Complex hunter-gatherers: Exception or common phenomenon?

COMPLEX HUNTER-GATHERERS: EXCEPTION OR C O M M O N PHENOMENON?

Victor A. Shnirelman Victor A. Sbnirelman is a Professor at the Institute of Etbnology and Anthropology, Moscow.

What economic systems were capable of providing a substantial foundation for the development of social differentiation in archaic kin-oriented societies? What were the natural, social and demographic requirements for these systems to come into beinz? Were there any natural or technological constraints for the~'r emergence and evolution? V.G. Childe gave currency to the idea that a transition to a foodproducing economy was a crucial turning point in human prehistory, 1 stimulating important economic, social and demographic changes. 2 Childe was apparently right in stressing economic, rather than technological, criteria for the Neolithic. Indeed, the presence or absence of special technological innovations .(polished axes, ceramics, and so on) could be of an accidental nature m any particular case, whereas an attempt to relate the Neolithic to economic evolution provided the concept with a more substantial base. In fact, what can be more logical than to contrast societies that devoted themselves to the appropriation of wild natural resources with those that occupied themselves with the artificial production of staples? As K. Marx pointed out many years ago, 3 land, plants and animals were not only objects but also products of human labor among; the earliest farmers and pastoralists, whereas land and wild animals were a natural factor of economic activity among hunters, gatherers and fishermen. This observation was frequently quoted by those Marxist anthropologists who treated a transition to a food-producinl~ economy-as a great benefit that allowed farmers and pastoralists to advance far ahead of the rest of the world s populations. 4 From this perspective, the latter became socially backward and dropped out of the main trajectory of human evolution. Dialectical Anthropology 17:183-196, 1992. 9 1992 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

184

V. Bakhta has pointed out six specific features to distinguish archaic farmers and pastoralists from hunters, gatherers and fishermen. 5 There are: sedentariness, the storing of i:oodstuffs and other products, a gap between labor expended and the appropriation of products, unequal distribution of labor at the different phases of economic activity, increase in labor productivity, and the extension of variability of activity. Some Western Marxists have put forward almost identical arguments, although Tim Ingold warns that the aforementioned features ("the storing of foodstufffs, the gap between labor and appropriation, and so on) may manifest themselves .quite differently in particular cases and can also be understood in &fferent ways. 6 Nonetheless, all the advocates of this approach point out that the transition to a food-producing economy invariably leads to essential changes in property rights, social relations and organization, authority system, s'yst'em'ofvalues, and so on. 7 Therefore, one shoul8 not be surprised that some proponents of these ideas regard economic systems as one of the most important criteria "for distinguishing the evolutionary phases of primeval society. "8 Indeed, typological schemes may be organized in various ways, depending on chosen criteria. Economic systems can theoretically serve as a kind of criteria. However, it is worth mentioning that E. Grosse, 9 who was one of the first scholars to work out a detailed classification of economic systems, reasonably advised extreme caution in attempting to use his classification for constructing any evolutionary scheme. He failed to follow his own advice when he tried to introduce a rigid correlation between economic systems and some social traits (f~u,nilyforms). Yu. P. Averkieva had reasonable objections to the approach in question when she pointed out that some Western anthropologists m she meant, above all, neo-evolutionists m "stressed the main economic focus, while ignoring a level of its development. ."1~ Thus, a disadvantage of the Childean concept was rooted m a trend to link certain economic systems too rigidly with peculiarities of the social structure and other social and cultural traits, while ignoring a great range of variability. In fact, although these links cannot be denied completely, they are indirect and mediated through special mechanisms that are neutral with regard to any concrete economic system. Indeed, social complexity is interconnected to a great degree with the economic efficiency capable of stimulating and maintaining complex social structures, rather than with economic systems as s u c h . 11 Therefore, to evaluate the effectiveness of an economic system, one should take into account how the economic activity ~s organized, what labor resources and technical devices are employed, in what measure an

