It has been a decade since Adaptive Diversity and Southwestern Abandonment (Upham 1984) was published in the pages of this Journal. Since that time, the concept of adaptive diversity has enjoyed a mixed reception. The idea that mobile, gathering and hunting populations occupied the landscape contemporaneously with sedentary village agriculturalists in certain parts of the Southwest has led some archaeologists to a constructive reexamination of data and interpretations. Although this idea was developed specifically for the prehistoric Southwest, the concept of adaptive diversity has now been used in other culture areas where it informs new explanations of culture change (e.g., Simms 1986). But the adaptive diversity model has also been criticized by a few archaeologists because of the way frequencies of limited activity sites (among other data) were used to support argumentation in the original article. Such criticism is fair, perhaps even warranted, but frankly, I am surprised that the idea of adaptive diversity continues to garner special attention, since the developmental frameworks of Southwestern prehistory require recourse to serial and contemporaneous adaptive diversity to describe the occupational histories of many regions. I am gratified, however, that this concept and my 1984 article have stimulated yet another innovative and thoughtful examination of the Southwestern archaeological record. Lisa Young's analysis of lithic assemblages in the Homol'ovi region is a careful attempt to document the presence of gatherer/hunters in an area that was occupied and abandoned by agricultural groups over a period of 750 years. Her approach to the idea of adaptive diversity is novel, and her tentative conclusion about the presence of gatherer/hunters offers mild substantiation for the hypothesis that nomads coexisted with village agriculturalists at different times during the Homol'ovi occupational sequence. Young is to be congratulated for devising the analytical methods she employs and for working through the uncertainties of data reduction and comparison to develop this important new interpretation. While some Southwestern archaeologists will find fault with Young's approach and methods, her sample sizes, or her lack of attention to transformation processes, others will find her work useful. I find myself in this latter group, despite the vexing conservatism of Young's beginning assumptions and the purposeful leveling of all potentially suggestive trends in her data. In recent correspondence, a colleague wrote to me stating that at some point someone would need to define the sites and artifacts which identify a
Read full abstract