BINFORD - Mobility, Housing, and Environment, A Comparative Study

Mobility, Housing, and Environment: A Comparative Study Author(s): Lewis R.
Binford Reviewed work(s): Source: Journal of Anthropological Research, Vol. 46, No. 2 (Summer, 1990), pp. 119-152 Published by: University of New Mexico Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3630069 . Accessed: 24/11/2011 23:19
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp 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.
University of New Mexico is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Anthropological Research.
http://www.jstor.org
ANDENVIRONMENT: HOUSING, MOBILITY, A COMPARATIVE STUDY

Lewis Binford R. of of University NewMexico, DepartmentAnthropology, New 87131 Albuquerque, Mexico
A cross-cultural is with on surveyof hunter-gatherers conducted particular emphasis and as and housing,mobility, subsistence these features varywithecological settings with environmental variables. are for particular Implications drawn investigations variability of as it is documented Particular is archaeologically. emphasis givento thefeatureslisted in that and the above,and to arguments theliterature citethesevariables seektoevaluate relative sociocultural known materials. ofancient systems "complexity" fromarchaeological A MAJOR IN DEBATE archaeology is currently shared with many ethnologists
andcultural Two anthropologists. issues are centralto this debate:how does comeintobeing,and,moreimportant, changes are toward inequality inequality in any way understandable terms of fundamental in man-environment relaas opposedto the intrinsic tionships(so-calledadaptational approaches) dynamicsof "socialrelations" of proceeding independently externalconditions? This debate is commonly conductedwith representatives both positions of andthese jointmeetingsandconferences resultin a "feelpresent, frequently of agreement whatcomplexity as wellas in some suggestions on about is, ing" how it mightbe manifestarchaeologically. muchdisagreement Nevertheless, remainsover the "causes" complexity, condition of a that is not surprising in my view, the discussion commonly is conducted a kindof value as since, the quality a systems state. of judgment regarding in is sense of the word,andit is "Complexity" not a variable any scientific not a dimension a unique with instrument measurement for certainly (e.g., the for instrument measuring not weightis a scale).It is therefore surprising unique to hearthat"prime movershavebecomeobsoletealongwiththe trendtoward linearevolutionary and (Brown Price1985:437).One downplaying typologies" can hardly for seek an analytical without and explanation anyjudgment adding "conditions" to the subtracting unique eachcase, as well as identifying criteria in eachjudge.This dilemma no way impacts analytical the guiding approaches of science,which withtheunderstanding systemstatesareunique that operates to systems, butnevertheless canexplain in we variability systemsorganizations if we understand causalprocessesthatcondition expression several the the of in variables theymaybe manifest a configurational inanygivensystem. as sense we Minimally have to identifywhat it is we wish to investigateaboutthe externalworld, and then we can proceed.Thus, to approach particular our citedphenomena problem,we can ask whatare some of the most commonly
used to judge whether something is "complex." In a major book devoted to this debate, the following"domains" have been identified as contributorsto the judgments passed as to whether a particular
119
120
OF RESEARCH JOURNAL ANTHROPOLOGICAL
case is "complex": settlementsize, permanent "population density,maximum in ceremonial art styles, anddifferences burials" shelter,permanent grounds, aboutavoiding (Brownand Price 1985:437).In spite of admonitions "prime in movers,"we are told that"cultural complexity one sense is a responseto the problems fromdecreased and (Brown Price1985:437). resulting mobility" In this paper I will accept this statementas a guide to furtherresearch; in variation the variablesthat however, study must be aimedat explaining characterize not at building staticfunctional models. dynamics, organizational Inshort,we wantto knowhowevolution works.Only thencanwe "understand" its products. Weallbring prior our and to situation; knowledge understanding anylearning I hencewe see different of interestin ourintellectual points explorations. have investedmanyyears in the studyof boththe archaeological recordremaining fromthe pastandmodern and hunting gathering peoplesfromthe perspective thatanarchaeologist have-that is, intermsof thematerial might consequences of theirorganized posedby different strategiesandtacticsforsolving problems environments in different and socialsettings.If we acceptthe proposition that our priorknowledgestronglyconditions whatwe will acceptas feasibleand aboutthe "meaning" of is, in fact, what we invokein warranting arguments with be observations maymake,thenwe should quiteconcerned the quality we of our priorknowledge.Archaeologists seekingto interprettheir site plans and the patterning observedat specificsites rarelyhave very robustprior the they neverthelessinterpret. knowledge regarding classes of phenomena I havechosento discussthreeaspectsof the archaeological recordthathave received little comparative attention,and my concernsare with three basic solve their housingneeds in different issues. (1) How do hunter-gatherers environmental solutions relatedto mobility (2) Howarethese varying settings? andsubsistence as these solutions alsobe conditioned strategies may strategies in othergroupsof people)?(3) Finally, lightof by the environment (including these two points,how do we dealwiththe problem "complexity"? of HOUSINGAND MOBILITY Let's beginwiththe relationship I betweenhousing mobility. thinkit is and fairto say thatallelse beingequal,thereis a very generalinverserelationship betweenmobility investment housing.Certainly is the case among in and this and subtropical who tropical hunter-gatherers, are generally very mobilebut do takes paradoxically notmoveoververylargeranges.Inthe tropics,mobility the formof frequentresidential campmoves (withone placerarelyoccupied morethanthree to five days),yet the totalamount areacoveredis considof in erablyless thanthatwe see in otherenvironmental settings.Variation labor in investment shelteramongsuchpeopleis primarily relatedto providing relief fromthe oppressiveheat in dry regionsandsome protection fromdrenching rains in other settings. In almostall of these cases, housingis expediently that used to construct sheltersare not transported produced; is, the materials
AND HOUSING ENVIRONMENT MOBILITY,
121
fromone placeto another the hunter-gatherers theymove.It is therefore as by not surprising these peopleregularly that makeuse of natural shelters, such as caves androckshelters wellas cliffbases andlargerocks.These locations as providebothshadeandprotection againstwind. In the subtropics, whererainis seasonally morecommon particularly during the coolermonths,mobilegroupsoften positionthemselvesin the habitat in orderto makeuse ofnatural sheltersandat the sametimeconstruct expediently built shelters nearby,whichserve slightlydifferentfunctions.WhenI was constructed brush studyingthe Australian aboriginal peoples, they commonly windbreaks flat locationswith soft sediments,often at the base of talus on rockshelters. This deposits,abovewhichwere rockexposureswithnumerous and the uses madeof these natural constructed and shelters are positioning of in dimensions termsof whichshelteris both good illustrations the different andconstructed. sought In aridto semiarid and settings,extremecontrastsbetweendaytime nighttime temperatures common.Duringthe Australian season, whichis are dry also theirwinter,andamong well-documented peoplesof the Kalahari, the San we note an interesting that considered phenomenon is frequently strangeto "Western" shelters freways of thinking-namely,winter or cool-weather of and quentlyhave no roof andare some combination a windbreak a lean-to formof shelter,whereasduring verywarmseasons,bothgroups the commonly constructroofedshelters. These often-photographed "beehive" shelters are of two generaltypes: a stick-and-brush structure a frame-and-thatch or structure. The roof clearlyserves as a shade from the sun or alternatively as fromrain.In these situations roofis in no way directly the related protection to the needforconservation heat,as is the common of Westerner's assumption. the the Conversely, absenceof a roofduring coldseasonis relatedto thermal conservation. Givenextreme variation between daytimeandnighttime temconcernis to prevent loss of body heat while the peratures, the primary are the Australians the San,windbreaks and occupants sleeping.Among native are positioned orderto expose the soft-sediment in "floors" maximum to sunshine. This has the effect of warming surfacesuponwhichthe occupants the will sleep during night.It is not uncommon depositwhiteash fromthe the to hearthover these surfacesin the lateafternoon, the thereby insulating surface that was exposedto the sun during day.In coldnighttime the fires situations, be kindled darkness as andsandpilednearthe fire to warm may approaches, it. This warmedsandmay then be spreadover a sleepingsurfacealongwith warm ash to reduce heat loss further.Sleepingunderthese conditions is a very intimate sinceoccupants oftensleep very close to one affair, commonly anotherto conserve body heat. Still other precautions may be taken: for the bodywithgrease, whichserves as an insulator also and example,rubbing
"collects"white ash on the body, further insulatingthe sleeper.
Withthis briefintroduction housing the tropics,it is time to introduce in to

