Kelly 1983

Hunter-Gatherer Mobility Strategies
Author(s): Robert L. Kelly

Source: Journal of Anthropological Research, Vol. 39, No. 3 (Autumn, 1983), pp. 277-306
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3629672
Accessed: 04-10-2016 17:13 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of Anthropological Research
This content downloaded from 200.89.69.89 on Tue, 04 Oct 2016 17:13:47 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
HUNTER-GATHERER MOBILITY STRATEGIES
Robert L. Kelly
Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109
The nature of hunter-gatherer mobility strategies-the way in which hunter-gatherer

landscape over the course of a year-is discussed, using ethnographic data. Several mo
that measure residential and logistical mobility are defined; several environmental v
measure resource accessibility and resource monitoring costs are also defined. Eth
are used to demonstrate patterning between the nature of mobility strategies an
structure of an environment. The data show that the extent to which a group of hu
emphasizes residential or logistical mobility is closely related to the structure of res
environment.
THE OBJECTIVE OF THIS PAPER is to initiate development of a theory of h

gatherer mobility strategies.1 By mobility strategies I mean the nature of the s
movements of hunter-gatherers across a landscape: mobility strategies are one f
of the way in which hunter-gatherers organize themselves in order to cope wit
lems of resource acquisition. This paper is therefore relevant to a larger fi
interest among anthropologists, namely, the study of hunter-gatherer sett
systems.
Approaches to hunter-gatherer settlement systems in recent years hav
dominated by models based upon principles of economics (the minimax assumpt
geography (Jochim 1976), or optimal-foraging theory (see Winterhalder and
1981). This paper differs from such approaches by using a comparison of e
graphically known hunter-gatherer mobility strategies and their environm
contexts, as a point of departure for creating a theory which is explicitly conce
with hunter-gatherer mobility. Thus the cross-cultural comparisons presented h
are offered as a learning experience, rather than as test cases of a presumed mo
The ethnographic cases utilized herein range from tropical forest to a
hunting-and-gathering groups (N = 36); the nature of the ethnographic data, ho
limits discussion predominantly to tropical forest, boreal forest, and arctic gro
Detailed documentation of the cases is sacrificed for the purpose of present
variability existing in hunter-gatherer mobility strategies.
The most recent approach to studying hunter-gatherers has borrowed
optimal-foraging models (e.g., Winterhalder and Smith 1981; Winterhalder
Wilmsen 1973, Smith 1979; Perlman 1980; Hawkes, Hill, and O'Connell
This approach is explicitly concerned with the nature of foraging strategies, ra
than with the mobility strategy within which such foraging strategies are emb
Optimal-foraging models do play a crucial role in that an understanding of fora
behavior aids in translating mobility strategies into on-the-ground behavio
comments by Pyke, Pulliam, and Charnov 1977). I make general use of not
foraging behavior and, in so doing, I make the assumption that hunter-gat
mobility is closely related to the structure of food resources in a given environ
In order to understand the differences among hunter-gatherer mobility strate
we need a conceptual framework which allows us to see how different hunter-g
systems are related in an organizational sense. By organization I mean the
which differing amounts of time and energy are invested in various activit
277
278 JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCH
need a cross-cultural and cross-environmental framework within which to understand
variations in hunter-gatherer mobility patterns. With the appropriate framework we
could, for example, find that intensive winter storage and low residential mobility
in one group of hunter-gatherers solves for them the same problem that very high
winter mobility with very little storage does for another. Such an approach would
allow us to see which environmental factors result in different mobility/storage
strategies in response to a similar problem. This framework should consist of variables
capable of assessing differences in the organization of mobility strategies and in the
resource structure of environments. In the following section, I outline the mobility
and environmental variables used in this paper.
MOBILITY STRATEGIES
Binford (1980) has made a useful distinction between residential a

mobility, and suggests that hunter-gatherer systems can be describe
variable mixes of these two dimensons. Residential mobility refers to mo
all members of a camp from one location to another. Logistical mobi
movements of individuals or small groups from a residential locat
mobility can take the form of one-day forays from a site, or of task-spec
of longer duration, such as hunting expeditions. As discussed by Bin
examining mobility strategies in terms of residential and logistical m
us to see under what conditions consumers are moved relative to food resources
and under what conditions food resources are moved relative to consumers. In
order to elucidate the nature of residential and logistical mobility, the two should be
conceptualized as potentially independent of one another, although in reality this is
not the case.
In order to record the degree to which a hunter-gatherer group is residentially

or logistically organized, the data obtained from ethnographies consist of the follow-
ing variables:2
Residential Mobility
1) Number of residential moves per year. A residential move consists of any
change in the residential locus made during the seasonal round. Even if a
single location is reoccupied for a particular period of the year (such as
winter villages among Northwest Coast groups), the group is considered to be
residentially mobile as long as most of the group leaves the location for some
period of time.
2) Average distance per residential move. These data are often taken from maps,
and do not take topography into account.
3) Total distance covered through residential mobility per year. This is often
figured by multiplying the number of residential moves by the average distance
per move.
4) Total area covered per year. This, taken from ethnographers' estimates and/or
maps, provides rough estimates of a group's annual territory, or range, an area
covered through residential and logistical mobility (territory, as used here, does
not connote the idea of defense).
5) Length of occupation of a winter (or rainy season) site, measured in months.
HUNTER-GATHERER MOBILITY STRATEGIES 279
Logistical Mobility
1) One-way distance covered during the "average" fo
2) Total duration (round-trip days) of the "average"
The data on residential and logistical mobility are
data on mobility were not presented directly by an au
by piecing together indirect references to when or
one criterion for inclusion was that a description o
available for each ethnographic case, some of the data
and should only be seen as relative measures of a grou
It is also important to realize that these data rep
mobility strategy used by a group, a single type o
Some year-to-year variability in a group's mobility
response to fluctuating environmental variables that a
I return to this point in the conclusion of the paper.
ENVIRONMENT
In recent years anthropologists have made a distinction between "b

and "marginal" environments, criticizing the use of models derived from e
ically known societies, on the grounds that modern hunter-gatherers,
!Kung, live in marginal environments (Perlman 1980; Keene 1979; Rick
therefore bear little resemblance to hunter-gatherers who lived in more b
environments. So-called benevolent environments include southern Michiga
1979), the Andean puna (Rick 1980), and, paradoxically, even that qu
marginal environment, the Kalahari Desert (Hayden 1981a)! Labeling an env
either benevolent or marginal fails to specify relevant environmental v
does not allow comparisons between different areas in terms of a common
consequently, such a characterization cannot contribute to an understan
ecological context of human societies.
In place of a simple typological dichotomy, we need several variables wh
comparison of different environments, variables which are as free of imp
interpretations as possible. In this paper I use two such variables-effective
ture and primary biomass-which measure environmental differences
two dimensions: resource accessibility and resource monitoring. Discussion
to terrestrial, as opposed to marine, environments for two reasons. First, it
to construct a globally applicable predictive model of marine resource
it pertains to human adaptation. Second, it is useful to break the environm
arbitrarily along a terrestrial/marine dichotomy, in order to see more pre
role played by marine versus terrestrial resources in hunter-gatherer
consequently, mobility strategies. Given that the inception of human use o
resources is of anthropological interest (see Osborn 1977; Yesner 1980)
between terrestrial and marine resources may prove to be heuristically use
Resource Structure
The two primary factors affecting global variation in vegetative communities ar

temperature and rainfall (Holdridge 1947; Pianka 1974; Whittaker 1975). In th
paper temperature is indicated in terms of effective temperature (ET). Developed by
TABLE 1
Residential and Logistical Mobility Data Used in Text
Average Average Total

