Naroditsky, Daniel

11.30.18
Archaeology 1
Professor Rick

Assignment 3: A Sociocultural Reconstruction and Comparison of Two

Prehistoric Societies

In this paper, I offer a sociocultural reconstruction of two pre-Columbian societies that

occupied the Santa Maria Valley in Mexico. I advance that the societies diverged in both their

military potency and in the extent to which class stratification and sociocultural organization

played a role in dictating the way that the society functioned on a daily basis. I begin by

considering the society of San Juan Asqueroso, and proceed to compare its perceived

sociocultural organization to that of Tahuile. I conclude with a brief discussion of how the

formation and function of both societies may be fruitfully explained by several different theories

of state formation.

We begin by considering several lines of evidence that point to the class stratification and

intricate political organization inherent in the society of San Juan Asqueroso. In the first place,

figure 2, along with the attendant data on archaeological remains found at each of the structures,

evinces a clear difference in the nature and layout of the residential compounds that made up San

Juan Asqueroso. Before launching into a discussion of the compounds themselves, it is important

to make two evidentiary clarifications. First, I use the term residence, by itself or in a phrase

such as residential compound, to mean a structure that an individual inhabits and in which said

individual performs the duties necessary for survival, such as eating and sleeping. Other

activities, such as cultural ceremonies or socially-driven interactions, can occur in a residence,

but its primary use is to cater for an individual’s basic needs.

Naroditsky 1
 Second, I submit that a cursory examination of the data shows that San Juan Asqueroso

was composed of at least three residential compounds (Northwest corner, Southwest corner, and

Northeast corner). To understand why each of these compounds is likely to be residential, we

several ancillary lines of evidence present themselves. In the first place, structures 1, 10, and 11

contain hearths. It is possible that a hearth served a ceremonial purpose, but it seems more likely

that a hearth was used either to keep inhabitants warm in cold weather, or to cook food (or both).

Both of these purposes make a hearth more suited to a residential area, especially since Mexico

has a year-round warm climate and the night seems to be the only time that the temperature

could conceivably be low enough to warrant a heating device.

Most importantly, the archaeological remains (as well as the architecture) found at each

compound are unique, suggesting that each was inhabited by a group of individuals who differed

in their role, and concomitantly in their place on the sociopolitical hierarchy. Within structure 1,

we find an assortment of tools that are generally used for agricultural purposes. Most notable is

the presence of 15 basalt hoes — unique among all of the structures — which suggests that the

inhabitants were involved in tilling or hoeing soil, likely for the purpose of planting and tending

to crops. In addition, we see plant remains, scrapers, and food grinding stones, all of which lend

further credence to the notion that the residents were involved in food production and

agricultural work. It is harder to explain the chert projectile points; it seems unlikely that they

were used as weapons, since no other weapons are to be found within the remains. It strikes me

as more likely that these points were used to fashion the figurines that were found under the

floor. There is a copious amount of chert flakes, buttressing the notion that the projectile points

were painstakingly produced and burnished in order to be used for some sort of craftsmanship

(as well as for fine agricultural work). I advance, then, that the Northwest compound was

Naroditsky 2
probably inhabited by farmers and miscellaneous agricultural workers, some of whom doubled

as specialized craftsmen who manufactured figurines to be used for ceremonial and ritual

purposes.

We now turn to the Northeast corner, to which belong the remains found in structures 10

and 11. It is plain that these remains, which consist largely of flakes, blades, and stones, were

used for some sort of craftsmanship or construction. All of these items are small, and there is no

heavy-duty equipment (such as hoes), which suggests that the inhabitants of this compound were

not tightly involved in agricultural work. Notably, there is a great number of basalt flakes, all of

which came from basalt that had to be brought in from a distance of over 25 km. This

observation, along with the heavy use to which the obsidian blades and cores were suggested,

leads me to conclude that the inhabitants of the Northeast corner were involved in the production

and manufacture of various tools and crafts, among which one can almost certainly identify the

figurines found in the central structure. It is also not unlikely that these craftsmen manufactured

basalt hoes, which then made their way to the Northwest corner to be used by farmers and food

producers.

The Southwest corner is harder to classify from the archaeological remains alone. In

structure 7, one finds a copious amount of ceramic sherds, which may suggest some sort of

craftsmanship. But one also finds 18 deer bones, which constitute far more animal remains than

are found at any of the other corners. The obsidian blades merely add to the ambiguity; it seems

equally plausible that the inhabitants of the Southwest corner were warriors, craftsmen, farmers,

or something altogether different.

To resolve this ambiguity, I believe that it is crucial to turn to the burial data, which

offers further insight into the roles that the individuals in question played during their lifetimes.

Naroditsky 3
To this end, the associated artifacts from the burials surrounding structure 1 are not terribly

informative: we hypothesized that the inhabitants of the Northwest corner were involved in

agricultural work, yet the associated artifacts can be interpreted in a myriad different ways.

Somewhat more informative are burials 11-13, which are found in the Northeast corner. All of

these individuals are buried with graving tools, adding weight to our prediction that these

individuals were craftsmen and builders.

