This article is Version 2. Version 1 can be found here.
The conventional narrative of early human cooperation is that, for most of human history, people lived in small, isolated bands. Social bonds were based on kinship, and the ability of people to personally keep track of relationships limited the size of functional social groups. Dunbar’s number, which is that this limit is about 150 people, is a frequently cited estimate. Only in the Neolithic—recently when considering the full scope of human history—did the demands of a sedentary lifestyle induce societies to develop mechanisms to enable cooperation at a larger scale. Such mechanisms include governance hierarchy, trade, currency, legal codes, and writing, and this process continues to the present day.
An implication of this narrative is that large groups are, in some sense, unnatural to the human condition. It would be more natural, and thus more conducive to human wellbeing, to structure society in a way that maximizes human relations with small, kin-like groups and minimizes interaction on inter-group scales.
This narrative is, at best, a gross oversimplification of how Paleolithic societies functioned. However, our knowledge of the nature of Paleolithic societies is very patchy. There is very little surviving architecture, partly because we are looking tens of thousands of years in the past and partly because Paleolithic societies were much more mobile than later societies. There was no written language, and only nonperishable goods have survived for archeologists. Putting together a coherent picture of the nature of Paleolithic societies from such fragmentary evidence is a great challenge, and much of the content of this post deals with open questions and the broadest of broad brush portrayals.
We draw heavily from Boyd and Richerson (2022), who argue that large-scale cooperation in foraging societies was much more widespread than is generally supposed.
Cooperation in Hunting
One of several lines of evidence from Boyd and Richerson (2022) is from communal hunting. Without firearms or hunting dogs, hunting large animals was a group activity, as individuals or small groups would have been unable to hunt safely (Morin et al. 2024). As evidence for communal hunting dates back at least to 780 thousand years ago, Morin et al. (2024) argue that communal hunting is not only evidence of large-scale human cooperation, but in fact an evolutionary driver of cooperation.
One strategy for communal hunting was a buffalo jump, as explained by the U.S. National Park Service. A buffalo jump is a hunting tactic that lures a herd of buffalo to a cliff. While a single buffalo is smart enough not to jump over the cliff, it won’t be able to stop when it is followed by a stampede. More hunters would wait at the base of the cliff, killing the buffalo that fall off. A single hunt might yield 50 bison, for up to 20,000 pounds of meat.
Jensen (2007) (figures in Boyd and Richerson (2022)) cites ethnographic surveys of five communal hunts and finds that the number of participants in them were 12-24, 96, 40-50, 47-50, and 90-120. It is reasonable to suppose that no more than a third of the population of a band would consist of able-bodied adults that are able to participate in a communal hunt, and so the larger of these figures imply that the band(s) that contribute to hunts consist of at least 300 people, exceeding the limits for the size of a single functional band. Zedeño (2017) confirms that multiple bands participated in large communal hunts among the Blackfoot in North America.
Ethnographic surveys are one tool we have at understanding Paleolithic societies. Since hunter-gatherer societies persisted into the colonial era and even, to a limited extent, to the present day, it is possible for anthropologists to observe them directly, with interviews and/or direct observation. What we observe about current or recent hunter-gatherers can then tell us about prehistoric life. But this approach has many weaknesses. Testart et al. (1988) observe that we simply cannot assume that modern hunter-gatherers are “living fossils” of the Paleolithic past. They too have changed over the past 10,000 years, driven in large part by contact with sedentary societies, climactic changes, and other forces. Researchers often mislabel behavior, such as activities that constitute labor in analyzing working hours, and give a misleading impression of the nature of these societies. In an analysis of gendered division of labor, Venkataraman et al. (2024) show that small and biased samples are often a major problem in generalizing the findings of ethnographic surveys. However, given how little evidence we usually have, we have to accept these shortcomings.
Another line of evidence is archeological excavation. Finding a large number of bones at a site is strong evidence of communal hunting. White, Pettitt, and Schreve (2016) examine several hunting sites in Neanderthal-era Europe. Of them, they conclude that the Mauran site shows strong evidence of communal hunting, showing that the practice was not limited to Homo sapiens. They note that the bone site at Salzgitter Lebenstedt–though they don’t say explicitly that it is the product of communal hunting–dates to 58 to 54 thousand years ago. Going back further in time, Rodríguez-Gómez et al. (2025) find evidence of communal hunting at the Gran Dolina site (north Spain) dating to 424 to 324 thousand years ago. Jenkins et al. (2017) find evidence of communal hunting at several sites in modern-day Kenya. Boyd and Richerson (2022) provide many other examples of communal hunting, mostly recent hunts from ethnographic studies.
