A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
Peter Frost Columns
The Agricultural Revolution That Wasn't
Originally from south China, Austronesians spread successively outward to Taiwan, Southeast Asia, and Oceania. Was farming the secret of their success? Or was it their mental makeup? (source: French Wikipedia - Maulucioni)
Originally from south China, Austronesians spread successively outward to Taiwan, Southeast Asia, and Oceania. Was farming the secret of their success? Or was it their mental makeup? (source: French Wikipedia - Maulucioni)

About 10,000 years ago, the pace of human genetic evolution rose a hundred-fold (Hawks et al., 2007). Our ancestors were no longer adapting to slowly changing physical environments. They were adapting to rapidly evolving cultural environments.

What, exactly, caused this speed-up? The usual answer is the shift from hunting and gathering to farming, which in turn caused other changes. People were becoming sedentary and living in ever larger communities: villages, towns, and finally cities. Farming also produced a food surplus to be stored for future use, thereby providing powerful men with the means to bankroll a growing number of servants, soldiers, and other hangers-on. Thus began the formation of early states. And thus ended the primitive equality of hunter-gatherers.

But is that the whole story? Was farming the trigger for this chain of events? Or did something earlier get things going? More and more anthropologists are taking a closer look at what happened just before the advent of farming, a period called the “Broad Spectrum Revolution”:

All Paleolithic hominids lived by hunting and collecting wild foods, an aspect of existence that began to disappear only with the emergence of the farming and herding societies of the Neolithic ≤10,000 years ago (10 KYA). What are the roots of this remarkable economic transformation? The answer lies in equally revolutionary changes that took place within certain stone age cultures several millennia before. In 1968, Lewis R. Binford noted what appeared to be substantial diversification of human diets in middle- and high-latitude Europe at the end of the Paleolithic, roughly 12-8 KYA. Rapid diversification in hunting, food processing, and food storage equipment generally accompanied dietary shifts, symptoms of intensified use of habitats, and fuller exploitation of the potential foodstuffs they contained. (Stiner, 2001).

Farming thus came on the heels of a broader cultural, behavioral, and even psychological revolution. It is this broader change, rather than farming alone, that probably caused many supposedly farming-related events, such as the rapid spread of certain agricultural peoples into territories that formerly belonged to hunter-gatherers. Examples include the Bantu expansion, which began about 4,000 years ago along the Nigerian/Cameroun border and spread east and south, eventually throughout almost all of central, eastern and southern Africa. There was also the more controversial Neolithic expansion, which started about 10,000 years ago in present-day Turkey and pushed north and west into Europe. Finally, there was the Austronesian expansion, which began over 6,000 years ago when Malay-speaking farmers crossed from south China to Taiwan. Then, some 4,000 years ago, they began to push rapidly into Southeast Asia and Oceania, finally reaching places as far apart as Easter Island and Madagascar.

Farming is said to have fueled all three demographic expansions. It created more food, which in turn created more people, who then bulldozed the less numerous hunter-gatherers out of existence. Yet this theoretical model does not fit the Austronesian expansion very well, as anthropologist Roger Blench points out:

The [existing] model proposes that it was the Austronesian adoption of an agricultural package, including rice, pigs and chickens, which allowed them to colonise Island SE Asia at the expense of resident hunter-gatherers. However, archaeology has signally failed to confirm this model. Early sites show very similar dates across a wide geographical area, suggesting that the first phase of post-Taiwan Austronesian expansion took place extremely rapidly. Pigs, dogs and chickens have been shown to arrive in ISEA via other routes and rice is conspicuously absent in most places. This paper argues that this model has effectively inverted the actual situation, and that the Austronesian expansion was the consequence of a failed agricultural revolution and a reversion to opportunistic foraging.(Blench, 2014)

There was no “package” of domesticated plants and animals that enabled Austronesians to overwhelm the earlier inhabitants of Southeast Asia:

