Mixing between Neolithic Farmers and Mesolithic Hunter-Gatherers

[Pythagorean]

TL;DR Summary

Farmer and Hunter Gatherer interactions

I watching this YouTube video about Göbekli Tepe which suggests that hunter-gatherers may have been more capable of creating civilizations than we presumed and it got me wondering what hunter-gatherer / farmer relations were like. Apparently they were good:

https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(17)30559-6

You'd think hunter/gatherers had strong trading potential and capable warriors. Depending on the type of animals they're hunting and the wild berries or spices they have access to; there were probably plenty of farmers willing to trade some of their quantity stock for some more exotic goods, like skins, teeth, claws, and game meat.

 

[Rive]

...hunter-gatherers may have been more capable of creating civilizations than we presumed...

By any chance, do you have any source at hand about how we imagine the life of those 'hunter-gatherers'?

When I learnt about these things way back it was almost a pejorative title, though even in those times it was already discussed that we actually know some remnants of 'close enough' kind of cultures and they are actually anything but primitive.

 

[Laroxe]

Really I think that the relationship between hunter gatherers and farmers were good because they would largely be the same people. I really don't understand why some people appear to think the two lifestyles were distinct, even in current hunter gatherer groups the cultivation of food plants and animal husbandry is very common.

I suspect that what is being identified are changes in government and social organisation and because the focus on farming activities in the right climate can support greater populations. When human groups split, the divisions tend to be based on relatedness, this makes me thing that most groups would tend to be co-operative, and the rules that developed to maintain this would form the basis of intergroup co-operation. I also think that as groups adopted more agricultural practices and the population increased the shared decision making seen in many hunter gatherer groups becomes inefficient, larger groups need greater control, this control needs explicit rules or laws, and these require policing. The article implies a value system that favours the controlled and organised cultures based on agriculture, its debatable that this is in some way superior to alternative types of social organisation. All human groups develop a form of social culture its necessary for their survival.

The greater numbers of early agricultural groups require different cultural rules this and the loss of the sense of relatedness, make it difficult for the different groups to relate to one another and can even become a source of conflict in itself. However, it does seem that the most significant source of conflict among human groups throughout history reflects the need to control sufficient resources to maintain and possibly expand your own group. To maintain hunter gatherer groups, despite their limited populations, requires the control of large areas of land, while agriculture is more efficient they would still tend to gain population advantages.
I think that trade and relationships would be relatively easy, when the groups were familiar and there were few resource issues. Its often the case that humans develop social rules against the use of random violence, so the differences in beliefs and values are often used to dehumanise and justify killing their competition. It just seems inevitable that there would eventually be conflict, with the smaller hunter gatherer groups being eliminated or driven into isolated areas and this remains the case.

 

[Pythagorean]

My take, not having any formal anthropology or economics background and not being a farmer:

Agriculture is an economic force that can power armies and give you trading power. Gardens are more about self reliance and subsistence. Farmers hunt, and some even may depend on it, but again it's for subsistence. Subsistence may ease economic pressures, but it doesn't drive them. In a hunter/gatherer community, the whole community is dependent on what the land provides and the land likes biodiversity, ergo edible nutrients tend to be distributed (lower density) and less is nutrients are available (unless you lucked out in the land lottery). Agriculture is a way to cram a lot of biomass, selected for human nutrition, into a small area and mass produce it. Nutrients sources in a hunter/grather society can also vary significantly in spoilage rate, but with agriculture you can choose crops that are easier to preserve so that you can build up stores for when the weather does suck and yield is lower.

Agriculture definitely has several advantages as an economic system over hunter/gatherers. I don't think that's controversial. I think what's problematic was agricultural peoples imposing their cultural beliefs like ethical systems, religion, etc. and saying "here, you should do it this way" as they colonized them with their well fed armies. Personally, I side with the Cynics and Stoics that say we should live closer to nature. You can't trust agricultural societies, they pretty much always end up trying to make nuclear weapons.

 

[Astronuc]

Regarding hunter-gatherers and farmers, apparently pastoral agriculture (pastorilism) or domestication of cattle, sheep and goats developed in between.

Pastoral societies herd livestock as their primary form of sustenance. The origin of pastoralism dates back to around 8500 to 6500 BCE. These societies followed the hunter-gatherer stage in human development and preceded the development of agricultural communities.

https://study.com/learn/lesson/pastoralism-origin-characteristics-examples-what-is-pastoralism.html
Apparently a course on Introduction to Anthropology

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastoralism

In theory, a better source
https://www.cambridge.org/core/book.../pastoralism/B4AB5482E0D3DD1E105ED59CA079EBB4

https://www.routledge.com/The-Origi...ector-Archaeology-London/p/book/9781857285383

Looking at the history of Mesopotamia and the neighbors in what is now Syria, Turkey and Iran would perhaps provide archeological evidence of the spread of grain/vegetable farming (probably near rivers for irrigation or grasslands with good rain), pastoral farming (drier grasslands), and hunter-gatherers (mountainous areas?). Locating near rivers also meant greater access to trade, otherwise, one would use caravans as was the case in desert areas.

 

[Pythagorean]

Yeah, I was recently thinking on the Old Norse as a result of some Germanic tribes bringing agriculture to the Sami/Fins. Before the Germanic tribes came, the people of Scandinavia were largely reindeer herders, fishers, and hunters. You can't say the Sami were pure hunter gatherer since they herded reindeer, but they hadn't exactly industrialized agriculture either.