185 appropriated product can satis~ people's requirements, and so on, rather than the single fact of the presence or absence of agriculture as such. 12 Thus, from this perspective, one should avoid treating huntergatherers as a homogeneous category. About a hundredyears ago, this was already clear to E. Grosse, who distinguishedbetween lower and higher" groups of hunter-gatherers .13 These categories are usually defined, in the modern, Western tradition, as "generalized" versus "com Plex" hunter- gatherers 914 . or "nomadic" . . Many Russian, theoreucally-or~ented ethnologists whose ideas were rooted in German ethnological traditions of the early part of this century, pointed out a hl~gh complexity of social organization among hunter-gatherers settled or semi-settled for decades. They treated them as a social equivalent of societies based on archaic forms of a food-producing economy, and stressed that a deep social differentiation could be o]0served in some societies of the category in question, and that a process of economic class formation had already begun among ~hem. 15 This trend has recently been supported by some Russian archaeologists as well. 16 Some Western scholars have also quite recently become interested in this approach. To mention only a few, one should look at L.R. Binford~ 7 who has introduced a distinction between foragers and collectors, as well as J. Woodburn, 18 and A. Testart, 19 who argue that one should contrast those societies that consumed foodsturts just after their appropriation with those where the main labor efforts were separated in time from consumption and where large stores of foods-tufts were regularly established. It is worth mentioning that V. Bakhta treated these two features as strictly connected to an agricultural economy. It is not my aim to analyze the aforementioned typologies in detail here, and T. Ingold has justifiably argued that they require corrections and further elaborations. 20 What seems important, on the other hand, is that unequal distribution and redistribution of appropriated products and clear social differentiation were wellknown among the societies of the second category established by Binford, Woodburn and Testart. It is also worth noting that these relationships were observed among less nomadic hunter-gatherers, characterized by relatively high population density and large residential groups with relatively stable composition. What seems especially]mportant is that the great maj~ority of them were provided with rather reliable and abundant food resources and had an elaborate technology for obtaining and storing foodstuffs: various facilities (weirs, traps, enclosures, storage devices, and so on), means of transport/canoe, travois, sledges), complex huntergathering equipment [various nets and other fishing gear,

186

specialized tools and weapons, and so on), and special technologies for food rocessing and preparation Indeed, the reliablhty of natural resources was by no means absolute in all these cases since some of these societies, at least, suffered from sporadic shortages. The latter were not unknown, for instance, to sub-Arctic settled or semi-settled fishermen, where even famines were observed from time to time. 21 Yet, one should take into account that, first, they had technological and, especially, social means to cope with the crises in question and that, secondly, evolved ranking systems emerged there even under these conditions. F o r m e r l y , a ~great m a n y scholars, 22 following Grosse's arguments, relateathe very existence of these societies to extremely favorable environmental conditions, and treated them as exceptions among non-agricultural populations in general. However, according to the elegant research of I. Donald and D. Mitchell, 23 the hig}i social complexity among the natives of the North-Western Coast of North America came into being due to skillful exploitation of local resources, and special social mechanisms dealing with their distribution and redistribution, rather than, desl3ite popular opinion, to any absolute abundance of the resources in question. In fact, the volume of staple resources fluctuated significantly, as a rule, from year to year. To put it another way, one should search for prerequisites for the emergence of the societies in question in the socio-economic sphere most of all, rather than in the natural environment. If so, one may speculate that a great many nonagricultural societies, rather than only a few exceptional ones, could be involved in the social differentiation process far beyond its incipient forms. Indeed, according to recent archaeological data, the societies in question were veery common in the remote, and not. so remote past, and they emerged spontaneously w~thout any lmvortant external influence. To avoid an extensive survey concerm'ng this issue, 24 one may enumerate a few specific cases relevant to the discussion in question. Relatively large year-round settlements were known in fiver valleys and late areas of Great Basin (U.S.A.) since the Middle Holocene times, and, according to R.L. Bettinger, 25 local i n h a b i t a n t s may have had a h i g h l y differentiated social organization. Large graveyards with clear evidence of social differentiation occurred in California 2,000 years ago. 26 It is curious that significantly larger settlements flourished there, based on the highly efficient food-gathering economy during the 2nd-lst Mill. B.C., than those known for much later farmers in the neighboring South-West. 27 The formation of socially differentiated societies has been revealed on the North-Western Coast since the P

.

~

"

