Catherine Panter-Brick, Robert H. Layton, Peter Rowley-Conwy, eds.. Hunter- Gatherers: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. xii + 341 pp. $95.00, cloth, ISBN 978-0-521-77210-5.

Reviewed by James B. Petersen

Published on H-SAfrica (October, 2002)

The Continuing Importance of Hunter-Gather‐ broad range of professional anthropologists and er Studies in their students, including Africanists and others This new book is a critical contribution to the for whom hunter-gatherers are important. ongoing study of hunter-gatherer societies in an‐ This volume complements various other rela‐ thropology, attempting to bridge sub-disciplinary tively recent publications on hunter-gatherers. boundaries in an integrated, interdisciplinary These other works include important book-length fashion. To this reviewer it appears more multi- publications, as emphasized here, by Robert L. disciplinary than truly interdisciplinary because Bettinger, Ernest S. Burch and Linda J. Ellana; Tim of the rather diverse and little-integrated nature Ingold, et al.; Robert L. Kelly; Eleanor Leacock and of most of the eleven chapters, a situation that is Richard Lee; and Richard B. Lee and Irven De‐ difcult to overcome in edited volumes like this Vore.[1] Other works include those by Richard B. one. The three editors certainly sketch some ele‐ Lee and Richard Daly; T. Douglas Price and James ments of the interdisciplinary approach in their A. Brown; Carmel Schrire; and Nancy M. Williams introductory chapter and one can sense the po‐ and Eugene Hunn, among various others.[2] The tential for such symbiotic and synergistic re‐ present volume, like others, adequately demon‐ search in other chapters as well. Regardless, it is strates the continuing relevance of hunter-gather‐ an outstanding contribution to the broad feld of er studies to the anthropological endeavor in oth‐ hunter-gatherer studies in general and the editors er words. As explicitly (but briefy) outlined in the are to be heartily congratulated for the fne re‐ introduction to this volume, contributions to wards of their labor here. This book should re‐ hunter-gatherer studies have been diverse over mind us of the centrality of hunter-gatherer stud‐ the past thirty-four to thirty-fve years--that is, ies in anthropology, just as hunter-gatherers are since publication of the landmark volume Man arguably central to the experience of being hu‐ the Hunter, based on a multi-disciplinary confer‐ man in the frst place. It will be of interest to ence in the mid-1960s.[3] However, new contribu‐ H-Net Reviews tions since the publication of Man the Hunter and the dominant nation-states within which they have typically emphasized one or another area of are now situated.[10] hunter-gatherer studies, whether archaeology, Much of this diferential research focus is in‐ ethnography, biology, or some other aspect. evitable, given our individual and collective focus Cumulatively, these works continue to move and capabilities. Nonetheless, the incomplete na‐ hunter-gatherer studies generally forward, but it ture of any one study or research project shows still remains to individual researchers to put the us that we need to continue to develop new tech‐ diferent pieces together and all too few of us niques and new critical perspectives in hunter- have done so. Consequently, most hunter-gatherer gatherer studies, combining anthropological ele‐ research is incomplete and not integrated, no ments from archaeology, biological anthropology, matter how large and signifcant the individual linguistics, and socio- when‐ contributions may be. For example, we have ever and wherever possible. It is this dimension splendid new diachronic data on archaeological of collectivity that is perhaps the most important sequences and other archaeological information contribution of this book and where it begins to for hunter-gatherers in Australia, South Africa break new ground in various areas within the and the Arctic of North America and Greenland. broad spectrum of hunter-gatherer studies, in‐ [4] These works often lack a truly biological scope, cluding aspects of ecology, biology and so‐ however.[5] ciety. Yet, there is still more to do in this regard In addition, we have relatively new and won‐ and truly interdisciplinary research remains derful ethnographic and ecological examples of somewhat of an elusive goal, as we shall see in data on hunter-gatherers in the few areas world‐ looking at the individual chapters in this recent wide where hunter-gatherers have escaped com‐ volume. plete encapsulation within market economies. To begin a chapter-by-chapter review of the Many examples might be cited, but only a few can present publication, Panter-Brick, Layton and be referenced here.[6] In this case, the perspective Rowley-Conwy paint a broad but brief picture of is typically synchronic, with little time depth and/ hunter-gatherers and hunter-gatherer studies in or often little or no sense of the human biology in‐ their introductory chapter to the volume. They re‐ volved, even in some cases where archaeologists view trends in recent research and publication, are involved.[7] Other cases are strictly historical, documenting the distance that most studies have with some useful time depth but again human bi‐ moved away from biological anthropology and ology is rarely mentioned, often by design.[8] human ecology, as represented by the recent vol‐ Rich and largely unprecedented biological ume by Lee and Daly (1999), for example. Conse‐ and demographic data for contemporary hunter- quently, the volume editors set an agenda that gathers have been presented elsewhere, but these centers on three major questions: "Is 'hunter-gath‐ too often lack time depth.[9] Thus, it is very dif‐ erer' a meaningful category? How have hunter- cult to determine whether the available data are gatherers been characterized by previous re‐ representative of past people in the same region. search? How do we approach hunter-gatherer Linguistic data are even more rarely addressed variability?" (p. 2). As they tell us, they answer the for hunter-gatherers. Yet, hunter-gatherer lan‐ frst two questions themselves and then outline guages are arguably even more endangered than how the other ten chapters help address the ques‐ the societies themselves, given the likelihood of tion of variability. language shift of such groups in favor of lan‐ To answer the frst question, the editors pro‐ guages brought by intrusion of their neighbors vide their own defnition of hunting and gather‐

