Shennan, 2000)—the initially close associations between material culture and language may slowly ‘‘degrade’’ through time, even if they are being transmitted by similar processes within the same broader community. This is not to say that the two sets of variables will not contain a phylogenetic (or ethnogenetic, produced by extralocal contact) signal, but that the association between sets of variables will decline through time, although certain datasets like genes or languages may inherently preserve a deeper historical signal that say, basketry or burial practices. In other words, the ‘‘motors’’ of local innovation may be running at different speeds for different cultural variables, and this may break down the relationship between language and material culture (cf. Cavalli Sforza and Menozzi, 1994, p. 23

50

P. Jordan, S. Shennan / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22 (2003) 42–74

for different rates of genetic and linguistic evolution). Thus, groups could show evidence of historical relatedness on the basis of language affiliation, but any corresponding similarity suggesting relatedness in, e.g., material culture could have been ‘‘innovated away’’ to produce completely distinct local craft traditions.

The data For 39 of the ethno-linguistic groups outlined in ElsasserÕs tables of basketry data (see Appendices A and B) associated ecological, linguistic (using Shipley, 1978 and Goddard, 1996), and distance variables were compiled. Ecology One hypothesis we test is whether the variations in basketry assemblages have been produced by convergent ecological adaptation. If this had been the case then patterns of regional difference in the basketry assemblages would effectively ‘‘map’’ corresponding environmental variation across California. But how would this come about? Through time, communities possessing the locally most appropriate basketry technology—for example, for processing acorns—would survive more effectively than those that did not. In this way, the presence of a given environmental ‘‘type’’ in a given tribal area would simply have ‘‘generated’’ an associated adaptive basketry form or technique. Groups in similar ecological niches would simply produce the appropriate kinds of basketry as determined by the ecological specificities of that niche. In order to map the ecological characteristics of Californian sub-regions we employed ECOMAP (1993), whose framework . . .is a regionalization, classification, and mapping system for stratifying the Earth into progressively smaller areas of increasingly uniform ecological potentials. Ecological types are classified and ecological units are mapped based on associations of those biotic and environmental factors that directly affect or indirectly express energy, moisture, and nutrient gradients which regulate the structure and function of ecosystems. These factors include climate, physiography, water, soils, air, hydrology, and potential natural communities (Miles and Goudey, 1998).

The environmental ‘‘profile’’ of each tribal area was generated in GIS by overlaying the tribal

areas map (Fig. 2) on to this map of Californian ecological zones (ECOMAP, 1993; and see Miles and Goudey, 1998). Given that our basketry assemblages were recorded in presences/absences, and that we assumed a hypothetical correspondence between the presence of any given environmental characteristics and an associated basketry variables (or set of variables) we identified only the presence/absence of particular ecological zones in each tribal area rather than calculating the percentage of each tribal area made up of these different environmental types. Finally, most groups recorded in the basketry data base have their own tribal territory in the base map (Fig. 2), although there is some discrepancy for groups like the Yokuts (or Serrano and Kitanemuk), who occupy two areas, yet their basketry is recorded for the larger unified group(s). Here, environmental variables record the whole area occupied by the larger social unit. Conversely, Plains Miwok and Sierra Miwok, each with different basketry traditions, occupy the larger tribal area of ‘‘Miwok’’ and so environmental variables for both these groups are those for the larger Miwok tribal area shown ion Fig. 2. Language As noted above, there is general consensus on some but not all of the language classifications, with Hokan and Penutian, in particular, remaining contentious (see Appendix A). We did not possess data on the degree of cognate sharing between Californian languages and so a suite of existing classifications was employed rather than generating fresh language trees through cladistic techniques (cf. Gray and Jordan, 2000). To accommodate this breadth of opinion between linguistic ‘‘lumpers’’ and ‘‘splitters’’ we employ ShipleyÕs (1978) more ambitious classificatory language tree/table, which includes six distinct stocks, as well as three versions of GoddardÕs (1996) more recent classification, which is held to reflect current consensus over Californian languages. GoddardÕs (1996) language table/tree is produced in such a manner that higher ‘‘superstock’’ level classifications are noted, albeit with caution, enabling three possible readings of the table, which range from the ambitious to the more conservative. To summarise the four tables/trees: • Shipley (1978): Both Hokan and Penutian superstocks are present (see Appendix A). • Goddard (1996) version A: Our first version of GoddardÕs taxonomy closely resembles Shipley

P. Jordan, S. Shennan / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22 (2003) 42–74

(1978), with Hokan and Penutian ‘‘superfamilies’’ present, although there is slightly more detailed classification within these units. For example, Shipley lists all the four Miwok groups as speaking Miwok, within the Utian family of the Penutian stock. Goddard indicates, however, that the Utian family contains the Miwok subfamily, which is divided into West and East Miwok branches, containing Lake and Coast, and then Sierra and Plains Miwok languages, respectively. • Goddard (1996) version B: There is a much more important divergence from Shipley (1978) in our second version of GoddardÕs classification, with Hokan rejected as a stock and its component families then presented as independent units with no deeper historical/genetic association present. • Goddard (1996) version C: In the third classification both Hokan and Penutian groupings are rejected and only lower order relationships retained in the classification. Throughout all four classifications, however, Na-Dene, Algic, Yukian, and Uto-Aztecan are retained as viable taxonomic units as there exists sufficient general consensus as to their general integrity as groups of historically/genetically related languages. In order for these language tables/trees to be subject to quantitative analyses we ‘‘translated’’ the hierarchical relations into a corresponding mathematical format by employing and adapting a system initially detailed by Welsch et al. (1992). For Shipley and then Goddard, the following percentage values were employed. Note that there are slight differences in terminology and that the percentage values define the relative degrees of similarity/difference expressed in the original language tables/trees (cf. Table 1). Table 1 Measures of linguistic similarity Shipley (1978) Different stock Same stock Same family Same language Goddard (1996) Different (‘‘super’’)family Same ‘‘superfamily’’ Same family Same subfamily Same sub-branch Same language (but possibly different dialects thereof)

5% 30% 50% 95% 5% 15% 30% 50% 60% 95%

51

Distance measures Abstract references to ‘‘distance’’ have an inherent ambiguity, especially in studies of cultural transmission, where ‘‘social distances’’ affect the speed, direction, and indeed, possibility, of potential diffusion. At the same time this is a preliminary study, which aims to identify broad relative influences and so two simple measures were employed, firstly, euclidean geographic (‘‘as the crow flies’’) distances (i.e., proximity) and secondly, adjacency (i.e., the presence of a shared ethno-linguistic border). The base map for both measures is HeizerÕs (1978a, and see: Fig. 2) tribal map. Heizer does note that there is inevitably a degree of arbitrariness in the specific boundaries used, but the map is employed here as a means of deriving a general indication of the spatial interrelations between tribal areas and so this is not considered a problem: (a) Proximity: For geographic distance the centre point of each ethno-linguistic unit were plotted (see Figs. 2 and 3) as nodes using GIS and a matrix of euclidean distances between nodes generated. (b) Adjacency: In order to calculate adjacency a simple binary matrix was calculated. Groups sharing a common border (see Fig. 2) scored 1 and the absence of a common border scored 0. The San Francisco Bay was not assumed to represent a serious constraint to interaction and so groups either side of the water were recorded as having a common border. These definitions lead on to a number of important issues relating to various measures of distance and their effects on cultural transmission. Further studies will employ GIS to account for the effects of altitude, major rivers and water bodies, mountains, etc. on cultural diffusion. We do note that the more simplistic measures employed here model the more general contours of interaction, rather than the effect of specific and localised axes like key rivers or mountain passes. Basketry The baseline basketry data we use are drawn from two detailed tables in Elsasser (1978) and were converted into a table of presences/absences. Definite presences of a particular variable were recorded as 1Õs. Where certain variables are not recorded (e.g., coiled boiling vessels amongst the Achumawi) this was recorded as a 0. Likewise,

52

P. Jordan, S. Shennan / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22 (2003) 42–74

where information is noted to be uncertain or probabilistic 0Õs were also recorded. As neither of us have strong familiarity or specific expertise in the field of Californian basketry studies we sought to reproduce the contents and categories of ElsasserÕs table as faithfully as possible, rather than subject the data to our own subjective re-editing. In Appendix B the categories and codes employed by Elsasser (1978) and adapted for use in the current paper are stated in full, enabling direct comparison between our matrices and the original dataset. Our aim in this paper is to identify larger scale regional patterns in generalised basketry distributions. Future papers will adopt a more localised scale to focus on specific basketry techniques in greater detail. Analyses were carried out firstly on the full set of 219 variables and then on the various subsets that make up ElsasserÕs tables (e.g., types and uses, ornamentation, etc.). In addition, additional subsets were generated (e.g., detailing all raw materials used). Dye variables were included in the full set of variables but not subjected to individual analysis as a distinct subset. Finally, there is speculation that that twining and coiling technologies may have very different histories in the region (see Elsasser, 1978, p. 634). Hence, lumping associated coiling and twining variables together in analyses may potentially obscure results which might indicate distinctly different vectors of transmission. In particular, it has been suggested that coiled techniques were brought to the region through the migration of Penutian speakers (Dawson, 1973) and came to overlay pre-existing twining traditions. In order to explore these questions further, all variables associated with either coiling or twining traditions were ‘‘extracted’’ to form a general coiling and a general twining dataset, although these were not broken down into subsets like ornamentation, types, and uses, etc., as we did for the full set of basketry variables.

distinguish similarities deriving from recent common descent from those relating to diffusion, common adaptive patterns or distant common ancestry, so that overall similarity may result from any of the above factors or a mixture of them all. Phenetic methods of describing similarity are unable to detect evidence for shared ancestry (i.e., phylogenesis) because they do not test for it, although, as will see, they can provide input for analyses that do address these issues. In contrast, cladistic analyses calculate the frequency of shared derived characteristics, thereby aiming to detect the potential existence of descent with modification processes. Used in careful combination, this battery of tests has the potential to quantify relative ethnogenetic and phylogenetic contributions to processes of cultural transmission. Mantel Matrix tests For these analyses data on basketry, ecology, language, and distance were converted into similarity (basketry, language, adjacency, and ecology) and distance matrices (geographic distance). It is worth noting that there are four matrices, representing language trees from Shipley (1978) and Goddard (1996). Differences between these trees relate, in essence, to the in/exclusion of the larger Hokan and/or Penutian ‘‘superstocks (cf. Table 2).’’ There is a problem in converting categorical data into binary data in that clusters of variables are reproduced into groups of non-independent variables. Accordingly, for our analyses we employed the Jaccard index (or similarity ratio) in which joint absences are excluded from consider-

Table 2 Summary of differences between different linguistic classifications Language tree

Analyses We employ statistical tests and biological phylogenetic models to evaluate the contributions of ethnogenesis and phylogenesis in Californian cultural transmission. The methods employed here can be divided into phenetic and phylogenetic tests. The former calculate overall similarities between the ‘‘units’’ of analysis—in this case ethno-linguistic groups—without any attempt to

Shipley (1978) Goddard (1996) version A Goddard (1996) version B Goddard (1996) version C y ¼ yes, n ¼ no.

Contentious language stocks present Hokan stock?

Penutian stock?

y y

y y

n

y

n

n

P. Jordan, S. Shennan / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22 (2003) 42–74

ation and equal weight is given to matches and non-matches, thus minimising this effect. The Mantel Matrix test is a method of comparing whole matrices with one another to assess the extent to which the values in one are correlated with those in another (Mantel, 1967; Barbujani, 1995, p. 776). In addition to comparing two matrices and obtaining a correlation value between them, it is also possible to analyse three matrices at a time and obtain partial correlations, for example the correlation between basketry and language similarity controlling for distance. The results of the zero-order Mantel tests are shown in Table 3. For the basketry variables as a whole, geographic distance accounted for 38% of the basketry variation between ethno-linguistic groups while adjacency accounted for only 15%. ShipleyÕs language definitions accounted for only 7% or variation whilst those of Goddard generated better results. Ecology accounted for around 12%, a similar value to language. In the various subsets distance generally accounted for more basketry variation than adjacency—up to 45% versus 12% in the case of raw materials—although adjacency had a similar impact on techniques as distance (both around 16%). Generally, distance and adjacency had greater influences than either language or ecology, although for types, ecology was more important than either language or adjacency but still had less of an impact than distance. In the four definitions of language relations those with fewer ‘‘superstocks’’ accounted for slightly more variation. In the case of ornamentation GoddardÕs final language definition (without Hokan and Penutian stocks) accounted for almost 14% of variation. Overall, distance appears to be playing the most important role in generating the variation in the basketry traditions we observe across California. As noted above, however, such simple zero-order correlations cannot be taken at face value, because there are likely to be correlations between spatial, ecological and linguistic distance: Ethno-linguistic groups who share a common border or who are geographically close to one another may well tend to occupy environments with similar ecological characteristics and to speak related languages, so that the effects of each of these factors on basketry variation will not be independent of one another. Carrying out partial correlation analyses enables these correlations between putative explanatory factors to be controlled.

53

As Table 4 illustrates, for the analysis of ‘‘all basketry’’ with distance and adjacency (mutually correlated with a value of )0.37), if we compare the partial correlation between basketry and distance controlling for adjacency, with that for basketry and adjacency controlling for distance, we find that the first is approximately twice as large; distance is far more important. The implications of this become even clearer when we look at the percentage of the variation in basketry accounted for by the two variables. Whereas distance accounts for 34% of the variation, adding in language only accounts for an extra 8% leaving 58% unexplained. Distance and language shower a weaker mutual inter-correlation ()0.27). When the other variable is controlled, the partial correlation of distance with basketry is twice as great as that of language. Adding the effect of ecology to that of distance (35%) accounts for only an extra 8% giving 43% accounted for by the two variables together. Distance and ecology have a stronger mutual inter-correlation ()0.41) although the partial correlation of basketry with distance is six times higher ()0.56) than basketry with ecology (0.11), with the other factor controlled. Including the effects of ecology adds only 3% to the 36% accounted for by distance, leaving 60% unexplained. In the remaining sets of statistics, adjacency and language, adjacency and ecology, and language and ecology have broadly similar degrees of influence on basketry and leave around 80% of variance unexplained in all three calculations. Clearly, geographic distance appears to have a much greater influence on basketry assemblages than any of the other factors. The results for coiled basketry reveal different patterns. There is a relatively strong mutual correlation ()0.37) between distance and adjacency although the partial correlation with adjacency is fifteen times higher (0.29) than that with distance ()0.02), when the other factor is controlled. Although almost 90% of the variation remains unexplained adjacency accounts for almost all the explained variance in coiled basketry (10%) with distance adding less than 1%. Throughout the analyses of coiled basketry unexplained variance ranges between 90% and almost 100%. None of the postulated influencing factors appear to have any significant influence on the composition of coiled basketry assemblages. In all cases it is adjacency that appears to have the greatest, albeit nominal effect, on coiled basketry.

54

P. Jordan, S. Shennan / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22 (2003) 42–74

Table 3 Zero-order Mantel test results Assemblages

Influences:

Geog. dist.

Adj.

Lang 1

Lang 2

Lang 3

Lang 4

Ecology

All basketry

Correlation coefficient (rY1) Determination of Y by X1 (%) Probability

)0.621 0.385

0.399 0.159

0.265 0.07

0.358 0.128

0.362 0.131

0.364 0.132

0.340 0.115

p is 1 in 1000

y

y

y

y

y

y

Correlation coefficient (rY1) Determination of Y by X1 (%) Probability

)0.132 0.312 0.0174 0.097

0.157 0.024

0.128 0.016

0.141 0.141

0.117 0.013

0.122 0.014

p is 1 in 1000

y

y

y

y

y

y

)0.531 0.282

0.266 0.071

0.2 0.04

0.294 0.086

0.304 0.092

0.304 0.092

0.244 0.059

p is 1 in 1000

y

y

y

y

y

y

)0.394 0.155

0.414 0.172

0.263 0.069

0.309 0.096

0.309 0.096

0.316 0.1

0.298 0.088

p is 1 in 1000

y

y

y

y

y

y

)0.597 0.357

0.313 0.098

0.180 0.032

0.285 0.081

0.29 0.084

0.305 0.093

0.333 0.111

p is 1 in 1000

y

y

y

y

y

y

)0.509 0.259

0.402 0.162

0.272 0.074

0.367 0.134

0.37 0.137

0.369 0.136

0.281 0.079

p is 1 in 1000

y

y

y

y

y

y

)0.514 0.264

0.303 0.092

0.248 0.061

0.340 0.115

0.341 0.116

0.339 0.115

0.260 0.067

p is 1 in 1000

y

y

y

y

y

y

)0.671 0.451

0.35 0.122

0.224 0.05

0.305 0.093

0.299 0.089

0.303 0.092

0.324 0.105

p is 1 in 1000

y

y

y

y

y

y

Coiled

Twined

Techniques

Types and uses

Ornamentation

Techniques and raw materials

Raw materials

Correlation coefficient (rY1) Determination of Y by X1 (%) Probability Correlation coefficient (rY1) Determination of Y by X1 (%) Probability Correlation coefficient (rY1) Determination of Y by X1 (%) Probability Correlation coefficient (rY1) Determination of Y by X1 (%) Probability Correlation coefficient (rY1) Determination of Y by X1 (%) Probability Correlation coefficient (rY1) Determination of Y by X1 (%) Probability

Key: Influences (geog. dist. ¼ geographic distance (proximity); adj. ¼ adjacency; Lang 1/2/3/4 ¼ language classifications by (1) Shipley (1978), and (2–4) by Goddard, 1996, versions A, B, and C, respectively, i.e., A has all contested supergroups, B has Penutian but not Hokan, and C has no supergroups); probability (y ¼ p is 1 in 1000).

Relationships between twined basketry, ecology language, distance, and adjacency are different to those for coiled basketry. Distance—rather than adjacency—has the greatest influence on

twined assemblages, with adjacency, ecology, and language exerting nominal influences. To summarise, proximity (geographic distance) and adjacency appear to exert the greatest influ-

P. Jordan, S. Shennan / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22 (2003) 42–74

ences on the various basketry assemblages, whilst language and ecology appear to exert only minor influences. Proximity—one proxy measure for horizontal cultural blending—appears to be particularly important in influencing the distribution of twined basketry types. Coiled basketry assemblages, however, have a very high component that cannot be explained by either ethnogenesis, convergent adaptation or vertical transmission: each local assemblages appears essentially distinct, although there is some limited evidence for horizontal diffusion. Correspondence analysis In addition to the Mantel Matrix test the basketry data were also subjected to correspondence analysis, using all the variables together as well as various subsets (cf. Moore and Romney, 1994 for a comparable use of this method). Correspondence analysis is a method for summarising the variation in frequency or presence/ absence data and characterising its main patterns in a small number of new axes (see e.g. Shennan, 1997); it is closely analogous to principal components analysis. In contrast to analyses based on similarity or distance measures, such as the Mantel Matrix test, it has the advantage of being based on the original raw data values, in this case the values of each of the ethno-linguistic groups on the various basketry variables. As already noted, converting the basketry data into binary format may generate non-independent variables, which could influence the outcome of analyses. In order to explore this issue further, multidimensional scaling analysis (SPSS PROXXXCAL) was performed on the basketry data for the 39 ethno-linguistic groups, using the Jaccard similarity matrix of all basketry variables. The result was more or less identical to the correspondence analysis plot. In other words, dichotomising the multistate variables did not make any difference to the results presented in the current analysis. The output of the correspondence analysis method includes scatterplots of the original observations, in this case the ethno-linguistic units described in terms of their basketry variables, in relation to the new axes. An indication of the extent to which the different axes summarise the variation in the data is also given. The analyses whose results are described below were carried out using the CANOCO and CanoDraw software (ter Braak and Smilauer, 1998; Simlauer, 1992). Cor-

55

respondence analysis statistics are recorded in Appendix C.1 Important note: The numbering of the assemblages varies with each plot as outlined in Table 5. All basketry variables (with Shipley, 1978 language key): Fig. 4 shows the ethno-linguistic groups against the first two axes of the correspondence analysis based on all the basketry variables. It is readily apparent that the distribution of the points on the plot corresponds to an only slightly distorted representation of their relative geographical positions (see Fig. 4), with the northern groups at the left-hand end of the characteristic horseshoe-shaped distribution and the southern ones at the right-hand end. Groups speaking Pentuatian and Hokan affiliated languages are widely scattered throughout the region, indicating that linguistic affinity—at least according to this ‘‘contested’’ classification—has little bearing on the distribution of basketry assemblages, which seems

1 The keys to plots (Figs. 4–12) record groupsÕ linguistic affiliation as defined by the ‘‘Goddard (1996) version C’’ classification, whilst the key to plot x uses ShipleyÕs (1978) classification. In other words, the Hokan and Penutian superstocks are absent from the former series of plots but are included in the latter plot. The use of Goddard C required many more linguistic categories to be defined and this created a problem with the output from the software, which can only show up to 16 data categories. One solution would have been to employ the Penutian superstock classification, but this would have meant comparing broader superstocks with stocks and families (e.g., Yukian), all quite different units of analysis reflecting very different degrees of relatedness. Instead, two groups—Ipai–Tipai and Maidu—were excluded from the analysis on the grounds that they are both small and, according to Goddard (1996) version C, are non-related to other groups. They are also geographically marginal to the study area and so their exclusion was not thought to be a problem, especially since we were more interested in the detection of overall processes than in localised details. In addition, as our analyses progressed through the various subsets it was noted that for the ‘‘Types and uses,’’ ‘‘Ornamentation,’’ ‘‘Raw materials,’’ and ‘‘Technology and raw materials’’ classes no data were recorded in Elsasser (1978) for Esselen and the Lake and Coast Miwok groups. These groups were also subsequently removed from the analysis. The plot using ShipleyÕs (1978) definition has only six larger groupings of languages, which include both Hokan and Penutian, and so this problem of constraint was not encountered. This final plot is included as this classification is employed in both the Mantel Matrix analyses we conducted above and the cladistic analysis we perform below.

56

P. Jordan, S. Shennan / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22 (2003) 42–74

Table 4 Mantel Matrix test: partial correlations Assembalges

Calculationsa

B/D/A

B/D/L

B/D/E

All basketry

Regression coefficient (bY1) Regression coefficient (bY2) Partial regression (bY1_22) Partial regression (bY2_21) Correlation coefficient (rY1) Correlation coefficient (rY2) Correlation coefficient (r12) Partial correlation (rY1_22) Partial correlation (rY2_21) Determination of Y by X1 (%) Determination of Y by X2 (%) Total determination of Y (%) Unexplained variance of Y (%)

0 0.269 0 0.131 )0.621 0.399 )0.373 )0.555 0.23 0.34 0.077 0.418 0.581

0 0.005 0 0.003 )0.621 0.364 )0.27 )0.582 0.26 0.35 0.077 0.427 0.572

Coiled basketry

Regression coefficient (bY1) Regression coefficient (bY2) Partial regression (bY1_22) Partial regression (bY2_21) Correlation coefficient (rY1) Correlation coefficient (rY2) Correlation coefficient (r12) Partial correlation (rY1_22) Partial correlation (rY2_21) Determination of Y by X1 (%) Determination of Y by X2 (%) Total determination of Y (%) Unexplained variance of Y (%)

0 0.173 0 0.17 )0.132 0.312 )0.373 )0.017 0.285 0.002 0.095 0.097 0.902

0 0.001 0 0.001 )0.132 0.117 )0.27 )0.104 0.085 0.014 0.01 0.024 0.975

Twined basketry

Regression coefficient (bY1) Regression coefficient (bY2) Partial regression (bY1_22) Partial regression (bY2_21) Correlation coefficient (rY1) Correlation coefficient (rY2) Correlation coefficient (r12) Partial correlation (rY1_22) Partial correlation (rY2_21) Determination of Y by X1 (%) Determination of Y by X2 (%) Total determination of Y (%) Unexplained variance of Y (%)

0 0 0 0.173 0.184 0.004 0.228 0.091 0 0 0 0.179 0.054 0.002 0.029 )0.016 )0.531 )0.531 )0.531 0.312 0.266 0.304 0.244 0.122 )0.373 )0.27 )0.411 0.449 )0.483 )0.489 )0.487 0.29 0.086477 0.196304 0.033822 )0.0211 0.267 0.257 0.275 0.1 0.021 0.052 0.007 )0.002 0.288 0.31 0.283 0.097 0.711 0.689 0.716 0.902

B/A/L

B/A/E

B/L/E

0 0.309 0 0.092 )0.621 0.3403 )0.411 )0.561 0.118 0.359 0.034 0.394 0.605

0.269 0.005 0.216 0.004 0.399 0.364 0.29 0.329 0.283 0.128 0.098 0.227 0.772

0.269 0.309 0.208 0.183 0.399 0.34 0.449 0.293 0.196 0.123 0.068 0.192 0.807

0.005 0.309 0.004 0.256 0.364 0.34 0.188 0.325 0.297 0.113 0.095 0.209 0.79

0 0.0917 0 0.061 )0.132 0.122 )0.411 )0.09 0.075 0.013 0.009 0.023 0.976

0.173 0.173 0.001 0.091 0.16904 0.17946 0.0003 )0.016 0.312 0.312 0.117 0.122 0.29 0.449 0.292 0.29 0.029 )0.021 0.094 0.1 0.003 )0.002 0.098 0.097 0.901 0.902 0.184 0.228 0.136 0.146 0.266 0.244 0.449 0.18 0.14524 0.052 0.038 0.09 0.909

0.001 0.091 0.0012 0.077 0.117 0.122 0.188 0.097 0.102 0.011 0.012 0.024 0.975 0.004 0.228 0.004 0.181 0.304 0.244 0.188 0.27 0.2 0.081 0.047 0.128 0.871

Key: B ¼ basketry assemblage; D ¼ geographic distance; A ¼ adjacency; E ¼ ecology; L ¼ language (Shipley, 1978, version C, i.e., no Hokan or Penutian superstock). Y ¼ probability at 1 in 1000. a Note. Calculations are performed as y/x1/x2, e.g., in column B/D/A basketry ¼ x, distance ¼ y1, adjacency ¼ y2.

to be influenced much more by geographic location, our proxy measure for horizontal cultural diffusion. The cluster of Na-Dene language speakers is the obvious exception to this pattern, although all these languages are found in contiguous areas of northern California. All Basketry variables (Goddard C key): This plot (Fig. 5) is essentially the same as the one described above but the linguistic key has been

changed to that of Goddard C. Hokan—the contentious ‘‘waste-bin stock’’—and Penutian have been broken down into smaller classifications, generating a new set of patterns between languages in the basketry plot. There is now a much greater tendency for clustering according to linguistic affinity although this probably reflects the fact that speakers of related languages tend to be clustered in the same sub regions (e.g., speakers of

Table 5 Tribal numbering on CA plots Correspondence analysis plots: keys to ethno-linguistic groups Fig. 5: all basketry (With Goddard, 1996, version C)

Fig. 6: coiled

Fig. 7: twined

Fig. 8: techniques

Fig. 9: raw materials

Fig. 10: techniques and raw materials

Fig. 11: ornamentation

Fig. 12: types and uses

TOLOWA KAROK YUROK WIYOT HUPA MATTOLE SINKYONE NONGATL LASSIK WAILAKI CHIMARIKO SHASTA ATSUGEWI ACHUMAWI CAHTO YUKI POMO WAPPO LAKE MIWOK COAST MIWOK

