Why does agriculture & settled living appear to have emerged & spread only within the past decamillennium?

Joined Aug 2018
939 Posts | 267+
london
Last edited:
It's interesting that in the bible, the beginning of agriculture is described as something that man is forced to do, as a punishment, after they are forcibly ejected from the garden of Eden. It's not depicted as a great development but rather a type of affliction.
 
Joined Aug 2018
939 Posts | 267+
london
the archeological record dates back up to 300,000 years for our species alone, up to 2 million years for our genus, which is anyone human-like

What archaeologists and anthropologists call 'modern behaviour' is only thought to have begun within the last 100,000 years, and only consistently within the last 50,000 years. It is especially apparent in Upper Palaeolithic Europe, but there are also earlier traces in Africa:

 
Joined Aug 2018
939 Posts | 267+
london
Last edited:
The previous article mentions the Blombos Cave in South Africa, as well as the preponderance of archaeological evidence for early 'modern behaviour' in Upper Palaeolithic Europe. The two might be connected:

"The Hofmeyr Skull is a specimen of a 36,000 year old human skull that was found in 1952 near Hofmeyr, South Africa. It is one of a very few anatomically modern human skulls that have been discovered on the continent which have been dated to over 20,000 years old. [...] Osteological analysis of the cranium by the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology indicates that the specimen is morphologically distinct from recent groups in Subequatorial Africa, including the local Khoisan populations. The Hofmeyr fossil instead has a very close affinity with other Upper Paleolithic skulls from Eurasia. Some scientists have interpreted this relationship as being consistent with the Out-of-Africa theory, which hypothesizes that at least some Upper Paleolithic human groups in Africa and Eurasia should morphologically resemble each other.[5] "


"In order to establish the affinities of the Hofmeyr fossil, team member Katerina Harvati of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, used 3-dimensional measurements of the skull known to differentiate recent human populations according to their geographic distributions and genetic relationships. She compared the Hofmeyr skull with contemporaneous Upper Paleolithic skulls from Europe and with the skulls of living humans from Eurasia and sub-Saharan Africa, including the Khoe-San (Bushmen). Because the Khoe-San are represented in the recent archeological record of South Africa, they were expected to have close resemblances to the South African fossil. Instead, the Hofmeyr skull is quite distinct from recent sub-Saharan Africans, including the Khoe-San, and has a very close affinity with the European Upper Paleolithic specimens. The surprising similarity between a fossil skull from the southernmost tip of Africa and similarly ancient skulls from Europe is in agreement with the genetics-based "Out of Africa" theory, which predicts that humans like those that inhabited Eurasia in the Upper Paleolithic should be found in sub-Saharan Africa around 36,000 years ago. The skull from South Africa provides the first fossil evidence in support of this prediction."


So the ancestors of Palaeolithic Europeans might have come from South Africa. Or alternatively people like Palaeolithic Europeans might have migrated to South Africa. Interestingly the climates in South Africa and Europe are reasonably similar, which is why Europeans settled there in large numbers in the modern era, unlike in other parts of Sub-Saharan Africa. Also the South African Khoisan people have a light brown skin tone which is closer to that of European and other Eurasian peoples than the dark skin tone of Equatorial Africans, suggesting a similar evolutionary adaptation.
 
Joined Oct 2016
11,628 Posts | 3,749+
Australia
One theory I have heard which sounds convincing is that when the climate turns drier, people and animals are forced into tighter spaces near river valleys and lakes. Overpopulation becomes an issue and you can't just move away like you used to because you are surrounded by land that is too arid to live from. So you are forced to find new sources of food in order not to starve and forced to cooperate, trade and share the produce more than before in order for agriculture to work. Also storage of food becomes more of a concern than before since you only get harvests a few times per year and that storage has to be kept safe.

Among all those animals that you now have to share a relatively tight place with also want to eat and some of them are suitable for domestication.

Before the agricultural revolution there was a large enough population to cause this to happen when that population was then forced to move close together as the climate dried. For example as mentioned, the Sahara dried up and a lot of people moved from what is now desert to live in the Nile valley and got essentially stuck there.

But the climate was dryer in ice age and agriculture started as it melted . Even in Australia it was much drier then . The Australian 'grain belt ' went though the 'Simpson Desert' ... and , I think, any 'proto agriculture ' in Australia was relatively recent , ie in a wetter climate .
 
Joined Oct 2016
11,628 Posts | 3,749+
Australia
I imagine there would be a evidence of such an event that would be a lot more convincing than someone's interpretation of a 13000 year old stone carving.

I agree .

Those interpretations are lame .
 
Joined Oct 2016
11,628 Posts | 3,749+
Australia
It's interesting that in the bible, the beginning of agriculture is described as something that man is forced to do, as a punishment, after they are forcibly ejected from the garden of Eden. It's not depicted as a great development but rather a type of affliction.

yeah, well so is childbirth and sweating ...... Do we need to cite the Bible when examining the historic origins of agriculture ?
 