2 H-Net Reviews ing as "subsistence activities entailing negligible ers and "optimal foraging models." Winterhalder control over the gene pool of food resources" (p. reiterates the primacy of economy here as distinct 3) and rightly conclude that this is still a meaning‐ from what he believes to be derivative features ful and useful category in anthropology. However, such as "band-level" socio-political organization following Lee and Daly and many others, they and "egalitarian" status. In looking at variability, equate hunting and gathering with "foraging" so one might question the necessary correlation here as not to privilege the hunting (or any other) part in these features since we can cite examples of of the defnition. As an aside and following the hunter-gatherers who presumably once demon‐ suggestion of Alice Kehoe, this may well be an un‐ strated something other than band structures and fortunate, if entrenched, choice of terminology. that were certainly non-egalitarian. These cases This is because standard dictionary defnitions of were likely the exception, rather than the rule, "forage" and "foraging" seem to suggest various however, at least in terms of egalitarian status things besides "the act of foraging," or the "search and their occurrence can be correlated with un‐ for provisions" such as "food for animals," "to usually rich environments, as far as we can tell, as strip of provisions," "spoil or plunder," "ravage," among the Calusa and Northwest Coast cultures in "raid," or "rummage." None of these alternative North America, for example. In any case, Winter‐ meanings, besides searching for provisions, seems halder at least pays lip service to the recognition to be the message we would choose to associate of hunter-gatherer variability, since he admits with hunter-gatherers and some greater degree of that "[t]hey vary along every imaginable dimen‐ terminological precision may well be prudent in sion of socio-economic comparison" and then goes this case. on to emphasize four generalizations. These in‐ In examining the editors' second question clude "apparent under-production, and a general about past characterizations of hunting and gath‐ lack of material accumulation;" "routine food ering, they readily admit that hunting and gather‐ sharing;" "egalitarianism;" and "a routine division ing goes beyond subsistence to include social or‐ of labor between the...activities of males and fe‐ ganization and ideology/cosmology/world view. males." Given the diversity of hunter-gatherers and relat‐ This reviewer began to lose his grip on this ed details, the editors sensibly advocate a "fne- chapter when Winterhalder edged his way into a grained" assessment where possible of their rela‐ standard behavioral ecology perspective, as seen tionship to natural environments and presumably before.[11] "Optimisation" is certainly a useful hy‐ social environments as well, although this is not pothetical construct and does a lot to help build made fully explicit here. In any case, they go on to models to account for human behavior, but it is point out that it is the variability in hunter-gather‐ only a model. As Winterhalder readily admits, he er behavior and their fexibility that has become is "self-consciously reductionist" in his "resource more characteristic of and more appropriate in selection" (or "diet choice") model, using a micro- contemporary hunter-gather studies, rather than economic concept, "opportunity costs," or the fact the normative, reductionist approaches of the that pursuing one thing precludes pursuing an‐ past. Sketching some of the dimensions of this other. Other micro-economic concepts in this variability is fnally emphasized, where they high‐ work include "marginal analysis" and a series of light some of the key contributions of the other related "production" and "distribution" theories volume participants. derived from behavioral ecology. This chapter In chapter 2, Bruce Winterhalder outlines his does a good job of outlining such approaches and "behavioral ecology" approach to hunter-gather‐ Winterhalder is very honest about them, but his model is not completely convincing, nor does it

3 H-Net Reviews provide a good case study where the concepts are these four types include groups that move few, if thoroughly applied and tested, at least not here. any, resources in "logistical" fashion and store few One has the feeling that these theoretical contri‐ or no resources; those that move resources logisti‐ butions are more hypothetical than practical, al‐ cally, but do not defend their territories; logistical though Winterhalder has done a good job of ex‐ groups that defend their territories; and those plaining them conceptually. that are sedentary, defend their territories, and Chapter 3 by Peter Rowley-Conwy assesses an store resources. Rowley-Conwy builds on past re‐ "icon" among hunter-gatherer studies over the search here, but his exposition is clear and well past twenty to thirty years, the concept of the presented. He goes on further to present a survey "Original Afuent Society," as frst proposed by of archaeological examples of hunter-gatherers Marshall Sahlins.[12] In reality, the "Original Af‐ that enable him to debunk six rather standard as‐ fuent Society" stands in for hunter-gatherer soci‐ sumptions about hunter-gatherers. These stan‐ eties in general, as described in the Man the dard assumptions are that there has been a long- Hunter volume, or so Sahlins apparently rea‐ term trend from "simple" to more "complex" soned. As a corrective measure against past hunter-gatherer forms over time; early modern stereotypes, Sahlins proposed another, namely exhibited only "simple" hunter-gatherer that hunter-gatherers were more "afuent" than forms; change toward complexity occurred slow‐ traditionally recognized, using scant data derived ly; change toward complexity was irreversible; from the San in southern Africa and Australian change toward hunter-gatherer complexity was a Aboriginals. With more precise data available to‐ step toward farming; and the most interesting day and further thinking on the matter, Rowley- hunter-gatherers are those who became farmers. Conwy addresses this question again and points Although this reviewer may be biased because of out the demonstrable variability among ethno‐ my background as an anthropological archaeolo‐ graphic hunter-gatherer and the greater difcul‐ gist, for my money this is a clever chapter and one ties of assessing this for archaeological groups. of the best in the book, largely because it usefully Some groups have been more complex related to challenges stereotypes about hunter-gatherers in greater economic intensifcation for diferent rea‐ broad contexts. Even though I am not ready to sons and thus, more "afuent," and others have completely throw out the utility of past stereo‐ not been "afuent," at least for reasons commonly types in all cases, this is an important revisionist understood. For Rowley-Conwy, local responses to review and an important contribution. environmental conditions and historical factors In chapter 4, Robin Torrence addresses have been more infuential in hunter-gatherer di‐ hunter-gatherer technology on multiple scales, versifcation than simply the passage of time--this both micro and macro in perspective, in some is, in his words, an "adaptationist" view. This view ways paralleling the scope and tenor of Rowley- counters past ideas about the necessary, in‐ Conwy's chapter. Torrence begins by explaining evitable and slow increase in complexity over that material culture and technology in general time among hunter-gatherers, or what can be have been ignored in recent anthropological re‐ called the "progressivist" view. Thus, following the search because of the rejection of the inevitability adaptationist logic, one can also question the mat‐ of cultural evolution and the role of technology in ter of "originality" in the "Original Afuent Soci‐ such theories. This is almost a truism, but it is im‐ ety." portant to be cognizant of this fact when we won‐ Rowley-Conwy also proposes a four-fold ty‐ der why we don't know more about hunter-gath‐ pology of hunter-gatherers. Speaking broadly, erer technologies archaeologically and ethno‐ graphically. We agree that ignoring material cul‐

