I need to sort out my own mind on this.

What precisely is the distinction between “hunting” and “gathering” in a hunter-gatherer society?
Or is there no distinction?

mollwollfumble said:

I need to sort out my own mind on this.

What precisely is the distinction between “hunting” and “gathering” in a hunter-gatherer society?
Or is there no distinction?

You don’t hunt corn, Mr Fumble, just as you don’t gather a woolly mammoth.

Woodie said:

mollwollfumble said:

I need to sort out my own mind on this.

What precisely is the distinction between “hunting” and “gathering” in a hunter-gatherer society?
Or is there no distinction?

You don’t hunt corn, Mr Fumble, just as you don’t gather a woolly mammoth.

I guess scavenging is a grey area.

Woodie said:

mollwollfumble said:

I need to sort out my own mind on this.

What precisely is the distinction between “hunting” and “gathering” in a hunter-gatherer society?
Or is there no distinction?

You don’t hunt corn, Mr Fumble, just as you don’t gather a woolly mammoth.

I’d say you harvested corn and gathered wild mountain thyme or wild garlic or berries.

Let me ask you this. Are chimps hunter-gatherers? If not, why not?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer

“…A traditional hunter-gatherer or forager is a human living an ancestrally derived lifestyle in which most or all food is obtained by foraging, that is, by gathering food from local sources, especially edible wild plants but also insects, fungi, honey, or anything safe to eat, and/or by hunting game (pursuing and/or trapping and killing wild animals, including catching fish), roughly as most animal omnivores do. Hunter-gatherer societies stand in contrast to the more sedentary agricultural societies, which rely mainly on cultivating crops and raising domesticated animals for food production, although the boundaries between the two ways of living are not completely distinct….”

There is no distinction. The classification is there to separate “hunter-gatherers” from “people practising settled agriculture”. The emphasis is generally upon the latter as some percieved higher form of human orgnisation, so the exact form of the lower category is not strictly defined.

You may argue that this is elistist and culturalist, even racist… and you are probably right. But there it is.

party_pants said:

There is no distinction. The classification is there to separate “hunter-gatherers” from “people practising settled agriculture” and from “mud eaters”. The emphasis is generally upon the latter as some percieved higher form of human orgnisation, so the exact form of the lower category is not strictly defined.

You may argue that this is elistist and culturalist, even racist… and you are probably right. But there it is.

Fixed

Most people these days are better described as “scavenger-gatherers”. Although we eat meat we don’t hunt it, we scavenge it from the supermarkets, the same place we gather our plant foods.

A hunter/gatherer had to move around so they did not deplete their food source, which they combined with the harvesting of seasonal food bonanzas. Farmers on the other hand grew their food and kept meat producing animals that allowed them to remain in the one place due to the more plentiful food resource. This encouraged them to build more permanent structures, have more children and live in larger communities that eventuated into cities and civilizations.

mollwollfumble said:

I need to sort out my own mind on this.

What precisely is the distinction between “hunting” and “gathering” in a hunter-gatherer society?
Or is there no distinction?

NO REFERENCES,
Just a lifetime of observation
…and a LOT of Camping Trips.

Men Hunt – Women Gather

Men are stronger, they protect, fight for territory, run down prey and hunt
Women follow behind with the children scanning the ground for that which grows,
She teaches, and shares information… she remembers which plants (even roots & tubors)
she remembers what season they should be gathered, and how to prepare them for food & medicine.

The old chestnut about “Men Don’t Ask For Directions” because it indicates weakness…
…and the don’t share information, preferring to keep the best fishing spots for themselves.

Women chat & share, otherwise they’d have to INVENT The BUTTON etc. each on their own.
They also ALL Go to the LADIES ROOM at the Same Time which is another Hold-Over from the
time where they had to Watch Each Other’s Back when they were at their most vulnerable lest they
be set upon by predators due to their scent …or risk being carried off (abducted) by another tribe.

I remember being at a swimming/fishing hole
and as we all stood on the rim looking at the water
all the en were commenting on the types of fish swimming
where as the only thing the women saw was the sparkling surface.
T’was then that I realized that more subtle differences divided the roles;
Men are endowed with POLARIZED VISION & prolly superior nite vision too.

feel free to add to or comment

Ogmog said:

mollwollfumble said:

I need to sort out my own mind on this.

