Where to hunter/gatherers come from?

[USincognito]

I'd like to here from Creationists where how they think hunter/gatherer societies came to be. Within standard archaeology the answer is that certain areas had a predisposition for argriculture and about 13,000 years ago started to develop it, while some socieities either had to learn it from neighbors, were to geographically or culturally isolated or simply never developed it.

Hunter/gatherer societes present a problem for YECs. Setting aside Cain and Abel (who evidence farming and animal husbandry shortly after Eden) lets look at the technological bottleneck that occured after Noah. From the text Noah and his sons had knowledge of ship building and carpentry, animal husbandry (7 clean animals on the Ark) and vintnering (at the very least) 4000 years ago.

How then do highly specialized and knowledgeable scieties like the Plains Indians of North America, the !Kung San of Southern Africa and the Aborigines of Australia and Tasmania come about in a mere few thousand years? What is the mechanism for the loss of cultural artifacts like pottery, bows and arrows*, permanent housing, farming, pastoralism or full blown agriculture?

How exactly did the descendants of Noah come to find themselves in a hunter/gatherer society, while others not only did not, but progressed technologically? And please, I'm asking for specific comments, not ad hockery.

* In the case of the Aborigines and Tasmanians


CC Edits to add:
MOD HAT

 

[Soul Searcher]

I'd like to here from Creationists where how they think hunter/gatherer societies came to be.

I don't totally qualify as a creationist and certianly do not think that the stories of Eden and the flood are actuall history but if I had to guess I would say...

Descendants of Cain perhaps?

According to Genesis Cain was a farmer but after he killed Abel the Lord cursed the ground and it would bear him no fruit. It would seem that he had to become a hunter gatherer to survive.

 

[kahtar]

I would think that personal preferance had a lot to do with it. Some people just don't like digging in the dirt and trying to grow things.
But perhaps this falls into your 'ad hoc' category.

 

[Abongil]

Post # 1000

 

[USincognito]

I would think that personal preferance had a lot to do with it. Some people just don't like digging in the dirt and trying to grow things.
But perhaps this falls into your 'ad hoc' category.

It does. But maybe you could try and elaborate and flesh the idea out a bit anyway.

 

[USincognito]

I don't totally qualify as a creationist and certianly do not think that the stories of Eden and the flood are actuall history but if I had to guess I would say...

Descendants of Cain perhaps?

According to Genesis Cain was a farmer but after he killed Abel the Lord cursed the ground and it would bear him no fruit. It would seem that he had to become a hunter gatherer to survive.

That's a good response, but as I noted in the OP, Noah and his sons obviously had the trappings of civilization during/after the Flood, so unless we could establish that one of Ham, Shem or Japheth's wives were descendants of Cain, I don't think it's tennable.

 

[Chalnoth]

I would think that personal preferance had a lot to do with it. Some people just don't like digging in the dirt and trying to grow things.
But perhaps this falls into your 'ad hoc' category.

Well, considering the simple fact that people in agricultural societies live longer, healthier lives, I have a very hard time that any society would give this up for the much harsher, more dangerous life of a hunter-gatherer.

 

[Soul Searcher]

That's a good response, but as I noted in the OP, Noah and his sons obviously had the trappings of civilization during/after the Flood, so unless we could establish that one of Ham, Shem or Japheth's wives were descendants of Cain, I don't think it's tennable.

Considering that there was no global flood, it is tennable

 

[kahtar]

Well, using myself as an example, I never had much luck gardening. I grow weeds pretty well, though. So put into a position of having to find food to survive, I'd be grabbing a stick and sharpening it.
I am a carnivore. My eyes are in front of my head, and every creature of the forest recognizes me as such. I like meat. I do know a few plants that are edible, and would have no problem supplimenting my diet with them, but try to plant them, and care for them? Not in my genes.

 

[Chalnoth]

Well, using myself as an example, I never had much luck gardening. I grow weeds pretty well, though. So put into a position of having to find food to survive, I'd be grabbing a stick and sharpening it.
I am a carnivore. My eyes are in front of my head, and every creature of the forest recognizes me as such. I like meat. I do know a few plants that are edible, and would have no problem supplimenting my diet with them, but try to plant them, and care for them? Not in my genes.

Much, much easier to raise livestock than hunt for food.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Much, much easier to raise livestock than hunt for food.

if you look at various societies and the number of hours spent working, the hunter-gatherers are at the very bottom on this list. you will find most estimates for them at about 3 hrs per day.

if you had ever milked cows, or been around dairymen you would immediately recognize the falsity of this statement. My wife's uncle never had a day off in more than 35 years while his wife, who worked in a button factory took a 3 week vacation every year without him. he milked 3 times a day so his days were like 18 hrs long.


from: http://www.eco-action.org/dt/affluent.html

Hunter-gatherers consume less energy per capita per year than any other group of human beings. Yet when you come to examine it the original affluent society was none other than the hunter's - in which all the people's material wants were easily satisfied. To accept that hunters are affluent is therefore to recognise that the present human condition of man slaving to bridge the gap between his unlimited wants and his insufficient means is a tragedy of modern times.