187

late 1st Mill. B.C. 28 According to H. Maschner, 29 the ranked system was already known among the Tlingits of South-Eastern Alaska from the thirteenth century. A typical chiefdom with all the corresponding attributes developed among the hunter-gatherers of southern Florida by the very beginning o[the sixteenth century. 30 Comp.lex proto-class social structures seem to have emerged on the Peruvian coast during the late 3d Mill B.C., mainly due to intensive fishing and sea-mammal hunting. 31 One of the most ancient,-if not the most ancient, complex hunter-gathering society was represented by the Natufian culture of the Near East dated to the Terminal Pleistocene and very early Holoceneperiods. 32 Socially evolved hunter-gathering socieues establishedthemselves in Japan at the Jomon time, that is, long before the coming of agriculture. 33 The traces of prehistoric, highly efficient, non-agricultural subsistence and, apparently, more advanced social organizations were recently revealedeven in some south-eastern regions of Australia. 34 Large year-round settlements of fishermen were known in some Far-Eastern regions (Amur region and Primorije region) of Russia from the Miardle Holocene period. 35 The same situation was revealed by Russian archaeologists south of the Aral sea in Central Asia. 36 A highly efficient, fishing subsistence economy was rooted in the Late Mesolithic in the European forest zone, and large settlements accompanied by cemeteries with obvious traits of socially differentiated societies emerged from this during the Neolithic period, 37 the Ertebolle culture in Denmark being one of the best k n o w n cases. 38 A c c o r d i n g to the most recent archaeological data, a similar trend seems to be revealed in the Ukraine as well. 39 Socially differentiated societies, based on the specialized s a g o - g a t h e r i n g e c o n o m y , are w e l l - d e s c r i b e d ethnographically in the New Guinea lowlands, 40 although the data on their possible evolution are very scarce now. In general, the societies in question were localized, more often than not, in boreal and moderate environmental zones. 41 Their subsistence was rather variable: fishing and sea-mammal hunting; fishing, hunting and plant collecting; intensive harvesting of wild plants, and so on. Be that as it may, it is quite clear that social evolution was closely related to the efficiency of subsistence economics, rather than to any particular form of economic activity. While re'ectinl!g this ap.,proach in princit~eorvle, V . . . RKabo .has accused me of advocating a highly speculative and Ignoring the real facts. 42 A volume of b o t h ethnologl'cal and, especially, archaeological data obtained in recent ~Tears is evidence of an extensive distribution of complex hunter2gathering societies, both in time and space. Thus, let the reader decide whose theory is closer to known facts.

188

Is it possible to measure the efficiency, of a subsistence economy? The demographic data on population aensity and community size seem to be very explicit, although indirect, criteria of this sort. The population density among a lot of nomadic hunter-gatherers was very low m from 20 to 200-500 square kilometers per person. The situation among settled and semi-settled hunter-gatherers was quite different m from 0.1 to 10 square kilometers per person, i.e., similar to that of archaic farmers. 43 Almost the same correlations may be established for community size as well. There were from 15 to 75 persons (mean: 25-30 pers.) in the residential groups of nomadic hunters and gatherers. However, the communitl'es of complex hunter-gatherers and archaic farmers were much larger up to about several hundred persons. Moreover, communities of 1,000 and more persons were known among some sago-gatherers of New Guinea and the Southern Kwakiutl of British Columbia. The demographic variables in question were doubtlessly reflected in the dimensions of archaeological sites. It may be important for an archaeologist that a nomadic hunter-gatherers' camp size was usually from about several dozen to several hundred square meters, whereas the settlements of both settled and semi-settled huntergatherers and archaic farmers were much larger m from several thousand meters to more than two-three hectars. 44 These demographic and spatial variables are interesting not only in themselves but as indicators of more complex forms of organization and division of labor among settled and semi-settled hunter-gatherers, in contrast to nomadic ones. Binford seems to be the first to have pointed out that it was a movement of foodstuffs to people, rather than the reverse, that characterized complex hunter-gatherers versus nomadic ones. 45 An exchange amon~ the latter was, as a rule, limited to non-food items, whereas fooawas one of the principle things that were exchanged among both complex hunter-gatherers and archaic farmers.46 Complex huntergatherers were less opportunistic in their food l~references, in contrast with nomadic ones. And it was not inciaental that the subsistence of the former was more or less specialized. However, this specialization demanded extensive knowledge of the natural surroundings, good planning and accounting for seasonal factors, elaborate organization and regularity of the labor process, and, consequently, a more complex division of labor than was common among nomadic hunter-gatherers. From this perspective, large size of a local community was not only a consequence, but also a prerequisite for a highly efficient food-gathering economy, since more complex forms of the division of labor and social mechanisms controlling them could emerge only in sufficiently large population groups. 47

