Hunter-gatherers 'on the move'?

Hunter-gatherers 'on the move'? LARS LARSSON Lars "Lasseman" Larsson, born on February 26, 1972 in Kung?lv, Sweden, is the lead singer and keyboardist of dansband act Arvingarna. , HANS KINDGREN, KJEL KNUTSSON, DAVID David, in the BibleDavid,d. c.970 B.C., king of ancient Israel (c.1010–970 B.C.), successor of Saul. The Book of First Samuel introduces him as the youngest of eight sons who is anointed king by Samuel to replace Saul, who had been deemed a failure. LOEFFLER &AGNETA AKERLUND (ed.). Mesolithic on the move: papers presented at the6th International Conference on the Mesolithic in Europe, Stockholm2000. xlix+702 pages, 486 figures, 70 tables. 2003. Oxford: Oxbow;1-84217-089-9 hardback 95 [pounds sterling]. COLETTE & JEAN-GEORGES ROZOY. Les camps mesolithiques duTiller: analyses typologique, typometrique, structurelle et spatiale(Societe Prehistorique Francaise Travaux 2). 145 pages, 80 figures, 82tables. 2002. Paris: Societe Prehistorique Francaise; 2-913745-07-5paperback 22 [pounds sterling]. FREDERIC SURMELY (ed.). Le site mesolithique des Baraquettes(Velzic, Cantal Cantal(käNtäl`), department (1990 pop. 158,300), S central France, in Auvergne. Aurillac is the capital. ) et le peuplement de la moyenne montagne cantalienne,des origines h la fin du Mesolithique (Societe Prdhistorique FrancaiseMemoire 32). 283 pages, 133 figures, 14 colour & b&wphotographs, 52 tables. 2003. Paris: Societe Prehistorique Francaise;2-913745-12-1 paperback. FREDERIC SEARA, SYLVAIN ROTILLON & CHRISTOPHE CUPILLARD (ed.).Campements mesolithiques en Bresse jurassienne: Choisey etRuffey-sur-Seille. 341 pages, 292 figures, 88 tables. 2002. Paris:Maison des sciences de l'Homme; 2-7351-0815-5 (ISSN ISSNabbr.International Standard Serial Number 1255-2127)paperback 42 [pounds sterling]. NENA GALANIDOU & CATHERINE PERLES (ed.). The Greek Mesolithic:problems and perspectives. 224 pages, 68 figures, 67 tables. 2003.London: British School at Athens The British School at Athens (BSA) (Greek: Βρετανική Σχολή Αθηνών) is one of the 17 Foreign Archaeological Institutes in Athens, Greece. ; 0-904887-43-X hardback. BEN FITZHUGH & JUNKO HABU HABU Highest and Best Use (property valuation)HABU Hook A Brother UpHABU Hellsfire All Balls Up (nickname for SR-71)(ed.). Beyond foraging andcollecting: evolutionary change in hunter-gatherer systems, xvii+442pages, 81 figures, 26 tables. 2002. New York New York, state, United StatesNew York,Middle Atlantic state of the United States. It is bordered by Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and the Atlantic Ocean (E), New Jersey and Pennsylvania (S), Lakes Erie and Ontario and the Canadian province of (NY): Kluwer/AcademicPlenum; 0-306-46753-4 hardback $99. Mesolithic in Europe Mesolithic on the move is the publication deriving from the sixthinternational conference on the Mesolithic in Europe. The publicationsresulting from this conference, which is held every five years, providean illuminating snapshot of the state of Mesolithic research. What isimmediately noticeable is the large size of this latest volume: itincludes 92 contributions from 136 authors. This compares with 30articles in the first volume (Kozlowski 1973) and indicates theincreasing quantity of, and interest in, Mesolithic research. As mightbe imagined for a volume of this size, the quality of the contributionsis mixed; many however are very impressive. Lack of space preventsmention of all the articles I found particularly stimulating buthighlights include: Nyree Finlay's discussion of microliths andmultiple authorship; Liv Nilsson Sturtz's study of Mesolithicburial practices, employing the French taphonomically based approachanthropologie de terrain; and Jimmy Strassburg's lively polemicdescribing the different standards applied to similar phenomena in theMesolithic and Neolithic. Mention must also go to those with thethankless task of undertaking preliminary investigations and synthesesin those regions without a tradition of Mesolithic research. Suchstudies, of which there are several in this volume, are expanding ourknowledge of the variation in ways of life in different areas of Europeand challenging received stereotypes. This volume is also useful in that it reveals new theoretical andmethodological trends and new loci loci[L.] plural of locus.lociPlural of locus, see there of interest in Mesolithic research.In many ways, it departs from previous volumes in its