some general knowledge. (1) There are no knowncases amongmodernhuntergatherers where shelter is not fabricatedin residential sites (anywhere that
122
RESEARCH OF JOURNAL ANTHROPOLOGICAL
duhunter-gatherers to sleep), regardlessof the expectedoccupational plan by ration,and only in rare instancesare sites of any kindproduced hunterfor (2) gathererswhere no shelteris provided the occupants. Archaeologists sheltersoftensee onlyhearths constructed of the remains expediently viewing these scatteredfeaturesand consider andlithicscatters.Most archaeologists in sites artifacts be "special-purpose" whenthey are encountered the temto sites it is quitelikelytheyareresidential latitudes. andhigher However, perate use shelterandwhoexpediently of highlymobilepeoplewhodo not transport of theirsettlement mobile shelterduring localmaterials provide to phases highly round. Havingmade this point, we may now turn our attentionto housingand Over knownhunter-gatherers. as historically among mobility it is documented a the yearsI haveaccumulatedfileof datathat,at present,boasts198different but cases distributed worldwide, as you mightimagine,all cases cannotbe that we mightwish to discuss. properties equallystudiedfor all the varying to This corpusof datadoes, however,provideus with the opportunity look of that in for patterning a number properties are of interestto hunter-gatherer in studies. More important this case, the data also serve as a provocative of of againstwhich summary the behavior fullymodernhumans,a summary evidencefromearliertime periodsanddiffering to playoff our archaeological I environments. willuse datafromthis file to addressthe questionof housing in in the terms outlined the aboveparagraphs.1 of The initial workof Murdock (1967)was the foundation thiscorpusof data, variables over butI haveadded bothcases andvariables the years-particularly documented in descriptiveof the environments whichthe ethnographically of lived. A first step in the examination the relationships hunter-gatherers data. I can between housingand mobility be madeusingMurdock's original scale of willexamineseveralattributes houseformrelativeto a roughordinal of mobility. is The termsfully mobileor nomadic mobility high implythat residential in common the high describesthe situation, the year.Seminomadic throughout "winter" house sites are livedin continulocalized latitudes,where relatively the coldestperiodsof the year.These sites are locatedadjacent ously during of food (e.g., near breathing to stored foods or reliable"patches" available this holes where seals can be hunted).We can also imagine patternin envisuchas demographic ronmentswhere socialconditions, (see Binford packing and limitmobility forceintensiveuse of localized resources,as 1983:208-13), with a shift to the use of domesticated occur processually plantsor might of in intensification the exploitation wildfoods. increasing in situation whichrelatively refers to a mobility permanent Semisedentary to but and housesites are maintained returned frequently, wheregroupsmake
seasonal forays from these hubs, moving their residentialcamps from place to place. Fully sedentaryrefers to groups who maintainliving sites that are regularlyused and to groups who do not move their residences from year to year, althoughtask units may travel out periodically.
HOUSING ENVIRONMENT AND MOBILITY,
123
Table 1 displaysa sampleof the worldhunter-gatherer tabulated data by the shapeof the ground of eachgroup's most substantial houses plan (primary) relativeto the mobility scale described above. We note immediately strong a set of relationships between mobility and house plan.Fullynomadic pattern or people tend to constructhouses with a circular semicircular plan, as do whilebothsemisedentary fullysedentary seminomadic and people, peoplefavor semicircular as house plans,although planscontinue a secondary rectangular form.Elliptical formsappear be morecharacteristic seminomadic of to hunteris Can more generalization. we introduce gatherers.Thispattern an empirical in a observations the hope of gaining sufficient of understanding the variables housedesignandenhancing understanding the relationships our of conditioning between housingandmobility? that those familiar with either archaeological One of the obviousvariables or ethnographic willrecognizeis the placement the house relativeto of data the the ground surface.Table2 summarizes comparative data hunter-gatherer on this property.Is the ground surfacemodified priorto house construction, or is the house simplybuilton the natural groundsurface? Amonghuntergatherersthe most commonsituationis simplyto place the house on the surface(perhaps cleaned leveledslightly), somepeople and existingground yet invest considerable laborin digging house pits so the house flooris conout belowthe natural surface.Stillothergroups raisetheirhouses ground siderably on earth moundsor built-up inthis pilings.Canwe understand differential vestmentof labor? In Table2 we see the relativeamount investmentin the preparation of of knownhunter-gatherers the house site. Clearly,most historically (67.6 percent) simplybuildtheirhouses on the groundsurface,yet we note that this
TABLE 1 Ground Plan of Primary Structure vs. Hunter-Gatherer Mobility
Ground Plan
Mobility Fully nomadic Seminomadic Semisedentary Fully sedentary Total Circular 4 (12.9) 0 0 0 4 Semicircular 22 (71.0) 65 (69.9) 12 (38.7) 3 (14.3) 102 Elliptical 0 10 (10.7) 1 (3.2) 0 11 Rectangular 5 (16.1) 18 (19.4) 18 (58.1) 17 (80.9) 58 Complexa 0 0 0 1 (4.8) 1 Total 31 93 31 21 176
Note: Numbers parentheses percentages in are calculated termsof row totals. in a. Complex or and an court. ground plansare polygonal quadrangular mayinclude interior
124
JOURNAL ANTHROPOLOGICAL OF RESEARCH TABLE2 Placement of Primary Structure vs. Hunter-Gatherer Mobility
Mobility Fully nomadic Seminomadic Semisedentary Fully sedentary Total
Ground Surface 29 (93.6) 66 (70.9) 15 (48.4) 9 (42.9) 119 (67.6)
Structure Placement Raised Semisubterranean Earth 1 (3.2) 27 (29.1) 16 (51.6) 11 (52.4) 55 (31.3) 1 (3.2) 0 0 0 1 (0.5)
Pilings 0 0 0 1 (4.8) 1 (0.5)
Total 31 93 31 21 176
in of Note:Numbers parentheses percentages in are calculatedterms rowtotals.
is vastly more commonamongmore mobilepeople thanamongless mobile the people,withthe lattermoreregularly preparing housesite forconstruction. Canwe beginto view some of this formal in that variability termsof variables value? mightbe of explanatory Mobilepeopleseem to practicetwo basicstrategies:they eithertransport theirbasichousing or construct housesfrom materials materials, theyregularly in available theirimmediate environment. Australian do Aborigines nottransport but housingmaterials insteadconstructshelters frombrushand "thatching" in materials available theirenvironment. wayof contrast,the classic readily By NorthAmerican Plainsbisonhunterstransported boththe materials used to cover theirhouses as well as the woodenpoles used to support covering. the Thiswas alsotrueof the Nunamiut Eskimo withwhomI worked almosttwenty years ago. These very differenttactics representthe differenttechnological conseof plannedstrategiesamongmobilepeople. In the case of high-inquences vestmenthousing, amount investment the of madein nontransportable housing must bear some relationship the planned to duration stay or planned of reuse of locations the landscape. the case of low-investment in In the amount housing, of investment relatedto the scaleof mobility to the transport is and costs and the potential the technology. of Whatis beingsuggestedhere is simplythat the transport housing costlyintermsofenergyexpenditure. frequency of is The with whichhousingmaterials transported likelyto vary with the techare is itself andthe scale of mobility involved. nologyof transport As a checkon our thinking far, let us examineanother thus formal characteristicof hunter-gatherer housing-whetherthe wallsof the houseare made
AND HOUSING ENVIRONMENT MOBILITY,
125
as that were carrying of the samematerial the roof.It couldbe argued if groups with them as they moved across the the materialsfor house construction wouldbe used for both the wallsof the house landscape,the same material materials roofsandwallswould for roof. Use of different construction andthe a majorlaborinvestmentwas madein housing be more likelyto occurwhen materials On or when locallyobtainable were beingused in construction. the the or otherhand,if onlythe house cover was transported, supports framing on material of mightbe collectedlocally. Depending the transport potential the are the technology,other alternatives possibleas well. Table3 summarizes to worldhunter-gatherers materials according whetherthe same or different are used to cover the wallsand the roofs of their houses. Primary houses, oftenbuiltto withstand winterconditions, the most substantial; are secondary, or alternative, houses, when used, are often constructed duringless harsh for seasons andare occupied shorterperiodsof time. As in earlierexamples,we note a very strongset of relationships between the formal featuresof house designandmobility. anticipated, As moremobile people tend to cover both the roofs and the sides of houses with the same the material,whereasless mobilepeopletend to differentiate sides fromthe roofs in terms of the coveringmaterials used, except in the case of the secondaryhousingamongsemisedentary people.Onthe otherhand,whenthere is an alternative formof the principal house type (listedas secondary housing on Table3), we note thatamongmore mobilepeoplethe percentage secof formsmanufactured differing of materials tendsto be greaterthanthat ondary
TABLE3 Wall and Roof Material for Primary and Secondary Housing vs. Hunter-Gatherer Mobility
Roof Sides and of Same Material

Mobility Fully 29 8
Roof Sides and of Different Material

1 1 30
Total
9
Primary Secondary Primary Secondary Primary Secondary
nomadic (96.6) Semi82

nomadic (88.2) Semi13 sedentary (43.3) 3 Fully sedentary (14.3)
(88.9) 48
(78.7) 12 (70.6) 0
(3.4) 11
(11.8) 17 (56.7) 18 (85.7)
(11.1) 13
(21.3) 5 (29.4) 4 (100.0)
93
30 21
61
17 4
Total
127
(73.0)
68
(74.7)
47
(27.0)
23
(25.3)
174
91
in in calculated termsof rowtotalsbytypeof housing Note: Numbers parentheses percentages are vs. (primary secondary).
126
of primary forms (fullymobile,3.4 percentcompared 11.1 percent, and to to and 11.8 percentcompared 21.3 percent, for primary secseminomadic, Withsemisedentary the shift is in the ondaryhouses, respectively). people of as otherdirection-thatis, a lowerpercentage secondary housing, compared of different to primary materials. housing,has wallsand roofs manufactured In semisedentary of groups,the secondaryhousingis indicative the mobile whichare by definition to secondary phasesof theiradaptation, quantitatively the periodsspent in the primary houses. These patternsmake a great deal of intuitivesense and can be seen as of relativeto the transportation potential relatingto the importance mobility thata particular of affords.Examples alternative technology housingthatemfor materials the wallsandthe roofsmostoftenoccurwhenwhat ploydifferent I have previously is at called"site furniture" accumulated regularly used locations. As a further in the clue to understanding variation hunter-gatherer housing, let us examinethe kindsof primary materials used by groups roofing housing the characterized different levelsof mobility. Table4 summarizes worldwide by recordfor this property. is immediately thatamong It clear fullymobile people the roof coveringis eithertransportable (e.g., hides) or locallyaccumulated these materials mostlikely The choicemadeamong or (e.g., vegetation bark). in on reflects differences environments the one handand the relativecosts on andadvantages transporting of housing the other.Beforewe considerthis behowever,we need to considerthe natureof the relationship suggestion, tween mobility the very presenceof alternative and (Table5). housing in Whatis interesting the tabulation in provided Table5 is thatalternative
TABLE4 Roofing Material (Primary Housing) vs. Hunter-Gatherer Mobility
Material Roofing Mobility Hides Grass Bark Ice Stone Earth Mats Wood Total 16 2 13 0 0 0 0 0 31 Fully nomadic (51.6) (41.9) (6.5)
Seminomadic Semi12 34 (12.9) (36.6) 0 4 7 (7.5) 4 5 (5.4) 0 1 15 13 (1.1) (16.1) (14.0) 0 2 9 6 (6.5) 12 93 31
sedentary
(12.9) (12.9)
(29.0)
(6.5) (38.7)
0 Fully sedentary
Total 28
4 5 0 (19.0) (23.8)
55 18 5
(2.8)
0
1
1 1 10 (4.8) (4.8) (47.6)

25 16
(9.1)
21
176
28
(15.9)
(15.9) (31.3) (10.2)
(0.6) (14.2)
Note: Numbers parentheses percentages in are in calculated termsof row totals.
127
TABLE 5 Presence of AlternativeHouse Formsvs. Hunter-Gatherer Mobility

Mobility Fully nomadic Seminomadic Semisedentary Fully sedentary Total Alternative Housing Absent Present 21 (70.0) 32 (34.1) 14 (43.3) 16 (76.2) 83 9 (30.0) 62 (65.9) 17 (56.7) 5 (23.8) 93 Total 30 94 31 21 176
Note: Numbers parentheses percentages in are calculated termsof row totals. in
housetypesaremostcharacteristic seminomadic semisedentary of and hunterof and least characteristic fullymobileandfullysedentarypeople. gatherers of Since the archaeological house types may be very consequences different this with confusing, situation presentsthe archaeologist manyproblems, parfiles do not ticularlywith regardto seminomadic people. My comparative house forms (somethingto be containdata on the numbersof alternative corrected),but Reinhardt's (1986:197,213) interesting comparative studyof of arcticpeoplesshowsthatthe number alternative houseforms among housing and of "The variesinversely withsedentism withmeasures "complexity. greater the seasonal in contrasts mobility, the greaterthe socialandactivity-related and a of within seasonal forms round,the greaterthe number alternative variability of housing. are Groups housing presentedseveralchoiceswithregard usingalternative to the construction transport its supportsand covering.In the High and of of Arctic, smalltents made of skins are erected with a minimum structural ratherthanconical.Two families support,and the tents tend to be "ridged" can easily put two such unitstogetherto makea largerlivingunit;however, the heightis limited the designof the supporting frame.Onecommon way by of making higherandgenerally a largerhousein these settingsis to construct a raisedframewithlocallyavailable materials. In the Central to Arctic,particularly during spring,it is not uncommon see the normal "summer tent"placedon top of a raisedwallbase madeof blocks of snow. These raised"tentbases"can be foundin other settings, such as used summercampswherestone mightbe piledup as a raisedbase regularly for the tent. Falllocations similarly mighthave suchraisedbases, particularly and if groupswere engaged obtaining forwinterclothing "sewing in furs camps"
128
were establishedwhere groupsof women workedtogether in the "larger" and houses (Boas1888;Gronnow, 1928). Melgaard, Nielsen1983;Mathiassen foundat ancient materials Remains (stone sites, wheredurable archaeological of andwhalebone)hadbeenusedin the construction winterhouses, alsowere for tent by commonly "recycled" lateroccupants use withmobile coversduring spring,summer,andfall. framesupports their for People livingin the borealforest do not transport conical houses(tipis)sinceyoungtrees canbe obtained most locally throughout of the area. In these high-primary-biomass forests, alternative coveringmaterials, such as barkandbrush(insteadof hides), are also readilyavailable, months.Wewouldexpectto see greateruse made warmer particularly during of these expedient,nontransported materials occupants temperateand of by borealsettings. On the bison plainsof NorthAmerica,however,poles and hides were transported since the grasslandofferedfew materialsfor tent or coveringand the documented supports groupslivingthere used dogs as draftanimals minimize transportation to the costs. Alternative take manydifferent forms. In a fairlyprohouses, then, may ductiveenvironment, mobilegroupscan counton finding usablematerial for house coveringalmostanywhere whereasin less productive setthey camp, and when tings the house covering(hides)maybe prepared then transported the group moves. Thistypeof planning alsorelated the distances moves is to of andthe costs of transporting materials of housing regardless the environment. Table6 indicates that as compared primary to cold-season) (usually housing, alternative, usuallywarm-season housingamongmobilepeople shows an increase in the use of vegetationas a covering.
TABLE6 Roofing Material (Alternative Housing) vs. Hunter-GathererMobility Material Roofing
Mobility Fully
Hides Grass Bark Ice 0 2 6 0

(66.7) 18 (29.0) 2 (11.8) 3 (60.0) 29 (31.2) (22.2) 11 (17.7) 6 (35.3) 0 19 (20.4) 0 0 0 0
Stone Earth Mats Wood Total 0

0 0 0 0
9
(9.7) 62 (66.7) 17 (18.3) 5 (5.4) 93
nomadic Semi10 nomadic (16.1) Semi2 sedentary (11.8) 1 Fully sedentary (20.0) Total 13 (14.0)
(11.1) 5 5 13 (8.1) (21.0) (8.1) 1 4 2 (5.9) (23.5) (11.8) 0 0 1 (20.0) 7 17 8 (7.5) (18.3) (8.6)
Note: Numbers parentheses percentages in are calculated termsofrowtotals,withtheexception in of the totalcolumn wherepercentages calculated column. are by
129
and between primary secondary(alterin The difference roofingmaterial (see native)housingis very important Tables4 and6). Whatit tells us is: (1) if mobility highandportable is is housing beingused, the sametype of housing is is most commonly used in allseasons-that is, alternative housing generally do havealternative house not employed Table5); and(2) if mobile (see people the houses are almostexclusively roofedwithnontransportable matetypes, such as vegetationor bark.As previously alternative noted, rials, housingis andfor these groupswe see some inof characteristic seminomadic people, the to housing, use ofhidesforalternative terestingshifts:as compared primary and the use of vegetation housinggoes up slightly, goes downslightly, the use of both barkand mats increasesslightly.Dramatically reducedis the use of at earth, as one mightexpect, since we are primarily looking the differences between winter (primary) summer(alternative) and housing.Amongsemishiftoccursfromearthandwood in the winter sedentarypeople, a dramatic to barkandmatsinthe summer. houses Among sedentary fully people,summer are primarily roofedwith vegetation,whereaswinterhouses are roofedwith wood. data however,a subset of the file My comparative file is still incomplete; has been codedfor transport. Table7 summarizes relationships the between of two interesting the as variables, portability housing (generated a cumulative score for structure versus the technology supports,covering,andfoundation) of transport-thatis, whetherhumans, humans assistedby packdogs, or true draftanimals used for transport. cases in the finalcategoryrepresent are The both historical protohistoric and bisonplains. groupson the NorthAmerican the of to Clearly sample cases thusfarcodedis insufficient makevery secure in nevertheless,tendenciesare apparent the sample.Simply generalizations; aids the the in put, thegreaterthetechnological to transport, greater portability
TABLE7 Portability of Housing vs. TransportTechnology
of PortabilityHousing
Transport Agents Humans Low 3 (10.7) 0 Moderately Moderately Low Medium High High 8 (28.6) 0 0 8 5 (17.9) 1 (50.0) 0 6 11 (39.3) 0 5 (55.6) 16 1 (3.6) 1 (50.0) 3 (33.3) 5 Total 28 2 9 39
Humans and packdogs and Humans 1 draftanimals (11.1) Total 4
Note:Numbers parentheses percentages in calculatedterms rowtotals. in of are
130
thehousing. this Within samesample,I coulddemonstrate tendency the equally on water. well usingthe character facilities transportation of for Summary Ourreview of at least some featuresof the relationships betweenmobility here to andhousing allowsseveralgeneralizations be made.I willconcentrate this takes on seminomadic peoplesincein laterdiscussions adaptation on greater importance. in 1. Houses of seminomadic people tend to be semicircular groundplan surface. andto be constructed on directly the ground 2. The roofingmaterial winter(primary) of housingtends to be the same as thatused to cover the wallsof the house-either hidesor locallyobtained vegetation. The kind of materialused varies with the degree of mobility, in and of localmaterials the habitat. planning, the availability suitable on alternative house formsdependsprimarily the 3. The use of multiple an subsistence variation mobility, in groupsize, and activitiesduring annual round. 4. In roof coveringand shape, alternative housingtends to have manyof the characteristics primary of as is implied similar by coveringmahousing, forms terialsbeing used for both roofs andwalls;however,manyingenious as well to makeuse of similar materials varyhousesize andthermal efficiency as transport costs. Locally collectedmaterials, bark,vegetation, particularly housandmats, tendto be moreimportant coversforalternative as (summer) ing. of 5. The relationship between the portability housingand the transport to be very strongindeed. Whengroupsare limitedto technologyappears use humantransport portable only, we can expect minimal of well-designed such as largetents madeof skin and sturdyframesupports. housingunits, such natural sheltersarereadily substantial (When available, as the rockshelters in andcaves of Western for domestication assistance transport Europe,animal couldbe delayed.) AND HOUSING SUBSISTENCE,MOBILITY, ENVIRONMENT, Inorderto understand we about further, mustunderstand housing something the sheltering environments, beingmet by personsin different requirements To for as well as the materials available use in meetingthese requirements. I relevant examine environments, employa very usefulmeasureof biologically (ET) is a temperature developedby Bailey (1960). Effectivetemperature and simultaneous measureof solar-radiation intensity(overall"warmth") the has lengthof the growingseason. The coldestplaceon earth(Antarctica) an ET valueof 8.0, the biological is betweenborealforest andtundra boundary ET 10.0, andequatorial season)havean ET systems (witha 365-daygrowing valuebetween18 and26. Temperate settingsrangein ET valuesbetween18
ANDENVIRONMENT HOUSING MOBILITY,
131
TABLE8 (ET) vs. Length of Growing Season and Overall "Warmth" Hunter-Gatherer Mobility
Effective (ET) Temperature 11 14 12 13 15
Mobility
10
16
>17 Total
1 2 0 0 1 2 3 1 11 21 Fully nomadic (20.0) (4.5) (10.3) (5.5) (14.3) (33.3) (64.7) 6 8 14 11 Semi13 18 9 1 5 85 nomadic (60.0) (57.1) (56.0) (59.1) (62.1) (50.0) (78.6) (33.3) (29.4) 1 2 8 7 Semi4 3 1 0 1 27 (5.9) sedentary (10.0) (14.3) (32.0) (31.8) (13.8) (16.7) (7.1) 1 1 4 3 4 5 0 1 0 19 Fully (33.3) sedentary (10.0) (28.6) (12.0) (4.5) (13.8) (27.8) 14 25 18 14 Total 10 22 29 3 17 152 in Note: Percentages calculated column this table. are by
documented cases of huntersandgathand 10. Table8 arraysthe historically ET I data environmental against valuescalculated erers forwhich havesufficient whichthese various fromweatherrecordsfor the rangeswithin groupslived. here: (1) Fullynomadic Two very important factsare illustrated peopleare and extremelyrarein the temperate arcticzones;even the two cases tabulated for the Arcticcouldbe disputed.On the other hand,as the growingseason in nomadism increases a veryevengradient. Seminomadic (2) people lengthens, and are the most commonof all the documented hunter-gatherers dominate the mobility in settings.Thismakesa very straightforpattern higher-latitude one wardpattern. moresevere the winters,the less mobile canreasonably The in sufficient foodsis essential investment obtaining be; therefore,tactical during or does not placeone in eithersubsistence personal the seasonswhenmobility This means jeopardy-that is, beforethe onset of severe winterconditions. to tacticsareessential thesuccessful that, in general,storage practice a semiof nomadic in include Central the mobility strategy a northern setting.(Exceptions holes duringthe "nonmobile" winter Eskimo,who exploitseals at breathing The also phaseof theiradaptation.) abovegeneralization meansthatthe farther one is fromthe equator,the more one is dependenton nonplant resources foodsthatareprocessedforstorage,making hunted (see below);it is primarily the possiblereducedmobility during severe wintermonths. relationI am suggestinga ratherstraightforward of broad,determinant set on storage,and the globalpatternsof mobility, dependence shipsconditioning foods. Clearly there are two basictypes of nonplant of exploitation nonplant of foods: terrestrialanimalsand aquaticanimals.In the exploitation aquatic of versus terrestrial resources,one canexpect increasing exploitation aquatic ET animals be a function (1) decreasing valuesand (2) the contrastsin to of
132
RESEARCH OF JOURNAL ANTHROPOLOGICAL
in costs relativeto storagepotential a givenarea(thisboilsdownto mobility of of the patchinessof the distribution resourcesandthe productivity those resourcesarethe targets assumesthataquatic Theaboveexpectation patches). in of exploitation winterstores. Of course, there are environments which for resourcesmay be exploitedseasonally not targetedfor storage. yet aquatic and This habitattrade-off(betweenaquatic terrestrial resources)offers the in and forgreatvariability mobility subsistence strategies,particularly potential amongpeoplelivingin the higherlatitudes. distributed and semisedentary sedentary peoplesare not randomly Finally, with respect to the earth'senvironments. Amongsedentarygroups,a clump then deof cases clearlyoccursin the highlatitudes(ET 10); the frequency (ET creases, only to rise againat roughlythe earth'smeanbiotemperature of Is bias, an accident 14) andto increasetowardthe equator. this a sampling indicated here? history,or is something important basis for the to Before we proceed,it is important examinethe empirical context a environmental and aboveargument to provide moreunderstandable as for furtherdiscussion.Table9 presents the hunter-gatherers classed by
TABLE9 of Growing Season and Overall "Warmth" (ET) vs. Length Hunter-Gatherer Dependence on Plant Foods
Percentage of Depenrc detane
ofEffective Dependence 10 on Plants 9 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Total
11
12 ~17
(ET) Temperature 14 15 13
16
Total 5 21 24 31 26 21 11 2 2 143
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 (42.9) (14.3) 0 0 1 0 0 4 4 6 6 (57.1) (42.8) (30.0) (17.4) (3.6) 1 2 0 0 0 6 0 6 9 (6.7) (42.8) (45.0) (26.1) (7.1) 0 6 8 1 0 0 5 11 0 (40.0) (25.0) (47.8) (28.6) (5.9) 2 1 5 1 7 10 0 0 0 (4.3) (25.0) (58.8) (14.3) (20.0) (33.3) 2 1 5 0 0 10 3 0 0 (13.3) (4.3) (35.7) (29.4) (21.4) 1 7 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 (5.9) (50.0) (40.0) (6.7) 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 (14.3) 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(40.0)
7 14 20 23 28 17 14 5 15 in Note: Percentages calculated column this table. are by
133
for on Murdock theirdependence plantfoodsarrayed againstET values.The in featureof thistableis thatthe cases arearranged a remarkably most obvious for shiftdownward, thus diagonal pattern; every increasein ET, case positions a on the documenting greaterdependence plantfoods throughout temperate zones. In the tropicsthingsbecomesomewhat elsewhereI have complicated; of (Binford 1989b). Our suggested some of the conditioners this variation concernhere is withnonequatorial environments, however,andit is apparent that the length of the growingseason is a primary of conditioner this very to a previoussuggestion Lee (1968),the pattern regular pattern.Contrary by in does nothavereference a reduction the absolute number plants of to presentto theirproperties they areadapted differing as to seasonlengths only growing andan autocorrelation theirsuitability human with as food. For instance,more than223 species of plantsare available withina fivemile (8 km) radiusof Anaktuvuk a tundrasetting in the center of Village, Alaska's BrooksRange.Of these, however,only 7 species are considered to edibleproducts;and these 7 species (1) are dispersed,(2) yield very yield smalledibleparts, (3) are available very shortperiodsof time, and(4) are for in not distributed high-yield here the structural patches.We are considering in plantcommunities it affectsthe production foodssuitable as of for variability measure. humans,not a simplequantitative This strong patternis an environmental baselineconditioning unconall in strained zones.As mentioned hunter-gatherer adaptations the nonequatorial describesa basicset of adaptive above, this zonalpattern problems presented zones.Allelse beingequal,as one moves to human of occupants these variable fartherfromthe equatorial numbers zone, one is forcedto exploitincreasing of animals orderto meet the foodneeds of a human in The community. options that are playedout in the documented sample,as well as in the historyof modernhumanpresencein the temperatelatitudes,are between terrestrial and on resources.But these alterdependence aquatic adaptations increasing nativestrategiesare not simplyoptions;insteadthey are different responses in to different environments the nonequatorial zones. We couldstrongly could arguethathunter-gatherers not exist in HighArctic alternative terrestrial to withoutthe presenceof a productive settings aquatic fromthe equator goes, the lowerthe one foods. Put anotherway, the farther of of productivity the biomeas a simplefunction the decreasein solarenergy available biological for conversion. else beingequal,twofeaturesof hominids All becomeincreasingly critical one moves towardthe poles: (1) the relatively as constantdemandfor food does not change, and (2) the presence of foods minimal searchtime decreasesin a gradedfashion.These relatively requiring on mammals. two featuresforce an increaseddependence terrestrial Dependenceon these mammals, becausetheyaremobile,vastlyincreasesthe search
time requiredby hominidsto meet their relativelyinelasticfood demandcurve. Similarly,as gross primaryproductivitygoes down, the scale of animalmovement increases, further increasing the time hominids must spend to locate potential foods. In practicalterms this means a drastic increase in the mobility
134
in costs forthe hominids. returns unitincrease mobility, The nevertheless, per a continueto go downas one moves towardthe poles, thus providing very any food-getting strategythatwill strongselectivecontextfavoring alternative increasethe returnrate per unit reduce the searchtime and simultaneously diet of searchtime. In broadtermsthis is the selectivecontextfor expanding the breadth include to resourcesandfor increasing effectivenessof a aquatic as resources.Fundamentally, that technology permitsthe accessingof aquatic the one movestowards latitudes, searchtimeandthe attendant mobility higher mammals expectedto increase are costs of exploiting terrestrial logarithmically, Thus boththe historical geographical and difgiven a constantfood demand. orientedsubsistence orientedand aquatically ferences between terrestrially strategiescan be explained ecologically. in a environmental The argument gradient given aboveanticipates regular for resourcescanbe expectedto substitute terthe degree to whichaquatic of in the shortfall reliable restrial mammals theirroleof offsetting environmental in documented Table9. A test of this and usableplantfoods so graphically the is best accomplished summarizing sampledataon by expectation perhaps on of resourcesversus efthe relativedependence hunter-gatherers aquatic of fectivetemperature, shownto be a sensitivemeasure environmental already withregardto plantuse (Table10). potential that the vast majority the historically of we Immediately can appreciate forthe decreasing of documented potential plant hunter-gatherers compensate the of resources. resourcesinhigher latitudes increasing exploitation aquatic by The diagonal of distribution aquaticdependenceis obviousand represents on effectivetemperature a global basis.This increaseswithdecreasing regular has for documented hunterpattern enormous importance ouruse ofhistorically to gatherersas analogies Pleistocenepeople, who, it is well known,favored terrestrial resources. It is also clear that duringmajorperiodsof increased to cold weatherin the Pleistocene,manyareasappear have been abandoned (Jochim 1987; Soffer1985:247),whereasin the historical sample,analogous are rather hunterenvironments occupied some,at least, support and "complex" resources. In fact, if we examine gatherersgenerallydependenton aquatic the historically documented peoples, we note thatvery few solely terrestrial the and and huntersare included: Nunamiut Caribou Eskimo,the Chipewyan, the historical all caribou-reindeer hunters,andthen the largegroup Naskapi, Plains heavily and of peopleinhabiting NorthAmerican the bison.All exploiting the othershave gone through "aquatic as the transition," we cansee in Table 10. I considerthe understanding this temporally of correlatedshift to the use resourcesto be one of the majorproblems archaeincreasing of aquatic in ologistshave yet to addressrealistically terms of the issues of complexity and humanevolution.Importantly, shift wouldbe favoredin simpleenthis be ergetic terms andwouldnot necessarily a responseto density-dependent "frustration"mobility--the of fundamental hunter-gatherer positioning strategy
for gaininga living.
to to Returning the issue more germaneto the materials be considered
HOUSING ENVIRONMENT AND MOBILITY, TABLE 10 (ET) vs. Length of Growing Season and Overall "Warmth" Hunter-Gatherer Dependence on Aquatic Foods
of Percentage Dependence on Aquatic Resources 0
135
9 0
10 0
11 0
Effective Temperature (ET) 12 14 15 13 0 1 (6.0) 0
16
>17 Total 17
8 5 3 (47.0) (18.0) (29.0)
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
80 Total
0 1
(4.0)
0 1
0 3
1 1 3 3 0 (11.0) (33.0) (33.0) (11.0) 2 8 0 3 3

