Group Leader
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2020
- Messages
- 123
.
Neolith Girl
- Thread starter MangaDex
- Start date
@Purplelibraryguy Would point out that the Amerinds of the Pacific Northwest stopped being hunter-gatherers a good four-five thousand years ago. (Actual bonafide hunter-gatherers were quite rare in general in the Americas by the time Europeans came around, outside the more marginal regions.) By the time funny foreigners started poking around (the early ones were actually explorers and traders sailing over from across the Bering Strait) they'd already long been, basically, Neolithic Vikings - longhouse-dwelling agriculturalists who sailed (and raided) the length of the Western seaboard.
You're also forgetting that the mode of subsistence itself doesn't yet matter that much. Case in point during Classical Antiquity both the Mediterranean high cultures and the "Transalpine barbarians" were first and foremost agriculturalists - but the latter had considerably lower population densities and due to both that and ecoregional differences (ie. well-watered and heavily forested "northern" Europe plus far better access to good fisheries, versus the relatively arid Mediterranean region and rather barren inner sea devoid of continental shelves and shallows) benefited from much more varied diets with altogether higher intake of animal protein. Which would be why the Mediterranean chronicles stereotyped the "barbarians" as distinctly taller people, something IIRC also borne out by excavated skeletons.
Later on, after the heavy mouldboard plough allowed for intense cultivation of the heavy-soiled northern plains and due increases in population densities and urbanisation in what is now Germany and the Slavic lands, a similar distinction was observed between mainland Europeans and Scandinavians - the latter being obliged by their more marginal environments to stick to the older dispersed habitation patterns, low population densities and by extension greater supplementing of vegetables with hunting and fishing in their diets. "Freedom to roam" rights remain a hallowed tradition up here, and historically used to include mostly unrestricted hunting rights too (with certain specific exemptions such as royal hunting preserves and the prestigious elk, which was even used as a tool of state diplomacy).
You're also forgetting that the mode of subsistence itself doesn't yet matter that much. Case in point during Classical Antiquity both the Mediterranean high cultures and the "Transalpine barbarians" were first and foremost agriculturalists - but the latter had considerably lower population densities and due to both that and ecoregional differences (ie. well-watered and heavily forested "northern" Europe plus far better access to good fisheries, versus the relatively arid Mediterranean region and rather barren inner sea devoid of continental shelves and shallows) benefited from much more varied diets with altogether higher intake of animal protein. Which would be why the Mediterranean chronicles stereotyped the "barbarians" as distinctly taller people, something IIRC also borne out by excavated skeletons.
Later on, after the heavy mouldboard plough allowed for intense cultivation of the heavy-soiled northern plains and due increases in population densities and urbanisation in what is now Germany and the Slavic lands, a similar distinction was observed between mainland Europeans and Scandinavians - the latter being obliged by their more marginal environments to stick to the older dispersed habitation patterns, low population densities and by extension greater supplementing of vegetables with hunting and fishing in their diets. "Freedom to roam" rights remain a hallowed tradition up here, and historically used to include mostly unrestricted hunting rights too (with certain specific exemptions such as royal hunting preserves and the prestigious elk, which was even used as a tool of state diplomacy).
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2018
- Messages
- 5,337
@RNDM1 Just because people sailed and raided does not imply they practised agriculture.
I think you are drawing your distinctions a touch too cleverly. The Iroquois and Hurons in Northeastern Canada, say, were agriculturists--they had things that other agriculturists recognized as farms, they planted fields and such. The Amerinds of the Pacific Northwest did not. They managed the forest, sure--but it remained a forest, full of wild animals, with plant species basically as normal, just tweaked some in the direction of more useful food species. But that's true of almost everyone anyone calls a hunter-gatherer, and was probably true in much of the stone age as well; if you want to claim people who did that for agriculture, then you have to stop talking about the "development of agriculture" as a distinct phase in the first place. Then you have to invent a new word to mean what we normally mean by "agriculture" so you can start talking about the distinction again. So I don't think your way of doing the definition is useful.
I also think your discussion after saying "mode of subsistence doesn't matter that much" precisely describes a distinction in mode of subsistence. That is, you point to a group having better nutrition precisely because their mode of subsistence is more mixed, with some agricultural base but much more reliance on fishing and access to a fecund wilderness, where they could, ahem, hunt and gather to supplement their diet. Secondarily, you're talking about places with more dispersed populations, considered "barbarians", that is basically places with less centralization, division of labour, and class distinction, pointing again to the distinction I draw where agriculturists would eat worse due to elite expropriation.
