Why did humans get into the agriculture business

[Blake]

Originally Posted by Esox Lucius

Besides the bread found in Otzi's stomach, there were three kinds of wild meat: ibex, chamois and deer, as well as wild berries and roots. This sure suggests that hunting and gathering played a large role in his life

If I looked at the stomach contents of a 19th century Alabama share cropper, I would get the same data. with the typical diet consisting of corn, deer, catfish and berries.

Do you therefore conclude that 19th Century share croppers were HGs?

"By examining the proportions of Ötzi's tibia, femur and pelvis, Christopher Ruff has determined that Ötzi's lifestyle included long walks over hilly terrain. This degree of mobility is not characteristic of other Copper Age Europeans." (Wikipedia)

So no evidence for your claim that it was atypical of modern recreational or subsistence hunters?

[MrDibble]

Originally Posted by Esox Lucius

This sure suggests that hunting and gathering played a large role in his life

Nice and true and all, but that still does not make him a hunter-gatherer.

[Doctor Khumalo]

Originally Posted by Lightnin'

One explanation I've heard is "beer". A hunter/gatherer society can't make beer.

This explanation seems logical. Subsistence farming was more difficult and less rewarding that nomad life. My understanding is that the remains of early farmers show signs of shorter lifespans and less nutrient intake.

Near a Thousand Tables: A History of Food by Oxford historian Felipe Fernandez-Armesto talks a bit about it, along with tons of interesting information about the development of civilization and food.

[Blake]

Originally Posted by Doctor Khumalo

Subsistence farming was more difficult and less rewarding that nomad life.

No, as has already been explained at length, it was not.

My understanding is that the remains of early farmers show signs of shorter lifespans and less nutrient intake.

No, the remains of later farmers do however.

[Lemur866]

Farmers will always hunt and gather and fish, if they can. Just read "Little House on the Prairie", where Pa Ingalls, well into the industrial age, still hunts and traps for a large portion of his family's food, and they gather wild plants all the time.

This is typical for farmers. Even if hunting "game" animals is illegal, they still hunt vermin and pests, and then eat them. They still collect fish and shellfish. They collect wild fruits, seeds and nuts.

The life of an early farmer would be almost indistinguishable from a hunter-gatherer, except the early farmer spends a a small part of the year clearing and planting. The hunter-gatherer already spends time harvesting wild crops in season, already clears land to increase availability of favored plants and animals, already has lots of the technology.

Even in the Amazon basin, people we think of as archetypal hunter-gatherers get a large fraction of their calories from slash and burn agriculture and growing plantains. Or in Papua New Guinea where stone-age people farm yams and raise pigs. Obviously there is a continuum between an Amazonian slash and burn horticulturalist and a Chinese peasant where every suitable square inch of land is cultivated or owned by someone. Both are agriculturalists, not hunter-gatherers. But both hunt and gather, even if the Chinese peasant only hunts rats and songbirds.

[Blake]

Originally Posted by Lemur866

Even in the Amazon basin, people we think of as archetypal hunter-gatherers get a large fraction of their calories from slash and burn agriculture and growing plantains. Or in Papua New Guinea where stone-age people farm yams and raise pigs.

I don't know who "we" are, but anthropologists do not consider any people living in the Amazon to be Hunter Gatherers. much less archetypal. It's not actually possible for a human to survive in rainforest as a HG. Those people have been agriculturalists for thousands of years. Before the affect of European disease they lived in cities of thousands within Empires of millions. These people are not HGs who get a large part of their calories form farming. They are agriculturalists who get a minority of their calories form non-farmed sources.

The same applies to anyone in New Guinea who is farming yams and raising pigs. Those people invented agriculture and have been practicing it for 4, 000 years. Until 100 years ago they had the highest extra-urban population densities on the planet. They are in no sense HGs.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Blake

The same applies to anyone in New Guinea who is farming yams and raising pigs. Those people invented agriculture and have been practicing it for 4, 000 years.

Probably twice that long.

[Ele the Stoic]

Originally Posted by Blake

No, as has already been explained at length, it was not.

I'd sure like to know where this idea of the noble liberated savage, and the menial, unrewarding, and degrading life of the agriculturalist came from.


As for Otzi, his occupation aside, based on his quite extensive injuries - deep lacerations on his hands, wrists, and chest; cracked ribs (that may have come from ice compaction post mortem) an arrowhead in his shoulder with shaft removed (that he could not remove himself without causing far more damage to the wound) that entered from behind him with early signs of healing and clotting; and skull fracture with associated cerebral hemorrhaging at the back of his head - he was not the victim of a hunting accident or single murderer, or the victim of animal attacks. Much more likely a victim of a group of assailants who ambushed him, likely near or at his site of death. The missing shaft without a large, ragged wound and his body's positioning (on his stomach with arm across his throat) suggests more likely that he was incapacitated, and someone tried to remove the arrow. Possibly the guys who killed him at the site, possibly later after he and some cohorts fled, as a last ditch attempt to save him when he lost consciousness.

Also of note is that he had considerable cavities, which is consistent with a refined starchy grain diet. Analysis from his intestinal contents and pollen on his clothes shows it to be an archaic form of wheat. He had whipworm, an intestinal parasite which is usually contracted through grains and beans. So while he himself may not have been a farmer (and arsenical content in his body combined with blackened lungs suggests indeed that he was a copper smelter, or lived nearby a smelter), he certainly had compatriots who were, and already had knowledge of how to harvest and grind wheat, and turn it into bread.

Really, it never ceases to amaze me how much information we can gather about his life just from his remains.

[MrDibble]

I don't buy the "single guy murdered by a group" theory as much as the "member of a raiding party gone FUBAR" theory, myself.

[Ele the Stoic]

Originally Posted by MrDibble

I don't buy the "single guy murdered by a group" theory as much as the "member of a raiding party gone FUBAR" theory, myself.

Certainly possible. The only thing that's relatively certain is that there were more people present than just Otzi and his William Tell-esque colleague.

[Esox Lucius]

Originally Posted by Blake

If I looked at the stomach contents of a 19th century Alabama share cropper, I would get the same data. with the typical diet consisting of corn, deer, catfish and berries.

Do you therefore conclude that 19th Century share croppers were HGs?

Originally Posted by MrDibble

Nice and true and all, but that still does not make him a hunter-gatherer.

I'll accept that Otzi could well have been a part-time farmer (there was probably no such thing as a full-time farmer then), but not to call him also a hunter/gatherer seems overly pedantic, especially when it appears that hunting was a significant part of his life. In fact, insisting that he was not a HG is committing the same sin I did in saying he wasn't a farmer.

Originally Posted by Blake

So no evidence for your claim that it was atypical of modern recreational or subsistence hunters?

I only mentioned recreational hunters, the ones who go out for one or three weekends a year for sport. And no, I'm not going to provide or even look for evidence. What part of "This degree of mobility is not characteristic of other Copper Age Europeans" isn't good enough for you?

[Blake]

Originally Posted by Esox Lucius

I'll accept that Otzi could well have been a part-time farmer (there was probably no such thing as a full-time farmer then)

Cite!

Seriously.

but not to call him also a hunter/gatherer seems overly pedantic, especially when it appears that hunting was a significant part of his life.

So would you also call Charles Ingalls a HG If not why not?

I only mentioned recreational hunters, the ones who go out for one or three weekends a year for sport. And no, I'm not going to provide or even look for evidence.

So you made yet another claim for which you have absolutely no evidence.

What part of "This degree of mobility is not characteristic of other Copper Age Europeans" isn't good enough for you?

The part where it doesn't mention recreational or subsistence hunters.

[MrDibble]

Originally Posted by Esox Lucius

but not to call him also a hunter/gatherer seems overly pedantic

Nope, it would be precise and accurate. "Hunter-Gatherer" is an anthropological descriptor of an entire society, not a job description. An entire people are either hunter-gatherers or agriculturalists. Mutually exclusive. Logical XOR. Never the twain shall meet. Ye'll take the high road and I'll take the low road. The anti-Earl Warren. etc.

[MrDibble]

Originally Posted by Esox Lucius

What part of "This degree of mobility is not characteristic of other Copper Age Europeans" isn't good enough for you?

The bit where you blithely skip over the next sentence, "Ruff proposes that this may indicate that Ötzi was a high-altitude shepherd"? Shepherds ain't HGs.

