Anthropologist Robin Dunbar has a recent paper arguing that as group size increases—particularly with the historical transition to larger and more sedentary agricultural societies—additional social institutions are required to manage the challenges of group living.
"Always read backwards from secondary sources to primary sources and then write forwards from primary to secondary." A wise historian told me this once and it probably works for anthropology, too.
Do not know why you suggest whether the Waorani are hunter-gatherers when MacFarlan et al. say "The Waorani are an indigenous Ecuadorian, lowland Amazonian population of approximately 2000 people today. At first peaceful contact (1958), they subsisted on manioc, banana and peach palm cultivation supplemented by hunting.
My read of the extensive work of Beckerman (co-authored with the MacFarlan reference above) as well and Larrick and many others describe them as rather standard Amazonia horticulturalists who also do a great deal of foraging but whose diet is probably calorically around 60% or more from horticulture.
I agree, it's just that Dunbar codes them as hunter-gatherers in his paper, and Richard Lee also describes them as hunter-gatherers in his 2018 Annual Review paper, so I was going off of that, although I'm not sure why they consider them so exactly. I think defining 'hunter-gatherer' can be complicated and I don't necessarily object to describing societies that have some degree of domestication as 'hunter-gatherer, although as you note the Waorani traditionally seem to have a higher end of reliance on horticulture and probably should not be considered 'hunter-gatherers'.
Well, RB Lee got plenty wrong in that 2018 paper. In a 2017 presentation at UNL, based on that paper, he accused Pinker of making up or twisting the mortality data used in Better Angels when in fact Pinker simply used the data tables of Knauft, Keeley, et al. That being said, I think he has done some of the most important work on foragers. So, I have great respect for him. Anyway, I think the standard HRAF definitions of about 90% of diet from foraging makes good sense to me.
On HRAF they also have the category 'Primarily Hunter-Gatherer' for societies that derive greater than 56% of their subsistence from wild resources so I think there can be a bit of a grey area around there, although as you noted the Waorani seem rely more on horticulture than that.
I see your point. But as a theorist you need to make the cut-off consistent with your research goals. You are not straight jacketed by HRAF coding. That all being said, many Amazonia groups engage in trekking whereby they leave their villages and crops and live like foragers for weeks or even months at a time and then return to their gardens and associated dwellings. So, they don't easily correspond to standard subsistence codes.
Mar 24, 2023·edited Mar 24, 2023Liked by William Buckner
Should have noted this earlier. Dunbar codes the Shuar as hunter-gatherers, but they are not. See Harner's classic "Jivaro: People of the Sacred Waterfalls". Like the Waorani, they are standard Amazonians who garden and do a good amount of foraging.
To your point about using other people's codes is very apt. Years ago I took a week-long workshop at UCLA hosted by Carol and Mel Ember. I wish I could remember how Carol or Mel exactly put it but it was something like "Using other people's codes is like wearing their clothing." The point being those codes may not fit your research design.
Okay I guess that works.. First point: Dunbar confuses the issue by trying to relate individual network sizes to “group” sizes. Among the hunter-gatherer Kua San I studied in the Kalahari and the horticultural Bwaba and others I studied in Burkina Faso, individual networks were roughly the same size as those discussed in Dunbar’s work: averaging 150 people (although membership changes over a lifetime of course). Group sizes - whether in camping parties or in villages - do not correspond to the MEMBERSHIP of any one individual’s network. Everyone had networks of relatives and friends scattered over many locations, often over considerable distances, at any one time. Siblings often had some overlap in networks, but it was never complete. A marriage might almost double the combined numbers of people in the two networks of the new couple.
"Always read backwards from secondary sources to primary sources and then write forwards from primary to secondary." A wise historian told me this once and it probably works for anthropology, too.
Hello, Will,
Do not know why you suggest whether the Waorani are hunter-gatherers when MacFarlan et al. say "The Waorani are an indigenous Ecuadorian, lowland Amazonian population of approximately 2000 people today. At first peaceful contact (1958), they subsisted on manioc, banana and peach palm cultivation supplemented by hunting.
My read of the extensive work of Beckerman (co-authored with the MacFarlan reference above) as well and Larrick and many others describe them as rather standard Amazonia horticulturalists who also do a great deal of foraging but whose diet is probably calorically around 60% or more from horticulture.
I agree, it's just that Dunbar codes them as hunter-gatherers in his paper, and Richard Lee also describes them as hunter-gatherers in his 2018 Annual Review paper, so I was going off of that, although I'm not sure why they consider them so exactly. I think defining 'hunter-gatherer' can be complicated and I don't necessarily object to describing societies that have some degree of domestication as 'hunter-gatherer, although as you note the Waorani traditionally seem to have a higher end of reliance on horticulture and probably should not be considered 'hunter-gatherers'.
Well, RB Lee got plenty wrong in that 2018 paper. In a 2017 presentation at UNL, based on that paper, he accused Pinker of making up or twisting the mortality data used in Better Angels when in fact Pinker simply used the data tables of Knauft, Keeley, et al. That being said, I think he has done some of the most important work on foragers. So, I have great respect for him. Anyway, I think the standard HRAF definitions of about 90% of diet from foraging makes good sense to me.
On HRAF they also have the category 'Primarily Hunter-Gatherer' for societies that derive greater than 56% of their subsistence from wild resources so I think there can be a bit of a grey area around there, although as you noted the Waorani seem rely more on horticulture than that.
I see your point. But as a theorist you need to make the cut-off consistent with your research goals. You are not straight jacketed by HRAF coding. That all being said, many Amazonia groups engage in trekking whereby they leave their villages and crops and live like foragers for weeks or even months at a time and then return to their gardens and associated dwellings. So, they don't easily correspond to standard subsistence codes.
Should have noted this earlier. Dunbar codes the Shuar as hunter-gatherers, but they are not. See Harner's classic "Jivaro: People of the Sacred Waterfalls". Like the Waorani, they are standard Amazonians who garden and do a good amount of foraging.
To your point about using other people's codes is very apt. Years ago I took a week-long workshop at UCLA hosted by Carol and Mel Ember. I wish I could remember how Carol or Mel exactly put it but it was something like "Using other people's codes is like wearing their clothing." The point being those codes may not fit your research design.
Okay I guess that works.. First point: Dunbar confuses the issue by trying to relate individual network sizes to “group” sizes. Among the hunter-gatherer Kua San I studied in the Kalahari and the horticultural Bwaba and others I studied in Burkina Faso, individual networks were roughly the same size as those discussed in Dunbar’s work: averaging 150 people (although membership changes over a lifetime of course). Group sizes - whether in camping parties or in villages - do not correspond to the MEMBERSHIP of any one individual’s network. Everyone had networks of relatives and friends scattered over many locations, often over considerable distances, at any one time. Siblings often had some overlap in networks, but it was never complete. A marriage might almost double the combined numbers of people in the two networks of the new couple.
Great post! Special thanks for the book recommendations in it.
Good stuff as always