No remains of cereals of the relevant antiquity have been found in the Northern Philippines. Even today, the characteristic millets of the Asian mainland are barely represented in ISEA agriculture. Of the dogs, pigs and chickens originally thought to be part of the Austronesian ‘package’ only pigs cross the Taiwan Strait, and these now seem to be a local domestication not ancestral to the domestic pigs which are generally part of the Austronesian world. The apparent reconstructions for names of these domestic species formed part of the argument for their salience, but as Blench (2012) points out, these were based on chains of loanwords giving an appearance of spurious antiquity. (Blench, 2014)

Not only did the Austronesians bring a limited farming package to Southeast Asia, the existing peoples there already practiced a mix of farming and foraging:

Ellen (1988) describes this type of mixed vegeculture and arboriculture, a sedentary lifestyle based around sago extraction, for Seram in Eastern Indonesia. Stark (1996) touches on this hypothesis in a discussion of the archaeology of Eastern Indonesia, and Kyle Latinis (2000) discusses the broader role of arboriculture in early subsistence in ISEA. Hunt & Rushworth (2005) report evidence for disturbance in the tropical lowland forest at Niah, Sarawak, Malaysian Borneo at 6000 BP which they attribute to cultivation. Huw Barton (2012) has evidence from starch on stone pounders in the Kelabit highlands for palm granules earlier than 6500 BP. (Blench, 2014)

The incoming Austronesians really brought little, agriculturally speaking. In some cases, they actually reverted to foraging. In other cases, they adopted various crops and farm animals from the locals.

The picture is diverse, suggesting continued foraging, vegeculture, and sago starch extraction. Hence the concept that the maritime Austronesians reverted to a type of subsistence based on fishing, trading, possibly raiding and exchange of prestige goods. With their advanced sailing technology, they were well-placed to carry high-value goods from one exchange site to another. Their encounter with the Melanesian populations in Eastern Indonesia is certainly responsible for their adoption of vegeculture and domestic animals, but they were willing to drop and re-adopt these according to the circumstances of individual cultures they encountered. (Blench, 2014)

The Austronesians are often treated in the existing literature as a type-society for demographic expansion, with agriculture the underlying engine of growth. This is in increasing disaccord with the archaeology of the region, and this paper will suggest that the explanation is almost its inverse, that they succeeded precisely because they strategically reverted to foraging. (Blench, 2014)

What advantage, then, did the Austronesians have over the natives they displaced? There must have been something to offset the “home team” advantage of the natives, who knew the local environment better than anyone else.

The Austronesian advantage seems to have been threefold: (1) a more flexible and innovative approach; (2) a less present-oriented time orientation that extended further into the past and the future; and (3) a less individualistic approach to life that made collective goods and goals more possible.

Flexibility and innovation

Blench (2014) states: “Austronesians quickly reinvented themselves, incorporating regional innovations into their cultural repertoire. Apart from their own distinctive pottery, they must have quickly seized on other early trade possibilities, obsidian, stone axes, woven goods and baskets. By the time they begin to reach uninhabited islands they have constructed Austronesian culture out of fragmentary elements adopted from a wide range of sources.”

Time orientation

The Austronesians saw themselves as the embodiment of lineages that stretched backwards into the past and forwards into the future. Preservation of genealogies seems to have been a typical cultural trait of Austronesian peoples, and this ancestor worship fostered a widespread desire among them to become revered ancestors. Quoting an earlier author, Blench (2014) points to “a culturally sanctioned desire to found new settlements in order to become a revered or even deified founder ancestor in the genealogies of future generations.” The rapidity of the Austronesian expansion was thus, in part, ideologically driven.

Collectivism

Blench (2014) refers to “the striking differences between Austronesians in contact with Melanesians, whose typical social structures were individualist, acephalous and marked by great diversity in approaches to religion and belief.” Austronesian society was more hierarchical with caste-like elements, particularly priestly castes who acted as repositories of esoteric knowledge. Belief-systems were more homogeneous. Austronesian peoples have long shown evidence of strong religiosity, even those who have not converted to Hinduism, Islam, or Catholicism.

 

Conclusion

One of my professors, Bernard Arcand, would talk to us about the hunter-gatherers of Upper Amazonia and their indifference to farming. They saw it as something akin to slavery and couldn’t understand why anyone would want to stay put in one place and toil in the fields all day. Attempts to teach them the benefits of farming typically failed. Benefits? What benefits?