[misterW]

Originally Posted by MrDibble

Nope, it would be precise and accurate. "Hunter-Gatherer" is an anthropological descriptor of an entire society, not a job description. An entire people are either hunter-gatherers or agriculturalists. Mutually exclusive. Logical XOR. Never the twain shall meet. Ye'll take the high road and I'll take the low road. The anti-Earl Warren. etc.

So how do you decide which term to use if a society is doing some of each? Does the percentage matter?

[MrDibble]

Originally Posted by misterW

So how do you decide which term to use if a society is doing some of each? Does the percentage matter?

If you're doing any significant agriculture, that's it. You're not hunter-gatherers any more. Hunter-gatherers are defined as societies who get most or all of their food from wild sources. So yeah, it depends what you mean by "most". But "some of each" isn't it.

[md2000]

I would guess a rough rule of thumb would be "society mostly stays put to tend the fields, some hunting trips"... vs. most HG which have to keep moving as they exhaust local resources or scare away the good food sources. Permanent settlements might distinguish farmers from HG proto-farmers who basically plant some stuff and hope it's still there when they return, no real "tending fields".

Another example is the Iroquois and Huron, who had long-house settlements surrounded by fields of corn, even though yes, they did do a lot of deep-forest hunting - with their range extended by canoe travel. Notice that with agriculture also comes the ability to build large, more permanent structures; while HG tend to be nomads in tents. But... that's because once agriculture became known and widely disseminated, only the marginal land was HG territory? In my wild-assed-guess opinion, the problem is that to rich a land, before agriculture, would result in an overpopulation and resource exhaustion. The HG group could not remain in one place - unless, like a delta marsh or the northwest coast Indians, the food came to them on a regular basis.

"Otzi ... shepherd" this whole discussion has skipped the herdsman which may or may not be an intermediate step on the way from HG to field agriculture.

[misterW]

^^ (Above two posts).

So a tribe that does a lot of hunting and gathering but also grows some things, is, by this way of defining it, an agricultural society? I will have to go back and read the posts again, as I certainly wasn't interpreting it this way.

So when it was asserted that it was impossible to live as a hunter gatherer in a rainforest, what was really meant was that one has to use some amount of agriculture -- even if it is only a small amount?

Do you know exactly what the breakdown is by percentage for any rainforest tribes? I was under the impression that they do move around quite a bit. Would they then be considered proto-farmers?

[Blake]

Originally Posted by misterW

So when it was asserted that it was impossible to live as a hunter gatherer in a rainforest, what was really meant was that one has to use some amount of agriculture -- even if it is only a small amount?

It's not a small amount. Around 80% of the calories of "rainforest" people come form farming.

I was under the impression that they do move around quite a bit. Would they then be considered proto-farmers?

Not in any possible sense. They have been obtaining the vast majority of their food from agriculture for thousands of years. They are no more "proto farmers" than people in Helsinki.

[Lemur866]

Where does the idea come from that Hunter-Gatherers are nomadic?

Hunter-Gatherers have permanent territories. They can't wander the Earth, because if they enter another group's territory, they'll be killed. They might not stay at one locality all year, a seasonal round is typical. That is, during the fish run you're at the fish camp, during berry season you're at the berry patches, in fall you're in the hills to hunt sheep, during winter you're at your permanent houses, in spring you're at the marsh to hunt migrating birds, and repeat.

But this isn't wandering around with no fixed address. You might have temporary housing in some places and permanent housing in others, but you have a fixed territory. The only time you leave your territory is if you're trading or fighting with some other group. And if you find someone from another group in your home territories without permission, you kill them.

Hunter-gatherers have wars, although they tend to resemble gangland-style driveby shootings and ambushes than setpiece battles. You can't assemble large armies because how are you going to feed them if you don't have farmers back home producing surplus grain? With the introduction of agriculture you get things that seem more like wars to us--groups of men from enemy villages confront each other in no-mans-land and yell insults at each other and throw the occasional rock, spear, or arrow, and tough guys challenge each other to fight, and then everyone goes home congratulating themselves on how they showed those guys.

[Blake]

Originally Posted by Lemur866

Where does the idea come from that Hunter-Gatherers are nomadic?

