Early Agriculture

>>2158783

Meaningless question. Next.

>>2158783
>a conscious progression?
What? I figure that by the time they were constructing tools for farming they were pretty sure what they were doing.

>>2158783
Feminist theory suggests that the neolithic revolution started because most men were sick of being marginalised by tribal chiefs who used to get most of the women, because they got most of the plunder


So they settle for a sedentary life and create agriculture because it gives them a stable amount of food for survival and enough to be attractive for a potential mate

>>2158868

t. gimbutas

>>2158783
Domestication in and of itself is a process and not an invention. However the unconscious effects of human needs/pressures on plant life alters them both.

Likely some women at various points and at various places of humanity over the generations noted certain stands of _____ differed from others and deduced suitable arrangements by taking seed (harvested in a manner and timing that yielded genes lending to non-shattering) and placing them in wadis or freshly flooded lands filled with alluvial soils.

That in and of itself is not agriculture nor is it unique to agricultural peoples but because we know domestication as a process is not linear it can be said the interdependence of plants and people is also not a uniquely neolithic event.

Progression in terms of Human-Plant relations is illusionary basically. It's not a line with an a to b point. It's amorphous.

>>2158906
Yes but there should have been a reason as to why people choose to do just that, instead of just continuing to be hunter-gatherers

>>2158929
No you aren't getting it. Hunter Tenderers and Pastoralist Tenderers do have relationships with plants including the protection, sowing, modification, transplanting and harvesting of Plant foods fully aware of what they are doing.

It's not just something agricultural people do. Agricultural people became agricultural because of other reasons.

>>2158983
Exactly. They were doing it consciously because it was in relation to their hunter-gatherer lifestyle. But the question is, if the transition from hunter-gatherer to farmer was a conscious decision or not. And if yes, then why

>>2159039
No it was a cycle they could not get out of without severe consequences. Agriculture aligns with the climatic fluctuations that forced many populations into floodplains. With the over exploitation of megafauna rapid deforestation for fires reducing wild life humans became more and more dependent on grains and legumes.

There were some pros of course. Children weaned sooner, foods stored for up to years, population growth from surplus. Contextually population explosions.

They expand and repeat the process, drive off or kill or assimilate hunters, fishers and herders in New lands and do it repeatedly.

You can escape it because for the most part it will catch up to you, you risk population collapse, cultural institution break down, war for scarce resources, you also have an elite forming seeking to retain and expand power which is related to population and fighters.

The only exceptions of people who abandon agriculture to be herders or hunters maintain relationships with farmers for carbs or starches.

Never, read about the bicameral mind bitch