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Absent Absent

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Absent Absent

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Absent Absent

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Absent Absent

WINTU NOMLAKI PATWIN YANA MAIDU COSTANOAN ESSELEN SALINAN YOKUTS SIERRA MIWOK

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

21 22 23 24 Absent 25 26 27 28 29

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Removed as outlier 21 22 23 24 Absent 25 26 27 28 29

21 22 23 24 Absent 25 26 27 28 29

21 22 23 24 Absent 25 26 27 28 29

19 20 21 22 Absent 23 Absent 24 25 26

19 20 21 22 Absent 23 Absent 24 25 26

19 20 21 22 Absent 23 Absent 24 25 26

19 20 21 22 Absent 23 Absent 24 25 26

P. Jordan, S. Shennan / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22 (2003) 42–74

Fig. 4: all basketry with Shipley, 1978

57

34 Absent 34 Absent 34 Absent 34 Absent 37 Absent 37 Absent 37 Absent 38 39

37 Absent

27 28 29 30 31 32 33 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

PLAINS MIWOK MONACHE TUBATULABAL CHUMASH GABRIELINO LUISENO SERRANO AND KITANEMUK CAHUILLA IPAI-TIPAI

Fig. 11: ornamentation Fig. 10: techniques and raw materials Fig. 9: raw materials Fig. 8: techniques Fig. 7: twined Fig. 6: coiled Fig. 5: all basketry (With Goddard, 1996, version C) Fig. 4: all basketry with Shipley, 1978

Correspondence analysis plots: keys to ethno-linguistic groups Table 5 (continued)

27 28 29 30 31 32 33

P. Jordan, S. Shennan / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22 (2003) 42–74

Fig. 12: types and uses

58

Na-Dene languages are located exclusively in the north). In other words, this plot serves to illustrate the complex entanglement of geographic (ethnogenetic) and historical (phylogenesis) factors in studies of cultural transmission. Figs. 6–12 show the plots of the ethno-linguistic groups against the first two CA axes, with the Goddard C classification retained as the language key. Variables from sub-categories of the full basketry database are plotted, which included ornamentation, raw materials, basketry techniques, types and uses, and the combined raw materials and techniques dataset. In addition, the exclusively coiling and twining variables were also plotted. Coiled Basketry (Fig. 6): This is generally a southern phenomenon (Elsasser, 1978, p. 626) and so many of the northern groups are absent from the plot. Uto-Aztecan speakersÕ basketry tends to cluster, while that of the Yukian, NaDene, Utian and Wintuan speakers appears to be much more scattered. When a Coast Miwok outlier is removed from the plot, this confused pattern—with the exclusion of the cluster of UtoAztecan speakers—remains unchanged. Twined Basketry (Fig. 7): This was present amongst all groups, and an exclusive technology in the northern part of the region. This plot is interesting in that there is strong clustering according to regional geographic location. Northern and more central groups are pulled out along the vertical axis, whilst those from the south are separated along the horizontal axis. The densest clusters are amongst the northern groups, many—but certainly not all of whom—speak closely related Na-Dene languages. Kroeber (1905, p. 105), for example, acknowledges the linguistic differences characteristic of this area, but also records virtually indistinguishable basketry traditions amongst local groups including the Yurok, Karok, and Hupa. Techniques (Fig. 8): In this plot there are three main groupings: northern groups are pulled out to the top and left, midland groups like the Pomo, Wappo, and Miwok are clustered densely to the right whilst southern groups are pulled down towards the bottom of the vertical axis. The groups do also cluster according to language but, once again, this seems to be as closely related to geographic location as much as the presence of shared linguistic histories determining similar basketry traditions. Raw materials (Fig. 9): Groups clearly plot according to geographic location (northern

P. Jordan, S. Shennan / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22 (2003) 42–74

59

Fig. 4. Correspondence analysis plot—all basketry variables with Shipley (1978) language key (Hokan and Penutian Present).

groups to the bottom left, midland groups higher on the vertical axis and souther groups to the bottom right). Languages do cluster, but only when groups in one area speak related tongues. Techniques and raw materials (Fig. 10): Once again, there is strong regional grouping in these basketry traditions, with geography meshing with linguistic affiliation to generate language clusterings. Ornamentation (Fig. 11): There is very dense clustering amongst northern groups, with groups from central and coastal California being pulled out to the bottom right. More southerly groups from the interior pull out to the top right. This plot suggests the presence of three broad regional trends in ornamentation—northern, midland and southern—with loose associations with linguistic affinity. Uto-Aztecan speakers are present in both southern and midland clusters, suggesting that horizontal diffusion—and not shared history—is the most important factor generating these 3-way sub-groupings. Types and uses (Fig. 12): The plot reflects the geographic location of different ethno-linguistic

groups. The dense cluster of northern groups is extremely striking, suggesting that there are essentially uniform basketry types in the area, irrespective of the fact that many of these groups speak unrelated languages. Correspondence analysis: discussion These plots highlight three issues. Firstly, it is clear that the kind of linguistic classifications employed in the plots can influence the kind of conclusions that can be drawn from the analysis. When the bigger Hokan and Penutian stocks are included in the key, there appears to be very little association between linguistic affinity (in this classification degrees of relatedness are very weak anyway, especially for very widely distributed Hokan languages) and the basketry assemblages. Geographic proximity—our proxy for horizontal cultural diffusion—appears to be the dominant influence. The use of a more conservative classificatory key generates more complex results, with language (history) and geography (diffusion) appearing to exert combined influences. Secondly, even with this latter Goddard C key, geography

60

P. Jordan, S. Shennan / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22 (2003) 42–74

Fig. 5. Correspondence analysis plot—all basketry variables with Goddard (1996) version C language key (Hokan and Penutian not present).

still appears to remain the most important influence on basketry. Clusters of related languages do emerge within clusters of similar basketry types, but within these clusters other unrelated languages are also present. The consistently dense clustering of the northern groups—Na-Dene but also speakers of other unrelated languages—is perhaps the clearest example of this phenomenon. Rather, it would appear from these clustered plots that the basketry of California is marked by three broadly different traditions; northern, midland and southern. The southern trend is loosely associated with Uto-Aztecan speakers, who occupy much of this area, whilst the midland tradition has much weaker affiliation with any one group of languages. Na-Dene speakers cluster in the northern traditions but—as consistently noted—many other groups in this area have almost identical basketry but speak unrelated languages. The high levels of similarity defining this northern trend are revealed most clearly in ornamentation, raw materials and types and uses. Thirdly, these three broad regional basketry groupings suggest intense localised interaction of a kind which can proceed both

within—and between—related and unrelated language groups. This would indicate that different transmission processes are at work on different scales, producing (a) localised sub-regional branching of languages versus horizontal diffusion of basketry, whilst (b), at a regional scale, basketry appears to be branching into three broadly defined lineages, with the northern tradition most distinct. Phylogenetics In addition to phenetic analyses, biological phylogenetic methods were applied to the basketry data. As outlined above, phylogenetic processes of cultural transmission operate via the progressive bifurcation—or cultural ‘‘speciation.’’ Where cultural phylogenesis has proceeded branching diagrams (akin to language trees or evolutionary charts of biological species) can be employed to map these transmission route-ways. It is important to note from the outset that the application of cladistic models to cultural datasets

P. Jordan, S. Shennan / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22 (2003) 42–74

61

Fig. 6. Correspondence analysis plot—coiled basketry variables with Goddard (1996) version C language key (Hokan and Penutian not present).

is a heuristic exercise and we do not assume, a priori, that phylogenesis must have generated the variation in the basketry assemblages we observe. Rather, we postulate—as a null hypothesis—that cultural ‘‘speciation’’ (bi-furcation) has been an important process in California, generating the observed composition of the basketry assemblages. We then test for presence of a phylogenetic ‘‘signal’’ in the data, quantify its relative contribution and attempt to link the operation of the processes to specific transmission mechanisms, in particular, the role of geography, linguistic affiliation and/or local ecology. If we assume that new basketry traditions (techniques, decorative styles, and forms) arise from the bifurcation of older ones (language formation and biological speciation may be argued to proceed in the same way) then the cladistic method of phylogenetic reconstruction can be employed to generate a tree diagram (cladogram). This tree diagram links the basketry traditions of the ethno-linguistic groups in such a way that that the number of hypothesised changes required to account for the similarities among them is mini-

mised. An exact cultural analogy would be, for example, the composition of Germanic or Slavic languages, which have older Indo-European elements alongside progressively more recent elements, including pan Germanic or pan Slavic elements, as well as the subjective elements that distinguish Czech from Russian, or German from Dutch. The key point is that these similarities and differences—and degrees of relatedness—can be mapped through genealogical tree charts. Theoretically, if phylogenetic processes have produced the individual basketry assemblages, then each assemblage (i.e., a basketry ‘‘language’’ of diverse elements of varying ancestry) will contain deeper proto elements that are shared with almost all other groups, plus a series of more recent ones of branching origin, each shared with progressively fewer and fewer other groups, to a point where each groupÕs basketry is distinct, but exhibits decreasing degrees of relatedness as the dates of divergence between the different techniques go further back in time. These hierarchical degrees of ancestral basketry relatedness can be plotted as a ‘‘cultural’’ tree diagram, which is analogous

62

P. Jordan, S. Shennan / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22 (2003) 42–74

Fig. 7. Correspondence analysis plot—twined basketry variables with Goddard (1996) version C language key (Hokan and Penutian not present).

to language trees, biological species trees, and so on. Cladistic analyses require a series of tests, firstly to identify whether these data contain a phylogenetic signal; secondly, to test the strength of this signal by investigating how well the data fit a bifurcating tree model (a close fit would suggest that phylogenesis played a dominant role; a poor fit that ethnogenesis or convergent adaptation had predominated); thirdly, to examine how well other bifurcating tree models (generated from ecology, language and geographic distance data) fit the basketry data. A close fit between, say, the basketry data and the ecology tree would suggest that environmental adaptation had been an important influence on emerging basketry traditions. Likewise, a close fit between the distance and basketry trees would suggest that geographic propinquity had been an important influence. When applied to datasets cladistics works ‘‘backwards’’ into history by reconstructing, in this case, basketry genealogies from the common similarities and differences amongst the assemblages.

