Consider Polynesians, especially NZ Maori who recently (in the 1300's CE) occupied the last major landmass free of humans. Polynesians have little Denisovian heritage compared to Melanesians and Australian aborigines (I am not suggesting Denisovian heritage prevented the emergence of agriculture. It is possible such crops as bananas were developed in PNG) and genetically resemble East Asian aboriginals so quite representative of 'out of Africa' humans.
At first contact with Europeans, Maori were dispersed throughout NZ. Most lived in the northern most part of the north island (north of Auckland) where starchy subtropical imported crops could sustain a fairly high population density. From archaeology, they appear to have always lived in defended villages.
South of Auckland, around first contact, they lived mostly as widely dispersed (their diet was carbohydrate deficient) hunter-gatherers concentrated near the coastline with occasional defended though not continually occupied 'Pa' sites. Archaeology has shown that after first arriving Maori had dispersed rapidly around the country, exterminating the mega fauna as they went (took about 100 years) and lived in undefended seasonal camps (with signs of buildings). This early occupation is overlaid by defended Pa sites and undefended camp sites. With the introduction of the potato, probably by European 'sealers' in late 18th century their lifestyle become progressively more settled.
I asked Bing what were the dangers of the jungle for the hunting Ache men, but Bing said it doesn't know (it offered that maybe jaguars). Was it really just jaguars, or maybe also snakes, large fruits fallin down, etc?
This is a good post, and makes some important points.
I remember reading a National Geographic article a few years back about the quest to find an "uncontacted tribe" in PNG that turned out to be 14 dudes in a cave. Some of them had Christian names like "John" or "Peter" (I don't remember their actual names, but you get the idea,) because they'd attended mission schools when they were younger. there was nothing "uncontacted" about them at all! They were just homeless!
Then I thought, "Are the Bushmen really hunter-gatherers? Or do their neighbors just see them as the local equivalent of hobos?"
Today's Bushmen are not representative of "our" ancestors--they aren't even representative of their own immediate ancestors. They're not from the Kalahari. (Their light-brown skins are not adapted to the desert sun and they have rather high rates of skin cancer!) Their ancestors used to live all over southern Africa, in far more hospitable locations. The Kalahari is just the only place left that no one else wanted.
Incidentally, IIRC, the Dutch arrived in South Africa before the Bantus. SA was Khoi-San land back then.
I agree that the pre-contact Australian Aborigines are a good model, both because they didn't have farming neighbors and because Australia is a big place with a variety of climates. Outside of Australia and some nearby islands, most HGs are HGs solely because they live on land that's terrible for farming. For most of history, HGs lived on great land, because there was tons of it! Populations probably weren't high enough in most of the world to be a big issue, either.
I suspect that *pure* hunter-gathering also isn't as typical as we think it was, at least in the near-ish past. Many Aborigines were actually horticulturalists. Where I live, the ancient people were largely fishermen. Herding was probably adopted more often than we realize.
Australian Aboriginals in 1900 lived much more complex lives than Australians did during the paleolithic. It's often said that they have the oldest continuous culture, but there were massive changes in the Holocene. Take for example the Pama-Nyungan language family, which covers 7/8ths of Australia's landmass. It only spread 6k years ago! And with it, a much richer technological complex. Much of the interior desert was not inhabited before this culture. Or take the Rainbow Serpent, adopted today as a pan-Australian symbol. It spread at the same time, with the same culture.
There are even hints of evolution in that time range, as the skull shape has changed in the Holocene.
Source for that, see: A 150- Year Conundrum: Cranial Robusticity and Its Bearing on the Origin of Aboriginal Australians.
It is very sad but your logic is probably right. I have been under the spell of "The Old Way A Story of the First People " and other writings by Elizabeth Marshall Thomas - such a beautiful inspiring story - but now you shattered it.
The West coast was inhabited by hunter-gatherers that were isolated from the larger world until late 18th C. Some developed complex fisher forager societies with permanent settlements, social stratification, slavery, trade and money (shells from Vancouver used as high value money in California) all without agriculture or pastoralism.
These indians were too sophisticated to be an example of paleolithic but they are a good approximation of mesolithic Europe and Jomon Japan.
You'd love Lorenzo's recent post here: https://helendale.substack.com/p/feminisation-has-consequences-i Thanks for the source by the way; in the comments I tried explaining to him that those Hazda ladies were producing the calories, but he wasn't having it.
> Any other suggestions for the Paleolithic Model Pageant Top 10 Ranking?
Khoi-san, who preserve a large amount of genetic diversity lost in other groups and, in many if not all cases, preserve ancient lifeways abandoned by their neighbors.
(I'm biased here, though; I like the Khoi-san, and it saddens me that their numbers are dwindling. I have this feeling that something should be done, but I'm just not the person to do it.)
I'd like to make a tiny offering outside of Substack to you guys. Take Swish?
Consider Polynesians, especially NZ Maori who recently (in the 1300's CE) occupied the last major landmass free of humans. Polynesians have little Denisovian heritage compared to Melanesians and Australian aborigines (I am not suggesting Denisovian heritage prevented the emergence of agriculture. It is possible such crops as bananas were developed in PNG) and genetically resemble East Asian aboriginals so quite representative of 'out of Africa' humans.
At first contact with Europeans, Maori were dispersed throughout NZ. Most lived in the northern most part of the north island (north of Auckland) where starchy subtropical imported crops could sustain a fairly high population density. From archaeology, they appear to have always lived in defended villages.
South of Auckland, around first contact, they lived mostly as widely dispersed (their diet was carbohydrate deficient) hunter-gatherers concentrated near the coastline with occasional defended though not continually occupied 'Pa' sites. Archaeology has shown that after first arriving Maori had dispersed rapidly around the country, exterminating the mega fauna as they went (took about 100 years) and lived in undefended seasonal camps (with signs of buildings). This early occupation is overlaid by defended Pa sites and undefended camp sites. With the introduction of the potato, probably by European 'sealers' in late 18th century their lifestyle become progressively more settled.
I asked Bing what were the dangers of the jungle for the hunting Ache men, but Bing said it doesn't know (it offered that maybe jaguars). Was it really just jaguars, or maybe also snakes, large fruits fallin down, etc?
This is a good post, and makes some important points.
I remember reading a National Geographic article a few years back about the quest to find an "uncontacted tribe" in PNG that turned out to be 14 dudes in a cave. Some of them had Christian names like "John" or "Peter" (I don't remember their actual names, but you get the idea,) because they'd attended mission schools when they were younger. there was nothing "uncontacted" about them at all! They were just homeless!
Then I thought, "Are the Bushmen really hunter-gatherers? Or do their neighbors just see them as the local equivalent of hobos?"
Today's Bushmen are not representative of "our" ancestors--they aren't even representative of their own immediate ancestors. They're not from the Kalahari. (Their light-brown skins are not adapted to the desert sun and they have rather high rates of skin cancer!) Their ancestors used to live all over southern Africa, in far more hospitable locations. The Kalahari is just the only place left that no one else wanted.
Incidentally, IIRC, the Dutch arrived in South Africa before the Bantus. SA was Khoi-San land back then.
I agree that the pre-contact Australian Aborigines are a good model, both because they didn't have farming neighbors and because Australia is a big place with a variety of climates. Outside of Australia and some nearby islands, most HGs are HGs solely because they live on land that's terrible for farming. For most of history, HGs lived on great land, because there was tons of it! Populations probably weren't high enough in most of the world to be a big issue, either.
I suspect that *pure* hunter-gathering also isn't as typical as we think it was, at least in the near-ish past. Many Aborigines were actually horticulturalists. Where I live, the ancient people were largely fishermen. Herding was probably adopted more often than we realize.
Australian Aboriginals in 1900 lived much more complex lives than Australians did during the paleolithic. It's often said that they have the oldest continuous culture, but there were massive changes in the Holocene. Take for example the Pama-Nyungan language family, which covers 7/8ths of Australia's landmass. It only spread 6k years ago! And with it, a much richer technological complex. Much of the interior desert was not inhabited before this culture. Or take the Rainbow Serpent, adopted today as a pan-Australian symbol. It spread at the same time, with the same culture.
There are even hints of evolution in that time range, as the skull shape has changed in the Holocene.
Source for that, see: A 150- Year Conundrum: Cranial Robusticity and Its Bearing on the Origin of Aboriginal Australians.
Language expansion: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-018-0489-3
Rainbow serpent expansion: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/j.1834-4453.1996.tb00355.x
It is very sad but your logic is probably right. I have been under the spell of "The Old Way A Story of the First People " and other writings by Elizabeth Marshall Thomas - such a beautiful inspiring story - but now you shattered it.
The West coast was inhabited by hunter-gatherers that were isolated from the larger world until late 18th C. Some developed complex fisher forager societies with permanent settlements, social stratification, slavery, trade and money (shells from Vancouver used as high value money in California) all without agriculture or pastoralism.
These indians were too sophisticated to be an example of paleolithic but they are a good approximation of mesolithic Europe and Jomon Japan.
You'd love Lorenzo's recent post here: https://helendale.substack.com/p/feminisation-has-consequences-i Thanks for the source by the way; in the comments I tried explaining to him that those Hazda ladies were producing the calories, but he wasn't having it.
> Any other suggestions for the Paleolithic Model Pageant Top 10 Ranking?
Khoi-san, who preserve a large amount of genetic diversity lost in other groups and, in many if not all cases, preserve ancient lifeways abandoned by their neighbors.
https://www.science.org/content/article/dwindling-african-tribe-may-have-been-most-populous-group-planet
(I'm biased here, though; I like the Khoi-san, and it saddens me that their numbers are dwindling. I have this feeling that something should be done, but I'm just not the person to do it.)