and continuity of the band. For the most part, however, indi-
vidual bands were self-suffi cient.
Th e social organization of these bands was essentially
egalitarian, meaning that no person or group of persons held
a higher status or social position than others because of birth,
though, of course, a person could achieve status through
greater skill as a hunter. Because the groups were constantly
on the move, following food supplies and seasonal changes,
opportunities to accumulate possessions were few. People
lived in caves or built temporary shelters out of perishable
materials, and for the most part they owned only what they
could carry.
Accordingly there was little sense of caste or social class
within these bands. Men typically hunted, oft en leaving
the settlement for days at a time (but carefully avoiding en-
croachment on the territory of other bands). Women stayednear the settlement to rear children and to gather plant foods.
In coastal communities or those near major bodies of fresh
water fi shing and the collection of shellfi sh were important
sources of food. (Parts of ancient Mexico and the southwest-
ern United States were much cooler and wetter than they are
in modern times, so the region contained larger and deeper
inland bodies of water.)
To say that a culture is egalitarian does not mean that
status diff erences do not exist. In what is today the southwest-
ern United States along the Rio Grande there lived numerous
Pueblo peoples. One of these groups made up the ancestors of
a culture that came to be called the Tewa. Th e ancestral Tewa
were an egalitarian society, and yet status diff erences were
part of their culture. Th e Tewa identifi ed levels of earthly be-
ings, as well as levels of inhabitants of the spirit world. Th e
top rung of earthly people, for example, included the patowa,How can archaeologists detect something as abstract as an “egalitarian ethic” in a society with no written historical re-
cords and only a sparse and incomplete archaeological record? How can they look at bones or tools or pieces of pottery
and make statements about the social relationships and organization of people who lived thousands of years ago?
In the case of a hunter tribe one specifi c technique that archaeologists use is to examine such objects as arrow-
heads and spear points. These points, made of stone, have survived through the millennia, while the wooden spear
shafts, arrows, and the like have long since decayed and disappeared. These stone objects may not be writing, but
they can tell a story about the people who made them in much the same way that a written account can.
In examining points used on hunting weapons, archaeologists are interested in at least three different things.
First they examine the style of each point they fi nd, looking for points that were probably made by the same person.
An arrowhead or spear point is like a small sculpture, with a style unique to the person who made it. Such matters as
size, shape, and the way the sharp edge was formed come into play. Archaeologists can sort the points found in an
area according to the individual styles in which they were made.
Second, archaeologists try to determine how many people in a community made points for hunting weapons.
Sometimes they fi nd a number of points, but all seem to have been made by the same person or perhaps by just two
people. In other cases they fi nd a variety of styles, suggesting that numerous people made points and perhaps even
that each hunter was responsible for making his own.
Finally, archaeologists are interested in where the points are located. If they fi nd points made by a particular
hunter in a narrow geographical zone, they can infer that use of those points was restricted to the hunter who made
them, along with perhaps a limited number of others in his band. If the points are found over a wider geographic zone,
they can infer that the points were used by a wider range of people in the band and perhaps even in other bands.
In Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley, for example, archaeologists have discovered that the same small band of hunters
made use of six or seven distinguishable styles of points. This tells them that each hunter in the band was responsible
for making his own points; a smaller number, perhaps one or two, would suggest that one or two people had respon-
sibility for making points for all the members of the hunting group.
In other societies the existence of unique points, each made by an individual hunter, suggests that a point could
be used to identify the hunter who made the kill; this in turn could determine who got the meat. Among the people
of the Oaxaca Valley, however, the existence of six or seven unique points found over a relatively wide geographic area
strongly suggests that points were exchanged with friends and relatives. Points, then, could not have been used to
identify the successful hunter, since several hunters may have been using the same point. For the same reason, the
points could not have been used to determine who could lay claim to the meat. The effect was to diffuse meat distri-
bution. Put simply, it did not matter who made the kill; the meat was equally distributed to everyone. Archaeologists
can infer that the social organization of the band was egalitarian, with no one person seen as deserving more game
meat than any other because of higher social status.HOW DO ARCHAEOLOGISTS KNOW?
1040 social organization: The Americas0895-1194_Soc&Culturev4(s-z).i1040 1040 10/10/07 2:30:51 PM