189

Were there any innovations in the division, of labor among complex hunter-gatherers in contrast to nomadic ones? F. Engels was apparently the first to put forward the issue of the social division of labor and its evolution. 48 The problem has been discussed e x t e n s i v e l y in Russian and Eastern European anthropological literature during recent decades. Some scholars, especially of, the older generation, have argued that one should understand a first great social division of labor, stressed by Engels, as an emergence of nomadic pastoral societies. More recently, an idea hasbecome no less popular that the phenomenon in question originated in the transition to a food-producing economy. 49 According to the latter, "a second great social division of labor," or an emergence of full-time handicrafts, could occur only in the context of food-producing societies. The Russian archaeologist V.M. Masson goes so far as to formulate the idea of a special "handicraft evolutionary period" that should include prehistoric societies with relatively advanced forms of a food-producing economy. 50 Recently this idea was supported by another Russian archaeologist E.V. Sajko. 51 Yet, complex hunter-gathering societies are also known with closed corporate groups of full-time craftsmen and other specialists whose rights and privileges were guarded by special social norms and secret societies, and who were sometimes even released from direct participation in food production. 52 How should one treat these kinds of societies, especially considering some scholars' opinion that even a "first great division of labor" could not be revealed among them. "53 To avoid this apparent discrepancy one should overcome subsistence determinism. To put it another way, the very essence of the "first great social division of labor" should be seen in the formation of highly efficient more or less specialized subsistence economic systems providing people with some surplus, rather than in the emergence of a food-producing economy as such. Thus, a foundation was establishedfor intersocietal division of labor. Indeed, the phenomenon in question could and did emerge in nonagricultural settings. 54 The role of surplus emergence of"the first great social division of labor" was stressed recently by Billig and Hoffman, 55 although they continue to associate its development strictly with the appearance of a food-producing economy. A.M. Khazanov's opinion seems to be somewhat closer to reality when he relates "the first large social division of labor" to "the appearance of regular surplus" without regard to the type of the su-bsistence economy involved. 56

190

Indeed, if one analyzes the organization of economic activity among complex hunter-gatherers, one may easily discover the features defined by Bakhta that were no less typical for them than for archaic farmers. 57 Of course, they could manifest themselves somewhat differently from those of the latter. For instance, their sedentariness was of another type from that of farmers; they used to increase labor productivity with somewhat different means, and so on. However, all these differences seem to be of secondary importance with respect to the introduction of more differentiated access in both cases, to valuable econ,omic resources. Special signs of ownership that marked households economic territories appeared gradually; a notion of "stealing" became important, and the transmission of a cautious attitude towards alien property became not an insignificant part of the socialization process. C. Meillassoux has pointed out that the inheritance of cultivated lands under archaic farming conditions led to the formation of more inclusive corporative groups, 58 based on descent principle, that was a crucial turning point in social evolution. However, the transmission from generation to generation of land with particular economic significance was of no less importance among hunter-gatherers. Indeed, access to such land was legalized by the labor contributions of all the previous generations up to the most remote ancestors. 59 And these contributions could be real and obvious enough, especially regarding the construction of artificial devices and facilities (weirs, dams, canals, etc.), tending of wild plants, regular burnings, and so on, that led to modifications of the natural setting. All the evidence discussed above may give one a key to die understanding of mysterious similarities in social relations and social structure among complex hunter-gatherers, on the one hand, and archaic farmers, on the other. 60 From this point of view, one should not much emphasize the fact that a food-producing economy had better prospects for an increase in productivity. In fact, real social relations had much to do with the subsistence system in operation, irrespective of its future prospects. Thus, while evaluating the role of food-production in social evolution, one should take into account that its full potential could not be utilized at the initial stages. At first, a food-producing economy had apparently no specific advantages in its enlciency, with respect to more evolved forms of a food-gathering economy. Both of them formed technological economic prerequisites for the emergence of social differentiation. Yet, the termination of the latter process was PF~SSible only with the foundation of a food-producing economy. us, it seems reasonable to evaluate the revolutionary role that a food-producing economy played in human prehistory from these perspectives alone.

191 NOTES .

2.

V.G. Childe, Man MakesHimse/f(London: Watts, 1941). L.A. White, The Evolution of Culture (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959); E.R. Service, Primitive Social Organization:An EvolutionaryPerspective (New York: Random House, 1962); M.D. Sahlins, Tribesmen (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1968); E. Gellner, Plougb, Sword, and Book (London: University of Chicago Press, 1988); V.M. Masson, Ekonomika i sotsial~'yj

stroj drevnykh obsbcbestv(Economy and Social Systems of Ancient Societies) (Leningrad: Nauka, 1976); Yu. V. Pavlenko, Ranneklassovyje obsbcbestva: genesisi puti razvitija (Early ClassSocieties:Genesisand EvolutionaryRoutes) .

4.

