Wild types of emmer wheat like those found at Ohalo were forerunners of today's varieties
Posted on 09/19/2008 7:17:04 PM PDT by SunkenCiv
Until recently researchers say the story of the origin of agriculture was one of a relatively sudden appearance of plant cultivation in the Near East around 10,000 years ago spreading quickly into Europe and dovetailing conveniently with ideas about how quickly language and population genes spread from the Near East to Europe. Initially, genetics appeared to support this idea but now cracks are beginning to appear in the evidence underpinning that model.
Now a team led by Dr Robin Allaby from the University of Warwick have developed a new mathematical model that shows how plant agriculture actually began much earlier than first thought, well before the Younger Dryas (the last "big freeze" with glacial conditions in the higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere). It also shows that useful gene types could have actually taken thousands of years to become stable.
...recent archaeological evidence has already begun to undermine this model pushing back the date of the first appearance of plant agriculture. The best example of this being the archaeological site Ohalo II in Syria where more than 90,000 plant fragments from 23,000 years ago show that wild cereals were being gathered over 10,000 years earlier than previously thought, and before the last glacial maximum (18,000-15,000 years ago).
(Excerpt) Read more at physorg.com ...
Wild types of emmer wheat like those found at Ohalo were forerunners of today's varieties
Farming Origins Gain 10,000 Years
BBC | 6-23-2004
Posted on 06/23/2004 4:42:34 PM PDT by blam
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1158957/posts
Galilee Drought Uncovers Oldest Village In The World
Sunday Times (UK) | 9-23-2001 | Dina Shiloh
Posted on 09/24/2001 1:40:07 PM PDT by blam
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/531364/posts
|
|
|||
Gods |
To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. |
||
|
· Mirabilis · Texas AM Anthropology News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · · History or Science & Nature Podcasts · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
|||
Impossible. We have a consensus, the new theory couldn’t possibly be true. Deniers.
your asking coyoteman’s thoughts?
dont you understand that he is a follower of the Big SuperElastic Bubble PlaStik religion of evolutionism?
the latest will simply be regarding as further proof of evolutionism....
and it will be done simply by SAYING IT, any disagreements will be dismissed as religion (humanism excluded of course) or a ‘poor understanding of science’
My own concern is how does this jive with various glaciation periods?
Cheers!
practicing archaeologist or not, his religion of humanism trumps all....
Well, I was going to offer an opinion but I don't see why I should bother.
Seems like you know everything already.
(You realize of course that posts like yours are why most scientists have left this website in disgust. Here is a brief essay another poster did which is pertinent.)
no, the scientists who worship at the altar of darwinism have left...those who worship God in their hearts...are still here,
truth has a funny way of sticking around despite your best efforts.
(and you didnt deny what i said, you will make anything and everything fit into evolutionism...why? BECAUSE IT HAS TO..)
The response you get from people depends heavily on what you say to them, and how.
Cheers!
In the meantime, there has been far less of a stink than some have predicted, over Palin's Christianity and "support for" (not "requirement TO") teach creationism in the schools.
Matt Damon seems to have sneered at it, as did the Saturday Night Live sketch (indirectly), but it seems to be much less of a deal-breaker than feared.
There. Now *EVERYONE* can get into a flame war. :-)
Cheers!
Hey, Coyoteman, it's not just the scientists who have left. Not a scientist and I rarely come around anymore, one of the chief reasons being cited by you.
Moving along...My non-scientific POV, FWIW, could never accept that the first asparagus plant got transplanted closer to the hut only 10,000 years ago so I rather enjoy seeing the research beginning to confirm that agriculture is a lot older than what a lot of (probably non-gardening) experts thought. I suspect that the roots of ag are to be found in the foods that people found really tasty and the bland stuff like cultivated grains were a bit later. Although I know the barley aficionados will vehemently disagree...
I’m another who likes to read your opinions. Notwithstanding the ugly posts on this thread .
Just a thought - I notice this opinion is based on a mathematical model. I doubt any real insight can be gleaned from these. How can they account for the myriad of variables that must been present at the outset of agriculture? Gathering food and agriculture are two very different events.
Seeing this post makes sense if you think that Firestone et al. have it right that the Younger Dryas was caused by a giant boloid event around 13,000 kya. I have long thought that humanity has been more developed than generally recognized at various times and then thrown back in development by some sort of catastrophe. The great Toba volcanic event about 74,000 comes to mind, and the discovery of well developed tools in southern Africa back at or before that time. I remember the surprise that certain Spanish/French ? cave paintings which were thought to be about 24,000 years old were in fact 32,000 years old.
Since Neanertals disappeared from the fossil record back around the time these agricultural remains were deposited, I wonder if exploitation of plant resources by modern humans may have given us the competitive edge for survival.
PS: I miss blam, and hope Coyoteman does not give up here in despair. I would love to read some of what balm is posting at his new site, but simply don’t have the time to jump around on the internet.
Whether she supports or requires doesn't make much difference since the Dover decision that their school board could not have “intelligent design” taught along with science. Presumably, it might be appropriate in a comparative religion class. Incidentally, some “humanists” feel that their philosophy is just as high-minded as any “other” religion and is based on a feeling for something which is greater than themselves, as well as a desire to do good in the world. They simply don't give it a label and think that they are so important (egotistical) that it cares one way or another about them as individuals.
You can plant trees in your winter camp and, as long as there is a reasonable water source near by, go off and hunt all summer and return to a secondary food source that just needs to be harvested and the trees pruned.
And the trees don't need to be replanted every year.
The Native Americans in my area did not practice agriculture because of the abundance of natural foods, but they tended tobacco plants and helped them along. In other words, they knew enough to do agriculture, but didn't have the need.
This is probably how agriculture started, with small-scale "tending" rather than large-scale agribusiness. These small-scale operations are going to be difficult to detect. First, the amount of material left will be limited, and it is perishable. The macrobotanical studies will probably be one of the more successful tools for researching this, as carbonized materials persist far longer than fresh organic materials.
I suspect that the beginnings of agriculture will be found in many more areas of the world, and farther into the past. Not all areas would have advanced to the large-scale grain production that many archaeologists seem to have been focusing on.
Just a few more thoughts along the same lines—
If you have a very few people living in an area, and abundant “weeds” that provide...whatever, why would you bother to actually farm? It’s only when the population started to outgrow the available weeds that agriculture became necessary. IE, one patch of wild raspberries will provide for one person and some critters. Ten people and critters and food becomes scarce.
“most scientists have left this website in disgust”
Even here, although this is one of the best discussion sites extant, a certain thickness of skin is required. You have to be able to just shrug your shoulders and not care.
Although libtards are not allowed here, there are those who act like liberals in other contexts. There are protestants who hate Catholics, for instance.
If one is a hothouse flower, one can only survive in the hothouse. This is a hardier environment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
