Sources of energy during the hunting and gathering phase. Story. Primitive gatherers and hunters. Historical steps in the development of society

There are many common beliefs about the hunter-gatherer lifestyle that have been repeated in academic literature for several hundred years and are reflected in modern humanity's widespread misconceptions about its prehistoric past.

Until recently, these ideas even determined the views of professional anthropologists on how hunter-gatherer “survival” occurred. These views underestimate the apparently always existing human ability to respond to changes in the environment by replacing old resources (labor, capital, knowledge) with new ones, developing new products to replace old ones when their price (the effort required to produce them) changed.
Since the time of Hobbes, the prevailing view has been that life in the state of nature was “solitary, miserable, nasty, cruel and short.” A more accurate view (although not applicable to all Aboriginal societies) is that societies with hunting cultures were relatively abundant (Lee and DeVore, 1968). Previously extensive data on surviving hunter-gatherers shows that, with rare exceptions (the Netsilik Eskimos), their diet was at least stable, if not excessive.
The African Bushmen of the Kung tribe inhabited the northwestern region of the Kalahari Desert - a very unfavorable habitat in which droughts occurred every second or third year. But such conditions rather isolated the Kung tribe from their neighboring farmers than doomed them to an animal existence. Adults typically worked 12-19 hours a day to obtain food. As in all such societies, women primarily gathered and men hunted. The amount of proteins and calories obtained in this way was several times higher than various nutritional standards. Gathering was a more reliable and productive activity, and women produced more than twice as much food per hour (in calorie terms) as men. This working day provided both men and women with free time - rest, entertainment, visiting guests and for men - ritual dances. Approximately 40% of the population were children, single adults (15-25 years of age) or elderly (over 60 years of age) who did not contribute to the general subsistence and were not forced to do so.
The life of the Khazda tribe in Tanzania presented a similar macroeconomic picture. Both large and small animals were numerous there, and all - with the exception of elephants - were hunted by the Khazda. Men and boys hunted alone, relying mainly on poisoned arrows. On average, Khazda spent no more than 2 hours a day hunting. The main pastime for men was gambling, which took up more time than hunting.
Other hunting (or fishing) tribes in Africa, Australia, the Pacific Northwest, Alaska, the Malay Archipelago, and Canada adapted relatively well to this way of life. Malnutrition, starvation and chronic disease were rare, although the likelihood of accidental death was high in some cases, such as among the Eskimos.
The opinion that life in the Stone Age was unbearably difficult is in no way confirmed by the numerous ethnographic studies of hunting societies that survived up to that time carried out in the last century. With a few exceptions, such societies lived quite well and were in no hurry to change their way of life in favor of agriculture or cattle breeding, which their neighbors were engaged in. Whether life in the Stone Age was similar to this modern picture cannot be said for sure, but it is clear that the view that hunting by definition is associated with extremely difficult living conditions is not confirmed. The Paleolithic hunter economy certainly had a high degree of survival in a world much more abundant in game than in previous eras, starting with the mass extinction of animals in the late Pleistocene. Thus, a large number of wealthy societies could exist at that time.
While it is natural to assume that man's uniqueness is a consequence of his intellectual superiority, his good physical characteristics seem to have played an important role in establishing him as a superpredator of all other species. What was given to him by nature would have meant something even in the absence of investment in tools and the human capital necessary to make and use them. As noted by J.B.S. Hoeldein, only a man can swim a mile, walk twenty miles and then climb a tree. Add to this the ability to run a four-minute mile, unsurpassed endurance in long-distance running, the ability to carry loads greater than one's own weight, the ability to live at high altitudes, the ability of American Indians to literally run a horse or deer while chasing it, the incredible achievements of acrobats and gymnasts and, finally, the finger dexterity and coordination required to milk a cow - and we get the portrait of a species with stunning physical superiority over its competitors. It seems that the basis of this physical superiority of man was provided by his upright posture and his knowledge. As a result, people on three continents successfully hunted even various giant proboscideans (mastodons, mammoths, elephants).
