The Division of Labor in Society

Durkheim, Emile

1984 The Division of Labor in Society. New York: The Free Press.

In another paper I wrote about hunter-gatherers this semester, I used Emile Durkheim’s The Division of Labor. In this book Durkheim states that the most primitive societies are such, because they are, “devoid of …all organization” (Durkheim 1893: 141). This lack of organization also refers to a lack of hierarchy, as seen in Durkheim’s examples of the Iroquois who do not have power differentiation between sexes nor within the chief-tribesman relationship (Durkheim 1893: 141). Durkheim explains social evolution as a process in which societies progress from those which are unorganized, spread out geographically and held together by a collective unconscious, referred to as mechanical solidarity, to societies which are condensed in towns and practice division of labor. This close proximity in location and focus on occupation creates a stronger social web that no longer has such a need for the collective unconscious, referred to as organic solidarity, this is how derived societies are structured (Durkheim 1893: 143,151,152). This article is obviously greatly impacted by Lewis Morgan’s article Ethnical Periods, in which he discusses the social evolution from savagery to civilization. However, Morgan simply explains societal evolution, whereas Durkheim’s focus is the source of this evolution. Although the two are differentiated in context, they hold the same progressive ideals

Several times Durkheim compares society to an organism, almost identical to the comparisons done by Herbert Spencer. He claims that social organization is, “co-ordinate and subordinated one to another around the same central organ which exercises a moderating action over the rest of the organism” (Durkheim 1893: 143). However later, Durkheim denounces Spencer by stating that, “the…philosophy of Spencer is of such moral poverty that it now has hardly any supporters” (Durkheim 1893: 147).

Much of my interest in Durkheim comes from my personal interest in equality. My personal belief is that the most basic foundation to equality is the ability for every individual in a group to acquire the necessary resources for survival, this has also been referred to as functional redundancy; Durkheim’s term mechanical solidarity mirrors functional redundancy. He explains that most ‘primitive’ groups are characterized by a decentralized power. However, when the centralization of power does occur, it is due to the division of labor. Durkheim describes a system of specialization as having organic solidarity (Durkheim 1984: 130-32). Division of labor, or specialization, is the factor which separates the individual from their independent ability to survival.

I strongly disagree with Durkheim that hunter-gatherers lack any organization. Furthermore, I do not adhere to the social evolution theory that Durkheim does. However, I do find value in his research of mechanical solidarity in regards to hunter-gatherers.

Straight down the line? A queer consideration of hunter-gatherer studies in north-west

Cobb, Hannah

2005 Straight down the line? A queer consideration of hunter-gatherer studies in north-west Europe. In World Archaeology. 37: 4 Pp. 630-636

In the abstract, Cobb writes that it her intent is to apply “queer theory to hunter-gatherer studies,” in an effort to “move away from the pervasive heteronormative stereotypes” (Cobb 2005: 630). She argues that research of the Mesolithic, in regards to personal and place identity, were predominantly characterized by processual archaeology, but since this theoretical basis has been criticized, a shift to interpretative archaeology has been observed. Furthermore, the mistake of interpreting findings within the contemporary western framework has been increasingly challenged, one of which subject being the heteronormative view point among hunter-gatherers.

Cobb provides the example of Clive Bonsall’s research in Western Scotland. He states that the Mesolithic assemblages there were probably ‘bipolar’ because women and children were less likely to be as skilled at flint-knapping as grown men (Cobb 2005: 632). Cobb states that the only reason why Bonsall acknowledges the presence of women and children is a result of the growing feminist movement. However, while acknowledging their presence, he simultaneously disregards the possibility of equality in regards to strength and skill. Cobb argues this point by stating that men at this site, predominately hunted deer, which were not available on the island of Oronsay, where the women and children were collecting shell-fish. Evidence that they were collecting shell-fish on this particular island is provided in the large shell middens present. Because deer were not available there, men had no reason to visit the island, and women and children were crossing significant stretches of water to get to this there, which required a great deal of strength (Cobb 2005: 632).