Residential Distance Distance Total Area
Moves per per Move per Year per Year
No. Group Year (km) (km) (km2)
1 Punan 45 8.5 384.0 861.0
2 Mbuti 11 5.2 57.0 120-150
3 Semang 26 11.3 203.8 2475.0
4 Vedda 3 11.2 36.3 40.5
5 Andamanese 8 2.4 41.0
6 Aeta 22 12.8 281.6 3265.0
7 Chenchu 3-4 11.2 39.5
8 Guayaki 50 5.9 295.0 780.0
9 Siriono 16 14.4 230.0 780.0
10 Birhor 7-8 10.3 90.3 130.0
11 G/wi 11 25.0 275.0 782.0
12 Dorobo 4-6
13 Dobe !Kung 6 23.6 142.0 260.0
14 Seri 248.0
15 Hadza 27 8.0 216.0
16 Aranda 10 260.0
17 Walapai 588.0
18 Cheyenne 33 12.0 396.0
19 Crow 38 19.2 640.0 61880.0
20 Maidu 455.0
21 Northern Paiute 30-40
22 Micmac 56.0 5473.0
23 Sanpoil 10
24 Nootka 3 10.0 30.0 370.5
25 Gulf Salish 2-3 34.9 76.8 631.0
26 Twana 3-4 211.0
27 Southern Kwakiutl 2-3 13.6 35.2 727.0
28 Klamath 11 7.5 84.0 1058.0
29 Ainu 2 4.3 8.6 171.0
30 Montagnais 50 64.0 1800-3600
31 Makah 2 7.3 15.0 190.0
32 Aleut 1
33 Mistassini Cree 10 510.0 3900.0
34 Nunamiut 10 69.5 724.7 63700.0
35 Netsilik 14 16.8 236.8 6000.0
36 Ona 60
Winter Logistical Mobility

Mobility (mo.) Dist. (km) Time (days) References
.33 3 Harrison 1949

Bicchieri 1969; Tanno 1976; Harako 1976
Schebesta 1929
4.0 1 J. Bailey 1863; Seligmann and Seligmann 1911
4.0 Radcliffe-Brown 1922; Man 1932
8 1 Vanoverbergh 1925
6.0 3 Furer-Haimendorf 1943
1 Clastres 1972
5.0 Holmberg 1969
Williams 1974
1.0 7 1 Silberbauer 1972
Huntingsford 1929
2.0 iO 1-2 Lee 1968, 1979; Hitchcock and Ebert n.d.
McGee 1898
Woodburn 1968, 1972
Spencer and Gillen 1927
Kroeber 1935
7 Gussow 1954
7-14 Nabokov 1967
5.0 32 Beals 1933; Dixon 1905
1.5 Kelly 1932
24-29 Wallis and Wallis 1955; Speck 1921;
Denys 1908; Le Clerq 1910
4.5 7 Ray 1932
6.0 Drucker 1951
Schalk 1978
Elmendorf 1974
Schalk 1978
6.5 Gatschet 1890; Spier 1930; Barrett 1910
10.0 27 Watanabe 1968, 1972a, 1972b
.25 32-48 Tanner 1944; Leacock 1954
Schalk 1978
Coxe 1804
1.6 8-32 Rogers 1967, 1972
2-3 15 Amsden 1977; Binford 1978
1.0 Balikci 1964, 1968, 1970
.2 1-2 Gusinde 1934; Bridges 1951; Stuart 1972
H.P. Bailey (1960), ET is a measure of both the amount and the annual
of solar radiation available over a given region of the earth's surface; as su
fair indicator of the seasonality of an environment. Empirically derived v
from 260 C at the equator to 80 C at each of the poles (see Binford 1980).
regimes of temperature and rainfall act to produce environments differing
production and primary biomass.
TABLE 2
Group Size and Diet
(Diet composition estimates from Murdock 1967)
Group Size Diet Composition (%)

No. Group max. min. Hunt. Gath. Fish.
1 Punan 65 30 70 0
2 Mbuti 120 50-60 60 30 10
3 Semang 18 35 50 15
4 Vedda 18 35 45 20
5 Andamanese 63 20 40 40
6 Aeta 44 20 60 35 5
7 Chenchu 48 11 10 85 5
8 Guayaki 50 20
9 Siriono 75 18 25 70 5
10 Birhor 200 26
11 G/wi 57 20 15 85 0
12 Dorobo 60 40 0
13 Dobe !Kung 25 20 80 0
14 Seri 20 20 60
15 Hadza 35 65 0
16 Aranda 25 40 60 0
17 Walapai 50 25 40 60 0
18 Cheyenne 3300 80 20 0
19 Crow 80 20 0
20 Maidu 300 30 50 20
21 Northern Paiute 75 15 20 50 30
22 Micmac 97 25 50 10 40
23 Sanpoil 70 25 20 30 50
24 Nootka 230 40 20 20 60
25 Gulf Salish
26 Twana 30 10 60
27 Southern Kwakiutl 420 20 30 50
28 Klamath 84 10 20 30 50
29 Ainu 32 20 30 40
30 Montagnais 60 20 20
31 Makah 164 20 20 60
32 Aleut 280 10 30 60
33 Mistassini Cree 100 20 50 20 30
34 Nunamiut 36 10 87 3 10
35 Netsilik 60-100 20
36 Ona 120 40 70 10 20
The term primary production here refers to net prima

of energy in vegetation remaining from the process of pho
Net primary production represents the amount of plant m
available for consumption by herbivores; it is not, how
food density, especially in relation to humans. In this
measures only net above-ground production, and not t
roots. The primary production rates of several biomes
Table 3; although there is considerable variation in pr
given biome, Table 3 is still useful for comparative purpo
production used for each hunter-gatherer case, along with
are listed in Table 4. These primary production estimates
data using a formula developed by Rosenweig (1968); th
ET values, have been computed by Lewis Binford over t
process of teaching a course on hunter-gatherer ecolog
Mexico. These are previously unpublished and are use
consent.
Primary biomass is the total amount of standing plant material pr

region at a particular point in time. Excluding primary production, primary
is for the most part inedible for humans. Calculations of primary biom
environments of each of the hunter-gatherer groups used in this paper are
tenuous. I have developed two crude formulas to compute primary biom
estimates of the primary production and primary biomass of several biomes
1979:255). From these data two regression equations were calculated (see
one equation based on Walter's "humid" environment category (tropic
boreal forests, etc.) and the other on his "arid" and "semi-arid" categori
warm temperate forests, etc.). Humid environments are defined here as tho
ET values of 80 to 12.50 or 19.50 to 260 and more than 400 mm. of ra
year. Arid environments are those with ET values of 12.50 to 19.50, reg
rainfall, but also those within the ET ranges for humid environments with
less than 400 mm. per year (excluding arctic or tundra environments). The e
shown in Figure 1 allow prediction of the primary biomass of a particular a
primary production. Calculating primary biomass is a necessary operat
examination of the relationship between primary biomass and primary
indicates that the accessibility of primary production is systematically
primary biomass.
Resource Accessibility
By resource accessibility I mean the amount of time and effort re
extract faunal and plant resources from an environment. The relative access
these resources lies on a continuum that can be evaluated along several d
Resource dispersion, size, and location (terrestrial vs. subterranean vs. ar
the primary constituents of resource accessibility, but processing costs coul
into consideration as well. The optimal-foraging notion of resource rank
specific consideration of resource accessibility, but is too fine grained for t
parative approach taken in this paper. To account for all factors affectin
selection at this stage would be quite complicated, and, as an initial step, the
factors may be subsumed beneath a single concept.
TABLE 3
Accessibility of Primary Production and Sec

(Data in columns 1 and 2 from Whittaker 19
Primary Primary Secondary Pri.

Biome (g/m2 /yr) (g/m2) (g/m2) Pri. Bio. P
Production Biomass Biomass
Tropical Rain Forest 2,200 45,000

Tropical Seasonal Forest 1,600 35,000
Tropical Savanna 900 4,000 15
Woodland/Scrubland 700 6,000
Temperate Grassland 600 1,600
Desert/Semidesert 90 700 0.
Temperate Deciduous Forest 1,200 30,00
Temperate Evergreen Forest 1,300 35,00
Boreal Forest. 800 20,000 5
Tundra 140 600 0.4
Lake/Stream 250 20 5 12.5
Swamp/Marsh 2,000 1,500 10
TABLE 4
Environmental Data
Effective Primary Primary

Temperature Production Biomass
No. Group (0C) (g/m2/yr) (kg/m2)
1 Punan 24.9 3535 44.6
2 Mbuti 23.7 2209 30.2
3 Semang 23.7 2815 36.3
4 Vedda 23.0 2213 30.2
5 Andamanese 21.9 1589 25.1
6 Aeta 21.2 2573 33.8
7 Chenchu 20.8 1316 6.9
8 Guayaki
9 Siriono 20.6 2115 29.5
10 Birhor 19.7 1500 24.5
11 G/wi 19.3 251 .7
12 Dorobo 19.3 1144 4.7
13 Dobe !Kung 18.8 328 .8
14 Seri 18.3 310 .8
15 Hadza 666 1.7
16 Aranda 15.9 153 .6
17 Walapai 15.1 39 .5
18 Cheyenne 13.3 211 .7
19 Crow 13.0 510 1.5
20 Maidu 14.8 780 2.3
21 Northern Paiute 12.9 229 .7
22 Micmac 12.7 531 18.2
23 Sanpoil 12.7 229 .7
24 Nootka 12.6 621 19.0
25 Gulf Salish 12.6 570 18.6
26 Twana 12.3 346 17.3
27 Southern Kwakiutl 11.6 378 17.7
28 Klamath 12.2 134 .6
29 Ainu 12.3
30 Montagnais 11.6 378 17.7
31 Makah 11.3 314 17.3
32 Aleut 11.1 260
33 Mistassini Cree 10.8 203 16.9
34 Nunamiut 9.8 73
35 Netsilik 9.5
36 Ona 9.0 10 15.8
Vegetation in ar
competition. Und
their stability by
of sunlight. The
xylem and phloe
(1) increase its i
sunlight by inv
placing the locus
60-
1. HUMID ENVIRONMENTS
40
J O, 10-
P2.5- 2. ARID ENVIRONMENTS
1.0-
0 1000 2000 3000
PRIMARY PRODUCTION (gim2/yr)
Figure 1. Primary Production and Primary Biomass (data from Walter 1979)
The seeds of plants in high primary biomass settings have evolved to av

tion; many seed types have become physcially inaccessible to large animals
of their location at the ends of small branches, high above the ground. See
primary biomass environments often contain toxins or have tough outer se
making their predispersal acquisition difficult and/or necessitating int
cessing for their exploitation (e.g., pine cones and acorns).
The opposite occurs in areas of low primary biomass, where less energy
in plant structural maintenance and growth, and more in reproductive
(seeds). In addition, many of the plants of dry, low primary biomass
been selected (in an evolutionary sense) for the survival of droughts and ra
consequently, many desert plants have large subsurface storage organs
hunter-gatherers can exploit, in addition to the above-ground production.
It would therefore appear that primary biomass, generally speaking, is i
correlated with the accessibility of plant resources. In Table 3, if we
primary production of each biome (column 1) by its respective primar
(column 2), we obtain a rough estimate of the accessibility of primary
for both humans and large herbivores (column 4). The values in column fou
some important differences between environments. For instance, while
savanna has a much lower primary production than the tropical forest
percentage of savanna production is accessible than is true of the tropical f
far as human subsistence is concerned, the above-ground primary producti
subtropical deserts is potentially more useful than that of the tropical
same holds true for temperate deserts relative to temperate forests.
For humans, however, a threshold is reached at an acc

.23; the primary production of environments such as tu
mosses, lichens-although physically accessible to humans
form. Large herbivores, however, have adapted to feeding o
The relationship between primary biomass and resource ac
by the effects of temperature. As temperature decreases
amount of solar energy available for photosynthesis and thu
Holding primary biomass constant, then, the absolute amoun
should decrease along a gradient of decreasing ET. Holdin
of primary production immediately available for consu
gradient of increasing primary biomass.
Thus far Ihave discussed how primary biomass and ET con
of primary production. At this point we should conside
(faunal) biomass is conditioned by the distribution of prima
Returning to Table 3, by dividing the average secondar
age primary biomass of each biome, we obtain estimate
fauna (column 5). These estimates indicate that fauna in
temperate evergreen forests, and boreal forests (i.e., genera
areas characterized by tall trees, conifers, or both) is ve
hunters. Since most animals feed at the locus of produ
animals living in environments with relatively inaccessible p
be arboreal, and to have reduced body sizes. Tundra, on the
and grasslands, has a very high faunal accessibility. Com
for example, tundra has much less faunal biomass per un
biomass is accessible to humans than is that in the decidu
animals in low primary-biomass areas are of large body size,
easily monitored. They are thus easier for humans to e
small animals, dispersed throughout an environment.
The structure of faunal resources in terms of body size, h
persion in the different biomes is summarized in Table
3, column 5, and Table 5 indicates that the accessibility
follows much the same pattern as the accessibility of pri
ET constant, along a gradient of increasing primary bio
becomes smaller (with some exceptions) and the individua
primary biomass constant, along a gradient of decreasi
density (by using larger home ranges), but individuals are o
Resource Monitoring
The concept of resource monitoring is concerned with
locus of a resource's exploitation must be monitored by hun
insure the successful exploitation of that resource. The p
is that the requirements and abilities of humans to moni
critical factors in hunter-gatherer adaptation (cf. O'Con
Moore 1981). In this section, I discuss how seasonality and
the monitoring requirements of faunal and vegetative resou
Many plant and faunal resources are only available duri
for delimited periods of time. The periods become shorter a
TABLE 5
Structure of Faunal Resources
(Data from Whittaker 1975:51-65; mies 1974:26-35; Rodgers and Kerstetter 1974:40-9
Herbivorous Species Primary Secon

Biome Body Size Diversity Mammalian Habitat Di
Tropical Rain Forest small very high arboreal di

Tropical Seasonal Forest small high terrestrial-arboreal d
Tropical Savanna large medium-high terrestrial gr
Woodland/Scrubland medium high terrestrial-burrowing dispe
Temperate Grassland large low terrestrial-burrowing g
Desert/Semidesert small/medium medium terrestrial-burrowing
Temperate Deciduous Forest medium medium-high terrestrial-arborea
Temperate Evergreen Forest medium/large low terrestrial
Boreal Forest large very low terrestrial dis
Tundra large very low terrestrial gregariou
with increasing seasonality. They are thus a more cruc

adaptation in cold than in warm environments. In
seasons, for example, there is little pressure to mo
This does not mean that tropical hunter-gatherer
their environment. They do indeed monitor their
1929:28, 150), but are not heavily dependent upon
location and availability of particular resources. Hu
seasonal environments, and especially those who m
must be more concerned with and put more effort
the location and temporal availability of particular res
caribou migrations).
Along a gradient of increasing primary biomass, fau
increasingly undifferentiated from search costs. This
increasing primary biomass, large animals become
location of one animal a poor predictor of where
(e.g., bison vs. moose).
Primary production is easier to monitor than are
Unlike animals, however, and regardless of the pri
cannot be monitored from a distance, or by signs
only from close inspection. Similar problems arise
since roots are storage organs, there is a longer period
as compared to seeds (human storage strategies can, of
tion). In addition, seeds tend to be available for a s
are animals in a given environment, making it crucial
of the time when seeds ripen and be there to exploit t
In sum, the monitoring costs of faunal and flora
in terms of the variables of seasonality and primar
the need to monitor resources, and primary bioma
hunter-gatherers can monitor those resources. Hol
constant, we can expect resource monitoring costs
increase in the other.
HUNTER-GATHERER MOBILITY STRATEGIES
In this section I discuss the two dimensions of hunter-gatherer mobility

residential and logistical mobility, by considering each of the variable
listed above in relation to resource accessibility and monitoring.5
Residential Mobility: Number of Residential Moves per Year

As was stated earlier, primary biomass conditions access to terrest
tion and secondary biomass, such that areas of high primary biomass hav
inaccessible plants and animals. It is not surprising, then, to find that hun
living in high primary biomass areas move quite frequently (see Table 6),
dependent upon aquatic resources (or a company store, as are the Cr
most of the data in Table 6 are derived from tropical groups, boreal fore
move about quite frequently. Of the Micmac, for example, LeClerq
wrote that "They follow the ancient custom of our first fathers, w
encamped in a place only so long as they found there the means of su
their families." LeJeune, wintering with a group of Montagnais in 1633-3
other than the one listed in Table 5) noted that the group moved twenty-
between 12 November and 22 April, or about once a week (see also R
Turner 1889; Helm 1972). The Tasmanians, living in a temperate, everg
moved every one or two days, at least for part of the year, according to
(in Roth 1890:104): "They daily removed to a fresh place, to avoid t
filth that accumulated about the little fires which they kindled daily" (se
1890:117, quoting Melville).
TABLE 6
Primary Biomass and Number of Residential Moves per Year for Groups in
High Primary Biomass Environments not Dependent on Aquatic Resources
Number of Residential
Group Biome Primary Biomass Moves per Year
Punan Tropics 44.6 45

