Identity and Interdisciplinary Studies: a comparison of archaeological and bioarchaeological perspectives

Identity is a broad and encompassing topic that touches on every aspect of our lives, so it makes sense that anthropological engagement of identity takes many forms. This blog post looks at two of these engagements, archaeology and biological anthropology, to (1) see where differences and similarities lie in the investigation of identity, and (2) to explore if one sub-discipline really needs the other.

To do this, two articles were selected by specialists in the respective fields: Creighton, a biological anthropologist looking at Roman diet through stable isotopes, and Brett, a paleoethnobotanist exploring early hunter-gatherer diet, subsistence, and foodways in the south-central Andes. A brief description of the articles are presented below, as well as discussions on common threads and divergences between the articles.

Knudson KJ, Stojanowski CM. 2008. New Directions in Bioarchaeology: Recent Contributions to the Study of Human Social Identities. J Archaeol Res 16: 397-432.

Knudson and Stojanowski (2008) state that their paper has two purposes: (1) to review methodological improvements and new directions related to the study of identity in bioarchaeology, and (2) to outline the contributions bioarchaeologists have made to the study of identity in the past. Essentially: the how and the what of bioarchaeological investigations of identity. Before moving forward, however, it may be useful to include their definition of identities: “identities are the process by which the person seeks to integrate his [or her] various statuses and roles, as well as his [or her] diverse experiences, into a coherent image of self”.

The How: Studying identity comes with a whole host of methods in biological anthropology. This section, clearly designed for the biological anthropologist who wants to investigate identity, focuses on recent improvements, including new (and possibly more accurate) sex and age estimation methods, as well as advancements in paleodemographic analysis (demography, fertility, and mortality rates), biodistance analysis (population history and structure), biogeochemistry (paleodietary and mobility) and the incorporation of anthropologie de terrain for more properly understanding the burial process.

The What: Knudson and Stokanowski then go through the main questions that bioarchaeologists grapple with when looking at identity in the past. These include questions of health, disease and disability, gender, age, social identity (body modification), embodiment, and ethnic identity. These questions highlight that biological anthropologists need to employ a wide-range of methods to understand identity in a small way.

Jarvenpa, R., and H. J. Brumbach. (2014 ). Hunter-Gatherer Gender and Identity. In The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology and Anthropology of Hubter-Gatherers, edited by V. Cummings, J. Peter, and M. Zvelelbil. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

The book chapter Hunter-Gatherer Gender and Identity written by Robert Jarvena and Hetty Jo Brumbach concerns the anthropological and archaeological study of gender and identity in hunter-gatherer societies. Its two main purposes are to review key themes in recent research on hunter-gatherer identity, specifically gender, and to explore avenues for future research. In the first half of the chapter, Jarvena and Brumbach outline contemporary themes including: (1) labour variability and flexibility, (2) household organization and activity areas, (3) tools and tool-kits, and (4) harvesting, processing, and asymmetries of power. I have provided a brief summary for each below:

(1)  Labour Variability and Flexibility: Recent ethnographic literature shows that men’s and women’s labour roles in hunter-gatherer societies are often more flexible and variable than rigid dichotomies would suggest (i.e. man the hunter, woman the gatherer).
(2)  Household Organization and Activity Areas: Although some gendered household organizational patterns and activity areas have been identified in the archaeological record, there is also evidence for commingling of men’s and women’s activity areas.(3)  Tools and Tool-Kits: Ascribing gender categories to artifacts based on simple hunter-gatherer gender dichotomies may be misleading. For example, despite the traditional association of hunting with men, recent ethnographic hunter-gatherer research has shown that women often integral to many aspects of hunting activities such as the skinning of hides, processing of meat, and preparation of foodstuffs. As such, we need highly contextualized ethnographic accounts of actual technology to make inferences about gender dynamics in the archaeological record.
(4)  Harvesting, Processing, and Asymmetries of Power: Similarly to the last point, recent ethnographic research has shown that women were involved, and vital, to the many aspects of traditionally perceived male activities such as the preparation and processing stages of hunting. Generalized male-female dichotomies about hunter-gatherers fail to address this point and thus, marginalize women in hunter-gatherer societies.

