An Optimal Foraging Model of Hunter-Gatherer Land Use in the Carson Desert.

An Optimal Foraging Model of Hunter-Gatherer Land Use in the Carson Desert. This work presents a predictive model of archaeological site type andlocation in the Carson Desert. Predictive models are not new but whatmakes this model unique is the emphasis on the generation ofpredictions, not from the environmental characteristics of known sites,but using a dynamic model of hunter-gatherer activities based on optimalforaging theory “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 . The book has a clear purpose, a description of theproduction and assessment of this predictive model: there is no realintroduction to foraging models in general and little detail of previousarchaeological research in the area. Thus it is probably largely ofinterest to those involved in the field of predictive models or moregenerally hunter-gatherer landscape use.The historical context of changing interpretations of Toedokadosettlement patterns is briefly described, from the early interpretationof a largely sedentary sedentary/sed��en��tary/ (sed��en-tar?e)1. sitting habitually; of inactive habits.2. pertaining to a sitting posture.sedentaryof inactive habits; pertaining to a fat, castrated or confined animal. marsh-based pattern to a much more mobileinterpretation based on ecological models of marsh resourcescharacterized as relatively poor (the 1970s and '80s). Thediscovery of previously buried substantial residential sites in themarshland environments in the late 1980s led to the re-interpretation ofthe data and this model reinstates the former interpretation based on a'more fine-grained and sophisticated characterisation of marshresources'. The whole scenario can't help but highlight theinherent problems associated with such ecological modelling to thereader.This model is an expansion of an earlier model (Raven & Elston1989 and Raven 1990) to include more data on resources and a much largerarea (nominally the area covered by the ethnographic eth��nog��ra��phy?n.The branch of anthropology that deals with the scientific description of specific human cultures.eth��nog Toedokado). Thefirst chapter reviews the context of predicting archaeology in Toedokadoterritory, the next three chapters cover the construction of theresources model. A wealth of experimental and ethnographic resource datais presented in the generation of the 'model landscape' (at AD1850) and the potential resources; models of potential naturalvegetation can be very accurate - see Brzeziecki et al. 1993. The'core' of the model is presented in chapter 5. This coreconsists of ranking resources according to according toprep.1. As stated or indicated by; on the authority of: according to historians.2. In keeping with: according to instructions.3. calorific calorificgenerating heat measurable in calories. return rates andclassifying these into men's and women's resources (based onethnography ethnography:see anthropology; ethnology. ethnographyDescriptive study of a particular human society. Contemporary ethnography is based almost entirely on fieldwork. ); these are further grouped into seasonal resources andprojected against habitat type. The problem of resource variability andimperfect resource knowledge, particularly for faunal resources, isaddressed by a pragmatic grouping of resources into an eight-level scaleof resource return-rates (partly qualitative). With seasonal andgender-based foraging distinctions this provides the basis for theproduction of a seven-level, mapped model of predicted archaeologicalsite types.Chapters 6 and 7 describe the archaeological pilot survey, withchapter 8 providing the model assessment. The model was tested on apilot study of a 5% sample, which proved somewhat disappointing: theofficial accuracy was 67-77% but the model is largely successful in thevery low probability (scarce resources) and high probability (abundantresources) areas and not so effective in the less self-evident moderateresource areas.Any model such as this, generated 'bottom up' fromenvironmental resources, necessarily involves a hierarchy of potentialerrors. Errors are introduced at each stage, from the generation ofresource rankings to hunter-gatherer choice of resources (i.e.storability may be more important than return rates) to the constructionof the model (scale and generalizations of hunter-gatherer behaviour).Problems can include a rapid growth of model complexity and difficultiesin coping with resource variability/fluctuation as well as long-termenvironmental change. In testing the model there are biases inarchaeological sampling and the interpretation of the archaeologicalevidence. To their credit the authors largely anticipate these potentialerrors and their effects are discussed and even minimized when possible.The lack of agreement between the model and the archaeologicalevidence in the moderate resource areas could be a result of problems atany stage in the model, particularly the omission of 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" raw materialsources. A major problem is the lack of a spatial dimension (i.e. theaccessibility of locations) or the travel time between resources, partlydiscussed in relation to proximity to water sources (p. 289). Thisaspect is especially important as the model predicts that upland gameshould have been exploited by men as part of a logistic strategy frommarshland residential sites. Proximity to these potential base campsshould therefore have been an important factor in the exploitation ofthe uplands.The use of the archaeological evidence is a potentially weak area ofthe model. The surface survey is unlikely to identify accuratelydifferent site types and many sites may remain invisible. A problem mayalso exist in the characterization of residential sites as 'siteswith features'. This category includes sites with hearths, middens,storage pits and burials. In the 1993/4 fieldwork, however, the onlyfeatures recovered in this site category were hearths or concentrationsof fire-altered rock or ground stone. Given the supposed importance oflogistical foraging trips to the uplands we might expect that in thecase of small sites with hearths these locations potentially representmen's upland hunting Upland hunting is an American term for a form of bird hunting in which the hunter pursues upland birds including quail, pheasant, grouse, prairie chicken, chukar, grey partridge, and others. sites rather than long-term residentiallocations; this might reduce the discrepancy between the model and thearchaeological record The archaeological record is a term used in archaeology to denote all archaeological evidence, including the physical remains of past human activities which archaeologists seek out and record in an attempt to analyze and reconstruct the past. in the moderate resource habitats.The effects of changing environments are addressed in chapter 9. Thisresearch pinpoints some of the most interesting implications of themodel, such as the interaction of male and female foraging strategies indetermining residential site location and the potential foragingstrategies of Archaic populations.The model could be improved by various means but the beauty of themodel lies in its simplicity. The clear and thorough approach andresearch at each stage stand alone as valuable independent of the modelresults. Ultimately, modelling with real accuracy the mobility patternsof hunter-gatherers based on resources must be a practicalimpossibility ImpossibilitySee also Unattainability.belling the catmouse’s proposal for warning of cat’s approach; application fatal. [Gk. Lit. , not only due to our lack of knowledge of resources butalso to cultural factors affecting resource exploitation and random andhistorical circumstances. The model does present an important piece ofresearch, not so much for the results as for the method of modelformulation. In a broader context, the work has considerable value notleast since the discussion of male and female foraging strategies andtheir identification in the archaeological record should provideinteresting stimulation to discussions of assemblage assemblage:see collage. assemblageThree-dimensional construction made from household materials such as rope and newspapers or from any found materials. variability.PENNY SPIKINS Department of Archaeology, University of CambridgeReferencesBRZEZIECKI, B., F. KLENAST & O. WILDI. 1993. A simulated map ofthe potential natural forest vegetation of Switzerland, Journal ofVegetation Science 4: 499-508.RAVEN, C. 1990. Prehistoric human geography Human geography, is a branch of geography that focuses on the study of patterns and processes that shape human interaction with the environment, with particular reference to the causes and consequences of the spatial distribution of human activity on the Earth's surface. in the Carson Desert:Part II: Archaeological field tests of model predictions. Portland (OR):US Fish & Wildlife Service. Cultural Resources Series 4.RAVEN, C. & R.G. ELSTON. 1989. Prehistoric human geography in theCarson Desert: Part 1: A predictive model of land-use in the Stillwatermanagement area. Portland (OR): US Fish & Wildlife Service. CulturalResources Series 3.