Native Bay Area populations and agriculture – A difference in opinion on the hunter gatherer way of life.
Tj Newhall-A Self proclaimed brontosaurus of 5 top selling books of which do not exist.
Agriculture has been proposed as an major change, adaptation and benefit to those who’ve adopted it. At the same time that should not imply that those without it would not progress. We can see from some hunter/gatherer societies that this is not the only way to survive and but also that’s its possible to flourish without the domestication of plants (or animals). Consider the Chumash as an example (one in many) for which they have broken a few typical stereotypes of hunter/gatherer societies. What I mean by this is that they where not small in population and where considered stationary. The idea of living in one place and not having a steady supply of crops and livestock would seem to be problematic (at least from a Eurocentric point of view). But the Chumash survived by different means, and that is/was of fishing (and acorn foraging). This also provides a steady food supply and I could even argue cultivation of plants is not as beneficial as its thought to be for: Agriculture is a process (hence why many couldn’t/didn’t develop it) The idea of clearing the land(tedious, long hours), preparing the soil (also the type of soil is a factor), finding the correct crop (its an investment),maintaining the crop (water,bugs,animals,and environmental factors) and proper storage(if your crop did come out alright) all requires time, knowledge and man(or women) power. Maintenance for animals (if they are even around) is needed as well. Therefore if you could avoid such a process and use time to develop other methods, why wouldn’t you do that? The transition to agriculture has a number of reoccurring themes: Enviroment(resources and changes), Population(size), and Culture(is it needed? Trade) There are number of others but I feel as though these play a significant role in determining the route of which groups/society develop/progress. Environmentally the California coast is fairly rich with resources (many can argue that domestication is an adaptation to declining resources). As far as the Chumash are concerned, food was fairly diverse . The variety of sea food the coast offers is plentiful and is renewable (anchovies, bass, halibut,seals ,sharks,mammals,clams,mussels,abalone ect) along with the animals on land (rabbits,elk,deer) and that of plants/seeds (acorns,bark,roots,flowers) which could also be used not only sustenance but for medicine as well. Population was an issue at times but it wouldn’t have gotten as big as it did without having sufficient food sources. As far as culture(which is a fairly loose term) there was still craft specialization, political stratification , hierarchies and barter/trade which again would not happen without food supply. In short the tribe survived through developing techniques (and improving through technology such as spears,blades,bowls,tools ect) of fishing/acorn use and that of large trade(food,clothe,shells,rocks ect) routes.a This intern allowed time for the development of customs,values,art,religion,and social gatherings. I believe agriculture was not a necessity to them, although it may have been helpful. Although many may think complex hunter gatherer(s) is an oxymoron, these groups would definitely disprove their assumption. Based on our criteria (which isn’t really fair) of what is a complex society is, a group without agriculture can still develop settlements with large populations, housing, elaborate technology, food supplies, political organizations, economies(including niche jobs crafts, healing ect), medicine and therefore would be considered complex.
Monday, the 23. May 2011, 00:38 by 
Tj 
| 9 Comments »