Have you ever been around any up close?
It’s not clear to me that the bison is any more domesticable than the zebra is, their erstwhile resemblances to cows and horses notwithstanding.
Bos primigenius was much larger then domesticated cattle, and only slightly smaller than the American Bison, Bison bison. (You can say that again!)
For those who have been waiting with bated breath for the past 4 years, this thread raises some possible answers to the questions I was asking in 2002.
And your point is? Zebras aren’t any larger than domestic horses. The issue with zebras is temperment.
Well, you asked if I’d seen one up close, so it was natural to think you were speaking of its size. Weren’t you?
And your point is? Do you know that American Bison are tempermentally incapable of domestication? If so, then that would be an important point to consider, and I’d like to see a cite that substantiates it.
Note that I didn’t was that the American Bison was domesticateable, I just noted that it wasn’t clear to me that it couldn’t have been. They are, however, raised as domesticated animals today, although most of those are Bison/cattle cross-breeds.
No, I wasn’t.
Well, I didn’t say that they ARE tempermentally incapable of domestication, just that it’s not clear to me that they aren’t. 
This is substantially false. Most “domestic” bison these days are not crossbreeds. In fact, very very few are. There are dozens of bison ranches hereabouts, but the “beefalo” breeding project has pretty much died out. More importantly, the bison that are raised these days are not really raised “as domesticated animals”. They are raised in pretty much the same fashion as assorted deer and antelope are on wild game farms. They are enclosed in a very robust fence and mostly left to their own devices. You could do the same things with zebras, easy, but that doesn’t make them domesticated.
Poor choice of wording. I didn’t mean to imply that they were littlerally 50/50 hybrids, but there are very few pure bison herds around these days, and virtually none that are farmed. The population of bison was quite low (< 1,000) when they were cross-bred with cattle, so it was easy for the cattle genes to propogate into most of the herds. This presents a problem for wild herds like the on in Yellowstone. Any animals added to that herd have to be genetically screened to make sure they are pure-bred bison.
Well, there isn’t a test to determine if an animal is domesticated or not, so it’s not really something that can be proven either way. Still, bison are farmed in much the same way that cattle are, even if cattle are more aclimated to human contact. And since we’ve only been at it for about 100 years, that’s probably not a fair test of whether it or not bison can become more domesticated over time if we wanted to pursue that course.
Make that : in much the same way some cattle are. Lots of cattle are raised in feed lots today, which probably wouldn’t work with bison.
Again, Diamond mentions failed attempts to domesticate bison, although I can’t find a reference for why those efforts failed. He lists several traits that can make animals unsuitable for domestication, although he doesn’t say which apply to bison. The reasons can include:[ul][]hopelessly aggressive temperment. []mating behavior not adaptable to captivity.[]excessive tendency to panic.[] lack of a single dominant herd leader whose position can be co-opted by humans. territorialism that makes herds unable to be combined randomly.[/ul]
BTW, let’s not get too reverential towards Guns, Germs and Steel. It’s a fascinating book and Diamond puts forth some interesting hypotheses, but it’s not like they are accepted in the scientific community as the best overall theory to explain civilizations. If you haven’t read 1491 yet, I’d strongly suggest it.
Point taken regarding the traces of bovine genetics in modern bison herds. It really is just traces, though, and isn’t really relevant to the discussion at hand anyways. If anything, the traces of bovine ancestry in modern bison ought to make them more tractable, but tractable they’re not.
With regards to methods of raising cattle, I think you have things the wrong way about. Feedlots (built ruggedly enough) probably would work. In fact, I think there are some bison feedlots, though I’m not certain of this. What wouldn’t work is the sort of no-fence herding that would have been the common means of raising beef prior to the advent of barbed wire. Well, I should qualify that - I don’t know that you couldn’t pull that off, but given my experience with both beef and bison, I don’t think that you could. And that’s the sort of thing you need to be able to do if you’re a stone age fellow looking to domesticate bison. You need to be able to somehow control the animal’s behaviour without miles and miles of 6’ electric fences, without heavy corrals and steel handling chutes, and without horses.