Semang 36.3 26
Aeta 33.8 22
Siriono 29.5 16
Montagnais Boreal Forest 17.7 50
Ona 15.8 60
Groups livin
centers of f
tropical hun
the Ona, fo
game anima
booty fell to
its dwelling
While trop
groups use
are available
environmen
the logistic
variable (see
tions betwe
is the amou
cost is the a
the amount
search for food.
In an environment where food choices are limited and where both primary pro-
duction and secondary biomass are relatively inaccessible, long commuting distances
do not necessarily guarantee that an individual will encounter other food items of
value while searching for any one particular item. When a camp in the boreal forest
is first occupied, the immediate area can be hunted out (or the game scared away) in
a few days. Commuting time to patches where a hunter might find moose or caribou,
then, becomes an important constraint. Trying to

exploit fauna through logistical mobility would be imp
such a strategy requires a hunter-gatherer to pred
certain place at a certain time, a task which is difficul
forest. In order to maximize the utility of forays mad
residential location must change when the commuting
of potential resources outweighs resource search and p
camp insures that at least commuting time, if not s
directly affected. Therefore, along a gradient of in
decreasing ET, commuting time becomes less and les
an energy sink as failed logistical trips under these
into minor successes by exploiting a food resource oth
This is less of a constraint on tropical forest hun
other resources while commuting to hunting areas
1982). If the above argument is correct, then in env
need to monitor resources we should expect resource a
variable conditioning the number of residential m
decreasing resource accessibility (increasing prima
corresponding increase in residential mobility. This ex
tropical hunter-gatherer residential mobility data show
50
10
240-
S II/
S30-
.
Il
39?
/6
6.s
20-
,10
10 20 30 40
PRIMAR
Figure 2.
Number of Residential Moves per Year of Tropical Hunter-Gatherers and Resource Accessibility
(Numbers by points = groups in Table 1)
The above arguments alone, however, do not explain why there are some
tary hunter-gatherer groups living in high primary biomass situations. All n
groups for which data are available are listed in Table 7, divided into those
than 20 percent dependence on aquatic resources and those with greater dep
on such resources. This table suggests that the expected relationship be
dential mobility and primary biomass does hold true-as long as the gro
dependent on aquatic resources (or company stores). Most of the groups
on aquatic resources are located on the Northwest Coast of North Am
exploit anadramous fish runs in the late fall and early winter. Since the No
Coast has a higher primary biomass than the interior or eastern bor
residential mobility, based on exploitation of terrestrial fauna, would be ex
be extremely high. Intensive exploitation and storage of aquatic resour
Northwest Coast may thus originally have begun as a response to the extre
commuting and residential mobility costs required for winter hunting.
TABLE 7
Residential Mobility and Resource Accessibility
Residential Primary
Moves per Year Biomass (kg/m
Groups N. Paiute 30-40 .7
Largely Cheyenne 33 .7
Independent Crow 38 1.5
of Aquatic Ona 60 15.8
Resources Montagnais 50 17.7
Groups Klamath 11 .6
Dependent Sanpoil 10 .7
on Aquatic Mistassinia 10 16.9
Resources Twana 3-4 17.3
S. Kwakiutl 2-3 17.7
Makah 2 17.3
Gulf Salish 2-3 18.6
Nootka 3 19.0
a. Dependent on comp
However, a strateg
resource is present
increases with incr
gatherers is carried
increase the effecti
According to the ar
via storage, the le
with increasing se
to bulk resources (
caribou migration
in Figure 3. While t
it is worth noting
3~0
rb
0 o
OH
O~n~
TI
P%
S INCREASING LENGTH OF OCCUPATION

OF WINTER RESIDENTIAL SITE (monlh)
Figure 3.
Accessibility to Bulk Resources, Seasonality, and Length of Occupation of Winter Residential Site
residential site longer than do the Netsilik, who do not have access to large herds
of caribou. The same relationship exists between the Northwest Coast groups and
those hunter-gatherers living in the interior and eastern boreal forests; the latter lack
access to fall salmon runs.
It follows from the above arguments that with decreasing primary biomass there
should be, up to a point, an increase in the accessibility of primary production and,
consequently, an increase in the overall secondary biomass (with a threshold at an
accessibility value of about .23). Table 3 shows that this is true for the subtropical
deserts and dry acacia/thorn scrub forests, environments with an ET of from 150 to
180. Hunter-gatherers living in these environments do not deplete a foraging area
quickly, and need not move very often. The subtropical deserts, however, are
extremely dry and, given humans' daily need for water, we can expect that the nature
and distribution of water sources will have a much greater impact on hunter-gatherer
movement in this biome than considerations of resource accessibility, as in the
boreal and tropical forests.
The local availability of water can be determined by a number of factors other
than rainfall. In areas of low topographic relief, for example, fewer springs will be
available, and water will temporarily collect in low pans, rocky catchment basins, or
tree hollows. Consequently, if group movement is closely tied to water-source
distribution, we should expect to see a fair amount of variability in the residential
mobility of groups living in the subtropical deserts (compare groups 11 to 16 in
Tables 1 and 4). Further evidence of the importance of water as a determinant of
mobility comes from a comparison of the !Kung and G/wi bushmen. One of the key
differences between the !Kung and the G/wi is that the former hav
extensive pans filled with water during the rainy season; the latter obtain
the rumens of artiodactyls and succulent plants (Silberbauer 1972, 19
to insure a constant supply of these items, the G/wi must move more oft
!Kung. Being located in a low primary biomass environment, the !Kun
water pans and reduce residential mobility at the expense of increase
daily forays (compare the logistical mobility data of the !Kung and G/wi i
Such a strategy has been referred to elsewhere as "tethered foraging" (Tay
Residential Mobility: Average Distance per Residential Move

In general, we may think of residential mobility as a way to position co
relative to the locations of food resources. Therefore the average dist
between residential locations should be closely related to the spatial d
of the exploited resources. In general, resources tend to become more
spatially along a gradient of decreasing temperature; therefore we should
see an increase in the average distance per residential move with decre
Figure 4). While the data in Figure 4 fit the predictions of the argument
exception of the circled special cases), the radical difference between grou
an ET range of 150 to 260 and those in a range of 80 to 150 deserves closer
tion, as does the apparently anomalous case of the Netsilik (case 35).
70-30
" 34 4
N 60-
o1 030
0 22 /
"6/
z 50- e
40
P 1e25 \
30
30
\\ NORTHWEST
VILLAGES
COAST
Lu
a 20
2 HORSE/1 ?
/19
EEI EQUIPPED IC35
ui
03o/
10 2407
cc01
?009
-7 101.28
18 iI0O27i 0
248 0311
0-?
26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8
EFFECTIVE TEMPERATURE ( OC)
Figure 4.
Average Distance per Residential Move and Seasonality
(Numbers by points = groups in Table 1)
Environments within an ET range of 150 to 260 have m

colder environments. As suggested above, in warm env
must contend primarily with resource accessibility and,
water availability. Such factors also affect the average di
As a foraging area around a residence becomes deplet
farther and farther from the camp, there is a continual
along a gradient of decreasing resource accessibility, a di
at which commuting costs outweigh search and pursui
rates, that is, at shorter distances from the residence. A
location must change as soon as commuting time becomes
When the camp is moved, it need only be moved twice th
new foraging territory, one that does not overlap with t
(see Binford 1982). As argued above, residential mob
gradient of decreasing resource accessibility, and, by
distance per move should decrease along the same gradien
TABLE 8
Residential Mobility and Resource Accessibility
Residential Moves Average Distance Primary

per Year per Move (km) Biomass (kg/m2)
Tropical Punan 45 8.5 44.6
Forest Semang 26 11.3 36.3
Groups Aeta 22 12.8 33.8
Siriono 16 14.4 29.5
Subtropical Hadza 27 13.2 1.7

Desert !Kung 6 23.6 .8
Groups G/wi 11 25.0 .7
Aranda 10 -- .6
Hunter-gatherer g
added constraints. W
especially in cold cl
Large fauna can be e
in commuting tim
attributes (such as
(holding primary b
support themselves.
environments, requi
a residential camp
regional population
larger area of food
dependent on store
time.6 For these re
average distance of
gatherers, as shown
The low average distance per move estimate for the Netsilik is due to th
high winter residential mobility (about one move per month) while living o
ice and hunting seals at their breathing holes in the ice (see Balikci 1
1979). The Netsilik make short residential moves-about sixteen kilomet
1964; see also Damas 1972 for information on the Copper Eskimo). Since
low probability that a hunter will catch a seal at a given breathing hole, an
area can be hunted out quickly, the distance threshold where commu
outweighs the resource search and pursuit costs (or, in this case, waiti
reached at a short distance. The resource structure of the Netsilik environment is
more similar to the tropical forest than to that of other areas of the arctic. Thus, it
is not surprising that the Netisilik fit into the tropical rather than the arctic pattern
in Figure 4.
Residential Mobility: Total Area/Total Distance

Given the general trophic pyramid of an environment, a group heavily depen-
dent on hunting exploits a less dense food source than does a group dependent on
gathering in that same environment. Therefore we would expect to see an increase in
the area of land exploited by hunter-gatherers as dependence on hunting increases
(cf. McNab, in Pianka 1974:211). Figure 5 shows the relationship between the
relative dependence on hunting in the diet (from Table 2) and the total area exploited
by each group (for all groups not heavily dependent on aquatic resources and for
whom hunted resources comprise 20 or more percent of their diet). The equation
given in the figure allows one to predict the total area exploited from the percent
dependence on fauna. This relationship is actually exponential in form: the same
factors which act on the average distance per residential move operate as well on
the total area exploited. The curve in Figure 5 records the effects both of a hunting
group's increasing dependence on fauna and of the spatial distribution of a faunal
population relative to climate.
While hunter-gatherers dependent on fauna may use large tracts of land annually,
they do not necessarily cover this land thoroughly. As argued above, the residential
mobility costs of a hunting economy can be quite high. For hunter-gatherers depen-
dent on plant resources, though, the extensive logistical acquisition of food is not
feasible. Consequently, hunter-gatherers dependent on plants can be expected to
cover their territory more thoroughly through residential mobility than hunter-
gatherers dependent on fauna. A coverage index can be calculated by dividing the
total area exploited by the total distance covered per year through residential
mobility. These indices were calculated for all cases in the sample for which the
necessary data are available (Tables 1 and 2) and are grouped together according to
whether a group's subsistence base is derived predominantly from gathering, hunting,
or fishing. The means of each group were calculated, with the following results:
primarily dependent on hunting: X = .04, N = 4; primarily dependent on fishing:
X = .07, N = 6; primarily dependent on gathering: X = .36, N = 5. These figures
support the argument that groups primarily dependent on plant foods cover a greater
area of land via residential mobility than do fauna-dependent groups. The two
dimensions of mobility, however, are not mutually exclusive (cf. Binford 1980);
a group's investment of a large amount of energy in residential mobility does not
necessarily mean that it will not also use extensive logistical mobility: both boreal
100
190 34
50-
25
4/ 4
0
lu 5
o * 6
U33
Q.
S2.5 3
1 280
.51 27 9 17
26
.25- 13 .16
@31
?29
0 20 40 60 80 100
CONTRIBUTION OF HUNTING TO DIET (%)
Figure 5.
Relative Dependence on Hunting and Area of Land Exploited per Year
forest hunter-gatherers and horse-equipped bison hunters, for example, invest a great
deal of enery in residential and logistical mobility.
The way in which a tract of land is used, however, is affected by a group's need
for stored resources. To survive the winter, hunter-gatherers living in environments
with high primary biomass and relatively low ET must either maintain extremely
high residential mobility or exploit a resource in bulk for storage. Northwest Coast
hunter-gatherers have access to a storable resource (salmon), but those living under
similar constraints in the interior of central and northern California, Oregon, Idaho,
and Washington (e.g., Klamath and Maidu) do not. Although salmon runs do occur
in rivers of these areas, the fish are present in smaller numbers, reducing the storage
potential of aquatic resources in these interior areas compared to the coast (Schalk
1978). If no salmon were available during a particular year, or if winter stores needed
to be supplemented, terrestrial fauna would be the only resource to which a group
could turn during the winter. As the fauna in these high primary biomass areas
cannot be acquired in bulk, we might expect hunter-gatherers in such an area to
maintain continual access to a region where terrestrial fauna would be available.
Since the actual resource cannot be "controlled" through bulk storage or domesti-
cation, winter hunting success can only be guaranteed by treating a hunting territory
as if it were an enormous corral, by controlling access to that territory. Under these
conditions we could expect to see the formation of demarcated and, perhaps, de-
fended territories.
Logistical Mobility
As stated earlier, logistical mobility is the movement of individ
parties to and from a residential site on daily forays or extensive
previously that, due to the effects of commuting time, extensive logist
becomes viable only when large faunal resources are to be acquired
more important with an increased need to depend on such resources and
capacity to store resources. It follows that we should expect to see an in
distance covered logistically and in the relative dependence on fauna for
a gradient of decreasing ET. Supporting data for this argument are
Table 9.
TABLE 9
Logistical Mobility, Residential Mobility, and Relative Dependence on Fauna
Logistical Fauna Number of Residential

Group ET Mobility (km) (% of diet) Moves per Year
Aeta 21.2 8.0 60a 22

G/wi 19.3 7.0 15 11
!Kung 18.8 10.0 20 6
Maidu 14.8 32.0 30
Ainu 12.3 26.7 - 2
Micmac 12.7 24-29 50
Montagnais 11.6 32-48 60 50
Cree 10.8 8-32 50 10
a. Higher than expecte
The Maidu presen

estimate appears t
estimate of their
groups are nearly
gatherer groups wh
winter and/or in h
marine) fauna thro
aquatic resources as
As resources in th
logistical trips mus
would expect that t
depend on fauna, th
as a measure of log
diagram identifies
dependent on terre
There is more to lo
sources. With the e
location in order
O'Connell and Haw
for stone tools, can
An even more impo
25
33
20-
15
S10 19
023
1 23 36
-i1
13 1106 8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
RESIDENTIAL MOVES PER YEAR
Figure 6.
Residential and Logistical Mobility of Groups Heavily Dependent on Fauna
is covered. Consequently, logistical mobility can serve as the "remote sensors"

of a group, and much of the itinerary of a logistical journey may be to acquire
information about resources. Maintaining knowledge of current and potential future
states of resources is critical if a group is to plan movements and activities around
those resources. Members of hunting or fishing expeditions who fail to acquire their
prey may turn their attention to checking the status of a waterhole, to seeing if
there are signs of animals having recently visited an area, or to noting how close
particular seeds or nuts are to being ripe. Binford (1978:169) has described such
logistically implemented resource monitoring among the Nunamiut:
During early spring (early April through early May) men travel widely attempting to find
moving caribou. They have a two fold purpose: (a) to gather information as to the number
of animals and the probable timing of movement so they may plan their intercept strategy and
(b) to harvest some caribou early since they [the Nunamiut] are commonly short of meat in
spring.
This statement illustrates the two types of information which can be acquired
through resource monitoring: information of immediate utility (concerning the
caribou which the hunters wish to take at the moment) and information of future
utility (concerning the location of the ensuing spring caribou migration). The type
of information which can be acquired has an effect on the location and movement
of the residential camp, as well as on the itineraries of logistical forays.
More fully, we may examine the settlement pattern of the Seri Indians, who
occupied Tiburon Island in the Gulf of California. The Seri live most of the year
on the beach, deriving much of their subsistence from maritime resources. The
occurrence of marine resources in the gulf is variable on a day-to-day
group must live by the coast so as to watch continuously for sea turtle
schools of fish, and sea birds.
The Seri live from six to twenty-four kilometers from sources of fresh
located in the mountains (McGee 1898). Although carrying water mo
kilometers is a difficult task, the water, unlike the marine resources,
watched. Seri women make trips upslope every few days to fetch water. In
they walk through patches of mesquite, cactus, and agave, and are able
these resources, embedding this task in a necessary logistical foray. In this
position of the residential site allows the maintenance of observations
while it also insures the acquisition of information on plant resources.
The Seri example indicates that hunter-gatherers who live under con
which they know where a resource will be, but not precisely when it will
must continuously monitor the potential resource(s), or location(s) wher
will be available. This case also suggests that in a situation where critic
are available for delimited periods of time, and where there is a decision to
between considerations of energy and information, the latter would take p
Many arctic (e.g., the Netsilik) and boreal forest hunter-gatherers live i
situation. In their environments, caribou, an important resource, are prese
herds, and rarely follow a single migration route (due to a lack of major to
relief, there are few natural "funnels"). Caribou are commonly taken
them from a kayak as they cross a river or lake. The caribou are in the
briefly; if they are not taken then, the chance of exploiting the entir
thereby acquiring a resource in bulk, is very low. It is critical, then, that t
be immediately alerted to the presence of caribou. This is accomplished
the residential site on the bank of a river opposite the point where the
expected to arrive. While men are preparing for the hunt or waiting by the
women, the elderly, and children carry on their normal daily activities and
caribou crossing (Tanner 1944:670):
On all strategic places on the western shore of the lake large wooden fences had
thus forcing the herds to reach the shore in definite places, from where they beg
across. On the eastern shore opposite these places were the old men and women,
long sat watching like falcons, with pipes hanging from their dribbling mouth
caribou finally came in sight at the opposite shore they gave the hunters a sig
Balikci 1970:43; Turner 1889:277).
We could expect the same type of continuous observation on rivers whe
ramous fish run is anticipated (see, for example, Balikci 1970:23).
Under the inverse set of conditions, in which a group of hunter-gathere
when a resource will be available, but has less of an idea where it will b
the group must attempt to collect information on that resource throug
mobility. The Nunamiut spring hunting pattern described above is an
this form of resource monitoring. Taking the entire residential group alon
hunts would not only be inefficient, but would be risky as well.
CONCLUSIONS
My objective has been to point out the utility of evaluating a single o

