Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.
To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser.
2022, 28th EAA Annual Meeting Abstract Book
The aim of this session is to challenge the conceptual dichotomy between the “Mesolithic” and “Neolithic”, by focusing on animal and plant management in prehistoric hunter-fisher-gatherer communities. The shift from foraging to farming and animal husbandry is often narrated as a turning point where humanity’s relationship with the environment was profoundly altered. Resource management is fundamental to concept of the Neolithic and further linked to aspects such as storage, surplus accumulation, and social complexity. Recent findings however show that human involvement with the environment was biologically, socially and economically complex long before the transition to agriculture. Multiple archaeological records point towards the existence of various resource management practices among hunter-fisher-gatherers long before, and independent of, the Neolithization process. Rather than being just “ecologically adapted” Mesolithic foragers actively engaged with, intervened, transformed, and cultivated the flora and fauna in their local landscapes. Examples include introducing novel plants to their environments, transferring fish fry between rivers and lakes, altering habitats attract grazing animals by burning and weeding, and constructing permanent trapping systems for various fish species and deer species. We invite papers addressing this topic independent of geographical scope and spatial scale. Contributions may focus on specific methods, models, case studies or theoretical frameworks such as niche construction theory and multispecies archaeology.
in 'Investigating prehistoric hunter-gatherer identities: case studies from Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Europe, eds. Cobb, H., Coward, F., Grimshaw, L. and Price, S. Oxford: Archaeopress. BAR International Series 141. , 2005
The success of the post-processual critique of processual models of prehistory has led to the development of models of human behaviour that prioritise people and their activities in a social milieu. However, although some aspects of these approaches have crept in to the late Mesolithic, the vast majority of illustrations of such paradigms in archaeology have been post-Neolithic. Why is there no social archaeology of the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic? Firstly, the nature of the data is argued to be insufficient both quantitatively and qualitatively to address the lifeways of people in the past. The questions considered appropriate for the study of the Palaeolithic have thus been largely restricted to those considering the economics of subsistence or raw material procurement and lithic manufacture. Secondly, the problem is one of identification; the attitudes of researchers towards post-Neolithic farmers and Mesolithic and Palaeolithic hunter-gatherer (and particularly pre-human hunter-gatherer) populations have meant that the two branches of research are considered fundamentally different. The effect of this process of estrangement of hunter-gatherer archaeology from the rest of the discipline is the establishment of an a-personal Palaeolithic. The pre-eminence of the evolutionary paradigm, which equates change and evolution, identifies the process of evolution as purely a factor of time; change is conditional only on time passing, and is thus virtually unrelated to humans and their activities. The focus of research into Pleistocene archaeology has been at continent-wide geographical scales and geological timescales, which have removed the possibility of accessing personal experiences and actions. In addition, the conception of a culture as a system seeking homeostasis means that change requires external causality – usually, in the Palaeolithic, the environment. This session would like to reintroduce the not-so-radical notion of ‘people’ to the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic, as creators of the archaeological record, and as inhabitants of the Pleistocene world. How can we access aspects of the prehistoric hunter-gatherer past that would have had meaning for its inhabitants/creators? How does the recognition of hunter-gatherer ‘persons’ in prehistory affect the generalizing, continent- and geological/climatic- scale models of the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic which are current in the discipline? We invite papers that use new perspectives to ‘crack open’ the ‘black box’ of hunter-gatherer ‘persons’ of the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic to access new perspectives on and understandings of the period.
Quaternary International, 2017
Touchais, G., R. Laffineur, and F. Rougemont, eds., PHYSIS: L' environnement naturel et la relation homme-milieu dans le monde égéen protohistorique (Aegaeum 37), Peeters Leuven, 2014
Men and women hunt and gather purposefully, their activities involving not only the practical aspect of resource procurement but, more significantly, a social and cultural aspect: perceptions of the natural world, decision making, cooperating, sharing, creating material culture. These latter aspects are of additional interest when hunting and gathering is practiced in the context of an agricultural economy wherein there seems to be no primary biological-economic need to pursue these activities. In this paper we discuss prehistoric agriculturalists in the Northern Aegean which, however, were consistently occupied with gathering and hunting as well. We focus on Sitagroi in the Drama plain of Macedonia where the use of wild resources is variously attested: there are shell ornaments and implements, tools fashioned of wild animal bone, impressions of mat reeds on pot bases, paleo-botanical finds of wild fruits, nuts and seeds, faunal remains of wild game, fowl and fish. Comparanda from other, more recently investigated sites help us understand the strategies observed at Sitagroi in a regional and interregional context. The long occupation of many settlements, spanning the Neolithic and Early Bronze Ages (sixth to third millennia BCE), further allows us to distinguish practices specific to each period, including: the systematic use of marine shell for Neolithic ornaments versus its limited presence and more utilitarian function later on; the presence of hafted tools made of deer antler during the Neolithic; the increased importance of wild animals in the faunal record of the Early Bronze Age; dietary and culinary preferences reflected, among other things, in the different shapes and ceramic recipes employed by Neolithic and Early Bronze Age potters, respectively. Such permutations in the archaeological record can partly be linked to different environmental conditions and resource availability. But we may also detect underlying attitudes towards the natural world, as well as related shifts in the socioeconomic and symbolic priorities of prehistoric communities.
Jews, Christians, and the Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures, 2000
JURILMA: Jurnal Ilmu Manajemen Indonesia, 2024
Habitat International , 2023
Cuadernos Del Cendes, 2010
Lingüística y Literatura
Journal of Structural and Construction Engineering, 10(8), 2023, pp. 44-61, 2023
Journal of Economic Sciences
Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, 2024
Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, 2014
colouring_in_issue_2_the_city
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 1994
Scriptura : international journal of bible, religion and theology in southern Africa, 2013