A more empirical critique notes that if H

A more empirical critique notes that if H - A more...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
A more empirical critique notes that if H-Gs did indeed maintain their populations consistently below carrying capacity (as determined by food availability), they would have little need to buffer fluctuations in resource abundance; but in fact all foragers employ one or more means of buffering such variation: 1) food storage; the rarity of such storage in many H-G groups has been used to support the "original affluence" view, but this overlooks the fact that storage entails significant labor costs (and sometimes social costs), and is only practical when resources are so dense that populations can be seasonally sedentary (e.g., NW coast), or maintain a systems of caches (e.g., some parts of Arctic) 2) exchange between groups; this has high transport costs, but is common for relatively rare items, and for a wide range of resources among more sedentary groups (e.g., Native California), especially where water transport is used (e.g., NW Coast) 3) moving people around to match shifting resource availability is widely used, and effective whenever resource fluctuations are spatially uncorrelated (due to game
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 11/22/2011 for the course ANT ANT2000 taught by Professor Monicaoyola during the Fall '10 term at Broward College.

Page1 / 2

A more empirical critique notes that if H - A more...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online