Land-Based Community Living: An Evolutionary Perspective
Introduction
For the great majority of human existence we have lived in small communities closely tied to each other and to the land. Anthropological evidence indicates that hunter-gatherer lifestyles characterised about 98.5% of the human timeline so far. In these early societies, people lived in tribal groups, sharing resources and responsibilities, within landscapes they knew intimately. This way of life – cooperative bands embedded in nature – was for hundreds of thousands of years the universal human experience. In evolutionary terms, is only in the very recent past - a mere blink of an eye - that we modern humans have departed from our natural milieus of close community and the natural world to inhabit urban spaces as increasingly isolated individuals.
This essay seeks to place the movement towards land-based community living within its deep evolutionary context, arguing that it is the form of life that we are evolved for and in which we are most happy and fulfilled.
We draw on evidence from early hominids and primates, the archaeology of hunter-gatherers, and insights from evolutionary psychology and biology. Together, these strands illustrate that human bodies, brains, and social systems are fundamentally adapted to small-scale communal life embedded within natural living systems.
Evolutionary Roots of Human Social Living
Our social nature runs deep in our evolutionary past. Humans are primates, and like other great apes, we evolved as highly social animals living in groups. Early primates likely shifted from solitary foraging to group living tens of millions of years ago as a strategy to survive daylight predation – safety in numbers. Among anthropoid primates, bonded social relationships are maintained through intimate behaviors like grooming, which trigger endorphin release in the brain. These neurological rewards for social contact attest to how natural social bonding is for primates, including humans. Over time, evolutionary pressures favored ever-larger groups, and our ancestors developed new bonding mechanisms (such as vocal communication and, eventually, language) to maintain cohesion beyond the limits of grooming. In short, the “social brain” of humans – with our large neocortex – reflects an adaptation to managing complex social networks in group living.
Crucially, early hominins millions of years ago already lived in communities. A famous example comes from Laetoli, Tanzania, where 3.6-million-year-old fossil footprints preserve a moment in time when Australopithecus afarensis individuals walked together across wet volcanic ash. These ancient tracks show that at least three early humans traversed the landscape side by side, tangible proof that our distant ancestors moved as social groups on the land. Much later, by around 1.5 million years ago, early humans like Homo erectus were also living – and likely hunting – cooperatively. Footprint sites at Ileret, Kenya reveal multiple H. erectus individuals (at least 20) moving together at the same time. The coordinated nature of these tracks suggests a group of early humans walking in a common direction, quite possibly engaged in a joint activity or migration. Such findings rebut any notion that early humans were solitary wanderers; instead, they consistently appear as members of bands.
By the Middle Pleistocene, evidence of cooperation becomes even more pronounced. The 300,000-year-old site of Schöningen in Germany yielded several wooden spears alongside the remains of numerous butchered horses. Cut-mark analysis on the bones indicates that humans had first access to the carcasses and worked together to butcher their prey. This implies coordinated group hunting of large game by late archaic humans (likely Homo heidelbergensis or early Neanderthals). In another striking case, the remains of a Neanderthal man known as Shanidar 1 (about 50,000 years old) show that he had been severely injured and disabled – including the loss of his right forearm and deafness in old age – yet survived for decades. Paleoanthropologists conclude he “most likely required significant social support to reach old age”, meaning his community cared for and defended him despite his impairments. Such compassion and communal care are strong indicators that close-knit social bonds and mutual aid were deeply ingrained long before modern humans.
In fact, by the time of early Homo sapiens, living in a tribal-scale society was the norm. Archaeological and comparative anthropological evidence suggests that after about 100,000 years ago, most humans lived in tribal communities numbering on the order of a few hundred (up to perhaps a few thousand) individuals. These tribes were egalitarian, with diffuse political power, and they fostered intense in-group loyalty and cooperation. Within them, people identified with a larger clan or tribe through shared language, rituals, and culture, but daily life was likely spent in smaller bands of closely related families. Evolution thus fashioned a dual social reality: we are comfortable in intimate face-to-face groups (extended families, bands) and also capable of loyalty to a larger community of a few hundred who share our identity. In sum, from our ape-like forebears through early hominins to modern humans, group living on the land has been a constant thread. Small communities offered survival advantages – cooperative hunting and foraging, shared knowledge, defense against predators, and care for the vulnerable – making this social configuration a core part of what it means to be human.