There has to be a change in mental makeup before farming becomes possible. People must become willing to exchange short-term pain for long-term gain. They must accept monotony and sedentary living. They must live in larger communities with people who are not necessarily close kin. And they must get used to bland, nutrient-poor food.

Anthropology has long tried to explain human societies in terms of their modes of subsistence: hunting and gathering, farming, industrial capitalism. This material basis of society is thus the source of our mental makeup. In reality, the two have coevolved with each other. Moreover, when humans adapt to a certain mode of subsistence, they may become “pre-adapted” to later ones. We associate the dawn of civilization with a shift toward future time orientation and a resulting complexification of technology, yet this shift seems to have first begun among hunter-gatherers of the sub-Arctic, where the yearly cycle required development of technologies for storage, meat refrigeration, and heat conservation, as well as other means to collect unpredictable and widely dispersed resources. This ‘first industrial revolution’ pre-adapted early modern humans for later cultural developments in places farther south.

It is perhaps no coincidence that most of the human gene pool ultimately came from people who, more than 10,000 years ago, roamed the northern wastes of Eurasia. Such people were ancestral to many southward-pushing demographic expansions, including the one that would give rise to the Austronesians (Frost, 2014).

References

Blench, R. (2014). The Austronesians: An agricultural revolution that failed, To be presented at the Second International Conference on Taiwan Indigenous Peoples,15-17 September 2014 Shung Ye Museum, Taipei, Taiwan
http://rb.rowbory.co.uk/Archaeology/Oceania/Blench%20Austronesian%20Taipei%202014%20agric%20failed.pdf

Cochran, G. and H. Harpending. (2009). The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilizations Accelerated Human Evolution, Basic Books, New York.

Frost, P. (2014). The first industrial revolution, Evo and Proud, January 18
http://www.unz.com/pfrost/the-first-industrial-revolution/

Hawks, J., E.T. Wang, G.M. Cochran, H.C. Harpending, & R.K. Moyzis. (2007). Recent acceleration of human adaptive evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA), 104, 20753-20758.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2410101/

Stiner, M.C. (2001). Thirty years on the “Broad Spectrum Revolution” and paleolithic demography, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98 (13), 6993-6996.
http://hatayup.web.arizona.edu/pubs/stiner2001.pdf


(Reprinted from Evo and Proud by permission of author or representative)
Hide 20 Comments
Commenters to Skip

20 Comments to "The Agricultural Revolution That Wasn't"

[Filtered by Reply Thread]
  1. bob sykes
    says:
         Show Comment

    Does it hurt to bite your tongue so hard?

    Reply
  2. M
    says:
         Show Comment

    Interestingly, in Fiji and some other islands proximate to Papua New Guinean, the first Polynesians / Austronesians seem to have been replaced by Melanesian horticulturalists.

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

    The Austronesians (who seem like roughly a sort of robust Taiwanese origin East Asian) apparently moved east quite quickly. Not much direct competition with Melanesian horticulturalists.

    In a similar way, we see Austronesian partial replacement in Madagascar* where it seems likely that these were Bantus who brought pastoralism, amongst other new crops, to the island and probably cognitive and social adaptations to pastoralism, but did not move in large enough numbers or have a decisive enough advantage to either establish a separate community of institute language switch. See – http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3903192/

    And a lot more total replacement in Western mainland and maritime Southeast Asia.

    (http://dienekes.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/a-twist-in-austronesian-origins.html).

    That makes sense to me if their main advantage was innovation and an ability to throw human lives away on ludicrously long shot voyages. Colonist optimised versions of humanity. Perhaps a very extreme version of the migrant personality type theorised to be linked to DRD4? Not really advantaged away from the edge of the frontier (perhaps there are analogies to some other subgroups of humanity who have recently expanded from migrations).

    *Obvious question – Why did the Austronesians stop at Madagascar, if they had any advantages over mainland Bantus? Answer: they probably didn’t have any advantage.

    Reply
  3. Sean
    says:
         Show Comment

    M, much of sub Saharan Africa remained uncolonised and unexplored well into the 19th century of course. Madagascar was empty, it was a jackpot.

    In S America there are two similar species of rainforest monkeys the Howler and Spider. Howler monkeys just browse on leaves in the canopy, while Spider monkeys eat fruit and nuts, which have to be foraged for. Spider monkey brains are proportionately twice as big as Howlers monkeys.

    Hunting Reindeer and other mobile animals in the the northern wastes of Eurasia would require a lot of thought about likely places to find prey, their order of priority, how long to spend looking in one area before moving on, if a risky short cut was worth it and how far to push on away from the camp. I like Linda Gottfredson’s theory that intelligence developed to get people though tasks without unfavourable outcomes that could involve a danger of premature death.

    A hunter who is unsuccessful might well alter strategy and take more risks . He might decide to cross a dangerous river or travel further than is wise. He could get caught in a blizzard or injured.

    Reply
  4. reiner Tor
    says:
         Show Comment

    That was a very interesting post.

    Reply
  5. B&B
    says:
         Show Comment

    The shift to farming was not overnight. Long after cultivation, people in subsistence societies such as the Olmecs continued to depend upon wild resources. Its been suggested that the builders of Gobekli Tepe were in a transitional phase in the Near East where incipient agriculture was coexistent with hunting.

    Reply
  6. B&B
    says:
         Show Comment

    Peter,
    are you aware of Michael Witzel’s theory of ‘Laurasian’ mythology emerging from a ‘Pangaean’ substrate? I can think of one or two problems, for examplke Berezkin finds some Laurasian-type mythemes absent in parts of the supposedly ‘Gondwanan’ Americas. But Witzel is at least broadly supported by the data when he separates Laurasian from Gondwanan mythology, and this outline should be interesting for you to interpret yourself.

    http://koenraadelst.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/globalization-of-mythology.html

    Reply
  7. Don Nash
    says:
    • Website     Show Comment

    The ‘agricultural revolution’ gave us agro-monoply. GMO crops baby, it’s the non-nutritional wave of our bleak future.

    Reply
  8. terryt
    says:
         Show Comment

    To me Blench leaves out a fourth factor, so important that it probably should be number 1. The ‘original’ Austronesians appear to have been the first group able to cross the Taiwan Strait. In other words they had developed a greatly improved boating technology. This allowed greater mobility, and would explain every other aspect of their expansion. Other points:

    “That makes sense to me if their main advantage was innovation and an ability to throw human lives away on ludicrously long shot voyages”.

    I don’t think they were prepared ‘to throw human lives away on ludicrously long shot voyages ‘. Certainly in the wider Pacific uninhabited islands were probably discovered by accident but their colonising voyages were obviously well planned. That had almost certainly been the case during their earlier ‘training runs’ in island Southeast Asia.

    “Interestingly, in Fiji and some other islands proximate to Papua New Guinean, the first Polynesians / Austronesians seem to have been replaced by Melanesian horticulturalists”‘

    Yes, and yet it is surprising the number of people who refuse to see things that way. To me it is obvious that the Melanesian element in the Remote Pacific is a product of later movement, not an ‘original’ population there.

    Reply
  9. EatCheese
    says:
         Show Comment

    I am guessing that agriculture started in places like the fertile crescent because of increasing population numbers. Since the land was already plentiful the growing populations could have led to more pressure to find new food sources as the traditional ones would start to dwindle, also the higher population densities could have made communicating innovations like agriculture easier to do.

    Reply
  10. Art M
    says:
         Show Comment

    What I want to know is who decided to grow this instead of that? I want to know who the poor slob was that had to taste all the plants and determine which one was was worth eating. “Yup, oh that one sucks, let’s call it ‘Brussel Sprouts’, but that one is good we’ll call it a ‘Lemon’!”
    Current thought has it that wheat bread was invented by the Egyptians sometime at the beginning of the pharonic era, but the best part is that bread was invented as a by-product of making beer. Now that’s priorities! I love anthropology, it’s like studying the science of used car salesmanship.

    Reply
  11. Peltast
    says:
         Show Comment

    The Melanesian/Papuan/Aboriginal populations from Southeast Asia and Australia always striked me as the most primitive population of humans on this planet.

    Reply
  12. nano
    says:
         Show Comment

    “I am guessing that agriculture started in places like the fertile crescent because of increasing population numbers.”

    I think it started around pre-existing sources of very high value foraged food sources like a valley with a lot of fig trees, dates, pears or apples. The local hunter-gathers might still need to be nomadic but centered around the high value resource.

    For example Jericho is one of the oldest inhabited sites and known as the “City of Palm Trees” (so dates?)

    If people are already sedentary or partially so then the step to farming is lower.

    Reply
  13. Peter Frost
    says:
    • Website     Show Comment

    Bob,

    Dunno, guess I’m a masochist.

    M

    The highland regions of Madagascar are more Austronesian whereas the lowlands are more Bantu. The standard explanation is that the Bantu were more resistant to the high prevalence of malaria in wet areas. Malaria was the main reason why lowland areas around the Mediterranean were so thinly populated for so long.

    Sean,

    This is why we see a correlation between latitude and technological complexity in hunter-gatherers. Northern subarctic environments incur high cognitive demands in many ways, particularly the need to develop technologies for conserving heat and for securing highly dispersed and typically mobile sources of food.

    Reiner,

    Thanks!

    B&B,

    I agree. The transition to farming was longer and more drawn out than what anthropology textbooks tell us. Again, the main challenge was not so much technological as behavioral and psychological. People had to adapt to a very different way of life.

    Yes, I’m familiar with the theory that human mythological traditions break down into two classes. One would correspond to sub-Saharan Africans and the populations founded by the “southern route” out of Africa, around the Indian Ocean, and into Australia. The other would correspond to the “northern route” out of Africa, which gave rise to populations that later moved south from northern Asia into the Middle East and South Asia.

    This division matches fairly closely what we see with language reconstruction. I believe that the penetration of northern, non-tropical environments by modern humans fundamentally transformed how they saw the world and themselves.

    Don Nash,

    Agreed. Wild food is the best nutrition-wise. When I was a kid, we often ate wild food of various sorts: morels, fiddleheads, wild raspberries, lambs quarters, etc.

    Terry,

    But why did it take another two thousand years to make the jump from Taiwan to the Philippines? Was the problem simply one of adequate boating technology? Again, some kind of cultural/behavioral/psychological adaptation was needed for a marine lifestyle.

    Eatcheese,

    Modern humans replaced Neanderthals in the Fertile Crescent some 50,000 years ago. Why did it take them 40,000 years ago to develop farming? The obstacles were not simply technological or demographic.

    Art M,

    The “poor slob” was probably a woman. Domestication of fruits and vegetables seems to have developed out of food gathering, which was initially reserved for women. Even in historic times, there was a feeling that farming was unmanly. Real men were hunters, and hunting often remained a mark of prestige among men long after the advent of farming.

    Peltast,

    Perhaps. But they see us as fools for giving up everything — family, kith and kin, community — in our quest for material advancement.

    Nano,

    Again, you’re underestimating the psychological and behavioral barriers. Farming isn’t really that complicated. If the mechanics of farming were the only obstacle, it should have happened much earlier.

    Reply
  14. Truly a fascinating point in time we know almost nothing about. I appreciate your efforts but have to disagree with your emphasis. You start with citing an incredibly important paper (Hawks et all., 2o07) which laid out that human evolution accelerated one hundred fold 10,000 years ago. Your map clearly shows an amazing expansion via boats. I have studied boat building, open water navigating, and food exploitation of the sea and let me tell you something they all require. Ingenuity resulting from higher intelligence. Surviving in the far north also required high intelligence as you have stated. We have an obvious driver of higher intelligence for people that successfully survive in these environments. You screw up in either location and you are dead. More and more we see a clear picture of expansion from environments that rewarded high intelligence. Even the original occupation of the Americas came from people that had long resided in Beringia, if that wasn’t a tough place to live that required higher intelligence I don’t know where would. But then they got to two unoccupied continents and what can go up because of increased pressure can also go down when it stops. This is insulting the Amerinds so I should include for their sake that idiocracy has never had a better time to survive and spread than the present. So why you passed over the obvious primary reason for this expansion (higher intelligence) and emphasized the natural cultural results of it is beyond me. Still, I like your thoughts and enjoyed your paper.