The assumption that primitive people were too frail and few in number to have a significant impact on their environment underestimates the unique ability of people to use tools, fire, the high mobility of this species, that around 8000 BC. people have completely populated the Earth (with the exception of Madagascar, New Zealand and Antarctica). Archaeologists indicate that humans were natural big game hunters. They hunted mammoths, mastodons, horses, bison, camels, sloths, reindeer, antelope, red deer, aurochs and other large mammals for at least 30-40 thousand years and left this activity only with the beginning of the mass extinction of animals, which affected most of the planet 8-12 thousand years ago. Paul Martin (1967) explained this extinction by saying that humans were killing too many animals through hunting. A natural argument in favor of this point of view is that the other hypotheses and the most convincing of them, the climate change hypothesis, do not explain the worldwide nature of this extinction, which began in Africa and, possibly, Southeast Asia 40-50 thousand years ago, then spread to north through Eurasia 11-13 thousand years ago, moving to Australia perhaps 13 thousand years ago and entering North America 11 thousand years ago, and then South America 10 thousand years ago. The last such extinctions occurred in New Zealand 900 years ago (several species of flightless moa birds) and in Madagascar 800 years ago, shortly after the late human arrival on these islands.
Man's use of fire as a tool to control and manage natural resources has had a profound impact on the human environment. Several authors who have studied the forms of slash-and-burn agriculture of primitive people have concluded that the grass that covers most of the world's great steppes grew as a result of human fires (for a review, see Heizer, 1955). Where climatic conditions strongly favor tree growth, regular burning serves to select tree species such as pines. The emergence of pine forests in southern New York State and further west is attributed to Indian slash-and-burn agriculture. Modern man's attempts to prevent fires, now almost always caused by lightning, may have resulted in greater environmental disasters than the controlled use of fire by the Aborigines. Periodic fires prevent the formation of undergrowth, which can later serve as food for a particularly strong forest fire that destroys all forest vegetation.
The third type of ecological influence exerted by primitive people was the transfer of plant seeds during their migrations. This introduced some exotic species of vegetation to new areas. Archaeologists have often noticed a correspondence between the distribution of certain plant species and the sites of ancient sites and dwellings. For example, the widespread distribution of wild squash, which was collected for its seeds, is associated with human activity. The introduction of species unusual for a particular area can and has caused serious changes in the environment in our time. This phenomenon has ancient roots, and it may have been much more destructive at a time when primitive people moved from one “pristine” area to another.
To be successful, a hunter-gatherer requires human capital typically associated only with agricultural and industrial societies: training, knowledge transfer, tool development, and social organization. A comprehensive study of Aboriginal people's use of fire in hunting and gathering shows that early humans were aware of the reproductive cycles of shrubs and grasses and used fire to support the growth and flowering of plants they wanted and to suppress the growth of plants they did not want (Lewis, 1973). To do this, you need to know when, where, how and how often to burn in order to preserve and maintain the supply of resources that make gathering an effective and productive way of subsistence. Primitive people knew that the growing season of useful plants can be hastened by burning, which warms the earth, that in dry weather the fire must be lit on the tops of the hills to avoid uncontrollable fire, but when the air is humid, the fire must be lit in the lowlands to prevent it from going out. They knew that burning the dense underbrush helped the growth of oak trees, whose acorns provided food for people and attracted moose, who did not like the dense underbrush, and that deer and other animals were attracted to the tender new shoots that grew after the old ones were burned.
To live by hunting means to engage in an activity that requires a lot of intelligence, physical strength, certain technologies, skills, social organization, a certain division of labor, knowledge of animal habits, observation habits, ingenuity, problem-solving ability, risk-taking and high motivation, since the value the gain and the cost of error are very high. Such exceptional requirements for the hunter could have been a good means of evolutionary selection and influenced the development of intelligence and genetic stock, which contributed to the subsequent rapid creation of modern civilization by man. This natural selection may have been enhanced by the widespread practice among the Aborigines of providing the best hunters with many wives.
It was in the role of a hunter that man learned to learn. In particular, he realized that young boys needed to be taught purposeful observation and introduced to the behavior and anatomy of animals. From the fact that herds of ungulates move in an arc, it follows that it is possible to overtake them faster by following a chord. Knowledge of animal habits replaced the development of weapons. Even with the weapons of the late pre-agricultural period (spears, bow and arrows, harpoon), the hunter had to get within ten yards of the victim for a sure shot. And for this it was necessary to wait for hours, huddled on the ground, for the wind to change or for the animal to stand more comfortably, or, for example, for a mammoth to go deeper into the quagmire at a watering hole. Weapons changed as people switched to new game. Thus, the spear tip of the Clovis culture - a common find in North America - was used in hunting mammoths and mastodons 11-12 thousand years ago. The Folsom point was then invented for hunting the large, now extinct bison, Bison antiquus. It gave way to the Scottsbluff point, which was used to hunt the somewhat smaller, now extinct Bison occidentalis (Haynes, 1964; Wheat, 1967). These facts indicate the presence of high specialization, which requires new forms of human and physical capital adapted to the hunt for new prey.
Evidence of the organization required for successful hunting was found during excavations at the Olsen-Chubbuck site in Colorado, where excavated remains of bones and Scottsbluff-type spear points indicate that about 8,500 years ago, a couple of hundred Bison occidentalis were driven into the bed of a river that had dried up after the rainy season, 5-7 feet deep. Armed hunters positioned on both sides of the fleeing herd caused a real massacre (Wheat, 1967).
Models of behavior of primitive man were often built on the basis of “cultural factors” rather than the axioms of rational economic behavior. However, that Kung bushman who, when asked why they had not yet taken up farming, said: “Why should we plant anything when there are so many mongongo nuts in the world?” clearly recognized the importance of such a principle as counting opportunity costs (Lee and DeVore, 1968, p. 33). This Bushman, I would suggest, gave the answer to a well-known scientific question: why did the man-hunter abandon the occupation that had served him so faithfully for 1.6 million years and to which he had become so adapted (this is evidenced by the growing sophistication of his weapons as , how did he develop from homo erectus to anatomically modern homo sapiens)? Man would not have abandoned hunting and gathering if the conditions of his interaction with nature had not changed and the hunting lifestyle had not become more costly than the agricultural one. This hypothesis does not exclude the influence of “culture” on the behavior of primitive man. The description of hunter-gatherers as subjects seeking to maintain their prestige does not contradict the hypothesis that man, like nature, behaves “economically.” The high prestige attached to hunting may simply be a subtle way of promoting hunting and its associated technologies as an optimal way of life without each new generation having to rediscover it. Myths about great hunters, fabulous prey, cruel punishments for lost skills, and the killing of the goose that lays the golden eggs are part of the oral tradition through which a given economic system preserves its human capital.
The hypothesis that the agricultural revolution was a consequence of the decline in productivity of hunting and gathering relative to agriculture (Smith, 1975; North and Thomas, 1977) is quite compatible with the fact that this cultural shift:
a) occurred at different times in different parts of the world with the preservation of small hunting enclaves in a number of places;
b) was not final and irrevocable for each tribe.
As for point a), the wave of mass extinction of terrestrial
animals took place over a period of several thousand years, and therefore the relative decline in hunting efficiency affected different areas at different times. In addition, people in different environmental conditions with different opportunity costs had to develop different adaptation mechanisms: some could remain gatherers and hunters of small game, while others switched to fishing or remained fishermen in areas unsuitable for agriculture (like the Aleutian Eskimos and Indians from the northeast Pacific coast).
In support of point (b), it can be noted that the introduction of horses into North America by the Spaniards (horses of the species Equus caballus were introduced only 8,000 years after other representatives of this genus were destroyed in the Americas) seriously transformed the way of life of the Plains Indians. On the northern plains, the "warlike" Cheyenne (as later called by Europeans) and the Arapaho tribe quickly abandoned their villages, abandoned their pottery and gardening, and became nomadic buffalo hunters (see references in Smith, 1975). Apparently, Agricultural productivity was outpaced by the dramatically increased productivity of buffalo hunting, made possible by technological changes that combined the horse with the bow and arrow. To the south, where the growing season was longer and the climate more favorable, the Pawnee Indians, having begun hunting buffalo, continued to grow maize, becoming a mixed hunting-agricultural society. The southwestern Apaches, whom Coronado identified as buffalo hunters in 1541, simply introduced horses into their pre-existing hunting culture. The vast buffalo hide camps seen by the first Europeans to cross the plains were the product of already technologically outgunned Native Americans, many of whom had only recently moved away from an agricultural lifestyle.