What precisely is the distinction between “hunting” and “gathering” in a hunter-gatherer society?
Or is there no distinction?

NO REFERENCES,
Just a lifetime of observation
…and a LOT of Camping Trips.

Men Hunt – Women Gather

Men are stronger, they protect, fight for territory, run down prey and hunt
Women follow behind with the children scanning the ground for that which grows,
She teaches, and shares information… she remembers which plants (even roots & tubors)
she remembers what season they should be gathered, and how to prepare them for food & medicine.

The old chestnut about “Men Don’t Ask For Directions” because it indicates weakness…
…and the don’t share information, preferring to keep the best fishing spots for themselves.

Women chat & share, otherwise they’d have to INVENT The BUTTON etc. each on their own.
They also ALL Go to the LADIES ROOM at the Same Time which is another Hold-Over from the
time where they had to Watch Each Other’s Back when they were at their most vulnerable lest they
be set upon by predators due to their scent …or risk being carried off (abducted) by another tribe.

I remember being at a swimming/fishing hole
and as we all stood on the rim looking at the water
all the en were commenting on the types of fish swimming
where as the only thing the women saw was the sparkling surface.
T’was then that I realized that more subtle differences divided the roles;
Men are endowed with POLARIZED VISION & prolly superior nite vision too.

feel free to add to or comment

>>Men are endowed with POLARIZED VISION & prolly superior nite vision too.<<

Ooh! A new scientific discovery. You need to publish this in a peer reviewed journal. You will go down in history…

Ogmog said:

mollwollfumble said:

I need to sort out my own mind on this.

What precisely is the distinction between “hunting” and “gathering” in a hunter-gatherer society?
Or is there no distinction?

NO REFERENCES,
Just a lifetime of observation
…and a LOT of Camping Trips.

Men Hunt – Women Gather

Men are stronger, they protect, fight for territory, run down prey and hunt
Women follow behind with the children scanning the ground for that which grows,
She teaches, and shares information… she remembers which plants (even roots & tubors)
she remembers what season they should be gathered, and how to prepare them for food & medicine.

The old chestnut about “Men Don’t Ask For Directions” because it indicates weakness…
…and the don’t share information, preferring to keep the best fishing spots for themselves.

Women chat & share, otherwise they’d have to INVENT The BUTTON etc. each on their own.
They also ALL Go to the LADIES ROOM at the Same Time which is another Hold-Over from the
time where they had to Watch Each Other’s Back when they were at their most vulnerable lest they
be set upon by predators due to their scent …or risk being carried off (abducted) by another tribe.

I remember being at a swimming/fishing hole
and as we all stood on the rim looking at the water
all the en were commenting on the types of fish swimming
where as the only thing the women saw was the sparkling surface.
T’was then that I realized that more subtle differences divided the roles;
Men are endowed with POLARIZED VISION & prolly superior nite vision too.

feel free to add to or comment

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haidinger%27s_brush

transition said:

Ogmog said:

mollwollfumble said:

I need to sort out my own mind on this.

What precisely is the distinction between “hunting” and “gathering” in a hunter-gatherer society?
Or is there no distinction?

NO REFERENCES,
Just a lifetime of observation
…and a LOT of Camping Trips.

Men Hunt – Women Gather
<snip></snip>

I remember being at a swimming/fishing hole
and as we all stood on the rim looking at the water
all the en were commenting on the types of fish swimming
where as the only thing the women saw was the sparkling surface.
T’was then that I realized that more subtle differences divided the roles;
Men are endowed with POLARIZED VISION & prolly superior nite vision too.

feel free to add to or comment

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haidinger%27s_brush

mollwollfumble said:

I need to sort out my own mind on this.

What precisely is the distinction between “hunting” and “gathering” in a hunter-gatherer society?
Or is there no distinction?

I would imagine that would depend on which hunter-gatherer society you are thinking about.

This might interest you The Biggest Estate on Earth How Aborigines Made Australia by Bill Gammage

mollwollfumble said:

I need to sort out my own mind on this.

What precisely is the distinction between “hunting” and “gathering” in a hunter-gatherer society?
Or is there no distinction?

