Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T07:20:27.607Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Return Rates and Intensity of Resource Use in Numic and Prenumic Adaptive Strategies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Robert L. Bettinger  and
Martin A. Baumhoff
Robert L. Bettinger
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis, CA 95616
Martin A. Baumhoff
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis, CA 95616
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Criticisms of our model of the recent spread of Numic speakers into the Great Basin center on the ambiguity of linguistic evidence and apparent similarities between Numic and Prenumic settlement and subsistence patterns. We argue that the linguistic data are only one part of a larger body of ethnographic data that support the hypothesized spread of Numic speakers and that the adaptive similarities noted between Numic and Prenumic are only of the broadest sort and do not vitiate the assumptions of our model. In particular, we suggest that it is the intensity with which a resource is used, not the mere use of that resource, which is important in understanding competitive replacement among adaptive strategies.

Type
Comments
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 48 , Issue 4 , October 1983 , pp. 830 - 834
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References Cited

Bettinger, R. L., and Baumhoff, M. A. 1982 The Numic Spread: Great Basin Cultures in Competition. American Antiquity 47:485–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charnov, E. L. 1976 Optimal Foraging: The Marginal Value Theorem. Theoretical Population Biology 9:129–136.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coville, F. V. 1892 The Panamint Indians of California. American Anthropologist (o. s.) 5:351–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dutcher, B. H. 1893 Pinon Gathering Among the Panamint Indians. American Anthropologist (o.s.) 6:377–380.Google Scholar
Goss, J. A. 1977 Linguistic Tools for the Great Basin Prehistorian. Desert Research institute Publications in the Social Sciences 12:49–70. Reno.Google Scholar
Mac Arthur, R. H., and Pianka, E. R. 1966 On Optimal Use of a Patchy Environment. American Naturalist 100:603–609.Google Scholar
Miller, R. S. 1967 Pattern and Process in Competition. Advances in Ecological Research 4:1–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Wick C. 1972 Comments on Cultural Ecology Papers. Desert Research Institute Publications in the Social Sciences 8:159–160. Reno Google Scholar
Schoener, T. W. 1971 Theory of Feeding Strategies. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 2:370–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoener, T. W. 1974a The Com Pression Hypothesis and Temporal Resource Partitioning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 71:4169–4172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoener, T. W. 1974b Competition and the Form of Habitat Shift;. Theoretical Population Biology 6:265–307.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simms, Steven R. 1981 Optimal Foraging, Pine Nut Use, and Settlement Patterning in Some Great Basin Cases. Ms. on file, Department of Anthropology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Simms, Steven R. 1983 Comments on Bettinger and Baumhoff's Explanation of the “Numic Spread” in the Great Basin. American Antiquity 48:825–830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar