Wilderness, wild foods, subsistence & identity for hunter-gatherers

2008 ◽  
Vol 2008 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Helga Vierich
Keyword(s):  
2010 ◽  
Vol 365 (1554) ◽  
pp. 2913-2926 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zareen Bharucha ◽  
Jules Pretty

Almost every ecosystem has been amended so that plants and animals can be used as food, fibre, fodder, medicines, traps and weapons. Historically, wild plants and animals were sole dietary components for hunter–gatherer and forager cultures. Today, they remain key to many agricultural communities. The mean use of wild foods by agricultural and forager communities in 22 countries of Asia and Africa (36 studies) is 90–100 species per location. Aggregate country estimates can reach 300–800 species (e.g. India, Ethiopia, Kenya). The mean use of wild species is 120 per community for indigenous communities in both industrialized and developing countries. Many of these wild foods are actively managed, suggesting there is a false dichotomy around ideas of the agricultural and the wild: hunter–gatherers and foragers farm and manage their environments, and cultivators use many wild plants and animals. Yet, provision of and access to these sources of food may be declining as natural habitats come under increasing pressure from development, conservation-exclusions and agricultural expansion. Despite their value, wild foods are excluded from official statistics on economic values of natural resources. It is clear that wild plants and animals continue to form a significant proportion of the global food basket, and while a variety of social and ecological drivers are acting to reduce wild food use, their importance may be set to grow as pressures on agricultural productivity increase.


2016 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 93-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erhard Schüttpelz

"Domestizierung lässt sich durch einen Nukleus aus drei technischen Tätigkeiten definieren: durch die gesteuerte Reproduktion, die eigens eingerichtete Ernährung und den Schutz von Tieren und Pflanzen vor Schädigungen. Wenn man diese Definition an einen Vergleich von Kulturen und Kollektiven anlegt, stellen sich zwei Überraschungen ein: Außerhalb jeder Domestizierung entwickeln Wildbeuter eine rituelle Domestizierung oder ein mythologisches Verständnis, ihre Welt sei bereits domestiziert. Und in der Moderne tritt an die Seite der technischen Domestizierung ihre mögliche Naturalisierung. Der Aufsatz zieht einige Konsequenzen aus diesem typologischen Vergleich. Domestication can be defined by a nucleus of three technical activities: controlled reproduction and nutrition as well as protection of animals and plants from damage. If one applies this definition to a comparison of cultures and collectives, two surprises arise: Without being in touch of any kind of domestication, hunter-gatherers develop a ritual domestication or a mythological understanding that their world already is domesticated. And in modernity, possible naturalization arises at the side of technical domestication. The paper draws some conclusions from this typological comparison. "


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document