Hunter-Gatherers: Life in Tribal Communities
For tens of millennia up until the dawn of agriculture (circa 10,000 years ago), hunter-gatherer bands were the predominant form of human society. In these groups, typically consisting of a few dozen individuals, humans lived by hunting wild game and gathering wild plants, deeply embedded in their local ecosystems. Anthropologist Richard Lee noted that the hunting-and-gathering way of life “was once the universal mode of human existence” – it is the context in which our species originally evolved. Only in the very recent slice of human history have we shifted to settled farming villages and then cities; biologically and culturally, we are descendants of hunter-gatherers. Barry Hewlett, who studies modern foraging peoples, emphasizes that our bodies and minds are adapted to intimate, small-group living rather than contemporary urban life. In other words, the forager camp – not the modern metropolis – is what our brains still recognize as a normal human social environment.
Daily life in hunter-gatherer bands was characterized by constant social interaction, cooperation, and shared labor. These societies were often markedly egalitarian. Decisions were made through consensus, resources were shared, and leaders (if they existed at all) had very limited authority. Everyone had a role in collective survival, from the strongest hunters to the elders and children. Remarkably, evidence suggests that foragers enjoyed substantial leisure time; their subsistence workload, while variable, often amounted to only a few hours a day of hunting or gathering, leaving ample time for socializing, storytelling, and cultural activities. This lifestyle allowed the cultivation of strong social bonds and group identity. Indeed, anthropologists have described hunter-gatherer camps at night, with individuals gathering around the fire to share food, swap stories, and reinforce the social fabric that bound them together. Human psychology thrived under these conditions of communal closeness and teamwork.
One key to the success of these small societies was the transmission of knowledge across generations. Survival depended on an intimate understanding of the environment, and this knowledge was communally preserved and taught. For instance, hunter-gatherers needed to know which plants were edible or medicinal, where game could be found each season, and how to craft the necessary tools from local materials. Such expertise was vast: it is estimated that hunter-gatherer peoples made use of thousands of plant species and hundreds of animal species in their environment. In doing so, they developed finely honed skills and ecological knowledge that far exceed what any single individual could invent or remember alone. Ethnographic observations bear this out – among the Arctic Inuit, for example, thriving in a harsh habitat required mastering an array of complex tools (kayaks, harpoons, shelters, clothing) and practices that no lone genius could devise in one lifetime. Rather, this knowledge accrued over generations and was shared freely within the community. Each person benefited from the collective wisdom of the group, illustrating how culture and cooperation were as vital as individual intelligence for human success.
Childrearing in these societies was also a communal enterprise. Human children have exceptionally long periods of dependency, and in a nomadic band, mothers could not raise offspring entirely on their own. This led to patterns of “alloparenting,” where other members of the group – fathers, grandparents, aunts, uncles, older siblings, even unrelated friends – helped care for children. Anthropologists studying hunter-gatherers in central Africa report that even by the age of 6 or 7, children have learned to hunt, identify edible plants, and care for younger kids, all by observing and participating in community life. Crucially, knowledge and skills are passed down not only from parents, but from many members of the band. This fluid sharing of teaching responsibilities means children grow up deeply integrated into the social group and competent in the band’s way of life. The “grandmother hypothesis” even posits that human longevity and the evolution of menopause were driven by the contributions of grandmothers: by helping feed and care for grandchildren, post-reproductive women enabled their daughters to have more children, boosting the survival of the whole family line. Whether through grandparents or peers, the presence of many attentive caregivers meant that young humans evolved within rich social networks, learning the rhythms of cooperation and empathy from an early age.
