2 ms·
In my layman's opinion, conflict is always about territory and resources - often territories exist as the containers of certain resources. One would think (or j
by astrobe_ 3y ago
In my layman's opinion, conflict is always about territory and resources - often territories exist as the containers of certain resources.
One would think (or just I imagine) that hunters/gatherers would be nomads (honestly I didn't read TFA), so no territory and then less conflicts, and you don't need static defenses such as fortresses.
For instance, chimps are sedentary while bonobos are nomadic.
- SonicScrub 3y agoThe idea that hunter gathers didn't have "territory" or resources to defend is a misnomer. There are richer lands with more plants to gather, and those that are arid. There are plentiful hunting grounds, and those that are devoid of wildlife. These areas are valuable, and people fought for access to them. Nomadic peoples usually stayed in one area for quite a while until the resources were exhausted, and then moved on elsewhere. Specific peoples differed in how they did things, but this pattern was typical of many North American indigenous groups. They setup semi permanent settlements meant to last years. Other peoples followed migratory animals for hunting, and therefore been more mobile, but their valued resource (the herd) was still vulnerable for others to take. "Nomadic" didn't mean people just aimlessly wandered and sustained off of whatever they chanced upon that day. You can't go just anywhere and expect to feed your family off of what you find. When you found some place or something good, you tried to claim it and defend it from those who encroached on it. You moved on under your own volition only when the resources were depleted/left.