I never claimed that Hunter-gather societies are all like the Hadza.
You are absolutely correct that Hunter-gatherer societies that lived in better habitat would grow to higher population density. And perhaps that led to more complex technology than a typical Hunter-gatherer societies. This would fit well with my theories on the importance of food.
If, however, you use the words “high” and “complex” to mean as high or as complex as other society types, then you are going to have to give me some evidence that this is common.
Perhaps there are some examples of Hunter-gather societies with as high population densities as small Fishing societies or Horticultural societies on very poor soil, but nothing beyond that. And perhaps, they could copy or trade for more complex technologies with other society types, but not develop that technology on their own.
Yes, we evolved in warring societies, but they were far from complex in comparison to other society types.
Calling Hunter-gatherer societies “complex” in comparison to other society types completely undermines the usefulness of the term.
I believe that my article’s conclusions are in line with the typical characteristics of Hunter-gatherer societies.
Yes, that is an example of a Fishing society. Very different. I will have a post next week on them.
I seriously doubt many of our ancestors lived like them. The Salmon runs of the Pacific Northwest are one of the greatest concentrations of free-roaming fatty protein in the entire world. Very unusual; perhaps unique in the entire world. Such societies simply cannot exist elsewhere because they have very different food sources.
I am familiar with the article. It appears they also are lumping together different society types and not realizing it.
Perhaps, but then they were Fishing societies, which is not what this article is about.
It is quite possible that Fishing societies were far more common and a higher percentage of the total human population before the agricultural revolution than we realize, but I would have to see evidence of that.
As for warfare, it is still very unclear how much warfare there was in Hunter-gatherer societies. We know from skeletons that being killed by another human was far more common than today. Very high rates of violence.
But we have a hard time telling from a skeleton whether it was murder or war. I have no strong opinion on the subject.
One additional point is that many researchers mistakenly lump together:
1) Hunter-gatherer societies
2) Fishing societies
3) Relatively primitive Horticultural societies
That leads to all kinds of confusion, even among experts.
Perhaps I am incorrect, but I think that you may be doing the same. For example, your description of complex warring societies sounds far more like Horticultural societies.
And your description of dense populations in areas with lots of wild food sounds like Fishing societies.
Researchers often use the term "Foraging" societies without realizing that Fishing and Hunter-gatherer societies are two very different types of societies. That is why I do not use the term "Foraging".
Keep in mind that I am not trying to give the reader a deep understanding of all the variations of Hunter-gatherer societies. I am trying to get people to understand the basic characteristics of the society type, and how they differ from other society types.
One must learn the basic rule before diving into the exceptions.
Thanks for the comment.
I never claimed that Hunter-gather societies are all like the Hadza.
You are absolutely correct that Hunter-gatherer societies that lived in better habitat would grow to higher population density. And perhaps that led to more complex technology than a typical Hunter-gatherer societies. This would fit well with my theories on the importance of food.
If, however, you use the words “high” and “complex” to mean as high or as complex as other society types, then you are going to have to give me some evidence that this is common.
Perhaps there are some examples of Hunter-gather societies with as high population densities as small Fishing societies or Horticultural societies on very poor soil, but nothing beyond that. And perhaps, they could copy or trade for more complex technologies with other society types, but not develop that technology on their own.
Yes, we evolved in warring societies, but they were far from complex in comparison to other society types.
Calling Hunter-gatherer societies “complex” in comparison to other society types completely undermines the usefulness of the term.
I believe that my article’s conclusions are in line with the typical characteristics of Hunter-gatherer societies.
Yes, that is an example of a Fishing society. Very different. I will have a post next week on them.
I seriously doubt many of our ancestors lived like them. The Salmon runs of the Pacific Northwest are one of the greatest concentrations of free-roaming fatty protein in the entire world. Very unusual; perhaps unique in the entire world. Such societies simply cannot exist elsewhere because they have very different food sources.
I am familiar with the article. It appears they also are lumping together different society types and not realizing it.
A very common mistake, even by experts.
Perhaps, but then they were Fishing societies, which is not what this article is about.
It is quite possible that Fishing societies were far more common and a higher percentage of the total human population before the agricultural revolution than we realize, but I would have to see evidence of that.
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/praise-the-fisherman-for-he-worked
If you would like a deeper dive into Hunter-Gatherer societies, then I would suggest reading this summary on my online library of book summaries:
https://techratchet.com/2021/04/06/book-summary-lifeways-of-hunter-gatherers-by-robert-kelly/
As for warfare, it is still very unclear how much warfare there was in Hunter-gatherer societies. We know from skeletons that being killed by another human was far more common than today. Very high rates of violence.
But we have a hard time telling from a skeleton whether it was murder or war. I have no strong opinion on the subject.
One additional point is that many researchers mistakenly lump together:
1) Hunter-gatherer societies
2) Fishing societies
3) Relatively primitive Horticultural societies
That leads to all kinds of confusion, even among experts.
Perhaps I am incorrect, but I think that you may be doing the same. For example, your description of complex warring societies sounds far more like Horticultural societies.
And your description of dense populations in areas with lots of wild food sounds like Fishing societies.
Researchers often use the term "Foraging" societies without realizing that Fishing and Hunter-gatherer societies are two very different types of societies. That is why I do not use the term "Foraging".
Fair enough.
Keep in mind that I am not trying to give the reader a deep understanding of all the variations of Hunter-gatherer societies. I am trying to get people to understand the basic characteristics of the society type, and how they differ from other society types.
One must learn the basic rule before diving into the exceptions.