Write a review about the article "Hunters and Gatherers"

Notes

Literature

Grinin L. E.. - M.: KomKniga, 2006. - 272 p. - ISBN 5-484-00665-1..
Cabo V. R.. - M.: Nauka, 1986. - 302 p.
Korotaev A.V.. - M.: URSS, 2007. - 224 p. - ISBN 978-5-484-00957-2..
Korotaev A. V., Malkov A. S., Khalturina D. A.. - M.: URSS, 2007. - 255 p. - ISBN 978-5-484-00958-9..



Historical periods

History of the regions

Economic organization

Excerpt describing Hunters and Gatherers

The French guns again hastily loaded. The infantry in blue hoods ran toward the bridge. Again, but at different intervals, smoke appeared, and buckshot clicked and crackled across the bridge. But this time Nesvitsky could not see what was happening on the bridge. Thick smoke rose from the bridge. The hussars managed to set fire to the bridge, and the French batteries fired at them no longer to interfere, but so that the guns were aimed and there was someone to shoot at.
“The French managed to fire three grape shots before the hussars returned to the horse handlers. Two volleys were fired incorrectly, and the grapeshot carried everything, but the last shot hit the middle of a group of hussars and knocked down three.
Rostov, preoccupied with his relationship with Bogdanich, stopped on the bridge, not knowing what to do. There was no one to cut down (as he always imagined a battle), and he also could not help in lighting the bridge, because he did not take with him, like other soldiers, a bundle of straw. He stood and looked around, when suddenly there was a crackling sound across the bridge, like scattered nuts, and one of the hussars, who was closest to him, fell on the railing with a groan. Rostov ran towards him along with others. Someone shouted again: “Stretcher!” The hussar was picked up by four people and began to be lifted.
“Ohhh!... Stop it, for Christ’s sake,” the wounded man shouted; but they still picked him up and put him down.
Nikolai Rostov turned away and, as if looking for something, began to look at the distance, at the water of the Danube, at the sky, at the sun. How beautiful the sky seemed, how blue, calm and deep! How bright and solemn the setting sun! How tenderly the water glittered in the distant Danube! And even better were the distant, blue mountains beyond the Danube, the monastery, the mysterious gorges, the pine forests filled to the top with fog... it was quiet, happy there... “I wouldn’t want anything, I wouldn’t want anything, I wouldn’t want anything, if only I were there,” thought Rostov. “There is so much happiness in me alone and in this sun, and here... groans, suffering, fear and this obscurity, this haste... Here again they shout something, and again everyone runs back somewhere, and I run with them, and here she is.” , here it is, death, above me, around me... A moment - and I will never see this sun, this water, this gorge again”...
At that moment the sun began to disappear behind the clouds; another stretcher appeared ahead of Rostov. And the fear of death and stretchers, and the love of the sun and life - everything merged into one painfully disturbing impression.
“Lord God! He who is there in this sky, save, forgive and protect me!” Rostov whispered to himself.
The hussars ran up to the horse guides, the voices became louder and calmer, the stretcher disappeared from sight.
“What, bg”at, did you sniff pog”okha?...” Vaska Denisov’s voice shouted in his ear.
“It’s all over; but I’m a coward, yes, I’m a coward,” thought Rostov and, sighing heavily, took his Grachik, who had put his leg out, from the hands of the handler and began to sit down.
-What was that, buckshot? – he asked Denisov.
- And what a one! – Denisov shouted. - They did a great job! And the work is mediocre! An attack is a nice thing to do, kill in the dog, but here, who knows what, they hit like a target.
And Denisov drove off to a group that had stopped near Rostov: the regimental commander, Nesvitsky, Zherkov and a retinue officer.
“However, it seems no one noticed,” Rostov thought to himself. And indeed, no one noticed anything, because everyone was familiar with the feeling that an unfired cadet experienced for the first time.
“Here’s the report for you,” said Zherkov, “you’ll see, they’ll make me a second lieutenant.”
“Report to the prince that I lit the bridge,” the colonel said solemnly and cheerfully.
– What if they ask about the loss?
- A trifle! – the colonel boomed, “two hussars were wounded, and one on the spot,” he said with visible joy, unable to resist a happy smile, loudly chopping off the beautiful word on the spot.

