Granted Min, but over here that seems to have been limited at it earliest to sea sites, indicating that the sea permitted H/G groups to stay in one place whereas their land dwelling cousin had to keep moving.
Roy.
At Least They Are Trying
Moderators: MichelleH, Minimalist, JPeters
-
Minimalist
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 16033
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
- Location: Arizona
-
Knuckle sandwhich
- Posts: 36
- Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:50 pm
There are hundreds of shell midden sites on the NW coast, some of them approach two stories in thickness. Darn near without exception they are less than 3,000 years old, and of those, almost all are less than 2,000 years old. I would expect UK shell middens to be earlier.
Middens are carbonate rich and thus serve to preserve themselves and bone well. Additionally, shell middens typically are attributed to people with much higher populations than pleistocene hunter/gatherers, so more food has to be harvested over-all. Also, it isn't true that there aren't extensive "bone middens," there are. There are gigantic late pleistocene bison bone beds in the US, and the caves of Europe are LOADED with bone from top to bottom, 60 feet thick in some cases. There's also a huge difference in the meat to remains ratio between terrestrial mammals and clams- much of a clam (for the amount of meat) goes into a site and preserves while the majority of a mammal gets eaten (or used) or decomposes. Then, bone does not preserve near as well as shell does in many environments.
Here's a little comparison. Say you have a choice between killing an ancient bison or harvesting clams. The ancient bison is easy to approach and kill for three or four people. You get 1,800+ pounds of meat, bone to use for tools, and a bunch of leather out of it. It can be killed and processed in a day by three or four people. Then there are the clams. You'll get two ounces or so of meat from decent sized ones. That means to equal the bison you need to collect and process 14,400 of them, and then the meat is still not as nutritious as the bison- you'll starve to death eating nothing but clams or fish, which is not the case with bison meat. Then you have to do something else to equal the leather and bone for tools. How long and how many people do you think it would take to harvest and process that many clams? How about even a thousand?
Middens are carbonate rich and thus serve to preserve themselves and bone well. Additionally, shell middens typically are attributed to people with much higher populations than pleistocene hunter/gatherers, so more food has to be harvested over-all. Also, it isn't true that there aren't extensive "bone middens," there are. There are gigantic late pleistocene bison bone beds in the US, and the caves of Europe are LOADED with bone from top to bottom, 60 feet thick in some cases. There's also a huge difference in the meat to remains ratio between terrestrial mammals and clams- much of a clam (for the amount of meat) goes into a site and preserves while the majority of a mammal gets eaten (or used) or decomposes. Then, bone does not preserve near as well as shell does in many environments.
Here's a little comparison. Say you have a choice between killing an ancient bison or harvesting clams. The ancient bison is easy to approach and kill for three or four people. You get 1,800+ pounds of meat, bone to use for tools, and a bunch of leather out of it. It can be killed and processed in a day by three or four people. Then there are the clams. You'll get two ounces or so of meat from decent sized ones. That means to equal the bison you need to collect and process 14,400 of them, and then the meat is still not as nutritious as the bison- you'll starve to death eating nothing but clams or fish, which is not the case with bison meat. Then you have to do something else to equal the leather and bone for tools. How long and how many people do you think it would take to harvest and process that many clams? How about even a thousand?
Heavens to Mergetroid!
But like the recipe for Rabbit pie that starts, First catch your Rabbit!'
HSN was a big animal hunter and look at their injuries.
Many cave deposits lack proof of human intervention of course where as shell middens do not. But the point that I made about shell middens seems to have been missed by you KS, they are evidence of a long term sedentary life style when we were all supposed to be wandering hither and thither.
Roy.
HSN was a big animal hunter and look at their injuries.
Many cave deposits lack proof of human intervention of course where as shell middens do not. But the point that I made about shell middens seems to have been missed by you KS, they are evidence of a long term sedentary life style when we were all supposed to be wandering hither and thither.
Roy.
-
Knuckle sandwhich
- Posts: 36
- Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:50 pm
Having been an amateur archaeologist for more than half a century I can assure you KS that I am exceedingly familiar with the various definitions.
If they are cast in concrete then obviously I am incorrect. The assumption that at this period people were not sedentary is based on a lack of evidence to support it, not that it was impossible.
The number of Clovis tools being washed ashore on the western coast of NA suggests either a very long period of occupation or a high population density.
The whole point of my argument is that if you hunt large mobile animals for food you too have to be mobile, not from choice, but from want of food.
A coastal environment removes that pressure and permits a sedentary existence if the population desires it.
They now have a choice!
Just to prevent any further misconceptions I define sedentary as remaining in one location for more than a few months. After all, having myself lived in 14 different houses I still consider my existence as sedentary.
I moved because I wanted to!
Roy.
If they are cast in concrete then obviously I am incorrect. The assumption that at this period people were not sedentary is based on a lack of evidence to support it, not that it was impossible.
The number of Clovis tools being washed ashore on the western coast of NA suggests either a very long period of occupation or a high population density.
The whole point of my argument is that if you hunt large mobile animals for food you too have to be mobile, not from choice, but from want of food.
A coastal environment removes that pressure and permits a sedentary existence if the population desires it.
They now have a choice!
Just to prevent any further misconceptions I define sedentary as remaining in one location for more than a few months. After all, having myself lived in 14 different houses I still consider my existence as sedentary.
I moved because I wanted to!
Roy.
Know-it-all
K/S, I would have responded earlier to your comments, but I have been away. I find your approach interesting. First, you bring up the Optimal
Foraging Theory when the topic was migrations along island archipelagos. That theory requires significant biomass to work, and does not apply
well to island environments. Digit asked for a link and you provided nothing but your opinion. Then, when the topic moved on to the Pacific
Northwest you stated:
Yeah, sure you do.
Then, you state that any argument contradicting yours is foolish. Although you apparently live in the Pacific Northwest you appear to lack
knowledge about its Pleistocene geology:
1. Why would anyone expect to find Pleistocene shell middens in the Puget Sound or Juan de Fuca Strait area when it was covered by glaciers
during that time frame?
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl= ... soft:en-US
2. Why would middens be in evidence anywhere near the Columbia River when it was the spillway for Missoula megafloods?
3. The last rupture of the Juan de Fuca fault in January 1700 created a tsunami that inundated the Puget Sound up to 50 miles south of Olympia
and crossed the Pacific to devastate Japan. Since a magnitude 9.0 earthquake occurs on that fault every 4-600 years, don’t you believe it
would be rare to find any remains on the Cascadia shoreline?
http://www.pnsn.org/HAZARDS/CASCADIA/cascadia_zone.html
If you are going to claim that marine settlements were not important and that the natives were bagging bison inland instead, then at least provide
some references to support your argument. So far I have seen nothing.
Foraging Theory when the topic was migrations along island archipelagos. That theory requires significant biomass to work, and does not apply
well to island environments. Digit asked for a link and you provided nothing but your opinion. Then, when the topic moved on to the Pacific
Northwest you stated:
When a reference was provided documenting sites, your answer was:How about the NW coast, where are all those pleistocene shell midden sites?
Yeah, I know about those.
Yeah, sure you do.
Then, you state that any argument contradicting yours is foolish. Although you apparently live in the Pacific Northwest you appear to lack
knowledge about its Pleistocene geology:
1. Why would anyone expect to find Pleistocene shell middens in the Puget Sound or Juan de Fuca Strait area when it was covered by glaciers
during that time frame?
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl= ... soft:en-US
2. Why would middens be in evidence anywhere near the Columbia River when it was the spillway for Missoula megafloods?
3. The last rupture of the Juan de Fuca fault in January 1700 created a tsunami that inundated the Puget Sound up to 50 miles south of Olympia
and crossed the Pacific to devastate Japan. Since a magnitude 9.0 earthquake occurs on that fault every 4-600 years, don’t you believe it
would be rare to find any remains on the Cascadia shoreline?
http://www.pnsn.org/HAZARDS/CASCADIA/cascadia_zone.html
If you are going to claim that marine settlements were not important and that the natives were bagging bison inland instead, then at least provide
some references to support your argument. So far I have seen nothing.
Natural selection favors the paranoid
-
Knuckle sandwhich
- Posts: 36
- Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:50 pm
Cognito, there is no "link" to Optimal Foraging to provide. There are books listed at wiki though that you can get and read. You are arguing against it, but it is clear by your post that you really don't know anything about it in the first place. It is central to biological natural selection, adaption, and other aspects of predator evolution. And no, it does not require a large biomass, nor does it magically start not being applicable on islands.
About not knowing about those sites, get real.
This is not something I cooked up, these are aspects of hunter/gatherers that have been known for decades by processual and ecological archaeologists. It is solid theory based with loads of evidence from both archaeological sites and ethnographies world-wide, not fanciful and sensationalist media articles (and all media articles about archaeology are, I haven't seen a good one yet) or baseless hypotheses put forth by fame seekers. Did any of you guys ever read your Binford? It seemed to me that you folks like to discuss hunter/gathers, their movements, what they did, etc., so thinking you might like some food for thought I posted about Optimal Foraging, that was obviously a mistake. It appears you aren't actually interested in learning about the people you are discussing or about any science concerning it.