I don’t know - maybe aurochs were every bit as ornery as bison are, and maybe the same tricks whoever domesticated them used would also work on bison. It’s not outside the realm of possibility. But there’s no reason besides their rough similarity to suppose it to be so. There’s a million and a half years of divergent evolution to introduce differences, differences which might well include the behavioural quirks of aurochs which allowed them to be domesticated. I don’t believe the wisent (Bison bonasus) was ever domesticated in ancient times either, which may or may not be relevant here.
This article has information on when the first evidence of agriculture appears in different areas, which in many cases long precedes evidence for village life.
There is evidence for cultivation in the Near East 13,000 years ago, and in the New World 10,000 years ago. Some cultivation took place in New Guinea as early as 10,000 years ago, with development of agriculture by about 7000 years ago.
In general, no. Through most of the Americas the only domesticated animals were dogs, turkeys and Muscovy ducks. There were of course llamas and alpacas in the Andes. The Aztecs raised only turkeys and dogs for meat, and otherwise used deer, rabbits, and birds obtained by hunting.
Also Guinea Pigs
I think **Colibri **was talking about the Aztecs, who werne’t in the Andes.
An overview.
The Middle Pleistocene began 780,000 years ago and ended 125,000 years ago at the beginning of the Upper Pleistocene which lasted until 10,000 years ago. The Pleistocene has been known as the Ice Age because of the extreme cold temperatures. This coldness affected Africa, swinging the climate between arid and wet as it shifted from interglacials to glaciations.
The individuals of the Middle Pleistocene were thought to live in small, isolated bands, most of which became extinct. Towards the end of the MP period, they developed a better method of controlling flake size and shape for their stone tools. The use of controlled fire is still debated AFAIK, but the hominids of that period built temporary structures. They were probably hunter-gatherers because wooden-spears have been discovered along with the bones of large-sized animals.
The Neandertals are probably the most famous inhabitants of the Upper Pleistocene. The Neandertals were poorly mischaracterized as stupid, brutish, and weak. In fact, the Neandertals had a larger cranial capacity than modern Homo sapiens. 1520 versus 1300-1400. They were a very robust, muscular people with short, stocky frames. The Neandertals were known to bury their dead, often with grave goods which suggests that they held a concept of the afterlife. They used tools which are different than those associated with H. sapiens. Because some of the skeletons found were severely crippled and would have had difficulty functioning in the harsh climate, it is generally thought that Neandertals cared for their old and infirmed (or at least, important ones). They had very large “tool kits” with carefully crafted flakes used for various purposes. They were quite successful hunters, using spears. Although they were not capable of articulate speech, many researchers believe that they had a form of language which they used to communicate with each other. They produced hybrid offspring with H. sapiens, but it is unknown if they were able to successfully interbreed. They remained in small bands and did not travel as far as H. sapiens. There is debate over if we replaced the Neandertals or descended from them.
Unless new evidence has been uncovered, H.sapiens is first thought to appear 120,000 years ago. The Upper Paleolithic began about 40,000 years ago. About 30,000 years ago, the glacial ice began melting and food and game were abundant. People began spreading out into Europe, building large structures in addition to living in caves and open-air camps. Burials become more elaborate with jewelry, beads, and other artifacts. New tools were invented and more materials were used in making them. Symbolic figures were well established by the Aurignacian period which began about 33,000 years ago. There have been earlier materials that some view as art, but that is highly debated. Jewelry as old as 38,000 years has been found.
It is erroneous to say that everything appears to spring into existence fully formed. Most researchers believe that clothing existed long before our earliest finds of it. Stone tools last much longer than skins, so finding ancient clothing would be very hard indeed. This does not mean it didn’t exist. When you follows the pattern of tool usage, something that’s pretty easy to do, you can clearly see how it slowly develops over time.
As for the sudden existence of new civilizations, about 10,000 years ago, the climate shifted dramatically. When we look at the fossil record, we see massive amounts of animals becoming extinct. Although some blame this on human activity, most evidence points to global climatic changes. Hunting-gathering was not cutting it and many populations became farmers in order to survive. Why didn’t this happen earlier? Well, for one, hunting-gathering is a much easier existence when done in a plentiful environment. (see this article by Jared Diamond) Perhaps people did farm a bit in past times but went back to hunting/gathering once food became plentiful again. Another reason was that we were further advanced at that point than at any other. Unlike the Neadertals or most of our other ancestors, we lived in bigger social groups and traveled farther in order to network with other groups. This constant influx of new ideas, tools, and food helped our societies grow and prosper. Our brains were more developed than at any any other point, we understood symbolic thought, we had rich languages, and large networks with many other intelligent beings.
To understand how much climate can effect culture and history even in modern times, I’d suggest the book “The Little Ice Age” by Brian Fagan.
As for it appearing independently… I lost my notes from my past Anthro class and my book only covers before 10,000, however, I could have sworn that different areas were settled with enough time for ideas to flow between them. If anyone knows of a website that has a list of dates I’d appreciate it. I’ll email my old professor and ask.
Just a couple corrections to your otherwise good overview:
I don’t know what you mean about “control” of fire, but I don’t think there is much debate about those hominids using fire in that timeframe. Some expertly crafted spears were discovered in Germany that have been dated to about 400k years ago. Link
The tool kits of Neanderthals and early Sapiens were about the same. It’s only later that Modern Humans began expanding their tool kit. The date for this happening keeps getting pushed back, but if you look at Neanderthal and Sapiens tool kits at about 100k years ago, there isn’t much difference. We don’t know if interbreeding too place, but all the genetic evidence says it didn’t. There is one very controversial skelaton that was found in Portugal and whose discoverer claims is a hybrid, but that remians very contraversial. We don’t know that Neanderthals weren’t capable of what we call fully articulate speech, but it’s possible that even early Sapiens were not, either. There is very little deabte these days about our relation to H. neanderthalensis– they represent a side branch, not in the line of descent of H. sapiens.
More like 200k. Link
The oldest jewlry has been dated to 75k years ago. Link
There is some debate about just how independent the various M.E. and Asian civilizations were, but the American civilizations were clearly independent from them, and dates for their begining keep getting pushed back all the time.
A few other things about Neanderthals and other late hominids. Generally, they seem to have used only stone to make tools, while Modern Humans began using other material (bone, antler) before they migriated out of Africa (about 60k years ago). There are some Neanderthal sites that have what look like tools made by Modern Humans, but these sites are dated to after the time Modern Humans entered Europe, and it’s not known if these tools were “borrowed” or if Neanderthals learned to make them from Modern Humans or if they represent an indepedendent discovery by Neanderthals.
In addition to Neanderthals in Europe, there were still some remaining populations of H. erectus in Asia when Modern Humans appeared on the scene. They seem to have gone exitinct sometime between 50k and 30k years ago. Groups of the tiny hominid H. floresienses survived even longer-- until about 12k years ago-- and shared the small island of Flores with H. sapiens as well.
What a strange time that must have been, about 50k years ago as Modern Humans were spreading out of Africa. Three other human species existed at the same time, and we almost certainly came face-to-face with all of them.
This is quite incorrect. We have had a recent thread on this. Most evidence points to human influence being the major cause of megafaunal extinctions, with climate in some cases having an influence on precise timing of the events in some regions. Extinctions in some regions, such as Australia, preceded the period of major climate change by tens of thousands of years, while in other regions they came later. But in general megafaunal extinctions coincided with the arrival of modern humans in the area.
For a recent good review article of the evidence, see:
Barnosky, Anthony D., et al. (2004) Assessing the causes of Late Pleistocene megafaunal extinctions on the continents. Science 306: 70-75.
I am sure you can find cites implicating climate change in some limited regions, but on a global scale the evidence strongly implicates humans.
I have no idea what you are asking here. My sole comment was that groups in North America and New Guinea developed agriculture within 3000 years of each other despite a disparity of 40, 000 years in their respective arrival times.
This quite uncontroversial and I can provide countless references to establish that point. For the moment out of laziness I will simply recycle Colibri’s material:
”There is evidence for cultivation in … the New World 10,000 years ago. Some cultivation took place in New Guinea as early as 10,000 years ago, with development of agriculture by about 7000 years ago.”
To stress the obvious, the New World developed agriculture 10, 000 years ago and less than 3, 000 years later New Guinea developed agriculture. This is exactly what I originally stated. Are you really disputing this point? I have never read a single anthropologist/paleoantologist who disputes this point.
I never mentioned the common era. I really have no idea what your point is here. My statement was entirely unoriginal and uncontroversial and I would be interested if you can name even one respectable anthropologist/paleoantologist who disputes it.
No, I made no such assumption. I am assuming that civilisation is quite impossible without agriculture, which is again a completely uncontroversial statement.
Yes, and I pointed out the obvious flaw. If residence time was a factor as you suggest then we would expect the Americas to develop agriculture at least 20, 000 years after Asia and Australasia. Instead we see almost simultaneous development on all continents regardless of residence time. The hypothesis collapses at the first challenge.
We now have anatomically perfect modern human specimens dated from 120, 000 years ago, so modern humans must have appeared at leats 10, 000 years prior to that. The date keeps receding.
Only in temperate Eurasia and North America. In tropical Asia, Australasia and South America there were no glaciers to speak of to melt. Moreover food and game became markedly more scarce in Australasia at this time, not more abundant.
I wouldn’t say most. Some do certainly, but little to no evidence exists of it compared to the numerous perfectly constructed example after this date.
The thing is that palaeontologist don’t look for clothes. They look for clothes-making tools: awls, reamers, needles and so forth. Finding ancient sewing materials is not very hard, as evidenced by the frequent finds after C40, 000 years ago.
Prior to that date many do not appear to exist at all while other don’t exist in great quantity which is pretty convincing evidence that clothes were not being made.
I can cite numerous palaeontologists who say exactly the opposite. Stone tools don’t develop slowly. They spring into the record at disparate locations fully formed and as good as they ever get. There may be some isolated and ephemeral prior instances but after the Great Leap forwards they are ubiquitous. Not just the aforementioned sewing tools but ground edged axes, axes with haft-notches, microliths, sickles and so forth. No gradual development exists for many, probably most, stone tools.
No, climate about 10, 000 years ago was remarkably stable. The abrupt climate shift occurred around 8, 000 ybp. Well after agriculture was already entrenched worldwide and well after civilisations already existed.
No, we don’t. We see that in parts of Europe and the Americas. However no such extinctions occur in Australasia, Madagascar, Asia, Africa, Polynesia, Micronesia and so on and so forth.
No, it doesn’t. The fact that the extinctions occurred C40, 000 ybp in Australia, C2, 000 ybp in Madagascar, C10, 000 ybp in the Americas and C 500ybp in New Zealand makes it impossible to attribute such extinctions to climate change.
Almost all the evidence points to human activity.
So you are saying that after 40, 00 years of living in the same environment Australasian HGs suddenly couldn’t survive 10, 00 ybp? Yet simultaneously people in South America had been unable to survive as HGs for just 5, 000 years? And of course numerous groups on both continents continued to live just fine as HGs.
This really doesn’t seem to gel with the facts.
Can we please see some evidence that Australasians or South Americans were living in larger groups prior to developing agriculture than they ever had before? At least for Australasia this seems to contradict al the evidence I have ever seen ,which indicates by far he largest and most interconnected populations occurred just prior to the last glacial advance.
Are you seriously suggesting a flow of agriculture in written or oral form between Mexico and Babylon? Obviously the idea couldn’t have migrated organically since crops won’t grow in Alaska or Siberia.
And are you also suggesting a migration of agriculture from China to New Guinea that somehow bypassed all of Malaysia and Indonesia for millennia?
And even if we do accept those anomalies, why did only the knowledge pass, and none of the crops migrate until millennia afterwards, if at all?