Use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions ofUse. You may not download an entire issue of a j oual or multiple copies of articles. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR tansrssion must contain the same copyright notice that appears on te screen or printed page.
Use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions ofUse. You may not download an entire issue of a j oual or multiple copies of articles. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR tansrssion must contain the same copyright notice that appears on te screen or printed page.
Use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions ofUse. You may not download an entire issue of a j oual or multiple copies of articles. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR tansrssion must contain the same copyright notice that appears on te screen or printed page.
' Tails: A Comment on Binford ' s Analysis of Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems Author(s): Polly Wiessner Source: American Antiquity, Vol. 47, No. 1 (Jan., 1982), pp. 171-178 Published by: Society for Aerican Archaeology Stable URL: htt:/ww.Jstor.org/sta Accessed: 06/04/2011 13:51 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions ofUse, available at htt://w .jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms ad Conditions ofUse provides, in part, tat unless yo u ha ve obtained prior permission, yo u may not download an entire issue of a j oual or multiple copies of articles, ad you ry use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact te publisher regarding any frther use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at htt:/ /www .j stor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sam. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR tansrssion must contain the same copyright notice that appears on te screen or printed page of such tansrssion. JSTOR is a not-for-proft service tat helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, ad build upon a wide range of content in a tsted digital archive. We use infortion technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more infortion about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. Societ for American Archaeolog is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Antiquit.
htt://w.jstor.org COMMENTS 171 Acknowledgments. Credit is due to Ron Bishop for creation of the title; thanks are also due to Diane Z. Chase, Robert J. Sharer, and Bernard Wailes for their constructiva criticisms and readings of earlier versions of this paper. The author, however, is entirely responsible for the contents. The subject matter here presentad will be more fully discussed in the final publication of the University of Pennsylvania-University Museum Tayasal Project. REFERENCES CITED Bullard, William R., Jr. 1973 Postclassic culture in Central Peten and adjacent British Honduras. In The CJassic Maya collapse, edited by T. P. Culbert, pp. 221-241. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Chase, Arlen F. 1976 Topoxte and Tayasal: ethnohistory in archaeology. American Antiquity 41:154-167. 1979a Regional development in the Tayasal-Paxcaman Zone, El Peten, Guatemala: a preliminary state ment. Cermica de Cultura Maya 11:86-119. 1979b Postclassic Peten interaction spheres: the view from Tayasal. Paper presentad at 78th Annual Meetings of the American Anthropological Association, Cincinnati. To appear in The LowJand Maya Post dassic: questions and answers, edited by A. Chase and P. Rice. Chase, Diane Z. 1979 The Postclassic period at Nohmul and Santa Rita, Northern Belize. Paper presentad at 78th Annual Meetings of the American Anthropological Association, Cincinnati. To appear in The LowJand Maya Postdassic: questions and answers, edited by A. Chase and P. Rice. 1980 The Coroza! Postclassic Project: the 1979 excavations at Santa Rita and Nohmul. Paper presentad at the 1980 Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Philadelphia. 1981 The Maya Postclassic at Santa Rita Corozo!. ArchaeoJogy 34:1. Cowgill, G. L. 1963 Postdassic period culture in the vicinity of Flores, Peten, Guatemala. Unpublished Ph.D. disserta tion, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. Jones, G. D., D. S. Rice, and P. M. Rice 1981 The location of Tayasal: a reconsideration in light of Peten Maya ethnohistory and archaeology. American Antiquity 46:530-547. Pendergast, D. M. 1977 Royal Ontario museum excavation: finds at Lamanai, Belize. ArchaeoJogy 30:129-131. Rice, Prudence M. 1979 Ceramic and nonceramic artifacts of Lakes Yaxha-Sacnab, El Petn, Guatemala. Part I. The ceramics. Section B. Postclassic pottery from Topoxt. Cermica de Cultura Maya 11:1-85. Sharer, Robert J., and Arlen F. Chase 1976 New Town ceramic complex. In Prehistoric pottery analysis and the ceramics of Barton Ramie in the Belize Valley, by James C. Gifford. Peabody Museum Memoirs 18:288-314. Willey, Gordon R., T. P. Cubert, and R. E. W. Adams 1967 Maya Lowland ceramics: a report from the 1965 Guatemala City Conference. American Antiquity 32:289-315. BEYOND WILLOW SMOKE AND DOGS' TAILS: A COMMENT ON BINFORD'S ANAL YSIS OF HUNTER-GA THERER SETLEMENT SYSTEMS Polly Wiessner lt is suggested that archaeoJogists would benefit by conceiving organizationaJ variation in hunter-gatherer societies to be the resuJt of both organization around resources and organization around other persons in social relations of production. This approach allows for predictions to be made about the pattering of material remains which are the producs of intergroup and intragroup interaction. such as interar si te struc ture. profiles of exchange, stylistic variation in artifacts, etc. To illustrate this point. I outline a number of social strategies for reducing risk in social and natural resources and derive hypotheses about their material Polly Wiessner, Institut for Forhistorisk ArkaeoJogi, Arhus Universitet, Moesgaard. DK-270, H,jbjerg, Den mark 172 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 47, No. 1, 1982] correlates. While 1 emphasize the importance of understanding these strategies within a framework of adapta tion, 1 question whether it is possible to predict strategies of organization from environmentaJ variables aJone. In his article on hunter-gatherer settlement systems and archaeological site formation, Binford (1980) raises several important considerations for archaeologists by pointing out that (1) not all hunter-gatherer societies share a similar basic organization. and (2) majar differences in organization can have an important and predictable effect on the archaeological record. He describes two strategies of organization around resources: first, that of foragers, who move fre quently in arder to "map onto" resources, and second, that of collectors. who are more sedentary and supply themselves with specific resources through logistically organized task groups. He then relates these strategies to intersite assemblage variability. Arguing that good diagnosis is theory dependent, he links these strategies to different environmental conditions to make them "more understandable and predictable." Despite many points of interest in Binford's article, 1 find that his efforts to explain variation in hunter-gatherer societies through "a theory of adaptation," or, more accurately, through relating organization of persons to environmental variables, provides only a very limited framework for archaeologists to work with. Basic differences in hunter-gatherer organization are the products of adaptive strategies which relate persons in social relations of production. Ar chaeological data are also the products of both of these strategies. For example, the range of site types within a settlement system, the location of sites, the content of assemblages. etc., may be largely the consequence of direct organization around resources, but other crucial sets of data concerning internal site structure, profiles of exchange, stylistic variation in artifacts, contents of burials, etc., are the products of intragroup and intergroup interaction. In archaeology, when problems of multiple occupations, preservation, and dating make it difficult to draw any but very tentative conclusions about past organization from one set of data, it is crucial to ha ve as many in dependent data sets as possible with which to examine these problems. Thus, if archaeologists are to make full use of available data, hunter-gatherer organization must be viewed in light of a theory which accounts for various forms of organization by taking the entire productive process into account, that is, both the organization around resources and the organization around other persons in social relations of production. Below 1 will outline a theoretical framework which has the potential to account for the range of strategies used in the second half of the productive pro cess: strategies to reduce risk or to reduce the variance in social and natural resources. Then 1 will briefly illustrate how "risk theory" can be used to make predictions about a much wider range of material remains generated by different strategies of organization than do Binford's two categories which are based on organization around resources alone. Such predictions can be about internal site structure, distribution of faunal remains on a site, profiles of exchange, and stylistic variation in artifacts. MEANS OF REDUCING RISK In any society, economic strategies are twofold: those aimed at bringing in the mean sub sistence income needed to sustain a household throughout the average year, and those aimed at reducing the variance around the mean. In hunting and gathering societies, in which direct organization around resource procurement is often minimal or short in duration (Meillassoux 1973), it is often strategies for reducing risk which require the most extensive cooperation and thus have a marked influence on social organization. In view of this, many of the organizational differences in these societies stem from different strategies for reducing risk. Briefly, means of reducing risk can be seen as falling under four primary strategies, where risk is defined as prob ability of loss (Riegel and Miller 1959): (1) Prevention of loss: reduction of hazard or minimization of actual loss. Among hunter-gatherers this includes such preventive measures as rituals aimed at warding off misfor tune; control of resources through burning; and allocation of land rights so that a group can plan a yearly round without running the risk that others will ha ve come into the area unexpectedly and COMMENTS 173 ha ve exhausted critical resources. Where there is pressure on land, defense of territory might be included with these measures. (2) Transfer of risk or loss from one party to another: In the recent past this strategy appears to have been used by such groups as the Kwakiutl (Piddocke 1969; Suttles 1968), among whom a surplus was amassed during the summer and then transferred to poorer groups during winter ceremonies. A negative form of this strategy is the transfer of loss through expropriation of the land or resources of another group by force. (3) Storage, or self-assumption of risk: losses are covered by previous accumulation. (4) Pooling of risk, or risk sharing: a social method of "insurance" which combines principies of risk transfer with principies of storage, and storage of obligations. In pooling, risk is distributed over a broad segment of the population, so that loss is made more predictable and shared by those in the pool. Small everyday losses-gifts of food, assistance, etc.-are thereby substituted for larger, more indefinite ones, such as weeks without hunting success, prolonged periods of sickness, etc. Pooling of risk can be locally organized through widespread sharing and through in dividually chosen partnerships of mutual reciprocity, or, it can be centrally organized through giving tribute to a central figure for redistribution. Many hunter-gatherer societies use a form of risk pooling described by Sahlins (1972) as generalized reciprocity, which operates under the terms that he who has gives to him who is in need, donors and recipients alternating, as the condi tions of have and have not may be reversed. Most hunter-gatherer societies used a combination of strategies for reducing risk, sore simultaneously, others in different seasons, still others for managing short-term and long-term risks. Here I will muy discuss strategies for dealing with short-term variation, beca use these have a profound influence on organization and result in a continuum of hunter-gatherer organization which ranges from that of the Kalahari San who rely primarily on risk sharing, to that of the Nunamiut who set aside substantial household stores, to that of groups on the Northwest (Pacific) Coast who use storage in combination with centralized pooling of risk. It should be added that all of these risk-reducing strategies can be linked to Binford's strategies for organization around resources, with individually organized pooling of risk being largely associated with a foraging strategy, and centralized pooling, transfer, and storage being most frequently associated with a collector's approach, and so on. ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPLICA TIONS Turning to the archaeological implications of different methods for reducing risk, I will give sore brief examples of predictions which can be made about the material correlates of different strategies. I will limit these to societies which deal with short-term risks either primarily through individually organized pooling of risk or through storage, so that they can be linked to Binford's collector/forager dichotomy, making the two approaches more comparable. In future work it will be necessary to develop similar predictions for contents of burials, as well as for the material re mains of societies which rely on transfer of risk or centralized pooling. Such strategies may have been much more important in the past among temperate clima te hunter-gatherers who were sur rounded by societies with more equivalent levels of adaptation than are hunter-gatherers today. Interna) Site Structure Societies which rely heavily on risk sharing can be expected to have a site layout rather dif ferent from those which rely on household storage. This will be due to different intracamp rela tions in the two systems. Aside from the more obvious features like storage facilities. societies which practice noncommunal storage would be expected to have a more "closed" site plan, i.e., one which has either widely spaced household units or closed-in eating and storage areas, in arder to avoid the jealousy and conflict which might arise from one household visibly having more than another. Among those who pool risk and share what is brought into the camp daily, one of the majar means of determining who has and who is in need. is an "open" site plan which makes it possible for members of each household to see what the others ha ve brought in and gauge their re- 174 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 47, No.1, 1982) quests accordingly. Published camp plans from various societies which share widely within the camp, such as those from the !Kung San (Yellen 1977a), the !Ko San (Sbrzesny 1976), the Pitjand jara (Tindale 1972), the Birhor (Williams 1968a, 1968b), the Pygmies (Turnbull 1965), and summer fishing camps of the Peel River Kutchin (Slodbokin 1962), depict an open site layout which allows members of each household to see what others around them are doing at all times of the day. When cold weather does not permit an open plan, other means of assuring visibility of food within the camp are used. Among the Ammassilik lnuit of Greenland, the en tire band of 3-10 families in ha bits one communal house during the winter (Thalbitzer 1914) and among the Polar Inuit, meat brought into the camp is placed on a communal rack, so that it is visible to all members of the camp (Freuchen 1962; Rasmussen 1905). Published plans from groups which rely on household storage are less common, but those available do indica te both wide spacing of household units and closed-in storage areas (Spencer 1959; Watanabe 1972). Consequently, when it is possible to determine from the archaeological record whether a site plan is "open" or "closed," one could formulate hypotheses about the principal means of reducing risk used at the site and test them with independent, but complementary, data. Distribution of Faunal Remains Within a Site As can be predicted from the social relations accompanying household storage and sharing, both butchering techniques and distribution of fauna! remains appear to differ significantly be tween societies in which persons share all large game brought into the camp, from those in which a household supplies itself largely from its own stores. Yellen (1977b), developing a theme in troduced by White (1952, 1953, 1954, 1955), argues that !Kung San butchering practices are for the most part determined by a set of cultural rules, and that differences in butchering practices thus may denote cultural differences, just as might variation in pottery designs or stone too! assemblages. My own observations on !Kung meat sharing support Yellen's views in that certain kinsmen expect to get parcels of meat and thereby reinforce these "rules." Clase scrutiny of Yellen's camp plans also indicate that the distribution of fauna! remains partially reveals pat terns of meat-sharing within the camp, although more often than not such patterns will be obscured by multiple occupations of a site and postdepositional disturbances. In his thorough study, Binford finds the opposite to be true for both Nunamiut butchering prac tices and distribution of fauna! remains within a site. For butchering he demonstrates that "variability is the name of the game" (1978:87), and that butchering practices hinge on such fac tors as current needs, future requirements, transport and preservation costs, etc. He argues that the presence and distribution of fauna on a site are the products of the utility index of various anatomical parts of an animal, with low utility parts being consumed immediately and high utility parts being stored. He goes on to suggest that apparent differences between !Kung and Nunamiut butchering practices stem from strategies of sharing, "mapping (parts of an animal) onto persons," and storage, "mapping (parts of an animal) into different places at different times" (1978:133). Thus, in societies which rely primarily on sharing, one might expect a greater regularity of butchering practices and a distribution of fauna! remains which reflects sharing; while among those which re! y on household storage, the expectation is for less regular butchering practices and a distribution of fauna! remains which reflects a choice of parts for immediate con sumption or storage, according to current and future needs. Intersite Variability Since Binford's prediction for greater intersite variability in collector systems is based largely on the premise that more types of collector sites will be visible archaeologically, as a consequence of the bulk of material processed at them, increased intersite variability should also be linked to increased reduction of risk through storage. It might be added, however, that because different settlement patterns can be the result of many variables pertaining to resources exploited and to the means of exploiting them, high intersite variability may not turn out to be a good indicator of a COMMENTS 175 collector/storage adaptation. Site variability can be produced by a number of factors which are not necessarily linked to a collector/storage system. For example, until recently, the !Kung and other San groups occasionally shot animals from blinds. which were substantial constructions (Brooks 1980; Crowell and Hitchcock 1980), and tracked them the next day, thus adding a field camp/station to their repertoire without changing their basic organization. Exchange From strategies for reducing risk, one might predict that among those who rely on pooling, the distribution of exchange items would not drop off directly with distance as it would among those who rely on household storage. This is because, in arder to insure that their needs will be met, those who pool risk must integrate themselves into a much wider segment of the population than do those who meet their own needs through storage. Little quantitative work has been done on profiles of exchange over space among hunter-gatherers, but data from the !Kung (Wiessner 1977) indica te that exchange ties do not fall off directly with distance but are often more intense with distant groups who have complementary resources than with adjacent groups who have similar ones. Further work might reveal that among semisedentary groups who rely on storage, exchange ties drop off more directly with distance. Stylistic Variation in Artifacts Profiles of stylistic variation can also be expected to vary according to means of reducing risk. Among those who pool risk, an effort is made to blend the individual into the greater population rather than to emphasize household or band identity. The opposite should be the case for those who use prvate storage within the household or band and thus have reason to function as a unit and emphasize group boundaries. Data from analysis of stylistic variation in !Kung San projectile points (Wiessner 1980b) show that stylistic differences do not occur prior to the emergence of dialect or linguistic group boundaries. In contrast, it is interesting to note that ownership marks are most frequently reported among hunter-gatherers who rely on storage (Spencer 1959, Watanabe 1972). Implications for Change During a switch to agriculture, the differences in the changes required between those who rely on storage and those who pool risk are impressive. Those relying on prvate storage would only have to undergo gradual change in arder to become more sedentary and begin food production, for once storage is established, strategies for increasing mean income and decreasing the variance around the mean can be one and the same-to produce more. Among those who share widely on a daily basis, however, these two strategies can contradict one another. Because of the terms of sharing relationships, i.e .. that he who has gives to him who is in need, members of a family which produces more must also give away more to friends and relatives. However, doing so beyond a certain point will not necessarily increase their own security. The change required for those who pool risk to switch to food production is so great that Meillassoux (1973) has suggested that the origins of agriculture might not be found in such societies. His view may be extreme, but it does call attention to the fact that it is not just the switch to agriculture which must be accounted for, but prior to that the origins of priva te or semiprivate storage. It is also possible that Binford's correlation between low effective temperature and storage can be partially explained by the possibility that hunter-gatherers in more temperate environments in the past, who practiced ex tensive storage, gradually changed to food production, and only those in societies in which low ef fective temperature made food production difficult did not change. It might be added here that in arder to gain further understanding of the choice of certain op tions in different natural and social environments, all of these strategies for reducing risk can and should be put within a framework of adaptation. This issue is beyond the scope of this comment. 176 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 47, No. 1, 1982] However, although Binford does demonstrate sore interesting trends about the correlation of storage with low effective temperature and incongruity in resources, 1 do not think that this correlation between environmental variables on the one hand, and forms of organization on the other, is as straightforward as he suggests. For instance, there is no reason why spatial in congruity in resources is limited to areas of low effective temperature, nor why storage is the best method for dealing with spatial incongruity in resources. Hunters and gatherers may also solve this problem through functional equivalents, such as creating social ties which allow them to "map onto" the resources of other groups, when resources in their areas are low and those in other areas are more abundan t. The !Kung. for example, are faced with the problem of incongrui ty in resources every year, when the most abundant resources are far from water points. However, they do not solve this problem by storing mongongo nuts. but by visiting friends and relatives in other areas, who ha ve more ample resources in a given season, or by falling back on secondary resources (Wiessner 1977; 1980a). Binford himself recognizes these exceptions to the cold climate/storage correlation in mentioning 10 societies which do not conform to his predictions. Environmental variables, then, can set the bounds within which certain strategies work effec tively according to abundance, spatial and temporal distribution, and patterns of variation of resources, but in most environments there are a number of organizational strategies which can fill certain needs. Unless one makes the tenuous assumption that there exists an optimal solution to living in a given environment and that most societies arrive at this solution, it is dubious whether environmental variables can be used to make accurate predictions about organization in prehistoric societies. This point has been well demonstrated by lngold (1980) who argues that hunting, pastoralism, and ranching are all based on the same animal, in the same environment, and with similar technologies and organization around work, yet with radically different relations of production. Because of problems posed by (1) the optimization assumption, (2) differences in reconstructing past environments. and (3) the impact of surrounding sociopolitical environments as well as the natural environment on organization, 1 suggest that ideas about the effectiveness of certain organizational forms in given environments are better employed to examine inferences about organization which are derived from patterns of material remains, rather than to predict such patterns. CONCLUSION Despite sore discrepancies over the role of environmental data in reconstructing past social organization, Binford's approach nd mine share a common goal. That is, we both try to specify a spectrum of organizational strategies which hunter-gatherers use to adapt to various en vironments, and to relate these strategies to regular and predictable patterns of material re mains. Certainy Binford's paper provides a stimulating beginning in this direction. But, if this ap proach is to take us very far, it will be necessary to consider variation in hunter-gatherer organization in the light of strategies used in the entire productive process-those strategies used for organization around resources, as well as those used in organization around other persons in social relations of production. For instance, the addition of risk-reducing strategies to those for organization around resources, as outlined here, provides, for a number of reasons, a more pro ductive framework with which the archaeologist can view hunter-gatherer organization. First, it has the potential to add many more strategies of adaptation to Binford's two categories of collec tor and forager. Second, the strategies for reducing risk described here differ considerably from one another. This is unlike Binford's forager and collector systems, which he describes as being a graded series from simple to complex, with "logistically organized systems having all the proper ties of a forager system and then sore" (1980:12). Consequently, unlike Binford's hypotheses, the risk-derived hypotheses are usually dichotomous, making them in principie easier to assess with archaeological data. Finally, the consideration of strategies for reducing risk makes a much wider range of data available to the archaeologist, data which are the product of intergroup and in tragroup interaction (exchange, style, interna! site structure, etc.), rather than direct organiza tion around resources. The use of such information is essential if conclusions are to be well tested with independent data. COMMENTS REFERENCES CITED Binford, Lewis R. 1978 Nunomiut ethnoarchaeology. Academic Press, New York. 177 1980 Willow smoke and dogs' tails: hunter-gatherer settlement systems and archaeological site forma tion. American Antiquity 45:4-20. Brooks, Alison 1980 A Note on the Late Stone Age features at f Gi: analogies from historie San hunting practices. Bots wono Notes ond Records 10:1-3. Crowell, A. L., and Hitchcock, R. K. 1980 Barsarwa ambush hunting in Botswana. Botswono Notes ond Records 10:37-51. Freuchen, Peter 1962 Peter Freuchen's book of Eskimos. The World Publishing Co., New York. Ingold, Tim 1980 Hunters. postoroJists ond ronchers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Meillassoux, Claude 1973 On the mode of production of the hunting band. In French perspectives in Africon studies. edited by P. Alexandre, pp. 187-204. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Piddocke, Stuart 1969 The potlatch system of the southern Kwakuitl: a new perspective. In Environment ond cultural be hovior. edited by A. P. Vayda, pp. 130-156. Natural History Press, Garden City, New York. Rasmussen, Knud 1905 Nye Mennesker. Kbenhavn og Kristiania, Kbenhavn. Riegel, R., and ). S. Miller 1959 Insuronce principies ond proctices. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.). Sahlins, Marshall 1972 Stone oge economics. Aldine-Atherton, Chicago. Sbrzesny, Heide 1976 Die SpieJe der !Ko-Buschleute. R. Piper & Co., Mnchen. Slodbokin, Richard 1962 Band organization of the Peel River Kutchin. Bulletin of the Notionol Museum of Ganada 179. Ottawa. Spencer, Robert F. 1959 The north Alaskan Eskimo: a study in ecology and society. Bureou of American Ethnology BuJletin 171. Washington, D.C. Suttles, Wayne 1968 Coping with abundance: subsistence on the Northwest Coast. In Mon the hunter. edited by R. B. Lee and l. DeVore, pp. 56-68. Aldine. Chicago. Thalbitzer, William [editor) 1914 The Ammassilik Eskimo. Meddelelser om Grnland 40, Copenhagen. Tindale, Norman B. 1972 The Pitjandjara. In Hunters ond gatherers toda y. edited by M. Bicchieri, pp. 217-268. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York. Turnbull, Colin M. 1965 Woyword servants. The two worlds of the Africon Pygmies. Natural History Press, Garden City, N.). Watanabe, Hitoshi 1972 The Ainu. In Hunters ond gotherers today. edited by M. Bicchieri, pp. 451-484. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York. White, T. E. 1952 Observations on the butchering techniques of sore aboriginal peoples. no. l. American Antiquity 17:337-338. 1953 Observations on the butchering techniques of sore aboriginal peoples, no. 2. American Antiquity 19:160-164. 1954 Observations on the butchering techniques of sore aboriginal peoples, nos. 3-6. American Antiquity 19:254-264. 1955 Observations on the butchering techniques of sore aboriginal peoples, nos. 7-9. American Antiquity 21:170-178. Wiessner, Polly 1977 Hxoro: A regional system of reciprocity for reducing risk omong the !Kung Son. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. 1980a Risk, reciprocity and social influence on !Kung San economies. In PoJitics ond history in bond so cieties. edited by E. R. Leacock and R. B. Lee. Cambridge University Press, London, in press. 1980b Stylistic variation in Kalahari San projectile points. Ms. in possession of the author. Williams, Bobby jo 1968a The Birhor of India and sore comments on band organization. In Mon the hunter. edited by R. B. Lee and l. DeVore, pp. 126-137. Aldine, Chicago. 178 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 47, No. 1, 1982) 1968b Establishing cultural heterogeneities in settlement patterns: an ethnographic example. In New per spectives in archaeoiogy. edited by S. R. Binford and L. R. Binford, pp. 161-170. Aldine, Chicago. Yellen, John E. 1977a Archaeological approaches to the present. Academic Press. New York. 1977b Cultural patterning in faunal remains: evidence from the !Kung Bushmen. In Experimental archae ology, edited by D. W. Ingersoll, John E. Yellen, and William MacDonald. pp. 271-331. Columbia Universi ty Press, New York. TOWARDS A RATIO NAL NOMENCLATURE IN FAUNAL AND ECOLOGICAL STUDIES Engelbert Schramm Two new terms are recommended for the disciplines of fauna! and ecological studies in historical perspec tive. They are congruent with terms in related sciences. Following their precise comparison of nomenclature, S. L. Olsen and J. W. Olsen ( 1981) conclud ed that "Zooarchaeology seems to be the most appropriate term to describe the entire discipline of fauna! studies in archaeology." Nevertheless, 1 have two objections to the use of "zooarchaeology": (1) the definition by Olsen and Olsen as "fauna! studies in archaeology" is unnecessarily restrictive because such studies need not necessarily be done under archaeological auspices: they may also occur in a zoological context. Methods and materials are the same. Sore biologists cannot identify themselves with the role of an archaeological scientist and would not accept a !abe! ending in "-archaeology" for their research into the history of animal domestication. (2) "zooarchaeology" and "archaeozoology" are formed from the same roots, and it may be possible to interchange them by mistake. Such con fusion would not only be of concern to the general public but would also concern scientific col leagues from many countries where the term "zooarchaeology" is not in use at al!. l. therefore, prefer another term: "palaeo-ethnozoology", which is synthesized by analogy to "palaeo-ethnobotany" ("the study of the plants cultivated or utilized by man in ancient times, which have survived in archaeological contexts [Renfrew 1973:11" ). The central problem of "palaeo-ethnozoology" is the study of animals which ha ve been bred or utilized by man, or at least have been living within or near human sites in the past. "Palaeo-ethnozoology" provides the linkage between palaeozoology and ethnozoology (the science of domestic animals). This is in dicated by the radical words forming the term: "Palaeo" connotes the historical dimension of the discipline, and "ethno" implica tes man's role and the epochal limitation to the Holocene (in which human influence on natural history has become manifest). In addition, another term may be derived from the same prefixes as "palaeo-ethnozoology" and "palaeo-ethnobotany." This is "palaeo-ethnoecology.'' The subject of this discipline is the study of the historical interactions between man and nature, and especially of the environmental changes caused by human influence in the past. The ecological situation as modified by human labor can not be reduced to that of earlier epochs, the regularities of which are studied by palaeoecology. The investigation of the epoch of human natural history needs a distinct discip!inary !abe!, such Engelbert Schramm. Okologie!Biologie (Fb 16), f. W. Goethe-Universitat. Siesmayerstr. 70. D-6000 Frankfurt/ Main, Federal Republic of Germany