Society for American Archaeology

Review: Supposing Hunter-Gatherer Variability

Author(s): Kenneth M. Ames
Source: American Antiquity, Vol. 69, No. 2 (Apr., 2004), pp. 364-374
Published by: Society for American Archaeology
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4128427
Accessed: 13/08/2009 20:18

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sam.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
American Antiquity.

http://www.jstor.org
 BOOK REVIERWESSAY

SUPPOSING HUNTER-GATHERER VARIABILITY

KennethM. Ames

ConstructingFramesof Reference:An AnalyticalMethodfor ArchaeologicalTheoryBuilding Using

Hunter-Gathererand Environmental Data Sets. LEWISR. BINFORD.2001. Universityof California
Press,Berkeley.583 pp. $75.00 (cloth)ISBN 0-5202-2393-4.

Foragers:AnAfricanPerspective.SUSAN KENT,editor.
CulturalDiversityamongTwentieth-Century
1996. CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge.344 pp. $100.00 (cloth),ISBN 0-5214-8237-2.

Hunter-Gatherers:An InterdisciplinaryPerspective.CATHERINEPANTER-BRICK,ROBERTH.
LAYTON,AND PETERROWLER-CONWY, editors.2001. CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge.
341 pp. $90.00 (cloth),ISBN 0521772109, $30.00 (paper),ISBN 0-5217-7672-4.

B. S. Haldane,the British geneticist, once tics intersect.Huntingand gatheringalso matters

.
mused, "my suspicionis that the universeis
not only queererthanwe suppose,_hut queerer
than we can suppose"(Haldane1927:286). This
comment can be paraphrasedto summarizethe
fundamentalproblempresentlyfacinghunter-gath-
erer studies:thereis morevariationamongrecent
and especially past hunter-gatherer societies than
we havesupposed.Thecentraltheoreticalproblem
is whetherthereis and was more variabilitythan
ourcurrenttheoriescansuppose.Thesethreebooks
representvery differentapproachesto supposing
variability.
Hunter-gatherer studiesmatter.They are at the
core of the anthropologicaland archaeological
enterprise(Bettinger 1991), which is explaining
the tremendousdiversityamong humancultures.
Hunter-gatherers are,as Bettinger(1991) says, the
ultimatetesting groundfor generalanthropologi-
cal and archaeological theories. Additionally,
hunter-gatherer studiesareone of the few remain-
ing places where sociocultural anthropology,
archaeology,bioanthropology,and even linguis-
Kenneth M. Ames mDepartmentof Anthropology,PortlandState University,Portland,OR 97207
because it was the effective environmentwithin
whichsomeportionof humanbiologicalevolution
occurred,shapingour cognition and physiology.
Beyond these disciplinaryconcerns,huntingand
gatheringpeople today face urgent social, eco-
nomic, andlegal issues thatneed to be addressed.
However,"hunter-gatherer" is an unrulyclass
of humansociety,with ambiguousboundariesand
even members.Hunter-gatherer studies are frac-
tiouswithsometimesbitterdisputes(e.g., Hallpike
andWilmsen2002;Woodburnet al. 2001) mirror-
ing broad controversies in anthropology and
archaeology.These threebooks reflectthe signifi-
cantintellectualdifferencesexistingamonghunter-
gathererscholars,withoutexhaustingthem.Some
importantissues are not well covered, including
symbolic systems, gender, sovereignty, and
resourceconservationandland-managing practices
(e.g., SmithandWhishnie2000). Theyaretouched
on explicitlyandimplicitly,but arenot the foci of
anyof theseworks.Theyareaboutsupposingvari-
ability,in sometimesmarkedlydifferentways.

AmericanAntiquity,69(2), 2004, pp. 364-374

Copyright@2004 by the Society for AmericanArchaeology

364
 BOOKREVIEWESSAY 365

The methodologicalandtheoreticalissues they editedHunter-Gatherers, An Interdisciplinary Per-

raise,particularlyBinford'sFramesof Reference, spective(HGIP) to correctwhat they saw as several
arefartoo vastto be treatedin a singleessay.I focus problemsin hunter-gatherer studiesgenerallyand
on thoseI thinkarecentral:theuse of ethnographic the CambridgeEncyclopediaofHuntersand Gath-
dataon recenthunter-gatherers to supposehunter- erers (Lee and Daly 1999a) specifically. These
gatherers in the past; our difficultyin even defin- includeincreasedspecializationamonghunter-gath-
as a
ing hunter-gatherers phenomenologicalclass; ererresearchers witha resultingbreakdownin cross-
unrulyvariationin subsistenceand social organi- disciplinarycommunication,coupled with a drift
zation (including social complexity); explaining away from ecological and materialistapproaches.
thesourcesof hunter-gatherer variability;andlastly, The book thereforeincludes chaptersby bioan-
whatis the appropriate theoreticalframeworkwith thropologists,archaeologists,a linguist,anda social
whichto explainthatvariability.I firstbrieflyintro- anthropologist. Thepapersaregenerallysynthesiz-
duce the books themselves. ing, attemptingto pull togethera rangeof topical
dataon hunter-gatherers and drawingconclusions
The Books within the topic's sphere,althoughsome arerather
narrow.Eachchapterstandson its own.
CulturalDiversityamongTwentieth-Century For- ConstructingFramesof Reference:An Analyt-
agers:AnAfricanPerspective(hereafterCDTCF) ical Methodfor ArchaeologicalTheoryBuilding
has severalgoals. It is a rebuttalof "historicists" UsingEthnographicand Environmental Data Sets
(Myers1988;Shott2001) suchas Wilmsen(1989) (hereafterCFR) is Binford'smagnumopus. In it
and Schrire(1980) who maintainmodem hunter- he has threebasic goals: exemplifyinghow a sci-
gatherers,particularlyin Africa,andmost particu- entific archaeologyshouldproceedin developing
larlyin theKalahari,area ruralproletariat whohave a firm inferentialbase; using ethnographicdata
actively shiftedtheir social and economic organi- ratherthananalogiesto buildtheoriesaboutthepast
zationover the centuriesin responseto invasions, (not to interpretthe past);andexplainingvariabil-
colonization,inclusionin regionaland world sys- ity amonghunter-gatherers. He developsdatasets
tems, etc. They arenot "pristinehunter-gatherers" based on evidence for 390 recenthunter-gatherer
if they are hunter-gatherers at all. A second pur- groupsandmodemenvironmentalattributes(rain-
pose of the book is to negate what Kent saw as a fall, effective temperature,mean annualtempera-
strongtendency homogenizeandstereotypethe ture,elevation,biotic class, etc.) to constructwhat
to
culturaland organizationaldiversityamongmod- he calls framesof referencethatcan be projected
em hunter-gatherers by showingthe greatcultural againsteach otherto discoverbroadpatterningin
diversityamonghunter-gatherers attheheartof the an inductiveprocess termed"patternrecognition
historicistdebate.Finally,the book is intendedto research."In additionto patternrecognition(e.g.,
counterstronglyecological and materialistexpla- at what degree latitudedoes reliance on storage
nationsof hunter-gatherer variability.The level of increase),Binfordbuildsseveralmodels.Keymod-
is
analysis generally fine scale, at the level of indi- els include the "basicterrestrialmodel"thatpre-
viduals(e.g., KentCDTFC)orgroupsfamily-sized dicts aspects of the behavior of highly mobile
or slightly larger(e.g., GuentherCDTFC,Silber- terrestrialhunters(e.g., could a particularenviron-
bauer CDTFC).Most authorsare cautiousabout ment support such a group) and a "group size
generalizationsor comparisonsor eschew them model"thatpredictsgroupsizes givencertainpara-
(e.g., Bird-DavidCDTFC).Kent, in her abstract, meters.Using the datasets and models, he works
claims generalizationsabouthunter-gatherers are his way inductivelythrougha tremendousrangeof
notpossiblebutlatermakessome (see below).The issues.Thebookis demanding,densewithx/y scat-
book'schapterscovergroupsin sub-Saharan Africa ter plots, tables, formulae,neologisms, and diffi-
writtenby a relativelydiversearrayof authorsand cultprose.Itcallsforatleasttworeadings,onerapid
viewpointsfromevolutionaryecologyto themildly to establishwhatis going on anda second, slower
postmodernist. There are no archaeological or readingto think aboutit. Close and carefulread-
bioanthropologicalpapers. ing is also requiredbecauseit containssignificant
Panter-Brick, Layton, and Rowley-Conwy copy-editingand computationalproblems(misla-
366 AMERICAN
ANTIQUITY [Vol.69, No. 2, 2004]