From every anthropological, ethnographic and archeological article ever written about HGs. This is something that is not in dispute. Aside form the people of the Pacific NW, HGs are all nomadic.

Hunter-Gatherers have permanent territories. They can't wander the Earth, because if they enter another group's territory, they'll be killed. They might not stay at one locality all year, a seasonal round is typical. That is, during the fish run you're at the fish camp, during berry season you're at the berry patches, in fall you're in the hills to hunt sheep, during winter you're at your permanent houses, in spring you're at the marsh to hunt migrating birds, and repeat.

That is precisely what nomadism means. And BTW, it's very rare for HGs to have a permanent house.

But this isn't wandering around with no fixed address. You might have temporary housing in some places and permanent housing in others, but you have a fixed territory. The only time you leave your territory is if you're trading or fighting with some other group. And if you find someone from another group in your home territories without permission, you kill them.

By this standard there is no such thing as a nomad, which is silly since the term was invented to describe human populations who wandered around within a fixed territory.

[Ele the Stoic]

Originally Posted by md2000

In my wild-assed-guess opinion, the problem is that to rich a land, before agriculture, would result in an overpopulation and resource exhaustion. The HG group could not remain in one place - unless, like a delta marsh or the northwest coast Indians, the food came to them on a regular basis.

That's pretty much the story of the Polynesians. Island hopping to new concentrations of resources - prey animals with no natural predators, and no real dangerous creatures to attack the hunting party. Led to massive hunting and eventual extinction of the Moa.

Also, there are copious accounts and archaeological sites that show bison "jumps" - large cliffs that native hunters would drive the bison over. Once they were at the bottom, others would come along and kill the survivors. Contrary to common legend, they did not always use every part of the bison. They had uses for all parts of a bison - but they didn't always use every part. I bring this up as an example that it depends on the size of the land in question. Larger areas of high production that are spread out, limit population growth. It's not always a case of the quantity of food total that can be produced, but how much a HG culture has immediate access to. The Midwest can support more than our entire nation with grain, but only because we have the technology and population already in place to exploit it. I think that's what you mean by saying "too rich a land before agriculture", but it's an important point that should be highlighted, lest we get a skewed view of productivity.

Originally Posted by md2000

"Otzi ... shepherd" this whole discussion has skipped the herdsman which may or may not be an intermediate step on the way from HG to field agriculture.

They're the same thing, essentially. Herdsmen usually require larger amounts of grazing for their animals because of land productivity limitations - shepherds usually either A) Have access to better grazing lands and so can keep their animals close, or B) Have sufficient infrastructure in place to import enough food. It's a difference based on the quality of land, not any level of technological advancement per se.

Originally Posted by Lemur866

Where does the idea come from that Hunter-Gatherers are nomadic?

Hunter-Gatherers have permanent territories. They can't wander the Earth, because if they enter another group's territory, they'll be killed. They might not stay at one locality all year, a seasonal round is typical.

"Nomad" does not mean they never live in the same place. It means they have impermanent shelters. Doing a season round is nomadic. The only differences between nomadic pastoralism and transhumance is A) Whether the houses they use are permanently fixed, and B) How close they are to last year's site.

If they go to the same place every time and stay in firmly built cabins, they're transhumance. If they travel between elevations depending on the seasons with little regard for exact position in yurts, they're nomadic pastoralists. If they have a permanent house in the hills for winter but a transient location in the valley, they're transhumance. All can be described as degrees of nomadic. It's more than just sleeping in a horse's saddle.

If a large community of people of both genders and all ages wander outside a largely fixed area for any reason, it's a migration, not nomadism.

Originally Posted by Lemur866

And if you find someone from another group in your home territories without permission, you kill them.

Not always. Much more common was either letting the other group travel through your land unmolested, or exchanging daughters and goods. Why waste the opportunity to score some sweet chicks? You're most likely never going to see that group again if you've never seen them before, and they don't have the manpower to be able to go around causing trouble any time someone steps on their toes. War wasn't glorified as a choice you could use to puff your chest out, it was glorified as a terrifying necessity that the bravest faced with dignity.

[Superhal]

The way I always understood it is that during the HG period, humans were at the mercy of nature. They essentially had to wander around in ever larger circles getting their food daily, when the area within walking distance was exhausted (which was inevitable,) they had to move. This meant that the maximum number of people in a group had to be small, and all members had to spend all their time looking for food. A small group meant less chance of survival and more work for each member.

The switch to agriculture means that the equation is reversed: now man controls nature. This leads to larger settlements which lead to more security and less moving. Also, I believe this was when the barter system started, which also signaled the beginning of trade. Spending less time on food means more time for invention, arts, etc.

From what I can understand, the HG period was a pretty miserable time for all involved, and they spent most of their time hungry anyway. It wasn't like you could go out, punch a deer in the face and use it to feed 5 people day in and day out. Catching anything wasn't easy, and there was no guarantee you could get consistent amounts every day.

[grude]

Originally Posted by Doctor Khumalo

This explanation seems logical. Subsistence farming was more difficult and less rewarding that nomad life. My understanding is that the remains of early farmers show signs of shorter lifespans and less nutrient intake.

Near a Thousand Tables: A History of Food by Oxford historian Felipe Fernandez-Armesto talks a bit about it, along with tons of interesting information about the development of civilization and food.

I've always wondered if in addition to alcohol other drugs like marijuana and opium poppy didn't provide an incentive to agriculture.

[Esox Lucius]

Originally Posted by MrDibble

Nice and true and all, but that still does not make him a hunter-gatherer.

Originally Posted by MrDibble

Nope, it would be precise and accurate. "Hunter-Gatherer" is an anthropological descriptor of an entire society, not a job description. An entire people are either hunter-gatherers or agriculturalists. Mutually exclusive.

So it's an academic distinction. Someone who hunts and gathers isn't necessarily a Hunter/Gatherer(TM) to an anthropologist. It's good to know what you're getting at, finally.

[MrDibble]

Originally Posted by md2000

Permanent settlements might distinguish farmers from HG proto-farmers who basically plant some stuff and hope it's still there when they return, no real "tending fields".

It varies. Hunter-gatherers built this, for instance.

Originally Posted by misterW

So a tribe that does a lot of hunting and gathering but also grows some things, is, by this way of defining it, an agricultural society?

Yes.

[MrDibble]

Originally Posted by Esox Lucius

So it's an academic distinction.

It's more than that. There's a real cultural distinction to be made, and while it is possible for individuals to transition between a HG society and an agricultural one (this happened with the Khoi and San in Southern Africa), the two cultures remain distinct, with different lifeways.

Someone who hunts and gathers isn't necessarily a Hunter/Gatherer(TM) to an anthropologist. It's good to know what you're getting at, finally.

You make it sound like it's just a labelling distinction, or something. It really isn't. Just because it's a Term of Art doesn't make it only useful to specialists. It's an information-rich distinction that has all sorts of implications for lifestyles etc.

[Lemur866]

Originally Posted by Superhal

The way I always understood it is that during the HG period, humans were at the mercy of nature. They essentially had to wander around in ever larger circles getting their food daily, when the area within walking distance was exhausted (which was inevitable,) they had to move.

OK, this sort of thing is what I was complaining about. The notion that hunter-gatherers wandered randomly around in circles, always looking for some new source of food, never knowing where they were going to end up.

Most hunter-gatherers lived their whole lives in one territory. They might not camp in the same spot for a whole year, but that's not the same thing. You can't just wander the continent randomly, because every place with abundant resources already has grumpy strangers living there who don't take kindly to outsiders.

[Leo Bloom]

Nice thread.

Gave me words I didn't know, that are nice:

Biome

Bletting

And my now favorite food,

Snozzberries.

I also enjoyed the discussion of Otzi, whose name I always associate with Goatse.[ Safe, description-only link ]

[md2000]

It seems when explorers (Lewis & Clark, or guys in pith helmets, etc.) encountered tribes of various sorts - herdsmen, hunter-gatherers, subsistence farmers - they generally found them to be very friendly, until/unless their typical European behaviour pissed them off. (Thinking Magellan here). The logic is simple - a bunch of obvious strangers, who seem to be passing through, are not a large group, and do not seem to be serious exploiting your local resources - these are a pleasant and interesting diversion. A tribal family group or bigger, obviously living the same lifestyle and horning in on your hunting grounds, is a threat to be taken seriously.