Three main datasets were tested, all basketry variables, coiling variables and twining variables. In particular, there is general consensus that twining and coiling techniques have different histories in the region and cladisitics represents a powerful technique for opening out these assertions and linking them to explanatory mechanisms. Do the data contain a phylogenetic signal? In scenerios where phylogenesis has predominated over ethnogenesis, there will be a close fit between specific sets of cultural variables and the bifurcating tree model, as cultural ‘‘lineages’’ form along the lines of biological speciation. Parsimony analysis identifies the cladogram (branching tree structure), which requires the least number of evolutionary changes, i.e., the ‘‘best fit’’ tree for a given data set. Thus, if regional basketry variation has arisen through phylogenesis then the assemblages will reveal clear hierarchical patterns of progressive interrelatedness that can easily be mapped onto a phylogenetic tree diagram. Conversely, any random dataset could have spurious

P. Jordan, S. Shennan / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22 (2003) 42–74

63

Fig. 8. Correspondence analysis plot—basketry techniques with Goddard (1996) version C language key (Hokan and Penutian not present).

patterns that could be progressively sub-divided and mapped onto a ‘‘best fit’’ tree. Cladistics is a heuristic technique and it is important to quantify how effectively it accounts for trends in the data. The PTP (permutation tail probability) is a standard method to test for the presence of a phylogenetic signal. Paup 4.0 (Swafford, 1998) software was employed to generate 1000 random basketry datasets by reshuffling all the variables multiple times. After each permutation a best fit (or most ‘‘parsimonious’’ tree or ‘‘cladogram’’) was computed for these random data combinations, with the shortest tree lengths indicating the best fit (data variation is accounted for by a minimum number of bifurcations). Next, the length of the most parsimonious ‘‘best fit’’ cladogram was obtained from the original unpermuted data and compared to the range of best fit trees from the shuffled datasets. If the original data cladogram is shorter than 95% or more of the random cladograms derived from the permuted data, then a phylogenetic signal is considered to be present in the data set. In other words, there are genuine

phylogenetic patterns in the data, and these patterns are much stronger than 1000 random recompositions of the same data elements. For the full set of 219 basketry variables the best fit tree on the unpermuted data had a length of 602. The tree lengths calculated for the random datasets varied between 1132 and 1184 indicating that there was a phylogenetic signal in the data. Coiled basketry had 69 characters and a best fit tree of 173. The fact that the random trees ranged between 298 and 321 suggests that the phylogenetic signal was relatively strong. The signal for twined basketry was even stronger, with 81 characters fitting a tree whose length was 217 whilst the trees for the permutated data ranged between 359 and 385. For all results p ¼ 0:001. How well do the data fit the bifurcating tree model? As noted, cladograms can be generated for any dataset but the degree to which variation in the data can be represented in the form of a branching diagram will vary significantly: a best fit tree can be generated, but how well does that tree actually

64

P. Jordan, S. Shennan / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22 (2003) 42–74

Fig. 9. Correspondence analysis plot—raw material variables with Goddard (1996) version C language key (Hokan and Penutian not present).

account for the variations in the data (i.e., how important has phylogenetic branching actually been in the the generation of a particular set of cultural assemblages). To use another linguistic example, in historical linguistic terms there is no debate that English is a Germanic language which emerged from the same series of progressive linguistic bifurcations that generated German, Dutch, Frisian, and other related languages. However, much of the current vocabulary is of French (Norman) and other diffused origins. In short, there are clearly historical ‘‘genetic’’ signals in the data from which an uncontested family tree can be drawn, although much of the internal linguistic content (the inherent internal variation in the linguistic ‘‘assemblage’’) does not fit these lines of branching descent very well. The reason for this is the long-term operation of other horizontal transmission processes. Measuring the fit of ‘‘data’’ to ‘‘tree’’ does therefore give some indication of the relative historical contributions of phylogenetic versus ethnogenetic transmission processes. As Forey et al. (1992, pp. 74–75) note, there are various means for measuring how well a tree

fits a given dataset. We use the consistency index (CI) to measure what proportion of the basketry variation has arisen through cumulative bifurcation, meaning that they fit the tree model very well, or through horizontal mixing and diffusion, which will result in a very poor tree fit. A 0 score represents 100% homoplasy—a very poor fit—or, in cultural transmission terms, 100% blending. A score of 1 means a perfect tree fit; or in other words, that all variation has arisen through the cumulative bifurcation of earlier traditions, meaning that these changes can be mapped perfectly in the form of a branching tree diagram. Importantly for cultural transmission studies, the CI score gives a measure of relative phylogenetic:ethnogenetic contributions (cf. Tehrani and Collard, 2002). For all three Californian basketry datasets it would appear that the phylogenetic signal, which we detected by employing the PTP test, is not particularly strong, and that around 65% of basketry assemblage composition can be attributed to horizontal mixing (e.g., that 35% of the variation in the full set of California basketry variables is

P. Jordan, S. Shennan / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22 (2003) 42–74

65

Fig. 10. Correspondence analysis plot—raw materials and techniques with Goddard (1996) version C language key (Hokan and Penutian not present).

associated with phylogenetic or branching processes and 64% is the result of cultural blending. The figures for coiling and twining are similar, with around 40% of basketry variation associated with branching processes of transmission. Explaining the data: the Kishino–Hasegawa test Methods. Although we have noted that the three sets of basketry data do appear to have been influenced by phylogenesis we still lack explanatory mechanisms to account for these patterns of cultural variation. And here we can return to our three core hypotheses, that basketry variation in California has been influenced most strongly by either (a) shared population/linguistic history (b) horizontal diffusion, and/or (c) ecological adaptation. Just as a tree diagram can be calculated to express degrees of graded similarity and/or difference between the 39 groups in terms of their basketry assemblages, so a different set of relations between the same groups can be expressed in the form of a language tree, or in a distance/ad-

jacency tree, or indeed in a tree plotting ecological similarities between tribal areas. If, for example, basketry assemblages are a product of intense local interaction then adjacent/proximal groups will have very similar basket traditions, meaning, in cladistic terms that the branching structure of the basketry and distance trees will match one another very closely. Indeed, the closer the fit the more credibility can be attached to a particular hypothesis. The same line of deductive reasoning follows for comparisons between basketry and language (proxy for population history) trees and basketry and ecology trees (ecological adaptation). In short, assessing the fit of a range of ‘‘explanatory’’ trees to the best fit tree of a given data set constitutes a powerful analytical tool for assigning explanatory mechanisms to observed patterns of cultural diversity. Even where a given data set contains a phylogenetic signal there is no a priori reason to assume that it will fit closely with trees constructed for the linguistic, geographic or ecological data sets. The method

66

P. Jordan, S. Shennan / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22 (2003) 42–74

Fig. 11. Correspondence analysis plot—ornamentation variables with Goddard (1996) version C language key (Hokan and Penutian not present).

enables explanatory models of cultural diversity to be disentangled and compared systematically on a case-by-case empirical basis. Where languages and basketry assemblages had been transmitted—and progressively bifurcated—in tandem the language and basketry trees would fit very closely togther, indicating the presence of broadly defined cultural ‘‘lineages (cf. Shennan, 2000).’’ Analysis. Methods like the PTP test can determine the shortest possible tree length for a given data set relatively quickly. In this sense, they rapidly evaluate how many bifurcations (i.e., tree length) must have taken place in order to produce the broader data patterning. Calculating the specific structure of the basketry best fit trees involves more complex analyses and requires the use of PAUP 4 (Swafford, 1998) software. Often, a small group of best fit trees, all with the same length, will fit the data equally well. Amongst this group, minor rearrangements of lower order tree branches distinguish different trees, but none of these

changes make any one tree fit the data any better (or worse) than the rest: all these trees fit the data equally well and all have the same overall length. Best fit trees were s calculated for (a) All Basketry Variables, (b) Coiled Variables and (c) Twined Variables. Seven further trees were constructed manually in MacClade 4 (Maddision and Maddision, 2000). These ‘‘explanatory’’ trees represented relations of similarity and difference between the 39 ethnolinguistic groups in terms of their linguistic affinity, geographic distance, adjacency and the local ecological characteristics of each groupÕs area. Once again we postulated that if basketry traditions had progressively bifurcated along the same vertical historical axes as languages, then the language tree for California would be very similar in length and structure to the basketry best fit trees. Similarly, trees for distance represent a proxy measure of horizontal diffusion (closer groups have similar basketry) and ecology for convergent adaptation (groups from similar areas have similar basketry assemblages):

P. Jordan, S. Shennan / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22 (2003) 42–74

67

Fig. 12. Correspondence analysis plot—basketry types and uses with Goddard (1996) version C language key (Hokan and Penutian not present).