beled and mispositionedgraphs,undefinedvari- Whilethisis animportantissue, the debatetells

ables, etc.). It is also extremelythick and rich inus more about ourselves and our preconceptions
ideas thatwill takeyearsto workthroughandtest, and assumptionsthenit does abouthunter-gather-
bothusingBinford'sdataandformulae,andarchae- ers. With all due respectto many fine scholars,it
is difficultto imagine a similarfiery debateover
ological data sets. In fact, most of his generaliza-
tions can only be tested archaeologically.Binford whethermodem or ancientfarmersare real, pris-
continuesto buildhis versionof middle-rangethe- tine, or genuine.We are not much troubledwhen
ory:the constructionof generalizationsthatcanbe we learnthe farmerswe are studyinghave shifted
usedas bridgesbetweenobservationsof thearchae- betweenfarmingandpastoralismfor millennia.In
ological recordandtheory.The theoreticalframe- fact, we are likely to think it is interesting,not a
workis stronglyrootedin JulianStewart'scultural problem.
ecology and multilinealevolution(Stewart1955), Americanistarchaeologistswill see strongpar-
mergedwith some evolutionaryecology andcom- allels between the broadercontroversyand long-
plex adaptivesystems theory (e.g., Bentley and standingdebates about the use of ethnographic
Maschner2003; Kaufman1993;KohlerandGum- analogies drawn from ethnographiesof Native
merman2000;Lansing2003), particularly thecon-Americansto interpretor model the NorthAmer-
cepts of self-organized criticalityand ican past. One trenchantissue is thatthe diversity
emergence.
The appropriateanalyticalandphenomenological among ancientsocieties is far greaterthanthatin
scales arethereforeimportant.The scope is global, the ethnographicsample.
the coveragecoarse-grained,andthereis no reluc- However,there is no alternativeto using our
tance to drawgeneralizations. knowledgeof modempeoplesto help us penetrate
the past. Abandoning the ethnographic record
The Ethnographic Record makesarchaeologylike a paleontologycutoff from
the biology of living organisms.The real issue is
It was once standardto use modemhunter-gather- not whetherwe do it, but how we do it. Thereare
ers as analogiesfor the behaviorand organization several alternatives.One, followed in the Cam-
of ancientHomosapienssapiens as well as earlier bridgeEncyclopedia(Lee andDaly 1999a),exam-
hominids. The historicists, among others, vehe- ines ethnographiccase studiesto epitomizecertain
mently critiquedthis practice.They arguedthat characteristicsthat hunter-gatherersocieties are
hunter-gatherers of the Kalaharihad shiftedfrom takento possessorthedimensionsalongwhichthey
hunting and gatheringto herdingandfarmingand vary.Anotherapproachis thatof ethnoarchaeology
back over the past severalcenturies.As a conse- and many evolutionaryecologists, who conduct
quence,they are not "pristine,"i.e., have not con- fieldwork among living hunter-gatherersto test
tinuously been hunter-gatherers since the models thatin theirsimplicityanduniversaltheo-
Pleistocene,andso cannotbe used as analogiesfor retical underpinningsare thoughtto be time and
ancienthunter-gatherers. Theyfaultedanyideathat space free, applicableequally to the past and the
these or othersimilarcultureswere economically present,methodologicalissues aside(e.g., Blurton
independentandisolatedfromthe social andeco- Joneset al. CDTCF).Thethirdapproachexamines
nomic systems aroundthem, and furtherinsisted the extantethnographicrecord.Kelly (1995) did
thatmodemhunter-gatherers couldonly be under- this in his hunter-gatherer book, using thatrecord
stood throughstudy of their history and broader to testfamiliesof hypothesesandmodelsto demon-
socioeconomicandpoliticalcontext.Any general- stratethevalueof evolutionaryecology in explain-
izations and extrapolationsinto the past based on ing hunter-gatherdiversity.The bioanthropology
themweremisleadingandwrong.Theresponsehas papersin HGIP do this to a limiteddegree.
been strong(e.g., Kent 1992; Lee 1992; Lee and Binford's approach differs from these. His
Daly 1999b). Among the issues this debate pro- explicitintentis notto testhypotheses,butto induc-
duced arequestionsof the reality,genuineness,or tively explorevariationin the extantethnographic
pristiness of modernhunter-gatherers, questions record,seekingsecond-levelpatterningnotexplain-
reviewedby Layton(HGIP),Kent(1992, CDTCF), able by particularhistoriesandcircumstances.He
and otherauthorsin CDTCF. finds several such patterns,most importantlythe
 BOOK REVIEW ESSAY 367

