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.

In this article Hames addresses the long-standing disagreements between evolutionary theories regarding human warfare (more specifically between Rousseauian and Hobbesian frameworks). This study posits that while most current and previous research focuses on the discrepancies between the frequency and intensity with which warfare takes place between hunter-gatherer and large-scale societies, the ability for societies to live in peace with their neighbors despite the possibility for warfare, is the most important evolutionary trait. Coexisting peacefully is what distinguishes human socially and politically from chimpanzees whereas warfare itself is a more primitive trait humans share with previous ancestors. Hames concludes that going forward, use of phylogenetic methods to control for common ancestry, and use of archaeological data would lead to new and more comprehensive findings. Although largely a review of principal warfare literature, Hames does present an original statistical finding on adult violence mortality which is reported below.

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.

This study, primarily a review on the evolution of the human diet, also includes a small study on the distribution of meat-eating and its relationship with climate and cultural factors, namely subsistence type. The authors find that societies with subsistence strategies that prioritize fishing, hunting, or pastoralism also tend to consume more animal products, whereas those that focus on agriculture have more plant-based diets. The authors argue that these small-scale societies have a healthier approach to diet than industrialized societies regardless of their subsistence type or meat consumption.

This article challenges common assumptions about hunter-gatherers and demonstrates that previous ideas about residence, division of labor and warfare are not supported by the cross-cultural data.