The basic economic character of groups of people was determined at first almost exclusively, and then mainly by the method of obtaining food. First, they had to collect something edible - grains, nuts, fruits, roots, honey, insects and any small animals that they could catch with their bare hands. We know nothing about life during this period except our own conclusions. Continuing to maintain their existence in this way, all primitive people entered the next phase of development, where hunting for large animals was added to gathering. From the surviving tools of that time, one can trace a carefully developed hunting technique, adapted for hunting all kinds of large animals, up to the mammoth.

One insurmountable social division that has passed down to humans from the animal stage of development is that of gender. Inevitably, the small social groups of the early Stone Age maintained their continuity through the female line, for young men were mostly forced to leave and marry girls from other groups, which they then joined. This corresponded to an economic division in which women collected fruits, nuts, grains, dug roots and caught insects, while men hunted small animals and fished. At this level of development it was difficult to draw a line between them as people getting food.

The further development of hunting for large animals - an occupation of men - increased the importance of men as the main provider of food. It is possible that this, combined with enormous physical strength, the ability to attack and the dexterity accompanying these qualities, led at the end of the Stone Age to the dominance of men over women, as, for example, this is the case among Australian hunters. There has been a tendency in families to determine kinship by paternal line, and tribal customs become patriarchal. This trend may have changed greatly with the advent of hoe farming, which increased the importance of women.

Totemism and magic

The totem system is still in effect among many primitive peoples of our time. Traces of it can be found in all civilizations, including ours, especially in the most conservative areas of religion and language. And in fact, as Thomson showed, the whole complex of names to designate our family relationships - father, sister, uncle, etc. - can be understood only taking into account conditional totemic relationships. We still retain in our armorial lions and unicorns remnants of the totemic animals handed down to us through heraldry.

Ritual and myth

More directly related to science are the rituals related to totemic ceremonies, in particular ceremonies for birth, initiation and funeral. The fact that initiation rites existed in the Old Stone Age is shown by images found in caves made on soft clay by participants in such rites, as well as prints of mutilated hands. These rites, which everyone had to go through, were accompanied by the singing of hymns expressing interpretations, or myths about the origin and development of the world from the point of view of totemic ideas. This was the first formal education, which was the inculcation of a set of detailed beliefs concerning the world and how to govern it, which complemented, although never incorporated into, practical training in existing techniques of hunting, cooking, etc. One of the features of the initiation ceremonies was the assignment names, which, due to the supposed connection of the initiates with the ancestors of the totem and, therefore, with the whole world, were considered especially significant and sacred. Etymology (nomen - name = gnosco - to know) shows that knowledge of names was the first and detailed knowledge.

