Society for American Archaeology

Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology by Lewis R. Binford

Review by: Stephen C. Saraydar
American Antiquity, Vol. 45, No. 1 (Jan., 1980), pp. 203-205
Published by: Society for American Archaeology
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/279677 .
Accessed: 22/06/2014 05:09
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.

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

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 05:09:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

REVIEWS

quoian-speakingpeoples, it has not achieved the

same level of success with the Algonquian-speakers.
Indeed,we have the situationof southwesternMichigan being regarded as the protohistoricterritory of
the Mascouten(Goddard,p. 669) and the Potawatomi
(Clifton,p. 725) with the Fox, Sauk, and Kickapoo
somewhere a short distance to the east (Callender,
pp. 636, 648, and 656). Archaeologicalsites, producing early historic goods, have been located in
southwesternMichiganand althoughI would regard
these sites as pertainingto the Mascouten,it is questionable whether the closely related Fox, Sauk, and
Kickapoocan be distinguishedarchaeologicallyfrom
either the Mascouten or each other. The preceding
example is not unique to the volume and it is apparent that in many instances archaeology has not
providedthe necessary data for the effective application of the direct historical approach. In other instances, however, the archaeological evidence has
been ignored and often the prehistorydoes not flow
into the early history-ethnographyin a smooth
fashion and vice versa despite the existence of pertinent information.One of the major contributionsof
Volume 15 should be to broaden the perspective of
many scholars and, thereby, reduce an apparent
tendency towards parochialism.Finally, it is unfortunate that a statement on the contribution of
physical anthropologydoes not appear in the volume.
Withinthe space of a short review it is impossible
to present anythingapproachingan adequate assessment of such a major encyclopedic undertakinginvolving54 authorsand 73 articles. I have focused on
the archaeologicalaspects and, due to space limitations, my focus has been predominantlycritical. Consideringthe size of the study and the fact that it does,
after all, represent a tight distillationof an enormous
body of wide-ranginginformation,the preceding critical observationsare as minoras the volume'svery
few typographicaland other productionflaws. Volume 15 stands as a scholarlytributeto its organizers,
editors, and contributorsand it represents an essential reference source for anyone interested in the
native peoples of North America.

203

The basic premiseof this bookis that the Nunamiut

make "rational" choices concerning the manipulation of food resources (p. 453). Binforddevelopsa set
of utility indices that enables him to assess the
degree to which maximizingchoices are made with
respect to the nutritionalvalue of each part of the
Nunamiut's principal food sources (caribou and
sheep). Circumstancesapparentlybeyondhis control
resulted in a reference populationof only three individuals-one caribouand two domesticatedsheep,
with one sheep being in poor nutritionalcondition.
Althougha larger samplewouldhave been desirable,
the overall results of the study supportBinford'scontention that the indices derived from analyses of the
meat, marrow, and grease content of individual
anatomicalparts of these three animalsare reliable.
The correlationbetween boththe marrowand grease
indices and the actual preferences of the Nunamiut
for specific parts yieldingthese substances was high,
leading to the conclusionthat the indices are useful
for understandinghumanbehavior.
Modeling of behavior with respect to choices of
meat was less successful at first. Unlikethe selection
of marrow and grease producingbones, the author
"observed no single episode in which selection was
unambiguouslyconductedwith respect to consideration of meat yield alone" (p. 23). Attempts to elicit
preferences for specific parts from his informants
(with the stipulationthat only meat was to be considered)provedto be a frustratingconfrontationwith
the complexityof the real world, as more questions
were asked by the Nunamiutthan answered:
"Do you mean in the winter, or summer?Do you
mean during migration hunting or when we are
eating dried meat?"
They wanted to know if the weather was freezing,
if there was meat in storage at home,if their wives
were pregnant and so on-so I further stipulated
that the weather was freezing, no meat was at
home, and no wives were pregnant(p. 40).

Givensome answers, it became clear to Binfordthat

there was general agreementbetween his meat utility index and Nunamiutchoices, althoughthere were
Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology.LEWISR. BINFORD. some significantdeviationsdue to the fact that "maxAcademic Press, New York, 1978. xiii + 509 pp., il- imizingis not a static phenomenonbut may take diflus. $39.00
ferent forms under different sets of contingencies"
(p. 44). In this particular instance, the dynamics of
Reviewed by Stephen C. Saraydar, State University the situation involved the seasonal variabilityin fat
of New York,Oswego
content of the caribou, coupled with a bias against
lean meat.
In his concluding remarks, Lewis Binford voices
In the succeeding three chapters, Binford inhis expectation that the publication of this volume vestigates strategies for gainingspace, time, and conwill lead to a "flood"of misguidedcriticisms(p. 452). sumer utility from food resources;more specifically,
If past experience is any guide, his prophecy may he provides detailed accounts of observations of
prove true, because he has produced an ambitious butchering,transport,meat storage, foodprocessing,
study that some archaeologistswill find unsettling.I and consumption.These observationslead to a set of
expect, however, that manymore archaeologistsand more useful indices that permits assessment of the
anthropologistswith interests in human ecology will relative level of security of a particular group and
find this book a goldmineof valuable and truly pro- facilitates the identificationof particular strategies
vocative information.Althoughthe author's primary from the compositionof the resulting assemblages.
objectivewas to evaluate the utility of some basic ar- For example, the meat, marrow, and grease indices
chaeological concepts, Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology developed earlier are used to derive a modified
accomplishes considerablymore than this.
general utility index that takes into account the fact

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 05:09:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

204

AMERICANANTIQUITY

that animals are butchered into segments larger than

minimal anatomical units. Another example is a drying utility index that reflects the greater likelihood of
a particular part being dried successfully if the ratio
of dry bone weight to meat weight is high (indicating
a high exposed surface area of meat) and the marrow
content of the attached bones is low (marrow decays
rapidly). These and other indices form the basis of
explicitly derived models that allow the prediction of
the faunal assemblages that are created at different
sites along the logistical route.
It should be noted that Binford breaks with tradition in his approach to calculating minimum numbers
of individuals (MNIs) from bone counts. Rather than
tabulating bone counts in minimal units of one individual, the count for a particular bone is divided by
the total number of such bones in the complete
animal (hence, 1 observed femur yields a MNI of 0.5,
not 1). The justification offered for this procedure is
that it accords better with observations of the actual
ways in which animals are used for food. The fit between the models Binford develops and the data obtained by monitoring the activities of the Nunamiut
is, for the most part, impressive and confirms the
usefulness of his approach.
The next four chapters (one for each season) are
devoted to describing and modeling seasonal subsistence activities. The procedures developed in the
earlier chapters are applied to the analysis of sites
dating from the 1970s back to the 1800s. Binford is
not far from correct when he states, "I have the feeling that there may well be more facts than the reader
can assimilate" (p. 253). The data presented in these
chapers are almost overwhelming (173 graphs and
79 tables, with one table containing over 1,000 entries); the presentation suffers at times from inadequate explanation of some entries in the tables, most
notably the discrepancies between observed and expected values, and the curve-fitting in several of the
graphs is not particularly convincing. Furthermore,
there are a number of minor, but annoying, errors
throughout the book that should have been discovered before it went to press. Far more important,
though, is the simple fact that Binford's modeling of
Nunamiut behavior is effective.
Modeling unknown assemblages would obviously
be more difficult and the results less accurate. As
Binford remarks:
In my study of the spring system and situational
data such as drying racks, kill sites, and ice cellar
storage, I had near total control over the structural
facts of the cases. I knew how many decisions had
been made as well as their spatial and temporal
contexts within the systems (p. 300).
Nonetheless, the distinctive character of many of the
assemblages Binford identifies indicates that the
principal elements of the decision-making processes
behind them can be identified without "total control"
over the situation. When dealing with unknown assemblages the usual cautions must be observed, as
even a positive test for a specific model may not lead
to totally unambiguous conclusions; this is simply due

[Vol. 45, No. 1, 1980]

to the inherent limitations of the abductive logic that

archaeologists usually must rely on.
The implications of this study for many generally
accepted approaches to faunal analysis are clear: archaeologists presently rely on naive, simplistic
models that frequently do not accord with the facts of
human behavior. Contrary to claims that some
readers may wish to make, Binford states flatly that
his study is applicable (and indeed important) to
prehistoric archaeology, despite the cultural, temporal, and spatial distance between contemporary
Eskimos and the people of the Palaeolithic. Binford is
concerned with evaluating general procedures that,
if valid, should model the present as well as the recent and the remote past. The high degree of
variability that was documented for the Nunamiut
faunal assemblages could easily have been attributed largely to cultural differences by an unwary
archaeologist employing conventional methods. Since
these conventional approaches fail the Nunamiut test
case, placing confidence in their ability to model ancient sites accurately seems foolish. If one does not
first come to grips with the archaeological evidence
generated by the economic strategies of a single
culture, the identification of variability that is
culturally determined will be difficult at best, as
most archaeologists are well aware.
Finally, I wish to explain my remark that interest
in this book will extend well beyond the limits of the
archaeological community. The detail that Binford
provides on the functioning of the Nunamiut subsistence system will supply cultural ecologists with information that is extremely difficult and often impossible to find in the ethnographic literature. For example, one common justification for ethnoarchaeological research is that ethnographers rarely tell us
much about discard processes; obviously, archaeologists need to know about what is discarded and
where and when discard takes place. But what about
the purposes of different garbage dumps? Binford
advises us that the Nunamiut have discrete dumps
that actually serve as emergency caches, with certain bones being scavenged and reprocessed in time
of extreme need. He also provides more information
than is to be found anywhere else on caching strategy
in general and its precise articulation with the logistical and storage systems (e.g., where caches are built,
why they are built where they are, how they are used
and when they are used, and so on). In short, he provides in-depth descriptions of the decision-making
processes for procurement, sharing, hoarding, and
consumption strategies that cultural ecologists will
find most useful.
Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology is one of the more important contributions to the anthropological literature to come along in recent years. In it, Binford provides us with valuable, detailed information on human behavior and uses the material correlates of
that behavior to develop a new approach to the analysis and interpretation of faunal materials that promises increased understanding of the archaeological
record. This is a difficult and often tedious book
because the author includes the data that the serious
reader will need to evaluate and experiment with

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 05:09:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

REVIEWS

each step of his modeling procedures. In scope, substantive content, and originality of approach, this
book sets new standards for ethnoarchaeological
research and stands as the clearest testament to date
of its increasing importance in contemporary archaeology.

The Rise of Civilization: From Early Farmers to Urban

Society in the Ancient Near East. CHARLESE. REDMAN. Freeman, San Francisco, 1978. viii + 367 pp.,
ill., index (paper and hardback).
Reviewed by H. David Tuggle, University of Hawaii
at Manoa
I am not a specialist in the rise of civilization (must
civilization always rise?), so I review this volume for
its qualities as a text. And in a phrase, Redman's
treatment of the ancient Near East is one of the finest
regional prehistories available in the textbook field.
The focus of the study is greater Mesopotamia (Tigris-Euphrates, the hilly flanks, and the Levant); only
passing attention is given to Egypt while the Indus or
inter-Indus-Mesopotamian region is ignored entirely.
It develops the course of cultural change from about
10,000 to 2000 B.C. with emphasis on the agricultural and urban "transformations." The limited
coverage of space, time, and theme contributes to the
success of the volume because it allows a full development of problems and interpretation as well as
adequate presentation of data. It avoids the extremes
of textbook prehistories: an innocuous set of overgeneralizations on one hand or, on the other, a site
catalog (a Fodor's Guide for time travellers).
The organization of the volume, another contribution to its success, obviates my first impression that
the book was too long to serve as a supplementary
text or case study, which is considered by Redman to
be among its major purposes. The material is so well
arranged that assignments can be made selectively
with no difficulty and thus required reading can be
adjusted for specific courses.
For each of the major problems (understanding the
origin of agriculture and the beginnings of urban and
state society) material is presented in corresponding
sections: (1) context of the problem; (2) a set of explanatory hypotheses derived from the literature,
with a synthetic model formulated by Redman; (3)
methods of data recovery; (4) data summary; and (5)
summary discussion presenting an explanatory
scheme that brings model and data together.
The discussion of the context and the hypotheses
are clear enough to enable the student to ask questions. But these sections strike me, nonetheless, as
being the weakest of the book because the history of
ideas is not well developed. The sections on data recovery and analysis are directed at specific problems, such as the retrieval of direct botanical evidence for early agriculture or the means of investigating complex societies. This is an excellent feature
of the book and is far superior to the general summaries of archaeological method commonly found in

205

the introductory chapters of prehistories. For data

presentation Redman has chosen to describe a small
number of sites in detail and to summarize others.
This strategy works well; a good comprehension of
assemblages is obtained without going artifact blind.
Further, these sections are couched in terms of the
data relevant to the problems and, even more important, they include critical evaluations of the archaeological evidence pertinent to interpretation
(e.g., site sample and association). Such careful
handling of the data is seldom found in textbook summaries and thus adds greatly to the utility of this book
as a case study.
The explanatory orientation of the book is ecological, but it is primarily a functionalist ecology. Other
ecological views, such as competition theory, are
given little attention. As such, the overall line of argument maintains an internal coherence. Explanatory
models are presented in the familiar wiring diagrams
of systems interaction (I find myself on occasion hoping for the reemergence of a good prime mover).
These are accompanied by lucid discussions of
variable interaction, particularly in the case of the
settlement-subsistence model relating to agricultural
transformation. Explanations for failed cultural systems are also integrated into the overall scheme so
that a picture of unmitigated human progress is not
painted.
Explanatory discussions drift on occasion toward
information and decision-making theory, but nonecological models of cultural change are essentially ignored. Expatiations of such models would not be required, but some mention would alert the reader to
the fact that there are alternative concepts regarding the nature of the world. But, no matter; this gives
the instructor a reason for being.
I do have a few other quibbles. The concept of archaeological testing seems oversimplified, particularly in view of the complex models that are under
consideration. Women should have been discussed in
more detail or not at all (the brevity of the material
presented is misleading). The problem of power in
society could have been dealt with more fully. I would
trade these amplifications for the exclusion of the
discussion of Fried's and Service's models of hierarchies of organization. Redman makes an attempt to
use these models as "heuristic" devices, but at the
same time he expresses concern about how to
recognize such cultural types in the archaeological
record: conflicting enterprises. Fortunately this effort is quickly abandoned and the models largely
forgotten. Such models have lost their utility in archaeology, a point which Redman tacitly supports by
his failure to make effective use of them throughout
the book.
The writing is not engrossing, but it is generally
clear, which is perhaps the most that can be asked of
a text. Jargon does not overburden the book, and
where it does occur (primarily in the introductory
sections) it can be handled by the instructor.
Awkward phrasing has been kept to a minimum and
is generally trivial (e.g., "people in the Near East, it
seems, like to utilize food"). Well-chosen illustrations
and numerous maps enhance the usefulness of the

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 05:09:29 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions