[Note: This is the thirty-second sample from my rough draft
of a far from finished new book, Wild, Free, & Happy. I don’t plan on reviewing more books for a
while. My blog is home to reviews of 202
books, and you are very welcome to explore them. The Search field on the right side will find
words in the full contents of all rants and reviews, if you are interested in
specific authors, titles, or subjects.]
Plant
Domestication
The domestication of crop plants is an enormous subject. It has enabled and accelerated a long
sequence of unfortunate unforeseen consequences over the centuries. Of course, the same could be said for the
domestication of animals. If
domestication had never occurred, life in the twenty-first century would look
nothing like the world outside your window.
There would be no windows.
Our population would not be zooming down the fast lane to
eight billion, nine billion…. We would
not be helpless sitting ducks today, standing in the path of an onrushing out
of control climate shit storm. Wild
folks would have never conjured techno-nightmares like automobiles, cell
phones, cities, nuclear bombs, or pesticides.
Agriculture produces megatons of surplus food, which enables societies
to feed and clothe herds of nerds, who are highly skilled at maximizing
unsustainability in every imaginable way.
Agriculture was not an amazing invention created by a
brilliant mad scientist. For four
million years, every hominin who had more than two brain cells clearly
understood that plants grew from seeds. Agriculture
was not an awesomely cool fad that spread like wildfire around the world. As long as wild foods were adequate, it would
have been ridiculous to deliberately shift to tedious, miserable, backbreaking
work.
When hunters have an unlucky day, they can lose a day’s
work. When farmers have bad luck, they
can lose more than a year’s hard work, and have no safety net to catch their
fall. Crops can be zapped by drought,
deluge, late frost, early frost, fire, storms, plant disease, enemies,
wildlife, insects, and so on. High
rewards came with high risks.
Kat Anderson
described how hunter-gatherers in California “tended” the wild landscape to
encourage the growth of wild plants that were useful to them. They didn’t strip the living green skin off
the land, pulverize the naked soil, and plant seeds. That would have been ecologically
insane. They had no need to do that. They had plenty to eat because their time
proven culture was well adapted to their land, and because they hadn’t stumbled
into the trap of domestication.
Mark
Nathan Cohen wrote an important book that described how agriculture emerged
independently in several different regions.
It was a jarring transformation for humankind. Hominins had been hunters for four million
years, a highly successful strategy.
Until 10,000 years ago, everything on the menu everywhere was wild
foods. By 2,000 years ago, most of
humankind depended on food produced on farms.
Preceding this shift, hunters had spread around the
world. They had gotten very good at
killing large game, and a number of megafauna species had been driven into
extinction. Also, as the ice age
weakened, the climate got warmer, and forests expanded into steppe and tundra
regions. Forest was not prime habitat
for herds of horses, reindeer, and mammoths.
These herds shrank or dispersed.
So, the menus had to be rewritten to include more offerings of stuff like
waterfowl, fish, crustaceans, small reptiles, mollusks, and plant foods.
Barry
Cunliffe noted that the recovering forests of Europe were home to more
solitary game like aurochs, boars, elk, deer, and small animals. The total biomass of these forest animals was
only 20 to 30 percent of the biomass of the tundra herds they replaced. Less meat led to a significantly smaller
population. It was easier to survive in
locations close to coastlines, lakes, rivers, and wetlands, where a year round
supply of a wide variety of foods could be gathered.
This new way of living apparently worked well enough for a
while. No wild plants suitable for
agriculture were domesticated in early Europe.
At the time, much of the continent was still forest. The primary food of civilizations is
grains. Grains are produced by grass
species like wheat, oats, barley, and so on.
For this reason, large scale agriculture did not emerge in forests or
jungles.
Meanwhile, to the east, in the awesome grasslands of the
Fertile Crescent, there was so much wild plant food that some groups had the
option of giving up the nomadic life and settling down in delicious
locations. Cohen noted that the seeds of
wild wheat (emmer and einkorn) and wild barley provided storable starch
(calories). Storable protein was
provided by peas, beans, lentils, and vetches.
In North America, the primary starch was corn, and beans were the main
source of plant protein. Grasslands were
also excellent places to hunt.
Cohen noted that the practice of agriculture migrated from
its birthplace in the Fertile Crescent.
It moved into southeastern Europe between 7000 and 5000 B.C. It then spread along the Mediterranean coast,
and into the Danube river watershed. At
the time Europe was already inhabited by scattered communities of hunter-gatherers.
Whether agriculture primarily spread through Europe by
migration or diffusion is controversial (probably both). In Australia, it spread by migration, when
outsiders from Britain brought their dirty habit with them. In North America, it apparently spread by
diffusion, as corn and beans spent centuries gradually making a long pilgrimage
from Mesoamerica to Ontario.
Diana Muir wrote an environmental history of New England,
from the ice age to today. On the
tundra, folks hunted mastodons, horses, bison, and four species of
mammoths. There were sabertooth cats, giant
bears, giant beavers, and musk oxen. As
the climate warmed, forests spread northward, gradually displacing tundra. The elk, moose, and tropical primates managed
to survive. As megafauna declined, folks
hunted for deer, bear, beaver, moose, waterfowl, turkeys, and heath hens. Rivers had huge runs of salmon, shad, and
alewives.
Eventually, the seeds of corn (maize), squash, and beans
reached New England. Tribes that got
addicted could produce far more food per acre, and support a larger
population. Their new diet had nutrient
deficiencies which had health effects.
I’ve already mentioned ideas from Mark Nathan Cohen’s book, The
Food Crisis in Prehistory, in which the archaeologist and anthropologist
explored what drove the transition to agriculture. Twenty-two years later, he published Health
& the Rise of Civilization, which extensively examined how health
declined in agricultural societies. The
healthiest people were the hunter-gatherers who dined on large game.
The shift to agriculture took a toll. Teotihuacan was a city located not far from
today’s Mexico City. It was home to a
culture of pyramid builders. At its
prime around A.D. 500, it had about 125,000 people, and was the biggest city in
the world. Cohen wrote that it had very
high rates of malnutrition, stunted growth, deciduous tooth hypoplasia, and
infant and child mortality. I’ll have much
more to say about human health in a later chapter.
Anyway, there is strength in numbers, and farmers trumped
hunters. In any region that was suitable
for the agriculture of the day, the hunters were in danger. A dozen healthy, well-nourished hunters were
unlikely to triumph against 100 malnourished corn farmers with bad teeth. Corn typically depleted soil fertility in a
few years, so clearing new fields was an ongoing necessity.
Farmers were not friendly new neighbors. Over time they were more like an uprising, a
steamroller. Muir described how the corn
powered Iroquois gathered momentum over time, pushing out the tribes of
Algonquin hunters. Cunliffe wrote that
when agriculture moved close to your home sweet home, you had four choices: (1)
exterminate them, (2) take up the dirty habit, (3) flee, or (4) be overrun.
Mesopotamia
James
Scott, a political scientist, studied the dawn of agriculture in southern
Mesopotamia, because it was the birthplace of the earliest genuine states —
hierarchical societies with rulers and tax collectors, sustained by a mix of
farming and herding. The primary food of
almost every early state was wheat, barley, or rice. Taxes were paid with grain, because it was
easier to harvest, transport, and store than foods that were more
perishable. An entire field of grain
ripened at the same time, which enabled one sweep harvesting.
Today, southern Mesopotamia is largely a treeless desert, and
many assume that it always has been.
Actually, it used to be wetlands, a cornucopia of wild foods, a paradise
for hunters and gatherers. There was so
much to eat that it was possible to quit wandering and live in settled
communities. Edible plants included club
rush, cattails, water lily, and bulrush.
They also ate tortoises, fish, mollusks, crustaceans, birds, waterfowl,
small mammals, and migrating gazelles.
The ecosystem was generous, and life was good.
In this region, communities of sedentary hunter-gatherers
began appearing by maybe 12,000 B.C. The
first evidence of domestication appears around 9000 B.C. Then, it took another four thousand years
(160 generations!) before agricultural villages appeared. The first states emerged around 3100
B.C. In the Middle East, it does not
appear that early cultivation was encouraged by declining availability of wild
plant and animal foods. Contrary to
common beliefs, in Mesopotamia, cultivation seems to have emerged in regions of
abundance, not scarcity.
In the early days, there was no need for irrigation. Stream banks and river deltas were covered
with alluvium — a moist and highly fertile deposit of clay, silt, sand, and
gravel that was delivered by annual floods.
It was a soft and loose soil that was ready for sowing. So, in addition to the wild grains they
enjoyed, it was fairly easy to sow seeds in the fresh deposits of alluvium.
Scott mentioned archaeologist Hans Nissen, who studied the
ancient Near East. Nissen noted that for
quite a while, the climate had been wet and warm. With adequate rains, abundant water moved
through the streams and rivers. The
Tigris and Euphrates watershed emptied into the Persian Gulf. Nissen measured the accumulated sediments on
the floor of the Gulf. Thicker layers of
organic matter indicated times when lots of water was moving lots of silt. This study illuminated climate patterns.
Prior to roughly 3500 B.C., so much water flowed into the
Gulf that its water level was 10 feet (3 m) higher than it is today. The north shore of the Gulf expanded quite a
ways into southern Mesopotamia. Much of
the region was then wetlands, and folks resided on islands. It was a paradise for happy wild people —
plenty to eat year round.
But then, climate trends gradually shifted toward cooler and
dryer. Less rain led to lower water
tables. The Gulf’s shoreline retreated. Wetlands began drying out. It became possible to plant seeds on the
highly fertile, newly exposed soil. For
a while the alluvial soils were a sponge that held enough moisture that crops
could be grown without irrigation, but this situation was temporary.
Nissen noted that wild grains still grow in Mesopotamia. Today, in remote locations, folks can gather
two or more quarts (or liters) of grain in an hour — a decent supply of
calories for minimal effort. On the
other hand, cultivated grain grown in irrigated fields can produce far higher
yields, sometimes two or three harvests per year.
Here is where the domestication of wheat played an important
role. Wild wheat grass readily drops its
ripe seeds, which maximizes reproductive potential — evolution’s goal. But this minimizes efficient harvesting. Lots of seeds drop to the ground and are not
collected. So, over time, selective
breeding favored plants that retained their seeds.
Also, wild wheat seeds are coated with hard husks, which
reduce the risk of premature germination.
Farmers have to remove these husks.
This can be accomplished by pounding or roasting, but then the seeds are
less likely to germinate. So, over time,
selective breeding favored plants that produced seeds having less troublesome
husks.
Annual grain yield was important, but effective storage was
equally vital. The primary objective of
agriculture was not to produce millions of morbidly obese rats, or impressive
heaps of stinky rotten wheat. Grain was
best stored in large closed vessels of fired clay.
Gold is dense and shiny, but you can’t eat it. Its only value is when you find odd people
with vivid imaginations who believe that a shiny yellow stone is something of
immense value. Stored wheat, on the
other hand, is something you can eat, food that can sustain your survival. A full granary is truly precious to folks who
enjoy being alive, it is a genuine treasure.
History is clear on one thing — stored treasure is
fantastically tempting to ambitious hard-nosed folks untroubled by morals, like
Vikings, Mongols, or billionaires. Tacitus,
writing in A.D. 98, described the wild German tribes. “They actually think it tame and stupid to
acquire by the sweat of toil what they might win by their blood.”
What may be the world’s oldest story was found etched on clay
tablets in southern Mesopotamia — the Epic
of Gilgamesh. It’s the saga of slimy
King Gilgamesh who clear-cut ancient forests, triggered massive floods and
erosion, and built the city of Uruk.
Nissen spent a lot of time digging up stuff in Uruk, which is
now scruffy ancient ruins surrounded by a barren brown wasteland. [LOOK] In the days of its glory, was a highly
advanced place. Nissen called this era
“the beginning of early high civilization.”
It had writing, large artworks, and monumental architecture. Gilgamesh built a wall around Uruk that
enclosed an area of 1,360 acres (5.5 km2). The wall included at least 900 semicircular
towers.
Around the world, throughout history, it is no coincidence
that settlements with stored treasure (especially granaries) have commonly been
surrounded by walls, moats, palisades, and so on. Alfred
Crosby wrote a tragi-comical history of the evolution of weaponry, from
stones to hydrogen bombs. Many, many
centuries were devoted to a tireless arms race — ongoing efforts to use new
tricks for destroying walls, and new countermeasures for defending the stored
treasure.
OK, back to Mesopotamia.
As the climate got cooler and dryer, rain decreased, river flows
decreased, and the water level of the Gulf dropped. Less water was available for irrigation. Plus, as river flows dropped lower, their
channels dug deeper into the soil. This
caused even more water to be drawn away from the surrounding land.
In the driest regions, agriculture could not survive without
irrigation. Over time, an enormous canal
system was built in Mesopotamia. The
unintended consequence of this brilliant technological masterpiece was
catastrophe. Regular irrigation led to
salt buildup in the soil (salinization), which rendered it permanently infertile,
killing the golden goose.
Salt-nuked cropland had to be abandoned, forcing folks to
concentrate in more urban settlements.
With more people crammed together, conflict levels increased. To avoid social meltdown, conflicts needed to
be brought under control. This need
encouraged the further intensification of civilization — powerful leaders,
laws, enforcers, obedient tax-paying citizens, and hard-working slaves.
4 comments:
I'm still enjoying your posts. Always gets me thinking. I recently listened to the audio book Born to run by Chris Mcdougall. He wrote a bit about persistence hunting and how humans more or less have to run to stay healthy. Thanks to your blog I already knew that! Apparently there is an inverse relationship between how expensive your shoe is and how likely you are to injure yourself running. Nike be damned. We evolved to run bare foot on the Savannah. We don't need expensive shoes. It is a huge con...much like civilization really.
Hi Perran! Ha! I’m living in Eugene, where Phil Knight, the billionaire owner of Nike is spending millions on buildings around the university. I’ve never owned any Nike product. I’m a poster boy for Carhardtt, the green redneck look. I like stuff that holds together for 15 years of heavy use.
I think I remember Phil Knight being mentioned in the book. I'm sure he's probablya nice guy and I wasn't specifically disparaging Nike. I'm sure Adidas and other brands are just as culpable because their shoe designs cause us to run in a way that isn't natural. When our ancestors practiced persistence hunting in bare feet they never would have landed heel first. Being able to run and land heel first with force is only possible with jel filled sneakers produced by the likes of Nike. You would be very quickly incapacitated if you tried that stunt in bare feet. You can get away with it in sneakers for a long time but given enough time the unnatural style often results in injury to the knees other muscles and ligaments of the legs and back.
I found that part of the book particularly interesting.
No worries! I am indifferent about Phil Knight. He gives lots of money to dubious politicians. I am indifferent about Nike.
Post a Comment