Archaeologica.org

Got a link?

Roy.

There's something you guys may find interesting when considering early hunter/gatherers in low population settings of high terrestrial animal biomass.

K/S, that's the problem with Optimal Foraging Theory. There is no sustainable high terrestrial animal biomass on islands.

Given the limited prey count, human predators would drive the food supply extinct quickly since high biomass prey cannot be replaced easily due to geographical constraints.

cannot be replaced easily due to geographical constraints.

And typically a low reproduction rate as well.

Roy.

Cognito wrote:

There's something you guys may find interesting when considering early hunter/gatherers in low population settings of high terrestrial animal biomass.

K/S, that's the problem with Optimal Foraging Theory. There is no sustainable high terrestrial animal biomass on islands.

Given the limited prey count, human predators would drive the food supply extinct quickly since high biomass prey cannot be replaced easily due to geographical constraints.

That isn't a problem unless someone starts assuming immediate return foragers started island hopping. There is a reason why we don't see pleistocene/paleolithic archaeology on what have always been small tropical islands. The reason is like you said, they are extremely resource poor.

They have a good chance of finding old material on what was the mainland.

Knuckle sandwhich wrote:

Cognito wrote:

There's something you guys may find interesting when considering early hunter/gatherers in low population settings of high terrestrial animal biomass.

K/S, that's the problem with Optimal Foraging Theory. There is no sustainable high terrestrial animal biomass on islands.

Given the limited prey count, human predators would drive the food supply extinct quickly since high biomass prey cannot be replaced easily due to geographical constraints.

That isn't a problem unless someone starts assuming immediate return foragers started island hopping. There is a reason why we don't see pleistocene/paleolithic archaeology on what have always been small tropical islands. The reason is like you said, they are extremely resource poor.

They have a good chance of finding old material on what was the mainland.

Let's just back up a sec, here............

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimal_foraging_theory

Its pretty obvious that, for small islands, the marine biomass

Far exceeds the terrestrial biomass.

And that the "island hoppers" were adept in exploiting

the marine, not the terrestrial biomass.

Boats.


Unless you are dealing with something the size of Australia.


hoka hey


john

john wrote:

Knuckle sandwhich wrote:

Cognito wrote: K/S, that's the problem with Optimal Foraging Theory. There is no sustainable high terrestrial animal biomass on islands.

Given the limited prey count, human predators would drive the food supply extinct quickly since high biomass prey cannot be replaced easily due to geographical constraints.

That isn't a problem unless someone starts assuming immediate return foragers started island hopping. There is a reason why we don't see pleistocene/paleolithic archaeology on what have always been small tropical islands. The reason is like you said, they are extremely resource poor.

They have a good chance of finding old material on what was the mainland.

Let's just back up a sec, here............

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimal_foraging_theory

Its pretty obvious that, for small islands, the marine biomass

Far exceeds the terrestrial biomass.

And that the "island hoppers" were adept in exploiting

the marine, not the terrestrial biomass.

Boats.


Unless you are dealing with something the size of Australia.


hoka hey


john

That's correct. Did I say otherwise somehow?

Knuckle sandwhich wrote:

john wrote:

Knuckle sandwhich wrote: That isn't a problem unless someone starts assuming immediate return foragers started island hopping. There is a reason why we don't see pleistocene/paleolithic archaeology on what have always been small tropical islands. The reason is like you said, they are extremely resource poor.

They have a good chance of finding old material on what was the mainland.

Let's just back up a sec, here............

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimal_foraging_theory

Its pretty obvious that, for small islands, the marine biomass

Far exceeds the terrestrial biomass.

And that the "island hoppers" were adept in exploiting

the marine, not the terrestrial biomass.

Boats.


Unless you are dealing with something the size of Australia.


hoka hey


john

That's correct. Did I say otherwise somehow?

Knuckle Sandwich -

No. You didn't. On the surface.

Just checking.
Why assume that the (island) landmass would

Necessarily be exploited first?
Given the obvious wealth of the sea.



hoka hey

john

Because that is what the sites say and the sea is not a wealth by any means. If you look at Optimal Foraging, you will see that marine adaption is actually quite expensive not something people did "just because." Bison antiquus were a wealth.

Any new world sites from, say, 10,000 B.P. (conventional) that show marine adaption? There are lots that show big game specialists at work. How about the NW coast, where are all those pleistocene shell midden sites? There are some that are full of large terrestrial mammal bones. And it isn't because they are all under water, there are plenty of raised shorelines.

There is zilch to support paleolithic marine adaption in the new world. Paleolithic marine adaption is actually largely a contradiction of terms. Marine adaption is damn near akin to agriculture. Only culture historians could think up such a thing.

Any new world sites from, say, 10,000 B.P. (conventional) that show marine adaption? There are lots that show big game specialists at work. How about the NW coast, where are all those pleistocene shell midden sites?

Since you asked, here are a few:

http://books.google.com/books?id=RI32r5 ... &ct=result

And even though you are apparently from the Pac NW you must admit that the California coast is contiguous, no matter how annoying that may be.

So, just how old a concept is "Surf and Turf?"

Cognito wrote:

Any new world sites from, say, 10,000 B.P. (conventional) that show marine adaption? There are lots that show big game specialists at work. How about the NW coast, where are all those pleistocene shell midden sites?

Since you asked, here are a few:



And even though you are apparently from the Pac NW you must admit that the California coast is contiguous, no matter how annoying that may be.

Yeah, I know about those. A few exceptions in the face of hundreds to the contrary, many thousands when you start to look globally. They've been using that to argue this for a long time, it's still a dead end. There are exceptional and unique archaeological sites out there, ones that don't fit the mold, using them to argue large patterns in prehistory is foolish.

Thank you for your specific response.

With this present "Low" Pressure Syetem standing over southern Florida
this week, I doubt that they will be doing much survey work until
it moves out. Most of Southern and West Florida have been getting some
heavy rain for the last few days.

Here in Britain there are midden heaps containing billions of sea shells. We see nothing like it for large animals.

Roy.

I'd expect such a pile of shells to grow up in a long period of time, indicating a settled village, Dig. Whereas, an HG group would be forced (more or less) to cut up their kill as quickly as possible and bring whatever they could carry somewhere safer. IOW, before the big predators show up looking for their share.