Sense of Place Among Hunter-Gatherers

Abstract

This research examines sense of place among hunter-gatherers. More specifically, it assesses whether or not hunter-gatherers are focused on social parameters when they form their sense of place. Most previous research of sense of place has taken place in industrial society where humans have become disconnected from the surrounding lands and spaces. As hunter-gatherers are dependent on the surrounding lands and spaces, this research will add valuable insights about the phenomenon of sense of place. The findings indicate that sense of place among hunter-gatherers is closely associated with the social group that they identify with. The most significant social unit in terms of sense of place for hunter-gatherers is the conglomeration of multifamily units. Overall, this study implies that sense of place among hunter-gatherers adds a spatial component to an individual’s overall sense of social identification.

Keywords

sense of place land-use hunter-gatherers social organization identity

Background

In the 1970s, the number of studies on human place associations increased as geographers, anthropologists, sociologists, architects, and psychologists attempted to document and evaluate the manner in which humans relate to their surrounding spaces. Tuan (1974) described topophilia as “. . . diffuse as concept, vivid and concrete as personal experience. . . .” (p. 4). Since then, researchers have identified at least three constructs of human spatial associations. “Place attachment” (Relph, 1976) refers to the affective bond between a human and a place. “Place identity” (Proshansky, 1978; Proshansky, Fabian, & Kaminoff, 1983) references the degree to which a place is perceived to define oneself. “Place dependence” (Stokols & Shumaker, 1981) is the degree to which place supplies one’s needs. Jorgensen and Stedman (2001) described a “sense of place” (SOP) as the confluence of place identification, place attachment, and place dependency while a number of subsequent studies, which focused on recreational activities (Gross & Brown, 2008; Kyle, Graefe, & Manning, 2004), proposed that place attachment was composed of place identity and place dependence. Some researchers have advocated a more holistic perspective of place identity and place attachment (Chow & Healey, 2008), and others have seen them as correlated but distinct (Rollero & Piccoli, 2010). How these and other constructs relate to each other continue to be explored without a consensus among scholars (Droseltis & Vignoles, 2010; Raymond, Brown, & Weber, 2010; Scannell & Gifford, 2010).

Researchers have been divided over whether our SOP is focused on physical or social parameters. The salience of physical and ecological parameters, which was noted by early environmental psychologists (Altman & Wolwill, 1983; Kaplan, 1992; Ulrich, 1983) has been maintained and refined (Low & Altman, 1992; Manzo, 2003; Moore, 2000; Smaldone, Harris, & Sanyal, 2005; Stedman, 2003). Natural resource–based researchers, who focus on recreational/tourism activities, continue to examine connections to natural environments, which they perceive as a refuge from their modern industrial lifestyle (Clayton & Opotow, 2003; Gross & Brown, 2008; Kyle et al., 2004; D. R. Williams, Patterson, Roggenbuck, & Watson, 1992).

A separate group of scholars have recognized the social links to SOP (Fried, 1963; Kasarda & Janowitz, 1974; Raymond et al., 2010; Riger & Lavrakas, 1981; Twigger-Ross & Uzzell, 1996). Some researchers have highlighted the “home” environment, which provides comfort, security, and a sense of belonging (Altman & Werner, 1985; Chow & Healey, 2008; Dovey, 1985; Hay, 1998a, 1998b). In addition, there have been some questions about the social unit that is most involved in the dynamics of our SOP. Fornara, Bonaiuto, and Bonnes (2010); Hernández, Hidalgo, Salazar-Laplace, and Hess (2007); and Hidalgo and Hernández (2001) have found differences in the types of associations, which arose for various modern units such as the home, neighborhood, city, and island. Their results also indicated that place attachment and identity were tightly correlated for natives, but not visitors.

Most of the anthropological discussion of attachment to place has been in the context of particular societies. For example, Strehlow (1947), Hiatt (1968), and Myers (1986) all noted the deep emotional land attachment of Australian aboriginal groups while Lye (2004) and Silberbauer (1994) noted the spatial associations between the Batek De and the Gwi, respectively. Comparative research in anthropology has focused on different aspects of place, such as territoriality (Cashdan, 1983; Casimir & Roa, 1992; Dyson-Hudson & Smith, 1978), or land tenure (Barnard, 1992a, 1992b; Barnard & Widlock, 1996; Basso & Feld, 1995; Binford, 2001; Burch & Ellanna, 1994; Ingold, Riches, Woodburn, 1988a, 1988b; Kelly, 1995; Marlowe, 2010). Brown (1991) included spatial identification as a human universal.

Theory

Because hunter-gatherers relied directly on the surrounding lands for their subsistence needs, emotional responses to physical parameters relating to the potential of gaining access to resources could have evolved (Orians & Heerwagen, 1992), which produced SOP. By forming an emotional association with the land, a hunter-gatherer is more likely to operate in and around a familiar area, which in turn should increase the success in hunting and gathering and decrease the potential of being injured or killed due to natural dangers (snakes, cliffs, etc.). If, as some researchers have claimed (Stedman, 2003) that the physical features of the land are significant in creating a SOP, then one would think they would dominate among hunter-gatherers because the costs of not attaining enough resources or succumbing to a danger are relatively high.

However, sense of place could be a component of social identity to increase the benefits of maintaining social connections to a wider group of humans. Hunter-gatherers who are in close proximity can gain significant benefits through cooperation to attain resources. In addition, one of the more significant dangers that humans have faced is the threat from other humans, who might try to take advantage of them in a variety of ways. Maintaining spatial proximity within a network of related, familiar, and friendly humans would provide an advantage by decreasing the likelihood of contact with unfamiliar and hostile humans. When spatial identity is connected to social identity, it could create a tendency to maintain familiar and friendly groups in close proximity.

To explore the social parameters adequately, one must assess the different social units through which SOP is expressed. As extreme social animals, humans tend to form various types of bonds and groups, and SOP could operate through one or more of these social units. One of the benefits of examining SOP among foragers is that there are characteristic social units (Binford, 2001; Helm, 1968; Kelly, 1995; Marlowe, 2010) for which sense of place can be examined. The hunter-gatherer social units that are most likely to relate to SOP are multifamily residential-foraging units (MF), conglomeration of multifamily residential-foraging units (CMF), and/or ethnic units. If it can be established that SOP tends to operate through one of these particular social units, then this can provide valuable insights about the object of sense of place in modern society and about its possible function. For instance, if SOP is highly correlated to a social unit that is focused on gaining subsistence needs, then it would be evidence that SOP may operate to improve resource acquisition. On the contrary, if it is more associated with a unit that operates to maintain social connections and distinguish insiders from outsiders, then that could suggest that SOP operates to improve social cohesion and decrease hostile encounters.

The following two hypotheses will be tested.

Hypothesis 1: Sense of place is associated with social parameters among hunter-gatherers. The null hypothesis is that social parameters are not connected to SOP. (It should be noted that sense of place could incorporate both physical versus social parameters simultaneously.)

Hypothesis 2: SOP will be associated with a particular social unit within hunter-gatherer society, which will be indicative of its potentially functional relevance. The null hypothesis is that there will be no association with a particular social unit.

