I've been studying human prehistory recently. (I do things like that.) No surprise, that's all related to hunter and gatherer lifestyles. So I was wondering which I felt I was more like: hunter or gatherer (cuz, well, I'm really not a farmer).
The question might be more revealing than it initially sounds. Evolution is a thing, and if we were hunters and gatherers for the vast majority of our history as a species (and in our predecessor species), it would be shocking if our brains didn't evolve to meet the need.
As an aside, it's common to think of "ancient history" as something the Greeks did, or maybe the Egyptians. But those folks were relatively - no they were very, very - late to the party. The vast majority of human "history" happened before the Greeks. In fact, long before any written accounts.
So what are the differences between hunters and gatherers?
First, we should understand that both "gather." One gathers animals, the other gathers plants. And when we say hunter, we should understand that "hunting" was actually fishing most of the time.
What each gathers share some common attributes. Both plants and animals are found in the same places over time. Mushrooms, for example, reappear every year in the same locations. Apple trees are unlikely to pick up and relocate. Similarly, the animals we hunt, like the hunters themselves, are all creatures of habit. Fish are found in pools, behind rocks in riffles, along shade lines, and under shorelines. Animals follow the same path to water every day. Like gatherers, they move to locations that offer them food and that food can be found in predictable locations.
Therefore, we're unlikely to distinguish between hunters and gatherers based upon the similarities in what they bring home. What about the differences?
We know that gatherers have the potential to find more than 400 different edible or otherwise useful plants. That's a lot to learn and keep in mind in a society without iPhone apps. Distinguishing between them, and poisonous look-a-likes, is serious business. On the other hand, once you find them, "capturing" them is relatively straightforward. (Although handling could be tricky. Poison Oak, for instance, had several uses and was doubtless collected.)
It's challenging to discover an accurate number of animal species targeted by ancient hunters. It seems safe to assume the number was similar to the number of plant species gatherers had to catalog and pursue. Imagine, for example, all rodent and bird species. It does seem likely that there could be little/no confusion about what was edible and what was not. In terms of other animals, our palette is quite flexible.
However, it does seem certain that hunters faced objective physical dangers to a degree not experienced by gatherers. It's challenging to run down a deer. That's even more the case when you're doing so in competition with other predators. Where there is prey, there will be predators. And some prey (buffulo for example), are dangerous in their own right. Animals in flight, animals panicked, can sometimes react in unpredictable ways. In the absence of EMTs and emergency rooms, any injury can be life-threatening. Here's a fun urban legend that describes how something as seemingly harmless as a deer can be dangerous. Legend maybe, but I'm not messing with one: https://darwinawards.com/legends/legends2007-02.html
In terms of innovation, I don't see a difference between the pressures placed on either group. Yes, new hunting techniques could be a boon to the tribe. But so could new gathering, storage, and preparation strategies.
So in sum, we have only the following differences:
Gatherers were pressured to memorize hundreds of plant species and to understand them in detail sufficient to avoid mistaking them for poisonous look-a-likes. This sounds much like "attention to detail." Creativity would not be at a premium in the gatherer role -- in the prep maybe, but not the gathering itself.
Hunters faced unpredictable, even novel, life-threatening situations. They might well develop an improved assessment of risk and even see physical adaptations due to the pressures their more dangerous targets brought to bear. Creativity and composure would be rewarded. These sound a bit like startup characteristics but clearly have a place in any environment where innovation, where test and learn methodologies, are the day-to-day.
Me? Well, I'm fine with detail, but I'm unlikely to set any records. I would not call it out as a personally defining characteristic. So I'm going to have to go with hunter on this one.
Comments