Trying to fathom farming's origins

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 9:50 am

Well CC 'discovered' NA by accident so what's the difference? I never suggested they were working from a Michelin map.

Rokcet Scientist · Post by **Rokcet Scientist** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 10:10 am

Digit wrote:Well CC 'discovered' NA by accident so what's the difference? I never suggested they were working from a Michelin map.

Yes, CC 'discovered' NA by accident. But he was consciously trying to cross an ocean to find a continent on the other side. The Solutrean ice pack hunters did no such thing. They weren't going anywhere in particular. They were just following their prey.

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 10:25 am

So they bumped into America without expecting it?
So, they still bumped into it same as later explorers found the Pacific Islands. They got there and in the absence of alternatives boats are very much more logical than hoofing it!

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 10:30 am

But The Club doesn't think they had boats.

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 10:35 am

In that case Min I will have to bow to their superior knowledge and ask them to identify the Abbo 'Moses' who caused the Sunda straight to dry up so that the Abbos could walk dry shod to Australia and then drowned all the animals that didn't make it across with them.
I look forward to their responce.

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 10:42 am

Don't hold your breath.

Rokcet Scientist · Post by **Rokcet Scientist** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 3:19 pm

Digit wrote:
identify the Abbo 'Moses' who caused the Sunda straight to dry up so that the Abbos could walk dry shod to Australia

400 feet lower sea levels across the globe.

I haven't got graphs for the middle and early pleistocene, but sea levels have been much lower still!

Mayonaze · Post by **Mayonaze** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 3:22 pm

Rokcet Scientist wrote:
Mayonaze wrote:
Cultivating medicinal plants should also qualify as farming. You certaintly wouldn't need 1/2 acre of it though.

I have to disagree. I wouldn't call that farming. I'd call that 'pharmacy'. Part & parcel of medicine/magic/doctoring/Jedi-class building. Not for food or trading of foodstuffs. Therefore not agriculture.

Tell that to the Medellin Cartel. Pretty valuable for trade, I'd say.

Rokcet Scientist · Post by **Rokcet Scientist** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 3:41 pm

Mayonaze wrote:
Rokcet Scientist wrote:
Mayonaze wrote:
Cultivating medicinal plants should also qualify as farming. You certaintly wouldn't need 1/2 acre of it though.

I have to disagree. I wouldn't call that farming. I'd call that 'pharmacy'. Part & parcel of medicine/magic/doctoring/Jedi-class building. Not for food or trading of foodstuffs. Therefore not agriculture.
Tell that to the Medellin Cartel. Pretty valuable for trade, I'd say.

Sure. And don't forget the Afghani warlords. Or the hippie home growers for that matter.
But it ain't for food or trading of foodstuffs.

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 3:45 pm

400 feet lower sea levels across the globe.

So?

Mayonaze · Post by **Mayonaze** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 3:55 pm

Rokcet Scientist wrote:
Mayonaze wrote:
Rokcet Scientist wrote: I have to disagree. I wouldn't call that farming. I'd call that 'pharmacy'. Part & parcel of medicine/magic/doctoring/Jedi-class building. Not for food or trading of foodstuffs. Therefore not agriculture.
Tell that to the Medellin Cartel. Pretty valuable for trade, I'd say.
Sure. And don't forget the Afghani warlords. Or the hippie home growers for that matter.
But it ain't for food or trading of foodstuffs.

It would be helpful if we could agree on definitions for the terms we are using. Agriculture/farming/domestication of plants does not necessarily lead to food production.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture

"Agriculture (encompassing farming, grazing, and the tending of orchards, vineyards and timberland) is the production of food, feed, fiber and other goods by the systematic raising of plants and animals."

Rokcet Scientist · Post by **Rokcet Scientist** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 4:15 pm

You're right. A common definition is prerequisite.
But it's that "other goods" that is the weak spot in that Wiki definition for me. It's just a tad too broad for my taste . . .
Imo it's more productive to focus on the "what for" question, rather than on the simple "what" question.

Mayonaze · Post by **Mayonaze** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 4:51 pm

Understood. To me, the important implication is that somebody realized that he/she doesn't just have to accept what nature is offering, that they could use their knowledge/experience of plants as a tool to better their lot. Whether that means to produce food, medicine, clothing or building materials (ex., straw for bricks) - those things are just different applications of the same tool.

Rokcet Scientist · Post by **Rokcet Scientist** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 5:35 pm

You got me! Flax, e.g., is not for food. But I'd easily call growing it agriculture.
It's not so simple to define.

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 6:34 pm

From Today's Headlines

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 082007.php

A University of Colorado at Boulder team excavating an ancient Maya village in El Salvador buried by a volcanic eruption 1,400 years ago has discovered an ancient field of manioc, the first evidence for cultivation of the calorie-rich tuber in the New World.

The manioc field was discovered under roughly 10 feet of ash, said CU-Boulder anthropology Professor Payson Sheets, who has been directing the excavation of the ancient village of Ceren since its discovery in 1978. Considered the best-preserved ancient village in Latin America, Ceren's buildings, artifacts and landscape were frozen in time by the sudden eruption of the nearby Loma Caldera volcano about 600 A.D., providing a unique window on the everyday lives of prehistoric Mayan farmers.