4 H-Net Reviews ture and technology is akin to throwing out the tions from these expectations are of the greatest baby with the bath water. Variability in technolo‐ interest in hunter-gatherer research. gy still remains an important part of hunter-gath‐ Kuhn and Stiner use their expectations to de‐ erer research in general and various researchers scribe, compare and contrast the Middle Paleolith‐ have promulgated this view for some time.[13] ic period (a.k.a. "Mousterian" technology) (maxi‐ For Torrence, "technology" can be defned as mally ca. 250,000-30,000 years ago) with the Late a complex nexus of "physical actions," "chosen Upper Paleolithic (ca. 20,000-10,000 years ago) in materials," and "desired outcomes," as well as the western Eurasia (but not in Africa for the African‐ tools and other forms of material culture them‐ ists reading this). This is a detailed comparative selves and their applications. Moreover, technolo‐ analysis and their characterizations seem sound gy exists within social, symbolic, and historical at frst to someone who doesn't specialize in these contexts and this too makes it a matter worthy of periods and environmental settings. They con‐ focused research. It should be studied both on the clude that Late Upper Paleolithic and more recent "macro," broadly comparative level as well as on hunter-gatherers are distinguished from the Mid‐ the "micro," often more particular, level. We are dle Paleolithic by "greater technological invest‐ further reminded: "Technology is devised to suit a ment in response to seasonal or unpredictable task, but the exact details are culturally condi‐ food supplies" and a landscape more flled with tioned. Everyone [within a particular group] is people and the need "to manipulate social ties" to unlikely to be aware of every option and once one bufer resource risks (p. 128). However, it should has been chosen, it may condition and limit fur‐ be emphasized that Kuhn and Stiner's agenda ther options" (p. 87). This is a particularly impor‐ clearly seeks to diferentiate Middle Paleolithic tant point when one chooses to work with materi‐ from Late Upper Paleolithic behavior and they al culture as a marker of social identity in archae‐ take various measures up front to help their case. ology and ethnography alike. It also obviously For example, they omit consideration of the Early pertains in the study of hunter-gatherer gender, Upper Paleolithic period (ca. 35,000-20,000 years "ethnicity," and symbolism, among other topics. ago), which to some degree is difcult to deal with [14] but may explain admitted continuities. Likewise, Chapter 5 by Steven L. Kuhn and Mary C. Stin‐ they omit review of the African continent over er address the antiquity of hunter-gatherer adap‐ this entire span for the same reason, that is, they tations as manifested in the archaeological wish to minimize the clinal diferences that ap‐ record, especially in reference to the common parently then characterized hunter-gatherers stereotype that they represent 99 percent of the there. evolutionary history of humans. They propose Elsewhere, again, when the authors evaluate outlining the limits of modern, ethnographically some of the relevant evidence for their review of known hunter-gatherers over about the past 150 changes in western Eurasia they tell us that Mid‐ years as a baseline for comparison with earlier dle Paleolithic/Mousterian material culture lacks archaeological evidence, with particular emphasis geographic trends within the study area. They go on subsistence and technology because of their on to admit that Middle Paleolithic/Mousterian ubiquity in the archaeological record. Like Row‐ groups lived across diverse environments, had ley-Conwy and Torrence, Kuhn and Stiner useful‐ varied tools across geography, and at least some ly outline their general expectations about long-distance transport of lithic (stone) materials. hunter-gatherers and then propose that the devia‐ Secondly, Middle Paleolithic/Mousterian groups focused on "high-ranked prey," or prey that would

