There were two interesting reports on hunter-gatherers in the popular press this week:
1) As reported in the NY Times, it appears that selective harvesting of prime-aged animals by humans can have a strong impact on some life-history and phenotypic traits of certain animal species. I haven't read the paper yet, so I'm not sure whether they clearly look at small-scale hunting as distinct from industrialized harvesting, but if you're interested, you can look at the actual paper this report's based on as a freely downloadable pdf.
2) Science Daily reports on a recent paper by M. Vaquero in the Journal of Archaeological Science in which he attempts to establish the temporal relationship between Middle Paleolithic artifacts at the site of the Abric Romani (Spain), without drawing directly on ethnographic analogy.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Scales of observation in forager studies
From R. Layton's Time and Change: Crisp Snapshots and Fuzzy Trends:
Reference:
Layton, R. 2008. Time and change: Crisp snapshots and fuzzy trends. In Time and Change: Archaeological and Anthropological Perspectives on the Long-Term in Hunter-Gatherer Societies (ed. by D. Papagianni, R. Layton, and H. Maschner), pp. 1-13. Oxbow Books, Oxford.
"... while anthropological field studies provide an adequate time scale to explain the mechanisms and proximate causes of human-animal interactions in particular circumstances, archaeological or evolutionary time scales are necessary to explain the long-term processes that brought those conditions about. The emergent properties of an ecological system are generated by the long-term interaction of species. The consequences of such interaction may well not be apparent within the time-span of participant observation, nor could they be understood by simply adding up a series of ethnographic 'snapshots.'" (Layton 2008: 8)
Reference:
Layton, R. 2008. Time and change: Crisp snapshots and fuzzy trends. In Time and Change: Archaeological and Anthropological Perspectives on the Long-Term in Hunter-Gatherer Societies (ed. by D. Papagianni, R. Layton, and H. Maschner), pp. 1-13. Oxbow Books, Oxford.
Mink hunting on the NW Coast, and archaeology helping ethnography
Reposted from A Very Remote Period Indeed.
In a short paper, R. Lee Lyman (U Missouri) shows how archaeological data can help flesh out ethnographic observations. I make a big deal about this because archaeologists dealing with prehistoric hunter-gatherers have often been accused of being interpretively 'railroaded' (not to say tyrannized) by the ethnographic record of extant hunter-gatherers (Wobst 1978).
What Lyman does in this paper is actually pretty straightforward, methodologically speaking. Briefly, having shown that the size of lower first molars can be used to distinguish males from female mink, he looks at the sex ratio seen in Mustela vison remains from the Cathlapote and Meier sites, both of which are late-prehistoric(ca. 1400-1800 AD) sites located in the Wapato Valley (in Oregon and Washington). Citing Buskirk and Lindstedt (1989), Lyman argues that "linear trap sets produce a more even sex ratio[i.e., between 1:1 and 2:1, for males], whereas traps placed in a grid catch more large-bodied individuals, typically males" (2007:92). This pattern is the result of sex-specific behavioral patterns. In his archaeological sample, the male:female ratio is at least 3.67:1 and at most 8.33:1, depending on how stringent one is with their sex-id stats. This suggests, then, that late-prehistoric foragers probably disposed traps in a grid rather than linear pattern.
This is where it gets especially neat. Since Franz Boas long ago wondered "How far can archaeological methods supplement ethnological information?" (1902:4), Lyman concludes:
In other words, rather than place them, say, only along waterways, late-prehistoric hunters of the Wapato Valley most likely set their traps all over the region's marshy lowlands. Given that the sites in question can be linked to the "Northwest Coast Culture Area" and given that ethnographic information available for groups derived from this culture area indicates that they trapped small mammals without specifying how that was done, this study provides a good instance of archaeological data (albeit informed by mammalogy) informing ethnographic observation. This is elegant corroboration of what Guenther (2007:374) terms "an ongoing, mutually strengthening partnership between the two disciplines [archaeology and ethnology], in their study of foraging societies."
References:
Buskirk, S. W., and S. L. Lindstedt. 1989. Sex ratio biases in trapped samples of mustelids. Journal of Mammalogy 70:88-97.
Guenther, M. 2007. Current issues and future directions in hunter-gatherer studies. Anthropos 102:371-388.
Lyman, R. L. 2007. Prehistoric mink (Mustela vison) trapping on the Northwest Coast. Journal of Field Archaeology 32:91-95.
Wobst, H. M. 1978. The archaeo-ethnology of hunter-gatherers or the tyranny of the ethnographic record in archaeology. American Antiquity 43:303-309.
In a short paper, R. Lee Lyman (U Missouri) shows how archaeological data can help flesh out ethnographic observations. I make a big deal about this because archaeologists dealing with prehistoric hunter-gatherers have often been accused of being interpretively 'railroaded' (not to say tyrannized) by the ethnographic record of extant hunter-gatherers (Wobst 1978).
What Lyman does in this paper is actually pretty straightforward, methodologically speaking. Briefly, having shown that the size of lower first molars can be used to distinguish males from female mink, he looks at the sex ratio seen in Mustela vison remains from the Cathlapote and Meier sites, both of which are late-prehistoric(ca. 1400-1800 AD) sites located in the Wapato Valley (in Oregon and Washington). Citing Buskirk and Lindstedt (1989), Lyman argues that "linear trap sets produce a more even sex ratio[i.e., between 1:1 and 2:1, for males], whereas traps placed in a grid catch more large-bodied individuals, typically males" (2007:92). This pattern is the result of sex-specific behavioral patterns. In his archaeological sample, the male:female ratio is at least 3.67:1 and at most 8.33:1, depending on how stringent one is with their sex-id stats. This suggests, then, that late-prehistoric foragers probably disposed traps in a grid rather than linear pattern.
This is where it gets especially neat. Since Franz Boas long ago wondered "How far can archaeological methods supplement ethnological information?" (1902:4), Lyman concludes:
Locations of traps used to take small mammals have, so far as I am aware, not been reported in the ethnographic literature for the Pacific Northwest. The archaeological data for mink recovered from sites in the Wapato Valley suggest that indeed archaeological data may supplement ethnographic data, because mink demography suggests traps were distributed in a grid-like pattern. (Lyman 2007:94)
In other words, rather than place them, say, only along waterways, late-prehistoric hunters of the Wapato Valley most likely set their traps all over the region's marshy lowlands. Given that the sites in question can be linked to the "Northwest Coast Culture Area" and given that ethnographic information available for groups derived from this culture area indicates that they trapped small mammals without specifying how that was done, this study provides a good instance of archaeological data (albeit informed by mammalogy) informing ethnographic observation. This is elegant corroboration of what Guenther (2007:374) terms "an ongoing, mutually strengthening partnership between the two disciplines [archaeology and ethnology], in their study of foraging societies."
References:
Buskirk, S. W., and S. L. Lindstedt. 1989. Sex ratio biases in trapped samples of mustelids. Journal of Mammalogy 70:88-97.
Guenther, M. 2007. Current issues and future directions in hunter-gatherer studies. Anthropos 102:371-388.
Lyman, R. L. 2007. Prehistoric mink (Mustela vison) trapping on the Northwest Coast. Journal of Field Archaeology 32:91-95.
Wobst, H. M. 1978. The archaeo-ethnology of hunter-gatherers or the tyranny of the ethnographic record in archaeology. American Antiquity 43:303-309.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Blog Rationale
This blog is a pedagogical experiment that aims to compile a database of resources for people interested in the prehistory of hunter-gatherer societies worldwide. It is part of the grading requirement for the course "The Archaeology of Hunter-Gatherers" which I am teaching at McGill University in the Winter 2009 semester. This is U3 ("senior") seminar that revolves around the discussion and critical appraisal of selected readings in hunter-gatherer prehistory and ethnography.
There is a growing amount of readily accessible information on hunter-gatherers avilable online, perhaps most comprehensively at sites like the Hunter-Gatherer Wiki. That said, much of this information focuses on ethnographically documented hunter-gatherers, with little discussion of how this information can help understand the archaeological record of groups that depended principally on a combination of gathering, fishing and hunting. This puts people interested in forager prehistory at something of a disadvantage, at least in terms of readily accessible data.
Many students already have an online presence, be it through blogs, online journals or social networking sites like Facebook. As such, many are already used to presenting and reading material written by and for their peers and used to expressing relatively complex ideas in a way that is much more accessible than most academic writing. This blog is an effort to recruit this drive and have them contribute the seeds of a database of thoughtful but accessible essays about research relevant to the prehistory of hunter-gatherers.
As part of the course, each student has to contribute critical commentary on at least four published papers. Since each student is expected to produce a research paper at the end of the course, they are encouraged to select articles that will be part of their literature review, although this is only a suggestion. In addition, everyone is also encouraged to post interesting quotes, links to intersting posts on other blogs, and/or relevant news reports pertaining to hunter-gatherers. With around ten students in the course, this will generate a body of at least 40 critical commentaries that can help point others to relevant literature they might not otherwise be aware of, and to discuss some of these commentaries and papers using insights from a series of other papers discussed in the classroom. To make things more interesting, I'll be contributing commentaries of my own as I research a series of papers I'm currently working on. In the end, the posts on this blog (along with any discussion generated) will form the basis of an online database focused specifically on material concerning hunter-gatherer prehistory.
There is a growing amount of readily accessible information on hunter-gatherers avilable online, perhaps most comprehensively at sites like the Hunter-Gatherer Wiki. That said, much of this information focuses on ethnographically documented hunter-gatherers, with little discussion of how this information can help understand the archaeological record of groups that depended principally on a combination of gathering, fishing and hunting. This puts people interested in forager prehistory at something of a disadvantage, at least in terms of readily accessible data.
Many students already have an online presence, be it through blogs, online journals or social networking sites like Facebook. As such, many are already used to presenting and reading material written by and for their peers and used to expressing relatively complex ideas in a way that is much more accessible than most academic writing. This blog is an effort to recruit this drive and have them contribute the seeds of a database of thoughtful but accessible essays about research relevant to the prehistory of hunter-gatherers.
As part of the course, each student has to contribute critical commentary on at least four published papers. Since each student is expected to produce a research paper at the end of the course, they are encouraged to select articles that will be part of their literature review, although this is only a suggestion. In addition, everyone is also encouraged to post interesting quotes, links to intersting posts on other blogs, and/or relevant news reports pertaining to hunter-gatherers. With around ten students in the course, this will generate a body of at least 40 critical commentaries that can help point others to relevant literature they might not otherwise be aware of, and to discuss some of these commentaries and papers using insights from a series of other papers discussed in the classroom. To make things more interesting, I'll be contributing commentaries of my own as I research a series of papers I'm currently working on. In the end, the posts on this blog (along with any discussion generated) will form the basis of an online database focused specifically on material concerning hunter-gatherer prehistory.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)