All myths in their original form must reflect the state of development of practical technology and social organization of the corresponding period, but since their connection with rituals was considered necessary for the preservation of the life of the race and, in fact, of the entire universe, they changed more slowly than changes in conditions occurred, and often became incomprehensible until they were revised in accordance with the latest data. For example, the myth of the Garden of Eden originally reflected the transition from hunting to agriculture, but it was also used to defend ideas of taboo, sexual difference, the impiety of knowledge, blind obedience to God, and original sin. The myths of even different tribes easily mixed and began to form a kind of incoherent common mythology. It is from such totemic myths that, after numerous changes, but in the presence of an unbroken tradition, not only religious credo, but also scientific theories.

2.4. ORIGIN OF RATIONAL SCIENCE

The various types of knowledge acquired by primitive man from his knowledge of the tools of labor and production, fire, animals and plants, rituals and myths about society, were not very different from each other in their initial successes. Wherever they existed, they united into one common culture. To understand the genesis of science from this culture, it is not enough to describe its development without going beyond the experience of man of those times. It is also necessary to study this experience in the light of modern science. We must determine the extent of what is known at any given period, in any given field of experience, in comparison with the relative complexity of what is to be known. Fully rational and useful science can only arise where there is any hope of such an understanding of the inner workings of a part of the environment as is sufficient to enable us to be able to turn them at will to the benefit of man. The inanimate world is simpler than the animate world and much simpler than the social world, so that rational and ultimately scientific control over the environment will inevitably spread in this manner.

By making and using tools, man thereby transformed nature in accordance with his desire. This was the origin of rational mechanics - mastering the laws of motion of matter in space, expressed in the ability to handle a lever, bow, boomerang and bolas. Even without such an understanding of the actions of nature, man was able to, to one degree or another, benefit from his environment, which had no signs of order. Man only needed to know what to expect and take what nature provided, without having to create anything for himself. This is the sphere observant And descriptive sciences that are the basis of the art of hunting and gathering fruits at certain times of the year. In addition to what can be directly influenced by man, and what can be expected from nature, man also strives to apply his abilities, but in other ways, first in magic and later within the framework of religion.

In any case, the interests of primitive man were strictly limited and purely practical. They boiled down to providing the necessities of life - food, animals and plants - as well as materials for the manufacture of tools and means of labor, which, in the minds of primitive people, together with such things as celestial bodies or landscape features, brought them abundance. If the realm of the rational and conjectural was small, it still constituted a very large part of what primitive man was really interested in. With the development of society, the scope of science has grown immeasurably, but the sphere of interests has grown with the same speed, and perhaps even faster. There is no reason to believe that primitive man felt less secure in his world than we do in ours.

Mechanics

Start rational The field is embedded in the structure of the physical world and the sensory-motor mechanism, which evolved in animals over billions of years in such a way that at each stage they could use it better and better. At first, it arises directly from the visual-motor elements of the human body itself: the inherited coordinated actions of the eye - hand, which gave the dachshund man an advantage over other mammals, especially when he became a social animal. In other words, the possibility of a person’s rational thinking arises from his relationship with the physical world around him. With such a simple invention as, for example, a lever, one could eventually find out what would happen to one end if the other was moved. It was on the basis of eye-hand coordination that the rational science of mechanics first arose. And it was in this area, and initially only in this area, that it became possible see and intuitively feel, how something works. This feeling was greatly strengthened by the knowledge gained from studying the original technique. The roots of statics and dynamics must be found in the processing, manufacture and use of tools. Thus, long before any science could exist, man already had an internal and vital mathematical logic in the physical handling of definite and abstract objects. As science developed, it was the physical aspect that always remained leading, from the point of view of rationality, over other aspects of science.

