On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 13:57:57 -0700, Wally Day <[log in to unmask]> wrote:


>Bad example, Amadeus. The buffalo was hunted extensively prior to the
>introduction of horses (and rifles). It is true white fur traders decimated
>the buffalo herds using horses (and rifles), but that does not mean they
>are a requirement to succesfully hunt them.

I was referring to the introduction of horses to the native americans by
"wild" horses which were brought to america only after 1492.
I suppose that it was a great upswing for some plain hunting tribes like
Sioux - maybe they were not even existing before 1492.
I recall reading a book about Sitting Bull and how the tribe hunted the
buffalo herds, when the season came.
It seems obvious for me that it would be very much more easy to approach
such a buffalo herd (or escape buffalo attacks, protecting the newborns)
when riding on a horse. I can't imagine going on foot the miles to meet the
herd, then sneak undiscovered and then successfully hunt
with much success. And then take home the prey. ...
Then the arrows. Paleo humans didn't invent bows and arrows until
"recently" (40kya).

You have provided a plausible scenario, how hunting on foot would be
successfull. The cliff. There's also evidence that such hunting happened.
In the near east there were (at the advent of neolithicum) special gazelle
mass hunting buildings. Several 100 meters V-shaped walls gazelles are
believed to have been driven into. (in this case the gazelle herds died out
- I believe they needed the wild game omega-3 fat before they had flax)
Ok, but in sum I think the cliff driving hunt wasn't a frequent occasion.
The season must be there, and the circumstances must be fortunate.

>.. The problem is *not*
>the 'diffuculty' of hunting (as you seem to keep asserting), but rather the
>possibility of a scarcity of animals at certain times during the year.

I agree with you here.

In other cases hunting could have been dangerous - when approaching
buffalos on foot or mammoth or elephants -  big game.
But humans are not mad (I mean generally, with exceptions ;-)
Suffering from a broken bone is such a bad impact that avoiding it is well
worth many days of starving. It must have been avoided.
(I know what I speak about - I had a severely broken leg 4 years ago and
it took months to heal and more months that I could learn to walk again.
In the wild I would have been invalid or dead)

regards

Amadeus