When you were almost scratching the surface of the paleoenvironment of the NW coast, you forgot to point out that the southern Cordilleran and Puget Lobe advanced late and retreated fast- there were already people scarfing up deer at Meadowcroft when the area we were discussing started going under the ice. Another salient point that you neglected to "school" everyone about is that all 16 of the isolate Clovis points and the only Clovis site found in WA are in the footprint of the Puget Lobe or the Missoula Flood (there is a reason for this)- that is late pleistocene archaeology, and it ain't shell middens. Then you forgot the pre-Clovis bison remains that have been butchered, which is also in the ice foot-print. Of course, then came Windust right on the heels of Clovis, they were also big game hunters that were not going around piling up shell middens and building extensively crafted sea-worthy boats. Oh, and BTW, that's a neat map, but you can get much nicer poster sized one that covers more of the NW through the USFS.
As far as the tsunamis, they appear to have not affected the archaeology around here- as I said there are loads of shell midden sites, intact ones. There are also very old sites near the salt water that have no shell or any hint of marine adaption.
Over-all, I can see that it is a waste of time to actually point out some of the aspects that archaeologists have been working on when it comes to hunter/gatherers on this site. It does not seem like anyone here is all that interested in learning more, but rather it appears a though you all have your minds made up already, whether there is any or much evidence for it or not. You like to point out how wrong "the club" is wrong according to you (at least the more out-spoken ones, and most of them are for different reasons), but you don't even know what the rest are doing. I guess I'll leave you to beat the drum.
About not knowing about those sites, get real.
This is not something I cooked up, these are aspects of hunter/gatherers that have been known for decades by processual and ecological archaeologists. It is solid theory based with loads of evidence from both archaeological sites and ethnographies world-wide, not fanciful and sensationalist media articles (and all media articles about archaeology are, I haven't seen a good one yet) or baseless hypotheses put forth by fame seekers. Did any of you guys ever read your Binford? It seemed to me that you folks like to discuss hunter/gathers, their movements, what they did, etc., so thinking you might like some food for thought I posted about Optimal Foraging, that was obviously a mistake. It appears you aren't actually interested in learning about the people you are discussing or about any science concerning it.
When you were almost scratching the surface of the paleoenvironment of the NW coast, you forgot to point out that the southern Cordilleran and Puget Lobe advanced late and retreated fast- there were already people scarfing up deer at Meadowcroft when the area we were discussing started going under the ice. Another salient point that you neglected to "school" everyone about is that all 16 of the isolate Clovis points and the only Clovis site found in WA are in the footprint of the Puget Lobe or the Missoula Flood (there is a reason for this)- that is late pleistocene archaeology, and it ain't shell middens. Then you forgot the pre-Clovis bison remains that have been butchered, which is also in the ice foot-print. Of course, then came Windust right on the heels of Clovis, they were also big game hunters that were not going around piling up shell middens and building extensively crafted sea-worthy boats. Oh, and BTW, that's a neat map, but you can get much nicer poster sized one that covers more of the NW through the USFS.
As far as the tsunamis, they appear to have not affected the archaeology around here- as I said there are loads of shell midden sites, intact ones. There are also very old sites near the salt water that have no shell or any hint of marine adaption.
Over-all, I can see that it is a waste of time to actually point out some of the aspects that archaeologists have been working on when it comes to hunter/gatherers on this site. It does not seem like anyone here is all that interested in learning more, but rather it appears a though you all have your minds made up already, whether there is any or much evidence for it or not. You like to point out how wrong "the club" is wrong according to you (at least the more out-spoken ones, and most of them are for different reasons), but you don't even know what the rest are doing. I guess I'll leave you to beat the drum.
Last edited by Knuckle sandwhich on Fri Jul 18, 2008 9:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Heavens to Mergetroid!
Knuckle sandwhich wrote:Cognito, there is no "link" to Optimal Foraging to provide. There are books listed at wiki though that you can get and read. You are arguing against it, but it is clear by your post that you really don't know anything about it in the first place. It is central to biological natural selection, adaption, and other aspects of predator evolution. And no, it does not require a large biomass, nor does it magically start not being applicable on islands.
About not knowing about those sites, get real.
This is not something I cooked up, these are aspects of hunter/gatherers that have been known for decades by processual and ecological archaeologists. It is solid theory based with loads of evidence from both archaeological sites and ethnographies world-wide, not fanciful and sensationalist media articles (and all media articles about archaeology are, I haven't seen a good one yet) or baseless hypotheses put forth by fame seekers. Did any of you guys ever read your Binford? It seemed to me that you folks like to discuss hunter/gathers, their movements, what they did, etc., so thinking you might like some food for thought I posted about Optimal Foraging, that was obviously a mistake. It appears you aren't actually interested in learning about the people you are discussing or about any science concerning it.