Method

Sampling

Twenty-five hunter-gatherer groups (Table 1) were examined through the ethnographic literature to assess their relationship with their surrounding lands. (See Table 1, column 5 for one of the more significant ethnographic sources utilized). The Human Relations Area Files (eHRAF) World Cultures website (http://ehrafworldcultures.yale.edu/) was utilized to find many of these ethnographic sources through both subject and culture searches. The following subject categories (which related to sense of place) from the Outline of Cultural Materials (OCM) subjects were utilized: land use (OCM 311), settlement patterns (OCM 361), ethnogeography (OCM 823), property (OCM 420), real property (OCM 423), sacred objects and places (OCM 778), and identification (OCM 101). While the specific information from these searches was helpful in identifying ethnographies that provided data about spatially related aspects of hunter-gatherers, it was inadequate to comprehend the full relationship that these different hunter-gatherer groups experienced with their surrounding lands and spaces. As a result, for each group chosen, complete ethnographies and/or articles with comprehensive data on spatial relations were assessed. Three basic criteria were utilized to determine which 25 groups were chosen.

Table 1.

Socio-Spatial Characteristics of Hunter-Gatherer Sample.

Group	Location	Climate	Biome	Ethnographic sources
Ju/’hoansi	Africa—South	Semi-arid	Desert-savanna	Lee (1979, pp. 54-55, 59-61, 334, 337-338, 340, 341, 362-363)
!Xo	Africa—South	Semi-arid	Desert-savanna	Heinz (1979, pp. 466-474)
G/wi	Africa—South	Arid	Desert	Silberbauer (1981, pp. 95-100, 138, 141, 159, 166-167, 191-198)
Hadza	Africa—East	Semi-arid	Savanna	Woodburn (1972, pp. 193, 196, 198, 200-201)
Mbuti	Africa—Central	Tropical	Rain forest	Turnbull (1965, pp. 93-109, 118, 137, 148, 220-223, 317-323)
Aka	Africa—Central	Tropical	Rain forest	Bahuchet (1992, pp. 205-257)
Walbiri	Australia—North	Semi-arid	Savanna-desert	Meggitt (1962, pp. 35-80)
Tiwi	Australia—Island	Tropical	Rain forest	Hart, Pilling, and Goodale (1988, pp. 13-16, 36-37, 40-41, 91, 107, 133)
Pintupi	Australia—Central	Arid	Desert	Myers (1986, pp. 25-27, 48-62, 78-101, 128-129, 138, 149-157)
Ainu	EurAsia—Japan	Temp/taiga	Deciduous/coniferous forest	Watanabe (1964, pp. 55-80)
Cholanaickan	India	Tropical	Rain forest	Bhanu (1989, pp. 42-65, 96-101, 142-145, 157-161)
Vedda	India	Tropical	Rain forest	Seligmann et al. (1911, pp. 42-116)
Punan	SE Asia—Borneo	Tropical	Rain forest	Hoffman (1986, pp. 20-42)
Batek De	SE Asia—Malaysia	Tropical	Rain forest	Lye (2004, pp. 36-38, 50-51, 66-67, 97-112, 117, 158, 161, 176)
Intermontane Ute/N. Paiute	America—U.S. Central	Arid	Desert	Fowler (1982, pp. 113-125)
Yurok	America—Pacific NW	Temperate	Coniferous forest	Pilling (1978, pp. 137-153)
Kwakiutl	America—Pacific NW	Temperate	Coniferous forest	Boas (1966, pp. 35-48)
Tlingit	America—Pacific NW	Temperate	Coniferous Forest	De Laguna (1960, pp. 17-28)
Ona	America—South	Temperate	Deciduous/coniferous forest	Gusinde (1931, pp. 601-618, 892-896, 985, 1437, 1548, 1587-91)
Mistissini Cree	America—Northeast	Subarctic	Taiga	Rogers (1963, pp. 25-27, 54-73)
Kaska	America—North	Subarctic	Taiga	Honigmann (1964, pp. 32-98)
Hare	America—North	Subarctic	Taiga	Hara (1980, pp. 1, 10, 20-28, 62, 64-67, 167, 230, 236, 240)
NW Alaska	America—NW	Arctic	Tundra	Burch (1980, pp. 258-295)
Copper Inuit	America—North	Arctic	Tundra	Damas (1984, pp. 398-404)
Iglulik	America—Northeast	Arctic	Tundra	Mary-Rousseliere (1984, pp. 432-440)

The first criterion was that the groups obtained almost all of their subsistence needs by hunting–gathering–fishing on their surrounding lands without cultivating the land or animals. The HRAF subsistence code for “hunter-gatherers” was used to identify some of the groups that were assessed.

A second criterion was that there had to be enough ethnographic material to effectively assess and rate the variables that were utilized (identity, attachment, dependency, range, and propriety). This criterion significantly narrowed the groups down because for more than half of the original 75, there were insufficient data on these topics.

A third criterion related to the preference to have representation from different ecological and geographic zones around the world. The ecological zones targeted were arctic/tundra, sub-arctic/taiga, temperate coniferous forest, temperate deciduous forest, tropical rain forest, semi-arid/savanna, arid/desert. These categories represent an adaptation from standard biomes recognized in human ecology (Campbell, 1995) and cultural ecology (Sutton & Anderson, 2013). The biomes for each group were determined based on the ethnographic descriptions of variables such as latitude and longitude, primary vegetation, temperature, and precipitation. While most of the biomes were easily discriminated, the difference between semi-arid savanna and arid desert required careful scrutiny in a number of cases. For instance, the G/wi, !Xo, and Ju/’hoansi live in relatively close proximity in an area where the border between a semi-arid savanna and arid desert are difficult to distinguish. The precipitation is slightly lower for the G/wi (300-400 mm) than it is for the Ju/’hoansi and !Xo (400-450 mm), and unlike the !Xo and Ju/’hoansi, the G/wi do not have access to water sources year round and had to rely on gaining moisture from plant roots for part of the year. As a result of these differences, the G/wi biome was designated as arid desert versus semi-arid savanna for the Ju/’hoansi and !Xo. Similar case by case designations were made for other groups based on ethnographic descriptions of the environmental variables and the living conditions. The largest number of hunter-gatherer groups that were utilized in this study came from tropical rain forest biomes because overall a higher percentage of hunter-gatherer ethnographies are from these biomes.

Within the ecological zones, an attempt was also made to distribute them geographically between Africa, Indian Peninsula, Southeast Asia, Eurasia, Australia, and America to gain diversity in the potential cultural traditions of these groups. In several instances, groups from similar geographic regions were included because they differed in their ecological and/or socio-spatial organization. For instance, among the Australian groups (Tiwi, Walbiri, and Pintupi), three groups were picked, which spanned the ecological zones from tropical to savanna to arid biomes. Cultural similarities between the Aka and Mbuti existed, and they were in similar ecological zones, however, because the Mbuti hunted with nets and the Aka did not, their socio-spatial organization differed. Likewise, the Tlingit, Kwakiutl, and Yurok shared a similar geographic region and similar cultural traditions, however, ethnographers (Boas, 1966; Codere, 1990; Haplin & Seguin, 1990; Kroeber, 1971; Pilling, 1978) indicated differences in ecology and socio-spatial organization as one moved from north to south in the pacific northwest. Finally, the three Bushman groups (Ju/’hoansi, !Xo, and Gwi) shared cultural traditions, however, there were significant differences between them in terms of socio-spatial organization as well as ecology.

