This article was downloaded by: [University of Arizona]On: 17 December 2014, At: 21:51Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

World ArchaeologyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rwar20

The study of residential practices amongprehistoric hunters and gatherersMichael W. Spence aa Department of Anthropology , University of Western OntarioPublished online: 15 Jul 2010.

To cite this article: Michael W. Spence (1974) The study of residential practices among prehistorichunters and gatherers, World Archaeology, 5:3, 346-357, DOI: 10.1080/00438243.1974.9979579

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00438243.1974.9979579

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, ouragents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to theaccuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the viewsof or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied uponand should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francisshall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses,damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantialor systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access anduse can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The study of residential practices amongprehistoric hunters and gatherers

Michael W. Spence

Introduction

One function of archaeology is the testing of ethnological hypotheses about long-termculture change and the nature of prehistoric societies. The recent discussion about thepost-nuptial residential practices of aboriginal hunting and gathering societies is a casein point. Some have suggested virilocality as the basic pattern (Steward 1955; Service1962; 1966), while others maintain that a more flexible and unstructured pattern wouldhave been preferred (Lee and DeVore 1968; Guemple 1972). In some cases, althoughthere is a basic flexibility in residential arrangements, a tendency towards uxorilocalitycan be observed (Woodburn 1968: 108-9; Leacock 1969: 4-5, 13-14, 16). FollowingService (1962: 30-1), virilocality and uxorilocality refer respectively to post-nuptialresidence with the husband's or with the wife's natal group, while patrilocality andmatrilocality are terms that characterize the resulting band types.

Steward has suggested that the patrilocal-patrilineal band is a major form amonghunting and gathering peoples, partially because it permits males to remain aftermarriage within the hunting territory familiar to them (1955:122-42). Composite bands,which are larger and lack residential rules, occur when large migratory herds permitbands to grow in size beyond the point where exogamous marriage is a necessity(Steward 1955: 143-50).

Service believes that the patrilocal band is the basic, and probably earliest, form oforganization among hunters and gatherers, and suggests that the composite band islargely a result of the disruption caused by European contact (1962: 47, 83-108; 1966:34-5, 38). He also states that familiarity with the hunting territory is not a dominantfactor in the stress on virilocality (Service 1962: 48; 1966: 37; cf. also Kloos 1963:854-5; Leacock 1969: 5, 8; Williams 1969: 147-8). Instead, the need for known andtrustworthy men for effective co-operative hunting and defence is paramount (Service1962: 48-9, 75; 1966: 37-8).

Some have accepted Service's suggestion that the patrilocal band is the basic socialunit of hunters and gatherers (Owen 1965: 675-6, 684; Williams 1968: 127). Others,however, maintain that groups at this level are necessarily more flexible in their resi-dential practices in order to adapt to changing circumstances (Lee and DeVore 1968:7-8; Woodburn 1968: 108-9; Leacock 1969: 13-14; Guemple 1972: 103). In somesituations it becomes expedient generally to follow one alternative, so some societiesdisplay tendencies towards virilocality or uxorilocality, but flexibility is considered the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na]

at 2

1:51

17

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Study of residential practices among prehistoric hunters and gatherers 347

basic characteristic of band structure (Woodburn 1968: 108-9; Leacock 1969: 4-5,13-14, 16; Guemple 1972: 85, 90, 103). In fact, Guemple has provided evidence thatthe composite band among the Eskimo is not the result of contact period disruption, butis rather the aboriginal form, resulting from pre-contact trade, population mixture, andpopulation fluctuations that reflected variations in game (1972).

Although in some cases ethnohistorical and ethnographic studies can provide con-vincing reconstructions of aboriginal society, they are usually more suggestive thanconclusive. The changes and disruptions accompanying European contact were severe,making reconstruction difficult (Service 1962: 84-107; Lee and DeVore 1968: 5-6;Williams 1968: 128; Leacock 1969: 239; Steward 1969: 292-4; Guemple 1972: 91-6).Even if such reconstructions were generally accurate, they would not necessarily providedata on the social organization of prehistoric bands. In the past, before they were largelyrestricted to the marginal areas of the world, hunting and gathering societies mighthave been quite different from those observed by Europeans (Freeman 1968: 264-5;Lee and DeVore 1968: 5). Some past ecological adaptations, like those of the UpperPleistocene mammoth hunters of Europe, have no modern counterparts that could actas their proxies in social reconstructions (Lee 1968: 344-5). It would thus seem that theresponsibility for any general understanding of the social organization and residentialpractices of hunters and gatherers must rest to some extent on the efforts of prehistorians(Binford 1968: 270).

