4 ms·

Through the last decades there been multiple studies and books arguing for one side or the other. Usually the hunter-side will look at existing native populatio

by belorn 3y ago

Through the last decades there been multiple studies and books arguing for one side or the other. Usually the hunter-side will look at existing native populations in the world and rituals, while the gatherers-side looks at archaeological evidence. Both sides also have strong arguments against them. For the gatherers argument, a main issue is that burial sites themselves implies a immobile natural resource where humans would remain in a single location and still be able to find enough nourishment, generally for a lot of people and for several generations. Cultivation of plants is thus a logical conclusion. The hunters would be constantly moving to new hunting grounds based on where prey animals would be most easy to hunt (in time with seasons), and thus do not leave such burial sites for archaeologists to find. It is a similar problem in defining what tools people used. If all you find left from a time period is stone artifacts like arrow heads, it is easy to make the assumption that people did not use wooden material like sharpened sticks.

defrost 3y ago
Studies of modern hunter-gathers show both behaviours in parallel, both plant cultivation (not modern agricultural market gardening) at seasonal sites, and seasonal hunting. Movement isn't random, it's a progression around a larger territory that may take a decade to fully revisit all parts. Plants, roots, leaves, fruits, etc are gathered around sites where people stay for three months or more, competing unwanted plants are pulled up, weeded out, desired seeds are spread, ground tubers are only partially used with the remainder left to regrow. Animals are hunted about the area, attention is paid to breeding numbers - often plants are used to hunt animals (particular types of young saplings for spears, particular ground up leaves to stun fish in pools). And then they move on to both hunt and gather elsewhere .. with a great deal of the food being gathered. Doing this for 70,000 odd years sees patterns of midden mounds (discarded shells from tidal and river molluscs), bone piles, ock art, etc develop across the landscape .. and living custodians have been pretty good on telling the oral stories of songlines - the movements with yearly and decadal seasons.

by belorn 3y ago

defrost 3y ago

Studies of modern hunter-gathers show both behaviours in parallel, both plant cultivation (not modern agricultural market gardening) at seasonal sites, and seasonal hunting. Movement isn't random, it's a progression around a larger territory that may take a decade to fully revisit all parts. Plants, roots, leaves, fruits, etc are gathered around sites where people stay for three months or more, competing unwanted plants are pulled up, weeded out, desired seeds are spread, ground tubers are only partially used with the remainder left to regrow. Animals are hunted about the area, attention is paid to breeding numbers - often plants are used to hunt animals (particular types of young saplings for spears, particular ground up leaves to stun fish in pools). And then they move on to both hunt and gather elsewhere .. with a great deal of the food being gathered. Doing this for 70,000 odd years sees patterns of midden mounds (discarded shells from tidal and river molluscs), bone piles, ock art, etc develop across the landscape .. and living custodians have been pretty good on telling the oral stories of songlines - the movements with yearly and decadal seasons.