In the second half of the chapter, Jarvena and Brumbach transition from their discussion of recent themes to outline a number of directions for future research including (1) the sexual division of labour, (2) cosmological and sacred power, (3) gender and children, (4) alternative gender roles, and (5) political and colonial transformations of gender. I have provided a brief summary of each below:

(1)  The Sexual Division of Labour: The sexual division of the labour needs to be reconceptualized. As mentioned earlier, Jarvena and Brumbach advocate for fine-grained ethnoarchaeological investigations into contemporary hunter-gatherer men’s and women’s labour routines to illuminate additional continuities and discontinuities with traditional male/female dichotomies.
(2)  Cosmological and Sacred Power: We need additional research into hunter-gatherer relations with the sacred (i.e. spirits, place in the cosmos, etc.) that investigate gendered variability in the access, utilization, and display of sacred power. For example, recent ethnographic research has shown that in Chipewan society, men and women acquire sacred power differently.
(3)  Gender and Children: Jarvena and Brumbach note that although formative experiences during childhood are critical to the construction of gender roles in adult life, there remains to comprehensive studies on the topic in hunter-gatherer studies. Areas of potential future research interest include play activities, lore and games, miniatures and toys, and mentoring activities.
(4)  Alternative Gender Roles: They suggest that we need additional research into alternative gender identities, such as third- and fourth-gender personae for revealing new realms of expanding social possibilities and boundaries in hunter-gatherer societies.
(5)  Political and Colonial Transformations of Gender: Finally, hunter-gatherer studies would benefit from additional research into the influence of historical processes (i.e. political and colonial) on gender. For example, how might have gender ideologies been imposed on hunter-gatherer peoples by dominating political forces? How have they been resisted or accommodated?

Comments and Questions

Although the cross-cutting disciplinary theme discussed here is broadly ‘identity’, Jarvenpa and Brumbach’s chapter focuses primarily on gender. As such, our comparative discussion is in large part centered around that particular facet of identity. This is not to ignore other aspects, such as age, sex, and status for example, that are clearly important in bioarchaeological and archaeological investigations of identity but, rather, to address common ground between the two articles in sufficient resolution.

A key theme advocated by Jarvenpa and Brumbach was the need for hunter-gatherer studies to move beyond simple, rigid, gender dichotomies (i.e. man the hunter, woman the gatherer) perpetuated by the field’s long standing focus on men. Similar critiques have come forward in biological anthropology, but current methods are still entrenched in these binary divisions (for example, sex estimations place emphasis on male and female, and have little or no room to consider non-binary or gender nonconforming identities).

To move beyond this simplistic dichotomy, Jarvenpa and Brumbach cite ethnoarchaeology as a means to better locate women in prehistoric hunter-gatherer societies because it involves interplay between various types of data (i.e. ethnography, ethnohistory, and archaeology). Although they don’t call for a use of ethnoarchaeology by name, Knudson and Stokanowski (2008) state that context is everything, and only by considering a broad range of contextual details, can the field of biological anthropology develop and grow. However, in both papers, it seemed that these were more words, than action. For example, in their discussion on the division between gender/sex, Knudson and Stokanowski briefly mention non-binary genders, but don’t really stress the importance of other lines of evidence (i.e. iconographic evidence of a third gender, oral traditions of berdache, etc.) for identifying non-binary genders, or for supporting the assumption of a male/female divide. Similarly, Jarvenpa and Brumbach frequently cite bioarchaeological studies in their chapter as contributing to our understanding of gender in hunter-gatherer societies yet were somewhat ignored in their suggestions for further research. Although they did not explicitly advocate for biocultural research in their conclusions, Jarvenpa and Brumbach clearly support the use of multiple interdisciplinary data-sets to build more nuanced interpretations of gender in hunter-gatherer studies.  While both papers, from different sub-disciplines support – and even call for – more interdisciplinary work, they seem somewhat narrow in scope.