Methods of analysis

A variety of approaches have been developed by anthropologists for the study of pre-historic post-nuptial residential patterns. Hockett (1964) has been able to reconstructa number of the kinship terms of the Proto Central Algonquian language, spoken in theGreat Lakes region as early as A.D. 500. At that time, agriculture would have been minoror absent in much of the region. Hockett suggests that the practice of virolocality, plusstrict cross cousin marriage, would have led to the pattern of kin terms that he re-constructed (1964: 256).

Ember, an ethnologist, has recently noted that residential practices may be correlatedwith house size (1973). Societies with uxorilocal residence generally have larger dwellingfloor areas than those emphasizing virilocality. Ember explains this by suggesting thatsisters would find it easier to live together under one roof after marriage than wouldunrelated women. Thus, matrilocal societies are more likely to have several relatednuclear families sharing a single structure, while in patrilocal societies each family (eachwife) would tend to have its own separate residence. However, Ember's sample includesboth agricultural and hunting-gathering societies (Ember 1973: tables 1-2). It may bethat the correlation will not hold among purely hunting and gathering societies, as these(particularly at the band level) are less likely to have multiple family residences or, forthat matter, the well defined kin groups that are often associated with such residences.

Archaeologists have also attempted to explore prehistoric residential patterns.MacPherron (1967) has discussed the social implications of ceramic changes at theJuntunen site of Michigan. The earlier occupation, A.D. 800-1000, is primarily oriented

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na]

at 2

1:51

17

Dec

embe

r 20

14

348 Michael W. Spence

towards fishing, with little or no agriculture, and is characterized by a high degree ofceramic variability. In the later period, A.D. 1200-1400, evidence of influence fromagricultural neighbours to the south-east increases, and there is a greater degree ofattribute clustering in the ceramics. MacPherron notes, following Longacre (1964)and Deetz (1965), that women are generally responsible for the production of ceramics,and that they learn manufacturing techniques and concepts of decoration in their natalhouseholds. He thus suggests that the ceramic variability of the earlier period reflectsthe absorption into the Juntunen band of women from a variety of sources, as wouldbe expected in a situation of band exogamy and virilocality. In the later period, closercontact with matrilocal agriculturalists in Ontario may have led to the development ofuxorilocal preferences among the Juntunen people. The women would then haveremained locally resident after marriage, leading to a greater degree of ceramic homo-geneity.

Historic period sites of Ojibwa hunters and gatherers along the northern shore of theUpper Great Lakes provide another, and perhaps more definite, example of this approach(Wright 1965; 1966; 1968). The ceramic assemblage of each site includes as many asfour distinct traditions, while the proportion in which each tradition is representedvaries from site to site (Wright 1965). Thus, level I of the Pic River site produced ceramicsof the Blackduck and Push-pull traditions, while level II of the Michipicoten site,another historic Ojibwa site only 80 miles to the east, has ceramics of the Huron-Petun,Peninsular Woodland, Stamped, and Push-pull traditions. The Montreal River site, athird component some 50 miles further along the shore, was characterized by Huron-Petun, Blackduck, and Peninsular Woodland ceramics (Wright 1968: 50). Wrightsuggests that this complex interpénétration of distinct ceramic traditions might haveresulted from the movement of women in response to virilocal residential requirements.Ojibwa bands, circulating widely in the Great Lakes region, would have absorbed womenfrom a variety of places (Wright 1968: 50).

