Comments on: Rapid Response of a Marine Mammal Species to Holocene Climate and Habitat Change – de Bruyn et al, PLoS Genetics http://anthropology.net/2009/07/10/rapid-response-of-a-marine-mammal-species-to-holocene-climate-and-habitat-change-de-bruyn-et-al-plos-genetics/ Beyond bones & stones Sat, 21 Nov 2009 23:33:20 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Luis http://anthropology.net/2009/07/10/rapid-response-of-a-marine-mammal-species-to-holocene-climate-and-habitat-change-de-bruyn-et-al-plos-genetics/#comment-14424 Luis Fri, 10 Jul 2009 09:51:44 +0000 http://anthropology.net/?p=2211#comment-14424 <i>Like the seals in Antarctica, there would have been times when humans too returned to previous habitats as they were pushed and pulled along with other fauna and flora into different refugia as cooling and warming phases waxed and waned. </i> Sure, that is very likely to have happened. Even if humans are most flexible and innovative among animals, they would have prefered some habitats to others and found them just better for their needs (or in the opposite case: just too hostile for even human unique creative adaptation to work). <i>Moreover, I wonder from when, and to what extent human expansions and incursions were mediated by a curiosity to explore the unknown, rather than merely scouring the land for the next meal...</i> Curiosity drives the individual, maybe even a scouting party, but hardly a community that needs the basics for survival. Scouting was sure part of hunter-gatherer way of life and maybe even a past time for some of their members but all societies need a working economy and that means water, food, shelter and stuff like that. So communities would only migrate when either 1. the new (already explored) habitat looked comparatively better than the old one, or 2. the pressure in the old habitat was too strong to avoid migrating, even if the new habitat was not that good. Rather than elephant seals, who are gregarious maybe but individualist, I'd compare humans with other true social animals like real elephants, chimpanzees and bonobos, dolphins, hyenas, lions... who work together for their vital goals and not just converge almost accidentally at feeding and reproductive grounds. Like the seals in Antarctica, there would have been times when humans too returned to previous habitats as they were pushed and pulled along with other fauna and flora into different refugia as cooling and warming phases waxed and waned.

Sure, that is very likely to have happened. Even if humans are most flexible and innovative among animals, they would have prefered some habitats to others and found them just better for their needs (or in the opposite case: just too hostile for even human unique creative adaptation to work).

Moreover, I wonder from when, and to what extent human expansions and incursions were mediated by a curiosity to explore the unknown, rather than merely scouring the land for the next meal…

Curiosity drives the individual, maybe even a scouting party, but hardly a community that needs the basics for survival.

Scouting was sure part of hunter-gatherer way of life and maybe even a past time for some of their members but all societies need a working economy and that means water, food, shelter and stuff like that. So communities would only migrate when either

1. the new (already explored) habitat looked comparatively better than the old one, or
2. the pressure in the old habitat was too strong to avoid migrating, even if the new habitat was not that good.

Rather than elephant seals, who are gregarious maybe but individualist, I’d compare humans with other true social animals like real elephants, chimpanzees and bonobos, dolphins, hyenas, lions… who work together for their vital goals and not just converge almost accidentally at feeding and reproductive grounds.

]]>