(Kiev: Naukova Dumka, 1989). Karl Marx, Das Kapital, I, in Marx-Engels Werke, Bd. 23 (Berlin: Dietz, 1962), pp. 194-196. V.M. Bakhta, "Sotsial'nyje posledstvija perekhoda ot prisvaivajushchej ekonomiki k proizvodiashchej" ("Social Consequences of the Transition from a Food-gathering to a Food-producing Economy"), in Yu.K. Pletnikov ed. Problemy perekhodnogo perioda i perekhodnykb

obshcbestvennykb otnosbenij (Problems of the Transitional Period and of Transitional Social Relations) (Moscow: Nauka, 1986), pp. 113-114; V.R. Kabo, Pervobytnaja dozemledel'cbeskaja obsbchina (PrimevalPre-Farming Community) (Moscow: Nauka, 1986), p. 241; C. Meillassoux, 'On the Mode of Production in the Hunting Band," in P. Alexandre ed. French Perspectivesin African Studies (London: Oxford University Press, 1973), p. .

6. 7. 8.

9. 10.

11.

198. V.M. Bakhta, "Sotsial'nyje posledstvija," pp. 107-119. Tim Ingold, "The Significance of Storage in Hunting Societies," Man, 18, no. 3 (1983), pp. 553-571. Meillassoux, "On the Mode of Production in the Hunting Band," pp. 187203. Masson, Ekonomika, p. 179 ft.; Kabo, Pervobytnaja dozemledel'cbeskaja obschina, pp. 232-233. E. Grosse, Die Formender Familie und die Formender Wirtscbaft(Freiburg, Leipzig: Mohr, 1896). Yu.P. Averkijeva, "Yestestvennoje i obshchestvennoje razdelenije truda i problema periodizatsii pervobytnogo obshchestva" ('Natural and Social Division of Labor and the Problem of Periodization in the Evolution of Society"), in I.R. Grigulevich ed. Ot Alaski do Ognennoj Zemli (From Alaska to Tierradel Fuego)(Moscow: Nauka, 1967), p. 74. V.A.S. Shnirelman, Comment on V. Kabo, "The Origins of Foodproducing Fx:onomy," CurrentAntbropology, 26, no. 5 (1985), p. 612; V.A. Shnirelman, "Neoliticheskaja revolutsija; i neravnomernost' istoricheskogo razvitija" ('Neolithic Revolution: The Unevenness of Historical Evolution"), in Yu. K. Pletnikov ed. Problemy, p. 119; V.A. Shnirelman, Vozniknovenije proizvodiashchego khoziajstva (Emergenceof Food-producingEconomy)(Moscow:Nauka, 1989), p. 400.

192 12. 13. 14.

15.

Marx. Kapital, pp. 194-195. Grosse, Die kbrmen. B. ttayden, "Competition, Labor and Complex Hunter-Gatherers," a paper presented at the Sixth International Conference on Hunting and Gathering Societies, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, May 27-June 1, 1990. S.P. Tolstov, "K voprosu o periodizatsii istorii pervobytnogo obshchestva" ("On Primeval History Periodization"), Sovietskaja EtnograJija, no. 1 (1946), pp. 25-30; M.O. Kosven, "O periodizatsii pervobytnoj istorii ("On Primeval History Periodization"), Sovietskaja Entografoa, no. 3 (1952), pp. 151-158; Yu. I. Semenov, "O periodizatsii pervobytnoj istorii" ("On Primeval History Periodization"), Sovietskaja Entografija, no. 5 (1965), pp. 75-93; N . A . B u t i n o v , "Pervobytnoobshchinnyj stroj" ("Primeval-Communal Formation"), in L.V. Danilova ed. Problemy istorii dokapitalisticheskikbobsbchestv(Problems in the Ilistory of Pre-CapitalistFormations)(Moscow: Nauka, 1968), pp. 113, 134. 137; A.I. Pershits, A.L. Mongait, V.P. Alexeev, Istorijapervobytnogo obsbcbestva (History of Primeval Society) (Moscow: Vysshaja shkola, 1982), pp. 137-140; V.A. Shnirelman, "Pozdnepervobytnaja obshchina zemledel'tsev-skotovodov i vysshikh okhotnikov, rybolovov i sobitatelej" (Late Primeval Community of Agricuhuralists-Pastoralists and Complex Hunters, Gatherers and Fishermen"), in Yu. V. Bromlej ed. Istorija

pervobytnogo obsbcbestva: Epoka pervobytnoj rodovoj obsbchiny (History of Primeval Society: Epocb of Primeval Clan Community) (Moscow: Nauka, 1986), pp. 334-336; V.A. Shnirelman, "Proizvodstvennyje predposylki razlozhenija pervobytnogo obshchestva" ("Economic Prerequisites for the Decline of Primeval Society"), in Yu. V. Bromlej ed. Istori/apervobytnogo

obsbchestva. Epokba klassoobrazovanija(History of Primeval Society:Epoch of Class Formation) (Moscow: Nauka, 1988), pp. 50-56. 16.

