Sociopolitical Effects of Bow and Arrow Technology in Prehistoric Coastal California

Abstract

Bow and arrow technology spread across California between ∼AD 250 and 1200, first appearing in the intermountain deserts of the Great Basin and later spreading to the coast. We critically evaluate the available data for the initial spread in bow and arrow technology and examine its societal effects on the well-studied Northern Channel Islands off the coast of Southern California. The introduction of this technology to these islands between AD 650 and 900 appears to predate the appearance of hereditary inequality between AD 900 and 1300. We conclude, based on the available data, that this technology did not immediately trigger intergroup warfare. We argue that the introduction of the bow and arrow contributed to sociopolitical instabilities that were on the rise within the context of increasing population levels and unstable climatic conditions, which stimulated intergroup conflict and favored the development of hereditary inequality. Population aggregation and economic intensification did occur with the introduction of the bow and arrow. This observation is consistent with the hypothesis that social coercion via intra-group "law enforcement" contributed to changes in societal scale that ultimately resulted in larger groups that were favored in inter-group conflict. We argue that the interplay between intra-group "law enforcement" and inter-group warfare were both essential for the ultimate emergence of social inequality between AD 900 and 1300.

Environmental productivity predicts migration, demographic, and linguistic patterns in prehistoric California

“…Such a subsistence focus coupled with more sedentary adaptations and notions of ownership over productive resource patches would have provided a competitive advantage for the incoming populations, who would have been able to remain in place throughout the year, thereby excluding the previous populations who were more seasonally mobile (2, 5, 37, 38). Furthermore, these migrations also likely brought the bow and arrow to the region (38), a technology that potentially provided greater foraging returns and possibly directly aided in population displacement (39,40).…”

High-precision AMS 14 C chronology for Gatecliff Shelter, Nevada

“…Archaeologists working in the Americas are also starting to use the approach in productive ways (Culleton et al, 2012; Inomata et al, 2013;Jazwa et al, 2013;Kennett et al, 2011Kennett et al, , 2013a. Bayesian chronological models are built using the available radiocarbon dates for a site combined with non-quantitative contextual information obtained in the field or from historical documents (e.g., mission records, Kennett et al, 2013b). Contextual information provides the framework for constraining probability distributions and the grounds for removing problematic radiocarbon dates.…”

A Test of Ideal Free Distribution Predictions Using Targeted Survey and Excavation on California’s Northern Channel Islands

“…However, if sea level rise submerges evidence for early coastal settlement at the mouths of the highest ranked drainages, all habitats with submerged cultural components will appear to have their initial evidence of occupation at approximately the same time (triangles) and across the upper end range of suitabilities, not only in the highest ranked drainages site examined intensively in this study with clear evidence of occupation until historic contact is CA-SRI-333, which is relatively small and perhaps subsidiary to the large village of Nawani (CA-SRI-97) at the mouth of Acapulco Canyon to the south (Jazwa 2015). The Late Period population aggregated into larger villages partially in response to environmental stress and conflict (e.g., Walker 1989;Walker and Lambert 1989;Lambert and Walker 1991;Lambert 1993Lambert , 1997Raab and Larson 1997;Jones et al 1999;Kennett and Kennett 2000;Kennett 2005;Kennett et al 2013). Associated changes included the increase of institutionalized differences in social status (Kennett 2005;Kennett et al 2009) and more rigid territorial boundaries (Kennett 2005;Jazwa 2015).…”

“…A variety of more specific predictions and implications follow from this pattern (see Kennett et al 2009;Winterhalder et al 2010;. In a variant of the IFD, the ideal despotic distribution (IDD), the inhabitants of a high-ranked habitat defend a disproportionate share of resources and impede in-migration, causing expansion of the overall population to more marginal habitats earlier than predicted by the IFD (Summers 2005;Kennett and Winterhalder 2008;Kennett et al 2009Kennett et al , 2013Culleton 2012;Bell and Winterhalder 2014).…”