Cobb argues that while Bonsall’s dismissal of feminine strength is worrisome, it is not nearly as worrisome as the wide spread assumption that hunter-gatherers practiced only heterosexual relationships, aligned with the contemporary western norm. She states that Jimmy Strassburg is one of the few researchers to explore homosexuality in post glacial, north-west European hunter-gatherers. However, his research is focused upon the causation of this ‘disrupted’ sexuality, implying that a non-disrupted sexuality would be aligned with the contemporary western heteronormative view point. In contrast, Cobb’s research of Mesolithic populations via symbolic archaeology has revealed that these peoples view of sexuality was malleable according to the context of a situation rather than the categorically organized structure that exists today. She suggests that the simple act of acknowledging the fact that we often assume a heteronormative structure to other societies, can help us realize that the heteronormative structure is not always the case.

I found this to be an enjoyable article. However, it only superficially skimmed the bigger picture of the issue. It lacked any specificities, details or in-depth examples. I would have liked the article to have included examples of homosexual relations in ethnographically recorded hunter-gatherers and the details of her own research into the subject.

Lack of Lactose Intolerace Genes May Show Hunter-Gatherer Population Replaced in Scandinavia

An article by a group of geneticists called ”High frequency of lactose intolerance in a prehistoric hunter-gatherer population in northern Europe” has shown that the allele connected with lactose-sugar consumption in adults was not at as high of a frequency in Hunter-Gatherer DNA that they tested(Malmström et al. 2010). The article by Helena Malmström, Anna Linderholm, Kerstin Lidén, Jan Storå, Petra Molnar, Gunilla Holmlund, Mattias Jakobsson and Anders Götherström, shows a marked contrast between the people who lived in the Scandinavia area 5,400-4,300 BP and the people who live there now.

The Hunter-Gatherer group that Malmström et al. looked at a group of Pitted Ware Culture people trying to see if there was any testable remains. As it turned out there were ten PWC remains that were testable for the -13910*T allele. However the results were not what they expected with only 5% testing for having the -13910*T/lactose-sugar tolerance gene. This is particularly surprising because Scandinavia currently holds the highest population of lactose-tolerant people at 74%. So the conclusion of Malmström et al is that either there was a selective breeding process for the lactose-tolerant genes, or (and this is what they actually belive happened) the PWC population was replaced by another population that already had a high frequency of the -13910*T allele in their group.

This is a great article because while it could have gotten bogged down by scientific talk, the authors made a marked effort to make it clear to any reader exactly what they were talking about. Even people with very little knowledge of genetics should be able to pick this up and understand that due to the Malmström et al’s data most likely the PWC population was replaced by another population who could tolerate lactose-sugar. When discussing how to do public archaeology, this is an article that can be shown as an example.

With that said though, there are some problems. Considering that the PWC culture was a large population for its time, and would probably be considered a complex hunter-gatherer group only getting ten samples should not be enough to draw too many conclusions. It is odd to only see 5% even out of ten samples of lactose tolerance in Scandinavia, however ten samples is not amazingly conclusive. To really draw the conclusions that Malmström et al make about the PWC population being replaced by a group of sedentary agriculturalists there needs to be a secondary DNA analysis done for the -13910*T allele in a different group of PWC remains.

Malmström H, A Linderholm, K Lidén, J Storå, P Molnar, G Holmlund, M Jakobsson, and A Götherström
2010 "High frequency of lactose intolerance in a prehistoric hunter-gatherer population in northern Europe". BMC Evolutionary Biology. 10.

Dual Ceramic Testing: Using Decorative Ceramic Analysis and Neutron Activation Analysis

“A new perspective on Late Holocene social interaction in Northwest Alaska:
results of a preliminary ceramic sourcing study” is an article by Shelby L. Anderson, Matthew T. Boulanger, Michael D. Glascock (2010) about the possibility of seeing territoriality through the ceramics of the Coastal Peoples of the Bering Straight. They used a Neutron Activation Analysis(NAA) to determine the clay chemical composition of the ceramic sherds found at four sites along the Kobuk River and four coastal sites. Their hypothesis was that there would be several macro-groups and the distribution of these amongst the sites would show a trade network or instances of territoriality.

Their findings were that there were three macro-groups of clay composition and three sub-groups of one macro-group. What this means is that there were at least three different sources of clay and that at least one group was mixing their types of clay together to get a certain type of clay mix. These NAA results along with a typological analysis of the decorative aspects of the neck rims of the ceramics lead Anderson et al. to determine that there was some territoriality going on, as indicated by the decoration typology, and a very strong indication of clay resource trade, as indicated by the NAA results.