V.A. Bashilov, "Obshchije zakonomernosti i spetsifika neoliticheskoj revolutsii v Peru" ("General Regularities and Specific Features of the Neolithic Revolution in Peru"), in R.S. Vasil'jevskij ed. Drevnije kul'tury

Sibiri i Tikhookeanskogobassejna(Ancient Cultures of Siberia and the Pacific Ocean) (Novosibirsk: Nauka, 1979), pp. 108-109; L.V. Kol'tsov, "O

17.

spetsifike "neoliticheskoj revolutsii' v lesnoj zone" ("On the Specific Features of the 'Neolithic Revolution' in the Forest Zone"), in I.T. Kruglikova ed. Problemy zarubezhnoj arkheologii (Problems of Archaeology Abroad) (Moscow: Nauka, 1984), pp. 101-102; M.F. Kosarev, Zapadnala Sibir'v drevnosti (Western Siberia in Prehistory)(Moscow: Nauka, 1984), pp. 92 ff., 143 ff.; N.O. Bader, IYrevne~hijezemledel'tsy Severnoj Mesopotamii (Ancient Farmersof Northern Mesopotamia)(Moscow: Nauka, 1989), p. 251. L.R. Binford, "Willow Smoke and Dogs' Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation," American Antiquity, 45. no. 1 (1980), pp. 4-20.

193 18.

19.

20. 21.

22.

23. 24.

25. 26.

27. 28. 29.

30.

31. 32.

J. Woodburn, "Hunters and Gatherers Today and Reconstruction of the Past," in E. Gellner ed. Soviet and Western Anthropology (London: Duckworth, 1980), pp. 95-117; J. Woodburn, "Egalitarian societies," Man 17. no. 3 (1982), pp. 431-451. A. Testart, Les chasseurs-cueilleurs ou l'origine des inegalit3s (Paris: Soci&6 d'Ethnographie, 1982); A. Testart, "The Significance of Food Storage among Hunter-Gatherers: Residence Patterns, Population Densities, and Social Inequalities," Current Anthropology, 23, no. 5 (1982), pp. 523-537. Ingold, The significance. L. Donald, D.H. Mitchell, "Some Correlates of Local Group Rank among the Southern Kwakiutl," Ethnology, 14, no. 4 (1975), pp. 325-346; V.A. Shnirelman, "Cherchez le Chien: on the Specific Features of Traditional Economics in the Kamchatka Peninsular," a paper presented at the Sixth International Conference on Hunting and Gathering Societies, University of Alaska Fairbanks, May 27-June 1, 1990. V.R. Kabo, "The Origins of Food-Producing Economy," Current Antbropology, 26, no. 5 (1985), p. 614; Service, Primitive Social Organization, p. 99; Pavlenko, Ranneklassovyje obshchestva, pp. 76-80. Donald and Mitchell, "Some Correlates of Local Group Rank among the Southern Kwakiutl." For a more detailed review see T.D. Price and J. Brown eds. Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers: The Emergence of Cultural Complexity (New York: Academic Press, 1985). R.L. Bettinger, "Alternative Adaptive Strategies in the Prehistoric Great Basin," Journal of AnthropologicalResearch, 34, no. 1 (1978), pp. 27-46. T.F. King, "Don't That Beat the Band? Nonegalitarian Political Organization in Prehistoric Central California," in Ch. L. Redman ed. Social Archaeology: Beyond Subsistence and Dating (New York: Academic Press, 1978), pp. 225-248. Shnirelman, Vozniknovenijeproizvodiashchego khozigistvo, p. 297. K.M. Ames, "The Evolution of Social Ranking on the Northwest Coast of North America," American Antiquity, 46, no. 4 (1981), pp. 789-805. H.D.G. Maschner, "Resource Distributions, Affluence, Circumscription, and Stress: Social Inequality on the Northern Northwest Coast," a paper presented at the Sixth International Conference on Hunting and Gathering Societies, University of Alaska Fairbanks, May 27-June 1, 1990. W.H. Marquardt, "The Calusa Social Formation in Protohistoric South Florida," in T.C. Patterson and Ch. W. Gailey eds. Power Relations and State Formation (Washington, I).C.: American Anthropological Association, 1987), pp. 98-116. M.E. Moseley, The Maritime Foundations of Andean Civilization (Menlo Park: 1975). D.O. Henry, From Foraging to Agriculture: the Levant at the End of the Ice Age (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1989).

