Blumenschine, Robert J. Characteristics of an Early Hominid Scavenging Niche. Current Anthropology Aug.-Oct.. 1987Vol. 28(4):383-407

What problem or concern does the article address : The author, Blumenschine, argues that there exists a possible role for scavenging in the acquisition and consumption of meat by early Hominids that inhabited the Plio/Pleistocene period. He states “reconstruction of a possible hominid scavenging niche is considered a prerequisite to the development of criteria for the archeological recognition of scavenging.” (Pp 383)

What is the author's basic argument: There is an ongoing debate among physical anthropologist about the relative importance of hunting versus scavenging in the consumption of meat by early hominids. “Historically, hunting was usually assumed to be the primary method of meat acquisition. Only a hand full of researchers proposed a possible role for scavenging.” (Pp 383) Recently a growing number of researchers have come to accept scavenging as an alternative hypothesis in need of testing and have proposed criteria for the archeological distinction of the two behaviors. Towards that end, this paper is considered a worthy effort by most of the reviewers.

How is the argument constructed: The paper describes the results of an actualistic study designed to assess the characteristics of scavenging opportunities available to early hominids in East Africa.

The study was conducted in Tanzania’s Serengeti National Park. The results are based on observations of the consumption by nonhuman carnivores of 264 fresh large-herbivore carcasses in a variety of settings. Two sets of observations relevant to the past are described: 1) the types of carcasses and carcass parts most regularly available to modern scavengers and 2) the ecological contexts, as defined by season, habitat type, the degree of competition for carcasses in which scavenging is most successful. The results are used in conjunction with Paleoecological data to suggest possible characteristics of an early hominid scavenging niche.

Blumenschine presents his data in the form of very specific and detailed tables that depict variables such as: carcass size, Herbivore type, persistence of the carcass (in hours), the species of predators and scavengers, and both seasonal and ecosystem differences. The author’s analysis suggests “…some broad features of the scavenging opportunities present in the East Turkana and Olduvai ecosystems during the Pli/Pleistoscene…” These features are suggested to characterize the fundamental scavenging niche of all East Africa scavengers. To access the likely characteristics of realized hominid scavenging niche, it is necessary to examine the relevant features of hominid adaptation. (Pp 393)

The author is careful not to overstate the importance of his study “ I have tried to demonstrate only that sufficient, specified scavenging opportunities and the means to exploit them were present…I am suggesting what scavenging by hominids might look like archeologically and outlining the classes of evidence that might be brought to bear upon the problem, most important of which is the skeletal-part data in relation to evidence for particular forms of butchery marks.”(Pp 394). Approximately half of the reviewers complimented this essay and research effort, the other half were pretty critical. It seems that the line was drawn depending upon whether the evaluator was a proponent of the theory that states hunting was the chief source of meat acquisition.

CLARITY:3

HUGO MORA-TORRES CSU Hayward (Peter Claus)

Blumenschine, Robert Characteristics of an Early Hominid Scavenging Niche. Current Anthropology August-October, 1987 Vol.28(4):383-407.

This article examines the scavenging patterns of early hominids in the Serengeti, Ngorangora, East Turkana and Olduvia Lake regions of East Africa during the Pleistocine era. Based on archaeological evidence, he attempts to explain early hominid opportunities of scavenging remains that had been discarded by nearby hunting animal species. He ultimately questions whether or not early hominids in this region were hunters, scavengers or actually participated in both.

Based on archaeological evidence, Blumenschine states that carcass size, hunter attributes and seasonal variation create the diversity in what types and when remains were left behind for scavenging. He also established that the spotted hyena was the most common predator to completely devour a carcass leaving little resources behind for the early hominid scavenger. Next to the spotted hyena, lions, cheetahs and vultures were the most common hunting species. However, they often only fed on accessible outer flesh and left behind the bone marrow and brain for later foragers. In order for the early hominids to survive they were reliant on adapting and dealing with co-habitating hunting species, seasonal variation and diverse ecological environments. In accordance with ecological concerns, early hominids developed stone tool technology that they adapted in order to manipulate to the full capacity of resources available. Therefore, they made hammer stone tools in order to extricate the marrow and brains from animal remains and scrapers to obtain left over meat.

The author uses a statistical approach to organize his investigation of scavenging opportunities for early hominids. His evidence relies upon data collected from Serengeti National Park and Ngorongoro Crater between August 1983 and June 1984. The author gives examples of graphs and tables to construct the information in a more understandable manner. However, in Blumenschine’s concluding remarks he states that he is only creating a theory based on the archaeological data and that the original context could possibly be different from what he proposed in his paper.

Comments

The comments are all relatively positive. Frequently it stated that his work was “welcomed” in the discussion of hominid subsistence activities. Some of the critics believe that Blumenschine’s theory was a possible explanation. However, in an improvement to the theory they interpreted that scavenging of meat year round would not have been the predominant form of protein and nutrient acquisition. Smith proposes that hominids possibly could have utilized roots and tubers as sources for food as a substitute when meat was not available. Marean added that an investigation of modern African environments would supplement Blumenschine’s model. The general consensus among critics was that Blumenschine’s work is substantial and provides new insights into the debate of subsistence of early hominids.

Reply

Blumenschine replies that he approves of the thought-provoking statements delivered. He personally addresses each critics primary concern and develops and/or defends them further with his own personal theories. He believes that some readers interpreted misunderstandings in his data and he clarifies those questions. However, important statements by the critics are taken into consideration and in certain cases he actually agrees with the critics’ remarks.

CLARITY: 4

SALINA WIGHT Okanagan University College (Diana E. French)

Bogucki, Peter. The Establishment of Agrarian Communities on the North European Plain Current Anthropology February, 1987 Vol. 28(1):1-24

In this article Bogucki is trying to assert how food production was introduced to indigenous foraging communities in the Northern European Plain. His data is based on recent findings in human ecology and archaeology. Boguki’s discussion revolves around the interaction between the hunter-gatherer communities of the Late Mesolithic and the agrarian communities entering their areas. How does he prove this, and ultimately, that the hunter-gatherers gradually accepted an agricultural lifestyle? He begins by finding ways in which interaction with the agrarian communities could assist the hunter-gatherers; cultivated wheat and barley is one idea. It is also suggested that the early agrarian communities did not originate in the North European Plain but came from Early Neolithic cultures of the Central European loess belt. It is through the culture and pottery of the loess belt cultures that he provides his data. Through looking at this culture he finds ways in which they populated areas and settled communities. Within this argument he associates the benefits of interaction for these two communities, for instance it would be beneficial for the hunter-gatherer communities to interact with the settled communities, which would result in a symbiotic relationship, each using resources of the other to get the best resources from the land. In the end the author asserts that the agriculturists would have benefited by getting protein while the hunter-gatherers would have received carbohydrates. He makes the connection by again returning to evidence of another culture called the Funnel Beaker culture, which is the earliest evidence of agricultural populations on the Northern European Plain. He claims this was an agriculture economy and by looking at the settlement patterns (large residential base) and artifacts left behind he finds evidence that interaction most likely occurred. Boguki then proceeds to claim through cultural artifacts left over additional influences of the agrarian communities on the former hunter-gatherer lifestyle. The cultural artifact that provides his data are long barrows that are found in settlement patterns which indicates a merging of two different communities in which the agrarian economy distinguished this new culture and won in a sense.

Comments: The author’s argument about the interaction between farmers, herders and foragers is persuasive. Even further, the work and hypothesis that he forms is important to the archaeological knowledge of Europe. However, the claims that he makes seem to be occurring or are parallel all over Europe not necessarily just in the area of the Northern European Plain. There are some problems with his discussion resulting in a good hypothesis it seems as if more of a synthesis of the research that has been done in Europe. Additionally, he needed to spend more time providing data for the forager-farmer interaction.