Furthermore, hunter-gatherer bands were not isolated in tiny units; they often formed wider networks of related communities. Typically, a band of perhaps 25–50 people might join with others into a larger tribe of a few hundred who shared a language and cultural identity. Individuals could move between bands, especially through marriage, creating kinship ties across the tribe. Seasonal gatherings brought bands together for social exchange, collective hunts, or ceremonies, reinforcing a sense of belonging to a broader community. All these patterns suggest that humans evolved for multi-layered social affiliation – intimate daily groups nested within larger communal networks – which provided both the warmth of close relationships and the security of a bigger support system. The scale of these networks aligns well with cognitive research on social group size. Studies of the human brain (and comparisons with other primates) have led to the idea of “Dunbar’s number,” around 150, as the approximate number of stable relationships an average human can maintain. Intriguingly, this figure roughly matches the typical size of hunter-gatherer tribes and small villages observed in ethnography. While not a rigid rule, it underscores that the scale of face-to-face communities in our ancestral environment was limited and manageable – everyone knew everyone else, and each person’s reputation and roles were well understood within the group.
Embedded in Natural Ecosystems
Life in these traditional communities was inseparable from the natural environment. A band’s survival hinged on its members’ attunement to the land: they needed detailed mental maps of water sources, knowledge of seasonal plant cycles, tracking skills to follow animal migrations, and an ability to read subtle changes in weather or landscape. Hunter-gatherers were truly embedded in the ecosystem, both impacting it and being influenced by it. Yet unlike modern industrial society, their impact was generally modest and sustainable, tempered by low population densities and a cosmology that treated nature with respect. As one source notes, foragers “used thousands of different types of plant species and... hundreds of different animal species” with relatively slight environmental impact. They often saw themselves as part of the natural world rather than separate from it. This is reflected in many indigenous worldviews. For example, Aboriginal Australian cultures conceive of the land (“Country”) as a living network of ancestral beings; when they journey across their territory, they speak or sing to the land and to the spirits as if greeting relatives. One Aboriginal elder explained that “everything come up out of the ground – language, people, emu, kangaroo, grass,” expressing the idea that humans and nature share a common origin. Such perspectives, common among hunter-gatherers, indicate a profound spiritual and practical connection to place.
Even without invoking spirituality, there is a biological argument that humans are instinctively drawn to natural environments. Biologist E. O. Wilson famously proposed the biophilia hypothesis, suggesting that humans have an innate tendency to seek connections with nature and other life-forms. This innate affinity likely stems from the simple fact that for hundreds of thousands of years, finding pleasure and calm in natural settings had survival value – those who loved the woods, rivers, and open skies would explore and forage more effectively than those who felt ill-at-ease outside. Our sensory and nervous systems evolved in outdoor environments filled with green plants, running water, and animal life. Indeed, modern psychological research strongly supports the idea that nature is good for us: exposure to natural environments has been linked to improved attention, lower stress, better mood, and reduced risk of psychiatric disorders, among other benefits. Even brief walks in a park or time spent gardening can lower stress hormones and restore mental focus, whereas urban settings overloaded with artificial stimuli often do the opposite. These findings resonate with the psycho-evolutionary theory that our minds remain adapted to the tranquil, information-rich landscapes of our ancestors, reacting positively to natural features (like trees, water, and sunlight) that signaled resources and safety in the past. Furthermore, being in nature may even enhance social cohesion – some studies find that people exhibit more empathy and cooperation after nature exposure. This is a striking echo of our evolutionary story: in ancient campsites, the soothing backdrop of nature was simply the normal context for human social life.
In contrast, most contemporary settings—whether bustling city blocks, sprawling suburbs, or even seemingly idyllic villages—leave people largely insulated from both vibrant ecosystems and tight-knit human networks. Day after day, we cross impermeable surfaces instead of soil, eat food whose origins we rarely witness, and move through social spaces filled with acquaintances or strangers rather than lifelong companions. Extended families are scattered; neighbours exchange polite nods but seldom depend on one another for survival, storytelling, or shared rituals. Artificial light and climate control detach our bodies from dawn, dusk, and the changing seasons, while commutes and screen time replace the collective labour and leisure that once bound small groups together. Evolutionary biologists describe this gap between environment and expectation as a mismatch: our nervous systems still anticipate a landscape of familiar faces, fresh air, and sensory cues that signal belonging in a living world. When those cues are absent—whether in a tower flat, a suburban cul-de-sac, or a commuter village—we see the same repercussions: chronic stress, loneliness, and a rise in ailments linked to disconnection from nature and community.
