The Lifeways of Hunter-Gatherers: The Foraging Spectrum
Format: PDF / Kindle (mobi) / ePub
In this book, Robert L. Kelly challenges the preconceptions that hunter-gatherers were Paleolithic relics living in a raw state of nature, instead crafting a position that emphasizes their diversity, and downplays attempts to model the original foraging lifeway or to use foragers to depict human nature stripped to its core. Kelly reviews the anthropological literature for variation among living foragers in terms of diet, mobility, sharing, land tenure, technology, exchange, male-female relations, division of labor, marriage, descent, and political organization. Using the paradigm of human behavioral ecology, he analyzes the diversity in these areas and seeks to explain rather than explain away variability, and argues for an approach to prehistory that uses archaeological data to test theory rather than one that uses ethnographic analogy to reconstruct the past.
the ritual sites of others. Clearly, many ethnographers, including Radcliffe-Brown, recognized variability in Australian Aboriginal social organization. They argued over whether this variation should be attributed to environment or to European contact, over whether data collected years after contact were valid, and over the ecological basis of patrilineal hordes (Stanner 1965; Birdsell 1970). But they also argued about whether the variation was significant. Was it that other forms of local group
they want because they want very little? Maybe not. Winterhalder argued that Sahlins’s “Zen economy has an ecological master” (Winterhalder et al. 1988: 323) and that environmental factors affect how much effort foragers put into foraging. The concept of original affluence cannot account for variability in forager work effort and reproduction – or for conditions that lead to increased work effort and population growth (Winterhalder and Goland 1993; Blurton Jones, Hawkes, and Draper 1994; see
Australia Interior Australia Interior Australia Interior Ngadadjara Western Desert Paliyan – – – 4.5 4–6 – – – – – – – – – – – – – 3 2–3 2–4 7 – 3–4 14 Reference Hill et al. 1985; Hurtado et al. 1985 Hurtado and Hill 1987, 1990 Hurtado and Hill 1987, 1990 Hurtado and Hill 1987, 1990 Hurtado and Hill 1987, 1990 Gragson 1989 Lee 1979, 1982 Harako 1981 Harako 1981 Terashima 1983 Terashima 1983 Bailey 1991 Tanaka 1980 Silberbauer 1981a,b Woodburn 1968 Hawkes, O’Connell, and Blurton Jones 1989
50 80 50 40 30 30 50 60 20 60 60 60 50 40 40 60 0 0 50 20 60 20 50 (continued) 41 The Lifeways of Hunter-Gatherers Table 3-1 (continued) Group ET (◦ C) PP (g/m2 /yr) Hunting (%) Gathering (%) Fishing (%) Ute (Uintah) Saulteaux Assiniboin Uncompahgre Ainu Wind River Shoshone Flathead Klamath Washo Puyallup-Nisqually Twana Wadadika (Ruby Valley) Shuswap Agaiduka (Lemhi) Nuuchahnulth (Nootka) Alsea Coast Yuki Sanpoil Micmac Sinkyone Timpanogots (Utah L.) Tubatulabal Gosiute Kid¨ut¨okad¨o (N.
mobility that pertain to a single seasonal round. However, there is another dimension to movement: long-term mobility, or shifts in the annual range. Many hunter-gatherers shift the size of their annual range or territory every few years. The size of Nunamiut annual territory, for example, can shift from 4,000 km2 to more than 6,000 or even as much as 22,000 km2 as a result of fluctuations in the size of the caribou population (Amsden 1977; Binford 1980, 1982). Likewise, the area used by the Dobe