But it is burials 6-8, which are to be found in the Southwest corner, which have the most

utility in helping us shed light on the aforementioned ambiguity. In terms of pure numbers, the

graves of these individuals contain more artifacts by a country mile: even the two-year-old

toddler at number 6 has 8 artifacts, whereas the 35-year-old craftsman buried at number 12 has

only 6! The individual buried at number 7 possesses an unthinkable 28 obsidian blades, a number

rendered all the more shocking by the fact that obsidian could only be found 150 km away. Jade

and hematite, which feature in the burials, were also imported.

All of this data leads me to conclude that the Southwest corner was inhabited by the elite

class, which may have included the leaders of the society, elite warriors, and perhaps individuals

from the first two compounds who demonstrated a superior quality of work. To this end, the

individual buried at number 7 may have been a warrior due to the jade axeheads, while number 8

was likely some sort of leader due to his advanced age and the presence of a gold mask, unique

among all of the artifacts. The two-year-old may have been part of an elite individual’s family,

given the fact that no other individual under the age of 10 was buried with any associated

artifacts.

In sum, I propose that San Juan Asqueroso was a heavily stratified society in which

residents were segregated in accordance with the role that they fulfilled. It is hard to say whether

Naroditsky 4
craftsmen or agricultural workers were higher up on the sociopolitical hierarchy, but it is evident

that the aristocracy — composed of elite workers, societal leaders, and perhaps warriors — were

universally respected and enjoyed a high quality of both life and death. To complete the

reconstruction, I propose that the central structure, loosely encompassing structures 2-8, served

non-residential purposes. To this end, it is worth paying attention to structure 4, which may have

served some sort of ceremonial purpose due to its unique painting. Structure 5 may have

functioned as some sort of mess hall due to the copious amount of food remains, and structure 6

may have operated as a kind of military headquarters due to the presence of obsidian arrowheads.

This notion is further buttressed by the fact that stone walls surround some of the structures in

the central compound. It is difficult to piece together the exact function of the central compound,

but since my analysis focuses on stratification and sociocultural organization, we will leave it at

that.

In comparison, Tahuile does not lend itself particularly well to an analysis that seeks to

ascertain stratification and social organization. In the first place, this is due to the fact that the

remains found at each of the structures can hardly be divided along functional lines. To this end,

structure 2 houses figurine and shell fragments, which suggest craftsmanship, but also include

hoes, a grinding stone, and projectile points, which squarely indicate agricultural work. The same

ambiguity is attendant to the remains found at structure 4: we see evidence of military activities

in the human remains, yet the great amount of hematite nodules, grinding stones, and animal

bones indicate that all sorts of work, from craftsmanship to agricultural processing to ceremonial

activities, were also done in structure 4.

Unlike in San Juan Asqueroso, burial data does not come to the rescue. Most individuals

who reached a prepubescent age are buried with an assortment of artifacts that does not differ

Naroditsky 5
greatly in nature or number. A cursory statistical analysis shows that older individuals were

buried with a marginally greater number of artifacts (see burials at number 2 and 11), suggesting

that Tahuile may have featured some degree of age-related stratification. However, this

theorization is circumscribed by the fact that we do not know what roles these individuals

played.

To be sure, I am not claiming that Tahuile was entirely unmarked by sociocultural

stratification. It is possible that the chief lived next to the farmer, but it is also entirely plausible

that stratification existed along lines that we can no longer diagnose. For instance, one can

imagine a scenario in which the two 55-year-old individuals who were buried with the most

artifacts belonged to a ruling family, with everyone else occupying the same position on the

sociocultural hierarchy, regardless of vocation or age.

To put this analysis in its proper context, it is worth briefly considering its relation to the

various state formation theories discussed in lecture. In the case of San Juan Asqueroso, it seems

likely that its creation and organization can be partially explained by a classical theory of state

formation, whereby a militarily and socioculturally-potent ruling class consolidates power and

dictates the formation of the society. It is difficult to say whether the ruling class of San Juan

Asqueroso was military in nature, though it seems likely that warriors almost certainly existed.

We can reach this conclusion by noting the presence of axeheads in the elite camp, as well as by

the fact that the individual buried with said axeheads was aged 35. He could have obviously been

felled by disease, but it is also likely that an individual at the prime of his life who was buried

with weapons would be killed in military combat. At any rate, it seems very likely that San Juan

Asqueroso’s organization was at least partially dictated by a well-protected and powerful elite

class.

Naroditsky 6
 In the case of Tahuile, which was organized in a far more ambiguous and egalitarian

fashion, it is harder to come up with a coherent theory of formation. To this end, it is plausible

that there was no ruling party or strong military presence, especially since we can find virtually

no evidence of any weapons being produced (other than a single jade axehead). It is also possible

that there was a loosely-defined ruler or ruling class, which dictated egalitarian living conditions

for the rest of the population. Ultimately, I hope that my analysis reveals the extent to which a

close reading of archaeological data can point to immeasurable divergences in the way that two

outwardly similar prehistoric societies functioned.

Naroditsky 7