 

[kahtar]

if you look at various societies and the number of hours spent working, the hunter-gatherers are at the very bottom on this list. you will find most estimates for them at about 3 hrs per day.

Ah, ya beat me to it.

 

[Chalnoth]

While this may be true, being a hunter/gatherer is a highly uncertain way to live. Settling down offers security, a reliable food source, and a long life. Hunter/gatherers are at mercy to the migrations of their prey, competition with other predators, and the weather.

Farmers and herders basically only need fertile land and water, and water can be supplied from reliable sources like rivers and wells.

 

[USincognito]

Considering that there was no global flood, it is tennable

Well of course, but not for YECs who claim there was a global flood.

 

[USincognito]

Well, using myself as an example, I never had much luck gardening. I grow weeds pretty well, though. So put into a position of having to find food to survive, I'd be grabbing a stick and sharpening it.
I am a carnivore. My eyes are in front of my head, and every creature of the forest recognizes me as such. I like meat. I do know a few plants that are edible, and would have no problem supplimenting my diet with them, but try to plant them, and care for them? Not in my genes.

Actually you're an omnivore, herbivores like gorillas have eyes front and the only creatures that run from us are those that have learned to or are less scared of us than we are of they (see Dodos and Hippos f.ex.).

And I'm not talking about one individuals choice to subsist on squirrels rather than try and raise beets, I'm talking about entire societies not only giving up agriculture, but the trappings that go along with the lifestyle like clothing made from woven cloth, reliable water sources and permanent housing.

More problematic is that not only did these socieites give up such legacies from Noah and sons, but they developed lifestyles and hunting/gathering techniques that were viable for their region of settlement (Native Americans with bison f.ex.) and in some cases not only gave up the trappings of an agricultural lifestyle, but very effective tools for subsistance living (bow and arrows in the case of Aborigines).

All of these changes had to have occurred in a dozen or so generations after the Flood for those societies to have been as long standing as they were when "discovered" by Europeans.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

While this may be true, being a hunter/gatherer is a highly uncertain way to live. Settling down offers security, a reliable food source, and a long life. Hunter/gatherers are at mercy to the migrations of their prey, competition with other predators, and the weather.

Farmers and herders basically only need fertile land and water, and water can be supplied from reliable sources like rivers and wells.

i believe that the one thing that agriculture offers over hunting is much greater population density, which is not an unmixed blessing.

 

[Soul Searcher]

Well of course, but not for YECs who claim there was a global flood.

Well if we consider that the global flood did happen as is suggested then we have the problem of the land not being able to be farmed for quite some time. I figure pretty much all existing vegatation would be dead, the ground saturated with water not to mention the salt. Also if the Ark came to rest high up in the mountains even under good conditions farming would be difficult.

Rasing livestock wouldn't be much easier as there would be little for them to eat [whatever was on the boat] plus the lions, tigers, wolves and such would quickly devour all the deer, sheep, cattle, goats, horses and such.. within a year or so most species would be extinct.

I think they would all become hunter gathers in this case but would not last long.

 

[Chalnoth]

Yeah, even if you take the Bible at its word for how the flood occurred, the small number of creatures left would be doomed to extinction in short order. Then there's the geological evidence that it never occurred, and the genetic evidence, and the archaeological evidence. And that's before you even delve into the logical problems of the flood itself.

 

[Chalnoth]

i believe that the one thing that agriculture offers over hunting is much greater population density, which is not an unmixed blessing.

Well, there's still tremendously better security from moving to agriculture. And people usually don't mind work. It's being bored that sucks.

 

[shernren]

Well if we consider that the global flood did happen as is suggested then we have the problem of the land not being able to be farmed for quite some time. I figure pretty much all existing vegatation would be dead, the ground saturated with water not to mention the salt. Also if the Ark came to rest high up in the mountains even under good conditions farming would be difficult.

Rasing livestock wouldn't be much easier as there would be little for them to eat [whatever was on the boat] plus the lions, tigers, wolves and such would quickly devour all the deer, sheep, cattle, goats, horses and such.. within a year or so most species would be extinct.

I think they would all become hunter gathers in this case but would not last long.

The Biblical account if taken historically seems to state that there would have been about 6 weeks between the earth being dry enough for vegetation and Noah getting off the Ark. 6 weeks for vegetation to regrow and on salted soil at that. The moment all the animals on the Ark had disembarked, the food chain would have become hopelessly top-heavy because of the extremely high predator-prey ratio and the inadequate photosynthesizer base.

Lasting a year under these circumstances would have been miraculous. No wonder Noah took to drinking.