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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The researchers test the relationship between global mandibular morphology variation and susbsistence economy, population history, geography, and climate. While some mandibular variation is significantly correlated with geography, the most significant relationship is with subsistence activity. The strength of the relationship leads the authors to speculate on how masticatory behavior might have affected jaw shape, either through stress, weaning behavior, or other demographic factors.

The researchers test the relationship between global mandibular morphology variation and susbsistence economy, population history, geography, and climate. While some mandibular variation is significantly correlated with geography, the most significant relationship is with subsistence activity. The strength of the relationship leads the authors to speculate on how masticatory behavior might have affected jaw shape, either through stress, weaning behavior, or other demographic factors.

The researchers examine associations between male status and various measures of reproductive success among foraging/non-foraging, and monogamous/polygynous societies in order to test the "egalitarian hypothesis" which predicts lower status effects in hunter-gatherer groups. Contrary to this hypothesis, they find that male social status is equally significantly associated with reproductive success in foraging and nonforaging societies. Additional support is found for the "mating effort" hypothesis, which predicts that male reproductive success will be more associated with fertility than offspring mortality in polygynous societies, leading the authors to make various suggestions regarding the evolutionary mechanisms at play.

The authors use a comparative ethnoarchaeological model that seeks to test the applicability of Dynamical Systems Theory to modeling subsistence variation (namely the foraging-farming transition). The authors utilize the concepts of "attractors," which tend to stabilize a system, and "repellors," which tend to be destabilizing forces. Authors hope that this multidimensional approach, which assumes that several "controlling" variables disproportionately affect change within subsistence systems, will adequately model the nonlinearity and heterogeneity seen in the emergences of (and variations within) human subsistence systems throughout human history. Their model and premises regarding disproportionally-controlling variables appear to be supported.

In this paper, the authors analyzed data on 20 hunter-gatherer groups in order to understand the factors that influence the diversity and elaborateness of their tool assemblages. They used data collected by a variety of ethnographers to draw inferences about the complexity of implement assemblages and how it is affected by ecological constraints, modes of resource procurement, group movement, and population size. Regression analysis showed that the two strongest predictors of implement complexity were growth season (GS) (as a proxy for risk) and the number of annual residential moves (NMV). With the understanding that NMV and GS are likely not independent, the authors created addition and interaction models to understand how these variables may work in tandem to influence implement diversity and elaborateness. The results show that a shorter growing season (higher risk) and a lower number of moves are correlated with greater implement complexity. This analysis also divided the hunter-gatherers into two subgroups: a subgroup characterized by higher diversity of complex implements and more elaborate individual implements than predicted by the model, and a subgroup characterized by lower diversity and less elaborateness than predicted. These subgroups were found to correspond with the distinction between foragers (groups that move more-or-less as a unit while gathering) and collectors (groups that gather (logistically from a more-or-less fixed settlement), with the higher diversity subgroup being made up mostly of collectors and the lower diversity subgroup being made up mostly of foragers. Finally, the authors suggest that under conditions where population growth leads to increased density, foraging strategies will tend to shift to collector strategies in conjunction with increased elaborateness of implements to exploit resources with greater intensity.