This is a well done test and a really useful way to use the NAA to its full potential. It feels like it is a very thorough test because of the amount of sites they gathered data from and because of the decorative typological test that went along with it. Often articles currently either use one or the other to analyze ceramics, but the merging of the two in this article seems to just help not hinder it. The question that of course comes up is did doing a dual analysis drain funding, and is this why most research groups do not decide to do a dual test in the same research group? While the data and conclusion is understandable, I felt that the method was an even more important piece to this article.

Anderson, S.L., M.T. Boulanger, and M.D. Glascock
2011. "A new perspective on Late Holocene social interaction in Northwest Alaska: results of a preliminary ceramic sourcing study". Journal of Archaeological Science. 38 (5): 943-955.

On Wealth Transmission and Egalitarianism

The article “Wealth Transmission and Inequality among Hunter‐Gatherers” by Eric Alden Smith, Kim Hill, Frank W. Marlowe, David Nolin, Polly Wiessner, Michael Gurven, Samuel Bowles, Monique Borgerhoff Mulder, Tom Hertz, and Adrian Bell sets out to make some standardized measurements of wealth transmission and inequality among the Hunter-Gatherers of the 20th century. NOT the necessarily 21st century, but more on that in a bit. They surveyed wealth measurements of five different Hunter-Gatherer societies, the Ache, the Hadza, the Ju/’hoansi, the Lamalera, and the Meriam. They outline the modern history of each group and then outline the way that they express “wealth” in their culture.

The conclusion that Smith et al. comes to is that each group showed a tendency of inequality in their transmission of wealth. This was proved by the calculation that in every group’s information they surveyed children of “wealthier” parents were more likely to be wealthy when they grew up and have access to types of wealth. They also conclude that egalitarianism amongst Hunter-Gatherers is misleading. This is because while the difference of wealth between groups is less than agricultural societies, it is not non-existent. Smith et al. believes that anthropologists needs to drop their views of Hunter-Gatherers as egalitarian and that there needs to be more studies on their wealth management systems.

First this article starts out with a statement that I can only call negligent since it seems to imply there are no more foraging Hunter-Gatherers in the world “If our species is some 200,000 years old, then the strictly hunting‐gathering phase occupied well over 90% of its history; societies relying primarily or even exclusively on foraging persisted in various parts of the globe well into the twentieth century.”(Smith et al. 2010:20) This is obviously not true, in fact they site a group of hunter-gatherers well known for being a foraging group even today (in the twenty-first century) the Ju/’hoansi one of the groups in the Kalahari Desert. It is possible they meant to imply that there were groups that were not in constant contact with other societies until late in the 20th century. However even this has been proven to be inaccurate, as groups have been contacted before and just let alone even to this day. (Fundação Nacional do Índio Report 2007)

Secondly even Smith et al. determine that their data just isn’t enough to really prove their conclusions, however they still make the claim that anthropologists still to this day believe that Hunter-Gatherer groups are peaceful egalitarian people and they are somehow disproving this fact(Smith et al 2010:31). Since there are numerous articles out on just wealth, social stratification amongst foragers, hunter-gatherer interactions and inequality in foraging hunter-gatherer groups this also seems dated. (Renouf 2003, Spielmann 1994). Overall this article reads like it was written in the early 1980s instead of at the end of the first decade of the twentieth century.

Resources Cited
2007 Fundação Nacional do Índio Report on Brazil.

Smith E.A., Hill K., Marlowe F.W., et al.
2010 "Wealth transmission and inequality among hunter-gatherers". Current Anthropology. 51 (1): 19-34.

Spielmann, K. A. and J. F. Eder
1994 Hunters and farmers: Then and now. Annual Review of Anthropology 23: 303-323

Renouf, M. A. P.
2003 Hunter-gatherer interactions: mutualism and resource partitioning on the Island of Newfoundland. Before Farming 2003/1(4).

The Mind in the Cave, The Cave in the Mind: Altered Consciousness in the Upper Paleolithic

This article by Lewis-Williams and Clottes takes a look at the possible associations between the cave painting of the Upper Paleolithic and the Shamanic Cosmology by way of the manner in which all humans brains are wired. They look at many of the cave painting sites scattered throughout Western Europe, including Cosquer in the French Mediterranean and Chauvet in the Ardeche Region of France. In particular, they look at research done on the human nervous system and the way it responds to altered states of consciousness.

