Hunter-Gatherer Societies: Economy, Social Structure, and Gender Roles

Posted on Nov 9, 2024 in Social sciences

Item 3: Collectors & Hunters

The Man the Hunter

Analysis of hunter-gatherer societies should begin with the 1966 Man the Hunter conference in Chicago. The first finding was that hunting and gathering is the most enduring and successful adaptation humans have achieved.

Key points from the symposium include:

1. Hunter-gatherers did not die young.
2. Their lives were not consumed by constant struggle and poor nutrition.
3. They ate well, lived long lives, and had ample free time.
4. They worked less and ate better than farmers in the same environment.
5. Hunter-gatherers were designated an “affluent society,” where people’s needs are easily met.

Sahlins argued that an affluent society arises not from infinite wants and limited means, but from limited wants and sufficient means.

Lee’s analysis incorporates elements of Steward’s cultural ecology, focusing on hunter-gatherer bands.

Patrilineal Band

Steward’s Distinction

Patrilineal Band: Political autonomy, communal land ownership, patrilocal residence, patrilineal inheritance, and exogamy.

Composite Band: Exogamous, bilateral descent, consisting of independent families.

Family Band: Independent and self-sustaining for most of the year, with a network of occasional associations with other families.

Lee argues that the rigid patrilineal band is infrequent. The composite band and seasonal family aggregation represent the same social system, alternating between concentration and dispersion.

This oscillation is explained by ecological adaptation to resources. Lee considers population, resource distribution, space, work, and the techno-economic system.

While resources seem sufficient, hunter-gatherers live in smaller groups than other social forms. The limiting factor appears to be work and space, as increased distance from resources increases work.

This contradicts the observed oscillation between large (100-150 people) and small (20-30 people) aggregations. Ecological reasons (resource abundance or scarcity) and political reasons (benefits of public life vs. conflict) explain this fluctuation.

Turnbull emphasized the political function of fusion/fission, while Terashima highlighted ecological factors. Abruzzi’s study of the Mbuti corrected Turnbull’s oversight of environmental factors.

The Man the Hunter symposium discussed the “magic numbers” of 500 (maximum band size) and 25 (minimum band size). The 500 figure is unreliable, but the 25 figure seems valid.

Johnson suggested that groups of around six units develop hierarchy and leadership, limiting group size. Wobst’s simulation showed 25 as the minimum viable group size.

Two conclusions emerge:

1. Maximum and minimum sizes are influenced by political factors (Johnson) and ecological/economic factors (Wobst).
2. The concentration/dispersion system is a dynamic process.

Horn’s model suggests small, dispersed settlements for predictable resources and larger, centralized settlements for mobile, unpredictable resources. Semi-permanent central settlements arise with clustered, predictable resources.

Political factors and labor also play a role. Lee views work as an intermediate variable between population and space. Increased group size leads to increased work and travel distance, prompting dispersal.

Criticisms of the Model

1. The affluent society concept.
2. The Man the Hunter hypothesis.
3. The emphasis on hunting over gathering.
4. The uniform view of hunter-gatherer societies.

The Affluent Society

Sahlins defined “affluent society” as one where limited needs are met with available resources. However, hunter-gatherers often desire more goods. McCarthy and McArthur’s study, cited by Sahlins, only considered food acquisition as work, not processing, childcare, or other tasks.

Work hours for food vary across societies. The Hiwi of Venezuela work minimal hours due to environmental constraints. Sharing acts as a brake on productivity in some societies.

Sahlins’s view of abundant food supply is challenged by evidence of hunger in hunter-gatherer groups. Their subsistence level often lies between affluence and malnutrition.

Sahlins aimed to critique evolutionary ideas equating progress with agriculture. He argued that agriculture replaced occasional hunger with more severe, regular periods of stress.

Man the Hunter overemphasized hunting’s importance and the violent aspects of hunter-gatherer life. Laughlin considered hunting the basic behavior of humans, but gathering plays a crucial role, contributing an estimated two-thirds of the diet.

Types of Hunter-Gatherers

Classifications of hunter-gatherers are often inaccurate. Meillassoux observed that in agricultural societies, land is a tool and gathering is the work. Land use generates immediate production, enabling sharing. Hunters are free after sharing, with no hierarchy and an unstable, egalitarian band structure.

In contrast, agricultural societies emphasize time, duration, and the future. Woodburn distinguishes between immediate-return and delayed-return hunter-gatherers.