Finally, according to Kehoe (1990) as relayed by Boyd and Richerson (2022), the Lascaux cave paintings in France show evidence of communal hunting. Those paintings are estimated to be around 17 to 22 thousand years old.
Moving on to fishing, McNiven et al. (2012) find that the fish traps around Lake Condah, in modern Victoria, Australia, date to around 6600 years ago. Such a structure would have required a large amount of work, spanning many bands, to complete. Lourandos (1980) describes eel traps in Australia that would have required large-scale water control engineering. Up to 800-1000 people would have participated in the eel harvest.
Overall, the research surveyed here provides evidence, though not necessarily decisive evidence, that communal hunting was a regular occurrence in Paleolithic societies. The evidence does have some problems. We cannot confidently extrapolate from recent hunter-gatherers to typical Paleolithic societies. We cannot be certain that prehistoric bone piles are the result of communal hunting. We cannot be certain in Kehoe’s (1990) interpretation of the Lascaux cave paintings. Perhaps more significantly, none of this gives us a good sense of how widespread communal hunting was. Even if we accept that it occurred, it is not clear that it was common enough to shape evolutionary pressure or to be a central part of the lives of Paleolithic people. Let us now consider some other lines of evidence related to large-scale cooperation.
Warfare
In an obvious sense, warfare is the opposite of cooperation. In another sense, conducting a major war, defensive or offensive, requires cooperation that may span many hunter-gatherer bands. The extent of hunter-gatherer warfare, and how it compares to warfare in Neolithic societies and in the modern world, remains a contentious issue.
Studying skeletal remains for signs of trauma, Orschiedt (2020) finds that rates of violence in the Paleolithic and Mesolithic eras were much higher than in modern times. That conclusion is with the caveat that it is difficult to distinguish violent deaths from traumatic accidents. He finds that the rate of violence generally did not change through the Paleolithic, and the apparent increase in violence in the Mesolithic (~15,000 to 5000 years ago in Europe) is due more to increased burials and preservation of skeletons than to an actual increase in violence. Gat (2015) finds that raids were prevalent in the Paleolithic. But what about mass warfare that would have required inter-group cooperation?
Boyd and Richerson (2022) observe that modern hunter-gatherers do not exhibit much large-scale warfare. However, in addition to the usual hazards of extrapolating data about modern hunter-gatherers to Paleolithic humans, they note that modern nation-states will generally not tolerate warfare among indigenous groups within their borders. Several other lines of evidence suggest that wars requiring inter-group cooperation did occur, though. For example, in North America around 1726, they note a battle between Shoshone and Blackfoot that involved 350 Blackfoot warriors.
Piezonka et al. (2023) discuss the Amnya defensive fortifications in Siberia from around 8000 years ago. Defensive fortifications would have required large-scale cooperation to build, and they also indicate a significant danger of attack.
One of the earliest known specific sites of mass violence occurred at Jebel Sahaba, in the north of modern-day Sudan, around 13,400 years ago. Traditionally, this has been seen as the site of a single massacre, but Antoine, Zazzo, and Friedman (2013) have since argued that many acts of violence occurred over time at this site.
Dolan (2003) finds that warfare is present in 27% of hunting and gathering societies, compared to 59% of horticultural societies and 83% of advanced horticultural societies.
Overall, while the evidence for widespread Paleolithic violence is strong, the evidence for large-scale conflicts that rise to the level of warfare is thin. It is hard to conclude that warfare shows the commonality of cooperation in Paleolithic societies.
Cultural Diffusion
The Gravettian culture was a major, apparently unified culture that dominated Europe from about 33 to 22 thousand years ago, a duration four times as long as the time that separates the rise of the Roman kingdom and present day. A common stylistic element of the Gravettian was the Venus statues, including the well-known Venus of Willendorf.
Cultural homogeneity across such a large region would suggest the kind of large-scale cooperation necessary for the diffusion of ideas. That is the conclusion of Gamble (1982). However, the mechanism of homogenization is unclear. Kozłowski (2015) offers three hypotheses:
- Monocentric origin: the Gravettian began from Danubian (central European) centers and spread outward.
- Polycentric origin: there were several centers of Gravettian culture that adopted similar cultural practices.
- Convergent evolution: environmental conditions of the time lead to many independent cultures adopting similar practices.
Although data can be mustered in support of each of these hypothesis, Kozłowski (2015) finds that none of the explanations are adequate in themselves, and the truth is likely a combination of them.
