The Division of Labor in Society

Durkheim, Emile

1984 The Division of Labor in Society. New York: The Free Press.

In another paper I wrote about hunter-gatherers this semester, I used Emile Durkheim’s The Division of Labor. In this book Durkheim states that the most primitive societies are such, because they are, “devoid of …all organization” (Durkheim 1893: 141). This lack of organization also refers to a lack of hierarchy, as seen in Durkheim’s examples of the Iroquois who do not have power differentiation between sexes nor within the chief-tribesman relationship (Durkheim 1893: 141). Durkheim explains social evolution as a process in which societies progress from those which are unorganized, spread out geographically and held together by a collective unconscious, referred to as mechanical solidarity, to societies which are condensed in towns and practice division of labor. This close proximity in location and focus on occupation creates a stronger social web that no longer has such a need for the collective unconscious, referred to as organic solidarity, this is how derived societies are structured (Durkheim 1893: 143,151,152). This article is obviously greatly impacted by Lewis Morgan’s article Ethnical Periods, in which he discusses the social evolution from savagery to civilization. However, Morgan simply explains societal evolution, whereas Durkheim’s focus is the source of this evolution. Although the two are differentiated in context, they hold the same progressive ideals

Several times Durkheim compares society to an organism, almost identical to the comparisons done by Herbert Spencer. He claims that social organization is, “co-ordinate and subordinated one to another around the same central organ which exercises a moderating action over the rest of the organism” (Durkheim 1893: 143). However later, Durkheim denounces Spencer by stating that, “the…philosophy of Spencer is of such moral poverty that it now has hardly any supporters” (Durkheim 1893: 147).

Much of my interest in Durkheim comes from my personal interest in equality. My personal belief is that the most basic foundation to equality is the ability for every individual in a group to acquire the necessary resources for survival, this has also been referred to as functional redundancy; Durkheim’s term mechanical solidarity mirrors functional redundancy. He explains that most ‘primitive’ groups are characterized by a decentralized power. However, when the centralization of power does occur, it is due to the division of labor. Durkheim describes a system of specialization as having organic solidarity (Durkheim 1984: 130-32). Division of labor, or specialization, is the factor which separates the individual from their independent ability to survival.

I strongly disagree with Durkheim that hunter-gatherers lack any organization. Furthermore, I do not adhere to the social evolution theory that Durkheim does. However, I do find value in his research of mechanical solidarity in regards to hunter-gatherers.

Straight down the line? A queer consideration of hunter-gatherer studies in north-west

Cobb, Hannah

2005 Straight down the line? A queer consideration of hunter-gatherer studies in north-west Europe. In World Archaeology. 37: 4 Pp. 630-636

In the abstract, Cobb writes that it her intent is to apply “queer theory to hunter-gatherer studies,” in an effort to “move away from the pervasive heteronormative stereotypes” (Cobb 2005: 630). She argues that research of the Mesolithic, in regards to personal and place identity, were predominantly characterized by processual archaeology, but since this theoretical basis has been criticized, a shift to interpretative archaeology has been observed. Furthermore, the mistake of interpreting findings within the contemporary western framework has been increasingly challenged, one of which subject being the heteronormative view point among hunter-gatherers.

Cobb provides the example of Clive Bonsall’s research in Western Scotland. He states that the Mesolithic assemblages there were probably ‘bipolar’ because women and children were less likely to be as skilled at flint-knapping as grown men (Cobb 2005: 632). Cobb states that the only reason why Bonsall acknowledges the presence of women and children is a result of the growing feminist movement. However, while acknowledging their presence, he simultaneously disregards the possibility of equality in regards to strength and skill. Cobb argues this point by stating that men at this site, predominately hunted deer, which were not available on the island of Oronsay, where the women and children were collecting shell-fish. Evidence that they were collecting shell-fish on this particular island is provided in the large shell middens present. Because deer were not available there, men had no reason to visit the island, and women and children were crossing significant stretches of water to get to this there, which required a great deal of strength (Cobb 2005: 632).