• Immediate-return: Short time between acquisition and consumption, equal access to resources, mobility for conflict resolution, simple tools, focus on the present, and sometimes “primitive communism.” Sharing is obligatory, and accumulation is taboo.
• Delayed-return: Longer time between acquisition and consumption, higher population densities, sedentism or restricted mobility, resource ownership, exploitation of specific resources (e.g., fish), larger residential groups, inherited status, higher violence rates, and resource storage.

Examples of immediate-return hunter-gatherers include the Mbuti, !Kung, Hadza, Paliy, and Batek. Examples of delayed-return hunter-gatherers include the Kwakintl, Tlingit, Chinook, Tsimshian, and Ainu.

The potlatch, a complex system of gift-giving and feasting, has been interpreted in various ways:

• Possibilism: The environment enables the potlatch due to its productivity.
• Adaptation: Redistribution to overcome food shortages, with prestige as a motivator.
• Competition: A system of inequality, stratification, and competition for resources and status.

Hayden differentiates between immediate-return and delayed-return hunter-gatherers based on resource availability. Limited but stable resources lead to sharing, while abundant resources can become scarce through restriction and competition. “Accumulators” or “big men” emerge in these societies, distributing goods to gain prestige.

Storage is not always a key factor in inequality. The Calusa of Florida, for example, had a complex, unequal society without food storage. Sedentism and population pressure are interrelated factors contributing to inequality.

Two explanations for inequality’s origin are:

• Demographic pressure on resources in sedentary societies.
• Resource abundance leading to competition for prestige.

Hunter-Gatherers and the Evolution of the Economy: Reciprocity

Besides donated and circulated items, some objects are inalienable, carrying emotional and historical significance. Mauss’s The Gift argues against reducing social life to trade and rejects analyzing all economic processes through exchange.

Mauss uses ethnographic data from the kula and potlatch, mistakenly equating the two. The kula is a ceremonial exchange of shell ornaments, while the potlatch involves feasting and gift-giving.

Malinowski highlighted two aspects of the kula:

1. Gift exchange permeates social life.
2. The obligation to reciprocate.

Mauss explained this obligation as the presence of the giver’s spirit in the gift, compelling its return. He viewed gift exchange as preceding commodity exchange.

Polanyi’s substantive approach to economics identifies three forms of integration:

1. Reciprocity: Exchange between symmetrically organized groups.
2. Redistribution: Goods given to a central authority and then distributed.
3. Market exchange: Self-regulated exchange based on prices.

Polanyi also distinguishes between locational movements (goods moving between places) and appropriative movements (goods changing hands). Oikonomia, or household resource management, is distinct from market-oriented commerce.

Sahlins categorizes reciprocity into:

1. Generalized reciprocity: Altruistic giving.
2. Balanced reciprocity: Direct exchange with equivalence.
3. Negative reciprocity: Attempting to get something for nothing.

Sahlins views redistribution as organized reciprocity. He and Polanyi sought alternatives to market-based economies, but ultimately affirmed exchange’s presence.

Lee’s concept of “primitive communism” describes a system with a ceiling on accumulation and a floor below which no one falls. Sharing is obligatory and distinct from exchange.

Price distinguishes between:

• Sharing: Providing goods without expectation of return.
• Reciprocity: Equal exchange.
• Redistribution: Centralized, unequal distribution.

The Phenomenon of Sharing

Woodburn argues that sharing is a universal human behavior, distinct from and more fundamental than reciprocity. He uses the Hadza, immediate-return hunter-gatherers, as a case study.

Woodburn challenges two prejudices:

1. Only large animals are shared.
2. Hunters gain honor from sharing.

He outlines six points about Hadza sharing:

1. It is based on obligation, not generosity.
2. It does not imply reciprocity.
3. The hunter does not control distribution.
4. It is not driven by spoilage concerns.
5. Hunting success does not guarantee future security.
6. Hunters are not rewarded with honors.

Sharing prevents accumulation of goods and honors. The !Kung hxaro system is a long-term, non-equivalent exchange network that mitigates risk and fosters social relationships.

The hxaro differs from barter. It is ongoing, with no fixed endpoint. Wealth is measured by the circulation of goods. The hxaro and sharing serve different functions:

• Hxaro: Risk reduction, access to resources during scarcity, conflict resolution.
• Sharing: Prevents accumulation, promotes equality.

Woodburn views sharing as a political phenomenon that limits power and inequality. It is based on values of equality and independence. He argues that the Hadza economy, based on sharing, allows for greater freedom due to resource abundance and predictability. The !Kung, with scarcer resources, rely on both sharing and the hxaro system.