Reply: It might be true that the data is insufficient but this does not take away from the fact that the article is working to create a hypothesis for the acceptance of agriculture by the forger populations of Europe. It is worthwhile to use ethnographic analogy to help to form an archaeological hypothesis.

CLARITY: 2

DENICE KRETZ California State University Hayward (Peter Claus)

Bogucki, Peter. The Establishment of Agrarian Communities on the North European Plain. Current Anthropology February, 1987 Vol. 28(1):1-21.

The main point of this article is to establish the relationship between hunter-gatherers and early farmers of North-Central Europe. Bogucki asserts that the first agrarian communities on the North European Plain were colonists from major Neolithic cultures of the south rather than indigenous people. He uses his own fieldwork and the current archaeological record of assemblages of pottery sherds and flint tools as a basis for his studies. He incorporates the work of other archaeologists and anthropologists into his argument and has carefully considered their work in his article and hypothesis. Most of his data is taken from sites in northern-central Poland where he has done his own research. He states that there was a symbiotic relationship between hunter-gatherers and early farmers in order to exchange protein and carbohydrates. He advances that these two groups formed an exchange relationship when they came in contact that was mutually advantageous rather than exploitative. This then, led to hunter-gatherers becoming more sedentary and adopting the farming method of making a living.

Bogucki discusses other early peoples of the North European Plains and compares and relates them in order to prove his hypothesis. The Linear Pottery sites of the Polish Lowlands were clearly not indigenous peoples according to Bogucki and they were the first to engage in food production. There is lengthy discussion of Lengyel subsistence strategy of the Polish Lowlands as based on the domestication of plants and animals to supplement wild food. He relates this to, and draws conclusions about it, that may be relevant to the North European Plain as both cultures dealt with similar climatic patterns including winter dormancy where storable food is a primary concern. The Funnel Beaker culture was the earliest indigenous food-producing group in the Northern European Plains and Bogucki discusses the evidence for this in the archaeological record. Tombs and burial monuments appeared in the form of long earthen barrows for the Lengyel farmers and burial mounds for the Funnel Beaker people, clear evidence of a change in societal structure.

Bogucki closes by stating that farming was introduced to this area from outside at a time when indigenous foraging peoples were ready to accept these new methods. This process took hundreds of years and involved some dependence between the groups upon each other.

Comments

Generally, commentators were positive and excited about Bogucki’s new hypothesis, but they weren’t convinced by his arguments. They each took a different part of his material to task. One commented that “We must be careful, however, about telling better stories than the data allow” (18). This same commentator took several pages to argue, in point form, many of Bogucki’s statements. More careful study of anthropological material on the processes of culture change was recommended by one. Most concluded by stating that, although Bogucki’s article was intriguing, more study would be required before it could be accepted as a fact.

Reply

Bogucki was grateful for the time and energy taken by his colleagues to read and respond to his paper. Although he acknowledges the call for more data on the part of the commentators, he believes the article is very valid in being a “hypothesis-generating synthesis” (20). He defends his data by stating that Europe is the best archaeologically studied area in the world but realizes that there is a shortage of data for the time period between 4000 and 2500 BC which is when the shift from hunter-gatherer to agrarian culture took place.

CLARITY: 4

KARIN MEUSER Okanagan University College (Diana E. French)

Caldwell, John, Pat Caldwell, Bruce Caldwell. Anthropology and Demography. Current Anthropology February, 1987 Vol.28 (1): 25-43

The focus of this article is to explore the relationship between demography and anthropology. More specifically, looking at the cyclical effect of the two disciplines dealings around pre-modern control of fertility and “primitive affluence”. The authors claim that anthropology has long neglected concepts of primitive fertility, and when anthropology does consider these concepts it is an afterthought and not properly studied. Furthermore, the authors suggest that if the two fields were to work more closely towards population thinking then anthropology could add beneficial information towards demographic change and stability.

The authors use many anthropologists and other important works on population to prove the points of the disciplines running circles around each other. Geertz, Carr- Saunders, Firth, and others serve to supply the points on the history of population and anthropological thought. In the 1960’s through the 70’s both anthropologists and demographers again began interested in population including birth and morality rates. The cyclical effect comes into play when proving that human societies have always had control over fertility, resulting in this concept of “primitve affluence”. Using these popular works on primitive population control the authors suggest the problems running rampant with the data and how the disciplines use this data. For instance, the authors suggest that the same cultures are consistently reused in studies of primitive birth control techniques. The cultures that are cited in studies of population are always the same, the Eskimos, Japanese, and Chinese are repeatedly used in population studies. It seems as if the authors believe that a new in-depth study of demography using new data sources or cultures could be used to provide data on human population thinking.

Within this discussion is how anthropology and demography go on to use this data to suit the needs of their study. This situation creates old data being translated and interpreted in different and the authors claim, incorrect ways. The authors also assert, it seems that many of the anthropologists who have taken interest in population studies or infanticide have mis-interpreted the data sources. They then go on to address concepts of primitive affluence used by both anthropologists and demographers in ways which they see fit. Moreover, they claim that there is not enough evidence to state that primitve societies used birth control methods. In the end the authors argue that both disciplines use each others data in ways that are insufficient. In other words, neither discipline has properly looked at mortality or population thinking, but a better working relationship and understanding would benefit our understandings of population control. Finally, the authors call for combined work between the disciplines taking into account social impacts on marriage, mortality, and birth.

Comments: It seems that many of the comments sustain that the authors have gone too far with their claims of fertility and mortality in human populations. The comments go along the lines of weak data, not convincing, and too limited. The authors did show that anthropological field methodology could provide valuable insights into population thinking. Moreover, demographers could benefit from ethnographic research on marriage and family relations that has already been completed.

Reply: The most important conclusions presented in this article are that anthropologists and demographers often fail to interpret and or use each other’s data, possibly because they are not confident in doing so or would be criticized by colleagues. They believe that their theories on pre-transitional fertility control are correct, however, the evidence to support the interpretation is rather weak.

CLARITY: 3

DENICE KRETZ California State University Hayward (Peter Claus)

Caldwell, John, Pat Caldwell and Bruce Caldwell. Anthropology and Demography: The Mutual Reinforcement of Speculation and Research. Current Anthropology February, 1987 Vol.28(1):25-40.

The Caldwells attempt to demonstrate the link between anthropology and demography, and to illustrate how the “Mutualreinforcement of speculation” can perpetuate a cycle of misinformed, and even falsely grounded theories in research. In the section entitled “Pre-Modern Fertility Control”, the Caldwells point to Carr-Saunder’s work as the starting point for many related theories based n speculation , and other contributing founders in each field have been noted as well, along with brief summaries of their major works. Further detailed are the theories of subsequent authors and contemporaries of issues related to fertility, ranging from infanticide to prolonged breastfeeding and post-partum abstinence. A similar format is adhered to in the section about the Primitive Affluence

Theory. One major factor in this perpetuation is the ease with which an anthropologist accepts demographic theories or vice versa, instead of with the critical view that one would apply to a new theory in his own area of expertise.

The Caldwells conclude their article by suggesting that by setting standards for future research and fieldwork, both anthropologists and demographers would be better prepared to avoid perpetuating speculative theories. Another improvement would be to combine anthropological and demographic fieldwork in order to allow those involved to more easily identify, interpret and avoid the inaccurate theories that have origins set in a field outside of one’s own.

Comments

The comments section is comprised of responses by six other professionals. The majority was in disagreement with, or confused by the ideas that were brought forth within the article. It is noted that neither the exhaustive number of citations nor the narrow focus on

fertility related topics, enhanced the point that the authors were wishing to make. The two commentators who agreed (and the sparse yet positive comments from the other four) were appreciative of the Caldwells’ acknowledgment of the necessity for professionals to be critical of newly emerging theories, fully research those that are intended for use within their own works, and increase the number of collaborative works to promote a more holistic understanding.

Reply

The Caldwells’ reply summarizes the major points of the article rather than addressing the specific concerns that were raised by the commentators. They did, however, provide a succinct defense for producing the article, offering that they were invited to write a piece concerning the relationship between anthropology and demography, accordingly, they wrote one in a manner and on topics which they felt would be most effective.

CLARITY: 2

JASMINE MARSHALL Okanagan University College (Diana E. French)

Clark, George A., Marc A. Clark, John M. Grange, Cassandra Hill. The Evolution of Mycobacterial Disease in Human Populations. Current Anthropology February, 1987 Vol.28(1):45-62

This article is looking at the case of tuberculosis in the Amerindians before contact with European populations. However, the authors take a very different view of the disease that one would normally think. Instead of looking at tuberculosis as genetically determined the authors believe that the case in new world populations should be looked at as adaptive systems theory, which looks at the interaction between host and pathogen. The authors use both existing evidence and new evidence to account for the occurrence of this disease in the New World. They begin with the old evidence, which uses as its primary data analysis bones and mummified tissue. The problems that they authors see with this, is the comparison of the old evidence with current populations in the same areas. This method does not account for the evolution of the disease or different strands. The comparison of old evidence with current populations leads researchers to agree that it would have been impossible for the disease to exist in Pre-Columbian era. However, we have already shown why the authors feel this is very limiting. They then move on to new historical evidence for tuberculosis and this is where we begin to find the foundations for their argument. The new historical evidence consists of the impacts of the disease on reservation populations. Keeping in mind the two comparisons of tuberculosis in the Americas the authors claim these are not valuable reasons to prove that it did exist. The authors then move on toward their approach to studying whether tuberculosis did exist in pre-Columbian America. They begin with listing all of the varying types of the disease which include, bovine, other pathogens, and mycobacterial species. The authors then get into a discussion about the occurrence and variation of the disease and its relation to population and humans, in other words the interactions between the bacteria and the host, which is the human. They then discuss the possible immunity of mycobacterial disease, indicating that the environment has large effects on the immunity of the human population. Further, human changes such as lifestyle and movement change a human’s exposure to certain bacterial, within different environments. In the end, the authors believe that pre-Columbian exposure to tuberculosis could have been from a variety of things, a low virulence, possibility of immunization due to the environment, from the wild animal, or from different environmental mycobacterial species. The authors believe that the rampant effects of the disease on current human populations could have been from a variety of these reasons, or a more intensive strain.

Comments: The paper is valuable to provide additional insights into the presence of tuberculosis in the new world, their focus on ecological and environmental factors is also interesting. However, they gloss over the importance of the role of natural selection in the process and progression of the disease. Overall, looking at the disease through the lens of the authors has provided important information regarding the history of tuberculosis.

Reply: Almost all comments agree with the points of the paper and that anthropologists need to adopt a more thorough approach. We do hope that this paper provides another reason to as how diseases become endemic, and we find it unlikely that tuberculosis did not exist in the new world in some format. In the end, hopefully this will help researchers and anthropologists to begin looking at mycobacterial causes for disease.

CLARITY: 5

DENICE KRETZ (California State University Hayward) Peter Claus

Clark, George A., Marc A. Kelly, John M. Grange, and M. Cassandra Hill. The Evolution of Mycrobacterial Disease in Human Populations. Current Anthropology February, 1987 Vol.28(1):45-59.

Clark et al. cite information in their article from sources such as documented historical evidence of tuberculosis, the biological course of tuberculosis, and the evolutionary history of tuberculosis in order to illustrate their hypothesis with regards to the relationship between tuberculosis and various forms of environmental mycrobacteria.

The historical evidence of tuberculosis, for example, is extremely difficult to accurately judge and diagnose because documentation may not be accurate, or details may be sketchy. Moreover, Clark et al. postulates that the so called Amerindian genetic susceptibility to tuberculosis may not be as pronounced or as simplistic as previously thought. For example, the authors make reference to similar situations from European past during which the population was faced with comparable social, economic and health related conditions. Most of the article attempts to generate and stimulate research into the possible origins of tuberculosis related pathogens in South America, as demonstrated in the tumors of mummies recovered from this area.

The authors go on to speculate possible connections between these infections and possible immunity that they may have given to the population in the face of European tuberculosis. On a similar note, the authors explain the process through which, certain environmental mycrobacteria can alter both the susceptibility and immunity of the local human population from diseases such as tuberculosis and leprosy. Hence with travel and migration, human susceptibility to such diseases can change due to different mycrobacterial exposure. Differential exposure to these bacteria can potentially explain why tuberculosis exploded in Native populations after they were reallocated to reservation land.

Clark et al. present their relevant information in such a sequence, which obviously supports their major focus, differential exposure to environmental mycrobacteria, until the latter half of the paper. Consequently, the framework of the paper is laid out to logically proceed to the point which best supports and strengthens their argument. The authors begin with the information that they are trying to disprove, in this case, the widespread belief that Native peoples are predisposed to tuberculosis because they were never in contact with this or related pathogens in their past. Subsequently, Clark et al. introduce evidence about suspicious tuberculosis-like lesions found in South America, suggesting that a potentially related pathogen was present within their population pre-European contact. The authors then outline the actual mechanisms for the transmission of tuberculosis infections, differentiating between primary and secondary infections. Interestingly, secondary infections can remain dormant until such time that environmental and social stress build and therefore trigger another outbreak. The authors can then link historical outbreaks on reserve land to both social pressures and differences in the distribution of environmental mycrobacteria leading to increased tuberculosis infections.

Comments

According to the commentators, the authors’ hypothetical model is full of various weaknesses. The article appears to consider the whole of North America to be a homogenous disease community with respect to both living conditions and proximity of peoples. Furthermore, they failed to explain the evolution of tuberculosis from bovine varieties to humans in South America, where cows were not present at that time. Most of the commentators agree that it is an interesting and stimulating paper; however, many other avenues have yet to be explored in order to boost the plausibility of this theory.

Reply

The authors, on the other hand, do not consider many of the comments from the commentators to be in direct opposition to their argument. In fact, they consider that the opinions and statements of their critics to have both identified and potentially eliminated the weaknesses within their work. For example, as people in South America were not in close contact with bovines, it is entirely possible that their form of tuberculosis may in fact have evolved from related animals that were also in close contact with humans. Finally, they acknowledged the need for multidisciplinary focus on this project, in order to reach a consensus and a deeper understanding with respect to this major and longstanding disease.

CLARITY: 2

RYAN MCFARLANE Okanagan University College (Diana E French)

Earle. T & Preucel. Processual Archaeology and the Radical Critique. Aug-Oct, 1987. Vol.28. (4): 501-538

Earle and Preucel's paper is a grand undertaking. They assert that the "new archaeology" had at its core, pitfalls in that it had positivism as its underlying principle. They set out to examine radical archaeology, as well as to highlight its lack of methodology and finally to suggest the need for a behavioral anthropology, incorporating a processual approach, while concentrating on individual human behavior.

They credit new archaeology with bringing to the field an emphasis on "cultural process", a shift from the historical perspective, which helped the field develop rapidly and branch into specialized sub fields. They in turn have their gaze on spatial archaeology, a field with a pluralistic approach. They suggest that the radical critique examines the purpose or function (what they term utility) of structural Marxism, structural and symbolic approaches, while discounting a scientific approach. They use human geography and "philosophical developments" to understand the spatial interrelatedness of humans and their geography. They suggest that they will apply the radical critique to spatial and human geography

They provide details about normative approaches to human geography and spatial archaeology, going back to 1912, even though they assert that in the interest of the article the history can only be a brief one. They credit W. W. Taylor, Jr. for being the first to critique the " cultural area approach", while suggesting a more logical and scientific type approach be used, although he was a precursor to the scientific method. They examine advances in geographic research in regard to empirical patterns, statistical techniques, evolving models, theories, quantitative method, crediting Harvey for methodological functionalism and the shift in the discipline to positivism. In examining spatial approach, they credit Binford for introducing the need to look into behaviors of humans, to understand their relationship to the environment.

They examine radical geography and archeology suggesting that Marxism is important to the study, as capitalism affects humans in relation to their geographic spaces, in relation to consumption, Aproduction and exchange@ patterns, affecting the ideology, giving rise to any particular society. The authors also suggest that spatial geography is often applied with structural linguistics incorporating structuralism in attempting to examine the human/nature interaction leading to human structural constructs. They associate the origins of radical archaeology with symbolic anthropology, a shift from the earlier scientific approach, what they term as Adissatisfaction with positivist .paradigm. Structural (contextual) archaeology, Marxism (and the work of Engel in this area are both crucial to radical anthropology. Based on the work of Marx and Engel, both the structuralism and humanistic approaches are derived and incorporated in radical anthropology.

They suggest history is fundamental to understanding human behaviors, they do not do away with all scientific theory but suggest that scientific approaches are more often that not flawed, geographic inference according to them is highly problematic because of an often employed priori agenda. They suggest that archaeology can provide solution to modern day cultural and natural resource patterns based on the understanding of human behavior, relationship with environment and usage of resources, and thus far has not been a prominent discipline in the modern world.

Ultimately, the authors suggest that rather than replacing new archaeology with radical theories and approaches, we should use the latter as a means to evaluate the former, and build a sounder methodology within new archaeology. The problems they see arising out a radical approach are not just its lack of methodology, but also its disinterest in human behaviors. The authors suggest a behavioral approach that includes both archaeology and geography. They suggest that though the approach is not novel to either discipline in itself, it is in their combined form. They encourage debate over the "fundamental, epistemological, theoretical, methodological and practical" aspects of the concerns in methodology and suggest that it is crucial to the evolution of the discipline.

E. Brumfiel , felt they were erroneous to suggest that archaeology examines the past specifically, (are they?), that behavioral archaeology makes as many assumptions as any anthropologist concerned with prehistoric man=s mindset, and that the authors concern with control and efficiency (Marxism) are western values and thus ethnocentric. This is a valid comment as are her suggestions that we could examine our own behaviors by that yard stick. She does suggest that rather than using power and efficiency as a basis of understanding behavior, we could examine behaviors that in other symbolic context are related to these values.

Carr and Limp suggest that meaning derived from "the reification of symbols" is confining. Chippendale questioned the need for new archeology (no longer new) to be the ultimate way to go with a boost from the radical critique, and suggests that the authors consider certain European schools of thought. Gilman for the most part supports the works of the authors while faulting Hodder's "rather old fashioned anthropology".

Hodder holds the authors to task, suggesting them incapable of entering "the post-processual debates", that archeologists are interpretive but hesitant to draw attention to this aspect, so as to maintain "an aura of science". Johnson's regarding "the geographical Binference problem" appeared disillusioned and blunt. Keegan questions a processual approach over processual archaeology, suggesting "geography does not offer a unified behavioral paradigm for archaeology to emulate".

Knapp suggests that in Britain, archeologists and geographers have worked together in the past (1980s) and created a political geography from their combined work. He also suggests that "theoretical and quantitative developments in history" are crucial to the disciplines growth. Potter suggests that not having a methodology can be quite as debilitating as having one that rigidly adheres to is specified agenda and becomes self serving, causing more harm than good .Rowlett suggests that Hodder and Earle have/are walking a fine line between anthropology and geography. He also sees the need for the authors to place quantitative research more visibly into methodological considerations, while suggesting that the authors might be "wedded to taphonomy and refitting." Trigger is highly supportive of this work, and by the importance given to history in understanding social change over time. Zeitlin finds many unresolved issues in the article, suggesting that while individual behaviors are important in the past, cultures and institutions are what alter the course of history, important for anthropological archaeology.

In their reply, the authors are primarily concerned with the remarks of Hodder and hold him to task for the quality of his work and the inconsistencies in his writing and practice,

Malpractice, as they call it. They discount Chippendale and Gilman's suggestions as "musings" and Trigger a confused radical, projecting himself as a Marxist. They consider Gilman and Potter "sixties children" concerned with social activism and a social voice while suggesting that science and politics are incompatible. Rowlett is quoted for suggesting more quantitative involvement in research, to which the authors are in agreement. They do allow for Trigger's comments suggesting that Marxism does not always allow for systemic change.

This article was very not lengthy but attempted much. The authors responded to the comments of their work with greater clarity and ease than they appeared to have in putting the actual article together. They were better equipped in dismantling approaches that they considered flawed, than they were in suggesting a truly viable alternative. I do agree with Blumfiel that we in the west are preoccupied with control and efficiency. As a ceramic sculptor I often create many large pieces that I keep or give away, but rarely attempt to sell, costing me a great deal in time and money. I work on pieces for days, invest in glazes and often have to invest in additional time and energy reorganizing space at home or elsewhere to store my work. I would be a poor example of efficiency, yet many of my friends in the art world share my behavior pattern (not all), which makes us as a group differ from the rest in our group and the broader external community. The fact that we store our work in tandem, car dickey, under the bed, on walls, closets, balconies, storage facilities, art studios, and or transport overseas, makes for strange geographical Bspatial linkages. Behaviors themselves change or the reasons for maintaining them change. At puberty, my interest in art was probably related to the creative urge adolescence fosters, in my twenties it was simply being creative, in my thirties it is therapeutic, a release from housework, child rearing, studies, work stresses and concerns, reflecting in the intensity of detail in my work. Human behaviors are diverse and dealing with them problematic. Generalizations are the way to go, but I am left saddened by the fact that the generalized study will lack the richness of individuality, the stages of personal growth, the unexpected nature of why we undertake certain effort, and the irrational, why invest in something that does not foster economic gain.

CLARITY: 3

SHARAN AMINY Cal State Hayward (Dr. P. Claus)

Earle, Timothy K. and Robert W. Preucel. Processual Archaeology and the Radical Critique. Current Anthropology August-October, 1987 Vol.28(4):501-538.

In this article, Timothy K. Earle and Robert W. Preucel evaluate the redefinition of archaeological theory in response to the application of radical theory and its derivative approaches in fieldwork. They specifically seek to convince the reader that although the unique revelations provided by this school of thought are valuable to the definition of archaeological theory as a whole, they do not in themselves form a complete paradigm that can be used independently of other theoretical approaches. Instead, the authors seek to convince us that radical theory in archaeology is better suited for an eventual incorporation within the more positivist frameworks of existing archaeological conjecture. In this way it will draw from the investigatory techniques utilized by those frameworks which rely upon quantitative data gathering strategies, and by integration will allow these systems to attain a level of self reflexivity that they do not yet approach.

At the heart of this argument is the central concern that radical theory itself is unable to achieve the primary goal that it seeks to accomplish: a penetrative grasp of a society and the lifeways of its individuals. Without this fundamental accomplishment, there can be no complete understanding of the motivation driving individual agency within any such historical structure. If the cosmology of an earlier people can not be recreated with a legitimate degree of accuracy, then there is fear that the radical approach may result in nothing more than the flawed fantastical projections of the individual researchers involved.

By providing a brief overview of conceptual change as it has arisen within the recent history of archaeological theory, the authors allow us to first center ourselves squarely within the foundation of the argument they are choosing to pursue. By providing examples of normative, positivist, and radical approaches to archaeological theory the attempt is made to reveal flaws inherent within the radical discourse such that they believe are only to be solved through the adoption of alternate sequences of investigation. From this, they then propose a holistic return to theory that is rooted more solidly within scientific methodologies and data gathering strategies, however, keeping in mind the need for an increased self-reflexivity in these more traditional frameworks as well.

CLARITY: 4

MIKE D. LOGAN Okanagan University College (Diana E. French)

Greenberg, Joseph H. Language in the Americas. Current Anthropology December, 1987 Vol28(5) 647-668.

The book review of Language in the Americas by John H. Greenberg starts out with the thesis of the book itself, which is that all indigenous languages of Americas can be grouped into three, the largest of them being Amerind.

The book comprises of seven chapters. In the very first chapter the author explains the principles and methodology of genetically classifying languages. The first chapter deals with five themes. First it addresses the issue of genetic classification. The second issue is that of which languages to choose for a comparative historical investigation. Thirdly the author claims that sound correspondences and reconstructed forms of languages are not conceptually equivalent. Greenberg also states “all recent comparative American Indian linguistics, attention has been paid exclusively to phonology.” (Greenberg 648) and that we need to take into account morphology as it has played an integral role in terms of the Indo European language families. In his last argument he assert that basing classification of languages on vocabulary and grammar of a number of languages simultaneously is not very different from historical classifications in biological taxonomy and that classification should involve etymology.

The second chapter is a review of the history of classification of Amarind. Based on the work of Ruhlen, Brinton and Powell the author presents three stages of classification, which include, catalogue stage, recognition of extensive groupings, breaking up of thus far accepted families and skepticism of previous approaches towards classification.

The third chapter outlines the 11 subgroups of Amarind and “etymologies specific to each of the sub groups.” (Greenberg 651) the fourth chapter further discusses etymologies of one or more subgroups identified in the third chapter. The fifth chapter focuses on the grammatical aspect of Amarind and the Sixth chapter deals with the Na-Dene problem. This involved inclusion of Haida, which is the most distant member in the language family. The author uses the work done by Levine to support his argument.

In the last chapter Greenberg concludes that the “Americas were settled by three migrations, the oldest of which is represented by Amarind.” (Greenberg 652) followed by Na-Dene and then Eskimo-Aleut.

Wallace Chafe criticizes the author for being vague about he methodology used of comparison and for determining common origin of languages. He also adds that comparison of many languages simultaneously increases chance of error. Darnell is of the opinion that he has adhered to the “lumping and splitting stance.” (Greenberg 653) Goddard says he excludes historical linguistics and that the Algonquian data is erroneous. According to Golla the author has used a single criteria of relatedness to numerous languages and has come up with taxonomy. Hymes thinks the classification of languages into specific sub groups is erroneous. Rogers thinks he doesn’t include the glacial isolation hypothesis. According to Sapir based on African reviews one cannot make statements about larger grouping without knowledge of smaller ones and that a relationship between two languages should include “systematic sound correspondences, sound laws and the ensuing establishment of starred reconstructions of sounds for a postulated proto language.” (Greenberg 663)

Greenberg replies to Darnell regarding her “lumping and splitting” statement that there is a difference between deep classification and classification at the level of species. He also says in an answer to Hymes that he would be able to trace back each sub group to a common root so that his basic classification doe not nee alteration. Regarding Golla Greenberg states that genetic classification is what serves to be the basis of historical linguistics, which allows one to compare languages, and facilitates reconstructions. As far as Chafe and Goddard are concerned the author argues that both of them do not offer nay alternative methodology for classification and that they are prejudiced against a “deeper classification of the languages of the Americas.” (Greenberg 665)

Gron, Ole. Seasonal Variation in Maglemosian Group Size and Structure: New Model. Current Anthropology June, 1987 Vol. 28(3):303-327

Summary

What problem or concern does the article address: In this article the author proposes an alternate model that accounts for the seasonal variation in group size, group structure and settlement organization for the Maglemosian culture that inhabited the North European Lowlands Circa 7500 B.C. to 6000 B.C. This proposed model differs from the conventional models in that the largest groups assembled into camps during the warmest period of the year and not during winter, as was previously suggested. More specifically, the camps were assembled in the months of April-October and consisted of 3-4 dwellings placed along the shore at 40-meter intervals. In contrast the conventional model describes winter camps that consisted of an isolated house and in some cases containing only two families.

The authors states that modern archeology should succeed at reliable interpretations of prehistoric cultures in terms of dynamically interrelated social structures and resource utilization strategies. The paper uses previously gathered archeological data concerning the organization of space within the dwellings of the Maglemosian culture and the structure of the groups inhabiting these dwellings. The author re-analyzed the data and incorporated newly gathered data to construct the proposed settlement patterns in terms of interrelated social and exploitative strategies.

Previous escavations have uncovered from bogs of dwelling floors items such as bark, branches, tools of bone, antler and wood. These artifacts have been used to provide insight into the more perishable aspects of this culture. The author mentions carbon dating to determine some of the food consumption patterns, dendrochonology to determine whether the dwellings that are being studied are contemporaneous; and lithographic analysis to describe the tool assemblage. Along with several physical anthropology related studies of animal and human skeletons. The author makes vast use of ethnographic comparison between other hunter and gather groups described in the literature and the archeological data related to this study to make certain assumptions about the Maglemosian groups. Some of the reviewers question the author's leap of logic in making these assumptions.

The author'sprimary concerns are 1) the relationship between settlement and community size and 2) the assessment of contemporeity of adjacent archeological sites. One reviewer critiqued Gron’s “…very simplistic view of hunter gatherer subsistence and settlement pattern.” This critique argues that “An extensive and growing literature on hunter gatherer settlements systems suggests that variability and flexibility, not simplicity and regularity, characterize most forager adaptations. The same reviewer critiques Gron's statements about settlement because they are made on the basis of a limited sample of sites. However the authors is careful to qualify his analysis by stating that he is aware of this weakness in his statistical sampling but nevertheless find his evidence so intriguing so a to warrant publication and thus stimulate dialogue and further research on his theory. Most reviewers agreed with the author on this last point.

CLARITY: 4

HUGO MORA-TORRES CSU Hayward (Claus)

Greenberg, Joseph H. Language in the Americas. Current Anthropology December, 1987 Vol.28(5):647-668.

The thesis of,Joseph Greenberg’s Précis to Language in the Americas is that all the indigenous languages of the Americas fall into three genetic groups of very unequal extent. The largest of these is the Amerind which encompasses all of the languages except Na-Dene and Eskimo-Aleut, the Eurasiatic in the last eastern most branches. A detailed treatment of principles and methods of the genetic classification of languages is addressed. It is also questionable as to how languages are to be genetically classified. Although certain language families can be related it does not mean that these constitute a valid genetic unit. Knowing what languages to compare is the initial step. Sound correspondences, phonology, morphology all play a part. Comparing many languages at the same time is believed by Greenberg to significantly increase the time depth making it plausible to discover language relationships.

Comments

Commentators suggest that the methodology of Greenberg’s increases the incidence of similarities by coincidence. The possibility of chance should not be ignored. Since his word sets have been published it could be perceived that this work is completed when, in fact, it is believed to have only begun. However, a survey of lexical similarities among America’s languages has not been attempted which, presents Greenberg’s work as useful. To Greenberg’s contention that all Indigenous languages of the Americas fall into three genetic groups, it is offered that a tripartite migration hypothesis could explain, “a three-way division of certain native American traits,” (662).

Reply

In reply it is hoped that further research will add new etymologies to Amerind and individual groups. Accidents, as in relation by chance or coincidence, does exist and should be identified in order to construct a system of detection. Language in the Americas has a targeted audience well versed in linguistics and based on some comments he even confuses those who are well versed in this area.

CLARITY: 2

GINGER JACK Okanagan University College (Diana E. French)

Gr?n, Ole. Seasonal Variation in Maglemosian Group Size and Structure: A New Model. Current Anthropologist June, 1987 Vol.28(3):303-327.

This paper is a discussion, a proposal of a new model of settlement as devised for Maglemosian groups. Ole Gr?n discusses different types of settlements and dwellings, beginning with isolated one family dwellings, moving into contemporary spatially separate dwellings, then to organization of settlements, the size of settlements, seasonal variability of settlement location and size as well as looking at the possibility of seasonal rotation. Basing his argument on the availability of local resources, Gr?n suggests that Maglemosian groups had to adapt throughout the year depending on available resources. He hypothesizes that one or two families would inhabit winter sites, that five to six families would congregate at one site for the summer months and fifteen to twenty families would come together in the Fall to use available resources and collect surpluses for winter use.

Gr?n focuses a large part of his discussion on the spatial relationship between family camps and whether they were contemporary with each other. His argument evolves to include the idea of multi-family dwellings being common among hunter-gathers, a similarity that could be carried over to include the Maglemosian groups in this generalization. Within the context of these data and other archeological evidence, Gr?n assumes that there were single and multi-family dwellings in close proximity of each other that were contemporaries of each other. Through salvage archeology conducted in the Åmose Basin, archeologists conjectured that some of the single-family dwellings instead represented areas of activity thereby qualifying their spatial location near multi-family dwellings. Gr?n continues with this line of thought proposing a model of specific organization of summer settlements to most effectively make use of available resources. Within this section, the size of hunting parties and the organization within them is also discussed.

The final stage of Gr?n paper discusses a model for seasonal rotation and resource use. Through the excavations of Knud Anderson in 1985, Gr?n was able to collect a large body of data regarding two large summer camps and two winter camps. Differing from other models of hunting and gathering society, this model begins with people living at their summer camp from April to late summer, possibly into the fall around September or October, living off a variety of game as well as readily available resources of nuts, plants and fruits. From their summer camp, groups or clans appear to have split into smaller groups and inhabited isolated winter camps for the remainder of the year before returning their main summer camp. Gr?n also discusses the idea of “extraction” camps, built in specific locations during the summer for the explicit use of a resource available in only a few areas. Local variations of this pattern may have existed due to adaptation to differing environments however not enough data has been collected to theorize on the extent of the difference. Gr?n concludes his article stating that without more data, there can be no more than theories and conjectures on the living and resource use strategies of the Maglemosian culture group.

Comments

Gr?n’s article was well received by various archeologists. Lars Larsson commented that it was a thought provoking argument but calls into question the interpretation. T. Douglas Price, although agreeing with Ole Gr?n’s proposed model of seasonal variation comments that he promotes a simplistic view of hunter-gather subsistence and settlement, that interpretations and statements regarding known settlements are made on a limited sample of data and that there is very little data available to suggest that many of the sites are contemporary. On the other hand, Christopher Meiklejohn, M.A.P. Renouf, Nicolas Rolland, and Peter Rowley-Conwy all agree that Gr?n’s article is interesting, thought provoking and is the kind of description, according to Rowley-Conwy that all archeologists and anthropologists should be aiming to achieve.

Reply

Ole Gr?n replies to these comments by re-iterating his data and by clarifying the concerns of Larsson regarding the interpretation of his data. He explains that seasonal rotation is proposed not only through data collected in archeological excavations but through the known availability of resources at particular times of the year. He moves on to state that although not the ideal process in which to conduct archeological excavations, the salvage operation led by Knud Anderson in the Åmose Basin was nonetheless invaluable in collecting a large amount of data and in constructing his model of seasonal rotation. Concluding his reply, Gr?n restates the fact that his model is simply a hypothesis and through further excavation and research can it be proven or disregarded.

CLARITY: 4

KARA OTKE Okanagan University College (Diana E. French)

Guillet, David. Terracing and Irrigation in the Peruvian Highlands. Current Anthropology Aug.-Oct., 1987 Vol. 28(4):409-430

Summary

e. What problem or concern does the article address: The author attempts to clarify several important questions involving agricultural intensification and disintensification in the Peruvian highlands. Guillet claims to be one of many scholars using archeological, ethnological, geographic, and ethnohistorical research methods to address specific questions and to add to the body of knowldege on the aboriginal terrace system in highland Peru. His focus is on the relation between terracing and irrigation.

What is the author's basic argument: "The agricultural terraces of the Peruvian Highlands are a key element in a successful agro-pastoral adaptation to the slopes of this otherwise inhospitable valley." (Pp. 417)uillrt The intensity of use of terraced land varies as result of a complex mix of environmental, demographic, and social factors. Guillet does an excellent job of informing us about several important aspects of the complex interrelationships between plant cultivation, water manipulation, local administration, and climate variability. This study and comparable investigations carried out recently in other parts of the Andes are beginning to provide comparative data on variability over time and space in the role of agricultural terracing. Cyclical patterns of terrace building and abandonment suggests that repeated observations of land use over time are necessary for an understanding of agricultural intensification and deintensification in the Central Andes.

How is the argument constructed: In the article Guillet gives good historical account of Andean agricultural practices. Gradually he focuses his attention on the Lari Valley, located on the western side of the Cordilleras, to draw conclusions that he generalizes to the whole Andean region. One of the reviewers gives mild criticism of this tact. The author uses a variety of methods to conduct his study. He uses highly technological geographic methods such as aerial photography and LANDSAT photography. He also uses ice core sampling, commonly used by hydrologist, to document periods of draught and rainfall as far back as 1500 years ago. He uses ethnographic archives to report on the relationship of social management of water to terrace contraction and expansion.

The author writes a comprehensive and detailed report that relies heavily on ethnographic data. However, Guillet is resourceful enough to include more empirical data gleamed from sources such as LANDSAT photography and ice core analysis to add depth to his report. According to one of the reviewers "It is rare that anthropologist measure two or more variables in real time."(Hunt, Pp 420)

CLARITY:5

HUGO MORA-TORRES CSU Hayward (Claus)

Guillet, David. Terracing and Irrigation in the Peruvian Highlands. Current Anthropology August –October, 1987 Vol.28(4):409-430.

The purpose of this article is to further explore and expand upon the irrigation issues and practices within the Peruvian highlands. Guillet attempts to use “archaeological, ethnological, geographical and ethnohistorical” (409) data in order to better understand both ancient and contemporary irrigation and terracing patterns. The focus of this article is on the Colca Valley and more specifically on the village Lari. Guillet examines briefly the ancient use and abandonment of irrigation and terrace systems in this area and attempts to establish reasons for this abandonment. In addition, Guillet also researches the more important crops grown and harvested in this region.

Using ethnographic data, extensive research is conducted on more contemporary land use, terrace construction, growing seasons, crop selection and market, economy and social pressures. Guillet also examines the political structures that are centered on the use of water and how it is distributed amongst the many terraces, as well as, water transport, distribution, flow, control and availability. Included as well are a number of tables and figures that serve to expand further on the data that is presented in the main body of the article. Guillet concludes the article with some final thoughts on the data collected and acknowledges that there is need for more research on this subject.

Comments

The comments section of the article is very extensive and includes the thoughts and criticisms of eleven academics. The majority of the commentators are very pleased with the work and presentation of data of Guillet. They applaud his attempt to examine the subject of irrigation and terracing from an anthropological as well as a sociological and archaeological perspective. The minor criticisms that Guillet receives from the commentators are such that they would like to see a little more detail and expansion of his data. However they do acknowledge that he did a superb job considering the limited length of the article. In addition, a few of the commentators attempt to expand on Guillet’s data by adding some of their own thoughts and ideas on the subject.

Reply

Guillet thanks his colleagues for providing both criticisms and support for his work, and replies to each of the comments in a constructive manner. In an extensive reply section, he offers further supplementary evidence to support the ideas in his article and tries to supply those of his commentators with additional information to answer any questions or thoughts they may have had about his research. He adds as well that he firmly believes his work is important, and he hopes it provides readers with a broader sense and understanding of the importance of irrigation and terracing in the Peruvian highlands.

CLARITY: 4

JOE DESJARDINS Okanagan University College (Diana E. French)

Halverson, John. Art for Art’s Sake in the Paleolithic. Current Anthropology February, 1987 Vol.28(1):63-89

Halverson is returning to investigations of popular theories about the beginnings of art within human populations. The earliest forms of art come from the Paleolithic era and it is this period that he uses as his main purpose of discussion. Since the art of the Paleolithic era is well known and a great deal has been written about it, he mainly goes through the old theories progressing to his opinion of early human art. At the beginning of his essay he acknowledges that any theory is possible because we will never know the reasons why or the meanings behind early art. Therefore, let me begin my summarizing some of the theories that the author introduces then proceed to his opinion on the early human relationship with nature and thought. Some of the theories of early art which the author introduces are; magical functions of art, realism of prehistoric art, fertility, and the religious function of art. He then turns to the 19th century and ideas that Upper Paleolithic art was prereligious. This theory includes the idea that early art laid the foundation for religion in later humans. After addressing these theories he asserts that it is not possible to determine whether Paleolithic art can be assumed to represent any of these ideas. He then moves on to two additional theories around Paleolithic art which introduces the concept of social interaction and organization as well as art as adaptation a theory that has its grounding in functionalism. At this point the author begins to introduce his theories on the beginnings of art. One of the ideas that he introduces is that maybe art didn’t mean anything, maybe these early people were simply drawing and exploring. Therefore, he changes the words to “representation for representation’s sake” which Halverson feels is a better term to study art. He does this by looking at the progression of art, beginning with the cutting tool, then carving, then incising. Finally ending with the introduction of two-dimensional design. It seems that this is an important stage for Halverson. To prove his point he looks at some of the most well known cave paintings from the time in suspect and looks at the cognitive development that went along with the development of art. Looking at concepts such as natural portrays, the naturalistic look of the art, symbolic representation, and the locations of the art. Halverson ends his discussion with the idea that all of these ideas represent the cognitive development and the evolution of the conscience of the human mind, as well as asserting that this was the beginning of “genuine thought” and quite likely this is all that early art represents.

Comments: Halverson sets out to make suggestions about some of the other theories about the meanings of early art, but also confronts the same problems of there not being any evidence to support his theories. Additionally, ideas such as sites, materials, and meaning within how early man produced art could be missing because of the archaeological record. It also seems that the ideas in his essay are not new, anthropologists have thought and written about this is the past.

Reply: We can never prove the meanings behind early art but we need to keep in mind that is just as likely that it meant nothing as that it did. In terms of meaning I propose that the early art was symbolic but didn’t mean anything. It may seem that I looked at concepts already proposed for early art, I did so to help people keep in mind that the beginnings of art are important to recognize and consider.

CLARITY: 5

DENICE KRETZ California State University Hayward (Peter Claus)

Halverson, John. Art for Art’s Sake in the Paleolithic. Current Anthropology February, 1987 Vol.28 (1):63-87.

In this article, Halverson explores the various theories that exist surrounding the meaning of Paleolithic art. After providing a very brief history concerning this argument and the many theories that have been presented, he suggests that one theory stands out above the rest, “Art for art’s sake”. Although not a new concept, Halverson indicates that the “Art for art’s sake” theory needs to be reexamined as a possible explanation for the meaning of Paleolithic art, as there is no evidence to suggest that people during this period had any reason to produce art other than as a form of representation.

In point of argument, Halverson presents the notion that it was not until the Mesolithic period that human beings began to explore cultural and religious domains and as such, art in the Paleolithic period remained free of such influences. He terms this period as one of beginnings. Using Luquet’s notions of art as an example, Halverson demonstrates that his argument is somewhat relative. Luquet’s theory distinguishes between “intellectual realism” and “visual realism”; the former is an attempt to recreates images based on how they are known, while the latter is solely based on representing images accurately (63).

Halverson’s case is thus based on the notion that during the Paleolithic era, human beings were not yet developed to a point beyond “visual realism”. Though comparison, his basis for this is found in Luquet’s work, in which children first learn to draw based on how things appear to them and not how they are in actuality. One proof in favor of Halverson is that the majority of cave paintings dated to the Paleolithic age contain only representations of animals, often poorly proportioned to reality and lack any kind of scene or natural environment to which they may belong. As Halverson states, “ they are abstract and radically displaced from nature” (67). This may suggest that these images were created solely for the purpose of art or abstract and not necessarily to convey meaning.

Halverson furthers his argument by suggesting that works created during the Upper Paleolithic period were “the world’s first observable signs, and there is good reason to think that they have the kind of implications for the development of human consciousness that Cassirer postulates in very general terms” (68). Obviously then, Halverson believes that the Paleolithic period was in fact the beginning of human development through art and what he terms “play” but more importantly the awakening of human consciousness (85).

Comments

The comments that follow the article make some very interesting points that should be considered when exploring the concept of “Art for art’s sake”. Perhaps the most convincing dispute is the fact that just as there is no proof for the other theories that exist surrounding this topic, there is no proof in favor of the concept “Art for art’s sake”. Consequently, until such proof is found, there will be an endless battle between theories with no possible solution.

Reply

In Halverson’s reply, he acknowledges this very apparent challenge and agrees. “ In nature of the case, no theory of what Paleolithic art meant can be proved or disproved. It is difficult enough to generalize about what are means to people even when we have a multitude of informants and written records” (85).

CLARITY: 4

STACEY SCHILLER Okanagan University College (Diana E. French)

Hammel, E.A. and Nancy Howell. Research in Population and Culture: An Evolutionary Framework. April, 1987 Vol.28(2):141-160.

In this rather interesting essay the authors are providing some foundations for thinking about population and culture within an evolutionary framework. The authors take the view that demography working together with anthropology can add to thoughts on evolution with regards to the subjects listed above. Even further, they believe that adding demographic thought to anthropological evolutionary theory can dispel some of the confusion, especially, when dealing with human groups. Furthermore, the authors believe that demography is central to the coevolution of societies, cultures, and the human experience. The basis of their argument involves understanding demography, species and cultures. They support this through a variety of methods, but central to this is placing it within a biological framework. They achieve this by including variation, and the errors that are caused by biological variation. This sets the stage for keeping the theory within the traditional view of biological evolution. Central to any demographic theory is population, in which the authors begin a discussion of. They add four additions to theories on population, which include fission, limitation, intensification, and decline. All of these ideas are important to their concept of population because they all have the ability to change or influence the population at any time and further, different populations will have different responses to them. Additionally, the authors call for demographic anthropology to take into account these ideas, and finally, test them. The authors then move on to a discussion of the population theories, of Malthus, Boserup, and Marx. The authors incorporate some basic understandings of these theories and expand on them. For instance, they believe that these theories on population did not take into account a changing population, that human populations are consistently dealing with products of population on the environment. Therefore, their argument progresses to looking at biological and cultural evolution as alternative responses to population pressures. Within this argument the authors believe it is important to recognize that biological and cultural responses to population do not end. Human response to population is influx, it is not bounded, almost like culture is always influx. Even further, we should be looking for this human response in the hominid record. The authors then proceed to propose some research possibilities to build theories for an evolutionary framework of population and culture. Some of these include studying, primate populations, paleodemography, hunter-gatherer populations, demography of food producers, and demography of industrialized societies. In the end, to provide the type of study the authors are calling for would require resources from many databases and a range of disciplines. It would also require populations, and possible isolated ones at that, something which the authors seem to believe is possible.

Comments: Demography may not be capable of providing a better understanding of cultural and biological evolution. When thinking about populations as capable of acting in certain ways may lead some people to believe that there are certain behaviors that remain constant within populations, which is problematic. Unfortunately, the authors fail to incorporate some of the fundamental concepts within demography (such as mortality, birth, etc.). The approach of demographic anthropology does merit further discussion and research, however, in doing so one would need to be careful of some important core concepts with biological anthropology.

Reply: As stated in the beginning of the paper the concepts of adding demography to concepts of anthropology and applying this to evolutionary theory is only a beginning, therefore, there are things that are problematic. Any theory on cultural evolution is going to be wrong. It is difficult to add the perspectives of demography to any theory relating to human behavior, therefore, anthropology in terms of its ethnography, archaeology, and biology can add to the interpretation.

CLARITY: 4

DENICE KRETZ California State University Hayward (Peter Claus)

Iijima, Yoshiharu. Folk Culture and the Liminality of Children. Current Anthropology August-October, 1987 Vol. 28(4):41-49.

In this article, Yoshiharu Iijima examines the liminality of children and how it is reflected in Japanese culture. Iijima begins his discussion by illustrating the liminality of children. He points out that historically, children in their first seven years led a precarious existence. Since children were seen as incomplete persons they were more spiritual. As a result, their role in society was to mediate between man and the gods. Children were also naturally different from adults because of their sacred character. For a child to become earthly, a variety of rituals involving the child’s growth were necessary. Children also played a significant role in Shinto rituals because of their liminal existence. According to Iijima, this created a separate world for children.

Iijima uses Shinto rituals, folk culture, customs and children’s games to show how the liminality of children is represented certain aspects of Japanese culture. He points out that children up to seven years were used as conduits in Shinto rituals because they were “the most suitable vessels for divine oracles because they were not fully in control of their own behaviour”(42). As well, during the rituals of Shujyoe and Shunie, children played the role of demons. Since children were believed to both hold magical powers and to not be a part of the real world, while actually living in it, children were treated like demons during the two rituals. For Iijima, this contradiction is an example of the idea of children being incomplete.

Iijima further discusses the liminality of children as represented in folk culture, customs and children’s games. He offers examples of the origins of two household gods that take the form of children. Kamadogami and Zashikiwarashi became household gods because they were either unsightly or neglected children who were killed off and subsequently worshiped as household gods. For Iijima, the practice of killing off or discarding children “may be seen as having the latent significance of sacrifice to atone for some offence or to bring prosperity”(43). As well, in Kabuki plays, children usually carried the burden of the “shadowy aspects of society”(42). He also points out that the children’s group, the customary method of socializing Japanese children before the Meiji Restoration, was used to inspire social values while using spiritual energies. He sees this as a “clever way of using the social and cultural ambiguity and liminality of children”(45). Finally, Iijima points out that children, when participating in games, can easily become drawn into the games and escape to another realm. This occurs because children do not comprehend the “ discipline of everyday life”(45). In addition, because children have their own realm of games, they are believed have a separate life from adults.

CLARITY: 3

CHRISTA TAYLOR Okanagan University College (Diana E. French)

Kessing, Roger M. Anthropology as Interpretive Quest April, 1987 Vol.28(2):161-176.

In this article Keesing is looking for a deeper understanding of cultural processes and societies than is provided by interpretive/symbolic anthropology. To Keesing interpreting cultural meaning does nothing to understand the processes which influence the meaning. The task of this paper is to go deeper than symbolic anthropology and to find out ways in which this might be possible. Therefore, within the realm of criticizing symbolic anthropology Keesing suggests three ways of understanding cultural meaning. The first is what he terms sociology of knowledge, in which he claims that things need to be understood in terms of knowledge as controlled and distributed. Secondly, Keesing makes a distingsion between what symbolic anthropology considers “webs of significance.” Keesing provides a different term, cultural ideologies. Within his definition the question becomes a understanding of who creates significance, power, and control. Even further, the who decided who gets the power while other people do not. The third idea that he confronts in relation to interpretative anthropology is the text. He believes that there are better ways to interpret and translate the readings. Therefore, briefly how does the author provide the date to prove the three concepts that were introduced above? When thinking about his concept of sociology of knowledge he introduces tribal societies. The data is based on some of the work that he gas done in Kwaio on the different meanings that certain cultural practices have to the different people all of whom are members of the same society and culture. In this sense, symbolic anthropology has paid too much attention to cosmology, rituals, and not enough significance has been put on daily life, and mundane tasks. In terms of the ideology of culture, Keesing suggests an almost Marxist perspective, resorting to these theories for some of his data. Essentially, interpretive anthropology provides little significance for social, economic, and political ideologies that provide the foundations for cultural meaning, this is a much deeper level than symbolic anthropology calls for. Finally, the problem with the text and cultural translation, and his basic argument within this thought is the deep ambiguous nature of language, which cannot be easily interpreted. The main source of data for this discussion is current research on metaphors and he specifically sites Lakoff and Johnson to understand the importance of metaphor in society. In sum, Keesing is concerned with the frameworks in which the work of symbolic anthropology places their interpretations. He feels that if more attention was paid to some of the ideas above then the sub field would be more meaningful.

Comments: Keesing neglects much data in current anthropological reading and resources that discuss the same theories. The alternative for Keesing is not the lack of symbolic anthropology but a different type, in which, political and economic systems are given more weight in influencing cultural meaning. The authors solution to symbolic anthropology is weak and unconvincing, even further he uses the work if Geertz as his primary source, which poses problems. Many of the problems he presents facing symbolic anthropology are not limited to these areas, “sociology of knowledge” is a concept that faces many other sub-disciplines within anthropology.

Reply: The anthropologist’s task does not end with trying to be more careful about how one translates and interprets in the field. We need to be more aware of societal complexity, power, and history. Currently, anthropology is not doing this. He is unable to resolve how to bring about distance when talking about cultural meaning, the correct perspective is not within his grasp at this time. We need to be able to have many different meanings, we know that cultures are not bounded that things are constantly changing, and individuals do not live their live by one culture.

CLARITY: 5

DENICE KRETZ California State University Hayward (Peter Claus)