Enter a name, company, place or keywords to search across this item. Then click "Search" (or hit Enter).
Explanation of Differences and Similarities among Beads (17 pages)
Go to the Archive Home
Go to Thumbnail View of this Item
Go to Single Page View of this Item
Download the Page Image
Copy the Page Text to the Clipboard
Don't highlight the search terms on the Image
Show the Page Image
Show the Image Page Text
Reset View and Center Image
Zoom Out
Zoom In
Rotate Left
Rotate Right
Toggle Full Page View
Flip Image Horizontally
More Information About this Image
Get a Citation for Page or Image - Copy to the Clipboard
Go to the Next Page (or Right Arrow key)
Page: of 17
W]HE EXPLANATION OF DIFFERENCES
AND SIMILARITIES AMONG BEADS
USED IN PREHISTORIC AND
EARLY HISTORIC CALIFORNIA
by
Chester D. King
INTRODUCTION
In 1962 Lewis Binford described "socio-technic" artifacts
as "the extra-somatic means of articulating individuals one with
another into cohesive groups capable of efficiently maintaining
themselves and manipulating the technology." He further stated:
Observable differences and changes in the sociotechnic components of archaeological assemblages
must be explained with reference to structural
changes in the social system and in terms of
process of social change and evolution....I would
consider the study and establishment of correlations between types of social structure classified on the basis of behavioral attributes and
structural types of material elements as one of
the major areas of anthropological research yet
to be developed. Once such correlations are
established, archaeologists can attack the
problems of evolutionary change in social systems (1962:219).
In California, ethnographic data indicate that beads were
used as socio-technic artifacts in the organization of exchange
systems. Several ethnographic accounts describe such uses of
beads (Barrett 1952; Loeb 1926; Powers 1877; Barrett and Gifford
1933; Latta 1949; Goldschmidt 1951; C. D. King 1971; Strong 1929;
and T. F. King 1972).
Beads have proven to be one of the most reliable indicators
of periods in California prehistory, and are used in the construction
of Central California chronological sequences. The following
outline provides a brief historical sketch of bead-related research.
(1) Lillard, Heizer and Fenega (1939) used site and bead
lot seriation to determine types and their sequence. The number77