Joined Aug 2013
899 Posts | 592+
Finland
But the climate was dryer in ice age and agriculture started as it melted . Even in Australia it was much drier then . The Australian 'grain belt ' went though the 'Simpson Desert' ... and , I think, any 'proto agriculture ' in Australia was relatively recent , ie in a wetter climate .
I thought the earliest agriculture discovered was during the Younger Dryas when it was cold and dry? Probably there are alternative theories around, but here is one source: http://www.sfu.ca/~reed/download/agriculture708.pdf

About Australia, I don't know to be honest. The explanation doesn't have to be the same everywhere.
 
Joined Aug 2018
939 Posts | 267+
london
yeah, well so is childbirth and sweating ...... Do we need to cite the Bible when examining the historic origins of agriculture ?

No reason why not. I didn't say it is an accurate historical record. It's just interesting that agriculture is depicted as negative and forced upon mankind. Why would it be depicted in that way? In the Garden of Eden humans are basically foragers. Then something terrible happens and they are forced to become farmers, as a punishment from God. It sounds far fetched but this accords with the theory that agriculture began after some cataclysm (e.g. a meteor strike) which forced humans to adopt new survival strategies.
 
Joined Aug 2014
10,465 Posts | 4,802+
Australia
Agriculture allows for larger population but seems to have shortened lifespans, suggesting that hunting and gathering might have been less physically demanding and damaging to the body.
 
Joined Oct 2016
11,628 Posts | 3,749+
Australia
I thought the earliest agriculture discovered was during the Younger Dryas when it was cold and dry? Probably there are alternative theories around, but here is one source: http://www.sfu.ca/~reed/download/agriculture708.pdf

About Australia, I don't know to be honest. The explanation doesn't have to be the same everywhere.

It is different everywhere . But look at how the paper you cited starts ; "

Abstract. Until about 13,000 years ago all humans obtained their food through hunting and gathering ... " Anyway, I will read it later as I want to find out about ' earliest agriculture discovered was during the Younger Dryas ' .

Yes, I am aware of the climate change theories . At the moment I am more focused on the process out lined in 'Sapiens' by Harari , and that it was mostly 'inadvertent ' and unconscious transition that 'just happens' ( that is, an 'inevitable' outcome - Hunter Gatherer Pastoralist 'Agriculturalist' ) Much like they outline in this article that talks abut domestication after farming starts , but it could easily apply to the transition to farming .

"
Professor Osborne added: "Our findings have important implications for understanding how crops evolved, because they mean that major changes in our staple crops could have arisen without deliberate foresight by early farmers.

"This means that unconscious selection was probably more important in the genesis of our food plants than previously realised. Early increases in the yields of crops might well have evolved in farmers' fields rather than being bred artificially."

This is basically the process Harari outlines in describing a transition into 'agriculture' .
 
Joined Oct 2016
11,628 Posts | 3,749+
Australia
No reason why not. I didn't say it is an accurate historical record. It's just interesting that agriculture is depicted as negative and forced upon mankind. Why would it be depicted in that way? In the Garden of Eden humans are basically foragers. Then something terrible happens and they are forced to become farmers, as a punishment from God. It sounds far fetched but this accords with the theory that agriculture began after some cataclysm (e.g. a meteor strike) which forced humans to adopt new survival strategies.

Well, if we are going to cite inaccurate historical records then . . . .

Agriculture IS negative and is forced upon mankind . There are numerous articles out explaining this , try ' Humanity's Worst Mistake ', that should through up a bunch of them.

The something terrible that happened was some 'guy' did come along and remove them from their garden and force them into sweat and labor and agriculture . They also claimed to be under authority from said 'God ' . You only have to go back a coupe of hundred of years in Australia to watch it unfold .

People caught animals and domesticated them to do labor , and they did it with people too . All over the place .

That is the process that that Bible story is outlining and from where it came .
 
Joined Oct 2016
11,628 Posts | 3,749+
Australia
Agriculture allows for larger population but seems to have shortened lifespans, suggesting that hunting and gathering might have been less physically demanding and damaging to the body.

Especially when some estimates here say , in good country and season, one might only have to 'work' an average 2 -3 hours a day to fulfill all of life's necessities ..... rest of the time, culture, song , dancing, swimming , playing with the kids .
 
Joined Aug 2013
899 Posts | 592+
Finland
Agriculture was definitely not good for one's health and it was hard work to produce the necessary amount of food. Archaeology shows that compared to hunter-gatherers, farmers had bad teeth, worn joints and other ailments. I think the only real benefit from agriculture was and still is that it can sustain a much larger population in the same area.

Of course agriculture triggered revolutionary changes in humanity's way of life, but it could be argued that it wasn't really worth it in the end. Harari certainly seems to think that, although it's a moot point since nothing is going to turn back the clock now.
 
Joined Aug 2018
939 Posts | 267+
london
Well, if we are going to cite inaccurate historical records then . . . .

Ancient stories are not necessarily accurate historical accounts but they can nonetheless tell us something about the past.

Agriculture IS negative and is forced upon mankind . There are numerous articles out explaining this , try ' Humanity's Worst Mistake ', that should through up a bunch of them.

The something terrible that happened was some 'guy' did come along and remove them from their garden and force them into sweat and labor and agriculture . They also claimed to be under authority from said 'God ' . You only have to go back a coupe of hundred of years in Australia to watch it unfold .

People caught animals and domesticated them to do labor , and they did it with people too . All over the place .

That is the process that that Bible story is outlining and from where it came .

So you're saying agricultural originated from one group ruling/ enslaving another and forcing them to become agriculturalists? Usually archaeologists/historians argue that those sorts of hierarchies developed after the emergence of agriculture.

And your version doesn't really fit with the bible story, where the force/punishment is definitely from God (i.e. nature).
 
Joined Oct 2016
11,628 Posts | 3,749+
Australia
Ancient stories are not necessarily accurate historical accounts but they can nonetheless tell us something about the past.

Agreed

So you're saying agricultural originated from one group ruling/ enslaving another and forcing them to become agriculturalists? Usually archaeologists/historians argue that those sorts of hierarchies developed after the emergence of agriculture.

No , becasue that doesnt make sense . You cant have something ( agriculture) originating from something that existed in the first place ( other agriculturalists ) . Thats why archaeologists/historians argue that those sorts of hierarchies developed after the emergence of agriculture.

I just said how I think agriculture developed ; see post 31 .

The above comments I made about the Bible was my interpretation of the Bible story that you offered . And it WAS written after the development of Agriculture ... while there where still hunters and gatherers around ( as there still are today) . And such stories are written in reverse , 'retrospectively' , often to justify political and social oppression.

And your version doesn't really fit with the bible story, where the force/punishment is definitely from God (i.e. nature).

So this punishment from God , cant be a metaphor for what I explained , but it CAN be a metaphor " definitely" about nature ?

Okay then, insted of calling 'foul' on that, I will let you run with it ; please explain how the transition from H&G to agriculture was bought about by a "force / punishment" of nature . ( Where nature tells people they have to leave the garden are sinful, disobedient , and now have to produce food by labor the sweat of their brow . )
 
Joined Mar 2018
7,171 Posts | 8,202+
Inside a Heighliner
Agriculture was definitely not good for one's health and it was hard work to produce the necessary amount of food. Archaeology shows that compared to hunter-gatherers, farmers had bad teeth, worn joints and other ailments.

That is not so easy to interpret however. Consider this theory: It could be that hunting and gathering requires more physical fitness so that, as soon as something goes wrong with your body, you die. Agriculture, on the other hand, is more forgiving, and you survive even after some injuries/ailments, you need to have a several things going wrong before you die. The end result is that the bodies of agriculturists show more health problems than the bodies of hunter-gathers.

Now I'm not saying we have evidence of the latter, only that it is very hard to make conclusion about which lifestyle is more healthy by looking at the bones of the people who lived it. Increased disease incident and increased disease survivability look almost the same but one is desirable while the other is not.
 
Joined Aug 2014
10,465 Posts | 4,802+
Australia
Last edited:
That is not so easy to interpret however. Consider this theory: It could be that hunting and gathering requires more physical fitness so that, as soon as something goes wrong with your body, you die. Agriculture, on the other hand, is more forgiving, and you survive even after some injuries/ailments, you need to have a several things going wrong before you die. The end result is that the bodies of agriculturists show more health problems than the bodies of hunter-gathers.

Now I'm not saying we have evidence of the latter, only that it is very hard to make conclusion about which lifestyle is more healthy by looking at the bones of the people who lived it. Increased disease incident and increased disease survivability look almost the same but one is desirable while the other is not.

This is not reflected in the life expectancy figures. The modal age of mortality in hunter-gatherers is late 60s to early 70s. In primitive agricultural societies it is late 50s to early 60s, unless you are the ruling elite.

Agriculture also ties you to one place. You have a lot less options if something bad befalls your community.
 
Joined Oct 2016
11,628 Posts | 3,749+
Australia
Ancient stories are not necessarily accurate historical accounts but they can nonetheless tell us something about the past.



So you're saying agricultural originated from one group ruling/ enslaving another and forcing them to become agriculturalists? Usually archaeologists/historians argue that those sorts of hierarchies developed after the emergence of agriculture.

And your version doesn't really fit with the bible story, where the force/punishment is definitely from God (i.e. nature).

You must have missed my question as you have not answered it ;

" please explain how the transition from H&G to agriculture was bought about by a "force / punishment" of nature " .
 
Joined Aug 2018
939 Posts | 267+
london
Last edited:
You must have missed my question as you have not answered it ;

" please explain how the transition from H&G to agriculture was bought about by a "force / punishment" of nature " .

for example a massive asteroid strike kills loads of animals and humans, and changes the climate. Humans are forced to control their sources of food much more intensively in order to survive, leading to the development of agriculture.
 

Trending History Discussions

Top