(8.0) (31.0) (12.0) (12.0)
9 1 (11.0) 5 26
(19.0)
(4.0) (12.0)
7 1 1 1 1 2 8 (4.0) (4.0) (4.0) (8.0) (33.0) (29.0) (4.0) 4 1 1 1 1 6 6

(5.0) (5.0) (29.0) (29.0) (19.0) (5.0) (5.0)
0 0 0 0 0
0 3
24 3 (13.0) 1 21
(5.0)
1 1 1 (50.0)
1 7
6 4 0
1 14
5 5 0
0 20
8 3 1 (50.0)
0 23
2 2 0
0 28
3 0 0
0 17
0 0 0
0 14
0 2
(12.0)
25 17 2
2 143
(4.0) (24.0) (20.0) (32.0)
(8.0) (12.0)
(6.0) (24.0) (29.0) (18.0) (12.0)
0
0 17
(50.0) (50.0)
in in are calculated termsof rowtotals. Note: Numbers parentheses percentages
is and shortly,we mightask whatthe relationship betweenterrestrial hunting in I have chosen to illustrate relationship an economical this fashion housing. describedwhen transport techmeasurepreviously by using the portability of Thissamemeasure was usedas anindicator housing 7). design(Table nology hunted is arrayed Table11 against dependence groupson terrestrially in the of foods. Thereis anunmistakable Herewe see a veryimportant relationship pattern. of and on hunting the portability primary between dependence housing.We between the transport have previouslyseen a similarly strong relationship If we knewnothing of and else, we would technology the portability housing. with onhunting strongly is correlated infer immediately thatheavydependence is The correlation so strongthat Thisis in factthe case. transport technology. documented there are no knownexamplesof historically peoplewhose deanimals exceeds 40 percentandwho do not terrestrial pendenceon hunting In use dogs and/orhorses or reindeeras draftanimals. short, in the modern also on hunting have a relatively worldall peoplewho are heavilydependent
136
JOURNAL ANTHROPOLOGICAL OF RESEARCH
TABLE 11 on of Portabilityof Housingvs. RelativeDependence Hunter-Gatherers HuntedFoods (Terrestrial)

Percentage of
Dependence on Hunting 0-10 11-20 21-30

31-40 41-59
Low 2
of Portability Housing Moderately Moderately Medium Low High 3 0 3

(10.7)
High 0 2
(7.1)
Total 6 28 62
32 15
(33.3)
8
(28.6)
(50.0)
9
(32.1)
(16.7)
6
(21.4)
10
(16.1) 1
18
(29.0) 4
19
(30.7) 6
11
(17.7) 19
4
(6.5) 2
(3.1)
0
(12.5)
2
(18.8)
1
(59.4)
9
(6.3)
3
(13.3)
60 plus Total 0 21 0 36
(6.7)
1 (4.2) 30
(60.0)
3 (12.5) 49
(20.0)
20 (83.3) 31 24 167
Note: Numbers parentheses percentages in in are calculated termsof row totals.
If elaborate and transport technology capability. I hadincluded transportation on water, the complexity the transport of technologywouldbe even more impressive. Summary In our brieflook at environment, and subsistence,mobility, housing,we have learnedsome very interesting things. 1. Among hunters gatherers, nomadic documented and historically fully peoare ples (readforagers) very rare in temperateandhigh-latitude settings. In and the turn,seminomadic peoplesare most common in factdominate huntergatherersfoundin those settings. There are two interestingand very provocativeexceptions-the Onaof Tierradel Fuego, who are bothhuntersand We foragers,andthe Tasmanians. willconsiderthese exceptionslater. 2. Whenwe investigated relativedependence plantfoods,we noted the on a strongandenvironmentally determined among relationship hunter-gatherers: as one moves fartherfrom the equator,the use of plantfoods decreases as of regularly a simplefunction the lengthof the growingseason and the amountof solarradiation the unreaching earth'ssurface.This ecologically derstandable canbe expectedto apply ancient to relationship hunter-gatherers
HOUSING ANDENVIRONMENT MOBILITY,
137
be can as well as to modem ones, since the causalconditions reasonably acceptedto have operatedin the past as well as the present. 3. In light of these stronglyecologically determined we conditions, have noted essentiallytwo majorstrategiesfor procuring needed substitutes the forplant foodsintemperate colder and environments: exploitation aquatic the of of animals. animals the exploitation terrestrial and Whenthe historically documentedcases are surveyedrelativeto the questionof whichalternative is in favorof aquaticremost common,the answeris a resounding response sources. In fact, terrestrialhuntersare rare in the temperateand colder and settings, beinglargelyrestrictedto the continental prairie grasslands the tundra.Thus, the seminomadic noted for the temperateand higherpeople latitudezones are preponderantly heavyexploitersof aquatic also resources. in This situation very interesting lightof the fact thatearlyhominids, is as well as early fullymodem populations, and successfully occupiedtemperate resources. In. higher-latitude settings and did not dependheavilyon aquatic foodsoccurin the archaeological recordfairly fact, although aquatic early(Klasies [Klein1974, 1976; Voigt1973;Volman 1978], Gibraltar [Garrod 1928], HoHauaFteah [McBurney 1967]), not untilthe terminal Pleistocene-early and evidenceforincreasing locenedo we see convincing regular heavyreliance on aquatic resourcesin some areas (Clark 1987; BrownandPrice 1985).All ourevidencepointsto the terrestrial alternative the dominant as tacticof early of as populations fullymodemhumans, well as of stillearlierhominid populations. This meansthatif there are major differences betweenthe exploitation of aquatic resourcesandthe exploitation terrestrial of resources,mostof the documented in are as historically peoples oursample irrelevant analogs Pleisfor tocene terrestrial hunters. The majorvariables are suspectedto differentiate that betweenaquatically orientedhunter-gatherers terrestrial and animal huntersare mobility landand use patterns.Actualmobility dataare very hardto findin the ethnographic literature-that is, how manytimes per year and how far residenceswere moved.Table12 summarizes the cases fromnorthern all temperateto arctic thatmy studentsandI havebeen ablethusfarto document faras as settings actualmobility concerned. all cases the figuresreferto the economically is In organized "on-the-ground" group,not the "ethnic group." I thinkit shouldbe clearfromeven these few cases thatterrestrial hunters make manymore residential moves per year, travelmuchgreaterdistances over an annual round,andin turnexploitvastlylargerareas thando aquatic resourceexploiters.The ecological reasonsfor this are essentially same the in ones that explainwhy carnivores generalhave very largeranges, even in animal-rich environments: preyanimals the move, are differentially responsive in the plantcommunity, are difficult kill.All to differential and to productivity else being equal, these facts ensure that huntersof terrestrial animalswill exploitlargerangesandwill be quitemobile.It shouldbe kept in mindthat the localgroupsizes areroughly similar allthese cases exceptforthe Piegan, in whose groupsizes are slightlylarger.
138
TABLE 12 Measured Mobility for All Northern Temperate and High-Latitude Groups for Which Terrestrial Hunting or Aquatic Hunting and Fishing Represents More Than 50 Percent of the Total Diet
of Percentage Dependence on Animalsa Terrestrial hunters Nunamiut Ona Mistassini Piegan Montagnais Micmac 87 70 50 80 60 50 Combined Number of Annual Distance Residential Moves/Year Covered (km) 12 60 10 28 13 6 720 ? 510 840 470 314 Size of Group Range(km2) 6000 790 3385 8500 2700 1800
ET 9.8 9.1 10.8 11.4 11.6 12.7
huntersandfishers Aquatic So. Tlingit 60 60 Tshimshian Makah 60 So. Kwakiutl 50 a. Bothaquatic terrestrial and
10.9 11.1 11.3 11.6
3 3-5 2 3-4
? 87 15 35
820 600 190 727
to and The interesting exception the abovegeneralization mobility regarding resourceexploitation the Ona,whoare pedestrian is hunters unaided either by is carrier. packdogs or draftanimals--all transport by human They are also in littlestorageas a basicoverwintering exceptional thattheypractice strategy. Theirresidential mobility patternis more like that of equatorial hunter-gatherers (foragers,sensu Binford1980) knownfromthe historical period,and their groupranges are as smallas the rangesof equatorial foragers.Other evidenceclearlymarksthe Onaas foragers:"Thefact of having killedthree motivation the transferof their dwellingto the for guanacoswas sufficient had the localitywhere the guanacos fallen,as this was easier thancarrying meat to the camp" (Gallardo 1910:240-41). This fascinating case saves us frommaking mistakeaboutthe sampleof a modernhunter-gatherers available us to study.If it were not for the Ona for anda few cases fromthe Central Arctic(Netsilik Copper and Eskimo),as well as the Tasmanians, couldmake the case that foraging one strategieswere in determined ways analogous that arguedfor the depento environmentally dence on plantfoodsdocumented above(see Table9, for instance),although I thinkthe theoretical for or justification this assertionwouldbe difficult imare the consequenceof possibleto offer. I suspect that logistical strategies two majorevolutionary rechangesthat occurred long ago: (1) the "aquatic sourcerevolution," its earlyoccurrence with in and primarily higherlatitudes, of watertransport vessels (2) the perfection transport technologies, particularly andthe use of packanddraftanimals.
139
and The difference betweenforagers logistically organized peoples(whether consumersare movedto resourcesor resourcesare movedto consumers), other thingsbeing equal,is the differential of transport. cost Are the costs to In less to moveconsumers goods, or goodsto consumers? the case of most ever move consumers to resources,one cannot,technically aquatic speaking, to the best pointsof access to high-quality resourcesfroma habitat goods, only that mancannotinhabit and (shellfish a very few othersare the exceptions). I used the phrase"otherthingsbeingequal" abovesince underconditions of and (see Binford 1983:195-213),whichinhibits demographic packing mobility rendersconspecific costs great, humans competitive maybe forcedto exploit certainresources logistically pay the increasedcosts in laborif these and or resources are important; hence most sedentarypeople (agricultural not) animals exploitwildterrestrial logistically. All these observations arguments and makeus suspectcertainthingsabout in the past. (1) Foraging strategiesmayhavebeen muchmorecommon temdocumented perateandcoldsettingsinthe past. (2) If so, thenmosthistorically fromthese zones are inappropriate hunter-gatherers analogsfor Pleistocene cases in anydirectsense. This does not meanthatlogistical tacticswere not employedin the ancientpast, but if they were, it wouldhave been a matter of the costs of transport off the moves. beingplayed against costs of residential Thus far we have littleinformation guideour understanding these relato of exceptintermsofbulkorweightunitsandthe costs of theirtransport. tionships (See, for instance,O'Connell, Jones 1988 on the costs Hawkes,andBlurton oftransporting of different anatomical fromanimals varying parts bodyweights.) Whatthen aboutthe patternsof mobility storage? and If our arguments be sustained can thus far,we can offersome problematic aboutancienthunter-gatherers expectations livingin moderateto cold environmentsbut not heavilydependenton aquaticresources. (1) If transport assistancein the form of domesticated dogs is absent and water transport is not developed,then highresidential is mobility expected, with technology a foraging most likely(the Onaare a goodmodern organization being example of suchan adaptation). The degreeto whichwe canexpect"seminomadic" (2) is fromthe sampleof historically documented mobility patterning unclear peosince severe wintersmakemobility one difficult, can imagine ples; however, a strong selectionfavoring such a patterneven if the normal tactics mobility were those of foragers.Ouruncertainty this issue arisesfromthe factthat on most documented peoples of the HighArctic,as well as of the borealand northerntemperatezones, are heavilydependenton aquatic resourcesand are predominantly us seminomadic, providing with a strong environmental correlateto this pattern.(Correlations not necessarily are indicative; causally of in they are clues to the operation systemicphenomena the world.They are whatneeds explanation-theyare not explanations andof themselves.)(3) in I thinkwe can estimatewith some confidence levels of dependenceon the plantsfor food that were typicalof ancientpeoples, since this characteristic seems to be stronglyconditioned understandable reby ecological-energetic that lationships wouldhave been the same in the past as they are today.
140
in Givenwhatwe have learnedabouthunter-gatherers general,our ability to linkthe archaeological of storageto the archaeological corconsequences relates of mobility of is crucial our understanding past systems. to patterning able Onlythen are we reasonably to say whetherwe canexpectpeoplein the and ancientpast to have been seminomadic whenandhow we can expect to see the evolution "complexity." of STORAGEAND ENVIRONMENT have assumedthatmodern,"post-aquatic reIronically, manyresearchers source transition" existedpriorto thatvery transition. Simhunter-gatherers that with ilarly, theyhaveassumed logistical organization, its important transportrelatedcost budget,is an "alternative" of organization be expectedor form to lookedfor priorto anyevidencefor draftanimals, or packanimals, conditions thatmakelogisticsimperative, as the exploitation animals the aquatic of of such biome.Onthe otherhand,storagehasbeenassumed be recentandto signal to a majorset of evolutionary to and changesleading socialcomplexity nonegalin itarian societies. I willseek to show thatstorage,like subsistence general, is relatedto environmental variation in the ancientpast can be expected and to have been conditioned very different variables thanthose thatcondition by "socialcomplexity." Recentliterature intellectual idealists generally has takena very different by whicheitherrelatesstorageto prestigeseekingandsocialmanipulation view, of termedthe "Garden (Bender1978, 1981)or makeswhatI havepreviously Eden"assumption prerequisite bothstorageandcomplexity. latter a for The view is well illustrated Testart(1982:523): by Wheresome natural foodresourcesare bountiful seasonal,they can but be gathereden masse whileavailable storedon a largescale.... and The central . .. is thatthe massivestockpiling staplesconstitutes of idea the material base for a possibledevelopment socio-economic of inequalities to the extentthatthe bulkof the production thenceforward is transformed (by techniquesappropriated accumulated and differentially by individuals by groups). or is Simplyput, where the environment "rich," storageandin turnsocialhierarchieswillresult. For the extremeessentialists,one onlyneeds a sufficient environmental for human base to greed andprestigeseekingto be permitted flourish. As in the case of dependence plants food,I viewstorageas a response for on to environmental conditions. I withIngold[1983] (Ironically,am in agreement on this point.)I fullyrecognizethat undersome demographic and conditions constraints mobility, on geographic storagemay be an appropriate response of quite independent climaticconcerns.Nevertheless, storage underthese conditions of under simplyreflects the character the selective environment
141
of whichthe peoplewere livingandis thereforea consequence selection,as are otherfrequently correlated socialchanges. In order to demonstrate point, I have prepared this two tables fromthe datafile. I havesoughtto holdenvironmental constant comparative productivity cases of hunter-gatherers relatively from by selecting unproductive, primarily to drygrassland semidesert settings(wherethereis less than100mmpossible annualrunofffrom realizedrainfall). am concentrating relativelypoor I on the arguments Testart and others regarding environments rich (contra by in orderto examinethe potential of storageas a security role environments) in mechanism settings with shortergrowingseasons. I have information on for forty-nine suchcases in my sample.Sincethe environmental constorage ditionsare such that littleaquatic wouldbe expectedas a result dependence of locallyearned water, this suite of cases is also interestingin terms of terrestrial Of cases, let us examineinitially adaptations. these forty-nine only those for whichthere is no aquatic (Table13). dependence We immediately in note that all cases falling ET rangesgreaterthan 15.8 betweenET 15.3 and14.6 store practiceno storage.Almostall cases falling
TABLE13 Storage Practices of Nonequatorial Hunter-Gatherers in Settings with Less Than 100 mm Annual Runoff from Realized Rainfall and Exhibiting No Dependence on Aquatic Resources Cases Walbiri Hadza Dobe !Kung G/wi Aranda Dieri ET 17.9 16.2 16.9 16.6 15.9 15.9
Storagea
Method none none none none none none
Facilities none none none none none none
none none none none none none
Yavapai
Serrano
15.3
15.1
seeds
seeds, meat
drying
drying
?
granaries, baskets
Kaibab Walapai
Panamint
15.1 15.1
15.0
seeds seeds
nuts pifion
drying drying
drying
baskets baskets
granaries, rockcrevices
Southern Ute Cheyenne