Cobb argues that while Bonsall’s dismissal of feminine strength is worrisome, it is not nearly as worrisome as the wide spread assumption that hunter-gatherers practiced only heterosexual relationships, aligned with the contemporary western norm. She states that Jimmy Strassburg is one of the few researchers to explore homosexuality in post glacial, north-west European hunter-gatherers. However, his research is focused upon the causation of this ‘disrupted’ sexuality, implying that a non-disrupted sexuality would be aligned with the contemporary western heteronormative view point. In contrast, Cobb’s research of Mesolithic populations via symbolic archaeology has revealed that these peoples view of sexuality was malleable according to the context of a situation rather than the categorically organized structure that exists today. She suggests that the simple act of acknowledging the fact that we often assume a heteronormative structure to other societies, can help us realize that the heteronormative structure is not always the case.

I found this to be an enjoyable article. However, it only superficially skimmed the bigger picture of the issue. It lacked any specificities, details or in-depth examples. I would have liked the article to have included examples of homosexual relations in ethnographically recorded hunter-gatherers and the details of her own research into the subject.

Lack of Lactose Intolerace Genes May Show Hunter-Gatherer Population Replaced in Scandinavia

An article by a group of geneticists called ”High frequency of lactose intolerance in a prehistoric hunter-gatherer population in northern Europe” has shown that the allele connected with lactose-sugar consumption in adults was not at as high of a frequency in Hunter-Gatherer DNA that they tested(Malmström et al. 2010). The article by Helena Malmström, Anna Linderholm, Kerstin Lidén, Jan Storå, Petra Molnar, Gunilla Holmlund, Mattias Jakobsson and Anders Götherström, shows a marked contrast between the people who lived in the Scandinavia area 5,400-4,300 BP and the people who live there now.

The Hunter-Gatherer group that Malmström et al. looked at a group of Pitted Ware Culture people trying to see if there was any testable remains. As it turned out there were ten PWC remains that were testable for the -13910*T allele. However the results were not what they expected with only 5% testing for having the -13910*T/lactose-sugar tolerance gene. This is particularly surprising because Scandinavia currently holds the highest population of lactose-tolerant people at 74%. So the conclusion of Malmström et al is that either there was a selective breeding process for the lactose-tolerant genes, or (and this is what they actually belive happened) the PWC population was replaced by another population that already had a high frequency of the -13910*T allele in their group.

This is a great article because while it could have gotten bogged down by scientific talk, the authors made a marked effort to make it clear to any reader exactly what they were talking about. Even people with very little knowledge of genetics should be able to pick this up and understand that due to the Malmström et al’s data most likely the PWC population was replaced by another population who could tolerate lactose-sugar. When discussing how to do public archaeology, this is an article that can be shown as an example.

With that said though, there are some problems. Considering that the PWC culture was a large population for its time, and would probably be considered a complex hunter-gatherer group only getting ten samples should not be enough to draw too many conclusions. It is odd to only see 5% even out of ten samples of lactose tolerance in Scandinavia, however ten samples is not amazingly conclusive. To really draw the conclusions that Malmström et al make about the PWC population being replaced by a group of sedentary agriculturalists there needs to be a secondary DNA analysis done for the -13910*T allele in a different group of PWC remains.

Malmström H, A Linderholm, K Lidén, J Storå, P Molnar, G Holmlund, M Jakobsson, and A Götherström
2010 "High frequency of lactose intolerance in a prehistoric hunter-gatherer population in northern Europe". BMC Evolutionary Biology. 10.

Dual Ceramic Testing: Using Decorative Ceramic Analysis and Neutron Activation Analysis

“A new perspective on Late Holocene social interaction in Northwest Alaska:
results of a preliminary ceramic sourcing study” is an article by Shelby L. Anderson, Matthew T. Boulanger, Michael D. Glascock (2010) about the possibility of seeing territoriality through the ceramics of the Coastal Peoples of the Bering Straight. They used a Neutron Activation Analysis(NAA) to determine the clay chemical composition of the ceramic sherds found at four sites along the Kobuk River and four coastal sites. Their hypothesis was that there would be several macro-groups and the distribution of these amongst the sites would show a trade network or instances of territoriality.

Their findings were that there were three macro-groups of clay composition and three sub-groups of one macro-group. What this means is that there were at least three different sources of clay and that at least one group was mixing their types of clay together to get a certain type of clay mix. These NAA results along with a typological analysis of the decorative aspects of the neck rims of the ceramics lead Anderson et al. to determine that there was some territoriality going on, as indicated by the decoration typology, and a very strong indication of clay resource trade, as indicated by the NAA results.