Maybe I’m confused…
…but…
I’d always thought of Hunting & Gathering as a mere division of tasks necessary to pass on genes successfully

AFAIC
All tribes consisted of these groups that both hunted & gathered prior to farming / husbandry & permanent settlements.

also coalescing into groups (families) stills goes on
Male Bonding still exists, as does Hen Dens (Sharing tips & recipes etc)
It worked because men developed the capability to run down game, kill it, and transport it back to the encampment … of course this works best when done in groups. then they can piss off to the pub while
women proceeded to do the skinning and fine butchering preparing the meat (it’s still desirable to choose
a mate who can prepare a tasty meal) Aside from caring for & teaching the offspring, she’s scanning the surroundings (SHOPPING ((MEN HATE SHOPPING))) a convenient source of water, useful plants & Fire Wood.
This works best when done in groups as well, Kewl to have one responsible lady to watch a group of kiddies

Anyway,
you get the picture
I’m just saying Hunter/Gatherers
aren’t different tribal groups or regions
they’re workable pair~bonded partnerships
BTW
the “ 7 Year Itch “ = it take 7 years to successfully
raise off spring that can eat & walk & keep up w/the tribe

The invention of hunter-gatherers in seventeenth-century Europe

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 January 2009
Mark Pluciennik

Abstract

Why do we still speak of foragers and farmers? The division of societies into categories including ‘savage’ hunter-gatherers and ‘civilised’ farmers has its roots in seventeenth-century northwestern Europe, but has implications for archaeologists and anthropologists today. Such concepts still provide the frameworks for much intellectual labour including university courses, academic conferences and publications, as well as providing the basis for moral and political evaluations of contemporary societies and practices for a wide range of people, from governments to development agencies, ‘alternative’ archaeologies and parts of the Green movement. This paper examines some of the currents which contributed towards their establishment, and argues that writing ‘across’ such deep-seated categories may be the only way to challenge their hegemony and develop new questions. As an example recent trends in data and interpretation of the ‘mesolithic-neolithic transition’ in western Europe are discussed.

Archaeological Dialogues , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , December 2002 , pp. 98 – 118
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203800002142

ms spock said:

The invention of hunter-gatherers in seventeenth-century Europe

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 January 2009
Mark Pluciennik

Abstract

Why do we still speak of foragers and farmers? The division of societies into categories including ‘savage’ hunter-gatherers and ‘civilised’ farmers has its roots in seventeenth-century northwestern Europe, but has implications for archaeologists and anthropologists today. Such concepts still provide the frameworks for much intellectual labour including university courses, academic conferences and publications, as well as providing the basis for moral and political evaluations of contemporary societies and practices for a wide range of people, from governments to development agencies, ‘alternative’ archaeologies and parts of the Green movement. This paper examines some of the currents which contributed towards their establishment, and argues that writing ‘across’ such deep-seated categories may be the only way to challenge their hegemony and develop new questions. As an example recent trends in data and interpretation of the ‘mesolithic-neolithic transition’ in western Europe are discussed.

Archaeological Dialogues , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , December 2002 , pp. 98 – 118
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203800002142

The proposition that the division of lifestyles into farmers and hunter-gatherers was purely an invention of 17th century NW Europe, with no basis in reality, seems a little unlikely to me.

party_pants said:

There is no distinction. The classification is there to separate “hunter-gatherers” from “people practising settled agriculture”. The emphasis is generally upon the latter as some percieved higher form of human orgnisation, so the exact form of the lower category is not strictly defined.

You may argue that this is elistist and culturalist, even racist… and you are probably right. But there it is.

I originally thought of this topic because a feminist was claiming that 35% of women in hunter-gatherer societies were hunters.

I don’t see that this feminist can make any such broad claim unless there’s a clear distinction between hunting and gathering.
But if there’s no distinction. …

Women’s work does include hunting (in Tasmania aborigines) seals. Only women hunted seals, not men.
On the other hand in Greenland only men hunt seals, not women.

When it comes to grey kangaroos, aboriginal men, women and children used to all share the hunt, it required about 200 people working together.

Aboriginal women have been known to hunt file snakes, freshwater crocodiles. Lizards, mice, honeypot ants, all seafood, freshwater fish.

There is very little overlap between hunting methods of women and men in that hunter-gatherer societies.

mollwollfumble said:

party_pants said:

There is no distinction. The classification is there to separate “hunter-gatherers” from “people practising settled agriculture”. The emphasis is generally upon the latter as some percieved higher form of human orgnisation, so the exact form of the lower category is not strictly defined.

You may argue that this is elistist and culturalist, even racist… and you are probably right. But there it is.

I originally thought of this topic because a feminist was claiming that 35% of women in hunter-gatherer societies were hunters.

I don’t see that this feminist can make any such broad claim unless there’s a clear distinction between hunting and gathering.
But if there’s no distinction. …

Women’s work does include hunting (in Tasmania aborigines) seals. Only women hunted seals, not men.
On the other hand in Greenland only men hunt seals, not women.

When it comes to grey kangaroos, aboriginal men, women and children used to all share the hunt, it required about 200 people working together.

Aboriginal women have been known to hunt file snakes, freshwater crocodiles. Lizards, mice, honeypot ants, all seafood, freshwater fish.

There is very little overlap between hunting methods of women and men in that hunter-gatherer societies.

Surely hunter-gatherers is what people did before they adopted farming. Why you are so obsessed with how much hunting the women did and what males gathered. They simply did what was needed to be done and who was there to do it.

I think probably the big difference is you hunt things that have neurons(even enough you might call part a CNS), and legs to run away, or some sort of propulsion

you don’t hunt plants, or nuts, seeds, whatever, not the same way anyway, though you know, whatever, you might wander out to the vegetable patch and say you’re hunting for some parsley, it could be hiding amongst other stuff, I wouldn’t think much of it

but really hunting a gathering are concepts, originated in some sort of brain activity, I think people probably hunt and gather of their own mind tools

mollwollfumble said:

party_pants said:

There is no distinction. The classification is there to separate “hunter-gatherers” from “people practising settled agriculture”. The emphasis is generally upon the latter as some percieved higher form of human orgnisation, so the exact form of the lower category is not strictly defined.

You may argue that this is elistist and culturalist, even racist… and you are probably right. But there it is.

I originally thought of this topic because a feminist was claiming that 35% of women in hunter-gatherer societies were hunters.

I don’t see that this feminist can make any such broad claim unless there’s a clear distinction between hunting and gathering.
But if there’s no distinction. …

Women’s work does include hunting (in Tasmania aborigines) seals. Only women hunted seals, not men.
On the other hand in Greenland only men hunt seals, not women.

When it comes to grey kangaroos, aboriginal men, women and children used to all share the hunt, it required about 200 people working together.

Aboriginal women have been known to hunt file snakes, freshwater crocodiles. Lizards, mice, honeypot ants, all seafood, freshwater fish.

There is very little overlap between hunting methods of women and men in that hunter-gatherer societies.

Well, The women may be the gatherers of herbs roots and seeds, fruits nuts and all but they also hunted smaller animals and often provided more food than the men because hunting bigger game isn’t as easy as it may look. When for example the tribe chased a herd of mammoth over a cliff, do you think the women weren’t involved?

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

party_pants said:

There is no distinction. The classification is there to separate “hunter-gatherers” from “people practising settled agriculture”. The emphasis is generally upon the latter as some percieved higher form of human orgnisation, so the exact form of the lower category is not strictly defined.

You may argue that this is elistist and culturalist, even racist… and you are probably right. But there it is.

I originally thought of this topic because a feminist was claiming that 35% of women in hunter-gatherer societies were hunters.

I don’t see that this feminist can make any such broad claim unless there’s a clear distinction between hunting and gathering.
But if there’s no distinction. …

Women’s work does include hunting (in Tasmania aborigines) seals. Only women hunted seals, not men.
On the other hand in Greenland only men hunt seals, not women.

When it comes to grey kangaroos, aboriginal men, women and children used to all share the hunt, it required about 200 people working together.

Aboriginal women have been known to hunt file snakes, freshwater crocodiles. Lizards, mice, honeypot ants, all seafood, freshwater fish.

There is very little overlap between hunting methods of women and men in that hunter-gatherer societies.

Surely hunter-gatherers is what people did before they adopted farming. Why you are so obsessed with how much hunting the women did and what males gathered. They simply did what was needed to be done and who was there to do it.

Not really. In Australian Aboriginal society at the very least the rules and roles performed by males and females would have been rigidly defined.

