Hunter GatherersEssay Preview: Hunter GatherersReport this essayOur species have been hunter-gatherers for most of the time we have existed on the Earth. The people of the Paleolithic period adapted themselves to the environment of the time, taking food as and when it was available and hunted game which resulted in a high percentage of their food being meat. Evidence suggests that before the end of the Paleolithic period, hunters would have noted the migratory patterns of the herds they hunted and learned which plants were nutritious and not poisonous. Fruits, vegetables, nuts, and berries where gathered when in season and, being nomadic, they followed the sources of food rather than growing crops. Learning to control fire helped them adapt to their environment, both by providing a source of warmth and safety (extending the temperate range in which they could survive) and by making food more palatable and appetising. (I. Kuijt, pp. 103-107)
Approximately Twelve thousand years ago the most recent Ice Age retreated. The herds of large cold-climate animals moved north and our ancestors had to change their habits in order to survive. As the more southern locations warmed, some hunter-gatherers found enough food to support the group short distances from their camps. These food plants attracted a wide variety of smaller game such as horse and rabbit. Conditions around the major river systems in warm climates were favourable to settlements, since these areas had sufficient food available for survival year round. Evidence suggests that at this time settled life and the deliberate cultivation of food plants began in five different parts of the world; Euphrates, and the Nile rivers; the Indus River in the northern Indian subcontinent; in China along the Yellow River; the Fertile Crescent area in West Asia along the Tigris; in sub-Saharan Africa and the Niger River system; and in Central America. (
The change to settlement from nomadic living marked the beginning of the Neolithic period. The people now produced food, rather than procuring it, they no longer adapted themselves to their environment, but adapted their environment to them. This involved actions as simple as weeding around food plants, bringing water to the plants during dry periods, and planting seeds so that food grew in a more convenient location. Settled life meant food could be stored as a reserve for times of scarcity, such as winter, and, as farming techniques became more advanced, there would be surpluses. (R. L Bettinger, p.84) The existence of surplus food had two main consequences. The first was job specialization, and the second was economic inequality. When a group produced more food than was readily consumable, it could afford to have individuals (other than infants) that did not contribute to the production of food. They would have traded a skill for food. These people included potters and weavers, builders, warriors (guards), and a priestly class to intercede with the gods. A social hierarchy developed based on these specialisations, with those jobs requiring these specialized skills ranking higher than envolving unskilled labour. Surplus production was not uniform across the new society, resulting in the concepts of ownership and economic inequality becoming realities. (R. Redfield, p.42. I. Kuijt pp. 314-319)
Population increase was another change in Neolithic society. Child spacing of about three to four years was necessary in migratory groups, assuming infant survival, where the only alternative to milk was meat or course plant fibres meaning children were weaned after the age of three. When young children no longer had to be carried with the migration of the group and when new foods and new preparation methods resulted in more digestible grains, women began to have more children. Having many children was an asset, because it meant a larger workforce for farming. There was also an increasing need for replacement children. Living in one place among a larger population resulted in an increased risk of disease and more danger of the disease spreading. (I. Kuijt pp. 103-137, R H Steckel et al) Migratory groups were typically small and had little contact with outsiders carrying different diseases, also migratory groups seldom stayed in one place long enough for wastes to contaminate a water supply. Archaeological records show a sharp decline in stature and health that accompanied the change to the agricultural diet and lifestyle. Early hunter-gatherers were up to four to six inches taller than the early farmers were. The hunters also had stronger bones, fewer cavities, and, barring accidents, lived longer. Hunter-gatherers were rarely obese and had low rates of autoimmune diseases like arthritis and diabetes. (R H Steckel et al p 5)
A growing population requires an increase in food production. There are two ways to achieve this; improve the productivity of the lands farmed or farm more land. Farming more land is not always possible- it requires a larger workforce immediately and outlying land may be poor quality and not worth the investment of time, also another group may be using the land you want. The simplest way of improving existing or marginal land is to bring water to semi-arid lands. A single farmer might carry enough water or dig a ditch to bring it to his patch of land, but, to best serve a community, an irrigation system is required. This would involve cooperative effort for the sake of the community as a whole, requiring planning and organization, especially of labour. It was the need for irrigation that triggered the organisational developments key to the development of civilization in most places. Small villages had become urban areas by the end of the Neolithic period, with economic specialization and social stratification. As population and individual wealth increased and these villages and communities multiplied, they often became targets for remaining nomadic groups and each other. Defensive forces and tactics became a part of society and these were based on the cooperation began with field irrigation.
Subsistence tasks in migratory groups were performed by people who had the time and who were best suited. Women were more likely to have contributed to the subsistence requirements of the group by gathering. They were the ones who reproduced, feed, and nurtured the newest members of the group. They were probably usually the gatherers because they were women. Remains suggest the average life span in the Paleolithic period was at less than thirty years; it was probably lower for women because of the hazards of childbirth. This means that it was highly unlikely that there would be childless female relatives to help care for children while the mother hunted or ranged away from camp. When the migratory people began to settle down it was probably the women who became the first farmers.
[Crossref]
The authors report a number of possible causes of the sudden death of female family members in this prehistoric period. First, as mentioned, females in a particular group had an exceptionally low number of babies. Their descendants had also only 3 children. The reasons for this are not completely understood, however. Third, the presence of many children would also have reduced other social barriers to pregnancy.
[Crossref]
Paleolithic Women: A Contribution to Early Evolutionary and Society‐Wide Human Needs, Nature, December 13, 2009[/Crossref]
[/p>
“As we have previously considered, the most important contribution to life for this time period was to a relatively small number of children as part of a relatively large family. In addition, the relatively small number of male relatives and few females in the population means that we do not have a large degree of genetic diversity among the population. We are not able to draw any conclusions on the significance of this difference, however, because we are aware that the population of early humans in Eurasia, around about 700 million years ago, would most likely have had very few young females. However, it is important to note that human populations of these early humans may differ a great deal from those found earlier in Europe.”—The Nature Conservancy, November 12, 2008[/Crossref]
[Crossref]
The authors propose a possible mechanism by which such early humans might (perhaps) have relied on their genetic pool of offspring.
[Crossref]
“There is no convincing evidence for a second migration that may have contributed to the birth of our great and highly diverse human groups. It is known that ancient humans began to migrate in response to natural changes in the environment. Previous research has shown that such migratory events would be expected to have occurred several millions of years later, so migration has occurred a number of times in the past and is likely expected to continue at a similar rate for thousands of years.”—Nature Conservancy[/Crossref]
[Crossref]
This paper provides a framework for considering a number of theories, including an evolutionary explanation, and a non-natural explanations. The paper explores the possible human benefits of dispersal (and possible extinction) as an explanation based on recent human findings. The paper does so by looking at the evidence from paleontological research that supports an explanation for social selection. The paper finds that selection is often interpreted as a positive response to selection pressures, even if some of those pressures are indeed non-natural. This paper also provides a framework to explore an alternative explanation of the effects of dispersal on the genetic history of humans. This proposed other-place model indicates that people migrated from lands beyond the range of today’s humans. The authors note, however, that the reason why some of those who migrate and leave are selected is not known — for example, because most of the European ancestors of today are more recent than those of ancestors who migrated. Rather, the reasons are largely unimportant.
[Crossref] <