This is a well done test and a really useful way to use the NAA to its full potential. It feels like it is a very thorough test because of the amount of sites they gathered data from and because of the decorative typological test that went along with it. Often articles currently either use one or the other to analyze ceramics, but the merging of the two in this article seems to just help not hinder it. The question that of course comes up is did doing a dual analysis drain funding, and is this why most research groups do not decide to do a dual test in the same research group? While the data and conclusion is understandable, I felt that the method was an even more important piece to this article.

Anderson, S.L., M.T. Boulanger, and M.D. Glascock
2011. "A new perspective on Late Holocene social interaction in Northwest Alaska: results of a preliminary ceramic sourcing study". Journal of Archaeological Science. 38 (5): 943-955.

On Wealth Transmission and Egalitarianism

The article “Wealth Transmission and Inequality among Hunter‐Gatherers” by Eric Alden Smith, Kim Hill, Frank W. Marlowe, David Nolin, Polly Wiessner, Michael Gurven, Samuel Bowles, Monique Borgerhoff Mulder, Tom Hertz, and Adrian Bell sets out to make some standardized measurements of wealth transmission and inequality among the Hunter-Gatherers of the 20th century. NOT the necessarily 21st century, but more on that in a bit. They surveyed wealth measurements of five different Hunter-Gatherer societies, the Ache, the Hadza, the Ju/’hoansi, the Lamalera, and the Meriam. They outline the modern history of each group and then outline the way that they express “wealth” in their culture.

The conclusion that Smith et al. comes to is that each group showed a tendency of inequality in their transmission of wealth. This was proved by the calculation that in every group’s information they surveyed children of “wealthier” parents were more likely to be wealthy when they grew up and have access to types of wealth. They also conclude that egalitarianism amongst Hunter-Gatherers is misleading. This is because while the difference of wealth between groups is less than agricultural societies, it is not non-existent. Smith et al. believes that anthropologists needs to drop their views of Hunter-Gatherers as egalitarian and that there needs to be more studies on their wealth management systems.

First this article starts out with a statement that I can only call negligent since it seems to imply there are no more foraging Hunter-Gatherers in the world “If our species is some 200,000 years old, then the strictly hunting‐gathering phase occupied well over 90% of its history; societies relying primarily or even exclusively on foraging persisted in various parts of the globe well into the twentieth century.”(Smith et al. 2010:20) This is obviously not true, in fact they site a group of hunter-gatherers well known for being a foraging group even today (in the twenty-first century) the Ju/’hoansi one of the groups in the Kalahari Desert. It is possible they meant to imply that there were groups that were not in constant contact with other societies until late in the 20th century. However even this has been proven to be inaccurate, as groups have been contacted before and just let alone even to this day. (Fundação Nacional do Índio Report 2007)

Secondly even Smith et al. determine that their data just isn’t enough to really prove their conclusions, however they still make the claim that anthropologists still to this day believe that Hunter-Gatherer groups are peaceful egalitarian people and they are somehow disproving this fact(Smith et al 2010:31). Since there are numerous articles out on just wealth, social stratification amongst foragers, hunter-gatherer interactions and inequality in foraging hunter-gatherer groups this also seems dated. (Renouf 2003, Spielmann 1994). Overall this article reads like it was written in the early 1980s instead of at the end of the first decade of the twentieth century.

Resources Cited
2007 Fundação Nacional do Índio Report on Brazil.

Smith E.A., Hill K., Marlowe F.W., et al.
2010 "Wealth transmission and inequality among hunter-gatherers". Current Anthropology. 51 (1): 19-34.

Spielmann, K. A. and J. F. Eder
1994 Hunters and farmers: Then and now. Annual Review of Anthropology 23: 303-323

Renouf, M. A. P.
2003 Hunter-gatherer interactions: mutualism and resource partitioning on the Island of Newfoundland. Before Farming 2003/1(4).