level oftheoretical divergence. In addition to traditional, functional andstructural-functionalist accounts, an increasing variety of'post-processual' approaches are in evidence. In previousvolumes, a few lone voices dabbled with symbolic and structuralistnarratives (i.e. Larsson 1990); in this volume, there are similarsymbolic and structuralist relicts of '80s postprocessualism, butalso a welcome increase in papers from authors steeped in more recentsocial theory. Strassburg bemoans the paucity of such contributions;however even this small number should be welcomed. Greater theoreticaldiversity is a happy change from the rather tedious structuralfunctionalism Structural functionalism also known as a social systems paradigm is a sociological paradigm which addresses what social functions various elements of the social system perform in regard to the entire system. that has until recently dominated Mesolithic archaeology.This approach has proved more heavily entrenched within Mesolithicnarratives than in other periods of prehistory prehistory,period of human evolution before writing was invented and records kept. The term was coined by Daniel Wilson in 1851. It is followed by protohistory, the period for which we have some records but must still rely largely on archaeological evidence to , so any evidence that itis finally being disrupted is to be welcomed. This greater theoreticaldiversity offers new possibilities and directions for existing evidence.Burial evidence can be discussed in terms other than those relating to relating torelate prep → concernantrelating torelate prep → bez��glich +gen, mit Bezug auf +accsocial stratification Noun 1. social stratification - the condition of being arranged in social strata or classes within a groupstratificationcondition - a mode of being or form of existence of a person or thing; "the human condition" and rank (i.e. Nilsson Sturtz) and faunal materialin terms other than those relating to economy (i.e. Hansen, Ahlback). In comparison with the previous volumes, a number of themes standout. First is the increasing reliance on ethnographic analogy. Thoughanalogy was in evidence from the first volume onwards (e.g. Price 1973),in Mesolithic on the move there is a large increase in papers drawing onethnographic material. This has been the case elsewhere in Mesolithicstudies, with accounts of all theoretical persuasions relyingincreasingly heavily on ethnographic studies ethnographic studies,n.pl methods of qualitative research developed by anthropologists, in which the researcher attends to and inter-prets communication while participating in the research context. of hunter-gatherers. Thetheoretical and methodological justification for this reliance is rarelyarticulated. Thus Peter Jordan's thoughtful discussion represents atimely exploration of this issue. He notes that the manner in whichpost-processualists use ethnographic analogy can mean that'Mesolithic lives come to be explored through reference to a seriesof, at times, banal phenomenological truisms' (p. 130)--a chargethat can certainly be levelled at several of the papers in this volume.Jordan urges that, instead, archaeologists should engage with thespecificity of their evidence and use analogy as a point of departure,actively seeking differences as well as similarities betweenethnographies and archaeological data sets. It is unfortunate that, atthe end of this rigorous discussion, Jordan recommends the sensitive useof direct historical analogy--in this case that, because of similarlandscapes and 'long-term cultural links' (p. 137), hisfieldwork on Khanty landscape enculturation enculturationthe process by which a person adapts to and assimilates the culture in which he lives.See also: SocietyNoun 1. enculturation provides more appropriateanalogies for understanding prehistoric Fennoscandia. The concept ofdirect historical analogy seems to combine elements both of processualviews of the determining effects of the environment and Sollasian viewsof culture history. Jordan's work is more subtle than this;however, similar arguments are increasingly being used in Palaeolithicand Mesolithic archaeology to justify the use of direct analogies,particularly in the identification of shamanism shamanism/sha��man��ism/ (shah��-) (sha��mah-nizm?) a traditional system, occurring in tribal societies, in which certain individuals (shamans) are believed to be gifted with access to an invisible spiritual and very specific setsof beliefs. Any thorough examination of analogy needs to consider thedangers of direct historical analogy in perpetuating views ofhunter-gatherers as people lacking history. Another interesting development noticeable in the volume is anattempt at the rehabilitation of the concept of ethnicity. Severalpapers deal with this topic to a greater or lesser extent (Bergsvik,Bergsvik & Olsen, Knutsson et al., Hallgren) and include atheoretical discussion of the concept and an awareness of its problems.However, all conclude that the term retains some validity for theunderstanding of regional variation in artefact See artifact. forms. This focus onethnicity is part of a renewal in interest in lithic lith��ic?1?adj.Consisting of or relating to stone or rock.Adj. 1. lithic - of or containing lithium2. lithic - relating to or composed of stone; "lithic sandstone" studies. During thedays when the Mesolithic was only an economic and ecological phenomenon,lithic studies were seen very much as second best to faunal analysis, tothe extent that Peter Rowley-Conwy suggested that it was not worthexcavating sites lacking organic material. Instead of treating lithicsas economic indicators, the loci of these approaches to lithic materialsare diverse, ranging from (to name but a few) an examination of theaesthetics of artefact production (Himmerson Berglund), artefactbiographies (Finlay), the social values oflithic production (Lindgren,Knutsson et al., Carlsson et al.), exchange (Bengtsson, Bergsvik &Olsen), and procurement (Yven) to artefact function (Iovina). As in allprevious Mesolithic in Europe volumes, typological analyses are also inevidence. This variety of approaches testifies to the level and range ofinformation that can be obtained through a detailed study of lithicmaterial. Also noticeable in the volume is an increasing reliance on stableisotope stable isotopen.An isotope of an element that shows no tendency to undergo radioactive breakdown. studies. Such studies have tended to focus on the Mesolithic/Neolithic transition but, in this volume, there is a greater range ofenquiries. Erikson & Zagorska compare the stable isotope data fromdog tooth pendants and humans buried at Zvejnieki to suggest that dogs(or their teeth as pendants) were traded from coastal areas, Schultinguses data from Teviec and Hoedic to suggest patrilocal pat��ri��lo��cal?adj. AnthropologyOf or relating to residence with a husband's kin group or clan.pat marriage patternsin Brittany, while both Fischer and Ahlstrom look at stable isotope datafor the whole of the Mesolithic period Mesolithic period(mĕz'əlĭth`ĭk)or Middle Stone Age,period in human development between the end of the Paleolithic period and the beginning of the Neolithic period. . Missing topics are also interesting. The near absence of anymention of complex hunter-gatherers suggests that Mesolithicarchaeology's enthusiasm for this topic is waning. This representsa significant change from the competitive complexity identification ofthe '70s and '80s: at the height of the complexity boom, thediscovery of a single bead appeared to be sufficient to propelone's Palaeolithic or Mesolithic group into the ranks of complexhunter-gatherers. The absence of complex hunter-gatherers may be part ofthe trend already noted amongst the papers in the volume to emphasisethe diversity and the specific regional context of Mesolithic ways oflife. To a certain extent, the volume also reveals national trends inMesolithic research. The more radical papers are Swedish in origin; theDanish and British papers are divided between the functional andenvironmental approaches that have traditionally dominated Mesolithicresearch in both countries and approaches that are more aware of recenttheoretical trends; while the French papers focus on lithic typology typology/ty��pol��o��gy/ (ti-pol��ah-je) the study of types; the science of classifying, as bacteria according to type. typologythe study of types; the science of classifying, as bacteria according to type. ,technology and raw material. Similar regional traditions of Mesolithicand, or, hunter-gather research are very much in evidence in the otherbooks reviewed here. French tradition The three French site reports, for example, represent aninteresting mix of the technological, typological and'palaeoethnographical' strands in French research. Thesevolumes combine detailed technological and spatial analysis (Data West Research Agency