The final column of Table 1 represents some of the ethnographic sources that were utilized in the assessment of sense of place and social cohesion. For most groups, multiple sources were used to develop socio-spatial ratings, and a more complete list of the references is available in the Appendix.

Operationalizing the Measurements

Operationalizing strength of sense of place

Six constructs were identified, which were used to rate overall sense of place for each of the 25 groups. They were identity, attachment, dependency, propriety, home range, and a comprehensive qualitative assessment of SOP for each group. As noted previously, “place attachment” (Relph, 1976) refers to an emotional bond for a place; “place identity” (Proshansky, 1978; Proshansky et al., 1983) is defined as the degree to which one incorporates a place in his or her sense of identity and “place dependence” (Stokols & Shumaker, 1981) references connections to places on account of the fact that they supply needs. These three components are frequently mentioned as possible constructs of sense of place in the modern literature (Chow & Healey, 2008; Rollero & Piccoli, 2010; Scannell & Gifford, 2010). The other two (propriety—sense of ownership, home range—area of movement) are particularly important aspects of sense of place for hunter-gatherers. The final component (a qualitative assessment) was based on an overall analysis of the strength of sense of place, which allowed for the inclusion of intangibles that could not be quantified in the other components.

Each of these six components were ranked by the author along a 5-point scale where 5 = very strong, 4 = strong, 3 = moderate, 2 = weak, and 1 = very weak. In all cases, the ranking involved examining the ethnographic data both specifically and comprehensively to determine a value. For example, a group would have received a rating of “5” if the ethnographer wrote directly about a strong sense of identity. The “4” rating was received if an ethnographer talked about the component or if there was circumstantial evidence that made it clear that there was a strong feeling of identity among the people in the group. The rating of “3” represented no mention of identity, but there were still clear indications of identity due to other comments. The “2” rating was given if there was no mention, and there were relatively weak indications of identity. The “1” rating was given if the ethnographers specifically noted that this component was not operating. For the components of identity, attachment, propriety, and dependency, a similar rating operation was utilized.

The one operational difference was for home range. If the group clearly stayed on their recognized lands throughout the year, they received a “5.” If they only occasionally wandered into other lands, they received a “4.” If they spent close to half of their time on other lands, then they received a “3.” If they spent most of their time outside their acknowledged homelands, then they received a “2,” and if the ethnographer specifically noted that they did not have a home range then they received a “1.”

The scores of the six components were averaged to develop an overall score for sense of place. This multitude of rankings for the six constructs provides a relatively accurate appraisal of overall sense of place for each group.

Operationalizing social variables

Social cohesion was used to quantify the social aspects of sense of space. The assumption was that if SOP is associated with social factors, then group cohesion, the degree to which an individual feels connected to a particular social unit, should correlate to strength of the SOP. Like sense of place, social cohesion is multidimensional, and each hunter-gatherer group was broken into social units, which were ranked for cohesion. To calculate an overall value of social cohesion as well as develop values for individual units, the typical social units among hunter-gatherers had to be identified and rated. There is a variety of social units among hunter-gatherers such as the individual, family, multifamily, conglomeration of related multifamily units, and special work units (Binford, 2001; Chapais, 2010; Helm, 1968; Kelly, 1995; Marlowe, 2010). The two units, through which sense of place usually emanated, were the MF residential-foraging unit and the CMF residential units. The MF residential-foraging unit could take a variety of formats (band, sub-clan, lineage) depending on how the group recognized kinship links. Its essential feature is that it represented the unit in which individuals resided and foraged. Sometimes, these groups were more stable such as in the case of local sub-clans and lineages, and in other cases, they were more fluid, such as in bands where individuals might come and go although there were still usually core members. The CMF units consisted of multiple familiar, proximal MF units, which maintained recognized kinship connections. They tended to be more cohesive if the kinship links were strong, such as in clans where descent was reckoned unilaterally. The third social unit, which had potential to be associated to sense of place, was the ethnic-cultural unit (EC), which was composed of the group of people who were similar ethnically, shared a similar culture and language, and perceived themselves as being different from outsiders. Each unit was ranked for social cohesiveness on a 5-point scale where 5 = very strong, 4 = strong, 3 = moderate, 2 = weak, and 1 = very weak. The scores were averaged to develop an overall social cohesion rating for each of the hunter-gatherer groups.

Assessment involved a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods. Qualitative conclusions were drawn from the comparisons and contrasts that were evident in terms of each of the variables as they related to sense of place. Some variables were tested for correlations, such as overall strength of sense of place, social cohesion in MF units, CMF units, EC units, and overall. Although a case could be made that the rating scales were continuous, a more conservative approach was taken by utilizing the Spearman function to measure the correlations.

Coding the data

The ratings of both sense of place and social cohesion were carried out by a single researcher. In an attempt to minimize inaccuracies, multiple and substantial ethnographic sources were utilized to assess the variables. As noted above, the ethnographic sources for the ratings are available in the appendix.

Potential Methodological Limitations

Cross-cultural research must guard against inconsistencies in the cultural development of the groups and eras in which these ethnographies were written. In this case, the commonality of hunter-gatherers, combined with the topic of land use, helped to minimize this potential problem. Although hunter-gatherers vary in a number of manners, they also share commonalities based on the use of land for subsistence without cultivation, and these similarities are especially relevant in this study, which is focused on spatial connections. The most significant cultural differences in this sample were manifested in the hierarchical and settled patterns of existence among the groups of the Pacific Northwest. Although they could have been omitted, it seemed that the ways that they related to their lands were quite similar to other hunter-gatherer groups and that it was important to include them to maintain a more complete representation of hunter-gatherer society.

Another potential pitfall relates to differences in theoretical perspectives that may shadow the ethnographies. To minimize this problem, efforts were made to draw on descriptive rather than interpretive passages to develop the ratings. While this cannot ensure that the descriptions are not somewhat tainted, it provides some level of filtering for this potential limitation.

Results

The ratings of six components of sense of place for the 25 hunter-gatherer groups can be viewed in Table 2.

Table 2.

Components and Overall Strength of Sense of Place.

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
Group	Identity (5 > 1)	Dependency (5 > 1)	Attachment (5 > 1)	Propriety (5 > 1)	Home range (5 > 1)	Qualitative SOP (5 > 1)	Calculated ranking of SOP (5 > 1)
Ju/’hoansi	4	2	5	2	3	3	3.17
!Xo	5	4	4	5	5	5	4.67
G/wi	4	2	5	3	3	3	3.33
Hadza	1	2	1	1	2	1	1.33
Mbuti	4	4	5	4	5	4	4.33
Aka	4	4	4	4	5	4	4.167
Walbiri	5	2	5	5	4	5	4.33
Tiwi	5	5	5	5	5	5	5
Pintupi	5	2	5	5	4	5	4.33
Ainu	5	5	4	5	5	5	4.83
Cholanaickan	5	4	4	3	3	4	3.83
Vedda	5	5	4	5	5	5	4.83
Punan	4	4	4	4	4	3	3.83
Batek De	4	3	5	2	2	2	3
Intermontane Ute/N. Paiute	3	3	2	3	2	2	2.5
Yurok	5	4	5	5	4	5	4.67
Kwakiutl	5	5	5	5	5	5	5
Tlingit	5	5	5	5	5	5	5
Ona	5	4	4	5	5	5	4.67
Mistissini Cree	5	3	5	2	3	3	3.5
Kaska	4	4	3	4	3	3	3.5
Hare	3	2	2	1	2	2	2
NW Alaska	5	5	4	5	5	5	4.83
Copper Inuit	4	4	3	4	4	3	3.67
Iglulik	5	4	3	4	4	3	3.83
Average	4.36	3.64	4.04	3.84	3.88	3.8	3.93
SD	0.93	1.09	1.11	1.32	1.11	1.23	0.96

Note. SOP = sense of place.

Strength of Sense of Place Among Hunter-Gatherers

The overall strength of sense of place (Table 2, column 8) for each of these hunter-gatherer groups was based on the average of each of the six constructs. Nine groups (36%) had a calculated rating above 4.5, which indicated a “very strong” sense of place. A second tier of eight (32%) groups had a “strong” rating between 4.5 and 3.5. A third group with a “moderate” sense of place (rating 3.5 to 2.5) included five (20%) groups. A fourth set (rating 2.5 up to 1.5) with a “weak” sense of place included two (8%) groups. Only one group (4%), the Hadza, was rated with a “very weak” sense of place with a rating less than 1.5.

The most salient type of spatial association among the sample of hunter-gatherers was identification (Table 2, column 2). Fourteen groups (56%) were rated as “very strong.” Another eight (32%) groups were “strong.” Two (8%) groups were rated as “moderate.” No groups were rated as “weak,” and one (4%) group as “very weak.”

Dependency (Table 2, column 3) as defined by the need of the land to provide basic subsistence needs, was not as well supported as was identity. Dependency was complicated by the fact that sometimes there were multiple associated lands, and this made it difficult to determine which lands to base the dependency ranking on. For instance, among both the Walbiri and Pintupi, there were identifications with both the smaller ritual lands and the larger tribelet lands, and dependency did not hold for their ritual lands but did for their tribelet lands. (In this case, the stronger identification with the smaller ritual lands was used, which created a weak dependency rating for these two groups.) Six (24%) groups were categorized as very strongly dependent based on the fact that they received the vast majority of their subsistence needs from the lands they identified with. Ten (40%) groups were rated as strongly dependent because while they obtained the majority of their subsistence needs from their identified lands, there was evidence that they also gained a noticeable minority of their foods from their non-identified lands. Three (12%) groups were moderately dependent on their identified lands, because of the inconsistency of the use of their identified lands. Six (24%) groups were weakly dependent because a significant portion of their subsistence needs came from non-identified lands. Zero groups were rated as very weakly dependent.

Attachment (Table 2, column 4) to a place also presented challenges in terms of rating it because it was rarely focused on specifically, but that was not necessarily an indication that it did not exist. Land attachment was specifically noted in 11 societies (44%), which received a very strong rating. For instance, Lye (2004) commented on this sentiment among the Batek De and argued that it is present among all human groups around the world. For those in which attachment was not mentioned, the rating was dependent on the number of indirect indications related to land use patterns. Eight (32%) groups were assigned a strong rating due to multiple indirect indications of attachment to their lands. Three (12%) groups were assigned a moderate level of attachment due to less numerous and less certain indications of attachment. Two (8%) groups were assigned a weak rating because of minor indications of attachment. Only one (4%) group (Hadza) was assigned the very weak rating due to a lack of indications on attachment.

Propriety (Table 2, column 5) relates to the degree to which individuals felt that they had some sense of ownership over lands or the resources on particular lands. This sense of propriety varied from clear senses of exclusivity toward other groups, to weak senses of usufruct attitudes where others could use the lands after asking permission, to even weaker senses of usufruct, which were based on temporal primacy. Eleven (44%) groups exhibited strong attitudes of exclusivity. Another six (24%) groups, which exhibited less demonstrative attitudes of exclusivity, were rated as strong. Strong attitudes of usufruct resulted in a moderate rating of propriety for three (12%) groups. Weak attitudes of usufruct produced a weak rating of propriety for another three (12%) groups. Only one (4%) group (Hadza) merited a very weak attitude of propriety due to indirect evidence for weak usufruct attitudes.

As expected, all 25 groups maintain a home range although for some it was less defined due to the ecology, which required more movement to gain their required resources. The degree to which the home range was more or less specified was ranked in Table 2, column 6. Ten (40%) groups had a very strongly defined home range. Another six (24%) groups had a strongly defined home range. Five (20%) groups had moderately defined home ranges. The final four (16%) groups had weakly defined home ranges. No groups were identified without a home range. The distribution of these rankings with the majority having very strong or strongly developed home ranges is consistent with the general findings of anthropologists that hunter-gatherers do not wander nomadically, but instead over familiar grounds in yearly cycles (Binford, 2001; Kelly, 1995; Lye, 2004).

The qualitative ranking of sense of place is listed in Table 2, column 7. Eleven (44%) groups had a very strong rating of “5.” This was based on a combination of forces that tied the groups to the land. For example, the Ainu were included in this “very strong” rating because they were tied to their lands spiritually, politically, and economically (Watanabe, 1964, p. 73). Three (12%) groups had strong SOP ratings of “4” where there were clear indications of robust spatial connections as indicated by the description of the Mbuti below.

In a lifetime of nomadic wandering through one’s large but clearly defined territory, certain landmarks and locations would become established—the place where Sangu killed the elephant, the tree where Madada fell while getting honey, the sunny clearing where the animals come to eat the earth with the salt in it. To the Mbuti, these were street names and place names imprinted only on memory . . . To be an Mbuti was the only way to know them all. (Duffy, 1984, p. 47)

Seven (28%) groups had a moderate rating of “3.” Some of these groups were characterized by significant seasonal changes, which resulted in multiple land associations. The Ju/’hoansi description below helps to characterize the description of spatial association for these groups.

[You see us here today but] you know we are not /Xai/xai people. Our true n!ore is at /Dwia . . . And we think of the rich fields of berries spreading as far as the eye can see and the mongongo nuts densely littered on the ground. We think of the meat that will soon be hanging thick from every branch. No, we are not /Xai/xai. /Dwia is our earth. We just came here to drink the milk. (Lee, 1979, pp. 362-363)

Three (12%) groups exhibited weak overall senses of place with ratings of “2.” For these groups there were no direct statements referring to sense of place nor were there clear indications of territorial attitudes. Most of these groups were free to wander over group territory, but there was still an implication of a sense of attachment and identification to particular areas. For example, the Northern Paiute moved throughout a larger area on annual rounds but seemed to have an association with a particular area within it.