Since the humans of the Upper Paleolithic are anatomically modern humans, the authors argue that the wiring in their brains must be the same as that of modern humans as well. And because the brains of modern humans generate altered states of consciousness, so to should those of Upper Paleolithic hunter gatherers under the same sorts of stimuli that inspire it today. The article does say that although the altered states are universal, the manner in which they are interpreted are not. There are many different ways to interpret these happenings, from visions to dreams to hallucinations to madness. According to the authors, however, cross culturally altered states among hunter gatherers are very similar and point towards the high antiquity of what we refer to as shamanism.

The actual shamanic cosmology is described as three worlds, the day to day world we all inhabit, an upper world, and a lower world. According to the authors, the Paleolithic caves where much of the art is found was the analogue of the shamanic cosmos. The caves were a place to commune with the spirits in the other worlds, and the cave paintings were a form of actualizing the visions the altered states would bring on. The surface of the cave functioned as a membrane between this world and the other worlds. Shapes and visions would press themselves on the surface of the cave, and then be codified on the walls.

The Neuropsychological Model distinguishes three stages of altered consciousness. During the first stage people sometimes experience things like zigzags, lines, and dots. These are known as "form constants" and "entoptic phenomena." They are hardwired into the human brain and are the same things migraine sufferers sometimes see. I myself have experienced this during migraines. In stage two, people try to make sense of the phenomena, and they do so in accordance to culturally specific ideas and their emotional states. The entoptic phenomena persist into the third stage, deep trance. They combine with iconic images of people, animals, and monsters. The authors indicate that this is the point at which the cave paintings were made. In addition to the iconic images, people feel themselves begin to melt into their environment and may feel themselves merging with animals. The authors argue that this is the source of therianthrope cave paintings, such as the "sorcerer" from Les Trois Freres.

I think it was a very interesting article, and it had a lot of good ideas. The use of the neuropsycological model to back up their points was very interesting, but there seems to be a lot of gray area in the way everything is interpreted. Without a time machine I doubt there is any way to definitively answer what the cave paintings mean, but I would prefer a less muddled explanation.

Lewis-Williams, David, Clottes, Jean. 1998. Anthropology of Consciousness 9: 13-21

Paleolithic Seafaring

In his talk ‘Crete Before the Cretans: Paleolithic Mariners in the Mediterranean,’ Thomas Strasser discussed his finds of alleged Paleolithic artifacts in the Plakias region of southwestern Crete. In the past, it has been believed that Crete was first inhabited in the Neolithic period. If these tools are indeed authentic, it would push back the date of occupation in this area as well as the practice of hominid seafaring considerably.

Strasser has found a number of quartz lithic technologies in marine terraces that geological data dates to at least 130,000 BP (and probably significantly older). Quarts is not the most easily knappable material but there are not better options on the island. Consequently these quarts lithics look rather crude. The lithic assemblage includes Acheulean biface hand axes, scrapers, and cleavers.

Strasser is convinced that these quartz finding are authentic artifacts, but based on their crude nature, it seems possible that they are actually ecofacts. However, if Paleolithic artifacts were really present in Crete 130,000 plus years ago, this would be a tremendously important find, with significant implications for the hominid colonization of Europe.

These findings raise the questions: who was seafaring in the Mediterranean at such an early date? And what was the extent of their maritime technology? Homo heidelbergensis is the earliest hominid found in Greece. Besides heidelbergensis remains, a Neanderthal tooth is the only other evidence for non-sapien occupation in Greece. Both of these were found on mainland Greece, so they do not give any indications for early maritime activity.

If these quartz findings represent genuine artifacts, it would be quite exciting! It would suggest that early Homo had seafaring capabilities! Could it be possible that these tools give evidence for seafaring Neanderthals? Regardless of who was making these tools, it seems like this could have significant implications for Early Homo cognitive capabilities.

Thomas Strasser. “Crete Before the Cretans: Paleolithic Mariners in the Mediterranean.” Colorado Scientific Society. April 21, 2011.

The first hominid meat eaters?

Based of dental morphologies, it has long been believed that Australopithecus africanus subsisted on a diet of fruits and leaves—not unlike that of a chimpanzee. However, stable carbon isotope analysis by Matt Sponheimer and Julia Lee-Thorp show a different dietary story for these early hominids.

Stable isotope analysis of molar tooth enamel from A. africanus specimen from Makapansgat, South Africa show that, despite being well adapted for tree foraging, a large part of their diet consisted of carbon 13-rich foods that are found in open grasslands. This would include grasses and sedges, or possibly the animals that consumed these foods these food-sources. It is commonly believed that stone-tool wielding; large brained Homo species were the first to consume meat. But, this stable carbon isotope analysis may generate a new idea in regards to who the first meat-eating member of the hominid line really was.

To get a better idea of the ecological context of the Makapansgat africanus, Sponheimer and Lee-Thorp also analyzed the enamel of other fossil fauna in the area. The stable isotope results from A. africanus differed from the grazers and browsers of the area, while they shared similarities the carnivore Hyaena makapani. The analysis showed that all but one specimen fell outside the range that corresponds to diets that relied heavily on the consumption of fruit and leaves.

These results could suggest that A. africanus may have utilized grasses and sedges to avoid competition. However, the tooth wear patterns of A. africanus are not consistent with grass eaters. It is also possible that they were consuming plant-eating insects of young grazing mammals. To further the argument, the stable isotope analysis from early Homo specimen did not show any more indication for meat consumption then africanus, They propose, “The primary dietary difference between A. africanus and Homo may not have been the quality of their food but their manner of procuring it.”

Extent chimpanzees could be a clue to the dietary patterns of A. africanus. They occasionally supplement their diet with meat, and are known for eating C-13 rich insects. It seems likely that the dentally similar A. africanus would do the same thing.

The evidence given by Sponheimer and Lee-Thorp is not completely conclusive. It is possible that A. africanus was subsisting in grasses or on animals that consumed those grasses. However, it is compelling evidence that suggests that Homo may not have been the first meat eater. Regardless of what exactly A. africanus was eating, it does give interesting insight into their subsistence strategies. Whether they were eating grasses and sedges, termites, hunting mammals, or scavenging, this evidence shows that early hominids were broadening their resource base.

Sponheimer Matt and Julia Lee-Thorp. 1999. "Isotopic Evidence for the Diet of an Early Hominid, Australopithecus Africanus." Science 283, no. 5400: 368-70.

Late Pleistocene Prey Choice

It is often debated whether large game such as mammoth would have been an optimum resource for the Late Pleistocene hunter-gatherers of North America. While a mammoth would have provided an exuberant amount of energy in terms of caloric quality, the post-encounter handling cost that comes with frequent mammoth predation would have been quite high. Tracking, bringing down, butchering, and then transporting a mammoth, must have been an incredibly costly endeavored. It is possible that, after the extreme handling cost, the energy return of hunting mammoth may have been less then that of medium size pray like ungulates. Including a wide range of fauna into a diet may have been more desirable subsistence method.

David Byers evaluates this issue by comparing the caloric yield and handling cost of mammoths to African elephants. Using the elephant analog and by creating an estimating encounter rates (based off of body size in relation to prey density), Byers formulates an optimal diet curve for Late Pleistocene hunter. Diet breadth is predicted by analyzing the caloric value based off elephant weight and usable meat. This is coupled with an analysis of handling time and return rates.

It is concluded that the acquisition of megafauna such as mammoth would have been “profitable within a very narrow range of circumstances where such prey were extremely abundant, easily procured, and could be processed at minimal time cost.” It would have been more likely that a wide range of mammals, both large and mid-sized, were utilized. Large, high-ranking game was probably taken when possible, but it was probably never abundant enough to allow for the proposed narrow hunting specialization.

Byers’ empirical method of analyzing Late Pleistocene prey-choice is very intriguing. It puts quantitative data behind ideas that are often only speculated. However, there seems to be an unavoidable potential for error when trying to recreate such non-analog environments and groups of people.

The study emphasizes the importance of encounter rates when discussing diet breadth. Although the body size of an animal may play a large role in prey density, many more environmental factors are involved. It would be reasonable to assume that environmental factors may have resulted in different prey-density in different areas. It is likely that some Late Pleistocene hunters had a larger diet-breadth then others. Also, the handling costs that were estimated through modern ethnographic comparison may be drastically different from that of Pleistocene hunter-gatherers.

In addition, there are many factors that go into diet choice, such as the social stigma of a particular food choice and taste that are impossible to account for when recreating diets of the distant past. If resources were abundant enough, the people of the Late Pleistocene may have had cultural influences that played a role in their diet choice.

Despite the unavoidable problems that come with implementing modern analog, the conclusion that North American Late Pleistocene relied on a wide range of resources is a reasonable one. It seems unlikely that they would focus on only large game—especially when handling cost are so high. Mammoths and other large game may have been a very desirable food source, but that does not negate the fact that other protein sources were probably more abundant and came with lower post-encounter handling costs.

Byers, David A. 2005 “Should we expect large game specialization in the late Pleistocene? An optimal foraging perspective on early Paleoindian prey choice.” Journal of Archaeological Science. 32:1624-1640

Evolutionary History of Hunter-Gatherer Marriage Practices

Robert Walker’s article starts out “Marriage is a human universal that unites males and females in socially recognized reproductive units.” Marriage goes beyond reproductive significance as a principle form of economic, social and kinship ties. By framing marriage in this manner he hopes to figure out if reciprocal marriage is the original form of marriage, or whether it is a more recent phenomenon

In a comparative study of 190 hunter-gatherer socities, 85% had arranged marriages. 80% of the total sample employed a bride price, and less than 17% of marriages are polygynous. The common forms of marriage across hunter-gatherer cultures suggests an underlying structure for marriage.

Combining mitochondrial genetics and phylogenic reconstructions show interesting relationships about the evolution of marriage. There are low levels of polygyny in early humans, with the exception of Australian aborigines. The practice of brideprice seems to be a common state for all early humans. Determining the role of courtship versus arranged marriages is more difficult to determine. Three of four African hunter-gatherer groups employ courtship rituals, making ancestral determination a mix of both.

Statistical associations between types of marriages indicate that polygyny is more likely to occur in larger families when the kin, and not the parents, arrange the marriages. When hunter-gatherers with arranged marriages are related the ecological variables used by Binford to construct his hunter gatherer database, no associations can be seen. It more likely that marriage traits change slowly through time, and only rapidly change when pressure is put on by outside cultures.

There are a few problems with the methods employed by Walker in this article. He created a basic phylogeny structure by using studies that have tracked mitochondrial DNA to create branches from a common African ancestor. These mitochondrial studies have suffered from many inaccuracies and different studies will create different human population offshoots.

On to this phylogenic tree he overlays known marriage practices of hunter-gatherer groups onto the ends of the branches. Then treating arranged and courtship marriages like genetic traits, he plots back cultural inheritance back to a common African ancestral group, despite the fact that cultural transmission does not follow genetic pathways. This leads him to have to put in “equivocal” nodes when it leads to both courtship and arranged marriages.

It seems like he puts in an obligatory section on how modern hunter-gatherers are not simple relics from the Pleistocene to cover how modern hunter-gatherers don’t create a straight phylogeny. But in the next sentence he disempowers hunter-gatherers by stating how marginal habitats, pressure from agricultural neighbors, and acculturation have all affected HG life-ways to destabilize their marriage practices. In sum, the concept of tracing marriage practices through time is novel, but the methods employed leave a lot to be desired. I remain skeptical about the conclusions of this article until further methodology and analysis can confirm.

Walker RS, Hill KR, Flinn MV, Ellsworth RM (2011) Evolutionary History of Hunter-Gatherer Marriage Practices. PLoS ONE 6(4): e19066

Oral Traditions as Survival Strategies

The lifeways of hunter-gatherer groups may be considered to be precarious.  These highly mobile groups of foragers and hunters lived close to the earth and resource scarcity was often a recurring theme in their lives.  In response to scarcity, these groups needed the ability to deal with short and long-term recource fluctuations.

Foraging and hunting has been the economic pattern of hominids (modern humans and their bipedal ancestros) for almost three million years until the Neolithic Revolution which began the domestication of plants and animals, shifting groups economies to a more sedentary and agricultural lifestyle.  Over this span of several million years these hunting and foraging groups must have developed and maintained strategies that allowed their sociocultural systems to survive cycles of resource scarcity (Minc  1986:40) both short and long term.

