Introduction
Stereotypically, hunter-gatherer groups are thought to be simple, egalitarian societies, such as the Ju/’hoansi, who are characterized by equal access to resources and immense sharing. But complex foraging societies have existed since prehistory. Deviating from the myth, complex hunter-gatherer groups are characterized by the presence of elites, social inequality, warfare, and specialization of tasks. The most commonly known groups of this type are those of the Northwest Coast, Ainu and others of Japan, and some California Indians. However, complex foraging societies have been found to exist in a variety of environments.1
One of the main reasons complex foraging societies have played such an important role in the study of hunter-gather groups is that they are often viewed as being non-egalitarian. This is a drastic difference from the majority of other foraging societies. Anthropologists continue to look for reasons and ways to explain why this difference should arise. It is thought this can help explain the rise of non-egalitarianism in our own society, but it is important to remember that just like simple foraging groups can not be proxies for our past, complex societies cannot be proxies for our present either.
Stereotype of The Complex Forager Society
Complex hunter-gatherers are non-egalitarian foraging groups, these terms can be used interchangeably. They are mostly sedentary people. They store food that provides a significant precent, if not all, of their subsistence during times of scarcity. Being sedentary also allows for the accumulation of property and the gain of prestige. Non-egalitarian hunter-gatherers tend to live in a higher population density. Complex foraging societies are sometimes characterized by task specialization, ownership of resources and sometimes land, and elites or chiefs usually with inherited status. Non-egalitarian foraging societies tend to be more violent. Violence may be culturally sanctioned or between individuals in competition for prestige.2
The following table comes from The Foraging Spectrum by Robert Kelly and shows the basic differences between simple and complex foraging societies.3
| Simple | Complex | |
|---|---|---|
| Environment | Unpredictable or variable | Highly predictable or less variable |
| Diet | Terrestrial game | Marine or plant foods |
| Settlement size | Small | Large |
| Residential mobility | Medium to high | Low to none |
| Demography | Low population density relative to food | High population density relative to food resources |
| Food storage | Little to no dependence | Medium to high dependence |
| Social organization | No corporate groups | Corporate descent groups (lineages) |
| Political organization | Egalitarian | Hierarchical; classes based on wealth or descent |
| Occupational specialization | Only for older persons | Common |
| Territoriality | Social-boundary defense | Perimeter defense |
| Warfare | Rare | Common |
| Slavery | Absent | Frequent |
| Ethic of competition | Not tolerated | Encouraged |
| Resource ownership | Diffuse | Tightly controlled |
| Exchange | Generalized reciprocity | Wealth objects, competitive feasts |
Variation
- North American Northwest Coast Indians "lived in large, sedentary villages, owned slaves, participated in warfare for booty, slaves, food stores, and land… in some societies individuals, kinship unites, and sometimes even villages were ranked… There was also a lively trade."4
- The Ainu of Japan are considered a complex storing society, however they are not stratified or an absence of significant class distinctions.
- The Gilyak, also from Japan, are considered a complex storing society have no distinct social classification, but are by no means egalitarian. They are also nomadic and have a lower population density.
- The Eyak and the Haida are both sedentary and stratified, but their population densities are comparable to those of non-complex societies.
- The Twana are stratified, have a high population density, and store food yet they are nomadic.
- California, i.e. Chumash who hunted, gathered, and fished, and were characterized by craft specialization, high frequency of trade among neighboring islands, and chiefs.5
- Calusa of southern Florida who subsisted mostly on fish, with a stratified society consisting of elites, and commoners.
Theories
The most challenging issue for anthropologists when studying complex foraging societies is accounting for the differences that exist between simple and complex societies. It is not well understood why these changes in culture should arise. The relationship between environment, sedentarism, population growth, and food storage is still not fully understood. In fact, many of the research articles presented later on the page deal with this very problem.
Resource Abundance
Some anthropologists argue that sociopolitical inequality is the result of resource abundance in a particular area or environment. In this argument, such an abundance leads to increased sedentism, consequently resulting in more offspring, more labor, and permanent storage of resources. These factors give way to competition among individuals for economic power and prestige, creating a nonegalitarian sociopolitical organization.6
Population-Pressure
Those who support the Population-Pressure argument, contend that the development of sociopolitical hierarchies are the result of subsistence stress caused by high population density, variable resources, and reduced mobility. Hierarchies, or elites, then emerge as a means of solving competition and disputes, such as to maintain an even distribution of resources in times of stress.7
Intensification of Production and Storage
Proponents of this theory argue that food storage inherently contains the potential for manipulation by individuals of key resources.8 Supporters of this theory argue that social complexity stem from the development of storage. A key factor in the development of storage is surplus of food usually provided by an abundant but seasonal resource. When the resource is not in season, food tends to be scarce. Thus the society develops of method storing the resource to subsist on during the time of scarcity. The stored food limits the mobility of the group but allows for an increase in accumulation of property and an increase in population density. The ability to accumulate property allows for those who have more to exploit those who have less, thus creating inequality and elites.
Expropriation of Labor
This theory argues “political concentration of labor was a stimulus for emergent chiefdoms.”9. After a change occurs, such as variability in resources, that increases the need for labor, leaders emerge to direct efforts. When this happens, and laborers are distanced from means of production (i.e. land or product rights) for an extended period of time, power and wealth become increasingly concentrated in the hands of only a few. A non-egalitarian structure is formalized as production transfers from the private to the public sector. Example: Chumash.10
Below is a flow chart by Kelly depicting possible conditions leading to inequality among hunter- gatherers.11
Research Articles
Arnold, J. E.