194 33.

34. 35.

Y. Sugiura, "The Neolithic Revolution, a Case Analysis: a Reevaluation of the Childean Concept as Applied to Jomon, Japan," in L. Manzanilla ed. Studies in the Neolithic and Urban Revolution (Oxford: BAR International series, no. 349, 1987), pp. 35-50. E. Williams, Complex Hunter-Gatherers: A Late Itolocene Examplefrom TemperateAustralia (Oxford: BAR International series, no. 423, 1988). A.P. Okladnikov and A.P. Derevianko, Daliokoje proshloje Promorija i Priamurija (Remote Past of Primorije and Priamurije) (Vladivostok: Dal'nevostochnoje knizhnoje izdatel'stvo, 1973); D.L. Brodianskij,

Vvedenije v dal'nevostochnuju arkheologiju (An Introduction to Far Eastern Archaeology) (Vladivostok: Izdatel'stvo Dal'nevostochnogo Universiteta,

1987).

36.

A.V. Vinogradov, Drevnije okhotniki i rybolovy sredneaziatskogo

mezdurechija (Ancient Hunters and Fisherman of the Soviet Central Asia Watershed)(Moscow: Nauka, 1981). 37.

38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43.

L.V. Kol'tsov, "Nekotoryje aspekty mezoliticheskoj ekonomiki lesnoh zony Evropy" ("Some aspects of Mesolithic economy in the European forest zone"), in I.T. Kruglikova ed. Problemy; Kol'tsov, O spetsifike; T.D. Price, "The European Mesolithic," American Antiquity, 48, no. 4 (1983), pp. 761-778; M. Zvelebil, "Postglacial Foraging in the Forests of Europe," ScientificAmerican, 254, no. 5 (1986), pp. 104-115. P. Rowley-Conwy, "Sedentary Hunters: The Ertebolle Example," in G. Bailey ed. Hunter-Gatherer Economy in Prebistory:A European Perspective (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), pp. 111-126. V.I. Neprina, "Vizniknennia ta rozvitok rybal'stva na territorii Ukraini" ('Emergence and Development of Fishing in the Ukraine"), Arkheologija, Kiev, Vyp. 64 (1988), pp. 28-33. V.A. Shnirelman, "Sobirateli sago" (Sago-Gatherers"), Voprosyistorii, no. 11 (1983), pp. 182-187. Binford, "Willow Smoke and Dogs' Tails," p. 14; Testart,/es chasseurscueiUeurs; Testart, "The Significance of Food Storage among HunterGatherers,' pp. 527-529. Kabo, "The Origins of Food-Producing Economy," p. 614. S h n i r e l m a n , "Sobirateli sago," p. 185; V.A. Shnirelman, "Demograficheskije i emokul'turnije protsessy epokhi pervobymoj rodovoj obshchiny" ("Demographic and Ethnocultural Processes of the Epoch of Primeval Clan Community"), in Yu. V. Bromlej ed. Istorija

pervobytnogo obsbchestva. Epokba pervobytnoj rodovoj obsbchiny (History of Primeval Society: Epoch of Primeval Clan Community) (Moscow: Nauka, 44. 45. 46.

1986), pp. 430, 446. Shnirelman, Vozniknovenijeproizvdiashehegokboziajstva, p. 402. Binford, "Willow Smoke and Dogs' Tails," p. 15. N.A. Butinov, "Raszdelenije truda v pervobytnom obshchestve" ("A Division of Labor in Primeval Society"). in L.P. Potapov ed. Problemy

istorii pervobytnogo obshehestva(Problemsin the History of Primeval Society) (Moscow-Leningrad: Academy of Sciences Press, 1960), pp. 109-150.

195 47.

48. 49.

50. 51. 52. 53. 54.