Unfortunately, these techniques have only a limited applicability to prehistoric hunt-ing and gathering societies, which did not generally have ceramics. Lewis and SallyBinford, however, have suggested that stone tools might be used in a similar manner toclarify residential practices among European Paleolithic hunters (1966: 263), whileDeetz has illustrated a variation of this approach that proved effective in an aceramicsituation (1968: 47-8). The Chumash, a hunting and gathering society in southernCalifornia, were characterized in the historic period by a site-to-site diversity of artefactsproduced by males (projectile points) and by a widespread uniformity of female artefacts(baskets, milling equipment). This suggested to Deetz that women moved widely inthe society while men remained relatively localized, a situation adequately explained bythe virilocality and village exogamy known to have been practiced by the historic periodChumash.

The inference of residential practices from the distribution of cultural material mustalways be somewhat uncertain. A variety of factors could intervene between the two,although in general one might expect residential continuity to exert a stablizing effectupon some of the group's material products. In view of the uncertainties involved, itseems advisable to develop further techniques for the study of prehistoric patterns. Onelogical line of inquiry involves the use of human skeletal material. It should be possible

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na]

at 2

1:51

17

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Study of residential practices among prehistoric hunters and gatherers 3 49

to detect variations in the characteristics, metric or non-metric, of skeletons recoveredduring archaeological investigations of hunting and gathering occupation sites. Thesevariations could then serve as clues to the genetic interrelationships of the people, andso could provide a basis for inferences about some aspects of their social organization.This assumes some concordance between the social ties and the biological reality of therelationships (Lane and Sublett 1972: 187, 199).

One possible approach is to study the distribution of discrete, non-metrical morpho-logical characters within or between populations (cf. Brothwell 1959; Berry and Berry1967; Anderson 1968). An unusually high incidence of a trait in a population mayimply close genetic ties among the individuals involved (Snow 1948:465 ; Kneberg 1952 :192; Berry 1968: 105). For example, Madeline Kneberg Lewis analysed the humanskeletal material of the Eva site, an Archaic period hunting and gathering site of theTennessee Valley, and found a high proportion of large canine teeth among the males.This may reflect the practice of exogamy and virilocal residence by the site occupants(Lewis and Lewis 1961: 156).

More recently, statistical techniques employing a number of such traits have beenused in two attempts to determine residential patterns. Although applied to agriculturalgroups, there is no reason why these techniques could not also be employed in the studyof hunting and gathering societies. In one case, skeletons from a large residential structurein Teotihuacan, Mexico, were tested. It was found that the male skeletons were moresimilar to one another than were the females, the males sharing non-metric traits to agreater degree, as measured by the Jaccard coefficient of similarity (cf. Sokal andSneath 1963: 128, 133). This suggests that the males were more closely related to oneanother than were the females, perhaps because of the practice of exogamy and virilo-cality by a majority of the building's inhabitants (Spence 1971).

Lane and Sublett (1972) used a measure of divergence in their study of skeletons fromseveral historic period Seneca cemeteries in New York state. They found that malesseemed generally to differ more from cemetery to cemetery than did females. Thus themales evidently remained relatively localized while the females circulated more widelyin the society, as would have been the case with virilocal residence.

Metrical data can also be used in such studies, although the necessity of reasonablyintact crania may reduce the sample size. Hülse (1941: 67) suggests that high variabilityin some male cranial measurements at the agricultural Irene site may reflect a patternof uxorilocal residence. Lewis, in her Eva site analysis, found that the females in onecomponent of the site generally displayed greater metrical variability than the males,reinforcing her conclusion that the Eva people were exogamous and virilocal (Lewisand Lewis 1961: 169).

The degree to which cranial measurements and indices are genetically based is un-certain (Wilkinson 1971: 27-9). However, metrical variability probably bears somerelationship to genetic heterogeneity (Snow 1948: 443, 450, 452, 492; Lewis and Lewis1961: 169). It thus seems reasonable to expect that groups characterized by a lowdegree of craniometric variability will be composed of individuals closely relatedbiologically to one another.

A number of factors may intervene in this relationship. Age, environment, function,diet, and other non-genetic factors, including practices like cranial deformation, will

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na]

at 2

1:51

17

Dec

embe

r 20

14

35° Michael W. Spence

affect metric values (cf. Newman and Snow 1942:404; Ossenberg 1969; 1970; Wilkinson1971: 28-30). Comparisons within a culture might not be seriously skewed, since mostindividuals will probably have been subjected to the same non-genetic conditions.However, different status groups might vary in some respects (access to food, cranialdeformation etc.), and the possibility of male-female differences in some factors likecranial deformation and function cannot be ignored. There is also the problem ofcorrelations among different cranial measurements and indices. A number show somedegree of correlation, so results based on these cannot be considered completely in-dependent of one another (Wilkinson 1971: 34-40). It would be useful if some measure-ments could be identified as more reliable than others, that is, more likely to give anaccurate reflection of genetic reality, although to date this has not been satisfactorilydemonstrated (cf. Wilkinson 1971: 27-9).

The usual measure of variability is the standard deviation (j). Some anthropologistsprefer the mean sigma ratio (cf. Snow 1948: 450). However, there is a drawback to bothof these. Since female means for cranial measurements are generally smaller than themale means, the standard deviations may not be directly comparable between sexes.Although the difference in means is generally too small to be of concern, it may bepreferable to depend on the coefficient of variation loosjx as the basic measure ofvariability (cf. Moroney 1953: 64-5).

In the craniometric analysis of material from an archaeological site, it must be keptin mind that we are inferring the co-residence of socially related people from the co-burial of biologically related people. Two assumptions are involved, neither of themnecessarily true. Those buried together may not actually have lived together, or mayhave been selected in such a way that they do not accurately reflect the population.Also, social and biological relationships do not necessarily coincide, making inferenceof one from the other somewhat less than certain (Lane and Sublett 1972: 187). There aresome social distinctions that would not be reflected in biological data. Thus, evidenceof close genetic relationships among males may reflect either virilocal or avunculocalresidence (Lane and Sublett 1972: 187). On the other hand, the lack of any male-female distinctions in the skeletal sample could be due to poor sample size, endogamy,neolocality, bilocality, or a special burial pattern such as the joint burial of male andfemale lineage members apart from spouses.

However, one advantage of an osteological or archaeological approach to residence isthat a consistent tendency is identified, rather than a stated rule or preference that mayactually have little real effect on residential choice. In a sense, these approaches are theprehistoric equivalent of the ethnographic technique developed by Helm (1969) toquantify the ties that form the basis for residential preferences.

Cape Kialegak

Skeletal material from an Eskimo site on St Lawrence Island, in the Bering Sea, providesa good example of the craniometric study of prehistoric residential practices. Theskeletons of twenty-four adult males and thirty-four adult females were collected byHenry B. Collins from Cape Kialegak. They were analysed by Hrdlicka, who published

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na]

at 2

1:51

17

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Study of residential practices among prehistoric hunters and gatherers 351

the cranial measurements and indices (1942: 308-11). This sample seems to satisfy twobasic conditions; it is from a single village, and from a restricted time period. Threefemale skeletons (nos. 346073, 346078, 346082) were excluded from the sample becausethey pertain to an earlier period (personal communication, Henry B. Collins). The restseem to have been of the historic period village, in good part victims of the 1878-9disaster that wiped out the village and destroyed most of the island's population (cf.Moore 1923: 356-7; Collins 1937: 22-4).

We have only one description of contact with the village. In 1817, the Russian explorerKotzebue observed the Cape Kialegak village and went ashore (Collins 1937: 21-2).Before landing, he saw some of the villagers fleeing while others picked up weapons.Kotzebue was met by twenty men, and quickly assured them of his friendly intentions.Since the villagers had evidently perceived the situation to be one of potential conflict,they would probably have sent most or all of their able-bodied men to meet the Russians.This might suggest a total village population of about 100.

The population standard deviations and coefficients of variation were calculated formales and females on the basis of Hrdlicka's figures (table 16). Of the thirty measure-

TABLE 16

Cape Kialegak craniometric values

Measurement

Cranial lengthCranial breadthBasion-bregma heightCranial indexMean height indexCranial moduleCranial capacityTotal facial heightUpper facial heightBizygomatic diameterFacial indexUpper facial indexBasi-alveolar lengthBasion-subnasal pointBasion-nasionFacial angleAlveolar angleRight orbit heightLeft orbit heightRight orbit breadthLeft orbit breadthRight orbit index

NumberM

242424242424

81 0

23231 0

2 2

2 1

23242 1

2 1

2 2

2 2

2 2

2 2

2 2

F

3 1

3 1

3 1

3 1

3 1

3 1

141 2

27

3°1 2

272429

3024

2429282928

29

MeanM

I8I-O

HI'S137778-285-4

153-41,496-0

126-978-2

141-090-1

55-6104-093-0

104-168-4

57-236-9

36-539-939-592-4

F

174-7

136-5132-278-7

85-0

147-81,329-0

118772-9

132-389-255-i

101-589-7

100-267-9

54-936-0

35-8

39-538-991*2

StandarddeviationM F

6-oi4-304-45i-99

3-313-73

6-533-724-902-25

3'753-67

96-24 104-284-04

3-344-924-582-544-17

3-513-842-II3-221-89i-661-41

i-553-77

5-354-254-543-492-544-974-21

3-933-09

5*332-o81761721-585-O4

Coefficientof variationM

3-32

3-043-232-543-88

2-436-433-i84-283-495-094-574-01

3773-693-09

5-63

5-"4*553-543-944-09

F

3-742-733712-874-422-48

7-854-515-82

3-433-914-61

4-9°4-693-93

4-55971

5-774-92

4-354-07

5*53

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na]

at 2

1:51

17

Dec

embe

r 20

14

352 Michael W. Spence

TABLE 16 (cont'd)Cape Kialegak craniometric values

Standard CoefficientNumber Mean deviation of variation

Measurement M F M F MF MF

Left orbit indexNasal heightNasal breadthNasal indexAlveolar lengthAlveolar breadthAlveolar indexSymphysis height

2 2

242424

1919191 0

28

30303°2323231 2

92-554-625*446-456-166-6«4-337-3

92-051-824-8

47-953764-183-834<O

2-892-631-84

2-592-673-024-042-46

4-802 7 82-00

« I

3-6927O6-20

2-55

3-124-817-26

5'574764-544796-6i

5*22

5-378-07

9'426-874-227-40

7-49

ments and indices, twenty-six show higher coefficients of variation among females thanamong males - a strikingly high proportion. The four with higher male values arecranial breadth, bizygomatic diameter, facial index, and alveolar breadth. The means ofthe coefficients of variation for all thirty measurements and indices are 4-28 for malesand 5-22 for females.

The F test was applied to the population variances in order to determine the signi-ficances of the male-female differences (cf. Moroney 1953: 234-5). Five proved to besignificant at the 5% level - facial angle, alveolar angle, left orbit index, nasal indexand alveolar index. The nasal index is also significant at the 1% level. Although notsolid evidence, this tends to support the impression of greater female variability gainedfrom a study of the coefficients of variation. In fact, this tendency towards greater femalevariability at Cape Kialegak is in contrast to what seems to be a general human tendencytowards greater male variability (Newman and Snow 1942: 404; Wilkinson 1971: 31-3).

It may be that the two-tailed F test (Dixon and Massey 1969:111-12) is more generallyapplicable in this sort of situation, since investigators will often have no basis for pre-dicting the form of residential bias (or lack of one) in a prehistoric society. Only threeof the Cape Kialegak différences are significant at the 5% level by the two-tailed F test -alveolar angle, left orbit index, and nasal index, the latter also significant at the 2% level.

The greater female variability may be interpreted as a reflection of genetic hetero-geneity, suggesting that the females of the village were less closely interrelated thanthe males. This in turn suggests a pattern of village exogamy and virilocality. Even ifit is assumed that the female variability partially reflects environmental and culturalfactors, virilocality would continue to be the most logical conclusion since it wouldexplain the different backgrounds implied for the females. There is no ethnographicevidence for avunculocality in this area, so that possibility need not be consideredfurther. The St Lawrence Island Eskimos of the twentieth century generally practicevirilocality (after about a year of bride service), as probably did those of the nineteenthcentury (Moore 1923: 340-1, 367-8; Hughes 1958: 1144-5; i960: 278-9). The ethno-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na]

at 2

1:51

17

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Study of residential practices among prehistoric hunters and gatherers 353

graphic evidence thus corroborates the osteological evidence in this respect. However,Hughes suggests that the original villages were the settlements of demes, that is, theywere inhabited by endogamous (although patrilocal) kindreds (1958: 1145). This is inconflict with the Cape Kialegak osteological evidence, which suggests a tendencytowards village exogamy. It may be that the small size of the village forced a numberof the people to marry out. Murdock believes that hunting and gathering groups of 100or less will necessarily have a good proportion of exogamous marriages (1969: 158).

The necessity of having experienced and trustworthy men in a boat crew during seamammal hunts seems to have been a principal factor in the virilocal residential orienta-tion and the importance of patricians on St Lawrence Island (Hughes i960: 254-5).Nineteenth century sources and archaeological work by Collins at Cape Kialegak, andelsewhere on the island, indicate that the hunting of sea mammals was the basic subsist-ence technique in the historic and pre-contact periods too (Collins 1937: 19-23, 247-8,253-5), s o a strong ecological motivation for virilocal residence was present during andeven prior to the occupation of the Cape Kialegak village.

Conclusions and speculations

It is interesting to note that the hunting and gathering societies discussed here (Chumash,Eva site Archaic, Great Lakes Ojibwa and Cape Kialegak Eskimo) seem, on the basisof the available evidence, to have been patrilocal, thus supporting Steward's andService's idea of the primacy of virilocal residence among hunters and gatherers. How-ever, there is evidence that the St Lawrence Island Eskimo were one of a few cases ofvirilocality in what was a more general Eskimo pattern of residential flexibility (Guemple1972). Also, a brief look at the standard deviations and coefficients of variation ofskeletons from the Perry (LU25) site, another Archaic period site of the TennesseeValley, suggests greater male variability, and so perhaps uxorilocality, in that case(Newman and Snow 1942: 403-4, table 25).

Each of these methods for the analysis of prehistoric residential practices requiresmore thorough testing, and perhaps some modification, before acceptance. This wouldbe well worth the effort in view of the importance of this sort of information for archaeo-logical, as well as ethnological, theories. For example, residential practices in Teoti-huacân may have had an important effect on the development of craft specializationthere (Spence 1971). Owen discusses some of the implications of band residential patternsfor cultural diffusion and evolution (1965: 684-7). One might expect, for example, thatuseful male innovations (projectile points, spearthrower, drive hunting technique etc.)would be disseminated more widely and rapidly among a series of matrilocal societies,while female contributions like ceramics and agriculture would be dispersed moreeffectively among patrilocal societies.

Acknowledgements

I wish to thank Henry Collins (Smithsonian Institution) for providing essential dataon the Cape Kialegak skeletons, and Jon Baskerville (University of Western Ontario)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na]

at 2

1:51

17

Dec

embe

r 20

14

354 Michael W. Spence

for his advice on statistical techniques. I am grateful to Jane Buikstra (NorthwesternUniversity), George Cowgill (Brandeis University), Lee Guemple (University of WesternOntario), and F. Jerome Melbye (University of Toronto) for their comments on thepaper.

19.vi.1973 Department of AnthropologyUniversity of Western Ontario

References

Anderson, J. E. 1968. Skeletal 'anomalies' as genetic indicators. In The Skeletal Biology ofEarlier Human Populations, ed. D. Brothwell. London: Pergamon Press.

Berry, A. C. and Berry, R. J. 1967. Epigenetic variation in the human cranium. Journal ofAnatomy. 101:361-79.

Berry, R. J. 1968. The biology of non-metrical variation in mice and men. In The SkeletalBiology of Earlier Human Populations, ed. D. Brothwell. London: Pergamon Press.

Binford, L. R. 1968. Methodological considerations of the archaeological use of ethnographicdata. In Man the hunter, eds R. B. Lee and I. DeVore. 268-73. Chicago: Aldine.

Binford, L. R. and Binford, S. R. 1966. A preliminary analysis of functional variability in theMousterian of Levallois facies. In Recent Studies in Paleoanthropology, eds J. D. Clark and F. C.Howell. American Anthropologist, Special Publication. 68:2:2:238-95.

Brothwell, D. 1959. The use of non-metrical characters of the skull in differentiating popula-tions. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Anthropologie. 6:103-9.

Collins, H. B. 1937. Archaeology of St. Lawrence Island, Alaska. Smithsonian MiscellaneousCollections. 96, no. 1.

Deetz, J. 1965. The dynamics of stylistic change in Ankara ceramics. Illinois Studies in Anthro-pology. 4. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Deetz, J. 1968. The inference of residence and descent rules from archaeological data. In NewPerspectives in Archaeology, eds S. R. Binford and L. R. Binford. 41-8. Chicago: Aldine.

Dixon, W. and Massey, F. 1969. Introduction to Statistical Analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Ember, M. 1973. An archaeological indicator of matrilocal versus patrilocal residence. AmericanAntiquity. 38:177-82.

Freeman, L. G. 1968. A theoretical framework for interpreting archaeological materials. InMan the Hunter, eds. R. B. Lee and I. DeVore. 262-7. Chicago: Aldine.

Guemple, L. 1972. Eskimo band organization and the 'dp camp' hypothesis. Arctic Anthro-pology. 9:80-112.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na]

at 2

1:51

17

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Study of residential practices among prehistoric hunters and gatherers 355

Helm, J. 1969. A method of statistical analysis of primary relative bonds in community com-position. In Contributions to anthropology: band societies, ed. D. Damas. National Museums ofCanada, Bulletin. 228:218-30.

Hockett, C. F. 1964. The Proto Central Algonquian kinship system. In Explorations in CulturalAnthropology: Essays in Honour of George Peter Murdoch, ed. W. H. Goodenough.239-57.London: McGraw-Hill.

Hrdlička, A. 1942. Catalog of human crania in the United States National Museum collections:Eskimo in general. Proceedings of the United States National Museum. 91 :169-429.

Hughes, C. C. 1958. An Eskimo deviant from the 'Eskimo' type of social organization. AmericanAnthropologist. 60:1140-7.

Hughes, C. C. 1960. An Eskimo Village in the Modern World. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Hulse, F. S. 1941. The people who lived at Irene. In Irene Mound site, Chatham County,Georgia, eds J. Caldwell and C. McCann. Athens : University of Georgia Press.

Kloos, P. 1963. Matrilocal residence and local endogamy: environmental knowledge or leader-ship? American Anthropologist. 65:854-62.

Kneberg, M. 1952. The Tennessee area. In Archaeology of the Eastern United States, ed. J. B.Griffin. Chicago : University Press.

Lane, R. A. and Sublett, A. 1972. Osteology of social organization: residence pattern. AmericanAntiquity. 37:186-201.

Leacock, E. 1969. The Montagnais-Naskapi band. In Contributions to Anthropology: bandsocieties, ed. D. Damas. National Museums of Canada, Bulletin. 228:1-17.

Lee, R. B. 1968. Comments. In New Perspectives in Archaeology, eds S. R. Binford and L. R.Binford. 343-6. Chicago: Aldine.

Lee, R. and DeVore, I. 1968. Problems in the study of hunters and gatherers. In Man thethe Hunter, eds R. B. Lee and I. DeVore. 3-12. Chicago: Aldine.

Lewis, T. and Lewis, M. K. 1961. Eva, an Archaic Site. Knoxville: University of TennesseePress.

Longacre, W. A. 1964. Archaeology as anthropology: a case study. Science. 144:1454-5.

MacPherron, A. 1967. On the sociology of ceramics: pottery style clustering, marital residence,and cultural adaptations of an Algonkian-Iroquoian border. In Iroquois Culture, History, andPrehistory, ed. E. Tooker. 101-7. Albany: University of the State of New York.

