The Myth of the Hunter-Gatherer

[hoosierarcher]

In Anthropology, Sociology, Psychology and even History classes in Universities in this country( The United States Of America) when they instuck about so called primitive societies they perpetuate The Myth of the Hunter-Gatherer. Stating over and over again that it is a subsistance lifestyle, wherein the Hunter-Gather group barely survives from day to day. They claim the groups are always on the verge of starvation.This is pattenly false. There are lean times for these tribes but because they are nomadic and migrate with the Seasons they minimize this hardship. In actually Hunter-Gathering Groups have generally an abundance of food. The various tribes around the Globe each have a different food base but they all have a staple that they gather or hunt and they store against the leaner times. With those tribes of the far North it is dried salmon or seal meat and bone marrow. The Bushmen of the Khalihari have mongongo nuts. In The Amazon they have Maniock or wild yams and nuts. Native North Americans had pemmican and bannock and the buffalo. All these groups have these foods in abundance and make containers to hold and bring them along in their travels.
I believe they perpetuate The Myth of the Hunter-Gatherer to better glorify Civilization and Modernization. I further wish to state that I personally do not believe that Civilization and Modernization are the pinnacles of Human achievement Academicia would have us believe they are. What say you?

[DOGMAN]

I say, I have a degree in Anthropology, and I was not taught what you wrote. In alot of the modern writings of Anthropology it is said that hunter and gatherers have more free time than modern societies, and have more time for family and other pursuits than most modern people. Especially in warmer climates. Hunter and Gatherers in many cold climates had/have tough times, but generally speaking, for hours a day spent working- hunter and gatherers spent less time "working" than modern society.

[crashdive123]

I don't remember hearing that about hunter/gatherers. Not saying I didn't, just don't remember it if I did.

[trax]

J_M, you're right on the money as far as I know, but I can see hoosier's point of view as well. I think it's the most recent studies that have shown the relationship between hunter/gatherer societies and their free time to pursue personal and intellectual activities, as you stated. Over the years, the "advance of civilization" certainly seems to have been popularized by most of what I've read. It's led to me having a different definition than most on what is civilization, because I think it should be based on a group or society's willingness and ability to be civil. We've fallen short somewhere.

[RBB]

I say, I have a degree in Anthropology, and I was not taught what you wrote. In alot of the modern writings of Anthropology it is said that hunter and gatherers have more free time than modern societies, and have more time for family and other pursuits than most modern people. Especially in warmer climates. Hunter and Gatherers in many cold climates had/have tough times, but generally speaking, for hours a day spent working- hunter and gatherers spent less time "working" than modern society.

This is what I read on the subject.

Not to say there weren't "starving times." The local staple was wild rice. If the rice crop was flooded out (wild rice doesn't handle water level fluctuation very well) - the people starved.

[tsitenha]

Native North Americans had pemmican and bannock and the buffalo. All these groups have these foods in abundance and make containers to hold and bring them along in their travels.
The horse, brought to America by the Spaniards was a turning point in geo- mobility of native americans.
Until the advent of the horse, buffalo (bison) was acquired sparingly by the so called "plains indian". The easiest way for aboriginals afoot to get buffalo was to send then crashing/stampede over a jump but that was not always successful (it required the whole tribe to coordinate the hunt); or if they (buffalo) got close enough to the edge of the great plains to hunt a few with bow and arrow or spear if in range and trail them down.
The great plains (distance and lack of water) limited an ease of movement to known water sources on the edges, it took a while for what we consider plains indian to get to the herds with any consistency and change their lifestyle to what we understand them to be today as a horse society.
My people know the Lakota's as woodland/farming peoples.
Pemican was popularised by the need of the voyageurs with high caloric foods that traveled well and limited or even eliminated the need to hunt along the way.
In the more northern areas rice was a greater source of carbs than even maize
Bannock as we know it was also limited to the most prolific grain "Maize" (indian corn) not wheat.

[rebel]

In my understanding the hunter-gatherers came before the agricultural based societies.

The agricultural society allowed for food development as far as grain/seed hybrids and domesticating animals. This also allowed/ or required metals to be developed. Then the other arts. So, here we are at the pinnacle of civilization...shopping and leisure heaven?

I'm sure if things hadn't progressed past hunter-gatherer there would less humans.

[tsitenha]

Many levels of farming, Iroquois were famed for their fields of maize, beans, squash (3 sisters), wild rice was nutured by the more northern Anishnabee, aboriginals farmed to the extent the climate allowed their growing season. Mezo America had even better and longer, more varied growing seasons than we here.
We used sticks to furrow, slash and burn to fertilize then move on, we were semi nomadic but still hunted and gathered when the seasons were right.
Co existance, hunter gatherer/farmers, a good balance

[hoosierarcher]

This is what I like most about this site. You post a conversation starter thread and it actually starts a conversation not a name calling festival. I got my college degrees in the 80s so maybe things have changed but I saw a recent class showed a film that was made in the 50s about the !Kung and Twa peoples(Bushmen) of the Khalihari and that it a film I was shown and it definately did its best to perpetuate the Myth.

[DOGMAN]

I agree with that. Bushmen of the Kalhari is a classic ethnographic film. It is shown in Anthropology classes today as a part of history of the discpline. Not as contempoary thought.

[Geronimo!]

This is what I like most about this site. You post a conversation starter thread and it actually starts a conversation not a name calling festival. I got my college degrees in the 80s so maybe things have changed but I saw a recent class showed a film that was made in the 50s about the !Kung and Twa peoples(Bushmen) of the Khalihari and that it a film I was shown and it definately did its best to perpetuate the Myth.

Hoosier, I took a cultural anthropology class 2 years ago and they showed a similar video. While the "myth" wasn't explicitly stated, there definitely was a condescending undertone towards h&g's.

The video also examined "modern civilized life." It was a 20 minute bash on serial monogomy.

If you're interested in reading further into the subject, Daniel Quinn wrote a book titled Ishmael. It kind of examines h&g's living in the "civilized" world. definitely a good read.

[hoosierarcher]

I actually was reading that book last year and it was stolen off my table in the coffee shop while I was In the WC.
I went to a talk Daniel Quinn gave in California in the Bay area and actually had women approach me after asking for my contact information because of the questions I asked him and the opinions I shared with him. Being a neo-barbarian apparently has a fan base. LOL

[trax]

"Neo-barbarian"....I like that, wow good timing h_a, I was just going to turn this thread into a name-calling session :D :D

[hoosierarcher]

trax, I think I'd like to share a campfire and a pot of coffee with you sometime. That is if you ever come out of hiding in those tall pines.

[trax]

I'll take that as a compliment.