To address the question posed earlier, “Does one sub-discipline really need the other?”, we  argue yes. Perhaps, the first step of interdisciplinary studies, is admitting you need it. While these studies argue that identity can only be approached through methods like ethnoarchaeology, or other interdisciplinary practices, it may be up to future generations of anthropologists to commit to this call, and put words into practice. Together, this makes research in identity very exciting, as new lines of evidence come together, new ideas, and new collaborations.

Identity is multifaceted, it makes sense that our analysis of identity would be the same.


What Makes for Good Anthropological Writing?

For this week’s blog post I have been challenged to discuss what makes an academic anthropological article both succeed and fail through a critical analysis of two articles: one strong and one weak. This is a fairly open-ended and subjective question which I do not believe can be justified with a simple response. Thinking back to what I have learned in Dr. Roddick’s class thus far, I would expect a successful academic journal article to be strong in a number of aspects such as content, voice/style, and structure. These categories are deliberately general in order to acknowledge that there is considerable variation regarding what may be considered ‘successful’ in each.


I would expect that the referenced material is up to date and does not limit itself to classic ‘influential’ work but additionally incorporates, or at a minimum acknowledges, alternative, contemporary material. I would not, however, expect the content to include an argument or an opinion as, for example, annual review papers do not necessarily make an argument (although perhaps implicitly by controlling what research they reference as important) but are arguably successful papers nonetheless. In addition, I have read some of my colleagues’ blog posts this week and noticed some discussion regarding theory selection as important to a successful article which I would like to address further here. With regards to my first point regarding content, I would expect that whatever theoretical perspective the author chooses, they use up to date material and at a minimum acknowledge other relevant competing arguments and models. I would not, however, label an article a failure because they are simply choose a different theoretical perspective than my own. If there is anything we have learned thus far, it is that it is okay to challenge the dominant way of ‘doing’ anthropology.


I would expect that a successful article to be written both clearly and concisely with an intended audience in mind. Considering this, I think the use of ‘in-the-know’ language is neither a strength nor weakness as long as it is used appropriately considering the reader. As this assignment asks us to specifically discuss academically oriented articles I am assuming that the intended audience is academic. In this case, I would expect the correct use of meaningful anthropological jargon, used clearly and concisely, to be a feature of a successful article. I would also expect that there is considerable flexibility regarding what is considered ‘good’ anthropological style. I think there is value to both imitating, to a certain degree, the writing style of influential authors, such as Levi-Strauss or Louis Binford, and challenging the canonical with experimental style such as Kristen Luker.


I would expect similarly as with voice that a successful article moves clearly and smoothly through their points while keeping the audience in mind. Once again, considering the subjectivity of this criteria I acknowledge that there exists considerable successful variation regarding how to go about this. One might stick the traditional, canonical, narrative which, considering archaeology for example, tends to be structured chronologically over time, or innovate with alternative narrative structures that, for example, may be more free-flowing, introspective, or novel-esque in structure. 

Additional Criteria 

In addition to my own criteria, I include here a number of article review questions proposed by Rex, a user and author, in the blog post Questioning Collapse that I think will be useful for highlighting a successful paper. These, modified by the author, include: How does the article address the social effects of their research and its accuracy? How is the article influenced by the cultural background of the author? How well does the article stand up to scholarly scrutiny? How well does the article reach the intended audience? These are general, yet strong questions because they are flexible, allowing for a multitude of responses.


Once I developed these measures for identifying successful anthropological articles, I headed to the academic database: Google.Scholar to actually find some articles to review. I used keywords relevant to my research such as ‘hunter-gatherer’, ‘paleoethnobotany’, and ‘New World’ to initiate the search and made particular use of the ‘cited by’ function to access a list of all known publications, with links, citing the particular source. My rationale for this is deceptively simple. Articles that have been cited many times are more likely to be considered successful articles than those that have not. However, it is more complicated because there are a number of factors one must be aware of such as date of publication, publishing medium, publishing body, and nature of the article (i.e. annual review, case study, etc.). For example, if you were to compare an article published in 1970 to one published in 2015, it would not be unusual for the 1970 article to have garnered more references. This does not necessarily indicate that it is more successful, but may rather reflect that it has simply accumulated more references by virtue of time. In addition, the nature of the publishing journal itself will affect an articles dissemination to broader audiences. For example, a small anthropological journal, such as Vegetation, History, and Archaeobotany, would likely reach a smaller audience than, for example American Antiquity. Furthermore, the content of the publication is also important for accumulating references. For example, publications that address broad, over-arching subjects are more likely to be cited than those that focus on specific case studies because they are more likely to fit many frames of research. Finally a reference does not always equal appraisal. In other words, an article may have been cited many times but the content of such citations is not always positive, but sometimes scathing and critical.


Considering this, I selected two articles for this week’s review. The first is “Plant-animal subsistence ratios and macronutrient energy”, written by Cordian et al., published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. The second, which I found via the ‘cited by’ list from Cordian et al.’s article, is “Hunter-gatherer Nutrition and Its Implications for Modern Societies”, written by Brent Kious, published in Nutrition Noteworthy.

The Successful

Cordain, L., J. B. Miller, S. B. Eaton, N. Mann, S. HA Holt, and J. D. Speth
2000  Plant-animal subsistence ratios and macronutrient energy estimations in worldwide hunter-gatherer diets. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 71(3): 682–692. 

Keywords: hunter-gatherer, diet, ethnography, subsistence, nutrition, plant, animal, macronutrient energy estimation

The main purpose of this article is to discuss how nutritionists and anthropologists reconstruct hunter-gatherer diet via the archaeological record. Because hunter-gatherers do not exist uninfluenced today, reconstructions of diet rely on indirect measures such as ethnographic analogy. As such, Cordain et al. combine ethnographic data with nutritional information to estimate hunter-gatherer plant and animal macronutrient intake requirements. Their results show that hunter-gatherer consumption choices are largely dependent on protein intake. Whenever possible, hunter-gatherers prioritized the consumption of much animal-protein until they encountered the ‘maximal protein ceiling’: the point after which excess consumption of animal-protein would results in an illness known as “rabbit starvation” (688). Cordain et al.’s main conclusion regarding hunter-gatherer diet is that, although exceptions exist, animal based protein tended to be universally preferred over plant based carbs. Relevant to modern societies, the nutritional trends discussed may lead to a better understanding of modern chronic diseases in Westernized societies.

I argue that this is a successful anthropological article for a number of reasons. First, I encountered the article not only because it paralleled my research interests, but because Google.Scholar’s ‘cited by’ function showed that it had been referenced on 651 separate occasions. Upon further inspection, it would appear that this article garnered so many citations because it addresses broad issues (i.e. diet) relevant to a multidisciplinary audience. Comparatively, a specific case study would likely be pertinent to a much smaller niche audience. Regarding content, this article is successful at referencing both classic and contemporary material on the topic, thus demonstrating an awareness of both influential and modern interpretations. Although this paper is undoubtedly based on an explicit argument, it is not my intention criticize of the chosen stance but, rather, to identify that the argument was well-informed and cited with up-to-date relevant information. Regarding voice/style, I felt that article was written clearly and concisely while attempting to be translatable to their intended audience: anthropologists and nutritionists. As the intended audience is cross-disciplinary, I thought that, for the most part, the article did a good job avoiding field specific language and jargon that would have made interpretation difficult for either party. For example, I had a bit of trouble unpacking some of the nutritional language regarding hunter-gatherer macronutrient intake in the methodology section which was likely intended for clinical nutritionists. Regarding structure, Cordain et al. adhered to the typical academic/scientific structure or narrative, not surprising considering that the intended audience is academic. They made good use of accurate headings and, in my opinion, transitioned well from one section to the next. Overall, I think this is a successful anthropological article for a number of reasons, the most prominent being that it reached its intended audience well. 

The Less than Successful

Kious, B. M.
2002  Hunter-gatherer Nutrition and Its Implications for Modern Societies. Nutrition Noteworthy 5(1). 

Keywords: Hunter-gatherer, nutrition, subsistence,

The main purpose of this article is to identify factors relating diet and activity to the the onset of chronic and degenerative diseases in westernized societies, such as diabetes mellitus and hypertension, through comparison with hunter-gatherer lifestyles. Kious argues that this is a viable comparison because we, as humans, are still “genetically adapted” to this form of existence. Since little data is available from prehistoric hunter-gatherers, data from modern ethnographic “tribes” (1) was substituted because their ways of life have not changed according to the evolutionary standard. According to Kious, the results show a link between the onset of major diseases and divergences from ethnographic accounts of hunter-gatherer diets. The major contribution of this study is to suggest new ways to improve the health of patients in industrial regions through nutritional and behavioral recommendations.

This is a great example of how inter-disciplinary research can go awry. I would by no means suggest that it is a failure but would call it less than successful for a number of reasons. Regarding both content and voice/style, Kious’ use of outdated anthropological language and theory throughout the article reveals either his lack of knowledge regarding contemporary anthropological theory, or a refusal to acknowledge it. For example, his reference to hunter-gatherer “tribes” (2) shows that he is not aware that no subset of credible anthropology uses that terminology. For the most part, the term ‘tribe’ was replaced with ‘ethnic group’ in the mid-late 20th century. Additionally, his reference to “civilized behaviors” (abstract) as reflecting modern industrial societies implies that hunter-gatherers, as the antagonists in this comparison, are uncivilized. Once again, this use of language shows that Kious is not up-to-date with current anthropological conventions. Furthermore, his firm evolutionary theoretical stance reflects a similar problem. By assuming that modern ethnographic accounts of diet have remained unchanged from those of pre-historic hunter-gatherers is to ignore the influence of modern historical processes on contemporary groups. The real problem here, however, is not that Kious took an evolutionary stance, but that he did not consider the modern critiques of his perspective. None of this is terribly surprising considering the Kious’ academic background is rooted in psychiatry. Finally, regarding structure, I thought that Kious had taken enough of a beating. The typical canonical structure does its job of presenting the material for an academic audience well, but wins no awards for creativity.


I think that a real strength of this exercise, which I elaborated upon when I opened, was not so much the article reviews themselves but, rather, the process of developing a criteria for critically engaging with an article. Although somewhat crude or rudimentary in its early inception, I think it helped me engage the articles better because I had specific things to look for. In addition, I read Beatrice’s blog post Hunter-Gatherer Ritual, Mobility, Settlements – Reviews of Very Different Academic Articles, prior to writing my own and picked up a small token of insight. In her conclusion she commented that some opinions that she initially thought were strong unraveled under closer inspection and, in the process, she was able to identify the author’s conscious choices and individual style. I had a similar experience during my own review of Kious’ article. At first the argument looks strong until a picked out a few choices of language (i.e. tribe) which seemed to spark a critical nerve in my brain, allowing me to identify additional issues. I could that Kious wanted to use evolutionary theory because it provided a tangible way to address his research questions via universals.

