Lawrence H. Keeley

Hunter-gatherer economic complexity and “population pressure”: A cross-cultural analysis

Abstract This paper examines the relaionship between “population pressure” and socioeconomic complexity among hunter-gatherers. Population pressure is defined as the ratio between population density and the density of available resources. Socioeconomic complexity is measured by means of several correlated variables: storage-dependence, sedentism, social inequality, and use of a medium of exchange. Correlations between these variables are calculated from an ethnographic sample of 94 hunter-gatherer groups. The correlations between population pressure and socioeconomic complexity are found to be extremely high. Two major types of hunter-gatherers exist which are distinguished by a number of variables and may be termed “simple” and “complex.” Transitional groups between these two types are quite rare. It is also noted that population pressure does not arise in continental climates where famine mortality is common because of high-amplitude changes in productivity from year to year. It is argued that population pressure is a necessary and sufficient condition for and the efficient cause of socioeconomic complexity. The widespread disavowal by archaeologists of population pressure as a possible explanation for the prehistoric development of complex hunter-gatherers has no basis in ethnographic fact.

Not less than two, not more than three

Abstract One of the concentrations of artefacts, C IV, from the Epi‐palaeolithic site of Meer II in Belgium, is analysed as a specialized activity area. The information provided by the refitting of artefacts and by microwear analysis is used to define the set of activities conducted at this location. Arguments concerning the number of individuals involved in the creation of this concentration are presented. Several lines of evidence provide independent arguments that two and probably only two individuals used this location to make tools and used the tools to work bone and antler.

Beating ploughshares back into swords: warfare in the Linearbandkeramik

Armed with a number of powerful arguments, the authors invite us to face up to the evidence for violence in early Neolithic Europe. Linearbandkeramik (LBK) people first attacked the hunter-gatherers they encountered and then entered a period of increasingly violent warfare against each other, culminating in an intense struggle in the area of central and western Germany. The building of fortifications, physical mutilation and cannibalism, while no doubt enacted with ritual airs, nevertheless had their context and purpose in the slaughter of enemies.

Lithic Economy, Style and Use: A Comparison of Three Late Magdalenian Sites

AbstractTechnological, typological and tool use data from three Late Magdalenian sites–Verberie in the Paris Basin, Rascano and El Juyo in Cantabria–are compared, with the aim of isolating patterns that reflect stylistic differences from those that relate to site functions. Non-lithic data from Verberie and Rascano imply they were specialized hunting stations while El Juyo was a more generalized base camp. It is argued that most of the ‘stylistic’ differences between the Spanish sites and the French ones are attributable to differences in the availability and size oflithic raw materials in the two regions. Differences in tool use patterns between the hunting stations and the base camp are disguised by a ubiquitous Magdalenian pattern of emphasis on the manufacture and repair of bone I antler items and composite projectile heads. But some differences were discerned: the base camp (El Juyo) shows a greater emphasis on the later stages of hide preparation and the retooling of composite projectile heads.

Tool Use and Spatial Patterning

The concern of this chapter is not the discovery of spatial patterns per se but rather their interpretation, particularly the logical arguments that link spatial patterns, however discovered, with interpretations that address the use of space in prehistoric communities. Specifically, I am concerned with how data on tool utilization can be used in spatial studies.

Pigment identification on two Moorehead phase Ramey knives from the Loyd site, a prehistoric Mississippian homestead

Abstract The Loyd site is a multicomponent prehistoric homestead located approximately 8 km northeast of Cahokia, the largest Native American chiefdom north of Mexico. The Loyd site was occupied at AD 900 and then again at AD 1285. These occupations are coincident respectively with the beginnings of Cahokias fluorescence and with the degeneration of its political power. Two Mill Creek chert Ramey knives found within a datable context were cached in one of the Moorehead phase wall trenches. These knives offer a unique insight into the cultural practices of the period. Optical inspection under binocular microscopes show that these knives are coated with two pigment colors. Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) and energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS) were used to identify copper and iron based pigments. Because of the fine craftsmanship, the lack of edgewear, and the occurrence of copper pigment, we interpret the use of these knives as potentially ceremonial in nature.

SOCIAL VIOLENCE AND WAR

Social violence and warfare have been forms of human interaction and behavior throughout recorded history, as well as within the deeper recesses of our ancient past. Researchers have combined evidence from ethnographic studies, historical accounts, and archaeological remains to document and describe manifestations of social violence in a range of temporal and geographical settings. While some research studies demonstrate universal patterns of violence and warfare, others show a diversity of cultural variations pertaining to warfare tactics and equipment, motivations for violence, and warrior prestige. Within archaeology, it is important to note distinctions between homicide and warfare, and to recognize the various lines of evidence that can aid in the reconstruction of past manifestations of social violence.

Food for War, War for Food, and War on Food

Food is a central element in the conduct and goals of warfare, whether of civilized states or the smallest scale societies known to anthropology. Warriors/soldiers need food not only to survive but also to maintain or enhance their mental and physical abilities. Thus, after weaponry, food is essential to the conduct of warfare—after all, ‘an army travels on its belly.’ Many archaeologists have found and some ethnologists have argued that intense periods of warfare are correlated with relative food deficits. It seems that ethnographically and in history, people everywhere often (mostly?) fight over the means of food production and distribution, whether these are water sources/routes, gathering patches, fishing stations, pastures, arable lands, or oil wells. One of the most common consequences of warfare, the capture of women, was not necessarily sexually motivated but also rooted in the substantial contribution of women to subsistence. The destruction of an enemy’s food stores and their means of producing food are far more universally hurtful and pacifying than merely killing or wounding people. Thus, food is essential for making war, and the means of producing it are one of the primary objects of warfare.

War Before Civilization—15 Years On

In the past 20 years, there has been a resurgence of archaeological interest in prehistoric and ancient warfare. Whether warfare is seen as a cause or an effect of features of and changes in the archaeological, ethnohistorical, or ancient historical record, it is back “in play.” This change was the result archaeologists working in Europe and the New World who were confronted by the warfare obvious in records in their areas of research. They then argued in the most widely read and stringently refereed publication venues, citing unequivocal evidence and using clear logic, that prehistoric and ethnohistoric warfare did occur and needs attention. One area that is still neglected by most archaeologists are the rare periods of relative peace—periods during which evidences of both war and homicide are rare. If recent archaeologists have shown limited interest in peace, they have at least now recognized that prehistoric war is not an oxymoron. While we vehemently disagree about the causes of war and when it began, archaeologists now recognize that ancient and prehistoric warfare did exist and that it is a topic that we can and should investigate, and most are gratified by the attention given to this subject by a new generation of scholars.