Although Steward called these sites “villages,” the actual designation seemed to apply more to a generalized location rather than a fixed locus of residence. . . . Because of the annual redundancy in local yield, these families were tethered to the named areas, and groups commonly overwintered year after year in the same residential base camp. (Thomas, 1981, p. 29)

Only one (4%) group, the Hadza, merited a very weak rating of “1.” It is more difficult to pinpoint attitudes concerning their identification with the land. Woodburn (1968) stated that they had very little association with the land. More recent ethnographers, Marlowe (2010) and Blurton-Jones (2013), concurred with most of Woodburn’s conclusions about Hadza land use. Marlowe did not feel that they were proprietary about certain land areas and stated that any Hadza could camp anywhere in “Hadzaland.” However, he acknowledged that Hadza would sometimes avoid areas that they knew that other Hadza were camped in, and so there was evidence of some semblance of “usufruct” attitudes. In addition, there is no doubt that the Hadza identified with the 400 square miles that have been associated with the Hadza EC group (Marlowe, 2010). Finally, Marlowe (2010) noted that although the Hadza did not have the power to oust other groups like the Datoga from their lands, they did not appreciate their presence on what they considered were Hadza hunting lands.

Social and Ecological Variables of Sense of Place Among Hunter-Gatherers

The main sense of place was strongly targeted to areas that were associated with their recognized social group. In addition, sense of place among hunter-gatherers emanated predominantly from individuals as members of social units. Silberbauer related this idea for the G/wi:

Attitudes regarding territory are affected by the fact of N!adima’s ownership of the land and its resources and by the fact that the primary bond is between the individual and his band, where the link between the individual and territory is derived from the bond between community and land. . . . Rights to a territory flow from band membership and can be exercised only while acting as a member; to leave the band is to relinquish rights to its territorial resources. (Silberbauer, 1981, p. 99)

Individuals did sometimes develop more minor spatial associations with particular places in the natural environment, but the most salient spatial associations always emanated through larger social units.

Social cohesion among hunter-gatherers

Table 3 provides a rating of the degree of social cohesion of the three most prominent social units among foragers, which were probable candidates for association with places. (As with the previous ratings, 5 = very strong, 4 = strong, 3 = moderate, 2 = weak, and 1 = very weak.)

Table 3.

Strength of Social Cohesion Among Social Units.

1	2	3	4	5
Hunter-gatherer group	MF social strength (5 > 1)	CMF social strength (5 > 1)	EC social strength (5 > 1)	Average social strength (5 > 1)
Ju/’hoansi	4	1	1	2
!Xo	5	5	2	4
G/wi	4	1	2	2.33
Hadza	2	1	2	1.67
Mbuti	5	3	2	3.33
Aka	5	3	2	3.33
Walbiri	3	5	2	3.33
Tiwi	5	5	3	4.333
Pintupi	3	5	2	3.33
Ainu	5	5	2	4
Cholanaickan	4	4	2	3.33
Vedda	5	5	2	4
Punan	4	3	3	3.33
Batek De	3	1	2	2
Intermontane Ute/N. Paiute	3	2	2	2.33
Yurok	4	5	3	4
Kwakiutl	4	5	3	4
Tlingit	4	5	3	4
Ona	5	5	3	4.33
Mistissini Cree	4	2	2	2.67
Kaska	4	3	2	3
Hare	3	1	2	2
NW Alaska	4	5	2	3.67
Copper Inuit	4	3	2	3
Iglulik	4	3	2	3
Average	4	3.44	2.2	3.21
SD	0.8	1.58	0.49	0.78

Note. MF = multifamily; CMF = conglomeration of multifamily; EC = ethnic-cultural.

On average, the MF social units ranked higher in terms of social cohesion with an average rating of 4.0. While the CMF units had a slightly lower average numerical rating of 3.44, there were some societies in which the feelings of unity were higher in the CMF units than for their MF units. This occurred when the MF groups were particularly fluid due to ecological necessity, such as for the Walbiri or Pintupi, or in cases where the CMF unit was so well established through concepts of unilateral descent, such as for the Yurok, Kwakiutl, or Tlingit. The EC units were significantly less cohesive with an average of 2.2.

Correlation between social cohesion and sense of place

The quantitatively calculated overall sense of place (Table 2, column 8) for each society, was tested against the overall ratings of social cohesion (Table 3, column 5) for each society, the MF social strength (Table 3, column 2), the CMF social strength (Table 3, column 3), and the EC social strength (Table 3, column 4), to determine the degree of correlation by using the Spearman Test with confidence intervals by Fisher Transformation. The results in Table 4 indicate a strong positive correlation between overall sense of place and overall social cohesion.

Table 4.

Correlation of Sense of Place Ranking Versus Variables Related to Social Cohesion.

	Calculated overall sense of place (Spearman’s rho)	95% CIs by Fisher transformation
Calculated overall social cohesion	0.95*	[.88, .98]
Calculated MF social cohesion	0.61*	[.28, .81]
Calculated CMF social cohesion	0.92*	[.83, .97]
Calculated EC social cohesion	0.56*	[.21, .78]

Note. CIs = confidence intervals; MF = multifamily; CMF = conglomeration of multifamily; EC = ethnic-cultural.

p < .05, two-tailed.

Social cohesion in hunter-gatherer social units and sense of place

Each of the social units also produced a relatively strong correlation to sense of place, but there were notable differences. The strongest correlation with sense of place occurred for the CMF social unit with a coefficient of .92. There was also a positive correlation between sense of place and the MF unit, but it was significantly less than the correlation for the CMF units as indicated by the confidence intervals. The EC social unit displayed the weakest correlation with sense of place although its confidence interval overlapped with that of the MF units. (Relatively large confidence intervals are expected for Spearman’s function.)

One final observation is that more permissive “usufruct” attitudes dominated for the spaces associated with the MF units while more exclusive territorial attitudes dominated for the areas associated with the CMF units. The “usufruct attitudes” refer to the commonly held principle in which the residential group at the time has the potential authority to deny access to members from other MF units but rarely exercises that prerogative. In contrast, in the context of the CMF units, individuals were far more proprietary in their attitudes and often perceived that their CMF associated area was off-limits to outsiders.

Discussion

The results provided a number of valuable insights about sense of place among hunter-gatherers. Although the precise characterization of sense of place was not always clear from the ethnographic data, it was evident that most of the hunter-gatherer groups exhibited some type of spatial association. More specifically, a connection between forager SOP and social characteristics was evident. There was a strong positive correlation between social cohesion and strength of sense of place. Sense of place operated through the individual most strongly as a member of the larger CMF units. There was also a weaker correlation with the smaller MF residential-foraging units, but this seemed to arise when the larger CMF units had lost cohesion and no longer provided a prime target for identity.

Sense of Place, Physical Variables and Subsistence Needs

One hypothesis of researchers of sense of place is that it is applied based on ecological attributes and oftentimes focused on natural features of a place. This idea is somewhat inconsistent with the sense of place targeting a home environment, which is characterized by social connections. This perspective is also more synonymous with the hypothesis that foragers would focus their sense of place on lands, which provided their subsistence needs. It is true that many hunter-gatherers knew their lands quite well and used that knowledge to forage effectively and avoid dangers in the process. However, it also was evident that there were a number of cases where groups did not form a sense of place with all and in some cases even the majority of the lands that they needed for foraging. For many groups in semi-arid, arid, and to some extent arctic regions where their home range was extensive, their associated lands oftentimes represented but a minor segment of the lands they used for foraging. In other cases, foragers depended on their associated lands for subsistence needs some seasons or years, but they utilized other lands in other years/seasons. This inconsistency adds to the evidence tying social connections and particularly CMF units to sense of place and seems to contradict the hypothesis that sense of place may have arisen to anchor foragers to the lands they needed to subsist on. It is possible that the subsistence provided additional benefits and that this hypothesis is not mutually exclusive to other functions. Overall, the evidence from hunter-gatherers, which tied SOP to social identity, was more supportive of approaches, which connect sense of place to a home environment (Altman & Werner, 1985; Chow & Healey, 2008) as opposed to a natural environment.