Patterns of trade can be reconstructed from the appearance of artifacts in the archeological record. If a seashell is found hundreds of miles inland, for instance, then that is clear evidence of long-distance trade. Davis (1974) reconstructs trading networks spanning the tribes that lived in pre-contact California and finds a unified network that spans the full extent of the modern state.
While there is clear evidence of cultural and economic exchange on scales that vastly exceeded an individual band in the Paleolithic era, it is not so clear that this translates to large-scale cooperation being central to everyday life.
Niche Construction
“Niche construction” is a general term in ecology for a situation in which an organism modifies its environment for its own needs. A beaver dam is an example of niche construction by a nonhuman animal. Smith (2011) offers several classes of examples of niche construction by small-scale human societies:
(i) general modification of vegetation communities, (ii) broadcast sowing of wild annuals, (iii) transplantation of perennial fruit-bearing species, (iv) in-place encouragement of economically important perennials, (v) transplantation and in-place encouragement of perennial root crops, and (vi) landscape modification to increase prey abundance in specific locations.
These may be large projects that might indicate large scale cooperation, but there is no proof of that.
Wilman (2013) conducts an economic analysis of Australian fire-stick farming. This is a practice that, much like controlled burning in contemporary times, entails setting low-intensity fires as a resource management tool. Fire-stick farming required principles of land ownership and long-term planning, highly suggestive of large scale cooperation, though again, not proof.
The Diverse Histories Model
Another paper to challenge the conventional view that Paleolithic societies were uniformally small and did not generally cooperate with each other is Singh and Glowacki (2022). They characterize the conventional view as the “nomadic-egalitarian” lifeway. They instead argue that large, semi-sedentary, and stratified forager societies may have existed even by 130 thousand years ago, which is before some estimates of behavioral modernity. Singh and Glowacki (2022) label this view the “diverse histories” model. While they argue that large, semi-sedentary, and stratified societies existed deep in the Paleolithic, they do not claim that this was the universal Paleolithic human lifeway; they allow that the nomadic-egalitarian was, in some cases, the right description of Paleolithic societies.
Singh and Glowacki (2022) emphasize evidence for Paleolithic semi-sedentary lifeways. Snir et al. (2015) present one of the earliest known examples of intensive plant cultivation in human history. They document the presence of 140 cultivated crops and the grinding of wild wheat and barley from 23,000 years ago. That is about double the age of the accepted start date of the Neolithic Revolution of 11,700 years ago.
There are also several instances of early sedentary societies that rely on fishing, rather than agriculture, for sustenance. For example, Arnold (1992) documents sedentary fishing settlements among the Chumash, around the Santa Barbara Channel, well before agriculture. Gamble (2025) documents the use of shell beads as currency among the Chumash as far back as 8000 to 10,000 years ago. The existence of large trading networks suggests large scale cooperation, though not necessarily a strong, overarching government.
Singh and Glowacki (2022) document how there is evidence of the harvesting of aquatic resources as early as 160,000 years ago, and strong evidence of semi-sedentary fishing communities in the late Pleistocene / early Holocene. The evidence becomes weaker when we look back farther in time.
One problem in evaluating this hypothesis is that the most promising places to look for sedentary Pleistocene societies would have been on the coast at the time. Sea levels have risen considerably since the start of the current interglacial period, and so most of the best sites are submerged now. Perhaps in the future, we will have better techniques for underwater archeology. Another promising future development, according to Singh and Glowacki (2022), would be the ability to analyze fossilized plant genetics and better reconstruct the diets of prehistoric societies.
The Living Fossil Hypothesis
The nomadic-egalitarian lifeway is based heavily on study of modern-day forager societies. However, Singh and Glowacki (2022) gives two reasons to doubt the so-called living fossil hypothesis, that modern-day forarger societies are representative of Paleolithic societies.
First is the marginal habitat hypothesis (MHH). The MHH holds that when agriculture developed in a world region, agricultural societies tended to appear in the most productive areas, with the less productive areas being reserved for hunter-gatherers. By contrast, in the pre-agricultural era, hunter-gatherer societies would have occupied both abundant and marginal habitats. A consequence of the MHH is that, since hunter-gatherer societies are not available to ethnographers in abundant habitats, modern such societies do not represent the full range of living arrangements that pre-agricultural hunter-gatherers would have had.
The MHH sounds plausible, but the evidence for it is in dispute. Cunningham et al. (2019) challenges the MHH. The term “marginal” is a bit vague; they measure the quality of a habitat by the admittedly imperfect measure of net primary productivity (NPP), which is the difference between carbon taken up by plants in an area and the carbon respired. Then they analyze the relationship between NPP and population density on a sample of 186 pre-industrial societies of various types: foragers, horticulturalists, intensive agriculturalists, and pastoralists. They find that the type of society does not correlate with NPP, negating the MHH.
However, Cunningham et al. (2019) acknowledge some wrinkles that prevent their analysis from being a definitive refutation of the MHH. First, their analysis excludes industrial societies in an era when industrial societies exist. They might occupy what would be the highest NPP sites. Second, NPP is a crude and imperfect measure of the quality of a habitat. To illustrate the weakness, Singh and Glowacki (2022) point out that rain forests have high NPP but are far from ideal habitats for foragers. The MHH remains an open question.
Aside from all this, it is not clear that the MHH is all that relevant. Even if the MHH is true, and modern hunter-gatherers occupy sites that are more marginal than many hunter-gatherers would have occupied in the pre-agricultural era, it is not clear how much impact this would have on the tendency for societies to develop hierarchies and sedentary lifestyle.
The second and perhaps more compelling reason why modern hunter-gatherers should not be taken as representative of pre-agricultural societies is that they are shaped by interaction with agricultural neighbors. There are numerous examples of how this might work. One such example, provided by Hoffman (2009), is of the Punan foragers in Borneo. At first glance they seem to be a primitive tribe that is disconnected from the larger world economy, but Hoffman (2009) demonstrates how their nomadic lifestyle is an adaptation to the demands of Chinese traders.
Furthermore, Singh and Glowacki (2022) discuss how, since larger agricultural neighbors suppress warfare among nomadic societies, these nomadic societies no longer have as much need to band together for defensive purposes, allowing smaller societies to prevail.
Conclusion
We have considered several purported examples of large-scale cooperation before the Neolithic Revolution. Such cooperation might overturn the popular view that the hunter-gatherer era, which comprises the vast majority of human history, is one in which large-scale cooperation was rare or nonexistent.
While it is good to challenge the oversimplified view that large-scale cooperation was essentially non-existent in the Paleolithic, Boyd and Richerson (2022) overstate their case and provide many examples of cooperation that do not in fact unambiguously demonstrate Paleolithic inter-group cooperation. More to the point, though, since surely there were examples of inter-group cooperation between 70 and 12 thousand years ago, the more relevant question is how widespread such cooperation was. In particular, was it enough to shape humanity’s evolutionary trajectory, was interaction with people outside the band a normal feature of the typical person’s life, and is large-scale cooperation “natural” or something that is imposed on people through artifices of the Neolithic age and beyond and whatever the Paleolithic equivalents would have been? Unfortunately, Boyd and Richerson (2022) does not allow us to answer these questions.
References
Boyd, R., Richerson, P.J. “Large‐scale cooperation in small‐scale foraging societies”. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews 31(4), pp. 175-198. July 2022.
Morin, E., Bird, D., Winterhalder, B., Bliege Bird, R. “Why do humans hunt cooperatively? Ethnohistoric data reveal the contexts, advantages, and evolutionary importance of communal hunting”. Current Anthropology 65(5), pp. 876-921. October 2024.
Jensen, J. Sexual Division of Labor and Group-Effort Hunting: The Archaeology of Pronghorn Traps and Point Accumulations in the Great Basin, Unpublished MA thesis. California State University. 2007.
Zedeño, M. N. “Rethinking the Impact of Abundance on the Rhythm of Bison Hunter Societies”. In Abundance: The Archeology of Plentitude, ed. Monica Smith. 2017.
Testart, A., Arcand, B., Ingold, T., Legros, D., Linkenbach, A., Morton, J., Peterson, N., Raju, D.R., Schrire, C., Smith, E.A., Walter, M.S., Zvelebil, M. “Some major problems in the social anthropology of hunter-gatherers [and Comments and Reply]”. Current Anthropology 29(1), pp. 1-31. February 1988.
Venkataraman, V.V., Hoffman, J., Farquharson, K., Davis, H.E., Hagen, E.H., Hames, R.B., Hewlett, B.S., Glowacki, L., Jang, H., Kelly, R., Kramer, K., Lew-Levy, S., Starkweather, K., Syme, K., Stibbard-Hawkes, D. N. E. “Female foragers sometimes hunt, yet gendered divisions of labor are real: A comment on Anderson et al.(2023) The Myth of Man the Hunter”. Evolution and Human Behavior 45(4): 106586. July 2024.
White, M., Pettitt, P., Schreve, D. “Shoot first, ask questions later: Interpretative narratives of Neanderthal hunting”. Quaternary Science Reviews 140, pp. 1-20. May 2016.
Rodríguez-Gómez, G., Rodríguez-Hidalgo, A., Saladié, P., Van der Made, J., Marín, J., Ollé, A., Mosquera, M., Bermúdez de Castro, J.M., Arsuaga, J.L., Carbonell, E. “Ecologically sustainable human exploitation of the Gran Dolina TD10. 2 bison (Sierra de Atapuerca, Spain)”. Scientific Reports 15(1): 23178. July 2025.
Jenkins, K.E., Nightingale, S., Faith, J.T., Peppe, D.J., Michel, L.A., Driese, S.G., McNulty, K.P., Tryon, C.A. “Evaluating the potential for tactical hunting in the Middle Stone Age: Insights from a bonebed of the extinct bovid, Rusingoryx atopocranion”. Journal of Human Evolution 108, pp. 72-91. July 2017.
Kehoe, T. F. “Corralling: evidence from Upper Paleolithic cave art”. In Hunters of the recent past, ed. Leslie B. Davis and Brian O. K. Reeves, pp. 34–45. London: Unwin Hyman. 1990.
McNiven, I.J., Crouch, J., Richards, T., Dolby, N., Jacobsen, G. “Dating Aboriginal stone-walled fishtraps at Lake Condah, southeast Australia”. Journal of Archaeological Science 39(2), pp. 268-286. February 2012.
Lourandos, H. “Change or stability?: hydraulics, hunter‐gatherers and population in temperate Australia”. World Archaeology 11(3), pp. 245-264. February 1980.
Orschiedt, J. “Violence in Palaeolithic and Mesolithic hunter-gatherer communities”. The Cambridge World History of Violence, pp. 58-78. March 2020.
Gat, A. “Proving communal warfare among hunter‐gatherers: The quasi‐rousseauan error”. Evolutionary anthropology: issues, news, and reviews 24(3), pp. 111-126. May 2015.
Piezonka, H., Chairkina, N., Dubovtseva, E., Kosinskaya, L., Meadows, J., Schreiber, T. “The world’s oldest-known promontory fort: Amnya and the acceleration of hunter-gatherer diversity in Siberia 8000 years ago”. Antiquity 97(396), pp. 1381-1401. December 2023.
Antoine, D.M., Zazzo, A., Friedman, R. “Revisiting Jebel Sahaba: new apatite radiocarbon dates for one of the Nile Valley’s earliest cemeteries”. Poster presentation. In The 82nd Annual Meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, Knoxville, TN. 2013.
Nolan, P.D. “Toward an ecological-evolutionary theory of the incidence of warfare in preindustrial societies”. Sociological Theory 21(1), pp. 18-30. January 2003.
Nolan, P. “Human societies : an introduction to macrosociology”. 12th Edition, New York : Oxford University Press. 2015.
Gamble, C. Interaction and alliance in Palaeolithic society. Man 17(1), pp. 92-107. March 1982.
Kozłowski, J.K. “The origin of the Gravettian”. Quaternary International 359, pp. 3-18. March 2015.
Davis, J.T. “Trade routes and economic exchange among the Indians of California”. March 1961.
Smith, B.D. “General patterns of niche construction and the management of ‘wild’ plant and animal resources by small-scale pre-industrial societies”. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 366(1566), pp. 836-848. March 2011.
Wilman, E.A. “An economic model of aboriginal fire‐stick farming”. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 59(1), pp. 39-60. January 2015.
Singh, M., Glowacki, L. “Human social organization during the Late Pleistocene: Beyond the nomadic-egalitarian model”. Evolution and Human Behavior 43(5), pp. 418-431. September 2022.
Cunningham, A.J., Worthington, S., Venkataraman, V.V., Wrangham, R.W. “Do modern hunter-gatherers live in marginal habitats?”. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 25, pp. 584-599. June 2019.
Hoffman, C.L. “Punan foragers in the trading networks of Southeast Asia”. In Past and Present in Hunter Gatherer Studies, pp. 123-150. Routledge. September 2016.
Snir, A., Nadel, D., Groman-Yaroslavski, I., Melamed, Y., Sternberg, M., Bar-Yosef, O., Weiss, E. “The Origin of Cultivation and Proto-Weeds, long before Neolithic Farming”. PLoS One 10(7): e0131422. July 2015.
Arnold, J.E. “Complex Hunter-Gatherer-Fishers of Prehistoric California: Chiefs, Specialists, and Maritime Adaptations of the Channel Islands”. American Antiquity 57(1), pp. 60-84. January 1992.
Gamble, L.H. “Navigating cooperative marketplaces: the Chumash Indians and the dynamics of hunting/gathering/fishing economies”. Frontiers in Human Dynamics 24(7): 1606256. September 2025.