Cereals not part of the early Neolithic package in all places

Angela

Elite member
Messages
21,823
Reaction score
12,325
Points
113
Ethnic group
Italian
This is what some of us had already concluded from older studies. Bicicleur wrote quite a bit about it.

See:
http://www.archaeology.org/news/5075-161207-neolithic-staple-crops

"COPENHAGEN, DENMARK—Researchers from the University of the Basque Country and the University of Copenhagen have analyzed plant remains collected from archaeological sites in southwest Asia, according to a report in the International Business Times. They found that between 11,600 and 10,700 years ago, legumes, fruits, and nuts were plentiful in the diets of people living in Turkey, Iran, and Iraq, while cereals such as wheat and barley were the preferred foods in Jordan, Syria, Palestine, and Israel. The study suggests that cereals were domesticated between 10,700 and 10,200 years ago in the southern Levant, where they were popular, but not domesticated in the eastern Fertile Crescent for another 400 to 1,000 years. “It was surprising to discover that despite being considered very important, and despite their dominant role in our agriculture, domesticated cereals might not have been so important in Neolithic times, in many regions,” said archaeobotanist Amaia Arranz Otaegui. This suggests that examining the domestication of lentils, beans, and peas could help researchers understand the growth of agriculture in Turkey, Iran, and Iraq."
 
That's interesting, but not exactly news since it has been known for some time that cereals were domesticated in the southern Levant first, at least 12,000 years ago, and perhaps as early as 20,000 years ago. Cattle, goats, sheep and pigs, as well as peas and lentils were domesticated in the northern and eastern parts of the Fertile Crescent, probably by several independent tribes and haplogroups.
 
It was always a surprise to me that wheat, corn and rice were the staples of farmers, though they are not ready to eat crops. They need to be cooked or baked before consumption. Rather energy and time consuming process. Why didn't me build a civilization on meat, lentils, fruit, veggies or nuts that can be consumed raw? Was the high concentration of starches/sugars in wheat needed for population expansion and build civilization?
Imagine that, no sugar = no civilization.
 
Just off the cuff...

You don't have to chase them. :) Instead, you can plant them in a suitable area near where you would like to settle down. Or rather, perhaps, you find a place suitable for crops and can settle down at least until you wear out the soil.

It's usually not dangerous to gather them. Women can do it, and even children can help, so maybe men liked it because they got out of some of the work of providing food? :)

They store for a long period of time, so the surplus is some protection against hunger.

Complex carbohydrates aren't digested all that quickly, although not as slowly as meat, so there is a steady release of energy. The fiber is also good for you, although pulses have fiber too.

You can't really eat lentils raw. Broadbeans, what we call fava, can be eaten raw, but only for a short period of the year.

Raw meat is very difficult to digest.

If you're talking about domesticated sources of meat, we did do that. The "farming" package that went to Europe included cereals, pulses, and domesticated animals. In the more eastern parts of the Near East fewer cereals grew wild, so they started out with pulses. Within a thousand years they were growing grains as well.

Whether you're talking about hunted wild game or domesticated animals, there just isn't enough of it to support really large populations. They consume a lot of plant material themselves in either case.

(Personally, even when they're just picked, I prefer the broad beans boiled for a minute or two although it's not strictly mandatory.

6a0148c821350d970c0167647779af970b-pi


Weren't fava beans a favorite with Hannibal Lechter, along with a glass of Chianti and some liver, of course?

In the book it's Amarone, a much better choice. :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99Ptctl5_qQ

liver-fava-beans-1500.jpg
 
Last edited:
Sure all good and delicious.
It looks like civilization would have had much slower start without their main staple being high sugar food. Eurasian farmer had wheat, East Asian farmer ate mostly rice and Central American ate potatoes and corn. Sugar rich food which was and is consumed few times daily. They needed the carbs to get busy and build and build. There is not even one example of civilization without main staple food rich in carbs. It has to mean something, something very important.
 
I think all civilization was created in farming land, but it does not prove that sedentary farmers were the creators of civilization. The civilization were closely related with math, which was closely connected with ancient astronomy. The hunter gathers were strong at astronomy for hunting at nights. Someone like shaman always saw the sky for their purpose. What happened if some specific person in tribe had watched sky since 24,000 years ago generation by generation? Where did engineering and geometry come from? Was it impossible to build pyramid 8,000 years ago like Xian pyramids.
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/33035-Classify-me-(Chinese-guy)?p=493564#post493564

Archaeologists said that all civilization has a similarity. We cannot deny the fact that Hunter gathers of lake Baikal migrated to middle East at Neolithic age. I think that is why neolithic Iran had more ANE than now.

See the Malta boy astronomy: This pattern appeared all Eurasia in Neolithic and bronze age.
spiralholeplaque.jpg

" After studying Eurasian portable art the Russian investigator B.A. Frolov also became convinced that these objects were calendars following the monthly motion of the moon and/or yearly solar path, and claimed they were used by early communities. The most well-known bone plate interpreted as a lunisolar calendar is from Ma’lta (Irkutskaya Oblast, Russia)."
http://journalofcosmology.com/Consciousness159.html

How about round pyramid?
Guachimontones_Jalisco_-_Esteban_Tucci.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guachimontones

How about the engineering of Machu Picchu?
MIT professor said that it was difficult to build it by modern technique, b/c the slope is too steep and
heavy rain fall. Who were the engineer and did the math?