– PaleoBaron

Reflections on Archaeological Theory: Hunting and Gathering in the Andes

A question I am frequently asked by my colleagues, mentors, and supervisors is: What theoretical perspective or stance have you chosen for your research? Personally, I have had a difficult time answering this question and, as such, have chosen this writing opportunity to tackle this problem. I would like this project to serve as a chapter or, perhaps more appropriately, a section of my thesis. Before addressing this further, I think now would be the appropriate time to describe my research interests.

Broadly put, I am interested in what has been referred to in the literature as (take note of the terminology and language) ‘hunter-gatherer’, ‘Archaic Period’, or ‘pre-ceramic’ archaeology in the Andes of South America. Temporally, this genre of archaeology extends from the arrival of the first migrants at the end of the last glacial maximum, at approximately 16,000 B.P. (years before present) to approximately 3,000 B.P. when subsistence activities and settlement patterns are observed to have changed markedly from that of ‘hunter-gatherers’ (llamas et al. 2016; Dillehay 1992). In the south-central Andes, many authors have argued that this was characterized by an increase in resource intensification (i.e. seed grinding) and a drastic reduction in residential mobility (as Louis Binford would have put it) (Aldenderfer 1989; Dillehay et al. 1992; Núñez 1983; Santoro and Nunez 1987; Willey 1971). The majority of archaeological investigations of this spatio-temporal context have focused on a number of common themes such as mobility, resource intensification and specialization, and behavioral and technological adaptations (Aldenderfer 1989; Dillehay et al. 1992; Núñez 1983; Santoro and Nunez 1987; Willey 1971; Sandweiss 2008; Rademaker 2014).

The information presented here is primarily derived from archaeological, ethnographic, ethnohistoric, and ecological sources, most of which was published throughout the mid-late 20th century, a period which featured the rise of the theory of New Archaeology (or what is now referred to as processual archaeology). This has profoundly influenced what I refer to as the regional ‘canonical’ literature, or the officially recognized standard in the region (Luker 2008). The desire for a more ‘scientific’ archaeology led to the heavy use Darwinian theoretical models such as cultural ecology or human behavioral ecology. A key characteristic of which is the employment of concepts such as variation, adaptation, and natural selection to the study of human culture, specifically in relation to the environment. This can be seen quite clearly in the literature by the type of questions asked and the language used. For example, a frequently addressed question is that of mobility and the language used to explore it includes concepts such as ‘site-catchment analysis’, ‘seasonality’, and  ‘transhumance’. Even one of the most commonly used terms, ‘hunter-gatherer’, is itself defined as a subsistence strategy involving the employment of ‘hunting’ and/or ‘gathering’ adaptations. I argue that these examples show how language is embedded or coded with a distinct theoretical meaning.

A major criticism of cultural ecological or human behavioral ecological approaches is that they often present overly reductionist explanations of human behavior. A cultural ecological approach is understandably attractive because it claims to use a ‘scientifically’ derived framework and empirical data to explain culture. However, human behavior is rarely, if ever, quantifiable or linear. This is not to argue that Darwinian or cultural ecological approaches are ‘wrong’ or ‘invalid’, but that they are not the only way of constructing scholarly knowledge of the past. I would agree with cultural ecological theory in that people were intimately connected to the environment but would disagree with arguments that imply this as the single way of presenting archaeological knowledge. It is not my intention to blindly adopt a ‘canonical’ theoretical perspective but to, rather, think critically and develop my own particular angle. I intend to consider aspects of other theoretical perspectives (that certainly have issues as well), such as interpretive archaeology which include concepts such as ‘social actors’, ‘agency’ or Bourdieau’s ‘habitus’ in their language (Gero and Conkey 1991; Hodder 1990; Johnson 2011; Spector 1993; Thomas 1996; Tilley 1996; Zvelebil 1996), in order to discern a theoretical perspective for my own work.

Pluciennik’s words echo my thoughts “… most archaeologists have always acknowledged that their discipline overlaps both sides of the 19th-century divide between the natural and the human sciences and that many of its techniques and specialisms are based on indisputably “hard” science” (1999: 659-660), and “… the most productive means of analysis of archaeological—and other—texts will be themselves either variable or a mix of approaches” (674).

As such, this writing project will entail critical engagement with the ‘canonical’ Darwinian and alternative theory of the south-central Andes, such as interpretive or post-processual (Gero and Conkey 1991; Hodder 1990; Johnson 2011; Spector 1993; Thomas 1996; Tilley 1996; Zvelebil 1996), through a literature review. This will involve the reading and annotating of journal articles, books, book chapters and other relevant forms of literature followed by the writing of an essay addressing which theoretical perspective/s I will use for my research. As I addressed in the prior blog post, in order to improve my writing workflow I have elected to break this project into small, easily digestible, chunks. As such, I have developed a timeline with planning and writing deadlines to keep myself on track. I also intend on including at least three peer revisions per draft. The timeline is as follows:

8-9 March 23 2nd DRAFT COMPLETE
11-12 April 6 FINAL PAPER DUE


Aldenderfer, M. S.
1989  The Archaic Period in the South-Central Andes. Journal of World Prehistory 3(2): 117–158.

Dillehay, T. D., G. A. Calderón, G. Politis, and M. C. Beltrão
1992  Earliest Hunters and Gatherers of South America. Journal of World Prehistory 6(2): 145–204.

Gero, J. M., and W. Conkey (editors).
1991  Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory. Oxford: Blackwell.

Hodder, I.
1990  The Domestication of Europe: Structure and Contingency in Neolithic Societies. JSTOR.

Johnson, M.
2011  Archaeological Theory: An Introduction. John Wiley & Sons.

Llamas, B., L. Fehren-Schmitz, G. Valverde, J. Soubrier, S. Mallick, N. Rohland, S. Nordenfelt, C. Valdiosera, S. M. Richards, A. Rohrlach, M. L. B. Romero, I. F. Espinoza, E. T. Cagigao, L. W. Jiménez, K. Makowski, I. S. L. Reyna, J. M. Lory, J. A. B. Torrez, M. A. Rivera, R. L. Burger, M. C. Ceruti, J. Reinhard, R. S. Wells, G. Politis, C. M. Santoro, V. G. Standen, C. Smith, D. Reich, S. Y. W. Ho, A. Cooper, and W. Haak
2016  Ancient Mitochondrial DNA Provides High-Resolution Time Scale of the Peopling of the Americas. Science Advances 2(4).

Luker, K.
2008  Salsa Dancing Into the Social Sciences: Research in an Age of Info-Glut. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.

Núñez, L.
1983  Paleoindian and Archaic Cultural Periods in the Arid and Semiarid Regions of Northern Chile. Advances in World Archaeology 2: 161–203.

Rademaker, K.
2014  Late Ice-Age Human Settlement of the High-Altitude Peruvian Andes. Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft für Urgeschichte 23: 13.
Sandweiss, Daniel H.
2008  Early Fishing Societies in Western South America. In The Handbook of South American Archaeology, edited by Helaine Silverman and William H. Isbell, pp. 145–156. Springer New York.

Santoro, C., and L. Nunez
1987  Hunters of the Dry Puna and the Salt Puna in Northern Chile. Andean past 1: 57–109.

Spector, Janet D.
1993  What This Awl Means: Feminist Archaeology at a Wahpeton Dakota Village. Minnesota Historical Society Press, St. Paul.

Thomas, J.
1998  Time, Culture and Identity: an Interpretive Archaeology. Psychology Press.

Tilley, C.
1996  An Ethnography of the Neolithic: Early Prehistoric Societies in Southern Scandinavia. Cambridge University Press.

Willey, G. R.
1971  An introduction to American Archaeology, Vol. 2: South America. Prentice-Hall, New York.

Zvelebil, M.
1996  The Agricultural Frontier and the Transition to Farming in the Circum-Baltic Region. The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia: 323–345.