Tehuelche
14.6 13.9
12.8
bison meat, seeds bison meat, berries

meat
drying drying
drying
racks, "caches" racks, skin bags

racks, skinbags
a. "None" refersto storage doesnotnormally that a of exceed period threeto fivedaysafter procurement.
142
at onlyplantfoods,whereasallcases falling or belowanET valueof 14.6 store meat alongwith some plantproducts.Based on these datait is tempting to At around 15.8 thereis a threshold, ET makethe following (1) generalizations. relatedto the lengthof the growing season,forthe use of storageas a security in ET tactic.(2) Groups settingswarmer thanapproximately 14.6 exhibit some inthe storageof plant which usedas reservesprimarily are foods, specialization in the during winter.(3) Groups settingscoolerthanET 14.6 exhibitspecialbufferagainstoverwinizationsin the storageof animal foodsas the primary of shortfalls food. tering At this pointthese suggestionsare certainly tentative; however,additional data are available. There are thirty-five cases of hunter-gatherers livingin rainfall variously but settings with less than 100 mm of runofffromannual resourcesas a function theirgeographic of positionaddependenton aquatic unearned waterthrough or jacentto eitheroceansor riversthatmove locally the information on adjacentto their ranges. Table 14 summarizes available these cases. environThis groupof cases, all of whichoccupyrelatively unproductive mentalsettings with regardto terrestrial resources, stronglydemonstrates
TABLE14
Hunter-Gatherers StoragePracticesof Nonequatorial Livingin Settings

with Less Than 100 mm Annual Runoff from Realized Rainfall and Exhibiting VaryingLevels of Dependence on Aquatic Resources ET 18.3 18.1 15.9 15.8 15.5 15.1 14.9 14.9 14.8 14.8 14.7 14.7 14.3 14.3 Storagea none none minimal (acorns, Method none none drying drying drying drying drying drying drying drying drying drying drying drying Facilities none none baskets baskets ? granaries, baskets granaries ? baskets,pits pits, baskets insidehouse insidehouse granaries pits, baskets on Continued nextpage
Cases Seri Karaera Luisefio Dieguefio Kiliwa Tubatulabal Nomlaki Kawaiisu Washo Yulki proper LakeYokuts Wukchumni Miwok OwensValley Paiute
seeds) plum
minimal (acorns, seeds) minimal acorns,seeds, fish acorns,seeds seeds, acorns nuts, pifion seeds, fish acorns,seeds tule roots, acorns,seeds acorns,seeds, salmon acorns,seeds piiionnuts, berries, acorns
HOUSING ENVIRONMENT AND MOBILITY, TABLE 14-Continued Cases Sinkyone Karok Uintah Modoc
Umatilla
143
ET 14.2 13.6 13.5 13.3

13.3
Storagea acorns,seeds, deer meat acorns,piiion nuts, salmon, deer, eels nuts, pifion seeds camus,seeds,
fish salmon, seeds
Method drying, smoking drying, smoking drying drying

drying
Facilities racks,baskets granaries, insidehouse ? pits

pits (?), inside
Uncompahgre Bannock Agaiduka Paiute HarneyValley Paiute Gosiute Kutenai Tenino Shuswap Klamath Flathead
13.1 13.1 13.1 13.0
bison,seeds, nuts pifion bison,roots salmon,roots, seeds wada,berries, sunflower and
drying drying drying drying
house skinbags, racks skinbags, racks caches,racks pits, inside house pits, baskets pits, inside house racks,caches ? racks skinbags, racks racks,caches racks,caches racks racks racks,caches racks,caches,
chenopodium
13.0 12.7 12.4 12.2 12.2 12.1 11.1 10.9 10.7 10.5 9.6 8.7 seeds nuts, pifion variousseeds camus,fish fish, meatfrom winterhunt fish, camus fish, seeds bison,deer, elk, camus, berries fish caribou, caribou fish, elk reindeer, elk, fish seal, minimal fish seal, fish drying drying drying drying drying drying drying,
smoking,
Dogrib Nabesna Yukaghir Ket CopperEskimo PolarEskimo
freezing drying, freezing drying, freezing drying, freezing drying, freezing freezing
cellars
a. "None" refers to storagethatdoes not normally exceed a periodof three to five daysafter procurement.
144
severalinteresting of of points.Storageis not a function the "Garden Eden," where resourcesare abundant readilyobtained. and Most of these cases (all in ratherpoor environments) in for demonstrate heavy investments mobility of laborfor processing,andthe construction facilities profor procurement, tectingthe stores. Storageis a tacticrelatedto ensuring againstconsumption the season (winter). shortfalls during nongrowing Thistabledisplays with to variation patterning regard the regular interesting it exhibitsrelatedto effectivetemperature We note thatcases gradients. again withhighET valuesexhibitno storageof food. Cases between15.9 and14.3 in store plantfoods, although a few cases aquatic resourcescan be primarily is addedto the list. Preparation uniformly drying,andstores maybe kept by inpits (15percent),above-ground baskets(45percent), (25 granaries percent), andwithinthe house (10 percent). ET mammal meatappears as Around 14.2 we note two changes:terrestrial as a storedfood, andracksappear Dryingconconsistently a storagefacility. tinuesto be the exclusivepreparation tactic. Cases withET valuesbetween 14.2 and12.2 are generally in foodscontinue be a major to consistent thatplant becomemorevaried,andthere is secondary storagetarget.Storagefacilities a distinctshiftin modal form.Racks(50 percent)andpits (31.25 percent)are now the dominant within-housestorageandskinbags (25.0 percent facilities, whilegranaries each) close behind.Baskets andcaches are also mentioned, falloff to 6.25 percent. for Freezingappears the firsttimein cases withET valuesbelow12.1, and become thereafter storageof plantfoodsdoes not occur.Animal the products the exclusivetargetfor storage.As with the earlierenvironmentally related suite of cases, the modal character storagefacilities of racksnoware changes; used in 100 percentof the cases, followed caches(57 percent),skinbags by cellars(14 percent). (14 percent),andprepared Withregardto the types of storagefacilities, Table15 summarizes data the fardiscussed.Corresponding the shiftnotedabovein the character thus to of the foods stored is a parallel shift aroundET 14 in formand use of varied facilities. Summary Fromthis comparative that exercise I thinkwe can conclude (1) storageis as decreases, and expected to increasein importance effectivetemperature ET (2) there will be a shift in the foods targetedfor storagearound 12-in with environments lowerET values,plantfoodswillplaya smallrole. Storage "and is notrareor unique "complex to hunter-gatherers, even moreimportant, the meaningful that patterning is evidentin the practiceof storagestrategies is correlated environmental is to variables. This correlation one of the major featuresof the mobility-subsistence patterninteraction. Storagerepresentsa
play-offbetween the costs of directly procuringfood duringthe winter, when mobility is constrained by the environment, and the costs of expending additional effort duringthe growing season, either on plants or on animalsthat are
145
TABLE 15 Summary of Information on Storage Facilities from 49 Cases Arranged According to ET Zones Defined in Tables 13 and 14
Storage Facility
Baskets
25-16 (N=6)
0
of Percentage Cases ETZones 15.9-14.3 14.2-12.2 (N= 20) (N= 16)

45.0 12.50
12.1-8.5 (N=7)
0
Granaries Pits In-House Racks Caches Skin bags Cellars
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
25.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 5.0 0 0
6.25 31.25 25.00 50.00 12.50 25.00 0
0 0 0 100.00 57.14 14.28 14.28
season.Storage themselvesresponding the growing to does notimply logistical and (contra Gladkih, Kornietz, Soffer1984;Jones1983).Wecould organization cite manyexamplesof movingconsumers,as labor,to resources,exploiting morethanis neededforimmediate consumer the needs, andthentransporting shortfalls. to "extra" otherplacesforstorageas securityagainst overwintering conditioned. The simplepracticeof storageis environmentally is On the other hand,the type of labororganization relatedto the tactics or used to obtain foodsregardless whetherthey are consumed of immediately consumers destinedforstores. Wecancite manyconcreteexamples moving of is labor)to locationsof potential (potential high-bulk yields. If procurement either(1)heavily fortransport are successful,the high-bulk processed products for or (2) cached/stored the point of procurement subsequenttransport at in when transport costs are less. This strategy,whichis not logistical form, such is most common or amonghuntersof herdmammals very largeanimals, as whales. of The archaeological consequences this strategyare obvious.The greatest for is concentration storagefacilities at the pointof procurement bulkreof withthe mostportable hence and whichinturnis associated sources,a location lowest investmentformsof housing.I have madethis pointbefore (Binford associated withbison 1989a)andneed onlycite the densityof storagefacilities of drivesites on the plains NorthAmerica (Davis1983)andthe analogous high storagestructuresassociatedwith springcaribou densityof high-investment the drivesites among Nunamiut 1978).The mostspectacular (Binford example sites associatedwithwhalebeaching of is the huge number storagefacilities in the Central Arctic,where, as in the other examples,the housingwas inform(tents), even thoughthe same the and variably most ephemeral portable At winterhousesandwere seminomadic. the locations peoplebuiltsubstantial werefew andarenotarchaeologically withsubstantial housing, storagefacilities
146
obvioussincethey tendedto be above-ground whereracksforfreezplatforms or drying meat were the most common ing facility. be of storagecannot seen as a determinant logistics,the two may Although be stronglycorrelated. be more commonamong Logistical organization may for storage-dependent peoples if their stores are inadequate overwintering since the costs of residential in for consumers these settingsare high mobility investmentsmadein housingmust be duringthe severe winter,substantial and manydependents(i.e., children older persons)do not and abandoned, contribute a reduction searchtime, whichis the major to in food-procurement cost in low fooddensitysettings. In summary, costs, considered logisticspaysoff in the contextof transport relativeto the security risksof residential mobility. Storage paysoffas a simple function the decreasing of of the growingseason, whichis frequently length correlated withreducedproductivity the habitat. in CONCLUSIONS Implications HumanEvolution for I have examined three variables-mobility, housing,and storage-as they interactamongthemselvesandwiththe environment knownfor hunter-gatherers inthe near-modern world.Theverystrongpatterning these cases among is provocative both for understanding archaeological the recordandthe evidence for human evolution well as for seekingexplanations variability as of in suchas "complexity." systems state conditions, The patterning beenpresented.Canwe tentatively has formulate arguments as to how this patterning relatedto the time-space is we processual dynamics seek to understand the condition"? regarding "human I. We can expect that in the past as in the present, the regulargraded reduction the lengthof the growing in seasonandthe decreasing productivity of habitats one moves towardthe poles wouldhave strongly as favoredearly of on appearance (a) increaseddependence terrestrial (b) mammals, storage as an overwintering in investment substantial winter tactic,and(c) increased of the mobility used. housingregardless strategies II. Giventhatearlyhominids earlypopulations fullymodemhumans and of were essentiallyterrestrial we canexpect the following to animals, dynamics have accompanied successfulpenetration increasingly the of and high-latitude continental environments: A. Increasing on in mammals a gradient fromequadependence terrestrial these subsistenceshifts, torialto polarsettings,and, accompanying B. Increasing with costs to the security the hominid/ of mobility its attendant human populations. As a consequence these costs, we expect selectionto have favoredthe of andstrategiesstrongly: following techniques 1. Techniques reducing for use costs, whichincludeingenious of mobility localmaterials housing, for with of experimentation the development transport
147
of technologyand the construction passive facilities(such as traps)for food with andexperimentation meansof obtaining additional energy procurement, sources for transport, suchas domesticated dogs, reindeer,or horses. of to 2. Strategiesfor reducing by mobility an expansion the diet breadth of and includeaquatic resourcesandthe development techniques technology that cannotdirectly for accessingthose resourcesfroma habitat humans penetrate. All else being equal,we can thereforeexpect historical trendsin the ara and recordto demonstrate chronological geographical patterning chaeological resourceswill have occurred first in the such that systematicuse of aquatic of (environment margins the human population permitting) polarandnear-polar and and will exhibita gradedtemporal geographical more pattern,becoming as recent in time and less commongeographically one moves towardthe in innovations (a) transport equator.This patternwillalso parallel technology, draftanimals,and (c) the patternof technological (b) use of domesticated for elaboration accessingaquaticresources, as well as reducingthe search time for terrestrial game. The anticipated will and as graded pattern be "punctuated" irregular a function of any geographical environmental and variation constrains that such mobility, as islands, peninsulas,coasts adjacent majormountain to ranges, or major fish where anadromous regularly drainages spawn.In these settingswe may shifts to aquaticresources, and the attendant anticipateotherwise "early" technological changes. III. In continental and settings, we can expect transport technology draft animals have been highlyfavored.Whensuch innovations to appear,we can use materials shiftsto the increasing of highly and expect (a) portable housing in a standardization housing the direction portability. of of Froman archae(b) the ologicalperspectivethese changesmay seem to indicate "disappearance" in of more substantial anda reduction the repetitiveness with which housing winterdwellings placedin the samelocations, are seminomadic land-use given alternatives were possible,we can expect trendsin Whereaquatic patterns. the oppositedirection. of for biomeare IV. Giventhat "accesswindows" penetration the aquatic and thanthose that characterize terrestrial the less ubiquitous more reliable of of function the character the coastal"edge" biome, as a directinteractive of andthe mobility productive and species present, setrhythms the aquatic to few "access "tethered" thoserelatively reliable tlementbecomesincreasingly dictatesandtechnology renders whichboth natural windows," biogeography in would usable.Thus we can expect (a) thatredundancy settlementlocation shift toward and have increased (b)thata corresponding wouldhave occurred and housingthatis bothsubstantial nonportable.
Increased densities of archaeologicalremains can be expected in fewer and fewer places on the landscapeas a functionof subsistence "tethering"; however, this high density of remains should not be seen as convincing evidence for sedentism or "complexity,"since it would be expected even if there was a
148
seminomadic patternof landuse. Sucha patterncouldbe simplymore "anchored" "routed" or and (Graham Roberts1986) by increasedseasonalderesources. pendenceon aquatic of All of these changescouldbe expectedto have occurred independently selection.Theycanbe anticipated as of "density-dependent" simply a function increased as of in mobility a necessaryconcomitant the terrestrial exploitation more andmore polarextensionsof the human range. Implications theDevelopment Complexity for of The above arguments that for those who expect directional moves imply towardsedentism-broadlydefined statically and conceived-the archaeologto icalrecordmayappear document these shifts(inmoresubstantial housing, increasedvolumeof archaeological debrisat specificlocations,etc.) but with no prioror linked causal On "density-dependent" implications. the otherhand, I have arguedthat there are strongenvironmental for conditioners shifts to resourcesin areasdistantfromthe equator. Thus boththe character aquatic of the subsistencebase andthe mobility strategyseem to respondvery exto ecological variation. plicably For those interestedin such issues as the originsandsociocultural conseor with the attendant quencesof agriculture the originsof socialcomplexity, on severallessonscanbe learned fromthese data.Perhaps emphasis inequality, a cluerests in the distributions notedinTable8, wherecases of fullysedentary ET a distributionarrayed hunter-gatherers against valuesexhibited bimodal in one groupwas concentrated environments an effectivetemperature with of 10 and anotherin environments of with effectivetemperatures 14 or more. The cases clusteredaroundET 10 consist of the classic "complex hunterof NorthwestCoast. I have alreadysuggestedthat gatherers" the American the resourcesquite strongselectiveforceswouldhavefavored shiftto aquatic in of conditions these environments. Neverindependently density-dependent densities. theless, these same cases are also notedfor theirhighpopulation This pointwas recentlyemphasized Keeley (1988:395):"Thestrongasby sociation betweendemography socioeconomic and also complexity suggestthat of complexity any claimsfor the prehistoric development unaccompanied by increasesin population pressureare to be treatedwithextremeskepticism." This means that in the higherlatitudesthe highpopulation densitiesand social complexity results of reducedmobility increased are and consequent subsistencesecurity,a pointalso supported Keeley's (1988:393)recent by work.Thatincreased subsistence resultedinintenseselectionagainst security shouldbe mobilityin settings characterized low terrestrialproductivity by obvious.Thus, the increasedpopulation sizes are a consequenceof the increasedsecuritythataquatic in resourcesafforded some settings.Complexity in these settingscan be profitably studiedin terms of demographic variables of mobility considerations se. quiteindependent per On the other hand,for those sedentarycases in environments with ET values of 14 or more, demographic factorsare the causes of the increased
149
itselfrelativeto its returns(see Belovsky1988for an explocosts of mobility rationof these ideas). These cases wouldfall underthe population-packing I 1983)andwouldbe expected presented(Binford argument have previously in of to move eventually the direction intensifying laborinputsto compensate for the decreasing returnsfromandhighercosts of mobility. short, agriIn culture a density-dependent is responseandcanbe expectedto occurprimarily in environments aroundandjust above the earth's exhibiting temperatures meanbiotemperature. offersless andless as the growing season (Agriculture becomes shorterand shorter.)Plantandanimal domestication a response is to decreasingreturnsaccompanied increasing costs of mobility by brought about by overexploitation competition ranges. We can expect that, and for where possible, aquatic resourceswill be used first underconditions deof andonlyaftersubstantial of timewouldagriculture periods mographic packing, On in rather appear. the otherhand, settingswithlittleaquatic potential, "quick" moves directlyto agriculture be expected underpackedconditions. can In either case, demographic forceswouldbe at the root of subsistence changes, whereasin the higherlatitudes canexpectanalogous one subsistencechanges in the absenceof these initiating forces, as arguedabove. demographic I wouldarguethatwe are not dealing here withan orthogenetic directional but in patternmovingtoward"complexity" withone thatmustbe understood terms of the factorsconditioning in variation the organizational characteristics that have been chosenas the topicsfor research.Whenone views processin a dynamic for for mode, the usefulnessof "criteria recognition" interpreting static systems-stateconditions begins to fade. Thickmiddenscan mean different thingsin different substantial settings;similarly, housing mayvarywith the ecological staticimplications such for settingandmaycarryno attendant Each as mustbe studiedanalytphenomena social"complexity." phenomenon can of icallysince only the resultingunderstanding guideinterpretations arIf manifestations. one wishes to makejudgments the chaeological concerning "levels" complexity of one must understand whatvariables and represented, interactions condition variation the materials the in beinginterpreted. Forinstance,we haverecentlybeen toldthata bimodal in distribution house size indicatesthe presence of larger"corporate who have achieved groups" "differential controlover tradeor resources,with some individuals assuming administrative power roles"(Haydenet al. 1985:183).With and important Soffer(1985:479)suggests thatdifferences in perhapseven less justification, the size of anddegree of laborinvestment housingon the centralRussian in workandmonumental architecture." Without unplainrepresents"public any in whatsoeverof the factorsthatcondition differential investment derstanding anddifferent sizes of houses, archaeologists simplyfree to make are housing analytical up the past as they go along. We need hardheaded study of the variable for characteristics remaining us to see; onlywithsome understanding of the causesof the observed can about variation we makeaccurate statements of the past andsort out the interactions variables necessaryforthe successful of building robusttheory.
150
OF JOURNAL ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCH
NOTE
in 1. Thedatapresented thispaper workdonebymyselfandvarious include graduate seminars havetaught I morethanfifteen students yearsof hunter-gatherer representing of at the University New Mexico.Withthe helpof severalwork-study students,Junesourcesandprepared data the el Piperbrought datatogetherfrommanydisparate the on base file I used in the analyses.My companions a recenttripto the Soviet Union at readan early(andmuchlonger)draftof thispaper,whichwas prepared the request of of the organizers the Models in Environmental Historyconferenceheld at Bad thoseof Clive in 1989.Theircomments, WestGermany, February especially Hamburg, and the assisare Although datacollection editorial Gamble, gratefully acknowledged. the are tance I have receivedis greatlyappreciated, analysesandinterpretations my alone. responsibility
REFERENCESCITED
the and of Bailey,H.P., 1960, A Methodof Determining Warmth Temperateness Annaler 1-16. Climate. 43(1): Geografiska Modelof Hunter-Gatherer Foraging-Based PopBelovsky,G.E., 1988,An Optimal 7:329-72. of ulation Journal Anthropological Archaeology Dynamics. A Arto Bender, B., 1978, Gatherer-Hunter Farmer: SocialPerspective.World chaeology10:204-22. ArIntensification. 149-57 in Economic Bender,B., 1981, Gatherer-Hunter Pp. and of (ed. by A. chaeology:Towardsan Integration Ecological SocialApproaches Series 96. and Sheridan G.N. Bailey).BritishArchaeological Reports,International Oxford,Eng. New Press. Academic Binford, L.R., 1978, Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. York: Settlement Smokeand Dogs'Tails:Hunter-Gatherer Binford,L.R., 1980, Willow American Site 45:4-20. Antiquity SystemsandArchaeological Formation. ThamesandHudson. of L.R., 1983, In Pursuit the Past. New York: Binford, of Binford,L.R., 1989a, Bones for Stones: Considerations Analogsfor Features for Foundin the CentralRussianPlain.Paper prepared the joint Soviet-American on Paleolithic Adaptations, sponsored by archaeological symposium Paleoindian-Upper Council Learned of American on and the Subcommission History Archaeology, Societies, and on and the SSSR Commission the Humanities SocialSciences,July9-23, 1989, MoscowandLeningrad. An to the Binford,L.R., 1989b,Isolating Transition Cultural Adaptations: OrganiHumans: Adof Biocultural zational Pp. Approach. 18-41 in The Emergence Modern in Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge aptations the LaterPleistocene(ed. by E. Trinkaus). Press. Reprinted 1989,in Debating (by Archaeology L.R. Binford), 464pp. University Press. Academic 81, New York: Eskimo.Pp. 399-669 in SixthAnnual Boas, F., 1888, The Central Reportof the D. 1884-1885.Washington, C.: Smithsonian Institution. of Bureau American Ethnology, and T.D. Price, 1985, ComplexHunter-Gatherers: Brown,J.A., Retrospectand The Hunter-Gatherers: Emergenceof Cultural Prospect. Pp. 435-42 in Prehistoric Fla.:Academic Press. (ed. Complexity by T.D. PriceandJ.A. Brown).Orlando, in to Clark,G.A., 1987, Fromthe Mousterian the MetalAges: Long-Term Change Old Diet the Human of Northern Regional Pp. Spain. 293-316inthe Pleistocene World: Plenum Press. Perspectives(ed. by O. Soffer).New York:
151
to Advancesin Tipi Ring Davis, L.B., ed., 1983, From Microcosm Macrocosm: and Plains Memoir 28(102,pt. 2), Special Investigation Interpretation. Anthropologist 19. Gallardo, C.R., 1910, Los Onas.BuenosAires:Cabaut Cia. y of Rock-Shelter Devil'sTower, at Garrod, D.A.E., 1928, Excavation a Mousterian Gibraltar. Journal the Royal of The Institute GreatBritain Ireland of and Anthropological 58. Reprinted, The Bobbs-Merrill Series in the SocialSciencesA-294, IndiReprint anapolis, Ind. Bone Dwellings on Gladkih, M.I., N.L. Kornietz,and 0. Soffer,1984, Mammoth the Russian Plain.Scientific 164-75. American 251(5): A Constricted Graham, andA. Roberts,1986,Residentially M., Mobility: Preliminary of in UNMContributions to Haliksa'i: Investigation Variability Settlement Organization. 5:105-16. Department Anthropology, of of Anthropology University New Mexico,Albuquerque. and G., Gronnow, M. Meldgaard, J.B. Nielsen, 1983,Aasivissuit-TheGreatSummerCamp: and Studies a Caribouof Archaeological, Ethnographical, Zoo-archaeological om Site Meddelelser Gronland, andSociety5. CoMan Hunting in West Greenland. penhagen. Hayden,B., M. Eldridge,A. Eldridge,and A. Cannon,1985, ComplexHunterin Gatherers Interior BritishColumbia. 181-99 in Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers: Pp. The Emergence Cultural of (ed. Complexity by T.D. PriceandJ.A. Brown).Orlando, Fla.:Academic Press. of Societies.Man18:553-71. Ingold,T., 1983, The Significance Storagein Hunting inEurope. 317-48 inThePleistocene Jochim, 1987,LatePleistocene M., Refugia Pp. OldWorld: Plenum Press. Regional Perspectives(ed. by 0. Soffer).New York: The Jones, K.T., 1983, Forager Archaeology: Acheof EasternParaguay. 171Pp. A 91 in Carnivores, Human and of Scavengers, Predators: Question BoneTechnology (ed. by G.M. LeMoineandA.S. MacEachern). Association, Calgary: Archaeological of University Calgary. Economic and PresKeeley, L.H., 1988, Hunter-Gatherer Complexity "Population of 7:373-411. sure":A Cross-Cultural Journal Anthropological Analysis. Archaeology and of Man Klein,R.G., 1974, Environment Subsistence Prehistoric in the Southern World 5:249-84. Province,SouthAfrica. Cape Archaeology Fauna the KlasiesRiverMouth of Klein,R.G., 1976,TheMammalian Sites, Southern Bulletin 31:75-98. Archaeological CapeProvince,SouthAfrica.SouthAfrican Lee, R.B., 1968, WhatHuntersDo for a Living,or How to MakeOut on Scarce Resources.Pp. 30-48 in Manthe Hunter(ed. by R.B. Lee andI. DeVore).Chicago: Aldine. and C.B.M., 1967, The HauaFteah(Cyreneica) the StoneAge of the McBurney, Press. South-East Mediterranean. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University of Eskimos.Reportof the Fifth Culture the Iglulik Mathiassen, 1928, Material T., Thule Expedition, 1921-1924, vol. 7, no. 1. Copenhagen: Gyldendalske Boghandel, Nordisk Forlag. Atlas. of Press. G. Murdock, P., 1967,Ethnographic Pittsburgh: University Pittsburgh O'Connell, K. Hawkes,andN. Blurton Jones, 1988, Hadza J., Hunting, Butchering, of and andBone Transport TheirArchaeological Journal Anthropological Implications. Research44:113-61. of as Eskimo Reinhardt, G.A., 1986, The Dwelling Artifact: Analysis Ethnographic
152
Ph.D. diss., University California, of Los Dwellings,withArchaeological Implications. Angeles. of Soffer,0., 1985, The UpperPaleolithic the CentralRussianPlain.New York: Academic Press. of Hunter-Gatherers: ResTestart,A., 1982,The Significance FoodStorageamong idence Patterns,Population Current Densities,and SocialInequalities. Anthropology 23:523-37. Utilization KlasiesRiverMouthCaves. at Voigt,E.A., 1973, StoneAge Molluscan SouthAfrican of Journal Science69:306-9. Evidence Shellfish for Science Volman, T.P., 1978, EarlyArchaeological Collecting. 210:911-13.

BINFORD - Mobility, Housing, and Environment, A Comparative Study

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

BINFORD - Mobility, Housing, and Environment, A Comparative Study

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mobility, Housing, and Environment: A Comparative Study Author(s): Lewis R.

ANDENVIRONMENT: HOUSING, MOBILITY, A COMPARATIVE STUDY

OF RESEARCH JOURNAL ANTHROPOLOGICAL

AND HOUSING ENVIRONMENT MOBILITY,

Withthis briefintroduction housing the tropics,it is time to introduce in to

RESEARCH OF JOURNAL ANTHROPOLOGICAL

HOUSING ENVIRONMENT AND MOBILITY,

Mobility Fully nomadic Seminomadic Semisedentary Fully sedentary Total

Ground Surface 29 (93.6) 66 (70.9) 15 (48.4) 9 (42.9) 119 (67.6)

Pilings 0 0 0 1 (4.8) 1 (0.5)

in of Note:Numbers parentheses percentages in are calculatedterms rowtotals.

AND HOUSING ENVIRONMENT MOBILITY,

Roof Sides and of Same Material

Roof Sides and of Different Material

Primary Secondary Primary Secondary Primary Secondary

nomadic (96.6) Semi82

OF RESEARCH JOURNAL ANTHROPOLOGICAL

1 1 10 (4.8) (4.8) (47.6)

(15.9) (31.3) (10.2)

Note: Numbers parentheses percentages in are in calculated termsof row totals.

HOUSING ENVIRONMENT AND MOBILITY,

TABLE 5 Presence of AlternativeHouse Formsvs. Hunter-Gatherer Mobility

Note: Numbers parentheses percentages in are calculated termsof row totals. in

OF RESEARCH JOURNAL ANTHROPOLOGICAL

Hides Grass Bark Ice 0 2 6 0

Stone Earth Mats Wood Total 0

HOUSING ENVIRONMENT AND MOBILITY,

TABLE7 Portability of Housing vs. TransportTechnology

Humans and packdogs and Humans 1 draftanimals (11.1) Total 4

Note:Numbers parentheses percentages in calculatedterms rowtotals. in of are

OF RESEARCH JOURNAL ANTHROPOLOGICAL

ANDENVIRONMENT HOUSING MOBILITY,

RESEARCH OF JOURNAL ANTHROPOLOGICAL

ofEffective Dependence 10 on Plants 9 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Total

HOUSING ENVIRONMENT AND MOBILITY,

OF RESEARCH JOURNAL ANTHROPOLOGICAL

to to Returning the issue more germaneto the materials be considered

Effective Temperature (ET) 12 14 15 13 0 1 (6.0) 0

8 5 3 (47.0) (18.0) (29.0)

1 1 3 3 0 (11.0) (33.0) (33.0) (11.0) 2 8 0 3 3

7 1 1 1 1 2 8 (4.0) (4.0) (4.0) (8.0) (33.0) (29.0) (4.0) 4 1 1 1 1 6 6

(4.0) (24.0) (20.0) (32.0)

(6.0) (24.0) (29.0) (18.0) (12.0)

in in are calculated termsof rowtotals. Note: Numbers parentheses percentages

JOURNAL ANTHROPOLOGICAL OF RESEARCH

TABLE 11 on of Portabilityof Housingvs. RelativeDependence Hunter-Gatherers HuntedFoods (Terrestrial)

Dependence on Hunting 0-10 11-20 21-30

of Portability Housing Moderately Moderately Medium Low High 3 0 3

Note: Numbers parentheses percentages in in are calculated termsof row totals.

HOUSING ANDENVIRONMENT MOBILITY,

OF RESEARCH JOURNAL ANTHROPOLOGICAL

ET 9.8 9.1 10.8 11.4 11.6 12.7

10.9 11.1 11.3 11.6

820 600 190 727

ANDENVIRONMENT HOUSING MOBILITY,

OF RESEARCH JOURNAL ANTHROPOLOGICAL

HOUSING ENVIRONMENT AND MOBILITY,

Method none none none none none none

Facilities none none none none none none

none none none none none none

Southern Ute Cheyenne

bison meat, seeds bison meat, berries