Biological and Psychological Adaptations to Community Life
The long tenure of land-based communal living has left indelible marks on human biology and psychology. Humans are sometimes described as “obligatorily gregarious” – we not only prefer social contact, we need it for normal development and health. Evolution tuned our nervous systems to expect the presence of familiar others and the rhythms of community life. For example, research has shown that being with trusted companions can modulate stress responses: in threatening situations, humans (like other primates) experience less cortisol increase when in a group than when alone, an echo of the ancestral scenario where isolation meant vulnerability. The basic human need for belonging is so strong that psychologists consider it a fundamental motivation, as basic as hunger or thirst. When that need is unmet, we experience loneliness and distress. Modern studies confirm what evolution has ingrained: people with rich social ties – who feel embedded in a network of friends and family – have better health outcomes and greater happiness, whereas chronic loneliness correlates with a higher risk of illness and mortality. From an evolutionary lens, this makes sense: for a prehistoric human, to be cut off from the tribe was life-threatening, so social pain (like loneliness) served as a signal to reconnect, much as physical pain signals injury. The flip side is that communal life satisfies deep psychological needs. A University at Buffalo social psychologist notes that humans evolved to be “socially embedded to survive”, gaining protection and shared resources in groups. We feel authentic joy in collective experiences – whether it’s a feast, a ritual dance, or even a modern concert – because our brains reward us for the sense of being part of a larger whole. This drive for group belonging goes beyond immediate kin and friends; it can extend to identification with a tribe, clan, or community, reinforcing the idea that multi-level social affiliation is natural to us.
Our hormonal and neural circuitry also reflect adaptation to cooperative living. The hormone oxytocin, often dubbed the “bonding hormone,” is released during hugging, intimate touch, and even shared laughter, promoting trust and affection between people. Endorphins, as mentioned earlier, are released through social grooming in primates – in humans, similar endorphin surges can occur during laughter, singing, or synchronous group activities (like dancing or team sports), which may be why these activities are universally enjoyed as bonding experiences. Importantly, the cognitive demands of living in a tight-knit community – remembering faces and names, understanding social cues, empathizing with others, resolving conflicts – have been argued to be the driving force behind our large brains (the social brain hypothesis). We are impressively skilled at theory of mind (inferring what others think and feel), a faculty that likely evolved to navigate the nuanced cooperative and competitive interactions of tribal life. Even our linguistic abilities might have roots in social living: gossip and storytelling around the campfire could have replaced grooming as a more efficient way to maintain group cohesion when group sizes grew too large for one-on-one grooming. Thus, many of the traits we consider quintessentially human – language, empathy, altruism, morality – make the most sense as adaptations for thriving in community.
Social life in a land-based group also provided a context for emotional fulfillment that modern settings often struggle to replicate. In a band, individuals experienced a clear sense of purpose and belonging: their daily tasks directly contributed to communal survival, and their identities were intertwined with those of their group and the land they inhabited. From early morning foraging parties to evening gatherings by the fire, life unfolded in a continual tapestry of togetherness. This doesn’t mean these societies were utopias without conflict or hardship, but even challenges (like a dangerous hunt or scarcity of food) were faced collectively. Evolutionary psychologists suggest that humans have a strong inclination toward cooperative problem-solving and derive deep satisfaction from it – think of the camaraderie that arises when people jointly overcome adversity. That too is a legacy of our past. When we cooperate and share with others, we often feel a “warm glow,” likely because natural selection favored those who found reward in prosocial behaviour, as it benefited group survival. Meanwhile, emotions like empathy and guilt evolved to reinforce social norms and bonds, keeping individuals attuned to the well-being of their community. All of these psychological mechanisms point to the same conclusion: our brains and bodies anticipate a life of interdependence, not isolation.