"packingthreshold,"a populationof 9.028 peo- [I]none respecttheyareall membersof a sin-

ple/100 km2. This threshold is a Rubicon for major gle class:theydo not organizethemselvesto
social and economic changes. Below it, hunter- controlfoodproduction throughstrategicmod-
gatherer groups respond to environmental and ifications in the organization of the ecosys-
social stress by mobility; above it, mobility temstheyexploit.Thisdistinction... does not
becomes increasinglyconstrained,andotherorga- isolatea unit,suchas a speciesora subspecies
nizational and technological changes necessary. thathasclearnicheimplications.As a class ...
Chief among these is intensificationof food pro- hunter-gatherers encompassa varietyof niches
duction. compared to the range observablein non-
Recognizing some of the inherent biases in the human animals [CFR,p. 116].
ethnographicdatasets (e.g., places suchas Europe
where hunter-gatherersare mainly known only In HGIPthedefinitionof hunter-gatherer is sim-
archaeologically), Binford uses his data sets and ilar,but on a different phenomenological scale: "In
models to predictthe terrestrialhunter-gatherers essence,hunter-gatherers exerciseno deliberatecon-
who mighthavebeentherebeforetheywentextinct. troloverthegenepool of exploitedresources" (HGIP
He also maintains,andthis is the key point,thathe p. 2, emphasis in original). Panter-Bricket al.
is not using these datato constructanalogiesor to acknowledgethis definitioncreatesproblemswith
"interpret" the past, but to identifydimensionsof ambiguouscases,butarguesuchcasesarerelatively
variability and to explain variation along those rare.They follow HunnandWilliams(1982) who
dimensions,regardlessof whetherthe variationis examinedtherelativedependenceon agricultureof
among extantor extinct hunter-gatherers. On the 200 foragersocieties, and showedthattherewere
otherhand,he does not recognizethathis sample, very few societiesthathad a 5-45 percentreliance
as large as it is in toto, is biased by history.For of agriculture. However,Smith(2001)contendsthat
example,while he has 390 societiesin his sample, now-extinctgroupsmayhavefilledthegapandthat
26 are stratified.Of those, 22 are from the North- by insistingthatgroupsbe classedas eitherhunter-
west Coast and immediatelyadjacentareas.Two gathererorfarmer,we maskconsiderableandimpor-
more are from southernCalifornia.That subsam- tantvariation.We returnto thisbelow.
ple is numericallyandgeographicallysmallenough Kentandmostof hercontributors focus on orga-
thathistorymay have played a significantrole in nizationandworldviewas muchor morethanthey
its formation. do directly on subsistence. Their views parallel
those of Lee (1981) and Lee and Daly (1999b).
Hunter-Gatherer Variability Hunter-gatherers as a class aredefinedfirst,butnot
completely,by foraging(exclusiverelianceon non-
domesticatedorganisms),second by certainorga-
Who'sa Hunter-Gatherer nizational properties (living in bands, relative
One significantsourceof apparenthunter-gatherer egalitarianism,mobility,mobilitypatternsof dis-
variabilityis thatwe cannotdefinetheclass"hunter- persionand aggregation,and a commonproperty
gatherer"rigorouslyorconsistently.Partof thedif- regime), and third by a common cultural ethos
ficultyis a lack of agreementoverwhatarethe key markedby sharingand belief in a giving environ-
dimensions of variabilityin which we are inter- ment andan animatedcosmos. Kentdistinguishes
ested. Definitionsemphasizeeithersubsistenceor non-egalitarianforagers (e.g., Northwest Coast)
social organizationand worldview. The former from egalitarianones, claiming the latterare set
positionmaintainsthereis too muchorganizational apartby mobility and culturalflexibility,a flexi-
variationto permita consistentdefinitionbasedon bility that could also be termedresilience (Ames
anythingbut subsistence,while the latterposition 1981; Holling 1973). It is this flexibility or
arguesthatforagingis as much or more a matter resilience then that producesthe greatvariability
of social organizationand ethos as it is of subsis- among egalitarianhunter-gatherersin southern
tence. Africa. She suggests similarly organizedpeople
For Binford: are found worldwide. They are in fact what are
sometimescalled"generalizedhunter-gatherers" or
368 ANTIQUITY
AMERICAN
foragers(Kelly 1995), immediatereturnforagers
(Woodburn1980), generichunter-gatherers (Bin-
fordCFR),ortheOAS(OriginalAffluentSociety--
Rowley-Conwy HGIP). Kent (Introduction,
CDTCF)thinksnon-egalitarian(complex)hunter-
gatherersaremoreappropriately classedwith hor-
ticulturalists and agriculturalistsbased on their
organization(see also Lee 1981). In effect, she
restrictsthe class "hunter-gatherer,"which is still
highly variable,to those foragerswho areegalitar-
ian and organizationallyflexible.
Rowley-Conwy(HGIP)makes a crucialpoint
abouttemporalchangein hunter-gatherer societies
importantto injecthere. Changes,even those per-
sisting for long periodsof time, arenot inevitably
irreversible.People can become sedentary,then
mobile,andthensedentaryagain(e.g.,Habu2002);
people may plantcultigens,stop, start,stop again.
Forthe purposesof this essay,I call thispatternthe
Rowley-Conwy effect (RCE);it is importantto
whatfollows.
SubsistenceVariation
Manysubsistenceeconomiescommonlylabeledas
"hunter-gatherer" do not fit tidily into the distinc-
tion hunter-gatherer vs. farmer.- These are
economies thatrely heavily on wild resourcesbut
thatmay also maintainsmallgardens,ortradewild
producefor cultigens,or keep goats. The peoples
of theNorthwestCoastareamongtheworld'smost
famoushunter-gatherers. However,in some places
at least NorthwestCoastpeoples maintainedgar-
dens (Deur2000), manipulatedperennialplantsto
increaseproductivityof their stands(e.g., Darby
1996; Peacock andTurner1999), set fires to con-
trolseralsuccession(Boyd 1999),andso on. Some
argue these practicesare a sort of farming(e.g.,
Marshall1999; Onat 1997). While I do not agree
that this is farming,it is difficultnot to see these
practicesas strategicmanipulationsof andchanges
in ecosystem organization,or as the deliberate
manipulation of the phenotypes of organisms,
though perhaps not genotypes. The immediate
point here is that such societies may have once
been farmorecommonthanthey arenow. Known
ancientexamplesincludeatleastMiddle,Late,and
FinalJomon;Woodland;andEarlyNatufianamong
others.They representsubsistenceeconomiesthat
we must understand,but which are accessible
almostexclusivelythrougharchaeology.
[Vol.69, No. 2, 2004]
Smith (2001) tries to deal with this ambiguity
by arguingthereis a long andcomplexcontinuum
between "pure"hunting-and-gathering and agri-
culture.He divides up this continuumby distin-
guishingfirstbetweenfood-procurement societies
and food-producingones, the formercorrespond-
ing to "classic"orgeneralizedhunter-gatherers. He
subdividesfood productioninto threecategories:
low-level food productionwithout domesticates,
low-level food productionwith domesticates,and
agriculture(presumablyhigh-level food produc-
tion).Oneimplicationof theRCEis thatsome sub-
sistencesystemswill shiftbetweenor even among
these categoriesthroughtime. These fluctuations
may compoundthe confusionif theyhappenmore
quicklythanarchaeologycan measure.
While I am not enamoredwith conceptualizing
this variationas a continuum,or with the label
"low-levelfoodproduction," I agreewithSmiththat
thereis or was a greatrangeof ancienteconomies
not representedin the modernand recent sample
of hunter-gatherer economies,posing a significant
for our of the evolutionof
problem understanding
subsistenceand social systems, and that we lack
the theoreticalframeworkswith which to concep-
tualize these extinct systems. CFR is Binford's
attemptto build those frameworks.I am not sure
he is successfulin termsof theseextincteconomies.
A furtherimplicationof boththe existenceof sub-
sistence systems outside the ken of the modern
ethnographicsampleandthe RCE is thatthe sub-
sistencevariationattheheartof thehistoricists'cri-
tique in southernAfricamay actuallybe the norm
for hunter-gatherer subsistenceeconomies during
the entireHolocene.
OrganizationalVariationand Evolution
Duringthe past 20 or moreyears,the evolutionof
socialcomplexityamonghunter-gatherers hasbeen
a major focus of hunter-gatherer studies among
archaeologists.While complexity was originally
definedas a set of traitsthat were thoughtto co-
occur(Price1981),"complexhunter-gatherer" was,
in a sense, a residual category containingthose
hunter-gathererswho werenot generalizedhunter-
gatherers.Theyhadlarger,moredensepopulations;
they tended to be sedentary (or at least not as
mobile);theypracticedstorage;theyhadintensive
economiesanddifferentialsof wealth,prestige,and
status.Some were stratified.At one time, the soci-
 BOOKREVIEWESSAY
eties of the NorthwestCoast, a few in California,
and the Calusaof Floridawere thoughtto be the
only such societies in the past or the present.As
such,theywereeasilyexplainedaway.Morerecent
research shows such societies were much more
widespreadin the distantand not-so-distantpast.
Theirstudyaddressessuchfundamentalquestions
as to why humanslive in societies markedby per-
manentinequality.
Some recent thinking (Boehm 1999; Diehl
2000), drawingon evolutionarypsychology and
similar ideas, challenges the deeply held notion
thategalitariansocietieseverexisted,or,if theydid,
that they representthe "natural"state of human
groups.Putanotherway,bothequalityandinequal-
ity requireexplanation.One currentlywidespread
theoryis thategalitarianismis a social responseto
very high-riskenvironments,such as those of the
Pleistocene (e.g., Hayden 2001; Richerson and
Boyd 2000). Inequality arises then as a conse-
quence of the appearance of more-productive
and/orless-riskyenvironments.Binfordridicules
this notion,using his datato show thereis no rela-
tionshipbetween permanentleadershipand envi-
ronmentalproductivityas he measuresit. He argues
instead,followingPanowski(1985),thatpermanent
leadershipand strengthof inequalityrelate posi-
tively to diet breadth.
The concept of "complexhunter-gatherer" is
also undergoingsome recent revision and chal-
lenge. Price (1981), who coined the phrase"com-
plex hunter-gatherer," now questions their
existence, suggesting that most known examples
are the consequenceof contactwith agricultural-
ists, and, when complexitydid evolve autochtho-
nously, it did not last long (Price 1995a, 1995b).
He is wrong on both counts (e.g., Ames and
Maschner1999). He also calls for a morerigorous
definitionof complexity,althoughsuch rigormay
be difficult to achieve (Lansing 2003). Arnold
(1996) has put forthone such definition,limiting
"complex hunter-gatherer" to those groups with
permanentranking stratificationandproposing
or
we call groups that possess other traits usually
linked to complexity,such as sedentism,storage,
largepopulationsand the like, "affluentforagers"
(e.g., KoyamaandThomas 1981).
Rowley-Conwy grapples with some of these
issues in his HGIP paper.He classes hunter-gath-
erersusingonlytwo dimensions:mobility(whether
369
they are foragersor collectors) and whetherthey
havepropertyor not.As do manyresearchers(e.g.,
papers in Fitzhugh and Habu 2002), he defines
complexityminimallyas having logistical mobil-
ity patterns.However,as noted,Rowley-Conwyis
primarilyinterestedin showing that hunter-gath-
erer social evolution does not follow common
expectationsaboutsocial evolution(i.e., a smooth
and irreversibleprogressionfrom simple to com-
plex). He maintainsthatoverthe long term,change
among hunter-gatherers is unpredictable,
reversible,and rapid (the RCE), suggesting pat-
terns of change analogousin form to punctuated
equilibrium(e.g., Gould 2002) althoughhe does
not invokethe samecausesof change(see Prentiss
and Chatters2003 for an explicit archaeological
applicationof punctuatedequilibriumto hunter-
gatherers).His is a valuable paper,arguingthat
developmentssuchas sedentismwidely thoughtto
trigger increases in complexity and to be irre-
versibleare sometimesneither.This appearsto be
a pointrequiringregularrepetition.
Binfordaddressesthe issue of complexityvery
differentlyfromalmostall currentdiscussions.He
distinguishesbetweensocial complexity(ranking,
etc.)andsystemiccomplexity.His discussiondraws
on Johnson's(1982) distinctionbetween sequen-
tial and simultaneous(vertical)hierarchies,using
the distinctionto explore how groupsof foragers
can be organizedin small, egalitariangroupsyet
integratedintolarger,complexeconomicandsocial
groups operatingat regionalscales throughinsti-
tutionssuch as sodalities,secretsocieties, produc-
tion specialization,trade,and the like (this is his
rebuttalof the historicistcritique,althoughthatis
not actuallyvery clearin CFR).This kindof com-
plexity,he argues,ariseswhen groupsareinitially
heavily relianton plants.Ranking(internalcom-
plexity) occurs in groups that become heavily
dependenton aquaticresources.
His discussionof multipleformsof complexity
is a useful correctiveto the almostobsessivefocus
on permanentinequalityin the complex hunter-
gatherer literature,including some of my own
papers,in thatit highlightssequentialhierarchies
andimportantissuesin thedevelopmentof regional
systemsof interactionthatmay be social andeco-
nomic mosaics. Hunter-gathererlandscapes are
generallytreatedas containingonly foragersorcol-
lectors,for example.Some landscapesmighthave
370 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
both simultaneouslyas well as differentsubsis-
tencesystems.Kent'ssketchof thesouthernAfrican
culturallandscape(Introduction,CDTCF)gives a
wonderfulportraitof just such a mosaic.
Binford'suse of complex adaptivesystems in
his discussion of culturalcomplexityis less suc-
cessful. He invokesthe conceptsof emergenceand
self-organizedcriticalityin his analysesof intensi-
ficationandcomplexity,butin a seeminglyposthoc
manner.He also does not develop the notion of
socialcomplexityitselfas possiblytheresultof self-
organizationas a process.The idea seems implicit
to much of his thinking and is congenial to his
strongpreferencefor endogenouscausalprocesses
atthe systemlevel. He uses theseconceptsto make
predictionsabout the tempo and form of culture
change.
The Causes of Variability
Kentandmostof hercontributorssuggestthatvari-
ation among foragersocieties arises from behav-
ioral flexibility that is a consequence of
hunter-gatherer social organizationandworldview
in specific environmentaland historicalcontexts.
To my mind, this begs a questionto be addressed
in the next section.However,some of the apparent
variabilitymightbe anartifactof the scale atwhich
it is analyzedin CDTCF.Analysesarefine-grained:
behavioris often describedat the level of individ-
uals, families,or smallgroups.This scale of obser-
vation can maximize heterogeneity and mask
similarities.
Binford approachesvariabilityfrom a global
macroscaleand with his well-known disdain for
historical explanation.Ultimately he argues the
variabilitywe see in economic and social organi-
zation derivesin large measurefrom five factors:
(1) local environmentalconditions,(2) the initial
conditionsof evolutionarytrajectories(primarily
whethergroupswere principallyrelianton terres-
trialanimals,collectingplantsorharvestingaquatic
resources), (3) available technology, (4) demo-
graphicpacking, and (5) subsequentintensifica-
tion of food production. He claims that
organizationaland economic variationincreases
markedlyaftergroupscross the packingthreshold
and experiment with different responses to the
resultingstresses.Thus, when we see strongvari-
ation, we are seeing groups above the packing
threshold.He furthermaintainswe cannotextrap-
[Vol. 69, No. 2, 2004]
olate from fine-grainedanalyses such as those in
CDTCFto broad-scalepatterns.Thesepatternsare
emergentphenomenaandthereforearenot neces-
sarilypredictablefrom previouslocal events. For
example, intensificationof food productionas a
process is markedby self-organized criticality;
when changes occur locally, they happenswiftly
and in unpredictabledirections(his argument,at
this point, would appear to parallel Rowley-
Conwy's).However,this appearanceof disorderis
scalar.While at a local level the courseof intensi-
ficationis unpredictable(multilineal),at a higher
level it really has only two outcomes: increased
relianceon aquaticresourcesor agriculture.
Deeply implicitin hereis the same scalarissue
thathas roiledpaleontologyfor the past 30 years:
is variation/changeat the macrolevelof lengthy
culturalsequencesthe resultof the accumulation
of microlevelvariationandchanges(a'la CDTFC),
or are there different macro- and micro-level
processes.Thebulkof thedisciplinewouldanswer
yes to the firstquestion(e.g., Boyd andRicherson
1992) andno to the second.To'mymind,the ques-
tions areopen.
What's the Appropriate Paradigm, If Any?
WhenSue Kentinvitedthis essay, she askedthatit
somehow address the future of hunter-gatherer
studies. That task is impossible, at least for me,
since thereare manypossible futures.However,I
suggestthatstagnationandirrelevancyis one strong
possibility.As withtherestof anthropology, hunter-
gatherer studies haveno single, coherent paradigm
(or even common assumptions) with which to
explainbehavioralvariabilityamonghunter-gath-
erersor to set common researchpriorities.There
are,instead,multiplesometimespartiallyoverlap-
ping approaches,rangingfrom stronglymaterial-
ist to strongly postmodernist, from strongly
scientificto stronglyanti-science.Theeditedbooks
includea rangeof theseapproaches,althoughlack-
ing thestrongestpostmodernists. As a consequence,
they,andthe entirefield, lack an elementalcoher-
ence and consistency.There is also incoherence
because of the very strongparticularismof much
currentwork.This is not to denythe importanceof
particularistic studies;theyareessential.However,
the ultimate outcome of particularism in the
absenceof a framingparadigmis the accumulation
 BOOK REVIEW ESSAY
of more detailwithouta clearpurposeor point.It
is the absence of such a paradigmthat will ulti-
