Transitions to Agriculture

Transitions to Agriculture

The transition in the common mode of subsistence, from hunter-gatherer to agriculture, marks an important stage in the development of mankind. During the time of this transition, humans experienced an increase in their social, political, and technological complexity. A number of varying hypotheses have been put forward to explain the causes of agriculture’s origin, as well as its effect upon the human population. However, due to the lack of definitive data in much of the archaeological record, it is often difficult to discern the validity of theories suggested to explain either events leading up to, or the consequences of the Agricultural Revolution.

Agriculture is defined as the “planting of multipropagators of domesticates or cultivars in relatively large plots or fields” (Macneish 1992:11). Agriculture involves changes both in humans’ use of the earth as well as in the structure and organization of human society. Agriculture is often accompanied by use of ceramic containers, extensive forest clearing, cultivation of hard-shelled cereals which can be stored for long time periods, invention and adoption of technologies for farming, with an increase in sedentism and population, as well as an increased pace towards more complex social and political organization (Price and Gebauer 1995:6). The process of agricultural domestication seems to be self-perpetuating and begins an increased dependency on cultivated foods rather than on wild resources. Once a commitment to this way of life is made, the necessity of maintaining food production transforms the basis of the society, making a return to the original state improbable or impossible (Smith 1976:17). Definitive signs of plant cultivation first appeared in early Neolithic villages in the Near East around 7500-7000 B.C. Food production within the area was based on the domestication of approximately nine species of local grain plants (Zohary and Hopf 1988:207). These early domesticated species include emmer wheat, einkorn wheat, barley, lentils, peas, bitter vetch, chickpeas, broadbeans, and flax (Zohary 1986:5-6). Zohary and Hopf describe several techniques which are used to date the origin and spread of cultivated plant species. The analysis of archaeological evidence, such as carbonized plant remains; impressions left on pottery, daub, and bricks; parched plant remains; waterlogged preservation; preservation by oxides of metals; digested or partly digested remains, can help to determine the age of the species. Other methods can include analysis of living plants, such as the wild progenitors from which the cultivated plants evolved, and use of radiocarbon dating and dendrochronology.

Many of the preconditions associated with, or appearing just prior to, the development of domestication are commonly agreed upon. The core traits include sedentism, storage abilities, high population densities, high resource diversity, processing and harvesting technology, and good potential domesticates. Possible factors, which may or may not have had a great affect on the transition to agriculture, are competition, ownership of produce and resource localities, changes in climate or vegetation, and population pressure (Hayden 1995:277-280).

One of the most well-known theories for the explanation of the origin of agriculture is the ‘Oasis Theory’ which was first discussed by Rafael Pumpelly, and later popularized by Gordon Childe from the 1920s and afterward. Before the 1940s it was thought that the end of the Pleistocene was a period of increasing temperatures and less precipitation. It was therefore suggested that areas such as the Near East would have experienced a period of aridity at the end of the Pleistocene when vegetation only grew around limited water sources- oases (Gebauer and Price 1992:1). Childe suggested that farming began where potential animals and plants were available, particularly in Africa and Asia. He proposed that a Post-Pleistocene desiccation expanded the deserts and led to a concentration of men, plants, and animals at oases which might have resulted in the symbiosis implied in domestication. The humans recognized the food potential of the plants and animals, and began experimentation which would eventually lead to agriculture (MacNeish 1992:6). “The hunters whose wives were cultivators had something to offer some of the beasts they hunted- stubble on grain plots and the husks of the grain. As suitable animals became increasingly hemmed in to the oases by the desert, men might study their habits instead of killing them off-hand, might tame them and make them dependent (Childe 1954:49).” Unfortunately, the ‘Oasis Theory’ lacks the proof to demonstrate its validity. There is evidence of climatic shifts, but not of drastic desiccation in the Post-Pleistocene period. However, even if there was proof that such a desiccation had occurred, environmental determinism could not serve as a sufficient explanation because it does not explain why there were not similar responses to desiccation at earlier periods.

Another hypothesis which was proposed in order to explain the origins of agriculture was Robert Braidwood’s theory involving cultural levels. Braidwood suggested that domestication began in the “hilly flanks of the Fertile Crescent” and not in the lowland oasis area as proposed by Childe. Braidwood focused on cultural rather than environmental factors in formulating an alternative to Childe’s hypothesis. Braidwood created a cultural model in which farming was seen as the culmination of ever-increasing cultural differentiation, specialization, and knowledge of habitat and which occurred in zones where potential domesticates were available (Bender 1975:25). He explained that as human technology and knowledge of the environment improved over time, human populations moving into an environment like the hilly flanks of the Fertile Crescent would eventually “realize the potential of the local fauna and flora and would exploit that potential by domesticating the appropriate species” (Price and Gebauer 1995:25). Braidwood based his hypothesis on inherent human nature, and did not offer a precise reason as to why domestication occurred. His vague explanation was that human technology and culture were “ready” by the end of the Pleistocene and that farming was a highly desirable invention that would provide security and leisure time.

Some hold that an increase in population and sedentism spurred the development of plant domestication. According to Vavilov, humans first settled in the primary “hearths of domestication” because of the wide variety of plants which were available there. The reason that these plants were domesticated was because increasing populations needed more food (Macneish 1992:7). The “marginality” hypothesis is composed of the views of Lewis Binford and Kent Flannery and focuses on the issue of demography. Binford thought that semisedimentary groups living in optimal zones in the post-Pleistocene period would increase in size until they reached the land’s carrying capacity, and then the groups would fission. These fissioned-off groups would encroach on inhabitants living outside of the optimal zone and put pressure on food resources. The loss of equilibrium between population size and natural resources would cause some of these groups to intensify their subsistence practices by domesticating plants and animals. Flannery agreed with Binford’s assessment and added that plant cultivation might have begun as a deliberate attempt to artificially produce cereal stands in the marginal areas which were as dense as those in the optimal areas (Watson 1995: 26-27). Brian Hayden explains his difficulties with this theory due to hunter-gatherers’ strategy of maintaining their population levels in a dynamic equilibrium with their resources. However, Hayden cedes that hunter-gatherers would have faced difficulties if they had lacked the ability to move out of their natal communities and merge with distant allied bands when faced by extreme population pressure and deteriorating climatic conditions. Resource stress could then have led to efforts to reduce local population as well as to an increase in efforts to extract more resources from the environment through increased intensification (Hayden 1995:288). However, there are many such as Gordon Hillman and W. Groenman-Van Waateringe who hold that the triggering factor for the beginning of agriculture was not a food shortage, but abundance. This abundance of available resources allowed humans the leisure time to experiment with new technologies, and develop agriculture, since they were not required to spend all of their time searching for food in order to survive. Brian Hayden also explains that food production, and the competition inherent in it, could only occur in a situation with abundant resources where obligatory food sharing was no longer essential and ownership of produced food was not considered an anathema (Hayden 1992:12).

Another possible reason for the emergence of domestication is socioeconomic competition. Brian Hayden explains that domestication may be derived from the emergence of economically based competition between individuals for control of wealth and power in hunter-gatherer communities. This competition often involves the use of labor-intensive foods in the form of trade of surpluses, displays of wealth in order to attract labor or support, gifts to individuals in order to exert control over them, and other behavior which can create special value for labor-intensive food in acquiring economic or political advantages (Hayden 1995:289). Barbara Bender suggests that the success of food production may lie in the ability of certain individuals to accumulate food surplus and convert and to transform it into more valued items such as rare stones and metals (Gebauer and Price 1992:3). Hayden gives the example of competitive feasting as a socioeconomic explanation for the origin of domestication. Ambitious individuals could have used the economically based competitive feast in order to gain control over people’s labor as a symbol of success or power. “If the first domesticated species were highly desirable foods, but labor intensive to produce or otherwise difficult to obtain, it is most likely that domestication developed within the context of competitive feasting (Hayden 1992:13).”

Another important possibility for the transition to agriculture is ideological in nature. The cultural development of humans in the Neolithic Period does not reveal any dynamic impulse in favor of change, and so they must have wanted to change. Such an initiative could only come from the area of collective psychology, where dissatisfactions emerge and culture transformations which do not necessarily have economic reasons as their basis are elaborated. An ideological ‘revolution of symbols’ preceded the agricultural economy and provided the initiative for change (Cauvin 2000:66). Early humans may have found themselves dissatisfied with their mode of existence due not only to malnutrition, but may also be due to a cultural revolution. In this time period man called into question his integration and role in nature and the cosmos, felt himself to be powerless and appealed to divine authority through prayer. This new chasm between man and god had no direct affect on the environment, yet it changed the desires of the human spirit and gave it the initiative to bring about progress and change. Humans had been “spectators of the natural cycles of reproduction in the living world. Neolithic societies now took it on themselves to intervene as active producers. Technically speaking, it would have been possible well before, but neither the idea nor the desire ever came to them (Cauvin 2000:72).”

There are gaps in the available data which cause difficulty in getting an accurate view of the development of agriculture. The coverage on the transition to agriculture is limited to a few similar geographic areas. These areas tend to be arid or semi-arid and most of the plant staples are seed-crops. The limited and relatively similar areas in the sample of archaeological sites mean that attempts to pinpoint cross-cultural regularities must be suspect. Even in areas which have been studied, the coverage is often fragmentary. Excavators often concentrate on small tell sites, and as a result, early farming is often seen in terms of small peasant communities living in scattered villages (Bender 1975:210). Quality of different excavations varies considerably, and may be a reflection of when the excavation took place and what techniques were available at the time. Coverage by disciplines other than archaeology also lack adequate data. For example, only a fraction of the wild distributions of potential domesticates is known (Bender 1975:211). There is a need for examination of archaeological sites in a wider variety of regions and with a more successful method of retrieving adequate information.

There are a number of human developments which accompanied the transition to agriculture. The consequences of domestication include the invention and adoption of new agricultural technologies, widespread use of ceramics, forest clearance and humanly induced changes in the landscape, cultivation of hard-shelled cereals, animal husbandry, increased sedentism and population, and ultimately more advanced social and political organization. The hard grained, storable nature of most cereals permitted the accumulation of surplus and provided a supply of food in lean periods (Gebauer and Price 1992:9). Increases in population growth occurred at advanced rates in areas in which domestication occurred. “Even with primitive agricultural technologies, population densities could average 10-50 times higher than for foragers (Cavalli-Sforza 1986:71).” Population growth then proceeds to grow and will get close to, or even above, the carrying capacity of the land. The population growth will then stimulate migration to occupy new places. Thus the development of agriculture resulted not only in the growth of the population, but also in the migration to other areas.

Through man’s manipulation of plants and animals, he was able to increase the carrying capacity of the land. It is estimated that “the average Late Pleistocene hunter-gatherer carrying capacity was probably 0.1 people per square kilometer, while the early dry farming carrying capacity was 1 to 2 persons per square kilometer (Bender 1975:6).” Food production has also led to an expansion in the range of animal and plant consumption since most of the foods eaten in modern society are products of the early farmer in the Old and New Worlds (Smith 1976:13). Areas in which plant cultivation was practiced mimicked naturally optimal conditions, and increased the possible area in which people could settle. Since optimal area was limited, the concept of territory would have been important and further encouraged people to settle permanently. In these new settlements, humans built themselves more elaborate homes of clay, stone, and wood. Immobile storage facilities further served to tie the population to specific places. Sedentism also resulted in an increased population since births are more widely spaced among mobile populations and because of the larger rate of infant mortality (Bender 1975:7-8).In contrast to flexible structure of hunter-gatherer societies, agricultural communities have corporate structures and long-term stability which permits co-operative land-clearance, defense, etc. Within the corporate structure of the agricultural society, the family operates as a semi-independent economic unit which might lead to different levels of wealth and social stratification, as well as an emphasis on ownership. Differences among groups might stimulate trade, and more affluent members of society will display their superior social position by obtaining luxury items (Bender 1975:9).

The development of larger human communities and the geographical expansion of population and subsistence also increased the human potential for environmental modification and resource depletion. Humans cleared the forests for agricultural purposes and altered vegetation patterns. The increased population and greater needs of food-producing societies caused a more intensive exploitation of the earth’s resources, such as flint, obsidian, clay, copper, etc. It is likely that the extinction of many animals is a consequence of food production since it was the acquisition of controlled plants and animals that allowed man the luxury of exterminating his game (Smith 1976:31-34).” After the transition to agriculture, many new technologies were developed, and artifacts were often made by processes that were new or had been used only rarely in earlier times. For instance, in some regions there was a new emphasis on heavier tools made out of tougher rocks to produce axes, hoes, and other implements meant for tree-felling, woodworking, and soil preparation (Smith 1976:36-39). Conflict and warfare probably occurred within the early agricultural societies as a result of the need of shifting cultivators to find suitable land in the face of growing shortages and competition as well as to keep population pressure down (Smith 1976:61-62).

The transition to agriculture represents an important phase in the development of the human population. Food production has resulted in many advances, changes, and adaptations in the evolution of human society. There are several theories that have been proposed to explain the reasons for the origin of domestication, however due to the gaps in the archaeological record, it is impossible at this time to definitively determine which of these hypotheses is correct.

Bibliography

Bender, Barbara. Farming in Prehistory: From Hunter-Gatherer to Food Producer. London: John Baker Ltd, 1975.

Cauvin, Jacques. The Birth of Gods and the Origins of Agriculture. Trans. Trevor Watkins. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Cavalli-Sforza, L.L. “The Impact of Farming on Expansion of Human Populations.” The Origin and Domestication of Cultivated Plants. Ed. C. Bargiozzi. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers, 1986. 71-80

Gebauer, Anne Birgitte and Price, T. Douglas. “Foragers to Farmers: An Introduction.” Transitions to Agriculture in Prehistory. Eds. Anne Birgitte Gebauer and T. Douglas Price. Madison: Prehistory Press, 1992. 1-10.

Hayden, Brian. “A New Overview of Domestication.” Last Hunters, First Farmers. Eds. T. Douglas Gebauer and Anne Birgitte Gebauer. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press, 1995. 273-299.

Hayden, Brian. “Models of Domestication.” Transitions to Agriculture in Prehistory. Eds. Anne Birgitte Gebauer and T. Douglas Price. Madison: Prehistory Press, 1992. 11-18.

MacNeish, Richard S. The Origins of Agriculture and Settled Life. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1992.

Price, T. Douglas and Gebauer, Anne Birgitte. “New Perspectives on the Transition to Agriculture.” Last Hunters, First Farmers. Eds. T. Douglas Gebauer and Anne Birgitte Gebauer. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press, 1995. 3-20.

Smith, Philip E. L. Food Production and its Consequence. California: Cummings Publishing Company, 1976.

Watson, Patty Jo. “Explaining the Transition to Agriculture.” Last Hunters, First Farmers. Eds. T. Douglas Gebauer and Anne Birgitte Gebauer. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press, 1995. 21-38.

Zohary, Daniel. “The Origin and Early Spread of Agriculture in the Old World.” The Origin and Domestication of Cultivated Plants. Ed. C. Bargiozzi. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers, 1986. 3-15

Zohary , Daniel and Hopf, Maria. The Origin and Spread of Cultivated Plants in West Asia, Europe, and the Nile Valley. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988.