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

I originally thought of this topic because a feminist was claiming that 35% of women in hunter-gatherer societies were hunters.

I don’t see that this feminist can make any such broad claim unless there’s a clear distinction between hunting and gathering.
But if there’s no distinction. …

Women’s work does include hunting (in Tasmania aborigines) seals. Only women hunted seals, not men.
On the other hand in Greenland only men hunt seals, not women.

When it comes to grey kangaroos, aboriginal men, women and children used to all share the hunt, it required about 200 people working together.

Aboriginal women have been known to hunt file snakes, freshwater crocodiles. Lizards, mice, honeypot ants, all seafood, freshwater fish.

There is very little overlap between hunting methods of women and men in that hunter-gatherer societies.

Surely hunter-gatherers is what people did before they adopted farming. Why you are so obsessed with how much hunting the women did and what males gathered. They simply did what was needed to be done and who was there to do it.

Not really. In Australian Aboriginal society at the very least the rules and roles performed by males and females would have been rigidly defined.

The men threw spears, etc, after larger game where strength was required. Women mostly collected food with their digging stick and smaller animals, they were also very good at fishing. But are you saying the women would not strike a kangaroo, or a man not catch a goanna if there was an opportunity to do so?

PermeateFree said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

Surely hunter-gatherers is what people did before they adopted farming. Why you are so obsessed with how much hunting the women did and what males gathered. They simply did what was needed to be done and who was there to do it.

Not really. In Australian Aboriginal society at the very least the rules and roles performed by males and females would have been rigidly defined.

The men threw spears, etc, after larger game where strength was required. Women mostly collected food with their digging stick and smaller animals, they were also very good at fishing. But are you saying the women would not strike a kangaroo, or a man not catch a goanna if there was an opportunity to do so?

No i wouldn’t go that far. Just saying that the gender roles for almost all aspects of Aboriginal Australian life were very well defined by laws, tradition, moiety rules etc This was probably not always the case for other hunter-gatherers, for example in Africa so you are right that at times it could have been a free-for-all but at least in Australia it wasn’t.

PermeateFree said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

Surely hunter-gatherers is what people did before they adopted farming. Why you are so obsessed with how much hunting the women did and what males gathered. They simply did what was needed to be done and who was there to do it.

Not really. In Australian Aboriginal society at the very least the rules and roles performed by males and females would have been rigidly defined.

The men threw spears, etc, after larger game where strength was required. Women mostly collected food with their digging stick and smaller animals, they were also very good at fishing. But are you saying the women would not strike a kangaroo, or a man not catch a goanna if there was an opportunity to do so?

I never said they wouldn’t. It was always eat what there was to eat.

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

I originally thought of this topic because a feminist was claiming that 35% of women in hunter-gatherer societies were hunters.

I don’t see that this feminist can make any such broad claim unless there’s a clear distinction between hunting and gathering.
But if there’s no distinction. …

Women’s work does include hunting (in Tasmania aborigines) seals. Only women hunted seals, not men.
On the other hand in Greenland only men hunt seals, not women.

When it comes to grey kangaroos, aboriginal men, women and children used to all share the hunt, it required about 200 people working together.

Aboriginal women have been known to hunt file snakes, freshwater crocodiles. Lizards, mice, honeypot ants, all seafood, freshwater fish.

There is very little overlap between hunting methods of women and men in that hunter-gatherer societies.

Surely hunter-gatherers is what people did before they adopted farming. Why you are so obsessed with how much hunting the women did and what males gathered. They simply did what was needed to be done and who was there to do it.

Not really. In Australian Aboriginal society at the very least the rules and roles performed by males and females would have been rigidly defined.

Different but equal is what I have been told.

ms spock said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

Surely hunter-gatherers is what people did before they adopted farming. Why you are so obsessed with how much hunting the women did and what males gathered. They simply did what was needed to be done and who was there to do it.

Not really. In Australian Aboriginal society at the very least the rules and roles performed by males and females would have been rigidly defined.

Different but equal is what I have been told.

Food is either on the table or it isn’t. How it gets there or indeed which gender did the work, is immaterial.

ms spock said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

Surely hunter-gatherers is what people did before they adopted farming. Why you are so obsessed with how much hunting the women did and what males gathered. They simply did what was needed to be done and who was there to do it.

Not really. In Australian Aboriginal society at the very least the rules and roles performed by males and females would have been rigidly defined.

Different but equal is what I have been told.

There is men’s business and women’s business that are strictly segregated with punishment as severe as death if violated.

PermeateFree said:

ms spock said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Not really. In Australian Aboriginal society at the very least the rules and roles performed by males and females would have been rigidly defined.

Different but equal is what I have been told.

There is men’s business and women’s business that are strictly segregated with punishment as severe as death if violated.

But none of that is about who puts food on the table. It might be about who gets to eat first though.

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

ms spock said:

Different but equal is what I have been told.

There is men’s business and women’s business that are strictly segregated with punishment as severe as death if violated.

But none of that is about who puts food on the table. It might be about who gets to eat first though.

True

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

ms spock said:

Different but equal is what I have been told.

There is men’s business and women’s business that are strictly segregated with punishment as severe as death if violated.

But none of that is about who puts food on the table. It might be about who gets to eat first though.

I wonder how they got on when they first arrived and encountered plants that they had never seen before? Must have been a lot of trial and error and using existing knowledge to some degree.

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

There is men’s business and women’s business that are strictly segregated with punishment as severe as death if violated.

But none of that is about who puts food on the table. It might be about who gets to eat first though.

I wonder how they got on when they first arrived and encountered plants that they had never seen before? Must have been a lot of trial and error and using existing knowledge to some degree.

They have always been here.

:)

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

There is men’s business and women’s business that are strictly segregated with punishment as severe as death if violated.

But none of that is about who puts food on the table. It might be about who gets to eat first though.

I wonder how they got on when they first arrived and encountered plants that they had never seen before? Must have been a lot of trial and error and using existing knowledge to some degree.

Indeed. Boris ate that and didn’t wake up.

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

There is men’s business and women’s business that are strictly segregated with punishment as severe as death if violated.

But none of that is about who puts food on the table. It might be about who gets to eat first though.

I wonder how they got on when they first arrived and encountered plants that they had never seen before? Must have been a lot of trial and error and using existing knowledge to some degree.

I guess watching wildlife eating certain things too… but I am always amazed at the knowledge that if they soak or dry something out for long enough the poison becomes inactive or neutralised… that must have been some trial and error.

buffy said:

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

But none of that is about who puts food on the table. It might be about who gets to eat first though.

I wonder how they got on when they first arrived and encountered plants that they had never seen before? Must have been a lot of trial and error and using existing knowledge to some degree.

They have always been here.

:)

Nah. Baiame dropped them off. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baiame

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

There is men’s business and women’s business that are strictly segregated with punishment as severe as death if violated.

But none of that is about who puts food on the table. It might be about who gets to eat first though.

I wonder how they got on when they first arrived and encountered plants that they had never seen before? Must have been a lot of trial and error and using existing knowledge to some degree.

65,000 years is a very long time to work out what works. You have only got to compare that to European settlement in Australia of less than 250 years.

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

There is men’s business and women’s business that are strictly segregated with punishment as severe as death if violated.

But none of that is about who puts food on the table. It might be about who gets to eat first though.

I wonder how they got on when they first arrived and encountered plants that they had never seen before? Must have been a lot of trial and error and using existing knowledge to some degree.

Get the new guy to try them

Arts said:

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

But none of that is about who puts food on the table. It might be about who gets to eat first though.

I wonder how they got on when they first arrived and encountered plants that they had never seen before? Must have been a lot of trial and error and using existing knowledge to some degree.

I guess watching wildlife eating certain things too… but I am always amazed at the knowledge that if they soak or dry something out for long enough the poison becomes inactive or neutralised… that must have been some trial and error.

Like the Mediterranean peoples discovered that olives dropped in the salty water and soaked, were eventually edible.

Watching animals and birds would be a lot of it as well.

PermeateFree said:

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

But none of that is about who puts food on the table. It might be about who gets to eat first though.

I wonder how they got on when they first arrived and encountered plants that they had never seen before? Must have been a lot of trial and error and using existing knowledge to some degree.

65,000 years is a very long time to work out what works. You have only got to compare that to European settlement in Australia of less than 250 years.

I often do that comparison.