5 H-Net Reviews produce signifcant food when successfully taken, long-term continuity among indigenous people but they did take some small prey and overall worldwide, McConvell tells us that a more com‐ their resource mixtures varied with latitude, as plex set of circumstances pertains in most, if not for later groups. So, what do these diferences all, areas. Local changes in languages have been mean vis-a-vis later Upper Paleolithic and modern certainly exacerbated by colonial forces over the hunter-gatherers, who have typically (but not uni‐ past 500 years or so, with major language shifts formly) shown such geographic trends in their and spreads occurring among many hunter-gath‐ tools and a greater dependence on lesser-ranked erers and others. Distribution models of language game? patchiness, random expansions and contractions It is not possible to fully review any aspect of for hunter-gatherers (and their farming neigh‐ this intriguing chapter here, but various other bors, among others) are not really appropriate, data might have been incorporated into it, both according to McConvell. He recognizes the impor‐ from the same region and from others. Some of tance of language contacts and convergence over these data would help us demonstrate more long- divergences, and standard divergence and migra‐ term continuity than diference over the time tion scenarios can be generally rejected. Lan‐ span in question and between the study area and guage divergence does occur in some cases, but various other areas worldwide, perhaps leading only in a "punctuated equilibrium" fashion, with to quite diferent conclusions. Alternatively, one periods of rapid change as occurred during colo‐ might turn the question around and investigate nial interchange. Migration of people is some‐ the mechanisms inherent in behavior that ac‐ times responsible for language spread, but lan‐ count for so little diversity in tool forms within guage shift is also possible. In the end, McConvell Middle Paleolithic/Mousterian assemblages--how give priority to neither migration nor language was this relative uniformity developed and main‐ shift as the means of language spread historical‐ tained over immense distances for such a long ly--language spread occurs by either one or both time? Were they so broadly generalized and/or mechanisms. adapted that there was little need for much varia‐ Renee Pennington reviews hunter-gatherer tion? We might raise various other questions, but demography in chapter 7, with demography de‐ in the end there is no reason to mount such a cri‐ scribing numerically how groups behave spatially, tique here since the authors readily recognize marry, reproduce and die. Birth and death rates continuity, as well as diference, over time among are important in demographic approaches, but hunter-gatherers at some level. Kuhn and Stiner they do not constitute the whole of this research appropriately admit that "Many profound arena. Pennington points out that there are few changes in hominid adaptations occurred prior to such data available for hunter-gatherers and this the Upper Paleolithic and some of these remain hampers our understanding of some basic ques‐ essential to what it is to be human" (p. 128). tions. Nonetheless, using the available data, we In Chapter 6, Patrick McConvell addresses the see that "hunter-gatherers" have a "total fertility issues of "language shift" and "language spread" rate" (expected number of births during a wom‐ for hunter-gatherers. "Language shift" is the aban‐ an's reproductive span) that ranges from 2.6 to 8. donment of one language for another without However, some of the groups included here (e.g., population replacement, while "language spread" Cayapo, Cashinahua, and Xavante in South Ameri‐ is just what the name implies, the expansion of a ca) are not "true" hunters-gatherers, as I know language over time. Though it has become fash‐ from my own research in Amazonia, but their re‐ ionable to downplay language shift in favor of

6 H-Net Reviews moval from the overall sample does not change hunter-gatherers cross-culturally. Unfortunately, the picture in any case. studies of energy expenditure, like energy in in‐ Perhaps even more usefully Pennington ad‐ take models, have been rare for hunter-gatherers dresses the commonly held assumption that and Jenike goes on to suggest a general model of sedentization causes an increase in the total fertil‐ how all such components should be integrated. ity rate for a given group, including hunter-gath‐ The challenge in all such future studies is to fully erers and others. Instead, the increase in total fer‐ integrate information from diferent aspects of tility may be more due to the introduction of an‐ nutritional ecology to address variability among tibiotics and other modern medicine since she hunter-gatherers. fnds ample evidence of infertility caused by in‐ Alain Froment reviews the ecological and ge‐ fectious disease, specifcally sexually transmitted netic aspects of the evolution of modern hunter- diseases, among sedentary and non-sedentary gatherers. He quickly acknowledges that this has groups, as in Africa and the Pacifc. She thorough‐ been a "way of life" defned culturally and not bio‐ ly reviews the case of the mobile versus sedentary logically, although some researchers have looked !Kung in comparison with other hunter-gatherers for "biological outcomes" shaped by their close‐ for total fertility, birth intervals, and survival, and ness to the environment, the small size and mobil‐ goes on to broader conclusions. Pennington con‐ ity of their groups, diet and work. Froment re‐ cludes that the available hunter-gatherer data views questions about adaptation to ecological suggest that humans have more likely experi‐ constraints such as climate and diet in hunter- enced both boom and bust over time, rather than gatherer biological evolution, including, among slow, steady growth based on fertility rates and others, whether a small body size and other survival rates, again more akin to "punctuated anatomical traits are related to hunting and gath‐ equilibrium." ering, whether these traits changed recently, In chapter 8, Mark R. Jenike presents an over‐ whether their generalized "diet" is optimum in an view of "nutritional ecology," focusing on subsis‐ evolutionary sense, whether things changed with tence ecology among hunter-gatherers. Human the advent of farming, and what does their future nutrition, diet, and food-getting behavior are pri‐ hold? After a detailed review, Froment concludes mary areas of concern, along with energy "bud‐ that the question of typical small body size for gets," pathogens and body growth. Of note, the hunter-gatherers cannot be conclusively an‐ quantitative research of Richard Lee and others swered by any of the available hypotheses and he among the !Kung inspired comparable nutritional addresses many other general biological ques‐ research among various other hunter-gatherer tions as related to ecological constraints. For ex‐ groups. Jenike suggests up front that the nutrition‐ ample, he suggests with good reason that modern al ecology of modern hunter-gatherers is likely to hunter-gatherer diets have become less varied be more marginal than many past groups, and so than they were in the past due to recent transfor‐ we must be cautious about overgeneralizing from mations. In fact, many no longer depend on hunt‐ the modern data, however suggestive and useful ed and/or gathered food sources much, if at all-- these data may be. Nonetheless, information on cultivated foods have become increasingly impor‐ seasonal and within-group variability leads him tant, whether produced by them or external farm‐ to question normative models since these models ers.[15] probably mask actual variability in all cases. Fur‐ Moving on to genetic questions among ther, Jenike suggests it was energy, rather than hunter-gatherers, Froment addresses a range of protein, that was the limiting factor among issues ranging from the "gracilisation" and other

