Figure 1 - uploaded by Tsechoe Dorji
Content may be subject to copyright.
Source publication
109 110 111 Abstract: On the western Tibetan Plateau the endangered Tibetan antelope Pantholops hodgsoni 112 has traditionally been hunted for subsistence purposes. Although several hunting techniques are 113 used, a common one that leaves evidence on the landscape is the use of earth or stone 114 diversionary barriers, or drive-lines, with both le...
Contexts in source publication
Context 1
... locations - We located 39 “dzaekha” in northern Gertse County, and 6 in Rutok County (Fig. 5, Appendix I, and Fig. 1 for county boundaries). Their condition varied from recently maintained to disused with only remnants remaining, and a few of the old sites were near current settlements and well-known to local communities. There are certainly more “dzaekha” present in the northern areas of Gertse and Rutok County surveyed here, which we did not locate, but the present assemblage provides ample examples of their variety, and sufficient evidence to document a recent northward shift in the use of these hunting aids. The landscape and layout of 1 one of the “dzaerka” reported here ( T in the center of Fig. 5) has earlier been described in some detail (Huber 2005) and represents one of those that has received relatively recent maintenance; the others showing recent maintenance are marked with an asterisk ( T* ). We did not visit the largest “dzaekha” in Gertse County, known to many former hunters, but its approximate location L is designated as T in the center of Fig. ...
Context 2
... and Dorji – Tibetan Plateau hunting 10 so of their observation. Most persons interviewed were reluctant to comment on the current levels of hunting in the region, for the practice is illegal and under increasing levels of enforcement, but it was clear that some hunting continues at the northern sites (Fox et al., in review). Antelope migration routes - Across the Chang Tang reserve, four major antelope long-distance migratory populations and their general migration routes have been reported (Schaller 1998), including that of the “Western Chang Tang herd” with staging areas to the east and south of Aru Lake and south of Lumajangdong Lake (large lake directly west of Aru Basin) (Fig. 1). This herd’s migratory path was first reported by Schaller (1998), and is the one which Ridgeway and his colleagues (Ridgeway 2003) followed on foot to a now well-described (Schaller et al. 2006) calving area (shown at the end of the thickest arrow in Fig. 5). This major migratory route is illustrated with the moderately thick arrow in Fig. 5, but animals from nearby wintering areas also join. When we followed this route north of the Toze Kangri massif (under the “g” in Chang in Fig. 5) in June of 2001, members of a mineral exploration team from Shanxi Province camped there reported to us their observation of numerous antelope groups migrating northward just to the east of this massif, presumably joining others en-route to the known calving area in Xinjiang (Fig. 5). Schaller (1998) apparently did not observe such groups when he was there in 1992, but we now know that across northern Gertse County to the east of the Aru Basin, and unreported to- date, there are apparently 3 or 4 routes that antelope take in starting their northward migration (Fig. 5). Where these routes lead to calving areas is currently not known, and although several of our informants reported having seen, or heard stories of, calving far to the north, they could not give accurate ...
Context 3
... the northwest Tibetan Plateau there are still substantial populations of the endangered Tibetan antelope Pantholops hodgsoni , with many animals migrating between calving areas at the plateau’s northern boundary, the Kun Lun Mountains, and wintering sites to the south at o o about 33 -34 N (Schaller 1998). This region is part of what is known as the Chang Tang 2 (‘northern plains’), 300,000 km of which in the northwest part of the Tibet Autonomous Region was designated as a nature reserve in 1993 (Fig 1). Tibetan antelope have been hunted in the Chang Tang for at least the past 20,000 years ( Brantingham et al. 2001), and since pastoralists arrived on the plateau some 3,500-4,000 years ago (Barfield 1989) there has been a combined hunting and herding lifestyle in areas of wildlife abundance. There is isolated evidence of pre- o Buddhist pastoralist habitation a little north of 33 N in the western Chang Tang (D. Lhagyal, pers comm.), as is more common farther to the south in the large lakes region of the southern Chang Tang (Bellezza 1997). Nevertheless, permanent human habitation and concomitant o pastoralism, was apparently very limited north of about 33 30’N in the western Chang Tang until the 1700’s when groups emigrated there from the northeastern Tibetan plateau (Fox and Tsering o 2005, Huber 2005), and even today areas above about 34 are still generally uninhabited. In the late 1800s and early 1900s explorers visiting this area commented (e.g., Hedin 1909) on herding and hunting lifestyles to the north of Gertse town. The Tibetan antelope has traditionally been hunted using several techniques and in all seasons (Huber 2005), but most hunting is associated with winter when the large migratory populations come to southern areas for mating. The exact locations of one hunting style, very distinctive in its use of long diversionary barriers, or drive-lines, can be documented on the ground, and we use these here to illustrate the distribution of such hunting across a part of the western Chang Tang. Because these traditional hunting devices are currently being abandoned, their cultural significance and documentation of their locations are of interest. In recent decades, the traditional subsistence meat hunting has combined with cash incentives associated with international demand for antelope wool or “shahtoosh” (Kumar and Wright 1998) to substantially increase hunter take in the Chang Tang, and hunting techniques have been rapidly changing. These changes in hunting, combined with modernizing lifestyles and introduction of new ...