Correlation Between Sense of Place and Social Cohesion

The finding that strength of social cohesion was robustly and positively correlated to sense of place supports the interpretation that sense of place is a component of our overall sense of identity. Humans evolved a very complex and rich psychology for maintaining and utilizing social connections (Barkow, Cosmides, & Tooby, 1992; Whiten & Byrne, 1988). Under the socio-spatial dynamics of hunter-gatherers, the incorporation of a spatial component into our social psychology could have provided significant benefits, which enriched the advantages of the social connections. By tying spatial considerations to social connections, one eases the potential problems of maintaining connections with familiar and friendly individuals and of distancing oneself socially from unfamiliar and more hostile groups/individuals. Riches’ summary of his findings about land use among northern foragers helps to explain this point:

In sum these circumstances indicate that, the further the hunter-gatherer moves from the area in which he was brought up or currently occupies, the greater the uncertainty to which he will be subject, concerning the location, identity and intentions of others, and the less the confidence with which he may pursue his social and economic strategy. (Riches, 1982, p. 121)

Connections Between Sense of Place and Different Social Units

This hunter-gatherer data supported and added valuable insights to previous research, which indicated that associations with different social units can affect the degree to which one develops a sense of place (Fornara et al., 2010; Hernández et al., 2007; Hidalgo & Hernández, 2001). Connections between social units and SOP were higher for the CMF units than for the MF residential-foraging units themselves, and both of these units were more connected to SOP than the EC units. The MF residential-foraging units represent the smaller social groups where daily contact is maintained and hunting and gathering operations are engaged in. The CMF units are larger and represent the usual limits of social familiarity and recognized kinship. These are the units through which marriage partners are obtained and for which aid may be requested due to ecological problems or social conflicts that arise within one’s own social unit and space. Beyond the CMF units, individuals are considered outsiders, and usually believed to maintain hostile and negative attributions. The fact that SOP was more closely tied to the CMF units would be what would have been expected if sense of place functioned to provide a friendly and helpful socio-spatial network. Tying it to the MF residential-foraging unit would have decreased the effectiveness of this function and made it more likely to have evolved to provide sufficient resources, which is what the MF unit targets.

Furthermore, the spatial attitudes for the lands associated with the MF units tended to be more of a usufruct nature in which temporary spatial authority was maintained alongside of relatively permissive attitudes of use by recognized and related MF units. Likewise, the more exclusive spatial attitudes of spatial propriety for the lands associated with the larger CMF units also fit the theoretical expectations for a combined socio-spatial adaptation. This same dynamic is likely to be at play in the modern world although the breakdown of the multifamily units may have contorted the expression. Researchers would do well to examine sense of place with a consideration of the type and function of social unit that is being targeted.

Industrialized humans, such as hunter-gatherers, have an innate tendency to identify with a particular social group; however, they face a more daunting task of figuring out which group and unit to identify with. It can be as a member of a nuclear family, school, gang, sports team, city, state, region, nation, or any number of other options. Hunter-gatherers did not face this difficulty; their choices were far more limited and far more obvious. The blurring of the lines in terms of social units may affect the degree to which strong social identity can form in modern conditions, and according to these findings, this would be expected to affect the degree to which a sense of place develops. Furthermore, the lack of clarity about social units in modern society, which maintain the attributes of a hunter-gatherer CMF unit, might also weaken the spatial ties. Finally, different individuals may develop alternate perceptions. For instance, whereas an Illinois factory worker, who has recently moved for employment, may perceive of the entire nation as fulfilling the needs of the CMF, an adolescent native of Los Angeles may perceive his affiliated gang in a similar manner. One of the lessons for future research in this area is that we need to consider both the social units themselves and the perceptions of them by individuals.

Sense of Place as a Component of Coalitional Psychology

One of the interesting features of human sociality is its tendency to assign itself to a particular group and to distinguish individuals morally on the basis of whether they are members of one’s own group or “outsiders.” To engage in this coalitional relationship, humans needed to distinguish between in-group and out-group members. There are a number of cues, which seem to relate to how humans separate themselves into coalitions. Most of them seem to be based on sharing certain cultural traits like the same kin, food, language, accent, religion, social greetings, music, humor, attire, tattoos, and so forth.

Another very salient cue could be spatial identity; when one identifies with the same area of land as another, it is a good cue that one is part of the other’s coalition. Studies in industrialized societies have also noted this connection between place associations and one’s cultural group (Fried, 1963; Low & Altman, 1992; Mazumdar & Mazumdar, 2004; Twigger-Ross & Uzzell, 1996).

As noted previously, combining social and spatial cohesion can significantly enhance their capabilities to engage in their necessary activities. In fact, it may even be a necessity for human groups to be rooted to particular area in order for the members of the coalition to gain the full benefits of their social networks. Without the proximity and consistency of interactions with familiar groups, the ability to utilize their possible advantages may be compromised. Likewise, the ability to compete effectively with other out-groups may also require spatial connections that are tied into the social networks.

Much of the evidence on hunter-gatherer place associations supports the hypothesis that it is a component of human coalitional psychology. It is conceived through the collective actor as opposed to the individual, and it is strongly associated with social connections. More work on this theoretical angle of place associations could be very fruitful in further assessing this complex phenomenon.

Conclusion

Overall, the hunter-gatherer data has been informative about a number of aspects of sense of place. The strong correlation between social cohesion and sense of place supports the hypothesis that sense of place is incorporated into our social identity. Furthermore, the support for the association between SOP and a particular hunter-gatherer social unit, the CMF units, adds to our understanding. It appears as though sense of place may help to bolster the benefits of social connections by ensuring that they are complemented by spatial proximity for social insiders. These findings also help to better understand that the object of sense of place is for a home environment that is defined by associations related to social familiarity. Finally, it seems probable that as sense of place is a significant aspect of our social identity, it may be an integral component of our coalitional psychology.

These findings from the hunter-gatherer data should not be taken lightly by future researchers of sense of place. In the modern industrial world, there have been many alterations to the manner in which we form social units, which potentially challenge our sense of identity. While the nuclear family still hangs on, the multifamily unit is but a remnant of its former self. Large urban areas composed of strangers passing each other regularly make it difficult for some to form a close and clear identity with larger social units. It is not easy to identify whether the neighborhood, city, state, or nation is the most appropriate target. The result could be a quite variable sense of place, which is difficult to understand, and this may be one of the reasons that researchers have struggled mightily to get a handle on this “diffuse” concept (Tuan, 1974).

Footnotes

Appendix

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biography

Barton Thompson holds a PhD in biological anthropology from the University of California, Santa Barbara, and MS degrees in environmental and geotechnical engineering from Stanford University. Prior to serving as an associate professor of anthropology and environmental studies at Albright College, he worked as an environmental engineer for the Environmental Protection Agency. His research has focused on how humans relate to their surrounding environment with a special emphasis on associations to both land and animals. He has conducted research in northern Quebec among the Mistissini Crees, in the Peruvian Amazon among the Ribereños, and in the mid-Atlantic region of the United States among farmers and livestock owners.

References

Altman

Werner

C. M.

(1985). Human Behavior and Environment: Advances in Theory and Research: Vol. 8. Home environments. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Altman

Wolwill

J. F.

(1983). Human Behavior and Environment: Advances in Theory and Research: Vol. 6. Behavior and the natural environment. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Bahuchet

(1992). Spatial mobility and access to resources among the African pygmies. In Casimir

M. J.

Roa

(Eds.), Mobility and territoriality: Social and spatial boundaries among foragers, fishers, pastoralists and peripatetics (pp. 205-257). New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.

Barkow

J. H.

Cosmides

Tooby

(1992). The adapted mind. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Barnard

(1992a). Cambridge Studies in Social and Cultural Anthropology: Vol. 85. Hunters and herders of Southern Africa. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Barnard

(1992b). Social and spatial boundary maintenance among southern African hunter-gatherers. In Casimir

M. J.

Roa

(Eds.), Mobility and territoriality: Social and spatial boundaries among foragers, fishers, pastoralists and peripatetics (pp. 137-151). New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.

Barnard

Widlock

(1996). Nharo and Hai//om settlement patterns in comparative perspective. In Kent

(Ed.), Cultural diversity among twentieth-century foragers: An African perspective (pp. 87-107). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Basso

Feld

(1995). Senses of place. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press.

Bhanu

B. A.

Anthropological Survey of India. (1989). The Cholanaickan of Kerala. Calcutta: Anthropological Survey of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Culture, Government of India.

10.

Binford

(2001). Constructing frames of reference. Berkeley: University of California Press.

11.

Blurton-Jones

N. G.

(2013). Hadza demography and sociobiology. Retrieved from http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/anthro/faculty/blurton-jones/hadza-part-1.pdf

12.

Boas

(1966). Kwakiutl ethnography. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

13.

Brown

D. E.

(1991). Human universals. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

14.

Burch

E. S.

Ellanna

L. J.

(Eds.). (1994). Explorations in anthropology. Key issues in hunter-gatherer research. Oxford, UK: Berg.

15.

Burch

J. E. S.

(1980). Traditional Eskimo societies in Northwest Alaska. In Yoshinobu

Workman

W.B.

(Eds.) Alaska native culture and history Senri Ethnological Studies, 4 (pp. 253-304). Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology.

16.

Campbell

(1995). Human ecology: The story of our place in nature from prehistory to the present (2nd ed.). Hawthorne, New York, NY: Aldine.

17.

Cashdan

(1983). Territoriality among human foragers: Ecological models and an application to four bushman groups. Current Anthropology, 24, 47-66.

18.

Casimir

M. J.

Roa

(1992). Mobility and territoriality: Social and spatial boundaries among foragers, fishers, pastoralists and peripatetics. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.

19.

Chapais

(2010). Primeval kinship: How pair-bonding gave birth to human society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

20.

Chow

Healey

(2008). Place attachment and place identity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28, 362-372.

21.

Clayton

Opotow

(Eds.). (2003). Identity and the natural environment: The psychological significance of nature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

22.

Codere

(1990). Kwakiutl: Traditional culture. In Suttles

(Ed.), Handbook of North American Indians: Vol. 7. Northwest Coast (pp. 359-376). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.

23.

De LaGuna

(1960). The story of a Tlingit community: A problem in the relationship between archaeological, ethnological and historical methods. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. Retrieved from http://ehrafworldcultures.yale.edu/document?id=na12-017

24.

Dovey

(1985). Home and homeless. In Altman

Werner

C. M.

(Eds.), Home environments (pp. 33-64). New York, NY: Plenum Press.

25.

Droseltis

Vignoles

V. L.

(2010). Towards an integrative model of place identification: Dimensionality and predictors of interpersonal-level place preferences. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 23-34.

26.

Duffy

(1984). Children of the forest: Africa’s Mbuti Pygmies. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.

27.

Dyson-Hudson

Smith

E. A.

(1978). Human territoriality: An ecological reassessment. American Anthropologist, 80, 21-41.

28.

Fornara

Bonaiuto

Bonnes

(2010). Cross-validation of abbreviated perceived residential environment quality (PREQ) and neighborhood attachment (NA) indicators. Environment & Behavior, 42, 171-196.

29.

Fowler

C. S.

(1982). Food-named groups among Northern Paiute in North America’s Great Basin: An ecological interpretation. In Williams

N. M.

Hunn

E. S.

(Eds.), Resource managers: North American and Australian hunter-gatherers (pp. 113-129). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

30.

Fried

(1963). Grieving for a lost home. In Duhl

L. J.

(Ed.), The urban condition: People and policy in the metropolis (pp. 124-152). New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

31.

Gross

M. J.

Brown

(2008). An empirical structural model of tourists and places: Progressing involvement and place attachment into tourism. Tourism Management, 29, 1141-1151.

32.

Gusinde

(1931). Fireland Indians: Vol. 1. The Selk’Nam, on the life and thought of a hunting people of the great island of Tierra del Fuego. Mödling Bei Wien: Verlag der Internationalen Zeitschrift. Retrieved from http://ehrafworldcultures.yale.edu/document?id=sh04-001

33.

Haplin

Seguin

(1990). Tsimshian peoples: Southern Tsimshian, Coast Tsimshian, Nishga, and Gitksan. In Suttles

(Ed.), Handbook of North American Indians: Vol. 7. Northwest Coast (pp. 267-284). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.

34.

Hara

H. S.

(1980). The Hare Indians and their world. National Museums of Man, Mercury Series. Canadian Ethnology Service Paper No. 63. Ottawa: National Museums of Canada.

35.

Hart

C. W. M.

Pilling

A. R.

Goodale

J. C.

(1988). The Tiwi of Northern Australia (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

36.

Hay

R. B.

(1998a). A rooted sense of place in cross-cultural perspective. Canadian Geographer, 42, 245-266.

37.

Hay

R. B.

(1998b). Sense of place in developmental context. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 18, 5-29.

38.

Heinz

H. J.

(1979). The Nexus Complex among the !xo Bushmen of Botswana. Anthropos, 74, 465-480.

39.

Helm

(1968). The nature of Dogrib socioterritorial groups. In Lee

DeVore

(Eds.), Man the hunter (pp. 118-125). Chicago, IL: Aldine.

40.

Hernández

Hidalgo

M. C.

Salazar-Laplace

M. E.

Hess

(2007). Place attachment and place identity in natives and non-natives. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27, 310-319.

41.

Hiatt

L. R.

(1968). Ownership and use of land among the Australian Aborigines. In Lee

DeVore

(Eds.), Man the hunter (pp. 96-102). Chicago, IL: Aldine.

42.

Hidalgo

M. C.

Hernández

(2001). Place attachment: Conceptual and empirical questions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 273-281.

43.

Hoffman

(1986). The Punan: Hunters and gatherers of Borneo. Ann Arbor: UMI Research Press.

44.