There is an excellent, but hard to find movie, "Black Robe" about the Jesuits trying to convert the Indians of New France. Unlike the (alleged) motivation of charity and generosity, or the chivalrous spirit of Europeans, the natives were seen as vicious and sadistic killers. As one chief explains in the movie, you must show you are strong even as you die. If you act charitable, that just shows you are weak. If you let your enemies live they will come back to kill you. There is no room for generosity or good samaritans in a subsistence warrior society.

Yes, HG had territories and knew where they were going. Odds are they knew the seasons and the geography, and when and where they could count on finding different food sources. They were nomads but they were not stupid.


Is a herdsman really the same as HG? I would think it is a distinct step which may or may not lead to agriculture. Herdmen probably realized that their corrals could be expanded to bigger pens for specific tasks (giving birth). Once habitats were permanently fixed, the scale and size of pastures could be expanded. Somewhere there's a trade between using a full-time herder and fencing in pastures; I'm guessing this happened as the "personal land" shrank. WIth reduced area, fencing became easier, and herd size became smaller. With a family-sized farm, the number of people available to watch the herd became less, and all hands were needed for field tending rather than herd-watching.

OTOH, the expression "Tragedy of the Commons" comes from the situation (IIRC, from a study of sub-sahara villages) that even with agriculture and allocated fields, pasture land was still communal. (A situation in some places in medieval Europe too).

[Ele the Stoic]

Originally Posted by md2000

It seems when explorers (Lewis & Clark, or guys in pith helmets, etc.) encountered tribes of various sorts - herdsmen, hunter-gatherers, subsistence farmers - they generally found them to be very friendly, until/unless their typical European behaviour pissed them off. (Thinking Magellan here). The logic is simple - a bunch of obvious strangers, who seem to be passing through, are not a large group, and do not seem to be serious exploiting your local resources - these are a pleasant and interesting diversion. A tribal family group or bigger, obviously living the same lifestyle and horning in on your hunting grounds, is a threat to be taken seriously.

The native populations welcomed Cortez, Pizarro, Columbus, the Vikings (Skraelings), the Pilgrims, the Jamestown colonists, and the Roanoke colonists. Militant distrust by natives on first contact is vastly over-assumed.

Originally Posted by md2000

Is a herdsman really the same as HG? I would think it is a distinct step which may or may not lead to agriculture. Herdmen probably realized that their corrals could be expanded to bigger pens for specific tasks (giving birth). Once habitats were permanently fixed, the scale and size of pastures could be expanded. Somewhere there's a trade between using a full-time herder and fencing in pastures; I'm guessing this happened as the "personal land" shrank. WIth reduced area, fencing became easier, and herd size became smaller. With a family-sized farm, the number of people available to watch the herd became less, and all hands were needed for field tending rather than herd-watching.

Well... Depending on how nitpicky you want to get, shepherds are herdsmen of sheep, with no other difference. The distinction we have now largely comes from the etymology, expanded through usage.

Sheep require less land and food than most other domesticated animals thanks to their diminutive size, and so they're more likely to find sufficient food within the general confines of a roughly defined "pasture".

Bovines, which is usually what is inferred from the term "herdsman" (at least in my neck of the woods), require very large amounts of food. I live near some dairies, and the amount of food they have to import daily is staggering. You can't take a herd of cows up to the highlands and have them graze on the grass there - there's not enough. They need huge open plains, like the steppes of Mongolia or the savannahs of Africa to survive. The size of the pasture required for the animals is what determines how nomadic you have to be. You're going to pen your animals in at night regardless of how much feed they require, since you can't afford to have them get lost, or lose them to unchecked predation. They're pretty simple to make structures, such as a Maasai enkang, or an Nguni kraal.

Originally Posted by md2000

OTOH, the expression "Tragedy of the Commons" comes from the situation (IIRC, from a study of sub-sahara villages) that even with agriculture and allocated fields, pasture land was still communal. (A situation in some places in medieval Europe too).

Just easier that way. It's incredibly complicated to compute how much land every person needs for their animals, even if they only have one or two amidst larger groups of herders; there's no hard limits to what the pasture is in situations like that anyway - just go out further if you want your herd to have fresh grass.

[Esox Lucius]

Originally Posted by MrDibble

You make it sound like it's just a labelling distinction, or something. It really isn't. Just because it's a Term of Art doesn't make it only useful to specialists. It's an information-rich distinction that has all sorts of implications for lifestyles etc.

Sorry, that was my bruised ego snarking. I'm over it now. Thanks for explaining it (and Blake too). Ignorance fought and all that.

[Blake]

Originally Posted by md2000

It seems when explorers (Lewis & Clark, or guys in pith helmets, etc.) encountered tribes of various sorts - herdsmen, hunter-gatherers, subsistence farmers - they generally found them to be very friendly, until/unless their typical European behaviour pissed them off. (Thinking Magellan here). The logic is simple - a bunch of obvious strangers, who seem to be passing through, are not a large group, and do not seem to be serious exploiting your local resources - these are a pleasant and interesting diversion. A tribal family group or bigger, obviously living the same lifestyle and horning in on your hunting grounds, is a threat to be taken seriously.

While I generally agree, we should be wary of generalisations. The Maori of NZ tried to kill and eat the crew of the Endeavour, and the Aborigines of North Queensland tried to burn them alive. So in no sense are all HGs and subsistence farmers friendly to outsiders. Most i will grant you, but not all.

Is a herdsman really the same as HG?

Not in any conceivable sense. Herders are agriculturalists. You woudln't call a Texas cowboy a HG would you? Yet he is indisputably a herder.

Somewhere there's a trade between using a full-time herder and fencing in pastures; I'm guessing this happened as the "personal land" shrank.

More likely it happened when labor became valuable. Remember, in most societies over most of history, the herders were children who couldn't really do much other work. Even today in places such as North Africa or Afghanistan, it's the norm for herders to be kids. Adults have much better work to do. It was only when th cost of labour rose to the point that you couldn't employ full-time herders that most places started using fences.

Originally Posted by Ele the Stoic

Sheep require less land and food than most other domesticated animals thanks to their diminutive size, and so they're more likely to find sufficient food within the general confines of a roughly defined "pasture".

Less food per animal, more food per kg. IN terms of the amount of feed required to the amount of meat produced sheep are quite inefficient.

Bovines, which is usually what is inferred from the term "herdsman" (at least in my neck of the woods), require very large amounts of food. I live near some dairies, and the amount of food they have to import daily is staggering.

But that has nothing to do with size. If you were feeding lactating ewes to produce the same amount of milk you would need considerably more feed. Milk production is what demands the high amount of feed, not the species.

You can't take a herd of cows up to the highlands and have them graze on the grass there - there's not enough.

Alpine transhumance, taking animals up to the highlands and have them graze, developed with cattle. It was only applied to sheep much later, and even today is more often used with cattle than sheep.

If there is enough grass to produce 100kg of mutton, then there is also enough to produce 100kg of beef. The only time what you just said is true is when there is literally too little grass to feed even a single beast

They need huge open plains, like the steppes of Mongolia or the savannahs of Africa to survive.

You had better tell that to the cattle producers of England. They have been raising beef cattle in 1 acre paddocks for the last 3, 000 years.

You're going to pen your animals in at night regardless of how much feed they require, since you can't afford to have them get lost, or lose them to unchecked predation.

And yet very few cultures have ever penned their cattle at night in clement weather. Outside Africa cattle were mostly penned as protection from the elements, not to protect them from predation or getting lost. With a herder sleeping nearby, cattle are immune to any predator aside from a big cat, an they are nomadic herd animals, so getting lost isn't really an issue.

Heck, none of the big stations in Australia ever pen their cattle, despite having sizes well in excess of 10, 00 square km. Cattle simply don't get lost.

[Ele the Stoic]

Originally Posted by Blake

Alpine transhumance, taking animals up to the highlands and have them graze, developed with cattle. It was only applied to sheep much later, and even today is more often used with cattle than sheep.

...

You had better tell that to the cattle producers of England. They have been raising beef cattle in 1 acre paddocks for the last 3, 000 years.

That was in specific reference to England's highlands; cattle and dairies in England tend to occupy the western plains (relatively speaking, of course): Cornwall, South-West Wales, North-West Mercia, Northern Cumbria and Dumfiresshire in Scotland, and a grouping at the eastern end of the Grampian mountains near the coast of Scotland. Smaller populations of cattle are found in Sussex and Hampshire, and a bit in Norfolk and Suffolk.

The highlands of Scotland, and the larger mountains of England are largely devoid of Cattle, but have plentiful sheep.

Of course, there are also sociological components to this, but the biggest reason for it is because Sheep have an easier time living in the highlands than do Cattle.

Originally Posted by Blake

But that has nothing to do with size. If you were feeding lactating ewes to produce the same amount of milk you would need considerably more feed. Milk production is what demands the high amount of feed, not the species.

...

If there is enough grass to produce 100kg of mutton, then there is also enough to produce 100kg of beef. The only time what you just said is true is when there is literally too little grass to feed even a single beast

Cattle weigh between 400-1200+ lbs, sheep weigh between 99-350 lbs. Cattle normally consume ~1.4-4% of their bodyweight per day (5.6 - 48 lbs), depending on the feed type and age of the cattle. Sheep will usually eat ~2.5-4% (2.5 - 14 lbs) of their bodyweight per day, again depending on breed and age.

So yes, cattle need more food than sheep to survive.

Originally Posted by Blake

And yet very few cultures have ever penned their cattle at night in clement weather. Outside Africa cattle were mostly penned as protection from the elements, not to protect them from predation or getting lost.

Outside Africa they were mostly penned to discourage and prevent theft. The only major predator in Europe was the wolf, and storms were not as big of a factor since they had more buffering between themselves and the ocean because of the size of the continent.

In Mesopotamia, they were penned to prevent predation from lions and tigers.

In China and SE Asia, cattle aren't a major food source, but instead used as beasts of burden.

The major purpose of penning animals across any culture is for ease of access, however, so you don't have to go chasing them down if they don't want to cooperate while you saddle, milk, or shear them; which is why handling pens are always smaller than grazing or exercise pens.

Originally Posted by Blake

With a herder sleeping nearby, cattle are immune to any predator aside from a big cat, an they are nomadic herd animals, so getting lost isn't really an issue.

What do you mean "immune"?

Originally Posted by Blake

Heck, none of the big stations in Australia ever pen their cattle, despite having sizes well in excess of 10, 00 square km. Cattle simply don't get lost.

Herds in Australia number considerably more than an entire Maasai tribe's, and more than most early herding cultures of Europe, based on A) Logistical issues and B) Archaeological evidence showing relatively small numbers of cattle compared to modern herds. A hunting and gathering culture without agriculture would not have enough food to support a large herd of cattle, let alone massive herds; and they don't have the technology for location devices and transmitters to collar some the cattle with that modern ranchers do.

[FuzzyOgre]

Originally Posted by Blake

I don't know who "we" are, but anthropologists do not consider any people living in the Amazon to be Hunter Gatherers. much less archetypal. It's not actually possible for a human to survive in rainforest as a HG. Those people have been agriculturalists for thousands of years. Before the affect of European disease they lived in cities of thousands within Empires of millions. These people are not HGs who get a large part of their calories form farming. They are agriculturalists who get a minority of their calories form non-farmed sources.
.

The Pirahã people seem to come pretty close.

[furdmort]

Originally Posted by Mangetout

for HGs, net available food varies wildly, in several ways:

Seasonal variation - there are lean periods in the year - and whilst you can store surplus of foraged foods, it's more efficient to store farmed grains, root vegetables and penned, fattened animals - especially if they're already on your doorstep.

Year-on-year variation - some years, the snozzberries are abundant, other years, there are almost none. Agriculture is a way of exerting more control on the harvest.

Long-term variation - populations of predators and prey (where the prey also happens to be human food - say, rabbits or deer) tend to fluctuate over the course of many years, driven in a feedback loop (lots of rabbits makes the foxes successful, which boosts the fox population, which reduces the rabbit population, which means the foxes are less successful, which means the rabbits can increase, etc) - farming food animals in protective captivity controls this variable, somewhat at least.

You are aware of what snozzberries really are, aren't you?

[wood95]

xx