4 ms·
Hunter-gatherers generally didn't store meat. Therefore, when the best hunter in the group brought home a large animal, he shared it with all. Likewise, there w
by omalleyt 10y ago
Hunter-gatherers generally didn't store meat. Therefore, when the best hunter in the group brought home a large animal, he shared it with all. Likewise, there were few physical possessions or need for such, and so these were shared too.
But egalitarian? Not a chance. Studies show that even modern hunters expend enormous energy and risk their lives hunting over the real prize: access to mates.
- undersuit 10y ago>Hunter-gatherers generally didn't store meat. The diversity of cured meats around the world makes this statement suspect. I don't see an agrarian society taking time to discover how to cure meat... why would they, grain stores easier. Yet every culture has various kinds of preserved meat; Pemmican, European sausages, Kiviak, Hongeohoe, etc.
- flukus 10y agoMost curing methods weren't widely available to hunter gatherers because the required trade goods like salt. Dehydration was about the only option.
- nikdaheratik 10y agoThat's a very debatable point, and I'm not sure what you're trying to say really. The closest analogs we have are the native groups of the Americas, Africa, and Australia, and nearly all of them pair and form alliances of extended families without more than the occasional competition. Most primitive life is harsh enough that you don't need to compete too much over mates. People with injury or chronic illnesses get knocked out just from going about their daily existence.