matelylead to stagnationandirrelevance.
I would maintainthe only optionis a scientific,
materialistparadigmand thatit has to fall within
what Durham(1990) broadly defines as "evolu-
tionary culturetheory,"which requiresattention
both to particularhistoriesandto process.I think,
in the long run,thereis no alternative,despitecur-
rentcritiques(e.g., Bamforth2002). I illustratethe
necessityfora materialistframeworkby discussing
whatI see as a cripplingironyat the heartof some
of the notionsabouthunter-gatherers developedin
Kent's book, the CambridgeEncyclopedia, and
elsewhere.
If, as Kent and others maintain,modernfor-
agers are distinguishablefrom even small-scale
farmersbecause of theirsubsistence,social orga-
nization,andethos,it mustbe askedhow thiscom-
binationof traitsarose,particularlyif it is shared
by peoples spreadwidely across the globe, as is
claimed.Thepossibleexplanationsarelimited:(1)
historicalcoincidence, i.e., the coincidentalout-
come of contingentandunconnectedlocal events;
(2) innate cognitive tendencies common to all
humans;(3) culturaldescent or continuityfrom a
remote common culturalancestor,or (4) parallel
or convergentevolutionproducinga common set
of behavioral and organizational traits among
humans not culturallyrelated,but sharingsome
sortof commoncircumstances.(A fifthalternative
is there are no common traitsand to think other-
wise is error.If that is so, we are at a dead end.)
Possibility1 seems enormouslyunlikely.It is also
the only nonmaterialistoption.Evolutionarypsy-
chologymakesexplicitclaimsfornumber2 as does
evolutionaryecology but less expansively.Thus,
humancognitionanddecision-makingtendencies
rest on an innate base that evolved during our
hunter-gathererpast in the Pleistocene and per-
sistedto thepresent.Almosteveryonewouldprob-
ably now rejectnumber3, which requirescultural
continuityandstabilityspanningtensof thousands
of yearslinkinggroupsacrossequallyvast spaces
(this not to deny thatthereare extanthunter-gath-
erer culturaltraditionswith deep antiquity).To
invokeit, one must explainthe continuity.In both
numbers2 and3, the sharedtraitsarehomologies,
resultingfromdescentfromeithera commonbio-
logical or culturalancestor.Number 4 proposes
371
that the similarities that Kent, Lee, and Daly
(1999b) andotherssee amongmodernforagersare
analogies, i.e., similaritiesdue to common func-
tional problems (e.g., bird wings, insect wings).
These analogies (and here lies the irony) must
includenot only the similaritiesin subsistence,but
in socialorganizationandethosas well.Whatmight
these commonfunctionalproblemsbe?
It is generallythoughtthatforagingevolveddur-
ing the Pleistoceneas a responseto the high sub-
sistenceriskcausedby rapidandextremeclimatic
and environmentalchanges (e.g., Richersonand
Boyd 2000). Kuhn and Stiner (HGIP) arguethat
hunting and gathering as practiced by modern
humans evolved in the Upper Paleolithic. Their
conclusions parallelGamble's (1999). This does
not precludethat some of the kinds of cognitive
abilities and decision-makingrules proposedby
evolutionarypsychologyandevolutionaryecology
couldnothaveevolvedmuchearlier.Some aspects
of humanfood-gettingbehaviorextendback into
the earlyPleistoceneat least (e.g., Smith 1999). It
does suggest,however,thatwhatwe understandto
be full huntingandgatheringappearedwithorafter
the evolution of anatomicallyand perhapseven
behaviorallymodem humansand evolved during
the LatePleistocene.This wouldbe the earliestwe
mightsee thecombinationof traits.Gamble(1999),
Dunbar (2003), and others are sufficiently con-
vincing to suggest that the capacityfor a hunter-
gatherer ethos did not exist until the Upper
Paleolithic.Indeed,theirevidencesuggeststhatthe
combinationof flexibleyet durablesocial ties and
high mobilitymay not have been cognitivelypos-
sible until then. If we arguefor biological conti-
nuity (option2) or culturalcontinuity(option 3),
we arestillexplainingthecorehunter-gatherer traits
as theresultof materialconditions,althoughremote
in time. In eithercase, we are faced with explain-
ing theirpersistenceandcontinuity.My ownthink-
ing is that the combination of subsistence and
culturaltraitsis realandresultsjointlyfromoptions
2 and4.
It is only in the muchmorestableenvironments
of the Holocenethatagricultureandcomplexsoci-
eties could develop (Richersonand Boyd 2000;
Richersonet al. 2001). If foragerorganizationand
worldview evolved multiple times in multiple
places independently during the Holocene and
within the last few hundredyears, it follows that
372 AMERICAN
ANTIQUITY
thereexistedlocal circumstancesstructurallysim-
ilar(thoughnot necessarilyclimaticallysimilar)to
the Pleistocene, requiring similar functional
responses.Amongthese wouldbe the dynamicsof
the modem worldsystem (Wolf 1982) invokedby
the historicists.In this instance,high-riskenviron-
ments included particularsocial, economic, and
politicalones.
I have not attemptedto supportmy claim that
evolutionaryculturetheoryis the best way to sup-
pose hunter-gatherer variability.For thatI recom-
mend the reader to Bettinger (1991), Durham
(1991), Kelly (1995), O'BrienandLyman(2000),
Shennan(2002), andWilson (1998).
Final Comments
The publicationof CFRis a signaleventdeserving
separatecomment,given Binford'sstatureandthe
sheer reach and ambitionof the book. CFR is a
majorachievement.Does it help us to bettersup-
pose hunter-gatherer variability,and to conceptu-
alize variabilitybeyond whatwe currentlyknow?
The answerto the first questionis a definiteyes,
butits generalizationsrequirerigoroustestingand
replication,the normalscientificprocessthatBin-
ford himself has advocatedfor four decades. His
data sets (presentedin tables in CFR) need to be
availablevia the web or CD so his variablesand
formulaecan be readily examined,manipulated,
andusedby others.Manyof his generalizationsare
only testablearchaeologically,if forno reasonthan
the archaeologicalrecord is now the only inde-
pendentdataset.
The answerto the secondquestion,does it help
us to supposevariabilitybeyondwhatwe currently
know, is less clear cut. His overarchingtheory
remainsnot much more explicitlydevelopedthan
I havesketchedhere,althoughmuchis implicit.The
utility of complex adaptivesystems(CAS) theory
is an open question despite stimulatingapplica-
tions (e.g., Bentley and Maschner2003; Kohler
andGumerman2000). Mergingit withcurrentevo-
lutionarytheoryis a workin progress(e.g., Depew
andWeber1997; Kauffman1993; Lansing2003)
with anunclearoutcome.He contributesrelatively
little to thateffort,althoughit is woven implicitly
throughout.On the otherhand,he raisesimportant
issues aboutmicro-andmacro-phenomenological
levels, processes,andemergencethathaveplagued
[Vol.69, No. 2, 2004]
anthropologysince Kroeber(1917) publishedthe
conceptof the superorganic.
The answeris also less clear-cutbecause peo-
ple may not readCFRandtest its ideas.The book
is big; it is difficult,in ways irritatingandfrustrat-
ing. It may not fit well with a professionalculture
increasinglyused to receiving and disseminating
informationelectronically.The errorsmay lead
some to dismiss it entirely.People may use it only
as a sourceof convenientinterpretations ("accord-
ing to Binford 2001"), or as a strawman("once
againBinfordfalls preyto ..."). Thatwouldbe too
badbecauseits valuelies in the opportunityto pro-
ductivelyengage with it andtest it.
For example, Binford concludes that aquatic
economiesaretheresultof intensification,thepath
of intensificationdependingon whetherthe initial
economy was primarilydependenton terrestrial
plantor animalresources.Thereareearly aquatic
economiesalongthePacificCoaston NorthAmer-
ica thatdo not seem at firstblushto fit this predic-
tion. They rangefrom fully maritimeforagerson
KodiakIsland(Fitzhugh1996) to groupsexploit-
ing a mix of terrestrialplantandaquaticresources
in southernCalifornia(e.g., Erlandson1994) all
withapparentlyverylow populationdensitiesprob-
ably well below the packingthreshold.However,
testinghis ideas would be extraordinarily produc-
tive, even if he is wrong. One does boggle at the
prospect of building an archaeologicalframe of
referencecomparableto his ethnographicones. It
will also be extremelydifficultto archaeologically
operationalizesuch things as the packingthresh-
old. Archaeologicaltesting will have to be done
comparatively, usingmultiple,spatiallylarge-scale,
temporallylong sequences.
Finally,I said at the beginningof the previous
section that it is impossibleto forecastthe future
of hunter-gatherer studies.However,I doknowthat
they andwe will be considerablyimpoverishedby
Sue Kent'suntimelydeath.She was a personand
scholarof thefirstwater.She will be sorelymissed.
References Cited
Ames, KennethM.
1981 The Evolutionof Social Rankingon the Northwest
Coastof NorthAmerica.AmericanAntiquity 46:789-805.
Ames, KennethM., andHerbertD.G. Maschner
1999 Peoples of the NorthwestCoast: TheirArchaeology
and Prehistory.ThamesandHudson,London.
 BOOK REVIEW ESSAY
Arnold,JeanneE.
1996 TheArchaeologyof ComplexHunter-Gatherers. Jour-
nal ofArchaeologicalMethodand Theory3:77-126.
Bamforth,Douglas B.
2002 EvidenceandMetaphorin Evolutionary Archaeology.
AmericanAntiquity67:435-452.
Bentley,R. Alexander,andHerbertD.G. Maschner
2003 ComplexSystemsand Archaeology:Empiricaland
TheoreticalApplications.Universityof Utah Press, Salt
Lake City.
Bettinger,RobertL.
1991 Hunter-Gatherers: Archaeologicaland Evolutionary
Theory.PlenumPress,New York.
Boehm, Christopher
1999 Hierarchyin the Forest:TheEvolutionof Egalitarian
Behavior HarvardUniversityPress,Cambridge.
Boyd, Robert,and PeterJ. Richerson
1992 How Microevolutionary ProcessesGive Rise to His-
tory. In History and Evolution, edited by Matthew H.
Nitecki andDoris V. Nitecki,pp. 179-210. StateUniver-
sity of New YorkPress,Albany.
Boyd, Robert(editor)
1999 Indians,Fire and the Land in the PacificNorthwest.
OregonStateUniversityPress,Corvallis.
Darby,Melissa Cole
1996 Wapatofor the People:An Ecological Approachto
Understanding theNativeAmericanUse of SagittariaLat-
ifolia on the LowerColumbia.UnpublishedMaster'sthe-
sis, PortlandStateUniversity.
Depew, David J., andBruceH. Weber
1997 Darwinism Evolving, Systems Dynamics and the
Genealogyof NaturalSelection.MIT Press,Cambridge.
Deur,Douglas
2000 A DomesticatedLandscape:NativeAmericanPlant
Cultivationon the Northwest Coast of North America,
UnpublishedPh.D. dissertation,Departmentof Geogra-
phy, LouisianaStateUniversity,BatonRouge.
Diehl, MichaelW.
2000 Some Thoughtson the Studyof Hierarchies.InHier-
archiesinAction:CuiBono?,editedby MichaelW.Diehl,
pp. 11-30. OccasionalPaperNo. 27. CenterforArchaeo-
logical Investigations,Carbondale,Illinois.
Dunbar,R. I. M.
2003 The Social Brain:Languageand Society in Evolu-
tionary Perspective. Annual Review of Anthropology
32:163-181.
Durham,William.H.
1990 Advances in EvolutionaryCultureTheory.Annual
ReviewofAnthropology19:187-210.
1991 Coevolution:Genes, Cultureand HumanDiversity.
StanfordUniversityPress,PaloAlto, California.
Erlandson,Jon M.
1994 Early Hunter-Gatherersof the California Coast.
PlenumPress,New York.
Fitzhugh,Ben
1996 The Evolutionof Complex Hunter-Gatherers in the
North Pacific. UnpublishedPh.D. dissertation,Depart-
mentofAnthropology,Universityof Michigan,AnnArbor.
Fitzhugh,Ben, andJunkoHabu(editors)
2002 Beyond Foraging and Collecting: Evolutionary
Change in Hunter-GathererSettlementSystems.Kluwer
Academic/Plenum,New York.
Gamble,Clive
1999 ThePalaeolithicSocietiesofEurope.CambridgeUni-
versityPress,Cambridge.
Gould,StephenJay
373
2002 TheStructureof EvolutionaryTheory.The Belknap
Pressof HarvardUniversityPress,Cambridge.
Habu,Junko
2002 JomonCollectorsandForagers:RegionalInteractions
and Long-termChanges in SettlementSystems among
PrehistoricHunter-Gatherers in Japan.In BeyondForag-
ing and Collecting:EvolutionaryChangein Hunter-Gath-
ererSettlementSystems,editedby Ben FitzhughandJunko
Habu,pp. 53-72. KluwerAcademic/Plenum,New York.
Haldane,JohnB. S.
1927 Possible Worldsand OtherEssays. ChattoandWin-
dus, London.
Hallpike,C. R., andEdwinN. Wilmsen
2002 Comment:PrimitiveMentality.Journalof the Royal
AnthropologicalInstitute8:571-572.
Hayden,Brian
2001 Richman,Poorman,Beggarman,Chief:TheDynam-
ics of Social Inequality.InArchaeologyat theMillenium:
A Sourcebook,edited by Gary Feinmanand T. Douglas
Price,pp.231-272. KluwerAcademic/Plenum, New York.
Holling,C. S.
1973 Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems.
AnnualReviewof Ecology and Systematics4:1-23.
Hunn,EugeneS., andNancy M. Williams
1982 Introduction. InResourceManagers:NorthAmerican
and AustralianHunter-Gatherers,edited by Nancy M.
WilliamsandEugeneS. Hunn,pp. 1-16. WestviewPress,
Boulder,Colorado.
Johnson,Gregory
1982 OrganizationalStructureandScalarStress.In Theory
and Explanationin Archaeology,edited by Colin Ren-
frew,MichaelJ. RowlandsandBarbaraAbbottSegraves,
pp. 389-422. AcademicPress,New York.
Kauffman,StuartA.
1993 The Originsof Order:Self-Organizationand Selec-
tion in Evolution.OxfordUniversityPress,Oxford.
Kelly,R. L.
1995 The ForagingSpectrum:Diversityin Hunter-Gath-
ererLifeways.SmithsonianInstitutionPress,Washington,
D.C.
Kent,Susan
1992 The CurrentForagerControversy:Real versusIdeal
Views of Hunter-Gatherers. Man (NS) 27:45-70.
Kohler,TimothyA., and GeorgeJ. Gumerman(editors)
2000 Dynamics in Humanand Primate Societies:Agent-
Based Modelingof Social and SpatialProcesses. Oxford
UnviersityPress,New York.
Koyama,Shuzo, andDavid HurstThomas(editors)
1981 AffluentForagers:PacificCoastsEastandWest.Senri
EthnologicalStudies 9. NationalMuseumof Ethnology,
Osaka.
Kroeber,AlfredL.
1917 The Superoganic. American Anthropologist
17:163-214.
Lansing,J. Stephen
2003 ComplexAdaptiveSystems.AnnualReviewofAnthro-
pology 32:183-204.
Lee, RichardB.
1981 Is Therea ForagingMode of Production?Canadian
JournalofAnthropology2:13-19.
1992 Art,Science, or Politics?The Crisesin Hunter-Gath-
ererStudies.AmericanAnthropologist94:31-54.
Lee, RichardB., and Daly Richard(editors)
1999a TheCambridgeEncyclopediaofHuntersand Gath-
erers.CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge.
1999b Introduction: ForagersandOthers.In TheCambridge
374 AMERICAN
ANTIQUITY
Encyclopediaof HuntersandGatherers,editedby Richard
B. Lee and RichardDaly, pp. 1-19. CambridgeUniver-
sity Press,Cambridge.
Marshall,Alan G.
1999 UnusualGardens:TheNez PerceandWildHorticul-
tureon theEasternColumbiaPlateau.InNorthwestLands,
NorthwestPeoples: Readings in EnvironmentalHistory,
editedby Dale GobleandPaulW. Hirt,pp. 173-187. Uni-
versityof WashingtonPress,Seattle.
Myers,FredR.
1988 Critical Trends in the Study of Hunter-Gatherers.
AnnualReviewofAnthropology17:261-282.
O'Brien,Michael,J., andR. Lee Lyman
2000 Applying EvolutionaryArchaeology:A Systematic
Approach.KluwerAcademic/Plenum,New York.
Onat,AstridaR. Blukis
1997 VancouverLowlandsMitigationWildlifeArea Cul-
turalResourcesSite Survey.BOAS ResearchReportNo.
9604. BOAS, Inc, Seattle.
Panowski,Eileen
1985 AnalyzingHunter-Gatherers:PopulationPressure,
Subsistence,Social Structure,NorthwestCoastSocieties,
and Slavery.UnpublishedPh.D. dissertation,University
of New Mexico, Albuquerque.
Peacock, Sandra,andNancy J. Turner
1999 "JustLikea Garden": PlantResourceMan-
Traditional
agement and Biodiversity Conservationon the British
ColumbiaPlateau.In Biodiversityand Native America,
edited by Paul Minnis and WayneElisens, pp. 133-179.
Universityof OklahomaPress,Norman.
Prentiss,WilliamC., andJamesC. Chatters
2003 CulturalDiversificationand Decimationin the Pre-
historicRecord.CurrentAnthropology44:33-58.
Price,Douglas T.
1981 Complexityin "Non-Complex"Societies.InArchae-
ologicalApproachesto theStudyof Complexity,editedby
S.E. van der Leeuw,pp. 55-99. UniversiteitvanAmster-
dam,Amsterdam.
1995a Some Perspectiveson PrehistoricCoastalAdapta-
tions and Those who Study Them. In Man & Sea in the
Mesolithic:CoastalSettlementAboveand Below Present
Sea Level,editedby AndersFischer,pp. 423-425. Oxbow
Monograph53. Oxbow Books, Oxford.
1995b Social Inequalityat the Originsof Agriculture.In
Foundationsof Social Inequality,edited by T. Douglas
Price and GaryM. Feinman,pp. 129-146. Plenum,New
York.
Richerson,PeterJ., and RobertBoyd
[Vol.69, No. 2, 2004]
2000 InstitutionalEvolutionin the Holocene:The Rise of
ComplexSocieties.In TheOriginsof HumanSocialInsti-
tutions, edited by W. G. Runciman,pp. 197-204. Pro-
ceedings of the BritishAcademy 110. London.
Richerson,PeterJ., RobertBoyd, andRobertL. Bettinger
2001 WasAgricultureImpossibleduringthePleistocenebut
Mandatory during the Holocene? A Climate Change
Hypothesis.AmericanAntiquity66:387-412.
Schrire,Carmel
1980 An Inquiryintothe EvolutionaryStatusandApparent
Identityof SanHunter-Gatherers.HumanEcology8:9-32.
Shennan,Stephen
2002 Genes,MemesandHumanHistory.ThamesandHud-
son, London.
Shott,MichaelJ.
2001 Crisesin ForagerStudies,EthnographicandArchae-
ological. Reviewsin Anthropology29:211-232.
Smith,AndrewB.
1999 Archaeologyand Evolutionof Huntersand Gather-
ers.In TheCambridgeEncyclopediaof HuntersandGath-
erers, edited by RichardB. Lee and RichardDaly, pp.
384-390. Universityof CambridgePress,Cambridge.
Smith,EricAlden, andMarkWhishnie
2000 Conservationand Subsistencein Small-Scale Soci-
eties. AnnualReviewofAnthropology29:493-524.
Smith,BruceD.
2001 Low-LevelFood Production.JournalofArchaeolog-
ical Research9:1-43.
Stewart,JulianH.
1955 Theoryof CultureChange.Universityof IllinoisPress,
Urbana.
Wilmsen,EdwinN.
1989 Land Filled WithFlies: A Political Economyof the
Kalahari.Universityof ChicagoPress,Chicago.
Wilson,EdwardO.
1998 Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. Alfred A.
Knopf,New York.
Wolf, E.
1982 Europeand thePeoplewithoutHistory.Universityof
CaliforniaPress,Berkeley.
Woodburn,James
1980 Hunter-Gatherers TodayandReconstructingthePast.
In Sovietand WesternAnthropology,editedby E. Gellner,
pp. 94-118. ColumbiaUniversityPress,New York.
Woodburn,James,ThomasWidlock,Edwin N. Wilmsen,and
Tim Ingold
2001 Comment:PrimitiveMentality.Journalof the Royal
AnthropologicalInstitute7 (N.S.):767-770.