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.

This study explores the research question: What socio-ecological factors are conducive to women’s hunting? Using life history theory and behavioral ecology as a base, the authors pose four hypotheses. The first hypothesis is that women will hunt when there are fewer conflicts with childcare. The second hypothesis is that women will hunt when there are fewer cultural restrictions regarding the use of hunting technology. The third hypothesis is that women will hunt when there are low-risk game within range of camp, dogs are used in hunting, or hunting is in groups. Lastly, the fourth hypothesis suggests that women will hunt when they play essential roles on informational tasks. There is enough evidence to support the third and fourth hypotheses. The study also shows that there is considerable evidence that women hunt cross-culturally.

This survey chapter discusses the use of ash and other fire-generated materials in Ancestral Pueblo settlements in the northern Rio Grande region. The author begins by surveying ethnographic reports of ash use among indigenous groups in the Southwest and Great Basin regions to understand the potential reasons for ash use in prehistoric contexts beyond just cooking. He then turns to archaeological data to explore the extensive use of fire, ash, and other pyrotechnic products across indigenous communities in the region, focusing on excavated architectural and mortuary contexts from the northern Rio Grande, especially the Taos and Picuris areas. The author argues that these fire-related actions and products show that ash plays two major roles -- it is used as a part of major transition ceremonies and as an instrument for healing. The author concludes that these ethnographic observations inform and illuminate archaeological contexts that contain ash, charcoal, and fire.

This study explores the ways in which human deception has evolved using a sample of 145 societies from eHRAF. After noticing that most research has focused just on tactical deception on humans, this study delved into the categorization and prevalence of human aggressive mimicry. The authors suggest that deception evolved from the context of directing it toward prey. The presence of human aggressive mimicry supports that this is a near-universal cross-cultural practice among hunter-gatherers and the authors highlight the importance of further research on human-nonhuman interactions. The authors posit that this hypothesis could serve as a link between the Social Brain Hypothesis and the Foraging Brain Hypothesis.

After noticing that recent archaeological research has found evidence that women in pre-history were probably hunters, the authors use the ethnographic record from 63 foraging populations to explore the role of women in hunting. They explore what proportion of societies expect women to contribute to hunting, if women hunt, what proportion was opportunistic or intentional, whether women hunters were skilled, and whether women hunted with children.