Who Were the 'Hunter-Gatherers'?

Was It Really Over 100,000 Years Before These People Thought of Farming?

The Exposure of a Rather Silly Modernist Mantra

See also: Bill and the Professor: How Long Did it Take 'Hunter-Gatherers' to Ride a Horse?

See also: Recent 10,400 Years Claim is Highly Dubious

M odern anthropology posits a 'hunter-gatherer' culture by the first human societies which lasted for many thousands of years. Here is a typical description of what is usually taught:

"...hunting and gathering culture, also called foraging culture, refers to any group of people that depends primarily on wild foods for subsistence. Until about 12,000 to 11,000 years ago, when agriculture and animal domestication emerged in southwest Asia and in Mesoamerica, all peoples were hunters and gatherers. Their strategies have been very diverse, depending greatly upon the local environment; foraging strategies have included hunting or trapping big game, hunting or trapping smaller animals, fishing, gathering shellfish or insects, and gathering wild plant foods such as fruits, vegetables, tubers, seeds, and nuts. Most hunters and gatherers combined - and still do - a variety of these strategies in order to ensure a balanced diet."

The above was taken from a website which teaches the typical modernist anthropological view. Our children are now being taught this in all of our schools, our young people are being taught this in the colleges and universities. But, as we are going to see, it is a very seriously flawed teaching. Okay, so when, according to this view, did human beings first emerge?

"Anatomically modern humans evolved from archaic Homo sapiens in the Middle Paleolithic, about 200,000 years ago. The emergence of anatomically modern human marks the dawn of the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens, i.e. the subspecies of Homo sapiens that includes all modern humans."

The above comes from an 'authoritative' Wikipedia page. It is, of course pure Darwinist Modernism in action. Not one iota of proof, nor anything like solid evidence, exists for any of it. It is the modernist philosophy as applied to natural science which emerged from Charles Lyell and Charles Darwin in the 19th century; it is now sacrosanct and is unchallenged except by the "ignorant and stupid." More detailed information on these two men may be found here. So, it is seriously suggested, that modern humans came onto the scene circa 200,000 years ago and were 'hunter-gatherers' for possibly over 150,000 years until the thought of organised farming suddenly seems to have occurred to them around 12,000 years ago! What were these people doing for all those thousands of years? If they were so incredibly stupid, how on earth did they even survive? I mean, how long could you watch a food plant grow - season by season - year after year - without 'twigging' (oops - pardon the pun!) that you could plant it as a regular food crop, and then you would have become an agriculturist! It would also hardly be 'rocket science' to learn - through simple observation - about the reproductive power of seeds. Despite this, all our young people are taught that nobody thought of such things for well over 100,000 years! Yet - please note - these were now (according to the usual teaching) 'modern men' in all essentials, no longer looking like apes!

The whole posited structure is, of course, based on a fallacy: that fallacy is that the human race has been around for something like 200,000 years! This is despite the well known fact that human civilisations are known to be not very old. The trouble is, if you are going to claim that people have been around for such an incredibly long time, you are going to have to try to explain what they were doing!

As the article, Accessible Evidences of a Young Earth, states,

Hunter-Gatherer Absurdity

Is it really conceivable that 'hunter gatherers' - modern man in all manner, but in earliest form (according to Darwinist anthropologists, that is), lived for possibly 100,000 years before even learning the basics of farming and plant and animal husbandry?

How could such an ignorant and backward people even have survived and progressed? It is plainly a nonsense but, as one evolutionist said to me in a moment of utter candor several years ago, "They must have lived and survived for countless thousands of years with only minimal skills because evolution demands it!"

"Evolutionists tell us that Stone Age Homo sapiens existed for anything from 100,000 to 160,000 years before beginning to make written records around 4,000 to 5,000 years ago. Yet Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept a full record of the lunar phases. Why would he wait two thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? It just does not hold water! Also why, if evolutionists are correct, did it take fully-evolved mankind so long to form cities and civilisations? Catal Huyuk in Turkey and Jericho in Israel are often considered the world's two oldest cities with very early evidence of civilisations, but only going back to around 6,000-8,000 years (the second figure actually considered very dubious) - Nothing before that! But - again - if mankind has been around for 100,000 years, why are the "oldest civilsations" so young? After all, we speak here of 'fully evolved' men and women with brain capacities just like yours and mine! Isn't the need to build homes for shelter and security a fairly obvious human activity? Familes will tend to stay reasonably close, so towns and cities could soon be expected - why the unfathomable delay?

Let us look at what we know about the major early civilisations:

If people have been around for so long, why did it take them so long to establish cities and civilisations? All the evidence which the vital discipline of archaeology is able to produce suggests a human population of this earth which is only a few thousand years old. This, of course, was also generally accepted until Philosophical Naturalism (allowing no concept of God or of the supernatural) started to become applied to science, especially from the days of Darwin and Lyell" (full article here).

Were there 'hunter-gatherers'? Oh yes, there were - and still are. But there never were a large group of people - hundreds of thousands of them - who spent over 100,000 years living by hand to mouth, killing animals, eating and enjoying various plant produce, yet never developing any basic understanding of how to grow plants (despite constantly observing them and living from them). Neither were there ever any people who had no thought, nor concern, for shelter nor for forming at least basic farms, communities or homesteads. Why? Because one's family could not even survive any other way! The 'hunter-gatherer' of amazing stupidity (which is what it would be) is simply a myth of Darwinistic Modernism, being an attempt to explain away their (completely unevidenced) teaching that homo-sapiens (modern men and women) have been around for something like 200,000 years. This is done by slowing everything down, so nothing much happens for circa 100,000 years.

The typical 'hunter-gatherer' which is usually depicted would not even have survived for 150 years! The biblical view that men and women have only been around for a few thousand years fits in much better with archaeology, including the well-established age of the world's first civilisations.

Robin A. Brace. August 2nd. 2013.