Conclusion: Returning to Our Roots for Holistic Well-Being
Considering the weight of evolutionary history, the land-based community structure appears to be humanity’s default context – the environment for which we are best suited. For hundreds of thousands of years, living in small, kin-oriented groups amid the rhythms of nature fulfilled the full spectrum of human needs. These settings provided social connection, a sense of identity and belonging, mental stimulation through constant learning and storytelling, physical health benefits from an active outdoor lifestyle, and emotional comfort from close relationships and spiritual ties to the land. It is little wonder, then, that many modern individuals feel something is missing. In the contemporary world, we see epidemics of loneliness, anxiety, and disconnection. While these have many complex causes, one perspective is that our modern lifestyle often deviates profoundly from our evolved template. As one science writer put it, we struggle in today’s world because it’s so different from the one that shaped us. The good news is that understanding our evolutionary predispositions can guide us toward interventions for better well-being.
Empirical research already validates the benefits of such shifts. Strong community ties have been linked to longer lifespans and happier lives, and therapies that involve social support or group activity often outperform those targeting individuals alone. Likewise, “green therapy” or nature exposure is gaining recognition as a powerful tool for reducing stress and improving mental health. In essence, these approaches work because they cater to ancient human dispositions – they give our hunter-gatherer brains the stimuli and context they crave. By designing living environments and societies that respect our evolutionary heritage, we come closer to a sustainable model of human well-being. Anthropological wisdom suggests that humans are at their best when they feel connected – to each other and to the earth that sustains them.
In conclusion, the idea that land-based community living is the most natural state for humans is strongly supported by historical, anthropological, and biological evidence. From the early hominids walking together on Pliocene plains to the forager families sharing meals under Pleistocene skies, our lineage has flourished in small communities bound to the land. Our social instincts, cultural practices, and even our neurochemistry bear the imprint of this long chapter of our past. Modern civilization may have changed the surface of how we live, but it has not rewritten our genetic or psychological blueprints overnight. By heeding the lessons of our evolution, we recognize that the fundamentals of a good human life – belonging, purpose, community, and nature – remain as crucial as ever. Embracing elements of our ancestral lifestyle in today’s context could help address many contemporary ills, offering not a regression into the past, but rather a reconnection with timeless human truths. Ultimately, our evolutionary story suggests that a future which re-integrates people with each other and with the land is not only an ethical or ecological vision, but also a deeply pragmatic one for human flourishing. By returning to our roots, we may find a more balanced and fulfilling way of being – one that harmonises with both the ancestral heritage in our genes and the natural world we never truly left behind.
References and Sources
Lee, Richard B. Hunter-Gatherers and Human Evolution. In The Anarchist Library (2019).
Richerson, Peter J., and Robert Boyd. “Culture and the evolution of human cooperation.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 364, no. 1533 (2009): 3207–3215.
Phys.org. “Hunter-gatherer study helps explain how children have learned for 99% of human history.” (Nov 19, 2024)
Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History. “Laetoli Footprint Trails” (n.d.)
Hawks, John. “When hominins walked in each other’s tracks.” John Hawks Weblog (2016).
Wikipedia. “Schöningen spears.” (accessed 2025).
Everding, Gerry. “Older Neandertal survived with a little help from his friends.” Washington University Source (Oct 23, 2017).
Dunbar, R.I.M. “Bridging the bonding gap: the transition from primates to humans.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 367, no. 1597 (2012): 1837–1846.
University at Buffalo News. “Drive to feel socially embedded as critical as need to belong.” (Sept 20, 2024)
Michigan Tech News. “The Psychology of Nature.” (Apr 21, 2022)
Wikipedia. “Biophilia hypothesis.” (accessed 2025).
Lent, Jeremy. “The hunter-gatherer view of the natural world.” Tyranny of the Prefrontal Cortex Blog (2012).
ScienceAlert. “Evolutionary Mismatch Might Be Why We Struggle in Today’s World.” (accessed 2025).