80_-_Machu_Picchu_-_Juin_2009_-_edit.2.jpg
 
Last edited:
I think all civilization was created in farming land, but it does not prove that sedentary farmers were the creators of civilization. The civilization were closely related with math, which was closely connected with ancient astronomy. The hunter gathers were strong at astronomy for hunting at nights. Someone like shaman always saw the sky for their purpose. What happened if some specific person in tribe had watched sky since 24,000 years ago generation by generation? Where did engineering and geometry come from? Was it impossible to build pyramid 8,000 years ago like Xian pyramids.
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/33035-Classify-me-(Chinese-guy)?p=493564#post493564

Archaeologists said that all civilization has a similarity. We cannot deny the fact that Hunter gathers of lake Baikal migrated to middle East at Neolithic age. I think that is why neolithic Iran had more ANE than now.

See the Malta boy astronomy: This pattern appeared all Eurasia in Neolithic and bronze age.
spiralholeplaque.jpg



How about round pyramid?
Guachimontones_Jalisco_-_Esteban_Tucci.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guachimontones

How about the engineering of Machu Picchu?
MIT professor said that it was difficult to build it by modern technique, b/c the slope is too steep and
heavy rain fall. Who were the engineer and did the math?

80_-_Machu_Picchu_-_Juin_2009_-_edit.2.jpg

You are totally and utterly confused. The engineers who created Machu Picchu and the circular temples were members of a FARMING culture. How can you not know that? Who did you think they were? Hunter-Gatherers? These cultures developed after the invention of agriculture in the New World, an agriculture based on corn and potatoes as Le Brok pointed out in the post prior to yours. All the indigenous people of the New World were not hunter-gatherers. In East Asia it was based on rice mainly, but to a lesser extent on wheat.

The development of a specialized society free to devote its energies to things other than mere survival was dependent on the accumulation of surplus, which was further dependent on agriculture. Therefore your bolded comment is indeed correct if we accept the common definition of civilization by historians.

What is wrong with you people that you would think to seriously debate such a thing?

There just is no dispute about this. It's middle school history.

Please pick up some textbooks.

That's not to say, of course, that each human society doesn't base itself on the achievements of past societies, and that this applies to the advancements of different groups of hunter-gatherers. That's a different issue. I will repeat for the 100th time: All farmers were first hunter-gatherers.

@LeBrok,
I was mostly joking around, but I do think that the fact that these foods could be easily stored for times of want, and produced such a constant flow of energy throughout the day without inducing sleep, was extremely important.
 
You are totally and utterly confused. The engineers who created Machu Picchu and the circular temples were members of a FARMING culture. How can you not know that? Who did you think they were? Hunter-Gatherers? These cultures developed after the invention of agriculture in the New World, an agriculture based on corn and potatoes as Le Brok pointed out in the post prior to yours. All the indigenous people of the New World were not hunter-gatherers. In East Asia it was based on rice mainly, but to a lesser extent on wheat.

The development of a specialized society free to devote its energies to things other than mere survival was dependent on the accumulation of surplus, which was further dependent on agriculture. Therefore your bolded comment is indeed correct if we accept the common definition of civilization by historians.

What is wrong with you people that you would debate such a thing?

There just is no dispute about this. It's middle school history.

Please pick up some textbooks.

That's not to say, of course, that each human society doesn't base itself on the achievements of past societies, and that this applies to the advancements of different groups of hunter-gatherers. That's a different issue.
I did not say that HG built them. I meant the engineering technique came from shaman with a knowledge of astronomy, not from farmer.
 
I did not say that HG built them. I meant the engineering technique came from shaman with a knowledge of astronomy, not from farmer.

Do some reading on the development of civilization. The cultures under discussion were farming cultures, based on farming, do you understand? Agriculture provided the surplus which allowed for increased complexity in these societies, including the specialization of trades. They had specialized engineers at the service of their priests and rulers. End of story.

I refuse to be drawn into a debate about this. It's like debating whether the earth is flat or round, or whether the earth or the sun is the center of the solar system. These matters are settled.
 
Do some reading on the development of civilization. The cultures under discussion were farming cultures, based on farming, do you understand? Agriculture provided the surplus which allowed for increased complexity in these societies, including the specialization of trades. They had specialized engineers at the service of their priests and rulers. End of story.

I refuse to be drawn into a debate about this. It's like debating whether the earth is flat or round, or whether the earth or the sun is the center of the solar system. These matters are settled.
Actually I don't like debate to win. I just like to discuss to learn, expecting good rebuttal. I learned that debating is meaningless, b/c everything in real world is never changed by debating in forum.
 
I did not say that HG built them. I meant the engineering technique came from shaman with a knowledge of astronomy, not from farmer.
What kind of engineering technique? How "vast" is knowledge of astronomy by HGs apart from naming few constellations or stars, knowing that they show up every night, and North Star always point to one direction?
 
See the Malta boy astronomy: This pattern appeared all Eurasia in Neolithic and bronze age.
spiralholeplaque.jpg
In what sense this has something to do with astronomy? There is a big spiral circle surrounded by small ones. Does it have 365 holes?
 

This thread has been viewed 6403 times.

Back
Top