A. Forge, "Normative Factors in the Settlement Size of Neolithic Cultivators (New Guinea)," in P.J. Ucko, R. Tringham, G.W. Dimbleby eds. Man, Settlement and Urbanism (Cambridge, Mass: Schenkman, 1972), pp. 363-376. F. Engels, "Der Ursprung der Familie, des Privateigentums and des Staats," in Marx-Engels Werke, Bd. 21 (Berlin: Dietz, 1962), p. 155. Shnirelman, Pozdnepervobytnaja obsbchina, p. 340; G. Billig, R. Hoffman, H. Griinert, M. Wolf, "Zur Stellung der ersten grossen gesellschaftlichen Arbeitsteilung im Entwicklungsprozess der Urgesellschaft," 4 EAZKolloquium, Berlin, 1986, Ethnograpbisch-Arcbdologisch Zeitscbrift, Jahr. 27, Hf. 4 (1986), S. 663-679. Masson, Ekonomiha, p. 182. E.V. Sajko, Spetsializirovannyje proizvodstva v razvitii obshchestv rannczemledel'cheskikh kul'tur (SpecializedProduction in the Development of Early Farming Cultures) (Moscow: Nauka, 1990), pp. 26-27. 122. 129. L.J. Bean, "Social organization in Native California," in L.J. Bean and T.F. King eds. California Indian: Political and Economic Organization (Ramona: Ballena Press, 1974), p. 28. Billig et al., "Zur Stellung der ersten grossen gesellschaftlichen Arbeitsteilung," S. 676. Butinov, Razdelenije truda, p. 145; Averkijeva, Yestestvennoje i obsbcbestvennoje, pp. 78-79; V.F. Gening, Etnicbeskijprotsess v pervobytnosti (Ethnic Process in Primeval Societies) (Sverdlovsk: Ural State University, 1970), p. 92; I.S. Vdovin, "Istoricheskije osobennosti formirovanija obshchestvennogo razdelenija truda u narodov Severovostochnoj Sibiri" ("Historical Peculiarities in the Emergence of Social Division of Labor among the peoples of North-Eastern Siberia"), in A.M. Reshetov and Ch. M. Taksami eds. Sotsial'naja istorija narodov Azii (Social History of Asian Peoples) (Moscow: Nauka, 1975), pp. 143-157; R.S. Vasilievskij, Proiskbozbdenile i drevniaja kul'tura Koryakov (Origin and Ancient Culture of the Koryaks) (Novosibirsk: Nauka, 1971), p. 172; V.V. Atropova, Kul'tura i byt Koryakov (Koryales"Culture and Domestic Life) (Leningrad: Nauka, 1971), pp. 99-100; N.N. Bilibin, Obmen u Koryakov (Exchange among the Koryaks) (Leningrad: Izdatel'stvo Instituta Narodov Severa, 1934); A.M. Khazanov, "Razlozhenije pervobymoobshchinnogo stroja i vozniknovenije klassovogo obshchestva" ("A Decline of the PrimevalCommunal Formation and an Emergence of Class Society"), in A.I. Pershitz ed. Pervobytnoje obsbchestvo (Primeval Society) (Moscow: Nauka, 1975), p. 92; Shnirelman, Pozdnepevvobytnaja obsbchina, pp. 340-341; M.F. Kosarev, "Predposykju slozhenija i spetsifika ranneklassovykh obshchestv v tajezhnom Ob'-Irtyshje" ("Prerequisites of the Emergence of Early Class Societies and Their Peculiarities in the Ob'Irtysh Forest Zone"), in B.A. Rybakov ed. Ot doklassozrykb obsbchestv k ranneklassov'ym (From Preclass to Early Class Societies) (Moscow: Nauka, 1987), pp. 133-134.

196 55. 56. 57. 58. 59.

60.

G. Billig and R. Hoffman, "Der Problemstellung," in Billig et al. eds., "Zer Steilung der ersten grossen gesellschaftlichen Arbeitsteilung," S. 665670. Khazanaov, Razlozhenije, p. 92. Bakhta, "sotsial'nije posledstvija." Meillassoux, "On the Mode of Production in the Hunting Band." H.A. Feit, "The Enduring Pursuit: Land, Social Relations and Time in Anthropological Models of Hunter-Gatherers and Sub-Arctic Hunters' Images," a paper presented at the Sixth International Conference on Hunting and Gathering Societies, University of Alaska Fairbanks, May 27-June 1, 1990. Some other valuable approaches to the problem in question are demonstrated by A. Testart (see his Les chasseurs-cueilleurs) "The Significanceof Food Storage among Hunter-Gatherers," and "Some Major Problems in the Social Anthropology of Hunter-Gatherers," Current Anthropology, 23, no. 5 (1982) and other scholars who participated in the discussion on his papers in Current Anthropology. See especially, H. Watanabe, "Occupational Differentiation and Social Stratification: The Case of Northern Pacific Maritime Food-Gatherers," Current Anthropology, 24, no. 2 (1983); H. Watanabe, "On the Social Anthropology of Hunter-Gatherers," Current Anthropology, 29, no. 3 (1988).