Using Bayesian models incorporating 40,000 radiocarbon dates from 16 discrete human societies throughout history, this study attempts to identify patterns in human disaster-resilience, at the society level. On average, the study finds that societies that have experienced more catastrophes in the past tend to be more resilient in the face of new disasters, experiencing less severe impacts and quicker recoveries. The authors speculate that this may be due to social memory, as resiliency strategies tend to get passed down across generations. Meanwhile, the models also found that societies more reliant on farming and herding also tend to be more susceptible to crisis, but recover more quickly. Across the 16-society sample, which spanned all of human history, climate-related catastrophes stood out as the most common.

Researchers looked at four different demographic scenarios (altered mean vital rates (i.e., fertility and mortality), vital rate stochasticity, vital rate covariance, and periodic catastrophes) and their possible effects on the rapid population growth of contemporary human foragers and steady population decline of chimpanzees. They evaluated these variables and the various conditions that would favor a more sustainable zero population growth (ZPG) among 10 small-scale subsistence human populations (Agta, Ache, Hadza, Hiwi, Ju/’hoansi, Gainj, Tsimane, Yanomamo, Northern Territory Aborigines, and Herero) and five wild chimpanzee groups (Gombe, Kanyawara, Mahale, Ngogo, and Taï). The results state that the most effective modifications towards ZPG would include a combination of more than one of the four demographic scenarios tested, with the most realistic solution including both vital rate alteration and an increase in catastrophes.

The article discusses the importance of incorporating local knowledge and strategies into sustainable climate change adaptation. The authors examined 90 societies from the ethnographic record to document the coping mechanisms and contingency plans used by societies around the world in response to natural hazards. They classified coping mechanisms into four types: technological, subsistence, economic, and religious. The study finds that most societies employ multiple types of coping mechanisms and that technological coping mechanisms are most common in response to fast-onset hazards, while religious coping mechanisms are most common in response to slow-onset hazards. The study also finds that religious and nonreligious coping strategies are not mutually exclusive and are often used in conjunction with each other.

In this study, the authors inspect the relationship between religion, morality, and cooperation by examining the extent to which people associate their deities with moral concern. Using data from 2,228 individuals in 15 different field sites, they find that on average, people tend to ascribe at least some moral concern to their deities, and this effect is stable even after controlling for the influence of explicitly moralistic deities that these societies also worship. The authors also find that ratings of moral concern are not necessarily very high, even for deities that are typically considered to be moralistic, and that there is individual-level variation in the degree of moral concern attributed to deities. In addition, there is an individual-level correlation between how morally interested two selected deities are conceived to be and that being male or more educated decreases the likelihood of associating deities with moral concern. These findings challenge the longstanding belief that belief in moralistic deities is unique to certain societies or religions and instead suggest that the association between deities and moral concern is more widespread and variable, and suggest that the moral character of gods may be tied to cooperation within societies.

The idea that archaic humans used wooden clubs as weapons is popular but not based on much archaeological evidence, due to the poor preservation of organic materials in the archaeological record. A new study analyzed 57 recent hunting-gathering societies and found that the majority used clubs for violence and/or hunting. The use of throwing sticks was less frequent. The study suggests that the use of clubs by early humans was highly probable, but that prehistoric weapons may have been quite sophisticated and carried strong symbolic meaning. The great variation in the forms and use of clubs and throwing sticks among recent hunter-gatherers suggests that similar variation may have existed in the past.

The idea that archaic humans used wooden clubs as weapons is popular but not based on much archaeological evidence, due to the poor preservation of organic materials in the archaeological record. A new study analyzed 57 recent hunting-gathering societies and found that the majority used clubs for violence and/or hunting. The use of throwing sticks was less frequent. The study suggests that the use of clubs by early humans was highly probable, but that prehistoric weapons may have been quite sophisticated and carried strong symbolic meaning. The great variation in the forms and use of clubs and throwing sticks among recent hunter-gatherers suggests that similar variation may have existed in the past.

The idea that archaic humans used wooden clubs as weapons is popular but not based on much archaeological evidence, due to the poor preservation of organic materials in the archaeological record. A new study analyzed 57 recent hunting-gathering societies and found that the majority used clubs for violence and/or hunting. The use of throwing sticks was less frequent. The study suggests that the use of clubs by early humans was highly probable, but that prehistoric weapons may have been quite sophisticated and carried strong symbolic meaning. The great variation in the forms and use of clubs and throwing sticks among recent hunter-gatherers suggests that similar variation may have existed in the past.

The idea that archaic humans used wooden clubs as weapons is popular but not based on much archaeological evidence, due to the poor preservation of organic materials in the archaeological record. A new study analyzed 57 recent hunting-gathering societies and found that the majority used clubs for violence and/or hunting. The use of throwing sticks was less frequent. The study suggests that the use of clubs by early humans was highly probable, but that prehistoric weapons may have been quite sophisticated and carried strong symbolic meaning. The great variation in the forms and use of clubs and throwing sticks among recent hunter-gatherers suggests that similar variation may have existed in the past.

The idea that archaic humans used wooden clubs as weapons is popular but not based on much archaeological evidence, due to the poor preservation of organic materials in the archaeological record. A new study analyzed 57 recent hunting-gathering societies and found that the majority used clubs for violence and/or hunting. The use of throwing sticks was less frequent. The study suggests that the use of clubs by early humans was highly probable, but that prehistoric weapons may have been quite sophisticated and carried strong symbolic meaning. The great variation in the forms and use of clubs and throwing sticks among recent hunter-gatherers suggests that similar variation may have existed in the past.

The idea that archaic humans used wooden clubs as weapons is popular but not based on much archaeological evidence, due to the poor preservation of organic materials in the archaeological record. A new study analyzed 57 recent hunting-gathering societies and found that the majority used clubs for violence and/or hunting. The use of throwing sticks was less frequent. The study suggests that the use of clubs by early humans was highly probable, but that prehistoric weapons may have been quite sophisticated and carried strong symbolic meaning. The great variation in the forms and use of clubs and throwing sticks among recent hunter-gatherers suggests that similar variation may have existed in the past.