Sharing is more likely with abundant resources. Hunting large animals plays a key role in resource distribution, benefiting the entire community. Sharing also exists in other societies, including farming and industrial societies.

Hunter-Gatherers and Gender Equality: The Australian Example

Australian hunter-gatherers have often been viewed as having high gender inequality, with a gerontocracy controlling resources and women. Early accounts of group marriage and wife capture have been refuted by later research.

Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown emphasized the individual family as the unit of reproduction. However, polygamy and wife sharing did occur. Radcliffe-Brown viewed Aboriginal societies as egalitarian among adult males, but this view overlooks the subordination of women and young men.

More recent research highlights the control older men exert over women and younger men, particularly through ritual knowledge and access to resources. Bern argues that wealth and prestige are based on ritual knowledge, accessible only to adult males.

Women’s exclusion from rituals reinforces their subordinate status. Two phenomena demonstrate this subordination:

1. Behavioral: Polygamy, promised marriages of young girls to older men.
2. Ritual and ideological: Reinforcing and justifying subordination.

The contribution of women to subsistence has decreased since European contact, due to changes in resource availability and the introduction of government settlements and social security. In pre-contact times, women’s contribution was substantial, but their surplus was often expropriated.

There are differing views on women’s work:

• Hamilton: Men’s and women’s production are separate spheres, integrated through redistribution by women, but controlled by men.
• Bell: Women are independent economic producers and full members of society.

The role of women in rituals has also been debated. While some anthropologists emphasize women’s exclusion from key rituals, others have documented women’s own rituals. The secrecy surrounding these rituals may have contributed to their being overlooked.

Bell argues that Aboriginal women had more independence than European-Australian women, with control over marriage, residence, reproduction, and sexuality. However, men’s power is rooted in ritual, with men seen as creators and givers of energy.

Three factors contribute to the image of women as “non-persons”:

1. Promised marriages of girls to older men.
2. Polygyny.
3. Occasional group marriages.

However, women had agency in sexual relationships and played important roles in female maturation rituals.

In pre-contact times, women’s work focused on gathering and distributing resources to their families, while men’s products had wider distribution. The division of labor, with hunting valued more than gathering, contributes to social stratification.

There are exceptions to the male hunter-female gatherer dichotomy. Agta women in the Philippines actively hunt, with high success rates. However, women are generally excluded from hunting large animals.

Tabet argues that women’s lack of access to hunting weapons reinforces their subordination. However, this argument is challenged by the existence of egalitarian societies and the fact that hunters do not always control meat distribution.

The idea that hunting is the “basic behavior” of humans, shaping culture and genetics, is an oversimplification. Hunting is a livelihood strategy, not a way of life. The exclusion of women from hunting does not necessarily explain their subordination.

The generality of women’s subordination in hunter-gatherer societies is also questionable. More egalitarian societies exist, often studied by female anthropologists.

Are Hunter-Gatherers Really Early?

Revisionist anthropologists question the view of contemporary hunter-gatherers as Pleistocene relics. They emphasize the effects of contact with other groups and argue that hunter-gatherer systems must be understood in their interactions with non-hunter-gatherer societies.

Two interpretations of this view are:

1. Hunter-gatherers survive through government assistance and tourism.
2. They are integrated into regional economies through kinship and production networks.

The San of the Kalahari, often considered isolated, have a long history of interaction with other groups, including being dominated and enslaved. The arrival of merchant capital in the 19th century led some San to lose their livestock and return to hunting and gathering.

Revisionists argue that hunter-gatherers are not isolated relics but are integrated into larger historical processes. However, they sometimes rely on a priori assumptions about the pervasiveness of the global economic system.

Eric Wolf emphasizes the interconnectedness of societies, even before capitalism. Revisionists seek to historicize hunter-gatherers, but often only by portraying them as past pastoralists or servants.

The limiting factor for hunter-gatherers may be carbohydrates, not protein. This highlights the potential for mutually beneficial interactions between hunters and farmers. However, this does not imply that hunter-gatherers are dependent on farmers or are simply impoverished farmers.

Hunter-gatherers with immediate-return systems are often encapsulated by farmers or herders. This encapsulation can lead to political domination and stigmatization, but also to the development of survival mechanisms and cultural resilience.

Despite the influence of capitalism, many hunter-gatherer societies maintain their way of life, demonstrating the resilience and adaptability of this ancient subsistence strategy.