So, sure, I'll agree that not only did hunter-gatherers have better, more varied diets and less expropriation of the fruits of their labour than agriculturalists, but the purer the agriculture, the less opportunity for mixed forms of subsistence, and the greater the development of agriculture-based division of labour and class structures, the greater the effect would tend to be. This goes right down to relatively modern times--English peasants before the enclosure movements, with traditional access to commons both in the form of fields and wild lands where they would supplement their subsistence, were better nourished and more prosperous than English peasants after the common fields were enclosed and the common wild lands taken from them with new laws banning their use as "poaching". So much so indeed that many were forced to stop farming and go work in the cities for wages.
I think you are drawing your distinctions a touch too cleverly. The Iroquois and Hurons in Northeastern Canada, say, were agriculturists--they had things that other agriculturists recognized as farms, they planted fields and such. The Amerinds of the Pacific Northwest did not. They managed the forest, sure--but it remained a forest, full of wild animals, with plant species basically as normal, just tweaked some in the direction of more useful food species. But that's true of almost everyone anyone calls a hunter-gatherer, and was probably true in much of the stone age as well; if you want to claim people who did that for agriculture, then you have to stop talking about the "development of agriculture" as a distinct phase in the first place. Then you have to invent a new word to mean what we normally mean by "agriculture" so you can start talking about the distinction again. So I don't think your way of doing the definition is useful.
I also think your discussion after saying "mode of subsistence doesn't matter that much" precisely describes a distinction in mode of subsistence. That is, you point to a group having better nutrition precisely because their mode of subsistence is more mixed, with some agricultural base but much more reliance on fishing and access to a fecund wilderness, where they could, ahem, hunt and gather to supplement their diet. Secondarily, you're talking about places with more dispersed populations, considered "barbarians", that is basically places with less centralization, division of labour, and class distinction, pointing again to the distinction I draw where agriculturists would eat worse due to elite expropriation.
So, sure, I'll agree that not only did hunter-gatherers have better, more varied diets and less expropriation of the fruits of their labour than agriculturalists, but the purer the agriculture, the less opportunity for mixed forms of subsistence, and the greater the development of agriculture-based division of labour and class structures, the greater the effect would tend to be. This goes right down to relatively modern times--English peasants before the enclosure movements, with traditional access to commons both in the form of fields and wild lands where they would supplement their subsistence, were better nourished and more prosperous than English peasants after the common fields were enclosed and the common wild lands taken from them with new laws banning their use as "poaching". So much so indeed that many were forced to stop farming and go work in the cities for wages.
Member
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2020
- Messages
- 725
Can't wait for the crossover
Group Leader
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2020
- Messages
- 123
.
Group Leader
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2020
- Messages
- 123
.
Group Leader
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2018
- Messages
- 86
Her name's Suki Kang! Thanks for translating though 
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2018
- Messages
- 1,416
im kinda disappointed in this webtoon... i thought this is some serious good type of webtoon but instead its a comedy type and it does not even have a comedy tag...
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2020
- Messages
- 4
omg is this finally getting translated?! (
Member
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2018
- Messages
- 338
OMG! She stabbed the main character!
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2018
- Messages
- 801
Looks like Neolith Girl comes from the Paleolithic or Mesolithic instead.
Most Neolithic peoples wore cotton, wool and linen, were sedentary farmers who domesticated most of today's grocery aisle, and many were urbanites who built the world's first cities.
Also, Smilodons like the elephant sized one she stabs in the first chapter were strictly found in the Americas. Is she Native American?
Most Neolithic peoples wore cotton, wool and linen, were sedentary farmers who domesticated most of today's grocery aisle, and many were urbanites who built the world's first cities.
Also, Smilodons like the elephant sized one she stabs in the first chapter were strictly found in the Americas. Is she Native American?
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2020
- Messages
- 14
@ Northern
lad you don't need to be quite so autistic about it
lad you don't need to be quite so autistic about it
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2020
- Messages
- 38
WTF! O_O
Member
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2020
- Messages
- 203
I'll have to drop this. Not because it's bad but because of the release "schedule". It's already completed with 97 chapters. With 15 or less chapters per year you can calculate how many years it's gonna take to see the end of this story. Not enjoyable to read that way.
Edit: Just got confirmation that this got dropped. Don't bother reading.
Edit: Just got confirmation that this got dropped. Don't bother reading.
Similar threads