definition: see GIS glossary.) Analytical techniques to determine the spatial distribution of a variable, the relationship between the spatial distribution of variables, and the association of the variables of an area. aimed atreconstructing the activities that generated the sites, with (usually)an unthinking equation of different microlith mi��cro��lithn.A minute calculus, usually multiple and resembling coarse sand.microlitha minute concretion or calculus. styles with particularregional groups. The reports also have their differences: Baraquettes isstrongly functional in tone, while Bresse stresses the advantages of aninterdisciplinary approach. Unlike the contributors to Mesolithic on the move, who at leastdiscussed the problems of relating artefact styles or types with ethnicgroups, the authors of Tiller and Bresse automatically equate differentmicrolithic mi��cro��lith?n. ArchaeologyA very small blade made of flaked stone and used as a tool, especially in the European Mesolithic Period.mi styles with some very detailed regional groupings. In theformer volume, J-G. & C. Rozoy even use Bordes-style cumulativefrequency graphs for typological analysis to detect cultural signatures(in Britain, differences in proportions of tool types represented wouldonly ever be seen in functional terms). Only Surmely on Baraquettesquestions these assumptions, noting that different microlith types gradeinto each other and that the dubious identification of different formshas led to the erroneous elucidation of particular regional groups.Surmely suggests that more careful, systematic work needs to beundertaken on microlith form and that instead microlith shape could wellbe due to functional considerations. A second quibble QUIBBLE. A slight difficulty raised without necessity or propriety; a cavil. 2. No justly eminent member of the bar will resort to a quibble in his argument. with all three volumes is that they automaticallyrefer to microliths as armatures. Use-wear has demonstrated thatmicroliths (as one might expect of the flexible components of compositetools) had more varied uses. Surmely does quote one of these studies ina throw-away line, but he then discusses microliths as armatures forthree pages; the other authors seem unaware of these studies. Viewingmicroliths only as armatures causes problems in functional analyses suchas these; sites dominated by microliths are seen as reflecting huntingactivities, rather than as the product of a more varied range of tasks.This of course reinforces stereotypes of the Mesolithic as dominated byimportant male hunting activities (Finlay 2000) for which J-G. Rozoyhimself has been a prime offender, dubbing the Mesolithic 'the ageof bowmen and of red deer' (Rozoy 1984). In contrast to these typological problems, the technologicalstudies in these volumes are impressive. Each volume draws upon slightlydifferent approaches and interests to elucidate different aspects ofMesolithic life. The Rozoys examine the differing life histories oftools and waste products and investigate individual technical variation.Delphine Borgeois, the author of the typological study of the Bressesites, is inspired by the technological studies of Upper Palaeolithicmaterial to reconstruct the technical choices made in Mesolithic chainesoperatoires. Surmely is particularly adept at reconstructing Mesolithictechnical economies--the sources exploited, the state in which thematerial was brought to site (as a nodule nodule:see concretion. noduleIn geology, a rounded mineral concretion that is distinct from, and may be separated from, the formation in which it occurs. , a preform pre��form?tr.v. pre��formed, pre��form��ing, pre��forms1. To shape or form beforehand.2. To determine the shape or form of beforehand.n.1. , or as finishedblanks), what was manufactured and used on site and what was removedwhen people left. The influence of Palaeolithic studies is also evident in theconcern of two of these volumes to produce a work of'palaeoethnography', a term coined by Leroi-Gourhan for hisspatial studies at Pincevent. For the two sites studied in Bresse, thiswork is carried out, as is traditional, through refitting. The authorsinvestigated 'Mesolithic' organisation of space and comparedthis with Pincevent and other late Palaeolithic sites in the Parisbasin As a modern administrative r��gion of France, it is known as the ?le de France As the territory at the political centre of the Kingdom of France, it is known as the ?le de France. As a hydrological basin, it is largely the basin of the River Seine. . Refitting was impossible at Tillet due to the huge quantity oflithics recovered. Instead, the Rozoys used detailed typometric analysisto isolate different occupations at Tillet and locate hut structures anddifferent activity areas. Similar commitment to a high standard of research on lithictechnology In archeology, Lithic Technology refers to a broad array of techniques and styles to produce usable tools from various types of stone. The earliest stone tools were recovered from modern Ethiopia and were dated to between two-million and three-million years old. is evident in The Greek Mesolithic. This is undoubtedly alegacy of Perils' excellent work at Franchthi Cave Franchthi cave (or Frankhthi cave, Greek Σπήλαιον Φράγχθη) in the Peloponnese, in the southeastern Argolid, is a cave overlooking the Argolic Gulf opposite the Greek village of Koilada. and it isinteresting to see how this French tradition is now a matter of coursein Greek lithic analysis. The volume is a general synthesis of what isknown of the Greek Mesolithic, composed of general chapters onvegetation, radiocarbon dating and analysis more specific to particularsites. Franchthi still dominates much of the discussion, but new dataemerging from more recently excavated sites is beginning to emphasisethat the Greek Mesolithic was more varied than syntheses extrapolatedfrom Franchthi would suggest. Mobility strategy: problems of inference Beyond foraging and collecting is temporally and spatially moregeneral but thematically more specific than the other volumes discussed.Rather than concentrating on the Mesolithic, it has a more general focuson hunter-gatherers of a variety of different areas and periods. Thevolume is dedicated to an examination of Binford's (1980)forager/collecting model of hunter-gatherer mobility strategies. Inbrief: foragers can be characterised as people moving to resources,while collectors move resources to people. Forager settlement systemswill be characterised by site homogeneity, while collectors willgenerate a number of different site 'types': residential basecamps, overnight camps, a variety of specialist extractive extractive/ex��trac��tive/ (-tiv) any substance present in an organized tissue, or in a mixture in a small quantity, and requiring extraction by a special method. ex��trac��tiveadj.1. camps, cachesetc. This understanding of logistical strategies is based onBinford's (1978) work with the Nunamiut. This model has been animportant resource for archaeologists in the way they understandhunter-gatherer settlement. Aldenderfer (p. 387) calls it'foundational to modern archaeological practice'. I suspectthis is more true for North American North Americannamed after North America.North American blastomycosissee North American blastomycosis.North American cattle ticksee boophilusannulatus. archaeologists than their Europeancounterparts, but it certainly indicates the influence of the model. The volume consists of papers that attempt to identify particularsettlement strategies in the archaeological record (Habu, Savelle),those that attempt to refine elements of Binford's model or pointout gaps in it (Ames) and those that attempt to explain particularsettlement patterns or changes in settlement pattern (Fisher, Kipnis,Zeannah, Fitzhugh, Cannon, Junker). The volume is divided into threesections: the first contains papers that follow most closely theconcerns of Binford's original model; the second part has acultural ecological spin; and the final section contains three paperswhich incorporate elements of history and ideology into their models. Inaddition the book contains a foreword by Binford & Johnson on theforager/collector model and an afterword by Price discussing approachesto hunter-gatherers over the past 50 years, which were amongst the mostinteresting papers in the volume. The scale and methodology employed in these papers are similar;most are concerned with transformations occurring over scales of acouple of millennia and almost all employ models (not simply theoriginal foragers/ collector model; also models such as optimal foragingtheory “OFT” redirects here. For other uses, see Office of Fair Trading.A central concern of ecology has traditionally been foraging behavior. In its most basic form, optimal foraging theory ) to interrogate their data. The combination of these long-termscales and the methodologies employed create rather interesting effects.The explanatory factors many of the authors invoke as producing change(usually environmental fluctuations or population pressure) areobviously partly an effect of the scale they are working at. But withinthe book there are conflicting ideas about scale and how it operateswithin these explanations. In the foreword, Binford & Johnson statethat Binford did not answer Weissner's (1982) critque of hisforager/ collector model (which suggested that social considerationsaffected settlement strategies) because she was 'working at thewrong scale' (p. ix), i.e. that her arguments focused on individualfamilies (which were affected by social choices), rather than camps(which were affected by environment and demography). Binford seems toconceive scale as rather like an onion, with levels of scale like layersof onion skin, separate from and unaffected by actions or processes inthe lower layers. A similar belief that one can either look at singularevents and the action of individuals (equated in this volume with theinterests of post-processualists and particularists) or predictablegeneralities that will inform other cases (the interests ofprocessualists and model-builders) appears to underpin many (though notall) of these papers. Several papers (i.e. Kipnis, Cannon, Aldenderfer),however, do cite Weissner approvingly and obviously believe thatshorter-term events and processes can have effects on longer-termpatterns and that one can move satisfactorily between these twopolarised scales. Aldenderfer's contribution is interesting in thisregard: though he can characterise other patterns via longer-termexplanatory processes, he fails to find an explanation for the suddenshift between foraging and herding in the Central Andes and thussuggests that, in this case, factors such as history, agency,contingency and past ontologies need to be taken into consideration. As a more general point, the equation, noted above, ofpost-processualism with events and individuals seems to wilfully WILFULLY, intentionally. 2. In charging certain offences it is required that they should be stated to be wilfully done. Arch. Cr. Pl. 51, 58; Leach's Cr. L. 556. 3. misunderstand the scales at which many of its practitioners areoperating. Furthermore, the equation of long-term patterns with grandtheory and detail with particularism par��tic��u��lar��ism?n.1. Exclusive adherence to, dedication to, or interest in one's own group, party, sect, or nation.2. , which is brought up a number oftimes in this book, is misleading. Explanations of long-term patternscan produce mere banalities, while analysis of events and small-scaleevidence has frequently generated grand theory. The point is that'big' ideas can be generated by analysing 'small'things; and that the analysis of data that are temporally or spatiallybounded does not have to lead to ideas and theories that areconcomitantly parochial. The scale at which we work is, at one level, a matter of personalchoice, and work at any scale can be perfectly internally consistent.However, I feel there is a problem with longer-term scales when they arecoupled with the use of hypothetico-deductive modelling. Models arerelied on extensively in the volume, from the forager/collector model tooptimal foraging theory. As Kipnis (p. 183) points out, modelling's'goal is to understand the sources of observations that deviatefrom ... expectations, not to show that observations fit themodels', and some contributors do point out difference from theirexpectations. However, there is little awareness amongst these papers ofthe extent to which the expectations of the model determine the datathemselves. Data do not just exist in a way that will speak for itselfand challenge aspects of the model under consideration. As a perusal ofthese papers shows (and as Binford & Johnson themselves note (p.xi)), the model often drives the interpretation of the data. A couple ofpapers are particularly sloppy in their use of the evidence; others donot present enough evidence to evaluate their use of the data or arebased on surface surveys and minimal testing which is unlikely to berobust enough for the questions and interpretations the model demands.For example, there has been considerable archaeological literature onthe difficulty of interpreting site types from size, faunal remains ortool functions and of reconstructing the seasonal round (e.g. Binford1978, 1980; Jochim 1991). However, several authors in this volume dojust this, in a manner their model dictates, with little or nodiscussion of the ambiguities. In such cases, models becomeself-serving: if long-term factors such as demography and environmentare considered the only valid explanations for change on long-termscales, these are what will be found. This is not to say that all use of modelling is inevitably badarchaeology. There are well argued papers in this volume that seek bothsimilarities and differences between model and data (e.g. Ames), and thestrongly model-focused papers of Kipnis and Fitzhugh were the mostinteresting in terms of their theoretical discussion. Both processualismand post-processualism produce their fair share of both careful andcareless archaeologists. Analogy in post-processualism, in fact, worksin a similar way to modelling in processualism, in that both canencourage careless interpretation of material evidence and thegeneration of banal truisms. The concern is simply that modelling candraw attention away from the archaeological evidence, which must be atthe heart of archaeological interpretation. And this concern withevidence returns us to Binford's forager/collector model. I wouldargue that this model has had such influence for precisely this reason;that it is based on extensive engagement with material evidence (it evenpresents evidence that is inconsistent with the author'stheoretical position). Binford's Nunamiut ethnoarchaeology Ethnoarchaeology is the ethnographic study of peoples for archaeological reasons, usually focusing on the material remains of a society, rather than its culture. Ethnoarchaeology aids archaeologists in reconstructing ancient lifeways by studying the material and non-material (1978)is a masterpiece of detail from which the forager/collector model is anabstraction. Abstraction is a necessary part of interpretation, but theforager/collector model is so powerful an abstraction because it is somaterially based. In contrast, I find that several papers in this volumedo not work because the abstraction occurs prior to the encounter withthe evidence and determines the form of engagement with it. In comparison with Mesolithic on the move, I found the focus ofthis volume rather narrow. In comparison to the theoretical diversityand the different regional traditions in evidence in Mesolithic on themove, Beyond foraging and collecting used predominantly theory drawnfrom processualism and cultural ecology and was North American intradition (even though contributors were very slightly moreinternational). The third section (beyond ecological approaches) seemeda token nod to new approaches and it did not help that this was theweakest section--though Junker's paper was more successful inevoking a different time and place than many of the mid-high latitudehunter-gatherer stereotypes of other papers. Perhaps it was becausethese papers were reassessing an old and familiar model, but the volumeseemed to lack the vitality of some of the Mesolithic papers. It seemsinstead that it is the Mesolithic hunter-gatherers that are truly'on the move'. References BINFORD, L.R. 1978. Nunamiut ethnoarchaeology. New York: AcademicPress. --1980. Willow smoke and dog's tails: hunter-gatherersettlement systems and archaeological site formation. American Antiquity45: 4-20. FINLAY, N. 2000. Deer prudence. Archaeological Review fromCambridge 17.1: 67-79. JOCHIM, M.A. 1991. Archaeology as long-term ethnography. AmericanAnthropologist 93: 309-319. KOZEOWSKI, S.K. (ed.). 1973. The Mesolithic in Europe. Warsaw:Warsaw University Press. LARSSON, L. 1990. Dogs in fraction--symbols in action, in PM.Vermeersch & P. van Peer (ed.) Contributions to the Mesolithic inEurope: papers presented at the 4th International Symposium on theMesolithic in Europe. Leuven: Leuven University Press. PRICE, T.D. 1973. A proposed model for procurement systems in theMesolithic of northwestern Europe, in Kozlowski 1973, 455-76. ROZOY J-G. 1984 The age of red deer Red Deer, city, CanadaRed Deer,city (1991 pop. 58,134), S central Alta., Canada, on the Red Deer River. It developed as a trade and service center for a region of dairying and mixed farming. or of bowmen. MesolithicMiscellany 5: 14-16. WEISSNER, P. 1982. Beyond willow smoke and dogs' tails: acomment on Binford's analysis of hunter-gatherer settlementsystems. American Antiquity 47: 171-78. Chantal Conneller, Queens' College, Cambridge, England