7 H-Net Reviews forms of genetic plasticity to genetic diferentia‐ and even the immaterial in a rich, symbolic world tion across space and time, as well as health con‐ bound up with social and cultural phenomena. straints, epidemiology, infectious disease, viruses She usefully goes on to portray how anthropolo‐ and bacteria, parasites, and chronic diseases. The gists have studied "art" in the past, including details scattered across the examples Froment re‐ structuralist, psychological and ethnoaesthetic ap‐ views are fascinating, but it is difcult to draw proaches, for example, but typically in a syn‐ many conclusions from these disparate data be‐ chronic, static perspective rather than a diachron‐ yond the general observation that hunter-gather‐ ic, processual one. Obviously, we need to combine ers share many health problems with the rest of both perspectives and Conkey seeks to remedy us, not living in a "Garden of Eden," or any other this, at least in brief. "lost Paradise." Froment briefy discusses how In terms of the forms of hunter-gatherer "art," "[f]or most indigenous minorities, the transi‐ Conkey reminds us that archaeological examples tion to modernisation is [a] synonym of impover‐ are strongly conditioned by preservation condi‐ ishment, racism, violence, alcoholism, drug addic‐ tions. Many, many examples have been undoubt‐ tion, suicide and social disintegration. In fact, the edly lost over time archaeologically, with only tendency to consume toxic substances can be some forms such as "rock art" (pictographs and symptomatic of an unconscious desire of self-de‐ petroglyphs) and carved sculpture surviving. The struction, and a mute protest against the collapse loss of most organic and "perishable" forms of of the old values. For Pygmy, San, Negrito, Inuit material culture is nearly ubiquitous.[16] Using and other economically marginal groups, ways of ethnographic and rare archaeological examples, life have already changed or will soon do so, with however, we can begin to see the richness and modifcations of the environment, such as game breadth of what were once characteristic "art" depletion and competition from other types of forms among hunter-gatherers. The importance economies." (pp. 258-259) of their cultural contexts emerges in ethnographic Finally, he concludes by saying, "In the end, examples, even though here too the record is in‐ the biological consequences of modernity for complete due to losses brought by colonialism hunter-gatherer groups will be dictated by the and culture contact.[17] Using fne-grained tech‐ evolution of social prejudice against them, their niques we are also learning to more fully assess access to school, afuence and health facilities, previously ignored archaeological specimens and the acknowledgement of traditional rights to land, these too demonstrate artistic richness, although as well as their own choices in the matter of de‐ it is never easy to reconstruct the precise contexts velopment" (p. 260). of past cultures. In chapter 10, Margaret W. Conkey provides How are we to interpret hunter-gatherer an overview of "art" among hunter-gatherers, "art"? This topic transcends this tantalizing chap‐ with emphasis given to those examples that sur‐ ter by Conkey. Nonetheless, she suggests that "for‐ vive in the archaeological record. Conkey identi‐ mal" and "technological" approaches and some fes three aspects of most interest here: clarifca‐ "universalist premises" are all relevant. The frst tion of what "art" is, consideration of the range of two of these areas would seem to be self-evident, "art" forms among hunter-gatherers, and inter‐ but Conkey is correct in explicitly mentioning pretation of "art" in these settings. To answer the them since they have been too often ignored in frst question, Conkey (and many other anthropol‐ contemporary anthropology as "trivial." In the ogists) tell(s) us that "art" is inseparable from oth‐ case of the "universalist premises," however, er aspects of hunter-gatherer "material culture" these can be problematical and reductionist in

