Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Structural and Functional Complexity of Hunter-Gatherer Technology

  • Published:
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The complexity of hunter-gatherer technology has been measured by counting artifact parts or production steps. There are a variety of alternative approaches to the measurement of artifact or system complexity. If technological complexity is assumed to reflect the complexity of the problem (or amount of entropy reduction) that the artifact is designed to address, the most appropriate measure of technological complexity is functional design complexity, which entails application of the entropy formula from information theory to the making and using of an artifact and the results obtained by its use. Functional complexity is related to structural or hierarchical complexity, because the entropy formula can be represented as a hierarchy (or step-by-step reduction of entropy) and the functional differentiation is related to the structural differentiation of an artifact. Another approach to hunter-gatherer technological complexity entails definition of a class of “complex artifacts” on the basis of general design characteristics (e.g., incorporation of moving parts). The most structurally and functionally complex artifacts are those that possess multiple states, either through changes in the physical relationship between parts (or sub-parts) during use or through structural differentiation. Although functional complexity is difficult to measure, structural or hierarchical complexity may be measured—and multiple-state artifacts may be counted—with adequate ethnographic and archaeological data on hunter-gatherer technology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The algorithm for effective temperature (ET), which reflects the duration and intensity of the growing season, was developed by Bailey (1960, 4): ET = 8 T + 14 AR / AR + 8, where T is average annual temperature and AR is the average annual range of temperature.

  2. Torrence (2001, 79) concluded that “the level of risk increase(s) toward the poles because the availability of food decreases with longer winters and there are fewer alternative resources because species diversity has an inverse relationship with latitude. Latitude is therefore a useful proxy measure for severity of risk.”

  3. Read (2008, 606) measured complexity in hunter-gatherer technology by applying Oswalt’s (1973, 37) distinction between “simple” and “complex” (i.e., mechanical) to artifacts, rather than subsistant/technounit counts.

  4. In counting technounits for clothing in two Inuit groups, Oswalt (1987, 89) notes that “garments often had numerous tus (technounits) unrelated to the protective needs because of the attention paid to design amplification, meaning tu elaborations beyond basic structural requirements.”

  5. Lee (1979, 141) observes that “great care is lavished on sanding and polishing them to an ultrasmooth finish that is admired by other men.”

  6. Time and energetic costs have been measured in some cases, however. Winterhalder (1981, 81–83) estimated net acquisition rate in kilocalorie per hour for various categories of prey (e.g., stalking moose versus snaring hares) among the Cree (eastern Canada), while Lee (1979, 274–275) estimated time (in minutes) invested in making various types of subsistants among the Ju/‘hoansi (southern Africa).

  7. As already noted, Oswalt (1973, 33–34) did not count non-functional parts or multiple, functionally undifferentiated parts as separate technounits (and did not count non-functional parts, at least in the context of food-getting technology).

  8. Chimpanzees exhibit a simple technological network of materials and artifacts; for example, a small branch or twig is used for both termite-fishing and ant-fishing (McGrew 2004, 111–114).

  9. In his survey, Oswalt (1976, 135) noted that “simple untended snares never included more than six parts, exclusive of guide fences,” and Wadley (2010, 179) described the technology of snares and traps as “relatively simple.”

  10. The use of fish weirs and traps may be tentatively inferred from the high 15N values—suggesting high consumption of freshwater aquatic foods—found in human bone from Europe and Siberia dating as early as 45,000–35,000 cal bp (Richards et al. 2001; Fu et al. 2014).

  11. For example, Osgood (1940, 227) reported that at least 5 days were required to make an Deg Hit'an dog salmon trap (“three or more days to split enough fish trap sticks for the trap, another day to make the trap, and still another to make the fence which blocks the fish from passing”).

  12. Contrast for example, the extensive illustration (and supporting detailed written description) of Deg Hit'an material culture in Osgood (1940) with the account of Upper Tanana material culture in McKennan (1959), who did not include a single illustration of a snare, trap, or weir-trap system.

