In Pursuit of Mobile Prey: Martu Hunting Strategies and Archaeofaunal Interpretation

By Douglas W. Bird, R. Bird, B. Codding. American Antiquity, 2009

139 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Is it Intensification Yet? Current Archaeological Perspectives on the Evolution of Hunter-Gatherer Economies (2015, methodology): “For example, children, senescent individuals, men seeking prestige, women foraging near camp, and group hunting techniques all deposit faunal remains in manners that can be inconsistent with the standard and intuitive perspective that larger package size indicates higher resource rank (Bird et al. 2”
Evolutionary Ecology, Resource Depression, and Niche Construction Theory: Applications to Central California Hunter-Gatherers and Mimbres-Mogollon Agriculturalists (2010, background): “…direction of the relationship between return rate and body size is positive, and in eight of them, the correlations are significant despite differences in prey mobility (see Bird et al. 2009; Broughton et al. 2010 for detailed discussion on the issue of prey mobility in relation to return rates).”
Modeling wood acquisition strategies from archaeological charcoal remains (2009, methodology): “…to ethnographic and archaeological cases of human foraging, focusing primarily on the hunting or gathering of wild animal and plant food resources (Bird et al., 2009; Broughton, 1994, 1997; Gremillion, 2004; Kennett, 2005; Smith, 1991; Winterhalder and Smith, 1981), although patch choice and…”