Context 4
... investigations reported here were carried out within a ca. 70,000 km area of northern Gertse County, and small parts of both Rutok and Geji Counties, within Ngari Prefecture in the northwestern Tibetan Autonomous Region of China (Fig. 1). Other than the Aru Basin (Schaller 1998, Fox et al. 2004), this area has not previously received attention regarding antelope distribution, abundance and conservation. Huber (2005) has described the various ...
Citations
... We speculated that the prosperity of the Tibetan Buddhism (Lamaism) in 16-17 century on the Tibetan Plateau may contribute the protection of wild animals, as animal protection is one of the important concepts for the Buddhism. Nevertheless, early Tibetan likely hunted wild animals, including antelopes, for food subsistence (Fox and Dorji, 2009;Huber, 2005). However, it requires further studies on past human environment interactions on the Tibetan Plateau, which may provide more helpful information. ...
... The hazers located along the lanes would panic the herd to run even faster toward the kill. Fowler (1989) reports that ethnohistoric accounts of Paiute (Nuwuvi) pronghorn hunters used a shaman in a similar way to slowly walk a herd into their corrals. ...
Modern human hunters from across the globe have been using traps to hunt large herbivores for tens of thousands of years. While substantial investments in terms of labor and resources, traps significantly increase efficiency and yield from communal hunting of multiple prey. While the physical construction of traps is important, hunting success requires highly coordinated and ritualized actions of large numbers of people.
... Most hunting takes place in the winter when large migratory herds move south for mating season. Winter is also the time of year when the antelope are in their best condition (Fox and Dorji 2009;Huber 2005). Hunting architecture utilized in these different hunting strategies includes dzaekha (drive lanes), khogste (foot traps), and gugra (hunting blinds) (Fig. 2). ...
... While these aggregations of people and surpluses of animals are important social and economic phenomena that should not be ignored, we cannot make the assumption that all game drives, corrals, or other hunting structures equate with large groups of people taking large numbers of animals (see above). For example, stone constructed hunting blinds are found independently, such as during ice patch hunting in Tibet and Canada (Fox and Dorji 2009). ...
Built structures to aid hunting activities, such as drive lanes and hunting blinds, have been documented on every continent with the exception of Antarctica. This global phenomenon dates to at least 12,000 years ago and is found across time, space, environments, and cultures. While there is increasing study and documentation of such sites, they are prone to destruction and are not always recognized, resulting in a lack of large-scale comparative studies. However, this widespread pattern deserves greater attention as it can reveal unique facets of social and economic life, particularly in the context of hunter-gatherer societies. Such constructions are literal niche construction, created to increase the yield and predictability of wild animal resources. They represent an investment in the landscape, organization of communal labor, a detailed knowledge of animal behavior, all the while creating socioeconomic tensions concerning permanent facilities and who owns them and the resources they generate among otherwise egalitarian populations. This paper presents a global overview of such features, and the anthropological theory and archaeological method to systematically study such sites. This methodology will be applied to a brief case study, analyzing some of the oldest hunting architecture on the planet, those submerged beneath Lake Huron.
... Archaeological evidence of the use of hunting blinds exists in many parts of the world, including Africa (e.g., Eichhorn and Vogelsang 2011;Friederich 2014;Hawkes et al. 2018;Mason 2012;O'Connell et 2002), the Arctic (e.g., Benedict 2005;Friesen 2013), Europe (Churchill 2014;Speth 2013), the Middle East (Adler et al. 2006;Bar-Oz et al. 2011), East Asia (Fox and Dorji 2009), South America (Belardi et al. 2017;Santiago and Salemme 2016), and different parts of North America, from the Great Plains and Rocky Mountains (e.g., Frison et al. 1990;Olson 1970;Olson and Benedict 1970;Weimer 2009;Whittenburg 2017) and the upper Great Lakes (O'Shea et al. 2014) to California (e.g., Brook 1980;Wallace 1976) and the Great Basin (e.g., Lubinski 1999;Webb 2017). The dates on these hunting blinds vary considerably, as do the ways in which they were used. ...
... However, with the establishment of nature reserves, wild animals have also been protected, thereby leading to a rapid increase in wildlife populations. Over the past two decades, the population of the black-necked crane in Changtang has increased by more than 30% [6], while the number of Tibetan antelopes has risen by more than 100,000. In 2017, the distribution of wild yaks reached 3.29 per 100 km 2 . ...
... Archaeological evidence of the use of hunting blinds exists in many parts of the world, including Africa (e.g., Eichhorn and Vogelsang 2011;Friederich 2014;Hawkes et al. 2018;Mason 2012;O'Connell et 2002), the Arctic (e.g., Benedict 2005;Friesen 2013), Europe (Churchill 2014;Speth 2013), the Middle East (Adler et al. 2006;Bar-Oz et al. 2011), East Asia (Fox and Dorji 2009), South America (Belardi et al. 2017;Santiago and Salemme 2016), and different parts of North America, from the Great Plains and Rocky Mountains (e.g., Frison et al. 1990;Olson 1970;Olson and Benedict 1970;Weimer 2009;Whittenburg 2017) and the upper Great Lakes (O'Shea et al. 2014) to California (e.g., Brook 1980;Wallace 1976) and the Great Basin (e.g., Lubinski 1999;Webb 2017). The dates on these hunting blinds vary considerably, as do the ways in which they were used. ...
This paper considers a specific kind of hunting strategy, ambush hunting, employed by Ju/’hoansi San who reside in northwestern Botswana and northeastern Namibia. We examine this hunting technique from ethnoarchaeological, archaeological, historical, and ethnographic perspectives. Data are drawn from an analysis of 14 blinds at ǂGi Pan on the Botswana-Namibia border. These hunting blinds were mapped and two were excavated. Our methods included having Ju/’hoansi show us how they constructed blinds. We also conducted interviews of individuals who constructed and utilized the blinds. Based on this information, we assess the structure, distribution, morphology, contents, function, size, timing of use, and reasons for placement of these specialized hunting facilities. Conclusions are drawn concerning the utilization of ambush hunting and its social, economic, environmental, and technological significance in the northern Kalahari.
... Cross-cultural studies of stacked rock features and their spatial distribution at high elevations have largely centered around their utility in helping manipulate the movement of ungulates, most often in the context of communal hunting (e.g., Benedict 2005;Blehr 1990;Brink 2005;Fox and Dorji 2009;Friesen 2013;Moreno 2012;Schneider et al. 2014;Zedeño et al. 2014). Small stone U-shaped structures used as hunting blinds, and circular structures used for temporary shelter, are sometimes observed in associa- tion with rock cairns (e.g., Binford 1978:182-183;Brink 2005;Dalton 2011;Grønnow et al. 1983;Labelle and Pelton 2013;Pratt 2001;Schaaf 1988:249-253). ...
The existence and variability of human-made rock cairns in subalpine and alpine settings of Southeast Alaska is increasingly well documented. Where these features were constructed prehistorically and protohistorically is a fundamental component to assessing the socioecological role of these modifications to a landscape that is, for the most part, devoid of other physical manifestations of past human activities. Based on information compiled from investigations in the northern portion of Baran of Island and vicinity, we explore the physical and social environmental conditions that may underlie decisions to create the cairns, some of which are estimated to have been built approximately 500 to 1500 years before present (ybp). Exploratory spatial analyses of the locational attributes of these rock features is pursued with the goal of assessing possible Tlingit activities in this subalpine and alpine environment while embracing the evolvement of social significance attached to this setting. © 2018 by the Alaska Anthropological Association. All rights reserved.