Only later, many thousands of years later, could these physical methods be applied to other aspects of human experience - chemical and biological - and to make them logically understandable and manageable. However, this does not mean that the foundations of the biological and social sciences were not laid at that time, but only means that they inevitably, due to their internal complexity, had to develop in a different way. In the same rational way it is impossible see, what would happen as a result of any action in the preparation of food or drink. But it's possible to know, first of all by doing something, and then remembering and reflecting on what has been done. In this field, and even more in the field of animal behavior, knowledge was essentially traditional. It was also strictly irrational, because with the level of knowledge that existed at that time it was impossible to understand and see the reasons for Why this or that happens. However, this is not necessary it seemed irrational, since the mere knowledge of the experience made any explanation unnecessary. In any case, some mythical explanations can always be found, often in the form of abstract but personified actors, like totemic ancestors or spirits. Therefore, the distinction between the rational and descriptive domains was not absolute. In addition, there were many similar and comparable things that could be done. Entire classes of phenomena were somewhat similar. In fact, it was in this area that the practice of classification arose, which led to the development of the biological and to some extent chemical sciences. These first classifications were inevitably embodied in language, which contains, in essence, a theory about beings or things (nouns) capable of actions or experiences (verbs). Here also arises a kind of descriptive reasoning by analogy, mostly based on magic, which (the analogy) although at first erroneous, then became more and more certain as a result of the accumulation and selection of facts confirmed by experience. Judging from the savages now living, primitive men must have made a very clear distinction between the field of experience in which they knew how to manage things well and give a correct estimate of what was going to happen, and the region in which they had to rely on ritual and magic. Nevertheless, the close connection of these aspects contributed to the emergence of very resilient cultures.

Sanctions of tradition

The extreme slowness of change, as established by archaeological evidence, shows how strictly traditions were adhered to in all areas by primitive people. This was possible because they instinctively felt the unity of their entire culture and the danger of moving away from certain traditions. Could they know that this or that failure in performing ordinary rituals or pronouncing magic words promises them, whether this will entail an unexpected revolution in the entire order of nature, whether this will deprive them of their sources of food or bring illness? It was safer not to make any changes until circumstances made it completely impossible to continue maintaining the old traditions.

2.5. TRANSFORMING THE ENVIRONMENT

So far we have considered the origins of science in primitive society only in an extremely general way, giving particular importance to the question of how its adaptation necessarily led to growth and better organization. knowledge material, biological and human environment. But this is only one side of the issue. The other represents the development and use of technology by primitive man, which led to a change in this environment and to further fundamental changes in the very way of his life. People did this in two ways.

Each new technical device primarily expanded the area of control and use in the environment. A new type of tool, such as the bolas, already fully developed in the Old Stone Age, made it possible to hunt fleet-footed animals on the open plains. New means of labor could have even more important consequences. Fur clothing, huts and fire made it possible for primitive people to winter in the north. Such revolutionary changes in technology made it possible for humanity to spread to new lands and live more densely in old ones.

Second, the successful use of new technology, such as burning forests to clear land, physically changed the environment itself over a long period of time and led to the emergence of new problems for which technical change was vital. Other crises, sometimes indistinguishable by primitive man from the crises caused by his own activities, were generated by changes beyond the control of man in the physical world around him, caused primarily by climate change. Both of these types of environmental transformation require either movement from old areas or the development of new technology that would operate in new conditions. Did technical change arise from the culture itself, or were it influenced by changes in the external conditions in which it certainly took place? Further, as archaeological evidence shows, these changes were mainly progressive and further expanded man's power over the environment.

Humanity spent most of its history in the Stone Age, hunting and gathering.

People did not sit in one cave all the time. Over the course of a year, they visited different places where food appeared - fruits ripened, animals appeared. Therefore, archaeologists call the habitats of primitive man sites: these were temporary camps in which people lived for several weeks or months a year. What made people move was not so much hunger as the desire to work less. Foraging for food and related activities (creating tools, cooking) took only 2-6 hours a day. During the remaining time, people talked or simply slept. High labor productivity was achieved due to low population density - 1 person per several tens of km2, so people could afford, figuratively speaking, to pick only the low-hanging fruit. Among the African Bushmen, gathering gave 15 calories per expended, hunting - 5. By comparison, traditional farming provides only 1.7-5 calories per expended and requires more than 9 hours of labor per day. At the same time, the diet of hunter-gatherers is more varied and richer.

The movement between the camps was not organized. Decisions about when and where to go were made at the level of individual families, and people were dispersed throughout the territory, ensuring its efficient use. Several families could live in one camp at the same time. The hunter, bringing his prey to the camp, shared it with the others. This ensured the stability of meat consumption, distributing risks among several earners. Gathering was more predictable, but its products could also be shared on occasion with distant communities if drought or other disaster deprived people of food, or, conversely, the gifts of nature in some area turned out to be too abundant. In general, gifts and treats served to smooth out consumption, and neighbors were more helpers than competitors, so violence was rare in the paleolithic. People with conflicts were ostracized.

Although hunting and gathering were highly productive on average, this could vary depending on the season. I even had to go hungry for part of the year, but usually not too much. Fat reserves helped survive the time of hunger. For example, the Bushmen lost up to 5 kilograms during the winter, and gained weight again in the summer. For a time, people could gather in places where resources were concentrated. The American Shoshone gathered in pine groves in winter, where they ate cone seeds. Bushmen gathered at water sources. Thus, several dozen people accumulated in the winter camp, or several closely located camps. This represented an excellent opportunity for establishing friendships, marriages, etc.

In the absence of additional incentives, the ability to create excess product did not lead to the emergence of civilization. Thus, the Machiguenga gardeners in Peru lived even more isolated lives than hunter-gatherers. Slash-and-burn farming allowed them to consistently receive 20 calories per 1 expended, so they always had enough food and did not need external contacts, living as separate families. And in Mesoamerica, 5 thousand years passed between the emergence of agriculture and the first large settlements. According to some reports, people had an idea of farming already 40 thousand years ago. But given the surrounding abundance of nature, this technology was not in demand for a long time, and after it began to be practiced, for a long time it played a supporting role in relation to hunting and gathering."

Hunters and gatherers

The term hunters and gatherers indicate a certain level of development of human societies. Society hunters and gatherers characterized by an appropriating economy (appropriating economy) and high horizontal mobility. At the same time, the ecological niche of human reproduction does not expand significantly, since there are no effective artificial means of expanding it. Such societies are characterized by a very low population density (usually noticeably less than 1 person per sq. km), small community sizes (usually 20-30 people), and insignificant social differentiation. However, according to the latter indicator, hunting-gathering societies show significant differences among themselves. Thus, the Australian Aborigines were characterized by pronounced inequality between men and women, as well as older and younger men. Such hunting-gathering societies are called "inegalitarian". On the other hand, the hunter-gatherers of Africa (Pygmies, Bushmen, Hadza) are characterized by a fairly certain equality of all members of the communities. Such hunting-gathering societies are called "egalitarian".

Most ethnographically described hunting-gathering societies were nomadic extensive hunter-gatherers. Noticeable differences from them are demonstrated by intensive specialized hunter-gatherers (a classic example here are the Indians of the Northwest Coast), which can be characterized by sedentism, a relatively high population density (more than 1 person per sq. km.), significant community sizes (of the order of several hundred people), pronounced socio-economic inequality, relatively developed political leadership. Such societies arose only in places with particularly rich natural resources and still had pronounced limits to their development, since they did not have effective means of expanding their ecological niche.

The situation changes dramatically after the so-called Neolithic revolution, after people had at their disposal effective artificial means of expanding their ecological niche.

Sources of energy during the hunting and gathering phase. Story. Primitive gatherers and hunters. Historical steps in the development of society

More on the topic MAN IS A HUNTER AND GATHERER:

see also

Write a review about the article "Hunters and Gatherers"

Notes

Literature

Excerpt describing Hunters and Gatherers

Links

see also

See what “Hunters and Gatherers” are in other dictionaries: