Using a representative sample of 339 hunter-gatherer societies, researchers examine the relationship between hunter-gatherer use of space, size of population and supply of resources to see if they are similar to other organisms. By combining all factors into a single model, the authors claim to explain 86% of the variation in home range. Hunters have greater resource distribution than gatherers but both more so than aquatic foragers. Lastly, terrestrial foragers have more extensive home ranges than aquatic foragers.

Using a representative sample of 339 hunter-gatherer societies, researchers examine the relationship between hunter-gatherer use of space, size of population and supply of resources to see if they are similar to other organisms. By combining all factors into a single model, the authors claim to explain 86% of the variation in home range. Hunters have greater resource distribution than gatherers but both more so than aquatic foragers. Lastly, terrestrial foragers have more extensive home ranges than aquatic foragers.

Using a representative sample of 339 hunter-gatherer societies, researchers examine the relationship between hunter-gatherer use of space, size of population and supply of resources to see if they are similar to other organisms. By combining all factors into a single model, the authors claim to explain 86% of the variation in home range. Hunters have greater resource distribution than gatherers but both more so than aquatic foragers. Lastly, terrestrial foragers have more extensive home ranges than aquatic foragers.

Using a representative sample of 339 hunter-gatherer societies, researchers examine the relationship between hunter-gatherer use of space, size of population and supply of resources to see if they are similar to other organisms. By combining all factors into a single model, the authors claim to explain 86% of the variation in home range. Hunters have greater resource distribution than gatherers but both more so than aquatic foragers. Lastly, terrestrial foragers have more extensive home ranges than aquatic foragers.

Using a representative sample of 339 hunter-gatherer societies, researchers examine the relationship between hunter-gatherer use of space, size of population and supply of resources to see if they are similar to other organisms. By combining all factors into a single model, the authors claim to explain 86% of the variation in home range. Hunters have greater resource distribution than gatherers but both more so than aquatic foragers. Lastly, terrestrial foragers have more extensive home ranges than aquatic foragers.

In this paper, the authors analyzed data on 20 hunter-gatherer groups in order to understand the factors that influence the diversity and elaborateness of their tool assemblages. They used data collected by a variety of ethnographers to draw inferences about the complexity of implement assemblages and how it is affected by ecological constraints, modes of resource procurement, group movement, and population size. Regression analysis showed that the two strongest predictors of implement complexity were growth season (GS) (as a proxy for risk) and the number of annual residential moves (NMV). With the understanding that NMV and GS are likely not independent, the authors created addition and interaction models to understand how these variables may work in tandem to influence implement diversity and elaborateness. The results show that a shorter growing season (higher risk) and a lower number of moves are correlated with greater implement complexity. This analysis also divided the hunter-gatherers into two subgroups: a subgroup characterized by higher diversity of complex implements and more elaborate individual implements than predicted by the model, and a subgroup characterized by lower diversity and less elaborateness than predicted. These subgroups were found to correspond with the distinction between foragers (groups that move more-or-less as a unit while gathering) and collectors (groups that gather (logistically from a more-or-less fixed settlement), with the higher diversity subgroup being made up mostly of collectors and the lower diversity subgroup being made up mostly of foragers. Finally, the authors suggest that under conditions where population growth leads to increased density, foraging strategies will tend to shift to collector strategies in conjunction with increased elaborateness of implements to exploit resources with greater intensity.

In this paper, the authors analyzed data on 20 hunter-gatherer groups in order to understand the factors that influence the diversity and elaborateness of their tool assemblages. They used data collected by a variety of ethnographers to draw inferences about the complexity of implement assemblages and how it is affected by ecological constraints, modes of resource procurement, group movement, and population size. Regression analysis showed that the two strongest predictors of implement complexity were growth season (GS) (as a proxy for risk) and the number of annual residential moves (NMV). With the understanding that NMV and GS are likely not independent, the authors created addition and interaction models to understand how these variables may work in tandem to influence implement diversity and elaborateness. The results show that a shorter growing season (higher risk) and a lower number of moves are correlated with greater implement complexity. This analysis also divided the hunter-gatherers into two subgroups: a subgroup characterized by higher diversity of complex implements and more elaborate individual implements than predicted by the model, and a subgroup characterized by lower diversity and less elaborateness than predicted. These subgroups were found to correspond with the distinction between foragers (groups that move more-or-less as a unit while gathering) and collectors (groups that gather (logistically from a more-or-less fixed settlement), with the higher diversity subgroup being made up mostly of collectors and the lower diversity subgroup being made up mostly of foragers. Finally, the authors suggest that under conditions where population growth leads to increased density, foraging strategies will tend to shift to collector strategies in conjunction with increased elaborateness of implements to exploit resources with greater intensity.

In this paper, the authors analyzed data on 20 hunter-gatherer groups in order to understand the factors that influence the diversity and elaborateness of their tool assemblages. They used data collected by a variety of ethnographers to draw inferences about the complexity of implement assemblages and how it is affected by ecological constraints, modes of resource procurement, group movement, and population size. Regression analysis showed that the two strongest predictors of implement complexity were growth season (GS) (as a proxy for risk) and the number of annual residential moves (NMV). With the understanding that NMV and GS are likely not independent, the authors created addition and interaction models to understand how these variables may work in tandem to influence implement diversity and elaborateness. The results show that a shorter growing season (higher risk) and a lower number of moves are correlated with greater implement complexity. This analysis also divided the hunter-gatherers into two subgroups: a subgroup characterized by higher diversity of complex implements and more elaborate individual implements than predicted by the model, and a subgroup characterized by lower diversity and less elaborateness than predicted. These subgroups were found to correspond with the distinction between foragers (groups that move more-or-less as a unit while gathering) and collectors (groups that gather (logistically from a more-or-less fixed settlement), with the higher diversity subgroup being made up mostly of collectors and the lower diversity subgroup being made up mostly of foragers. Finally, the authors suggest that under conditions where population growth leads to increased density, foraging strategies will tend to shift to collector strategies in conjunction with increased elaborateness of implements to exploit resources with greater intensity.

This article explores the relationships between habitat and social organization among humans and other species. Diet, technology, group size, home range, mobility, kinship, marital residence, sexual division of labor, mating system, central places, food sharing, and egalitarianism are all considered.

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.