... Cross-cultural studies of stacked rock features and their spatial distribution at high elevations have largely centered around their utility in helping manipulate the movement of ungulates, most often in the context of communal hunting (e.g., Benedict 2005;Blehr 1990;Brink 2005;Fox and Dorji 2009;Friesen 2013;Moreno 2012;Schneider et al. 2014;Zedeño et al. 2014). Small stone U-shaped structures used as hunting blinds, and circular structures used for temporary shelter, are sometimes observed in associa- tion with rock cairns (e.g., Binford 1978:182-183;Brink 2005;Dalton 2011;Grønnow et al. 1983;Labelle and Pelton 2013;Pratt 2001;Schaaf 1988:249-253). ...
The existence and variability of human-made rock cairns in subalpine and alpine settings of Southeast Alaska is increasingly well documented. Whete these features were constructed prehistorically and prorohistorically is a fundamental component to assessing the socioecological role of these modifications to a landscape that is, for the most patt, devoid of other physical manifestations of past human activities. Based on information compiled from investigations in the northern portion of Baranof Island and vicinity, we explore the physical and social environmental conditions that may underlie decisions to create the cairns, some of which are estimated to have been built approximately 500 to 1500 years before present (YBP). Exploratory spatial analyses of the Iocational attributes of these rock features is pursued with the goal of assessing possible Tlingit activities in this subalpine and alpine environment while embracing the evolvement of social significance attached to this setting.
... However archaeological evidence show that this hunting strategy was used widespread. Indeed, traps of this general type for hunting wild game are widely known around the world, from North America (Frison, 1998;Hockett, B. et al., 2012;O'Shea et al., 2013) to the Artic, Scandinavia, Tibet (Fox and Dorji, 2009), and the Levant (Rosen & Perevolotsky, 1998;Bar-Oz et al., 2011;Betts and Burke, 2015). ...
For various reasons related to human diet, social prestige or cosmology, hunting - especially of large preys - has always been central in foragers' societies. When pre-Neolithic foragers have given up their nomadic way of life they have faced a sink-source problem about game procurement in the resource-catchment area around their settlements. Baiting, by mean of the cultivation of wild plants in food plots, may have help them to attract herbivores, thus improving the return of hunting activities. These foragers were also motivated by the capture of wild animals alive, in order to keep fresh meat for a while, to translocate these animals or for milk exploitation. For this capture, the use of a passive form of drive hunting seems best suited. The cultivation of food plots within the funnel and the corral might have been used to attract wild herbivores into the drive. Baiting was therefore designed either to increase the hunt or to improve the capture of large wild herbivores such as the Near-Eastern wild caprines that were later domesticated. Therefore baiting should be viewed as a hunting strategy as well as an unconscious selection mechanism since it has inadvertently contributed to the prey pathway to animal domestication.
... -Desert kites (Bar-Oz et al., 2011;Crassard et al., 2015 for gazelles, Gaselle spp.). -Blinds or Stone hunting blinds (Fox and Dorji, 2009;Friesen, 2013;O'Shea et al., 2014, for several ungulates). -Stone macrostructures (Ratto and Orgaz, 2002, for guanacos and vicugnas). ...
This article analyses the access to animal resources during the Holocene using the evidence from a key site – Las Vueltas 1, LV1–, localized in the Northern steppe of Tierra del Fuego (Argentina). The contexts analysed from this site yielded at least 85 individuals of Lama guanicoe (guanaco) based on MNI counts: 41 on surface level, 37 in the 3 rd occupation, 6 in the 2 nd , and just 1 in the 1 st. LV1 occupies a low aeolian dune between two lagoons bordered by Tertiary sandstone outcrops; it was interpreted as an appropriate space to capture, kill and process guanacos from the beginning of the Late Holocene. The most useful way to use this natural trap was to work in a communal strategy, implying the participation of several hunters. Furthermore, the site could have also been used for the capture of a single animal, or a reduced number of animals, as happened in the 2 nd occupation. As far as the context of the 3 rd occupation is concerned, it is proposed that this communal strategy may have been used at a larger scale, turning the site into a communal hunting area that we interpret as a ''mass kill'' site. This hypothesis was supported by evidence such as the large amount of guanaco bone remains, the limited and specific range of the fauna assembled at the place, the catastrophic death pattern, the sex and age of hunted animals, a topography appropriate to ambush animals and the large number of fractured lithic points (when compared with other Fuegian sites). Certain conditions such as the topographic relief, hunting season, animal behaviour, social or political issues would have led hunter-gatherers to practice this kind of communal and mass hunting.