When you were almost scratching the surface of the paleoenvironment of the NW coast, you forgot to point out that the southern Cordilleran and Puget Lobe advanced late and retreated fast- there were already people scarfing up deer at Meadowcroft when the area we were discussing started going under the ice. Another salient point that you neglected to "school" everyone about is that all 16 of the isolate Clovis points and the only Clovis site found in WA are in the footprint of the Puget Lobe or the Missoula Flood (there is a reason for this)- that is late pleistocene archaeology, and it ain't shell middens. Then you forgot the pre-Clovis bison remains that have been butchered, which is also in the ice foot-print. Of course, then came Windust right on the heels of Clovis, they were also big game hunters that were not going around piling up shell middens and building extensively crafted sea-worthy boats. Oh, and BTW, that's a neat map, but you can get much nicer poster sized one that covers more of the NW through the USFS.
As far as the tsunamis, they appear to have not affected the archaeology around here- as I said there are loads of shell midden sites, intact ones. There are also very old sites near the salt water that have no shell or any hint of marine adaption.
Over-all, I can see that it is a waste of time to actually point out some of the aspects that archaeologists have been working on when it comes to hunter/gatherers on this site. It does not seem like anyone here is all that interested in learning more, but rather it appears a though you all have your minds made up already, whether there is any or much evidence for it or not. You like to point out how wrong "the club" is (at least the more out-spoken ones, and most of them are for different reasons), but you don't even know what the rest are doing. I guess I'll leave you to beat the drum.
Knuckle Sandwich -
Once again, into the breach.
Your monicker - Knuckle Sandwich - is that how you approach life
Personally, intellectually, or both?
In my opinion, this site is about mutual intellectual respect.
And exploration.
So, first off, this is not about individual pissing matches, or, on a larger scale, conventional "scientific" oligarchy, let alone the "Knuckle
Sandwich" approach.
I would say you are approaching this, also, with "your mind made up already", which is, in my opinion, a mistake.
I'd like to learn more about your 60' deep geochronology of slaughtered
Pleistocene buffalo.
Personally, I recollect several 13.5 k mastodons in Wisconsin with cut marks, and Monte Verde which, despite being a number of kilometers from the sea, still had a maritime based food culture.
I do not recollect your buffalo as present on the
Channel Islands, or on the NW Coast of America.
Nor do I presuppose that the maritime peoples were any less adept
At maximising their caloric yield
Than the land-based peoples.
After all - what was your comment - "processing 1800 pounds of buffalo in a single day, with three, four people."
Well, when the salmon run was on, "processing" 1800 pounds of salmon
In a single day with three, four people was a no-brainer.
Think about it.
hoka hey
john
"Man is a marvellous curiosity. When he is at his very, very best he is sort of a low-grade nickel-plated angel; at his worst he is unspeakable, unimaginable; and first and last and all the time he is a sarcasm."
Mark Twain
Mark Twain
-
Knuckle sandwhich
- Posts: 36
- Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:50 pm
Yep, that is why there are so damn many fish bones in Clovis sites, oh wait, there aren't. Wait a minute, there aren't any! I guess they were just too damn stupid to figure it out. Those morons were too busy killing bison and mammoth to acknowledge that the marine environments are a handout, easy pickins. I wonder why they were so stupid, any moron knows that you never have to leave the shoreline.
You guys have it all figured out though, I am sure. Ignoring 40 years of archaeology helps a lot in some cases- of course ignoring 99.99999 of archaeological sites helps too. Fear not john, charge ahead, a sense of humor and consequently my user name will eventually change all the science and undo it. You will be vindicated. Oh, and BTW, I never said the caves of Europe were full of bison bones, but making it up as you go along works.
You haven't read any of it, have you? Not really all that interested in reading it, are you? Hell, why actually read and find out what you are arguing against? That would almost be as retarded as the Clovis people. Stupid Clovis people, they ruined everything.
You guys have it all figured out though, I am sure. Ignoring 40 years of archaeology helps a lot in some cases- of course ignoring 99.99999 of archaeological sites helps too. Fear not john, charge ahead, a sense of humor and consequently my user name will eventually change all the science and undo it. You will be vindicated. Oh, and BTW, I never said the caves of Europe were full of bison bones, but making it up as you go along works.
You haven't read any of it, have you? Not really all that interested in reading it, are you? Hell, why actually read and find out what you are arguing against? That would almost be as retarded as the Clovis people. Stupid Clovis people, they ruined everything.
Heavens to Mergetroid!
Then of course there are the remains of the timber houses in Chile dated to 11000 yrs ago, palaeolithic in that area, and I doubt that they went to that amount of trouble just for a one night stand.
Sounds sedentary to me.
Also of course the area we have been discussing would be unlikely to have shell middens of any age, they'd be under water!
Roy.
Sounds sedentary to me.
Also of course the area we have been discussing would be unlikely to have shell middens of any age, they'd be under water!
Roy.