-The subsistence means of hunter/gatherers and agriculture serve a greatly similar purpose, and both pose several pros and cons. Beginning with the hunter/gatherer pattern pros, it provides fresh meat to a group or village. There isn't a fear of running through food before it is ready like agricultural needs may have. If the village is hungry, send the hunters for kills. Agriculture on the other hand, provides the ability to live off the land, and even sea if desired. Of course it all depends on the climate and landscape provided, but cultures are able to plant and harvest fruits and vegetables from renewable lands. This provides a steady flow of food for the village people, and a safer way of maintaining homeostasis.
-These two patterns are far from perfect however, as a number of disadvantages comes hand-in-hand with the pros. Hunter/gatherers for example put their lives on the line(depending on the animal population) to provide a meal to their village. There is a chance that a hunter will be killed or wounded in the process of hunting down his prey. This would provide food for the people at the cost of a valuable life. Agriculture is no sure thing either. What would happen if their climate throws them a curveball and lacks the necessary conditions to continue agriculture. The townspeople would surely have scarcity of their "reliable" food source.
-The two patterns provide either fruits and vegetables, or meat basically. In my opinion the agricultural approach would provide a healthier lifestyle, though the bounty gained from the hunter/gatherers would surely provide a hearty meal needed to maintain strength among the village. A balance between the two patterns would surely be most ideal, and would allow the people to have a fallback if one pattern fails for a certain amount of time.
-I think the transition into agriculture is due to the pros I have given it in the previous paragraph. Agriculture delivers a much more steady food source than that of hunter/gatherers. It also provides safety in the act of gathering food. How many stories have you read about the farmer being killed by his crops? The ability to have consistent source of fruits and vegetables is hard to pass up when food is a necessity. Renewable resources have provided people with a reliable food source for centuries for a reason.
Part 2
"There is a direct relationship between the availability of surplus and the ability to trade"
-What is meant by this quote is that one cannot participate in trade without a source of tradable objects. For instance, take bananas, the United States imports hundreds of thousands of bananas each year, but only because our provider has the means and ability to continue this kind of output. For a culture to trade with another culture, the idea of consistency is usually necessary. One-time trades being excluded, a system of trade between two groups can only be prolonged if the items traded can be consistently produced.
-Social benefits of trade are what make trade so appealing. Value for example, is what drives a great deal of trade. We have all participated in trade for this reason. Sitting at lunch with your friend and opening your lunchbox to find chocolate pudding, an item in which you have very little interest. Then your pal opens his and unravels a glorious peanut butter cookie(healthy lunches...I know) and your eyes widen as his display disappointment. This opens up the door for trade, as you find his cookie more valuable and vice versa. The trade is complete and both parties are satisfied! Trade can also secure overseas relations, for the most part at least. Take our dependencies on gasoline from the middle east for example. We have found reasonable terms and relations with countries from the middle east in turn for the acquirement of gasoline. If that tie is cut, our relations will surely be compromised as well.
-Disadvantages of trade can mean many things. One that instantly comes to mind is the short end of the stick case. Say one culture desperately needs a resource it cannot acquire through means other than trade. In many cases it will trade a great deal for a small amount, but the trade is necessary for survival. Another is dependency. Imagine if you only had access to lumber, and traded it for all your cultures food. Then one day the other culture decides the trade system is no longer desirable and will be cut off. Your dependency on trade has been so severe that without it, you cannot survive. This is a very extreme case, but the point is valid.
-The development of agriculture is what leads into the necessity, or desire for trade. A crop your culture very much enjoys may not grow in the climate in which your town is centralized. However, an allied culture grows it in the masses. They desire a crop in which flourishes in your culture as well. This portrays the differences in the development of agriculture, that can lead to a successful trade system among cultures.
Great post, you made some excellent points concerning the need for a sustainable product in order for trade to be productive and possible. Back when agriculture was just beginning to become sustainable it was a challenge for anyone to have any kind of consistent variety of foods. Again, great post very well said.
ReplyDeleteHere's a question for you: Are fisherman agriculturalists or foragers? :-)
ReplyDeleteWhile I appreciate the idea of a balance between the two methods as being ideal, what do the studies say about which subsistence methods produce the healthiest populations?
Interesting discussion on the transition to agriculture. I do wonder how much of the safety issue came into play since hunting was a very dangerous practice.
I accept your costs/benefits of trade from modern perspective, but can you think of some that were a little more life and death for those early trade cultures? One definite downside was the introduction and the spread of disease between populations that once had not contact with each other.
Good final paragraph. Good post with some interesting points.