8 H-Net Reviews cases where uniformly applied and/or assumed, Northwest Coast of North America, northern Eu‐ rather than tested as hypotheses. She goes on to rope, and the Kalahari, for example. Layton men‐ show some of the insights that can be gained tions that for the Kalahari, Ed Wilmsen has sug‐ through studying hunter-gatherer "art," using rich gested that Iron Age pastoralists arrived as early ethnographic examples from the Northwest Coast as 200 B.C.-A.D. 400 and thus, hunter-gatherers of North America and Australia. In the end, this is there have had a long and varied series of interac‐ a compelling chapter that one might wish to see tions with others.[18] One might usefully cite the expanded. work of Rob Gordon here, too.[19] The case of In chapter 11, Robert H. Layton takes a sober Arnhem Land in Australia shows us that Aborigi‐ look at the veracity of modern groups as hunter- nals were not farming historically, but they could gatherers and the use of ethnographic data to re‐ have easily done so after repeated contact with construct adaptations in the past, what has been farmer-fshermen from the Macassan islands. previously called "ethnographic analogy." More‐ Layton makes the intriguing suggestion that this over, this chapter reviews the nature of interac‐ was due to the fact that hunting and gathering tions between hunter-gatherers and non-hunter- was more efcient than farming in Arnhem Land. gatherers and the efects of these interactions. [20] These cases and others, too, show that symbi‐ Much of it is related to hunter-gatherers in a lon‐ otic relationships between hunter-gatherers and gitudinal perspective. One particular angle is others are quite common, and in some cases whether they demonstrate a continuous history of reach dependence, even though it is not necessar‐ hunting and gathering, and whether they deter‐ ily an economic necessity. Perhaps more fascinat‐ mine the course of their own lives ("genuine" ing are the cases of "oscillation" from hunter-gath‐ hunter-gatherers, as employed previously, but de‐ erer to farmer and/or pastoralist and back to fned by Layton). Alternatively, they may be now hunter-gatherer. marginalized dependents and/or they have been Layton reviews the efects of state policy on transformed to modern hunter-gatherers from hunter-gatherers in several ways, emphasizing some other economic pattern ("spurious" hunter- frst how much they have been changed by colo‐ gatherers). This case is briefy reviewed in terms nial forces and the fact that none had escaped of information on the !Kung in the Kalahari some change by the time they were frst met by Desert and allows Layton to raise a series of pri‐ anthropologists. I would be willing to argue this mary questions about how hunter-gatherers have latter point with Layton and some of his sources, responded and changed through contact with however, at least in terms of the degree of change. non-hunter-gatherers. As with several other chap‐ Layton cites notable examples such as Knud Ras‐ ter authors, Layton portrays the dangers in look‐ mussen's report on the Netsilik Inuit of the north‐ ing at hunter-gatherers in a static fashion. He goes ern Canadian Arctic at the time of the "Fifth Thule on to emphasize the likelihood of hunter-gatherer Expedition" in the 1920s, and Baldwin Spencer change and adaptation over time, even where due and Frank J. Gillin's report on the Central Desert to environmental conditions and/or internal cre‐ Aboriginals of Australia during the 1890s.[21] ativity, rather than due to external pressures from Twenty years or so of contact with "pastoralists" farmers and others, including other hunter-gath‐ (Anglo-Australian cattle ranchers) had occurred erers, both before and during colonial times. before Spencer arrived in the Central Desert, Archaeological data help Layton demonstrate whereas the failed "John Franklin Expedition" his point about change beyond and before colo‐ into the High Arctic predated Rasmussen in the nialism in various regions, as in Australia, the region by seventy to eighty years. I would argue that these events did not fundamentally alter the

9 H-Net Reviews socio-cultural fabric of these hunter-gatherer the text throughout this publication, although groups, or alter them much at all. Nonetheless, I (just) a relatively tiny number of errors crept into subscribe to Layton's basic point here, which is it. Moreover, although it is a "handsome" produc‐ that some degree of cultural contact and change tion and more or less well illustrated, a few more preceded the documentation of most, if not all, visual representations certainly would have been hunter-gatherer groups worldwide. useful, notably more photographs of hunter-gath‐ Layton's later discussion of the efects of erers themselves. ranching more generally, the "conservationism" A single photograph of people, a San group in movement and national parks, and hunter-gather‐ the Kalahari, is included as a suitable cover illus‐ er "land rights" provide a polite condemnation of tration, but all readers in general and students in how hunter-gatherers have been treated in many particular would have profted from more such il‐ diferent areas. While these aspects of recent his‐ lustrations within the book itself. In some ways, it tory are generally depressing, one can be positive feels like this was done intentionally to "objectify" about some aspects of hunter-gatherer land the book and render the various contributions rights, as discussed and not discussed in this chap‐ more "scientifc," or is it not fashionable to collect ter. "Ayers Rock," or "Uluru," in the Central Desert "visual" images any more? However, this may be is a good example, but it is not specifcally dis‐ reading too much into the fnal design and com‐ cussed.[22] The case of Nunavut is discussed in position on the part of the authors and the editors this chapter. Nunavut was created less than ten among them. In the end, I wouldn't recommend years ago and instituted in 1999 as an Inuit terri‐ the book in its entirety for undergraduate stu‐ tory in northern Canada, including an immense dents since it is rather technical in spots. Nonethe‐ landscape carved out of the pre-existing North‐ less, graduate students, hunter-gatherer special‐ west Territories of Canada. Perhaps the good done ists and a broad range of anthropologists will fnd there is outweighed by another Canadian exam‐ this an important publication and worthy of in‐ ple cited by Layton, however, the case of the clusion in their personal and institutional li‐ James Bay Cree (First Nations) people of northern braries. Bravo to one and all involved in this out‐ Quebec, also in Canada, where several indigenous standing work! hunter-gatherer groups have been struggling for Notes thirty years against massive hydroelectric devel‐ [1]. Robert L. Bettinger, Hunter-Gatherers: Ar‐ opment. The battle lines are drawn with cases like chaeological and Evolutionary Theory (New York these. At bottom, Layton tells us that he considers and London: Plenum Press, 1991); Ernest S. Burch the "tendency for hunter-gatherers with very dif‐ and Linda J. Ellana, eds., Key Issues in Hunter- ferent histories to converge on particular solu‐ Gatherer Research (Oxford and Washington, D.C.: tions to living in certain environments more in‐ Berg, 1994); Tim Ingold, David Riches, and James sightful, in understanding the role of hunting and Woodburn, eds., Hunters and Gatherers I: Histo‐ gathering in human evolution, than the hypotheti‐ ry, Evolution and Social Change (Oxford and cal conservation of an ancestral condition" (p. Washington, D.C.: Berg, 1988); Tim Ingold, David 315). Riches, and James Woodburn, eds., Hunters and In conclusion, this publication is an impor‐ Gatherers II: Power, Property and Ideology (Ox‐ tant contribution to hunter-gatherer studies, a ford and Washington, D.C.: Berg, 1988); Robert L. very important one. In general, the editors (and Kelly, The Foraging Spectrum: Diversity in contributing authors) are to be heartily congratu‐ Hunter-Gatherer Lifeways (Washington, D.C., and lated on the careful writing and composition of London: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1995);

