If any idea has become fixed in the mind of literally all anthropologists, it is the notion that, prior to an evolutionary "stage" known as the "Neolithic," which seems to have gotten started roughly 10,000 years ago, all humans survived exclusively by hunting and gathering. All the Pygmy and Bushmen groups I've been considering here do indeed carry very strong hunting and gathering traditions, though for some time now their primary food source has been, in almost all cases, agricultural produce, obtained through various forms of exchange, either for meat or work. My triangulation method, which zeros in on commonly held traditions regardless of whether they are still dominant in today's world, would then, of course, postulate on this basis the presence of very similar hunting and gathering traditions among HBP. And I can't think of a single anthropologist who would dispute such a conclusion, though many might well be confused by my reasoning, which for them would be superfluous.
I might be content to leave things at that, but there is one problem. Since today's EP, WP and Bu all, without exception, do at least some farming and/or herding, if not for themselves, then for other groups, we cannot completely rule out the possibility that HBP, in addition to hunting and gathering, may have done some sort of farming and/or herding as well. While such a possibility would be unthinkable for many anthropologists, I'm wondering whether there is any real evidence for the lack of farming or herding during the Paleolithic, or whether their conviction that such practices could not have preceded the Neolithic is simply an assumption. After all, absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence.
In purely logical terms, I see no reason to assume that HBP, or any other Paleolithic people, could not have done some farming on the side, and/or domesticated certain animals, as supplements to a hunting and gathering lifestyle. Why is it necessary to assume that such practices could only have occurred when a certain "stage" of human evolution had been attained? Since we have no direct evidence that EP, WP or Bu ever functioned exclusively as hunter-gatherers, with no association whatsoever with farming or herding, the logic of the triangulation method does not, apparently, force us to conclude that such practices could not have been part of HBC, no matter how counter-intuitive this might seem to most anthropologists.
There is, however, one piece of evidence that strongly suggests, nevertheless, that HBP could not have been farmers. And that, interestingly enough, is the beehive huts, which, as I demonstrated in the last post, were almost certainly used by HBP. Such huts are designed as temporary shelters and as such are not consistent with the necessarily sedentary life of farmers. If HBP used such huts, which indeed seems to be the case, then they could not have been very seriously involved with farming. On the other hand, many pastoralists are nomads and would not require more permanent dwellings, so I'm not sure we can rule out a certain amount of herding as part of HBC.
I'm not arguing that HBP were necessarily involved with herding, but at the moment I see no evidence that rules out that possibility.
Is there any fossil evidence that supports herding before Neolithic anywhere (excepting maybe the highly controversial engraved Magdalenian horses)?
ReplyDeleteNo, other than the dog.
Farming and herding do tend to leave a lot of related evidence like distinctive animal remains and maybe farming tools. There's nothing of that before Neolithic and that's why Neolithic is what it is.
Do the huts prove anything? Maybe but I prefer to rely on fossil evidence.
Maju: "Farming and herding do tend to leave a lot of related evidence like distinctive animal remains and maybe farming tools."
ReplyDeleteI'm not well enough versed in archaeology to argue the point, but you have to admit, Maju, that archaeologists do tend to make assumptions, which tend to be overturned when new evidence is discovered. Thus the dates for the advent of the Neolithic keep getting moved backward in time as more is learned.
I'm not in love with the idea that HBP could have been herders (or farmers) and I doubt very much that they were. But I'm trying to be logical and at this point can see no logical reason why they could not have done a certain amount of herding way back then. If it was on a small scale, or if these bands were themselves very small, then very little if any evidence might have survived.
It's not a terribly important point for me, but I am trying to be consistent and avoid making assumptions, so I feel I have no choice but to at least consider this possibility.
Thus the dates for the advent of the Neolithic keep getting moved backward in time as more is learned.
ReplyDeleteI have a 1980s book right here that gives 11-8000 years "B.C." to the foundations of Neolithic such as , which is essentially the same as we do now (9500-8000 BCE per Wikipedia after putting Natufians and other pioneers in their Mesolithic place).
Actually it seems to me that the figure is moving towards the present if anything, after Natufians are not anymore considered Neolithic as such (and there are no other major changes).
What may be moving backwards a bit is the earliest manifestations of transitional Mesolithic in some areas. But this is far from clear at the moment.
Of course, we may be missing some minor occasional semi-domestication instances in previous stages, and in this you are right, but overall, if a people changes to a neolithic way of life, they show it in their fossil registry in form of modified domestic animals (mostly different from their wild counterparts) and grains, as well as in specialized tools like sickles (often pottery too). And indeed, stable residences such as villages.
Overall the picture is hardly mistakable, though Mesolithic transitional peoples like the Natufians show some of this stuff (villages, sickles) but not others (clearly modified domestic animals or grains, artificially selected for their better produce).
But I'm trying to be logical and at this point can see no logical reason why they could not have done a certain amount of herding way back then.
It's not totally impossible (cf. the mystery case of the Magdalenian engraved horse heads with apparent brides) but I have never so far of any other case. Instead we do know of peoples who practiced all the time pure foraging (though with some modifications like the intentional use of fire), including Australian Aboriginals, Hadzabe, etc. Occam's razor should be used here, IMO.
There was some study not too long ago that determined that the first (pre-Bantu) Neolithic arrival to Southern Africa must have carried some minority genetics to the Khoikhoi (Hottentots), who did indeed adopt herding eventually. But this is a cultural import, not something genuine.