A5D5E5 wrote:Defending the best hunting or gathering grounds isn't the point I'm making. Once they had lost the fight, they would move on. They might try to take it back but only because it was a good source of salmon / nuts / berries. The idea that bits of land were owned is a much more recent social construct and probably only started when the hunter-gatherers started transitioning to becoming farmers.message #2527204 wrote:That isn't quite how any other social animals defend their territories against invaders. Get a quote from doctor Alice and I'll believe it.A5D5E5 wrote:They would have considered being displaced by force entirely normal - whether by another tribe with sharper sticks or by a pride of sabre toothed cats. They would have felt no sense of ownership of the land.Sefton wrote:But as hunter gatherers they would have had territories that they wouldn't want other groups encroaching on I'm assuming.A5D5E5 wrote:
At the risk of this turning into something interesting, and noting the fact this isn't a serious conversation, but the concept of "land ownership" would have been entirely alien to tribes of itinerant hunter-gatherers.
These aren't my ideas by the way - it is all stuff from Yuval Noah Harari's book Sapiens - which I wholeheartedly recommend.
His idea as it relates to this is that with the agricultural revolution homo sapiens developed the ability to have abstract thought. This allowed for the planning necessary to become farmers but also allowed for abstract concepts such as property ownership.
Hmmm. Doesn't ring true to me. I'll take a read, but I know that Chimps for example, have an idea of property ownership and will defend their own 'stuff' - unless you mean real estate?
In social animals, if the group is attacked and displaced from its territory, they are either accepted as part of the new group, are killed, or move on. That doesn't mean they have no concept of 'home', just that they can't stay there any more.