Languages: four language trees were included in the analysis: Shipley (1978) and Goddard (1996) version A, both of which include the contentious Hokan and Penutian superstocks, plus Goddard (1996) versions B (no Hokan but Penutian) and C (no Hokan, no Penutian). Geographic distance: a nearest neighbour tree was generated using squared Euclidean distance Adjacency: the adjacency matrix used in the Mantel Matrix tests (above) was converted into a nearest neighbour dendrogram. The original matrix measured the presence of shared borders between the 39 ethno-linguistic groups in binary format. Ecology: the Ecozone similarity matrix (using Jaccard coefficients) used in the Mantel Matrix tests (above) was converted into a nearest neighbour dendrogram. Assessing the fit of other data trees There are statistical techniques for measuring the strength of fit between ‘‘data trees’’ and ‘‘explanatory trees’’ and the Kishino–Hasegawa

test (Kishino and Hasegawa, 1989) represents one method. In these tests the basketry data are passed through the series of ‘‘constraint’’ trees (language, ecology, distance) so that the degree of fit between the basketry and these new trees can be calculated. Obviously, the optimal tree(s) for basketry will, by default, fit the basketry data most closely, but the closeness of fit between this/ these tree(s) and the various ‘‘explanatory’’ trees (language, distance, ecology) can be measured statistically. While the optimal tree will fit the data best—and thereby have the shortest length— good explanatory trees will also enjoy a close fit— and short length in relation to the data. In this way, increasing tree lengths amongst the suite of explanatory models will signal a progressively worse fit and hence a poorer explanation of the observed basketry variation. If there is no statistical difference between the optimal tree and the best explanatory tree then this model effectively predicts the data variance and can be tentatively accepted as valid explanation. Where there is a significant difference in degree of fit

68

P. Jordan, S. Shennan / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22 (2003) 42–74

between the optimal and best explanatory tree, then the order of the trees gives some relative indication of the importance of different cultural transmission factors (i.e., history/geography/convergent adaptation). As noted above, the first stage in the analysis is to generate an optimal tree for basketry. Due to the complexity of datasets there are often multiple best fit trees, all of the same length, but differing very slightly in the arrangements of smaller clades or branches. They all have the same basic ‘‘macro’’ structure but accommodate minor details in data variation by alternative arrangements of outlying branches. For All Basketry there were 4 optimal trees, for Coiled Variables 34 trees and for Twined 4 trees. Each of the explanatory trees (ecology/language/distance) was characterised by a distinct ‘‘architecture’’ as different bifurcations structured each tree into different formats. At the same time, none of these trees were fully ‘‘resolved.’’ This means that many clades did not bifurcate into two further branches but split into ‘‘bushes’’ of multiple branches, indicating multiple possible avenues of unrelated ‘‘descent’’ rather than progressive bifurcation. In practice however, the explanatory trees did have varying degrees of internal structure. For example, while it known that Californian languages can be grouped into languages and stocks it is not possible to determine which group of languages emerged first in history: they all emerge from a deep historical past. When mapped as a tree diagram, each stock or unrelated language emerges from a common source. In this sense, there are unresolved splits that are represented as ‘‘bushes.’’ In order to ‘‘resolve’’ these explanatory trees the basketry data was ‘‘passed’’ through them and a heuristic search conducted in PAUP 4 (Swafford, 1998) to find which tree would best fit the basketry data ‘‘within’’ the basic structural terms of each explanatory tree. In other words, rather than search for a best fit tree for the basketry data that can take any form, this method represents a controlled search within external imposed frameworks. Limited rearrangements are possible—but the tree has to fit the data as closely as possible within the terms imposed, for example, by the structure of particular language tree groupings (Table 6). This method generates a suite of ‘‘resolved’’ explanatory trees for ecology, language and distance, which can then be statistically tested against the best fit tree(s) for the basketry. Ranking the trees according to degree of fit—as-

Table 6 Consensus (‘‘best fit’’) trees Assemblages

Charactersa

Length

All basketry Coiled basketry Twined basketry

219 69 81

602 173 217

a

i.e., number of variables.

sessed in terms of tree length—allows a simple summary of results. Table 7 details the results of these Kishino–Hasegawa analyses. The easiest route into these statistics is to note that all the explanatory trees are significantly different to the optimal trees: none provide an absolute answer to our investigation of basketry variations. For all basketry variables adjacency appears to exert the greatest influence on basketry, suggesting that diffusion has been important, although the most conservative language tree is only slightly longer this, and actually shorter than the tree for geographic distance. The other language classifications provide weaker explanations and the influence of ecology appears to be particularly weak. Here we detect a scenario whereby basketry techniques are being reproduced according to local/sub-regional traditions, in some loose association with only very closely related (and geographically proximal) languages. The results for coiled basketry suggest a bigger role for regional diffusion, with linguistic affiliation playing a lesser role, even when associations between only very closely related languages are accounted for. The more ambitious language classifications do not fit the data well and local ecology also appears to have little influence. The distribution of twined basketry variation appears to have some association with very closely related languages, suggesting at least some influence of vertical cultural transmission. Adjacency also makes a strong contribution, which is interesting because many related languages are spoken in contiguous areas. Progressively more ambitious language classifications fit the data better than the geographical distance tree, again, suggesting some association between the ‘‘descent with modification’’ processes transmitting twining techniques and languages. This is interesting, because these more complex classifications link groups that are often no longer adjacent, and the fact that these trees fit the data better than distance suggests that basketry traditions—at least with regard to twining—cannot be accounted for by cultural diffusion alone. It would appear that

P. Jordan, S. Shennan / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22 (2003) 42–74

69

Table 7 Results of Kishino–Hasegawa test Rank

Length

Difference

All basketry variables 1 602 0 2 761 159 3 774 172

No. of trees

Signiff diff at <0:0001*

Tree description (ranked)

4 4 3

n/a yes yes

Optimal basketry Adjacency Language (Goddard, 1996, version A: no Hokan, no Penutian) Geographic Distance Language (Goddard, 1996, version B: no Hokan, Penutian retained) Language (Shipley, 1978 Hokan and Penutian retained) Language (Goddard, 1996, version C: Hokan and Penutian retained) Ecology

4 5

777 792

175 190

12 6

yes yes

6 7

819 840

217 238

2 3

yes yes

8

902

300

2

yes

34 2 119 242

n/a yes yes yes

Coiled basketry variables 1 173 0 2 226 53 3 233 60 4 241 68 5

249

76

8

yes

6 7 8

261 268 269

88 95 96

82 2 251

yes yes yes

Twined basketry variables 1 217 0 2 286 69

4 12

n/a yes

3 4

288 289

71 72

8 25

yes yes

5 6

294 302

77 85

12 71

yes yes

7 8

313 349

96 132

6 6

yes yes

there is an inherent historical signal in these data for twined basketry, suggesting loosely defined cultural lineages.

Discussion As was the case with the New Guinea analysis carried out by Welsch et al. (1992), the current findings strongly suggest that geographic propinquity exerts an important identifiable influence on the distribution of basketry traditions in California. At the same time, there appears to be some detectable relationship between the composition

Optimal basketry Geographic distance Adjacency Language (Goddard, 1996, version A: no Hokan, no Penutian) Language (Goddard, 1996, version B: no Hokan, Penutian retained) Language (Shipley, 1978—Hokan and Penutian retained) Ecology Language (Goddard, 1996, version C: Hokan and Penutian retained) Optimal basketry Language (Goddard, 1996, version A: no Hokan, no Penutian) Adjacency Language (Goddard, 1996, version B: no Hokan, Penutian retained) Language (Shipley, 1978—Hokan and Penutian retained) Language (Goddard, 1996, version C: Hokan and Penutian retained) Geographic distance Ecology

of local basketry assemblages and groupsÕ language affiliation. If we assume that language affinity constitutes a proxy measure for broadly defined population histories then these findings could generally be attributed to the influence of significant horizontal diffusion, across the linguistic boundaries of the region. However, it is important to note that distance is, in itself, neither a process of change nor explanation for the distribution of particular cultural attributes. It is merely a proxy measure for likely intensities of regional interaction. These points aside, there appears to be no unequivocal evidence that cultural ‘‘lineages’’

70

P. Jordan, S. Shennan / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22 (2003) 42–74

have existed in California, whereby processes of cumulative population bifurcation and subsequent isolation have reproduced lineages of closely related languages and basketry traditions. What we do detect probably amounts to sub-regional ‘‘communities of culture,’’ where broadly similar basketry traditions are found alongside a suite of related and non-related languages. The strength of the association between these basketry and linguistic sub-regions depends largely on the kind of linguistic classifications employed. One explanation for this is that the superstocks simply arenÕt ‘‘real’’ entities, or that the postulated historical linkages that unite them extend so far back in historical time that once existing relationships have long since disappeared. Clearly, the transmission processes affecting basketry and language distributions are similar in that these sub-regional ‘‘clusterings’’ are produced, although the fit between distributions is rather loose and perhaps strongest for twined basketry. In other words, these initial findings indicate that languages and craft traditions are subject to broadly similar transmission processes, but that basketry is more susceptible to horizontal diffusion. At the same time, the analyses indicated only very broad similarities in adjacent basketry traditions even at the sub-regional scale. All the statistical analyses revealed high levels of unexplained variance, in other words, that each local basketry tradition was essentially distinct. However, the relatively low level of resolution of the basketry data set may mean that the analyses are only picking up certain spatial/adaptive signals from this material. A much smaller scale and socially grounded study might reveal different patterns and the presence of localised ‘‘cultural lineages’’ in basketry traditions. Indeed, this phenomenon is suggested repeatedly in the (qualitative) ethnographic literature. As Dawson and Deetz (1965, p. 203) conclude in a study of Chumash basketry: The most distinctive and recognizable aspects of Chumash style are primarily in the sense of spacing in designs which is subtly different from that of their neighbours. Their avoidance of blocky effects and love of sharp lines and angles in figures are outstanding.

