Being a Hunter-Gatherer in the 21St Century: Health Knowledge 2System, Problems and Paradoxes
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
1Being a Hunter-Gatherer in the 21st Century: Health Knowledge 2System, Problems and Paradoxes 3Rakesh Kumar 4National Institute of Advanced Studies, 5Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India [email protected] [email protected] 8https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8435-2270 9 10 Abstract 11 12 In due course of evolution, maintaining health and coping with aggrievances 13 and illness for survival or adaptation has always been the goal of organisms, 14 which has been verified by the narrative aeons of ancient culture and 15 archaeological shreds of evidence of natural, non-natural/synthetic diseases, 16 accidents and injuries. The earlier discussion on hunter-gatherer’s health, 17 illness, and healthcare management knowledge system involves the 18 discourse of epidemiological transitions. This research aims to understand 19 the health knowledge system of present-day hunter-gatherers through 20 cross-cultural comparison beyond the dichotomy of natural diseases and 21 rational treatments. The researcher has focused on four contemporary 22 hunter-gatherer’s communities i.e. Aranadan, Cholanaicken, Kattunayakan, 23 Paniyan/Kattupaniyan of Nilambur valley, Kerala to understand the hunter- 24 gatherer’s perception/conception of health and illness and what are 25 mechanisms of healthcare and healing among them. This research has 26 highlighted the problem of static versus dynamic in the conception of health 27 in the time spatiotemporal transition and the existing uniformity in the 28 conception of health despite the diversity in socio-cultural practices. The 29 research also delineates of hunter-gatherers relation to landscape (in the 30 context of health and healthcare), and questions assumptions of ecofeminism 31 and axioms of knowledge distribution system among the hunter-gatherers 32 based on Marxian division of labour. The study includes the appropriate 33 ethnographic survey among the colonies of the selected tribes to understand 34 the placement of land, life and living of hunter-gatherers in contemporary 35 context. 36 37 Keywords: health, healthcare, static, dynamic, knowledge system and 38 landscape. 39 40 411. Introduction 42 43 Hunting and gathering, as a subsistence strategy and mode of cognitive 44 production behaviour, had likely to be started in the last phase of 45 Pleistocene geological epoch (~2 million years ago) with the upright man; 46 homo erectus, the first member of homo genus [ CITATION Her20 \l 16393 ] 47 [ CITATION Ung06 \l 16393 ][ CITATION Ben11 \l 16393 ][ CITATION Coq04 \l 16393 ] 48 [ CITATION Gro18 \l 16393 ] [ CITATION Mel16 \l 16393 ][ CITATION Ste10 \l 16393 ] 49 [ CITATION Joo09 \l 16393 ]. Hunting-gathering is to be considered as one of the 50 oldest uninterrupted enduring modes of livelihood support mechanism which 51 was opted and developed to interact with the environment, landscape and 52 other non-human organisms[ CITATION Ben11 \l 16393 ][ CITATION Ste10 \l 16393 ] 53 [ CITATION Ind02 \l 16393 ] [ CITATION Wid20 \l 16393 ]. Multiple theories have been 54 used and advanced to reinterpret and remodel hunting and gathering mode 55 of subsistence strategy, social organization and economic prototypical but 56 these models devoid of remodelling hunter-gatherer’s knowledge of health 57 and healing system and the problem of existing paradox of static belief 58 which conceptualizes diseases and dynamic nature of health and diseases 59 due to the transmutational relationship of the human organism with the 60 environment and non-human organism. Though the problem of remodelling 61 health and diseases dynamics from archaeological data has been addressed 62 in term of “ Osteological Paradox” [ CITATION Woo92 \l 16393 ] and sometimes 63 the model of caregiving[ CITATION Til15 \l 16393 ][ CITATION Til151 \l 16393 ] 64 [ CITATION Tho161 \l 16393 ][ CITATION Sha18 \l 16393 ][ CITATION McD99 \l 16393 ] 65 [ CITATION And99 \l 16393 ][ CITATION Spi18 \l 16393 ] and use of medicinal plant 66 and their secondary compound by Palaeolithic population [ CITATION Har12 \l 67 16393 ][ CITATION Har19 \l 16393 ][ CITATION Har18 \l 16393 ][ CITATION Har13 \l 16393 ] 68 addresses the mode and method of healing system among Palaeolithic 69 hunter-gatherer. 70 71 Earlier studies on hunter-gatherer incorporate evolutionary and 72 adaptationist approach, and of questioning those approaches with 73 archaeological approach and social theories [ CITATION Lee68 \l 16393 ] 74 [ CITATION Bar83 \l 16393 ][ CITATION Bet87 \l 16393 ]. Whereas, human behavioural 75 ecological description attempts to sketch hunter-gatherer with the help of 76 natural and social science archetypal like (a) natural selection [ CITATION 77 Dar59 \l 16393 ] [ CITATION Win81 \l 16393 ][ CITATION Ind02 \l 16393 ][ CITATION Gra06 \l 78 16393 ][ CITATION Sch93 \l 16393 ][ CITATION Smi83 \l 16393 ] [ CITATION Rey17 \l 16393 ] 79 [CITATION Fla72 \l 16393 ] [ CITATION Har79 \l 16393 ][ CITATION Bet06 \l 16393 ]; (b) 80 sexual selection and practicing of polygamous and polyandrous social 81 structure [ CITATION Dar71 \l 16393 ] [ CITATION Lee68 \l 16393 ] [ CITATION Haw01 \l 82 16393 ] [ CITATION Mar03 \l 16393 ] [ CITATION Wal11 \l 16393 ][ CITATION Mur49 \l 16393 ] 83 [ CITATION Ale79 \l 16393 ] [ CITATION Lev49 \l 16393 ] [ CITATION Cha08 \l 16393 ] 84 [ CITATION Fli86 \l 16393 ] [ CITATION Apo07 \l 16393 ][ CITATION Mil00 \l 16393 ]; (c) 85 cooperative breeding [CITATION Kra10 \l 16393 ][ CITATION Kra05 \l 16393 ]; (d) 86 optimal foraging model [ CITATION Bet87 \l 16393 ][ CITATION Fol85 \l 16393 ] 87 [ CITATION Mar83 \l 16393 ] [ CITATION Smi83 \l 16393 ][ CITATION Win811 \l 16393 ] 88 [ CITATION Mar13 \l 16393 ] [ CITATION Ing92 \l 16393 ]; and (e) hunter-gatherer as 89 ecologist[ CITATION Lee681 \l 16393 ][CITATION Fla68 \l 16393 ][CITATION Fla72 \l 90 16393 ]. Conversely, the ‘developmental model’ considers hunter-gathers as 91 primitive and labels the projectile trajectory of becoming complex from 92 simple as ‘progressive social evolution’ [ CITATION Tyl71 \l 16393 ] [ CITATION Fri68 93 \l 16393 ] [ CITATION Ser62 \l 16393 ][ CITATION Mor77 \l 16393 ] [ CITATION Hob62 \l 94 16393 ] [CITATION Pow83 \l 16393 ][ CITATION Pow85 \l 16393 ][CITATION Pow88 \l 16393 ] 95 [ CITATION Spe96 \l 16393 ][ CITATION Whi59 \l 16393 ] [CITATION Fla72 \l 16393 ]. 96 Whereas, Mason’s techno-geographical archetypal tries to cohere hunter- 97 gatherers socio-political, cultural, technical and other intellectual knowledge 98 system with the description of “centripetal” and “centrifugal” forces of 99 techno-environmental approach, which negates cultural diversity and 100 hypnotised world as a single cultural unit [ CITATION Mas94 \l 16393 ]. Schools 101 like “new ecologist”[ CITATION Mur70 \l 16393 ] and “neofunctionalism”[CITATION 102 Vay19 \l 16393 ] also followed the guideline of techno-environmental 103 predecessors and show their interest in cultural materialism which were 104 guided by the techno-environmental ‘determinist interpretations’ [ CITATION 105 Bet15 \l 16393 ][ CITATION Har68 \l 16393 ] [ CITATION Orl80 \l 16393 ]. 106 107 The shift in paradigm from traditional archaeological approach to “new 108 archaeology or processual archaeology” to appreciate the dynamic culture of 109 hunter-gatherer in systemic and scientific in the manner by defining culture 110 as “extrasomatic means of adaptation” [ CITATION Bin621 \l 16393 ][ CITATION 111 Bin68 \l 16393 ][ CITATION Fla68 \l 16393 ][ CITATION Hil68 \l 16393 ][ CITATION Lon68 \l 112 16393 ][ CITATION Fla67 \l 16393 ][ CITATION Cal59 \l 16393 ]. Now, approaches of 113 “ethnoarchaeology” [ CITATION Cam68 \l 16393 ] [ CITATION Gou78 \l 16393 ] 114 [ CITATION Kra79 \l 16393 ] and “behaviour archaeology” [ CITATION Sch761 \l 115 16393 ][ CITATION Sch83 \l 16393 ] processed an analytical approach of “middle- 116 range theory”[ CITATION Sch761 \l 16393 ][ CITATION Bin812 \l 16393 ][ CITATION 117 Tho83 \l 16393 ] which started considering contemporary hunter-gatherers’ 118 sustenance strategy, reasoning and production-consumption-distribution 119 nexus as the reference point and proxy to ‘bridge the gap between the 120 known, observable archaeological contexts and the unknown, unobservable 121 systemic context’ [ CITATION Tho79 \l 16393 ] [ CITATION Tho86 \l 16393 ]. However, 122 application of approaches like “post-processual-archaeology” [ CITATION 123 Hod79 \l 16393 ] [ CITATION Hod2a \l 16393 ] [ CITATION Hod2b \l 16393 ] offered a 124 meaningful alternative for the description of modern cultural materialism of 125 Harris [ CITATION Har68 \l 16393 ][ CITATION Har79 \l 16393 ] through Marxian 126 description of production-distribution of hunter-gatherer society being 127 egalitarian [ CITATION Eng72 \l 16393 ][ CITATION Mar67 \l 16393 ][ CITATION OLa75 \l 128 16393 ]. This approach was later enhanced by the inclusion of Lévi-Straussian 129 structuralism with Marxism to explain hunter-gatherer socio-economic 130 structure and the formation and transformation processes through 131 ‘structural causation’ [ CITATION Alt70 \l 16393 ][ CITATION Alt701 \l 16393 ] which 132 was later incorporated in the practices of ethnography and 133 ethnoarchaeology[ CITATION Cam681 \l 16393 ] [ CITATION Kra791 \l 16393 ]. 134 135 While biology has been integral to anthropological discourse e.g. optimal 136 foraging theory[ CITATION Mac66 \l 16393 ] which establishes the intricate 137 relationship of time and energy via the ‘diet breadth model’ [ CITATION Alv93 \l 138 16393 ][ CITATION Lev11 \l 16393 ] [ CITATION McN87 \l