1992 Complex Hunter-Gatherer-Fishers of Prehistoric California: Chiefs, Specialists, and Maritime Adaptations of the Channel Islands. American Antiquity 57(1): 60-84.
This foraging study was conducted with two goals in mind: “(1) to present a theory of the rise of nonegalitarian organization and permanent leadership, and (2) to analyze a model of emergent complexity for the Santa Barbara Channel area of the California Coast”.12 The population of study, known as the Chumash, was a society of hunter-gatherer-fishers who lived in the area prehistorically, both on the mainland and surrounding islands, and existed until the late eighteenth century. The author identifies several variables she believes to be important in the development of complexity in this society, which include environmental instability and subsistence stress, craft specialization and production, transportation, and exchange. In her research the author integrates a mass of archaeological data and ethnohistorical accounts obtained from previous surveys of the area. Arnold combines this raw data and provides her own interpretations and analysis to produce a chronology and synthesize a coherent argument for the model she proposes.
The author concludes that the development of complexity among the Chumash occurred from 1150 – 1300 C.E., or the Transitional Period. Arnold argues that during this time, unusual fluctuations in marine temperatures resulted in variable foraging returns, causing subsistence and resource stress. Such stressful conditions spurred an increase in the exchange of goods among the communities scattered across the channel area. This then provided individuals the opportunity to seize elite roles in the management and organization of labor regarding the production of valued goods, in this case beads, and their transportation, accomplished using a sophisticated tomol or plank canoe. Each of these variables and events figured in the rise of economic, social, and political complexity among this foraging society.
Image: Chumash paddling a tomol, or plank canoe.13
Binford, Lewis R.
1990 Mobility, Housing, and Environment: A Comparative Study. Journal of Anthropological Research 65(2):119-152.
Binford's goal in this study is to examine the development of cultural complexity in hunter-gather groups and how they are interpreted in the archaeological record. His premise is based upon theory that cultural complexity is a response to the problems that arise from decreased mobility.14 He wants to compare how different hunter-gather groups handle this problem by looking at three issues: how hunter-gather groups solve their housing needs in different environments, how these solutions related to mobility and subsistence strategies, and finally how do we deal with complexity based on the two previous issues.
His findings are that when you find lower effective temperatures the cost of exploitation of plant resources increases so more terrestrial mammal resources are exploited, but because the cost of mobility also increases with higher dependency on these animals an “aquatic resource transition” will take places and groups will become more tethered to the few access points to aquatic resources . This tethering then leads to higher density and increased social complexity that is found in the classic complex hunter-gathers of the northwest American coast.15
Binford’s analysis is broken down into two parts: implications for human evolution and implications for the development of complexity. He does an excellent job of summarizing his findings in relation to human evolution and lays out we can expect as humans moved towards the poles on would find increased dependence on terrestrial mammals, storage as an over-wintering tactic, and more substantial winter housing.16 He also finds, that because an increase in the use of terrestrial mammals, we find increase in mobility of continental groups and in groups near aquatic resources a shift to those resources and decreased mobility.17 His analysis of complexity leaves something to be desired. He explains very well why complexity may have arisen in colder areas, near aquatic resources, but it leaves out the causes of complexity in other areas. This would have been fine but in the start of the study Binford claimed that he was looking at complexity across the board in hunter-gather societies. He seems to have no good explanation for the rest of this variation.
Testart, Alain
1982 The Significance of Food Storage Among Hunter-Gatherers: Residence Patterns, Population Densities, and Social Inequalities. Current Anthropology 23 (5): 523-537
In his article, Alain Testart presents his solution to the problem “how to account for the fact that, with the same basic food-gathering economy, two very different level of social complexity can be attained” (1982, 523). Testart’s suggests the reason for variable complexity among foraging societies is that there are in actuality two very different types of economy. The first economy is one in which the group is nomadic and is based on the immediate consumption of resources. The people from this group are egalitarian, wealth and prestige are rare. The second economy is based of the storage of abundant yet seasonal resources. They also tend to be more sedentary this leads to stratification within the group.
Testart's goals are to define the economy of storing hunter-gather groups and to present a cross-cultural analysis of forty hunter-gatherers, both storing and non. Through this he aims to link storage to non-egalitarianism.
Testart identifies the typical storing society as being located in environments where resources are bountiful during one season and scare during another, so the storage of food is key to their survival. They typically live in a village or a permanent camp. With storage, the amount of food available to the group increases, allowing the population density to increase. The sedentary lifestyle allows for the accumulation of material goods and acquisition of wealth. This leads to exploitation of others, creating an elite class.
Testart used a preexisting chart of conditions and social adjustments and applies it to the 40 hunt-gatherer societies. He also looked at techniques of storage, ecological conditions, stratification, population, and the dependence on land hunting. Through these and other factors, Testart determines whether or not the societies are storing groups and what the trends are within these groups. The societies Testarts identifies as storing societies are the Ainu, the Gilyak, the Aluet, the Eyak, The Haida, the Bellacoola, the Twana, the Yurok, the Pomo, and the Yokuts.
References
Arnold, J. E.
1992 Complex Hunter-Gatherer-Fishers of Prehistoric California: Chiefs, Specialists, and Maritime Adaptations of the Channel Islands. American Antiquity 57(1): 60-84.
Binford, Lewis R.
1990 Mobility, Housing, and Environment: A Comparative Study. Journal of Anthropological Research 65(2):119-152.
Kelly, Robert L.
2007 The Foraging Spectrum Diversity in Hunter-Gatherer Lifeways. New York: Percheron Press.
Testart, Alain.
1982 The Significance of Food Storage Among Hunter-Gatherers: Residence Patterns, Population Densities, and Social Inequalities. Current Anthropology 23 (5): 523-537.
