It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Hanslune
reply to post by FreeMason
..or just an imaginery one.
If you are interested in this subject its been the subject of a number of studies. In Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel, chapter five+ he discusses this subject.
Hunters and HGs are always one failed hunt away from stravation what makes farming and pastoralism better is a steady food supply. Most hunting tribes live on the work of the women who gather most of the actual food and process it. There are exceptions expecially in extreme environments where not much food can be gathered (ie, the Arctic)
Higgs and Jarman looked at this too, but I cannot find their study at this moment.
There is also this study
Another study looks at HG to farmer transitions
World's worse mistake?
Did we make a mistaken becoming farmers?
Some very useful charts and tables in the source above
FreeMason
I disagree, one hunted Elk today can feed a person for a whole year and that's just the flesh, excluding organs and marrow, the issue is one of preservation. If a society can preserve the meat, then hunting is extremely profitable and is not in any way "one failure away from starvation".
It looks like you gave me some good info going both ways about the argument, I read your last link, but here's a take on my views about agriculture.
Cities already existing had the power and force to compel persons to become farmers in that city's "hinterland", and this was a force by that city to keep a person in servitude to grow a single crop and etc. Sure farmers would leave that system and just simply spread on their own, taking their worldview. But it was more likely imposed by the city first. At least that's my argument. Because if you look at the relation to the Farmer to the City it is always as a colonized to an imperial power.
Hanslune
FreeMason
I disagree, one hunted Elk today can feed a person for a whole year and that's just the flesh, excluding organs and marrow, the issue is one of preservation. If a society can preserve the meat, then hunting is extremely profitable and is not in any way "one failure away from starvation".
If they can preserve it for the 90% of the people who don't live near ice and live in hot areas where most population appears to have been in ancient times. They had to develop other methods of preservation, unfortunated even dried food then becomes something they have to carry and protect - always a problem before pottery - which with good seals is insect proof.
It looks like you gave me some good info going both ways about the argument, I read your last link, but here's a take on my views about agriculture.
Its a matter of great debate however stravation or hunger times for hunters is much more likely than for HG, pastoralist or farmers - who of course can also starve
Cities already existing had the power and force to compel persons to become farmers in that city's "hinterland", and this was a force by that city to keep a person in servitude to grow a single crop and etc. Sure farmers would leave that system and just simply spread on their own, taking their worldview. But it was more likely imposed by the city first. At least that's my argument. Because if you look at the relation to the Farmer to the City it is always as a colonized to an imperial power.
Farmers existed before cities, cities appear to have developed along river farming areas due to a need for somebody to organize the irrigation channels and manage the massive work necessary for this. Farmers not in river valleys didn't particularly need that development. The first civilizations grew up along rivers for just this reason.
Polynesians didn't do cities and had a sedentiary HG/farming culture...however I have just run out of time will back later..
Bleeeeep
reply to post by FreeMason
Hunter gatherers traveled with the herds and the herds traveled with the plant growth. How large of a population can be sustained on any one herd? That depends on the size of the herd.
Can we consider people who live by the waters edge a true hunter gatherer culture? Are fishing villages hunter gatherers? If you are not moving as the food moves, I don't think it is right to say you are a hunter gatherer - you're just a farmer then.
Bleeeeep
reply to post by peter vlar
Am I a hunter gatherer if I do not farm food or tend to live stock?
I hunt the shelves of walmart for my food.
How fair is it to call it hunter gatherer if they have a permanent settlement? If it is okay to say I am not a hunter gatherer, than neither were your Iroquois people. In practice, they were just going to the market to fetch their food, just as I do, or just as a farmer does as he goes to the corral, right?
I think you have to be a nomad to be a hunter gatherer.
peter vlar
Bleeeeep
reply to post by peter vlar
Am I a hunter gatherer if I do not farm food or tend to live stock?
I hunt the shelves of walmart for my food.
How fair is it to call it hunter gatherer if they have a permanent settlement? If it is okay to say I am not a hunter gatherer, than neither were your Iroquois people. In practice, they were just going to the market to fetch their food, just as I do, or just as a farmer does as he goes to the corral, right?
I think you have to be a nomad to be a hunter gatherer.
And I think you're being ridiculous in your analogy. Comparing hunting and foraging to shopping at Walmart is asinine and we both know it. In anthropology there is no need to be nomadic to be considered a hunter gatherer. Obtaining the majority of your sustanence from hunting and foraging makes you so. I encourage you to learn a little more about the iroqouois before you accuse them of simply going to market. There were no market areas in or near Caughnewaga until the arrival of the Dutch. And even then the closest market was a dozen miles down river near Sir William Johnson's manor near what is now Amsterdam Ny. You can think it imperative to be nomadic to be an HG but
It doesn't make it so.
Krakatoa
peter vlar
Bleeeeep
reply to post by peter vlar
Am I a hunter gatherer if I do not farm food or tend to live stock?
I hunt the shelves of walmart for my food.
How fair is it to call it hunter gatherer if they have a permanent settlement? If it is okay to say I am not a hunter gatherer, than neither were your Iroquois people. In practice, they were just going to the market to fetch their food, just as I do, or just as a farmer does as he goes to the corral, right?
I think you have to be a nomad to be a hunter gatherer.
And I think you're being ridiculous in your analogy. Comparing hunting and foraging to shopping at Walmart is asinine and we both know it. In anthropology there is no need to be nomadic to be considered a hunter gatherer. Obtaining the majority of your sustanence from hunting and foraging makes you so. I encourage you to learn a little more about the iroqouois before you accuse them of simply going to market. There were no market areas in or near Caughnewaga until the arrival of the Dutch. And even then the closest market was a dozen miles down river near Sir William Johnson's manor near what is now Amsterdam Ny. You can think it imperative to be nomadic to be an HG but
It doesn't make it so.
If I may add my 0.02, I believe his Walmart analogy is relevant here. A gatherer, gathers food (berries, nuts, fruit, insect, honey, etc...), right? Well when you go to a modern grocery store (such as a Super Walmart), are you not "gathering" your food in the same manner (instead of plucking it off a bush, you pluck it off a shelf). I think that was the crux of that argument, not that they went out to a "market" to get their food. The majority of modern civilization could be categorized as gatherers now. The percentage of people that hunt for their own food, or grow their own food is a definite minority on the whole.
SPECULATION
I wonder, if the stationary hunting society suggested by the OP preceded the farming aspect in this manner. Imagine you are a stationary hunter/gatherer society, due to the fact that ample game is available to maintain the population, in addition to the long-term storage abilities. This typically would result in the rise in population, requiring more game to be hunted. Eventually, you over hunt the area, leaving it barren of fauna.
The hunting land may now have a more abundant flora (food producing plants) that the former game also fed upon. This could sustain the population as the hunters traveled farther and farther away (like spokes on a wheel) from the main settlement to find meat (this could also have resulted in neighboring tribes being encountered and fighting over the resources in each others "back yard"). Once the indigenous flora is also expended, the need to actually plant and plan a harvest becomes essential to the population, spurring observation of the sky and stars to know when to plant, when to sow, when winter will begin and end etc...
So, stationary hunter societies are plausible, but, IMO, this is what caused the fall of the society on Easter Island. Being so isolated, they simply could no longer sustain themselves once they expended all of their food.
It's plausible, however unsubstantiated.
Bleeeeep
reply to post by peter vlar
Nay, it is very similar. I know the food is there just as your tribe knew the food was there for them. The only reason they would become settled is if they knew it was there. If they thought it wasn't there, they would become nomadic.
Is it hunting and foraging if you know it is there?