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 Anthropology 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‐ difficult 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 briefly) 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-five 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 differential 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‐ different 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 significant the individual linguistics, and socio-cultural anthropology 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 human 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 diffi‐ 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‐ first 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 definition 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 definition. 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 definitions 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 "fine- 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.