Moore, R. D. 1923. Social life of the Eskimo of St. Lawrence Island. American Anthropologist.

25:339-75.Moroney, M. J. 1953. Facts from Figures. Harmondsworth: Pelican.

Murdock, G. P. 1969. Discussion. In Contributions to Anthropology: ecological essays, ed. D.Damas. National Museums of Canada, Bulletin. 230:158.

Newman, M. and Snow, C. 1942. Preliminary report on the skeletal material from PickwickBasin, Alabama. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin. 129.

Ossenberg, N. 1969. Discontinuous morphological variation in the human cranium. UnpublishedPh.D. dissertation, University of Toronto.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na]

at 2

1:51

17

Dec

embe

r 20

14

356 Michael W. Spence

Ossenberg, N. 1970. The influence of artificial cranial deformation on discontinuous morpho-logical traits. American Journal of Physical Anthropology (N.S.). 33:357-71.

Owen, R. 1965. The patrilocal band: a linguistically and culturally hybrid social unit. AmericanAnthropologist. 67:675-90.

Service, E. R. 1962. Primitive Social Organization: an Evolutionary Perspective. New York:Random House.

Service, E. R. 1966. The Hunters. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Snow, C. 1948. Indian Knoll skeletons of site Oh2. University of Kentucky Reports in Anthro-pology. 4(3).

Sokal, R. and Sneath, P. H. A. 1963. Principles of Numerical Taxonomy. San Francisco: W. H.Freeman.

Spence, M. W. 1971. Skeletal morphology and social organization in Teotihuacán, Mexico.Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Southern Illinois University.

Steward, J. 1955. Theory of Culture Change. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Steward, J. 1969. Postscript to bands: on taxonomy, processes, and causes. In Contributionsto Anthropology: band societies, ed. D. Damas. National Museums of Canada, Bulletin. 228:228-95.

Wilkinson, R. G. 1971. Prehistoric biological relationships in the Great Lakes region. Universityof Michigan Museum of Anthropology Anthropological Papers. 43.

Williams, B. J. 1968. The Birhor of India and some comments on band organization. In Manthe Hunter, eds R. B. Lee and I. DeVore. 126-31. Chicago: Aldine.

Williams, B. J. 1969. The Birhor of Hazaribagh. In Contributions to anthropology: band societies,ed. D. Damas. National Museums of Canada, Bulletin. 228:142-50.

Woodburn, J. 1968. Stability and flexibility in Hadza residential groupings. In Man the Hunter,eds R. B. Lee and I. DeVore. 103-110. Chicago: Aldine.

Wright, J. V. 1965. A regional examination of Ojibwa culture history. Anthropologica (N.S.).7:189-227.

Wright, J. V. 1966. The Pic River site. National Museums of Canada, Bulletin. 206:54-99.

Wright, J. V. 1968. The Michipicoten site, Ontario. National Museums of Canada, Bulletin.224:1-85.

Abstract

Spence, M. W.

The study of residential practices among prehistoric hunters and gatherers

The post-nuptial residential practices of hunting and gathering peoples have recently been thesubject of some controversy. While some have maintained that prehistoric hunters and gatherers

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na]

at 2

1:51

17

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Plate 5 The Liddar Valley at Phraslun, showing recent cone deposits and glacial valley forms

Plate 6 Section at Pahlgam showing boulder clay at the base, overlain by bouldery gravel

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na]

at 2

1:51

17

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Plate 7 Cone at Batakut

Plate 8 Boulder conglomerate resting on limestone at Baba Bamuddin

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na]

at 2

1:51

17

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Study of residential practices among prehistoric hunters and gatherers 357

were probably virilocal for the most part, other investigators believe that a more flexibleapproach to residence would have been adaptively favourable. Because of the contact perioddisruption of these societies, the answers to such questions will depend largely on the workof prehistorians. A variety of techniques developed by archaeologists and physical anthro-pologists for the study of residential patterns in prehistoric hunting and gathering societiesare briefly reviewed, and an approach focusing on craniometric variability is described andillustrated.

HWA

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na]

at 2

1:51

17

Dec

embe

r 20

14