Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Humans and Wheat

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Humans and Wheat

    Currently I'm reading the excellent Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind by Yuval Noah Harari, as I know have many on here. So forgive the repetition those who've read all this before. I'm fairly early in the book and reading the section on the Agricultural Revolution, and his overview on the domestication of wheat really stopped me in my tracks:

    Think for a moment about the Agricultural Revolution from the viewpoint of wheat. Ten thousand years ago wheat was just a wild grass, one of many, confined to a small range in the Middle East. Suddenly, within just a few short millennia, it was growing all over the world. According to the basic evolutionary criteria of survival and reproduction, wheat has become one of the most successful plants in the history of the earth.

    In areas such as the Great Plains of North America, where not a single wheat stalk grew 10,000 years ago, you can today walk for hundreds upon hundreds of kilometers without encountering any other plant. Worldwide, wheat covers about 2.25 million square kilometers of the globe’s surface, almost ten times the size of Britain. How did this grass turn from insignificant to ubiquitous?

    Wheat did it by manipulating Homo sapiens to its advantage. This ape had been living a fairly comfortable life hunting and gathering until about 10,000 years ago, but then began to invest more and more effort in cultivating wheat. Within a couple of millennia, humans in many parts of the world were doing little from dawn to dusk other than taking care of wheat plants. It wasn’t easy. Wheat demanded a lot of them. Wheat didn’t like rocks and pebbles, so Sapiens broke their backs clearing fields. Wheat didn’t like sharing its space, water, and nutrients with other plants, so men and women labored long days weeding under the scorching sun. Wheat got sick, so Sapiens had to keep a watch out for worms and blight. Wheat was defenseless against other organisms that liked to eat it, from rabbits to locust swarms, so the farmers had to guard and protect it. Wheat was thirsty, so humans lugged water from springs and streams to water it. Its hunger even impelled Sapiens to collect animal feces to nourish the ground in which wheat grew.

    The body of Homo sapiens had not evolved for such tasks. It was adapted to climbing apple trees and running after gazelles, not to clearing rocks and carrying water buckets. Human spines, knees, necks, and arches paid the price. Studies of ancient skeletons indicate that the transition to agriculture brought about a plethora of ailments, such as slipped disks, arthritis, and hernias. Moreover, the new agricultural tasks demanded so much time that people were forced to settle permanently next to their wheat fields. This completely changed their way of life. We did not domesticate wheat. It domesticated us. The word “domesticate” comes from the Latin domus, which means “house.” Who’s the one living in a house? Not the wheat. It’s the Sapiens.


    I haven't even reached the part about wheat being really difficult for early humans to digest and the amount of evolution it took to be able to manage this. Only "manage" - many of us have varying levels of wheat/gluten intolerance which may or may not ever be diagnosed. People like my daughter who are coeliac are really just "non-mutated" in this sense. It turns out the only real benefit from domesticating plants like wheat, barley, rice etc. was volume of food produced per hectare, and this was a key driver of population growth out of the agricultural revolution. But it looks as though the price we paid was pretty high.

    I'm still reading this section of the book so this post is based on incomplete information really. I just love the way he presented it, and found it really thought provoking.

    #2
    My first reaction on reading that part of his book was similar. BTW YNH was interviewed in the BBC Hardtalk series this month

    Comment


      #3

      Comment


        #4
        Where man once stood supreme, now rule the wheats.

        And their delicious beer.

        Comment


          #5
          I prostrate myself before our new Cereal Masters.

          On a more serious note have you read 'Against the Grain. by James C. Scott? He echoes the argument about the back-breaking work required for the cultivation of wheat. He sees this is the first example of a gender based division of labour with women required to do the most arduous tasks, a comparison of female skeletons from cultivaters and hunter-gatherers seems to support this. Furthermore he argues that the move from hunter-gatherers to aninal and plant cultivation facilitated the emergence of cities along with class based societies.

          Burn the evil grain!

          Comment


            #6
            Come the revolution, first up against the wall:


            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by sw2borshch View Post
              Where man once stood supreme, now rule the wheats.

              And their delicious beer.
              Don't forget to add some raspberry ripple or that stuff that tastes like pesto

              Comment


                #8
                The pesto one is mint man.

                Comment


                  #9
                  I read Bill Bryson's book The Body last year. His theory is that the human body is designed to run for a long distance after tiring prey, and ever since we've been living as social animals we've been in the wrong body. He also has a chapter about viruses, which not only predicted the current crisis, but also shows how vulnerable we are.

                  Professor Alice Roberts had a programme on BBC where she engineered the perfect human body, the end result was pretty freaky.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    SW2: Isn't it Woodruff?

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Apart from when it's over-processed, like most breakfast cereals, I bloody love wheat products. It's tough on celiacs and the gluten intolerant, but I'd be pretty miserable if it wasn't a key part of my diet. And although I know the dirty wholegrain stuff is better for you, the refined flour products like bread and pasta just taste so much better (again, as long as it's not overprocessed or made on the cheap)

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by Duncan Gardner View Post
                        SW2: Isn't it Woodruff?
                        Aye, and it tastes mint man.

                        Owey, you're meant to be the oblique one...

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by elguapo4 View Post
                          I read Bill Bryson's book The Body last year. His theory is that the human body is designed to run for a long distance after tiring prey, and ever since we've been living as social animals we've been in the wrong body. He also has a chapter about viruses, which not only predicted the current crisis, but also shows how vulnerable we are.

                          Professor Alice Roberts had a programme on BBC where she engineered the perfect human body, the end result was pretty freaky.
                          That is quite a common theory. McDougall pushes that in Born to Run, and I am sure he isn't the first.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            If you look at most large male primates in the wild, they spend at least 12 hours a day lounging around in the shade eating fruit and masturbating [insert your own joke about accountants/lawyers/project managers etc here]

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by Rogin the Armchair fan View Post
                              If you look at most large male primates in the wild, they spend at least 12 hours a day lounging around in the shade eating fruit and masturbating [insert your own joke about accountants/lawyers/project managers etc here]
                              They're big fruit-eaters?

                              Comment


                                #16
                                Ooh, ma poor plums

                                Comment


                                  #17
                                  Yes, one for one, pre-agricultural revolution hunter gatherers did have a much better quality of life than early agricultural labourers, leaving aside the painful issue of the need for infanticide in some cases where births were in excess of a group's infant transport capacity. I think it's not just the work involved in agriculture, but also the relative poverty of early farming diets compared to the richer and more diverse diet of a hunter-gatherer.

                                  But agriculture feeds a few orders of magnitude more people for a given area of land than hunter-gathering ever could, so once you've started the agriculture and grown the community to match the food available, there's no going back. And the agriculturalists will inevitably expand and push out the HGs, who will not have the numbers to resist in battle.

                                  Emmer wheat and einkorn wheat were only two of the trailblazer crops in the Fertile Crescent. Barley and some pulses (chickpeas, peas and lentils) were very early farming products too.

                                  There's a nice account in Jared Diamond's Guns Germs and Steel, if I remember rightly, of how the practices of gatherers in relation to wild wheat will naturally gradually have evolved into farming, over a continuous spectrum of behaviour, without the need for any specific light-bulb "hey, let's farm this stuff!" moment.

                                  Also in favour of the agricultural revolution, and the development of civilisations to which it eventually led, are the statistics about per-capita violent death in HG societies, which on average, according to Steven Pinker in The Better Angels of our Nature, are likely to have exceeded the rates in any society since,

                                  Comment


                                    #18
                                    Yes, the first anthropologists had all these idealised visions of hunter gatherers as peaceful people because they visited for a month or two and didn't see any violence during that period. Then when anthropologists started staying in communities for longer and actually crunching the numbers, you got new ethnographies of people like the Yanomami showing that they are, in fact, exceedingly murderous compared to settled communities.

                                    Comment


                                      #19
                                      Originally posted by Balderdasha View Post
                                      Yes, the first anthropologists had all these idealised visions of hunter gatherers as peaceful people because they visited for a month or two and didn't see any violence during that period. Then when anthropologists started staying in communities for longer and actually crunching the numbers, you got new ethnographies of people like the Yanomami showing that they are, in fact, exceedingly murderous compared to settled communities.

                                      Is there a hypothesis as to why that is?

                                      Comment


                                        #20
                                        Yes. Pinker analyses it in the book I mentioned in my earlier post. In HG societies, neighbouring tribes are significant to each other mainly (not wholly, but mainly) in a negative way, as competition for essential and scarce resources. Also there is no over-arching structure of law enforcement which eliminates inefficient lethal conflict. In more advanced societies, neighbouring communities are likely on average to have a greater range of positive interactions, e.g as trading partners. Also there is typically, across a greater geography and wider community, a law enforcement regime which limits private violence more effectively (while reserving and exercising a right of lethal violence at the state level).

                                        That transition from HG life to settled communities with trading patterns is the first stage in the reduction of violence as society has evolved over the millenia. Pinker's book identifies a number of further step-changes subsequent to that, one of the most interesting being the Enlightenment, which resulted in a big drop in, say, capital punishment and cruel and unusual state-sanctioned punishments across all of Europe from the late 18th century onwards, which Pinker thinks may be partly due to the psychological and cultural impact of widespread literacy and the growth of empathetic fiction - the first widely read novels etc.

                                        Comment

                                        Working...
                                        X