During times of scarcity, behaviors and alternatives that had maintained group survival and reproduction in the past would result in the formation of adaptive knowledge that would provide a survival strategy.  This knowledge or information would be maintained within societies because it would be a, "prerequisite to decision making at a given moment in time" (Minc 1986:41).  This information, crucial to the survival and reproduction of the group would be retained in some form that could be culturally conveyed through time (Minc 1986:41).

One way this transmission occurs is through the oral tradition of the society.  Michell Sugiyama (2001) speaks to the universality of themes within folklore worldwide.  This universality would indicate that folklore is an adaptive means of treating adaptive problems.  It is Sugiyama's contention that this universality, "lends support to the hypothesis that storytelling originally emerged as a means of storing and transmitting certain types of fitness-related inforomation" (Sugiyama 2001:242).  Amyth, according to Sugiyama, may seem an impossible tale with talking animals and imaginary beings yet they contain accuracy in their descriptions of geography and plants as well as knowledge of where animals are located and how to kill and process them (Sugiyama 2001:239).

The universality of folklore is mainly at the "macro" level, dealing with issues common to all cultures such as survival and reproduction.  Variation would occur at the "micro" level where individual cultures deal with adaptive problems unique to their particular habitation areas or lifeways (Sugiyama 2001:243).

The environment is a major factor in the structuring and organizing of societies.  Intimate knowledge of the environment that continued social reproduction would be important to maintain and transmit.  Oral traditions are references to what was done in the past.  They are the repositories of past events and their outcomes and are able to provide information in formulating survival strategies to meet current conditions.

I submit oral tradition provides the information necessary in decision-making that results in adaptive survival strategies in how to deal with environmental variability and is one way of surviving resource scarcities.

Minc, Leah D.
    1986 Scarcity and survival: The role of oral tradition in mediating subsistencew crises. Journal of
       Anthropological Archaeology 5:39-113.

Sugiyama, Michelle Scalise
    2001 Narrative theory and function: Why evolution matters. Philosophy and Literature 25(2):233-250.

Core Use-Lives and the Problems That Could Arise When Using Core/Biface Ratios

In the article, “Core/Biface Ratios, Mobility, Refitting, and Artifact Use-Lives,” Douglas Bamforth and Mark Becker take off where Parry and Kelly left off with the use of core/biface ratios. They analyze another group of southwestern Paleo-Indian sites to show that variability within these groups such a great extent that using core/biface ratios alone will not account for. They restate what Parry and Kelly found, which shows that mobile hunter-gatherers typically have more bifaces while sedentary groups have more cores. Therefore, low core/biface ratios illustrate a highly mobile group, while high core/biface ratios show a more sedentary lifestyle.

They present many arguments against Parry and Kelly’s analysis by showing that assumptions can lead to errors. First, they claim that the assumption that artifacts accurately represent the tool kits used by prehistoric people is very unreliable. Sites with short occupations will leave behind fewer artifacts than groups that stay in one spot. Therefore, highly mobile groups will never leave an accurate portrayal of their tool kit at one site. Also, the use-lives of portable bifaces tend to be longer, leading towards its discard at the site it was used very unlikely. Bamforth and Becker also state that cores tend to pass through sites more often, leading to more instances of expedient reduction sequences.

They also show that there are regional differences between Paleo-Indian sites, even in the southwest Plains area. In their results, they show that higher core/biface ratios occur in the north and east, while lower values occur in the southern and western portions of the western United States. Bamforth and Becker show that this has nothing to do with raw material availability, but rather errors in the method of using cores only. They claim that other production debris should also be considered in the analysis of lithics to determine mobility. This way you can determine the frequencies of retouched pieces in an assemblage.

Bamforth and Becker claim that retouch frequencies are a better proxy for technological change, rather than Parry and Kelly’s core/biface method. When analyzing cores only, it only accounts for changes in sedentism. People can remain in one spot and never change their reduction strategy; however, core/biface ratios will not account for this because of the amounts of lithics that come with staying put in one spot. Therefore, even if this was the case, the core/biface ratios of the cores on site will indicate an expedient reduction regardless of the technological strategy utilized. By analyzing retouched pieces would show an increase in retouched frequencies if a formal strategy is used in a logistical setting. Therefore, retouch frequencies are a better indication of technological change.

Bamforth and Becker show that at the Allen Site in North America, the core/biface ratios show that the site was occupied for a short duration. However, several large bifacial cores as well as knives are available at the site. They also refitted a sequence of lithics which show that higher ratios were calculated then just the recovered artifacts. This shows that including debitage and other production debris is important in the analysis of mobility. Cores will only lead to faulty conclusions since they only represent a small portion of a given assemblage. Bamforth and Becker did an excellent job of pointing out the flaws and errors with the use of cores as a proxy of both technological change and prehistoric land-use strategies. By showing that the variation in Paleo-Indian assemblages can lead to different results when analyzing their lithics, they illustrated the point to never use one sole method to determine prehistoric lifestyles.

Douglas B. Bamforth and Mark S. Becker. Core/biface ratios: Mobility, refitting, and artifact use-lives: A Paleoind. Plains Anthropologist, Aug 2000; 45, 173, 273-290.

The Organization of Core Technology - Cores and Sedentism

William Parry and Robert Kelly offer great insights into core classification with their chapter, “Expedient Core Technology and Sedentism” in the book, The Organization of Core Technology. They begin by explaining how bifacial production leaves patterned traces in the archaeological record. As time passed into the late prehistoric and contact phases, assemblages began to reflect a more expedient core reduction technique. In these contexts, formal cores and retouched elements tend to become rare. They feel this is both a shift in response to a decreased mobility strategy, as well as a major change in technological organization.

They then explain the differences between expedient and formal reduction techniques. Expedient reduction tends to have no secondary retouch, and they are manufactured with a specific task in mind. This differs from formal technology which has a prepared form in mind. Therefore, form selection in groups associated with expedient core technology is not stressed. In this reduction sequence, flakes are struck off randomly from the core which is referred to as bipolar technique. This particularly technique, as Parry and Kelly indicate, requires no previous training or practice whatsoever. It requires little expenditure of time, and very little effort on the knapper’s part. The tools themselves that are flaked from the core are typically only used once and then discarded.

This contrasts with formal techniques, where bifaces are much harder to learn how to manufacture and take a great deal of time to do so. They also are typically used several times for a variety of tasks by retouching the edges to extend its use-life, making their cutting edges much more useful. These cores are typically standardized as well, resulting in a specific tool form. Bifaces also are very portable, allowing highly mobile groups to carry them with ease compared to large cores. This is considered a more efficient use of raw material as well, as expedient reduction is fairly wasteful since the use-lives of tools are typically very short and must be replaced with a new flake.

After describing these types of cores, they show through different groups how mobility can be determined by analyzing this type of lithic technology. The three groups they analyzed were: various North American Paleo-Indian groups (Eastern Woodlands, Plains, and Southwest groups), Mesoamerican cultures (particularly Archaic and Early Formative), and Neolithic European groups. They found that with the Paleo-Indian groups, a change towards expedient core reduction occurred around AD 500 (AD 300 for the Plains, and AD 600 for the Southwest). In some regions, the change was dramatic. In others, it was a long drawn-out process. Regardless of the speed, the shift seemed to correspond with changes in settlement patterns (i.e. – the first large permanent villages). This seemed to be the case with the other groups studied as well. Though very late (1500-1000BC), there is an emphasis on expedient core technology when very large settlements began to sprout in the region. However, the sample is small due to rarity of lithic samples from the area. Also, it has been found that in some areas, such as the Tehuacan Valley, there was an increase in formal tools. Parry and Kelly claim that this is probably a lack of sufficient data or a bias in sampling. And last but not least, the Neolithic period indicates a shift to expedient reduction compared to the Mesolithic preceding it. They claim that this is also indicative of a change in sedentism.

Parry and Kelly offer a great explanation for their results and claims. They show that the changes in core technologies is not related to other technological innovations, local conditions, raw material availability, progress, or even a shift toward agriculture. They found that in all contexts, these scenarios were not applicable. The shift was only in regard to changes in settlement patterns. As people began to become more and more sedentary, they began to change their technology in a way that would best suite their particular lifestyles. Parry and Kelly provide great examples of different groups in different regions that support their arguments.

Parry, W. and R. Kelly. Expedient Core Technology and Sedentism. In: The Organization of Core Technology, edited by J. Johnson and C. Morrow, 285-308. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, 1987.