Angela
Elite member
- Messages
- 21,823
- Reaction score
- 12,329
- Points
- 113
- Ethnic group
- Italian
Are you so sure about this Angela? There were fewer hunter gatherers but why do you think that they were getting extinct if not for the farmers? Besides, in as much as I remember hunter gatherers were better fed, taller, stronger and healthier (i.e., had better teeth) compared to incoming farmers. And they did not have to work like farmers. Being a hunter gatherer in a nice warm climate must have been a real bless. The golden age, according to Greeks...
Farmer strength is about being numerous and in the long run creating cities and culture that we all enjoy now.
I'm not sure of very much in this life, and certainly not in the field of genetics. All I try to do is figure out, with the help of academic papers and intelligent members of the amateur community, where we are in terms of the current state of knowledge. As we know, that can change, and change quickly in this field. ( I occasionally stray into predictions, but they're possibilities or probabilities and I always try to state that's the case. I'm also not "married" to them. If I was wrong, I say so. I also say when I was right, which is probably annoying. )
There were so few hunter-gatherers in most parts of the world because it's difficult to sustain life on hunting and gathering. (One major exception would be the Natufians, who were blessed by being able to live in a time and place brimming with various food resources.)
When you have such small, isolated, groups, climate change, a natural disaster, anything that would upset the natural order, could wipe them out. In a much more populous "farmer" group the odds are just greater that some would survive, not to mention any other advantages.
As for the comparisons that are made in terms of "health", I don't think taller or more "robust" in build equates to healthier. Are northern Europeans "healthier" than the Japanese? A lot of that was the result of the fact that many of the hunter-gatherers in Paleolithic and Mesolithic Europe were living in a place and in a climate where a disproportionate share of their diet was from animal protein, which would have an impact on this. Hunter-gatherers in other places, with other diets, would be different. The hunter-gatherers of Northwest Africa, for example, who consumed a lot of hazelnuts because they grew wild there, had a lot of cavities.
Just recently it has been discovered that even Neanderthals, often claimed to be predominately meat eaters, actually varied depending on their location. The Neanderthals of Spain ate a predominately plant based diet.
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...-lives-of-Neanderthals?highlight=Neanderthals
http://www.archaeology.org/news/5363-170308-neanderthal-dental-plaque
"ADELAIDE, AUSTRALIA—Nature reports that scientists from the University of Adelaide and the University of Liverpool analyzed DNA obtained from the dental plaque of five Neanderthals whose remains were recovered in northern Spain’s El Sidrón Cave, and compared the results to a study of the plaque obtained from four Neanderthals buried in Belgium’s Spy Cave. The results suggest that while the Neanderthals from Spy Cave enjoyed rhinoceros and sheep meat, the Neanderthals living in Spain ate a vegetarian diet. One of the individuals, who suffered from a dental abscess, also carried an intestinal parasite. His plaque contained traces of poplar, which contains the active ingredient in aspirin, and a natural antibiotic mold. Neither of these substances were detected in the other plaque samples, which suggests he may have been treated with medicinal plants. The genome sequence of one of the types of ancient mouth bacteria in the samples suggests it was transferred to Neanderthals from modern humans. “If you’re swapping spit between species, there’s kissing going on, or at least food sharing, which would suggest that these interactions were much friendlier and more intimate than anybody ever possibly imagined,” said Laura Weyrich of the University of Adelaide."
The paper is behind a pay wall, but this is a link to the supplement. You can also access the figures.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature21674.html#supplementary-information
It's true, though, as you imply, that the "farmers" carried a heavier disease load, both from living in close proximity to other humans and animals. Yet, they still increased in number at a much higher and faster rate than most hunter-gatherers. It took a long time to adapt, and the process isn't over yet.
How does that square with the studies which show such high rates of infant mortality among the early farmers? Why did most hunter-gatherer populations stay so small and stable over time, or grow so slowly? I've always wondered if they deliberately controlled their reproduction in some way, or the infants died in even greater percentages.
This recent (2015) paper suggests one possible factor. You might find it interesting. I know I did.
http://www.pnas.org/content/113/17/4694.full
Basically, the authors suggest that the transition to agriculture resulted in greater fitness in mothers, leading to increased population sizes even if there was also some increase in disease load.