References

  • Adami, C. (1998). Introduction to artificial life. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Babbage, C. (1826). On a method of expressing by signs the action of machinery. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 116, 250–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, H. P. (1960). A method of determining the warmth and temperateness of climate. Geografiska Annaler, 42, 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bettinger, R. L. (2009). Hunter-gatherer foraging: five simple models. Clinton Corners: Eliot Werner Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boëda, E. (1995). Levallois: a volumetric construction, methods, a technique. In H. L. Dibble & O. Bar-Yosef (Eds.), The definition and interpretation of Levallois technology (pp. 41–68). Madison: Prehistory Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonchev, D., & Buck, G. A. (2005). Quantitative measures of network complexity. In Complexity in chemistry, biology, and ecology (pp. 191–235). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Braha, D., & Maimon, O. (1998). The measurement of a design structural and functional complexity. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics—Part A: Systems and Humans, 28, 527–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, S. (2010). From here to eternity: the quest for the ultimate theory of time. New York: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collard, M., Kemery, M., & Banks, S. (2005). Causes of toolkit variation among hunter-gatherers: a test of four competing hypotheses. Canadian Journal of Archaeology, 29, 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Floridi, L. (2010). Information: a very short introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fu, Q., Li, H., Moorjani, P., Jay, F., Slepchenko, S. M., Bondarev, A. A., Johnson, P. L. F., Aximu-Petri, A., Prüfer, K., de Filippo, C., et al. (2014). Genome sequence of a 45,000-year-old modern human from western Siberia. Nature, 514, 445–449.

  • Gould, R. A. (1980). Living archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haidle, M. N. (2009). How to think a spear. In S. A. de Beaune, F. L. Coolidge, & T. Wynn (Eds.), Cognitive archaeology and human evolution (pp. 57–73). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, G. A., Tanner, J. M., Pilbeam, D. R., & Baker, P. T. (1988). Human biology: an introduction to human evolution, variation, growth and adaptability (Third ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heylighen, F. (1999). The growth of structural and functional complexity during evolution. In F. Heylighen, J. Bollen, & A. Riegler (Eds.), The evolution of complexity: the violet book of “Einstein meets Magritte” (pp. 17–44). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffecker, J. F. (2002). Desolate landscapes: ice-age settlement in eastern Europe. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of language: brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Jackson, P. C. (1985). Introduction to artificial intelligence (Second ed.). New York: Dover.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, R. L. (2013). The lifeways of hunter-gatherers: the foraging spectrum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, R. G. (1981). Stone Age predation on small African bovids. South African Archaeological Bulletin, 36, 55–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolmogorov, A. N. (1963). On tables of random numbers. Sankhyā Series A, 25, 369–376.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, R. B. (1979). The !Kung San: men, women, and work in a foraging society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, S. (2001). Measures of complexity: a nonexhaustive list. IEEE Control Systems Magazine, 21(4), 7–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lombard, M., & Haidle, M. N. (2012). Thinking a bow-and-arrow: cognitive implications of Middle Stone Age bow and stone-tipped arrow technology. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 22, 237–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marlowe, F. W. (2010). The Hadza: hunter-gatherers of Tanzania. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, J., & Veth, P. (2011). Information exchange among hunter-gatherers of the Western Desert of Australia. In R. Whallon, W. A. Lovis, & R. K. Hitchcock (Eds.), Information and its role in hunter-gatherer bands (pp. 221–233). Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGrew, W. (2004). The cultured chimpanzee: reflections on cultural primatology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McKennan, R. A. (1959). The Upper Tanana Indians. Yale Publications in Anthropology, no. 55. New Haven: Yale University Press.

  • Mealy, G. H. (1955). A method for synthesizing sequential circuits. The Bell System Technical Journal, 34, 1045–1079.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minsky, M. L. (1956). Some universal elements for finite automata. In C. E. Shannon & J. McCarthy (Eds.), Automata studies (pp. 117–128). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minsky, M. L. (1967). Computation: finite and infinite machines. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, M. (2009). Complexity: a guided tour. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, E. F. (1956). Gedanken-experiments with sequential machines. In C. E. Shannon & J. McCarthy (Eds.), Automata studies (pp. 129–153). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murdoch, J. (1892). Ethological results of the Point Barrow Expedition. Ninth Annual Report of the Bureau of [American] Ethnology 1887–1888. Washington: Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, E. W. (1899). The Eskimo about Bering Strait. Eighteenth Annual Report of the Bureau of [American] Ethnology 1896–1897. Washington: Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. K. (1973). Hunters of the northern forest: designs for survival along the Alaskan Kutchin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, M. E. J. (2003). The structure and function of complex networks. SIAM Review, 45, 167–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osgood, C. (1937). The ethnography of the Tanaina. Yale University Publications in Anthropology No. 16. New Haven: Yale University Press.