In terms of the current study, the results suggest that local processes of cultural transmission are producing a set of residual basketry differences, which cannot be explained by either geographic propinquity or linguistic affinity.

Conclusion Amongst indigenous communities in California regional similarities in material culture assemblages appear to be related, in part, to the geographic distances between the ethno-linguistic groups. California appears to have broad regional groupings in basketry traditions, despite the extremely high levels of linguistic diversity. Within these groupings many communities may speak similar languages although many do not. Clearly, transmission must be proceeding across these linguistic boundaries. Exploring these basketry traditions at a regional scale suggests that the linguistic affiliation of the groups appears to be less important in determining the similarity of their material culture. However, at smaller scales of analysis there is an increased likelihood that groups with similar material culture will speak similar languages, perhaps a legacy of the fact that the diffusion of languages and/or traditions may be associated with their internal transformation, again, leading to the loss of any ‘‘historical signal’’ in the cultural attribute assemblages if diffusion is either long range or long term. Ecological similarities between tribal areas, however, appear to encourage only some extremely minor convergence in basketry characteristics. At a broader level, these findings suggest that broadly comparable cultural processes are affecting the transmission of language and the traditions associated with material culture use and production. Interestingly, however, the sharp Californian linguistic boundaries, which have been of great interest to both anthropologists and linguists alike, appear to be largely porous to the diffusion of certain broad material culture traditions at least when viewed on a sub-regional scale. These processes appear to have given rise, languages aside, to what Welsch et al. (1992, p. 590) have coined sub-regional communities of culture. The micro-topographies of indigenous culture, indicated by the sharply defined linguistic diversity, are overlain, at local and regional scales, by the sharing of more general basketry traditions. Anecdotal evidence resonates with these general conclusions: The three languages (Yurok, Karok, and Hupa) are as radically different in phonetics as they are totally unrelated in vocabulary. The three tribes live in close contact, with more or less intercourse and general friendly relations. In their culture they are remarkably alike (Kroeber, 1905, p. 105).

P. Jordan, S. Shennan / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22 (2003) 42–74 The basketry of the Yurok, Karok, and Hupa is virtually identical. No basket could be identified with certainty as from a particular one of the three tribes. When a large number of baskets from one tribe are brought together, slight differentiating tendencies are discernable. Thus the Karok are more inclined than other tribes to use red. They seem also more inclined to use patterns containing vertical outlines instead of the more usual oblique (Kroeber, 1905, pp. 116–7).

At the same time, the statistical methods employed here indicate that a large proportion of variation in the assemblages is not accounted for by either the effects of distance, ecology or broad linguistic affinity: most ethno-linguistic groups have essentially different basketry traditions. These realisations point to the need for more research in the following areas: • More detail is need at a local scale to explore specific mechanisms of cultural transmission rather than the broader historical patternings explored here. • Distinct local traditions may also be produced by high levels of local craft innovation, which may both erode any historical signal in the data and counteract the emergence of greater—and ethnogenesis led—cultural convergence between adjacent groups. • This paper constitutes a pilot study of basketry and language. Further analysis is required to explore whether other cultural variables like burial practices, belief systems and kinship are subjected to vertical rather then horizontal modes of transmission. An important caveat to these conclusions is that the basketry variables we have analysed were all recorded in the later colonial period, at a time when indigenous California had been subjected to a suite of profound changes following the initial Spanish conquest. The exact impacts of these factors on patterns of indigenous cultural transmission remain, as yet, unclear, but emphasise the role of historical contingency in all forms of social interaction, and thereby the need for careful caseby-case empirical studies of ethno- and phylogenesis. Although we have defined these two transmission mechanisms and noted the importance of potentially differential innovation rates on patterns of transmission, their exact workings within this Californian context appear to have involved too many variables that are too poorly understood to be successfully built into mathematical models that can predict or fully explain

71

the material culture assemblages we have focused upon. As Zigmond (1941) also noted, geographic proximity, linguistic affinity and/or, local ecology, taken together or singly, simply cannot account for local nuances in the distribution and composition of particular indigenous traditions. In the final section of his ethnobotanical investigation of Uto-Aztecan groups in California and the Great Basin—all of whom speak very closely related languages and occupy contiguous areas with very similar ecology—he argues that: We are forced to the conclusion. . . that native peoples frequently fail to exploit plants which are available to them and which serve useful purposes to at least some of their contemporaries (1941:277).

Moreover, no line of demarcation between so-called cultural areas will adequately represent the ethnobotanical situation. Not only do areas of usage shift from species to species, but even parts of a plant will have distinctive areas of utilization (1941, p. 278).

We believe, however, that by starting with generalised models—by throwing simple questions at complex issues—and a suite of clear hypotheses we can, firstly, identify the broader dimensions to, and legacies of, cultural transmission so that, secondly, further analyses can focus in the areas where our theorization and empirical investigations are weakest. It is hoped that this paper will reopen long standing debates about the emergence of cultural and linguistic diversity both in California and in other regions of the world. One final point. This analysis of basketry has focused on the ‘‘ethnographic present’’ of indigenous California, but this anthropological study also makes contributions to archaeological debates on the material and linguistic dimensions of cultural transmission and transformation. Firstly, it illustrates that the relationships linking the transmission of material culture and language are extremely poorly understood. We simply cannot assume that the distribution and long-term reproduction of very similar artefact types/traditions indicates any corresponding association with particular language groups whether at the language, stock or superstock level of taxonomic classification: for example, the basketry of NW

72

P. Jordan, S. Shennan / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22 (2003) 42–74

California is very similar yet linguistically the area is extremely heterogeneous. Secondly, had we studied these basketry distributions as normative archaeological assemblages then there is a strong likelihood that we would have defined archaeological ‘‘cultures’’ on the basis of the kinds of basketry similarity plots presented in the correspondence analysis, outlined above, and then perhaps gone on to postulate ethnic groupings and corresponding linguistic affinities as existing at a similar scale. Two points arise, firstly, that there is no close relationship—bar a loosely

defined and non-exclusive sub-regional one— between language, material culture and any form of ethnic identity; secondly, ‘‘archaeological cultures,’’ even as invented units, do appear to be much larger than the distinct socio-linguistic communities who reproduce these broader ‘‘communities of culture’’ at a much more extensive scale. Clearly, even with powerful computing facilities and modern cladistic and statistical techniques quantification and explanation of cultural transmission processes remain in their infancy.

Appendix A. The linguistic affinity of 39 ethno-linguistic groups in California

Postulated arrival date

STOCK

FAMILY

LANGUAGE

Ethno-linguistic

Code (in this paper)

OLDEST

HOKAN HOKAN HOKAN HOKAN HOKAN HOKAN HOKAN HOKAN HOKAN HOKAN HOKAN

N/A N/A N/A N/A CHUMASHAN PALIHAINAN PALIHAINAN POMOAN SHASTAN YANA YUMAN

CHIMARIKO ESSELEN KAROK SALINAN CHUMASHAN ACHUMAWI ATSEGEWI POMO SHASTA YANA DIGUENO

CHIMARIKO ESSELEN KAROK SALINAN CHUMASH ACHUMAWI ATSUGEWI POMO SHASTA YANA IPAI-TIPAI

11 27 2 28 34 14 13 17 12 24 39

LATER

PENUTIAN PENUTIAN PENUTIAN PENUTIAN PENUTIAN PENUTIAN PENUTIAN PENUTIAN PENUTIAN PENUTIAN

MAIDUAN UTIAN UTIAN UTIAN UTIAN UTIAN WINTUAN WINTUAN WINTUAN YOKUTSAN

MAIDU MIWOK MIWOK MIWOK MIWOK COSTANOAN PATWIN WINTU NOMLAKI YOKUTS

MAIDU LAKE MIWOK COAST MIWOK SIERRA MIWOK PLAINS MIWOK COSTANOAN PATWIN WINTU NOMLAKI YOKUTS

25 19 20 30 31 26 23 21 22 29

NEWER

UTO-AZTECAN UTO-AZTECAN UTO-AZTECAN UTO-AZTECAN UTO-AZTECAN

NUMIC TAKIC TAKIC TAKIC TAKIC

MONO CAHUILLA G-F LANG L-J LANG SERRANO

32 38 35 36 37

UTO-AZTECAN

TUBATULABAL

TUBATULABAL

MONACHE CAHUILLA GABRIELINO LUISENO SERRANO AND KITANEMUK TUBATULABAL

33

NA-DENE NA-DENE NA-DENE NA-DENE NA-DENE NA-DENE NA-DENE NA-DENE

ATHAPASKAN ATHAPASKAN ATHAPASKAN ATHAPASKAN ATHAPASKAN ATHAPASKAN ATHAPASKAN ATHAPASKAN

HUPA MATTOLE TOLOWA WAILAKI WAILAKI WAILAKI WAILAKI WAILAKI

HUPA MATTOLE TOLOWA SINKYONE NONGATL LASSIK WAILAKI CAHTO

5 6 1 7 8 9 10 15

NEWEST

P. Jordan, S. Shennan / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22 (2003) 42–74

73

Appendix A. (continued) Postulated arrival date

STOCK

FAMILY

LANGUAGE

Ethno-linguistic

Code (in this paper)

UNKNOWN

ALGIC ALGIC

N/A N/A

WIYOT YUROK

WIYOT YUROK

4 3

UNKNOWN

YUKIAN YUKIAN

N/A N/A

WAPPO YUKI

WAPPO YUKI

18 16

Note. For other classifications, see Goddard (1996), although the main difference between Shipley, 1978 and Goddard, 1996 versions A, B, and C is the presence or absence of Hokan and/or Penutian. The other larger classifications, like Na-dene and so on, are much more certain.

Appendix B. Basketry variables See supplementary data (available on ScienceDirect). Appendix C. Summary of CA statistics

Correspondence analysis plot axis

1

2

3

4

All basketry (Shipley, 1978 Key) All basketry (Goddard, 1996 C Key) Coiled basketry Twined basketry Techniques Types and uses Ornamentation Raw materials and techniques Raw materials

18.1 17.9 16.1 18.2 15.8 29.4 26.3 22.4 26

29.6 29 28 29.7 27.9 42 48.1 35.4 41.8

38.1 37.2 38.7 38 37.4 51.8 59.9 46.1 50.8

44.5 43.2 48.6 45.4 45 60 69.9 53.7 58.3

Acknowledgments The authors thank Andrew Bevan, Mark Collard, Clare Holden and Fiona Jordan for their valuable assistance in bringing this paper to press. REFERENCES CITED Barbujani, G., 1995. Reply to Roberts, Moore and Romney. Current Anthropology 36 (5), 769–788. Barrett, S.A., 1905. Basket designs of the Pomo Indians. American Anthropologist NS 7 (4), 648–653. Braak, T.C.J.F., Smilauer, P., 1998. CANOCO Reference Manual and UserÕs Guide to Canoco for Windows: Software for canonical Community Ordination (version 4). Microcomputer Power, Ithaca, NY, USA. Castillo, E.D., 1978. The impact of Euro-American exploration and settlement. In: Heizer, R.F. (Ed.), Handbook of North American Indians, California, vol. 8. Smithsonian Institute, Washington, pp. 80– 90.

Cavalli Sforza, L., Menozzi, P., 1994. The History and Geography of Human Genes. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. Dawson, L., Deetz, J., 1965. A Corpus of Chumash Basketry. Annual Report Archaeological Survey, Dept. of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles. Dawson, L., 1973. Towards a historical interpretation of Californian and Great Basin Basketry. Unpublished manuscript. ECOMAP, 1993. National hierarchical framework of ecological units. Unpublished administrative paper, US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, DC, 20 pp. Elsasser, A.B., 1978. Basketry. In: Heizer, R.F. (Ed.), Handbook of North American Indians, California, vol. 8. Smithsonian Institute, Washington, pp. 626– 641. Forey, P.L., Humphries, C.J., Kitching, I.L., Scotland, R.W., Siebert, D.J., Williams, D.M., 1992. Cladistics. A Practical Course in Systematics. Claredon Press, Oxford. Goddard, I., 1996. Introduction. In: Goddard, I. (Ed.), Handbook of North American Indians. Languages, Vol. 17. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, pp. 1– 16.

74

P. Jordan, S. Shennan / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22 (2003) 42–74

Gray, R., Jordan, F., 2000. Language trees support the express-train sequence of Austronesian expansion. Nature 405 (29), 1052–1055. Greenberg, J.H., 1987. Language in the Americas. Stanford University Press, Stanford. Guglielmino, C.R., Vignotti, C., Hewlett, B., Cavali Sforza, L.L., 1995. Cultural variation in Africa: role of mechanisms of transmission and adaptation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 92, 7585–7589. Heizer, R.F., 1978a. In: Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8. Smithsonian Institute, Washington, CA. Heizer, R.F., 1978b. Trade and Trails. In: Heizer, R.F. (Ed.), Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8. Smithsonian Institute, Washington, CA, pp. 690–693. Johnson, J.J., 1978. Yana. In: Heizer, R.F. (Ed.), Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8 California. Smithsonian Institute, Washington, pp. 361–369. Jorgensen, J.G., 1980. Western Indians. Comparative Environments, Languages, and Cultures of 172 Western American Indian Tribes. W.H. Freeman, San Francisco. Kishino, H., Hasegawa, M., 1989. Evaluation of the maximum likelihood estimate of the evolutionary tree topologies from DNA sequence data, and the branching order in Hominoidea. Journal of Molecular Evolution 29, 170–179. Kroeber, A.L., 1905. Basket Designs of the Indians of Northwestern Californian. University of California Publications. American Archaeology and Ethnology 2 (4), 102–164. Mantel, N., 1967. The detection of disease clustering and a generalized regression approach. Cancer Research 27, 209–220. Miles, S., Goudey, C., 1998. Ecological Subregions of California. USDA Forest Service. USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDI, Bureau of Land Management. http://www.r5.fs.fed.us/ecoregions/ Internet number: R5-EM-TP-005-NET. Mithun, M., 1999. The Languages of Native North America. CUP, Cambridge. Moore, J.H., 1994. Putting anthropology back together again: the ethnogenetic critique of cladistic theory. American Anthropologist 96, 925–948. Moore, C.C., Romney, A.K., 1994. Material culture, geographic propinquity, and linguistic affiliation on the North Coast of New Guinea: a reanalysis of Welsch, Terrell, and Nadolski (1992). American Anthropologist 96, 370–396. Nettle, D., 1999. Linguistic Diversity. Oxford University Press, Oxford. OÕNeale, L.M., 1932. Yurok-Karok Basket Weavers. University of California Publications in American archaeology and Ethnology 32 (1), 1–184. Sapir, E., Spier, L., 1943. Notes on the Culture of the Yana. University of California Anthropological records, Berkeley 3(3), 239–298.

Shennan, S., 1997. Quantifying Archaeology, second ed. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh. Shennan, S., 2000. Population, Culture History, and the Dynamics of Culture Change. Current Anthropology 4 (5), 811–835. Shennan, S., 2001. Demography and Cultural Innovation: a Model and its Implications for the Emergence of Modern Human Culture. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 11 (1), 5–16. Shipley, W.F., 1978. Native languages of California. In: Heizer, R.F. (Ed.), Handbook of North American Indians, California, vol. 8. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, pp. 80–90. Simlauer, P., 1992. CanoDraw. Microcomputer Power Ithaca, NY, USA. Swafford, D.L. 1998. PAUP* 4. Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (* and Other Methods), Version 4, Sinauer, Sunderland. Tehrani, J., Collard, M., 2002. Investigating cultural evolution through biological phylogenetic analyses of Turkmen textiles. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21, 443–463. Wallace, E., 1978. Sexual status and role differences. In: Heizer, R.F. (Ed.), Handbook of North American Indians, California, vol. 8. Smithsonian Institute, Washington, pp. 683–689. Welsch, R.L., Terrell, J.E., Nadolski, J.A., 1992. Langauge and culture on the North Coast of New Guinea. American Anthropologist 94, 568–600. Zigmond, M.L., 1941. Ethnobotanical Studies among California and Great basin Shoshoneans. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University. University Microfilms International 70–19, 046, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Further Reading Baumhoff, M.A., 1978. Environmental background. In: Heizer, R.F. (Ed.), Handbook of North American Indians, California, Vol. 8. Smithsonian Institute, Washington, pp. 16–24. Boyd, R., Richerson, P., 1985. Culture and the Evolutionary Process. Chicago University Press, Chicago. Cavalli Sforza, L.L., Feldsman, M., 1981. Cultural Transmission and Evolution: A Quantitative Approach. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Cook, S.F., 1978. Historical Demography. In: Heizer, R.F. (Ed.), Handbook of North American Indians, California, Vol. 8. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, pp. 80–90. Shennan, S., Steele, J., 1999. Cultural Learning in hominids: a behavioural ecological approach. In: Box, H., Gibson, K. (Eds.), Mammalian Social Learning: Comparative and Ecological Perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 367– 388.