Where some natural food resources are abundant but seasonal, they can be gathered while available and stored on a large scale once transformed through appropriate food processing techniques thus becoming a staple food year-round. Around 10,000 years ago, plant resources became relatively abundant in fertile areas. The idea of an abundant food supply that could be processed and stored on a year-round basis was a new one with profound implications to human existence. Two factors conditioned human response at this time: conspicuous seasonal variability and a storage based subsistence strategy. If in the face of conspicuous or abundance, people opted to process and store portions of this "surplus", then they could settle down in one area on a year-round basis. This, for the first time, changed societies from a mobile way of life to one of sedentism. It is clear that this is not a process that happened over night. It probably was associated with a decreased reliance on mobility as a strategy to seasonally exploit a variety of resources.
Groups of hunters and gatherers (probably better thought of as gatherers and hunters in terms of the relative importance of each) generally follow natural rhythms and move from area to area when resources are ripe or available. These groups tend to openly share these resources and lack social inequalities. A sedentary way of life leads to potential changes in this societal make-up. The consequences of storage for higher population density are easily understood. A less apparent implication rests in the development of social inequities and inequalities. Societies along the Northwest Coast of North America lived as hunter-gatherers and yet were ranked and stratified. It seems that only nomadic (mobile) hunting and gathering societies which do not practice intensive storage are egalitarian. Sedentism, whether resulting from farming or development of a hunting/gathering storage economy, makes possible the accumulation of food that can be hoarded. It is this principle that opens up an interesting possibility for societies. What to do with the "surplus" that has been hoarded?
For a Kalahari Bushman, accumulation or storage has the immoral connotation of hoarding. In societies where sharing is the rule, good must circulate among all members of the group for immediate consumption. Thus the decision to store food implies a profound change in culture. This can relate to attitudes toward other people, toward time, and towards work. Excessive food can become a means to access things or influence others. Sedentary groups have a greater material culture extent. Things don't have to be left as in the case of societies relying on a mobility way of life. People can trade with each other - food from some, goods from others. This would enable someone to gain sufficient resources to be held in "high" regards by his peers. This is prestige and the foundation for inequalities. There is, however, another means of turning a food excess into prestige, namely, giving it away without immediate return. Marvin Harris discusses the difference between Headmen, Bigmen and Chiefs. When he talks about a Bigman, he infers this type of strategy - the give-away. A gift to someone creates an obligation for the receiver, and therefore the giver may expect reciprocity even if it is not immediate.
In a subsistence strategy based on exploitation of abundance with associated storage and sedentism, there is a need to handle logistic or organizational issues in a distinct way as well. Organization of tasks by specialists eventually becomes significant in continuing to handle stress created when population density and growth increase. The implications of stress from these factors make it logical that leadership develops to minimize difficulties. Leadership, in turn, would benefit from a means to recognize this emerging social position. The means to symbolize would lie in obtaining prestige goods thus creating a driving force for even more formal stratification within these societies.
As you explore the nature of Gwembe Tonga and Hopi societies, examine the implications of the choices societies have relative to the question of settling down. Hopi, for example, are settled farmers in northeastern Arizona. Yet, they don't have any strong inequalities or exploit nature to gain materially. Why might this be? What are the choices available that make some societies they way they are today?