  • Osgood, C. (1940). Ingalik material culture. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oswalt, W. H. (1973). Habitat and technology: the evolution of hunting. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oswalt, W. H. (1976). An anthropological analysis of food-getting technology. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oswalt, W. H. (1987). Technological complexity: the Polar Eskimos and the Tareumiut. Arctic Anthropology, 24, 82–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perreault, C. P., Brantingham, J., Kuhn, S. L., Wurz, S., & Gao, X. (2013). Measuring the complexity of lithic technology. Current Anthropology, 54, S397–S406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pierce, J. R. (1980). An introduction to information theory: symbols, signals and noise (Second ed.). New York: Dover.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. (1922). The Andaman islanders. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Read, D. (2008). An interaction model for resource implement complexity based on risk and number of annual moves. American Antiquity, 73, 599–625.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reuleaux, F. (1963). The kinematics of machinery: outlines of a theory of machines, trans. A. B. W. Kennedy. New York: Dover.

  • Rich, E. (2008). Automata, computability and complexity. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards, M. P., Pettitt, P. B., Stiner, M. C., & Trinkaus, E. (2001). Stable isotope evidence for increasingdietary breadth in the European mid-Upper Paleolithic. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98, 6528–6532.

  • Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System Technical Journal, 27(379–423), 623–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1963). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shott, M. (1986). Technological organization and settlement mobility: an ethnographic examination. Journal of Anthropological Research, 42, 15–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1962). The architecture of complexity. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 106, 467–482.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial (Third ed.). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thalbitzer, W. (1914). The Ammassalik Eskimo, part 1. Meddelelser om Grønland, 39.

  • Torrence, R. (1983). Time budgeting and hunter-gatherer technology. In G. Bailey (Ed.), Hunter-gatherer economy in prehistory: a European perspective (pp. 11–22). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torrence, R. (2001). Hunter-gatherer technology: macro and microscale approaches. In C. Panter-Brick, R. H. Layton, & P. Rowley-Conwy (Eds.), Hunter-gatherers: an interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 73–98). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Villa, P., Soriano, S., Tsanova, T., Degano, I., Higham, T. F. G., d’Errico, F., Backwell, L., Lucejko, J. J., Colombini, M. P., & Beaumont, P. B. (2014). Border Cave and the beginning of the Later Stone Age in South Africa. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109, 13208–13213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wadley, L. (2010). Were snares and traps used in the Middle Stone Age and does it matter? A review and a case study from Sibudu, South Africa. Journal of Human Evolution, 58, 179–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winterhalder, B. (1981). Foraging strategies in the boreal forest: an analysis of Cree hunting and gathering. In B. Winterhalder & E. A. Smith (Eds.), Hunter-gatherer foraging strategies: ethnographic and archeological analyses (pp. 66–98). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winterhalder, B. (2001). The behavioural ecology of hunter-gatherers. In C. Panter-Brick, R. H. Layton, & P. Rowley-Conwy (Eds.), Hunter-gatherers: an interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 12–38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

The authors are grateful to Ian Gilligan and several anonymous reviewers for their comments on two earlier drafts of this paper, which significantly improved the final version.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado at Boulder, Campus Box 450, Boulder, CO, 80309-0450, USA

    John F. Hoffecker

  2. Department of Medical Biochemistry and Biophysics, Karolinska Institutet, SE-171 77, Stockholm, Sweden

    Ian T. Hoffecker

Authors
  1. John F. Hoffecker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ian T. Hoffecker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John F. Hoffecker.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hoffecker, J.F., Hoffecker, I.T. The Structural and Functional Complexity of Hunter-Gatherer Technology. J Archaeol Method Theory 25, 202–225 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-017-9332-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-017-9332-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation