I've been taking a class from Alan Simmons here at UNLV about the origins of agriculture. We're finally moving into the New World origins. After several thought provoking weeks of push-pull model discussions, HBE, and several other theories, it seems like we haven't resolved anything. We have only determined that reasons for adopting agriculture are too diverse to be attributed to just one catalyst.
I agree with that on many levels, however, I'd love to hear what the rest of you think. Since this blog IS called Friends of the Fremont, and the url is fremontfarmers.blogspot.com, what elelments do you fellow FoFs think were essential to the adoption of agriculture?
3 comments:
Man, I realize how much I miss reading for classes. Too much dissertation makes Mike a dull boy. I recall this topic being one of the ones I answered for my comps at BYU as well as the first topic I presented on in Clark's class (for which I was torn to pieces in front of many of you guys!).
I've realized that there were likely many diverse "prime movers" when it comes to the proliferation or wide-spread adoption of agriculture, but we have to distinguish between adoption on small and large scales.
It seems logical that agriculture most often was adopted on a small scale initially, possibly with hunters and gatherers who may have practiced seasonal mobility and experimentation with plants. It may be better described as horticulture, a common practice that has been observed ethnographically. Reasons for these small groups to practice horticulture, in my mind, include bolstering their future food supply and to provide for growing populations within their small groups.
On a larger scale, the prime movers for the adoption of agriculture likely included 1) a more developed understanding of the techniques of agriculture, 2) larger populations which caused pressure on wild resources, 3) increased sedentism, and 4) the desire to experiment further with animal husbandry and botany (I think experimentation is a viable reason and an essential aspect of human nature). I don't consider these to be the only factors, but definitely some of the more commonly quoted reasons that make sense to me (at least the first 3).
As the technology behind agriculture became common knowledge and further spread and practiced, that is when we get into cultural perpetuity. In other words, as agriculture became the primary means of food production, it became the cultural norm. I think rigidity theory is something to be looked at as a good paradigm for how agriculture persisted from generation to gerneration and continues to be the primary form of subsistence today.
That's my two cents.
I think one of the biggest issues is control. There are lots of nice things about agriculture, but most of them can be gotten in one way or another through hunting and gathering. But I think the ability to have a good deal of control over your food is very important. With agriculture, the more work you put in the more output you produce. This is true somewhat for hunting and gathering, but not on the same scale. Having that control is attractive, and I think is probably a big reason agriculture is adopted.
Dave and Mike,
I think both of you make valid points. I especially agree with Dave about the issue of control.
One particular point of discussion that Alan Simmons kind of dismisses are the cultural or ritual implications of certain types of food.
In my opinion, there is heavy ritual or cultural baggage associated with adoption of certain foods. I'm just not certain when food related ritual came about. When does food become more about eating for pleasure or other cultural reasons and less about mere survival?
Post a Comment