zational facet of hunter-gatherer society-mobility-in terms of two dimen
residential and logistical mobility strategies. It ha

environments can be evaluated in terms of several dim
accessibility and monitoring characteristics, to prod
the ecological context of hunter-gatherer societies.
I have suggested that mobility strategies are related
which affect foraging behavior will ultimately have
strategy of a group of hunter-gatherers. I have noted
particular. I have argued that an important factor a
the relative necessity of locating a camp in the cen
portant characteristic of a foraging area is its degree o
can be measured in terms of a combination of effe
biomass. Similar patterns of residential mobility c
which do not require, and by conditions which do
useful information concerning future resources. Su
example, between tropical and boreal forest hunter-ga
With increasing environmental heterogeneity we expe
within a group's mobility strategy, such that the seaso
be accomplished through one form of mobility, and th
a different form (see Binford 1982). Reliance upon
only high residential mobility, but thorough cove
there is a rapid drop in the utility of commuting
Reliance upon fauna allows for a greater expendit
however, it also means that a foraging area will b
of resources. Consequently, residential mobility mu
resources are present. Reduced residential mobility
need for maintaining extensive logistical mobility o
continuous observation of a resource.
Long-term Land Use

In this paper I have discussed mobility strategies as if there were a one-to-on
correspondence between an environment and a particular strategy. However, sin
environments change their resource composition from year to year as a result
climatic fluctuations, we may expect to find different mobility strategies being used
from year to year by a given group of hunter-gatherers. Consequently, we shou
expect to see variability in the organization of a particular hunter-gatherer grou
especially in archaeologically known cases, given the long spans of time during which
the archaeological record is formed (see Binford 1982). The environmental modeling
discussed here allows us to anticipate such organizational mixes and is an importa
tool for understanding how hunter-gatherers cope with resource fluctuations (se
Hayden 1981b).
Hunter-gatherers do not adapt to their environment with a single settlement
subsistence system of the kind an ethnographer might record through living out
year's seasonal round with a group of hunter-gatherers (see Binford 1980; Lee 197
Winterhalder 1980). As Richard Lee has stated (1976:95), "there is no such thing a
a typical year for a hunter-gatherer" (see also Hill 1978). Instead, hunter-gathere
use a variety of strategies to survive in their environment. The complete range
these strategies, however, is manifested only over long periods of time-ten, twenty,
perhaps thirty years or more-sometimes resulting in the complete re

of one seasonal round into another, with changes in the size and/or loc
total area exploited (see Binford 1980). Unfortunately, the opportunit
hunter-gatherers ethnographically, over long spans of time, is nearly gon
are few ethnographically documented instances of their long-term land us
1976; Amsden 1977).
The relationship between resource fluctuations and associated changes in
is an important aspect of evolutionary change, since major system re
must occur if a given response to fluctuations in a particular resourc
reason or another, no longer a viable option. Cultural systems are sets
implemented over long periods of time, and it is these same sets of strate
than an idealized seasonal round, that are the context of evolutionary chan
this perspective on the cultural evolution of hunter-gatherers, it is essent
understand the variables conditioning different mobility strategies an
variables are themselves conditioned by directional environmental c
accomplish this we must understand the relationship between resource flu
and directional environmental change. There is still much ecological
anthropological research to be done in this area.
Concluding Remarks
It should be clear that mobility strategies are a critical aspect of hunte
adaptation. While I have laid the foundation of a theory of mobility in
and have attempted to show some of its ramifications, there is still a g
work to be done on all aspects of the problem. We need, for exampl
understanding of foraging behavior and a method for assessing resource pre
I hope to have shown in this paper the utility of a dimensional ap
both environmental and cultural systems. Such an approach is possibl
we consider the ecology of environments and the organizational pro
cultural systems, rather than categorical types of environments.
Finally, I have intentionally omitted discussion of the role of informat
between groups of hunter-gatherers (see Wiessner 1977; Moore 1981). Whil
important topic, intimately related to mobility and to marriage and trade
it is a separate problem, and cannot be dealt with in this paper. I have inst
on the mechanics of hunter-gatherer movement, and have provided a
analyzing not only the ways in which hunter-gatherers share information
ways in which their behavior varies in other areas as well.
NOTES
1. Many individuals offered criticism the of

ideas in this paper. My interest in hunter-
earlier drafts of this paper. I would especially
gatherers and settlement systems originated
like to thank L. Binford, R. Hitchcock, K. my friend and colleague, David Hurst
through
Hutterer, J. Sabloff, J. Speth, L. Straus, Thomas. R.Lin Poyer provided her typing skills
Whallon, and H. Wright. P. Bock and anand anony-
encouragement, and helped translate my
mous reviewer improved the manuscript nativeim-
variety of English. I would also like to
mensely. R. Anyon, E. Ingbar, P. Gilman, M.
acknowledge a special debt to Lewis Binford,
Graham, P. McAnany, P. Minnis, and who L. Todd
stimulated and guided the research pre-
directed me to references and commented on sented here, and who put up with the whims of
a young graduate student. Unfortunately,

4. In many instances
nonea residential move was
of these people were willing to accept
counted responsi-
as a single move, although on the way
bility for any mistakes or fuzzy
the group arguments
may have stopped for two or three
presented here, so I suppose I days
must. in an intermediate spot (see Williams
2. The ethnographic cases 1974;
used here1972;
Clastres wereKozak et al. 1979). Precise
not selected through a rigid sampling data regarding this point could not be obtained;
procedure.
As part of a seminar at the University I suspect that many of ofNew the estimates of the
Mexico, students reviewed documentation on tropical groups' residential moves per year
over one hundred hunting-and-gathering groups; should be higher. The same factor might also
my search of the literature, along with students' raise the Netsilik, Cheyenne, Crow, Mistassini
suggestions, directed me to potential sources of Cree, and Montagnais estimates.
information on hunter-gatherer mobility. The 5. Several of the cases used are affected by
thirty-six cases used here were selected from factors other than those discussed in this paper.
these sources, according to reliability of data The Chenchu, Vedda, and Andamanese, for
(which does not necessarily mean the most example, live under conditions of regional
complete or accurate data), and an effort was packing produced by European immigrants;
made to select cases from a variety of environ- others, such as the Mbuti, live symbiotically
mental biomes. with agriculturalists. The Dorobo are disre-
3. Data on logistical mobility is difficult garded
to for similar reasons. Cases such as these
obtain from ethnographies; while such measuresare noted or disregarded in the analyses.
may be accurate for tropical or subtropical 6. The depletion of such nonfood resources
as firewood is actually an important factor for
groups, they are less accurate for arctic groups,
Eskimo settlements (see Binford 1982).
where logistical forays are of both shorter and
longer duration than these measures indicate.
REFERENCES CITED
Amsden, C.W., 1977, A Quantitative Beals, R.L., 1933, Ethnology of the Maidu.
Analysis of Nunamiut Eskimo Settlement Pp. 3.35-410 in University of California Publica-
Dynamics. Ph.D. diss., Albuquerque: Universitytions in American Archaeology and Ethnology,
of New Mexico. 31.
Bailey, H.P., 1960, A Method of Deter- Bicchieri, M.G., 1969, The Differential Use
mining the Warmth and Temperateness of of Identical Features of Physical Habitat in
Climate. Geografiska Annaler 43(1):1-16. Connection with Exploitative, Settlement and
Bailey, J., 1863, An Account of the Wild Community Patterns: the BaMbuti Case Study.
Veddahs of Ceylon; Their Habits, Customs and Pp. 65-72 in Contributions to Anthropology:
Superstitions. Transactions of the Ethnological Ecological Essays (ed. by D. Damas). National
Society of London 2:278-320. Museum of Canada Bulletin 230.
Balikci, A., 1964, Development of Basic Binford, L.R., 1978, Nunamiut Ethnoar-
Socio-Economic Units in Two Eskimo Com- chaeology. New York: Academic Press.
munities. National Museum of Canada Bulletin Binford, L.R., 1979, Organization and
202. Formation Processes: Looking at Curated
Balikci, A., 1968, The Netsilik Eskimos: Technologies. Journal of Anthropological Re-
Adaptive Processes. Pp. 78-82 in Man The search 35:255-73.
Hunter (ed. by R. Lee and I. DeVore). Chicago: Binford, L.R., 1980, Willow Smoke and
Aldine. Dogs' Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Sys-
Balikci, A., 1970, The Netsilik Eskimo. tems and Archaeological Site Formation.
Garden City, N.J.: Natural History Press. American Antiquity 45:4-20.
Barrett, S.A., 1910, The Material Culture Binford, L.R., 1982, The Archaeology of
of the Klamath Lake and Modoc Indians of Place. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
Northeastern California and Southern Oregon.
1:5-31.
Pp. 239-92 in University of California Publica- Bridges, E.L., 1951, Uttermost Part of the
tions in American Archaeology and Ethnology, Earth. London: Readers' Union.
5. Clastres, P., 1972, The Guayaki. Pp.
Ecological
138-74 in Hunters and Gatherers Today (ed. by Adaptations of Modern Hunter-
Gatherers.
M.G. Bicchieri). New York: Holt, Rinehart andPp. 344-421 in Omnivorous Primates
Winston. (ed. by R.S.O. Harding and G. Teleki). New
Cloudsley-Thompson, J.L., 1975, Terres-York: Columbia University Press.
trial Environments. New York: John Wiley and Hayden, B., 1981b, Research and Develop-
Sons. ment in the Stone Age: Technological Transi-
Coxe, W., 1804 [17871, Account of thetions among Hunter-Gatherers. Current Anthro-
Russian Discoveries between Asia and America. pology 22:519-48.
New York: A.M. Kelley. Helm, J., 1972, The Dogrib Indians. Pp.
Damas, D., 1972, The Copper Eskimo. Pp. 51-89 in Hunters and Gatherers Today (ed. by
3-50 in Hunters and Gatherers Today (ed. by M.G. Bicchieri). New York: Holt, Rinehart and
M.G. Bicchieri). New York: Holt, Rinehart Winston.
and
Winston. Hill, J., 1978, Language Contact Systems
Denys, P., 1908, Description and Natural and Human Adaptations. Journal of Anthropo-
History of the Coasts of North America. logical Research 34:1-26.
Toronto: Champlain Society. Hitchcock, R.K., and J.I. Ebert, n.d.,
Dixon, R.B., 1905, The Northern Maidu. Foraging and Food Production among Kalahari
Pp. 119-346 in American Museum of Natural Hunter-Gatherers. In press in From Hunters to
History Bulletin 17. Farmers: Considerations of the Causes and
Drucker, P., 1951, The Northern and Consequences of Food Production in Africa
Central Nootkan Tribes. Bureau of American (ed. by J.D. Clarke and S. Brandt). Berkeley:
Ethnology Bulletin 144. University of California Press.
Elmendorf, W.W., 1974 [1960], Structure Holdridge, L.R., 1947, Determination of
of Twana Culture. Pp. 1-576 in American World Plant Formations from Simple Climatic
Indian Ethnohistory: Washington (ed. by D.A. Data. Science 105:367-68.
Horr). New York: Garland Publishing. Holmberg, A., 1969 [1950], Nomads of
Faye, P.L., 1923, Notes on the Southern the Long Bow: The Siriono of Eastern Bolivia.
Maidu. Pp. 35-53 in University of California Garden City, N.J.: Natural History Press.
Publications in American Archaeology and Huntingsford, G.W.B., 1929, Modern Hunt-
Ethnology, 20. ers: Some Accounts of the Kamelilo-Kapchep-
Furer-Haimendorf, C. von, 1943, The kendi Dorobo (Okiek) of Kenya Colony.
Chenchus. London: MacMillan and Co. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute
Gatschet, A.S., 1890, The Klamath Indians53:338-78.
of Southwestern Oregon. Washington, D.C.: Mies, J., 1974, Introduction to Zoogeog-
U.S. Government Printing Office. raphy (tr. by W.D. Williams). London: The
Gusinde, M., 1934, The Selk'nam: On the Macmillan Press.
Life and Thought of a Hunting People on the Jochim, M.A., 1976, Hunter-Gatherer
Great Islands of Tierra del Fuego (tr. by F. Settlement and Subsistence: A Predictive
Schutze). New Haven: Human Relations Area Model. New York: Academic Press.
Files. Keene, A.S., 1979, Prehistoric Hunter-
Gussow, Z., 1954, Cheyenne and Arapaho: Gatherers of the Deciduous Forest: A Linear
Aboriginal Occupation. Pp. 27-96 in American Programming Approach to Late Archaic Subsis-
Indian Ethnohistory: Plains Indians (ed. by tence in the Saginaw Valley. Ph.D. diss., Ann
D.A. Horr). New York: Garland Publishing. Arbor: University of Michigan.
Harako, R., 1976, The Mbuti as Hunters: A Kelly, I.T., 1932, Ethnography of the
Study of Ecological Anthropology of the Mbuti Surprise Valley Paiute. Pp. 67-210 in University
Pygmies (part 1). Kyoto University African of California Publications in American Archae-
Studies 10:37-94. ology and Ethnology, 31.
Harrison, T., 1949, Notes on some Nomad- Kozak, V., A. Baxter, L. Williamson, and
ic Punans. Sarawak Museum Journal 5:130-46.
R.L. Carneiro, 1979, The Heta Indians: Fish in
Hawkes, K., K. Hill, and J.F. O'Connell,
a Dry Pond. Pp. 351-434 in Anthropological
1982, Why Hunters Gather: Optimal Foraging
Papers of the American Museum of Natural
and the Ache of Eastern Paraguay. American
History, 55 (6).
Ethnologist 9:379-98. Kroeber, A.L., ed., 1935, Walapai Ethnog-
Hayden, B., 1981a, Subsistence and raphy. Memoirs of the American Anthropologi-
cal Association, 42. an Islanders. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge

Leacock, E., 1954, The Montagnais University Press."Hunt-
ing Territory" and the Fur Trade. Ray, V.F., 1932, The Sanpoil
Memoirs of and Nespel-
the American Anthropological em.Association,
Pp. 1-237 in University
78. of Washington
LeClerq, C., 1910, New Relations of Publications in Anthropology, 5.
Gaspesia (ed. by W.F. Ganong). Toronto: The Rick, J., 1980, Preshistoric Hunters of the
Champlain Society. High Andes. New York: Academic Press.
Lee, R., 1968, What Hunters Do for a Rodgers, C.L., and R.E. Kerstetter, 1974,
Living, or, How to Make Out on Scarce Re-The Ecosphere. New York: Harper and Row.
sources. Pp. 30-48 in Man the Hunter (ed. by Rogers, E.S., 1967, The Material Culture of
R.B. Lee and I. DeVore). Chicago: Aldine. the Mistassini Cree. National Museum of
Canada Bulletin 218.
Lee, R., 1976, !Kung Spatial Organization:
An Ecological and Historical Perspective. Pp. Rogers, E.S., 1972, The Mistassini Cree.
73-97 in Kalahari Hunter-Gatherers (ed. by Pp. 90-134 in Hunters and Gatherers Today
(ed. by M.G. Bicchieri). New York: Holt,
R.B. Lee and I. DeVore). Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press. Rinehart and Winston.
Lee, R., 1979, The !Kung San: Men, Rosenweig, M.L., 1968, Net Primary
Women and Work in a Foraging Society. Productivity of Terrestrial Communities: Pre-
Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press. diction from Climatological Data. American
McGee, W.J., 1898, The Seri Indians. Pp.Naturalist 102:67-74.
1-344 in Seventeenth Annual Report of the Roth, H.L., 1890, The Aborigines of
Bureau of American Ethnology. Tasmania. London: Kegan, Paul, Trench and
Man, E.H., 1932, On the Aboriginal Trubner.
Inhabitants of the Andaman Islands. Journal of Schalk, R.F., 1978, Foragers of the North-
the Royal Anthropological Institute 32:1-256.west Coast of North America: The Ecology of
Aboriginal Land Use Systems. Ph.D. diss.,
Moore, J.A., 1981, The Effects of Informa-
tion Networks in Hunter-Gatherer Societies. Albuquerque:
Pp. University of New Mexico.
194-217 in Hunter-Gatherer Foraging StrategiesSchebesta, P., 1929, Among the Forest
(ed. by B. Winterhalder and E.A. Smith). Dwarfs of Malaya (tr. by A. Chambers). Lon-
Chicago: University of Chicago Press. don: Hutchinson Press.
Murdock, G.P., 1967, Ethnographic Atlas. Seligmann, C.G., and B.Z. Seligmann,
Ethnology 6(2). 1911, The Veddas. Cambridge, Eng.: Cam-
Nabokov, P., 1967, Two Leggings; The bridge University Press.
Making of a Crow Warrior. New York: Crowell. Silberbauer, G.B., 1972, The G/wi Bush-
O'Connell, J.F., and K. Hawkes, 1981, men. Pp. 271-325 in Hunters and Gatherers
Alyawara Plant Use and Optimal Foraging Today (ed. by M.G. Bicchieri). New York:
Theory. Pp. 99-125 in Hunter-Gatherer For- Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
aging Strategies (ed. by B. Winterhalder and Silberbauer, G.B., 1981, Hunter and
E.A. Smith). Chicago: University of Chicago
Habitat in the Central Kalahari Desert. Cam-
Press. bridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press.
Osborn, A.J., 1977, Aboriginal Exploita- Smith, E.A., 1979, Human Adaptation and
tion of Marine Food Resources. Ph.D. diss., Energetic Efficiency. Human Ecology 7(1):53-
Albuquerque: University of New Mexico. 74.
Perlman, S.M., 1980, An Optimum Diet Speck, F.G., 1921, Beothuk and Micmac.
Model, Coastal Variability, and Hunter-Gatherer Indian Notes and Monographs (series 2) 22:1-
Behavior. Pp. 257-310 in Advances in Archaeo- 187.
logical Method and Theory, vol. 3 (ed. by M.B. Spencer, B., and F.J. Gillen, 1927, The
Shiffer). New York: Academic Press. Arunta. London: MacMillan and Co.
Pianka, E.R., 1974, Evolutionary Ecology. Spier, L., 1930, Klamath Ethnography. Pp.
New York: Harper and Row. 1-338 in University of California Publications in
Pyke, G.H., H.R. Pulliam, and E.L. Char- American Archaeology and Ethnology, 30.
nov, 1977, Optimal Foraging: A Selective Stuart, D., 1972, Band Structure and
Review of Theory and Tests. Quarterly Review Ecological Variability: The Ona and Yahgan of
of Biology 52:137-54. Tierra del Fuego. Ph.D. diss., Albuquerque:
Radcliffe-Brown, A.R., 1922, The Andam-University of New Mexico.
Tanner, V., 1944, Outline of the Geogra- Among the !Kung San. Ph.D. diss., Ann Arbor:
phy, Life, and Customs of Newfoundland- University of Michigan.
Labrador. Acta Geographica 8:1-907. Williams, B.J., 1974, A Model of Band
Tanno, T., 1976, The Mbuti Net-Hunters in Society. Society for American Archaeology
the Ituri Forest, Eastern Zaire: Their Hunting Memoir 29.
Activities and Band Composition. Kyoto Wilmsen, E.N., 1973, Interaction, Spacing
University African Studies 10:101-35. Behavior, and the Organization of Hunting
Taylor, W.W., 1964, Tethered Nomadism Bands. Journal of Anthropological Research
and Water Territoriality: An Hypothesis. Pp. 29:1-31.
197-203 in Acts of the 35th International Winterhalder, B.P., 1977, Foraging Strate-
Congress of Americanists. gy Adaptations of the Boreal Forest Cree: An
Turner, L.M., 1889, Ethnology of the Evaluation of Theory and Models from Evolu-
Ungava District, Hudson Bay Territory. Pp. tionary Ecology. Ph.D. diss., Ithaca, N.Y.:
159-350 in Eleventh Annual Report of the Cornell University.
Bureau of American Ethnology. Winterhalder, B.P., 1980, Environmental
Vanoverbergh, M., 1925, Negritos of Analysis in Human Adaptation Research.
Northern Luzon. Anthropos 20:148-99, 399-Human Ecology 8:135-70.
443. Winterhalder, B.P., 1981, Foraging Strate-
Wallis, W.D., and R. Wallis, 1955, The gies in the Boreal Forest: An Analysis of Cree
Micmac Indians of Eastern Canada. Minneapolis:Hunting and Gathering. Pp. 66-98 in Hunter-
University of Minnesota Press. Gatherer Foraging Strategies (ed. by B. Winter-
Walter, H., 1979, Vegetation of the Earthhalder and E.A. Smith). Chicago: University of
and Ecological Systems of the Geo-Biosphere Chicago Press.
(tr. by J. Wieser). New York: Springer-Verlag. Winterhalder, B.P., and E.A. Smith, eds.,
Watanabe, H., 1968, Subsistence and 1981, Hunter-Gatherer Foraging Strategies. Chi-
Ecology of Northern Food Gatherers with cago: University of Chicago Press.
Special Reference to the Ainu. Pp. 67-77 in Woodburn, J., 1968, An Introduction to
Man the Hunter (ed. by R.B. Lee and I. DeVore). Hadza Ecology. Pp. 49-55 in Man the Hunter
Chicago: Aldine. (ed. by R.B. Lee and I. De Vore). Chicago:
Watanabe, H., 1972a, The Ainu. Pp. Aldine.
451-84 in Hunters and Gatherers Today (ed. byWoodburn, J., 1972, Ecology, Nomadic
M.G. Bicchieri). New York: Holt, RinehartMovements
and and the Composition of the Local
Winston. Group among Hunters and Gatherers: An East
Watanabe, H., 1972b, The Ainu Ecosystem: African Example and Its Implications. Pp.
Environment and Group Structure. Seattle:193-206 in Man, Settlement, and Urbanism (ed.
University of Washington Press. by P.J. Ucko, R. Tringham, and G.W. Dimble-
Whittaker, R.H., 1975, Communities and by). London: Duckworth.
Ecosystems. New York: Macmillan. Yesner, D.R., 1980, Maritime Hunter-
Wiessner, P., 1977, Hxaro: A Regional Gatherers: Ecology and Prehistory. Current
System of Reciprocity for Reducing Risk Anthropology 21:727-50.

Kelly 1983

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kelly 1983

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hunter-Gatherer Mobility Strategies

Author(s): Robert L. Kelly

The nature of hunter-gatherer mobility strategies-the way in which hunter-gatherer

THE OBJECTIVE OF THIS PAPER is to initiate development of a theory of h

Binford (1980) has made a useful distinction between residential a

In order to record the degree to which a hunter-gatherer group is residentially

In recent years anthropologists have made a distinction between "b

The two primary factors affecting global variation in vegetative communities ar

Residential and Logistical Mobility Data Used in Text

Average Average Total

Winter Logistical Mobility

.33 3 Harrison 1949

Group Size Diet Composition (%)

The term primary production here refers to net prima

Primary biomass is the total amount of standing plant material pr

Accessibility of Primary Production and Sec

Primary Primary Secondary Pri.

Tropical Rain Forest 2,200 45,000

Effective Primary Primary

P2.5- 2. ARID ENVIRONMENTS

0 1000 2000 3000

PRIMARY PRODUCTION (gim2/yr)

The seeds of plants in high primary biomass settings have evolved to av

For humans, however, a threshold is reached at an acc

Herbivorous Species Primary Secon

Tropical Rain Forest small very high arboreal di

with increasing seasonality. They are thus a more cruc

HUNTER-GATHERER MOBILITY STRATEGIES

In this section I discuss the two dimensions of hunter-gatherer mobility

Residential Mobility: Number of Residential Moves per Year

Punan Tropics 44.6 45

then, becomes an important constraint. Trying to

S INCREASING LENGTH OF OCCUPATION

Residential Mobility: Average Distance per Residential Move

EFFECTIVE TEMPERATURE ( OC)

Environments within an ET range of 150 to 260 have m

Residential Moves Average Distance Primary

Subtropical Hadza 27 13.2 1.7

Residential Mobility: Total Area/Total Distance

CONTRIBUTION OF HUNTING TO DIET (%)

Logistical Fauna Number of Residential

Aeta 21.2 8.0 60a 22

a. Higher than expecte

The Maidu presen

RESIDENTIAL MOVES PER YEAR

is covered. Consequently, logistical mobility can serve as the "remote sensors"

My objective has been to point out the utility of evaluating a single o

residential and logistical mobility strategies. It ha

Long-term Land Use

perhaps thirty years or more-sometimes resulting in the complete re

1. Many individuals offered criticism the of

a young graduate student. Unfortunately,

cal Association, 42. an Islanders. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge

You might also like