10 H-Net Reviews

Eleanor Leacock and Richard Lee, eds., Politics ley, The Behavioral Ecology of Efe Pygmy Men in and History in Band Societies (Cambridge: Cam‐ the Ituri Forst, Zaire (Ann Arbor: University of bridge University Press, 1982); and Richard B. Lee Michigan Press, 1991); Alan Barnard, Hunters and and Irven DeVore, eds., Kalahari Hunter-Gather‐ Herders of Southern Africa: A Comparative ers: Studies of the !Kung San and Their Neighbors Ethnography of the Khoisan Peoples (Cambridge: Cambridge: Press, 1976). Cambridge University Press, 1992); Diane Bell, [2]. Richard B. Lee and Richard Daly, The Daughters of the Dreaming (Minneapolis: Univer‐ Cambridge Encyclopedia of Hunters and Gather‐ sity of Minnesota Press, 1993); Roy R. Grinker, ers (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge Univer‐ Houses in the Rain Forest: Ethnicity and Inequali‐ sity Press, 1999); T. Douglas Price and James A. ty among Farmers and Foragers in Central Africa Brown, Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers: The Emer‐ (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994); gence of Cultural Complexity (Orlando: Academic Carl Hofman, The Punan: Hunter and Gatherers Press, 1985); Carmel Schrire, Past and Present in of Borneo (Ann Arbor: UMI Research Press, 1986); Hunter Gatherer Studies (San Diego: Academic Robert Jarvenpa, Northern Passage: Ethnography Press, 1985); and Nancy M. Williams and Eugene and Apprenticeship among the Subarctic Dene Hunn, eds., Resource Managers: North American (Prospect Heights: Waveland Press, 1998); Richard and Australian Hunter-Gatherers (Canberra: Aus‐ B. Lee, The !Kung San: Men, Women, and Work in tralian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, 1986). a Foraging Society (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni‐ versity Press, 1979); Fred R. Myers, Pintupi Coun‐ [3]. Richard B. Lee and Irven DeVore, eds., try, Pintupi Self: Sentiment, Place, and Politics Man the Hunter (Chicago: Aldine, 1968). among Western Desert Aborigines (Washington, [4]. Jim Allen and James F. O'Connell, eds., D.C., and London: Smithsonian Institution Press, "Transitions: Pleistocene to Holocene in Australia 1986); Richard K. Nelson, Make Prayers to the and Papua New Guinea," Antiquity 69 (1995); Raven: A Koyukon View of the Northern Forest Robert McGhee, Ancient People of the Arctic (Van‐ (Chicago and London: Press, couver: University of British Columbia, 1996); C. 1986); Jean Treloggen Peterson, The Ecology of So‐ Garth Sampson, Stylistic Boundaries among Mo‐ cial Boundaries: Agta Foragers of the Phillipines bile Hunter-Foragers (Washington, D.C., and Lon‐ (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1978); Debo‐ don: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1988); and rah B. Rose, Dingo Makes Us Human: Life and Ronald Singer and John Wymer, The Middle Stone Land in Australian Aboriginal Culture (Cam‐ Age at Klasies River Mouth in South Africa (Chica‐ bridge and New York: Cambridge University go and London: University of Chicago Press, 1982). Press, 1992); Robert Tonkinson, The Mardu Abo‐ [5]. See noteworthy exception in Leland C. Be‐ rigines: Living the Dream in Australia's Desert, ment, Hunter-Gatherer Mortuary Practices dur‐ 2nd ed. (Fort Worth: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, ing the Central Texas Archaic (Austin: University 1991); Colin M. Turnbull, The Mbuti Pygmies: of Texas Press, 1994); Jens Peder Hart Hansen, Jor‐ Change and Adaptation (Fort Worth: Harcourt gen Meldgaard, and Jorgen Nordquist, The Green‐ Brace Publishers, 1983); and Lee and Daly, The land Mummies (Washington, D.C: Smithsonian In‐ Cambridge Encyclopedia of Hunters and Gather‐ stitution Press, 1991); and Singer and Wymer, The ers. Middle Stone Age at Klasies River Mouth in South [7]. Bettinger, Hunter-Gatherers: Archaeologi‐ Africa. cal and Evolutionary Theory; Kelly, The Foraging [6]. J. C. Altman, Hunter-Gatherers Today: An Spectrum: Diversity in Hunter-Gatherer Lifeways; Aboriginal Economy in North Australia (Canber‐ ra: Institute of Aboriginal Studies, 1987); R. C. Bai‐

11 H-Net Reviews

Lee and DeVore, eds., Kalahari Hunter-Gatherers: [13]. R. L. Andrews and J. M. Adovasio, Perish‐ Studies of the !Kung San and Their Neighbors. able Industries from Hinds Cave, Val Verde Coun‐ [8]. Richard G. Condon, The Northern Copper ty, Texas (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh, Inuit: A History (Norman and London: University 1980); Dale R. Croes, The Hoko River Archaeologi‐ of Oklahoma Press, 1996); Robert J. Gordon, The cal Site Complex: The Wet/Dry Site (45CA213), Bushman Myth: The Making of a Namibian Un‐ 3,000-1,700 B.P. (Pullman: Washington State Uni‐ derclass (Boulder: Westview Press, 1992); and versity Press, 1995); and James B. Petersen, ed., A Robert Layton, Uluru: An Aboriginal History of Most Indispensable Art: Native Fiber Industries Ayers Rock (Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press, from Eastern North America (Knoxville: Universi‐ 1986). ty of Tennessee Press, 1996). [9]. Annette Hamilton, Nature and Nurture: [14]. Janet D. Spector, What this Awl Means: Aboriginal Child-Rearing in North-Central Arn‐ Feminist Archaeology at a Wahpeton Dakota Vil‐ hem Land (Canberra: Institute of Aboriginal Stud‐ lage (St. Paul: Minnesota Historical Society, 1993). ies, 1981); B. S. Hetzel and H. J. Frith, eds., The Nu‐ [15]. Grinker, Houses in the Rain Forest; Hof‐ trition of Aborigines in Relation to the Ecosystem man, The Punan; and, Peterson, The Ecology of So‐ of Central Australia (Melbourne: Commonwealth cial Boundaries. Scientifc and Industrial Research Organization, [16]. However, see James M. Adovasio, Olga 1978); Kim Hill and A. Magdalena Hurtado, Ache Sofer, and Bohuslav Klima, "Upper Paleolithic Fi‐ Life History: The Ecology and Demography of a bre Technology: Interlaced Woven fnds from Foraging People (New York: Aldine de Gruyter, Pavlov I, Czech Republic, c. 26,000 Years Ago," An‐ 1996); Nancy Howell, Demography of the Dobe ! tiquity 70 (1996): pp. 526-534; Andrews and Kung (New York: Academic Press, 1979); Lee, The ! Adovasio, Perishable Industries from Hinds Cave, Kung San: Men, Women, and Work in a Foraging Val Verde County, Texas; Croes, The Hoko River Society; and Lee and DeVore, eds., Kalahari Archaeological Site Complex; and Petersen, ed., A Hunter-Gatherers: Studies of the !Kung San and Most Indispensable Art. Their Neighbors. [17]. George F. MacDonald, Haida Monumen‐ [10]. Daniel Nettle and Suzanne Romaine, tal Art: Villages of the Queen Charlotte Islands Vanishing Voices: The Extinction of the World's (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, Languages (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983); and Spector, What this Awl Means: Femi‐ 2000). nist Archaeology at a Wahpeton Dakota Village. [11]. Elizabeth Cashdan, ed., Risk and Uncer‐ [18]. Edwin N. Wilmsen, ed., We Are Here: tainty in Tribal and Peasant Economies (Boulder: Politics of Aboriginal Land Tenure (Berkeley: Uni‐ Westview Press, 1990); Eric A. Smith and Bruce versity of California Press, 1989). Winterhalder, eds., Evolutionary Ecology and Hu‐ [19]. Gordon, The Bushman Myth: The Making man Behavior (New York: Aldine de Gruyter, of a Namibian Underclass. 1992); and Bruce Winterhalder and Eric A. Smith, eds., Hunter-Gatherer Foraging Strategies: Ethno‐ [20]. Altman, Hunter-Gatherers Today. graphic and Archeological Analyses (Chicago and [21]. Knud Rasmussen, The Netsilik Eskimos: London: University of Chicago Press, 1981). Report of the Fifth Thule Expedition, 1921-1924 [12]. Marshall Sahlins, Stone Age Economics (Copenhagen: Gyldendallske Boghandel, 1931); (Chicago: Aldine, 1972). and Baldwin Spencer and F. J. Gillin, The Native Tribes of Central Australia (London: Macmillan, 1899).

12 H-Net Reviews

[22]. Robert Layton, Uluru: An Aboriginal His‐ tory of Ayers Rock. See also, Leacock and Lee, eds., Politics and History in Band Societies; Richard B. Lee, Robert Hitchcock, and Megan Bise‐ le, eds., "The Kalahari San: Self Determination in the Desert," Cultural Survival Quarterly 26:1 (2002); and Wilmsen, ed., We Are Here: Politics of Aboriginal Land Tenure.

If there is additional discussion of this review, you may access it through the network, at https://networks.h-net.org/h-safrica

Citation: James B. Petersen. Review of Panter-Brick, Catherine; Layton, Robert H.; Rowley-Conwy, Peter, eds. Hunter-Gatherers: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. H-SAfrica, H-Net Reviews. October, 2002.

URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=6859

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.

13