The Mind in the Cave, The Cave in the Mind: Altered Consciousness in the Upper Paleolithic

This article by Lewis-Williams and Clottes takes a look at the possible associations between the cave painting of the Upper Paleolithic and the Shamanic Cosmology by way of the manner in which all humans brains are wired. They look at many of the cave painting sites scattered throughout Western Europe, including Cosquer in the French Mediterranean and Chauvet in the Ardeche Region of France. In particular, they look at research done on the human nervous system and the way it responds to altered states of consciousness.

Since the humans of the Upper Paleolithic are anatomically modern humans, the authors argue that the wiring in their brains must be the same as that of modern humans as well. And because the brains of modern humans generate altered states of consciousness, so to should those of Upper Paleolithic hunter gatherers under the same sorts of stimuli that inspire it today. The article does say that although the altered states are universal, the manner in which they are interpreted are not. There are many different ways to interpret these happenings, from visions to dreams to hallucinations to madness. According to the authors, however, cross culturally altered states among hunter gatherers are very similar and point towards the high antiquity of what we refer to as shamanism.

The actual shamanic cosmology is described as three worlds, the day to day world we all inhabit, an upper world, and a lower world. According to the authors, the Paleolithic caves where much of the art is found was the analogue of the shamanic cosmos. The caves were a place to commune with the spirits in the other worlds, and the cave paintings were a form of actualizing the visions the altered states would bring on. The surface of the cave functioned as a membrane between this world and the other worlds. Shapes and visions would press themselves on the surface of the cave, and then be codified on the walls.

The Neuropsychological Model distinguishes three stages of altered consciousness. During the first stage people sometimes experience things like zigzags, lines, and dots. These are known as "form constants" and "entoptic phenomena." They are hardwired into the human brain and are the same things migraine sufferers sometimes see. I myself have experienced this during migraines. In stage two, people try to make sense of the phenomena, and they do so in accordance to culturally specific ideas and their emotional states. The entoptic phenomena persist into the third stage, deep trance. They combine with iconic images of people, animals, and monsters. The authors indicate that this is the point at which the cave paintings were made. In addition to the iconic images, people feel themselves begin to melt into their environment and may feel themselves merging with animals. The authors argue that this is the source of therianthrope cave paintings, such as the "sorcerer" from Les Trois Freres.

I think it was a very interesting article, and it had a lot of good ideas. The use of the neuropsycological model to back up their points was very interesting, but there seems to be a lot of gray area in the way everything is interpreted. Without a time machine I doubt there is any way to definitively answer what the cave paintings mean, but I would prefer a less muddled explanation.

Lewis-Williams, David, Clottes, Jean. 1998. Anthropology of Consciousness 9: 13-21

Paleolithic Seafaring

In his talk ‘Crete Before the Cretans: Paleolithic Mariners in the Mediterranean,’ Thomas Strasser discussed his finds of alleged Paleolithic artifacts in the Plakias region of southwestern Crete. In the past, it has been believed that Crete was first inhabited in the Neolithic period. If these tools are indeed authentic, it would push back the date of occupation in this area as well as the practice of hominid seafaring considerably.

Strasser has found a number of quartz lithic technologies in marine terraces that geological data dates to at least 130,000 BP (and probably significantly older). Quarts is not the most easily knappable material but there are not better options on the island. Consequently these quarts lithics look rather crude. The lithic assemblage includes Acheulean biface hand axes, scrapers, and cleavers.

Strasser is convinced that these quartz finding are authentic artifacts, but based on their crude nature, it seems possible that they are actually ecofacts. However, if Paleolithic artifacts were really present in Crete 130,000 plus years ago, this would be a tremendously important find, with significant implications for the hominid colonization of Europe.

These findings raise the questions: who was seafaring in the Mediterranean at such an early date? And what was the extent of their maritime technology? Homo heidelbergensis is the earliest hominid found in Greece. Besides heidelbergensis remains, a Neanderthal tooth is the only other evidence for non-sapien occupation in Greece. Both of these were found on mainland Greece, so they do not give any indications for early maritime activity.

If these quartz findings represent genuine artifacts, it would be quite exciting! It would suggest that early Homo had seafaring capabilities! Could it be possible that these tools give evidence for seafaring Neanderthals? Regardless of who was making these tools, it seems like this could have significant implications for Early Homo cognitive capabilities.

Thomas Strasser. “Crete Before the Cretans: Paleolithic Mariners in the Mediterranean.” Colorado Scientific Society. April 21, 2011.