    Reply
  15. Peter Frost
    says:
    • Website     Show Comment

    The cultural results flow from a certain mental makeup. I prefer the term “mental makeup” to “intelligence” because the selective advantage of the Austronesians seemed to lie in certain mental traits and not in general intelligence (‘g’) per se.

    I realize that many people in the HBD community see the g factor as the prime mover and shaker in human evolution. I humbly disagree. The g factor explains a lot but there is still a lot, mentally speaking, that remains unexplained. Certain mental traits, like face recognition, are not explained at all by ‘g’ and others overlap ‘g’ to varying degrees.

    Reply
  16. nano
    says:
         Show Comment

    “Again, you’re underestimating the psychological and behavioral barriers. Farming isn’t really that complicated. If the mechanics of farming were the only obstacle, it should have happened much earlier.”

    That’s my point I think – the idea that some particularly valuable stationary food source may have acted as a kind of gravitational force strong enough to bend “normal” behavior over time.

    There’s a good documentary about troops of Macaque monkeys fighting over a fig tree in Sri Lanka that illustrates the point.

    I envisage foragers around a site with a food source like this and the site gaining religious significance over time and eventually priests and the priests developing agriculture through tending the trees.

    (I’d guess the northern equivalent of figs, dates, apples, pears etc would be oak trees and acorns.)

    (The sea is a variant of this fixed food source idea (ish) in this case tying people to the sea.)

    Reply
  17. M
    says:
         Show Comment

    Peter: I realize that many people in the HBD community see the g factor as the prime mover and shaker in human evolution. I humbly disagree. The g factor explains a lot but there is still a lot, mentally speaking, that remains unexplained. Certain mental traits, like face recognition, are not explained at all by ‘g’ and others overlap ‘g’ to varying degrees.

    g is not necessarily the prime mover in population differences in our history.

    what g is, is categorically better. More reliable, larger and faster memory, faster processing. There’s no downside (except perhaps a higher calorie consumption).

    By contrast, take “time preference”. What is a “high time preference” when you take out the element of it being a consequence of a rational actor being able to conceive of and predict the future, which is surely the province of g?

    It is an irrational instinct to wait, be patient, to defer, to not follow through immediately on your impulses, to think of far future schemes, to have babies tomorrow rather than today. That is not necessarily going to be something that is always an advantage, even in a slow moving agriculture society (let alone today).

    (And if we remove time preference from both empathy and g, it could be seen even less favourably – if you’re deferring activity, and you’re not focusing on the here and now of your community, and it’s not because you care, and it’s not because you’re smart, is that likely to be a good thing? the world has enough dumb and self interested people who make far fetched schemes for the future).

    Reply
  18. Paul
    says:
    • Website     Show Comment

    I find it interesting that anthropologists make wild assumptions of evolutionary/cognitive advancement based out their prejudices about what human collective process is more ” civilised” than another.
    There is no evidence to suggest that hunter gatherers were/are less developed in any way than agriculturally based collections if human beings
    One can argue that both mechanisms for survival are equally damaging to their environment and to sustainability – not just for Homo sapiens but to other species
    Equally annoying is the human-centric approach to changes in the planet we inhabit along with the dangerously and rapidly reducing number of other species.
    When are we going to get truly non-homocentric analysis of this worlds precarious state?
    Civilisational Advancement is a myth perpetuated by human centric subjective analysis.

    Reply
  19. More and more anthropologists are taking a closer look at what happened just before the advent of farming, a period called the “Broad Spectrum Revolution”:

    Fair enough.

    But is that the whole story? Was farming the trigger for this chain of events?

    Of course a farming “revolution” does not explain everything, and farming had to have its antecedents. It did not arise out of thin air obviously. Hence in the ancient Nile Valley a foraging, plant protection and herding culture preceded and worked parallel with agriculture before agriculture became dominant.

    The Austronesian advantage seems to have been threefold: (1) a more flexible and innovative approach; (2) a less present-oriented time orientation that extended further into the past and the future; and (3) a less individualistic approach to life that made collective goods and goals more possible.

    None of the above means farming was not a key component. Was farming the ONLy factor? Of course not- agreed. An entire cultural package is at work including economic and subsistence systems. As already noted there were MIXED farming foraging regimes as part of the package. The innovative approach is not at all incompatible with early farmers, and had to be used in successful farming. Less present time orientation applied in the modern sense is a bit dubious. A drive to found new settlements could just as well be driven by climate change, personal and group conflict and disease vectors, rather than any present time driven orientation. Collectivism likewise seems a stretch as a significant reason for the expansion.

    We associate the dawn of civilization with a shift toward future time orientation and a resulting complexification of technology, yet this shift seems to have first begun among hunter-gatherers of the sub-Arctic, where the yearly cycle required development of technologies for storage, meat refrigeration, and heat conservation, as well as other means to collect unpredictable and widely dispersed resources. This ‘first industrial revolution’ pre-adapted early modern humans for later cultural developments in places farther south.

    Things like “future time orientation” seem a stretch as far as a highly significant influence. Other factors like environmental change, or interpersonal/intergroup conflict can drive movement just as easily. In the tropical Nile Valley of southern Egypt and nearby regions the Badarians, who cluster with other tropical Africans in scholarly analyses of population affinity, ran a productive mixed economy and for their era, produced one of the highest population densities in the world (Pinhasi 2011). They did not need cold storage pre-planning and such.

    And it is an open question whether non-tropical environments have unpredictable and widely dispersed resources. To the contrary the rich resource base of Europe from numerous aquatic resources in lakes and rivers, to equally rich plant and animal species made food resourcing quite stable and predictable. Lewin 1988 (In the Age of Mankind. Smithsonian. pp. 196-199) shows that far back in the European past, massive parts of Western Europe such as France enjoyed rich environmental conditions with numerous wild species to hunt- quote: “the Upper Paleolithic people of Western Europe probably enjoyed a greater degree of social-complexity than is projected by the simplistic hunter-gatherer model. They had a rich diversity of resources, and a high degree of stability and predictability of these resources year to year.” And not only animals but the wild ancestors of key food crops were in places such as chickpeas and wheat-like variants of spelt, etc. Even the far north, places like Sweden’s Iron Gates zone had rich lake and river fishing resources- amply supporting population. Nor were resources necessarily dispersed where peoples could not get to them. Indeed the many navigable waterways of Europe and other temperate regions FACILITATE communication, in contrast to many parts of Africa with sandbar, waterfall and cataract clogged rivers.

    Overall I would agree that time orientation, etc played a part. Whether it is as dominant or significant as some people claim, remains an open question.

    Reply
  20. Terry says:
    To me Blench leaves out a fourth factor, so important that it probably should be number 1. The ‘original’ Austronesians appear to have been the first group able to cross the Taiwan Strait. In other words they had developed a greatly improved boating technology. This allowed greater mobility, and would explain every other aspect of their expansion.

    Not every other aspect- boating tech would be part of a mix among other factors. Frost’s idea of cultural orientations would be part of that mix.

    EatCheese says:
    I am guessing that agriculture started in places like the fertile crescent because of increasing population numbers.
    Could be. Also agriculture was invented independently in several different locations.

    Dave chamberlain says:
    . So why you passed over the obvious primary reason for this expansion (higher intelligence) and emphasized the natural cultural results of it is beyond me.
    There is no obvious reason that intelligence is the primary reason, when there are so many other key factors in the mix. Declining crop yields in an area can cause people to move locations- it does not require dramatic pictures of burgeoning ancient “g.” And how would intelligence in tropical Austronesians be measured circa lets say 5000-7,000 BC? And why would survival in the far north be an automatic indicator of high IQ, when it is tropical and sub-tropical populations that generated the primary innovations of more elaborate and advanced civilization? Frost is right to look at the broad cultural palette, avoiding simplistic, deterministic explanations.

    Reply
Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments are moderated by Peter Frost


 Remember My Information
 Email Replies to my Comment


Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS
Subscribe to All Peter Frost Comments via RSS