Honigmann

J. J.

(1964). The Kaska Indians: An ethnographic reconstruction. Reprinted edition, Yale University Publications in Anthropology No. 51, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

45.

Ingold

Riches

Woodburn

(Eds.). (1988a). Explorations in Anthropology: Vol. 1. Hunters and gatherers 1: History, evolution, and social change. Oxford, UK: Berg.

46.

Ingold

Riches

Woodburn

(Eds.). (1988b). Explorations in Anthropology: Vol. 2. Hunters and gatherers 2: Power, property, and ideology. Oxford, UK: Berg.

47.

Jorgensen

B. S.

Stedman

R. C.

(2001). Sense of place as an attitude: Lakeshore owners attitudes toward their properties. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 233-248.

48.

Kaplan

(1992). Environmental preference in a knowledge-seeking, knowledge-using organism. In Barkow

J. H.

Cosmides

Tooby

(Eds.), The adapted mind (pp. 581-598). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

49.

Kasarda

J. D.

Janowitz

(1974). Community attachment in mass society. American Sociological Review, 39, 328-339.

50.

Kelly

R. L.

(1995). The foraging spectrum: Diversity in hunter-gatherer lifeways (1st ed.). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.

51.

Kroeber

A. L.

(1971). Yurok law and custom. In Heizer

R. F.

Whipple

M. A.

(Eds.), The California Indians: A source book (2nd ed., pp. 391-423). Berkeley: University of California Press.

52.

Kyle

Graefe

Manning

(2004). Effects of place attachment on users’ perceptions of social and environmental conditions in a natural setting. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 213-225.

53.

Lee

(1979). The !Kung San: Men, women, and work in a foraging society. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

54.

Low

S. M.

Altman

(1992). Place attachment: A conceptual inquiry. In Altman

Low

S. M.

(Eds.), Place attachment (pp. 1-12). New York, NY: Plenum Press.

55.

Lye

T.-P.

(2004). Changing pathways: Forest degradation and the Batek of Pahang, Malaysia. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

56.

Manzo

L. C.

(2003). Beyond house and haven: Toward a revisioning of emotional relationships with places. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 47-61.

57.

Marlowe

F. W.

(2010). The Hadza: Hunter-gatherers of Tanzania. Berkeley: University of California Press.

58.

Mary-Rousseliere

(1984). Iglulik. In Damas

(Ed.), Handbook of North American Indians: Vol. 5. Arctic (pp. 431-446). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.

59.

Mazumdar

(2004). Religion and place attachment: A study of sacred places. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 385-397.

60.

Meggitt

(1962). Desert people: A study of the Walbiri Aborigines of Central Australia. Sydney: Angus & Robertson.

61.

Moore

(2000). Placing home in context. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20, 207-217.

62.

Myers

F. R.

(1986). Pintupi country, Pintupi self: Sentiment, place, and politics among western desert Aborigines. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.

63.

Orians

G. H.

Heerwagen

J. H.

(1992). Evolved responses to landscapes. In Barkaow

J. H.

Cosmides

Tooby

(Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 555-579). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

64.

Pilling

A. R.

(1978). Yurok. In Heizer

(Ed.), Handbook of North American Indians: California (Vol. 8, pp. 137-154). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.

65.

Proshansky

H. M.

(1978). The city and self-identity. Environment & Behavior, 10, 147-169.

66.

Proshansky

H. M.

Fabian

A. K.

Kaminoff

(1983). Place identity: Physical world socialization of the self. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 57-83.

67.

Raymond

C. M.

Brown

Weber

(2010). The measurement of place attachment: Personal, community, and environmental, connections. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 422-434.

68.

Relph

(1976). Place and placelessness. London, England: Pion.

69.

Riches

(1982). Northern nomadic hunter-gatherers: A humanistic approach. New York, NY: Academic Press.

70.

Riger

Lavrakas

P. J.

(1981). Community ties: Patterns of attachment and social interaction in urban neighborhoods. American Journal of Community Psychology, 9, 55-66.

71.

Rogers

E. S.

(1963). The hunting group–hunting territory complex among the Mistassini Indians (National Museum of Canada 195).

72.

Rollero

Piccoli

(2010). Place attachment, identification and environment perception: An empirical study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 198-205.

73.

Scannell

Gifford

(2010). Defining place attachment: A tripartite organizing framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 1-10.

74.

Seligmann

C. G.

Seligmann

B. Z.

(1911). The Veddas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

75.

Silberbauer

G. B.

(1981). Hunter and habitat in the central Kalahari Desert. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

76.

Silberbauer

G. B.

(1994). A sense of place. In Burch

E. S.

Ellanna

L. J.

(Eds.), Explorations in Anthropology. Key issues in hunter-gatherer research (pp. 119-146). Oxford, UK: Berg.

77.

Smaldone

Harris

Sanyal

(2005). An exploration of place as a process: The case of Jackson Hole, WY. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 397-414.

78.

Stedman

(2003). Is it really just a social construction? The contribution of the physical environment to sense of place. Society & Natural Resources, 16, 671-685.

79.

Stokols

Shumaker

S. A.

(1981). People in places: A transactional view of settings. In Harvey

(Ed.), Cognition, social behavior, and the environment (pp. 441-488). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

80.

Strehlow

(1947). Aranda traditions. Carlton, Australia: Melbourne University Press.

81.

Sutton

M. Q.

Anderson

E. N.

(2013). Introduction to cultural ecology (3rd ed.). New York, NY: AltaMira.

82.

Thomas

(1981). Complexity among Great Basin Shoshoneans: The world’s least affluent hunter-gatherers. Senri Ethological Studies, 9, 19-52.

83.

Tuan

Y. F.

(1974). Topohilia: A study of environmental perception, attitudes and values. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

84.

Turnbull

C. M.

(1965). Wayward servants: The two worlds of the African pygmies. Garden City, New York: The Natural History Press.

85.

Twigger-Ross

C. L.

Uzzell

D. L.

(1996). Place and identity processes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16, 205-220.

86.

Ulrich

(1983). Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. In Altman

Wolwill

J. F.

(Eds.), Human Behavior and Environment: Advances in Theory and Research: Vol. 6. Behavior and the natural environment (1st ed., pp. 85-125). New York, NY: Plenum Press.

87.

Watanabe

(1964). The Ainu: A study of ecology and the system of social solidarity between man and nature in relation to group structure. Tokyo, Japan: University of Tokyo.

88.

Whiten

Byrne

(Eds.), (1988). Machiavellian intelligence: Social expertise and the evolution of intellect in monkeys, apes, and humans. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

89.

Williams

D. R.

Patterson

M. E.

Roggenbuck

J. W.

Watson

A. E.

(1992). Beyond the commodity metaphor: Examining emotional and symbolic attachment to place. Leisure Sciences, 14, 29-46.

90.

Woodburn

(1968). Stability and flexibility in Hadza residential groupings. In Lee

DeVore

(Eds.), Man the hunter (pp. 103-110). Chicago, IL: Aldine.

91.

Woodburn

(1972). Ecology, nomadic movement and the composition of the local group among hunters and gatherers: An East African example and its implications. In Ucko

P. J.

Tingham

Dimbleby

G. M.

(Eds.), Man, settlement and urbanism: Research seminar in archeology (pp. 193-206). London: Gerald Duckworth.